‘Take Weapons of War Off Our Street’

Status
Not open for further replies.
Vector said:
It sounds like to me she bought into the liberal rhetoric about "a home being safer without a gun in it".
Click to expand...
I don't automatically accept the antigun talking point about the danger of guns in the home, but I don't automatically reject it either. Everybody's circumstances are different. I can see circumstances -- particularly if there are small children in the home -- where the risk of having a gun outweighs the advantages of having it.

Personally, because of where I live and my lifestyle generally, a home invasion is just not on my radar. I have a lot of guns, but I don't keep any of them for home defense. In my circumstances, that would be unreasonable paranoia. Somebody else's circumstances might be different. Ironically, virtually the only reason I would be targeted for a burglary would be if someone wanted to steal the guns themselves. If they knew I had them.

I recognize that self-defense is a major reason for non-gun-owners to get guns, now that hunting is on the decline. That's why defending the right of self-defense is crucial in defending the RKBA, for political reasons. On the other hand, on a personal level, I'm not entirely comfortable with the idea of a lot of people routinely going around armed. IMO, carrying a gun is something that should only be done in extremis (such as if you are the target of a direct threat). I think I've managed to avoid making myself the target of threats.
 
AlexanderA said:
I don't automatically accept the antigun talking point about the danger of guns in the home, but I don't automatically reject it either. Everybody's circumstances are different. I can see circumstances -- particularly if there are small children in the home -- where the risk of having a gun outweighs the advantages of having it.

Personally, because of where I live and my lifestyle generally, a home invasion is just not on my radar. I have a lot of guns, but I don't keep any of them for home defense. In my circumstances, that would be unreasonable paranoia. Somebody else's circumstances might be different. Ironically, virtually the only reason I would be targeted for a burglary would be if someone wanted to steal the guns themselves. If they knew I had them.

I recognize that self-defense is a major reason for non-gun-owners to get guns, now that hunting is on the decline. That's why defending the right of self-defense is crucial in defending the RKBA, for political reasons. On the other hand, on a personal level, I'm not entirely comfortable with the idea of a lot of people routinely going around armed. IMO, carrying a gun is something that should only be done in extremis (such as if you are the target of a direct threat). I think I've managed to avoid making myself the target of threats.
Click to expand...

Well for example, I live in a upscale neighborhood, and while full of McMansions like some of the very rich neighborhoods, places are going for $500K +. So do not have typically type of crime, but you'd be surprised at how often buglers will go into nice neighborhoods during the day, hoping no one will be home, and then break in.
Additionally a few years back a home just on the other block had armed robbers case a jewelry store, then follow the people home. When they pulled into the driveway, waiting for the garage door to open all the way, the robbers jumped out of the car, put a gun to the drivers face, and demanded the jewelry.
So anyone can be subjected to crime, regardless of how nice the neighbor is.

I like most people do not depend on just a gun alone, as I have a dog, alarm, security lights, safe, etc.
Call that paranoia if you like, but I also have an emergency medical kit and supplies in the event of a natural disaster. I carry jumper cables, spare tire, fire extinguisher, tool kit, etc., in my primary vehicle. Though not prepared for anything, I have been able to deal with most situations that I have encountered over the years.
Plus I like many people I know grew up with at least one gun in the house, and no one ever hurt themselves or others.
Food for thought.
 
Insignificant bill said:
No one needs to be into guns to be for the 2nd amendment. They should be for it because it protects all the other rights.
Click to expand...
Interesting. I need to think about this. I can see some people being for rights as an academic exercise, but not actually making use of them. (For example, being for freedom of religion while not personally practicing any religion.)

But when it comes to guns and the 2nd Amendment, it seems to me that the idea of the RKBA as the "palladin" or protector of all other rights rings rather hollow unless there is in fact widespread ownership of guns.
 
AlexanderA said:
Interesting. I need to think about this. I can see some people being for rights as an academic exercise, but not actually making use of them. (For example, being for freedom of religion while not personally practicing any religion.)

But when it comes to guns and the 2nd Amendment, it seems to me that the idea of the RKBA as the "palladin" or protector of all other rights rings rather hollow unless there is in fact widespread ownership of guns.
Click to expand...

His comment is absolutely relevant. If a tyrannical government started to decide X amount of your God given freedoms no longer applied (i.e. Constitutional prohibition of the government interference was removed) they could prevent you from redress, speech, religion, etc. etc. etc.
Words on paper would mean little to the power hungry ruling class, trying to control the people.
However and unless we give up out 2nd Amendment rights, they cannot stop an armed citizenry from keeping firearms. Only with an armed citizenry could we take back the government to protect all the other right they tried to usurp.
So if push came to shove, strong words and feather dusters would not work as well as firearms, to keep the government from running roughshod over our freedoms.
 
AlexanderA said:
Interesting. I need to think about this. I can see some people being for rights as an academic exercise, but not actually making use of them. (For example, being for freedom of religion while not personally practicing any religion.)
Click to expand...
Well, here are a few personal examples:
  1. I'm an agnostic, but don't think that the Little Sisters of the Poor should be forced to pay for birth control or abortions.
  2. I'm straight, but don't support anti-sodomy laws.
  3. I'm Black but don't think that White people should "just shut up".
It's called "realizing that what goes around comes around".

The supporters of racially invidious gun controls are part of a larger movement which seeks not only to challenge opposing thought, but to utterly destroy anyone's ability to publicly (and eventually privately) elucidate it.

They're totalitarians who believe not that they have the right to speak, but to speak WITHOUT CONTRADICTION. You can see this in the censorship campaigns of Catherine MacKinnon and Andrea Dworkin. I saw this very plainly thirty years ago.

Of course like the Bolsheviks, they premise this on the ahistorical belief that either THEY will always be in power, or that there will never arise within their own ranks someone MORE ruthless. You can ask Kamenev, Zinoviev and Bukharin about THAT one.

It's about sociopaths with infantile domination fantasies which can never be reified so long as the intended victims can resist with armed force.
 
AlexanderA said:
Personally, because of where I live and my lifestyle generally, a home invasion is just not on my radar. I have a lot of guns, but I don't keep any of them for home defense. In my circumstances, that would be unreasonable paranoia. Somebody else's circumstances might be different. Ironically, virtually the only reason I would be targeted for a burglary would be if someone wanted to steal the guns themselves. If they knew I had them.

I recognize that self-defense is a major reason for non-gun-owners to get guns, now that hunting is on the decline. That's why defending the right of self-defense is crucial in defending the RKBA, for political reasons. On the other hand, on a personal level, I'm not entirely comfortable with the idea of a lot of people routinely going around armed. IMO, carrying a gun is something that should only be done in extremis (such as if you are the target of a direct threat). I think I've managed to avoid making myself the target of threats.
Click to expand...

No offense, but such an attitude is quite simply delusional. It, sadly, gets proven over and over that there are no such things as "safe" places and that no one is immune from violent crime.

Arming oneself against the possibility of such is not paranoia, it's prudence. As the saying goes, it's not about the odds, it's about the stakes.

I personally am in the demographic probably LEAST likely to be victimized by violent crime. Caucasian, male, early middle age, reasonably healthy and living in a rural area. Yet I choose to go about armed. Why? Because it ain't about the odds, but the stakes.

I'd rather be laying on my deathbed lamenting all the money and time spent on guns, etc. than laying on the ground somewhere wishing that I had one.
 
Getting away from the OP topic. The problem with defending rights is that there is not agreement on them. The gun loving or hating person can be as controlling as anyone.

Thus back to the topic of whether weapons type bans are legit. Dump the Bump Trump who supports gun bans at times thinks so. GWB, Romney, Dole - GOP President types did. Reagan did.

Many on this and other fora think 3,3,3, 5 is enough, Revolvers are best for the novice (hey let’s mandate training). The gun is best described as a toy as the modern sporting rifle rifle.

Since these toys are subject to misuse why not ban them in Favor of Revolver-for-All?
 
GEM said:
Thus back to the topic of whether weapons type bans are legit.
Click to expand...
We are soon going to be faced with this here in Virginia, because a draconian AWB is on deck if, as widely expected, the Democrats take over the legislature after next week's election. There may be a 6-month grace period before the new law goes fully into effect, during which time I hope it can be challenged in court. Otherwise, this Virginia AWB is going to be worse than anything dreamed up so far in California, New York, or New Jersey.
 
It is an unknown whether
SCOTUS will take a ban case and if they do, they will void them. If they engage the issue it will be years from now. Certainly , the Congress will not pass laws to eliminate the bans as they never took up any progun bills when they had a majority.

Now someone will blather about Dump the Bump Trump’s judges to be or they will bury their guns!
 
Yep, so I guess we had better just sell everything we have now, before we have to give them to our overlords.
 
"It sounds like to me she bought into the liberal rhetoric about "a home being safer without a gun in it".

Honestly, I get where the writer is coming from on this but I know plenty conservatives who would never consider having a gun in their home. People need to realize, as well, that not all conservative voters share their attitude towards gun ownership.
 
The short-barreled shotgun WAS a weapon of war during WW1 and was known as a "trench gun". It was so effective against the Germans that they sought to ban them from being used by the Allies. It was a pump action gun with a folding bayonet. Check it out here and watch the short video (21 sec.) of one being "slam-fired".
https://www.warhistoryonline.com/war-articles/famous-model-1897-shotgun.html
 
Thibaut said:
"It sounds like to me she bought into the liberal rhetoric about "a home being safer without a gun in it".

Honestly, I get where the writer is coming from on this but I know plenty conservatives who would never consider having a gun in their home. People need to realize, as well, that not all conservative voters share their attitude towards gun ownership.
Click to expand...

Conservative by it's very definition means to conserve. If we extrapolate that into an American political view, most want to protect and conserve the original intent of our Founding Fathers, and the Constitution they drafted and ratified.

Undoubtedly American political ideology does not dictate whether someone will want to personally own a gun or not. However most want to protect that right for all American citizens.
If you look back in the not to distant history, the NRA use to endorse plenty of Democrats, back when there were conservative and moderate ones. Today there are virtually no conservatives, and the moderates are a dying breed.
Since Pelosi & Co can get every (D) in lock step to vote in unison, most people understand that without Republicans to protect our 2nd Amendment rights, the current crop of leftist Democrats would eviscerate private gun ownership. Heck they openly brag about it now, where they once tried to deny it.
 
GEM said:
they will bury their guns!
Click to expand...
I would have a legitimate "out" if Gov. Northam's AWB bill becomes law: I could store the affected guns (or their receivers) across the state line in West Virginia. Likewise storing all the over-10-round magazines, belts, etc., would be a bigger problem. I'd have to go through the whole house with a fine-tooth comb to find them all. Even overlooking just one would be a felony.

I'm already in the process of accumulating dummy ("80%") receivers to use as stand-ins for the exiled ones. The next step would be to get 10-round magazines for the pistols.

Ironically, under Gov. Northam's plan, I could keep my actual machine guns (minus their feeding devices, of course). The antis seem to be focused only on semiautomatics.

This is insanity. I'm a law-abiding person (and I have a lot to lose by not complying), but I would bet that 90% of the people affected would not comply.
 
Thibaut said:
Honestly, I get where the writer is coming from on this but I know plenty conservatives who would never consider having a gun in their home. People need to realize, as well, that not all conservative voters share their attitude towards gun ownership.
Click to expand...
The couple that I referred to (with the hoplophobic wife) were actually quite conservative politically, so your point is well taken.
 
While there may be conservative voters who should never have guns in their homes for many reasons, the focus of this thread is for those who can legally own guns and choose to have guns in their homes and DC v Heller addressed it.

And since the founding days, it's been clear who should not be armed, mainly violent people.

But that's not what we are talking about.

We are talking about normal, average, non-violent law abiding "We the People" defending our lives in our homes from violent intruders. And as to "weapons of war", since it essentially means all guns, let's not waste time.

As clearly indicated by countless reporting of multiple armed intruders against home owners, need for semi-auto carbines exists and as eloquently stated by judge Benitez, need for large capacity magazines exists to reduce/eliminate the "lethal pause", time it takes to change magazines for the home owners/defenders.
 
Benitez isn’t SCOTUS. The issue there is in doubt.
 
But judge Benitez did rule in Duncan v Becerra that magazines holding more than 10 rounds are "arms" and in "common use" and referenced Fyock v Sunnyvale which also stated large capacity magazines (15+ rounds per federal definition) qualify as "arms for purposes of the Second Amendment" and in "common use" - https://michellawyers.com/wp-conten...-2019-03-29-Order-Granting-Plaintiffs-MSJ.pdf

"The district court in [Fyock v. Sunnyvale], found that 'magazines having a capacity to accept more than ten rounds are in common use, and are therefore not dangerous and unusual.' ... The district court found that the large capacity magazines qualify as 'arms' for purposes of the Second Amendment." and ruled with judgement concluding, "Magazines holding more than 10 rounds are 'arms.'"​

Justice Scalia in DC v Heller also used firearms in "common use" and application of the Second Amendment to modern types of firearms and ammunition storage devices just as the First Amendment applies to modern types of communication - https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf

And in Caetano v. Massachusetts, the Court emphasized that, under Heller, the protections of the Second Amendment extend to firearms that were not in existence at the time of the Framers - https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/15pdf/14-10078_aplc.pdf

So I can easily see "originalist" SCOTUS accepting "common use" of large capacity magazines as "arms" under the protection of the Second Amendment as modern types of "arms" along with semi-auto loading rifles and carbines for self protection.
 
Wait for them to take a case and see if Roberts doesn’t sink it or water it doesn’t water it down. You may quote this or that but why don’t you quote the numerous courts that used Heller to support bans. Remember Kavanugh’s prose was in a dissent. Have a reality check.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

LiveLife
  • Locked
Fact check: Would new House/Senate bills BAN assault weapons? - Verdict: CONFIRMED!
Replies
14
Views
1K
Kleanbore
K
B
  • Locked
Second Amendment Stance of 2016 Presidential Candidates
2 3 4
Replies
77
Views
13K
Midwest
M
Back
Top