In order to participate in the GunBroker Member forums, you must be logged in with your GunBroker.com account. Click the sign-in button at the top right of the forums page to get connected.
quote:So your basic stance is that there should never be any prevention of crime by any law enforcement because there would be too much potential infrigement on the rights of law abiding citizens. I think we have again come full-circle to the "baby with the bath water" argument. If you can't prevent every crime with 100% accuracy then we should make no effort to prevent any crime. How Libertarian of you.
My basic stance has been shaken for years, and every single time I hear of some LEO busting an otherwise law-abider of some technicality in some law no one ever heard of reinforces the belief that law enforcement has the duty of bringing evil-doers to justice, not bust them for potentially having the ability to carry out some evil. It would be like busting every woman who owns lingerie because they might be prostitutes.
Crime prevention is impossible to prove on the basis of what a person possesses. A tip or lead, on the other hand, I have no problem with. I feel absolutely no sympathy for those who knew of dangers, like domestic partners who have drifted violently apart or someone who knows they are being stalked, and yet did nothing to prevent their own deaths or injuries, but the idea that cops should be able to nose around in other people's business looking to turn people into criminals, I have no respect for.
You, and you alone, WoundedWolf have come full-circle to the conclusion, in your arguments that if crime cannot be 100% prevented, no effort should be made to prevent any crime, not I. My belief is that it should be carried out by someone else, like you, and me, and anyone else who may be the subject of criminal assault. The cops are under no duty to protect anyone, and should not be expected to or counted on to protect anyone, either. How utilitarian of you, WW.
Death to Tyrants!!!
Lev 26:14-39
Those who would offer any interpretation that would relegate Amendment II to "relic" status of a bygone era are blatantly stating that the remainder of the Bill of Rights isn't worth a damn, either.
quote:A tip or lead, on the other hand, I have no problem with. I feel absolutely no sympathy for those who knew of dangers, like domestic partners who have drifted violently apart or someone who knows they are being stalked, and yet did nothing to prevent their own deaths or injuries, but the idea that cops should be able to nose around in other people's business looking to turn people into criminals, I have no respect for.
I don't see how an untrained citizen's lead should be the only method for law enforcement to instigate an investigation. If a detective sees someone leave Wal-Mart with Sudafed, Drano, and a couple propane tanks, then I don't think it takes a genius to see what is going on. Why would they have to wait for a neighbor to call in a tip about a Meth lab, or wait for it to explode and kill someone, if they have observed evidence that criminal activity may be taking place? Sure, they may get the warrant and find out the guy has a cold, a clogged drain, and is having a barbeque, but come on folks!
What if a guy is buying a teddy bear, candy, a rope, and duct tape, and then asks the cashier, "Where's the nearest elementary school?" I think the cops should be able to stop the guy and ask a few questions. The guy doesn't have to give any answers, but I think the cops should be able to follow him around a bit and run his plates. In fact I would HOPE they would at least do that.
I would rather let LEO's investigate probable cause then bet my chips on some spontaneus vigilante group to come and save my butt.
-WW
"...That the people have a right to keep and bear arms; that a well-regulated militia, composed of the body of the people trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defence of a free state."
-The Debates in the Convention of the Commonwealth of Virginia, on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution. June 27, 1788.
quote:Originally posted by WoundedWolf
I agree with TR. The "you don't need" argument is a dangerous trend.
However, in the back of my mind I continually wrangle with the idea of a "perceived threat". At what point do you allow your common sense to kick in and call-in the FBI on the Middle-Eastern neighbor who is stockpiling fertilizer in his garage and has just rented a Ryder truck? Maybe the guy is totally legal, but does that mean our hands our tied until we find out he has blown up a building and killed several hundred people?
I think the same parallel can be made to a guy that buys 10-cases of dynamite and 50,000 rounds of .50 cal. Maybe the guy is hosting a totally legit machine gun shoot, or maybe he is going to invade Fort Knox. Do we always have to assume innocent until proven guilty, even if our common sense tells us otherwise? That means we can never prevent a crime, only prosecute after the fact (if there is anyone left to prosecute).
I am curious to hear your responses.
WW
It is a very thin, difficult and tenuous line that law enforcement must walk in order to have a decent chance to solve/stop crime yet at the same time not violate citizens rights. To keep it short, if law enforcement had to wait until they absoutely, positively knew that a crime was about to be committed or had recently been commited I feel there would be a lot more crime. A lot more 9-11-01 twin towers go down in flames.
If a neighbor happened to notice that when I opened my yard storage shed door, there was a case of dynamite stored inside, and that neighbor called the police to investigate and I had to show the LEO my permit for the dynamite because I was going to blow up some stumps tomorrow, I would thank the LEO for checking. (BTW I do not have nor ever have had any dynamite)
If an off duty LEO notices I am buying a few thousand rounds of 9mm at Wal-Mart and casually asks my reason for buying, I will cheerfully tell him it is because the price is damn cheap and I can't pass up such a bargain.
GENERALLY SPEAKING, I have no problem with someone politely asking about my behavior if my behavior is presently out of the ordinary. Now there are probably occasions where I would resent it if an LEO just casually and solely out of nothing but curiousity asked me what I was doing and he/she was asking UNDER THE COLOR OF LAW to where if they didn't like my answer I would probably be arrested or otherwise hassled.
I don't like the thought of that. For example, if you are going to ask why we need to buy 50,000 rounds of .50 BMG ammunition, couldn't we easily justify the fact that it is cheap in bulk from Cheaper Than Dirt? Why have 50 handgun rounds in a box? Isn't that excessive? When you start down that road, everything becomes questionable.
quote:I don't see how an untrained citizen's lead should be the only method for law enforcement to instigate an investigation. If a detective sees someone leave Wal-Mart with Sudafed, Drano, and a couple propane tanks, then I don't think it takes a genius to see what is going on. Why would they have to wait for a neighbor to call in a tip about a Meth lab, or wait for it to explode and kill someone, if they have observed evidence that criminal activity may be taking place? Sure, they may get the warrant and find out the guy has a cold, a clogged drain, and is having a barbeque, but come on folks!
What if a guy is buying a teddy bear, candy, a rope, and duct tape, and then asks the cashier, "Where's the nearest elementary school?" I think the cops should be able to stop the guy and ask a few questions. The guy doesn't have to give any answers, but I think the cops should be able to follow him around a bit and run his plates. In fact I would HOPE they would at least do that.
I would rather let LEO's investigate probable cause then bet my chips on some spontaneus vigilante group to come and save my butt.
This is bogus, also. What you are describing here is an ideally omniscient detective LEO system that does not, and will not exist. They do not have crystal balls showing who is going to do what.
What they do have is an uncanny ability to entrap others so as to look important, and show a bust, but the fact of the matter is, meth labs are busted up more often than not on civilian tip. You know, like us. We see something out of the ordinary, they look into it.
And I never suggested that we should rely on anyone else for our own protection than ourselves... not the cops, not some "vigilantes", and not the f&^%ing gov't. Don't read more into this than what I have written, because I imply nothing more than what is stated.
Death to Tyrants!!!
Lev 26:14-39
Those who would offer any interpretation that would relegate Amendment II to "relic" status of a bygone era are blatantly stating that the remainder of the Bill of Rights isn't worth a damn, either.
Gunphreak is right. The government is not all-knowing. They are a group of people who have taken it upon themselves to be everybody's parents.
Just because something bad happens to me, I don't think that the government should tax the people to reinburse me for my problems. Similarly, I don't think that it is the government's job to say who is a risk and who isn't.
quote:Originally posted by dsmith
I don't like the thought of that. For example, if you are going to ask why we need to buy 50,000 rounds of .50 BMG ammunition, couldn't we easily justify the fact that it is cheap in bulk from Cheaper Than Dirt? Why have 50 handgun rounds in a box? Isn't that excessive? When you start down that road, everything becomes questionable.
It's just me, but I have a lot of tolerance for honest, polite questions that HAVE NO FORCE OF LAW behind them; and as long as I am not planning some crime those same questions are not likely to lead to anything more.
I have to stand by TR's comments on this one. I don't mind a cop asking me a few polite and honest questions either. Now if he is being a total @ss about it then I will just clam up and go about my business. If he arrests me then I will hire whatever hotshot NRA/ACLU/GOA/JPFO lawyer I can afford (unless they let me hang out to dry).
I think by having a law enforcement system we have to inherently give them some faith and leeway in performing their job. Sure, if I spent 50 hours a week patroling and investigating my town then I'm sure I would have a heck of a lot better idea where the drug dens and graffiti punks are. But I don't, instead I pay my taxes so that full-time LEO's can do this, that way I am free to do my job.
Yes there are crooked cops, yes there are oppressive department policies, yes there are over-zealous police chiefs and sheriffs, but I don't think that means we should strip the whole system.
JMHO,
WW
"...That the people have a right to keep and bear arms; that a well-regulated militia, composed of the body of the people trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defence of a free state."
-The Debates in the Convention of the Commonwealth of Virginia, on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution. June 27, 1788.
OK, meet me half way on this, WW. We have a man in a turban purchasing ammunition in swarms, mentions a power station, and is overheard saying "Death to America!!" to another associate, who hangs back in the background, I would say sending a detective to check into the situation would be an awesome idea.
A police officer coming to my house with a warrant to search my garage because it is said to be loaded with ammunition and stockpiled explosives, and that it appears suspicious? They find me in possession of XXXXX rounds of ammunition, reloading equipment, 50# of various powders for reloading, and nothing else that ties me into any plot, but then decide that I have too much powder on hand, and that they want to confiscate it, without anything more than their own distorted interpretation of right and wrong, and no crime actually being committed, they should be able to get away with that?
No!!!!
We have reason to suspect Arabian males between the ages of 17 and 44 years old, so why do we insist on removing knitting needles and nail clippers from 80 year old ladies on planes?
We have 20,000+ gun laws in our country (most of which are technicalities, in the first place). This is a total waste of resources to enforce them, with the only justification that they are firearms that may not comply with ATF "regulations" as to how many compliance parts a firearm possesses, or that it may have too many banned features on it (thank God that one died a horrible death.)
Death to Tyrants!!!
Lev 26:14-39
Those who would offer any interpretation that would relegate Amendment II to "relic" status of a bygone era are blatantly stating that the remainder of the Bill of Rights isn't worth a damn, either.
I will go more than half-way [:D], Gunphreak, I 100% agree with your last post. If law-enforcement raids your house and finds absolutely nothing close to what they expected to find, then they owe you a big apology, a chunk of money, and some heads better roll down at the precint.
If they are so incompetent to be that off the mark (which yes, I know it has and does happen) then there needs to be significant reparations to the victim and accountability to the detectives for their flawed investigation.
I think in order to avoid the situation, the first order of business should not be warrant then raid. I think they should actually INVESTIGATE, such as talk to several neighbors, survey your house for a little while to see if they notice anything suspicious, and maybe even knock on your door and politely say, "Sir, sorry to inconvenience you, but there has been some concern expressed about what you have in your garage. I'm sure there is no problem, but would you mind giving us consent to briefly look around the premises?"
Now, if you say "Screw you coppers, go **** yourself!", then I can understand why they might be a little suspicious. But I don't know of any respectable GunBroker Forum member that would ever treat a law enforcement officer that way [8D].
-WW
Oh, and I 100% agree about the airplane security comment. Profiling is a necessity if we truly seek security. What we have currently is a sham of political correctness. That will be the death of our society.
"...That the people have a right to keep and bear arms; that a well-regulated militia, composed of the body of the people trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defence of a free state."
-The Debates in the Convention of the Commonwealth of Virginia, on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution. June 27, 1788.
I guess I am fortunate enough to live in a community that would have little respect for raids without cause. Hell our cops (well, the older ones, anyway, and for the most part) find gun kontrol and politikal korrectness (actually, this is how they spell it, too) to be wrong and evil. They know me well enough to know I am respectful to them, and not a danger to anyone (other than that robber who just made the fatal error in the victim selection process, and attacked me).
Death to Tyrants!!!
Lev 26:14-39
Those who would offer any interpretation that would relegate Amendment II to "relic" status of a bygone era are blatantly stating that the remainder of the Bill of Rights isn't worth a damn, either.
Then I salute you, sir, for you value the meaning of the word "Citizen". We should not live in anonymous fear of law enforcement, we should all be active citizens and make our law enforcement accountable to us. By attending town meetings and being recognized as responsible individuals, by inviting a patrolman up on the porch on a hot day for some lemonade and conversation, by taking our families to drop off a plate of cookies at the local sheriff's substation on Christmas Eve, then I believe we have fulfilled our part of the bargain. We have demonstrated that we do not fear recognition, we welcome it, we invite it.
Our government does not function if we all hide away in disgruntled fear from our neighbors and some distant oppressive "government". I believe that our Republic is much like a marriage. We cannot expect to be left alone, insisting on privacy, until the day we come forth from a hovel sqealing about Rights and Liberty. Rights and Liberty are not something to be put on a pedestal, or locked away in a box until they are needed. They need to be exercised everyday, and it takes a lot of work and involvement.
To quote Kennedy, "Ask NOT what your Country can do for YOU, ask what YOU can do for your Country."
-WW
"...That the people have a right to keep and bear arms; that a well-regulated militia, composed of the body of the people trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defence of a free state."
-The Debates in the Convention of the Commonwealth of Virginia, on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution. June 27, 1788.
Well,Mr.Wolfe,Sir....30 years ago, even 20..I would have been in total agreement with you. Matter of fact, Those are very nearly the exact words I was screaming back then..begging gun owners to get involved.
Today..after Waco/Ruby Ridge, and a host of other much less publicized events....too bad.
Nobody in official circles will admit wrongdoing..none of them EVER are brought to justice. Those in power merely circle the wagons about those guilty parties. When citizens know about a crime and don't report it..they are charged right along with the perp...amazing...
No..I guess I will just slink back to my Hovel and leave the political sleeze fighting to those that actually believe it makes a difference. Please understand, tho...playing in their court gives them an aura of respectability..allows them to maintain the fascade that they really are responding to the citizens..really ARE protecting the Second Amendment..
I have been reading your posts on the Constitution..and it indeed is obvious that you have read it. Pointing out some real problems with that document.....
HOWEVER..in the final chapter...what exactly the Second Amendment means rests with the people...and mainly the ARMED people of America. That is where I come in. Every person I can convince that arms=freedom...is another member of the "militia"..that those in power fear.
Believe me..you far more wish to live in a land where the government fears the people...then the reverse.
Well, Highball, all I can say is that I am still young and idealistic.
[:D]
-WW
"...That the people have a right to keep and bear arms; that a well-regulated militia, composed of the body of the people trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defence of a free state."
-The Debates in the Convention of the Commonwealth of Virginia, on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution. June 27, 1788.
quote:Originally posted by WoundedWolf
Wow, in re-reading this thread... do I still write posts like I did 18 months ago. I come off as an @ss sometimes. Sorry guys. [:D]
-Wolf
I would say your understanding of the way things are has matured, as have mine.
quote:Wow, in re-reading this thread... do I still write posts like I did 18 months ago. I come off as an @ss sometimes. Sorry guys
Not really...merely searching for answers...and willing to at least attempt to back up a life time of misinformation with whatever facts you could muster...
quote:Originally posted by Highball
quote:Wow, in re-reading this thread... do I still write posts like I did 18 months ago. I come off as an @ss sometimes. Sorry guys
Not really...merely searching for answers...and willing to at least attempt to back up a life time of misinformation with whatever facts you could muster...
Now...as far as being an *...that is me...24/7
Well, no. I wouldn't classify you as an "*". You seem like a pretty decent guy to me. I truly believe that you and I could stand each other in a personal meeting at least long enough to do some shooting and do some drinking.
But bet on it...we share far more in agreement...then otherwise.
Honest discussion between men of courage is NEVER wasted..and disagreements come with the territory.
There is a core group of men in this forum that are solid citizens...in the absolute finest expression of the word.
I will come North one of these days...I will stand you to a Steak..and honored to do so.
quote:Originally posted by Highball
Tr;
We have had our words.
But bet on it...we share far more in agreement...then otherwise.
Honest discussion between men of courage is NEVER wasted..and disagreements come with the territory.
There is a core group of men in this forum that are solid citizens...in the absolute finest expression of the word.
I will come North one of these days...I will stand you to a Steak..and honored to do so.
I have no need for a rocket launcher but dont care if you own one
nor do I really need a 300 wby but I do have one and dont care if anybody likes it or not
NOBODY in the government has the authority to take this right away from us but they do it
I have a name for these people.... NAZIS
quote:Originally posted by HighVolumeOfFire
I sometimes wonder where my fellow gun owners stand on these issues. Note: I'm not looking to start a debate on the merits of these issues, I just want to know where everyone stands. BTW, if for example you don't think .50 cal rifles should be banned, but SHOULD be registered and/or taxed, then say so....You don't have to explain why you feel a certain way about an issue but if you want to, feel free. Here's a list of major issues for me:
1) The "Assault Weapons" Ban
2) Gun Registration
3) Conceal Carry Laws
4) Limits on the amount of guns you can purchase within a set period of time
5) Machine Gun Laws
6) Restrictions on ownership (felons, wife-beaters, ect.)
7) Misc Laws (silencers, short barrel rifles, ect)
8) .50 cal ban
9) The Gun Show "Loophole" ie: No background checks for private sales at gun shows
If I forgot to mention a major issue, go ahead and add it to the list. I look forward to the responses
Molon Labe
ALL I CAN SAY IS THAT IF THE GOVERMENT CAN OWN ONE, THEN I SHOULD BE ABLE TO OWN ONE TOO. SO WHERE CAN I BUY A NUKE? CHECKS AND BALANCES!!!!!!
Re: #6 - individuals who have demonstrated by past actions that they have a propensity for violence and repeated physical abuse should be denied the ability to legally purchase and/or carry a firearm.
Re: #7 - silencers. Not necessary for situations where true self-defense is mandated. The benefits associated with the use of a silencer are inherently more criminal in nature than they are legitimate or necessary.
Re: #6 - individuals who have demonstrated by past actions that they have a propensity for violence and repeated physical abuse should be denied the ability to legally purchase and/or carry a firearm.
Another opinion;
Such savage barbarians ought to be imprisoned for life...or executed.
Many of these animals would be shot in the commission of their crimes...provided the goverment stayed out of the Second Amendment.
quote:Re: #7 - silencers. Not necessary for situations where true self-defense is mandated. The benefits associated with the use of a silencer are inherently more criminal in nature than they are legitimate or necessary.
"True self defense" is only ONE facet of the Second. Throwing away defense against tyranny is fine...as long as the throwers amend the Constitution to do so.
Besides....shooting without having to wear ear plugs would be a joy, just plinking....nothing criminal about that.
Ceding rights because we lack the will to do what is right...execute criminals...is never in the best interests of freedom.
Blaming the tools instead of the perpetrators is a favorite trick of the 'ban the guns crowd'...as gunners, we ought to stop feeding them red meat to work with.
quote:Originally posted by Slow_Hand
Actually I was thinking more along the lines of regulating the sale of silencers, not banning them but I see that I didn't make that clear in my post.
BTW, have a very Merry Christmas, Highball! Pax vobiscum.
Why regulate them? It wouldn't be much different from banning scopes because a person might use it to kill someone from 700 yards away.
I keep hearing people say that there is a good prospect for criminal misuse, but I say there is also a great prospect for legal use, much greater than the possibility of its misuse. Consider these:
1. When using a rifle indoors, you will not end up deaf (same reason military use them)
2. Greater comfort while shooting.
3. Less disturbance to the neighbors while shooting.
4. Put enough of these into citizen hands, and criminals and JBT's will be in awe.
5. Varmint hunters will be able to pick off more pesky critters without scaring them all after the first shot.
6. Because if you were to operate a car without a silencer, you'd get busted (double standard).
quote:Originally posted by gunphreak
quote:Originally posted by Slow_Hand
Actually I was thinking more along the lines of regulating the sale of silencers, not banning them but I see that I didn't make that clear in my post.
BTW, have a very Merry Christmas, Highball! Pax vobiscum.
Why regulate them? It wouldn't be much different from banning scopes because a person might use it to kill someone from 700 yards away.
I keep hearing people say that there is a good prospect for criminal misuse, but I say there is also a great prospect for legal use, much greater than the possibility of its misuse. Consider these:
1. When using a rifle indoors, you will not end up deaf (same reason military use them)
2. Greater comfort while shooting.
3. Less disturbance to the neighbors while shooting.
4. Put enough of these into citizen hands, and criminals and JBT's will be in awe.
5. Varmint hunters will be able to pick off more pesky critters without scaring them all after the first shot.
6. Because if you were to operate a car without a silencer, you'd get busted (double standard).
Gunphreak, here I must respectfully disagree with you.
If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, waddles like a duck, quacks like a duck and poops like a duck, then there more than just a pretty good chance that it's a duck. You don't have to kill it, cook it and eat it to be reasonably sure that it was, in fact, a duck.
IMO, a silencer was never intended, by it's inherent design, to be first and foremost a target or practice accessory for backyard fun or amusement. Rather, it is intended primarily for covert and "discreet" or undetected firing of a weapon, which for the average Joe out there translates directly into criminal activities.
quote:Originally posted by Slow_Hand
quote:Originally posted by gunphreak
quote:Originally posted by Slow_Hand
Actually I was thinking more along the lines of regulating the sale of silencers, not banning them but I see that I didn't make that clear in my post.
BTW, have a very Merry Christmas, Highball! Pax vobiscum.
Why regulate them? It wouldn't be much different from banning scopes because a person might use it to kill someone from 700 yards away.
I keep hearing people say that there is a good prospect for criminal misuse, but I say there is also a great prospect for legal use, much greater than the possibility of its misuse. Consider these:
1. When using a rifle indoors, you will not end up deaf (same reason military use them)
2. Greater comfort while shooting.
3. Less disturbance to the neighbors while shooting.
4. Put enough of these into citizen hands, and criminals and JBT's will be in awe.
5. Varmint hunters will be able to pick off more pesky critters without scaring them all after the first shot.
6. Because if you were to operate a car without a silencer, you'd get busted (double standard).
Gunphreak, here I must respectfully disagree with you.
If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, waddles like a duck, quacks like a duck and poops like a duck, then there more than just a pretty good chance that it's a duck. You don't have to kill it, cook it and eat it to be reasonably sure that it was, in fact, a duck.
IMO, a silencer was never intended, by it's inherent design, to be first and foremost a target or practice accessory for backyard fun or amusement. Rather, it is intended primarily for covert and "discreet" or undetected firing of a weapon, which for the average Joe out there translates directly into criminal activities.
My two cents, FWIW.
In red above.
Well, no, not actually. I am an "average joe" and I would like a silencer for my firearms. Yet I as an adult I have never committed a criminal act nor do I plan on ever doing so.
In fact, my family and I were vacationing at a rustic Colo. "resort" one summer and off in the distance I heard a large caliber hunting rifle apparently being sighted in. Even though I am a gun guy I was kinda mildly unhappy that the gunshots reverberated through-out the entire area and turned a peaceful, quiet environment into one with gunshots. I don't know if others felt that way, but if they did think how nice it would be for EVERYBODY if that rifle had a silencer.
Now I do not mean TOTALLY silenced (if that is even possible on say a 30-06). Even I don't want totally silenced firearms available to any and everyone. If somebody shoots at me I want a decent chance to have some idea that I WAS shot at and which way the shot came from. So maybe a silencer that makes a 30-06 about as quiet as a .22 long rifle would do fine.
And BTW, the second admendment does not cover silencers nor does my Kansas State Constitution provide for silencers. So my stance on silencers does not void my support for those two documents.
Once again, the intent of the Founders was for the unorganized militia to appear bearing arms common to military usage.
The military uses silencers....
The answer to criminals is to execute them...not restrict law-abiding citizens.
If silencers exist then criminals already have them, despite whatever laws restrict their possession. I doubt that hearing a gunshot will allow you to determine where the shot was fired from nor give you any advantage to evade follow-up shots. Remember the Washington sniper? It took days (if not weeks) for witnesses to identify that the shots were coming from a car! Remember the manhunt for the white box van? It never existed!
Those of you opposed to the possession of silencers are using the same logic the antis use against possessing a gun, that somehow the mere possession of the object incriminates you. That somehow you must be motivated to commit a crime merely because you desire to own one of these things.
Highball is correct in his interpretation of the 2nd Amendment in this scenario. Although silencers are probably not among common use within the military, certainly special sniper units and other special operations groups possess them. If the Militia is called into action then they should have these items available to them so they are able to provide a reasonable defense against the enemy. In fact, they may rely more on these devices than the regular military since most of us are untrained laypeople. The technical advantages provided from these items (silencers, night vision scopes, etc.) may indeed give us the edge over an invading trained army.
quote:Originally posted by WoundedWolf
If silencers exist then criminals already have them, despite whatever laws restrict their possession. I doubt that hearing a gunshot will allow you to determine where the shot was fired from nor give you any advantage to evade follow-up shots. Remember the Washington sniper? It took days (if not weeks) for witnesses to identify that the shots were coming from a car! Remember the manhunt for the white box van? It never existed!
Those of you opposed to the possession of silencers are using the same logic the antis use against possessing a gun, that somehow the mere possession of the object incriminates you. That somehow you must be motivated to commit a crime merely because you desire to own one of these things.
Highball is correct in his interpretation of the 2nd Amendment in this scenario. Although silencers are probably not among common use within the military, certainly special sniper units and other special operations groups possess them. If the Militia is called into action then they should have these items available to them so they are able to provide a reasonable defense against the enemy. In fact, they may rely more on these devices than the regular military since most of us are untrained laypeople. The technical advantages provided from these items (silencers, night vision scopes, etc.) may indeed give us the edge over an invading trained army.
-WW
FWIW, I myself am not an "anti" and that's not at all what I have suggested in my posts (red). However, I will you an A+ for your honesty (green). That last statement in green is a far cry from the "quieter backyard target practice" reason for owning a silencer. Like I said, if you can pass muster and can afford one, go for it.
Me personally, I don't see where any armies will be invading our shores any time soon. And, if they ever do, I would suspect that suppressing loud noises will be the least of our worries. Again, only my opinions.
quote:Originally posted by WoundedWolf
If silencers exist then criminals already have them, despite whatever laws restrict their possession. I doubt that hearing a gunshot will allow you to determine where the shot was fired from nor give you any advantage to evade follow-up shots. Remember the Washington sniper? It took days (if not weeks) for witnesses to identify that the shots were coming from a car! Remember the manhunt for the white box van? It never existed!
Those of you opposed to the possession of silencers are using the same logic the antis use against possessing a gun, that somehow the mere possession of the object incriminates you. That somehow you must be motivated to commit a crime merely because you desire to own one of these things.
Highball is correct in his interpretation of the 2nd Amendment in this scenario. Although silencers are probably not among common use within the military, certainly special sniper units and other special operations groups possess them. If the Militia is called into action then they should have these items available to them so they are able to provide a reasonable defense against the enemy. In fact, they may rely more on these devices than the regular military since most of us are untrained laypeople. The technical advantages provided from these items (silencers, night vision scopes, etc.) may indeed give us the edge over an invading trained army.
-WW
I prefer that all civilian guns make enough noise so that nearby bystanders can hear it. And of course there cannot be a guarantee that the gunfire will be heard by the intended victim(s) or potential witnesses. But at least when the firearm emits sound when fired, there is at least a chance it will be heard. Without that gunfire sound and chance of being heard, the perhaps last barrier that restrains some gangbanger from shooting you from his second story bedroom window, as you walk down the street, is positively removed.
quote:Originally posted by tr fox
quote:Originally posted by WoundedWolf
If silencers exist then criminals already have them, despite whatever laws restrict their possession. I doubt that hearing a gunshot will allow you to determine where the shot was fired from nor give you any advantage to evade follow-up shots. Remember the Washington sniper? It took days (if not weeks) for witnesses to identify that the shots were coming from a car! Remember the manhunt for the white box van? It never existed!
Those of you opposed to the possession of silencers are using the same logic the antis use against possessing a gun, that somehow the mere possession of the object incriminates you. That somehow you must be motivated to commit a crime merely because you desire to own one of these things.
Highball is correct in his interpretation of the 2nd Amendment in this scenario. Although silencers are probably not among common use within the military, certainly special sniper units and other special operations groups possess them. If the Militia is called into action then they should have these items available to them so they are able to provide a reasonable defense against the enemy. In fact, they may rely more on these devices than the regular military since most of us are untrained laypeople. The technical advantages provided from these items (silencers, night vision scopes, etc.) may indeed give us the edge over an invading trained army.
-WW
I prefer that all civilian guns make enough noise so that nearby bystanders can hear it. And of course there cannot be a guarantee that the gunfire will be heard by the intended victim(s) or potential witnesses. But at least when the firearm emits sound when fired, there is at least a chance it will be heard. Without that gunfire sound and chance of being heard, the perhaps last barrier that restrains some gangbanger from shooting you from his second story bedroom window, as you walk down the street, is positively removed.
Ok, fox,
How do you feel about the prospect of grabbing your rifle to defend yourself, and fire it in an area that acoustically reverberates at you enough to cause permanent hearing loss.
How do you feel about the prospect of being backstabbed because the person wanting your wallet wasn't interested in drawing too much attention to himself?
How do you feel about the idea that, despite your greatest intentions, that silencer technology exists, and is easy enough to construct that it can be done with hand tools and some hardware supplies.
You see, where we differ here is that I believe that the propspect of criminal misuse of anything should not be justification to ban it.
And as long as a silencer or suppressor is designed solely for use on a firearm, it is as much covered by the 2nd Amendment as the firearm it is on. No one doubts a scope is covered by the 2nd Amendment, as it is an accessory to a rifle or pistol, so why should a suppressor be any different? Because you say so?
The 2nd amendment was created in order to garantee THE PEOPLE would have the means to defend themselves from a tyranny. This being said it should be clear the people should have arms just as effective as those who would do them harm. Just imagine if people were only allowed to posses shotguns how could they expect to defend themselves from a force carrying fully automatic weapons. I cant argue that some people should not posses firearms such as a rapest, child molester, murderer to name a few but if the punishment fit the crime there would not be many people left who should not posses a firearm.
quote:Originally posted by gunphreak
quote:Originally posted by tr fox
quote:Originally posted by WoundedWolf
If silencers exist then criminals already have them, despite whatever laws restrict their possession. I doubt that hearing a gunshot will allow you to determine where the shot was fired from nor give you any advantage to evade follow-up shots. Remember the Washington sniper? It took days (if not weeks) for witnesses to identify that the shots were coming from a car! Remember the manhunt for the white box van? It never existed!
Those of you opposed to the possession of silencers are using the same logic the antis use against possessing a gun, that somehow the mere possession of the object incriminates you. That somehow you must be motivated to commit a crime merely because you desire to own one of these things.
Highball is correct in his interpretation of the 2nd Amendment in this scenario. Although silencers are probably not among common use within the military, certainly special sniper units and other special operations groups possess them. If the Militia is called into action then they should have these items available to them so they are able to provide a reasonable defense against the enemy. In fact, they may rely more on these devices than the regular military since most of us are untrained laypeople. The technical advantages provided from these items (silencers, night vision scopes, etc.) may indeed give us the edge over an invading trained army.
-WW
I prefer that all civilian guns make enough noise so that nearby bystanders can hear it. And of course there cannot be a guarantee that the gunfire will be heard by the intended victim(s) or potential witnesses. But at least when the firearm emits sound when fired, there is at least a chance it will be heard. Without that gunfire sound and chance of being heard, the perhaps last barrier that restrains some gangbanger from shooting you from his second story bedroom window, as you walk down the street, is positively removed.
Ok, fox,
How do you feel about the prospect of grabbing your rifle to defend yourself, and fire it in an area that acoustically reverberates at you enough to cause permanent hearing loss.
How do you feel about the prospect of being backstabbed because the person wanting your wallet wasn't interested in drawing too much attention to himself?
How do you feel about the idea that, despite your greatest intentions, that silencer technology exists, and is easy enough to construct that it can be done with hand tools and some hardware supplies.
You see, where we differ here is that I believe that the propspect of criminal misuse of anything should not be justification to ban it.
And as long as a silencer or suppressor is designed solely for use on a firearm, it is as much covered by the 2nd Amendment as the firearm it is on. No one doubts a scope is covered by the 2nd Amendment, as it is an accessory to a rifle or pistol, so why should a suppressor be any different? Because you say so?
In regards to complete, total silencers (if such exist on other than .22s) either outlaw them entirely or make the sentence for illegally having one to be life imprisonment. Then I believe you and I can have at least some agreement on this issue.
Hopeful the "life in prison" law can be written in such a way that if a person like me, for just one example, accidently and temporarily comes into possession of a total silencer (if they exist) and the ATFE breaks down my door that day, I will not take a permenent vacation in the gray bar resort.
Comments
My basic stance has been shaken for years, and every single time I hear of some LEO busting an otherwise law-abider of some technicality in some law no one ever heard of reinforces the belief that law enforcement has the duty of bringing evil-doers to justice, not bust them for potentially having the ability to carry out some evil. It would be like busting every woman who owns lingerie because they might be prostitutes.
Crime prevention is impossible to prove on the basis of what a person possesses. A tip or lead, on the other hand, I have no problem with. I feel absolutely no sympathy for those who knew of dangers, like domestic partners who have drifted violently apart or someone who knows they are being stalked, and yet did nothing to prevent their own deaths or injuries, but the idea that cops should be able to nose around in other people's business looking to turn people into criminals, I have no respect for.
You, and you alone, WoundedWolf have come full-circle to the conclusion, in your arguments that if crime cannot be 100% prevented, no effort should be made to prevent any crime, not I. My belief is that it should be carried out by someone else, like you, and me, and anyone else who may be the subject of criminal assault. The cops are under no duty to protect anyone, and should not be expected to or counted on to protect anyone, either. How utilitarian of you, WW.
Death to Tyrants!!!
Lev 26:14-39
Those who would offer any interpretation that would relegate Amendment II to "relic" status of a bygone era are blatantly stating that the remainder of the Bill of Rights isn't worth a damn, either.
Luke 22:36.
"Followers of Christ, be armed."
I don't see how an untrained citizen's lead should be the only method for law enforcement to instigate an investigation. If a detective sees someone leave Wal-Mart with Sudafed, Drano, and a couple propane tanks, then I don't think it takes a genius to see what is going on. Why would they have to wait for a neighbor to call in a tip about a Meth lab, or wait for it to explode and kill someone, if they have observed evidence that criminal activity may be taking place? Sure, they may get the warrant and find out the guy has a cold, a clogged drain, and is having a barbeque, but come on folks!
What if a guy is buying a teddy bear, candy, a rope, and duct tape, and then asks the cashier, "Where's the nearest elementary school?" I think the cops should be able to stop the guy and ask a few questions. The guy doesn't have to give any answers, but I think the cops should be able to follow him around a bit and run his plates. In fact I would HOPE they would at least do that.
I would rather let LEO's investigate probable cause then bet my chips on some spontaneus vigilante group to come and save my butt.
-WW
"...That the people have a right to keep and bear arms; that a well-regulated militia, composed of the body of the people trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defence of a free state."
-The Debates in the Convention of the Commonwealth of Virginia, on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution. June 27, 1788.
I agree with TR. The "you don't need" argument is a dangerous trend.
However, in the back of my mind I continually wrangle with the idea of a "perceived threat". At what point do you allow your common sense to kick in and call-in the FBI on the Middle-Eastern neighbor who is stockpiling fertilizer in his garage and has just rented a Ryder truck? Maybe the guy is totally legal, but does that mean our hands our tied until we find out he has blown up a building and killed several hundred people?
I think the same parallel can be made to a guy that buys 10-cases of dynamite and 50,000 rounds of .50 cal. Maybe the guy is hosting a totally legit machine gun shoot, or maybe he is going to invade Fort Knox. Do we always have to assume innocent until proven guilty, even if our common sense tells us otherwise? That means we can never prevent a crime, only prosecute after the fact (if there is anyone left to prosecute).
I am curious to hear your responses.
WW
It is a very thin, difficult and tenuous line that law enforcement must walk in order to have a decent chance to solve/stop crime yet at the same time not violate citizens rights. To keep it short, if law enforcement had to wait until they absoutely, positively knew that a crime was about to be committed or had recently been commited I feel there would be a lot more crime. A lot more 9-11-01 twin towers go down in flames.
If a neighbor happened to notice that when I opened my yard storage shed door, there was a case of dynamite stored inside, and that neighbor called the police to investigate and I had to show the LEO my permit for the dynamite because I was going to blow up some stumps tomorrow, I would thank the LEO for checking. (BTW I do not have nor ever have had any dynamite)
If an off duty LEO notices I am buying a few thousand rounds of 9mm at Wal-Mart and casually asks my reason for buying, I will cheerfully tell him it is because the price is damn cheap and I can't pass up such a bargain.
GENERALLY SPEAKING, I have no problem with someone politely asking about my behavior if my behavior is presently out of the ordinary. Now there are probably occasions where I would resent it if an LEO just casually and solely out of nothing but curiousity asked me what I was doing and he/she was asking UNDER THE COLOR OF LAW to where if they didn't like my answer I would probably be arrested or otherwise hassled.
What if a guy is buying a teddy bear, candy, a rope, and duct tape, and then asks the cashier, "Where's the nearest elementary school?" I think the cops should be able to stop the guy and ask a few questions. The guy doesn't have to give any answers, but I think the cops should be able to follow him around a bit and run his plates. In fact I would HOPE they would at least do that.
I would rather let LEO's investigate probable cause then bet my chips on some spontaneus vigilante group to come and save my butt.
This is bogus, also. What you are describing here is an ideally omniscient detective LEO system that does not, and will not exist. They do not have crystal balls showing who is going to do what.
What they do have is an uncanny ability to entrap others so as to look important, and show a bust, but the fact of the matter is, meth labs are busted up more often than not on civilian tip. You know, like us. We see something out of the ordinary, they look into it.
And I never suggested that we should rely on anyone else for our own protection than ourselves... not the cops, not some "vigilantes", and not the f&^%ing gov't. Don't read more into this than what I have written, because I imply nothing more than what is stated.
Death to Tyrants!!!
Lev 26:14-39
Those who would offer any interpretation that would relegate Amendment II to "relic" status of a bygone era are blatantly stating that the remainder of the Bill of Rights isn't worth a damn, either.
Luke 22:36.
"Followers of Christ, be armed."
Just because something bad happens to me, I don't think that the government should tax the people to reinburse me for my problems. Similarly, I don't think that it is the government's job to say who is a risk and who isn't.
I don't like the thought of that. For example, if you are going to ask why we need to buy 50,000 rounds of .50 BMG ammunition, couldn't we easily justify the fact that it is cheap in bulk from Cheaper Than Dirt? Why have 50 handgun rounds in a box? Isn't that excessive? When you start down that road, everything becomes questionable.
It's just me, but I have a lot of tolerance for honest, polite questions that HAVE NO FORCE OF LAW behind them; and as long as I am not planning some crime those same questions are not likely to lead to anything more.
I think by having a law enforcement system we have to inherently give them some faith and leeway in performing their job. Sure, if I spent 50 hours a week patroling and investigating my town then I'm sure I would have a heck of a lot better idea where the drug dens and graffiti punks are. But I don't, instead I pay my taxes so that full-time LEO's can do this, that way I am free to do my job.
Yes there are crooked cops, yes there are oppressive department policies, yes there are over-zealous police chiefs and sheriffs, but I don't think that means we should strip the whole system.
JMHO,
WW
"...That the people have a right to keep and bear arms; that a well-regulated militia, composed of the body of the people trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defence of a free state."
-The Debates in the Convention of the Commonwealth of Virginia, on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution. June 27, 1788.
Put your faith in authorities..surest way to destruction there is.
The Founders TAUGHT us to scrutinize EVERYTHING those elected to office attempt..to never "trust".....good enough for me.
Giving those elected to office the power to regulate firearms is sheer insanity on the part of citizens.
A police officer coming to my house with a warrant to search my garage because it is said to be loaded with ammunition and stockpiled explosives, and that it appears suspicious? They find me in possession of XXXXX rounds of ammunition, reloading equipment, 50# of various powders for reloading, and nothing else that ties me into any plot, but then decide that I have too much powder on hand, and that they want to confiscate it, without anything more than their own distorted interpretation of right and wrong, and no crime actually being committed, they should be able to get away with that?
No!!!!
We have reason to suspect Arabian males between the ages of 17 and 44 years old, so why do we insist on removing knitting needles and nail clippers from 80 year old ladies on planes?
We have 20,000+ gun laws in our country (most of which are technicalities, in the first place). This is a total waste of resources to enforce them, with the only justification that they are firearms that may not comply with ATF "regulations" as to how many compliance parts a firearm possesses, or that it may have too many banned features on it (thank God that one died a horrible death.)
Death to Tyrants!!!
Lev 26:14-39
Those who would offer any interpretation that would relegate Amendment II to "relic" status of a bygone era are blatantly stating that the remainder of the Bill of Rights isn't worth a damn, either.
Luke 22:36.
"Followers of Christ, be armed."
If they are so incompetent to be that off the mark (which yes, I know it has and does happen) then there needs to be significant reparations to the victim and accountability to the detectives for their flawed investigation.
I think in order to avoid the situation, the first order of business should not be warrant then raid. I think they should actually INVESTIGATE, such as talk to several neighbors, survey your house for a little while to see if they notice anything suspicious, and maybe even knock on your door and politely say, "Sir, sorry to inconvenience you, but there has been some concern expressed about what you have in your garage. I'm sure there is no problem, but would you mind giving us consent to briefly look around the premises?"
Now, if you say "Screw you coppers, go **** yourself!", then I can understand why they might be a little suspicious. But I don't know of any respectable GunBroker Forum member that would ever treat a law enforcement officer that way [8D].
-WW
Oh, and I 100% agree about the airplane security comment. Profiling is a necessity if we truly seek security. What we have currently is a sham of political correctness. That will be the death of our society.
"...That the people have a right to keep and bear arms; that a well-regulated militia, composed of the body of the people trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defence of a free state."
-The Debates in the Convention of the Commonwealth of Virginia, on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution. June 27, 1788.
Death to Tyrants!!!
Lev 26:14-39
Those who would offer any interpretation that would relegate Amendment II to "relic" status of a bygone era are blatantly stating that the remainder of the Bill of Rights isn't worth a damn, either.
Luke 22:36.
"Followers of Christ, be armed."
Our government does not function if we all hide away in disgruntled fear from our neighbors and some distant oppressive "government". I believe that our Republic is much like a marriage. We cannot expect to be left alone, insisting on privacy, until the day we come forth from a hovel sqealing about Rights and Liberty. Rights and Liberty are not something to be put on a pedestal, or locked away in a box until they are needed. They need to be exercised everyday, and it takes a lot of work and involvement.
To quote Kennedy, "Ask NOT what your Country can do for YOU, ask what YOU can do for your Country."
-WW
"...That the people have a right to keep and bear arms; that a well-regulated militia, composed of the body of the people trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defence of a free state."
-The Debates in the Convention of the Commonwealth of Virginia, on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution. June 27, 1788.
Today..after Waco/Ruby Ridge, and a host of other much less publicized events....too bad.
Nobody in official circles will admit wrongdoing..none of them EVER are brought to justice. Those in power merely circle the wagons about those guilty parties. When citizens know about a crime and don't report it..they are charged right along with the perp...amazing...
No..I guess I will just slink back to my Hovel and leave the political sleeze fighting to those that actually believe it makes a difference. Please understand, tho...playing in their court gives them an aura of respectability..allows them to maintain the fascade that they really are responding to the citizens..really ARE protecting the Second Amendment..
I have been reading your posts on the Constitution..and it indeed is obvious that you have read it. Pointing out some real problems with that document.....
HOWEVER..in the final chapter...what exactly the Second Amendment means rests with the people...and mainly the ARMED people of America. That is where I come in. Every person I can convince that arms=freedom...is another member of the "militia"..that those in power fear.
Believe me..you far more wish to live in a land where the government fears the people...then the reverse.
God,Guts,& GunsHave we lost all 3 ??
[:D]
-WW
"...That the people have a right to keep and bear arms; that a well-regulated militia, composed of the body of the people trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defence of a free state."
-The Debates in the Convention of the Commonwealth of Virginia, on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution. June 27, 1788.
think!!!! if the feds control who gets a ccw
what do think will happen.[B)]
-Wolf
Your NOT the first.
Won't be the last.
Fun to read old posts sometimes, isn't it?
Did I REALLY say that? [:0]
No apology necessary.
At least, not as far as I'm concerned.
Wow, in re-reading this thread... do I still write posts like I did 18 months ago. I come off as an @ss sometimes. Sorry guys. [:D]
-Wolf
I would say your understanding of the way things are has matured, as have mine.
Not really...merely searching for answers...and willing to at least attempt to back up a life time of misinformation with whatever facts you could muster...
Now...as far as being an *...that is me...24/7
quote:Wow, in re-reading this thread... do I still write posts like I did 18 months ago. I come off as an @ss sometimes. Sorry guys
Not really...merely searching for answers...and willing to at least attempt to back up a life time of misinformation with whatever facts you could muster...
Now...as far as being an *...that is me...24/7
Well, no. I wouldn't classify you as an "*". You seem like a pretty decent guy to me. I truly believe that you and I could stand each other in a personal meeting at least long enough to do some shooting and do some drinking.
We have had our words.
But bet on it...we share far more in agreement...then otherwise.
Honest discussion between men of courage is NEVER wasted..and disagreements come with the territory.
There is a core group of men in this forum that are solid citizens...in the absolute finest expression of the word.
I will come North one of these days...I will stand you to a Steak..and honored to do so.
Tr;
We have had our words.
But bet on it...we share far more in agreement...then otherwise.
Honest discussion between men of courage is NEVER wasted..and disagreements come with the territory.
There is a core group of men in this forum that are solid citizens...in the absolute finest expression of the word.
I will come North one of these days...I will stand you to a Steak..and honored to do so.
I will sharpen my steak knife[:D]
nor do I really need a 300 wby but I do have one and dont care if anybody likes it or not
NOBODY in the government has the authority to take this right away from us but they do it
I have a name for these people.... NAZIS
I sometimes wonder where my fellow gun owners stand on these issues. Note: I'm not looking to start a debate on the merits of these issues, I just want to know where everyone stands. BTW, if for example you don't think .50 cal rifles should be banned, but SHOULD be registered and/or taxed, then say so....You don't have to explain why you feel a certain way about an issue but if you want to, feel free. Here's a list of major issues for me:
1) The "Assault Weapons" Ban
2) Gun Registration
3) Conceal Carry Laws
4) Limits on the amount of guns you can purchase within a set period of time
5) Machine Gun Laws
6) Restrictions on ownership (felons, wife-beaters, ect.)
7) Misc Laws (silencers, short barrel rifles, ect)
8) .50 cal ban
9) The Gun Show "Loophole" ie: No background checks for private sales at gun shows
If I forgot to mention a major issue, go ahead and add it to the list. I look forward to the responses
Molon Labe
ALL I CAN SAY IS THAT IF THE GOVERMENT CAN OWN ONE, THEN I SHOULD BE ABLE TO OWN ONE TOO. SO WHERE CAN I BUY A NUKE? CHECKS AND BALANCES!!!!!!
Re: #6 - individuals who have demonstrated by past actions that they have a propensity for violence and repeated physical abuse should be denied the ability to legally purchase and/or carry a firearm.
Re: #7 - silencers. Not necessary for situations where true self-defense is mandated. The benefits associated with the use of a silencer are inherently more criminal in nature than they are legitimate or necessary.
Re: #6 - individuals who have demonstrated by past actions that they have a propensity for violence and repeated physical abuse should be denied the ability to legally purchase and/or carry a firearm.
Another opinion;
Such savage barbarians ought to be imprisoned for life...or executed.
Many of these animals would be shot in the commission of their crimes...provided the goverment stayed out of the Second Amendment.
quote:Re: #7 - silencers. Not necessary for situations where true self-defense is mandated. The benefits associated with the use of a silencer are inherently more criminal in nature than they are legitimate or necessary.
"True self defense" is only ONE facet of the Second. Throwing away defense against tyranny is fine...as long as the throwers amend the Constitution to do so.
Besides....shooting without having to wear ear plugs would be a joy, just plinking....nothing criminal about that.
Ceding rights because we lack the will to do what is right...execute criminals...is never in the best interests of freedom.
Blaming the tools instead of the perpetrators is a favorite trick of the 'ban the guns crowd'...as gunners, we ought to stop feeding them red meat to work with.
BTW, have a very Merry Christmas, Highball! Pax vobiscum.
Actually I was thinking more along the lines of regulating the sale of silencers, not banning them but I see that I didn't make that clear in my post.
BTW, have a very Merry Christmas, Highball! Pax vobiscum.
Why regulate them? It wouldn't be much different from banning scopes because a person might use it to kill someone from 700 yards away.
I keep hearing people say that there is a good prospect for criminal misuse, but I say there is also a great prospect for legal use, much greater than the possibility of its misuse. Consider these:
1. When using a rifle indoors, you will not end up deaf (same reason military use them)
2. Greater comfort while shooting.
3. Less disturbance to the neighbors while shooting.
4. Put enough of these into citizen hands, and criminals and JBT's will be in awe.
5. Varmint hunters will be able to pick off more pesky critters without scaring them all after the first shot.
6. Because if you were to operate a car without a silencer, you'd get busted (double standard).
quote:Originally posted by Slow_Hand
Actually I was thinking more along the lines of regulating the sale of silencers, not banning them but I see that I didn't make that clear in my post.
BTW, have a very Merry Christmas, Highball! Pax vobiscum.
Why regulate them? It wouldn't be much different from banning scopes because a person might use it to kill someone from 700 yards away.
I keep hearing people say that there is a good prospect for criminal misuse, but I say there is also a great prospect for legal use, much greater than the possibility of its misuse. Consider these:
1. When using a rifle indoors, you will not end up deaf (same reason military use them)
2. Greater comfort while shooting.
3. Less disturbance to the neighbors while shooting.
4. Put enough of these into citizen hands, and criminals and JBT's will be in awe.
5. Varmint hunters will be able to pick off more pesky critters without scaring them all after the first shot.
6. Because if you were to operate a car without a silencer, you'd get busted (double standard).
Gunphreak, here I must respectfully disagree with you.
If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, waddles like a duck, quacks like a duck and poops like a duck, then there more than just a pretty good chance that it's a duck. You don't have to kill it, cook it and eat it to be reasonably sure that it was, in fact, a duck.
IMO, a silencer was never intended, by it's inherent design, to be first and foremost a target or practice accessory for backyard fun or amusement. Rather, it is intended primarily for covert and "discreet" or undetected firing of a weapon, which for the average Joe out there translates directly into criminal activities.
My two cents, FWIW.
quote:Originally posted by gunphreak
quote:Originally posted by Slow_Hand
Actually I was thinking more along the lines of regulating the sale of silencers, not banning them but I see that I didn't make that clear in my post.
BTW, have a very Merry Christmas, Highball! Pax vobiscum.
Why regulate them? It wouldn't be much different from banning scopes because a person might use it to kill someone from 700 yards away.
I keep hearing people say that there is a good prospect for criminal misuse, but I say there is also a great prospect for legal use, much greater than the possibility of its misuse. Consider these:
1. When using a rifle indoors, you will not end up deaf (same reason military use them)
2. Greater comfort while shooting.
3. Less disturbance to the neighbors while shooting.
4. Put enough of these into citizen hands, and criminals and JBT's will be in awe.
5. Varmint hunters will be able to pick off more pesky critters without scaring them all after the first shot.
6. Because if you were to operate a car without a silencer, you'd get busted (double standard).
Gunphreak, here I must respectfully disagree with you.
If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, waddles like a duck, quacks like a duck and poops like a duck, then there more than just a pretty good chance that it's a duck. You don't have to kill it, cook it and eat it to be reasonably sure that it was, in fact, a duck.
IMO, a silencer was never intended, by it's inherent design, to be first and foremost a target or practice accessory for backyard fun or amusement. Rather, it is intended primarily for covert and "discreet" or undetected firing of a weapon, which for the average Joe out there translates directly into criminal activities.
My two cents, FWIW.
In red above.
Well, no, not actually. I am an "average joe" and I would like a silencer for my firearms. Yet I as an adult I have never committed a criminal act nor do I plan on ever doing so.
In fact, my family and I were vacationing at a rustic Colo. "resort" one summer and off in the distance I heard a large caliber hunting rifle apparently being sighted in. Even though I am a gun guy I was kinda mildly unhappy that the gunshots reverberated through-out the entire area and turned a peaceful, quiet environment into one with gunshots. I don't know if others felt that way, but if they did think how nice it would be for EVERYBODY if that rifle had a silencer.
Now I do not mean TOTALLY silenced (if that is even possible on say a 30-06). Even I don't want totally silenced firearms available to any and everyone. If somebody shoots at me I want a decent chance to have some idea that I WAS shot at and which way the shot came from. So maybe a silencer that makes a 30-06 about as quiet as a .22 long rifle would do fine.
And BTW, the second admendment does not cover silencers nor does my Kansas State Constitution provide for silencers. So my stance on silencers does not void my support for those two documents.
The military uses silencers....
The answer to criminals is to execute them...not restrict law-abiding citizens.
Those of you opposed to the possession of silencers are using the same logic the antis use against possessing a gun, that somehow the mere possession of the object incriminates you. That somehow you must be motivated to commit a crime merely because you desire to own one of these things.
Highball is correct in his interpretation of the 2nd Amendment in this scenario. Although silencers are probably not among common use within the military, certainly special sniper units and other special operations groups possess them. If the Militia is called into action then they should have these items available to them so they are able to provide a reasonable defense against the enemy. In fact, they may rely more on these devices than the regular military since most of us are untrained laypeople. The technical advantages provided from these items (silencers, night vision scopes, etc.) may indeed give us the edge over an invading trained army.
-WW
If silencers exist then criminals already have them, despite whatever laws restrict their possession. I doubt that hearing a gunshot will allow you to determine where the shot was fired from nor give you any advantage to evade follow-up shots. Remember the Washington sniper? It took days (if not weeks) for witnesses to identify that the shots were coming from a car! Remember the manhunt for the white box van? It never existed!
Those of you opposed to the possession of silencers are using the same logic the antis use against possessing a gun, that somehow the mere possession of the object incriminates you. That somehow you must be motivated to commit a crime merely because you desire to own one of these things.
Highball is correct in his interpretation of the 2nd Amendment in this scenario. Although silencers are probably not among common use within the military, certainly special sniper units and other special operations groups possess them. If the Militia is called into action then they should have these items available to them so they are able to provide a reasonable defense against the enemy. In fact, they may rely more on these devices than the regular military since most of us are untrained laypeople. The technical advantages provided from these items (silencers, night vision scopes, etc.) may indeed give us the edge over an invading trained army.
-WW
FWIW, I myself am not an "anti" and that's not at all what I have suggested in my posts (red). However, I will you an A+ for your honesty (green). That last statement in green is a far cry from the "quieter backyard target practice" reason for owning a silencer. Like I said, if you can pass muster and can afford one, go for it.
Me personally, I don't see where any armies will be invading our shores any time soon. And, if they ever do, I would suspect that suppressing loud noises will be the least of our worries. Again, only my opinions.
If silencers exist then criminals already have them, despite whatever laws restrict their possession. I doubt that hearing a gunshot will allow you to determine where the shot was fired from nor give you any advantage to evade follow-up shots. Remember the Washington sniper? It took days (if not weeks) for witnesses to identify that the shots were coming from a car! Remember the manhunt for the white box van? It never existed!
Those of you opposed to the possession of silencers are using the same logic the antis use against possessing a gun, that somehow the mere possession of the object incriminates you. That somehow you must be motivated to commit a crime merely because you desire to own one of these things.
Highball is correct in his interpretation of the 2nd Amendment in this scenario. Although silencers are probably not among common use within the military, certainly special sniper units and other special operations groups possess them. If the Militia is called into action then they should have these items available to them so they are able to provide a reasonable defense against the enemy. In fact, they may rely more on these devices than the regular military since most of us are untrained laypeople. The technical advantages provided from these items (silencers, night vision scopes, etc.) may indeed give us the edge over an invading trained army.
-WW
I prefer that all civilian guns make enough noise so that nearby bystanders can hear it. And of course there cannot be a guarantee that the gunfire will be heard by the intended victim(s) or potential witnesses. But at least when the firearm emits sound when fired, there is at least a chance it will be heard. Without that gunfire sound and chance of being heard, the perhaps last barrier that restrains some gangbanger from shooting you from his second story bedroom window, as you walk down the street, is positively removed.
quote:Originally posted by WoundedWolf
If silencers exist then criminals already have them, despite whatever laws restrict their possession. I doubt that hearing a gunshot will allow you to determine where the shot was fired from nor give you any advantage to evade follow-up shots. Remember the Washington sniper? It took days (if not weeks) for witnesses to identify that the shots were coming from a car! Remember the manhunt for the white box van? It never existed!
Those of you opposed to the possession of silencers are using the same logic the antis use against possessing a gun, that somehow the mere possession of the object incriminates you. That somehow you must be motivated to commit a crime merely because you desire to own one of these things.
Highball is correct in his interpretation of the 2nd Amendment in this scenario. Although silencers are probably not among common use within the military, certainly special sniper units and other special operations groups possess them. If the Militia is called into action then they should have these items available to them so they are able to provide a reasonable defense against the enemy. In fact, they may rely more on these devices than the regular military since most of us are untrained laypeople. The technical advantages provided from these items (silencers, night vision scopes, etc.) may indeed give us the edge over an invading trained army.
-WW
I prefer that all civilian guns make enough noise so that nearby bystanders can hear it. And of course there cannot be a guarantee that the gunfire will be heard by the intended victim(s) or potential witnesses. But at least when the firearm emits sound when fired, there is at least a chance it will be heard. Without that gunfire sound and chance of being heard, the perhaps last barrier that restrains some gangbanger from shooting you from his second story bedroom window, as you walk down the street, is positively removed.
Ok, fox,
How do you feel about the prospect of grabbing your rifle to defend yourself, and fire it in an area that acoustically reverberates at you enough to cause permanent hearing loss.
How do you feel about the prospect of being backstabbed because the person wanting your wallet wasn't interested in drawing too much attention to himself?
How do you feel about the idea that, despite your greatest intentions, that silencer technology exists, and is easy enough to construct that it can be done with hand tools and some hardware supplies.
You see, where we differ here is that I believe that the propspect of criminal misuse of anything should not be justification to ban it.
And as long as a silencer or suppressor is designed solely for use on a firearm, it is as much covered by the 2nd Amendment as the firearm it is on. No one doubts a scope is covered by the 2nd Amendment, as it is an accessory to a rifle or pistol, so why should a suppressor be any different? Because you say so?
quote:Originally posted by tr fox
quote:Originally posted by WoundedWolf
If silencers exist then criminals already have them, despite whatever laws restrict their possession. I doubt that hearing a gunshot will allow you to determine where the shot was fired from nor give you any advantage to evade follow-up shots. Remember the Washington sniper? It took days (if not weeks) for witnesses to identify that the shots were coming from a car! Remember the manhunt for the white box van? It never existed!
Those of you opposed to the possession of silencers are using the same logic the antis use against possessing a gun, that somehow the mere possession of the object incriminates you. That somehow you must be motivated to commit a crime merely because you desire to own one of these things.
Highball is correct in his interpretation of the 2nd Amendment in this scenario. Although silencers are probably not among common use within the military, certainly special sniper units and other special operations groups possess them. If the Militia is called into action then they should have these items available to them so they are able to provide a reasonable defense against the enemy. In fact, they may rely more on these devices than the regular military since most of us are untrained laypeople. The technical advantages provided from these items (silencers, night vision scopes, etc.) may indeed give us the edge over an invading trained army.
-WW
I prefer that all civilian guns make enough noise so that nearby bystanders can hear it. And of course there cannot be a guarantee that the gunfire will be heard by the intended victim(s) or potential witnesses. But at least when the firearm emits sound when fired, there is at least a chance it will be heard. Without that gunfire sound and chance of being heard, the perhaps last barrier that restrains some gangbanger from shooting you from his second story bedroom window, as you walk down the street, is positively removed.
Ok, fox,
How do you feel about the prospect of grabbing your rifle to defend yourself, and fire it in an area that acoustically reverberates at you enough to cause permanent hearing loss.
How do you feel about the prospect of being backstabbed because the person wanting your wallet wasn't interested in drawing too much attention to himself?
How do you feel about the idea that, despite your greatest intentions, that silencer technology exists, and is easy enough to construct that it can be done with hand tools and some hardware supplies.
You see, where we differ here is that I believe that the propspect of criminal misuse of anything should not be justification to ban it.
And as long as a silencer or suppressor is designed solely for use on a firearm, it is as much covered by the 2nd Amendment as the firearm it is on. No one doubts a scope is covered by the 2nd Amendment, as it is an accessory to a rifle or pistol, so why should a suppressor be any different? Because you say so?
In regards to complete, total silencers (if such exist on other than .22s) either outlaw them entirely or make the sentence for illegally having one to be life imprisonment. Then I believe you and I can have at least some agreement on this issue.
Hopeful the "life in prison" law can be written in such a way that if a person like me, for just one example, accidently and temporarily comes into possession of a total silencer (if they exist) and the ATFE breaks down my door that day, I will not take a permenent vacation in the gray bar resort.