yardbarker

OT - Assault Weapons Ban Clarification

Moderators: moocow007, magnumt, mrpoetryNmotion, j4remi, Brooklyn_Yards, Knickstape1214, GONYK, Thugger HBC, NoLayupRule, Thorn

Post#161 Re: OT - Assault Weapons Ban Clarification
Fri Jan 18, 2013 11:32 pm by LoyalFan

i had some free time tonight and since some of you guys like to post random articles and facts to try and pat yourselves on the back i figured i would show you that it can go both ways.
LoyalFan
Junior
Posts: 323
And1: 28
Joined: Jul 18, 2012
Top

Post#162 Re: OT - Assault Weapons Ban Clarification
Fri Jan 18, 2013 11:41 pm by LoyalFan

i am not a huge fan of wikipedia but it is good for a bit of general information on a subject.

this is a link on the dc vs heller case. there are a handful of you on here who need to familiarize yourselves with this ruling. it will help you to get the clue that you are lacking. and please believe a good number of you on here are seriously lacing a clue


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_o ... _v._Heller


District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), was a landmark case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution protects an individual's right to possess a firearm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home and within federal enclaves. The decision did not address the question of whether the Second Amendment extends beyond federal enclaves to the states,[1] which was addressed later by McDonald v. Chicago (2010). It was the first Supreme Court case in United States history to decide whether the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms for self-defense.[2]
On June 26, 2008, the Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit in Heller v. District of Columbia.[3][4] The Court of Appeals had struck down provisions of the Firearms Control Regulations Act of 1975 as unconstitutional, determined that handguns are "arms" for the purposes of the Second Amendment, found that the District of Columbia's regulations act was an unconstitutional banning, and struck down the portion of the regulations act that requires all firearms including rifles and shotguns be kept "unloaded and disassembled or bound by a trigger lock." "Prior to this decision the Firearms Control Regulation Act of 1975 also restricted residents from owning handguns except for those registered prior to 1975."[5]
LoyalFan
Junior
Posts: 323
And1: 28
Joined: Jul 18, 2012
Top

Post#163 Re: OT - Assault Weapons Ban Clarification
Fri Jan 18, 2013 11:50 pm by LoyalFan

then they did the same thing in chicago they did for dc


Justices Extend Firearm Rights in 5-to-4 Ruling

Fred R. Conrad/The New York Times
The Supreme Court ruled on Monday that the Second Amendment, which forbids Congress from infringing the right to keep and bear arms, applies to state and local governments as well.
By ADAM LIPTAK
Published: June 28, 2010
RECOMMEND
TWITTER
LINKEDIN
SIGN IN TO E-MAIL
PRINT
REPRINTS
SHARE

WASHINGTON — The Second Amendment’s guarantee of an individual right to bear arms applies to state and local gun control laws, the Supreme Court ruled Monday in a 5-to-4 decision.
Multimedia


Document
Supreme Court Decision: McDonald v. Chicago

Graphic
Monday’s Rulings
Related

Justices Will Weigh Challenges to Gun Laws (October 1, 2009)
Tailgating Outside the Supreme Court, Without the Cars (March 3, 2010)
Supreme Court Still Divided on Guns (March 3, 2010)

What Bolstering Gun Rights Will Mean
How should cities and states alter their gun control policies in light of the Supreme Court decision?
Post a Comment
Enlarge This Image

Brendan Hoffman/Getty Images
The ruling on the Second Amendment pleased Wayne LaPierre, left, a top official of the National Rifle Association, who spoke about it Monday outside the Supreme Court.
Enlarge This Image

Kamil Krzaczynski/European Pressphoto Agency
At issue was whether the amendment applied to states and municipalities, like Lockport, Ill., where handguns were for sale Monday.
The ruling came almost exactly two years after the court first ruled that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to own guns in District of Columbia v. Heller, another 5-to-4 decision.

But the Heller case addressed only federal laws; it left open the question of whether Second Amendment rights protect gun owners from overreaching by state and local governments.

Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr., writing for the majority, said the right to self-defense protected by the Second Amendment was fundamental to the American conception of ordered liberty. Like other provisions of the Bill of Rights setting out such fundamental protections, he said, it must be applied to limit not only federal power but also that of state and local governments.

The ruling is an enormous symbolic victory for supporters of gun rights, but its short-term practical effect is unclear. As in the Heller decision, the justices left for another day just what kinds of gun control laws can be reconciled with Second Amendment protection. The majority said little more than that there is a right to keep handguns in the home for self-defense.

Indeed, over the course of 200 pages of opinions, the court did not even decide the constitutionality of the two gun control laws at issue in the case, from Chicago and Oak Park, Ill. The justices returned the case to the lower courts to decide whether those exceptionally strict laws, which effectively banned the possession of handguns, can be reconciled with the Second Amendment.

In Chicago, Mayor Richard M. Daley said he was disappointed by the ruling because it made the city’s handgun ban “unenforceable.”

“Across the country, cities are struggling with how to address this issue,” Mr. Daley said. “Common sense tells you we need fewer guns on the street, not more guns.”

Justice Alito, who was joined by Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and Justices Antonin Scalia, Anthony M. Kennedy and, in large part, Clarence Thomas, acknowledged that the decision might “lead to extensive and costly litigation,” but said that was the price of protecting constitutional freedoms.

The majority offered the lower courts little guidance about how much protection the Second Amendment affords. In a part of his opinion that Justice Thomas declined to join, Justice Alito reiterated the caveats in the Heller decision, saying the court did not mean to cast doubt on laws prohibiting possession of guns by felons and people who suffer from mental illness, laws forbidding carrying guns in sensitive places like schools and government buildings, or laws regulating the commercial sale of firearms.

The important point was a broad one, Justice Alito wrote: that the Second Amendment, like other provisions of the Bill of Rights, must be applied to the states under the 14th Amendment.

Justices John Paul Stevens, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen G. Breyer and Sonia Sotomayor dissented. They said the Heller decision remained incorrect and added that they would not have extended its protections to state and local laws even had it been correctly decided.

“Although the court’s decision in this case might be seen as a mere adjunct to Heller,” Justice Stevens wrote, “the consequences could prove far more destructive — quite literally — to our nation’s communities and to our constitutional structure.”

Though the majority agreed on the outcome, its members differed about how to get there.

The Second Amendment, like the rest of the Bill of Rights, originally restricted the power of only the federal government. The Supreme Court later ruled that most of the protections of the Bill of Rights applied to the states under the due process clause of the 14th Amendment, one of the post-Civil War amendments.

Many constitutional scholars had hoped that the court would use Monday’s decision, McDonald v. Chicago, No. 08-1521, to revise its approach to how constitutional protections are applied to, or “incorporated against,” the states.

They argued that the court should rely not on the due process clause but on the 14th Amendment’s “privileges or immunities” clause, which says that “no state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States.” There is evidence that the authors of the clause specifically wanted it to apply to allow freed slaves to have guns to defend themselves.

But only Justice Thomas signed on for that project. Justice Scalia, in a concurrence, acknowledged misgivings about using the due process clause to apply Bill of Rights protections to the states but said he would go along with the method here “since straightforward application of settled doctrine suffices to decide it.”

Five justices wrote opinions in the case, with many pages examining the history of the Second and 14th Amendments. The justices in the majority said that history supported both finding a fundamental individual right and applying it to state and local laws.

The dissenters drew different conclusions from the historical evidence.

“The reasons that motivated the framers to protect the ability of militiamen to keep muskets available for military use when our nation was in its infancy, or that motivated the Reconstruction Congress to extend full citizenship to freedmen in the wake of the Civil War, have only a limited bearing on the question that confronts the homeowner in a crime-infested metropolis today,” Justice Stevens wrote in his final dissent before retiring.

He said the court should have proceeded more cautiously in light of “the malleability and elusiveness of history” and because “firearms have a fundamentally ambivalent relationship to liberty.”

In a dissent joined by Justices Ginsburg and Sotomayor, Justice Breyer said that history did not provide clear answers and that the empirical evidence about the consequences of gun control laws are mixed. But there was evidence, he said, that firearms caused 60,000 deaths and injuries in the United States each year and that Chicago’s handgun ban had saved many hundreds of lives since it was enacted in 1982.

All of that, Justice Breyer wrote, counseled in favor of deference to local elected officials in deciding how to regulate guns.

Justice Alito responded that many constitutional rights entail public safety costs, including ones limiting the use of reliable evidence obtained through police misconduct.

He also acknowledged that the majority decision limited the ability of states to address local issues with tailored gun regulations. “But this is always true,” he said, “when a Bill of Rights provision is incorporated.”

Emma Graves Fitzsimmons contributed reporting from Chicago.

This article has been revised to reflect the following correction:

Correction: July 30, 2010


An article on June 29 about a decision by the Supreme Court on state and local gun control laws, using information from a dissenting opinion, misstated the year that Chicago enacted the ban on handguns that was challenged in the case. It was enacted in 1982, not in 1983.
LoyalFan
Junior
Posts: 323
And1: 28
Joined: Jul 18, 2012
Top

Post#164 Re: OT - Assault Weapons Ban Clarification
Fri Jan 18, 2013 11:52 pm by LoyalFan

then days before the newtown shooting they decided that it is unconstitutional to ban people from carrying concealed to protect themselves



John RudolfBecome a fan
john.rudolf@huffingtonpost.com


Illinois Concealed Carry Ban Ruled Unconstitutional By Federal Appellate Court
Posted: 12/11/2012 12:58 pm EST | Updated: 12/11/2012 6:57 pm EST



1,782
100

331
5139
GET CHICAGO ALERTS:
SIGN UP
REACT: Amazing
Inspiring
Funny
Scary
Hot
Crazy
Important
Weird
FOLLOW: Chicago Gun Laws, Illinois Concealed Carry, Illinois Concealed Weapons, Illinois Gun Laws, Chicago Concealed Carry, Conceal Carry, Concealed Carry Illinois Unconstitutional, Concealed Carry Unconstitutional, Gun Control Chicago, Gun Control Illinois, Chicago News
Gun-rights advocates claimed a major victory on Tuesday when a federal appeals court in Illinois struck down the state's ban on carrying concealed firearms, in a ruling that may have national repercussions if appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Before the 2-1 ruling, Illinois stood as the last state in the country maintaining an absolute prohibition on the carrying of concealed firearms by private citizens. The majority opinion, by Richard A. Posner of the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals, found the ban on concealed weapons was unconstitutional under a 2008 Supreme Court decision overturning a sweeping handgun ban by the District of Columbia.

The Supreme Court's decision in 2008 firmly established a constitutional right to armed self-defense under the Second Amendment, Posner wrote.

"A right to bear arms thus implies a right to carry a loaded gun outside the home," he wrote.

The law banning concealed weapons was challenged in 2009 by gun rights groups suing on behalf of an Illinois woman violently attacked while volunteering at her church. The suit was funded by the National Rifle Association.

"Today's ruling is a victory for all law-abiding citizens in Illinois and gun owners throughout the country," said Wayne LaPierre, the NRA executive vice president.

The ruling gives the state 180 days to craft a law regulating the carrying of weapons. Many states, like New York and California, severely restrict the issuance of concealed carry permits. Other states, particularly in the West, have virtually no restrictions on such permits.


Illinois Attorney General Lisa Madigan, who fought the NRA lawsuit, is reviewing the ruling and will decide soon whether to appeal to the Supreme Court, a spokeswoman told NBC Chicago.

Gun control proponents called the ruling unfortunate and said they hoped the ruling would be appealed.

"Courts make mistakes," said Lee Goodman, an organizer with the Stop Concealed Carry Coalition. "That's why we have a process for appeal."

Illinois House Majority Leader Barbara Flynn Currie, who supports stricter gun control measures, said she hoped the ruling would be stayed until the Supreme Court had a chance to rule on an appeal. But if the state is forced to implement a concealed carry law, it should be severely restrictive, she said.

"There's no question that there are all kinds of limits one could impose," Currie told HuffPost.

Gun rights activists said that a restrictive concealed carry bill would be fought bitterly.

"I think the majority leader wants to have a ban without calling it a ban, and they don't have the votes to do it," said Todd Vandermyde, an Illinois-based lobbyist for the NRA.

"After going to court, we're not in the mood to compromise," he said.

Some called Posner's ruling simply puzzling, pointing to a widely discussed essay by the judge that harshly criticized the Supreme Court's decision overturning the District of Columbia handgun ban.

The August 2008 essay, in The New Republic magazine, stipulates that a literal reading of the Second Amendment grants the "right to bear arms" only to state militias, not private citizens.

"The text of the amendment, whether viewed alone or in light of the concerns that actuated its adoption, creates no right to the private possession of guns for hunting or other sport, or for the defense of person or property," Posner wrote.

"The Framers of the Bill of Rights could not have been thinking of the crime problem in the large crime-ridden metropolises of twenty-first-century America," he wrote. "And it is unlikely that they intended to freeze American government two centuries hence at their eighteenth-century level of understanding."

The essay clearly seemed to suggest that Posner was unlikely to rule broadly in favor of a constitutional right for armed self-defense, said Ladd Everett of the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence. The ruling may in fact be a gambit by Posner to force the Supreme Court to more clearly address the constitutionality of gun control, he said.

"This is really strange," Everett said. "I have to believe there is something else going on here."

In his 2008 essay, Posner noted that the majority opinion overturning the District of Columbia's handgun ban, by Justice Antonin Scalia, found that not all forms of gun control were unconstitutional.

"Justice Scalia was emphatic that the right to possess a gun is not absolute," Posner said. "All that is clear is that an absolute ban on possessing a pistol is unconstitutional. The other restrictions a government might want to impose are up for grabs."
LoyalFan
Junior
Posts: 323
And1: 28
Joined: Jul 18, 2012
Top

Post#165 Re: OT - Assault Weapons Ban Clarification
Fri Jan 18, 2013 11:55 pm by LoyalFan

johnnywishbone wrote:
LoyalFan wrote:
times are not changing my friend. you live in a bubble,



Definition of Projection wrote:Psychological projection or projection bias is a psychological defense mechanism where a person subconsciously denies his or her own attributes, thoughts, and emotions, which are then ascribed to the outside world, usually to other people. Thus, projection involves imagining or projecting the belief that others originate those feelings.[1]


I live in a bubble?

LoyalFan wrote:
one in fact filled with ignorance. in the end all of this is empty talk of useless opinions. you will sooner see george bush elected president again before any congress or senate is able to pass any sort of assault weapons ban. this is a sad PR stunt by the president to save face and show he is doing something.


6 months from now people will not even remember this, just like their trayvon martin hoodies................


The times aren't changing? We have an African American President, Gay people can serve in the Army and George Bush has been banished to Texas. I'm sure you have a problem with all three of those too.




well bubble boy. i used my free friday night to give you some light reading and some good videos to watch. since you wanted to play ignorant with me and keep talking about australia and what some tailor made poll some biased news agency with an agenda had to say.

next time you want to play a round of "i am going to continue to talk and make myself look stupid" i will be happy to help you with the making you look stupid part.


on a more serious note though. you should try stepping outside of your bubble and see what people do and think in the rest of the country. you might learn something
LoyalFan
Junior
Posts: 323
And1: 28
Joined: Jul 18, 2012
Top

Post#166 Re: OT - Assault Weapons Ban Clarification
Sat Jan 19, 2013 12:25 am by HarthorneWingo

LoyalFan wrote:
johnnywishbone wrote:
LoyalFan wrote:
times are not changing my friend. you live in a bubble,



Definition of Projection wrote:Psychological projection or projection bias is a psychological defense mechanism where a person subconsciously denies his or her own attributes, thoughts, and emotions, which are then ascribed to the outside world, usually to other people. Thus, projection involves imagining or projecting the belief that others originate those feelings.[1]


I live in a bubble?

LoyalFan wrote:
one in fact filled with ignorance. in the end all of this is empty talk of useless opinions. you will sooner see george bush elected president again before any congress or senate is able to pass any sort of assault weapons ban. this is a sad PR stunt by the president to save face and show he is doing something.


6 months from now people will not even remember this, just like their trayvon martin hoodies................


The times aren't changing? We have an African American President, Gay people can serve in the Army and George Bush has been banished to Texas. I'm sure you have a problem with all three of those too.




well bubble boy. i used my free friday night to give you some light reading and some good videos to watch. since you wanted to play ignorant with me and keep talking about australia and what some tailor made poll some biased news agency with an agenda had to say.

next time you want to play a round of "i am going to continue to talk and make myself look stupid" i will be happy to help you with the making you look stupid part.


on a more serious note though. you should try stepping outside of your bubble and see what people do and think in the rest of the country. you might learn something



No one's reading any of this crap. Especially when you don't post the link to the shytty source you probably got them from.
HEISENBERG SAYS "RELAX"
HarthorneWingo




RealGM
User avatar
Posts: 23,153
And1: 3,264
Joined: May 16, 2005
Location: Harlem, New York
Top

Post#167 Re: OT - Assault Weapons Ban Clarification
Sat Jan 19, 2013 12:54 am by LoyalFan

[/quote]


No one's reading any of this crap. Especially when you don't post the link to the shytty source you probably got them from.[/quote]



full of **** much.........
LoyalFan
Junior
Posts: 323
And1: 28
Joined: Jul 18, 2012
Top

Post#168 Re: OT - Assault Weapons Ban Clarification
Sat Jan 19, 2013 9:02 am by alphad0gz

No one's reading any of this crap. Especially when you don't post the link to the shytty source you probably got them from.


Translation 1: I have no real rebuttal for these so I will attempt to discredit them

Translation 2: I'm too lazy to read but since you're on the other side, I will attempt to discredit them

Translation 3: I'm too closed minded to believe I could be wrong, ergo, these are crap

Translation 4: This is completely against my party line, so it's crap

Translation 5: I can't think of any response to rationally defend my position but I cant just disappear from the debate or I'll look bad so.....this is crap


Great job Loyal Fan. Absolutely outstanding. However, nobody opposed to your view will read what you posted, or if they do, they will have no real idea of what it is saying. You watch, whoever posts against what you posted will post drivel, or completely irrelevant things. As I said before...no ability to critically think and solve problems.
alphad0gz
Veteran
Posts: 2,510
And1: 58
Joined: Oct 10, 2008
Top

Post#169 Re: OT - Assault Weapons Ban Clarification
Sat Jan 19, 2013 11:13 am by ORANGEandBLUE

LoyalFan wrote:[
mass shootings are a political tool. since columbine we have averaged 4 per year. in the big picture of overall crime, gun crime specifically, it is in the low single digit percentages at best

so the root question here is reducing gun crime, not just mass shootings.


Ok, and suppose a gun control proponent was to say that they are indeed focused on the specific issue of mass shootings a la columbine and sandy hook, as opposed to gun violence writ large?

Because it seems that you're conceding that a ban on assault rifles would decrease the amount of these mass shootings.
ORANGEandBLUE
RealGM
Posts: 14,707
And1: 986
Joined: May 5, 2001
Top

Post#170 Re: OT - Assault Weapons Ban Clarification
Sat Jan 19, 2013 1:49 pm by alphad0gz

Ok, and suppose a gun control proponent was to say that they are indeed focused on the specific issue of mass shootings a la columbine and sandy hook, as opposed to gun violence writ large?

Because it seems that you're conceding that a ban on assault rifles would decrease the amount of these mass shootings.


Seriously? That's what you got out of all his posting and links? His point is exactly the opposite of that. His point is that "assault type weapons" are at the bottom end of the statistical pool. Why are people so reluctant to question things that don't make any sense? When there are inconsistencies, people should ALWAYS ask questions...These laws are a perfect example. At face value they look OK, but they make no sense.
alphad0gz
Veteran
Posts: 2,510
And1: 58
Joined: Oct 10, 2008
Top

Post#171 Re: OT - Assault Weapons Ban Clarification
Sat Jan 19, 2013 2:13 pm by ORANGEandBLUE

alphad0gz wrote:
Ok, and suppose a gun control proponent was to say that they are indeed focused on the specific issue of mass shootings a la columbine and sandy hook, as opposed to gun violence writ large?

Because it seems that you're conceding that a ban on assault rifles would decrease the amount of these mass shootings.


Seriously? That's what you got out of all his posting and links? His point is exactly the opposite of that. His point is that "assault type weapons" are at the bottom end of the statistical pool. Why are people so reluctant to question things that don't make any sense? When there are inconsistencies, people should ALWAYS ask questions...These laws are a perfect example. At face value they look OK, but they make no sense.

I didn't read much of what he posted. Not that I don't think it contains valuable insight; I just didn't have the time to go through all of it. Would you mind quoting a portion that demonstrates that only a small portion of columbine/sandy hook style mass-shootings are performed with assault rifles and/or high-capacity magazines?

Here's one excerpt that seems to answer that question:

The large-capacity ammunition magazines used by some of these killers are also misunderstood. The common perception that so-called "assault weapons" can hold larger magazines than hunting rifles is simply wrong. Any gun that can hold a magazine can hold one of any size. That is true for handguns as well as rifles. A magazine, which is basically a metal box with a spring, is trivially easy to make and virtually impossible to stop criminals from obtaining. The 1994 legislation banned magazines holding more than 10 bullets yet had no effect on crime rates.

The problem though is that this focuses on the "effect on crime rates," which may be too broad of a question. What if the question were narrowed to, what is the effect on mass-shooting rates?
ORANGEandBLUE
RealGM
Posts: 14,707
And1: 986
Joined: May 5, 2001
Top

Post#172 Re: OT - Assault Weapons Ban Clarification
Sat Jan 19, 2013 2:30 pm by johnnywishbone

LoyalFan wrote:
well bubble boy. i used my free friday night


You're free on Friday night? Now that's a shocker. :lol:

LoyalFan wrote:
to give you some light reading and some good videos to watch. since you wanted to play ignorant with me and keep talking about australia and what some tailor made poll some biased news agency with an agenda had to say.



You mean what the Prime Minister of Australia had to say you freaking twit? Yeah, you know more about Australia than him. You ignoramus.

LoyalFan wrote:
next time you want to play a round of "i am going to continue to talk and make myself look stupid" i will be happy to help you with the making you look stupid part.



You are the expert on "talking stupid" - no argument there.

LoyalFan wrote:
on a more serious note though. you should try stepping outside of your bubble and see what people do and think in the rest of the country. you might learn something



I live in Hawaii, where we have an assault weapons ban. And guess what? We have the second lowest homicide rate in the country. And people hunt, and I don't feel any less "free" or 'safe" because of it.

Now in regards to the University of Chicago professor's book. We understand that an assault weapons ban isn't going to fix the extraordinarily high murder rate in this country. But it will stop massacres like Newtown. I understand you don't consider those kids statistically significantly but why don't you try explaining that to their parents you callous prick. And to say you need a semi-automatic machine gun to protect your home is paranoia at it's best.
Play time is over.
johnnywishbone
General Manager
User avatar
Posts: 9,346
And1: 1,136
Joined: Sep 4, 2009
Location: In the land where palm trees sway...
Top

Post#173 Re: OT - Assault Weapons Ban Clarification
Sat Jan 19, 2013 5:14 pm by alphad0gz

The problem though is that this focuses on the "effect on crime rates," which may be too broad of a question. What if the question were narrowed to, what is the effect on mass-shooting rates?


Then you have to ask what portion of homicides are composed of mass shootings. Its all perspective. The fact is that few people are killed with these weapons. Its also a fact he could have killed just as many with handguns...same rate of fire...just as deadly...and clips can be changed in a couple of seconds. Those are facts. That these killings were done in a group is horrible but these new laws would not have stopped someone bent on doing this. They would simply have chosen a different weapon that was just as effective in a closed space. Come on...these laws do nothing because of the type of killers, the location of the shootings, and the available alternatives the rifles used.

I live in Hawaii, where we have an assault weapons ban. And guess what? We have the second lowest homicide rate in the country. And people hunt, and I don't feel any less "free" or 'safe" because of it.

Now in regards to the University of Chicago professor's book. We understand that an assault weapons ban isn't going to fix the extraordinarily high murder rate in this country. But it will stop massacres like Newtown. I understand you don't consider those kids statistically significantly but why don't you try explaining that to their parents you callous prick. And to say you need a semi-automatic machine gun to protect your home is paranoia at it's best.


I'll tag in.. Hawaii? Really? Good for you but did it occur to you that Hawaii is just another type of culture/environment altogether? Besides, you appear to be full of crap. AR-15s are not banned in Hawaii. The clip must be plugged to not allow more than 10 rounds. But before you come back with more crap I am posting a link for your pleasure reading. So instead of proving LoyalFan wrong, you instead make a case that having those guns available is not a factor at all. And please stop the thinking that a Bushmaster is inherently more dangerous than a Glock 9mm pistol, for example. Both have pretty much identical firing rates and both have clips that can be changed nearly instantaneously. But don't let facts stand in the way of your point of a good argument.

http://www.hawaiirifleassociation.org/i ... &Itemid=47
alphad0gz
Veteran
Posts: 2,510
And1: 58
Joined: Oct 10, 2008
Top

Post#174 Re: OT - Assault Weapons Ban Clarification
Sat Jan 19, 2013 5:25 pm by LoyalFan

alphad0gz wrote:
No one's reading any of this crap. Especially when you don't post the link to the shytty source you probably got them from.


Translation 1: I have no real rebuttal for these so I will attempt to discredit them

Translation 2: I'm too lazy to read but since you're on the other side, I will attempt to discredit them

Translation 3: I'm too closed minded to believe I could be wrong, ergo, these are crap

Translation 4: This is completely against my party line, so it's crap

Translation 5: I can't think of any response to rationally defend my position but I cant just disappear from the debate or I'll look bad so.....this is crap


Great job Loyal Fan. Absolutely outstanding. However, nobody opposed to your view will read what you posted, or if they do, they will have no real idea of what it is saying. You watch, whoever posts against what you posted will post drivel, or completely irrelevant things. As I said before...no ability to critically think and solve problems.



oh your right. but like i said i didnt have anything to do last night. so i figured what the hell. they dont have to read or listen to it. but at least they will never be able to look back and say they were never presented with reality.

besides its not like they were interested in the truth anyway. much like bubble boy they live in a small pocket of what they translate as reality. not realizing that they are the minority in this equation
LoyalFan
Junior
Posts: 323
And1: 28
Joined: Jul 18, 2012
Top

Post#175 Re: OT - Assault Weapons Ban Clarification
Sat Jan 19, 2013 5:26 pm by LoyalFan

ORANGEandBLUE wrote:
LoyalFan wrote:[
mass shootings are a political tool. since columbine we have averaged 4 per year. in the big picture of overall crime, gun crime specifically, it is in the low single digit percentages at best

so the root question here is reducing gun crime, not just mass shootings.


Ok, and suppose a gun control proponent was to say that they are indeed focused on the specific issue of mass shootings a la columbine and sandy hook, as opposed to gun violence writ large?

Because it seems that you're conceding that a ban on assault rifles would decrease the amount of these mass shootings.



i didnt concede any such thing. we proved for 10 years that a ban on "assault weapons" and high cap magazines literally did nothing at all
LoyalFan
Junior
Posts: 323
And1: 28
Joined: Jul 18, 2012
Top

Post#176 Re: OT - Assault Weapons Ban Clarification
Sat Jan 19, 2013 5:34 pm by LoyalFan

Here's one excerpt that seems to answer that question:

The large-capacity ammunition magazines used by some of these killers are also misunderstood. The common perception that so-called "assault weapons" can hold larger magazines than hunting rifles is simply wrong. Any gun that can hold a magazine can hold one of any size. That is true for handguns as well as rifles. A magazine, which is basically a metal box with a spring, is trivially easy to make and virtually impossible to stop criminals from obtaining. The 1994 legislation banned magazines holding more than 10 bullets yet had no effect on crime rates.

The problem though is that this focuses on the "effect on crime rates," which may be too broad of a question. What if the question were narrowed to, what is the effect on mass-shooting rates?[/quote]


i understand where you are coming from but you have to understand that this makes no sense. its like saying you want eggs for breakfast but to be healthy you want just the egg whites. so you remove the yolk. but at the end of the day you are still eating eggs

so basically your question in the passing of these laws is to limit a crime that only happens 4-7 times a year. because that is the average of mass shootings, since columbine. 4-7 shootings a year. so the logic with these laws is to violate our constitutional rights to go from 4-7 shootings per year and reduce that by maybe 1.

or will it really reduce anything at all. because the proof in the pudding is that it doesnt reduce anything. it didnt here. it didnt in england. it didnt in australia.


if the government of the people that the people elect is going to violate our constitutional rights they need to prove that it actually does what they propose it does. and the fact of the matter is it doesnt. end of story. so why exactly are we doing all this again?
LoyalFan
Junior
Posts: 323
And1: 28
Joined: Jul 18, 2012
Top

Post#177 Re: OT - Assault Weapons Ban Clarification
Sat Jan 19, 2013 5:39 pm by LoyalFan

[/quote]

I live in Hawaii, where we have an assault weapons ban. And guess what? We have the second lowest homicide rate in the country. And people hunt, and I don't feel any less "free" or 'safe" because of it.

Now in regards to the University of Chicago professor's book. We understand that an assault weapons ban isn't going to fix the extraordinarily high murder rate in this country. But it will stop massacres like Newtown. I understand you don't consider those kids statistically significantly but why don't you try explaining that to their parents you callous prick. And to say you need a semi-automatic machine gun to protect your home is paranoia at it's best.[/quote]


i have to admit. i like you. you are not very bright but i like you. and i want to thank you for actually proving how small the bubble you actually live in is. hawaii is a beautiful bubble. a bubble surrounded by the largest ocean in the world. and here i was giving you credit for being 1 of the other mindless morons who live in a city and never drives outside his own neighborhood. you on the other hand live on a tropical island isolated against the realities of the rest of the world.

news flash. we had an assault weapon ban in place when columbine happened. so much for your logic about it stopping massacres like newtown


but now that you have proven to me how ignorant and isolated you are i no longer have to even pretend to hear anything you have to say.

have a nice day and go hang 10 dude
LoyalFan
Junior
Posts: 323
And1: 28
Joined: Jul 18, 2012
Top

Post#178 Re: OT - Assault Weapons Ban Clarification
Sat Jan 19, 2013 5:43 pm by No35

E86 wrote:
Starks1994 wrote:Through out this entire debate on guns, I still have yet to hear an explanation on what purpose a citizen could have with an assault rifle.


They don't. The term "assault rifle" gets thrown around without many people understanding it. Real assault rifles are banned, you cannot legally own an automatic weapon, period. An AR-15 bushmaker is a low caliber semi-automatic weapon, the only reason people say "assault rifle" is because of the ability to add certain accessories. But in the end, no one outside of the military or police own any real assault weapons.

Ever hear of a Class 3 license?
No35
Sixth Man
User avatar
Posts: 1,891
And1: 560
Joined: Feb 6, 2012
Top

Post#179 Re: OT - Assault Weapons Ban Clarification
Sat Jan 19, 2013 5:51 pm by LoyalFan

No35 wrote:
E86 wrote:
Starks1994 wrote:Through out this entire debate on guns, I still have yet to hear an explanation on what purpose a citizen could have with an assault rifle.


They don't. The term "assault rifle" gets thrown around without many people understanding it. Real assault rifles are banned, you cannot legally own an automatic weapon, period. An AR-15 bushmaker is a low caliber semi-automatic weapon, the only reason people say "assault rifle" is because of the ability to add certain accessories. But in the end, no one outside of the military or police own any real assault weapons.

Ever hear of a Class 3 license?




these people actually have not heard much of anything, other than what cnn and diane feinsteine tells them
LoyalFan
Junior
Posts: 323
And1: 28
Joined: Jul 18, 2012
Top

Post#180 Re: OT - Assault Weapons Ban Clarification
Sat Jan 19, 2013 6:40 pm by johnnywishbone

LoyalFan wrote:
i have to admit. i like you. you are not very bright but i like you. and i want to thank you for actually proving how small the bubble you actually live in is. hawaii is a beautiful bubble. a bubble surrounded by the largest ocean in the world. and here i was giving you credit for being 1 of the other mindless morons who live in a city and never drives outside his own neighborhood. you on the other hand live on a tropical island isolated against the realities of the rest of the world.

news flash. we had an assault weapon ban in place when columbine happened. so much for your logic about it stopping massacres like newtown


but now that you have proven to me how ignorant and isolated you are i no longer have to even pretend to hear anything you have to say.

have a nice day and go hang 10 dude


Believe me, Hawaii has it's own set of problems not the least of which is a Meth/Ice epidemic. And we also have a very low high school graduation rate. Believe me, plenty of **** does down. And the reason we have an assault weapons ban is in response to a tragedy. And guess what? No more mass shootings. The reason I think Hawaii, like Australia, is a good example is you can't buy a gun at a Virginia gun show and then drive it to Hawaii. So we can enforce gun laws without worrying about what our neighbors are doing.

Now, back to our Professor Lott. I have to admit I had never heard of this foolio before. But his book "More Crimes, Less Violence" has been widely discredited. Now I understand the politics of personal destruction and that releasing a book like this would draw a lot of critics regardless of the strength of the conclusion. But when presented with the "coding errors" in his study Lott had his name removed from his own study. Now what does that tell you? In addition, he was going around with a pseudonym (pretending to be one of his students) and was going around trolling saying how great his book was and what a great professor he is. Now if that doesn't tell you the guy isn't playing with a full deck I don't know what will.

http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2003/04/25/0426/
Play time is over.
johnnywishbone
General Manager
User avatar
Posts: 9,346
And1: 1,136
Joined: Sep 4, 2009
Location: In the land where palm trees sway...
Top

PreviousNext

Return to New York Knicks


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: BKAY, BodyCount, Capn'O, Dbloc123, Google Adsense [Bot], kane2021, knicks82385, knicksfaninop, MelosSoreWrist, offense, thisiskoz