The Law and Guns

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
82

[quote]batman730 wrote:

[quote]Bismark wrote:

[quote]batman730 wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

Heh. If by “Fudd”, you mean someone who owns guns for their purpose and not for the purpose of being seen or heard as a gun owner because of the hoped-for “cool points” (“fingers crossed that they actually think I am some kind of a badass!”), then I probably qualify.

[/quote]

What are “their purpose?”

I think some gun owners do see guns as a status symbol.

I think many see them for what they truly are – a freedom symbol.

Do you see them that way, boxer? As a freedom symbol?[/quote]

Hmm… I was always taught to see them as highly effective machines for launching bullets into things, generally for the purpose of killing/destroying said things. [/quote]

Firearms are certainly not symbols of freedom and security for the citizens of despotic regimes. Weapons are ambiguous symbols. They have meaning in relation to the context and the beliefs of the relevant actors. A gun can be the source of food for a family in a hunting community, or it can be used to spray bullets across a school in a mad killing spree. A sword can be an instrument of honorable suicide, or the cross marking a crusader’s grave, as well as a weapon of war. Ambiguous symbolism goes all the way down, as was shown with telling simplicity in a question at the World Disarmament Conference (WDC) in 1932: “What is not a weapon in the wrong hands?” They also asked: is a spade a spade or is it an entrenching tool? There exists an interplay between the material and the psychological. The same weapon that holds the capacity to defend a person can also be turned upon others to deprive them of their own freedom and security. [/quote]

That’s all well and fine. My point was simply that attaching emotionally charged symbolism to an item does little to further rational discourse on the subject.

To me, a firearm is and always has been a tool, not a symbol. I endeavour to see things simply for what they are rather than for the significance people attach to them.

Anyway, this is off topic. I apologize.[/quote]

It is interesting nonetheless. They may be tools outside of the context of the relevant actors. You have a neighbor to your left and to your right. Both are owners of semi-automatic long guns. One is former military and currently a LEO. The other by all indications appears to be a ruthless hood. Are their firearms merely tools? Or symbols of security and insecurity, respectively? What about your own long gun in this context? Fear and uncertainty are inseparable from the human condition. The above scenario is reminiscent of nuclear weapons in the Cold War. Why were the British existentially threatened by Soviet missiles by not by American ones? There existed a rough parity materially. The balance of threats, however, infused disparate meanings into the USSR and US nuclear arsenals. The same occurs on an individual and domestic level.

83

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]batman730 wrote:

To me, a firearm is and always has been a tool, not a symbol. I endeavour to see things simply for what they are rather than for the significance people attach to them.

[/quote]

This may have a whole lot to do with the differences between Canadian gun culture and American. One culture allowed its freedom to be stripped away to a large degree by its politicians. The other fought and continues to fight fiercely against the same.
[/quote]

I believe that Batman is a Kiwi. In all seriousness, I don’t know if you have frequented the combat forum, but he has consistently and thoughtfully contributed to the sheepdog mindset you espouse here.

84

[quote]pushharder wrote:
We just don’t seem to hear quotes anything like this from Karl Peterson so the idea that firearms have no symbolism is ludicrous:

“God made man and woman; Colonel Colt made them equal.”

More reasons for valid symbolism:

“…What the arms-control faithful really want is a world without violence, not a world without weapons. These are the ideological descendants of the authors of the Kellogg-Briand Pact, which purported to outlaw war. But we can’t have a world without violence, because the world is half male and testosterone causes homicide. A world with violence – that is to say, with men – but without weapons is the worst of all possible worlds for women.”

Ann Coulter [/quote]

“If the great civilized nations of the present day should completely disarm, the result would mean an immediate recrudescence of barbarism in one form or another.”

-Teddy Roosevelt

I believe that the course of the 20th century could have been dramatically different has he won reelection.

85

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]Bismark wrote:

…The same weapon that holds the capacity to defend a person can also be turned upon others to deprive them of their own freedom and security. [/quote]

Indeed again. And again…all the more reason to stand firm against all types of infringement.[/quote]

I am on your side here, but I am curious if/where you draw the line. All types of Small Arms and Light Weapons (SALW): Handguns, shoulder-fired weapons, light automatic weapons up to and including 50 caliber machine guns, recoilless rifles up to and including 106mm, mortars up to and including 81mm, man-portable rocket launchers, rifle-/shoulder-fired grenade launchers, and individually operated weapons that are portable or can be fired without special mounts or firing devices?

87

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

[quote]Alrightmiami19c wrote:

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
the LEOs I know are in favor of people owning guns (particularly fornself-defense) but don’t have a problem with reasonable regulation and restriction.
[/quote]

What do they define as reasonable?

I was at a gun show over the weekend and there was an entire table of 30 round mags that said “Law enforcement only.” I don’t consider it reasonable that every citizen in my state is limited to 10 round mags regardless of the circumstances, and an off duty officer can have standard capacity mags (pistol grip, “muzzle device”, telescopic stock.) Most of the officers I have spoken to, whether retired or active, completely agree that mag limits and “assault weapon” bans are completely useless and bullshit.
[/quote]

Like you, it varies, but among the folks I know there is consensus that an assault weapons ban is worthless. The guys I associate with (through various sporting groups and events) personally think lowly of so-called assault weapons, but don’t support making them illegal.

(Their take, which I share, is that they are mostly a silly marketing shtick - low caliber with a pistol grip only for that segment of the market that a) want to own a gun because they get action hero jollies from owning such a “fierce” looking gun and b) people who are horrible shots. I know people who hunt with big mag assault weapons and all I see it as is an admission you are low-skilled. As for the group in a), these are the same people who will buy a roll of tape for $10 over an identical regular roll of tape merely because Beretta labeled it “tactical”.)[/quote]

The rifle you describe above is among the most effective platforms for self-defense. Yeah, you have your tacti-cool people, but many simply want a proven weapon system that is more versatile than traditional bolt-guns.

Why does it make one inherently less skilled? I know hard boiled operators with expert marksmanship badges that hunt with 5.56 and 7.62 rifles. Would you prefer a bolt-gun to hunt feral hogs?

93

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]Bismark wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]batman730 wrote:

To me, a firearm is and always has been a tool, not a symbol. I endeavour to see things simply for what they are rather than for the significance people attach to them.

[/quote]

This may have a whole lot to do with the differences between Canadian gun culture and American. One culture allowed its freedom to be stripped away to a large degree by its politicians. The other fought and continues to fight fiercely against the same.
[/quote]

I believe that Batman is a Kiwi. In all seriousness, I don’t know if you have frequented the combat forum, but he has consistently and thoughtfully contributed to the sheepdog mindset you espouse here.[/quote]

Oh I know. He is one of my favorite posters on the website. But I do think he’s a Canuck.
[/quote]

Thank both you gentlemen for your kind words.

Push is correct. I am a proud Canuck. However, I do enjoy guns and personal liberty and I can’t ice skate, so I guess I’m not a particularly good one. However I am clean, polite and I cut down trees, so that has to count for something.

In any case, whatever my personal feelings, our national characters do differ considerably on this issue which (along with the fact that I am not in-the-trenches LE) is precisely why my remarks are off point, as per my earlier comment and apology.

I’ll refrain from taking this thread any further of topic.

Cheers!

96

97

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

No, you didn’t, you just directed me to go reread your post which doesn’t contain any such explanation.

So, explain it to me. Nice and clear. If you think you’ve already explained it clearly, just copy and paste the part I am missing.
[/quote]

OK, I said this (underlined for emphasis):

[quote]

The problem is you extrapolating that beyond your local city park. Now maybe you’ll claim you’re not doing that; fine, just be honest. [/quote]

That left you an out. I said you could claim you weren’t doing this. I would’ve possibly let you go on that.

I did say “Just be honest,” and by that I thought you’d clearly understand that I meant that most LEO’s aren’t neccesarily like your city park LEO’s.

I also said this:

What this obviously means even to the casual observer is that you came into the boxing ring with a record. An record that can be examined. And that record shows a clear bias toward gun control. You’ve thrown these punches for years and years and years.

So you don’t get to pretend with the likes of me that you don’t extrapolate your city park officer anecdote. You might specifically not’ve done it on this thread but you’ve done it throughout your boxing career – AND you did do it implicitly on this thread.

Why does it appear you now want to run from your record?[/quote]

Nope. Nope again. We’ll have to do this in slow, painful steps, but it will be good for anyone who has to deal with your usual nonsense to go through this.

I remarked about what some cops I know think about gun control. I never represented that I thought their views or experiences were representative of cops as a whole - in other words, I didn’t “extrapolate” their views or experiences into a broader meaning about what cops generally think about gun control. (Far from it, I made sure and qualify my response as “anecdotally”, as opposed to empirically across the board. Useful, words. They actually mean something.)

You then claim I extrapolated - that is, argued that the views of the cops I mentioned were representative of cops generally or broadly - and then went on to attack and counter such an extrapolation by showing that AZ cops stood against Obama’s executive. We’ll set aside that that facially doesn’t actually counter the argument, since the cops I was talking to were talking about state law, not federal - what you were attacking was a straw man of your own invention, a position I don’t hold and never expressed: that the views of the cops I mentioned are representative of cops generally.

I immediately called you on it. I said, produce the statement where I made such an extrapolation.

You sniveled and dodged (like you do every time you get called out) and wouldn’t produce a response showing where I had taken such a position.

After being pressed over and over, your latest response is merely your first post to me where you make the claim I “extrapolated”.

Nope, that isn’t proof I said it or took that position - it’s only proof you claimed I did. It’s evidence of something you said, Einstein, not what I said.

So, either I took that position (I extrapolated, meaning I claimed that the views of the cops I talked to were representative of cops generally) or I didn’t. You claim I took such a position. So, produce my written text when I did so.

Problem is, you haven’t, because you can’t, because I didn’t say it, or “extrapolate”. You may have wanted me to because you wanted to attack that position, and so you made it up, but that doesn’t mean I did. This is not knowing how to box.

Now, that should all be clear enough, but you won’t concede you flubbed it from the outset with one of your classic straw men. That means you’re dumb, dishonest, or both. What’s the answer, Push?

I go through this exercise for the simple reason that you are getting really, really bad about screwing perfectly good threads by barfing up all of your irrelevant, illogical nonsense, and having to suffer through it is getting old.

Learn to box, or just enjoy the view from the sidelines, where you increasingly belong.

98

[quote]Mufasa wrote:
I’m curious, because I really don’t know (so I hope someone in, or with Law Enforcement experience; or who knows someone who is, will post…)

What does the average, “in-the-trenches/out-in-the-street” Law man or woman think should be the “balance” between them and public when it comes to firepower?

Do most advocate any form of Gun Control?

(P.S. Politicians need to get the hell out of the discussion…and I believe the 2nd Amendment is clear…)

Mufasa[/quote]

I’m not from the US, but I am a police officer.

Canada just had a federal election and all the coppers I’ve talked to are not happy about the upcoming changes to firearm laws here. Gun control is going to be ramped up. Most guys on the job support citizens having firearms and think the mag restrictions and barrel restrictions are pointless.

99

[quote]Alrightmiami19c wrote:

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
These folks tend to see guns first and foremost as status symbols and don’t know half of what they think they do about the hallowed Second Amendment.
[/quote]

Come on man, there are a lot of Fudds with $2,000 dollar Browning shotguns that have never been fired.

To keep this somewhat on topic, the people I hear criticize “responsible hunters and sportsman who support common sense gun legislation” the most are military and law enforcement.
[/quote]

Sure there are, but I don’t know if them doing so (owning an expensive gun without using it) really means anything.

I don’t hear much of that criticism from the people I know, but that would be dumb criticism. There’s nothing anti-Second Amendment about “common-sense gun legislation”, assuming it remains based in common sense.

Problem is, the libertarian fetishist types are not blessed with a great deal of common sense.

100

[quote]Bismark wrote:

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

[quote]Alrightmiami19c wrote:

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
the LEOs I know are in favor of people owning guns (particularly fornself-defense) but don’t have a problem with reasonable regulation and restriction.
[/quote]

What do they define as reasonable?

I was at a gun show over the weekend and there was an entire table of 30 round mags that said “Law enforcement only.” I don’t consider it reasonable that every citizen in my state is limited to 10 round mags regardless of the circumstances, and an off duty officer can have standard capacity mags (pistol grip, “muzzle device”, telescopic stock.) Most of the officers I have spoken to, whether retired or active, completely agree that mag limits and “assault weapon” bans are completely useless and bullshit.
[/quote]

Like you, it varies, but among the folks I know there is consensus that an assault weapons ban is worthless. The guys I associate with (through various sporting groups and events) personally think lowly of so-called assault weapons, but don’t support making them illegal.

(Their take, which I share, is that they are mostly a silly marketing shtick - low caliber with a pistol grip only for that segment of the market that a) want to own a gun because they get action hero jollies from owning such a “fierce” looking gun and b) people who are horrible shots. I know people who hunt with big mag assault weapons and all I see it as is an admission you are low-skilled. As for the group in a), these are the same people who will buy a roll of tape for $10 over an identical regular roll of tape merely because Beretta labeled it “tactical”.)[/quote]

The rifle you describe above is among the most effective platforms for self-defense. Yeah, you have your tacti-cool people, but many simply want a proven weapon system that is more versatile than traditional bolt-guns.

Why does it make one inherently less skilled? I know hard boiled operators with expert marksmanship badges that hunt with 5.56 and 7.62 rifles. Would you prefer a bolt-gun to hunt feral hogs? [/quote]

Sure, which is why I don’t support a ban on them. They are (or can be) highly useful (thougg for self-defense, I favor semiautomatic shotguns).

And I am not talkimg about the exception - marksmen who prefer the platform (I know some very accurate shooters who swear by a pistol grip). I’m talking about the larger majority to whom assault rifles are marketed to - whose primary motive is to show pictures of themselves on social media with them or fill an animal full of lead (probably on a canned hunt) because they haven’t put time at the range to be accurate. As in, the same kind of status driven adolescents (regardless of age) who want instant gratification.

As for feral hogs, I know people who like ARs for that, sure. My thought? If you’re accurate, you don’t need one.

Hunting with assault rifles is like dunking a basketball on an eight foot rim.