Would you live in a state that denied your RKBA?

[RSillsbee]

I live in Colorado where we have semi- reasonable gun laws (I’d be totally happy if we got Constitutional carry and if state preemption applied to Denver.) No waiting periods, open carry is legal concealed Carry is “shall issue”. State law specifically forbids registration. All in all not bad.

My question is, would you consider residing in a state that denied your right to keep and bear arms?

What would be the deal breaker? No CCW? FOID Card? Registration (of any kind) ? Waiting periods?

Personally I wouldn't live anywhere (Well to be fair I wouldn't live anywhere but here anyway) w/ stricter laws than Colorado has

[Common Sense Party]

1. No. Why would I?

Would you live in a state that denied your freedom of assembly?

[Starboard Tack]

117. So, if UK or Canadian type laws were enacted, what would you do?

Leave?

[RSillsbee]

130. Join the revolution NT

[Common Sense Party]

139. Work to change the laws back. But not give up my right to self-defense.

That's not going to happen here, though, no matter how much some may dream.

[Starboard Tack]

149. Do you believe Canadians and Brits have given up their right to self-defense?

Their right to self-defense is based in Common Law and case law. An individual can use reasonable force to defend his/her life, the lives of those in his/her charge and in defense of property.

You don't need handguns to accomplish this.

[gejohnston]

154. depends

but if you are unable to use enough force to overcome their overwhelming force, then the right only exists in theory. Handguns, pepper spray etc are all illegal to carry and some cases posses.
In the UK, the guy in the wheelchair has a right in theory, but does not for all practical purposes because the most effective means to do so is illegal.

[Starboard Tack]

163. Do you think that toting a gun changes the "in theory" part?

It only ups the ante that, at least one of you, is likely to be shot. And attackers usually shoot first, so I'd say the odds are not in your favor.

[rrneck]

170. And your plan for tilting the odds in favor of the defender is...? nt

[gejohnston]

217. the attacker could very well have one anyway

even when Canadian and UK gun laws were nonexistent, their use in crime was as rare or common as now.
To answer your question, yes. Does not only have to apply to pistols. Nonlethal weapons such as pepper spray is also illegal in Canada and UK. The same is true in DC. Since criminal use of pepper spray or tear gas is rare, I can't help be skeptical about gun control being solely being about crime control.

[PavePusher]

283. You'll need some evidence to back up both of those statements... n/t

[Common Sense Party]

156. I'm not giving up my handgun. I'm not relinquishing my constitutional

right to defend my family and myself as I deem prudent, appropriate and necessary.

If the Brits and Canadians have done that, too bad so sad for them, but I guess that was their choice.

[Starboard Tack]

164. That's how a democracy works.

You elect people who enact laws. So, you are saying that you would break the law to keep toting a handgun, even though it were deemed not to be a Constitutional right?
The UK and Canada are very happy not to share the same levels of handgun violence "enjoyed" in the US. Levels which some toters claim are statistically negligible.

[rrneck]

172. Democracy works

when government is responsive to the will of the people. That responsibility is manifest in the form of, among other things, the protection of life and property in the furtherance of life, liberty, and the persuit of happiness. Denying citizens an effective means of self defense without a viable alternative is hardly democratic.

Whattya got for an alternative there Mr. Jefferson?

[RSillsbee]

179. Good thing we live in a Republic

Democracy is the most vile form of government... democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention: have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property: and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths.

James Madison

[iverglas]

193. oh, that's one of my very favourite memes

It's not in great favour at this website outside of the odd forum or two, but it's well loved at a place with that Republic word in its name.

Can anybody ever, ever, ever quote someone who hasn't been dead for two centuries? Who might therefore have something, oh, relevant to say about modern life?

[RSillsbee]

200. Here in America many people feel that the writings of our founders

are quite relevant to modern life

[Common Sense Party]

182. It's not EVER going to be deemed "unconstitutional" to own a handgun

in this country, and definitely not where I live.

If some nanny-state ninnies ever pass a stupid and UNCONSTITUTIONAL law that purports to take away my right to defend myself, then of course I will disobey that law. Why should I obey unjust and immoral laws?

[iverglas]

226. what's wrong with you?

The poster said this:

So, you are saying that you would break the law to keep toting a handgun, even though it were deemed not to be a Constitutional right?

To which you replied:

It's not EVER going to be deemed "unconstitutional" to own a handgun

If you don't see the problem now, I don't know, maybe if you held it up to a mirror ...

I think it's been deemed not to be a constitutional right to possess child pornography.

I don't think it's ever been deemed "unconstitutional" to possess child pornography.

Do you really want me to explain why?

Because "unconstitutional" describes things that public bodies do.

So unless it were deemed "unconstitutional" for a public body to own a handgun ... well, you see where that's going, right?

How come you have to pretend that somebody said something they didn't say?

Was it that hard to just answer the question?

Apparently.

[rl6214]

240. Why do YOU always have to jump in and interpret what people

"really" mean?

Seems to me I saw someone make a comment once on sticking their nose into a conversation where it didn't belong. Now who could that have been?

[HALO141]

250. This is not a democracy.

This is a constitutional republic.


Just sayin.

[gejohnston]

282. their laws have nothing to do with the level of violence

Canadians have had stricter laws on handguns since 1934, but not on machine guns until 1977 other than registration.
UK rarely used guns even before the 1920s. Today, UK has more handguns being used than before, but still less than ours. However they have more machine gun use than we do.

[PavePusher]

284. The phrase "Civil Disobedience" is what you are looking for....

It has worked well, if slowly, for numerous causes.

[iverglas]

192. they can believe there are faeries at the bottom of their gardens ;)

Do you believe Canadians and Brits have given up their right to self-defense?

Wouldn't affect the fact that in Canada I am entitled to raise self-defence against any charge involving the use of force against another person.

There is no such animal as a "right to self-defence", of course ... but my right not to be convicted of an offence for using force in self-defence is quite intact. ;)

[HALO141]

249. Carry anyway. n/t

[Scout]

257. there's a good "law-abiding" gun owner for ya! n/t

[Hangingon]

2. No

A state that denied RKBA would likely have other problem too.

[RSillsbee]

3. Ok but what would the deal breaker be?

You can't open carry in Texas

[Hangingon]

34. OC missed this session because it was filed late.

It will be refiled next session. I would say, I could live without OC, but the style of summer manly dress here is fishing shorts/fishing shirt or golf shorts/golf shirt. Sort of hard to carry a weapon concealed. We did fix the error in concealed carry to allow carry on boats. Big deal especially if you fish Falcon dam. Basically, our gun laws are pretty good.

[ileus]

4. I already live in a no Castle Doctrine, no Stand your ground state, can it get worse?

I suppose my answer is yes, because I do.

[GeorgeGist]

5. Only if I was a member ...

of a well-organized militia.

[madinmaryland]

6. Yes. If it denied me the right to own rocket launchers and surface to air missiles. nt

[gejohnston]

8. If you have that kind of disposable income

you are kind of above the law anyway.

[SteveM]

36. "...charges of 'gimmickiness' are aimed at both Benton and Dali..."

[gejohnston]

7. Deal breaker would be New Jersey or New York

But then, there are a lot of reasons not to live there. Florida has a waiting period and no open carry.

[DWC]

9. That could be any State

and would be if the gun control fanatics had their way.

Thanks to the 2nd amendment, 80,000,000 gun owners, pro-gun organizations, and common sense; RKBA is not in jeopardy anywhere in the USA.

Semper Fi,

[Name removed]

13. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[rl6214]

18. He didn't say "gun control nuts" he said fanatics

Would gun control zealot be better?

[Trajan]

10. Yes

[Starboard Tack]

11. Yes. Would love it. And have.

But I've lived in lots of states and countries. Doesn't really bother me either way, but would certainly be preferable, especially if the B part were removed. RKA is fine.

[oneshooter]

15. You seem to want to eliminate the "keep arms" part also.

Starboard Tack (1000+ posts) Wed Aug-24-11 01:37 AM
Response to Reply #115
116. Solution is eradicate all handguns and reinstate AWB with very stiff penalties.
Let's hear your option, Mr. Status Quo

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=118x451804

Oneshooter
Armed and Livin in Texas

[Starboard Tack]

20. I have no issue with keeping a shotgun or hunting rifle Mr Oneshooter

Used for the purpose of hunting, target shooting or keeping at home.

[oneshooter]

22. The so called "assault rifles" in the 94 ban are the most populer target

and competition rifles today. You would deny these rifles to target shooters?

Oneshooter
Armed and Livin in Texas

[Starboard Tack]

24. Absolutely. WTF does popularity have to do with anything?

I love target shooting, but I love public safety even more.

[oneshooter]

25. How would you pay for them? n/t

[Starboard Tack]

26. Pay for what? What am I buying?

[hack89]

31. You think you can just pass a law and seize all those rifles?

good thing there is no gun registration - unless the government pays full market value my gun is going under the floorboards. When asked I will say "I lost it.".

[Starboard Tack]

50. Do you think that's how it works? Cops going round collecting guns? LOL

The way it worked in the UK was there would be amnesty periods, during which anyone could turn in a firearm, no questions asked. Those who decided to keep them were not pursued by roving teams of gun grabbers. But if you were caught carrying one outside your home, or ammo, you'd get a mandatory 5 years. A good deterrent.

[Hoopla Phil]

66. It happened in California and Louisiana.

[Starboard Tack]

79. When was that?

[X_Digger]

88. NOLA during Katrina

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-7794527529226066500

Jump ahead to 1:15.

[Starboard Tack]

95. That was a disaster/emergency situation.

I had the good fortune to get out a few hours before Katrina hit. My wife and some friends were not as fortunate. Believe me, the disarming was a good idea. Ask my wife who worked for nine days and nights saving lives. Without the NG, it would have been a blood bath.

[X_Digger]

103. I took in a friend from just north of the ninth ward

She was a tour guide for one of those 'Ghosts of New Orleans' tours. She was mugged, roughed up, and had her belongings scattered in the street *after* being disarmed by the PD the day before. Luckily her daughter was inside the house getting the last of her things to put in the car.

They stayed with us for about five months before we helped them move to Atlanta. Her daughter is going to Spelman on an academic scholarship, last I heard.

NOLA PD still claims they never had her handgun- an S&W that her grandfather used as a cop.

[Hoopla Phil]

109. Right, just when people needed their guns for protection the state illegally took them

and left people defenseless. Don't remember when in California, but a quick search brings up lots of stories about it.
http://search.yahoo.com/search?p=california+confiscates+guns&ei=UTF-8&fr=moz2

[Starboard Tack]

115. What did they need assault weapons for in CA in 1999, or ever?

Nobody needs them for target shooting, or hunting or self defense.

[Glassunion]

118. I hunt with mine... But thank goodness "need" plays zero part in civil rights.

[Starboard Tack]

120. Hoopla said they needed them. The question was directed at him.

Apparently, and ironically, guns for hunting is not a civil right. Kinda crazy, if you ask me, as it is the most rational use.

[Glassunion]

121. True... but if I may answer your question...

"What did they need assault weapons for in CA in 1999, or ever?"

Specifically in CA, I would say during the riots the need arose.

[Starboard Tack]

122. I disagree. I was there. Worst option ever.

A few Korean merchants used them against the views of many in their own community. It was inflammatory. They only used them to protect their business interests. Not their lives. I didn't blame them at the time and still don't. It was a very volatile time and the LAPD were a disgrace, but it was a bad idea. They could've accomplished the same with shotguns. The NG really saved Los Angeles, IMO, not armed civilians.

[Hoopla Phil]

127. You are wrong. The only businesses (the ones where people lived in the upper story)

to survive, where the ones protected with the use of firearms. You imply that "stuff" is not worth shooting over yet offer no guarantee that had they fled there would be no pursuit. Also, these were their homes as well as their business.

[Hoopla Phil]

125. A semi auto rifle is the most affective means of defense when dealing with

rooming bands of looter, muggers, rioters. The kind roaming the streets post Katrina. They did in fact NEED firearms for their protection and the cops took ALL of them. Perhaps you missed the video of the elderly woman being tackled by a New Orleans police officer because she had a revolver in her home.

[Starboard Tack]

150. First of all. The cops did not take all of them. I have friends who were there and were armed.

How about a bazooka and some RPGs, maybe a suitcase nuke. Anyone who stayed in New Orleans for Katrina who was not a first responder, or needed in some other capacity was either a fool, or had no means to leave. Nobody should have been thinking about guns, just leaving.

[Hoopla Phil]

157. So you did miss that video of the old woman being tackled by the police

to take away here revolver. Never said that the police took all of them. Said that the police did confiscate arms from law abiding citizens. Nice move of the goal posts there in an effort to dodge my point.

Who is talking about bazookas, RPGs, or suitcase nukes? You seem to be injecting hyperbole to deflect from being wrong on the issues at hand. A) that guns HAVE in fact been confiscated by the police in America and B) that a semi-automatic rifle is a very affective means of self defense against roaming bands of looters.

With regard to anyone staying in New Orleans for Katrina: If they choose to it's none of my, or YOUR business. If they wanted to leave and could not I direct your attention to all the busses left to get flooded that could have been used for evacuation purposes.

Anyone that wanted to stay and did should have a complete "survival" package prepared. Food, water, and YES firearms in order to protect/keep what you've prepared with.

[Starboard Tack]

165. I guess you weren't there. There was a MANDATORY evacuation order in effect.

That's why I and most other folk left. Anyone who chose to stay, did so at their own peril. Regarding the buses, you are correct. Many mistakes were made and I make no excuses for the powers that were. But everyone knew it was coming 3 days beforehand and that's plenty time to walk out, if need be. There were many reasons why some folk stayed, old age and infirmity being one, and I feel for those people the most. But many stayed to loot and many stayed to protect their shit from looters and that is an explosive mix. Not an easy task for local LE to deal with, many of whom went AWOL anyway, and others went rogue. Bottom line, I have no sympathy for anyone who stayed voluntarily, unless they were part of the rescue effort and I have friends who took that risk to protect their property and the property of others like us. I admire their courage and tenacity, but not their foolishness.

[Hoopla Phil]

174. Oh this one is a choice post, I may have to go line by line. . .

There was a MANDATORY evacuation order in effect.

Isn't in interesting how you've steered the conversation away from semiautomatic rifles into evacuation orders. Very telling that you don't want to stay on topic. You probably do not understand that mandatory evacuations have no force of law right? What ever happened to the liberal idea of taking responsibility for yourself. Yo seem to be of the mind that it is governments responsibility to tell people where to go, when to go, and what to do. I do not subscribe to that idea.



"Anyone who chose to stay, did so at their own peril."

That is exactly right. And it is no ones business if a person choses to stay. I believe in freedom of choice, some don't I guess. Those that do stay often understand their "peril" and take precautions. One of those being self protection. A semi-auto carbine is very good for such a situation.



"But everyone knew it was coming 3 days beforehand and that's plenty time to walk out, if need be."

You seriously expect people to walk the 60-90 miles in 3 days?! Are you even thinking about what you wrote there. Tough enough for a person of good health/fitness with proper gear, food, and water much less for children or elderly.



"But many stayed to loot and many stayed to protect their shit from looters and that is an explosive mix. Not an easy task for local LE to deal with, many of whom went AWOL anyway, and others went rogue."

Those that stayed to "protect their shit" have every right to do so. A semi-automatic carbine would be just fine for that situation. Not sure what you mean by "Not an easy task for local LE to deal with" though. Does this mean you support their illegal gun confiscation, or are you referring to the arrest of the criminal looters? Regarding the LE that went "rogue", what would be your suggestion in dealing with such?



I have no sympathy for anyone who stayed voluntarily, unless they were part of the rescue effort and I have friends who took that risk to protect their property and the property of others like us.

I don't think they care for you sympathy one way or another. They just want to keep the most affective tools needed to them and theirs. Now this confuses me "unless they were part of the rescue effort and I have friends who took that risk to protect their property and the property of others". What does this mean? People stayed to protect your property but you would not, yet you criticize those that stayed to protect their own property??? Very strange.

My bottom line: People that stayed to protect their property I wish the best for. I will not deny them their right to do so, nor the best tools for that job. I don't understand how other would.

[MyrnaLoy]

160. Starboard

that whole Katrina gun grabbing this has been so debunked, you're wasting your time with these guys. All they have is a video of an elderly woman arguing with police. All the police wanted was to protect themselves from a distraught woman. NOT ONE of the members of this forum can produce a REAL case where a person had a gun confiscated.

No court cases, no witnesses, no nothing. It's an NRA wet dream. Sure the police department secured loose guns in residents that were abandoned but not one police officer STORMED a house and demanded weapons. There is one poster in this forum who claims he knows a woman but the story doesn't hold water. Ask him to produce her name and court case to get the gun back. While your at it ask him where Elvis lives. He'll give you a name but tell you the women didn't file a form to get the weapon back. How convenient. Make up a name, have her call you, and say, "MY GUN WAS TAKEN!" Yeah, OK Elvis. Show me the public record court case of any confiscated weapon.

NOLA PD picked up about 500 unsecured weapons, that's all, no storm troopers, no beatings. Well, one distraught elderly lady being disarmed. If you were a police officer would you allow someone waving a gun around you in a high pressure situation? NRA circle jerk, nothing more.

It's forum crazy talk, something to slobber over.

[Starboard Tack]

166. Thanks. I figured they were just throwing bones.

[Hoopla Phil]

176. Um yeah, check out these "bones".

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=452869&mesg_id=454828

[Hoopla Phil]

175. OMG how can you be so detached from reality???!!!

http://www.democraticunderground.com/searchresults.html?q=nra+wins+lawsuit+against+new+orleans&sitesearch=democraticunderground.com&sa=Search&domains=democraticunderground.com&client=pub-7805397860504090&forid=1&ie=ISO-8859-1&oe=ISO-8859-1&cof=GALT%3A%23008000%3BGL%3A1%3BDIV%3A%23336699%3BVLC%3A663399%3BAH%3Acenter%3BBGC%3AFFFFFF%3BLBGC%3A336699%3BALC%3A0000FF%3BLC%3A0000FF%3BT%3A000000%3BGFNT%3A0000FF%3BGIMP%3A0000FF%3BFORID%3A11&hl=en

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x4877623

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x2461102

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=118x187662

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x1180907

http://search.yahoo.com/search?p=lawsuit+against+new+orleans+over+guns&ei=UTF-8&fr=moz2

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,318478,00.html

After Years of Stonewalling, New Orleans Mayor Admits Illegal Gun Confiscation, Settles with NRA
http://www.nraila.org/News/Read/NewsReleases.aspx?id=11653

And here is the video of the elderly woman being tackled to get her revolver.
http://www.prisonplanet.com/Pages/Sept05/100905policevid.htm

Of course there are no cases, lawsuits, admissions from the New Orleans Mayer (on camera no less). It's just "forum crazy talk".

Do I really need the sarcasm thingy?

[MyrnaLoy]

185. Well

the NRA has no names of people who had guns confiscated do they? Come on man 500 guns confiscated, give me 10 names, if the NRA had them they would be making fucking posters. There's your reality.

[Hoopla Phil]

187. My what a wonderful vocabulary you have. The mayors admission was not good enough for you?

Or did you not bother to watch the video. How about the court cases you said did not exist, did you check out those links? Here's ANOTHER article about it where guns are being RETURNED to people following the NRA lawsuit.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,192347,00.html

Just another article you wont read and says doesn't exist. "It's forum crazy talk" as you purport, never happened.

The guns were taken, the facts are well established. There have been numerous articles about it. The mayor has admitted it in writing and on video. You want ten names so bad go look it up, I've presented PLENTY of reference material that proves it happened. Your assertion that "It's forum crazy talk" is. . . how did you say? Oh yeah, "debunked".

[MyrnaLoy]

188. tell ya what

you or the NRA give me 10 names on that "lawsuit". Can you do that? 10 names of people who sued to get their "confiscated" gun back. Come on man, the records are public, find me 10 names.

[Hoopla Phil]

189. I've done much better. Video of the Mayor of New Orleans ADMITTING it.

In fact I already have. You've been debunked. Get over it.

[MyrnaLoy]

190. So you have 10 names?

Lets see them.

[Hoopla Phil]

191. I have the mayor on video admitting it. If you want the 10 names so bad

go to the court house and pay the fee to get it. I've provided all the evidence needed to show that it happened. You claimed there were "No court cases, no witnesses, no nothing." I've provided you with much more than that. There is video of an elderly woman being tackled and her revolver being confiscated, there is video of the Mayor of New Orleans admitting it (also in writing in the court records), there are the court cases in Federal district court. And the witness list the NRA claimed to have with apx 300 names of people that had guns confiscated.

After that you asked for a list of names that is only available on the court transcript, something that requires money to get. You moved the goal posts and ignored the facts that debunked ALL your claims. You want that list sooooooo bad. Plunk down your own money.

You've lost this one BIG time, the evidence is there, you only have to have the courage to read, watch, listen, and hopefully learn.

[MyrnaLoy]

198. I've lost?

give me 10 names, the records are public and free. Come on, give me 10. Give me 5. All this was was fake NRA outrage, they can't even produce a claimant. Don't you think if the NRA HAD ONE NAME they would plaster it all over fundraisers. You KNOW THEY DON"T HAVE ONE NAME. If you're a member ask them who the claimants were.

Lost? Nope, I already know there are no claimants. You learn in 1st year law school to know the answers before you ask them. I already knew the answer when I asked. It's a shame you're so blind.

[Hoopla Phil]

221. Yep, you've lost this one.

If you want 10 names go here:
http://www.laed.uscourts.gov/default.htm

There fee schedule says that "Reproduction of recording of proceedings, regardless of the medium" is $26.00.

First you said there was no case. You were proven wrong on that. Then you said there were no witness, you were wrong on that too.

After being proven wrong in your assertions, and showing you video of The Mayor admitting it and Verdi of an elderly woman having her revolver confiscated, you then ask for information that can only be obtained by paying a fee. LOL, cute, clever and argumentative.

Any rational, level headed, open minded, thinking person can see all this evidence and understand that New Orleans confiscated firearms illegally.

So with all the evidence before you do you really deny that New Orleans confiscated firearms from people?

This will be my last post to you on the issue. If you really need the names pay the $26.00 and get the info yourself. I, and any rational, level headed, open minded, thinking person don't need the names with all the other evidence at hand.

[Name removed]

230. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[petronius]

231. "I never said there wasn't a case"

"No court cases"

The city acknowledged to the court that it and other agencies took possession of 500+ firearms without legal authority, that's confiscation. Some of them were taken from residences of people who had fled (calling those "abandoned" is a whole 'nother ball of wax) and some from individuals.

The court at the time ordered the city to stop, and later ordered the city to aggressively attempt to return the firearms it had taken.

The names of specific individuals who lost guns are not generally available. You seem to think that harping on this makes a point, but you're wrong - the facts of the illegal confiscation and the court case condemning it are public record. There is no need for names, and the lack of them proves nothing. If you really want names, you are free to cull the news articles, or contact the court, the NRA or SAF, the city of New Orleans, or St. Tammany Parish on your own.

So yes, you have utterly lost this argument, and your claim that the confiscations were a fantasy has been exposed as 100% false.

(By the way, it's against the rules here to accuse another DUer of lying; your post will be deleted if anyone bothers to alert...)

[MyrnaLoy]

232. So you have

10 names of the people who were on the "lawsuit" filed by the NRA! Great!! Lets see the names. I want to feel your outrage! If guns were taken they must have gotten them back, lets see them, I've always wanted to know at least 10 of the 500. Come on, I'm so excited!

Do you remember saying 1000s? How wrong you were then. Well I'm glad I schooled you that there were around 500 guns picked up. No one had a gun ripped from their hands except a distraught elderly lady who may have posed a threat to the officers. HAHAHAHAHAH confiscated. I so can't wait for your 10 names, I've been waiting so long to meet these people.





You do realize I know there are no names right? No one was named on the court documents except a distraught screaming NRA. I knew that the day the case was filed. But you keep trying to find a REAL plaintiff, it's fun watching you scramble.

[friendly_iconoclast]

234. "Did you Know There Were No Terrorist Attacks in the U.S. During George W. Bush’s Presidency?"

Some more examples of the same sort of ahem, technique that you are using (albeit on a different subject) are discussed here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x1834630

And for those that might have missed some of Myrna's Greatest Hits:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=118&topic_id=390483

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=118&topic_id=393698

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=118&topic_id=387389

[petronius]

196. Boudreaux, Thibodeaux, Hebert, Theriot, Gautreaux, Arcenaux, LeBlanc,

Martin, Guidry, and Melancon.

Individuals didn't sue the city - the NRA and SAF did. And the city, mayor, NOPD, and court all agreed that illegal confiscations numbering in the hundreds to a 1000+ firearms did occur. There is no legitimate claim to the contrary, whether or not the individual gun owners are publicly identified, and you only embarrass yourself by clinging to your false statement. Do you have the integrity to admit your error, and correct your post? :shrug:

[Name removed]

197. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[petronius]

199. You're right, it could have been as few as 500 - I guess we can all agree on that

But what makes you think the names I gave you aren't among those who lost guns? I suppose it's possible that they aren't, but who knows? Tell you what, why don't you dig up a list of people who have contacted the city to reclaim firearms, or otherwise stated that they lost guns, and if the names I mentioned aren't included I'll happily acknowledge my mistake. ;)

You see, here's the real point: individuals never sued the city, and there will only be two names on the lawsuit (NRA and SAF). The NRA said it had a witness list, but since the city caved in before trial it may not ever have been made public. Any individual names will be scattered in news reports from that time. The more informative facts are that the city (mayor and PD) admitted the event happened, and the court accepted it - see the various links HP has given you, and use Google if you need more. Bottom line, the illegal confiscations are a matter of public record. (I'm sure that everyone else who has read this far in the thread got that from my first post and HP's comprehensive discussion, but I keep forgetting that you aren't quite as clever as the average bear...)

[MyrnaLoy]

201. aren't quite as clever as the average bear...?

You're the one hanging your hat on a case based in false outrage! I'm smart enough to know that even the one member of this forum who claims to know a lady who had her gun confiscated never tried to reclaim it. She had so much outrage over it being taken that she moved away and didn't claim it? Do some forum research man, it's all in here. Truth be told no one came to the police depart to reclaim "confiscated" guns!. I knew the answer to that one also.

You drank the Kool-Aid man, you bought the NRA hype, hell you chugged the Kool-Aid! The NRA didn't have any plaintiffs!! Yes Nagin admitted to ordering guns picked up, not thr "picked-up" the NRA convinced you of. They were securing found weapons!!! Jesus Christ you can't possibly not know this!!

The weapons the police department picked up were abandoned, do you want them left around for kids to find!! I can't believe I'm wasting my time trying to teach this stuff to you!! There is no way you are this dumb, it can't be possible!!! How many police officers walk by a weapon on the ground in any town and leave it? THAT'S NOT CONFISCATION!!!! Damn, the thickness in this place is overwhelming!

[petronius]

202. Perhaps the comparison is a bit unkind to the bears, but I thought you could use a boost

Still, after that gibberish about guns lying on the ground I'm afraid I have to revise - you're actually closer to a smarter-than-average capybara (but don't be hurt, they're some of my favorite animals and they really are very cute).

Now you may think I should have spent a bit of time addressing the subthread topic in this reply, but in truth, the topic is over. You've added nothing new except exclamation marks and ignorance, so I felt like the animal tangent was more interesting...

[MyrnaLoy]

203. yes

it is time you run along home. You couldn't find one bit of truth to support the bullshit claim. Next time research a little more.

[RSillsbee]

210. First line of the video

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-taU9d26wT4

Chief of NOPD states all weapons will be confiscated

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4L9WuUuEhGE

RT(clearly not affiliated w/ the NRA) Story about katrina gun grab

[MyrnaLoy]

212. Got

Any names yet?

[rrneck]

213. You're funny. ny

[rl6214]

241. "walk by a weapon on the ground in any town"

:rofl:

[gravity556]

173. Nowhere in the 2nd Amendment is there anything about hunting.

The only reason the anti-s haven't gone after the hunters yet is because they're a huge gullible voting block who believes "They just want them a-salt machine guns because they're so powerful, Not powerful enough to hunt deer with in the western states, mind you, but they're scary. Anything that shoots a military caliber should be nixed. 30'06, .303 British, 8mm Mauser .308, 45, 9mm, 30/40 Krag, all of those are just for killing people! (in case you're a little slow, pretty much every caliber used for hunting has been used or is based off of a caliber used in war time to kill people.) So the pro-criminal safety folks will wait until they get the sport whittled down, then go after those hunting guns (outfitted as sniper rifles with scopes any everything. granted, they way those old timer's shoot, saftest place to be is right in front of them..)

[oneshooter]

123. California 's "Assault Weapon " registry allowed SKS carbines to be owned.

In a letter dated November 24, 1997, Attorney General of California declared that SKS rifles with detachable magazines, unless the owners can prove they acquired the rifles prior to June 1, 1989, are illegal "and must be relinquished to a local police or sheriff's department."

When the Roberti-Roos Assault Weapons Control Act (AWCA) became law in January 1989, it included "SKS with detachable magazine." At that time, there were two distinct models-one with a fixed magazine (Type 56) and one with a detachable, AK-47 magazine (Type 84). President Bush banned importation of the Type 84 in 1990.
Until September 1997, Mr. Lungren's position had been that only the Type 84 was an "assault weapon." He allowed the sale of the aftermarket detachable magazines and of SKS rifles equipped with them. He also allowed the sale of the SKS Sporter, basically a Type 84 that, in compliance with the import restrictions imposed by President Bush, had its bayonet lug ground off and was fitted to a sporting stock rather than a military stock.

More here:http://www.afn.org/~govern/ramble/getguns.html

In short, previously legal, registered, SKS rifles were declared "illegal" by the AG. To posses them became a felony, and thousands of gun owners became instant felons.

Oneshooter
Armed and Livin in Texas

[Starboard Tack]

147. Well there should be an amnesty period to hand these guns in.

Buy back programs are also useful. Think of all the useful tools we could make with all that junk.

[Hoopla Phil]

158. An amnesty period for something that I have a right to own? No thank you.

They are very useful tools as they exist. I'll keep mine just as they are.

[Starboard Tack]

162. Well, if the law changed you wouldn't have that right anymore, would you?

Then you'd have a little cry and get over it. Look at the positive side. No more handguns.

[Hoopla Phil]

168. LOL, an unconstitutional law is not valid. SCOTUS has spoken on the issue

Perhaps you should go back and re-read the Heller decision. Maybe you will need a tissue while you do. LOL. And yes, I do have the right even though an unconstitutional law may violate that right. The law is wrong in that case.

"Look at the positive side. No more handguns." Was this a slip of truth here, or do you always advocate for the abolishment of all handguns?

[Starboard Tack]

177. It wouldn't be unconstitutional if the Constitution were amended.

Do I always advocate for the abolition of all handguns? No, but am leaning more and more towards it since participating in this forum. Honestly, I rarely thought about it before coming here. Now, you guys have educated me in terms of the proliferation and craziness afoot in the country. I used to think guns were toted only by extreme nutjobs. Now, it appears that "regular folk" are being seduced into this insanity.
So, extreme behavior, as usual, demands extreme remedies. Like when kids don't show responsibility, they lose their toys.

[Hoopla Phil]

183. You said change the law in your previous post. Now you say amend the Constitution.

You are free to try that. Of course I and those of like mind as me will fight you with every strength of our being. You use a lot of rhetoric and charged words in your response. Things like "craziness, nut jobs and seduced into insanity". Why is it that when the anti civil rights people are loosing the debate they turn to such rhetoric?

[Starboard Tack]

207. I don't see the B in RKBA as a civil right.

It needs to be clearly defined. 3 ways to do that. Keep bouncing off SCOTUS, which I think is a terrible idea. Tear it up and start again, which I think is a good idea, but lengthy and won't happen in my lifetime. Enact legislation banning handguns and other weapons deemed incompatible with a civilized society. UK style.

[rrneck]

208. Do you consider

recent events in London civilized society?

[Hoopla Phil]

223. I do.

"bouncing off SCOTUS" is the way things have been done in this country for a very long time, it is part of how the "rule of law" works. "Tear it up and start again" is absolutely the worst idea and as I said, I, and those of like mind as me, will fight you with every strength of our being on that.

Enacting "legislation banning handguns and other weapons deemed incompatible with a civilized society" is a bit vague so I'll just leave with asking you to re-read (you have read it right?) the Heller decision. In a nut shell, it ain't gonna pass SCOTUS muster.

[Starboard Tack]

237. We can disagree on this all day. I think, ultimately, sanity will prevail.

[rrneck]

239. Of course it will.

It already has. It is as sane as we can make it until somebody comes up with a better solutions than the one we have.

Expecting others to risk their lives on an emotional hunch is insane.

[rl6214]

243. Sanity?

40/50 states have some sort of concealed carry.

Sanity has prevailed.

[Starboard Tack]

258. Wrong again! Insanity runs amok.

[rl6214]

242. "I don't see the B in RKBA as a civil right."

A whole lotta people with Judge, Senator and Representative in front of their names disagree with you.

[Starboard Tack]

253. Maybe, but it doesn't make them right.

And even if one accepts it as a right, the concealed part certainly isn't a civil right.

[rrneck]

255. Why? nt

[Starboard Tack]

148. Well there should be an amnesty period to hand these guns in.

Buy back programs are also useful. Think of all the useful tools we could make with all that junk.

[We_Have_A_Problem]

278. Yeah that'll happen....

Hm..an amnesty period for law abiding citizens to voluntarily give up their property without compensation and render themselves defenseless against anyone who wishes to do them harm. I'm betting that has about zero chance of being even remotely effective.

"Buy back" programs? Really? Who is buying them back? The previous owner? Remember, the government never owned them in the first place - it cannot buy them back by definition.

As far as useful tools, it seems to be they are already useful tools. Why would you want to destroy something which is functioning properly and has a lifespan of easily a century or more with proper care to turn it into something else?

[Hoopla Phil]

124. First, this proves your "LOL" comment about confiscation in the US wrong.

It HAS happened, that is why we (pro 2A folks) fight against registration schemes.

Second, the 2A says nothing about a qualified "need". Heller made it VERY clear that the 2A protects those weapons that may/would be needed should the unorganized militia ever be called upon. You may not like it, you may want to ignore it, but you cannot. The 2A IS in fact part of the constitution and cannot simply be wished away.

[Starboard Tack]

145. Not wished away, correct. Eventually voted away and sensibly rewritten.

[Hoopla Phil]

159. It was corrected with the Heller decision. If you are suggesting an effort to repeal

the 2A, then I will fight you with every conviction of my being. Since the 80's or so, me and mine are winning and correcting the revisionism of the 2A that started in the 30's.

[gravity556]

171. Silly pro-criminal safety guy!

I want the biggest nastiest most lethal weapon I can lay hands on to protect myself and my family. Sorry, but my wife is my whole world, and if I have to turn some poor disadvantaged idiot who decided that my place looked good to rob into a charcoal briquette bug screen, well, the lesson learned is DON'T STEAL SHIT and STAY OUT OF OTHER PEOPLE'S HOUSES if you aren't invited.

[hack89]

68. How do you overcome state laws and constitutions?

you seem to forget that this is not a completely federal issue. Do you really think in Texas for example, the police there will be arresting people for owning guns?

[Starboard Tack]

80. Don't think it'll ever happen in Texas. They'll secede first. Yay!

[hack89]

84. Fortunately it won't happen anywhere. nt

[We_Have_A_Problem]

114. You might get one idiot cop willing to try it...

...the rest would simply attend his funeral and shake their head at how stupid he was.

[armueller2001]

28. Are you aware that rifles of any type

are only used in around 3-4% of all homicides nationwide? Doesn't seem to be a significant problem.

What are the specific characteristics of sporting rifles that necessitate them being banned?

"Because they look scary" isn't a relevant answer, btw...

[Starboard Tack]

40. "only 3-4% of all homicides nationwide"

Total is about 18,000
3-4% = 500-700
500-700 people killed every year is insignificant to you? Interesting.

[X_Digger]

46. 348 in 2009 (2.5%)

http://www2.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2009/offenses/expanded_information/data/shrtable_08.html

That's *all* rifles, not just the 'ebil black scurry' ones.

Less than half the number killed by hands and feet (801).

[Starboard Tack]

52. Only 7 times the UK total gun deaths

[X_Digger]

56. This again?

London had one-fifth the murder rate of NYC when neither country had substantive gun control.

You just enjoy inserting non-sequiturs, don't you?

[Starboard Tack]

58. That's how nails get set. Keep hammering.

Comparison to the UK is an excellent point of reference.

[iverglas]

61. info please

London had one-fifth the murder rate of NYC when neither country had substantive gun control.

When was this?

Was it by any chance before the UK had "substantive" numbers of firearms in the hands of criminals maybe? While NYC had loads of 'em?

That being a rather significant consideration, after all.

[X_Digger]

73. 1870's-1910'ish

Joyce Malcom's 'Guns and Violence: The English Experience' was where I found it. I loaned out my only copy, so I'm working from memory..

http://www.amazon.com/Guns-Violence-Joyce-Lee-Malcolm/dp/0674016084

If I recall, her primary source for NYC homicide rates was Roth- http://www.amazon.com/American-Homicide-Randolph-Roth/dp/0674035208

Was it by any chance before the UK had "substantive" numbers of firearms in the hands of criminals maybe? While NYC had loads of 'em?

That being a rather significant consideration, after all.

Availability of firearms was damned near unrestricted in the UK until 1920- the 'license' required by the 1903 pistol act could be purchased at the post office. Malcom goes into ownership rates at some length, based on probate records, licenses (after 1903), and tax registers if I recall, but I don't know of *any* source for 'in the hands of criminals', other than gun use in crime.

Offhand, I don't recall the source for the London homicide rate for the same time period

Here's one search result looking at the UK homicide rate (not London, I know)..

http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/1996/08/international-00028.php

[iverglas]

96. oh, good old Joyce Malcolm rears her head again

Availability of firearms was damned near unrestricted in the UK until 1920

Why do you want to change the subject?

I referred to NUMBERS of firearms, not "availability" of firearms.

Absent any actual information, I guess I'll move along.

It's kinda cute to see you citing Tim Lambert, I have to say!

http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/1999/06/dgu-00054.php

[hack89]

70. So? Why is this important? nt

[Starboard Tack]

113. Why is what important? The comparison or the number of dead?

Why is anyone's life important beside yours?

[hack89]

140. A single number without context is somewhat meaningless.

for example, since our murder rates are steadily falling and are at historically low levels, it looks like we are heading where you want to be. Why not show some patience?

[Starboard Tack]

143. I'm very patient. Just voicing an opinion, not calling for a revolution.

[hack89]

144. You are calling for restrictions on civil rights though. nt

[Starboard Tack]

152. No, just a redefining of civil rights. Restrictions already exist.

[hack89]

153. But your "redefinition" will result in more restrictions

please be honest in your intentions.

[Starboard Tack]

167. I don't really have any "intention". But for the umpteenth time here is my basic position.

In order of priority.

Total ban on carrying guns in public by anyone except select LE during emergency situations. Like UK
Eradicate handguns, by banning manufacture, sale and ownership.
Formulate intelligent, common sense restrictions on hi-cap and auto capabilities of long guns.

Unrestricted ownership of long guns with carry restricted to designated areas for hunting and sport.
Loosen restrictions on non-lethal tools of self-defense.

[hack89]

180. You want to gut the 2nd Amendment - you made that clear a long time ago.

what other civil rights do you want to destroy?

Police states have low crime rates - that doesn't mean I want to live in one. Why don't you solve the real problem and leave the 99.9% of gun owners who use their guns responsibly alone?

[Starboard Tack]

204. I don't consider 2A a civil right.

I don't care what kind of state you want to live in. I care about the rest of us who want to live in a peaceful, gun-toting-free society, where we all respect each other's civil rights to live our lives. That does not include having a bunch of paranoid freaks walking around with handguns.

[rrneck]

206. "peaceful, gun- toting-free sociey"

Explain how those are mutually exclusive. Preferably without the tantrum.

[hack89]

211. What kind of rights do you think the "Bill of Rights" contains?

Are the other 9 civil rights?

[Starboard Tack]

215. They are all civil rights, constitutionally awarded to the people

2A has been distorted by SCOTUS, the NRA and various pro-gun rights groups to be an INDIVIDUAL right, rather than a right of the PEOPLE. Therefore, in the interests of society, it needs amending in such a way as to make clear that SOCIETY trumps the INDIVIDUAL in terms of civil rights.

[rrneck]

216. Ahem

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyranny_of_the_majority

The phrase " tyranny of the majority" (or "tyranny of the masses"), used in discussing systems of democracy and majority rule, is a criticism of the scenario in which decisions made by a majority under that system would place that majority's nterests so far above a dissenting individual's nterest that the individual would be actively oppressed, just like the oppression by tyrants and< 1> despots.< 1>

Limits on the decisions that can be made by such majorities, such as constitutional limits on the powers of parliament and use of a bill of rights in a parliamentary system, are common ways of< 2> reducing the perceived problem.< 2> Separation of powers is also implemented to prevent such an event from happening internally in the government.

[Starboard Tack]

219. As usual, you are way off base.

If you want an intelligent discussion about this, then let's look at it from the standpoint of INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS, GROUP RIGHTS and CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS.

We don't need to be bringing Tyranny of the majority or any other bogeymen into this. This is about the kind of society we all want, not a minority or a majority.

[rrneck]

220. And you speak for all of us?

That would be the tyranny of the Starboard Tack.

Why don't you explain your reasoning instead of your feelings.

[hack89]

218. So no Constitution right is an individual right? nt

[Starboard Tack]

222. Not specifically, no. They are rights of the people, all the people, for the people.

Not individuals, except as part of the group. All Constitutional Rights are subject to restrictions in terms of conduct, time and place. How, when and where.

[rrneck]

225. Which group? nt

[hack89]

229. So if the "group" wants to ban abortion or gay marriage they can?

And the individual cannot claim an individual right to counter that? Is that what you really believe?

[Starboard Tack]

236. Of course. That's how the system works.

Gay marriage is banned in most states. I am pro gay marriage and it should be legal, but it is not a constitutional right and neither is having sex in public and neither is toting a gun in public.

[hack89]

245. So the Supreme Court was wrong to say that interracial marriage was a civil right?

It was banned in many states.

[friendly_iconoclast]

247. Not to mention Roe v. Wade- abortion was illegal in most states at the time.

And it goes without saying how unpopular that decision was and is in many, many places....

[Starboard Tack]

254. Marriage is a civil right. Not a constitutional right.

Sex and gender should have no bearing on that right. Has nothing to do with allowing people to carry deadly weapons around.

[hack89]

256. So voting, religious choice, freedom of speech are not civil rights? nt

[Starboard Tack]

259. Who said that? You?

[hack89]

260. I think you did

considering that several of them are in the BOR. You did say that Constitutional rights are not the same as civil rights, didn't you?

[Starboard Tack]

261. No. Go back to post 215

I said the BOR are all civil rights, constitutionally awarded.

[hack89]

262. So the right to bear arms is a civil right - constitutionally awarded of course. nt

[Starboard Tack]

264. Bravo! Now read it as it was ratified, not as the repukes on SCOTUS have redefined it.

No CC rights.

[hack89]

265. So you support open carry? I'm fine with that.

As long as we can bear arms.

btw - since all nine justices declared that the 2A was an individual right, I am puzzled by your SC comment.

[Starboard Tack]

266. I don't support it, but I accept it's honesty. I probably wouldn't campaign against it.

But I would campaign for gun-free zones, based on local legislation. The right to bear arms is not an unrestricted right in terms of where, when and how. It isn't now. It wasn't then and it never will be.

[hack89]

267. So you believe in State's rights?

States can set their own laws on marriage, voting and abortion? Do you believe the SC can set minimum standards for civil rights or do you think that states and cities have the. power to do what they think best regardless of.any impact on individual rights?

[Starboard Tack]

268. What's your point?

[hack89]

269. You don't seem to believe in individual civil rights

putting the "group" over the individual. States rights to me is a worst case situation as it is a right wing meme traditionally used by southern states to restrict civil liberties. Your desire to allow cities and states to write their own gun laws piqued my interest - is this simply your way to undermine the 2A? Just trying to see where you draw the line.

[Starboard Tack]

270. You mean like Texas making it OK to shoot someone in the back

as they are running away with something they stole from you? Those kind of individual rights?

I think if cities want to live in peace, they have every right to ban firearms and any citizen who doesn't like it has every right not to live in that city. There is plenty of rural America left for those who want to tote with impunity.

[hack89]

271. No - I mean Constitution rights. The BOR to be specific.

do cities have the right to limit the civil rights listed in the BOR?

[Starboard Tack]

272. Of course they do, including 1A rights.

Try using a bullhorn outside a hospital or library. Try setting up a parade without permission.

[hack89]

273. Who gets to decide when states and cities go too far? Or should government power have no limits?

Presently the supreme court is the safety valve - it has the role of restraining government from violating our civil rights. Many of their their rulings have expanded or protected civil rights - Rove v Wade, Brown v Board of Education, Jones v. Alfred H. Mayer Co, Griggs v. Duke Power Co, Faragher v. City of Boca Raton, Lawrence v Texas.

What limits local government from restricting your civil rights?

[Starboard Tack]

274. Right now SCOTUS is tilted firmly to the right and has been for decades.

Not a very good safety valve. Good in theory though.

[hack89]

275. Answer the question

who has the final say?

[Starboard Tack]

276. SCOTUS

[X_Digger]

263. "awarded"?!?

You need to go back to philosophy of western civ class.

Fundamental rights don't flow from a document; they predate the governments established to protect them.

[rl6214]

244. "I don't consider 2A a civil right. "

And that's where you're wrong.

A whole buncha people with Judge, Senator and Representative in front of their names disagree with you.

[Hoopla Phil]

184. You left one out. You stated that you want a ban on all handguns.

Where does that fall in your order or priority?

162. Well, if the law changed you wouldn't have that right anymore, would you?

Then you'd have a little cry and get over it. Look at the positive side. No more handguns.
Keep it real.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=452869&mesg_id=454771

And then backpedaled on it in this rather charged statement:

177. It wouldn't be unconstitutional if the Constitution were amended.

Do I always advocate for the abolition of all handguns? No, but am leaning more and more toward it since participating in this forum. Honestly, I rarely thought about it before coming here. Now, you guys have educated me in terms of the proliferation and craziness afoot in the country. I used to think guns were toted only by extreme nutjobs. Now, it appears that "regular folk" are being seduced into this insanity.
So, extreme behavior, as usual, demands extreme remedies. Like when kids don't show responsibility, they lose their toys.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=452869&mesg_id=454833

You let your gard down and the truth came out for a moment. Just like Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., on CBS "60 Minutes": "If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an outright ban, picking up every one of them -- Mr. and Mrs. America, turn them all in -- I would have done it."
http://articles.sfgate.com/2004-03-07/opinion/17419420_1_gun-ban-assault-weapons-clinton-gun


On edit: You also have advocated changing the 2A What would you change and where is that in your priority list?

[Starboard Tack]

205. OK here we go again

Number one priority.- No toting in public
Number two priority - Eradicate all handguns from the planet. (Not really feasible)
Number three priority - Tear up 2A

All clear now. I could reclarify and say 1a would be stop CC and 1b stop OC

Meanwhile, happy toting

[rrneck]

209. heh

http://m.youtube.com/index?desktop_uri=%2F&gl=US#/watch?v=ZA-uTeyuVWY

[Hoopla Phil]

224. Well, at least you are honest in your wish to ban all handguns and tear up the 2A.

Most people favoring gun control hide such desires.

[Starboard Tack]

238. Maybe they don't feel the same way.

I think we have the technology today to provide people with non-lethal options for self defense. Handguns are extremely lethal and injurious. The annual costs of patching up shooting victims is enormous (tens of billions). The emotional cost is immeasurable.

[iverglas]

59. how many cops were killed by hands and feet?

Now ... how many cops were killed by rifles? It's the cop-killing firearm of choice, I believe.


When you mention the 348 rifle homicides in 2009, you might not want to leave out the 418 shotgun homicides. And what's an "other gun" (94)? How about "firearms, type not stated" (1,834 out of 9,146 -- 1 in 5)?

I tend to think that few of either the rifle or shotgun homicides were those gang-related ones that nobody cares about (even when the victims are bystanders, I guess).

How many were women killed by (former) intimate partners with the household tool?

[hack89]

69. Why are cops so special that we have to sacrifice civil rights for them? nt

[iverglas]

227. I give up

What's the answer?

Maybe we could find somebody who said that and ask them ...

[hack89]

235. You seem to think that the kind of weapon used to kill cops has some significance.

I don't.

[gejohnston]

78. good question

I doubt it, that is what the propaganda claims. You are making the claim, look it up.
Other gun could be machine gun or home made zip gun, ask the FBI. They wrote it.
Sawed off shotguns or rifles, maybe,
I doubt anyone has done a real study on the issue. The only thing I can find is propaganda from one side or the other.

[X_Digger]

81. Rifles are not the 'cop-killing firearm of choice', no.

http://www2.fbi.gov/ucr/killed/2009/data/table_27.html

From 2000-2009, all 'rifles' make up 19% of the firearms used to kill officers.

Re shotguns- none that are currently available would fall under the aegis of a new 'AWB'.

You do remember that's what we're talking about, right?

[Marengo]

134. Not in 2010 was the rifle the cop-killing firearm of choice...

http://www.fbi.gov/news/pressrel/press-releases/fbi-releases-preliminary-statistics-for-law-enforcement-officers-killed-in-2010

[gravity556]

178. Sorry, don't mean to hijack,

but if you read the article in the post by Marengo, there's a line about "Seven victim officers had their weapons stolen; seven officers were killed with their own weapons."

When the anti-self defense league steps up and asks why would you shoot someone for trying to disarm you, this is the reason. Bad guy takes your gun, then shoots you with it. For those of us who carry, get a blue gun and put it in your EDC holster. Airsoft is better because it lets you know if you scored a hit (FUCKING OUCH!) is a good clue. The ability to retain your weapon is just as important as knowing your sight picture and where your trigger breaks.

[iverglas]

228. cripes, you don't just fantasize about using the gun

When the anti-self defense league steps up and asks why would you shoot someone for trying to disarm you, this is the reason.

You fantasize about what somebody hasn't said when you say something you haven't said ...........

[gejohnston]

47. the total number is actually lower

that said, 6 percent are killed with bare fists or feet
13 percent with knives

http://www.ncvc.org/ncvc/main.aspx?dbName=DocumentViewer&DocumentID=38716

[Starboard Tack]

53. What on earth do bare fists and feet have to do with guns?

[gejohnston]

63. Oh I'm sorry, I thought we were talking about murders

Oh that's right, a murder or unnatural death is tragic only if a gun is used. Sorry, I keep forgetting.

[Starboard Tack]

64. The sub-thread was about long guns.

Hands and feet discussions should be kept in the Podiatry/Manicure forum.

[gejohnston]

72. but still used to kill twice as many people as all long guns

so we are now talking about long guns once again.

[Starboard Tack]

83. Are you back to the hands and feet thing again?

I knew a guy in New York once, he was a foot fetishist. Very weird dude.

[gejohnston]

85. no just comparing the relative use of

long guns in murders. Context is king and queen. Sounds like a weird dude.

[Starboard Tack]

89. How about suicide? How many kill themselves with their feet?

Or strangle themselves?
Of course, one could use the argument that all gun deaths are caused by folk using their hands and/or feet.
Or thoughts. People kill with their thoughts, or lack thereof.

[gejohnston]

100. who is talking about suicide?

You think gun laws will deter suicides? Shoddy shill studies aside, there is no evidence that would be the case. The use of guns may drop, but other means will fill the vacuum. The overall rate will stay the same.

Since hanging is a form of strangulation, This site puts it as the third most common means in the US. In many countries, it is the most common means.
http://www.frater.com/suicidelist.html

http://www.scielosp.org/pdf/bwho/v86n9/a17v86n9.pdf

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suicide

Of course, one could argue that all deaths are caused using hands directly or indirectly
or thoughts or lack of. There is no way of answering that without pissing off the mods, other than to ask what on earth is your point?
I'm losing faith in you. You are one of the few antis that can actually say something other than one line non statements or long Alan Keyes like rants.

[X_Digger]

29. What particular danger do these rifles represent?

Especially, what dangers that other, presumptively non-AWB-affected rifles don't?

[Starboard Tack]

42. All guns present some danger. If you prefer to ban them all, I could live with that.

I would be disappointed if we couldn't show enough responsibility to handle shotguns and none auto hunting rifles.
Show me a valid reason to keep them. How much lead do you like in your meat?

[X_Digger]

51. The burden is not on me to justify 'keeping' anything.

What is it about AWB-applicable rifles as compared to others that justifies restricting them?

I don't hunt (only 20% of gun owners hunt). The second amendment isn't about hunting.

[Starboard Tack]

54. No, it's about maintaining a militia and needs to be torn up and rewritten.

[X_Digger]

57. What color is the sky in your world?

No, it's about maintaining a militia and needs to be torn up and rewritten.

You have fun with that.

Here in the real world, you've got a tough row to hoe.

[Starboard Tack]

60. Blue almost every day. I don't expect a country that puts idiots in the White House

who invade countries for no reason to agree with me. Doesn't make me wrong.

[X_Digger]

77. Do you think the second amendment 'grants' some kind of right?

needs to be torn up and rewritten.

If you repealed the second amendment (gotten the petition drive started yet, btw?) the right protected would merely go from being an enumerated right to an unenumerated right protected by the ninth amendment, as well as a state protected right in various state constitutions.

See Cruikshank..

This is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence.

[Starboard Tack]

82. Simple answer. No! Just a shitload of problems.

[We_Have_A_Problem]

280. Yeah pretty much

because people like yourself will try to see something that isn't there and insist on believing that something which obviously restricts government is somehow a restriction on the people.

[oneshooter]

92. Like Libya? n/t

[Starboard Tack]

99. I must have missed our invasion of Lybia.

[oneshooter]

93. And how, pray tell, would you rewrite it? n/t

[Starboard Tack]

112. With a quill of course.

[oneshooter]

126. Stupid answer. How would you rewrite the 2A to suit your beliefs? n/t

[RSillsbee]

132. You are NEVER going to get an answer to that question , you know that right? NT

[oneshooter]

138. Yea, I probably scared him with it. n/t

[Starboard Tack]

142. No restrictions on ownership of shotguns and select long guns. No assault weapons.

Toting restricted to private property, authorized gun ranges and designated hunting areas.
Total ban on manufacture, sale and ownership of handguns and assault weapons.
Assault weapons may be up for discussion. Handguns have to go. Possible exception of small derringer types for personal protection, if they can be modified to be non-lethal.

[X_Digger]

146. Did you ever do that research on 'assault weapons'?

Or are you still continuing to assert that they're substantially different than 'select long guns' from ignorance?

[Starboard Tack]

151. No, I'm still wallowing in my ignorance on that one.

Can't seem to find it's way to the top of my priorities list.

[RSillsbee]

131. Show me a valid reason to keep them.

I want one.

That's as valid as it gets

[hack89]

30. What threat to public safety?

rifles of any kind are so seldom used to murder people it is the least of your worries. And to top it off, as the number of modern rifles has skyrocketed, the crime and murder rate has declined to historic lows. Your paranoid fear is not grounds to take away my rights - why don't you dedicate your time to real societal problems?

[armueller2001]

32. He'd be better off

trying to get swimming pools banned. They kill far more people than firearms.

THINK OF THE CHILDREN!

[Starboard Tack]

43. I do. They aren't a priority for me. Handguns are.

Why do you need automatic weapons for hunting? Give me a good reason and I'll back off.

[hack89]

44. Well, considering we are not discussing automatic rifles

I guess you can back off now.

[Starboard Tack]

55. Thanks, I have to go throw up anyway.

[hack89]

67. You did know that the AWB had nothing to do with automatic weapons, didn't you? nt

[Starboard Tack]

71. Assault weapons - basically auto or semi-auto

Assault weapon refers primarily (but not exclusively) to firearms that had been developed from earlier fully automatic firearms into semi-automatic civilian-legal versions. Semi-automatic firearms, when fired, automatically extract the spent cartridge casing and load the next cartridge into the chamber, ready to fire again; they do not fire automatically like a machine gun, rather, only 1 round is fired with each trigger pull.

[gejohnston]

74. but if

you put that "assault weapon" action and barrel, which is a propaganda buzz term and not a technical term, out of it's ugly plastic stock and into a nice walnut stock, it is no longer an "assault weapon". Would you call an M-1 carbine an "assault weapon"? Why?

[Starboard Tack]

86. I'll have to work on that if you really want an answer.

I need to get up to date on what's around, so I'll have to find one of those gun porn mags like "Guns And Ammo". But I must be discreet. Maybe I'll find a dentist in AZ or somewhere.

[gejohnston]

102. Barber shop in any rural area will be fine.

Since I have never seen any in Wyoming or New Mexico dentists offices, I doubt you will in AZ.

[hack89]

75. So what's the big deal - it is old technology that has been around for years

in the civil market. Why the vapors over a weapon that you are least likely to be murdered by? You are many times more likely to be killed by a baseball bat, a knife, a fist or a foot - what's the big deal?

[Starboard Tack]

87. I'll have to look into it. Don't push me for an answer right now or it will be the wrong one.

Talk to GEJ about the foot thing. I think he likes feet and Oneshooter's big on knives. Baseball, I'm a Giants fan NL and Angels AL. Kinda done with the Dodgers.

[gejohnston]

90. foot thing? naww

I do like crossbows.
Football? Tampa Bay and Jacksonville.

[Starboard Tack]

97. Love crossbows and long bows. Football no, neanderthal sport.

[gejohnston]

101. wife loves it

and gives me an excuse to sit around and drink beer.
Since neanderthals had larger brains, that was an insult to neanderthals.

[Starboard Tack]

106. LOL

[oneshooter]

105. I shoot English LongBows and recurves. 70# average.

Crossbows are for cowards who can't learn to shoot a real bow.

Oneshooter
Armed and Livin in Texas

[Marengo]

135. Now hold on there a minute...

My accurate replica of a 16th century German sporting bow is pretty challenging to shoot. It's also a bitch to "keep running". The prod cord binding loosened and I had to learn how to re-bind using the original method. Whew!, that was tough. I've recently started to make my own quarrels after disappointing results from those obtained from others. Next project is a belt quiver. I have always wanted to try an English bow like those found on the Mary Rose, but a shoulder injury prevents me. If I recall correctly, aren't many of those believed to have a draw weight in excess of 100 pounds?

-edited to correct html

[oneshooter]

136. There were several tested, 90-105# Possably the difference was the way they were preserved. n/t

[oneshooter]

91. Knives are a last resort thing. I have trained with Kukri's though. n/t

[Starboard Tack]

98. Good for you. Me, I stick to Swiss Army, Leatherman and a good kelp knife.

[oneshooter]

137. Different strokes and all that. Do you train with them? n/t

[We_Have_A_Problem]

279. Better question

Why do you feel a need to decide what others choose to buy?

Nobody is obligated to justify a purchase of a tool to you or anyone else for that matter. You've already been repeatedly informed the 2nd Amendment has nothing to do with hunting and hunters make up less than 20% of the total gun owning population.

If YOU can give a good reason why the right should be taken away from everyone, then maybe WE will back off.

You demand much my friend, yet give so little in return. Maybe you could attempt to actually answer some of the questions posed to you?

[benEzra]

251. Rifle bans make zero sense from a public safety standpoint,

since rifles are the least misused weapons in the United States. Not just the least misused firearms, but the least misused of ALL weapons.

http://www2.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2009/data/table_20.html

Total murders...........................13,636.....100.00%
Handguns.................................6,452......47.32%
Firearms (type unknown)..................1,928......14.14%
Other weapons (non-firearm, non-edged)...1,864......13.67%
Edged weapons............................1,825......13.38%
Hands, feet, etc...........................801.......5.87%
Shotguns...................................418.......3.07%
Rifles.....................................348.......2.55%

FWIW, I own a very modern-looking centerfire .22 (Rock River LAR-15) that I shoot competitively and recreationally, and keep at home for HD. I own no "hunting rifles" and no shotguns, nor do I care to.

[armueller2001]

12. Nope. Moved from Chicago to San Antonio, Texas.

RKBA was a major factor, as was cost of living, taxes, and traffic.

Went from a place I had to basically beg the police to be able to legally keep my shotgun in our apartment, to a place I can carry my Ruger SR9c almost anywhere with my CCW permit. Can also own Class III weapons (full auto, suppressors, etc) and purchase firearms with no background check and no waiting period, thanks to my CCW permit.

Freedom is awesome.

[slackmaster]

14. I'm working within the system to try to remove some of the infringements here

It's not the most important thing in my life.

[Hoopla Phil]

16. I actually turned down a job offer in Washington state over their stupid silencer laws.

They, just this year changed it to a more reasonable common sense law.

[iverglas]

33. one of the funniest posts I've seen at DU

Kinda like how election after election so many people turn down health care in favour of ... well, it would be hard to say what they actually get for it ... tax breaks for the rich, foreign wars that destroy their economy, an undereducated and underemployed and underhoused population ... guns with bells and whistles ...

:eyes:

[ileus]

45. If you've invested in suppressors I can't blame you.

I'm thinking about a sig 1911 22 and getting a suppressor for it. The kids would have a blast with it on our trips shooting...

[Hoopla Phil]

65. A warning about suppressors. . .

They are VERY addictive.

[Hangingon]

76. What do you know about Jet Supressors?

[Hoopla Phil]

108. I'd stay away from them. Those that have one, and others to compare

them with say they are OK for the money. The problem is actually getting one. I've read nothing but bad from them with regard to getting product out. I had one friend try to buy one from them and wound up getting his money back (minus a "restocking fee" for a product that was never made).

A google search will come up with lots of stories. Also, check out the various silencer forums and search there (silencertalk comes to mind).

There is a pawn and gun shop on Everhart (IIRC)(on edit: it might be Staples. It's on the right hand side heading away from the water after exiting SPID) right next to Aphrems jewlers that is a fair Title II dealer. If they don't have it they will order it. Also, there is Terry Hass in Flour Bluff. I believe he calls his company PDQ (PDQ something or other). Never did any business with Terry but shot IPSC with him and he always seemed like an honest person to me.

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

111. Liberty & SilencerCo get alot of good press and looks like they have great products.

Some modestly priced options too.

If you have the coin to spend... AAC has just about the best products out there hands down.
But you'll certainly pay (and possibly wait) for thier stuff.

[Hoopla Phil]

128. +1 to Liberty. But also AAC and Thompson Machine make good products.

[rl6214]

17. Not if I could help it.

If I HAD to move to another state that denied RKBA it would only be for work related.

[AtheistCrusader]

19. I'm partially denied, but I'm working on it.

We got silencers this year. So, improvement. Still no select fire. Maybe someday. Meanwhile, we have open and must-issue concealed carry, so I'm reasonably comfortable.


I would absolutely not live in California, though, honestly, this wouldn't be the only factor in my decision.

[WAFS]

21. No.

[gravity556]

23. No,

AZ's gun laws are just right for me. Open carry, Constitutional Carry, Class 3 weapons, and, in 2o12 when the earthquakes hit, I'll be much closer to the beach than I am now.

[WAFS]

104. I like AZ

And AZ gun laws. I grew up in AZ and I'd be living there right now, if I could find work there.

[Glassunion]

27. I have lived in a state that restricted rights. It was quite racist/classist of them.

I'm glad I left.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

35. I'm on the pill, I'm married and we have a decent income

But I still wouldn't want to live in a place that took away my freedom to choose.

[RSillsbee]

133. Congratulations on the marriage NT

[iverglas]

141. so you're all right, Jack; you're all right, Jack; and you're all right, Jack

I'm on the pill, I'm married and we have a decent income
But I still wouldn't want to live in a place that took away my freedom to choose.

The connection between those two statements eludes me, but I am left with some questions anyhow.

So just how are the laws of your jurisdiction when it comes to access to abortion services for other women -- or even yourself, should you fall into the percentage for whom the pill fails and not want to continue the pregnancy?

Does that state of yours allow same-sex couples to marry?

Any right-to-work laws there? What kinds of labour laws are there?


Just wondering, since you wouldn't want to live in a place where you couldn't tote firearms around in public ... whether you really give any kind of a shit about other people's rights in the place that lets you do that ...

[gravity556]

169. Keep in mind that gun sellers

even those dastardly private sellers tend to ask for ID to ensure we don't sell something to someone who lives in a state that doesn't allow it.

"Oh, sorry, you live in Oklahoma. Since abortion is illegal there, I'd be breaking several federal laws by performing one"

If you wanted to make your analogy accurate, iverglas. Happy to help.

[iverglas]

194. maybe if you read the post I replied to

it will all make sense to you.

[SteveM]

37. No. Deal breakers would include registration & CCW

[Xela]

38. Just visited Chicago a couple of months ago...

It was beautiful...but hell no. I wouldn't move there.

Portland, OR, on the other hand...

Xela, in Texas

[Atypical Liberal]

39. I once almost moved to New York.

You have to register handguns there. I would have left them with my father back in the South.

I would like to think that I would not move somewhere with strict gun laws, but if you need a job you need a job.

[spin]

41. Before I retired, my company wanted to send me to Massachusetts ...

as a tech rep.

I refused.

When they asked me why, I told them the gun laws were too strict.

[Hoyt]

48. As I suspected, gunners can't imagine living without guns strapped to their bodies.

[Xela]

49. Living without one right now just fine :)

I have a Kershaw pocket knife and a Leatherman Juice on me right now though.

Does that count?

Xela

[ileus]

62. You're confusing firearms with ventilators.

Most everyone can live for a period of time without a hot strap-on poker or two, but if you're on a vent you may die. Be sure to check and replace your batteries at least every two years.

[We_Have_A_Problem]

116. More like...

...we cannot stand the idea of living where our rights are restricted because the local government thinks it knows best...

[Euromutt]

129. I don't have to imagine it, I've experienced it

I've lived in jurisdictions with highly restrictive gun laws, and as I've gotten older, I've come to resent living under governments that won't take responsibility for my personal safety, but insist on denying me the means to protect myself. It's not about some need to carry, it's about the government not restricting your freedoms for questionable reasons.

[Hoopla Phil]

186. You may want to weigh in here. . .

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=118x454907

[ZombieHorde]

94. Yes. nt

[Abin Sur]

107. I live in Colorado as well

As you point out, the laws here aren't perfect but they're not too bad. It would take a lot to make me to move to a state with restrictive gun laws such as California, Massachusetts, etc. As for deal breakers, FOID cards and magazine restrictions come to mind.

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

110. FOID, Registration, and NFA restrictions would be a deal breaker for me.

I could live without preemption or with waiting periods. No CCW would have to make my reason for living there pretty enticing. However, registration/NFA/FOID restrictions are all steaming piles of shit.

[iverglas]

119. I wouldn't live in Alberta

It's full of assholes who would be toting guns around in public the moment the yoke of civilization was lifted from their necks, if that happened.

They already home"school" their children, and if not, teach them creationism and anti-Semitism in their little schoolhouses. Oh, and vote for the purely and evilly right-wing Stephen Harper. (I wouldn't live in 905-land in Ontario for that last reason, either.)

I have a good friend who lives there; always wondered how. Apparently there are enclaves of civilization in the cities. And it's a dry cold.

[gejohnston]

155. I think I would like Yukon better

what is 905 land? The phone area code for Hamilton?

[iverglas]

195. 905ers

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Area_codes_905,_289_and_365

905 in popular culture

To be a 905er means residing in the suburbs of Toronto, while 416ers live in Toronto proper. The term the 905 or the 905 belt is also used to describe the suburban areas of the Greater Toronto Area, while Toronto proper is referred to as the 416. While still part of the area code, the term does refer to areas more distant from Toronto, such as Hamilton and the Niagara Region.

The term has seen much use in the context of Canadian politics, where the 416 is a stronghold of Liberals and NDP, whereas the 905 historically had strong ties to the Progressive Conservative Party. The region has, however, backed opposition parties as a protest vote, including both the NDP in the 1990 provincial election and the Liberals in the 2003 provincial election, as a backlash to the incumbent government. In both cases, the opposition party was elected to government with strong backing of the 905 region. The 2011 federal election saw the 905 region become entirely represented by candidates of the Conservative Party of Canada, save a single riding, while one third of the 416 ridings were won by Conservatives, many through vote splitting between the Liberals and NDP.

The term 905er is often used pejoratively by downtown and inner-city Toronto residents to refer to people from Toronto's suburbs.

Canadian rapper Maestro rendered homage to the area code in his song "416/905 (TO Party Anthem)".

My mother and sister live pretty far out in 905 land. Backward small towns with enormous bedroom communities sprawling around them now, full of oversized houses with multiple cars in driveways and roads lined with giant stores and their parking lots. My mother is a pariah in her senior cits' building because puts an NDP sign in her window and votes NDP and has the gall to point out that the party isn't actually commies (yes, one of her neighbours said that) and say that maybe it isn't anybody else's business whom anyone marries and such.

We come from the ultra-Conservative medium-sized city of London, farther southwest in 519. My sister was a longtime 416er who couldn't afford the housing once they had kids and wanted to get out of rented dumps in downtown neighbourhoods. She's friends with Jack Layton's daughter. ;)

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x4976018

[gejohnston]

214. Good friend of mine is from London

now lives in one of the nearby farming communities.
Some nice independent bookstores in London.

[iverglas]

233. heh heh

One of which (independent bookstores) was once owned by the famous what's his name, the pot guy from Vancouver ... Marc Emery. Old buddy of my little brother. Actually, my brother couldn't stand him, but I think he stocked my brother's books. ;)

It's a university town. A rich, white, c/Conservative university town. I'm from the wrong side of the tracks, and I left when I was 16 to go to a university that had more to offer than rich kids following in daddy's footsteps. Horrible place, basically, trendy and inclusive though it has fancied itself for a while now. Nice trees, though.

[gejohnston]

252. couple of more reasons

the place reminds me of Wichita, Kansas. I take it that you did not grow up in Westmount or Byron.
Do the rich kids go to Western Ontario?

My friend grew up in Huron Heights. While not EOA, from what I understand is not Westmount or Byron either.

[Francis Marion]

161. Yes. Right now.

As a California resident, I may apply for- but most likely not receive- the county Sheriff's approval for a concealed carry permit.

I would have to demonstrate 'need' based on business or other criteria to possibly obtain said permit.

That means that I don't have- nobody has- gun rights in California, as expounded by the Second Amendment. I cannot, without breaking CA law, keep and bear firearms as I see fit. If it is a permit, it pertains to a privilege. Rights don't come and go with a permit system.

But the answer, for me, isn't to flee to a state with (for now) better laws.

I do my part to repair the damage done to CA law and have all of our right respected again.

[aikoaiko]

181. Yes, if on balance, I thought it was the right choice for me and my family.

I suppose DC, NJ, and California are the least KRBA friendly.

Honestly, I'd need a huge increase in salary to get me to live there.

Historically, I've lived in liberal cities within conservative states. I didn't choose them for those reasons, but the best career opportunities were there.

[benEzra]

246. No.

Thankfully, the few states that do can be counted on one hand.

[HALO141]

248. No.

In fact, I won't even travel there.

[guitar man]

277. No

I'll not be disarmed and put at the mercy of those who might wish to do me and my family harm.

[GMBshootingclubM60]

281. no... sold the farm in NY

and moved out west to a free state.