More sacrifices to the 2nd Amendment

[brenthutch 383]

23 minutes ago, riggerrob said:

A wiser man would leave the bad guys guessing as to how many guns you own.

What part of “some of my guns” eluded you?

[billvon 2,396]

57 minutes ago, riggerrob said:

A wiser man would leave the bad guys guessing as to how many guns you own.

That's like saying a guy shouldn't wave his money around in a city where someone might see it and target him for mugging.

If you don't wave it around, how will anyone know to be impressed?

[SkyDekker 1,121]

5th Circuit ruled today that the government cannot temporarily remove firearms from a person found to be a threat to another and who is subject to a domestic violence. The long and short of the reasoning is that since the Founding Fathers didn't care about domestic violence, modern laws also cannot care.

Link to PDF of ruling

[brenthutch 383]

https://babylonbee.com/video/californians-move-to-texas-episode-4-the-gun-range
 

This has been my experience, it reminds me of a college girlfriend (PETA member and vegetarian (vegan wasn’t a thing back then)). She was 100% anti-gun until she tried shooting my Mini14 and P-9. 

 

[JoeWeber 2,298]

On 2/1/2023 at 2:43 PM, riggerrob said:

A wiser man would leave the bad guys guessing as to how many guns you own.

The wiser man is the crook who knows that nearly everyone in Gunmerica has firearms, that even Brent can only shoot one gun at a time, and that it'll all be over in seconds probably while Brent is still selecting the right gun for the job.

[wolfriverjoe 1,340]

14 minutes ago, JoeWeber said:

The wiser man is the crook who knows that nearly everyone in Gunmerica has firearms...

Not really.

Its estimated that less than half the households, and about 1/3 of the people have guns.

Fun fact: A tiny percentage (3%) own about half the guns.

Kinda like Brent, one is never enough.

Source: https://www.cnn.com/2022/06/02/us/gun-ownership-numbers-us-cec/index.html

For those who consider CNN "fake news", just search it. There's a ton of stories, mostly saying similar stuff.

[kallend 1,623]

On 2/2/2023 at 3:59 PM, SkyDekker said:

5th Circuit ruled today that the government cannot temporarily remove firearms from a person found to be a threat to another and who is subject to a domestic violence. The long and short of the reasoning is that since the Founding Fathers didn't care about domestic violence, modern laws also cannot care.

Link to PDF of ruling

The "law abiding citizen" in question is one Zackey Rahimi.

Between December 2020 and January 2021, Rahimi took part in five shootings around Arlington, Tex. He fired an AR-15 into the home of a man to whom he had sold Percocet. The next day, after a car accident, he pulled out a handgun, shot at the other driver and sped off — only to return, fire a different gun and flee again. Rahimi shot at a police car. When a friend’s credit card was declined at a fast-food restaurant, he fired several rounds into the air.

When Arlington police searched Rahimi’s home, they found multiple guns — and a domestic violence restraining order imposed after Rahimi allegedly assaulted his ex-girlfriend. Federal law prohibits those subject to such orders from possessing guns, and Rahimi was indicted by a federal grand jury.

As the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit put it in vacating Rahimi’s conviction for illegal gun possession, “Rahimi, while hardly a model citizen, is nonetheless part of the political community entitled to the Second Amendment’s guarantees, all other things equal.”

Would any of our gun enthsiasts here care to defend this ruling.

[winsor 186]

34 minutes ago, kallend said:

The "law abiding citizen" in question is one Zackey Rahimi.

Between December 2020 and January 2021, Rahimi took part in five shootings around Arlington, Tex. He fired an AR-15 into the home of a man to whom he had sold Percocet. The next day, after a car accident, he pulled out a handgun, shot at the other driver and sped off — only to return, fire a different gun and flee again. Rahimi shot at a police car. When a friend’s credit card was declined at a fast-food restaurant, he fired several rounds into the air.

When Arlington police searched Rahimi’s home, they found multiple guns — and a domestic violence restraining order imposed after Rahimi allegedly assaulted his ex-girlfriend. Federal law prohibits those subject to such orders from possessing guns, and Rahimi was indicted by a federal grand jury.

As the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit put it in vacating Rahimi’s conviction for illegal gun possession, “Rahimi, while hardly a model citizen, is nonetheless part of the political community entitled to the Second Amendment’s guarantees, all other things equal.”

Would any of our gun enthsiasts here care to defend this ruling.

If the allegations against him are true, he should not have been a free man - much less an armed one.

The problem I have is that accusations of misbehavior are all too often used as an instrument of malice, and there are no consequences to using false allegations to obtaining a restraining order.

It's stated with assurance that he was given to shooting everything in sight at the drop of a hat; a conviction on the basis of any of these incidents would have stripped him of '2nd Amendment Rights.'

Actually, if the authorities had seen fit to bring charges for his alleged crimes, they would have been completely within their legal rights to disarm him while charges were pending.  They were lazy and it bit them 

I contend that, if you want to wear a white hat, you have to follow the rules.

By all means he should be subjected to Due Process (tm) and, if convicted, incarcerated/stripped of his rights.

 

BSBD,

Winsor 

 

Edited February 5, 2023 by winsor

[wmw999 2,120]

21 minutes ago, winsor said:

The problem I have is that accusations of misbehavior are all too often used as an instrument of malice, and there are no consequences to using false allegations to obtaining a restraining order.

Why is it so much worse to accuse a possibly good man falsely than it is to falsely accuse a possibly good woman? I present most cases of sexual harassment, Hillary Clinton, many female bosses — it’s fine to talk about that cheap hussy bitch, but god forbid a good boy have to suffer for a single mistake!

Never mind being a minority; they’re fair game for anything  

I’m not saying Winsor does — he just made that comment

Wendy P. 

[BIGUN 1,053]

4 hours ago, wmw999 said:

Why is it so much worse to accuse a possibly good man falsely than it is to falsely accuse a possibly good woman?

Taking Rahimi out of the equation; the issue comes back to not having a well-trained community service type officer versed in social work.  

[winsor 186]

4 hours ago, wmw999 said:

Why is it so much worse to accuse a possibly good man falsely than it is to falsely accuse a possibly good woman? I present most cases of sexual harassment, Hillary Clinton, many female bosses — it’s fine to talk about that cheap hussy bitch, but god forbid a good boy have to suffer for a single mistake!

Never mind being a minority; they’re fair game for anything  

I’m not saying Winsor does — he just made that comment

Wendy P. 

Straw man.  I contend no such thing.

[BIGUN 1,053]

Just now, winsor said:

Straw man.  I contend no such thing.

Jesus. She literally said, "I’m not saying Winsor does — he just made that comment." 

[billvon 2,396]

13 hours ago, winsor said:

The problem I have is that accusations of misbehavior are all too often used as an instrument of malice, and there are no consequences to using false allegations to obtaining a restraining order.

That is untrue.  If you obtain a restraining order under false pretenses, and are caught, you are prosecuted - and many have been.  I was in jury selection years ago for such a case, where a man filed a restraining order against a woman so he would have more ammunition when he fought for custody.  The woman went after him for filing a false claim.

Quote

It's stated with assurance that he was given to shooting everything in sight at the drop of a hat; a conviction on the basis of any of these incidents would have stripped him of '2nd Amendment Rights.'

There is a reason that restraining orders are issued against men who attack their spouses before they are found guilty of assault, and that reason is that the 6-12 months that it takes for the case to get to court is plenty of time for him to finish the job.  Such orders save lives.

Quote

Actually, if the authorities had seen fit to bring charges for his alleged crimes, they would have been completely within their legal rights to disarm him while charges were pending.  They were lazy and it bit them 

Nope.  He had a restraining order issued against him, that included a requirement that he not own any guns.  He could have contested it.  He did not; he consented to it, which means he was OK with the basis of it and its proscriptions.

Then he went off and was involved in five other shootings.  Police pursued him, found him at his house, had a warrant issued, then searched the house.  They found weapons.  The weapons were removed based on the terms of the order he had consented to.  NOT on the basis of any of the five shootings; on the basis on an order he himself agreed to.

Quote

I contend that, if you want to wear a white hat, you have to follow the rules.

And I contend that, if you want to successfully claim the moral high ground (and wear that white hat) you have to actually read about the case so you know what it is you are talking about.

 

[billvon 2,396]

14 hours ago, kallend said:

The "law abiding citizen" in question is one Zackey Rahimi.

And he is not alone.

There is a meme out there that gun laws do nothing because well-armed criminals will ignore them, so they are useless.  I contend that most of the shootings that put the general public in danger are not from those well-armed criminals - they are from law abiding citizens without a criminal record who simply snap and grab their AR-15 before they run out the door to get their revenge or make their statement.

To demonstrate this I looked at the last ten mass murders, taken from Wikipedia's list of mass shootings in the US.

Yakima shooting - the shooter, Jarid Haddock, had no criminal record - just a semiauto handgun and a lot of ammo.
Half Moon Bay shooting - the shooter, Chunli Zhao, was a disgruntled worker with no criminal record.
Monterey Park shooting - the perpetrator, Huu Can Tran, had one previous arrest for illegal possession of a firearm with no other arrests. No conviction. There was no apparent reason for the shooting but he did appear mentally disturbed beforehand.
Goshen shooting - two suspects arrested. No clear motive yet but it may be related to gang activity.
Enoch shooting - a man killed his family and himself. No criminal record although he had been investigated for domestic abuse allegations, and his wife was seeking a divorce.
Chesapeake WalMart shooting - a WalMart employee with no criminal record shot several people at WalMart then killed himself. He left a note with allusions to Satan and being mocked at work.
Colorado Springs - Anderson Lee Aldrich shot up a nightclub. He had one arrest previously for "taking his grandparents hostage" with a weapon and threatening to blow up their house - but was not convicted of anything.
University of Virginia shooting - Christopher Darnell Jones Jr shot and killed several other students. He had no criminal record, although he had been under investigation for possibly having a gun at school.
St Louis shooting - Orlando Harris shot and killed three schoolkids. No criminal record. He was being treated for mental illness. He tried to buy a gun from a dealer but failed the FBI background check. He then bought one from a private individual. His mother was horrified when she heard this and called the police. The police came, but said that he had broken no laws, so they could not take the AR-15 from him.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mass_shootings_in_the_United_States

Of those ten, one MAY have been pulled off via one of those hardened criminals that gun supporters always reference.  The rest were people with no criminal records who just snapped.  It is also worthwhile to note that in at least half of the cases, there was a clear sign (former misuse of a weapon, mental illness, or threats of violence) that this person might be a danger if armed.

[Coreece 190]

.

Edited February 6, 2023 by Coreece

[Coreece 190]

4 hours ago, billvon said:

I contend that most of the shootings that put the general public in danger are not from those well-armed criminals - they are from law abiding citizens without a criminal record who simply snap and grab their AR-15 before they run out the door to get their revenge or make their statement.

Ok, so your wiki links accounts for 337 deaths in 2022, what about the 1000s of other deaths?  Are those killers law abiding gun owners without criminal records as well?  Do you not consider them part of the general public?  And just because a person doesn't have a criminal record doesn't mean they don't have a history of engaging in criminal behavior.

[lippy 771]

2 hours ago, Coreece said:

Ok, so your wiki links accounts for 337 deaths in 2022, what about the 1000s of other deaths?  Are those killers law abiding gun owners without criminal records as well?  Do you not consider them part of the general public?  And just because a person doesn't have a criminal record doesn't mean they don't have a history of engaging in criminal behavior.

To clarify, is this the ‘The solution wouldn’t be 100% perfect so it’s not worth trying’ argument?

[kallend 1,623]

4 hours ago, Coreece said:

Ok, so your wiki links accounts for 337 deaths in 2022, what about the 1000s of other deaths?  Are those killers law abiding gun owners without criminal records as well?  Do you not consider them part of the general public?  And just because a person doesn't have a criminal record doesn't mean they don't have a history of engaging in criminal behavior.

Well, quite a few of the other killers are law abiding chldren who get hold of a loaded gun carelessly left in a car or the house.

The single common factor is "gun".

[SkyDekker 1,121]

On 2/5/2023 at 7:20 AM, winsor said:

Actually, if the authorities had seen fit to bring charges for his alleged crimes, they would have been completely within their legal rights to disarm him while charges were pending.  They were lazy and it bit them 

Yeah, so the crimes were after the restraining order.

The issue here isn't even the restraining order. The issue is that the restraining order is for Domestic Violence. That specific issue is what made the restraining order not a valid reason to remove guns, because the founding fathers did not care about Domestic Violence. If the restraining order had been for something the founding fathers cared about, then it would have been valid to remove guns.

See the guns are allowed the evolve, but attitudes are not.

Edited February 6, 2023 by SkyDekker

[billvon 2,396]

9 hours ago, Coreece said:

Ok, so your wiki links accounts for 337 deaths in 2022, what about the 1000s of other deaths?  

Did you read my post?  It was for 2022 and 2023, not just 2022.  I was talking about the shootings that put the general public in danger, and so I looked at the last ten mass murders.  Feel free to look at any other range, do the research, and present your results.

And no, if there is a drug dealer gunning for another drug dealer, I do not consider that a threat to the general public.  I consider that a threat to drug dealers.

Quote

And just because a person doesn't have a criminal record doesn't mean they don't have a history of engaging in criminal behavior.

That is very true!  But here we have a US court saying explicitly that you are forbidden to look at any of that.

[wolfriverjoe 1,340]

5 hours ago, SkyDekker said:

...That specific issue is what made the restraining order not a valid reason to remove guns, because the founding fathers did not care about Domestic Violence. If the restraining order had been for something the founding fathers cared about, then it would have been valid to remove guns.

See the guns are allowed the evolve, but attitudes are not.

Well, the founding fathers didn't think women should have the right to vote, or much other rights. So Barrett should step down. 

And Thomas only counts as 3/5 of a person, so his vote on the court should only count that much. 

Right?

I'm pretty strongly in favor of gun rights.

But even I think this is REALLY stupid.

[wolfriverjoe 1,340]

Accidental double post.

Edited February 6, 2023 by wolfriverjoe

[Coreece 190]

21 hours ago, lippy said:

To clarify, is this the ‘The solution wouldn’t be 100% perfect so it’s not worth trying’ argument?

He didn't offer a solution nor list any laws that he might be referring to. This is strictly about whether or not the general public is more at risk of being shot by a criminal or law abiding citizen that suddenly snaps.

If we click on the comprehensive list on the linked wiki page, we see that 762 people were killed during mass shooting in 2022.  Are we to simply believe that the general public wasn't at risk during the other 18,000+ homicides?  That they were just gang vs gang, drug dealer vs drug dealer? 

Call me woke, but even if that was the case, it sorely ignores the fundamental problem of why inner-city youth are prone to gangs and drugs in the first place and undermines the argument/need for violence prevention programs that have a history of being underfunded and outright ignored by both democrats and republicans despite years of research and positive results, hence 50+ years of the same SSDD. But by all means lets just keep ignoring all that and focus incessantly on those scary conservative AR-15's that were responsible for about 54 of those 762 mass shooting deaths.  I mean WTF is going on here?

Anyway, to limit his sample strictly to mass shootings is probably one of the most blatant cases of selection bias I've seen in awhile, if not ever.  The sample of the general public in this case should also encompass all the innocent that have been murdered, including kids caught in the crossfire at playgrounds where gangs conduct business.  They should include those killed in various kinds of robberies, crimes of passion, public brawls, road rage, etc.  I mean why stop only at instances where 3-4+ people were killed or injured?

[jakee 1,254]

45 minutes ago, Coreece said:

 Call me woke, but even if that was the case, it sorely ignores the fundamental problem of why inner-city youth are prone to gangs and drugs in the first place and undermines the argument/need for violence prevention programs that have a history of being underfunded and outright ignored by both democrats and republicans despite years of research and positive results, hence 50+ years of the same SSDD. But by all means lets just keep ignoring all that and focus incessantly on those scary conservative AR-15's that were responsible for about 54 of those 762 mass shooting deaths.  I mean WTF is going on here?

Aside from your entire premise being a massive stretch from what was actually said, it is nice to hear you’re in favour of the defund the police movement. More people should be.

47 minutes ago, Coreece said:

Anyway, to limit his sample strictly to mass shootings is probably one of the most blatant cases of selection bias I've seen in awhile, if not ever.  The sample of the general public in this case should also encompass all the innocent that have been murdered, including kids caught in the crossfire at playgrounds where gangs conduct business.  They should include those killed in various kinds of robberies, crimes of passion, public brawls, road rage, etc.  I mean why stop only at instances where 3-4+ people were killed or injured?

If the US establishment didn’t intentionally. make it more difficult to collate and examine gun violence data then maybe he wouldn’t be limited to only being able to examine a certain type of gun murder.

[normiss 622]

15 hours ago, wolfriverjoe said:

Well, the founding fathers didn't think women should have the right to vote, or much other rights. So Barrett should step down. 

And Thomas only counts as 3/5 of a person, so his vote on the court should only count that much. 

Right?

I'm pretty strongly in favor of gun rights.

But even I think this is REALLY stupid.

I wonder what the founder's perspective on 3D printing weapons was.