Colorado judge strikes down AR-15 ban, and over 10 round magazine ban....good.

[freyasman]

Please explain why this is so important to you to have an AR-15. We had guns in the house in leather locked bags and we shot them. I even pulled the trigger when my father sighted. He taught me to never pull a gun on any living being. I violated this teaching once, in Castroville, Texas, when I was 12 and practicing with my aunt's pistol. I shot at a spider on the back of the garage.

Explain yourself and why you would need an assault weapon.

What is an assault weapon? Legal definition, not liberal definition.

Already been answered. Or are you fishing for a definition that you want to hear. Okay, here is one.

It's any firearm, edged weapon or bludgeoning tool that YOU personally own. Not the rest of us. Insane Fruitcakes like you shouldn't be able to smuggle in things that can harm others or yourself into the mental hospital.

No its never been answered. No legally recognized definition of an "assault rifle" has ever been posted.

Because it's a military term and not a Sillyvillain term as per a few Federal Court Rulings. And any legislature that uses that term is just begging to get their brand new spanking law to be bounced by those same courts. Now, the ones that place the phrase "AR-15/AK47 and their various clones" seem to cut the legal mustard.

That's right. Which means they're trying to put a scary sounding military term on to civilian semi auto rifles in order to enact illegal gun legislation against them.

Or could it be that the AR IS a scary military weapon in the first place. It fits all the squares of the M-16A4 when it's used in normal combat. The A4 is not really a true full automatic or machine gun. It has the 3 shot burst that no one in their right mind uses once you leave basic or post. It's a huge waste of ammo. Take that feature away and there is absolutely nothing different about the AR to the M-16A4 or the M-4. It was made for one thing and one thing only. To kill people as quickly and efficiently as possible and it hit the mark. Not one feature is there for anything else.

I am sick and tired of cops responding to a shooting only to face an AR and die. Those are the good ones. He goes into the situation with nothing but his handgun and is severely outgunned and dies. Pretty much, the first one or two that are on station have died. Yes, he may or may not have had a Colt Model 6920 in the trunk but he won't have it going in at first. And he dies.

We will skip past the Military Specific Alloys used in the M-16. Let’s focus on your definition of an Assault Rifle. An AR or AK.

So that means the Mini-14 is not an Assault Weapon. Not is the IMI Galil or Travor Rifles. Nor the L1A2. The SCAR or other FN rifles.

Here is a list of rifles that fire the exact same ammo that are not Assault Weapons by your definition. Well the vast majority aren’t because they aren’t AR’s.

List of 5.56×45mm NATO firearms - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

That leaves a lot of weapons available. So your definition means that all those other rifles would be available for purchase. Like banning the Dodge Hellcat to stop street racing. A lot of other cars are still available. And a lot of them are faster than the hellcat.

Companies that make the AR clones would retool and start making clones of SCAR’s or other similar weapons. Or they would make the 416 which is an operating rod version of an AR but is not an AR because the AR has a long gas tube.

Six months after you ban the AR’s you would have all the rifles available. IMI would be making the Galil by the ton as well as the Trevor.

Nothing would change. The Gang Bangers kept killing each other even after they banned the Tec 9, the Ingram, and the Uzi’s. People would just get different weapons. Just as the Gang Bangers moved on from the Tec 9’s.

But the SCAR isn't part of the Cult. And it costs a damn site more to make than the AR or the M-16/M-4. At about 3,000 bucks a copy, it is out of reach of the common AR clone buyer. The cost of a full blown Colt Model 604 (M-16A4) is right around $1500 to the Government. The cost of a SCAR is to any Government is right around 3400. That means the AR can be cloned for right around 400 bucks for a piece of crap and a piece of crap SCARs would still cost at least 900 bucks. For 900 bucks, that buys a pretty good AR-15 with either equal to mil specs or better than mil specs.

And guess what, it's birth is exactly like that of the AR, every ounce of the SCAR was designed to kill a lot of people as quickly and as efficiently as possible with little training. In fact, the biggest difference visually is the stock. So there is a good chance it could be considered a variant of the AR already legally.

Nice try on the end around.

You skipped the Mini-14. Cheap. Easy to use. And it’s been used in multiple mass shootings in the past. And since it is based on the Garand design can not be considered a variant of the AR. No more than many of the rifles on the list could.

And it reloads much slower. It takes two hands and one must come outside the trigger guard. Plus the rifle must rotate to it's side and the mag needs a slight forward rotation to disengage it. On the other hand, the AR has a release where the trigger finger never leaves the trigger guard, the rifle stays in it's ready position, the mag drops out with no force needed and the other hand just slams the new one in.

The AR put an end to the use of the Garand style weapons from mass shootings and the AR style said, with a smirk on it's bottom receiver, "Here, hold my beer".

You are a doofus........a useful idiot for gun control....

Magazines don't matter in a mass public shooting...

He used a rifle and killed 10 people....with magazines...

He could have used a sawn off shotgun, a double barreled shotgun and a .22 caliber bolt action rifle........zero magazines here.....and killed 13 people...like the Cumbria, Shooter in Britain used....

He could have walked into any Boulder gun store and purchased......

A 7 shot, pump action shotgun.....and murdered 12, not 10 people, like the Navy Yard shooter...

A 5 shot, pump action shotgun.....and murdered 20 people and wounded 70, like the Kerch, Russia shooter...with the local police station 100 yards away....





He could have purchased 9mm pistol, and a .22 caliber pistol with a 10 round magazine and murdered 32 people like the Virginia tech shooter...



He could have purchased 2, 9mm pistols and murdered 24 people, like the Luby's cafe shooter....



That rifle had no special advantage in a mass public shooting.

Magazines have no bearing on how many are killed in a mass public shooting.

Light 'Em Up || Cowboy Action Shooting Promo - YouTube

 

[freyasman]

The democrat party is releasing violent, known, repeat gun offenders from jail and prison over and over again....these are the guys doing almost all of the gun murder and gun crime....and you vote for the democrat party, the party created by actual slave rapists long after the Founding of this country.....

We lock up 2 million people. Locking people up isn't the answer.

The Founders defined militia just fine....you are a shithead who just doesn't want people to own and carry guns for self defense.

A gun in the home is 43 times more likely to kill a household member than a bad guy. Guns are more a danger to the people that own them than the people they want to defend themselves from.

The thing is, when the Founding Slave Rapists wrote the constitution, only the wealthy could really afford guns. They expected the militia to be the landed gentry, not the rabble.

Public school teachers molest children at a far higher rate than any religious group....yet children have to attend public schools....you moron.

Actually, they really don't. There are just a lot more public school employees than religious groups. Of course, the thing about pedos is they go where they can get at kids. Public schools have methods to find and weed out these people. Religious groups hide them because they BE RIGHT WITH JAY-A-ZUS!

View attachment 473416
"Well, at least they didn't take our guns!!!"

False.





(Damn, you lie a lot.)

 

[woodwork201]

And our murder rate is more due to the fact that we do not enforce our federal gun laws than it is to law abiding citizens owning guns

Actually, it is not lack of enforcement on gun laws that makes our murder rate so high; it's the lack of enforcement on all of our laws that makes the rate so high. When murderers walk the streets gang members learn that a few years in the boy's club is far more valuable to their reputation and they get out to commit murder all over again.

How many murderers commit murder as their first crime? Or even their first crime known to the police?

If new gun laws are not the answer to gun violence then neither were the old laws. We fought against the old laws as ineffective, even on the assumption that they would be enforced. Were we wrong? Would the gun laws be effective if enforced? And if they would be effective, why wouldn't new gun laws be effective if enforced?

Gun laws are not the answer to gun crime. Enforce laws against robbery - with your finger in the pocket, a knife, a bat, or a gun, it's all the same.

 

[woodwork201]

But we DO lock up 2 million people. We still have massive crime.

Okay, so by your own determination, prisons are not much of a deterrent. So wouldn't that make it even more important that Americans be allowed to defend themselves with firearms?

And yet the left think that prisons are a deterrent, adding cruel and unusual prison sentences and excessive fines do work because they're planning them against otherwise-legal gun owners. Oh, wait; they're admitting that law abiding citizens follow the law and criminals do not. They're counting on otherwise-law-abiding citizens following the law to avoid their excessive prison sentences while they admit that criminals do not follow the law and prison sentences are pointless.

They openly admit what we've always argued: gun control has no effect on criminal behavior.

 

[woodwork201]

You are talking about a hunting rifle for the 308. What are you going to have, 5 in the mag and one in the tube? Now load 30 in the Mag. The Rifle is going to have to be strengthened to handle that mag and the whole gun is going to have to gain considerable weight. You just entered into a whole new world. It no longer functions as a hunting or a sporting rifle. It's become a battle rifle.

Most .308's only take 20 rounds but, otherwise, you accurately describe my battle rifle. I do love knowing I have it if needed.

 

[woodwork201]

If you like this, read the judges opinion from the 9th Circuit when he put an injunction on the magazine ban they wanted to pass.....the whole opinion is just great...

http://michellawyers.com/wp-content...JieJ6BMiBtRS0jdYT2id4OKm6suWAzGqo1V9eoe_wL9aA

Few would say that a 100 or 50-round rifle magazine in the hands of a murderer is a good idea. Yet, the “solution” for preventing a mass shooting exacts a high toll on the everyday freedom of ordinary law-abiding citizens. Many individual robberies, rapes, and shootings are not prevented by the State. Unless a law-abiding individual has a firearm for his or her own defense, the police typically arrive after it is too late. With rigor mortis setting in, they mark and bag the evidence, interview bystanders, and draw a chalk outline on the ground. But the victim, nevertheless, is dead, or raped, or robbed, or traumatized.
--------

In other words, a Californian may have a pistol with a 10-round magazine in hopes of fighting off a home invasion robbery. But if that Californian grabs a pistol containing a 17-round magazine, it is now the home-defending victim who commits a new crime.
----------

All Californians, like all citizens of the United States, have a fundamental Constitutional right to keep and bear common and dangerous arms. The nation’s Founders used arms for self-protection, for the common defense, for hunting food, and as a check against tyranny. Teixeira v. Cty. of Alameda, 873 F.3d 670, 686 (9th Cir. 2017)
-----

1. The Supreme Court’s Simple Heller Test

In Heller, the U.S. Supreme Court provided a simple Second Amendment test in crystal clear language. It is a test that anyone can understand. The right to keep and bear arms is a right enjoyed by law-abiding citizens to have arms that are not unusual “in common use” “for lawful purposes like self-defense.” District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570, 624 (2008); Heller v. District of Columbia (“Heller II”), 670 F.3d 1244, 1271 (2011) (Kavanaugh, J., dissenting) (“In my view, Heller and McDonald leave little doubt that courts are to assess gun bans and regulations based on text, history, and tradition, not by a balancing test such as strict or intermediate scrutiny.”).

It is a hardware test. Is the firearm hardware commonly owned? Is the hardware commonly owned by law-abiding citizens? Is the hardware owned by those citizens for lawful purposes? If the answers are “yes,” the test is over.

The hardware is protected. Millions of ammunition magazines able to hold more than 10 rounds are in common use by law-abiding responsible citizens for lawful uses like self-defense.

This is enough to decide that a magazine able to hold more than 10 rounds passes the Heller test and is protected by the Second Amendment. The simple test applies because a magazine is an essential mechanical part of a firearm. The size limit directly impairs one’s ability to defend one’s self.

The Second Amendment does not exist to protect the right to bear down pillows and foam baseball bats. It protects guns and every gun is dangerous. “If Heller tells us anything, it is that firearms cannot be categorically prohibited just because they are dangerous.” Caetano v. Massachusetts, 136 S. Ct. 1027, 1031 (2016) (Alito, J. and Thomas, J., concurring); Maloney v. Singas, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 211546 *19 (E.D.N.Y. Dec. 14, 2018) (striking down 1974 ban on possession of dangerous nunchaku in violation of the Second Amendment and quoting Caetano).

“[T]he relative dangerousness of a weapon is irrelevant when the weapon belongs to a class of arms commonly used for lawful purposes.” Id. California law presently permits the lethality of a gun with a 10-round magazine. In other words, a gun with an 11-round magazine or a 15-round magazine is apparently too lethal to be possessed by a law-abiding citizen. A gun with a 10-round magazine is not. Missing is a constitutionally-permissible standard for testing acceptable lethality. The Attorney General offers no objective standard. Heller sets out a commonality standard that can be applied to magazine hardware: is the size of the magazine “common”? If so, the size is constitutionally-protected. If the “too lethal” standard is followed to its logical conclusion, the government may dictate in the future that a magazine of eight rounds is too lethal. And after that, it may dictate that a gun with a magazine holding three rounds is too lethal since a person usually fires only 2.2 rounds in self-defense. This stepped-down approach may continue32 until the time comes when government declares that only guns holding a single round are sufficiently lacking in lethality that they are both “safe” to possess and powerful enough to provide a means of self-defense.3

(12.) the critical “pause”

The State argues that smaller magazines create a “critical pause” in the shooting of a mass killer. “The prohibition of LCMs helps create a “critical pause” that has been proven to give victims an opportunity to hide, escape, or disable a shooter.” Def. Oppo., at 19.

This may be the case for attackers. On the other hand, from the perspective of a victim trying to defend her home and family, the time required to re-load a pistol after the tenth shot might be called a “lethal pause,” as it typically takes a victim much longer to re-load (if they can do it at all) than a perpetrator planning an attack.

In other words, the re-loading “pause” the State seeks in hopes of stopping a mass shooter, also tends to create an even more dangerous time for every victim who must try to defend herself with a small-capacity magazine. The need to re-load and the lengthy pause that comes with banning all but small-capacity magazines is especially unforgiving for victims who are disabled, or who have arthritis, or who are trying to hold a phone in their off-hand while attempting to call for police help.

The good that a re-loading pause might do in the extremely rare mass shooting incident is vastly outweighed by the harm visited on manifold law-abiding, citizen-victims who must also pause while under attack. This blanket ban without any tailoring to these types of needs goes to show § 32310’s lack of reasonable fit.

=======

http://michellawyers.com/wp-content...JieJ6BMiBtRS0jdYT2id4OKm6suWAzGqo1V9eoe_wL9aA

When a group of armed burglars break into a citizen’s home at night, and the homeowner in pajamas must choose between using their left hand to grab either a telephone, a flashlight, or an extra 10-round magazine, the burden is severe. When one is far from help in a sparsely populated part of the state, and law enforcement may not be able to respond in a timely manner, the burden of a 10-round limit is severe.

When a major earthquake causes power outages, gas and water line ruptures, collapsed bridges and buildings, and chaos, the burden of a 10-round magazine limit is severe.

When food distribution channels are disrupted and sustenance becomes scarce while criminals run rampant, the burden of a 10-round magazine limit is severe.

Surely, the rights protected by the Second Amendment are not to be trimmed away as unnecessary because today’s litigation happens during the best of times. It may be the best of times in Sunnyvale; it may be the worst of times in Bombay Beach or Potrero. California’s ban covers the entire state at all times.

=========
3. Lethality is Not the Test

Some say that the use of “large capacity magazines” increases the lethality of gun violence. They point out that when large capacity magazines are used in mass shootings, more shots are fired, more people are wounded, and more wounds are fatal than in other mass shootings.31 That may or may not be true. Certainly, a gun when abused is lethal. A gun holding more than 10 rounds is lethal to more people than a gun holding less than 10 rounds, but it is not constitutionally decisive. Nothing in the Second Amendment makes lethality a factor to consider because a gun’s lethality, or dangerousness, is assumed.


The Second Amendment does not exist to protect the right to bear down pillows and foam baseball bats. It protects guns and every gun is dangerous. “If Heller tells us anything, it is that firearms cannot be categorically prohibited just because they are dangerous.” Caetano v. Massachusetts, 136 S. Ct. 1027, 1031 (2016) (Alito, J. and Thomas, J., concurring); Maloney v. Singas, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 211546 *19 (E.D.N.Y. Dec. 14, 2018) (striking down 1974 ban on possession of dangerous nunchaku in violation of the Second Amendment and quoting Caetano). “[T]he relative dangerousness of a weapon is irrelevant when the weapon belongs to a class of arms commonly used for lawful purposes.” Id. California law presently permits the lethality of a gun with a 10-round magazine.

In other words, a gun with an 11-round magazine or a 15-round magazine is apparently too lethal to be possessed by a law-abiding citizen. A gun with a 10-round magazine is not. Missing is a constitutionally-permissible standard for testing acceptable lethality.

The Attorney General offers no objective standard.

Heller sets out a commonality standard that can be applied to magazine hardware: is the size of the magazine “common”? If so, the size is constitutionally-protected.


If the “too lethal” standard is followed to its logical conclusion, the government may dictate in the future that a magazine of eight rounds is too lethal. And after that, it may dictate that a gun with a magazine holding three rounds is too lethal since a person usually fires only 2.2 rounds in self-defense. This stepped-down approach may continue32 until the time comes when government declares that only guns holding a single round are sufficiently lacking in lethality that they are both “safe” to possess and powerful enough to provide a means of self-defense.33

32 Constitutional rights would become meaningless if states could obliterate them by enacting incrementally more burdensome restrictions while arguing that a reviewing court must evaluate each restriction by itself when determining its constitutionality. Peruta v. Cty. of San Diego, 824 F.3d 919, 953 (9th Cir. 2016) (Callahan, J., dissenting). 33 Artificial limits will eventually lead to disarmament.
=====

Slippery Slope...

It does not take the imagination of Jules Verne to predict that if all magazines over 10 rounds are somehow eliminated from California, the next mass shooting will be accomplished with guns holding only 10 rounds. To reduce gun violence, the state will close the newly christened 10-round “loophole” and use it as a justification to outlaw magazines holding more than 7 rounds. The legislature will determine that no more than 7 rounds are “necessary.”


Then the next mass shooting will be accomplished with guns holding 7 rounds. To reduce the new gun violence, the state will close the 7-round “loophole” and outlaw magazines holding more than 5 rounds determining that no more than 5 rounds is “necessary.” And so it goes, until the only lawful firearm law-abiding responsible citizens will be permitted to possess is a single-shot handgun.


Or perhaps, one gun, but no ammunition. Or ammunition issued only to persons deemed trustworthy.


This is not baseless speculation or scare-mongering. One need only look at New Jersey and New York. In the 1990’s, New Jersey instituted a prohibition on what it would label “large capacity ammunition magazines.” These were defined as magazines able to hold more than 15 rounds. Slipping down the slope, last year, New Jersey lowered the capacity of permissible magazines from 15 to 10 rounds. See Firearms, 2018 N.J. Sess. Law Serv. Ch. 39 (ASSEMBLY No. 2761) (WEST). At least one bill had been offered that would have reduced the allowed capacity to only five rounds. (See New Jersey Senate Bill No. 798, introduced in the 2018 Session, amending N.J.S. 2C:39-1(y)

More very good stuff; I'm going to have to spend some time to read it thoroughly. I've spent a lot of time studying both Heller and McDonald but reading more analysis always exposes new (to me) ideas.

But I need to point out something most gun owners and, to my knowledge, most legal scholars writing on the topic, miss. We like common use because argues in defense of the AR or many other weapons the left is attacking, including guns like pump shotguns and all semi-autos.

But there's serious danger in the common use argument: Any new class of guns could be banned quickly by Congress and/or possibly even the BATFE or executive order before they come into common use. For instance, before the Shockwave class of shotguns were in common use, when very first introduced, they could have been banned - in fact probably still could since the're not nearly as common as other classes of guns. The AR certainly could have been banned, under common use, during the 60s when it wasn't yet in common use. Granted, any ban at all is is unconstitutional, but to depend on common use leaves the right to keep and bear any new class of arms at serious risk.

 

[JoeB131]

And yet the left think that prisons are a deterrent, adding cruel and unusual prison sentences and excessive fines do work because they're planning them against otherwise-legal gun owners. Oh, wait; they're admitting that law abiding citizens follow the law and criminals do not. They're counting on otherwise-law-abiding citizens following the law to avoid their excessive prison sentences while they admit that criminals do not follow the law and prison sentences are pointless.

Oh, I don't expect to throw gun nuts in jail. Just send the ATF over to confiscate their guns. If they get new guns, send the ATF in again to confiscate their new guns. Eventually, they'll get the message.

Of course, a key part to my plan would be to hold gun sellers accountable for who they sell to. So all those nice Asians ladies who got shot up, their families can sue the gun store that sold to THIS GUY.

 

[freyasman]

And yet the left think that prisons are a deterrent, adding cruel and unusual prison sentences and excessive fines do work because they're planning them against otherwise-legal gun owners. Oh, wait; they're admitting that law abiding citizens follow the law and criminals do not. They're counting on otherwise-law-abiding citizens following the law to avoid their excessive prison sentences while they admit that criminals do not follow the law and prison sentences are pointless.

Oh, I don't expect to throw gun nuts in jail. Just send the ATF over to confiscate their guns. If they get new guns, send the ATF in again to confiscate their new guns. Eventually, they'll get the message.

Of course, a key part to my plan would be to hold gun sellers accountable for who they sell to. So all those nice Asians ladies who got shot up, their families can sue the gun store that sold to THIS GUY.

View attachment 474133

Go ahead and send the ATF, hell, go ahead and send every fed you can find, lol.

The Mathematics of Countering Tyranny - Gun Confiscation Fail - Rawles

The Mathematics of Countering Tyranny by James Wesley Rawles - Gun Confiscation - AR-15s. Estimates on number of guns in US.

survivalblog.com

We'll come get you when we're done with them.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Oh, I don't expect to throw gun nuts in jail. Just send the ATF over to confiscate their guns. If they get new guns, send the ATF in again to confiscate their new guns. Eventually, they'll get the message.

Of course, a key part to my plan would be to hold gun sellers accountable for who they sell to. So all those nice Asians ladies who got shot up, their families can sue the gun store that sold to THIS GUY.

Atta boy Joe, spoken like a true Nazi.

Gun stores and sellers only sell firearms to who the federal government permits. It's not their call, it's your precious federal governments call. Of course the feds can only use information in their possession to deny gun ownership. When you have a misfit creating a racist policies like the Promise Program, then the feds have no idea who they should be denying gun sales to.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

And yet the left think that prisons are a deterrent, adding cruel and unusual prison sentences and excessive fines do work because they're planning them against otherwise-legal gun owners. Oh, wait; they're admitting that law abiding citizens follow the law and criminals do not. They're counting on otherwise-law-abiding citizens following the law to avoid their excessive prison sentences while they admit that criminals do not follow the law and prison sentences are pointless.

They openly admit what we've always argued: gun control has no effect on criminal behavior.

Correct, but the sheep don't know that, only their leaders do. The sheep only believe what they are told, and that is if you disarm law abiding citizens, the criminals will be happy to turn in their guns. Of course their leaders know that could never be the end result. The end result will be a society where only the police and criminals have guns which makes the rest of us potential victims to crime.

Victims are one of the Democrat party's largest support groups, so it makes political sense that they create more victim groups; expanding the tent as politicians like to call it. Look at what's going on today. Thanks to this George Floyd thing, riots permitted in commie cities, defunding the police departments, violent crime and murders have never seen such a sharp increase in many years. Democrats love it. The more dead innocent Americans, the better.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

If new gun laws are not the answer to gun violence then neither were the old laws. We fought against the old laws as ineffective, even on the assumption that they would be enforced. Were we wrong? Would the gun laws be effective if enforced? And if they would be effective, why wouldn't new gun laws be effective if enforced?

Gun laws are not the answer to gun crime. Enforce laws against robbery - with your finger in the pocket, a knife, a bat, or a gun, it's all the same.

When NYC had their Stop and Frisk law, it greatly reduced violent crime and murders, especially among minorities. They got rid of the law and now murders are back up to high levels once again.

The point? A strong enough deterrent works every time it's tried. So when deterrents don't work, it's not because they can't. It means our deterrents are not strong enough. However you can't get this salient point through the heads of the left.

I read an article a couple years ago by a Chicago police officer. His claim was that he busts people with an illegal gun, and they bust them again two months later. They are releasing those people as fast as they can catch them.

Carrying an illegal gun............5 years minimum prison sentence.
Using a gun in the commission of a crime.........20 years minimum prison sentence.
Being found with a stolen gun..........10 years minimum prison sentence.
Murder with a gun.........death penalty or life in prison.
Straw buyers........10 years minimum prison sentence.

Penalties like these would show great improvement in our crime situation. Plus we need a national liability protection for law abiding citizens who use their firearm in self-defense that's ruled a justified shooting. It's so logical that a 5 year old can understand by penalizing the criminals harsher instead of trying to turn law abiding citizens into criminals, you will have much favorable results. So why does the left try to do the latter? What party do most criminals who vote belong to? And secondly, how many liberals do you know that have common sense?

 

[woodwork201]

When NYC had their Stop and Frisk law, it greatly reduced violent crime and murders, especially among minorities. They got rid of the law and now murders are back up to high levels once again.

That's true; given enough unconstitutional authoritarian behavior by government, most crimes will stop. For instance, Myanmar has a murder rate about half of that in the US... Oh, wait.. they still have murders.

The point? A strong enough deterrent works every time it's tried. So when deterrents don't work, it's not because they can't. It means our deterrents are not strong enough. However you can't get this salient point through the heads of the left.

It is not the business or the role of government to stop or prevent crime. It is the business of the government to punish crime. As gun owners, we often refer to those Supreme Court cases that hold that it is not the obligation of the police to protect an individual but is, instead, their job to protect the community. And the Court is correct.

Punishing crime is a communal responsibility - I can't, for instance, create my own court and my own jail and put my neighbor in it. I cannot, and should not, depend on the police to protect me and stop a robbery or, in the case of at least one such Court case, a rape or murder. Preventing or stopping crime is an individual responsibility.

To suggest that it is the role of government to prevent crime would mean that a bank needs no vault and no guards. A liquor store in the ghetto needs no bullet proof glass and no guards. The government will protect them and prevent any crime on their premises.

So the problem we have with unconstitutional behaviors such as Stop-and-Frisk, is that they're only needed because the victims of bad actors do not have the ability to protect themselves; they've been disarmed.

The cry should not be for more authoritarian, but ultimately unsuccessful, crime prevention on the streets; it should be to eliminate government infringements on our ability to defend ourselves. Even in Myanmar, they can't prevent crime.

I read an article a couple years ago by a Chicago police officer. His claim was that he busts people with an illegal gun, and they bust them again two months later. They are releasing those people as fast as they can catch them.

Carrying an illegal gun............5 years minimum prison sentence.
Using a gun in the commission of a crime.........20 years minimum prison sentence.
Being found with a stolen gun..........10 years minimum prison sentence.
Murder with a gun.........death penalty or life in prison.
Straw buyers........10 years minimum prison sentence.

Penalties like these would show great improvement in our crime situation. Plus we need a national liability protection for law abiding citizens who use their firearm in self-defense that's ruled a justified shooting. It's so logical that a 5 year old can understand by penalizing the criminals harsher instead of trying to turn law abiding citizens into criminals, you will have much favorable results. So why does the left try to do the latter? What party do most criminals who vote belong to? And secondly, how many liberals do you know that have common sense?

Enhanced sentencing for guns only serves to vilify the gun. You admit that the gun, itself, is evil. I know you intend well but that is absolutely the result and the intent of enhanced sentencing for gun crimes.

Carrying an illegal gun............5 years minimum prison sentence. - Since there's no constitutional authority for an illegal gun, carrying an illegal gun is impossible.
Using a gun in the commission of a crime.........20 years minimum prison sentence. - Punish the crime, not the gun. If you rob a 7-11, go to prison for 20 years, whether you used a gun, a knife, or a baseball bat.
Being found with a stolen gun..........10 years minimum prison sentence. - Being found with stolen property is a crime. Punish the crime, not the gun.
Murder with a gun.........death penalty or life in prison. - How about death penalty or life in prison for murder, regardless of the weapon? Is the person murdered with a gun more dead than the person murdered with rat poison?
Straw buyers........10 years minimum prison sentence. - Since banning some people from owning guns, there's no constitutional support for even the concept of a straw buyer. Even if you argue that it is constitutional (you'd be wrong), the idea of straw buying is only intended to keep prohibited persons from buying guns. This can only work with universal background checks and complete gun registration so that the government can track, identify, and enforce background checks. Do you support universal background checks?

 

[JimH52]

Mass Murderers...and you....rejoice.

 

[woodwork201]

Of course, a key part to my plan would be to hold gun sellers accountable for who they sell to. So all those nice Asians ladies who got shot up, their families can sue the gun store that sold to THIS GUY.

Are you suggesting that the store that sold liquor to a drunk driver should get sued along with the dealer that sold him the car, the insurance company that sold him insurance, and the store that sold him the clothes he wore to the bar?

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

It is not the business or the role of government to stop or prevent crime. It is the business of the government to punish crime. As gun owners, we often refer to those Supreme Court cases that hold that it is not the obligation of the police to protect an individual but is, instead, their job to protect the community. And the Court is correct.

Punishing crime is a communal responsibility - I can't, for instance, create my own court and my own jail and put my neighbor in it. I cannot, and should not, depend on the police to protect me and stop a robbery or, in the case of at least one such Court case, a rape or murder. Preventing or stopping crime is an individual responsibility.

To suggest that it is the role of government to prevent crime would mean that a bank needs no vault and no guards. A liquor store in the ghetto needs no bullet proof glass and no guards. The government will protect them and prevent any crime on their premises.

So the problem we have with unconstitutional behaviors such as Stop-and-Frisk, is that they're only needed because the victims of bad actors do not have the ability to protect themselves; they've been disarmed.

The cry should not be for more authoritarian, but ultimately unsuccessful, crime prevention on the streets; it should be to eliminate government infringements on our ability to defend ourselves. Even in Myanmar, they can't prevent crime.

Punishment is for the sole purpose of providing a deterrent not only to the individual for the future, but the public as well. You don't pet your dog and give it a treat when it shits on your living room floor, and you don't give your child a trip to Disneyland if they broke out your neighbors windows with a baseball bat.

I don't believe in rehabilitation centers, I believe in jail, and if we had prisons like in the classic movie Cool Hand Luke, you'd see how people would avoid going there.


As for self-defense, I think my avatar says it all.

Enhanced sentencing for guns only serves to vilify the gun. You admit that the gun, itself, is evil. I know you intend well but that is absolutely the result and the intent of enhanced sentencing for gun crimes.

Carrying an illegal gun............5 years minimum prison sentence. - Since there's no constitutional authority for an illegal gun, carrying an illegal gun is impossible.
Using a gun in the commission of a crime.........20 years minimum prison sentence. - Punish the crime, not the gun. If you rob a 7-11, go to prison for 20 years, whether you used a gun, a knife, or a baseball bat.
Being found with a stolen gun..........10 years minimum prison sentence. - Being found with stolen property is a crime. Punish the crime, not the gun.
Murder with a gun.........death penalty or life in prison. - How about death penalty or life in prison for murder, regardless of the weapon? Is the person murdered with a gun more dead than the person murdered with rat poison?
Straw buyers........10 years minimum prison sentence. - Since banning some people from owning guns, there's no constitutional support for even the concept of a straw buyer. Even if you argue that it is constitutional (you'd be wrong), the idea of straw buying is only intended to keep prohibited persons from buying guns. This can only work with universal background checks and complete gun registration so that the government can track, identify, and enforce background checks. Do you support universal background checks?

You can't vilify or punish an inanimate article like a gun. Yes, it's illegal to carry a gun if you are a convicted felon. It's illegal in most states to carry a gun unless you are licensed. Until the high courts rule otherwise, those are the laws of our land. You are entitled to an opinion just like I am, but it's the courts that rule what the Constitution allows or doesn't allow.

Extra scrutiny should be given to guns given the fact our country is in conflict with the use of guns. It also gives an advantage to the victim. If I'm a store owner and somebody tries to rob me with a bat or knife, I have the advantage because I'm legally allowed to use my gun for self-defense. A criminal may risk a couple of years in prison for robbing a store, but he's less likely to risk 25 years (5 for the robbery and 20 for the gun) to rob that store using a firearm.

Buying a gun for somebody that's not allowed to own a gun is no different than if sell your prescribed opiod pain medication on the streets. It's illegal for other people to have it but you.

 

[TNHarley]

I've got a lot of feedback, but no explanation of why anyone needs high-powered weaponry.

Why does a married couple need a huge house with 4 bedrooms?
Answer : It isnt any of your business.

 

[woodwork201]

You can't vilify or punish an inanimate article like a gun. Yes, it's illegal to carry a gun if you are a convicted felon. It's illegal in most states to carry a gun unless you are licensed. Until the high courts rule otherwise, those are the laws of our land. You are entitled to an opinion just like I am, but it's the courts that rule what the Constitution allows or doesn't allow.

Extra scrutiny should be given to guns given the fact our country is in conflict with the use of guns. It also gives an advantage to the victim. If I'm a store owner and somebody tries to rob me with a bat or knife, I have the advantage because I'm legally allowed to use my gun for self-defense. A criminal may risk a couple of years in prison for robbing a store, but he's less likely to risk 25 years (5 for the robbery and 20 for the gun) to rob that store using a firearm.

Buying a gun for somebody that's not allowed to own a gun is no different than if sell your prescribed opiod pain medication on the streets. It's illegal for other people to have it but you.

This is why, in the end, we'll lose the protections on the right to keep and bear arms. When gun owners admit that guns are evil, we've pretty much lost even the gun owners.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

This is why, in the end, we'll lose the protections on the right to keep and bear arms. When gun owners admit that guns are evil, we've pretty much lost even the gun owners.

Some gun owners do, conservatives don't. It's been that way for decades.

The only way you are going to lose rights is by voting Democrat. It's the President that gets to choose who is on the courts right up to the Supreme Court.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Of course, a key part to my plan would be to hold gun sellers accountable for who they sell to. So all those nice Asians ladies who got shot up, their families can sue the gun store that sold to THIS GUY.

Are you suggesting that the store that sold liquor to a drunk driver should get sued along with the dealer that sold him the car, the insurance company that sold him insurance, and the store that sold him the clothes he wore to the bar?

Well, the liquor store already can be prosecuted and sued, IF the guy was already drunk when he bought the booze.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Well, the liquor store already can be prosecuted and sued, IF the guy was already drunk when he bought the booze.

So can a bar, but the difference is that the seller of alcohol was complicit in the criminal actions of their customer. The gun store owner has no idea if he's selling to somebody that's going to shoot at targets or go to a movie theater and try to kill as many Americans as possible. All the gun store does is run your name through the federal background check, and if they give the clearance, the gun store sells him the gun.