gun show loophole rant

Quote: boymimbo

Now, if the law was such that the parent would be locked up for keeping a gun unlocked with children present in the house, that police chief might have remembered to always keep the gun locked up AND unloaded while at home...

I understand what you're saying, but such a law would be pretty much unenforceable unless you want to prosecute mothers/fathers whose kids are already dead. If that's the case, I personally don't see the purpose in throwing a grieving parent in prison.

I agree with you Beethoven. It's a deterrent more than anything. We have strict laws here in Canada that forces us to lock up and separate our ammo from our handguns. Is it enforceable? Not really. But people who respect the law will tend to follow the law, whether enforceable or not.

Quote: boymimbo

Nonsense, AZ.

You don't give your children and teens access to a deadly weapon, period, except at a gun range to teach your kid gun safety. Teenager's minds are notoriously unstable, and many parents really have no idea what their kids state of mind is at any given time. The kid certainly knew how to use the gun, and pointed it at his head and killed himself. There is a law in place in NH, and the police chief will have to pay a fine of up to... $1,000.

Now, if the law was such that the parent would be locked up for keeping a gun unlocked with children present in the house, that police chief might have remembered to always keep the gun locked up AND unloaded while at home, and that teenager might be alive today. Mind you, he might have tried to kill himself using another way, and may ended up hanging himself, cutting himself, falling, overdosing on pills etc, all of which collectively have about a success rate of about 20%. But guns are 85% effective and immediate.

Nonsense right back. Years ago kids took guns to school as part of shooting teams. As a cop the guy had reason to have a gun in easy access at all times. And plenty of kids are mature enough to live with guns around. I maintain. My position the government has mo business telling people how to store guns in their home.

Criminals don't respect laws, so why even bother having laws at all?

There's really no point in making laws because criminals are just going to break them. Does that make sense?

Or let's put this in perspective 900,000+ gun deaths over 40 years, vs oh, 3,000+ terrorist deaths. We're fine with laws to prevent taking bottled water through security at an airport, started two wars, committed torture, reorganized the government, and okayed predator drones, but heaven forbid we have gun laws.

Quote: boymimbo

Or let's put this in perspective 900,000+ gun deaths over 40 years, vs oh, 3,000+ terrorist deaths. We're fine with laws to prevent taking bottled water through security at an airport, started two wars, committed torture, reorganized the government, and okayed predator drones, but heaven forbid we have gun laws.

First we DO have gun laws, plenty of them. The argument is that we do not need any more at this time.

When did we start 2 wars? I must have missed something.

I'm fine with changing how we do security at airports, but the citizens of this country do not have the courage to profile people who look like more of a threat based on a trained person's instinct.

Quote: boymimbo

Or let's put this in perspective 900,000+ gun deaths over 40 years, vs oh, 3,000+ terrorist deaths. We're fine with laws to prevent taking bottled water through security at an airport, started two wars, committed torture, reorganized the government, and okayed predator drones, but heaven forbid we have gun laws.

Well, generally, if you argue with conservatives here about taking away liberties of foreigners in the commencement of our many foreign wars, they won't ever make the point that such actions don't work as part of the point. What would be illegal searches, illegal detentions and illegal interrogation, not only are worthy, they ACTUALLY work when you use them against foreigners.

But here in the US. gun CONTROL laws (which are mild by comparison to these other things) not only take away liberties, THEY DON'T EVEN WORK WHEN WE DO THEM. It's like physics doesn't work the same in the U.S. as it does everywhere.

Quote: boymimbo

We're fine with laws to prevent taking bottled water through security at an airport, started two wars, committed torture, reorganized the government, and okayed predator drones, but heaven forbid we have gun laws.

For the record, I’m against most of the garbage posted above (the examples, not boymimbo’s post)

Quote: rxwine

Well, generally, if you argue with conservatives here about taking away liberties of foreigners in the commencement of our many foreign wars, they won't ever make the point that such actions don't work as part of the point. What would be illegal searches, illegal detentions and illegal interrogation, not only are worthy, they ACTUALLY work when you use them against foreigners.

But here in the US. gun CONTROL laws (which are mild by comparison to these other things) not only take away liberties, THEY DON'T EVEN WORK WHEN WE DO THEM. It's like physics doesn't work the same in the U.S. as it does everywhere.

A very poorly executed straw man argument. In general, you should not make the items of comparison so easily distinguishable when you are poorly making the other side's point in a straw man.

I know you are just trying to make conservatives look bad generally, but you just sound like an idiot when you compare targeted torture of a suspect with a slight increase in the number of gun sales requiring background checks. What similar mechanism of "working" are conservatives affirming in the former and denying in the latter?

Quote: AZDuffman

First we DO have gun laws, plenty of them. The argument is that we do not need any more at this time.

When did we start 2 wars? I must have missed something.

I'm fine with changing how we do security at airports, but the citizens of this country do not have the courage to profile people who look like more of a threat based on a trained person's instinct.

Yep, you have plenty of gun laws, which have had some effect on the crime rate depending on the effectiveness of the law. Some laws are obviously more effective then others. Obviously, the most ideal law would give 100% freedom to gun owners who we know would never commit a crime and 0% to gun owners would would commit a crime.

You can't predict who will commit a crime, so you create laws that will LIKELY keep guns out of the hands of criminals while allowing lawful gun owners to LIKELY be able to keep their arms. The problem is that the laws are so loose that I can go onto the internet and buy a gun. I can go with Face to a gun show and complete a straw purchase, even with my criminal record. So can anyone else. That doesn't keep the guns out of the hands of criminals, but it certainly grants freedom under the BoR. Universal background checks only make sense because it makes the determination of whether you meet the criteria to own a gun.

There are laws that work, believe it or not. The Federal and State governments just have to figure out which laws are the best ones that manage to keep law abiding citizens be responsible owners of guns yet keep guns away from criminals (or deter them). And yeah, criminals break law. That's what they do. But how much would say, shoplifting crime go down if the penalty was to cut off a hand. So create penalties that deter crimes commited with guns.

Quote: boymimbo

I can go onto the internet and buy a gun.

God bless America =D

But seriously... what exactly is a "universal background check"? Do you mean that the entire nation engages in them? Or that they're more intense than a simple NICS check? Or a combination of both?

It's just a term I don't understand and was looking for a definition. Also, how would this adjective then prevent the straw purchase?

Quote: boymimbo

I can go with Face to a gun show and complete a straw purchase, even with my criminal record. So can anyone else. That doesn't keep the guns out of the hands of criminals, but it certainly grants freedom under the BoR. Universal background checks only make sense because it makes the determination of whether you meet the criteria to own a gun.

So how do universal background checks stop these straw purchases you cite as an example of loose laws?

Quote: Face

how would this adjective then prevent the straw purchase?

The adjective would help prevent straw purchases because if noun 1 is caught purchasing a gun for noun 2 to use in the commission of a crime, noun 1 would go to jail. Just like if noun 1 were driving a getaway car during a bank robbery committed by noun 2, they both go to jail.

They don't. Registering the weapon with a periodic renewal does.

eg: I bought a weapon. Register it. Registration (like you vehicle) expires every 1 - 10 years (shorter terms for new gun owners). You bring the gun back to a gun shop to reregister it with your valid ID (the same kind voters must have, hee hee). The gun shop can provide a gun cleaning service while you get your gun registration renewed. That way, if you can't account for the gun when it's time to reregister it, you get a knock on the door from your friendly LEO, and if you can't account for your gun, you're in jail (because you either transferred it wihtout the paperwork or had it stolen and failed to report it).

By making the gun owner accountable for the gun in a couple of years down the road makes him responsible if he ends up giving the gun to someone else.

Quote: boymimbo

They don't. Registering the weapon with a periodic renewal does.

Do you agree that there will be at least tens of millions of unregistered and stolen weapons?

Quote: bbvk05

A very poorly executed straw man argument. In general, you should not make the items of comparison so easily distinguishable when you are poorly making the other side's point in a straw man.

I know you are just trying to make conservatives look bad generally, but you just sound like an idiot when you compare targeted torture of a suspect with a slight increase in the number of gun sales requiring background checks. What similar mechanism of "working" are conservatives affirming in the former and denying in the latter?

You don't get it. I guess. Probably my fault. Conservatives are usually the first to pushing the limits for depriving (waterboarding is not torture, bs) liberties of suspects in war, and liberals are usually wanting some basic civil liberties even for non citizens, and are called aiders and abetters, or traitors. But that last is beside the point, the point being, conservatives don't just push intrusive agendas, they say they work. Except if it's gun control here in the US. However gun control is done, it doesn't work. But it certainly is an intrusive agenda to require background checks for crimminality. We try it this way, it doesn't work or another. Well, that's what I get from you all. You're the ones saying it doesn't work. I think it might have even been you once, but I could be wrong.

Oh yeah, all the above is generalization. So, I say "some" or "usually", not all. Just to clarify, and stay correct.

Now don't rewrite my words or select just part of them to say I said something else this time. 'Cause that's some sort of fallacy stuff, I dunno.

Quote: bbvk05

Do you agree that there will be at least tens of millions of unregistered and stolen weapons?

Yep. But make a start somewhere.

Quote: rxwine

You don't get it. I guess. Probably my fault. Conservatives are usually the first to pushing the limits for depriving (waterboarding is not torture, bs) liberties of suspects in war, and liberals are usually wanting some basic civil liberties even for non citizens, and are called aiders and abetters, or traitors. But that last is beside the point, the point being, conservatives don't just push intrusive agendas, they say they work. Except if it's gun control here in the US. However gun control is done, it doesn't work. But it certainly is an intrusive agenda to require background checks for crimminality. We try it this way, it doesn't work or another. Well, that's what I get from you all. You're the ones saying it doesn't work. I think it might have even been you once, but I could be wrong.

Oh yeah, all the above is generalization. So, I say "some" or "usually", not all. Just to clarify, and stay correct.

Now don't rewrite my words or select just part of them to say I said something else this time. 'Cause that's some sort of fallacy stuff, I dunno.

No, I got you. You seem to think that all intrusions onto individual rights have similar levels of effectiveness... ie if torture works then so will gun control. Conservatives --- those morons--- deny this simple truth by vouching for one intrusion (torture) and discussing the ineffectiveness of another intrusion (background checks).

And that's the problem with your point. It's quite wrong because clearly different intrusions onto individual rights will have different levels of effectiveness. Not every intrusion is created equal. Some intrusive agendas would/do work... some don't/won't work.

These 1/4 ass gun control measures won't work. They don't accomplish anything that isn't immediately defeated by minor changes in criminal behavior. They do exorbitantly increase societal cost of compliance and remove rights.

The gun control items that do work--- the heavy criminal penalties for violent criminals and those that use guns in crimes--- are not pushed by Democrats because they would rather restrict gun culture than gun criminals.

Quote: boymimbo

Yep. But make a start somewhere.

San Francisco formally banned Black Talon ammunition this week. It hasn't been manufactured in 20 years and is actually inferior to most hollow-point designs currently on the market.

Good start? Good use of government time?

And the point of having hollowed point ammunition in the City of San Francisco is exactly what?

Quote: boymimbo

And the point of having hollowed point ammunition in the City of San Francisco is exactly what?

I'm just asking if you think San Francisco is properly using government time and resources in banning extremely rare collector's ammunition that is functionally identical to other available ammunition. i.e. what is the point of banning it?

Also, San Francisco has many gun owners. Hollow point ammunition generally is alleged to be more effective (I actually disagree here) and reduces the chances of bystanders getting shot. Accordingly hollow point ammunition is a good tool for legal gun owners.

Probably not!

Quote: boymimbo

Probably not!

When framed that way, probably not but I never let a conservative frame the debate because they're dishonest.

Quote:

Conservatives want teens to commit suicide which is why they oppose trigger locks for weapons.

I oppose trigger locks because nothing should be placed through the trigger guard. Not a finger, not a lock, unless you intend to fire the weapon. Trigger locks are what happens when idiots who have no clue about gun safety try to legislate gun safety.

I have to buy a cheap-ass bullshit lock with every gun. I throw them away because they are all unsafe or useless.

Quote: s2dbaker

When framed that way, probably not but I never let a conservative frame the debate because they're dishonest.

We wouldn't want reality and context getting in the way of a feel-good gun ban.

Quote: bbvk05

We wouldn't want reality and context getting in the way of a feel-good gun ban.

How many law abiding citizens can't exercise their 2nd Ammendment right. i.e, can't get some sort of gun where they live?

You don't personally have to answer that, but I find it an interesting question.

Quote: s2dbaker

When framed that way, probably not but I never let a conservative frame the debate because they're dishonest.

Allow me then. Imagine we're talking knife crime instead of guns. SanFran abolishes the Ginzu knife. Is this a good idea, good use of gov time, good use of our tax dollars?

Of course not. Ginzu is a tiny subsection of all available knives. Its no dull features and laser honed sharpness might make it more deadly (can cut an 8 penny nail, a brick, a leather shoe, and still sever an aorta!), but in the grand scheme of things, would make 0 difference.

Perfect analogy to the BlackTalon ban. They banned one, rare, low supply hollow point round, when there are 10s of manufacturers that make millions of other rounds that do the exact same thing.

Of course, there's more to the story. The Black Talon ban was a direct response to a 1993 shooting incident where that bullet was used to kill some innocent victims.

They also wanted to ban other bullets with the exact same charateristics.

Quote: SFPD Code 618, proposed

(1) Ammunition sold under the brand name "Winchester Black Talon," or that has physical properties resulting in ballistics performance identical to ammunition presently or formerly sold under the brand name Winchester Black Talon; or,
(2) Ammunition designated by its manufacturer for purchase by law enforcement or military agencies only, unless other ammunition is available to the general public that has physical properties resulting in ballistics performance identical to such ammunition.

And if you want the entire background of how the ordinance came into effect, you can read it directly from the government's mouth.

From that link, you can see that SFPD is well aware that Black Talons no longer are produced. SFPD is going to produce a database of "Black Talon" like bullets and it is those bullets (in addition to the Black Talons which ceased production 13 years ago) that will be banned. Winchester ceased production because it didn't want the media publicity. It is likely that the Ranger T series bullets will be banned.

Of course the NRA is challenging the law. Was is stupid for the government to name bullets that were no longer in production? Yep. Does the law have a decent intent that the police force endorses and believes saves lives? Absolutely. And rather than question the craziness that went on in Boston today that effectively enforced martial law on 1,000,000+ people in order to catch one man that effectively cost the city 300 million, we're zeroing in instead on a hollow bullet ban in SF?

Quote: boymimbo

And rather than question the craziness that went on in Boston today that effectively enforced martial law on 1,000,000+ people in order to catch one man that effectively cost the city 300 million, we're zeroing in instead on a hollow bullet ban in SF?

If they were trying to determine whether there was a wider conspiracy, it's not quite as crazy to go after one guy if you know you got a good chance of getting him. Or state sponsered terrorism. or something.

I don't know if it was worth it, but that would at least be my rationale.

Even though I thought the second guy would get killed too, the first guy instigated (an alledged action) that resulted in his death. (throwing a bomb, charging police, and firing a gun)

EDIT- I'm likely not the only one to speculate whether the Texas plant explosion was connected. Certainly worth getting concerned over. BTW, I don't know how many fertilizer plants are located near towns, but man, that sure seems like a soft target for terrorism.

Quote: boymimbo

You can't predict who will commit a crime, so you create laws that will LIKELY keep guns out of the hands of criminals while allowing lawful gun owners to LIKELY be able to keep their arms.

I guess this is where we disagree. I don't feel that any law-abiding gun owner should "likely" be able to keep their arms. They should absolutely be able to.

Quote: rxwine

Conservatives are usually the first to pushing the limits for depriving (waterboarding is not torture, bs) liberties of suspects in war...

I know I'm getting off topic, but I must point out that enemy combatants are not entitled to any constitutional rights. Also (and I have a feeling I might be alone on this one), waterboarding is not the same as, say, what was done to John McCain as a POW. The man can't even lift his arms above his head anymore.

But back on topic, conservatives want to narrow the focus to gun criminals. Liberals want to treat all gun owners as potential criminals, and that's what offends so many people.

Quote: rxwine

How many law abiding citizens can't exercise their 2nd Ammendment right. i.e, can't get some sort of gun where they live?

You don't personally have to answer that, but I find it an interesting question.

Everyone who can't buy any small arm they want. Anyone outside of alaska, Vermont and Arizona who lack a carry permit.

The notion that the 2nd amendment isn't infringed as long as you can access one firearm is funny.

Quote: boymimbo

Of course, there's more to the story. The Black Talon ban was a direct response to a 1993 shooting incident where that bullet was used to kill some innocent victims.

They also wanted to ban other bullets with the exact same charateristics.


And if you want the entire background of how the ordinance came into effect, you can read it directly from the government's mouth.

From that link, you can see that SFPD is well aware that Black Talons no longer are produced. SFPD is going to produce a database of "Black Talon" like bullets and it is those bullets (in addition to the Black Talons which ceased production 13 years ago) that will be banned. Winchester ceased production because it didn't want the media publicity. It is likely that the Ranger T series bullets will be banned.

Of course the NRA is challenging the law. Was is stupid for the government to name bullets that were no longer in production? Yep. Does the law have a decent intent that the police force endorses and believes saves lives? Absolutely. And rather than question the craziness that went on in Boston today that effectively enforced martial law on 1,000,000+ people in order to catch one man that effectively cost the city 300 million, we're zeroing in instead on a hollow bullet ban in SF?

Yup. Some asshole uses something in a crime and it needs to be banned 20 years later even if its a collectors item now. Exact same characteristics =\= similar. This law bans nothing currently being made without completely umreasonable interpretations.

The modern and more effective Winchester SXT is based on the same designs but had improvements. Whew. Good thing we got the less effective black talon out of the way and didn't spend our time making laws to punish criminals. Close one--- we almost got something done.

Do you NEED a pressure cooker? Let's ban pressure cookers.

Quote: boymimbo

... direct response to a 1993 shooting incident...

"Direct" + "20 years ago" = I'm confused.

If ever in this thread I have caused you anger, consider ourselves even. Reading those gov docs gave me a legit headache =p

"Enhanced lethality rounds". LOL! Where's Carlin when you need him? "You can make me dead. But make me really dead? Nah, man. That's where I draw the line." (I kid)

But reading that gave me flashbacks to NYSAFE and other laws enacted without far seeing eyes. I mean "rounds that have the same characteristics"? What does that mean? Is it the hollow point itself? The way it's designed to expand into petals? And how would the typical non-expert know the difference?

I use and support the use of hollow point, both for SD and hunting. Shocking, right? ;)

Quote: boymimbo

And rather than question the craziness that went on in Boston today that effectively enforced martial law on 1,000,000+ people in order to catch one man that effectively cost the city 300 million, we're zeroing in instead on a hollow bullet ban in SF?

Please no. Not here. I've already seen too many "ban backpacks!" and other stupid, senseless comments. If we're going to be stupid and senseless, let's at least keep it focused on guns =)

EDIT: /sigh. Wasn't Inb4 "ban pressure cookers" ><

Quote: Beethoven9th

I know I'm getting off topic, but I must point out that enemy combatants are not entitled to any constitutional rights. Also (and I have a feeling I might be alone on this one), waterboarding is not the same as, say, what was done to John McCain as a POW. The man can't even lift his arms above his head anymore.

True, but I figure you could probably waterboard someone who claims waterboarding isn't torture into saying it's torture just from waterboarding until they do so. And probably not half has many times as Kalid Muhammad was waterboarded before they break. That probably should refute the claim it's not torture IMO.

Quote: Beethoven9th

I must point out that enemy combatants are not entitled to any constitutional rights.

You don't believe any of the constitutional rights are also inalienable to people of Earth in general and think they can be deprived at will?

Quote: rxwine

You don't believe any of the constitutional rights are also inalienable to people of Earth in general and think they can be deprived at will?

Of course they have rights (morally speaking). The difference is that the US Constitution only applies to US citizens, not everyone under the sun.

My point is that the SFPD obviously wanted a ban for hollow point bullets LIKE the Talon so that they could be effective in getting those bullets off the street without one of those bullets ripping through their bullet proof vests. How are police supposed to defend against criminals when their technology (to stop bullets from killing them) becomes ineffective? Or is the term "well armed militia" supposed to mean arms "equal to the police"? I think I'm going to hear a "hell ya" shortly.

Quote: boymimbo

Or is the term "well armed militia" supposed to mean arms "equal to the police"? I think I'm going to hear a "hell ya" shortly.

Since the right to keep and bear arms means we might have to defend against domestic tyranny the answer is "yes."

Quote: boymimbo

My point is that the SFPD obviously wanted a ban for hollow point bullets LIKE the Talon so that they could be effective in getting those bullets off the street without one of those bullets ripping through their bullet proof vests. How are police supposed to defend against criminals when their technology (to stop bullets from killing them) becomes ineffective? Or is the term "well armed militia" supposed to mean arms "equal to the police"? I think I'm going to hear a "hell ya" shortly.

Which is exactly why the law is stupid. Black talons don't rip through body armor any different than any other hollow point round. In fact, they are considerably less effective at that job than simple full metal jacket ammunition. Black talons are worthless for penetrating body armor. Liberals backing the bill claim otherwise simply because they are lying or phenomenally unintelligent on the issue, or both.

Also, the law does not ban bullets LIKE black talons. It only bans bullets with EXACTLY THE SAME PERFORMANCE as black talons. No currently manufactured bullet has exactly the same performance.

Why single out black talons? Because they have been used by liberals to scare people (what a scary name!), and accordingly people completely misunderstand what they are. For example--- you think that the law is justified because black talons defeat body armor. That's wrong and stupid.

Quote: Beethoven9th

Of course they have rights (morally speaking). The difference is that the US Constitution only applies to US citizens, not everyone under the sun.

Actually, the Constitution applies to the federal government and to the governments of the several States.

Where the Constitution talks about Citizens, it says Citizens. When talking about anyone, citizen or not, it says "person(s)."

Giving the feds a pass on their treatment of those persons they choose to label "enemy combatants" is a mistake the Citizens will end up paying for dearly.

Quote: QuadDeuces

Actually, the Constitution applies to the federal government and to the governments of the several States.

Where the Constitution talks about Citizens, it says Citizens. When talking about anyone, citizen or not, it says "person(s)."

Giving the feds a pass on their treatment of those persons they choose to label "enemy combatants" is a mistake the Citizens will end up paying for dearly.

Not sure I understand your point. You claim that 'person' does not equal 'Citizen'. Fair enough, but I claim that 'person' does not equal 'enemy combatant'. Can you cite any writings by any of the Founding Fathers that would support your position?

Quote: Beethoven9th

Not sure I understand your point. You claim that 'person' does not equal 'Citizen'. Fair enough, but I claim that 'person' does not equal 'enemy combatant'. Can you cite any writings by any of the Founding Fathers that would support your position?

I didn't say it doesn't. I merely said that it is a mistake to allow them to create a class of persons, absent any oversight, to whom no rights apply.

They simply cannot be trusted with the powers they have. Giving them more (or acquiescing to them seizing more) is crazy.

Absent a congressional declaration of war, I would argue that, constitutionally, there can be no "enemy."

But this government is operating so far outside constitutional boundaries it's almost ludicrous to discuss it.

As far as the Founders were concerned, they understood the dangers. See Article III Section 3. Why does that not apply to the GTMO detainees? What is an "enemy combatant" if not a person "levying war" against the United States?

Note also that conviction for Treason is a judicial power, not executive.

Can't call them POWs. Can't call them Persons. Gotta make up something else so we can do whatever the hell we want to them for however long we want without congressional or judicial oversight. That people accept this behavior from their government is pretty sad.

I sure wouldn't want to be anyone whose cell phone number was in one of the Boston guys' contact lists. Black bag in the middle of the night and adios.

Quote: QuadDeuces

I didn't say it doesn't. I merely said that it is a mistake to allow them to create a class of persons, absent any oversight, to whom no rights apply.

And I didn't say they have "no rights". They just don't have the full rights that American citizens have.

Quote: QuadDeuces

Absent a congressional declaration of war, I would argue that, constitutionally, there can be no "enemy."

You're entitled to your opinion, but I think many believe that Al-Qaeda members and other terrorists are our 'enemy'.

Quote: Beethoven9th

And I didn't say they have "no rights". They just don't have the full rights that American citizens have.

You're entitled to your opinion, but I think many believe that Al-Qaeda members and other terrorists are our 'enemy'.

Is it your position that a person who calls himself a member of Al Qaeda who also happens to be an America Citizen is not entitled to the full rights and responsibilities of that citizenship?

Quote: s2dbaker

Is it your position that a person who calls himself a member of Al Qaeda who also happens to be an America Citizen is not entitled to the full rights and responsibilities of that citizenship?

Actually they could lose their citizenship for treason. IIRC even serving in another military can cause you to lose your citizenship. I don't have my passport handy to check but it listed in there.

Quote: s2dbaker

Is it your position that a person who calls himself a member of Al Qaeda who also happens to be an America Citizen is not entitled to the full rights and responsibilities of that citizenship?

I stated in that same post that American citizens have full rights, and I was obviously talking about Al-Qaeda members who aren't citizens (i.e. Osama bin Laden).

Quote: Beethoven9th

And I didn't say they have "no rights". They just don't have the full rights that American citizens have.

If you can be imprisoned indefinitely without charges, trial or judicial oversight then it really doesn't matter what rights you have while you're there.

Quote:

You're entitled to your opinion, but I think many believe that Al-Qaeda members and other terrorists are our 'enemy'.

The only certainty with this government is that we're being lied to. You can choose to guzzle what they're spewing. I do not.

Quote: AZDuffman

Actually they could lose their citizenship for treason. IIRC even serving in another military can cause you to lose your citizenship. I don't have my passport handy to check but it listed in there.

Is it your position that a citizen of the United States who calls himself a member of Al Qaeda can have his citizenship revoked?

Quote: bbvk05

Why single out black talons? Because they have been used by liberals to scare people (what a scary name!), and accordingly people completely misunderstand what they are. For example--- you think that the law is justified because black talons defeat body armor. That's wrong and stupid.

1,100 posts, let’s not start name calling now. As almost always, I think a little education could go a long way. Remember it’s mostly non-gunners that want guns gone, and how could a non-gunner know these things?

Quote: boymimbo

My point is that the SFPD obviously wanted a ban for hollow point bullets LIKE the Talon so that they could be effective in getting those bullets off the street without one of those bullets ripping through their bullet proof vests. How are police supposed to defend against criminals when their technology (to stop bullets from killing them) becomes ineffective? Or is the term "well armed militia" supposed to mean arms "equal to the police"? I think I'm going to hear a "hell ya" shortly.

Quickly, yeah. I think arms of the People should be at least equal to those of a government entity. Just wanted to confirm your suspicion =)

As bbvk05 said, hollow points aren’t absurdly more dangerous than other types of rounds. A bullet’s purpose is to cause blood loss. Obviously, the bigger the hole, the more the blood loss.

Full metal jacket rounds (FMJ) are a lead bullet covered with a metal sheath. They’re cheap and a very common type of round. Let’s use 9mm as our standard. The 9mm is an extremely fast round. If using an FMJ, the round is almost certainly going to zip right through a person. That’s big reason LEOs have moved away from it in favor of the .40. There are tons of reports of people being shot with FMJ 9mm and not even noticing they were shot. The high speed coupled with the FMJ doesn’t allow the bullet to deform and “mushroom”, it just punches a clean, 9mm hole through a body.

When you move to a hollow point, the FMJ is removed and a depression is carved into the lead edge of the bullet. When this type of bullet hits a body, the energy of the bullet is used to “force open” the tip of the bullet, increasing its tendency to mushroom. As a result, it both results in more surface area as it expands (makes a bigger hole) as well as dissipates a lot of the bullet's energy, reducing the chances of it punching through and hitting someone / something else.

I’ve not done any research about round effectiveness vs armor as it doesn’t apply to my uses, but based on the above, it seems a hollow point would be one of the least effective rounds to use against armor. Armor absorbs energy and spreads it out, preventing penetration. In order to defeat it, you’d want something that focuses the energy on a very small area. A hollow point that spreads after contact and thereby spreads its energy over a greater surface area is ineffective. You’d want something very hard indeed that resists deformation, at least an FMJ if not a reinforced / hardened tip (AP, depleted, etc). So when they claim a ban based on “defeating armor”, it’s either a lie or hyper ignorance. No one should stand for either one of those.

Bbvk05’s response, I think, shows the frustration we have. The non-gunner legislator’s ignorance far, FAR eclipses what we see in this thread. In Denver, a saw a legislator claim the magazine ban would work because, and I quote, “They use these things. Once you shoot all the bullets out, it’s gone. If we don’t make any more, eventually these high cap mags will go away”. This type of idiocy is what’s being used as “evidence” that the more asinine of laws will be effective. We can’t tolerate these types of things. She further went on to answer an old timer’s question of how he as an elderly person can be expected to have to reload if their cap restriction goes into effect. She crossed her arms, sat back, and smugly replied “call the DPD (Denver Police), they’re the best” As the old timer began to respond to that, she added “You’ll probably be dead anyways”.

Boymimbo, rxwine, you guys to me aren’t the face of the anti-gunners. The disgusting stupidity of the legislators above, that’s what I rail against. As should we all, IMO.