Dick's anti gun policies hard on investors

[JasperL]

There was even a poster on here moaning that it would be a violation of the rights of criminals to go into high crime areas with the intention of removing guns from them - but was all for removing guns from the hands of people who obtain and use them legally - the people who AREN'T using them to commit crimes.

How can I address that? An unnamed person on DP made some claim you've not cited or quoted. I frankly don't believe your characterization of this unknown person's opinion, but even if that's true, you have "someone on the internets said something!! Thus proving all liberals always..... something BAD!!!"

What I envision wouldn't even require new legislation - it would be letting the police do their job. Maybe we can legislate sending in an army of social workers into these high crime neighborhoods with baskets and they can go door to door collecting the arms that criminals would surely be willing to surrender to them.

But you were whining that gun banners never proposed legislation targeting criminals, when using a gun in a crime is already the BEST way to get a long minimum sentence across the country, and so directly targets gun use by criminals. So that's a nice goal post move.

And if you know how police can go into a high crime area and remove illegal guns, go volunteer and do a seminar with the police. I imagine they're limited by things like needing a warrant, the guns being hidden. Little things like that. NY did stop and frisk which was neat - just warrantless searches of anyone who looked non-white and young. Maybe we could expand that nationwide, and as long as the cops didn't randomly stop and search white MAGAs, who cares? Hell, let's let them do no-knock, warrantless searches - just bash in the doors cause they think there might be some guns inside.

 

[Rucker61]

Feel? Perhaps they feel their livelihood would be in jeapordy /

If the purpose of the NRA-ILA is to oppose unconstitutional, ineffective and unenforceable gun laws, and then they turn around and support those kinds of laws, perhaps their jobs should be in jeopardy. If Shannon Watts suddenly announced that she opposed all new gun control as unconstitutional, ineffective and unenforceable, how long do you think she would still be employed by Moms Demand Action?

Nothing

Yet SCOTUS has affirmed multiple times that classes of firearms in common use for lawful purposes are protected by the Second Amendment.

Are they supposed to support violence?

No, and protecting the Second Amendment doesn't support violence any more than protecting the 4th Amendment is intended to support pedophilia.

Really, you can't order kit guns through interne6t sales? Ghostguns.com

Those aren't actually legal firearms, are they? I just went through the process of ordering a beer kit online, up to actually placing the order. At no time was I checked or asked if I was 21, which is the minimum age set by federal law to purchase alcohol. It would appear that neither kits are guns or beer.
https://ghostguns.com/product/3d-print/3d-kits/ar15-build-kit-w-files-80/

It's difficult to believe that ordinary laymen have the fundamental skills and experience to offer their own interpretations of what those decisions at the USSC level mean.

Yet here you are. Why is it difficult to believe, given that there are countless sources from either side of a decision to conduct research with? Is there something difficult to understand in Caetano?

"The Court has held that “the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding,” District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U. S. 570, 582 (2008), and that this “Second Amendment right is fully applicable to the States,” McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U. S. 742, 750 (2010)."

0 Btw, I have done coursework in Constitutional law at the university level. You?

It's difficult to believe that ordinary laymen would attempt to claim some level of expertise in Constitutional law from some coursework at university level when they've engaged for year in a Gun Control forum without the knowledge of the existence of one of only three SCOTUS cases on the Second Amenment this millenium.

 

[Rucker61]

The NRA supports an industry that provides the tools for a single individual to take away the "right to life" of many individuals. Which "right" is more important to you?

We should shut down a lot of industries based on this logic. The NRA does not support murder.

Firearm Kits Bought Online Fuel Epidemic of Violence
They are untraceable, assembled from parts and can be ordered by gang members, felons and even children. They are increasingly the lethal weapon of easy access around the U.S., but especially California.

By law they aren't firearms. When they become firearms then they can be regulated as such.

Did you read the dissenting opinions in those cases? Are you claiming those arguments hold no merit because the decision was not in their favor?

Yes, the dissenting opinions, the amicus briefs, and much other literature for both sides. Those dissents and amicus certainly don't hold sufficient merit.

Neither did mine, perhaps we have different areas of interest. Mine tend to be in the areas of education, psychology, social anthropology, and history (not the white-washed versions we got in school).

Mine was more on the technical and operational side - leadership, explosives, construction, international business, international supply chain, semiconductor supply chain, and Asian history.

I'll leave the legal interpretations to others more qualified to do so, like law professors who can evaluate both sides of a decision without being encumbered by motivated reasoning.

No you won't, or you wouldn't be here.

When I cite the rulings in Heller, et al, or cite Constitutional law professors like Volokh or Kopel, I'm bringing the understand that these folks who look at both sides bring.

 

[screenwriter]

How can I address that? An unnamed person on DP made some claim you've not cited or quoted. I frankly don't believe your characterization of this unknown person's opinion, but even if that's true, you have "someone on the internets said something!! Thus proving all liberals always..... something BAD!!!"

But you were whining that gun banners never proposed legislation targeting criminals, when using a gun in a crime is already the BEST way to get a long minimum sentence across the country, and so directly targets gun use by criminals. So that's a nice goal post move.

And if you know how police can go into a high crime area and remove illegal guns, go volunteer and do a seminar with the police. I imagine they're limited by things like needing a warrant, the guns being hidden. Little things like that. NY did stop and frisk which was neat - just warrantless searches of anyone who looked non-white and young. Maybe we could expand that nationwide, and as long as the cops didn't randomly stop and search white MAGAs, who cares? Hell, let's let them do no-knock, warrantless searches - just bash in the doors cause they think there might be some guns inside.

If you're done with all the blah blah blah blah blah blahing - it can all be summed up with a single statement - Put the effort where the REAL problem is lurking.

THAT is NOT what is happening.

Blather on now.

 

[JasperL]

If you're done with all the blah blah blah blah blah blahing - it can all be summed up with a single statement - Put the effort where the REAL problem is lurking.

THAT is NOT what is happening.

Blather on now.

And you can keep whining about liberals not doing ??????? because they want criminals to have guns, want to strip guns from law abiding white MAGAs, despite there being no evidence other than some rando saying ?????? on here that's true. It's a great argument.

 

[screenwriter]

And you can keep whining about liberals not doing ??????? because they want criminals to have guns, want to strip guns from law abiding white MAGAs, despite there being no evidence other than some rando saying ?????? on here that's true. It's a great argument.

Yes, your blathering continues .....

The evidence is in every single gun law proposed - not a single one EVER addresses the issue of getting the guns out of the hands of criminals. NOT A ONE. But then we can't look at where the REAL problems are - we might not like what we see there.

 

[Rich2018]

And you can keep whining about liberals not doing ??????? because they want criminals to have guns, want to strip guns from law abiding white MAGAs, despite there being no evidence other than some rando saying ?????? on here that's true. It's a great argument.

A typical straw-man

Typical from gun lovers.

 

[screenwriter]

And you can keep whining about liberals not doing ??????? because they want criminals to have guns, want to strip guns from law abiding white MAGAs, despite there being no evidence other than some rando saying ?????? on here that's true. It's a great argument.

Rich2018
A typical straw-man

Typical from gun lovers.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

If that makes me a "gun lover" then it must mean you are a "crime lover".

 

[poppopfox]

Anyway, back to your rhetoric...

No research? Back to the diversion.

Btw, rhetoric is the art of effective or persuasive communication, thank you for the compliment!

 

[TurtleDude]

Except there isn't

The pistol grip appeared on military weapons where the barrel was in line with the stock

It started on firearms like the Lewis Gun

The gradually all light and general purpose machine guns had them, like the BREN, MG-34, MG-42
Then all automatic rifles like the FG-42, StG-43 and M-16 (and to a lesser extent, the AK-47 - though the barrel and butt were more in line with the improved version, the AKM)

The ergonomics of the semi-automatic rifle didn't change with post war designs, if the barrel was in line with the butt, you need a pistol grip, whether the gun is semi-automatic or full automatic.



So why didn't the BAR or M-14 have them ?
Answer, the barrel wasn't in line with the butt

Seriously if the barrel and butt are in one plane, it's physically impossible to grip and aim the weapon
Can you think of a single firearm that's like this (barrel and butt in line like the M-16) that doesn't have a pistol grip ?



And we do
If the barrel is in line with the butt, accuracy is improved - because in an old style rifle like the M1 Garand, the recoil force is first backwards, then down, causing the foresight to jerk upwards
This is far less of a problem if the recoil force is just directed backwards (but then you need a pistol grip)

Note: Some guns have a pistol grip where the barrel and butt are not in line, but where they are, there is always a pistol grip.

all in all it doesn't make the weapon "unusually dangerous"

 

[JasperL]

Yes, your blathering continues .....

The evidence is in every single gun law proposed - not a single one EVER addresses the issue of getting the guns out of the hands of criminals. NOT A ONE. But then we can't look at where the REAL problems are - we might not like what we see there.

Again, what laws do you suggest to get guns out of the hands of criminals, that are already illegal to be possessed by criminals in every state?

 

[RF667799]

No research? Back to the diversion.

Btw, rhetoric is the art of effective or persuasive communication, thank you for the compliment!

You're avoiding any examination of your earlier statement that I bolded and called into question. Not surprising. Likely propaganda.

 

[TurtleDude]

No antagonism. The NRA has been on a propaganda campaign for decades which relies solely on fear-based rhetoric. Fact
I rely on evidence, not propaganda. Now how about posting the research that says more guns = less violence?

View attachment 67373643

how about this

1) firearms used-in some way for self defense
2) firearms used in other lawful actives

vs lawfully owned (at the time) firearms used for criminal activities or involved in an accidental shooting

 

[RF667799]

Again, what laws do you suggest to get guns out of the hands of criminals, that are already illegal to be possessed by criminals in every state?

Universal Background Checks might nibble around the edges.

 

[JasperL]

Universal Background Checks might nibble around the edges.

I'm not sure how much good they would do, but of course that is something the "gun banners" suggest and it's opposed by right wingers.

 

[poppopfox]

poppopfox said:
"The NRA supports an industry that provides the tools for a single individual to take away the "right to life" of many individuals. Which "right" is more important to you?"

Your reply was -

We should shut down a lot of industries based on this logic. The NRA does not support murder.

Strawman, because you cannot disprove what I actually claimed. Now that we've dispensed with that, what is the answer to my question? Which "right" is more important to you?

Yes, the dissenting opinions, the amicus briefs, and much other literature for both sides. Those dissents and amicus certainly don't hold sufficient merit.

And that is just a layman's opinion.

No you won't, or you wouldn't be here.

Show me a post where I offered an "interpretation." I don't pretend to be a jailhouse lawyer.

When I cite the rulings in Heller, et al, or cite Constitutional law professors like Volokh or Kopel, I'm bringing the understand that these folks who look at both sides bring.

Don't see how you could be so sure of that.

 

[RF667799]

I'm not sure how much good they would do, but of course that is something the "gun banners" suggest and it's opposed by right wingers.

Gun rights advocates left or right, often say they are ineffective and unenforceable. Which is a matter of degree. They're likely a little bit enforceable and effective. Then the question becomes if the inconvenience they might inflict on the law abiding is worth whatever effect they may have on the criminally inclined.

 

[TurtleDude]

Again, what laws do you suggest to get guns out of the hands of criminals, that are already illegal to be possessed by criminals in every state?

in a free society, you take the guns out of the hands of criminals when you catch a criminal with a firearm. and hopefully, he won't get any more firearms while he is in prison

 

[Rich2018]

all in all it doesn't make the weapon "unusually dangerous"

A rifle with a straight line configuration (hence needing a pistol grip) is inherently more accurate that one that is not
All other things being equal that is, like the round fired, build quality, sights etc.

 

[TurtleDude]

A rifle with a straight line configuration (hence needing a pistol grip) is inherently more accurate that one that is not
All other things being equal that is, like the round fired, build quality, sights etc.

means nothing in terms of "more dangerous".

 

[Rucker61]

A rifle with a straight line configuration (hence needing a pistol grip) is inherently more accurate that one that is not
All other things being equal that is, like the round fired, build quality, sights etc.

Constitutionally, there is no "more dangerous" for classes of firearms in common use for lawful purposes.

 

[RF667799]

A rifle with a straight line configuration (hence needing a pistol grip) is inherently more accurate that one that is not
All other things being equal that is, like the round fired, build quality, sights etc.

I absconded with your pic, @rickc

You can very easily. A rifle capable of that kind of accuracy and meticulous reloading practices.

 

[Rich2018]

Constitutionally, there is no "more dangerous" for classes of firearms in common use for lawful purposes.

Constitutionally, you are correct
Then again, the framers of the 2A were only really aware of muzzle loading (with a very few breech loaders) and certainly not repeating firearms, let alone fully automatic with a pistol grip.

 

[RF667799]

Constitutionally, you are correct
Then again, the framers of the 2A were only really aware of muzzle loading (with a very few breech loaders) and certainly not repeating firearms, let alone fully automatic with a pistol grip.

Yeah, they would have really been concerned about those pistol grips. I mean...they were aware of them on pistols, but...yeah.

 

[Linuxcooldude]

all in all it doesn't make the weapon "unusually dangerous"

Good point. Cosmetic features on a rifle have a negligible effect overall that doesn't make it unusually dangerous as defined by the courts. And any that do, like an assault weapon ban, unconstitutional.