The Attack on the 2nd Amendment Continues

In short the reasoning I hear is that statistically speaking it is extremely unlikely they will ever put in a position to need to carry

Not directed at your post specifically, but in general:

Statistically speaking, it is extremely unlikely that an "assault" weapon will be used to commit a crime.
Statistically speaking, it is COMPLETELY unlikely that criminals will abide by weapons or magazine capacity bans

They say "if it saves one kid..."

I say "but what if I COULD have saved one kid, but wasn't allowed to?"
 
I've been tempted to ask uniformed officers I've seen over the past month how they feel about citizens carrying concealed, or even open carry in states that allow it. I haven't done it, but I'd be willing to bet it would be pretty much unanimous in favor of.
The sheriff in my county and the one next to it really support people getting their CCWs.
 
My point exactly. If they remove my ability to keep a distance and use a gun then I want to use booby traps and anti-personnel devices that might actually cause possible intruders to pause. A career and/or determined thief isn't going to be afraid of an alarm and I can be injured or killed in my house a LOT quicker than the police can respond.

Would hate to have a fire or medical emergency at your house, to which you're unable to get to the door, and the responding fire/rescue units need to make forced entry and end up hitting your installed claymore mines.
 
Is there a validity to the argument that laws don't prevent crime, only punish them? That makes sense to me but I'm wondering if some of our higher thinkers would comment. jtrain609, darrenf come to mind.

General sense is that if you have laws against murder, that doesn't prevent murder, it just punishes it. Make all the laws you want to outlaw "assault" rifles, the wrong kind of people will possess them anyhow.
 
Well I can say firsthand that Obama is doing a great thing for the gun industry. I just called 11 gun stores in a 50mi range from me and they are all completely sold out of the gun I'm looking for. One shop had 40 of them in stock a few days ago and now they're all gone.
 
Just think what if the Feds go the route NY state has gone. Make the possession of any of those guns illegal. Now you have to turn in your gun you just bought.
 
Is there a validity to the argument that laws don't prevent crime, only punish them? That makes sense to me but I'm wondering if some of our higher thinkers would comment. jtrain609, darrenf come to mind.

General sense is that if you have laws against murder, that doesn't prevent murder, it just punishes it. Make all the laws you want to outlaw "assault" rifles, the wrong kind of people will possess them anyhow.

There are various theories of punishment in the United States, though I don't believe there is an ideologically pure application of said theories when it comes to the nuts and bolts of incarceration. In other words, laws exist for a myriad of reasons, based in both policy and ethics, but as with most things in this country, so many people have their hands in it, you aren't able to say "We do X because of Y reason." It's more like we do X because of A-Z reasons.
 
That makes sense to me but I'm wondering if some of our higher thinkers would comment. jtrain609, darrenf come to mind.

stop-im-gonna-pee-pinned-by-lisa-ma.jpg
 
Just think what if the Feds go the route NY state has gone. Make the possession of any of those guns illegal. Now you have to turn in your gun you just bought.
Wait what? I just shot one in upstate NY about 2 months ago, fresh from Illy. Are you talking about the city of NY?
 
There are various theories of punishment in the United States, though I don't believe there is an ideologically pure application of said theories when it comes to the nuts and bolts of incarceration. In other words, laws exist for a myriad of reasons, based in both policy and ethics, but as with most things in this country, so many people have their hands in it, you aren't able to say "We do X because of Y reason." It's more like we do X because of A-Z reasons.
That's a great answer to a question, just not mine. I apologize I may have asked that poorly. This isn't my field of study, honestly if you ever have any Batman questions I'm all over it.

Simply put, laws are created in the USA because we've found something to be wrong or offensive as a society and the law passed (created) is meant to punish that offense?
 
There are 300+ Million guns in the US. If we suddenly ban any type of gun, what about the rest that are out there? When another shooting occurs, what then?
 
Wait what? I just shot one in upstate NY about 2 months ago, fresh from Illy. Are you talking about the city of NY?
The state has said all magazines over 7 rounds are illegal and must be turned in, it was just posturing on my part if they made the AWB retroactive.
 
There are 300+ Million guns in the US. If we suddenly ban any type of gun, what about the rest that are out there? When another shooting occurs, what then?
Naturally we will simply put the toothpaste back in the tube. Why, does that sound tough to do?
 
There are 300+ Million guns in the US. If we suddenly ban any type of gun, what about the rest that are out there? When another shooting occurs, what then?
I don't think it's a stretch to say that making something easier to do isn't really the line of thinking we want to pursue. There is probably some validity to saying that if all guns were magically gone, crime would go down significantly.

I don't necessarily support a defacto gun ban but can listen to the arguments rationally.

It's certainly "easier" to reload and fire away with a 30 round magazine than a pump shotgun. Same effect though could be had with a large caliber pistol. I dunno there is no one answer.
 
The state has said all magazines over 7 rounds are illegal and must be turned in, it was just posturing on my part if they made the AWB retroactive.
Ah, got ya. I can tell you this much they sure as hell aren't going house by house to get those clips nor is any effort being put into "grabbing them".


Massachusetts still has the AWB (put into effect after the federal ban died a quiet death), and we all had them, pre-ban of course. Also if you simply drop the flash suppressor on any of them or any combo of the requirements (like a pistol grip) you were gtg. So it would have to be some sort of giant new and shiny AWB.

I wonder if the egg heads thinking this stuff over know that any glock can be made automatic by changing one part over. Apparently some guns that I may or might not own can or cannot be made automatic by filing down a certain piece... or so I've heard. I have no desire for that but it's fun information that is widely available to everyone online and in magazines.
 
That's a great answer to a question, just not mine. I apologize I may have asked that poorly. This isn't my field of study, honestly if you ever have any Batman questions I'm all over it.

Simply put, laws are created in the USA because we've found something to be wrong or offensive as a society and the law passed (created) is meant to punish that offense?

That CAN be a reason, but it isn't always. Honestly it depends on the individual law, but more importantly, it likely depends on the area of law.

Where what you're saying can be true in criminal law, it isn't likely true with tax policy. Tax policy is just that; policy. It incentives people to make certain decisions in some ways, but also it's there to pay for our government broadly.

Is criminal law ALWAYS the same way? I'm not exactly sure. Some criminal law is old as dirt (murder, for example), while other parts of the criminal are retrospective and made recently, in that a heinous event is committed, we realize there is no law to punish that person, and then we create law after the fact.

So how about this: I always thought, and most pilots think, that the law is "THE LAW." It's black letter, bright line, binary, yes/no, good/bad, but that couldn't be further from the truth. There are many reasons, and many ways that we get to where we are in the ways that we chose to govern ourselves, and almost all rules have exceptions. Almost nothing about the law is, "It is this way because of X." There are almost always two answers, and in may situations more than two answers.

We get there because we have competing interests, and competing ideas for what self governance should look like in our society because very thankfully we ARE NOT all the same. There are those that think that if you steal you should be shot on the spot, and others that believe thieves should be rehabilitated. There are those that think metal illness is a cop out when it comes to sentencing, and there are those who think that non-mentally ill people simply don't commit crimes. Because of these drastically varying views, there are many legitimate answers to lots of tough questions.

Most importantly, there's no way to make things simple. It is impossible to make complex things simple, but that doesn't mean that you can't still eat the elephant one bite at a time.
 
Back
Top