| Author | Message | ||
     Ducbsa |
Must-have upgrade! https://twitchy.com/brettt-3136/2019/11/30/after-t he-london-bridge-terror-attack-people-are-consider ing-narwhal-tusk-attachments-for-their-ar-15s/ | ||
| Ourdee |
(background checks I can understand to a point, to keep guns away from felons) Why should a "felon" who has served his/her time and is on the street have to give up the rights the rest of us take for granted just because they got caught? | ||
| Ratbuell |
So, my not being a felon means I "haven't been caught"? Sorry, no. My not being a felon is because I haven't committed a crime. If you choose to break the law, you lose rights. In the immediate time after breaking the law, you lose all your freedom - jail. When the time comes that you have served your time in jail, the fact remains that you broke the law. You chose to do so. Therefore, I don't see it as unreasonable that your rights remain restricted compared to those of us who have chosen NOT to break those laws. Perhaps an extension of the sentencing process is in order - "XX years in prison, followed by lifetime restrictions on XYZ rights and privileges..." There needs to be substantial deterrent to choosing to commit a crime. If you make that choice...you have to be prepared for the consequences. Period. | ||
| Aesquire |
Speaking of Ian. He's posed with his new book on French military rifles. A rather neglected part of history. The French didn't sell off surplus old obsolete guns much after WW1, so few made it over here on the surplus market, unlike Lee Enfields and others. Also, the French used, modified, and used up their old stocks of obsolete rifles during the war. It's important to know that the French have often been bleeding edge in gun development. Smokeless powder, small bore rifles ( the Swiss research was an influence ) Automatic rifles, machine guns, all were firsts, or first actually issued, French development. Sometimes resulting in mistakes that bit them later. See the C&Arsenal videos on every obscure & famous small arm used in the Great War, ongoing. The Great War video project began in Germany, running a day by day report on the events 100 years before. So on Sept 3, you got what happened that day. Since that was a multi year crazy effort, they recruited other history buffs to fill in side details and since the publisher in Germany did not want to put out gun videos ( both for legal & PC bs ) they contacted the C&Arsenal guys out of the Carolinas, to ask for permission to publish gun photos from there. Othias, at C&Arsenal was about to start a video series, so instead, decided to focus on WW1 arms to dovetail with the Great War guys. Some of the Great War Project stuff didn't work out, but overall it's a history treasure trove, it you care to dig into it. Meanwhile, the crazy American contributor dug in and has for years now covered the subject in excruciating detail, the development, technical history, numbers produced by each manufacturer, and, the lovely Mae actually demonstrates each gun. ( which caused consternation for the European gun fearing types, and joy for red blooded shooters everywhere ) Well worth the look. Someday soon they will have covered every gun ever used in the War, and move on to post war, WW2, etc. I believe that having a historical context and perspective is important to understand today's world. If you don't know the laws and movements that were/are aimed at keeping guns from the freed slaves pushed by the Klan & racist political parties for the last century, then you might be fooled by those same groups efforts to disarm the people they consider beneath them, today. And, a bit less depressing, it's fun to see that Tacticool marketing and products are NOT just a modern, or 'Murican thing. | ||
| Rick_a |
My updated dissipator. It is now with alloy free float tube, tiny A2 flash hider, and a more modern and compact light.  20191201_164334 by Slick_Rick77, on Flickr It took a decent amount of weight off the front. (Message edited by Rick_a on December 02, 2019) | ||
| Ourdee |
My not being a felon is because I haven't committed a crime. Joe, I would not be so proud so quickly. Have you looked into how many federal laws there are. I doubt there are many innocents left. | ||
| Aesquire |
"Show me the man and I'll find you the crime." when the governor of New York passed the unSAFE act in the middle of the night in secret, without warning or legally mandated public review, he claimed executive power allowed him to do so as he considered it an Emergency, not wanting a run on gun stores to buy scary guns. The law as passed had a few... Flaws. Written by Mayor & current presidential candidate Bloomberg's well paid staff of gun owner haters, it failed to give exemption to law enforcement officers, making everyone of them in the state, a felon. It also banned detachable magazines that could hold over 7 rounds. Making every gun owner with a 10/22 or a million other guns, a felon. Possession of a magazine without a gun is also a felony. The governor fairly quickly changed the law, ( I don't know how legal that process was ) and declared he wouldn't enforce it against cops. Then changed it to allow 10 round magazines, but retained the insanity that loading 8 rounds instantly made a citizen a criminal to be treated more harshly than a mass rape murderer by the courts. So, one morning millions of law abiding citizens woke up felons. And if they weren't addicted to morning news, were possibly venturing forth, just like the day before, except for the probability that their morning donut shop visit, or drive to work, put them at risk of arrest, or being killed, by State Police. Without a clue why. Now, there was a short period where you could register your scary gun. ( the definition isn't rational or logical ) but not your mags. Those you had to sell, out of state. Likewise any guns you didn't want the State Police to have on their list of future homes to invade at 3:00 am. Which may have led to some federal crimes, but let's not go there, eh?  | ||
| Ourdee |
The phrase I said prior to working for Uncle Sam was "innocent by-standers". I was quickly taught there is no such thing. (Message edited by ourdee on December 01, 2019) | ||
| Rick_a |
Arbitrary laws are very arbitrary. The simplest laws are often the most effective, the easiest to enforce, and least tyrannical. When it takes a combination of legal precedent, teams of lawyers, and a significant monetary and time consuming investment to hash it out...it's probably not very beneficial as a whole. | ||
| Gregtonn |
The simplest laws are often the most effective, the easiest to enforce, and least tyrannical. And are the most hated by lawyers. G | ||
| Ducbsa |
https://tribunist.com/news/americans-bought-enough -guns-on-black-friday-to-arm-the-marine-corps-yet- again/ | ||
| Ourdee |
Yay! | ||
| Pwnzor |
Therefore, I don't see it as unreasonable that your rights remain restricted compared to those of us who have chosen NOT to break those laws. I'll assume your blanket statement is intended for violent criminals who actually harmed someone else. If somebody has served their time, paid their debt to society in full, and fulfilled the terms of whatever probation and/or parole they were put on, then how can it possibly circumvent this: 2a: 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. 4a: 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. If the crime committed by a person is something that has been determined by due process to be an offense so heinous as to deny these rights to any individual for the duration of their life, then they should remain on parole and have to report in periodically. I'm all for lifetime parole for some people, lifetime incarceration for others. I can tell you from personal experience that 98% of people that are locked up belong locked up. To hear them tell it, they were all framed or railroaded, and they all think they're lawyers. Yet, they keep coming back. Meanwhile, there isn't a person alive or dead who can give one coherent reason as to why I shouldn't be able to defend myself and my family from invaders or worse yet - a tyrannical government. | ||
| Ducbsa |
"for violent criminals who actually harmed someone else." In principle, that is logical, but like a lot of the cons being let go under the First Step Act and similar state laws, a fair number of defendants plead to non-violent charges to avoid the penalties for violent acts they actually did. How do we address those folks and returning their 2A rights? | ||
| Ratbuell |
Yes, my statement did refer to violent convicted criminals. My statement also did NOT say "prevent them all from defending themselves", rather, that I can understand a reasonable background check process. That way, in theory anyway, each case would have its own evaluation. I fully expect and understand that if I screw up, I stand to lose my firearm privileges. Screw up and there are consequences. The founders understood this as well, they understood the concept of rule of law. If you want to reap the benefits of constitutional protections and freedoms...you have to follow the rules. They didn't have nearly as many laws for convicted felons, though...because hangings and firing squads were much more the norm back then. There was no "lifetime incarceration" back then - heinous crime? Execution. And there are still quite a few societal and budgetary arguments for that one... Some folks do reform, for real. Others, as noted above..."keep coming back", i.e. keep commiting crimes. So how do we deal with them? Again...case by case. | ||
| Pwnzor |
How do we address those folks and returning their 2A rights? The system is broken. People should not be allowed to plea to a lesser charge. The crime is what it is. | ||
| Pwnzor |
I can understand a reasonable background check process. We don't have one. The databases are haphazard at best. I can't even visit my son in law on a military base without being escorted at all times. Again, we need to fix the system before we can really fix the people who are caught up in it. If everybody was armed all the time, we wouldn't have 75% of the bullshyte we have going on in this country. | ||
| Two_seasons |
Been saying this for a long long time... If somebody has served their time, paid their debt to society in full, and fulfilled the terms of whatever probation and/or parole they were put on, then how can it possibly circumvent this: 2a: 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. 4a: 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. Total bullshit that some of us can't get our Constitutional rights back.  | ||
| Ratbuell |
The problem is, who predicts the difference between those who have served their time, paid their debt, and actually reformed themselves...and those who will simply end up back in the system once they commit another crime(s)? I agree wholeheartedly, that an armed society is a polite society. I also suspect that felons, in a heavily-armed society, will less likely be ABLE to plea down their charges, simply due to being stopped by armed citizens when in commission of their felony. | ||
| Ratbuell |
Total bullshit that some of us can't get our Constitutional rights back. Again...actions have consequences. The Constitution is the law of the land - yes, it provides freedoms and guarantees liberty...but there are rules to be followed in order to receive those rights. Rules not only for the government...but also for the citizens. And like anything else...you break the rules, you lose the perks. Argue "inalienable" and "shall not be infringed" all you want - keep in mind that I am a huge 2A supporter, I own, and I carry - but if you make the DECISION to break the rules, and decide you don't have to follow the same rules the rest of us do, then you lose the same liberties the rest of us enjoy. Unfortunately, we do have a broken system with which to decide who, if anyone, receives those liberties again, and if so, when. | ||
| Hootowl |
"I screw up, I stand to lose my firearm privileges." Firearm rights  "The system is broken. People should not be allowed to plea to a lesser charge." The system is broken. Prosecutors over charge so that they can plead down to the actual charge without a court fight. Stop over charging, and stop plea bargains. Charge the crime and make it stick in court, or don't charge at all. | ||
| Pwnzor |
but if you make the DECISION to break the rules Not everything is black and white. Suppose an individual committing a misdemeanor which would, if convicted, not affect the individual's 2nd or 4th amendment rights. Now, suppose that individual is in possession of a legally owned and registered firearm - NOT on his person, rather is unloaded and locked away properly in his vehicle. Now suppose that the court determines that this individual should be in the same classification as a murderer and be remanded to a maximum security facility for a period of not less than one year. Now, suppose that the misdemeanor offense is enhanced into a felony because of the mere presence of the aforementioned firearm in the VICINITY of the misdemeanor. And now suppose that the legally owned firearm becomes it's own felony in this instance. Now, let's suppose that the misdemeanor in question is no longer a crime at all, in fact is considered a recreational use product that is barely regulated at all. Yeah, the system is broken as f--k. | ||
| Hootowl |
"...but there are rules to be followed in order to receive those rights." The constitution is a rule book that describes exactly what the federal government can do, and the first ten amendments describe what it cannot do. Where the constitution lays down rules of behavior, it speaks to what the government cannot do to us, not what we cannot do to the government or each other. There is no text in there that describes what happens to my rights if I break the law, or what law I would have to break in order to lose said rights. I am not arguing that breaking the law should not result in the forfeiture of certain rights, only that the penalties for breaking the law are not enumerated in the constitution. Additionally, we do not receive rights, we have rights. The constitution grants not one single right. It protects rights inherent in all people granted to them by their creator. This is why the supreme court has ruled that constitutional protections also apply to non-citizens. They are people with unalienable rights granted to them by God, and they cannot be taken away without due process. | ||
| Ourdee |
If you have a right, it is your's. inalienable adjective unable to be taken away from or given away by the possessor. There is no need to argue something so plain and simple. | ||
| Pwnzor |
 | ||
| Shoggin |
 I laughed so hard at this | ||
| Pwnzor |
OMG that's good. | ||
| Natexlh1000 |
Perhaps it's for hunting these:  | ||
| Ducbsa |
I looked at the Hawaii Rifle Assoc. website and it says that Hawaii has the 2A in the their state constitution and further defines militia as all able bodied citizens. But, you have to get permits to own any gun. Various other restrictions, so some conflicts there. It'll be interesting to see what laws the Pearl Harbor shooter broke before he decided to be a murderer. | ||
| Hootowl |
Looks like the shooter may have been on watch. https://www.foxnews.com/us/pearl-harbor-naval-ship yard-shooting-details I’ve stood hundreds of hours of security watches, never armed. ‘Course, that was pre-911. |
