Mega-Thread: Gun Control Thread

[Mayhem]

Not really the right to arm yourself is a powerful law with real consequences if it is stripped from you. Just look at the french riots to see the effects in a first world democratic country.

It's one of those things like free speech were you only become aware of its importance in its absence.

What are you talking about? Be specific, what do you mean by "just look at the french riots to see the effects" what effects?

[Spectral]

Yeah, it's funny though that they plaster "protect and serve" all over their stuff.

Talking sanity with some of you guys is a lost cause, you'd rather spent money on arms, ammunition, and courses instead of fixing the broken ass system.

Seriously, the chances that the 2nd amendment gets changed via state majority vote is non-existent and you have a supreme court stacked in your favor, yet it seems to be the only thing you care about. That is truly insane.

While I'm not a single issue voter, it definitely makes sense to me to consider a politician declaring his enthusiasm for removing a foundational American right to be disqualifying. Obviously you don't regard the right to arms as foundational, but consider how you might regard a politician that openly announced, "hell yes we're going to shut down the press" or "hell yes we're going to stop people from speaking out". No matter what else they had to offer, I'd regard them as a wannabe tyrant and a threat to the country.

[Rogue Karl]

What are you talking about? Be specific, what do you mean by "just look at the french riots to see the effects" what effects?

A person should have the right to defend themselves regardless on your position on the events that happened there was a very real time when law enforcement wasn't responsive. If the worst happens it pays to be prepared.

[Kellhound]

Yeah, it's funny though that they plaster "protect and serve" all over their stuff.

Talking sanity with some of you guys is a lost cause, you'd rather spent money on arms, ammunition, and courses instead of fixing the broken ass system.

Seriously, the chances that the 2nd amendment gets changed via state majority vote is non-existent and you have a supreme court stacked in your favor, yet it seems to be the only thing you care about. That is truly insane.

They have a collective duty to protect society, but not individuals.

Complacency is the fastest way to lose something.

[Mayhem]

A person should have the right to defend themselves regardless on your position on the events that happened there was a very real time when law enforcement wasn't responsive. If the worst happens it pays to be prepared.

Are you going to answer the questions or are you keep evading? France, you were talking about french riots, what were you talking about?

- - - Updated - - -

While I'm not a single issue voter, it definitely makes sense to me to consider a politician declaring his enthusiasm for removing a foundational American right to be disqualifying. Obviously you don't regard the right to arms as foundational, but consider how you might regard a politician that openly announced, "hell yes we're going to shut down the press" or "hell yes we're going to stop people from speaking out". No matter what else they had to offer, I'd regard them as a wannabe tyrant and a threat to the country.

Apples, oranges, lead-based paint. Do tell, how is the 2nd at risk? So Biden said "hell yes we're going to stop people from owning arms"?

I mean it's laughable.

- - - Updated - - -

They have a collective duty to protect society, but not individuals.

Complacency is the fastest way to lose something.

That's probably the weirdest oxymoron your legislature produced. Society is composed of individuals, yet it's somehow society they have a duty to protect but not the individuals.

Complacency, what?

[Rogue Karl]

Are you going to answer the questions or are you keep evading? France, you were talking about french riots, what were you talking about?

- - - Updated - - -



Apples, oranges, lead-based paint. Do tell, how is the 2nd at risk? So Biden said "hell yes we're going to stop people from owning arms"?

I mean it's laughable.

- - - Updated - - -



That's probably the weirdest oxymoron your legislature produced. Society is composed of individuals, yet it's somehow society they have a duty to protect but not the individuals.

Complacency, what?

I thought it was rather clear... the police force simply walked off the job early on in the riots. There was a need for people to protect themselves.

[Mayhem]

I thought it was rather clear... the police force simply walked off the job early on in the riots. There was a need for people to protect themselves.

Nothing is clear with sentences like "Not really the right to arm yourself is a powerful law with real consequences if it is stripped from you. Just look at the french riots to see the effects in a first world democratic country."

It seems you're suggesting french citizens aren't allowed to own weapons and bring the french riots as an example of why they need that right.

Now as that is not correct by any means, what real consequences are you talking about the citizens of every country apart from Mexico, Guatemala and the US are facing?

[Ghostpanther]

This is how ridiculous it can be in some states when it comes to gun control laws and the failure of the law enforcement of even knowing their own laws.

https://www.foxnews.com/us/new-jerse...gun-legal-ammo

A New Jersey gun owner is fighting charges for carrying a firearm for which he had a permit and ammunition state police have publicly said is legal.

Roosevelt Twyne, a 25-year-old African-American security guard, was arrested by Roselle Park Police in February after a traffic stop stemming from tinted windows on his car. Evan Nappen, Twyne's attorney, told the Washington Free Beacon that his client was then erroneously charged for illegally carrying a firearm and being in possession of so-called hollow point ammunition.

"He was arrested for the hollow point ammunition," Nappen told the Free Beacon. "Then they claimed he was transporting his handgun illegally. He had a permit to carry a handgun. The law … makes it clear that it's illegal to transport unless you are licensed pursuant to chapter 58. And that is precisely what a handgun carry permit is."

Nappen said the ammunition that led to Twyne's arrest was the same ammunition issued by his employer. He also pointed to a New Jersey State Police website that says the polymer-tipped Hornady "Critical Duty" ammunition in question is "not considered to be hollow point ammunition" and not illegal to possess in the state—the website goes so far as to specifically name "Critical Duty" as an example of legal ammunition.

[Stormdash]

Same ammunition I have. Basic self-defense round. New Jersey is such a backwards state. I still find it funny that that state is solely responsible for stifling development and sale of a technology they claim to want in the marketplace.

[Ghostpanther]

Interesting numbers for conceal carry permits for Minn.

https://www.foxnews.com/us/record-nu...permits-report

The number of gun carry permits in Minnesota totals more than 301,000 -- a record number that has nearly doubled since 2014, according to a report.

Minnesota sheriffs reported issuing 51,404 permits in 2019, according to the state Department of Public Safety’s annual tally of gun permits.

Sheriffis in Hennepin, Anoka and Dakota counties issued the most permits, the Minnesota Star Tribune reported.

The paper said the trend is being fueled by some Minnesota gun owners' concerns that legislation may be coming that would make it harder to buy firearms.

Which this type of trend is also happening nationally....https://www.foxnews.com/us/more-amer...ts-report-says

Even as the topic of gun control continues to remain a focus in the Democratic 2020 presidential primary, more Americans than ever are believed to have obtained concealed carry permits.

In a report released this week, the Crime Prevention Research Center says there are now nearly 19 million Americans with permits to carry a concealed handgun – an increase of 1.4 million, or about 8 percent – from around this time last year.

[Rogue Karl]

Nothing is clear with sentences like "Not really the right to arm yourself is a powerful law with real consequences if it is stripped from you. Just look at the french riots to see the effects in a first world democratic country."

It seems you're suggesting french citizens aren't allowed to own weapons and bring the french riots as an example of why they need that right.

Now as that is not correct by any means, what real consequences are you talking about the citizens of every country apart from Mexico, Guatemala and the US are facing?

There isn't a point in arguing it. The French are not allowed to own fire arms. If you can't see why you would need to defend yourself in times when law enforcement is unavailable nothing will justify the use of person force to you.

[Roxinius]

This is how ridiculous it can be in some states when it comes to gun control laws and the failure of the law enforcement of even knowing their own laws.

https://www.foxnews.com/us/new-jerse...gun-legal-ammo

A New Jersey gun owner is fighting charges for carrying a firearm for which he had a permit and ammunition state police have publicly said is legal.

Roosevelt Twyne, a 25-year-old African-American security guard, was arrested by Roselle Park Police in February after a traffic stop stemming from tinted windows on his car. Evan Nappen, Twyne's attorney, told the Washington Free Beacon that his client was then erroneously charged for illegally carrying a firearm and being in possession of so-called hollow point ammunition.

"He was arrested for the hollow point ammunition," Nappen told the Free Beacon. "Then they claimed he was transporting his handgun illegally. He had a permit to carry a handgun. The law … makes it clear that it's illegal to transport unless you are licensed pursuant to chapter 58. And that is precisely what a handgun carry permit is."

Nappen said the ammunition that led to Twyne's arrest was the same ammunition issued by his employer. He also pointed to a New Jersey State Police website that says the polymer-tipped Hornady "Critical Duty" ammunition in question is "not considered to be hollow point ammunition" and not illegal to possess in the state—the website goes so far as to specifically name "Critical Duty" as an example of legal ammunition.

hopefully this guy ends up bending these assholes over i hate even living next to that shit hole new jersey

[Spectral]

This is how ridiculous it can be in some states when it comes to gun control laws and the failure of the law enforcement of even knowing their own laws.

https://www.foxnews.com/us/new-jerse...gun-legal-ammo

A New Jersey gun owner is fighting charges for carrying a firearm for which he had a permit and ammunition state police have publicly said is legal.

Roosevelt Twyne, a 25-year-old African-American security guard, was arrested by Roselle Park Police in February after a traffic stop stemming from tinted windows on his car. Evan Nappen, Twyne's attorney, told the Washington Free Beacon that his client was then erroneously charged for illegally carrying a firearm and being in possession of so-called hollow point ammunition.

"He was arrested for the hollow point ammunition," Nappen told the Free Beacon. "Then they claimed he was transporting his handgun illegally. He had a permit to carry a handgun. The law … makes it clear that it's illegal to transport unless you are licensed pursuant to chapter 58. And that is precisely what a handgun carry permit is."

Nappen said the ammunition that led to Twyne's arrest was the same ammunition issued by his employer. He also pointed to a New Jersey State Police website that says the polymer-tipped Hornady "Critical Duty" ammunition in question is "not considered to be hollow point ammunition" and not illegal to possess in the state—the website goes so far as to specifically name "Critical Duty" as an example of legal ammunition.

The thing that's the most striking to me is how blindingly obvious arguments about whether a given shape of ammunition is legal or not run afoul of the plain verbiage of "shall not be infringed". People that think this is a totally reasonable argument to have concoct various arcane legal justifications for doing so, but normal people that are capable of reading should be quick to call this out as dishonest bullshit. Arguments to the contrary are so obviously post hoc rationalizations for personally preferred policies that no one should treat them as serious.

[Mayhem]

There isn't a point in arguing it. The French are not allowed to own fire arms. If you can't see why you would need to defend yourself in times when law enforcement is unavailable nothing will justify the use of person force to you.

So you don't know what you're talking about or you're the only one on the internet that knows this. This might also come as a surprise to 20% of French citizens who currently own firearms.

[Svifnymr]

This is how ridiculous it can be in some states when it comes to gun control laws and the failure of the law enforcement of even knowing their own laws.

https://www.foxnews.com/us/new-jerse...gun-legal-ammo

Years ago a customer that was a judge told me about a case where a guy was arrested for carrying in his car. It got all the way to trial and assigned to him, when he tells the prosecutor "you know the law you're trying to prosecute him with specifically lists his situation as an exemption? You may want to read the law before further pursuing the case." Of course, then the case was dismissed.

Basically, cops arrest someone, it gets tossed to a prosecutor along with hundreds of other cases, maybe assigned to a public defender, and none of them really look at the law as written. It just enters a process of "here's the deal we'll cut you" "no, we want a better deal" "okay, how about now". Of course the defense will say the guy is obviously innocent, whether he is or not, so there's little point for a prosecutor to actually review the case unless it's a big deal for some reason.

Hopefully the articles with this guy attract enough attention for the DA to just go "oh, we've reviewed the case and decided to withdraw the charges".

Even then, it's likely the charges will still appear on background checks and similar until this guy gets it fixed.

[Kellhound]

Are you going to answer the questions or are you keep evading? France, you were talking about french riots, what were you talking about?

- - - Updated - - -



Apples, oranges, lead-based paint. Do tell, how is the 2nd at risk? So Biden said "hell yes we're going to stop people from owning arms"?

I mean it's laughable.

- - - Updated - - -



That's probably the weirdest oxymoron your legislature produced. Society is composed of individuals, yet it's somehow society they have a duty to protect but not the individuals.

Complacency, what?

One, it was the courts that decided that. Two, its not an oxymoron at all, if they had a duty to protect every individual, they would be responsible for every crime they didnt prevent.

[Mayhem]

One, it was the courts that decided that. Two, its not an oxymoron at all, if they had a duty to protect every individual, they would be responsible for every crime they didnt prevent.

Sorry, you're right it was the judiciary that produced that oxymoron. What? So denying protection is the same as not being able to protect everyone at all times, you're justice system is a joke if that is the reason behind this farce.

[Kellhound]

Sorry, you're right it was the judiciary that produced that oxymoron. What? So denying protection is the same as not being able to protect everyone at all times, you're justice system is a joke if that is the reason behind this farce.

The police exist to pick up the pieces and act as a deterrent, not as an active preventative.

[Stormdash]

One, it was the courts that decided that. Two, its not an oxymoron at all, if they had a duty to protect every individual, they would be responsible for every crime they didnt prevent.

You referring to the civil rights case?
@Mayhem the upshot is that the Supreme Court ruled that the police not being arsed to show up to protect you from a criminal act can not be a cause of action in a civil rights violation against the police. Which is the closest the law can get to saying the police don't have a duty to protect any particular individual from crime, it's a nominal duty owed to society as a whole (which is a kinda endearing way to say there is no duty at all).

[Svifnymr]

You referring to the civil rights case?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren...ct_of_Columbia