View Poll Results: Do you Support Assault Weapons Ban?

Voters
4675. You may not vote on this poll
  • Yes

    2,818 60.28%
  • No

    1,857 39.72%
  1. #39201
    Quote Originally Posted by PRE 9-11 View Post
    That's the point. Gun owners are responsible...until they're not. Gun owners are law abiding...until they're not.
    You mean like every other person whether they own a gun or not?
    Socialism is the only economic system that requires billionaires to exist.
    https://i.redditmedia.com/P8UE8DAGeB...c1ef120404fdbd
    Quote Originally Posted by PRE 9-11 View Post
    This term isn't far off, though it would need the word "scientific" in front of it.
    Quote Originally Posted by PRE 9-11 View Post
    Accessibility, ownership, availability; these are all essentially the same thing.

  2. #39202
    Legendary! TZucchini's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Location
    Wish it was Canada
    Posts
    6,989
    Quote Originally Posted by Tinykong View Post
    Yes, a law maker who says a law isn't enforceable carries more weight than whatever irrelevant layperson's bullshit you can post.
    The TRIFECTA!!!! Three goal post shifts in one day. And an astounding one, at that.

    From "Proof" to "Carries Weight."

    No, it wasn't. Entering into a residence with the express intent of discovering illegally stored firearms is enforcement.
    So he didn't get arrested for negligent storage? Oh. My B. Guess the law wasn't enforced when it was found to be broken.
    Eat yo vegetables

  3. #39203
    Quote Originally Posted by PRE 9-11 View Post
    The TRIFECTA!!!! Three goal post shifts in one day. And an astounding one, at that.

    From "Proof" to "Carries Weight."
    I was countering your claim that the law maker's assessment is invalid. His claim is infinitely more pertinent and relevant than yours. If he says they can't enforce the law, then the law can't be enforced.

    You should be cheering for this guy. He wants warrantless searches to find unsafely stored firearms. I mean, finally, you can sleep at night, knowing that somewhere, someone is working on your behalf to weaken the Constitution to soothe your irrational fears. You should be pounding the pavement to get this guy into the White House.

    Quote Originally Posted by PRE 9-11 View Post
    So he didn't get arrested for negligent storage? Oh. My B. Guess the law wasn't enforced when it was found to be broken.
    Again, you don't seem to understand the difference between enforcing the law and coincidentally charging someone with violating the law.
    Quote Originally Posted by Djalil View Post
    I am ACTUALLY ASKING for them to ban me and relieve me from the misery of this thread.

  4. #39204
    Quote Originally Posted by PRE 9-11 View Post
    The TRIFECTA!!!! Three goal post shifts in one day. And an astounding one, at that.

    From "Proof" to "Carries Weight."



    So he didn't get arrested for negligent storage? Oh. My B. Guess the law wasn't enforced when it was found to be broken.
    Just to be clear about what negligent storage is in that state.

    609.666 NEGLIGENT STORAGE OF FIREARMS.
    Subdivision 1.Definitions. For purposes of this section, the following words have the meanings given.
    (a) "Firearm" means a device designed to be used as a weapon, from which is expelled a projectile by the force of any explosion or force of combustion.
    (b) "Child" means a person under the age of 18 years.
    (c) "Loaded" means the firearm has ammunition in the chamber or magazine, if the magazine is in the firearm, unless the firearm is incapable of being fired by a child who is likely to gain access to the firearm.
    Subd. 2.Access to firearms. A person is guilty of a gross misdemeanor who negligently stores or leaves a loaded firearm in a location where the person knows, or reasonably should know, that a child is likely to gain access, unless reasonable action is taken to secure the firearm against access by the child.
    Subd. 3.Limitations. Subdivision 2 does not apply to a child's access to firearms that was obtained as a result of an unlawful entry.
    Socialism is the only economic system that requires billionaires to exist.
    https://i.redditmedia.com/P8UE8DAGeB...c1ef120404fdbd
    Quote Originally Posted by PRE 9-11 View Post
    This term isn't far off, though it would need the word "scientific" in front of it.
    Quote Originally Posted by PRE 9-11 View Post
    Accessibility, ownership, availability; these are all essentially the same thing.

  5. #39205
    Merely a Setback cubby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    the Quiet Room
    Posts
    27,256
    Quote Originally Posted by Tinykong View Post
    Yes, a law maker saying a law is unenforceable proves a law is unenforceable.
    Wow, you just keep expanding on concepts you don't understand.

    You realize a law maker has zero authority on either a law's enforceability or it's legitimacy, right?

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by petej0 View Post
    That does nothing but create a he said/she said.

    "We got a call about unsecured weapons, can we check?"
    "Uh, one sec... Sure officer....See? All secure."
    The hypothetical situation proposed by PRE is absolute proof that safe storage laws are entirely enforceable on their own.

    Law enforcement officers and agencies can get no-knock warrants based on anonymous information. So going in to check on unsecured weapons is a no-brainer.
    No one is above the law!

  6. #39206
    Quote Originally Posted by cubby View Post
    Wow, you just keep expanding on concepts you don't understand.

    You realize a law maker has zero authority on either a law's enforceability or it's legitimacy, right?
    Certainly has more credibility than you or PRE 911, both of you are nothing more than arm chair commentators. Considering how neither of you are willing to address the argument (it's unenforceable on it's own) and keep arguing unrelated situations (secondary offenses) it's no surprise you're hand waiving this.

    Quote Originally Posted by cubby View Post
    The hypothetical situation proposed by PRE is absolute proof that safe storage laws are entirely enforceable on their own.

    Law enforcement officers and agencies can get no-knock warrants based on anonymous information. So going in to check on unsecured weapons is a no-brainer.
    Please, provide the statute that enables police to execute a no-knock warrant to search for illegally stored firearms. I'll wait.
    Quote Originally Posted by Djalil View Post
    I am ACTUALLY ASKING for them to ban me and relieve me from the misery of this thread.

  7. #39207
    The Unstoppable Force Ghostpanther's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    USA, Ohio
    Posts
    22,998
    Quote Originally Posted by Tinykong View Post

    Please, provide the statute that enables police to execute a no-knock warrant to search for illegally stored firearms. I'll wait.
    They can't. Police may have a no knock warrant ( only allowed in some states ) if they suspect the owner is a criminal, drug dealer, etc. etc. Not for the sole purpose of because they may have a gun under their pillow. :P The whole concept of going door to door looking for unsafe stored guns smells too much like a police state action. Not happening here.

    Speaking in reference to a private residence not associated with a business dealing with kids. The one link 911 posted was a case where the person had a day care center where children were present and it was not just the loaded gun, but all the drug crap too they had which was the issue. Several violations in that case.
    Last edited by Ghostpanther; 2014-12-31 at 04:13 AM.

  8. #39208
    The Lightbringer PhaelixWW's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    Washington (né California)
    Posts
    3,474
    Also known as "firearm theft rates were dramatically lower in states with both lower theft rates and lower firearm ownership rates."
    "The difference between stupidity and genius is that genius has its limits." --Alexandre Dumas-fils

  9. #39209
    Quote Originally Posted by Ghostpanther View Post
    They can't. Police may have a no knock warrant ( only allowed in some states ) if they suspect the owner is a criminal, drug dealer, etc. etc. Not for the sole purpose of because they may have a gun under their pillow. :P The whole concept of going door to door looking for unsafe stored guns smells too much like a police state action. Not happening here.

    Speaking in reference to a private residence not associated with a business dealing with kids. The one link 911 posted was a case where the person had a day care center where children were present and it was not just the loaded gun, but all the drug crap too they had which was the issue. Several violations in that case.
    Which is exactly the point people have been making. The law, by itself, is unenforceable.
    Quote Originally Posted by Djalil View Post
    I am ACTUALLY ASKING for them to ban me and relieve me from the misery of this thread.

  10. #39210
    Merely a Setback cubby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    the Quiet Room
    Posts
    27,256
    Quote Originally Posted by Tinykong View Post
    Which is exactly the point people have been making. The law, by itself, is unenforceable.
    No, it's entirely enforceable. How are you not understanding this still?

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Tinykong View Post
    Certainly has more credibility than you or PRE 911, both of you are nothing more than arm chair commentators. Considering how neither of you are willing to address the argument (it's unenforceable on it's own) and keep arguing unrelated situations (secondary offenses) it's no surprise you're hand waiving this.
    You need a basic civics lesson. How do you even remotely think a congressman has the authority or knowledge on whether a law is enforceable or not?



    Please, provide the statute that enables police to execute a no-knock warrant to search for illegally stored firearms. I'll wait.
    You aren't going to find any statute that involves specific provisions as in the case you are requesting. Statutes deal with generalities, letting judges and the courts define specifics. So we're looking for case law, rather than statutes - as statutes will be too broad to include specific examples.

    Here are some of the many cites I found. They include the reasoning and the case law.

    Here's your cite.

    And another.

    The New York State statutes on no-knock warrants.

    This is typical of the wording in the reasoning behind issuing no-knock warrants:

    A no-knock' entry is justified when the police have a reasonable suspicion that knocking and announcing their presence, under the particular circumstances, would be dangerous or futile, or that it would inhibit the effective investigation of the crime.
    Finally, the wording from the Supreme Court case, Wilson v. Arkansas 514 U.S. 927 (1995) that is generally used in allowing no-knock warrants:

    . . . the Supreme court ruled that a "no-knock" execution of a search warrant may be justified by "circumstances under which an unannounced entry is reasonable under the Fourth Amendment."

    It's ok if you don't understand something, but to be as belligerently obtuse as you have been in this thread on this subject is almost unconscionable.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Ghostpanther View Post
    They can't. Police may have a no knock warrant ( only allowed in some states ) if they suspect the owner is a criminal, drug dealer, etc. etc. Not for the sole purpose of because they may have a gun under their pillow. :P The whole concept of going door to door looking for unsafe stored guns smells too much like a police state action. Not happening here.

    Speaking in reference to a private residence not associated with a business dealing with kids. The one link 911 posted was a case where the person had a day care center where children were present and it was not just the loaded gun, but all the drug crap too they had which was the issue. Several violations in that case.
    You couldn't be more wrong. All you're doing here is citing yourself and using a smell test, rather than using facts or reasoning. Do you even know the purpose of a no-knock warrant?
    Last edited by cubby; 2014-12-31 at 06:35 AM.
    No one is above the law!

  11. #39211
    The Lightbringer PhaelixWW's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    Washington (né California)
    Posts
    3,474
    This argument is ridiculous. You're both arguing two completely different definitions of "unenforceable".

    Cubby is taking "unenforceable" to mean not possible to enforce the law in a specific instance, or a set of specific instances. Clearly, the law can be enforced in specific instances in this sense.

    Tinykong is taking unenforceable to mean that in general it lacks sufficient chance of being caught to enforce compliance. People can sometimes be caught, but the law lacks the pressure to enforce compliance, merely punish the occasional unlucky individual.

    So we're basically arguing the difference between enforcing compliance and enforcing punishment. So you're both sorta right.
    "The difference between stupidity and genius is that genius has its limits." --Alexandre Dumas-fils

  12. #39212
    I would be in favor of banning firearms for anyone on welfare. They cant support themselves so why should they have the same rights as everyone else?.

  13. #39213
    The Unstoppable Force Mayhem's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    pending...
    Posts
    21,344
    Quote Originally Posted by cubby View Post
    Just let it go PRE. Tiny is in la-la land where admitting you're wrong is apparently impossible. Rest assured, regarding safe storage laws, you are correct that no other crime need be committed for them to be enforced. I don't know what Tiny's problem is, but it's his, not yours or mine.
    admitting to be wrong isn´t a trait tiny has... he either dodges, ignores, ridicules or moves goal posts to claim victory
    Quote Originally Posted by ash
    So, look um, I'm not a grief counselor, but if it's any consolation, I have had to kill and bury loved ones before. A bunch of times actually.
    Quote Originally Posted by PC2 View Post
    I never said I was knowledge-able and I wouldn't even care if I was the least knowledge-able person and the biggest dumb-ass out of all 7.8 billion people on the planet.

  14. #39214
    Legendary! TZucchini's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Location
    Wish it was Canada
    Posts
    6,989
    Quote Originally Posted by PhaelixWW View Post
    Tinykong is taking unenforceable to mean that in general it lacks sufficient chance of being caught to enforce compliance. People can sometimes be caught, but the law lacks the pressure to enforce compliance, merely punish the occasional unlucky individual.
    No. That's not it at all. Because even when given examples of someone being arrested for negligent storage, he's still claiming that the law wasn't enforced in that specific incident, because it's a "secondary crime".

    He's absolutely wrong on this issue. Whether or not the law is currently being enforced has no bearing on IF the law can be enforced. There are millions of instances each year of police entering civilian homes for whatever reason. In New York City alone, there were like 300,000 police responses for domestic disturbances in a single year. That's a single city.

    Clearly this law can be enforced.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Hooked View Post
    I would be in favor of banning firearms for anyone on welfare. They cant support themselves so why should they have the same rights as everyone else?.
    I would not be in favor of that. Whether or not they're on welfare has no bearing on whether or not they can pass a background check/mental health evaluation, or display proper firearm responsibility.
    Eat yo vegetables

  15. #39215
    The Unstoppable Force Mayhem's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    pending...
    Posts
    21,344
    Quote Originally Posted by Hooked View Post
    I would be in favor of banning firearms for anyone on welfare. They cant support themselves so why should they have the same rights as everyone else?.
    what the fuck?
    Quote Originally Posted by ash
    So, look um, I'm not a grief counselor, but if it's any consolation, I have had to kill and bury loved ones before. A bunch of times actually.
    Quote Originally Posted by PC2 View Post
    I never said I was knowledge-able and I wouldn't even care if I was the least knowledge-able person and the biggest dumb-ass out of all 7.8 billion people on the planet.

  16. #39216
    The Unstoppable Force Ghostpanther's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    USA, Ohio
    Posts
    22,998
    Quote Originally Posted by cubby View Post






    - - - Updated - - -

    You couldn't be more wrong. All you're doing here is citing yourself and using a smell test, rather than using facts or reasoning. Do you even know the purpose of a no-knock warrant?
    In what part am I wrong? You cannot show me a single case where the police have did a no knock entry into a private home for the sole purpose to search for a gun which may be stored unsafe. And it does vary according to the state. http://criminal-law.freeadvice.com/c...h_entering.htm what the rules are.

    There is the case in Texas where the police entered a person's home with a no knock warrant and then one policeman was shot and killed. Guess how that trial ended.

    And the police is going to have a "just cause" to enter a home with a no knock warrant and having a gun loaded and out in the open is not going to be one. They need to have more important reasons to do it. So yeah, I know the purpose behind a no knock warrant. :P

  17. #39217
    Deleted
    Quote Originally Posted by Ghostpanther View Post
    And the police is going to have a "just cause" to enter a home with a no knock warrant and having a gun loaded and out in the open is not going to be one. They need to have more important reasons to do it. So yeah, I know the purpose behind a no knock warrant. :P
    Like a small amount of marihuana in a black mans house

  18. #39218
    Legendary! TZucchini's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Location
    Wish it was Canada
    Posts
    6,989
    Guns don't kill people. Babies kill people.

    Sheeeesh. Talk about negligent storage of a firearm.
    Eat yo vegetables

  19. #39219
    Quote Originally Posted by cubby View Post
    The hypothetical situation proposed by PRE is absolute proof that safe storage laws are entirely enforceable on their own.

    Law enforcement officers and agencies can get no-knock warrants based on anonymous information. So going in to check on unsecured weapons is a no-brainer.
    Yes, again, the cops need a reason to be there. The vast majority of people, a great majority of people dont live in fear of a cop showing up at their door at any random time. For all the millions of home PRE-911 contends that cops visit every year, there are millions and millions more that dont get a visit from cops.
    I dont understand why this is so hard to understand.

    If people arent in fear of getting caught you wont have high compliance. Secondly, there is no definition of what "safe storage" means.

  20. #39220
    Legendary! TZucchini's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Location
    Wish it was Canada
    Posts
    6,989
    Quote Originally Posted by petej0 View Post
    If people arent in fear of getting caught you wont have high compliance.
    This presupposes that people only follow laws because they fear they will be caught. That sentiment has not been proven to be true. Remotely.

    Any "law-abiding" gun owner will follow a safe storage law. Because, well, they're law abiding.
    Eat yo vegetables

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •