The Gun Thread About Guns And Gun Related Gunnery

Vae on 24/3/2018 at 05:26

catbarf, is correct, Larry.

The Second Amendment, like all other Amendments in the Bill of Rights, is foundational and absolute, due to natural law.

Whether or not a positive law has changed, or that the circumstances within the context of American society has changed, is irrelevant. This is because it doesn't fundamentally change the philosophy and intentions of the Founding Father's, who are well documented in stating that it is incumbent upon the state and the people to protect and defend against tyranny.

Firearms are a physical representation of the intended natural right for one to defend oneself against an oppressive or aggressively attacking source. The Founding Father's wanted each individual to have access to the tools and resources necessary to execute this natural right, and so they made a provision to permanently protect it, regardless of societal circumstance.

Medlar on 24/3/2018 at 09:19

Are any TTLG members attending the gun control rally in Washington today? If so some pics would be cool.

Tony_Tarantula on 24/3/2018 at 16:24

Quote Posted by catbarf

Which, again, does not mean that the protection provided by the amendment only applies to government-sanctioned militia duty. None of the amendments enumerated in the Bill of Rights grant rights to the people, let alone under specific conditions. They solely limit the ability of the government to encroach upon the natural rights assumed by every citizen. This is clear enough with all the other amendments- the First does not say you have the right to practice religion or express free speech, and then restrict those to specific contexts. It simply says the government cannot play favorites with religion and cannot restrict speech. The Fourth does not say you have the right to be secure in your own home, it says that that assumed right cannot be violated by the government without due cause. Every amendment is framed the same way.

The Second Amendment does not state that the people need to provide for the common defense, and thus grants them the right to bear arms in service of that duty. It states that a need for the common defense requires an armed citizenry, and on that basis forbids the government from restricting the citizenry's ability to be armed. The amendment protects an individual's right to own firearms, with the intended purpose being so that they can provide for the common defense if called upon, but neither the wording nor the context limit the right to that purpose.

I agree that it's no longer serving its original purpose. That does not mean it is being misinterpreted.

The entire context of this discussion regarding the second amendment is wrong. The primary purpose isn't about the individual's right to own a gun, nor is it to ensure that a redneck rebellion would be possible.

The reason for the second amendment is that the United States was never intended to have a standing military The founders had correctly observed that Europe's standing armies were a proximate cause of imperialism and were frequently used for the benefit of oligarchs and monarchs, so their solution was to decentralize military power. Militias were supposed to be locally formed with individual colonists owning and maintaining their own rifles. They in turn could be called upon by local leaders.

As a result this would force the government to rely on local manpowers to draw militias from which would make it extremely difficult for them to partake in the "foreign entanglements" that the founders despised from European imperialism. This also had some political benefit to passing the constitution as handing that power down to individual states made them feel much more comfortable backing a bill to federalize into a union.

But that's a bit more on the background. The entire reason that the second amendment exists is to decentralize military power away from the national government and its officials.

I've come to the conclusion lately that I AGREE with this sentiment. There should be no standing American Army. If we had no standing Army there would have been no Vietnam war and no Iraq invasion, and a lack of numerous other destabilizing actions that occurred under US imperialism....that, not coincidentally, emerged almost immediately after FDR's policies resulted in the creation of a "military industrial complex". The country has demonstrated the ability to quickly tool up for large scale wars and National Guard units (which report to the state governors) already have the logistics to maintain and deploy modern military hardware. The necessary covert operations can easily be moved to intelligence agencies and carried out that way.

That's why. Think about the implications of this if we actually followed the intent of the original amendment: no standing military, and thus no imperialism and massive (borderline fascist) surveillance and security apparatus.....and probably no massive militarized prison and police system. If we did this and put military hardware in the hands of governors and individual military equipment in the hand of individuals who've passed their training (as in Switzerland) the United States would be an entirely different country and much more like Austria, Norway, or Switzerland.

Medlar on 24/3/2018 at 18:11

Or maybe a Mad Max USA

Starker on 25/3/2018 at 12:58

There's an op-ed in The Boston Globe that has some ideas about gun control:

Quote:

(http://apps.bostonglobe.com/opinion/graphics/2018/03/seven-steps/)

Going forward, legislators should mandate two basic safety features that could save many lives now lost because users think the guns are unloaded. First, require that firearms be designed so that they cannot be fired when the magazine is not attached. Second, require load indicators, which show when the gun is loaded and when it is empty.

Curiously enough, there's no mention of gun training. I think a course that also teaches things like basic weapon safety and treatment of gunshot wounds would help reduce unnecessary deaths at least a little bit.

catbarf on 25/3/2018 at 15:50

Quote Posted by Starker

There's an op-ed in The Boston Globe that has some ideas about gun control:

Curiously enough, there's no mention of gun training. I think a course that also teaches things like basic weapon safety and treatment of gunshot wounds would help reduce unnecessary deaths at least a little bit.

I was cautiously optimistic until I saw that the #1 suggestion is what has, in nearly every state that has enacted it, resulted in no guns unless you're connected to the police. Even if local chiefs of police are more permissive, given the systemic racism involved in American policing, I wouldn't trust local police to be unbiased and fair at all in assessing who can be trusted to have firearms. 'They should be able to deny licenses to people they deem a threat to themselves or others' could easily be construed as 'keep blacks and Hispanics disarmed'. This is all a non-starter anyways since any law on a national level which allowed a chief of police to arbitrarily decide who can and can't buy guns would be struck down as unconstitutional.

At least most of the rest of it is reasonable, with the exception of the usual assault weapon rhetoric. That they single out '.50 caliber sniper rifles' as some tangible threat is just weird. Like I said before, I've never heard of any crime committed with one. Big +1 from me on safe storage, and allowing temporary removal of firearms from those deemed a threat to themselves or others. The bit about not allowing guns to people deemed 'mentally defective' is already covered by federal law; anyone who has been previously committed is a prohibited person and not allowed to possess a firearm.

Those specific safety measures you quoted are also kind of odd. Plenty of guns have had them, but I haven't seen any evidence to suggest they reduce accidents, and how to remove magazine disconnects is a pretty frequently asked question on gun forums as unpredictability is not a desirable behavior. Most of the negligent discharges I've seen tied to 'I thought it was unloaded' were someone operating on muscle memory when unloading, and not exercising due diligence. If you're taking your time and paying attention, as you should be, you chamber check the firearm to visually inspect no round is loaded. If someone's skipping that step I have little faith that they'll notice a little protruding nub of a load indicator, but I suppose a magazine disconnect might at least help. The thing about that that concerns me is that with a vast majority of firearms currently in circulation not having magazine disconnects, someone who grows accustomed to that feature as a substitute for proper safety practices could become downright dangerous if they come into possession of a non-disconnect-equipped gun. Or a shotgun, or bolt-action rifle, or anything else that doesn't have a detachable magazine.

On that note I 100% agree that training ought to be a priority, but that, as with things like addressing the alarming suicide rate as the op-ed touched upon, requires more work from the legislature than mandating some features, banning others, and calling it a day.

Starker on 25/3/2018 at 17:46

Quote Posted by catbarf

Is discrimination a big problem in the states where weapon licences are given out by the local police? I'd imagine that if there were any police chiefs that discriminate that way, they'd be open to lawsuits. In any case, the local police would not be the final deciders, if there's also an appeal process.

Quote Posted by catbarf

At least most of the rest of it is reasonable, with the exception of the usual assault weapon rhetoric. That they single out '.50 caliber sniper rifles' as some tangible threat is just weird. Like I said before, I've never heard of any crime committed with one.

There's also no sense in permitting people to have just any gun as long as no crime has been committed with it. As far as I'm concerned, a weapon designed to take out attack helicopters should not be in civilian hands in the first place. At the very least, it should be restricted to collectors and shooting ranges.

Quote Posted by catbarf

Those specific safety measures you quoted are also kind of odd.

I mostly quoted them because I don't very often see manufacturers being mentioned in this debate.

catbarf on 25/3/2018 at 20:26

Quote Posted by Starker

Rampant racial discrimination has gone largely unchallenged for decades, and even with recent DoJ intervention that isn't likely to change soon. Police virtually always win in court. Right now there's an investigation going on in Baltimore where cops were caught on their own body cameras planting toy guns on people they've shot, and even that is facing an uphill battle in the legal system.

What appeals process would you institute? New York has an appeals process, it just means they send you the same denial with a 'yeah, we're sure'.

Quote Posted by Starker

Let me put it this way: What public good is being served by specifically restricting a type of weapon that is far, far less likely to be used for crime than other guns? I don't think assuaging completely unsubstantiated fears is a legitimate reason to ban anything.

Starker on 25/3/2018 at 22:04

Yeah, I know there are problems like that in America with law enforcement. I meant more whether there are gun licensing problems of that nature in the states where gun licences are issued by the local police.

Quote Posted by catbarf

What appeals process would you institute? New York has an appeals process, it just means they send you the same denial with a 'yeah, we're sure'.

In Massachusetts, there's the district court and a separate review board for certain cases: (https://www.mass.gov/how-to/appeal-a-firearms-license-denial)

Quote Posted by catbarf

A weapon like this could potentially be used to commit terror acts that could cause heavy casualties. Why should something meant for knocking out armored vehicles be in civilian hands?

Also, did some googling and I found several instances where a .50 caliber sniper was either used or planned to be used in a crime, including in the Waco siege where the Davidians used them to shoot at FBI agents, so it's not as if they haven't been used in any crime. They've also been used to rob armored trucks and to kill police officers.

Here are a few of these:

Quote:

(http://murderpedia.org/male.P/p/petrosky-albert.htm)

On April 28, 1995, Albert Petrosky walked into an Albertson's Grocery Store in suburban Denver, Colorado and gunned down his estranged wife and the store manager. Armed with an L.A.R. Grizzly 50 caliber sniper rifle, an SKS Chinese semi-automatic assault rifle, a .32 revolver, and a 9mm semi-automatic pistol, Petrosky then walked out into the shopping center parking lot, where he exchanged fire with a federal IRS agent passing by and killed Sgt. Timothy Mossbrucker of the Jefferson County Sheriff's Department.

Petrosky, who was known to his friends as "50-cal Al, fired all four weapons, including the 50 caliber rifle, during this murderous rampage.

Quote:

(http://articles.chicagotribune.com/1995-07-10/news/9507100178_1_armed-robbery-james-oswald)

Oswald, 50, and his son Theodore, 19, who are believed to have robbed at least four banks in Wisconsin and one in Indiana, were sentenced last month to multiple life terms for armed robbery and murder.

They had a small armory of sophisticated and expensive weapons, including two custom-made .50-caliber rifles powerful enough to assault an armored car-which the two were considering doing, said Waukesha County Sheriff's Capt. Terry Martorano.

Quote:

(https://www.thehighroad.org/index.php?threads/50-cal-incident-kansas-city-not-good.68090/)

It was a nightmare come true for first responders on Monday afternoon in Kansas City, Missouri. Firefighters responded to a fully involved house fire about 4pm. While they were pulling hose and getting ready to attack the fire, bullets started hitting the four pieces of apparatus, blowing out tires and punching big holes in the pumpers. Automatic weapons fire was coming through the smoke from across the street. The firefighters took cover but not before a 37-year old paramedic Mary Seymour, a 15-year veteran, took one in the chest and went down.

Police arrived, took heavy fire and returned fire. Officer Michelle Derby, under cover fire from her partner and other officers, ran out and hauled the wounded EMT to safety. Police peppered the area where the shooter was standing by the corner of a house across the street. Shooting stopped when that house exploded. The explosion was so massive that a news helicopter saw debris reach over 1,000 feet up. The debris field was five blocks in diameter and included 50-pound chunks of a gun safe.

The body of the suspect was found inside the exploded house surrounded by .50 caliber shell casings and a .50 rifle. Those slugs are six inches long, half-inch diameter, armor piercing rounds. Four-dozen weapons and twenty pipe bombs were also found in the house. The dead man, Donin Eric Wright, was a suspect in a 1988 arson that killed six Kansas City firefighters. Five other men were convicted of that crime. The FBI investigated Wright following the Oklahoma City terrorist attack because of a tip that he had so many heavy weapons. The FBI investigation ended in 1999 when he was determined not to be a threat. There was another unidentified body found with Wright, maybe his girlfriend. Paramedic Seymour is in stable condition. Two houses burned to the ground. Fire and police vehicles were riddled with .50 caliber rounds, and a neighborhood was terrorized.

Quote:

(http://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/sdut-sheriff-volunteer-may-have-been-lured-to-where-he-2015jul10-story.html)

ASH FORK, Ariz. (AP) — A father and son were booked Friday on charges of attempted murder after authorities say they shot and wounded an armed and uniformed sheriff's office volunteer in northern Arizona.

Jason Niedermeyer, 24, attempted to take sole blame for the shooting Thursday evening, but detectives learned that his father, Gregory, fired the first rounds at what they both thought was a deputy, Yavapai County Sheriff's Office spokesman Dwight D'Evelyn said Friday. The 70-year-old volunteer was hit three times in the pelvic area, but he managed to make it to his marked vehicle and drove off, D'Evelyn said.

[...]

Jason Niedermeyer told authorities he didn't start shooting until after the volunteer buckled from an earlier hit from his father's weapon. The Niedermeyers switched to other rifles after the ones they were using malfunctioned, D'Evelyn said. Gregory Niedermeyer was firing a .50-caliber rifle at the volunteer's vehicle as he drove away, authorities said.

More than 20 shots were fired at the volunteer, who was recovering Friday at a hospital in Flagstaff. His injuries are not life-threatening.

heywood on 26/3/2018 at 13:32

Quote Posted by Starker

I was a resident of Massachusetts twice. The local town sheriffs were all over the place regarding license issue. Some thought the law was illegal and would issue licenses with no questions asked. And if you wanted a Class A license, which allows concealed carry of handguns among other things, all you had to do was pass a background check. There were a few police chiefs who would ask new shooters to demonstrate to an officer that they could shoot safely on the range. Others refused to issue anything but the most restrictive class of license to first-time applicants. Some towns were extremely restrictive and arbitrary - like if you were a cousin of an officer on the force you could get a license to carry, but if you were a new resident of the town you weren't getting anything. And there was at least one town that refused to issue any licenses at all after the law passed, and ended up being repeatedly sued. The town police chiefs are also empowered to place restrictions on the licenses they issue, e.g. for target shooting only, or target shooting and hunting only. Some towns never put restrictions on licenses, others put restrictions on the vast majority of licenses they issued.

You could have two suburban Massachusetts towns within 20 miles of each other, and one would be as liberal as Texas or Montana in terms of issuing licenses to carry, and the other would be as restrictive as Washington D.C. or NYC. I haven't lived there in 10 years, but I have friends and family in Massachusetts and I've been told little has changed except that the towns that were most arbitrarily restrictive in the beginning have been taken to court multiple times, which is what led to the creation of the state FLRB. However, if you are denied a license and you petition to a district court or the FLRB, the burden is still on you to prove that the chief's decision to deny your license was "arbitrary and capricious." That still leaves most of the discretion up to the police chiefs.

Another stupid thing about Massachusetts gun law is that you need a Class A (least restrictive) license for anything other than common hunting shotguns, bolt-action rifles, and muzzle loaders. A Class A license allows concealed carry of loaded handguns. Over 80% of licenses issued are Class A, the rest are Class B and FID. Class B is so useless it's being phased out. The way they have defined the license tiers, you're treating most people who just want to do some target shooting the same as people who want to carry for personal protection.

As I've said before in this thread, I'm totally OK with licensing gun owners, but only if the qualifications are consistent for everybody and spelled out in law. There should be no room for a police chief's discretion in deciding who is "suitable".