Author Topic: Gun Control: US and Global II  (Read 10054 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Online quadrapiper

  • Full Member
  • *****
  • 10,925
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 322
Re: Gun Control: US and Global II
« Reply #50 on: April 06, 2019, 13:51:54 »
And we're not talking a few crackpots like Bundy. The delta isnt as far apart as you think. An AK-47 is arguably one of the best assault rifles ever made. Read what I wrote above about making those. Heck, in a pinch an expediant smg can be made out of 2 feet of square or round tubing and basic hand tools in a few hours. Lots of stuff can be done with 3d printers and table top CNC mills which are everywhere. The programs are already out there with the knowledge and lots and lots that know how to use it. You can't confiscate everything.
Rather doubt there'll ever be a hard push from the US government; however, compared to Afghanistan and Iraq, the sort of armament floating around in private US hands is rather limited: pervasive and numerous, but without a national army's worth of heavier weapons in the mix. "Taking everyone's guns" isn't feasible for various reasons - that said, any notion the specifically belligerent groups and movements have of actually standing up to "the Feds" should the latter apply their full capabilities is delusional.

What is likely needed at this point is something akin to a constitutional convention, affecting both state and federal regulation, to determine a single national framework binding both levels of government, as the routine application of the second amendment varies overmuch state to state.

I cannot understand the tolerance of people like Bundy: that he and his publicity stunts haven't ended up in dead law enforcement is incredible; equally, he represents a sort of defiance-as-the-goal sneering at government authority that's hard to justify.

I've no objection to private firearms ownership, including large and varied collections in support of historical, competition, or hunting activities: it's the group of US firearms owners who have made (generally military-style) armament a political expression, and who variously:
  • make much noise about being armed specifically to enable fantastical notions of shooting Feds or "others,"
  • show up (in the more extreme expression) in public heavily armed at political events/demonstrations, including demonstrations by "the other side," and
  • overlap significantly with the more violent and loathsome portions of the US right (Klan, Nazis, etc.).
This sort http://www.thedonovan.com/categories.html don't bother me, though I disagree with some of their politics. The sort of person who wakes up and decides to tool up as if going on patrol in Iraq to scull about Anytown USA for political points? Deeply concerning, and cancerous. That sort of thing encourages arms races between political ideologies, represents a massive hazard as far as NDs, let alone intentional violence, and cultivates a paranoid and fearful atmosphere not conducive to effective governance.

And that's without addressing the groups and thus ideologies these individuals share space with, none of which are of value to society.

FJAG points out, far more eloquently than I might, the broader conceptual issues in the current US situation. I am more concerned by the sheriffs than the municipalities: a city council making a certain decision at least has a collaborative process and represents multiple inputs, while the sheriff is appointed specifically to enforce laws*, is operating in isolation, and of course has far more direct access to coercive options (e.g. Arpaio).

*With all the usual policing-by-consent notions of intelligent enforcement, which this sort of behaviour far exceeds.

Offline Chris Pook

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *
  • 208,605
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 12,758
  • Wha daur say Mass in ma lug!
Re: Gun Control: US and Global II
« Reply #51 on: April 06, 2019, 14:03:05 »
Just a point, quadrapiper:

Sheriffs are elected in the US generally and Colorado in particular.   They are not appointed.

Quote
Colorado sheriffs
Sheriff is an elected position in the state of Colorado according to the state's constitution.

Election
A sheriff is elected for a four year term in each county. Before he or she enters office he will create a bond, with at least three sufficient sureties, between $5,000 and $20,000, that the board of county commissioners specifies and approves. No person will be considered a surety who is not worth at least $2,000 over and above his or her debts.[1]

Government roles
Every person elected or appointed to the office of sheriff for the first time will attend a minimum of 80 hours of a training course the first time a training course is given after the person's election or appointment.

Every sheriff must possess basic peace officer certification and shall undergo at least 20 hours of in-service training provided by the county sheriffs of Colorado every year during such sheriff's term.

The county only pays all reasonable costs and expenses of these training sessions.[2]

Only U.S. citizens, Colorado citizens and residents of the county in which they are appointed or elected may serve as sheriff. He or she must possess a high school diploma or its equivalent or a college degree and must have a complete set of fingerprints taken.[3]

The sheriff has charge and custody of the county jails and of the prisoners in the jails. The sheriff will supervise them personally or a deputy or jailer will supervise them.[4]

The sheriff is also fire warden of his or her county in case of prairie or forest fires.[5]

The sheriff is in charge of transporting prisoners to a correctional facility or other place of confinement who may have been convicted and sentenced and who are ready for such transportation. If any sheriff fails or neglects to do this, the boards of county commissioners can take away this responsibility. This does not apply to the transportation of the insane.[6]

The sheriffs, undersheriffs, and deputies must keep and preserve the peace in their counties quiet and suppress all frays, riots, and unlawful assemblies and insurrections. They can command anyone to their aid that they see necessary to do their duties.[7]


https://ballotpedia.org/Colorado_sheriffs

In short, Sheriffs draw their authority directly from the consent of the governed, and not from the "government" at large.
"Wyrd bið ful aræd"

Offline Fishbone Jones

    MSC -6945.

  • "Some people will only like you if you fit inside their box. Don't be afraid to shove that box up their ass."
  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Myth
  • *
  • 280,347
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 18,672
    • Army.ca
Re: Gun Control: US and Global II
« Reply #52 on: April 06, 2019, 14:25:13 »
Rather doubt there'll ever be a hard push from the US government; however, compared to Afghanistan and Iraq, the sort of armament floating around in private US hands is rather limited: pervasive and numerous, but without a national army's worth of heavier weapons in the mix. "Taking everyone's guns" isn't feasible for various reasons - that said, any notion the specifically belligerent groups and movements have of actually standing up to "the Feds" should the latter apply their full capabilities is delusional.

What is likely needed at this point is something akin to a constitutional convention, affecting both state and federal regulation, to determine a single national framework binding both levels of government, as the routine application of the second amendment varies overmuch state to state.

I cannot understand the tolerance of people like Bundy: that he and his publicity stunts haven't ended up in dead law enforcement is incredible; equally, he represents a sort of defiance-as-the-goal sneering at government authority that's hard to justify.

I've no objection to private firearms ownership, including large and varied collections in support of historical, competition, or hunting activities: it's the group of US firearms owners who have made (generally military-style) armament a political expression, and who variously:
  • make much noise about being armed specifically to enable fantastical notions of shooting Feds or "others,"
  • show up (in the more extreme expression) in public heavily armed at political events/demonstrations, including demonstrations by "the other side," and
  • overlap significantly with the more violent and loathsome portions of the US right (Klan, Nazis, etc.).
This sort http://www.thedonovan.com/categories.html don't bother me, though I disagree with some of their politics. The sort of person who wakes up and decides to tool up as if going on patrol in Iraq to scull about Anytown USA for political points? Deeply concerning, and cancerous. That sort of thing encourages arms races between political ideologies, represents a massive hazard as far as NDs, let alone intentional violence, and cultivates a paranoid and fearful atmosphere not conducive to effective governance.

And that's without addressing the groups and thus ideologies these individuals share space with, none of which are of value to society.

FJAG points out, far more eloquently than I might, the broader conceptual issues in the current US situation. I am more concerned by the sheriffs than the municipalities: a city council making a certain decision at least has a collaborative process and represents multiple inputs, while the sheriff is appointed specifically to enforce laws*, is operating in isolation, and of course has far more direct access to coercive options (e.g. Arpaio).

*With all the usual policing-by-consent notions of intelligent enforcement, which this sort of behaviour far exceeds.

I'm glad you have so much faith in human behaviour. I'm not diametrically opposed to your opinion, I just don't agree with the cut and dry. There is no black or white at all. It's all grey.

Any government that uses it's full military potential against it's citizens is already too far gone to save.

If walking around geared up isn't against the law. Who says they can't? You may not like it, but really, that's just too bad isn't it?  Trying to equate Canadian feelings and righteousness about US law is a mugs game. The look like us, but thought wise, patriot wise, engagement wise and freedom wise, they are a much more staunch breed than Canadians. They put it all out there, they are not afraid, nor will they be cowed, they wear it proudly and loudly.

Canadians sit home, watch CBC and complain to the cat.

Corruption in politics doesn't scare me.
What scares me is how comfortable people are doing nothing about it.

Offline FJAG

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 204,325
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 2,427
  • Ex Gladio Justicia
    • Google Sites Wolf Riedel
Re: Gun Control: US and Global II
« Reply #53 on: April 06, 2019, 15:11:51 »
Just a point, quadrapiper:

Sheriffs are elected in the US generally and Colorado in particular.   They are not appointed.

https://ballotpedia.org/Colorado_sheriffs

In short, Sheriffs draw their authority directly from the consent of the governed, and not from the "government" at large.

I disagree with your conclusion.

While Sheriffs are elected by their constituents, their authority comes from the state's constitution. The same constitution, in each case, provides for an elected assembly to make laws and a judiciary (whether appointed or elected) to adjudicate cases under the law. Sheriffs are sworn to uphold the constitution and thereby the powers of the other elected officials including the statutory/regulatory laws made by the legislature and the case law that has been decided by the state judiciary.

In the broadest sense possible (as for all public officials in the US) they derive their powers from the people but such powers are in fact created through statutory enactments made by what you call the "government" at large.

What sheriff's cannot do is act on their own authority or some local ordnance created by their county government which is in conflict with the laws of their state or the federal government. The powers of the states and the federal government is divided by the US constitution and neither a state (nor it's counties) can legislate within a federal field. Secondly, counties are creatures of the state constitution and other state laws and only have as much power as the state delegates to the counties. Again, a county is a very low level legal entity and it and it's officials and employees (including sheriffs) are bound to work within the framework of the state laws.

If county electors don't like a state law, their recourse is to elect a new state legislature. It is not to elect a sheriff who won't enforce state laws. There is a common law concept (which exists in both the US and Canada) called mandamus which is a writ or order issued from a court which requires a public official to perform a public or statutory duty (whether state or federal) that is imposed on him/her. Failure to obey the order can lead to contempt of court actions including imprisonment. This is what happened to Arizona's Maricopa County Sheriff Arapaio who failed to cease racial profiling practices within his force as ordered by a US District Court.

 :cheers:
Illegitimi non carborundum
Semper debeatis percutis ictu primo
Access my "Allies" and "Mark Winters, CID" book series at:
https://sites.google.com/view/wolfriedel
Facebook at https://www.facebook.com/WolfRiedelAuthor/

Offline Brad Sallows

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 72,130
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 3,890
Re: Gun Control: US and Global II
« Reply #54 on: April 06, 2019, 15:37:41 »
https://www.chicagotribune.com/news/columnists/kass/ct-met-john-kass-chicago-policing-20190321-story.html

"Authorities confirmed that two police officers — TAC cops, not rookies — were making a drug arrest shortly after 2 p.m. on Sunday.

A mob appeared, threatening the officers, surrounding them, threatening to reach for their own weapons to shoot them dead, and the cops let the suspect go.

What is learned here? The street is officially no longer afraid of the Chicago police."

So: perhaps the way to avoid armed stand-off tragedies is for police to defuse the situation by standing down.  Or, perhaps all people who think they should be able to stand apart from the law should all receive the maximum force of the law. 

What inflames people and promotes the gradual unwinding of society is the certain knowledge - provided by the internet as current events and archives of past events - that some groups receive the full force of the law while others go unimpeded and unpunished.
That which does not kill me has made a grave tactical error.

"It is a damned heavy blow; but whining don't help."

Despair is a sin.

Offline Chris Pook

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *
  • 208,605
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 12,758
  • Wha daur say Mass in ma lug!
Re: Gun Control: US and Global II
« Reply #55 on: April 06, 2019, 16:07:16 »
I disagree with your conclusion.

While Sheriffs are elected by their constituents, their authority comes from the state's constitution. The same constitution, in each case, provides for an elected assembly to make laws and a judiciary (whether appointed or elected) to adjudicate cases under the law. Sheriffs are sworn to uphold the constitution and thereby the powers of the other elected officials including the statutory/regulatory laws made by the legislature and the case law that has been decided by the state judiciary.

In the broadest sense possible (as for all public officials in the US) they derive their powers from the people but such powers are in fact created through statutory enactments made by what you call the "government" at large.

What sheriff's cannot do is act on their own authority or some local ordnance created by their county government which is in conflict with the laws of their state or the federal government. The powers of the states and the federal government is divided by the US constitution and neither a state (nor it's counties) can legislate within a federal field. Secondly, counties are creatures of the state constitution and other state laws and only have as much power as the state delegates to the counties. Again, a county is a very low level legal entity and it and it's officials and employees (including sheriffs) are bound to work within the framework of the state laws.

If county electors don't like a state law, their recourse is to elect a new state legislature. It is not to elect a sheriff who won't enforce state laws. There is a common law concept (which exists in both the US and Canada) called mandamus which is a writ or order issued from a court which requires a public official to perform a public or statutory duty (whether state or federal) that is imposed on him/her. Failure to obey the order can lead to contempt of court actions including imprisonment. This is what happened to Arizona's Maricopa County Sheriff Arapaio who failed to cease racial profiling practices within his force as ordered by a US District Court.

 :cheers:

I agree that the powers of the sheriff (the Shire Reeve) are circumscribed by the constitution(s) of the United (and several) States.  Constitutions created and amended and interpreted by representatives of the governed.  One of the interpreters is the Shire Reeve, given his powers by hand.

Having spent a fair amount of time trying to understand rules, only to have my interpretation, and those of others, overturned by local inspectors with similar mandates to interpret those rules on behalf of the local community, I would suggest that the best we can come to is that the outcome is moot (as in debatable by the Shire Moot).

Otherwise what is the need for lawyers and courts?

 ;D :cheers:
"Wyrd bið ful aræd"

Offline Baden Guy

    Full Member.

  • Question everything. Learn something. Answer nothing.
  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 48,087
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,883
Re: Gun Control: US and Global II
« Reply #56 on: April 06, 2019, 16:09:08 »
"I am anti-gun violence, not anti-gun, by Chris Balch

I am not anti-gun. I own guns that I use for target shooting and a handgun that is primarily designed for personal defense.

I grew up in 1950s rural Connecticut, where everybody owned guns. I spent autumn weekends on our family’s 150-acre farm with my dad, learning safety, responsibility and hunting. More than once I proudly brought home a Thanksgiving supper.

I have a clean legal record. I pass a firearms background check on state and federal levels.
But today, between 22 percent and 40 percent of firearms transfers (NRA numbers vs. the CDC’s) are between private parties and don’t require a background check.

Today, young people whose only experience with firearms is a virtual one from video games, will turn 18 and be eligible to purchase a high capacity military-style-sport-rifle. Or turn 21 and be eligible to buy a handgun. No other qualifications.

I’m not anti-gun, but I am pro-common sense:

All firearms sales and transfers should go through federal dealers with 100 percent background checks.

First-time buyers should complete a safety/responsibility training course.

We need a mandatory 48-hour waiting period. (Research shows this prevents crimes of passion and suicides.)

These simple changes will reduce the chances of guns ending up in hands of those that should not own them. These changes will improve the understanding of the responsibility that comes with the ownership of firearms, and will reduce crimes of passion/suicides, while having little impact on law-abiding owners."
https://www.sentinelsource.com/opinion/letters_to_the_editor/i-am-anti-gun-violence-not-anti-gun-by-chris/article_b8aa97e3-0bc7-570d-b0bc-3351378956eb.html

Just an article chosen from many. Obviously thee are differences in this country. But I am also sure that most of us can extrapolate the general sentiment.
"I am anti-gun violence, not anti-gun."
 


Offline NavyShooter

    Boaty McBoatface!

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 185,841
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 3,098
  • Death from a Bar.....one shot, one Tequilla
Re: Gun Control: US and Global II
« Reply #57 on: April 07, 2019, 10:01:01 »
Regarding the confiscation of firearms in the US, here is a somewhat sobering perspective that I came across a while back.

https://survivalblog.com/mathematics-countering-tyranny/?fbclid=IwAR3cxXuNeWh9bEhda5KhI9tuOwOycLaMIgYRziIsoktCGnfRZt_aswI3EZQ

I'm not sure that the confiscation of guns would be done solely by "SWAT/ERT" type officers - the rumbles out of New Zealand are such that normal 'beat cops' are showing up at doors (in small groups of 2-4) already.  (Anecdotal - saw something on Facebook - as reliable as Wikipedia...)

So, the question of who/how many raids may not be the 82K, officers, it may be the 900K officers - but in looking at the overall - that'd make the number of potential raids drop by an order of magnitude - but would still be probably about 100 raids/visits to seize guns PER OFFICER.

Not a good statistic to have to stare down...especially if the precipice is tipped and some damn fool starts to shoot back instead of handing over their guns.

Which, in the US, I firmly believe would happen at some point.

In Canada?  The historical references indicate that civil compliance will occur when a gun ban comes. 

The likelihood of armed resistance to a gun ban in Canada is, honestly, minuscule. However, looking at Quebec and their recent foray into registration again, the passive inaction and likelihood of civil disobedience is extremely high.

What are my thoughts?  Enforce the laws we already have, and punish the guilty effectively. 

I truly hope never to see the scenario in the link above play out - unfortunately, I think we are on a slippery slope...and the US is far more likely to see that cliff than Canada.
Insert disclaimer statement here....

:panzer:

Offline Fishbone Jones

    MSC -6945.

  • "Some people will only like you if you fit inside their box. Don't be afraid to shove that box up their ass."
  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Myth
  • *
  • 280,347
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 18,672
    • Army.ca
Corruption in politics doesn't scare me.
What scares me is how comfortable people are doing nothing about it.

Offline milnews.ca

  • Info Curator, Baker & Food Slut
  • Directing Staff
  • Army.ca Relic
  • *
  • 423,930
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 22,175
    • MILNEWS.ca-Military News for Canadians
Re: Gun Control: US and Global II
« Reply #59 on: April 07, 2019, 14:02:58 »
... In the broadest sense possible (as for all public officials in the US) they derive their powers from the people but such powers are in fact created through statutory enactments made by what you call the "government" at large.

What sheriff's cannot do is act on their own authority or some local ordnance created by their county government which is in conflict with the laws of their state or the federal government ...
I agree with you they they have to enforce the laws they're given.

That said, like any peace officer, there's an element of discretion that can be used in enforcement (to a point, anyway).  In a situation where an official is elected, I suspect the "direction" of discretion will be affected by the electorate/desire to be re-elected.  Again, there are limits re: laws being ignored, but I think the political element would "flavour" any breaks given.
Posted without comment.

https://video.fymy1-2.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t42.9040-2/10000000_2282429485308463_6076659621760598016_n.mp4?_nc_cat=106&efg=eyJ2ZW5jb2RlX3RhZyI6InN2ZV9zZCJ9&_nc_ht=video.fymy1-2.fna&oh=e105494af3f2bb364f682f02bb3aa039&oe=5CAA6299
Interesting video - who put this together?
“The risk of insult is the price of clarity.” -- Roy H. Williams

The words I share here are my own, not those of anyone else or anybody I may be affiliated with.

Tony Prudori
MILNEWS.ca - Twitter

Offline Fishbone Jones

    MSC -6945.

  • "Some people will only like you if you fit inside their box. Don't be afraid to shove that box up their ass."
  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Myth
  • *
  • 280,347
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 18,672
    • Army.ca
Re: Gun Control: US and Global II
« Reply #60 on: April 07, 2019, 15:01:48 »
I agree with you they they have to enforce the laws they're given.

That said, like any peace officer, there's an element of discretion that can be used in enforcement (to a point, anyway).  In a situation where an official is elected, I suspect the "direction" of discretion will be affected by the electorate/desire to be re-elected.  Again, there are limits re: laws being ignored, but I think the political element would "flavour" any breaks given.Interesting video - who put this together?


No idea. I suspect it was a friend of the firearm owner or himself with a cell. It's California, which makes it doubly difficult. The gist is, he has 80% lowers. Those are not firearms, they're paperweights.
He completed and assembled one into a 100% lower and registered it per regulations, totally law abiding. As the cop explained, once an upper was attached, he had an illegal gun, according to them. We can't see from the vid whether an upper is on it or not.
That seems to be the excuse that is being used anyway, kind hard to follow with all the bumph going on.

If he registered the complete thing with caliber, barrel length , etc. They consider it an assault rifle (not going there today). If he had just left it as a lower registration they wouldn't have taken it. Should have just left it a lower and put whatever upper he wanted at the time, use it and take it of. Back to just a lower.

I'm impressed with the amount of cops that showed up for this friendly visit.

Oh, and remember when I said the 2nd is in the eye of the beholder, not the law? Listen to the civilian.

I think that's what's going on.

Corruption in politics doesn't scare me.
What scares me is how comfortable people are doing nothing about it.

Offline Jarnhamar

  • Army.ca Legend
  • *****
  • 299,026
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 10,981
Re: Gun Control: US and Global II
« Reply #61 on: April 07, 2019, 16:31:20 »

No charges? California cop admits stealing thousands of bullets over 30 years
12,000 stolen bullets found at home of Department of Consumer Affairs investigator

Call him the cop who took a bullet. Thousands of bullets.

That’s what Steven C. Richter did for up to 30 years as a veteran investigator for the California Department of Consumer Affairs and a deputy for the San Bernardino County Sheriff’s Department. But he wasn’t decorated for valor.

Richter, 64, resigned both jobs in disgrace in 2015. He then admitted he’d been stealing thousands of rounds of ammunition and other items for decades, documents released to the Bay Area News Group and KQED under the state’s new police transparency law show.

But even after authorities found more than 12,000 stolen bullets in his home, and even after Richter told investigators he traded his loot to a now defunct Inland Empire wholesale gun store in exchange for guns, he wasn’t charged with a crime.

https://www.mercurynews.com/2019/02/14/no-charges-california-cop-admits-stealing-thousands-of-bullets-over-30-years/
There are no wolves on Fenris

Offline Retired AF Guy

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 50,760
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,737
"Leave one wolf alive, and the sheep are never safe."

Arya Stark

Offline milnews.ca

  • Info Curator, Baker & Food Slut
  • Directing Staff
  • Army.ca Relic
  • *
  • 423,930
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 22,175
    • MILNEWS.ca-Military News for Canadians
Re: Gun Control: US and Global II
« Reply #63 on: April 07, 2019, 20:31:08 »
Got nothing but a white page and a notice saying, "URL signature expired."
Same as of 2031EDT, too.
“The risk of insult is the price of clarity.” -- Roy H. Williams

The words I share here are my own, not those of anyone else or anybody I may be affiliated with.

Tony Prudori
MILNEWS.ca - Twitter

Offline Fishbone Jones

    MSC -6945.

  • "Some people will only like you if you fit inside their box. Don't be afraid to shove that box up their ass."
  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Myth
  • *
  • 280,347
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 18,672
    • Army.ca
Re: Gun Control: US and Global II
« Reply #64 on: April 07, 2019, 23:37:14 »
 :dunno: Sorry, I haven't gained full control of the internet yet.  ;D
Corruption in politics doesn't scare me.
What scares me is how comfortable people are doing nothing about it.

Offline Colin P

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 144,490
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 9,597
  • Civilian
    • http://www.pacific.ccg-gcc.gc.ca
Re: Gun Control: US and Global II
« Reply #65 on: April 08, 2019, 12:33:06 »
Part of the issue is that the gun lobby can never trust the gun control fanatics to stop pushing for more laws. Giving in to any demands weakens the 2nd Amendment position and the gun control groups are pretty clear that they want almost all of the guns banned. They will take slice and then come back for another one, each time saying "It's only reasonable". The NRA gets zero credit from them for pushing firearm safety and playing a big part in reducing accidental firearm shootings. It's time to ask the gun control fanatics what are they willing to give up?

Offline daftandbarmy

  • Army.ca Legend
  • *****
  • 249,340
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 13,895
  • The Older I Get, The Better I Was
Re: Gun Control: US and Global II
« Reply #66 on: April 08, 2019, 14:18:11 »
Part of the issue is that the gun lobby can never trust the gun control fanatics to stop pushing for more laws. Giving in to any demands weakens the 2nd Amendment position and the gun control groups are pretty clear that they want almost all of the guns banned. They will take slice and then come back for another one, each time saying "It's only reasonable". The NRA gets zero credit from them for pushing firearm safety and playing a big part in reducing accidental firearm shootings. It's time to ask the gun control fanatics what are they willing to give up?

That's easy... you can have their guns after you pry them from their cold, dead fingers (circles right temple with right forefinger) :)
"The most important qualification of a soldier is fortitude under fatigue and privation. Courage is only second; hardship, poverty and want are the best school for a soldier." Napoleon

Offline Colin P

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 144,490
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 9,597
  • Civilian
    • http://www.pacific.ccg-gcc.gc.ca
Re: Gun Control: US and Global II
« Reply #67 on: April 08, 2019, 19:10:56 »
To give you an idea about the production capability of the small gun makers, they can produce AR's cheaper than China can. A submachine is a super simple gun to make. the hardest part to make is the mag.

Offline Loachman

  • Former Army Pilot in Drag
  • Directing Staff
  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *
  • 218,382
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 7,479
Re: Gun Control: US and Global II
« Reply #68 on: April 15, 2019, 21:13:09 »
The question is, at what point does the willful disobedience of a county official against his/her elected representatives' laws (even if in line with the desires of the local community) does it move from mere civil disobedience to open revolt? At what point does it impair the overall respect for the rule of law?

If the elected representatives' laws are contrary to the US constitution, which LE people swear to uphold, which takes precedence?

Noting that the founders were on occasion cryptic, there's that "well regulated militia" aspect: while that might very well even require the existence of some volunteer force of armed citizens, the current arrangement of massively armed individuals doesn't seem in accordance with the text.

There is a considerable body of writing by many of the US founders that is anything but "cryptic". "Well-regulated" in their time meant "well-trained" and "well-equipped", and the arms covered by the Second Amendment were intended to be of military utility.

The "militia" was (and still is, legally) every able-bodied adult male citizen, who was expected to have his own arms.

Pushback against widespread gun confiscation would not be on the order of the sorts of armed insurgencies we see overseas where real belligerents number in maybe the tens of thousands. Hundreds of thousands, probably millions of Americans would actively resist efforts to confiscate firearms, and there would not be a clear division where the police and military play ball and the citizenry do not. Many police and military would have nothing to do with participating in gun confiscations and would be part of actively resisting.

Those ones tend to take their constitution - that they swore to uphold - seriously, and many also tend to be firearms owners themselves. Many have openly let that be known.

Sending police or soldiers in to confiscate firearms on a wide scale would be committing many, many of them to their deaths. Every single home could potentially develop into an armed standoff. Normally police have the benefit in such cases of containment and minimal external threats, but you can bet that if widespread gun confiscation were attempted, guys on perimeter would sometimes find themselves attacked from outside the perimeter.

I think that few would follow such orders, either out of respect for their constitution, respect for fellow citizens who pose no threat to society, or for self-preservation.

"Taking everyone's guns" isn't feasible for various reasons - that said, any notion the specifically belligerent groups and movements have of actually standing up to "the Feds" should the latter apply their full capabilities is delusional.

Any notion that a majority of "the Feds" would co-operate with a mass confiscation is also "delusional".

I cannot understand the tolerance of people like Bundy: that he and his publicity stunts haven't ended up in dead law enforcement is incredible; equally, he represents a sort of defiance-as-the-goal sneering at government authority that's hard to justify.

Such situations are not as simple as they may appear to be. There was a long history leading up to that situation, including creeping federal over-regulation of land that had been used for grazing for generations. They, and their supporters (either in location or elsewhere), viewed them as standing up to a bully government. And that was the main reason for the codification of the right to keep and bear arms in the US Second Amendment.

I've no objection to private firearms ownership, including large and varied collections in support of historical, competition, or hunting activities: it's the group of US firearms owners who have made (generally military-style) armament a political expression, and who variously:
  • make much noise about being armed specifically to enable fantastical notions of shooting Feds or "others,"

Yes, there are some crazies (who still very rarely commit any actual violent crimes).

  • show up (in the more extreme expression) in public heavily armed at political events/demonstrations, including demonstrations by "the other side," and

This is stupid and rude, wins them no friends on the anti-gun side, and few on the pro-gun side. They still have a legal right to bear arms as long as they do so lawfully. More and more states now have "constitutional-carry" laws (I cannot recall the precise count, but am pretty certain that it's a majority of them), whereby no permit is required for either concealed or open carry. There has been no increase in violence as a result, and, in general, US violent crime rates, including homicide, are well down from their peak in the 1960s despite a massive increase in the number of firearms owned. The national murder rate is driven by major Democrat-run cities with gang problems and restrictive firearms laws, and most of the violent crimes in those tend to occur in a few specific neighbourhoods that receive little policing (out of fears of violence or being called "racist"). Several states have lower homicide rates than Canada, and, a few years ago, Nunavut topped the chart for highest homicide rate of all US and Canadian states, provinces, and territories (with a small population, a few more or less murders in any year can skew the statistics).

  • overlap significantly with the more violent and loathsome portions of the US right (Klan, Nazis, etc.).

And those of other political/racial persuasions: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_shooting_of_Dallas_police_officers.

And, despite the fact that the "US right" tends to get all of the bad press, there is a more dangerous and more violent aspect on the US far left side. Groups such as Antifa should not be underestimated.

While Sheriffs are elected by their constituents, their authority comes from the state's constitution. The same constitution, in each case, provides for an elected assembly to make laws and a judiciary (whether appointed or elected) to adjudicate cases under the law. Sheriffs are sworn to uphold the constitution and thereby the powers of the other elected officials including the statutory/regulatory laws made by the legislature and the case law that has been decided by the state judiciary.

In the broadest sense possible (as for all public officials in the US) they derive their powers from the people but such powers are in fact created through statutory enactments made by what you call the "government" at large.

What sheriff's cannot do is act on their own authority or some local ordnance created by their county government which is in conflict with the laws of their state or the federal government. The powers of the states and the federal government is divided by the US constitution and neither a state (nor it's counties) can legislate within a federal field. Secondly, counties are creatures of the state constitution and other state laws and only have as much power as the state delegates to the counties. Again, a county is a very low level legal entity and it and it's officials and employees (including sheriffs) are bound to work within the framework of the state laws.

If county electors don't like a state law, their recourse is to elect a new state legislature. It is not to elect a sheriff who won't enforce state laws. There is a common law concept (which exists in both the US and Canada) called mandamus which is a writ or order issued from a court which requires a public official to perform a public or statutory duty (whether state or federal) that is imposed on him/her. Failure to obey the order can lead to contempt of court actions including imprisonment. This is what happened to Arizona's Maricopa County Sheriff Arapaio who failed to cease racial profiling practices within his force as ordered by a US District Court.

Unconstitutional laws tend to be struck down by courts. In the matter of firearms ownership and use, many Sheriffs put the US constitution ahead of lesser laws that, in their view, violate their constitution.

In "Sheriff Joe's" case, he was convicted of criminal contempt of court, which is a misdemeanour, and pardoned by President Trump. Up to 2016, he still won elections with clear majorities. Yes, he was a controvertial figure, but still received a lot of local support. In any case, I do not see a constitutional aspect to his case, as opposed to the Second Amendment's codification of a natural human right.[/list]

Offline Fishbone Jones

    MSC -6945.

  • "Some people will only like you if you fit inside their box. Don't be afraid to shove that box up their ass."
  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Myth
  • *
  • 280,347
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 18,672
    • Army.ca
Re: Gun Control: US and Global II
« Reply #69 on: April 16, 2019, 11:56:44 »
Any Study Of 'Gun Violence' Should Include How Guns Save Lives

https://www.forbes.com/sites/paulhsieh/2018/03/20/any-study-of-gun-violence-should-include-how-guns-save-lives/#7e37b44f5edc

Quote
Any Study Of 'Gun Violence' Should Include How Guns Save Lives
Paul Hsieh
Paul Hsieh
Contributor
I cover health care and economics from a free-market perspective.

After the Parkland, Florida shootings, some are calling for more government research into “gun violence.”

Currently, the federal government’s Centers For Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) is restricted by Congress from using tax money to promote gun control (although not from conducting research into gun-related violence). Some legislators want to remove this funding restriction. Separate from the federal government, the state of California has created a “gun violence research center” and the state of New Jersey is considering establishing a similar program. Similarly, university professors such as David Hemenway of the Harvard Injury Control Research Center, have called for more federal funding of gun violence research.

Many gun rights advocates are wary of such research, fearing it will be used to fuel a partisan political agenda. Dr. Timothy Wheeler of Doctors for Responsible Gun Ownership has noted that CDC has a track record of anti-gun bias. In the 1990s, one CDC official even stated that his goal was to create a public perception of gun ownership as something “dirty, deadly — and banned.”

But regardless of whether “gun violence” research is being conducted by the federal government, states, universities, or private organizations, there are three key principles all public health researchers and firearms policy analysts should remember.

The first principle is:

* Firearms save lives as well take lives.

If one imagines that guns in civilian hands are used solely as murder weapons, it makes sense to ban or strictly regulate them.

But millions of Americans legally carry a firearm every day, and most cite self-defense as their primary reason. The overwhelming majority of the time, those guns are never drawn in anger. But innocent civilians can and do sometimes use their guns in self-defense. Any discussion of firearms policy must acknowledge the lives saved by legal use of guns as well as the lives lost by criminal use.

The numbers of defensive gun uses (DGUs) each year is controversial. But one study ordered by the CDC and conducted by The National Academies’ Institute of Medicine and National Research Council reported that, “Defensive use of guns by crime victims is a common occurrence”:

    Almost all national survey estimates indicate that defensive gun uses by victims are at least as common as offensive uses by criminals, with estimates of annual uses ranging from about 500,000 to more than 3 million, in the context of about 300,000 violent crimes involving firearms in 2008.

Another study estimates there are 1,029,615 DGUs per year “for self-protection or for the protection of property at home, work, or elsewhere” excluding “military service, police work, or work as a security guard,” (within the range of the National Academies’ paper), yielding an estimate of 162,000 cases per year where someone “almost certainly would have been killed” if they “had not used a gun for protection.”

(In comparison, there were 11,208 homicide deaths by firearm in the US in 2012. There were a total of 33,636 deaths due to “injury by firearms,” of which the majority were suicides, 21,175.)
SIG Pro SP2022, one of many pistols suitable for personal defense.

SIG Pro SP2022, one of many pistols suitable for personal defense. By Augustas Didžgalvis - Own work, CC BY-SA 3.0, Wikimedia Commons

A second key principle in judging gun violence research:

* The value of firearms in the hands of law-abiding citizens should be measured in terms of lives saved or crimes prevented, not criminals killed.

As an example of the latter type of analysis, one recent Washington Post story reported that, “For every criminal killed in self-defense, 34 innocent people die”:

    In 2012, there were 8,855 criminal gun homicides in the FBI’s homicide database, but only 258 gun killings by private citizens that were deemed justifiable, which the FBI defines as “the killing of a felon, during the commission of a felony, by a private citizen.” That works out to one justifiable gun death for every 34 unjustifiable gun deaths.

However, this comparison can be misleading. An armed civilian does not have to kill the criminal in order to save an innocent life. As the National Research Council notes, “[E]ffective defensive gun use need not ever lead the perpetrator to be wounded or killed. Rather, to assess the benefits of self-defense, one needs to measure crime and injury averted. The particular outcome of an offender is of little relevance.”

We don’t judge whether the police are doing a good job by the numbers of criminals they kill each year, but rather by how well they stop crime. The same should be true in judging the effectiveness of civilian DGUs.

The exact number of DGUs is not precisely known. There are reasons to think the actual number may be higher or lower than the figures cited. For example, some respondents to surveys may consciously or unconsciously exaggerate the degree of peril they were in, which could lead to an overestimate of DGUs.

On the other hand, gun policy researcher Brian Doherty explains how reported numbers could also be an underestimate. Just as many sexual assault victims don’t report those crimes to the authorities, many law-abiding people who successfully use a gun to deter a crime without firing a shot may similarly choose to avoid reporting these incidents to the police:

    [Y]our possession or use of the weapon might be a matter of greater concern to the cops than whatever the intruder or criminal you were repelling was up to. They’ll doubtless never lay hands on him; you are right there, for any investigation and harassment the cops might want to call forth. Many gun owners or gun users might see little good and much possible bad arising from calling the cops after a DGU incident, and thus many or even most would never make a police blotter, never make a newspaper.

It’s relatively easy to measure the number of lives lost due to criminal gun violence. It’s harder to measure the number of lives saved by legal defensive gun use. Murders that didn’t happen don’t show up on crime statistics. This is just another example of Bastiat’s classic principle of “the seen vs. the unseen.”

Finally, a third principle to remember in analyzing public health gun violence research:

* The right to self-defense does not depend on statistics and numbers.

Doherty makes an important point about the ultimate relevance of any such research studies: “However large the number of DGUs, or how small; and however large the number of accidents or tragedies caused by guns, or how small, the right and ability to choose for yourself how to defend yourself and your family — at home or away from it — remains, and that numerical debate should have no particular bearing on it.”

One of my friends had to use his legal concealed handgun to protect himself when attacked by two knife-wielding criminals. I’ve written about his story here.

For those who wonder whether AR-15-style rifles have a legitimate self-defense use, took a look at this story where someone used an AR-15 to protect himself during a home invasion against 3 black-clad intruders, and another story where a man used his AR-15 to stop a knife attack against others.

It is our inalienable right to self-defense that makes me a proud supporter of responsible gun ownership and of the Second Amendment. Guns can be used for good as well as evil purposes.

We would consider it irresponsible for a public health researcher to study only the negative effects of, say, caffeine consumption without also considering the positive effects. If public health researchers wish to have credibility with the millions of gun rights supporters such as myself, they should endeavour to quantify the very real benefits of legal gun ownership in addition to the genuine harms caused by illegal gun use. Studies that discuss only the latter without the former are incomplete at best — and dishonest at worst.

I support good public policy based on objective research, informed by a proper understanding of individual rights — including the right to self-defense. If we’re going to engage in gun violence research, let’s do it right — by recognizing both the positive and negative aspects of civilian firearm ownership.
Corruption in politics doesn't scare me.
What scares me is how comfortable people are doing nothing about it.

Online kkwd

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • 85,832
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 522
Re: Gun Control: US and Global II
« Reply #70 on: April 20, 2019, 06:31:51 »
Chuck Norris picked up a new gig promoting Glock. Seems some people are not pleased at all according to this "article". It is written in that new style that passes for journalism these days, random thoughts from Twitter.

Quote
“Chuck shouldn't be working with gun companies at a time like this,” wrote a commenter, who — like Norris — is a martial artist. “He should be advocating ways to keep his gun loving friends from possible becoming surprising random mental health people that use guns to kill others and children. Please tell me Chuck, that you do something like that for the kids at least and aren't all about the money. I mean no wonder Bruce Lee died....he wasn't like all these a holes, just about the [money].”

https://www.yahoo.com/entertainment/chuck-norris-slammed-for-becoming-the-face-of-glock-so-sad-to-see-youre-just-a-sponsor-now-160931110.html
I like beer.

Offline Journeyman

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *
  • 556,510
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 13,195
Re: Gun Control: US and Global II
« Reply #71 on: April 20, 2019, 07:26:38 »
….according to this "article". It is written in that new style that passes for journalism these days...
Not debating gun control, just pointing out that you choose an article from the "Entertainment" section of "Yahoo.com,"  then wring your hands about the quality of journalism in your life.  Seems about right.
           :boring: 

Offline PPCLI Guy

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 177,810
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 5,488
  • It's all good
Re: Gun Control: US and Global II
« Reply #72 on: April 20, 2019, 07:34:41 »
Reflecting the new style of governance in the US, It is written in that new style that passes for journalism these days, random thoughts from Twitter.


FTFY
"The higher the rank, the more necessary it is that boldness should be accompanied by a reflective mind....for with increase in rank it becomes always a matter less of self-sacrifice and more a matter of the preservation of others, and the good of the whole."

Karl von Clausewitz

Online kkwd

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • 85,832
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 522
Re: Gun Control: US and Global II
« Reply #73 on: April 20, 2019, 13:12:18 »
Not debating gun control, just pointing out that you choose an article from the "Entertainment" section of "Yahoo.com,"  then wring your hands about the quality of journalism in your life.  Seems about right.
           :boring:

I am not taking any more insults from you.
I like beer.

Offline Journeyman

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *
  • 556,510
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 13,195
Re: Gun Control: US and Global II
« Reply #74 on: April 20, 2019, 13:45:02 »
I am not taking any more insults from you.
a)  I can live with that;

b)  Insulting you could be considered a 'personal attack' under the site's regulations.  Rather, I was suggesting that if you don't like the quality of political reporting from Yahoo's Entertainment people, etc, perhaps you should consider upping your game for what sources of journalism you choose to read.  Naturally, it's completely up to you.