sixshooter

iTrader: (12)

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.

sixshooter

iTrader: (12)

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.

z31maniac

Yes. I am telling you that you can defend your life, liberty, and property without an AR. I cited one ( and I can keep going buy you'll just ignore it because you don't like it) study, but there are more that show the 10-year ban on "assault-style weapons" lowered the number and lethality of those shootings. I notice, again, you don't try to refute that, you just come up with nightmare scenarios that don't happen. Wait, did you think the movie "The Purge" was a documentary?

Weird. Oklahoma, doesn't have serious weather events with much greater frequency, so I'm practically dumbfounded on what you're getting at.

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.

z31maniac

Wait, hold on, I have to go shoot 30-50 feral hogs to protect my child because I couldn't be bothered to build a fence.

bahurd

iTrader: (8)

Angry mobs frequently occur in your yard after a hurricane wanting to take your resources and rape and kill your wife and daughter? I'd move to a safer place. Carry on...

sixshooter

iTrader: (12)

It's not the best neighborhood.

Joe Perez

iTrader: (8)

You'd be surprised.

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.)

z31maniac

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?

Joe Perez

iTrader: (8)

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

z31maniac

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. "

Roda

You're still missing the point. No one has to justify to you why they want an AR.

sixshooter

iTrader: (12)

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.

Joe Perez

iTrader: (8)

Ok.

Joe Perez

iTrader: (8)

samnavy

iTrader: (7)

Back to the question.

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.

z31maniac

^Thanks for the informative, thoughtful answer.

samnavy

iTrader: (7)

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.

Braineack

iTrader: (62)

Inheritance is white privilege; it belongs to the state.

Diamond Dave

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.

Braineack

iTrader: (62)

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-49383803

Need that common sense bomb-control laws.