Where did the gun regulations sticky go?

[JamesH]

One day they'll wake up to the fact that the govt is just using 2nd amendment, abortion etc as polarising issues to distract the people from the fact that America is essentially a one-party plutocracy.

[joel]

I'm out guys. It's plain there's no point talking with people who try to justify a nation-wide weapons and bullets buying spree after a massacre of children as though this were sane behaviour. Whatever.

You know damn well that the buying spree had nothing to do with the Newtown massacre. It was the talk of gun banning that was 100% responsible. You're just pot stirring and adding nothing useful at this point so I am glad that you "are out".

It appears that this thread is leaning towards America bashing. I hope it gets frozen or shut down.

Joel

[FredB]

What they know that I don't isn't the source of such laws, which allow a murder to be considered an appropriate response to an act of property theft. What these governments believe in seems more at issue than anything they know as fact, or even as moral code. What they believe in is that those with the most power win. And that's a race to the bottom. Have fun jumping into that race. I'll be off at the sidelines watching America decay, and feeling more than a little sadness for all the good folks there getting dragged down with you, and hoping Canada doesn't follow too closely on your heels.

I'm out guys. It's plain there's no point talking with people who try to justify a nation-wide weapons and bullets buying spree after a massacre of children as though this were sane behaviour. Whatever.

And with a final flourish, Sir Gerard, Defender of the Faith, Protector of All That Is Pure, Knight Errant in Pursuit of Evilness, Prolific Sharer of Semi-Relevant Personal Anecdote, realizing that the benighted denizens of the foul Southern provinces were beyond all possibility of redemption from their decadent ways, mounted his snow-white horse, Purity, and, as the setting sun glinted off his shining armor, sadly rode off to the sanity of the Great White North.

;>( FredB

[BenEnglishTX]

It appears that this thread is leaning towards America bashing. I hope it gets frozen or shut down.

I respectfully disagree. This site has a large international following who might not consider a little USA-bashing to be a bad thing, overall.

As a Texan, I do more than a little USA-bashing, myself, though it's usually of the "Why are we wasting our potential on this crap?" sort rather than any indictment of our national character (which, yes, I find mildly offensive but certainly not enough to want a good exchange like this one expunged from the site).

Still, it's not our decision. The moderators are pilkguns, Richard H, David Levene, and Spencer. If you really want the thread shut down, you should PM them and ask; they're the ones who get to make the decision.

[justadude]

There are certainly those who are looking at some of the laws unique to Texas and are somewhat aghast. How could some laws that give so much protection to the landowner exist?

I have lived in Texas, and by a few weird quirks been as far west as El Paso, the eastern cities Houston, Galveston and as far south as Corpus Christi. For those that know Texas this is pretty good sized patch of land.

Now especially in West Texas (El Paso) you can drive for hours and not see anything much more than scrubby desert and fenceline. The laws had to be written to allow landowners as much leeway as possible to protect their property and keep the peace because the nearest law enforcement could easily be hours away. This was even more true in the past when communication and travel were not as good.

In the modern era does this lead to situations where the use of a firearm may not have been appropriate or the outcome a little lopsided for the crime? Well, Yes, there have been cases. Perhaps in time Texas will re-evaluate their laws and what constitutes justifiable use of a firearm.

But having lived there, I was never concerned when I saw a firearm out in public and overall, Texas is a pretty orderly place. So maybe there is something to those laws.

'Dude

[BenEnglishTX]

...especially in West Texas (El Paso) you can drive for hours and not see anything much more than scrubby desert and fenceline...

Which is why the speed limit on Interstate 10 from just west of San Antonio to just east of El Paso is 80 miles per hour. I've made that drive several times on business and you just set your cruise control as close to 90 as you feel comfortable and try to finish that 544-mile stretch before the boredom kills you.

The laws had to be written to allow landowners as much leeway as possible...

It's been a long time since I had a CHL so I'm not up on the current law but it used to be that deadly force to defend property (shooting someone in the back who's running away with your stuff) was justified at night. It wasn't justified during daytime hours. The basis of allowing deadly force to protect property is reasonable; there was a time not long ago when stealing certain pieces of property from isolated folks would doom them to death. But I never understood the day/night distinction.

What does this have to do with proposed firearms law?

As for the speed limit, nothing. I'm just trying to lighten the mood a little.

As for the quirks in Texas justifiable use of force statutes, everything. Every state needs to be able to pass laws that serve their citizens. There are plenty of people in West Texas who live off the grid and for whom help is at least an hour away if not much, much more. If a group of drug smugglers avoiding the highway checkpoints decides to cross your ranch and if you see them, there's a reasonable chance you'll not only need that semi-auto rifle and a 30 round magazine but you'll want a couple of extras.

Given the movement of drugs across our southern border, the concept of a lever-action Winchester 94 as an adequate ranch rifle has become quaint. At minimum, most ranchers out that way will have an old SKS behind the seat. The ones that can afford it will routinely carry far more firepower.

They don't do this because they have Rambo fantasies. They do this because they face a reasonable potential threat of violence from very well-armed bad guys. The new NY law may work for them (No, I don't believe that for a second.) but it would be disastrous for half my state. That's another reason (What number are we up to, 743?) that federal-level gun control is a bad idea.

[BPBrinson]

You are referring to the "Castle Doctrine". It is not just a Texas thing. Over twenty states have a "stand your ground" statute.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Castle_doctrine

Who was at the San Antonio shooting that can say that the shooting was not justified by a threat from the perpetrator? The property defender only has to "feel" that his life is under threat, or threat of injury to justify stopping the threat. It was not an execution or the property defender would be jailed until they were put before the Grand Jury.

Lifelong Texan, Virginia for a little over a year.

PS Never heard of the Day/night thing, and I was a TSRA Director for several years. Thought I knew the laws fairly well. Can you post a link to that, Ben?

[Richard H]

This is a pretty loosely moderated site, most of the moderation is aimed at removing post that clearly don't belong on the site.

Personally I really haven't seen any bashing of the US, simple comparison to other locals is not bashing. I personally disagree with many of the opinions expressed by certain individuals but that said they have the right to express those opinions. If expressing preference of system over another is bashing then there's as much Australia, Britain and Canada bashing.

The last statement by James H is one if the few of his that I agree with. For years the government has played groups off against one another. Gun rights, abortion rights, free speech when in reality it's all the same, these are individual rights. It's easy to give up other people's rights that you don't agree with, that's why your founding fathers made it difficult to amend the constitution. Individual rights even the ones I personal wouldn't council or agree with should be protected. Right can't be treated like a buffet, it's all or nothing.

[BenEnglishTX]

Never heard of the Day/night thing, and I was a TSRA Director for several years. Thought I knew the laws fairly well. Can you post a link to that, Ben?

After a quick google, see the first paragraph under "Deadly Force to Protect Property": http://www.self-defender.net/law3.htm

[BenEnglishTX]

Gun rights, abortion rights, free speech when in reality it's all the same, these are individual rights. It's easy to give up other people's rights that you don't agree with, that's why your founding fathers made it difficult to amend the constitution. I personally agree that in individual rights even the ones I personal wouldn't council or agree with, they can't bye treated like a buffet.

In the mid-1990s, I was involved in (actually, right in the middle of) the porn industry. Obscenity prosecutions that originated under Bush the Elder were still working their way through the courts and all the movers and shakers were full of righteous indignation that the government was so willing to trample freedom of expression.

A couple of times, I pointed out that the industry needed an NRA of its own because "After all, if they can kill one part of the Bill of Rights, they can kill any other." The folks in that industry looked at me like I was from Mars. I was subjected to tirades about how the 2nd Amendment was meaningless and the people that believed in it were uneducated hicks and trailer trash that weren't worthy to stand in their presence, they being the premier defenders of the 1st Amendment.

Need I tell you that there have been times at NRA gatherings when I have brought up that "Y'know, when they went after the porn industry, you guys sure didn't have much to say about *that* attack on the Bill of Rights" and got a mirror-image reaction that those low-life perverts didn't deserve any protection at all, that they should all rot in jail till they burn in Hell.

<Sigh>

Freedom is for everybody. Stand together or fall separately. I wish people could take it just a little to heart that if we make allowances for differences in lifestyle or opinion, life is a little easier for everybody.

PS - Yes, if you put this post together with others I've made you'll realize I have a very odd CV. Please don't ask for details. It's too convoluted with too many things that happen at the same time and it's been that way all my life. It's just the way I am.

[Richard H]

I thought this was a pretty good video on the 2nd amendment.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yIGzj6eI ... dhErk-A7zg

[Richard H]

Gun rights, abortion rights, free speech when in reality it's all the same, these are individual rights. It's easy to give up other people's rights that you don't agree with, that's why your founding fathers made it difficult to amend the constitution. I personally agree that in individual rights even the ones I personal wouldn't council or agree with, they can't bye treated like a buffet.

In the mid-1990s, I was involved in (actually, right in the middle of) the porn industry. Obscenity prosecutions that originated under Bush the Elder were still working their way through the courts and all the movers and shakers were full of righteous indignation that the government was so willing to trample freedom of expression.

A couple of times, I pointed out that the industry needed an NRA of its own because "After all, if they can kill one part of the Bill of Rights, they can kill any other." The folks in that industry looked at me like I was from Mars. I was subjected to tirades about how the 2nd Amendment was meaningless and the people that believed in it were uneducated hicks and trailer trash that weren't worthy to stand in their presence, they being the premier defenders of the 1st Amendment.

Need I tell you that there have been times at NRA gatherings when I have brought up that "Y'know, when they went after the porn industry, you guys sure didn't have much to say about *that* attack on the Bill of Rights" and got a mirror-image reaction that those low-life perverts didn't deserve any protection at all, that they should all rot in jail till they burn in Hell.

<Sigh>

Freedom is for everybody. Stand together or fall separately. I wish people could take it just a little to heart that if we make allowances for differences in lifestyle or opinion, life is a little easier for everybody.

PS - Yes, if you put this post together with others I've made you'll realize I have a very odd CV. Please don't ask for details. It's too convoluted with too many things that happen at the same time and it's been that way all my life. It's just the way I am.

I've had those same discussions with the the 2nd amendment folks about pro-life/pro-choice. Larry Flint always amazed me, he was always one of the first to offer assistance when fighting encroachment on individual rights, despite the way he was treated by the masses, he definitely got it. Unpopular things need protection far more than popular things.

I'm a big believer in the poem First they came for...., and my favourite quote is "We must all hang together, or assuredly we shall all hang separately." Ben Franklin to John Hancock

[BPBrinson]

I thought this was a pretty good video on the 2nd amendment.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yIGzj6eI ... dhErk-A7zg

Thank You Richard!!! Brought tears to my eyes.....

[JamesH]

For years the government has played groups off against one another. Gun rights, abortion rights, free speech when in reality it's all the same, these are individual rights. It's easy to give up other people's rights that you don't agree with, that's why your founding fathers made it difficult to amend the constitution. Individual rights even the ones I personal wouldn't council or agree with should be protected. Right can't be treated like a buffet, it's all or nothing.

My point really was Republican or Democrat, they're really one party intent on taking your rights - they so rarely repeal laws or give out new rights. Even Bush did nothing more than sit and wait four years as the Assault weapons ban expired - its not as if as champion of the right he actually repealed it.

With each side there's a quid quo pro to gaining rights.

You want gun rights? Vote for us, but you have to give up on abortion choice.

You want freedom? OK but you need to let us push through the Patriot Act to give govt more power than ever?

You want govt healthcare? Fine, but you need to give up some other freedom.

[Richard H]

James, governments no matter what kind have never been good for freedom. They always have and always will be about power and that power comes from taking personal liberties and freedoms away. some governments take away more than others and some do it faster. Look even at even something like a condo board, your door can't be that colour or you can't have a mail box like that. They take away your freedom if choice in the guise that they give you uniformity so that they maintain property values. That's one reason the the Constuition and Bill of Rights was a little novel in its day, it spelled out inalienable rights, the government didn't give them, they naturally belonged to all men. That's why the Constituion for the mist part is a list of prohibitions on what the government can't do.

I watched a women giving an interview yesterday, a politician, and she actually said that parents need to be guaranteed that their children would be safe when they go to school. Yes who could argue against that, but is that even remotely realistic? The world is a wonderful place, but it also can be a dangerous place. Every danger that is removed comes at a price, at some point you need to ask yourself is it worth the price.

[JamesH]

Personally I'd say the - fairly pointless - freedom of people to own civilianised assault rifles with no checks or balances to speak of is not worth the price of children being killed while they're at school.

I'm not saying they should necessarily be banned, just that at least there should be checks and balances in proportion to the risk.

There are a lot of hoops to jump through to get a full auto firearm, it should be harder to buy a semi-auto high velocity rifle with a 30rnd magazine than it is to buy a .22lr single shot for example.

And obviously there should be background checks on everyone buying a gun.

[Richard H]

Yes pointless, because armed civilians have never had and effect on anything. The lots of dead Russian soldiers in Afghanistan and American soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan might beg to differ with you. It's a further example that you don't fully understand what you're talking about. Just look at the recent Arab spring uprising, Libya and Syria in particular. The Syrian military is on the ropes, not because the people are fighting them with jets and helicopters. The Syrian military is a modern well equipped force, he'll they have and do fight the Isreali military.

As usual the fact that any if the recent shootings would still have occurred seems to be lost on you guys. These were all legally acquired guns that went through background checks. None of the cosmetic items make any if these rifles any more lethal than any other semi auto rifle. A bayonet lug really? When was the last bayoneting? A pistol grip? A barrel shroud? A muzzle device? The largest shooting was Virginia Tech it was done with two hand guns, 10 and 15 round capacities, it took what twenty minutes for the response? Do you really think if the magazine had 7 or even 5 the carnage would have been less?

Aurora the guy had mental issues that the doctor doesn't seem to have reported. In CT a resident if the house, her son, killed his mother and took her guns. Given those name one reasonable thing with regards to firearms that should be placed on the tens of millions of firearm owners that have not now nor will they ever commit a crime with their firearms.

What went on in Australia is not reasoned or even remotely acceptable.
You also miss the point the some reasonable things that could be done get shunned because if the ban the gun crowd. Background checks, people get leary if this, is it being done to keep track so that later the ban crowd can com and take them? Same goes for most of the administrative items. The crap that went on in Australia is a prime example that gun owners look to.

Even the mental health issue side is full of dangerous paths. What exactly will be disqualifying mental issues? Any mental health issue? Will we fire cops and soldiers with mental issues because they suffer from depression? Cops sadly have lots of depression and a high rate of suicide. Once one gets flagged with a mental issue is there
A way to dispute it, is there a way to get off it, who and how will they declare you well or cured?

So reacting on the emotional hand wringing may make some people feel better in the short term it does nothing for the long term security of the population as a whole.

[Raymond odle]

Personally I'd say the - fairly pointless - freedom of people to own civilianised assault rifles with no checks or balances to speak of is not worth the price of children being killed while they're at school.

I'm not saying they should necessarily be banned, just that at least there should be checks and balances in proportion to the risk.

There are a lot of hoops to jump through to get a full auto firearm, it should be harder to buy a semi-auto high velocity rifle with a 30rnd magazine than it is to buy a .22lr single shot for example.

And obviously there should be background checks on everyone buying a gun.

WHY? To what purpose? Why not back ground checks to buy a knife set, five gallons of gas, a tank of propane or a one ton missle (a car)?

These all have great destructive power in the wrong hands.

[william]

I have never been privileged to witness such superhuman exercise of selective blindness.

Since Harlon Carter and the no-compromise crew have controlled the NRA, we have had Presidents and Congresses of both parties. Meanwhile:
1. At least two American citizens have been executed without trial by Air Force / CIA drone for expressing ideas distasteful to the government.
2. Hundreds if not thousands of prisoners - many if not most of them guuilty of nothing - have been tortured by American soldiers / spooks / contractors.
3. Hundreds if not thousands of no-knock warrants have been issued.
4. The war on drugs has wasted tens of billions of dollars and put more people in prison in the USA than in any other country on earth.
5. Aaron Swartz has been driven to suicide; Bradley Manning has been subjected to torture, and Julian Assange has been a virtual prisoner in an Ecuadorian embassy. All for no other reason than protecting OUR right to know.
6. State after state have so grotesquely gerrymandered themselves that "one person one vote" has become a bad joke.
7. Real wages for the majority of Americans has declined, and union organizing is suppressed. At the same time the percentage of the nations wealth / income controlled by the top 2% rises to the highest level since 1927.
8. America takes over industrial-world leadership in both income inequality and social immobility.
9. The TEA in Tea-Party stands for "Taxed Enough Already," but they ignore the fact that federal income tax collections are the lowest since Harry Truman was president.

There's plenty more to think about... if thinking is what you're about. Meanwhile the ONE justification for gun ownership under the Second Amendment - protecting the rights of the people - vanishes along with all our other rights.

[Hemmers]

I'm out guys. It's plain there's no point talking with people who try to justify a nation-wide weapons and bullets buying spree after a massacre of children as though this were sane behaviour. Whatever.

As joel said, that has nothing to do with the massacre. it has all to do with the threat of knee-jerk legislation and rushed laws to appease the righteous media outrage.

That threat has now proven to be entirely real, and the fear entirely justified after New York passed their law restricting all magazines in New York to no more than 7 rounds.

ALL magazines.

Because idiot legislators rushed it so much they forgot to write in an exemption for law enforcement. Yes. Unamended, the new law will ban cops from carrying guns with magazines holding more than 7 rounds.

What an utterly stupid, cretinous thing to do. It undermines people's confidence in their legislators, because their legislators can't be trusted not to jump in and rush through ill-conceived, ineffective, incomplete and badly written laws just because Piers Morgan told them to.

So people who have been thinking about a purchase jump in and make it before something is banned from sale. Q3/Q4 sales are probably going to suck because everyone's stocked up with their year's supply of ammo.

Personally I'd say the - fairly pointless - freedom of people to own civilianised assault rifles with no checks or balances to speak of is not worth the price of children being killed while they're at school.

I'm not saying they should necessarily be banned, just that at least there should be checks and balances in proportion to the risk.

Can we get over this "assault rifle" thing? My ruger 10/22 does not become more lethal when I take it out of it's factory synthetic stock and place it in an RM-22 stock.
Adam Lanza and Michael Ryan committed massacres with semi-auto centre-fire rifles. Thomas Hamilton had pistols. Derrick Bird had a bolt-action hunting rifle and a double barrel shotgun. Timothy McVeigh used fertiliser and Andrew Kehoe used dynamite, which isn't hard to make in your kitchen. When you go after the inanimate objects you're on a hiding to nothing. America does need better mental background checks, and they need better levels of state-funded mental healthcare that don't require that you be charged or convicted in order to get a referral 9which is too little too late).

The one thing you have to remember is almost all major massacres and school shootings are planned and premeditated. The Columbine shooters made pipe bombs, and Anders Breivik used a fertiliser car bomb as well as a Ruger Mini-14 (not an assault rifle by any legislative measure because of it's family-friendly wooden stock).
Get rid of guns and people will find other ways of carrying out their acts. The object is irrelevant. It's all about the person.

The largest shooting was Virginia Tech it was done with two hand guns, 10 and 15 round capacities, it took what twenty minutes for the response? Do you really think if the magazine had 7 or even 5 the carnage would have been less?

The largest shooting maybe. Let's not forget the largest killing was the Bath School Disaster when a trusted member of the school board filled the wall cavities with dynamite and pyrotol. Having detonated the school, he then committed suicide by driving his car up to the swarm of rescuers who were pulling victims out of the rubble and setting up the nail bomb in the back seat... no guns needed.

Even the mental health issue side is full of dangerous paths. What exactly will be disqualifying mental issues? Any mental health issue? Will we fire cops and soldiers with mental issues because they suffer from depression? Cops sadly have lots of depression and a high rate of suicide.

Difference being cops, soldiers and veterans usually have access to mental healthcare and counselling during both their career and retirement, indeed some even get annual evaluations. There needs to be something for the rest of the population, who don't all have medical insurance or personal wealth to self-fund treatment. Cops and soldiers get PTSD, but they don't have a monopoly on trauma. People suffer abuse as a child, get caught in high stress situations, suffer violent crime, defend themselves against violent criminals and get PTSD as a result of killing their attacker, etc, etc, etc. As a general rule in America there is very little state provision to help them unless they have access to private healtcare through insurance or personally financed.