Mass shootings on the radar again.

[Muda69]

4 hours ago, gonzoron said:

If you need more than 10 rounds for self defense,

1. You're a terrible shot. Practice more.

By all means, regale us with stories of your practiced prowess with firearms, against multiple moving targets.    And the bb gun sideshow stand at the Hamilton county fair doesn't count.

 

[Muda69]

[Muda69]

New York Times Proves Once And For All That It Takes Marching Orders From The Liberal Elite: https://www.dailywire.com/news/50281/curl-new-york-times-proves-once-and-all-it-takes-joseph-curl

Quote

The liberal elite moaned and groaned and whined and whinnied.

The New York Times changed its headline.

If you were looking for proof — real, solid proof — that the once-great New York Times takes its marching orders from the liberal elite in the Democratic Party, look no further.

After two mass shootings within hours left 32 dead and 52 wounded, President Trump delivered a somber statement from the White House on Monday. He laid out several avenues as potential solutions, called for unity and bipartisanship, soothed Americans as the comforter-in-chief and loudly denounced racism and white supremacy.

"Together, we lock arms to shoulder the grief, we ask God in Heaven to ease the anguish of those who suffer, and we vow to act with urgent resolve," he said.

"In one voice, our nation must condemn racism, bigotry, and white supremacy. These sinister ideologies must be defeated. Hate has no place in America," he said.

"Now is the time to set destructive partisanship aside — so destructive — and find the courage to answer hatred with unity, devotion, and love," he said.

The New York Times captured the essence of the president's speech with a headline for its first print edition that read: "TRUMP URGES UNITY VS. RACISM." The headline carried no bias for either Left or Right, simply summing up the expansive message Trump had delivered.

But the Left went nuts — absolutely nuts. How dare The Times not bash Trump as a racist?!

Former Rep. Robert "Beto" O'Rourke, a candidate for the presidential nomination in 2020, found it "unbelievable" and said so as he rewteeted a post from Nate Silver, a former New York Times writer.

Beto O'Rourke

 

✔@BetoORourke

 

 

Unbelievable. https://twitter.com/NateSilver538/status/1158546596252061696 …

Nate Silver

 

✔@NateSilver538

 

Tomorrow's NYT print edition.

Not sure "TRUMP URGES UNITY VS. RACISM" is how I would have framed the story.

 

98K

9:26 PM - Aug 5, 2019

Twitter Ads info and privacy

 

19K people are talking about this

 

 

 

Sen. Cory Booker, another 2020 hopeful, wrote: "Lives literally depend on you doing better, NYT. Please do," as he retweeted the same Silver post.

 

 

"Hey, @nytimes — what happened to “The Truth Is Worth It?” Not the truth. Not worth it," wrote New York mayor and 2020 candidate Bill deBlasio.

"That’s not what happened," said candidate Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand.

And newcomer Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, the Democratic socialist the Democratic National Committee chairman called "the future of the party," followed suit.

"Let this front page serve as a reminder of how white supremacy is aided by - and often relies upon - the cowardice of mainstream institutions," she wrote on Twitter.

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez

 

✔@AOC

 

 

Let this front page serve as a reminder of how white supremacy is aided by - and often relies upon - the cowardice of mainstream institutions. https://twitter.com/NateSilver538/status/1158546596252061696 …

Nate Silver

 

✔@NateSilver538

 

Tomorrow's NYT print edition.

Not sure "TRUMP URGES UNITY VS. RACISM" is how I would have framed the story.

 

107K

9:56 PM - Aug 5, 2019

Twitter Ads info and privacy

 

31.9K people are talking about this

 

 

 

So (are you sitting down?) the New York Times CHANGED ITS HEADLINE.

For its second edition, out was the clear and concise headline encapsulating the essence of Trump's comments. In was a new one blasting him as weak and spineless on guns. And forget all those calls for unity versus racism.

"ASSAILING HATE BUT NOT GUNS" read the new headline.

Silver praised the Times for making the change: "FWIW (certainly better to do this than not IMO) they changed their headline between the 1st and 2nd print edition," he wrote on Twitter.

So there it is: Definitive proof that The New York Times takes its marching orders from the liberal elite in the Democratic Party.

"All the News That's Fit to Print" indeed.

 

[Muda69]

10 minutes ago, TrojanDad said:

Yet he says nothing about the breakdown of a culture that allows this to happen repeatedly. Guns are not new over the past 15 years. Yet look at the trend of mass shootings over the same time period. Remind me again...how many mass shootings occurred under the Obama tenure?

 

And don't forget the Boston Marathon bombings happened under Mr. Obama's watch,  as retribution for the USA's endless 'wars' in the Middle East. Not all mass killings involve firearms.

 

 

[gonzoron]

1 hour ago, Muda69 said:

By all means, regale us with stories of your practiced prowess with firearms, against multiple moving targets.    And the bb gun sideshow stand at the Hamilton county fair doesn't count.

 

Thanks for letting us know you've never been to a county fair.

[Muda69]

31 minutes ago, gonzoron said:

Thanks for letting us know you've never been to a county fair.

And you would be wrong.  Again.  Went to the Clinton County fair a couple of times just last month.  Also visited the Miami County fair in late June.

Again, please tell us all about your shooting prowess.

 

[gonzoron]

3 minutes ago, Muda69 said:

And you would be wrong.  Again.  Went to the Clinton County fair a couple of times just last month.  Also visited the Miami County fair in late June.

Glad you put down the video game controller and left Mom's basement. Congratulations.

 

4 minutes ago, Muda69 said:

Again, please tell us all about your shooting prowess.

Why? What does that have to do with high capacity magazines? I don't own a high capacity magazine, I'll just let you figure out the rest.

[Muda69]

Just now, gonzoron said:

Glad you put down the video game controller and left Mom's basement. Congratulations.

Nice of your to pull out that old cliche.  I haven't lived with my parents for almost 40 years now.  Nice try, old man.

2 minutes ago, gonzoron said:

Why? What does that have to do with high capacity magazines? I don't own a high capacity magazine, I'll just let you figure out the rest.

Old dead-eye Gonzo only needs a six-shooter to take out all of his imaginary opponents, trying to steal his fortune of social security $ stashed underneath the mattress of the Hamilton county mansion.

 

[gonzoron]

2 hours ago, Muda69 said:

Old dead-eye Gonzo only needs a six-shooter to take out all of his imaginary opponents, trying to steal his fortune of social security $ stashed underneath the mattress of the Hamilton county mansion.

Got your eye on it? Come on down.

2 hours ago, gonzoron said:

I'll just let you figure out the rest.

 

[Muda69]

14 hours ago, gonzoron said:

Got your eye on it? Come on down.

No, I don't want your stolen money.    Besides, I'm sure your Arcadia mansion is gated and surrounded by a moat.

 

 

[gonzoron]

22 minutes ago, Muda69 said:

No, I don't want your stolen money.    Besides, I'm sure your Arcadia mansion is gated and surrounded by a moat.

 

 

That’s fine, I’m sure you’ll “stick to your principles “ in the same way you always have and sign up for your SS money as soon as you’re eligible.

[Muda69]

1 minute ago, gonzoron said:

That’s fine, I’m sure you’ll “stick to your principles “ in the same way you always have and sign up for your SS money as soon as you’re eligible.

No, I probably won't because a.)  My spouse and I have property prepared to fund our own retirement and b.) by the time I and my spouse are of proper retirement age SS will be defunct or only be paying a small percentage of benefits, courtesy of the swindle you and the other baby boomers upheld on future Americans.  

[Muda69]

Back on topic:  My Family Has Been Threatened by Racists. Why Should They Outgun Me?: https://www.nationalreview.com/2019/08/second-amendment-right-to-effective-self-defense-more-important-than-ever/

Quote

Few things are more frustrating than watching members of the media, politicians, and activists who often know very little about guns, have the resources to hire security when they face threats, and don’t understand the weapons criminals use telling me what I “need” to protect my family. And what they invariably tell me I “need” is a weapon less powerful than the foreseeable criminal threat.

Or, let me put it another way. My family has been threatened by white nationalists. Why should they outgun me?

Few things concentrate the mind more than the terrifying knowledge that a person might want to harm or kill someone you love. It transforms the way you interact with the world. It makes you aware of your acute vulnerability and the practical limitations of police protection.

If you’re wealthy, you have a quick response: Hire professionals to help. Let them worry about weapons and tactics. If you’re not wealthy, then your mind gets practical, fast. You have to understand what you may well face. And despite the constant refrain that semi-automatic weapons with large-capacity magazines are “weapons of war,” if you know anything about guns you know that what the media calls a large-capacity magazine is really standard-capacity on millions upon millions of handguns sold in the United States.

This means it’s entirely possible that a person coming to shoot you is carrying something like, say, a Glock 19 with a standard 15-round magazine.

So, how do I meet that threat? Unless you’re a highly trained professional who possesses supreme confidence in your self-defense skills, you meet it at the very least with an equivalent weapon, and preferably with superior firepower.

In a nutshell that’s why my first line of defense in my home is an AR-15. One of the most ridiculous lines in yesterday’s New York Post editorial endorsing an assault-weapons ban was the assertion that semi-automatic rifles such as the AR-15 are “regularly used only in mass shootings.” False, false, false. I use one to protect my family.

Why? The answer is easy. As a veteran, I’ve trained to use a similar weapon. I’m comfortable with it, it’s more powerful and more accurate than the handgun I carry or the handgun an intruder is likely to carry, and, while opinions vary, multiple self-defense experts agree with me that it’s an excellent choice for protecting one’s home.

What’s more, like the vast, vast majority of people who own such a weapon, I use it responsibly and safely. Don’t believe me? It’s the most popular rifle in the United States — one of the most popular weapons of any kind, in fact — and it’s used in fewer murders than blunt objects or hands and feet.

Here is the fundamental, quite real, problem that gun-control advocates face when they try to persuade the gun-owning public to support additional restrictions on the right to keep and bear arms: The burden of every single currently popular large-scale gun-control proposal will fall almost exclusively on law-abiding gun owners.

...

It’s one thing to ask millions of Americans to sacrifice their security for the sake of the larger common good. It’s quite another to ask for that same sacrifice in the absence of evidence that the policy will accomplish what it is designed to accomplish.

The criminal who seeks to harm my family has already demonstrated that he has no regard for the law. He doesn’t care about magazine-size restrictions or rhetoric about “weapons of war.” He doesn’t care that he evaded a background check or that he placed his girlfriend in legal jeopardy by using her as a straw purchaser. He doesn’t care if a previous felony conviction renders his gun possession unlawful.

In your well-meaning ignorance, you seek to provide greater security at the price of liberty. In reality, you would sacrifice both to no good end.

 

[Wabash82]

On 8/6/2019 at 9:55 AM, Howe said:

The Dayton killer was a left winger, but don't blame Sen. Warren

https://www.wsj.com/articles/politics-and-the-shooters-11565047588

Did he leave a manifesto linking the shooting to his alleged left wing views?   

[Wabash82]

On 8/6/2019 at 9:07 AM, TrojanDad said:

You mean like federal marijuana laws?  Federal immigration laws and sanctuary cities?  Prohibition law?  Who's going to enforce them?  Current staffing of ATF?

Are track records for national laws that impressive?

 

These are relative things, but yeah, just like those laws when they are/were actively enforced. They generally worked to significantly reduce the things they were designed to reduce. 

Obviously, they didn't/don't work perfectly-- they didn't eradicate marijuana use, or stop all alcohol sales, or eliminate all illegal immigration. But it is only when we start talking about gun violence that suddenly the standard for assessing "usefulness" becomes 100%, ironclad effectiveness. The real world doesn't work that way.

If a uniform result is desired, a federally-established and enforced standard is more  effective in achieving that result han a patchwork of state or local standards that can be evaded simply by driving a few miles.  

[Wabash82]

On 8/6/2019 at 11:24 AM, Impartial_Observer said:

This hits on several points of misinformation that is out there. This isn't necessarily an argument for or against just some comments:

Limiting magazine capacity. It literally takes seconds to drop a mag and reload. I don't see this changing anything. 

 

Thirty seconds elapsed between Dayton shooter's first shot and when he was shot dead by police. He was the guy with the 100 round magazine. Killed nine and wounded 20+ others in those thirty seconds. Are you sure that even a few seconds' delay in the rate of fire wouldn't "change things"? Those are seconds that potential victims use to escape, and police officers use to close and neutralize a perpetrator.

On 8/6/2019 at 11:24 AM, Impartial_Observer said:

The other issue I see with magazine limits, what happens to the millions and millions that are already out there? Do they all become illegal at some arbitrary date, or are they grandfathered? You can get 30 round Magpul mags, decent mags for 11-13 bucks each, I can't imagine every AR owner doesn't own at least a half dozen of them. The last numbers I saw out of NJ's new law were they had had 0 high capacity mags turned in. 

 

This is the "perfect is the enemy of the good" or, "If it can't fix it immediately, it's useless" position.  Yes, they won't go away over night. They WILL immediately become more expensive on any black market, and over time will disappear from the places where non-hardened criminal  people -- which describes most these mass shooters -- would have no way to get them, just like fully auto weapons have become since they were generally outlawed. 

On 8/6/2019 at 11:24 AM, Impartial_Observer said:

 

Bump Stocks were just stupid to begin with. I don't know a serious shooter who had one. As we have mentioned before  you can do the same thing with your belt loop and thumb. I believe they are currently illegal per ATF policy changes. 

I can think of one "serious shooter" who had one in Vegas.... He seemed to do okay with it.

Policies can be changed overnight. Federal laws cannot be. 

On 8/6/2019 at 11:24 AM, Impartial_Observer said:

But from where I sit, gun violence seems to be a the symptom of a much bigger societal problem. 

"A" problem? Per my earlier comment, I'd say that quite different "societal problems" gave rise to the El Paso shooting, the Dayton shooting, and the various mass shootings in Chicago last weekend. Unless we are going to just declare every person who ever shoots any other person for any reason to be "mentally ill", we have to face the fact that we are never going to eliminate all the many things that motivate some human beings to kill another human being -- or a whole bunch of them at once.  What we can try to do is reduce the availability to such persons of technology that is specifically and directly (and effectively) designed to make accomplishing that end easy for them. 

[Impartial_Observer]

1 hour ago, Wabash82 said:

Thirty seconds elapsed between Dayton shooter's first shot and when he was shot dead by police. He was the guy with the 100 round magazine. Killed nine and wounded 20+ others in those thirty seconds. Are you sure that even a few seconds' delay in the rate of fire wouldn't "change things"? Those are seconds that potential victims use to escape, and police officers use to close and neutralize a perpetrator.

You tell me:

 

1 hour ago, Wabash82 said:

This is the "perfect is the enemy of the good" or, "If it can't fix it immediately, it's useless" position.  Yes, they won't go away over night. They WILL immediately become more expensive on any black market, and over time will disappear from the places where non-hardened criminal  people -- which describes most these mass shooters -- would have no way to get them, just like fully auto weapons have become since they were generally outlawed. 

As I stated, not necessarily an argument for or against. The main point I was making is on some arbitrary date, you either destroy your legally purchased magazines or you are a criminal. Who’s going to reimburse me for my investment if I’m forced to destroy them? Comparing mags to machine guns is laughable when you look at sheer numbers. And if we add in +10 mags for handguns the number grows exponentially.

1 hour ago, Wabash82 said:

I can think of one "serious shooter" who had one in Vegas.... He seemed to do okay with it.

Policies can be changed overnight. Federal laws cannot be. 

On two separate occasions the ATF deemed bump stocks legal in that they did not change the mechanical firing mechanism of the rifle. In 2018 the ATF amended the regulations. 

https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2017/oct/06/national-rifle-association/nra-claim-obama-approved-bump-stocks/

https://www.atf.gov/rules-and-regulations/bump-stocks

To the rest of it, sure the answer is always to limit liberties of law abiding citizens. 

[Wabash82]

10 hours ago, Impartial_Observer said:

You tell me:

 

Are you serious? A staged demonstration with folks who know what the point of the demonstration is supposed to be?! 

Here are just two examples (of many) from real life:

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/patricia-maisch-describes-stopping-gunman-reloading/story?id=12577933

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.cbsnews.com/amp/news/seattle-pacific-university-shooting-heroes-helped-thwart-gunman

Here's some of the research:

https://everytownresearch.org/assault-weapons-high-capacity-magazines

10 hours ago, Impartial_Observer said:

As I stated, not necessarily an argument for or against. The main point I was making is on some arbitrary date, you either destroy your legally purchased magazines or you are a criminal. Who’s going to reimburse me for my investment if I’m forced to destroy them? Comparing mags to machine guns is laughable when you look at sheer numbers. 

It is the way market forces work. There are other examples with comparable numbers of goods in the market at the time they were banned -- go buy some Jarts.

10 hours ago, Impartial_Observer said:

On two separate occasions the ATF deemed bump stocks legal in that they did not change the mechanical firing mechanism of the rifle. In 2018 the ATF amended the regulations. 

https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2017/oct/06/national-rifle-association/nra-claim-obama-approved-bump-stocks/

https://www.atf.gov/rules-and-regulations/bump-stocks

 

Makes my point: as political winds shift, they can change the regulation again. Laws, once passed, are not quite as easy to "undo" (think Obamacare.)

10 hours ago, Impartial_Observer said:

To the rest of it, sure the answer is always to limit liberties of law abiding citizens. 

You are conflating the right with particluat potential modes of exercising it. If your favorite form of poster board was banned because it contained toxic chemicals, your right to free speech would not be taken away. You'd just have to make your placards for the gun rights march with some slightly less nice poster board. 

[Muda69]

16 minutes ago, Wabash82 said:

It is the way market forces work. There are other examples with comparable numbers of goods in the market at the time they were banned -- go buy some Jarts.

I have few Jarts stored away.  Want to buy some?  PM me.

http://www.sportsonearth.com/article/48297354/

Quote

They live among you. They are your friends and neighbors. They act like law-abiding citizens, but they hide a dark secret.

"We make sure everyone knows this is an adult activity," says Bill McGrane, who spent last weekend binging on his forbidden passion.

They are rebels, scofflaws. They purchase, use, and sometimes home-build their own illegal items. They operate on the fringes of legality. They do so, brazenly, in their own backyards, sometimes right under the eyes of local law enforcement.

"I'm in a small town. I'm sure the police know that we do it," says Shane Davis, who also flouts his pastime on the Internet.

They claim they are doing nothing harmful, yet the object of their fascination has been illegal in the United States for 25 years. They invite friends and family to join them: an innocent call to share in the fun, or the first step down the road of temptation?

"We have six courts: no waiting," McGrane says.

These men lead normal lives. They have families and careers. But like hundreds of others around the country, they also do the unthinkable. They take part in America's Most Dangerous Game.

Davis and McGrane play lawn darts. And they don't care who knows.

....

In 1987, David Snow's seven-year-old daughter died after being struck by an errant lawn dart. Snow began a public crusade to outlaw the game. Lawn darts had already been illegal in the United States, but a ruling in the late 1970s permitted their manufacture and sale as long as they were not marketed as toys. Snow's activism convinced lawmakers that there was no way to market a jart that would not make it enticing to youngsters. Lawn dart injury statistics were chilling: 6,100 emergency room visits in eight years, 81% of them involving children under 16. Lawn darts were outlawed in 1988, and owners were encouraged to destroy their sets.

Twenty-five years later, the lawn dart is not legally available anywhere: not in the sporting goods store with the pellet guns and Bowie knives, not behind the convenience store counter with the rolling papers, not in the Fireworks warehouse just across the state line, not even on eBay, which bans postings about lawn darts. Enthusiasts trade some through Craigslist, which has laxer lawn darts policies; Davis gets most of his through donations.

McGrane calls the situation "ludicrous … I can buy a gun, but I cannot buy a lawn dart."

...

 

Edited August 8, 2019 by Muda69

[Muda69]

Here is how the states with "red flag" laws fail to protect the constitutional rights of gun owners.: https://reason.com/2019/08/07/republicans-who-support-gun-confiscation-laws-imagine-due-process-that-does-not-exist-on-paper-or-in-practice/

Quote

When President Donald Trump endorsed "red flag laws" on Monday, he described them as providing "rapid due process" to people accused of posing a threat to themselves or others before suspending their Second Amendment rights. Sen. Lindsey Graham (R–S.C.), who plans to introduce a bill aimed at encouraging more states to enact such laws, says they should provide "robust due process." But as I note in my column today, due process is neither rapid nor robust under most existing red flag laws, which 17 states and the District of Columbia have enacted. There is little reason to think the situation will improve as more states rush to do something about mass shootings.

Testifying before the Senate Judiciary Committee last March, David Kopel, a gun policy expert at the Independence Institute in Denver, emphasized the importance of procedural safeguards aimed at protecting the constitutional rights of respondents in gun confiscation cases. Kopel's recommendations include requiring that petitions be submitted only by law enforcement agencies after an independent investigation, allowing ex parte orders (which are issued without an adversarial process) only for good cause, limiting them to one week, limiting subsequent orders to six months, requiring clear and convincing evidence, providing counsel to respondents, giving them a right to cross-examine witnesses, letting them sue people who file false and malicious petitions, and giving them advance notice of confiscation orders. Here are some of the ways existing laws fall short of those criteria.

....

How do red flag laws work in practice?

The actual performance of red flag laws tends to be worse than the promises on paper. While Indiana notionally requires that a hearing be held within 14 days of a gun seizure, for instance, a 2015 study found that gun owners waited an average of more than nine months before a court decided whether police could keep their firearms. Although Maryland officially requires evidence of an "immediate and present danger" for ex parte orders, judges issue them in virtually every case.

Even when clear and convincing evidence is required for a final order, the thing to be proven—usually a "significant" risk but in some states a mere "risk," "danger," or "risk of danger"—is vague and undefined. When standards are amorphous, judges are especially likely to err on the side of issuing orders, because they imagine that failing to do so could lead to terrible consequences. The possibility that a respondent will unfairly lose his Second Amendment rights is bound to pale in comparison to the possibility that he will use a gun to commit suicide or murder. That psychological dynamic helps explain why judges in Florida issue final orders 95 percent of the time.

Donald Trump can talk about due process. Lindsey Graham can talk about due process. David French can talk about due process. But when push comes to shove, state legislators will give it short shrift, and so will judges, because they both have strong incentives to cast the net as widely as possible, the better to catch potential mass shooters. Never mind that red flag laws are mainly used to protect people against their own suicidal impulses, or that so far there is no real evidence that they prevent homicides. The point is to do something about mass shootings, whether or not that thing works or produces benefits that outweigh its costs, which in this case consist mainly of constitutional rights unjustly lost.

Yep,  Red Flag laws are mostly a joke, and deny individuals their 2nd amendment rights.  

And that pesky 2nd amendment is the crux of the entire matter.  Only a partial or full repeal/rewriting of the 2nd amendment will cause any real or lasting change.  And is there the political will in Washington and the enough will among Americans to see such a thing through to the end?

 

[Wabash82]

1 hour ago, Muda69 said:

I have few Jarts stored away.  Want to buy some?  PM me.

http://www.sportsonearth.com/article/48297354/

 

Hasbro just needs to add a scope to them Jarts and re-brand them as "home defense projectiles" protected by the 2nd Amendment. 

[Impartial_Observer]

1 hour ago, Wabash82 said:

Are you serious? A staged demonstration with folks who know what the point of the demonstration is supposed to be?! 

Did you watch the entire video? While Christy is clearly not an expert, reloading mags didn't take much more time. I have no plans on doing a mass shooting any time soon, and I practice mag changes at least with handguns. I would ass-u-me someone with a mass shooting in mind would practice a little.

 

1 hour ago, Wabash82 said:

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/patricia-maisch-describes-stopping-gunman-reloading/story?id=12577933

 So after the shooter has been hit with a chair and wrestled to the ground, granny grabbed his magazine. 

1 hour ago, Wabash82 said:

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.cbsnews.com/amp/news/seattle-pacific-university-shooting-heroes-helped-thwart-gunman

Article claims the shooter paused to reload his shotgun, I found no reference to a mag change.

1 hour ago, Wabash82 said:

https://everytownresearch.org/assault-weapons-high-capacity-magazines 

I don't even have to look at everytown to know what it says, it will be the opposite of the NRA's data.

1 hour ago, Wabash82 said:

It is the way market forces work. There are other examples with comparable numbers of goods in the market at the time they were banned -- go buy some Jarts.

I understand how the market works. I'm not denying they will be hoarded and the price will go up exponentially. If passed on some arbitrary date millions of high capacity mag owners become criminals if they don't destroy their legally purchased magazines. Just as an assault weapon ban, there will be a rash of boating accidents. 

1 hour ago, Wabash82 said:

Makes my point: as political winds shift, they can change the regulation again. Laws, once passed, are not quite as easy to "undo" (think Obamacare.)

I was under the assumption that you we challenging that it required passing of a law to ban bump stocks. 

1 hour ago, Wabash82 said:

You are conflating the right with particluat potential modes of exercising it. If your favorite form of poster board was banned because it contained toxic chemicals, your right to free speech would not be taken away. You'd just have to make your placards for the gun rights march with some slightly less nice poster board. 

I'm not conflating anything. Have you read the Friedman or Heller decisions? 

[Muda69]

23 minutes ago, Wabash82 said:

Hasbro just needs to add a scope to them Jarts and re-brand them as "home defense projectiles" protected by the 2nd Amendment. 

Hmmm.  I smell a kickstarter campaign................

 

[Wabash82]

On 8/8/2019 at 9:34 AM, Impartial_Observer said:

Did you watch the entire video? While Christy is clearly not an expert, reloading mags didn't take much more time. I have no plans on doing a mass shooting any time soon, and I practice mag changes at least with handguns. I would ass-u-me someone with a mass shooting in mind would practice a little.

Beyond the obvious fact that the video creates an ideal set of circumstances --  folks standing on a range, who are not shooting at moving human beings, rushing adrenalin and knowledge that law enforcement may be coming to kill them at any second, and with their reloading magazines laid out before them on a stand -- it does not represent a a "blind experiment" with some control mechanism:  the people involved in the video understand why it is being made, and what conclusion the people making the video want to reach. So if they are sympathetic to that desired conclusion -- which their participation in the video would imply -- they obviously can "rig" the outcome by slowing slightly their rate of fire when using the larger magazines.

Moreover, Christy's results consistently showed a few seconds of delay in the multiple mag scenario. I again refer you to the recent Dayton incident -- a crime that lasted 30 seconds in total. A few seconds of delay in that crime would have saved lives or injuries.

On 8/8/2019 at 9:34 AM, Impartial_Observer said:

So after the shooter has been hit with a chair and wrestled to the ground, granny grabbed his magazine. 

Article claims the shooter paused to reload his shotgun, I found no reference to a mag change.

I don't even have to look at everytown to know what it says, it will be the opposite of the NRA's data.

The opportunity to hit him with the chair arose because he paused to reload another magazine.

The point of the link of the second article was to emphasize that delays to reload provide potential victims the opportunity to fight back, however long the delay may be last.  

Well then, NRA data would be equally viewed with skepticism due to apparent partisanship, you'd acknowledge?

On 8/8/2019 at 9:34 AM, Impartial_Observer said:

I understand how the market works. I'm not denying they will be hoarded and the price will go up exponentially. If passed on some arbitrary date millions of high capacity mag owners become criminals if they don't destroy their legally purchased magazines. Just as an assault weapon ban, there will be a rash of boating accidents.  

I am probably being slow on the up take, but I don't understand the boating accident reference.

On 8/8/2019 at 9:34 AM, Impartial_Observer said:

I was under the assumption that you we challenging that it required passing of a law to ban bump stocks. 

I'm not conflating anything. Have you read the Friedman or Heller decisions? 

No, I was challenging the implication in your initial post that bump stocks are already "illegal" so passage of explicit legislation by Congress to outlaw them is not necessary. My point was that the status of bump stocks as "legal" or "illegal" has changed with regulatory interpretations because there is no explicit underlying law that clearly bans them. Regulatory interpretations can change from administration to administration; acts of (laws passed by) Congress don't.

Yes, I've read  the Friedman and Heller decisions several times, and they both clearly support my contention that reasonable limitations on particular methods of exercising one's 2nd Amendment rights do not represent unconstitutional infringements of that right (an unlawful deprivation of the essential liberty). You are going to have explain in more detail what you mean, if you are believe that those cases do not support my position that you are wrongly equating the underlying right (to "bear arms") to possible mechanisms of exercising that right (e.g., having a fully automatic machine gun, or a bazooka, or a cannon -- or a large capacity magazine, or a semi-automatic rifle, etc., etc.).  

[Muda69]

My old savage arms over/under 410 22,  both single shot barrels, should be the only firearm available to non-military U.S. citizens.   No 2nd amendment violations there, right?