Fallout from Kali's RKBA debacle.

[Tejas]

So much for taxes that would've been collected across the entire range of firearms amenities, be it sales of firearms that weren't on some stupid "approval list" or sales of .50BMG ammo to private citizens.

Hard to comprehend the sales missed on everything ranging from simple paper targets all the way up to $8,000 Barretts. Every penny adds up, but suffice it to say the Kali legislature would rather "feel" their constituency was safe.

Broke, but safe!

Sacramento, congrats you muhroons!

[sharesunited]

1. I question the safe part. The Santa rampage of a year ago comes to mind.

Guns settle grievances.

[Tejas]

2. You question the brilliance of the Sacramento legislature? BLASPHEMY!

Just ask them!

[rd_kent]

3. Good point, shares. These idiotic laws do NOT make people safer. Thanks for your support.

I'm glad you see the futility in these laws that do nothing to address the root causes of crime and only serve to abridge our constitutional rights.

I knew you would come around one day. Welcome to the rational side!

[proteus_lives]

4. And prevent them.

Think about it.

I know it will be hard, given your hatred of self-defense.

[Tejas]

6. "Guns settle grievances" - (Shares, you might not want to click)

correct!

http://articles.latimes.com/2009/jun/06/local/me-detective-arrested6



Imagine that, the watchmen are the only one that need guns. :sarcasm:

[sharesunited]

7. Misbehavior by professionals is a lot easier to deal with than misbehavior by amateurs.

If you say you need guns and ammo to defend yourself against the police, then I cannot distinguish you from a gangster.

[Tejas]

8. If "professionals" didn't have firearms, then maybe you'd make sense.

After all, it's your posts here in the Gungeon that state THE GUN is the root of all evil. According to you, no gun to begin with then no problem.

Not that anyone should expect you to make up your mind on what theory you're going to run with. :rofl:

[sharesunited]

10. Police need guns because the public has guns. Yes, the problem starts with access.

[Tejas]

11. So, police will follow suit in the great gun-surrender?

psst,MH, you have competition.

[Tejas]

39. ........crickets..........

[taurus145]

13. What about this?

In the great gun-free societies of the UK and Oz the police carry firearms.

Don't you know that the gun bans there disarmed all the criminals? Why do the cops need guns?

[sharesunited]

14. Arming the police and disarming the public result from the same cause. Civilian gun violence.

Once again, I must ask:

Under what circumstances do you foresee going to war with the police?

and

Isn't any such scenario necessarily caused and precipitated by access to and inevitable misuse of guns by the general public?

[Katya Mullethov]

15. The Trans Texas Corridor comes to mind

Commadore Perry assured us it didn't even exist right up until he was assuring us that the idea had been abandoned (for now), and now is mumbling vague inferences of seccesion(uh-huh , yeah sure). That was(IS)one particular instance in which men were intending to take up arms against "someone" . The Dimmit and Gonzales Battle Flags that are still flying all around are not idle threats .




Can you describe (or comprehend)the significance of this image ?


///

Isn't any such scenario necessarily caused and precipitated by access to and inevitable misuse of guns by the general public?
////

The inevitable misuse of imminent domain and the power of the state is what precipitates little dust ups like that would certainly have and most likely will be . Carry on dreamin ' .

[sharesunited]

17. You're living in the past.

Imagine citing to me an obscure piece of Texas history dating back to a full generation or more prior to the American Civil War.

Civilians and armies were both using single-shot, front-loading flintlocks.

Let's have a look at Koresh and the Branch Davidians for a modern-day face off. Many Texans clucked their disapproval, but they wisely stood by and watched the confrontation play out.

[Katya Mullethov]

18. NAFTA and the TTC

Are right now . Rewind , try again .

[sharesunited]

23. Armed rebellion against eminent domain takings?

There is an oh-so-fine line between colorful and kooky.

Don't Tread On You.

Sure. I understand.

[tburnsten]

29. O you think Eminent Domain is a good thing?

that would be the first I have ever heard of anyone but a political creature believing that eminent domain is anything but an abomination.

[sharesunited]

30. What would we do without it? National Parks. Utility and transportation routes.

So much of what we take for granted in the form of public amenities depends on eminent domain.

[Katya Mullethov]

37. You seem to have lost your place

Let me rewind it for you , and pare it down to bite size pieces .



Under what circumstances do you foresee going to war with the police? << that's you

The TTC can create many little wacos << My reply (to your question)





Isn't any such scenario necessarily caused and precipitated by access to and inevitable misuse of guns by the general public? <<< Thats you


MISUSE of eminent domain will precipitate those battles . << my answer (to your question)

[sharesunited]

42. By persons whose property is needed for a public purpose?

Will you join them in their armed uprising?

It seems very far fetched.

Takings are usually compensated in our system.

[Katya Mullethov]

47. Oh I will not

Just answering your questions . You may find it all quite imponderable , but there it is .

[east texas lib]

40. Like football stadiums? I just don't think that's much of a reason to be forced from your home. (nt)

[AtheistCrusader]

58. Mini-malls. Condos.

Public good indeed.

[PavePusher]

36. Note to ratio of forces it took to do so.

Armored vehicles, chemical weapons, fire-bombing and several "LEO"s-per-Davidian, against people who had done nothing wrong except desire to be left alone.

Now, there are some 80 MILION armed citizens and approx. 2 million active duty personnel (the majority of whom are "unarmed" support, and many of whom would be on the side a generic rebellion). Care to rethink your hypothesis?

[sharesunited]

43. I swear, sometimes these posts look just like something I might read at Free Republic.

[PavePusher]

44. I guess burning people to death is an O.K. activity for governments...

in your book.

Not mine. No matter what the victims may or may not be accused of. Isn't that what you claim every time a violent attacker is shot by an intended victim?

[sharesunited]

46. You surrender to your lawful arresters. You don't shoot at them or hole up with an arsenal.

Surely I don't need to explain to you how one is supposed to behave when the knock comes at the door.

[Katya Mullethov]

48. John Joe Gray hasnt answered the door for near to 10 years now

And the sherrif still aint kicked it down . Hows that for an imponderable ?

[sharesunited]

50. I hadn't heard of him before. What a crazy case. Texas again.

The authorities are clearly derelict in their duty by not rescuing those kids. It appears they are trying to wait the situation out rather than treat the nut as the hostage taker he is. Administration of justice and respect for law be damned in the meantime.

If this is the kind of freedom you are pointing to as justification for guns, I don't see it as a commendable example. In no way whatsoever. If you try to take me, I'll kill myself and these kids and our blood will be on your hands?

Now there is one emboldened hombre. Think maybe guns and ammo have clouded his judgment? C'mon, just a little?

[Katya Mullethov]

65. I reckon they oughtta roll in there

guns blazin

[PavePusher]

69. "You surrender to your lawful arresters."

You missed the point that the attempted arrests were NOT lawful. And we have the right, enshrined in the Constitution and case law, to resist such.

If you are truely such an authoritarian/totalitarian, you are hanging out on the wrong web site.

[taurus145]

70. when the knock comes at the door

History has taught us repeatedly about that knock after a populace has been disarmed.

Your attitude reminds me of casino patrons who go to an empty blackjack table. The table is empty because the dealer has been killing every player that sits at the table, yet that player is certain that it won't happen to him. It happens and the new player wonders why he's broke in 15 minutes.

[Euromutt]

19. Not in Europe, it didn't

Most western European countries restricted private ownership of firearms shortly after the end of the First World War, because after the Russian Revolution of 1917 and the German Revolution of 1981, the governments in question were afraid of being violently overthrown by leftists and/or disgruntled demobilized soldiers (who, let's face it, had rather a lot to be disgruntled about). Germany completely prohibited private ownership of firearms in order to comply with the Versailles Treaty. "Civilian gun violence" had nothing to do with it.

[taurus145]

20. Answer the question

or at least discuss the issue in the same vein. I've not mentioned going to war with anyone. A war of words with you is welcome. Arm yourself before engaging in battle.

I've no time for obfuscation.

[sharesunited]

21. The majority of police in England do not carry guns.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Police_use_of_firearms_in_the_United_Kingdom

Highly restrictive gun control has only existed in Australia since 1996. So it will take many years to get the threat down to a level at which police do not need to carry.

An important doctrine in Australia which has now put them on the correct course is that so-called self defense is not regarded as a genuine reason for issuance of a gun permit. This is very enlightened and progressive public policy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_Australia

[taurus145]

24. So-called self defense?

If you get shot, hit with a club, stabbed with a knife, or attacked in any other way that causes harm or threatens to cause harm, is that so-called assault?

It is painfully obvious that you prefer to see innocent people hurt or killed rather than have the means to defend themselves.

I've been on the "other" end of a shooting scrape. I've had numerous threats against my life by inmates and their families and friends. Were we to change places I do believe your attitude about "so-called" self defense would change. Walk a mile in my shoes.

[sharesunited]

27. You know what I mean. Their issuance of permits does not rely on a subjective sense of I Need It.

If you are employed in law enforcement or corrections / probation / parole / social work, I take your point that the threats against you are at times clear, present, and demonstrable.

But please bear in mind that a large measure of the danger you face results from the very availability of guns to the general public for which you yourself are an apologist. Enlightened self interest SHOULD have you more on my side.

[taurus145]

31. Not quite

I'm an apologist for no thing nor any person or group.

While I find firearms both useful and recreational, my right and your right, to own them is a right guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States.

As we have seen in D.C. and soon will see in your neighborhood, neither state nor local laws can trump the supreme law of the land.

Why do you insist on supporting only those laws and rights with which you agree? You're a securities trader according to your profile. How long would you last if you ignored the laws governing such trading? Same same.

If you don't like 2A, work to get it changed if you can.

[sharesunited]

33. You're taking an obsolete amendment and attributing to it the most reckless interpretation possible.

Your interpretation threatens to collapse and render utterly meaningless literally everything else you presumably value about the society which the Constitution governs.

Yes, the 2A which you would have us take in lethal dose ensures nothing and threatens everything.

[PavePusher]

45. If it is "obsolete", then change it or delete it.

But you are not allowed to simply ignore it under our system.

There is a process for Amending the Constitution. It has been used succesfully 17 times. Godd luck with that.

[sharesunited]

49. The Supreme Court may eventually get it right.

The problem can be solved very easily this way, and the difficult political burden avoided of convincing the People not to love guns and ammo with the abiding, perverted love which they have.

[taurus145]

52. Are you rabid or insane?

I know of no gun owners who love their firearms. I enjoy mine. I use mine. I respect mine.

I do not love them. That emotion is reserved for my family and my fellow man.

[PavePusher]

66. "After all we only have their best interests in mind...

and all the little people certainly don't know how to run their own affairs..." certainly seems to be what you are implying.


Your slavish devotion to an Orwellian future is truely shocking and perverse. I don't think you are habiting the correct website. Good day to you.

[taurus145]

51. Nothing about the Constitution as it stands today is obsolete

My interpretation is correct and agrees with the interpretation of the vast majority of Americans and SCOTUS.

Whether you like it or not, the Constitution is the high trump in law. Whether you or I like the current makeup of SCOTUS, it is the top interpreter of all law in the U.S.

Please explain how the exercise of any right endangers the others. I am dying to hear this one.

[sharesunited]

54. This obsession with the RKBA enables the proliferation of guns and ammo.

As such, the RKBA endangers all your other rights by killing your insistent and misguided hide.

[taurus145]

61. Isn't that interesting?

And all this time the people who wrote 2A and most of us who read it, including SCOTUS, thought it was put there to ensure the safety of and protect all our rights granted by the Constitution. Silly me. Silly them.

[beevul]

73. Thats quite a charge, scares...

"You're taking an obsolete amendment and attributing to it the most reckless interpretation possible."

Where exactly did the poster you addressed this to, to any such thing?


And as far as 2A, you need to read the preamble to the bill of rights, so you yourself can have a better understanding of what exactly an amendment within the bill of rights is:

"THE Conventions of a number of the States having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added..."

http://billofrights.org/


Says right there, quite plainly, what the first amendment, and second amendment (and others) really are.

Restrictions on governmental power.

Saying anything else at all, is in direct conflict with the attitudes expressed by the framers in addition to the words they authored in the bill of rights itself...




Be honest about it. If you disagree with 2A, work to change it, rather than to see it ignored/misinterpreted.

[Euromutt]

26. "So-called self defense"?

Excuse me while I retrieve my jaw from the floor. Are you suggesting that there's really no such thing as self-defense, or are you "merely" suggesting that it is impossible to defend oneself from violent crime using a firearm? I guess when everything else fails, simply denying reality is the last fallback, eh?

And I don't see what's "enlightened and progressive" about denying private citizens the freedom to own firearms for self-defense. Governmental legitimacy derives from coupling power to responsibility, and you're not going to find a single government that accepts responsibility for protecting the individual citizen against violent crime (which, admittedly, would be physically impossible to do). By refusing this responsibility, a government thereby abdicates the authority (i.e. the legitimate exercise of power) to deprive its citizens of the means to protect themselves, and thus, it is anything but "enlightened and progressive" of a government to do so. Moreover, history provides no shortage of examples of governments that restricted their citizens' access to firearms--in particular firearms suitable for combat--out of anything but "enlightened and progressive" motives.

[sharesunited]

28. Your way is an abdication of the government's responsibility.

Here, general public. Here's all the guns and ammo you want. Now shoot it out however you see fit as a free people. We will decide whether or not to prosecute whomever is left among the living.

Not good.

[taurus145]

32. SCOTUS has ruled

that the police have no responsibility to stop a crime or protect the innocent. Look it up.

Now. Just what government responsibility is it to which you are referring?

[sharesunited]

34. Arm yourselves and shoot first before getting shot? That's the way you read it?

I don't support your vision for society.

[Tejas]

38. Beats the alternative, unless you yourself don't

care to live another day. Plenty of criminals out there willing to help you with your wishes.

[sharesunited]

41. Criminals with access to guns because of your attitude about proliferation.

[Euromutt]

60. Criminals have access to guns everywhere, not just in the US

Corruption, lax inventory control and bad security at armaments factories result in a steady supply of firearms to organized criminals in places like Croatia, Bulgaria, China and, of course, Russia. From there, said criminals are only too happy to traffic them to criminals in other countries. The idea that availability of firearms for criminal purposes in the United States is entirely due to RKBA proponents' attitude is simply ludicrous. It is criminal demand that attracts the supply, not the supply that gives rise to the use. The factor that overwhelmingly influences the amount of firearm crime in any given society is the willingness to use firearms on the part of those committing the crimes.

Even though the homicide rate in the UK has been dropping slowly for the past five years, the number of reported non-fatal stabbings and shootings has been steadily increasing since 2000, to the point that by 2008, stabbings had doubled and shootings almost tripled (compared to 2000). This is taken as evidence that there are more people being willing to acquire and use guns, while the unwillingness to cause fatalities with those guns indicates the shooters aren't "professional" organized criminals, but rather, violent amateurs. And in spite of the fact that private possession of handguns has been illegal for thirteen years in the UK, these violent amateurs are having no trouble getting their hands on them.

[PavePusher]

67. Didn't you just show, in another topic...

how people commit crime with hammers?

Why are you not wailing about "enablers of hammer proliferation" or "hammer-fetishists"?

Oh, wait, objectivity is not relevant from your lofty watch-tower.

[taurus145]

53. Nice try.

Try to find anywhere I've said anything remotely like that.

You must be delusional or unable to read and comprehend to pull that comment out of your ass after reading my posts.

Let's try this again. Try addressing the fact that SCOTUS has ruled that the police are not obligated to protect the public.

[sharesunited]

55. I address it in this way: Such rulings are a justification for a very unwholesome thing.

Start with the desired end result-- that is, a trigger happy society in which guns and ammo freely proliferate and individuals act out with convenience and effectiveness to their violence.

Then work backward from there. Give permission and encouragement to the manufacture, distribution, sale, and capricious availability of the harmful product. At the same time, let it be known that everyone is on their own out there. Violent self help is green-lighted, blessed, sanctified.

Why anybody should want to commence in jurisprudence with such a bizarre end result is the real question, and one meriting deep psychoanalysis. Guns and ammo loved more than life itself, and corrupted in their importance to somehow become equivalent to life itself.

[Euromutt]

59. Or we can just apply Occam's Razor

Instead of contriving some "love of guns and ammo" and its corrupting influence (which smacks of magical thinking, once again), we could simply conclude that the judiciary's siding with the executive is simply motivated by the judiciary not wanting to have to deal with every victim of a criminal offense filing suit because the city police or county sheriff failed to prevent the crime from occurring. This is supported by the fact that governments of other countries similarly refuse to accept responsibility for protecting their individual citizens.

[taurus145]

62. What planet are you from?

No responsible gun owner buys or will buy what you're selling. No non-owners I know buy it either.

Think of it this way. If all gun owners had the mindset you claim us to have, we would simply eliminate the argument with the firearms you own. Annoyance removed.

You're obviously still breathing, therefore your very tenuous postulations about gun owners hold no water because you certainly piss me off with your holier than thou and superior, elitist attitude. I doubt seriously that I am alone in viewing your attitude as a boil on the ass of civil discourse and reasoned argument because of your refusal to acknowledge facts, preferring to rely on feel good vibes as your foundation.

[tburnsten]

64. Well not just the attitude

But I'd agree about the boil on the ass bit. Seems to have permeated deeper in Shares than just an attitude.

[pipoman]

63. And you see no possibility of like minded people

using this exact argument to limit other products once you start down the road of determining need based on potential danger? i.e. ATVs, swimming pools, household cleaning products, blunt objects, etc....all which kill as many or more children than guns do?

"Give permission and encouragement to the manufacture, distribution, sale, and capricious availability of the harmful product." Further when will you see that the product in any of these examples isn't 'harmful', misuse intentional or accidental may have harmful results.

[PavePusher]

68. In otherwords....

"The end justifies the means."

Except for the fact that rational, civilised Homo Sapiens is fairly well along the road to rejecting that sick, demented philosophy...

[beevul]

74. Have you been sitting in a car inhaling exhaust?

"a trigger happy society in which guns and ammo freely proliferate and individuals act out with convenience and effectiveness to their violence."

Not a verry apt description for a country of 300 million people, in possession of 300 million firearms, with annual firearm murder numbers that are just over 13 thousand.


Your entire...um...whatever that was...crumbles against those facts.

[Euromutt]

56. It's not the way I want it to be, it's the way it is

As taurus145 points out, the SCOTUS has ruled on multiple occasions (Warren v. District of Columbia, DeShaney v. Winnebago County, Castle Rock, CO v. Gonzales) that government cannot be held accountable for failing to protect an individual citizen, even when that failure is a result of demonstrable ineptitude on the part of the police (Warren) or in violation of both state law and the terms of a court order (Gonzales).

And yes, that is an abdication of the government's responsibility; that's not the way I want things to be, but that is the position of the executive branch of government in this country, and the judiciary has supported that position.

And please, let's go easy on the hyperbolic appeals to emotion, shall we? The fact is that the typical person who uses a firearm in a violent crime is someone who "would have been considered a 'law-abiding citizen' up to the moment he pulled the trigger" is pretty much a myth, albeit a particularly tenacious one. There's an estimated 80 million gun owners, with over 300 million firearms, and yet the Bureau of Justice Statistics data shows fewer than 400,000 crimes committed using firearms annually in over ten years (http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/glance/tables/guncrimetab.cfm). Even if every gun crime were committed by a legal gun owner (which is not the case), that leaves over 99.5% of gun owners who don't use their firearms in violent crimes.

[AtheistCrusader]

57. When the police decide jews, gays, and other undesirables need to be packed in ovens.

Well, in fairness they didn't decide to, they were only 'following orders'.

Think it can't happen here? The last president suspended habeas corpus, just for fun. An armed populace is a guard against that sort of nonsense taking the 'next step'.

[PavePusher]

12. There are no criminals amongst police or other government agents?!

Wow. Learn something new every day...

Edit: This is NOT intended as a blanket disparagement of LEO's.

[east texas lib]

5. Muhroons indeed, but they ARE oh so trendy! (nt)

:D

[taurus145]

9. Who is surprised?

I'm still waiting for Barrett to come up with the .499 Ahnold. It'll be almost as good as a .50.

[tburnsten]

35. Well there is already the .50 DTC

Stands for Democrats are Trouble in California. I'd have to say that California Dems really earned that one, what with the mentally half-cooked scaremongering about people using .50 caliber rifles to shoot down airliners (I don't know if ridiculous or absurd is a more accurate description for that) based on the fact that multiple mounted .50 caliber machine guns were used for air defense against tiny single engined propeller driven planes in World War II.
Also there was a concept of using extremely large "rifles" as anti-materiel weapons during the Cold War, where a small team of maybe three to five special forces commando types would pack in one rifle (and the .50 BMG was the runt of that litter, with 14.5mm up to 20-25mm cartridges that dwarf WWI-WWII anti-tank rifle cartridges) deep into enemy territory to disable sensitive equipment such as PARKED fighter jets by delivering shots at great range to extremely sensitive components, i.e. radar domes, engines, etc, that could not be quickly, easily, or cheaply repaired, thus taking some of the enemy's expensive and powerful weapons out of the picture.



That does not in any way resemble a person shooting a moving airliner out of the sky with a .50 BMG rifle, which is just retarded. Besides, it isn't like aircraft are completely pressure sealed, a half inch hole drilled into the airframe isn't going to have any impact on its ability to fly.

[S_B_Jackson]

72. I for one am not, however....

Barrett did come up with the Model 99 chambered in .416 Barret (effectively a necked down .50 cartridge)
http://www.barrettrifles.com/home/rifle_99.aspx

[slackmaster]

16. Starting in February 2011 the state will lose a lot of sales tax revenue due to out-of-state handgun

ammunition sales.

[virginia mountainman]

22. Slack, I wonder, if we will see "Cross border" ammo shops??

Like the "lotto stores" that you see right on the state line between lottery states, and non-lottery states, or liquor stores, that border "dry" counties??

I wonder if their will be much hand wringing about the "loophole" and "out of state" ammunition, that is causing all this death and destruction? I wonder if Blomberg will have "undercover buyers" showing just how easy it is to get a box of bullets??

It would be comical, if it weren't for the very real end results of this sort of BULLSHIT...

[taurus145]

25. I may move to Yuma or Reno

Then I can open an "Uncoded Ammo R Us" store.

I should be able to retire in about 5 minutes.

[dashrif]

71. You

taking on partners with capital for this venture? :hi:

[taurus145]

75. In a heartbeat!

I figure that sales will be so brisk we'll have to open several stores on the "good" side of the Kali state line.