Knife Control

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
441

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

  1. I’d like to hear your comments on the veteran being disarmed. [/quote]

That veteran was a beligerent asshole. The cops were ill informed, but I do not see any evidence that they are carrying out some nefarious orders from the Oval Office to disarm all citizens. They shouldn’t have been in the situation in the first place, but once they were, the guy became very beligerent and yelling. I probably would have cuffed and disarmed him too if I were in that situation–the dude sounds like a looney bin. I think anybody here that is honest with themselves would agree

[quote]
2. I’d like to hear your comments specifically on the Sergeant’s comment about no caring what the law is in the video. [/quote]

He needs to be educated and disciplined. Lots of cops are ignorant on the law. This is a problem.

[quote]
3. I would like to hear your comments as to why more school shootings will not lead to the restriction of rights the way the Patriot Act did. [/quote]

Since I didn’t make that claim, I don’t know why you’re asking me to respond to it. But I’m sure more school shootings will lead to restrictions. Restricctions in my mind are not equal to “systematic and deliberate rounding up and confiscation of citizens guns” or however you prhased your paranoia.

[quote]

I’d like a comment on this:

VTBalla34 wrote:

Soooooooo prohibiting people from buying new assault weapons (current owners are not affected) = systematic rounding up and destruction of all privately owned firearms?

Usmc wrote: Actually current owners are affected. In NY Assault rifles have to be registered. [/quote]

???

You see a registration as the beginning of the gub’ment rounding up and takin yer guns…I don’t. But I am not a fan of registrations, as I think that is a bit too intrusive.

I am not aware of the specifics of the New York legislation and the need for the registrations and what restrictions will be in place for its use. So I can’t really comment further.

I do know (or at least I’m fairly sure) that there are registrations currently on the books in many states (maybe federal?) for guns such as machine guns. Why is this any different?

I love guns, but I think the idea that a citizen needs to carry around an AR-15 for his protection is a bit silly.

[quote]
I’d like a comment on this:
usmc @ vtball

"Who said the constitution would need to be completely dissolved? " [/quote]

I already answered that. And its really beside the point. You are just latching onto my statement that it would be, which really has no bearing on the gun control debate. My point was that any government that will be doing that will also not give a shit about any other things written on that piece of paper. Because in the real life scenario of guns being systematically confiscated and destroyed, shit would absolutely hit the fan and life as we know it would change. There would be little value in a constitution at that point.

[quote]
ann this:
usmc @ vtball
In MD you have to be fingerprinted to buy a handgun now. I wonder what the state will do with that info?[/quote]

It depends on the purpose. If it is some sort of a database for future reference, I do not think its a good law (same with the New York registration). But if its to match up with criminal fingerprints in a database to make sure that person is not a criminal, then I think it is a smart measure to keep guns out of the hands of people that should not have them.

I don’t really have a problem with restrictions on assault weapons and magazine capacity. They are fun to shoot, and its great not having to reload as often, but I’m under no illusions that I may have to one day procure one to fight off the government from breaking into my house and killing my family, so I can see the value. I sure as shit wish the maniac that shot up my school a few years ago had limited capacity to shoot people with. Anytime someone has to stop and reload is an opportunity to fight back. I can’t think of any situation where I would need more than 10 shots or an AK to defend myself or my family.

[quote]

You’re right VT, Newton didn’t cause any changes to gun laws. More school shooting will also not lead to further laws[/quote]

Well considering I didn’t say it didn’t I’m not sure why you felt the need to put that in there.

None of your links actually work. Possible user error?

I don’t really have a problem with limits on how many firearms one can purchase a month, especially at the state level. Remember the Constitution specifically gives you the right to bear them, not buy them.

Shew that was exhausting. Not a bad effort on your part to coax some info out of me. I hope I didn’t surprise you too much with my answers. I actually love guns–I don’t want to take yours away. I’m just not a looney gun nut, if that makes any sense.

442

[quote]VTBalla34 wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

  1. I’d like to hear your comments on the veteran being disarmed. [/quote]

That veteran was a beligerent asshole. The cops were ill informed, but I do not see any evidence that they are carrying out some nefarious orders from the Oval Office to disarm all citizens. They shouldn’t have been in the situation in the first place, but once they were, the guy became very beligerent and yelling. I probably would have cuffed and disarmed him too if I were in that situation–the dude sounds like a looney bin. I think anybody here that is honest with themselves would agree
[/quote]

  1. I’d like to hear your comments specifically on the Sergeant’s comment about no caring what the law is in the video. [/quote]

He needs to be educated and disciplined. Lots of cops are ignorant on the law. This is a problem.
[/quote]

  1. I would like to hear your comments as to why more school shootings will not lead to the restriction of rights the way the Patriot Act did. [/quote]

Since I didn’t make that claim, I don’t know why you’re asking me to respond to it. But I’m sure more school shootings will lead to restrictions. Restricctions in my mind are not equal to “systematic and deliberate rounding up and confiscation of citizens guns” or however you prhased your paranoia.
[/quote]

I’d like a comment on this:

VTBalla34 wrote:

Soooooooo prohibiting people from buying new assault weapons (current owners are not affected) = systematic rounding up and destruction of all privately owned firearms?

Usmc wrote: Actually current owners are affected. In NY Assault rifles have to be registered. [/quote]

???

You see a registration as the beginning of the gub’ment rounding up and takin yer guns…I don’t. But I am not a fan of registrations, as I think that is a bit too intrusive.

I am not aware of the specifics of the New York legislation and the need for the registrations and what restrictions will be in place for its use. So I can’t really comment further.

I do know (or at least I’m fairly sure) that there are registrations currently on the books in many states (maybe federal?) for guns such as machine guns. Why is this any different?

I love guns, but I think the idea that a citizen needs to carry around an AR-15 for his protection is a bit silly.
[/quote]

I’d like a comment on this:
usmc @ vtball

"Who said the constitution would need to be completely dissolved? " [/quote]

I already answered that. And its really beside the point. You are just latching onto my statement that it would be, which really has no bearing on the gun control debate. My point was that any government that will be doing that will also not give a shit about any other things written on that piece of paper. Because in the real life scenario of guns being systematically confiscated and destroyed, shit would absolutely hit the fan and life as we know it would change. There would be little value in a constitution at that point.
[/quote]

ann this:
usmc @ vtball
In MD you have to be fingerprinted to buy a handgun now. I wonder what the state will do with that info?[/quote]

It depends on the purpose. If it is some sort of a database for future reference, I do not think its a good law (same with the New York registration). But if its to match up with criminal fingerprints in a database to make sure that person is not a criminal, then I think it is a smart measure to keep guns out of the hands of people that should not have them.
[/quote]

and this
Usmc @ Vtballa

Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo signed into law a sweeping package of gun-control measures on Tuesday, significantly expanding a ban on assault weapons and making New York the first state to change its laws in response to the mass shooting at a Connecticut elementary school.

The expanded ban on assault weapons broadens the definition of what is considered an assault weapon and reduces the permissible size of gun magazines to 7 rounds, from 10.

http://www.nytimes.com/…-york.html?_r=0

ANNAPOLIS, Md. ? Sweeping restrictions on gun ownership passed the Maryland General Assembly on Thursday, including a ban on new purchases of assault weapons, a 10-bullet limit on magazines and requirements that handgun buyers undergo fingerprinting and target training.

http://www.nytimes.com/...egislature.html

[/quote]

I don’t really have a problem with restrictions on assault weapons and magazine capacity. They are fun to shoot, and its great not having to reload as often, but I’m under no illusions that I may have to one day procure one to fight off the government from breaking into my house and killing my family, so I can see the value. I sure as shit wish the maniac that shot up my school a few years ago had limited capacity to shoot people with. Anytime someone has to stop and reload is an opportunity to fight back. I can’t think of any situation where I would need more than 10 shots or an AK to defend myself or my family.
[/quote]

You’re right VT, Newton didn’t cause any changes to gun laws. More school shooting will also not lead to further laws[/quote]

No anti gun culture in America either:

Biden Aids Governor in Push for New Gun Laws in Connecticut
http://www.nytimes.com/...w-gun-laws.html

Oh what’s this limits the right to keep and bear arms. Not possible VT, that piece of paper 3 blocks from you says so.

A New Jersey statute limits purchases of firearms in the state to one handgun a month
http://www.nytimes.com/…-month-law.html
[/quote]

None of your links actually work. Possible user error?

I don’t really have a problem with limits on how many firearms one can purchase a month, especially at the state level. Remember the Constitution specifically gives you the right to bear them, not buy them.

Shew that was exhausting. Not a bad effort on your part to coax some info out of me. I hope I didn’t surprise you too much with my answers. I actually love guns–I don’t want to take yours away. I’m just not a looney gun nut, if that makes any sense.
[/quote]

I am genuinely shocked by how thorough you were, thank you. I can never seem to get the quotes to work with multiple people so I will address each point below:

  1. I agree, I don’t believe this is some government conspiracy. What concerns me is the attitude. They stopped the guy because he had a rifle strapped to him. I see that as a potential problem. It discourages law abiding citizens from exercising their constitutional rights through harassment. The guy might have deserved it, there are always unknown variables in these videos. I don’t think temporarily disarming him is necessarily a bad thing, but cuffing him for not breaking the law? That I have a problem with. From what I’ve read his property was also taken and not yet returned.

  2. We agree ignorance of the law by law enforcement is a problem.

  3. No you didn’t make the claim; it was a question I asked earlier. So you think more shooting will lead to more restriction. What do you think the government will do when restrictions are not be enough? Or do you think restrictions will curb school shootings?

  4. I think registration opens the door to confiscation, yes. I agree it is intrusive. You think having an AR-15 for defense is silly, some think having a gun at all for self defense is silly, and some think you should be able to mount a 50 cal on the roof. I’d like to know WHY you think it’s silly?

  5. I agree, which is why I’d rather preemptively protect the 2nd to ensure protection of other constitutional rights. That starts with assault weapon bans. If, and I know this is make-believe here, our government became tyrannical (not sure that’s a word) do you think we would be better off with AR-15s or handguns? It would be difficult to acquire an AR-15 if they’ve been banned for 20+ years.

  6. I don’t know the purpose behind the fingerprint; however, I’m pretty sure it is a database to be kept on record.

  7. You make a good point; reloading gives an opportunity to fight back, but how? Did your school allow guns on campus? How would you fight back in the 3 seconds it take to reload an AR-15?

As far as a reduction in magazine capacity goes, I think it does nothing, but that’s debatable.

  1. That quote was just part of what I wrote when I added all the links.

  2. I don’t know why the links don’t work. They are all NY Timesâ?? articles. That being said I think your last statement is really semantics. You have a right to “keep and bear arms.” well in order to keep/bear arms you need to have access to them. If I walk into a Jersey pawn shop and buy a gun, then 2 weeks later try to buy a gun, and am denied, are my 2nd amendment rights being infringed upon. You could very well be right in a court of law; I just think that’s a loop hole Jersey came up with. Do you think that will stop gun violence?

  3. Fair enough, I’m not a loony gun nut either. I just don’t want my great grand kids living in oppression (which I don’t think is likely).

443

^ Oh they’re all fucked up…whatever!

444

Wow so many statists thoughts:

[quote]VTBalla34 wrote:

That veteran was a beligerent asshole.

[/quote]

Translation: You must respect the State. Or else.

[quote]Lots of cops are ignorant on the law. This is a problem.

[/quote]

By all means, only they should have guns.

I guess you disagree with the Sen. Boxer, etc., who stated the registration was the first step in banning weapons. The exact quote was “you don’t do this all at once.”

[quote]
registrations currently on the books in many states (maybe federal?) for guns such as machine guns. [/quote]

No, you just pay a $200 per Title III weapon. I have an Uzi for old time sake.

I may agree with you, but unlike you, I don’t decide how people should live. Yet another example that liberals are all about “freedom,” provided the choices are the exact choices said liberal would make. Reminds me of the free votes in the Soviet Union.

[quote]
It depends on the purpose. If it is some sort of a database for future reference, I do not think its a good law (same with the New York registration). [/quote]

That’s what the law was. It created a database and specifically did not destroy background checks.

Apparently, you live somewhere nice and have amazing aim under duress. I would have liked an AK when Al Sharpton lead black mobs to kill Jews in Crown Heights. Way more than 10 at a time.

Also, I’ve been in a firefight or two. You miss a lot, trust me.

That’s like saying there is freedom of the press, but the government can restrict your ink and paper. I’ll just leave it as, as a lawyer, what you say here is nuts.

445

  1. Yes. But you have to admit, it is pretty unusual to just see someone walking down the street with an assault rifle strapped to their back with their kid beside them. I mean, I know it probably should be ok and all, but you can’t blame a cop for at least checking out the situation. If that dude goes and shoots somebody, then everybody would be all like “umm 10 police officers saw him and didn’t stop him? wtf?”. I see no problem with a cop at least stopping a dude for that. Not until everybody is walking around with them.

  2. I don’t think it will be all that effective. I think the gun control advocates are not doing themselves any favors parading the Sandy Hook kids around to support background checks. I’m obviously aware enough to realize that this wouldn’t stop Lanza. But I see it as a loophole that really should be closed. Most of America agrees with that.

There is a tipping point for when government intrusions get to be too much. I’m nowhere near there yet with what I’m seeing with these current proposals.

  1. Because I can not think of a single legitimate scenario where an AK or a 100 round clip is necessary for me to defend myself against someone wishing to do me harm. I don’t remember the statistics, but something like a majority of crimes when the victim has a gun are over before the “victim” even has to fire a shot. Just having a gun is a large deterrent. I don’t see a situation where I am in a shootout requring more than 10 shots or a high powered rifle. If someone is close enough to me to do me harm, most guns will get the job done.

  2. Sure we would. But we would also be better off with our own nuclear weapons. Or at least our own tanks. I do not think a gun regardless of type would be at all effective against a US government that breaks bad on its citizens.

  3. No guns on campus, but I am not opposed to it for those who can handle their firearms responsibly. I think there should probably be extra requirements for someone of that age to get a concealed carry permit. And during those 3 seconds the perp is reloading, you come out of hiding and blow his ass away.

  4. Not sure, but I’m not gonna lie: I’m just a tad bit afraid of anyone stockpiling weapons.

446

Jewbacca: Not gonna respond to most of the bullshit you wrote, since it was mostly putting words into my mouth or an attempt to twist them into something they weren’t. That’s very noble of you–its pretty clear you are a scumbag lawyer.

But a couple I wouldn’t respect myself if I didn’t at least make an effort to respond to:

[quote]

Apparently, you live somewhere nice and have amazing aim under duress. I would have liked an AK when Al Sharpton lead black mobs to kill Jews in Crown Heights. Way more than 10 at a time.

Also, I’ve been in a firefight or two. You miss a lot, trust me.[/quote]

How many fucking citizens are involved in a firefight? My god please show me some statistics on that and I will consider changing my mind on the capacity restriction. I really think you guys envision yourselves in some sort of movie you are surrounded by bad guys who are just hellbent on killing you. When does this ever happen in real life outside of a fucking battlefield?

[quote]Jewbacca wrote:

I may agree with you, but unlike you, I don’t decide how people should live. Yet another example that liberals are all about “freedom,” provided the choices are the exact choices said liberal would make. Reminds me of the free votes in the Soviet Union.[/quote]

I also love your immature Liberterian opinion on “how people should live” LOL…if that was the case, why have any laws at all? There is a point where some guidelines have to be established, because I am not under some sort of illusion that all people behave themselves and are just model citizens if left to their own devices. Seriously man, grow up. It’s not a ‘liberal’ philosophy to recognize that people are assholes and will act like assholes if not checked. If people weren’t shooting up schools, or my community, I would be all for giving the fucking things away with an ice cream cone. But for those of us who live in reality actually acknowledge that misuse of a privildge might just end up with a few restrictions on that. Did your mother never spank you when you were a child?

[quote]

That’s what the law was. It created a database and specifically did not destroy background checks.[/quote]

Source?

447

[quote]VTBalla34 wrote:
Source?[/quote]

Go read the bill, in particular the comments. It’s on the Senate website.

448

[quote]VTBalla34 wrote:
3. I don’t think it will be all that effective. I think the gun control advocates are not doing themselves any favors parading the Sandy Hook kids around to support background checks. I’m obviously aware enough to realize that this wouldn’t stop Lanza. But I see it as a loophole that really should be closed. Most of America agrees with that.
[/quote]

So if these background checks were in place, over the next few decades or so would you be opposed to further gun control after the next Lanza incident, or next 10-20 incidents for that matter?

Edit: by background checks I mean loophole you speak of being closed.

449

[quote]Jewbacca wrote:

[quote]VTBalla34 wrote:
Source?[/quote]

Go read the bill, in particular the comments. It’s on the Senate website.[/quote]

You’re gonna have to direct me to it, sorry, I can’t seem to use the correct google phrases to pull it up. Also, what specific section of the law addresses it?

What comments are you speaking of? I really hope you’re not talking about comments by visitors to the site…

450

[quote]VTBalla34 wrote:

  1. Yes. But you have to admit, it is pretty unusual to just see someone walking down the street with an assault rifle strapped to their back with their kid beside them. I mean, I know it probably should be ok and all, but you can’t blame a cop for at least checking out the situation. If that dude goes and shoots somebody, then everybody would be all like “umm 10 police officers saw him and didn’t stop him? wtf?”. I see no problem with a cop at least stopping a dude for that. Not until everybody is walking around with them.
    [/quote]

In MD, yes. In Texas, I wouldn’t know, but it was on some nature trail where wild hogs have been seen. I think the cop should be interested in the situation; however, detaining a citizens that hasn’t broken the law is a bad thing to me.

Agreed, the cop should have ask a few questions. There was no need to cuff him though, imo.

I agree on both the effectiveness of background checks and use of the Sandy Hook kids. Like I said before, I don’t have a problem with background checks for AR-15s like they are done liek handguns checks. I am not for a registry though, I don’t see any purpose for one that will save a single person.

I agree. My main concern is that once we reach the tipping point, we the people, won’t be able to anything except try and enjoy the ride. That is what I want to avoid.

If having a gun is a deterrent wouldn’t an AR-15 be more of a deterrent than a .45? Agree most guns will get the job done. However, some people can better handle a AR-15. I know I am far better with an M16 A2 than my .45 and I’ve been trained and practice with both.

I disagree with you here. The British, for the time, were better equipped than we were. Also it would be difficult for the gov to use Nuclear weapons on her own people. Gov officials and those loyal to them still have to live here. Also the vast majority, imo, would be indifferent to any rebellion.

Resolve is a strong motivator.

Awesome, I agree, but we need guns on campuses for that to be possible. I’m not opposed to a background check and marksmanship test for campus carry. At least that will get some guns on campus.

[quote]
9. Not sure, but I’m not gonna lie: I’m just a tad bit afraid of anyone stockpiling weapons. [/quote]

It’s certainly not a black and white issue. There will always be people that abuse loopholes in the laws. Or they will disregard the law entirely.

451

[quote]sufiandy wrote:

So if these background checks were in place, over the next few decades or so would you be opposed to further gun control after the next Lanza incident, or next 10-20 incidents for that matter?

Edit: by background checks I mean loophole you speak of being closed.[/quote]

LOL talk about a loaded question.

It would depend on the specifics, I reckon.

452

[quote]VTBalla34 wrote:

[quote]Jewbacca wrote:

[quote]VTBalla34 wrote:
Source?[/quote]

Go read the bill, in particular the comments. It’s on the Senate website.[/quote]

You’re gonna have to direct me to it, sorry, I can’t seem to use the correct google phrases to pull it up. Also, what specific section of the law addresses it?

What comments are you speaking of? I really hope you’re not talking about comments by visitors to the site…[/quote]

Comments are the comments by the Senators and staff expounding how the law works and how the regulations are to be inacted. They have binding effect.

453

[quote]Jewbacca wrote:

[quote]VTBalla34 wrote:

[quote]Jewbacca wrote:

[quote]VTBalla34 wrote:
Source?[/quote]

Go read the bill, in particular the comments. It’s on the Senate website.[/quote]

You’re gonna have to direct me to it, sorry, I can’t seem to use the correct google phrases to pull it up. Also, what specific section of the law addresses it?

What comments are you speaking of? I really hope you’re not talking about comments by visitors to the site…[/quote]

Comments are the comments by the Senators and staff expounding how the law works and how the regulations are to be inacted. They have binding effect.[/quote]

We were specifically discussing the Maryland law, not the federal one.

454

I find it saddening that Obama was more pissed about his gun legislation failing, then what happened in Boston.

455

[quote]VTBalla34 wrote:

[quote]Jewbacca wrote:

[quote]VTBalla34 wrote:

[quote]Jewbacca wrote:

[quote]VTBalla34 wrote:
Source?[/quote]

Go read the bill, in particular the comments. It’s on the Senate website.[/quote]

You’re gonna have to direct me to it, sorry, I can’t seem to use the correct google phrases to pull it up. Also, what specific section of the law addresses it?

What comments are you speaking of? I really hope you’re not talking about comments by visitors to the site…[/quote]

Comments are the comments by the Senators and staff expounding how the law works and how the regulations are to be inacted. They have binding effect.[/quote]

We were specifically discussing the Maryland law, not the federal one.
[/quote]

I was not dicussing some state law, and never was, and clearly cited the federal bill the entire time.

456

[quote]MaximusB wrote:
I find it saddening that Obama was more pissed about his gun legislation failing, then what happened in Boston. [/quote]

Dealing with Islamic terror is not a priority of Obama. Disarming scary white folk is.

457

[quote]Jewbacca wrote:

[quote]VTBalla34 wrote:

[quote]Jewbacca wrote:

[quote]VTBalla34 wrote:

[quote]Jewbacca wrote:

[quote]VTBalla34 wrote:
Source?[/quote]

Go read the bill, in particular the comments. It’s on the Senate website.[/quote]

You’re gonna have to direct me to it, sorry, I can’t seem to use the correct google phrases to pull it up. Also, what specific section of the law addresses it?

What comments are you speaking of? I really hope you’re not talking about comments by visitors to the site…[/quote]

Comments are the comments by the Senators and staff expounding how the law works and how the regulations are to be inacted. They have binding effect.[/quote]

We were specifically discussing the Maryland law, not the federal one.
[/quote]

I was not dicussing some state law, and never was, and clearly cited the federal bill the entire time.[/quote]

He and I were talking about MD, I think is what he’s saying.

458

[quote]Jewbacca wrote:

[quote]MaximusB wrote:
I find it saddening that Obama was more pissed about his gun legislation failing, then what happened in Boston. [/quote]

Dealing with Islamic terror is not a priority of Obama. Disarming scary white folk is.[/quote]
Usama would disagree as would anyone killed by a drone. And wasn’t Obama in Israel recently?

459

[quote]zecarlo wrote:

[quote]Jewbacca wrote:

[quote]MaximusB wrote:
I find it saddening that Obama was more pissed about his gun legislation failing, then what happened in Boston. [/quote]

Dealing with Islamic terror is not a priority of Obama. Disarming scary white folk is.[/quote]
Usama would disagree as would anyone killed by a drone. And wasn’t Obama in Israel recently? [/quote]

Usama (or however we are spelling it these days) was a political move as much as it was about national security.

460

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

Usama (or however we are spelling it these days) was a political move as much as it was about national security. [/quote]

True–by definition it would have been so, regardless of who was in the White House. But zecarlo is right, the statement that terrorism “is not a priority” is ridiculous. Predictable piffle; talking points of anal origin.