Man arrested for 2x4 labeled "High Powered Rifle"
- Thread starter isabellah
- Start date
melodyfall92
New member
Man arrested for 2x4 labeled "High Powered Rifle"
Not sure what your refering to here. Could you explain?
Not sure what your refering to here. Could you explain?
Man arrested for 2x4 labeled "High Powered Rifle"
First, if I was in charge, I would pass a law making murder illegal. That way, nobody would ever kill anybody with these weapons.
But as to your question -- all types of firearms.
It goes without saying that I would require the would-be buyer to be of age (either the voting age or the alcohol age), and to pass a course on the safe handling and use of the weapon.
First, if I was in charge, I would pass a law making murder illegal. That way, nobody would ever kill anybody with these weapons.
But as to your question -- all types of firearms.
It goes without saying that I would require the would-be buyer to be of age (either the voting age or the alcohol age), and to pass a course on the safe handling and use of the weapon.
bellasammie06
New member
Man arrested for 2x4 labeled "High Powered Rifle"
So, you'd be happy if people could walk around with M60s and 500 rounds of 7.62?
Do you exclude barrel-mounted grenade launchers and rifle grenades?
So, you'd be happy if people could walk around with M60s and 500 rounds of 7.62?
Do you exclude barrel-mounted grenade launchers and rifle grenades?
B2BMay3rd2008
New member
Man arrested for 2x4 labeled "High Powered Rifle"
It's a flippant point you've made there but having a justice system that makes murder illegal and punishes people that do it does mean less people get murdered.
It's a flippant point you've made there but having a justice system that makes murder illegal and punishes people that do it does mean less people get murdered.
darknight911
New member
Man arrested for 2x4 labeled "High Powered Rifle"
It really doesn't bother me any more than any other gun would bother me, or any more than any other number of rounds would bother me. Remember, I outlawed murder, so nobody is going to shoot anybody unjustly.
I honestly don't know.
It really doesn't bother me any more than any other gun would bother me, or any more than any other number of rounds would bother me. Remember, I outlawed murder, so nobody is going to shoot anybody unjustly.
I honestly don't know.
hellocharlieb
New member
Man arrested for 2x4 labeled "High Powered Rifle"
Fair enough. What do you think the interpretation of the constitutional should be regarding weapons such as these?
Fair enough. What do you think the interpretation of the constitutional should be regarding weapons such as these?
superduper
New member
Man arrested for 2x4 labeled "High Powered Rifle"
Obviously there are limits, just like with any other Constitutional right, but there is no other Constitutional right that people are trying to "interpret" straight out of existence. You don't hear people saying "privacy is of greater benefit to criminals than law-abiding citizens, and we'd all be safer without it, and our government is stable and benevolent, so the concept of a right-to-privacy is an outdated principle that we should just ignore because the Founding Fathers were living in a different time."
And yes, it absolutely applies to modern firearms, just like the right to free speech applies to modern communication systems like email and Twitter.
The rule created by DC v. Heller is sensible. Any weapon that are "in common use for lawful purposes" of self-defense, hunting, and sport. This includes the AR-15 but does not include hundred-round drum magazines for the AR-15. What I would like to see:
(1) Universal background checks for all transactions, new or used.
(2) Some form of mandatory training.
(3) Permanent bans on firearms ownership for anyone with a history of felonies or domestic violence (already in place).
(4) Greater access to mental health records as part of the background check process (recently put in place by Obama).
(5) Bans on magazines over 10 rounds. I'm not sure it'd matter that much, but the impact on lawful uses is so minimal that I support it as a "let's see if this helps" attempt.
(6) No bans on AR-15s or other semi-automatic civilian firearms adapted from military firearms (regardless of their origin, they're time-proven and effective designs for both hunting and sport, such as the Remington R-15 small-game hunting rifle and the Remington R-25 large-game hunting rifle). Heck, most of good pump-action shotguns on the market were derived from military and police designs; doesn't mean they're not well-suited for everything from shooting ducks to breaking clays to home defense (Remington 870 and Ithaca 37, I'm looking at you).
(7) Darned-near-close-to-a-ban on fully-automatic or burst-fire weapons (this is already in place).
(8) More law enforcement resources directed to addressing gang and drug violence (the primary source of homicides in the US).
(9) More law enforcement resources directed to patroling public areas such as malls and schools.
Obviously there are limits, just like with any other Constitutional right, but there is no other Constitutional right that people are trying to "interpret" straight out of existence. You don't hear people saying "privacy is of greater benefit to criminals than law-abiding citizens, and we'd all be safer without it, and our government is stable and benevolent, so the concept of a right-to-privacy is an outdated principle that we should just ignore because the Founding Fathers were living in a different time."
And yes, it absolutely applies to modern firearms, just like the right to free speech applies to modern communication systems like email and Twitter.
The rule created by DC v. Heller is sensible. Any weapon that are "in common use for lawful purposes" of self-defense, hunting, and sport. This includes the AR-15 but does not include hundred-round drum magazines for the AR-15. What I would like to see:
(1) Universal background checks for all transactions, new or used.
(2) Some form of mandatory training.
(3) Permanent bans on firearms ownership for anyone with a history of felonies or domestic violence (already in place).
(4) Greater access to mental health records as part of the background check process (recently put in place by Obama).
(5) Bans on magazines over 10 rounds. I'm not sure it'd matter that much, but the impact on lawful uses is so minimal that I support it as a "let's see if this helps" attempt.
(6) No bans on AR-15s or other semi-automatic civilian firearms adapted from military firearms (regardless of their origin, they're time-proven and effective designs for both hunting and sport, such as the Remington R-15 small-game hunting rifle and the Remington R-25 large-game hunting rifle). Heck, most of good pump-action shotguns on the market were derived from military and police designs; doesn't mean they're not well-suited for everything from shooting ducks to breaking clays to home defense (Remington 870 and Ithaca 37, I'm looking at you).
(7) Darned-near-close-to-a-ban on fully-automatic or burst-fire weapons (this is already in place).
(8) More law enforcement resources directed to addressing gang and drug violence (the primary source of homicides in the US).
(9) More law enforcement resources directed to patroling public areas such as malls and schools.
Man arrested for 2x4 labeled "High Powered Rifle"
That's what I don't know.
I'm pretty much a Libertarian. That means my attitude is:
1) I don't mess with your stuff, and you don't mess with my stuff.
2) Never ever punish innocent people. (Mitlov, I'm looking at you. You just took away Bob's toy because Larry was naughty. That's rude and unjust.)
So, on the one hand, if Bob hasn't done anything wrong, let him have his toy. On the other hand, a reasonable person can expect bad things to happen if we amplify "toy" to mean, oh, a nuclear weapon. I could be wrong, but maybe there are just some things that no single person should have.
That leaves me torn between my Libertarian ideal, and the practicality that maybe there's a limit. I honestly do not know precisely where the line should be drawn. Do we let Bob park a surface-to-air missile launcher in his front yard? I don't know.
That's what I don't know.
I'm pretty much a Libertarian. That means my attitude is:
1) I don't mess with your stuff, and you don't mess with my stuff.
2) Never ever punish innocent people. (Mitlov, I'm looking at you. You just took away Bob's toy because Larry was naughty. That's rude and unjust.)
So, on the one hand, if Bob hasn't done anything wrong, let him have his toy. On the other hand, a reasonable person can expect bad things to happen if we amplify "toy" to mean, oh, a nuclear weapon. I could be wrong, but maybe there are just some things that no single person should have.
That leaves me torn between my Libertarian ideal, and the practicality that maybe there's a limit. I honestly do not know precisely where the line should be drawn. Do we let Bob park a surface-to-air missile launcher in his front yard? I don't know.
Man arrested for 2x4 labeled "High Powered Rifle"
No, you think the limit is 10 rounds, and I think there is no limit on the number of rounds. Said another way, you think one more round (from 10 to 11) turns "good" into "bad," but that position is devoid of any rational thought whatsoever. It's thoroughly illogical, outright mean, and absolutely unjust.
No, you think the limit is 10 rounds, and I think there is no limit on the number of rounds. Said another way, you think one more round (from 10 to 11) turns "good" into "bad," but that position is devoid of any rational thought whatsoever. It's thoroughly illogical, outright mean, and absolutely unjust.
ComputerFreak
New member
Man arrested for 2x4 labeled "High Powered Rifle"
There always needs to be a limit. Extending your point - there is no real difference between being 1% under the drink drive limit and 1% over the drink drive limit, but that doesn't mean you should be allowed to drink and drive.
There always needs to be a limit. Extending your point - there is no real difference between being 1% under the drink drive limit and 1% over the drink drive limit, but that doesn't mean you should be allowed to drink and drive.
topshelfcheapsuit
New member
Man arrested for 2x4 labeled "High Powered Rifle"
Utility for unlawful purposes continues to rise as magazine capacity continues to rise. Utility for lawful purposes plateaus rather quickly. Even if you need more than 10 rounds for hog hunting, are you really telling me that a hog hunter couldn't reload a semi-automatic rifle every ten rounds? Anyway, once those lines cross on a graph, I don't think it should be on the market anymore, for the same reason you don't think that surface-to-air missiles should be on the market. It's utility for unlawful purposes has eclipsed its utility for lawful purposes. Do I have proof that that number is 10 instead of 12 or 8? No, but it's a good a number as any, and a reasonable compromise between banning ALL semi-automatic weapons like some would like (New York, I'm looking at you) and allowing hundred-round drum magazines for everyone.
I'd appreciate it if you left the ad hominems of the last sentence out. "Downright mean"? Come on. I'm not saying the magazine makes you a murder. I'm saying that it doesn't need to be on the market, and there would be fewer on the market for criminals to steal or purcase if they weren't widely available for purchase for those who want one "just because."
Utility for unlawful purposes continues to rise as magazine capacity continues to rise. Utility for lawful purposes plateaus rather quickly. Even if you need more than 10 rounds for hog hunting, are you really telling me that a hog hunter couldn't reload a semi-automatic rifle every ten rounds? Anyway, once those lines cross on a graph, I don't think it should be on the market anymore, for the same reason you don't think that surface-to-air missiles should be on the market. It's utility for unlawful purposes has eclipsed its utility for lawful purposes. Do I have proof that that number is 10 instead of 12 or 8? No, but it's a good a number as any, and a reasonable compromise between banning ALL semi-automatic weapons like some would like (New York, I'm looking at you) and allowing hundred-round drum magazines for everyone.
I'd appreciate it if you left the ad hominems of the last sentence out. "Downright mean"? Come on. I'm not saying the magazine makes you a murder. I'm saying that it doesn't need to be on the market, and there would be fewer on the market for criminals to steal or purcase if they weren't widely available for purchase for those who want one "just because."
sunshinegirl
Member
Man arrested for 2x4 labeled "High Powered Rifle"
Rule: Never ever punish innocent people.
You violated that rule without blinking an eye. Yes, punishing innocent people is mean -- by definition, really.
I said I wasn't sure if surface-to-air missiles are bad. I did not say ban them.
Rule: Never ever punish innocent people.
You violated that rule without blinking an eye. Yes, punishing innocent people is mean -- by definition, really.
I said I wasn't sure if surface-to-air missiles are bad. I did not say ban them.
Man arrested for 2x4 labeled "High Powered Rifle"
The point is, the boundary has to be SOMEWHERE. No matter where the boundary is--and you agree there's got to be a boundary somewhere--there's a big legal difference but not a big practical difference between being just under the boundary and just over the boundary. That's not a problem with any particular rule; that's the inherent nature of legal boundaries, whether we're talking age of consent ("but it would have been legal next week!") or drunk driving ("but I'm only one sip of beer over the limit!") or magazine size ("but it's only one too big!").
The point is, the boundary has to be SOMEWHERE. No matter where the boundary is--and you agree there's got to be a boundary somewhere--there's a big legal difference but not a big practical difference between being just under the boundary and just over the boundary. That's not a problem with any particular rule; that's the inherent nature of legal boundaries, whether we're talking age of consent ("but it would have been legal next week!") or drunk driving ("but I'm only one sip of beer over the limit!") or magazine size ("but it's only one too big!").
elegancescorned
New member
Man arrested for 2x4 labeled "High Powered Rifle"
Speed limits are "mean" as well then. Listen, I'm not "punishing" anybody; I'm setting rules for everyone to follow in an attempt to improve public safety. This is not without precedent in modern society.
I'm a pretty moderate guy. I think my beliefs on firearms are pretty middle-of-the-road. Why is it that both the "ban all guns" fundamentalists and the "no restrictions whatsoever" fundamentalists have both targeted the centrist in this thread with their ad hominem attacks, instead of going after each other?
Speed limits are "mean" as well then. Listen, I'm not "punishing" anybody; I'm setting rules for everyone to follow in an attempt to improve public safety. This is not without precedent in modern society.
I'm a pretty moderate guy. I think my beliefs on firearms are pretty middle-of-the-road. Why is it that both the "ban all guns" fundamentalists and the "no restrictions whatsoever" fundamentalists have both targeted the centrist in this thread with their ad hominem attacks, instead of going after each other?
Man arrested for 2x4 labeled "High Powered Rifle"
But it doesn't, and yes, you are. Plain as can be. Self-evident.
LOL! I don't know! You're a lawyer, and I'm a lawyer, so I expect you to play with me a certain way.
But seriously, it's hard to build a case that centrists have any definable value system. Wackos on the left certainly believe something. They might be nuts, but they can tell you exactly what's what, and they stick by it. I respect that even if/when I disagree. Ditto the wackos on the right -- they might be nuts, too, but they know what they believe in. I can respect that even if/when I disagree. The centrists, though -- what do they believe in? By all appearances they just lick their finger and hold it in the wind, and move in the direction of the blow. I cannot respect that.
But it doesn't, and yes, you are. Plain as can be. Self-evident.
LOL! I don't know! You're a lawyer, and I'm a lawyer, so I expect you to play with me a certain way.
But seriously, it's hard to build a case that centrists have any definable value system. Wackos on the left certainly believe something. They might be nuts, but they can tell you exactly what's what, and they stick by it. I respect that even if/when I disagree. Ditto the wackos on the right -- they might be nuts, too, but they know what they believe in. I can respect that even if/when I disagree. The centrists, though -- what do they believe in? By all appearances they just lick their finger and hold it in the wind, and move in the direction of the blow. I cannot respect that.
PeaceandLove
New member
Man arrested for 2x4 labeled "High Powered Rifle"
I didn't realize that believing in the value of moderation meant not having a definable value system. I didn't realize that definable value systems had to be black-and-white value systems. You learn something new on the internet each day.
Ad hominem attacks are absolutely not tolerated in the southern Oregon legal community. Los Angeles may be different.
I didn't realize that believing in the value of moderation meant not having a definable value system. I didn't realize that definable value systems had to be black-and-white value systems. You learn something new on the internet each day.
Ad hominem attacks are absolutely not tolerated in the southern Oregon legal community. Los Angeles may be different.