Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D/NY) To Introduce Extended Magazine Ban.

[nismaratwork]

The only laws that count are current ones. Currently extended clips are legal. Everything that is legal, is a real right, not a mythical one. You can move towards stiffer controls, but the burdon of proof should be on the one who wants to make them stiffer. I can't prove that I need all of the rights that I have. The burdon of proof should be on the one that wants to take those rights away.

Laws and regulations, and principles of fundamental rights are different. The right to bear arms, and to defense, I don't dispute for a second. There have been many different ways the law has allowed for this right in the past, but beyond that fundamental right, everything is just case-law... not legal-rights.

I do understand your point, but in essence your arguments have already been made, and dealt with by the highest legal authority in the country. What are we to gain from further debate like this? I think that there needs to be a justification for ALL things related to all firearms, otherwise we just re-hash the "why can't I carry a bazooka" debate ad infinitum.

 

[Al68]

Al68/Jimmy SNyder: You have the right to bear arms, The SCOTUS already decided you don't have the right to bear them all.

SCOTUS has also made a general determination of what type of arms are protected, in U.S. v Miller, 1939. Basically, the types of individually controlled weapons useful for battle are the types protected by the 2nd amendment. Which makes obvious sense. And which obviously includes high capacity mags.

But that doesn't shift the burden of justification for other types, it still logically rests with those advocating prohibition.

PS, if you want to research U.S. v Miller, I would suggest actually reading the http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=CASE&court=US&vol=307&page=174". Many popular descriptions of it are fraudulent.

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

Laws and regulations, and principles of fundamental rights are different. The right to bear arms, and to defense, I don't dispute for a second. There have been many different ways the law has allowed for this right in the past, but beyond that fundamental right, everything is just case-law... not legal-rights.

I do understand your point, but in essence your arguments have already been made, and dealt with by the highest legal authority in the country. What are we to gain from further debate like this? I think that there needs to be a justification for ALL things related to all firearms, otherwise we just re-hash the "why can't I carry a bazooka" debate ad infinitum.

You have the right to do anything legal. I can't prove that I need all of the rights that I have. The burdon of proof should be on the one that wants to take those rights away.

 

[nismaratwork]

SCOTUS has also made a general determination of what type of arms are protected, in U.S. v Miller, 1939. Basically, the types of individually controlled weapons useful for battle are the types protected by the 2nd amendment. Which makes obvious sense. And which obviously includes high capacity mags.

But that doesn't shift the burden of justification for other types, it still logically rests with those advocating prohibition.

PS, if you want to research U.S. v Miller, I would suggest actually reading the http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=CASE&court=US&vol=307&page=174". Many popular descriptions of it are fraudulent.

I agree that is exactly the purpose of the 2nd amendment; to defend self, hearth, home, and country. I don't believe for a second however, that in this day and age an extended-clip Glock is useful for battle. A side-arm is a useful weapon of near-last resort in battle, unless you're a Navy Seal or something equally exotic... and they prefer C4.

An extended magazine Glock isn't anything like what any military I know of has adopted as its side-arm, and it's no sub-machine gun. This is a weapon for civilian self-defense and, without the extended clip, for law enforcement, and for target shooting. Debating it as though it's somehow part of arming a militia on the home front, or even AGAINST the home front, is laughable.

 

[nismaratwork]

You have the right to do anything legal. I can't prove that I need all of the rights that I have. The burdon of proof should be on the one that wants to take those rights away.

OK... you can keep saying that like a mantra, but you're no longer really engaging in discussion, you're just using your personal beliefs as a bludgeon, without support. I'm not going to keep feeding that.

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

OK... you can keep saying that like a mantra, but you're no longer really engaging in discussion, you're just using your personal beliefs as a bludgeon, without support. I'm not going to keep feeding that.

It was you that brought up the issue of burdon of proof and I feel that I have tried to engage you in a discussion of it. However, you have evaded the issue with each and every single one of your posts. I can't prove that I need all of the rights that I have. The burdon of proof should be on the one that wants to take those rights away. Can you defend the opposite view?

 

[Al68]

I agree that is exactly the purpose of the 2nd amendment; to defend self, hearth, home, and country. I don't believe for a second however, that in this day and age an extended-clip Glock is useful for battle.

Having high capacity spare clips would obviously be useful if they were reliable.

And you're right, Glocks are not typically carried by soldiers, but as far as I know, there is no bill being pushed that bans 30 rd Glock mags, but not other 30 rd mags.

 

[Al68]

OK... you can keep saying that like a mantra, but you're no longer really engaging in discussion, you're just using your personal beliefs as a bludgeon, without support. I'm not going to keep feeding that.

What we should stop feeding is your repeated mantra (personal belief) that peaceful citizens have a burden to justify simply being left alone.

 

[nismaratwork]

It was you that brought up the issue of burdon of proof and I feel that I have tried to engage you in a discussion of it. However, you have evaded the issue with each and every single one of your posts. I can't prove that I need all of the rights that I have. The burdon of proof should be on the one that wants to take those rights away. Can you defend the opposite view?

Sure; A weapon is a tool that should be used in times of need; that's part of what any gun owner knows. Maybe the law should be modified for target practice exemptions, but I think that would needlessly raise the cost of administrating the law. In the past this "right", as you call it, has been absent and people lived happy and productive lives with guns. Any responsible gun owner using their firearm in its primary contexts: SD/HD/TP gains no advantage by being able to fire 33 rounds of ammunition without so much as reloading. In fact, doing that in any SD/HD scenario is practically begging for tragedy...


Of the actual defense or not... what I find amusing is that I usually have this debate, not in a "gun rights" context when I'm offline, but in the context of, "what do you carry/own?" It always comes down to advantages and disadvantages... I'm yet to hear someone offline opine that they needed bigger extended magazines.

 

[nismaratwork]

What we should stop feeding is your repeated mantra (personal belief) that peaceful citizens have a burden to justify simply being left alone.

You have no right to be left alone.
edit: Nor do you have the ability; by even your standard, that's a fiction.

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

Sure; A weapon is a tool that should be used in times of need; that's part of what any gun owner knows. Maybe the law should be modified for target practice exemptions, but I think that would needlessly raise the cost of administrating the law. In the past this "right", as you call it, has been absent and people lived happy and productive lives with guns. Any responsible gun owner using their firearm in its primary contexts: SD/HD/TP gains no advantage by being able to fire 33 rounds of ammunition without so much as reloading. In fact, doing that in any SD/HD scenario is practically begging for tragedy...


Of the actual defense or not... what I find amusing is that I usually have this debate, not in a "gun rights" context when I'm offline, but in the context of, "what do you carry/own?" It always comes down to advantages and disadvantages... I'm yet to hear someone offline opine that they needed bigger extended magazines.

Would you please, please, please address the issue of burdon of proof? The one you brought up. I can't prove that I need all of the rights that I have. The burdon of proof should be on the one that wants to take those rights away.

 

[Al68]

You have no right to be left alone.

I think that says it all. So, can you explain how you, or others, have a right to use force against people to get your way?

 

[nismaratwork]

Would you please, please, please address the issue of burdon of proof? The one you brought up. I can't prove that I need all of the rights that I have. The burdon of proof should be on the one that wants to take those rights away.

You, I give up on.

 

[nismaratwork]

I think that says it all. So, can you explain how you, or others, have a right to use force against people to get your way?

We don't.

edit: Remember... I'm the guy who doesn't believe in rights? I believe that we should agree to principles of law, and morality, but I don't believe there's a real basis for it. That's an ongoing discussion in another thread (or 2 I'm losing count!), so if you want to have it, let's take it over there, if only so I don't start posting in the wrong threads... which I've done once today already and had to delete!

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

You, I give up on.

It's for the best. I doubt that you could have defended your position if you had tried.

 

[nismaratwork]

It's for the best. I doubt that you could have defended your position if you had tried.

Ah yes, a famous variation of, "I'm going to bed because I want to, not because you tell me to...", that never does get old.

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

Ah yes, a famous variation of, "I'm going to bed because I want to, not because you tell me to...", that never does get old.

Wait. Isn't that what you just did?

 

[nismaratwork]

Wait. Isn't that what you just did?

No... I believe that I walked away from a pointless exchange. I suppose you could argue that I "took my ball and went home," but not the bed one, and I'd disagree with the former too. Anyway, you clearly want the last word between us, so take it. Have fun, go wild, it's all yours.

 

[Al68]

We don't.

edit: Remember... I'm the guy who doesn't believe in rights?

Then why keep asking people to justify a "need" to own a 30 rd mag? No one had claimed such a need as their reason for opposing a ban. It's a complete red herring.

 

[nismaratwork]

Then why keep asking people to justify a "need" to own a 30 rd mag? No one had claimed such a need as their reason for opposing a ban. It's a complete red herring.

Because if you don't have a right to them, and you don't have a need for them, and we're talking about extended magazines?... Don't. Have. Them.

Your argument boils down to a right you don't even have legally according to The SCOTUS, and, 'because it's fun and you can.'

I'm inspired to really try my best to challenge that kind of unassailable logic, especially when it comes to the ownership of lethal weapons.

Until this thread and a few others, I never considered that butter-knife control might be a good idea in some places.

 

[Al68]

Because if you don't have a right to them, and you don't have a need for them, and we're talking about extended magazines?... Don't. Have. Them.

You keep asking why others need them as if we were asking you to buy them for us. I'm not arguing about whether or not I have them or need them. The subject of this thread is whether or not force should be used to prohibit them. Why do you keep trying to avoid that?

BTW, if you really have a reason to know what I do or don't need, I'll take an extra factory mag for my Sig. Or two. Thanks in advance.

 

[nismaratwork]

You keep asking why others need them as if we were asking you to buy them for us. I'm not arguing about whether or not I have them or need them. The subject of this thread is whether or not force should be used to prohibit them. Why do you keep trying to avoid that?

BTW, if you really have a reason to know what I do or don't need, I'll take an extra factory mag for my Sig. Or two. Thanks in advance.

I'm not buying any Sig mags that aren't for MY Sigs... soooorrrryy. My babies get all the love... none for yours!

For the rest:

Unlike other discussions which have taken place in the public discourse about guns, this is a valid concern. I'm not interested in the politics of it, and yes, I realize people are doing this for political points.

What I can't figure out is why anyone except a soldier or MAYBE a police officer to have over 30 rounds in a single clip. I'm sure some people here can explain to me why someone who's responsible enough to own such a thing, would be so poor at handling their weapon that they require that kind of ammunition in one magazine. I think people have been watching 'Equilibrium' too damned much.

Oh, I realize that starting a thread gives me no right to make demands, but I can ask; please don't turn this into a debate about gun ownership. I believe that people should be allowed to own a handgun, but I don't see the need for extended clips, and I'm yet to hear anyone claim they need it to hunt...

That was me, starting the thread. I see no reference to the use of force, just this law and then a general invitation to discuss it. If by "use of force" you just mean, "make it a law"... just say, "make it a law"... you need that too! If you're talking about a specific element of this law, I've already made it clear I'm about the issue, not the law... and made that clear from the first post of this thread.

 

[Al68]

I'm not buying any Sig mags that aren't for MY Sigs... soooorrrryy. My babies get all the love... none for yours!

But I neeeeeeed them!

I've already made it clear I'm about the issue, not the law... and made that clear from the first post of this thread.

It should be equally clear that others are talking about the proposed law, not the personal aspect of the issue. People tend to do that in a politics forum.

 

[nismaratwork]

But I neeeeeeed them! It should be equally clear that others are talking about the proposed law, not the personal aspect of the issue. People tend to do that in a politics forum.

But it's ileeeegall... and they're expensive... really really over-priced!... and I LOVE Sig. Love... in a way that bothers even me.


The others who are talking about this specific law are... well... I'm not seeing people on any side of the debate take their side, including me.