New knee-jerk legislation resulting from the AZ shooting (MERGED)

[razor02097]

I feel the same about my nuclear reactor.

a personal nuclear reactor? That would be pretty sweet. Live off the power grid for pennies a day

[DefensiveCarry.com]

[Hopyard]

So you would deny law abiding citizens the right to own them but are completely OK knowing that these magazines are mass produced all over the world and will be in the hands of criminals, gang members, and anyone else who has access to black market drugs and other illicit items in which this country has done such a great job in stemming the distribution of?

I'm uncertain of your position on availability of illegal and legal drugs. Assuming you oppose their use as they are presently illegal, and you support that, does the "they are mass produced all over the world" remark make any difference? Same here with the magazines. It matters not if they are mass produced all over the world. What matters is whether or not a legislature somewhere determines that they may not be possessed. We elect legislators to make these difficult decisions for us.

My hicap mags have not attacked or harmed anyone, but I sure do feel much better when i am out hunting near the border knowing I have a few of them on my person in case I turn from being the hunter into being the prey simply because I crossed a drug lane in my own FREE country.

Understandable. That is a good argument for you to have them. But, that same argument could be extended to claiming you should be able to carry a grenade with you when you go hunting near the border as doing so would also in your opinion make you safer.

I disagree with you and your stance 100%, it is not a hicap magazine problem, but a people problem.

Would you also say it is not a drug problem but a people problem? And if it is a people problem, do we not have a societal duty to help our officers not face an unnecessary extra hazard in their daily lives?

The ms-13 and bloods and cryps and hells angels and other criminals who have willingly used these hicap mags to spray public areas in gun battles and drive by shootings will continue to have access to these items and continue to endanger your safety no matter how many asinine laws are passed to hamstring law abiding citizens.

Yes, but as availability is cut the chances of the wrong people getting them will go down. We don't see shootouts with full auto very often precisely because availability isn't present.

The bottom line is if the stories are true, and I have an inside line due to my jib that assures me they are, if the PCSO had done their job, they would have prevented this killer from ever accessing these weapons to begin with. Fix the system, don't punish the masses.

Yes, but slip ups are inevitable.

I want to address one semantic point. There is a difference in the meaning of the word "regulate" and the word "infringe." I think Mr. Scalia already basically addressed that.

I'm not hot to regulate hi-cap mags because I think there use in crime has been fairly minimal; close to non-existent. But, I also know that I carry for personal protection from ordinary everyday street thugs and for me, I would not miss them at all if they were made illegal. Clearly, you have a different situation if you hunt near the border. I would like to think that any law regulating high caps would either be produced at the individual state level, as it is now, or would have some wording inserted by your Congressmen that would take your AZ border situation into account.

[livewire]

I'm having trouble figuring out whether Hopyard and Hamlet are pro gun-control or just like to compromise. And that's exactly the kind of attitude that the gun control policy makers like.

We need to stand up for our rights. If you want to spend the money to own a dozen 50 round magazines for your Desert Eagle .50ae or your .50bmg Barret rifle, then I salute you. Your argument about the Howitzer is a fallacy, to be blunt. But, I actually agree with your right to own one. . . well, I guess I'm not agreeing since that's not the current situation, I believe that you should have that right.

OTOH, "arms" in the constitution has come to be accepted as "small arms", weapons that can be carried and operated by an individual, not a crew or a team. And nuclear weapons (from another example) are also defined differently. . . basically anything that explodes is a 'destructive device' not 'arms'. Once we get the right to own any small arms buttoned down, then we'll discuss the rest.

As it is you can't own suppressors without unreasonable infringements, own newly manufactured select fire rifles, or carry in all 50 states, among other violations of the 2nd Amendment. Lets get that stuff fixed first, and by backing off on things like highcap magazines and private sales between individuals we're not making any progress toward expanding our rights back to where they started. Especially since you're advertising these compromises and concessions before anyone is even really pushing them. They've been talked about by about three politicians that aren't even expecting it to get to the floor.

[OD*]

Have you ever noticed though, it's always the gun owners that do the compromising.

[livewire]

Have you ever noticed though, it's always the gun owners that do the compromising.

I'm pointing it out

Imagine if the Allies had said to Germany, "You can have Europe, but you STAY OUT OF AFRICA!" You can't win by giving up ground.

[hamlet]

I'm having trouble figuring out whether Hopyard and Hamlet are pro gun-control or just like to compromise. And that's exactly the kind of attitude that the gun control policy makers like.

I can't speak for Hopyard but his opinions appear as non-absolutes, or part of one pole in a polarization, that's all. As for me, I mirror what the polls showed most Americans - including the majority who are non-shooters - felt about the coming Supreme Court-Heller case: that there is in an inherent right to bear arms but it is a right that should be regulated. And the ultimate Supreme Court Opinion when Heller was decided pretty much mirrored that.

This is compromise only in the sense it is not one side of a polarization. But it as much a principle people believe in as one that would state: "Everyone should be free to to what they wish regarding firearms" or "There should be no private ownership of firearms".

If you hold one of the two absolute poles of opinion on an issue, it's not compromising principles to have a different principle. It's compromising YOURS. And behind yours is the SHOULD: "Everyone should think what I do". But human beings are different, and many different than you. And since this is a free country, your implicit demand everyone should think as you do doesn't become reality - luckily. (And luckily for you if the shoe switches feet.)

[livewire]

I'm having trouble figuring out whether Hopyard and Hamlet are pro gun-control or just like to compromise. And that's exactly the kind of attitude that the gun control policy makers like.

I can't speak for Hopyard but his opinions appear as non-absolutes, or part of one pole in a polarization. As for me, I mirror what the polls showed most Americans - including the majority who are non-shooters - felt about the coming Supreme Court-Heller case: that there is in an inherent right to bear arms but it is a right that should be regulated. And the ultimate opinion when Heller was decided pretty much mirrored that.

This is compromise only in the sense it is not one side of a polarization. But it as much a principle people believe in as one that would state: "Everyone should be free to to what they wish regarding firearms" or "There should be no private ownership of firearms".

If you hold one of the two absolute poles of opinion on an issue, it's not compromising principles to have a different principle. It's compromising YOURS. And behind yours is the SHOULD: "Everyone should think what I do". But human beings are different, and many different than you. And since this is a free country, your implicit demand everyone should think as you do doesn't become reality - luckily. (And luckily for you if the show switches feet.)

^ I voted.

When you're fighting for rights, not joining a 'pole' in your perspective is compromise. Think about other battles for rights in our recent history. What if the Black population had shown the kind of weakness you do, they get to sit wherever they want on the bus, but a separate water fountain is okay? What if suffrage only gave women the right to vote for President, but not for Congress? Why do we so easily compromise on Constitutional rights so easily? Our right to own a firearm, speak in public, or protection from search and seizure aren't as important? The right to keep and bear arms doesn't seem to be important to you.

Just come out and say it, you favor gun control. I see you in plenty of threads on this forum proposing gun control measures that haven't even been proposed in legislature yet, just come out and say it.

[fastk9dad]

Have you ever noticed though, it's always the gun owners that do the compromising.

Sometimes compromise is necessary to avoid completely losing.

[livewire]

Sometimes compromise is necessary to avoid completely losing.

No, that's called losing. At least in this regard. . . we tried that before, remember? That's how we got the NFA, the revised NFA, even parts of the Brady Bill. If we give the gun grabbers any concessions, they just push harder.

Whatever happened to "give me liberty or give me death" or "we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor."?

Our freedoms are being legislated away, in many battles on many fronts. Since this is a gun forum, I'm sticking to our firearms rights, but compromise or concession in ANY of these arenas is a loss of a battle in a larger war. And as the biggest and most visible of these, our firearms rights are probably the most important.

[livewire]

Oh, and a side note. . . None of the gun legislation would have stopped this shooting.

*In Arizona, there is a large volume of illegal trade. Guns, drugs, cash, stolen merchandise. If it were impossible for him to legally buy a gun, it would have been easy to get one on the street.

*If he was unable to get a gun because they didn't exist, any of these options would have worked.
- he had access to a full size SUV. He was one gas pedal away from taking out even more people.
- knives are a dime a dozen in major cities. The body count would have been lower, but he was two feet away from his target.
- a pipe bomb is a proven way for murderers and terrorists, and is fairly easy to make with off the shelf components. Higher body count.


There are probably more options, but I don't really think that way :) And buying 30 round mags isn't really significant here. Smaller magazines would have probably resulted in a higher body count, since it would have been harder for that heroic woman who snatched it from him to get a hold of. And Passing a law to head off a freakishly rare occurrence is probably a waste of time.

[fastk9dad]

livewire, I don't disagree with anything you said. I never said I agreed or disagreed with what was proposed. The key to successfully compromise is not giving things up but coming to a middle ground where both sides get what they want. They want to make it less easy for criminals or the mentally ill to get hi capacity magazines, we want to exercise our right as law abiding citizens to possess them. Go! ;)

But we all know no matter what the outcome the above will always find what they want or other ways of doing them, so it's really all smoke and mirrors to make the public feel all warm and fuzzy.

[livewire]

so it's really all smoke and mirrors to make the public feel all warm and fuzzy.

+100

[zacii]

Have you ever noticed though, it's always the gun owners that do the compromising.

Sometimes compromise is necessary to avoid completely losing.

No, that's called losing. At least in this regard. . . we tried that before, remember? That's how we got the NFA, the revised NFA, even parts of the Brady Bill. If we give the gun grabbers any concessions, they just push harder.

Whatever happened to "give me liberty or give me death" or "we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor."?

Our freedoms are being legislated away, in many battles on many fronts. Since this is a gun forum, I'm sticking to our firearms rights, but compromise or concession in ANY of these arenas is a loss of a battle in a larger war. And as the biggest and most visible of these, our firearms rights are probably the most important.

Every concession or compromise that we make is a loss.

This nonsense about regulating magazine capacity won't solve anything, and everyone knows it. It is complete foolishness to argue about it.

[azchevy]

yet lots of firearm owners are ready to give that away as a compromise, some are even writing their reps regarding it

[livewire]

some are even writing their reps regarding it

Seriously?