proposed federal high cap. mag ban

[MudPuppy]

Disgusting, the whole sordid mess-from the whack job to the politicians that would exploit it.
I'll be respectful on thehighroad, but you folks that would be okay with the ban on 30 rounders are incredibly short sighted. They'll take the restriction to 10 to start. And when a whack job uses a 10 rounder, they'll take it to single shots and ban handguns all together. The fact that otherwise "pro -2a" people don't get this is baffling! UK? Hello?

Man, do you not get the list of your freedoms doesn't match your needs list? Do you really want McCarthy deciding what you need?

I work with a whole office that doesn't get the "need" to own any gun at all. They'll love having you for a temporary ally, so good work.

 

[Carter]

Isn't it nice when lawmakers try to ban things that they don't even know what they are, as shown by the video posted above my post.

I'd seen that video before, but hadn't made the connection.

 

[armoredman]

Panzercat, I have shopped at that Safeway store, and a former co-workers wife works at the Walgreens. No signs. The Congresswoman was in the parking lot, and I have never seen a sign there either. That was 100% NOT a "gun free zone". Been there, done that, got the t-shirt. Literally, bought a shirt at Walgreens many years ago...
I spent 41 years in Tucson, growing up, carrying, shooting, raising a family, etc, before moving slightly north. Heck, my son was born in the same hospital I was born in! I remember when the signs at Safeway DID come down, in 1994 when we got CCW. Last grocery store I saw posted in the Tucson area was Bashas.

 

[chihuahuatn]

A decent article in the NYT...

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/14/us/14guns.html

 

[Carter]

A lot of those comments from the NYT's article (reader posted comments) are pretty harsh and ridiculous towards gun ownership. Apparently firearms are now "massacre weapons" according to one poster, and several others demonized the congressman for carrying handguns for protection by saying they were primitive, unevolved (although I find that ironic because the ones who take it upon themselves to practice SD would meet the survival of the fittest aspect of evolution), have a cowboy mentality, and made references to how it was like a violent movie.

I also noticed almost all of those posters were in the NE. Go figure.

I find it further ironic that it was found that the 2A applies to the states (before Heller) and it was up to the states to determine their gun laws, yet people from other states want to push their laws on others. Thus violating the states individual right to create its gun laws.

Despite all of this, after doing some research I think our magazines are safe, for now. However, there are a lot of people that wish otherwise. I find it odd that areas with high gun control have a lot more violence (NY, Chicago, LA, etc) where as places with relatively lax or more reasonable gun control tend to be safer. It seems those places with high gun control have demonized a tool to the point that it is an inanimate objects fault, and not a persons fault. I fear its past the point of winning them over with logic when they are so emotionally invested in hating firearms, the NRA, or any measure of SD.
When society gets to the point that it thinks SD is backward and unevolved, as one poster said, then that society has lost all connection with reality.

 

[HoorayFor2A]

I wonder how they would feel about my 75rd drum?

 

[ShaiVong]

the ones who take it upon themselves to practice SD would meet the survival of the fittest aspect of evolution)

It's not about survival, it's about procreation. Live to 1000 without having kids, you're an evolutionary failure.

I think it's silly to ban mags, or assault weapons, or even SBRs. I do, however, think that the requirements for getting any firearm should be about the same as getting a CWP (safety class, written test, range test). Heck, I'd even push for a psych eval, if there were some way to implement it.

Stable citizens should be able to enjoy gun ownership, unstable citizens should not. Gun ownership is like vehicle ownership - a pleasure, or even basic need, that should be enjoyed by the responsible. Hopefully 2A will hang around for a while; though I reject the notion of a 2A right somehow outside or above the 2A.

 

[Tim the student]

Heck, I'd even push for a psych eval, if there were some way to implement it.

And who would decide these standards? Who should decide who is unstable? Lawmakers? The AMA? Each individual shrink? You? Me?

ETA: FYI, as I understand the new law in Iowa, I would meet their training standard by simply showing my DD214. Something to think about as far as the permit idea goes.

 

[Carter]

It's not about survival, it's about procreation. Live to 1000 without having kids, you're an evolutionary failure.

Yes, well those who don't believe in defending themselves have less chance at procreation because they are more easily killed off. Thus survival leads to procreation, yadda yadda, way off topic and turns in to a semantical argument that leads no where.

Point is, I doubt anything will change any time soon. There doesn't seem to be the movement needed, yet. This could be the start for laying the ground work for such movement though.

 

[ShaiVong]

And who would decide these standards? Who should decide who is unstable? Lawmakers? The AMA? Each individual shrink? You? Me?

ETA: FYI, as I understand the new law in Iowa, I would meet their training standard by simply showing my DD214. Something to think about as far as the permit idea goes.

Who decides if you're mentally fit to be a police officer? Who decides if you're mentally fit for military service? For intelligence agencies? To stand trial?

There are (imperfect but functional) standard tests that can illuminate potentially violent or aggressive tenancies. I don't think the problem would be coming up with some type of standard test, but with handling the volume.

Anyone crazy enough to shoot up a crowd of innocent civilians is likely crazy enough to not fool the test. Some would pass, some would fail. At least some could be caught. The fact that there has been a lot of 'why didn't anyone say anything about his wacky behavior' says to me that this looser couldn't have kept his crazy in check long enough to game a psych eval.

 

[altitude_19]

There are (imperfect but functional) standard tests that can illuminate potentially violent or aggressive tenancies. I don't think the problem would be coming up with some type of standard test, but with handling the volume.

What is it you're proposing? Stripping people of rights before they've committed a crime because they set off your crazy-sonar? This "Minority Report" idea has been covered by many-a-Ivy League intellectual types and has come accross as the sime Ivory Tower drivel every time. Tragic things happen, and sometimes they could have been prevented while others they could not have. Make peace with it, keep your head on a swivel, and maybe you'll be alright...welcome to freedom.

 

[george d dennis]

already the fruitcake lawmakers in connecticut want new gun laws and 10 rd magazines.
the ctpost newspaper has a article on it today. as it stands now, were one of the worse
states their is for gun owners. the politicians are bringing this country down, whats next.
already in connecticut we have 21 rifles on a list we cant own. coming to a socialist
country. i hate to say that. but as time goes on, it seems its getting worse.

 

[Tim the student]

ShaiVong, I disagree with you on basically everything.

Who decides if you're mentally fit to be a police officer? Who decides if you're mentally fit for military service? For intelligence agencies? To stand trial?

Well, when I went in the Army, I don't even recall talking to a shrink. If I did, it wasn't for long. It probably went - "Do you want to kill anyone, or yourself?" And then I replied "Only enemies of the United States." Him- "Cool" So, this is cool for you? Do you think that all of those examples will use the same standard? Who should we let determine the standard?

There are (imperfect but functional) standard tests that can illuminate potentially violent or aggressive tenancies.

So, how far are you willing to limit rights because of potential tendencies? If that is your measure - people who may be potentially violent - I guess you would eliminate most people on the planet. I'm potentially violent. Break in my house and threaten me, and I will be violent. A new mother is potentially violent - threaten her baby and see what happens when she is cornered. If you are not potentially violent, why do you carry a weapon? To fit in, and be cool? Do you own any guns that you use for HD? If you are prepared to use violence against someone, I think that maybe you are potentially violent, and should just get rid of your guns now because, hey, we just can't take the risk, right? Don't forget to turn in your knives too, cause pointy sharp things like that are dangerous too.

Aggressive tendencies? If they aren't a violent felon, they can be aggressive. They can be aggressive without being violent, I don't care. Aggressive does not equal violent. If these are the things you want, I'm scared to see what antis are thinking.

Anyone crazy enough to shoot up a crowd of innocent civilians is likely crazy enough to not fool the test. Some would pass, some would fail. At least some could be caught. The fact that there has been a lot of 'why didn't anyone say anything about his wacky behavior' says to me that this looser couldn't have kept his crazy in check long enough to game a psych eval.

And how many lawful people are you willing to exclude, as long as you get those few?

 

[Panzercat]

@ armoredman
Yep, I retracted the comment on the last page. My source for that information was fail. Kinda sad that the only ccw apparently in the area was a block away or something.


On psyche evals... In theory, sure. In practice, you would have to trust the establishement that has a proven, vested interest in discouraging gun ownership and a repeated track record of failure through inane policy in that regard.

I'll pass on that, thanks.

 

[Texasgunlover]

Never happen as long as the house has a majority of rep.,although even some of them are showing their true colors as far as the statu quo.

 

[henschman]

I strongly disagree with you on the training and mental screening requirement to buy/carry a gun. This would amount to a prior restraint on the right to bear arms. A free man should not have to prove to anyone that he is fit to exercise his liberties. If the state wants to deprive someone of his liberty, in a free society, they should be the one with the burden of showing that he is a threat to the lives/liberties of others.

We already have such a system in place when it comes to insanity... people can be involuntarily committed if it is proven they are a threat to themselves or others (granted, in a free society it would only be necessary to prove that they are a threat to others, and no one would be committed without first having a chance to defend himself in court). But in any case, we do not need to open that can of worms any more than it already is... it goes too far already (especially with emergency ex parte committment, and the situation regarding veterans and PTSD).

Another issue to consider is that the definition of insanity can be changed by those in power to target people or beliefs they find to be undesireable. The Communists recognized this... they knew that gaining control of the psychology profession is an effective way to silence opposition and consolidate power. It is not impossible to concieve of our government doing something similar, once a mental health test becomes a requrement for exercising certain liberties.

Mental health tests can involve a very high level of scrutiny, and can involve some very subjective value judgments. Also, with a mental health test like the MMPI, the results do not on their face tell you whether someone is mentally unhealthy... they require the interpretation of a trained psychologist, and also depend on the situation the taker may be going through in life (for example, somebody going through a divorce might score high on the "paranoia" scale, because there really is somebody out to get him, etc.). There is plenty of disagreement among the profession on how to interpret these results. An elevation of some values can indicate "problems with authority." I could easily see this being used by government psychologists to label people as mentally unhealthy, and strip them of their rights, just for believing in the prime rationale for the right to bear arms.

The MMPI asks questions that bear on one's political beliefs... for instance, one true/false question is "I believe it would be better if all laws were repealed." Also, while the questions are supposed to not favor any psychological school of thought, the test is geared toward the self-sacrificial paradigm of modern society... what Ayn Rand called "altruism." It labels some rationally self-interested behavior as "antisocial." It also measures the degree of religious belief of the taker.

It would be going way too far for the government to make a test like that a prerequisite for exercising any liberty, especially a liberty like the right to bear arms, which is so vital to the protection of all our other liberties against the state.

 

[sv51macross]

@Henschman

Perhaps, but there are alot of Americans who do not buy the 'price of liberty' argument for the recent Tuscon Shooting, which it essentially amounts to. The moderates see some restrictions as a good thing...and quite honestly so do I. Of course a magazine-capacity limit is pointless. But if something that sounds reasonable to me comes along...I'll support it.

 

[ShaiVong]

Well, when I went in the Army, I don't even recall talking to a shrink. If I did, it wasn't for long. It probably went - "Do you want to kill anyone, or yourself?" And then I replied "Only enemies of the United States." Him- "Cool" So, this is cool for you? Do you think that all of those examples will use the same standard? Who should we let determine the standard?

No, it's not cool for me, but then again I wouldn't join the army. I'd let a panel of clinical psychologists develop a standard test (it could easily be written, think a Briggs Myers type of deal) that would flag the craziest.

So, how far are you willing to limit rights because of potential tendencies? If that is your measure - people who may be potentially violent - I guess you would eliminate most people on the planet. I'm potentially violent. Break in my house and threaten me, and I will be violent. A new mother is potentially violent - threaten her baby and see what happens when she is cornered.

Potential for violence alone is not enough. A former president of ours bombed the hell out of a country and killed hundreds of thousands of civilians, none of us could match that level of violence potential. The key is dis-associative violence. Would a person do what a reasonable person would not? If you break into somebodies house, a reasonable homeowner would respond with some level of force. When watching a non-threatening crowed exercise their first amendment rights, a reasonable person would respond with zero force.

If you are not potentially violent, why do you carry a weapon? To fit in, and be cool? Do you own any guns that you use for HD? If you are prepared to use violence against someone, I think that maybe you are potentially violent, and should just get rid of your guns now because, hey, we just can't take the risk, right? Don't forget to turn in your knives too, cause pointy sharp things like that are dangerous too.

Strawman

Aggressive tendencies? If they aren't a violent felon, they can be aggressive. They can be aggressive without being violent, I don't care. Aggressive does not equal violent.

Neither here nor there.

If these are the things you want, I'm scared to see what antis are thinking.

Fear not, my son. I'll tell you: They want you to not have a weapon regardless of your mental disposition or intention.

 

[JFrame]

If you need further convincing that Congresswoman Carolyn McCarthy is clueless and ignorant, watch the following video of her trying to ban something she can't even define:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9rGpykAX1fo

Clearly McCarthy, like Nancy Pelosi, is one of those politicians who believes a bill should be passed so she can find out what's in it...


.

 

[ShaiVong]

It would be going way too far for the government to make a test like that a prerequisite for exercising any liberty, especially a liberty like the right to bear arms, which is so vital to the protection of all our other liberties against the state.

So... are you saying that the tests I took to get my CWP were unconstitutional? There is no basis for the restrictions of devices that can harm a crowd of innocents? You could say the same thing about the 21st amendment (my personal favorite) by not serving alcohol to minors. Just because the the BoR bestows a right, doesn't mean that you can exercise it without oversight. This is a society, not an island with you as the only occupant.

 

[Fastcast]

This is what we're dealing with people, even in the gun community we have individuals who like being told how & when they can exercise their rights.

It's part of the indoctrination over many years and will only get worse as the politicians convince more and more of the masses they have a cure for everything.....A glass bubble of security.

"Shall not be infringed"

Infringe:......Actively break the terms of a law. Act so as to limit or undermine.

 

[ShaiVong]

This is what we're dealing with people, even in the gun community we have individuals who like being told how & when they can exercise their rights.

It's part of the indoctrination over many years and will only get worse as the politicians convince more and more of the masses they have a cure for everything.....A glass bubble of security.

"Shall not be infringed"

Infringe:......Actively break the terms of a law. Act so as to limit or undermine.

Your argument is not topical; the SCOTUS already ruled that restrictions and oversight do not qualify as infringement.

If you want to live in a country with absolute freedom, I'm sure there are some areas of sub Saharan Africa or mountainous Afghanistan that would suit your need for elbow room.

 

[Tequila jake]

I haven't seen this mentioned, and perhaps it's a bit off the point, but what about the responsibility of the Capitol police to protect members of Congress? Although they do not have to provide the security themselves, they are supposed to notify local law enforcement if a member of Congress is appearing in a public forum. And, according to Sheriff Dupnick, they did not notify his department nor, I believe, did they notify Tucson police. Perhaps a few uniformed LE personnel could have deterred Loughner (but perhaps not), or a few plainclothes agents in the crowd could have prevented the murders or, at least, reduced the number of people murdered.

In my opinion, Loughher's public behavior and internet rants should have been reported to LE officials, especially when the college told his parents he would have to have a mental exam before he would be allowed to return to class. However, even if this had been done and he had been placed on a list of those not allowed to buy firearms, it might not have prevented his killing spree. He might have run a large vehicle into the crowd, killing just as many if not more. The only way to have prevented his actions would have been to incarcerate him, and I'm not sure how we judge who should be incarcerated and who shouldn't.

There's probably no way to guarantee the safey of public officials--or any of us--but banning high-capacity magazines won't do it either.

I'm not a sociologist, but I wonder if changes in society aren't to some extent responsible for the violence we see around us. There were no restrictions on gun ownership when I was a kid (I'm 69), but there was very little gun-related violence of the sort we experience today. I grew up in Houston and most people owned guns and, while there were some killings by cops of criminals and vice versa and some killings of one family member or friend by another, I don't remember a single instance of mass murder.

Tequila Jake

 

[henschman]

ShaiVong,

I never mentioned the constitution or the bill of rights, nor do I agree with your assertion that the bill of rights or any other "GD piece of paper" as GW put it, bestows any rights on anybody. Those documents are not relevant to my argument.

As you said, we live in a society, and a civilized society fit for "man as man" protects the equal rights of all people to do as they please unless they threaten the equal liberty of others. It does not tolerate the initiation of force or violence. The only way force or violence (or government, since government is nothing but organized force) is justified is in defense of liberty.

I agree with you wholeheartedly that the worst and most insidious type of violence is disassociative violence, where people are content to commit acts of aggression against others by proxy, without having to commit the dirty deed themselves. The modern "liberal democracy" is built on disassociative violence. People are willing to do things through the proxy of government that they would never be willing to do personally to another human being. Somehow it does not seem as bad because they hire people with uniforms and badges and official titles go out and violate the liberty of others, under the majestic institution which is revered by so many, known as the LAW (cue trumpets).

But I'm calling an apple an apple. I don't care who does it -- whether an individual, or a government, or a mob (both of those last two being merely groups of individuals) -- it is wrong to use force and violence to prevent someone from doing something that does not threaten anyone else's liberty. It takes some very creative reasoning to explain how the mere purchase or possession of most items constitutes a threat to someone's liberty sufficient to justify the use of force to defend against it.

I am not totally opposed to the idea that there may be some items with so much potential for destruction that their mere unrestricted possession may constitute a threat to liberty... I'm not sure exactly where I would draw that line, but it is somewhere between anti-aircraft missiles and nuclear weapons. I expressed my thoughts on that subject more throughly in post #253 on page 11 of this thread.

As it relates to the ban of "high-capacity" magazines (a relative term if there ever was one), I don't think a rational man would think that another man possessing any kind of firearm or firearm accessory, without knowing anything else about him, would constitute enough of a threat to anyone's liberty to justify using force to prevent him from possessing it, or that use of force in such a situation could be justified as defensive. Plus, firearms have such a high redeeming value as instruments for the protection of liberty that any prior restraint on their possession would be itself a major threat to liberty which would justify defending against.

So prior restraints on the right to bear firearms, at least, are out of the question for me. Of course there are some people who are so mentally unstable that their possession of a firearm constitutes a threat. In order to preserve the maximum liberty of all people, these situations must be handled on a case-by-case basis, with the accused having a chance to present evidence in his defense, before force is used. That is the type of thing a judicial system ought to handle. This remedy is narrowly tailored so as to eliminate the threat to liberty without infringing on the liberty of anyone else. On the other hand, a broad prior restraint like requiring official permission to purchase/own/carry a firearm is a violation of liberty that deserves to be resisted in the most effective way possible by all liberty-loving people.

 

[ShaiVong]

I never mentioned the constitution or the bill of rights, nor do I agree with your assertion that the bill of rights or any other "GD piece of paper" as GW put it, bestows any rights on anybody. Those documents are not relevant to my argument.

Well, I have to disagree with you here - rights are something that can be given and taken away by a piece of paper. Example: Before the 13th amendment, you didn't have a right to not be a slave.

That doesn't mean that you shouldn't have had that right, but you didn't. The same with the 19th amendment. If you were a woman before 1920, you had no franchise. Again, I would argue that only a fool would have said before 1920 (or afterward) that the right to vote should be based upon sex, but that didn't grant them rights.

Obviously, I reject nonsense on stilts.

The only way force or violence (or government, since government is nothing but organized force) is justified is in defense of liberty.

I have to disagree with you here too - liberty is kind of a weasel word. It means a lot of different things to different people. I would say that force or violence is only justified if it is in pursuit of a state that is some type of justifiable improvement. I.E. it would be worth exerting force to steal the liberty of slave holders to keep slaves in order to allow slaves a better life.

I'm much more concerned with the happiness and quality of life of the people in all segments of a society than I am over liberty. Liberty plays a role in that, but only one of many.

As it relates to the ban of "high-capacity" magazines (a relative term if there ever was one), I don't think a rational man would think that another man possessing any kind of firearm or firearm accessory, without knowing anything else about him, would constitute enough of a threat to anyone's liberty to justify using force to prevent him from possessing it, or that use of force in such a situation could be justified as defensive. Plus, firearms have such a high redeeming value as instruments for the protection of liberty that any prior restraint on their possession would be itself a major threat to liberty which would justify defending against.

(Bold mine)

I would change your statement to "... rational man would think that another rational man...".

It's already established that your rights can be diminished by the actual person you are, and what can be reasonably suspected of your future actions.

If you're a felon, you're going to have a hard time getting a gun, even after serving your time in prison. If you have a restraining order against you (even if you've committed no crime), you're going to have a hard time getting a gun (or CWP).

As for them being good instruments of protection - I agree, they are. Everyone has a desire to protect themselves from outside force, and I think that people should be able to protect themselves if necessary. That doesn't necessarily mean that everyone has a legal right to whatever force they deem necessary to leverage in their own protection.