I don't (and will never) do heroin, yet I think heroin should be legal. I recognize that the broad impact of prohibition is a net negative, even though I personally want nothing to do with that substance.

I'm not a hunter. I'm not a self-defense expert or gun aficionado. I have none of these self-defense fantasies, and I never want to be in a situation where I have to defend myself. If it's between having my wallet stolen and shooting some guy out of "self-defense", he can have my wallet. It's not worth that much to me. At the same time, I think guns shouldn't be restricted.

The important point is that disarmament of the civilian population changes the power dynamic between law enforcement and civilians. We're that much more likely to see SWAT style raids. We're that much more likely to see violations of civil rights.

No one is talking about gun control. No one is saying that we should take the guns away from police officers and government officials. The supposedly "pro-gun control" people are talking about giving the government a monopoly on certain types of guns; they're talking about civilian disarmament.

[Edited on January 15, 2013 at 3:19 PM. Reason : ]

1/15/2013 3:16:15 PM

yes, i own guns because i enjoy shooting them and collecting them.

i own guns because i enjoy hunting with them.

but, most importantly, i own guns for self defense. i sincerely hope i never have to draw my weapon or point a gun at any person. however, i'd do so if i were drafted for a just war (we're all members of the militia, remember?) and if a family member's life or my own are threatened, i will do what i must to make that threat go away.

you do not have to believe me. i don't care. SCOTUS was on my side the last time.

1/15/2013 3:16:23 PM

Quote :

"The important point is that disarmament of the civilian population changes the power dynamic between law enforcement and civilians. We're that much more likely to see SWAT style raids. We're that much more likely to see violations of civil rights."

No it doesn't. You say that as if escalation doesn't exist. We already do see SWAT style raids. We see cases of extreme police brutality and excessive force every goddamn day, and don't do shit about it. It shouldn't take cops in full body gear and tasers/pepper spray to disband college students, but that happens with frequency. Cops in fucking clothing stores are armed these days. Police surveillance is everywhere.

Quote :

"No one is talking about gun control. No one is saying that we should take the guns away from police officers and government officials"

I am. And I'd like to see that, too. That goes hand in hand with gun control, in my opinion. But this conversation will never happen in this country.

The whole point of bearing arms is completely voided when citizens don't have access to the same weaponry as the state, which we clearly do not have. Can't exactly go onto ebay and buy a drone, now can you? Our gun-frenzy in this country walks side by side with our imperialism and military industrial complex, and the same individuals that profit of off war profit off of an increasing militarized police state. You fucking know that already.

Quote :

"you do not have to believe me."

I don't believe you. Whenever you're carrying, you size up every person in the room "just in case." And you know it, NeuseRvrRat

1/15/2013 3:26:02 PM

define "size up"

1/15/2013 3:29:30 PM

Quote :

"Can't exactly go onto ebay and buy a drone, now can you?"

No, but with enough money, you can get some pretty heavy shit from The Armory.

http://gizmodo.com/5927379/the-secret-online-weapons-store-thatll-sell-anyone-anything

1/15/2013 3:37:12 PM

can we really have a meaningful debate when your response to my denial of a stereotype that you have projected onto me is "nuh uh, you're lying"

1/15/2013 3:37:24 PM

Quote :

"can we really have a meaningful debate when your response to my denial of a stereotype that you have projected onto me is "nuh uh, you're lying""

Quote :

"define "size up""

If you have to ask...then I think I've proven my point.

1/15/2013 3:50:30 PM

can you lose the hostile attitude and just have a conversation?

you're apparently certain that i "size people up". i'm not sure if i do. please tell me what "sizing someone up" is to you and i will tell you if i do or not. we can also discuss whether i think it is a bad thing and why you do think it is a bad thing.

[Edited on January 15, 2013 at 3:58 PM. Reason : i try to maintain situational awareness. don't you look both ways before you cross the street?]

1/15/2013 3:57:13 PM

I'm not being hostile. I'm just being a dick. We've established that already like four pages ago.

Being hostile would be carrying a gun into a room and maintaining "situational awareness," and examining "potential threats" and coming up with a plan to "neutralize a situation."

Seriously, do you approach life this way?

Do you do an ocular assessment of every situation, garner that someone is not a security risk, and clear them for passage?

Why bother using your gun? Why not just give someone a sweet round-house kick in the event of an emergency, bro?



[Edited on January 15, 2013 at 4:11 PM. Reason : ]

1/15/2013 4:09:59 PM

you're being a hostile dick and seem a little irrational and arrogant and therefore you're pretty hard to take seriously.

1/15/2013 4:12:59 PM

ok, you win. you have trolled me into submission.

1/15/2013 4:15:43 PM

I am not a gun owner and I never see myself being one, but you can bet I am always completely aware of my surroundings

I don't see an issue with that. I see what you're going for, but still

1/15/2013 4:18:15 PM

i do it so i can run like a little bitch before i end up in a bad situation, armed or not

[Edited on January 15, 2013 at 4:23 PM. Reason : asdf]

1/15/2013 4:22:43 PM

Quote :

"you're being a hostile dick and seem a little irrational and arrogant and therefore you're pretty hard to take seriously."

I already admitted to being a dick. I'll even give you arrogant, too. But I don't see how I'm being hostile, and certainly don't see how I'm being irrational. My entire argument has been to highlight how absurdly stupid it is to think that a gun is going to prevent government oppression. And even further, to show that people who use this reasoning don't actually mean it, but instead use it because its a convenient excuse to justify their desire to have a weapon that is designed to kill efficiently. They don't like guns for political reasons, they like guns because it satisfies a base desire to be able to kill.

Still, 2 out of 4.

Quote :

"I am not a gun owner and I never see myself being one, but you can bet I am always completely aware of my surroundings I don't see an issue with that. "

And do you have any illusions about how you would respond? Do you think the course of action you plan in your head is the same as the guy who thinks he's got a problem-solver strapped in his waist band? Probably not.

1/15/2013 4:51:12 PM

I'm pretty sure by the time the people were ready to rise up against the government, the people's people in the armed forces would be of similar mind

1/15/2013 6:05:56 PM

we can only hope

1/15/2013 6:10:10 PM

1/15/2013 11:17:29 PM

Has Obama said guns make up less safe...?

1/15/2013 11:59:27 PM

get back to me when the average citizen:

a) holds a position in which more than one of his predecessors has been assassinated

and/or

b) gets death threats on a daily basis

that meme drives me fucking crazy

1/16/2013 12:28:27 AM

Quote :

"as Obama said guns make up less safe...?"

he thinks that some specific guns make us less safe

[Edited on January 16, 2013 at 6:45 AM. Reason : folks just need to accept that the best way to stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun]

[Edited on January 16, 2013 at 6:48 AM. Reason : or prevent bad guys from getting guns, which is impossible]

1/16/2013 6:44:56 AM

Quote :

"get back to me when the average citizen: a) holds a position in which more than one of his predecessors has been assassinated and/or b) gets death threats on a daily basis that meme drives me fucking crazy "

1/16/2013 7:01:10 AM

Quote :

"or prevent bad guys from getting guns, which is impossible"

http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2012/07/a-land-without-guns-how-japan-has-virtually-eliminated-shooting-deaths/260189/

1/16/2013 8:28:01 AM

Quote :

"Kopel explains that, for whatever reason, Japanese tend to be more tolerant of the broad search and seizure police powers necessary to enforce the ban. ""

i guess we can completely take out the Second and Fourth in one fell swoop

1/16/2013 8:42:49 AM

Our fourth amendment rights have been eroding for a long time, I haven't seen conservatives upset about that.

1/16/2013 8:43:57 AM

I don't get all of the news stories about X in 10 people support gun control!

Since when are constitutional rights (and for other recent stories, civil rights) up for debate and vote?

What if x in 10 people support slavery?

X in 10 support allowing police to perform any search they deem necessary?

X in 10 support killing jews?

1/16/2013 8:47:34 AM

^^agreed, but why do americans try to make everything a liberal/conservative thing?

Quote :

"imagine if everyone who thought that some aspect of the bill of rights had been violated bound together. imagine how powerful that political force would be. the govt would no longer be able to stomp on us. instead, we have been turned against one another with this democrat vs. republican bullshit."

because the govt wants it that way. it helps them slowly strip us of our rights.

[Edited on January 16, 2013 at 8:49 AM. Reason : asdf]

1/16/2013 8:48:59 AM

Quote :

"Since when are constitutional rights (and for other recent stories, civil rights) up for debate and vote?"

The second amendment does not ban gun control, so its pretty relevant.

That 80% support universal background checks is relevant, and the second amendment does not protect against those.

1/16/2013 8:54:13 AM

Quote :

""imagine if everyone who thought that some aspect of the bill of rights had been violated bound together. imagine how powerful that political force would be. the govt would no longer be able to stomp on us. instead, we have been turned against one another with this democrat vs. republican bullshit.""

The sad part is, is that enough rights have been violated or stripped away, enough deaths have occurred at the hands of government, and enough money has been wasted away that we are far beyond this point. This is why I think revolution in this country won't happen without external forces. Too many are trapped in D vs R. Too many are too stupid to see beyond that war. Too many are unwilling to decommit from D or R, won't stop thinking "USA #1", and and continue to believe that NOT supporting the US government is unpatriotic.

Quote :

"The second amendment does not ban gun control, so its pretty relevant. "

When it clearly infringes on the right it does.

[Edited on January 16, 2013 at 8:56 AM. Reason : .]

1/16/2013 8:56:08 AM

I did not vote for Obama for Bush, I hope neither of you pointing out our eroding freedoms did either

1/16/2013 8:58:01 AM

Quote :

"When it clearly infringes on the right it does"

good thing the proposals do not then, huh

1/16/2013 8:58:28 AM

Ha, like hell they don't.

1/16/2013 8:59:21 AM

like a lot of gun owners, i'm ok with a NICS check on every transfer. it will be a slight inconvenience for me when i want to sell a gun, but i can deal with it. more and more private sellers are going above and beyond the legal requirements and requiring CHP or handgun purchase permit for private sales of long guns anyway. my concern is what comes next.

Quote :

"I did not vote for Obama for Bush"

me neither

[Edited on January 16, 2013 at 9:04 AM. Reason : asd]

1/16/2013 9:03:11 AM

Quote :

"Ha, like hell they don't. "

which one

1/16/2013 9:38:15 AM

http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/01/08/16417735-police-man-uses-dreadlocks-to-choke-girlfriend-in-portland-ore?lite&lite=obnetwork

Dreadlocks should be banned or their lengths should be regulated. You don't need dreadlocks. Dreadlocks are a deadly weapon that too many people can have. The constitution doesn't say the government can't control length of hair.

1/16/2013 10:04:19 AM

which proposed controls are unconstitutional?

1/16/2013 10:07:27 AM

it is generally accepted that reasonable restrictions are constitutional. it is also generally accepted that an individual's right to self defense with a firearm is protected under the constitution. what's reasonable is a matter of opinion. we don't all reason the same, thankfully. therefore, i'd say any restrictions that impede a law-abiding citizen's ability to effectively defend himself are unconstitutional. i reason that a 10 round magazine capacity limit would impede my ability to effectively defend myself against an attacker (a criminal) who has illegally obtained a 30 round magazine. he would have a distinct advantage.

dtownral, do you feel that anything in NY's new legislation is unconstitutional?

1/16/2013 10:47:09 AM

Quote :

" i reason that a 10 round magazine capacity limit would impede my ability to effectively defend myself against an attacker (a criminal) who has illegally obtained a 30 round magazine. he would have a distinct advantage."

Explain where the limit is then. If "effective defense against whatever anyone can illegally acquire" is the yardstick, then where's the limit?

1/16/2013 10:51:51 AM

i'd be happy with 30. that's standard AR-15 variant capacity.

[Edited on January 16, 2013 at 10:54 AM. Reason : i'd rather an intruder bring a 100 round mag than a 30 rounder]

1/16/2013 10:54:10 AM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tku8YI68-JA&feature=youtu.be

This is a damn good video explaining the damaging effects of bullets. It's worth the first 20 minutes of watching, but for the sake of the argument on carrying capacity, look at the victim in the video show just after the 14:00 mark. He gets shot twice, and runs way. Minutes later, he's still walking around... Even the doctor presenting this lecture on GSWs will say that many people can still go about their business for a couple minutes after being shot with a handgun.

What if this was an attacker? He gets shot twice and he's still coming after you... 5 shots might not stop them. hell, you might reasonably need 10 or more shots before the perpetrator is taken down and subdue his aggressive behavior. Rifle rounds are different in that depending on the cartridge, 1 or 2 shot(s) can take someone out. But with pistols, the minimum requirements are higher.

[Edited on January 16, 2013 at 11:00 AM. Reason : .]

1/16/2013 10:57:20 AM

^^^^ I haven't taken the time yet to read the actual language, and the reporting I've read about it has been inconsistent on a few things. How is the retroactive stuff handled, I don't think some of that will stand up to court challenges but I haven't read the language yet.

A 7-rd limit is extremely dumb, but its not unconstitutional by any court decision or statement that I've read. I'd be happy to be wrong about that, I wouldn't want a 7-rd limit. 30-rd on rifles, 15-rd on handguns seems like a more reasonable limit to me.

[Edited on January 16, 2013 at 11:00 AM. Reason : .]

1/16/2013 10:59:11 AM

deadly force is deadly force. you shoot the attacker until the threat is completely eliminated. it's not unreasonable to believe that may require more than 10 rounds, even from an expert trained in close quarters combat.

^grandfathered weapons must be registered. mags >7 rounds are illegal in that state. you have 1 year to sell them out of state or destroy them. those are the highlights.

[Edited on January 16, 2013 at 11:02 AM. Reason : asdf]

1/16/2013 11:00:48 AM

20 round limit on both longrifles and handguns would be acceptable, imo.

1/16/2013 11:02:13 AM

If there is a situation where shooting someone is justified, then shooting them any amount of times is justified.

Shooting someone is lethal force, even if the person getting shot sometimes survives, its an application of lethal force. It is being applied with the expectation and intent that the person you are shooting will probably die. In situations where that is justified, there is no limit to the number of times you shoot them that is justified. At the point shooting someone is justified, shooting them once or 30 times is justified.

[Edited on January 16, 2013 at 11:05 AM. Reason : ^i'd settle with that as a reasonable compromise]

1/16/2013 11:04:46 AM

Quote :

"A 7-rd limit is extremely dumb, but its not unconstitutional by any court decision or statement that I've read."

i agree. but do you personally think it's unconstitutional? if you were a SCOTUS justice, would you say 7 rds is unconstitutional given DC vs. Heller? 10 rds?

1/16/2013 11:05:02 AM

I think a 7-rd limit would have a reasonable chance being overturned if someone is able to demonstrate in an Amicus brief that the 7-rd magazines makes them unable to be used for defese. That's not an easy argument, but if you can show that then it would not stand up to the decision in Heller v. DC

(I'm basing this on the part of the decision removing the requirement to disassemble or lock a gun on account of that making it ineffective for defense. I think this is the most relevant part of that decision to a 7-rd limit)

1/16/2013 11:10:43 AM

Quote :

"I think a 7-rd limit would have a reasonable chance being overturned if someone is able to demonstrate in an Amicus brief that the 7-rd magazines makes them unable to be used for defese. That's not an easy argument, but if you can show that then it would not stand up to the decision in Heller v. DC"

of course, but that's not what i asked.

you're a SCOTUS justice. you have a case in front of you. NY vs. Joe. Joe had in his possession a >7 rd magazine in his home defense rifle and is now charged with violating NY law. how do you vote?

A) NY
B) Joe
C) i don't know

if it's C, then that's fine

1/16/2013 11:15:20 AM

Justices don't just make a decision based on what they think

The first step, among many, is reading briefs. Based on the arguments made so far, I wouldn't even hear your case. I have seen no argument yet saying that a 7-rd magazine limits someone's ability to use a gun for defense.

Someone may be able to make that argument, but it hasn't been made effectively yet

1/16/2013 11:23:02 AM

Quote :

"Justices don't just make a decision based on what they think"

you're right. they make them based on the platform of the party that gave them their job.

1/16/2013 11:35:01 AM

No

you don't even need to go back very far to see this isn't true, Roberts was appointed by a Republican president and supported socialist obamacare!

[Edited on January 16, 2013 at 11:42 AM. Reason : this is a dumb argument]

1/16/2013 11:38:49 AM

magazine restrictions are just plain dumb. the last one had no impact. future ones will have no impact. this is a perfect example of gun control aimed only at eradicating firearms and the second amendment, as the ol' cliche goes... gun control only violates the rights of the law abiding. criminals aren't going to be turning in their magazines.

1/16/2013 11:44:28 AM