"We don't want to take your guns" New Jersey wants to.

[oneshooter]

http://articles.philly.com/2014-02-26/news/47674812_1_gun-magazines-magazine-capacity-prevent-gun-violence


TRENTON New Jersey Democrats on Monday proposed legislation that would limit the ammunition capacity of gun magazines, 14 months after a massacre at a Connecticut elementary school revived a national debate about the role of guns in America.

The bill, announced by the Legislature's Democratic leadership at a Statehouse news conference with parents of children slain at Sandy Hook Elementary School in December 2012, would reduce magazine capacity to 10 rounds, from 15.

It also would ban semiautomatic rifles with fixed-magazine capacities that exceed 10 rounds.
snip

"This legislation represents the largest gun ban and gun-confiscation scheme in the history of the state. It will make felons out of potentially hundreds of thousands of law-abiding citizens overnight," said Darin Goens, state liaison for New Jersey of the National Rifle Association's lobbying arm.


There is no grandfather clause, and no lead time. When the bill is signed, you are a felon.

[Loudly]

1. Kind of like when they banned the possession of child pornography? n/t

[Eleanors38]

5. You seem up on the child porn issue; could you provide details?

[Loudly]

8. Instant illegality is and was an absolute good in both situations. n/t

[Straw Man]

17. The old song-and-dance.

Do we have special dispensations for the use of child pornography by government entities, the way we do with firearms for the police and military? Oh, we don't? Then I guess firearms are not uniquely and thoroughly evil, are they.

What's that you say, Shares? "In civilian hands"? I see -- the proles aren't to be trusted with the weapons that we entrust to the keepers of public order.

Keep dreaming those totalitarian dreams.

[Eleanors38]

23. InstaFelon™. A prohi's wet dream!

[Isoldeblue]

6. You do realize that those are real,

flesh and blood children in those child porno pictures and videos, don't you? They are not cartoons. They are innocent babies who are terrified and being abused and exploited for the perverted pleasure of some sick men and women.

It's a loss of freedom for those children's lives. They will ever be the same again. They have been damaged. That is not justifiable for the so-called liberties that some claim are being denied to them. It doesn't quite measure up to the agony of what those children are going through.

More than likely, most of those children have been abducted and they are missing their mommy and daddy and the parents are going through an unimaginable hell.

Are those liberties worth the cost of all that?

[Loudly]

7. I made the comparison to respond to the complaints about instant illegality.

Instantly illegal is and was a good thing in both situations.

[Isoldeblue]

9. Wheww! I'm sorry!

And I agree. I'm so glad you aren't a fan of child porno.

You wouldn't believe the amount of restraint I tried to manage, writing that... Anything to do with hurting kids makes me a wee bit nuts...

[Loudly]

11. Exploitation is damaging, but there are too many apologists on here for guns and ammo.

The attitude is one of "such a shame, but that's the price of liberty."

Death and injury to children from guns and ammo ought to be receiving at least the same zero tolerance policy treatment as their exploitation.

[Isoldeblue]

15. +1000% n/m

[gejohnston]

16. what about the many more lives that are saved because they have

Last edited Tue Mar 4, 2014, 01:44 AM - Edit history (2)

guns and ammo? Death and injury to children by someone with a gun is statistically quite rare, the number of people who ward off death or grave bodily harm, most of the time without firing a shot, is quite common, according to the most recent CDC study. Ever wonder what life would be like if guns were never invented? Just take a look in history. First off, the murder rates in Europe then would make modern Mexico and Brazil look like Singapore and Japan.
There were a few rich people, a permanent warrior class, and a lot of slaves/serfs. Athens' direct democracy wasn't very deep since the vast majority of the people were slaves. See Sparta and the Helots. The invention of the gun ended the need for a warrior class that spent most of its days from childhood, unlike the subjugated class. The invention of the gun, like the crossbow (which my Pict ancestors used to keep the Romans on their side of the wall) ended the need for such a class because it became easy to train anyone in a short amount of time to be an infantry soldier. You might find this ironic, but the democratization of violence ended feudalism and most of the slavery in Europe, or at least Europeans taking other Europeans (not counting the British taking Irish people from their homes and loading them on to slave ships headed to the Americas, where they would sell for 1/10th the price of an African. During the 1600s, Irish slaves were more common and were treated more brutally than the more expensive Africans.) and moved towards a more peaceful and civilized world. Japan is no different. Feudalism, the Samurai class, and the Shogunate ended for all practical purposes after the Boshin War 1868-1869. All sides used used firearms, some imported from Europe. Twenty years later, the Meiji Constitution was ratified, making Japan a constitutional monarchy with a parliamentary democracy, a short lived and weak one, but one never the less.

[blueridge3210]

22. You're dealing with a Zealot

Shares/Loudly doesn't care about the validity (or lack thereof) of his comparison; he just wants to put gun owners on the same level as those who abuse children even though one group does not, in and of itself, victimize other people. Just goes to reinforce the complete lack of morality of the gun banners; they will twist any argument into a pretzel to make a point.

[Loudly]

30. Again with statistics? Why can I find a child shooting victim story every day?

Here's today's:

http://azdailysun.com/news/state-and-regional/deputies--year-old-boy-accidentally-shoots-self/article_7bde0adf-5c34-506b-b80b-9dfc468c0d0b.html

[gejohnston]

32. because it was the same story several times

According to the CDC there are 62 per year. Compare that to how many children drown each year. Why don't you read about the far more common deaths of children from drinking Drano and other poisons in the paper? The news is the exception, man bites dog, and is sometimes politically motivated. Basing what you read in the paper as evidence isn't evidence.

[Loudly]

33. Who am I going to believe? You or my own lying eyes? n/t

[gejohnston]

35. neither,

the CDC.

[Loudly]

36. Well I know that can't be right, because there is at least one unique story each day.

That's 365 per year minimum.

Now if 365 kids were being photographically exploited per year, our society would move heaven and earth in an effort to make sure it stopped happening.

So I'd say, for this reason alone, gun and ammo apologetics are propaganda at least as evil as child exploitation.

[gejohnston]

42. sorry, the CDC stat stand

The CDC says 62. Of course, there is the occasional "collateral damage" between two drug dealers, but I put that on the National Bong Owners Association more than anyone else. Most of those happen in places where the accessibility of legal guns and ammo are very hard to nonexistent. Before guns were invented, most of those children would have grown up to be either murdered by edged weapons or be slaves of the local warlard.
Most murders of children do not involve guns, most are beaten to death by their parents.

[Travis_0004]

73. How does this law affect child shooting victims?

For the average child shooting victim, playing with a gun, the first shot is usually the one that hits them. Almost never the 11th.

Lets assume the kid was shot with a glock and a 17 round magazine.

If this law was enacted would the kid have been safer with a 10 round magazine? What about a 3 round magazine?

You could argue for a full repeal of all gun rights, but you and me both know that isn't happening.

I have guns in my house. They are in a safe. My kids don't know the combination, and even if they did, without a key, they can not turn the dial. There is a lot we can do to protect kids, but this law isn't one of those things.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

27. Every child porn ring was busted up by people carrying guns and the offenders are sent

to prisons guarded by people carrying guns. That shows guns have a positive utility that child porn never will; ergo your analogy is false.

[Loudly]

31. I've got no problem with the people you mentioned carrying guns on the job.

Off the job, no way.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

37. Does the presence or absence of a badge make them more or less trustworthy?

Considering all the questionable police shootings in the line of duty I have my doubts.

I also presume that since you do not approve of LEOs carrying out of uniform then you would probably be opposed to citizens exercising their natural rights to self-defense.

It is an odd paradigm that does not trust the police nor the citizenry. If you do not trust the police then you assume they are a threat to the citizenry. Yet, you demand the citizenry remains disarmed in the face of what you declare to be a threat. Yet you also assume that those who elect to be criminals will somehow be disarmed by acts of law when the number of on-duty police to population at any given time is 1/3 of 256 per 100,000.

Peculiar.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

39. Why is it...

...that so many can agree that "the bible told me so" is inadequate as justification but so many can accept "the government told me so" is reliable justification?

[Nuclear Unicorn]

40. Some people only accept the dispensing of Commandments on the assumption

they are god.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

41. And they think they can elect a god? n/t

[Nuclear Unicorn]

43. Think about it. Are they not saying --

All needs will be provided for. All justice will be perfect. All mercy will be forthcoming. All knowing. All powerful. All goodness.

Just have faith.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

44. Politicians have a language all their own

Apparently according to the English-Politicese dictionary:

F*** Y*** => Trust me

[beevul]

24. Hey shares...

Hey shares, I suggest you read the Democratic Party platform RE:gun rights:


We recognize that the individual right to bear arms is an important part of the American tradition, and we will preserve Americans' Second Amendment right to own and use firearms...


I then suggest you be honest with yourself and with the rest of us, and admit that your views on guns are extremist in nature, and belong even less than extreme pro-gun views, on DU.

[Loudly]

29. You be honest with your Own self.

That plank is pandering and you know it.

It reflects the party's fear of offending the fearful.

Sand down the surface of that plank and inquire what it is really saying.

There is an individual right to guns and ammo for the purpose of engaging in armed rebellion against our government?

Do Democrats really believe that?

Nach.

[gejohnston]

34. Do Democrats really believe that?

Depends. If JWB were to declare himself President for Life, and the US were become a theocratic dystopia? That would make in interesting alternate history novel wouldn't it?

[Nuclear Unicorn]

38. That is the equation that the Prohis do not consider.

They think that the people rebel against the government when history has shown that governments more often than not rebel against the people.

Our nation has been blessed that we have seen Rev. King rise when the Bull Connors of the world were unleashing dogs and fire hoses on peaceful protesters. But then we also saw the 101st Airborne Division deployed to challenge the Arkansas National Guard. In other words, gun vs. gun. But what if such a president had not been in office? What if a governor proclaimed that, despite democratically enacted law and USSC challenge, that he was going to abrogate the laws that checked his power to infringe on the rights of the people?

Then who would be the true rebel?

[Loudly]

48. The Confederacy was exactly that.

A reaction to a perceived government threat to a beloved institution.

That's why armed rebellion is never legitimate in this country.

The cause was so impassioned yet so incorrect that it destroys for all time the claim of any cause to be taken to such last resort.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

50. Are you running for some office...

...akin to political pope or something?

[gejohnston]

51. actually it wasn't

secession by oligarchs is not the same thing. You did know that the CSA was a police state don't you? BTW, what about armed rebellion against the CSA by insurgents in Georgia? What about the 500K white southerners that defected and fought for the Union?

[Nuclear Unicorn]

105. I always feel smarter after reading your posts.

Would you be able to recommend any links that would discuss the anti-CSA insurgents/defectors? If not, I understand. If so, thank-you in advance.

[gejohnston]

106. I'll see if I can find some.

thanks.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

52. The confederacy was anti-Constitutional.

A reaction to a perceived government threat to a beloved institution.

Their reaction was in spite of the rule of law. The lost the election because they lost the abolitionist argument. They were acting contrary to everything the Constitution guarantees -- including denying the right to keep and bear arms by slaves, i.e. the Dred Scott decision.

That's why armed rebellion is never legitimate in this country.

This country was founded by armed rebellion.

Yet, if you had your way those who lived under the tyranny of the Confederacy would be obligated to accept whatever the confederates demanded with no way for slave or citizen to present a check to unrestrained oppression.

The cause was so impassioned yet so incorrect that it destroys for all time the claim of any cause to be taken to such last resort.

Why? Because some anti-democratic crank on the internet unilaterally dictates it?

lolz

[Loudly]

54. It's the Covenant of Appomattox expressed at the time.

Never again, was the sentiment.

Now an unwelcome memory for desperate souls grasping for a reason to claim a so-called "right" to arms.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

61. The Confederacy's surrender cannot abrogate the Constitution because the Confederacy

was born by unconstitutional means. There is another sentiment: abusus non tollit usum; abuse does not abolish the use. You might as well be arguing a thief attempting to peddle stolen property as his own thereby abrogates the right to private property.

There is no human right that has not, at some point, been abused in application. Yet, to claim singular episodes dissolve the proper exercise of rights for all time would -- instead of protecting people -- would reduce them to a state of anarchy where there can be no exercise of rights, only the exertion of raw power. It is an argument that is absurd on its face.

[Loudly]

64. Guns and ammo in the hands of the public is anarchy.

Rights are meaningless if they can be unilaterally extinguished at the whim of a shooter.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

74. There are hundreds of millions of gun owners in the US.

Show me this anarchy you speak of.

Rights are meaningless if they can be unilaterally extinguished at the whim of a shooter.

Which is why no one party -- including the government -- should possess a monopoly on deadly force. You aren't protecting anyone, you are merely deciding who is master and who is slave and claiming the submission of slavery is freedom from violence. Your entire argument is based on authoritarianism and yielding to unchallenged government power as if the government is some beneficent keeper.

It was the government -- not citizens -- turning police dogs loose on civil rights demonstrators. It was the government -- not citizens -- conducting eugenics experiments. It was the government -- not citizens -- deliberately infecting African Americans with STDs. Is this where you place your unfailing faith?

[Loudly]

77. Are you turning your gun on police, eugenicists and unethical researchers?

Again, of what revelance is a claimed "right" to bear arms to any of the abuses you're complaining about?

Did your version of the 2A exist in the midst of all of it?

If so, then to what effect?

[Nuclear Unicorn]

80. Deacons for Defense and Justice

The Deacons for Defense and Justice was an armed self-defense African-American civil rights organization in the U.S. Southern states during the 1960s. Historically, the organization practiced self-defense methods in the face of racist oppression that was carried out under the Jim Crow Laws by local/state government officials and racist vigilantes. Many times the Deacons are not written about or cited[citation needed] when speaking of the Civil Rights Movement because[citation needed] their agenda of self-defense - in this case, using violence, if necessary - did not fit the image of strict non-violence that leaders such as Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. espoused. Yet, there has been a recent debate over the crucial role the Deacons and other lesser known militant organizations played on local levels throughout much of the rural South. Many times in these areas the Federal government did not always have complete control over localities to enforce such laws like the Civil Rights Act of 1964 or Voting Rights Act of 1965.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deacons_for_Defense_and_Justice

Please, proceed tell us how they were wrong to oppose the government through force of arms.

[Loudly]

85. Fascinating historical footnote.

I read it as mainly a guns-as-solution-to-guns story, in which local officials were acting ex-officio as private citizen harrassers.

If this gentleman's league had unloaded their shotguns into the fire department personnel hosing a lawful demonstration, can you imagine the setback done to the cause of racial equality?

Even Malcolm would have had a problem defending them.

But Malcolm was dead already.

Shot.

[gejohnston]

89. local officials were acting ex-officio as private citizen harrassers.

no, it was repressive government policies. Jim Crow, segregation, and discrimination were state government policies, enforced by State functionaries with badges and guns. That is why Arizona's shitty law that Brewer had the good sense to veto can't be compared to Jim Crow. Unlike Jim Crow, it would have simply legalized, maybe encourage, discrimination. Jim Crow laws mandated it. Thom Hartman's head always explodes when some libertarian points that fact out to him.

[Loudly]

90. Remember, though, that you are advocating a right of armed rebellion on their behalf.

LBJ himself would not have been able to abide it.

And self-righteous anger could not have added an ounce of legitimacy to it.

[gejohnston]

92. no I'm not.

I would be advocating for blacks and fair minded whites to used armed rebellion against them.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

108. Remember, though, that you are advocating a right of

government officials to cover-up or participate in the racist murders of citizens with impunity. The history of the Deacons includes episodes when they repelled attacks. But I'm sure that fact chafes you because -- AUTHORITY!

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

62. Your (blind) faith in such an error is...

...impressive.

[sarisataka]

45. Is this a Democrat?

It was once said that the moral test of government is how that government treats those who are in the dawn of life, the children; those who are in the twilight of life, the elderly; and those who are in the shadows of life, the sick, the needy and the handicapped.

There are those who say to you - we are rushing this issue of civil rights. I say we are 172 years late

There are not enough jails, not enough police, not enough courts to enforce a law not supported by the people

Liberalism, above all, means emancipation - emancipation from one's fears, his inadequacies, from prejudice, from discrimination, from poverty.

Certainly one of the chief guarantees of freedom under any government, no matter how popular and respected, is the right of citizens to keep and bear arms. This is not to say that firearms should not be very carefully used and that definite safety rules of precaution should not be taught and enforced. But the right of citizens to bear arms is just one more guarantee against arbitrary government, and one more safeguard against tyranny which now appears remote in America, but which historically has proved to be always possible.

I have been told it sounds like a Freeper...

[Loudly]

46. It sounds like Hubert Humphrey trying not to offend the fearful. n/t

[sarisataka]

47. The late Vice-President made the statement on guns

in 1960. As much as I admire him and what he stood for, even I do not think he was that prescient to look fifty plus years into the future to pander to the fearful.

[Loudly]

49. The John Birch Society was founded in 1958. n/t

[sarisataka]

53. And you think many JBS members

were voting Democrat?

I suppose Obama stated he support an individual right to own firearms trying to get Michelle Bachman's vote?

[Loudly]

55. Trying to neutralize the votes of her supporters, certainly.

And to put fearful moderates and independents at ease.

[gejohnston]

56. fearful moderates and independents

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Birch_Society

[Loudly]

57. Do you remember BPO the candidate referring to fearful Americans?

Clinging to their guns and religion?

He sees it very clearly, and treads lightly in order to win elections.

Every Democrat does who wants to be elected in this nation of gun foolishness.

[gejohnston]

59. BPO?

you mean BHO, or POTUS to you.
Umm no. Given that he is a religious person himself, I don't think that was his speech writers' better moments.

[Loudly]

63. PBO I mean.

It was extemporaneous, not a speech.

Conversational, and not intended for public consumption.

He nailed it.

[gejohnston]

66. no he didn't

and that was a stupid thing to say, something I would never defend regardless. I like the guy, I voted for him, but he was wrong.
So, you are saying Jerry Brown, Ed Shultz, Maya Angelou, Justice Kagan, just to name a few are Birchers? Since JBS has a reputation for being Aniti Semitic and anti Catholic, that leaves out Kagan and Brown doesn't it? Both are Catholics.

[sarisataka]

60. TPers will just jump ship

because Obama says don't worry? If only it were that easy.

Think this through-

And to put fearful moderates and independents at ease.

So Obama says he supports a right to bear arms because the center is fearful. But really he is lying because of the Civil War and stuff and he thinks people should not be allowed to own firearms. So really their fears are founded in fact so they should really disbelieve Obama because he will be coming for their guns...
?w=640

[Loudly]

65. Do you think President Obama believes in a right of armed rebellion against the United States?

That's what the Second Amendment was intended to mean at the founding and prior to Appomattox.

What does it mean now?

Nothing. It is moot, obsolete, and without modern purpose. Like the three-fifths compromise.

[sarisataka]

67. Would you have believed in the right of armed rebellion

if Bush the Second decided the war on terror was too important to interrupt and suspended elections until we could be assured the terrorists could not have interfered?

Impossible? Have you ever heard of Readiness Exercise 84? That would be Unconstitutional... well so is the Patriot Act...

[Loudly]

72. What relevance would such a scenario have to the pretend claim of a right to guns and ammo?

Are you bringing your gun to a protest?

As a Constitutional right?

Who are you going to shoot?

Do you expect others to join you in the shooting?

As a Constitutional right?

Do you anticipate surviving to shoot again?

What will your self sacrifice achieve?

[Nuclear Unicorn]

76. Or maybe those of reckless ambition understand that

their designs would draw such a dire reaction that they are deterred from acting in the first place.

[sarisataka]

81. So as long as

McDonald's drive- thru is open and reruns of friends can be found on cable life is good?

I believe the likelihood of such actions by the government are remote the chanceis less than zero . There are many ways to oppose oppression, most nonviolent. Having seen dictatorship firsthand, i fo rereserve my right to use extreme measures if all else fails.

You like the rule of law but if tyranny comes around fuck it. With that attitude we would still sing God Save the Queen and governance my God granted monarchy would be the model.

[gejohnston]

69. I like to think that

if the oligarchs made David Duke their dictitorial puppet, and Pat Robertson the Christian Iran style "mullah", I like to think he would be the first to take up arms and lead the charge.
How do you feel about the armed rebellion against Jefferson Davis in Northern Georgia and North Carolina in 1863?
Josh Horowitz at the CSGV, formally known as National Committee to Ban Handguns, would argue that those southerners, nor the slaves had any right to resist because the CSA was the State, and that the monoply of force should only held by the State, even if ethnic or religious minorities were rounded up and put on train cars.

[beevul]

107. Irrelevant.

"That plank is pandering and you know it."

Irrelevant. Whether it is pandering or not, it IS a major plank of the party platform, and your views as well as those of the rest of the "ban them all" crowd, are extremist and incompatible with it.

"There is an individual right to guns and ammo for the purpose of engaging in armed rebellion against our government?"

Strawman. I didn't make that argument. My argument, is simply that the bill of rights is a laundry list of restrictions on the the exercise of power, by government, and that the second amendment is among that list.

And theres no disputing that that's exactly what it is.

"It reflects the party's fear of offending the fearful."

So not only are your views extremist on the topic of guns, but you further elude to the fact that such views enumerated within the party platform would lead to lost elections.

That says about all that needs saying, I think.

Yup.

[Bazinga]

21. You have misrepresented the child pornography analogy.

To put it in SAT terms, child pornography is to murder as camera is to gun.

You have tried to equate ownership of an object with the misuse of that object. It is far more correct to equate object with object, and crime with crime. It is possible to own a gun and never commit murder, just as it is possible to own a camera and never make child porn.

In essence, this law is like trying to stop child porn by banning digital cameras with high capacity SD cards.

ETA: Oh, and since your analogy has been corrected, further use of the incorrect analogy should be considered intellectually dishonest.

[Loudly]

68. Here's where you're wrong. Possession of the Images is criminal.

And why is possession of the Images criminal?

Because of their potential to compromise the victim, groom additional victims, and entice others to commit similar criminal conduct.

So the "object," such as it is, isn't the camera.

It's the picture.

Banned for its mere Potential to do harm.

The analogy is an entirely apt one.

[gejohnston]

71. no,

banned because of the harm done in their creation, nothing "potential" about it. The analogy is not even remotely apt.

[Loudly]

75. Photos of crimes in progress are not per se contraband.

To the contrary, why would they be?

But these photos are different, because of their potential to cause future harm.

That's the reason they're illegal, and the legislative history is clear on this point.

We as a society want them out of public hands because of the harm they can cause.

Like guns and ammunition.

But without the servile deference to some pretend "right."

[gejohnston]

78. no,

because there isn't money to be made in crime photos, which are usually taken by the police for investigation. Therefore, there is a legitimate use for crime photos, not so with kid porn.

You fail to recognize the good of guns in public hands and that it outweighs the bad. In fact, statistically at least, the public is more responsible with guns than the police. Perhaps Norway and Iceland have the right idea: an armed populous, but a disarmed police force.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

79. WTH?!?!

We as a society want them out of public hands because of the harm they can cause.

Like guns and ammunition.

So you're saying child porn is okay, so long as it's only government elites enjoying it?

If guns are so absolutely bad then how do you propose dealing with those who refuse to disarm?

What if "we as a society" say we want to criminalize child porn but want our right to self-defense preserved?

[Loudly]

82. I think you've morphed the 2A into something different.

You seem to be implying the specter of bandits and marauders.

When the claim of "right" actually sounds in armed rebellion.

Adorning it with a bandits-and-marauders purpose is just a futile attempt to rescue it.

Yet another appeal to fear.

The Second as framed is gone, gone, gone.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

84. The only person appealing to fantasies of bandits and marauders would be the Prohis.

The Second as framed is gone, gone, gone.

I live in a democratic republic; not your fantasy fiefdom.

[Loudly]

86. Plenty of democratic republics get along fine without your unnecessary firearms complication.

Face it. Guns and ammo are just a fetish. A kink.

[gejohnston]

87. name one such democratic republic.

[Loudly]

88. Japan and Australia. n/t

[gejohnston]

91. no.

Australia has privately owned guns, and neither of them are republics. Australia is part of the Commonwealth, defacto constitutional monarchy, and has a parliamentary system. Japan is a constitutional monarchy, and has a parliamentary system.
Japan also doesn't have:
a right to a fair trial, three judges decide, and their careers are hurt if they aquit anyone
a right to a jury trial
a right to remain silent
force confessions, sometimes through torture, is admissible
exclusionary rule doesn't exist, so illegally obtained evidence is also admissible in court

Given the way Japan counts murder/suicides as all suicides, which are not rare (like Sandy Hook would be counted as 27 suicides, one voluntarily and the rest involuntarily) Besides, the cops tend to write off cold cases as "suicides" just to get it off the books, we actually don't know if their murder rate is lower or not.

[Loudly]

94. Yes, I'm wrong about their form of government.

And envy their wisdom in dealing with the scourge of guns and ammunition.

What I guess I hear you saying is that a democratic republic is inherently too insane to smarten up.

But lets keep trying to smarten up on the slim chance that it might be possible.

[gejohnston]

95. I don't call social control

wisdom.

[Loudly]

96. Hey, why isn't the USA on this list?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_republic

[gejohnston]

97. because the name is United States of America

and not Democratic Republic of America.
Do you seriously think Democratic Republic of Korea, Democratic Republic of Congo, or German Democratic Republic are/were democratic?

[Loudly]

98. I duly noted the "self-described" qualifier.

But come on, in all fairness.

The article is entitled "Democratic Republic."

Not "Countries Whose Names Start With Democratic Republic."

Bogus!

[Straw Man]

123. Japan's gun laws ...

... and their laws on weapons in general can be traced back to samurai times. The laws designated which social classes were allowed to "keep and bear" weapons, including guns and edged weapons. Guess which classes were not allowed to? Nothing even remotely democratic about it.

Modern Japan is nominally a democracy, but if you run afoul of the law in Japan you will find your definition of the word stretched to the breaking point. It's a cash-corrupt oligarchy with underpinnings of feudalism.

Own your inner authoritarian, Shares. Ride with the samurai. Armed peasants? Off with their heads!

[Nuclear Unicorn]

99. Ah, yes. With Prohis it always come back to sexual innuendos.

I suppose after your failed attempts at revisionist history, fantasy marauders and abject authoritarianism it's all you have left.

[Bazinga]

83. Possession of the image is criminal because the making of that image is a crime.

The parts of our analogy are the instrument, the result of the misuse of that instrument, and the name of the crime committed. In the case of child porn those would be the camera, the image, and child pornography. In the case of murder those would be the gun, a dead body, and murder.

One can posses a camera without harming anyone, just like one can posses a gun without harming anyone. One cannot posses child porn without harming someone, just like one cannot posses a dead body without harming someone.

Trying to equate the possession of a gun with the possession of child porn is a despicable attempt to vilify those with whom you disagree so as to ostracize and discredit them. Fortunately for those who support the right to armed self-defense, it serves only to discredit you and those others who attempt to curtail that right.

[Loudly]

93. If what you say was anywhere close to being accurate

then wouldn't it be unlawful to possess the image of a murder victim?

But it isn't.

The disparate treatment between those two different kinds of images is because of the law concerning one of them.

And the law making the pornographic image illegal is the result of a public policy decision regarding the potential for future harm from its mere presence out in the world.

Repeat: It's potential for future harm from its mere presence.

I'm just stating the indisputable facts.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

100. Possession of snuff porn is illegal. Crimeny.

[Warren Stupidity]

2. good.

[Travis_0004]

3. No way it will pass

Crispy wants to be President in the next election, and he can not sign this into law and hope to get Republican support in the election. His only choice politically is to veto is, and I doubt this bill could get enough votes to override a veto, if it could even pass at all.

[Eleanors38]

4. More meaningless, symbolic culture-war bans.

Little effort made toward UBC, or opening NICS, but wasted political capital on high- visibility statements. Same as it ever was.

[Jenoch]

10. Can somebody help me here?

"It also would ban semiautomatic rifles with fixed-magazine capacities that exceed 10 rounds."

What sort of semi-auto rifle has a fixed magazine that holds more than ten rounds? I would be interested in the make and model of such a rifle.

[oneshooter]

12. All of the 22 rimfires with under barrel tube magazines hold 15 rds.

If you own one in NJ and this bill passes you are, as of that instant, a felon. There is no grandfathering of rifles, nor is there a period of time to turn them in.

[Jenoch]

13. You are right.

I have a Marlin that fits the definition. The question is, why does the New Jersey legislature care about .22 rimfires with a fixed magazine capacity larger than ten rounds?

[gejohnston]

14. because they exist

http://www.nj.com/politics/index.ssf/2013/05/pro-gun_advocates_angry_over_n.html

[Straw Man]

18. Looks pure evil, doesn't it?

[gejohnston]

19. don't forget the vintage

Nylon 66.

[HubertHeaver]

20. Looks like plastic

[Skeeter Barnes]

58. It will shoot tighter groups than any box stock Ruger 10/22 and do it for a lot less money.

[DonP]

25. A deadly Marlin Model 60! It's the squirrel on the stock that makes it so dangerous in NJ

I have about 6 of those in the gun safe, along with 2 Nylon 66 (Apache Black and Mohawk Brown, still lookin' for the Seneca Green one). The older Model 60's hold 17 or 18 rounds and the newer ones 14 rounds.

I bought them over the years for each of the grand kids at prices from $100 for a pretty good older one, to $25 for one with a broken spring. They shoot better than they have a right to at that price, but ... they don't have all the "tacticool" Ruger 10/22 accessories so you can take a $175 10/22 - and make it looks like a $800 AR - with only $1,200 in accessories.

Marlin has made something like 7 million of them over the years.

I'm not aware of a crime spree with 22 squirrel rifles that our wise NJ legislators are protecting us from?

Or are they just trying to poke Christie with a sharp stick in public at the expense of legal gun owners?

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

26. Looks like a non-issue - probable veto

But he vetoed legislation that would have banned the sale of Barrett .50-caliber rifles, which are used for long-range, precision shooting, even though he initially supported the idea. He said Democrats had gone too far in their proposal by applying the ban retroactively to those who already legally owned the gun.

Emphasis mine.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

28. So, while Christie is imploding the legislature throws him a life line with a proven losing issue.

However, Christie is sympathetic to some expanded gun control so if he signs this law he ingratiates himself to the legislature (or vice versa) but ruins his chances with the GOP base. Let's face facts, Christie will probably survive bridge-gate and move on to the 2016 GOP nomination where bridge-gate could actually be leveraged to a Democratic advantage. But if Christie supports this legislation to buy himself room on bridge-gate he won't be the GOP nominee and we lose a viable oppo-strategy.

[ileus]

70. folks love victims....why else propose limiting our ability to defend ourselves?

[Token Republican]

102. A Marlin 60

is a pretty pathetic way to defend yourself. Its two steps above writing an angry letter.

But if these plinkers are banned, its pretty easy to ban the more powerful stuff, since they are more powerful than the banned stuff.

[Walk away]

101. Most people in New Jersey would like to see much stricter gun laws...

I certainly hope that the gun freaks and their masters in the NRA stay out of here. Yes , there are yokels here too but they must have seeped over the boarder from rural Pennsylvania or they are just your average paranoid/terrified nuts. Even Christie at the height of his popularity, shut his big republican mouth about gun "rights".

[gejohnston]

103. are you saying

Jerry Brown, Maya Angelou, Ed Shultz, are all "paranoid/terrified nuts"? Are you saying that college shooting teams, including Harvard's, are a bunch of "yokels?" And really what's with the "yokel"? If we are going for the regional/class bigotry, how about this: As a "yokel" I found that New Jersey contains some some of the most ignorant, stupidest, racist fools I have met in my life. Happiness was leaving that shithole McGuire AFB in my rear view mirror. That's before we get to Newark and Camdan. As much as people talk about the south, I met more racists in California and New Jersey than I found in the south, and that's after 20 years of living around the US and abroad. Snookie actually puts them in a positive light. Are you saying that I should look to assholes and gangsters as what I should aspire to? Sorry, not happening.
Is that why the gun control lobby must pass their bills in the middle of the night without reading them like the NY SAFE Act? Is that why gun control groups are astro turfed by corporate foundations like Joyce, right wing authoritarian billionaires like Bloomberg, fronted by PR flacks that learned their propaganda techniques from working for Monsanto (MDA is a creation of VoxPop, a boutique PR firm owned by Shannon Watts. Before she started her own company, she was head PR flack for Monsanto) and has absolutely no grassroots support at all outside of a arrogant sleaze like Piers Morgan (who is neck deep in the News Corp hacking scandal and was fired from the Mirror, a UK version of the National Enquirer, for publishing photos that falsely implicated British soldiers in war crimes, even though he knew the photos were hoaxes) That's before I go off on everyone's favorite boorish misogynist: Bill Maher. Yes Ted Nugent is an asshole and probably a racist, and the NRA leadership are a bunch of ass clowns, but what about the mayors of MAIG? Last year, Bloomberg lost at least four to the criminal justice system. The mayor of Detroit who thought the city treasury was his own piggy bank (that was after the obstruction of justice and assaulting a cop); the same with the mayor of NOLA; the mayor of San Diego for sexual harassment (joined because he didn't want his victims fight back?); the mayor of Monticello NY (who had a theft conviction when elected and joined MAIG) who became a you tube sensation with his racist rants after getting busted for DUI; Marcus Hook PA mayor who tried to force a young man to have sex with him at gunpoint. Those are just 2013 and 2014 so far. That doesn't count the previous ones that have been convicted of fraud, possessing child porn, committing a violent crime while possessing a gun, civil rights violations, and good old fashioned bribery.
No, I'm not a fan of the people who run the NRA, but I'm less of a fan of corrupt mayors, authoritarian billionaires, and anyone who ever worked for Monsanto.

[Walk away]

109. Are you saying that Maya Angelou, Jerry Brown and Ed Schultz are against stricter gun regulations??

Because if you are then you are a liar and the rest of your long rant isn't worth reading. I'm sure it is as big a fantasy as your first sentence. People who own guns are not necessarily 2nd Amendment nut bags and yokels. People you rant like freaks about guns are.

on edit.. I just looked up the article regarding Maya Angelou and her supposed endorsement of high capacity magazines. here is the link and it is the most embarrassing piece of slanted crap I have seen in a long time. The author takes about 3 quotes from Angelou regarding owning a gun for protection and weaves it into a fantasy world where she practically shills for the NRA.

Do you get this stuff from some NRA web site?

http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2013-04-07/news/ct-met-kass-0407-20130407_1_gun-control-debate-maya-angelou-knob

[gejohnston]

110. I have no idea

and I really don't care. The founder of Ruger firearms believed in limiting magazine capacity to 15 rounds. I never said anything about her endorsing "high capacity" magazines. You said "gun owners" as a whole.
I don't go to the NRA web site. Did you read the whole interview or just making assumptions about what she thinks?
As for the proposed law in NJ, banning guns that are never used in crime is stupid. The proposed law will do nothing since it will only affect NJ license holders, and guns that are not used in crimes.
I do stand by my observation that Suburban and urban New Jerseites are among the most ignorant, arrogant, stupid, and racist fools I have ever met and that McGuire/Ft. Dix is a shithole.

[Walk away]

112. Another lie! Where in my posts did I say anything about "gun owners" in general???

You even quoted me. I really do expect very little truth and a lot of BS from the gun lover crowd but lying about the content of a post that is right there for anyone to see is pathetic.
Just because you have the bizarre belief that everyone that owns a gun thinks that you should have the right to own unlimited fire power and military style weaponry, dose not mean it is so.

[Straw Man]

113. Unlimited firepower and military style weaponry?

Like this?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1172&pid=138762

Find me a gun owner who thinks the Marlin Model 60 should be banned. Please. I'm begging you.

[Walk away]

114. I hate to break your gun bubble but most folks who own guns....

have them for protection and haven't even looked at them since the day they brought them home and locked them up. Sure they feel they need to have them for safety. Especially after decades of NRA propaganda that went unchallenged because of a bunch of bought and paid for pols. Years of lies about the dangers involved and the innocent lives that were ruined.

But most of them think that there should be stricter limits and laws regarding gun ownership.

I'm sure you love your gun and think it's real pretty. I am sure I could easily find many gun owners who would agree it shouldn't be as easy as pulling out your gun permit, plopping down a credit card, and being handed a Marlin Model 60.

[Straw Man]

115. Do you have any idea what you are talking about?

Last edited Wed Mar 5, 2014, 04:40 PM - Edit history (1)

I'm sure you love your gun and think it's real pretty. I am sure I could easily find many gun owners who would agree it shouldn't be as easy as pulling out your gun permit, plopping down a credit card, and being handed a Marlin Model 60.

Over 11 million Model 60s have been sold since they were introduced more than 50 years ago. It is the quintessential plinking and small-game .22 rifle. New Jersey is on the brink of banning it. Outright banning it, despite its not being a "military style" firearm in any way, shape, or form.

"Shouldn't be as easy" as that? How hard should it be? Gun permit? You mean a state-issued certification that the buyer has been vetted as qualified to own firearms? NJ has such a permit. A Federal NICS check is still required. And that's not enough for you? What do you want? A blood test? A polygraph?

Can you justify the banning of the Model 60? Please go ahead. This should be interesting.

[Walk away]

119. I will repeat this for you so that you understand.

Most people in New Jersey think that these restrictions are not enough and they vote that way. Most of us (including gun owners) don't agree with you. There isn't anything to fight about. It's just how they feel about it. As more real facts about gun ownership begin to emerge, more states will follow.
The fact that you are promoting this gun as a harmless toy for Boy Scouts and school children says it all.

[Straw Man]

122. You can stow the snark. You're not very good at it anyway.

Why am I not surprised that you have failed to address any of the points I brought up?

Most people in New Jersey think that these restrictions are not enough and they vote that way.

What restrictions are we talking about and what restrictions do you want? "Most people in New Jersey," like you, haven't a clue what the restrictions are or what is being proposed. They think it's all about the scary black machine guns.

They "vote that way"? Are you suggesting that these laws are determined by public referenda? They vote for candidates on a variety of issues. I think you'll find very few single-issue gun-control voters.

Most of us (including gun owners) don't agree with you. There isn't anything to fight about. It's just how they feel about it.

What and whom exactly are we talking about here? "Most of us" is vague to the point of absurdity. You "don't agree" that the Marlin 60 is one of the most common .22 rifles found in America today? Then you'd be wrong -- it's a matter of fact.

The fact that you are promoting this gun as a harmless toy for Boy Scouts and school children says it all.

Please show me where I have used the terms "harmless," "Boy Scouts," or "school children." Or apologize for lying about what I said. It's an accusation you have felt free to level against others. Live by your words or own your hypocrisy.

[gejohnston]

116. You used the term "gun lover"

that often implies any gun owner. BTW, you called me a liar. Can you prove that I 1)made a false claim and 2)knew that the statement is false. Since you can not do either, you have no right to call me a liar. That is uncivil.

We are not talking about "unlimited firepower or military style weaponry" we are talking about rifles that are typically found at high school rifle clubs and boy scout camps.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marlin_Model_60
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Remington_Nylon_66
In the age of Yahoo, Google, and Ixquick, there is no excuse for willful ignorance. Your point is invalid.

[Walk away]

117. Even a complete gun nut can't possibly believe that....

everyone who owns a gun, loves it. You know that you lied about what I said so why don't you just deal with it?
I suggest that the next time you want to make shit up, you avoid doing it directly underneath the post you are lying about. No wonder you need a gun.

[gejohnston]

118. I made nothing up

you are simply back peddling.

[Walk away]

120. This is the last post for me on the subject but....

read my original post and read your answer. Then when I called you on it you back peddled to Alaska!
You deliberately misquoted me and then lied about it. This must be how it's done down here in the basement.

[gejohnston]

121. you have not proven that I lied.

again, look up the definition of liar. Show where I made a false statement and that I knew it was false. I back-peddle nothing.

[NYC_SKP]

111. Jerry Brown was and is against stricter gun legislation and vetoes seven proposed laws last October.

He signed into law 11, but not the seven that were utterly absurd, like banning all semiauto rifles with detachable magazines.

I don't know about Maya Angelou and Ed Shultz.

[friendly_iconoclast]

104. A majority of voters in California banned marriage equality

I take it you were OK with that, 'cause "it's what the people wanted"?

Also, you might recall that the exercise of rights under the Fourteenth Amendment by persons
with the 'wrong' amount of melanin wasn't too popular in certain states back in the day.

Kindly take your argumentum ad populum, along with the cheap bigotry
and stereotyping elsewhere