Silveira v. Lockyer bashers, please read...

[Graystar]

And if I recall correctly, Miller was a moonshiner.

That too.

http://www.rkba.org/research/miller/Miller.html

 

[Zak Smith]

A handgun is less effective that a shotgun, which is less effective than a grenade, which is less effective than a blockbuster dropped from a B17. But we can't have people tossing grenades around, so the line has to be drawn someplace

This topic was beat to death in the various "Does the 2A protect nuclear weapons?" threads over the years.

Follow this line of reasoning: My right to freely act is limited when I start to infringe on your rights. For example, my right to swing my fists stops at your nose. When I act freely, I am morally responsible for the results of my actions. If a criminal attacks me in a crowd and in my defense, I fire my pistol into the assailant and some bystanders by accident, I am responsible for the damage I do to them. If it is possible to use a weapon in a discriminant manner - and arguments can be made in principle for everything up to nuclear weapons (think: science fiction scenario in the future in which private space travel is common) - then there is nothing in the weapon qua the weapon that makes it ineffective. It's the context and use that makes it unsuitable - and that should be up to choice of the user.

Just because a shotgun isn't a particularly useful weapon to take jogging (a small handgun would be better) does not mean that the shotgun has no uses or the right to own tools of self-defense does not apply to it.

that the exercise of one right violates another, and the legislature has decided to defend the other. This is the same issue. A sawed-off shotgun is restricted because it is seen (by the legislature) as a major contributor to rights violations.

Woah!

There is a world of difference between: an action that violates someone's rights and an object that is a "major contributor" to rights violations.

An action that violates someone else's rights is immoral and should be illegal.

An object that some people use to harm others cannot be immoral. Only moral agents (i.e. people) can act - and those actions are moral or immoral. A object cannot "contribute to" anything - it simply exists. The action performed by the person is the immoral thing.

-z

 

[Brian Dale]

A sawed-off shotgun is restricted because it is seen (by the legislature) as a major contributor to rights violations.

Whether Miller was a bank robber or a moonshiner, I cannot own a short-barreled shotgun for home defense. My home defense weapon is a full-length shotgun. Is it more unwieldy in the house than an illegal short-barreled shotgun would be? Yes. Do I risk losing in a home-invasion robbery because of it? Perhaps. I've just never considered sawing off a shotgun barrel. It's a felony, and I won't do it, and that's that.

Whether or not you believe you have the right to falsely yell "Fire!" in a theater, you can certainly understand the idea behind the restriction...that the exercise of one right violates another, and the legislature has decided to defend the other. This is the same issue.

It's the same issue, but it was a very bad attempt at a solution. Prohibition of a weapon that would be a practical defensive weapon is a case of harming everyone because of the difficulty of solving the real problem: violent crimes. The exercise of rights by regular citizens does not violate any other rights. It's committing crimes that violates people's rights. Frankly, my friend, most of us don't have the inclination for that. Let's keep the focus on punishing the guilty, and move away from punishing everyone with prior restraint just because blanket prohibitions are easier and safer than going out and catching bad guys.

 

[Graystar]

An object that some people use to harm others cannot be immoral. Only moral agents (i.e. people) can act - and those actions are moral or immoral. A object cannot "contribute to" anything - it simply exists. The action performed by the person is the immoral thing.

Okay. Tell it to the judge. (And legislators while you're at it.)

Please remember that I'm not arguing these points. The NFA is fact. The legislators use a process to justify laws like the NFA. I'm just explaining the rationale.

Like you, I also believe that mere objects can't make anyone do anything. I think the proper course is to leave the possession of such object legal, and increase the prison sentence for misuse to scary levels. But that's just what I think.

 

[Graystar]

It's the same issue, but it was a very bad attempt at a solution.

I agree. Now, all we need is to gather enough people that care, and use our voting power to set things right.

 

[Shamaya]

Kinda thought so.

Graystar said:

Maybe I've just been influenced by TV...or maybe that little incident where a criminal shot me with his sawed-off shot gun...

That plus an earlier statement about how you have four handguns and your profile says you're in Brooklyn suggest, to me, that you're either a current or former law enforcement officer. Am I correct?

If so, do you bust gun owners merely for having an "unregistered" firearm in their possession?

Just curious. I'm betting yes and yes.

Yes, you were using anti-gunners' arguments. The "fire in a crowded theater" nonsense. The "2a doesn't cover nuclear weapons, so reasonable regulation covers short shotguns" crap. Etc.

I think you're a cop in a nazified city -- or a retired one -- and are tainted to the point that you make stuff up as you go along, kinda like the Brady Klan does, and parrot gun banners' arguments as if they somehow makes sense, because your whole self-image is tied to being a thug for hire.

But maybe I'm wrong. It's happened before.

 

[Shamaya]

AND...

2A covers any and every type of arm it would take to quell the kind of equipment the federal government used to murder women and babies in Waco, Texas. They sent tanks and helos armed with 20mm cannons. Do the stategic analysis on what it would take to effectively quell such a violent assault and you'll get a picture of what 2A covers, as per the Founders' full, enumerated intent.

 

[Graystar]

But maybe I'm wrong. It's happened before.

And it's happened again. I'm not a cop. Just a computer programmer. Although I'm a native New Yorker I lived in Idaho for two years and that's when I bought my guns. I brought them back with me and am properly licensed.

 

[Shamaya]

I'm not a cop.

Fair enough. I was wrong.

You just sound like a NYC kinda cop, several times over.

 

[Graystar]

You just sound like a NYC kinda cop, several times over.

NYC cops don't believe that the citizens of New York should be allowed to carry firearms for their personal protection. I do. So I don't see how I even come close to sounding like an NYC cop.

 

[Shamaya]

I don't see how I even come close to sounding like an NYC cop.

It's not for lack of effort on many people's parts to disabuse you from a few fallacies, Graystar. Go back and read through this thread. Your "arguments" on the sensibility of the SBS "regulation" could have been spoken by the Chief of at least 2/3 of the PD's in this nation -- equally unsounded, and equally untrue, as we'd expect from NYPD and [at least] hundreds of others.

Jim March, you were correct on this thread, Sir.

To theaters, nukes and shorties,

 

[Graystar]

Your "arguments" on the sensibility of the SBS "regulation"

If after reading my posts you think that I believe the NFA to be sensible, then I suggest you take an adult reading class at your local college.

Happy Bob wrote:

The 2d Amendment does not protect only those weapons that are required for use in the common defense. It covers all weapons that are acceptable for use in the common defense.

I replied:

Oh really? And where is that written? NOWHERE! Yet you speak it as if it is engraved in stone.

However, the truth is that you are correct.

Mind you, I'm not saying that the NFA is valid. I think parts of it are certainly invalid.

Mind you...I have never made any claim that the law is valid. I only claim to understand it, and to understand how it came about. But understanding something doesn't mean you agree with it. It *does* mean, however, that you are better equiped to debate it and argue against it.

Happy Bob wrote:
It's the same issue, but it was a very bad attempt [the NFA] at a solution.

I replied:

I agree.

There are several other comments that run along the same lines.

 

[Shamaya]

Try Schizophrenics Anonymous.

the utility of the weapon is not the determining point here.

Yes. It is. If it's useful for self-defense, home defense, defense of family or business or property, said utility is indeed a determining point.

The fact is that for certain types of weapons, the self-defense benefit provided is outweighed by potential harm from the weapon's abuse/misuse. A sawed-off shotgun, an obvious favorite of criminals, is such a weapon.

Sounds just like something a Brooklynized brainwashee would say. Something they do say, in fact. But it's not true.

I think a sawed-off shotgun is totally unsuitable for personal defense.

"Think" as you will; your assertion was, and is, incorrect -- and very reminiscent of what an anti-gun law enforcement officer would say. The funny thing is, law enforcement agencies all across the nation used short-barreled shotguns for self-defense every day; they are regular issue equipment -- with barrels four inches under the arbitrary 18" "legal" standard. Same goes for the military issue shotguns, too -- the ones being used in Iraq today.

So I personally can't see how restricting this specific weapon harms our right to possess firearms for personal defense.

That you can't see it doesn't mean much to people who see it plain as day. Again, sounds like a page out of the NYPD's anti-gun, anti-self-defense, anti-RKBA rhetoric.

Etc. In fact, you also said:

I'm not saying that the NFA is valid. I think parts of it are certainly invalid. ... If after reading my posts you think that I believe the NFA to be sensible, then I suggest you take an adult reading class at your local college.

Are you two people? Or just one guy with two personalities. I can read just fine, Graystar. That implies unequivocally that parts of NFA are valid. And since you also say that the short-barreled shotgun virtual ban doesn't "harm our right to possess firearms for personal defense", it's no wonder you're hearing people call you an anti-gunner. Which parts of NFA are valid, and why? If you answer honestly based on what you've shown of your beliefs so far, you'll issue more utterances that sounds like any of a number of anti-gun, anti-self-defense, anti-RKBA law enforcement folks have said and still say. And frankly, I don't care what your answer is anyway. Have the last word. You're just another "ally" who supports an inferior version of the Second Amendment than that intended by our nation's Founders. In other words, Domestic Enemy Lite.

 

[Graystar]

Shamaya, believe what you like. I just hope your "efforts" to support our rights don't end up losing them forever.

 

[tyme]

Graystar, I'm not sure why that matters to you... you've already lost them. Get out of the way and don't complain when those who still care about rights do as they see fit.

 

[Graystar]

Graystar, I'm not sure why that matters to you... you've already lost them.

Ever heard the phrase "pot calling the kettle black?" As I recall, Texans need to be approved before they can carry a gun. You need a concealed carry license, and there's no open carry.

Get out of the way and don't complain when those who still care about rights do as they see fit.

Letting fanatics "do as they see fit" is what got us into this sad state we have today. You have California, the Ninth Circuit, and New York ruling outright that we have no right to arms, along with other states. All but two states do not recognize any right to firearms for personal defense, regardless of what appears in their constitutions.

You and your buddies can pat yourselves on the back for a job well done.