Forum: pol
Page 2517
Subject: San Francisco voters thumb nose at constitution

  Posted by: katietx - [56723120] Thu, Nov 10, 2005, 20:06
City-wide ban on handguns passes

Repercussions of this should be interesting.
 
1biliruben
      Leader
      ID: 589301110
      Thu, Nov 10, 2005, 20:11 		The obvious response is to carry a shotgun around with you.
 
2Madman
      ID: 43410119
      Fri, Nov 11, 2005, 09:02 		Yes, that is interesting.

But to be clear, there is no mention of the "right to bear arms" in the California Constitution. I suspect this will be shot down on statutory grounds, like a similar measure was back in 1982. But I'm not clear on the Constitutional prohibition.

Calif. AG ... gives his interpretation on the 2nd amendment of the US Constitution.

My personal take is that the 2nd amendment effectively limit federal government prohibitions on an individual's right to bear arms (in contrast to what the AG's opinion says ... although he's following SCOTUS precedent more closely than I). However, it is entirely unclear to me whether the 2nd amendment should be incorporated under the 14th amendment's liberty clause to make the federal constitution prohibit local or state prohibitions, which is where, I suspect, people like John Roberts might find the Constitutional reference.

If I was supreme dictator, I probably WOULD find a right to possess most economic goods -- like guns -- under the Privileges and Immunities clause, but I'd get laughed out of law school for that, I suspect.

All I'm really trying to say is that I don't think this case is Constitutionally clear, and it definitely isn't something where there is unanimity.

But I'll yield to MBJ or Toral or others with a superior legal background.

Here is a copy of the full text ... I assume that it is accurate, even though it comes from a ban-opposition site.
 
3Madman
      ID: 43410119
      Fri, Nov 11, 2005, 09:12 		Here's a good FAQ that I should have linked to before posting. Applicable sections:



"Wait -- does the proposed ban affect ownership of rifles or shotguns?
The ban on mere possession would only affect handguns. It will remain (for now, at least) legal to own rifles or shotguns.

If the San Francisco handgun ban is approved, will it be upheld by the courts?
Probably not, but it's hard to say. We do know the ordinance will be challenged in court by Second Amendment groups and individual gun owners. The short answer is that the state of California prohibits municipalities from enacting their own firearm laws in this area. But there are some possible loopholes.

Why do you say that -- are there any court precedents?
Yes. In the 1960s, San Francisco enacted an ordinance requiring the registration of most firearms inside the city limits. The California Supreme Court upheld the requirement in Galvan v. Superior Court in 1969, saying:

"We find that the legislature has not adopted a uniform statutory scheme governing gun registration, that the absence of provisions governing registration does not reflect a legislative intent to prohibit local registration, that the San Francisco gun law imposes no undue burden on transients, and that the differing community needs for gun registration within the state justify local regulation of the subject."

In response, the California legislature enacted a law that shifted control of firearm regulation to Sacramento. That law said "it is the intention of the legislature to occupy the whole field of regulation of the registration or licensing of commercially manufactured firearms" and that "such provisions shall be exclusive of all local regulations."

Have there been any cases since that state preemption was put into place?
Two are especially relevant. San Francisco lost both times. First, the city tried to circumvent the state law by requiring anyone who wanted to buy a concealable firearm to ask the police for permission. In that case, Sippel v. Nelder, an appeals court ruled "that the ordinance here involved, insofar as it purports to regulate the licensing or registration of firearms, is invalid."

The second case is better known. San Francisco banned possession of handguns by enacting an ordinance in June 1982. The ordinance exempted the handful of people granted permits by the SFPD under Penal Code Sec. 12050 but did not exempt the average city resident who wanted to have a gun in his or her home or business for safety reasons. Mere possession was punished by a prison term of up to six months.

That case was called Doe v. City and County of San Francisco (136 Cal. App. 3d 509) and was decided by an appeals court in October 1982. The court acknowledged that local governments could regulate some aspects of firearms possession, but ruled against the city on two grounds. First, the court found the ordinance was directly preempted ("The San Francisco Handgun Ordinance does create a license requirement for one seeking to possess a handgun at home, and therefore conflicts with Penal Code section 12026"). Second, the court said even if the ordinance would not have been directly preempted, it was still obvious what the state meant: "It strains reason to suggest that the state legislature would prohibit licenses and permits but allow a ban on possession."

Read that last sentence again. It is still good law today (the California Supreme Court did not take the case and the appeals court declined two requests for a re-hearing). It is what could doom San Francisco's most recent efforts."



He also points out that one of our most murderous cities already has a handgun ban in place (DC). That ban might face a US Constitution second amendment challenge.
 
4Madman
      ID: 43410119
      Fri, Nov 11, 2005, 09:15 		Here's an update on Parker v. District of Columbia ... so far, their ban has held up on appeal, but it hasn't reached SCOTUS, apparently.
 
5Seattle Zen
      ID: 179472013
      Fri, Nov 11, 2005, 14:28 		"It strains reason to suggest that the state legislature would prohibit licenses and permits but allow a ban on possession."

I don't think it does, myself. It is obvious that the courts in CA have said that only the State may make licensing laws. An outright ban is not a licensing law, there is no license or permit. The reasoning behind prohibiting municipalities passing a patchwork of gun licensing regs is obvious - it would create such a mess that the average man wouldn't know if he was facing jail for possessing a gun in City B holding a license from City A. The average man knows he is facing jail if he possesses a handgun in SF even if he has a State of CA permit.

I've been thinking about Originalist reasoning and the Second Amendment. A militia back in the 1780s really was a check on the government, a rag-tag bunch of men with muskets and bayonettes could prevent the government from imposing martial law. With the rapid advancement of military weaponry, no one could possibly argue that even 200 million American citizens with firearms could prevent the US military from an illegal power grab.

Wouldn't Scalia have to argue that the American public should not be prohibited from possessing Stinger missles, Stryker urban warfare vehicles, and 50 caliber guns to mount on our Hummers? Without a "well regulated" bunch of Americans (read: God-fearing Republicans) with these vital weapons in their possession, who is going to be the check against the inevitable takeover by the: Godless liberals (Baldwin) or Creepy occultist NWO (Sutton/Nerve)?
 
6Boldwin
      ID: 49626249
      Sat, Nov 12, 2005, 00:06 		no one could possibly argue that even 200 million American citizens with firearms could prevent the US military from an illegal power grab.

This oft repeated and seldom challenged chestnut is pure baloney. It is the wrong question. The right question is whether soldiers loyal to the constitution [presumably a large percentage] and emboldened by a united armed citizenry could withstand treasonous orders from above.
 
7nerveclinic
      ID: 19730619
      Sat, Nov 12, 2005, 00:10 		Zen A militia back in the 1780s really was a check on the government, a rag-tag bunch of men with muskets and bayonettes could prevent the government from imposing martial law. With the rapid advancement of military weaponry, no one could possibly argue that even 200 million American citizens with firearms could prevent the US military from an illegal power grab.

I would absolutely argue that. You cannot easily pacify a country of 200 million people when half of them are armed. The hand gun aspect is important because you have to be able to easily hide your weapon from the occupying army.

All you have to do is look at what is happening in Iraq to see how illogical your argument is.

This "advanced military" is waging a war against a militia that's about 100 years behind in terms of weaponry. By your logic it should have been over years ago.

There's two reasons why this is an infuriating vote to me.

The first is the point that you are claiming is no longer relevant.

If there is a power grab, and there is an illegal form of government put in place, they will have a much tougher time maintaining control if the 60 million people in this country who own hand guns still have them, can walk down the street with them hidden in their coat and walk up to the soldier of the fascist army and shoot him in the back of the head.

We may not be able to prevent the power grab (i.e. Iraq) but we may be able to make life so uncomfortable for the occupying army that they eventually give up. (i.e. Viet Nam)

The second reason is perhaps more immediate. Self defense in my house.

My house, in my neighborhood, where there were 36 break ins, in a 6 day period in a 10 block radius around my apartment from May 1st to May 6th according to the SF policeman who rang my doorbell to inform me of this.

Currently I sleep with a Glock 9MM about 18" from my head. If I hear someone in my living room, which is directly in front of my bed through a large open door way, I can quietly reach for my weapon and be ready to use it if necessary.

If I grab and attempt to aim a rifle, any intruder would see the gun and shoot me first if he was armed. Therefore I would have to immediately shoot to kill and hope I am faster. With a handgun, I can grab it easily, hide it under the covers, and have time to gauge the level of danger.

It would be impossible to discreetly do the same with a large rifle.

So I don't have a right to protect myself in your world Zen? Billi?

Because any 5 year old can see you cannot protect yourself as effectively with a rifle that is difficult to conceal as I can with a hand gun.

Unfortunately the concealment factor also helps criminals.

What is this hand gun ban going to do except make gun ban liberals feel warm and fuzzy? Oh you think the criminals are going to turn in their guns in April?

I'll wait and see what happens but I feel so strongly about the right to bear arms, and the importance of the need for a weapon that is easy to conceal and handle that I am already seriously considering moving outside the city limits to avoid this ban. My lease conveniently ends in April. To bad because other then the socialist mentality of half the city, it's the best place I've ever lived.

The upside is that half the politics people here are liberal about I completely agree with. I'll go along with legal marijuana/drugs, homosexual marriage, decriminalization of victim-less crimes etc.

Make no doubt about it though this town is full of goose stepping, zombiefied, liberals who don't think issues through so much as they worship a fashionable doctrine passed on to them by their socialist brethren. I do mean socialist too, just look at the title of the newspapers they are handing out at the BART station. This is not "red-bating" either, they will be happy to tell you they want the government to control everything.

If I do stay, I will sell my Glock and buy the most powerful, high end "legal" military style weapon I can find to further prove how asinine the law is. I won't keep the Glock because it would be worthless in SF, there are so many illogical idiots running this city, that if someone broke in my apartment, and I used the "illegal" handgun in self defense, guess who would be going to jail for a long time. That's how far these idiots have their heads up their...

People argue with statistics that X number of people are killed every year by hand guns. For instance in 2002 there were almost 12,000 homicides using handguns.

400,000 died from cigarettes.

If handguns were completely outlawed, how many of the 12,000 would simply be killed using a different method?

Washington DC has a total ban on handgun ownership and is the murder capital of the USA. The murder rate didn't go down after the ban relative to drops in murder rates in the US overall. Where's the beef?

Try this statistic, when Hitler took power, one of the first things he did was ban private owner ship of guns disarming the Jews.

6,000,000 Jews died in gas chambers. 50,000,000 people died in WWII. How can you even talk in the same breath about 12,000 people compared to these numbers?

Would as many Jews have died if they were armed?

Not so quietly perhaps.

I don't want King George (W) to have the only army in this country with weapons.

Any gun experts on the forum have any suggestions on assault weapons that are relatively small (and legal) I'll buy one just to make Zen happy I don't have a hand gun any more...8-)

I do have hope though, the mayor himself, who was for the ban (Who wants to make a bet he lives in a highly secure residence), stated on the news the night of the election that the vote was likely just symbolic as it would never hold up in the courts.

I also haven't been able to find anywhere what the punishment is if you are eventually caught with a handgun you refuse to turn in, I don't even no what the punishment if any was that was written into the referendum.

Oh and did I mention I am a proudly registered conscientious objector to war?
 
8nerveclinic
      ID: 19730619
      Sat, Nov 12, 2005, 00:16 		** Washington, D.C.'s homicide rate more than tripled after the city banned handguns. D.C. consistently has the highest homicide rate among major U.S. cities. (FBI)
** Chicago banned handguns in 1982 and in a decade homicides with handguns more than doubled. (Chicago Homicide Dataset) Chicago has the fourth highest homicide rate among major U.S. cities. (FBI)

HA HA HARDY HAR HAR

 
9Perm Dude
      Dude
      ID: 030792616
      Sat, Nov 12, 2005, 00:32 		Not to get in the way of misused statistics here, but I'm curious about the homicide methods and how they tied into the numbers, and whether changes in reporting led to increase numbers across the board on crime reporting in the time period?

And is there any evidence that a handgun ban had any effect, either way, on homicide rates? Or is this merely poorly presented co-relational numbers being thrown around as causal to try to dismiss, out-of-hand, a handgun ban in a city that doesn't have a large homicide rate?
 
10nerveclinic
      ID: 19730619
      Sat, Nov 12, 2005, 00:44 		PD

What ever the statistics show the murder rate by handguns doubled. I thought the reasons for these bans was to reduce crime? I thought it was to reduce murders by hand guns?

Did it work? The statistical comparison would be to compare how much the murder rate by handguns grew in DC relative to how much it grew in other cities where handgun aren't banned. I don't have that stat but given that DC still is right up there 20 years later as a consistent top 3 in murder's per capita in the country, it doesn't take a genious to see the ban had little effect.

Last year in SF we had a whopping 70 homicides by handgun, and for this we take away our right to defend ourselves?

In any case this will not hold up in court so I'm not particulary concerned as much as agitated that people can be so illogical.

 
11nerveclinic
      ID: 19730619
      Sat, Nov 12, 2005, 00:46

By the way can anyone who is better then me at internet research (99% of the people on this forum) find for me what the penalty is for not turning in a gun and later getting caught with it. I can't seem to find it in any articles about the ban.

 
12Perm Dude
      Dude
      ID: 030792616
      Sat, Nov 12, 2005, 01:05 		I guess my question is that if guns are being used to "protect yourself" I'm not getting that from the raw numbers. How many homicides were committed by people "defending themselves?" How many accidental deaths from guns? How did the nature of the reporting change any of the numbers (we can't overlook how things are reported--some studies I've read regarding Baltimore and NYC crime statistics indicate that some of the numbers have gone both up and down because the crimes are getting reported both more often and with better categorical placement).

In other words, I don't buy yet that the handgun ban was put into place because of homicide numbers (though that may be a factor). Generally, the rush to ban guns of any sort is as a result of accidental or collateral deaths (a rash of deaths by accidental means, or assault-type weapons spraying crowds in drive-by shootings, etc).

I'm absolutely willing to be convinced of your position, nerve, but I'm not seeing your position backed by the narrow statistics you've put up, and I'm not of the mind that the ban was put into place for the reasons you've cited.
 
13nerveclinic
      ID: 19730619
      Sat, Nov 12, 2005, 03:59

what the penalty is for not turning in a gun and later getting caught with it.

No penalty "specified" in the referendum, to be decided later at the decretion of the city council.

 
14sarge33rd
      ID: 148422311
      Sat, Nov 12, 2005, 09:08 		Here are some outstanding home defense options.

short barrel shotguns

pistol grip stock, short slide pump action semi-automatice, barrel length down to 10".

Beauty of the shotgun, a missed round most likely wont penetrate the walls resulting in injury/liability for an innocent who was utterly uninvolved.
 
15sarge33rd
      ID: 148422311
      Sat, Nov 12, 2005, 09:12 		prolly illegal, but this is THE ultimate concept in urban combat shotguns I've seen to date:


S African Mag-7
 
16katietx
      ID: 56723120
      Sat, Nov 12, 2005, 12:13 		A shotgun is the best in home defense. Especially a pump. The sound of pumping the gun would likely result in said invader taking a quit exit.

I know it worked for me years ago in Dallas.

 
17bibA
      Sustainer
      ID: 261028117
      Sat, Nov 12, 2005, 12:38 		Scared the crap out of ya, did it?
 
18sarge33rd
      ID: 148422311
      Sat, Nov 12, 2005, 12:39 		agreed. from the vantage point of shear intimidation, few things compare to the sound of a pump-action shotgun chambering a round.
 
19nerveclinic
      ID: 19730619
      Sat, Nov 12, 2005, 13:11

I guess my question is that if guns are being used to "protect yourself"

This is virtually an impossible statistic to calculate without taking a very large scientific poll.

The problem is many people who defend themselves with handguns never report it to the police so it doesn't become a statistic. I know someone during the LA riots who invited 2 seperate intruders to leave his apartment at gun point and he never called the police because they sort of had their hands full.

 
20nerveclinic
      ID: 19730619
      Sat, Nov 12, 2005, 13:23
The sound of pumping the gun would likely result in said invader taking a quit exit.

I don't really buy that argument. I live in a small apartment (SF) so literally if someone makes it into my apartment he is right up on top of me. I wouldn't have the luxury of reaching for a large , clunky shotgun, take the time to pump it. This would all be seen by the intruder and if he was armed I would be dead before I could even pump.

As I stated in my earlier post, I have the handgun situated in such a way that I could carefully reach for it, in the dark, with someone looking right at me and they wouldn't really be able to see what I am doing.

THAT is why I feel so passionately about the right to own a handgun as opposed to a big awkward rifle.

Sarge both weapons you showed would never be allowed in SF I am certain.

It wouldn't be in my best interest to shoot an intruder with an illegal weapon. If he dies I do serious jail time. If he lives I do serious jail time and he sues me and wins.

All of a sudden instead of just being a junky he's a rich junky.


 
21Seattle Zen
      ID: 179472013
      Sat, Nov 12, 2005, 13:27 		Paranoid doesn't even BEGIN to describe these posts, Nerve.
 
22nerveclinic
      ID: 19730619
      Sat, Nov 12, 2005, 18:48

Paranoid doesn't even BEGIN to describe these posts, Nerve.

Care to elaborate? What in particular do you find paranoid? I'm stumped.

 
23Mattinglyinthehall
      ID: 25337239
      Sun, Nov 13, 2005, 11:09 		** Washington, D.C.'s homicide rate more than tripled after the city banned handguns. D.C. consistently has the highest homicide rate among major U.S. cities. (FBI)
** Chicago banned handguns in 1982 and in a decade homicides with handguns more than doubled.

Bullshit. Those NRA facts sheets can be fun and all (hardyharhar) but you should know they have no place in an honest discussion. It amazes me that people still display the ignorance and/or balls to cite their phony, doctored up numbers.

Chicago Tribune
Scroll down to graph 2 (for some reason I can't just link the image) to see that while Chicage saw the same increase in homicides that semed to have happened in every major city, the rate most certainly didn't double. Now, I'll point out that I wasn't able to find any specific references to handgun homicide rates, but you'll have to do some serious contorting to show that that distinction is necessary al all (for any reason other than to allow the NRA to trump up their numbers). Your argument is that handguns protect people from being murdered, not from being murdereed specifically with handguns.

Anyhow, from the Chicago reference, we see that the NRA's point of reference for measuring the cause of a handgun ban is 10 years. Rather convenient for them because if they had instead chose 2, 4 or 5 year markers following the ban they would be in the awkward position of reporting no significant change in homicide rates (looks like slight decreases in firearm homicide rats).

But lets give you and the NRA the benefit of the doubt and look at Washington DC's homicide rate 10 years after their 1976 handgun ban and compare that to your and NRA's claim is that the homicide rate (not handgun homicides in this case - any idea for why they went with a different statistic in this case?) more than tripled after the city banned handguns.

Washington DC murders per 100,000 people in 1976: 26.8
Washington DC murders per 100,000 people in 1986: 31

Once again, that 10 year marker really works out well for the NRA (despite the fact that it doesn't come close to supporting their own claim), because look at what happened at the 9 year mark after the ban:
Washington DC murders per 100,000 people in 1985: 23

Anyway, what happened to the tripling effect? Well, we see that if you look further down the line, the homicide rate did triple by 1990 (from 1976), right around the time when there was a national spike in homicides just about everywhere in the country. A closer look at the data shows that what actaully happened was that the rate more than doubled from 1987 to 1991 - the height of the American crack epidemic in one of the most affected cities. You might argue that this wouldn't have happened if not for the handgun ban 10 years before the phenomenon began but I don't know of any way to prove or disprove that and regardless, that isn't what you and NRA were claiming in post 8 at all.

In post 10 you wrote, "The statistical comparison would be to compare how much the murder rate by handguns grew in DC relative to how much it grew in other cities where handgun aren't banned." OK, take a look at the second link in this post, where you will see the homicide rate in St Louis , a city with no ban on handguns. In 1991, their murder rate about doubled from 1988 to 1991.

Personally, my general opinion is that citizens should usually be allowed to own firearms, including handguns. But I have no patience for how both sides of this debate blatently molds statistics to their favor and for how the drones on either side will recite these mostly irrelevant numbers with the claim that it proves they're right.

I haven't read through the article I linked above but I suspect there is something to his claim that the factors most responsible for a city's murder rate has less to do with access to guns (and other factors commonly cited by politicians) and much more to do with the nature of it's economy.
 
25Mattinglyinthehall
      ID: 25337239
      Sun, Nov 13, 2005, 11:38 		What in particular do you find paranoid?

Here's some perspective. According to the most recent numbers at DOJ, about 2% of Americans are victims of violent crimes. Obviously, outside of the ghettos, that number goes way down.

But it is auto accidents that are the leading cause of death in young people. I believe I've read that something like 100% of Americans can expect involved in at least 1 auto accident in their lives and 30% of Americans can expect to be in an alcohol-related accident.

In short I have never seen a discussion in this forum or heard someone discuss with such strategy how they protect themsleves from a car crash in the way that you tell us how you are prepared to defend yourself from violent crime.

Do you always make certain to keep a car-length distance between you and the driver in front of you per every 10 miles per hour you drive? Do you avoid driving Friday and Saturday nights due to the higher ratio of drunk drivers on the road? Which types of seatbelts and seatbelt/airbag combinations do you prefer for optimal protection from the various types of impact? Ever consider outfitting your car with a roll cage?
 
26Action Figure
      ID: 287231610
      Sun, Nov 13, 2005, 12:16 		Mattinglyinthehall,

Save those statistics for the guy when he breaks into your house, tell him according to your statistics he isn't supposed to be there.

Then take a bullet from him or give him one of yours.

I don't see anything wrong with having a weapon handy while you sleep. I think having a plan on how you will use a weapon is the sign of a responsible gun owner. I assume all responsible gun owners know where their gun is and how they will use it if the need arises.

Paranoid?

I guess anybody and everybody with a gun is paranoid.

 
27Mattinglyinthehall
      ID: 25337239
      Sun, Nov 13, 2005, 12:41 		I guess you could shoot the drunk driver barrelling at you on the wrong side of the road.

My point is that the priorities don't really match the realities. So yes, I think it sounds paranoid.
 
28Perm Dude
      Dude
      ID: 030792616
      Sun, Nov 13, 2005, 12:47 		No, AF, not every gun owner is paranoid (though I firmly believe the NRA to use paranoia as a political tool).

I, too, firmly believe in responsible gun ownership but there's no real agreement on what that means, exactly. Does that mean some kind of weapons training? Registration? Gun locks? The NRA is against all of that, even if they were all under the complete control of the NRA.

Now, how about telling the family whose kid just took their bullet because of a poorly stowed weapon that it's OK because the NRA is standing on some kind of principle?
 
29Action Figure
      ID: 287231610
      Sun, Nov 13, 2005, 13:02 		"I guess anybody and everybody with a gun is paranoid."

I forgot the sarcasm thingy. How does that go again?
 
30Mattinglyinthehall
      ID: 25337239
      Sun, Nov 13, 2005, 13:08 		Reading through again, I owe Nerve an apology. I missed the part about the recent break-ins. Obviously, living in a place where there is an increased liklihood of threat validates preparing an offensive reaction.

Ftr I live in a place that has occasional upticks in crime and threat from crime that I'd imagine are similar to where Nerve lives. I feel no need to defend myself with a handgun but can understand why someone would.
 
31bibA
      Sustainer
      ID: 261028117
      Sun, Nov 13, 2005, 13:14 		The 2002 movie American Gun with James Coburn is very significant to the recent posts in this thread. If you are interested in these subjects, rent this movie. Pertinent and interesting.
 
32nerveclinic
      ID: 19730619
      Mon, Nov 14, 2005, 02:12 		MITH Those NRA facts sheets can be fun and all (hardyharhar) but you should know they have no place in an honest discussion. It amazes me that people still display the ignorance and/or balls to cite their phony, doctored up numbers.

I'll plead ignorance if the numbers really are wrong. I just did a google search for hand gun statistics in Chicago and DC and the link came up. I didn't actively go to the NRA site looking for my stats. I can't read your charts by the way, I don't have excel and the ones I was able to look at are illegible.

I guess ultimately my point is this though. In cities where handguns have been banned, has it reduced crime? Or just disarmed honest citizens (because I will sell my handgun if this law really passes, I'm guessing the criminals in my neighborhood won't)

As for the DC stats MITH. One would think if hand guns were outlawed murder rates would go down, looking at your chart it didn't. Why not? And if DC continues to be the murder capital of the country it didn't do much except disarm honest citizens.

Here's some perspective. According to the most recent numbers at DOJ, about 2% of Americans are victims of violent crimes.

Wow that's actually a huge number, I never would have guessed it was that high.

Obviously, outside of the ghettos, that number goes way down.

Actually now you are screwing up stats, that number includes ghettos and suburbs therefore inside a ghetto the number goes way up, outside it goes down but the 2% would be an average. So in the places in CITIES ghetto or not I would guess the number is higher then the suburb...I don't live in a suburb and I live very close to what you are probably referring to as a ghetto, very, very close.

In short I have never seen a discussion in this forum or heard someone discuss with such strategy how they protect themselves from a car crash in the way that you tell us how you are prepared to defend yourself from violent crime.

OK I owned a Mazda Miata, when I moved to LA and saw how people drive I sold it specifically for safety reasons and bought an Acura RSX with front and side air bags that rates well in safety tests...that's honestly why I sold it...happy?

In addition I don't eat meat and I've worked out for the last 20 years to increase my odds of survival, again fits within the point of logic you are making.

Really though, in order for your argument about car safety to correlate, the government would have to outlaw safe cars and force us to drive dangerous ones so I really don't see the correlation.

The government has said I can't use a handgun to protect myself, the government hasn't said you must stop driving safe cars so your point doesn't make sense as to why no one is writing threads about the subject..

In post 10 you wrote, "The statistical comparison would be to compare how much the murder rate by handguns grew in DC relative to how much it grew in other cities where handgun aren't banned." OK, take a look at the second link in this post, where you will see the homicide rate in St Louis , a city with no ban on handguns. In 1991, their murder rate about doubled from 1988 to 1991.

Come on MITH that's not fair. You can't just look through all cities and pick the one that fits your model. I meant you would have to take "all similar size" cities and make the comparison that way. You can always find an ana-moly when there are so many cities to choose from.

I bought my gun when I lived in Atlanta. At the time I lived in an area called Virginia Highlands, a trendy, relatively safe part of the city. Yet 3-4 nights a week when I laid in bed I heard gun shots in the distance. There were also stories on the news at that time of home invasions, crack heads kicking in doors and robbing people at gun point. If I hear someone kicking in my door I want to be waiting for them with protection. Paranoid? Oh so those home invasions I saw on the news were urban legends?

Adam Parfrey, publisher of Feral House press told me he was for gun control. He lived in LA during the riots. When they started he drove to arizona and bought a hand gun (Because there was a 10 day woiting period in LA.) He invited two seperate intruders during the riots to leave his apartment at gun point.

Where I live now, within a 5 minute walk, day or night, I can take you over to at least a dozen or more junkies. I mean bad ass looking junkies, pimps, meth heads, crack heads and heroin addicts. That's why there are so many break-ins in my neighborhood.

Do I think anyone is going to break into my apartment? Maybe a 3 percent chance. SO I guess I'm overly cautious. Put it pisses me off my right to protect myself in a way I deem most appropriate has now been taken away.

Really pisses me off.




 
33Mattinglyinthehall
      ID: 25337239
      Mon, Nov 14, 2005, 07:38 		As for the DC stats MITH. One would think if hand guns were outlawed murder rates would go down, looking at your chart it didn't. Why not? And if DC continues to be the murder capital of the country it didn't do much except disarm honest citizens.

I assume you wrote that before you got to the bottom of my post. My greater point is that I doubt permitting or outlawing handguns necessarily has any real effect on homicide rates. But for the record the rate did go down (using standards I'm sure I've seen the NRA employ). In 1976 (the year of the ban) the rate was 26.8 per 100,000. 9 years later in 1985 it was 23. There's a stat you'll never hear from the NRA and the reason why the NRA will never show a yearly chart to make their baseless points about crime stats. As I've said I don't think this proves anything (except that you're mistaken in claiming that the rate didn't go down).

that number includes ghettos and suburbs therefore inside a ghetto the number goes way up, outside it goes down but the 2% would be an average.

Well I just included that as a side point and aI think my arguments work just fine even if we use that 2% range. But more importantly, I realized after more carefully reading about where you live that my post 25, as it pertains to you, was a little unfair, at least as far as calling you paranoid was concerned. I made those arguments assuming that you lived in a specifically low crime area. My bad.

You can't just look through all cities and pick the one that fits your model.

Why not? That's exactly what you and NRA did with your Chicago and DC models. NRA chose to make those particular points using the numbers that best suited them among all communities with handgun bans. I did the same with the stats at my disposal. Why do you think the NRA doesn't throw around stats for Evanston, Elk Grove and Morton Grove, where guins are also banned? What happened to murder rates in those places? Why is it imperative that they discuss large cities in making these points? Could it be that large cities have very volatile crime rates and that numbers that jump around from year to year are much easier to manipulate?

But I think the data from most other cities listed in my link supports me, anyway. In the time that the rate doubled in DC, from 87 to 91, in San Diego the rate jumped from 9 to 15. In Boston from 14 to 26. In Milwaukee from 14 to 26. So it went up by over 60% in a town with a traditionally low murder rate and almost doubled in two towns with medium level murder rates in the same time that the rates also doubled in St Louis and DC.

Now, aside that there aren't handgun bans, I don't know anything about the real availability of handguns in any of those cities. But I do know that in NYC, its near impossible to get one legally. It's so difficult for someone outside of law enforcement to obtain a license that there pretty much is a ban here, too. In NYC from 87 to 91 the rate went from 23 to 31, despite the inaccessablity to handgun licenses. In Chicago, where we know there was a ban in place, number of murders went from about 700 to about 1,000 in that time (I don't have rates but that should be good enough). Really, Nerve, I'm quite sure these numbers don't mean anything.
 
34sarge33rd
      ID: 148422311
      Mon, Nov 14, 2005, 10:10 		all of that aside, examining the 2nd ammendment aspect combined with previous CA legislation and court decisions, would seem to place this in the states hands, not the local city/counties authority. Whether or not, such a ban impacts crime...it violates existing CA statute and precedence. It should therefore, not be upheld upon challenge.

From a practical view, the old saying goes that ; "Outlaw guns and only outlaws will have guns", is very true and something NC hits upon. He admits that he would if required, surrender his weapon. Does anybody honestly expect that the armed robber will do the same? That the local gang members, will do likewise? Crime isnt dramatically reduced by this kind of legislation, because logic dictates that the people committing the crimes, arent going to comply with the legal requirement.

Its my home. Whether an apartment, a duplex or a single family structure. The content therein, needs to remain inviolate. Enter my domicile without an invite, and as far as I'm concerned, you're on the verge of committing suicide. Thats the right of self protection and self preservation, that everyone of us enjoys.
 
35Mattinglyinthehall
      ID: 2824911
      Mon, Nov 14, 2005, 10:21 		Crime isnt dramatically reduced by this kind of legislation, because logic dictates that the people committing the crimes, arent going to comply with the legal requirement.

I've never seen any strong evidence to support the idea that the number of legally owned firearms or handguns in a city has very much to do with crime rates at all. Throw every other observation regarding these stats and legal gun accessability right out the window.
 
36J-Bar
      ID: 56959410
      Mon, Nov 14, 2005, 10:38 		this was interesting concealed weapons deters crime
There seems to be strong evidence to support the more guns less crime theory.
 
37Mattinglyinthehall
      ID: 2824911
      Mon, Nov 14, 2005, 10:50 		My personal observations regarding conceal & carry (for whatever they're worth) are that allowing it most probably deters crime outside of urban and high crime areas and most probably increases instances of shootings in ghettos and areas where there are a high number of volent crimes.
 
38sarge33rd
      ID: 148422311
      Mon, Nov 14, 2005, 13:35 		I'd differ MITH. I think "the bad guys" are already walking around armed. I also think, they may be a bit hesitant to pull theirs and fire, if they had reason to believe that everyone else on the street was likewise armed and prepared to return fire. It would take one truly dumb SOB, to pull out an 11rd .45 and open fire, when 23 others are handy with their firearms.
 
39Perm Dude
      Dude
      ID: 030792616
      Mon, Nov 14, 2005, 13:41 		sarge, I don't know that criminals think that they are going to get caught, and even if they are going against someone armed (like their fellow criminals) do you really think they will even hesitate, for a second?

In fact, my guess is that if there is any effect (and I don't know if there is) that the criminals are much more likely to fire first if they knew a house had a gun in it.
 
40Mattinglyinthehall
      ID: 2824911
      Mon, Nov 14, 2005, 13:53 		It would take one truly dumb SOB, to pull out an 11rd .45 and open fire, when 23 others are handy with their firearms.

I won't speak on the relative intelligence of street gang thugs but people get shot in gang-ridden neighborhoods all the time. I have no numbers to support it, but I'd bet that a majority of inner city shootings happen in settings where there is a likely presence of concealed weapons nearby. Known drug spots, block parties, underground clubs, housing projects, etc.

The reality of some of those neighborhoods is that many, many people have and carry guns. People get shot anyway.
 
41nerveclinic
      ID: 19730619
      Tue, Nov 15, 2005, 03:15

But I do know that in NYC, its near impossible to get one legally. It's so difficult for someone outside of law enforcement to obtain a license that there pretty much is a ban here, too.

Um can't you just drive to Jersey and buy one?

 
42Mattinglyinthehall
      ID: 25337239
      Tue, Nov 15, 2005, 06:45 		Sorry, I meant you ned a license to own a handgun in NYC.

NYC handgun licensing information.
 
43sarge33rd
      ID: 148422311
      Tue, Nov 15, 2005, 08:36 		isnt the difference though between NY and CA, that the CA courts have already ruled against localized legislation and assigned that duty/authority to the state? Whereas in NY, no such legislation and/or court ruling exists?
 
44biliruben
      ID: 531202411
      Tue, Nov 15, 2005, 10:25 		My dad had to sell all his handguns when he moved to Buffalo 30 years ago because he couldn't obtain a licence.
 
45sarge33rd
      ID: 148422311
      Tue, Nov 15, 2005, 10:45 		$439 to apply and when they say NO, you're just out?!?!?!?!? I think I'd be working actively, for new legislators, to get that shiit changed.
 
46nerveclinic
      ID: 19730619
      Tue, Nov 15, 2005, 23:37 		Well according to our mayor, who was for the ban on handguns, this will never hold up in the courts so I am no longer overly worried at this point.

He said it was purely a symbolic vote.

 
47Motley Crue
      ID: 2192327
      Tue, Nov 15, 2005, 23:42 		But you don't honestly trust him, do you? He is probably a S&B member, and if not, he's still a member of the Government. He might just be acting to placate the masses. Keep an eye on that guy.
 
48Myboyjack
      Dude
      ID: 014826271
      Wed, Nov 16, 2005, 08:45 		$439 to apply....

That's a nice touch. A cost prohibitive fee for the people who actually might need a handgun for protection, but the WASPs in the 'burbs get theirs. Sweet.
 
49Mattinglyinthehall
      ID: 2824911
      Wed, Nov 16, 2005, 08:55 		but the WASPs in the 'burbs get theirs.

How do you know that?
 
50Myboyjack
      Dude
      ID: 014826271
      Wed, Nov 16, 2005, 09:08 		How do you know that?

While I don't have any graphs or studies to back me up (so you can fully discount my wild statement) I belive, without any further research or annotation, that, in general, people living in suburbs are better able to afford a $439.00 application fee than are people living in high crime ghetto areas. Far fetched, I know.
 
51Mattinglyinthehall
      ID: 2824911
      Wed, Nov 16, 2005, 09:25 		If by suburbs you mean outskirts of the city, those are working class neighborhoods as often as they are wealth areas in NYC. But if you meant (as I assumed) counties that lie near the city, I don't know that it's very much easier to get a pistol permit at all. NYS is regarded as having some of the most stringent state handgun restrictions in the country.

While I agree that the fee is cost-prohibitive in its own right, the rules are so strict both inside and outside the city that most regular people (non-law enforcement) aren't going to qualify for a permit, anyway.
 
52Myboyjack
      ID: 27651610
      Wed, Nov 16, 2005, 10:15 		Actually, what I meant by the 'burbs was the more middle class and affluent areas, wherever they might be.

the rules are so strict both inside and outside the city that most regular people (non-law enforcement) aren't going to qualify for a permit, anyway.

Well, that's a different problem altogether.

Actually, in my perfect world of Constituitonal Law, the 2nd Amendment wouldn't apply to states at all, and each would be free to regualate as they saw fit.
 
53Mattinglyinthehall
      ID: 2824911
      Wed, Nov 16, 2005, 10:36 		Well, that's a different problem altogether.

Well it really is the greater issue. Whether the application fee is prohibitive for you or not, you probably aren't going to get a pistol permit, anyway.

in my perfect world of Constituitonal Law, the 2nd Amendment wouldn't apply to states at all

Hmm. Then what would be the point of it?
 
54Myboyjack
      ID: 27651610
      Wed, Nov 16, 2005, 10:44 		Then what would be the point of it?

The point of the entire Bill of Rights, until the passage of the post-Civil War Amendments, was to limit overintrusive Federal regulation. It didn't dawn on the authors of the BoR that they would apply to the States' regulatory powers.
 
55Mattinglyinthehall
      ID: 2824911
      Wed, Nov 16, 2005, 11:10 		Didn't know that (or I don't remember knowing it). So you'd prefer that the states made up their own rights for their citizens with no mandatory compliance to the Bill of Rights?
 
56Myboyjack
      ID: 27651610
      Wed, Nov 16, 2005, 11:23 		So you'd prefer that the states made up their own rights for their citizens with no mandatory compliance to the Bill of Rights?

No. not now. However, I would not apply the 2nd Amendment to the states.
 
57Perm Dude
      Dude
      ID: 030792616
      Wed, Nov 16, 2005, 12:08 		It didn't dawn on the authors of the BoR that they would apply to the States' regulatory powers.

I think that's quite true, and is a hole in the thinking of originalists, IMO.
 
58Boldwin
      ID: 49626249
      Wed, Nov 16, 2005, 12:19 		It didn't dawn on the authors of the BoR that they would apply to the States' regulatory powers.

It didn't occur to them that they were precluding not just the federal government but also the states' legislatures from limiting free speech for example?
 
59Mattinglyinthehall
      ID: 2824911
      Wed, Nov 16, 2005, 12:22 		and is a hole in the thinking of originalists, IMO

Wow, it hadn't occurred to me to look at it that way.
 
60Myboyjack
      ID: 27651610
      Wed, Nov 16, 2005, 12:30 		It didn't occur to them that they were precluding not just the federal government but also the states' legislatures from limiting free speech for example?

No, it didn't. For instance, the 1st Amendment would not have precluded the new Commonwealth of Virginia from instituting an official state religion.

and is a hole in the thinking of originalists, IMO

I'm not an originalist, but I don't see how that, in any way, effects them. After the Civil War the rights in the BoR were guaranteed to the people. The 14th Amendment is just as much a part of the COnstituiton as is the 1st for an orginialist - and the same interpretatve rules would apply. The 14th Amendment didn't change the meaing of the words or thoughts contained in the BoR, just the application.
 
61Madman
      ID: 43410119
      Wed, Nov 16, 2005, 12:32 		PD 57 -- that's not a hole, it's a feature. ;)

Seriously, however, it's not even a hole. Originalists acknowledge that the 14th amendment exists. Many of us just don't believe that the Privileges and Immunities clause should have been properly eviscerated by a racist and ignorant court in the 1870s.

Originalists would say that from the beginning thru 1865, the Bill of Rights applied strictly to the federal government. You then have to go to the framers of the 14th amendment (and 13th, etc.) to determine how to weave the 14th amendment into the broader fabric of the Constitution. And there are differing opinions even among originalists on this dimension, for the same reason why history is hard to write.
 
62Madman
      ID: 43410119
      Wed, Nov 16, 2005, 12:34 		MBJ 60 -- sorry to double post. Didn't see yours, but entirely agree.
 
63Myboyjack
      ID: 27651610
      Wed, Nov 16, 2005, 12:40 		Heh -we couldn't both be wrong.

:0)
 
64Perm Dude
      Dude
      ID: 030792616
      Wed, Nov 16, 2005, 12:43 		Madman, I literally LOL at your "it's a feature" line.

Look, maybe I'm simply having a problem with names ("originalists," et al) but it seems to me that many of "those people" (Scalia, Federalist Society, etc) aren't at all concerned with application as they are with clarification of original words. I'll certainly grant that the 14th is a bit of a divider in that how it's interpreted by an originalist might put him on one side or another.

As an aside, I suspect that some originalists might have problems reconciling our posts on the budget deficits and the first sentence of Section 4 of the 14th.

:)
 
65Mark L
      ID: 38106915
      Wed, Nov 16, 2005, 13:19 		There are LOTS of originalists, and for that matter constitutional theorists of other stripes, who would dispute that the 14th amendment made the Bill of Rights applicable to the states. On the way out right now but this is a wonderful subject.
 
66nerveclinic
      ID: 512501920
      Sun, Apr 02, 2006, 02:32 		Well this handgun law is still going through the courts and the enforcement has been postponed until June.

Our Mayor, Gavin Newsom, has made known his suggestion for punishment if one refuses to give up ones gun, or is found to posses a gun after the law takes effect.

If you commit no other crime, other then possesing a handgun after the law takes effect he is asking for a Minimum imprisonment of 90 days.

You may have never commited another crime in your life. The only crime you may be commiting is possing a gun for your self defense with completely honest intentions, and he wants you in a jail cell for minimum 90 days.

God I have a love/hate relationship with this city.
 
67Boxman
      ID: 582442813
      Mon, Apr 03, 2006, 11:54 		I really don't know (yes I do actually) why people have a hard time interpreting a very clear amendment to the constitution...

"Amendment II - Right to bear arms. Ratified 12/15/1791. Note

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

Shall not be infringed.
 
68Mattinglyinthehall
      Leader
      ID: 01629107
      Mon, Apr 03, 2006, 12:00 		I'm curious about your "reason", since it sounds to me like you are probably among the misinterpreters.
 
69Boxman
      ID: 582442813
      Mon, Apr 03, 2006, 13:08 		Mith: "I'm curious about your "reason", since it sounds to me like you are probably among the misinterpreters."

Well then if you're going to be automatically disqualifying my answer what's the point in asking the question?
 
70Mattinglyinthehall
      Leader
      ID: 01629107
      Mon, Apr 03, 2006, 13:19 		Boxman

To answer your question, I said, "it sounds to me like...". If I was certain you were misinterpreting then I'd have said so. For the record I definitely leave open the (not remote) possibility that you know what you're talking about - including that you might know more about the topic than me.

But more to the point, I didn't ask you what your interpretation of the 2nd Amendment was, anyway. What asked for was "why people have a hard time interpreting" the 2nd Amendment, which is something that you said you know.
 
71Boxman
      ID: 582442813
      Mon, Apr 03, 2006, 14:02 		Mith: "What asked for was "why people have a hard time interpreting" the 2nd Amendment, which is something that you said you know."

The reason involves an eventual erosion of our civil liberties by both the left and the right. Each target different issues. The left mainly (when compared to the right's stance on the 2nd Amendment) wants to erode our right to bear arms. All sold under the banner of "the children", "national security", and a hundred other catch phrases.

When the Second Amendment says "shall not be infringed" that seems pretty ironclad to me. Finally a law written with seemingly no loopholes and they've got to mess with it.

The problem in interpration, when the law says "shall not be infringed", must be found in the literacy rate amoungst our elected representatives.
 
72Mattinglyinthehall
      Leader
      ID: 01629107
      Mon, Apr 03, 2006, 14:19 		Fair enough. I do disagree with your interpretation (big surprise, right?) and partially disagree with your apparent opinion that opposition to the 2nd Amendment means the same thing as (or is entirely fueled by) a desire to erode the thing. Although that's definitely part of it, at least for some. Some people, like me, do believe the original wording has lost its usefulness. But I believe the greater issue for many of us is that we don't see it as being quite as straightfoward as you and others do.
 
73Boxman
      ID: 582442813
      Mon, Apr 03, 2006, 14:26 		"we don't see it as being quite as straightfoward as you and others do."

Then what language needs to be used? "Shall not be infringed". What terminology should we use next time?

"I do disagree with your interpretation (big surprise, right?)"

What is your interpretation of "shall not be infringed" or of gun laws for that matter?
 
74Perm Dude
      Dude
      ID: 030792616
      Mon, Apr 03, 2006, 14:29 		Boxman, I think people have a hard time interpreting the Second Amendment because it is, by far, the most poorly written of all the amendments.

We covered some of this previously. The language of the amendment leads to such differing opinions because it's simply not clear.
 
75Mattinglyinthehall
      Leader
      ID: 01629107
      Mon, Apr 03, 2006, 15:07 		Boxman

Then what language needs to be used?

If your intention is to ask what language needs to be used in order to ensure that all Americans have unfettered access to any and as many firearms as they want until the end of days then my response is that no such right should ever be given.

What is your interpretation of "shall not be infringed"

I don't think we disagree on the meaning of that particular phrase as it stands alone. But there is more to the 2nd Amendment than those 4 words and there are other relevant issues that further confuse the matter.

For many of us, the first part of the Amendment, "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State", is a very clear qualifier. In other words, the reason for the importance of the Amendment was written right into it. Today, we can argue about whether we still need a well regulated Militia to ensure the security of a free state and also whether we still have a free State at all. If the self-stated reason for the Amendment no longer exists (a compelling argument at the very least) then I have a very hard time justifying the "shall not be infringed" clause.

Further, as I learned last November from reading some of the posts above, at the time that the 2nd Amendment was written, it was only intented to apply to Federal regulation. So the 2nd Amendment (even though it includes the phrase, "shall not be infringed") was never intended by the framers of the Constitution to be immune to state laws that might limit the rights that it protects from Federal legislation.

That doesn't mean that I think we should toss the first 13 Amendments out the window, by the way. I just see it as one more reason to question the intention and of those who wrote it, along with the modern usefullness of it.
 
76Boxman
      ID: 582442813
      Tue, Apr 04, 2006, 15:47 		Mith: Hmmmm, where to start. ;)

"If your intention is to ask what language needs to be used in order to ensure that all Americans have unfettered access to any and as many firearms as they want until the end of days then my response is that no such right should ever be given."

Seems like we may have to agree to strongly disagree. This is one of the laws that I feel most passionately about and I just don't see where the government can stop itself once it starts taking the guns and I can see why the government would want to take away the guns and it has nothing to do with any of the aforementioned buzzwords in my above postings.

"Today, we can argue about whether we still need a well regulated Militia to ensure the security of a free state and also whether we still have a free State at all."

It is because the free State is in jeopardy that we need them now more than ever. The left and right keep repossessing our civil liberties at will and I can think of no better deterrant to that than 200,000,000 Americans with guns.

Interesting how you said that the militia protects the state. You are half correct. The government needs the people more than the people need the government. Thereby protecting people via guns you are therefore also protecting the state.

"So the 2nd Amendment (even though it includes the phrase, "shall not be infringed") was never intended by the framers of the Constitution to be immune to state laws that might limit the rights that it protects from Federal legislation."

Unless you were at the constitutional convention I'm not sure how you can be so confident as to say what the intent was. I go by the written words, "shall not be infringed".

"So the 2nd Amendment (even though it includes the phrase, "shall not be infringed") was never intended by the framers of the Constitution to be immune to state laws that might limit the rights that it protects from Federal legislation."

But wasn't a central government put in place to protect certain specific rights? I believe in state's rights as strongly as a conservative can, but there are universal rights within this country and they are outlined rather well in the constitution and bill of rights.
 
77Perm Dude
      Dude
      ID: 030792616
      Tue, Apr 04, 2006, 15:49 		Read the other thread, Boxman. Most of those words were gone over with a fine-toothed comb. And certainly none of them can be taken out of context, as you wish to, to make them stand on their own and dance the dance you want them to.

 
78Mattinglyinthehall
      ID: 428299
      Tue, Apr 04, 2006, 16:26 		Seems like we may have to agree to strongly disagree. This is one of the laws that I feel most passionately about and I just don't see where the government can stop itself once it starts taking the guns and I can see why the government would want to take away the guns...

I really don't think we disagree as much as you think. Unless you are all for defending the rights of inner-city gangbangers to stockpile bazookas and howitzer cannons. Understand that your stated interpretation of the 2nd Amendment (particularly your favorite clause) does just that. I tend to think that you don't mean to take it as literally as you say.

Further, the government started taking away "guns" (besides bazookas and the like) a long time ago. For example convicted felons have a much more difficult time obtaining firearms (more laws that violate your interpretation of the 2nd Amendment). Notably, we also had the assault weapons ban. And after taht we had it's sunset clause kick in (which I supported) effectively defying your slippery slope argument.

What we can agree to disagree on is the effetiveness of 200,000 armed Amercans protecting the "freedom" of the state.

Regarding the rest of your post, I suggest you read through the thread above. At the time that the BoR was written, it was only intended to apply to federal regulations. "Shall not be infringed" meant "shall not be infringed by the Federal government". The states were free to do whatever they wanted - just like with the rest of the Bil of Rights.
 
79Boxman
      ID: 34220315
      Tue, Apr 04, 2006, 19:34 		"Unless you are all for defending the rights of inner-city gangbangers to stockpile bazookas and howitzer cannons."

I hope you're not intimating that you think the Assault Weapons Ban or any gun ban will actually keep guns out of the bad guy's hands. Those only hurt you and me.

Prohibition and the War On Drugs (Ha Ha) have made laughing stocks out of that theory.

""Shall not be infringed" meant "shall not be infringed by the Federal government"."

Then they should have written that phrase then, but they did not.
 
80Perm Dude
      Dude
      ID: 030792616
      Tue, Apr 04, 2006, 19:51 		They didn't write a lot at all, yet it hasn't stopped you from interpreting the amendment the way you want to.

They didn't, for example, say what "well regulated" meant. Or "militia." Or even "State."

There's some very strong evidence that the Second Amendment is intended as a protection of the federal government against foreign entities. Not as a protection of citizens against the government, or as a means for citizens to take out the government.
 
81Mattinglyinthehall
      ID: 4923198
      Tue, Apr 04, 2006, 22:33 		I hope you're not intimating that you think the Assault Weapons Ban or any gun ban will actually keep guns out of the bad guy's hands.

I'm not interested in that discussion with you. If you're curious about where I stand on some gun issues read through my posts in this thread.

""Shall not be infringed" meant "shall not be infringed by the Federal government"."

Then they should have written that phrase then, but they did not.

See posts 52 - 54, 58 and 60.
 
82Nerveclinic
      ID: 10526140
      Wed, Jun 14, 2006, 01:55

Well it's time for a little celebration!!!

As MBJ and Sarge surmised, the SF "initiative" to ban city residents from owning handguns was overturned by a Judge today.

The grounds for the overturning is that the city law contradicted state law.

I guess I should celebrate the way the faction of Iraqis who are our allies did when Zacarwi (?) was killed, by going into the street and shooting my pistol into the air.

Thank you to the NRA for protecting my right to protect myself. Time for a donation?

There's plenty of people who like to slag the NRA (And probably at times for good reason, I'm sure I don't agree with all their politics) but there doesn't seem to be any other organization protecting my right as an honest citizen to protect myself as I see fit. No wonder people send them money.

I am very pleased tonight and this solved the headache of what I was going to do with...well you know.

Every once and a while SF surprizes you.



 
83sarge33rd
      ID: 52544313
      Wed, Jun 14, 2006, 10:22 		kudos for "activist" judges. :)
 
84Seattle Zen
      ID: 46315247
      Tue, Jun 20, 2006, 23:40 		Just got back from a visit to The City by the Bay, a short, four day vacation with the Pregnant One. I love SF, this is my sixth visit in the past ten years. We flew into SFO, gladdly left my firearms with Sheriff Gene Hackman at the gate, and boarded the BART. SF has the greatest mass transit on the West Coast and one of the best in the nation. For $5 each, we got downtown in 30 minutes. I don't know of a city that can beat that. We purchased a 3 day pass that let us ride cable cars, busses and the Muni lines for $18. Considering the fact that the cable cars are $5 each way, that's a bargain. What makes SF's transit so wonderful is that the buses/cars come every 6-10 minutes, sometimes even more frequently. That's not a big deal to New Yorkers, but the difference between a viable system and a pain in the ass is the frequency of service. Knowing you will likely be picked up in 3 minutes makes waiting for the bus real easy.

We stayed at a sweet hotel near Union Square, visited SFMOMA, Chinatown, North Beach, Fisherman's Wharf, Marina/Palace of Fine Arts, The Castro, Stern Grove for a free concert, Golden Gate Park - Japanese Tea Garden, and Haight-Ashbury. The weather was heavenly. It was 95 degrees a mere 10 minutes east of the City, but downtown it was not even 80, but very sunny, we got a little sunburnt. Bozena wondered why all the tourist kitsch stores had so many fleece jackets and vests on display. Around 8pm she understood their appeal. The temperature drops dramatically as the sun sets; you walk around all day in shorts and a t-shirt and most people are unprepared for the evening.

San Francisco is absolutely gorgeous. Fabulous architecture, beautiful sweeping blue water views, hills and excellent views from them. Eucalypis trees smell wonderful and Calfornia's climate is a gardner's paradise. The arboritum in Golden Gate Park is a fantasyland.

San Francisco has a great, fast paced urban vibe and during the summer in the City is crammed with international travelers. The City has stunningly gorgeous women coming out at the seams.

I would love to live there... if I were wealthy. Public defenders can't afford to live in the City, they would have to commute and probably from very far away. As much as I love SF for its urbanity, it is three times the size of Seattle, the number of people in the Bay Area, and the Central Valley as well, makes visiting the surrounding area a joke. Lake Tahoe, Yosemite, and other get aways are so overrun with people, plus the nightmare of traffic getting out of town.

Didn't make it to the Mission, Nerve, had I been there with friends or by myself, I'd have looked you up.

The trip home was truly remarkable. Leaving our hotel downtown to stepping through our door at home took FOUR HOURS. I got our return flight time confused, so we arrived at the airport a half an hour after our flight was scheduled to leave. Thankfully the flight was seriously delayed, it was boarding as we got to the gate. When was the last time you flew anywhere that didn't take eight hours?

I love that city, man. Maybe we'll retire there after I sell out ;)
 
85Nerveclinic
      ID: 10526140
      Wed, Jun 21, 2006, 01:38 		Yeah it's all I can do to make ends meet. Even with a decent job I'm doing Ebay on the side to be able to live decently.

No chance of buying a house when the low end price is well above half a million.

I'm about to put my car up for sale, since I only drove 2,000 miles last year. That will save 600 a month.

Nice description though of the city, you summed it up well and I do love it here, maybe more then anywhere I've lived...although without the rain Seattle would be right there with it.

Too bad you missed the Mission...IMHO a highlight of the town. Haight is the big ex hippy tourist trap that's a parody of it's past, the mission is the soul.

Did you make it to Ameoba on Haight? I'm there 2-3 times a week.

 
86Pancho Villa
      ID: 519522811
      Wed, Jun 21, 2006, 02:32 		I have to admit that after my SF visit last week, it has to rank as the most unique city I've ever visitied, and I spent part of the summers of '68 and '69 there as a teenage adventurer.

My cousin owns a house on 11th St. between California and Lake.

Price tag - 1.8 million. It's all right, three stories, and my retired aunt and uncle(her parents) live on the street level. Probably not more than 3,000 sq ft total. My uncle, 81 in a couple weeks, works as a starter at the Presidio golf course. He got us on for free Saturday afternoon. One of the most beautiful courses in the world.
The first day I arrived, we played nine holes at Harding, out by the zoo just in from the coast.


Went to two dinner parties, the last night with my cousin at the owner of Momo's, the restaurant directly across from the Giant's stadium, where we had our big family gathering the night before.

Very interesting political discussions, and I found the guests to be from a variety of the spectrum, as opposed to the misconception of radical liberalism.

Next month I have another trip planned to the Bay Area, then off to the Redwoods and maybe the Oregon coast for some camping. I haven't been on the Oregon Coast for almost 30 years. Can't wait.
 
87Nerveclinic
      ID: 10526140
      Wed, Jun 21, 2006, 21:54
Pancho

I definately was sorry I was out of town on your last trip. If you have time this next trip let's try again to get together.

I think I am in town all month. Of course my last trip was a spur of the moment business trip I was told to take about 3 days in advance...

 
88Nerveclinic
      ID: 10526140
      Sat, Jun 24, 2006, 02:41
MBJ


The point of the entire Bill of Rights, until the passage of the post-Civil War Amendments, was to limit over intrusive Federal regulation. It didn't dawn on the authors of the BoR that they would apply to the States' regulatory powers.

It wasn't Federal regulation MBJ it was the Kings Fascist regulations. It was the Kings dictatorship.

That's what those of us who want to continue gun ownership unabated continue to believe today.

If the common "Honest" "Free" citizen remains armed, a fascist government will have a difficult time maintaining control. The criminals won't turn in their guns anyway.

Paranoid?

The earth is littered with the bodies of men destroyed by fascists. Fascists are humans. Humans still rule the earth.

Until we enter the "New Age" we face this challenge, and we aren't even close to the next level of evolution I'm afraid.

Just heard my 3rd gun shot tonight. (honestly)

 
89Nerveclinic
      ID: 10526140
      Sat, Jun 24, 2006, 03:01

Another true story

This weekend is "Gay Pride Weekend"

A million additional people are in town.

At 10 PM tonight (less then 2 hours ago) I went down to the corner grocery.

A 30 something gay man (Trust me I know) who mentioned he was visiting from out of town was telling the grocer that as he was walking down the street someone drove by, made a derogatory comment, and shot a gun in the air.

He was terrified.

The grocer, very honestly commented "he just shot in the air? That's nothing". The young men was puzzled. " you say that's nothing"?

I chimed in "we are used to a little more around here."

His friend said well at least you are all nonchalant about it...

and so it goes.


 
90Mattinglyinthehall
      ID: 374522815
      Sat, Jun 24, 2006, 09:00 		It wasn't Federal regulation MBJ it was the Kings Fascist regulations. It was the Kings dictatorship.

That's what those of us who want to continue gun ownership unabated continue to believe today.

The Bill of Rights was not written to limit regulations from England. They weren't drafted until 13 years after the Declaration of Independance. I suspect you misunderstood what MBJ meant.

Regardless, I don't see why your idea that the need for a militia was to protect them from the Redcoats rather than intrusive federal government in 1891 makes your case for "unabated" gun ownership today any stronger. If the original intent was to protect us from our own government, well, that seems a much more realistic threat than the Redcoats are in 2006.

And I don't know how many times this has to be said, but gun ownership isn't unabated today. It hasn't been "unabated" since long before any of us were born.

In 1927 Congress passed a law that banned concealable weapons being sent in the mail.

The National Firearms Act of 1934 regulated fully automatic firearms.

The Federal Firearms Act of 1938 imposed regulations on "ordinary" firearms.

Link
 
91Myboyjack
      Dude
      ID: 014826271
      Sat, Jun 24, 2006, 09:15 		nerve - Not to pile on, but the express purpose of adding the BoR to the Constitution was to encourage states like Virginia and people like Patrick Henry to adopt the Constitution dispite their fears of the Federal system it was establishing. It had nothing to do with the King of England and Redcoats. It was a fear that the new "Congress" and "President" would intrude on the perogatives of the individual states.
 
92Nerveclinic
      ID: 10526140
      Sat, Jun 24, 2006, 14:08
MITH your detailed explanation in post 90 was appreciated but unnecessary, I'm aware of the history you recited, I just worded my post badly. I am well aware the signing took place well after we had gained independence from the King and England.

What I meant was that part of the intention of the second amendment was to allow the common citizen to be armed so that a Federal Government would never attempt to become all powerful and take away citizens rights as had the king they had over thrown.

I used the King as the most recent example in the writers/signers experience of a time when a government was so fascist it's citizens were justified to over throw it.

I still use the example of the king today, 200 + years later that we don't want to go back as a people to living under a dictatorship like the one we over threw (The king), and that is a logical reason for the masses to stay armed.

Of course one can easily argue that intention was never explicitly worded and we can argue down a deep dark spiraling hole back and forth about it so I am sorry I even brought it up again.

 
93 David Harris
      ID: 497351622
      Sat, Aug 16, 2008, 23:36 		Ask yourself a question. How relevant are the Bill of Rights today, compared to the 1790's?

1st Amendment:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

The 1st Amendment guarantees the right of the people to have free speech , religion, press, assemble and the right to petition the government.

2nd Amendment:
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

The 2nd Amendment guarantees the right of the people to not be disarmed by the government.

3rd Amendment:
No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.

This Amendment says that we don't have to harbor Soldiers of the government during peace time.

4th Amendment:
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

This amendment covers our right not to be searched or have our property seized without proper warrants.

5th Amendment:

No person shall be held to answer for any capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

This amendment covers a lot of different rights. Including the right not to have our property taken or to be a witness against ourself.

6th Amendment:
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district where in the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defense.

This one is pretty well written and could be understood by a 12 year old.

7th Amendment:
In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.

8th Amendment:
Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

Pretty clear on this one too.

9th Amendment:
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

10th Amendment:
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

Another one that is pretty clear. If the constitution doesn't cover it its left to the states or the people themselves.


The facts are, this is an argument over the 2nd Amendment. Congress nor the state, nor the local authorities can take away our rights to have weapons.

The reason some of the regulations (some of them good, some of them bad) went into effect by the people was because of the murder rates of the late 1800's. The shoot-outs, etc. But it still doesn't give the Federal Government, the State Government, or the Local Government the right to ban our weapons.

To you anti-gun people, someone once said that when guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have the guns. And they were right. DC did its gun ban and only the criminals and the police could have their guns. Because criminals don't care what the law is, otherwise they wouldn't be criminals.

And if you are foolish enough to think that the Government (The Police) will protect you, think again. The SCOTUS has said many times that the Police are not required to "PROTECT" us. Otherwise, we could sue the police department for taking 2-3 hours to show up after a murder, rape.

And since DC vs Heller has finally made it an official ruling that the 2nd Amendment is an individual right, the local, state, and federal governments CANNOT disarm us.

Does that make me a paranoid person. Maybe, but I'd rather be paranoid and alive, with my .357 under my pillow, instead of dead and buried from being killed by a crack addict or a thief.

Take states that have OPEN carry policies, they have the lowest crime rates and I'm not talking about Wyoming either. I'm talking about Phoenix AZ. The fact is that states that have open carry have less crime because criminals are a bit hesitant to try to rob someone with a gun on their side or a house with people home for the simple fact they can get shot.

Just .002 cents from someone who believes the Constitution is as relevant today as it was in the 1790's

 
94Boxman
      ID: 571114225
      Sun, Aug 17, 2008, 15:31 		Does that make me a paranoid person. Maybe, but I'd rather be paranoid and alive, with my .357 under my pillow, instead of dead and buried from being killed by a crack addict or a thief.

Take states that have OPEN carry policies, they have the lowest crime rates and I'm not talking about Wyoming either. I'm talking about Phoenix AZ. The fact is that states that have open carry have less crime because criminals are a bit hesitant to try to rob someone with a gun on their side or a house with people home for the simple fact they can get shot.

As a 2nd Amendment advocate, fvckin A. I have an infinitely greater amount of faith for a 357 or 450 Marlin to stop a burglar in my house because it doesn't take the bullet 10 minutes to reach the target which is how long the cops take.
 
95Tree
      ID: 397571710
      Sun, Aug 17, 2008, 18:13 		course, if that "burglar" turns out to be be your wife getting a late night snack, or your teenage son coming home late, well, praise jesus for your .357.
 
96Boxman
      ID: 571114225
      Sun, Aug 17, 2008, 18:20 		Are you saying I shouldn't be allowed to have a weapon in my home or are you just trolling again?
 
97Tree
      ID: 397571710
      Sun, Aug 17, 2008, 18:44 		i'm saying that owning a gun bring a lot of responsibility. and that many, many people who own guns refuse to accept that responsibility.

i am adamantly opposed to the banning of hand guns completely, but i am equally as adamantly in favor of tighter restrictions on who owns a gun, and how they can obtain a gun, and anything else related to gun ownership.
 
98Boxman
      ID: 571114225
      Sun, Aug 17, 2008, 19:03 		i am equally as adamantly in favor of tighter restrictions on who owns a gun, and how they can obtain a gun, and anything else related to gun ownership.

Such as?
 
99Tree
      ID: 397571710
      Sun, Aug 17, 2008, 20:01 		tell what Box - you start answering my questions that have been hanging out in that other thread for a couple days, and i'll start answering yours.

but until then, i've got no time for you and your cutesy little games.
 
100Boxman
      ID: 571114225
      Sun, Aug 17, 2008, 20:09 		Yeah that's what I thought.
 
101bibA
      Leader
      ID: 261028117
      Sun, Aug 17, 2008, 20:14 		As you may know, I was a cop for more than 30 years in one of the largest jurisdictions in the country. Worked patrol for eight years, and the rest as a detective, both undercover surveillance and investigations. Had many experiences wherein guns were used by both good guys and bad.

Cannot remember one time where a victim was at home during a burglary where he/she defended their home by shooting a suspect. (A huge majority of burglars want nothing to deter them, especially someone inside the house they are breaking into). Of course there was the occasional cat burglar, who almost always was wierd to begin with. And of course, rapists such as the Night Stalker. But by and large, most burglaries were either to support dope habits, committed by juveniles for quick profits, or by someone who knew the victim, and knew they were not at home.

Did have one case where a victim interupted a suspect setting fire to his boat at 3AM (can't remember the motivation). The boat had been parked in his (victim's) driveway. Victim shot the suspect as he ran away.

Had several experiences where small store owners had shot robbery suspects, including once where we had been following a group of suspects, who robbed a mom and pop store. We had observed the suspects enter the store, then saw one of them holding a gun. Within seconds, we observed the suspects running out of the store, hell bent for leather trying to get back to their car. The Korean store owner was in hot pursuit chasing them with guns ablazing from both hands. We ended up busting all of the suspects after a short chase, some shots also being fired by us.

And of course, the large number of cases wherein a relative, usually a husband or wife, had shot a spouse in anger. And the cases where one group of gangbangers had shot someone who they believed to be an enemy gangbanger, or an innocent bystander.

When I see the subject of citizens carrying guns openly being debated, I often think back to one particular case I investigated as a detective. A couple guys were each with a friend. These two guys saw each other in a park one morning, and decided to shoot the bull because they knew each other, so they sat on a park table and had a smoke. Each of the guys who had been with these two did not know any of the others there. They both had guns with them, as they were both gun enthusiasts who liked to go to the range, and had taken gun safety classes. Both were around 27 years old, and had no records. One of them wanted to stay by his car, while the other joined the two on the park table. That guy called out to the guy at the car, saying something like "you too good to join us". Other guy took offense, and words were exchanged. One of them pulled his gun out (unknown which one pulled his gun out first). The other said he felt threatened, so he pulled his gun out. Both told the other to back off, and then they shot each other. One lost an eye, the other was shot in the testicles. Both lived.

Thing was that they both had almost identicle stories as to which was the aggressor who had initiated things to the point where shots were fired, and the witnesses each said that things happened so fast, they couldn't tell, or they had not seen who started things. The parents of each shooting victim were adamant that the other shooter be prosecuted, that their sons were nonagressive types who had never been involved in something like this. The D.A. had no choice other tham to decline to file a complaint, as there was insufficient evidence as to either guy not acting in self defense.

I always believed that had these two guys been unarmed, the incident would have just ended up as your normal every day fist fight. It seems apparent to me that if a majority of citizens carried during their routine activites, that cases such as this would become common place.

 
102Tree
      ID: 397571710
      Sun, Aug 17, 2008, 22:09 		Yeah that's what I thought.

again. i've been waiting for your answer for a few days. i think it's pretty obvious why neither you nor baldwin want to address the issue...
 
103Tree
      ID: 397571710
      Sun, Aug 17, 2008, 22:16 		bibA - thank you for that post. obviously, there's plenty of other anecdotal that supports what you are saying. but the loons who think nearly everyone should have gun tend to chalk your tales up as rarities, when the reality is that they're much more common than the whole "i would shoot a burglar if they came into my home" scenario...
 
104Boldwin
      ID: 176322815
      Mon, Aug 18, 2008, 03:57 		What's common as rainwater is someone preventing a rape or robbery by merely flashing or having a gun. bibA's tale is so rare it would make a nice surprise scenario for a tv episode and I am sure plenty of gun-grabbing Hollywood producers would jump at the chance.
 
105Tree
      ID: 22753185
      Mon, Aug 18, 2008, 06:55 		What's common as rainwater is someone preventing a rape or robbery by merely flashing or having a gun.

yea? do YOU know anyone who fits this example? (sure you do).

there is no way in hell that what you're suggesting is "common as rainwater," and you have zero evidence to back that up, whether anecdotal, or statistical.
 
106Razor
      ID: 545172413
      Mon, Aug 18, 2008, 08:29 		Boldwin, you aren't even trying to present rational, well-evidenced arguments any more. You could have phrased your opinion in such a way that it did not look like a bunch of hot air.
 
107Seattle Zen
      ID: 49112418
      Mon, Aug 18, 2008, 12:03 		Outstanding post, biba! What a great story.

As for post 104, go back to retirement, old man, your brain is swiss cheese.
 
108Boxman
      ID: 337352111
      Mon, Aug 18, 2008, 12:21 		No cartoon Zen?
 
109Tree
      ID: 67581211
      Mon, Aug 18, 2008, 12:26 		i love how the guy so quick to call others a troll, pretty much can't stop being one himself. be it post 108 in this thread, or post 328 in this thead, trolling is in full affect.
 
111bibA
      Leader
      ID: 261028117
      Mon, Aug 18, 2008, 12:30 		Baldwin - Do you actually believe that if almost everyone carried, that incidents of shots being fired in anger would be so rare?

One example - Cases of road rage where one party cuts another off, he replies by flipping that guy off. Realistically, these events normally end there. If both were legally carrying, wouldn't you concede that many times one would respond by flashing his piece in anger, the other would answer by showing his, leading to.....you do get my drift, don't you?

Another thought - In a society where almost everyone carries; normally, many of these people drink now and then, whether after work at happy hour, stopping off at a bar, at a friends, whatever. Is it realistic to believe that these folks will usually leave their guns at home or locked away before drinking? Or do you think their judgement would not become impaired by these activities?

I would concede that in a society where everyone carries, that many times bad guys would be more hesitant to commit crimes against the random victim, fearing that he/she would be able to defend themselves.

Personally tho, I am in a position where I can legally carry (retired law enforcement officers usually qualify to carry a concealed weapon). However, I choose not to do so. My guns are locked away at home. Don't want to constantly worry about leaving my gun in my car and having it stolen. And, I just have not ever been a victim of some random crime where I need to defend myself with deadly force, nor do I live with the fear of it happening imminently.
 
112ivan
      ID: 35725812
      Mon, Aug 18, 2008, 12:32 		I always believed that had these two guys been unarmed, the incident would have just ended up as your normal every day fist fight. It seems apparent to me that if a majority of citizens carried during their routine activites, that cases such as this would become common place.


i come to the oposite conclusion, had they both known before hand that they were both armed, maybe they show more restraint initially.

it's a micro view of the cold war, if you know the other guy has the bomb, you don't push them too hard.
 
113Boldwin
      ID: 176322815
      Mon, Aug 18, 2008, 13:05 		Ivan

Quite right. Guns make for respectful polite neighbors.

Razor and bibA

The evidence is clear and has been shown on every forum ad nauseum but you dislike the results so badly that you block the memory out.

States that go concealed carry see a reduction in gun violence.

Look over the research and forget it again as you will because it doesn't fit your emotional gut feeling about guns.
 
114Boxman
      ID: 337352111
      Mon, Aug 18, 2008, 13:13 		i love how the guy so quick to call others a troll, pretty much can't stop being one himself.

Yawn.

bibA:And, I just have not ever been a victim of some random crime where I need to defend myself with deadly force, nor do I live with the fear of it happening imminently.

My outlook is that one of the reasons I own firearms is so that my family doesn't become victims in our own home in the first place. I don't live in fear of an imminent attack on my person or property, but in the event it does happen we have something to respond with other than a 10 minute wait for the police.
 
115bibA
      Leader
      ID: 261028117
      Mon, Aug 18, 2008, 17:25 		ivan - I see your point made in 112, and agree that at times it would hold true, that if two angry parties are aware that the other is armed, that a disagreement may not escalate beyond words.

However, it would appear to me that where two guys are angry to the point of it becoming a physical conflict, that if both are unarmed, the conflict would probably not result in one of them shooting the other.

Another question for those of you that favor an armed populous - Recently the local law enforcement agency in Compton Calif. offered its citizens something like $50 for each gun they turned in to be destroyed. Obviously an effort to get less guns on the street. Do you guys feel that the law enforcement agency had their priorities backwards?
 
116Boldwin
      ID: 176322815
      Mon, Aug 18, 2008, 17:37 		Because they end up overpaying for non functional rusted pieces of junk? We could call it a program to upgrade gang arsenals.
 
117biliruben
      ID: 38751812
      Mon, Aug 18, 2008, 17:49 		Have you actual read any of those studies, Baldwin? Very equivocal evidence, at best.

I read one a while back looking at shall carry in Cali, that showed a non-sig doubling of violence.

The main conclusion I've come to is: not enough evidence to say either way.

There is a task-force working on designing studies to try and answer some of the questions regarding the impact of a variety of laws on crime and violence, but it's going to be a while.

Anyone who says "the evidence is clear" either hasn't bothered to read the evidence or is an ultra-maroon.
 
118Boldwin
      ID: 176322815
      Mon, Aug 18, 2008, 17:56 		I've looked at the Florida example specifics before. I know the only study gun-grabbers ever made a big deal about has been proven fraudulent.
 
119biliruben
      ID: 38751812
      Mon, Aug 18, 2008, 18:00 		All I'm saying is that, even on your pro-gun site has so much evidence in both directions that I don't think any thinking man could possibly say the answer is "clear". And I had thought you were a thinking man.
 
120Boldwin
      ID: 176322815
      Mon, Aug 18, 2008, 18:27 		I have been in the thick of many forum gun discussions for a decade and never seen a study successfully used aginst the pro-gun side until the Kellerman study [which was debunked about the time they were using it against me on Salon Table-Talk].
 
121Boxman
      ID: 571114225
      Mon, Aug 18, 2008, 18:30 		bibA:Another question for those of you that favor an armed populous - Recently the local law enforcement agency in Compton Calif. offered its citizens something like $50 for each gun they turned in to be destroyed. Obviously an effort to get less guns on the street. Do you guys feel that the law enforcement agency had their priorities backwards?

I will leave conspiracy theories aside here because in all honesty I believe these are just slow methods to disarm the populace via an economic carrot.

Now, I think it is a completely useless allocation of public funds to have gun buyback programs. Do you really think that Johnny Crackdealer is going to go "Man I could use $50 for my Tech-9! Madden is coming out for the 360 and that'd be a good way to pay for it."?

No!

The people that turn in those guns are primarily ones where $50 is a lot of money to them. I'm sure there's other circumstances too like they just had a kid and think it's too dangerous to have both a gun and a kid in the house or grandpa just died and they don't have a need for a hunting rifle. It's a weeks worth of groceries or a tank of gas and with the way the economy is would a law abiding well intentioned poor person rather have a 357 or a tank of gas?

If the effort is to get "guns off the street", Mission Accomplished! I would hope cops would rather get guns away from the bad guys so in this case it's Mission Failed!
 
122Boldwin
      ID: 176322815
      Mon, Aug 18, 2008, 18:30 		But specifically no I haven't opened up the studies in my latest link. Been there, done that. Your side speaking generically has never been anything but a deceptive and emotional one. I don't believe anyone on your side really wants to bring any rigor to the debate but If you build that stadium they will come. My side will be there well represented, even if I am retired.
 
123biliruben
      ID: 38751812
      Mon, Aug 18, 2008, 18:49 		What the heck is "my side"?

I own guns and grew up hunting. I have an open mind when it comes to gun laws, and have not formed solid opinions.

Mainly because the data is so crappy.
 
124Boldwin
      ID: 176322815
      Mon, Aug 18, 2008, 18:50 		Might be a business oportunity in them thar crazy liberal big city gun buy backs. Dunno how much government red tape would add to the procurement cost. As a bonus it's great way to get to know the ATF!
 
125Tree
      ID: 177421817
      Mon, Aug 18, 2008, 21:29 		What the heck is "my side"?

I own guns and grew up hunting. I have an open mind when it comes to gun laws, and have not formed solid opinions.

it would probably blow the minds of both Baldwin and Boxman to know that i'm taking shooting lessons and a gun safety course this fall.
 
126Boldwin
      ID: 176322815
      Mon, Aug 18, 2008, 21:58 		I'm feeling all warm and fuzzy allofasudden...wahappen?
 
127Tree
      ID: 177421817
      Mon, Aug 18, 2008, 23:45 		I'm feeling all warm and fuzzy allofasudden...wahappen?

that's called reality. it's a world with many different colors, not just black and white.

i know that's dizzying for you...
 
128Boxman
      ID: 571114225
      Tue, Aug 19, 2008, 06:05 		i'm taking shooting lessons and a gun safety course this fall.

For what purpose? Is Santa giving you a gun for Christmas?
 
129Tree
      ID: 17753195
      Tue, Aug 19, 2008, 07:00 		For what purpose? Is Santa giving you a gun for Christmas?

because of people like you and Baldwin, it's a skill i believe i need to have. as we continue to attack other nations while you guys cheer it on, it's only a matter of time before someone attacks us.

never mind the fact that conservatives are getting more and more violent in their words and actions.
 
130Boldwin
      ID: 176322815
      Tue, Aug 19, 2008, 07:11 		Don't take cheap shots at Tree, Box. Don't you know he has a religion [which he won't discuss], is against abortion personally and fights like a hellcat against it in his own 'family' life, is pro guns...and PD says Obama is practically a conservative.

I love it when they call themselves the reality based community. It amuses me no end.

It does not surprise me that Tree wants to be defended by a gun but wants to deny everyone else the right. Liberal hypocrits with armed body guards are all over the place.

They are all about two different sets of rules.
 
131Boxman
      ID: 571114225
      Tue, Aug 19, 2008, 07:21 		never mind the fact that conservatives are getting more and more violent in their words and actions.

So you're arming yourself for what I'm guessing is a forthcoming civil war between conservatives and liberals? And you call others crackpots?

Boldwin:It does not surprise me that Tree wants to be defended by a gun but wants to deny everyone else the right. Liberal hypocrits with armed body guards are all over the place.

I'm convinced that Tree's posts are meant to get a rise. Anyone as ignorant or dim as he portrays himself would've forgotten to breathe years ago.

Sadly though, Tree will never leave this board. He's primarily here for fantasy sports, but the political forum gives him something to wax intelligent to his friends that he "discusses politics on the internet". Little do they know he's the most venomous, intolerant, death celebrating, least contributing person on the site.
 
132Pancho Villa
      ID: 51546319
      Tue, Aug 19, 2008, 08:50 		It does not surprise me that Tree wants to be defended by a gun but wants to deny everyone else the right.

from Tree's #97..

i am adamantly opposed to the banning of hand guns completely, but i am equally as adamantly in favor of tighter restrictions on who owns a gun, and how they can obtain a gun, and anything else related to gun ownership.

So what we appear to have here is some of that Ann Coulter-style hyperbole. And I suppose we can deduce from their posts that Boxman and Baldwin want unfettered access to guns for everyone.

In the same vein as pornographers have distorted the 1st amendment, so has the guns for everyone without regulation or restriction crowd distorted the 2nd.

At least we can feel secure knowing that those dangerous marijuana smokers are still being jailed, even if it adversely affects the economies of local convenience stores.
 
133Boldwin
      ID: 176322815
      Tue, Aug 19, 2008, 08:59 		but the political forum gives him something to wax intelligent to his friends that he "discusses politics on the internet".

Not sure how that plays in a heavy weight wrestling crowd.

Anyone as ignorant or dim as he portrays himself would've forgotten to breathe years ago.

ROFL, yeah but he has me convinced. He can both act and manage a fantasy sport team? Dare I say, 'multi-talented'?
 
134Boldwin
      ID: 176322815
      Tue, Aug 19, 2008, 09:02 		OK, you can come out of the closet, Tree. You are actually a hardrock conservative but you just take the opposite position to everything I post because you can't stand my guts. I see how it is. 8>
 
135Tree
      ID: 13714198
      Tue, Aug 19, 2008, 10:02 		Baldy and Box...various responses.

Don't you know he has a religion [which he won't discuss],

since when won't i discuss my religion? i think i've made it pretty clear i'm jewish. i have mentioned that two of my brothers served in the israeli army, i've probably mentioned that my dad and step mom are orthodox, and i've mentioned that my own personal beliefs question the existence of God, but lean toward the existence of something out there, albeit one that has little control over anything that goes on in the universe.

what about you and YOUR religion, Baldwin? hmmm?

is against abortion personally and fights like a hellcat against it in his own 'family' life,

so i'm against abortion personally, and i would hope if i partner of mine accidently got pregnant, she would choose to NOT have an abortion. is that a problem for you?

is pro guns..

in your black and white world, yea, i suppose. but if you're going to attempt to quote me, don't play games. i have caveats about gun ownership, and i've made that clear as well.

It does not surprise me that Tree wants to be defended by a gun but wants to deny everyone else the right. Liberal hypocrits with armed body guards are all over the place.

i like dogs. and by this, you have deduce that i also believe aliens from mars armed with asparagus ray guns are out to destroy mankind.

seriously. that's the kind of leap you just took.

i want to learn how to fire a gun. i want to be able to defend myself, IF NECESSARY. i don't want to own a gun, i don't want anyone in my home owning a gun, and i'm not overly comfortable being in someone's house where there is a gun.

but when all hell breaks loose as people like you continue to shoot people like me, i want to be able to kick you in the f*cking face, take your gun, and keep you and your cronies at bay.

So you're arming yourself for what I'm guessing is a forthcoming civil war between conservatives and liberals? And you call others crackpots?

i'm not the one who shot up a bunch of churchgoers because they were liberal.

Anyone as ignorant or dim as he portrays himself would've forgotten to breathe years ago.

i would be more than willing to take an IQ test and compare my score to yours, trollboy.

Sadly though, Tree will never leave this board. He's primarily here for fantasy sports, but the political forum...

yea, check my posts. i'm much more active here than i am on the rest of the board.

Not sure how that plays in a heavy weight wrestling crowd.

i'd expect nothing less than a stereotype from you. perhaps if you'd actually seek to educate yourself about things before you spoke, you might actually regain the respect you long ago lost from many of the posters on this board.

like any thing else, there are also neanderthals in wrestling. there are also guys with MBAs, PhDs, and so forth - and that includes not only the people who run the business (and make no bones about it, it is a BUSINESS for those like me who want to make money in it), but even those who actually step foot into the ring to wrestle.

OK, you can come out of the closet, Tree. You are actually a hardrock conservative

no Baldwin, i think and form my own opinions, independent of some mis-guided "church", "political party", or whatever other sort of mishmash of brainwash organizations you celebrate and subscribe to.

my world is NOT black and white. i will lean left on a lot of things, right on other things, and straight up the middle on still others - and everything inbetween as well.

i'm also not opposed to compromise in certain situations if it serves the greater good. that's life in reality, not some black and white good vs. evil cocoon of buffoonary...

PV - thanks for post 132.
 
136Boldwin
      ID: 176322815
      Tue, Aug 19, 2008, 10:57 		So Tree leans over to the next guy attending a cage match and says...
 
137Seattle Zen
      ID: 8748191
      Tue, Aug 19, 2008, 11:02 		I'll trade you Mark Loreta for Alex and Francisco Rodriguez and your first round pick next year.
 
138Seattle Zen
      ID: 8748191
      Tue, Aug 19, 2008, 11:06 		or perhaps he said, "I just paid .116 of an ounce of gold for a barrel of oil. Damn, just last month I had to pony up .168 of an ounce!"
 
139Tree
      ID: 13714198
      Tue, Aug 19, 2008, 11:11 		So Tree leans over to the next guy attending a cage match and says...

...well, during the last weekend of shows i attended earlier this month we were discussing VP candidates and off short drilling...

and not a weekend goes by where my friend Dylan doesn't tirade about how badly Dennis Kucinich got screwed over again.

I'll trade you Mark Loreta for Alex and Francisco Rodriguez and your first round pick next year.

ZING!

see, now THAT's funny. if only Baldwin and Boxman had a modicum of your sense of humour.
 
140Boldwin
      ID: 176322815
      Tue, Aug 19, 2008, 12:53 		Am I the only one wondering what off short drilling is?
 
141biliruben
      ID: 38751812
      Tue, Aug 19, 2008, 13:15 		Yup.
 
142Tree
      ID: 13714198
      Tue, Aug 19, 2008, 14:28 		Am I the only one wondering what off short drilling is?

says the guy who uses the word "thot" repeatedly as if it's a real word.

typical of you though - i respond to your idiocy from posts 130 and beyond, and you can't even wrap your head around the fact that you were taken to school...again.

so you resort to mocking a typo. so, typical.
 
143Boldwin
      ID: 176322815
      Tue, Aug 19, 2008, 16:23 		Typo or freudian slip?
 
144Tree
      ID: 13714198
      Tue, Aug 19, 2008, 16:38 		well Baldwin, truth be told, the way my girl looks in short shorts, you'd wanna drill her too. i do love me a hot california girl.

a helluva lot more than those moderately attractive conservative politicos that adorn your locker.
 
145DWetzel at work
      ID: 278201415
      Tue, Aug 19, 2008, 17:00 		In the same vein as pornographers have distorted the 1st amendment, so has the guns for everyone without regulation or restriction crowd distorted the 2nd.

Guns, schmuns. I want nukes. The 2nd amendment says it's OK, right?
 
146ivan
      ID: 35725812
      Wed, Aug 20, 2008, 15:38 		Another question for those of you that favor an armed populous - Recently the local law enforcement agency in Compton Calif. offered its citizens something like $50 for each gun they turned in to be destroyed. Obviously an effort to get less guns on the street. Do you guys feel that the law enforcement agency had their priorities backwards?

i don't have an issue w/ gun buybacks, they may not be an automatic solution to the gun issue, but they are good for getting unwanted guns out of circulation.