DescentBB

woodchip wrote:Once again slick, you try and present art work with only a blank sheet of paper. So the service pistols got sold to a wholesale distributor. You are implying that they then got parceled out to gang bangers and thats why so many thugs have guns eh? Here, let me help your sun addled brain think straight. The wholesaler who bought the police firearms had to be licensed (by law). The wholesaler then sold them to distributers who then sold them to dealers. Each party had to be licensed and file paperwork to sell those pistols. Now tell us just how, by Glock selling quantities to police depts, the used pistols wound up on the streets. Last I checked gang bangers don't obtain pistols by buying them from a FFL dealer.

no, they get them from panicky suburbanites who have been scared into thinking a handgun is their ticket to home security, when a dog would have been far more effective.

Will Robinson wrote:

callmeslick wrote:...
now I agree with the others that removing guns from US society just isn't, or even shouldn't happen. However, speaking of police and weapons, one of the causes of the absolute flood of handguns on the streets is the method by which Glock marketed to police depts. Basically, they ran a generous trade in program and then dumped the trade-in service revolvers and autos onto the wholesale market. In other words, they unnecessarily added to the overall weaponry loose in the US, with zero concern for the societal effect.

That is such bullcrap!
Completely shows you don't think these things through past the part where you think you found a gun problem and rush to assign blame for it.

Police departments across the country were looking to upgrade because they were carrying and maintaining antiquated low capacity weapons and criminals were better armed and outgunning them. Glock came along with a superior product and once people tried them they by and large recognized the simplicity, accuracy and increased firepower was well worth learning to adapt to a new system.

Regardless of whether Glock got the bulk of the business or not Police departments were going to upgrade and when they upgrade the weapons are almost always re-sold to civilian markets.

Glock didn't 'unnecessarily dump guns' into the U.S. The laws of supply, demand and need for keeping our police forces well regulated put them there.

It is pathetic the way you try to squeeze everything gun related to fit into the 'evil gun' template. Where did you read that 'thought' you just shared?
The Huffington Post or Democrat Underground Message Board? How about you play devils advocate and think it through with the crap you see there before you give it the slick stamp of approval from now on?

um, actually the Glock story was from a business journal, about 3 years ago. Dont read Huff post much or DU at all. Ever.

callmeslick wrote:...

um, actually the Glock story was from a business journal, about 3 years ago. Dont read Huff post much or DU at all. Ever.

Well the 'story' you read is only a story but more important, the conclusion you drew from it was illogical and incorrect. I think you let your biases on the issue replace good judgement. I'd recommend reducing the Anti-gun rhetoric in your diet, get some fresh air....maybe out at the gun range....and see if your perspective doesn't improve.

When I lived in North Philly…the first thing they did during home invasions (yes it’s not a new thing) was put the dog out of commission.

Spidey wrote:When I lived in North Philly…the first thing they did during home invasions (yes it’s not a new thing) was put the dog out of commission.

That makes sense...the dog is the most dangerous member of any household....unpredictable, quick and essentially fearless in guarding it's home turf. Taking out the dog makes sense, but then again, how many actual home invasions occur nationwide in any year, as opposed to routine burglaries?? In those, the presence of the dog is a true deterrant. No burglar wants to bother, as the goal is in and out, fast. Back in my misspent youth, I played in a regular card game with a couple professional burglers, one household, one pharmacy specialist. Both agreed that the goal was to be checked, in and out in under 10 minutes, tops. The house guy always said that if he so much as heard a dog, he passed on the job.

Well you don’t actually need a weapon to defend against burglars, in fact it’s not legal to use deadly force to protect property here…so again it boils down to self-defense.

Heh, I think this is funny for some reason…all you need is a shotgun and your trusty dog, or is it trusty shotgun and hound dog?

YeeHaw!

Spidey wrote:Well you don’t actually need a weapon to defend against burglars, in fact it’s not legal to use deadly force to protect property here…so again it boils down to self-defense.

Heh, I think this is funny for some reason…all you need is a shotgun and your trusty dog, or is it trusty shotgun and hound dog?

YeeHaw!

always worked for me....two attempted burglaries, no success.....didn't need the shotguns either time, either. I am never without a dog.

What about places that don't allow pets LOL, Slick is not a very forward thinking person.

flip wrote:What about places that don't allow pets LOL, Slick is not a very forward thinking person.

there's limitations there, to be frank.

flip wrote:What about places that don't allow pets

I can see it now:

"They're trying to dis-canine us! We need to fight for our freedom as patriotic dog-owners to defend our families! I'll die before giving up Rover!"

I, for one, cannot envision daily existence without a dog in it. But, that's just me.....

I can, and quite happily.

I watched about 4 hours of the Senate meeting today on C-span on reducing gun violence. Nothing to worry about this go around

It's not the professional burglar I'm worried about. It's the Meth heads/crack addicts etc who, while high, come in with no regard for you or anyone else. The only thing to stop them attacking you is a .45 or a shotgun. Dogs are nice for a early warning system, your Golden Retriever or Lab will be useless in actually stopping or scaring them away. Dogs need to be trained, just like people, on how to attack and when to stop.

Well, the problem with the anti-gunners is they don't have common sense on their side. Alot of good points were made by the pro-gun lobby. The police chief seemed to have this idea that the police could safely protect everyone. When has this ever been the case? What story in the press lately have you heard that the police prevented one of these incidents? They always come in after the fact. Police don't prevent crimes, they solve crimes. Now a good point was made about the police coming into one of those situations and mistaking armed citizens for one of the bad guys. Not sure what to do about that one, but the fact stands that the police are working with ever-decreasing budgets and in 10 years there will be even less of them. Good points too about ammo restrictions. In certain situations, 10 is not going to be enough. I think so far the pro-gunners in the Senate are making a good case. Back in the day, I was real concerned about the "Assault weapons ban" and thought the end was near for sure. Actually having it expire after a certain amount of time was it's only redeeming factor in my opinion, but now I'm glad as heck that they tried it. This go around there is Justice Department findings that concluded a weapons ban was entirely ineffective at preventing crime. One day, America may be disarmed, but it's not gonna be this time around and this time will just strengthen the argument for the next discourse.

Funny flip, how the Milwaukee police chief is on record as saying that people should be armed. Especially with funding cutbacks and layoffs of police, the Chief said that the response time is such they'll never get there in time. so in a round about way, Obama's failed economic policies are leading to more people owning firearms.

funny....outside the radical right cocoon, yesterday's testimony was viewed as a very strong case for reasonable firearms control legislation.

Heh, I watched the whole proceeding . The only thing that may come of this is background checks for private sells, but there's only one problem with that and that is it will require a national registry of guns, which is not gonna be real popular considering the far-reaching implications of that. I'm not against the background checks but I am against the registry, but it still all falls short because the underlining truth is that criminals will not abide by any of these restrictions anyways . If you and yours got your way, it will be just like the war on drugs. You will make criminals of alot more people and completely strengthen a black market. What I can't understand is how your type cannot see that far ahead, but I think it has something to do with you thinking a dog is good for personal defense. LOL!

EDIT: Just to make light of that and to open your eyes to the fact you have no idea how the criminal and hardcore think. Let's say i know you have a dog and nothing else. It can be any dog. Common military training is take a coat, jacket, some thick article of clothing and wrap it around your forearm and offer it to the dog to bite down on, and then immediately stab that joker right in it's side with your K-Bar! You really are naive Slick

no, flip, I'm not being naive, I'm trying to say that military-style home invasions are so rare in the US as to be trivial(obviously, if one is a victim, it isn't trivial), or at best a blip on the criminal radar. One of the most ludicrous highlights in the testimony yesterday was that loony woman(whose woman's group has less than 1000 members,when investigated)who claimed that women need assault-style weapons for home protection. She failed, however, to produce a single example of this being utilized in real-world practice. LaPierre, as is his wont, flipped wildly from previous positions on background, and generally made the pro-gun position look more suspect than before he arrived to speak. I, myself, don't think a full-on tactical weapons ban will make it through Congress, but I'll bet background check regs, extended possibly to ammo purchase, and restrictions on magazine sizes available might well have real legs. Wait until the Obama team gets the troops to bombard Congress with phone calls, texts and tweets. We will see relative political clout in action.

I honestly don't feel it will have much support in the House or the Senate.Hell, even Harry Reid doesn't seem that excited about it. Now, you bring up home invasions. Could it be that home invasions are rare in the States because there is always the possibility that the homeowner could be armed? In every place that weapons have been banned, home invasions are actually on the rise, but not in the States. Again, I think you fail to see beyond the obvious and what's directly at hand. Heh, I grew up in the country and then ran a framing crew for about 10, more or less years. You meet all kinds in that occupation. Believe me, you could not imagine some of the things I've seen and heard from these guys. As soon as they see an advantage they will take it, and as soon as law-abiding people are disarmed, home invasion crime will rise exponentially. You still don't seem to realize that a friggin bazooka is no more dangerous in the hands of a normal, law-abiding citizen as a pistol is. None of it computes. There is an immense more amount of crime committed with a pistol, but they are going after "assault weapons" with cosmetic changes. The very same weapon, without battle dress is not included! That is the epitome of stupidity. It accomplishes nothing but to show these people's outright ignorance and naivety.

You know, in WW2, they had pistols and fully automatic machine guns. Do you know which weapon Hitler wanted banned from the battlefield? Shotguns. Shotguns are the most fierce close combat weapon you can have. If you look at these things from an analytic perspective, you begin to realize just stupid the argument is. Right now, convicted felons cannot pass background checks or legally posses firearms, but they do anyways. You cannot see how any of these restrictions only target and penalize people who are no threat anyways do you?

I'm not concerned with felons and convicts....strict enforcement of existing laws will cover that issue. Odd, that the NRA has been the major roadblock to more agents, tighter local enforcement and sharing of extant information. No, flip, I'm concerned about people with mental issues getting guns without proper background checks. I'm concerned about tying the hands of the ATF with no full-time director(thanks again to the NRA). I'm concerned about the availability of rapid kill weaponry being available at all, as it simply is not needed for any valid purpose(no, I don't buy the need for armed insurrection against the government, because that would mandate weaponry that would NEVER be available to the public). I am concerned with restrictions on health professionals and public health researchers not being able to gather information about guns that MIGHT shed light on patterns of violence in our society. Those are my concerns, Flip, and turning those concerns upside down with smokescreens won't alter them. Further, I am very much convinced that the majority of the nation shares my concerns and it getting sick of the excuses.

a little 2nd amendment history lesson for you all, courtesy of the anything-but-liberal Christian Science Monitor:
http://www.csmonitor.com/Commentary/Opi ... -promoLink


for a real reality check, read the sidebar link about Madison's thinking as it relates to high kill weapons.

Well, again the whole intent of the 2nd Amendment was to secure a free state, no smokescreen is gonna change that either, but considering Walmart is rationing ammo and AR-15's are skyrocketing in price and demand, I'd bet your wrong about that too

EDIT: That bogus article you linked means nothing in light of a recent Supreme Court ruling. Isn't that what you are always touting. That the Constitution was meant to be a flexible document? Try again.

one last point for my afternoon.....I came across a great quote yesterday from the late, great Molly Ivins, to wit:

'I'm not anti-gun, I'm more pro-knives. Knives require the user to run at a potential target. Replacing all of our guns with knives would turn us into a nation of runners. This would be good for the health of the population. Further, knives seldom ricochet, and people rarely are killed while cleaning their knife.."

flip wrote:Well, again the whole intent of the 2nd Amendment was to secure a free state, no smokescreen is gonna change that either, but considering Walmart is rationing ammo and AR-15's are skyrocketing in price and demand, I'd bet your wrong about that too

read the above article and sidebar. The intent of the 2nd was not for lone gunmen to secure a damned thing.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_o ... _v._Heller

Here Slick. Read this and then practice what you preach. This is law and the interpretation of the 2nd Amendment by the highest court in the land, as it applies today . Now, try and respect that and the Law degrees, mental capacity and temperament that lands you a position in the Supreme Court.

callmeslick wrote:a little 2nd amendment history lesson for you all, courtesy of the anything-but-liberal Christian Science Monitor:
http://www.csmonitor.com/Commentary/Opi ... -promoLink


for a real reality check, read the sidebar link about Madison's thinking as it relates to high kill weapons.

That is a the same flawed argument you raised before. I showed you how wrong you were and you danced around the evidence and now you show up with the same argument again so you can't even hide behind ignorance as an excuse. You are either terminally stupid or purposefully peddling lies.

flip wrote:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_o ... _v._Heller

Here Slick. Read this and then practice what you preach. This is law and the interpretation of the 2nd Amendment by the highest court in the land, as it applies today . Now, try and respect that and the Law degrees, mental capacity and temperament that lands you a position in the Supreme Court.

but, that position is not the historical position, and can be, you realize, changed by another Supreme Court. My article was on historical interpretation.

Will Robinson wrote:

callmeslick wrote:a little 2nd amendment history lesson for you all, courtesy of the anything-but-liberal Christian Science Monitor:
http://www.csmonitor.com/Commentary/Opi ... -promoLink


for a real reality check, read the sidebar link about Madison's thinking as it relates to high kill weapons.

That is a the same flawed argument you raised before. I showed you how wrong you were and you danced around the evidence and now you show up with the same argument again so you can't even hide behind ignorance as an excuse. You are either terminally stupid or purposefully peddling lies.

I quoted that to show that I am far from unique in espousing that point of view. Nothing more. Simmer down, Will.....

callmeslick wrote:

Will Robinson wrote:

callmeslick wrote:a little 2nd amendment history lesson for you all, courtesy of the anything-but-liberal Christian Science Monitor:
http://www.csmonitor.com/Commentary/Opi ... -promoLink


for a real reality check, read the sidebar link about Madison's thinking as it relates to high kill weapons.

That is a the same flawed argument you raised before. I showed you how wrong you were and you danced around the evidence and now you show up with the same argument again so you can't even hide behind ignorance as an excuse. You are either terminally stupid or purposefully peddling lies.

I quoted that to show that I am far from unique in espousing that point of view. Nothing more. Simmer down, Will.....

Except you didn't say 'in my opinion, one that is shared by others...xyz...' you called it a "reality check" and claimed to have the correct interpretation of Madison's intent. You were declaring 'what is'!

However, your interpretation is incorrect and the Supreme Court has come to that conclusion after entertaining that argument and rejecting it based on lots of research into all the contemporaneous evidence from the period documenting the 'intent' of the authors of the 2nd. The Supremes interpretation isn't a 'modern revision' of the document, it is a historically accurate, factually accurate representation of the document and it's authors intent.

That is a distinction worth noting and in terms of "reality checks" I'd call it a 'reality check mate'.

The Supreme Court is extremely reluctant to reverse precedent, set by previous courts.

Spidey wrote:The Supreme Court is extremely reluctant to reverse precedent, set by previous courts.

uh, but they did exactly that on the 2nd amendment already.....that was sort of my point. In fact, the recent reversals were by narrow margins and they reversed precedents which were near-unanimous. Never say never. And try to keep some perspective.....this stuff falls into the very tricky range of Constitutional law....or, at least that's what an assortment of defense attorneys who I fish with argue the matter.

...as one lawyer from North Carolina, who has argued before the SCOTUS, told me: "It is settled law that you can own a gun for self defense, or for property defense. It is marginally accepted that you can own one for the purpose of national defense(militia idea), but ownership for the purpose of hunting or other sporting use is clearly a privilege, and the extent to which the types of and ammunition for firearms can be regulated is EXTREMELY murky." My take is that if it is murky to him, a 72 year old, very accomplished barrister, no one in here can be quite as certain as some wish to be.....

How about "the idea that you can separate firearms into those groups without overlap is EXTREMELY a pipe dream"?

callmeslick wrote:...as one lawyer from North Carolina, who has argued before the SCOTUS, told me: "It is settled law that you can own a gun for self defense, or for property defense. It is marginally accepted that you can own one for the purpose of national defense(militia idea), but ownership for the purpose of hunting or other sporting use is clearly a privilege, and the extent to which the types of and ammunition for firearms can be regulated is EXTREMELY murky." My take is that if it is murky to him, a 72 year old, very accomplished barrister, no one in here can be quite as certain as some wish to be.....

Curious how you always seem to know some "expert" whose opinion is something we need to take as indisputable fact. You can say all you want but with a link at least to back up what you are saying, a lot of us only take your assertions without even a grain of salt.

callmeslick wrote:...as one lawyer from North Carolina, who has argued before the SCOTUS, told me: "It is settled law that you can own a gun for self defense, or for property defense. It is marginally accepted that you can own one for the purpose of national defense(militia idea), but ownership for the purpose of hunting or other sporting use is clearly a privilege, and the extent to which the types of and ammunition for firearms can be regulated is EXTREMELY murky." My take is that if it is murky to him, a 72 year old, very accomplished barrister, no one in here can be quite as certain as some wish to be.....

What about "to overthrow the government, should the need arise"?

I don't own a gun... but if I bought one, that'd basically be why. Maybe to shoot home invaders, too.

overthrowing the government would be, I'd guess, would fall under 'national defense' by the definition of those doing the overthrowing. Any such action is a very shaky call.

woodchip wrote:

callmeslick wrote:...as one lawyer from North Carolina, who has argued before the SCOTUS, told me: "It is settled law that you can own a gun for self defense, or for property defense. It is marginally accepted that you can own one for the purpose of national defense(militia idea), but ownership for the purpose of hunting or other sporting use is clearly a privilege, and the extent to which the types of and ammunition for firearms can be regulated is EXTREMELY murky." My take is that if it is murky to him, a 72 year old, very accomplished barrister, no one in here can be quite as certain as some wish to be.....

Curious how you always seem to know some "expert" whose opinion is something we need to take as indisputable fact. You can say all you want but with a link at least to back up what you are saying, a lot of us only take your assertions without even a grain of salt.

as opposed to you, I don't blatantly make things up, nor do I yell 'liar' at folks quoting provable facts. I'm not going to provide a link to my fishing buddy, and we've seen how openminded and honest you are, so why would I bother? You question MY credibility?

I think the problem is Slick hangs out with too many lawyers. People who make a living trying to confuse and convolute debates. He is still stuck with an Industrial age mentality. His idea is that the wealthy landowners started the country for their own benefit and to a point he is correct, but what he doesn't realize is we are in a new age now. One where people as a whole are alot less superstitious and a lot more educated. He says that the 2nd Amendment never guaranteed personal ownership of firearms, yet it is in the personal Bill of Rights. He seems ignorant of the fact the people have always owned and carried firearms from the inception of this country. He is stuck with the mentality of Lords and Peasants and that day is over Slick. I'm actually optimistic to think that this country is evolving. That is actually the battle we are facing right now. Whether in this country, people are subject to the government, or if in reality we are a nation governed by the majority of people. The days of Rockefellers, Carnegies and Ford's are over Slick. You just don't seem to realize it. You say the Constitution is a living document meant to adapt over time. I think so too, problem is, your trying to interpret in the old order of things. I'm just optimistic enough to think people are going to become more free and the driving force of democracy, as long as they don't succumb to the crap your always spewing. Everyone of your arguments go towards you trying to remain the ruling class. I don't see it

flip wrote:I think the problem is Slick hangs out with too many lawyers.

when ya need one, ya need one......although mine are fishing buddies. At least you seem to realize that the reference to my pal Wayno is by way of explanation of my thinking....ie, that the 2nd is far from as cut and dried law as some would think.

He is still stuck with an Industrial age mentality. His idea is that the wealthy landowners started the country for their own benefit and to a point he is correct, but what he doesn't realize is we are in a new age now.

how so? Oh, this should be good.....

One where people as a whole are alot less superstitious and a lot more educated.

we live in age where American citizens built a Creationism museum, and watch Jersey Shore. As my fishing pals might say, I rest my case.

He says that the 2nd Amendment never guaranteed personal ownership of firearms, yet it is in the personal Bill of Rights.

something else you would learn, if you hung around lawyers more, is that the first ten Amendments are in no way(legally speaking) an enumeration of Rights. They are merely instructions upon the limits of government.

He seems ignorant of the fact the people have always owned and carried firearms from the inception of this country.

and you say this, despite the fact that I have stated such awareness for people in general and my own family in particular. Why?

He is stuck with the mentality of Lords and Peasants and that day is over Slick.

actually, while it waned in this country for a century or so, it's making a strong comeback, and you fail to see the signs, apparently.

I'm actually optimistic to think that this country is evolving. That is actually the battle we are facing right now. Whether in this country, people are subject to the government, or if in reality we are a nation governed by the majority of people. The days of Rockefellers, Carnegies and Ford's are over Slick. You just don't seem to realize it.

sorry to disabuse you, friend, but you or your immediate family will NEVER have the clout of any member of the families above. Nor, will you have a likelihood of joining the club. To think that folks of that ilk don't STILL run the show is, as you are wont to describe me at times, naive.

You say the Constitution is a living document meant to adapt over time. I think so too, problem is, your trying to interpret in the old order of things. I'm just optimistic enough to think people are going to become more free and the driving force of democracy, as long as they don't succumb to the crap your always spewing. Everyone of your arguments go towards you trying to remain the ruling class. I don't see it

just watch how it works out.....guideposts along the way in recent years include the Citizens United ruling, the Eminent Domain Rulings, and the finer details of the US Federal Tax Code. Trust me(and I am not happy, completely with this status quo, yet accept reality)the more things change, the more they stay the same, in some respects.