I have been subjected to nearly all of the stipulations in your video, and in general have no problem with them, except for two:
1. Written request and justification for ownership.
Why are the rights delineated in the 2nd Amendment the only rights allowed to be subject to the whims of the "authorities"? Rights, by their very definition, are not 'granted' by the government. Rights are rights inspiteof the government. To whom do I beg on bended knee for the right to own a gun, and why would this person be in any way more qualified than I in deciding whether I should or should not be allowed to own a gun?
2. Keep ammo separate from the gun.
What is the purpose of that? If you are in possession of a gun without ammo, you, for all practical purposes, are not in possession of a gun. You are in possession of a hunk of metal and plastic. Maybe you should rethink that one, no?
(And, incidentally, I have never been a proponent of open carry.)
Heretic
Posts : 3520
Subject: Re: Gun Control 12/11/2018, 11:04 pm
happy jack wrote:
1. Written request and justification for ownership.
Why are the rights delineated in the 2nd Amendment the only rights allowed to be subject to the whims of the "authorities"?
And I this is the problem we face. In every other country, gun ownership isn't a right, but a privilege, which makes it easier to remove firearms from potential murderers and mass shooters. In the US, we do the opposite: go absolutely out of our way to make it as easy as possible for people to murder, murder, murder as many as they can before a) law enforcement intervention, or b) a good guy with a gun responds (or so the legend goes).
In either scenario, there's dead Americans, which are chalked up as "acceptable losses for Freedom", which are completely absent in every other First World and free nation. Such unimpeded gun ownership is a tool used by terrorists in their training videos, for obvious reasons, which they point out even they can't do elsewhere.
More to the point, "Because it's in the Constitution" is about as laughably relevant as "Because it's in the Bible." It's a nonsense statement on it's face, and done to completely ignore the nuance, complications, and consequences of it. It has little to do with a functioning system of government, which I think should be the more accurate test of "rights." Voting, for instance, is absolute foundation of a functioning democracy and is held in much higher regards in other First World nations that don't enjoy our level of civilian murder, yet conservatives here just can't seem to care...
Weird, that.
happy jack wrote:
2. Keep ammo separate from the gun.
Makes it harder to stockpile for a mass shooting or overthrowing a government. This is a common one in countries that don't routinely mourn the deaths of school children as it makes another hurdle for those that wish to do harm to jump over, coming to the attention of law enforcement before things get ugly. It's similar to how we deal with purchasing bomb making materials, and it's effective.
happy jack
Posts : 6988
Subject: Re: Gun Control 12/11/2018, 11:23 pm
Heretic wrote:
And I this is the problem we face. In every other country, gun ownership isn't a right, but a privilege, which makes it easier to remove firearms from potential murderers and mass shooters. In the US, we do the opposite: go absolutely out of our way to make it as easy as possible for people to murder, murder, murder as many as they can before a) law enforcement intervention, or b) a good guy with a gun responds (or so the legend goes).
In either scenario, there's dead Americans, which are chalked up as "acceptable losses for Freedom", which are completely absent in every other First World and free nation.
You do realize, don't you, that you have the option of moving to one of those First World free nations? You just better haul ass out of here before Trump builds that wall and makes it harder to cross the border.
I honestly thought it would take more than that before you abandoned all logic and pretense for the childish "IF YOU DON'T LIKE IT, MOVE!11!!!"
But if that's all you got...
At least you're admitting that they handle gun violence better than we do.
That's all he ever had.I'm surprised you continue to spend your time debating a knucklehead like him.
happy jack
Posts : 6988
Subject: Re: Gun Control 12/12/2018, 6:10 pm
Heretic wrote:
happy jack wrote:
1. Written request and justification for ownership.
Why are the rights delineated in the 2nd Amendment the only rights allowed to be subject to the whims of the "authorities"?
And I this is the problem we face. In every other country, gun ownership isn't a right, but a privilege, which makes it easier to remove firearms from potential murderers and mass shooters. In the US, we do the opposite: go absolutely out of our way to make it as easy as possible for people to murder, murder, murder as many as they can before a) law enforcement intervention, or b) a good guy with a gun responds (or so the legend goes).
In either scenario, there's dead Americans, which are chalked up as "acceptable losses for Freedom", which are completely absent in every other First World and free nation. Such unimpeded gun ownership is a tool used by terrorists in their training videos, for obvious reasons, which they point out even they can't do elsewhere.
More to the point, "Because it's in the Constitution" is about as laughably relevant as "Because it's in the Bible." It's a nonsense statement on it's face, and done to completely ignore the nuance, complications, and consequences of it. It has little to do with a functioning system of government, which I think should be the more accurate test of "rights." Voting, for instance, is absolute foundation of a functioning democracy and is held in much higher regards in other First World nations that don't enjoy our level of civilian murder, yet conservatives here just can't seem to care...
Weird, that.
happy jack wrote:
2. Keep ammo separate from the gun.
Makes it harder to stockpile for a mass shooting or overthrowing a government. This is a common one in countries that don't routinely mourn the deaths of school children as it makes another hurdle for those that wish to do harm to jump over, coming to the attention of law enforcement before things get ugly. It's similar to how we deal with purchasing bomb making materials, and it's effective.
I have paraphrased the above highlighted portion of your post, substituting the 1st Amendment for the 2nd Amendment:
And this is the problem we face. In every other country, free speech isn't a right, but a privilege, which makes it easier to silence controversial speakers and government critics. In the US, we do the opposite: go absolutely out of our way to make it as easy as possible for people to speak, disagree, opine as much as they can before a) law enforcement intervention, or b) a good guy with a gag or muzzle responds (or so the legend goes).
In either scenario, there's free-speaking Americans, which are chalked up as "acceptable losses for Freedom", which are completely absent in every other First World and free nation. Such unimpeded speech is a tool used by terrorists in their training videos, for obvious reasons, which they point out even they can't do elsewhere.
More to the point, "Because it's in the Constitution" is about as laughably relevant as "Because it's in the Bible."
In light of that, are you still on board with the restrictions you are endorsing? And are you in favor of scrapping our entire "laughably relevant" Bill of Rights, or just those rights you don't personally agree with?
happy jack wrote:
2. Keep ammo separate from the gun.
Heretic wrote:
Makes it harder to stockpile for a mass shooting or overthrowing a government. This is a common one in countries that don't routinely mourn the deaths of school children as it makes another hurdle for those that wish to do harm to jump over, coming to the attention of law enforcement before things get ugly. It's similar to how we deal with purchasing bomb making materials, and it's effective.
In the context of my statement....
"What is the purpose of that? If you are in possession of a gun without ammo, you, for all practical purposes, are not in possession of a gun. You are in possession of a hunk of metal and plastic. Maybe you should rethink that one, no?"
…. your response makes less than zero sense. Can you clarify?
Law & the Courts Allowing the State to Search Gun Seekers’ Social-Media Accounts Is a Terrible Idea By Katherine Timpf
December 14, 2018 12:17 PM
It would also seem to be blatantly unconstitutional, but that hasn’t stopped a New York state senator from trying to write it into law.
A New York state senator has introduced a bill that would require all gun-permit applicants to allow their social-media accounts and search history to be evaluated before receiving a handgun permit. The bill was introduced by Senator Kevin Parker (D., Brooklyn), and it would let an investigating officer obtain applicants’ usernames and passwords so that they could log in and scrutinize those applicants’ search histories and accounts. According to 13WHAM, the investigators would be looking for “commonly known profane slurs used or biased language used to describe race, national origin, ancestry, gender, religion, disability or sexual orientation; threatening health or safety of another person, or an act of terrorism.” This may sound like a great idea. After all, there have been multiple mass shooters who have posted disturbing things on social media that weren’t discovered until after the fact. The truth is, though, that it is actually a terrible idea. I’m a strong supporter of the Second Amendment, but I’d be willing to concede that there might be something to banning people who have made blatant, credible online threats from having access to guns. That, however, is not all this bill does. No — it also has investigators look for things like “biased language,” which is terrifying when you consider just how much has been deemed “racist” or “sexist” or “insensitive” in our current climate. (For example, Lord of the Rings. Or a white girl wearing hoop earrings. Or open offices. Or the phrase “you guys.”) If the investigating officer happened to be someone who subscribed to the logic of social-justice warriors, a post in a coed group chat that you open with “Hey, guys!” could be enough to deny you a gun. In fact, I’d wager that every single Internet user in the world has said or Googled something that could potentially be construed as offensive at one point or another. At the very least, anyone who’s a comedian would be essentially banned from protecting himself or herself — and I’d bet most other people would be, too. I’m no lawyer, but I do understand what words mean, and as such I’m having a hard time understanding how this bill could even come close to being constitutional. Are people who use biased language (and I’m talking actually biased language, not innocuous things like “you guys”) jerks? Of course they are. But the thing is, the Second Amendment does not say that you have a right to keep and bear arms unless you’re a jerk. It doesn’t say that you have a right to keep and bear arms unless you make a sexist joke. It says you have a right to keep and bear arms, period. So, as much as I may hate people who are jerks, I don’t see how it would be constitutional to deny them the right to protect themselves just because they’re jerks. What’s more, as long as they are nonviolent jerks, I don’t see any logical reason to deny them this right, either. I’m all for keeping people safe, but we have to be careful that we don’t endanger our freedoms in the process.
Law & the Courts Allowing the State to Search Gun Seekers’ Social-Media Accounts Is a Terrible Idea By Katherine Timpf
December 14, 2018 12:17 PM
It would also seem to be blatantly unconstitutional, but that hasn’t stopped a New York state senator from trying to write it into law.
A New York state senator has introduced a bill that would require all gun-permit applicants to allow their social-media accounts and search history to be evaluated before receiving a handgun permit. The bill was introduced by Senator Kevin Parker (D., Brooklyn), and it would let an investigating officer obtain applicants’ usernames and passwords so that they could log in and scrutinize those applicants’ search histories and accounts. According to 13WHAM, the investigators would be looking for “commonly known profane slurs used or biased language used to describe race, national origin, ancestry, gender, religion, disability or sexual orientation; threatening health or safety of another person, or an act of terrorism.” This may sound like a great idea. After all, there have been multiple mass shooters who have posted disturbing things on social media that weren’t discovered until after the fact. The truth is, though, that it is actually a terrible idea. I’m a strong supporter of the Second Amendment, but I’d be willing to concede that there might be something to banning people who have made blatant, credible online threats from having access to guns. That, however, is not all this bill does. No — it also has investigators look for things like “biased language,” which is terrifying when you consider just how much has been deemed “racist” or “sexist” or “insensitive” in our current climate. (For example, Lord of the Rings. Or a white girl wearing hoop earrings. Or open offices. Or the phrase “you guys.”) If the investigating officer happened to be someone who subscribed to the logic of social-justice warriors, a post in a coed group chat that you open with “Hey, guys!” could be enough to deny you a gun. In fact, I’d wager that every single Internet user in the world has said or Googled something that could potentially be construed as offensive at one point or another. At the very least, anyone who’s a comedian would be essentially banned from protecting himself or herself — and I’d bet most other people would be, too. I’m no lawyer, but I do understand what words mean, and as such I’m having a hard time understanding how this bill could even come close to being constitutional. Are people who use biased language (and I’m talking actually biased language, not innocuous things like “you guys”) jerks? Of course they are. But the thing is, the Second Amendment does not say that you have a right to keep and bear arms unless you’re a jerk. It doesn’t say that you have a right to keep and bear arms unless you make a sexist joke. It says you have a right to keep and bear arms, period. So, as much as I may hate people who are jerks, I don’t see how it would be constitutional to deny them the right to protect themselves just because they’re jerks. What’s more, as long as they are nonviolent jerks, I don’t see any logical reason to deny them this right, either. I’m all for keeping people safe, but we have to be careful that we don’t endanger our freedoms in the process.
Wow Indeed! No need to worry though... totally unconstitutional... and it's about a lot more than the Second Amendment...
happy jack
Posts : 6988
Subject: Re: Gun Control 12/30/2018, 9:36 am
Scorpion wrote:
Wow Indeed! No need to worry though... totally unconstitutional... and it's about a lot more than the Second Amendment...
No doubt. And the clown who introduced the bill doesn't seem to be someone who will be taken seriously any time soon.
Obviously, plotting a murder is only a thought crime, not an actual crime, making any related charges an egregious over-prosecution since mens rea is junk science.
Plus, guns should never be illegal. He should be allowed to own everything and anything he had per the Constitution. Law enforcement should not have intervened until an actual crime was committed. Since the purpose of the 2nd Amendment is to overthrow a tyrannical government, we should not punish good citizens and Patriots for stockpiling for the purpose of doing so. And bonus Patriot points since his targets are "the enemy of the people," according to our President.
And most importantly, as a nation, we are less free for not allowing it.
Obviously, plotting a murder is only a thought crime, not an actual crime, making any related charges an egregious over-prosecution since mens rea is junk science.
Plus, guns should never be illegal. He should be allowed to own everything and anything he had per the Constitution. Law enforcement should not have intervened until an actual crime was committed. Since the purpose of the 2nd Amendment is to overthrow a tyrannical government, we should not punish good citizens and Patriots for stockpiling for the purpose of doing so. And bonus Patriot points since his targets are "the enemy of the people," according to our President.
And most importantly, as a nation, we are less free for not allowing it.
Do I have that right, happy?
It seems he did a little more than think about a crime - he seems to have left a whole trail of crazy for everyone to see. I think he made it kind of unnecessary to read his mind, for anyone paying attention, in order to tell what he was thinking. Plus, we should reserve thought-crime charges in order to protect those who truly deserve justice for their ordeals - people like Jussie Smollett.
Heretic
Posts : 3520
Subject: Re: Gun Control 2/22/2019, 3:18 pm
But he hasn't been charged on anything other than the weapon possession, so I'm curious... What "trail of crazy" are you citing and where specifically does it diverge from a mere thought crime?
He hasn't said anything that my forum favorite Moby hasn't. Why is one a terrorist but the other isn't?
Please, be specific.
happy jack
Posts : 6988
Subject: Re: Gun Control 2/22/2019, 3:36 pm
Heretic wrote:
But he hasn't been charged on anything other than the weapon possession, so I'm curious... What "trail of crazy" are you citing and where specifically does it diverge from a mere thought crime?
This trail of crazy:
In a June 2017 draft email, he allegedly wrote about “dreaming of a way to kill almost every last person on the earth,” the filing states: “Interesting idea the other day. Start with biological attacks followed by attack on food supply…Have to research this.” Prosecutors allege that Hasson noted the need to enlist the “unwitting help of another power/country,” and wondered “Who and how to provoke??” Hasson wrote that “liberalist/globalist ideology” was destroying “traditional peoples” and warned that “much blood will have to be spilled to get whitey off the couch,” prosecutors wrote. According to the court filing, he added, “For some no amount of blood will be enough” because they "will die as will the traitors who actively work toward our demise. Looking to Russia with hopeful eyes or any land that despises the west’s liberalism.”
Hasson was initially charged with possession of the opioid Tramadol, and he allegedly spoke in his draft email of coming off the drug to “clear my head,” the filing states. He cited the writings of Olympic Park bomber Eric Rudolph and pondered becoming a sheriff, city manager, mayor or other position that would get him leading a community, prosecutors allege. Hasson also wrote of aping tactics from Ukraine’s civil war and attacking people on both sides of a partisan divide to stoke tension and escalate violence, according to the filing. He also plotted attacks on food and fuel supplies and masquerading as a police officer to gun down looters and protesters, prosecutors say. “I can’t just strike to wound I must find a way to deliver a blow that cannot be shaken off,” he wrote, according to the filing. “Maybe many blows that will cause the needed turmoil.”
Authorities found more than 30 bottles labeled "human growth hormone" when they searched the apartment of Coast Guard Lt. Christopher Paul Hasson this month. Hasson was a white nationalist who intended to "murder innocent civilians," prosecutors allege. (U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland records) In another letter allegedly drafted to a known American neo-Nazi leader a few months later, Hasson identified himself as a man who had been a white nationalist for more than three decades and advocated establishing a “white homeland” in the Pacific Northwest, according to the court filing. “You can make change with a little focused violence. How long we can hold out there and prevent niggerization of the Northwest until whites wake up on their own or are forcibly made to make a decision whether to roll over and die or stand up remains to be seen," he allegedly wrote.
And I didn't say that he should charged for his "thought crimes". Did I?
Heretic
Posts : 3520
Subject: Re: Gun Control 2/22/2019, 5:58 pm
happy jack wrote:
It seems he did a little more than think about a crime - he seems to have left a whole trail of crazy for everyone to see.
None of which is relevant, though, as you immediately said:
happy jack wrote:
And I didn't say that he should charged for his "thought crimes".
Exactly. He wasn't charged with any of it. So why bring his "trail of crazy" up at all? It should be as irrelevant as his weapon possession.
Like I said:
Quote :
Law enforcement should not have intervened until an actual crime was committed. Since the purpose of the 2nd Amendment is to overthrow a tyrannical government, we should not punish good citizens and Patriots for stockpiling for the purpose of doing so. And bonus Patriot points since his targets are "the enemy of the people," according to our President.
And most importantly, as a nation, we are less free for not allowing it.
Quote :
He hasn't said anything that my forum favorite Moby hasn't.
So far, we're in complete agreement.
happy jack
Posts : 6988
Subject: Re: Gun Control 2/22/2019, 6:30 pm
Heretic wrote:
happy jack wrote:
It seems he did a little more than think about a crime - he seems to have left a whole trail of crazy for everyone to see.
None of which is relevant, though, as you immediately said:
happy jack wrote:
And I didn't say that he should charged for his "thought crimes".
Exactly. He wasn't charged with any of it. So why bring his "trail of crazy" up at all? It should be as irrelevant as his weapon possession.
Like I said:
Quote :
Law enforcement should not have intervened until an actual crime was committed. Since the purpose of the 2nd Amendment is to overthrow a tyrannical government, we should not punish good citizens and Patriots for stockpiling for the purpose of doing so. And bonus Patriot points since his targets are "the enemy of the people," according to our President.
And most importantly, as a nation, we are less free for not allowing it.
So far, we're in complete agreement.
Hasson’s hit allegedly included “gillibran” — prosecutors say it’s presumably U.S. Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand of New York — as well as “poca warren,” perhaps Massachusetts Senator Elizabeth Warren, plus “Sen blumen jew,” a slur for Sen. Richard Blumenthal of Connecticut, among others, according to the filing. Gillibrand and Warren are seeking the Democratic presidential nomination. Hasson allegedly "developed this list in the above spreadsheet while reviewing the MSNBC, CNN, and FOX News websites…from his work computer,” the filing states.
Unfortunately for him, he laid out his trail of crazy on a government computer, in which case all bets were off. He had no expectation of privacy after that, and any bells that he set off were bound to be looked into. I don't know specifically what weapons charges he faces, and I don't believe there is any law against "stockpiling", as you put it, and I don't believe that there is any law against having crazy ideas. But the opioids are clearly illegal, and for now that and the unspecified weapons charges are all he is being held on.
Heretic
Posts : 3520
Subject: Re: Gun Control 2/22/2019, 8:32 pm
Quote :
But the opioids are clearly illegal, and for now that and the unspecified weapons charges are all he is being held on.
Exactly my point. The opioids... which are much more a threat to the one taking them (him) than anyone else (i.e., not the police, innocent bystanders, and/or "enemies of the people" he "thought" about targeting). Obviously a much bigger issue than any amount of guns or bombs he could possibly own. Which he shouldn't be held on anyway. Because freedom, yo.
So again, we're still in complete agreement. This man is a danger to no one but himself and was only exercising his personal freedom, as needed and necessary for our free society.
happy jack
Posts : 6988
Subject: Re: Gun Control 2/23/2019, 8:30 am
Heretic wrote:
The opioids... which are much more a threat to the one taking them (him) than anyone else (i.e., not the police, innocent bystanders, and/or "enemies of the people" he "thought" about targeting). Obviously a much bigger issue than any amount of guns or bombs he could possibly own. Which he shouldn't be held on anyway. Because freedom, yo.
Whether or not you like it, guns, under normal circumstances, are perfectly legal, while opioids are not. Is your quibble over the quantity of guns and ammo someone might possess, assuming that that someone possesses those products legally? If so, why? If it is OK to possess one legal object, why is it not OK to possess two of those objects? Or five? Or fifteen? Personally, I feel that it is none of my business, nor yours, to dictate to someone how many legal objects he should be allowed to possess (and, yeah - " because freedom, yo.") Do you?
Cop Coup: Sheriffs Refuse To Enforce Washington Crackdown On Assault-Style Rifles
State Attorney General warns law enforcement officers not to highjack democracy.
By Mary Papenfuss
Twenty sheriffs in Washington communities are refusing to enforce the state’s new limitations on assault-style weapons, The Guardian reports. The law enforcement officers represent half of all sheriffs in the state. The new restrictions are part of Washington Initiative 1639, which was passed by about 60 percent of the popular vote last November, according to the Spokesman-Review. While it was passed overwhelmingly in urban areas, it’s opposed in several rural communities, revealing a deep divide in the state. The defiant sheriffs are mostly from rural counties. Only four sheriffs in the state so far have publicly committed to enforcing the new restrictions, according to The Guardian. The law is hardly draconian. Purchasers of semi-automatic rifles must now be 21 or older, undergo an enhanced background check, take a safety course, and wait 10 days to take possession of their weapon after purchase. Gun owners who fail to store their weapons safely risk felony “community endangerment” charges. Some rural county governments have passed resolutions opposing the state law, backing up their sheriffs. Many sheriffs are opposed to the law because they believe it’s unconstitutional. Klickitat County Sheriff Bob Songer declared flatly to National Public Radio: “My plan is not to enforce it.” He said he was so opposed to the law that he would consider preventing other agencies from enforcing it, The Guardian reported.
NPR puts the number of sheriffs refusing to enforce the law at a dozen. Some will enforce parts of the law, like enhanced background checks, according to NPR. Many in law enforcement believe they need discretion to enforce laws on the streets and in certain situations. Critics say the sheriffs are highjacking the democratic process and they fear isolated, right-wing armed communities ignoring the rule of law. Washington State Attorney General Bob Ferguson called out law enforcement officers earlier this month for ignoring the will of the people, and warned that the failure to enforce enhanced background checks will “jeopardize public safety.” “If you personally disagree with Initiative 1639, seek to change it. But do not substitute your personal views over that of the people,” Ferguson wrote in a letter to officers. “As public officers, our duty is to abide by the will of the people we serve, and implement and enforce the laws they adopt.”
If you have no problem with local law enforcement refusing to enforce immigration laws (i.e., "sanctuary cities"), then you should have no problem whatsoever with this. Correct?
Heretic
Posts : 3520
Subject: Re: Gun Control 2/28/2019, 5:38 pm
Nope. What matters isn't the opinion of law enforcement, but the demonstrable reality and statistics of their policies.
Scorpion
Posts : 2141
Subject: Re: Gun Control 3/1/2019, 2:22 pm
happy jack wrote:
If you have no problem with local law enforcement refusing to enforce immigration laws (i.e., "sanctuary cities"), then you should have no problem whatsoever with this. Correct?
Didn't we have a discussion specifically about this subject? I've included it below... I really don't see how your "analogy" or "equivalency argument" applies to this situation regarding the refusal of sheriffs to follow the gun laws of Washington State.
Scorpion wrote:
happy jack wrote:
Is it your contention that state and local authorities should be able to choose to not cooperate with any crimes or investigations that may fall under the purview of federal authorities?
No, of course not. Never even implied that I had such a view, either...
ICE detainers have been a controversial issue for years, as several federal courts have ruled that local authorities are under no legal obligation to honor them. But Trump said "sanctuary jurisdictions" that don't fully comply with federal immigration requests will be punished with the loss of federal grants. Hundreds of local police agencies depend on hundreds of millions of dollars in grants from Homeland Security and the Justice Department.
One agency listed in the report is the Boulder County, Colo., Sheriff's Office. Sheriff Joe Pelle said his jail formally adopted a policy in 2014 after a series of court rulings that nobody would be detained without a warrant. The ICE detainers were not the same as a warrant signed by a judge, the courts said, and counties that held prisoners without that legal authority could be sued.
Pelle said Monday he will abide by those court rulings, not the Trump administration's decrees.
"They can shame all they want, but there's a lot of case law out there from three different federal courts, and it all says the same thing," Pelle said. "We are not honoring detainers. We would absolutely honor a federal arrest warrant signed by a federal judge or magistrate."
This pretty much captures the absurdity of the whole disingenuous "sanctuary city" argument... in a nutshell... It's simply not true that states and cities are trying to "stymie" federal authorities.
happy jack
Posts : 6988
Subject: Re: Gun Control 3/1/2019, 7:43 pm
Scorpion wrote:
happy jack wrote:
If you have no problem with local law enforcement refusing to enforce immigration laws (i.e., "sanctuary cities"), then you should have no problem whatsoever with this. Correct?
Didn't we have a discussion specifically about this subject? I've included it below... I really don't see how your "analogy" or "equivalency argument" applies to this situation regarding the refusal of sheriffs to follow the gun laws of Washington State.
What is the difference between local authorities choosing to flout state laws as opposed to federal laws?
Scorpion
Posts : 2141
Subject: Re: Gun Control 7/9/2019, 11:32 pm
test
happy jack
Posts : 6988
Subject: Re: Gun Control 8/7/2019, 10:58 am
Scorpion wrote:
test
Why is the original 'Gun Control' thread locked? (See page 2 of home page index, 40+ pages}.
My Family Has Been Threatened by Racists. Why Should They Outgun Me?
By David French
August 6, 2019 5:28 PM
Few things are more frustrating than watching members of the media, politicians, and activists who often know very little about guns, have the resources to hire security when they face threats, and don’t understand the weapons criminals use telling me what I “need” to protect my family. And what they invariably tell me I “need” is a weapon less powerful than the foreseeable criminal threat. Or, let me put it another way. My family has been threatened by white nationalists. Why should they outgun me? Few things concentrate the mind more than the terrifying knowledge that a person might want to harm or kill someone you love. It transforms the way you interact with the world. It makes you aware of your acute vulnerability and the practical limitations of police protection. If you’re wealthy, you have a quick response: Hire professionals to help. Let them worry about weapons and tactics. If you’re not wealthy, then your mind gets practical, fast. You have to understand what you may well face. And despite the constant refrain that semi-automatic weapons with large-capacity magazines are “weapons of war,” if you know anything about guns you know that what the media calls a large-capacity magazine is really standard-capacity on millions upon millions of handguns sold in the United States. This means it’s entirely possible that a person coming to shoot you is carrying something like, say, a Glock 19 with a standard 15-round magazine. So, how do I meet that threat? Unless you’re a highly trained professional who possesses supreme confidence in your self-defense skills, you meet it at the very least with an equivalent weapon, and preferably with superior firepower. In a nutshell that’s why my first line of defense in my home is an AR-15. One of the most ridiculous lines in yesterday’s New York Post editorial endorsing an assault-weapons ban was the assertion that semi-automatic rifles such as the AR-15 are “regularly used only in mass shootings.” False, false, false. I use one to protect my family. Why? The answer is easy. As a veteran, I’ve trained to use a similar weapon. I’m comfortable with it, it’s more powerful and more accurate than the handgun I carry or the handgun an intruder is likely to carry, and, while opinions vary, multiple self-defense experts agree with me that it’s an excellent choice for protecting one’s home. What’s more, like the vast, vast majority of people who own such a weapon, I use it responsibly and safely. Don’t believe me? It’s the most popular rifle in the United States — one of the most popular weapons of any kind, in fact — and it’s used in fewer murders than blunt objects or hands and feet. Here is the fundamental, quite real, problem that gun-control advocates face when they try to persuade the gun-owning public to support additional restrictions on the right to keep and bear arms: The burden of every single currently popular large-scale gun-control proposal will fall almost exclusively on law-abiding gun owners. Even in the case of our dreadful epidemic of mass shootings, the available evidence indicates that so-called “common sense” gun-control proposals popular in the Democratic party (and the New York Post) are ineffective at stopping these most committed of killers. As my colleague Robert VerBruggen pointed out yesterday, a large-scale RAND Corporation review “uncovered ‘no qualifying studies showing that any of the 13 policies we investigated decreased mass shootings.’” It’s one thing to ask millions of Americans to sacrifice their security for the sake of the larger common good. It’s quite another to ask for that same sacrifice in the absence of evidence that the policy will accomplish what it is designed to accomplish. The criminal who seeks to harm my family has already demonstrated that he has no regard for the law. He doesn’t care about magazine-size restrictions or rhetoric about “weapons of war.” He doesn’t care that he evaded a background check or that he placed his girlfriend in legal jeopardy by using her as a straw purchaser. He doesn’t care if a previous felony conviction renders his gun possession unlawful. By contrast, I care about the law. I want to remain law-abiding, and I want my family to remain law-abiding. I have immense respect for our nation’s legal system and its political processes. And so, as a person who has that respect and who also feels the keen anxiety of real threats aimed at the people I love the most, I’m making a simple request: Don’t give the white nationalists an advantage. Don’t give violent criminals the edge in any conflict with peaceful citizens. In your well-meaning ignorance, you seek to provide greater security at the price of liberty. In reality, you would sacrifice both to no good end.
Home 
Publications 
