When cops don't know the law (or just don't care)

[oneshooter]

As reported in the Alamogordo Daily News today, the Alamogordo, NM Police have paid $21,000 to settle with Matthew A. St. John whom police detained for open carrying a holstered handgun at a movie theater.


On September 8, 2009, Federal District Judge Bruce D. Black, issued an order previously examined here, that concluded as a matter of law that Alamogordo police officers violated Matthew St. John's constitutional rights under the Fourth Amendment because they seized and disarmed him even though there was not "any reason to believe that a crime was afoot."

http://www.examiner.com/x-2782-DC-Gun-Rights-Examiner~y2009m9d29-Alamogordo-police-pay-21000-to-settle-open-carry-lawsuit


Maybe they will learn the law that they are suppose to enforce?

Oneshooter
Livin in Texas

[Liberal_in_LA]

1. 21K lesson

[RC]

2. Why do you need a gun at a movie theater for?

Or a church or an Obama rally or a school function or a grocery store or a...

[rd_kent]

3. Are you INTENTIONALLY missing the point?

Its not whether one NEEDS a gun at specific place or not, its about the CONSTITUTIONALITY and the fact that citizens are being arrested and detained for exercising their CONSTITUTIONAL rights.

[MrModerate]

4. Given the information presented here, I'd think there was a reasonable presumption . . .

That a crime was under way. As in "what the fuck would you bring a gun to a movie theatre for?" This is almost identical to the classic "yelling 'fire' in a crowded theatre" example used to define reasonable social constraints placed on free speech.

Secondly, anyone bringing a gun to a theatre is demonstrating such incredibly bad judgment that it's prudent to at least give them a second look, and a third, on the suspicion that they'll do something stupid with the gun, thus endangering the public.

The fact that "don't be stupid" isn't explicitly spelled out in the Constitution doesn't relieve one of the responsibility to conduct oneself in a manner that doesn't place other people unnecessarily at risk.

The court got this one wrong.

On Edit: Open carry isn't a constitutional provision, it's State law. Makes a difference, wouldn't you think?

[X_Digger]

5. You might want to look up probable cause

Nulla poena sine lege (no punishment without law).

[MrModerate]

11. Probable cause is based on officers' judgment isn't it? Based on interpretation . . .

Of a set of guidelines, no?

[X_Digger]

15. Yes, and a legal activity is not probable cause.

Open Carry is not prima facie evidence of a crime being committed (at least in states that don't prohibit it.) Hell, it doesn't even constitute reasonable suspicion, which is less of a legal burden.

[MrModerate]

24. But in their capacity as peace officers, cops are authorized to question people . . .

Without having the behavior in question fully vetted by a legal process (and just as well, since they'd never be able to do anything).

[X_Digger]

25. It does have to meet reasonable suspicion or probable cause..

Cops don't get to detain you for no reason (outside of NYC, that is, see http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=103x487756 )

[MrModerate]

32. These officers (unlike NYC cops) didn't think there was "no" reason . . .

They were exercising their professional judgment (which the court later found faulty).

[X_Digger]

36. Yup, teachable moment for the cops.. to the tune of $21k

The whole department will have to be re-notified of the legality of open carry in Alamogordo.

[MrModerate]

40. I'm going to Roswell to see my sister over Christmas . . .

I'll be sure to keep my body armor on and my head down. Maybe we can meet in a different state.

[X_Digger]

41. Funny thing is, I live in Texas.. which doesn't have Open Carry. n/t

[MrModerate]

43. I'm from Texas, was born there, in fact. But I won't be going back.

Texas has bigger problems than open carry.

[logjon]

245. Good Idea

Because people who exercise open carry rights regularly shoot people on sight for no reason at all.

[Taitertots]

73. Exercising their professional judgment?

By abducting someone, detaining them arbitrarily, and taking their possessions when you know they didn't break any laws.

That is not professional judgment that is willful violation of the law.

[MrModerate]

89. By "abducting" you mean asking him politely to come out into the lobby and discuss the issue.

By "detaining" you mean talking to him in the lobby.

By "taking" you mean asking him to put the weapon in his car.

By "knowing" you mean that years later a court decided their actions were wrong.

I think you and I go by different dictionaries.

[Euromutt]

91. Try "bodily dragging him into the street"

From the Alamagordo Daily News (http://www.alamogordonews.com/ci_13441455):

Officers ordered St. John to stand up with his hands in sight, then seized St. John by his arms and physically removed him from the theater, according to records.

Once St. John was outside the building, officers conducted an invasive pat-down search of St. John and repeatedly asked him why he was in possession of a firearm.

According to court records, St. John responded that he was exercising his Second Amendment right to possess a firearm under the U.S. Constitution.

While still outside the theater, officers continued to question St. John, removed his wallet and Walther .45-caliber handgun, ran a check on his handgun and only returned the handgun to St. John at the end of their encounter.

(Bold mine.)
And they didn't "ask him to put his weapon in his car," they threatened they would arrest him if he didn't. All this without so much as reasonable suspicion (let alone probable cause) that a crime had occurred, was occurring or was about to occur.

[MrModerate]

94. You read the newspaper, I read the legal complaint. My version is the one the court acted on. n/t

[Euromutt]

95. Does the phrase "according to court records" mean anything to you?

There's more to a case than the complaint alone. And what document you're looking at doesn't alter how the cops behaved.

[MrModerate]

97. "According to court records" they asked him a question and he responded . . .

(and the complaint notes that he responded "respectfully").

Nothing about dragging, or invasive, or taking, etc., etc. The judge made the determination based on the complaint, not the newspaper.

I don't know about you, but I prefer it that way.

[Euromutt]

102. Are you not getting that the newspaper report cites District Court records?

That the description of events in the newspaper is derived from the District Court records? That there is more material in the trial record than just the complaint?

[MrModerate]

103. It cites the records in one instance. Everything else is the reporter's take on the incident.

On edit: I've been improperly calling it "the complaint." In actual fact, it's the summary judgement:

http://opencarry.mywowbb.com/attachment.php?id=7856

[Euromutt]

105. Let's review what you said in post #89

You: "By 'abducting' you mean asking him politely to come out into the lobby and discuss the issue."
Judgment:

Officer McColley told Mr. St. John that he needed to accompany Defendants out of the theater. After Mr. St. John stood up, Officer McColley removed Mr. St. John from the Theater in an escort hold, securing Mr. St. John's left arm. According to Officer McColley, one of the other three Defendants may have secured Mr. St. John's right arm as he was led out of the Theater.

You: "By 'detaining' you mean talking to him in the lobby."
Judgment:

Once outside, Officer McColley continued to restrain Mr. St. John's left arm <...>. Defendants then instructed Mr. St. John to place his hands on a nearby wall and proceeded to pat him down.

You: "By 'taking' you mean asking him to put the weapon in his car."
Judgment:

Once outside, Officer McColley continued to restrain Mr. St. John's left arm while Defendants removed the gun from Mr. St. John's holster, removed the gun's magazine and cleared
a chambered bullet. <...> Having taken the weapon, Officer McColley informed Mr. St. John that he could return to the movie if he left the gun in his truck.

So far, the newspaper account is consistent with the judgment, whereas your version is not. Note the word "asking" or any equivalent thereof is not used; it's "Officer McColley told," "Defendants instructed," "Officer McColley informed."

[Euromutt]

168. Do I hear crickets? (n/t)

[MrModerate]

190. Self-delete (wrong place)

[MrModerate]

191. Ah, dictionaries.

abduct: to seize and take away (as a person) by force -- after he voluntarily stood up and was placed in an escort hold . . . that's abduction?

detain: to hold or keep in or as if in custody . . . this in an interaction that took place over a few minutes and included the complainant walking to and from his car.

take: to get into one's hands or into one's possession, power, or control: as to seize or capture -- pardon me, they cleared the chamber and gave the weapon back.

This is all from Merriam Webster Online. It indicates that the usage I originally commented on took the most extreme form of the terms and didn't accurately reflect the intensity or intent of the incident.

Nevertheless, the court later found they'd erred, and their department ends up having to pay compensation. However the implication that they were aggressive, anti-citizen, gun-grabbing bullies is not borne out by the summary judgment.

[Euromutt]

197. Spare me the dic-swinging

..and at least have the grace to admit that your description of events in your post #89 bore very little relation to the contents of the summary judgment.

I wouldn't describe anything done at the command of a law enforcement officer "voluntary." You comply with a police officer's orders because you know that if you don't, there will be negative consequences. Placing a person in an "escort hold" clearly restrains the "escorted" person's freedom of action, and places the "escorting" officer in a position from which he can readily apply force, and what's more, it's clearly evident to the person being thus held that any resistance will be rapidly met with force.

"An interaction that took place over a few minutes"? Read the summary judgment again (if, indeed, you read it at all): it states the entire incident took "approximately thirty minutes" (to the best of St. John's recollection; top of page 3).

<...> pardon me, they cleared the chamber and gave the weapon back.

Again, did you actually read the summary judgment? The cops took the weapon, cleared it, and then held it onto it for 15 or 20 minutes (while St. John was searched and run through the database) before finally placing it in St. John's truck. The judgment itself uses the word: "Having taken the weapon, Officer McColley informed Mr. St. John <...>" You can hardly criticize somebody's rendition of events as diverging from the summary judgment when the judgment uses the exact same word.

[MrModerate]

198. 30 minutes in the presence of police officers! Oh horrors: It's worse than the Gulag!

I'm surprised they didn't award him the entire annual city budget of Alamogordo, so great was his suffering.

You're the one who abused the language. A lot more than the complainant was abused. And he got 21 grand. Will you be sending Merriam-Webster a check for, say, 50K?

[Euromutt]

200. Do you call yourself "MrModerate" because...

...you're only moderately dishonest? You claimed more than once that your rendition of events was based on the summary judgment, which is untrue to the point that I seriously have to question whether you actually read the summary judgment, or whether perhaps you suffer from "gun-aversive dyslexia" causing you to read things that aren't actually there.

You said St. John was asked "politely to come out into the lobby and discuss the issue," when according to the summary judgment, he was ordered to stand, removed from the theater (not "into the lobby") while being physically retrained, searched and questioned. There was no "discussion."

You claim the "interaction took place over a few minutes" as part of denying that St. John was detained. I'd say when you're "instructed <...> to place <your> hands on a nearby wall" and frisked, then subjected to questioning while you're run through the database, that constitutes being detained.

Jesus, not only do you resort to semantical nit-picking to distract from the fact you're talking bollocks, you don't even get the semantics right! And you have the gall to accuse me of abusing the language? Find a stepladder and get over yourself, already.

[MrModerate]

201. Aieeyah.

Here's what you said: "By abducting someone, detaining them arbitrarily, and taking their possessions when you know they didn't break any laws."

Here's what the summary judgment said:

Abduction: "Officer McColley told Mr. St. John that he needed to accompany Defendants out of the theater. After Mr. St. John stood up, Officer McColley removed Mr. St. John from the Theater in an escort hold."

Just for yucks, here's the "escort hold" that supposedly qualifies this action as abduction: "With one hand, the officer grips above the elbow of the subject's dominant arm and, with the other hand, grips the subject's wrist. The officer then pulls the subject's hand and wrist toward the officer's center. The officer may then move the subject by stabilizing the subject's elbow and pushing forward on the subject's forearm and wrist."

Now *that's* police state tactics for you.

Arbitrary detention: "Once outside, Officer McColley continued to restrain Mr. St. John's left arm while Defendants removed the gun from Mr. St. John's holster, removed the gun's magazine and cleared a chambered bullet. Defendants then instructed Mr. St. John to place his hands on a nearby wall and proceeded to pat him down. No contraband or additional weapons were found on Mr. St. John and a police database check revealed that he possessed the gun lawfully. Having taken the weapon, Officer McColley informed Mr. St. John that he could return to the movie if he left the gun in his truck."

Detention? Arbitrary? No, standard procedure if they believed a crime might have been committed -- and that St. John potentially had had more than one weapon. The fact that they were later determined by the court to have acted incorrectly doesn't retroactively transform their behavior into something it was not.

Taking their possessions: "Mr. St. John agreed and led officers to his truck, where they placed the unloaded gun. Mr. St. John reloaded and recocked the weapon before leaving it in the truck and returning to the Theater for the remainder of the movie."

Taking? They separated him from his weapon until he complied with their instructions and then they gave it back. This was also clearly part of the "discussion" between St. John and the officers.

Know they didn't break any laws:

There's nothing in the summary judgment or in the breathless newspaper article that indicates the cops "knew" St. John hadn't broken any laws. On the contrary, the evidence is pretty compelling they thought he was a danger to the community and acted in that community's interest to determine whether he was or not. As it turns out, the court determined -- long after the fact -- that they overstepped their authority.

You mischaracterized the incident, just as the newspaper did. Does that make you dishonest? I don't have enough evidence to say one way or the other.

[Euromutt]

203. You'll find it was Taitertots who said that, not me

Even if he overstated the case somewhat, that doesn't make you right.

In the meantime, did you find that bit in the summary judgment where the cops asked St. John politely to step into the lobby to discuss the issue?

[MrModerate]

204. Sorry to attribute someone else's statements to you. There are a lot of subthreads here . . .

And I admit it's a little hard to keep them straight. Especially when you get to the point where responses are no longer nested under the parent posting.

And maybe they "ordered" him (politely of course) to leave the theatre . . .

[PavePusher]

227. I would say that an unlawful detainment by police..

is an abduction. Even if only temporary. If I detained you by threat of force, forced a search of your person under threat of arrest, illegaly ordered you to cease doing something legal, and lied about the manager requesting it, would you not consider your rights violated?

With your philosophy about police authority being so prevalent, is it any wonder so many people are so concerned that our freedom is being sausaged?

[oneshooter]

7. You seem to miss the point

Open carry is LEGAL under state law. He was committing no crime, had not brandished the weapon, and threatened nobody. Yet he was arrested and detained,ILLEGALLY!! So state law is not important to you?

Oneshooter
Livin in Texas

[MrModerate]

12. I get the point entirely. Open carry is legal.

However, the very act of carrying into a theatre is provocative. Effectively, IMO, it's brandishing the weapon. Also, gratuitious demonstration of foolishness in public -- especially involving firearms -- ought to be of intense interest to law enforcement. Stopping him and asking him why he was being a jerk would strike me as the minimum prudent thing to do. The articles I've seen don't describe the manner in which he was detained.

Threatened nobody? My ass. Some guy sitting in a theatre with a gun -- an entirely inappropriate act -- would threaten me intensely. I'd leave immediately. And so might everybody else. What do you call that? Stampede.

My point about State law is that it's much more complicated and nuanced than the constitutional provisions on which the State law is presumably based.

[X_Digger]

16. Brandishing has specific legal standards, that vary by state.

Typically, in states that don't restrict open carry, open carry itself cannot be called brandishing, should the weapon remain holstered (certainly so in NM that has case precedent to this effect.)

Provocative, maybe. Provocative is neither 'reasonable suspicion' nor 'probable cause'.

[MrModerate]

23. But it's something that every cop evaluates every day to determine whether further questioning . . .

is warranted.

[X_Digger]

26. They don't have that discretion.

'Gut feelings' and 'hunches' have little legal precedent, and rightly so.

[MrModerate]

28. While I agree with you about hunches, etc., I have two points:

1) Evaluating someone's behavior as suspicious -- and hence questioning them -- is a bit more than a hunch, and 2) "legal precedent" doesn't apply before the fact. Certainly, I'd expect a case built on a hunch to be tossed out once it was before a judge, but in day-to-day law enforcement, every action is not constrained as it would be in court. And a good thing, too. We hire cops because they're trained and have the capacity to exercise discretion.

In this case the court disagreed with the discretion they exercised, and I in turn disagree with the court.

[X_Digger]

29. Cops do have discretion, and do pursue hunches..

.. but they can't go beyond 'a friendly word' and into the territory of detaining, disarming, and arresting someone who has committed no crime without a stronger basis than a hunch.

Legal precedent does apply before the fact- ask any of our resident law enforcement officers how much of their continuing education is taken up with changes to federal, state, local laws, recent decisions by courts, and opinions by State AGs surrounding same.

[MrModerate]

33. Well, so far I haven't seen a description of what detention they subjected the carrier to . . .

So I can't comment. Presumably it went beyond the "friendly word," or this wouldn't have ended up in court.

With regard to your second point, I'm very pleased that cops continue their education throughout their careers so they have deep and broad knowledge of the law and what the likely outcome of their actions might be in court. My point was what a opposing counsel might call objection to in court doesn't apply on the street, except to the extent that police procedures and guidelines need be properly aligned with applicable legal requirements.

[X_Digger]

34. Summary judgement link..

http://opencarry.mywowbb.com/attachment.php?id=7856

[MrModerate]

38. He had a chambered round? Yeah, great judgment there. n/t

[X_Digger]

39. An unloaded gun is a paperweight. n/t

[MrModerate]

42. Is it any wonder that the phrase "Second Amendment Advocate" is so easily rendered as . . .

"gun nut?"

In terms of responding to an armed killer who leaps out from behind the curtains -- the only justification I can see for carrying into a theatre -- is the time needed to chamber a round really going to make any difference to the outcome? Or is it just reckless arrogance to carry a gun that way?

[armueller2001]

44. Once again

carrying in a theater isn't just about the problems one expects AT the theater. Many people who carry, carry every day regardless of location. Trouble can happen on the way to the theater, on the way to the parking lot afterward, any other destinations one chooses to stop later, etc.

You don't just buckle your seat belt if you're in a "high accident" location, do you? No, you wear it all the time when you drive (or if you don't, you should). Nobody knows when they're going to get into a car accident, just like nobody knows when they will be mugged, raped, or assaulted.

Leaving a firearm in an unattended vehicle is irresponsible IMO when there is possibility of bringing it with. There's no inherent safety risk to either the owner or those in close proximity.

Why is keeping a gun loaded with a round in the chamber reckless?

[GreenStormCloud]

45. We always carry in a theater.

It is the only way that we can have one available when we leave the movie to go to our car. Lots of crime happens in parking lots at night.

But then you are in denial about the need for people to protect themselves from violent crime.

[MrModerate]

47. All I can say is: Thank heavens for Netflix. n/t

[logjon]

247. Nice summary

To your knee jerk responses. OMG A GUNZ!!!

[X_Digger]

52. It's usually not the theater itself (for me, at least..)

It would be the walk out of the theater at 2am from the midnight show.

Kind of hard to protect yourself on the trip back to the car if that's where your gun is.

Re one in the pipe- you may not know but modern guns are much safer than older models where leaving one in the chamber is dangerous in and of itself. They have transfer bars, grip safeties, trigger safeties, internal disconnectors- a whole plethora of safety features that make them drop safe (which used to be the reason folks didn't carry with a round under the hammer.) If you carry a revolver, you may be able to cock it with one hand, but many modern single action pistols require two hands to chamber a round. If you're carrying concealed, one hand is usually required to sweep your concealing clothing out of the way, or open a fanny pack or purse.

[onside kick]

78. Is it your position that a person openly carrying a gun is more likely to be on a mission of mayhem

than a person carrying one concealed (either lawfully or not)?

[MrModerate]

82. No. The open carrier is probably demonstrating his/her right to carry lethal hardware . . .

In places where it will creep all non-carriers out. While I'm probably less likely to be gunned down by such a person, it's still a highly undesirable situation that I would extract myself from as soon as possible.

[cabluedem]

149. All it takes is a No Guns Allowed sign to keep these creeps out of the property. nt

[X_Digger]

150. How can you make two back to back posts and not even be consistent between them??

A) "All it takes is a No Guns Allowed sign to keep these creeps out of the property. nt"

vs

B) "Id be willing to bet guns were banned in that theater. Gun nuts dont care.nt"


If A) were true, then B) is false.

If B) were true, then A) is false.

So which is it? Are folks legally carrying concealed going to obey a sign, or are they going to carry in contravention of the sign? You can't have it both ways.

Typically, the legal concealed carriers I know obey the signs, and let the management of the place of business know why they're taking their business elsewhere, so A) would be true, which invalidates B).

[cabluedem]

154. There is no mistake. You pack into a place with the No Guns sign and you go to the lockup. nt

[X_Digger]

155. Are you under the effects of deleterious substances or dim?

That isn't even close to an answer to my question.

[cabluedem]

158. It figures. When you have no argument, attack the opposition. nt

[Merchant Marine]

164. You stated

That a "No Guns" sign would keep gun owners from carrying onto the property.

You then stated that gun owners would ignore the sign because "they don't care".

So which is it? Will a "No Guns" sign stop guns from coming onto the property?

[X_Digger]

176. I pointed out the illogic of your two statements..

.. you still havent't explained the conflict between the two.

[rl6214]

169. That's not true

It depends on what sign it is.

[GreenStormCloud]

174. Not in Texas, or several other states.

A simple "No guns" sign has no legal standing in Texas. It must be very specifically worded as laid out in Texas code 30.06.

If management or employees in a "No Guns" (Not 30.06 compliant) become aware of your weapon, all they can do is ask you to leave. If you refuse, then they can file a complaint against you for trespassing, but not for having a gun, if you have the permit.

[cabluedem]

147. Id be willing to bet guns were banned in that theater. Gun nuts dont care.nt

[HALO141]

248. Yes, it makes a very big difference.

"... is the time needed to chamber a round really going to make any difference to the outcome? Or is it just reckless arrogance to carry a gun that way?"


Fascinating. Please tell us how you came by your knowledge of gunfighting.

The overwhelming majority of violent encounters take place at very close range and usually in low light. If the situation has deteriorated to the point that you need to resort to your handgun it is almost certain that you will not have the time to manually cycle the slide. A gun that is not ready to fight is next to useless.

Are you equally harsh in your condemnation of law enforcement as to accuse them of "reckless arrogance?" They carry rounds in the chamber also.

[GreenStormCloud]

48. Might have been a revolver.

But when I carry a semi-auto I definately have a round in the chamber. If I need to defend myself or my wife, I may not have the time to rack the slide.

[MrModerate]

50. REport references a magzine. And, how long does it take to rack the slide?

More time than you need to make a reasonable judgment that you're going to fire the gun?

[GreenStormCloud]

53. Violent crime happens damn fast, when it happens.

For some reason, my computer won't open the link. Thanks for the information about the magazine.

It takes about 1.5 seconds for me to rack a slide. Yes, in a crisis that can be more time than one has available. My carry piece is usually a revolver because of the greater reliability. I can draw and accurately fire in less than one second, if I have spotted the situation developing and been able to slip my hand into my pocket and onto the gun. If I have to draw from surprise, it takes me about three seconds.

Are you familiar with the Tueller Drill? Policeman Dennis Tueller demonstrated that a healthy young man with a knife at 21 feet can sprint to an officer and stab him before he can draw a securely holstered firearm. (holster with securing strap) At 21 feet, a knife beats a gun, unless the hand is already on the gun, for average people. And for an imagined safety benefit you want me to give the bad guy two more seconds to kill me?

The above times are for average people. Some fast draw artists are actually so fast that their draw can't be seen, but one has to be born with those kind of reflexes and then they have to practice lots.

[MrModerate]

55. Well, at least open carry (the situation in New Mexico) allows me to identify . . .

those who are carrying legally, so I can cross the street or leave the theatre. That's a plus, I guess.

[GreenStormCloud]

57. Why? If you are close to a legally armed person and a criminal attacked,

they would likely quickly come to your aid. Do you really trust the tender mercies of a violent repeat offender felon more than a law-abiding citizen with a perfect police record?

[MrModerate]

60. Having had it happen to me before I have a policy about places where guns are being discharged.

Be elsewhere.

[PavePusher]

76. I hope you always have that option available to you.

Especially since you seem to refuse to contemplate any alternative circumstances.

[cabluedem]

159. So you have millions of dollars or an umbrella policy? You better if you shoot one

of my family. We will sue the hell out of anyone who harms us, gun or not.

Get used to that notion, pal. Lots of people DONT feel safe around YOUR guns!!!

[JoeyT]

166. That's your right.

Of course if you're found to be at fault you're going to be paying his legal fees.

[GreenStormCloud]

178. If your family is not a criminal attacking me, they are very safe from me.

I will only use my guns to defend myself or my family from violent attack.

[spin]

165. Most quality modern day semi-auto handguns are safe with a chambered round...

you can drop them on the hammer on concrete and they will not fire.

Usually to chamber a round you have to use two hands. (Techniques do exist for chambering a round with one hand, but they are not easy and require a lot of practice.) Assume that you are attacked and your left hand is being used to fend off a knife or is tied up by the proximity of the attacker. Your firearm is useless except as a blunt instrument.

When I carried a semi-auto pistol concealed, I always had a round in the chamber. I have carried a Colt .45 acp "cocked and locked" and a Beretta Centurion .40 cal double action only.

Currently I carry a five shot revolver and all five cylinders are loaded.

Before you flame me read this article on carrying a 1911 style .45 auto cocked and locked.

http://www.sightm1911.com/lib/tech/cockedandlocked.htm

[Taitertots]

75. So you will accept when

the police arbitrarily detain you despite knowing you didn't break any laws because they had a hunch.

"I know your plates are legal, but I'm going to impound your car because I think you did something but I have no idea what"

[MrModerate]

83. License plates = handgun? I don't think so. n/t

[Taitertots]

107. I know, Cars kill far more people than get murdered by guns. n/t

[MrModerate]

124. Lame argument alert!

Cars are machines designed and used to transport people and goods. Used carelessly or recklessly, they can injure or kill. Guns are machines designed and used to kill people. Used carelessly and recklessly, they still injure and kill.

[Euromutt]

130. Lame counter-argument alert!

Unintentional motor vehicle deaths (~46,000 in 2006) are typically about half again as numerous as deaths intentionally inflicted with a firearm (~30,000 in 2006). Half again as many people are killed with motor vehicles without anyone even trying!

Moreover, because firearms are designed to inflict potentially lethal trauma, they can be a credible deterrent. In more than 9 out of 10 cases of a private citizen defending him- or herself using a firearm, the assailant is driven to flight or surrender without being injured. Death is not the only possible outcome of use of a firearm.

[Taitertots]

142. Less than 20,000 firearms murders compared to 40,000+ automotive deaths

A drastically higher number of children die in automotive deaths compared to firearms deaths.

So why is your 3000 pound 100 mph death machine so different?

Guns are designed to kill and only less than 20,000 people are murdered a year. Cars are designed to be safe and 40,000+ people are killed a year. Must be some poorly designed guns.

[logjon]

246. let me get this straight

So if it had been in his pocket you wouldn't have felt threatened at all?

[armueller2001]

8. Why do you consider

bringing a gun to a movie theater to be an inherently bad idea?

Is it a bad idea for an off duty police officer going to the movies with his family to carry his duty weapon concealed?

FYI, those who pursue concealed weapon permits have been proven to be over 5 times less likely to commit a crime than the general population. They're not the ones you need to worry about.

Those who carry illegally (concealed without a permit, or carried openly with prior felonies) are the ones who commit crimes.

"The court got this one wrong."

How? There was nothing saying open carry was illegal, therefore it is legal. You can't arrest someone for NOT breaking the law.

[MrModerate]

14. Please describe to me how you might beneficially make use of a gun in a crowded theatre.

A way that's not highly likely to lead to injury and chaos.

With regard to off-duty police officers, I presume that different departments have different rules. But a trained carrier with a concealed weapon is not the equivalent of some yahoo showing off his heat on his hip. That's threatening.

I worry about anyone who carries a gun inappropriately, into settings where they have no legitimate place.

The court got this one wrong because, IMO -- and based on the information available in the linked sources -- there was sufficient reason to question and detain the guy.

[armueller2001]

17. Well, a mass murder

that could happen in a movie theater (much like VT, NIU classroom shootings) could be stopped by a legal, trained citizen with a firearm. Much like the Appalachain school of law shooting that was stopped by people with firearms. Having someone with the ability to do ANYTHING is better than doing NOTHING.

How is showing a gun on your hip threatening? Do police threaten everyone they walk by? The mere sight of a firearm in a holster does not constitute a threat.

Unfortunately for you, "inappropriate" and "threatening" are subjective terms and do not hold legal weight. No more than earlier in the 20th century when certain minorities made people uncomfortable. Just because it makes you uncomfortable to see guns doesn't mean that people shouldn't have the right to protect themselves and their families. Their safety is not less important than your comfort. Additionally, as was pointed out in a previous post, what about walking from the car to the theater? What about going other places after the movie? Just because someone stops at a movie theater doesn't automatically mean nothing can happen to them the rest of their journey.

What reason was there to question and detain him? What law did they suspect him of breaking?

[MrModerate]

21. Right, so a shooter pops up and you're going to whip out your gun and take him out?

You'll forgive me if that doesn't give me much comfort.

The mere sight of a firearm in a holster constitutes a threat. Whether that's my subjective interpretation or not is irrelevant to this discussion. Also irrelevant to this discussion is the comparison between "discomfort" that people may have felt in viewing minorities versus the discomfort occasioned from exposure to weapons. I think you probably want to put that red herring back on ice before it spoils.

Admittedly, the legal weight of my assessment of "inappropriate" and "threatening" does matter. However, your notion of "safety" versus "comfort" being some sort of protected right is not accurate. The Constitution merely describes the right to "keep and bear," not to satisfy your notion of safety.

However, while in New Mexico it's legal to carry (and presumably implicit in that legal right is protection) one still has to carry sensibly. In a crowded theatre (or a crowded classroom), good sense -- IMO -- says that's inappropriate. That's what the officers apparently also saw.

The fact that they lost in court is one reason why I'm glad I don't live in the US anymore, but instead in a place where carrying firearms is restricted -- mostly by social norms rather than legal ones -- to places where they're appropriate.

[GreenStormCloud]

51. Damn right I would take the shooter out.

You seem to think that the moral thing to do would to be to allow the shooter to keep killing when I have the means to stop him.

BTW - My gun has laser sights, so I can be extremely certain of hitting the bastard.

[MrModerate]

61. Well, whoop-ti-do. Your laser sites make me feel so much better.

No, the moral thing to do would be to drastically reduce the number of guns floating around and thereby reduce the likelihood of gun crimes of all sorts.

[Taitertots]

67. With the exception that you are absolutely wrong

Gun crime has been going down while the number of guns reaches historic highs and carry laws have swept the nation.

We should be like Mexico they have Draconian gun laws and way less crime :sarcasm:

[MrModerate]

80. Baby boomer criminals are dying off or getting a lick of sense.

You need to look a little deeper. How about the UK or Australia, which, while not gun-free paradises, have staggeringly lower gun crime rates?

Oh, and that Mexican example? It kind of falls apart when you consider that most of the crime to which you're referring is (ta-dah!) gun crime. Mexico's law enforcement and other civil institutions are corrupt and ineffective to an extent that most Americans can't even imagine. And the country's a perfect example of the falsity of the mantra that "more guns equals more safety."

[GreenStormCloud]

77. That was not among the choices you offered in your scenario.

You posited a scenario in which I am present with my gun and somebody starts a mass shooting. At that point one has to deal with things as they are. I don't have the option of going back in time and taking away everybody's gun.

In YOUR scenario I have only two choices. A. Do nothing. B. Shoot the bad guy. Of those two choices, I choose B as being the most moral.

You seem to view A as being the most moral. Why is it more moral to allow the BG to keep on killing people if I have the means to stop him, even if my means will kill the BG?

[MrModerate]

81. In a life-threatening situation, you need to do the smart and moral thing, if you can.

My point is that the armed bad guy and your being armed are symptoms of the same thing: too many guns.

[PavePusher]

86. "In a life-threatening situation, you need to do the smart and moral thing, if you can."

The smart and moral thing would be to try to stop the criminal. But you want the victims to be prohibited from having efficient tools to do so.

Do you see the logical fail there?

[MrModerate]

87. The logical fail(ure) with your response is that the problem is . . .

the "efficient tools." Your efficient tools for stopping the criminal are also the criminal's tools for practicing mayhem. If you impose reasonable restrictions on the tools, then you reduce the lethality of any conflict substantially, and then stopping the criminal becomes much easier.

Simply put: guns aren't the solution, they're the problem.

[GreenStormCloud]

110. For me, stopping a criminal would be much harder without a gun.

I am in no shape to fight off a young man, even if he only has his fists. If he has a knife my situation is much worse. Having a gun give me a very good chance. Your method, which would disarm me and not the criminal would give me no chance.

It is mere wishful thinking that banning guns would take them out of the hands of criminals. Wishful thinking is not part of my personal defense plan.

[PavePusher]

115. Wow. You want to stop crime...

by putting the Citizens at a disadvantage when confronted by criminals, to reduce the "lethality" of the conflict.

I didn't know you could pack that much fail into one sentance.

I am all for criminals having to face lethal Citizens. Why do you have a problem with this?

[MrModerate]

121. Of course I'm opposed to criminals facing lethal citizens.

I'm opposed to anything that leads to more people getting killed. Period. And that includes criminals, unless you actually believe that every crime automatically earns the perpetrator (before trial, of course) a death sentence.

And more to the point, the danger to bystanders when some yahoo decides it's time to fire his weapon is something I consider unacceptable. But you apparently do not.

Shoot 'em all and let god figure it out? I reject that totally.

[GreenStormCloud]

133. The only alternative is for criminals to have lethal armament and citizens to have none.

I am not willing to be at the tender mercies of a violent felon.

[PavePusher]

137. Except for the fact that your solution will only get innocent people killed...

and do nothing about criminals.

I don't want anyone to die. But if I have to make a choice between Citizens dying and criminals dying, well, to bad for the crims.

You still have not stated why the Citizens should be at a disadvantage when facing a criminal. Can you defend this position?

[MrModerate]

221. The solution to too many guns is not more guns. n/t

[armueller2001]

224. Interesting to note

that when the police get called to a "shots fired" call... or really, any call at all, they bring guns.

Sic vis pacem, para bellum - "If you want peace, prepare for war"

[MrModerate]

225. OK, so that was an aphorism and consequently imprecise.

My point is that lethality drops if you reduce the number of guns available to criminals and non-criminals alike.

[armueller2001]

226. So why have

firearm related death rates been decreasing for decades, even as the amount of privately owned firearms has been increasing?

Why does Switzerland have a higher rate of firearm ownership and a MUCH lower rate of firearm deaths?

[GreenStormCloud]

233. You ignore the problem with your fantasy.

Criminals will still get guns. Mexico has gun control laws that people like you could only dream of. All guns must be permitted, in most districts the police will only approve of a .22 caliber, and there is only ONE gun store in the entire country. It is run by the government. But they are complaining about how heavily armed the crimials are. And they aren't getting those machine guns from the U.S. either.

Disarming the criminals is impossible. All you can do is disarm the law-abiding and make them helpless in the face of violent crime. I don't think that is a wise idea.

[armueller2001]

79. It's a little late

for all that nonsense when someone starts executing people, or a woman is being raped, or you hear a window break in your house at 2am or....

The thoughts going through people's minds when that happens most likely aren't about education, poverty, or how the heck to reduce the number of guns "floating around"

[MrModerate]

84. And so they just come out shooting? Sweet. n/t

[PavePusher]

85. Bwa-a-a-a-aaaaa. ahahahahahaha. hahahaha!

:rofl:

You haven't heard how succesful Prohibition was for alcohol, have you?

Been completely ignoring the availability of 'illegal' drugs in every portion of society?

Please, pull your head from the sand.

[MrModerate]

88. Let's see . . .

1) Alcohol: easily made at home.
2) Drugs: easily made at home.
3) Guns: Can't be made without substantial factory infrastructure, distribution networks, advanced chemistry, highly skilled labor, etc., etc.

Which of these is unlike the others?

I wonder if techniques that didn't work on 1 and 2 might work on 3?

[GreenStormCloud]

104. You are forgetting about smuggling. Heroin is not homemade.

Guns could easily be smuggled in from other countries, just like cocaine and heroin are.

Also, they aren't that hard to make. A couple of thousand for the tools at Home Depot, read some manuals, and you can make guns. They would not have the quality of a Ruger, but they would shoot. The UK is starting to have problems with underground gun factories.

[one-eyed fat man]

109. ah.............about item #3

Just because you don't know how doesn't mean everyone is a mechanical moron. There are plenty of folks who work with their hands who have skills to work with metal. Garage hobbyists commonly use machine tools like this:



Do you really think that people who have the skills to build a working model of an aircraft radial engine from scratch would be mystified by the internal workings of a Browning machine-gun?

Home-built radial engine

Francis A. Pratt and Amos Whitney worked as machinists for Sam Colt building revolver before they branched out on their own and founded the Pratt & Whitney Company in 1860. With headquarters in Hartford, Connecticut, the company manufactured machine tools, tools for the makers of sewing machines, and gun-making machinery for use by the Union Army during the American Civil War. It was the gun maker's need for precision and production that drove innovation in the machine tool industry. The road from revolver's to radial's is pretty short. The high-bypass turbofan on that Boeing that takes you on vacation was born from the desire to make long, straight and accurate holes quickly.

The quest for more efficient machines only sped up the process of what had been done using files and a blacksmith's forge. The gunsmiths of the Khyber pass routinely build guns beyond your most fearful nightmares.

Khyber Pass gun manufacturing

Kentucky is still full of caves that can produce saltpeter for gunpowder. The same techniques that worked to make powder for War of 1812 still work.

[MrModerate]

122. There's a huge difference between underground factories and aboveground factories.

Like productivity. And the sophistication of the weapon that can be produced.

My father made guns in his (extensively equipped) home workshop -- produced some beautiful pieces after a lifetime as a pilot, aircraft technician, and metalworking hobbyist. No, he couldn't make a Browning machine gun. And he was dependent on a legion of materials suppliers and specialty vendors for things he couldn't fabricate himself. And all of those suppliers were in the aboveground economy.

So while an underground factory could turn out a steady stream (two, three guns a day?), there's no comparison to the volume that even a small factory can produce under today's conditions. Get rid of or otherwise constrain the factories, and the problem would definitely begin trending downward.

[one-eyed fat man]

132. underground weaponry

I suspect you are woefully ignorant of your father's skillset. Based on your description, he could most certainly have built a machinegun, had he been inclined to do so. Browning machine gun receivers and operating parts are studies in manufacturing simplicity. All flat stock, almost all simple straight cuts. You could do it with a drill press and a cross slide table.Certainly it is easier to buy cutting tools and 4140 steel or perhaps using Kasenit to harden small parts instead of bone meal and cyanide in an oven. How do you regulate dual use technology like springs, sheet steel, bar stock or drill bits?

So unless you criminalize the possession of an end mill or a flat bastard, and possibly,fire, you cannot keep guns from being built. Blowback operated, pistol caliber submachineguns like the M3, MP40 or Sten are such laughably simple mechanisms that the most difficult thing to build is the magazine. Recall, too, that insurgents all over the globe have used the crudest contraptions to shoot their version of a "jack-booted government thug" and possess themselves of the latest in REAL military hardware.

So, even if you shut down every legal factory, the demand for guns will not disappear and you will only make the illicit market more attractive for those with skills and no moral compunctions about using them. Like this gadget out of Croatia. It has turned up in the Netherlands, Germany, Belgium, Italy, Spain, and the UK. It lights up, beeps, it goes bang four times, fast.



Closer to home, from what was originally an officer safety bulletin for the Hillsborough County Sheriffs Office (Training Bulletin # TB-09-003. Dated Feb 23rd, 2009.)

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_KidQawqCyP0/Sa_zz0Tbo0I/AAAAAAAABCk/aVMjEBSAzVM/s400/hi-caliber.org+1.jpg

"On Feb 22nd, 2009 a patrol Deputy came across the above child’s super soaker. However what was found inside the power soaker was a Mossberg 12-gauge shotgun. Both the shotgun and the water soaker were fully functional."

You seriously underestimate the creativity and resourcefulness of a determined mind.

Besides, the guns that are out there last an incredibly long time with reasonable care. I own a 2nd Land Pattern musket that was built in the Tower of London in 1769. Based on regimental markings, it was likely brought to these shores by some Redcoat during the Revolutionary War. It will still sling a 3/4 inch diameter lead ball in response to the spark from a good sharp flint, just like it did 240 years ago. And under Federal law it isn't even defined as a firearm!

[JoeyT]

167. A shotgun in a super soaker? That's different.

Course you don't even need the shotgun to turn a super soaker into a weapon. Any combustible material would do it. The amount of household chemicals that could be used that would melt someone's face right off would also make one a pretty effective weapon. Especially if you were guaranteed no one would be able to shoot you to make you stop. Even one of those dollar store squirt guns could become a pretty vicious weapon if people weren't able to do anything about it.
So I guess in addition to real guns we're gonna have to ban fake guns too. And possibly anything that can hold a liquid just to be safe.

You don't even need metalworking equipment/knowledge or high technology to make a firearm. Have none of these people ever seen a pipe gun before? They're even simpler than a potato gun to make and fire real bullets.

[MrModerate]

188. Well, perhaps he could. However, individual pieces turned out in . . .

Easily overlooked workshops are not going to replace the output of aboveground out-in-the-open factories.

Do I imagine some mythical firearms rapture where all the good guns go to heaven on the same day? No. Do I want society to start a variety of programs that will reduce access to guns generally, with an objective of reducing the perceived threat from gun crime to the levels I'm accustomed to in (some) other countries? Yes.

[cabluedem]

162. Yeah, right Annie Oakley!!! nt

[GreenStormCloud]

177. You doubt my abilities?

I qualified expert with the .45 in the Navy.

On the Texas range test I scored 250 our of a possible 250.

My .38 has laser sighting. The bullet hits where the red dot is shining. Put red dot on bad guy, squeeze trigger.

[X_Digger]

18. How about the walk back to the car..

.. at 2am after the midnight show?

The point for me would be not the venue, but the trip to and from- how exactly do you protect yourself walking through the parking garage or down the street to where you had to park if you've left your weapon in the car, or at home?

[spin]

31. Exactly, if you left the firearm in the car...

when you went to the movie, there's a chance someone will break into your car and steal it.

But you could also get attacked on the way to the movie or back to your car or when you drove home or when you got out of your car in your driveway.

Those with concealed permits don't worry about such events happening, but they do choose to be armed and prepared.

They don't stick their head in the sand like ostriches and ignore the fact the violence does occur and doesn't wait until you are ready.

[rd_kent]

74. It doesn't matter, the ONLY justification he needs is the Constitution.

Why is that so hard to grasp?

[MrModerate]

99. Was it Justice Jackson who said "the Constitution is not a suicide pact"? (1949)

The lack of reasonable constraints of firearm usage is clearly one clause in a suicide pact, and I'm not going to sign it.

[beevul]

116. Bullshit. Just plain bullshit.

"The lack of reasonable constraints of firearm usage is clearly one clause in a suicide pact, and I'm not going to sign it."

You said firearm USAGE.

A) Someone carrying a firearm peacably is not using IT.

B) The rules concerning firearm USAGE on federal state and local levels are many. Many many.


But I do think this highlights your disconnect:

You believe someone that is carrying a firearm is "using" it. At the very least you appear to.

[MrModerate]

123. Yes, someone carrying a firearm is using it. And even though that's legal . . .

(at least in New Mexico and many other states), it's a terrible idea.

Given how many people in this discussion have talked about how they plan to threaten criminals with the weapons they're carrying, I'd think the notion of carrying = threatening would be obvious.

[GreenStormCloud]

134. Threatening a criminal saved my wife's life.

I do not accept that it would somehow be morally superior for her to have died at the hands of a criminal.

[PavePusher]

138. Carrying =/= threatening.

No matter how hard you twist that distionary.

[cabluedem]

160. Bingo!!! Its all about thier manhood. Most of these gun packers cant fist fight so they use guns. nt

[GreenStormCloud]

179. At my age, I definately can't fight against a violent felon.

So I have a tool for that. I suppose you think it would be morally superior if I were to submit to the tender mercies of violent criminals, but I don't see it that way. I intend to survive such an encounter, should it happen.

I hope that I will be one of the many who never need to fight off a criminal. I take reasonable precautions to prevent it, but if it happens anyway - I am ready.

[cabluedem]

195. So you are too weak to fight, but you can hold a gun steady in a theater ? No way! nt

[GreenStormCloud]

205. Too weak to fight a twenty-something man, definitely. But my hands are still steady.

I am nowhere near being an invalid. I don't need the handicap parking places. But I know that a senior citizen like myself stands very little chance against a young man in a fight. I need tools to be able to defend myself.

Like I said, I recently was range tested, and I fired a score of 250 out of a possible 250. IOW - I had a perfect score.

[cabluedem]

209. On a range you shot. A 20 year old will grab your gun and shoot you. nt

[GreenStormCloud]

210. How do you figure he can do that with bullets in him?

I am begining to suspect that you don't have any idea how violent encounters go down. By maintaining sutuational awareness, criminals can be spotted while they are in the stalk phase of their crime. They must wait around and select the victim, approach or stalk to withing striking range, then attack. If you are properly cautious you can see them during the stalk phase and know that you have been targeted by them. Then you can be ready and take countermeasures. From a warned start (Not a cold start) I can draw and accurately fire in 1/2 second. Usually, they will stop the countermeasures and break off the stalk. But if they don't break off, then I depend upon awareness to give me that 1/2 second lead time. (Yes, I practice.)

Alternative, they can wait in an ambush site and pounce when the victim is close. This can be avoided by avoiding ambush sites.

Gun-grabbers, such as yourself, promote the idea that criminals are somehow supermen. They aren't. Most of them are on drugs.

You are advocating being helpless in the face of violent crime and throwing myself on the tender mercies of a violent drug-addled sociopath, or group of them. No thanks. I will fight for my life. I do not consider dying by crime to be morally superior to living in the face of crime.

BTW - I am a retired Private Investigator.

[cabluedem]

219. Big woop! You are a PI means nothing. You could shoot someone elsewith your age & disabilities. nt

[Merchant Marine]

220. Do you have a meaningful argument to make?

Or are you all bluster and one-liners? You do know that it's against DU rules to insult another poster, right?

Great job mocking a senior citizen, champ. Really makes me respect your point of view.

And will you please try to learn a bit about CA gun laws? I'm tired of educating you.

[GreenStormCloud]

232. Yes, if need be, I can shoot someone. I hope it will never be necessary.

I have already told you that starting with my hand already on the gun I can draw and fire accurately in less than 1/2 second. I depend upon situation awareness to know when I need to put my hand on the gun in my pocket.

I am not disabled, just a senior citizen. And as such, I know that I could not win a fight with a 20 something. So I carry a gun.

Having been a PI means that I have had a good bit of contact with the criminal world. I have some experience about how a violent attack goes down. You seem to lack that knowledge.

[PavePusher]

228. You are making things up. Again. n/t

[Merchant Marine]

231. No, you'll grab his gun

And then the 20 year old can shoot him any time he pleases.

[MrModerate]

189. Boy, your compelling argument has certainly convinced me!

What was I thinking?

[Euromutt]

10. That'd be a first

People intending to commit crimes in the immediate future don't tend to advertise the fact that they're armed. So, which crime specifically do you think was imminent or in progress, based on the information presented? In the case of Terry v. Ohio, the arresting officer (Cleveland PD Martin McFadden) was at least able to articulate what suspicious activity the arrestees were engaged in at the time.

Your analogy works better with regard to laws against "brandishing" as analogous to yelling "fire" in a crowded theater, but the overwhelming majority of judicial opinion has been that carrying a holstered weapon does not constitute brandishing. Guns don't go off by themselves, and a holstered firearm is a threat to no-one.

Ultimately, your opinion that "the court got this one wrong" isn't based on any reasoned argument, just on the fact that you don't like the ruling. Personally, I rather like the idea that the cops can't stop, search and threaten you with arrest when they can't articulate exactly what it is they you're doing that's illegal.

[MrModerate]

19. Career criminals probably don't advertise their intentions. Wackos with guns are not so reliable.

My point was that the cops saw an armed man in a place where being armed was inappropriate. Legal, but inappropriate. The carrier was behaving in a way that aroused suspicion. I can think of a number of scenarios that might have eventuated, and which would have struck the officers as much more likely because the carrier had already demonstrated bad judgment. He could have: 1) Unholstered the gun and started firing; 2) Triggered a response from a frightened moviegoer who stupidly attempted to disarm the carrier; 3) Taken the whole audience hostage by threat; 4) Incited panic in the audience leading to stampede. Any one of those scenarios begs that a few questions be asked. If the cops can't articulate the reason, then they're at least partially at fault that the ruling came out the way it did.

Judicial opinion may be that a holstered weapon is not a threat but I disagree, intensely. Lots of people disagree, intensely. Just because it's legal to carry does not make it unthreatening.

My reasoned argument is that the cops had sufficient cause to detain and question the carrier because his behavior was inappropriate and consequently the potential threat made their intervention prudent and legal.

[X_Digger]

20. Good thing cops don't operate on the basis of 'inappropriate'..

.. fashion police, anyone?

Seriously, though, that line of reasoning gets you things like 'driving nice car while black' (must be a drug dealer), 'walking while Muslim' (must be a terrorist), 'driving while brown' (must be an illegal), etc.

[MrModerate]

22. Nonsense. Firstly, cops use their judgment all the time. If something looks wrong . . .

(A common synonym for "inappropriate"), they check it out.

Your comparison to racial profiling is also nonsensical. Nice cars, walking, and brown skin are not inherently lethal. Guns are. And it doesn't matter what the person carrying them looks like.

[X_Digger]

27. "Cause I think so" isn't legal justification to detain.

Evidence of a crime being committed, or is about to be committed based on specific and articulable facts and inferences- that's the least restrictive standard that cops have to meet in order to detain. (Google 'Terry Stop' for more information.)

Does a person pumping gas ("inherently lethal"), buying rat poison ("inherently lethal"), driving a car ("inherently lethal" - ok, maybe not those little 'smart cars')- are those people okay to detain? Or is it not the "inherent lethality" that you object to, just the fact that it's a gun, which you don't like?

[MrModerate]

30. Now we're getting into a tired old argument. But hey. . .

1) Gasoline powers automobiles (it can also be abused to commit arson); 2) rat poison controls vermin (it can also be abused to kill people); 3) cars transport people and goods (and can also be abused to seduce your girlfriend -- although maybe not 'Smart Cars'); 4) guns shoot things and people (and can be abused to hammer nails).

Which of these four is different than the others?

With regard to your first item: "The person in question potentially posed a threat to public safety because his behavior suggested bad decisionmaking while armed and there appeared to be a likelihood of panic, arising from other patrons being threatened by the presence of his firearm in the theatre. Consequently, we questioned him."

[GreenStormCloud]

37. Reading all your posts here I conclude...

that you seem to be in denial that violent crime actually does happen to nice people. And that many nice people have decided that they don't want to be a victim and are ready to resist crime, with arms if need be.

The only way I can be sure of being able to resist is to have my resistance tool (gun to you)instantly available when crime strikes. Since I don't know when crime may strike, then I have it on me all the time - except at home. At home we have several guns hidden in different rooms.

[MrModerate]

46. No, I acknowledge that violent crime happens to wicked and nice people alike.

And that nice people have decided that ramping up the potential violence is the way to combat violent crime. I just happen to think that's a terrible way to do it. And I don't want to be collateral damage when their method fails.

I hope you let visitors and neighbors know that you have "several guns hidden" around the house so they can make a reasoned choice whether they'll cross the threshhold or not. Or whether they need armor plating on the sides of their houses that face yours.

If you have children, do you make sure that the parents of any visiting children also know?

Your "ability to resist" scares me shitless in a way that the prospect of being victimized by a genuine criminal does not. I'm glad we're in different countries.

[GreenStormCloud]

54. Why are you more afraid of me, than of a criminal?

My guns are none of my neighbor's business. Besides, I am confident they have their own. This is Texas, after all.

Do you really think that being a submissive lamb is a solution to violent crime when it is happening to you?

Our kids are grown and gone. If the smaller grandkids are over, the guns are quickly and discreetly put up. Older granddaughter is grown. I gave her a .38 for Christmas.

I grew up with guns, and everybody we knew had either a shotgun or a rifle, usually both. It wasn't a big deal. Nobody freaked out.

[MrModerate]

59. Gun are your neighbors' business if they're in your house or if an inadvertent discharge . . .

Is likely to go through the wall of their houses.

With regard to the lamb issue, if someone is going use a gun/knife/fist, etc. to threaten, then the sensible thing to do (in most cases) is to cooperate. If they're intent on injuring or killing me then they'll always have the attacker's advantage and my being armed is unlikely to help. I'll do just as well (or poorly) with my own fists or a chair leg.

Meanwhile, the good citizens who're convinced they need to arm themselves feed an arms industry that guarantees a steady flow of new weapons into the population, and sure as shooting many of those guns are going to end up in the hands of criminals or fools. And unscrupulous gun manufacturers and dealers ensure a steady flow of firearms that are totally unsuitable for personal protection but just ducky for terrorizing people. Illegal gun possession wouldn't exist without legal gun culture feeding it. Nevertheless, the proposed solution for too many guns (in the hands of criminals) is more guns (many of which end up in the hands of criminals).

That seems insane to me.

I often hear the argument "if more good citizens were armed, criminals wouldn't dare try anything." Which I consider nonsensical. Violent criminals are dysfunctional human beings. If they were able behave rationally, they wouldn't be criminals.

What we need to do is -- just like the Constitution implies -- set up municipal militias of volunteers and keep their guns in armories. You want to target shoot, go to the armory. You want to buy a weapon, order it from the local armory (or online, and have it delivered to the armory). You want to go hunting, check your weapon (tagged and GPSed) out of the armory and check it back in when you're done -- just don't take it home. You want to defend your home or business, joint a sanctioned militia group and patrol the area with supervision. And anyone wandering around with a gun who's not a law officer or sanctioned militia member with proper supervision, you take the gun and you lock them up for a long time. No more gun shows where anyone with a buck can get whatever they want.

Eventually that would flush the illegal guns out of the system. And good citizens would have confidence that they didn't have to engage in an arms race with boogeymen.

[armueller2001]

62. Eventually that would flush the illegal guns out of the system.

Really? Maybe we should totally ban drugs too. That would work!

[MrModerate]

64. Many illegal guns? Most? Who knows. Fewer is better.

I've seen it done.

[Euromutt]

92. Seen it done? Where, when, and how long did the effect last?

'Cause I don't think I've ever heard of a civilian disarmament program that resulted in a long-term (let alone permanent) reduction in violent crime. Fewer guns aren't better when the few that are left wind up in the hands of the criminally violent, while the generally law-abiding are disarmed.

[MrModerate]

98. Hong Kong. New Zealand. Germany and the UK post WWII

The list goes on and on. Australia (although not as necessary because gun craziness never got so deeply rooted in Australia).

[Euromutt]

128. Did the violent crime rate decline as a demonstrable result? Did it stay down?

Because I can point to the UK and note that the number of gun crimes doubled in the ten years after handguns were banned (following Dunblane). Any measures in Hong Kong didn't put the Sun Yee On triad out of existence, to name just one organized crime syndicate.

Very frequently, low violent crime rates following the implementation of restrictions on private firearms ownership are attributable to the fact that the violent crime rates were equally prior. The fact that is that most European countries adopted gun control shortly after the Russian and German revolutions of 1917-1918, because they were afraid of a communist takeover, not because they had a major violent crime problem.

[GreenStormCloud]

70. Being a lamb gets you eaten.

With regard to the lamb issue, if someone is going use a gun/knife/fist, etc. to threaten, then the sensible thing to do (in most cases) is to cooperate.
Various studies, including one by the FBI, have shown that the greatest number of injuries are suffered by those who submit. The fewest injuries are suffered by those who resist with a gun. Violent criminal enjoy the power they hold over a victim.

If they're intent on injuring or killing me then they'll always have the attacker's advantage and my being armed is unlikely to help.
The attackers advantage can be neutralized. First be aware of one's surroundings. Muggers have to approach you first to get within striking range. If you are being suspiciously approached, command them to stay away. But to make that work, you have to have the power to back up your command. You can't bluff. Street criminals are very, very good at detecting bluffs, and detecting when you aren't bluffing. Having your hand already on the gun when you tell them to stay away is extremely effective.

A gun is not a talisman, it is a tool and one must learn how to use it in self-defense. If you don't know how, then it is better to leave the gun alone. The good news is that it isn't that hard to become effective with a gun.

For home defense, an absolute first is to harden the home. One has to take away the attacker's advantage of surprise. Good locks, reinforce the doors, nail locks for the windows, then back all that up with a good alarm system, (Note: One does not need to use an alarm company. Good systems can be self-installed.) and then your home gun is the enforcer for all of that. Absolutely do not use the gun for your first line of defense.

Violent criminals are dysfunctional human beings.
Dysfunctional as regards integrating into society, but they are not totally irrational. They realize when the victim is about to kill them and almost always they run away. They don't want to get shot.

The Supreme Court has decided on the 2nd Amendment. It is an individual right, not a collective one. Your side lost.

Eventually that would flush the illegal guns out of the system. And good citizens would have confidence that they didn't have to engage in an arms race with boogeymen.
Here you commit one of the great fallacies of the gun-control movement. If guns were to magically vanish from civilians hands, criminals will instantly have the upper hand over most citizens. Criminals will be able to use their hands as sufficient weapons for women and older people, clubs and knives would be used on the rest of us. (Please note that the UK has a very serious crime problem.) You would instantly give the criminals victory in the arms race. It is my guns that give me the ability to resist violent crime.

BTW - Using the term "boogeymen" for violent criminals implies that you believe the threat to be imaginary, like the boogeyman. It strongly suggests that you are in denial about violent crime.

Regarding my neighbors, I am confident that they all have guns too. In this little town there has not been a single reported case of a bullet going through anybody's home in the years that we have lived here. Your fear is over drawn. However, there have been several murders (half were knife murders), some burglaries, some armed robberies, some assaults, some gang violence, some drug dealing, etc. And my town has a low crime rate.

[MrModerate]

93. Before I address your points, I have to ask . . .

Where do you live? (No need to be overly specific.) I ask because over the years I have lived or worked (i.e., spent more than 1 month) in the following cities: Ft. Worth; Norwich, London and Edinburgh, UK; Oslo; Istanbul; *Alamogordo*; Denver, Aurora, Boulder, and Ft. Collins, CO; Ft. Meyers FL; NYC; Seattle; San Francisco and Oakland, CA; Chicago; Washington, DC; Santa Fe; Gaithersburg and Frederick MD; Hong Kong; Manila; Jakarta and Denpasar, Indonesia; Taipei; Kuwait City, Baghdad, Amsterdam, Cluj-Napoca and Bucharest, Romania; Budapest; Houston; and now Brisbane, Australia. (And a host of podunk towns only of interest to the people who live there and big cities that I spent only a few weeks in.) In only one of these places have I ever been threatened with gun violence (no prize for figuring out which).

And yet, as I scan this thread (and the Gun Forum generally, and places where Second Amendment advocates congregate) I find these people -- solid citizens all, apparently -- who insist that it's just too dangerous to live their lives without being armed.

I just don't get it. You allude to "some" murders, some burglaries, some this, some that in your town -- enough to convince you that you need to carry lethal force to protect yourself and (presumably) your family. What sort of experiences have you had in your life -- have all these folks had in theirs -- that convince them that the threat is sufficiently likely (notice that I didn't say "possible") that carrying a weapon is the measured, safe thing to do?

Because to me, just having a gun around is much more dangerous than the likelihood that it'll save my life or protect me from a criminal.

In any case:

Lamb issue. I've heard the "don't submit to rape" recommendation before, and that makes sense to me, but I can't find stats on injury/cooperation correlation with regard to violent crime (by which I meant robbery through threat of violence). Can you give a link?

Neutralize attacker's advantage. If it's just a mugging we're talking, see above. Also, muggers supposedly seek vulnerable targets, so if you look like you'll put up a fight (via bluff or otherwise), they're likely to move onto easier pickings. If they're intent on murder, I'll put up a stiff resistance with whatever comes to hand, but I'm not likely to prevail because I'm *not* intent on murder. And yes, I do have an alarm on my home and other (perhaps imperfect) security provisions installed. Plus a very large stick I keep by the bed.

Dysfunctional criminals. My point was that criminals can't be relied on to behave rationally, or in their best interest. Sure, most of them want to survive, but do you feel confident that's how they'll behave?

Removing guns doesn't disarm criminals. Perhaps not totally, but the lethality of violent crime would drop through the floor. The UK has a serious crime problem for all sorts of reasons, but if you look at all of the EU (with generally restrictive gun laws), the rates are roughly equivalent to the US. And London (arguably the toughest UK city) doesn't even make the list of "murder capitals," which is dominated by US cities.

"Boogeymen." By which I meant the hundred or so mythical armed criminals I believe stand behind every actual armed criminal one is likely to encounter in daily life.

[GreenStormCloud]

112. I live in a small town of 2,000 people, close to Dallas.

In the last few years we have had four murders. Two were done by a person who was a stranger to the deceased. Two have not been solved.

I have been in all major U.S. cities, and all 48 lower states, plus Guam and Puerto Rico, and several countries.

My experiences? I am a retired private investigator. (All that travel was done in a different occupation, before I became a PI.) My wife is alive because she had a gun on her. She would not have survived the mugging, but the mugger instantly changed his mind when he saw that she had a gun. I have observed - on different boards - that when I share the details, anti-self-defense people always dismiss them, and pro-self-defense people always conclude that she was really about to be attacked.

Regarding resisting violent crime, I can reccomend some excellent books.
Strong on Defense by Sgt. Sanford Strong. He also has a web site: http://sgtstrong.com/
Meditations on Violence Sgt. Roy Miller. His blog: http://www.chirontraining.com/index.html Here is a quote from him: "The only defense against violent evil people are good people who are more skilled at violence "
The Gift of Fearby Gavin de Becker. His web site: https://www.gavindebecker.com/books-gof.cfm
I can list some more books on the subject if you desire.

Also, muggers supposedly seek vulnerable targets, so if you look like you'll put up a fight (via bluff or otherwise), they're likely to move onto easier pickings. Bluffing with street criminals is a very good way to get killed. We never bluff.

My point was that criminals can't be relied on to behave rationally, or in their best interest. Sure, most of them want to survive, but do you feel confident that's how they'll behave?
No problem. If he doesn't want to survive, I can take care of that. Just pull the trigger a few times.





Violent crime is real. Your sarcasm regarding the danger from crime only shows that you, like most antis, are in denial.

[MrModerate]

125. My response wasn't intended to be sarcastic. I really don't get it.

We will continue to disagree.

And I will continue to deny that the threat of violence requires me to carry a gun, and affirm that carrying a gun just ensures a greater level of violence.

You and I -- and most of the people on this thread -- will simply never see eye to eye on this subject. At present your side definitely holds all the cards, as even the most progressive pols don't dare mess with Second Amendment advocates. That's as may be. It's an imperfect world.

[GreenStormCloud]

135. This is what I took to be sarcastic:...

"Boogeymen." By which I meant the hundred or so mythical armed criminals I believe stand behind every actual armed criminal one is likely to encounter in daily life.

That is sarcastic, at least to me.

I have stated that my wife is alive because she had a gun on her during a street encounter with a criminal. You ignored that.

As I stated earlier, you are in denial about the reality of violent crime. May you be lucky enough to never be awakened. I am awake and choose not to trust to luck.

[MrModerate]

145. I actually believe that Second Amendment advocates substantially overstate the risk . . .

One faces from violent crime in normal life, and understate the risk from weapons (primarily handguns) carried on the public streets and stored in private homes.

I choose not to live my life as if I'm going to be threatened by violence at any moment. I suppose you could characterize that as "trusting to luck," but I think of it as maintaining a healthy perspective regarding probabilities.

[GreenStormCloud]

180. It has already happened to my wife.

She is alive because she had a gun on her.

[Euromutt]

66. A point of clarification

I wouldn't have an issue with it if the cops had asked St.John to step outside for a chat to quiz him and ascertain whether something untoward was going on. What happened, however, is that the cops physically dragged St. John out of the theater, searched him quite invasively and went through his wallet while questioning him, and threatened him with arrest if he didn't lock his gun in his car. Which is way out of line given that there was no reasonable suspicion that St. John was intending to do anything unlawful; the guy was just watching a movie.

One person--one--apparently complained to the theater manager about the guy with the gun, but that person was not sufficiently concerned about the likelihood of violence to actually leave the theater, which further makes me think the degree of police reaction was well overdone.

[Euromutt]

35. Maybe it's because I've been assaulted in a movie theater...

... that I have a rather different take on whether or not carrying a firearm in a movie theater is "inappropriate." Admittedly, it was one guy, high on hashish and with a rather large chip on his shoulder, but he had four friends with him, so things could have gotten quite ugly.

The main thrust of your argument why a holstered handgun presents a threat it because it is perceived to be, not because it actually is. That's not a valid basis for crafting legislation or jurisprudence.To latch onto X_digger's point, there are quite a lot of things that are widely perceived as threats--members of ethnic minorities, GLBTs (they'll infect my kid with teh ghey!), people of a different religion, Freemasons, the United Nations, the Zionist Occupation Government, etc.--but we rightly dismiss these perceptions as unreasonable.

[MrModerate]

49. I have a great deal of difficulty with the concept that . . .

a firearm's threat is merely perceived. I think the threat is quite literal. In fact, it's the only reason the firearm exists.

And so the stoner in the theatre, did you shoot him? Or did you display your firearm and he suddenly got the point? Would discharging the weapon at the gang of 5 threatening to assault you have ended in anything but tragedy for someone and perhaps several someones?

[Euromutt]

65. A threat to whom?

Sure, a firearm may present a threat. Whether it presents a threat to you is by no means a given.

The assault I mentioned happened while I was still living in the Netherlands, where owning a firearm is difficult and carrying one legally is impossible. So I didn't have a firearm with which I might have defended myself. I consoled myself with the thought that that asshole would pull his attitude on a guy who was illegally packing a knife or a gun. Would that be a tragedy? Maybe to the guy's family, but personally, I don't give a flying fuck. I don't have a lot of sympathy for people who assault others without provocation. I lost most of it during the 3+ years I spent working for the Prosecutor of the UN International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia.

[oneshooter]

136. My firearm is not a perceived threat

It is concealed, and as such you can not see it, thus no threat. However if you do see it, it is because you are looking at the end of the barrel! This then becomes not a threat, but a promise.

Oneshooter
Livin in Texas

[cabluedem]

152. Wow! Where diD you pull that Bs cat out of the hat? nt

[cabluedem]

163. I was in a bank that was robbed by gun. No one had any time to pull a gun, even the guard. These gun

packers are so full of themselves. I am convinced that many of them want badly to kill
anyone, as long as they have a reason. That makes them crazy, by definition.

[GreenStormCloud]

181. What banks have guards anymore?

I haven't seen a bank guard in over 50 years.

[cabluedem]

193. You need to get out more. nt

[GreenStormCloud]

206. I have been to all major U.S. cities, and all lower 48 states.

Never have seen a bank guard in real life, only in the movies.

[rd_kent]

72. Dude, I am not arguing whether its a good idea or not to open carry a gun in

theater, as THAT is a matter opinion. You don't like the fact that Americans can carry guns, openly. Got it. THIS guy was committing NO crime, had his CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS VIOLATED by errant cops, and YOU dont care. You need to reevaluate your standards of fairness and equality.

Open carry isn't a constitutional provision, it's State law. Makes a difference, wouldn't you think?

As the right to bear arms is a right, one must be able to carry said arms. If a state has a law against concealed carry, then open carry must be allowed. If a state has a law against open carry, then concealed carry MUST be allowed. You seem to ignore the fact that having his gun in the theater, or the grocery store, or the porn shop or a restaurant is IRRELEVANT. ITS ALL LEGAL and he committed no crime. Sheesh.

[MrModerate]

100. I'm sorry, but carrying a gun may be many things, but it's not irrelevant.

The cops thought he was a threat to public safety, questioned him, convinced him to put his weapon out of sight in his car. The court disagreed that their actions were appropriate. I disagree with the court.

[cabluedem]

146. Only a coward or a criminal takes a gun into a theater. Thankfully in CA he would be a felon. nt

[X_Digger]

151. Concealed carry in a theater in CA appears to be legal..

assuming, of course, you're politically connected or rich enough to get one in the first place..

http://www.lasd.org/contact_us/inquiry/gen_pub_ccw_app.pdf

[cabluedem]

161. Only with a permit, but most places we visit have the warning signs against guns like I do. nt

[X_Digger]

175. Theaters are not 'prohibited places' in and of themselves..

.. thus making your statement untrue.

"Thankfully in CA he would be a felon." -- No, if a person ignores a 'no guns' sign posted by a private property owner, that is a misdemeanor per Penal Code (PC) section 12021(c.

[Merchant Marine]

212. You really need to

try learning California's gun laws before you try to uphold them as the holy grail of gun control.

[logjon]

244. Movie theaters are special now?

What about a movie theater exactly is it that makes you think you would be less likely to have to defend yourself or your kin there as opposed to somewhere else? There is no comparison to shouting 'fire.' This is absurd.

[Euromutt]

6. What do you need you right against unreasonable search and seizure for?

Do you not get the point that this is arguably more a Fourth and Fifth Amendment issue than it is a Second Amendment issue? Do you like the idea of police being allowed to threaten citizens with arrest for doing something that isn't actually illegal? If some cops threatened to arrest a guy wearing a t-shirt reading "Fuck Bush," would your reaction be "Why do you need to wear a shirt like that?"

[GreenStormCloud]

9. Because we have to walk through a parking lot to get to theater and back.

And I will likely go to some other places also. When we leave a theater in the evening to walk to our car we want to be able to defend ourselves from a mugger, if one tries. But to have the gun on us when we return to our car we have to have it with us in the theater.

Church? You are aware that there have been some church mass shooting, aren't you? And there was that recent mass shooting at a church that was stopped early by a CCW holder.

Grocery store? There was a recent news story about two guys who held up a grocery store and were both killed by a couple of customers who happened to be armed.

The fact is, the world is dangerous, and we choose not to deny that danger but to deal with it. By denying that danger you set yourself up to be a victim.

[Katya Mullethov]

13. Ed Gein got busted over a half gallon of antifreeze

Remember when you could buy antifreeze in quarts ?

[slackmaster]

68. That is not a relevant question

Why did you need to ask it, RC?

[GreenStormCloud]

56. Mr. Moderate, I want to give you a genuine compliment.

Although we strongly disagree, you have kept your discussion civil and on subject. So often the gun-controllers here quickly resort to venomous insults and penis references. It is refreshing to discuss with a committed person on the other side who respects civil discussion.

[MrModerate]

63. I come from a gun-owning family.

As a kid I went hunting with my dad and brother, was a member of the NRA, etc., etc.

But the world I grew up in has disappeared. Except on remote properties, people didn't keep handguns for protection back then, and criminals (outside of crimelords in bad movies) didn't have military-grade weaponry. And gun accidents were almost exclusively hunting accidents and 90 percent of those were someone catching their trigger on a twig and inadvertently discharging.

But since that time the NRA has been captured by mad people and turned into a distinctly rightwing bully immune to reason. Gun manufacturers have flooded the country with deadly toys that serve no useful purpose but to be deadly toys. And, frankly, popular culture has so inurred us to firearms being tidy ways of solving problems that many people really believe they're tidy. Instead of being very very messy and very very risky.

Yeah, I'm anti-gun now. I've also seen how it's done in other freedom-loving countries and convinced we can control civilian access to firearms without compromising our freedom, safety or honor.

I've also appreciated your fact-based responses.

[westerm]

90. wrong

Listen, we've all heard the "I've got my NRA card right here, come look at my over/under..." line a million times from various anti-gun politicians. You aren't fooling anybody. Criminals don't have "Military hardware" now, nor did they ever have it in any significant numbers. Yeah, the occasional guy gets his hands on an AK and goes wild, but those types of incidents are rare. Criminals are still killing each other with the same crappy handguns they've always used. Gun accidents are caused by negligent idiots, always have been and always will be.

The NRA - this isn't freerepublic or AR15.com you're posting on. Nobody here likes the NRA, but as it happens they're the only pro-gun lobbying group with any influence. They've drifted farther and farther right as time goes on because the politicians they've got to court are right wing. There aren't too many leftists in congress who are also big on guns, in case you hadn't noticed. As I said before, gun manufacturers have not "flooded the country with deadly toys". It's not like they're driving up to the ghetto with a truck full of guns and distributing them, and criminals just don't use rifles or even nicer handguns all that often. And you can whine about popular culture all you want, it is what it is.

And I have yet to hear about any country being able to set up a registration scheme that wasn't reprehensible in some way.

[MrModerate]

96. "Wrong" -- well, that's certainly an irrefutable response.

But let's address your points anyway.

Listen, we've all heard the "I've got my NRA card right here, come look at my over/under..." line a million times from various anti-gun politicians. You aren't fooling anybody. I'll pass on that one because I can't tell WTF you mean.

Criminals don't have "Military hardware" now, nor did they ever have it in any significant numbers. Depends on what you consider significant. Or even military. Look at the weapons available at just about any gun show (where anyone with a credit card can buy -- even if it's not their card). A substantial proportion of them, even if they're not genuinely military issue, provide a level of lethality previously available only in military weapons. And why? For target shooting? For protection? No, so some goofus can add to his collection of deadly toys, or some criminal can more effectively intimidate a clerk at the local Mini-Mart. Do criminals still whack one another with cheapo guns? Sure. So what? Only a few hundred dollars separates them from some seriously sexy hardware. You think drug dealers don't have that kind of cash?

Gun accidents are caused by negligent idiots, always have been and always will be. Granted. So the reasonable solution is to make even more guns readily available to more idiots?

Go ahead, defend the NRA. They are beyond the pale. If you're a progressive and a Second Amendment advocate, you need to found or ally yourself with some group that's not run by irresponsible wackos. Otherwise your credibility is zero.

Whine about popular culture. Not whining. Just saying certain threads of popular culture are toxic and dangerous. I'm sure you can pick out a few other threads to object to yourself.

Just about every other developed nation manages/restricts gun ownership more successfully than the US. That's why they kill each other less often. Admitedly, Caracas and Moscow are worse than New Orleans and DC, but that's hardly a recommendation.

[X_Digger]

108. re "Military Hardware"

Depends on what you consider significant. Or even military. Look at the weapons available at just about any gun show (where anyone with a credit card can buy -- even if it's not their card). A substantial proportion of them, even if they're not genuinely military issue, provide a level of lethality previously available only in military weapons. And why? For target shooting? For protection? No, so some goofus can add to his collection of deadly toys, or some criminal can more effectively intimidate a clerk at the local Mini-Mart. Do criminals still whack one another with cheapo guns? Sure. So what? Only a few hundred dollars separates them from some seriously sexy hardware. You think drug dealers don't have that kind of cash?

Really?

Here, have a stroll down memory lane.. http://www.scribd.com/doc/2388191/GUNS-Magazine-September-1957

Notice the Mausers, the Enfields, the M1 carbines, the Mannlichers, the Lugers, the Ternis, the Schmidt-Rubins, the Mosin-Nagants..

There have _always_ been true military surplus rifles in the civilian market.

Now, if you're talking fully automatic, those have been highly regulated since 1934, but the 'lethality' of a firearm has more to do with caliber than anything else. There are _less_ fully automatic weapons on the market (and prices have skyrocketed) since the 1986 closing of the registry to new weapons.

And yet..

http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2008/data/table_20.html

All 'rifles' (including those scary looking ones) are used in less than 3% of murders, and less than 1% of all crimes (from previous years, no data for 2008 that I can find yet).

[westerm]

113. i just used that subject because i can never think of a good subject line

A lot of politicians who are anti-gun like to point out how they own , and how they're a member of the NRA. Usually they say this just before they start talking about the need for "common sense gun laws".

I consider "Military hardware" to mean AKs and AR-15s, i.e., rifles. At least that's how I assumed you were using it, I don't consider either of those to be military hardware because tons and tons of regular people own them. My point was that people just don't use rifles when they're committing a crime. I think it was like 4 or 5% of gun crimes are committed with rifles. A tiny amount of that is probably fully-automatic rifles, which is the only type of rifle you can reasonably consider to be "military hardware".

A substantial proportion of them, even if they're not genuinely military issue, provide a level of lethality previously available only in military weapons.
You're basically getting into "1994 AWB" levels of ignorance regarding guns, here. For example: consider these two guns. http://ruger.com/Firearms/FAProdView?model=5802&return=Y">One http://arsenalinc.com/slr106f.htm">Two Those rifles fire the exact same round, and both are semi-automatic only. The Mini-14 has been available since the 70's, and the AKs have been flowing in for quite some time. There isn't any sudden new availability of super-deadly weapons - those types of weapons have been available for a long time and they aren't super-deadly either. The average hunting rifle fires a round that is far more powerful. Secondly, people go and shoot paper at the range with AK's and AR-15's all the time. I go shoot at paper with an AK every weekend. Tons and tons and tons of people use AR-15s for home defense. And that type of rifle is hardly ever used in crime. As I said before, you have your occasional high-profile "guy with an AK" moment, like the N. Hollywood shootout, but those are rare.

So the reasonable solution is to make even more guns readily available to more idiots?
I don't know when you grew up, but you realize that until 1993 there were no background checks when you bought a gun, right? There's more accidents today because there are more gun owners, I don't think the rate of accidents has gone up very much.

The NRA is the only pro-gun lobbying group that matters. Most of us would love it if other, less right-wing groups would defend the 2nd Amendment (e.g., the ACLU) but those groups just aren't there. There are pro-gun groups that are less-affiliated with the right wing but they have virtually no influence. Look at various pro-gun groups and then compare their membership numbers and spending to the NRA's.

I agree with you about popular culture, but it is what it is. You can't exactly legislate it away.

It's not why they kill each other more often. Do you honestly think that those places have less violence because of their gun laws? Come on. The crime rate is not determined by how strict the gun laws are. Secondly, restricting gun ownership nearly always involves door-to-door confiscations, something that I disagree with on pretty much every level.

[MrModerate]

126. As a non-gun owner . . .

my definition of military hardware is probably pretty sloppy. "A rifle with automatic or semi-automatic fire and a really big clip." Because the ability to discharge 10 or 20 rounds in about as many seconds doesn't seem to me to fulfill any legitimate civilian need. You target-shoot with such guns. OK, I can imagine that as long as that weapon is securely locked up when you're not at the firing range. Preferably *at* the firing range and not at your home.

Because I couldn't disagree with you more about whether the weapons you linked to are "super deadly." In competent hands those weapons could kill as many people as there are rounds in the clip, as quickly as the user could squeeze the trigger. The fact that a hunting rifle uses an even more powerful bullet doesn't give me much comfort.

Even if the NRA is the only effective gun lobby today, that's like saying Mussolini's blackshirts were the only effective means of maintaining order in 1930s Italy. The damage the NRA does to the political system goes way beyond protection of the Second Amendment and resembles most of all a protection racket. It's hard for me to imagine any progressive lining up with the NRA.

But you're right -- you're never going to get the ACLU on your side because 1) the ACLU picks its fights (if not always wisely) and there's a huge queue ahead of you and 2) most ACLU members are (like myself) gun control advocates. But there are lots of progressive Second Amendment advocates out there. Do you think they could never band together and be as effective as the NRA?

Not that I necessarily would agree with even progressive pro-gun people because, after all, I'm not.

(Full disclosure: I do have a weapon my father brought back from WWII, but he only fired it once: right after he wrestled it out of the previous owner's hands.)

[westerm]

141. the need argument

Is so played out. There's about a million things you don't really "need". In any free society, you need reasons to deny rights, not reasons to grant them. I know you're going to come back with "well criminals use these guns for evil so they must be banned" - but criminals a) don't use them all that often, and b) you could make that same argument about computers. X% of pedophiles find their victims through the internet! Ban all computers now! Secondly, the Second Amendment says right in it's text "being necessary to the security of a free State". Does that not imply that they wanted people to have "military grade hardware"? What would forcing people to store their guns at a range do? Aside from making it more of a goddamn hassle to own guns, which would be the ultimate goal of legislation like that.

"In competent hands those weapons could kill as many people as there are rounds in the clip!" Yeah, and I could go out to my car and drive around merrily running people down until I ran out of gas. "You don't need such a large gas tank! Why would anyone need to go any farther than their local shopping center? That's why I'm proposing this legislation, which would limit gas tanks to two gallons unless a need for more is demonstrated..." Mass shootings are extremely rare, trying to use them as a reason to restrict X type of gun is just plain dumb.

You're being really over-dramatic about the NRA, I think. What "damage" do they do to the political system that other lobbying groups don't? (And lobbying groups are a whole other thread...) Yeah, they engage in fearmongering pretty frequently, but it's largely in response to the opposition's own fearmongering. "Obama gonna take your guns!" was pretty slimy, but hell, Obama had "I'm gonna take your guns" written on his website. Not in those terms, of course.

Don't you (and the ACLU) see the (and I hate this stupid buzzword) cognitive dissonance in your thinking? One minute you're supporting the rights of the KKK and other groups like them, protecting the first amendment etc. but then the next you're writing blog posts about how the Supreme Court got it all wrong and the 2nd is a collective right and the national guard is "the militia". As I said before, there's no way a progressive pro-gun group would ever be effective. They'd never be able to get enough members to be relevant and they'd end up being forced to court right-wing politicians if they ever wanted to achieve anything. Yeah, there are some (D)'s who support gun rights, but there's not many of them.

[paulsby]

58. we have had roll call training on open carry at our PD

and i have advised my recruit trainees of this as well. it's unfortunate, but cops are sometimes ignorant of the law.

my agency happens to have better training than most, but all should have training in such basic issues.

fwiw, i have had SUPERVISORS who were totally unaware of nuances of open carry law. ime, the street guys know way more. i had a captain tell me that if we get an open carry call and we see the guy, we NEED to contact him. that's ridiculous, and we have no right to "contact" if it involves a STOP of an open carrier.

that's totally contrary to our state constitution and state law.

and the lawsuit was the best way to handle it. kudos to st. john. even if detained illegally, as he was, you do NOT have the right to resist. he didn't. he waited, then sued... and won.

good for him

[Taitertots]

69. This thread is classic

A poster with the Avatar "MrModerate" is advocating arbitrary detention and property seizure for people following the law and not even suspected of a crime. Even after the courts have ruled that Mr St. John's rights were violated.

With the justification that he is so terrified of guns that seeing one makes skid marks in his underoos.

[GreenStormCloud]

71. His stance on the 2nd Amendment isn't moderate either.

But he is civil, and I appreciate that.

[MrModerate]

101. Like a lot of people, I consider the wording of the Second Amendment to be ambiguous . . .

I also think that if the Founding Fathers saw America today, they'd soil their breeches. And immediately rewrite the Second Amendment into something less ambiguous.

If you think cops have no business questioning someone who carries a weapon into a crowded theatre, then you must think Homeland Security has no business questioning you bringing your weapon on that commuter flight to Ft. Wayne. Or is that OK, given the potential threat such an action poses?

And if it's OK, then we're arguing threat assessment (which makes perfect sense to me) rather than inalienable rights.

If it's not OK, please let me know the next time you're thinking of flying to Ft. Wayne.

[Taitertots]

106. The airlines have expressed their right to refuse people carrying on airplanes

And I believe it is against the law to carry a gun on a plane. The two events are totally unrelated. That you would even think it would be comparable reeks of flawed thinking.
A)Illegal, against the known wishes of the airline, and an unquestioned presumption of reasonable doubt a crime may be committed
B)Totally legal, owner refused to make wishes known, and a clear legal presumption of innocence.
What could possibly make you think that would make sense?



The Founding Fathers started a violent revolution, owned slaves, and grew hemp. They would soil their britches for other reasons. They were using guns to murder people in the government and thought people should have guns to murder people in the government. I think it is safe to say that they wouldn't think much of what is happening. People back then could own CANNONS that fire exploding rounds. The rifles and pistols available for private sale were superior to the military rifles, now that are so inferior they are not interchangeable.

[one-eyed fat man]

111. it was not always so.

Prior to 1986 the authority to arm flight crews was with the certificate holder. In the case of Part 121 airline operations and Part 135 charter operators, the company not the government, set the rules for the carriage of firearms aboard its airplanes. The government, before the change to the Postal Service, as the old US Post Office required pilots flying the mail, e.g, on STAR contracts, to be ARMED. They commonly provided M1917 revolvers to pilots who requested them.

By his own accounts, Lindbergh relates that, on two occasions when he had to bail out of a mail plane, he was concerned the parachute's opening shock might cause him to lose his Post Office issue revolver.



This 1917 Colt has a Parkerized finish, Anniston Arsenal rebuild marks, and a Post Office use provenance.

A great number of the airline captains of the Fifties and Sixties, the ones had who spent their 'wastrel youth' flying B-17's, B-24's and such during WW2, ROUTINELY carried pistols in with their Jeppesen charts. Pretty certain the way some folks have their knickers all in a twist over arming pilots would perplex those old vets.

[MrModerate]

127. Actually the two are directly comparable . . .

If you accept that your right to bear arms can be infringed to the extent that you can't bring a gun onto an airplane, then the right must not be absolute. It must be subject to appropriate restraints to protect the public order. From what I can tell that's exactly what the Alamogordo cops believed they were doing. They weren't bullying the guy, they weren't throwing their weight around, they were responding to a property owner/manager's concern that an armed person was acting inappropriately.

Ultimately the court concluded they were wrong, and awarded the citizen chump change for his inconvenience.

[Taitertots]

140. Absolutely not comparable

One is illegal, against the expressed wishes of the property owners, and it is a clearly arrestable offense.
The other they know was legal, the property owner refused to make known their wishes, and there was no reason to suspect a crime was about to take place.
How can you compare an expressed illegal action with one that is known to be within the law?


When did I ever say rights are absolute or inalienable? So please conclude your irrelevant and intellectually dishonest attributing that position to me.

There is no "protecting the public order" blanket immunity from the constitution and legal precedents. Any time our rights are to be restricted it must be with due process. Police harassing people for doing stuff they know is legal is counter to the public interest and counter to the spirit of our system of jurisprudence.

"they were responding to a property owner/manager's concern that an armed person was acting inappropriately"
They were absolutely not. There was no inappropriate actions, this has been concluded by the courts. There was no valid reason to assume a crime would or had taken place, this has been concluded by the courts. If the police are called to a report of someone doing something they know is legal they can't detain or harass that person.

[MrModerate]

144. The court, months after the event, decided the cops had acted inappropriately.

You have no evidence that the cops "knew" what the gun owner was doing was legal. In actual fact, the evidence suggests that they thought otherwise.

Cops have a responsibility to preserve public order. If they can do it short of arrest, so much the better. It certainly appears that this is what they were attempting to do in this case. The court disagreed. And I disagree with the court.

[hack89]

114. What do you think the Founders would say to a "right to privacy"

that infers a constitutional right to abortion? What would they say of the 13th and 19th Amendments? There are a lot of things in today's America they would soil their breeches over - the fact that they created processes by which the Constitution could be interpreted and/or changed implies a certain trust in the judgment of future generations in what they wished their society to be look like.

[MrModerate]

119. A perfect argument for a hard look and the Second Amendment . . .

And what a 21st Century interpretation ought to be.

[hack89]

129. That's fine - just do via an amendment

and not through legislation. The Patriot Act should be lesson enough of the dangers of reinterpreting the Constitution through feel good, knee jerk laws.

[MrModerate]

131. Well maybe. Although I *never* felt good about the Patriot Act. n/t

[beevul]

117. Uh...do you consider this ambiguous?

The First 10 Amendments to the

Constitution as Ratified by the States

December 15, 1791

Preamble

Congress OF THE United States
begun and held at the City of New York, on Wednesday
the Fourth of March, one thousand seven hundred and eighty nine.

THE Conventions of a number of the States having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best insure the beneficent ends of its institution

www.Billofrights.org


Does that make it clear to you that the second amendment is a restriction on the government? I mean...that there is about as close to an instruction on how to interpret the amendment as anyone could reasonably ask for.

The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, BECAUSE a well regulated militia is ((being) necessary to the security of a free state.


Its only ambiguous to those that can not or will not read the bill of rights itself along with the federalist and anti-federalist papers, and to those with an agenda - one that had a bias against firearms.

[MrModerate]

120. It makes it clear that it's part of a set of declaratory and restrictive clauses . . .

And is intended to increase public confidence in the government. None of which makes the Second Amendment off limits for interpretation given its ambiguous wording. Your rewriting doesn't actually make it less ambiguous, because gun ownership is still directly associated with the need for a well regulated militia.

The Second Amendment it considered ambiguous by thousands of constitutional scholars (which I'm certainly not), and I base my opinion partly on theirs. And "bias" against firearms implies unreasoned prejudice. My objection to firearms is well earned by a life of observing them in use in this and other countries and making a judgment that the country would be much better off without them, or at least with substantially fewer and with more effective controls on their use and disposition.

[GreenStormCloud]

139. The USSC has decided that one. Your side lost.

And now the 2nd is up for incorporation.

[cabluedem]

153. Not in California. You dont pack guns here or you go to jail. No assault weapons allowed either! nt

[X_Digger]

156. California _does_ have concealed carry.. for the rich and connected.

And yes, you _do_ have 'assault weapons'..

Here, let me show you these pictures _again_..





All four of these rifles are California legal because they changed certain features to comply with the law.

Here's a step by step on how to build a california legal AR-15
http://blog.riflegear.com/articles/building-a-california--legal-ar-15-rifle.aspx

[cabluedem]

157. What is your point?

[rl6214]

172. I think the point is you don't know WTF

you are talking about.

[X_Digger]

173. Both your previous statements are wrong-

"You dont pack guns here or you go to jail." - wrong

" No assault weapons allowed either! " - wrong

You might want to visit a california specific guns forum like calguns.net and bone up on the facts before you make yourself look sillier.

[friendly_iconoclast]

183. That's not the only howler offered up by them recently:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=118x260389

where cabluedem holds forth that 'ballistic fingerprinting' is an effective crimefighting technique,
and gets upset when it is pointed out that it has only solved *one* crime. ONE.

[X_Digger]

184. I love the tire analogy..

It can sometimes get you model / make (assuming that you're not using aftermarket tires) but it's only good if you have the tires to compare to the tracks, there haven't been many more miles put on them since the track exemplar, and you haven't changed your tires.

Just like a 'ballistic fingerprint' can sometimes get you model / make (assuming you're not using an aftermarket barrel, extractor, firing pin) but it's only good if you have the gun to compare test bullet vs crime bullet, and there haven't been many more rounds put through it, nor have any of the components been changed.

[Euromutt]

196. I stole it from benEzra

I mean, borrowed.

[pneutin]

211. Even the most ardent gun control activists have/had concealed carry permits

Like Dianne Feinstein, who said "If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an outright ban, picking up every one of them . . . Mr. and Mrs. America, turn 'em all in, I would have done it." But when she felt her life was in danger, she got a concealed carry permit. I guess guns are OK as long as she has them and you don't?

And Sylvester Stallone, who said "until America, door to door, takes every handgun, this is what you're gonna have... It really is pathetic... We're livin' in the Dark Ages over there." "It <2nd Amendment> has to be stopped, and someone really has to go on the line, a certain dauntless political figure, and say, ‘It’s ending, it’s over, all bets are off. It’s not 200 years ago, we don’t need this anymore, and the rest of the world doesn’t have it. Why should we?" Sylvester Stallone on Access Hollywood, June 8, 1998
And this is a guy who has four handguns approved on his concealed carry permit.

But the most notable example of Democrat hypocrisy is Sean Penn, who was convicted of felony assault but the Marin County sheriff gave him a concealed carry permit anyways. Us normal folk would be stripped of our firearm-owning rights if we committed even a violent misdemeanor, and those of us in California who have a clean record can't even dream of getting a concealed carry permit. But I guess if you're rich and have the right connections, you can get away with anything.

Don't you feel safer now?

[Merchant Marine]

213. CA Gun Laws

Concealed carry is legal, with a permit. Unloaded Open carry is legal with no permit.

Here's an excerpt from a CA DOJ memo to police departments across the state.

"There has been significant recent activity in the California firearms marketplace involving special
variations of AR15-type rifles (and, to a much smaller extent, AK47-type rifle variants). This memo was
written to clarify various aspects of assault weapon status in light of this activity.
Californians recently learned it’s legal to purchase “off-list” 1 AR- and AK-pattern rifle receivers, as well
as legally-configured rifles built from such receivers. The legal market for these items took off once
prospective buyers discovered that Attorney General Bill Lockyer’s Department of Justice (DOJ) failed to
update the formal list of assault weapons banned in California2 since October of 2000.
As of end of April 2006, some 35,000 of these frames have been legally sold in California by licensed
firearms dealers since December 2005. Vigorous sales of these items in California will continue unless
and until these are formally declared to be assault weapons by official DOJ action.3
Receivers not specifically listed by make and model cannot be regarded as assault weapons and are thus
legal to possess, nor do they require special registration. Such receivers can be built into operational,
legal rifles which also aren’t legally considered to be PC 12276.1 (“generic”) assault weapons. Such offlist
rifles, and their base receivers, have the legal status of ordinary long guns."

Wow. 35k AR and AK variants sold in 5 months. What an effective ban.

[Taitertots]

143. What about it could possibly be consider ambiguous?

What could it possibly mean other than the people should have the capacity to form militias, so owning private firearms should be uninfringed?

Saying thousands of X agree with me is an obviously fallacious thing to say. There are thousand of Christian doctors that would tell you Jesus could heal the sick. There are thousands of musical experts that say Peter Gabriel makes good music.

[MrModerate]

170. Sorry, but while saying thousands of experts agree with me . . .

Doesn't make it true, it does indicate that there's learned opinon on my side. Which is exactly what I said.

You want militias? Join the National Guard. And keep your weapon in the armory.

[GreenStormCloud]

185. You are beating your head against a brick wall. Your side has already lost. N/T

[MrModerate]

202. And.Nothing.Will.Ever.Change . . .

Although you're right, I've been beating my head against something pretty hard, if not a wall.

I think I'll give up, maybe move to another country where they have a healthier attitude about firearms. Oh wait! I already did.

I think I'll just enjoy that.

[GreenStormCloud]

207. What do you plan to do if you are assaulted by a knife-armed criminal?

Please do try to give a serious answer that does not involve denial.

[MrModerate]

214. Well, the overarching answer is that the likelihood of that happening is so low . . .

That it doesn't make it anywhere near the top of the list of things that I plan for.

Knife attack, car suddenly veering off the roadway toward me, building materials falling from height, etc., etc. -- those are the sort of hazards that I put in the "maintain situational awareness" category of mitigation measures. This is distinct from hazards that require either moment-to-moment attention (such as driving a car) or a specific emergency response plan (my family's evacuation protocol in case of fire at home).

You may feel that qualifies as denial, but to me it's putting life's hazards in perspective and acting accordingly.

[GreenStormCloud]

216. Yes, I consider that as denial.

Violent crime is a reality. May you continue to be lucky. I have decided not to trust to luck, but to be prepared. The probability of me facing a violent attack is statistically greater than that of my house catching on fire.

I have two fire extinguishers in the house and our important papers are in a fire resistant box, and a fire escape plan.

Paranoia? No. Just being prepared.

As I have stated several times in this thread, and you have ignored, my wife is alive because she had a gun on her. The would be assailant fled. So we have had some experience with guns and resisting crime.

[MrModerate]

217. And you've made choices about how you'll live your life . . .

as I have for mine. It's unlikely we'll ever agree. Here's hoping that neither one of us ever regrets such choices.

[PavePusher]

229. See my post #76.

Denial is this persons' reality. And that is certainly their choice to make. I merely insist that they not be allowed to chose for me.

[beevul]

148. You started off well, but went right off the tracks.

"It makes it clear that it's part of a set of declaratory and restrictive clauses . . ."

Yes, correct.

"And is intended to increase public confidence in the government."

No, sir. It is intended to prevent misconstruction or abuse of power by the government, and to ensure beneficient ends of the governments institution.

The operative restrictive clause is this:

The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. (thats a restriction on government - a restrictive clause)

The declarative clause is this:

A well regulated militia being (same thing as "is") necessary to the security of a free state, (and that declares why - a declaratory clause)

That is fact.

I wrote:

The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, BECAUSE a well regulated militia is ((being) necessary to the security of a free state.

Like it or not, thats what it means.

"And "bias" against firearms implies unreasoned prejudice."

No. "bias" against firearms implies prejudice - of any kind against firearms.

"My objection to firearms is well earned by a life of observing them in use in this and other countries and making a judgment that the country would be much better off without them, or at least with substantially fewer and with more effective controls on their use and disposition."

Thats great. Get a constitutional amendment. Because short of one, lie interpretational games in the face of crystal clear language that most certainly and unambiguously limits what government may do. And if its OK for government to ignore its own limitations, why should any of us be held to a different standard?

[MrModerate]

171. Like it or not, thousands of constitutional scholars disagree with your interpretation. n/t

What you state as fact, is (in fact) opinion. Speaking louder doesn't make it truer.

[GreenStormCloud]

182. USSC has ruled. Your side lost. N/T

[beevul]

192. Those "scholars" you speak of must not have read or understood the preamble to the bill of rights.

"What you state as fact, is (in fact) opinion. Speaking louder doesn't make it truer."

And you characterizing the facts as opinion, whilst citing the opinions of constitutional scholars who can not have read the preamble to the bill of rights whilst still disagreeing with the facts in any honest way, does not make them so.

Theres just no escaping the clarity in the preamble, which sets the context for the interpretation of the entire bill of rights.

None what so ever.


Its there in complete clarity for anyone that cares enough about the truth to bothers to read it.

[MrModerate]

199. I bow to your ominiscience.

You have the absolute truth. How can I apologize for the offense of pointing out that just saying it's so doesn't make it so.

[beevul]

215. Proper execution in reading and comprehension does not make one "ominiscient".

It makes one well informed.

Now, if you can show me where I make any error in that reading and comprehension, which leads to an incorrect conclusion, rather than just saying that its simply my opinion, I'm all ears.

If you were able to do such a thing successfully, you'd be the first.

[MrModerate]

218. Your last sentence is just further confirmation of your surpassing supremity . . .

Never been wrong! Of all the awesomeness!! I am a puddle of adulation.

[beevul]

222. As if...

I never said or even implied that I was never wrong. Context is everything.


In simpler terms, that was an invitation for you to step right up and attempt to show where I have erred in coming up with what I came up with.

I understand you disagree with my conclusion. I really do. But disagreeing and proving me wrong are two very different things. Rather than being snarky, prove me wrong.

Unless you can't.

[MrModerate]

223. You said -- unambiguously -- that no one had ever showed you where you had made an error.

I'd "be the first."

All of your posts feature you stating with great assurance that your interpretation is absolutely correct and not subject to any other viewpoint:

"Like it or not, thats what it means."
"USSC has ruled. Your side lost."
". . .whilst citing the opinions of constitutional scholars who can not have read the preamble to the bill of rights whilst still disagreeing with the facts in any honest way. . ."
"None what so ever."
"Its there in complete clarity for anyone that cares enough about the truth to bothers to read it."

That doesn't make you correct, it just makes you a blowhard.

As a blowhard, you have very little credibility. I'm happy to listen to others in this Forum and in this thread who put forth serious arguments. But all you do is insist you're right and that I must be ignorant and malicious not to agree with you.

That crap may work for the Michael Savages and Bill O'Reillys of the world, but you're no Bill O'Reilly.

You're not even Michael Savage.

[PavePusher]

230. Ah, and the true colors begin to appear...

When you have no facts or logic... attack the person.

I will give you credit that it took you almost a week to fall to that level. Good self restraint, keep working on it.

[MrModerate]

235. Actually I was criticizing your use of stentorian rhetoric over analysis . . .

hence the term "blowhard," but hey, knock yourself out.

[MrModerate]

239. Or, more precisely, *his* use of stentorian rhetoric . . .

I'm tangling my my threads.

[GreenStormCloud]

234. Hey, one of those on your list was my post, not his.

I am the one who posted, "USSC has ruled. Your side lost." Give credit where credit is due.

Do you deny that the USSC has ruled, in Heller?

[MrModerate]

236. Damn, these threads are getting tangled.

Sure they ruled. And they'll rule again. And I don't agree with every ruling by every court. I'm not saying they don't have the force of law (Bush v Gore, anybody?), just that I disagree with the ruling.

Full disclosure -- I'm not knowledgeable about the Heller ruling.

[beevul]

237. Its not nice to misrepresent what someone else has said.

"You said -- unambiguously -- that no one had ever showed you where you had made an error."


Point a: I said Now, if you can show me where I make any error in that reading and comprehension, which leads to an incorrect conclusion, rather than just saying that its simply my opinion ", I'm all ears.

If you were able to do such a thing successfully, you'd be the first.

Thats quite a different thing than "saying -- that no one had ever showed you where you had made an error."

You attributed a meaning to something I said, clearly contrary to what I meant, and what the words I typed meant.

Retraction please.

"USSC has ruled. Your side lost."

Point B: That was not posted by me.

Now you're attributing words to me that aren't even mine.

Retraction please.




You can call me a blowhard all you like, whilst attributing the words of others to me, and attributing meanings to things I say, that I neither meant nor indicated I meant, but it simply makes you look like a poor reader and/or dishonest and disingenuous. All of the above are quite well recognised hereabouts.

And worth noting, is that your replies to me contain a sum total of exactly zero attempts to refute what I say about the bill of rights.

"I'm happy to listen to others in this Forum and in this thread who put forth serious arguments."

An argument that has as its basis the words to the preamble CONTAINED in the bill of rights itself is not a serious one?


"But all you do is insist you're right and that I must be ignorant and malicious not to agree with you."

I do insist that my conclusion is correct. And I believe you displayed some ignorance or possibly maliciousness in misrepresenting my words and meanings so blatantly. I guess well see whether you retract those things, and well know which it was if you do...or dont.


I KNOW you disagree with me. You seem to have it in you that I am wrong.

What you aren't doing, or even attempting to do, is prove it.

Its...standard fare, you know...in a debate...to prove things.


I have put forth my proof. I invite you to disprove it.

[MrModerate]

238. Not sure why I'm doing this, but . . .

Let's take a selection of your statements and assess whether they're factual or opinon.

#1 (Your post 117): "Its only ambiguous to those that can not or will not read the bill of rights itself along with the federalist and anti-federalist papers, and to those with an agenda - one that had a bias against firearms."

You're attributing motive without evidence. And assuming that those who disagree with you haven't done as much research as you have -- also without evidence. Verdict: Opinion.

As for me, I've read the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, and dipped into the Federlist Papers here and there. Enough to say that IN MY OPINION -- and that of other commentators more qualified than me -- it's a large body of work with ample room for conflicting interpretation.

In other words, "ambiguous."

As a general rule you're going to lose any argument where you find yourself saying that a subject about which entire libraries of opinion have been written *isn't* ambiguous.

#2 (Your post 148): I said that the "declaratory and restrictive clauses" had as one of their purposes the intention to increase public confidence in the government. Your response: "No, sir. It is intended to prevent misconstruction or abuse of power by the government, and to ensure beneficient ends of the governments institution."

Well, that's as may be, but the quote you so helpfully provided included: "...and as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best insure the beneficent ends of its institution..." which pretty clearly states that one of the intentions was to increase public confidence. But that earns a "No sir" from you. Verdict: Opinion.

In the same post you reword the text: "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, BECAUSE a well regulated militia is ((being) necessary to the security of a free state." and then insist: "Like it or not, thats what it means." Verdict: Opinion.

In the same post you complain about my calling you on your attribution of bias regarding my opinion of firearms. Here's the exchange:

Me: "And 'bias against firearms implies unreasoned prejudice.'"

You: "No. 'bias' against firearms implies prejudice - of any kind against firearms."

Merriam-Webster: " bias -- an inclination of temperament or outlook; especially a personal and sometimes unreasoned judgment " Verdict: Opinion, and a rather shakily based one at that.

A pattern is emerging here, which is one of the things I've commented on in responding to your posts. And that is your tendency to incompletely cite some source in support of your point, and then spend the rest of the post (apparently angrily) insisting that you are correct and anyone who disagrees with you is uninformed or insincere.

As an example:

#3 (Your post 192): "And you characterizing the facts as opinion, whilst citing the opinions of constitutional scholars who can not have read the preamble to the bill of rights whilst still disagreeing with the facts in any honest way, does not make them so.

Theres just no escaping the clarity in the preamble, which sets the context for the interpretation of the entire bill of rights.

None what so ever.

Its there in complete clarity for anyone that cares enough about the truth to bothers to read it."

One unsupported assertion after the other, all implying or stating baldly that your view is the clear and correct one and all other interpretations invalid. That's what I meant when I said "What you state as fact is (in fact) opinion."

I stand by that.

And finally, #4 (Your post 215): "Now, if you can show me where I make any error in that reading and comprehension, which leads to an incorrect conclusion, rather than just saying that its simply my opinion, I'm all ears.

If you were able to do such a thing successfully, you'd be the first."

In this case maybe you just need a copyeditor. "If you were able . . ." is future conditional tense. It describes (by your own words) something that has never occurred before. No error in reading and comprehension made by you has ever been shown you. I suppose that's remotely possible if you're -- just speculating here -- so aggressive in person that people are reluctant to point out when you err, or you've spent your entire life in a cave and so never had the inevitable errors all humans make pointed out to you.

But I doubt it. In my opinion -- there's that word again -- you've decided what the absolute truth is and have fallen into the trap of assuming that those who disagree will come around to your point of view if you just assert it more emphatically.

That almost never works.

(PS: The "USSC has ruled" reference was my error. Retracted)

[beevul]

240. Lets have another look then.

#1 (Your post 117): "Its only ambiguous to those that can not or will not read the bill of rights itself along with the federalist and anti-federalist papers, and to those with an agenda - one that had a bias against firearms."

You're attributing motive without evidence. And assuming that those who disagree with you haven't done as much research as you have -- also without evidence. Verdict: Opinion.

As for me, I've read the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, and dipped into the Federlist Papers here and there. Enough to say that IN MY OPINION -- and that of other commentators more qualified than me -- it's a large body of work with ample room for conflicting interpretation.

In other words, "ambiguous."

As a general rule you're going to lose any argument where you find yourself saying that a subject about which entire libraries of opinion have been written *isn't* ambiguous.

No, I'm atributing ambiguity on the part of those that don't bother to be informed. As for atributing motive without evidence, I can not remember ever reading or hearing someone with the "ambiguity" view that did not have as an belief that which a non-ambiguous reading would be in conflict with. As a general rule, those that seek ambiguity as a vehicle for clearing the road of opposing beliefs will almost always find some.

You say that theres ample room for conflicting opinion, and thats true of any topic. There is only one that will mirror facts however, one which can't be disproven. Only one will match the truth...and supreme court precedent.

#2 (Your post 148): I said that the "declaratory and restrictive clauses" had as one of their purposes the intention to increase public confidence in the government. Your response: "No, sir. It is intended to prevent misconstruction or abuse of power by the government, and to ensure beneficient ends of the governments institution."

Well, that's as may be, but the quote you so helpfully provided included: "...and as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best insure the beneficent ends of its institution..." which pretty clearly states that one of the intentions was to increase public confidence. But that earns a "No sir" from you. Verdict: Opinion.

In the same post you reword the text: "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, BECAUSE a well regulated militia is ((being) necessary to the security of a free state." and then insist: "Like it or not, thats what it means." Verdict: Opinion.

In the same post you complain about my calling you on your attribution of bias regarding my opinion of firearms. Here's the exchange:

Me: "And 'bias against firearms implies unreasoned prejudice.'"

You: "No. 'bias' against firearms implies prejudice - of any kind against firearms."

Merriam-Webster: " bias -- an inclination of temperament or outlook; especially a personal and sometimes unreasoned judgment " Verdict: Opinion, and a rather shakily based one at that.

A pattern is emerging here, which is one of the things I've commented on in responding to your posts. And that is your tendency to incompletely cite some source in support of your point, and then spend the rest of the post (apparently angrily) insisting that you are correct and anyone who disagrees with you is uninformed or insincere.

Bone up on the english language some eh? "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state" is the same thing as and has the same meaning as "because a well regulated militia is necessary to a free state". Yes I rewrote the words, but the meaning is the same.

"car keys being necessary to drive my car, I'll take them with me when I want to drive it."

"Because car keys are necessary to drive my car, I'll take them with me when I want to drive it."

Same meaning.


Thats simple english. Calling it opinion doesn't make it so. Particularly without proof to the contrary. Proof you have again failed to produce any of. Rewritten words yes. Rewritten meaning? No.

And you're attributing anger to me now too? Lol. I'm actually tickled that you continue to make yourself look...well the way you're making yourself look, in front of the whole world.


Oh, and what did I cite incompletely?

One unsupported assertion after the other, all implying or stating baldly that your view is the clear and correct one and all other interpretations invalid. That's what I meant when I said "What you state as fact is (in fact) opinion."

No, assertion supported by the text itself. Whereas you have provided nothing at all to support your position. My position matches what the text itself says. Words actually have meanings. Words strung together into phrases actually have meanings too, specific meanings that don't mean something other than they mean because someone disagrees with them. Your trip to the merriam webster website should have made that clear to you.

And last but not least:

I said "Now, if you can show me where I make any error in that reading and comprehension, which leads to an incorrect conclusion, rather than just saying that its simply my opinion, I'm all ears. If you were able to do such a thing successfully, you'd be the first."


Repeat it until you get it. I said if you could find any error in THAT reading and comprehension. As in the one were talking about - the reading and comprehansion of the preamble to the bill of rights. And I said you'd be the first to find error in THAT.
And you would.

Learn how to read please.

As far as being so agressive in person that people are reluctant point out when I err...or spent my entire life in a cave and so never had the inevitable errors all humans make pointed out to you...quite the contrary...I have made all manor of error in this life, and all that practice practice has made me accutely aware that I make them. Its also made me good at catching myself before I make them. We learn, if we want to.

You are right about one thing, I have decided what the absolute truth is, where this is concerned. But I didn't decide it on a whim. I decided it based on actually reading what the document itself says. By knowing how the bill of rights works. Its methodology. That and I know how to read.


And the only trap I have fallen into, is arguing with people that state over and over that they disagree, yet provide nothing, not even an attempt, at showing it.

[MrModerate]

241. Well you get an 8 for dudgeon height and a 2 for precision.

However, I'm not going to waste any more time trying to correct the deficiencies in your education and abilities.

Enjoy your certainty.

[GreenStormCloud]

242. It is like arguing with a creationist over evolution. They see ambiguity that isn't there.

And then they try to claim the "ambiguity" that they see in the fossil record as proof that evolution didn't happen. The grabbers do the same thing with the history of the U.S. and the clear meaning of the Constitution.

[Mercracer]

186. Hypocrite

I am willing to bet that you do not truly object to firearms. I am willing to bet that it gives you a fuzzy feeling inside knowing that police officers are armed and that if you call 911, they will come to your rescue. The problem is that this "knowing" is based on a myth. A false sense of security. The police are not responisible for your personal safety and security. They are only there to protect the general public as a whole. They are mainly historians who document the facts of a crime after it occurs and attempt to find who committed the crime.
"A well regulated militia..." is why. It is the reason that "The Right to Bear Arms Shall Not Be Infringed". It does not govern the validity of the right. It is not a necessity for the right to exist. The absense of an active militia does not invalidate the 2nd Amendment. The active clause is to the effect that the right shall not be infringed. Short of a Constitutional Convention to edit the 2nd Amendment, it can not be dismissed. It can not be edited. It must be upheld. Contrary to the wishes of those who have a phobia of guns in the hands of reasonable responsible adults who are not law enforcement officers, the 2nd Amendment is alive and well.
The ruling in the Heller case was not a new interpretation. It was in line with every other ruling up until that point in time.

[MrModerate]

187. I'm willing to bet you don't know what you're talking about.

At least as far as what's in my heart is concerned. You might consider leaving the ad hominem attacks to rightwingers.

I never said I object to firearms per se, although I'm certainly not fond of them. I object to what I consider their unecessarily wide distribution in the population. I think that distribution should be significantly curtailed, extending to the practice of carrying them into theatres.

Your argument that "well regulated militia" is why there's a right to keep and bear arms, while stating that whether the militia exist or not doesn't reflect on keeping and bearing is simply confusing, or perhaps confused.

All constitutional provisions are subject to reinterpretation over time. Stare decisis notwithstanding, things do change. And there are all sorts of laws that have not been overturned by the Supreme Court, and which restrict or attempt to control individual citizens keeping and bearing arms. It's clearly not an absolute right.

[westerm]

194. "reinterpretation"

Reinterpretation does not equal gutted. Secondly, the supreme court had not ruled on a significant gun-rights case until Heller. IIRC, the last "real important" one was Miller - and the prosecution lied through their teeth on that one.

[X_Digger]

208. And Miller had died, and his counsel didn't show up!

The one before Miller would have to be Cruikshank, IMHO.

[Euromutt]

118. There's a salient difference between commercial passenger aircraft and "No Gun Zones"

This also applies to places like courthouses, by the way. It's that you, and everybody else, have to go through some fairly invasive security screening to get onto a plane or into a courtroom, and you can thus be reasonably certain that nobody else is packing any of the common varieties of lethal weapon.

By contrast, your average "Gun Free Zone" (e.g. malls, college campuses, certain private businesses) doesn't actually have any means to prevent people who intend harm from bringing weapons onto the premises. What exactly would have prevented a "wacko with a gun" who intended to shoot up the Aviator 10 movie theater from doing so if he had kept his gun concealed?

[aikoaiko]

243. Hooray for the Fourth Amendment!!!

:party: