Gun Rights: Should you be allowed to own an RPG?
#1921
Moderator
iTrader: (12)
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Tampa, Florida
Posts: 20,884
Total Cats: 3,075
You're trying to put ball in my court of defending why I need them when I'm legally allowed to have them. The ball is actually in your court where you need to tell me why I should not be able to defend my family and property as I see fit as legally allowed to do so.
#1922
Moderator
iTrader: (12)
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Tampa, Florida
Posts: 20,884
Total Cats: 3,075
What I was describing was not a one-time event of the Apocalypse, but rather something that occurs frequently here called a hurricane. Some small coastal towns in Mississippi did not see any police or medical presence for a week after Katrina.
#1923
Did these towns in Mississippi turn into free-for-all's? How many women were raped and killed after these events? Do you have stats, or just conjecture?
EDIT: Nor did we have the 2nd deadliest terror attack on US soil followed by severe weather the same day that forced the search team to call off the search for survivors. But please, continue with these hypothetical scenarios.
Last edited by z31maniac; 08-09-2019 at 11:44 AM.
#1927
Boost Pope
iTrader: (8)
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Chicago. (The less-murder part.)
Posts: 33,339
Total Cats: 6,793
I grew up in FL, and have seen a few hurricanes. A lot of it depends on where you live, and who your neighbors are.
When hurricane Charley plowed through Charlotte County in '04, there was very little lawlessness. Quite the opposite, actually. People sort of banded together and, without any sort of official coordination, started clearing the roads, cutting up the downed trees, tarping the roofs on houses which still had roofs to tarp, locating survivors (lots of elderly in that town) and transporting them to hospitals or shelters outside of the affected area, etc. In general it was just an all-around example of people doing the right thing in a time of crisis.
By comparison, when hurricane Katrina plowed sideways through Louisiana's *******, it was bad. Riots, looting, gang violence, home-invasions, assaults, general mayhem. Lots of bloodshed. Bodies lying in the street until they were consumed by animals. People were actually shooting at first-responders. It was one of the few news stories I've ever experienced where the reality of the situation was worse than it sounded on the evening news. That storm brought out the worst in what, admittedly, is a population already predisposed to violent criminal behavior.
Based on my personal experience, Tampa lies somewhere in between these two extremes, depending upon what neighborhood Six lives in. (I've never been to his house, we've only met at Cracker Barrel & AutoX.) In some parts of Tampa, you'd definitely want a belt-fed light machine gun after a major storm.
I concur, but some people can't be reasoned with. (I left south FL in '95.)
#1929
Boost Pope
iTrader: (8)
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Chicago. (The less-murder part.)
Posts: 33,339
Total Cats: 6,793
http://www.ser.tcu.edu/2008-RN/SER_R...nt%20Crime.pdf
https://www.npr.org/templates/story/...toryId=5063796
https://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/27/us/27racial.html
Tomgram: Rebecca Solnit, Getting Away with Murder after Katrina | TomDispatch
https://www.propublica.org/article/p...-with-impunity
https://rense.com/general67/rapes.htm
#1930
https://www.academia.edu/1195341/An_...eans_Louisiana
http://www.ser.tcu.edu/2008-RN/SER_R...nt%20Crime.pdf
https://www.npr.org/templates/story/...toryId=5063796
https://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/27/us/27racial.html
Tomgram: Rebecca Solnit, Getting Away with Murder after Katrina | TomDispatch
https://www.propublica.org/article/p...-with-impunity
https://rense.com/general67/rapes.htm
http://www.ser.tcu.edu/2008-RN/SER_R...nt%20Crime.pdf
https://www.npr.org/templates/story/...toryId=5063796
https://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/27/us/27racial.html
Tomgram: Rebecca Solnit, Getting Away with Murder after Katrina | TomDispatch
https://www.propublica.org/article/p...-with-impunity
https://rense.com/general67/rapes.htm
This is how I know to take an internet story seriously:
"Disclaimer- The posting of stories, commentaries, reports, documents and links (embedded or otherwise) on this site does not in any way, shape or form, implied or otherwise, necessarily express or suggest endorsement or support of any of such posted material or parts therein. "
#1931
But still no statistics given. That's what I'm asking for. Verifiable, objective facts. Not speculation or conjecture.
Everyone saw the residents of "naw-lins" act horrible after Katrina, but I still can't find how many people were raped and murdered because they didn't have ARs?
Everyone saw the residents of "naw-lins" act horrible after Katrina, but I still can't find how many people were raped and murdered because they didn't have ARs?
#1932
Moderator
iTrader: (12)
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Tampa, Florida
Posts: 20,884
Total Cats: 3,075
I'm actually in a smaller town 22 miles from the center of the city, but my particular neighborhood is a mix of houses from every decade from 1907 to the present. Some are 3500sq feet brand new or currently under construction and one is a 850sq foot rental property shack that would fall in if the termites stopped holding hands, and everything in betwween.
Being in the business I'm in, I sell machinery used to clean up after hurricanes to the contractors with the FEMA contracts. I have a customer working in Port St. Joe right now doing cleanup. Quite a few guys I have dealt with for years went into the fray after Katrina passed and they came back with hair raising stories. Some were their own experiences and some were from survivors, first responders, and even other contractors. There were FEMA subcontractors hauling debris that were roadblocked, dragged out of their trucks and beaten. Food, supplies, money, and fuel were taken from them. They started convoys and drove in small groups and armed themselves just to cart away the debris. But the people who lived there were terrorized by groups/gangs of thugs and had no protection day and night. It was Lord of the Flies.
Being in the business I'm in, I sell machinery used to clean up after hurricanes to the contractors with the FEMA contracts. I have a customer working in Port St. Joe right now doing cleanup. Quite a few guys I have dealt with for years went into the fray after Katrina passed and they came back with hair raising stories. Some were their own experiences and some were from survivors, first responders, and even other contractors. There were FEMA subcontractors hauling debris that were roadblocked, dragged out of their trucks and beaten. Food, supplies, money, and fuel were taken from them. They started convoys and drove in small groups and armed themselves just to cart away the debris. But the people who lived there were terrorized by groups/gangs of thugs and had no protection day and night. It was Lord of the Flies.
#1935
BLUF: It's almost a certainty the Supreme Court is gonna decide this one.
In 1994, a lot of those weapons were already in circulation, and they didn't ban the transfer of existing weapons, it could be argued that nobody was being denied the ability to own one, they just got very expensive overnight... supply and demand. Of course there was NO PLAN come 2004 from either side, and since there was no evidence that it had done anything positive for crime, they let it run out.
The current plan for 2020 would be to start out with a ban on new-sales (with a coincident ban on +10rd mags and mando background checks) like in 1994. It'll be interesting to see what they do with all the ones currently in circulation. Buy-backs are a non-starter. Prohibitions in transfer? Can I sell one to a buddy? Can I pass one to an immediate family member? Mandatory uncompensated turn-in? Confiscations? Can I loan one to a buddy when we go hunting or to the range?
I think the hope for Democrats is that they can ban new sales, prohibit any form of transfer, and require turn-in/destruction upon the death of the owner. This could be how they remove them all from circulation.
So... you've heard the term "In common use..."
In Heller, the Supreme Court held that handguns — the vast majority of which today are semi-automatic — are constitutionally protected because they have not traditionally been banned and are in common use by law-abiding citizens. There is no meaningful or persuasive constitutional distinction between semi-automatic handguns and semi-automatic rifles. Semi-automatic rifles, like semi-automatic handguns, have not traditionally been banned and are in common use by law-abiding citizens for self-defense in the home, hunting, and other lawful uses. Moreover, semiautomatic handguns are used in connection with violent crimes far more than semi-automatic rifles are. It follows from Heller’s protection of semi-automatic handguns that semi-automatic rifles are also constitutionally protected and that D.C.’s ban on them is unconstitutional.
If the Democrats pass another AWB, it'll be challenged at the Supreme Court. We all know what's almost certainly going to happen to the makeup if Trump wins again... Ginsburg would be 92 if she made it to the end of his second term... Breyer 86. Those two were from Clinton. It would make a 7-2 conservative majority likely for another 2 Presidential cycles if Trump gets to replace them. Clarence Thomas is currently 71.
There's another issue that will also likely make it to SCOTUS... national background checks. It will be made a states-rights issue, and will also likely be found unconstitutional.
#1937
Since I'm on a roll...
I've entered many FB discussions where the person will start out with "Nobody is coming for your guns"... and internally thinks they "support the 2A", but then makes all the usual assault weapons arguments about "don't need one to hunt deer" and "you must suck if it takes 30 bullets to defend your home", and "hi-powered" and "founding fathers never thought..." and a bunch of other bullshit. But, the scope of their knowledge comes from meme's and rhetoric.
My response is... "Will my kid ever be able to own one?"
And then through the monitor, across space and time, I see them get a faraway look in their eyes because they know they just stepped in it. They digest the thought that the ultimate goal is eventually, nobody can own one... that they really DO want them all to vanish as quickly as possible. They just never actually thought about it because they were busy regurgitating talking points that convinced them they weren't "taking guns away" if they government didn't actually send people to your house to confiscate them. But when they stop to consider not being able to hand down something to your kid, it gets a reaction.
I've entered many FB discussions where the person will start out with "Nobody is coming for your guns"... and internally thinks they "support the 2A", but then makes all the usual assault weapons arguments about "don't need one to hunt deer" and "you must suck if it takes 30 bullets to defend your home", and "hi-powered" and "founding fathers never thought..." and a bunch of other bullshit. But, the scope of their knowledge comes from meme's and rhetoric.
My response is... "Will my kid ever be able to own one?"
And then through the monitor, across space and time, I see them get a faraway look in their eyes because they know they just stepped in it. They digest the thought that the ultimate goal is eventually, nobody can own one... that they really DO want them all to vanish as quickly as possible. They just never actually thought about it because they were busy regurgitating talking points that convinced them they weren't "taking guns away" if they government didn't actually send people to your house to confiscate them. But when they stop to consider not being able to hand down something to your kid, it gets a reaction.
#1939
The thing is, it isn't for you to agree with weapon choices, nor is it about justifying the purpose - and since the Founding Fathers had just finished fighting a battle to maintain control of their country from a foreign dictator, guess what - they weren't thinking guns were only for hunting. It's about defending yourself or your country.If I were a nefarious government whose citizens had lots of guns, the first thing I'd do is either ban them or severely restrict them so they were less effective than the military. This alone is an infringement. On the same token that you should be able to defend against a foreign military (and guess what kind of awesome weapons they are using; automatic weapons with large capacity magazines) with like firepower, the entire point of the Second Amendment was defending against an unjust govenrment or preventing a government from taking things from the Free people.
#1940
Boost Czar
iTrader: (62)
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Chantilly, VA
Posts: 79,688
Total Cats: 4,113
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-49383803
Need that common sense bomb-control laws.