NJ bill to limit gun magazines from 15 round to 10 round
What is our thoughts on this?
My biggest issue other then the obvious infringement of our rights issue is how would I be fairly reimbursed for these if this law was to go through.
Also what the heck is the point, just more and more limitations that limit the second amendment.
From what I understand the hearing is Thursday.
Darrin Do you really want to get me started? ;)
Reimbursement? Haha.... the only reimbursement you'll get is one jackboot on your neck instead of two if you don't resist too much.
Mark Mc. It's idiotic. If people aren't going to follow the laws regarding purchasing guns, they sure as hell won't follow magazine limits. All this does is hurt law-abiding citizens
btownguy my predictions; assembly will pass it, the senate will not post it for a vote, and it dies right there
if i am wrong and somehow it gets to the governors desk, it will be vetoed outright, or pocket vetoed,
haven't seen the text of this bill yet, do you guys know what it actually says? or have a link?
BrotherDog Uh, the Senate President is the most rabid supporter of this bill... it WILL pass the Senate (despite a recent NJ.com poll indicating that 95% of respondents oppose it).
The bill is A2006... It's a single change (from "15" to "10" in one line of the existing law)
http://www.njleg.state.nj.us/2014/Bills/A2500/2006_I1.HTM
http://www.anjrpc.org/
Christie will hopefully veto it, but we can't let up on the pressure for him to do so.
http://www.guns.com/2014/02/24/nj-bill-compromise-cap-magazines-10-rounds-allow-shooters-stop-coffee/
and here is the actual bill
http://www.njleg.state.nj.us/2014/Bills/A2500/2006_I1.PDF
So... this is going to apply to law enforcement as well, right?
LOL... just jokes... I kill me sometimes.
ianimal NJ is already very restrictive with handguns - why the need to go further? Have there been shootings in NJ where high capacity magazines aided the shooter?
D-ManPV Their "compromise" and the likely passage (but hopeful veto) of this bill is their last hurrah before the SCOTUS spanks down NJ's "justifiable need" for concealed carry as un-Constitutional.
Think it can't happen? Here are a few more names that will soon accompany Heller and McDonald in gun grabbers' nightmares:
Peruta:
http://www.nraila.org/legal/articles/2014/victory-in-peruta-v-san-diego-ninth-circuit-confirms-right-to-carry-arms-in-public.aspx
Richards:
http://bearingarms.com/ninth-circuit-crushes-another-good-cause-permitting-scheme-in-richards-v-prieto/
Here's the key summary from Peruta's successful appeal:
"In its opinion reversing the district court’s decision, the Court of Appeals held that San Diego’s “good cause” policy is unconstitutional, and echoed the points made in the briefs and by Mr. Clement at oral argument; that the government can ban open carry or concealed carry, but the Second Amendment prohibits the government from banning both."
Or, we could all just become felons, like in CT. Molon Labe.
http://m.townhall.com/columnists/rachelalexander/2014/03/10/molon-labe-connecticuts-terrifying-start-of-gun-confiscation-n1806403
JeffersonRepub I can't believe CT even has made it that far. What is America coming to, land of the free it isn't that's for sure
Just another bill to persecute law abiding gun owners, that has no chance of actually preventing crime. Sigh......
Calico696 Yea how long does it take to change a clip ? I can see no 30 round mags but 15 to 10 what's the point
Tombo Calico you are absolutely correct, they will just keep limiting and limiting, and before you know it we wont have any magazines and everything will be single load, making plinking or any other sport impossible and more aggravating then its worth, which brings me to my next point, I feel the reason for stupid changes to the laws such as this one which creates more disruption then it does good is done to simply annoy gun owners in such a way that they just give up.
Trust me, it is absolute bogus, someone can do just as much damage with a 30 round clip as they can with 3 10 round clips, nobody is running up to them to stop them by force in that time. But as in CA they made the clips non-removable unless you have a tool, which happens to be a bullet. The laws will keep limiting and limiting law abiding citizens based on facts taken from criminals, which makes absolutely no sense.
They're already gunning for 5 rounds....
"Large capacity ammunition magazine" means a box, drum,
tube or other container which is capable of holding more than 5 rounds of ammunition to be fed continuously and directly therefrom into a semi-automatic firearm."
By that definition, even a double-action revolver holding 6 rounds would be banned (and apparently considered a "semi-automatic" weapon.
http://www.njleg.state.nj.us/2014/Bills/S1000/600_I1.PDF
It's no "secret" anymore what they are trying to do. The people are waking up in droves, finally. And I find it interesting that the anti-gunners have suddenly become very sparse around here.
Just get a subscription and they you will get new magazines every month :>)
But for the record, while I support the 10-round magazine movement, especially against HUGE magazines like 100-rounds, NJ is one of the toughest gun law states and safest gun state already.
mistergoogle time to contact your representatives down in Trenton, make you voices heard,
from the article linked above:
"if enacted, A2006 would put the cap on what the state calls a ‘large capacity magazine’ at ten rounds.
Unlike other states, it would include fixed magazines as well, meaning that guns such as the .22 caliber Marin Model 60, which has an underbarrel tubular magazine, would not be allowed in New Jersey if passed. The current limit on magazines size in the state is 15 rounds, which retired police officers would still be able to possess.
Just weeks ago gun-control advocates in the Garden State called this sort of arbitrary magazine capacity limit, “Our top priority” according to Bryan Miller, executive director of Heeding God’s Call, a faith-based organization focused on gun control.
“Nobody needs a 15-round ammunition magazine unless they are a domestic terrorist or a gangster,” Miller said. “We expect the legislative leadership to get behind this and the governor to see some sense.”
http://www.guns.com/2014/02/24/nj-bill-compromise-cap-magazines-10-rounds-allow-shooters-stop-coffee/
NJ is one of the toughest gun law states and safest gun state already.
WOW! did this just come from MG?!?!?!?!?!
BD, I am sure sweeny got major heat for being the one to turn down the bill last time.
Yeah according to the bill my dad's old boy scout gun, a .22 will now be considered a assault firearm and I will get 10 years in jail for possessing it.......WTF REALLY?
"Nobody needs a 15-round ammunition magazine unless they are a domestic terrorist or a gangster"
So what was legislative thinking when they made the 15 round law then? Next it will be 5 rounds, then 1 round, then no guns.
It came from the other thread where I posted it to show that states with the toughest background checks and gun laws also mostly rank as the least likely states to be killed by a gun. NJ is in the top ten for both laws and lack of gun deaths.
Also shows how geography rules in that states with loose gun laws and weak background checks tend to "bleed" guns to states with tougher checks and laws. Thus Chicago, being an island of toughness does not stand a chance.
Most of these laws have nothing to do with making NJ safer from criminals. They have a lot to do with making a name for politicians because it is such a hot issue for them. NJ has some of the strictest laws in the nation, if they are enforced which rarely happens. For instance, if you are convicted of commiting a crime with a gun there is an automatic 3 year prison sentence added to whatever else you are convicted of. The key word being CONVICTED. Most of these crimes are plea bargained or downgraded so no conviction takes place thereby by passing that law.
All these laws do is make it harder for citizens to obtain and own firearms. Criminals will just buy what they want on the street illegally which is why they are criminals. They could care less how many laws they break. If caught just plea bargain.
boobalaa presumably 15 round magazines will be grandfathered? how will this be enforceable since they look identical? same problem they are having now in CT and NY
skippy No grandfathering. The law simply bans *possession* of magazines over a certain size, not the purchase of new ones. Magazines are not serialized, so there is no way to verify date of ownership (which proves that these laws are unenforceable even in states that do grandfather them). And of course the onus is on YOU to prove your innocence... 180 degrees off from the intent of the justice system.
This is why laws that address the "potential" for misuse are garbage. It would be like giving everyone a speeding ticket (and a 10 year stretch in the clink) simply because the car in their driveway is capable of going 100+ MPH or being driven while drunk, even if there's no gas in the tank and it never leaves the person's driveway.
Gun control is sexist as well... it puts women at even *more* of a disadvantage against criminals.
isn;t the 15 round limit just recent? ti was kncked down from 30 round mags to 15 round mags just a short while ago?
correct?
this alone proves that they will never stop with the limitations until they get them all outlawed. that is what they really want. they are coming for the guns, just check with CT.
we need to stop them , now, no more compromises with this political agenda.
it stops here, and it stops now.
Would The ban be for the bloods and the crypts in Newark, Camden and Trenton also or just for the law abiding citizens?
wally85 The 15 round limit dates back to the days of the Federal Assault Weapons ban. While the rest of the country figured out that those laws did nothing to stop violence (and were thus allowed to expire), NJ has continually doubled-down on trampling the rights of her citizens.
Even more vile is that last year Sweeney refused to allow the 10-round limit to come up for a vote and promised many people, in person, that he did not support a magazine capacity reduction. Welll..... that was BS just so he could get one last election under his belt (South Jersey has a lot of gun owners) and look what happens a few months after the election. He's the biggest cheerleader for the reduction.
"Would The ban be for the bloods and the crypts in Newark, Camden and Trenton also..."
Of course not. This is who it affects:
http://www.mbstudioproductions.tv/html/psa.html
That movie brought CHILLS to my spine, thank you very much for posting that mark, point proven.
The last line is the whole point in this discussion, why should the government decide how many rounds we need to protect our family?
You always here anti gunners attacking hunters. Saying "how many rounds does it take to kill a deer" and "if you haven't killed it with 5 rounds it shouldn't die". Never do they acknowledge that by second amendment RIGHTS we are allowed to protect our homes, and who should have the power to limit our capacities when there is the possibility of a criminal having more rounds?
it also bans tube fed 22 rifles used for plinking and safe firearm handling education for children. it's completely ridiculous
Banning safe firearms handling education for children... sure, that makes sense. In order to fully prohibit firearms, they need them to be as UNSAFE as possible. SO, the more children the politicians can get killed, the better. Nice.
If the anti-gunners can't see that, they are far more stupid than I had realized.
JR, Why do you think the media dwells so much on school shootings and not the thug shootings that happen in bad areas every day?
Children are the ultimate emotional-knee-jerk tactic to get people onboard an issue.... "save the children", "save the planet for the children".... funny how the govt doesn't seem to care about SPENDING AWAY OUR CHILDREN'S FUTURES.
Despite a recent NJ.com poll showing ~95% opposition...
Despite ~90% of those in attendance at today's committee hearing opposing the bill...
The Assembly Law and Public Safety Committee passed the bill A2006 along party lines (5D for, 3R against).
Now on to the full Assembly.
Oh, you thought our representatives were supposed to be REPRESENTATIVE of their constituency?
Silly you.
"Oh, you thought our representatives were supposed to be REPRESENTATIVE of their constituency?"
*I* know they're not... *You* know they're not...
I'm just hopeful more and more people wake up before the next election.
At least the rep from our district voted against it.
Well, "no Glock for her!" if this passes.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a2gCFOtaZPo
Wouldn't it be interesting if they showed her being cuffed and led off to a Jersey Jail?
I don't think Gunny would take kindly to that.
jjmonth4 
A real-life situation TODAY NOT the make-believe garbage some of you people are putting up A Houston-area father fatally shot a 17-year-old boy who was inside his teen daughter's bedroom early Thursday morning, MyFoxHouston.com reported.
The father, who was not identified, was notified by one of his children that there was someone in his 16-year-old daughter's room, the report said. He reportedly found his daughter in bed with the teen.
The confrontation occurred around 2:20 a.m. The father had a gun and asked the teen to identify himself, police said, according to the report. His daughter reportedly told her father that she did not know the teen and that the two were not in bed.
The father said he told the teen not to move, but reportedly saw the teen reach for something, at which point police say the father opened fire. The teen did not have a gun. His daughter later confessed that she did indeed know the teen,
oldredSo how would a magazine reduction (from 15 to 10) have prevented that, oldred?
Oh, by the way, plenty of recent results for defensive gun uses that save lives:
http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/category/defensivegunuseoftheday/
oldred, what is your point??? So....guns should be all together banned, still not seeing your point.
Be carefull which side you take with this, because for your one story I am assuring you we can find as many as you may want that are pro gun, again what is your point?
"NOT the make-believe garbage some of you people are putting up"
Is that really the route you want to take???
The way I see it, the daughter told her dad someone was in the house she did not know, her dad went to investigate, the boy made a quick move for something and the father defended his home as his daughter told him she did not know who was there........and this is the guns fault??? Are you really really sure that the daughter was not at all to blame??? IF NOT, I am sorry, I have tried being nice.
Until more facts come out (which may never happen), that daughter shares a lot of the blame. If your dad is pointing a gun at your boyfriend, you don't say "I have no idea who he is or why he's here..."
If someone strange was in your young daughter's room, seemingly unknown to her, at 2 am, I'm sure you'd just make some nice hot tea and sit down for a civilized chat, eh?
Also, many police officers have been cleared of wrongdoing when someone, held at gunpoint, makes a move to get/grab something prompting a shooting. And those are highly trained (supposedly) individuals with specific rules of engagement, who don't have their teenage daughter in harm's way.
If you're looking down the barrel of a gun, and it's not a random criminal on the street attacking you, it's generally a good idea to do what the person asks and hold still.
"If you're looking down the barrel of a gun, and it's not a random criminal on the street attacking you, it's generally a good idea to do what the person asks and hold still."
Really?
Good luck to all of you here. Moving to South Carolina next month, will have my CCW in 60 t0 90 days. It will be refreshing to live in a red State.
Fortherepublic did the assembly pass the bill?
they are going to outlaw grandpa's old .22 rifle?
really?
they are completely out of their minds down in trenton, time to join the commonwealth of Pa.
^ The link Darrin added for the NJ.com article mentions that the tube-fed magazine restriction for .22 rifles was removed from the bill.
Note to self: teach son that you should always sneak girls OUT of the house in the middle of the night. NEVER sneak in yourself.
Yes, MG, if an officer (right or wrong) or the owner of a house *I snuck into* points a gun at me, the smart thing to do is hold still.
If a thug on the street points a gun at me, it's a different story, because there is no guarantee they won't kill me even after I give them my wallet.
Exactly what point are you trying to prove here?
While generally a good ideal to hold still, definitely don't get into the car. That's all. Basically just what I said.
All you have is this guys word that the kid did anything. He might have been pissed that the kid was nailing his daughter and shot him in cold blood with no other provocation at all.
What kind of moron finds someone in bed with his daughter and believes her when she says that she doesn't know him? That's so ridiculous, it would be comical if not for the tragic result.
And if that is the case, then the father should be held accountable, nobody is arguing that.
Would it have been better for the dad to bash the kid's skull with a baseball bat, instead?
It would have been better if the guy was a rational human being who could have properly assessed the situation and told the kid to get the hell out of his house and not to come back... but those kinds of people may be few and far between in the Houston area.
I don;t agree with ianimal, the daughter told the father someone was in her room that she didn't know, to him it could of been a robber.
No, according to the story, a DIFFERENT child told the father someone was in the room with the daughter. He found them in bed together when he entered the room... according to what oldred originally posted. I think you read it wrong.
As of now, the prosecutor agrees - no initial charges (subject to a grand jury review).
At that moment in time (not what the daughter admitted to after the fact), an unidentified person was illegally inside someone's home, at an unusual hour, in the bedroom (supposedly *under* the bed according to what the younger brother saw) of a minor female who denied knowing him.
Perhaps poor decision making on everyone's part (starting with the daughter), but the father was responding to the information available to him at the time - and it's not like young women never get raped by unknown men inside their own home...
Also, the family had just moved in so it's plausible to think that the daughter wouldn't know many people in the area, especially those well enough to sneak in at zero-dark thirty for a romp in the sack.
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2014/03/14/charges-unlikely-for-houston-dad-accused-shooting-daughters-boyfriend/
"Good luck to all of you here. Moving to South Carolina next month, will have my CCW in 60 t0 90 days. It will be refreshing to live in a red State."
Congratulations and good luck! There will be some (relatively minor) battles for you, such as allowing open carry, but that pales in comparison to NJ.
I've toyed with the idea of SC some day in my future. I have family in Myrtle Beach and Murrels Inlet. If I was going to move there it would probably be the Greenville/Spartanburg area since it's not *quite* as hot and humid as the rest of the state...
Let me get this straight "NJ bill to limit gun magazines from 15 round to 10 round" Now how would putting a limit on rounds in a magazine in NJ have prevented a father in Texas from shooting someone his daughter was entertaining that evening.
ignatz It wouldn't have. Nor will a magazine restriction have any effect whatsoever on shootings of any kind- including mass shootings. People will just bring more magazines.
It's really simple, really.
The only way to stop ALL shooting by people who are not already criminals and have an illegal, illegaly-obtained firearm, is to prohibit private firearms ownership of ALL kinds, for ALL reasons.
Good luck with that.
Considering there's no one left to refute what the guy's saying, charges are unlikely. A wrongful death suit is another story, since the parent is responsible for the lies of the daughter.
Besides, this is Texas, where you're allowed to shoot people in the back as they're running away and claim self defense, lol.
"Considering there's no one left to refute what the guy's saying, charges are unlikely. A wrongful death suit is another story, since the parent is responsible for the lies of the daughter."
True, even if there is no criminal prosecution the family of the deceased has the right to sue for damages due to a wrongful death. Some states limit the judgement to compensatory damages (i.e. funeral expenses and such, since there are likely no dependents, mortgages, liens, etc. in the 17 year old's name.) I believe Texas also has punitive damage allowances (i.e. financial "punishment") but the technicalities of that likely keep a lot of lawyers very busy and rich.
For me, it would be a moot point. If it was my son, I'd tell the guy at the cemetery that he may as well dig a second hole. The only question I would struggle with is whether or not the daughter goes in the hole with her old man. Probably not...
Waaaa!Waaaa! How can I prove what a big tough man I am if I don't have a gun?
Pathetic and sickening. Studies show that women and children are not safer in homes with fire arms. Those of you moving to the red states that allow any idiot to have a gun with no restrictions - please GO and don't let the door hit ya!
smartherthanyou why has sweeny chnaged his mind? here is what he said on May 06, 2013 at 2:13 PM
Sweeney says new limits on gun clips are 'arbitrary'
TRENTON — State Senate President Stephen Sweeney (D-Gloucester) said creating new limits on the size of clips in high-power rifles is arbitrary, would do little to curb gun violence and infringe on the rights of law-abiding gun owners.
He said the debate on reducing the number of bullets in a clip from 15 to 10 has overshadowed the Senate Democrats’ package of gun control measures that he says would tighten the state’s already stringent gun laws.
“I didn’t see the gun folks applauding our bills,” Sweeney said in a brief interview today.
http://www.nj.com/politics/index.ssf/2013/05/sweeney_says_new_limits_on_gun.html
BrotherDog - Because he had to win one last election to the Senate, and that would not have happened if he supported that bill last year.
Election is over, the true colors are showing.
SOS- Same Old Shit. I'm not convinced NJ isn't a lost cause at this point.... people are leaving... rats fleeing a sinking ship.... (and not just over the gun issue)
No, JR, the rats are *driving* the ship, and the good passengers are getting off at the first available stop.
The 15 round to 10 round limitation is indeed as Sweeney says. No one can prove that 10 rounds is safer than 15; there is no relevant data.
And to red flag other parts of the bill, some of which might even speed things along for you gunnies, like "The Senate Democrats package of bills includes instant background checks and new restriction on ammo purchases. He called the instant background checks a national model that would allow sellers to quickly check an applicant’s criminal and mental health history" seems silly over a gun clip restriction in a highly restricted, highly regulated and very gun-safe state (in the scheme things for that uber violent gun country we call America).
I would rather see better, faster, background checks and ammo restrictions than a minor clip modification.
mg, I am so confused by your stand on the gun issue, on one forum you are posting anti-gun tactics up the kazoo, and then this one you are pro-gun
No offence, but are you bi-polar or something we don't know about??
If so, could you please use the names mistergoogle1 and mistergoogle2 so we know what mess we are getting into?
Can you please clear up your actual beliefs, and please for the sake of humanity, keep whatever numbers you may think you have out of it.
" No one can prove that 10 rounds is safer than 15; there is no relevant data. "
If there is no relevant data, doesn't that imply the inverse is also true, that no one can prove 15 rounds are more hazardous than 10?
justintime hmm... WHY would I ever need more than 10 rounds?
http://m.wkow.com/w/main/story/111407308/
Yes, our elected officials will increasingly legislate all of our rights away...if we let them. Good for this young girl. She found her voice. I hope we can all learn something from her.....quickly!!
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2014/03/14/watch-the-amazing-pro-gun-speech-given-by-a-9-year-old-that-ended-in-roaring-applause/
Absolutely horrific story jr. And a very good point.
The limitation is just that, a limitation. Law makers have no good reason for it, they are just allowed to make laws and then the citizens have to fight for them to be removed.
If this law does make it through I would like to see how are what NJ will do to enforce it and get the millions of 15 round magazines out of our hands. Or will we all just instantly be considered criminals like in Connecticut?
How come the 15 round limitation was never considered unconstitutional? When will this end?
Ahhh....the fundamentals of freedom.
A friend accepted a job in Wyoming. He arrived Tuesday and moved into his rental home. Wednesday he went to DMV to get a WY driver's license and to register his truck. Thursday he went to a gun shop and brought home a new 9mm pistol. :-)
Yes Darrin, one can be for reduction in LCMs and against this bill at the same time. The funny part is that the story above is 2013. After recently meeting with Newtown parents, Sweeney supports the bill now. And it just passed by a panel 5-3.
As JIT says, both sides of the equation can not be proved and as much as I believe that facts show that smaller clips are safer for our society than larger ones, that alone is hard enough to factually prove. No one can prove that 10 is safer than 15, factually or, as JIT says 15 is more dangerous than 10.
When combined with NJ's current laws being some of the toughest in the country and NJ's murder-by-gun rate as being one of the lowest, I think the legislature can focus on other aspects of gun legislation (unless this is a highly transparent ploy to achieve compromise on other pending bills which apparently it isn't). The only good part about this bill is that, if passed, if will force Christie's trigger finger on the national stage, but then again, who cares about that anymore either.
But apparently that is not happening since the clip restriction bill is only combined with a bill that will let you shooters use the gas station restroom while driving to and from the shooting range so it's not a compromise ploy and Christie's national goose looks cooked so why kick the dog when he's down for what looks like the count.
Can't really tell what other laws are truly pending since there are many of them listed and they seem to rise and fall haphazardly for being voted upon.
Hope that clarifies things for you.
" let you shooters use the gas station restroom while driving to and from the shooting range so it's not a compromise"
I believe we were already allowed to do this, but the old laws were just as grey as the new laws. So all they are trying to do is put sugar on the bullshit mag restriction, but when you bite, you find out it is not sugar it is actually salt, and you were really tricked.
i posted the 2013 statements by sweeny to demonstrate how he has flip flopped and is inconsistent, he surprised me by changing his view on this 180 degrees, i thought he was a different kind of democrat, my bubble just got burst regarding steve sweeny and wanted to communicate that here in this thread.
there is nothing wrong with a gun with a 15 round clip that is in the right hands.
outlawing them for everybody is overkill. it's not right, and it does impact the ability to defend yourself or your family if attacked by someone who has 15 rounds or more in their clip. why give the criminals a step up? it only hurts the law abiding, Christie will veto it, he has nothing to lose here in new jersey by vetoing it, he can;t run for governor again, but he still has a chance outside the state that will be impacted negatively if he signs it into law.
So does this mean that everyone who owns 10 round clips has to turn them in? If that's the case that is REALLY SCARY! Is this America or Amerika? What happened to "Shall NOT be infringed!" The WHOLE IDEA behind the 2nd Ammendment was that the militia (citizens who were trained in the proper use of a firearm, like myself and my family) were to have weapons that at least equaled that of the "standing army" for the express purpose of fighting the "standing army" meaning our own military, if the time came where our government became tyrranical. Personally I am starting to think the time is now.
It seems to me that all the "gun control" advocates have NO CLUE what the 2nd Ammendment was for. It had NOTHING to do with hunting, skeet shooting or target practice -- it had to do with the citizenry of America protecting themselves from a government out of control - which we have now since our President said he "has a pen" and he feels he can do whatever he wants without congress. I don't want any President Dem, Rep or Ind...to wield that kind of dicatorial power.
I believe this whole incremental gun confiscation is heading us in the direction of a citizenry unable to defend themselves from what seems to be coming. Go ahead, laugh and call me crazy if you want.
emily1 spot on emily1, very well said, i must say
you give me hope that the younger generation is not all lost to us.
keep fighting the good fight
Gadfly Correct. And I have shown, again and again, in their own words, what "militia" meant.
I won't post it yet again, because truth is wasted on gun grabbers who have already made up their minds.
Aw, what the hell... there are probably at least a FEW people around here willing to accept the truth...
"No Free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." (Thomas Jefferson, Proposal Virginia Constitution, 1 T. Jefferson Papers, 334,[C.J.Boyd, Ed., 1950])


"A militia, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves...and include all men capable of bearing arms." (Richard Henry Lee, Additional Letters from the Federal Farmer (1788) at 169)


"Americans have the right and advantage of being armed - unlike the citizens of other countries whose governments are afraid to trust the people with arms." (James Madison, The Federalist Papers #46 at 243-244)


"The Constitution shall never be construed....to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms" (Samuel Adams, Debates and Proceedings in the Convention of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, 86-87)


"To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of people always possess arms, and be taught alike especially when young, how to use them." (Richard Henry Lee, 1788, Initiator of the Declaration of Independence, and member of the first Senate, which passed the Bill of Rights, Walter Bennett, ed., Letters from the Federal Farmer to the Republican, at 21,22,124 (Univ. of Alabama Press,1975)..)


"The great object is that every man be armed" and "everyone who is able may have a gun." (Patrick Henry, in the Virginia Convention on the ratification of the Constitution. Debates and other Proceedings of the Convention of Virginia,...taken in shorthand by David Robertson of Petersburg, at 271, 275 2d ed. Richmond, 1805. Also 3 Elliot, Debates at 386)


"The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed." (Alexander Hamilton, The Federalist Papers at 184-8)


"That the said Constitution shall never be construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press or the rights of conscience; or to prevent the people of The United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms..." (Samuel Adams, Debates and Proceedings in the Convention of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, at 86-87 (Peirce & Hale, eds., Boston, 1850))


"And what country can preserve its liberties, if its rulers are not warned from time to time that this people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms....The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants" (Thomas Jefferson in a letter to William S. Smith in 1787. Taken from Jefferson, On Democracy 20, S. Padover ed., 1939)
BTW emily, you're not crazy. You're just recognizing the truth instead of remaining blind to it, like so many people are doing (whether by choice because "they don't think people should have guns", or by default because they assume "that could never happen").
Stick to your guns. ;)
Something's not right, only old fat white guys like guns, right? Emily must be lying ;)
Either that, or people just don't want to shake that stereotype... I know plenty of young people (men and women) that are interested in guns (either ownership or just the truth about them). It's a good sign that at least some others are waking up.
Gee Emily and Darrin, the President has wielded the dictatorial pen since the beginning of the Republic and this President has not even come close in number or scope to other Presidents so what has your knickers in a know for this one?
Oh wait, the previous guy was a conservative and Fox didn't have viewers for the last Democrat.
Only in America can you become Vice President, own lots of guns, make serious mistakes that send 4,000 hero's to their death in order to remove invisible WMDs, then change the mission to providing Jeffersonian democracy to Middle East Muslims, shoot an old man in the face, and not only keep your job, but be a favored "fair and unbalanced" opinion maker on TV. Probably because these "accidents" hardly ever happen being that they are exceedingly rare.
And you gun advocates want to take to the streets for the tyrannical actions of a guy just trying to get health insurance to all US citizens.
Back to topic. I wrote the flowing to the Governor
Mar 10 at 9:33 PM
I would hope you veto these new magazine laws being purposed. We have enough un constitutional laws now in this State. I belong to the NRA but I never had a gun except the one Uncle Sam gave me and took back. I support all my sane neighbors having one, even concealed as there constitutional right.
Being a 84 year long New Jersey resident I hope you consider my concerns for this country and the Constitution.
Thank You
Old Gent totally missed the point, again,
by offering a knee jerk defense in a typical pavlov's dog reflexive response for our current guy in the white house has caused you to miss emily's spot on point -
emily1 wrote -
"It seems to me that all the "gun control" advocates have NO CLUE what the 2nd Ammendment was for. It had NOTHING to do with hunting, skeet shooting or target practice -- it had to do with the citizenry of America protecting themselves from a government out of control - "
and she is 100 percent correct
gadfly has a good point - "Actually, it has to do with a "well regulated militia"."
but "a well regulated militia" is the predicate to the subject of the sentence, the subject of the amendment is "the right of the people to keep and bear arms"
the "right of the people to keep and bear arms" is the subject of the amendment. that is what it is about.
btw, what comprises "the militia"? and then what does "well regulated" really mean?
Emily1, what does your historical understanding tell you about that?
Old Gent, thank you for your service and for continuing to uphold your oath to protect the Constitution.
Well punk didi fire 15 or ten rounds well punk do you feel lucky ? dose this bill take the th larger number rouds mag out of the hand of the ill doer no
Caged Animal Old gent thank you for your support
Mg, take your exceeding rare back to the other post, I can't deal with your unreasonable statements on this post too!!!! LMAO
In the context of the 2nd amendment, "well regulated", IMO, means highly proficient or sufficiently trained in the use of firearms; it certainly doesn't mean overly legislated, lol.
ianimal has a very good point - that "well regulated" ,"means highly proficient or sufficiently trained in the use of firearms; it certainly doesn't mean overly legislated"
this is correct.
also - "to keep and bear arms" - "to keep" means to own, to have with you, on your person or in your house; - "to bear" means to carry it about on your person, to have with you as you live your daily life.
to keep and bear, does not mean 'locked up in the national guard armory' for use when indicated by higher authorities, but rather that the individual has the right "to keep and bear arms"
it means what it says, simply and un-equivocally,
Apparently NJ and other states legislation believes differently when they decided to make it impossible for us to get cc permits.
The problem is how do we fight these laws? Read some of the articles on how my lunch opposition there was at this magazine limitation meeting, law makes didn't care what the public has to say, not one bit. Which goes to show that we have lost Control of our government. They want to make us powerless and do so by getting people on board with the sympathy of school shootings and such.
you are correct Darrin, we need to get more republicans elected to state office, the democratic majority in both the assembly and the senate are out of control.
i think christie will veto this bill, and i am still unsure if it will get through the senate
Sooner or later, Christie won't be governor, and a democrat will be. These bills will continue to be brought up for votes every single year until they are passed, no matter how long it takes. Because that is govt's ultimate agenda. While I would love NJ to wake up, I don't see a republican-controlled NJ govt in my lifetime.
Just trying to be a realist. I hope NJ proves me wrong. I would LOVE to be wrong.
(not that I'm a fan of the GOP either, but on this issue, they are of course light-years better than the democrats.)
So the only help for NJ is activist judges in the extreme? I always thought that was the most evil thing imaginable and Constitutionally unthinkable. Or is there some paradox I'm unaware of??
GC GC,
The paradox would be for future SC judges to actually STICK TO the constitution (considered "extreme" in today's world). So, in effect, it would take "activist judges in the extreme" to REVERSE what the "activist judges in the extreme" have done.
The recent SC decisions I've heard about have actually come down on the side of the 2nd amendment. But State's rights have to be defended as well, no? Different states have different needs. Or do you think that the Federal government should dictate to all states and that all gun control should be on the Federal level?
The FEDERAL SC decisions, recently, have been pro-2A. I'm not "thinking" anything... just saying that I think THIS issue will be quite important re: states rights vs. federal power.
Originally, except for a very few thing enumerated in the constitution, the states were basically to be left to govern themselves. It's clear the founders thought federal govt should remain as small as possible, not "one ring (DC) to rule them all" on all issues. If that were the case, why even have state laws?
States can decide, for example, whether they prefer to allow open or concealed carry (or both), but they cannot ban both or it infringes on the 2nd Amendment.
Considering the 10th Amendment enumerates powers to the state only if not prohibited by the Constitution, that just leaves a little wiggle room before there is infringement (which is prohibited - regardless of needs).
gc - it's not activist for the judiciary to decide on the constitutionality of laws passed by the legislative branch, that's why they are there.
i know you know all this already, and i am not trying to be preachy and sorry if it reads that way because that is not my intention;
our republic is designed to be managed by three equal co-branches:
legislative, executive and judicial
the founders wanted a robust, and sometimes challenging relationship between the three branches to keep them all in line. it was thought that this would limit the inevitable 'bracket creep' that all other governments before in human history had fallen prey to, and ultimately failed.
i do believe it is wrong for judges to create law, (they sometimes do and get away with it), but in view of what's happening in NJ and NY and CT (and other places) I think the over zealous restrictions on firearms are unconstitutional. In my view (and many,many others) the magazine limits in particular are on shaky constitutional ground, (and there are other laws/restrictions that i believe will be overturned, like the one in NJ about CCW)
and outlawing the bayonet lugs on the end of rifle barrels, i mean come on, really? our lawmakers are worried about attacks with mounted bayonets? is there even one case of an assault or robbery in NJ with a rifle with a mounted bayonet? (because i cannot find even one case) so who are we protecting? and from what?
I too believe that bayonet lugs is overreach but also believe the people are within their constitutional rights to determine what the people feel is reasonable in terms of firepower for "the people" and thus restrictions on type of weaponry like tanks, bombs, RPG's and even magazine size is reasonable within the constitution where we even place limitations on free speech. That said, the safety advantage of 10 versus 15 bullets per mag can not be proved and NJ already has tough laws in this regard and one of the best safety records in the union, I think, as a result. I also have no problem with police, military, etc. having more firepower. At some level, they are the people too, but chartered with protection of the people and deserve any legal advantage to conduct that task.
While I have a healthy wariness about these organizations, I certainly do not fear them or fear a possible takeover by them. As BDog said, there's a healthy and robust, and challenging nature in our government which makes a potential takeover very difficult. Frankly I fear organizations like the NRA much more since they are mostly funded by merchants of death whose main goal is to protect and expand the revenues of those organizations. There is no challenging debate in the NRA, it is primarily dictated by the desires of it's major funders.
And if a restrictive law is passed, sure, the courts are within their rights to overturn. That works both ways, for and against any given topic.
March 15th, 2014, in Connecticut:
HARTFORD, Conn. (AP) _ Connecticut officials are urging owners of now-illegal assault weapons and large capacity ammunition magazines to relinquish them to the police or make them permanently inoperable.
The Department of Emergency Services and Public Protection announced Friday it had sent a letter to owners who had failed to register the items by a Jan. 1 deadline, part of last year’s gun control law. Officials offered advice on what to do now with the weapons and magazines.
The letter says gun owners are in compliance with the new state law if their items are no longer in Connecticut or were sold to an authorized gun dealer.
Those who fail to comply face charges of possessing an unregistered assault weapon and/or high capacity magazine.
Commissioner Dora Schriro denied rumors DESPP is confiscating weapons.
http://connecticut.cbslocal.com/2014/03/15/state-agency-offers-advice-to-gun-magazine-owners/
lou greenwald has to go, he needs to be voted out of office - last thursday he said -
""If you're a sportsman, if you're a shooter, a hunter, you don't need that high magazine capacity clip," Assembly Majority Leader Louis D. Greenwald (D., Camden)"
"Assemblyman Erik Peterson (R., Huntderdon), who voted against the bill, countered with the story of a woman who had run out of ammunition while trying to defend herself from a criminal who had invaded her home.
"We're going after the law-abiding individual. And we're not going after the criminal," Peterson said, adding that criminals could simply cross the Delaware River and buy high-capacity magazines in Pennsylvania.
Perhaps of most immediate concern, opponents said, was that hundreds of thousands of guns with 15-round magazines would become illegal overnight if the bill were to become law. Greenwald said the bill would not ban those guns because they also could accommodate 10 rounds.
http://articles.philly.com/2014-03-15/news/48225884_1_greenwald-gun-advocates-bill
A.2006 now goes to the full Assembly for a vote which could occur as early as next week. Please contact your two Assemblymen immediately and respectfully ask them to oppose this unconstitutional restriction on your Second Amendment rights. Contact information for your Assemblymen can be found here.
http://www.njleg.state.nj.us/members/abcroster.asp
"Greenwald said the bill would not ban those guns because they also could accommodate 10 rounds."
And next year it will be 7, then 5, the 3, then 1... except for theirs. The politicians that carry their own firearms will, of course, be exempt (as will the criminals, and not because they can just get them in PA, but because they *already have them in violation of the current law* and they won't be turning them in).
BD and Mark, We can only hope, signs are not good, they obviously have a agenda to meet and don't care what the public thinks, even if it is unconstitutional, they will vote it in and make us fight it in court.
Do you really expect anything else? I've been fighting this one so long, nothing the govt does surprises me anymore. Just a matter of time....
Buy what you can now, and be prepared to lie to law enforcement, and hide your "newly illegal contraband" when the time comes... and it is coming....
Not being defeatist, being realist. NJ-realist, anyway. Just a matter of time before NJ follows CA, CT, and NY down the yellow brick road to confiscation. It's a slippery slope, and getting slippery-er.
The day is coming when govt will push "a bridge too far".
here goes Rhode Island - March 18th 2014 - blue to a fault, faulty blue if you ask me! Where does this trend end?
PROVIDENCE, R.I. (AP) — The debate over gun control is returning to the Rhode Island Statehouse, but it’s unclear if anything has changed from last year, when a proposal to ban the sale of semi-automatic weapons fell flat.
Gun rights supporters say they’ll gather at the capitol Tuesday as lawmakers review legislation that would ban the sale of semi-automatic firearms. The bill was first introduced last year following the 2012 Newtown, Conn., school shooting.
Supporters say restrictions on the weapons would reduce the risk of a mass shooting as well as more common acts of gun violence. But gun rights supporters say the proposal would infringe on Second Amendment rights and do little to address the problem of gun crime.
Lawmakers will also review legislation to ban large-capacity magazines.
No votes have been scheduled.
Copyright 2014 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
http://connecticut.cbslocal.com/2014/03/18/gun-control-debate-returns-to-rhode-island-statehouse/
I hate to say it, and I wish it was not this way, But I agree
There will be a time where they take it too far, I would rather fight for my constitutional rights in court then Have my freedom infringed.
COURT? lol
Good luck with that....
I guess it would be our "last line of defense"... before the LAST line.
True, JR. If the SCOTUS accepts one of the pending cases (such as Drake) and the "Heller/McDonald 5" decide in favor of the true meaning of the 2nd Amendment, it will still be YEARS before NJ complies.
Look how states are ignoring the decisions in Heller/McDonald where SCOTUS said that banning entire classes of weapons in common use is not allowed... they still try to ban all semi-automatic rifles, etc... The government knows that even if they pass laws in direct violation of SCOTUS decisions, once those laws are on the books it still takes tons of time/money to challenge them.
Ok, so out of interest, I remember hearing that lanza did use a ar-15 at the school shooting, then he didn't, so which was it?? Because here are two totally different stories
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/11/26/adam-lanza-sandy-hook-magazines-magpul_n_4344175.html
http://www.ijreview.com/2013/01/30208-nbc-admits-no-assault-rifle-used-in-newtown-shooting/
I know this was a while ago, but which is it??? I remember seeing video of the investigation immediately following the shooting and they said a assault rifle was used. I know this is old news, but why is there so much descepency with this info, according to the first story posted there were so many empty rifle rounds you couldn't even walk in the school, and the second story was just hand guns.....does anyone know what this is about?
I would like to know why there is even this discrepancy, is it that much of a challenge to figure out, or do they want us to believe untrue info?
it was his mother's legally purchased ar-15 that he stole from her, legal in ct at the time, to buy , to own and to use.
it wasn't the gun, it was the nut job behind it . . . .
increase background checks, but do it responsibly, she is dead, but sad to say I do believe she should have seen the potential and taken steps to avoid it by locking and hiding the key from her son.
there is nothing to fear from a gun that is in the right hands. (even an ar-15)
nothing to fear. *IF* it is in the right hands. and if it is in the wrong hands, then it sure would be good to have soemone nearby who had the same capability.
as the cops say and train for : "Meet force with equal force and drive on"
you just can't do that if the law abiding citizen is disarmed and has to face an attacker who is fully armed.
that's a conundrum that i don't want to have to face.
http://www.wnd.com/2014/03/watch-gun-owners-burn-registration-forms/
watch the third video down
Ok, they want to do it again.
Think about it. The police dept. will have to change their capacity too.
New York State did the same thing what is good for one should be good for the other.
All the comments in favor of the crazy bill should look around at the other states.
Let's hope our governor realizes that the NJ State police and other law enforcement officials will and should by the law if passed.
Enough is enough.
Charlie
Charlie Now that we have citizens defying law and not registering or in some cases surrendering their previously-legal weapons in some states, the states will eventually have no choice but to start confiscation exercises, in one way or another. Things are going to start getting very ugly from here on out.
Don't say I didn't warn you. Where are all the "we don't want to take your guns" people hiding now?
People keep mentioning the "well regulated militia" and what it means or does not mean. I take my meaning from history and what the "well regulated militia" was at the time - because I believe that what they were doing at the time the amendment was written would (obviously, to me anyway) best describe what they meant.
So, what WAS the "well regulated militia?" It was simply men and young boys trained in the proper use of firearms. If you read history they were groups, with a "leader" that would practice and march and clean/work on their guns. They were fathers, sons, neighbors, your boss, your pastor and they guy who owned the hardware store on the corner who were keeping themselves "on the ready" to defend their families, their town, their state or their country. These were not soldiers as most gun grabbers like to suggest. They were townsfolk who were ready to help the local police and military OR fight AGAINST them if tyranny took over.
Even though I don't think women should be in combat (yeah I know I should because I am a girl!) but I know there is no way I would be able to carry my male comrade over my shoulder, out of the jungle after he got shot by the enemy - and I don't think that's fair to the men. BUT I do think that all women (and men) should be properly trained in the PROPER use of a firearm and should be ready to fight if something were to happen.
I believe that part of the reason for all these shootings going on (when there are less guns around than there were before when nobody was shooting up schools) is because of the LACK of education regarding firearms, coupled with half the kids of today on mind-altering medications AND parents who are so busy working and dating that the teens are neglected and nobody notices when there is a problem that needs to be addressed.
Education, not confiscation is the answer. Confiscation is exactly what the 2nd amendment was designed to fight against.
Intimidation has begun...
SAN DIEGO – With a search warrant in hand, federal agents from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives confiscated computers, customer lists and the questionable polymer 80 percent lower receivers from four Ares Armor store locations throughout San Diego County over the weekend.
“There were women and children inside our retail establishment when the (ATF) agents came in with guns drawn,” said Ares Armor Executive Officer Dimitrios Karras. “They came into our firearms manufacturing facility saying, ‘Arms up!’ like they were invading Iraq.”
The raid happened three days after Ares owner was granted a temporary restraining by a judge to stop ATF agents from searching their stores.
The ATF confirmed they were investigating the stores for federal firearm violations stemming from the sale of a new plastic version of the 80 percent lowers, which gun enthusiast use to build their own AR-15 rifles.
Building a rifle with specific versions of the 80 percent receivers is legal. The polymer lower receiver appears to be manufactured differently with two parts, making them a firearm and illegal sell, according to the ATF.
“We did ask the court to clarify if these things were firearms or not,” said Karras. “We did ask for protection as this gets resolved within the court system.”
Karras said they had their polymer lower receivers locked in a closet ready to turn over to the ATF since Wednesday. He was more concerned about the federal agents taking lists of his customers’ information.
“If anybody is a criminal organization that should be investigated, I think they should look in the mirror. We gave them a black eye publicly,” Karras said. “They tried to do an underhanded deal with us. They said, ‘Hey hush, hush. Keep it secret and nobody’s going to know that we took the customer list from you. Nobody’s going to know we took this from you.’”
The investigation has some customers nervous about their right to bear arms.
“I’m on that list, and I’m waiting for the knock on the door to tell me they are here to remove my second amendment rights,” one customer told Fox 5.
Read more: http://fox5sandiego.com/2014/03/17/feds-raid-gun-parts-stores-despite-court-order/#ixzz2wQvE2dwX
"Think about it. The police dept. will have to change their capacity too."
Police (active and retired) are specifically exempt from these capacity limitations.
How convenient that the chairman of the assembly committee that passed the bill (Charles Mainor) is a police detective in Jersey City - exempting himself from the very laws that he is passing.
This is the same Charles Mainor that stopped a vote for last year's gun control bills *in the middle of the roll call* because they wouldn't have had enough yes votes. They then re-assigned that bill to a completely different committee with enough Democrat members to ram it through.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y7ZwQf5EZQE
This is the same Charles Mainor that wants to vote on bills *BEFORE* hearing any public comment.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ouNuaMdXmyM
Representative government, my ass...
I forgot to mention that my dad told me that he used to have rifle shooting in school! All his friends had guns and he said not once, ever, did anyone ever shoot anybody - ever. Although he did say there was a kid in his town who shot his own pinky toe off one summer when he was walking barefoot in the woods to hunt squirrels. His name was Charlie Baker and they nicknamed him "nine-toed Chuck" haha! Dad showed me his yearbook and under Charlie's picture it said "AKA Nine-Toed Chuck." Guess nobody freaked out about it like they would now.
I could only imagine if one of my friends shot their toe off -- Geez, all the cable news channels would be here, probably the FBI, CIA and I'm sure Obama would hold a press conference, while holding up a severed toe, stating "This, people, is what guns do to children." Am I right???
Emily, you are absolutely correct. I applaud your interest In guns and more importantly your knowledge of the real reasons the constitution was created.
I feel this rise we are seeing is both because of a rise in mental health issues, as well, bigger yet, that fact you can become a instant celebrity. This is the medias fault. If we held whole family accountable for a close family member commiting a mass shooting, I wonder if they would still happen? I honestly feel it is a form of suicide but people are now realizing, thanks to the media, there is a way for them to go out with a bang and let everyone know who they are.
I tried to post this on my phone, but I do not see it showing up.
Emily, you are absolutely correct. I applaud your interest in firearms and more importantly your knowledge of the real reasons the 2nd amendment was created.
I feel this rise we are seeing is both because of a rise in mental health issues, as well, bigger yet, the fact that you can become a instant celebrity. This is the media's fault. If we held whole families accountable for a close family member committing a mass shooting, I wonder if they would happen as much? I honestly feel a person committing a mass shooting is a form of suicide, people are now realizing, thanks to the media, there is a way for them to go out with a bang and have everyone know who they are. If the media would stop making everyone who does this a celebrity I would guarantee we would see a decrease in this.
Thanks Darrin. It just makes me so mad when gun control people make anyone who owns a firearm out to be the next mass murderer. My dad got his first gun when he was 7 years old. In today's age my grandparents would probably be put in prison for "child endangerment" or something. It just really ticks me off when I see how far we have come -- from every able bodied citizen owning a firearm to anybody who owns one must be either a whack-job, conspiracy theorist, or a gang banger. That's what the Democrats and Progressives are trying to make the dumb people of this country believe. From a couple of the posts on this site, it seems it's working with some people. I find that it's usually the people that wouldn't know a semi-auto handgun from a muzzleloader rifle that have the most to say about guns. Seems to me, if you don't know what your talking about you should refrain from giving an opinion until you are educated and can make an educated argument. Just saying...
"Seems to me, if you don't know what your talking about you should refrain from giving an opinion until you are educated and can make an educated argument."
+1 emily. I hold nothing against those who aren't knowledgeable regarding firearms. There are a lot of things I don't know about... but then I don't go around trying to change state/federal laws on the things I don't understand.
This is well evidenced by people like California State Senator Kevin De Leon stating some guns can fire a "30 magazine clip in half a second” It's just a gibberish statement, but he managed to get all the scary words in there...
http://finance.townhall.com/columnists/michaelschaus/2014/01/21/california-democrat-decries-30-caliber-magazine-clip-guns-in-stunning-display-of-idiocy-n1782105/page/full
From ANJRPC email:
ASSEMBLY PASSES A2006 GUN BAN / MAG BAN
Passes A2777 Without Amendment to Restore Judicial Discretion on Firearms Transportation
This afternoon, the New Jersey Assembly passed A2006 (gun ban / mag ban) on a partisan vote of 46-31. The Assembly also passed A2777 (reasonable deviations in firearms transportation) without the simple one-word amendment that would have made it an incremental improvement over existing law instead of making it worse, on a partisan vote of 42-29 with 4 abstentions.
Full attention is now on the state Senate, which could take the legislation up next week. Please continue to contact every State Senator by email, and your State Senator by phone and fax, and urge them to oppose S993 (gun ban / mag ban). Please also continue to contact Governor Christie with the same message.
Today's Assembly proceedings can be viewed here (select Thursday, March 20, 2014 when it becomes available, then click "view"). In a subsequent alert, we will publish the full voting list on A2006 and A2777.
The following Assembly members made pro-Second Amendment floor speeches in defense of freedom, in the following order:
Assemblyman Michael Patrick Carroll (R-25)
Assemblyman Parker Space (R-24)
Assemblywoman Alison McHose (R-24)
Assemblyman David Rible (R-30)
Assembly Minority Leader John Bramnick (R-21)
Please watch for further updates on impending Senate action in the next few days.
Yup, just got a call from the NRA regarding A2006 and A2777 passing. Hubby and I will be emailing a calling for sure.
But what happens when Christie ISN'T over gov anymore? And especially if it's a democrat instead? They will re-introduce these bills every single year until they pass into law, or until republicans and/or independents can take over state congress. In this state, that is a very tall order.
Besides... Christie hasn't actually had much of a history of being pro 2nd Amendment, has he? I wouldn't be surprised if he signed them, to be honest. He probably won't, because he still has delusions about a Presidential run, I'm sure, and that would be political suicide, obviously. But he WANTS to sign them...
I also think the ratio of Dems to Reps in this State is growing every day; it's a losing battle. The 2nd Amendment is going to continue to be gutted in this state until someone submits a formal Constitutional challenge to SCOTUS and they have the stones to hear arguments and act on it. It's gonna get a lot worse before it gets better.
Christie vetoed some of the more obnoxious bills last year (FID tied to driver's license, 50 cal ban, etc.)
NJ will definitely be the most stubborn state... but keep your head up, even Hawaii took a small step towards becoming shall issue CCW today.
http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2014/03/daniel-zimmerman/breaking-ninth-circuit-makes-hawaii-shall-issue-state/
I'm ordering my "I will not comply" t-shirt right now - just in case Christie is as dumb as these other tyrannical idiots. I think it's more about power than guns. They just like to screw with Constitution loving Americans - especially if they happen to be Christians - because they know we are a bunch of hard working people who don't have time to march or occupy anything because we are busy working, getting good grades, doing things with our families, going to church and volunteering our time. Unlike the LGBT, and other progressive groups who seem to have all the time in the world to march, assemble, occupy and yell. They seem to get a pass and get their way. The squeaky wheel gets the grease, as they say.
Time to start squeaking.
Jr, yes the crowd is growing but I still think it is all too late. These congress dummies have already made up their mind on the way they want the laws to go. They have a hidden agenda that we do not know about. Over the next few months we will be turned into criminals with the new laws. And that is just what they want, they want to throw so many laws at us that the law abiding citizen gives up because it is too much, and then they will put us all over the news as criminals
All the while right down the street from the state house, there are still plenty of drugs, thugs, and illegal guns despite the laws that get passed.
Of course Mark, But that adds fuel to their fire, they want to use this double standard to their advantage to disarm law abiding citizens.
Ironic, isn't it Mark Mc.? All the gang members in Trenton, Newark, Camden, etc., will have all the guns, ammo and clips of whatever size they want. But my straight A, church youth band member, animal shelter volunteering little brother, who wouldn't hurt a fly will be a criminal and will have to tun in his clips he uses for target practice - or become an instant FELON! Crazy. The whole thing is upside down and backwards.
I don't understand why the police can't do something to help. If the state and local police would stand up and explain to these dummies who they would rather have possessing guns (most police I and my family have talked to are fine with law-abiding, well-trained citizens being armed) I think the politicians would listen to them - there is no way they could make the ENTIRE NJ police force look like nut-cases, like they have the entire 2nd Amendment crowd.
Unfortunately it happened in Connecticut Emily. They have a agenda, and they don;t care who says what.
http://www.thedailysheeple.com/breaking-conn-police-officers-refuse-to-confiscate-will-not-be-party-to-the-oppression-of-the-people_032014
Particularly:
"Connecticut faces massive civilian resistance, with police officers refusing to enforce a law that to most citizens crosses a line that is unacceptable in a free society"
The police are, or at least were, refusing to abide to the new law.....yet the law is still in place?
Maybe if they got involved BEFORE the law was passed - like when it was first presented. If a bunch of well-respected state police officers and local police chiefs would speak in Trenton or go on TV I think it would help. Also, they should be saying NOW that IF the law passes they will NOT abide by this law. And it has to be all of them banning together not just a few who the politicians will lump in with the "whacko gun people." I think it's too late to wait till a law passes (while saying nothing or very little while it's being tossed around) and then refusing to abide by it.
Where were those cops for the 2 years this thing was going through the process of passing? Here in NJ this clip issue has been around for a while and just now people are getting concerned. Why always wait till it passes the 1st step - or in the case of Connecticut, all steps to completion - and then complain?
I would like to see multiple busloads of state and local police, municipal judges, prosecutors, etc swarming Trenton and speaking out. I think that would go much farther than a bunch of citizens.
My dad went a few years ago with an NRA group and had the podium for 20 minutes. All the major news outlets were there with cameras rolling. He spoke, the guy from the NRA spoke, a guy from a 2nd Amendment group spoke - and guess what? NONE of that made it on the news. The ONLY thing one newscast (out of about 8 that were there) showed was the one weirdo guy who sounded like a nut and made no sense at all. I think they did that totally on purpose.
I don't think they could ignore busloads of state and local police!
WOW.... CT about to get ugly... I just another story this morning where CT police confiscated the guns of a guy who was going thru alcohol rehab... because depression is a side effect of rehab. Nice, eh? Problem is, getting firearms back is extremely difficult to do, lots of time and red tape... if the firearms aren't destroyed first.
(I'm sure the gun grabbers here would have no problem with anyone that has ever been depressed being prohibited from ever owning firearms.)
Love that quote: "refusing to enforce a law that to most citizens crosses a line that is UNACCEPTABLE IN A FREE SOCIETY"
Interesting.... where are all the gun grabbers on this forum??? Haven't heard from them in DAYS....
-crickets-
Their silence speaks VOLUMES. "We don't want to take your guns" is a LIE, or at best a gross ignorance on their part.
Can you get an FID card in NJ if you check "yes" to the question "Are you an alcoholic?". My guess would be no...
"He spoke, the guy from the NRA spoke, a guy from a 2nd Amendment group spoke - and guess what? NONE of that made it on the news. The ONLY thing one newscast (out of about 8 that were there) showed was the one weirdo guy who sounded like a nut and made no sense at all. I think they did that totally on purpose. "
And there you go, my point exactly, media has a agenda that is fueled by the government, who obviously have a agenda we all know, complete confiscation.
First they will make us felons for not abiding, then they will take our guns because we are felons.
The problem is, no cop has the balls to speak out, especially not in bus loads. To speak out against law is completely against the code of conduct for a police officer, they are to abide and uphold any and all laws. I could see it working, but getting it to happen is the problem.
Interesting.... where are all the gun grabbers on this forum??? Haven't heard from them in DAYS...
This is because they have learned we have our facts straight, they are more then welcome to come on here with their ridiculous statements, which we will face with FACTS.
I think at this point, they just know better, they will just keep cackling about it like a bunch of school children under some pet forum or something.
"Unlike the LGBT, and other progressive groups who seem to have all the time in the world to march, assemble, occupy and yell. They seem to get a pass and get their way. The squeaky wheel gets the grease, as they say. "
This good Christian certainly had plenty of time to "squeak", picketing over 53,000 events... glad he finally got "greased".
http://www.cnn.com/2014/03/20/us/westboro-church-founder-dead/
Your comment would make more sense if by "greased" you meant killed, but he died of natural causes.......
"The 84-year-old died of natural causes at 11:15 p.m. Wednesday, according to church spokesman Steve Drain."
Oh paaaaleeez! If the only example you have is of ONE fruitcake who calls himself a Christian. The church was founded in 1955...and in all that time they only ever had about 80 members at any given time - mostly made up of families. So really they had maybe 30 families at a time. They were known fro being fruitcakes and even the Christian and Catholic churches said they were nuts.
Why even bring them up??? Is that all you got?
Darrin, I gotta work with the material I'm given. Certain literary license must be employed in some cases. Try not to read too deeply into these things (-;
I think I like emily, hope she is not really a dude, I would hate for that to happen again!
" Phelps had advocated for gays and lesbians to be put to death." Geez this guy was hardcore!
I'm sorry, Emily... did you not also lump an entire community of people into a single example? Do you not like when it gets turned around on you?
Do you think every gay person in this country spends all of his or her time marching in parades? Do you think that they are not hard-working Constitution-loving Americans who deserve the same rights as you? Even as some would try to alter the Constitution to DENY them those same rights?
Paaaleeez is right.
ianimal, you are on the wrong forum.....go to the gay pride one!
http://alerts.cnn.com/2014/03/13/us/north-carolina-500-pound-boar/?iref=obinsite\
I am surprised to see CNN running this, considering the guy used a scary AR-10 to hunt......I thought that semi-automatic rifles are never used to hunt.....OHHHHH, that's just want politicians WANT us to believe!
I try to bring ignorance into the light wherever I find it, my friend... besides, I agree with you guys about guns. How will I get my daily quota of pointless argument if I don't find something to argue about? (-;
I understand, but guns are our 2nd amendment right and freedom of religion would be our first amendment right.
You can't fault someone because their religion is against gays, that would be unconstitutional as would be the confiscation of guns.
Um, ianimal...your question was : I'm sorry, Emily... did you not also lump an entire community of people into a single example?
I lumped an entire half the country into a single example -- like a million people. How many people are in the LGBT, Progressive movement and consider themselves Democrats - -MILLIONS! You choose ONE GUY? One nutty guy with 80 followers against the LGBT group, the Progressive movement and all Democrats???? Give me a break. You really need to get real. That was by far the lamest most impotent argument I have ever heard.
And to all those questioning who/what I am - yes I am really a girl. I am on home instruction because of Lyme Disease - which is why I'm not in school for a few weeks. I know I sound like an old, white guy sitting in boxers and a dirty undershirt with a tin-foil hat on my head (lol!!!) but I assure you I am a girl! Don't want to get too specific cause I'm sure our family is on Obama's "terrorist watch list," haha! I was just raised to think with my head and not run on emotion and feelings. I was also raised to educate myself before making dumb comments - I won't mention who I'm talking about ^^^^^
JACKPOT! We found a keeper!
You do not see many women well educated in the field of guns, it's nice to find someone who obviously has their facts straight.
How long have you had lymes? I had it once and had to go on nasty meds for weeks, but it cleared up, as I went on the meds right after I got bit and saw the mark.
"How many people are in the LGBT, Progressive movement and consider themselves Democrats - -MILLIONS! You choose ONE GUY? One nutty guy with 80 followers against the LGBT group, the Progressive movement and all Democrats???? Give me a break. You really need to get real. That was by far the lamest most impotent argument I have ever heard."
OK, I'll play along... how many people are in the anti-LGBT, anti-progressive movement and consider themselves conservative Christian Republicans? It's a hell of a lot more than one nutty guy. It's a hell of a lot more than the pro-LGBT side.
And all of those LGBT marches you speak of, how many counterdemonstrators are typically there? It's a hell of a lot more than the Westboro Baptist Church.
The problem with "self-education" is that you tend to concentrate on that which coincides with your own existing prejudices and you never really "learn" anything new. Too bad...
Well I have been to a number of LGBT marches as my sister happens to be gay and lives in in the heart of San Francisco and my aunt is gay and lives on Fire Island full time (runs a hotel there as well) so I take exception to your "assumption" that I am some wet behind the ears Christian girl who knows nothing - -I probably know a lot more than you do. I happen to be very "educated" on this subject, thank you.
You ask..."And all of those LGBT marches you speak of, how many counter-demonstrators are typically there? It's a hell of a lot more than the Westboro Baptist Church."
Um, the last San Fran march had over 1 million marchers. The biggest gay pride parade in history was in Brazil (is actually in the Guinness Book of World records) and boast that 3.2 million people were in attendance as SUPPORTERS.
Usually there are a few protesters from various churches, anti-gay groups, and others but they are in the low thousands. Even sometimes hundreds (there are stats you can Google them to "educate" yourself.
You sound very one sided to me.
Hi Darrin - thanks for the compliment. I have had Lyme's since pre-school. I was misdiagnosed for 2 years so I now have flair-ups. It really stinks because when I feel good I feel really good - but when I have a flare I feel really, really sick. I get such fatigue and pain everywhere and severe headaches. Iv'e been to a bunch of Lyme doctors and infectious disease doctors and they say that it's going to be chronic.
So, San Francisco and Brazil are your data points of reference? Those are what we call "outliers" in the data analysis world.
In most of the country, those numbers would be reversed (by percentage, if not actual quantity; obviously you aren't going to get a million people on either side in Little Rock, Arkansas or somewhere similar).
oh man that sucks! When I had it, it never got that bad, I did feel some fatigue but I almost think that was the strong medication I was put on. I have known quite a few people that have it, my mom included and it really sucks!
Well, ianimal .. typical Liberal drivel. If you don't like the answer, simply change the question. You keep changing the reason for and point of your question. Instead of replying to what my answer you change the "reason" for the question. Not gonna work with me.
First you said - "Do you think every gay person in this country spends all of his or her time marching in parades"? And I showed you that yes, in fact a LARGE percentage do (over 1 million people at the average parade). Much larger than any other group. Give me one example of any march by any other group that had 1 million to 3.2 million in attendance - go ahead, try.
When you didn't like that answer you said gave me the example of ONE GUY with a following of 80 people.
Then you said - "And all of those LGBT marches you speak of, how many counterdemonstrators are typically there? To which I answered - no where near 1 million, more like 1,000.
You didn't want to hear that so then you said - "So, San Francisco and Brazil are your data points of reference? Those are what we call "outliers" in the data analysis world".
We were talking numbers of people...now we are talking "data analysis?" Do you really want to got there with me? I got lot's of data for you on this subject...where's yours? You seem to just keep asking questions. If you wanna talk data - I got plenty.
So.. the example of ONE GUY is out of line (because he's obviously the only person who ever considered himself Christian and was virulently anti-gay... there aren't any other people like that walking the streets) but the example of ONE PLACE is indicative of a universal trend and perfectly acceptable? LOL, ok...
Over one million gay people at an "average" parade? Are you kidding?
And one million gay people on the streets in San Francisco isn't even necessarily a "parade"... they call it "lunchtime".
And one day your education will progress that you will realize that "talking numbers of people" and "data analysis" are one and the same.
And thanks for calling me "liberal"... that's almost as funny as the dopes who call me "conservative" because I support the 2nd amendment. One day, you'll also learn that there are plenty of people out there who have formed opinions on individual topics based on logic and reason and not simply for the sake of toeing some party line.
BD,
The CT story I mentioned wasn't a news story... yet. It was posted on FB- by the person themselves- with photos- of CT police confiscating his weapons, and the reason why. I'm sure it'll become a news story, it's no doubt why he posted it on FB in the first place, social media moves faster than mainstream media. The Blaze, or another pro-2A website, will no doubt pick up the story first, if they haven't already. If I find it again, I'll post a link here.
I never called you a Liberal. I said "typical Liberal drivel." Meaning that's what the talking points are for them. Pick ONE example against a ton and that't their argument.
I can see you just like to argue and incite instead of give "data" of your own. If you think there are just as many people marching, demonstrating, etc in the Christian world as are gay pride celebrations and other demonstrations, sit-ins etc I have a bridge to sell you.
Any idiot with a calculator (there's your "data analysis") can see that.
Still waiting for the ONE example of a march that came close to my 2 examples. Don't have any, do you? Nope, didn't think so or else you would have mentioned them somewhere along the line of your 4+ posts.
Just another log to add to the fire...
Here's another problem, Obama just last week tried to appoint Vivek Murthy, who believes everyone in the country who posses a firearms is mentally defective. He is trying to equivocate gun ownership to a health i.e. mental health issue. i.e. Since we like "dangerous" guns, their must be something wrong with all of us. Imagine, that the US President, tried to nominate a person in the highest level of medical authority in the country, who believes gun ownership is a form of mental illness - this is a slippery slope which we need to remain vigilant against. IMHO, "gun people" are the sanest people on this earth, since they believe in the preservation of human life.
It appears that the only reason Murthy was considered is his political support for Obama and left-wing causes. In 2008 he founded the group “Doctors for Obama” to help elect the president. After Obama’s election, Murthy renamed the group “Doctors for America” and supported massively expanding the federal government’s role in healthcare, and what eventually became the Affordable Care Act.
But that did not stir the NRA to opposition. Murthy also used this group to push gun control. For example, in 2012 he tweeted, “Tired of politicians playing politics [with] guns, putting lives at risk [because] they’re scared of NRA. Guns are a health care issue.”
Calling Iman a liberal is proof how rabid the right can be.
Calling Iman "an idiot with a calculator," well, that's priceless :>)
Reading this is all well and good, but calling your legislators would better help the cause.
USAfirst Man robs liquor store with AR-15 w/collapsible stock and 30-round magazine.
http://www.burlingtoncountytimes.com/news/local/mount-holly-liquor-store-robbed-by-armed-bandit/article_353d8966-efbe-5757-8c48-a5ba88a452ca.html
WHAT?!?!? HOW can this happen??? That gun is ILLEGAL!!! Because we have laws making those guns illegal this kind of thing shouldn't happen.... right?
Number one, emily... it wasn't a "march"; it was a parade. Assuming for a second that the "one million" number is correct, which it probably isn't, how many out of that million do you think were actually gay and not heterosexual family members or simply people who just like to watch a flamboyant party? There were probably 500,000 people at the St. Patrick's Day parade in NYC last week... do you think they were all (or even mostly) Irish? Were there more gays or Irish there? Who knows?
And what I originally asked you was "do you think that every gay person in America spends all their time marching in parades? " and I questioned your implication that all gay people were somehow less hard-working and Constitution-loving than Christians...but like a good little dittohead, you managed to sidestep that one and since I was too busy to do more than shoot off quick, short responses to your responses, I completely forgot the original point and we went round and round the merry-go-round, lol.
The issue isn't whether some of them go to one parade a year or two parades a year or ten parades a year. Lots of people go to parades for several different reasons. Somewhere in the neighborhood of 8,000,000 people visit the Vatican every year... I assume most of them are Catholic, but some might be gay Irish atheists who just like the architecture. Does that preclude them from being hard-working and Constitution loving in your eyes?
Yeah...I just heard thousands of heads exploding. Wait, what?!? I though we BANNED those?
emily...
Problem is, they're not exploding... they're smiling... because all is going as planned....
Where are the anti-gunners in this thread? -POOF!- gone...
I have said it before and I'll say it again- the only way to "ensure" that legal guns don't get used for crimes is to make ALL gun ownership illegal. Period. That IS the end game, despite what anyone says. They're either lying, or grossly ignorant.
I have no idea where you are going or what you are blathering on about. The Vatican is a historical destination. Architects, Catholics, everyone that ever visits Italy goes there. What that has to do with the fact that the LGBT groups are more vocal and outspoken that most Christian groups is beyond me (or anyone else with a brain). You sound like one of those people that defend in any way possible - even if it makes no sense whatsoever.
Your posts have devolved right into the liberal talking points (oh, that's right your not a Lib, hahahaha!). No facts and answers every single question with a question - because you have NO answers. I am over even trying to reason with you - you obviously have tour anger and hatred out there for all to see and there is no talking to someone who only wants to make fun and spew BS. Now I see why nobody else bothered to respond -- it's totally pointless. There is no discussion, no debate just "well what about....? This is below my intelligence for sure.
Haha. Again you refuse to answer the question at hand, whether or not you truly believe that gay people are less hard working and Constitution loving than their Christian counterparts. But nice deflection... Rush would be proud.
And of course gay people would be more outspoken and vocal. They have nothing whatsoever to be ashamed of and people are actively trying to discriminate against them. Only the true believers of their opponents would publicly voice their bigotry, because they don't care who knows that they're bigots. The rest spend their time posting their ignorance anonymously online.
Oh this is rich....
Americans buy enough guns in 2 months to outfit the entire chinese and indian armies.
http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2013/01/americans-buy-enough-guns-in-last-two-months-to-outfit-the-entire-chinese-and-indian-army/
Best to buy as many as you can, while you still can. The guy who owns the place we buy our ammo said that Obama has been the best thing that ever happened to his business!
And by the way iPhone-imal...I don't answer stupid questions that have nothing to do with the argument. That's what your types always do. Change the subject. Ask some outrageous question and then name call. I am not playing that game. If you or your butt buddy ianimal want to keep to the issue I will answer. But I am not here to play some ridiculous game answering silly questions. You and he obviously have no real interest in my views - you just want to make a mockery of the whole thing. I will not lower myself, thank you.
Like someone else on here said - go start a gay pride topic and you can all agree with each other and pat each other on the back for being so "enlightened."
You just used the phrase "butt buddy" and you claim that you won't lower yourself? Obviously, it's bc you can't get much lower.
positive Lol, Emily... I was going to tell you that if you refer to people who aren't trying to take your guns or take your money and give it to someone else as a "liberal"... that you "might" be a bigot. But you could always use a slur such as "butt-buddy" and prove it to everyone before I even got the chance to. Way to take the bull by the horns.
Ah!! Gun-grabbers have checked back in!!! But apparently, not to discuss the topic at hand.... curiouser and curiouser....
"If you or your butt buddy ianimal"
Now I know for sure I like emily. Up till now only I have used such an expression. I love it!
Now now lets go back to playing nice. You guys ever notice that this happens in just about every forum? Hell it even happens in youtube comment sections. IMHO I think it mainly happens due to the lack of tone when expressing your feelings via text as opposed to in person. It's all just one big misunderstanding!
Also emily, most people are sitting this out cause wits battles can go on forever and only end by the better person giving up. Trust me I have involved in my fair share of them, probably even with imal somewhere in the past.
some cops in Ct can't wait to get the order to go kick doors in and confiscate rifles -
“I’ve had contact with a police officer in my home town, I live in Branford, and his words straight out were, ‘I cannot wait to get the order to kick your door in,’” Cinque said.
“It happened on facebook… he posted to a thread on my wall,” Cinque said. “I have known him personally for 20 years. He was interacting with other friends of mine and it was directly about the video.”
In multiple screenshots captured from the lengthy conversation, Peterson continually argued that law enforcement were not obligated to defy unconstitutional laws. Instead, Peterson stated that he would follow any order given, even if it meant confiscating firearms from close friends.
“But like I said I didn’t make the law,” Peterson told Cinque. “But if it comes down to that then I guess we see how you would respond…”
“I’m not going for any warrants… but if my dept gets them and we have to serve them I will see you then.”
As the conversation’s audience continued to grow, Peterson repeated his pledge, telling multiple people that he would never hesitate to carry out confiscation.
“So if they make a law confiscating guns… You will enforce it?” a Cameron Smith asks in a separate screenshot as Peterson reiterates his stance.
Angered by comments pointing out the state’s unconstitutional law, Peterson goes as far as to say that he would love to knock down Smith’s door personally.
“I give my left nut to bang down your door and come for your gun,” Peterson said. “Hey everyone Cameron is a criminal law breaking psycho.”
Receiving considerable backlash, Peterson quietly disabled his Facebook page following the conversation, although a screenshot was obtained beforehand.
Despite the inability of some officers to understand what a constitutional law entails, Cinque revealed that countless Conn. officers are opposed to the state’s ruling.
“As for the cops who will stand with the people… there are many,” Cinque said. “None have spoken publicly but in private i know many who do not like this one bit… they realize they are being used.”
“They are supporters of the Constitutional rights of the people, but they need to speak publicly soon.”
Officer Peterson’s mentality is eerily similar to that of Conn. State Police Spokesman Lt. Paul Vance, who recently told one woman that he was “the master” after being asked about gun confiscation.
Although police have begun sending out letters demanding residents comply with the law, Second Amendment activists are standing by their line in the sand. As the police leadership takes its time to analyze the situation, one gun group is now demanding the law be enforced or repealed.
“If the state does not have the stomach to enforce these laws, then the legislature has until May 7th, 2014 to completely repeal these immoral edicts and let the residents of Connecticut return to their rightfully owned property and former exercise of constitutional rights and practices without any threat of State violence,” a press release from Connecticut Carry reads.
Just last month, gun blogger Mike Vanderboegh was informed that multiple cops and politicians wanted him “dead” for sending a 16,000 word email to the Conn. State Police and the Department of Emergency Services and Public Protection. In the email, Vanderboegh warned that violence would surely unfold if officers attempted confiscation.
Despite denial by a few, the agenda of the country’s most powerful gun control groups has been thoroughly exposed. Only one month after the Sandy Hook shooting, rejected democrat proposals from New York’s SAFE Act gun bill were revealed to include outright gun confiscation. New York mayor Andrew Cuomo even publicly supported the idea, stating, ‘You could say confiscation is an option’ during an interview on station WGDJ.
Also last month, Poughkeepsie, N.Y. Mayor John C. Tkazyik announced his resignation from Michael Bloomberg’s Mayors Against Illegal Guns (MAIG) group, pointing out the group’s hidden gun confiscation agenda.
“Under the guise of helping mayors facing a crime and drug epidemic, MAIG intended to promote confiscation of guns from law-abiding citizens,” Tkazyik wrote. “Nearly 50 pro-Second Amendment mayors have left the organization. They left for the same reason I did.”
During a Moms Demand Action gun control rally last year, a group that recently merged with MAIG, Austin, Texas City Councilman Mike Martinez admitted that his group was pushing gun control in order to reach an outright ban as well.
Unfortunately for them, even with tens of millions of dollars, the popularity of such groups continues to plummet even faster than the country’s gun crime.
This article was posted: Monday, March 10, 2014 at 9:42 am
UPDATE: Since the release of this article, Branford Police have confirmed that Officer Peterson has been placed on paid leave while an internal investigation is carried out.
http://www.infowars.com/conn-cop-i-will-kick-down-doors-to-confiscate-guns/
"Peterson stated that he would follow any order given, even if it meant confiscating firearms from close friends."
I think all the police who plan on standing up for the Constitution should lock all the gun-grabbing, tyrannical cops that are planning to break in doors in a jail cell as criminals. What we need are a few brave cops to arrest their own for crimes against humanity and we need a few good judges who will either fine or convict them. Not sure exactly how it would go down - but there's got to be a way.
Police who do their job - enforce the law as written - aren't the problem (although this particular officer seems to have his own agenda). What else would anyone expect from an officer of the law? Surely you don't want every officer picking and choosing what they enforce based on their own personal agendas?
Bad laws are the problem, and so any anger and action should be directed at the legislature, and of course the judiciary that rubber stamps the idiocy due to political agendas. I would hope, however, that common sense prevails before someone gets hurt over this. Taking the steps CT has is very dangerous, in addition to being very stupid.
Somehow I didn't catch this on the news, but at least one politician from NJ is vocal about the nonsense of this proposal.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cVrUf-GDPec
Joe M Great link Joe. It should be forcefully played on every tv station using the emergency broadcasting system just so everyone can hear the perspective.
JR, if you're referring to me, I'm not a "gun grabber" or "anti-gunner". I haven't been involved in this thread bc 1. I don't have much opinion on the move from 15 to 10 rounds, and 2. This has been one of the most inane threads in the history of HL. However, I do despise people throwing hateful slurs around, so I thought I'd check in.
But please, don't let me interrupt this very intelligent discussion. Maybe Emily could tell us more about how the good cops should arrest all of the bad cops for conspiring to enforce the law of the land. Or perhaps Darrin could tell us about some of the many "wits battles" he's been in and how the only way to win them is to keep posting until the other person gets tired.
I didn't say the "good cops should arrest the bad cops" that's just stupid. Even as a 16 year old I know that! What I said was; the cops that are not following the Constitution (which by the way is SUPPOSED TO BE the law of the land) should be arrested for not following the law. Just like a President is supposed to be impeached for not following the Constitution (law), even though Obama seems to get a pass.
The problem is, the Constitution of the United States of America is supposed to be what all laws are based upon. You and most Americans have forgotten (or don't understand) that. If a law violates the Constitution (as I feel this whole gun issue does -- as it is certainly "infringing" on my ability to arm myself properly), then it is an illegal law and should not be followed. Just like, say if some Senator from Vermont decided certain individuals had no 1st amendment rights in that state and somehow got a vote on it and it passed - that would violate the Constitution and should not be followed by anyone claiming to "uphold the law," even if a bunch of idiots voted on it and they paid the governor off enough to sign it.
Now we get into "who's" law? They didn't even bother to amend the 2nd Amendment -- just went ahead and "decided" what they want it to mean. So, is the Constitution of the United States of America what we base our laws on or should we base our laws on the whim of some Senator or Governor or worse yet, some rogue President who has a pen?
"This has been one of the most inane threads in the history of HL"
Lol then you haven't been around long enough! I give credit to Mother Nature, and to Myers-Briggs for trying to qualify why these kinds of threads happen.
gadfly
"I don't have much opinion on the change from 15 rounds to 10 rounds"..... means exactly... what? Certainly you HAVE an opinion, as you have been as "rabid" on this topic in the past as the pro-2A have been.
(not that I care what your opinion is, just trying to get you to "out" it.... no pun intended)
Gladfy....for someone who doesn't want to get involed you have one hell of a way of insulting everyone in one shot.....get lost! !!!
And for the record you turned what I said around to make it more appealing to your point, childish really!
I said " and only end by the better person giving up"
Which is the complete OPPOSITE of how you portray it....so go away, I do have time for bullcrap childs play like that.
I have said it before and I'll say it again- the only way to "ensure" that illegal guns don't get used for crimes is to make ALL gun ownership legal. Period. Any kind of gun, any kind of person. Everything legal. Nothing illegal. It's in the Constitution and anything less is tyranny. The answer has always been more guns. How to stop mass murders in schools? Teachers with guns. Bank Robberies? Tellers with guns. Prostitution? Tail gunners. How to stop bad guys with bad guns or good guys with good guns who become bad guys with good guns or good guys on a bad day with a good gun? More guns. How to stop more guns? More guns. Bigger guns. Guns that blow things up. Fat guns, skinny guns, even kid-guns that go pop pop. That IS the end game, despite what anyone says. They're either lying, or grossly ignorant.
I think I might have read that somewhere on the NRA page, I'm not sure.
I'm pretty sure I heard that in a speech LaPierre gave after one of the recent mass shootings.
JR, my position on gun control is pretty moderate. The only people that would consider my opinions "rabid" are extremists on one side or the other. I recall one time arguing that the second amendment rights to bear arms may be limited without violating the constitution and that most people would agree. Surely, I argued, no one would interpret the second amendment broadly enough to protect an individuals right to own nuclear weapons. As I recall, you refused to acknowledge even that limitation on second amendment rights. So, I have to ask. Who's the rabid extremist?
You mean Peppy Lapew? Like the Peppy quotes from CPAC excerpted by Media Matters on: "Five Laughably Paranoid Claims From NRA's Wayne LaPierre At CPAC"
"All across America, everywhere I go, people come up to me, and they say, 'Wayne, I've never been worried about this country until now.' And they say it not with anger, but they say it with sadness in their eyes. 'I've never been worried about this country until now.' We're worried about the economic crisis choking our budgets and shrinking our retirement, we're worried about providing decent healthcare and a college education for our own children. We fear for the safety of our families. It's why neighborhood streets that were once filled with bicycles and skateboards and laughter in the air now sit empty and silent. In virtually every way, for the things we care about most, we feel profound loss. We're sad, not because we fear something is going wrong, but because we know something already has gone wrong."
Yes, yes, the streets of Hackettstown are vacant, tumbleweeds blow down Main. The children don't laugh anymore :>( Only more guns can help.
"It's why more and more Americans are buying firearms and ammunition. Not to cause trouble, but because that America is already in trouble. We know that sooner or later reckless government actions and policies have consequences, that when government corrupts the truth and breaks faith with the American people, the entire fabric of society, everything we believe in and count on, is then in jeopardy."
And then the children can laugh again!! And buy more guns. :>)
"One of America's greatest threats is a national news media that fails to provide a level playing field for the truth. Now it's all entertainment, ratings, personal celebrity, the next sensational story, and the deliberate spinning and purposeful use of words and language, truth be damned, to advance their own agenda. You see it every day in this country. And here's how you know the media is lying: they still call themselves journalists. I'll tell you they've never been honest about the NRA. They hate us. Just for saying out loud and sticking up for what we believe. As if we have no right. So they try to ridicule us into oblivion or shame us into submission. But their moral indignation, it should be directed right into their own makeup mirrors. The media's intentional corruption of the truth is an abomination. And NRA members will never, and I mean never, submit or surrender to the national media."
By the way, have you seen our new website design, nra.org ? It's the most sophisticated high tech media cyberspace extravaganza to ever punctuate a pixel. Why it's slicker than deer guts on the doorknob. We hired a the world's premier media spinmeister specialist to advance our agenda.....what....oh right, right. ummm, never mind. It's just sumptin my kid whipped up on his iPhone. Uh, where was I.
"We don't trust government, because government itself has proven unworthy of our trust. We trust ourselves and we trust what we know in our hearts to be right. We trust our freedom. In this uncertain world, surrounded by lies and corruption everywhere you look, there is no greater freedom than the right to survive and protect our families with all the rifles, shotguns, and handguns we want. We know in the world that surrounds us there are terrorists and there are home invaders, drug cartels, carjackers, knockout gamers, and rapers, and haters, and campus killers, airport killers, shopping mall killers and killers who scheme to destroy our country with massive storms of violence against our power grids or vicious waves of chemicals or disease that could collapse our society that sustains us all."
Like in Hackettstown where we too are surrounded by: "terrorists and there are home invaders, drug cartels, carjackers, knockout gamers, and rapers, and haters, and campus killers, airport killers, shopping mall killers and killers who scheme to destroy our country with massive storms of violence against our power grids or vicious waves of chemicals or disease that could collapse our society that sustains us all." (psssst: this is when you are supposed to go out and place your orders for guns and ammo. Wayne has done what he is paid for, so let's wrap er up)
"This election, and don't let anyone tell you otherwise, it's going to be a bare-knuckled street fight. They're going after every House seat, every Senate seat, every governor's chair, every statehouse they can get their hands on. And they're laying the groundwork to put another Clinton back in the White House. They fully intend to finish the job, to fulfill their commitment, their dream, of fundamentally transforming America. Into an America that I guarantee you won't recognize. But mark my words -- the NRA will not go quietly into the night. We will fight. I promise you that."
Uh, Wayne. Americans with guns at home faired really, really, really badly in that affair you took the quote from..............
So what's Wayne's point kids?
1. "America Becoming Too Dangerous For Children To Play Outside"
2. "Americans Buying Guns Because Of "Reckless Government Actions" And Because The "Entire Fabric Of Society" Is In "Jeopardy""
3. "The National Media Is One Of America's "Greatest Threats"
4. ""Knockout Gamers" And "Haters" Just Two Reasons We Need Unlimited Rifles, Shotguns, And Pistols (Also "Waves Of Chemicals" Could Collapse Society At Any Moment)"
5. ""Independence Day" At Speech's Emotional Peak: The NRA "Will Not Go Quietly Into The Night!""
So we got the plea, we got the pitch, and we closed on the life or death ultimatum misplaced movie quote. Or, it's all over, you're doomed, buy guns, and viva Will Smith!
But I ask you gun advocates. Is this why you bought your last gun? Is this what you are all about?
Because I think this loon is funnier than Joe Biden on 2-4-1 draft night.
Um, Gadfly...The second amendment gives the right to bear "arms" which means "firearm." Only an complete idiot would even use the word nuclear weapon and firearm in the same sentence. Talk about moronic.
That said...the "well regulated militia" or trained townsfolk, should have the same weapons used by the military. The 2nd amendment specifically states that the militia should be armed in the same capacity as the US military. So, therefor, I should be able to have a machine gun, according to the 2nd amendment.
Maybe you should read the entire 2nd amendment it in it's entirety before you comment so you could get a sense of what the writers intended at the time. It's obvious you only know a portion of what you think it says.
"they've never been honest about the NRA. They hate us. Just for saying out loud and sticking up for what we believe. As if we have no right. So they try to ridicule us into oblivion or shame us into submission. "
mr g has just proved this claim true with his last post, he hates everything the nra does, just because it's from the nra. talk about bigoted behavior, there it is in back and white for you all to see for yourselves
Yes, yes, I have proven my hatred and especially my bigotry?? by quoting their leader. Oh the inhumanity of it all.
I believe Mr. G is beginning to understand, this is a Government of the people, by the people with the right to uphold and defend the Constitution The second amendment is one way to do it, if necessary and may we always keep that option open.
No Old Gent. misterg was being, well, misterg. The post I think you are referring to (from about 5 hours ago) was 100% sarcasm.
The only thing he understands is how to be a childish wise ass who gets his kicks from tweaking others who disagree with him.
media matters using cherry picked out of context quotes, with fantastical agenda driven spin is wrong headed. media matters? that's the source? give me a break already with their agenda driven progressive George Soros funded liberal squawk box of inanities. they and msnbc don't like the guy, media matters and msnbc don't like the nra, we get that.
it's their own hatred poorly disguised in a typical cloak of absurd ridicule and is chosen by them to attempt to shame and denigrate the nra.
guess what? it's not working.
over 5 million regular everyday americans are who makes up the NRA. they are your friends, your family, your neighbors, your colleagues at work, maybe you boss, or maybe your employees, NRA members have jobs, they own homes, and raise families. they have children who go to school with your children. they are people you care about, and membership in the NRA is growing. it is a healthy vibrant organization that has a message and purpose that resonates with americans. too bad the Hungarian billionaire George Soro's mouthpiece media matters, msnbc and their ilk keep missing the boat on this organization's charter and purpose.
the bill of rights should be taken in it's whole seriously, the whole document, not just the 1st, 4th , 5th and 14th amendments, but all of them, not just the convenient parts
what part of 'shall not be infringed' is so hard for the progressives to understand?
emily1 is spot on and quite correct in her comments, the rest of you older people could learn a thing or two from her. please try.
thank you for the spontaneous exclamation. there is a lot truth in this honest ex-parte' admission -
"Yes, yes, I have proven my hatred and especially my bigotry"
self-awareness is the first step in dealing with a problem, i stand by ready to help with the rehab program.
1. Yes, yes, yes, I am beginning to understand. If I just close my eyes and click my heels three times......
2. "The only thing he understands is how to be a childish wise ass who gets his kicks from tweaking others who disagree with him."
Sticks n stones mate, sticks and stones.
3. No, Wayne LaPierre is the source. Cherry pick? Out of context? Did you see how long they were? It was most of the major points of the speech. What out of context, they are the context. Get a grip on what your faderland espouses on your behalf, oh owner of the NRA. And it's not that I don't respect the 2nd, I do. I just don't respect Wayne at all, he is a paid-for shill for the gunmakers, and therefore respect the NRA very little. I respect NRA members but not NRA funders who pull Wayne's strings, there's a difference.
Here's the whole speech so you can judge the cherry pickin, out of contextin, spinnin. And who's doin it. Why it's Peppy Lappew.
It’s great to be here today, thanks for having me. I really appreciate your warm welcome.
There must be some NRA members out there! To each of you, I thank you for being here with me and for your support and vigilance in defending our freedom. You and NRA members all over the country have made a real difference in making this nation and our freedoms safer.
A little over a year ago, the NRA offered a simple, honest and effective proposal to make our schools safer. The political and media elites responded by calling me just about every nasty name in the book. You remember.
But Americans responded differently. In city after county after school board after statehouse, teachers, parents, police and legislators agreed with us and put armed security safeguards in place.
History has proven again the truth that President Obama and anti-freedom activists everywhere deny and try to suppress — the truth that firearms in the hands of good people save lives.
The political elites can’t escape and the darlings of the liberal media can’t change the God-given right of good people to protect themselves. For that fundamental human right, the NRA stands unflinching and unapologetic. And in defense of our freedom,
NRA’s 5 million members and America’s 100 million gun owners will not back down — not now, not ever!
Freedom has never needed our defense more than now. Almost everywhere you look, something has gone wrong.
You feel it in your heart, you know it in your gut. Something has gone wrong. The core values we believe in, the things we care about most, are changing. Eroding.
Our right to speak. Our right to gather. Our right to privacy. The freedom to work, and practice our religion, and raise and protect our families the way we see fit.
Those aren’t old values. They aren’t new values. They are core freedoms. The core values that have always defined us as a nation and we feel them — we feel them — slipping away.
All across America, everywhere I go, people come up to me and say, “Wayne, I’ve never been worried about this country … until now.”
Not with anger, but with sadness in their eyes. “I’ve never been worried about this country … until now.”
We’re worried about the economic crisis choking our budgets and shrinking our retirement. We’re worried about providing decent health care and a college education for our children. We fear for the safety of our families — it’s why neighborhood streets that were once filled with bicycles and skateboards, laughter in the air, now sit empty and silent.
In virtually every way, for the things we care about most, we feel profound loss. We are sad not because we fear something IS going wrong, but because we know something already HAS gone wrong.
It’s why more and more Americans are buying firearms and ammunition — not to cause trouble, but because we sense that America is already IN trouble.
We know that, sooner or later, reckless government actions and policies have consequences. That when government corrupts the truth and breaks faith with the American people, the entire fabric of our society — everything we believe in and count on — is in jeopardy.
Political dishonesty and media dishonesty have linked together, joined forces, to misinform and deceive the American public. Let’s be straight about it — the political and media elites are lying to us.
They lie bills into law. They pass legislation they haven’t even read, yet eagerly defend on television. Health care policies, economic policies, foreign affairs all seem repeatedly reckless.
The IRS is now a weapon. A weapon to punish anyone who disagrees with them, and that means every one of you.
They try to regulate our religion. They collect our cell phone and email data. They give us Solyndra, Benghazi, Fast and Furious, Obamacare,
massive unemployment, a debt that will choke our grandchildren and one executive order on top of another.
Rather than expose government dishonesty and scandal — like they used to — the media elites whitewash it. Move on, they tell us, there’s nothing to see here.
Yet, one of America’s greatest threats is a national news media that fails to provide a level playing field for the truth. Now it’s all entertainment, ratings and personal celebrity. The next sensational story and the deliberate spinning and purposeful use of words and language — truth be damned — to advance their own agenda.
Here’s how you know the media is lying. They still call themselves “journalists.”
They’ve never been honest about the NRA. They hate us, just for saying out loud and sticking up for what we believe, as if we have no right.
So they try to ridicule us into oblivion or shame us into submission. But their moral indignation should be directed into their own make-up
mirrors. The media’s intentional corruption of the truth is an abomination and NRA members will never — and I mean never — submit or surrender to the national media!
People have become so weary of all the government and media dishonesty, the all-too-commonplace lying, that most Americans have stopped listening.
It’s why the president’s State of the Union Address was largely ignored by the public. It’s why, according to a recent poll, 90 percent of Americans disapprove of Washington.
It’s why a majority of Americans, in poll after poll, say we don’t trust the White House, we don’t trust Congress, we don’t much trust either national political party, and we sure as heck don’t trust the national news media!
We don’t trust government, because government itself has proven unworthy of our trust. We trust ourselves and we trust what we know in our hearts to be right.
We trust our freedom. In this uncertain world, surrounded by lies and corruption, there is no greater freedom than the right to survive, to protect our families with all the rifles, shotguns and handguns we want.
We know, in the world that surrounds us, there are terrorists and home invaders and drug cartels and car-jackers and knock-out gamers and rapers, haters, campus killers, airport killers, shopping mall killers, road-rage killers, and killers who scheme to destroy our country with massive storms of violence against our power grids, or vicious waves of chemicals or disease that could collapse the society that sustains us all.
I ask you. Do you trust this government to protect you?
"But I ask you gun advocates. Is this why you bought your last gun?"
Actually, I buy them just to twist your knickers. I've got one more permit to use up... what should I get?
"Yes, yes, yes, I am beginning to understand"
another spontaneous exclamation. another truthful admission -
you are starting to come around, mr. tweaker, keep trying, one day you may get there.
"Get a grip on what your faderland espouses on your behalf, oh owner of the NRA."
what is your intent in expressing yourself this way mr. tweaker?
emily 1 wrote - "That said...the "well regulated militia" or trained townsfolk, should have the same weapons used by the military. The 2nd amendment specifically states that the militia should be armed in the same capacity as the US military. So, therefor, I should be able to have a machine gun, according to the 2nd amendment. "
and she is essentially correct.
what part of "shall not be infringed" is so hard to understand?
No Mr G , I don't trust the government to protect me. They have lead us into no win situations since word war 2. They think money can buy love and everything else. Just look at our open borders.
I am afraid I won't live long enough to read the books that MG keeps posting.
And, I absolutely do NOT trust anyone to protect me. Why should I trust my life and my family's life in the hands of someone else when I am perfectly capable of defending myself?....After all the police are only a phone call away.....It's real nice to talk to someone on the phone, wait 15 minutes for someone to actually show up, all while your wife is being raped and you are being beaten at gun point......won't be me!
You can call it anything you want, but I know that I am well prepared to defend my home need be, and when the police and government won't protect the citizens, who will they be going to....citizens that have been armed and prepared this whole time.
a. "Actually, I buy them just to twist your knickers. I've got one more permit to use up... what should I get?" And thus Wayne Peppy Lapew did not get it right when he summarized why people are buying guns. And get whatever is legal and makes you happy.
b. ""Get a grip on what your faderland espouses on your behalf, oh owner of the NRA." what is your intent in expressing yourself this way mr. tweaker?" Well, mr. dog, my intent was to say, while the NRA may be made up of everyday joes, as owners, with everyday feelings, it's leader sounds like a Nazi spewing hate-mongering fear-laden propaganda with a veiled pitch that only more guns is the final solution. For this Wayne makes over $1M per year off you; the head of the Red Cross makes $650, United Way $375. Sure, there are other non-prof's ceo's that make more like the Heritage Foundation guy (a Koch Bro enterprise) but most run hospitals and you pay Dwayno one of the top ten non prof salaries in the country. Nice work oh regular-guy-what-owns-the-nra. Given what you pay him to spew this crab, I guess that means you eat .........oh nevermind.
So here's my point(s) boys and then you can change the angle once more.
1a. the second amendment is there just like the others, it ain't sacrosanct just like the others are not sacrosanct as multiple Supreme Court cases have shown. They have all been interpreted differently at different times of the Republic. NOR can it not have limitations placed upon it as multiple other Bill of Right amendments as well as the second already have limitations placed upon them.
2b. The leadership of the NRA are gunmaker's puppets and totally out of control. If you put your thinking hats on about all the bad things Unions have done, at times and not all Unions, then put that same hat on and look at the NRA. It's leadership is bought and paid for and it feeds you a line a crap wrapped in a gold-leaf marketing package designed for only one thing: to get you to buy more guns and ammo. Lots more. Today the NRA marketing thrust is to bring more women on board. Tomorrow it will be Blacks and Latinos. While membership may be mom and pop, It is funded by the gun manufacturers with a single purpose. Sales. And fear and hatred sells as good as sex.
Don't believe me, try nra.org. It is a beautiful piece of work and like I said, slicker than deer guts on a doorknob.
3c. I am with you on the lack of need to reduce clip size from 15 to 10; that's just polishing a turd. May get a bit shinier, but it's still a ...... But this other stuff you're saying, and the stuff Peppy is saying, well, I tried to keep it light, but you kept coming and coming so sorry. I mean, my goodness, someone used the words liberal and Iman in the same passage. I mean, Emily even thinks the militia gets all mil-spec weaponry they want. I mean these boys can't even keep a website up and she wants to arm them to the teeth?
4d. I do want to thank you for your support. I first entered your market in 2008 and I have to say, it was fabulous. Between the Bush end-of-the-world-as-we-know-it and your FOOBA (fear of Obama Bad A$$), gun and ammo sales went off da hook and my investments flourished. Seems that the worse it got for the world, the better it got for me. Hope that all that 2008 sacrifice for more guns, more bullets, that put bread on my table was as worth it to you as to me. Over the years I divested but in 2011 it seemed good to try again just in case you would still have FOOBA and again you did not let me down. So keep up the good work cuz mistergoogle need new shoes. So the real self-serving answer for me Mark, is buy a real expensive one, don't cheap out, I want good shoes.
Gadfly,
Nuclear weapons? Really? Look, if you can't explain your position as "reasonable" without bringing nukes into the discussion...
"I am afraid I won't live long enough to read the books that MG keeps posting."
NO KIDDING!!!
While it has been wrongfully attributed to Einstein, I think the quote is quite apt in the case of MrGoogle:
"If you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough."
I've said it before: regardless of who is right and who is wrong (we would need the Founders here to tell us that in person, and even then anti-gunners would disagree with them).... it all comes down to OPINION. FEELINGS. Anti-gunners don't give a crap what 2A says, or what the Founder's meant. THEY don't "like" guns, therefore YOU shouldn't have them. Simple as that. And if they can get the courts to sway their way (yes, courts do indeed sway with political leaning, zeitgeist, and current dogma), they will.
That's the difference: WE are basing our opinions on the subject on original intent (clearly shown over and over again), THEY are basing theirs on their emotion. (similar to the healthcare debacle: THEY "believe" everyone has a "right" to healthcare, even tho no such right has ever existed in the founding documents: again, based on nothing but what they WANT, and their feelings/emotions.
Gee, and all we have to do is turn the mirror and we have you, in spades.
That's the funny part about seeing the world in black and white, red or blue, good or evil, us or them.
But it isn't the truth, and therefore you must lie. Mustn't you?
Mr G, FYI there are more groups that think the NRA is not tough enough with large member ships,
OpenSecrets Blog
No-Compromise Gun Group Drives Lobbying
by Russ Choma on May 2, 2013 12:38 PM
The latest lobbying reports show that despite decades of dominance on the issue of gun rights, the National Rifle Association was shoved aside by a newcomer -- and it wasn't a new gun control advocacy group.
NAGR.jpgThe National Association for Gun Rights, a "no-compromise" gun rights group with close ties to Ron and Rand Paul, spent more than $1.8 million in the first quarter of 2013 -- almost $1 million more than the $830,000 spent by the NRA. It's the first time the group has lobbied at the federal level.
When it comes to shelling out for lobbyists, the NRA has regularly outspent all other groups that count guns as their primary issue. But even though the NRA spent more in the first quarter of this year than in the final quarter of 2012, it was swamped by the NAGR, which regards the NRA as too soft on gun rights.
The logical extension of an unlimited right to bear arms is the right of individuals to own such things as nuclear weapons, chemical weapons, land mines, and anti-aircraft guns.
Certainly the amendment does not specifically exclude these things. It does not specially refer to guns. Why then are these arms not allowed by the second ammendment?
B/c the individual's second ammendment rights are balanced against competing rights, and are therefore reasonably limited WITHOUT and breach of constitutionality. This parallels various limitations on free speech which include exceptions for slander, threats, and yelling "fire" in a crowded theatre.
The question then is not whether the right to bear arms can be reasonable limited. Obviously it can. The question is where the lines should be drawn to reasonably balance the competing rights.
This is what the gun control debate is all about, trying to figure out where those reasonable limitations should be placed. The 2A crowd likes to cry that any limitation is an infringement. But if that's true, they should be able to sell flame throwers and rocket launchers at the sporting goods section of Walmart.
emily1 is essentially right in her comments on the 2nd amendment, she is more spot on at the age of 16 than other commenters/detractors on this thread.
the NRA is controlled by it's dues paying members, not the manufacturers, those indicting otherwise have no idea how the NRA is actually organized and works.
media matters is controlled by the billionaire George Soro's, who wants to disarm law abiding Americans. anything from them needs to be vetted in the full light of a clear day.
this bill reducing clip sizes is just more do nothing feel good knee jerk legislation made up by unrepresentative elected leaders who don't know what they are talking about.
contact your state senators and tell them to vote NO on this bill.
"This parallels various limitations on free speech which include exceptions for slander, threats, and yelling "fire" in a crowded theatre."
OMG, are you rolling out this tired crap again? "Free Speech" isn't limited by those acts... it's the "ACT" of slander or causing a threat/panic that's punishable.
They don't duct tape your mouth shut before entering a theater just because you might yell fire. They don't ban pens just because they may write an editorial that's slanderous.
The only equivalency you can draw is that the "ACT" of murder is the only legitimate limitation on the 2nd Amendment, because that is where your rights (or your misuse of those rights) infringe upon those of another individual.
http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2013/01/foghorn/the-second-amendment-the-first-amendment-and-yelling-fire-in-a-crowded-auditorium/
It's been shown over and over, and courts have agreed, that 2A refers to "arms in common use for lawful purposes." Nukes are not "in common use", nor are land mines and anti-aircraft guns.
We don't want nukes and flamethrowers... we just want our semi-automatic weapons and ANY-capacity magazines left the hell alone. Technically, there was a time when fully-automatic weapons were "in common use", altho arguably for UNlawful purposes (the mob), which is no doubt why public sentiment was enough to get them heavily restricted. Altho I could still own one, if I went thru the hoops and paid the fee for a Class III license. So what's the point in even restricting them then?
gadfly<
AT $78,000 per missle, and $126,000 per firing unit, don't think you would see too many going off to be honest.....
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FGM-148_Javelin
and that is without the "illegal" $$$ markup
"I am afraid I won't live long enough to read the books that MG keeps posting."
NO KIDDING!!!
OMG JR, I post excerpted quotes, they say I cherry picked. I post the entire speech, they say it's too long. But never do you talk about the contents nor answer the questions. Instead you shoot the messenger.
The only consistent thing you folks can agree upon is that I am wrong and you are right. And I mean so far right you've left.
And this is when we agree on the original topic. You guys are just amazing.
This should scare the bejeebers out of you. Rise up and be heard!! Do not be part of the HERD
Obama's College Classmate Speaks Out
This is it in a nutshell !!
If he is re-elected in 2012, the US is finished. The following is in simple language that everyone can understand. Not the gibberish that our government keeps telling people. Please read this carefully and make sure you keep this message going.
This needs to be emailed to everyone in the USA .
OBAMA'S COLLEGE CLASSMATE SPEAKS OUT
By Wayne Allyn Root , June 6th, 2010
Barack Hussien Obama is no fool. He is not incompetent.
To the contrary, he is brilliant. He knows exactly what he's doing. He is purposely overwhelming the U.S. economy to create systemic failure, economic crisis and social chaos -- thereby destroying capitalism and our country from within.
Barack Hussien Obama was my college classmate
He is a devout Muslim do not be fooled.
Look at his Czars...anti-business..anti- american.
As Glenn Beck correctly predicted from day one, Barack Hussien Obama is following the plan of Cloward & Piven, two professors at Columbia University . They outlined a plan to socialize America by overwhelming the system with government spending and entitlement demands.
Add up the clues below. Taken individually they're alarming. Taken as a whole, it is a brilliant, Machiavellian game plan to turn the United States into a socialist/Marxist state with a permanent majority that desperately needs government for survival ... and can be counted on to always vote for bigger government.
Why not? They have no responsibility to pay for it.
Universal health care . The health care bill had very little to do with health care. It had everything to do with unionizing millions of hospital and health care workers, as well as adding 15,000 to 20,000 new IRS agents (who will join government employee unions). Obama doesn't care that giving free health care to 30 million Americans will add trillions to the national debt. What he does care about is that it cements the dependence of those 30 million voters to Democrats and big government .
Who but a socialist revolutionary would pass this reckless spending bill in the middle of a depression?
Cap and trade. Like health care legislation having nothing to do with health care, cap and trade has nothing to do with global warming. It has everything to do with redistribution of income, government control of the economy and a criminal payoff to Obama's biggest contributors. Those powerful and wealthy unions and contributors (like GE, which owns NBC, MSNBC and CNBC) can then be counted on to support everything Obama wants. They will kick-back hundreds of millions of dollars in contributions to Obama and the Democratic Party to keep them in power. The bonus is that all the new taxes on Americans with bigger cars, bigger homes and businesses helps Obama "spread the wealth around."
Make Puerto Rico a state. Why? Who's asking for a 51st state?
Who's asking for millions of new welfare recipients and government entitlement addicts in the middle of a depression? Certainly not American taxpayers.
But this has been Barack Hussien Obama's plan all along.
His goal is to add two new Democrat senators, five Democrat congressman and a million loyal Democratic voters who are dependent on big government.
Legalize 12 million illegal Mexican immigrants.
Just giving these 12 million potential new citizens free health care alone could overwhelm the system and bankrupt America . But it adds 12 million reliable new Democrat voters who can be counted on to support big government. Add another few trillion dollars in welfare, aid to dependent children, food stamps, free medical, education, tax credits for the poor, and eventually Social Security .
Stimulus and bailouts. Where did all that money go?
It went to Democrat contributors, organizations (ACORN), and unions -- including billions of dollars to save or create jobs of government employees across the country. It went to save GM and Chrysler so that their employees could keep paying union dues. It went to AIG so that Goldman Sachs could be bailed out
(after giving Obama almost $1 million in contributions). A staggering $125 billion went to teachers (thereby protecting their union dues).
All those public employees will vote loyally Democrat to protect their bloated salaries and pensions that are bankrupting America . The country goes broke, future generations face a bleak future, but Obama, the Democrat Party, government, and the unions grow more powerful. The ends justify the means.
Raise taxes on small business owners, high-income earners, and job creators. Put the entire burden on only the top 20 percent of taxpayers, redistribute the income, punish success, and reward those who did nothing to deserve it (except vote for Obama). Reagan wanted to dramatically cut taxes in order to starve the government. Barack Obama wants to dramatically raise taxes to starve his political opposition. With the acts outlined above, Barack Hussien Obama and his regime have created a vast and rapidly expanding constituency of voters dependent on big government; a vast privileged class of public employees who work for big government; and a government dedicated to destroying capitalism and installing themselves as socialist rulers by overwhelming the system.
Add it up and you've got the perfect Marxist scheme -- all devised by my Columbia University college classmate Barack Hussien Obama using the Cloward and Piven Plan .
"Correctly attributed" says snopes!
http://www.snopes.com/politics/soapbox/overwhelm.asp
Cliff R This is where my family moved to. Be sure to read the last few sentences.
http://www.thepostnewspapers.com/medina_county_news/article_522291e8-9770-589a-b594-8ee0f394b0f0.html#user-comment-area
So Old Gent, based on the article, it looks like no harm came from not infringing on their rights.
“A lot of police officers were worried,” Miller said. “That concern has proven to be unfounded.”
On the other hand, Miller said he is unaware of any incidents in Medina County in which an armed civilian prevented a crime or stopped one in progress.
Nor was it the Wild West before the law went into affect. It's a very nice place, well educated with a pretty low crime rate, even lower violent crime rate. Has been that way before, and so far, after this law.
calling people nazi like sort of ends the discussion, (godwins law)
i don't agree with everything Wayne says or does, he sometimes makes us look bad to the other side, i get that. but he is a good and decent guy who has been in the trenches a long time on this issue. If sometimes he shows a little emotion, or color, it's understandable. and he was speaking at cpac. so what did you expect? btw , most of his speech was right on the money, like this nugget i cheerfully cherry picked:
"Rather than expose government dishonesty and scandal — like they used to — the media elites whitewash it. Move on, they tell us, there’s nothing to see here."
"Here’s how you know the media is lying. They still call themselves “journalists.”
They’ve never been honest about the NRA. They hate us, just for saying out loud and sticking up for what we believe, as if we have no right. So they try to ridicule us into oblivion or shame us into submission. But their moral indignation should be directed into their own make-up mirrors. The media’s intentional corruption of the truth is an abomination and NRA members will never — and I mean never — submit or surrender to the national media!"
Wayne speaks the truth on this plain and outspoken, deal with it.
but you do agree with us on the current bill seeking to reduce clip size, ant that's a good thing. and I quote:
" I am with you on the lack of need to reduce clip size from 15 to 10; "
i knew that from a while back and i thank you for it, but it's nice that you want to emphasize it now, last year you were all about clip size reductions (relentlessly and quite vehemently). So this is another good start to add your spontaneous exclamations back up the thread, there is some truth in those, and i think that's a good thing going forward.
Georgia Passes Sweeping PRO-Gun Legislation....
Pro- and anti-gun forces do not agree on much, but they do agree on the breathtaking sweep of the Georgia legislation allowing guns in bars, schools, restaurants, churches and airports that is now awaiting the signature of Gov. Nathan Deal.
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/25/us/amid-wave-of-pro-gun-legislation-georgia-proposes-sweeping-law.html?hpw&rref=us&_r=0
...let's see if "gun crime increases" or if it "turns into the wild west".... my prediction: NO on both counts...
SO....my question is why are we only fighting off the 15 to 10 round ban, seems to me the 15 round limitation is already a infringement.
Infringement and New Jersey go hand in hand... long before this issue and long after...
iJay BDog: I was careful not to call "people" nazis, and not even call Wayne a nazi, but to say "it's leader sounds like a Nazi." I also prefaced this with "my intent was to say, while the NRA may be made up of everyday joes, as owners, with everyday feelings" clearly indicating that I was not castigating the membership.
But....but.....his solution, buy guns, is indeed "a veiled pitch that only more guns is indeed a final solution. I mean you have a perceived problem propagandized at exaggerated levels the goal of which is to instill fear in the masses followed by a solution that has the sole purpose of putting bullets in the air. Did he press for tougher punishments? No. Did he press for any other solution except: buy guns? No. I do not fault the membership for what Wayne says. They don't own him, the gun manufacturers do. But...but the membership should be appalled not applaud.
And the fact that you can cherry pick a nugget or two not withstanding.
My stance on LCMs as WMDs has not changed; it's just that NJ has already removed LCMs and I can live with 15 per clip (versus my beloved 10) as a compromise. Also, having researched the topic, I realize that there is no relevant data to prove whether 10 or 15 would show any statistical difference. I believe it would, but crikey, would take years to validate.
But no, I see no value to the people having LCMs versus the destruction they cause and still feel that a combination of bans, penalties, and buy-backs would cure the problem in a few years IF nationally applied. State-by-state is a compromise, but apparently that's the way it is.
And I applaud the GA experiment. First, it is far enough away that any spillover across borders won't bother me. Second, sure let's see if having loaded guns in all those places adds a few more needless gun deaths to our 10,000 needed gun deaths per year. I especially like the bar rule where it's OK to have a loaded gun as long as you don't drink. That has "brilliant' written all over it. So let's see if GA wants to be a petri dish and grow a wild-west culture and whether that's a good thing or bad thing.
"SO....my question is why are we only fighting off the 15 to 10 round ban, seems to me the 15 round limitation is already a infringement."
Indeed it is. But this is PRNJ - the People's Republik of New Jersey.
Also the fact that we can't carry in NJ is an infringement. The second amendment clearly states, right to "bear" (wear, carry, have on your person, etc) arms. What good does my firearm do home, locked in a safe, with the ammo in another location, with am empty 5 round clip (where we are going next) and a trigger lock (they want that too) If I am jogging alone and get raped and murdered by some nut-case? Or, if my home is being invaded? By the time you get the key, open the safe, unlock the trigger, put the clip in the gun...let's face it you and your entire family are toast. At that point the only help the cops will be is to "check it out" when some guy walking his beagle sees my half-naked, bloody, lifeless body lying in the brush or after the neighbors call to say they thought they might have heard gunshots 2 nights ago and haven't seen me or my family leave the house in that many days.
In both scenarios - a little late....
mg said
"My stance on LCMs as WMDs has not changed; it's just that NJ has already removed LCMs and I can live with 15 per clip (versus my beloved 10) as a compromise. Also, having researched the topic, I realize that there is no relevant data to prove whether 10 or 15 would show any statistical difference. I believe it would, but crikey, would take years to validate."
OMG... has ENLIGHTENMENT begun???
Tell you what... you want 10, but can live with 15. I want unlimited, but can live with 30.
Unfortunately, no one makes 22.5 round magazines. :)
" I especially like the bar rule where it's OK to have a loaded gun as long as you don't drink. That has "brilliant' written all over it"
LOL. Yeah, I have to admit... when I heard that, it "made me go hmm..."
"I especially like the bar rule where it's OK to have a loaded gun as long as you don't drink. That has "brilliant' written all over it. "
So I assume you refuse to enter a restaurant/bar that serves alcohol in Pennsylvania, Virginia, or any other number of states, right? If not, it must amaze you that you were able to walk out alive. After all, in these states it's legal to carry a firearm AND drink if you so choose (in Virginia you have to be openly carrying, at the moment).
People who fear guns tend to think that all of these "brilliant" laws are in states far away, so they can pretend that guns don't really exist here... truth is, just 20 miles away is one of the most permissive states in the country as far as firearms go. Guns everywhere... in bars, in cars, in gas stations, in malls, in amusement parks, in the forests, on the lakes... you don't even need to take a "test" to get a permit to carry. Just fill out a form at the Sheriff's office and 15 minutes later you're good to go. No magazine limits... no assault weapons bans... buy as many handguns in a month as you want... heck you can even get fully automatic weapons with flash and noise suppressors if you have the cash.
Yet nobody has a problem vacationing in the Poconos for a peaceful, quiet weekend, or heading to the outlets for a nice shopping experience. That's because people who carry guns aren't out to kill you, as long as you don't attack them first.
Think about that next time you're in PA. Approximately 7% of residents are legally carrying firearms. If you go to the mall, there are approximately 50 - 100 people with guns walking around as well, and yet you feel pretty darn safe, right?
Actually I'm luckier than you apparently know.
In 2011, PA which has fairly loose gun laws, ranked as the number 3 state in the total number of gun deaths that was only beat by CA and TX. About 475 across the state (versus NJ with tough gun laws at 269 that year). 74% of all murders that year were by gun by gum because if you wanted to murder, chances are you had a gun.
It was a 3% increase of death by gun in a year when gun deaths fell by 3% across the US, PA bucking the trend. PA was number 9 in gun deaths per 100,000 citizens, number 10 in firearm robberies and middle of the pack for gun assaults. Not a stellar place for gun safety in my book.
And PA's loose gun laws bleeeed into NJ.
"“If you’re in Trenton and can walk over a bridge to Pennsylvania and buy a gun at a gun show, it’s a lot easier, less expensive and less time-consuming than buying a gun here,” said Nicola Bocour, director of Ceasefire NJ, a gun-control advocacy group. “That’s why 80 percent of the crime guns in New Jersey are coming from out of state.”" http://www.northjersey.com/news/other-states-hamper-n-j-s-tough-gun-laws-1.571337
So as you dine in PA "You've got to ask yourself one question. Do I feel lucky?"
yes i would prefer to rotate Wayne out of the point position and promote tom selleck to be our point guy, tom has more credibility and when he talks i believe more people on the other side will tune in, or at least not tune him out 'just because he is from th NRA'
the bigotry shown towards the NRA and it's members is a problem for me. this bigotry is regularly displayed, promoted and encouraged by the msm and many Democrats, (and a few republicans) and it's wrong.
once again the tolerant inclusive pc crowd shows rabid intolerance in practice,
i just don't get it, how can so many be ok with their behavior?
the 2nd amendment and SCOTUS rulings do support emily1's description of a citizens militia made of ordinary citizens who are well practiced and familiar with the weapons of the day. that means the small arms that the pentagon outfits the armed forces with. that includes ar-15's (w/30 round mags) and the like. the 1939 SCOTUS decision rejecting the sawed off shotgun because it is not a weapon typically used by the armed forces implies that other weapons that are typically used by the armed forces would be permissible.
there are many cases bubbling up through the court system right now that i believe will help further define and support the above contentions.
can't wait for that to happen.
in our history it was the effectiveness of the shooting accuracy of the infantryman in the USA's armed forces that made the strategic difference in most wars we were involved with. from the revolution through WW2, the average American conscripts skill and familiarity with rifle shooting literally made the difference between success and failure.
sadly since Vietnam we have not had that same emphasis. and our win/lose/inconclusive results streak continues to this day partly as a direct result of not having similar skills in rifle shooting.
for instance in Afghanistan right now the military has standardized on the m4 rifle, which has a limited accuracy and range compared to rifles used prior. The talibann mountain men know this, and stay a 100 yards out of effective reach while using older British enfield ww1 style bolt action rifles which can hit our guys at the same distance. this makes it harder to win the battles on the ground, having an enemy who can shoot more accurately at longer distances than we can. we need more effective small arms and the skills to use them accurately to win in Afghanistan, and we just don't have them
it was the American rifleman's individual skills that made a significant strategic difference in the revolutionary war where british officers called the Pennsylvania rifle 'the widow maker'. in the civil war the south hung on as long as it did due to the superior (on average) rifleman skills by the confederates that allowed them to win against a better funded and equipped northern army. this was due to the fact the southerners were more practiced in hunting than the northerners were. their rifle accuracy was a significant strategic advantage that allowed the south to hang on as long as it did.
in WW1, it was the expertise of the American rifleman who made a strategic difference in the static unmoving trench warfare that existed in Europe for about 3 years. once our boys landed in France, the scales were tipped. the accuracy of our infantry with rifles was the most significant factor in changing the stale static quo that existed before.
this is why the founders wrote the amendment this way. it is an individual right, and it is important that regular everyday citizens have the capability to be familiar with the standard arms of the day, that is why 'the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed'.
it's not just an anachronistic outdated relic of a concept from a more primitive time. it is as valid and important today as it was in the 18th century.
comment as you see fit . . .. . . (yes, that's Lionel's line )
"Tell you what... you want 10, but can live with 15. I want unlimited, but can live with 30."
This is the problem.....everyone "can live with 30, or can live with 15"
But, the fact of the matter is if you "could live with a car that did 95, and on race day your opponent's car happened to do 100, you still loose.
Get my drift?
There should be no legal limitations, who is the government to say how many rounds I need inside my home to defend myself, or my family? That should be my choice.
With the government laws you give a inch they take a mile, look what happened, they put a 15 round ban on years ago, the people "could live with it" now they want to lower it yet again. We need to quit giving into their agenda.
BTW Skippy - I'm with Ted too. He makes the gun grabbers look foolish. I wish I could be so calm and eloquent when I speak on this topic. He always chews 'em up and spits 'em out and they end up tongue tied and blathering. I have to learn to be less emotional, like him. But then, he's "The Nuge" and was always cool. My dad saw him many times in concert during the late 70's and 80's and is a huge fan.
Cars are not guns Darrin. Never will be.
Although if there are, should we start listing all the limitations, regulations, and safety specifications places on cars? Would that be a fair comparison?
"In 2011, PA which has fairly loose gun laws, ranked as the number 3 state in the total number of gun deaths that was only beat by CA and TX. About 475 across the state (versus NJ with tough gun laws at 269 that year). 74% of all murders that year were by gun by gum because if you wanted to murder, chances are you had a gun."
Gee, go figure. More guns = more gun deaths. I'm more likely to get run over by a Prius in California, but it doesn't necessarily mean my overall chances of a vehicular death are based solely on the number of Toyota dealerships. That's just one tool in the murderer's (or reckless driver's) arsenal.
So riddle me this... how come the *total homicide rate* for New Jersey is positively mediocre (we're actually *below* average)? Yes, PA, is worse, but there are also plenty of states with "loose" gun laws where you are 4x less likely be be killed by any means than you are in New Jersey.
Actually, the first state known for "tough" gun laws is only the 7th safest overall.
http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/murder-rates-nationally-and-state#MRord
(Also note, PA has ~45% more population than NJ, so per capita gun deaths are the almost identical in New Jersey and Pennsylvania despite the vast difference in gun laws. How convenient you only use "raw" numbers and not the whole truth... again...)
Darrin,
We are in agreement, however- I am also a realist. NO limitations will never happen, until the 2nd Revolution... I would more accurately call it the "Reclamation". But at this point, I would be perfectly happy for gun control to JUST STOP. No MORE limitations. But we all know that's not going to happen.
Even if we win this "battle", eventually, over time, 2A rights will erode to the point of civil disobedience (already happening in CT- people are burning their "gun registration letters"), and then on to UNcivil disobedience. It is only a matter of time. Not being defeatist- but I've been at this a long time- I'm being REAList.
I see very little hope in running back into the burning building in an attempt to save it.... no- I see us having to run THROUGH the burning building, watching it burn, and then rebuilding on the other side.
When you have an entire batch of bad apples, with only 1 or 2 "good" ones, it takes a very very long time to "vote" in more good apples, in the meantime the whole batch is rotting. Better to throw out the whole batch, pick some more, and start from scratch.
It appears most of NJ is against any further magazine restrictions... and this is how this poll turns out EVERY TIME they try it...
http://www.nj.com/politics/index.ssf/2014/03/poll_should_nj_pass_gun_bill_reducing_size_of_ammunition_magazines_from_15_to_10_rounds.html
"and this is how this poll turns out EVERY TIME they try it..."
AND the responses far outnumber those for the polls which they hold as gospel, such as:
* 90% of Americans Support Background Checks (sample size 1,181)
* 40% of guns are bought without a background check (sample size 251... performed 20 years ago... before NICS background checks were widely required...)
"once again the tolerant inclusive pc crowd shows rabid intolerance in practice," says BDog.
Now you know how we feel when the intolerant pc crowd lets loose.
Like when FOX launches their tirades about the evil, cheating, handout lovin livin high on the hog poor from one side of their face claiming we are being robbed blind by these rat-parasites and on the other side of the face defend to the death the job making rich and corps for taking advantage of loopholes to the point of paying negative taxes to a far greater robber tune. It ain't the numbers, it's the tone and name calling from both sides of the intolerant FOX pc face --- poor/bad, rich/goooood.
http://thedailyshow.cc.com/videos/v9wjc4/fox-news-welfare-academy
and the other side of midnight
http://thedailyshow.cc.com/videos/mlw5q1/2014--a-waste-odyssey
Yeah, it feels pretty bad to be progressive too.
Soon there will be a NO round capacity! This is yet another form of Gov. control. So much for selpf protection! So much for the 2nd amendment! This is one step closer to complete control.
Cars are not guns Darrin. Never will be.
Although if there are, should we start listing all the limitations, regulations, and safety specifications places on cars? Would that be a fair comparison?
Oh jesus MG, can't you understand a simple analogy.
Basically saying if you have 10 rounds and the criminal has 15, who's got the better chance?
Anyone can get a car, and to legally drive it is a basic knowledge test. to get a gun you need permits, background checks, etc.....so there is your saftey for comparison.
Also last I checked, our fathers never listed "cars" in the constitution.........point made
"Also last I checked, our fathers never listed "cars" in the constitution.........point made"
On the same point, they also didn't list "muskets". They wrote "arms". I guess MG will say that means they were really talking about arms- the kind with a hand and fingers at the end of them LOL
wow... you anti-gunners should be really proud of your elected representatives (this is RI, but still...)
"go f*#k yourself"..... from an elected official. Nice.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zo98fDcFbtc&feature=youtu.be
So why are the sandy hook residents bothering with our laws anyways, why don't they worry about their state laws and leave other states out of it?? The shooting that occurred had absolutely nothing to do with NJ, as he certainly did not get his 30 rounders from our state.
It seems that 30 round clips were used at the shooting.......we only allow 15 rounds......move on!
the 2nd amendment and SCOTUS rulings do support emily1's description of a citizens militia made of ordinary citizens who are well practiced and familiar with the weapons of the day. that means the small arms that the pentagon outfits the armed forces with. that includes ar-15's (w/30 round mags) and the like. the 1939 SCOTUS decision rejecting the sawed off shotgun because it is not a weapon typically used by the armed forces implies that other weapons that are typically used by the armed forces would be permissible.
I think a lot of this banter could be put to rest if people actually read the 2nd amendment -- all of it -- not the short version that all the schools and books show. WHAT is the well regulated militia? WHO are the militia members? WHAT was the militia's purpose? WHY were the militia members supposed to have the same caliber/type/firepower/ammo as the military? WHY were the people supposed to me part of the militia at all? WHY were they supposed to be at the ready" and READY FOR WHAT?
I believe (maybe stupidly) that if the American people really understood the REASON FOR and INTENT OF the 2nd amendment, more (not all, you always have your limp- wristed, apathetic, "my daddy the government will take care of me" types) people would take a stand and oppose all this infringement on the 2nd amendment going on currently.
Maybe a little pollyannish but a girl can dream, right?
So for Emily, the world is divided between people who think like her and "limp- wristed, apathetic, "my daddy the government will take care of me" types)"
Sweeeeet.
And amazingly these HL-experts see absolutely no room for debate on the second which has been debated vigorously, word by word, even by the foundling fathers.
Brilliant.
The world is indeed simple for those with a narrow mind.
Emily, one day, god forbid that the tragedy the second amendment protects us from actually happens, all anti-gun people will be very very sorry, and will be looking for protection from their neighbors that have prepared, protection that they may not receive.
So mistergoogle...what do YOU call a "man" who tells another man that he doesn't need a gun because that's what the "police are for." There are people right here on this thread who have said that very thing. If that's not "letting daddy take care of you," then what is? I, personally want to protect and defend myself. And, if something does hit the fan (like totally tyranny) the one's who are armed with have to protect those that are not.
I have no problem with "debate" on the 2nd...IF the person I am debating knows what the intent was. Most don't.
Here...I'll debate you...Tell us how, if the people are supposed to be able to defend themselves against the military (which nobody disputes or debates, that was obviously the whole intent of the 2nd amendment) am I supposed to do that if my gun/ammo/number of rounds is not equal to the gun/ammo/number of rounds as the person I am fighting?
What you want is the militia to fight the army with a 10 round clip when the soldier has a 30 to 100 round capacity clip? How is that going to work? Please explain.
BTW...I am going to hate going back to school next week! This has been really eye opening. Last night I showed my dad what I was writing and he said I was "giving the men a run for their money!" Lol!
"The world is indeed simple for those with a narrow mind."
Actually, the world is a very complex place. The narrow minded may be inclined to think that everyone can be controlled by an overbearing government whose dictates correlate nicely with what they personally believe, but that simple view ignores the fact that not one single subject of discussion will ever be agreed on by everyone. So when a majority can take "control" over the minority, is it because they are thinking from their own narrow view of the world or because they understand that everyone is different?
all you Second Amendment gun nuts don't want any restrictions. But you seem to forget there are restrictions all through the Constitution. You have the right to free speech but you don't have the right to holler fire in a crowded movie theater.
Also...mrgoogle your comment stating -
"...the second which has been debated vigorously, word by word, even by the foundling fathers."
Makes it even more clear to me that what they finally agreed to put pen to paper (or quill to paper) after much debate, banter and even outright fighting was the FINAL wording that BEST described exactly what they all wanted. If you read their individual writings you can see that they were ALL armed - EVERY SINGLE ONE. That right there should say something to you.
Why , if these men spent so much time, blood, sweat and tears to get the document to say EXACTLY the thing that they could finally ALL agree on would YOU feel inclined to debate their intent all these years later?
You just admitted how difficult and time consuming it was for them to get this thing right -- now you want to undo and undermine all that?
"all you Second Amendment gun nuts don't want any restrictions. But you seem to forget there are restrictions all through the Constitution. You have the right to free speech but you don't have the right to holler fire in a crowded movie theater."
Whew. I don't know where to begin.
"all"
...incorrect. Many pro-2A people are no longer fighting the many MANY restrictions ALREADY put upon us, we would just like there to be NO MORE. At least for starters. Every single gun control law on the books is, by definition, a "compromise."
"gun nuts"
... so if you are pro-2A, you are a "nut"... well, that certainly tells us that YOU are the close-minded one, whose mind was made up long ago, and not capable of intelligent debate.
"don't want any restrictions"
...se above.
"there are restrictions all through the Constitution"
...here's where it gets good. You DO realize, that the Bill of Rights was indeed a list of RESTRICTIONS...placed UPON THE GOVERNMENT, right? Not restriction for the PEOPLE, restrictions for the GOVERNMENT. Rights they were not allowed to infringe or remove. They are not rights GRANTED BY the govt; they are rights INHERENT in the people, and the govt CANNOT infringe or remove those rights.
That is the crux of most arguments these days: where the founders told the govt what they could NOT do, many people today think the govt tells the PEOPLE what THEY cannot do. They have it the wrong way 'round.
"don't have a right to holler fire in a crowded theater"
...ah, that ol' nugget.
Let's look at this in context, shall we?
The Schenck case
Holmes, writing for a unanimous Court, ruled that it was a violation of the Espionage Act of 1917 (amended with the Sedition Act of 1918), to distribute flyers opposing the draft during World War I. Holmes argued this abridgment of free speech was permissible because it presented a "clear and present danger" to the government's recruitment efforts for the war.
Holmes wrote:
The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man falsely shouting fire in a theater and causing a panic. [...] The question in every case is whether the words used are used in such circumstances and are of such a nature as to create a clear and present danger that they will bring about the substantive evils that Congress has a right to prevent.
So, in what way, oldred, do you equate "not having the right to shout fire in a theater" to the gun control issue?
That's right oldred because it gives you freedom of religion, speech, the press, to assemble and petition. It DOES NOT SAY the right to lie, scare people on purpose, cause a stampede or any other dumb thing. That SHOULD go without saying.
Just like the 2nd amendment gives all citizens the right to bear arms and be as armed as the military but it does NOT give you the right to shoot up a school, shoot your neighbor because they are not cutting their grass enough, shoot your spouse because your mad or any other dumb thing.
I guess our founding fathers gave us more credit than we deserve. They never though that giving someone the right to free speech would warrant someone yelling "fire" in a crowded movie theater, or during a legal assembly, shitting on a police car for the media cameras, or taking an antidepressant and shooting up a bunch of 3rd graders.
Maybe we should stop people from doing stupid things with their rights instead of taking the rights away entirely.
"I guess our founding fathers gave us more credit than we deserve. They never though that giving someone the right to free speech would warrant someone yelling "fire" in a crowded movie theater, or during a legal assembly, shitting on a police car for the media cameras, or taking an antidepressant and shooting up a bunch of 3rd graders. "
Wow, just excellent emily. Well done!
We need to have an "HL Shooter's Happy Hour"! (guns OR alcohol, not both LOL)
the 1939 SCOTUS decision rejecting the sawed off shotgun because it is not a weapon typically used by the armed forces implies that other weapons that are typically used by the armed forces would be permissible.
Thanks JeffersonRepub! A little common sense goes a long way...but something sadly missing in our last few generations.
I am still astonished by Emily's knowledge in this topic......very impressive!
oldred, If you are actually a senior I appologise, but to be totally honest anyone that has been around as long as the name "oldred" suggests would not compare 2nd amendment rights to the right to scream fire in a movie theater, that is honestly very silly.
"That SHOULD go without saying" pretty impressive that a 16 year old girl understood this.......but not you?!?!?!
Oh Emily, are we really going to debate whether a 100-round clip or 10-round clip will be more successful against a full on assault by the US Armed Forces? I think the answer is the same as NJ's proposal to limit from 15 rounds per to 10 rounds per ---- can't be proved statistically as being of any value whatsoever. Just can't imagine any different outcome in the battle between either a 10rounder or a 100rounder versus the Army, Marines, Navy, and Air Force.
And thanks Emily, for admitting: "I guess our founding fathers gave us more credit than we deserve. They never though that giving someone the right to free speech would warrant someone yelling "fire" in a crowded movie theater, or during a legal assembly, shitting on a police car for the media cameras, or taking an antidepressant and shooting up a bunch of 3rd graders" you actually forgot to mention how those LIMITATIONS that the founding fathers left out got clarified and became actual law. It's called the Supreme Court, an organization designed by the founding fathers with powers agreed-upon by the founding fathers. The following cases that spell out the actual laws for what you were talking about are listed belwo from the Foundation for Freedom: "Limits of Freedom of Speech
"Does the First Amendment mean anyone can say anything at any time? No.
The Supreme Court has rejected an interpretation of speech without limits.
Because the First Amendment has such strong language, we begin with the presumption that speech is protected. Over the years, the courts have decided that a few other public interests — for example, national security, justice or personal safety — override freedom of speech. There are no simple rules for determining when speech should be limited, but there are some general tests that help.
Clear and Present Danger
Will this act of speech create a dangerous situation? The First Amendment does not protect statements that are uttered to provoke violence or incite illegal action.
Justice Holmes, speaking for the unanimous Supreme Court, stated, “The question in every case is whether the words used are used in such circumstances and are of such a nature as to create a clear and present danger that they will bring about the substantive evils that Congress has a right to prevent.”
Fighting Words
Was something said face-to-face that would incite immediate violence?
In Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire, the Supreme Court stated that the “English language has a number of words and expressions which by general consent [are] ‘fighting words’ when said without a disarming smile. … Such words, as ordinary men know, are likely to cause a fight.” The court determined that the New Hampshire statute in question “did no more than prohibit the face-to-face words plainly likely to cause a breach of the peace by the addressee, words whose speaking constitute a breach of the peace by the speaker — including ‘classical fighting words,’ words in current use less ‘classical’ but equally likely to cause violence, and other disorderly words, including profanity, obscenity and threats.” Jurisdictions may write statutes to punish verbal acts if the statutes are “carefully drawn so as not unduly to impair liberty of expression.”
Also see What is the Fighting Words Doctrine?
Libel and Slander
Was the statement false, or put in a context that makes true statements misleading? You do not have a constitutional right to tell lies that damage or defame the reputation of a person or organization.
Obscenity
In June 1973 in Miller v. California, the Supreme Court held in a 5-to-4 decision that obscene materials do not enjoy First Amendment protection.
In Miller v. California (1973), the court refined the definition of “obscenity” established in Roth v. United States (1957). It also rejected the “utterly without redeeming social value” test of Memoirs v. Massachusetts.
In the three-part Miller test, three questions must receive affirmative responses for material to be considered “obscene”:
1.Would the average person, applying the contemporary community standards, viewing the work as a whole, find the work appeals to the prurient interest?
2.Does the work depict or describe sexual conduct in a patently offensive way?
3.Does the work taken as a whole lack serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value?
One must distinguish “obscene” material, speech not protected by the First Amendment, from “indecent” material, speech protected for adults but not for children. The Supreme Court also ruled that “higher standards” may be established to protect minors from exposure to indecent material over the airwaves. In FCC v. Pacifica Foundation the court “recognized an interest in protecting minors from exposure to vulgar and offensive spoken language.”
Conflict with Other Legitimate Social or Governmental Interests
Does the speech conflict with other compelling interests? For example, in times of war, there may be reasons to restrict First Amendment rights because of conflicts with national security.
To ensure a fair trial without disclosure of prejudicial information before or during a trial, a judge may place a “gag” order on participants in the trial, including attorneys. Placing prior restraint upon the media usually is unconstitutional. In Nebraska Press Association v. Stuart (1976), the Supreme Court established three criteria that must be met before a judge can issue a gag order and restrain the media during a trial.
Time, Place, and Manner
These regulations of expression are content-neutral. A question to ask: Did the expression occur at a time or place, or did the speaker use a method of communicating, that interferes with a legitimate government interest? For example, distribution of information should not impede the flow of traffic or create excessive noise levels at certain times and in certain places."
Emily, since many of your supporters list SCOTUS decisions supporting gun advocacy, I would gather these are acceptable as legal limitations to the first amendment as you have summarized as well. I would also gather that if Emily and SCOTUS can see the wisdom in these limitations to the first amendment that the possibility of SCOTUS limitations on the second must be possible as well.
Nicely done Emily, nicely done.
And ps: why couldn't a woman hold her own on Hackettstown Life? I would have never ever thought differently.
mistergoogle again you are way off base, especially with your comment stating:
"Oh Emily, are we really going to debate whether a 100-round clip or 10-round clip will be more successful against a full on assault by the US Armed Forces? Just can't imagine any different outcome in the battle between either a 10 rounder or a 100 rounder versus the Army, Marines, Navy, and Air Force."
What?!?!? So, if hell broke loose and 50 soldiers were marching into Hackettstown carrying have AR-15's with 60 round mags (which are standard during traveling foot battle) and the town militia (a large group of people from right here in town who are armed and trained, like myself) also had AR-15's and 60 round mags - I bet we could take 'em down and win. Why not? We would be equally armed (as the original intent of the 2nd amendment).
So you - mrgoogle - would prefer me and my brother's and sisters to try to stave off a military overtake of Hackettstown with what? You would PREFER we only had a shotgun or an "allowed" semi-auto with 10 round mags? Yeah mrgoogle THAT makes a lot of sense!!! Can we agree that your idea is a dumb one?
"And ps: why couldn't a woman hold her own on Hackettstown Life? I would have never ever thought differently."
You missed the point MG, it's that she is 16 and OBVIOUSLY is more knowledgeable then you on the topic.
MG, I am sorry, but you really kill your point with words, aint nobody got the time for that!!!!! Try spitting it out in a few less!!!! PLEASE!!!!
I know everybody...mrgoogle can stave off a tyrannical government takeover or social unrest with a really, really big loaf of Italian bread. Or maybe a tennis racket. Or a baseball bat. I would say a water pistol but that's probably to dangerous for him -- looks too much like those real guns that have a propensity to suddenly jump up and kill people.
He wants the rest of us to be kept impotent with a little itty-bitty gun that doesn't look all scary with a teeny, tiny 5 or 10 round mag so we can't shoot to fast. That's what he and his ilk really want.
And one last thing mrgoogle... I read EVERY WORD of your diatribe and one thing stands out about your points and its that every single...EVERY SINGLE one of your arguments relates to A BEHAVIOR.
....Holmes, writing for a unanimous Court, ruled that it was a violation of the Espionage Act of 1917 (amended with the Sedition Act of 1918), to distribute flyers opposing the draft during World War I....
...“English language has a number of words and expressions which by general consent [are] ‘fighting words’ when said without a disarming smile. … Such words, as ordinary men know, are likely to cause a fight.” ...
I can copy and paste every single example you used ans they are all behaviors that are unacceptable.
A gun is an OBJECT so show me cases where OBJECTS were banned (other than child porn - which is actually a bad behavior) and then we can talk.
" I would say a water pistol but that's probably to dangerous for him"
No worries, in time the government will ban those too!!
Emily,
MG is giving examples of speech or expression that are limited despite the first amendments, and you discount them bc they are "behaviors"? And instead want him to provide examples of objects? How is that logical? How are objects relevant to to specific question of the limitations on free speech?
If you can't see the difference then I can't help you Gadfly. Also, the 1st amendment had limitations to keep from inciting "fights" and "hate." limiting guns does nothing to help anybody. Limiting my ability to slander you or cause a riot in a public venue is for the good of all. How does your idea to make all my 15 round magazines illegal and make me go buy new, smaller ones help you or anybody else?
emily is SIXTEEN?!?!?!?! I'm bursting with pride like a father..... maybe there is hope for the future of this great country after all....
So first there's an anti-gun politician in RI that tells firearm enthusiasts to, quote, "Go F*** yourself"...
Now, a very anti-gun state senator in California has been arrested for... wait for it... illegally selling guns in cahoots with organized crime. Maybe he wants to make guns illegal to jack up the black market prices that line his pockets.
http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2014/03/daniel-zimmerman/breaking-anti-gun-california-senator-leland-yee-charged-gun-running/
And people question why we doubt the morality, ethics, and ulterior motives of anti-gun legislators.
Also note... the illegal guns were imported through NEW JERSEY... how ironic. Wonder who is on the payroll here.
Wow. Unbelievable (meaning, TOTALLY BELIEVABLE)!!!
Fear the government that fears your gun.
Amazing that Emily is 16 years old with such a wealth of knowledge and can certainly debate and hold her own!! Perhaps a child prodigy?
I'm extremely impressed...good for you Emily!
I can learn a lot from you and I'm more than twice your age. Lol
Thank you very much, but I don't need you to explain the difference between objects and actions. MG was demonstrating a point that was contested earlier, about limitations on the first amendment. It stands to reason that allowable limits on one right has some bearing on whether their may be constitutional limits on others. Now, you can choose to not be dissuaded by that argument. But you cannot deflate the argument by saying that the limitations on free speech are not valid bc they are not objects, which of course is absurd.
many of the posters here could learn from emily, i hope they do, she has been spot on re: the purpose of the 2nd amendment.
the 2nd amendment is not an anachronistic outdated relic from a more primitive time. it is as valid and important today as it was when it was written.
When any of these free speech limitations ban specific words, whether you intended to speak them or not, thrn you can claim equivalency.
Until then, banning the misuse of speech (where it *actually harms another* such as slander/inciting panic) is not the same as prior restraint on the right to keep and bear arms. We have laws addressing the misuse of arms (where it *actually harms another* such as murder/assault) and generally those laws are not contested by anyone here.
Edit: I guess they're trying to chip away at the first amendment in the same way... no surprise Feinstein also hates guns (except the one she carries concealed).
http://www.westernjournalism.com/feinstein-first-amendment-special-privilege-right/
I did not, anywhere in my writings say the limits on free speech are not valid -- as a matter of fact, just the opposite. They are very valid because each and every one of them is for the greater good (not incite a riot, not slander someone, not say something that could cause a mass panic, etc) which is always a good thing. What I DID SAY is that they are not applicable. The reason they are not applicable to the gun argument is because starting a riot is dangerous and stupid or slandering someone's name (which is not the same as complaining about someone) should obviously never be done -- HOWEVER, that has nothing to do with gun control because my having a 15 round mag (as opposed to a 10 round) or an AR-15 does not affect anyone else in a negative way.
I ask you Gadfly...have my guns and my magazines done anything to hurt or bother you? Of course not. So why do you want to take them away from me? But I can certainly see why you would not want me to find out who you really are and your address and write a big lie about you and slander your name all over town. See the difference???
One would hurt you (the slander). And one is none of your business and doesn't affect you at all (my guns and magazines) Get it?
Mark Mc.
I read further on the California Senator. It makes Jersey Poles look like pikers. Amazing story and so big and organized. Scary
That is exactly right Mark Mc. ..."Until then, banning the misuse of speech (where it *actually harms another* such as slander/inciting panic) is not the same as prior restraint on the right to keep and bear arms. We have laws addressing the misuse of arms (where it *actually harms another* such as murder/assault) and generally those laws are not contested by anyone here."...
You said it much better than I did. I was trying to say that he was comparing apples to oranges but you said it better.
The limitations on the 1st amendment are basically do no harm, ie: no slander, incitement, etc and nobody could argue that those limitations are wrong. They do NOT limit HOW MANY words you say or HOW MANY syllables the words you use can have or HOW FAST you can speak.
The limitations on the 2nd amendment should be exactly the same, do no harm, ie: no murder, injuring another, etc and nobody could argue that those limitations are wrong either. They should NOT limit HOW MANY guns you can have or HOW MANY rounds it can hold or HOW FAST it can shoot.
If Gadfly and mrgoogle want to compare the two THAT's where the comparison is.
Old Gent, I'm curious who is involved in the gun smuggling operation from NJ.
You don't just schedule $2M worth of rocket launchers and machine guns to randomly arrive at a local port from the Phillipines without having someone here to grease the wheels.
I'm sorry Emily but your logic is flawed. The 1st ammendment protects speech, an action or behavior. Examples were given on limitations to those actions. The 2nd protects ownership and possession. Limitations on ownership and possession are therefore exactly analogous to the limits provided for the first amendment. I'm not sure how to make that any clearer.
Such is the slippery slope... progressives will proclaim that just because there are *some* limitations on the 1st (which they can't accept only affect the use of that right against another) that justifies *all* limitations on the 2nd (even when it describes something that may affect someone's possessions at home where no others are present).
Mark,
I'm not trying to justify *all* limitations on 2a rights. In fact, I'm not trying to justify *any* limits on 2a rights. I'm simply trying to demonstrate that it is theoretically possible to have one or more limitations on 2a rights without violating the constitution, which seems to be more than any of you are willing to admit.
I have no Idea Mark.
Who knows what is in all those containers in the port.
I was more concerned with the Senator and who dose vetting anymore. We know nothing about our President. They were all fooled in Calf. All that counts is MONEY. Any sweet talker can raise money and the best tongue wins it seems. They promise one thing and do another. The population sold their sole for a promise of something for nothing. If they have a conviction they loose. With all the dirt that go's on who needs to get involved and have their family destroyed.
I am waiting for some one that cares about the future of this country, not today.
Gadfly, I accept that there are limitations on the 2nd Amendment right to bear arms. I can't intentionally shoot you without consequences (except for self defense). I can't intentionally cause panic by brandishing a firearm in public (actual brandishing, not holstered open carry).
Things like that are the only logical equivalent to the limitations on the 1st, which are very few, very specific, and limited to quantifiable harm/damages against other individuals. Not potential harm... not icky words... but actual, active misuse of the right.
"I am waiting for some one that cares about the future of this country"
With young adults like Emily (and hopefully some of her friends) that vocally support liberty, freedom, and personal responsibility over the illusion of a government safety net and training wheels for real life, there may be hope...
Rather than debating the legality of restricting rights of constitutional amendments, and saying "because you can't yell 'fire' in a crowed theatre, you also can't own certain weapons".... let's cut right to the ENTIRE POINT OF THE 2ND AMENDMENT:
The purpose of the 2nd Amendment is to ensure the populace remains sufficiently armed to overthrow a tyrannical government, if necessary, just like was done in the Revolutionary War. Like it, don't, not my problem - but that's the fact. I suspect some of you find the prospect of a 2nd Revolution "too scary" to consider, and would rather disarm the citizenry than risk such a confrontation. You are wrong. You are also in disagreement in HOW this country was founded. Back then, you would have been called a loyalist (I wonder if that thought doesn't make you feel all warm and fuzzy inside.)
That's it. That's the purpose. Overthrow of the govt. as a last resort. Now, I'm not saying anyone WANTS such a thing (you'd have to be nuts), but that's the WHOLE POINT: we have the 2A in hopes that the THREAT OF IT is enough to keep the govt from becoming tyrannical. We don't want to ever have to USE 2A, and neither does the govt want us to... which is why they are taking the "teeth" out if it, year after year. Remove that threat (through ever-encroaching gun control), and the govt walks all over everybody. Read your history. The founders were smarter than you are.
Think of 2A like car or homeowner's insurance: you never want to use it, but you're damn glad it's there if you ever NEED to use it.
"which seems to be more than any of you are willing to admit."
this is not true at all, just another slide by dig at those who disagree with your personal take on things. can't seem to stop doing that, can you? or can you?
emily1, mark and darrin and JR are correct about this, the restrictions on the 1st are different in character than those being suggested on the 2nd.
the reduction in clip sizes, the banning of certain semi-auto rifles (and soon semi-auto pistols will added to the 'common sense controls' on firearm restrictions, it's already been discussed in several state legislatures) are fundamentally different than someone who chooses to use the word 'Fire' in a public theater setting thereby setting off a panicked stampede. the individual choses to use the word in a public setting and is held accountable and responsible for their actions. these gun bans affect everybody, (the law abifding citizens) and it is different fundamentally. If i act irresponsibly with a firearm (let's say a .22 single shot rifle) i will be held individually accountable for my lawless actions. it's not the rifle that is to blame, it is me. do you think there should be a prohibition on .22 caliber rifles because of my actions or should i be held individually responsible? same thing with the word 'fire'. the word is not banned, but my choosing to use it in a theater setting is.
huge difference, not nuanced, but logically easy to see the difference, not illogical as claimed above (incorrectly)
it stops here , and it stops now. no more compromises on the 2nd amendment provisions.
the rabid anti-gunners (most of whom have never owned or used firearms) out there will never stop coming for more and more restrictions.
that's why we are saying "it stops here , and it stops now" no more compromises on the 2nd amendment provisions"
notice the use of the phrase 'no more', that implies logically that there is admission that there are some restrictions already in existence.
btw, who is funding the trips for the parents of the sandyhook victims? they are being shuttled all over the country. NYC, Trenton, Virgina, Colorado, and elsewhere. who is funding their plane fares, paying for their meals and hotels? they have been used as pawns in an attempt to pull at emotional heart strings to get more and more senseless 'common sense' restrictions on firearms. I feel badly for any victim of gun crimes, but as already been stated, there are laws about this already. and they should be enforced, fairly and more importantly, consistently.
there is nothing to fear from a gun that is in the right hands.
nothing.
Shazam! Well said JeffersonRepub!! It's so frustrating trying to explain this over and over and over and over again.
It makes me sad to see so many people -- even people here in Hackettstown, possibly my neighbors, like mrgoogle and Gadfly -- that just DON'T UNDERSTAND the intent and purpose of the 2nd. When they start going off on "limits on freedom of speech" and "mandated car insurance" and other nonsense it becomes hard to even have a debate when the person you are debating 1) does not know the true history behind what they are debating, 2) does not know the original, intended PURPOSE of what they are debating, 3) is going on feelings and emotions instead of facts and truth and 4) starts going on about saving children from being shot and then make up crazy numbers about all the kids who "shoot themselves accidentally" (bunch of BS as even the federal government's own numbers don't support that premise - and they HATE that American's have guns and would be screaming the numbers if they were bad).
Yes indeed, Emily knows more than most. However, when she says: "What?!?!? So, if hell broke loose and 50 soldiers were marching into Hackettstown carrying have AR-15's with 60 round mags (which are standard during traveling foot battle) and the town militia (a large group of people from right here in town who are armed and trained, like myself) also had AR-15's and 60 round mags - I bet we could take 'em down and win. Why not? We would be equally armed (as the original intent of the 2nd amendment)."
Emily, with all her knowledge, believes the second amendment has the original intent for the government and private citizens to be equally armed. It does not say this.
In her example, if memory serves, with all things being equal, odds go to the defender.
However, her example is pure flippin fantasy. If there is a government takeover, they will not come at you on an equal footing ---- ever.
Lastly, Emily's example counters the famed conclusion offered up regularly by the gunnites. That is that for mass murderers, clip size does not matter because a deranged lunatic with mental health problems can change a ten-clip mag almost as fast as shooting a 100-round LCM. Therefore, according to the gunnites, reducing clip-size offers no change to firepower. Apparently, for Emily, a well-trained, well-regulated militia-person can not do this and MUST have equal clip size. I guess clip-size matters to the militia but just not to mass murderers.
It's a fantasy example with erroneous conclusions that fly in the face of what the gunnites have previously posted.
"I know everybody...mrgoogle can stave off a tyrannical government takeover or social unrest with a really, really big loaf of Italian bread."
Jesus took on Rome with loaves and fishes.
Emily, since the first amendment covers all forms of speech, objects of communication are included also. It's clearly stated in the SCOTUS decisions noted in all those words above.
" limiting guns does nothing to help anybody. Limiting my ability to slander you or cause a riot in a public venue is for the good of all."
That's because guns at a public venue don't cause riots, people waving and shooting guns at a public venue cause riots. What a riot Columbine was.
Wait, there's more. Let's go to the tape and check the rest of the world to see if limitations on guns help anyone.
Why yes it does.
Matter of fact the top safest gun states in the US also have the toughest gun laws. Conversely, the ten more dangerous gun states have the loosest gun laws. Go figure.
Excellent analysis on the whole ridiculous "you can't shout 'fire' in a crowed theatre" defense:
http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2013/11/foghorn/second-amendment-yelling-fire-crowded-theatre/
...and an excellent summary posted by a reader:
I equate gun ownership restrictions not with being constrained from shouting “Fire” in a crowded theater, but rather with having your mouth duct-taped shut on the way into the theater because you might shout “Fire.”
"However, her example is pure flippin fantasy. If there is a government takeover, they will not come at you on an equal footing ---- ever."
Ah, the famous "but the govt has tanks" defense. (which, by the way, could have also been used in the Founders' time, as the British forces were much more heavily armed than the revolutionary forces.)
Some more interesting reading (I did not write it):
From time to time, we see variations of comments like this one, pulled from one of our Facebook posts:
Curious, I do not care if people own guns, each their own, but people say we should own guns to keep the government in check. How does a gun help against a rocket fired miles away, a drone or airplane flying overhead, or a massive tank driving through your house?
It’s a fairly common question, and it deserves an answer.
The simple answer to the question is “assymetric warfare.” Smart fighters don’t put their troops in front of the enemy’s best weapons. They use their best troops against their enemy’s week points, and exploit those weak points mercilessly.
In the hypothetical event that the federal government attempted to impose tyranny upon the citizenry of the United States, it would likely trigger the largest insurgency that the modern world has ever known.
Despite all of our awesome technology, we stink at fighting insurgencies.
We lost in Vietnam. We won the conventional war against the Iraqi military easily, but we didn’t defeat the insurgency. We’re losing Afghanistan, and our leadership has no intention of fighting to win.
All of these insurgencies have been overseas, where the supply lines were long, but relatively well-protected. The producers and supply chain itself were never threatened.
In the event of an American insurgency, it wouldn’t be a straight-up fight of partisans with rifles fighting against regime tanks, helicopters, and drones.
It would be a war where “killing” a fighter jet occurs by assassinating aircraft mechanics, or burning the homes of employees of the companies that make crucial replacement parts. It would be a war where every elected official, government employee, and skilled worker in the supply chain would be a target, every day of their lives.
In short, it would be a nasty, brutish conflict full of atrocities with no battle lines, no rear areas, no retreat, and little chance for government forces to survive over the long term.
As long as the American public outguns the military—and they do by more than 90 million firearms—no sane government would dare turn on the American people. That is the reason it is so important for the citizenry to jealously guard their Second Amendment rights.
better to have the 30 round clips available in a fire fight with a better equipped army than just grandad's ole' double barrel shotgun. i mean it gives you a better chance, correct? they may still have the edge but you have a better chance with the semi-auto rifle with the 30 rounders in them yes? why disarm the law-abiding?
again, the Afghanistanies have successfully held off the 2 most mechanized high tech armies in the world (the USA and Mother Russia) for over 25 years running just by using small hand held and carried arms, some of them left over relics from the 1st world war. very successful indeed.
so it can be done, because it has been done, and it is being done right now.
this statement is quoted from above - "believes the second amendment has the original intent for the government and private citizens to be equally armed. It does not say this."
what does it say then?
where is all the money coming from that funds the trips for the parents of the sandyhook victims?
Where?
They are being shuttled all over the country. Washington DC; (multiple times) NYC, Trenton, Virgina, Colorado, Arizona, California and elsewhere.
Who pays for airline tickets, meals, lodging, other transportation. who pays for proudcing the slick handout materails they distribute to lawmakers and news people?
Looks like they are being used as pawns for a political agenda. who is telling them where to go and what to say? who is funding all of this activity?
the real goal is a complete ban, followed by confiscations. that's when they will stop, when everyone is disarmed and has no right to own or possess firearms of any type.
that's the goal. we need to stop this now, and right here in NJ.
kill the bill in the senate, and then support NJ's CCW statute,
So mrgoogle says..."Emily, with all her knowledge, believes the second amendment has the original intent for the government and private citizens to be equally armed. It does not say this."
Um...what about this then?
The court notes one of many reasons for the militia to ensure a free state is "It is useful in repelling enemy invasions” (p.24). What is also protected are " weapons in common use by the military OF THE TIME" (p.55).
Yup...that's what it says.
This doesn't mean weapons in common use “at that time,” meaning the 18th Century!! It says OF the time. Again I repeat myself...Maybe you should READ the original documents BEFORE you say something really silly? Or not...I can keep going into the founding documents and cutting and pasting for you.
Yes folks, this IS the intelligence of our citizens. Most don't even know this stuff because in school they only read the article and not all the Congressional notes that went along with it. I blame the schools for people like mrgoogle.
I love reading all these comments. It sounds like our founding Fathers. In the end they got it right. It's to bad this is not discussed like this on the major media but, it is in the general population. The Media is afraid of the thinking citizens just as the Government is, thanks to the 2nd amendment. The insurgency's are sometimes successful, but not with out weapons. Governments that clean them out have no fear of change.
"I equate gun ownership restrictions not with being constrained from shouting “Fire” in a crowded theater, but rather with having your mouth duct-taped shut on the way into the theater because you might shout “Fire.”"
The question is not about equivalency of the limitation but on the Constitutional ability to place, via law, limitations on Constitutional rights including the Amendments. And there the law is clear; limitations can be put in place. The first amendment example just proves it in fact. There are other limitations on other parts of the Constitution as well.
Equivalency of the limitation is not the question. The gunnites just want to change the question to fit their contrived answer.
" I blame the schools for people like mrgoogle."
Emily - don't underestimate mistergoogle. He knows and understands *exactly* what the 2nd Amendment means. He just doesn't like it.
He'll claim that he's not against "all guns"... just the following (if I understand his long history correctly)
* He wants bans on magazines over a certain capacity (10-15 rounds, definitely less than 30)
* He wants bans on so called "assault weapons"
* He wants tougher storage laws in the home
He claims this will significantly reduce gun deaths, but then he posts statistics that include ALL gun deaths. Not just those above 10-15 rounds, or by "assault weapons" or accidental deaths. His data includes people killed by the first bullet, from a handgun or shotgun, or those who commit suicuide (and would just as soon tie a rope around their neck of they couldn't find a gun).
He does this because the number of people killed by the 16th or 31st bullet, from an AR-15, or accidentally is so small that it wouldn't elicit the same emotional response. The only solution to the problem he presents is a complete and total ban on firearms (assuming that would magically work), but he claims he's against that... such an enigma this mistergoogle...
The progressives have put so many limitations in the Constitution that this is the last defense of any Freedom left. That's why we are so concerned.
Emily,
Obviously that is not from the second amendment.
What SCOTUS decision are you referring to?
I would gather the first citation referencing page 24, is from the SCOTUS Heller decision and I see nothing wrong with this. The actual text reads:
"There are many reasons why the militia was thought to
be “necessary to the security of a free state.” See 3 Story
§1890. First, of course, it is useful in repelling invasions
and suppressing insurrections. Second, it renders large
standing armies unnecessary—an argument that Alexander
Hamilton made in favor of federal control over the
militia. The Federalist No. 29, pp. 226, 227 (B. Wright ed.
1961) (A. Hamilton). Third, when the able-bodied men of
a nation are trained in arms and organized, they are better able to resist tyranny."
However no one is discounting the right to have a well-regulated militia. Also, that is by far not the main conclusion of Heller, just part of the opinion. But we'll give you the obvious even if you didn't source it to the pro-gun blog you pulled it from.
The second one that refers to page 55; which refers to the Heller SCOTUS decision. However, even from the pro-gun blog, you just happened to leave off the important part of the text that you pasted from (you really should source it) which reads : "A full ruling has not been made, as this was not in the scope the court was asked to rule on in the D.C. vs. Heller case, but they left the door open for future ruling." Un oh --- BUSTED
And Heller, while affirming the individual's right to bear arms, actually opened the door for legal limitations as well.
And if is not the second amendment, but a SCOTUS decision about the second amendment.
True Old Gent... and don't forget, just because there are other limitations on Constitutional rights doesn't mean we are just blindly accepting all of those as well.
The chipping away, over and over, taking a little bit here and a little bit there, has finally gotten to the point where a lot of people have had enough (not just for guns)...
mrgoogle...PLEASE answer me one question...
If the Constitution meant for the citizens to be armed, without infringement and to the extent that the military of the time's capabilities, to fend off a tyrannical government or an invasion from foreign enemies...
My question to you is (and I am serious - I want to understand) why WOULD you want to limit that? For what reason EXACTLY?
Whenever I get in a debate with someone who is for gun control of any degree, they never explain WHY SPECIFICALLY they hold that particular view.
WHY do you want me to have to turn in my 15 round mags and purchase 10 rounders instead?
WHY do you want limitations on the "type" or "caliber" gun I can have?
WHY do you think the 2nd amendment should be changed?
I just read through every word you have said on this thread going all the way back to your first post 2 weeks ago and I found a lot of arguments on WHAT you think should be done but NOT ONE REASON WHY.
I really am trying to understand WHY the gun control folks even want my rights infringed. Please explain, if you can.
Its plain and simple, more laws, when the new laws don't do a damn thing to fix gun violence...make more laws....repeat until total confiscation occurs....and then wait there is still gun violence..... HOW SO????
Look, Nj is already at 15, the same excuses to take us to 10 will then take us to 5, then to 1, then to none...why some people cannot see this pattern is beyond me.
Darrin, I don't think anyone here is arguing for a 10 round limit. So, who are you arguing with?
"Emily - don't underestimate mistergoogle. He knows and understands *exactly* what the 2nd Amendment means. He just doesn't like it."
Yup. And that goes for the others as well.
Don't like it? Gather enough public opinion to force a constitutional convention and REPEAL 2A... if you can (of course, gather public opinion thru all of their "if just one more child's life is saved" diatribe is EXACTLY what they have been doing.)
And let's not forget... it IS possible for SCOTUS to be WRONG. They are not Gods, they are not infallible. They are driven by political leanings, just like all politicians. Once again, if you want to get into the debate of SCOTUS and what they have done over the course of our nation, read Men In Black by Mark Levin, himself a constitutional attorney.
Great reading suggestion. Another great one is Liberty and Tyranny also by Mark Levin.
Still waiting for mrgoogle's explanation on WHY he wants what he wants.
Still waiting...
Waiting...
I go back to school on Monday so hopefully by then?
You know the answer emily... it's all based on "feeling". They "feel" this is the "right" thing to do. Emotions. For the children. Save just one life. How many more. It takes a village.
("save the children": unless they are UNBORN children of course; but I digress)
The government and it's ever-encroaching laws will NEVER keep you 100% safe. Ever. Life is danger. Danger walking down the street, danger driving in your car. Danger going to work, or the mall, or to school. It's simply LIFE. And the inherent danger in existence cannot be legislated away. A "cradle to grave" society is not possible.
I wish they would stop trying to make it so. It is a fool's errand. For in the end, even if they "get their way", people will still be dying... in cars, in pools, walking down the street, in bombings, in shootings...in abortions (but I digress). The danger of life will never end. And "minimizing" the danger has already been as achieved as is possible (of course this is where all the opinion comes in, obviously they disagree).
But, before we start confiscating guns, I'd sure like to hear their side scream about so many other killers..... tobacco, drugs, automobiles, drowning, the list goes on and on and on.... and includes abortion (but I digress again, apologies.)
And, on re-reading my post, to add:
They are being used. They THINK they are "trying to save lives". Their elected representatives sell that story. When in reality, they are pawns in a larger game... the govt is not interested in saving lives, only in disarming the populace for ultimate control. The gun control "nuts" (if I should be allowed to use their own language against them) are being used. And they aren't even clever enough to realize it.
JR - It's very interesting you should first bring up Mark Levin and then go on about "feeling" and the emotionality of modern politics. Levin and his friend Robert Bork were the ones to create the methodology of "Original Intent" in order to by pass Constitutionality in favor of their own view points. To the tune of even demanding an over turn to something as Constitutionally set as Marbury vs Madison. Levin is the one to urge his boss Ed Meese to put Bork up as their nomination. The book is a treatise on how to dismantle the Constitution, not how to protect it. To the point he insinuates Thomas Jefferson didn't even want a federal government as strong as the Articles of Confederation let alone the Constitution. He clearly demonizes Hamilton, Madison, and Jay for the Federalist Papers (because he promotes dismantling federal government), and uses that as the original argument *for* activist judges based on what they feel instead of what the Law (ie Constitution) says.
Emily,
I am no fan of Mark Levin either. On the larger out look I believe they are afraid of Freedom and taking responsibility for there own lives. They are happy to let the Government lead us like a big brother. As JR says' "The government and it's ever-encroaching laws will NEVER keep you 100% safe. Ever. Life is danger". It will own you like a slave in the end. My Faith is in the Lord through Jesus.
Levin's positions on constitutional matters and original intent are based on study of the founder's works and words; I have done quite a bit of this study myself, not on his feelings or opinions. The whole point is to discover what the FOUNDERS feelings and opinions were on something.
Now, if you don't like what they did, and want to change it, fine. They put in place a method to accomplish that: constitutional convention to amend the constitution. But, it's easier to leave the constitution alone (ignore it) and simply pass laws/infringe rights, change rights and laws from the bench through "interpretation" of original intent.... that way, while the govt is changing things constantly, but slowly, the constitution itself isn't actually being touched... giving less cause for alarm from the people. AND they are using feelings and emotions ("its all for the children") to get us to willingly cede our inherent rights... we WANT the govt to infringe upon us, giving us the FALSE sense of more safety and security. It's a facade. Much like the old "frog in boiling water" story.
If you throw a frog in a pot of boiling water, he'll jump out immediately. If you put him in a pot of cool water and slowly turn up the heat, before he realizes he needs to jump out, he'll be cooked.
Now please- someone tell me that since the analogy is scientifically flawed (you couldn't really cook a frog that way), everything else I have said here is too. You guys do it all the time- you can't debate with substance, so you deflect.
I suggest anyone that is interested in the relationships of the liberty we inherently have, and how it has been slowly encroached on/infringed, and how the Supreme Court has played a hand in it (tho it's not all their fault- they are but one cog in the machine)- to ACTUALLY READ "Liberty and Tyranny", and "Men In Black." Instead of forming your opinion of Mark Levin based on a few soundbites you've heard over the years. Yes, he gets mad, and yes, he can be quite grumpy on the radio. But I dare you to actually READ HIS WORK and then tell me he's wrong. While YOU would still be wrong (lol) I could at least respect your opinion as being based on SOMETHING, rather than knee-jerk reaction to soundbites and what you've read about him in the liberal media.
BTW, GC- that isn't aimed DIRECTLY at you; you have obviously read SOMETHING Levin has wrote. It was aimed at anyone dismissing him out of hand.
you're still wrong tho. :)
It's not about dismantling the constitution, it's about RESTORING the constitution. The constitution, by design, was a MINIMALIST paper. Not complicated. Simple. By design. He wants the federal govt to be minimalist, as was the original intent. Do you really think the founders WANTED a large behemoth, big brother govt AFTER HAVING JUST DEFEATED ONE WITH GREAT STRUGGLE AND HARDSHIP? Keep the federal govt at bay is the PRIME REASON for the document. IDK if libertarianism existed back then, but most of the founders would be considered libertarians today.
And more evidence that the founders wanted a minimalist fed govt- some of them wanted NO fed govt at all; just a continued confederation of states. So some founders wanted no fed, some wanted a very small fed, and a couple (like Hamilton) were for bigger govt (I chalk this up to the standard disease of power corrupting: Hamilton was one of the original politicians who, from the beginning, wanted a king, a fed bank, and more centralized control over the people.)
And I'm totally with him on Hamilton- not everything he did was bad, but we have been suffering from his actions since the beginning. In the "Jefferson vs Hamilton" debate, I'm squarely with Jefferson, and I think Washington could have done a better job as president with that. But I have to cut him some slack- he did just fight and win the Revolutionary War, and he was the FIRST president- with no idea what a president is actually supposed to do. But I think you and I have went 'round on that one before.
It's all about keeping govt as small as possible, and only letting it grow as large as necessary. I'd say as a country we have failed miserably in that part of the great self-governming experiment.
Getting back closer to the topic...
These anti-gunners are "nuts" (if I should be allowed to use their own language against them)...
Angered by Georgia's pending expansion of concealed carry laws within state lines, liberal radio host Mike Malloy said he'd like to invite an NRA board member to come meet him, then shoot the board member and claim "Stand Your Ground" in defense.
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2014/03/27/Radio-Host-To-NRA-Board-Member-I-ll-Shoot-You
I see this thread has all the usual suspects the keyboard Rambo brigade they all talk a good game but very few have actually played it. Your favorite catchphrases I have a right it's in the Constitution Second Amendment. The brigade loves to throw all these words around but 99% of them couldn't actually bring yourselves to serve the country they say they love so much. And even fewer actually put their life on the line for it. I have no doubt that the Rambo brigade loves this country as long as they don't have to do anything to protect it
Helloooo....mrgoogle? ....still waiting for your enlightening explanation of WHY you want to take away my 15 round mags and my semi-auto guns and God knows what else...
Yawn......................
"Still waiting for mrgoogle's explanation on WHY he wants what he wants.
Still waiting... Waiting...
I go back to school on Monday so hopefully by then?"
My, my. And what is it that you think I want? Because it certainly is not what you think I want. In this thread, I am in agreement with the current NJ statute's 15 round max and think the new statute can not be proven to be more valuable than the current. I have said it multiple times and others have confirmed that for you and to you. In general, against 100-round LCMs, I support the common sense movement's recommended limitation to 10. However, as I have stated here, no one can prove any advantage between 10 or 15; there could be, but no one can statistically prove it. So the pending NJ law seems to be a wasted effort. And I believe the founding fathers, through the SCOTUS, a process designed by the founding fathers, allowed for limitations, restrictions, and clarifications to the amendments in the Constitution.
In other treads I have noted support for the other common sense movement's laws on LCMs, including buybacks, stricter penalties for transgressions, etc. but you can find them there, not here. And no where have I ever called for taking guns away from folks, quite the opposite, I have said that's useless. But I think we could successfully rid the US of LCMs increasing our safety as other countries have.
I have also used NJ's tough gun laws, as well as tough and loose gun laws in other states to, IMHO, prove the correlation between tough gun laws and loose gun laws in regards to gun safety for our citizens. Most of these laws revolve around background checks, not confiscation.
As to your army equivalency Red Dawn theory, I still say that's just silly. As to your Afghanistan, etc. scenario's, not one of the those country's arms have been protected by the Constitution, not any Constitution, and most often are the most God-awful lawless third-world pits of hell in the world. But if that's what you are holding up as a shining example of our second amendment......... Also, they have been able to fight what they see as their aggressors, not because of a second amendment right, but because of outside support with money, arms, supplies, and even men. So using your example, I would not rely on the Constitution, but instead I would make friends in Canada and Mexico.
Lastly, I find it so amazingly that if you don't agree with Emily and the gunnites (a new band?), it's because people who don't think exactly like Emily about the 2nd and guns:
"just DON'T UNDERSTAND the intent and purpose of the 2nd."
"does not know the true history behind what they are debating"
"is going on feelings and emotions instead of facts and truth"
"going on about saving children from being shot and then make up crazy numbers about all the kids who "shoot themselves accidentally"
"they HATE that American's have guns"
Prove it. You have until Monday.
I think that's the gist of it and glad I could summarize for you.
Emily,
If you want to have an intelligent discussion, you might want to stop behaving so obnoxious and immature.
I did not read Levin's book, My reference was from listening to him Rush and Hannity all during the Bush years defending him and claiming to be Conservative. I gave up on all of them. They have no core beliefs.
This law only makes it safer FOR criminals not safer from criminals. Also possessing any tube feed 22 makes you a felon. The real issue here is that the people who write these ridicules laws somehow got elected!
Tae111 Emily, since you're only 16, technically *you* don't have any 15-round magazines or semi-auto weapons. Unless, of course, you obtained them illegally?
Not necessarily true. Perhaps Emily hasn't always lived in NJ and she received the guns as gifts while out of this state. You needto be 18 to *buy* long guns/ammo and 21 to *buy* handguns/ammo. NJ requires FID for all transfers (not sure if there is an age requirement on that since I'm older anyway), but most states have no such additional requirements so mom and dad can easily buy little Emily just about anything.
NJ LAW
"No person under the age of 18 shall purchase, barter or otherwise acquire a firearm, and no person under the age of 21 shall purchase, barter or otherwise acquire a handgun (unless the person is authorized to possess a handgun in connection with the performance of official duties).1 Permits to purchase a handgun will not be issued to any person under age 21, while Firearms Purchaser Identification Cards (FPIC) – for long guns – will not be issued to any person under age 18"
No where in there does it say anyone under the age of 18 can use a gun purchased LEGALLY. I think at this point you are nit-picking, she never claimed owner ship of guns, just claimed a wealth of knowledge.
Nothing in this law stops her parents from purchasing guns and teaching her how to responsibly use them, which judging by her statements, responsibility has been the number one thing her parents taught.
Quit the nit picking on how people say things and stay on the topic at hand, I don;t understand why everyone always has to take a stupid forum post to the personal level!
No, but I'm the only one in the family who uses them because I am a member of the Junior 2 (J2) USA Shooting Sports Club and the National Junior Rifle Development Team. It seems you, Gadfly and your pal mrgoogle want to take the objects I USE in my sport away. Technically nothing is *mine* since I didn't purchase anything I own since I just turned 16 and just started working.
Your suggestion iphoneimal that I obtained my firearms and any accessories illegally is offensive and immature as well. Don't you know that kids shoot? Ever hear about the Boy Scouts of America Shooting Club? Those are young kids who are learning to become marksmen. They don't technically *own* their guns either, but they all have them. Why do you think they make small guns, pink guns (for little girls) and beginner guns? I didn't *purchase* my furniture in my room either but that doesn't mean I don't consider it *mine*!! Ridiculous.
Also your comment...
Emily,
"If you want to have an intelligent discussion, you might want to stop behaving so obnoxious and immature"
What's obnoxious and immature? That I am waiting for mrgoogle to reply? I asked him a simple question and for someone who is on here so much, he seems to have suddenly clammed up. Since he has said how interested he is in the subject and how fine he would be to take away my ability to use my weapons as I see fit - it seems very strange that all of a sudden when asked a real question he shut's up.
Personally I think he doesn't have an answer.
And by the way...why do you feel it necessary to protect mrgoogle from a question from a dumb, stupid, felonious (I guess since I have firearms) girl? Can't he handle the heat without you coming to his rescue? Maybe I'll have my dad come on here and protect me from all you mean, obnoxious anti 2nd amendment types.
Nah, I can hold my own. Too bad mrgoogle needs someone sticking up for him and calling me names for him.
MG say:
" I am in agreement with the current NJ statute's 15 round max and think the new statute can not be proven to be more valuable than the current"
then in the next SENTENCE:
" I support the common sense movement's recommended limitation to 10. "
Then in the next sentence
"However, as I have stated here, no one can prove any advantage between 10 or 15;"
Mistergoogle, I am sorry, but MAKE UP YOUR MIND!!!! What you just stated, in those three lines, is why everyone is COMPLETELY CONFUSED about your standings....you argue on a NJ bill to limit gun magazines from 15 round to 10 round forum and bounce your beliefs back and forth, seems to me like you need to fight either one side or the other, because until you can make up your mind, you are just creating confusion.
Me, I like a 50 caliber machine gun ... mounted on my boat. Why can't I have that?
"Your suggestion iphoneimal that I obtained my firearms and any accessories illegally is offensive and immature as well. Don't you know that kids shoot? Ever hear about the Boy Scouts of America Shooting Club? Those are young kids who are learning to become marksmen. They don't technically *own* their guns either, but they all have them. Why do you think they make small guns, pink guns (for little girls) and beginner guns? I didn't *purchase* my furniture in my room either but that doesn't mean I don't consider it *mine*!! Ridiculous. "
I didn't suggest that you did; merely presented the only possible way you could "own" them. I assumed that they legally belonged to your father. As for the furniture in your room, I'm unaware of any legal age requirement for owning furniture, so you can safely say that they are "yours". Just keeping the "facts" straight... my comments have nothing to do with anyone else's posts.
And the other comment you attributed to me wasn't mine at all. And for you to call me anti-2nd Amendment means you haven't been paying attention. I'm as fiercely pro-Constitution as anyone on here. Completely agree with just about everything you've said on here in defense of the 2A. You just got a little ahead of yourself from a legal standpoint. That's all.
Sorry -- I meant to direct the last part about sticking up for mrgoogle to Gadfly. In my haste I omitted that. My bad.
I find it very refreshing that a young women is so knowledgeable about a serious subject. She is concerned about her freedoms being chipped away at a very young age. She is looking out for her future! That's a good thing we all can agree on. She enjoys guns, she enjoys shooting them. I for one have NO right to take that freedom away from her, nor should anyone else. I hope for her sake she will be able to continue to enjoy her passion when she turns 21,31,41,51,61,71,81,91 and hopefully 101. You go girl!!
auntiel "Emily,
If you want to have an intelligent discussion, you might want to stop behaving so obnoxious and immature."
When you can't debate the topic, assassinate their character. Deflect.
From Bloomberg News
http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2014-03-25/how-to-understand-georgias-guns-everywhere-law-four-blunt-points
Here is a good one for you. Anti-gun California state senator busted for illegal gun trafficking. This is the stuff the media does not want you to know about.
http://www.nraila.org/news-issues/articles/2014/3/fbi-arrests-anti-gun-california-senator-on-firearm-trafficking-charges.aspx
Darrin:
Yes, I could see where a nuance might escape you. If you read way, way farther up there is much more detail the first time I mentioned it, but the word --- compromise --- comes into play for my feelings about the current 15-round law. Plus the fact that a statistical difference between 10 and 15 will not be proven in our lifetimes.
I tried to shorten it this time since Emily requested a do-over.
the rabid anti-gunners (most of whom have never owned or used firearms) out there will never stop coming for more and more restrictions.
Darrin wrote:
"Here is a good one for you. Anti-gun California state senator busted for illegal gun trafficking. This is the stuff the media does not want you to know about."
I just did a Google News search on this topic. There are currently 1560 stories on this topic. How can you possibly claim that media not want us to know about this story? Do you have something to back up that statement? Or are you just repeating something you heard from Rush?
Gladfly, Since you have nothing to say about the topic you decide on picking on how the poster posted it. Nice try but I don't play that game.
the rabid anti-gun-nutters out there will never stop asking for more and more restrictions, more compromises,
many of them have never owed or used firearms their whole lives, but are perfectly fine in not asking, but demanding 'common sense' givebacks from gun owners.
they won't stop until all of us are completely disarmed, that's the goal
it's stops here, and it stops now, kill the bill in the senate that limits magazine sizes
Game? It seems you're playing the game, and I'm just pointing it out. More than 1500 stories online, and you want to claim the tired conservative storyline, "the big bad liberal media doesn't want us to know about this". The only question is whether you actually believe it yourself. I think you do.
the wording of the 2nd amendment and SCOTUS rulings do support emily1's postings.
The 1939 SCOTUS decision rejecting the sawed off shotgun because it is not a weapon typically used by the armed forces indicates strongly that the court would be accepting of the individual to have an individual right to keep and bear weapons that are typically used by the armed forces.
this is correct of emily1 to point this out.
i have advocated for decades that all young americans (both men and women) be expected to complete two years of service to their country, and to learn how to use these weapons, and be familiar with them.
i think it would be good for our country to do this.
Hey Gadfly...If the media wanted us to know about these things why are they not mentioning them? You have to dig deep to find all these stories and articles and it takes time and effort to find out what bills are doing in the various stages of passing/failing. You have to go to Trenton and sit in on the meetings to find out what's going on and share it on various sites.
But yet we get 24/7 about what diet Angelina Joli is on or how high Justin Bieber's alcohol level was when he got pulled over. I have yet to turn on the news (any news -- cable or local channel stuff) and see anyone talking about this. I don't know why -- you would think that changing an article of the Constitution of the United States wold be a little more important than J-Lo's latest break-up?
Bottom line if they wanted us to know about it they would MENTION IT! No?
Emily,
There are more than 1500 stories online right now about Leland Yee. How can you claim they are "not mentioning it"? Go to any major media source and search for Yee. There is widespread coverage. And yet Darrin claims the media doesn't want us to know, and you're backing him up. How can you take that position despite the mountain of readily available evidence to the contrary? Do facts even matter to you?
Go to NBC News and do a search on Leland Yee. You'll see all the articles they have about it.
Here is a link if you want.
http://www.nbcnews.com/search/Leland%20Yee
BD
"i have advocated for decades that all young americans (both men and women) be expected to complete two years of service to their country, and to learn how to use these weapons, and be familiar with them."
Israel & Switzerland do it. They are defensive ,not proactive Country's like us.
it's because the msm (which includes nbc) is about 80% registered Democrats and they take care of their own while at he same time holding republicans and conservatives to a different standard,
can't believe how many liberals are blind to this, and it's an epidemic of one sided reporting by cbs, nbc, abc, nyt's, Washington post, la times, Chicago tribune, most of the local affiliates, and a whole host of other biased , partisan outlets that i don't have time to list out for you.
they are loaded with 8 out of 10 employees who have a personal stake in promoting democrats at the expense of republicans.
it's way past time to get real
and most of them are fervent, emotional driven, anti-gunnites who have an agenda to keep pushing out more and more firearms restrictions claiming 'common sense'.
appalling, just appalling.
Gadfly...you just MADE my POINT! Thanks. You wrote...
Emily,
".....Go to any major media source and SEARCH FOR YEE (capitols mine). And yet Darrin claims the media doesn't want us to know, and you're backing him up. How can you take that position despite the mountain of readily available evidence to the contrary? Do facts even matter to you?
Trust me Gadfly, when the media wants us to know something - like Moochelle's latest comment on what we should eat, they don't make us SEARCH FOR it. The mere fact that I have to SEARCH for this very important information says it all. Most Americans are too lazy to SEARCH for anything. If it's not right there on the 10 o'clock news, right after the Kardashian's or the Bachelor, then they don't even know about it.
If you think the average American is SEARCHING for info on the Constitution you are crazy!
"i have advocated for decades that all young americans (both men and women) be expected to complete two years of service to their country, and to learn how to use these weapons, and be familiar with them."
Sounds like one of those well-regulated militias. I would favor this as a pre-condition for individual gun ownership, and voting
Actually the court did not say "armed forces" in Miller in 1939, but used the terms from the second amendment; "well-regulated militia." Since then, both gunnites and anti-gunnites have claimed victory because of that.
Anti gun because Miller clearly indicates the government's authority in rejecting legal challenges to federal firearm regulations. They criminalized shipment of a sawed-off shotgun across state lines because it was against federal regulations.
Gunnites because they feel they should be granted access to any arms for efficiency or preservation of a well-regulated militia unit at present. However, the court actually said: "we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument." which is not exactly a compelling confirmation.
In other words, you can have your guns and regulate them too but this gun, which many feel the military use on a regular basis, is not necessarily guaranteed by the second amendment, was federally illegal to ship across state lines and thus, a criminal act.
Of course since the case was remanded by SCOTUS back to Federal District Court, one can say that Miller never really decided anything.
However, in Lewis, in 1980, the court used Miller when it concluded: "Further, the Court reaffirmed the position first established in U.S. v. Miller that "the Second Amendment guarantees not right to keep and bear a firearm that does not have ‘some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia’" (ABA) While this open the "reasonable relationship" door, it also re-established the Federal Government's right to limit firearms outside the scope of the second amendment.
However, in Heller, in 2008, "While the decision ruled that the ban of handguns in Washington, D.C. is unconstitutional, it stressed that certain regulations are legitimate. In addition to limiting the type of firearms that can be owned, the decision also upheld prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and laws imposing conditions on the commercial sale of firearms." (ABA)
Certain regulations are legitimate. Prohibitions limiting the type of firearms that can be owned are legitimate. Hmmmmm.
Now that said, if you follow the regulations and pay the tax, you can own kind-of machine guns, rpgs, lots of cool stuff, but not really military grade. Anything with explosives is hard to get, even if you can fill out the forms, stand the checks, and pay the taxes. So, close, but no cigar.
And the people have the right to regulated, limit, and tax, upheld by SCOTUS. And if you feel under the heel of government jack-booted thugs now, wait to you hand in that application for your almost-mil-spec toy.
Emily,
You continue to say things that are patently and demonstrably false. I'm not sure if it's because you care more about "winning" an argument than what is true, or if you just can't be bothered to try to verify what your saying. Or both?
The Yee story is still on the front page of every major paper in CA today. It received much wider coverage around the country when the story actually broke.
MrCharlie2...I don't recall reading ANYWHERE in the Constitution where there were "pre-conditions" to owning a gun. The owning of the gun was a right. They "asked" all able bodies men with guns to "join" a militia, it was not a prerequisite nor should it be.
Also the well regulated militia was totally apart from the military -- they were supposed to be ready to FIGHT the military if necessary.
PLEASE PEOPLE READ AND LEARN BEFORE COMMENTING!!!
Man this is crazy! I honestly had no idea how little people actually knew about the 2nd and the Constitution. It's downright scary! I sort of knew my generation was clueless...but adults?!?!?
FYI
The American Citizenship Quiz. There are 100 Questions and you need 58 right to pass. I got 89. Most of what I got wrong pertained to Music which is not my strong point. Try this for the privilege to Vote.
http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/2011/0104/Could-you-pass-a-US-citizenship-test/Who-signs-bills
"Man this is crazy! I honestly had no idea how little people actually knew about the 2nd and the Constitution. It's downright scary! I sort of knew my generation was clueless...but adults?!?!?"
It's not all their fault.... the public education system in this country has been taken over by libs decades ago, and indoctrination has been going on for as long... and it's far worse on college campuses. You believe what you are told in school, because school is supposed to be teaching the TRUTH - the WHOLE truth- that hasn't happened in a very long time, with regards to the founding, the Founders, and the founding documents.
Gladfly, you have certainly taken over for MG's absence......maybe I was wrong by saying it was not being covered....is that what you want to hear???? Jesus get off you high horse already. You are like a annoying child who never grew up, and to think you had the courage to tell emily she was immature? ?? Astonishing really!
I will say it again, if your childish side chooses they would rather piddle amongst how statements are made as opposed to staying on topic take your comments elsewhere and let us adults have a conversation.
The point is that anything anti gun is spread for weeks, months and turned into a story it never was. I dont have the time or patience to read through all the 1500 arcticles you claim to be on google, but I assure you they are different from each other, maybe suddel or maybe huge, but my point has been made, that news wants you to believe what they want. And I assure you the only reason they are making a story of it is because the illegal guns part, they most likely are not focusing on the fact that he was against guns all together.
Lets watch and see if we see this story all over the tv for months like the anti gun stuff has been, I bet not!!
I also ask, why is it that people that have no interest or common knowledge of a topic always choose to get involved to to nit pick on how things are said, are you really that board? Either get a life or educate yourself on the topic.
Funny Darrin. You make a very inflammatory statement of great political importance, "this is the stuff the media doesn't want you to know about". I prove that you're wrong, and for that, I'm childish.
Maybe you don't understand why that statement is so important to current political debate. Maybe you should consider why you accept this conservative storyline as a universal truth even, as in this example, when all evidence is to the contary.
On the contrary the childish statement was based off your forum posts before you even chose to direct them my way, I have been watching your posts, your claimed to not have a concern with the topic at hand but continued to harass everyone on the forum with you left field statements that had more impact on the person posting then on the topic we are all concrened about. I said I was mistaken, i based my statement off the medias past, which every single knowlegeable person on this forum can vouch for me on, yet you want to keep going......what is it you are seeking because you have added not a bit of valuable info to this post.
Forget it Darrin, Gadfly is off his meds or something. I don't know what happened to mrgoogle, but I think he has slunk back under his rock.
I go back to school Monday so I will have to miss all the banter, but this has been the most educational week I ever spent. This was a real eye-opener and it really gave me a good sense of how little people like mrgoogle and Gadfly know about the issues. It kind of scares me to think that we have come so far -- from the founding fathers to some of the people on here.
I am going to try to talk about this stuff (the 2nd and gun rights and the Constitution) at school (if I can) because I really think it is unfair how the public (government run) schools keep us so uneducated and naive. Some teachers are more tyrannical than others but there are a few (very few) teachers who are truth seekers and truth tellers (although most of them not in the classes, usually outside during talks or during after school clubs, etc).
It's almost like the Liberal/Progressives try to shut down and scare the liberty wanting, America loving, Constitution understanding, individual rights seeking people by making us look like fruitcakes. I am personally going to do whatever it takes (in my own small way) to fight them by educating myself and fighting their emotionalism with American history.
Oh, and one last thing...they ain't getting my (well, my fathers - since I don't actually own my guns...) firearms without one hell of a fight.
Emily,
I am still you're huckleberry. And I did respond to all your questions; you still have till Monday to launch your response.
Meanwhile, if you refrain from the rudeness, it would be appreciated. I know you think that anyone who does not agree with you is stupid, but that just is not so. Nor do they slink, live under rocks, or any of the other rude things you conjure up.
Be careful Emile. Schools and society in general are very touchy, feely these days. Today you can get your family in trouble for your actions. Free speech is not as free as it used to be. May God bless you as you journey onward.
jd2 "The point is that anything anti gun is spread for weeks, months and turned into a story it never was. I dont have the time or patience to read through all the 1500 arcticles you claim to be on google, but I assure you they are different from each other, maybe suddel or maybe huge"
"they are different from each other" Yeah, what are you smoking. I would bet hands-down they are mostly exactly the same.
And you gunnites have one of the most prolific PR machines in the world, the NRA. They can place a story whenever they want to so give me a break.
And Peppy Lepew can turn up at a girl scout meeting just to buy cookies and the press will be all over him.
And you have zero governing agency. You guys print BAD news, let it cycle for a turn, let it get trashed for being false, and then 8 months later print the same proven-false piece again and start the cycle all over.
You are so downtrodden, newsworthy speaking. Yeah, right. Give me a break.
Darrin and Emily,
It's clear you believe that an intelligent discussion is comprised a few people repeating soundbytes they've picked up from their favorite conservative websites and radio shows, and patting each other on the back. Anyone who disagrees are childish, harassing, "know nothing about the topic", and add "not a bit of valuable info".
You should try to broaden your minds a bit. Even if you disagree with people, it's hard to have an intelligent discussion, and impossible to have a productive debate, without disagreement.
I don't get ANY of my info from whatever you are talking about. I don't listen to talk radio - I listen to my music on my iPod and we don't own a TV. The only time I ever see TV is at friends houses. I Don't know what your talking about conservative websites either. I do Facebook and that's about it.
I get my information from reading the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, The Declaration of Independence, The Articles of Confederation, The Federalist Papers, The Gettysburg Address, The Virginia Plan, The Homestead Act of of 1862, the Monroe Doctrine, etc.
I would say my mind is pretty darn broad. Would you like to discuss/debate any of the important documents above with me? I bet you can't.
And it is obvious you know nothing about the topic, just by your statements that contradicts what's in the documents you are pretending to have any knowledge about.
The thing is, when you are arguing with people about a document, article, law, amendment, what have you, it really helps to actually have read and understand it first - which you obviously have not.
Maybe we can play a game and I can ask questions about the content of the above named American documents and you and Darrin and JeffersonRepub can answer and we will see who wins.
The winner(s) would be the ones who have the right to comment - the person that doesn't know anything -does not.
so go back to school emily1 and maybe when you return you may be a little less full of yourself---geeze
5catmom Gadfly, nicely said.
Sadly, most of these conversations happen with a bit too much sarcasm, emotion, and name calling, and I hope you'll reread your post and notice that it applies equally well to others posting in this thread regardless of which "side" of the debate they're on (if you get my drift). That particular posting style draws out the same in others because that's the poster's strategy - to intentionally rile up the other guy. It's best to not even go there IMO.
Thanks for the compliment JIT. Saying that someone is being immature for taunting another poster is quite different than calling people names for disagreeing with your arguments. I'm sure you would agree.
I notice that all the people on here calling names "full of myself" (5catmom), "immature" (mrgoogle), "uneducated" (Gadfly) but, funny not ONE of you has yet to say how YOU interpret any of this. All I hear is Fox News, Conservative media, Conservative blogs, blah, blah, blah.
So, I ask again (I guess that makes me immature) please give me your interpretation of the 2nd and the Constitution, and what the founders wrote in their papers. If you have a different take tell us. All I hear is put downs, name calling (getting it right back though!) and how you don't "care" about the difference between 5, 10 or 15 rounds. But we have yet to hear WHY you feel that way or WHAT part of the papers you are using to bolster your argument.
And 5catmom - I have been trying desperately to have a real debate and if you read all of Gandfly and mrgoogle's comments you wont find ONE piece of proof, evidence or law that bolsters their argument. Why don't you ask them yourself?
Pretty bad when an adult calls a kid names like that too. Bet if a teacher said some of those things to your kids you'd be at a lawyers office!
Emily, I think you'll find that you're confusing criticism with name calling. I also believe you are incorrect about me calling you "uneducated".
emily, like I said in a previous post, your wealth of knowledge at your age is very impressive, but throwing insults just cheapens what you are trying to say.
Being respectful towards others even if they disagree is a sign of maturity. I'm sure you will get there one day.
Just advice from someone much older, not insulting you. :)
Gadfly, I understand. If you recall, I've allowed myself to get entangled in these discussions from time to time ;)
IMO either case results in closed-mindedness because of the offense taken by the target of the comments. Like I said, it's best to not even go there, which I think is why most of HL's participants stay away from this kind of thing (the truly intelligent among us lol). It's hard to discuss something intelligently when it's certain to devolve into a playground scuffle.
Well. I have tried. Maybe I am just stupid because I have read every response from mrgoogle and Gadfly and maybe it's just me but I still don't see any answer/example/law, amendment or anything that supports their opinions.
I get that people have different opinions and I respect that - if they are based of fact - but what I get really frustrated with is this type of thing where people say things like they "don't care" about the size clips and then say "but they should be smaller." Or, say what their "opinion" is regarding what a militia is by just going on their "feelings" and refuse to show where in the founding documents someone said anything to support that opinion.
I have been on here a week now and I see a lot emotionalism (from myself included), opinions, feelings and stubbornness (from myself included) but not a lot of knowledge of the Congressional Papers, The Constitution and other important documents that SHOULD govern what we do today in regards to the 2nd amendment.
I guess I get my dander up because as Americans we all SHOULD know this stuff and it frustrates me to no end that most don't.
I also find that people will not just admit they never read some of this stuff and can't say they don't really know when it is painfully obvious that they don't. Instead they say things like "you got that from FOX News." That's when I tend to lose my cool because um...no I got it from our founding documents.
I feel statements like that cheapen our country and put down those who make the effort and take the time to learn our history - about guns or anything else - because it seems like it should be important to all of us.
I guess that makes me "full of myself" (according to 5catmom).
I sincerely hope we never NEED the 2nd amendment militia but if we do, I see at least a few people here in Hackettstown who will will be trained and ready. We will have to protect all the anti-gun people if the time comes even after they have insulted us for wanting to be armed with plenty of ammo.
No, you are the opposite of stupid emily! Being passionate about something is a wonderful thing, but to keep your emotions in check is quite another thing.
Don't let the opposers get to you, I think they like a good debate and that's what you have given them.
I think everyone on here is in awe of you... don't let your emotions and ego get in the way.
Emily just turned 16, I cant understand what the problem with maturity is......she is 16!!!! Obviously she has some growing up to do, but after reading posts by gladfly, it has become obvious we all do, so get off the personal level and get back to the topic at hand!
When Emily says "I notice that all the people on here calling names "full of myself" (5catmom), "immature" (mrgoogle), "uneducated" (Gadfly) but, funny not ONE of you has yet to say how YOU interpret any of this" I think she might be mistaken. I don't think I have called her immature, can't find it. Perhaps Emily, since you are the offended, you might point out the error of my ways where I called you this. Thanks.
Also, when Emily says: "That's when I tend to lose my cool because um...no I got it from our founding documents." which she likes to repeat like: "I get my information from reading the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, The Declaration of Independence, The Articles of Confederation, The Federalist Papers, The Gettysburg Address, The Virginia Plan, The Homestead Act of of 1862, the Monroe Doctrine, etc."
However, when Emily posted: "The court notes one of many reasons for the militia to ensure a free state is "It is useful in repelling enemy invasions” (p.24). What is also protected are " weapons in common use by the military OF THE TIME" (p.55)." apparently she did not follow her own truths although it "looks" like she is citing SCOTUS cases. She did not write this.
Actually she plagiarized this from PolicyMic and did not attribute it to the source. http://www.policymic.com/articles/24557/9-things-you-didn-t-know-about-the-second-amendment. While it was copied, PolicyMic is a really cool site and the material is good. But this is still not Emily's own work from the original documents that she likes to tout as the only way she gets er done. The article is an op-ed piece by PolicyMic.
PolicyMic is cool though, here's a backgrounder: http://www.cjr.org/behind_the_news/even_more_interactive_news.php?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter
back to the topic, we have obviously all somehow agreed there is no proven need to go from 15 to 10 rounds, but has there been any new news on this law, or are they still putting it off?
The bill is still in the state Senate, but for some reason has not yet come up for a vote.
Last week at Christie's town hall meeting he was very wishy-washy about it when asked.
Seems he "doesn't know" when it will come up for vote and "doesn't know" if he will veto this if it makes it to his desk. I am hoping that since he vetoed three gun control bills last year he would do the same with this one.
I don't get why he won't just say what he will do.
OMG mrgoogle.. I did not get that from PolicyMic (never even heard of it!) but where do you think they got those quotes from?
I am not going to even respond anymore because you seem to want to parse words, argue and criticize instead of sticking to the VERY important issue at hand (at least for me and a few others on this site).
Darrin is right. Wasting time arguing about the United States Constitution keeps getting us off the topic that is very important to me and many of my co-Patriots in this country. Let's stick to how we (those of us who want to) are going to fight this or deal with this if it does pass. And how we are going to stop the slow, but steady encroachment on our 2nd amendment rights. That's the main thing.
Fighting with mrgoogle and Gandfly just really wasted my time, their time and aggravated everyone on this site (sorry I let myself fall in the trap, my bad) who are concerned about the ever-strengthening anti-gun lobby, who want real answers to this slow loss of our freedom.
I will control my urge to respond and stick to the original intent of the post. Sorry, Darrin, for devolving and messing up your discussion.
"I don't get why he won't just say what he will do.
Because you don't show your cards in poker until the hand is over.
The bill is still pending a vote in the Senate, but it has been delayed until some time in April.
Nope it originated at PolicyMic and someone plagiarized it from there. You did not do your own work as you said and you did not attribute it to PolicyMic or wherever you copied it from.
And I am surprised that JR, Mark and your other cheerleaders have not voice in. Generally we take unattributed copy/paste as pretty serious. One reason is that it violates the originator's intellectual property and this can put the site at risk for all of us. Another is that it is just a low class thing to copy someone else's work and claim credit for it.
As to where PolicyMic got the info, they actually attempted, poorly but they did attempt, to source the data to the actual pages in the original documents, Consitution, SCOTUS, and otherwise. You did not.
As far as getting back to it, I have posted my summary as you requested and have sourced most, if not all, of my points to other documents. For the limitations discussion, I used mostly SCOTUS decisions or documents describing those decisions. If you don't " don't see any answer/example/law, amendment or anything that supports their opinions." that is a choice but the citations are there.
Of course you have also chosen not to respond to any of the queries I posted for you.
Emily don't be sorry, I myself should not talk I Am the number one person To get into these heated discussion on the Bergen tool topic. It seems no matter where you go people are more interested with how you say stuff that the actual topic at hand. Happens to me all the time. you can't blame someone for being emotional for what they truly believe in and quite frankly I feel it is a great quality. I have actually Learned a great deal from your postings and am very impressed with your knowledge.
Emily1;
im gonna point this our to you before the googler posts his typical 'BUSTED' diatribe,
this is quoted from your post a few days ago
""It is useful in repelling enemy invasions” (p.24)"
a google search on that links directly to this page :
http://www.policymic.com/articles/24557/9-things-you-didn-t-know-about-the-second-amendment
looks like the information is from them, or least it is duplicated on that page, maybe some others as well, not sure about that.
you are correct though,. and the gun-banners on here are wrong about the 2nd amendment, it is an individual right, it does include the weapons of the day, and it is for the defense of the people against invasions as well as tyrannical governments.
the right of the people to keep and bear arms also cannot be abridged in a quid pro quo policy consideration having to do with balancing individual rights with murders, deaths and/or other crime control, the right is enumerated in this way to be taken out of these otherwise worthwhile 'policy' debates.
Seems to me that mrgoogle and Gadfly spent an enormous amount of time trying to prove they are smarter than a 16 year old.
As for the vote, I am hopeful that cooler heads will prevail and this will never get through and if it does I am hoping Christie will veto it. I agree that he has been very "wishy -washy" on this lately, which makes me wonder, but I still remain hopeful nevertheless.
I really don't even get why this would be up for vote. What the heck is going from 15 to 10 rounds going to do for anything. Seems like just another stepping stone on the path to total gun confiscation. Not to mention make millions of law abiding American citizens instant felons with the stroke of a pen.
BobG "And I am surprised that JR, Mark and your other cheerleaders have not voice in.
You know where I stand on the actual original topic. Emily seems perfectly capable of defending her *method* of debate.
"As far as getting back to it, I have posted my summary as you requested and have sourced most, if not all, of my points to other documents. "
So you admit there is a possibility that you have done the exact same that thing you're trying to crucify Emily for? Got it.
BobG,
"Seems to me that mrgoogle and Gadfly spent an enormous amount of time trying to prove they are smarter than a 16 year old".
LMAO
They lost, they were taken to school.
Darrin, some of us have a problem with the "emotional" approach because of the way our brains tend to discount opposing facts when we are emotionally invested in something. Why do you think news outlets like MSNBC and FOX are so successful? It's because they go for the emotional jugular, drawing in people who feel passionately about what they believe and are thus inclined to agree with the positions being peddled without questioning the facts supporting the views they present. I think when Gadfly asks for "intelligent discussion" what he/she is really asking that we treat each other respectfully (IOW, keep our emotions in check) and without the usual name calling and sarcasm that tends to come with the passion of our positions. Think about it for a moment: It's almost impossible to have an open mind with someone who is intent on insulting you, isn't it?
Because we are all different, having different personalities, life experiences, predispositions, etc, it will forever be impossible for all of us to agree on anything. My personal views come from understanding that fact, which leads me to my perspective of individuality, freedom, and personal responsibility. Nearly every position I take is from that perspective.
Ask yourself what is your "baseline", and where does your perspective flow from? Then ask what is the baseline of others? Finally, remember that one's mind will not change unless they are willing to self-evaluate their own perspectives. Will insulting someone ever cause that to happen?
Oh, the humanity! There are three lines taken directly from Policymic.
Here are two, taken from different sections of the Policymic article:
****The court notes one of many reasons for the militia to ensure a free state is "It is useful in repelling enemy invasions” (p.24). What is also protected are " weapons in common use by the military OF THE TIME" (p.55).*****
Then, presumably Emily's own words:
"Yup...that's what it says."
Then, back to Policymic:
********This doesn't mean weapons in common use “at that time,” meaning the 18th Century!! *****
Then, Emily's words, in which she explicitly claims to be sourcing "founding documents":
"Again I repeat myself...Maybe you should READ the original documents BEFORE you say something really silly? Or not...I can keep going into the founding documents and cutting and pasting for you."
the article is based on the founding documents and subsequent court decisions,
and emily1 is quite correct in her assertions, so don't overlook them in your ocd haste to cast critical stones of hypocrisy:
the 2nd amendment, it is an individual right, it does include the weapons of the day, and it is for the defense of the people against invasions as well as tyrannical governments.
the right of the people to keep and bear arms also cannot be abridged in a quid pro quo policy consideration having to do with balancing individual rights with murders, deaths and/or other crime control, the right is enumerated in this way to be taken out of these otherwise worthwhile 'policy' debates.
JR - "it's about RESTORING the constitution". I completely understand that and the others things you said as a philosophy. In many ways I agree with most of what you said. But what I disagree on so much that your "it" is in no way Levin. That's one of the most dangerous things about the book. He doesn't discuss Marbury vs Madison just as a matter of big vs small government. He doesn't do it even in the arguments for and against states rights vs. federal government which was what many of the original writings were about. Instead he questions why the Supreme Court was allowed to have the job determining Constitutionality, go so far as to out right question why the Supreme Court should even be allowed to exist. To him the only thing he could think of was rubber stamping the Executive.
That's not exactly a position done out of the blue - Levin was supporting a strategy for his boss Ed Meese to have that job. That includes the strategy to eliminate Miranda as well as support the seizure of assets without return before issuing a warrant. Meese felt that was unnecessary "technicalities". If you want a serious insight into how Levin, Meese, and Bork are all anti-Consitutional it's how they wanted to undo the Fourth Amendment.
If all of the things you stated are what you want, then Levin is nor your guy.
open both eyes, all of them at once, the left eye, and the right eye
the two of them when opened together will give the most balanced view of the world around you
Can everyone agree that *all* of the founding fathers believed freedom and liberty were the foundational elements of our new government, and that the Constitution was intended, as a whole, to preserve as much freedom and liberty as possible while still providing for a limited form of government to meet the needs of our society? If so, recall the definitions of freedom and liberty. Not our personal version of them, but what the words actually mean.
This entire discussion is really about how much freedom and liberty we want our fellow citizens to have based on our personal views. When put in the context of the perspective of why the Constitution was written, 15 vs 10 round clips is a ridiculously irrelevant discussion. Even more disconcerting is the desire to have the government control every little aspect of our lives, as that most definitely was not what was originally intended. Quite the opposite, actually.
this is beyond sublime and well past ridiculous - might be fun to send the whole thread out for critiques........preferably to history teachers - hmmmmm - might be a concept
are there trees in the forest?
you can't know for sure with only one eye opened. open both of them to see more.
when officiating sports, i hate it when a coach only sees half of the game. when his players get fouled he yells out 'call it both ways Ref', and when his players foul the other team? (crickets) His silence is deafening and quite revealing. he is only watching half the game, not seeing the other half of the game at all.
this is bad, no?
the 2nd amendment, is an individual right, does include the weapons currently in use today, it is for the people to defend themselves from invasions and tyrannical governments, maybe even their own government.
the right of the people to keep and bear arms is not to be infringed by considerations in policy debates. It is an enumerated right , that is part of our inherent beings, (the right to self defense) and this right should be taken out of other worthwhile 'policy' decisions.
and while i cry and grieve for them, (and i do, trust me) it is hard to understand that the 27 victims in sandyhook should not be part of the debate on which guns are allowed or not allowed. as noted by others, reasonable 'regulations' can be (and are) created and enforced, but regulations should not get to the point of abrogating everyone's inherent rights to self defense as enumerated in the 2nd amendment which prohibits the federal government from infringing on. (outside of that which is needed for a 'well regulated militia') btw, this includes popular weapons of the day (AR-15's with 30 round clips, and many other's etc)
it should be noted that you can legally own artillery pieces, anti tank weapons, BAR's, anti-aircraft guns, and other light and heavy weaponry, etc, there are many events with these weapons held around the country that have many active participants. you can own tanks, no rule against it, you can own half tracks and other armored personnel carriers,
why disarm the citizenry? for what purpose? (answer: control is the only answer)'
feel good, do nothing legislation proposed by lawmakers who in many case have never owned or fired a weapon in their entire lives, is wrong,
it stops here, and it stops right now.
no more compromises.
BTW 5catmom, most history teachers don't know this stuff either. They teach out of the history books that distort the facts to fit the liberal agenda. If you go through my World History or Western Civilization books you can easily pick out many, many lies, half-truths, misinterpretations and outright propaganda. So many parents have no idea what their kids are being taught in school. I think you would be surprised.
"this is beyond sublime and well past ridiculous"
Interesting observation 5catmom. I agree for the most part, but since you just posted that maturity can be found in the "fantasy" thread, the one that is 100% for fun but has zero basis in reality, it's kind of hard to read the above comment without chuckling a bit. ;-)
emily, we had revisionist history as children as well. The difference today seems to be that everyone assumes that the sole source of a child's education is the public school system. That's impossible, and in fact not even desirable. Everyone should be expected to seek out information and not just be content with it being delivered to them through a controlled and mandated education system.
That's true justintime. So many parents don't even look at what's in their kids school books or ask what the teachers are saying to them.
My parents had a bunch of friends over and somehow they got on the subject of what kids were "learning in school these days" and my dad asked me for my history and English book and was showing the other adults some of the stuff he found. They were all totally shocked. After everyone left, my parents were talking and saying how they couldn't believe that nobody even knew all the "errors and omissions" (as my mom calls them) that we are being told as 100% truth. There are even outright mistakes - but if it's in the book the teachers just go with it.
Oh jeez...hope I don't start another angry firestorm again!
Speaking of revisionist history btw, the person you are "debating" with emily, the one who called you out for not attributing your work correctly, has his own history of not being completely forthright about the subject matter he posts:
http://www.hackettstownlife.com/forum/301655#t302492
http://www.hackettstownlife.com/forum/300100#t300308
http://www.hackettstownlife.com/forum/435905#t436416
http://www.hackettstownlife.com/forum/190127#t200712
Sometimes a bit of humility should be exercised when criticizing others...
Ha, justintime... good catches. I knew he did that but didn't recall exactly which threads they were in...
Can someone say... BUSTED!
JIT said:
"This entire discussion is really about how much freedom and liberty we want our fellow citizens to have based on our personal views."
BINGO.
What I still find ironic, and I hate to keep bringing it up, but I do see it as totally morally relevant- is that (in general) the anti-gunners want to take away your right to own guns because they *MIGHT* end up killing someone, someday, somehow. Yet they want to retain the right to kill an unborn baby in the womb... which is taking a life, right here, right now, no maybe about it. They even worry about SUICIDE with legal weapons, yet don't worry at all about what amounts to murder in my eyes (abortion.)
I find that moral conflict indefensible. Until someone can be pro-life, I frankly have no interest in their thoughts on rights of any other nature.
I'm sure that'll piss a bunch of people off, but I don't care. The moral conflict is indefensible, except with the "I should be allowed to do what I want to do with my own body" defense (which is really only HALF a defense in the first place, since their are TWO lives involved)... but if they feel that way, they should be 100% FOR suicide and euthanasia. To be morally un-conflicted.
SO, I guess if someone is pro-abortion, pro-suicide, and pro-euthansia, at least they would be consistent, which would at least be something I could respect.
emily - Where do you go to school? I can tell you that's not how students at WMRHSD are taught history. In 2005 one of WMC's history teachers was awarded the National History Teacher of the Year award.
http://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/news/releases/2005/10/20051014-11.html
JR, that's why I find it funny when people try to label me as an extreme conservative or a right wing nut-job. I'm not very religious, I'm pro-choice, and I have no problem with gay marriage, but I also think the government should get out of the business of telling us how to live our lives and providing wealth redistribution and hand-outs to every Tom, Dick, and Harry that asks for them.
I know you and I probably have vastly different views on some of those topics, and obviously strongly agree on others. Where we seem to stand out is that despite our potentially differing views we both "agree to disagree" and we strongly oppose people who try to forcefully impose *their* views onto *all others*, regardless of which side they're on - which is what things like gun control are really about.
Heck, despite our potential differences we managed to hang out in person, heavily armed, and both of us managed to have a good time and walk away smiling - which is more than I could predict for some other personalities on here.
Mark,
JR says, "until someone can be pro-life, I frankly have no interest in their thoughts on rights of any other nature".
You are pro-choice. So, JR is not interested in your thoughts on rights. I'm glad this does not bother you and you both can still have a heavily-armed good time together! :-)
Doesn't bother me at all. My beliefs aren't contingent upon him being interested in them, and until either he or I use our beliefs to try and infringe upon each other's rights (through the threat of armed government agents) we can still manage to have fun shooting together despite people thinking guns + disagreements automatically means one of us going to become a murderer.
I agree with JeffersonRepub. Even as a young female I am strictly pro-life because I believe that life begins at conception. Even more importantly, my favorite cousin was conceived in the violent act of rape when my aunt was only my age. She decided not to fight evil with more evil and had carried cousin Becky and kept her - and are we so happy she did not abort her - she's one of the best people I know! Every Thanksgiving my aunt has a few glasses of wine and makes her teary eyed speech about how Becky was a gift that God just gave her in a strange way.
Obviously cousin Becky is fiercely pro-life too and she tells all the pro-abortion people exactly how she feels when they pull out the "what about in the case of rape" card. Boy, you should see their faces - it's priceless!
Actually being pro-gun is also being pro-life because it is about PROTECTION from bodily harm (at least for me) and protection from Tyranny (which reduces my chance to pursue LIFE, liberty and happiness).
Protecting the unborn from abortions and protecting myself and my neighbors from harm - it seems like pro-life all around to me.
JIT: I am so happy you keep a scrap book; I am flattered. The first one is not plagiarism, it's just a lot of my typing as I stated. Sorry, it's all me babe. The second is not either, the flippin source is listed and linked. So you are batting 500.
Yes early on, your examples are 2 and 4 years ago I made some mistakes and you all corrected me. Apparently you feel what was not OK for me is A-OK for Emily and that was my point. Worse yet, Emily boldly states she only uses original documents as she plagiarizes from secondary sources, a bit more egregious that dropping some quote marks and a citation.
When you all spent days in thread upon thread questioning my very character for lack of a quote mark, I took it to heart. Just appears that you are not equal in your ire when the offender agrees with you.
But that said, BDog is right when describing the second as illuminated by SCOTUS cases: "it is an individual right, it does include the weapons of the day, and it is for the defense of the people against invasions as well as tyrannical governments." And yes, given you pay the fare, pass the tests, and follow the regs you can get almost anything (except explosives); however, most are still not mil-spec. Plus, what B-Dog leaves out is the other part of the SCOTUS decisions illuminating the right to provide limitations on rights guaranteed in the Constitution. It's the other side of midnight........
As far as Emily arguing about the pending NJ law, not sure who she is fighting with; everyone seems to agree. As far as her mish-mosh of other arguments, since she has opted NOT to respond to my request and queries instead continuing to launch invectives, I honestly am not sure where she is coming from except that if you don't agree with her you get labeled as less than competent and called a bad name. Hopefully she has spilled all her venom before returning to school, that would be nice.
"(in general) the anti-gunners want to take away your right to own guns because they *MIGHT* end up killing someone, someday, somehow. Yet they want to retain the right to kill an unborn baby in the womb... which is taking a life, right here, right now, no maybe about it. They even worry about SUICIDE with legal weapons, yet don't worry at all about what amounts to murder in my eyes (abortion.)"
Just not true, sorry.
Is mrgoogle one angry dude or what? Sheesh! Is there anybody on this site besides Gadfly that you haven't blasted? If we are all such dumb, plagiarizing, FOX news watching (not!), dangerous people who are just seconds away from becoming the next mass murderers with our "arsenals of dangerous weapons," why do you keep trying to - I don't know what exactly - prove how smart you are? What's your point exactly? Does anybody know? I don't even understand what you are fighting about anymore and what question? Did anyone see a question?
Oops, darn it! I said I wasn't going to engage with Mrgoogle anymore. Meh, I succumbed...
"it should be noted that you can legally own artillery pieces, anti tank weapons, BAR's, anti-aircraft guns, and other light and heavy weaponry, etc, there are many events with these weapons held around the country that have many active participants. you can own tanks, no rule against it, you can own half tracks and other armored personnel carriers,"
Umm, BD, is it legal to keep this wonderful ordnance operational ? A BAR would suit me fine, but I some how doubt uncle would approve.
BTW, do you know milspec ?
Emily, fyi, from about 1776 to 1916-17 the militia WAS the army, or at least the bulk of it. Think Saratoga.
"Umm, BD, is it legal to keep this wonderful ordnance operational ? A BAR would suit me fine, but I some how doubt uncle would approve."
Absolutely legal...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hEo8yRiDU0w
But the BAR's got nothing on privately owned mini-guns (amongst others).
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zpgY8hA_zdk
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7kUKwfM3CDY
I should have been a little clearer... my comments were made in regards to the issue we are discussing: constitutional gun rights, or any constitutional rights for that matter.
If someone thinks it's ok to take a life through abortion, but it's not ok to own a firearm that *might* *someday* take someone's life, I am not interested in their views on anything, because they are being morally dishonest. Mark, for example, believes people have the right to make BOTH those decisions for FOR THEMSELVES. That's my point: either people can make BOTH those decisions for themselves, or NEITHER. Any other opinion is morally conflicted, and therefore invalid (imo)... it would simply be "this is what *I* want, I don't care what you want" (JIT's point above that I quoted), It would not be an opinion based on any sort of logic or moral consistency. (whatever your morals might be... pro-delf-decision or anti-self-decision).
Of course, none of this even touches on the fact that a firearm can't kill anyone, and that owning one does not mean it, or it's owner, will kill anyone..... quite the opposite, in fact, in the MILLIONS, as far as statistics go. So, frankly, it's not even a direct comparison: abortion IS death, a gun MIGHT be death (altho very very very highly highly highly unlikely).
I guess I just find it ironic that people who want to tell me THEY think I shouldn't be allowed to own a gun, or a 30-round magazine, or a semi-automatic firearm, get really pissed off when someone tells them they shouldn't be allowed to kill an unborn child.
And, while I do have personal beliefs regarding abortion, you don't see me yelling for anti-abortion laws. (altho to me they would be no different than the anti-murder laws already on the books).
"and until either he or I use our beliefs to try and infringe upon each other's rights (through the threat of armed government agents) we can still manage to have fun shooting together "
Well said, Mark.
misterg, I did not defend emily at all, I just took an opportunity to point out the hypocrisy in criticizing others when you obviously use very similar tactics. I completely agree with you that if you use the words of another they should be sourced. In emily's case, she is guilty of exaggerating her statements. Point made, hopefully point taken.
And I don't keep a scrap book, I just happen to remember BS when I hear it. Before you reply, please try to remember that you are not the only one who is skilled at "googling", and that if you are going to outright lie it's likely you will be caught.
The content of your post in the first link may have come from here:
http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/380873/Middle-Ages
I just looked again and did not see a link in the thread. If you did post it, I'm sorry but I didn't see it.
You:
"The 13th century was the apex of medieval civilization. That's the cat's pajamas to you morons. The classic formulations of Gothic architecture and sculpture were achieved. Many different kinds of social units proliferated, including guilds, associations, civic councils, and monastic chapters, each eager to obtain some measure of autonomy. But their were no teacher Unions. The crucial legal concept of representation developed, resulting in the political assembly whose members had plena potestas—full power—to make decisions binding upon the communities that had selected them. Intellectual life, dominated by the Roman Catholic Church, culminated in the philosophical method of Scholasticism, whose preeminent exponent, St. Thomas Aquinas, achieved in his writings on Aristotle and the Church Fathers one of the greatest syntheses in Western intellectual history. The peasants were really partying then --- oh boy, oh boy it was good to live in the 1200's and be part of the Renaissance fair as Goths and Romans, and Eastern/Western Europeans peons intermingled with the Mediterean peoples. It was a good time be almost anything except a non-Christian but Charely had killed most of them by then so it was pretty much OK for everyone left alive."
Brittanica:
"The 13th century was the apex of medieval civilization. The classic formulations of Gothic architecture and sculpture were achieved. Many different kinds of social units proliferated, including guilds, associations, civic councils, and monastic chapters, each eager to obtain some measure of autonomy. The crucial legal concept of representation developed, resulting in the political assembly whose members had plena potestas—full power—to make decisions binding upon the communities that had selected them. Intellectual life, dominated by the Roman Catholic Church, culminated in the philosophical method of Scholasticism, whose preeminent exponent, St. Thomas Aquinas, achieved in his writings on Aristotle and the Church Fathers one of the greatest syntheses in Western intellectual history."
The second link, yes, I see now that you had posted the link in a prior posting from the one where you had pasted the content.
The next two were 100% plagiarism without the added misterg flourish, so I'm not going to copy and paste either because they match exactly.
The third link was possibly sourced here:
http://www.newsmax.com/TheWire/mass-shootings-newtown-connecticut/2012/07/20/id/445971/
The forth link may have come from here:
http://www.sierranevadasilver.com/how-it-works.html
Is this relevant? Not really, but it does make the point that keeping an open mind and seeking information for ourselves is quite important. If we just listened to what people tell us, knowing that they themselves are probably regurgitating what someone else has said, there's a chance that misinformation will be perpetuated. Read, research, verify. Nothing wrong with that, is there?
Hmmm, it is okay to be pro-choice, but only if you are pro-gun as well? I must admit I have not seen this linked before.
"Hmmm, it is okay to be pro-choice, but only if you are pro-gun as well? I must admit I have not seen this linked before."
Considering both are pro-"government should stay out of my personal decisions" I don't find anything illogical about it.
jd2,
You're missing the point, on purpose perhaps? It would be morally opposing to value the life of someone who *MIGHT* get killed (like the children of the Newtown massacre), and restrict a person's rights (a person who has broken no laws, mind you) based on that, but then to NOT value the life of someone (an unborn child) who is DEFINITELY going to be killed (through abortion), and NOT restrict a person's (the mother's) rights based on that.
It seems to me, you should either value life, or you don't. And to take the point even further, I find it LUDICROUS that someone would restrict the rights of someone else who has done nothing wrong, but MAYBE, MIGHT, in the FUTURE, POSSIBLY, in a 1-in-a-million-shot, decide to do something wrong (kill another human being with a firearm), but NOT restrict the rights of a person to murder their own unborn child. Makes no sense to me whatsoever. In one instance, murder of a defenseless child is wrong, but in the other it's ok.
Mark:
"government should stay out of my personal decisions... as long as I don't bring harm to others"
There, fixed it for you. ;-)
A valid role of government is enforce laws that punish you for harming others, and vice versa. In this case, it would be the protection of the unborn from a procedure that would cause irreparable harm - death. So there is definitely a place for law enforcement in abortion, but that place depends on where the vague line is drawn defining when a person is, well, a person and deserving of the same rights you fight so hard for. Always a touchy subject, but one that definitely includes laws and law enforcement.
No, not missing any point on purpose. Just haven't seen anyone make the link, that's all. It doesn't really make sense to me that, if we're talking about murder, as you see it, it is acceptable (i.e. not murder) as long as you are strong on gun rights.
Oh well, enough from me on this difficult subject.
Yeah, you're twisting the point. But whatever. If my last post doesn't explain it clearly enough for you, nothing will.
mrcharlie wrote - "VBTW, do you know milspec ?"
what are you asking about ?
i know stuff for sure, but not sure if i know what you are curious about.
please provide details?
here is something i've been thinking about last few days since we have been referencing the SCOTUS miller case:
the miller decision in 1939 was made without full testimony re: short shotguns.
the court decided against miller saying that the sawed off shotgun was not a weapon that was typically used by a well regulated militia, but they were wrong about that, (and there was no evidence presented to them so that they could know about it) but in fact shortened shotguns were used extensively in ww1 in the trenches.
the fighting in ww1 was very intense and the trenches presented logistical problems for defense, the army developed and used a 'trench shotgun' to great effect, this was made by a couple of different gun makers, stevens arms and winchester, and they were shotguns with very short barrels so that you could turn around quickly in tight quarters. these days you can still get a reproduction trench shotgun although now it has a 20" barrel, in the miller case the barrel was 18 inches.
these short barreled shotguns were used by the army in the trenches, and in two world wars
today we know these as 'combat shotguns' or 'tactical shotguns' and they are used extensively by swat teams and police departments all across the country.
i think if the SCOTUS heard this case today they might very well come down with a different ruling, that indeed a short barreled shotgun is indeed a weapon that is commonly used in a 'well regulated militia'
Barrel length is interesting. At the moment, the minimum length for shotguns is 18" with an overall firearm length of 27". Not sure if the military uses anything shorter than this, but they might.
However, rifles have a minimum barrel length of 16" and the military most definitely uses shorter barrels. You can get, for example, a 14.5" barrel, but you must permanently add a muzzle brake or suppressor (flash or sound, both of which are illegal in NJ) to bring it up to 16" or else it is considered a short barreled rifle (SBR) which is subject to extremely strict NFA restrictions (fully banned in NJ), the same as fully automatic weapons (which would also apply to the sound suppressor by itself even if you didn't have a gun).
Flash suppressors are legal if they are the ONLY "evil feature" (i.e., you can't have a rifle with a pistol grip (evil feature) AND a flash suppressor(evil feature). 2 "evil features" (on a rifle with a detachable magazine) makes it an "assault weapon" and therefore "banned".
Which just proves how arbitrary those laws are...
Also, gotta love state laws that require our firearms to be blinding and harmful to hearing.
Yes, it is "evil" to supress sound, or flash, or have an ergonomically-friendly pistol grip, and of course the detachable magazine is evil incarnate...
...which is why ALL law enforcement and military have and make use of ALL those "Evil" features....
So I guess law enforcement and the military is allowed to "fight fire (evil) with fire (evil)", but we, as mere citizens, are not. We must be controlled by and allow ourselves to be harmed by, "evil."
Perhaps try hiding, with a pair of scissors?
http://nypost.com/2013/01/31/homeland-security-has-advice-for-confronting-mass-murders-scissors/
Well, obviously it means the police and soldiers are just out for murder, since that's all those weapons/features are good for.
Funny how *actual assault rifles* with all the bells and whistles are called "Personal Defense Weapons" when the government buys them, but the neutered semi-auto, typically non-suppressed, reduced capacity civilian versions are evil.
"If we are all such dumb, plagiarizing, FOX news watching (not!), dangerous people who are just seconds away from becoming the next mass murderers with our "arsenals of dangerous weapons," why do you keep trying to - I don't know what exactly - prove how smart you are?"
Did I say any of this besides the plagiarizing part? Ever?
"misterg, I did not defend emily at all" No, you did not indicate any issue at all. And after all the times, this one included, you have gone long and hard to call others on it, especially me, one would expect you to play on a level playing field. Your BS radar appears to be one of limited focus where you engage only when you dislike the author or author's message rather than provide a 360-degree scan.
You are not alone. I am always amazed generally how HackettstownLife stops and often the message is completely obliterated whenever sources are not cited. It felt cruel when it happened to me but it seems to be part of our culture, one that I did not invent but have fallen prey to a few times and so, I am surprised how many lifers want to give a mulligan on this one. Of the soft slap as you just did. Seems like a good opportunity for learning to me.
" I just took an opportunity to point out the hypocrisy in criticizing others when you obviously use very similar tactics." And that's my point. You have no problem pointing at me, calling me out for things apologized for and way long in the past, but stand silent on others with the same transgression. And to catch me, you had to go 2 to 4 years back.........and still could only bat 500. And then you redid your work. That's dogged pursuit with little compassion.
When you finally do succumb, we get a weak "In emily's case, she is guilty of exaggerating her statements." No. She plagiarized. Then she attempted to cover up by saying she only uses primary sources so it couldn't be true. There's a difference.
Whenever I made this mistake and was called on it, I stepped up, owned it, and have not (at least I think I have not) made the same mistake in years. Big difference.
Even when you go the distance of over 4 years, many, many, many, posts and then even double-check my push back, you can only half-heartedly condemn others. So, in your 4-times accusation, I tossed back two; you came back on one. So I looked deeper.
In the Middle Ages tome, I originally said in preface: "I remember a summary of The Middle Ages on the History Channel (which is where I found the text). Don't hold me to it, but from memory it went:" OK, most certainly some exaggeration but I did attribute the source albeit weakly. Not to mention that I am pretty sure this is NOT copy written given the wide usage in popular print: https://www.google.com/search?sourceid=navclient&ie=UTF-8&rlz=1T4GDIS_enUS565US565&q=The+classic+formulations+of+Gothic+architecture+and+sculpture+were+achieved.+Many+different+kinds+of+social+units+proliferated%2C+including+guilds%2C+associations%2C+civic+councils%2C+and+monastic+chapters%2C+each+eager+to+obtain+some+measure+of+autonomy.
But nonetheless, it was much, but not all my writing and I stand corrected. No apology was given since it went unnoticed at the time and like I said, I think it is allowed to be used.
Britannica itself states: "You may display, reproduce, print or download content on the Services only for your personal, non-commercial use. If you are a teacher, scholar or student, you may copy reasonable portions of the content for lesson plans, interactive whiteboards, reports, dissertations, presentations, school newspapers and for similar nonprofit educational purposes to the extent permitted by applicable law. In each case, however, you may not remove or alter any copyright, trademark, service mark or other proprietary notices or legends." I did not alter any copyright from the History channel and probably fall under the scholar for presentation category although debatable.
And we are not sure it is even Britannica: there are some many usages that I am not sure which came first. Perhaps on your next data dig into this you can determine the archetype.
So again, I fully admit that over 2 years ago, I did not source something. Whenever called upon such "exaggerations" as you call them, I stepped up, owned, and generally apologized. I did not defend or attempt to diffuse by saying "it ain't so" unless, like for Britannica, it was not so.
And yes, now, unlike you this time JIT, I call em whenever I see em because it's not only the right thing to do, but also seemingly part of that little ole culture we call HackettstownLife. That's really all I ask for here is that others do what they normally do when this occurs on our neighborhood site.
BD: Milspec is a little company in Belvidere that specializes in restoration of vintage military vehicles. Hidden behind that old mill across from S. Johnson's. Last time I looked they had a Sherman tank in the shop. I doubt that they would make anyone's tank fully operational, just driveable.
thanks mrcharlie, i did not know that, will have to stop by and check them out.
there was an original army jeep ww2 vintage for sale a few years back, it was stuck in the middle of the woods on the back roads between here and lebanon. looked like it was in great shape for sure.
anyways, the 'trench guns' used in ww1 and ww2 evolved into 'combat shotguns' used in Korea and Vietnam, and now today are 'tactical shotguns' used by virtually every police dept and swat team today.
if we are to use the SCOTUS standard set in the 1939 decision, then we must conclude that short barreled shotguns are typically used in a well regulated militia.
they should not be banned.
i'm gonna put this out there, i don't like liars, and once revealed as such, i don't care to deal with them.
there are some in this gun debate who have lied straight through their teeth, repeatedly
and, I. Just. Don't. Care. For. It.
period.
Hmmm, turns out gladfly was right, all the big media was covering the senator scandel....
http://conservatives4palin.com/2014/03/cnns-double-hypocrisy-leland-yee.html
http://m.newsbusters.org/blogs/tom-blumer/2014/03/29/cnncom-hasnt-covered-leland-yee-arrest-gets-snippy-when-challenged
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Journalism/2014/03/29/Leland-Yee-Blackout-After-Gushing-over-Wendy-Davis-CNN-Claims-They-Cover-State-Senators-About-Never
... except the biggest democratic station of them all....cnn, they claimed they would not cover the story because it was a "local crime story" any comments gladfly?
If you were to take a poll, I'd bet my life savings that more Americans know about Christie's "bridge gate" than know about Leland's completely illegal gun-running activities.
Yup, it's true, search Leland yee on CNN......and........no results!
http://www.cnn.com/search/?query=leland+yee&x=0&y=0&primaryType=mixed&sortBy=relevance&intl=false
And I don't see most of the stations saying that Leland was a big time anti-gunner......while in office either, they seem to want to make the story about the illegal gun trafficking, not the fact that he was a hypocrite.
Yee said "no one will convince me it's anything other than a joke to say that having multiple clips and semi-automatic weapons that can shoot 100 or more bullets at a time is necessary in this state or in this country, it's ridiculous (quoted from the original news story I posted)
So I will repeat what i said, and stand by it "This is the stuff the media does not want you to know about" As this is OBVIOUSLY true....why would one of the biggest news stations refuse to report this........oh that's right, because it goes against the democratic agenda they are trying to meet!
On a side note, why the hell do I have to read a essay length pity story of claimed unfairness from mistergoogle.....get some tissues and get back on topic, if you can't handle it, then LEAVE!
"....it was a 'local crime story'..."
This sounds accurate. Little or no relevance to me as a NJ resident.
Detroit: Fatal self-defense shootings up, crime DOWN
http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/crime/item/17950-detroit-fatal-self-defense-shootings-up-crime-down
Watch out, JR. All those shootings (even justified self defense and police shootings) will be rolled up into one "gun violence" statistic.
Somehow there are people that think it's morally superior to let a criminal rape/assault/murder you or your family (maybe using *only* a knife or a baseball bat) than it is to fight back with a gun.
jd2,
Once again, spinning the POINT (of fair news coverage). So- then all the major news networks should NOT have reported on "Bridge gate", because it was a "local news story"... we ONLY should have heard about that on NY and NJ local stations, right?
I feel school shootings are a local news story, they have no affect on NJ...... why do we hear about them for weeks....or even months then?
"This sounds accurate. Little or no relevance to me as a NJ resident."
Did you miss the part about how Yee planned on funneling rocket launchers and machine guns through a receiving port in NJ? Do you think those illegal guns just magically transport themselves to California from there, or maybe a few get lost (or used as payment) along the way?
cnn said it was just a local news story and that cnn as a national outlet doesn't get into covering state senators in the state legislatures.
but they went wall to wall coverage of the state senator in texas who filibustered about the abortion bill, they turned her into a hero, and they went wall to wall coverage supporting her run for governor.
cnn does this because that fits their liberal agenda, to support democratic candidates and democratic issues at the expense of Republican issues and conservative issues,
they are liars and hypocrites, just like nbc news is for the same reasons.
the liberal based national news media is invested in minimizing the negative effect of showing one of their own as an illegal gun running hypocrite. it doesn't fit their liberal agenda
"Bridgegate" is a national story because Christie has become a national figure, with presidential aspirations.
A major school shooting is too horrible to be ignored as a purely local story. But I agree it gets overplayed.
Yes, Mark, I did miss that. I still think that what this one idiot allegedly did is not very important to me. The real story may be why some on the right think it IS major.
But I can see why the gun community wants to have fun with this, okay. Fair enough. You're entitled.
So I do apologize for originally posting that statement without the time to properly gather the supporting facts before being beaned by Gladfly.....but turns out there is plenty supporting info for my statement, thanks guys.
Absolutely jd2...it is very hypocritical to not tell the whole story isn't it? They spend plenty of their time with gun stories, but refuse to post this one?
http://www.cnn.com/search/?query=shooting&x=0&y=0&primaryType=mixed&sortBy=relevance&intl=false
http://www.cnn.com/search/?query=gun%20violence&sortBy=relevance
see, huge results when you search CNN for shootings or gun violence, all mostly local stories by the way, but zero results if it does not fit their agenda. Point proven!
First, Christie is a national figure preparing to run for President; Yee is a Senator. I would not expect the same level of coverage. And Christie is a bully; he bullies the public, the opposition, and the press: the fall from grace for those of that bent is always harder (which I have alluded too numerous times here).
Second, there is some coverage:
BusinessWeek - today
Christian Science Monitor - yesterday
Huffington Post - today
LA Times - 3.30 and multiple others.
Washington Post (multiple....)
and many local ABC, CBS, and NBC TV stories.
But it does seem that a story this strong would get at least 15 minutes over a few days ------ everywhere and at least to the point we would be tired of it instead of really wanting to hear more about it. And then more coverage on indictment, major trial maneuvers, trial, etc.
I agree that there's somptin strange going on and link to the National Review's description: http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/374483/mainstream-media-runs-away-democratic-chinatown-gangstergun-controller-story-alec. Their conclusion seems valid: "Being a Democrat — even (or perhaps especially) a disgraced Democrat — comes with a lot of perks." So does being a Republican (Mitt's financial disclosures were a joke for example, Cheney shoots a guy in the face and walks......), but wrong is wrong.
jd2....
basically accusing the pro-gun side of spinning a view to meet our agenda?!?! Pot, meet kettle. But I can see why you "to have fun with this, okay. Fair enough. You're entitled."
The bottom line is this: BOTH were national news stories, but BOTH were NOT reported equally. And the CA gun-running story is EASILY a MUCH LARGER CONCERN than bridge gate was. For someone who supports more gun control, to attempt to deny that is self-delusional.
Wow jd2 - you're trying awfully hard to not see the fact that an very vocal, very anti-gun state senator, with aspirations to be the California Secretary of State getting caught running - or at least greasing the wheels - in an interstate (and actually international) gun smuggling operation is something of national significance.
Certainly not as nationally significant as some of these other stories that *are* on the front page of CNN at the moment:
"See joyful beagle, owner reunion" (with video)
"Clinton parodies wife's epic photo"
"Coach breaks leg on first pitch"
"Man flips bird and... instant karma"
"Best April Fool's pranks ever"
"Guess which celebs wore this bling"
"Sexy celebs in their 50's"
JR, I wouldn't assume that I support more gun control.
Maybe a lot of us don't spend a lot of time thinking about guns?
Mark, I would just say that since I never heard of this guy before, the fact that he is a major hypocrite and criminal is not going to register big time. If he had been someone I looked up to, that would be different, of course.
I don't watch CNN. Of course they do a lot of puff pieces to try and keep people interested.
"First, Christie is a national figure preparing to run for President; Yee is a Senator. I would not expect the same level of coverage. And Christie is a bully; he bullies the public, the opposition, and the press: the fall from grace for those of that bent is always harder (which I have alluded too numerous times here). "
MG is this something that Governor Christie has announced, or you are claiming based off what people who live in NJ think? What has made Christie a national figure as opposed to a NJ Governor?
LMAO MARK!
"since I never heard of this guy before, the fact that he is a major hypocrite and criminal is not going to register big time"
Isn't that the point of the news and journalism... to bring to light events which one may not be aware of? That's a whole lot more efficient than me searching every day for something that someone might have done (but didn't), or a natural disaster that may have occurred (but didn't).
Whether you, personally, are interested in reading the article is irrelevant and I don't fault you for not being interested. But it doesn't let the news organizations off the hook when they obviously have no qualms about publishing "local news" regarding each and every event that portrays any gun owner (or whatever other agenda they have) in a bad light.
"Christie is a national figure preparing to run for President"
I want to know the source for this, I do not believe he has once said he will be running, all of NJ is suspicious of course, but I am sure the nation has no idea
Notice fewer and fewer are able to even breathe??
Seems a couple of them have drowned...in FACTS!
[whoops... looks like jd2 removed, or is editing, his last post as I was posting my reply...]
So, to jd2, a state senator involved in illegal gun running isn't, apparently, *important*, but a traffic jam caused by the staff of (not the man himself: after all, it was "proven") gov. christie IS *important*, and big news that needs to be widely reported.
Please, allow me:
"I never said that."
We know. We ALL know what you are REALLY saying.
Now, take a deep breath!
"Isn't that the point of the news and journalism... to bring to light events which one may not be aware of?"
Yes, to bring to light *important* events. That's the crux of the problem - what's important? We're never going to see eye to eye on this. As to your concern, Mark, I can accept that you make a valid point; at the same time, I don't think things are nearly as bad as you make out.
It's statements like "the news media doesn't want you to know....." (fill in the blank) that I reject out of hand, utterly and completely. Could be true for some less-than-stellar individual organizations, sure.
Shall we stop there for now?
same thing, i just grabbed my post back too....
absolutely not jd2....
Why is it we have to constantly hear about the governments attempts to limit guns, on a federal level, yet when one of their big time supporters is found to be involved in exactly what they are claiming to try to stop, we hear nothing?
seems like the whole gun law issue has been national for quite some time now, yet they pick and choose what to tell.
Personally, I love stories about two-faced corrupt politicians who get their comeuppance. But what does Yee, a California State senator, have to do with gun control on a federal level? Seems to me he's California's problem and theirs alone. It's not like he's Feinstein or Boxer...
"But what does Yee, a California State senator, have to do with gun control on a federal level? "
Because, much like NJ, California tries to "pave the way" for federal regulation. The handguns I buy have features (some of which I don't agree with) because manufacturers had to add them in order to comply with CA's "safe handgun" roster.
Same way a lot of the automotive laws that affect the cars we buy originated in California.
What do state politics/laws/policies have to do with the same at a federal level?
Ask Clinton where his "Assault Weapons Ban" came from.... I'll give you a hint... the Sopranos live there....
Mark, that sounds more like an issue with gun makers maximizing their profits by adding uniformity to their guns than with any real power CA has over the rest of the nation. There's no law that says they can't make non-CA weapons to non-CA specifications.
Actually Mark it is at least 7 states requiring drop tests and/or various safety design features and I don't think any of these design features are new. Drop tests are drop tests and while I know that guns don't drop, people drop guns, nonetheless it's seems to be a nice feature that they don't go off when the person treats their poor gun poorly. Firing tests just ensure the gun retains performance during repeated firing. Again, not the gun's fault if a person decides to fire over and over, but seems nice that the person does not hurt himself by doing it. Certainly it's not the gun's fault if a person fires too much.
According to the law center, the design features are: "In California, as of January 1, 2006, an “unsafe handgun” includes any pistol that does not have either a chamber load indicator or a magazine disconnect mechanism. As of January 1, 2007, handguns in California are required to have both a chamber load indicator and, if they have a detachable magazine, a magazine disconnect mechanism. California is the only state that requires both a chamber load indicator and a magazine safety disconnect. As of January 1, 2010, California requires that all new
semiautomatic pistols be equipped with microstamping technology in order to be sold in California. Detailed information on microstamping technology is contained in our summary on Microstamping & Ballistic Identification." Seems fair enough for new guns, but not sure if safety features are retroactive or not; that would seem unfair.
How much do you think these safety features set you back? Can't be too much, otherwise, the manufacturer would make multiple models I would gather.
cnn said that they don't cover local stuff like this , but they did give wendy davis in Texas loads of air time coverage:
'"The difference between Davis and Yee is that Davis is a female Democrat who was standing up for a liberal cause that could help liberals gin up the "war on women" rhetoric. Yee, on the other hand, is a minority Democrat indicted on corruption charges that could tarnish the image of Democrats and liberals that CNN desperately tries to protect as one of the left's most dogged palace guards."
from Breitbart
CNN dismissed complaints that the network was not covering last week's shocking arrest of Democrat Leland Yee, the California state senator who was arrested for alleged arms trafficking and bribery, and falsely asserted that it does not give attention to state senators.
That standard did not apply to Texas state Sen. Wendy Davis, whom CNN covered relentlessly. This was long before she even considered a gubernatorial run after filibustering a bill to ban abortions after 20 weeks and make those conducted before then safer.
Viewers and readers on Friday complained that the network, just like Politico, was not reporting or discussing Yee's scandal online, and the official and verified @CNNWriters account tweeted to one critic that ignoring Yee's arrest was standard practice:
The INDYpundit @TheINDYpundit
Curious that the Leland Yee story appears nowhere on @CNN's website. What say you, @CNNWriters ?
CNN.com Writers ✔ @CNNWriters
Follow
@TheINDYpundit It's in line with us covering state senators & state secretary of state races just about never. You see another conspiracy?
In just one of many stories on CNN about Wendy Davis, the network gushed over and played up her biography--without even vetting it--after her filibuster made her their heroine. That bill eventually became law, and an appeals court upheld the law last week.
Davis also appeared on many of CNN's primetime shows in 2013 as it blanketed its airwaves and online real estate with puff pieces about Davis, the state senator, long before she was even a gubernatorial candidate.
As Weasel Zippers noted, CNN has also covered the California state Senate candidacy of Sandra Fluke and Yee on many occasions.
The difference between Davis and Yee is that Davis is a female Democrat who was standing up for a liberal cause that could help liberals gin up the "war on women" rhetoric. Yee, on the other hand, is a minority Democrat indicted on corruption charges that could tarnish the image of Democrats and liberals that CNN desperately tries to protect as one of the left's most dogged palace guards.
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Journalism/2014/03/29/Leland-Yee-Blackout-After-Gushing-over-Wendy-Davis-CNN-Claims-They-Cover-State-Senators-About-Never
me neither, never heard of them before, but please don't miss the point.
CNN covered Sandra Fluke and Wendy Davis relentlessly while downplaying coverage of Lee and then claiming that they don't do that.
looks like they do when it's an issue that fits their ultra-liberal predilections.
about 80 % of newsrooms at the big media news outlets are registered democrats, and that colors everything they choose to put on their airwaves
Sandra Fluke? Was she the woman that Limbaugh called a whore? That's the only reason I remember who she is. Not familiar with Wendy Davis either.
And that's the only reason you remember who she is BECAUSE THE MEDIA ATTACKED LIMBAUGH FOR SAYING THAT. The media didn't think it worthy of reporting that her position was that all women should get free contraceptives all the time.... payed for with taxpayer dollars; no- that's not *important*, but a radio talk show host calling her a whore *is*
Frankly, the NEWS is what they DIDN'T report, what they DID report was gossip, and OPINION of a dj. But that's always the M.O.: we must distract people from the REAL issue, so they won't pay attention to it, so let's demonize someone/something to get everybody all outraged. "watch what the right hand is doing (pay no attention to the left hand)"
I'm not saying Limbaugh's comments didn't earn him mention in the news; they did. But FAR LESS than the REAL issue SHOULD HAVE.
Here's an idea... have Rush refer to him as "the distinguished gun-running Chink from San Fag-cisco". I'm sure CNN will give it all the airtime you need.
In this specific instance, yes. But as far as some woman who has the opinion that someone else should pay for her birth control? You think that's as newsworthy as some talking head schmuck calling her a whore on his nationally syndicated radio program? I would definitely disagree with that.
Yes, I think a woman who thinks *I* should PAY for all the birth control SHE wants is more newsworthy than a dj blowing off his mouth.
The former AFFECTS me, the latter does NOT.
that's a different question,
CNN covered her campaign in California on national tv while this week saying that state Senator issues are 'local' and not news worthy to a national audience.
so which is it? (looks like it depends on what their innate biased predilections are)
you know what Ian, i got the feeling you are playing with us a little bit here. please tell me i'm wrong.
Really, Jeff.... you think the news should be full of the opinions of individuals who disagree with you? I think you'd have a hard time keeping up, lol... there wouldn't be enough hours in the day for you to watch it all. And apparently good old Limpbough launched her right into a CA political career, lol. Maybe she can run for Yee's seat. And her thing wasn't that the taxpayer should fund it, just that catholic universities shouldn't be able to deny it to their employees. Agree or disagree, I find it hard to believe that her opinion is worthy of national news coverage.
BrotherDog, playing with you in what way? Do I think that CNN is politically motivated and biased toward the left? Absolutely. Am I going to spend 10 seconds worrying about it? Not on your life. Who cares? Take it for what it's worth and console yourself with the fact that Fox is just as bad in the other direction. There is no such thing (and probably never was, as much as you'd hate to admit it) as unbiased news, as it is always influenced by the prejudices of those who present it. I think the difference is that you used to share the prejudices of all or the old school newscasters and all of the broadcasters of that era. In the 60s and 70s, tv networks were staunchly conservative, no? I wasn't watching, but I would imagine that the liberalization of network media is a far more recent occurrence than that... might have even started with cable news in general and CNN specifically, no?
"There's no law that says they can't make non-CA weapons to non-CA specifications."
Yes, but you asked how CA law affects us in NJ. I gave you an example. Don't use the tactics that others here (who will remain nameless) use to try and change the strawman argument now.
Sandra Fluke stood in front of Congress claiming she "couldn't afford birth control" at what, $25 for a pack of pills or whatever condoms cost. But she can afford Georgetown University (expensive), a Cadillac Escalade (aren't Dems supposed to drive electric cars or ride bikes for the environment?), cancelled an interview to go Hawaii for spring break and has traveled all over Europe. I don't know who the guy is who called her a whore - but I would call her a liar. They didn't see how condescending she is?
The media shows her 24/7 for months and never once mentioned something that happened at the SAME time -- Did anybody hear about the 12 year old girl who shot the guy who broke into her house at night in Dayton Ohio? No because all you saw was Fluke and everybody talking about women all needing their stuff for free.
That girl is in my shooting club. She got no press even though she shot an armed intruder who came to rape her mom (and who knows what else) because he knew her dad was away on business. She's a hero and Fluke is a liar - but the media rather hear a liar - plus a good story about guns for protection with a happy ending (especially with the hero being a young girl) isn't part of their "agenda."
we are on the same page, thank you for confirming that:
"There is no such thing (and probably never was, as much as you'd hate to admit it) as unbiased news, as it is always influenced by the prejudices of those who present it."
hate to admit it? i have said this multiple times in multiple ways here for a long time. every news story has an inherit bias in it. from every source, i have always maintained that position, you and i agree on this point
" I think the difference is that you used to share the prejudices of all or the old school newscasters and all of the broadcasters of that era. In the 60s and 70s, tv networks were staunchly conservative, no?"
i don't agree with this, they always leaned left, but you are correct, it is much more pronounced now. and i have never shared the prejudices of the old school newscasters. i was raised to be fiercely to be my own individual, period. a free man like the vikings were. (and some still are)
i did vote for McGovern in 72' because nixon broke his promise from the 68' campaign, he said he would end the war in Vietnam in four years, he didn't do it and i voted the other way. McGovern was a good man with intelligence and a balanced platform. I always have wondered what the 70's would have been like if we had elected him president. It could have been a much better decade than it turned out to be.
i voted for carter in 76' because he was a navy man, a scientist, and a farmer and a governor who was from outside the beltway, i thought it would be good to give him a shot, boy oh boy was i disappointed 3 years later.
i always vote for the candidate who i think will do the best job, don't care which party they are attached to. i have often voted for a third party candidate in local, statewide and national elections.
the three big networks have always trended left, cbs, nbc, abc, always left leaning, but now are far left wing zealots. they were never conservative.
It ain't CA law that's affecting you; it's the greed of the gunmakers. They get to sell you a higher priced weapon with crap on it that you not only don't need but don't even like and just blame it on California. And you eat it up. Tell them to make weapons without all that other crap on them for sale in New Jersey. Or blame California if you want. Just don't expect me to blindly agree with it. It's not a logical progression that because California requires certain things that all guns that are manufactured have to comply.
If your argument is that gun makers capitalize on California law to screw the rest of their customers, I'll agree with that being a consequence of California influence... for what little that's worth.
MY argument is the media only tells you what they WANT to, as opposed to what the ACTUAL NEWS *that might affect you* is.
Taxpayer dollars paying for birth control is news; a radio dj calling someone a name is not news. The former belongs in mainstream media, the latter in a tabloid rag.
But that's what America has become: a dumbed-down, reality-show-loving, star-wanna-be-ing, half-empty-headed, less-than-half-voting, herd of sheople.
When more people know who "The Situation" is than know who Sandra Fluke is, it's very telling.
The situation regarding Fluck had nothing to do with taxpayers providing contraception or any other kind of healthcare. Maybe you should learn the facts before going any further with your tirade. Meet you back here later.
Actually, i-man, I think YOU need to go read up on the story.... "free contraception" (regardless of the reason) and "healthcare" (as in "I have a RIGHT to it") have EVERYTHING to do with the Fluke story.
Had nothing to do with "taxpayer funded" anything. It had to do with whether Georgetown University could deny contraception to their employees and students as part of their healthcare plan. So, it was an employee-employer issue, not a taxpayer issue, which is what you've been screaming about all afternoon. "Taxpayer dollars paying for birth control is news." "A woman who thinks *I* should pay for all the birth control she wants is news"
Now you're saying that it doesn't matter if you weren't the one expected to pay for it? C'mon, MAN!!!
So the fact that you don't know any of the facts... does that make you a sheople, since you are obviously aware of The Situation?
When I said it affected "me", I am talking about the people- affecting OTHER people, other people's WALLETS. While I certainly admit it's not taxpayers paying for her contraception, it IS every single student and all the faculty at Georgetown that would be paying for it. THEY pay for it because SHE feels she has a RIGHT to it.... which of course, takes us back to the entire healthcare/obamacare debacle in the first place.
So, yes- when some WANTS something -feels they have a RIGHT to something- that OTHER PEOPLE must pay for, I call that news.
When a radio dj blowhard calls someone a name, the only people it affects is Ms. Fluke (if she wanted to press charges for slander) and Mr. Limbaugh. It affects NO ONE else. The NATION at large should not care about the "Limbaugh called Fluke a whore" issue, except to decide if the agree with him, or stop listening to him. The NATION at large SHOULD pay attention to Ms. Fluke's feeling she has a right to contraception paid for by others, as that sets a precedent, and is in DIRECT RELATION to the entire national healthcare debate (which is still ongoing).
"Re: NJ bill to limit gun magazines from 15 round to 10 round" I think that is the subject.
"What are our thoughts"
"Sandra Fluke stood in front of Congress claiming she "couldn't afford birth control" at what, $25 for a pack of pills or whatever condoms cost" Ah, finally an expert.
"Don't use the tactics that others here (who will remain nameless) use to try and change the strawman argument now." The best part is that it's an anonymous website so I guess everyone can remain "nameless."
And Darrin: I said it. Thus no quotes nor sourcing. But if you want a "named" source, jgi.
Oh, was that the "royal me" you were employing there? My mistake, lol.
But even if I give you that wiggle room, you are still extremely deficient on the facts. The question wasn't whether she should have been entitled to free contraception when no one else was; Obamacare already mandated free contraception for all college student insurance plans and for all employer-based plans.
The argument was whether a Catholic-based university was entitled to the same exemption from this requirement as a church. Her opinion was no. Your opinion may differ and I have no desire to argue the merits of the argument. I'm just pointing out that your grasp of the facts of the situation is basically non-existent.
mg- YOU are one to talk for straying off-topic!! LOLOLOLOLOL
oh crap- that's right. It was about the religious exemption. That's a sticky wicket. But since I'm against OC as a whole, I already know where I stand on that one... bringing the religious exemption into it only further forties MY POINT:
My point, that is was a worthy and relevant news story, when Rush calling her a "whore" wasn't, still stands.
"The best part is that it's an anonymous website so I guess everyone can remain nameless."
I'm using my real name, as do several others here. Why hide behind a fake handle unless you don't want your thoughts/opinions associated with your "real life" self?
so....mg,
"And Darrin: I said it. Thus no quotes nor sourcing"
This coming from the guy who has been ragging and ragging on people for not using sourced info....now you are posting assumptions, of course assuming all your other posts were factual.
Hmmmmm..... a lot can be said about that. But the one thing I will say is the whole nation does not know the NJ assumption that Christie has thoughts of running for president, so that is certainly not what made him a national figure, and certainly does not explain why the bridge scandal was shown on news reports all over the nation.
I have come to the conclusion that imal disregards the human instinct of taking sides and just creates hell all over the place, regardless of the nature of the discussion.
That's the fun thing about being Libertarian, Darrin... you can find something to argue about with just about everyone (-;
"I'm using my real name, as do several others here. Why hide behind a fake handle unless you don't want your thoughts/opinions associated with your "real life" self?" "
I do it, in an effort to demonstrate "where I'm coming from", in my case, Thomas Jefferson's original republican (little "r") views. In today's world, most people probably don't get that, having never read Jefferson and knowing nothing of him beyond the fact that he was a founding father, so my effort is likely wasted. But, oh well. :)
Wow, this thread has really gone off the rails.
Darrin,
Christie is most certainly known throughout the country as a leading candidate in for republican presidential ticket in 2016. This is not a NJ secret by any stretch of the imagination. He was in Las Vegas this past weekend courting support from Sheldon Adelson, along with other top contenders. And, yes, the implications for his presidential bid is exactly why Bridgegate has received such widespread coverage.
Gladfly, shall I suggest you read up some and respond to some of the comments and questions you conveniently missed before jumping into the new topic?
Just a suggestion
the key word in your last post is implications.....nothing has even been said or confirmed, everyone just assumes and apparently makes a story of it.
1. The first line from a January article in USA Today:
"It's hard to imagine what in the state of New Jersey Chris Christie's people could have done to more severely wound his presidential hopes than to take one of his constituents' biggest headaches -- traffic -- and needlessly and vindictively make it worse."
2. The title of a January piece from the LA Times:
"Email scandal mars Christie's chances for presidency; governor apologizes"
3. From a January opinion piece in the Bangor Daily News:
"This gets to Christie as presidential timber. Any misuse of the disaster funds would be, well, a disaster for Christie whose huge re-election victory and tailwind as the Republican presidential nominee are in large part the result of his perceived handling of the storm."
4. January article from Chicago Tribune, titled:
"Chris Christie for president? Fuggedaboutit."
5. January piece from Upper Michigan Source:
"Will bridge scandal hurt Chris Christie's presidential chances?"
6. January, Seattle PI:
"Chris Christie takes a tumble in presidential poll"
7. From Utah, January Deseret News article, titled:
"Is the road to the presidency closed for Gov. Chris Christie?"
8. Editorial in Myrtle Beach online from January:
"Is the road to the presidency closed for Gov. Chris Christie?"
How many more do you need to be convinced? Of course I avoided the myriad national media outlets that had similar coverage. Do you want international as well?
Yes I do, and will only accept untranslated versions
but in all seriousness, you can post as many ASSUMPTIONS as you want....FACT is Christie has not yet said he WILL run for president, so as of now everything you just posted is hear-say
still avoiding prior comments I see
lmao I had to post this
http://www.guns.com/2011/12/08/media-uses-fake-guns-from-halo-to-criticize-assault-weapons/
It's a mistake to refuse to admit when you're wrong, Darrin.
These stories were all around the nation when the press was making hay about bridgegate. They exist. They are facts.
You wrote:
"But the one thing I will say is the whole nation does not know the NJ assumption that Christie has thoughts of running for president, so that is certainly not what made him a national figure, and certainly does not explain why the bridge scandal was shown on news reports all over the nation."
And
"I want to know the source for this, I do not believe he has once said he will be running, all of NJ is suspicious of course, but I am sure the nation has no idea"
Obviously, the nation did know that Christie was a 2016 contender during the bridgegate coverage. They knew it in Los Angeles, Des Moines, Upper Michigan, Myrtle Beach, Chicago, and Utah. They knew it across the country. Most people know that. But, you can't accept it when the evidence is presented to you on a platter?
absolutely not gladfly, show me one piece of FACTUAL info where Christe has said he will be running for president, and not the hear-say assumptions you have posted!
people can assume and make up whatever stories they want
still avoiding the ladder I see.
"It's a mistake to refuse to admit when you're wrong, Darrin."
more importantly it is a mistake to conveniently disappear when your previous posts are debunked yet you continue to ignore 3 trials to get you to read previous posts
Clearly, Christie has been for some time doing everything he can to position himself for a presidential run. The fact that he may ultimately decide not to run officially does not change that fact.
Darrin, do I have to apologize to you for not posting while I was at work?
You are clearly wrong. You're claimed repeatedly that the the country wasn't aware of "NJ assumption that Christie has thoughts of running for president". " NJ is suspicious of course, but I am sure the nation has no idea". Those are your words.
The whole nation knew that Christie was a contender. Your statements and your argument were wrong. Clearly, you're not up for admitting that. So be be it. The facts are clear for all to read.
Gladfly you keep getting stuck, the whole point of a debate is to figure things out, why do you keep requiring me to stop and beg for fogiveness for being wrong? This is something I will not do, because likewise with the news comment you were proven wrong once I had the time to put in my research. Answer the question at hand and stop trying to disguise it.
again......
show me one piece of FACTUAL info where Christe has said he will be running for president, and not the hear-say assumptions you have posted!
I am not in dis-agreeance, I know Christie wants to run, but you are missing the point, that he has not said he will run.
This is not the question, the question was how can yee not be considered a national topic when his weapons were going over seas and such, sounds to me like he is a international threat, yet cnn claims he is a local news story?
Cnn obviously doesn't want its viewers to know about the corruption of one of their own.
Apparently you guys do have troubles jgi, but, for the record, I said: "First, Christie is a national figure preparing to run for President" which I think is fair and balanced for an opinion.
I did not say, as you might have imagined: "Christe has said he will be running for president," you said that. I said preparing.....
I did not say he has said or not said he will run --- you are talking about that.
"But the one thing I will say is the whole nation does not know the NJ assumption that Christie has thoughts of running for president, so that is certainly not what made him a national figure, and certainly does not explain why the bridge scandal was shown on news reports all over the nation." You got to be kidding, right? This guy has hit every major network, most major talk shows, even went to Howard Stern's Birthday Party in New York. He spends as much time in the other fifty states as he does in NJ and even heads to Vegas to chase Jewish Republican dollars. What campaign do you think he needs dollars for?
Here's the man in his own words from Fox through The Daily News showing, once more, how he can turn up on Fox and get re-reported by many other media outlets. Why ----- because he is national news. But here's what he said:
"Chris Christie says he isn’t letting the still-evolving Bridgegate scandal weigh down his potential 2016 plans.
The embattled New Jersey governor told Fox News Channel’s “The Kelly File” that the political problems arising from the suspicious closures of multiple traffic lanes on the George Washington Bridge last year won’t affect whether he’ll run for president.
“If you don’t have baggage they’ll create baggage for you. That’s politics in America today,” Christie said when asked if he has “too much baggage” to run.
“In the end people don’t judge you on that stuff. People look into your eyes and they try to decide what’s in here and that’s how they vote,” he said. “They vote for what they believe is in your heart. And can they trust you?”
The comments, which mark the second installment of a two-part interview with the Garden State chief, come just days after a Christie-ordered internal report showed that the governor had no personal involvement in the September traffic jams purportedly ordered by his top aide and confidantes.
The review, conducted by Christie’s personal attorney, has come under criticism for being incomplete and possibly one-sided.
Despite suggesting he’s still a possible presidential candidate, Christie declined to name himself as one of the “top three” Republican options to run in 2016.
“I don’t know if I could restrict myself to three but I’ll give you the ones I think are really good,” Christie said in the interview, the second part of which will air Monday night.
“Jeb Bush would be an outstanding candidate for president. I think Scott Walker would be a good candidate for president. I think Paul Ryan would be a good candidate for president,” he added.
Christie, nevertheless, hinted that he may still be the best choice.
“I think I’m older and more experienced,” he said. “It’s certainly something I’ve said to everybody that I’ll consider.”
A wink is as good as a nod.
"Christie, nevertheless, hinted that he may still be the best choice"
KEY WORD: hinted!
Everything you just posted is hint, obviously we get the hint....but the fact here is everything you just posted is still ASSUMPTION, not once has Christie said the words "I will run for president"....not once! So until then all you "facts" are not really facts, they are more less assumptions based from hints Christie has thrown out there.
So basically you are saying the news plays stories based on assumptions....got it.
I just sent a wink back your way
The way the system usually works nowadays, people start running for president well ahead of the time they formally announce. And so Christie has been running, no doubt.
He can of course pull back if he chooses.
We may recall that the OP who introduced the Bridgegate thread in this forum called him or herself "byebye2016"!
jd2, I agree, but my point is that he has not SAID he IS running, he as only hinted.
Darrin: So what? I said: " preparing to run for President." I never said he said "the words." Move on and pick another topic that is not about the topic.
a state senator, a leader in anti-gun running, is busted for illegal gun smuggling, a national threat.....this was the original topic I brought to the table...... think it goes hand in hand with this pro gun thread
If you are not getting my drift, go back and read some posts, you and gladfly were the two that pulled away from this topic, so, just a sugestion, but I would start practicing what you preach
I do not think it goes with the original question at all but it is your thread so OK, a seemingly very hypocritical CA state senator who lobbies against guns caught in a gun running sting means something important to the discussion of a pending NJ law to limit mags from 15 to 10 rounds.
However, that is not what you and I have been discussing; we have been discussing Christ Christie and whether my statement of him "preparing to run for President" actually means what you think: "I (Chris Christie) will run for president."
I think the answer is obvious but you seem to desire to dwell on it.
actually this has been a pretty open discussion on gun laws in general, it started off on the topic of the nj law, and being there has not been any new news currently, it went into general gun laws.....
all I did was simply state, that for someone who wants to stick to the facts when other people are bring in info, they are pretty quick to use non factual info, and went on to say that Christie has not said he will run, I am not seeing the issue here
not dwelling on anything, been over it
LJRubi That is a remingtom 870 tactical with a adjustable side folding stock. I shoot at a private secret location, but I think around here most join shooting clubs that have ranges
Lookout Darrin, that's a "Police Style Shotgun" that will be next on the chopping block!
As far as places to shoot, I just drive 10 minutes to Shongum since I'm a member there. Private land is better if you can find it, since there's a bit more flexibility in what you can shoot. I don't think my club would appreciate pumpkin/watermelon chunks all over the range. I'm pretty much limited to water bottles and clay targets.
If you (or someone in your party) has a hunting license you can also use some of the WMA's. There's a monthly "Shotgun Shootout" at the Clinton WMA with a bunch of guys (and gals) from njgunforums.com. Even new and non-gun owners are welcome, since most guys will let you borrow their shotgun for a few rounds.
Nice. I had to choose between that and the Mossberg 590A1. Needless to say, the Berg stole my heart.
"Nice. I had to choose between that and the Mossberg 590A1. Needless to say, the Berg stole my heart."
Until Remington leaves NY and/or Mossberg leaves CT, I won't buy any of their products. I try to avoid sending money to states that stomp on 2nd Amendment rights, whenever that's possible (unfortunately I can't avoid much in NJ).
I bought a Winchester SXP instead. The R&D for Winchester is in Utah, and the SXP models are manufactured in Turkey. I'd rather send my dollars to Istanbul than Ilion or North Haven. (I think Mossberg 500's are made/assembled in Texas, but the company is headquartered in Connecticut).
A mossberg 500 20ga is on my to get list, so wifey has something easier to handle for clays.
I've got a Rem 870, bought years ago, which I have modded into the "tactical" model... 18" barrel, extended feed tube, sling/swivels, and side mount shell caddy. No "door breacher" lol
But I'm with Mark on not sending $$ to anti-2A companies/states. It's the only way to make our voices heard with the manufacturers themselves.
I really don't want to get into that but that just doesn't make sense. You have an anti-2A gun company u don't want to support? You think by shorting a gun company located in a state with tough gun laws you are somehow helping your cause? What kind a whack poli-financial assessment is that?
You'd rather spend money on Turkish than workers from Utah?
I do know Winchester, the division, aka Olin, the corporation, aka chemicals, chemical transport, guns and bullets. Full service for the gunnies so investors get them coming and can get them for life.
What I always liked about this stock was that the guns were kinda hidden underneath the chemicals. You can't buy Winchester, you have to buy Olin. For some reason, I always liked that. Seems stealthy and less bloodthirsty when I do it that way.
Another advantage is that you can use their products to take care of a problem and then use their chemicals to clean up the evidence. Nothing like a little bleach to stop that luminal from working. And you may know where the guns n bullets revenues come from but 2/3rds of the Olin money comes from chemicals and distribution. And guess what ----- there's lots of factories everywhere. So when you buy your Turkish gun, you are putting in revenue to a company that makes more of it's revenue from states like NY, CA, WA and even a couple of factories in Canada. Nice job.
But once again, great purchase and I thank you for your financial support of my portfolio (oh shoot, you're funding a liberal....... :>)
I honestly was going to ask the same thing, not to sound naive, but isn't it better to buy american guns over spending money of foreign guns, I mean is it really the gun manufactures fault that the state has horrid laws? They are still there making their guns....and most of these manufactures may have been there before these states went down the drain with anti-gun laws, you can;t really expect them to pack up shop and move a whole operation just because of this, that would put most companies out of business.
I'd rather put money in Turkey (with some going to Utah) than New York or Connecticut, because the company based in Utah doesn't pay taxes to a state hell bent on infringing on the Constitution.
How would rewarding a company that decides to stay in such a state help our cause? I can't avoid ALL money staying out of those states, but I can avoid most of it.
So you own stock in a company that manufacturs firearms? Why the hypocrisy with all the anti-NRA statements if they exist only to line the pockets of firearm manufacturers?
Darrin, we don't expect an overnight packing up and moving, but some companies expressed NO resistance to their local governments, while others said SEEYA LATER and actually moved (or at least built new plant, refused to do business with government (or sell them anything a private citizen couldn't buy), etc.
Which company would you rather support?
Back on topic, the Senate committee is scheduled to hear S993 on Monday, May 5 at 10:30 am (Committe Room 10 at the State House Annex).
Please attend in-person or at least contact the members of the commitee to voice opposition to this bill.
MEMBERS OF THE NEW JERSEY SENATE LAW & PUBLIC SAFETY COMMITTEE:
Donald Norcross (Chair) (D5)
sennorcross@njleg.org
Phone: 856-547-4800
Fax: 856-547-5496
Linda Greenstein (Vice Chair) (D14)
sengreenstein@njleg.org
Phone: 609-395-9911
Fax: 609-395-9032
Nick Sacco (D32)
sensacco@njleg.org
Phone: 201-295-0200
Fax: 201-295-8294
Christopher "Kip" Bateman (R16)
senbateman@njleg.org
Phone: 908-526-3600
Fax: 908-707-4578
James Holzapfel (R10)
senholzapfel@njleg.org
Phone: 732-840-9028
Fax: 732-840-9757
Too bad this girl didn't have a loaded weapon in her nightstand... she's damn lucky she lived... (she's in critical condition)
Just another case where "calling the police" would have done zero good. The police can't protect you. You have to protect yourself, the police just write the reports after the crime has been committed- hopefully not after your murder...or that of your spouse, child, etc.
Had this happened in my bedroom, there would be one less criminal/attempted murderer on this planet.
http://pix11.com/2014/04/28/18-year-old-woman-brutally-attacked-in-her-nj-bedroom/#axzz30BzdhPJS
http://abclocal.go.com/wabc/story?section=news%2Flocal%2Fnew_jersey&id=9518397
Okay, I understand your points, But you gotta admit, gun manufactures must love this limiting talk, they obviously don't when limits are actually set, because then they have to R&D new compliant weapons, but just the talk alone is enough to spark a major sale booster. The government may or may not realize it, but all they have done is boosted the sale for guns and ammo with all this talk.
I think as long as gun manufactures are not infringed on what they develop for other states they will probably be staying put, it's not until the state starts messing with what they can build in that particular state that they may pack up and move out, but in the same sense I see how that can be looked at as supporting a anti-2A state.
Hmmm. So Mark would not like to spend money in Utah, but has no problem in spending money in a country that's 99% Muslim. Guess he agrees with their gun control policies.
Bear in mind that I am just saying. I have no issue with your purchase and Turkey is the most Western of the Muslim states. It's a pretty cool place except for the countries it borders.
I have no more problem investing in a well-run chemical company with 33% of it's revenue coming form legally produced arms than you do supporting foreign Muslim workers and U.S. liberals with your purchases. The Turkish part you made sound like a thoughtful conscious decision as was mine when I bought Olin. However, as I said in an earlier thread, to be honest, I am not holding today. Not because of any politics, but it just got too hot to hold and I realized the profits. But it is a good one to watch, maybe in 2015 if Hillary starts getting hot would be good timing. You guys tend to stock up the closer a Democrat gets to being in office.
I don't know how many times I need to repeat, repeat, repeat myself but I am not not anti-gun, am not anti-2A. I am anti-LCMs and I think I have Constitutional grounds to do so. But IMHO the NJ law is unnecessary because I have no issue compromising at 15-rounds and the difference between 10 and 15 is probably marginal and impossible to statistically prove. But does being against LCMs mean I am anti-gun? You can how your view, but again, I am saying you can have all the guns you want too.
I am totally for making money off your legal gun purchases while at the same time being more than willing to ban LCMs above 10-rounds. I sleep well at night, more so when you keep buying and buying guns. Your guns bring me peace.
Nor do I have problems with strict common sense gun control laws like background checks. I don't see this as hypocritical at all. The company is legal. I do not want to ban guns. I still say buy all the guns you want, put my kids through college, but do it legally. If that means waiting, if that means fingerprints, as far as I am concerned a true gun advocate would advocate being as sure as possible that guns are as safe as possible.
And unlike you, I buy stock in pro-gun and anti-gun states, no issues with that either. And I like things from Turkey too.
Actually you said NY and CT; just replace Utah with that. Sorry, don't really track states by gun rights advocacy.
But there really was no issue here, not picking on you, just fyi-ing that when you bought from Turkey, you bought from a company that not only supports Muslim factory workers but a company with a number of factories in the very states you want to avoid supporting.
Not to mention that I have to imagine that current gun profits are being directly invested into chemical business expansion in those strict gun law states.
"It's a small world after all....."
Trying to be political with your purchases is difficult and pretty meaningless in terms of sending any sort of recognizable message. And they're may be unintended consequences like support of liberal stock holders as well. Not only that but I know we found that marketing to the "Buy America" crowd was not really a revenue boon even if true, if patriotic, or anything else. So we did it, but we didn't really expend extra dollars to do it.
Again, no big deal, just saying.
And I recognize that I'll never keep 100% of my money away from those I disagree with, and that my "contribution" may be insignificant by itself.
Same way the ozone layer doesn't care about your individual Prius... but collectively it may make a difference.
Again not to sound naive, I understand your point, but isn't this just what the anti-2A people want?
Less business to american gun manufactures due to people turning just to prove a point to the government means the gun manufacturer could go out of business, but on the other hand, if it was a problem they would move, if they had the funding.
For every gun I didn't buy from Remington, I bought one from Winchester. If Remington goes out of business (whether that's due to principles or their spotty quality since being acquired by Freedom Group), other brands would pick up the slack.
I bet Remington would love to not have pissed off many gun owners now that they have to pay for a recall on ~1 million Model 700's and a luke warm (at best) launch of R51 handguns (that are already being called back for repairs/engineering fixes).
it is possible to support remington, american mamufacturing, american factory workers and not support cumo.
both are doable
didn't remignton come out and say they wouldn't sell or market to certain LE agenices that are in the states with overbearing restrictions?
if yes, then why not throw a few bucks their way to make up the difference?
i do support voitng with your consumer dollars, it sends a powerfull message.
btw, avoid BOA because they are rejecting loans and calling loans made to gun manufacturers, BOA has a new policy of not having any financial dealings with firearms manufacturers and parts suppliers so we need to stop using BOA credit cards and also move our money out of there. check it out.
BOA is also a big supporter of Obama, 'nough said right there
sends a powerful message
"didn't remignton come out and say they wouldn't sell or market to certain LE agenices that are in the states with overbearing restrictions?"
I don't think Remington made any such statement... I could be wrong... but manufacturers like Barrett certainly made that promise (and uphold it). I doubt Remington made such a promise because in the midst of all this gun-control / pick your sides / who supports the 2nd Amendment brouhaha, Remington signed an $80 million contract with the government to supply sniper rifles.
Here's an article about that, with comments on both side about boycotting their products:
http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2013/04/robert-farago/remington-staying-in-new-york-boycott-to-follow/
And just to show that other manufacturers ARE worth your hard earned dollars, here is just one article showing that some did decide to leave these anti-gun states.
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/06/business/wooed-by-gun-friendly-states-some-manufacturers-pull-up-stakes.html?_r=0
"BOA is also a big supporter of Obama, 'nough said right there"
I'm not going to look further at the rest of your "facts" BDog, but it really does not take a rocket scientist to smell a web rumor that has grown and grown.
In 2012, BOA mostly through individuals, but through PACs as well, supported with their contributions Republicans over Democrats at almost a 2:1 ratio.
One example:
Mitt Romney - $1,018,652
Barak Obama - $262,597
Pick any year, the story is the same. You are probably alluding to this rabid dog story that reeks of professionalism: http://sloggingtowardliberty.blogspot.com/2012/04/this-is-bit-of-departure-for-me-but-i.html
But as you can see, the actual donations tell a far, far different story. PS --- for any given year BOA spends scads more on conservatives than liberals.
If they could prove financial harm, they could sue you for such falsehoods.
Report Reveals Obama Campaign Borrowed $15 Million From Bank of America
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2012/10/20/report-reveals-obama-campaign-borrowed-15-million-from-bank-of-america/
Washington Free Beacon notes that Bank of America and the Obama administration have a number of ties:
Warren Buffett, Obama donor and namesake of the infamous “Buffett Rule,” invested $5 billion in Bank of America last year in an effort to help the ailing financial institution. Last month, two weeks after OFA took out the loan, Bank of America announced a plan that would lay off 16,000 workers by the end of the year.
…The bank contributed $20 million toward the cost of the Democrat National Convention earlier this year. Bank of America stadium, home to the Carolina Panthers, was supposed to host Obama’s acceptance speech.
auntiel - i enjoy your posts, and generally agree that our local police forces are becoming over-militarized. armored cars and trucks, and everything else
here is how to place a link in a response, you just copy and paste the url from your browsers address bar into the editor.
to copy a url,: click on it once so it is highlighted, right click your mouse and choose 'copy' from the subtext menu or you can hit the combination key code 'ctl+c',
then switch back to your response window and click in the text box so the the mouse cursor is there, (you can see it blinking as a vertical bar) then right click your mouse one more time and choose 'paste' from the sub-text menu or use the combination key code 'ctl+v'
you should see your link in your response, let me know if this doesn't work for you
mg,
The concept of principles might be "eluding" YOU....(like that?... turned "allude" into "elude")... it's pretty simple really- you support actions you agree with, and do not support actions you do not agree with. Whether it is through the voting booth, or patronizing a business financially.
For example, if one were a gun hater who wishes 2A would be repealed, buying stock in a firearms company that sells to the public to turn a profit from an action one does not believe in would be hypocritical and unprincipled.
(not saying you hate guns or want 2A repealed, we all know how much you LOVE guns and 2A)
Remington Outdoor Company, the country’s oldest firearms manufacturer, announced Monday that it is expanding into Alabama in a move some observers think is a response to strict gun control laws in the company’s home state of New York.
http://dailycaller.com/2014/02/17/remington-expands-into-alabama-after-new-york-enacts-strict-gun-laws/#ixzz30NDNGkMX
vote with your consumer dollars, it sends a powerful message:
The list of companies that have stopped selling firearms and ammunition to law enforcement agencies in states that are restricting the Second Amendment has more than doubled since Wednesday and is more than five times larger than just one week ago. There are 44 companies on our list, with more being added as we receive notification. Here are the additions since Wednesday:
Barrett Firearms
Exile Machine
Tier One Arms
Bravo Company USA
Primary Weapons Systems
Crusader Weaponry
Top Gun Supply
Kiss Tactical
Clark Fork Tactical
OFA Tactical
One Source Tactical
Templar Tactical Arms
NEMO Arms
Old Grouch’s Military Surplus
Big Horn Armory
Midway USA
CMMG Inc
Rocky Top Tactical
Badger Peak
Controlled Chaos Arms
SRT Arms
Norton Firearms
Citizen Arms
Evolution Weaponry
Doublestar Corp
JCW Industries
Huntertown Arms
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/02/23/gaining-momentum-now-42-gun-companies-have-stopped-selling-to-law-enforcement-in-anti-2nd-amendment-states/
here's a fuller list, maybe we should contact these firms and tell them we won't be buying from them if they still sell to NJ's law enforcement agencies if NJ passes this new round of restrictions?
http://www.ncgunblog.com/new-york-boycott/
New York Boycott Participants:
LaRue Tactical ; Olympic Arms ; Extreme Firepower Inc ; Templar Custom; York Arms; Cheaper Than Dirt; Bullwater Enterprises; West Fork Armory ; Smith Enterprise; Alex Arms ; Spike’s Tactical; Quality Arms Idaho; Liberty Suppressors; Doublestar Corp; American Spirit Arms; Trident Armory; Head Down Products; J&G Sales; Barrett Firearms; Exile Machine; Tier One Arms; Bravo Company USA ; Primary Weapons Systems; Crusader Weaponry; Top Gun Supply ; Kiss Tactical ; Clark Fork Tactical ; OFA Tactical;
One Source Tactical ; Templar Tactical Arms ; NEMO Arms ; Old Grouch’s Military Surplus ; Big Horn Armory ; Midway USA ; CMMG Inc ; Rocky Top Tactical ; Badger Peak ; Controlled Chaos Arms; SRT Arms; Norton Firearms ; Umlaut Industries ; Predator Intelligence ; Citizen Arms ;
Evolution Weaponry; Chaos Arms ; Warbirds Custom Guns ; JBTAC; Stoner Arms ; Ammoclip ; 3 Rivers Precision ; 2A Firearms; Lanco Tactical ; Predator Tactical; Arrowhead Shooting Sports; Boise Tactical ; Huntertown Arms; Lauer Custom Weaponry; 556 Tactical; Iron Goat Guns; Dead Bang Guns; Southern Appalachian Arms; Thunder Beast Arms; Delmarva Shooting Supply; OJ’s Gun Shop; OCS Guns; Progressive Micro Devices ; Semper Fi Arms; Climags ; Southwest Shooting Authority; Csspecs Magazines; MFI ; Critical Survival ; DogLeg Arms ; Victory Defense Consulting ; GWACS Armory ; Allegiance Ammunition; 2A Armament; Daniel Byer FFL ; Black Mountain Survival ; Hill Country Black Rifles; Big Sky Ammunition ; Allstar Tactical; Precision Firearms; Alpine Guns; Umbrella Corp; Bison Armory; 3RI Technologies; The Tactical Toolbox; JCW Industries ; Volquartsen Custom ;
Paige Firearms; Franklin Armory; West Michigan Tactical ; West Acre Sporting Goods; Shade’s Landing; GunUp; RL Hydro-Graphix; Jeremy Kupper’s Gunsmithing; Hansohn Brothers; Deep South Ammo; King Armory; Bison Tactical; RRC Firearms; Wilson Combat; DownRange Defense; Snake Hound Machine ; Allied Armory ; Reaper Tactical; Truly Tactical ; Competition Machine; MagPul ; Vltor; Antares Arms; Midwest PX ; Wolfpit Tactical; West Desert Tactical; Specialized Dynamics; Aero Precision; DeGroat Tactical Armament; Able Company Sports; Gadsden Guns ; Western Firearms Company; Badlands Arsenal; Armtac; Element Arms; Hawks Tactical; Battle Creek Supply; Wolverine Technologies; Black Hat Firearms; Lone Star Shooting Supply; Lono Group; Oregon Precision Firearms; NFA Gear; Rhino Arms; Serbu Firearms; Black Dragon Firearms; Black Label Armament; Safety Harbor Firearms;
Literally so pissed, just tried to watch a video on you tube and had to watch the forced commercial before my video (the one you cannot skip), it was a anti-gun video mocking anything the NRA has ever said, what is this coming to, If you tube is going to support anti-gunners I guess now I refuse to watch you tube!
Thank goodness my principles are intact in regards to my purchase of Olin stock in the past and thank you for your financial support of my family and our principles. I think if anyone of us was to be judged on our normal purchases against our "principles," wants, and desires, we would be found wanting. Even the uber-principled JR. So I would not be casting stones especially if I was buying guns from Muslims.
Meanwhile in other breaking financial news BDog ignores the total fabrication that he posted an instead goes to the rest of the thread to say "see, but some of it is true!" I tried to give him the hint that once you find a snake in the woodpile.....but no, he wants to dig more compost.
Yes, Obama's campaign "took a $15M loan in Oct of 2012 from BOA;" gosh it's deep rooted since they did the exact same thing in 2008. And at the same time, not doubt to cover his tracks, Obama sues BOA for $1B for mortgage fraud 10/12; they settled another one with BOA for $335M in 2011 --- the largest payout ever
Meanwhile it is also true that the $15M loan was unusual and ominous. I mean what did they need a loan for. And one that was almost twice the $8M that the Republicans borrowed from the failing bank Wachovia which in 2010, paid $160M for laundering drug money by Mexican and Columbian concerns. Wachovia lent the Repubs the cash even while freezing the assets of thousands of customers as apparently their preferred, special, we-really-like-you wink wink customers. Later Wachovia was deemed too big to fail ---- you betcha --- and was bought by Wells Fargo. No problem in Congress on that one. Wachovia also lent the Repubs $9M in 2006 which they didn't even pay back until 2008 (pssst, can we get a few more months, we can't find our checkbook). Of course this loan was based on fraudulent paperwork by an embezzling Republican Party Treasurer which was easy to do since they had not run an internal audit since 2003 (isn't this the "business" party?)
Wachovia's PAC contributions to Repubs are in a 2:1 ratio favor over dems even in Democratic states. The CEO, a Bush Sr. Treasury Undersecretary appointee in the past, donated over $100K in the past three elections. He did give $5K to Dems, mostly in his own state. John Edwards gave his back. He has more principles (MG said tongue in cheek, foot in mouth).
And yes: "Warren Buffett, Obama donor, invested $5 billion in Bank of America last year." Was it politically motivated? Over 40% of Berkshire is in finance. Among other things he gets a guaranteed 6% dividend paid quarterly for the BOA investment. Now I don't care what party BOA supports or does not support or how they feel about guns or buns ----- can I buy some of this please????
By far, at $15B investment level, Wells Fargo has always been Buffet's biggest bet; you know, the bank that bought Wachovia (you wanna bet whether they asked Warren's advice?), Wachovia being in bed with the Republicans, and therefore........I guess Buffet swings both ways? WFargo is also BOA's biggest competitor, oh Buffet you incestuous whore; why you're just willing to make money wherever good business by legal companies is being done. Why that's just not good politics.
Get the point?
USBancorp is Buffet's second largest holding; I hear they like Alec Baldwin. Goldman is next (arent' they Jewish), followed by M&T (these guys are from Buffalo, need I say more) which is completing it's acquisition of Hudson Bank ----- oh no, Warren Buffet invests in and supports New Jersey......oh the humanity. Now he owns a corner in Hackettstown and rents some strip mall space in Mansfield.
Meanwhile, "BOA announced a plan that would lay off 16,000 workers by the end of the year." In top secret breaking news hidden from our eyes ---- lots of companies laid off people. So what?
"The bank contributed $20 million toward the cost of the Democrat National Convention earlier this year."
Uh oh, actually this one is 100% not true. Oops, another total falsehood. A number of companies including BOA, Wells Fargo (remember, they own Wachovia), AT&T, US Airways, Duke Energy, and McGuireWoods, and others put in. Duke secured $11M of the 20M so BOA and Fargo would be far less.
Yes "they own the Bank of America stadium where the Obama acceptance speech was supposed to be given" OK, you got me there. You caught Obama red-handed not supporting the Chicago Bears. Busted.
Point is BDog dug into the compost pile and posted what he found. Upon being told his first story was full of it, he reiterated the rest as being a compelling tale of collusion and conspiracy. Nice job.
Now I am sure politics and personal feelings come into any decision that anyone makes but if you see great evil being done in any of these transactions, then first, both sides do it, and second, you're smoking something or looking to promote this drivel that makes up the underbelly of internet "news."
facts are facts, what the feckless do with them is on them.
account of bank of americas behavior -
McMillan Fiberglass Stocks, McMillan Firearms Manufacturing, McMillan Group International have been collectively banking with Bank of America for 12 years. Today Mr. Ray Fox, Senior Vice President, Market Manager, Business Banking, Global Commercial Banking came to my office. He scheduled the meeting as an "account analysis" meeting in order to evaluate the two lines of credit we have with them. He spent 5 minutes talking about how McMillan has changed in the last 5 years and have become more of a firearms manufacturer than a supplier of accessories.
At this point I interrupted him and asked "Can I possibly save you some time so that you don't waste your breath? What you are going to tell me is that because we are in the firearms manufacturing business you no longer want my business?"
"That is correct" he says.
I replied "That is okay, we will move our accounts as soon as possible. We can find a 2nd Amendment friendly bank that will be glad to have our business. You won't mind if I tell the NRA, SCI and everyone one I know that BofA is not firearms industry friendly?"
"You have to do what you must" he said.
"So you are telling me this is a politically motivated decision, is that right?"
Mr Fox confirmed that it was. At which point I told him that the meeting was over and there was nothing let for him to say.
I think it is import for all Americans who believe in and support our 2nd amendment right to keep and bear arms should know when a business does not support these rights. What you do with that knowledge is up to you. When I don't agree with a business' political position I can not in good conscience support them. We will soon no longer be accepting Bank of America credit cards as payment for our products.
Once again, mg pens a tome'
I can't help but keep thinking, if you really need that many words to defend your position, or to explain your thoughts.....?
mg, have you ever boycotted a company? Would you have not given Chik-fil-a your money because the owner did something you didn't agree with? Or not invest with a particular investment firm because of the golden parachute it's CEO got?
Or, like most people, are you only interested in what works for YOU, right NOW, regardless of what long-term consequences may result?
Its just human nature to sell your sole for money these days because everybody does it.
I just read this this afternoon.
.Conservative radio host Rush Limbaugh on Monday said that Los Angeles Clippers owner Donald Sterling's racist rant is only news because he didn't contribute enough to President Barack Obama's campaign.
"This is not news to anybody who has known of this guy," Limbaugh said on his radio show. "This guy is a big Democrat. The only reason he’s in trouble is because he did not give enough money to Obama."
While some conservative commentators and outlets pegged Sterling as a Democrat based on a few donations he made to Democratic candidates in the 80s and 90s, the Clippers owner is actually registered as a Republican.
Limbaugh said on his show that he learned 10 to 15 years ago that Sterling was a racist, and that everybody in Los Angeles ignored it because the Clippers were overshadowed by the Lakers anyway.
"It’s been so widely known by everybody in the NBA, everybody in the sports media for 10-15 years," Limbaugh said. "Everybody in the media, from LA to New York, who’s acting shocked about this, I’m telling you they’ve known who this guy is for the longest time. They’ve known he is a slum lord. They know that he is a racist. They know that he’s basically a despicable human being, and now he may be demented."
He also forgot the NAACP giving him awards [for Money}
Just saying.
This one is really getting funny.
"facts are facts, what the feckless do with them is on them." Ah, feckless, the new general purpose ad hominem from the righteous ones. But I agree. That's why I corrected your misstatements and lies. It was not to say you're wrong except to copy and paste them blindly but to point out that pulling stories from the underbelly of the internet is often highly inaccurate. You should not trust and also verity.
As to your "account of American behavior" which you pulled from the font of all news: Facebook, but did not attribute or source, here's the backgrounder according to Snopes: mix of undetermined and FALSE: http://www.snopes.com/politics/guns/bankofamerica.asp
==================
Once again, mg pens a tome' I can't help but keep thinking, if you really need that many words to defend your position, or to explain your thoughts.....?
Yes.
mg, have you ever boycotted a company?
Yes
Would you have not given Chik-fil-a your money because the owner did something you didn't agree with?
Don't know, never been to one, don't see me going.
Or not invest with a particular investment firm because of the golden parachute it's CEO got?
No. I do not base my investments on parachutes, salaries or other pay package elements but instead I tend to use the bottom line. If you are basing your investments this way, you are going broke.
Or, like most people, are you only interested in what works for YOU, right NOW, regardless of what long-term consequences may result?
Wow, that's not exactly a high regard you have for "most people" as you stand in your own judgment of them. And No, my investments include a mix of short term and long term vehicles, however, I am very interested in what works for me, what works for me is very important when I invest. And not only now but also for generations to come. As to long-term consequences of investing in Olin; please illuminate us with your crystal ball as to what those are. Thank you.
Amazing that you are so upset that I invested in a chemical company that also legally produces firearms and ammunition even though I support the 2A and gun ownership but would like to see restrictions placed on LCMs. Just what is your problem with my investment in a legal arms manufacturer that has not broken any laws that I know of?
Feckless? Lack of integrity? Principles? You guys are the ones attacking someone for supporting a gun manufacturer. "Oh the humanity of it all........"
mg said
"I do not base my investments on parachutes, salaries or other pay package elements but instead I tend to use the bottom line."
Ah. So you are a PURE CAPITALIST. Excellent! Don't listen to what "they" say!! Profit is not evil!! The rich are not evil!!
here's a current list of firearms businesses that are boycotting New York State because of its onerous gun restrictions:
http://www.ncgunblog.com/new-york-boycott/
maybe doing business with them will help send a message to new york politicians who are out in left field.
MG, might want to address high capacity armrests first. It would be more effective.
This man killed more people (2) with an armrest in one incident than those who were murdered by a rifle across THE WHOLE COUNTRY on that same day (approximately 1.7 on average).
Where there's a will, there's a way, and it's got nothing to do with the configuration of metal and plastic that is used as a weapon. Whether it's a gun, a knife, a hammer, a car, a golf club, or apparanty even an armrest, people will find a way to kill each other no matter how many bans are in place. You can't legislate hatred and evil away, especially by taking away the most effective tools for self defense when you become the target of that hatred or evil.
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/24/us/texas-man-in-nursing-home-is-charged-with-murder.html
Actually, I want to clarify that it isn't necessarily 1.7 people *murdered* with a rifle each day. It's 1.7 deaths where the weapon used was a rifle. That includes justifiable homicides (self defense), police shootings, suicide, and murder.
Even if every single death where a rifle was used was actually a crime (and not self defense or suicide), it's far outnumbered by other means including but not limited to hammers and baseball bats. Since "large" capacity magazines (more accurately referred to as "standard" capacity magazines) are typically associated with rifles, they are simply not used in a significant number of crimes.
In 2011, there were 323 deaths due to rifles, 356 with shotguns, 496 with hammers/clubs, and 1,694 with knives. Items that you have in your kitchen contributed to 5 times as many deaths as rifle magazines of any capacity.
(Note, in my original stat for 1.7 rifle deaths per day, I think that site had combined rifles and shotguns into one "long gun" category. The actual number may be half of what I initially described.)
" Ah. So you are a PURE CAPITALIST. Excellent! Don't listen to what "they" say!! Profit is not evil!! The rich are not evil!!"
Sure, I am a capitalist. Not sure what a PURE one is though. I am really not sure what you are getting at but certainly that is not even close to what I said. I said I TEND to use the bottom line NOT that I ONLY use the bottom line. For example, if a company has a new product about to introduced, the bottom line is only a guideline. If they are just introducing a new product, the bottom line might be crap because of start-up costs. It's an "it depends." And the rich are not evil any more than you and your friends are; they do get unnecessary perks and loopholes.
Now, I have answered all your questions, are you ready to tell us the long-term consequences of investing in Olin?
And pray, tell us your criteria for investing? I would love to hear how you use principled-based investing to avoid PURE CAPITALISM and the "what's it for me" issues you bring up as e v I l.
Let me guess: JR's top ten financial assessment criteria
1. do they support guns
2. do they work, live, or visit anti-gun states
3. how much does the CEO make and does his contract include unnecessary financial perks
4. do they agree with your principles on social and political issues
5. has the CEO ever dated a liberal or someone who visited an anti-gun state
6. does the CEO use too many words
7. are they PURE CAPITALISTS
8.. what are their long-term consequences plans
9. do they have factories in foreign Muslim populated countries (this is a positive)
10. is the company blessed by the NRA
I am probably off-base, but please tell us how you pick your investments, especially the qualifications you use to be sure they align with your principles. Or is buying bullets your long-term financial plan to protect and grow your personal wealth?
"Or is buying bullets your long-term financial plan to protect and grow your personal wealth?"
Have you seen the prices of ammunition lately? It was probably one of the best % gains of any "investment" over the past couple years if you look at retail pricing. Sure, it's dropping off a little now, but depending on the caliber it was up 200 to 300% in a matter of months.
(Winchester makes ammunition too... you're welcome.)
People should realize that it is very difficult to have a intelligent debate with someone who cannot tolerate being wrong and has to top it off by constantly trying to be a smart ass.
Maybe this post should be on the" A "Venting" Thread - 8th Edition"
Mark: Yes I noticed that about ammo prices and wondered how such a simple product with commodity ingredients could rise so much in price just because of demand. Not like there's a gunpowder shortage or you need specialty workers....
And yes, I had noted earlier the perk of Winchester providing a greater value add than just guns to that market. You can bet the margins increased as well, at least $$$-wise.
Speaking of value add, oh Ignatz, how untrue and unnecessary. I also am amazed how when you post a bunch of facts, sourced to legitimate proven news sources, that people come away with ---- "gee, you can't tolerate being wrong" Where was the intolerance in the facts I presented? Where was the wrong? And I am sorry you don't appreciate my attempts at humor; I don't appreciate you calling me names either.
mg,
Actually, I could care less what a CEO makes. I'm not a "99%-er".
But yes- I like to support companies that agree with my beliefs, as much as possible. Much like politicians I vote for. If I hear a company is anti-gun, or anti-Salvation Army (or any charity ringing a bell in front of their establishment), I do not do business with them.
Whereas, by your definition- even if you were gay you would still by clothes at an anti-gay establishment if if meant you saved YOUR money... or invest in an company that is anti-gay because you could turn a profit, despite the fact they would be going against your beliefs.
(IDK if you're gay, I just picked a controversial issue)
"People should realize that it is very difficult to have a intelligent debate with someone who cannot tolerate being wrong and has to top it off by constantly trying to be a smart ass."
+ 1 ignatz,
How does buying stock in an arms company when I am for the 2A, I am for gun ownership, but I am against LCMs above 10 bullets become such a morality play for you? Are you really that much of a financial prude?
It's like saying I want to invest in the very profitable and growing Rainbow Paint company but I am against the color black which they produce so therefore I should not invest (just trying to expand upon your gay weirdness rant with a little tint of race double entendre for color).
How can you only support companies that agree with 100% with your social and political beliefs and discount those who might only agree with most of your beliefs like Olin does mine? Or do you draw a line at 80% principle-concurrence (whatever the heck that is). How can you base investments primarily on principles versus accounting statements? Doesn't that leave you with a small pool of mostly loser companies? Again, pray tell, show us some of this blessed companies that fit your bill.
How can you assume you understand my "definition" for investment selection when all you know is I tend to look at the bottom line, I am a capitalist (isn't everyone who invests?), and I have purchased Olin upon occasion? That's not knowing very much for you to assume you understand my investment selection criteria much less be able to judge me and my principles on it. (Hint --- there's a very large spreadsheet with lots of numbers and only one of them is the bottom line and, for other decisions --- there's a dart board).
My goodness, I can only imagine what you must think when I day trade upon rare occasion (like when the wife is out :>) That must be like a financial brothel to you.
Perhaps you can respond to some of the queries (heh heh) stacking up which you seem to want to keep avoiding in lieu rushing to a myriad of judgments against me based on imagined assumptions.
One other note. When you look above at only a portion of Buffet's banking portfolio, you should note that there is really not much there based on social or political beliefs and principles. If you look further at Warren's or most financial investors including the Koch Bros, I think you will find the same. Just saying.
@mistergoogle,
I had made a general statement please point out where I specifically mentioned your name. Did I touch a spot or maybe you thought the shoe fit. Either way babble on..
"People should realize that it is very difficult to have a intelligent debate with someone who cannot tolerate being wrong and has to top it off by constantly trying to be a smart ass." Ignatz issuing a bold nonspecific general blue-sky statement which no one has boldly stated before.
So someone from the general audience responds " how untrue and unnecessary..... Where was the intolerance in the facts I presented? Where was the wrong? .... I don't appreciate you calling me names either." MG
Instead of responding to the specific questions and allegations, Ignatz reminds him it was a general statement, made to everyone in general, but never to him specifically because it was in general, to everyone, but he is not mentioned. It's like a single circle Venn diagram and I am the dot outside the circle. And then I am asked to "prove it" that my name was mentioned from the general statement to everyone. Well, that was a waste of time. And then I am told since I responded, I must have thought the shoe fit, so I guess it was to me, but not to me or to something or someone, but not to me at least specifically, but maybe, possibly to me generally, oh wait, I am touching a spot, I am babbling......oh that feels good.
Dude, there's only about four or five people droning on in this thread each of which might as well consider your "general" statement to be top-dead-center (car talk for Darrin) specific for them. It's not a large single circle Venn Diagram with only five people and literally the entire population might as well figure they are dead bang (shooting metaphor credit for JR) in the center of your target.
And then Ignatz who likes to call names but not name names, calls me, specifically, a "babbler" after Ignatz basically called the entire Venn Diagram, including me, smart asses. That's BDog, Mark, JR, and Darrin I think potentially in the circle and I can't imagine any of us dreaming we were outside the circle. Yeah, Iggy, this one would have popped better on the vent thread instead of on a thread where the general gets pretty specific to the small audience of participants.
But the funny part, beyond the previous Rock n Roll joke, is when one of the obvious "smart assed, intolerant, participants denies being part of our general group of five and gives Ignatz a "thumbs up' attaboy. Guess BDog saw the general part and figured "it was those other three guys I have been calling names and responding to with the frequency of movement of Saturday Darrin's trigger finger on a lonely, undisclosed, private field with a full 100-round LCM equipped weapon in his hand....."
PLEASE NOTE that the previous message was meant as clarification not as intolerant proof that I have to be right. Nor was it expected to be the last word on the topic, however the author does reserve the right to respond to responses and to boldly babble where no man has blathered before. (cue the theremin-based opening credit theme song).
BankUnited Discriminates Against Gun Dealers, Local Store Owners Claim
The Libertis' battle with BankUnited began last month. For seven years, they say, they had no problem with the Miami Lakes-based bank. T.R. had run a gun store in the Garden State, and when he opened Top-Gun Firearms on Calle Ocho, BankUnited operated the account.
But when T.R. decided to retire and let Elizabeth take the store online -- under the new name Discount Ammo-N-Guns -- the Libertis found themselves suddenly under fire.
A March 12 letter mysteriously informed them that BankUnited was closing their checking account "pursuant to the terms and conditions listed in our Depositor's Agreement." It gave the Libertis three days to transfer their cash elsewhere. When the Libertis called BankUnited for an explanation, they were politely informed that none would be forthcoming.
"I was very angry," Elizabeth says. "They were very inconsiderate. We had all our credit cards going through that bank. All of a sudden, we had to run and find another bank to keep our business going. We shut down for two weeks, and they wouldn't even tell us why."
After a day of dialing different BankUnited divisions and directors, the Libertis finally found out.
"This letter in no way reflects any derogatory reasons for such action on your behalf. But rather one of industry," wrote Coral Way branch manager Ricardo Garcia. "Unfortunately your company's line of business is not commensurate with the industries we work with."
http://blogs.miaminewtimes.com/riptide/2014/04/bank_united_discriminating_aga.php
http://www.nj.com/politics/index.ssf/2014/04/gun_control_bills_up_in_nj_senate_committee_monday.html
"Families of victims of the massacre at the Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Conn., pushed for the magazine limit, noting the shooter used high-capacity magazines."
I am sorry, i do feel for these people, but worry about your own state, leave us alone, we had nothing to do with what happened!
I wouldn't trust that snake (Weinberg) as far as I could throw her... (and that wouldn't be very far...)
(Oops, Darrin removed his link to the"deal" that Weinberg wants to make with the NRA)
And this is why:
http://www.ammoland.com/2013/05/loretta-weinberg-on-guns-confiscate-confiscate-confiscate/
By the way - the 10 round limit (S993) was passed out of committee today.
Now on to the full Senate.
Darrin, Am I missing something? I am really not sure what to make of this wackiness from the sons of liberty crowd.
First, do you really have a problem with people from another state, upon being invited, offering information and advice based on their experience? Or do you really feel that we should just stop all information, ideas, and advice coming in from across Jersey lines?
Second, are people really against selling guns ----- if they have cool smart technology. To the point of making death threats? I can see being against a mandatory law, but to stop all sales, to curtail the open market, with threats of violence just does not seem to be the NRA way. Or is it?
I just don't see how you can be for limiting freedom of speech and for limiting the open market when it suits you and vehemently against it when it doesn't. It would appear you're OK with gunnies threatening violence to restrict sales but against the government using law to restrict sales.
I mean if I want a smart gun, why do you have the right to stop me from buying one --- much less at the point of a gun. much less in another state beyond Jersey when the law these outsiders are protesting is a Jersey law. It's time to call out the real jack-booted thugs; I just don't see how you can condone that.
@misterbabble,
I knew you couldn't let it rest. Just had to have the last word, eh.
Carrie on.
Yes I do have a problem with it when what those "invited" (emphasis on the quotes) people are trying to push is unconstitutional. And I emphasize because their trip to the meetings is full paid for by the very people trying to get the law passed. Seems more like a bribe to make a stronger point, and hit on the emotional side all the time, bit hey that's just me. Why don't they tell those very people to stay on topic at the meetings? And not to tell the story of their children at every single meeting......emotional reaction. (Period)
And I am not saying dont make smart guns, I am saying dont make smart guns and take away the real guns, as the article portrays.
Hope this clears it up for you.
“We needed a bill that was going to confiscate, confiscate, confiscate.”
from the article linked above:
The Star-Ledger reported last Friday that after a closed-door hearing on gun control in the New Jersey Senate the previous day, three state senators–believed to be Democrats Loretta Weinberg, Sandra Cunningham and Linda Greenstein–were caught on tape, complaining that bills introduced in the Garden State–including one that would require mandatory training to possess a firearm–don’t go far enough.
First, a voice is heard complaining, “We needed a bill that was going to confiscate, confiscate, confiscate.” Then, the trio apparently focuses its ire on gun control opponents who say that the way to keep guns out of the hands of criminals is to throw the book at them.
Weinberg, willing to have no part of it, says “They want to keep the guns out of the hands of the bad guys, but they don’t have any regulations to do it.” Cunningham then snipes, “They don’t care about the bad guys. All they want to do is have their little guns and do whatever they want with them,” and Greenstein chimes in that enforcing existing law is “the line they have developed.”
Strong rhetoric that reveals how gun control supporters really feel about their issue is nothing new, of course. Nearly 20 years ago, U.S. Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) said that if she had been able to muster the votes, her 1994 “assault weapon” ban would not have merely prohibited various guns from being made with pistol grips, folding stocks and flash suppressors, but would have required a far harsher outcome; as Sen. Feinstein put it, “Mr. and Mrs. America, turn them all in.”
However, the fact that gun control supporters still feel that way, after violent crime rates have plummeted as gun controls have been eliminated and gun sales and gun ownership rates have soared, suggests that we’re up against ideologically driven adversaries with whom there can be no negotiation–only victory or defeat.
"their trip to the meetings is full paid for by the very people trying to get the law passed."
right, who is paying for these parents to go all over the country to push their anti-gun agenda?
follow the money and you find people like gorge soros and micheal bloomberg funding these expensive trips for the sandy hook families to go state by state, over and over again to tell their stories.
please, please defend us from those parents with their anti-gun agenda!! who speaks up for the poor guns? who are these breeders to tell US how to live? just have another kid and shut up.
Lobbying takes place on BOTH sides of the isle, on this issue and EVERY issue. Calling out the NRA as a lobby is meaningless.... actually, it's less than meaningless... most lobbies have corporations funding them, at least the NRA is funded by millions of American people, directly, as a public interest group instead of a pure-for-profit-making group (like say, Monsanto).
"please, please defend us from those parents with their anti-gun agenda!! "
parent's words are pretty strong when they are sent on all expense paid trips around america my anti-gun millionaires and paid to tell the story of their child's life over and over again in order to spark emotion within. Seems like the anti-gunner's are playing on the fact that these parent's lost their children.
I get you and that's fine to have that opinion. I do not have an issue with free speech whether from in-state or out-of-state sources and whether I agree or not. As far as funding, I have no problem with that either, especially if it is transparent. No issue with Koch Bro's doing it either although transparency is not exactly their style. I do have issues when the folks they fund lie, misstate facts or other dirty tricks like death threats to gun sellers. Strange that no one here is speaking out about that.
And JR, I have responded to you on this many times but once again, while the NRA membership is made up of the American people, a large portion, if not overwhelming portion of NRA funding comes from about 22 gun makers. Clearly each of these gun makers has a larger voice that any citizen. http://www.businessinsider.com/gun-industry-funds-nra-2013-1#!JtVCH
Heck, the NRA even benefits from website and publication advertising and you know where that comes from. Don't see any members putting up spashy ads.
And on the other side including a nice history of the NRA that apparently time has forgot: http://www.policymic.com/articles/23929/10-surprising-facts-about-the-nra-that-you-never-hear
I think gun owners using threats of violence to stop gun sellers from selling certain guns is about as hypocritical as it gets. If you don't like the law, use legal means to get your message out and change the law. I think the NJ smart gun law sounds like a nice blue-sky idea but certainly seems nebulous, impractical, and perhaps illegal. I mean how grey is it to force smart gun sales when you think they're readily available. And even if readily available, if the cost is prohibitive to the point of stopping gun sales, does that not conflict with the 2A to essentially create an embargo at the state line? Not to mention that the effect at that point will be for gun owners to "import' cost effective guns across our state lines ---- legal or not.
But work to change the law, not issue death threats to gun sellers obeying the law and trying to get buyers what they desire on the free market.
Meanwhile, have you guys bought your gun insurance to protect your family from excessive legal fees in the event of a legal shooting? Think it's only about $8 per month and all the rage. However, you may not be able to purchase; they like to sell to gun owners who don't openly espouse violence or in JRs case: a l l u d e to it as a certainty in society today, except not by him :>) Better pick some up and protect the family from financial ruin due to good aim.
misterg, please explain what smart guns are and how they would help get "real" guns out of criminals hands.
Will smart guns have backdoor access of control by the government like airplanes do? We can get into another conversation over this......
And also freedom of speech is quickly loosing the "freedom" part when these parents are being PAID to speak FOR anti-gunners, they are no longer voicing their words, just voicing what they are told to. As I said, seems anti-gunners are paying for the parent's STORY. Everyone knows guns can save lives just as easily as they can end lives, what they are bringing to the table is a emotional story to sway the lawmakers, children are the highest emotional factor, why do you think the media and anti-gunners prey on school shootings so much?
confiscation is the goal as the article linked above documents:
" as Sen. Feinstein put it, “Mr. and Mrs. America, turn them all in.” "
" a voice is heard complaining, “We needed a bill that was going to confiscate, confiscate, confiscate.” "
this is their end game.
these three need to be voted out of office ASAP:
Democrats Loretta Weinberg, Sandra Cunningham and Linda Greenstein
mg,
So, are you "ok" with Bloomberg, spending millions of dollars in an attempt to affect the outcomes of elections (just like the NRA does) so that anti-gun candidates win? There's no difference. Both are lobbies. IDK where all of Bloomie's money comes from, if it's all personal profit or if he has contributors, but the bottom line is this: the NRA (and other pro-gun organizations) spend money to try to get the people elected who represent their wants for the country. Just like Bloomberg and ANY OTHER CONTRIBUTOR YOU CAN POSSIBLY THINK OF, BE IT CORPORATION, NON-PROFIT GROUP, OR PRIVATE CITIZEN.
What make the NRA worse than Bloomberg? Who has proclaimed his personal crusade to destroy the NRA (which is a smoke screen; it's just an avenue to get to banning and confiscation of private, legally-owned firearms.)
I have no problem with either the NRA or Bloomberg spending their money in this way. My point was that you were deluded if you thought the NRA money was mostly from individual members; they are more a gun maker's lobby than yours. Maybe that's why when you look at the NRA history you'll find that it's foundation has crumbled quite a bit.
Now I do have real problems with the Supreme Court's recent two rulings allowing Bloomberg, Koch Bro's, NRA, Exxon, and any other individual, organization, or business spending their money in this way with virtually no caps whatsoever. I do not think that an unlimited bankroll should give you an unlimited volume of your message. And worse than that list of newly unleashed monetary voice is the probability with these new Supreme Court no-limit spending rules is that it's only a matter of time until a Chinese-backed individual or a Chinese/American company starts spending at a no cap level to affect our way of life in favor of their agenda.
But at least we will still be able to say a Christian prayer before a town meeting to cheer us up.
"they are more a gun maker's lobby than yours"
What is wrong with this? If are bans put into place, many many gun companies will be forced out of business, including the thousands of companies that make accessories for the very guns. The amount of damage a simple ban could produce is unforeseen.
Something that nobody has brought up if you ban private gun sales, or even infringe upon them enough that gun companies stop making particular models of weapons, companies may not be able to afford to stay in business, and this could be a gun company that provides to our military too, but survives due to civilian sales.....so then what?
this bill must be defeated:
Supporters and detractors of the measure were very passionate in expressing their views.
“New Jersey can remain in the forefront in this important struggle to address the gun violence that ravages our communities,” said Ron Schwartz, a member of the Bergen County Coalition to Prevent Gun Violence. “Sadly, there are many examples of how limiting the size of ammunition magazines has been necessary to save lives.”
Critics of the legislation also had their say before the Senate panel.
“The cold, hard truth is that no one will be any safer under this feel-good legislation because criminals and madmen will either ignore it or find another tool,” said Scott Bach, executive director of the Association of New Jersey Rifle & Pistol Clubs. “In Virginia Tech, 10-round magazines were used. In Columbine, 10-round magazines were used.”
According to Bach, it is absurd to think a criminal can have a 10-round magazine, but not a 15-round magazine. Schwartz said that limiting magazine clips to 10 rounds will make New Jersey safer for children and communities.
Under current law, 15-round ammunition magazines are legal in New Jersey. The 10-round limit would bring the Garden State’s laws in line with the limits in the 1994 assault weapons ban. The bill was approved by the full Assembly in March and now awaits final legislative approval by the full Senate, before heading to the desk of Gov. Chris Christie.
http://nj1015.com/senate-panel-approves-gun-magazine-limit-audio/?trackback=tsmclip
mg,
We agree on the unlimited funding thing.
Interesting you felt the need, for some reason, to take a parting shot at Christianity for some reason, in a thread about gun control. Not sure what bearing that has on the subject? Or is that just you HAVING to be a smartass because you simply can't resist the urge?
There's nothing wrong with the NRA being a gun maker's lobby; I was just clarifying a comment about the NRA funding sources and who really pays their salaries.
JR, no Christian poke, I am all for praying regularly and often as your faith intends. However, forcing people to pray or to sit silent while others pray or to get up and leave if offended at a town meeting or other governmental function seems against the concept of separation of church and state.
It IS a poke at the Supreme Court's recent decisions like the spending limits, decisions which are getting more loony tune every day.
"It IS a poke at the Supreme Court's recent decisions like the spending limits, decisions which are getting more loony tune every day."
I agree that they got this one wrong. More and more it's becoming tyranny of the majority (something the Constitution was written to prevent). One shouldn't have to leave a *government* meeting to avoid a *prayer* session that you may not agree with, just because most of the room is Christian and that's the prayer they chose.
You betcha Mark. And while the current court leans conservative, these decisions are not conservative ---- they are just weird.
While the NRA may very well lobby for gun makers, they also lobby for gun OWNERS- American citizens. You may not separate the two, but they are separate entities.
NRA (or GOA, or JPFO), have members who pay membership fees. And donate additional monies if they desire, to have a group help represent them in Washington. Now, while I am "for" completely banning ALL lobbies- gun, anti-gun, solar power, coal power, monsanto, ALL of them- there's nothing wrong with organizations like the NRA researching political candidates, giving endorsements, etc. I'd have no problem with ALL lobbies being prohibited from ever even SPEAKING with a representative. But citizen-based organizations will continue on and have at least some role to play in politics; you can't stop that.
Just because the NRA also represents gun makers in no way lessens the fact that they are an organization hat also represents citizen's interests... we PAY THEM TO.
If Monsanto wanted to start a pro-GMO membership organization, and have people send them money to try to further GMO research in our food supply, and research/endorse candidates for the same, there'd be no stopping such an action. (however, I doubt Monsanto would get very many members)
[ironically, I'm no cheerleader for the NRA; I haven't been real happy with them for years now]...
"[ironically, I'm no cheerleader for the NRA; I haven't been real happy with them for years now]..."
I'll somewhat defend the NRA against most "attacks" because I don't agree that they are evil, pro-murder, etc. as some people characterize them.
But I do think they can be clumsy, slow to react, and tone deaf at times. Is Wayne the best face of the organization? Definitely not. Is that a reason to mock and ridicule him personally? Not at all.
NOTE: The NRA is also *right* a lot of the time. Armed guards in schools? They were relentlessly lambasted for even suggesting such a thing... OMG, guns in schools! But later, a LOT of school districts (even Newtown, CT) enacted just what the NRA had recommended.
Gee JR we agree, except that I would add "if money talks," then the NRA speaks more for them than for you (unless you happen to agree)
And no Mark, Peppy Lepew has stepped over the fear-mongering hate line one too many times; his actions and words are what ridicule him.
As far as armed guards in schools, not an issue, if done properly. Better yet, fund the police department if you really care about quality protect and serve. But the NRA wanted armed citizens as well. Here's their spin: "Some will want police officers there. Others of them will want private security guards," David Keene said in an exclusive CNN interview. "There may be some place they want volunteers to do it. We're willing to work with everybody on those questions." Uh, did they leave anyone out?
As far as will it help, the jury is still out and many places are realizing it's much more than just volunteering to come on down with your gun: "Published: January 25, 2014 - 10:35 PM A month after a local police officer and decorated combat veteran accidentally discharged his firearm in a school, the Ohio House passed legislation Wednesday that would remove liability for schools that make closed-door decisions about arming teachers." http://www.ohio.com/news/ohio-house-excuses-schools-teachers-for-gun-accidents-1.461910 ------- Ohio is passing liability waivers (good luck with that in court), mandatory training and even psych evals post shooting.
Oct 2013 ABC News "Another incident of a young boy and a gun. It happened during an anti drug school safety demonstration at an elementary school in -- California. Police say that a loaded gun mounted to a police motorcycle was on display and it accidentally discharged when a student got a hold of it."
Now I can go farther and I am sure you can find good news too. The point is we really don't know if this is productive or not and we, like in Ohio and CA, are rapidly discovering that more guns in schools mean gun accidents in schools. And that more and more laws will be needed to protect everyone. And yes I know, more blood was drawn in school with paper cuts :>) than with guns carried by non-villains.
over 5 million regular everyday Americans make up the NRA and the majority of their funding, not gun makers. more and more individual americian citizens join every day and in total provide the majority of funding that the NRA receives.
why believe sources that come from people who are not members (and who have never been members) who have an agenda to denigrate and dismiss this grass roots organization.
the agenda driven attack pieces from those who are anti-gun and anti-nra need to be examined in a bright light.
the nra is as strong as it is primarily because it is made up of millions of individuals, that's scary to the gun control crowd, they can't deal with it.
bloomberg shelping the sandy victims parents around the country at his expense should be shown for exactly what it is. Shamelessly grandstanding and standing on the dead bodies of children for his own personal agenda. not good of him. he's not a nice guy using grieving families this way
mg said
"As far as armed guards in schools, not an issue, if done properly. Better yet, fund the police department if you really care about quality protect and serve"
Fail. Failed in Columbine, Failed in Newtown. Police (as opposed to armed guards in schools) can't prevent these crimes, or even stop them immediately. They can only force the criminals to commit suicide after all the damage has been done, and write up the reports.
BTW- I'm sure you know this, but the Supreme Court has verified the police have NO DUTY to "protect" you.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren_v._District_of_Columbia
"A person without a sense of humor is like a wagon without springs. It's jolted by every pebble on the road."
Henry Ward Beecher
"Common sense and a sense of humor are the same thing, moving at different speeds. A sense of humor is just common sense, dancing."
William James
We all have a sense of humor, mg- but it seems, as of late, it's ALL you've got... every reply you post has some snark/clever/tongue-in-cheek "humor", like it's all you've got left to debate with. You use your "humor" to try to make others look foolish. All it does is make you look like you've lost the debate.
But whatever- joke on.
So basically you said in your last post that "Police (as opposed to armed guards in schools) can't prevent these crimes, or even stop them immediately."
Now I am sure on the face of it you can find armed guards that are better than police as well as police who fall down on the job.
But if you are telling us that, on average, armed guards are better trained than police, yeah, that's a pretty funny one and IMHO worthy of a poke.
That said, I am sure there are well-trained armed guards out there but I bet you end up paying as much you would for police. Not to mention that a major reason to used armed guards over police is cost, cost, cost and ultimately you get what you scrimp on.
Fact is it's a probably mostly a really incredibly mind numbing boring job most of the time and for long periods of time; that's probably why they make so many bonehead mistakes like losing their guns, firing rounds while cleaning their gun on the job, etc. etc. etc. And since mostly police and ex-police have been used to-date, of course all accidents, tragedies, and mistakes involve them. There just hasn't been enough time under the new paradigm of anything goes.
And if you tell me therefore we should just arm NRA-trained volunteers and teachers, yeah, it will be another poke.
mg,
You don't need to be a rocket scientist to understand this:
The reason an armed guard at a school would be better than "calling the police" is that the armed guard is AT THE SCHOOL. Right then. As it's happening. Not after shots are fired, someone dials 911, dispatch vectors the police out to the school, after a number of people have already died.
It's the same argument for allowing people to have guns in their homes. THEY have a chance to stop the bad guy before he kills someone, way before the police can get there. Ditto for CCWs.
As far as NRA training being "bogus" (which is what you infer in your statements), if NRA training is good enough for someone to get a concealed carry permit, and it's good enough for police forces to use, why wouldn't it be good enough for teachers, or ANYONE to use? Or is this just more of your blind NRA hatred?
Ah, there's the disconnect. I was thinking that the schools would hire police, ex-police, etc. for the hours they need coverage. Not as on call but as guards.
And yes, I stand corrected that the NRA does provide firearms instruction training (and therefore firearms training) for police as well as citizens. But NRA police training is separate from other citizens like armed guards so armed guards get different training and/or training conditions than police from the NRA. And they only train firearms; that is not all there is to being trained for police work, even in a school or perhaps especially in a school.
The NRA only lists how many certificate holders it has, not how many police forces or policemen they train. They've passed 55,000 instructors in the past 50-years, 20% of which (11,000) are currently active, but no where do they indicate how many of these are police or how many police the instructors have trained. Also the number of police courses is extremely limited so it just does not seem they really have the numbers. Ten courses in a year with what looks like less than 250 students, total.
But yes, they do offer training, and they do train some number of police, in firearms use.
ahem... speaking of "police training"..... did these guys GET any???
http://thefreethoughtproject.com/wtf-23-police-officers-fire-377-bullets-2-men-0-guns-wounding-2/
It's always the same thing with mg, he gets pinned down so he makes a joke of it, then gets pinned on a joke so he comes in with a completely outfield comment......
MG, it would be very adult to say, "you bring up a good point" or "hmmm, I didn't think of that" You should try it sometime, it may help remove the blinders that you seem to be wearing.
you are getting close "And yes, I stand corrected "
"Sounds like the police are the ones that need the 10 round magazine limit" LMFAO MARK!!!
I think they should allow any (well trained, permit owning) teacher to be armed - concealed carry style. That way if some nut-case enters a school or classroom they can be taken down (hopefully) before they cause any injuries or deaths. Huddling in a corner in a dark classroom like sitting ducks, seems like a plan for failure to me.
A well trained teacher is no different than a police officer - except that they are right there at the moment, instead of having to be called and wait till they get there. The cops always show up to count the dead bodies. Again, seems like a plan to fail to me.
Pinned on a joke?
Completely outfield comment?
Blinders?
Just for you Darrin: "I think the scariest person in the world is the person with no sense of humor." Michael J. Fox
Pinned on a joke?
Completely outfield comment?
Good stuff.
Emily,
"you bring up a good point" :>), however, NRA training alone, based on their own syllabus is clearly not "well-trained." For example, the NRA training does not teach you to aim as well as many police procedures.
Also there is the point of the possible "surround" policies and programs possibly needed such as: how often retraining or training updates are needed, possible certifications, as well as all the crud that goes on after a shooting takes place.
Police have all of this in place. I am sure reputable armed guard companies have more than nothing but how much nobody knows I gather. Schools arming teachers have absolutely nothing in place. Perhaps that is better than hiding in the corner, perhaps it is worse --- only time and experience will tell.
"For example, the NRA training does not teach you to aim as well as many police procedures. "
What aim? From http://www.cbsnews.com/news/empire-state-building-shooting-sparks-questions-about-nypd-shot-accuracy/
"According to a 2008 analysis of NYPD firearms discharge data done by the New York Times, between 1996-2006 officers hit their intended target about 34 percent of the time."
"During a gunfight, where the target is shooting at officers, the study reported that the hit rate falls to just 18 percent. "
"The Times reported that in 2006-2007, Los Angeles police officers hit their targets between 27 and 29 percent of the time, respectively. "
"His 2003 report on the subject found that shootings involving a single officer have an approximately 50 percent hit ratio, and that low light diminishes police accuracy by up to 30 percent."
People think that police actually practice with their firearms. I bet the vast majority get their 100 - 150 round qualification in each year and call it good enough. I go to the range multiple times per year, firing anywhere from 100 rounds or more EACH TIME, and I barely scratch the surface of what some folks do (1,000's of rounds a month in practice). In general, police SUCK at shooting.
"NRA became the only national trainer of law enforcement officers with the introduction of its NRA Police Firearms Instructor certification program in 1960. Today, there are more than 10,000 NRA-certified police and security firearms instructors. Additionally, top law enforcement shooters compete each year in eight different pistol and shotgun matches at the National Police Shooting Championships held in Jackson, Mississippi."
https://membership.nrahq.org/about-us.asp
National Police Shooting Championships
September 14-18, 2014
The 2014 National Police Shooting Championships will be held at the NPSC Police Pistol Combat ranges at Shooting Range Park in Albuquerque, New Mexico. You do not have to have to have a PPC Classification to register and there are no qualifying requirements.
Open to any eligible law enforcement member, the Championships will begin with a NRA Tactical Police Competition event on Saturday & Sunday, September 13th and 14th (shoot one of the two days).
http://npsc.nra.org/
Armed teachers? It would be a matter of time before one was disarmed by a student and shot with their own gun. That would happen much more early and often than one preventing a mass killing by a deranged intruder.
So are you really trying to say that armed guards or civilians would be better shots under fire than police? Really?
Some history: From civilwarguns.com: "Such bad shooting was not limited to northern troops. Captain Frank Myers of the 35th Va. Cav. related the story of an ambuscade set to catch a particularly persistent and troublesome federal patrol then making the rounds in the area of Orleans, Virginia.3 "Lieut. Chiswell, with seventeen men of Company B, was stationed in the thick bushes close along side the road, with instructions to fire when the Yankees came opposite them."...."About 3 o'clock the picket came quietly in and reported about 100 approaching." .... "After waiting anxiously, with ears strained to catch the sound, for about ten minutes, the carbines of Chiswell's men rang out." .... "Strange as it may appear, only one man was killed by the fire of Chiswell's men, although they had a rest and the distance was scarcely twelve yards, but that one man had seven bullets through him. That was the usual result of ambuscades, for under the most favorable circumstances they seldom did much damage."
More current and better validity statistically from Joan N. Vickers, University of Calgary, Canada and William Lewinski, Minnesota State University (Mankato), MN, from Performing under pressure: Gaze control, decision making and shooting performance of elite and rookie police officers
"Abstract
Gaze of elite (E) and rookie (R) officers were analyzed as they faced a potentially lethal encounter that required use of a handgun, or inhi- bition of the shot when a cell phone was drawn. The E shot more accurately than the R (E 74.60%; R 53.80%) and made fewer decisions errors in the cell condition when 18.50% of E and 61.50% of R fired at the assailant. E and R did not differ in duration of the draw/aim/fire phases, but the R’s motor onsets were later, during the final second compared to the E’s final 2.5 s. Across the final six fixations the E increased the percent of fixations on the assailant’s weapon/cell to 71% and to 86% on hits, compared to a high of 34% for the R. Before firing, the R made a rapid saccade to their own weapon on 84% of trials leading to a failure to fixate the assailant on 50% of trials as they fired. Compared to the R, the E had a longer quiet eye duration on the assailant’s weapon/cell prior to firing. The results provide new insights into officer weapon focus, firearms training and the role of optimal gaze control when under extreme pressure."
So are you really saying that police are incompetent in regards to gun usage? Do you really expect better results from Paul Blart or Marian the Librarian? Or were you just showing that everyone's proficiency suffers during the heat of battle?
emily is right when she said "The cops always show up to count the dead bodies"
cops always take time to respond, having your own protection with you is the best way to deal with a deadly threat
not just in schools, but also women who work/walk alone at night, they need to be able to meet force with like force in order to protect themselves,
BrotherDog - You're forgetting that guns are only good when they are protecting money (banks) or celebrities (bodyguards).
Mere peons like most citizens, their kids, and educators should only be allowed to fight back with erasers, textbooks, and maybe (if you're lucky) ball point pens.
Also, don't forget, police only carry guns to make sure THEY get home safely. The rest of the time they're busy shooting 50% of their bullets at the wrong people (9 out of 16 rounds fired by police at the Empire State Building hit bystanders) or just hurling lead at anything that moves, forgetting the gun safety rule "know your target and *what is beyond* it, like in JR's link above where 377 rounds were fired, or the LAPD firing squad that unloaded on the wrong truck (and see all those houses in the background... that's what's beyond.)
"So are you really saying that police are incompetent in regards to gun usage? Do you really expect better results from Paul Blart or Marian the Librarian? Or were you just showing that everyone's proficiency suffers during the heat of battle?"
First of all, you're going to compare civil war accuracy to current conditions? You do realize there was this little thing called rifling that vastly improved accuracy compared to smooth bore muzzle loaders, right? And even if they used rifled muzzle loaders, the consistency of the powder charge, projectile, etc. were questionable at best.
And if Paul Blart or Marian the Librarian fire more than the minimum qualification that most officers call sufficient, then yes I expect better results. Another thing you may have heard of is muscle memory. You don't get it firing 100 rounds once a year - it takes practice. Go look up Jerry Miculek. He's definitely an outlier on the other side of the pendulum but he didn't get that way by doing the bare minimum.
It would be interesting if the state would list the following.
Shootings, assault by blunt objects, death by auto, stabbings, DWI and death involved, assault and battery with injuries, arson, Auto accidents with fatalities.
Stop and think about it. Everyday there is an accident within 11 miles. How many fatal are involved, Drug overdose.
Take a survey and list them all.
I do not think law abiding citizens in New Jersey with a firearm will be in the top ten.
You only hear about it because the newspaper, radio and TV targets these problems.
Yes even police have shoot outs. NY is good for that when 2 fellow officers had a problem and shot each other. How many law officials have misused their firearm.
There are many walks of life with issues.
The news do not publish the law officers because it is bad business.
If you want to blame one and put it on TV, put everything on TV.
The hospitals are full of injured people from one reason or another.
I am quite sure it is not all gun shots.
WE NEED A SURVEY, THAN CRITICIZE WHAT LAWS TO CHANGE OR IMPROVE.
I belong to the NRA. I agree with some of their positions. So do the police and other law enforcement.
It would be nice to think that your friends or neighbor would help you when your life is threatened.
Police only arrive after the crime has been committed.
Please be open minded.
Florida thought that crime would go up . Instead crime took a large fall after people had the right to carry
Last of all. Chicago has shootings everyday and it is illegal to even own a gun there.
Explain that.
Thanks for your time Charlie
The students don't have to know which teachers are armed...ever hear of "concealed carry?" It's called that because the gun is - wait for it - concealed (meaning you can't see it!).
Lol, students know which teachers are banging each other. You think they wont be able to figure out who's carrying a gun?
"You think they wont be able to figure out who's carrying a gun?
May as well disarm all the police, armored car drivers, security guards, and soldiers... after all, the bad guys could just steal their guns too, right?
And before you say "but they have training!!!!".... well, there's plenty of training available for everyone. Right here in NJ, as well. Training isn't some magical unicorn that only the police have access to.
http://gunforhire.com/ (hover over "courses" to see all the options)
Residents of NJ now have less rights than the residents of Guam.
http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2014/05/foghorn/guam-passes-shall-issue-concealed-carry-legislation/
Less free than Guam. Quite a claim for the land of the free.
Yet per 100,000 we shoot to death more than: Uruguay, Philippines, Argentina, Peru, Chile, Croatia, Serbia and every single modern nation. And we shoot to death just a tiny bit less than: Costa Rica, Nicaragua, and Mexico.
The founding fathers would be proud of their creation.
Yeah, more rights as in the right to not have 75% of your country taken by the military. More rights as in being beaten in the middle of the night if you join the wrong church. More rights as in using that gun to murder the Filipinos in the country because they're just wrong. More rights as in institutionalized racism. Sure, just a paradise of freedom.
Wow, MG. You really listed some wonderful vacation spots there.
Let's look at those places in a different light, shall we? How about comparing *total intentional homicide rate (per 100,000)* rather than cherry picking data. Homicide is a result of the intent to kill someone, not access to the objects.
Wit just a few exceptions, those places are up to 6x more dangerous than the USA. And guns are the problem? If these places shoot less people it just means that they have found other, just as effective means, to murder other people. Mexico has all the gun control laws anyone could ask for, and yet far more people are murdered there each year (maybe criminals know their victims won't be able to defend themselves, eh?)
United States: 4.8
Uruguay: 5.9
Phillipines: 5.4
Argentina: 5.5
Peru: 10.3
Chile: 3.7
Croatia: 1.4
Serbia: 1.2
Costa Rica: 10.0
Nicaragua: 12.6
Mexico: 23.7
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate
And my initial point holds true. Guam has more respect for the 2nd Amendment than NJ.
"There is nothing smart about pricing guns out of the reach of a single mom, raising two children in the inner city. "
Smart Gun Mandate Makes Gun Ownership Rich Man's Game
With The Washington Post pushing for New Jersey to implement a 2002 smart gun-only mandate based on the Armatix iP1, it is important to point out that such a mandate will effectively turn gun ownership into a rich man's game.
After all, the .22 caliber Armatix iP1 costs $1,800 a gun. Other .22 pistols--be they Walthers or Rugers--can be purchased brand new for $400 or less.
But the Walthers and Rugers will be illegal to sell in New Jersey once the law is implemented. For the law states that "no handgun" other than a smart gun "shall be sold or offered for sale by any registered or licensed dealer in the state."
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2014/05/10/Smart-Gun-Mandate-Makes-Gun-Ownership-A-Rich-Man-s-Game
"Lol, students know which teachers are banging each other. You think they wont be able to figure out who's carrying a gun?"
They also know that police officers carry guns, yet do they run up to them and try to disarm them?
With the proper training, this would not happen. Obviously I agree teachers to carry would have special training. Let them go through the police firearm training, or, if you want them to actually hit something, send them to the NRA training
Cherry picking? I just picked most of the countries in closest proximity above and below our gun homicide rating to show how third world we are when it comes to violence by gun. As for your research, thanks for the additional info to help prove the point however, none of the countries is 6x the rating for the US as you reported. US - 4.8, 6x4.8= 28.8, Mexico = 23.7. Sorry.
Vacation spot? Don't you think people think twice now before coming to the U.S.?
According to your intentional homicide data, including all "objects" of murder, most of the countries' intentional rate is still fairly close to the US again showing how third world we are with violence, most of which is fueled by gun. Chile, Croatia, and Serbia actually are lower than us in your table which should really make you pause to consider: what the heck is wrong with us? Only Costa Rica, Nicaragua, and Mexico went the other way, big time, and there's out-n-out upheaval in those places so somehow being better than Mexico does not make me proud.
Note that I did not list any modern developed nations; they turn in ratings that would make you wonder if we belong on the same planet with them. Somehow, they have figured out how to act developed and modern while we cling to the MO of the third world. A total of 72 countries score HALF the rate of murder in the US including Afghanistan. Ouch. 43 of them score ONE QUARTER the murder rate of the US. 43 countries have one fourth the murder rate of the US. We are four times higher. But in guns, oh in guns, 57 countries score lower than us and only 14 score higher. We almost make the top 10 for gun-related murders.
There seems to be a correlation to places where there are lots of guns with gun murders and murders. In these places, guns are used more often to solve problems. They are not used to defend freedom, they are not the voice of democracy. They just kill. And in the US, in states where gun laws are loose, gun homicides go up. Some loose states even become gun crime exporters to tighter states. When gun laws are tighter, gun murders go down. Even in Chicago, which is a strict gun law geography, but a small island completely surrounded by loose gun law states on all sides cept the lake, people like to tout gun law failure because Chicago boosts the highest number of murders. Well, it's the third largest city, so the number will be high to begin with although first is not the direction nor spot you want. But when you look at rates per 100,000, Chicago does better than Philadelphia, Memphis, Detroit, Baltimore and many others.
Now again I am not saying turn over the 2A. I am not saying turn in your guns. And even my proposed LCM 10-round limitation does not target less guns nor does it portend less murders by gun. I am saying that common sense gun laws that tighten guidelines for purchase and carry to allow proper purchase and handling of guns while protecting all of us just seems to make common sense. I am saying there is something wrong in America with our level of violence and that guns are a big part mostly because they are every where and they are so easy to use to solve problems. We have a violence issue in America and Peppy Lepew's answer of more good guns in the hands of more good people is not a good answer.
I am not for this NJ law because it will not change anything. I do believe the NJ gun laws have made us safer in our own state and I can't imagine that any of you are being denied your guns. Perhaps delayed, but not denied. At least in your homes. Perhaps NJ's "may issue" law is too stringent. But IMHO, shall issue is often too loose. We need to do everything in our power to lessen violence in America and common sense gun laws can help. I just don't thin we want to be third world when it comes to murder, whether by gun or other means.
"Chile, Croatia, and Serbia actually are lower than us in your table which should really make you pause to consider: what the heck is wrong with us?"
Actually, it makes me think "How much are they cooking the books on those statistics?"
"But in guns, oh in guns, 57 countries score lower than us and only 14 score higher. We almost make the top 10 for gun-related murders. "
Again, with this statement and a few others that follow, you mistakenly think all gun related deaths are murders. USA may just rate the highest in private citizens ventilating the bad guys in justifiable self defense. Add in some over-zealous police shooting 93 year old grandmothers and that could explain our stats.
"I am not for this NJ law because it will not change anything."
So did you contact your Senator and Assemblyman to ask them to vote against it? If not, I consider you just as much in support of the law as those who voted yes. Representative government and all that...
"We need to do everything in our power to lessen violence in America and common sense gun laws can help."
There is very little "common sense" about any of NJ's gun laws. If background checks are the solution to the violence problem (as those who support Universal Background Checks claim) then why does the magazine and or "evil feature" limit even apply to those who passed background checks? After all, we passed background checks. I could kill someone just as easily with the guns I am "allowed" to have, right?
" I can't imagine that any of you are being denied your guns"
umm, yeah we are actually, with a 10 round limit in place, it once again makes certain guns illegal to own, such as tub fed magazines, or large revolvers
From your previous thread, I believe there were a lot of rifles in the Civil War with accuracy at 150 to 400 yards if you knew how to aim, especially as the war progressed. But point taken and I only provided the passage to show that killing has always been more difficult than fantasized by boys practicing with weapons since the dawn of man.
And so you expect the mall cop, the armed guard and the teacher to be more accurate IF they "fire more than the minimum qualification that most officers call sufficient." Because of the stress factor, I beg to differ even with proficient target practice. Plus, no way will they outpace an experienced officer.
I am sure the soldiers among us who actively protected us under fire can weigh in on the difference between practice and the real thing when it comes to accuracy.
Meanwhile, let's talk Florida and it's amazing pro-2A stance making it a safer, better place or my view of its lessening of violence due to loose, very loose gun laws since someone brought it up as the shining example of gun righteousness.
I tire of the answer to our crime, violence, governmental, societal, and even family problems as always being more guns, easier access to gun purchases, less tough gun laws, hidden guns, guns at all locations and celebrations. Again, I am not against the 2A, I am not against proper gun ownership, but with more guns comes more gun murders. It's a simple fact of gun life. It is that simple. America has more guns than anyone and we certainly shoot a lot of people with them. More than most countries and much more than any modern, developed nation. We are third world when it comes to gun violence and violence. With more bullets in the clip comes more grandiose mass murders. It's that simple. And states with tough gun laws have less gun murders, states with loose gun laws not only have more but tend to export it to other states as well. It is that simple.
Sure, you can kill people with most anything, but guns sure make it easier and more guns make them more accessible.
But let's go to Florida for a look see. Mr. Charlie says "Florida thought that crime would go up . Instead crime took a large fall after people had the right to carry"
FACT: Florida violent crime down 60% since 1993. That's the number most widely touted, so sounds like Mr. Charlie is right. However overall crime is down too across the nation and in most spots in the nation so is FLA with it's loose gun laws all that different?
FACT: US violent crime was down by 50% for the same period as Florida's 60%.
FACT: Crime was going way down well before Florida became the gunshine state with many of the new laws easing gun control occurring post 1993. Castle doctrine/2005. Pre-emption/2011, Vehicle carry/2008.
FACT: Gun homicide is up in Fla. Up over 40% since 2000 from 491 per year to between 700 - 900 per year.
FACT: More important, rates are out of touch with the nation and with tough gun laws states like ----- NJ or CT. rate per 100,000 fla/US/NJ for homicide 5.3/5.1/4.0 Murder by gun 3.7/3.6/2.7. FLA clearly not doing better than the nation and notably worse than tough-gun-law-states like NJ.
FACT: According to neighborhoodscout.com, Florida hosts 11 of the top 100 most dangerous cities. While CA came close with 10, NY has 2, NJ 6. We may beat them on quality (higher city rankings for individual cities), but they have us on quantity (number of cities, number of locations, amount of area infected).
FACT: Fla has reached 1M licenses and yet they can't access the federal mental health database, they license out-of-state people who can't be licensed in their own home state, they export more guns used in crimes than any other state.
So in Florida, crime is down, murder and murder by gun is up and the state opportunity to be splayed by gun is higher than the national average and way higher than tough gun law states. They have 11 different cities that you should avoid. Worse yet, Florida is to exported guns being used in other states for crime (where tougher gun laws would stop purchase) what Mexico is to marijuana.
Florida also brought us splashy anecdotal examples of gun violence like Michael David Dunn the SUV shooter or George Zimmerman the neighborhood vigilante but there are many, many, more stories of gunmen gone mad coming from the gunshine state. Worse yet, you can find Florida gun stories for PA and many other states in the Union.
So sure, crime and violent crime are down. But Florida's numerical facts regarding guns, crime and violence are not compelling as a rationale for loosening gun laws and the wild abandon with which they allow guns to enter the market is frightening.
mg said:
"I can't imagine that any of you are being denied your guns. "
(they are in NY and CA, but we'll just stick to NJ for now)
This just proves you are either lying to yourself so you can believe what you want to believe, or you have terrible comprehension skills.
Go back and read the current NJ gun laws, they are the Clinton Gun Ban, there are MANY guns we are not allowed to have in this state... the M1 Carbine comes to mind. Rifle, SEMI-auto, .30 caliber PISTOL round..... no reason whatsoever that gun needs to be banned... less lethal than any AR-15/.223 (using caliber size/delivered energy to calculate "lethality") A .45ACP and 9mm JHP has more "lethality".
...which just proves there is little "common sense" in your "common sense gun laws"
Per NJ law, these guns are illegal to possess, and have been/will be confiscated (and land you in prison for years) if you own them. So yes, they have denied and confiscated PLENTY of guns from people who have done nothing wrong except own certain configurations of metal and springs.
1. Any of the following firearms:
Algimec AGM1 type
Any shotgun with a revolving cylinder such as the "Street Sweeper" or "Striker 12"
Armalite AR-180 type
Australian Automatic Arms SAR
Avtomat Kalashnikov type semi-automatic firearms
Beretta AR-70 and BM59 semi-automatic firearms
Bushmaster Assault Rifle
Calico M-900 Assault carbine and M-900
CETME G3
Chartered Industries of Singapore SR-88 type
Colt AR-15 and CAR-15 series
Daewoo K-1, K-2, Max 1 and Max 2, AR 100 types
Demro TAC-1 carbine type
Encom MP-9 and MP-45 carbine types
FAMAS MAS223 types
FN-FAL, FN-LAR, or FN-FNC type semi-automatic firearms
Franchi SPAS 12 and LAW 12 shotguns
G3SA type
Galil type
Heckler and Koch HK91, HK93, HK94, MP5, PSG-1
Intratec TEC 9 and 22 semi-automatic firearms
M1 carbine type
M14S type
MAC 10, MAC 11, MAC 11-9 mm carbine type firearms
PJK M-68 carbine type
Plainfield Machine Company Carbine
Ruger K-Mini-14/5 F and Mini-14/5 RF
SIG AMT, SIG 550SP, SIG 551SP, SIG PE-57 types
SKS with detachable magazine type
Spectre Auto carbine type
Springfield Armory BM59 and SAR-48 type
Sterling MK-6, MK-7 and SAR types
Steyr A.U.G. semi-automatic firearms
USAS 12 semi-automatic type shotgun
Uzi type semi-automatic firearms
Valmet M62, M71S, M76, or M78 type semi-automatic firearms
Weaver Arm Nighthawk;
2. Any firearm manufactured under any designation, which is substantially identical to any of the firearms listed in paragraph 1 above. As used in this definition, the term "substantial" means pertaining to the substance, matter, material or essence of a thing and the term "identical" means exactly the same. Hence, a firearm is substantially
identical to another only if it is identical in all material, essential respects. A firearm is not substantially identical to a listed assault firearm unless it is identical except for differences that do not alter the essential nature of the firearm
http://www.njsp.org/info/pdf/firearms/062408_title13ch54.pdf
"Add in some over-zealous police shooting 93 year old grandmothers and that could explain our stats."
Aren't guns the great equalizer? How is a 93-year old woman with a gun any less of a lethal threat than a 22-year old gangbanger?
Well I guess I imagined wrong and you are denied access to the things you love. hat you are being denied. I guess boys will always want toys they can't have. Well, there's always Florida.
Mark: thanks for the reply and yes, whenever I disagree with the data, I question the validity, discount it and then move on. In this case, the world data is indeed subject to local reporting and definition which most certainly differs in accuracy and meaning around the world. The US data is for gun homicides as defined and issued by the CDC. It most certainly does not include all gun related deaths, that number would be much, much higher. Personally, even with the inaccuracy and definitional difference, I might say that "directionally" there should be a message for Americans about the level of violence and gun violence in our country.
We are a third world nation when it comes to gun violence and violence.
And no, I will not be pursuing support or discontent with the NJ law; just not that important versus other priorities, but thank you. If you want to pass on mistergoogle's opinions, feel free.
looks like now all we have to rely on is Governor Christie.....bill passes senate yesterday.
http://www.nj.com/politics/index.ssf/2014/05/nj_senate_passes_bill_to_further_limit_gun_magazines.html
some key highlights
"“If and when a final version of legislation reaches his desk, it will be carefully reviewed in the 45 days period he has prior to taking any action,” Christie spokesman Kevin Roberts said. "
"Under the ammunition magazine bill, gun owners would have 180 days to “transfer, render inoperable, or voluntarily surrender” 15-round magazines. Retired law enforcement officers would be exempt."
"The bill exempts just one model, the Marlin Model 60, which is often referred to as the “Boy Scout gun.”
"Well I guess I imagined wrong and you are denied access to the things you love. hat you are being denied. I guess boys will always want toys they can't have. Well, there's always Florida."
Ha, typical MG.
Gets called out on a factual error, and immediately resorts to childish antics.
"So in Florida, crime is down, murder and murder by gun is up and the state opportunity to be splayed by gun is higher than the national average and way higher than tough gun law states."
Do remember MG, they consider self defense "Murder" so if one of those people now allowed to carry a weapon defended themselves or their family and "murdered" a threat in self defence......the statistics are immediately tainted.
Boy, you are Classy! Even if you just don't get it. How can anyone imagine wrong or imagine factually incorrect. And I still say "I can't imagine that any of you are being denied your guns." Why? Because I just can't imagine it. It's just not in my imagination.
Now you have corrected me and I understand. But I still can't imagine it. Just can't. Sorry.
I mean, if you feel you have the guns you want but can't have because you live in NJ and your choices are so limited that it is not worth it, that you are so bereft of choice that why bother ---- perhaps the problem is that you live in NJ.
I just can't imagine that you don't have enough choices that you feel you are being denied. Nope, just can't do it.
By the way, what keeps you here, the taxes?
But at least I didn't poke fun at your inability to handle basic math :>~ I just corrected you and said "sorry." Personally my imagination will never be the same now that I have to be sure I imagine on a fact-only basis. Like dreaming in black and white :>)
Tainted because of justifiable homicide?
While FLA justifiable homicide might be up as high as 200% since 'stand yer ground' (if you believe Bloomberg) with 700-900 gun homicides per year, the total of 20-25 justifiable even at a 200% increase is still pretty much in the noise at less than 5%. Of course, if you discount Bloomberg, then it's even less. Tough choice eh Darrin :>)
don't feed the trolls, they always come back for more, they love throwing drive by insults, juices them all up, and they have to have the last word as if that wins all arguments.
(hint: it doesn't)
"looks like now all we have to rely on is Governor Christie.....bill passes senate yesterday."
Darin; my prediction is he will pocket veto the bill, not sign it, and the 45 days will pass before we know for sure. sure hope i'm right,
the SCOTUS declined to hear the right-to-carry case and so the lower court ruling affirming the denial of the license stands. that's a sad thing for us here in the garden state, (i got to get out, it's not much like america here anymore), NY state? another lost cause for sure; Connecticut? lost, big time; Massachusetts? another anti-american state; California? don't even go there.
we are rapidly devolving into two very different countries, not sure i care for this trend.
"Ha, typical MG.
Gets called out on a factual error, and immediately resorts to childish antics."
Sigh. Yup. SOP.
"we are rapidly devolving into two very different countries"
I think we did this once.....caused a civil war, sure hope it does not come back to that.
And you are absolutely correct BD, the lines are clearly laid down which state is on which side, with each having their own beliefs and laws.
Like I said, it you can't have it your way in NJ; there's 49 other choices, 25 of them with very loose gun laws for you to choose from and 15 more with moderate laws that might still fight your shopping needs. There's even a few of them with lower rates of gun murder and murder.
Although you might want to avoid Florida.
"Like I said, it you can't have it your way in NJ; there's 49 other choices"
Such a lovely attitude.
If you didn't like NJ's 15 round limit, why didn't YOU just move to New York? Same logic, right?
Actually Mark it’s one of the beauties of America is that we do believe in State’s rights allowing differences from state to state, we have a single money usable and redeemable across the land, and freedom of choice to move at will to where we think the grass is greener for societal, financial, or even political reasons. And we have a large geography to choose from. Quite a huge difference from many, if not most places in the world.
I don't think moving is a appropriate answer mg, more less just a scapegoat to having no answer to the real question, why is NJ and a select few other states allowed in infringe upon our 2A rights?
Mark said to mg:
"If you didn't like NJ's 15 round limit, why didn't YOU just move to New York? Same logic, right?"
Now now Mark- don't you go MAKING SENSE and USING LOGIC again, it throws mg off his game...
Very logical except that I don't mind the 15-round limit.
But I did live for a decade or so in NY and I liked it very much.
"Now now Mark- don't you go MAKING SENSE and USING LOGIC again, it throws mg off his game..."
Yes, I know. I guess it's OK for them to lobby the state government for changes in the gun control laws to appease *their emotions*, but when we do it to protect *everyone's rights* we're just evil rednecks, boys with our toys (despite many women on here agreeing with us), or right wing nutjobs and we should be quiet or go away...
"Very logical except that I don't mind the 15-round limit. But I did live for a decade or so in NY and I liked it very much."
Did you know people can carry concealed weapons in New York (pretty much anywhere except near the city)? And yet you still liked it there?
So maybe law abiding gun owners aren't the problem, huh?
Mark, I am just me; "them" is those other guys.
I did not "lobby the state government for changes in the gun control laws to appease *their emotions*" Nor did I lobby to appease my emotions. Nor did I lobby. Matter of fact, I thought they should just leave the law alone. (it's just not sinking in).
I do not believe you are lobbying "to protect *everyone's rights*.." How could you be; you're not lobbying to protect my rights for example. You just think you are. You are lobbying for your interpretation of the 2A, which is not my interpretation. And before you say anyone is wrong, just face it, there are arguments for either view.
I do not believe you are "evil rednecks" I don't think you could find a redneck in Hackettstown.
"boys with our toys (despite many women on here agreeing with us)" Yeah, you gots me there. Sorry for not mentioning the women but it just didn't rhyme.
"right wing nutjobs and we should be quiet or go away..." Nah
Generalizations are the root of all stereotypes. Just like making fun of me for joking around when apparently you suffer from attempts at humor as well.
Oh yeah, on point to your last bellyache. OK, upstate NY has may-issue laws and CC is pretty open. Towards the urban areas no and generally NY is a tough gun law state. Not sure how hard to obtain since you have to prove "need." But it's county by county. One weird part is you are governed by your home county so if you can carry in a restaurant there, you can carry in the restaurant of the neighboring county that does not allow it. Weird.
Not sure what this has to do with anything but not sure why you brought up NY to begin with except for that sense of humor you're developing.
The problem is simple: American is too violent and guns are way too often the tool of offensive violence. Unfortunately the reasons are complex and therefore the solutions are not simple. And because of the complexity, we can debate reasons and solutions until the cows come home.
On the right we have zealots who feel any restriction or limitation is an affront to the Constitution and on the left zealots who want to put the deadline at the US boarders. In the middle is the majority dazed and confused.
To highlight what I mean, I quickly scanned the Wiki http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence_in_the_United_States_by_state page and sorted the data into the top ten and bottom ten in each category. I appended the data with loose gun laws and tight gun laws from the Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence and then ran some data sorts. Not statistically valid for proving correlations but proves that there’s many more variables that come into play to determine the causes and solutions for violence and gun violence in America. Sort of a chain saw approach to parsing the data yet I think it shows that it’s not as simple as a straightforward correlation between a few variables.
One of the problems with studying violence in America is that so many variables affecting the outcome. There’s population, population density, education, income, environment, history, culture, laws, etc. etc. etc. Not to mention those same variables in different forms from just across the state line(s) perhaps affecting whatever you do in your home state. Like Maryland’s statistics being affected by what happens in DC. That’s why we can argue the facts from many sides and why no easy solutions present themselves.
For example, when I sorted the data based on top ten gun murder states, by rate per 100,000, of course 6 of them had loose gun laws and 7 of them have the highest murder rates also. Eureka! I solved it! But 3 of them have strict gun laws, two of them are in the bottom lowest ten for rate of gun ownership and only one is in the top ten for gun ownership. Go figure. We’ll try something else.
Now when I look at the states with looser gun laws, there are 25 of them, only 6 of them are in the top ten for gun murder, 7 are in the top ten for murder rates, but there are also 6 with the lowest gun murder rate and 5 with the lowest murder rates. Of those 6 in the lowest gun murder rates, 3 are in the top ten for percentage of gun ownership and 4 of those have the lowest population density of the 50 states, plus the District. But none of those six with the lowest murder rates have the lowest gun ownership rates either. Again, go figure. The “truth” does not seem to just jump out at you.
Only one of the top ten states for percentage of gun ownership is in the top ten for gun murders. But the lowest percentage of gun ownership coincides almost exactly with the tough gun law states of which there are only ten. Only ten; sorry Mark, you did not pick your state wisely :>)
For the top ten states for population density, only 4 are in the top ten gun murder category and 7 of the 10 have the strictest gun laws and lowest gun ownership.
For the lowest density states, 7 have looser gun laws and 6 are in the top ten for gun ownership. And 4 of those seven low-density-loose-gun-law states are in the bottom ten for lowest gun murders.
But one fact does correlate: Florida does not fare well. Highly populated, densely populated, top ten for murders, gun murders, gun murder rate – with some of the loosest gun laws in the nation. Yet even there, at the wheel chair accessible OK corral for the old, surprisingly, they are middle of the road for percentage of gun ownership.
So what to make of this? Identifying the problem is easy; America is a third world nation when it comes to violence and American violence is most often perpetrated at the barrel of a gun. Yet it’s a difficult problem to solve with many variables at its root. Imagine if we rolled income and education in as well to this assessment as well. I guarantee that more education means less violence……but not always. Same for income levels. And we didn’t even mention the effect neighboring states might have bleeding across the state lines. That’s what makes the debate so fluid and animated, the problem is obvious, we are too violent and we use guns to solve problems too frequently (that includes criminal acts so chill). But the root causes are many intertwined multi-faceted aspects that determine our high level of violent behavior. And with the 2A stakeholder at top dead center, any change --- good, bad or no effect --- will always be difficult to agree upon. Although since Europe is less violent perhaps we just need to socialize more :>)
Philliesman question for you guys: Mark, Darrin and JR:
the CMP; if you join a club that is affiliated with the CMP, can you then legally purchase a M1 carbine rile here in NJ?
M1A's you can get, (that's weird, right?) but M1 garrand and M1 carbines no?
but if you are an active in the CMP with an affiliated organization then you can?
hard to figure this all out, ( I am a black powder guy)
Basically it was a long winded way to say there is little, if any, correlation to gun ownership rates and violent crime. Florida appears to be the exception, but that could just be the way the facts get contorted to fit a preconceived notion (similar to how the human mind is wired to always find faces in streaks of dirt on a mirror or the arrangement of chocolate chips in a cookie).
But guns (especially scary looking rifles) are bad, so we should ban them... for the children.
After all, BrotherDog, we have to get rid of these evil "high powered" assault weapons.
They are so "high powered" that many states won't let you hunt deer with them because there isn't enough power for a clean harvest.
M1 Carbine = jail time. Mandatory, I believe.
M1 Garand I think is legal. Much more deadly caliber, btw.
I don't believe CMP hads any affect whatsoever on what is legal and what is not; in NJ the guns are banned by name (M1 Carbine) or by feature set ("evil features"- a rifle can have only so many "evil" features before it is deemed an "assault weapon" and therefore illegal.)
"evil features":
http://www.state.nj.us/lps/dcj/agguide/assltf.htm
The M1A's you mentioned, are made by Springfield Arms, and they are legal (most versions are, they have to conform to the laws in the link I posted above)... magazines over 15 rounds for them are illegal, however. Also- it's a .308 round, not a .30-06 like the M1 Garand or a .30 caliber like the M1 Carbine..
M1 carbine is banned but the M1A is ok,
makes no common sense whatsoever, the M1A is the semi-auto civilian version of the M14, select fire rifle that was modified and morphed into the venerable M16.
so why can we get one but not the other?
i am in the market for a M1A, so any experience, advice or favorite makes/models you guys have please let me know (probably in .306 caliber)
saving my money up on the side for this, gonna be a big purchase for a little guy like me.
btw, while we're talking, which 1911a model is the best one? colt? Remington? others?
TONS of great 1911s out there. No "best". Pick one with the looks and features (and price! LOL) you like, and get it.
The only M1A I am personally familiar with is the Springfield Armory version, and it's one hell of a gun. I don't know if it comes in .30-06 tho... I think they are all .308 The .308 is a fine round, totally comparable to .30-06
I think the biggest reason the M1 Carbines were banned was because they all had 30 round "banana" magazines, and that made them look like a guerilla warfare gun or something (it made them look "more evil")...which is funny, the M1 Carbine looks so much LESS evil than ANY AR-15 ever made.... and the .223/5.56 round is much more lethal... no common sense there whatsoever. Just bullshit "feel good" legislation.
Dept of agriculture requesting .40 caliber SUBMACHINE GUNS with HIGH CAPACITY MAGAZINES.... probably to "deal with" those pesky CITIZENS the next time they have a "Bundy standoff"....
http://www.tpnn.com/2014/05/15/uh-oh-what-federal-agency-is-now-requesting-submachine-guns/
According to a document from the Federal Business Opportunity office, the Department of Agriculture has requested .40 S&W submachine guns with the so-called “high-capacity” magazines that remain so reviled by the lunatic left.
The solicitation asks for “ambidextrous safety, semiautomatic or 2 round [bursts] trigger group, Tritium night sights front and rear, rails for attachment of flashlight (front under fore group) and scope (top rear), stock collapsible or folding,” and a “30 rd. capacity” magazine.
If you have the time to read Mr babbles posts you really need to get a life.
I look at the author of the post first if it is Mr babble I move on.
I'm sorry you're scared of the truth, Ignatz. Perhaps you need some medication to help you handle that?
JeffersonRepub,
I was not speaking about you. Read my past posts.
But anyway what kind of medication are we talking about?
My sincerest apologies, Ignatz.
My preferred medication is alcohol, when needed. ;)
"My preferred medication is alcohol, when needed. ;)"
Maybe we should medicate together sometime.
Mark Mc. and I keep saying we need to have an "HL Happy Hour/Day at the Range" (range first, happy hour after.) LOL
Yeah, JR, but we need to find Darrin's secret shooting range so it can be more than just myself and 2 guests. ;)
Either that or get your butt in gear to join Shongum!
"TONS of great 1911s out there. No "best". Pick one with the looks and features (and price! LOL) you like, and get it."
looking for dependable, sturdy, accurate in .45 ACP
i like the Remington with the USA grips on it. not sure if it's the most dependable. a buddy told me it's not very good for accuracy.
Hmm... picking the "best" 1911 is a daunting task.
If you're looking in the sub $1,000 price range (new, not used) I think some of the contenders would be Springfield, Rock Island Armory, Remington, and Ruger (the SR1911 is probably what I would get just because I like Rugers).
At about $1,000 you start getting into Kimber (which look sharp but sometimes get mixed reviews depending on the model) and Colt (which *are* sharp and will slice your skin on the machined edges unless you have a gunsmith "dehorn" them). A lot of purists will probably recommend the Colt as one of the "real" 1911 manufacturers.
If you want something so expensive you should be afraid to shoot it, start looking at upper end Les Baer and Wilson Combat models.
One general note - if you want reliability stick with the full size (5") or commander (~4") sizes. I've heard the compact models below those lengths start to have difficulties with the timing that was originally designed for the longer barrels.
JR - You're number 42 on the waiting list. I'll probably be at the club meeting next Wednesday so I'll get a count of how many new members are being added. When I joined there were about 7 or 8 others that month, but I'm sure it varies depending on how many leave/cancel/forget to pay their dues.
i like ruger as well, also i am very partial to springfield, i really liked the remington, but was warned about accuracy issues, I liked everything else about it though.
yes, colt should be the genuine choice 1911's because they made them first, but somehow they don't make my short list and i can't even explain why.
If you want the Ruger, they only make the SR1911 in two flavors - 4" or 5". I've heard good reviews, it's an affordable price for a 1911 (mid to upper $600's according to GunWatcher.com, which a reputable shop should try to match within about $50), and they are made in USA.
Springfield Armory offers about a half-dozen models. At the heart they are all 1911's (although the Range Officer is 9mm, not .45) it's just how much "bling" do you want (i.e. stainless vs blued, fancy grips, etc.). Note that their MIL-SPEC model doesn't have as big of a beaver-tail grip safety so it might not be as comfortable to shoot.
dont want any bling, blued barrel, wooden grips, well made, dependable, easy to find replaceable parts, reliability, good consistent accuracy.
I think your best bet is to just hit up some shops, see what 1911's they have in stock and start narrowing down what feels right in your hand.
Some things to keep in mind:
* Grip width - Some are wider than others and may fit your palm better.
* Beavertail vs. GI grip safety - Again, a comfort thing when you absorb the recoil.
* Trigger length/position - Some are closer to the grip than others. You want it to be in the right position on your finger.
* Sights - Adjustable vs fixed. White dot vs. tritium night sights.
* Ambidextrous thumb safety - Are you a lefty?
* Slide serrations - Can you properly grip and rack the slide. Sharp edges?
* Solid vs. Skeletonized trigger and hammer - Mostly a looks thing, but the hammer design could also effect your grip while decocking the gun (*ALWAYS ON AN EMPTY CHAMBER*).
It's kind of like buying a car... just have to find one where all the options line up to what you like. And there are no shortage of 1911 options.
+1 to buying something locally that's IN STOCK. A pistol purchase permit only lasts 90 days, unless you get it extended. Ideally, you apply for and recieve the permit, then drive around to gun shops and see what they have in stock.
A local recommendation: well, kinda local, it's in Glen Gardener: Jim Flynn's Truck Repair (and Gun Shop)... no joke. It's right on Rt 31, you can't miss it. You'd also never know it was a gun shop. He's an old guy, has been selling for many years, doesn't sell alot of accessories like most guns shops... people go to him for guns and ammo. I bought my LC9 there, he has very good prices. He can also order whatever you want, but if I was buying, it would be worth a trip down there to inquire about what he has or could get quickly.
@Mark: thanks, I was keeping fingers crossed for this summer, this fall.... hopefully I don't "get to join" in the winter, since all the big boy ranges are outdoors/unenclosed LOL
"@Mark: thanks, I was keeping fingers crossed for this summer, this fall.... hopefully I don't "get to join" in the winter, since all the big boy ranges are outdoors/unenclosed LOL"
Doesn't matter... even the indoor range is barely above freezing in the winter since the ventilation system has to pump a lot of fresh air through it to keep the lead dust down...
Heck with the weather we've been having for the past few seasons it'll probably be hot this winter.
I'll take autumn.... autumn would be PERFECT. My favorite season!
Now, if I could only find a source that ACTUALLY HAS (affordable) AMMO, I could shoot some of my current stock LOL
9mm
7.62x39 (brass case only)
.22lr .22lr .22lr .22lr ............. .22 LONG RIFLE !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
"Now, if I could only find a source that ACTUALLY HAS (affordable) AMMO, I could shoot some of my current stock LOL"
Gotta just keep you eyes open for online deals. Just FYI, Freedom Munitions has a $5 shipping deal through this weekend. Maybe you can pick up some 9mm there (they sell new and reloads).
".22lr .22lr .22lr .22lr ............. .22 LONG RIFLE !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!"
For this you have to really be quick on the trigger. Anything at a decent price sells out within minutes. I'm up to about 7K rounds but even then I hesitate to shoot much since it's really hard to replenish.
Oh, and with the current prices for brass 7.62x39 you're probably better off just buying a new gun that can eat the steel stuff ;)
SG Ammo has a few options, but it's north of $0.50/round before shipping. That's twice the price of the steel cased.
"Oh, and with the current prices for brass 7.62x39 you're probably better off just buying a new gun that can eat the steel stuff ;)"
I hear you, I hear you, grrrrr........ I hadn't counted on that when I made the purchase... (I love the gun, tho!)
Ammobot is how I have gotten my last several purchases... but even then, you've got to be really quick... it's crazy how fast this stuff sells out these days, especially .22lr, and especially at current prices.
Most of the .22 deals don't last long enough to hit gunbot or other ammo searches.
I've gotten the last few batches for 6 to 7 cents/round (including shipping) after seeing tips in the "Hot Deals" section of NJ Gun Forums.
I use www.ammoseek.com to find the deals
That's part of my problem too, I hate shooting my stock when I cannot replace it.
I recently found 556 for 18 bucks per 50 rounds, thats the cheapest I have seen, so I bought 500 rounds, just after I bought it, they sold out.
I also have a hard time finding reasonable 460 s&w. It is currently about 65 bucks for 20 rounds. And I refuse to shoot the fusion ammo, that stuff sucks
I mostly buy .223 since 5.56 is more expensive and I don't need the little bit of extra pressure. The vast majority of mine is steel cased (averaging about 30 cents/round), but I keep some brass just in case the Russian quality control isn't so hot... those are usually upper 30's to 40-something cents/round.
I wish Walmart sold ammo in NJ. Their prices aren't bad, but if I burn $20 in fuel to check East Stroudsburg and Nazareth, it makes more sense to just get it from online suppliers.
Mark,
You don't have any issues with the steel cased, I have done some reading on it and over time it can damage the barrel more so the brass, but i mean over tiiimmmmeeee, it takes a lot to see the difference.
But the reading i did concluded that the money you save in steal case actually pays off for replacing the barrel over that period of time.
I would rather spend the extra and go easier on the gun, plus I keep all my old brass just in case i ever want to get into reloading.
Too bad NJ would probably consider anything other than lead-based ammunition to be armor piercing, and therefore illegal (with the exception of steel bird shot in shotguns).
Even if it's not, good luck convincing an anti-gun judge/jury of that fact.
This is the same logic that makes hollow-point ammunition illegal in most cases (with very limited exceptions). You know, the same ammunition that EVERY police officer uses in their guns because it is both more effective AND safer for bystanders...
But those are common sense gun laws, right?
Darrin, I have no problems with steel, and like you said, it will take many thousands of rounds before any difference in wear is noticed. A lot of people are worried it will break the extractor... which costs a whole $5 or so to replace.
Being that it's about 10-15 cents per round (or more) cheaper than brass, not only could I buy a new barrel IF it ever wore out, I could just buy an entirely new gun. (Not that I'd have to, since I can change uppers in about 5 seconds.)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kZZNA0u3Klk
Same thing with reloading. It takes a good quantity of rounds to justify the several hundred to a thousand dollars of tumblers/presses/dies/powder/measures/etc. If you want to reload to tweak a "perfect" cartridge for a particular gun that's a different story.
what ammo do you typically use? All that i have seen (currently) is at most 3 cents cheaper per round, if I could save that much target shooting I would definitely buy it.
I use Wolf, Tula, and Herter's (made by Tula).
There are a whole bunch of online options for these brands ranging from $0.25 to $0.30 listed on gunbot.net. Once in a while you'll find a deal on brass that narrows the gap, but generally they are more around $0.40 and higher.
http://gunbot.net/ammo/rifle/223/
I only use this in my one rifle. My handguns all use brass.
I know you hate humor on these serious topics, but this one's for you. While I am sure you are upright legal gun toting advocates that would never do this, but I think you enough idiots on your team that Joe Biden laughs at you. And the NRA rants on.
http://thedailyshow.cc.com/videos/edf7xm/guy-walks-into-a-chipotle
brass is the only way to go, yes, it's more expensive, but worth it,
i look for LTR's with my rifles, you have to know where it's going to shoot to be any good with it. Changing worn out barrels throws that all out of wack. the special forces guys all have their own rifles and they know them well. same thing with the muzzle loaders, each gun is different and has it's own characteristics, you have to become one with it in order to shoot consistently. It was the accuracy of the American rifleman that made the difference in the war between the states, the revolutionary war, the war of 1812; the Mexican-american war, the Spanish-american war, and both world war 1 and 2, we started to lose this in the Korean conflict and by the time of Vietnam with the advent of the m16, accuracy by individual soldiers was not the same, it was much poorer and this gave the USA a strategic disadvantage in Vietnam and in all of our armed forces conflicts since.
so, start reloading your shells, it's a good thing. be nice as you can to your barrels,
run an oiled patch through them every month, the steel bleeds back the powder over time. try it, you'll see what i mean.
be familiar as you can with your firearms, be well practiced in their use.
Special forces long range (i.e. sniper) rifles also cost anywhere from $4K to $10K a piece, with match grade ammo that is measured in $/round. You need that when shooting 500 or 1000 yards.
My rifle cost $675 and the Russian-made ammo is 25 cents a piece. It's still more than capable of being +/- 1 or 2 inches at 100 yards (that's the inherent accuracy of the overall platform).
Would I feed a multi-thousand $ gun cheap ammo? Nope. But my guns are mass produced and a replacement barrel/upper will be the same quality as OEM so I'll take the cost savings and replace the barrel in about 25 or 30 years.
OMG! I HATE it when anyone (Mr. Google and other's) uses the term "my interpretation of the 2A."
Nobody should be "interpreting" the constitution. The founding fathers could not be more clear. To me it's so clear and easy to understand..."Shall not be infringed" for instance. How else can you possibly interpret that??
If I say "you shall not infringe the red haired boy from eating his cookie" how could those intentions be interpreted other than the obvious -- I don't want you to stop him from eating the cookie. Period.
It seems that through the years people who don't like something in the constitution (or the Bible) use the word "interpret" to cover up the fact that they don't agree with something. So they take the cowards way out and try to convince everyone that what they are reading doesn't "actually" say what it says...it must mean something other than what it actually says OR they use the old standby "well that was then and doesn't apply anymore." Really? Who says - the person who doesn't like it. that's who.
But emily, what if it's not *his* cookie? Is it a cookie or a biscuit (maybe he's British)?
I'm not sure if his hair is red or auburn... Is he actually eating the cookie, or just tasting it?
"Nobody should be "interpreting" the constitution."
Stay in school, Emily. Work hard. Become a Constitutional Lawyer. It's a complete career solely invested in interpreting the constitution. See Mark's example.
Or
Become a linguist; discover how the meanings of words change and evolve.
The Constitution was not even 100% crystal clear to the framers and many of them differed on the meaning of many, many, aspects. For example, to many today, a cookie can not be eaten, only shared over the internet.
Yes, that's what they do. They get into the minutiae and overly parse each word and make everything WAY to complicated (but that's the plan confuse, confound and conquer).
Did they mean a big gun, a little gun, a black gun, metal gun, wooden handled gun, long gun, short gun, pretty gun, scary-looking gun, bullet gun, pellet gun, black powder gun, automatic gun, semi-automatic gun, pistol, rifle or shotgun???
They meant GUN.
"boy"???? Shall not infringe the red-haired BOY?!?!?!?!? Jeez, we knew the founding fathers were all racist slave owners, now we know they were all sexist too!!!!
and apparently, "hair-ist" too, since ONLY the RED HAIRED boy has an un-infringable right.
Mark, you say you shoot "dirty, dirtier, and Herters"? ;) That Herters is pretty good stuff. The other 2 really are filthy, in any gun. But hey- get what you can while you can right? In a SHTF situation, you ain't gonna' care much how dirty your ammo is.
What if the red-haired boy is deathly allergic to the cookies? Should we permit him to commit suicide?
If he so chooses. The left are all about "choice," right?
Abortion is a choice, sexual preference is a choice, gender (medicare now pays for sex-change operations in some states) is a choice, whether to raise your own children or put them in daycare is a choice, so why not be able to choose if you want to live or die?
Seems you can only choose your "choice" if the left likes your "choice." If they don't like it...no can do.
Abortion (kill your baby) - yes
Suicide (kill yourself) - no
Right to bear arms (without infringement) - no
Right to free birth control pills - yes
Sex change operation - yes
Occupy Wall Street (while crapping and peeing on police cars) - yes
Tea Party Assembly - no
Say a prayer in school - no
Wear a Burka to school - yes
Wear a NRA t-shirt to school - no
Place a cross or manger scene on public property during Christmas time - no
Put an Atheist, "Christians are stupid" add on billboards across America - yes
Make sure you memorize the above list so you don't slip up!
Isn't suicide is illegal? On the other hand, death by abortion is legal. So if you aborted the little red-haired boy, no problem.
Ha, yeah, whatever powder those Russian's use really burns the nose too...
I clean my guns after every outing. Surprisingly, even when I shoot "clean" ammo the patches still come out dirty. ;) That's why they make bore snakes and CLP. If the soot gets too heavy at the range, one pull through the bore and a quick shot of lube keeps things moving.
BTW - Shongum added 8 members at this month's meeting, so you're probably about 6 months out. They also added a pistol "qualification" for all new members so they can make sure everyone shoots safely.
"All the poor little guy wanted was his damn cookie...now he's dead. :("
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FONN-0uoTHI
Do you (Mr. Google) really mean to tell me that you don't know what the framers meant by gun, militia, right to bear, protection, etc. If something was written about a cookie when a cookie obviously meant "something to eat" do you really think we should be arguing about whether it now means a "cookie" placed on your computer to track your usage and remember your passwords???
Instead of all those Constitutional Lawyers fighting over their interpretation, why don't they just look into what the framers were doing, how they were doing it, why they were doing it and why they said what they said - based on what they meant at the time.
You made my point for me...
Maybe you should go back to school ad learn some American history so you will know what they meant too.
And...by the way a lot of "Constitutional Lawyers" become that TO interpret what they don't like about America (think Obama -- he was a constitutional lawyer and he knows less about our history and the framers (he went to what, 58 states, lol!).
That's what Marc Levin (a constitutional lawyer) is fighting against every day -- Lawyers who are in the business to CHANGE and "amend" our Constitution.
They didn't really go over the details. I'm sure it will be added to the application soon.
My guess is there will be no charge and you'll have the option of bringing you own gun/ammo or just using one of their loaner .22's. It will be part of the general range safety orientation. Probably 20-25 rounds down range to make sure you know how to follow the 3 rules. It's worth it for them to cover the $5 in ammo to avoid injuries on the property.
"discover how the meanings of words change and evolve."
Which is why people point out that words do have meaning at the time they are spoken (or written), and it's the meaning that doesn't change even when the "creative" among us work to manipulate the language to justify an outcome they want.
Phrases such as this one are spoken for one purpose only: a desire to confuse people in an attempt to obfuscate the truth.
Here's another good one, spoken by another master of the art of manipulation:
"It depends on what the meaning of the words 'is' is."
I read everything emily1 said and I don't see where she interpreted anything jd2. She simply said that the framers used the word gun. That's certainly not up for interpretation.
Please show me the sentence where she was interpreting the second amendment...I must have missed it.
The whole point she was making (to me) was that the constitution should not be interpreted at all. That one should read up on history and glean what the writers of any historical document meant at the time they wrote it and that meaning should carry through even if words are used for other meanings as time passes. Like the example someone used about the word cookie. It should be obvious to even a Constitutional Lawyer that if someone wrote a document with the word "cookie" in it in the 1700 or 1800's that they were not talking about "internet cookies." That's the stupidity all the progressive " interpreters" who want to change things to suit their agenda are using.
I agree with that 100%.
Heidi OK, this is getting pretty silly.
"Nobody should be "interpreting" the constitution.......Nobody should be "interpreting" the constitution. The founding fathers could not be more clear."
"They meant GUN"
Uh, sorry Emily. They said "arms." You must have interpreted the 2A's "arms" to mean guns.
"Do you (Mr. Google) really mean to tell me that you don't know what the framers meant by gun, militia, right to bear, protection, etc."
2A never mentions gun, protection and most definitely, etc. Etc. would have been way confusing, misleading and not doubt the last refuge of the coward, according to Emily. Wait, that's you :>)
"Maybe you should go back to school ad learn some American history so you will know what they meant too."
Ad so I shall as soon as you memorize those 27 words correctly which the framers clearly defined apparently just as you have interpreted them today based on what the framers meant at the time. Make sure you memorize the 2A so you don't slip up a third time!
JIT: if words never evolved, we would still be sounding like Shakespeare or worse yet, just grunting around the cave's campfire. That wouldn't be OK, but not to worry, OK wouldn't be a word either.
One man's manipulation is another's lack of listening.
Well, Heidi, I guess you have seen now that the second amendment does not use the word "gun". Certainly the word that IS used, "arms", is open to interpretation. Does it include rocket propelled grenades? Tanks? Nuclear weapons?
Is there an INDIVIDUAL right to bear a weapon? If so, why didn't the writer(s) of the 2A save everyone a lot of trouble and just say so? And if there is, why confuse the issue and mention a "militia" at all? It seems that a lot has been left to "interpretation".
I know, I know, we have seen many many postings here "proving" whatever it is that the posters want to prove. But "founders" did not at all see eye to eye on many things either. Some like Madison indicated that their Constitution was meant only for its time, not for all time.
Note: I am here taking NO position on what 2A says or doesn't say- let's not get started again! I acknowledge that there have been many good postings in this forum, including many skillfully supporting an individual right, etc.
I'm sure there are plenty of writings on what "arms" meant at the time. JR is much more versed than I on the founding fathers' written word.
Even if we were to "interpret" it today, arms would cover ALL firearms... after all, they are fireARMS. So no gun bans, nada. ALL unconstitutional.
Tanks, nukes, grenades... well, those are more munitions. Even when used properly there is a probability of unintended collateral damage that doesn't really exist with the proper use of a firearm.
But baby steps... stop trying to ban any firearms, or the ammunition that they require to function and we'll deal with the explosives later.
Also, show me your press badge for your collective right to post here. After all, the 1st Amendment talks about the "press" and "people" not each individual.
'A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.'
the individual has a right to keep and bear arms because a well regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state.
'right of the people' means us as individuals, just like the same phrase means in the 1st amendment
well regulated militias need to be familiar with and have ready access to the arms of the day, that includes the hand guns, rifles , and other small arms that the military currently uses.
'to keep and bear' means exactly what it says, 'to keep' means to own, 'to bear' means to carry with you on your person as you go about your business. no big mystery there as to what the document states. it's clear, and unequivocal in it's simple assertion
the right of the people (that's us as individuals) to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed (that means by the federal government) because the security of a free state needs to be protected by a well regulated militia (which is comprised by the body of the people, that's us as individual americans)
i've said it before and i'll say it again, it is our responsibility and civic duty to be familiar and well practiced with the arms of the day so that if necessary we can be called upon to defend a free state.
this is easy-peasy to understand if you're not a self absorbed complexed overly educated conflicted 'progressive' trying to split hairs all the time, and turn things on their head, the words are written clearly, read them for yourselves and think hard on what they are actually saying.
thank the good lord that common sense is finally starting to prevail over this ultra-wacko junk law that is continually pushed by the progressive elites and an agenda driven MSM who think they know more,
(hint: they really don't know more, but are too full of themselves to ever admit it)
Arms. It obviously means arms. Appendages. We have the right to keep and bear our arms.
You stupid morons.
Gee, I think JR has gone ad hominem; I feel intimidated :>)
Frankly, I would Emily et al would appreciate interpretation; it's been going your way on the 2A for a few decades now.
By the by, if the Constitution is not subject to interpretation, then why did the Framers invent the Supreme Court?
I think the issue is the intent behind the original words, and I also think that the discussions leading up to the text of the Constitution were pretty clear what those words meant and the context that framed them. At that time. As in NOT today.
If someone wanted to argue that words "evolve" (I might say devolve given the slang that's used so often today) that's fine. But why conflate the context in which the original words were written with the words themselves? Words and context are not the same - they are completely different concepts. There is ample supporting evidence in other documents that clearly show Emily's view reflects the majority view at the time that resulted in the words as they were written. Obviously there was dissent, as there always is, but the context is archived for all to see. To state otherwise is outright disinformation.
Arguing about the difference between "arms" and "guns" is kind of silly IMO when you look past the words and at the context in which they were used.
Now if one wanted to argue that today's world is a completely different place, that the issues our Founders found themselves dealing with are no longer relevant today, then OK. But to dismiss the view that the words of the Constitution, in the context in which they were written under the circumstances at the time, really don't mean what the people who wrote it said they mean just because the meaning of words has evolved is really bizarre.
bans are infringements, they are not regulations
outright bans are true infringements,
i am tired of people who don't own guns, who have never fired guns, and who are scared to death of guns deciding for me and dictating to me what I can and cannot have or use.
evaluating my needs for me, as if they get to do that. just ridiculous.
I agree that some aspects are clear, and that other aspects are not clear, and therefore have to be interpreted. As another example, who is it what may not infringe? Just the federal government? All governments? Stores? Schools? Etc.
In 1876 the Supreme Court ruled that the 2A prohibition against infringement applies to the federal government only. This is an interpretation, right? Maybe right, maybe wrong. But a ruling that well-educated fair-minded people can disagree on. The words are silent, as they are on so many aspects.
My point is not what is the correct interpretation, just that interpretation is needed. I had thought this was obvious. I guess it isn't.
Is interpretation needed to say that the original intent of the Constitution was to limit federal government powers by enumerating specifically what it *could* do (not create a list of the things that is can't do, which by it's very nature would be without end) and delegating all other aspects of governance to the individual states? Given that context, the question of who's "right" about who and what to control should be directed at the state level, not the federal government.
In fact, I think it's safe to say that the intent of the Constitution has been continually eroded since the day it was ratified. No one has every wanted to hear "limited" powers, because limited by it's very definition means we can't ask the government to provide benefits for us citizens.
When half of our federal government budget is collected strictly to redistribute the wealth of our society (ie taxes) to one another in the form of entitlements I'd say we have long since jumped the Constitutional shark. The game has not been if, but how, we should have the right to get a piece of the productivity of the more privileged. And if I recall correctly, it was pretty darn clear that our government was established to emphasize individual rights rather than collective rights (Collectivism wasn't mentioned in the Constitution or any of the Federalist papers, was it?). But here we are, with collectivism being the central tenet of our current government.
IOW, we are a long way from where we started, making this discussion about 200 years obsolete. The better question is, why was our Constitutional government so ground-breaking, so incredible, that our society flourished in spite of our inherent selfish human nature? Conversely, now that collectivism trumps individualism (and has for at least a century), can we say the same thing - that ours is still a ground-breaking, incredible society?
Some say yes, some say no. And the debate will continue for the next 200 years...
If you look up the definition of "arms" it says..."arm: [ahrm] noun, 1.Usually, arms. weapons, especially firearms.
Then you can look up "firearms" and it says..."firearm [fahyuhr-ahrm] noun, 1. a small arms weapon, as a rifle or pistol, from which a projectile is fired by gunpowder.
Sounds like a gun to me.
From Dictionary.com
"outright bans are true infringements,"
Complete nonsense. So banning yelling fire in a crowded theater is an infringement? The person trampled to death by the lie disagrees with you. This is an oft stated and clearly supported principle that one conflicting right does not override another. Your "right" to own nuclear weapons is not overridden by our right not to die in a nuclear holocaust caused by a rogue device exploded by someone who has no ability to control something in their possession.
"Outright bans" on its own is an emotional response where logic is supposed to prevail.
GC, come on man, don't roll out the thoroughly debunked "yelling fire" analogy.
You're held just as responsible for the misuse of the 2nd amendment as you are for the misuse of the 1st. You are punished for the actual panic/injury caused no matter what word you choose to yell, and you are punished for the actual assault/murder no matter what weapon you choose to use.
And like I said before, regardless what else is or isn't considered arms (i.e. nukes), nobody can believably argue with a straight face that firearms aren't arms and are therefore off limits from any *government* infringement.
If a private property owner wants to "ban" them from their property, I don't agree with it, so I won't patronize their business. But that is not an infringement since it would be my choice to comply or go elsewhere. What other rights do you think should cease to exist at the end of your driveway or doorstep because the government says so (and in fact is banning them *inside your own home* via magazine or specific model restrictions)?
Yeah GC, we have been through this already, I suggest reading up before you try already used analogies
"Is interpretation needed to say that the original intent of the Constitution was to limit federal government powers by enumerating specifically what it *could* do (not create a list of the things that is can't do, which by it's very nature would be without end) and delegating all other aspects of governance to the individual states?"
To put it another way, the original intent of the Constitution was to PROVIDE the federal government with some significant powers, since at the time it had very few and was not functioning. Of course, the Constitution had to reserve many powers to the states for the simple reason that the states had to be willing to ratify it! As it was, ratification was still a very close call.
The only thing I was noting was that, by law, the 2A, like any other part of the Constitution, is open to interpretation. And like I said, more often than not lately, this benefits you guys when it comes to the 2A. If it is not subject to interpretation, then you can not have guns, you can not protect, it's arms and security. And I won't even get into the strict definition of militia versus individual. And to be really strict, we may even have to talk arms as defined in 1777 if we don't want to interpret. But all of that is silly, of course we interpret the Constitution; that's all I said in response to Emily's ascertain that we shouldn't.
And Mark, on another topic, when you say "
And like I said before, regardless what else is or isn't considered arms (i.e. nukes), nobody can believably argue with a straight face that firearms aren't arms and are therefore off limits from any *government* infringement." it makes me wonder why the NRA wants limitations and bans on smart guns. Don't you like smart? It is not just an arm, a gun, etc. Why oh why is your team against guns?
Sure jd2, but I think you are confusing the process with the intent.
People are inherently selfish - just the way it is. At that time the British government was seen to be overbearing and restrictive, the people of America feeling more like slaves than a free people. Our current system of government came out of that mindset, of limiting the scope of the government so that people could live a life of freedom rather than being under the control of an overbearing government. The Constitution came into being because without it we would all be anarchists (the opposite extreme). It was a compromise (well documented at that) to maximize the rights of the people without sacrificing the need for some centralized power.
The tenth amendment clarified the point, but the thing to remember is that, taken in aggregate and in the context of the time, the intent was to limit the federal government and enumerate only what it was allowed to do. Trying to "interpret" the Constitution, as is quite fashionable today, merely means trying to find ways around the original intent.
That's why you may have seen me write that we should stop trying to change the Constitution in its current form, scrap it, and rewrite it based on the principles that people are trying to put into practice. The days of the individual are long gone and the days of collectivism are here, yet we fight daily to justify our collective desires based on a rule of law that was written to prevent that exact thing. IOW, people who say the Constitution should be "interpreted", or that words don't have meaning except for what we want them to mean, really just want to get rid of it (or at least the parts that they think prevent them from getting something from the government that they aren't getting now). They are missing the whole point of having the Constitution in the first place.
"At that time the British government was seen to be overbearing and restrictive, the people of America feeling more like slaves than a free people."
Well, of course, by 1787, when the Constitution was written, the British had been out of the picture for several years. (As a matter of fact, even in 1776 lots of people in America did not feel like slaves, were okay with the colonial system.)
In any case, I don't feel too confused. The Constitution was written and ratified in order to provide for a functioning federal government ("a more perfect Union"), "establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty...."
I do understand your various objections. I agree with them in part. I stop here so I can live my life today! :)
the word 'fire' is not banned, but causing a panicked stampede by calling 'fire' in public setting (when there isn;t a fire) is wrong and the person doing this should be held fully accountable
if the word was really banned, then in the case of a real fire, we would not be able to warn others by calling out 'FIRE!' . In the case of a real fire, using the word is a good thing.
the word isn't banned and never was.
banning certain rifles from being owned because they have a bayonet lug on them is a true infringement
The NRA is not against smart guns. The NRA, along with myself and most other gun owners, are against laws that allow ONLY smart guns to be sold, by BANNING all the rest. Get it?
If smart guns are so great, why oh why are all the police exempted from that requirement?
You want a smart gun, great. Let the market make the choice.
Actually, the NRA is against smart guns apparently because a large portion of their members are not smart enough to use them. Well, at least they are protecting the largest part of their membership which the NRA calls the "not particularly intelligent." Often they shield their protest against the NJ law, but mostly, they are just against selling guns if they are smart. From their site:
“Smart” Guns — A year ago, President Barack Obama ordered the Consumer Products Safety Commission to review manufacturing standards for gun locks and gun safes. Gun control supporters have long wanted the commission to be able to impose standards on firearms that no manufacturer could meet. NRA opposes requiring guns to be made with electronic equipment that would allow the guns to be deactivated remotely, or with other features that gun owners do not want." March 2014
Request for boycott: May 2014 "“Smart guns” have been in the news recently. A gun store owner in Maryland abandoned plans to begin selling a German-made “smart gun” after protests–some of which included death threats. Such threats are crimes, and ought to be prosecuted, if the perpetrators can be identified. However, lawful threats, such as boycotts, seem likely to deter gun stores from selling the product. Gun owner boycotts and the risk of such boycotts have historically a very powerful check on the actions of firearms businesses. A firearms business which is perceived as anti-Second Amendment is not going to stay in business very long."
"NRA does not oppose new technological developments in firearms; however, we are opposed to government mandates that require the use of expensive, unreliable features, such as rigging a firearm so that it could not fire unless it received an electronic signal from an electronic bracelet worn by the firearm's lawful owner (as was brought up in Holder's recent testimony). And NRA recognizes that the "smart guns" issue clearly has the potential to mesh with the anti-gunner's agenda, opening the door to a ban on all guns that do not possess the government-required technology (which itself is susceptible to abuse, including the remote tracking and disabling of firearms)."
“The NRA recognizes that the ‘smart guns’ issue clearly has the potential to mesh with the anti-gunner’s agenda,” said the organization in a statement on their website, “opening the door to a ban on all guns that do not possess the government-required technology, and discriminating against individuals who are not particularly intelligent- one of the NRA’s larger target demographics.”
From Newslo.com:
NRA legislative director Chris Cox applauded the anonymous gun-owners who threatened Raymond’s life. “These patriots were right to express their disapproval of the store’s plans to stock a new product. There is a fine line between forcing gun owners to have the option to purchase a handgun that cannot be accidentally found and used by a six year-old child and outlawing all guns in America,” he said. “A very fine line.”
"Cox also questioned the practicality of smart gun technology. “What if you’re at your buddy’s house and a rapist comes in? You grab your buddy’s gun but it doesn’t fire and you get raped? How is that smart?”
"NRA Executive Vice President Wayne LaPierre criticized gun makers- such as German company Armatix, whose Armatix iP1 was the weapon Raymond backed down from selling- for researching smart gun technology. “They’re shooting themselves in the foot with this smart gun nonsense,” he said. “Don’t they realize it alienates easily half their customers? Not all gun owners are high school graduates!”"
Yeah, it's a 50% really dumb group that couldn't even pass High School or opted out for special reasons. It's the group that ponders......."Hey, how do you put a bracelet on, how do you do it, where does it go. does it work on either wrist, can I wear a watch, hey, how do you put a watch on?" Let's give those guys the dumb guns and set them loose. My take is perhaps the smart gun should be their first test of whether they should have a gun....... :>)
So with these new "smart guns" they only let the owner shoot it correct?
So what happens when I am not home and my wife needs to defend herself? Is she left with a paper weight?
Also what controls these "smart guns" will there be a back door governmental shutdown that stops the firearm from working?
Seems like too many ifs for me, but I am with mark, although they do not work for me, others they may be just the ticket for.....but you can't ban the old ones!
"So what happens when I am not home and my wife needs to defend herself? Is she left with a paper weight?"
Yes, as will you if the bracelet/watch fails or gets more than 10" away from the gun.
"Also what controls these "smart guns" will there be a back door governmental shutdown that stops the firearm from working?"
In fact, the manufacturer applied for a patent to do just that:
http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2014/05/robert-farago/breaking-smart-gun-maker-files-patent-remote-kill-switch/
Like most stupid gun control laws, the "smart guns only" law is actually counter-productive. By saying that everything except smart guns will be banned, there is a MASSIVE push to not sell smart guns anywhere. I'll also repeat what I said above... if they are so great, why are the police specifically exempted from their use? Could it be that they are unreliable pieces of crap?
SO, to be clear, if there is ever a reason that our government wanted us to not be able to defend ourselves, for whatever reason that may be, they have complete control of our only lines of defense?
And who agrees with this??
I completely agree that they may be a great asset to people with children or such that do not trust themselves to secure the weapon, but this is absolute ridiculousness in all other terms
Yes, MG, because when an intruder breaks in a zero-dark-thirty the first thing I want to do is locate a watch, type in a 4-digit code on tiny buttons, make sure the watch is within 10" of the gun and then try to defend myself... with a .22 caliber no less (since that's the only caliber that doesn't damage the electronics inside the gun).
Sounds like a great solution.
Oh, BTW - those "death threats" were bogus, even Andrew Raymond himself didn't consider them credible and the vast majority of people who expressed their displeasure were polite. But that doesn't make for a good story:
http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2014/05/robert-farago/engage-armament-co-owner-truth-armatix-ip1-backlash/
If the gun was really smart, it would let your whole family and anyone you want use it. Also one would hope you could put the watch on, activate it via PIN, and go to sleep. And frankly, I would like to PIN control a "safety off, it's live and don't need the watch anymore" feature to guarantee it no can be signal jammed. But who cares if it is good or not, or whether it has the features you say it don't; let the market decide. The NRA and gun lovers should not be in the business of restricting gun sales; they are supposedly pro-2A. That was my point and my only point --- not the pro's and con's on the gun or the NJ law.
The added NRA comment that most of it's members "not particularly intelligent- one of the NRA’s larger target demographics" or Pepe Lepew's comment: "Don’t they realize it alienates easily half their customers? Not all gun owners are high school graduates!” was just icing on the cake. Wayne-o thinks half the gun owners didn't finish high school. Sweet.
But my point was let the market decide, not an NRA ban on gun sales.
By the by, the patent information you noted does not clearly indicate a back-door feature; the gps and satellite connectivity seems to be clock related just like the one on my wall. Nor does anyone know whether there is one designed in the product; I would think the manufacturer would want to fess up on this since it's a major selling point.
And meanwhile since you seem to think that my support of the open market means gun control, here are my thoughts on the NJ smart gun law. The NJ smart gun law seems stupid both in it's ambiguity and it's unrealistic restraint of the free market. Forget the government hacking theory which is almost just as stupid, but consider the terms from the actual law: "availability of personalized handguns for retail sales purposes........ if at least one manufacturer has delivered at least one production model of a personalized handgun to a registered or licensed wholesale or retail dealer in New Jersey or any other state.......no person registered or licensed by the superintendent as a manufacturer, wholesale dealer of firearms, retail dealer of firearms or agent or employee of a wholesale or retail dealer of firearms pursuant to the provisions of N.J.S.2C:58-1 or N.J.S.2C:58-2 shall transport into this State, sell, expose for sale, possess with the intent of selling, assign or otherwise transfer any handgun unless it is a personalized handgun or an antique handgun."
Now, first, antiques, competitive shooting, and police are exempt, but the concept of "one production model" in any state is so stupid as to defy the term stupid. Let's all line up and be forced to buy the first production model of Windows, Red Dye 2, New Coke, the Seqway, or a Hydrogen Blimp. These are just a few inventions that did not work even though production-ready for either technical or market acceptance reasons. One model in one state does not equate to a fully tested product. A fully tested product would have mass availability, mass usage, and be time tested, not just lab tested.
Second, if the smart gun does not provide it's benefits with a reasonable cost, NJians will just not buy it even if forced They will use what they have or "import" cost effective alternatives. And one model in one state does not sound cheap or cost effective to me. The Armatix is $1,399 with a $399 bracelet. You guys can sound off, but that sounds a bit steep for a .22.
So the NJ law is a restraint of free trade; ok, I am not happy with that but could live with that if safety was improved dramatically at a reasonable cost and without adding risk. But forcing people to buy expensive, unproven, untested, product, which may add user risk or might not even be safe is just beyond stupid, as a law.
Let the market decide, let the market time-test the product on a mass basis over time, and let the price become competitive with the status quo before deciding to force people to a new unproven technology. And then you boys can argue that law after the results are in and there should be no argument about buying new guns that are safer, easy to use, have the features you want, and offer the same hands-off government capabilities that you have in today's models. That's my thought.
Mg says "If the gun was really smart, it would let your whole family and anyone you want use it. Also one would hope you could put the watch on, activate it via PIN, and go to sleep. And frankly, I would like to PIN control"
So if that is your key concern what's so hard about having a gun safe with a pin number to open it? again, as you said, it is up to you as to who you give your pin out to, same as a pin and bracelet to a "smart" gun
ahahahahahaha "the gps and satellite connectivity seems to be clock related just like the one on my wall" if you believe that is all it will be used for it is really time for you to come out from under your ROCK!
"Forget the government hacking theory which is almost just as stupid" and why would that be? oh yeah I forgot, the government has never hacked phone calls, email records or anything else that completely violates our right to privacy before....thanks for reminding me.
I agree with your bitter batter somewhat mg, but the point here and if you have any common sense you can see that gun laws never stop. Just because they introduce smart guns as a "option" doesn't mean that 5 years down the road they will not force everyone to turn in their "real" guns and only allow smart guns.
I for once tried to read your essay through, and you should really try to be more open to possibilities, rather then calling them stupid. I mean honestly, if you think that the government would not try to control a back door to smart guns......it is definitely a possibility, but you call it stupid....
Yes, MG, let's let the market decide, not an ACTUAL EXISTING New Jersey law that bans all non "smart" guns 3 years after one is sold anywhere in the USA, regardless of reliability, performance, or cost.
This isn't just a gun thing, it's an overbearing government thing. There would be just as much angst if Uncle Sam mandated that every car sold must be a hybrid, despite the fact that the batteries suck, they only hold a few passengers, and they can't haul anything.
those who want smart guns should be able to buy them, if polled on this question the over 5 million individual NRA members would agree with this
but banning all guns except for smart guns is an overreach in regulations and should be deemed unconstitutional. that also lines up with the NRA position.
i predict the state law as written will not stand up in court, it will be overturned, and by a liberal judge as well.
this statement quoted from above is true:
"The NRA is not against smart guns. The NRA, along with myself and most other gun owners, are against laws that allow ONLY smart guns to be sold, by BANNING all the rest. "
+1 to this
don't buy the agenda drive hype out there, the negative spin on everything the NRA does just reveals the pure emotional hatred the MSM has for the organization and it's members.
Bitter batter? No common sense? Under a rock? All I can say is consider the toxicity of the source.
Yes, a PIN gun sounds safer, cheaper, and easier actually; nice invention.
Listening in? There's a big difference with listening with the phone and internet funded by the government. In the case of the phone system, it was designed for national security on purpose, that's why we don't allow Chinese equipment in. The internet is public, there is no expectation of privacy unless through your own encryption. But private company designing product for self-destruction of their business is pretty far-fetched unless you think the government is funding a German design. And IF your company was going to proceed this way, would you file a patent? I would be more afraid of local hackers going after the wifi on a local basis. I really doubt all smart gun manufacturers would comply with a government mandate that would destroy their business if detected and the first one that publicly says no ---- wins all the business. Yeah Mark, I would say that concept is pretty stupid.
Yes, let the market decide, yes the NJ law is premature at best, but I still don't have a problem with mandating safer guns that have "privacy" plus all the features you want plus are cost competitive with today's models ONCE they are proven equal to the quality and features of today's models.
And BDog: those are the NRA's words, Wayne's words, not MSM? They are clearly for a banning these guns which is a direct violation of the 2A. And Mark, lots of vile messages and two threats still sounds pretty bad to me and certainly not something that should be condoned, much less praised.
"Yes, let the market decide, yes the NJ law is premature at best, but I still don't have a problem with mandating safer guns that have "privacy" plus all the features you want plus are cost competitive with today's models ONCE they are proven equal to the quality and features of today's models. "
Add one more... ALL law enforcement is to be subject to the same "smart" gun requirements as every other citizen. After all, they spend a lot of money on equipment (Level III retention holsters, etc.) and training to prevent unauthorized access to their firearms. I guarantee you, no law enforcement officer will want anything to do with a smart gun, and that says a lot.
Even the current bad law has a once-it-passes-muster clause for police inclusion.
Point is that who wouldn't want one if it is the same price, has ALL the features you want, and is safer.
But let the market decide is the right way to go for new unproven technology.
And let's face it, those unintelligent NRA types noted by the NRA's leadership (seemingly not too bright themselves) might have difficulty with a PIN :>)
"Even the current bad law has a once-it-passes-muster clause for police inclusion."
I'm sure that will get fixed ASAP once the AG determines that the 3-year clock is ticking.
Question: Why are California police exempted from the "Safe Handgun Roster" in their state? Shouldn't police be the *leaders* in firearm safety?
"Yes, a PIN gun sounds safer, cheaper, and easier actually; nice invention."
Cheaper??? You really do not have any sense of the current do you? a standard .22 pistol is about $300 and up lets say, a smart gun .22 starts at $1399.......a great lockable safe is $1000 and holds 15 guns lets say.....so you can buy a gun and a safe for the price of a smart gun that only protects itself.....ummmmmm (post your comment here)
"Bitter batter? No common sense? Under a rock? All I can say is consider the toxicity of the source. "
Pot meet kettle....you are the one calling all NRA members stupid, and too dumb to type in a pin, as well as knocking down others ideas as dumb, stupid, how about this, try directing less toxicity yourself if you do not want it directed back towards you. My mother always said to treat other how you want to be treated.
Darrin, the Armatix iP1 smart gun (that's at the center of all this hoopla) does indeed cost $1399.
Oh, but you actually want to SHOOT it? You'll need the RFID watch that activates the gun for an additional $399.
Mark, yeah I did forget to mention the $400 activation watch, it doesn't matter, MG will have something to say, or will just completly change the topic as usually, instead of simply saying, "good idea I didn't think of that" Like anyone that is open to ideas would
Actually Darrin, it was the NRA and Wayne calling it's members in quotes as mostly uneducated and unintelligent; I just superimposed the word stupid instead. I take it you are a member?
Duh, I already listed the prices above, noting I was pretty sure it was expensive and asking for your response Mr.-laser-focus-on-topic. And I meant a simple PIN gun might be less expensive than a PIN gun with RFID, WIFI, and Satellite GPS technology. Geez, lighten up. Unknot, unknot, unknot.
..typical, poke more insults, then act like it is no big deal. I am really starting to see a pattern with you mg, don;t try to turn it around now.
First off you are even further bending the story, wayne simply said not all gun owners are high school graduates, NOTHING about the nra members, NOTHING about stupid, NOTHING about unintelligent, that is YOU adding those words.
I can gaurentee you that 80% of the people on this post are members of the NRA.
And for the record, since you like to twist what was actually said to fit your own agenda here was your original quote, quoting words from the nra “Don’t they realize it alienates easily half their customers? Not all gun owners are high school graduates!”"
I was able to find your quote in true context on its original site and there is no link between half gun owners and nra members, that is words you have added. Unless that is that you are claiming all gun owners are members of the nra, which is absolutely untrue.
They say it alienates half their customers, meaning half of the people buying guns would never purchase a smart gun, me included.
Then they say that not all gun owners are high school graduates, which is absolutely true. If a single gun owner in not a high school graduate, that makes not all gun owners high school graduates.
I do not believe these two statements were said together as they are portrayed, there was not that link of the two statements like you claim there was, yet you play on it like it is all over the news, yes you did find a site that likes to adjust the way things were said, just as you do, congratulations.
Are older people who still prefer cell phones with physical push buttons "stupid"?
What about those who still use a land line?
Not everyone wants to (or has the skill to) troubleshoot complicated software-driven devices when the system crashes.
There's something to be said for simplicity and RFID enabled firearms with fragile electronics are the antithesis to simple. Current firearms are (or at least can be) magnificent in their simplicity, and yet even those can have mechanical failures. Now we need to add another list of potential failures modes to the mix with software (with NO way to revert to a purely mechanical backup)? No thank you.
The last thing you want to hear when a bad guy is getting ready to rape your wife is 'click'.... or worse yet (in a soothing GPS voice) "I'm sorry, please enter your PIN to continue."
The last thing you want to hear when a bad guy is getting ready to rape your wife is 'click'.... or worse yet (in a soothing GPS voice) "I'm sorry, please enter your PIN to continue."
WAIT WAIT WAIT..... the devices, in order to meet govt standards, will have to be multi-lingual, so the FIRST thing you'll hear is:
"please press 1 for english, por favor pulse 2 para espanol..."
Actually Darrin, I originally posted the entire Wayne-o quote including one opening sentence you left out so I don't know why you think I didn't. Much less demonize me as some kinda spinmeister general using yellow-websites to construct my message. I used the same quote as you Dude, except the longer version.
Now if you want to parse out and interpret what Wayne means in those two sentences, feel free. But he is the head of the NRA, he speaks for the NRA, and that's what he said. Perhaps it was not really sex he had with that woman........but it sure looks like he did.
And when you combine that with the NRA statement from the NRA website, the organization that Wayne leads, controls, and is the master spin artist for, that I posted before that you have ignored: "“The NRA recognizes that the ‘smart guns’ issue clearly has the potential to mesh with the anti-gunner’s agenda,” said the organization in a statement on their website, “opening the door to a ban on all guns that do not possess the government-required technology, and discriminating against individuals who are not particularly intelligent- one of the NRA’s larger target demographics.”
"Not particularly intelligent....one the the NRA's larger target demographics...." I don't know; it seems that Wayne and his organization are speaking pretty clearly about the NRA membership as well as gun owners.
If you ask me, what they are really saying loud and clear that is not in the text but certainly behind the text is that to make a point, to spin a tale, they are even willing to besmirch their members. But hey, it's your club, not mine. I went to college.
And once I again I fully admit I added the stupid. How many times do I have to tell you that as if it wasn't obvious (no quotes or sourcing). But let's face it; Wayne's comments and the NRA statement are pretty stupid and really seem to dumb down the membership. I like your explanation, it is much, much better that Wayne-o's.
So let's move on to the next topic: the gun won't sell, it's too expensive, unproven, and is not a viable alternative to what you have. The NJ law is stupid. And the government will try to control us, take all our weapons, shut down all our electronics, and listen-in to anything we communicate in any medium.
Can we move on?
"I went to college"
Is that suppose to be some sort of educational poke to others on this forum? I can guarantee most here have went to college, and if they didn't they certainly have LEARNED how to take other opinions in stride, I personally am currently obtaining my master of science, so I do not appreciate your poke, you are putting words in wayne's mouth and interpreting something he said, I am sure he did not mean it in the way you are interpreting it
Is it really that hard to admit you were wrong, or do you always have to include the demeaning "pokes". It seems you cannot just appreciate a good answer and have to always push things to the extreme?
so what, now that the focus is on you, we must "move on"??
this statement is not on the NRA website. in fact it is not there:
"“The NRA recognizes that the ‘smart guns’ issue clearly has the potential to mesh with the anti-gunner’s agenda,” said the organization in a statement on their website, “opening the door to a ban on all guns that do not possess the government-required technology, and discriminating against individuals who are not particularly intelligent- one of the NRA’s larger target demographics.”
this last part of the statement is not from the NRA at all, someone made it up,
"discriminating against individuals who are not particularly intelligent- one of the NRA’s larger target demographics"
you can find in only one place, here:
http://www.newslo.com/nra-claims-smart-guns-discriminate-less-intelligent-gun-owners/
looks like this statement was written for the newslo.com website by a humorist:
David Neilsen
David has been writing online for over 15 years, filtering reality into bite-sized and digestible pieces on a wide range of sites that have mostly faded into distant memory. He has worked both as a straight journalist and an author of original humor, and is excited to be given the opportunity to combine these two unique talents for the benefit of all Newslo readers except that one guy.
http://www.newslo.com/author/david-neilsen/
no links were provided in any of the quotes attributed to the NRA, a sure fire sign of BS and spin.
the continued pathetic attempts at character assassination directed towards NRA members reveal the hate filled agenda of the progressive crowd who will do and say anything to get more controls and restrictions written into law
"you can find in only one place, here:"
http://www.newslo.com/nra-claims-smart-guns-discriminate-less-intelligent-gun-owners/
Brother dog, funny you say that, while I was researching the trueness of MG's now famous quote, "Don’t they realize it alienates easily half their customers? Not all gun owners are high school graduates!”" that was the only site where I could find it as well , it shows up no where else on the internet in that same context.
"no links were provided in any of the quotes attributed to the NRA, a sure fire sign of BS and spin."
Thank you very much for shedding light onto this BD, I got to the site but was unable to go far as the credibility of the source.
Yup, I messed up and did not second source this one and Newslo is a satire news site. Oppps, sorry, I am so Busted.
Some of the postings are from the NRA site (the one's with dates) but there is no second sourcing on Wayne's quote for sure.
I think The Onion has it right...
ISLA VISTA, CA—In the days following a violent rampage in southern California in which a lone attacker killed seven individuals, including himself, and seriously injured over a dozen others, citizens living in the only country where this kind of mass killing routinely occurs reportedly concluded Tuesday that there was no way to prevent the massacre from taking place. “This was a terrible tragedy, but sometimes these things just happen and there’s nothing anyone can do to stop them,” said North Carolina resident Samuel Wipper, echoing sentiments expressed by tens of millions of individuals who reside in a nation where over half of the world’s deadliest mass shootings have occurred in the past 50 years and whose citizens are 20 times more likely to die of gun violence than those of other developed nations. “It’s a shame, but what can we do? There really wasn’t anything that was going to keep this guy from snapping and killing a lot of people if that’s what he really wanted.” At press time, residents of the only economically advanced nation in the world where roughly two mass shootings have occurred every month for the past five years were referring to themselves and their situation as “helpless.”
yankeefan Ah, yankeefan, even though the Onion is satire they still fail to mention that more people were killed with a knife and a BMW than were killed with a gun in that event.
I assume there will be a large backlash against Bed Bath & Beyond for selling such dangerous items without background checks?
"Yup, I messed up and did not second source this one and Newslo is a satire news site. Oppps, sorry, I am so Busted."
Ahh, see MG, was that so hard?
yankeefan, sure there is a way to stop it, properly train people and allow concealed carry, that way people can actually defend themselves with proper training, rather then helplessly being pelted with bullets. If i am going to die, It certainly is not going to be from a lack of effort of self defense, that's for sure.
Darrin, I pray that the answer to our excessive violence is not be a blind acceptance of even more violence under the guise of self defense. Sure, people should be allowed to protect themselves, but the issue is violence and more guns in more places will not make violence subside even if the good guys nail the bad guys every time.
We are the most violent developed nation in the world; our gun murders alone rank us as a third world nation, not developed. Mark is correct, violence has nothing to do with guns, we can use knives, BMWs, and even dish towels. Of course, these tools rarely do the damage of a gun in a single event even if their overall "incidence" rate is higher. No knife or BMW has a trail of mass murders that the gun has. And when we start bringing our guns everywhere we bring our cars, I would bet our gun murder rate would sky rocket.
The question Americans need to ask is why we, the most violent developed nation in the world, can we do to mitigate the violence? How do we drop it down a notch and stop killing each other? It is a deep and complex question and has nothing to do with guns; they are only our violence delivery mechanism of choice especially for rampage, mass murder, or school attacks. They are not the reason for violence, they are just our most frequent facilitator especially for grandiose acts of gore.
But we do make these easy, efficient, and effective enablers of violence pretty darned simple to get; these tools even have their own lobbying group, one of the best advocates in the country. We excel at allowing the easy tools of violence in as many places as we can; seems lately we are increasing where we can carry. Lately we even see trending to having these tools at peaceful protests as our own personal support mechanisms; sort of a badge of support for the cause. Mark, perhaps better and more exhaustive background checks would be appropriate but this last one was California and I would love to know how we can improve on their strict regulations. I just do not know how we will reduce the gun play in America by just looking more closely at the buyer than they do in California. Can't wait to see the discussion of that..
Fact is we Americans seem to like violence as a problem solver and we certainly love our guns as a primary solution especially when looking for mass. But until we tackle the issue of violence, we will not solve the problem.
first they outlaw and ban military style small arms, then they limit the magazine capacity while at the same time they ramp up plans to use the military against citizens; this is a scary proposition :
Directive outlines Obama’s policy to use the military against citizens
The troubling aspect of the directive outlines presidential authority for the use of military arms and forces, including unarmed drones, in operations against domestic unrest.
“This appears to be the latest step in the administration’s decision to use force within the United States against its citizens,” said a defense official opposed to the directive.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/may/28/inside-the-ring-directive-outlines-obamas-policy-t/#ixzz334TeczYL
" Sure, people should be allowed to protect themselves, but the issue is violence and more guns in more places will not make violence subside even if the good guys nail the bad guys every time."
this is because they make the defendant out to be a murderer, list all the other possibilities of a course of action he could of taken, and then lock him up for murdering someone! Yet when a cop shoots someone in defense, it goes over unscaved.
I at least think that if people were allowed to carry, criminals would certainly think twice, especially with the right training, how many criminals do you see robbing cops?
"We are the most violent developed nation in the world"
and that is exactly why the people of this country should be allowed to protect themselves!
Right. Guns for everyone! That's the solution. Unbelievable. And BD thinks he could actually overcome a hostile government attack. Which he appears to believe is imminent. Lunacy.
From the website Think Progress:
Young people account for almost two thirds of gun-related violent offenses in New York, according to state data obtained by amNewYork. Some 62.8 percent of New Yorkers arrested between 2009 and 2013 for murder and attempted murder charges with an underlying firearm charge were between the age of 13 and 25.
The data reveals how access to firearms by young individuals can escalate what would otherwise be a fist fight into a deadly altercation for a population whose brains are still developing. “If you add in guns what might have been a fight can turn into a homicide very quickly. And kids have access,” St. John’s University sociology professor Judith Ryder told amNewYork. “They are lacking in impulse control.”
New York saw similar rates of gun-related arrests among youths over the past several years. Last year, the rate among the same age group was 59 percent and in 2012 it reached a high of 69 percent. Arrests don’t signal convictions. And this statistic could in part reflect disproportionate rates of young arrests overall. But the data comports with other national statistics on youth and violent firearm crime.
The median age for murder in 2010 was 26, according to Bureau of Justice Statistics figures. And in 2011, 70 percent of murders committed by those aged 12 to 24 involved a firearm. Individuals between the ages of 10 and 29 also made up 65 percent of all national arrests for weapons offenses in 2012, according to Federal Bureau of Investigation data.
This young skew tracks the high proportion of young people who are the victims of gun violence. Fifty-four percent of Americans murdered by guns in 2010 were under age 30. In fact, an American under the age of 25 dies by gunfire every 70 minutes. And guns are poised to surpass car accidents as the leading cause of death among young people. As a February Center for American Progress report notes, “Far too often, a gun not only takes the life of one young American but also contributes to ruining the life of another young person who pulls the trigger.” In striking down the harshest sentence of life without parole for some juvenile crimes, the U.S. Supreme Court reasoned that a juvenile’s character is not as “well formed,” meaning both that they are prone to recklessness, and that their traits are significantly more likely to change over time. Nonetheless, those charged in homicide crimes are likely to spend years if not their life in prison.
Against this backdrop, the National Rifle Association has recently made a push to invalidate bans on gun sales and permits to those under age 21. The NRA has argued that the restriction imposes an unconstitutional burden on the Second Amendment. But one of the most conservative federal appeals courts in the country turned back one of those challenges last year, and the U.S. Supreme Court has since declined to review the issue.
Close
Like ThinkProgress on Facebook
Don't show this to me again
By clicking and submitting a comment I acknowledge the ThinkProgress Privacy Policy and agree to the ThinkProgress Terms of Use. I understand that my comments are also being governed by Facebook, Yahoo, AOL, or Hotmail’s Terms of Use and Privacy Policies as applicable, which can be found here.
Get ThinkProgress email alerts
About ThinkProgress | Contact Us | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy (off-site) | State Notices | Reuse Policy | RSS | Donate
© 2005-2014 Center for American Progress Action Fund
Not guns for everyone (although that is their right). Just guns for those who choose to carry one.
If you don't want to have a gun, nobody is going to force one into your hands.
Wrong, guns for the people who want to get the proper training, many people on this site have already acquired the proper training. The training I am referring to would be for carrying in public
Darrin - Extensive training is always good, but generally speaking, any adult can be taught how to safely handle any firearm in about 30 minutes. Will they be Annie Oakley hitting playing cards on their edge at 25 yards? Of course not, but that comes with practice. Also, the hope is that all firearm handling occurs at a range. When carrying in public it's generally desired that you will never have to even touch your gun, and a gun sitting in a *proper* holster is about as safe and inert as any other inanimate object.
Above and beyond that, additional training may get more into the legalities of self defense, tactics for home defense, improvement in accuracy. That's great (and recommended) but the core skills are really very simple. In fact, there are only three rules, which (if followed correctly) would prevent effectively ALL firearm accidents.
1. ALWAYS keep the firearm pointed in a safe direction.
2. ALWAYS keep your finger off the trigger until ready to shoot.
3. ALWAYS keep firearms unloaded until they ready for use.
Even if you forget Rules 2 and 3 (or there is a mechanical malfunction), the first one is there to save the day.
All of the people that think hours upon hours of police training is required don't stop to think that maybe that training is geared towards how to work in teams (that the general public don't have), how to breach barricaded suspects (that the general public doesn't deal with), how to clear buildings of potential suspects (that the general public doesn't deal with), etc.
"If you don't want to have a gun, nobody is going to force one into your hands."
this is correct,
people who don't own firearms and who have never used firearms think they have the right to decide for everybody else that no one truly needs them, and anyone who thinks they do is a paranoid nut job.
this is wrong of them to do, but they feel they have the right to do it.
the full frontal assault at character denigration and personal insults directed at gun owners is evidence of the hate filled agenda of the progressives who will do and say anything to further their anti-firearm cause. pathetic and weak
they are on the wrong side of history,
Mark, Darrin, BD, et al, your comments (or versions of them) are all represented on the gun nut bingo board...
Really? Passing along actual *gun safety* rules (not "gun control" falsely claiming to be "gun safety") is only for gun nuts?
Maybe you personally shouldn't own/carry a gun. But just because you don't trust yourself doesn't mean the rest of us are as irresponsible (as evidenced by the fact that although you and others do continually aggravate us, denigrate us, and belittle us - not one of us has ever used any of our guns in anger against you).
"continually aggravate us, denigrate us, and belittle us "
that's the only play he's ever had, cyberbullying those with whom he disagrees with,
he knows no other way, and has no real substance to add to the discussion. it's sad, pathetic and shallow.
remember : don't feed the trolls
"Maybe you personally shouldn't own/carry a gun" I agree with that fact just because the poster is a yankee fan....YUCK!
Marc, I know and completely agree with you that proper firearm training and handling is a 30 minute task, I bought and learned how to fire my first gun from a cop, at the state police shooting range. But my point to the proper training, is that maybe that is what the nay-sayers want to see, that to get a carry permit you are required to take a course and take a carry test, much like you are for a hunting license.
The nay sayers want nothing less than a complete ban on all firearms. They don't care a whit about what training anyone has. I will not agree to any of their pre-conditions for exercising a fundamental right. If you give an inch (say, basic training) they'll take a mile (16 hour courses costing hundreds of dollars, with year long waiting lists).
They've blown way past "reasonable" long ago, and have kept squeezing more and more. 49 other states have (or will soon have) varying degrees of concealed carry permits with as little as zero training requirements just over the nearest river to our west. NJ is on the wrong side of gun rights, our legislature knows this, and they're doing all they can to squash our rights before (some day) the laws get slapped down as unconstitutional. It may take 20 years of fighting, but almost the entire rest of the country is going in the opposite direction of NJ.
No more compromises.
Actually, update that. 49 states and 1 territory make it possible to get a concealed carry permit.
http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2014/05/dean-weingarten/guam-shall-issue-becomes-law/
Yes, 6 other states are "may" issue, but it is realistically possible and many residents do have permits. Like in NY, the main problem area is just in/near the city. In NJ, it was recently revealed that only approximately 0.02% of the population has a permit (i.e. the "elite" politicians and celebrities).
Dead last in 2nd Amendment rights... Some of the most dangerous and crime ridden cities in the country... and our legislators think we're "leading the way"?
"16 hour courses costing hundreds of dollars, with year long waiting lists"
Well I can see that, I looked into taking the courses to get my conceal carry in 36 states or something like that.. you had to take two courses for a total of $3000-$4000 dollars depending on the intensity of handgun training.
So I can see where you are coming from.
"No more compromises."
Finally!!! I've been there for awhile now, which is why I don't debate this topic as much as I used to. I'm DONE. No more compromises. The antis certainly have never been interested in compromise, it's time we take as hard a line. Gridlock.
"Finally!!! I've been there for awhile now, which is why I don't debate this topic as much as I used to. I'm DONE."
I may be done soon as well, if for no other reason than it's hard to scroll through almost 900 messages on my cell phone.
I don't stay to convince mistergoogle and yankeefan of my position. I stay to expose the flaws in their logic (or blind hatred of gun owners). At least mistergoogle sees through the smoke on some issues - claiming he doesn't support the 10 round limit or the smart gun requirement (at this time). But I also say that silence is compliance, and by not taking action against laws that he doesn't agree with, he is complicit in their passage/approval.
Hopefully any lurkers just reading these messages without commenting can start to see that these gun control laws are NOT being passed with anyone's safety in mind.
Does anyone really think the thugs in Trenton, Camden, and Newark are referencing Evan Nappen's 500 page NJ Gun Law book before strapping their gat on for the day?
Does anyone really think these thugs stop for a second to worry about whether or not their hollow points are illegal or if the visit to 7-11 on their way to the meth-lab is a "reasonable deviation"?
Who really thinks that the most oft-regulated firearms (so called assault rifles) are used in any signficant portion of crime? That isn't because of any gun control laws, it's because even with the shortest barrel and most collapsible stock, it's just tough to conceal a rifle in the waistband of their baggy pants.
Meanwhile, the father and son who just want to plink some tin cans off the fence post have to worry about whether or not the tube fed Marlin 60 or Mossberg Plinkster (guns that are used in Cub Scouts and Boy Scouts) are .22 caliber assault weapons.
The woman who lives alone or with young children can't fully load the magazines for the home defense firearm, as 2 or 3 men break in to do who-knows-what because *she* will be arrested as well.
Someone on their way to get firearm training (that so many nay-sayers want) can't stop on the way to pick up his friend or get fuel (even if those locations are right next door to the range and the guns remain safely locked in the trunk) without becoming a felon.
Reasonable? Common Sense? No... those two left the party a long time ago. All they have left now is the demonization and belittling of 100+ million Americans, your neighbors, friends, and relatives... simply because those people want to exercise a right that has been acknowledged and protected since the earliest days of this country.
Must be a full moon weekend coming up......:>)
I wonder what it is like to live in a house with "No more compromises." Must be.......principled.
"#NotOneMore"
Yes, a hash tag is certainly the most effective way to stop crime.
How's that #WarOnDrugs going? Based on what I've read here, it's pretty darn easy to score a hit even in the local schools of our little hamlet.
Let's not actually address the real issues (economic depression, broken families, etc.)
It depends on the principles.
However, life without compromise sounds very lonely.
"I may be done soon as well, if for no other reason than it's hard to scroll through almost 900 messages on my cell phone."
I agree, I can only load this thread on my computer now, When we hit 1000 I will make a second thread, this has been fun!
Yes, those guys are asses with or without guns. That is borderline brandishing, not just open carry, and they are getting called out on it by other firearms owners as well.
Question - In ANY of the open carry demonstrations has even a single person been shot?
Don't worry, I know the answer is no...
"Borderline brandishing?"
When does a little "borderline brandishing turn into wide-reaching intimidation? If guns turn up at peaceful protests, restaurants, etc., how long until folks are intimidated from exercising free speech and lawful assembly? I know, the answer is we just need more guns and we should all just all carry guns all the time, everywhere, and then we wouldn't be scared.
Asses? Many of these guys only sound just a tad to the right of JR. LIsten to them and ask yoiurself: "would they talk like that without holding a gun?
http://csgv.org/blog/2013/pro-gun-activists-contradict-claim-stalking-peaceful/
At Bundy's they offered to put the unarmed ladies up front to cause as much collateral damage as possible if confronted.
As guns become standard tools of peaceful protest, lawful assembly, dinnerware, and bar room cozies, it is only a matter of time before tragedy. But not to worry, more people will still be killed falling down the stairs, so getting shot during peaceful assembly will still be a very low risk. I doubt it will dent enthusiasm to exercise our other Constitutional rights.
Question: how many need to be shot during a peaceful protest before using guns to intimidate first amendment rights is terribly, terribly wrong and not just a couple of "asses" exhibiting "borderline brandishing?" Why is this behavior seemingly just a little out of bounds? Why is it getting to the point that if you disagree with a gunnie, there's a chance you will be looking down the barrel of a gun just because you do?
+1 and well stated, mistergoogle! some here sound as if they are hoping for an opportunity to shoot someone who is a little suspicious --- are others' lives so cheap?
Here's the problem with your logic... open carry is currently legal in at least 43 states, and your wild west fantasy just isn't happening.
So either your vacation spots outside of NJ are severely limited, or allowing people to open carry simply isn't as scary as you pretend to make it.
(Also, so far the only ones limiting our 1st Amendment at the barrel of a gun is the government itself... see First Amendment Zones...)
Intimidation is what had happened, so far.
Open carry, concealed carry, may be the law but I do not condone carrying arms at public events, especially at emotional settings like protests, anymore than I condone any sort of intimidation or even rude behaviors. I think that guys with guns screaming in someone's face is very scary. If you have a conflicting point, try making without hiding behind the barrel of your gun.
The fact that no shooting tragedy has happened is a blessing; but you have to admit a guy with a weapon whether gun, blade, or other, is intimidation of the first order. Their own statements, bolstered by what they carry no doubt, show their intent to intimidate.
For example, I just don't see how the Feds backing down for a free-grazing thief is a 2nd amendment victory versus a Federal victory for restraint in the face of a loss of life over some cows.
"(Also, so far the only ones limiting our 1st Amendment at the barrel of a gun is the government itself... see First Amendment Zones...)" I honestly don't see how you can not see that guys with guns stifle free speech and peaceful assembly JUST because on one died. And First Amendment Zones, even if wrong, don't make gun brandishing as a manner of expression OK.
nobody is preventing anybody from peacefully assembling,
what a load of bs,
physical threats of violence against individuals should be prosecuted under the law.
agreed that the statements and comments linked and quoted in the article are bad, and some of them should be followed up by law enforcement. also agree that is not the right way to behave if your are trying to convince others of your position, it is counter-productive. btw, have you seen how violent much of progressive community blogs about gun owners is? the progressive 'lean forward' liberals are having a field day by posting violent and aggressive commentary, saying the most horrific things about 2nd amendment advocates and making threats against their physical well being, funny the gun control web site linked makes no mention of those comments in their rush to conflate all gun owners with a few loons.
standing outside with a firearm visible is ok. gathering in a group of like minded individuals is ok and constitutionally protected, (no matter which side of the issues you are on ) but making threatening statements of violence against this woman (as wrong headed and misguided as she is) and her family is criminal and should be prosecuted under existing laws.
MG - The people openly carrying guns at the "protests" you speak of are the entire reason the "protests" exist. They are "gun rights" gatherings.
If a mass of armed folks showed up to a pro-choice convention, or a gay-rights parade (or any other non gun-rights related issue) and tried to stifle the voices, then you would have a point, but that simply isn't what's happening.
Like BrotherDog said... law or no law... open or concealed carry... assault against another human is illegal and those violating that law should be prosecuted for it. Nobody has a Constitutional right to not be scared of something/someone, especially when 99.995% of that something have never, and will never be used to hurt another human being.
(Keep in mind, 80% of the remaining 0.005% of guns that are used in crimes occur due to gang violence in the cities, and has nothing to do with open carry gatherings.)
It must be a rough life to cower in fear of something that has a 99.999% chance of not hurting you.
(Just FYI - these percentages are not made up. Even if every one of the 30,000 firearm related deaths - including suicide - was due to a different gun, when there are 150,000,000 or more that are owned by private individuals, we're talking thousandths of a percent here...)
Yeah, when you go to your next rally, and the opposition comes in and is "standing outside with a firearm visible is ok. gathering in a group of like minded individuals is ok and constitutionally protected," you tell me how warm n cozy you feel. Or is that just a new sensation in the seat of your pants. There's legal and there's moral and brandishing a gun at a rally, meeting or protest is outright immoral intimidation, legal or not.
So link us this progressive rhetoric.
And the next time the Feds arrive with guns to remove Bundy's illegal free grazing moo moo's, not a peep. Not a peep. I mean they're just standing there with guns enforcing an existing law. Just doing their jobs while holding big guns.
I feel plenty warm and cozy. I see people with guns all the time.
Now, you can't have it both ways... claiming people are afraid when they get into an argument with an armed individual. If said person is so scared, why did they approach the armed individual to get into an argument in the first place? Maybe just to create headlines about "gun bullies"?
Regardless of how anyone feels about the removal of Bundy's cattle, creating "First Amendment Zones" with snipers on the hillside to enforce them is BS, you know it, and you're just trying to deflect the issue.
PS - Why the heck is it taking 5 hours for comments to show up here?
All I know is that my cousin by marriage is from Switzerland where EVERYONE can (and does) own a gun -- even kids as young as 8 can carry. You can have them in school, in restaurants, the library, the market, at the beach -- everywhere. He started carrying his first gun at the age of 8 and got a military style weapon at 10. All his friends had (and still have) them and yet, not ONE school or movie theater shooting -- not ONE.
There have been NO mass shootings in Switzerland - even with everyone owning multiple guns. He said the teachers would have them in their pockets and in holsters or their purse (if they were female) and if you got to a restaurant people sling their guns over the back of the chair like we do with backpacks here.
The thing is they look at guns as a patriotic duty to defend their country. Any boob who used that duty in the wrong way KNOWS they would be shot on site BEFORE he could even raise the barrel of his gun.
I think guns at a gun rally would be expected.
But no, the examples from the article(s) included a restaurant, one where an anti-gun meeting was going on. The other example is the recent Chipotle incident where the guns were brandished in a group inside the establishment, long guns.
Last Saturday, about 150 gunnies turned up at a Home Depot parking lot; this was an Open Carry demonstration but come on, location, location, location.
Even the NRA posted: "Now we love AR-15s and AKs as much as anybody, and we know that these sorts of semiautomatic carbines are among the most popular, fastest selling firearms in America today. Texas, independent-minded and liberty-loving place that it is, doesn’t ban the carrying of loaded long guns in public, nor does it require a permit for this activity. Yet some so-called firearm advocates seem determined to change this.
Recently, demonstrators have been showing up in various public places, including coffee shops and fast food restaurants, openly toting a variety of tactical long guns. Unlicensed open carry of handguns is legal in about half the U.S. states, and it is relatively common and uncontroversial in some places.
Yet while unlicensed open carry of long guns is also typically legal in most places, it is a rare sight to see someone sidle up next to you in line for lunch with a 7.62 rifle slung across his chest, much less a whole gaggle of folks descending on the same public venue with similar arms.
Let’s not mince words, not only is it rare, it’s downright weird and certainly not a practical way to go normally about your business while being prepared to defend yourself. To those who are not acquainted with the dubious practice of using public displays of firearms as a means to draw attention to oneself or one’s cause, it can be downright scary. It makes folks who might normally be perfectly open-minded about firearms feel uncomfortable and question the motives of pro-gun advocates."
Maybe we can't have it both ways, but perhaps some common sense and decency might carry the day.
Meanwhile, I brought up Bundy, you deflected to 1A Zones. Who's on first?
I would have to research the topic on 1A Zones and certainly most would lean towards not wanting them. However, in the Bundy case, it was purely an attempt, lame as it was, to defuse an escalating situation. As far as snipers on the hill at the free speech zone, think you got that one mixed up; it was snipers on the Bundy family when they protested outside the free speech area. And of course they were on a hill, wouldn't you be? Personally given the Bundy's rhetoric advocating armed violence, I think armed protection would be prudent in any transaction with them. Might even carry them when buying cattle from these folks.
But I wouldn't wip them out in McDonald's later.
This bears repeating...
citizens living in the only country where this kind of mass killing routinely occurs reportedly concluded Tuesday that there was no way to prevent the massacre from taking place. “This was a terrible tragedy, but sometimes these things just happen and there’s nothing anyone can do to stop them,” said North Carolina resident Samuel Wipper, echoing sentiments expressed by tens of millions of individuals who reside in a nation where over half of the world’s deadliest mass shootings have occurred in the past 50 years and whose citizens are 20 times more likely to die of gun violence than those of other developed nations. “It’s a shame, but what can we do? There really wasn’t anything that was going to keep this guy from snapping and killing a lot of people if that’s what he really wanted.” At press time, residents of the only economically advanced nation in the world where roughly two mass shootings have occurred every month for the past five years were referring to themselves and their situation as “helpless.”
You're acting like these "free speech zones" were unique to this case. How hard did you complain when the authorities made free speech zones for the Occupy movement? How hard do you complain they do the same for the black bear protestors every year here in NJ?
And, BTW, there is no evidence that there were any snipers in the Bundy confrontation. Well, there was no evidence that there were federal snipers - that was just Bundy's claim, and he's a proven liar. There were however, documented snipers on the other side. Got their picture in the paper and everything.
"How hard did you complain when the authorities made free speech zones for the Occupy movement? How hard do you complain they do the same for the black bear protestors every year here in NJ? "
I think I've made it abundantly clear that I do not support the infrgingement of anyone's Constitutional rights, no matter what number is in front of the Amendment, no matter where it happens.
So yankeefan: If guns, by themselves, were the problem, how come the rate of mass shootings is effectively unchanged for the past 34 years, despite 42% more population and a MASSIVE increase in the number of guns sold in that time? Shouldn't more people owning more guns with (except for the AWB from 1994-2004) no significant changes in Federal gun control laws directly correlate to more shootings by your logic? How come that isn't happening even though a lot of states have less gun control now than they did years ago?
* Population in 1976: 218 million
* Population in 2010: 310 million
Notice that even during the years that a Federal assault weapons ban was in place the number of shootings/victims remained relatively flat (actually the worst year occurred DURING the assault weapons ban).
http://www.jsonline.com/watchdog/dataondemand/165757356.html
Also of note from that web page... Victims per 1 million residents:
California (LOTS of gun control) = 10.6
New York (LOTS of gun control) = 13.0
Texas (The "Wild West") = 11.2 (Not statistically different from strict states)
Florida (The "Gunshine State) = 3.8
I didn't check all 50 states, but they all bounce around to where there is NO correlation between strict gun control and a reduction in mass shooting incidents/fatalities.
Since someone above mentioned Switzerland, I just read up on it in Wikipedia. It's not as claimed, everyone is not carrying, not at all. It's complicated and interesting, though. Hard to relate to the US. I recommend reading up on it for its own sake.
Nothing to see here. Doesn't fit the agenda.
http://news.msn.com/us/12-year-old-wisconsin-girls-stab-friend-19-times?ocid=fbmsnnws
Mark, part of my concern is that it is simply too easy for the wrong people to obtain weapons. Here are a few possible ways to reduce ( obviously not eliminate) these instances.
1. Appoint a full time ATF Director
2.Aggressively prosecute people who buy illegally
3.Add a second serial number or make it more difficult to remove the serial number.
4.Background checks for gun dealers employees
5.Dealers who lose their license lose their inventory
6.Require agencies to regularly communicate data on mental health and drugs
7.Require the FBI to to contact state and local officials/agencies in all cases of mental health license rejections.
Not even close to a complete list, or a solution...but suggesting the solution is that we should ALL pack a weapon is simply lunacy.
Solid bachelor party this weekend, My brother took me and my groomsmen to heritage guild in Easton Pa. Shot a G36 full auto and M249 SAW full auto, desert eagle, and a 357 mag lever. We went through $700 in ammo alone!! What a life changing experience!!!
Life changing? Really?
Here's Life changing:
At least six people, including two teenagers, were shot Monday night at a laundromat in Chicago, according to multiple reports.
A seventh person was injured fleeing the scene.
The shootings took place around 8:30 p.m. at the Sudz laundry in the city's South Side. Four victims, including the two teens -- ages 14 and 16 -- are in serious-to-critical condition at area hospitals, the Chicago Tribune reports.
Most of the victims appear to be young adults, and the Chicago Sun-Times says one of the other victims is a 16-year-old boy.
“It’s too dangerous to let my kids play around the neighborhood,” construction worker Matthew Gills, who lives across the street from the laundromat, told the Sun-Times. “That’s all it is is gangs. Gangs, gangs, gangs, gangs, gangs. I don’t even want to be in Chicago because it’s too dangerous. I’m trying to move to Texas.”
Tweets from the scene showed the laundromat surrounded by crime scene tape as police worked inside.
`
One customer said she was on her way to do her laundry when the shooting began.
“I’m sitting there looking at this lady lying on the ground, crying,” Nashon Williams told CBS. “I was just about to walk through the doors.”
The Tribune reports that at least five people were also wounded in shootings elsewhere in the city on Monday evening. And CBS says there have been 23 people wounded by gunfire and seven killed in shootings since Friday.
Oh Emily........ Yes, Switzerland has lots of guns but......"All I know is that my cousin by marriage is from Switzerland where EVERYONE can (and does) own a gun -- even kids as young as 8 can carry. You can have them in school, in restaurants, the library, the market, at the beach" -- everyone and everywhere........not likely.
Here's the truth Emily.........
The US holds the gun ownership record with about 89 guns per 100 residents; the Swiss ---- 46. Sure EVERYONE can, but not everyone does --- busted. 29% of the Swiss homes have guns ---- US = 43%. 10% of the Swiss homes have handguns --- US = 18%.
By law, in Switzerland, at 18 you can own up to three guns, with a background check and government permit. It's a "may issue" permit. Bolt-action, singles shots, antiques, are exempt. Airsoft, imitations, and clones are not exempt. Serial numbers are mandatory. Automatics and some other models are prohibited. Most enter the militia and are issued guns which they may keep and keep at home.
Yes, the Swiss start shooting at age 8, target shooting is the national sport.
There is a ban on concealed carry. To carry loaded firearms, a "may issue" permit is needed and generally is only offered to security personnel. Open carry is only allowed for direct transport from home to shooting location; you can not legally carry except to transport without valid purpose. Ammo must be separate from gun.
Since 2008, all militia ammunition is centrally stored. Ammunition sold at firing ranges must be used at firing ranges.
So, the Swiss have a lot of guns. And they treat their guns responsibly for militia protection and for sport. Shooting contests are an important part of Swiss life so guns are everywhere, shooting contests are everywhere, and the transport law is loosely enforced so one might see guns on coat racks at the local eatery. But they are probably unloaded.
The Swiss also have increasing gun violence en mass. In 2001, 15 died when a gunman cut loose in the Swiss assembly. In 2/2013, four died at a mass murder outside a Lucerne factory. Their suicide by gun rate is high and most murders, especially domestic squabbles are conducted by gun.
But the bottom line is the Swiss culture does not accept guns as a problem solver but more important, the Swiss do not accept violence as a solution as it is embraced by the US. Sure, when violence occurs in Switzerland, chances are a gun will be used, but unlike the US, the violence occurs at a much lower rate.
Again, the gun is not the problem, the root cause is the acceptance and use of violence to solve problems. However, once the decision is made to use violence, the gun is the preferred easy, efficient, and effective tool to get the job done --- in the US or Switzerland.
Emily, try this for the truth about Swiss guns and gun violence: http://www.politifact.com/rhode-island/statements/2013/jan/06/facebook-posts/facebook-posting-says-gun-rich-swiss-have-lowest-f/
Darrin - Sounds like fun!
I'd love to go to Knob Creek for their machine gun shoot, but $700 would barely scratch the surface there... The mini-gun ammo can cost about $1 per round and it fires anywhere from 1,000 to 4,000 rounds per minute. You do the math ;)
This is what recreation in America *should* look like...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BM-6-dhL0q4
You think the machine guns sounds fast at first... the mini-gun makes them all seem like bolt actions in comparison...
www.youtube.com/watch?v=p0_Zf7LUR_U
"Not even close to a complete list, or a solution...but suggesting the solution is that we should ALL pack a weapon is simply lunacy."
First problem is your first statement about "not being close"... which means you will just want to continue to pile on more and more and more controls, when the 2nd Amendment is very clear that no infringement is permitted.
Second, I never said that everyone should pack a weapon. If you don't want to carry a gun, don't. But those of us that wish to exercise our rights should be able to do so without government permission, ESPECIALLY since (given the current requirements) we HAVE gone through multiple background checks. If background checks work, what are you worried about?
"I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people.... To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them.... " --George Mason
BrotherDog - Great quote and a lot said in a short sentence.
And to mrgoogle - you keep admitting throughout your posts that VIOLENCE is the problem and NOT guns...so then why do you keep talking about gun control, not care about the government taking away rights, and being wishy-washy on the 2A.
Why are you not instead talking about violence and the problem with over medication of our youth (which causes violence), and why are you not discussing ways to help "control" violent behavior?
And by the way...stop using fronts for the gun control lobby as your sources. Use things like the founding fathers words. I believe them more than Politico or Wikipedia for heavens sake!
Heidi, as I've mentioned before, there are plenty of things that can be done to reduce violence in this country, but because they are all *hard*, they simply lash out at the tool.
* Business/economic development in cities.
* Educational opportunities for low income/troubled youth.
* Rational approach to drug laws (eliminate the black market).
* Stricter (and actually enforced) penalties for *actual* assault against other individuals.
On the "accidental" shooting front, rather than legislate 1,000's of laws that haven't seemed to help, how about:
* Subsidized firearms training (voluntary, but free) available to everyone. Pay for it with the taxes collected on firearms sales.
* Implement Eddie Eagle (or similar) firearm safety courses for children in ALL schools.
* Promote (not demonize) youth shooting sports/competition.
None of these infringe on the 2nd Amendment and would do far more to solve violence problems, but they don't make for great sound bites which is why they are swept under the rug as viable solutions...
It's almost like the government *wants* the violence to exist. How better to justify their ever expanding power, ever increasing toys (police/SWAT), and ever increasing surveillance of the citizens?
So Mark, and BD et al....you agree with Joe the Plumber: "It’s a tragedy.
I am sorry you lost your child. I myself have a son and daughter and the one thing I never want to go through, is what you are going through now. But:
As harsh as this sounds – your dead kids don’t trump my Constitutional rights."
As a father, and as a human being, I couldn't disagree more.
Yes, I agree with Joe the Plumber.
Tragedies happen - it's a fact of life. However, social policy and protected rights for 300 million people should not be based on events that have affected 0.01% of them, especially when the limitations everyone proposes to try and prevent those tragedies ALREADY EXISTED in the state where said tragedy occurred, with no effect on the outcome.
Also, is it any less of a tragedy for the parents who lost children due to the stabbings or being run over? Why are they (or you) not lashing out at the "knife" or "automotive" lobbies?
Because they don't kill as many as guns? If so, it seems we agree in principle, now we're just haggling price. Below what quantity is it OK to have dead children before *you* stop caring about the tool used and just sympathize with the parents for their loss?
Finally, as a human and a father you should be at the front of the line to use and promote anything in your power to protect your family... not hide behind a moral facade and subcontract that protection to other people with guns, when all they care about is making sure *they* get home safely.
Yes, violence is the root problem, acceptance and use both, but you missed the point that the gun, is our chief tool of violence. If the gun disappeared today, we would have less violence. Sure, other things kill, but nothing as easy, efficient, or effective as the gun according to the stats.
So, if you want anyone to have a gun anywhere at anytime, you gonna murder more people by gun and more people in total. And if you want all makes and models of guns to be available, you will kill more people by gun, more people per incident and more people.
Every year we erase a city the size of Hackettstown with our guns. Poof, gone. We erase humans by gun at a rate that is 2 times, 3 times, 10 times, 30 times and even 100 times WORSE than the rate of other developed nations.
Yes, violence is the root problem, but the gun certainly increases our effectiveness at using violence to solve our everyday issues.
Obviously pointless to continue this with you. You are delusional...we don't live in the wild wild west, and your weapons would be useless against a government that wanted to kill you. You don't see the difference between a gun and a knife? Knives require close range...guns don't. How many accidental knife deaths have you read about? How many children accidentally stab themselves to death when they discover a knife in a drawer?
Have to agree with Mark Mc. again (no I am not stalking you, lol!)
Is Mothers Against Drunk Drivers (MADD) who all lost children due to drunk drivers calling for the total ban of cars? No. Because that would be as stupid as people who lost a child through drownings (more than gun violence in all 50 states) calling for a ban on water (aka, "water control").
It's no less dumb when a parent who loses their child when some nutcase shoots their child calling for a ban on guns.
Think about it...
it's because i am a father and a human being that i fully support the the right to carry here in NJ. it's the right thing to do.
i am tired of people who have never used firearms telling me what i can and cannot do with them. they have no clue and no frame of reference to do so.
i am tired of people who have never owned or used firearms telling me what my needs are, what capabilities i have, and then calling me names as if bullying is ok to do. it's not you know.
i stand up to bullies and call them out on their boorish behavior.
"How many accidental knife deaths have you read about? How many children accidentally stab themselves to death when they discover a knife in a drawer?"
So then I was right in assuming your view is based purely on quantity, right?
Apparently there is a threshold below which a murder weapon, in your view, requires no government regulation. It's somewhere between 2,000 (knife murder - it's the criminal's fault) and 10,000 (firearm murder - it's the gun's fault).
Like I said, we agree in principle, let's just set the price. I personally think firearms not killing 99.99% of the population seems pretty darn safe (actually more like 99.997% if you exclude suicide).
It seems you're willing to accept some level of death for the right to own and use knives without background checks, and permits, etc. What's that number?
yankeefan
"Life changing? Really?
Here's Life changing:"
Way to be, I have nothing nice to say to you
But I will respond to your post "“That’s all it is gangs. Gangs, gangs, gangs, gangs, gangs. I don’t even want to be in Chicago because it’s too dangerous"
Again, How do you think that limiting legal guns will affect the illegal guns the gang members use. Seems to me you are the delusional one
"we don't live in the wild wild west, and your weapons would be useless against a government that wanted to kill you."
But, at the very least, they are *immensely* useful against the burglar/rapist/assailant that wants to kill me... Much more so than a cell phone, peeing my pants, or yelling at them because they don't possess a firearms ID card.
I would like to see statistics on the rise of mass shootings as compared to the media coverage given to them.
And yankerfan, because you posted the laundry mat shooting, I would like to add a few quotes you left out from the police chief, I can only assume you did so on purpose.
""Certainly the pattern indicates that it's probably, likely gang violence at this point. But that may change. We'll see as we move forward," police Supt. Garry McCarthy told reporters on Tuesday morning."
"While several were admitted in critical condition, McCarthy said none of the injuries were life threatening. Three of the victims were released from the hospital in the hours immediately after the shooting. McCarthy expected the others to be released sometime Tuesday."
"Some, but not all, of the wounded have gang ties"
http://www.nbcchicago.com/news/local/Seven-Shot-in-South-Shore-Neighborhood-261607261.html
tell me again how limiting legal guns will help stop the illegal actions and weapons these gang members wield?
as you posted the bingo board for pro-2A before, I guess you got your tactics, and actually most of your statements from the anti-gunner board? It is very obvious...as most anti-gunners on here have done, cherry picked information to help their stance......
"we don't live in the wild wild west, and your weapons would be useless against a government that wanted to kill you."
That would be incorrect.
If the govt wanted ME, and INDIVIDUAL, dead, then yes- it would be a tough thing to avoid. But in the realm of a revolutionary action by the people, it's a far different story....
disclaimer: I didn't write this.
From time to time, we see variations of comments like this one, pulled from one of our Facebook posts:
Curious, I do not care if people own guns, each their own, but people say we should own guns to keep the government in check. How does a gun help against a rocket fired miles away, a drone or airplane flying overhead, or a massive tank driving through your house?
It’s a fairly common question, and it deserves an answer.
The simple answer to the question is “assymetric warfare.” Smart fighters don’t put their troops in front of the enemy’s best weapons. They use their best troops against their enemy’s week points, and exploit those weak points mercilessly.
In the hypothetical event that the federal government attempted to impose tyranny upon the citizenry of the United States, it would likely trigger the largest insurgency that the modern world has ever known.
Despite all of our awesome technology, we stink at fighting insurgencies.
We lost in Vietnam. We won the conventional war against the Iraqi military easily, but we didn’t defeat the insurgency. We’re losing Afghanistan, and our leadership has no intention of fighting to win.
All of these insurgencies have been overseas, where the supply lines were long, but relatively well-protected. The producers and supply chain itself were never threatened.
In the event of an American insurgency, it wouldn’t be a straight-up fight of partisans with rifles fighting against regime tanks, helicopters, and drones.
It would be a war where “killing” a fighter jet occurs by assassinating aircraft mechanics, or burning the homes of employees of the companies that make crucial replacement parts. It would be a war where every elected official, government employee, and skilled worker in the supply chain would be a target, every day of their lives.
In short, it would be a nasty, brutish conflict full of atrocities with no battle lines, no rear areas, no retreat, and little chance for government forces to survive over the long term.
As long as the American public outguns the military—and they do by more than 90 million firearms—no sane government would dare turn on the American people. That is the reason it is so important for the citizenry to jealously guard their Second Amendment rights.
...just food for thought....
Darrin - I posted a chart above showing the history of mass shootings and the # of victims dating back to 1976, from FBI data (not some Mother Jones editorial).
Mass shootings have NOT risen. The frequency is rather constant - approximately 30 per year. However, keep in mind that during the 34 year data period, the US population has increased 42% , the number of guns in private hands has increased tremendously, and the majority of states now allow concealed/open carry (which most did NOT in 1976).
Despite such growth and "loosening" of gun laws, the rate of incidents relative to the population has decreased. Also, the 1994-2004 assault weapons ban had no impact to the rate of mass shootings or victims (2003 was actually the worst year in the entire period).
Bombs are a lot more efficient killing tools than guns... especially because no one gets any warning whatsoever.
Do you think that a person who wanted to kill a lot of people would give up his plans, just because he couldn't get his hands on a gun? Are you going to outlaw everything that could possibly be used to make IEDs? Not possible.
Careful what you wish for... personally, I would prefer being able to see the gun being pulled out, rather than merely feel a momentary change in air pressure before everything goes black forever. You've got no chance in the blast wave.
"In short, it would be a nasty, brutish conflict full of atrocities with no battle lines, no rear areas, no retreat, and little chance for government forces to survive over the long term."
That pretty much sums it up, JR... I always get a kick out of the image anti-gunners have about potential revolution: a rag -tag bunch of losers standing in formation in front of the technological might of the US military with shotguns and .22 rifles.
If it ever goes down, American patriots will make the Taliban and al Qaeda look like Campfire Girls when it comes to attacking government forces. We will have professional chemists and gunsmiths and tactical geniuses when it comes to picking the most effective targets. Computer experts hacking government servers. And the government will just be lashing out in the dark, like a frightened teenager in a haunted house. It won't be pretty.
Not to mention, how many of those "govt forces" won't fire on American citizens... Sheriff's across the country, as well as various LEOs, have already announced they will not only NOT fire on citizens, they will NOT enforce laws to remove firearms from the people.
The military hasn't commented one way or the other. However, it is surmised that while a captain trying to make colonel might "follow orders" and mow down civilians, there's a much smaller chance the grunts- the enlisted who would actually pull the trigger- will follow those orders. What are they going to do, court-martial tens of thousands of military personnel?
A truly sticky wicket.
If it ever goes down most American patriots will make it in there pants how many of you have ever felt the pressure wave of a bullet going by your head it scare's the sh%t out of you and 9 out of 10 American patriots will give up at the 1st shot Soldiers are professional's American patriots are not
yes, yes, oldred.... we know. Sincerely, THANK YOU for your service to our country. Whether you choose to believe it or not, we ARE terribly sorry for whatever your experiences in your war did to you, and wish you all the best possible in your future. Everyone here agrees the vets don't get the pay OR the medical care/after war care they SHOULD RIGHTFULLY get. And are often misused in military actions around the world. It's a disgrace the way this administration has turned it's back on the vets with regards to the healthcare issue.
Just remember, civilians outgun our military by leaps and bounds, so unless they are going to nuke the civilians...there a good chance the battle will not be won.
As I do appreciate what you have done, that is IF you have done anything...."all you people talk a big game but NEVER PLAYED" I don't know you like you don't know me...so you don't know our stories, so don't assume, because it tends to make a ass out of u and not me!
Pity these people in Florida.
http://thecolbertreport.cc.com/videos/i8fthl/difference-makers---doug-varrieur
PBM Who I pity is anyone who thinks Colbert reports anything remotely resembling news.
JR your the biggest talker of them all. like I said your all big talkers to make your self feel good but that's all it is talk when it comes right down to it you will give up at the 1st shot the Truth hurts, doesn't Darrin you keep telling your self how brave you will be
by the way Darrin I was in the 4th infantry division Vietnam 67/68 in the Highlands [the Jungle] so I know what it is like to get shot at Been There, Done That
Regarding the Colbert Report, I don't see how that has any bearing on gun rights. Irresponsible behavior is just that - irresponsible - and can be found in every single aspect of our lives. Colbert's pointing out the acts of someone who chooses to put others in harms way is just muddying the waters. Yeah, he's right. But he would also be right to point out the guy irresponsibly doing 50mph on the residential street in front of this guys house.
I don't think anyone believes that reasonable limits are a bad thing when viewed from the perspective that our personal rights never trump the rights of others.
"i am tired of people who have never used firearms telling me what i can and cannot do with them. they have no clue and no frame of reference to do so. i am tired of people who have never owned or used firearms telling me what my needs are, what capabilities i have, and then calling me names as if bullying is ok to do. it's not you know"
Phew, I thought he was talkin about me but I guess not.
"The Constitution shall never be construed to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms." - Samuel Adams
Guess you can pity more.
http://thinkprogress.org/default/2007/04/16/11946/daily-show-fox-knowledge/
oldred, you have gone beyond adding insult and moved to challenging people, may i suggest you stop, it is not healthy. We all understand what you have been through, bragging though is a very bad trait and shows the real reasons you did what you did.
Again may i say, you don't know us, you don't know how we grew up, or what we have been through, just because we don't brag about it like you doesn't mean we have not been through the ringer, now cut the crap, it's real old. I have never once met a vet that likes to brag, not once until now. Maybe some of the younger guys, but never a respectful older guy....take it as you want, had to get that off my chest.
As JR has sincerely stated, we respect the service and sacrifice that oldred and all the other veterans have given to this country throughout it's many wars and conflicts, but it's a shame that some have spent the last 46 years being angry at the world and thinking everybody else sucks.
The real sad part is he is lashing out at those who are currently trying to protect the values of the United States Constitution - something that he should hold dear as a former military member whose oath it was to do the same.
I think Oldred's comments, beyond the caustic, paint a real picture; one never really knows how one will react, even those like Oldred who has been there really doesn't know. And all the tough talk in the world ain't gonna change that.
That does not mean you should be restricted from guns, guns just should be restricted to those capable of responsible use. The guy in FL opening a toy shooting range in close proximity to people and traffic is not responsible. But you decide who is responsible, who should have them and those who shouldn't. It's a tough process that we don't have down right if even CA let that nutso through it's tough screening. And FL could care less who gets them or where they come from at the opposite end of the scale bleeding their loose gun policies across state lines.
You say enact draconian laws against unlawful possession and use in crimes. I say bravo. We can do a prisoner exchange for each criminal gun act opening up 5 pot smoker cells for long term use. And let's throw in all those parents who leave guns lying about that the little kids use to kill other little kids. Lock em up and complete the tragedy.
Using Switzerland since Emily brought it up, their gun laws are problem more stringent than ours, but they have lots of guns, love to shoot, and easily carry open to get from place to place for shooting. But their culture likes violence less than ours. By the by, they have troubled youth, drugs, video games, etc. Still when it's time to use violence for domestic bliss, even the Swiss go for the gun as the choice solution.
Also I think it is we who don't understand the Founding Fathers on guns. For example, if we took everything they said on who gets guns literally, we would have no standing army. They clearly were more, if not totally interested in protection against governments, tyrants, standing armies, than they were in personal protections. We have aborted their concept of militia. And even the founding fathers had no issue with squashing a protest at the point of a government gun, a contradiction to their own words.
It's not hard to agree with Mark's ideas to reduce violence since disenfranchisement, of which the economy and your place in the economy, is a major source. All of his ideas on this are good. I especially like where he wants to get a government hand-out for gun training, sort of like bullets-on-the-dole. Welfare gunnies for societal wellbeing; I like that. But when that happens I can't wait for you all to lament the bullet-cheats and gun-welfare-mothers.
However that still only reduces the problems calling for violence as a solution; it does not reduce our predilection for violence as a solution. As long as we continue to accept and condone, nothing will change. And accepting violence to support and protect the second amendment is lunacy. The very thought of guns-for-bundy, guns-for-chipotle, guns at home depot, as a way to communicate is abhorrent.
"I think Oldred's comments, beyond the caustic, paint a real picture; one never really knows how one will react, even those like Oldred who has been there really doesn't know. And all the tough talk in the world ain't gonna change that."
mg, that is not the point, old red is assuming we would not do anything, although we say we would. I cannot speak for everyone, but I can speak for myself, and I certainly CAN tell you what I am PREPARED to do.
"And accepting violence to support and protect the second amendment is lunacy."
Again missed the point, the government would be the ones condoning violence, sending the American army onto its' own people to disarm them, the American civilians would simply be defending their rights.
Actually, you missed the point. Read the next sentence in the text:
" And accepting violence to support and protect the second amendment is lunacy. The very thought of guns-for-bundy, guns-for-chipotle, guns at home depot, as a way to communicate is abhorrent."
From the gov, but could go elsewhere: "Domestic Violence. A reference to acts of physical and psychological violence, including harassing or intimidating behavior"
Harassing and intimidation is a violent act. These nuts defending the 2A with a show of force, i.e. guns, is intimidation of a violent nature. It is an abhorrent act and just as abhorrent to condone it, wish it away, or change the subject. At this point, it is starting to look like a trend.
"That does not mean you should be restricted from guns, guns just should be restricted to those capable of responsible use."
I have taken the NRA Basic Pistol training course - an 8 hour safety class (including live fire qualification) that is a prerequisite for many concealed carry licenses.
I have taken the Utah CCW course - a 5 hour safety class to obtain a Utah concealed carry permit.
While I do not agree with magazine limits, I have firearms with magazines that are well below what you consider "high capacity".
I have undergone a multitude of background and mental health checks to obtain my FID and handguns.
At what point have I (and a lot of people like me) proven our "responsibility" for concealed carry in NJ? The problem is, when gun owners have tried to "compromise" in good faith over the last 50+ years, the goal posts just kept getting moved farther down the field, and all the while criminals who don't give a hoot about training and responsibility have continued to carry whatever guns they want.
THOSE are the people you have to worry about. Not the ones protesting magazine limits and hollow point bans. If we're protesting the laws, it means we're aware of the laws that we must follow. DJ Gang Banger isn't going to Trenton to testify at hearings because he doesn't give a rat's ass what the law says.
and in writing the NRA called them all weird and told them they shouldn't do it.
not the way to make the point, it is counter productive. and it makes it harder on the rest of us to present our case.
You people still talking to the wall?
Your time could be better spent shopping for affordable ammo, and practicing. Darrin used the word above, and I have used the word myself many times: PREPARED. And I don't mean a bomb shelter in the backyard and gas masks for the whole family. I mean mentally and physically prepared for what might (we still pray it won't) come.... no point whatsoever in debating people like mg.
Not that I'm discouraging it, Lord knows I've had much fun at that game. I just don't find it worthy of my time anymore. EDUCATE where (whom) you can, and just shake your head at the rights-grabbers. There time WILL come. They are being USED and don't even know it. I feel bad for people like oldred; in some ways, he's the worst of the bunch... not only used by his government, and arguably damaged by his govt, but now he sings the govt's praises? Man, I don't understand that one at all.
For all you freedom-lovers, I leave you with this.... very interesting modern (20th century) history....
Brazil: The Country That Saved Itself (from communism, at the time, but it was also from their own government)..... very interesting reading....
[the link will download a .pdf file onto your computer, that you can then open and read]
...it's from The Reader's Digest
http://www.americandeception.com/index.php?action=downloadpdf&photo=PDFsml_AD/The_Country_That_Saved_Itself-Readers_Digest-Clarence_Hall-1960s-24pgs-POL.sml.pdf&id=353
Come on, mg.... another tome'!!!! Encore! Encore!
"Your time could be better spent shopping for affordable ammo, and practicing."
I've actually had to pass up a few decent deals because my ammo funds are running low at the moment. I'm also saving up in case I find a good deal on something that would require my last purchase permit (it expires in less than two months...) Would love a 1911, but that's a bit more than I want to spend, and then I'd have to stock up on another caliber too...
Yeah, that whole "I don't want to add ANOTHER caliber in today's ammo market" has stopped me a couple times too..... I'm dying for a Sig P238
You've been hankering for that P238 for a while ;)
They have some weird color combos. I like the black/rosewood but I think you should go for the pink or rainbow, just for something different ;)
My problem is, in addition to the "problem" of not wanting to add another caliber, I ALSO have "acquisition syndrome" for my music gear, so every decision is.... another guitar, another amplifier, or another gun? LOL
Just call me UncleTedInMansfield from now on... (altho I am not a hunter.)
Hmm, been scouring the "omg there's a communist behind every bush" shelves again...... Had to go to 1964 to find the truth eh. I like to get all my history from pamphlets written by unknown authors. Here's a couple more.
I really don't know what went on in Brazil and little do I care. But if I was looking, I would go farther than a pamphlet reprint in Reader's Digest.
http://books.google.com/books?id=-IbQvd13uToC&pg=PA170&lpg=PA170&dq=the+country+that+saved+itself&source=bl&ots=cIq4NaEfcB&sig=noc-Xr65G3RnPXb9okY6zb6hlWQ&hl=en&sa=X&ei=cY6PU8PZMZWosQSe9ICQAQ&ved=0CC4Q6AEwAg#v=onepage&q=the%20country%20that%20saved%20itself&f=false
http://www-personal.umich.edu/~lormand/poli/soa/brazil.htm
I have been wanting a wasr-10 for the longest time, but jersey law has kept me away from the good deals on gun broker (nobody else wants a stripped down ak when they can just have the real thing) but also the fact that they have tripled in price since this gun craze. Well that and I am getting married in three weeks, so all funds are low!
good discussion about what type of rounds / calibers you might standardize on.
in a dystopic condition like a Zombie Apocalypse, it might be prudent to stock weapons that use the most readily available calibers. .306 ; .308 winchester which can be used in the same guns as the 7.62×51mm NATO and .45 acp
you want to be able to maximize your chances of obtaining the ammo you need and these 3 rounds arguably gives you an advantage due to their widespread use.
another good discussion to have would be the age old debate about what single cartridge would be best to use in both a pistol and a rifle. with a pistol on your belt and a rifle on your back, is there one cartridge that we could compromise on that would give good service in both types of weapon?
Brotherdog - I think .357 magnum (revolver and lever action) or 9mm (semi-auto and carbine) would be the main choices for a shared round.
Hmm, maybe I need to buy a lever action or pistol caliber carbine...
I really want a Henry Big Boy in .357 ... not because I own a .357 pistol (I don't), but because the .357 is an excellent defense round, with little recoil in a rifle so it would also be fun to shoot alot of at the range.
A .30-.30 or .44 Magnum or larger caliber lever action would be more "traditional", but ammo is more expensive, and they aren't really made for shooting alot of in 1 day. The .357 lever would be alot more fun to shoot, I think.
But again... adding a caliber... and a not-easy-to-get one at that (last time I checked).
mg,
As usual you miss the point (or, imo, AVOID it), and try to pin that Brazil story on the "paranoid communist hoard emotional reaction".... as I said, the fact that they were fighting creeping communism isn't the point. That is NOT what that event was about. Communism was the enemy AT THAT TIME. But you know that. And choose to attempt to side-step. Again.
Sometimes I wonder if perhaps you really are a statist. I finally got you to admit and be proud of the fact that you are a liberal/progressive, after you attempted to dodge the term forever, but perhaps you need a little more pushing to reveal your true political leanings....
As I have always said, if you believe something, you shouldn't hide from it. You should be proud of it. Have conviction in your beliefs. There's nothing wrong with thing a large, over-powerful government (and even better: globally run) would be "better for humanity". I'll just never understand why people who think that way deny it. Over and over and over. What's so bad about those beliefs that people feel the need to distance themselves from them publicly? I smell a rat.
In the US, progressives called themselves such, until the public at large became so incensed with their views they had to run from the term.... which became liberals. Then the term liberal became so stained they had to run from that, but since it was almost 100 years, they were able to go back to progressives, because no one remembered. Well, almost no one.
Frankly, I'm surprised they didn't come up with a new term for the SOS... "futurists" maybe? "reasonablists" perhaps? "culturists""? "Globalists" would have worked, but that one quickly got tarnished and has been avoided... altho I know a few admitted globalists.
Part of me wants to get a lever action in .45-70.... go big or go home, right?
The problem is, I do prefer my shoulder to remain in its socket.
we had a sharp's buffalo rifle in .45-70, it was a massively heavy rifle with a big cartridge for sure. but that gun, manufactured in the 1870's was accurate at very long distances. 400-600 yrds and more. a really well made and engineered rifle.
it represented one of the finest pinnacles of rifle technology of all time, and that was 140 years ago.
pretty impressive if you ask me.
but, having said that, that .45-70 round i think would be a poor choice in a survival, dystopia situation as you are not likely to find it anywhere, it is one of the more rare cartridges, because as you noted, it is very expensive and it smacks you back pretty good when fired.
oh, and JR - i love the henry rifles, really well made, very accurate, they are on my list of must have firearms. just can;t decide on what caliber to get, i have family who go to cowboy shooting events, and they got a revolver and a henry rifle in .38 just because of the hundreds of rounds fired and the cost of them, but for me, i'm looking for the right rifle caliber to get the henry in given the considerations in the prior posts.
i do like the .44 and could get a pistol/rifle combo that both use it, but not sure yet. .45 is great for pistol but it's a lousy rifle cartridge.
it's a quandary . . .
If I lived in Alaska, I'd definitely have a .45-70. It's probably one of the few rounds that's effective against grizzlies (if you can react quick enough to one jumping out of the bushes).
Also, maybe if I was hunting African game... but alas as a target range plinker and all-around survival rifle it's not practical at all (both in cost and ergonomics).
BD,
For the situations you speak of, I'd say the .357 mag or .44 mag. Anything else is frankly too big (overkill) for close(er) quarter situations. .357/.44 good for anything on 2 or 4 legs in a survival situation. And If I wanted to "reach out and touch something", it would be a a .308 bolt action (altho I was hitting the target at 200 yards with a scope on my buddy's Springfield M1 Carbine (which is also .308), and at 100 yards with iron sites on my Mini-30 (7.62x39)
And personally, I would prefer the lower recoil/faster follow-up shots/higher capacity .357, myself.
Honestly, all this "do-all"/"survival situation" stuff points towards a scout-concept rifle... Ruger even has the Gunsite Scout, altho personally I prefer a semi-auto carbine ... which imo would be much preferable in a walking dead situation LOL.
http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2013/02/daniel-zimmerman/why-the-ruger-gunsite-scout-rifle-is-my-rifle/
yes, .308 is good, and i am looking for the right deal on an M1A in that caliber,
but what pistol uses that ? (i don't know of any)
will look at your scout suggestion, hadn't considered it before.
The only way you're going to get a pistol and rifle that share a caliber is if you go with .357 or .44 , maybe 45 Colt as well. Some of the cowboy revolvers might fire some of those bigger rifle calibers (?), but I can't imagine they'd be much fun to shoot... and, they'd be damned heavy. You're not going to find a pistol that shoots .308, .223, or anything like that... and if you could, you wouldn't want to shoot it anyway LOL
Ruger used to make the PC9 carbine, it shot 9mm, and also the PC40, shot .40 S&W. They have been out of production for awhile.... not sure who might make a pistol caliber semi-auto carbine.... I never looked into it....
Beretta CX4 Storm = .40, .45, or 9mm carbine
You can get AR pistols to shoot .223 but they are not very ergonomic, and you have the huge buffer tube sticking out the back. I think they are made "because you can" not because they really serve a purpose.
"I really don't know what went on in Brazil and little do I care. But if I was looking, I would go farther than a pamphlet reprint in Reader's Digest."
If you want to read more into that, it's your right and for a guy who sees a bogeymen behind every bush, it's expected. I could go down the gunnie "but you don't know me" lament, but I say just keep the tagging, name calling, and branding going. It's your style.
But the problem with grabbing a 60’s pamphlet and treating it like a treatise is you might fall prey to the paranoia of the times, some politicizing, and obviously a lack of the ability of hindsight. So I did a quick peruse to round out the picture, but this is no means a complete story and may suffer some “reader’s digestive distress” itself since I did it fast.
So let's move on from JR's irrational 60's fear of communists and liberals and talk Brazil.
1960, Jânio Quadros elected President, resigns 1961, João Goulart, VP takes over
OK, Goulart is the evil communist so what evil communist crap did he pull to get into power.
As Secretary of Interior he restructured the prison system trying to better prisoner living conditions. As minister of labor, he worked for social security, housing financing, loan regulations, minimum wage (100% increase). Well, that’s some nasty stuff. No doubt he slaughtered everyone to become a Communist Dictator though. To become President, most of Goulart’s power was transferred to his Prime Minister and the Parliament further constrained his powers. Well, that’s too bloody for kids. But two year later, by referendum, his powers are returned: the people had spoken…….
Here was his evil communist plan of action:
Education reform to end illiteracy. No private schools and a directive to take 15% of Brazil’s GDP and put it to education
Foreign multinational corporations to reinvest profits in Brazil with a tax proportional to personal profit.
Voting rights for illiterates and low-ranking military.
Re-establish relations with socialist countries, support ending Cuban sanctions,
Non-producing properties larger than 600 hectares would be nationalized for redistribution to the people
Lead the region for nuclear disarmament and a nuclear-free region (Mexico took over the lead post the coup)
Well, we certainly can’t have that kind of communism near our corporations, ooops, I mean country. I mean this guy nationalized a Brazilian subsidiary of ITT, what’s next. He must go.
1964 Goulart deposed by coup; the US disavows any complicity however the CIA performed covert operations, character assassinations, funded opposition groups, and had many arms, etc. ready to support opposition. The actual operations are still classified but it is clear that Johnson, lobbied by ITT’s President, the Brazilian ambassador and others would do whatever it took to replace this commie. Some say this was the start of Operation Condor.
So what happened? What followed was military rule and totalitarianism, brutal times. The coup nice people who ended all civil rights and liberties. All political parties were disbanded and replaced with a military party and a puppet opposition party. Then there was widespread disappearances, tortures, exiles of non supporters from all walks of life. Thank God we got rid of those communists so our corporations could keep a ticking.
It was not until the 1980’s that rule was returned to civilians in Brazil stating in 1985 with election of José Sarney.
So here’s the $10,000 question. Was Goulart a communist? Certainly had sympathies. Certainly didn’t mind associating with them, extending friendly policies, belonging to socialist associations, and taking support from them. But look at his plan, look at his actions ----- mild socialism mixed with a blend of capitalism. Seems more pragmatist than communist as we like to portray them today. Certainly weren’t no Stalin, no Castro, etc..
Meanwhile the communist busting freedom fighting capitalists supported by US imperialism unleased 20-years of horror the likes Brazil had never seen.
So there’s the rest of the story JR, hope you don’t choke on it. The very freedom fighters you applaud were nothing more than US-sponsored thugs of the first order. Sounds like the Bundy ranch crowd to me.
"Part of me wants to get a lever action in .45-70.... go big or go home, right?"
That's why I bought a 460 xvr S&W for my graduation present!
Imagine 45-70 in a revolver! That would be the 460 magnum.... Pansies!!!
I was actually just looking into the hennery big boy levers actually, I was thinking 44 mag is a great round for it. At the bachelor party we shot a 357 version and it had little to no kick, I would like to feel something there.
"So there’s the rest of the story JR, hope you don’t choke on it. The very freedom fighters you applaud were nothing more than US-sponsored thugs of the first order. Sounds like the Bundy ranch crowd to me."
And therein lies the problem. "the bundy ranch crowd" were some sort of criminals to you. Fundamental differences. I hope if a revolutionary action ever does happen, you stand up and put your fight where your mouth is, being such a good shot and firearm owner, as you report. Because most people on YOUR side would never do that. And that is why you will LOSE.
Bundy being right or wrong is not what's to take away from that event. The crux of what that was about, is this:
BD, yeah- I've been looking for a .308 myself, and was considering the Ruger Scout.
I don't need a 22" .308 that holds only 4 rounds. Barrel length doesn't matter much over 16" anyway, and matters not at all over 18", at least in .308
But, I already have a carbine, so it doesn't bother me that the Scout is a bolt-action... but I do like the shorter barrel/compactness, and the higher-capacity magazine.
AND, BTW, MG: again, you are characterizing me as having said something I did not. I posted a story link and said "interesting reading". And you got out of that, apparently, that I said the communism is evil (it is) and the people of brazil rose up to crush the red horde? Dude, You need to start READING WHATS ON THE POST instead of drawing these huge character evaluations from them, and then replying based on your wide-brushed assumptions.
So, how about posting another tome' ON WHAT I ACTUALLY SAID... "interesting reading".... did you find it interesting, or not?
"And therein lies the problem. "the bundy ranch crowd" were some sort of criminals to you. "
Some sort of criminals is an accurate description of "the Bundy ranch crowd".
That's a very mature and intelligent response JR. I guess it's as much as we can expect from you.
Hey Mark, how long does Christie have now to either sign, veto, or ignore this bill?
I said thugs JR, not criminals. If those boys won the revolution, what would follow would be criminal though IMHO, you can bet on it. Just like Brazil.
And JR, for a revolutionary, you spend more time running away from what you say than standing your ground. When it comes to ideas, you do promote "concealed carry." So sure, when you posted an anti-communist propaganda piece saying "very interesting" you are not really saying you were anti-communist, even though you now say you are, but you didn't say it exactly when you posted the article that said it clearly which you found very interesting but that does not mean you're anti-communist even though you said it before that does not mean you mean it now when you post an article that is......... OK, I am clear on your feelings now.
Yeah, brave guy. Like Peter in denial.
And yes, nice picture, brings back memories of the 60's although I think it is recent and pepper spray. I did stand the protest lines in the 60's and 70's without a gun.
And we rocked and changed the world.
With ideas and with peace.
That's why my amendment is 1st.
And no, not interesting, did not read, just skimmed, gagged down a little upchuck, wondered if you really read this crud, and did some real research, something you should try.
And really, denigrating gadfly and my wife? What's next for you?
Because you never denigrated anybody, ROFL.
Wonder how long before this "evil bullet" is banned?
http://rare.us/story/this-is-the-last-bullet-youll-ever-need-watch-and-see-the-technology-for-yourself/
“You lost today, kid. But that doesn’t mean you have to like it.”
jr?
Yes, sir!
It is you, jr!
Don't call me that, please.
"What does it always mean, with this 'jr?
That's his name, 'Henry Jones jr'.
I like 'Indiana'.
We named the dog 'Indiana'.
May we go home now, please?
The Dog? You are named after the Dog?
Got a lot of fun memories with that dog."
"don't call me jr"
I agree, cars kill just like guns; they are peas in a pod. Guns are like cars, cars are like guns. So let’s treat them all the same. From now on:
Only way to stop a bad guy with a car is a good guy with a car
Car laws don’t work because criminals don’t obey the law
Free men have cars, slaves don’t
Change the second amendment to read: “the right of the people to keep and bear guns and cars shall not be infringed”
And now for guns
You have to pass a skills test, both practical and written, fill out a medical questionnaire, pay for a license, and get that license renewed regularly. The practical course will include Oldred's Highlands facedown with live ammo and Darrin's Zombiefest with dead targets.
For specialty items like semi’s, you need a special training and a special license, harder to pass, but ITT will open schools and you can use your CB radio to call out "gunnie, gunnie"
And for mass, you will need another specialty license and training to be able to carry large loads of bullets in a single vehicle. Greyhound will be opening schools.
You must have gun insurance for each gun and each user, liability, collision, etc.
You have to pay yearly registration fee for each gun which in some states, not NJ, is a tax deduction.
There will be regular mandatory safety inspections, either free by the state or for fee from your gun shop. Might be long lines.
There are limitations and restrictions to the types of guns you can have. Not just any gun can drive this highway….. For example, nitrous oxide guns can not be used. Formula A guns not allowed. No etched windows, undercarriage lights, and lots of other restrictions about what you really want gun you really want to own. However, high performance guns may be manufactured as long as they are only used at sanctioned gun courses for events like the Gun-Pre, Winchester-500, Demolition Derbies (that's for explosives), etc. under the purview of NASGAR (National Association of Sniper Guns, Automatics, and Large Caliber Rifles.
You can't use guns if drinking; if caught you will get a SUI (shooting while intoxicated.)
You must abide by safety regulations passed by the National Gunny Highway Safety Administration (NGHSA) and your state like mandatory gun seat belts, no cell phone usage while shooting (unless hands free), gun locks, vaults, etc.
All guns will be protected by key locks. Anti-theft, GPS, and reverse shooting cameras are options
You must pay a tax when selling a gun to a third party and lemon laws apply
In NJ, all gun shops will be closed on Sundays
We will need a federal agency like the NGHSA to improve gun safety, set restrictions, etc. All safety research will be funded by the gun manufacturers.
Manufacturers will include safety features regardless of cost.
The federal government will fund public awareness campaigns and safety campaigns.
All righty then, now guns and cars ARE the same!
what the heck just happened? the Brazilians got commie-waxed and gadfly had a change of life, and mg is married to a dude?
what the heck just happened here? this is all out of order.
how about this:
the heavy metal guy is getting pressure from signed petitioners not to play at a concert because he is an NRA member? (see link a few posts up)
has it really gone that far?
"Hey Mark, how long does Christie have now to either sign, veto, or ignore this bill?"
I posted a reply from my cell phone this morning, but it seems sometimes messages get lost in the ether... sorry if this gets duplicated.
He has 45 days from the time it hit his desk (May 22) to sign or veto the bill. If he does nothing, it will automatically become law.
I find it funny that about 3/4 of what MG hastily posted trying to be funny comparing guns to cars is actually already true! You must really be unaware of the current gun laws, and gun laws in other states arn't you??? It actually made me laugh reading through that list and saying yup they have that, yup that is true, yup in some places......sorry to say, but that was a utter FAIL
And strangely enough I have a place in his life "The practical course will include Oldred's Highlands facedown with live ammo and Darrin's Zombiefest with dead targets"
Not sure what happened to get me there, but I think I know, and now realize how MG hold dearly onto things that are said. Good thing he doesn't have a gun, cause that would fail a mental health check for owning a gun right there.
And by that I am not insulting, just saying that I have no issue with mental health check, what ever check, the problem though, is that it opens a line for the government to deny a user a gun for any reason they want, without need for explanation. Much like NJ's carry permit, they have one, but they just deny everyone that tries to get it. When challenged in court, they still deny.
We should be like Switzerland, anyone can carry, it just can't be loaded and you have to be transporting it somewhere for a purpose. And then, if all goes well, the cops will just basically start looking the other way, just like Switzerland.
Hey, guess what MG. If you want to drive, or even race a super high HP car on private property (or trailer said car on public highways) there is extremely little government involvement.
I don't need any license to *buy* or *own* a car.
what it means is that when you write a book, and people have to spend all day trying to read it and decipher it, you will get responses to things that you have posted a little later
Can you legally get a wasr-10 in jersey with a slant tip? or being that it is pistol grip no?
Darrin - it depends on the configuration.
A pistol grip by itself is not the determining factor. If it has that plus any other features (bayo lug, flash hider, folding stock) then it's banned.
Also the WASR-10 is not banned by name, but you could look into how strict the state could interpret it being an "Avtomat Kalishnikov Type".
Note, these types of firearms can also have Federal 922R compliance issues (too many foreign parts).
If it has a slant tip (muzzle brake) that's fine, but it needs to be welded/pinned on so that you cannot remove it.
Home, home, at the range.
http://www.downvids.net/watch-idiots-with-guns-544180.html
Ah, but MG most of those guns that recoil out of the shooter's hands were Joe Biden specials (shotguns and hunting rifles)... those are the guns that people say it's OK to have because they are easy to shoot.
Who needs those "high power" AR-15's right? They're so uncontrollable...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gj-WcafGjbM
So your wife is home alone and someone is kicking the door down... which of these would you rather she have to defend herself? The one that flies out of her hands because she doesn't have the same strength as you or the one that she can aim and fire safely?
I have to go talk to walt at hackettstown guns and ammo, wifey wants to get me a wasr (ak) as a wedding present, but I think the jersey version (cut tip) looks stupid, I want the brake
I have been ignoring MG's posts because he has been very dishonest with us causing his credibility to drop tremendously, he claims he is not anti-gun, but only posts as many anti-gun things that he possibly can find, regardless of their credibility....sounds to me like he is living a lie, or he will not admit his true feelings.
There is no law against muzzle brakes in NJ. I have seen people discussing the slant tip on NJ gun forums, so it should be good to go (although you might have to add it yourself).
The problem is you cannot have accessible threads on the barrel of a rifle with any other "evil" features, which means an FFL/gunsmith needs to do the modification and make it permanent before you can take possession. There may be difficulties with that machining work based on the front sight/barrel shroud being installed, etc. I'm not really familiar with that particular design.
"he claims he is not anti-gun, but only posts as many anti-gun things that he possibly can find, regardless of their credibility."
How true.... "I'm only against high capacity magazines, semi-auto assault rifles, and support safe storage laws (for the children) but here's a video of adults firing pump action shotguns and bolt action rifles that will surely prove my point!"
If all gun owners are idiots (as he recently seems to imply)... and MG is a gun owner (which he also implies but seems hesitant to just clearly admit)... well you can do the math there.
If anything I may have to order in the all other state version, then trade in the 15 round mag and send it out to get the lugs cut and the brake welded.....i hate NJ
15 round mag is still good (for now). You can't even take temporary possession of the non-compliant model so make sure your FFL can coordinate the shipping to a machine shop (all for additional fees...).
Because we all know without those mods you were going to go on a bayonetting rampage.
Once again, I just think they are funny clips.
Not sure why everything needs to be anti or pro; can't it just be funny?
MG, messing with peoples rights is not funny, I am not laughing, Mark is not laughing.....but you are? I don't find infringement a laughing matter.
Sorry Mark, I meant 30 round....trade in the 30 round for a 15 round. Who do you usually deal with for stuff like this, I usually go through Hackettstown guns and ammo, the guys there are really helpful and have a gunsmith that can do these modifications, and yes you are right, they will not sign the gun over until it has been "legalized".
I think the stupidest law jersey has is no collapsible stocks, I understand the point to no folding stocks, but collapsible stocks adjust the gun at most by 10 inches in length, and are only used to make the shooter more comfortable, which leads to safer shooting....making us pin the adjustment is honestly retarded. My wife has a hard time shooting my one gun, while it is on the short side for me......real annoying
"Not sure why everything needs to be anti or pro; can't it just be funny?"
With constitutional rights?!?! That's the problem. Attitudes like this ARE THE PROBLEM.
I've always used YOJ/Andover Hunt & Fish. Never had to do any compliance/gunsmith work, but based on pricing they've been the go-to guys for me. They'll pretty much match/beat anything, and up until last year they didn't charge 2-3% for credit cards.
If you like the look of 30 round magazines (and want them to properly fit into range bag pouches, etc.) you can probably just get them pinned to 15 as well.
I agree with the collapsible stock BS. It's perfectly legal to have the stock pinned at the minimum length, and it's perfectly legal to have the stock pinned at the maximum length (or anywhere in between), but it's a felony to keep it adjustable. But that's common sense, right?
No, Jr., THIS is the problem...
Since the 2012 shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut, there have been an average of 1.37 school shootings for each school week, according to data maintained by Everytown for Gun Safety, a group fighting to end gun violence.
Including Tuesday's incident at a high school in Troutdale, Oregon, 74 school shootings have taken place in the approximately 18 months since the Dec. 14, 2012, Newtown shooting. The average school year typically lasts about 180 days, which means there have been roughly 270 school days, or 54 weeks, of class since the shooting at Newtown. With 74 total incidents over that period, the nation is averaging well over a shooting per school week.
Really?
So you didn't laugh when the guy's pants fell down? Instead you thought filming and watching a man pantsed by shooting a gun represented " Attitudes like this ARE THE PROBLEM" and that boxer-boy represented: "messing with peoples rights is not funny, I am not laughing, Mark is not laughing.....but you are? I don't find infringement a laughing matter."
Well that's funny in itself.
You ought to pass a law forbidding any funny gun clips as infringement on your rights to own guns. You know, the law against the first amendment in order to support your more important second amendment. Or maybe, just buy more guns; that should solve the issue :>)
The two year old wasn't protected by the 2nd Amendment:
CLEVELAND (AP) — Cleveland police say a man fatally shot his 2-year-old son in the head when he fired into the window of a home during a dispute with the child's mother.
Police say the boy was standing on a landing when he was struck early Tuesday and was taken to a hospital, where he died. The Cuyahoga (ky-uh-HOH'-guh) County medical examiner's office identified the child as Derrice Alexander Jr., of Cleveland.
Police say his father fled the scene and was later arrested but wasn't immediately charged.
Police Chief Calvin Williams says the man is a convicted felon and should not have had a weapon. He declined to give details about that criminal record.
Williams says the man seemed to be cooperating with investigators. They're trying to determine where he got the gun
yankee,
I'll see your story.... and raise you one:
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2014/06/10/dad-watched-in-horror-as-two-armed-men-held-a-gun-to-his-teen-daughters-head-then-he-did-something-about-it/
Two armed criminals reportedly put a gun to a 17-year-old girl’s head on Monday night as she was outside retrieving something from a car. The man, whose intentions still aren’t entirely clear, then ordered the teenager to take them into her house — a decision that would prove to have deadly consequences.
shutterstock.com
Peering out the window of the St. Louis home were the girl’s mother and father, each prepared to protect their daughter with deadly force. There was also a 5-year-old boy in the house, though his relationship to the family wasn’t known on Tuesday.
The girl’s father, a 34-year-old man, reportedly observed the men walking towards his home while holding a gun to his daughter’s head, a sight that no father ever wants to see. He quickly retrieved his firearm and his wife did the same.
The brave dad then confronted the two criminals and opened fire, hitting both suspects with accurate shots. The girl’s mother also fired off some rounds, but failed to hit either suspect.
One of the men was reportedly pronounced dead at the scene while the second suspect escaped only to later be arrested after calling his brother to take him to the hospital because he had been shot.
“Police identify the suspect who was killed as 31-year-old Terrell Johnson from north St. Louis,” KTVI-TV reports. “The second suspect- a 33-year-old man- is hospitalized in critical but stable condition with gunshot wounds to his chest and both thighs. Police say he will face charges.”
No one other than the suspected criminals were injured in the incident.
...and raise you, oh, I don't know..... DOZENS? HUNDREDS?
http://thearmedcitizen.com/category/armed-citizen-stories/
"...and raise you, oh, I don't know..... DOZENS? HUNDREDS? "
Way more than that. LOW estimates for defensive gun uses are 55,000 to 80,000.
That's at least a 5:1 advantage where a gun saves lives vs. guns taking lives. If you take "moderate" estimates (250,000 to 370,000) there's at least a 25:1 advantage.
Defensive gun use doesn't need to only include incidents where shots were fired.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defensive_gun_use
"The girl's mother also fired off some rounds, but failed to hit either suspect"...just lucky she didn't hit a bystander, her daughter, or the five year old in the house?
And what kind of stories would you guess a publication called the armed citizen would be running? I'm sure they are the equals of Fox in their "fair and balanced" reporting.
I'll take both your anecdotal stories and go "all in."
In the year following Sandy Hook, over 200 kids were shot. That's one every other day. These kids just needed more guns.
There were over 570 teens shot; most just needed more guns.
Over 12,000 Americans were shot because they did not have enough guns.
Remember, all of these people would have died anyway if there were no guns. Because as some say: “what about air rifles and bb guns and air-soft guns, should they also all be confiscated? (and nerf-guns?)(what about super-soakers? they can be filled with bleach and used to attack people you know, it's been done already and in the news, and that's scary dangerous, right?) so should the cops go into a house and confiscate all of this stuff so you cam feel safer?
would you also ask that the cops take out all hunting knives, swords and machetes from the house as well? what about cross bows and long bows, should they also be removed? aren't they all considered to be weapons?
what about gas cans in the garage? they can be used to make bombs and explosive deivces, right?
where do you draw the line ?”
Indeed. What to do, what to do. But as it stands this year will be about the same.
So The Armed Citizen is publishing lies? Fabrications? Is that your claim? Because if it is, it's pretty pathetic. And desperate.
How dare a publication post articles/stories directly related to their title?
I'm going to complain to Golf Digest that they don't have enough football, home improvement, and astronomy coverage. After all, people that play golf can be interested in those topics as well. It's only fair and balanced.
"And what kind of stories would you guess a publication called the armed citizen would be running?"
Similar stories that you get from getting data "maintained by Everytown for Gun Safety" i suppose???
yankeefan, your stupid pictures are only proving stupidity to individuals, no where in any of the pictures do I see the gun at fault. Same goes to your stories, all problems with the individual not the gun, you are not proving any point at all
It is people like you who are misleading guns, you have no self experiences, yet have strong believes based off selected cherry picked "stories" and google images.....very very lame at best.
Ah, cut yankeefan some slack.
He's just posting some off-duty pictures of his police idols..
Hey, posting funny cop pictures is just not funny and an infringement of our second amendment rights.
"With constitutional rights?!?! That's the problem. Attitudes like this ARE THE PROBLEM."
Hmm, perhaps it's highlighting the hypocrisy...
"Look at this fat slob with a gun! This is the gun culture..."
Wait, am I talking about the picture yankeefan posted or the ones me and Darrin posted?
You militia wannabees don't think Armed Citizen is getting plenty of cash from the gun manufacturers? As is the NRA?
I never said Armed Citizen should be publishing other stories...I simply said what would you expect from a publication with that title.
And Darrin, if you are offended by the pictures, I'm doing my job. By the way, loved you in Bewitched.
the ten round limit is wrong and i hope the governor does the right thing and veto it.
JR - your take on barrel length is something opens up a good discussion, thanks for bringing it up. The M1A which is the civilian version of the M14 which saw action in Vietnam before the development of the M16 and was highly accurate at longer distances particularly because of it's longer barrel length.
many units still use a modified version of the early M14 rifle as sniper rifles even today.
yes , the dedicated sniper teams have different rifles that are finely machined and use special ammo. but there are still units who have and use the M14. (old as they are, because they are that accurate and that reliable)
i want one of these M1A's just for that reason. the loner the barrel yields better accuracy at 300 - 400 yards then the 'scout' models will.
the army /marine field reports from the early 60's in vietnam gave high praise for the accuracy and dependability of the M14, but the overall length was not good for tight quarters in jungle environments.
well made, reliable, great accuracy at long distances, that's why i'm looking for an M1A.
"You militia wannabees don't think Armed Citizen is getting plenty of cash from the gun manufacturers? As is the NRA? "
Yes, and as the same with the anti-gun mayors and such, paying for parents of children to come to gun meetings, as well as paying for anti gun meetings.....it is not the one way street you make it seem.
"And Darrin, if you are offended by the pictures, I'm doing my job. By the way, loved you in Bewitched."
Not offended at all, It makes me laugh, there has been plenty of cherry picking on this site, and thank you about my movie!
Yanker, read up some, you have taken this forum full circle, we have already debunked all the silly crap you continually post from other posters.
Darrin, you have raised the bar on incomprehensible postings. Kudos, and I believe you have actually made Brother Dog look sane by comparison. Not an easy thing to do. My best to Endora!
lmao...I don't really know what is so incomprehensible about my post, actually more then half of it was quotes copied directly from your posts, just goes to show you really don't know what you are talking about.
Typical
hey there JR,
the M1A national match rifle is good out to 600 yards with the 7.62 nato round, what is your scout rated at?
i am seriously looking for a springfield M1A w/walnut stock and a 22" barrel. you guys have any sources for me on this search?
looking for a std or NM model . . . . .
used in excellent shape is ok as well . .
thanks in advance guys
There are a bunch of Springfield M1A's in various configurations on Gunbroker.
You can limit the search by state, so if you find one in NJ or PA (and it's at an FFL) you can just go take a look and pick it up. If you find a privately owned one outside of NJ, don't forget to add shipping and FFL transfer fees (but on a $1500 rifle, what's another $25).
These are for sale in NJ:
http://www.gunbroker.com/All/BI.aspx?Keywords=Springfield+M1A&HasPictures=1&State=NJ
These are for sale in PA:
http://www.gunbroker.com/All/BI.aspx?Keywords=Springfield+M1A&HasPictures=1&State=PA
BD,
I don't know what the Ruger Gunsite Scout is rated at, BUT: a couple points...
I'm not planning on shooting at anything 600 yards out. However, if I was, I would be looking at high-dollar hunting rifles, and high-dollar scopes... it's quite possible you will pay more for the optics than for the rifle.
I would also use the .308 Winchester round, not 7.62 NATO: I did not write this, but here's some info:
OK --- Let's address the oft-posed question "Are the .308 Winchester and 7.62x51 NATO one and the same?" The simple answer is no. There are differences in chamber specs and maximum pressures. The SAMMI/CIP maximum pressure for the .308 Win cartridge is 62,000 psi, while the 7.62x51 max is 50,000 psi. Also, the headspace is slightly different. The .308 Win "Go Gauge" is 1.630" vs. 1.635" for the 7.62x51. The .308's "No-Go" dimension is 1.634" vs. 1.6405" for a 7.62x51 "No Go" gauge. That said, it is normally fine to shoot quality 7.62x51 NATO ammo in a gun chambered for the .308 Winchester (though not all NATO ammo is identical). Clint McKee of Fulton Armory notes: "[N]obody makes 7.62mm (NATO) ammo that isn't to the .308 'headspace' dimension spec. So 7.62mm ammo fits nicely into .308 chambers, as a rule." You CAN encounter problems going the other way, however. A commercial .308 Win round can exceed the max rated pressure for the 7.62x51. So, you should avoid putting full-power .308 Win rounds into military surplus rifles that have been designed for 50,000 psi max. Reloaders should also note that military ammo often is made with a thicker web. Consequently the case capacity of 7.62x51 brass is usually less than that of commercial .308 brass. You may need to reduce recommended .308 Winchester loads by as much as 2 full grains, if you reload with military 7.62x51 brass, such as Lake City or IMI.
More in-depth:
http://www.thegunzone.com/30cal.html
Good info JR, and basically the complete opposite of .223 versus 5.56x45mm.
If you have a 5.56 caliber, you can safely shoot the lower pressure .223, but not the other way around.
thanks guys, i typed too fast, i was researching the accuracy of the M1A with it's original nato chambering, the one i am targeting to obtain is one with the .308 winchester chambering.
do want it with the walnut stock, 22" barrel and either the std or nm issue. although the original peep site is not good for 50-100 yards, that's a pian, it is good for the 400 - 600 yards.
thanks again for all the great feedback, it's much appreciated
i may even join the CMP, you never know, it could happen
will be shooting black powder in competition this weekend, wish me luck, and participating in shotgun events as well (not one of my strong points)
Yanker, for a good laugh, please tell us what your plan is to save the world from criminals with guns, because if it is take the guns away from the good guys....you will see your cherry picked and incorrect numbers rise. Now if your plan is to ban, limit, and create stricter laws, please tell me when criminals follow laws..... you seem to post a bunch of silly pictures, but make no standing whatsoever, so please tell us, what, in your world, you would like to see happen with gun laws or guns in general
i did pretty good at the competition, shot well in the events i usually pace highly in, and as expected did horrible in the trap events,
i need some advice on how to get better at trap.
did real well with the rifle events, and got to shoot with my father on father's day, so it was a good thing, nice day, weather was outstanding.
a friend had a M&P 22-15 in 22LR that i got to try out, it was nice, i am wondering if you can even get them here in NJ, (see pic)
thanks for the help and support guys, it's much appreciated.
You can get M&P 15-22 in NJ, but it follows the same assault weapon laws that semi-auto centerfire rifles do (i.e. magazine limits, flash suppressors, etc.).
and the adjustable stock would need to be pinned, i guess, and it has the pistol grip, so no bayonet lug or flash suppressor would b allowed,
but, what about a muzzle brake? i think that might pass muster here in the AG's office
the thing i like about this model was that any mil-spec M4 part is interchangeable with it, you can add features made for the M4 to it, and this model retails for just under 400 bucks.
not bad,
Muzzle brakes are fine but they need to be permanently attached (pinned or welded). Removable clamp on brakes are fine if the barrel is not threaded. Not that a .22 needs any type of brake, but if you like the looks you can have one.
The lower price, from what I understand, is because the 15-22 lower is polymer as opposed to aluminum in most .223's. The 15-22 also doesn't have a real buffer tube, so you can't put a centerfire upper on it.
Although it costs more, a regular M&P-15 (or M&P 15 Sport) can accept any upper (including .22 conversions) which makes it more flexible.
ok, i see, good to know, hadn't considered that because with this line it's all news to me . . .
and yes, we had each type to look at and it's true about the aluminum on the real thing and the molded plastic on the 22lr. which is all it really needs for the 22lr.
i tell you what, i had no trouble putting them all in the black at 50 yards off hand with iron sights with it, it's not really the type of gun i want, but it was interesting checking it out.
thanks .
The Grizzly Gunworks brakes look cool, but they cost about as much as another rifle!
http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2014/04/joe-grine/gear-review-grizzly-gunworks-ltd-muzzle-brakes/
I'm torn on muzzle brakes... yes they look cool, but I don't shoot any calibers that really need a brake, and they make the gun a lot louder for other shooters on the firing line.
Flash suppressors are more useful, but of course we live in NJ, so...
BrownEyesGuy 1 week until Christie either vetoes the bill or lets it pass........hopefully he has his head screwed on stright
IF he vetoes (which I think he will since all Republicans voted against the bills), the thinking is he'll do it at the end of next week... last thing before a long holiday weeked so it gets buried in the news.
Of course, that just buys us another couple years unless the people of NJ wake up and elect representatives that actually believe in personal freedom and the Constitution.
I know this has nothing to do with gun bills. I am a sportsman for 55 years.
I enjoy hunting, owning target rifles and the true outdoors.
No-one can come up with the annual gun shootings or misuse in Jersey or the US
I did come up with a figure that would raise your eyebrows.
In 2013 there were almost 4,000 people killed in the US involving large trucks such as tractor trailers and other large trucks. This is only death by commercial vehicles.
Nothing is said about that. No concerns. How about the next time the family goes out for a nice ride and gets over-run by 50 tons of steel and this is a serious issue.
How many times in bad weather, these rigs pass you like you are standing still.
This too is a multi state problem.
Everyday some suffers or looses a life by auto accidents. We think about the loss.
Food for thought next time one of these 50 ton rigs pass you think of safety and give him the right of way to stay clear of a serious accident.
Charlie
If everyone drove their gun to work everyday, the numbers would rise a lot. If only truckers were allowed to, the gun death would still rise.
4,000 commercial truck deaths, about 10,000 gun homicides is no comparison but since the truck statistics include suicide-by-truck, the gun death toll rises to above 30,000 per year; that's a 7X factor.
Plus, the safety record on the road has been getting better for decades due to safety regulations; guns have very little safety regulations; the NRA has lobbied for less safety, not more. Death by gun literally is equal with death by motor vehicle. Imagine if we all took our gun to work every day what would happen.
However, our truck accident statistics are commensurate with other countries; with guns we outshoot any country in the world: http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/health/2013/09/19/u-s-has-more-guns-and-gun-deaths-than-any-other-country-study-finds/
If you don't like what the NRA does, or doesn't, do you are free to get 5 million of your friends together and start your own counter lobby of the same size.
Come on, that's only 1.6% of the population... It should be easy if you believe the claim that 90% of Americans want more gun control (which has just about zero to do with "safety"). Your boy Bloomberg is also personally worth 136x the NRA's annual budget, so money shouldn't be a problem.
Maybe there's more to it than just "The NRA", huh?
Maybe the other 100+ million gun owners who the NRA doesn't officially speak for still agree with their position and also contact their representatives to oppose some of those laws or risk losing their job.
I would rather ask you to help combat child death by guns which is way too high in the United States.
Like I said, I could galvanize all the anti-gun nuts we have and it still would not change anything.
It is only when you and the NRA decide to help that the possibility of passing gun negligence laws with teeth will happen.
I just fail to see why you think this is a low priority or that somehow it would affect your 2A rights.
Would better gun control have saved this couple, one hundred years ago today?
http://static01.nyt.com/images/2014/06/27/world/27SARAJEVO1/27SARAJEVO1-superJumbo-v2.jpg
"It is only when you and the NRA decide to help that the possibility of passing gun negligence laws with teeth will happen.
The NRA offers a variety of safety courses for kids and adults. If people decide to not take advantage of them, it isn't the NRA's fault.
http://training.nra.org/
The NRA chooses to be *pro-active* by getting involved before an accident happens through education. The gun negligence laws you tout are *reactive* and only come into play after an accident has already occurred - which is a bit too late (and the accident/negligence is already subject to penalty under existing law, just as if you were negligent by leaving the pool gate open or your prescription drugs laying around.)
"The NRA offers a variety of safety courses for kids and adults. If people decide to not take advantage of them, it isn't the NRA's fault."
Yeah, heck with em. They're just kids. Can't even hold a job (except as tobacco farm workers in the Carolinas). Fuhgit about em.
Mg, statistically prove that states that allow carrying guns had a increase of gun violence please. And do not cherry pick and try to include self defence as u usually do, after all that is the whole point, being able to defend yourself or stop a tragety that has the possibility of getting way worse, like a mass shooting. Yet no, we have to huddle in a corner and wait for police to save our life. .....something tells me you would be praying for a good guy with a gun if you were ever in one of these situations, not simply calling the cops and waiting. I am sure many of the victim's were praying for a good guy with a gun too....
Why don't you answer your own question Darrin.
And please, be sure to show your work.
Christie vetoed two tax increases yesterday, hoping for one more veto before friday ,
Lmao mg!!!! .... REALLY?!?! You are the one who made a point without providing any facts to support it...I asked you to back it up with facts, and you want me to do the work? Thats just down right silly!!
Bd, I am hoping mark is right and the veto comes through right before the holiday, if he is looking to run for president, that would honestly be his best move.
I see. So first you bait me with a challenge to a statement I never made hoping to draw me out for you and your lovegunnies to wax on knowing, if you read, that most gun trends can never be unequivocally proven and that there are always statistical anomalies. You know that but you hope I will take the bait, suggest some trends and occurrences so you can spew your diatribe of the anomaly . When I won't take the bait, you taunt me hoping to gain a rise. Sweet.
Well, I'm your huckleberry.
So what point was that? The one you made up? The one on top of your head?
Perhaps you are alluding to "If everyone drove their gun to work every day, the numbers would rise a lot. If only truckers were allowed to, the gun death would still rise." Is that the one you want? That’s the one that just won’t jibe for you? Got the ole “only responsible people bring guns in cars and Eddie has told the kids, don’t touch that gun on the console, call an adult like the one next to you that put it there” mojo going.
But that is not the same as "states that allow carrying guns" now is it. That would be a silly conclusion by a unsophisticated reader to put those two very different ideas together.
So whatever do you mean that I said? Do you want me to prove that more guns behind the wheel will make for a rise in gun shootings? Really? You are wondering if more guns behind more wheels strapped to more drivers means more shooting, really? Just let me know if that’s the “what if” that is boggling your mind.
I'm here for you Darrin if you need help with understanding the ramifications of that policy change.
The bill for reducing magazine limits to 10 rounds has been vetoed by the governor today.
He didn't "just" veto the bill, he pretty much b***ch slapped the legislature for even passing it to his desk instead of addressing the REAL issues.
http://www.state.nj.us/governor/news/news/552014/pdf/20140702a_A2006CV.PDF
Btw....WTF are you talking about mg? Have you completly lost your mind? You brought up a point that apparently you cannot provide supporting facts for, cough what else is new cough cough. ... ROFL!!!!
Quit the back petteling bullshit buddy, you are too deep now
You are missing the point that currently bad guys are allowed guns for the obvious reason that they do not follow laws....when faced with good guys carrying guns other then the 15 minute response police. ...crime will drop, its obvious. By the way, I am still waiting for you to back to your original statement! #stillwaitingforthedemocrat
Darrin,
Just show me the quote you want me to provide further data on. I know you can do it.
It's pedaling by the way and keep the bad language off the board, please.
The point on carrying here is that any criminal, thug, or murdurer is not going to go through all the hassel to get a concealed carry permit through the police, firstly most have a violence background, a immediate fail for any gun permit, let alone a carry permit. Criminals dont follow laws now, they won't t do it if its allowed.
The main majority of people who would want to conceal carry already have and have had guns in their home, so I do not see where you are getting the mentality of adding guns to the pool.
OK, then the actual quote was ""If everyone drove their gun to work every day, the numbers would rise a lot. If only truckers were allowed to, the gun death would still rise."
This is not the CC law but specifically guns in cars.
Road rage is currently about 1,500 incidents per year increasing at about a 7% per year level. From the Harvard Injury Control Research Center: "We found that 17% of respondents admitted to making obscene or rude gestures in the past year, and another 9% admitted to aggressively following too closely. Males, young adults, binge drinkers, those ever arrested for a non-traffic violation, and motorists who had been in a vehicle in which there was a gun, were more likely to engage in such forms of road rage." FYI, a very small phone survey sample
http://www.carscoops.com/2013/03/who-at-fault-here-man-pulls-gun-after.html
http://autos.aol.com/article/gun-control-road-rage-legislation-AAA/
I don't think it boggles the imagination to see that if more guns are in more cars, that they will be used if road rage occurs offensively or defensively. And unfortunately, probably none of us is totally immune to enacting or avoiding the occurrence of road rage.
But not to worry, more people will still die from regular accidents so it will be OK.
MG "However, our truck accident statistics are commensurate with other countries; with guns we outshoot any country in the world: http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/health/2013/09/19/u-s-has-more-guns-and-gun-deaths-than-any-other-country-study-finds/\"
From the article "The United States has more guns and gun deaths than any other developed country in the world, researchers found.
A study by two New York City cardiologists found that the U.S. has 88 guns per 100 people and 10 gun-related deaths per 100,000 people — more than any of the other 27 developed countries they studied.
Japan, on the other hand, had only .6 guns per 100 people and .06 gun-related deaths per 100,000 people, making it the country with both the fewest guns per capita and the fewest gun-related deaths."
The citizens of Japan are still killing themselves in much higher numbers than the US, without guns.
#7 Japan
Suicide rate: 24.8 per 100,000
Male: 35.8 per 100,000
Female: 13.7 per 100,000
Source: World Health Organization (2007). Suicide rate assumes equal distribution of men & women.
BONUS: #40 USA
Suicide rate: 11.1 per 100,000
Male: 17.7 per 100,000
Female: 4.5 per 100,000
Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/most-suicidal-countries-2010-10?op=1#ixzz36PdZlWwD
So besides Japan being depressed and more culturally accepting of suicide as a solution than many places, are you making a point here?
Because it does not change the fact that we are number one in gun deaths which is what you quoted for me unless you were talking about trucks?
Remove the majority of gun deaths which are suicide related and our numbers really don't look so bad either,imo. Add the gang related gun deaths, which I'm sure occurs elsewhere minus the guns and the numbers are even lower.
I would expect more guns = more gun deaths. I don't believe removing the guns will result in less death. I'm sure gang members and other criminals could care less how many new laws are put on the books.
Actually our gun homicide rate still puts us at the top of industrialized nations not under siege.
I think you have it if you truly believe more guns = more guns deaths.
Now imagine if less guns. I can buy your gang rap for a time since it take decades to clean illegal guns out of our current system. But in the civilized end of the country, to me, less guns would me less change to grab one and use it. Sure, hubby would still grab a knife, a hammer, a head of lettuce, but the effectiveness and efficiency of the gun alone increases the death toll. How many times we heard "but it just went off."
And then, if we put a mandatory xx years on crime with a gun plus life with parole for discharging during a crime (don't have to hit anything, intent is good enough for me), perhaps we can persuade some of the gang types to use more 1950's type weapons giving us all a slightly better chance.
Just a thought.
Unfortunately, there is no fence separating the civilized end of the county from the uncivilized. I, for one, am not about to give up one more right to a gov't I have no trust in to act in our best interest.
An armed good citizen is an asset, imo.
The fact of less guns, armed good citizens, 2A protected might all co-exist is a possibility; they are not necessarily mutually exclusive.
Just saying.
+1 lv mom
Mg, yes we all know you keep saying and saying and saying. Yet for some reason, every time, your "statistics" are proven wrong, incorrect, and sometimes flat out bogus!
You keep saying more guns equal more gun deaths, prove it. We are not adding any guns to the equation, only making it legal to carry, something criminals already do,
http://www.amazon.com/More-Guns-Less-Crime-Understanding/dp/0226493660/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1377381114&sr=8-1&keywords=more+guns%2C+less+crime
In his book - John Lott brought together FBI crime stats to show not only that concealed carry lowers crime but that it it lowers violent crime. The crime savings was so great that Lott found that if all counties not subject to discretionary concealed carry laws had been "subject to state concealed carry handgun laws and had thus been forced to issue handgun permits, murder rates [in the U.S.] would have declined by about 1,400."
I didn't know Lott had been releasing new editions of that book... I only have the 1st ed. Thanks for the heads up, skippy!
Would love to read some updated stats, since the 1st ed, there is more concealed carry and more legal gun ownership nation-wide, would be interesting to see how that has effected the stats.
"Mg, yes we all know you keep saying and saying and saying. Yet for some reason, every time, your "statistics" are proven wrong, incorrect, and sometimes flat out bogus! "
In your mind.
But if you want me to prove more guns equals more gun deaths, all you have to do is look at previous posts since you "all know you keep saying and saying and saying."
jgi
jr - you are quite correct, the 'big lie' technique is being employed and it needs to be stood up to.
the Governor did the right thing with this veto. and he is correct, with the real problems facing New Jersey it's unfathomable that the legislature sent this bill to his desk instead of focusing attention on some of the real problems NJeans are dealing with every day
like high property taxes for a start
More cars = more car deaths as well. But we weigh that cost against the benefit (easy transportation) and we come out ahead. If there were no cars there would be no car deaths, but more people would then fall off horses, sink boats, and crash planes, because they still need to go places and the deaths would shift to the new popular conveyances.
More skydiving = more skydiving deaths. But we weigh that cost against the benefit (recreation) and we come out ahead. If there were no skydivers there would be no sky diving deaths, but more people would then fall off mountains, drown in scuba accidents, and, get gored by bulls because they still go thrill seeking and the deaths would shift to the new popular hobbies.
More guns = more gun deaths. But we weigh that cost against the benefit (self defense - which by the way dramatically outnumbers homicide) and we come out ahead. If there were no guns there would be no gun deaths, but more criminals would then use bombs (Boston), knives (Britain), or illegal guns (everywhere) because criminals still exist and effective weapons other than guns have been used for thousands of years and are STILL used.... if they weren't the FBI wouldn't have murders reports with line items including blunt objects, knives, and bare hands.
+1 Mark
I still am not agreeable to the more guns terminology though. Since most to almost all people who would be carrying have already owned guns for years you are not technically adding guns to the current pool, only allowing them out of the safes they are currently banished to remain in.
Its much like saying if you limit the times people are allowed to take their cars out of the garage you will lower car accident deaths. ..
Good people being able to stop bad people seems like a good thing.
"In your mind"
I am sorry but I cant stop laughing at that comeback.
If you want me to read back though old posts why don't you do the same so you can see how many times your so called facts were proven either false, doctored, incomplete, or yes...bogus (you even apologized for that one)
Oh I agree Darrin. None of us has ever suggested that people should be forced to buy/carry guns if they don't want (thereby increasing the pool of guns), just pointing out that the whole "more X = more Y" argument, even where it's true, doesn't mean that X should be banned.
There are anywhere from 10 to 100 (or more) defensive gun uses for every illegal homicide due to guns. Would homicides increase? Maybe... but life saving uses of guns would also increase 10 to 100 times faster.
Prescription drugs can be fatal if abused, but we accept that risk for the greater good.
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/08/27/Harvard-Study-Shows-No-Correlation-Between-Strict-Gun-Control-And-Less-Crime-Violence
A Harvard Study titled "Would Banning Firearms Reduce Murder and Suicide?" looks at figures for "intentional deaths" throughout continental Europe and juxtaposes them with the U.S. to show that more gun control does not necessarily lead to lower death rates or violent crime.
Because the findings so clearly demonstrate that more gun laws may in fact increase death rates, the study says that "the mantra that more guns mean more deaths and that fewer guns, therefore, mean fewer deaths" is wrong.
For example, when the study shows numbers for Eastern European gun ownership and corresponding murder rates, it is readily apparent that less guns to do not mean less death. In Russia, where the rate of gun ownership is 4,000 per 100,000 inhabitants, the murder rate was 20.52 per 100,000 in 2002. That same year in Finland, where the rater of gun ownership is exceedingly higher--39,000 per 100,000--the murder rate was almost nill, at 1.98 per 100,000.
Looking at Western Europe, the study shows that Norway "has far and away Western Europe's highest household gun ownership rate (32%), but also its lowest murder rate."
In fact, the numbers presented in the Harvard study support the contention that among the nations studied, those with more gun control tend toward higher death rates. "
"Thanks for the factual info lv mom"
"If you want me to read back though old posts why don't you do the same so you can see how many times your so called facts were proven either false, doctored, incomplete, or yes...bogus (you even apologized for that one)"
I always find it amazing the high level of purity you hold me to Darrin. But yes, when either I or others find my facts to be wrong, I do apologize. I believe the one you are describing is when I got taken in by a comedy news spoof site; no evil intent though.
Speaking of factual errors and your ready acceptance of this if they fit your paradigm....
Meanwhile, the 2007 Harvard piece, not written by Harvardites, not peer-reviewed, was authored by two gun activists, one a lobbyist, the other a documented proponent of more guns; that does not make it bad, just means it is not vetted as a scholarly paper. But figured I should find a review after I caught the intro statement: "Since at least 1965, the false assertion that the United States has the industrialized world’s highest murder rate has been an artifact of politically motivated Soviet minimization designed to hide the true homicide rates." Ah, the old politically motivated Soviet minimization again.... Suddenly "warning, warning Will Robinson" was echoing so I hit the net.
http://my.firedoglake.com/danps/2013/09/05/shoddy-gun-paper-excites-right-wing/
Shoddy Gun Paper Excites Right Wing
Uh, on this one I will have to say: totally BUSTED based on the facts and the facts not in evidence (the authors fudged some data).
the veto of the magazine limits will stand; thank God for that;
this is good news for everybody in New Jersey;
now to get the 'shall issue' CCW permit law passed ASAP would also benefit everyone here in the garden state.
New Jersey is behind the times and on the wrong side of history, this needs to be remediated
Wow. Christie DOES get it. Now if only mg would....
http://video-embed.nj.com/services/player/bcpid2444116362001?bctid=3662899109001&bckey=AQ~~,AAAAPLMILBk~,Vn8u6tPOf8WjzOVjbqXcA1qURLTMd8vZ
Governor was spot on as usual, people should listen to him more because he makes a lot of sense, a lot of 'common sense'
you can't fix stupid, it's fully baked into the cake
now to get the 'shall issue' CCW permit law passed
New Jersey is behind the times and on the wrong side of history,
87% support the veto.
http://www.nj.com/hudson/index.ssf/2014/07/poll_do_you_agree_with_gov_christies_veto_of_a_bill_to_reduce_the_permitted_size_of_ammunition_magaz.html
"87% support the veto."
Ha... NJ.com must have reset the poll when it wasn't going their way... the numbers listed are completely different (although showing the same result) from the exact same poll I saw on their site last week.
+2 For the NRA.
Fairfax, Va. – The United States District Court in the Northern District of Illinois has ordered the City of Chicago to reimburse $940,000 in legal expenses incurred by the NRA. The NRA had challenged Chicago’s ban on gun sales within city limits in Benson v. City of Chicago. The Benson case was consolidated into Illinois Association of Firearm Retailers v. City of Chicago and that case challenged five aspects of Chicago’s law: (1) the ban on any form of carriage; (2) the ban on gun stores; (3) the ban on firing ranges; (4) the ban on self-defense in garages, porches, and yards; and (5) the ban on keeping more than one gun in an operable state.
This is the second time that the City of Chicago has been ordered to reimburse legal fees in a suit sponsored by the NRA. The first was following the U.S. Supreme Court’s landmark ruling in McDonald v. City of Chicago, in which Chicago was ordered to reimburse the NRA more than $600,000.
Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2014/07/07/city-of-chicago-ordered-to-pay-nras-legal-fees-again/#ixzz36zheZzg2
Imagine if Chicago put that $1.5M to use actually fighting crime, breaking up gangs, and improving the economic situation in the ghetto. Instead, they probably spent AT LEAST that amount for their own lawyers to try defending unconstitutional laws, and now they have to pay the NRA's lawyers too.
"Last month the DC District Court upheld the District of Columbia's tough gun registration law, aka Heller II. And now the SCOTUS upholds the law that created the whole background check system as it was first developed in 1968. On its own website, the NRA didn't even bother to make a statement about the Abramski case, other than to link readers to a story about the decision in, of all places, the Washington Post! I don't know the extent to which Court decisions necessarily reflect the prevailing mood, but if a new gun control bill comes back to Congress later this year, I'm not quite ready to declare it dead."
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mike-weisser/the-nra-supreme-court_b_5503353.html
The National Rifle Association has suffered a rare setback in its crusade to block new gun regulations after a federal appeals court allowed the US government to go ahead with a plan to reduce the smuggling of semi-automatic weapons across the Mexican border.
The new rules, introduced by Barack Obama under his executive powers in July 2011, require gun dealers located in states abutting the border to report to federal officials any multiple sales of semi-automatic rifles such as AK-47s to individuals within a five-day period. The administration presented the requirement as a justified move to "detect and disrupt the illegal weapons trafficking networks" operating in Mexico.
The obligation to report such multiple sales would apply to all gun dealers in Arizona, California, New Mexico and Texas in an attempt to cut off the supply of military-style weapons being smuggled into Mexico. The north of Mexico is being sapped by a virtual war between law enforcement and drug cartels."
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/may/31/nra-court-gun-mexico-border
Hey, you win some, you lose some... however, in all cases the taxpayers lose.
Think of the millions (heck, maybe billions) the government spends on guys in fancy suits rather than investing that money in actual economic/education development to improve the safety of the country's worst neighborhoods. Not just for guns... but all violence, rape, drugs, teen pregnancies, the breakdown of families, lack of jobs, etc...
I guess they feel it's just much easier to know who bought two rifles.
Besides, isn't it Mexico's problem to deal with illegal weapons going INTO Mexico?
Also, the Abramski case, while I don't agree with the decision isn't a huge issue.
The moral of the story is you're still free to buy guns for someone else as long as you pay for it yourself first. If they give you a check noted "this is for the gun you're going to buy for me" you may have a problem.
Even though BOTH Abramski and his uncle went through background checks for all transfers, which means the intent of the regulation (preventing sales to prohibited people) was still followed. That's why it's a bogus decision.
In other words, this is legal:
A. Abramski purchases gun from local FFL (with background check).
B. Uncle purchases gun from Abramski with a check.
C. Abramski's FFL ships the gun to the uncle's FFL.
D. Uncle takes ownership of gun from his FFL (with background check).
But this is a felony:
A. Uncle gives Abramski a check to cover the cost of a gun.
B. Abramski purchases gun from local FFL (with background check).
C. Abramski's FFL ships the gun to the uncle's FFL.
D. Uncle takes ownership of gun from his FFL (with background check).
The only thing that's different is the date on the check.
In focusing on the minutiae of how to buy a gun, I thin you missed the ratified legal point in Abramski: background checks validated as legal.
+1 Supreme Court
Background checks at FFL's are waaaaay down on the list of things to worry about.
"Universal" background checks are a whole 'nother ball game for the way their implementation has been proposed.
Really, in either case it isn't the background check that's the problem. It's the databasing of make/model/SN of every private transaction.
If checking background is all you're worried about, ask the government to simply make NICS available to private individuals to punch in a name and get a YES/NO answer. Most people would voluntarily use it. But the government won't do that... wonder why.
Actually, we might agree more than disagree here. But help me to understand. Does everyone get a NIC today? And you're just saying let consumers without FFLs use them?
Yeah, I actually don't like registration today for many guns, but seems to me with the availability that there might be a "level" where registration be required, but certainly not for low-capacity arms. Plus, again help me, but don't you basically undo the registration once you conduct a private sale? At that point, is not the "registration" basically transferred via a paper form?
Every new gun bought from every FFL in every state requires a NICS background check. Even if the FFL is at a gun show, a NICS check is performed. Some states bypass the NICS *if* you have a CCW permit from that state, because you've been vetted in order to get the CCW and some (like Utah) run annual checks on every permit holder as a matter of practice.
So technically every single new gun is "registered" for the first owner because the FFL records make/model/SN and the ATF requires these records to be retained (despite "registration" being against federal law).
Private sales are a hodgepodge, depending on the state. Some states allow private sales with no documentation (the way it should be). Some states have varying levels of documentation.
NJ requires FID for all gun sales (and to get the FID you get a background check but ALSO need local law enforcement approval - that's the big rub...). Long guns require a Certificate of Eligibility but those forms remain with the buyer and seller, so the "registration" isn't broken, just have to follow the paper trail. Handguns require all of that plus individual permits, which (you guessed it) require background checks. Permits also record the make/model/SN and are mailed into the state police after a transaction is complete.
If you move into NJ, any guns you previously owned do not require registration so if you bought them privately in states that don't track sales NJ has no idea what you own (the way it should be). You cannot privately buy any guns outside your own state border without using a local FFL to make the transfer. You cannot buy ANY handguns out of state without transferring through a local FFL. That's dumb, because you're still generally subject to the same NICS checks anyway...
NICS is not available to private individuals even if they wanted to use it.
My opinion is that buying a gun should be as easy as showing ID to prove you are who you say you are, and that you are not prohibited. Whether you're buying 1 gun or 100 guns shouldn't matter and the government should not be recording what you buy (or allowing local law enforcement unregulated discretion in denying you) - just checking that you are not prohibited.
Just FYI threw my last post together in about 5 minutes as I was finishing lunch so it may not completely address all of your thoughts/questions. Could certainly go into more detail if necessary.
As far as background checks, much like the cry for "limited-capacity" magazines, when is enough, ENOUGH?
You get a NICS check, you pass, you get the gun.
But what if, you become "unable" to pass a NICS check, over the next year? Or Month? Or DAY? We already have a check for purchases. We would need a DAILY check on every gun owner in America for the system to be truly "functional". While NICS has certainly stopped "bad guys" from buying guns, alot of these bad guys who are committing crimes have weapons that were legally purchased and legally owned. NICS has done, and can do, NOTHING to stop that.
So while I'm not against background checks, they are extremely limited in their functionality, and wouldn't have stopped Columbine or Sandy Hook.
So now what? Background checks have done very little to help the issue of firearms crimes. Banning guns won't work, as Chicago has clearly shown us. So what do we do? (It's a rhetorical question, the answer is to allow everyone to protect themselves.)
STS033 is one of the forms you fill out to apply for a permit (or FID). You also need SP066 (mental health records) and SBI212 (criminal background check) plus the fees.
You need to do that EVERY time, even if you already have an FID.
Everyone agrees with you but I did not see a serial number registration area on STS-033. Weird
"Everyone agrees with you but I did not see a serial number registration area on STS-033."
That's because STS-033 is just filled out in order to get state permission to become a firearm purchaser (via FID and/or pistol permit). It is not used during the actual firearm transfer. This is a bogus step because NJ is one of the few states that requires this permission above and beyond simply being a non-prohibited citizen of the United States.
Depending on how you buy a gun determines the path for big brother to learn the make/model/serial number.
1. Purchase a long gun from an FFL. ATF Form 4473 records the firearm information (specifically sections 26 through 30).
https://www.atf.gov/files/forms/download/atf-f-4473-1.pdf
2. Purchase a handgun from an FFL. In addition to the 4473, the make/model/SN are recorded on the permit and carbon copies are mailed to the state police and local police. See the first few sections on the attached image.
3. Purchase a long gun from private seller. The make/model/serial number are recorded on a Certificate of Eligibilty ( http://www.njsp.org/info/pdf/firearms/sp-634.pdf ) although this is only retained by the buyer and seller.
4. Purchase a handgun from a private seller. A permit is still required for this, and copies are again mailed to the state and local police.
So you see... they just can't stop asking about make/model/SN just about every time someone buys a gun when really the ONLY legitimate questions should be proof of your name and address which is then simply cross referenced against a list of felons, etc.
OK, but that seems to mean that private sales do not transfer the serial number beyond the seller/buyer? Certainly true for long guns but seems to be more true for handguns if SN is not on the permit?????
once again JeffersonRepub does not give you the whole story he only gives you the parts that.
fits in to his story Chicago does not have a problem with guns purchases in the state of Illinois its the gun purchases in neighboring states were NO background checks are done
"OK, but that seems to mean that private sales do not transfer the serial number beyond the seller/buyer? Certainly true for long guns but seems to be more true for handguns if SN is not on the permit?????"
Private sales of long guns do transfer the serial number from seller to buyer, but that information is not sent to the government. The seller is supposed to retain that document forever just in case the government ever comes knocking on his door looking for a particular firearm.
If someone wants to "privately" sell a gun through an FFL (perfectly possible for a $25 transfer fee) the buyer will be subject to all ATF 4473 forms and NICS checks so the SN information is retained at the FFL (subject to ATF inspection at any time).
Handgun serial numbers ARE recorded on the permit and ARE sent into the state and local police for ALL transfers in NJ. Notice the permit also says "Form of Register". If you legally purchase a handgun as a NJ resident, the state knows exactly what you own and what you've sold.
Maybe you're just thinking a bit out of sequence. When you receive handgun permits, they are mostly blank with the exception of your name/address and the issuing agency approval. It's only at the time of an actual transfer that the seller and firearm information is added. If you end up not using a permit because time ran out or you didn't find something you liked you just toss it in the trash without ever filling out the rest of it.
Oldred: We've gone factual on this for JR many times; he just continues to spew his pap. Chicago has clearly shown banning guns doesn't work? Get some facts JR, try some facts.
Yes, Chicago numerically was the number one gun murder city in America in 2012 and again in 2013 which is what JR alludes to although the holiday weekend put Chicago in the gun violence news big time again. It is also the number 3 city in population so the murder number will be high compared to other cities anyway.
Oldred is correct in that Chicago is a strict gun control island surrounded by some pretty loose states. Over 25% of guns seized by police come from Cook County alone. From 2008, 1,300 confiscated guns came from a singe store in Riverdale Ill.
In 2013, Chicago had the least murders since 1965 down about 20%; shootings were down about 40%.
In the first six months of 2014, Chicago murder rates are down 5% from last year and 32% from 2012. However, shooting victims are up 8% from 2013 but down 17% from 2012 and down 3% from 2011. Police Chief Mike McCarthy said: ""Everybody asks me what's the difference between New York and Chicago," Mr McCarthy, who previous worked for the New York Police Department, said. "I can tell you very simply - proliferation of firearms."
"When I chase people in New York, they throw away their guns. When we chase people here in Chicago, they keep the guns."" (NPR)
And JR is wrong, guns are not banned in Chicago. LCMs are, certain models are, and the purchase rules and regulations are strict, but guns are not banned in Chicago. This one is BUSTED.
"Chicago does not have a problem with guns purchases in the state of Illinois its the gun purchases in neighboring states were NO background checks are done"
But that's illegal... residents of one state CANNOT buy a handgun in a different state without transferring it through an FFL where they are a resident (and therefore going through a background check). That's a Federal law.
Not sure why you find it so hard to believe that someone who's out there gang-banging in the south side ghettos actually broke another law... which means the law stopped nothing - background check or not.
Also - you're just wrong. Most guns ARE bought in Illinois... so again, background checks stopped nothing. The guns were either stolen (illegal) or straw purchases (illegal). Man, it's just weird how making things illegal continues to not stop the problem.
http://www.suntimes.com/news/crime/14715658-418/chicago-gangs-dont-have-to-go-far-to-buy-guns.html#.U7_1WECGe9g
What HAS stopped (or slowed) the problem is making it legal for other citizens to carry their own guns for self defense.
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2014/04/04/gun-control-advocates-who-say-more-guns-equal-more-crime-might-not-want-to-read-this/
"Also - you're just wrong. Most guns ARE bought in Illinois... "
Actually your story says 42% Ill, 58% other states.
"Actually your story says 42% Ill, 58% other states.
The article must be referencing multiple studies, because in the text it states:
"Fifty-eight percent of those recovered guns were bought in Illinois. About 19 percent were purchased in Indiana, 3 percent in Wisconsin — and less than 2 percent in Mississippi."
But the fact remains, it is NOT the law (or lack of law) that's the problem.
For the guns that were not from Illinois, they were bought or stolen illegally, brought back into Illinois illegally, carried illegally, and used to illegally murder people. Clearly making things illegal is not the effective solution.
The only thing more laws will do is just add to the rap sheet of the gang members they do occasionally arrest, but that's AFTER the fact (i.e. it didn't stop any crime) and it's just one more thing they'll plea bargain away.
It's also just coincidence that the crime rate dropped after Illinois passed a shall issue law, right? Shooting victims may be up, but how many of those are *criminals* getting shot by everyday citizens defending themselves?
Yup, different studies, different time frams.
You don't know that guns from other states were illegal, just where they originated, I think?
There isn't even a stat on straw purchases, although I am betting you are right and most are stolen, straw or whatever.
And no, the shall issue has nothing to do with it, yet. Good try though.
But perhaps a coincidence with tougher laws and the dramatic reduction in shootings from past years when laws were loose, at least in Chicago (see stats above)
The coincidence of tough gun laws = less gun deaths is much more prevalent than tough gun laws = more gun deaths which is more anomaly than correlation. Likewise, loose gun laws = more gun deaths is much more prevalent than the anomaly of loose gun laws = less gun deaths.
Oldred:
Here's the point, I'll try to speak slowly...
Chicago is, effectively, a "gun free zone", WHEN COMPARED to other cities and town where gun control regulations are not as severe. Which in reality means it's a "victim enrichment zone". It doesn't matter where the guns came from- all that matters is that the criminals GO TO WHERE THE KNOW THEY CANNOT BE RESISTED BECAUSE GUNS ARE HIGHLY RESTRICTED.
Gun free zones CREATE victims.
I hope that's clear enough for you to grasp.
Here's a little tidbit for you... from one of YOUR "trusted sources": CNN
http://www.cnn.com/2014/01/06/us/chicago-gun-ban/
(CNN) -- A federal judge ruled Monday that Chicago's ban on virtually all sales and transfers of firearms is unconstitutional.
"The stark reality facing the City each year is thousands of shooting victims and hundreds of murders committed with a gun. But on the other side of this case is another feature of government: certain fundamental rights are protected by the Constitution, put outside government's reach, including the right to keep and bear arms for self-defense under the Second Amendment," wrote U.S. District Judge Edmond Chang.
"Chicago's ordinance goes too far in outright banning legal buyers and legal dealers from engaging in lawful acquisitions and lawful sales of firearms," he continued.
Chang explicitly did not rule out other types of regulation, short of a complete ban, in order to "minimize the access of criminals to firearms and to track the ownership of firearms.
"But the flat ban on legitimate sales and transfers does not fit closely with those goals," Chang wrote.
"You don't know that guns from other states were illegal, just where they originated, I think?"
Yes, but ANY handgun that "originates" from ANY state other than the one where you live must be transferred through an FFL in your home state (with a NICS background check) otherwise it has been acquired illegally regardless of how strict that other state is with background checks, etc... This has nothing to do with state vs. state. It is a Federal law.
It is also Federal law that you cannot buy a gun *anywhere* on behalf of another person, especially so if they are prohibited (which I'm guessing a lot of the criminals in Chicago are).
The fact that a certain % of guns come from other states just means that criminals don't really care who/where they steal them from and that they can just as easily complete straw purchases inside their own state's borders as they can outside the borders.
In other words, blaming bordering states for Chicago's violence is a weak argument, at best.
The point we are making is that if you have a small geographic area with tough gun laws, but are surrounded by areas with looser laws and people selling and buying willing to break them, then your highly regulated area is an island permeable from all sides. So where do them criminals get em.
Probably the lowest number is stolen guns, maybe 10-15%.
The most probably come from straw purchases; illegal yes, but not hard to do even through FFLs. About 40% of crimes committed with straw/gift gun.
The next largest source is the FFLs themselves, yup they do it. About 30% of these are used within 2 years of sale pointing to the fact that the original purchaser is probably the one who did the crime. Many are reported as missing, stolen or lost, but probably only 1% to 10% of the FFLs engage in this activity.
I think the article you posted pretty much confirms or alludes to these ATF stats. Fact is Chicago is not a "gun free zone" as JR would delude you; it is an highly regulated gun island surrounded by looser gun continents where FFLs engage in allowing purchases ultimately heading into the city. This may be a 1% or 10% FFL problem, but once known, they become a meca for purchase and difficult to indict.
While JR did not say it, I will say the biggest island problem is that while criminals have no problem bringing guns across the moat, it is much harder for the good guys to get arms for even home protection. Until we come to a common set of national laws, we will always have the island problem.
http://bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/fuo.pdf
Again, your solution is to arm yourself 24x7 for protection since you figure everyone is packing.
To say Chicago gun laws prove that strict regulation is unworkable and therefore unnecessary is not only a non sequitur, it completely avoids the island phenomena which erases much of the potential value of strict regulation. I mean even Dodge City had a deadline.
"Probably the lowest number is stolen guns, maybe 10-15%."
"About 40% of crimes committed with straw/gift gun."
Both of those activities are illegal no matter where you go... the "island" theory makes no difference. So right there, 55% of the guns used in Chicago's crime have zero to do with any difference in how strict gun laws may be elsewhere.
"The next largest source is the FFLs themselves, yup they do it."
Holding an FFL responsible for a future crime is like holding a car dealer responsible for drunk drivers. Now, if the FFL is not following the law (i.e. skipping NICS or losing track of their inventory) then by all means, blame them. But if someone passes the checks at the time of the purchase, their future crime has nothing to do with the firearms dealer.
"Until we come to a common set of national laws, we will always have the island problem."
What, exactly, do you propose above and beyond already being 100% illegal to steal guns and engage in straw purchases? Typically the "strength" of gun laws relates to restrictions against carry, etc. I don't think a lot of crime in Chicago is due to someone with a CCW from a shall issue jurisdiction travelling into the no-issue jurisdiction just to shoot people.
If you think "universal" background checks will stop the problem, I'll just point you again to the fact that sellers in other states are ALREADY violating federal law by selling to anyone from Illinois. Do you think they'll care if they're breaking two laws instead?
It's easy to sit there and say "do something" by implying that felons are just finding legal loopholes in the law. They're not... they're completely BYPASSING the law. Adding more laws won't make one bit of difference to them or the crime rate.
Proposing additional laws is bit presumptuous, considering that (for example) I've had to explain NJ's application/permit process to you. I don't mind doing that, but it exemplifies that you're trying to change a system that you don't even currently understand.
Did mg finally ask what gun laws currently exist? After 1000+ comments he finally admitted he did not understand current laws?
Well good for asking to be educated mg, but isn't that something you should of educated yourself in before entering a gun debate??
Yeah Darrin, like being stupid on a topic ever stopped you from entering.
Mark and I were actually having a nice conversation when JR went rouge left field noting Chicago as the strict gun law murder capital of the world. After I corrected him with the facts, Mark was off to the races about laws not mattering to gun deaths cuz it's gonna happen with or without them.
Some of the more famous thoughts (or lack thereof):
"which means the law stopped nothing - background check or not."
"Man, it's just weird how making things illegal continues to not stop the problem."
"Clearly making things illegal is not the effective solution."
Imagine if you took your same thoughts on guns and applied them to other forms of regulation like even the crosswalk discussion ongoing.
Between JR, Mark, and Darrin, the only solution to making things better is to be armed at all times. What a wonderful world they live in. What marvelous minds to come up with that solution to the problem of everyone shooting each other.
They have no problem with America shooing more people each year than any other civilized nation, more kids than any other civilized nation because:
They are against additional negligence laws with guns; the existing underutilized laws suffice even if dead babies don't get justice.
There are against limiting firepower in almost any form because that might give bad guys PLUS the police and armed forces more firepower ---- all of which they stand ready to defend against.
They support lobbying actions to stop the study of gun violence so that empirical data might shed light onto the problems and potential solutions.
If that's what the founding fathers desired, they were horribly wrong.
And Darrin's best retort is that I am uneducated on the laws of how to buy a gun in each of the states.
I am sorry but being able to easily get a gun without a background check is not cause to stop background checks. To be able to carry a gun from a loose law region to a strict law region is not a reason to abandon gun controls. Chicago's gun murders are down since strict laws invoked even with massive illegal importation. Statistically it worked although not anywhere good enough.
JR is right about one thing though; when you have an island like Chicago, you do set up a "victim zone" since those following the law are not criminals and vice-versa. But this is much more true in island cities that it is in the states leading one to my conclusion that " Until we come to a common set of national laws, we will always have the island problem."
But I am sure the gunnies have a reason why state's rights on gun regulation is valid and, on this one, I think the Constitution is on their side bringing me back to "If that's what the founding fathers desired, they were horribly wrong
"JR is right about one thing though; when you have an island like Chicago, you do set up a "victim zone" since those following the law are not criminals and vice-versa."
It's not just Chicago; it's everywhere. Disarm the good people, and the bad people will remain armed, and have a much easier time doing what they do. This isn't rocket science. Criminals don't follow laws. Very few of today's gun control laws have stopped a criminal from committing a criminal act with a firearm. We all agree the background check is a good idea.
As far as the world WE live in- I'd rather live in it than the one YOU seem to live in: big brother, far-reaching gun control (to the point of confiscation, altho you won't admit it), militarized police forces, widely disarmed populace.... sounds like you would enjoy living in Orwell's 1984. Or even Ayn Rand's Anthem.
You don't seem to be too "big" on individual liberty, unless it's freedom of speech... you seem to have no problem with the 99%-ers defecating in public, selling drugs, and stinking up their gathering sites because that is "freedom of speech", yet you do have a problem with citizens exercising their 1st Amendment rights at the Bundy ranch- but I'm sure you only had a problem with that because they were simultaneously exercising their 2nd amendment rights. (no, I'm not on Bundy's "side", the Bundy thing to me has very little to do with Mr. Bundy's issue and much more to do with the attempted stifling of 1st amendment rights (the "free speech zones") and then consequent stifling of the stifling using our 2nd amendment rights.
If you go so far as to admit the criminals don't follow laws, then why do you keep wanting to pass more laws? It's illogical and non-sensicle. Is it just to make you "feel better", or to make you feel like you're "doing something"? Feel-good legislation?
"you seem to have no problem with the 99%-ers defecating in public, selling drugs, and stinking up their gathering sites because that is "freedom of speech"
You talkin to me? Cuz that's just crazy stupid man.
Mg, just cause we got to the bottom of your situation is no reason to turn completely rude and immature.
The point I am trying to make is it is people exactly like you who think they know how to fix a problem, think they know what laws we need, and think that it is just so simple to purchase a gun. But the fact of the matter is most of these people, apparently including you, join this fight without any legs to stand on, you cannot fight over something if you have done no homework to see what is and has already been put into place. How can you judge laws without first even knowing them?
And not to bring up a immature comment but I must ask what you are talking about here
"Yeah Darrin, like being stupid on a topic ever stopped you from entering."
Cause I have never run my mouth, or even ever seen someone run their mouth as much as you without first educating themselves on the topic, thats just down right silly stupid.
"And Darrin's best retort is that I am uneducated on the laws of how to buy a gun in each of the states."
I would say that is a pretty good comment considering you did admit you dont know any of the current laws...but it does go in hand with you posting non factual info. It's all making sense now. Now let's watch the finger pointing and name calling while the captain goes down with his own ship!
"Between JR, Mark, and Darrin, the only solution to making things better is to be armed at all times. What a wonderful world they live in. What marvelous minds to come up with that solution to the problem of everyone shooting each other"
Mg, do you live in your own world or do you just post what you think you hear? Or maybe its what you want to hear.
You can post whatever incorrect interpretation of everything we have said you want, but in the mean time while the government and people alike do nothing about the mental heath issue in the us, I want a gun to carry so I can defend myself from them. Its my constitutional right. There is a big difference to a victim being killed and someone defending themselves and a harmful criminal being killed, but to you, its all just killing each other.
Darrin, you guys said it all already, I just summarized commentary one of the three of you have said at some point. Not going to source for you, do it yourself.
Meanwhile.......geez JR, we have done this over and over.
Generally, the states with the toughest gun laws have lower than average gun death rates. Prove me wrong.
The highest gun death rate states are overwhelmingly (80%) in the states with the weakest gun laws. Prove me wrong.
That's where the clarity ends. Why, because we have 50 states with invisible borders and 50 different sets of gun laws varying in degree of who can buy, who can not, who gets checked, who does not, and how any of the data is tracked or not tracked. And, of course, the NRA lobbies against any sort of public funding to even do empirical studies to cut through the data or lack thereof. They would rather we just didn't know, it sells more guns.
Given the number of variables determining violence in America, there are anomalies in the above general trends, it is not 100%. For example, tough gun laws tend to population centers where more criminality exists, low population centers tend to have looser gun laws. But the general correlation holds; strong gun laws mean less gun deaths, weak gun laws mean more gun deaths.
Of the strictest gun law states, only two MD and DE, fall in the top ten gun murder states with CA coming in the bottom of the top 15.
Eight of the ten worst gun murder states have loose gun laws and 12 out of 15 do. That's 80% of the worst gun murder states have loose gun laws. For the vast majority of top gun murder states, it goes hand in hand with loose gun laws.
On the converse, the top 10 states with the lowest gun murder rate generally have loose laws too, but again, tough gun laws current coincide with much denser population centers, higher crime rates, etc.
But the states with the toughest gun laws have lower rates than the average state every time except the three aforementioned anomalies. For the most part, tough gun laws mean lower than average gun deaths. Strict gun laws mean less gun deaths.
You all say background checks don’t work; I agree. They can't work if they aren't used. How can they work when 40% of all sales don’t include one? So how can you say they don’t work? It’s a bogus claim without sufficient data to support. Of course background checks are not working, they are not being used.
On a national level, the background check system, a gun tracing system, and even a mental health system all have HUGE data system gaps that you could drive your tank through. Frankly the national gun tracking database is a joke. You have nothing to fear from the federal government knowing your gun's serial number. It would take them days and days to track it. Mental health tracking is another joke; it's easy to be nuts and buy a gun in America, the mental health data system is broken.
It’s a joke to say that we even have gun control laws in this country given the loopholes, sporadic use, and random state-by-state deployment. You can cry for me in New Jersey, but you don’t have to go far to find easy access to a gun, legally. And you don't have to try hard at all as a criminal to have someone legally buy you a gun and suffer very little risk of ever being caught. It's a joke.
But if you guys believe the best answer is therefore to buy a gun; that's short term shooting yourself in the foot. It is not a viable long term solution to solving violence in America. More guns = more gun deaths every time.
Even the police themselves admit, by a 95% margin, that the banning of STANDARD capacity magazines would not reduce gun crime.
http://www.policeone.com/Gun-Legislation-Law-Enforcement/articles/6183787-PoliceOnes-Gun-Control-Survey-11-key-lessons-from-officers-perspectives/
"Not going to source for you, do it yourself."
I think I will use that response from now on when I am asked a question too.
MG, in being proven incorrect, you have developed quite a resentment in your posts.
"You have nothing to fear from the federal government knowing your gun's serial number"
That's exactly what the people in Connecticut were told, and we all see what happened there. Why are we going in circles? we have been over all of this.
and by the way your last post made no sense, your comments are contradicting themselves.
and by the way, if you were unfamiliar with NJ gun laws up to now (the basis of this whole conversation) I would make a educated guess that you also are unaware of the gun laws enforced in other sates.....yet you continue to make comments on the laws enforced in other states.............
Since you are unfamiliar with the way the federal gun tracking database works, I would make an educated guess that you are also unaware how it works in any state, yet you contine to make comments on the systems in other states.
You don't know the laws in those states either.
And the basis of this conversation was ONE NJ gun law, not all NJ gun laws. Sorry to correct you, again.
And my unfamiliarity was with the use of NICS, that's federal not state. And then serial number reporting and tracking, which, as you see from Mark's responses even took him a few tries to make it clear. So give me a break re the knowledge curve re my ability to make comments. Suggest you attack the facts not the author.
PS: Even if I am completely in the dark ---- first amendment dude, get over it. Remember, it's not words that make people look stupid, it's.........
"Since you are unfamiliar with the way the federal gun tracking database works, I would make an educated guess that you are also unaware how it works in any state, yet you continue to make comments on the systems in other states.
You don't know the laws in those states either."
I am not the one making comments on them bud, I simply stated a fact, and that was what happened in Connecticut when they were forced to register their gun serial numbers and magazines. The point is that, you know what, never mind, it's not even worth it. You know the point, you just don't want to accept the point
"PS: Even if I am completely in the dark ---- first amendment dude, get over it"
No comment necessary, that says it all!!!!!
Nobody cares what you post, have fun with the first amendment, we all welcome it. Hearing the information that anti-gunners convince themselves to believe is educating to us as well. I as well as others were never trying to stop you, we were only trying to educate you in a field where there was no previous knowledge except hear-say, being told, and assumption. You don't want to accept that education, that's fine, nobody is telling you to stop or shut up, not once, everyone on here has tried to explain over, and over, and over. Think what you want man, nobody is trying to change that, we were all just trying to help you better understand. We welcome your comments, but please stop getting so personal
And now we all understand you motive too..... Even if I am completely in the dark ---- first amendment dude, get over it.....
Do you stutter when under stress?
When you state a fact, without knowledge, it's OK.
If I do it, "do you live in your own world or do you just post what you think you hear? Or maybe its what you want to hear."
You certainly spend a lot of time not caring about what I post.
I know I stutter....
NBC News 4/13
...."How do background checks work now?
The Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act of 1993 established the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS), which allows the seller to check a buyer’s eligibility with a search that usually takes less than a minute. The system was fully launched in 1998. Before selling a gun, the gun store worker calls in to the FBI or other designated law enforcement agency to run a check against the system’s records. If the prospective buyer’s record doesn’t raise a red flag – possible triggers include a person having been adjudicated as mentally ill or being sought by law enforcement – the sale is cleared to go through.
What kinds of gun purchases don’t require background checks under current law?
That depends on where you live. In the wake of the Newtown school shooting, President Obama asked for a federal law that would require universal background checks, including at gun shows. Right now, only California, Colorado, Illinois, New York, Oregon, and Rhode Island require background checks at gun shows, according to the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence. But most states have looser restrictions. While local laws can vary widely, 33 states do not have a law addressing what is commonly referred to as the “gun show loophole.” Similarly, regulations on sales between private parties or transfers between family members can be very different from state to state, where they exist at all.
Is the background-check system foolproof?
Critics of the current background check system point to gaping holes in the ways states submit records to the NICS. While 44 states have individual laws regulating the sale of firearms to the mentally ill, for example, far fewer states submit the names of prohibited mentally ill individuals to the national database. Just seven states account for 98 percent of the names prohibited for mental illness, according to Mayors Against Illegal Guns, meaning most states are in there barely, if at all. In one oft-cited example, Virginia Tech shooter Seung-Hui Cho passed a background check before obtaining a gun and killing 32 people, despite having been declared mentally ill two years before. States are responsible for compiling mental health records from courts, hospitals, and other sources to submit to NICS, but they are not legally required to do so......."
"Are background checks effective?
The numbers show that background checks do keep guns out of the hands of at least some people who are not supposed to have them. Nearly 1.8 million applications for firearm transfers or permits were denied between the passage of the law in March 1994 and December 2008, according to the Bureau of Justice Statistics. The FBI and state law enforcement denied firearm purchases to 153,000 people in 2010 alone, the most recent year for which data is available."
I stopped reading when I saw incorrect information in the second paragraph, and then realized why, they are getting so called "facts" from Coalition to Stop Gun Violence.
and the "facts" to follow are quoted from Mayors Against Illegal Guns
Both of these groups have been known to bend the truth and as well talk out of their a$$ before knowing the actual laws.
But I would agree to one thing, "Virginia Tech shooter Seung-Hui Cho passed a background check before obtaining a gun and killing 32 people, despite having been declared mentally ill two years before."
Who's fault is this? not the gun's that's for sure!
Why, if he was known to be mentally ill was he allowed to get a gun? If in fact he did actually purchase the gun AFTER being declared mentally ill. And WHY did the PEOPLE around him, friends, family, etc, not release this information.
If I knew a mentally ill being owned weapons, I would bring this up to the proper officials. Yet none of his friends or family did?
The point here is PEOPLE are to blame, not guns. I have never had a issue with background checks, except of course when the NICS was backed up for over three months (they claim here it takes seconds, which is usually the case, but not always) What I do have a issue with is them being able to deny a background check without due cause (basically you can be denied and you do not have the right to explain, justify, or correct)
Well, yeah, I would turn a blind eye too if I didn't like the source. I would never just look it up myself........Enjoy your font of knowledge.
As of mid 2013, only 17 states had closed the gun show loophole for private sales which usually includes privates sales outside the gun show too. 34 states allow on-line in-state person-to-person sales w/o background checks.
According to the NRA: "The NRA, in a policy statement on its Web site, notes that most firearms sales online go through a federally licensed firearms dealer in the home state of the buyer. “The reality is that the Internet does not provide any legal opportunity to simply buy a firearm as if it were a pair of jeans,” the statement says.
But most firearms sales facilitated at classified sites including Armslist.org do not go through dealers because they are person-to-person transactions, Hatalsky said, meaning the buyers do not undergo background checks.
The NRA says in its statement that banning these sales is effectively prohibiting advertisements, “which is a direct attack on both the First and Second Amendments.”
The Post notes that at any given time, up to 2,000 will-buy ads from private buyers looking for private sellers are posted on one web site alone. Somehow in it's zeal to sell guns, the NRA missed that and instead posted conclusions based on zero facts that it can proved (the websites don't list sales tracking data).
But hey Darrin, instead of looking up how porous the background check system is, why not talk about the mental health data system, one area where the NRA and normal people can agree stinks. And to highlight a crazy not reported and then doing mass murder is tragically funny since you spend a lot of time telling us that mass murder is just a drop in the bucket of death from other things like cars, poisons, etc. Darrin's black humor I guess.
But it you want to talk about data tracking systems, and since you ignore most stuff, like I said before, start with the gun-tracking-system. It's just as bad as the mental health one you keep harping on. Guess who is at the forefront of making sure that the gun tracking system is totally inefficient? But hey, fixing that might slow down gun sales.
But hey, stay open, get out of the box while you don't let the facts get in your way unless you totally agree with the source.
"Well, yeah, I would turn a blind eye too if I didn't like the source"
First off that's not what I said, I said " stopped reading when I saw incorrect information in the second paragraph"
I really don't understand what you are still arguing about, I agree at one point you make, and you bring up others, and make statements like "Darrin's black humor I guess." I have seldom disagreed with anything you have said about mental health checks, I have only debunked information that you post when it is false.....why do you keep making a fight? Speak like a adult
"But most firearms sales facilitated at classified sites including Armslist.org do not go through dealers because they are person-to-person transactions" I do believe this statement is false. If I was selling on arms list I for one would go through a dealer as to get formal paper work on the transfer to prove the weapon is no longer in my name, and I would suspect others would want the same as well.
"The NRA says in its statement that banning these sales is effectively prohibiting advertisements, “which is a direct attack on both the First and Second Amendments.”
And they right in saying that. If nothing says that the transfer has to go through a dealer, then that's the problem, not the sales themselves, so completely banning these sales, as NRA states, is a direct attack.
You gotta start realizing, that many of these laws they are trying to pass to "fix" the problem is a overall obliteration of our rights, they do nothing to fix the actual issue. This is what we have all been saying time and time again
Off topic, being rude is really hurting the general respect everyone may have for you, it has nothing to do with your viewpoints like you may think, or may continue to think. I, as well as others on here have no problem having a respectful conversation, no matter what your viewpoint is, but keep it respectful dude.
I don't find your summarizations that twist how and what people say funny either, I don't see anyone laughing.
What incorrect information? You just said it was incorrect based on the source. Hardly credible.
What argument; I am still just listing facts about the gaping holes in the background check process for different types of gun sales. And the NRA quoting 1A and 2A rights skirts the issues of the gaps making it sound like it's OK to have gaps because the 1A and 2A exist. That's not the point but you took it hook, line and sucker.
The fact that you anecdotally would use an FFL stands against a 40% estimate on the number of total gun sales that do not include a background check. Legal yes, and to your point, why have background checks if the system is so porous. Or maybe, wow, here's an idea. Maybe all gun sales should have background checks. Now there's a concept.
But hey, let's talk about my argumentative rudeness and my bad sense of humor. My goodness, you have participated in more fights on HL than Ali in the ring. As to my bad sense of humor......at least I have one.
So here's what the NRA has brought us:
a background check system that's porous where anyone can easily avoid one to buy a new gun
a gun tracking system that is not automated, manual, and not only expensive, but time consuming and error prone
a mental health system that is more porous that the background check system.
And of these HUGE issues, the only one the NRA proposes doing anything to improve is nuts. So don't tell me about too many gun controls, too many restrictions, living with Big Brother/1984/AynRand (how did she sneak in JR???), and abridgement of our 1A/2A rights. And don't tell me gun controls don't work so why have them. We have not even come close to invoking them..........yet.
"What incorrect information? You just said it was incorrect based on the source"
Wrong!.....This information is incorrect
"That depends on where you live. In the wake of the Newtown school shooting, President Obama asked for a federal law that would require universal background checks, including at gun shows. Right now, only California, Colorado, Illinois, New York, Oregon, and Rhode Island require background checks at gun shows, according to the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence."
For one simple fact, NJ requires these as well, and to me, a list of facts the for some reason shorts the truth is incorrect information and as well unreliable. Nobody has the time to re source every bit of info in what we read, but if I can, without any research, read something and knowingly point out incorrect facts, I am not reading it, because it is not true, and it is garbage.
"a background check system that's porous where anyone can easily avoid one to buy a new gun"
Again, not true, you state anyone, I will speak for NJ alone, you need a background check for any legal gun purchase that goes through a dealer, and like I said somewhere all new guns have a paper trail, and If I think anyone selling a gun would be crazy to not get the proper paper trail that the weapon legally was transferred to someone else. People don't just do favors for others with guns like you think they do.
"a gun tracking system that is not automated, manual, and not only expensive, but time consuming and error prone"
This I strongly agree with, it was show in Connecticut, you cannot trust the government to know what you own. This is not being paranoid, it was SHOWN in CT.....it HAPPENED!
"We have not even come close to invoking them..........yet."
and there in-lies the problem. The government, as posted in Christie's letter for the NJ issue, does NOTHING to correct the true problems, they just put bigger and bigger restrictions on guns that hurt law abiding citizens. Ever heard the saying give an inch and take a mile? Well that's how the NRA feels toward the government, so while the government is constantly threatening absolutely absurd restrictions, yet doing nothing about the real problem the NRA is going to stand the fight and not let them do it, because in the end, if the government had their choice, we end up with no rights.
I am sorry for your feelings, but I agree with what the NRA is doing.
"Right now, only California, Colorado, Illinois, New York, Oregon, and Rhode Island require background checks at gun shows"
If you buy a gun from a dealer at a gun show in ANY state, a background check is required. It's no different than if you walked into their shop to complete the transaction.
There are no "private" tables at gun shows (for firearms) because the ATF will quickly start to breathe down your neck if you are privately selling more than a few guns each year (requiring you to become an FFL to do so).
The only exception may be antique/black powder firearms which have fewer restrictions, and some people do possess C&R (curio & relic) FFL licenses so they can directly purchase these guns from other dealers, etc. with less hassle.
Private person-to-person sales may be different (depending on the state laws), but that has nothing to do with "gun shows" specifically since private sales can occur at any time with or without gun shows. Nothing is stopping the seller from requiring that transfer to be done through an FFL to cover their own butt. On top of that, this only applies if the buyer/seller are from the same state, otherwise an FFL *must* be involved in the transfer.
If you're relying on the "40% of gun sales" statistic, I will again explain that this percentage was calculated in the years *before* background checks were a federal requirement for new/dealer firearm purchases, and even then it was based on a poor sample quantity of 251 sales.
So... to use your own words... BUSTED.
Some further reading to back this up:
http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2013/02/foghorn/the-truth-about-the-gun-show-loophole/
http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2013/03/foghorn/40-of-gun-sales-made-by-private-sellers-is-an-outright-lie/
http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2011/12/bruce-w-krafft/gun-show-loophole-what-gun-show-loophole/
Darrin, actually it depends how you look at it. The Coalition is half right, you can buy some guns without a background check in NJ, I think you are wrong.
NJ closed the gun show loophole ONLY for handguns. You can still buy a assault weapon or long gun without a background check in a private gun show sale in NJ. From About.com. And remember, the gun show loophole is synonymous with any private sale, i.e. door to door, internet, pennysaver, bulletin board, etc.
“A total of 11 states require background checks for at least some gun purchases at gun shows. Seven of those states require background checks for all gun purchases, while four states require background checks for only handgun purchases.
The seven states requiring background checks for all purchases include:
• California
• Colorado
• Connecticut
• Illinois
• New York
• Oregon
• Rhode Island
The four states requiring background checks for only handgun purchases include:
• Hawaii
• Maryland
• New Jersey
• Pennsylvania
In Florida, private firearms purchases are subject to background checks in some jurisdictions but not across the entire state. There are no laws regulating private firearms sales at gun shows in the remaining 33 states.”
Estimates are that 50% of all gun sales at shows do not include FFLs and therefore background checks. Add in internet sales, other private sales and you end up with a HUGE number of sales without background check.
And it’s the NRA that actively lobbies against private sale background checks using the 1A and 2A as lame rationales when background checks have been legitimized by the SCOTUS a number of times.
Meanwhile: “This I strongly agree with, it was show in Connecticut, you cannot trust the government to know what you own. This is not being paranoid, it was SHOWN in CT.....it HAPPENED!”
I will go into detail on the next tome, but this too is the result of the lobbying efforts of the NRA. In this case, they are costing you time and money in gun tracing ineptitude. I can’t speak to CT, but the gun tracking system clustermuck is NOT the Federal Government’s doing; it’s the law they are forced to follow. And who lobbies for the law using the 2A?
“I am sorry for your feelings, but I agree with what the NRA is doing.”
That’s the main reason we can not fix any of this. Their lobbying is too strong, their pockets too deep, they protect their cancerous product at all costs.
Gun show loopholes ---- NRA sponsored
Private sale loopholes --- NRA sponsored
Porous Background Check System --- NRA sponsored on many levels
Porous Gun Track System ---- NRA sponsored
Porous Mental Health Tracking System ---- NRA wants to get fixed. Must be bad for business.
So here’s my point Darrin. Based on the evidence, the systems I mentioned stink. Add in child negligence laws, LCMs, and you have a whole lot of death that either didn’t have to happen OR could have been made a teeny weeny bit harder to do. And at what cost? Would your liberties really be further constrained? You think you already are subject to all this so it shouldn’t affect you at all. But you pay the NRA to maintain all this crap that is just killing us for no reason, no reason whatsoever.
And some of these awful systems cost more to maintain than a modern one would. So the NRA is charging you to lobby for you to spend more tax money to save your 2A rights by not conducting background checks and then not easily tracking guns used in crimes.
Kind of got you coming and going don’t’ they?
And yes, the 40% number is totally BUSTED, you're right. The fact is we don't have a number just like we don't have a clue that "There are no "private" tables at gun shows (for firearms) because the ATF will quickly start to breathe down your neck if you are privately selling more than a few guns each year (requiring you to become an FFL to do so)" as you say. Plus add in the internet where you have bother buyers and sellers advertising and no matter how you cut it: too many gun sales are made without background checks whether the number is 1%, 10% or 20%.
Again, I repeat my indignation at the NRA's lobbying against using public funds to conduct empirical studies so we might know what the real numbers are.
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/11/us/gun-law-loopholes-let-buyers-skirt-background-checks.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0
"You can still buy a assault weapon or long gun without a background check in a private gun show sale in NJ. "
So what you're suggesting is that we spend millions of dollars to initiate/expand and maintain a national background check system on objects that kill far less in one year (rifles: 322, shotguns: 303) than items that are readily available in any hardware store (blunt objects: 518), department store (knives: 1,589) or something that people have attached to their body when they are born (fists: 678).
Ah the ole "but there's something worse so don't fix the lesser of evils" rationale.
No, I am suggesting we fix what's broken and gain some consistency between the states at a baseline of: if you buy a gun, get a background check. Where's the millions in expense to make that happen? Might even be cheaper if we do it right. You don't know.
This is not a restrictive change but just a change to make what already exists apply for all gun sales. And, as you would say, is used quite often already, deemed legal and deemed beneficial. It's not even "new" law, but extension of existing law to cover all gun sales.
That's on the front end, meanwhile on the back end........ How we trace a gun in America. Even if you hate my rants, this one will blow your socks off.
Well, first you make the gun, put a serial number on it, database it, and ship it to an FFL. Your database is probably digital and may even be fully automated from soup to nuts, it’s just part of the overall manufacturing process. The parts are tracked automatically as they come in the door, the OEM has probably sent you a data file. The gun is probably tracked before it even pops out of the oven, and probably all the parts are tracked to that specific serial number too. It just saves money to do it that way. And off the gun goes down the distribution chain leaving much of its digital baby footprint behind forever.
It goes through the distribution chain of one or more wholesalers, the serial number is retained, and probably one or more sku numbers applied to further muddy the digital trail. Then the FFL buys and sells the gun, fills out a form by hand, and puts the form in a drawer. Now the sale is tracked and that’s where it stays. Lots of paper, lots of drawers, nothing automated, nothing digital so all started to decay. Some say 20 years storage, some say forever, the ones that went through Katrina look like the Dead Sea Scroll parchments.
But the data is tracked in drawers across America on paper.
Now a crime is done, a gun is found. Police contact the ATF in Martinsville WV where 344,000 requests are handled in a year, sometimes at 700 per day. So the ATF has a gun, some numbers, and they call/contact the manufacturer to find the FFL. Not that easy. First they find the WHOLESALER the manufacturers sold the gun to. Maybe multiple wholesalers in the chain until they get to the local FFL.
Then they contact the FFL who goes to his file drawer and whips out the 4473 paper form.
A lucky check is 15 minutes. Only 70% of the time, the ATF can trace a gun back to the rightful owner (remember those background check gaps?), 30% of the time they can’t. For once there’s a private sale, the trail often goes cold. Legally cold but cold is cold and nobody is identified. No help, end of line.
Of course, a third of the sales are from defunct FFLs, going out of business. If a crime-act gun comes from those, it’s time for the ATF to hand-search through the boxes. It’s a paper chase on the taxpayer’s dollar to protect the gun owners from Big Brother. Crikey, they have a gun, what are these kitty-kats afraid of.
Why do we do this in the most expensive way possible? According to NPR: “They don't have that searchable, central database because the National Rifle Association and the gun lobby have successfully blocked that through Congress. They argue that a database of gun transactions would be a dangerous step toward a national gun registry.”
ATF gets a million of these records every month. It’s a tax that all taxpayers bear so that gun owners can feel safe from Big Brother. Taxpayers are paying extra for gun tracking database ineptitude by law. We are paying people to put data on paper, so they can send it back to us where we can scan it to keep it safe but have to look at them one by one, manually, to access the data. We have buildings exceeding weight load due to the paper, we have data being stored in parking lots. We, not the gun owners, are paying for all of this inefficiency and ineptitude. Meanwhile, when a crime is committed and we find the gun; we wait for the search to be completed via multiple phone calls, manual record searches, and then all the typos that get inserted in the process for a 70% success rate. We have thousands of ATF agents manually doing what a machine could do for free. We have guys looking through boxes, looking in drawers, reading numbers over the phone, what a clustermuck.
But the NRA has successfully lobbied for this process in order to protect your way of life, or death, you be the judge.
This one just blows my socks off. http://www.npr.org/2013/05/20/185530763/the-low-tech-way-guns-get-traced
"Ah the ole "but there's something worse so don't fix the lesser of evils" rationale. "
Yep, I like solutions that have the biggest bang for the buck, so to speak. If you want to stop (or solve) murders you will have a higher success ratio (compared to rifles and shotguns) by requiring every hammer, baseball bat, and knife to have a traceable serial number as well as a background check prior to purchase. That's just simple math based on the annual quantities of deaths associated with those objects... Not sure how you register fists... maybe some sort of tattoo that makes an imprint of your SSN when you punch somebody.
So you don't like my rationale? How about "if it saves one life" we have to do it "for the children" ? I believe you've uttered those very words... But maybe a death doesn't count to you when you someone gets their head smashed in by a hammer because they don't look scary... I don't know.
The rest of your rant still doesn't do a single thing to explain how you're going to force people (especially criminals) to even abide by the new laws, considering that they don't do it today for the background check laws we already have in place. Case in point, the police officer who was killed in Jersey city today by someone who simply beat up a security guard and stole the gun. I'm sure that criminal made sure his FID, pistol purchase permit, and NJ concealed firearms permit were all in proper order before doing so, right? Wouldn't want to run afoul of the law before killing someone I suppose...
So when your kid makes a mistake, do you just ignore it since there are worse things in life?
Do you actually fix anything or just keep looking for a larger problem with a more cost effective solution?
Do you suffer from paralysis from analysis in this process?
Or just faulty analysis like picking one type of gun against all types of knives, all types of hammers, or all types of fists. Not to mention you left out suicides, accidents, etc. How about fist accidents against gun accidents. Or children killed by a fist left laying around. Bet you never saw that happen.
Yeah, that's a stupid argument, but I was using your logic.
From Slate: "
Georgia congressman Paul Broun claimed after Tuesday’s State of the Union address that “There are more people killed with baseball bats and hammers than are killed with guns.” Explainer readers may remember Broun as the congressman who believes the Earth is 9,000 years old. What about his hammer and baseball bat claim?
He’s wrong again, but he’s getting warmer. According to FBI data, 8,583 people were murdered with firearms in 2011. Only 496 people were killed by blunt objects, a category that includes not just hammers and baseball bats but crowbars, rocks, paving stones, statuettes, and electric guitars. Broun was off by a factor of at least 17 this time, a significant improvement on his estimate of the age of the Earth. The blue planet is 4.54 billion years old, or more than 500,000 times older than Broun believes it to be.
Guns are, undeniably, the American murderer’s weapon of choice. The number of people murdered with firearms in 2011 was more than twice the number murdered by every other means combined, including fists, swords, poison, explosives, arson, and strangulation.
Those statistics are for intentional killings only. What about accidental deaths? According to data from the CDC, 606 people were killed in gun accidents in 2010. The number of people accidentally killed by any piece of sporting equipment was 18. Four people were killed by nonpowered hand tools such as hammers.
Baseball bats gained a reputation as a weapon after the mobster Al Capone used one to bash in his rivals’ heads. The oft-repeated claim that baseball bats and hammers kill more people than guns is the result of a 30-year-long telephone game. Beginning in the 1980s, many gun enthusiasts argued that logical consistency required extending any new gun restrictions to knives, baseball bats, and other household objects that could be used as murder weapons. When the Senate debated the Brady bill in 1992, Republican Bob Smith of New Hampshire wondered, “Should we ban baseball bats?” Other members insisted satirically that the Brady Bill’s waiting period must be extended to bats, knives, and automobiles.
Gun advocates soon added statistics to strengthen this line of argument. Responding to the proposed assault weapons ban in 1993, the Washington Times published an article stating that “baseball bats kill more people than AK-47s in at least one big city.” Columnist Mike Royko extended the argument slightly in 1994 after a ban on assault weapons was passed, writing that “there are all sorts of mundane or bizarre weapons used in more crimes than the weapons that Congress just voted to ban.” He included in his list baseball bats, cutlery, and feet. Within a decade, gun-rights activists were making the same broad and demonstrably incorrect claim Broun made on Tuesday. A 2004 letter to the editor in a Connecticut newspaper stated that “more people are attacked, maimed, and killed with baseball bats than firearms.” (The letter carried the ironic title, “Assault weapons letter was full of inaccuracies.”)
In its early, more modest form, the argument is plausible. Rifles killed 323 people in 2011, and shotguns killed 356—both lower totals than blunt objects racked up that year. Of course, the blunt objects category includes more than just baseball bats and hammers, but only a portion of rifle deaths involve assault rifles."
I never claimed that hammers killed more than all firearms. I'm just trying to understand your most recent logic.
You feel that rifles (involved in ~300 annual deaths) need severely strict federal legislation - or at least more so that we currently have. In the same breath you seem perfectly content that hammers, rocks, and 2x4's (involved in ~500 annual deaths) and knives (involved in ~1,500 annual deaths) have almost zero federal legislation, and most certainly NO registration or background check requirements.
So what's the difference? There's no reason you can't support both, but your responses seem to indicate that it's just crazy talk to suggest registration and background checks for any deadly weapon other than firearms.
If registration and background checks are effective, we would surely save at least one life by extending those rules to every item I've mentioned, correct? Heck, some of them aren't even constitutionally protected so it should be an easy law to pass.
Ah, divide and conquer.
Sorry, I keep saying we are talking guns, guns with 10,000 murders, and guns with 20,000 suicides per year. For some strange reason, you think it appropriate to discern between models of guns versus the entire class of another murder object. Thought you were a "fix big problems first guy." That’s why I posted the story outlining the big picture versus your one-sided microscopic view. But if you want to disperse the numbers by picking on individual models I would suggest you need to discriminate between all the different types of hammers, rocks, and even 2x4's. I mean how does pressure treated rate against doug fir or frame grade versus finish grade; each probably has a different murder rate. Claw versus ball peened versus......you get the drift this time I hope.
Meanwhile one area we can all agree to fix is mental health tracking. Here both gunnies and anti-gunites agree, crazies have no rights and need to be tracked nationally as close as possible. Without going into the data, very few states track at both the care center and court-ordered level; some don't track, some only at court-level. It's a very porous system Here the NRA is gung ho for tracking and probably only those crazy civil libertarians and crazies-wanting-guns stand against. It should be fixed.
"Meanwhile one area we can all agree to fix is mental health tracking. Here both gunnies and anti-gunites agree, crazies have no rights and need to be tracked nationally as close as possible."
You know, I was going to type a response to several of your points, but the tone of this statement is just despicable. EVERYONE has rights until restricted by due process (which means conviction or commitment), and even then it's not (or shouldn't be) an across the board or permanent removal.
So let's tally your scorecard... you don't like the 2nd Amendment, the 4th Amendment, or the 8th Amendment. Did I miss any?
Actually on background checks, the SCOTUS has ruled multiple times as to the constitutionality of background checks at the state level.
Tracking guns: you can argue the fear of a national database but there is no constitutional law saying no.
Mental health tracking: don't really know, just going with the NRA recommendations on this one.
So, you were saying?
4th amendment is unreasonable search and seizure; does not apply here. No one is seizing anything.
8th amendment is excessive bail, excessive fines or cruel and unusual punishments, including torture. I guess you might try torture but really does not apply here.
All I have done is state the facts on how our database systems work or don't work in these cases with the recommendation to make them work. Where is the unconstitutionality? In the case of background checks and gun tracking; I am not even asking for additional laws: just make the current one valid universally and make gun tracking effective, efficient, and cost effective. Having thousands of ATF agents digging through paper forms is clearly not any of those.
The 4th amendment (along with the 14th) is probable cause and due process. You can't seize persons or their rights without probable cause, and you cannot punish them without due process. No arrest (based on probable cause) or conviction/commitment (based on due process)? Then none of your rights should be infringed upon.
You're right on the 8th, but I think saying that "crazies" have "no rights" is a bit excessive, no?
"Background Checks" as a comparison against a list of prohibited names is fine in my opinion. I'm sure I disagree with you on whose names should be on that list and why, but that's a different topic.
I disagree completely on the cost and effectiveness of the government having to know every single serial number of every single firearm transfer. If you are not prohibited, it shouldn't matter what you own.
MG, the problem is, that what you suggest fixing, background loopholes and whatever else you suggest is not what the government suggests.
The government tries to ban certain fire arms all together, assault rifle bans, 50 cal bans, ammo limits, etc. Their minute efforts to correct the actually problem go to waste when they try to package multiple new laws, for example, banning 50 cal rifles and making universal background check. It is not one thing or the other.
So...
Of course the NRA is going to protect us from overall bans, and the little laws they try to pass will get caught in that same wrath. Again I say, the government cannot fix the problem by banning, it will never work, they simply create more criminals. Instead they try to bandied the problem with unjustifiable laws, such as magazine limits and overall bans on certain weapon names.
The day the government wants to know the serial numbers to citizens weapons is when next year they will be taken away. PLEASE look what happened in CT, because this DID happen, this is a simple FACT.
Universal background checks would pass with flying colors if all they did was say "we're going to open NICS to anyone that wants to use it when they buy/sell a gun and it will be a simple GO/NO GO system."
They shoot themselves in the foot (so to speak) by all the add-ons like Darrin mentioned, as well as the requirement for tracking all of the make/model/serial numbers.
It would also still do absolutely nothing for criminals that steal guns...
The fight also remains to ensure that the only disqualifying history in NICS is criminal conviction of violent crimes and involuntary commitments where you pose a danger to yourself or others. Mere accusations, arrests (but no convictions), and non-violent felonies, among other things should have no bearing on your rights to own firearms.
I am not suggesting anything except that perhaps we should make these systems work. Really I am mostly just pointing out how they work or don't work. And how improvement is accomplished, it's up to you, you're the ones blocking it, after all. If the NRA had proactive ideas on this tomorrow I would bet states would pass new laws overnight.
I would think to be able to keep, enjoy, and get more of your death sticks that you would relish proactive solutions that don't restrict you from getting guns while making the rest of us feel a little safer (because we're pretty sure we will be safer).
Can't see where having background checks on all sales should scare you. And Mark brings up a great idea, why not make them accessible for personal sales at some level. Maybe just free FFL service. Maybe just on-line. Don't see how a proactive NRA stance here might not provide a win-win for both sides.
Gun tracking: you just gotta believe that tracing a crime gun ASAP is a good thing. Why not just be sure the govt. doesn't access the record base. Hell, have the NRA stand up and they can manage it. Think outside the box. There's got to be a win-win in automating this archaic 1950's system. Having paper copies at FFLs, defunct FFLs sending boxes to ATF; ATF making phone searches, paper searches ------ come on, that's just STUPID. Like I said, let the NRA manage the database for each of the states, there's a win-win. No national database and private control so you can torch it when Hitler is reincarnated. You can feel safe and we can find some bad guys faster.
Mental health ---- well, like I said, no sure, haven't looked, just going with Wayneo Lalapeair on this one. Don't want to poke the bear.
But I don't see where making these systems work necessarily affects any of you except for the better, as upstanding, caring citizens, desirous of making guns as safe as possible while not allowing infringement on your ability to get some. There are certainly solutions that are win-win.
Mark, stolen guns are low hitters but sure, criminals will break any law, they're criminals. But background checks do stop sales to undesirables, and gun traces do catch criminals. Universal and faster is almost always a good thing, not a bad thing.
Did I mention negligence for adults when kids kill kids with guns? Well, don't want to shoot the baby in the bathwater, so I'll let that go.........
"crazies"????? Good heavens, that's quite a politically-incorrect term coming from a liberal/progressive/marxist. (YOU may not have come to that conclusion yet, but your last post screams it).
I haven't seen anyone on these forums be so quick to want to strip away rights. I didn't think you could shock me anymore, mg, but you have. Mark called your post "despicable" and that's a perfect word for it.
Perhaps you would enjoy living in George Bernard Shaw's "perfect world":
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B-Ljkoh_vmE
Yet more data showing an increase in concealed carry permits and a decrease in homicides. But I'm sure they're not related.
http://www.examiner.com/article/ccw-has-more-than-doubled-since-2007-but-homicides-declined
"Can't see where having background checks on all sales should scare you. "
Did anyone say there were scared about this? No.....
MG says "Why not just be sure the govt. doesn't access the record base."
LMAO! right.......
"Did I mention negligence for adults when kids kill kids with guns? Well, don't want to shoot the baby in the bathwater, so I'll let that go"
Lately there has been more negligence with people leaving babies in hot cars, so why don;t you worry about that instead? After all it's never the parent's fault right?
Nobody on here has a problem with background checks, I welcome it, I go through them every time I purchase a gun. When sales go up, we have to wait 2-4 months before we can purchase a gun because of background checks.....we have all done it before. The problem is that this is a open door for governmental control. If it was simply background checks, then bring them on, but it's not, Like i brought up before, the government tries to "package" gun laws, and that is why the get denyed. They cannot stay on topic and work on the problem, instead they have to do a little for a problem and a lot of unnecessary limiting. A mental health check gets the same debate, if its simply to make sure you are not a "crazy" then sure, bring it on, but when it opens a door for the government to deny anyone without due reason, or the chance to explain, defend, prove.....then it becomes something else.
MG, the government will never just fix the problem, you give them a inch, and they look to take a mile. What you offer sounds all hunky dory, but with our government, they would never just do that.
HMMMM...nah jr, it's just a coincidence, has to be
"A new report released Wednesday by the Crime Prevention Research Center (CPRC) reveals more than 11.1 million Americans now possess concealed carry permits and licenses, more than double the estimated 4.6 million who had licenses in 2007"
"In 2007, according to the report, there were 14,831 homicides including 10,086 involving firearms. In 2012, the year for which the most recent data is available, there were 12,765 slayings, of which 8,885 involved guns."
"“ the report states. “NICS background checks soared from 11.2 million to 21.2 million between 2007 and 2013"
so since 2007 almost double the background checks are being performed
By Monday, one can expect more grim news, but the body count cannot be blamed on law-abiding gun owners who are tired of being penalized and demonized for things they haven’t done, and that will not be prevented by more erosion of their rights......couldent of said it better myself
He calls me politically incorrect for using the term crazy while calling me a Marxist at the same time. Cute.
What rights have I stripped away by suggesting that you take the lead to fix these completely broken database systems?
What does concealed carry have anything to do with background checks, crime gun tracking, or mental health tracking. Are you crazy or Marxist or both?
"Can't see where having background checks on all sales should scare you. "
Did anyone say there were scared about this? No....."
That's why I said "can't see." Very good, but redundant.
"MG says "Why not just be sure the govt. doesn't access the record base."
LMAO! right......."
OMgoodness I just have to stop here. Boys, if they want you, even the FBI can find you and have a pretty good idea what to look for given your public postings with names, locations, inventories, gun clubs, even party dates so interested parties can snap a shot.
Course he's a caring person cuz who cares about dead shot babies, when you got some overheating in cars. First things first, right.
Darrin, the point I made was that IF you and the NRA were proactive you might find the win-win to fix background checks, crime gun tracking, and mental-health tracking. Crime gun and mental health tracking starts at the state level, not at the fed level so your "fear of big guberment" would be fear of 50 different entities. With today's modern data systems, that integrity could be protected while providing access nationwide. And I wasn't kidding when I said, let the NRA manage the crime gun database ----- nobody else is, they can't make it more stupid.
You bring up a good point when you say, you always are checked. So why not make sure everyone is especially if you might get some person-to-person NIC checks in the bargain? There are win-wins here.
"What does concealed carry have anything to do with background checks, crime gun tracking, or mental health tracking. Are you crazy or Marxist or both?"
No, that's what us adults have been trying to talk about while you keep going on about whatever you want.
"the point I made was that IF you and the NRA were proactive you might find the win-win to fix background checks, crime gun tracking, and mental-health tracking."
Well maybe if the government was more proactive the NRA COULD be more proactive, first things first after all, right?
"You bring up a good point when you say, you always are checked. So why not make sure everyone is especially if you might get some person-to-person NIC checks in the bargain? There are win-wins here."
I keep agreeing with you on this, you don't seem to think I do, but I do......the problem is, the government will not JUST put that law through, they will add in a magazine restriction, a ban on "evil" features, and a ban on high calibers. The government has shown time and time again that they are not interested in fixing the real problems, they feed on the problems, like school shootings, to try to create bans and convince people that these restrictions and bans will make the world a safer place. All in the meantime nothing is being done about the mental health issue.
"crazies" is a derogatory term. "Marxist" is an accurate description.
Not that it matters, you've been treading water for so long in this thread, you're about to come up for your last breath. And everyone knows it. You've lost this issue big-time, mg. We all know it, national opinions and actions have proven it, and YOU know it. If you can't get sweeping gun control passed in NJ, you're beating a dead horse.
"All in the meantime nothing is being done about the mental health issue."
And their solution there is not to increase funding for better detection, treatment, and rehabiliation. Their solution is to just enact more punishments for those who are mentally ill, by introducing more restrictions on rights, restraining orders, etc. Way to incentivize someone to seek treatment...
It never ceases to amaze me that when the government tries to fix a problem, they generally succeed in exacerbating it. Prohibition? Sure... murder is better than alcohol. War on Drugs? We probablty have more drug addicts now than ever before...
"MG says "Why not just be sure the govt. doesn't access the record base."
LMAO! right......."
OMgoodness I just have to stop here. Boys, if they want you, even the FBI can find you and have a pretty good idea what to look for given your public postings with names, locations, inventories, gun clubs, even party dates so interested parties can snap a shot. "
The FBI is not going to search through forum postings to find out who in america has guns, you know as well as I know how much time that would take. Instead they will make a national database so they know where everything is at what given time, just in case they ever want to ban something.
The only time the FBI would search the internet for info is if you are wanted for something, or have reason for suspicion. If the FBI went through all the trouble of searching to find that info, there has to be a good reason, and there usually is a good reason for you NOT to heave guns too.
I agree with you mark 100%, this is the point i have been trying to get across. MG's gun grabber crowd is not interested in fixing the problem, instead they do what they call fixes that only exacerbate the problem, most of the laws they try to pass have more of a ill affect on the law abiding citizens then the criminals.
JR, if you don't think labeling any American as a Marxist is not derogatory, then why do you use it. You say it's accurate, prove it.
And gee, JR, you say I am treading water in a three-against-one debate; pretty good I say. You say I have lost this issue big time when lately all I have been doing is accurately describing how current systems: background checks, crime gun tracing, and mental health tracking work, where they are broken and suggesting we might want to fix them. How can I lose that?
And JR, nothing I a have been discussing recently has anything to do with gun control; plus I was against the recent NJ gun control bill. Not only way off base, but I think your in the wrong ballpark. It seems to make you feel good to unleash all your stereo typical anti-liberal diatribe whether it applies on not. Oh what a feeling.
Darrin, first for a paranoid, you are very complacent. IF the government wanted your guns, they could easily design software to search the net for guys like you. Just like they have software searching for you pictures to feed their facial recognition programs. Gee, if you think creating a facial recognition application that feeds off your Facebook and other pictures is happening, why not guns? It's a pretty small step.
But again guys, I am just describing how these systems don't work, suggesting that they won't be fixed until you and the NRA decide to do something --- you are successfully blocking universal background checks and a modern crime gun tracing system. I believe there might be a win-win if the NRA proactively worked for solutions that could benefit both your community and the rest of the US as well.
And for that, I am despicable? Twice. Really guys?
Really no need to lambast me as a Marxist responsible for every evil that you see in progressive America. That's just no me, it's your issue.
Mark, for the record, mental health tracking improvements will no doubt come under fire for civil liberty infringements; I would like to say that's why they are broken today but just can't think that states like Florida really care about that. But you are right that this one is a slippery slope. Like I said, I just stopped after agreeing with the NRA on this one and having suffered that, I did not research the issues further.
provocateurs provoke just to get a reaction, it feeds their narcissistic egos, they slavishly enjoy seeing your discomfort.
they like to stick their finger in your eye and when you react and say "Ouch! that hurts" they say , "Wow! Would you look at that guy, what's his problem?"
don't give in to the trollish behavior.
sad really, this thread has completely jumped the shark long ago.
"And JR, nothing I a have been discussing recently has anything to do with gun control"
...and now we know you're self-delusional; which is obviously the cause of all your other debate stands that have been shown incorrect time and time again.
And, have you ever wondered, WHY it's a 3-against-1 debate? Have you ever wondered WHY the nation, as a whole, is rejecting the post-Sandy Hook gun control measures? Oh, right... it's that evil NRA lobby, they have everyone brainwashed.
You might want to call herr Bloomberg for a job in his new anti-gun campaign- you'd fit right in.
I find it very funny that a discussion that turned to how three data systems operate gets one labeled: "provocateurs....narcissistic.....slavish....trollish" and "self-delusional" Heaven forbid we talk about facts.
Apparently looking behind the curtain in Oz offends your sensibilities.
And yet, you think I am the one living in a dream.
"You might want to call herr Bloomberg for a job in his new anti-gun campaign- you'd fit right in."
MG may not have enough experience to join Bloomberg's "grassroots" campaign. Aside from the fact that this "grassroots" effort is funded almost *entirely* by one billionaire ($50M from Bloomberg himself), the "small town" mom acting as spokesperson is Shannon Watts - whose resume doesn't include leading the local PTA or cheer leading coach, but rather:
* Vice President of Corporate and Public Affairs at Fleishman Hillard
* Director of Global and Public Affairs at Monsanto Corporation
* Director of Global Communications at GE Healthcare
* Vice President of Corporate Communications at WellPoint
If an organization funded solely by a billionaire and led by a woman with decades of upper level executive PR experience isn't "grassroots" I don't know what is.
But it's OK, there should be some job openings as well... Bloomberg's lost at least one of his core minions...
http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2014/05/daniel-zimmerman/mark-glaze-bails-everytown-gun-safety/
Maybe they've actually started to see the light...
http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2014/06/foghorn/mark-glaze-former-head-everytown-gun-safety-admits-gun-control-will-work/
I find it very funny that a discussion that turned to how three data systems operate gets one labeled: "provocateurs....narcissistic.....slavish....trollish
.....um did you not notice that in your very own last post you were dishing out insults left and right......nah that couldn't be the cause!!!!! My freaking god you have your head up your own ass! People agree with you, you insult snark and laugh, people disagree, you insult snark and laugh. ....wtf man! You started this post semi-adult like, you have gone downhill quick!
Well Darrin, last post ---no.
Out of the last three posts, only "Darrin, first for a paranoid, you are very complacent," which is hardly left and right especially since you are paranoid. Want me to list examples?
Plus I did call our crime gun tracking system stupid: hopefully it was not offended.
BUSTED
And Mark is right, my resume as a capitalistic captain of industry does not match a VP from PR.
um no..
to jr......"It seems to make you feel good to unleash all your stereo typical anti-liberal diatribe whether it applies on not. Oh what a feeling. "
to me......"Darrin, first for a paranoid, you are very complacent."
and it was in response to you "don't pick on me I am just a nice guy" post that I referenced your "last post"
you stand corrected
again
BUSTED
""Darrin, first for a paranoid, you are very complacent," which is hardly left and right especially since you are paranoid. Want me to list examples?"
Okay, go ahead, i am waiting for a good laugh, but do not stoop to doing so in a demeaning manner, as you usually do. Try, for once, to be a adult, please
I would like to know what makes me paranoid, everyone else only worthy of a insult only when they question your posts, and you oh so perfect. I am waiting to be enlightened, please do so
Wait, that first one is an insult? Really? stereotypical, bad spelling yes, insult????
unleash ---- well, dems fighten words
diatribe ---- OK, this one's close but the guy just called me a despicable liberal/progressive/Marxist amongst other things in his rant. I think that qualifies as diatribe.
Nope, don't see it chief.
Paranoia, comin right up.
As far as "Try, for once, to be a adult, please," well, first. No you. No you. Like that wasn't insulting.
Dude I am not the one who keeps dishing insults, I dont need to insult people to get my point across. But if you insult me first damn straight your getting one back bud!
"And Mark is right, my resume as a capitalistic captain of industry does not match a VP from PR."
That wasn't really a dig at you.. just pointing out the insanity of Bloomberg (a multi-billionaire) trying to pass off his anti-gun pet project that's headed by a (likely multi-millionaire) former corporate exec as a "grassroots" effort by local moms.
It's fake grass... otherwise known as "astroturfing".
NTWorry, thanks Mark.
One of Darrin's first posts in response to MG in this thread.
"No offence, but are you bi-polar or something we don't know about??"
Now I am not that smart, but I think that's a zinger? I thin someone done call me a name, indicating some flaw in my mental capacity, saying I somehow must be waffling on my thoughts here. I think someone might be insulting me in order to get their point across :>)
Personally Darrin if I were you I would just man up, quit whining telling people to act adult when you start up all the time with many different people. Let's just move on, have a good discussion, and if someone flings a zinger, especially a lame attempt at humor like yours noted above and mine noted everywhere, just brush it off, respond in kind if you must, but please let's not escalate this into another one of your special contests.
That's what I did when you threw the first shot here; I just let it go.
Mg, i did say No offence so you shouldn't of taken any. Secondly it was after trying to follow a slew of changes in you standpoint. But yes, you are correct, technically I did throw the first punch and I do apologize, it was not very adult like, but then again, I never claimed I was an adult.......
"Darrin if I were you I would just man up, quit whining telling people to act adult when you start up all the time with many different people."
For the record I have no problem calling people out when they are trying to make problems, call it what you want or think, but when I see people continually changing their story, or people who instigate drama, I will be the first to call them out.
"That's what I did when you threw the first shot here; I just let it go."
I have let many shots go, but now it seems every post you make you are taking shots at anyone who has questioned you.
I am still waiting to know why I am paranoid by the way ;->
"Mg, i did say No offence so you shouldn't of taken any."
Is that how it works? I can insult you, issue the get-out-of-insult-jail-free card, and it's OK? So cool.
I explained "my story" and there is no "bi-polar" condition. It's just not all black n white, hard lines drawn, etc. for me. One of the things I get amazed at is how when I talk gun data systems, somehow I am talking gun restriction, confiscation, etc. Even CC where I don't think I have even voiced an opinion. Or when I express a liberal concept, how I get tagged with every ill any liberal might have done, expressed opinion, or thought about.
To have a good discussion, I don't think you need to "call them out." Just present your case, feel free to put some zingers in to spice it up if you want, but please just be prepared to get as good as you give.
Enjoy and take that you #$#$ that you are. No offense :>)
Wow, incredible staying power by the few participants here! Might be a record for this forum.
Perhaps a budding bromance carefully camouflaged :>)
I feel queasy to be the one they love to hate.......
" One of the things I get amazed at is how when I talk gun data systems, somehow I am talking gun restriction, confiscation, etc. Even CC where I don't think I have even voiced an opinion"
That is because that is how our government talks, as we have explained. There is no simply fixing only the problem with them, they package laws
Also when the cc debate came up you voiced your opinion clear and strong, that we would be adding guns to the system remember?
I appreciate your email by the way.
Detroit police chief gives credit to armed citizens for drop in crime.
http://www.detroitnews.com/article/20140716/METRO01/307160034
Obviously, he must be wrong- probably one of those "crazies" mistergoogle is afraid of...
Interesting article posted by JR. Kind of a mixed message if you read the whole thing. My takeaways:
Good: criminals are more nervous about committing violent crimes (according to the police chief, anyway), and crime is down as a result.
Bad: armed citizen shoots at innocent visitor knocking on his door.
Bad: crime must be really bad if people have to be armed to be safe.
"Also when the cc debate came up you voiced your opinion clear and strong, that we would be adding guns to the system remember?" Actually I don't and unless I had a source, not sure why I would jump to that. But I most certainly would have said it meant more guns with more people in more places; but these could still be existing guns and not necessarily add to the overall inventory. Still would add up to more guns = more gun deaths.
And JR's article is pretty funny when you take it apart as JD2 pointed out. Not that taking one guy's, albeit expert, anecdotal comment as a potential trend when even he is not sure, but..... There are so many errors of logic in the article both in reporting the pro-con and anti-con data, much of which is apples to oranges consistent with other data it reports. JR. Journalism at best, I think we HLers report at a much higher level.
The funniest part was when the chief said, and there will be a test later so read slowly to see if you catch the joke: "Craig said he doesn’t believe gun ownership deters criminals from attacking other criminals. “They automatically assume another criminal is carrying,” he said. “I’m talking about criminals who are thinking of robbing a citizen; they’re less likely to do so if they think they might be armed.”"
Extra points for those who see a very small fly in the chief's ointment.
And JR, wherever did you think I was afraid of crazies when I voiced agreement with your NRA leadership on the question of mental health tracking? I think it's you that needs re-training before your next NRA shindig.
"Actually I don't and unless I had a source, not sure why I would jump to that. But I most certainly would have said it meant more guns with more people in more places; but these could still be existing guns and not necessarily add to the overall inventory. Still would add up to more guns = more gun deaths.
"
Yup thats what we tried to tell you
and
Yup thats what your response was
Well thank you for agreeing that more guns = more death......
But you still don't get it. Does not necessarily mean more inventory, just means that since everyone will be carrying that there will be more guns out of the closet and in your pocket at all times. Therefore, more guns.
Now for those of you who leave your guns laying about for the kids since you won't be tried for negligence anyway, this might actually save some lives, but.........(oh, don't go off Darrin, that's just gun black humor)
Kinda of like crushed ice and surface value. You have a block of ice and it has a surface value. But if you crush it, you still have the "inventory" of a block of ice, but much more surface value. And it gets colder faster; just like more guns in more places will result in more people killed by guns. They will be colder too (oh darn, more gun black humor).
When you increase the "surface value" of guns, essentially you have more guns even though you have the same inventory. And like you just agreed, more guns = more death. Keep up the good work!
There are three major public information data systems to aid in gun safety including our background check system, crime gun tracking system and mental health system. When looking at the operation and results of these systems in supporting public safety, here’s where we end up:
Our background check system is porous because not all gun sales include a background check. It can be as easy as point and click to buy a gun without a background check.
In the event of police retrieving a gun in a crime, where seconds matter, our gun tracking system is archaic and slow consisting of paper forms in file cabinets, boxes, and on-line as scanned images. There is no gun tracking database except for guns seized for one reason or another after a previous trace. It is a manual tracking system, there is no computerization of the core database and only 70% of the retrieved guns can be tracked to the owner.
Our mental health tracking system is porous and most states do not report issues, some report only at the court level and a handful report at both the court/medical facility level.
I don’t think the state of these systems and how they operate is really up for debate; pretty much that’s just the way it is and I don’t think any us can disagree with those facts. It’s what to do where it gets debatable.
Detailed descriptions for background checks and gun tracking by the ATF are listed in previous posts.
What is the pro-gun stance? Only for mental health tracking does the NRA lobby for corrective actions. On all the other issues, the NRA funds lobbying efforts to maintain the systems at status quo, citing 1A and 2A issues plus the purported fact that other things are worse, it does not stop people who break the law, national databases destroy our liberties, and the growing need for more guns in more places carried by more people. Succinctly, guns everywhere is the answer.
I say fix the background check system to include all gun sales, private and public. Why should background checks be virtually universal? Make the gun tracking system totally digital and automated. Shouldn’t we be able to track a gun used in a crime instantaneously? And, of course, create a mental health tracking system at the provider and court level to be used commensurate with the background check system. Shouldn’t folks diagnosed with certain mental health diseases not be able to buy a gun?
None of this restricts the ability to own guns; perhaps it might slow it down, but it does not restrict ownership. The NRA has been very effective in its efforts to maintain the status quo. The only way for improvements to be made is for the NRA to support reform. Smart improvements should be able to be made without infringing on 1A or 2A rights. In some cases, it might even strengthen them. For example, I suggest the NRA maintain the database of gun ownership for access for crime gun traces only. Let them manage and protect your security. Then crime guns can be traced in nanoseconds versus days or weeks. And we might improve our success rate above the current 70%. There are ways to get win-wins out of this better protecting the public as well as gun ownership.
That’s where I end up with my research and review of these major data bases supporting public safety and gun ownership.
"It can be as easy as point and click to buy a gun without a background check."
Really? Where? There's a few that I'd like to purchase. Links please...
"I say fix the background check system to include all gun sales, private and public"
So how do you explain those that are bypassing the required background checks now and what do you propose that would *actually* eliminate that problem (aside from some extra words on a piece of paper). You keep saying "close the loopholes" but people (of the criminal type) aren't taking advantage of loopholes, they are just ignoring the entire law. Specifics please...
"Shouldn’t folks diagnosed with certain mental health diseases not be able to buy a gun?"
Or a knife, or an axe, or a brick, or a rope...
or a wheelchair: http://www.foxnews.com/us/2014/04/23/police-man-beats-2-elderly-roommates-to-death-with-wheelchair-armrest-in/
or a sandwich: http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2014/07/robert-farago/ban-sandwiches/
NOTE that I said "can be," and not YOU can. Not sure of NJ situation plus your internet savvy so not going to speak for you. But link is posted above under the description of background check loopholes and how people CAN point and click, get a gun, and no background check.
OK, the ole but criminals break laws, they are criminals. So that should stop us from having universal background checks? Perhaps all checks? The point is that background checks make it harder for bad guys to get guns and I would think anyone supporting guns would think it a good idea not to have sales without them making it stupid simple for a criminal-thinking bad guy to get em.
No it doesn't stop criminals from breaking the law, nothing does, but it can make it harder without cruel and unusual punishment, especially to you since you can't point and click and get a gun without a background check.
So who are you defending by not having universal background checks? What are you protecting? How is this good?
Mental health --- hey, that's the NRA's charge; that's the HUGE solution they suggest. Again though, since we have case upon case where a defined nutzo buys a slew of guns and ammo and no flag is raised because the state does not database, seems like certain mental health issues might be cause to restrict someone from being armed. Or at least armed to the teeth.
But hey, that's just me. If you support these systems working the way they do because picking on guns will make hammers feel unappreciated, so that' s your view. With 10,000 gun murders and 20,000 gun suicides, I think we are beyond a killer sandwich in terms of public risk and safety.
Wow, if knives, axes, or a bricks, or a ropes are so dangerous, perhaps we should just allow people to own and carry them for self-defense instead of guns? Or, might you agree that guns MIGHT be a little more lethal than any of these?
Don't forget the sandwich :>)
I have pictured the only one thing in the entire universe that just possibly might be more dangerous that Mark's sandwich :>)
"OK, the ole but criminals break laws, they are criminals. So that should stop us from having universal background checks? "
You're getting hung up on the fact that I disagree with you, rather than answering my simple question. How do you *physically ensure* that every firearm transfer is completed with the background check. New Jersey HAS universal background checks for handguns (to obtain the required purchase permit as well as a second check if the gun is purchased at an FFL). Are you telling me there is not a single handgun transfer in this state that has avoided that process? Funny that I read a lot of articles about NJ crime where "illegal possession of a firearm" is one of the charges... proving that the "law" stopped nothing because some people simply ignore it and will CONTINUE to do so whether it's a state law or a Federal one.
But what really bothers me is EVERY TIME you immediately follow up "background check" with some sort of "tracking system". I think we've sufficiently explained the concern there.
" With 10,000 gun murders and 20,000 gun suicides, I think we are beyond a killer sandwich in terms of public risk and safety."
Oh, so now quantity matters all of a sudden? When I point out other methods of death/injury being higher than guns you claim that it isn't about the numbers... make up your mind. Dead is dead. It wasn't the sandwich's fault, and it isn't the gun's fault, regardless of the quantity.
"Wow, if knives, axes, or a bricks, or a ropes are so dangerous, perhaps we should just allow people to own and carry them for self-defense instead of guns?"
Plenty of people carry all of these objects around (and more) every day, and some of them kill far more than the most oft-regulated firearms (so called "assault weapons"). I agree that guns *are* better for self defense, so thank you for admitting that you are, in fact, anti-self defense because you don't want people to carry the best tool for the job. Victims of violent attacks should just die rather than fight back, in your opinion?
" How do you *physically ensure* that every firearm transfer is completed with the background check."
The same way you ensure everyone has a driver's license (think we do a background check there????) before you sell them a car and let them drive away, that all cars are registered (ditto on the background check), underage people can't buy liquor even from friends, etc. etc. etc. Plenty of examples.
And if you say, "but people will break the law" all I can respond is NO DUH.'
"I think we've sufficiently explained the concern there." What, the big brudder gonna get me argument?
"When I point out other methods of death/injury being higher than guns you claim that it isn't about the numbers" Which method is that because all I see is you segmenting the gun deaths into smaller packages and then taking an entire class of product-death and saying "see."
"Plenty of people carry all of these objects around (and more) every day, and some of them kill far more than the most oft-regulated firearms (so called "assault weapons"). " See, there you go again, now it's "all these objects" versus assault weapons. I said GUNS.
" I agree that guns *are* better for self defense, so thank you for admitting that you are, in fact, anti-self defense because you don't want people to carry the best tool for the job." Again, you seem to confuse the data system failure description with some connection to me not wanting people carrying guns. I never said that, you did. I said the systems are broken and we should fix them.
The_Bishop I'd also like to add, if we're all for infringing on rights for public good, that we should ban cigarettes and all tobacco related products, as not only do they kill those who use them, but innocent bystanders in distressingly high numbers, some of them children. This industry is also the cause of uncounted millions (or billions) in health care costs.
http://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/data_statistics/fact_sheets/health_effects/tobacco_related_mortality/
If you want to infringe on my rights due to 'public good' then you can take that reasoning and use it to destroy *any* right. It *is* a slippery slope.
There's a price for being free. That's a sad but true fact. The government is *not* obligated to save you when the bad guys come calling, all they do is take reports after the fact.
"The same way you ensure everyone has a driver's license (think we do a background check there????) before you sell them a car and let them drive away, that all cars are registered (ditto on the background check), underage people can't buy liquor even from friends, etc. etc. etc. Plenty of examples."
Considering you don't need a driver's license to own/buy/sell a car, that's a pretty poor example. If you want my car, give me cash and it's yours. I don't care how you get it home. Underage people are not "allowed" to buy alcohol from friends. There is nothing that ensures they "can't" buy alcohol from friends.
You are confusing permission to do something with physical gates that *prevent* the unwanted behavior from ever occurring. Laws will never create a physical gate.
"Which method is that because all I see is you segmenting the gun deaths into smaller packages and then taking an entire class of product-death and saying "see.""
This whole thing stemmed from your statement on 6/14 where you said "NJ closed the gun show loophole ONLY for handguns. You can still buy a assault weapon or long gun without a background check in a private gun show sale in NJ." where I have simply pointed that that before we address rifles/long guns why not take care of some higher items on the list (knives/blunt objects). Then you deflect back to overall stats... but that doesn't jive since you said the handgun loophole is already closed...
"See, there you go again, now it's "all these objects" versus assault weapons. I said GUNS."
This was a response to Gadfly... but my position still stands. You seem satisfied with NJ having "closed the loopholes" on handguns (per your comment that I pasted above), so wouldn't it make sense to go after the next highest tool on the list (which isn't assault weapons)? Why does NJ always focus on .50BMG and AR-15's rather than items that kill more NJ residents (knives, fists, and hammers)?
"I said the systems are broken and we should fix them."
I usually throw something away when it's broken.
Yeah, like cigarettes aren't regulated and there aren't bans on cigarettes. Oye. And over $250B to be paid out by the Tobacco companies for selling an unsafe product.
Hold on guys, let me check the law first. Because if we don't need laws just because someone breaks them, gee, that doesn't leave any law at all, does it.
But hey, it's a product associated with 30,000 deaths a year: no need for any product safety measures.
Because safety background checks ----- ooooh, that's bad
Being able to trace a gun used in a crime ----- nope, don't need it, don't want it
People who are unbalanced enough that they should never be sold a gun ----- hey, WTH, give em a really big one.
And I quote Mark's suggestion for background checks, crime gun traces, and mental health databases: "I usually throw something away when it's broken."Yup, you the sane ones protecting our freedoms. Just get rid of any gun laws and "let slip the dogs of war."
"Four months and counting..."
Yep, but it's amusing to see the anti's thrashing around trying to grab at any gun control table scraps they can, still believing that they can trick us into any more "compromises".
Across the nation, at the state and Federal level, most gun control legislation is falling flat on it's face. Rights are being expanded in most states, more guns were purchased annually in the last few years then ever before. More people are getting concealed carry licenses than ever before. Crime is going down.
Sure, the anti's got a few jabs in here and there (NY SAFE Act, Colorado mag limit) but pro-liberty forces are getting uppercuts (slamming the door on Federal legislation, no significant changes in NJ law, 9th Circuit rulings about justifiable need being unconstitutional, etc...)
People in general are waking up and not believing the sound bites and media spin anymore. Still lots of work to do, and NJ is in bad shape from years of infringement, but nationally it's not good news for those who don't like and/or simply blame guns for the ills of society.
"People in general are waking up and not believing the sound bites and media spin anymore. Still lots of work to do, and NJ is in bad shape from years of infringement"
+1 to this, and it's a good trend, sadly it's not happening here in the garden state.
New Jersey is behind the times, and on the wrong side of history on this issue, it's as plain as the nose on my face
i keep waiting for the libs to wake up and smell the coffee, but it seems they got deficient sniffers or some-such, not sure what their problem is.
"People in general are waking up and not believing the sound bites and media spin anymore. Still lots of work to do, and NJ is in bad shape from years of infringement, but nationally it's not good news for those who don't like and/or simply blame guns for the ills of society."
Perfect summary, Mark.
And the fact that all this "change" happened IN SPITE OF the Sandy Hook tragedy... says something. Something big.
Oh come on Iman, didn't you read how background checks and especially crime gun tracking takes place? That was all new to the site and I think fascinating. I mean ATF agents thumbing through boxes looking at forms in 2014, some being Katrina crumpled: pricelessly shocking.
And Mark says: "Yep, but it's amusing to see the anti's thrashing around trying to grab at any gun control table scraps they can, still believing that they can trick us into any more "compromises". Across the nation, at the state and Federal level, most gun control legislation is falling flat on it's face. Rights are being expanded in most states, more guns were purchased annually in the last few years then ever before. More people are getting concealed carry licenses than ever before. Crime is going down."
So Mark, you're right, you win; since Newtown to 12/13, 72 to 52 in your favor or 58%/42%. Um, table scraps. But wait........there's more. Here's the breakdown:
Gun permits 1 26 this is mosty CC permit confidentiality, etc.
Public carry 0 22 mostly CC, and locations for CC
Guns in schools 0 9
Mental health 16 1
Background checks 13 1
Assault weapons 6 1
Nullify federal law 0 4
Gun access 9 2
Lost/stolen firearms 6 0
Other 1 6
So HUGE pro gains in CC, but if we're counting winners and losers, you lost the rest. Of the three things we've been discussing, all tightening gains in Mental Health and Background Checks and not much done for crime gun tracking. And from our previous go round, access laws overwhelmingly favor easier indictments for gun-child-negligence areas. So sure, we lost the war by a few points in the CC area and overwhelming gains in the areas I have been talking about and you have been totally against.
For pro gunners, not exactly something big, my coffee smells just fine thank you very much, and the news is just fine. I am OK being on the side of angels even if I had to give a little ground in CC which I have not even voiced an opinion.
Mark Mc wrote:
"Plenty of people carry all of these objects around (and more) every day, and some of them kill far more than the most oft-regulated firearms (so called "assault weapons"). I agree that guns *are* better for self defense, so thank you for admitting that you are, in fact, anti-self defense because you don't want people to carry the best tool for the job. Victims of violent attacks should just die rather than fight back, in your opinion?"
I'm disappointed Mark. Most of your posts are fairly rational and intelligent. With this one, I fear you've fallen off your rocker. I'm sure you realize that I was pointing out that guns are not the equivalent of bricks and rope. And from yhat you conclude that I'm anti-self defense and would like to see victims die? My post was reductio ad absurdum. Your subsequent conclusions were simply absurd.
"Your subsequent conclusions were simply absurd."
Why? Everything you've ever said on this topic has been neutral (at best) to mostly anti-gun. You've never indicated any support for CCW and never intervened when people were criticizing victims (in linked articles) for using firearms in self defense.
Sorry if I draw the conclusion that you don't think people should carry guns (thereby denying the best tool for self defense) based on those observations, but if it walks like a duck...
"My post was reductio ad absurdum."
Am I not allowed to employ the same device?
Of course you're allowed to Mark Mc, but that's not what you did. And, I think you'll find your also incorrect in your statements about my posts on firearms.
"Well thank you for agreeing that more guns = more death......"
Please tell me where I agreed with you!!! (i didn't agree with you)
I think the ratio for what you are calling adding guns to the system only puts guns in the hands of the good guys.
By doing this, there will be a major decrease in victims of robberys, robbings, rape, and other violent crimes, criminals all over would think twice. There would be a increase in justifiable death. I am all for clearing out the scum of our society, even if the citizens themselves have to do it.
If a rapest was going to rape a woman, and she had a cc, and she shot the man to death while defending herself......that man doesn't even deserve to have his life added to a death toll, he is pure scum.
Yeah, I am also pro death sentence, I wish they always used it
". I am OK being on the side of angels even if I had to give a little ground in CC which I have not even voiced an opinion."
why do you keep saying that? you have voiced your opinion many times on CC!!!
"Well thank you for agreeing that more guns = more death......
But you still don't get it. Does not necessarily mean more inventory, just means that since everyone will be carrying that there will be more guns out of the closet and in your pocket at all times. Therefore, more guns."
Okay, sure you did not mention CC outright, but it is what you were referencing.
No, Darrin, I said CC means more guns, more guns = more death. That's really not an opinion. And hopefully, your guess is correct, that more bad guys than good guys will die. But dead is dead and while I agree for pending rape, murder, dead is good, what about a guy with a gun not going to harm anyone, just wants your wallet. Death sentence for that guy? Or a guy at BOA armed with a stick taking your $100; death to stick man too? Just saying.
I think agree that CC means more death by guns ---- you more or less committed unless you believe every CC death would have resulted in a citizen death, which is a virtual impossibility.
So here's what will happen and I use the wise sherrif's own thoughts to explain (since no one else solved the riddle):
"Craig said he doesn’t believe gun ownership deters criminals from attacking other criminals. “They automatically assume another criminal is carrying,” he said. “I’m talking about criminals who are thinking of robbing a citizen; they’re less likely to do so if they think they might be armed.”"
So criminals with guns will continue to attack other criminals with guns because they assume guns will be in play but avoid citizens because they "think" they might be armed.
Gee, what happens whim criminals assume guns will be in play with citizens?
I guess the children will be next; so what do we do then? I am getting an image......
Apologies to the author, and a one and a two
Everybody was CC Handgun Fighting
Shots rang out as fast as lightning
In fact, it was a little bit frightening
But they shot with NRA training
There was funky Hackett men from funky Hackettstown
They were shooting them up
They were shooting them down
It's an ancient Western art
And every cowboy knows their part
Either a one or two hand grip
And a quick draw from the hip
Everybody was handgun fighting
Those guys were fast as lightning
In fact it was a little bit fright'ning
But they fought with NRA training
"what about a guy with a gun not going to harm anyone, just wants your wallet. Death sentence for that guy? "
It's all up to his actions when a potential victim takes action to defend themselves. If I draw my gun, and he continues to act violently/escalate the current situation, I would and will defend myself.
if he is willing to die for my wallet, then yes, one less criminal
BTW, I found the picture of the kid holding the plastic toy gun somewhat amusing, I would although like to have a talk with his parents, oh wait that's right, it's the guns fault, maybe I should talk with the gun.
"Death sentence for that guy? Or a guy at BOA armed with a stick taking your $100; death to stick man too? Just saying."
What I am trying to say is if it wasn't so easy for criminals to get off after 1-2 years of prison Scott free, maybe if we took any crime more seriously, there would be less crime??? Just maybe?
I do see your point as to what you go on to say about criminals to criminals turning into criminals to carrying citizens. After you explained the sheriffs statement I got it, But I don't think the sheriff worded his statement very well. I also do not believe there are many criminals "attacking" and trying to rob other criminals, it is usually more turf wars etc. that end in gun fights.
"what about a guy with a gun not going to harm anyone, just wants your wallet. Death sentence for that guy?"
Hey- actions have consequences. You mess with the bull, you get the horns. It's called individual responsibility. Don't want to maybe get killed, maybe don't try to rob someone.
Are you proposing that we hand over our wallet- so that the bad guy gets to not only live, but take your money, credit card, driver's license, all of which create a shitstorm in YOUR life? While this guy gets to go buy more crack or whatever else is going to get him likely killed in the future?
Your world sounds like a great one to live in- if you're a criminal.
"just saying"
"what about a guy with a gun not going to harm anyone"
Just realized how you said that mg......then why would they have a gun to begin with? To protect them self in case the victim tries to defend themselves????.....how would the cops react in this situation? Wait for him to hurt someone? Anyone violently wielding a gun is automatically expected to act out, and that time is usually not given. Cops shoot immediately when a gun is pointed, should be no different for someone defending themselves.
Certain actions = certain consequences. Maybe criminals should think twice?
You seem to make it sound like it is okay to be a criminal, and there should be no consequence for them
totally fantastical hypothetical arguments are being offered by the gun control fanatics, they got nothing else to offer other than manufactured factless, baseless conjecture from a one sided personal opinion.
and it's amusing and laughable watching these imagination fueled gyrations being offered as 'fact checked' and then ego-maniacally claiming 'busted' as if somehow these dream fueled fantastical larks are wining the debate.
it's remarkable how weak this technique is, and that's why this thread has totally jumped the shark.
and in true ocd fashion i fully expect to get a long winded dismissive 'retort' from HL's favorite agenda driven resident curmudgeon.
i know he can't resist, he's compelled by inner demons to react, so blast away,
Hey Mark M - I see I'm getting close on the Shongum list (#18), hopefully I'll be emptying STANDARD CAPACITY magazines by autumn!!
" hopefully I'll be emptying STANDARD CAPACITY magazines by autumn!!'
Cool. I need to get out there more often. Still haven't even shot my SR22 at all...
If there are enough of us that become members (with 2 guests each) we could have a HL Happy Hour at the range - drinks afterwards, of course.
"No, I would not shoot someone over a wallet"
Criminals don't nicely ask you for a wallet bud, that's just not the way it works, lol
How does shongum work? Can you bring friends? What are the limitations on what caliber you can shoot? etc?
I have many friends who are cops, and I shoot where they shoot, no list to worry about as well as no rules to worry about :->
Inside range is .22 only. All the other ranges are outside, and mark could fill you in on caliber restrictions. They also offer many courses... NRA pistol, tactical rifle, etc.
"How does shongum work? "
Members can bring 2 guests at a time (as long as it's occasional and not just a ploy to avoid membership fees).
The only caliber not permitted outside is 50 BMG. (.50 cal black powder is fine). Also no tracers, incendiary, or armor piercing of any caliber. The indoor range allows pretty much any handgun round & 22LR rifles, but your 460 S&W isn't on the approved list so that would have to use the outdoor ranges.
Most of the rules are just typical range safety issues like anywhere else.
http://shongum.org/images/RangeRulesSafetySOPs20140107.pdf
If I had some private land to shoot on I'd probably just do that too, but the problem is that's a gray area in NJ law as far as handguns are concerned (no problem for rifles/shotguns).
I love where i shoot, but I think the property owner is trying to sell the property, mind you it has been for sale for years.
When I go, I give a call to the police station that patrols the area, I have never had any issues. Occasionally a person who watches the property strolls over and asks who I am with, but I am always covered.
And anything goes where I shoot, tannerite, 50 bmg, it's all good!
The max safe shot though is about 350 yrds according to a range finder. You can drag just about anything up there to shoot at, just as long as you clean up after yourself, including casings. Unfortunately a lot of people abuse the privilege and do not clean up after themselves, I always leave the place cleaner then when I came.
Sounds like fun. I would like to have somewhere longer than 100 yards to shoot, and explosives are always entertaining (but also a no-no at Shongum).
Find out how much the guy is asking for the land ;)
I think its a total of 100 acres, so here in NJ, it;s more then my checkbook can afford!
Now that the wedding is over I will be looking to buy 50+ acres out of state, somewhere that the laws don't suck in a retarded way. I am thinking VA or WV maybe even.
Hey, if you ever wanna go shooting at my place hit me up, I am always up to throw some lead!
Be wary of VA. Dig deep into their laws (not just firearms laws)... they are a less conservative state than many people realize... and I'm not talking about elections, I'm talking about laws that affect you, aside from firearms law. Their annual personal property tax borders on fascism.
What is the Personal Property Tax?
Personal property tax (also known as car tax) is a tax on tangible property - i.e., property that can be touched and moved, such as a car or piece of equipment. It is an "ad valorem" tax, meaning that the tax amount is set according to the value of the property. A higher-valued property pays more tax than a lower-valued property.
Although jurisdictions throughout Virginia levy a personal property tax, other U.S. states do not, and because they don't some County residence many not be aware that a tax on personal property exists.
Revenue collected from the personal property tax is used to fund general County services like police and fire protection and other services such as parks, library services, and education.
Items Subject to the Personal Property Tax
Prince William County's personal property tax is assessed annually as of January 1 for the following:
automobiles
NOTE: The personal property tax applies to any vehicle normally garaged or parked in the County; even if the vehicle is registered in another state or county. Virginia law also makes vehicles with an active Virginia registration taxable in the Virginia municipality where the vehicle is registered; even if the vehicle is garaged or parked in another state.
trucks
motorcycles
trailers
mobile homes
business personal property - such as furniture and fixtures, computers, and construction equipment
Just as an example, in Norfolk, VA:
The current tax rates are as follows:
Vehicles - Based upon the National Automobile Dealers Association (NADA) Blue Book value all automobiles, trucks motorcycles, utility trailers and leased vehicles are assessed on a prorated basis at the rate of $4.33 per $100.00
Recreational Vehicles - Based upon the National Automobile Dealers Association (NADA) Recreational Appraisal Guide at the rate of $1.50 per $100.00
Pleasure Boats - Current tax rate is $0.50 per $100.00
Business Boats - Current tax rate is $1.50 per $100.00
Aircraft - Based upon the Aircraft Blue Book at the rate of $2.40 per $100.00
Machinery and Tools - Current tax rate is $4.25 per $100.00
Mobile Homes - Current tax rate is $1.11 per $100.00
4.33% tax on your car. Every year....
Virginia is for Suckers!
I was totally unaware of this!!!!
Does it apply to non residents too? Like if the house was not my primary residence?
"Like if the house was not my primary residence?"
It looks like a very convoluted system... depending on your residence, where the vehicle is garaged, etc. Definitely something to research since it could jack up your taxes by $1000 or more.
I wanted to find a decent amount of property, relatively close, where gun laws do not suck, any suggestions?
The problem isn't just buying an empty plot of land somewhere, because unless there is a cabin/house as well, you cannot possess anything other than what NJ allows since you'll have to be bringing it back into this state.
If you're actually thinking of moving, the tough part is finding a decent size lot that's close to jobs. Plenty of nice woodsy cabins across the country where you can shoot in your backyard if you want to drive 2 hours to the nearest anything...
Yesterday they announced ,leaving Maryland. Today a new rifle. A privately own Company.
I guess business is still good, at least for another two years.
http://247wallst.com/consumer-products/2014/07/23/berettas-new-super-rifle/
Mark,
Even in the NEast, I have been able to live 25 miles from "civilization" for jobs but be in real rural areas. NJ is the most suburban I have ever done and I think there is no rural in this state.
As a younger man, at my house, we would just load up, unleash the dogs, and walk the 500 acres of the farmer's land I was in the middle of. Only one other house on my road/driveway and 1/4 mile to the next closest. Farmer was cool since my seller was his land owner who was cool with it too. And we basically patrolled the land for him but I did have to put up with a number of "lifers" who had been hunting there for generations and even without permission felt it was their right. It did take a bit to reach an accord versus what they thought they were entitled to when it came to my little patch and the surround. I usually just asked that they say howdy, feel free to come in for coffee and shoot away from my house.
For target practice we just shot off the front or back porch. We've done a few of these getaway type houses growing up before we landed here. That's why I can't understand the deer, bear, etc. populations since where I am from, the extras just seem to disappear. Can't tell you how often we came upon a partial with the good parts removed and heading for a trendy restaurant some where's down country.
MD, PA, VA, WV, NY, you can do it in any of these states and in the WV area I am from, Darrin's car would not even be a classic :>). We all drove them. I am sure I could still find these homes today.
Your from WV?? NEVER would of guessed that....seriously
Old gent, in the article they call the gun unusually powerful.....now why would they say that?
The gun is a 5.56, which is the same caliber as any ar-15 ever created, don't know why the new Beretta deserves to be called unusually powerful
fyi a 5.56 is pretty much a .223, only .003 bigger then a .22 bullet...........SO SCARY!
MG - I guess it depends on the job. I'm a manufacturing engineer and every year there seems to be less of that around here (probably in the US in general), and the ones that do remain keep a very small employee base (or hire/fire like the auto manufacturers to game the quarterly results).
Totally depends on the job. My wife is a corporate worker, and I don't mean secretary- like an assistant to a VP of a VERY LARGE corporation. You can't just find those jobs, and those salaries, anywhere.
Sometimes a life change the magnitude Darrin is talking about also requires a change in vocation to get where you want to be,
"The gun is a 5.56, which is the same caliber as any ar-15 ever created, don't know why the new Beretta deserves to be called unusually powerful"
It's funny that 5.56 / .223, which the media claims is a "high power" rifle, is not allowed to be used for hunting in some places because it's underpowered.
"It's funny that 5.56 / .223, which the media claims is a "high power" rifle, is not allowed to be used for hunting in some places because it's underpowered."
Hey, they gotta' misinform the public, otherwise how are they gonna' be able to create the fear mongering required for further infringing constitutional rights? An "enemy" must be created, and that enemy must be made to seem as scary and dangerous as possible.
"evil black high-powered assault rifle with high-capacity magazines" .... did I forget anything?
Oh yeah- sometimes they slip and call them AUTOMATIC weapons as well....
"Hey, they gotta' misinform the public"
Absolutely...
But the TRUTH? Well, the truth is .223 was designed as a *varmint* round which was (very reluctantly) adopted by the military because it was light and cheap, allowing soldiers to simply carry more ammo. Performance was known to be sub-par. So, it's basically designed to kill prairie dogs.
The military has looked occasionally (and may be doing so again) for other calibers that perform better.
Here's a long article on the history, but you can scroll down mostly to the bottom for the 5.56 portion...
http://anarchangel.blogspot.com/2007/02/okay-so-why-did-we-choose-556.html
really good article mark, thanks
many of the concepts i've been pointing out are clearly discussed by the author,
and it's true even today in Afghanistan as i have described several times in these threads, the rebels, the mountain men in the hills are using the left over ww1 stuff from the Brits, and as the linked article details, they can hit a man sized target at 600 - 800 yards.
our US armed forces are ham strung by the pentagon outfitting them with the m4 rifle, and it isn't really the rifle, it's that 5.56/.223 cartridge which is only good out to 200 - 300 yards,
and the Afghanis know it!! they can set up outside the range of our guys and take good shots with their 100 year old technology with great effect. not good.
the m4 with .223/5.56 chambering has put our guys at risk and has hampered the success of our mission in Afghanistan.
it is the competency and accuracy of the American Rifleman throughout our history that has made the difference in our success in war, all the way up to the time we switched to these lighter cartridges, starting with Korea, continuing in Vietnam, and the rest, our track record is not as successful as it was in ww2 and all conflicts earlier.
make one wonder a little, doesn't it?
thanks again for the nice article, i read it twice, and it helps to validate what i have believed for 40 years now. and yes, the debate on how to fight a war goes on, short range assault weapons or longer range riflemen, i think we need both and need to work with units that incorporate each type of firearm. that's why i am in the market for an m14 right now, (M1A for civilian use)
Well Darrin, I am from many places, mostly rural or at the edge of suburbia. And have worked many a large corporation while living 30 miles out or so in the middle of nowhere. And in those WV hills, muscle cars were a requirement to blend, plus they are fun. I always loved anything with a Chevy 327.
One place my commute was 26 miles, I could drive 20 in 20 minutes and the last 6 took an hour. Harder to do that today, but still doable. As suburbia has expanded so has corporate America; you just have to find the right one with the location close to the edge. But yes, salaries higher in NJ but then again so is the cost.
Manufacturing engineer? Ouch. Yeah, I would stick where the job is now, but then again, I would gather the factories are still growing in the SE and there's plenty of shooting going on down there.
"Manufacturing engineer? Ouch. Yeah, I would stick where the job is now, but then again, I would gather the factories are still growing in the SE and there's plenty of shooting going on down there."
Yep, my company has a facility in Liberty, SC (just the name makes me want to move there). That's in the Greenville/Spartanburg area, which seems pretty good for manufacturing and is on my radar...
Liberty SC.... you better like heat and humidity. ALOT. One of best friends lives in Charlotte, and while it's a great locale if you hate snow, it's a very bad locale for heat and humidity- they have ALOT of it. Alot more than NJ does.
That's my problem, I need snow, property, guns, and freedom, near impossible in the north east....
Actually Darrin, I listed the states, and you can probably add Maine. Freedom is a another word........but I am sure you would find most better than NJ ---- in your book.
Nearest skiing is only a state away. Plenty skiing in the mtns of NC.
And SC weather is changeable; if you live in the mountains on the western side, it's pretty cool. Same for NC and VA. While Spartanburg is to the West, I don' think based on the weather that it is very high up. 1.4 inches of snow. Sure looks nice though.
"Sure looks nice though."
I've heard that Greenville/Spartanburg aren't "too" bad with the heat. Not like the center of the state near Columbia. I've never been to the NW part of the state... I've been to Myrtle Beach plenty of times, and drove through the middle on my way from Charlotte to Aiken a handful of years ago.
As far as looks, I've just done some Google street view and image searches, and it seems to be a well maintained, clean, forested area. It's not just all dead grass and sand. I think it's much better than the "post-industrial" abandoned coal/shale/steel mill look of eastern Pennsylvania.
SC weather at the moment:
Columbia: 89 (feels like 96)
Myrtle Beach: 90 (feels like 100)
Greenville: 81 (feels like 85)
Spartanburg: 82 (feels like 87)
Hackettstown: 77 (feels like 79)
"I keep a motor between my skii"
If I'm going fast on anything it's because there is a motor and brakes attached to it.
You would have to learn all the different meanings for "have a nice day" though.
A guy walked into a crowded bar, waving his 1911 Colt .45 with a 7 round magazine plus one in the chamber and yelled, "Who in here has been screwing my wife?"
A voice from the back of the bar yelled back,
"You need more ammo."
This is just another example of why you need high-capacity magazines.
Lamppost Some of Gov. Christie's moves. this week.
I agree with this comment
.neihow
So Christie signs a DNA collection bill for disorderly offenses into law but veto a warrant for drone surveillance. wow...
http://www.nj.com/politics/index.ssf/2016/01/see_njs_new_laws_and_bills_christie_killed_this_we.html#0
also vetoed bill requiring a measly 20 minutes a day of recess for kids and wants to allow school to go back to service disgustingly unhealthy foods --- lovely
As an outsider on the school issue, in my view there, is to much mandated to the schools by the state. I say it's a local school issue.
“Now what?“
Move.
It’s so nice to be able to walk into Academy, Cabelas *, or a gun show, and buy as many 30+ round magazines as you want... and pick up a handgun or two (or as many as you can afford) as often as you want.
* or the parking lot of Cabelas where the guy pulls up and opens his back hatch to show you a handful of guns he has for sale ;). Not that I would buy guns that way... no sir!
IMO the anti-gun group and the anti-gunners who make the laws are all a bunch of IDIOTS!!!!! The 2nd amendment spells it out and should never be changed.!!!!!. No amount of laws will change anything to stop the shootings and gun violence!!!!! Will limiting magazine capacity reduce the shootings? It's IDIOTIC to think it will.
Mark- My husband has been back and forth on business since November to NC. He's driving me crazy with what he sees. He's in such awe. I told him we can move any time. I'm ready!!
all it is is posturing to the base and his so-called supporters. he is lining himself up for a higher office run, either Congress or President. it is already being rumored he will throw his name in when the time comes for Dem's to announce presidential candidates. now whether that is 2020 or 2024 still is unclear.
Joe Friday More 'feel good' restrictions from leftists...just put mags over 10 rounds away for a while. Eventually they'll be legal again..REMEMEBER to leave only 10 round mag in your nightstand piece if not done so already
kb2755 All of the bad guys have guns already.
It would be stupid for us (good guys) to not arm ourselves.
Just watch that Indiana Jones movie. Guns work best at taking out the bad guys.
Older Mom Don't worry, NC. You guys will eventually "catch up" to us "civilized" states, like the People's Republik of NJ. Just a matter of time. You're just behind the curve, that's all.
http://www.newsobserver.com/news/politics-government/article212353044.html
Yep they’re trying - all of the enlightened tollwrant folk from NJ and NY moving her for the tech jobs. If we get Apple and amazon which it’s projected we mint it will probably get worse. But for now it’s pretty good.
It's gets pretty confusing as laws stack up over time. I think a base question people should ask, "is my State a Republican form of Government or a Democracy?". The former is part of the constitution, while the latter is mob rule, or a majority dictatorship where the minority is only given "civic rights" at the will of the majority.
I think people are confused. We don't have a Democracy. We have a Republican form of Government. And in a Republican form of Government you can't ban arms. Congress has the right to regulate arms and the Executive has the authority to command an active militia.
We the People shouldn't be more regulated than the standing Army of "volunteers" which is regulated by Congress. This would suggest something wrong is happening. If someone decides to take a gun and illegally take the life of People that he or she has no right to take, the wrong thing to do would be restricting arms to the point you can't use them.
The proper solution should be to regulate the guns by teaching every American how to use one. Testing and understanding of proficiency, usage, and safety should be done yearly at a minimum, and more so if the person is found to be lacking, until at such a time he or she can demonstrate proper understanding through testing. The the most important test should be to show and understanding that you as an American don't have the right to take another American given some well defined legal exceptions.
I don't think every American should be held at knifepoint b/c of a few people dis-respecting the lives of their fellow American. And, I don't think everyone has the capacity to properly use a gun just like every other tool that's involved in deaths of Americans, including cars.
nobody if California was an example no
https://www.eastbaytimes.com/2014/03/07/sunnyvales-ammo-magazine-ban-is-in-effect-but-to-what-effect/
https://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/johnson/article/One-gun-control-attempt-that-misfires-6791466.php
You mean “lost them in a boating accident”...
I would offer to buy some, but even 15 rounders would be a downgrade for me. ;)
good point Skippy, and if NY and Connecticut are any example the answer to BrownEyesGuy's question is a resounding NO!!
The state of NJ and Gov Murphy have just made felons out of an estimated one million lawful NJ gun owners with the stroke of a pen. It's just not right, and I believe the bills as passed are so poorly written that they will be set aside from implementation while pending appeals to the courts run their course.
GreyHawk Well, when it goes to the circuit court, and if I understand correctly, it will be the 3rd circuit, it is currently republican-heavy by 2 justices.
"The state of NJ and Gov Murphy have just made felons out of an estimated one million lawful NJ gun owners with the stroke of a pen."
That's why they are making room in the prisons by releasing violent criminals (like the one that shot up the arts festival in Trenton). Can't have you self-sufficient free thinkers running loose in the wild now, can we?
Another knee-jerk reaction from Comrade Murphy and his motley crew. They just don't get that the "issue" with guns is not the GUNS, the NRA or the legal, licensed, trained responsible owners, but criminals who will get them if they are determined enough, despite any laws enacted. Guns don't kill people, criminals who use guns as a tool to commit their crimes do. Punishing law-abiding gun owners with regulation after regulation when they did nothing wrong is absurd and frankly violates the Constitution. So called "common sense" gun laws directly violate the 2nd Amendment. No state has the power to enact laws that supersede or limit Constitutional Rights - those are universal. All these laws are that don't outright ban guns are, are ways to put red tape in, in the form of absurd regulation, fees, qualifications, documentation and "background checks" in hopes it will take so long and require so much effort, that the applicant will say "why bother, if they even give me a license I'll just have to go through all this again in 6 months to a year anyway" and give up...thus handing the gun grabbers a win without having to show up and confiscate arms. It's wrong and ridiculous.
Richard The argument a lot of people use is that the Constitution is limited to the federal government. Or, the national framework of the U.S.A. government. Their argument being the 2nd amendment does not apply to the States, also implying that the Bill of Rights does not apply to the States, or the Citizens of their respective State. It only applies to Citizens of the government of the United States of America.
Basically, if it keeps you from ever hold or using a gun it's unconstitutional. If it regulates you the Person more than the army of the U.S.A., then it's probably unconstitutional. In regards to the extent that congress can regulate the People.
And, gun control is a very British thing. Not American at all. Of course, history gives plenty of reasons for strict gun control. But, the method is simply wrong.
It's great! The gun shops are packed with the bloods and the krypts and the rest of the criminals getting their magazines reduced as we speak. Just another law that looks good on the books and will not make a difference. Remember NJ had a ban on assault rifles. Did crime go down ? NO! Did crime go up when the ban sunset? NO! I wonder if the Murphy would feel safe walking the streets of Camden, Newark or Trenton with his new gun laws in effect?
Oh he will feel plenty safe with his crew of armed body guards (if not his own carry permit). The rest of you, not so much...
ANJRPC FILES MOTION TO HALT ENFORCEMENT OF MAG BAN!
Seeks to Put Mag Ban on Hold While Court Decides
Whether to Invalidate the New Law
June 21, 2018. Just a week after filing suit in federal court to overturn New Jersey’s new ban on magazines that can hold over 10 rounds of ammunition, ANJRPC today filed a motion for an injunction to halt enforcement of the ban while the lawsuit is pending.
"This unconstitutional law makes no one safer,” said ANJRPC executive director Scott Bach. “It will be ignored by criminals, and affects only law-abiding citizens. To make matters worse, it gives the public a limited time to get rid of or permanently alter their lawfully acquired magazines. It therefore is imperative that the law be put on hold until the Court decides whether it is constitutional to force a million people who have committed no crime to forfeit or permanently alter their property.”
ANJRPC's motion shows that the plaintiffs are likely to succeed in their claim that New Jersey’s magazine ban is unconstitutional, and points out that a federal court in California recently put a similar magazine ban on hold while it decides whether to overturn it. A link to the legal brief just filed in the New Jersey case is available here: https://cdn.ymaws.com/…/le…/anjrpc_brief-preliminary_inj.pdf
This case was filed in cooperation with the National Rifle Association. "We thank the NRA for its incredible support and guidance, which made this lawsuit and this new motion possible," said Bach.
CLICK BELOW TO DONATE TO THE CASE: https://www.anjrpc.org/donations/donate.asp?id=4356
Any New Jersey resident interested in joining ANJRPC in the lawsuit should contact us at strikeforce@anjrpc.org, especially those who have ever been burglarized, robbed, attacked, or even threatened by a gang or by multiple criminals at the same time, in a documented incident.
Please forward this email to every gun owner you know, and if you don’t already receive alerts from ANJRPC, please subscribe to our free email alerts for the latest Second Amendment breaking news and action alerts: https://www.anjrpc.org/general/custom.asp?page=Email_Request
About ANJRPC: The Association of New Jersey Rifle & Pistol Clubs is the official New Jersey affiliate of the NRA, and is New Jersey’s oldest, largest, and most effective Second Amendment advocacy organization.
Click the link below for the online version of this alert:
https://www.anjrpc.org/page/InjunctionMotionMag
One-eyed Poacher Murphy Throws Veterans Under the Bus, Just in Time for July 4th
OOPS! GOVERNOR MURPHY FORGETS TO EXEMPT VETERANS FROM MAGAZINE BAN
Pandering “Mistake” Exempts Retired Police, But Not Retired Military
Equal Protection Violation May Bring Down Ban
No One Should Receive Special Treatment Under the Law
July 2, 2018. As they clamored to ban standard capacity firearms magazines and turn one million law-abiding citizens into criminals with the stroke of a pen, NJ Governor Phil Murphy and legislators silenced objections from law enforcement by exempting retired police from the ban. But they made a “mistake” in their pandering strategy that could prove fatal to the new law – they failed to also exempt military veterans from the 10-round limit.
Their pandering blunder reveals a serious violation of equal protection under the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution: an arbitrary privilege afforded to one group cannot be denied to others who are similarly situated. Retired police and military veterans both have civilian status – the same status as every one of New Jersey’s one million gun owners. Exempting retired police over veterans, and also over the entire civilian population itself, violates equal protection.
“Lawmakers thought they were pre-empting a groundswell of law enforcement opposition to the magazine ban by exempting retired police,” said ANJRPC Executive Director Scott Bach. “Instead, they created a vulnerability that threatens the very existence of their precious new law, and ANJRPC is making the most of that vulnerability.”
ANJRPC’s pending lawsuit https://cdn.ymaws.com/…/legal_motions…/mag_ban_complaint.pdf to overturn the magazine ban highlights this equal protection violation, along with other constitutional infirmities of the law. In a recent request for a preliminary injunction https://cdn.ymaws.com/…/legal_motion…/anjrpc_v_grewel_nj.pdf halting implementation of the ban, ANJRPC quotes the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, which found in a similar case (Silveira v. Lockyer) that a “retired officers exception arbitrarily and unreasonably affords a privilege to one group of individuals that is denied to others.” A ruling on the request could come as soon as this month.
“Military veterans, like the rest of the civilian population in New Jersey, have now been relegated to second-class status and placed at a significant disadvantage when it comes to defending their lives against criminals and gangs – who ironically will ignore the ban and be armed to the teeth,” said Bach.
The fact of the matter is that no one should receive special treatment under the law. Those sworn to serve and protect, whether in law enforcement or the military, should refuse to be silenced by pandering politicians when it comes to infringement of everyone else’s constitutional rights.
As our hypocritical lawmakers continue to enjoy the protection of armed security details exempt from the magazine ban, ANJRPC would like to take this opportunity to wish the rest of us – who are left to fend for ourselves with emasculated tools – a very safe and happy Fourth of July.
Please watch for future alerts on the progress of the mag ban lawsuit.
SUPPORT THE LAWSUIT CLICK BELOW TO DONATE:
https://www.anjrpc.org/donations/donate.asp?id=4356
@GreyHawk
Every man needs to be treated equally.
The fact that someone was a cop or in the service at one time should not give them any greater rights.
There are millions like this and from what I know they are not any saner or use better judgement than an ordinary reasonable man.
Dr. Benway In a way, I actually agree with Dr. Benway
If Jersey is going to lay on more gun limitations it should be followed by everyone....INCLUDING active duty police officers. Sorry, but if you can find components that they "need", those components can very easily be transposed to the civilian needing to protecting his/her family.
I agree with D and Bway.
Also, ten rounds, fifteen rounds, who cares ---- just pick and stick to it. But moving from 15 to 10 seems feckless and unnecessary.
strangerdanger The unequal protection under the law as laid out in this poorly written legislation will be it's undoing. No one should receive special treatment under the law. It's an unconstitutional mistake to exempt retired law enforcement but not retired military.
Court challenges have been filed and are more than likely to be successful, see links above for more info.
I agree, what is switching from 15 to 10 rounds accomplishing? What do those 5 rounds do?
It has already been proven that people will use 10 rds for shootings because they are more concealable.....don't think anyone has ever used a 15.
All you are doing is making a ton of product that was once legal illegal to look like you did something, but what you did accomplished nothing at all.
"All you are doing is making a ton of product that was once legal illegal to look like you did something, but what you did accomplished nothing at all."
Nope. Turned a bunch of law abiding citizens into felons.
It's the law. Just like illegals coming over the border those of you who are holding on to these magazines are criminals.
Follow the law. Turn in your magazines today. Don't be a criminal.
Dodgebaal "If Jersey is going to lay on more gun limitations it should be followed by everyone....INCLUDING active duty police officers."
"It's an unconstitutional mistake to exempt retired law enforcement but not retired military."
Not a mistake at all. It's part of a plan. You really don't think that there was thought given into this? One group joins to be patriotic, the other is paid to control you.
The stage is set. Let's take bets who will lose union bennies first, teachers or police.
Who will lose 15 rounds first, police or vets?
Don't worry, with the technology coming to your town those pea shooters of yours will not be effective anyway.
While we come to the same conclusion, Darrin says "It has already been proven that people will use 10 rds for shootings because they are more concealable.....don't think anyone has ever used a 15" which, frankly, sounds unconceivable to me. I mean people use handguns versus long guns for the same reason, but saying "don't think anyone has ever used a long gun" would be a real stretch. Same here, I think, Darrin.
Meanwhile, ex cops and vets do not consider special consideration here, whatever it is, the law is the law..
Did you see the new TV show by the Borat actor Sacha Baron Cohen where Republicans, like SC Congressmen, support gun training for kindergarten kids for school security? Including gunimals. "Republican congressmen Dana Rohrabacher of California and Joe Wilson of South Carolina, along with former Senate Republican leader Trent Lott, who is now a lobbyist at a Washington law firm, are shown enthusiastically backing the idea, alongside gun rights advocates and a former congressman-turned-talk radio host, Joe Walsh."
Too funny, except it happened. https://www.nbcnews.com/pop-culture/tv/republicans-back-fake-guns-kids-scheme-sacha-baron-cohen-satire-n891616
We are a sick, sick people at times...….
Great idea! limit the cops to 10 rounds while the criminals are out there with 25 and 50 round magazines! DUH!
Most modern service pistols use double stack box magazines of 16 -18 rounds. I believe the highest capacity 9mm is Springfield XDm with 19 rounds in the standard magazine.
so let’s just nip that in the bud right here
"Great idea! limit the cops to 10 rounds while the criminals are out there with 25 and 50 round magazines! DUH!"
Which is of course exactly the same reason law-abiding citizens should also not be limited to 10 rounds.
But we all know this isn't really about "saving lives"....
SD....fact check yourself before posting....it’s a known fact that one of the last shooters used 10 round mags (in a state that 30 round mags are legal) because he could fit more in his duffel bag....unless you are talking about a shooting with a guy try mag....if so, back up your claim with evidence not just a guess.
Also hopefully I don’t think there is any such things as a 50 rd mag....just saying
Court challenges have been filed and are more than likely to be successful, see links above for more info.
The new law is likely to be set aside and prevented from being implemented due to the fact that the plaintiffs are likely to be successful in their court case. Hearings are scheduled soon on their motions, stay tuned.
Many have already pinned/blocked their mags to be compliant with the new law but as Skippy has correctly pointed out this draconian new restriction has outlawed just about every semi-auto handgun magazine in the state,
Why?
This is as wrong as it is unconstitutional which is why these court challenges have a high probability of success.
Wait and see is the recommended approach for now.
The new 10 round magazine restriction has made felons out of approximately 1 million law abiding NJ residents.
This is wrong, and ya' all should know it and realize it.
I know that many of you think this only affects rifles like the AR15, but it restricts all magazines in all guns. Here's just one example of a popular pistol (see pic, description below) that will have to have it's magazine permanently blocked because of this unconstitutional restriction:
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Springfield XDM Compact is another fantastic carry gun – and you can have your choice of carrying either 11+1 rounds of .40 S&W, or 16+1 rounds when you carry the extended magazine.
This gun is a bit pricier than some of the other guns, but it sure is quality. It’s 6.26-pound trigger pull makes this gun a dream to shoot – and it’s extremely accurate.
The overall length of the XDM is only 7”, which makes it a very easy gun to tote around.
http://www.wideopenspaces.com/compact-handguns-that-get-job-done/
"SD....fact check yourself before posting....it’s a known fact that one of the last shooters used 10 round mags" Darrin, before I do this....can you clarify what I am doing? Don't want to get caught up in an a-retentive gun technology terms definition thing.
Are you saying "It has already been proven that people will use 10 rds for shootings because they are more concealable.....don't think anyone has ever used a 15" as in all I need to do is find someone committing murder with a clip, mag, belt, whatever....just as long as it packs more than 10 bullets?
As in: "Also hopefully I don’t think there is any such things as a 50 rd mag...."where I guess the operative word is mag since it's possible to get guns that pack 50 rounds easy enough.
And if so, really? You want to triple down on that? Let me know, thanks.
"Don't worry, with the technology coming to your town those pea shooters of yours will not be effective anyway."
Which technology is this?
Perhaps you missed the news about the police officer killed several days ago with a rock (or at least knocked out with a rock, after which the perp stole his gun and shot him). Can't get much more low-tech than that.
It also makes the case for police to use smart guns, right?
" operative word is mag since it's possible to get guns that pack 50 rounds easy enough."
What? Show me a gun that holds 50 rounds without a magazine.
(Because I'd be interested in buying one...)
Mark, what about putting the Stuxnet computer worm on an thumb drive to bring down a nation's entire nuclear program centrifuge system.
And cast for police to use smart guns, right?
"Mark, what about putting the Stuxnet computer worm on an thumb drive to bring down a nation's entire nuclear program centrifuge system."
How would that make guns less effective? I'd argue that they would remain the gold standard in a world where nuclear technology (or other military networks) get taken down by a virus. (This, of course, assumes the other side of that coin is that the government would nuke gun owners in the first place...)
Also, how is Stuxnet "coming to our town"? Is H-Town a secret nuclear facility or a haven for international virus/hacker developers?
Hey, I thought it was as relevant as talking about a rock during a smart gun passage.
"Hey, I thought it was as relevant as talking about a rock during a smart gun passage."
Actually, I think that's extremely relevant.
An officer was ultimately killed because he was bashed with a rock and had his gun stolen/used against him (and a bystander that was also killed). It's like a text book example that smart-gun proponents use.
http://www.kptv.com/story/38651352/authorities-man-attacked-police-officer-with-rock-then-shot-him-to-death
If police used smart guns he (possibly) and the bystander (certainly) would be alive today. Can you deny that?
Why are police specifically *exempted* from smart gun laws?
On duty they should be exempt from those laws - off including HR-218 they need to eat the dog food like the rest of us.
News update from California, this bodes well for the court challenges here in Jersey:
Federal Court Upholds Decision to Block California’s Magazine Ban
A three-judge panel of the 9th Circuit issued a ruling in the case of Duncan v. Becerra on Tuesday upholding a lower court’s decision to suspend enforcement of California’s restriction on the possession of magazines that hold 10 rounds or more.
“This is a significant win for law-abiding gun owners in California,” said Chris W. Cox, executive director, National Rifle Association Institute for Legislative Action. “This unconstitutional law criminalizes mere possession of many standard capacity magazines and would instantly turn many law-abiding gun owners into criminals.”
https://www.nraila.org/articles/20180717/federal-court-upholds-decision-to-block-california-s-magazine-ban
Gun-owners choose large-capacity magazines for good reasons, the same reasons why police carry large-capacity magazines in their service weapons. When a deadly encounter occurs, the amount of ammunition can make the difference between life and death. The state cannot be permitted to take a common means of self-defense from its citizens. Thankfully, even in the Ninth Circuit, confiscation has been held at bay.
https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/07/ninth-circuit-protects-gun-rights-california/?utm_source=Sailthru&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=NR%20Daily%20Monday%20through%20Friday%202018-07-19&utm_term=NR5PM%20Actives
"It has already been proven that people will use 10 rds for shootings because they are more concealable.....don't think anyone has ever used a 15." Darrin
"Gun-owners choose large-capacity magazines for good reasons, the same reasons why police carry large-capacity magazines in their service weapons. When a deadly encounter occurs, the amount of ammunition can make the difference between life and death." Grey Hawk
"I'm confused" strangerdanger
"How many of you NRAers got to have sex with that Russian Spy, anyone?" unknown :>)
https://cdn.ymaws.com/www.anjrpc.org/resource/resmgr/legal_motions___briefs/mag_ban_complaint.pdf
ANJRPC has a similar suit in progress
Large capacity magazines come in handy when you cannot shoot straight or prefer to shoot through your windshield at the nimrod that just cut you off. Just remember to account for the angle of the glass before you fire or you just might kill an innocent finch, pigeon, crow, or worst, an American eagle. One of your stray rounds kills that eagle you are in hot water.
Update on NJ's gun owners lawsuit :
AFTER-ACTION REPORT: ORAL ARGUMENT
ON INJUNCTION REQUEST IN MAG BAN CASE!
Court Schedules Factual Hearings In Mid-August
No Decision On Injunction Before End Of Summer
July 12, 2018. This afternoon, a U.S. District Court Judge in Trenton heard oral argument on ANJRPC's motion for an injunction halting enforcement of the new magazine ban law until the case is decided.
U.S. District Judge Peter Sheridan called a pre-hearing conference in chambers where he told counsel that he is scheduling a full-blown hearing on certain factual aspects of the case by mid-August. Specifically, experts who provided declarations for both sides will be brought into court to provide further detailed testimony under oath.
Following the conference in chambers, Judge Sheridan heard brief oral arguments from both sides.
ANJRPC's legal team included attorneys from the law firm of Cooper & Kirk in addition to attorney Dan Schmutter. Counsel made a forceful case for why the injunction should be granted and the case resolved in favor of gun owners. They argued that New Jersey's gun owners would suffer irreparable harm if they are forced to sell, surrender, destroy or modify their property during the short compliance window, before the case is decided. They also argued that the magazine ban is unconstitutional and should be overturned because it violates the Second Amendment, violates equal protection, and is an unlawful "taking" of property.
https://www.anjrpc.org/page/AfterActionReportInj
Since gambling is now legal in NJ, can we take some bets on here about the results of the decision?
The AR15 bans and magazine restrictions are likely unconstitutional because these are things that are in common use, which makes them not "dangerous and unusual ' weapons. The 9th circuit court decision is next step on the way to a full 9th circuit 'en bank' review of the issue and no matter which way they rule, it is sure to move up to SCOTUS.
"Much of the modern argument over gun control revolves around the effort to label certain kinds of semi-automatic rifles (and magazines over ten rounds) as “military style” weapons that are effectively unprotected by the Second Amendment. Yet the Ninth Circuit’s language — rooted in the history of the amendment — links constitutional protection to a weapon’s potential militia use. In other words, the “military style” moniker actually connects the guns in question to the historic purpose of the right to bear arms.
Combine this standard with Heller’s clear statement that the Second Amendment was intended to protect weapons in “common use” for “lawful purposes like self defense,” and one begins to see that merely comparing AR-15s or Glocks to military weapons doesn’t render them unprotected. Instead, their common ownership, combined with their “reasonable relationship” to militia use, should enhance, not diminish, their constitutional status."
https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/07/ninth-circuit-protects-gun-rights-california/?utm_source=Sailthru&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=NR%20Daily%20Monday%20through%20Friday%202018-07-19&utm_term=NR5PM%20Actives
That's the 2nd pro-2A decision from the 9th circus in as many weeks.
They must have lost their (activist progressive) minds.
My buddy moved to Costa Rica and we were talking to an attorney to get his guns there - long story short they ban “weapons of war” which means full auto and anything that is incendiary or explosive on impact / self propelled projectile. That I could live with. He can have his guns once he establishes residence and pays the import duties and get a permit to carry once is cleared to work there - they actually have a program to attract ex-pats
Great video, and from a liberal outlet no less. (VICE) This is good stuff that clearly shows just how women can truly empower themselves.
https://bit.ly/2OkVRFk
ANJRPC FILES PAPERS TO EXPEDITE MAG BAN APPEAL AND TO HALT ENFORCEMENT OF BAN WHILE APPEAL IS PENDING
October 1, 2018. Following up on the filing of a notice of appeal
https://cdn.ymaws.com/www.anjrpc.org/…/resmgr/alerts/noa.pdf in the magazine ban case on Friday, September 28, ANJRPC counsel today filed additional papers with the US Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit seeking both an expedited appeal and an injunction halting enforcement of the law until the appeal is decided.
View the papers seeking an expedited appeal here: https://cdn.ymaws.com/…/le…/unopposed_motion_to_expedite.pdf View the papers seeking an injunction halting enforcement of the law here: https://cdn.ymaws.com/…/le…/motion_for_an_injunction_pen.pdf
ANJRPC counsel have prepared for every contingency in this case and are working overtime in an effort to overturn New Jersey's ineffective and unconstitutional magazine ban.
An expedited decision on the request for an injunction pending appeal is anticipated in late October or early November. ANJRPC intends to issue detailed legal and practical guidance for gun owners by that time. We ask that gun owners continue to be patient while we pursue every available procedure to halt enforcement of the new law. Gun owners who choose to hold onto their magazines until then should be prepared to take immediate action with their magazines prior to the December 10 compliance deadline, if necessary
As we enter this critical time-sensitive phase of the magazine ban lawsuit, ANJRPC wishes to thank the law firm of Cooper & Kirk, and attorney Dan Schmutter, for their extraordinary efforts anticipating every possible contingency and being prepared in advance to take immediate action to protect gun owners. ANJRPC also wishes to thank NRA-ILA for its ongoing extraordinary support of this case.
CLICK HERE TO DONATE: https://www.anjrpc.org/donations/donate.asp?id=4356
N.J.'s ban on large magazines is constitutional, court rules.
https://www.nj.com/politics/index.ssf/2018/10/court_sides_with_nj_on_gun_control_measure_15-roun.html
Ten days left...
https://timeanddate.com/s/3k4d
Darrin,
To support your college fund, you should open a "magazine storage" facility for your NJ friends :>)
Because I'm sending the magazine-police to Diamond Hill first.... :>
So by their own logic in the ruling, the magazine limit is arbitrary (and thus doesn't further a compelling government interest):
"To illustrate, a citizen who owns a gun, 30 rounds of ammunition, and two 15-round magazines prior to the (new law's) enactment will be permitted to retain his gun, ammunition, and three 10-round magazines."
That's going to be a chink in the armor as this escalates up the court ladder.
Mark,
Should be fun to watch. The Libs/Dems- we know where those judges will vote. The Repubs-Conservs- will be the deciding factor. Govt overall wants to take guns from your hands. It will be the conservative Supreme Court making the decision-you will really know where you stand on this vote-if they vote for the limited magazines then just follow the trend...
So, what is everyone supposed to do with their magazines, throw them in the garbage? Can you sell them/gift them to people in other states?
I'm unclear on exactly what this ban is supposed to accomplish? I have the feeling all the law abiding citizens from Hackettstown and throughout the state will get rid of their magazines to follow the law -- but I would bet my house the criminals/gang members/cartels/drug dealers throughout the state will be keeping theirs.
Another great plan......
“The measure gives gun owners until early December to sell, modify, destroy or turn over to the police their any gun magazines that can hold more than 10 rounds.”
Looks like you have to pin the mags. It’s not like you can carry them in NJ - be assured there will be zero compliance - just like in NY and CA.
It's already been appealed to the 3rd circuit court for an expedited hearing to issue a stay on enforcement until the full court can hear the case.
"ANJRPC counsel today filed additional papers with the US Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit seeking both an expedited appeal and an injunction halting enforcement of the law until the appeal is decided."
If anyone wants a safe place to store their magazines while this works it's way through the courts, I can hang on to them for a while (just gotta ship them down since I won't be back up in NJ until Thanksgiving).
The best way to control a people is to take a little freedom at a time, soon enough we wont have any freedom. starting to feel like California.
I never fired a gun until I went in the Army.
I fired a LOT of weapons in the Army and was very good at it.
I have not fired a weapon since I left the service.
I feel in an ideal world, a safe world- there is no need for anyone to own a weapon.
I am aware this is an imperfect world.
I am aware that our right to bear arms is entirely to protect ourselves from corrupt gov, not common thieves.
I am aware our gov is becoming more and more corrupt every day.
Therefore, even though I have never purchased a weapon- we all should be allowed to have exactly the same as whatever the police and military own.
Anyone who thinks there is no need for a common citizen to be armed, that all guns should be removed- well, you just aren't thinking broadly enough and is entirely too trusting that those with the power to control will do so with our best interest in mind.
I promise you- some kook up high could give an order, everyone below will say yes sir whether right or wrong- right on down the line, all of them doing bad things 'just following orders' protecting their own ass at the expense of yours- yes right up to imprisonment or death.
Likely? No.
Possible? Certainly.
Headed in the wrong direction? Every day.
How about innocent protesting college students?
http://www.slate.com/blogs/behold/2013/05/04/may_4_1970_the_kent_state_university_shootings_told_through_pictures_photos.html
and if anyone thinks authority learned in the last 50 years-
This piece of scum cop sprayed students while at least 10 other cops stood right behind him and did nothing. Just doing their job.
https://youtu.be/ynr8BGuTq5Q
He was AWARDED over $38,000 because of the emotional trauma he had afterward from the outlash he (rightfully) received.
https://www.sfgate.com/politics/joegarofoli/article/UC-Davis-pepper-spray-officer-awarded-38-000-4920773.php
He should have been fired, imprisoned and stripped of ALL pay and benefits as far as I am concerned.
Instead he got a full paid vacation, a nice severance and collects tax payer funded retirement. Shitbag.
Josh Wow they're telling you how many mags you can own? That should get thrown out on the Commerce Clause. People buy things, some have 10 cars and others may have 7 televisions. That's what make the money move around the U.S.. Unrestricted free trade in anything that doesn't need a permit.
When California banned hi-cap mags, which they estimated were in the millions, not one was turned into the state or police.
If I'm reading it right, it's not how many mags you own it's the amount of rounds per magazine.
Either way it's stupid.
Momof6 It's clearly an unconstitutional infringement on the right that shall not be infringed
This is a great first step.
Next we need to go to five rounds per mag or clip :>)
wow - I see the line to turn them over to the state from here. bravo NJ..
it's feel good legislation that will be rarely prosecuted if at all.
what they should have done is sold $50 permits to keep your magazines lol - just as unconstitutional - same effect and you could pay off some pension debt.
SD
I agree to disagree with your statement.
"This is a great first step.
Next we need to go to five rounds per mag or clip :>)"
DBall: You might be right. I have become a strict constructionist in regards to the 2A and the Constitutions. Therefore, the right to bear arms must refer to those arms available at the time of the Constitution: single shot, break-action, and muzzle loading only (still :>)
Huh? Was that meant as a sarcastic response? I can't imagine it as anything otherwise...
“arms available at the time of the Constitution: single shot, break-action, and muzzle loading only“
Except there were repeating rifles (20-30 shots) available for 8 years or so BEFORE the Constitution was written.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Girandoni_air_rifle
"single shot, break-action, and muzzle loading only" , SD - - - -
what utter and complete nonsense, (are you trying to poke the bear on this one? why? are you having a slow day or are bored or something? ) Reality check: The framers and founders wanted the average citizen to be prepared to come to the defense of their homes and states (and by proxy their fledgling nation) with the military arms of the day when called upon. this simple to understand and amply documented concept supports the idea of allowing American citizens to keep arms like the AR15 at home in their individual possession. (even with 30 round mags) American jurisprudence of the last 200 years fully supports this sensible and practical concept.
"Meanwhile, the ANJRPC has already filed a notice of appeal, along with papers seeking “an expedited decision halting the law during the appeal.”
ANJRPC not only wants the law declared unconstitutional they want it to be pulled off the books until such a decision is rendered. The organization hopes to have an update on the injunction by late October, early November. If they fail in their quest to block the ban during the appeal process, gun owners will be forced to destroy, surrender or permanently modify their magazines by that Dec. 10 deadline.
Failure to comply with the law is a crime of the 4th degree with a maximum jail time of 18 months and a maximum fine of $10,000, according to New Jersey Attorney Evan F Nappen."
https://www.gunsamerica.com/digest/forced-destruction-of-15-round-mags-is-constitutional-says-federal-judge/?utm_source=email&utm_medium=20181005_FridayDigest_194&utm_campaign=/digest/forced-destruction-of-15-round-mags-is-constitutional-says-federal-judge/
Mark, that's so cool. Sure, the framers would have been gung, oops, I mean gun-ho for that especially given it's long marketplace life.
And now, GrayHewk agrees: "The framers and founders wanted the average citizen to be prepared to come to the defense of their homes and states (and by proxy their fledgling nation) with the military arms of the day when called upon." That's right, "military arms of the day," perfectly aligned with the framers and me.
Plus, GreyHeck added "when called upon," indicating his preference for militia versus personal protection. I wasn't going to go that far ---- but hey --- when the Hawk's right, she's right.
Look at the bright side; you've always got the Supreme Court to take it to. Unless, given who he is and where he came from, the probability that Kav has ever used a gun, unless some Daddy down there had a basement range, might throw a wrench in that scenario. While he will probably expand gun rights, he will do so from a Federal Level, reducing your state's rights in that regard. No problem right --- you get expanded gun rights. Guess what --- I get Federal control for my future...….Fire away boys, fire away.
I hear that in solving gun rights for Russia, the NRA plans to push for gun rights in China next once they can find a cute spy to work with :>)
" Therefore, the right to bear arms must refer to those arms available at the time of the Constitution: single shot, break-action, and muzzle loading only"
"Except there were repeating rifles (20-30 shots) available for 8 years or so BEFORE the Constitution was written."
There were no break-action or 20-30 round firearms at the time of the Constitution.
The Girandoni air rifle was crew served meaning there had to be at least two people to keep the air rifle active for the 3-5 shots per minute, plus it had to be loaded one shot at a time.
Percussion caps and revolvers came about in the 1840's. Break action or breech loaders during the Civil War. Hope this helps.
You couldn’t be more wrong poacher. The air rifle was not “crew served” and all you had to do to reload is tip it up and press a thumb lever.
https://vimeo.com/35886002
Easy enough for a child to shoot it.
https://youtu.be/lb765aXWbys
"The Ninth Circuit’s language — rooted in the history of the amendment — links constitutional protection to a weapon’s potential militia use. In other words, the “military style” moniker actually connects the guns in question to the historic purpose of the right to bear arms.
Combine this standard with Heller’s clear statement that the Second Amendment was intended to protect weapons in “common use” for “lawful purposes like self defense,” and one begins to see that merely comparing AR-15s or Glocks to military weapons doesn’t render them unprotected. Instead, their common ownership, combined with their “reasonable relationship” to militia use, should enhance, not diminish, their constitutional status."
quoted from an article linked above
@SD "And now, GrayHewk agrees"
@SD "Plus, GreyHeck added"
Anyone else tired of the narrative from SD.....you know you don't have to reiterate what everyone says in your own words right???? Super annoying!
@SD "This is a great first step.
Next we need to go to five rounds per mag or clip :>)"
You already agreed that the round limit does absolutely nothing (on this very thread)....so whats up with the child's play? BTW...hope all your "inherited" firearms have been modified to be legal to the new law....
October 5, 2018. Today, ANJRPC filed a 66 page legal brief with the U.S Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, in the appeal of the lower court's ruling in the magazine ban case. The brief covers the substance of ANJRPC's main argument in the appeal, also known as a "merits" brief.
Please click the link below for a copy of the merits brief: https://cdn.ymaws.com/…/le…/ca3_anjrpc_v._grewal_opening.pdf
This represents the fourth legal filing by ANJRPC in the appeal in the last week. To help sort out the big picture of what is occurring, here is a listing of key events and deadlines in the appeal:
September 28: Lower court refuses to grant injunction halting mag ban. ANJRPC files notice of appeal to Third Circuit.
October 1: ANJRPC files separate motions with Third Circuit to expedite appeal and for injunction halting enforcement of mag ban pending appeal.
October 2: Third Circuit grants motion to expedite appeal.
October 5: ANJRPC files merits brief in appeal with Third Circuit.
October 10: State of NJ response to ANJRPC motion for injunction pending appeal is due.
October 15: ANJRPC reply to NJ on motion for injunction pending appeal is due. Third Circuit to decide whether to grant injunction at any time after this date.
October 26: State of NJ merits brief in response to ANJRPC merits brief is due.
November 2: ANJRPC reply to NJ merits brief is due.
Week of Nov 12: Oral argument on merits briefs tentatively scheduled.
Thereafter: Third Circuit to decide merits of appeal (precise timetable unknown).
We ask that gun owners continue to be patient while we pursue every available procedure to halt enforcement of the new law.
Gun owners who choose to hold onto their magazines until then should be prepared to take immediate action with their magazines prior to the December 10 compliance deadline, if necessary.
ANJRPC intends to issue detailed legal and practical guidance for gun owners by late October.
CLICK BELOW TO DONATE: https://www.anjrpc.org/donations/donate.asp?id=4356
Please forward this email to every gun owner you know,
update to the court challenge:
NJ FILES PAPERS OPPOSING INJUNCTION IN MAG BAN APPEAL
October 11, 2018. ANJRPC counsel Dan Schmutter provides the following update in the magazine ban appeal:
Last night, the State filed its brief ( https://cdn.ymaws.com/…/le…/brief_in_opposition_to_motio.pdf ) opposing ANJRPC's application to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit for an injunction pending appeal.
The State argues that gun owners do not need an injunction because the Court has agreed to hear our appeal in November, on an expedited basis. But that utterly ignores that time is still ticking toward the December 10 deadline and that we still need the Court of Appeals to toll the running of the 180 day period even if they decide the appeal quickly.
The State continues to argue, contrary to Heller, that they, not you, get to decide which arms you may use in exercising your Second Amendment rights.
The State continues to argue that they may grant special privileges to retired law enforcement, even though law enforcement training has nothing to do with safely and responsibly using magazines over 10 rounds.
The State continues to argue, contrary to basic Constitutional principles, that they may force you to give up your valuable property without compensation simply because they deem it dangerous.
Please watch for coming updates and alerts as ANJRPC continues to fight for gun owners and the Second Amendment in this case, and please continue to support the case. ANJRPC will provide detailed guidance to gun owners as the December 10 compliance date approaches.
CLICK HERE TO DONATE TO THE CASE: https://www.anjrpc.org/donations/donate.asp?id=4356
Please forward this email to every gun owner you know, and if you don’t already receive alerts from ANJRPC, please subscribe to our free email alerts for the latest Second Amendment breaking news and action alerts: https://www.anjrpc.org/page/Email_Request
About ANJRPC: The Association of New Jersey Rifle & Pistol Clubs is the official New Jersey affiliate of the NRA, and is New Jersey’s oldest, largest, and most effective Second Amendment advocacy organization.
Click the link below for the online version of this alert:
https://www.anjrpc.org/page/NJOpposesInjunctionMagAppeal
3rd circuit denies injunction appeal without prejudice
THIRD CIRCUIT DENIES INJUNCTION IN MAG BAN CASE 2 DAYS AFTER PAPERS SUBMITTED
October 12, 2018. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit denied ANJRPC's motion for an injunction pending appeal in our challenge to New Jersey's magazine ban, just two days after both sides submitted their initial briefs: https://cdn.ymaws.com/…/le…/18.10.12_-_order_on_motion_f.pdf
The denial was "without prejudice," which means that the motion can be made again should circumstances warrant. The denial came with no opinion or explanation, and may indicate that the Third Circuit intends to rule in the appeal itself before expiration of the 180 compliance period on December 10.
Please watch for further updates and alerts, and for ANJRPC's guidance to gun owners coming later this month.
Click the link below for the online version of this alert:
https://www.anjrpc.org/page/ThirdCircuitDeniesInjunction
NJ SUPREME COURT TO POST OPINION ON CCW CASE!
JOHN JILLARD AWAITS MONDAY RELEASE OF NJSC RULING!
by Black Wire Media Saturday Nov. 3, 2018 www.cnjfo.com/join-us
John Jillard is waiting for the New Jersey Supreme Court to post their opinion of his gun carry (CCW) case in which he sued the State of New Jersey for ALL OF OUR 2nd Amendment rights to be restored. He (and all of us) will learn this Monday morning November 5th at approximately 10:00am just what our Black Robes have to say. His suit attacks the unconstitutionality of the long-standing rules never voted on by our Legislature, and therefore is NOT set-up as an individual fighting "Justifiable Need" for a single carry permit. Instead, Jillard's case (and Mark Cheesman's which was heard separately) puts the rule making process itself under a microscope, thus exposing the "House of Cards" it truly is!
Historian & 2nd Amendment ally Jay Factor, himself a CNJFO member, has spent countless hours researching written gun law all the way back PRIOR to the founding of this country. He's looked under every rock, found hand-bound leather volumes of common law & terms applied in olde English that date back prior to the founding of this great country, and wrote the suit for Jillard & Cheeseman. Never before has such a suit been undertaken!
The Coalition of New Jersey Firearm Owners continues to support this MISSION OF FREEDOM FIGHTERS! The entire scheme of #JustifiableNeed needs to be overturned so folks like Carol Bowne, the Berlin, NJ woman stabbed to death in her own driveway, have a fighting chance! For more info on #JustifiableNeed, go to:
www.JustifiableNeed.com. To follow this coming Monday's posting, go to: https://www.njcourts.gov/attorneys/futureopinions.html…
To donate to the Cheeseman/Jillard legal battle, go to:www.gofundme.com/restore-carry-nj .
To join CNJFO, buy swag to support us or make a tax-deductible donation, go to: www.cnjfo.com .
BREAKING NEWS ON MAG BAN APPEAL FROM ANJRPC!
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
WANTS DO-OVER ARGUMENT ON MAG BAN APPEAL!
November 15, 2018. Even though counsel for both sides thoroughly argued the magazine ban appeal before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit yesterday, in a highly unusual event the Court contacted counsel late yesterday and requested re-argument of the exact same appeal on Tuesday, November 20 at 10 AM in Philadelphia. There was apparently a problem with the official recording of yesterday's oral argument, and a new hearing is needed so it can be properly recorded. Gun owners are invited to attend the do-over oral argument before the Third Circuit. The address is: James A. Byrne United States Courthouse, 601 Market Street, Philadelphia, PA 19106.
Click the link below for the online version of this alert:
https://www.anjrpc.org/page/MagBan3rdCircuitDoOverArgument
Judge denies Kent State charging an xtra security fee to conservative speakers
on campus:
"When Kent State University wanted to charge a conservative student group an estimated $1,800 security fee to bring pro-gun speaker Kaitlin Bennett to campus, a federal judge blocked the charge.
Judge John Adams says the fees would encroach on the First Amendment rights of both the students and Bennett, also known as “Kent State Gun Girl,” reports Cleveland.com.
The student group Liberty Hangout will host an event called “Let’s Talk Gun Rights,” on Nov. 19 in the university student center.
“There should have been more communication,” Adams said. “We can’t allow protestors to shift the [financial] burden to the speaker and her organization.”
The judge granted a “temporary restraining order” on the security fees. A full hearing will take place on Dec. 13.
Kent State claims their policy requires security fees for student-sponsored events. They argued the $1,800 fee would only cover security for Bennet’s event and that Liberty Hangout would not be responsible for covering any damages that may occur."
https://www.campussafetymagazine.com/university/judge-blocks-kent-state-security-fees-gun-rights/
Judging from past history of Kent State, she might be the one needing security- especially if the National Guard shows up...
Funny that the folks pushing "personal responsibility" are getting an entitlement covering their additional charges for protection of their rhetoric. Don't they have the guns :>) Don't they want to pay their way :>) No, they feel entitled to swill at the public trough being covered by other speakers not needing this type of extra protection.
heh, heh....perspective.
Well seeing as they will be undoubtedly confronted by the ever intolerant and violent left who has ensured they are disarmed on college campuses - in violation of the second amendment - it makes sense they shouldn’t have to pay to exercise their rights under the first amendment.
"THE RELEASE OF NUCLEAR WEAPONS HAS BEEN AUTHORIZED"
SARCASM BLOWS UP TWITTERVERSE AS GUN OWNERS REACT!
by Black Wire Media Sunday Nuke Edition 11-18-18 www.cnjfo.com
Our headline reads like the documentary drama "The Day After". He wants to write a Bill for $15 BILLION dollars to employ a "Master Plan" to DISARM AMERICANS by outlawing the most popular rifle platform in America, the AR-15 semi-automatic. Tens of millions privately owned in all 50 states. Gets challenged on it with tons of "push-back" on twitter. When he's losing his argument, HE USES THE NUCLEAR OPTION to threaten the American way of life with a gun CONFISCATION scheme, hinting that NUKES would be used to GET THE GUNS! Who is this brain trust & where does he come from? Up until a day or two ago NOBODY knew he had a pulse!
Case is pending before the 3rd circuit court, meanwhile in NY state:
Erie County to drop 23 SAFE Act charges
Erie County District Attorney John Flynn will no longer prosecute a specific portion of New York's SAFE Act. Governor Andrew Cuomo signed the gun control law in 2012, part of which makes it illegal to have more than seven rounds of ammunition in a 10-round magazine.
Under the SAFE Act, violating this specific provision is a Class B Misdemeanor. Exceptions are written into the law for recognized ranges and shooting competitions.
There are currently 23 open cases in Erie County involving this particular charge and Flynn plans to drop this charge for all of those individuals.
"Those 23 open cases, they're not going to have their entire cases dismissed because in the overwhelming majority of those 23 cases, they have other gun charges with them," Flynn said.
Flynn points to two Federal court rulings that consider this portion of the SAFE Act unconstitutional. The original ruling in U.S. District Court in the Western District of New York was upheld on appeal to the 2nd Circuit of the United States Court of Appeals.
"I'm going to follow their ruling and view this matter as unconstitutional and not charge that specific SAFE Act offense," Flynn said. "Which again, it's only a [Class] B Misdemeanor. There are very few of them."
Those rulings came down in 2013 and 2015, respectively. Flynn said he only recently became aware of the decisions and plans to no longer prosecute these cases in Erie County.
Buffalo Police, based on the District Attorney's decision, will no longer charge individuals for that specific crime. New York State Police were instructed in 2014 to stop enforcing this portion of the law.
Correction: An earlier version of this story incorreclty stated New York State Police were still enforcing this portion of the SAFE Act.
https://www.wkbw.com/news/erie-county-to-drop-23-safe-act-charges?fbclid=IwAR3P5u8kzSYuoj0C-RiLrw0ZUULe6UwUEDG9X20vNJKzE97McJElCxJigrw
Now that the left has shown us that it's ok to be part of the 'Resistance', out in Washington state a police chief is advocating for gun sanctuary :
Police chief: Time for a gun sanctuary. Washington town may declare itself a sanctuary city for gun rights; Chief Loren Culp weighs in on the proposed ordinance.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g-JzuyplkK4&fbclid=IwAR3NFBbSEMPAk9ZkOZU2BvSSTkm4yFoi3OsZwd1rKaOWMDudGU2IaKFty9E
The "sanctuary city" thing is kind of funny. When someone once argued to me that only law-enforcement officers should I have guns, I responded that if that happens, I'm going to be mayor of the safest, wealthiest town in America. Because I'd simply let every citizen be a police officer and own a gun, as long as THEY paid for their own training AND paid a hefty "application fee," and they VOLUNTARILY patrolled the town (and/or performed other police duties) a minimum of 8 hours per week.
Most of the town would be armed, trained police officers. The town would spend practically nothing on law enforcement--it may even earn money from it. And people who wanted a place to live where they could legally own a gun would flock there, causing property values (and local taxes!) to skyrocket. Ultimately, I'd be running a nice, safe, wealthy town populated by multi-millionaires, who would love living there. And nobody would ever, ever think of robbing a bank in my town.
JerseyWolf Jersey is going to try to disarm you, one round at a time if necessary. I don't agree with it, yet it will happen. It's going to get worse as time goes on.
Unfortunately the only hope is to move, thankfully there are becoming more and more unrelated reasons to do so as well.
If gun owners would come to the table and cooperate with sensible laws limiting gun ownership from the insane, those with multiple criminal convictions and multiple violent episodes maybe safe, sane guidelines could be agreed upon.
When you parrot the ole “ cold dead hands” routine, this is what’ll happen.
BTW- the NRA is your worst enemy- not the middle 80% of the population.
But hey, if it ain’t broke- don’t fix it.
We’re only killing more nationally per year than the next 30/40 countries combined.
Everything is A-OK right?
Stymie "those with multiple criminal convictions and multiple violent episodes"
those laws already exist - you have no idea what your talking about..
how about the BATFE gives citizens access to NICS for private transfers and you get your 100% background checks.
https://www.state.nj.us/njsp/info/pdf/firearms/sts-033.pdf
https://njgunpermitattorney.com/what-are-your-chances-of-getting-denied/
How about the NRA stop indulging in Russian spies and Russian gun rights advocacy. It's MAGA, not MRGA...…
- don't do anymore $1 million Russian jet fuel deal attempts with notable American grifter and former NRA President
- John Bolton made a pro gun music video with Butina in 2013
- arranges HUGE dinner at 2015 NRA convention, tasty
- the famed Butina summer 2015 questions to Trump at Freedomfest in Las Vegas where Trump responds with the expected death blow to Obama sanctions
- the winter 2015 NRA trip to Russia to support guns, guns, guns.
- meet Don Jr at prayer breakfasts 2016, 2017, at NRA conventions,--- yupper, nothing strange about a few Ruskies at a prayer breakfast.
- in 2016, helped to try to set up Kremlin backchannel for Trump
The Russian Consulate continues to visit Butina, over half a dozen times, since arrest and putting complaint letters to our State Department. Clearly, they are checking in, checking on, and reassuring Butina who will probably plead out this week.
"how about the BATFE gives citizens access to NICS for private transfers and you get your 100% background checks. " - - - good idea Skippy, this one is an easy-peasy no-brainer
Appeal is still pending before the 3rd circuit court which has not rendered its decision yet. There are 5 days left till the ban goes into effect. Here is a link for advice on what to do with magazines that have a capacity of over 10 rounds
https://cdn.ymaws.com/www.anjrpc.org/resource/resmgr/evan_nappen/complying_with_nj_s_mag_ban-.pdf
“good idea Skippy, this one is an easy-peasy no-brainer“
Sure, if the goal was to encourage background checks. But that wouldn’t let them know the make/model/serial number of everything you buy by making it have to be done at an FFL with a Form 4473.
It’s not about “safety”.
Agreed Mark - it gives just a go / no go / or call on the sale and dosent create a registry. I would like to see a feature where a serial can be checked in NCiC to make sure you’re not buying a gun with 12 bodies on it.
"checked in NCiC to make sure you’re not buying a gun with 12 bodies on it."
How would they know (and what does it matter?)
The criminal is the one that needs to be caught... not the gun.
“The criminal needs to be caught, not the gun.” Like to see you do that dance after being caught with a 12-body gun.
Skippy and Mark, you are both right, requiring it be done at an FFl for a fee with a 4473 form with another fee is a backdoor to complete registration of all firearms transactions.
Better to let folks have access to the NIC system to check when transferring ownership or selling a gun.
The government does not need to know about every single firearm in the country, they just don't. The feds don't need to know and NJ doesn't need to know.
Because if you buy a gun that’s say reported stolen - you obviously don’t want to buy thst gun. I don’t want to pay for something and at least lose it or at worst possibly be wrongfully accused. Just sayin checking if something is legit dosent create a registry.
NJ gun owners lost the appeal in court:
THIRD CIRCUIT TELLS GUN OWNERS
THEY MUST TURN IN THEIR MAGAZINES
December 5, 2018. In a 2-1 decision, a panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit refused to stop the enforcement of New Jersey’s 10-round magazine ban. The majority, in an opinion by Judge Shwartz and joined by Judge Greenaway, both appointed by President Obama, held that the ban did not violate the Second Amendment because it reasonably advanced the State’s interest in reducing mass shootings without severely burdening the rights of law-abiding citizens.
Read the Third Circuit decision here: https://cdn.ymaws.com/…/le…/third_circuit_opinion__p0156.pdf
Judge Bibas, appointed by President Trump, authored a forceful dissent, pointing out that the majority refused to apply standard constitutional principles to the case and instead treated the Second Amendment differently than any other constitutional right. Judge Bibas observed: “The Second Amendment is an equal part of the Bill of Rights. We must treat the right to keep and bear arms like other enumerated rights, as the Supreme Court insisted in [District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008)].” He rejected what he termed the majority’s “watered down“ approach to the Second Amendment.
ANJRPC intends to appeal the decision.
In the meanwhile, the last day for gun owners to comply with the mag ban law is December 10, 2018. Failure to comply by the deadline is a 4th degree crime that could result in fines and imprisonment for each non-compliant magazine, in addition to loss of gun rights nationwide.
Last week, ANJRPC issued detailed guidance to gun owners about compliance with the mag ban law, including non-obvious, lawful ways for law-abiding gun owners to keep owning magazines between 11-15 rounds without modifying or destroying them. Click here
https://cdn.ymaws.com/…/ev…/complying_with_nj_s_mag_ban-.pdf for ANJRPC's guide to compliance with the ban.
Somewhat true Skippy, but in order for the government to know that now *I* have that gun, I would likely have needed to commit a crime, and get caught, myself.
In other words, Serial Number XYZ is reported stolen (and then I buy it not knowing this history), but there's no way in hell for anyone but me to know that I have Serial Number XYZ. I have never ever had anyone check any serial numbers on my guns and don't expect that to ever happen... so in the real world Serial Number XYZ is never going to be "found" and it's history is irrelevant.
Sure, you can feel bad for the person from whom it was stolen, but they should have joined the NRA and gotten their free theft insurance to recover the value of the gun. Unless it was a rare family heirloom (where a cheap street price may raise some eyebrows) it's just a relatively cheap piece of metal/plastic. If any of mine get stolen, I'll just take the insurance money and buy another one and call it a day.
Also, someone selling a gun (say on Armslist) is putting *themselves* at risk if they are peddling stolen goods to strangers.
How do they know I won't run the serial number and check if it's stolen... now that I have their email address, phone number, license plate, etc?
So chances are, if you're not buying things hush-hush in Newark with your gang buddy T-Bone you can be pretty certain that it's just a used gun that somebody doesn't want anymore.
" if you're not buying things hush-hush in Newark with your gang buddy T-Bone "
ROFL
Just an awful decision by the 3rd circuit court, wonder if they are appealing for a full 9 member enbanc' review of the 3 judges panel decision? Does anyone know? : :
New Jersey wants to restrict magazine capacity, and the state wants you to turn in your magazines that don’t comply with the new magazine limit.
Some folks who didn’t like this idea took their case to court. Unfortunately, the Third Circuit has decided that the Second Amendment isn’t a thing in New Jersey.
December 5, 2018. In a 2-1 decision, a panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit refused to stop the enforcement of New Jersey’s 10-round magazine ban.
The majority, in an opinion by Judge Shwartz and joined by Judge Greenaway, both appointed by President Obama, held that the ban did not violate the Second Amendment because it reasonably advanced the State’s interest in reducing mass shootings without severely burdening the rights of law-abiding citizens.
…
Judge Bibas, appointed by President Trump, authored a forceful dissent, pointing out that the majority refused to apply standard constitutional principles to the case and instead treated the Second Amendment differently than any other constitutional right.
Judge Bibas observed: “The Second Amendment is an equal part of the Bill of Rights. We must treat the right to keep and bear arms like other enumerated rights, as the Supreme Court insisted in [District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008)].”
He rejected what he termed the majority’s “watered down“ approach to the Second Amendment.
The last day for residents of New Jersey to turn in their soon-to-be-contraband is December 10.
Absolutely ridiculous.
https://bearingarms.com/tom-k/2018/12/06/3rd-circuit-supports-nj-magazine-ban/?utm_source=thdaily&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=nl&newsletterad=&bcid=d44cbf48eb313ab34cc5fb772ab63232&recip=21095195
I will be expecting to see all the gang members and thugs rushing to the PD to turn in their illegal magazines as well correct?....oh wait....
Make a stand, the time is now. Just like those in NY did with the SAFE Act. Molon Labe.
Whole group of felons about to be created with the swipe of a pen. You were a legal law abiding citizen until now. Suddenly you are a criminal. See how fast that happens in America.
Your rights taken away with the stroke of a pen, and it's totally legal. Yes, you, when you hide them, lie and claim they are stolen, etc- you are all felons.
Welcome to the Police State of America, coming soon to a town near you.
Spot on correct dodgeball, this new law makes felons out of approximately 1 million NJ gun owners
Is this really what most of you want? To create felons out of one million of your fellow New Jerseans? I can't believe that's what the good people of this state really want. This is a sad day in America
"Whole group of felons about to be created with the swipe of a pen." That is their plan. Once you are a felon, you can no longer have guns so it is instant gun confiscation.
jnnjr This is one of the most the most bizarre laws on the books. My brain hurts when trying to understand how people voted for this law when it logically makes zero sense.
From earlier in the thread:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cVrUf-GDPec
Same thing happens when they lower blood pressure or cholesterol standards. You were healthy yesterday and health insurance has a decent price. Now today, after a new standard, you are considered sick, up go your rates/ you have a pre existing condition you did not have the day before, cost goes up.
As far as guns/magazines are considered, are retired LEO with Alzheimers, or those who have strokes going to have their magazine sizes reduced, or carry permits taken away?
Nope.
You're all idiots. None of you should have guns.
JeffersonRepub: The NSA? Yeah, after the talk on this forum, I bet a bunch of you are being actively monitored by the NSA, FBI, and probably even the Southern Poverty Law Center's white supremacist and hate group tracking, because there's some card carrying members on this forum. You guys make 4chan look mild.
It doesn't make you a felon unless you choose not to obey the law and surrender or destroy clips that do not meet the new laws.
Ultimately, the only reason you need that many shots is mass murder. Not hunting, not target shooting, not even self defence. Not anything. This is a common sense law. Unless you have a brain hemorrhage.
If you are using a gun lawfully, you can simply swap magazines. Doesn't take too long while you're at the range - what, a few more minutes out of your day? But in mass shootings, those seconds have proven time and time again to be the difference between life and death
It's simple, turn them in or destroy them. It's also not like laws are passed out of nowhere, they take a while to be signed and even when signed usually have a while before they take effect. (180 days in this case), and if you somehow missed that deadline, just take a hammer to the magazine and chuck it in your trash and no one will care.
Also, you can permanently block (riveted, welded, epoxied) them so you don't even have to destroy them.
And prosecution may be delayed or not enforced for a while after that. Plus, let's face is, odds of a law abiding gun owner owning a 11 shot magazine in a pistol are slim. But odds of it putting a murderer behind bars even longer are great.
Also, you're wrong. 1M is the approx number of total gun owners, or about 1 out of every 9 New Jerseyans of all ages. The amount of gun owners with 10+ shot magazines will be less.
Also, retired LEOS are exempt, up to 15 rounds.
Do you own ^$*^)*##$$ research and read the #^^*%@$#$ laws. Don't just listen to the NRA. They lie. Did ya'll miss the class on first hand sources?
alpha1beta So I guess you can refute, point by point, the items raised in the video just reposted a1b? Or will you just continue make (absolutely ridiculous) accusations as to people’s character?
You probably might not know, and of course I’m guessing a bit here, that imo *everyone* posting in this thread agrees that bad people with guns need to be addressed. Your points are valid that bad people use guns to do bad things.
But consider the context of this law to ban 15 round clips yet allow 10. It’s already a done deal, right?
Now, explain to us what has changed in the world because of this law? How many fewer deaths will stem from this law? How many fewer acts of violence will this prevent? How many shootings will be prevented? If you’re honest with yourself the answer will be zero. None at all. That being the case, what *is* the reason for this law then?
Maybe this question will provide the answer: Who will be affected by this law? A: Only law-abiding gun owners, of course, people who wouldn’t do the harm you’re falsely accusing them of wanting to do. And unsurprisingly the real problem, criminals, already couldn’t give a care and won’t obey the law anyway.
So yes, this is one of the craziest laws we’ve passed in a while, meant only to harm your neighbors for no other reason than you can.
Thats why we need a national law so that everyone is affected.
Then we can build some walls to keep illegal guns out of America.
"Thats why we need a national law so that everyone is affected.
Then we can build some walls to keep illegal guns out of America."
Nope.
You get one nutcase in charge and all is banned. You want one world order, that's exactly how you do it.
NJ legislators are control freaks like a mommy on meds. They will ban carpets in homes from one case of rugburn.
If the excuse to ban arms is mass shootings, then there is something wrong with your understanding of the Bill of Rights.
Bottom lines is this: Congress shouldn't be preventing We the People from being as well armed as the Militia, which is the entirety of the U.S.A. Military. Every American should be able to join the Military at Will if they so choose.
Regulate does not equate to banning or restriction the usage of firearms.
You want to "keep illegal guns out of America"? Do you realize that firearms have existed since at least the mid 1300s? In modern-day America, an 8-year-old could research and make a firearm, without any help, with items available at Home Depot.
And an American tween could make a 30-round rifle magazine on a 3D printer, with a 50-cent metal spring ordered off the internet.
"Ultimately, the only reason you need that many shots is mass murder. "
I don't usually do this, but, right back at you: you are an idiot.
And I no longer waste my time suffering fools.
Merry Christmas.
I have a mail solicitation from the NRA which I was contemplating joining. This post convinced me to join. The assault upon our second amendment rights is only going to get worse with the Democrats in full control of this state and eventually Congress. The NRA is the only organization that has the power to take on the left wing socialists trying to take down the second amendment.
hammer alpha1, calling people 'idiots' is no way to conduct yourself in a conversation, you maybe want to tone it down a little bit and behave more politely? We really don't need another poster like SD mucking up these threads with personal attacks.
The oldest and largest civil rights organization in the history of the USA doesn't lie, you're gonna have to prove that spurious claim, please detail one out and source it for us
And you get to date Russian spies.
JR — don’t walk in front of a mirror......:-)
Announced name calling; I think we have intent this time :-)
I think killing humans would replace mass murder nicely when it cones to lcm’s.
And nationwide does not mean one man decides. Even in Trumplemania.
alphabeta stated - "Also, you can permanently block (riveted, welded, epoxied) them so you don't even have to destroy them." - - - Wrong again liberal media! (/sarc) artificially restricting them this way is destroying them, it destroys their capability to perform as designed and as such is an unconstitutional infringement on the only right that specifically states "Shall Not Be Infringed"
It is called the 'Bill of Rights' not the 'Bill of Needs'
As an aside, not that this is relevant but an interesting coincidence, the legal term “shall” is more and more being replaced by “must”. The argument I had read for the change was that the word “shall” isn’t really clear enough, although personally I’ve always though “shall” is pretty clear.
So I have to wonder, in this crazy world we are living in where so many seem to want to redefine through obfuscation just about everything, how long until the “shall not be infringed” wording is questioned because the founders didn’t use “must not be infringed”?
The way I understand it is that there is not even a way to surrender the magazine if you wanted to
Who cares; we are within our Constution and our laws to regulate firearms. Live with it or change it.
I think there's some win wins here but gunowners can’t abide by the law and just want more firepower to match the pending doom coming from adversaries who can’t abide by the law. They believe there is no compromise in this yet choose to continue to live in NJ. Weird.
Compromise SD?
What are you talking about? This bill will DO NOTHING to make our society more safe. NOTHING (caps intended!). Do you have the gumption to disagree with that fact or will you simple refuse to answer and do your spin thing again?
Passing laws that do nothing other than piss of your neighbors - real intelligent that is...
skippy, there is a way proscribed under this unconstitutional law, you have to fill out a form and schedule an appointment with your local police chief notifying him/her of your intent to tun in contraband/forbidden magazines. This is government taking of private property by force of law with no compensation for it at all. Tthis confiscation scheme is true government overreach and as such is unconstitutional on several fronts.
I agree Hawk; should be compensation or exchange.
Jit; I mean compromise as a mechanism to avoid further one-sided gun regulation. Gun owners and the NRA need to create common sense gun controls on a national basis.
Otherwise, in NJ, you just gonna get more of the same. I mean I am all for banning lcms at some level, nationally, one standard for the land. But moving a 15-round to 10-round is stupid, costly, and not effective. They will never be able to claim less gun deaths because of this law.
Just don’t feel like arguing it under your “all laws are about force” mantra. Hard to do that and support living under the rule of law.
“Just don’t feel like arguing it under your “all laws are about force” mantra.”
It’s not a mantra, it’s reality, even when you refuse to accept that it is.
If you surrender them late is there an exemption under the law where you can do so without penalty ? Ergo if i go in my range bag and find a banned mag a year from now - can I comply with the law?
The point is, sure, all laws involve force. So what? Does that mean we opt for chaos instead?
Not at all. It just means that when we ask the government to use force on our behalf that there’s a good reason, and not just because we personally want something.
To expand on what JIT said - or to use force against citizens for administrative violations that are not violent crimes. This is a law that can be broken inadvertently without men’s rea. Sorry this should not be an indictable offense as is the current spirit of the law.
Speaking of constitutionality - got any more
Of that ex post facto legislation? You know - the stuff the states are prohibited from passing ex post facto laws by clause 1 of Article I, Section 10 of the constitution
That’s just crazy talk JIT.
Here’s a question... how do these laws not trigger some federal/court intervention based on excessive fines or punishment? No matter what your position is on the authority for a state to make these laws, it’s crazy that you can be a felon facing 10+ years in prison for something legally for sale in Walmart a few miles away.
the government may not force a forfeiture of private property to avoid criminal liability. This argument is only credible if the effect of the new law was to not effectively force the previously lawfully owned magazine to be forfeited by the arbitrary and uninformed action of the government. This will need to go to SCOTUS.
" it’s crazy that you can be a felon facing 10+ years in prison for something legally for sale in Walmart a few miles away."
It's INSANE. And emotion-driven. But then both of those are the left's M.O.'s
zentravl Skippy asked - - - "If you surrender them late is there an exemption under the law where you can do so without penalty ? Ergo if i go in my range bag and find a banned mag a year from now - can I comply with the law?" - - -
No one knows the answer to this Skippy, and AG Grewal is ducking questions about it:
NJ Doesn’t Say How It Will Enforce Magazine Confiscation After Court Upholds Law
State won't answer questions on how it will deal with owners of magazines holding more than 10 rounds
New Jersey law enforcement officials refused to say on Thursday how they planned to go about enforcing the state's ban on the possession of any magazine capable of holding more than 10 rounds of ammunition, which goes into effect on Monday.
Neither the state police nor the attorney general's office elaborated on how they plan to enforce the law. Nor did they provide any guidance for those currently in possession of the magazines.
The law, signed by Gov. Phil Murphy in June along with five other new gun laws, gave New Jersey gun owners who currently possess the magazines in question 180 days to either surrender them, permanently modify them to only accept up to 10 rounds, or transfer them to somebody who is allowed to legally own them. The deadline is set to expire on Monday.
Any civilian caught in possession of a magazine capable of holding more than 10 rounds may be arrested and prosecuted. Possession of such magazines after the deadline will be considered a crime of the fourth degree under state law and carry up to 18 months in prison and up to $10,000 in fines or both.
Nearly all modern full-size or compact handguns and rifles sold in the United States come standard with magazines capable of holding more than 10 rounds of ammunition.
State police told the Washington Free Beacon the effort to enforce the law will be a statewide endeavor directed by the attorney general's office. They would not comment other than to say they will enforce New Jersey's laws.
"We will enforce the law of the state," Lieutenant Theodore Schafer of the New Jersey State Police said. "That's our plan."
Schafer would not give any details on the agency's plan to enforce the law and referred the Free Beacon to the attorney general's office for further questions.
Leland Moore, a public information officer for the New Jersey Office of the Attorney General, refused to answer any questions on how the state planned to deal with gun owners who did not comply with the new law.
"We have no comment," Moore said to multiple inquiries.
When pressed about whether everyone in possession of such magazines would be arrested and prosecuted, he refused to comment. When asked if officers might be sent "door to door" as some critics fear about such confiscation efforts, he refused to comment.
"We've answered your query," Moore said. "We have no comment."
https://freebeacon.com/issues/nj-doesnt-say-will-enforce-magazine-confiscation-court-upholds-law/?fbclid=IwAR32tkRlHqoQixvl1UmCOLujxG95PLPwhdyr91YUAifh2-Emub4TCB2up0s
"This will need to go to SCOTUS." Yes it should. I think SCOTUS would still approve the ban, but would it approve a 15-round ban changing to 10-round with all these legal and financial burdens? Could be interesting.
As to: "it’s crazy that you can be a felon facing 10+ years in prison for something legally for sale in Walmart a few miles away." It's UP TO 18-months per clip, so ten years is a handful of clips. Planning an invasion?
It's a 4th degree crime, which is a felony, but in the area of: shoplifting ($200-500), pot distribution, less than one ounce, aggravated assault/deadly weapon, lewdness,
restraining order violation, etc.
I agree, for many reasons, in the ridiculous nature of being able to purchase said violations less than 20 miles away. IMO, these restrictions needs to be national, the NRA should find common ground and do exactly that. Without national laws, we will face the same thing Chicago faces, an island of 10-round clips surrounded by a sea a 15-round clips and criminals.
But it is the law and tomorrow is the day.
Perhaps, if you have not seen this, it can help. Talks exemptions, how to disable, and the like.
https://cdn.ymaws.com/www.anjrpc.org/resource/resmgr/evan_nappen/complying_with_nj_s_mag_ban-.pdf
I told you before, will say it again. If you don't step up and fix this thing, nationwide, with a compromise that all can hate equally, then you will be walked over like you are being right now. Get over the "the 2A says we should have whatever," and get to a compromise you can live with, and do it nationally. Create regulation-bound, weapon happy, militias for having fun with the really big stuff, bigger than you can have today. Universal background checks --- fast and ez to access. And put gun registration data into digital files, let the NRA protect, and provide, under law, immediate access for all crime guns.
But this state stuff is getting ridiculous as a manner of solving a national issue.
Hope the link helps.
From the linked article above this new law creates felons out of an estimated million New Jersey residents:
"Leland Moore, a public information officer for the New Jersey Office of the Attorney General, refused to answer any questions on how the state planned to deal with gun owners who did not comply with the new law. He would not say if the attorney general has any guidance at all for those who currently own the magazines being targeted, which gun-rights activists have estimated to be up to a million New Jersey residents, or provide any insight about how the state will deal with those who don’t turn in, modify, or destroy their magazines.
"We have no comment," Moore said to multiple inquiries.
When pressed about whether everyone in possession of such magazines would be arrested and prosecuted, he refused to comment. When asked if officers might be sent "door to door" as some critics fear about such confiscation efforts, he refused to comment."
GreyHawk,
People here want a police state, that's what they are going to get.
They want an excuse to enter your house, now they have one.
A short story, I have a friend who is a female middle age black woman. She had a water leak in her house (Not in HTown) This was on a holiday, and from what she described, it was the main leaking in the yard causing a water leak through the foundation. I told her to call the water department, she did, they refused, it was a holiday. I called them as well and drove to her house, on the way, convinced them to send someone. When I arrived there, water was shooting through the block wall. The man arrived from the water company and turned the water off at the street. Shortly after one police officer arrived, I asked him why he came- he said he had to come due to the report. Ok, not my house, what do I care. I observed as he asked questions about what was in the boxes in the basement, how he asked for a drink of water, to use the bathroom, offered to help turn on the A/C to dry the residence- he basically went on a tour of the entire house- all over a water leak that started on the OUTSIDE of the residence. Later on, when I explained to the woman what had happened she was aghast. It never dawned on her what he was doing.
It ain't Pete Malloy and Jim Reed any more, that's for sure.
https://www.nj.com/politics/index.ssf/2017/08/nj_pays_30k_to_woman_arrested_for_staying_silent_d.html
callitlikeIseeit 
Greyhawk, I will not be polite. You should seek professional help. You desperately need it.
"alphabeta stated - "Also, you can permanently block (riveted, welded, epoxied) them so you don't even have to destroy them." - - - Wrong again liberal media! (/sarc) artificially restricting them this way is destroying them, it destroys their capability to perform as designed and as such is an unconstitutional infringement on the only right that specifically states "Shall Not Be Infringed""
FYI, I did my research only on the state's site and right wing sites because I knew you people would pull this shit. You're so misguided, and so mentally ill, its pathetic. It's weak, and it's extremely sad. When we have national healthcare, you'll get the care you need. And i'll be glad to pay for it.
Great - we're agreed! You can have your single shot rifle that can't hit anything at more than yards and takes 30 seconds to reload.
1) You're right to have a gun is not being infringed. period.
2) You still have more availability of guns, and ammo, and more capability than the founding fathers could have imagined.
3) You have plenty of options to comply with the law. I have no sympathy if you choose not to. You're obviously aware of us.
4) You are not in a militia, nor are you "well regulated". The right wing groups that are militias are often classified as terrorist or extremist groups (Oathkeeper, 3 percenters)
If the founding fathers saw the guns available today, they'd have written in more restrictions into the second amendment. But they saw that single shot muskets were enough to drive away the world's more powerful army. But you're all too scared to have to defend you house with 10 rounds in a clip.
Progress takes times. We cannot prevent mass shootings instantly. An armed guard won't fix that either. But what we can do is create common sense laws, like this (okay, it could be written better, but the core idea is still good) to triage the situation. Those legally owned guns you have - they can be stolen. They can be used by your kids or their friends. They can be passed down to your kids who can abuse them.
We are the only country with more guns than people and the only country where gun crime and accidental death and injury due to guns happens at the rate it does.
This is progress. I'd like to see you guys compensated the way you would be if this were a Eminent domain, but the government does not have to do that. It can ban things that are bad for the public health and it does not have to offer compensation.
Progress takes time. With more laws like this, we all have a greater chance of not being a statistic due to gun violence or accidental shooting.
https://www.gunviolencearchive.org/
Still the question remains about *this* law a1b: How many deaths/injuries/incidents will be *prevented*?
"Progress takes time. With more laws like this, we all have a greater chance of not being a statistic due to gun violence or accidental shooting. "
Fascism and tyranny take time. Ignorance is bliss.
"We need a bill that is going to confiscate...confiscate...confiscate" - - - Loretta Weinberg quote
"Audio From May 9, 2013 - Audio captured after a New Jersey Senate session on Thursday possibly features several Democrats mocking gun owners and talking about gun "confiscation . . . . The hot-mic recording opens with what seems to be a female senator or staff member saying, "We need a bill that is going to confiscate, confiscate, confiscate." "
https://www.nratv.com/videos/new-jersey-senator-confiscate-confiscate-confiscate
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=56KCBxADL64
A1B...
All of us gun owners have passed mental health background and reference checks (in order to get FID’s etc).
Have you?
Jit; asked and answered. No improvement will be statistically proven attributable to a 15 to 10 bullet change even if it happens.
1. Chicago Island theory. Surrounded by lcms, NJ may see worse numbers because of criminal ez access to lcms or just American life
2. How can you attribute any change to lcm restriction moving from 15 - 10. Hard enough to prove lcm ban advantage, much less fine tune for a five bullet delta. No one can spend that statisical budget and CDC precluded from such large scale studies by NRA lobbying efforts. “Guns are not a disease, they are Gods will.” ;-)
But the Constitution and the SCOTUS, to date, don’t require success as critical for placing restrictions so a moot point except to assuage your emktiond.
“But the Constitution and the SCOTUS, to date, don’t require success as critical for placing restrictions so a moot point except to assuage your emktiond.”
Assuage my emotions? Hardly. In fact, I can pretty much guarantee that those whose are for this law and who already know the public won’t be any more safe with it, yet are ok with forcing their neighbors to bend to their will, are the ones being placated by this law.
Seriously, this is one sick law because there’s zero actual safety benefit and it’s sole purpose is control. Talk about instigating rebellion...
"Talk about instigating rebellion..."
Since it's the Christmas Season...
"Are these the shadows of the things that Will be, or are they shadows of things that May be, only?"
"this is one sick law because there’s zero actual safety benefit and it’s sole purpose is control. Talk about instigating rebellion..."
You can't know whether there's zero actual safety benefit or not. Just like I can't know there's any benefit.
I do known there's a benefit to common sense gun laws and lcm restrictions. Just not a provable benefit to move from 15 to 10.
You need the big picture vantage point :>)
“I do known there's a benefit to common sense gun laws and lcm restrictions.”
Well, it can be argued reasonably well that there is no common sense with this law at all because there is zero benefit to anyone, only detriment to some.
You say “common sense gun law” as if those words go together naturally. No, they don’t.
A “common sense gun law” in the current context makes the huge, enormous actually, assumption that the gun is the problem, correct? But the same people who want these “common sense” laws also never want to restrict guns from law enforcement, right?
So a true common sense question would be to ask: If guns, or in this case a storage container for their projectiles, are the problem then why are these objects “good” for LEO’s and “bad” for everyone else? Seriously, why is the inanimate object a problem in one case but not the other?
Yes, why should law officers be better armed than citizens?
Why should firefighters be better armed for fires than citizens.
Why should soldiers be better armed than law officers
Why should accountants be better armed for finance than puppies....
Why do we need a wall to be better protected than immigrants.
SD.
"You can't know whether there's zero actual safety benefit or not. Just like I can't know there's any benefit."
So why make the change at all? In fact, there are more pressing needs that do require law changes and no one is putting any effort into changing them.
The law is bad at best and confrontational at worst. Without a doubt it is to exert authority and based on your own logic there is no logic for doing it.
Good morning, Felons of NJ. Those of you who thought you were law abiding citizens are now criminals. All with the stroke of a pen. Question is, do we kneel on Sunday at the football game or not?
I agree, the law can not be proven to show benefit, so why inflict this pain on citizens.
That said, turn em in, it is the law.
"Good morning, Felons of NJ. Those of you who thought you were law abiding citizens are now criminals. All with the stroke of a pen."
you speak truth dodgeball, there is an estimated one million new felons tin the state of NJ today. The state has just created felons out of law abiding citizens for no good reason whatsoever.
“Yes, why should law officers be better armed than citizens?
Why should firefighters be better armed for fires than citizens.
Why should soldiers be better armed than law officers
Why should accountants be better armed for finance than puppies....
Why do we need a wall to be better protected than immigrants.”
Finally, some honesty instead of obfuscation!
Yes, I agree the goal is to disarm the population because, as you’ve implied, individuals cannot possibly he expected to protect themselves, or put out a fire (gotta ban fire extinguishers).
Thanks for being clear for a change. How refreshing!
So can we start talking about the real issue then, which is your desire for the population to be put in a position where our overlords, err elected officials, have complete 100% control over their subjects?
Stranger is the danger the things you read into what isn’t written as such. Some would call that spin. I just say its a misread.
Will the state create a $2M defense fund for gun owners who get arrested for possessing these magazines (that were legally owned yesterday), or is that only for people that shouldn't legally be here at all (and knew it when they crossed the border)?
Well I sent all my 15rd mags to another state and replaced then with 10 round mags. Had to purchase more mags then I had before so I could have the same total capacity. The gun manufactures are sure making money on this. Mags were $40 each.
Marc, legal aid is already funded for you at way above $2M. Just stop in and ask for help. I am sure you can meet the requirements.
Did Violation of Massachusetts’ Gun Storage Law Save Man from Pit Bull Attack?
Arizona -(Ammoland.com)- – On the 2nd of December, 2018, a 25-year-old man was at home with his girlfriend and a pit bull dog they were fostering. All of them were lying on a bed at about 6 p.m. The dog attacked the man. The man attempted to move the pit bull off of the bed. Instead, the dog bit the man on the left arm, and would not let go. From bostonglobe.com:
In a desperate attempt to end the attack, the man reached for a 9mm handgun he had in his nightstand and shot the dog, police said.
“The single shot stopped the attack and the dog died shortly afterwards,” police said in the statement. “The man is fully licensed to have firearms in Massachusetts.”
Police took the man’s handgun, a 12-gauge shotgun, and ammunition found in the home “for safekeeping.” The dead pit bull was taken away by Yarmouth animal control officers, police said.
Massachusetts is the only state in the nation that still requires all firearms in a home to be locked up when not in use.
BOSTON – The highest court in Massachusetts on Wednesday upheld the constitutionality of a state law that requires gun owners to lock weapons in their homes, a case closely watched by both gun-control and gun-rights proponents.
The state Supreme Judicial Court, ruling in the case of a man charged with improperly storing a hunting rifle in his Billerica home, unanimously agreed that the Second Amendment does not overrule the state’s right to require owners to store guns safely.
The Massachusetts Supreme Court ruling was based on two premises.
First, that the Second Amendment only applied to the federal government, not to the states. At the time, the McDonald case had been heard, but the U.S. Supreme Court did not deliver its opinion until July of 2010, two months later.
Second, the law in Massachusetts allows a person to have a firearm unlocked and loaded in the home when it is carried by them or “under their control”. From the Massachusetts Supreme Court ruling:
The gun owner's obligation to secure the firearm in accordance with the statute arises only when the firearm is stored or otherwise outside the owner's immediate control.[6]
Exactly what is meant by “the owner's immediate control”? Does the law mean a person may not leave an unlocked shotgun in their bedroom, while they are in another room of the house? It seems to mean a person who is not licensed, even if they are the gun owners spouse, parent, or child, is not allowed to have access to any of their firearms when they are not present.
The 9mm by the bed was arguably “under the control” of the licensed firearm owner. But what about the shotgun? Perhaps the shotgun was locked up. We do not know.
The academic literature is mixed on the subject. Research by John Lott and John Whitley concluded the law had a net negative effect. From crime research.org:
It is frequently assumed that safe-storage gun laws reduce accidental gun deaths and total suicides, while the possible impact on crime rates is ignored. We find no support that safe-storage laws reduce either juvenile accidental gun deaths or suicides. Instead, these storage requirements appear to impair people’s ability to use guns defensively. Because accidental shooters also tend to be the ones most likely to violate the new law, safe-storage laws increase violent and property crimes against law-abiding citizens with no observable offsetting benefit in terms of reduced accidents or suicides.
Self defense in the home with handguns was ruled to be part of the core of Second Amendment rights, by the Supreme Court in Heller. Infringement of that right should have been examined under strict scrutiny. Interest balancing was expressly forbidden in this context, by the Heller decision. From Heller:
“We know of no other enumerated constitutional right whose core protection has been subjected to a freestanding “interest-balancing’ approach. The very enumeration of the right takes out of the hands of government – even the Third Branch of Government – the power to decide on a case-by-case basis whether the right is really worth insisting upon. A constitutional guarantee subject to future judges’ assessments of its usefulness is no constitutional guarantee at all. Constitutional rights are enshrined with the scope they were understood to have when the people adopted them, whether or not future legislatures or (yes) even future judges think that scope too broad.
It is unknown if the pit-bull victim will be charged with a crime or if he will have difficulty in retrieving his firearms from the police.
good support citations preventing the government from interfering with or infringing upon fundamental human rights:
Murdock v. Penn., 319 US 105: “No state shall convert a liberty into a privilege, license it, and attach a fee to it.”
Shuttlesworth v. Birmingham, 373 US 262: “If the state converts a liberty into a privilege, the citizen can engage in the right with impunity.”
Owen v. Independence, 100 S.C.T. 1398, 445 US 622: “Officers of the court have no immunity, when violating a Constitutional right, from liability. For they are deemed to know the law.”
Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232, 1974: Expounds upon Owen Byers v. U.S., 273 U.S. 28 Unlawful search and seizure. Your rights must be interpreted in favor of the citizen.
Boyd v. U.S., 116 U.S. 616: “The court is to protect against any encroachment of Constitutionally secured liberties.”
Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436: “Where rights secured (Affirmed) by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule making or legislation, which would abrogate them.”
Norton v. Shelby County, 118 U.S. 425: “An unconstitutional act is not law; it confers no rights; it imposes no duties; affords no protection; it creates no office; it is in legal contemplation, as inoperative as though it had never been passed.”
Miller v. U.S., 230 F.2d. 486, 489: “The claim and exercise of a Constitutional right cannot be converted into a crime.”
Brady v. U.S., 397 U.S. 742, 748: “Waivers of Constitutional Rights, not only must they be voluntary, they must be knowingly intelligent acts done with sufficient awareness.” “If men, through fear, fraud, or mistake, should in terms renounce or give up any natural right, the eternal law of reason and the grand end of society would absolutely vacate such renunciation. The right to freedom being a gift of ALMIGHTY GOD, it is not in the power of man to alienate this gift and voluntarily become a slave.” —Samuel Adams, 1772
Cohens v. Virginia, 19 US (6 Wheat) 264, 404, 5 L.Ed 257 (1821): “When a judge acts where he or she does not have jurisdiction to act, the judge is engaged in an act or acts of treason.”
Mattox v. U.S., 156 US 237, 243: “We are bound to interpret the Constitution in the light of the law as it existed at the time it was adopted.”
S. Carolina v. U.S., 199 U.S. 437, 448 (1905): “The Constitution is a written instrument. As such, its meaning does not alter. That which it meant when it was adopted, it means now.”
Hmm... well this is interesting.....
"California, a state with every gun control imaginable, witnessed an 18 percent rise in firearm homicides from 2014 to 2016.
This rise in firearm homicides comes despite the fact that Democrats, gun control groups, and the establishment media constantly claim that states with the strictest gun controls see lower rates of violence and death.
California has universal background checks, gun registration requirements, red flag laws (i.e., Gun Violence Restraining Orders), a ten-day waiting period for gun purchases, an “assault weapons” ban, a one-gun-per-month limit on handgun purchases, a minimum firearm purchase age of 21, a ban on campus carry, a “good cause” restriction for concealed carry permit issuance, and controls on the purchase of ammunition. The ammunition controls limit law-abiding Californians to buying ammunition from state-approved vendors–all of whom are in-state sellers–and adds a fee to any ammunition bought online, also requiring that ammunition to be shipped to a state-approved vendor for pickup."
Not much more to do at that point, except......
read here:
https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2018/12/09/gun-control-fail-california-firearm-homicides-up-18-percent/?fbclid=IwAR2BrBS-MhLNfLX4999Wkr2J1EMldO0jDFj-CDAQwy4loGr6yX0cbW8CVrg
(yes yes SD, WE KNOW: "Breitbart is an extreme right-wing biased hate group and therefore anything they say is a LIE." We got it...)
Actually its worse than that, but of course you don’t even look. But heh, “your cash ain’t nothing but trash.”
extreme right, biased, non factual fiction often found here. JR too lazy to look elsewhere
JR: Without a lot of comment on it, a large part of the crime increase has been pot related. It's become an incredible profitable line of criminality to rob pot dispensaries, customers and growers. CO has a similar problem - no particularly guns, but an uptick in crime in general related to it.
And Breitbart isn't just biased etc, it literally makes things up on a daily basis. If you read it, your entire judgement is questionable - not just your comments on an article.
And the problem with any one state having gun control restrictions is all these idiot red states don't.
One good thing Phil Murphy has done is to order the AG to publish a quarterly report of where crime guns came from (Note, this is seized from crime scenes, not total, obviously)
Here's a recent report - 79% of guns came from out of state.
https://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2018/09/nj_crime_guns_where_do_they_come_from.html
https://www.njsp.org/njgunstat/
Just more proof that national gun control is needed. Also proof that we need to act sooner rather than later - more restrictions sooner means less guns out on the streets. Period. NJ has problem but its largely not with guns purchased inside NJ.
"Here's a recent report - 79% of guns came from out of state. "
Well then, we need A WALL. To keep out the ILLEGAL guns. Right?
Oh no, wait.... can't do that, that's racist... or gunist.... or something.... have to be anti-wall..... well, apparently LAWS don't keep the out-of-state guns from coming in, and the new law Murphy just signed AGAINST HIS OWN CONSTITUENTS has absolutely NOTHING to do with out-of-state guns... hmm... a conundrum.
Maybe if we stopped every person coming over the NJ border, so we could search them, ask them why they want to come here, uh... oh no.... guess we can't do that either. That's racist. Or gunist. Or something-ist.
Boy, you guys have a real problem on your hands. How do you expect to fix this problem? And please, don't say "national gun control", get specific. By all means. We all want to hear it.
But it’s illegal to bring guns in from outside New Jersey (to either sell or use them there). That IS a “national” (I.e federal) law. (By that I mean “use” in the criminal sense which are the interstate guns that you are most certainly referring to)
So if New Jersey has a problem with gun is coming in from outside the state in violation of existing federal law what makes you think more federal laws won’t Be ignored just the same?
It’s almost like, and call me crazy for saying this, criminals don’t follow the laws.
Despite Strict Gun Laws, California Homicide Rate Up 18 Percent
Posted at 6:00 pm on December 10, 2018 by Tom Knighton
We’re constantly told that gun control laws work, that they somehow prevent bad people from doing bad things. At least with guns, if the anti-gunner is trying to be semi-honest.
However, the anti-gunner you encounter on a daily basis does believe this. These folks think gun control works, probably powered by pixie dust or something.
Of course, watch the meltdown when you point out that the state with the most strict gun control had it’s already high homicide rate jump up nearly 18 percent from 2014 to 2016.
This rise in firearm homicides comes despite the fact that Democrats, gun control groups, and the establishment media constantly claim that states with the strictest gun controls see lower rates of violence and death.
Despite all the stringent gun controls a bill filed by Assemblyman Marc Levine (CA-D-10) admits California firearm homicides were up between from 2014 to 2016. The bill says, “Although California has the toughest gun laws in the nation, more effort is necessary to curtail gun violence. The Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation found that from 2014 to 2016 gun homicides increased 18 percent.”
The few wins gun control activists claim to exist aren’t the wins they like to think they are when you delve just a bit deeper.
In California, they continue to disarm people hoping to buck the trend, but their efforts won’t change anything. It’s a simple fact that gun control laws do not deter criminals, but they do impact the law-abiding citizen who wasn’t going to commit a crime in the first place.
https://bearingarms.com/tom-k/2018/12/10/despite-strict-gun-laws-california-homicide-rate-18-percent/?utm_source=thdaily&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=nl&newsletterad=&bcid=d44cbf48eb313ab34cc5fb772ab63232&recip=21095195
JR, I'd recommend getting an apple watch. I hear they can help detect heart attacks, but even without an apple watch, I think you're having one right now
I'd gladly fund a wall around NJ. But you'd have to leave first :) Then again, we have most of a natural moat. Let's just fill it with Alligators!
It proves that our gun control works, that to find guns used for criminal activity criminals have to get guns from out of state. If PA and GA and FL adopted the same regulations, they, and NJ would be better off.
JR, there's still the 21% of guns used in crimes in NJ. Not all of those will be guns affected by this law - some will be. Nor will the 1 million NJ residents be affected by this as several of you repeatedly say - 1M is the total number of gun owners in NJ - not all of which will be affected by this. For example, anyone who owns only a shotgun is unaffected. As well as many older rifles like the 8 shot clip in the m1 grande that's popular with older veterans and collectors. Many .22s have 10 shot clips
We should follow after Canada. Pistols limited to 10 shots, semi-automatic rifles to 5.
Would you all be open to a law like this is semi-autos were restricted to 5 or 10, but pistols kept at 15? It would still reduce the risk related to typical mass shootings, but wouldn't do as much for your typical gang/drug related shootings using pistols anyway?
You're OK with SEMI-AUTOMATIC rifles??? Don't you KNOW that those are "ASSAULT RIFLES"???? Surely you know that. We need an assault rifle ban, well we need a BIGGER assault rifle ban, since we already HAVE an assault rifle ban in NJ.
And prey tell, why is 15 any more dangerous than 10? Did you know the Parkland shooter did not use any magazine that was larger than 10 rounds? No no.... a 10-round limit simply won't do, as is illustrated by that tragedy. You'll have to do better.
Murdock v. Penn., 319 US 105: “No state shall convert a liberty into a privilege, license it, and attach a fee to it.”
Semi-automatic rifles/assault rifles - same thing unless you want to get into some poorly written laws.
You'd think a gun owner would be able to figure out why 15 is more dangerous than 10, but it seems logic and rational thoughts are not one of your strong suits.
10 shots per magazine means someone has to reload more often. It gives a good guy with a gun, or without a gun a better chance to be able to stop an active shooter.
It gives people more time to run and hide. If you're out somewhere and someone starts shooting, I guarantee you'll be happier if they have a 10 shot magazine, than 15.
It also makes it a bit more difficult to carry about more ammo. Now you have to lug around another magazine. It would be a lot easier to carry 30 round magazine, or even two of those, than it would be to carry and reload a 10 round magazine, 6 times.
No one tries to do a mass shooting with a single shot bolt action. (Yes, there's serial killers like the DC Sniper but that was over months, not seconds)
In the case of Parkland, your "good guy with a gun" was a pussy. Which is really what most of you are, hiding behind your guns as if it somehow makes you a man, makes you tough, and makes you safe. Meanwhile inside, you are a scared weak, selfish little human who decides your personal right to have a gun is worth more than the lives of others that have been ended and will be ended because of your fetish.
This was a trained security guard with a gun, whose job it is to defend children from violence and he couldn't do it. And I know you aren't man enough to do any better, nor would anyone in their right mind hire you to protect a cookie jar.
Now, let's take the Vegas shooting. He used bump stocks to up the rate of fire of his many guns with high capacity magazines. Fired over 1000 rounds from 24 guns in under 10 minutes, leaving 58 people dead, 851 wounded (422 from gunshot wounds). 12 guns has 100 round magazines in them. He also purchased the majority of the guns within a week of the shooting.
Had the NJ or CA style gun regulations been national this would not have happened. Period and if you think otherwise, you are beyond saving.
As much as I hate you, and I do with every fiber, I hope you never have to be a victim or know a victim of a shooting, but if you are, I promise you you will think differently.
And the only thing it costs you is a few more minutes of your time while your at the range to reload. How selfish of you to deem your time of your pitiful miserable existence, over innocent lives. You are truly the worst human, JeffersonRepub.
First off alpha, the majority of what you are saying is completely wrong and as educated as you are trying to make yourself sound, you are clearly not because your last post is filled with a handful of fallacies.
Secondly, hate to burst your "how many mags can you lug around bubble" but 3 10 round magazines take up the same room as 1 30 round magazine...it is actually easier to conceal 10 round magazines, AND nobody RELOADS during a shooting.....they just put in another loaded magazine, so your entire argument there is absolute garbage.
AND finally, I insist to know why alpha1beta has not been banned from this site by the moderators....are you guys even paying attention to the hateful and insulting posts he is writing on this site?
"As much as I hate you, and I do with every fiber"
"You are truly the worst human, JeffersonRepub."
Alpha1beta, as much of a "big "better" guy" that you try to sound like, you are filled with a seemingly uncontrollable amount of hate for people who think differently then you, you need to get that under control dude.
quoted from the article linked above:
"Nothing good comes of these laws. England banned guns, and its knife crime rate skyrocketed. It got so bad that London enacted a knife ban. Not that it’s done any better, mind you, but there you go.
Weapons are nothing but tools, and we’re a tool-using species. However, even if you can somehow deny the bad people their preferred tool, England has shown us that they’ll pick another one. Meanwhile, the innocent, law-abiding guy or gal on the streets is now left defenseless because they lack the means to respond to a violent attack.
Anti-gunners are the ones throwing around the term “common sense” like they understand what it means.
Let me make it clear: gun control doesn’t work. The data from California proves it. "
Somebody’s lashing out, all triggered. Pun intended.
I won’t even go into the detail of the falsities of your post, I don’t waste time on nonsense and I don’t suffer fools.
I don’t hate you, I’m just not going to waste my time arguing with someone who doesn’t know what they are talking about, as you will drag me down to your level and beat me with experience on that, I’m afraid.
And yeah... mods need to wake up on this one. A1B has been unhinged lately.
So my right to talk is less important than these nutjobs rights to slug around deadly weapons?
Darrin:
If you have a brain in your head, you can fact check everything I said. Do it.
I say reloading, you say reloading a load magazine. To me it's the same thing. You are reloading your gun. It may only take 30 seconds to swap magazines, but that's 30 seconds it gives people to run, hide, or fight.
It's not space - its ease. It's a lot easier to carry one 30 round magazine than 3 10 rounds as you can carry 30 rounds in one magazine in your gun.
Darrin: I've had to sink down to this level to even attempt at having a discussion with the people of this site. But i'm fighting to fight, however low or high for what I believe in is the greater good, even if it means I don't come out of it well.
Ban me. Then ban every neo nazi wannabe on this site. Ban the twisted messed up people who called the National Library Association fascists, ban the people who troll on a daily basis, ban the people who post from breitbart and while you're at it start checking IP addresses to make sure none of these users are Russia plants.
Moderators and owners: I would argue you should shut this site down as it it allowing toxicity to breed. I know you do not support the breeding ground for the fringe right that this site has become. Shut it down and make these people crawl back under their rocks - or impose rules so there is a reasonable discourse - not this wild west of fascism that takes place here day in and day out.
You are a gaslighter, JR.
Angry is different than unhinged. I am angry because I cannot believe one human being can believe what you and so many others do. Quite simply, your selfish to a fault and you have provided only one good and valid point - the government taking your property should compensate you.
alpha1beta, I don't need to fact check anything, I know my facts, and can see that you sir, do not.
30 seconds to change a magazine?.... and you claim you know what your talking about???? Reality= 3 second TOPS! Heck, 10 seconds if you drop it, kick it under a table, and then have to find it........ If you can run and find a good hiding spot in 3 seconds, I would consider you a magician
I hate to say it, but you have not sunk to any level, you have always been at that level. I have seen it in every post you post here, as well as other social media sites. You feel the need to talk down to anyone who does not agree with you as opposed to actually having a conversation. Nobody here posts the way you do, nobody tries to get their point across by continually calling names and telling people they hate them...nobody on this site....we are all adults here having an adult conversation, and I politely ask that you start acting like an adult if you are going to be part of the conversation.
@alpha "and while you're at it start checking IP addresses to make sure none of these users are Russia plants."
Yeah...because that's what Russia would be doing...posting on Hackettstownlife.......are you serious?
And the fact that you have the marbles to say others are the paranoid ones just blows my mind!
"Quite simply, your selfish to a fault"
When it comes to constitutional rights, yes I am.
The difference between me and you is, I don't want to take your rights away, but you do want to take mine away.
As for "banning", Moderators don't have to ban anyone. But they routinely take down posts as filled with hatred as your is. Especially when it's directed at another forum member. Frankly, you really do need to get a handle on that... others here have Trump Derangement Syndrome, but you seem to have JR Derangement Syndrome.
So, if you can't discuss things civilly (which is what you have shown us), then yes- some of your posts should be removed for you. Until you learn to play like a grown-up.
JR: You are now your own echo chamber; writer, commentator, and critic.
Wait. I think I am learning your thought process. Let me try.
Mark:; the guns are bought in your ez-to-buy, loose gun lawstate so you can turn a nice profit from out of state dollars in support of your habit: low taxes. Then the criminals you cater to in support of your habit run em up the iron pipeline to NJ to sell em at a nice profit.
In NJ these guns are mostly used to kill blacks, so yeah, it is your white state’s revenge on Northern blacks in order to support your habit. That’s racism.
With national common sense gun laws there would be no advantage luring gun runners from other states.
Get it. No islands of either too strict or too loose where people could profit just by crossing state lines.
You do realize, A1B, that rabid, venomous, foaming-at-the-mouth rants like yours from the left is exactly how Trump got elected, right?
Oh no, I forgot- it was the Russians. ROFLMAO
That really is the real difference. One wants to strip rights away (by the ultimate use of force) and the other wants to preserve rights.
Electric Bear You are correct JR, banning was not the correct word, although others have been banned for far less.....I do agree that rabid posts when people may (or may not be) hitting 'the sauce" need to be removed by the mods. We have been talking very civilly here and I plan on continuing that. A thread with a lot of great information on a very large current topic does not need to be taken down due to one single person who cannot post like an adult.
JR: Racism and a "screw the system" attitude is what got Trump elected. You all hated Obama probably worse than we hate trump and without any legit reason.
And I think a lot of "hope". But the "hope" is misplaced - he's a bad business man and a bad human who has never shown a moment in his life to care about anyone who's networth isn't 7 figures.
And Russians. I wonder if the federal prison will be so kind as to let him be prisoner number "45" too. But like most good things in life, I'm willing to wait patiently for that to come.
Darrin: the only alcohol I've ever touched is in Listerine.
You have more rights than the founding fathers could have imagined giving you. You're just being greedy.
Electric,
I don't want to strip/take away rights. Period. I am not for taking your guns, nor would I stand for that. I'd fight tooth and nail for you right to own a gun - but I don't believe that's carte blanche for anyone, to have any type of gun they want, with any typo of ammo or magazine.
But I believe the constitution is a living document and it along with our laws need to change and adapt, or we as a country and society will die. And in this epidemic of gun violence, we need restrictions on rights.
I believe - as I've said many times around this forum, go take a search - that we need limitations on guns and the people owning them.
It's no different than saying the limit on free speech is yelling "Fire!" in a movie theater. It's a limitation. The overwhelming majority agree to some extent that we need better gun control. And every sane person knows the results are not instant - it will take a generation or more to see the results.
I've said it before and I'll say it again, if you gun owners want to keep you right, you need to work to improve things and that may be accepting limitations. Otherwise, a generation fed up with getting shot up in schools is going to come and take them. And I'm not in favor of that, but ask other people my age and they're not drawing the same line in the sand as I do.
You're rights are not limitless, and to be fair, the government is what gives you these rights and therefore the government can take away these right. Judges have repeatedly upheld that limitations are legal.
Your rights to have these guns and crazy amounts of ammo - whether you personally are a responsible gun owner or not - put the rest of us - scratch that - all of us, at risk.
I know you're a lot older than me, so I know you didn't grow up doing active shooter drills once a month, or lock downs, sometimes not knowing if it was a drill. You grew up in a different time and place before this was a problem. But it's a problem now and you need to open you eyes to it.
I've also seen first hand the system of background checks fail and a person who had been hospitalized multiple times for mental illness allowed to own guns - multiple - and seen them ignore basic gun safety. So I don't have much faith that the system works and I think we need multiple layers of checks and restrictions to keep society safe.
I also saw a friend (out of state) turn over a collection of guns, including an incredible awesome Ps90, to be melted down so there's no risk of them ever winding up in the wrong hands.
I get it, guns are kinda cool, but they're a lot more fun in Battlefield/Call of Duty than in the real world where you right to own guns without limits can mean that the basic inalienable rights of life liberty and the pursuit of happiness can be taken from anyone from a toddler in Walmart, to schoolchildren, to a 67 year old at a country music concert.
And I get it, you gotta protect your house and family and your dog. But I'm willing to bet you can do that just as well with 10 shots as 15 and a second magazine, but you can give others a fighting chance to make it to the same age you get to, by accepting some limitations.
A1B, I’m only posting because you didn’t answer my previous questions and then came up with this:
“You'd think a gun owner would be able to figure out why 15 is more dangerous than 10, but it seems logic and rational thoughts are not one of your strong suits.”
Logic would say that, given your perspective, *one* is all that’s needed to be dangerous. Anything more than that is, and please pardon the expression, overkill. So if you’re going to question the thought process of others it’s probably wise to review your own.
Now, I’ll try again and ask you if this bill makes the world more safe? If you believe yes, then what percentage of harm/injuries/deaths do you believe will be prevented by dropping the on-board storage count of projectiles? It’s a simple and logical question, is it not?
@Darrin Stalker much? But it doesn't surprise me. I may be the only member of this forum who doesn't hide behind total anonymity.
30 seconds for some, less for others, sure. I'm also assuming you don't just have it sitting out on a table in front of you or in your hand ready to go- you need to get it out of a pocket, or bag. Sure, drop the old one, not like you're going to need it. I've seen people say they can do it in one. But not everyone is trained or use to it.
So what if it is only 10 seconds? If you're extra 10 seconds on the range worth 10 seconds that could save people's lives?
The IP thing is a joke, dude.
But in the real world the Russians have done crazy things: https://www.houstonchronicle.com/local/gray-matters/article/A-Houston-protest-organized-by-Russian-trolls-12625481.php (And here's the indictment: https://www.justice.gov/file/1035477/download)
SD
"In NJ these guns are mostly used to kill blacks, so yeah, it is your white state’s revenge on Northern blacks in order to support your habit. That’s racism. "
Yeah, that's a stretch if I've ever seen one. The other comment, about profit/low taxes- sure-money is money. Greed is good. Soon the govt of NJ is going to help everyone get high in order to turn a profit. You wan't to legalize, sure, but then why tax the hell out of it after years of arresting young adults for it. Sleazy at best.
"Darrin: the only alcohol I've ever touched is in Listerine. "
Damn, never a drop of alcohol. Not even a sip of champagne at a wedding?
JIT: I apologize, I had started to write a post and closed the wrong tab and lost it and never picked it back up - but you ask a good and valid question and i'm happy to try to debate.
One bullet is enough to kill one person, and 10 or 15 bullets doesn't make a big difference one when someone is after a specific person - but we're talking almost entirely about mass shootings here. They may be targeted "Classmates" "coworkers" etc or random (the Vegas shooting)
So you ask "How many deaths/injuries/incidents will be *prevented*?".
I believe this bill is a small factor directly, but it's a hard to give a definite on, because we don't know how many mass shootings there will be, and how many will be in NJ.
- It may prevent a mass shooting - by making it more difficult, and therefore less likely to go down. If your goal is mass casualties and you don't see a way to accomplish it, or your attempts to accomplish trigger alarms, you may either be stopped, or stop yourself. I don't think this is too likely, but
-- It will save time lives in shootings. How many - well, that largely depends on how many there are and how much ammo the person has to start with, but there's a ton of factors. But even if we take Darrin's info and say it takes someone in that situation only 3 seconds to reload, 3 seconds is enough to hide and duck for cover. Or for cops/security guards to get a look into a room to see where the shooter is to be able to stop him.
Let's ask Darrin or JR - in a high stress situation such as planning to murder people, what do you think your accuracy is? Granted, there's a lot of variables such as density, are you hand holding the gun or have a brace or some sort where its a bipod or a wall etc.
30% accuracy? 50%?
In one shooting, if you had 50% accuracy and only one magazine, the hit rate goes from 7.5 to 5.
Apply that math to the Vegas shooting or the Orlando nightclub or other mass shootings, and you may save a handful to several dozen lives/injuries each. I would argue that's worth it.
But how many lives could be saved if an officer can get a shot on a shooter quicker? Or a civilian can tackle them? The short answer is, it's impossible to know, but it increased the odds for a variety of better scenarios. But no country has the rates of mass shootings we do, and most civilized countries have comparatively strict gun laws.
And further, I think there's a ripple effect. Mass shootings breed. The more there are, the more there will be. There was just an arrest of someone plotting to shoot up a synagogue - inspired by the Pittsburgh shooter.
And lastly, I think when the gun owning public see that they're lives are unaffected by this beyond the initial sting, we stand a chance to pass similar laws in states that don't have the same regulations NJ does, which again, over time, will reduce both the number of shootings and the number of victims.
We'll never be able to stop all shootings, or all car accidents, or all heart attacks etc, but the goal in progress is to do anything you can to decrease the odds of a negative outcome.
Driveless cars don't prevent accidents, but they drive a lot more miles than the average human does between accidents. (While numbers vary, Tesla reports without autopilot that their cars other safety systems drive about 4x safer than the average human). They may also reduce the severity of the accident (automatic braking, or being able to serve faster than a human can, safely).
To me, that's a worthwhile pursuit. If limiting capacity can save even a few lives, I think its a worthwhile pursuit.
Shuttlesworth v. Birmingham, 373 US 262: “If the state converts a liberty into a privilege, the citizen can engage in the right with impunity.”
CNJFO ANNOUNCES $5K MATCHING FUNDS CAMPAIGN!
CHEESEMAN-JILLARD LAWSUITS GO TO NJ SUPREMES!
by Black Wire Media Tuesday Dec. 11, 2018 www.cnjfo.com/join-us
In an unprecedented move by New Jersey's busiest 2nd Amendment all-volunteer organization, the Coalition of New Jersey Firearm Owners today proudly announces they are sponsoring a Matching Funds Campaign for the legal battle known as the "Cheeseman-Jillard Law Suits" that were just filed with NJ State Supreme Court! CNJFO has promised to MATCH up to $5,000 on a DOLLAR-FOR-DOLLAR basis if you make your TAX DEDUCTIBLE donation through our official Donation Page's "Cheeseman-Jillard drop-down" by clicking the box marked "Donation Type". DOUBLE YOUR DOLLARS! Go to https://www.cnjfo.com/page-18139 & click on "Donation Type" to access our "Cheeseman-Jillard drop-down". ON TO VICTORY
Infringing on second amendment rights is stripping the rights of others. It is the only amendment with the words ‘shall not be infringed’. You’re not anti violence or anti gun or for common sense reforms. You’re for the stripping of individual rights by governmen by using the power of the state. Backed by violence and the threat of violence.
dodgebaal: correct. Like many others things, I've seen how it can create problems for yourself and others. I don't see the need for it, although it would probably have made some things more interesting, and I've chosen to temp myself or risk becoming part of that problem. Somewhat surprisingly, most folks are very understanding. Plus, that stuff is expensive!
Greyhawk: a similar bill was put up in congress just this year, so while NJ may do this, the feds may too.
Skippy! I miss you! Come back to HL!
Yeah, sure, Electric Bear. You know me. Why don't you go back into hibernation.
Too bad our Gov cancelled the bear hunt! (This is a joke for those of you who cannot tell)
I'm not anti-gun or anti-violence. I'm anti-innocent people dying because there's too many damn guns, ammo and irresponsible gun owners - and next to no regulation in many places allowing this all to happen.
I'm not striping anything. I'm only voicing my support for a a bill that LIMITS it in a constitutional way. Appeals courts have said this is legal but AFAIK the supreme court has never ruled on it.
Let's not forget this WAS part of the law federally for 10 years (Federal Assault Weapons Ban of 1993). Yes, this had some exceptions and is not exactly the same - but the primary purpose was also different.
"Infringing on second amendment rights is stripping the rights of others. It is the only amendment with the words ‘shall not be infringed’." - - - Electric Bear
+1, spot on correct
What does 'Shall Not be Infringed' mean? It means just what it says - - - 'Shall Not be Infringed', period. End of story.
These magazine capacity restrictions and out right bans on certain types of rifles are true infringements on a fundamental right that is enumerated in the Constitution and the government is proscribed from interfering with - - - 'Shall Not be Infringed' means exactly what it says it means.
A1b. You’re for the stAte having a monopoly on the use of force. I trust the individual more than the state and insist we stay armed properly in order to have the consent of the governed maintained. Whining over mass shootings is statistically insignificant when we compare it to the broader context of liberty. Save your tantrums and tears for someone who doesn’t know that hands and feet kill more people than guns every year. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=4lDgugq8cfg
Bear, get bent.
I do t trust the individual. No when you're the individual. Government has many checks and balances and they are in process right now.
The courts will decide this and like everything else, I have no doubt I will be on the right side.
Is or has anyone turned any ammo clips to the police?
Are you supposed to turn them into the police or just destroy them?
TJS Alpha,
There is a major hole in your logic. It is legal to plug a large capacity magazine so that it can only fit 10 rounds....wouldn’t it just be logical to remove the plug if someone was to do something illegal? What does it matter at that point? Do yourself a favor and actually look into what they consider permanently in the gun law books. I have seen riveted magazine stops.... if someone wanted to it would take 15 seconds to drill the rivet and an other minute to remove the block....
This is something you probably can not wrap your head around because as we have seen you truly do not have a clear understanding of equipment. It would literally take 1-5 minutes per magazine to remove the stopping device so that that magazine could now fit its intended rounds. Or you just drive 45 minutes over the boarder and buy whatever you want.....face it, the new law is a joke that will change absolutely nothing, you just are happy to see it because you don’t care what’s done or if it will have any effects as long as something is done.
Annnnnnd.....BUSTED!
Electric Bear, we're going to get along just fine! LOL
So now for those of you who have firearms that were sold with a magazine that holds over 10 rounds:
-the NJSP knows. They have a database. It's built when you apply for your pistol purchase permit, then go back after purchase and register said weapon with them or your local PD.
-the NJSP have "not ruled out" going door-to-door looking for these magazines. If that doesn't smack of Nazi Germany, I don't know what does.
-if anyone is interested in more information/knowledge, I recommend they join the New Jersey Second Amendment Society
https://www.nj2as.org
-NJ2A also has a facebook page, along with the New Jersey Sons & Daughters of Liberty. Both are good sources if information on these issues.
-if you run into trouble, contact Evan Nappen, he's the "NJ Firearms Attorney" that has been involved with these cases for a long time. He's considered the "local expert" on NJ Firearms law. I think he also has a book out on NJ Firearms law specifically.
http://www.evannappen.com
Here's a Jersey compliant Ruger rifle that is well made and serves a useful purpose:
Ruger SR556 New Jersey Compliant, 5.56 16", 10RD, SR-556SC
https://www.impactguns.com/Semi-Automatic-Rifles/Ruger-SR556-New-Jersey-Compliant-5-56-16-10RD-SR-556SC-736676059041-5904/
Thankfully there's no bayonet lug on there (per NJ law)...
Can you imagine how dangerous a mass bayonetting would be?
(Considering knives kill more people in NJ than rifles do each year... 58 vs. 7 in 2017).
"(Considering knives kill more people in NJ than rifles do each year... 58 vs. 7 in 2017)." proving that strict gun control laws do work.
Nice job Mark :>)
"Here, the government has offered no concrete evidence that magazine restrictions have saved or will save potential victims."
While the law is now freely in effect, it’s not clear how authorities plan to handle confiscation of the illegal items.
New Jersey State Police Lt. Theodore Schafer said, “We will enforce the law of the state. That’s our plan.”
Shafer, nor the New Jersey Attorney General’s office, would provide any additional information on confiscation plans or procedures.
Trump-appointed Judge Stephanos Bibas dissented from the ruling on grounds that there was insufficient proof that the law did not violated the Second Amendment.
“The Second Amendment is an equal part of the Bill of Rights,” Bibas wrote. “And the Supreme Court has repeatedly told us not to treat it differently. So, we must apply strict scrutiny to protect people’s core right to defend themselves and their families in their homes. That means holding the government to a demanding burden of proof. Here, the government has offered no concrete evidence that magazine restrictions have saved or will save potential victims.”
Scott Bach, executive director of the Association of New Jersey Rifle and Pistol Clubs, said the organization plans to further fight the decision and the law, which he calls unconstitutional.
“This decision is plainly wrong and upholds New Jersey’s unconstitutional law turning one million honest citizens into felons for keeping property obtained legally that could be used for defending their lives. The decision will be further appealed,” Bach said.
https://americanmilitarynews.com/2018/12/nj-criminalizes-10-round-high-capacity-magazines-today/?utm_source=popsmoke&utm_campaign=alt&utm_medium=facebook&fbclid=IwAR2EIkOvLhTepGlbY4kXX2vNuFq6zE_CNQWZV-02DpHCW7rYikRbJbkI84Y
Speaking of a “mass” anything, I’m going to have a mass holiday party this year. We will probably have a mass dinner, then have a mass gathering around the Yule log. Or maybe we will go to a restaurant where there’s a mass of wait staff.
(A bit of sarcasm here, just making the point that “mass” means 4 or more injured or killed in a gun related event, leading to a mental conclusion that is tarnished by the typical definition of “mass” meaning a lot:
“a considerable assemblage, number, or quantity”)
I see that a lot of people who posted here don't know history and don't understand how things work, God Bless the NRA
"proving that strict gun control laws do work."
Except even in states *without* strict gun control it remains the same.
Let's take your favorite example (my state of SC). Rifles used in 7 murders. Knives used in 29. So even here, where someone can walk into a store and get *any* rifle they want with any magazine capacity, or even complete a private sale with no background check at all, and where you can keep a rifle in your car at any time, they simply aren't used as frequently to kill people as something that YOU keep in your kitchen drawer.
In fact, there is not a single state in the nation where rifles kill more than knives regardless of their gun control scheme.
OK, Mark and JR.... the only two NRA members who didn't date a Russian spy :>)
JR, I did read your Breitbart Alt Right piece and hard to argue with their facts: CA gun homicides up, strict gun laws, all true. However, one would think the journalist might have reached a little bit deeper to actual discover something rather that post an ad against gun control because homicides increased…..
Here's what a handful a clicks reveals.
First, their number are CA DOC numbers; I can’t match those so I used the CDC’s: https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/pressroom/states/california/california.htm
From 2014, to 2016, it shows CA rates went up 14%. Total gun deaths went up 8% indicating that suicides rose slower, or not at all, over homicides. Don't know what that means except in the Australia assault weapon ban experiment, the same can be statistically proved.
For the US, the homicide by gun rate went up 20% indicating that CA rates rose less than the nation, on average. So, according to Breitbart logic, gun controls work and should be established nation-wide. But wait, there's more.....
Just for fun, during the same period, loose gun law States like:
NC: homicide by gun from 2014 to 2016 rose 33%.
SC: 17%
FL: 12% (proving that there's always an anomaly, something else going on, when it comes to guns and statistics.
AL: 45%
And strict gun control states, how did they fare:
NJ: 6%
NY: 5%
CT: - 12%, yeah, that’s minus….
Stick that up your Breitbart and smoke it. Facts are our friends, except for some…. :>)
The fact also remains... the existence of a bayonet lug on a rifle does make make it any more/less dangerous or likely to be used in a crime.
Is that the kind of "common sense" law that you speak of?
Gun control fetishists are not trying to do anything about mass shootings. They are trying to take away peoples' rights, which won't do anything. When you propose back-end solutions that have been proven to be effective, like the smokescreen systems that are popular in Canada, (people running from a mass killer are far more likely to get away under total concealment than if the shooter has to stop shooting for a split-instant), or implementing "shotspotter" systems to alert police to the active shooters location
https://www.safevisitorsolutions.com/blog/2018/5/7/active-shooters-stop-reacting-start-preventing
gun grabbers say "no" - common sense says that we need to disarm you - "That is the only [non]solution we will accept.". They know they certainly cant get a complete ban on a national or even state level - there would be a revolt at worst and at best 0 compliance as we have seen in California and NY.
What does stop active shooters are trained individuals with firearms. would-be mass killers go for soft targets that are unlikely to offer effective resistance - ergo "gun-free" zones and 100% of NJ. meanwhile LEO's carrying under HR-218 / RLEO can carry 15 round mags - you do realize they only shoot once per year to qualify? in my state the mandated range qualification is the same as for an LEO which is minimal - I can assure you that there are plenty of shooting sports enthusiasts that have WAY more training than that.
Reloading is fast, especially if you have a modicum of training. On the other hand, the bigger a magazine is compared to what is supposed to be standard for the weapon, the more likely the shooter is to have a failure to feed or cycle.
Hi all missed you guys too!
Proposed bill would limit magazine capacity from 10 to 5 rounds. This would effectively make all semi-automatic pistols illegal in the state, because every single one of them has a magazine that can accept more than 5 rounds.
Hell- even most revolvers can hold 6.
https://www.njleg.state.nj.us/2018/Bills/S1000/798_I1.HTM?fbclid=IwAR2-6eDQ1-syo3htoOx8f9ZJ7enVwL4Aj3R17VzLkcw73eX3yWz4fIWm00A
So wait... 15 rounds was supposed to be the “safe” compromise.
Then 10 rounds was supposed to be the “safe” compromise.
Now they’re already proposing to go to 5?
And people here can still say with a straight face that they “not coming for your guns”?
IMO, limiting lcms lowers the death toll from guns.
IMO, changing the limit from 15 to 10 can never be proved to be of benefit or harm, either way. Too small a sample.
Mass murders are indeed defined as 4 dead in one spot; multiple spots is a rampage. You have to pick a number for a starting point. What is missing is mass shootings where 4 are shot, but not all dead. You can never really statistically prove much about mass murders, the numbers are too low.
Mass shootings, where the numbers are higher, on the other hand would offer a wealth of data if someone was funded to look. The CDC is precluded from that due to NRA lobbying. There is grass roots research in this, but nothing formal like the CDC could run.
Man, this is all going over old ground. The law is the law, take it to the SCOTUS, you have your best chance in decades.
Based on the current data, 329 so far in 2018. https://www.gunviolencearchive.org/query/0484b316-f676-44bc-97ed-ecefeabae077/map;
all of it is unconstitutional and will be overturned in court, appeals are pending in several states, the circuit courts are allover the map with their decisions, the SCOTUS will have to take a couple of these cases to set everyone straight.
"Shall Not Be Infringed" means exactly what it says it means, "Shall Not Be Infringed"
Common use everyday rifles come standard with 30 round magazines. These 30 round magazines are in common use and are also typically used by the armed forces. Both of these conditions are clearly spelled out in the 2008 Heller decision as protected under the 2nd amendment.
These magazine bans and capacity restrictions are defined as unconstitutional, and the the right of the people to keep, own, possess and use these everyday, common use items "Shall Not Be Infringed"
it will get to the point where you can only have a single shot rifle with rimfire ammo.
https://www.2ao.org/new-jersey-magazine-capacity-restriction-now-what/
it’s just something they made up out of thin air. Like 16” barrels and evil bayonet lugs and everything else. NJ has had a 15-round cap limit for what, 20 years or more. Where is all the data showing how much that helped?! There is none.
Look at the situation in NY. Pretty much the only time a "high cap" mag becomes an issue is when there's another larger charge at play, and they tack it on to add charges. I'm sure Cuomo would love for NYSP to go door to door, but 52 outta 62 county counties have flat out said they don't make the SAFE ACT an active priority.
http://www.nysaferesolutions.com/
this law does nothing but make lawful gun owners - who jump through serious hoops to get them in NJ - felons on paper and look to prosecute people who have an otherwise clean DGU - and take their guns.
guess what that means - every DGU now becomes a "violent crime" incident - even though it was self defense.
My point for some time is that IF the NRA and you boys don't take the bull by the horns, yes, they will keep coming for the guns. Especially as long as we keep shooting up the schools, mass murdering each other, shooting ourselves, shooting kids, and generally just shooting up the place.
YOU need to define common sense gun laws and "shall not be infringed," is about the same as "I want MY wall or I will shut down the gubermint." No compromise, no directing the action towards a common goal, and you will just get more of the same.
And do it on a national basis so we can stop creating these islands of gun control versus no gun control. Both are working against each other.
Darrin:
The only holes here are in your head. Please learn to read. Progress takes time. Yes, perhaps some magazines modified could be undone. But preventing the sale of new ones is part of it.
As Stranger and I have said, a big part of this success depends on other states or the Feds institution similar laws. Again, progress takes time.
But your logic is, I don't see results today, therefore we should never do anything. Do you for a living? Do they pay you daily? Do you work out? There's both direct and indirect progress.
Direct progress: limiting the sale of new large capacity magazines.
Direct progress: as skippy said, adding more time to sentences for mass shooters/attempted mass shooters. Same idea as "Drug-free school zones".
Indirect Progress: the slow removal of availability of large capacity magazines from existence over the next generation or two.
Indirect Progress: Showing other states that this limitation can be put in place and once the NRA's junkies have stopped foaming at the mouth, there's no negative side effects.
You seem incapable of using any kind of imagination, or forward thinking. You think the range is the same as killing people. Have you master object permanence yet? Do you think if I hide your gun behind my back that it's gone forever?
Stranger: I love you man. You nail it every time. These guys don't get it. Compromise and work towards a better future, or someone will come for their guns. Many in my generation would do that and the more they resist the more people will join in this believe.
Skippy, interesting point on the failure. I have heard this before. How much does shape vs just size affect it? Any good reading on this?
Most mass murders aren't experts. But again, even 3 seconds to reload is enough for someone to get to cover, hide, or a trained professional - cop or civilian to stop a shooter.
Greyhawk: I have said at least twice and others too - laws this like give the "good guy with a gun" a better chance. Whether that's a cop or a civilian.
"Common use everyday rifles come standard with 30 round magazines." HWHAHAHHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAH "Common use" hahaha. Does it clean your kitchen? Do you take it grocery shopping? Does it cuddle you at night? (In your case, probably!)
So basically continued focus on banning the tool instead of addressing the real issue (people). Got it.
How come strict gun law states are safer than loose gun law states, especially the Carolinas.
Especially as long as we keep shooting up the schools, mass murdering each other, shooting ourselves, shooting kids, and generally just shooting up the place.
Who's "we"? The 0.0001% of gun owners?
Using that logic, time to ban a great many things... cars, baseball bats, hammers, cell phones (because people can't be TRUSTED to NOT use their cell phones when they drive, obviously the law against it doesn't matter because it's still happening)...
Swimming pools
Alcohol (yeah, they tried that once)
Cigarettes (ongoing)
DOCTORS. No joke. 300,000 deaths a year due to medical malpractice. You want a crusade that will save lives? THERE'S ONE.
"Analyzing medical death rate data over an eight-year period, Johns Hopkins patient safety experts have calculated that more than 250,000 deaths per year are due to medical error in the U.S. "
Medical errors kill WAY more people than guns. So whatchyu gon' do 'bout 'dat?
"How come strict gun law states are safer than loose gun law states, especially the Carolinas."
How come California isn't? How about Chicago? I know.. I know... it's not THEIR fault, right? Out-of-state guns right? Mmm-hmm...
“DOCTORS. No joke. 300,000 deaths a year due to medical malpractice. You want a crusade that will save lives?”
Really! Not just deaths but contracting a disease or illness while in a hospital is way too common!
Well if it’s so dangerous here I’m glad I’ve got 45 rounds ready to go in my truck at all times.
Alpha, I got no further then your hole in the head comment.....as long as you keep acting like a ass, you will be treated like the ass that you are, so don't act surprised when nobody reads your posts anymore and you are just on here, talking to yourself..... much like SD.....
I have already warned you multiple times about talking down to people, yet you continue.....now with me...to call names and plain act like a utter fool....I cannot help you anymore, and I have no desire to continue to even attempt to talk to you about the subject, but you should certainly see a doctor before your anger issues grow into something worse...I am honestly very concerned for you and the people around you safety.
I hope you get the help you desperately need before it is too late. You seem too young to be so confused in your feelings that it makes you so angry that you continually lash out to people you do no know, and have never even met.
By JR's and JIT's logic, let's not fix anything that kills us because there's always something worse.
Given the end-of-days, why bother safety at all. We're all gonna die someday, why prevent it.
Or let us know when you want to discuss this intelligently.
Mark Mc, I'll keep an eye out for you on the police blotter.
JR, you're nuts man. But you are right, lets ban cigarettes once and for all. And keep pot illegal. I'm okay with an alcohol ban too, actually. But i think self driving cars and better support for taxis/uber etc outside of big cities will do more to help save lives than a ban will.
There's crazy fines for cell phone use. Maybe they should be higher. On the other side of it, self driving/driver assisting cars are getting more common. Someday soon we'll only ride, not drive, and cell phone usage won't be a problem. That's progress. On other ends, car companies are trying to do more with bluetooth and voice control and phone manufacturers via Android Auto and Car play are limiting how much you can use touchscreen while driving. Carriers also have their own apps to limit what you can do, but those are optional. So between law, technological progress and education and providing options, I'd say we're doing quite well with providing solutions - but they take time - no one is going out buying a new car just so they can use their phone while they drive.
Also, cell phone usage is a relatively new problem. Under 10 years old really. Mass shootings go back further. Both are increasing.
Yeah, I saw the same piece. It's a shame. We're making some progress on that too. AI is looking to become a checks and balances to help doctors out. BTW, one of the causes for that number of our shitty insurance system. But that's something else you dinosaurs are against. It's not just the doctors - it's not even mainly the doctors.
"Mark Mc, I'll keep an eye out for you on the police blotter."
Don't worry... around here when you shoot the criminals the Sheriff gives you an 'attaboy!
https://abc11.com/homeowner-shoots-kills-escaped-inmate-in-south-carolina/4830223/
"Clark praised the woman's actions and said other women should take her lead when it comes to protecting themselves."
Darrin,
I am extremely concerned for my safety and those of others, including yourself, and Mark from those feel the need to carry around guns and ammo with you. But it's not just you with the guns, it's the fact that others can access those guns and often do, to commit mass murder.
I'm so glad our nice little chats are over. You were never even fun to argue with as you rarely made a point worth reading, nor did you know how to retort. You seem to old to not be wiser. SD and I have great conversations. He's a cool dude. He's in my top 8 on myspace.
I saw a doctor - he said I have a bad case of being surrounded by old dinosaurs. But it's curable! Wait 30 years and vote every election! Oh well, I enjoy living in a state where the majority of people agree with me. You should try it. Skippy will tell you he likes the Carolinas. Maybe you can find a nice place down there. From the bottom of my bleeding heart, I wish you luck!
Ah, life will be much better when my generation's is running the place. They're really inspiring - being crapped on in every way possible, and they're still hopeful and believe we can change the world for the better. I think we have some right to be angry that we may not grow to get old if you all are running around with guns everywhere.
"Or let us know when you want to discuss this intelligently."
We have been... where have you been? But I guess the dig is all you got left when stat after stat after stat shows your position to be incorrect and unsupported by facts. But that's your M.O. At least A1B isn't trying to spin data, he's only standing on his ill-informed opinion and emotion. That I can handle, ignorance is fixable. But what YOU do- purposely spin and obfuscate, while presenting opinion as "fact", that I do not abide. Tiny.
Ha... the Oxford dictionary gives a perfect definition of SD using obfuscation:
‘A top-notch lawyer is able to spin, twist, and obfuscate complicated issues in such a manner that the judge thinks he has an unbiased understanding of the issue.’
"Mark: Around here? You're not in the lovely Hackettstown?! Whew!"
Thankfully no. Saving lots of money on taxes down here to buy more guns.
Speaking of which... gun show this weekend!
I'm sorry JR, did you have any facts in that? I just see hot air. Didn't you like my BreitBart response. Confuse you? Too many numbers? Can't wait to you actually respond to those facts.....
I provided facts, nice comeback with your blather, blather...…
You only see obfuscation because there are facts presented :> )
Great discussing with you. Can't wait to not do it some more. Or be like Darrin and wax poetic about how you ignore me. Pages and pages of ignore. Yawn.
"Using that logic, time to ban a great many things... cars, baseball bats, hammers, cell phones (because people can't be TRUSTED to NOT use their cell phones when they drive, obviously the law against it doesn't matter because it's still happening)"
Can someone explain why gun owners love to use the argument that cars/trucks/vehicles also kill people as if that's somehow relevant? I honestly can't think of a dumber argument. Can you ride your gun to work or the grocery store? Does the post office shoot your mail out of a gun right to your door? The primary purpose of a gun is to shoot and kill living things. The primary purpose of all those other things you listed that also kill people, is not to kill people and provides some other much more important purpose. But it's nice to know that you look around at household items and think, "Yeah I could kill someone with that."
Reasonable SD, by your “logic” we would never fix anything because you seemingly refuse to ever look for root causes and only try to fix things that hit you emotionally.
Sorry, but this new law really is the most idiotic thing I’ve seen in a while. 10 round clips are safe but 15 are not? Idiots proposed and passed this law!
@JR "At least A1B isn't trying to spin data"
Nah, unlike SD who just makes stuff up Alpha has no problem making a public fool out of himself with ill-informed information, and is now just purely resorting to assumptions...it's actually hilarious. I love watching liberals self implode so bad that when other read their posts they can see just how looney the left can be!!! Keep driving your supporters away boys, and we will be right here laughing the whole time!!!!
JR:
What data did I spin? Every fact can be backed up with reliable sources. The NRA and breitbart aren't reliable. There may be points at which you and I find differences sources of reliable data, but that's not spin. And I don't post numbers i'm not reasonably confident in. Unlike you. You spit out anything the fringe right tell you. The NRA, Breitbart, Trump. At the end of the day, you are a toxin on this country and the fine people of this town.
I have yet to hear one fact come from anyone on the other side of this debate. It's all feelings. It's all your misguided sense of entitlement. All you do is avoid the argument and complain. Skippy is the only one to bring up a valid point recently.
If the 2nd amendment said "citizens are entitled" to guns, you'd be against it!
“I have yet to hear one fact come from anyone on the other side of this debate. It's all feelings. ”
Are you kidding a1b? Didn’t you already acknowledge that this law won’t save a single person from injury or death? If you didn’t, then pray yell under what circumstances *would* this law actually make the world safer today than yesterday?
There’s emotion here all right, but it’s all on the side of those who fought for and support this idiotic law that will do absolutely nothing to keep us more safe.
So please, show me I'm wrong and provide an example of how fewer people will be injured or killed this year than last year due to magazine size!
JIT: "Safer".
Plus, a big difference. We make many things safer for ourselves (the end user). Safety pins for example.
Gun limitations like this don't make it any safer for the gun owner, but for those around them.
"Gun limitations like this don't make it any safer for the gun owner, but for those around them."
Please, explain how. The Parkland shooter used only 10-round magazines. And it takes 2-3 seconds to change a magazine. Please, explain.
Darrin, I pity you. I thought you weren't talking about me! I got so excited!
JIT: you are twisting my words to mean something I did not say. I said, basically, it will save lives, but it's hard to quantity how many.
And again, "Today" vs "Yesterday" is not change. 10 years from now, we will be safer. 50 years, even safer. Progress takes time.
SD has said it best, "How come strict gun law states are safer than loose gun law states, especially the Carolinas.". Data varies depending on the source, year and other factors (pot legalization for one) but this statement is generally true.
You guys don't like it, MOVE. NJ is a blue state. Your the minority. The people in this state agree with me, overall. The carolinas can be a wild west but when you kid doesn't come home from school, that's on you and your like-minded man then.
You're mentally ill. If anyone saw your posts while running a background check, you'd never get another gun in your life.
You're right JR, I am sorry, you did say "Isn't". Others have accused me of that, but at least you can admin I haven't.
"Sorry, but this new law really is the most idiotic thing I’ve seen in a while. 10 round clips are safe but 15 are not? Idiots proposed AND SUPPORTED and passed this law!"
Fixed it for ya, JIT ;)
"The primary purpose of all those other things you listed that also kill people, is not to kill people and provides some other much more important purpose."
Ever hear of self-defense? Legal gun owners use their legal firearms in self-defense all the time. Many times the THREAT of force is all that is required- no shots fired. I could drown you with stories of these events that happen all the time, but would you believe them?
It's like the Cold War: mutual assured destruction (self-defense of equal "firepower") is EXACTLY what kept the "button from being pushed." If criminals have AR-15s and even fully-automatic weapons (which they ALWAYS WILL, because criminals DON'T FOLLOW LAWS), but all the citizenry is allowed to own is a single-shot rifle/shotgun, what do you think the affect of that imbalance would be?
JR you are also right on the parkland shooter - he didn't use high capacity mags. But in this case your "Good guy with a gun" failed to do his job. This bill is not a cure-all, it's one small step. No one says it's a cure-all.
Part of the idea of this bill is to give your good guy with a gun a better chance (I've said this 3 times now).
But you can do your own research and see there are cases where shooters are stopped while reloading. It happens - and this would allow it to happen more.
What about the vegas shooter? None of you want to touch that. You have a open field filled with people - packed. If only 10 or 15 round magazines existed - not 100 rounds, the death toll would be many many less.
A1B... stop with the "good guy with a gun" thing,here's the HOLE in your "logic":
... do we have to keep repeating this.... I know you guys HEAR it but your extreme confirmation bias and emotion-driven logic keep you from REGISTERING it:
BAD GUYS DON'T FOLLOW LAWS. THEY WILL ALWAYS HAVE GUNS, THEY WILL ALWAYS HAVE HIGH-CAPACITY MAGAZINES. BECAUSE THEY DON'T CARE WHAT THE LAW SAYS. Laws like this hinder only ONE person: the law-abiding citizen.
"And JR shows his real self: name calling. Yet even weak at that."
Ha, nice try SD, but I was only defending myself from you buddies' name calling me. Tit for tat.
JR, self nominating yourself? Nice. Gotta give you credit for self-abuse-name-calling. A new HL first. Put a bra on that :>)
“Nah, unlike SD who just makes stuff up” You have yet to prove this lie, Darrin. Go for it. I keep asking on every repetition.
“SD, by your “logic” we would never fix anything because you seemingly refuse to ever look for root causes and only try to fix things that hit you emotionally.” You too, JIT. Prove it.
“We really don't need another poster like SD mucking up these threads with personal attacks.” Yeah, it’s me Hawk. The attacker. Just point em out.
“Sorry, but this new law really is the most idiotic thing I’ve seen in a while. 10 round clips are safe but 15 are not?” We’re in agreement, yet I’m emotional and you’re Mr. Spock. Go figure.
“Ha... the Oxford dictionary gives a perfect definition of SD using obfuscation” Well, that’s a definition all right, but it’s not me. It’s your lie.
You folks whine, you complain, you cry a lot, oh my but you cry, yet you never prove anything about my lies, spin, obfuscation and other liberal come backs you learn from your Alt Right Nationalist mentors :>) Living in your personal echo chamber emerging to talk to each other, you avoid controversy and cling to complimenting those who think exactly like you as being smarter than any liberal while you emotionally react to any facts brought to bear that might yield a different conclusion. Put up or leave it alone.
Instead of emoting, name calling, and the like, show us the beef. Show us some examples.
Ooh! Ooh! Can I address the Vegas shooter, A1B? Please! Pretty please!!!
He killed 59 people with a rifle and high-capacity ammunition magazines.
But the guy was a licensed pilot and had plenty of money. If he had bought/rented/borrowed/stolen a plane and filled it with fuel and simply crashed it into the crowd, he could easily have killed hundreds and seriously injured many more. And nothing could have stopped him.
So, no, the death toll would not necessarily have been less, if he had been limited to 10-round magazines. Because if he had wanted to kill a lot of people, he might have decided there was a much more efficient way.
"It’s your lie. "
LOL it's funny how much you love that word as soon as republicans took control of the presidency and both houses of Congress. I can't wait to see how much you (don't) use it when the next democrat (liar) holds the office.
"Instead of emoting, name calling, and the like, show us the beef. Show us some examples."
We try, but they are always "extreme right-wing sources who do nothing but lie and probably love Trump and are no doubt racist, misogynist, homophobes". sigh.
And that's even when we use The New York Times lol
a1b, “safer” was your answer to how this law makes an actual difference this year vs last year? Is that a qualitative or quantitative measure? ;-)
And JW, to understand your point some here would have to acknowledge that the PERSON had a desire to kill. Shame on you for arguing the point that the guy *intended* to kill, and thus the tool he used wouldn’t matter.
Hey, what ever happened to the Las Vegas investigation, I thought there were still outstanding issues that were never answered.
When will we all just hold hands and give our guns up to ‘literally hitler’ ? https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Mz0hRo-dkcI
I heard there were lines at local police stations with criminals rushing to turn in their illegal magazines before the deadline. We are all much safer now!
I don’t need any pity alpha, certainly not from someone like you.
“SD and I have great conversations. He's a cool dude. He's in my top 8 on myspace.”
Look at that SD! You have 1 fan.....too bad he is a total embarrassment to liberals and bring you all down to a laughable level!!!!!!! Bwahahahahahaha!!!!
“I have yet to hear one fact come from anyone on the other side of this debate.”
could that possibly because you literally cannot post a single post without insulting people? Grow up and act like an adult and I would be more then willing to have debate with you, and I am sure everyone else on here would be willing to do the same, but instead you strut around like you have some sort of entitlement
SD are you really going to say something about name calling while your only fan is literally going to get this thread shut down because of his continual name calling? Why are you silent about that? If you cared so much you would say something.....
JerseyWolf: 24 guns, mostly purchased within a week prior to the shooting. My previous posts have more FACTS from that.
Your answer is asinine.
Darrin: You're right, you don't need pity, but you need help. And I don't have to call names, but it's fun.
Also, I have an entitlement. To not f'ing die. Actually, that's an inalienable right.
Didn’t think you could step up to the line. Just can’t back up your rhetoric and lies.
“I don’t have to call names but it’s fun”
Okay so bullying people who have different viewpoints than yourself is your tactic.....wait, didn’t you guys just get done complaining about Rudolph the red nose reindeer because of bullying? Hmmmmmm that’s not very liberal of you
The whole myspace thing is a joke, people. It's some sort of music site now.
If the NRA backed nutjobs didn't block the assault weapons ban from expiring, we wouldn't be having this discussion and many mass shootings would not have happened (Parkland, Vegas, Orlando) to name a few. Most of these guns and their high capacity magazines wouldn't have ever been made, or sold in the first place.
You guys are your own worst enemies.
It's funny how when I call names it's insulting, childish, making an ass out of myself and all. But I'm just a ordinary voting citizen. When THEIR president does it, it's president, he's telling it like it is, he's showing someone who's the boss, he's tough.
It's almost as if your political party matters more than facts, logic, reason, and truth. Oh wait!
Hey Stranger, let's leave these ammosexuals to wallow their own misery. I think we both agree this bill could use some tweaks, let's take this to email and write our state reps. Then again, I kind of like making this place uninhabitable for these guys.
I'll just leave this here
https://youtu.be/BtSv3x6lh3o?t=308
You honestly think that if “assault” weapons did not exist that these people just would have not killed people?
You don’t think they would have just found another way?
Do you want to have a conversation about mental stability and it’s apparent decline? Or should we just keep talking about tools used and make absolutely no difference for our future generations.....
Ammosexuals, now that’s creative and funny.
The law is passed; I have moved on.
Now make it national or build a wall around those Carolinas gun whores so they can’t export their pain for profits across our sovereign borders anymore.
It's threads like these I thank God every day we do not have a military draft. I would never want a "COWARD" who is forced to pick up a gun and defend my life and liberty. I want the "REAL MEN" with guts. The "REAL MEN" who would lay their life down for me, my family and country. The "REAL MEN" who know that freedom isn't free, it comes with a price. I would worry the "COWARD" would flee and lay down and surrender. I don't want the "COWARD" using his water pistol he hides under his bed. It's the "BRAVE MEN" and not the "COWARD" who have kept me safe at night. I may be old school, but at least I can tell the difference between a real man and a coward just from reading this thread.
ammosexuals? Cool, I learned a new snowflake phrase today, thanks!
Btw, for someone claiming that they’re not emotional you’re certainly showing a lot of emotion ;-)
Is there a pause button somewhere? This thread flew off the rails today, more so than usual lol.
I identify as ammo-fluid thank you. Don’t assume my sexuality.
So wait back to MySpace - Tom is no longer my friend ?
BRAVE MEN like Mueller or COWARDS like Trump?
But in my case, you are right. I am not a brave man. I am not a coward either. I am Spartacus :-).
Auntiel, we know you're a racist and generally a piece of crap from other threads, no need to continue to show us here. But good news for you! I hear Trump is looking for his next future-ex-wife!
You're also ignorant, but that is self evident in your words. Owning a gun doesn't make you a real man. Being in the military doesn't either. We have plenty of fine women who have fought and/or died for this country too. Are they not man enough? What about FireFighters - they don't carry guns, are they not real men? What about good loving fathers who raise their kids well? What about hardworking tax paying citizens?
If you definition of a real man is owning a gun then you're a horrible woman.
Your God does not agree with you. You God would be ashamed of what you just said. You should pay a little more attention in church. I haven't been in a while and I sure as F**k follow it better than you do.
You post is absolutely sicking. I'd rather argue with an ISIS fighter than speak to you. Purely disgusting. Absolutely vile, and harmful. I hope your kids turned out better than you.
JIT: That phrase is probably older than you. It's a George Carlin term.
Skippy. I'm sorry I assumed your gender identity. Can you add that to your profile on MySpace?
Darrin. So name calling is bullying now? That's awful snowflake of you.
I'm no on the Rudolph threat, nor do I give a crap. TV, music and alike have a proud history of expressing and addressing taboo topics and must be taken as a product of their time. I do think there are limits but to me the line is pretty much nazism and brutality only for the sake of brutality.
You really need to relax a1b, SD, and a few others.
If i didn’t know better I’d say that you folks are the ones society should be fearful of, busting blood vessels because banning 15 round magazines yet leaving 10 as legal is seen as actually making us safer. Holy crap, actually :-(
Wow, just wow to that last post alpha, just when I thought you were low you go lower....that would hands down win this years most insulting post award, for which the prize is getting thrown off the site for not knowing how to properly conduct yourself.....I honestly cannot believe the mods are letting your posts go through, you continually insult and break the terms of use of this site.....you truly are a vile human being
Your other half is putting a great name on you guys SD! Keep up the silence while he destroys any dignity liberals had left.
FYI, name calling has always been bullying, quite frankly, if you look up the very definition of bullying I am sure name calling is classified in it, not sure what rock you live under, but you need to adjust yourself and how you treat others.....very quickly.....I am not going to sit here while you call a lady a piece of crap....that’s wrong on so many levels and you should be ashamed of yourself....carry on....elsewhere because as far as I am concerned you are not welcome here and I as well as everyone else should no longer even acknowledge your posts....that’s if they are even allowed to stay up.
I have no further words for this trash
By using Hackettstown Life you are agreeing to the following terms:
Be Nice.
You must not abuse, harass, threaten, impersonate or intimidate other users.
You are solely responsible for your conduct and any information that you submit or post to this web site.
You understand and agree that we cannot be responsible for the content posted on this web site and that you use this service at your own risk.
We may, but have no obligation to, remove content for any reason at any time. This includes, but is not limited to, content that we determine in our sole discretion is unlawful, offensive, threatening, obscene or otherwise objectionable or violates any party's intellectual property.
We reserve the right to modify this service, change these Terms of Use or refuse service for any reason at any time without notice.
I suppose it's possible that limiting the magazine size might save some lives. Somewhere, some how, some nutter with a 10-round magazine is going to start shooting, and he's going to run out of bullets, and someone will take him out, while he's trying to reload. It'll happen, and then Governor Snowflake will claim credit for saving lives.
The real problem is that it causes a whole lot of unnecessary problems, for very little expected gain. It's not a solution. It's not even a "step in the right direction." It's just misdirection--a pacifier for crying babies. It's like finally giving in and giving your kid a cookie, just so he'll shut up and stop complaining that he's hungry.
"Also, I have an entitlement. To not f'ing die. Actually, that's an inalienable right."
Too bad most of you lefties don't feel that way about unborn babies.
"Auntiel, we know you're a racist and generally a piece of crap from other threads"
OK, the mods can now be officially ashamed of themselves. Really?
JW, of course it’s possible. But see this link for how many lives would have been saved in NJ if this magazine law had been in effect in 1982:
https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/12/mass-shootings-mother-jones-full-data/
Zero. High capacity magazines used in mass shootings in NJ have been non-existent. Actually, according to this site there have been zero mass shootings in NJ in the past 26 years. Htown had its own event in the ‘70’s but I don’t know what kind of weapon was used or if magazine size was an issue.
But yes, it’s possible the law might have some affect, but as of today we could only imagine that it would because we have zero incidents to reference.
It absolutely sucks that there’s been an average of 4.1 mass shootings per year since 1982 in the US, and I agree that needs to be addressed some how.
But with this law? Sorry, there’s no data to suggest any benefit in NJ - zero can’t get smaller in this case, can it?
So there is incomplete data on that website. While the point remains, the zero number is incorrect...
For those wondering what to do when approached by law enforcement over this issue here's a link to a guide that has good advice:
http://www.evannappen.com/knock-knock-show-us-your-glock.html?fbclid=IwAR3VYpuaCZhOnG831oba4M3HFLqfU5OX7dMwOC1bu3_OZi82XgBFJqi2KHo
Darrin , I thought of you straight away when I saw this, thought you would find it of interest:
Big Horn Armory (BHA) Introduces the Scout Lever-Action Rifle in 500 SW
Cody, Wyo. –-(Ammoland.com)- Big Horn Armory, makers of big-bore firearms, have developed an all-purpose lever-action, big-bore, Scout rifle in .500 S&W. The late Lt. Col. Jeff Cooper, US Veteran, author, professor and founder of Gunsite, was a major advocate for the Scout rifle concept; a rifle that was compact, easy to use and carry for hunting, target or defense. Typically, Scout rifles have become synonymous with bolt-action rifles, but BHA has expanded the concept with its new lever-action Scout model.
https://www.ammoland.com/2018/12/big-horn-armory-bha-introduces-the-scout-lever-action-rifle-in-500-sw/?utm_source=Ammoland+Subscribers&utm_campaign=20d4c89b98-RSS_EMAIL_CAMPAIGN&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_6f6fac3eaa-20d4c89b98-21229169#axzz5ZZEl9kpI
Still waiting for Darrin to step up and respond, either back it up or tamp it down.
Skippy; that’s the spirit, very funny. Keep the faith bro; you’re the rare conservative having a discussion. With facts. Without too much :-$ Alt Right support.
JIT: I agree, and have done so. Yet, for guns, for mass murder, 10 is safer than 15. Prevention does mot necessarily need an occurence to be successful. Just saying.
Yet no one will ever be able to prove this law saved a life. Statistically impossible.
We can prove that NJ has strict guns laws and is safer than states with loose gun laws like the Carolinas.
We can prove that most NJ crime guns come up thr Iron Pipeline from loose gun law states like the Carolinas.
We can prove that loose gun law states economies are strengthened by gun exports.
Don’t really have a point here except that I like typing “Carolinas.” Hits the mark, skips no one ;-)
There you go. “If you disagree with me you’re a racist.” Pathetic. I just picked this up to load mags faster. It only holds 10 so don’t worry your pretty head.
Wow... a lever-action Scout. That is TOO COOL. I've always wanted a Henry, probably a smaller one like .357mag, but that Scout... 500 S&W.... ouch.
Henry Rifles, one of NJ's finest contributions to the gunnies.
I want one too, most cool. Like the Long Ranger, wish I knew more about calibers.
But you can't rifle hunt in NJ, right?
Silverado --- best Henry movie ever.
"We can prove that most NJ crime guns come up thr Iron Pipeline from loose gun law states like the Carolinas."
Not my Carolina... and hey, look, California was in there as a source too!
Damn those lax gun laws in California.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iron_Pipeline
Actually, I wouldn't even consider NC so great for gun laws. Skippy could speak about it more, but I believe you need pistol permits and maybe no private transactions? So, if guns are coming from NC they are doing so illegally. Loose/strong gun laws don't matter if you're not following ANY laws.
As I've described above, ANY interstate transfer of a handgun (which are most used in crime) that doesn't go through an FFL is illegal. Federally. Just like you want. Yet it still happens... imagine that.
Nice data pull from a decade ago.....how many guns did you say from CA...….
80% of all NJ crime guns come from elsewhere, either using an FFL or illegal. Mostly using the FFL, legally. Think about it, we could stop 80% of crime guns from entering the state IF other states stopped exporting them. The fact that once bought the guns are treated illegally is something the Carolina's could care less about. Otherwise, they would build a wall to keep them in :>)
Just because tobacky gone belly up in da land o cotton, don't mean youse can replace it by exporting guns where you used to sell cigs. We liked sucking on your cigarettes, gun barrels, not so much.
North and South Carolina rank number 4 and 5 for states exporting crime guns to NJ. They come within a handful of guns of ranking 2 or 3. Like 5 guns. Only PA, Darrin's state of NJ crime guns, ranks higher exporting 70%-100% more guns than either Carolina state. Of course, from PA, we probably get the criminal exported too since everyone knows there's nothing to steal in PA and hard to pull off the getaway given the other drivers out there :>)
Actually, the stats on gun deaths say you are wrong Mark, strong gun laws do make states safer in terms of gun homicides. You boys in the Carolinas should know that and be careful out there. Oh yeah, you have guns.
Total Gun Death Rate per 100K citizens
NJ 5.5
NC: 13.7
SC: 17..7 (sucks to be you :>)
Maybe it's not crime, maybe you're just stupid down there and shooting yourselves or pulling a Cheney. But wait, there's more.
For homicide by gun
NJ: 2.8
NC: 3.0
SC: 4.5 (sorry, buddy)
Could it be that we heathens in NJ just figured out how use other weapons like knives, cars, planes, and wet noodles?
For all homicides
NJ: 4.1 (that's 1.3 not by gun)
NC: 4.7 (that's 1.7 not by gun)
SC: 6.1 (that's 1.6 not by gun)
Well, let's face it.
You are safer in NJ than in the Carolinas when it comes to....murrrrrderrrrrr…. And a one and a two...
Nothing could be finer than to be shot in Carolina in the morning
No one could be sweeter than plugging my sweetie in the morning
Where the 25-round clips ping around the door
Whispering NRA stories I long to hear once more
Strolling with my dead girlie where the laws are pearly early in the morning
Butterflies all flutter up and kiss each bullet at dawning
If I had Henry's rifle for only a day
I'd make a wish and here's what I'd say
Nothing could be finer than to be shot in Carolina in the morning
Where the morning glories twine around the door (with regrets to Dean'o)
Grehawk..that gun is awesome! I want one!!! Adding it to my Christmas wish list!!!!
SD, although I only shotgun hunt in NJ, I believe you can get a rifle stamp, but I do not know what its limitations are, I just know I see it listed on their licence fee site. With that being said though, I do rifle hunt PA.
"80% of all NJ crime guns come from elsewhere, either using an FFL or illegal. Mostly using the FFL, legally."
If they came from an FFL legally, then *they came from a NJ FFL* and thus have NOTHING to do with any iron pipeline.
Do you not understand the Federal laws for purchasing handguns?
A New Jersey resident CANNOT purchase (and take possession) of a handgun from an FFL anywhere other than NJ. The transfer MUST take place in NJ and comply with NJ law at a NJ FFL.
A New Jersey resident CANNOT purchase a gun privately from ANY other state. The transfer MUST take place in NJ and comply with NJ law at an FFL.
A non-resident CANNOT legally sell a gun to a NJ resident in a private party transaction. The transfer MUST take place in NJ and comply with NJ law at an FFL.
So ANY and EVERY crime gun that is in NJ is there illegally *per CURRENT law* so how exactly are more laws going to stop something when the laws aren't being followed?
Here's what actually happens.
Gang Banger A steals a gun from someone (laws be damned).
Gang Banger A drives a trunk full of guns to NJ (laws be damned).
Gang Banger A sells guns to Gang Bangers B, C, D, etc... (laws be damned).
Gang Bangers use guns in crime (laws be damned).
But you think the problem is that I have 15 rounds in my magazines?
Now, now, we need to rule on emotions not facts and logic! Didn't you know when you bring facts and logic you are now considered a bully??
Phil Thanks guys but I can defend myself. I never, never, named anyone. BUT those that got offended speaks volumes about their character in a very cowardly fashion. With such hate and disdain whether it be towards me, others, or even our POTUS. I must agree you don't have to be a "REAL MAN" to pick up a weapon. But I would like to think and believe a "REAL MAN" does not talk to their fellow brethren in that manner. They can call me anything they want, as long as it's not a Liberal.
Yeah NC is no joke - requires pistol purchase permits and they actually do a mental health and hospital search - takes 30 days to issue after they reply back. CCH quali is full scope background with fingerprints and same range qual as LEO with 8 hours classroom in addition. If you are a new shooter you won’t pass
After all, a man without a rifle is not a citizen. He’s a serf, subject to the whims and will of his overlords who you damn well know are never giving up the guns their minions keep and bear.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/townhall.com/columnists/kurtschlichter/2018/12/06/how-much-blood-would-leftists-be-willing-to-shed-to-disarm-patriotic-americans-n2537012%3famp=true
I will discuss this more after a bit because it's interesting, but come on guys. Lighten up. I agreed with you on the law. I said the Henry was not only NJ, but cool. Sure, I'm a bit of a rascally writing rabbit, but really.....
"Do you not understand the Federal laws for purchasing handguns?" Is that meant me to feel stupid because I do not know everything guns? And how do you know it's all handguns; I said crime guns. Do you not understand? I mean you don't know everything about proctology but yet you're a big …….fellow: ba dum bump. Let's just not play that game...… And enough with beating me up over the new restriction: I agreed with most of what folks are saying about the uselessness of the change, much less being able to prove success (or failure).
"Some folks need to be educated.." See above. And no, I am interested but "need" to be educated. Hardly. Don't need what you don't use..... When I shoot, others help with that part.
"Now, now, we need to rule on emotions not facts and logic!" I just love it when folks say I rule on emotions, (if that's what you meant). Couldn't be more wrong.
"After all, a man without a rifle is not a citizen. He’s a serf, subject to the whims and will of his overlords who you damn well know are never giving up the guns their minions keep and bear." Wow. Guess this guy dissed, what, 270 million people as being serfs to the Overlord Trump. New HL dissing record!! Woo hoo.
So, Mark, let me look stuff up and I will circle around, but really, enough of this crud. Be clever if you try it at least.....
"Is that meant me to feel stupid because I do not know everything guns?"
Federal law on interstate purchase of handguns is hardly anything too obscure.
You claim that the iron pipeline has been filled "mostly using the FFL, legally" as if a criminal from Newark is going down south to buy his handguns where the laws are less strict. That simply won't happen.
The store will gladly "sell" it to them, and then ask for the buyer's local FFL (in NJ) to ship it to. The NJ FFL will run the appropriate background checks and make sure the gun is legal in NJ (magazine capacity, etc.) before handing it over. If the buyer and hardware passes those checks, there was no need to go down south - they could have just bought it in NJ to begin with. The gun laws in SC or elsewhere will have had nothing to do with that transfer other than the store in SC getting paid for the merchandise.
This isn't specific to NJ and SC (or any other combination on the so-called pipeline). It applies to all 50 states in any combination. Handguns purchased by non-residents of any state can only be physically transferred by an FFL in the resident's state according to the laws of the resident's state.
Anything else (including face to face purchase of firearms - handguns OR rifles - by non-residents of that state) is illegal, and thus by definition outside the confines of anything you have proposed to "solve" this problem to date.
SD. it’s ok if you want to be a serf. We don’t all need to be citizens or be knowledgeable about firearms. What we do need to do is respect each other’s rights. That’s where you folks fall short of the mark. You have zero respect for the basic rights of others unless they conincide with the whims of the leftist amalgamation of misfits and malcontents. Keep it up. We are right through it all.
EB --- those were your numbers, your estimates, your idea. Nice parrot job though: "leftist amalgamation of misfits and malcontents." So novel, never seen that one before. Yawn.
Might I once again say I agree with you that restricting lcms from 15 to 10 will do nothing. Does that mean that I am still: "fall short of the mark," "zero respect for the basic rights of others."
Wow, and I thought this law was Constitutional as viewed by SCOTUS, and in this particular case, many State Courts, so far.
Take it to court.
Vocabulary Schpol Is Hereby In Session! (by Black Wire Media Thursday Dec. 13, 2018 www.cnjfo.com/join-us)
Are you tired of being hit with the same anti-gun, canned BS day after day, month after month? Maybe it's time for gun owners to take back CONTROL OF THE CONVERSATION! From One Million Moms Against Gun Control: "We must stop engaging the anti-freedom folks with their own made up, unabashedly false, terms. Do not kowtow to their demand to control the conversation. Choose your words wisely. Stand up for freedom.!" Sounds like we should follow their example!
Parkland shooting commission recommends arming teachers to stop violence
"The panel investigating the Florida high school massacre recommended Wednesday that teachers who volunteer and undergo extensive background checks and training be allowed to carry concealed guns on campus to stop future shootings.
The Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School Public Safety Commission voted 13-1 to recommend the Legislature allow the arming of teachers, saying it's not enough to have one or two police officers or armed guards on campus. "
13 to 1.
https://www.foxnews.com/us/parkland-shooting-commission-recommends-teachers-be-armed-to-stop-violence
Greyhawk, I try to ignore you but your typo is just the best. THE BEST. "Schpol". Welcome to Alt-right university!
For those of who aren't ammosexual or ammofluid (We're inclusive!), I invite you to check out https://everytown.org/ which has OVER 5 MILLION for gun control. It's less than a year old and has as many members as the NRA. They have a group called "Moms Demand Action for Gun Sense in America"
Next one to say "Liberal" in any sort of a mean way and I'm donating $20 to Everytown or the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence (Please choose when making your insulting statement, or I'll make Stranger pick for you) in your name and posting a screenshot. Auntiel, wanna step up to support the cause? Maybe JR? Mark Mc? Darrin?
Actually, A1B, Everytown was founded in 2014, so it’s 4 years old.
That’s an easy fact to check.
It also formed from the ashes of “Mayors Against Illegal Guns”, which had to disband when their mayor members kept getting arrested for crimes of their own. So in reality, it’s been around for 12 years.
It’s also easy to be a member when it costs nothing. MAIG, Everytown, and MDA is almost entirely funded by Michael Bloomberg, whereas the NRA members actually pay to join.
He needs to buck up a bit more though... Everytown revenue is ~$40M (and they spend $42M) while the NRA pulls in $400M.
Did you know the spokeswoman for MDA was a high level exec for Monsanto? Yeah, the one that gives you cancer. Think she truly cares about your well being, or maybe she’s just in it for some of Bloomsberg’s benjamins?
Oh, and just for you. Liberals suck, liberals suck, liberals suck, liberals suck, liberals suck, liberals suck, liberals suck, liberals suck, liberals suck, liberals suck.
What’s that, $200 bucks to start? Let’s see the receipt.
Mark, thank you! I honestly did not expect you to be the first! Thank you for helping raise money for sane gun control!
I did say "Next One", but you're making my consider upping my offer! But I'm also planning to make a few reasonable sized political donations as soon as my candidates of announce. I've to Bernie's presidential campaign and a few more local races.
Yes, the NRA pulls a lot more money because they are a manufacturers association and their big bucks come from gun makers. They only care about your rights so long as they can sell more guns.
auntiel
"The "REAL MEN" who would lay their life down for me, my family and country."
Why should some man "lay their life" down for you? Because you are a woman?
Why don't you be a" REAL WOMAN" and lay your life down for your country? Old fashioned-more like sexist.
Plenty of women have joined the military, here is one. One that is not waiting for a "REAL MAN" to rescue her, one that is talented,smart, and a leader:
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CRNbrXnUAAALu9c.jpg
“They only care about your rights so long as they can sell more guns.”
That’s fine. I care about my rights to purchase guns.
Keep it going... just another $399,999,980 to go to catch up with the NRA.
Just as another point of reference/comparison... the Harrisburg sportsman’s show (sponsored by the NRA) pulls in $80M to that local economy in one week. That’s twice what Everytown makes in a year... in one week, in one town, at one show. Maybe even more now... that was back in 2013 (before the NRA took over from another show coordinator).
Maybe I’ll see what manufacturers contribute the most to the NRA to help guide my purchasing decision at the gun show this weekend.
Enjoy Mark! And good luck passing your next background check!
BTW, did you see the guilty plea of the Russian agent who infiltrated the NRA, invited the leadership to Russia, admits to planning to apply "pressure" to them.
http://apps.washingtonpost.com/g/documents/local/maria-butina-pleaded-guilty-to-conspiring-to-act-as-an-agent-of-a-foreign-government-in-an-effort-influence-us-policy/3347/
You know, Mark, if you're looking for a career change, I hear the FSB is looking for agents. I bet they'd even give you a gun!
So it sounds like the NRA were the victims here, not the conspirators.
News flash... Russia has spies/agents in the U.S.
The U.S. has spies/agents in Russia as well, I’m sure.
I don’t need to join the FSB to get guns... The Iron Pipeline trumps the Iron Curtain.
Although a co-worker of mine does have a couple Tokarev’s that he likes.
Tokarev's are terrifically well made accurate pistols, popular all over the world.
Civil rights attorney Evan F. Nappen offers some comments on what the state of NJ could likely attempt to do to enforce these unconstitutional bans on magazines:
Intimidation Letters
Law Enforcement agencies might choose to send intimidating letters demanding information based on the computerized database of registered gun owners and their registered handguns. The letters would go to suspected possessors of handguns with standard issue Murphy Mags. It is a simple matter today to send letters via a database. This type of intimidation letter is often used to collect taxes. Any information gleaned could then be followed up with further enforcement actions.
What if you receive an intimidation letter?
Generally, you have no obligation to respond to questions in a such letter. Contact an attorney as soon as possible for specific advice regarding such a letter.
It's actually a shame liberals suck. Because there are a few issues I would be considered "liberal" on, being a libertarian I tend to be real big on actual liberty- you know, not infringing on others' rights... it's a shame that the liberals of today are the OPPOSITE of that... the only thing they are "liberal" in is their hatred for those who don't agree with them. They are like the Westboro Baptist Church, just on the other side of the political spectrum. Both full of hate and judgement.
They even stop free speech- which would would think would be their big #1 "right" they love so much... they have no problem with riots that burn down cities because "free speech", but have a conservative try to give a talk at a college and it's PROTEST and RIOT time, baby! Here's an idea: if you don't want the hear that person speak, don't go to their presentation. But no- that's not good enough, we have to protest and riot (arguably practicing 1st Amendment rights), to DENY OTHERS from being able to practice theirs.
Today's "liberal" movement (and I know some people who I wouldn't insult by calling liberal: they may be democrats, but that's not always the same thing... just like with conservative and republican) is so full of hatred, intolerance, confirmation bias, and cognitive dissonance, it really is like a toddler throwing a temper tantrum. The ironic part is, they are just as self-righteous about being on some moral high ground as they have accused republicans and the religious right being for all those years. The anger the liberals express daily brings to mind the guillotines of the french revolution- if they could get away with it, I think they would kill Donald Trump, in the public square, Hunger Games-style.
It's a shame the days of the old democrat party, and blue dog democrat, are gone. The GOP has changed too, but the democrat party is almost unrecognizable. When you have a conservative-leaning libertarian longing for the days of Teddy Roosevelt (progressive) and JFK (democrat), that should tell you something.
(I'm also longing for the days of Reagan, our last great president, but we're talking about the crazy liberals here).
Let's see... 1,2,3.... that's 7, maybe 8 depending on how you read it. $140-$160 to the cause, A1B.
Wait. ‘Good luck passing your next background check’ I thought we didn’t have those? That’s what the media keeps telling us. Isn’t that what bloomberg’s Band of harpies keeps shrieking?
"News flash... Russia has spies/agents in the U.S. The U.S. has spies/agents in Russia as well, I’m sure." Well, that makes it OK for the NRA to joyfully go to Russia to further the 2A...…. Sure.
https://www.sun-sentinel.com/local/broward/parkland/florida-school-shooting/fl-ne-stoneman-douglas-draft-report-20181212-story.html
Panel investigating Parkland shooting recommends arming teachers
"The panel also voted to include a controversial proposal allowing classroom teachers to carry guns in schools if they go through a selection process that would include background checks and training. "
wow - its almost as if good guys with guns stop active shooter incidents.
Maybe the NRA just gave the 80’s their foreign policy back.
Isn’t that what your hero wanted?
A gun free utopia is possible. Let’s just all imagine. https://youtu.be/pOd8DwDlWWs
Skippy,
It’s FL, what do you expect. You can expect more of this:
https://www.cnn.com/2018/03/14/us/california-teacher-fires-gun/index.html
"I was kinda leaning toward having armed people in school in case something happened. After today, I get why people say there should be no guns in schools," Gonzales said.
https://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-teacher-shooting-20180228-story.html
"I have been raised in a more conservative household, but due to the recent shootings and everything that has been happening I have been more and more for gun control,"
https://www.charlottefive.com/arming-teachers/
A year ago I would have never seen any of these stories. I expect we will see more as time goes on. Question will be: do we see a corresponding drop in school shootings. Time will tell whether guns in school are heaven or hell.
We could learn a few things about how the Russians include firearms training in the school curriculum: (video link below) ::
While American school children are getting suspended for making gun shapes with Pop-Tarts or their fingers, Russian kids handle firearms like champions.
Watch and be amazed at the speed, precision and adeptness with which these Russian ninth graders handle an AK-47.
Ten highschool-age boys and girls race a stopwatch as they alternately break down and reassemble an AK-47. They do five times - five complete breakdown and reassembly sequences - in under four minutes!
https://www.wideopenspaces.com/russian-school-kids-break-reassemble-ak-47s-like-speed-demons-video/
For example, every kid who finished school need to assemble and dissassemble AK-47 assault rifle in 30 seconds. They were given real AK-47, and each need to remember his AK-47 number. They also were trained to use NBC-protection (gas masks, etc), RPG launchers, stuff like that.
I've heard real story from one guy when he visited Western arms store, took AK-47, dissassembled and assembled it, taking only 30 seconds.
Seller: "Where did you learned it? Soviet Army? Marines? VDV Paratroopers? Spetsnaz?"
Russia: "No, Moscow state school number 35."
http://www.soviet-empire.com/ussr/viewtopic.php?t=29943
Does Russia have mandatory military service? I know some countries require it as part of being a citizen.
Joe Friday- Yes tthey (see below) I have advocated for ddecades now that we here in the USA bring back rifle and shotgun teams to the public highschools, and that we include in the public school curriculum training in the proper use of infantry rifles just like they do in Russia. Everyone in highschool should be taught how to safely handle firearms like the M16 and M4 rifles that the Army and Marines use.
--------------------------------------
Conscription in Russia (in Russia is known as Russian: всеобщая воинская обязанность or "universal military obligation" or "liability for military service") is a 12-month draft, mandatory for all male citizens age 18–27, with a number of exceptions. The mandatory term of service was reduced from two years in 2007-2008.
Conscription in Russia - Wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conscription_in_Russia
So... you want the USA to be more like Russia when it comes to firearms?
"Russian citizens over 18 years of age can obtain a firearms license after attending gun-safety classes and passing a federal test and background check. The license is for five years and may be renewed. Firearms may be acquired for self-defense, hunting, or sports activities. Carrying permits may be issued for hunting firearms licensed for hunting purposes. Initially, purchase is limited to long smooth-bore firearms and pneumatic weapons with a muzzle energy of up to 25 joules (18 ft⋅lbf). After five years of shotgun ownership, rifles may be purchased. Handguns are generally not allowed. Rifles and shotguns with barrels less than 500 mm (20 in) long are prohibited, as are firearms that shoot in bursts and have more than a 10-cartridge capacity. Suppressors are prohibited. An individual cannot possess more than ten guns (up to five shotguns and up to five rifles) unless they are part of a registered gun collection."
No thanks. I'll stick with our 2nd Amendment freedoms and our freedom of choice for a given individual to decide if he wants to learn how to break down an AR-15 in 30 seconds. To suggest that the government should make it mandatory is very over-reaching and un-American of you.
Well, certainly a friendly place, such a friendly place. Glad you respect them Comrade. Personally, they have little to offer to me, they are a failed nation on a land grab quest and I would strongly recommend you scrutinize thoroughly anything Russian before you blindly recommend adoption.
lol Ian, I never said mandatory, that's your word not mine, that's a leap that you made (as you sometimes are prone to do) and you're wrong, but i can see how i typed that makes it look, not my intention or my meaning, what I have advocated for decades now is that we here in the USA bring back rifle and shotgun teams to the public highschools, and that we include in the public school curriculum training in the proper use of infantry rifles just like they do in Russia. Everyone in highschool should be offered the chance to be taught how to safely handle firearms like the M16 and M4 rifles that the Army and Marines use.
I know you like to, and it's part of your DNA to point out perceived hypocrisy, but i agree with you about our 2nd amendment, and no, I do not want the Russian version of gun-control here in the USA, you really jumped the shark with that assumption. That's not what I advocate at all, please stand corrected on that point
I do want highschool students to be able to compete in school sponsored rifle, shotgun and pistol competitions on highschool teams and in clubs. I advocate strongly for making gun safety part of the curriculum. Nothing wrong with that.
So yes, we here in the USA could learn thing or two from the Russians, and we should, imho.
Just when I thought we were finally going to have a normal non-snarky conversation....oh well, I will consider the 1 post a step in the right direction
Yeah, well.... "Still waiting for Darrin to step up and respond, either back it up or tamp it down."
Wait - I thought the parkland folks were policy experts immediately after the shooting?
The point being - once again - of course there should be no guns in schools. Ready to spend the money to make that happen? Ready to educate in what’s tantamount to jail?
Greyhawk, you said "we could learn a few things from Russia", for whom (according to your quoted story) firearms training IS mandatory, so its not exactly a logical leap to conclude that you think it should be mandatory here as well... but I appreciate the clarification.
I also have no objection to having shooting clubs that are sponsored by schools. With today's environment, the old paradigm of kids bringing their guns to school with them isn't going to fly, but there could be feasible logistical work-arounds. I don't know about the M16s though... are they even legal for private citizens to own? Would the federal government "loan" them to school districts?
M16s are capable of fully-automatic operation, they can only be owned with a Class III license (well, that's the simple version of the legal jargon). M-16s are ACTUAL military weapons, unlike AR-15s (which are NOT capable of anything greater than semi-automatic operation: 1 shot fired for each pull of the trigger.... exactly like a semi-auto pistol or a revolver operates.
Some manufacturers do make civilian versions of the M-16, but again: they are not capable of fully-auto operation, and must conform to all civilian firearms laws. So, NOT a military weapon.
“I don't know about the M16s though... are they even legal for private citizens to own?“
Yes, if they were manufactured prior to 1986 (and you have many thousands of dollars to buy one).
I’m sure not legal in NJ though, where silencers, short barreled rifles, etc. are similarly banned by the state even though they are legal elsewhere.
ian, i should have wrote it clearer,, agreed should not be mandatory , but should be available to all students.
Million Plus NJ Gun Owners Defy State Law, Refuse to Turn Over Banned Gun Mags
Over one million New Jersey Gun owners defy Governor Murphy's gun magazine ban & turn in demands of what some estimate is easily more than ten million now illegal standard capacity gun mags.
New Jersey –-(Ammoland.com)- New Jersey's standard capacity magazine ban is now in effect making New Jersey's one million gun owners criminals in the eyes of the state. But in an act of mass definace, New Jersey residents refuse to comply.
Any magazine holding more than ten rounds is now illegal in the Garden State. The standard magazine for an AR-15 holds 30 rounds. Glock 19s, which is the most popular pistol in the United States, holds 15 rounds. Anyone who is possession of larger magazine is committing a fourth-degree felony.
AG Gurbir Grewal applauded the ruling on Twitter stating: “This just in: for months, individuals have been challenging NJ’s limits on large capacity magazines—a sensible law to address mass shootings. Today, the court of appeals upheld the law. Big win for public safety and law enforcement safety!”
Residents of New Jersey on various message boards have called the magazine ban unenforceable. Some were going as far as laughing at Gov. Murphy and his attempt at regulating magazine size.
New Jersey is not saying how they plan to enforce the ban on standard capacity magazines. Gov. Murphy's office referred AmmoLand to the New Jersey Attorney General's office. The AG's office refused to comment.
Sharon Lauchaire, Director of Communications for the Office the Attorney General told AmmoLand: “We do not discuss law enforcement strategies.”
AmmoLand's sources within the New Jersey State Police that spoke on a condition of anonymity stated that they had not received any guidance on how to enforce the ban from the AG’s office. They said that there is currently no plan to investigate gun owners suspected of having the now banned magazines.
According to the source, the plan that has been discussed among officers is only to file charges against people who are guilty of other crimes. This plan might change once superiors give guidance on how to enforce the ban.
AmmoLand reached out to several local police departments in New Jersey to see how they plan on enforcing the ban and what the turn in numbers have been? Much like the New Jersey State Police, none of these departments have a concrete plan on how to proactively enforce the ban and none had a single report of magazines turned over.
From all Reports, NO Mags Turned In, Governor Murphy & His Law are Joke
AmmoLand also asked the Governor's office what Gov. Murphy thinks of users on the internet saying that the ban is unenforceable and laughing at the Governor's attempt at regulating magazine sizes.
Gov. Murphy and his office refused to comment on these gun owner's opinions.
AmmoLand also asked Gov. Murphy's office about the number of magazines turned in by New Jersey residents. Once again AmmoLand was referred to the New Jersey Attorney General's office.
In this case, Lauchaire would not offer a comment and referred AmmoLand to the New Jersey State Police. Lauchaire stated she was aware of AmmoLand's previous inquire to the State Police on the number of magazines turned in meaning that State Police contacted the AG’s office about our request for information.
The New Jersey State Police have not officially responded to our request on the number of magazines that were turned over by citizens.
Two sources from within the State Police, who spoke to AmmoLand on condition of anonymity, told AmmoLand News that they both do not know of any magazines turned over to their agency and doubted that any were turned in. They also stated that the State Police also engaged the AG's office for guidance on how to respond to inquiries such as ours. They were unaware if the Attorney General has returned to their request for guidance.
All the local police departments that AmmoLand contacted stated that they have not had any magazines turned into them.
AmmoLand has filed a Freedom of Information Act request with The New Jersey State Police to get an official count of the number of magazines turned in by New Jersey citizens. We will update the story if our FOIA request is fulfilled.
https://www.ammoland.com/2018/12/new-jersey-magazine-ban-goes-into-effect/#ixzz5ZnX0zAe3
This is exactly what happened with the NY SAFE Act, and what will continue happening if states continue passing unconstitutional laws.
Now that Comrade Murphy has turned you all into a bunch of felons, let's just see if he reads today's paper and decides Utah's idea of a 0.05 blood alcohol level to be considered DWI would be good to implement in the state of NJ.
Just think of the amount of revenue gained by doing that.
Or maybe he will just want your Apple smart watch data to fine you if you have not slept enough before getting behind the wheel of your car....
You mean not one police department, out of the "several" ammoland contacted, none of "several" had not collected "several" clips?
Amazingly, Ammoland is a new organization and, as such, has a right bias, go figure, and highly factual reporting, double down on the go figure.
You didn't have to turn them in right? sale, take out of state, destroy....
But I am glad that folks are keeping them. Good for you. Just make sure you unload the full clip before they nab you so you can say: "see, I needed more than ten....."
Stop saying ‘clip’. It’s a damn magazine. I just picked this up to load them more easily and much faster. Highly recommended https://www.etsgroup.us/ETS-Group-C-A-M-Loader-p/etscam-9-40.htm
SD,
Not everyone who owns a gun is a good shot. Plus if you watch some of the police videos you have 3 officers firing 5 rounds each, and they practice all of the time. If they need a combined 15 rounds, what about some panicked housewife from Hackettstown who never practices, she may actually need 45, not 15.
How's that auto-loader work for you Electric Bear?
meanwhile - - -
"Over one million New Jersey Gun owners defy Governor Murphy's gun magazine ban & turn in demands of what some estimate is easily more than ten million now illegal standard capacity gun mags."
Turning over 10% of state residents into felons wth the stroke of a pen is not the way to govern in a free society.
Sorry you control-freaks cant see that.
Wait, did SD just complain about another poster drawing biased conclusions based on facts even though the context of those facts is questionable to the discussion ???
Crazy world this is lol! ;-)
No, I agreed with him and complimented the source. Such sensitivities, these faux libertarians of the Galt persuasions.... :>)
"always look on the bright side of life....." Oh yeah, I forgot, it's justintime…..mr. smile-a-minute.
Glock 19s, which are the most popular pistols in the United States, hold 15 rounds
Which makes them fit the legal definition of 'in common use' which as the Heller decision clearly details, is that weapons and firearms that are 'in common use' are protected under the 2nd amendment, and as such, this definition also determines them to not be defined as 'dangerous or unusual'. Tthis is what makes NJs new bans unconstitutional.
"Any magazine holding more than ten rounds is now illegal in the Garden State. The standard magazine for an AR-15 holds 30 rounds. Glock 19s, which is the most popular pistol in the United States, holds 15 rounds. Anyone who is possession of larger magazine is committing a fourth-degree felony."
AR15s are in common use around the country and therefore are protected by the 2nd amendment according to Heller.
30 round magazines are also in 'common use' around the country and therefore are also protected by the 2nd amendment according to the Heller decision which declares that firearms that are in 'common use' are not 'dangerous and unusual' .
There are an estimated 16 million AR15 type rifles in common use around the country and they typically and commonly they use 30 round magazines which by definition makes them constitutionally protected by the 2nd amendment.
GreyHawk,
And if you think it's bad for you, think about the America that is going to be left for the children.
As Ron White said, "You can't fix stupid. There's not a pill you can take, there's not a class you can go to, stupid is forever."
The mag loader is absolutely fantastic. A fella showed me one at the range the other day and I immediately ordered one. Saves the hands so I can shoot more.
“Enjoy Mark! And good luck passing your next background check!”
You’ll be glad to know I passed with no problem (and SC doesn’t even charge $15 like NJ does!)
Only bought one gun though. I wanted to get two but the other shop wouldn’t wheel and deal enough on the price. Next time...
the push to ban more guns continues:
Pittsburgh Mayor Bill Peduto held a press conference to propose a ban on commonly-owned semi-automatic firearms, a ban on common firearms accessories and standard capacity magazines, and a procedure to confiscate firearms without due process.
The legislation defines “assault weapon” by listing several models of commonly owned semi-automatic firearms, including the Colt AR-15 and certain configurations of the Ruger Mini-14. Moreover, the legislation goes on to add to the definition of “assault weapon” semi-automatic rifles, pistols, and shotguns that meet a certain set of criteria.
The prohibition criteria for rifles is the following:
a. The firearm is a semiautomatic rifle that has an ability to accept a detachable
magazine and has at least two of the following:
i. A folding or telescoping stock;
ii. A pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the
weapon;
iii. A bayonet mount;
iv. A flash suppressor or threaded barrel designed to accommodate a flash
suppressor; and
v. A grenade launcher;
Pistols would be judged under the following criteria:
b. The firearm is a semiautomatic pistol that has an ability to accept a detachable
magazine and has at least two of the following:
i. An ammunition magazine that attaches to the pistol outside of the pistol
grip;
ii. A threaded barrel capable of accepting a barrel extender, flash
suppressor, forward handgrip or silencer;
iii. A shroud that is attached to, or partially or completely encircles, the
barrel and that permits the shooter to hold the firearm with the non-trigger
hand without being burned;
iv. A manufactured weight of 50 ounces or more when the pistol is
unloaded; and
v. A semiautomatic version of an automatic firearm;
The following shotguns would banned:
c. The firearm is a semiautomatic shotgun that has at least two of the following:
i. A folding or telescoping stock;
ii. A pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the
weapon;
iii. A fixed magazine capacity in excess of five rounds; and
iv. An ability to accept a detachable magazine;
The legislation would also prohibit the possession of machine guns lawfully registered under the National Firearms Act.
Both pieces of legislation impose severe penalties on those who refuse to submit to the city’s unlawful mandates. Those who do not comply “shall be fined $1,000 and costs for each offense, and in default of payment thereof, may be imprisoned for not more than 90 days.” Moreover, the proposals provide that “[e]ach day of a continuing violation of or failure to comply… shall constitute and separate and distinct offense.” Meaning that otherwise law-abiding individuals who fail to comply with the ordinances would face potential financial ruin.
The final proposal would empower law enforcement to search for and confiscate an individual’s firearms without due process. Acting on merely a petition offered by a law enforcement official or family or household member a court could issue an order for an individual’s firearms to be seized. The individual would have no opportunity to speak or present evidence on their own behalf prior to confiscation.
https://www.nraila.org/articles/20181214/pittsburgh-mayor-declares-intent-to-ban-guns-in-violation-of-state-law?fbclid=IwAR1SnHw590NOkanykqBNBCQvxM8G6CG0FnnyEt2NS6rTcps9Vc3Vt9MzonUprocess.
New Jersey law enforcement officer: "I will not comply with Murphy's unconstitutional laws", "my oath wasn't to him, it was to the Constitution"
https://www.lawenforcementtoday.com/officer-on-gun-control-i-will-not-comply/?fbclid=IwAR2Il9BtPPdYdoGjLbrPSlWdF2JGaMP2Z0f5CJPkt_KroiDwbEwv5s-UpCo
That's good, JR, but what about the other 33,703 police officers in NJ?
Methinks most will be glad to arrest you over a metal box with a spring inside (especially once they get their carve-out in the law).
IDK Mark, but I DO think we are going to find out...
I think it more likely SP view themselves as Gestapo, where local police and sheriffs less so...
Cool, new sting to catch police officers violating their vows. Excellent opportunity.
Time to break out the hidden cams for a little photo session.
For a rare change, I'm proud of the Trump administration for doing the right thing: banning bump stocks and ordering the destruction of all of them.
“banning bump stocks and ordering the destruction of all of them.”
Which is totally unenforceable and won’t happen (the destruction of them).
The regulation was also written, and commented on, in such a way that I think they purposely made it weak to withstand a legal challenge.
The ATF doesn’t have the authority to re-define the term “machine gun” which is specifically described in a law (that Congress did not change here). Especially since just a few years ago the ATF determination was that these were not firearms at all, and not only has the law not changed, but neither has their design or function. The only thing that changed is politics.
Also, when asked about bump stocks, some officials (unnamed in the CNN article) said they are “not uncommon”. Hmm... aren’t guns (if this is how they want to classify an accessory) “in common use” protected by the 2nd Amendment per SCOTUS.
I think this was an (ill conceived) bone that a Trump threw to the Democrats, knowing it would probably die a quiet death via injunction pretty soon.
Lawsuits are already filed even before the reg has been officially published.
https://www.firearmspolicy.org/guedes-v-batfe
Remember, we only have to find one District Court that agrees...
Here’s the best part of the pickle for you guys too. Matthew Whitaker signed the final rule.
So either you think the bump stock ban is legit (thus saying Matthew is a legal attorney general) or he is illegitimate in that position (thus the bump stock ban is kaput).
Is his appointment still being challenged in other cases? What happens if he is deemed to not have authority on other issues? Are all of his signatures vacated?
I think Trump--like most politicians--really doesn't know to much about firearms, let alone bump stocks. And perhaps he did "throw a bone" to the anti-gun nuts. But anyone who really knows firearms knows that it's basically irrelevant. There are reasons why the US military stopped issuing full-auto rifles, to most soldiers--using them in full-auto mode is a waste of ammunition and accuracy.
Bump stocks are basically toys for sport shooting--they're not really very practical, in most situations. The only person who really made semi-practical use of them was the Las Vegas shooter, who was simply shooting indiscriminately into a huge crowd. But that guy had plenty of money and time to set up. He actually could have fired FASTER with a modern electric trigger than with a bump stock. In fact, with a little know-how (there are even videos, online) and a few thousand dollars, he could have built a basic remote-controlled turret, and fired into the crowd via wifi, from anywhere in the world.
So, for the anti-gun types lauding Trump's decision--you've been had. You would have actually been BETTER OFF, if criminals used bump stocks, because they're actually not practical for typical combat use or mass shootings. So, keep patting yourselves on the back--the rest of the world is just laughing at you.
MarcMc,
Both sides on the same team. Good cop, bad cop. Same goal. Does not matter which side you vote for.
He is not a Constitutional appointment, he is acting. He is incompetent in skills and experience for the job.
He is legal.
Let the gunnies cry “et tu Trumpy.” All the freakin criminals will have them, the caravan is full of them, all the illegals have em, you are doomed, doomed I say. And the NRA can’t help. They’re busy defending against pending. Russian collusion charges. Viva Butina.
More popcorn?
"Both sides on the same team."
True... I don't think Trump is "good" for 2A rights, but I sure as heck know Hillary would have been "bad" for them.
"I think Trump--like most politicians--really doesn't know to much about firearms"
He tried to play this like a deal... give the Dems something they want without (hopefully) pissing off too many Reps. Unfortunately not a well thought out deal, because the Dems are never satisfied with anything anti-gun related being "strong" enough, and I doubt he earned ANY votes from them, while simultaneously (and definitely) losing votes on the R side. In other words, more risk than reward (from a politician/vote point of view) so really just a dumb move - even if it is blocked or overturned.
The ONLY way I see it playing well for him is if this makes its way through the courts and kicks off a case that reins in the regulatory and rule-making power of the ATF.
" There are reasons why the US military stopped issuing full-auto rifles, to most soldiers--using them in full-auto mode is a waste of ammunition and accuracy."
this! what he said, spot on correct, +1 Jerseywolf, you be right as rain.
Bump stocks are a non issue on either side of this debate, the president loses nothing by doing this, the dems honestly gain nothing by demanding this, it was really a non-issue.
and forward we go and move on to real issues,
Yeah, that will work out well and fix everything.....
He's crazy, get used to it.
You are aware that you can do the same thing with your finger and a belt loop right ?
Ever seen the coat hanger full auto sear?
https://youtu.be/oFyoDYDPFLU
How about solvent traps?
If it makes you feel better - yes this ban is effective
Makes you wonder why they sold 500,00 of them if all you need is your little finger and a belt loop.
"Makes you wonder why they sold 500,00 of them "
Because they can (or could).
Just because two (or more) items or techniques can do the same thing doesn't mean that the others need or should not exist.
"Makes you wonder why they sold 500,00 of them "
People buy ink well pens too, do you wonder why those folks need them when they can get a good ball point for $.50? Lol I’m sure you've given that question the same amount of thought you did to this one.
I'm not the one pushing back on the ban or trying to say it's meaningless since the devices have perfect, less expensive, alternatives. That's you supporting bump stocks JIT, can't imagine why.
Why do folks need bump stocks?
Why do folks need ink well pens?
The answer is identical for both questions.
“That's you supporting bump stocks JIT, can't imagine why.”
That’s the biggest pile of doo doo ever. I would never buy either, but i should question why others would? No I won’t question the hobbies of others. Nor would I *assume* that everyone who owns a bump stock would use it to do harm.
there is the relentless march towards their ultimate goal stripping away fundamental rights to be concerned about however -
I think bump stocks are a great way to waste ammo and would not buy - but i fall back to shall not be infringed. It’s like buying a super car - do you need it? Probably not but they sure are fun.
The point being is that banning bump stocks does not improve public safety one bit. Same with banning standard capacity magazines.
US Marines standardizing on a new battle rifle is big news for sure, but its not really the rilfe tthat's the problem. I'ts the under powered cartridge that puts our troops at increased risk in today's battles: - - -
USMC gets even more M27s from H&K to replace the M4
H&K has officially been contracted by the United States Marine Corps to replace the M4 carbine with the M27 Infantry Automatic Rifle. According to AFCEA (Armed Forces Communications and Electronics Association), the USMC “will be purchasing up to 15,000 M27 Infantry Automatic Rifles (IAR) and spare parts from Heckler and Koch (H&K) in Ashburn, Virginia, under a five-year, firm-fixed price, indefinite-delivery/indefinite quantity contract with a maximum ceiling of $29.4 million.”
The M27 is a variation of the H&K 416 and features a 16″ barrel.
Features
Caliber: 5.56 NATO
Barrel: 16″
Weight: 7.9 lbs empty
Overall Length: 33″ – 36.3″
Unit Cost: $3,000
H&K is building a new factory in Georgia just a few miles down the road from Fort Benning. All of the new M27s will be built here in the USA along with countless other weapons to meet the growing demand in the US market.
https://americangg.net/hk-replace-m4/?fbclid=IwAR2_fn2QPDMTOzDggh4HSkcutHZr67Pjd8_TVCpK-dlQv7le6kRoOK16n7U
https://legiscan.com/NJ/bill/S2846/2018
15 rounds for retired LEO's and 17 for active on or off
Thought this would be of some interest to the group. Good idea - - - -
USA – -(AmmoLand.com)- The Turret was explicitly designed for AR-platform rifles. Conventional shooting rests do not take into account the extended magazines or the pistol grips on AR-rifles.
https://www.ammoland.com/2018/12/caldwell-precision-turret-rifle-shooting-rest/?utm_source=Ammoland+Subscribers&utm_campaign=8ed84a69c9-RSS_EMAIL_CAMPAIGN&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_6f6fac3eaa-8ed84a69c9-21229169#axzz5anMM4300
What a great addition to any front porch.
But do they have an car mount so I can put it on my dashboard.
Now, just combine that turret with a basic camera scope, some inexpensive motors, and a phone-operated remote control; convert the AR-15 to a belt-fed system like the FightLite MCR, with a 500-round belt; hide it with some cheap camouflage; and bolt it on a convenient high perch. You can now start WW3, from anywhere in the world with cell service.
Thank GOD we don't allow people to own 15-round pistol magazines--I feel much safer. Bless you, Governor Murphy!
Having lived in Hackettstown till I could no longer stand the noise, it's no surprise to me that the gun nuts there call themselves law-abiding. Every law that favors them also favors mass shooters, but they're okay with that. Bye, Hackettstown.
Mitch 
Mitch, may I ask where you will be moving to? I'll happily compile a list of mass shootings (4 or more victims, either killed or injured) like the one I've attached here for NJ. Unsurprisingly, Hackettstown is NOT on the list...
Didn’t you know? Mass shootings are legal in Hackettstown.
It’s the “ghost gun 30 clipazine shoulder thing that goes up” loophole.
Mitch, anticipating that you'd like to live in the state with the most strict gun control, California (I think!), I thought I might provide that list as well for your reference so you can avoid the cities listed...
(edit: since the CA list is so much longer than the one for NJ I see now that it's difficult to read on the forum. Just PM me for a copy if needed!)
Odd that the worst mass shooting in Hackettstown was in 1977, despite those new "favorable" laws. . . .
JW, the htown incident isn’t on my list because the source’s data only started around 2012/2013.
Here’s the source I used btw:
https://www.gunviolencearchive.org/query/8538a059-3f85-4880-b2ed-915006545403
Obviously he should get an AR-47! ;)
Every time I look at an AK they just don’t do it for me... maybe for a couple hundred bucks I’d buy one, but not for $600+.
Haha... I do have a couple thousand rubles (the old Soviet ones). Think that’ll work?
Unfortunately I think that only converts to like $1.50 now.
a few friends clued me into this update about the mag ban in Jersey:
A report from Reason reveals not a single New Jersey resident has surrendered their “high capacity” magazines to state police since the implementation of the magazine ban.
Breitbart News reported that New Jersey’s “high capacity” magazine ban took effect December 11, 2018, making the mere possession of such a magazine a fourth degree felony.
At first, the New Jersey State Police refused to rule out door-to-door enforcement of the ban, then made clear that they had no plans to go house-to-house.
Now, over two weeks since the ban took effect, the NJSP say no residents have surrendered their “high capacity” magazines.
According to Reason, NJSP Sgt. Jeff Flynn said “they have received ‘zero'” magazines as a result of the ban.
On December 15, 2018, former NYC police commissioner Bernard Kerik blasted the magazine ban because it also applies to off-duty police officers, too. In other words, off-duty officers cannot legally use magazines holding more than 10 rounds while off the clock.
Kerik said, “NJ Governor @GovMurphy is endangering the life of every off duty NJ cop! Gang bangers, drug thugs and really bad guys don’t give a damn about magazine capacity… So he takes the good guy’s ammunition, and the bad guys are loaded for bear!”
https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2018/12/28/report-nj-residents-not-surrendering-high-capacity-magazines-state-police/
Kerik isn’t pissed that the law exists.
He’s just pissed that police are treated like normal citizens instead of being a special class.
"Kerik isn’t pissed that the law exists.
He’s just pissed that police are treated like normal citizens instead of being a special class."
Which is tyranny.
"over two weeks since the ban took effect, the NJSP say no residents have surrendered their “high capacity” magazines."
Wow, just WOW ! Now what are they gonna do? Go through registration records to id owners of 17 round glocks and start knocking on their doors? To open a line of inquiry?
Like tarriffs are taxation without representation.
Or like using the bully pulpit to taint a legal investigation is obstruction.
Or you can be an unindicted co-conspirator to a felony and be President at the same time.
Or how your arch enemy unveils a hypersonic missile which is aimed at you and your King saus, “I respect that guy, he’s a strong leader.”
Yes, Ublio, may we be born in intetesting times.
GreyHawk, now you're just being silly. They're not going to knock on the door of every gun owner.
Just the minority ones. . . .
JerseyWolf - no not every gun owner, just those who have registered handguns that have a capacity of over 10 rounds. They can easily make lists up and call on the phone or schedule a visit or just drive up and knock on citiziens doors to check if they still have contraband magazines. That's what they can do easily.
The glock is the most popular pistol sold in America and the most popular glock can hold 17 rounds of 9mm ammo. There are tens of thousands of them registered in NJ.
Easy-peasy for the State Police to start targeting these (before now) lawful citizens for an 'official inquiry'.
The state with the stroke of a pen created an estimated 1 million new criminal felons out of (before now) lawful citizens. That's over 10% of the population of the state.
"Or how your arch enemy unveils a hypersonic missile which is aimed at you"
These missiles will make mince meat out of an aircraft carrier in the Gulf. No time to react at all.
China has taken over the port of Djibouti. America not happy.
But back to NJ and the newly created felons. Happy New Year with less rounds.
Why would you expect a politician to think you could handle a firearm when you are incapable of launching a bottle rocket on New Years :)
" just those who have registered handguns that have a capacity of over 10 rounds. They can easily make lists up and call on the phone or schedule a visit or just drive up and knock on citiziens doors to check if they still have contraband magazines. That's what they can do easily. "
And how is that legal?
Just because a gun *could* hold more doesn't mean that it does...
All of us DO have cars that CAN go over the speed limit.
Everyone just get a 10 round mag for each gun you own.
In the off chance they ever check, that’s the one they’ll see. Of course keep the regular mag somewhere safe too.
Josh - - - State police starting a conversation with citizens is not illegal. They can and often do interview people for reasons of their own choosing. Nothing illegal about it. The state with the stroke of a pen has created an estimated 1 million new criminal felons out of (before now) lawful citizens. That's over 10% of the population of the state.
Like Trumps stock market in collapse represents great deals for folks with free cash, the new gun law will make NJ home buying economic again after we seize all those brave LCM-retaining gunny houses :-)
It's not bad, its an opportunity.
At no point in history has a magazine limit been shown to reduce crime in any way.
"But that didn’t stop New Jersey from trying it yet again.
Granted, it already had a restriction, but it wasn’t…well…restrictive enough. Now the state has a 10-round capacity limit on all magazines and seems to think this will somehow make a dent in its problems.
It won’t.
As already noted, it never has, especially since the bad guys can still get magazines from out of state and keep on doing what they do.
Meanwhile, the good guys who find themselves confronted by these jackwagons will be at a disadvantage."
https://bearingarms.com/tom-k/2018/12/31/dumbest-gun-laws-of-2018/?utm_source=thdaily&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=nl&newsletterad=01/01/2019&bcid=d44cbf48eb313ab34cc5fb772ab63232&recip=21095195
^
Even our very own SD has admitted multiple times that he could not find any factual info on that GreyHawk...we know it won't do anything, it's just a "feel good" law for the liberals....makes them feel all good about doing something, that in reality will not do anything.....
"Just having the magazine for a semiauto that holds more than 10 rounds in your possession is illegal. It is illegal even if the person possessing it doesn't know it is illegal. It is illegal even if the person with the magazine has never owned any firearm in their life. Having no intention to do anything wrong doesn't matter. All that matters is that having it is illegal period. A piece of sheet metal and plastic that anyone can buy in almost any other state for a few dollars even at Walmart can get someone locked up for years in NJ. That is the insanity of NJ gun laws." ---Jeff Goldstein
Btw, I stumbled across this funny video poking fun using the Peter Principal and the Dunning-Kruger Effect and thought that others here might also recognize and appreciate the humor :-)
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=cNGusIvpVxc
The reason no "high capacity" magazines have been surrendered is because the few that were foolishly surrendered were likely kept by the officers (since, ya know, it doesn't apply to them). Just like any nice guns that get surrendered or dumped at buy-back's. (I know officers who have done this).
As the officer-- it's a mag that's gonna get destroyed if you don't misplace it... free mags!
brendan I did not say it would not do anything Darrin. I said you can't prove it.
I think you can prove LCM bans are beneficial to the death toll where guns are used, as well as the total murder rate, at least IMO. However the difference from 15 to 10 is impossible to test, the beneficial nature of LCM ban data itself is not the most solid analytics, of course, for the main reason that we do not fund the CDC to adequately study due to successful NRA lobbying efforts.
My take is if you can't measure results, then how can you prove it's worth the investment. And if you can't prove the investment, why spend the time or money for questionable results.
By the same token, or worse, you can't prove the benefit of 15-round LCMs over 10-rounds either so as long as no investment is needed, no harm either. (there is investment needed).
So....you cannot prove results, yet you are for this...
We cannot prove results on a wall, and you banter us for us...over and over again actually saying prove the results.....so I ask you, if your for it....show me the results...the plan....and how you came to that plan and how much that plan is going to cost us before your group is allowed to suggest laws
You have never once discussed the costs involved with the time of making new laws like this
“My take is if you can't measure results, then how can you prove it's worth the investment. And if you can't prove the investment, why spend the time or money for questionable results.”
It’s the intangible results that count in this case: Perpetuating the belief that any type of restriction helps the bigger problem of gun violence.
Punishing the innocent for the crimes of a few is no where on the radar.
"So....you cannot prove results, yet you are for this..." How many times do I have to say the 10 round version will add no value to the current law? It's getting old to be correcting you every single response.....
"We cannot prove results on a wall, and you banter us for us" OMGoodness, you just gotta keep picking fights.... I can prove results for LCM bans. Crikey, you are lacking comprehension skills. I banter you? Spreak English much?
What plan are you talking about, wall, LCMs, world peace? Come on..... What group is my group that you are screaming about. And let me get this straight, you want me to show you my plan for a law that I don't agree with. Sorry, dude, that's a bridge too far.
If you have a cogent question, fire away. This confusion was not that.
JIT says: "It’s the intangible results that count in this case: Perpetuating the belief that any type of restriction helps the bigger problem of gun violence." Must be me but WTF does that mean. I don't understand intangible results nor can I find any evidence of anyone taking about it. Again, just not sure the point.
"Punishing the innocent for the crimes of a few is no where on the radar." Again, just seems to be a statement standing by itself. Not even sure what you are saying.
Intangible as in “not definite or clear to the mind”.
My point is that this is a minor and, in reality, irrelevant step toward a completely different goal (further gun control), meaning by itself outlawing 15 round magazines does nothing to make anyone more safe (the whole “there’s no proof it will do so” point) except for use as precedence later on for other gun related bans.
IOW the magazine ban means nothing within the current scope of discussion because there’s zero evidence or even likelihood that it would improve safety. Rather, the ban sets the stage, creates precedence, for the real goal of more restrictive gun control.
But but... they have told us "they don't want our guns"!!!! Say it ain't so!!!!
The non-compliance on this one, and the NY SAFE Act before it, speaks volumes. People have had enough, and are deciding constitutionality for themselves... for better or worse (and that depends on which side wins, because they will write the history).
SD was most definitely a loyalist in a former life. No doubt in my mind.
@SD you Correct me "all the time" .... Does it feel good to be so full of yourself that you have to lie to get there?
@SD "I did not say it would not do anything Darrin. I said you can't prove it. "
@SD 3 hours later "How many times do I have to say the 10 round version will add no value to the current law?"
So you did not say "it would not do anything" then 3 hours later you argued that it will add no value (and do nothing).....ummm your loosing it dude!
oh yeah....then @SD "I can prove results for LCM bans"
So you can prove it, or you can't prove it...because within 3 hours of each other you said you can't and then said you can.............
@SD "I banter you? Spreak English much?"
Banter.....new word learned for SD today (apparently)......and it's speak not speak professor SD (Being that you want to play that game) Thanks for the (false) correction while making your own blunder....
ban·ter
/ˈban(t)ər/Submit
noun
1.
the playful and friendly exchange of teasing remarks.
"there was much singing and good-natured banter"
synonyms: repartee, witty conversation, raillery, wordplay, cut and thrust, kidding, ribbing, badinage, joshing
"a brief exchange of banter"
verb
1.
talk or exchange remarks in a good-humored teasing way.
"the men bantered with the waitresses"
synonyms: joke, jest, quip;
Care to apologize?
It's not that it isn't a word... you used it incorrectly.
Banter is an intransitive verb, meaning that it doesn't take a direct object; i.e saying "I banter you" is grammatically incorrect.
Got it JIT. All I see is some political optics for Murphy. Not exactly the next in the gun control domino theory IMO.
Darrin, well Iman said it all, just sounded weird to me. Plus I tended to doubt you meant "in a good-humored teasing way." Just doesn't fit your MO.
"@SD you Correct me "all the time" .... Does it feel good to be so full of yourself that you have to lie to get there?" Sorry. No lies, just corrections. :>)
Spreaking of which, heh, heh, I have not a clue what you mean by
@SD "I did not say it would not do anything Darrin. I said you can't prove it. "
@SD 3 hours later "How many times do I have to say the 10 round version will add no value to the current law?"
Not doing anything and not adding value ---- hmmm, I thought both meant the same. So, yes, I could have said both within 3 hours.
And the fact that the 15-to-10 ban does not have a measurable effect because you can't prove it, does not actually mean there is no effect. It just means if you can't measure it, how can you say it adds value to the current law (15 rounds limitation).
"So you did not say "it would not do anything" then 3 hours later you argued that it will add no value (and do nothing).....ummm your loosing it dude!" Just not sure where these two statements have issues coexisting in reality?
"oh yeah....then @SD "I can prove results for LCM bans" Yupper, not an issue with this statement although I agree with you that restrictive islands like Chicago might actually make bad guys better armed than legal good guys. Which is why I support national laws here, not state's laws. IMO, many state's have dropped the ball.
I am really not sure what you desire to be provide. LCM bans, 15-to-10 restrictions, that you need to be corrected all the time. I have no issues agreeing on the full of it comment --- ain't we all.
Probably better if you just move on. I seem to vex you.
Sure it did something - it made lawful fun owners felons.
Those would be standard capacity magazines that were banned - stop the LCM semantics. At least you stopped saying clip when we all know you’re just as familiar with firearms as I am.
the average modern full size (less concealable) 9mm holds 15rds, .40 would be 13rds and .45 would be 10rds.
They are indeed standard magazines not 'high capacity'. That s a lie. These rifles are the most popular rifle in America today and they come standard with 30 round magazines. Because they are so widely owned, they fit the legal definition of 'in common use' and therefore are deserving of 2nd amendment protection from infringement by the government. this why the magazine restrictions will be overturned on appeal. They are at their root, unconstitutional.
That's the fact, jack.
You don't vex a garbage can SD.....again your liying to yourself....you must be day drinking because trying to defend the fact that you clearly contradicted yourself more then one time within 3 hours is more then enough for me to say your full of b.s. it's all above for all to see...can't be erased now!
For the record you have not corrected anything....unless you care to point out what constitutes mentioning it over...and over... and over?
It's also pretty bad that you "have no clue" about statements that were direct quotes that you posted not 5 hours previous.....you literally just admitted to having no clue about your own statements....now that's funny right there!
You should really read your own posts from 5 hours ago before making a fool out of yourself....my quotations are direct from you....you cannot even try to cover this up
Sorry stranger endangered - you did contradict yourself and essentially admitted it has no value other than a ratchet up thengun grab ladder
Niagara County District Attorney says she will not prosecute violators of SAFE Act rule
NIAGARA COUNTY, N.Y. (WIVB) - The Niagara County District Attorney says she will not prosecute violators of the SAFE Act's seven-round limit in a single firearm.
Gov. Andrew Cuomo first passed the provision in 2013, but it has since been declared unconstitutional.
Most firearms are able to carry ten rounds.
Erie County's District Attorney stopped prosecuting those charged with a seven-round rule violation in November.
https://www.wivb.com/news/local-news/niagara-county-district-attorney-says-she-will-not-persecute-violators-of-safe-act-rule/1685519341
"At least you stopped saying clip when we all know you’re just as familiar with firearms as I am." Give me a break, Fact is I just don't care Skippy. From where I stand, clip, mag, belt, all the same. Kind of like boarder and border :>)
"You don't vex a garbage can SD.....again your liying to yourself....you must be day drinking" Can anyone translate?
"Sorry stranger endangered - you did contradict yourself and essentially admitted it has no value other than a ratchet up thengun grab ladder" hmmm. go slow Skippy and please explain my contradiction. Thanks in advance. I would ask Darrin, but want to avoid the need for a translator.
Doesn't "it won't do anything" and "it will have no value" essentially mean the same thing? Here are Darrin's rips of my statements:
Number 1: "@SD you Correct me "all the time" .... Does it feel good to be so full of yourself that you have to lie to get there?" Not sure I said any of this, I think Darrin is paraphrasing. Can't help you with the corrections, and no, I would rather not correct. But again ------- when you see a lie, point it out. Still waiting beyond the hysteric generalizations.
Number 2: " @SD "I did not say it would not do anything Darrin. I said you can't prove it. " Well, that seems pretty clear. As in if you can't count it, how can you prove it.
Number 3: "@SD 3 hours later "How many times do I have to say the 10 round version will add no value to the current law?"" OK, one more time. If you can't count it, you can't prove it. If you can't prove it, how can you say you are adding value?
Conclusion: "So you did not say "it would not do anything" then 3 hours later you argued that it will add no value (and do nothing).....ummm your loosing it dude!" So, help me, if it does not do anything, as in you can't count it, so how can you prove it, then how could anyone say it has value?
Epilogue: " oh yeah....then @SD "I can prove results for LCM bans" Not an issue, sure can.
Sorry, Skippy, I just don't get where you are coming from on this one.
PS: yes, I understand that LCMs are considered, by the DOJ, to have MORE than 10 bullets in a mag, no clip, whatever.... My bad.
SD are you seriously still trying to play off your blunder? I already direct quoted your posts and explained quite clearly....yet you need a translator? Really dude? That game is not going to work here, everyone including yourself can see what you posted.
Either explain your clear as day contradiction or move on...I am not going to sit here explaining over and over because you cannot see it from wherever you head happens to be today.
SD let’s start over - apparently there’s confusion. What do you feel this recent legislation will achieve?
Murphy introducing bill to limit gasoline purchase to 1 gallon cans as keeping more than that is too dangerous.
Nothing that can be measured therefore there can not be any measured value.
While I do believe LCM restrictions have value and can be measured as having value, moving from 15 to 10 can never be statistically shown; in NJ, to add additional value.
Hope that clarifies yet don’t think I have changed anything except for, hopefully, clarification.
magazine restrictions make it more difficult to defend yourself against attackers. Self defense experts maintian that having the capability of putting more shots on target gives you a better chance at defending yourself and others,
why would anyone want to limit the chances innocent people have to defend themselves against multiple attackers intent on taking their lives
there is no constitutionally valid reason to enact these draconian restrictions that clearly are an infringement on the only right that clearly states 'Shall Not Be Infringed'
Same guys who recommended nuclear overkill stockpliles? I mean in 4,000 nukes will destroy the earthi, don’t we need 12,000
Well besides the SCOTUS not agreeing with your translation of the 2a, you may be on to something.
You got your guys in court, go for it.
30 round magazines are standard magazines, they are not 'high capacity'.
That s a lie.
AR15 type rifles are the most popular rifle in America today with an estimated 16 million of them owned by lawful citizens. These rifles come standard with 30 round magazines. Because they are so widely owned, they fit the legal definition of 'in common use' and are therefore deserving of 2nd amendment protection from infringement by the government. (according to the details contained in the Heller decision)
This is why magazine restrictions will be overturned on appeal. They are at their root, unconstitutional.
There is actually a real similarity between the number of nukes and the number of bullets. The military has to assume that not every existing nuke can be effectively fired, will strike its intended target, and will initiate (detonate) as planned. A missile might encounter an error and simply crash in the ocean. A bomber may be shot down or a sub may be sunk, before being able to launch. And a nuclear warhead may simply end up being a dud.
Look at the real-world firearm statistics. Even trained police officers only hit their targets about 1/3 of the time. Even at extremely close range, the hit ratio is less than 1 in 2. And only about 1 in 4 gunshot wounds is fatal. While some gunshot wounds will stop/cripple an attacker, without killing, other wounds may ultimately prove fatal, even if they don't immediately stop an assailant from continuing to attack. But let's work with the theoretical idea that 1 in 2 gunshot wounds will sufficiently stop an attacker (whether they prove fatal or not).
Using those statistics, only 1 in 6 gunshots fired by a trained police officer will actually strike an assailant AND stop him from continuing to be a threat. That means that if, theoretically, a police officer had a 10-round ammo magazine and faced two armed attackers, there is a good chance he would have to reload, before stopping both of them (assuming, of course, they they didn't stop him, first).
For a citizen with limited firearm training and experience, and limited experience in hostile situations, the statistical likelihood of stopping two armed and dangerous assailants, with a single 10-round magazine, is practically nil. And that is why citizens who wish to be able to defend themselves are against such restrictions, just as the military appears to possess more nuclear weapons than seems necessary to defend the nation.
https://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/09/weekinreview/09baker.html
https://www.pennmedicine.org/news/news-releases/2014/january/survival-rates-similar-for-gun
https://www.buckeyefirearms.org/alternate-look-handgun-stopping-power
"Nothing that can be measured therefore there can not be any measured value. "
OK so I am not sure if you are a proponent of the law or not. I don't see how you can support something that you agree will not provide quantifiable value.
GHawk: according to the DOJ definition, they are LCMs.
Skippy, I am for LCM restrictions. However moving a 15 round cap to 10 rounds does not make sense for the sole reason, IMO, that if you can't prove it matters, why force everyone to take actions that can't be proved to matter.
So, I would be for a 10 round restriction.
I am OK with a 15 round restriction (better than nothing IOW)
But moving a 15 round restriction to 10 rounds can not be proved to have value so why change the law. I like laws to do something, no laws you can't prove the value in.
And, as I keep saying, yes, I believe I can, with facts, show the value in LCM restrictions, although, not with enough analytics to say it's a solid statistical study. Not sure there are many valid analytical studies when it comes to guns, NRA has lobbied for confusion in this regard.
I can not, and no one ever will, be able to prove a 10 round restriction has extra value over a 15 round restriction that would make enacting this law make sense. It does not, and never will. It's a political stunt ---- like building a wall that can't stop a problem that does not exist. Most go through the ports of entry so if the wall can't stop MOST, why not focus on solving the MOST problem first.
It's a political stunt-and an inconvenience for those that are affected, causing financial harm as well.
It was really unnecessary.
Ok don’t necessarily disagree there - but a 15 round magazine in a semi-auto handgun and a 30 round magazine is standard in an AR. What then do you propose we ban? The disconnect here is what your calling an LCM is in fact the standard.
The thing about "The Wall" is that most people don't understand it. (And, unfortunately, despite pushing hard for it, our President doesn't sufficiently explain the need for it.) In fact, there are several purely logical and beneficial reasons for building the wall.
1. Illegal immigration costs US citizens a fortune--it IS a problem that DOES exist--and the majority of that illegal immigration comes across the Mexican border.
2. In developed areas, where there are communities on both sides of the border, a wall would prevent/deter people from simply dashing across the border and entering a US community, in order to hide and/or commit crimes.
3. Also in developed areas, a wall would prevent/deter people from (in one way or another) simply hurling prohibited items from Mexico to the US. This would inhibit the illegal drug trade (which costs tens of thousands of American lives) as well as prevent/deter other scenarios--it only takes a softball-sized ball of fissile material to make a basic fission device.
4. A wall would also be a preventative/deterrent measure against mass invasions across the border. It may not be a major concern, now, but if Mexico suffers a major disaster (such as a severe drought, crop failure, or major earthquake in Mexico City), it would likely lead to a mass exodus heading to the northern border. If (when?) that happens, the wall be act as a stop-gap, until a suitable solution can be developed, rather than having to simply start dropping napalm on a million refugees.
“Most go through the ports of entry so if the wall can't stop MOST, why not focus on solving the MOST problem first.”
Now that is a great data point to look at. Were you able to calculate the percentage coming through the main gate vs those who bypass it? A link would work well too.
"Ok don’t necessarily disagree there - but a 15 round magazine in a semi-auto handgun and a 30 round magazine is standard in an AR. What then do you propose we ban? "
Methinks gunnies try to gain power by creating a language unto themselves....
As I said, over and over now, the DOJ says anything above 10 rounds is an LCM. As to variances due to gun type, industry-standards, and the like --- maybe the DOJ has delineation, I care not to look. The term "in common use" is legalese and only important in that realm. And it's continually under debate.
And my desires are as noted above. I would rather 10, I can accept 15.
Some see blunder, contradictions, lies, in that and are asking for apologies. Calling me a day drinker over it. Sorry, can't see it and not going to do it. No reason to.
DOJ is often wrong, SCOTUS decisions are right,
AR15s come standard with 30 round magazines, many pistols come standard with 10 - 17 round capacities.
None of them are 'high capacity'. 30 rounds are 'standard' in AR15s and similar rifles. 17 round Glocks are 'standard capacity' not 'high capacity'.
And even more important to SCOTUS 2nd amendment precedent, none of them are legally defined as 'dangerous and unusual' weapons because they are so widely owned. In point of fact and keeping with court decisions, they are legally defined as in 'common use', and because of that 'in common use' definition they are protected under the 2nd amendment from infringement by the government , (that's any government entity, including the states, the DOJ and BATF)
outlawing/banning/criminalizing all magazines over 10 rounds is a true infringement on the only right in the Constitution that states , "Shall Not Be Infringed"
Are you talking about the AWB from 94? the California DOJ defines them that way - I have not seen the US DOJ define LCM's anywhere.
"outlawing/banning/criminalizing all magazines over 10 rounds is a true infringement on the only right in the Constitution that states , "Shall Not Be Infringed"" Well, there you go, game over...…. thanks, glad you figured it out.....
Skippy, US DOJ. Plus CA, plus a handful of other states: https://www.justice.gov/archive/opd/AppendixC.htm
DOJ is wrong and anyways the DOJ is not the fianl arbitor or authority on this issue.
DOJ is wrong, period. BATF is also not the final authority on this issue. They and the DOJ have beeen overturned and/or overruled often on legal issues.
According to well established SCOTUS 2nd amendment precedent, none of them are legally defined as 'high capacity' magazines or 'dangerous and unusual' weapons.
This is due to the simple to understand fact that they are widely owned by a large swath of the American public already. This fits the SCOTUS definition of 'in common use'.
So in keeping with prior court decisions, 'in common use' means they are protected under the 2nd amendment from infringement by the government, any government entity, including the states, the DOJ and BATF
that's the facts jack
SD...... skippy was right, as according to the link you posted, the 10 round information is under the heading: (all quotes pulled from your link)
"VII. The Assault Weapons Ban and Related Import Restrictions"
" In September 1994, Congress passed the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act which made it unlawful, with certain exceptions, to manufacture, transfer, or possess semiautomatic assault weapons. Congress had been presented with significant evidence demonstrating that these weapons were "the weapons of choice among drug dealers, criminal gangs, hate groups, and mentally deranged persons bent on mass murder,"(7)and concluded these guns were so dangerous they had no place in the civilian marketplace. The 1994 Act also made it unlawful to possess or transfer large capacity ammunition feeding devices, generally defined as a magazine, belt, drum, feed strip, or similar device that can hold more than 10 rounds of ammunition."
SD, you are getting your information from an act that is no longer in place...........bravo!
I could be incorrect but that link dosent state that
What It does state is
“The 1994 ban on semiautomatic assault weapons and large capacity feeding devices continues to have significant deficiencies in meeting its stated objectives. For example, the ban only applies to assault weapons and magazines manufactured after September 13, 1994, thereby "grandfathering" thousands of weapons and magazines. Moreover, the ban's definition of assault weapons is so narrow and that it does not prohibit the manufacture, transfer and possession of many weapons that have the ability to fire many rounds of ammunition quickly, without being reloaded. ”
How it was defined was:
“A high-capacity magazine (or large-capacity magazine) is a firearm magazine capable of holding more than the standard number of rounds provided by the designer, or legally, a particular number of cartridges dependent on jurisdiction and kind of firearm.”
The 15 round limit in NJ and other states was arbitrary but people dealt with it because you could get a firearm that had 15 round mags. (Chambered round didn’t count) the problem here is NJ essentially just banned 3/4 of the handgun market except for easily consealable small frame wheel guns and small frame semi-autos. The exact opposite of what the spirit of the law was and why the AWB was allowed to expire
"DOJ is often wrong, SCOTUS decisions are right," That's a statement most would disagree with...…
Skippy, but the question was: what do you think? Was it not.
"What then do you propose we ban? The disconnect here is what your calling an LCM is in fact the standard." You asked what I proposed. I answered, with support from DOJ, albeit AWB and dated, but a definition. I also noted it's the same definition as a handful of states.
What I said was what you asked: I think I can live with 15, but like 10.
I thought the DOJ definition of LCM was anything above 10 rounds, independent of weapon type or model as stated by this lawyer for the Congressional Research Service. "The act also made it unlawful to transfer and possess large capacity ammunition feeding devices (LCAFD).30 An LCAFD was defined as “any magazine, belt, drum, feed strip, or similar device manufactured after the date [of the act] that has the capacity of, or that can be readily restored or converted to accept, more than 10 rounds of ammunition.” https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R42957.pdf
The fact that this applies to AWBs does not change the DOJ definition of LCM which they actually term: LCFAD.
Also I believe 9 states, so far, term anything above 10 as LCM. One, now, uses 15. And for the Wolf, all of these restrictions, so far, are deemed legal by SCOTUS so "SCOTUS decisions are right," at least according to one guy :>)
But again, I think you asked what I thought. We can argue "common use" against SD's opinion, but I think you will find half of that discussion boring :>)
Darrin: snark on. but maybe you just need a dog to kick....
No snark about it SD, anytime you are proven wrong you cannot simply admit you were wrong. Take the LCM discussion currently....your information is very clearly from an assault weapons ban and even the link you posted is very clear in saying that the assault weapons ban is declaring anything over 10 rounds as a LCM....this does not fit the bill you were trying to claim it does....yet you continue on......its hard to have a serious conversation with someone whom, when presented with facts, ignores them and replaces them with his own narration beating around the bush time and time again.
“are deemed legal by SCOTUS”
I don’t think SCOTUS has ever heard arguments on magazine capacity, so they have not deemed anything, other than noting weapons in common use, and those not dangerous AND unusual are protected (dangerous is OK, unusual is OK, but not both apparently).
So, if you guys want to claim, recently, that bump stocks are firearms (machine guns, no less), than magazines are just as much a firearm... therefore SCOTUS should, if they are consistent, consider those in common use to be protected.
“The fact that this applies to AWBs does not change the DOJ definition of LCM which they actually term: LCFAD.”
Is this definition anywhere in current Federal legislation/regulation?
Sure, it was 25 years ago, but that act expired and there is no need to have a a Federal definition when there are no federal laws that continue to use the term.
Federal law used to have some funky definitions of citizen, person, and voter... but what “was” is not what “is”.
Mark, you are correct in the specifics on hearing a case on lcm’s but I was talking limitations on Constitutional rights such as the 2a. Apparently “shall not be infriiged” means “can be limited” as defined by SCOTUS in a number of cases, depending on the right.
“A high-capacity magazine (or large-capacity magazine) is a firearm magazine capable of holding more than the standard number of rounds provided by the designer, or legally, a particular number of cartridges dependent on jurisdiction and kind of firearm.”
This is more accurate and more to the point of the matter considering that AR15s and their derivatives all come standard with 30 round magazines, they were designed to hold 30 round magazines from the start.
That fact alone defines them as 'Standard capacity' not 'High Capacity', period, end of story, case closed, done. !
The truth is that they are widely owned by law abiding citizens which according to the Heller decision means they are "in common use" and are therefore, (according to the SCOTUS) protected by the 2nd amendment from infringements from the government. The government includes both the DOJ and the BATF. All of them, including the states are proscribed from infringing on the only right that clearly says "Shall Not Be Infringed".
Its shocking and alarming that so many seem to have difficulty in understanding these simple to understand ideas. Playing with words using verbal gymnastics to stretch unworthy and unlawful concepts into mainstream thought is as wrong as it is a 'lie'.
Many semi-automatic pistols come standard with 10 - 17 round capacities, which they were originally designed to hold, so none of these hand guns have 'high capacity' clips. According to established SCOTUS decisions (as referenced above) these widely owned pistols are 'in common use' and are therefore protected by the 2nd amendment from infringement by the government.
Don't EVER let the left tell you "we don't want your guns"...
Democrat Lawmakers in Maine discussing banning hunting rifles...
https://freemaine.nationbuilder.com/democrat_lawmakes_support_ban_on_maine_hunting_rifles?fbclid=IwAR09Wx7Ok4W27C1Y-sie23A16wj_hudCnEld1XnJY84IIKEHVDtHCni7HEA
Researchers Credit Right to Carry Law With Reduction in Chicago Property Crimes
https://www.nraila.org/articles/20190104/researchers-credit-right-to-carry-law-with-reduction-in-chicago-property-crimes?fbclid=IwAR1jbNQSXHqmLR_u1Xx0q4IcuMbSZglPLj5zeXQv6t5SMw3tjd46L6jGwTY
"That fact alone defines them as 'Standard capacity' not 'High Capacity', period, end of story, case closed, done. !"
SCOTUS agrees that limitations can be put on rights; this currently includes defining LCMs aa restricted at the state level by the state and for the people...…
State laws define lcm's differently depending on state. California, Connecticut, Hawaii, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York, and the District of Columbia say more than 10 rounds. Colorado says 15 rounds. Vermont swings both ways with over 10 in a long gun and more than 15 rounds for handgun.
"Its shocking and alarming that so many seem to have difficulty in understanding these simple to understand ideas. Playing with words using verbal gymnastics to stretch unworthy and unlawful concepts into mainstream thought is as wrong as it is a 'lie'. Yeah, that's what the Nazi's said too.... :>)
SCOTUS said it's OK to restrict. State's give you the stated definition. Boom. Mic drop.
SCOTUS has rung in on this repeatedly. According to the Heller decision widely owned firearms are "in common use" (Heller decision) and are therefore, (according to the SCOTUS) protected by the 2nd amendment from infringements from the government. The government includes the individual States and both the DOJ and the BATF. All of them, are proscribed from infringing on the only right that clearly says "Shall Not Be Infringed".
Standard capacity firearms like the AR15 were specifically designed to use 30 round magazines. This defines them as standard capacity , not high capacity and according to set precedents from the written opinions of both the Heller and Miller decisions by the supreme court are therefore protected by the 2nd amendment.
Stop lying about the supreme courts precedent and prior decisions. Playing with words using verbal gymnastics to stretch unworthy and unlawful concepts into mainstream thought is as wrong as it is a 'lie'. You lie.
more bad news for lawful, responsible gun owners in NJ -
3rd Circuit denies En Banc hearing, Court of Appeals upholds NJ Mag ban,
I’m kinda over it. We’ll never have 15rd in NJ again. Sad but true. Bought many new 10rd mags for each firearm and sold all my 15rd mags to criminals. They were happy to buy them.
Then you don’t have any issues with the state restrictions Greyhawk. Fire away, 15 at a time, and tell em about Heller. Can I watch?
and across the Delaware River Pa governor goes hog wild coming after everyones guns:
Pennsylvania Governor Calls for Total Ban on all Semi-Automatic Weapons
Just one day after a gun-rights rally in Pittsburgh that attracted hundreds of gun owners protesting the city’s proposed “assault weapons” ban, Democratic Pennsylvania Governor Tom Wolf voiced his support for a complete ban on all semi-automatic weapons.
https://www.gunsamerica.com/digest/pennsylvania-ban-semi-automatic/?utm_source=email&utm_medium=20190111_FridayDigest_208&utm_campaign=/digest/pennsylvania-ban-semi-automatic/
That’s not all he said; in your excitment you missed the clarification, backtrack, walkback and reposition.
Not to mention the Republican legislature in PA that was noted.
One thing is certain; the man needs to get his positions down. Wonder what he said during the election?
The Stigmatization Of Gun Owners
" . . . . That’s because the NRA is reflective of the membership, not the other way around. They may or may not get that. But, it’s worth remembering that the NRA means all of us, regardless of membership.
So whenever someone says the NRA has blood on its hands, it means we have blood on our hands. When some progressive governor claims the NRA is a terrorist organization, he’s saying we are terrorists. These insults aimed at the NRA are really aimed at every single one of us.
And when they do talk about us directly, it’s rarely flattering. Progressives claim we’re “stockpiling” guns. They claim we’re doing it because we’re afraid of black people. Then again, a number still think we’re racist, too. Others will claim that we think gun control is an attack on our masculinity.
And they’re aimed at us for a specific purpose.
You see, they’re trying to stigmatize gun ownership. Progressives want to make it taboo to own a gun, or at least to talk about it. The idea is to shift public opinion to such a point that something once socially acceptable – owning a gun – is now socially unacceptable. Then, people will either keep quiet or they’ll be pushed out into the fringes of society.
Basically, to use their terminology, they’re trying to “other” us.
You see, when you successfully “other” a group, you’re capable of doing any horrible thing. You essentially classify a group as something other than human, thus it becomes easy to commit atrocities against those people. . . . "
https://bearingarms.com/tom-k/2018/03/18/stigmatization-gun-owners/
“SCOTUS said it's OK to restrict”
Sure, because the reality is that SCOTUS, as well as the rest of government, have much higher odds of retaining their power, should the natives get restless (which is a direction that we seem to be headed in), if society is disarmed.
Btw, this entire time I had no idea the ban was only for handgun clips. That makes this legislation even more bizarre because simply using a handgun with a larger clip would become awkward to use at some point. I’ve no idea what that point would be, but if I had to guess a 15 round clip in a handgun would be fairly cumbersome...
I dont remember that part of the decision papers. Could you be “alleging?” ;-)
"but if I had to guess a 15 round clip in a handgun would be fairly cumbersome..."
Not at all...
In this pic is my M&P 9mm (full size - 17 rounds) and Glock 19 (compact - 15 rounds).
Those magazines fit flush to the bottom of the grip, which is why they are considered standard capacity).
In between you'll see a 10-round magazine for a .22 handgun for comparison.
Actually heard it from a gun aficionado that I work with. He’s a member of a gun range and that’s who told him.
So yeah, I suppose I’m alleging if no one else can confirm it... Good point
Edit: My coworker seems to be blowing smoke, sorry for the distraction:
ftp://www.njleg.state.nj.us/20182019/S0500/102_I1.HTM
Not sure if that’s current but the guts of it are clearly more than just for handguns...
“How did you do the white?”
On my guns? The only white is the “caution” engraving on the M&P and that is white from the factory. Glock is all black with some oily spots that just reflected the poor lighting in the photo.
Oregon looks to limit magazine capacity to 5 rounds and limit ammo sales.
https://www.statesmanjournal.com/story/news/politics/2019/01/11/oregon-bill-would-require-permits-buy-guns-limit-ammunition/2527929002/
Nah, I think it can look cool but you have to have an artistic touch to do it right and choose something that won’t come off with oil/cleaner.
KB - I know right? This is what happens when you leave the kids in charge. More stupidity from the inexperienced and uneducated.
Well, as long as their happy with their decision. I guess they didn't think their business would go down the toilet after taking their 'principled' stand. :
Corporate Gun Control Fail: Dick’s May Have to Close 35 Stores Across 18 States
With sales falling after the implementation of corporate gun control Dick’s Sporting Goods may have to close 35 stores across 18 states. The option of the closing the stores was revealed during a retail conference question and answer session with Goldman Sachs.
Dick’s Chief Financial Officer Lee Belitsky made clear no more of the company’s Field & Stream stores would be built and CEO Edward Stack went even further, floating the option of the closing the Field & Stream stores that exist already.
https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2018/12/11/corporate-gun-control-fail-dicks-may-close-35-stores-across-18-states/
Couldn’t be happening to a more aptly named company.
Perhaps they didn’t think that people who like those particular firearms also like (and can afford to buy) ammo and other hunting/fishing/camping gear - now shopping elsewhere of course. I guess selling soccer balls isn’t paying the bills...
I’ve spent thousands of dollars on guns/ammo, and not a penny to Dicks, especially since I have Academy and Sportman’s Warehouse literally across the street from them (as well as frequent gun shows with smaller/local shops).
Target Sports has some good deals if you buy in bulk (1000 rds )
www.targetsportsusa.com
thanks for the heads up on that source for ammo TJS, good stuff man.
meanwhile, Pro-Gun Lawsuits Save a Life in Fatal Self-Defense Shooting
A self-defense incident in Chicago this week could have ended in tragedy if not for two lawsuits that forced the city and Illinois legislature to allow for the possession and carrying of handguns, according to the organization that brought the lawsuits.
“Our legal actions have always been about putting law-abiding citizens on an equal footing against violent criminals,” said Second Amendment Foundation founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb. “We eliminated Chicago’s handgun ban with our 2010 Supreme Court victory in the McDonald case, and then forced Illinois lawmakers to allow citizens to legally carry with our Moore v. Madigan lawsuit.”
Local Chicago media reported yesterday that a 25-year-old woman shot and killed a man who had attempted to rob her at gunpoint outside a bus stop. The investigation is still ongoing, but authorities have said that the woman had a valid concealed carry license.
https://www.gunsamerica.com/digest/lawsuits-save-a-life/?utm_source=email&utm_medium=20190118_FridayDigest_209&utm_campaign=/digest/lawsuits-save-a-life/
"Police in Kentucky say multiple people have been taken to a hospital following a shooting at a residence in Owensboro.
Owensboro Police Public Information Officer Andrew Boggess said Thursday that the local coroner was called to the scene of the shooting. Boggess says authorities are trying to determine how many people were struck in the gunfire and the extent of their injuries.
The officer says authorities have not yet identified the suspected shooter.
He says the shooting occurred about 11 a.m. CST Thursday in the western Kentucky city." https://www.wowktv.com/news/kentucky/multiple-people-taken-to-hospital-after-shooting-in-kentucky/1708242095
"Three men were killed and one man was wounded Wednesday night in a shooting in Palmdale, authorities said." http://theavtimes.com/2019/01/17/three-dead-one-wounded-in-palmdale-shooting/
And how about for the kids:
A 9-year-old boy was shot and killed Wednesday in an apparent accidental shooting at an apartment in northwest Houston, according to police.
Police said two 9-year-old cousins were handling a gun at a unit at the Montabella at Oak Forest apartments in the 4000 block of West 34th Street. https://www.click2houston.com/news/boy-shot-killed-at-oak-forest-apartment-complex-hpd-says
https://www.americanrifleman.org/the-armed-citizen/
Story after story, updated almost daily, of law-abiding citizens exercising their 2A rights in self-defense.
did you read any of that?
the KY one - theres no information on the shooter
the Palmdale one sure as hell looks like a drug deal gone bad
http://nixle.us/ap4ww
and it's CA! how are those strict gun laws doing for ya?
Houston - that is a tragedy
however - in every one of these cases there was a failure to secure a firearm or a crime being committed.. weak sauce.
I can give you examples of lawful gun owners preventing violence ALL DAY without a shot being fired.
https://www.kktv.com/content/news/Pueblo-elementary-school-placed-on-secure-perimeter-for-police-activity-504454051.html
https://www.ozarksfirst.com/news/thief-caught-and-held-at-gunpoint-by-homeowner/1707697398
https://www.winknews.com/2019/01/10/home-owners-detains-would-be-robber-at-gun-point-in-cape-coral/
you want draconian punishments for allowing a minor to gain access to a firearm?
they are already on the books - nation wide. go to any gun store. amp the penalties - I am all for it.
The truth is that the progun lawsuits in Chicago allowed this woman of color to be able to defend herself from an attacker who posed an existential threat to her life. done, end of story.
She did well in defending herself, period. Good thing some folks are finally woke to the simple fact that individuals have every right to use deadly force in defense of their own lives.
This is an fundamental concept to remember and be aware of, thank you very much.
quoted from the lined story above:
"Goings knocked the woman to the ground in the course of the struggle, but the woman managed to pull out her firearm and shoot him in the neck. The man was still able to run away, but police apprehended him farther down the street. He died at the hospital later that day.
Police say Goings had a violent history. Last summer, he allegedly attacked a sergeant and officer during a drug raid."
This woman did well to arm herself, become familiar and comfortable with the use of her own firearm and was able to use it to save her own life. Good job.
(those who have eyes, . . . . Let them see . . . )
and this just in - - -
Report: Economic Toll Of Government Shutdown Almost As Bad As Economic Toll Of Having A Bloated Federal Government In The First Place
U.S.—The economic toll of the government shutdown is growing by the day, and experts now believe the cost of having the government partially closed down is nearly as bad as the economic toll of a functioning government interfering in our economy, businesses, and private decisions in the first place.
"It's really bad---almost as bad as when the government is running on all cylinders," said one financial expert, Gary Rothberd. "The cost of having the government shut down is now very close to being as terrible as when they're messing with everything."
https://babylonbee.com/news/report-economic-toll-of-government-shutdown-almost-as-bad-as-economic-toll-of-having-huge-government-in-first-place?fbclid=IwAR1r2VLnum2EZj_lCWPRAHoe9NJksXFeD6eAntpXMo8tprpIYmZLXPVx4zM
(satire, but funny as all get out)
Well done, Franklin Armory. DAO, nothing on the books against it here in NJ. It’ll be a hard case to argue, even if it does look like the evil black rifle - - - -
Franklin Armory Providence Rifle Action Prototype is NOT Semiautomatic ~ VIDEO
Minden, NV – -(AmmoLand.com)- Innovative firearms manufacturer, Franklin Armory®, has successfully created a new prototype.
Franklin Armory presents providence a whole new action type that fires one round every time the trigger is pulled, but this action is not semiautomatic. Come by SHOT Show booth #20365 and see the safest, quietest, cleanest, non-semiautomatic ever designed.
https://www.ammoland.com/2019/01/franklin-armory-providence-rifle-prototype-not-semiautomatic/?utm_source=Ammoland+Subscribers&utm_campaign=8937792f87-RSS_EMAIL_CAMPAIGN&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_6f6fac3eaa-8937792f87-21229169#axzz5d44IYSPJ
Do you think the pistol version will be legal? Since it’s not semi auto the 50oz limit and barrel shroud shouldn’t disqualify it.
The Bill of Rights is not an ala carte' menu where you can pick and choose, you have to take the whole bundle :
"The Second Amendment has become “a second-class right" - - - Clarence Thomas
"A ban on a class of arms is not an ‘incidental’ regulation. It is equivalent to a ban on a category of speech" - - - - Brett Kavanaugh
------------------------
"Under our precedents, if a Bill of Rights guarantee is fundamental from an American perspective, then, unless stare decisis counsels otherwise, that guarantee is fully binding on the States....
We therefore hold that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment incorporates the Second Amendment right recognized in Heller."
http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/mcdonaldvchicago.html
There’s something strange going on….. This thread applauds defensive gun use but totally avoids offensive gun abuse, except for the dissenter. What does the 2A say about “tragic accidents.” Yeah, minors with guns, tragic accident. In what world is that true.
“A 9-year-old boy was shot and killed Wednesday in an apparent accidental shooting at an apartment in northwest Houston, according to police. Police said two 9-year-old cousins were handling a gun at a unit at the Montabella at Oak Forest apartments in the 4000 block of West 34th Street.”….”There was some kind of interaction where they had the gun. It doesn’t appear that it was intentional. It appears to be a tragic accident,” Lt. Larry Crowson with the Houston Police Department said.” https://www.click2houston.com/news/boy-shot-killed-at-oak-forest-apartment-complex-hpd-says
“Sunday, Hudson Fife was with his family members and friends when he was accidentally shot and killed. His sister Emma-Caroline Fife and her boyfriend found the 11-year-old with his rifle.” https://www.cbs42.com/news/local/tuscaloosa-county-eleven-year-old-student-killed-in-hunting-accident/1704750312
“A 12-year-old boy is accused of negligent homicide in Saturday’s (Jan. 12) shooting death of a 9-year-old girl in New Orleans East, the New Orleans Police Department said Monday.” Well we charged a 12-year old……someone has to pay… https://www.nola.com/crime/2019/01/12-year-old-boy-arrested-in-fatal-shooting-of-9-year-old-girl-nopd.html?fbclid=IwAR2rr9VWhwVBO2Yo-t2pjbstSii60MLtcckxpgUT3P5vWQf2jLGkfr3gHsU
“Witnesses said a 20-year-old man, who police later identified as Daniel Lusk, was upstairs playing with a gun before accidentally pulling the trigger. After the accidental shooting, another person went upstairs to locate the person that fired the shot. That person shot and killed Lusk while he tried to run away.” “According to police, a man accidentally shot a gun through the floor. On the floor below, the bullet hit a 13-year-old girl. The girl was also holding a 12-week-old; the bullet grazed the baby. The 13-year-old was taken to Le Bonheur Children's Hospital in critical condition; the baby was taken there in non-critical condition.” Wonder if he took the Eddie Eagle course. http://www.wmcactionnews5.com/story/30883152/13-year-old-dies-after-accidental-shooting-suspected-shooter-killed/
Keep posting those defensive use anecdotes. As I said, I will match you 3:1 on “tragic accidents” where killers are not prosecuted even for manslaughter or we punish a 12-year old for having a gun. MAGA
here we go.. "Think of the Children!" "If it saves just one child...." OK Sally Sally Struthers.
"There’s something strange going on….. This thread applauds defensive gun use but totally avoids offensive gun abuse, except for the dissenter. What does the 2A say about “tragic accidents.” Yeah, minors with guns, tragic accident. In what world is that true. "
What was stated is that in the case of "offensive use" - the perpetrator is committing a crime, in many cases with a stolen firearm on a "gun free" zone in a state with draconian gun laws. This begs the questions
1.. Why do the lawful and responsible owners of firearms need to be denied their rights because someone else committed a crime? that is akin banning cars to prevent drunk driving..
"Keep posting those defensive use anecdotes. As I said, I will match you 3:1 on “tragic accidents” where killers are not prosecuted even for manslaughter or we punish a 12-year old for having a gun. MAGA"
so... what is the point here? who is the 'killer' in this scenario? so in your mind an appropriate answer to misuse off prosecutor discretion (ergo 'killers' not prosecuted) is to restrict or deny the constitutional rights of the law abiding....
"or we punish a 12-year old for having a gun." he shot a 9 year old relative.. this was not mere possession. I also think my fellow gunnies would agree that whomever let him gain access to said firearm needs to hang as well.
but guess what - everyone involved in the above links - were not 'law abiding and responsible firearms owners' - especially the idiot with the negligent discharge. There is a legal concept of criminal negligence and recklessness that is cognizable under the law be it manslaughter or another charge.
When I went to my first training course it was explained to the students that every bullet has a lawyers business card attached - and you are completely responsible for whatever you send downrange - good or bad you cant take it back..vilify the actor - not the mechanism. these are examples of criminal and negligent behavior which should have no bearing on any law abiding citizens constitutional rights.
"vilify the actor - not the mechanism" yes, agreed, prosecute to the full extent of the law
Sorry Skip, not much need to delve further, all I meant was: "There’s something strange going on….. This thread applauds defensive gun use but totally avoids offensive gun abuse, except for the dissenter. What does the 2A say about “tragic accidents.” Yeah, minors with guns, tragic accident. In what world is that true."...."Keep posting those defensive use anecdotes. As I said, I will match you 3:1 on “tragic accidents” where killers are not prosecuted even for manslaughter or we punish a 12-year old for having a gun. MAGA" Didn't mean anything deeper than that. Sorry :>(
And I am glad you think the 12-year old is not the only culprit in this needless shooting death and destruction of the rest of his 12-year old life.
Here's one for our entire gunny/antigunny family from 2015: "A former juvenile delinquent fatally shot an armed robber who broke into his apartment through a bathroom window and accidentally shot and killed his visiting teenage brother and his housemate while exchanging shots with the intruder, a district attorney said Wednesday." https://www.wtae.com/article/cops-man-killed-home-intruder-but-also-brother-housemate/7476427
SD good luck with your 3:1 ratio. Except you have your ratio backwards and off by a factor of up to 10.
"Almost all national survey estimates indicate that defensive gun uses by victims are at least as common as offensive uses by criminals, with estimates of annual uses ranging from about 500,000 to more than 3 million, in the context of about 300,000 violent crimes involving firearms in 2008. "
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.forbes.com/sites/paulhsieh/2018/04/30/that-time-the-cdc-asked-about-defensive-gun-uses/amp/
Woot With a range from .5m to 3m, I would say you’ve got that one nailed shut, statistically sarcastically speaking that is.
woot, very nice, even at the low end of the estimate defensive gun uses outnumber violent crimes with guns nearly 2 to 1, that's nearly double. Statistically there are far more good defensive uses of firearms than there are violent offenses with firearms.
And that happens each and every year. Why would anyone want to disarm law-abding citizens? What for?
The good work done by gun rights activists bringing lawsuits in Chicago to challenge and ultimately overturn unconstitutional gun laws enabled a woman of color to defend herself from an attacker who posed a threat to her life.
She defended herself with her own gun, which, thanks to the lawsuits, she was now legally able to carry with her on her person as she went about her daily business. This is a good thing. Individuals have every right to use deadly force to defend themselves.
the story is linked above.
Self-defense is a fundamental concept to be aware of that each and every one of us has. And here in this country we have the individual right to keep and bear arms to defend ourselves with.
Actually, my claim is to 3:1 any defensive anecdotes you put up. I think I can do that.
As to your numbers, that would be like me trying to tell you how often these kid shootings actually result in criminal charges. It's somewhere between 2 and 5B, but my accuracy, based on statistics, is about as good as yours.
Thanks to the NRA lobbying to disarm the CDC capabilities to study the disease that kills more people than car accidents, neither of us can really know. And unlike the auto industry, I really doubt the gun mfgs' will offer help.
Go with the lowest end and your claim still falls apart at the seams. Also read that the CDC study cited 300,000 violent crimes not accidental deaths as you were referring. With just over 30k gun related homicides in 2008, same year as the CDC study, even if all were accidental (which they are not, the 30k includes justified, accidents, suicide and murder) the ratio would be closer to 16.66:1 defensive gun use vs accidents. But hey you know math.....
Woot - - You be right, others be wrong, They're wrong on the facts and they are on the wrong side of history.
"Actually, my claim is to 3:1 any defensive anecdotes you put up. I think I can do that."
So you are claiming you can Google news stories better? Yeah that negates statistical data everyday....
"Thanks to the NRA lobbying to disarm the CDC capabilities to study the disease that kills more people than car accident"
The study was 2008.... Obama years....and the numbers still go against your logic. Just because the numbers don't fit an agenda does not mean they do not exist.
Oh and car accidents, well close to 2/3 of all gun deaths per year are suicide so not exactly an apples to apples comparison when people are not driving their cars 100mph into a brick wall to commit suicide.
Defensive actions with a firearm vs accidents is not the issue. The second amendment is ‘necessary for the security of a FREE state.’ The accidents and deaths are tragic, yes. They are the sad negative consequence of the free state that our founders envisioned. When you are armed they at least have to reason with you.
It just seems strange for kids to be killing kids being called “tragic accidents” as a cost we are willing to bear to sustain our right to have a gun to defend ourselves.
Somehow I can’t see this as being the kid’s faullt; is it the parent’s, the gun’s, perhaps a little of both.
Wish some gunny would make this better. The numbers say what we are doing isn’t working.
SD, you are wrong, this thread has not avoided that conversation at all, we have actually discussed it multiple times....your memory must be failing.
Shall we talk about how many deaths, children included, that drinking causes? (Including drunk driving) on that's right....tragedy.....that's what I thought you would say......touche to you SD
Tyranny has been killing people since the dawn of mankind. Long before the advent of firearms. Anecdotal tear jerking isn’t an argument.
Kids are killing kids with drinking? That’s a good one.
Ah tyranny. Avoiding it for only a few kids. Cool.
I guess you have never heard of underage drinking......or drinking and driving accidents....way to put the blinders up.....
I don’t think school shootings are a top concern in Venezuela right now. So yes. Tyranny, avoiding it for only a few kids. Go cry to someone else’s about dead children. The ones who starved in the Cambodian killing fields didn’t get to go to school to be shot.
"Kids are killing kids with drinking? That’s a good one. "
Happened several times in my high school class alone.
Has happened a couple time to my friends in mu adult life.
Time for "common sense alcohol laws", or perhaps we should try prohibition again... if it can save JUST ONE LIFE...
good points as usual JR, no one really needs a bottle of hard liquor that can hold more than 3 shots in it. If you need more than 3 shots of booze to get through your day you either need to go back to drinking school or join a 12 step program
That's why I wrote my congressman to pass 'common sense' bottle laws and reduce the size of these 'high capacity' bottles. No one needs them. These kind of 'reasonable controls" are a no brainier. Most Americans agree that too much booze is a bad thing so we are on firm constitutional ground here.
Kids die from drinking. Kids don’t often kill ither kids by drinking.
I mean we’re not talking just teens, we’re talking kids.
But hey don’t matter; keep posting those defensive use anecdotes. There’s plenty of dead kid by gun stories to match them where the gun is never to blame. I can even skip the murder/suicides.
In my limited searches - I don’t find statistics on how many of these are accidental vs intentional shootings. I know you don’t agree with programs like Eddie eagle - however - don’t you think that firearms safety should be taught in schools? Even if it’s just - stop don’t touch - don’t let anyone else touch - tell an adult.
The NRA provides Eddie eagle for free - If the goal is to “save just one life” or in any way prevent negligent discharges at the hands of children (which again is negligence on the part of an adult) why would that not be something you and others support? It’s ponderous to me.
"Kids die from drinking. Kids don’t often kill ither kids by drinking. "
Bullshit! They kill whoever is in the car with them when they are drunk driving.
This is PERSONAL experience (no, I haven't killed anyone, but I have lost several classmates and friends as a result of drunk driving... even when it wasn't them driving).
On the other hand, I don't have personal experience with anyone killing other people "with guns" in my 50 years on the planet.
Bottom line: alcohol kills, we need prohibition. OR you're full of shit!
SD just doesn't want to talk about alcohol because, as HE has said, Bottle King is his remedy.
The point of the Chiago story about a woman who protected herself was that because of successful court challenges to unconstitutional gun laws she was legally able to get a carry permit that she applied for , was granted, and used to carry her own firearm with her.
That's a good thing if you didn't know, period.
Wonder how many now dead kids would have been saved if more folks had their carry permits and their firearms with them when they were attacked?
This is why we need constitutional right to carry nation wide, it works. It saves kids lives.
"SD just doesn't want to talk about alcohol because, as HE has said, Bottle King is his remedy." Whatever do you mean by that?
"I have lost several classmates and friends as a result of drunk driving... " Wow. You needed Lloyd Dobler, key-master.
In my world, kids are generally thought of ranging from 1-18 years of age; sometimes not even including teen years.
The stories I referencing, that you are comparing to examples of driving while drunk, involved 4 9-year old's, an 11-year old, a 12-year old, a 13-year old, and a 12-week old baby. So tell me how these kids relate to your teenage drunk driving stories....
I have none of those death by drinking stories. Nos bibere vivere.
Like I said: for each defensive gun use, there are three more kids recently shot by gun. So keep posting and I will keep you up to date.
Here's some data from 2016 (not sure if CDC just takes a while to compile 2018 data or I'm looking in the wrong spot) detailing cause of death by age group.
https://www.cdc.gov/injury/wisqars/LeadingCauses.html
Looking at worst case scenario (i.e. including homicide and "unspecified") where guns *might* be involved (or might not), here are the totals:
<1 year: 233 (Homicide Specified 132, Homicide Other 63, Undetermined 38)
1-4 years: 276 (Homicide Unspecified 114, Homicide Firearm 64, Homicide Other 64, Unintentional Firearm 34)
5-9 years: 84 (Homicide Firearm 68, Unintentional Firearm 16)
10-14 years: 278 (Suicide Firearm 160, Homicide Firearm 95, Unintentional Firearm 23)
15-24: This is where the data is not easy to split between "child" and "adult". However, the data is extremely similar to the adult columns, so it's obviously skewed way to that side.
Anyway, for what most people would truly call children, the *worst case* is 871 deaths even possibly remotely related to firearms.
If we trust that these events are categorized properly, the true "accidental" deaths (i.e. kids finding a gun and mistakenly pulling the trigger) we're probably closer to 73 (all of the "unintentional firearm" categories) or 460 (including homicide an suicide definitively linked to firearms).
Are you saying that there were less than 24 (most likely) to 290 (absolute worst case) defensive gun uses in 2016 to keep your 3:1 ratio?
Keep in mind, that table above is just a *subset* of "unintentional" deaths by age group, so just because it may be the top reason on this chart doesn't mean it's a top reason overall.
There are other "Top 10" reasons, such as congenital anomalies, influenza, heart disease, etc. that are detailed on a higher level chart.
"Are you saying that there were less than 24 (most likely) to 290 (absolute worst case) defensive gun uses in 2016 to keep your 3:1 ratio?
'
No, I am saying that when you post an anecdote for defensive gun use, I will post three dead kids by gun. I mean one good anecdote deserves another....or three.
"Like I said: for each defensive gun use, there are three more kids recently shot by gun"
Prove it, as you are so fond of saying.
"I am saying that when you post an anecdote for defensive gun use, I will post three dead kids by gun."
Then you're just full of BS - because this is your exact quote from above:
"for each defensive gun use, there are three more kids recently shot by gun"
So, if in 2016 there were 73 to 871 kids shot by a gun then mathematically there would have to be less than 290 defensive gun uses.
But let's take this a step further... DO IT. Post your anecdotes... but they have to be within the same time frame. i.e. if we post 10 defensive gun uses for January, you have to post your 30 results that occurred in January. No digging into the way back machine.
I'll get you started:
https://abc13.com/5-shot-and-3-dead-after-home-invasion-in-east-houston/5097015/
One event, 5 burglars/attackers shot.
You're on deck for 15 now (technically, with your logic, they need to have happened on the same night in Houston).
"No, I am saying that when you post an anecdote for defensive gun use, I will post three dead kids by gun. I mean one good anecdote deserves another....or three"
Translation: Statistics are not my side and prove I'm wrong at every turn but I have so much free time on my hands I can out Google you.....
The 2nd amendment is a disfavored right, not treated as equal to the other amendments
so I owe 9 then right breaking it up to get past URL limit
http://ktar.com/story/2402733/phoenix-police-gunman-shoots-man-threatening-women-with-a-knife/
https://chicago.cbslocal.com/2019/01/19/woman-with-concealed-carry-permit-shoots-would-be-attacker/
https://www.detroitnews.com/story/news/local/detroit-city/2019/01/19/police-man-targeted-robbery-fires-back-wounds-suspect/2622812002/
https://www.khou.com/article/news/crime/3-suspects-dead-another-injured-after-homeowner-opens-fire-during-east-houston-break-in/285-29b21dcb-0f08-43bb-8d1e-6bd7d8b559e2
https://wtvr.com/2019/01/16/clerk-who-shot-knife-carrying-robber-relieved-by-arrests-of-suspects/
https://cbs4indy.com/2019/01/16/indianapolis-man-not-charged-in-intruders-deadly-shooting-burglary-suspects-facing-murder-charges/
https://ktvl.com/news/local/grants-pass-fatal-self-defense-shooting-ruled-justified-by-josephine-county-district-attorney
https://abc11.com/no-charges-for-fayetteville-resident-who-shot-would-be-robber/5085483/
https://www.news4jax.com/news/local/jacksonville/jso-suspected-robber-shot-by-employee-at-metropcs
there's your 10 for January...
"Translation: Statistics are not my side and prove I'm wrong at every turn but I have so much free time on my hands I can out Google you....." - - - Woot
Hah! Nailed it !! a big wet sloppy +1 from me on this one Woot, please do keep em' coming.
Emotional arguments are always hard to dispute because rationality doesn’t play a role, which is why nearly every politician, news outlet and those in front of a microphone uses the tactic.
Well the point being that it’s just simply ineffective to continue to chip away at gun rights. I love how ‘gun violence’ is a national emergency when we can statistically prove more kids drown in buckets every year.
"there's your 10 for January..."
Why stop there?
https://www.foxnews.com/us/arizona-resident-shoots-four-burglars-killing-one-police-say
https://kristv.com/news/local-news/2019/01/07/suspected-burglar-shot-and-killed-at-southside-apartment-complex/
https://wnep.com/2019/01/11/police-90-year-old-homeowner-shot-intruder-in-the-leg/
https://bearingarms.com/tom-k/2019/01/07/private-security-stops-mass-shooting-alabama-night-club/
Not all defensive gun uses require shots to be fired...
https://www.winknews.com/2019/01/10/home-owners-detains-would-be-robber-at-gun-point-in-cape-coral/
https://www.kcra.com/article/armed-good-samaritan-stops-suspects-at-loomis-grocery-store/25730898
Better get busy on the Googles SD.... I think you're up to about 45+ to keep your word/statistics in check (so far you've posted 0).
I agree Skippy. I am so tired of saving kids from smaller problems. What a waste.
"we can statistically prove more kids drown in buckets every year."
Yep, look at the chart I posted above. Unintentional drowning is 4x to 10x higher than unintentional firearm deaths for the young age groups.
"Emotional arguments are always hard to dispute because rationality doesn’t play a role" - - - Justintime
+1, you just described SDs MO to a 'T', logic and data and facts dont count for much, the ONLY thing that matters is an attempt to spread shame in a typically predictable pithy , emotional, irrational manner.
"I agree Skippy. I am so tired of saving kids from smaller problems. What a waste."
it's certainly is a brilliant idea to attack the small issues and work up to the big ones to have the greatest impact..
With 300 million plus firearms in the US, you would think our firearm death rate would be at least 70,000 or more per 100,000 per capita shooting deaths(non-suicide) a year. I would venture to guess that most gun owners are practicing very good muzzle control. Compared to other countries with strict gun control or no private ownership, I would think being 30th in 2018 for gun related homicides is a result of trust, responsibility, and freedom.
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/health/theres-a-new-global-ranking-of-gun-deaths-heres-where-the-u-s-stands
You can't protect people from themselves, but the politicians will always solve any problem if it gets more money to fall off the table into their laps.
The government just does not want you to have guns. The police don't want you to have guns, they only want themselves to have them.
All of the rest is fluff- it's not about kids, so stop wasting time talking about that.
Your guns will be legislated out of your hands. Pass a law, those with speeding ticket cannot own a gun, off your's goes. You committed a crime, we seize it.
The mommies and the liberals will chip away at it as well, along with all of the "school people."
The police would love to seize every last one and put them in their own collections, and tell stories about how they acquired each and every one and how much fun that was.
Grab the popcorn and enjoy the show..
I believe it 20th, but did you notice the names of the top 19 and do you still feel good about where we rank?
Sure looks like Queen of the Pigs to me.
I mean Greenland and the other under-100 death countries....
We beat Afghanistan and Brazil, wow, I'm so proud.
So, SD, we have 16 posted.....you owe us 48....better get to work....put your money where your mouth is
@SD "I agree Skippy. I am so tired of saving kids from smaller problems. What a waste."
That's not the problem, the problem is that you completely ignore big problems and only focus on problems that fit your political agenda....all while trying to "act" like you "care"..........
The gun control debate isn’t actually about safety, It’s about suppressing power and self autonomy. individual responsibility and the ability to meet violence with lawful, and justified force without relying on the government is horrifying to a liberal.
What is your problem?
'So, SD, we have 16 posted.....you owe us 48....better get to work....put your money where your mouth is." Is that the royal "we," who, we, white man?
They are posted above, noted as 45, so rotate.
"That's not the problem, the problem is that you completely ignore big problems and only focus on problems that fit your political agenda....all while trying to "act" like you "care".........." Wow, how do you ever get your brilliant insightful misconceptions. Amazingly simplistic read on the matter. Let he who is without sin cast the first stone. Assuming you know my level of "care" is outstandingly personal considering the source. Judge not lest you be judged. You just seem to need a scapegoat to vent your spleen.
"The gun control debate isn’t actually about safety, It’s about suppressing power and self autonomy. individual responsibility and the ability to meet violence with lawful, and justified force without relying on the government is horrifying to a liberal." Not to the real world, just to the Trumpian Circus.
SCOTUS has granted cert in a 2A case.
https://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2019/01/daniel-zimmerman/breaking-supreme-court-grants-cert-to-ny-state-rifle-pistol-assn-v-city-of-ny/
Have to read through when I get more time to see what the implications may be. Looks like at a minimum a pro-2A ruling could be used to establish the minimum level of judicial scrutiny required for firearms laws (which would throw out the “well, it might be a good idea” gun control decisions).
really good news Mark, thanks for sharing. Quoted from your linked article:
" . . . granting cert to New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v. City of New York, a case that challenges the city’s prohibition on transporting licensed, locked and unloaded handguns outside the city.
While ruling the law unconstitutional would seem to only overturn New York City’s law, LKB expects a narrowly crafted opinion that declares that any law that restricts Second Amendment rights would be subject to strict scrutiny, the highest possible threshold."
" . . . If that were to happen, it . . .
…would nuke just about all the Heller-agnostic Court of Appeals rulings out there (which typically hold that 2A challenges get only intermediate scrutiny or rational basis review), and make it very hard for district and circuit judges to continue to wink at Heller. When laws are subject to “strict scrutiny” constitutional analysis — for example, laws that impose prior restraints on free speech — almost never survive the challenge.
That would mean our friends living behind enemy lines in states like California, Washington, Hawaii, New York, New Jersey, Massachusetts, Connecticut and Maryland would have many of their constitutionally protected gun rights restored."
here's a link to the SCOTUS decision: https://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/012219zor_8759.pdf
Right on dodgebaal, When Stewie Johnson passed, his mother told the first patrolman that she didn't want the beautiful, museum quality gun collection built from the 1700's valued in the six figure neighborhood. There was fistfights over the gun collection by the 15 or so NJSP officers only to be quelled by higher ranking officers arriving. It went up to the rank of colonel and the higher the rank the better the pick.
strangerdanger, you have to be able to read and interpret the stats empirically, without regard to personal biases. There were several different catagories.
Oep- got it, ty. Same commemts though basically.
Although I can add that higher concentrations of guns correlates strongly with suicide rates too where we rank number 2 according to your source. Apparentlly a reason is the gun’s lethality rating, very high. They do the job better, faster, easier.
Don't try to play dumb now SD, you said 3 for 1....you have not posted anything....post or just keep trying to ignore it....your choice.
The facts speak for themselves, if you were all so caring, you would be out there on other threads running your mouth about drugs, smoking, drinking, etc but nope...here you are fighting about kids and guns, using the statistically least deadly factor as your "care zone" ..... quite obviously agenda driven.
You are right. It is in my care zone. Especially when you funny gunnies stand up and say: look, here’s another glory story, loosen those gun controls, its our God-given right. I understand that its a least deadly sin to you and outside of your care zone. These kids have no more rights.
The list of 45 is above; date and address as noted including, as specified above, one dead kid, perhaps an adult if murder/suicide, and up to three dead.
I can’t spoon feed you anymore than that.
Suicide is a personal choice, just like drugs or driving. It's when you decide to break the law, drag innocent bystanders into it and violate other peoples personal freedom that the problems start. 300 or maybe closer to 400 million firearms in the US speaks loudly toa majority of American gun owners exercising personal responsibility as well as the freedom to move about as they see fit, plus a God given right to protect yourself, your family and/or your property.
Once you decide to make any group out as a victim for suppression, death or dismemberment, you can't pick and choose which dangers you wish to support. You protect them from all hazards equally without violating law abiding citizens rights.
You can't solve crime by making good people illegal. I wonder what harms or kills the most kids every year? Water, the wheel, lead paint, climate change? Political Correctness certainly is a cause but the AMA doesn't list it for causes of death yet? Maybe it could be listed as Death by Misadventure?
Oep: the fact is: more guns = more suicide. Statistically correlated. The US has the highest concentration of guns in the industrialized world. A high suicide rate too.
There is a reason. Guns are one of the best tools in the closet for this act. Easy to use, a child can do it. Efficient, just point and click. Most important, effective — scores extremely high against other tools on the lethality index. Rarely miss would be the short stroke.
Not commenting one way or another beyond that; just another one of those strange things.
" more guns = more suicide. Statistically correlated."
Correlation does not = causation
(unless you think margarine consumption causes divorce, or cheese consumption causes you to get tangled in your bed sheets)
http://www.tylervigen.com/spurious-correlations
Also: Japan
"US has the highest concentration of guns in the industrialized world."
we also have the highest number of cars percapita too.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_vehicles_per_capita
back to the CDC studdy (Credit Mark) - MV accidents are the number one (with a bullet) cause of death in the 5-24 demo..
https://www.cdc.gov/injury/wisqars/LeadingCauses.html
want to make any more specious correlations or gonna call it a day?
because there may be a statistical correlation between guns as a mechanism and suicide - but the causation is external as we have seen in au
" more guns = more suicide. Statistically correlated."
More BS. We're #34 according the World Health Organization.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_suicide_rate
And that's with the US being #1 on the list for gun owners per capita:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Estimated_number_of_civilian_guns_per_capita_by_country
So much for "statistically correlated"
Nobody said we don't care, but we all know that statistically there is way bigger fish to fry, and if you are going to exert effort, wouldn't you want the biggest change?
What I personally said, is if you care so much about this, why do I not see you caring about things that kill WAY MORE kids? You seem to have zero interest in saving kids if they do not deal with gun limitations/laws, even if it did save way more kids......Can you explain why that is SD?
For the record 45 is not 48, and I do not see your links at all, so I don't think you posted them. I saw 4 and that's it. Maybe you can post a link to your post with the 45?
he's lying to you Darrin, he's got nothin' and he knows it and is trying to push it back onto you. It's intellectually dishonest and shows a complete lack of character.
If someone wants to commit suicide, it's only logical for them to choose an instrument specifically designed to kill effectively. Thus, it only makes sense that many choose to commit suicide with a firearm.
I'd actually be far more worried about the nation, if people suddenly started attempting suicide by stabbing themselves with old, rusty screwdrivers, instead of using firearms. That would mean that we have become a nation of morons.
"a narrowly crafted opinion that declares that any law that restricts Second Amendment rights would be subject to strict scrutiny, the highest possible threshold."
" . . . If that were to happen, it . . .
…would nuke just about all the Heller-agnostic Court of Appeals rulings out there (which typically hold that 2A challenges get only intermediate scrutiny or rational basis review), and make it very hard for district and circuit judges to continue to wink at Heller. When laws are subject to “strict scrutiny” constitutional analysis — for example, laws that impose prior restraints on free speech — almost never survive the challenge."
“he's lying to you Darrin, he's got nothin' and he knows it” says the smart guy who never backs up any of his claims, because he can't, and many of his claims have been proven by many others to be wrong, if not totally fabricated.
I hope folks realize that I am not really taking a stand here. Not sure your need to take it so personally in such an emotional fashion like the Hawk. I am just trying to present some facts with the only point being:"Not commenting one way or another beyond that; just another one of those strange things."
" more guns = more suicide. Statistically correlated."
JR says “More BS.” He proudly states “We're #34.” Apparently, he didn’t bother to look at countries1-33 including a lot of places he would never enter much less live in except for Japan(30), Finland(32), and Belgium(22). Hey, we beat a couple of industrialized nations by 2-4 slots and cold-cocked Belgium. Every other industrialized nation in the world ranks better than the US. Think about that. We win in suicide rates. Think that’s another Queen of the Pigs moment that you seem to be proud of JR --- losing on suicide to 73 other countries while beating 3 relevant ones, 2 by a hair.
On JRs gun ownership chart, yes US#1, high suicide rate, and yes JR, that’s my point. TY JR. However for completeness, Japan #219, Finland #10 and Belgium #62. That’s out of 230 countries putting Belgium in the top 25% and Finland at the top. So, only Japan is an outlier, and if we look at the culture, it makes sense.
JR says: “So much for "statistically correlated" ---- yes JR, it seems you are correct in confirming my case. Your facts are good, your analysis -- eh--- could be better... :>) Thank you again. But wait, there’s more….
“A study by the Harvard School of Public Health of all 50 U.S. states reveals a powerful link between rates of firearm ownership and suicides. https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/news/magazine/guns-and-suicide/
And for those hard-of-reading… https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/news/magazine/spr08gunprevalence/
“States with higher estimated levels of gun ownership had higher incidents of gun-related suicides, with firearm ownership alone explaining 71 percent of the variation in state-level gun suicide rates for males and 49 percent for females, a new study by School of Public Health researchers shows.”
http://www.bu.edu/sph/2016/05/19/firearm-ownership-closely-tied-to-suicide-rates/
Here's a little pushback for you… “Empirical research on the causal effects of firearm availability on the risk of suicide is consistent with the claim that firearms increase suicide risk, but this research cannot yet rule out some other explanations for observed associations between guns and suicide. There are, however, theoretical or logical arguments for believing firearms elevate suicide risk that are sufficiently compelling that individuals and policymakers might reasonably choose to assume that gun availability does increase the risk of suicide.”
https://www.rand.org/research/gun-policy/analysis/supplementary/firearm-availability-suicide.html
Jersey Wolf says: “If someone wants to commit suicide, it's only logical for them to choose an instrument specifically designed to kill effectively. Thus, it only makes sense that many choose to commit suicide with a firearm.” Uh…..think that’s my point. You are making suicide as easy to accomplish as you possibly can. And you have no remorse; just another cost of freedom as the Founders expected us to behave.
He continues with this sage advise: “I'd actually be far more worried about the nation, if people suddenly started attempting suicide by stabbing themselves with old, rusty screwdrivers, instead of using firearms. That would mean that we have become a nation of morons.” Yes, but we would become a nation with less suicides too. So, beyond agreeing, what was your point?
We win in suicide rates.
No, we don't. We are number 34. You are just spinning (again) by applying YOUR conditions to the results. We are number 34. No complicated formula is required. You sir are simply wrong.
US: #34 in suicide rate
US: #1 in gun ownership.
Next.
Why are we talking about guns and suicide? Lets be real here, suicide is a personal choice that would happen with or without a gun...so stop trying to use it to hype up your "guns=bad" argument....its a weak argument, if you can even call it that.
@SD "I hope folks realize that I am not really taking a stand here"...your certainly are not....you just make provocative statements saying that you could provide data proving XYZ and then back petal and never produce the data when the time comes...now you are attempting to carry on like nothing ever happened......can I say I am not surprised?
We are gonna need something better for your 48....still waiting, and no, I wont't live it down...if you are going to make a statement, and other people are going to do the research on the back side....you're not just walking away from your statement...put up or shut up
NEXT!
https://cdn1.sph.harvard.edu/wp-content/uploads/sites/1264/2012/10/bulletins_australia_spring_2011.pdf
Australia - overall suicides and murder have not “plummeted” in the years after the gun ban
https://aic.gov.au/publications/tandi/tandi359
Manslaughter, sexual assault, kidnapping, armed robbery, and unarmed robbery all saw peaks in the years following the ban, and most remain near or above pre-ban rates.
while firearm-related suicides are down 57 percent in the aftermath of the ban,
Lifeline Australia reports that overall suicides are at a ten-year high.
https://www.lifeline.org.au/about-lifeline/media-centre/media-releases/2014-articles/suicide-statistics-reveal-urgent-action-required
The Australian suicide prevention organization "suicide is the leading cause of death for Australians 15 to 44 years old."
So, while Australians kill themselves with firearms less often, it seems they don’t actually take their own lives any less often than before the ban.
lets just make suicide illegal - that's worked with drugs right?
nobody is arguing that a firearm is not an excellent mechanism for suicide - but removing them from the equation does nothing to reduce suicides....
Skippy, thanks for your support, but I can't find your conclusions. Your summary of the first Harvard report iks: “Australia - overall suicides and murder have not “plummeted” in the years after the gun ban.” I cannot find that conclusion at all. Can’t find the word plummet or plummeted in the Harvard report.
The document does state: “ For Australia, the NFA seems to have been incredibly successful in terms of lives saved……The NFA also seems to have reduced firearm homicide outside of mass shootings, as well as firearm suicide.”……”Additional evidence strongly suggests that the buyback causally reduced firearm deaths.”
“A more recent evaluation, which examined the differences across states, concluded that “the buyback led to a drop in the firearm suicide rates of almost 80 per cent, with no significant effect on non-firearm death rates”
Seems to reach a different conclusion and I can’t even find the word plummet, which you quoted, anywhere in the articles. Having issues matching your words to the other reports too. Am I misreading something?
You probably have the best argument here in that the Australian experiment proved little. However, it’s best results was in the area of suicide, if I remember. Just that I can’t figure out where you are linking here.
Darrin: really Dude, you need to chill. It’s just talk. Discussion. If it upsets you, what can I say. It's the nature of guns. I can see where posting info on suicide rates, increased gun prevalence creating essentially greater use of said guns, might get a rise out of you. Sorry, but generally in life if you have more, you use more. It's the circle of life.....or death in this case.
They are just numbers. Just facts. No real opinions beyond what I previously said: “isn’t it strange even on the table from me.” I posted 45 anecdotal pieces of data about kids shot by guns to make good on my claim. To quote my promise: Actually, my claim is to 3:1 any defensive anecdotes you put up. I think I can do that."
For each anecdotal data point that I provided, I specified the general crime (as an overview for the whole section), including caveats like including some adults, suicides, etc. The I provided, for each of the 45 anecdotal data points, the date and address as well as the source. SInce I promised a list of data points, and that's what this is, I am not sure what more you might desire.
I realize this is very important to you. You seem to feel that I “back petal and never produce the data when the time comes” and worse yet, apparently you feel that: “now you are attempting to carry on like nothing ever happened.” First time I have been accused of not providing enough text :>) But really, do you think it’s necessary to demand that “We are gonna need something better for your 48....still waiting, and no, I wont't live it down...if you are going to make a statement, and other people are going to do the research on the back side....you're not just walking away from your statement...put up or shut up.” Wow. Can't even figure out what you are trying to say, but seems like the bottom line is: way to pick a fight snarky.
The list is above. If you require more data, let me know and I will see if I might do your work for you.
I probably jacked it up because I’m on my phone - point being is the mechanism changed and the number of suicides went up as did violent crime. So the real question is do we care about suicide by firearm or suicide in general.. I think it’s the latter
Perhaps its both.
However, it seems your Harvard study contradicts you.
Also means you’ve jumped the usa state-level correlation to a no causation conclusion. Which, of course, you can’t do anymore than I can prove causation.
I don’t know what it is with conservatives having issues with multitasking, but I say look at both Skippy.
“The NFA also seems to have reduced firearm homicide outside of mass shootings, as well as firearm suicide.”……”Additional evidence strongly suggests that the buyback causally reduced firearm deaths.”
Sure but it had no impact on reducing violent crime or suicide - I’ve proven that this dosent work in a western country. The mechanism just changed. You’re spinning the facts once again
Your the one that staked the claim, not I
For the record, you so claimed 45 data points are no where to be found....
Bottom line, don't make claims you cannot backup
https://gunowners.org/gun-owners-of-america-funds-challenge-to-national-firearms-act-in-u-s-supreme-court/
Gun Owners of America Funds Challenge to National Firearms Act in U.S. Supreme Court
"Gun Owners of America (GOA) and its litigating arm, Gun Owners Foundation (GOF), today continued their defense of Jeremy Kettler, a disabled combat veteran, against a conviction for violating the National Firearms Act."
Darrin, He's absolutely lying to you and gaslighting you at the same time all the while laughing at you and taking great pride and pleasure at how good he's yanking your chain. Continues to display a poor upbringing and a complete lack of character.
"Strange game, the only way to win is not to play"
Man, you just gots to contribute to that. I mean what good is a gun without a suppressor. Silence is golden. Darkness is light.
For Darrin: here's about 200 of them. Choke on it. The ones I identified are included IF you can search by data and location. You can do that, can't you?
https://www.gunviolencearchive.org/children-killed
That’s 12 in January.
Somewhat in line with the expected several hundred a year (hmm maybe the CDC numbers are correct?)
Still doesn’t meet your self imposed 3:1 ratio. Not even a 1:1 ratio (just from what we quickly found in a cursory search of defensive gun uses.)
Crikey. Quit proving you know how to count and start comprehending. What I said was I can POST 3:1 ratio to YOUR anecdotes. Of course, the aggregate numbers will be different.
Tell you what, I lied, I can't do it. Just stop your madness...…
Skippy (back to a rational discussion versus how big is your?): From the report: “The NFA also seems to have reduced firearm homicide outside of mass shootings, as well as firearm suicide.”……”Additional evidence strongly suggests that the buyback causally reduced firearm deaths.” Skippy responded: "Sure but it had no impact on reducing violent crime or suicide - I’ve proven that this dosent work in a western country. The mechanism just changed. You’re spinning the facts once again."
“You’re spinning the facts once again” ah…..actually I was quoting facts from others….. And the facts are all correct, for what they are. You just refuse to look deeper than your bias allows as to the possibility of causation….. (heh, heh). Before you went off again, I was going to suggest that you look at comparative studies and reports because I think you are correct, in a manner.
Factcheckers CONFIRM my “spin” that there is a correlation for more guns = more gun death. Also, that your “fact” that “it had no impact on reducing violent crime or suicide” is not correct. You can not prove that and the data points in the exact opposite direction.. There’s just not enough of it to prove causation --- for either of us Dude. You shoulda known that. You woulda known that if you just remembered past conversations or looked just a little bit deeper.
First, you know that more guns = more gun death has just GOTs to be true in total volume. The thought that more guns = reduction in crime is just not provable. That’s why the boys fall to anecdotal data; it’s the only support that they have beyond some whacked estimates from .5M to 3M defensive uses (which no one can prove yes or no). The support of the emotional.
Do more guns = more gun death on a ratio basis too? The Australian experiment says yes. Clearly yes. Clearly for homicide OR suicide. Clear correlation. But is there causation? That’s where we get conflicts mostly due to 1) falling Australian rates starting before the ban and 2) low number of data points. Always gonna be problematic, eh? Need the US where we’re blowing em away left n right :>) Especially in NC :>) There you are correct about causation , although we could have gotten there much quicker without the snark…
But wait, there's more.......
Try these: “Whether or not one wants to attribute the effects as being due to the law, everyone should be pleased with what happened in Australia after the NFA — the elimination of firearm massacres (at least up to the present) and an immediate, and continuing, reduction in firearm suicide and firearm homicide,” IOW - can't prove it, can't deny it, but all data points positive; no data points negative. https://www.factcheck.org/2017/10/gun-control-australia-updated/
I think this is the better factchecking result, and I thought there was one more “fact checker’ type out there where they covered it and then updated it a decade later IMO in an unbiased, thorough, fashion. But like this second review, it concludes: “While it is accurate for Mr Howard to assert that gun-related homicides and suicides have dropped since his reforms were implemented, there is more to it.
Studies on the impacts of his reforms have come to varied conclusions and experts contacted by Fact Check said other factors would have influenced the drops, even though the reforms are likely to form part of the story.”
The reforms are likely to form part of the story. Less guns = less gun death. Just can’t prove causation but the correlation should give any prudent person pause to consider. And to consider: “isn’t that strange.” https://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-04-28/fact-check-gun-homicides-and-suicides-john-howard-port-arthur/7254880
Hope that helps clarify my points.
sorry left bias site with horrible methodology
"The Gun Violence Archive [GVA] was established to carry on the work of Slate.com’s 2013 toll of deaths by gun violence."
"Slate.com has been one of the more vocal proponents for civilian disarmament and infringement on the civil rights of Americans when it comes to firearms ownership. So already, I’m a little skeptical of the effort. Their methodology doesn’t help."
"the problem is that their methodology will never accurately reflect the defensive use number."
https://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2015/01/foghorn/gun-violence-archive-flawed-start/
what else you got? WaPo?
They are each linked to an individual news story so you are judging hundreds of media outlets, some of which are right facing. Give it a break.
"Crikey. Quit proving you know how to count and start comprehending. What I said was I can POST 3:1 ratio to YOUR anecdotes."
Words have meanings. You said for EACH defensive gun use there are three children shot/killed. I think we comprehended it quite well that if we post 10 DGU's for January, you'd post 30 for January. We called your bluff, you failed to deliver.
"Tell you what, I lied, I can't do it. "
There, was that so hard?
"more guns = more gun death"
Even if we concede that to be true, Skippy (and others) have repeatedly posted information that overall death isn't related (or goes up after gun bans). Is it OK for two people to be killed by a knife instead, as long as one person isn't killed by a gun? Kind of counter-productive logic if "safety" is the goal.
Also, you assume all gun death is bad. I say a dead criminal is a win if you are defending yourself. (Instead, anti-gun folks have no problem lumping criminals in as "victims" of gun violence).
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2013/06/mayors-against-illegal-guns-tamerlan-tsarnaev-slate/314081/
+1 Mark
@SD "Tell you what, I lied, I can't do it. "......thank you, the truth shall set you free
You needed a fact checker to prove that more guns=more gun deaths? Might was well be arguing that more spoons=more spoon deaths, more cars=more car deaths.....you spent how long writing that garbage up to prove exactly what point?
It has become very clear that your concern is not the deaths....you could care less about deaths....your after the guns and using deaths as your backing....
Other interesting 3:1 ratios. How many Nationalists does it take to debate one lonely liberal?
No joke it is garbage, but it's true garbage. And I even told why it's garbage so you could make it sound like your thought... But it is true, more = more generally, and in the case of guns, this means an unexpected DEATH due to gun. Without those guns, there will be less death ---- the alternatives are not as easy, efficient, and most important -- effective. You are not clear about anything Darrin, you are very confused in your writings.....
Mark, OMGoodness, a Trumpian Nationalist dares to say: “Words have meanings.” LOL that’s a good one.
I did post 45 occurrences, each noted as standing for 1 dead child, up to three at max, perhaps a few adults in murder/suicide, etc.
For each occurrence, I posted location and address. If you needed more, jfgi.
But because you whined so much about the list: I then later posted the entire archive for which I was told it’s bogus leftist garbage. Each occurrence in the archive has a minimum of one link to an media outlet covering the occurrence.
Did that satisfy you? Nooooooooo.
After not believing that, I am not sure what you need to succeed.
You say I said: “for EACH defensive gun use there are three children shot/killed. I think we comprehended it quite well that if we post 10 DGU's for January, you'd post 30 for January. We called your bluff, you failed to deliver.”
Uh, asked and answered as shown above. As to what I said: “Keep posting those defensive use anecdotes. As I said, I will match you 3:1 on “tragic accidents” where killers are not prosecuted even for manslaughter or we punish a 12-year old for having a gun. MAGA”
Hmmmm, looks like anecdotes, not occurrence. But in case you missed it, I said later: “Keep posting those defensive use anecdotes. As I said, I will match you 3:1 on “tragic accidents” where killers are not prosecuted even for manslaughter or we punish a 12-year old for having a gun. MAGA" Didn't mean anything deeper than that. Sorry :>(“
Not good enough? So I added in a later post: “Actually, my claim is to 3:1 any defensive anecdotes you put up. I think I can do that.” There’s that pesky word ANECDOTE that you seem to be unable to comprehend. So I added:
“But hey don’t matter; keep posting those defensive use anecdotes. There’s plenty of dead kid by gun stories to match them where the gun is never to blame. I can even skip the murder/suicides” No really, in case you didn’t get it, and you don’t, I even added:
“No, I am saying that when you post an anecdote for defensive gun use, I will post three dead kids by gun. I mean one good anecdote deserves another....or three.”
Finally, I admit, I abbreviated one, given discussions with you are like pulling teeth, and: “Like I said: for each defensive gun use, there are three more kids recently shot by gun. So keep posting and I will keep you up to date.” OMG you nailed me. After a dozen tries, I went Reader's Digest and that's the one the Trumpian's cling too. No wonder you can't see "Mexico will pay for the wall."
Here’s a buck, buy a clue. Oh wait, not a literal buck, please don’t sue me because words matter so, so much to a Trumpian like you.
“They are each linked to an individual news story so you are judging hundreds of media outlets, some of which are right facing. Give it a break.”
And some of them are defensive shootings or shootings by the police - you can’t grep the internet for child + gun pipe it to a file and say “look how many children’s lives could be saved if we ban guns” that’s moronic and that’s exactly what they’re doing with that - it’s cool as an article aggregator but it does not select out for stuff that should not be in that bucket
"you can’t grep the internet for child + gun pipe it to a file"
I must be a nerd for understanding that ("grep" and "pipe"). lol
Oh for the sake of Mike.
Look, I hate anecdotes used as data points to make a point.
Defensive gun anecdotes are the worst given they are being used to prove the necessity of killing humans when anecdotes prove absolutely nothing.
All I said, or was trying to say was, if you keep posting, so will I at a 3:1 level.
You went to town, accepted the challenge, threw down the gauntlet. You were on a Crusade, it became your mission in life, your blood sport.
And now, you Trumpian Nationalists have the nerve to say "words matter." What an egregious lie coming from a Trumper.
You wanted 45, you demanded 45, Darrin even wanted 48.7 or else :>). You said put up or shut up. I can't live it down, you will never let go....
I posted 45, you said not enough detail. I posted the web site, you said leftist garbage. I posted that it was linked to news stories across the nation detailing the deaths. You said, well, not all perfect. I posted 200 examples ----- certainly you can find 45 in there.
But what's the point. You don't care about the facts. You just want to win, to feel superior, to beat me. So sit on that thought. And then rotate please.
Lol - that actually made me laugh. I feel the same way - I research something - show you what I believe the salient points are and you either blow it off or pretend to miss the point entirely when I know damned well you are smarter than that. I’m never going to understand infringements on a constitutional right of people who are law abiding with no clear gain. I don’t think any of this legislation works.
"And now, you Trumpian Nationalists have the nerve to say "words matter." What an egregious lie coming from a Trumper. "
Ah, it's fun to watch you (probably literally) flail around trying to sweep this one under the rug.
Yes words matter... especially considering how many of our arguments you have tried to pick apart by focusing on a single word or two, or that we said "may" instead of "might", or some BS like that.
Also, this topic of late has nothing to do with Trump. Nice try to deflect, again.
"You just want to win, to feel superior, to beat me."
hmm.... you mean like Pelosi & Schumer are doing right now to Trump? Interesting....
Skippy; why is it just the 2a that evokes your passion. There ain’t a right in the Bill that ain’t infringed. I gotta be me; I gotta yell fire; don’t take free speech from me... I think Scotus has explained this adequately.
The only part we are alike in this is that we sometimes don’t understand. As to the rest; no.
Really Mark. JR didn’t get your memo.
Let this be your Gunnie Hillary moment. You will never surrender. You will never forget. And even if I complied many times over, you will repeat your whine.
Its over Mark. Really over. I am beaten. Really beaten You have won. Really won. You are the cock of the walk. Really.
Again, for the record, you did not post 45, you actually didnt post anything more then a mere website with info from various years...not apples to apples by any means.....you say I need to let go, yet here YOU are talking about your lies again.....I thought you admitted to lying a d we were moving on?
Yes, sometimes it's hard to swallow your own medicine
I've got a huge alligator tear forming in my left eye. It's really welling up..... Could be crying goin on..... :>)
Now I still expect you to report back after you review those 200+ accounts...…
And to get the Hawk to step up just like you junk-yard dogged me.....Yeah, right...
SD seems to be talking in some kind of code now...?
Whenever he's backed into a corner, he becomes nonsensical, talking in circles.... where are the song lyrics this time???
again, for the record, the NRA and gun owners are not against 'red flag ' laws in total, but we are against poorly written 'red flag' laws that remove due process from those accused of being a 'danger'. There has to be robust protections for the individual rights of the accused. the right to face your accuser, the right to a defense, the right to a lawyer, etc. We cannot shred these time-honored constitutional rights out of a sense of 'fear'. The proposed Wisconsin Rd Flag law is so poorly written it shreds the constitution which is why we (gun owners) do not support this particular bill even though we support the effort to keep guns out of the hands of those who are unfit to own them.
Right to Carry Case Update - (part 1 of 2)
ANJRPC’S challenge to NJ’s unconstitutional carry laws is one of the next in line to be considered for possible acceptance by the U.S. Supreme Court. Our petition asking the Supreme Court for “certiorari” (to accept the appeal) in the carry permit lawsuit, Rogers v. Grewal, has been scheduled for a February 22, 2019 conference with the Justices. Because the State of NJ has waived the filing of an opposition brief, the Justices can require the state to file a responsive brief, which would further delay the Court’s consideration of whether to take the case. Also, the Justices may have independent reasons to delay consideration of whether to accept the case (as they did for several weeks when they considered taking a previous carry case brought by ANJRPC several years ago). There is simply no way to know precisely when there will be a decision on whether to take the case. ANJRPC will issue alerts with updates when appropriate.
Meanwhile, we are very pleased to report that six amicus curiae (friend of the court) briefs have been filed supporting our request that the Supreme Court agree to hear the case. These briefs have been submitted to the high court by other organizations and individuals supporting our case. The amicus briefs filed to date include:
1) Coalition of New Jersey Firearms Owners, Second Amendment Foundation, John Jillard, Mark Cheeseman, Jay Factor, George Greco, Jeffrey Muller, written by David D. Jensen, Esq,
This brief argues that this case presents the ideal vehicle for the Court to address the issue of handgun carry outside the home. This is because (1) New Jersey law does not distinguish between concealed and open carry, and therefore the Court need not deal with the differences between those two forms of carry and how the Constitution may or may not deal with such differences and (2) New Jersey’s restrictive rule for carry permits is uniform statewide and firmly entrenched and established in statutory, regulatory, and judicial decisional law, and therefore the restrictive approach being challenged cannot simply be waived or altered by local authorities or local practice.
2) 23 State Attorneys General
The Attorneys General from 23 states have filed a brief arguing to the Court that objective shall issue laws have a positive impact on public safety both because permit holders are particularly law abiding compared to the population as a whole and because armed law abiding citizens improve public safety by virtue of being armed.
The states are Arizona, Alabama, Alaska, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Texas, Utah, West Virginia, and Wyoming.
(part 2 below)
Right to Carry Case Update - (part 2 of 2)
3) National Rifle Association written by Paul D. Clement, Esq., Erin E. Murphy, Esq., and William K. Lane III, Esq.
The National Rifle Association has filed a brief providing an extensive discussion of the text and structure of and the history surrounding the Second Amendment, as well as an analysis of District of Columbia v. Heller in the context of handgun carry outside the home.
4) National African American Gun Association, Inc. written by Stephen P. Halbrook, Esq. and Nezida S. Davis, Esq.
The National African American Gun Association, Inc. has filed a brief discussing in detail how the history and purpose of the Fourteenth Amendment relates to the right to carry arms for personal protection in public, especially as it implicates discretionary deprivation of that right to black citizens in the post-Civil War and Jim Crow eras.
5) Law Enforcement and State Associations written by Dan M. Peterson, Esq., C. D. Michel, Esq., Sean Brady, Esq., and Anna Marie Barvir, Esq.
Six law enforcement organizations and eight state firearms associations have filed a brief providing extensive data on the extreme law-abiding nature of carry permit holders, demonstrating that New Jersey has failed to show that its restrictive law serves any public safety interest and that nationally, law enforcement officers overwhelmingly favor private citizen carry as an augmentation to their efforts at maintaining public safety. The brief further shows that such citizen carry was very common and largely universal in the early republic.
The organizations are: Western States Sheriffs’ Association, California State Sheriffs’ Association, International Law Enforcement Educators and Trainers Association, Law Enforcement Legal Defense Fund, San Francisco Veteran Police Officers Association, International Association of Law Enforcement Firearms Instructors, Bridgeville Rifle and Pistol Club, Connecticut Citizens Defense League, CRPA Foundation, Delaware State Sportsmen’s Association, Gun Owners’ Action League Massachusetts, Gun Owners of California, Vermont Federation of Sportsmen’s Clubs, and Vermont State Rifle & Pistol Association.
6) American Civil Rights Union written by Kenneth A. Klukowski, Esq.
The American Civil Rights Union has filed a brief showing how the lower courts are in disarray as to what level of scrutiny to apply to cases implicating the Second Amendment. Not only do courts, and judges within those courts, disagree on what level of scrutiny to apply, but even where courts have settled on intermediate scrutiny as the standard for certain types of Second Amendment cases, those courts apply vastly differing versions of intermediate scrutiny, such that cases are being decided under highly variable and disparate rules.
Please forward this email to every gun owner you know, and if you don’t already receive alerts from ANJRPC, please subscribe to our free email alerts for the latest Second Amendment breaking news and action alerts:
https://www.anjrpc.org/general/custom.asp?page=Email_Request
About ANJRPC: The Association of New Jersey Rifle & Pistol Clubs is the official New Jersey affiliate of the NRA, and is New Jersey’s oldest, largest, and most effective Second Amendment advocacy organization.
Click the link below for the online version of this alert:
https://www.anjrpc.org/page/ANJRPCLawsuitUpdates
U.S. SUPREME COURT REQUIRES NJ TO FILE
RESPONSE IN ANJRPC RIGHT TO CARRY APPEAL
High Court Considers Taking ANJRPC Appeal
February 19, 2019. Today, the U.S. Supreme Court required the State of New Jersey to file a brief in response to ANJRPC's petition asking the High Court to hear its challenge to NJ's carry laws. Under the Supreme Court's order, the State of New Jersey is required to file papers by March 21, arguing why the High Court should not agree to hear ANJRPC's appeal. NJ had previously ignored the appeal.
While the move is not a guarantee that the Supreme Court will agree to hear the appeal, the fact that the court is requiring NJ to take a position on ANJRPC's request is significant, and signals that the court is not willing to take any action without first hearing from both sides.
By late April or early May, it is likely we will know whether the High Court will agree to take the case, decline to take the case, or hold the case while awaiting the outcome of a pending challenge to NYC's firearm laws.
https://www.anjrpc.org/page/SupremeCtRequiresNJFileResponseinCarryAppeal
courtesy GreyHawk
more news
SUPREME COURT SIGNALS INTEREST IN NEW JERSEY CONCEALED CARRY CHALLENGE
02/20/19 5:00 AM | by Chris Eger
The nation’s high court on Tuesday took a step to show they aim to weigh the merits of a challenge to New Jersey’s strict “may issue” concealed carry laws.
The U.S. Supreme Court this week asked New Jersey officials to respond to a petition filed by a state resident allied with gun rights advocates. The case, that of Thomas Rogers and the Association of New Jersey Rifle & Pistol Clubs, had been turned away by the state’s own supreme court, setting the stage for the current appeal to the federal bench.
“While the move is not a guarantee that the Supreme Court will agree to hear the appeal, the fact that the court is requiring NJ to take a position on ANJRPC’s request is significant, and signals that the court is not willing to take any action without first hearing from both sides,” said the pro-gun organization in a statement.
Rogers, according to court documents, meets all the guidelines under New Jersey state law to obtain a permit — but cannot show evidence of a direct or specific threat to his life. In other words, even though he was threatened and robbed at gunpoint in the past and currently manages an ATM business, a job that requires him to service machines in high-crime areas, police say he does not have a justifiable need to carry a gun.
Arizona Attorney General Mark Brnovich, joined with attorneys general and governors from 22 other states, are now on his side, and have filed a supporting amicus brief last month urging the high court to take up his case.
The response from New Jersey, who had previously ignored the appeal, has to be submitted to the court by March 21.
Skippy,
Interesting update-wonder what the outcome will be on this one.
Anyone taking bets?
“Anyone taking bets?”
IF the court takes the case, they find in favor of the plaintiff. No matter what, nothing changes in NJ. That’s my bet.
breaking news from California that will have implications for NJs court challenges:
Breaking! Federal Court Finds California Magazine Ban Violates the Second Amendment
In one of the strongest judicial statements in favor of the Second Amendment to date, Judge Roger T. Benitez of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California determined on Friday that California’s ban on commonly possessed firearm magazines violates the Second Amendment.
The case is Duncan v. Becerra.
Judge Benitez rendered his opinion late Friday afternoon and handed Second Amendment supporters a sweeping victory by completely invalidating California’s 10-round limit on magazine capacity. “Individual liberty and freedom are not outmoded concepts,” he declared.
rest of the article can be found here: https://www.nraila.org/articles/20190329/breaking-federal-court-finds-california-magazine-ban-violates-the-second-amendment?fbclid=IwAR0Y5G19G0HkZnNo5EKwtGDc7xsvM7DnE35TGkIbaH1BJ9lvJn1Jmmag_Sg
Toby cavanaugh Court finds ban constitutional! https://twitter.com/NewJerseyOAG/status/1155918936682192896
Eight states down, 42 to go.
What’s that, like ten new NJ gun laws in less than two years?
Last nut had 100 round drum mag; amazingly with 3,000 shoppers in a gun happy state, no good guys with guns. NRA claims he was sane right up until he pulled the trigger.
UBC law has been on Moscow Mitch’s desk for about two years; he refuses to bring it to debate, much less a vote.
Need Federal Laws for common sense gun laws; State’s have abrogated responsibilities, dropped the ball, should drop their rights on this one.
Time is now, NRA funding down over 60% last year. Of course, that’s after the Russian spies and massive misuse of funds by management came to light. Many normal people leaving.
No one, No one .. Should have high powered guns like these people who go out and kill Fathers, Mothers and children...Because they don’t like the color of their skin!!! They should be outlawed!! The only people that should have them are Police and service men and women!!!! PERIOD!!!!
Havaclue SD give me a break. You think the number of rounds in a clip would have stopped these nuts in TX and OH? Need to have mental health evaluations. That is the problem.
Metsman Sorry, my mistake. What do you need broken? You’re right. Everyone should be evaluated. Will fix it for sure. Free Mental Health for all. Health Insurance for some. Number of bullets don’t matter. Learned that during the War. Less bullets OK for same level of killing. Got it. Mental health. Evaluations. That’ll make it all OK.
Seriously, mental health is the red herring root cause you toss out knowing full well nothing will or can ever be done to fix what you say is the main problem here. Because they all must be mad.
You can’t prove any of them are mentally challenged since they are usually DOA. The perfect red herring for your ilk. We actually have a live one here; yet they are going for the death penalty. Maybe the legal arm of the NRA will step up with the insanity defense to prove your point. Yeah, right. Deplorable.
If they can’t get those guns, weather they have mental problems or not!!! They can’t KILL That many people that fast!!! I really don’t think it’s a hard thing to understand!
“You can’t prove any of them are mentally challenged since they are usually DOA”. Quite the contrary my friend. I believe most if not all showed numerous signs that they were quite unstable and people were aware of them. Unfortunately as of right now there is not much law enforcement can do to until they act out. I don’t have the answers but there is a serious mental issue problem in this country that is not being addressed.
Go to the "Repeal of the Second Amendment Petition".
Guns kill innocent people, your mother, your brother, your sister, your child.
Do not believe the extremists that say 'guns save lives'.
Guns only have one purpose, to kill.
That is what is happening.
Guns are being used to kill innocent people every day.
We are not living during the civil war.
Guns do not belong in Modern Society.
We lost many lives in the past 2 days.
Sadly, this will not stop if people can have guns.
It could have been you, your child, your parent or friend.
Over and over it happens.
We must fight to repeal the 2nd Amendment.
Sigh the "Repeal The Second Amendment Petition".
Let's make this a better world.
Sign the petition.
"No one, No one .. Should have high powered guns like these people ... They should be outlawed!! The only people that should have them are Police and service men and women!!!! PERIOD!!!! " - Havaclue
You forgot the last category that needs to be included in your list - Criminals.
They do not follow the law so they will always be armed and ready to kill. Does anyone find it interesting that the vast majority of these nuts are 20 something males who are usually on some sort of prescription psychotropic drugs and most often described as the "weird" kid in school.
Mark The number of rounds these clowns can pop off in 30 seconds- one minute is what is truely insane.
Absolutely no justification in the Constitution or anywhere else for this kind of firepower on our streets.
Happiest girl, if we repeal the 2nd amendment what's to stop at repealing them all? Why not just get rid of the whole constitution? Let's just keep doing feel good stuff because it feels good right? Because it's safe and life is scary ! If we get rid of guns there wont be another mass shooting I bet....
Especially since anyone with a gun would either be a criminal or a goverment worker.....wake the hell up lemming! Its not about the guns its about not letting the government take OUR rights!!! By the way these rights and privileges we take for grant only apply to citizens of the United States....not some border hopper or overstayed Visa jerk. I wonder how many people have been assaulted,robbed, raped or murdered by illegal aliens this year alone?.......but we should accept them all and give them a free pass.....they are humans.....blah blah blah....but guns should be illegal!!!
VoiceOfReason "Go to the "Repeal of the Second Amendment Petition".
You mean the "Start the 2nd Revolution Petition"?
Ah......numerous signs.....people aware.....quite the contrary --- that's not adjudication is it. That's rumor. Adjudication is which is what you need to deny a gun purchase, not rumor. Unless of course you easily skirt the issue as you loophole your purchase because we don't have UBC's. After all, you're a criminal wannabee and loopholes aren't even breaking the law. So, you got squat under current laws. All rumor, no law.
It's all about mental health: the best red herring is the one that can never be fixed.
Sure, mental health in America is an issue, but you don't have a clue how you would fix that. You're not gonna force evaluation on all Americans, on a routine basis, which is what you would need to get to where you think you need to go. A perfect red herring.
And if they are all mad, mad I tell you, then where is the NRA supporting the insanity plea for our Texas shooter? Shouldn't they support their words with deeds? How can we even suggest the death penalty for the obviously insane. Oswald --- insane. Manson --- insane. Guess we should move death row into the nut house..... Club Med's.
Ridiculous red herring to avoid the issue: too many guns, each capable of firing too many bullets, too fast --- that's the issue with mass murder.
But wait ---- you can't stop it because criminals break the law. Another red herring. What would happen IF we decided, why bother with writing law because criminals break the law. Sure, if we started today, there would be enough banned guns available in the system for a few lifetimes. Yet that same lame feckless excuse could be used to avoid writing almost any law we, the people, ever created. That criminals break the law is yet another red herring that makes no sense unless you deny the potential success of almost any other law. Why have drunk driving laws; people still drink and drive so why bother. The only way to end criminality is to end all law. Then there will be no criminals any more.
The UBC law, bi-partisan, desired by a vast majority of Americans, has been on McConnell's desk for over a year. He won't bring it to debate, he won't bring it to a vote, he has no pressure from above or his peers to do so. Sheeples to the gun industry and the NRA. The vast majority of Americans want this law. Yesterday, we heard a taped, teleprompted, third person address telling Americans not to hate. We did not hear about the UBC law, written and ready to go.
Or do we? Actually we have one thing going for us, the problem could just burn itself out on it's own accord as the Red States continue killing themselves to be more safe: https://www.cbsnews.com/pictures/death-by-gun-top-20-states-with-highest-rates/
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2018/02/21/states-most-and-least-gun-violence-see-where-your-state-stacks-up/359395002/
Basically, the Red States are killing themselves to pretend they are safer because they live in what appears to be a rational fear, not of criminals, not of immigrants, but of each other.....
If the guns are so evil why should police be allowed to have them? Or the military for that matter?
Are you implying that the police and military are evil as well if they use those tools???
Neil DeGrasse Tyson via Twitter:
"In the past 48hrs, the USA horrifically lost 34 people to mass shootings.
On average, across any 48hrs, we also lose…
500 to Medical errors
300 to the Flu
250 to Suicide
200 to Car Accidents
40 to Homicide via Handgun
Often our emotions respond more to spectacle than to data."
"Often our emotions respond more to spectacle than to data."
Game. Set. Match.
So.....Malaria kills over a million people every year....about 3000 a day....let's sign a petition against mosquitoes!
Seriously folks, this isn't about the guns....it's about the people pulling the trigger. I've seen enough hate passed back and forth on this forum alone to understand why some people "break" and start pulling a trigger.
I grew up in a very small rural town, mostly farmers. Every guy went to high school with his shotgun in his trunk in the fall, because we all went out pheasant hunting after school. We were kids, we got into fights, but no one ever thought it would be acceptable to shoot somebody.
Teach your children self-control, respect for others, respect for the laws. Punish them when necessary (not just take away their iphone), because children must learn there are consequences to their actions. There are no trophies in the life for showing up, you need to work for what you want.
We have failed as a community when it comes to our children and now it shows. Johnny failed math....and Mom & Dad yell at the teacher instead of recognizing that Johnny was being a jerk and not doing his homework.
And as far gun control goes, by most practical measures there is no private firearm ownership in China, however, spree killings still happen, they just do it with knifes.
Bemused The standard capacity magazine ban is going to scotus for sure. California’s was overturned in March (Virginia Duncan, et. al. v. California Attorney General Xavier Becerra)
Just a reminder that 98 million law abiding gun owners didn’t shoot anyone yesterday.
Makes sense. And that's why I say, why bother. Let those deplorable enough to kill by gun finish the job themselves! They are doing a bang up job in many Red States to lower those populations. Who needs background checks, abolish them all, criminals don't use them anyways. Mitch is right, don't even debate it on the floor of Congress. We need to move forward towards the past to get over the present.
I mean 100% of all people will die someday, why bother messing with the inevitable!
Why we are at it, what about those school crossing guards. Those folks are really harshing my mellow. I am going to speed anyway, so why bother, who needs em. The kids will expire someday anyways. Matter of fact, speed laws just create criminals to begin with. Get rid of em and we will have less crime!
Do nothing, it was going to happen anyway. Look at China and knives, that's where we need to go. Look to China for how we should act.
Oh my.....Sandy Hook, Parkland, El Paso, Dayton, freakin Garlic Festival, even a Vegas Music Festival or Orlando Nightclub, and that's just the mass murders. Jump to mass shootings and the numbers skyrocket.
If you didn't have guns you would have these murders anyway. Just like China. You can't stop it, they would just use knives to kill 9 people in under a minute. It can happen, I have seen the footage showing the possibility.
Do nothing, you can't stop it, even IF we are the only ones in the world doing it at these levels. We are great.....again.
Check this out ---- frightening, but again, do nothing, it's inevitable.
https://www.vox.com/a/mass-shootings-america-sandy-hook-gun-violence
"The standard capacity magazine ban is going to scotus for sure. California’s was overturned in March (Virginia Duncan, et. al. v. California Attorney General Xavier Becerra) "
And the same judge put a stay on it in April waiting for the State to appeal. Have you seen an update to that?
SD making a mental health evaluation part of a gun purchase would absolutely stop nut cases. The guy in Ohio had a hit and rape list in high school. He held a gun to a former friends head. He told a girl he wanted to slit her throat in middle school. Does that sound like behavior that wouldn't be picked up in an evaluation? Get real. Many of these gunmen had issues in school getting picked on or were loners. Even go back to the Columbine killers in 1999 and its the same profile. These young men have dark realities that they live in. Taking AR-15's and other weapons like that away will do little. They'll just use handguns or shotguns. Handguns hold multiple bullets. Shotguns you can just take out the plug and fit 5 or 6 shells. The only way to attack this is to get inside these guys heads before they're able to purchase anything.
Very true Mets, pretty stupid of Obama to undo regulations that make it harder for people with mental illnesses to get a gun. Crazy.
Even CNN admits that it’s “doubtful” that universal background checks would have had any affect on the recent shootings - either because the perps already did go through a background check to buy the firearms or because there was nothing criminal in their background. Background checks aren’t crystal balls that predict the future...
https://www.cnn.com/2019/08/05/politics/background-check-donald-trump-mass-shootings-fact-check/index.html
Well if we are going to institute a mental health check, than we must make all of the current gun owners subject to one as well, and if they fail, take their guns away. No grandfathering allowed. Anyone who posted they are going to hide their larger magazines are already showing some tendencies that need to be addressed, right?
What is good for the goose is good for the gander.
“What is good for the goose is good for the gander.”
Agreed. That’s why *everyone* should undergo a psych eval because one never knows who will “lose it” and attack another -car, knife, baseball bat doesn’t matter. We simply must know who is “crazy” and who is sane (the definition of which is also suspect on today’s world)
"And as far gun control goes, by most practical measures there is no private firearm ownership in China, however, spree killings still happen, they just do it with knifes." - Bemused
There have been lots of killings in China, the government has been documented to having killed more then 45,000,000 of its unarmed citizens.
I find it beyond despicable the way the Gunnies surface at times of tragedy and look past the idiocy of allowing high capacity firearms to flood our streets and society.
Constitutional right?
Hunting?
Sport?
Try inadequacy and paranoia.
I find it despicable that many of the Democrats running for President are using these tragedies as a fund raising opportunity.
standard capacity - fixed that for you. You should encourage extended magazines - they’re harder to conceal. They also add a tremendous amount of weight to the firearm making it harder to maneuver. That’s why SF and SWAT operators use standard capacity 30 round magazines on short barreled rifles that are often suppressed.
If you have an active shooter with a 100 round magazine and a civilian market rifle with an 18inch barrel - that’s a lot of weight swinging around and it allows more opportunity for a first responder to eliminate the the threat. Taking guns out of the hands of people being shot at as a response to a domestic terrorist incident is what’s disgusting.
Quack quack...
Actually, Skippy, the real problem is putting guns designed specifically to kill people in the hands of people who kill people.
And then whipping em up to such a frenzy of hate that they attack garlic festivals, storm Walmarts, take out nightclubs and schools so often that now we are all afraid, all live in fear, or at least a heightened sense of caution.
Last time I went to Carnegie Hall was the first time in a lifetime that they actually locked down the boxes during the performance. I can still remember when you could get to the airport twenty minutes before the flight and dash though the terminal. Running there would probably be terminal today.
I do not live in fear but I do exercise extra caution. And today we need that extra caution not from foreign terrorists, not from immigrants, but from each other.
Very odd to be so upset during a great economy.
Problem is, there’s A LOT more ducks than not, and those ducks come in all sorts of flavors: Mallard, Whistling, Scaup, Ruddy, etc.
I don’t see the point in complaining about one type of duck when there’s so many other ducks walking and quacking themselves...
Says the guy who wants mandatory pysch evals to determine if we are up to government standards of lunacy ;-)
Never expected that from a pragmatic libertarian. It had to be a joke, right?
"Taking guns out of the hands of people being shot at as a response to a domestic terrorist incident is what’s disgusting."
hear, hear, Skippy...
I think this thread, shows at least in some microcosm, just how important guns are to some folks. More than life itself. They become so passionate about an inanimate object. One that was designed for the sole purpose of taking a life.
They probably don't hug their children as hard as they hug their guns. Most would probably shoot themselves in the heat of the moment. Most own out of fear.
Steve Hear, hear, wouldn't it be better not to feel you have to be well heeled at all times? Isn't less, more?
By the by, what guns are those that you expect to be taken?
Do you have a lot of people being shot at taking their 100-round mag drum assault rifles to the mall for protection? Or is that just your dream :>)
Or do you really just want to live in a country where you must be well-armed at all times. Kinda screws with that sovereign border thing. Gonna need a water-proof version for the pool.....
"They probably don't hug their children as hard as they hug their guns. Most would probably shoot themselves in the heat of the moment. Most own out of fear." - Steve
Please talk out of your a$$ some more. It really shows your level of intelligence on this subject matter.
Do you really want to live in a country that would deny the constitutional rights of a third of its citizens because a deminimis number commit acts of terror? It’s kabuki.
It’s the media who whips people up into that frenzy for ratings. In the case of the last two incidents national coverage of one was the cause of the other twelve hours later.
https://www.apa.org/news/press/releases/2016/08/media-contagion?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app
Does gun control work? Let’s look at Canada
While most long guns are classified as “non-restricted” in Canada, most handguns are deemed “restricted” firearms (some are banned) and are under extensive regulation.
All gun owners have to be licensed, and there are extra licensure requirements for “restricted” firearms.
License applications require third-party references.
Concealed carry is virtually nonexistent unless you need to carry for work.
All “restricted” guns have to be registered with the Royal Canadian Mounted Police.
The government regulates private gun storage
They had 3 night club shootings in Toronto last weekend.
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/north-york-club-shooting-1.5236497
A gun is as good or as bad as the man using it - Shane 1953
"Do you really want to live in a country that would deny the constitutional rights of a third of its citizens because a deminimis number commit acts of terror?"
You already live in that country, we literally put Japanese citizens in internment camps. Also, demonizing large groups of people based on the actions of a few is basically Trump's entire platform. That's not even an exaggeration, he ran on the whole anti-Mexican, anti-Muslim thing.
I like how your chain of blame stops conveniently at the media. Nothing to do with the fact that the president is infamous for using identical language that the El Paso shooter had in his manifesto. I'm not even trying to say that media coverage doesn't have an impact, it absolutely does, but to stop there and say that the media is at fault here for a mass shooting is ridiculous.
And.... that's where you're wrong Reasonable. He wasn't anti-Mexican or Muslim. He was anti-illegal Mexican and anti-terrorist muslims from countries that couldn't be vetted. You're as bad as the media spreading misinformation. Nothing stops Mexicans from legally entering our country. He never once denounced people like that. And if he was anti-muslim then why wasn't the biggest muslim nation, Indonesia, not put on the no travel list? A list the Obama administration made in the first place. Stop spinning things because you hate the President....
https://m.washingtontimes.com/news/2019/aug/6/connor-betts-left-wing-views-thwart-democrats-effo/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app
https://nypost.com/2019/08/06/dayton-shooter-may-be-antifas-first-mass-killer/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app
Ok so are AOC and Bernie Sanders responsible for the Dayton shooting? That makes no sense.
If you have to go back to Roosevelt to find atrocities committed by the government in this country I’ll give you that one. We are extremely polarized as a populace at this point by design - partisan media and social networks create echo chambers which allow folks to become insulated to different thoughts and ideas and “whip up” those that are already unstable into unspeakable acts. This has nothing to do with politics and everything to do with realizing you’re being manipulated by what you read watch and consume.
Hey Skip
We need to refer movie quips to solve the problems in this country?
What’s next, an Ezekiel verse from Pulp Fiction?
The El Paso shooter said he was doing this because of some imagined invasion. An invasion that Trump has been talking about for years. Did the Dayton shooter say he did it because of his desire for universal health care or raising the minimum wage? If his reasoning was somehow based around Bernie Sander's or AOC's ideologies then we should take a look at what about those ideas made him do that. Until then, just remember that Trump smiled at a rally when a fan suggested that you could shoot illegal immigrants to stop them. Followed by cheering from the crowd.
Point is nobody knows why they did it yet - we still don’t understand the Las Vegas shooters motivations. Why do you think the Democratic Socialist squad is all over El Paso and mum on Dayton except to state it justifies a gun grab.
Enhanced background checks and limits on the number of rounds equal your “ gun grab”?
HaHaHaHaHaHa.
You’re funny!
That’s why your side will lose (eventually)
A journey of 10,000 miles begins with one step.
( not from any movie I can recall, old Chinese parable)
He wrote a four page essay on why he did it, I wonder how they'll ever crack that code...
“It had to be a joke, right?”
Of course it was - what I had just described are the conditions in a dictatorship! Not sure how that comment could be taken otherwise.
Regarding the rest of the conversation, please remember that we are still talking about an *extremely* rare event, statistically. It’s the emotional component that makes it appear to be more of a threat than it really is. So if the argument is emotional, naturally the solutions proposed will be as well...
Ok and John Lennon was shot by a guy who used the Catcher in the Rye as his inspiration. I guess it's the authors fault right.... Mentally disturbed is mentally disturbed. Those people can use anything to justify why they did something.
I agree with most of this opinion piece:
https://www.latimes.com/opinion/story/2019-08-04/el-paso-dayton-gilroy-mass-shooters-data
It’s the supporting click-through links that are most relevant imo.
JIT, thanks. It's an interesting piece that was commissioned, I think, by DOJ, before it became a political animal, I don't think there's a report yet, just a bunch of essays like this Op Ed. .
Very good piece. Although the first thing I was struck by was their use of the term "Mass Shooting" while using the FBI definition for Mass Murder. Apparently this is a CRS definition and most odd, at that. Currently, in the US, the standard is the FBI's Mass Murder definition. There is no standard definition for Mass Shooting, although the difference is usually defining Mass Shooting as 3 or 4 injuries, not necessarily all fatalities. Just points out that their definition excludes thousands of cases where "almost" four people died with the shooter's best intents to do just that. Obviously these folks are not based in the US, but interesting that they did not adopt our definitions or that they used the flakey CRS version of Mass Shooting.
Would be interesting to see how really using Mass Shootings would open up the results. I really think there's a difference here, but would love to see how much, and perhaps what field of failed MS's actually fit the MM's profile that they studied.
On the essay:
First, while I really think they are on to something, all the evidence is second source, and very little, obviously, is based on talking to the shooter. It's the nature of the beast, but still the devil in the details. And that's always been the bugger in the thing. For example, they say trauma is a common thread, and the associated link goes to school shooters, and the value is 45% ---- that's not overwhelming incidences of trauma and strange they would link to it. Makes me wonder what the real answer is.
Second, they seem to indicate trigger events touch off the rampage which seems to somewhat fly in the face of planning, which most of these nuts do. Whether arming up, determining location, or planning the event ----> there seems to be some time between planning and the trigger event. So, it's obviously just not the trigger. Their third point seems to note that given the time spent studying that they detail.
Fourth point - means - well, that's a tough one to argue except I would note that lethality is dramatically increased for the gun over other weapons. Folks often say, if it wasn't a gun, it would be something else, but statistics say that is just not true. For example, you can use bombs, but harder to obtain, build, and deploy without being caught or killed trying. This is really noticeable when it comes to suicides.
I really think they are on to something but would like to see an expansion beyond the 160 mass murders to include mass shootings, as we define these in the US. This would expand the database to thousands. Would also like to see the peer reviews to 'bless this mess," before jumping in lock, stock, and barrel. Not sure there is a final report yet although all sorts of these stories are being broadcast starting this month. Great essay, let's follow the recommendations....heh, heh.....
It should be difficult to remove a firearm from any citizen - the right to own a gun is not the same as the right to operate a motor vehicle. Unless you are willing to separate someone’s ability to live in society and incarcerate them and can prove it in court they should not be separated from their core civil right to possess firearms - change my mind
https://youtu.be/nMcIeQwzOx8
Skippy, it's operate a motor vehicle is a privilege not a right. It's one of the things you need to know in order to get a driver's licenses.
You're right to own a firearm came from a time when it look seconds to load a single shot, and the aim was so bad the largest army in the world wore bright red and stood in line waiting their turn to get shot at. When it was written, you had more rights to guns than women did to vote.
It's time to put sane limits on it and adapt it for today's time and technology. We need universal background checks, mandatory criminal record reporting, capacity limits - even 20 shots would be an improvement and would save lives.
30 seconds. In 30 seconds the Dayton shooter got 42 shots off and was killed. A 10 or 20 shot magazine may not have allowed anyone to get to him faster, but would have given maybe half of his victims just a few extra seconds - at least - to take cover, run, or try to fight.
kb2755: Guess what, Republicans are doing it too. I'm sure the Greens will when their buzz wears off.
Skippy, the wording of the Second Amendment is rather strange to us, today, which is why it is so often hotly debated. Personally, I've always believed that the main reason for that is that the Founding Fathers saw absolutely no need to grant a Constitutional right to something so patently obvious. They didn't grant people the "right" to breathe, or eat, or bathe, or bear children, because everyone knew that such rights were just a "given." And I believe that they felt the same about the "right" of a citizen to possess the reasonable means to protect himself and others from unjust harm. After all, personal survival is the #2 human instinct, with #1 being the survival of one's offspring.
Only in today's wacky society do some people consider it perfectly normal to forcibly take away the means for people to protect themselves.
Not sure if I can concealed carry a Kentucky long rifle or a cannon full of grape shot :)
Alpha1beta,
And your first amendment right to free speech was granted long before anyone had the ability to, with a click of the mouse, send a message to millions of people regardless of what that message is. Would you be willing to adapt the 1st amendment for today’s time and technology?
Yeah, I hear it took forever to save the first draft of the Bill of Rights on the slow computers they had back then...
"it look seconds to load a single shot"
This gun existed for at least a decade before the Bill of Rights was created and ratified.
20 round "magazine"... fired twice as fast as the "military style" muskets of the day.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Girandoni_air_rifle
Do you think the founding fathers either A) didn't recognize the *existing* technology of the day or B) couldn't foresee that there would be improvements over time? The first "revolver" handgun was patented the year before James Madison (who wrote the amendments) died... Hardly a giant leap ahead into the unfathomable future.
Yet they still said any infringements on the right were off limits to the government.
Listening to Bill Deblasio on Hannity last night was cringe worthy. Hannity flat out asked him if a law abiding person who passes a mental health evaluation should have a gun if they want one and he dodged the question. Shocker.... How can people take these Democrats seriously between that and all their race baiting.... Even the niece of Martin Luther King Jr calls them out for their nonsense.
Listening to Hannity or pretty much any of the Fox cast is always cringe worthy. Didn't Tucker Carlson recently say that white supremacy isn't a problem? He might be the worst one now that Bill O'Reilly is gone.
Very political Mets; let's try something above your moderator allowed political diatribe. .
There are very few rights in the Bill of Rights that do not have legal, SCOTUS-ruled, limitations on it. According to our SCOTUS since the beginning of the Republic, there are ZERO absolute rights. ZERO in that many BoR rights are legally limited and there is nothing legally stopping us from adding more. No right is absolute.
The Bill of Rights itself is a series of amendments or limitations on our original, ratified, Constitution. It is also a compromise to get the Constitution ratified, but not important enough to ratify the Constitution without it. The Bill of Rights is also a severe limitation on the rights of the Federal Government in favor of the States, so it kind of stacks limitations.
But let's look deeper at the different LIMITATIONS placed on our Bill of Rights, our inalienable rights, God given, including the Second Amendment ---- and there is much more than I note here, especially for the Second Amendment.
First amendment has place, time, and manner of speech restrictions. I could use the ole thou shall not yell "fire" in a crowded movie theater, but here's one for you righties: For example, and I bet many here will really love this RESTRCTION: we prohibit federally-funded family-planning professionals from promoting abortion. Hmmm, still wanna drop limitations?
Second amendment: In Heller, along with expanding gun rights to the individual, Scalia said: “What the opinion Heller said is that it will have to be decided in future cases. What limitations upon the right to bear arms are permissible. Some undoubtedly are, because there were some that were acknowledged at the time. For example, there was a tort called affrighting, which if you carried around a really horrible weapon just to scare people, like a head ax or something, that was I believe a misdemeanor. So yes, there are some limitations that can be imposed.”
Need I say more about limitations.....you know I do....
Third amendment ---- wow, this one is untouched, go figure. Liberals must have missed this one :>)
Fourth amendment --- come on, do I have to spell out cops searching and seizing based on "suspicion" of danger. Isn't that a massive limitation on this right? Or how SCOTUS has ruled against the government on this issue over and over on a regular basis (Rehnquist's/Robert's court has done it SIX times but hold fast on the 2nd...…)
Firth --- come one, no Miranda issues? How often do we accept less than pure confessions legally.
Sixth amendment --- right to consul and speedy trial. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Montejo_v._Louisiana Or how we toss this out regularly after 9/11 using war laws instead of the Constitution's rights. Can you spell Guantanamo --- look what we did to limit this right in that case. (not to mention cruel and unusual).
Hopefully you get the point: we put limitations on the Bill of Rights all the time and no right is absolute. The thought that the second amendment is better, or higher, than any other right described therein is a fictitious myth.
"white supremacy is a made up talking point.... It's not some widespread problem"
Go look at FBI uniform crime reporting (UCR) statistics by race... some races are over-represented as the perpetrators of crime (hint: it isn't "white").
Here's a narrative summary of similar data (granted it's a few years old but it puts things in perspective):
https://www.channel4.com/news/factcheck/factcheck-black-americans-commit-crime
A couple of interesting tidbits:
"Blacks were disproportionately likely to commit homicide and to be the victims. In 2008 the offending rate for blacks was seven times higher than for whites and the victimisation rate was six times higher."
"93 per cent of black victims were killed by blacks and 84 per cent of white victims were killed by whites."
"While it would be naïve to suggest that there is no racism in the US criminal justice system, victim reports don’t support the idea that this is because of mass discrimination."
Seems that there's just a small percentage of racial "cross-over", at least related to homicide crimes.
Here's another report for violent crime (but not homicide), more recent:
https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/rhovo1215_sum.pdf
"Of the nearly 3.7 million violent victimizations committed against white victims during 2012-15, a total of 57% were committed by white offenders, 15% by black offenders, and 11% by Hispanic offenders. Similarly, the majority of the 850,720 violent victimizations committed against black victims involved black offenders (63%), followed by white (11%) and Hispanic (7%) offenders. Forty percent of violent victimizations committed against Hispanic victims were committed by Hispanic offenders, while white and black offenders each committed 20% of victimizations against Hispanic victims."
So, blacks committed more (as a %) of crime against whites than whites committed against blacks. Hispanics get picked on by everybody, but they also return the favor.
I knew Metsman would get all hot and bothered if I mentioned Tucker lol. These two responses were so predictable. This is the issue with the republican mindset. It's this idea that if you can prove that there are larger issues, the smaller ones don't exist. It's like the predictable republican response when an unarmed black person is shot by police, "Well what about Chicago and black on black crime??" What about it? Yes it's a large issue, nobody is denying that. There are many groups and organizations involved there trying to help. For some reasons republicans can only believe that one issue exists at a time. Why do you feel so personally attacked and triggered when people mention that white supremacy exists?
Reasonable if anything white supremacy has slowly been fading away since the civil rights era... What's the KKK down to.... a few thousand nationwide... for all the unarmed black people who get shot if you dug deep enough you could find the same thing happening with white, Hispanic, and Asians. Just had a guy shot in our area who was unarmed and NOT black. Problem is no one cares because he wasn't black. If a black guy attacked a cop like that you'd have idiots saying the cop didn't need to shoot him. Here's an idea, how about people stop attacking cops and resisting and they won't get shot. There's not some evil agenda in a cops head telling them to shoot a black person. Give me a break....
One problem with crime statistics is that black men are much more likely to be convicted of crimes they did not commit than others, thereby skewing the statistic to some degree.
Nobody is saying it doesn't exist... there are also black racist groups that exist.
Trying to make it sound like all whites are out to get all blacks (which the statistics VASTLY prove otherwise) or conflating all Trump supporters as white supremacists is what we're debunking.
Sorry, the facts just aren't on your side here.
But whose conflating mountains and mole hills reasonable?
It’s one thing to be aware that racism exists; another thing entirely to imply that it’s pervasive always and everywhere. If you listen to the news, specifically certain media outlets, all you’ll ever hear is “racism, racism, racism”. My personal experience tells me that’s bull, and Mark’s data appears to confirm it.
Headline are great for ratings. Not so much when what’s reported is consistently exaggerated and presented without proper context.
And that's all you hear on CNN and MSNBC... Racism, white supremacy, Trump is a Nazi, etc.... It's total BS and anyone who believes this crap needs their head examined. It's one thing to not like Trump, his tweets, and his policies, but to use this rhetoric is absolutely insane.
I used to like Tucker Carlson but he has turned stupid. Very stupid. His claim that White Supremacy is a hoax is supported by the small number of White Supremacist organizations and members. Well, small number and hoax is a potential oxymoron. And the fact he does not know how to count belies his stupidity.
Some say that the mass murder numbers are so low that we should fear flying or getting hit by lightning more. I don't know; when it's lightning out, I go inside. There is no doubt I get some butterflies before flying and I used take off ever other week or more. Once, I came home from LA just for the week-end, leaving all my clothes there to be laundered. (today, I would probably face an anal probe for flying without bags.....now, if that doesn't instill fear :>) The fact remains that while the numbers are low, mass violence affects us each and every day and changes the very way we live our lives. Extra security, extra caution, crowd avoidance ----> we all do it now, right? Don't you think twice before attending any large event? And now Walmart, Garlic Festivals, Nightclubs ---- the list grows. The effect on the national psyche is not in the statistics.
I guess we shouldn't be alarmed by: "The number of hate groups active in the USA rose to its highest level in two decades last year, according to an annual survey released Wednesday by the Southern Poverty Law Center." https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2019/02/20/hate-groups-white-power-supremacists-southern-poverty-law-center/2918416002/
I mean, it's still a low number. Bet you discount Antifa by the same reasoning, not. Nor should you, they are thugs ruining our way of life.
And the latest hate crime statistics for 2017, the first year of...
- up 6%
- 50% white perpetrators, 21% black
- 58% due to race, 22% due to religion
I guess still too small for some to worry about, at least if you're white: https://www.justice.gov/hatecrimes/hate-crime-statistics
Now those are the numbers of members and crimes, not necessarily by members. However, note that most white supremacists do not join up. The El Paso shooter was not a member. The Christ Church killer was not a member. The California Synagogue murderer was not a member. That means Tucker does not even know what he is talking about, he has no clue how many are out there.
However, the crimes are going up and up...… He should know that. MLK: "at some point, silence becomes betrayal." I wonder what MLK would think about Tucker's spin.
"Just had a guy shot in our area who was unarmed and NOT black. Problem is no one cares because he wasn't black."
Okay, so then care? I don't understand this one. You're mad that other people aren't mad, but you are also not mad? The KKK isn't the only group in America, how many people were at the terrorist attack at the Unite the Right Rally two years ago?
What facts aren't on my side? You admit that it exists, but you don't think it's a problem? We can debate the magnitude of the problem for days (I'm sure you don't care) but when people say that you're okay with them existing, holding rallys, running over people with their cars, etc. then that is why people are calling racism so much.
SD the crime rates are going up in Democratically controlled cities. Do Chicago and Baltimore ring a bell? I'm not worried about going to any events and getting shot. I'd be more worried if I was walking through the south side of Chicago. Tucker is right. You lefties want to make it seem like us folk in the suburbs and rural areas are living in war zones where racists are looking to gun us down and that is absolutely false. Someone just got shot in Long Valley yesterday. I'm not worried about anything. It was probably a domestic dispute. Move on.... nothing here to see....
Reasonable there will always be racist people who hate and kill. You can't solve that problem. That is the way of this world. I'm more worried about the drug problem and fixing immigration and people living comfortable lives than a few hate mongering crazies. Prevent these wackos from having guns and you help curb some of the problem. But those crazies will find something else to kill with if their mind is set on killing. So that problem will never go away.
" 50% white perpetrators, 21% black"
Reporting just the %'s is misleading.
From your link:
"7,106 single-bias incidents involved 8,493 victims."
Put this against the context of 3,700,000 total violent crimes against whites and 850,000 total violent crimes against blacks in the BJS report I linked above. It's a (very very very small) drop in the bucket.
If there was just 1 "white supremacist" crime one year, and 2 the next... OMG! crime just increased 100%!! That means 100% of Republicans are Nazis! In other words, it's VERY easy to have huge percentage changes when the initial number is so small.
Commenting is no longer available.