Discussion: The Second Amendment V

[wiegeabo]

Have you seen our airforce? Look it up.

I foresee something similar to the South Park movie where all the Quebecois are put on the front lines for some reason...

 

[Thundercrack85]

The wrong here is the statement that a "good guy with a gun" is the only way to stop a "bad guy with a gun". That was what Wayne LaPierre stated last year. He was wrong, and that is my point.

I'm not convinced Wayne Lapierre and his ilk are good guys.

 

[hippie_hunter]

Wayne LaPierre is a bad guy who is just making things worse for the gun rights group.

 

[KevanG]

I foresee something similar to the South Park movie where all the Quebecois are put on the front lines for some reason...

And the Acadians. I mean, whatever would give you that idea?

 

[dnno1]

LaPierre is the executive VP of the NRA and for all intents, the visible spokesperson for the Gun Industry. He is not supposed to be a bad guy, but (in my opinion) his interests are skewed towards the industry and not so much the individual. In any case, he is supposed to speak for gun rights and those who support the right to bear arms. Somebody needs to correct him when he is wrong.

 

[hippie_hunter]

I think LaPierre is fighting for the gun rights of the individual and not so much the industry. The problem is that he is the epitome of just what is wrong with the gun rights movement. A movement that is becoming more and more bogged down by selfishness and stupidity.

 

[SV Fan]

I think LaPierre is fighting for the gun rights of the individual and not so much the industry.

The NRA basically is a promotional(fear) tool for the gun industry so they can scare people into buying more guns(because Big Government is coming to take them away)

I think generally what happened was the NRA used to be a gun safety group for the most part, but the combination of big money from the gun industry and farther right gun groups calling them out for being to liberal caused them from being a responsible gun usage group to a group who thinks the the second amendment is what the country was found on and #1 in their books.

 

[mrvlknight21]

LaPierre is the executive VP of the NRA and for all intents, the visible spokesperson for the Gun Industry. He is not supposed to be a bad guy, but (in my opinion) his interests are skewed towards the industry and not so much the individual. In any case, he is supposed to speak for gun rights and those who support the right to bear arms. Somebody needs to correct him when he is wrong.

You keep bringing this up, and I restate that I don't necessarily see how he was wrong with the "good guy with a gun" comments. Is it the ONLY way to stop a bad guy? No, of course, not, but can it be an effective way? Of course. There are plenty of stories of individuals stopping criminals in some fashion by using their personal firearms. His statement maybe a little simplistic, but I understand where he is coming from. Its not a magic solution to all criminal violence, and I do not think that is what he meant.

I will also restate that a person who carries a firearm with an expectation to use it to protect themselves or their family should get the proper training OFTEN and truly be prepared to use it. The whole "with great power" idea comes to mind..a little hokey when applied here, but "a good guy with a gun" can cause and get into a lot of problems if they do not know what they are doing. That is why I ALWAYS emphasize training. I have posted about it MANY times in this thread.

I can not stress how important good, hands-on training (not playing Call of Duty or watching youtube videos) is for gun owners who want to carry their firearms to protect themselves or their families. I want to be sure to add that just because a person has a gun, training, and the desire to stop the bad guy does NOT mean they should intervene everytime. I will repeat, situations with criminals and violence are dynamic and ever-evolving. One minute it may appear that I can/should take action and the next minute, it is clear that I should not, or vice versa. To reference Call of Duty above, life is not a video game where all you do is shoot and get shot at. Real life actions have consequences, real life situations have bystanders, emotions, lawsuits, and plenty of other factors that many people (even gun owners) do not consider on a regular basis.

I will say one more time, there isn't one individual source, person, or group that I rely on for my news, opinions, political commentary, etc., and this is no different. Despite owning multiple guns, I am not a member of the NRA or any other gun rights organization. So what LaPierre or anyone else says does not dictate my views.

I think LaPierre is fighting for the gun rights of the individual and not so much the industry. The problem is that he is the epitome of just what is wrong with the gun rights movement. A movement that is becoming more and more bogged down by selfishness and stupidity.

There are certainly lots of incidents that have caused the gun rights movement (generally speaking) to get muddy. But overall, the NRA still does push for individual gun rights more strongly than any other organization. And they have the members, money, and connections to get their voice out there more than others.

The NRA basically is a promotional(fear) tool for the gun industry so they can scare people into buying more guns(because Big Government is coming to take them away)

I think generally what happened was the NRA used to be a gun safety group for the most part, but the combination of big money from the gun industry and farther right gun groups calling them out for being to liberal caused them from being a responsible gun usage group to a group who thinks the the second amendment is what the country was found on and #1 in their books.

A lot of people would probably agree with this.

 

[Thundercrack85]

In some cases potentially, but I remember when that idiot Louie Gohmert talked about the Colorado shooting. Depending on the circumstances, more guns might actually result in more causalities, especially when these people have never used them in a life or death emergency situation.

 

[mrvlknight21]

In some cases potentially, but I remember when that idiot Louie Gohmert talked about the Colorado shooting. Depending on the circumstances, more guns might actually result in more causalities, especially when these people have never used them in a life or death emergency situation.

Correct, which is exactly what I mentioned above.


Cut and paste from my previous post:
I will also restate that a person who carries a firearm with an expectation to use it to protect themselves or their family should get the proper training OFTEN and truly be prepared to use it. The whole "with great power" idea comes to mind..a little hokey when applied here, but "a good guy with a gun" can cause and get into a lot of problems if they do not know what they are doing. That is why I ALWAYS emphasize training. I have posted about it MANY times in this thread.

I can not stress how important good, hands-on training (not playing Call of Duty or watching youtube videos) is for gun owners who want to carry their firearms to protect themselves or their families. I want to be sure to add that just because a person has a gun, training, and the desire to stop the bad guy does NOT mean they should intervene everytime. I will repeat, situations with criminals and violence are dynamic and ever-evolving. One minute it may appear that I can/should take action and the next minute, it is clear that I should not, or vice versa. To reference Call of Duty above, life is not a video game where all you do is shoot and get shot at. Real life actions have consequences, real life situations have bystanders, emotions, lawsuits, and plenty of other factors that many people (even gun owners) do not consider on a regular basis.

And another post on the last page:
Agreed, EVERY incident is different and "active shooter" situations are dynamic, rapidly evolving scenarios that are always extremely dangerous for anyone responding, anyone nearby, etc. Unfortunately, they almost always end in death for multiple people and if there was a simple solution, I would be all for it.

 

[SV Fan]

A lot of people would probably agree with this.

Look at the most recent NRA convention, it seems like alot of the speakers about Gun Rights brought up everything from the IRS to Obamacare to Gay Marriage(and how those are examples of people taking America away from real Americans), to which I assume since it's a gun rights convention they believe guns are the solution to that problem because otherwise those issues really shouldn't be a topic of discussion at a Gun Lovers convention

 

[Thundercrack85]

I think the NRA is a year away from becoming a full blown hate group.

 

[warhorse78]

As someone whose city just came out of a lockdown due to a gunman killing cops I'd just like to throw out my two cents. Gun control isn't perfect, as evidenced recently, but it has drastically cut down on things like this from happening. There's evidence from a number of countries around the world that instituted gun laws after shootings and it has helped immensely in that regard. I'm happy with the gun control we have here in Canada and hope the USA institutes some stricter controls as well.

Why are individuals in other countries so worried about the policies and laws in the USA? It's quite simple, if you don't care for the laws and policies of the USA, then just stay out. That simple.

 

[dnno1]

Why are individuals in other countries so worried about the policies and laws in the USA? It's quite simple, if you don't care for the laws and policies of the USA, then just stay out. That simple.

Because a lot of guns purchased here gets trafficked into other countries. Mexico is a perfect example of that if have been paying attention to the news.

 

[Anubis]

Well, it's okay cuz Mexico gives us lots of drugs in exchange.

 

[KevanG]

Why are individuals in other countries so worried about the policies and laws in the USA? It's quite simple, if you don't care for the laws and policies of the USA, then just stay out. That simple.

Because I live in Canada, which you may be aware is right above the USA, and there is a lot of guns that get trafficked up here from the US, so it kinda has a direct connection to what I'm talking about.

 

[The Overlord]

Why are individuals in other countries so worried about the policies and laws in the USA? It's quite simple, if you don't care for the laws and policies of the USA, then just stay out. That simple.

Does that mean people from the US should not be allowed to comment on political situations in other countries? I don't think many people would agree with that.

We live in a new, globalized world, political situations in one country can easily effect another. No man is an island, especially in the information age.

 

[Thundercrack85]

America can't pretend to be the leader of the free world on Tuesday, and get annoyed when foreigners voice their concern about domestic policies on Wednesday.

 

[dnno1]

Some of these gun experts use the meme that you have to own and operate a gun to even be qualified to comment on them. Now you also have to be from the USA.

 

[mrvlknight21]

Some of these gun experts use the meme that you have to own and operate a gun to even be qualified to comment on them. Now you also have to be from the USA.

While I don't believe that you need to own or operate a gun to comment on them, you really really should have SOME working knowledge of a firearm. There was the politician who made waves discussing how gun "clips" become unable to be used again after someone has fired the rounds that are in them (she said they had to be discarded) is a perfect example. She was apparently a major supporter of a high capacity magazine ban and said this during a discussion about gun control, no less.

Here is an article about that comment:
http://www.denverpost.com/politics/...criticism-pretty-stupid-ammo-magazine-comment

And a cut and paste from the article (but not the entire article)
WASHINGTON — Democratic Rep. Diana DeGette drew national criticism Wednesday for remarks made at a public forum in which she said banning high-capacity in ammunition magazines would be effective in reducing gun violence because "the bullets will have been shot and there won't be any more available."

For years in Congress, DeGette has been the prime sponsor on a federal ban on high-capacity magazines.

But despite the congresswoman's claim, ammunition magazines can be reloaded with more bullets and can be reused hundreds of times.

"These are ammunition, they're bullets, so the people who have those now, they're going to shoot them, so if you ban them in the future, the number of these high-capacity magazines is going to decrease dramatically over time because the bullets will have been shot and there won't be any more available," she said at Tuesday's forum, hosted by The Denver Post's editorial board.

DeGette spokeswoman Juliet Johnson on Wednesday said the senior congresswoman from Denver "misspoke" and then issued another erroneous statement about guns.

"The congresswoman has been working on a high-capacity assault magazine ban for years and has been deeply involved in the issue; she simply misspoke in referring to 'magazines' when she should have referred to 'clips,' which cannot be reused because they don't have a feeding mechanism," Johnson said.

Actually, clips in most guns can be reused as well.

Immediately after DeGette's Tuesday remark, the audience in The Post building chuckled and Larimer County Sheriff Justin Smith, who was also on the panel, urged people who have not shot a gun to "get to the facts. ... Let's be educated as we make this decision."

The National Rifle Association issued a simple statement: "Two words: Pretty stupid."

The Colorado GOP called DeGette's statements "extremely alarming" because, the group said, she is running a piece of federal legislation that she apparently doesn't know anything about.

So, yes, in cases like this, the individual discussing their stance on a form of gun control and a method to make that happen should at least have the facts about how a gun magazine operates.

Nancy Grace looked foolish on her own show once as well, when discussing the firearm used in the Trayvon Martin incident. It was a Kel-Tec PF9. She asked some member of her panel that day about the manual safety on the PF9. He responded that the only safety on that firearm was keeping your finger off the trigger (my paraphrased version) and she responded by admonishing him for trying to trick her. I have this firearm and there is NO external manual safety on this firearm. She was wrong, but claimed that she KNEW there was some manual external safety that Zimmerman must have turned off or something.

Again, she clearly does not know enough about the firearm to have that discussion.

Here is the video:
[YT]hdrrHvN5wMQ[/YT]

 

[DJ_KiDDvIcIOUs]

You Can't Lie When You Buy A Gun For Someone Else, Supreme Court Rules

For most people, and five Supreme Court justices, there is a straightforward answer to the question, "Can I lie on the federal form I must sign in order to legally purchase a firearm in the United States?" (NO.) For four other Supreme Court justices (just guess), this is a more complicated issue.

The case the Court decided this morning involved an unlucky man named Bruce Abramski, an ex-cop who was a suspect in a bank robbery. In the course of investigating him for that, police found he'd sold a firearm to his uncle shortly after purchasing it from a gun store. The uncle was legally qualified to buy a gun himself, it seems; it's just that Abramski wanted to pass on his ex-cop's discount. Sadly for Abramski, on the form they make you sign to purchase a firearm, the following question appears:

Are you the actual transferee/buyer of the firearm(s) listed on this form? Warning: You are not the actual buyer if you are acquiring the firearm(s) on behalf of another person. If you are not the actual buyer, the dealer cannot transfer the firearm(s) to you.

Abramski checked "Yes," even though he intended to transfer the gun to his uncle. The government charged him with making false statements on the form under the Gun Control Act.

Dumb, right? Well, when he was convicted of the crime of lying on that form, Abramski pointed out that at least one federal court of appeal had ruled that "straw purchasers" like himself are not lying "in a material way." In other words: since the ultimate gun owner (the uncle here) was qualified to own a gun anyway, there was no real problem with his lying on the form. The question was only there to prevent the criminal and the insane from purchasing guns through an intermediary.

The Supreme Court upheld Abramski's conviction 5-4. Justice Kagan points out, writing for the majority, that that argument doesn't quite fly when so much of America's piddling gun control laws involve identity verification and background checks of the purchaser. Some of those rules are there to prevent the unqualified from purchasing, yes; but another goal is to create a paper trail for law enforcement. As she puts it,

Abramski's view would thus render the required records close to useless for aiding law enforcement: Putting true numbskulls to one side, anyone purchasing a gun for criminal purposes would avoid leaving a paper trail by the simple expedient of hiring a straw.

"True numbskulls" is a lovely old-timey way of putting it, no? And her position makes things relatively simple, allied with common sense: don't lie to the government when you want to purchase a gun, full stop.

But then there is the other side of the bench. Scalia, joined by fellow sad pandas Roberts, Thomas and Alito, wrote the dissent. Scalia appears to concede that the law would be much less effective if people could just send in straw purchasers for their guns. But, and you nerds knew this was coming: the "plain language [of the statute] simply does not reach" straw purchasers. The law, Scalia says, only covers the "man at the counter," since it only covers the person to whom the firearm is "sold." And, Scalia adds:

... if I give my son $10 and tell him to pick up milk and eggs at the store, no English speaker would say that the store "sells" the milk and eggs to me.

Scalia fails to mention that no English speakers would ever suggest that the purchase of milk and eggs is equivalent to the purchase of a deadly firearm, either. Which is why there is no "Milk and Eggs Control" statute at the center of a heated public debate and regulation, at this point in history. But hey, a man can dream!

Of course, Scalia never mentions that the plain language on the form presented to gun purchasers also asks them to certify that all answers they give are "true, correct, and complete." And that he is basically saying they should ignore that language even when their lie is a pretty clear-cut one.

Good plan, Scalia. Too bad you lost this one?

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/13pdf/12-1493_k5g1.pdf

The fact that there were any dissenting arguments on this is insane! Who in their right mind thinks it is acceptable to lie on the forms to get guns?

 

[DJ_KiDDvIcIOUs]

100 People Watch as Man Kills Ex-Wife, New Boyfriend at School Reunion

On Saturday, Jason Moore walked into Fifth Quarter Sports Bar and Pizzeria in East Peoria, Ill., pulled out a gun, and shot his ex-wife and her new boyfriend in the head. Lori Moore and Lance Griffel (above) were there for Moore's 15-year high school reunion, and at least 100 fellow attendees witnessed the killings.

The Peoria Journal Star reports that an off-duty FBI agent shot and killed Jason Moore after the shooting.

East Peoria Police Chief Ganschow praised the officer's bravery:

It's very difficult to say. You can play the 'what if' game over and over again, but I think it's pretty clear in his case the presence of this officer and his ability to take very quick and very decisive action prevented a further tragedy.

According to court records, the Moores were divorced in 2013.

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2014/06/...d-as-100-people-watch-at-high-school-reunion/

Notice how the hero here was an off duty officer and has been trained to act in these types of situations. Horrible tragedy that this man killed these two but kudos to the officer from preventing any further violence. I doubt the man would have shot anyone else but assuming somebody that wasn't trained tried to be a hero it could have been much worse

 

[dnno1]

While I don't believe that you need to own or operate a gun to comment on them, you really really should have SOME working knowledge of a firearm. There was the politician who made waves discussing how gun "clips" become unable to be used again after someone has fired the rounds that are in them (she said they had to be discarded) is a perfect example. She was apparently a major supporter of a high capacity magazine ban and said this during a discussion about gun control, no less.

Here is an article about that comment:
http://www.denverpost.com/politics/...criticism-pretty-stupid-ammo-magazine-comment

And a cut and paste from the article (but not the entire article)
WASHINGTON — Democratic Rep. Diana DeGette drew national criticism Wednesday for remarks made at a public forum in which she said banning high-capacity in ammunition magazines would be effective in reducing gun violence because "the bullets will have been shot and there won't be any more available."

For years in Congress, DeGette has been the prime sponsor on a federal ban on high-capacity magazines.

But despite the congresswoman's claim, ammunition magazines can be reloaded with more bullets and can be reused hundreds of times.

"These are ammunition, they're bullets, so the people who have those now, they're going to shoot them, so if you ban them in the future, the number of these high-capacity magazines is going to decrease dramatically over time because the bullets will have been shot and there won't be any more available," she said at Tuesday's forum, hosted by The Denver Post's editorial board.

DeGette spokeswoman Juliet Johnson on Wednesday said the senior congresswoman from Denver "misspoke" and then issued another erroneous statement about guns.

"The congresswoman has been working on a high-capacity assault magazine ban for years and has been deeply involved in the issue; she simply misspoke in referring to 'magazines' when she should have referred to 'clips,' which cannot be reused because they don't have a feeding mechanism," Johnson said.

Actually, clips in most guns can be reused as well.

Immediately after DeGette's Tuesday remark, the audience in The Post building chuckled and Larimer County Sheriff Justin Smith, who was also on the panel, urged people who have not shot a gun to "get to the facts. ... Let's be educated as we make this decision."

The National Rifle Association issued a simple statement: "Two words: Pretty stupid."

The Colorado GOP called DeGette's statements "extremely alarming" because, the group said, she is running a piece of federal legislation that she apparently doesn't know anything about.

So, yes, in cases like this, the individual discussing their stance on a form of gun control and a method to make that happen should at least have the facts about how a gun magazine operates.

Nancy Grace looked foolish on her own show once as well, when discussing the firearm used in the Trayvon Martin incident. It was a Kel-Tec PF9. She asked some member of her panel that day about the manual safety on the PF9. He responded that the only safety on that firearm was keeping your finger off the trigger (my paraphrased version) and she responded by admonishing him for trying to trick her. I have this firearm and there is NO external manual safety on this firearm. She was wrong, but claimed that she KNEW there was some manual external safety that Zimmerman must have turned off or something.

Again, she clearly does not know enough about the firearm to have that discussion.

Here is the video:
[YT]hdrrHvN5wMQ[/YT]

The point of limiting the number of bullets in a clip is to force the shooter to reload, giving the opposition a chance to stop the attack (presuming that it is). Even if it is for a few seconds it may be enough. It is just unfortunate that it came out of the legislators mouth the wrong way. I think commom ssnse would tell you that anyway.

 

[Webfoot Hero]

The point of limiting the number of bullets in a clip is to force the shooter to reload, giving the opposition a chance to stop the attack (presuming that it is). Even if it is for a few seconds it may be enough. It is just unfortunate that it came out of the legislators mouth the wrong way. I think commom ssnse would tell you that anyway.

Or she was a complete moron who was trying to discuss a topic she had no knowledge on.

 

[mrvlknight21]

The point of limiting the number of bullets in a clip is to force the shooter to reload, giving the opposition a chance to stop the attack (presuming that it is). Even if it is for a few seconds it may be enough. It is just unfortunate that it came out of the legislators mouth the wrong way. I think commom ssnse would tell you that anyway.

It is pretty clear that she has no clue, here is the video of what she said and how she explains it. It is also pretty clear to me that she did not misspeak. She just does not understand how guns, magazines, and ammunition work.

[YT]Mxtu228bYFw[/YT]