SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
from the founding-fathers-didn't-have-tazers dept.
Massachusetts' ban on the private possession of stun guns—an "electrical weapon" under the statute—does not violate the Second Amendment right to bear arms, the state's top court has ruled.
The decision says ( http://cdn.arstechnica.net/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/stungunMA-ruling.pdf ) (PDF) that the US Constitution's framers never envisioned the modern stun-gun device, first patented in 1972. The top court said stun guns are not suitable for military use, and that it did not matter whether state lawmakers have approved the possession of handguns outside the home.The court, ruling in the case of a Massachusetts woman caught with stun gun, said the stun gun is a "thoroughly modern invention" not protected by the Second Amendment, although handguns are protected.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Kromagv0 on Tuesday March 10 2015, @01:19PM
The top court said stun guns are not suitable for military use
This isn't the first time [wikipedia.org] such an argument was made and ruled on by the courts. What I find interesting is that with this ruling the court has basically stated that a firearm suitable for military use is perfectly allowable for individual ownership. So if people are up in arms about AR and AK ownership just imagine the issues with ownership of an M249 [wikipedia.org], M203 [wikipedia.org], M2 [wikipedia.org]. And before people start believing that I am some gun nut I am not but do find rulings like this interesting due to the potential unintended consequences.
T-Shirts and bumper stickers [zazzle.com] to offend someone
(Score: 5, Insightful) by The Mighty Buzzard on Tuesday March 10 2015, @01:32PM
Those are actually intended consequences. The military was never meant to be better armed than its citizens. The second amendment was specifically crafted in case of the need to violently overthrow the government with private arms. You can tell by how the founding fathers had just finished doing exactly that.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 3, Disagree) by BasilBrush on Tuesday March 10 2015, @02:41PM
No it wasn't. It was crafted to allow a militia to oppose repel invasions and insurrections. You can tell by how the founding fathers actually wrote that.
Hurrah! Quoting works now!
(Score: 5, Insightful) by The Mighty Buzzard on Tuesday March 10 2015, @02:48PM
Tell us that again?
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 4, Informative) by tathra on Tuesday March 10 2015, @03:31PM
this
does not mean this
because the US wasn't supposed to be allowed to have a standing army in the first place. the militia was intended to be the army.
(Score: 5, Informative) by Spook brat on Tuesday March 10 2015, @04:40PM
Tathra wrote:
this
The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.
does not mean this
The military was never meant to be better armed than its citizens.
because the US wasn't supposed to be allowed to have a standing army in the first place. the militia was intended to be the army.
According to Federal Law, the Militia consists of all Male citizens ages 17-45 (10 USC sec. 311). [cornell.edu] Given that, your statement above reads that the citizens and the army were supposed to be exactly equally armed.
I like that idea, can we please make 3-round burst and auto modes legal now on modern firearms?
Travel the galaxy! Meet fascinating life forms... And kill them [schlockmercenary.com]
(Score: 2) by tathra on Tuesday March 10 2015, @06:49PM
no, it reads that they're supposed to be the same thing, which is what i said.
US Constitution, Section 8 - Powers of Congress
from the Federalist Papers [foundingfathers.info]
plus many other warnings against having standing/permanent armies; in other words, having funds for a permanent army is outside of the powers granted to government, meaning the army is only meant to be the militia conscripted into federal service for limited periods of time. they're supposed to be the same thing, thus no distinction of "equally armed" can exist because they have to be different in the first place before "equally armed" means anything; "the Militia and the Militia should be equally armed" is kind of a meaningless statement, especially since the militias that were to be conscripted were either State or even more Local, so it would be on the State or below to ensure their Militia was armed and trained equally to other States'/Localities' Militias.
(Score: 2) by Spook brat on Tuesday March 10 2015, @09:53PM
. . . no distinction of "equally armed" can exist because they have to be different in the first place before "equally armed" means anything; "the Militia and the Militia should be equally armed" is kind of a meaningless statement . . .
Yep! In other news, longcat is long, and the first rule of Tautology club is... [xkcd.com]
I believe we are dangerously close to being in violent agreement =)
Your assessment is correct, the current state of the armed forces and arms control legislation is far afield from what the Founders intended. I worded the comment the way I did because there's odd talk on the 'Nets; on one hand people talk of citizens not needing military equivalent weaponry, and on the other (as in today's discussion) that citizens have no need of a weapon that has no military function. I like your assessment of the situation, because if citizen == militia == military then all of that odd talk I mentioned is incorrect; being equal, neither is greater than the other and citizens should have access to whatever they can afford in order to defend their families, their homes, and their homeland.
In my ideal America every citizen would have access to the main battle rifle adopted by the Armed Forces, and could be ready to serve at a minute's notice. We'd just need a catchy name for people who do that so it would catch on and become the trendy thing to do... ;^)
Travel the galaxy! Meet fascinating life forms... And kill them [schlockmercenary.com]
(Score: 2) by BasilBrush on Tuesday March 10 2015, @03:44PM
Funny how it's the constitution and the amendments that are all important, till you show the gun nuts their interpretation is wrong, at which point it's time to comb everything a founding father ever wrote. Actual constitutional documents be damned.
Hurrah! Quoting works now!
(Score: 5, Informative) by Leebert on Tuesday March 10 2015, @04:03PM
That's funny. I look at the ACLU and wonder how THEY can find the US Constitution and its amendments all important, until they come across the second amendment. Because they don't like firearms, they go through mental gymnastics to make it somehow, contrary to all of the other amendments, a limitation on the people and not the government.
Actual Constitutional documents be damned.
You might not LIKE what the second amendment says (I personally think it removes too much discretion from the government to limit private ownership of firearms that can be excessively risky in many contexts), but that doesn't mean you pretend that it doesn't say what it says. It means you change it.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 10 2015, @04:26PM
The main problem with the constitution is that it gives the government too much power as it is. The fourth amendment could be better written to make the "reasonable" exception far more strict and not allow the government to invade people's privacy arbitrarily based on how 'severe' they think the situation is. And obviously, we need to clarify many things so that authoritarian judges don't have any wiggle room, but that's not so much a fault of the constitution itself. No mass surveillance, no FCC censorship, no DUI checkpoints, etc. There are many thing that could be clarified or improved about the constitution, but limiting people's ability to own guns is not one of them.
(Score: 2) by Leebert on Tuesday March 10 2015, @05:04PM
I'm in agreement with most of your other statements, but I'm going to have to disagree with you here. The second amendment, as written, doesn't provide any qualifications about the types of arms that one can keep and bear. That, in my mind, quite literally means that I have a constitutional right to own a thermonuclear weapon, which is absurd. There is a practical upper limit to the destructive power that an individual citizen should be allowed to wield. How you define that is, admittedly, somewhat problematic. Especially since the attendant risk can vary from situation to situation. It's not really a big deal if I keep a cache of grenades in my kitchen if live in some desolate area in the desert Southwest with nary a soul for miles; it's a completely different affair if I live in a densely populated apartment building in Manhattan.
It is also not unreasonable to have SOME degree of limitations on who can own firearms. It's no problem that, say, a mentally retarded person has a right to free speech; it's a completely different thing to allow them to keep and bear an Uzi. Which, again, I believe that the second amendment allows.
The second amendment DOES need the concept of reasonableness integrated into it somehow, just as much as the fourth amendment. And, as you so aptly observed, in a manner that limits the wiggle room of a partisan judiciary. (In my mind, a starting point would be something along the lines of: "keep and bear arms of sufficient power to counter weapons at the disposal of the government which could be used, lawfully or not, against the citizen.")
(Score: 2) by Anal Pumpernickel on Tuesday March 10 2015, @05:35PM
The second amendment, as written, doesn't provide any qualifications about the types of arms that one can keep and bear. That, in my mind, quite literally means that I have a constitutional right to own a thermonuclear weapon, which is absurd.
That is not absurd. Don't like it? Try to amend the constitution to get weapons of that scale banned. I don't want the government arbitrarily placing limits on our rights just because you think it's "absurd" that we have them.
It is also not unreasonable to have SOME degree of limitations on who can own firearms. It's no problem that, say, a mentally retarded person has a right to free speech; it's a completely different thing to allow them to keep and bear an Uzi. Which, again, I believe that the second amendment allows.
Where the fuck does the second amendment allow you to oppress the mentally retarded, or more accurately, people arbitrarily declared to be mentally retarded? You're pulling this out of nowhere, much like people who say that convicted felons and the mentally ill have no second amendment rights.
There are lots of mentally ill people who would never harm anyone, and I do not want you to decide that they are undeserving of rights. Not to mention that mental illnesses are mostly completely arbitrary, courtesy of pseudoscientific 'social science.' Even were such a constitutional amendment proposed, I would oppose it.
The second amendment DOES need the concept of reasonableness integrated into it somehow
Well, guess what? It doesn't say or imply anything about "reasonableness," and certainly not your standard of "reasonableness" in particular. I'd rather not have the government able to arbitrarily declare what is and is not reasonable so that it can extend its powers.
Don't like the constitution as it is? Try to get it amended. I'm tired of people thinking it's okay for the government to simply ignore it. There is an actual procedure for getting the constitution changed, and you'd best advocate that the government follow it.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 10 2015, @07:16PM
Its funny, I keep suggesting to people that the second should be amended to remove the "well-regulated militia" clause in order to prevent a future interpretation of it from enforcing exactly that, that guns could only be owned by people in the militia. Apparently people are more terrified of their pet interpretation not holding up on further examination and/or not holding up when voted on by the population since its the one currently in vogue, than preventing future tyranny and actually having their guns taken by government if it ends up being interpreted exactly as its written. I guarantee that if it were interpreted a different way they'd all be all about amending it.
(Score: 2) by Anal Pumpernickel on Tuesday March 10 2015, @07:22PM
I guarantee that if it were interpreted a different way they'd all be all about amending it.
The problem is that even when the constitution is clear, the courts often just ignore it in favor of giving the government more power. All sorts of random exceptions are made to the first amendment and fourth amendment (among other things) that the constitution mentions nothing about, and the commerce clause is of course used to give the federal government nearly unlimited power to regulate nearly anything, even things that merely could potentially cross state borders.
It doesn't seem to matter how clear you are. There are no real punishments for any politician or judge who outright ignores the constitution, and they're often cheered on anyway.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 10 2015, @07:40PM
There really are, they're just never enforced:
18 U.S. Code § 1918 [cornell.edu]
By choosing to ignore the constitution or subverting it or suggesting to ignore or subvert it they are advocating the overthrow of our constitutional form of government, and anyone who does and accepts or holds a position in the Government should be fined or imprisoned for up to 366 days or both.
(Score: 2) by Leebert on Tuesday March 10 2015, @09:39PM
That we would allow J. Random Idiot to own and keep a thermonuclear weapon in his midtown-Manhattan apartment is absurd. Sorry, I don't really see that as arguable.
You must have missed earlier in the conversation where I said [soylentnews.org] "You might not LIKE what the second amendment says (I personally think it removes too much discretion from the government to limit private ownership of firearms that can be excessively risky in many contexts), but that doesn't mean you pretend that it doesn't say what it says. It means you change it."
I said exactly what you said: The Constitution allows it currently, and if we think that shouldn't be the case, we shouldn't just ignore the Constitution, we should use its built-in update mechanism to fix it.
It doesn't. That's my point. But hey, don't let your lack of reading comprehension keep you from ranting about things I didn't say.
The Constitution is a collection of limitations on our individual rights. They're not arbitrary; they're carefully considered tradeoffs. The Constitution is the result of a risk decision. For example, in the fourth amendment the framers considered the risk of allowing the government carte blanche search and seizure authority to exceed the risk posed by the crime that might otherwise be prevented or punished by such authority.
The second amendment is a similar risk equation, but the potential damage from unrestricted weapons ownership is arguably much greater today. It's not unreasonable for society to revisit that risk decision from time to time as society and technology evolve. I think it's a fair question to ask if the possible damage to society from the ownership of certain weapons outweighs the possible damage it prevents from an out-of-control government.
(Score: 2) by Anal Pumpernickel on Tuesday March 10 2015, @10:36PM
But hey, don't let your lack of reading comprehension keep you from ranting about things I didn't say.
"It is also not unreasonable to have SOME degree of limitations on who can own firearms. It's no problem that, say, a mentally retarded person has a right to free speech; it's a completely different thing to allow them to keep and bear an Uzi. Which, again, I believe that the second amendment allows."
I thought you were saying it allows the government to place those restrictions. Apparently not.
The Constitution is a collection of limitations on our individual rights.
Irrelevant to what I said. According to what some people suggest, it would be the government arbitrarily deciding that the founders couldn't have envisioned technology X, and then deciding that they have constitutional authority to ban it on that basis. That is completely arbitrary, as well as unconstitutional.
The Constitution is the result of a risk decision. For example, in the fourth amendment the framers considered the risk of allowing the government carte blanche search and seizure authority to exceed the risk posed by the crime that might otherwise be prevented or punished by such authority.
That's too safety-oriented for my liking. Freedom should prevail over safety a grand majority of the time. It's not just a matter of X being more dangerous than Y for me.
(Score: 2) by Leebert on Wednesday March 11 2015, @12:45AM
Fair enough; I'll concede that my wording was ambiguous. I was saying that I believe the second amendment does permit them to own an Uzi.
Anyway, we're clearly in agreement that the current state places no restrictions on ownership of "arms". We do seem to disagree as to the wisdom of such a position. My only point is that, to me, there is some level of "too much" for individual weapon ownership. That "too much", IMO, falls somewhere between "pistol in my house" (what, to me, is the bare minimum definition of "keep and bear arms") and "thermonuclear weapon in my house" (which, to me, is a clearly over the top activity that still fits the definition of "keep and bear arms"), and I don't think that should be a controversial position among advocates of the right to keep and bear arms.
(Score: 1) by Fauxlosopher on Tuesday March 10 2015, @05:43PM
You have just highlighted the difference between a nation of slaves and a nation of free indviduals. In a free nation, a government's authority is a mere derivative of the authority that free individuals already have. You can't gather any number of free people together to justify the group's decision to kidnap and enslave a victim human; neither can the US government justly exceed its originating authority which was that of one single individual among a group that voted to send representatives to the Constitutional Convention [wikipedia.org].
Does such an idea seem scary? Yup, and it'll get scarier [wikipedia.org] as technological knowledge increases. All the more reason to pile onto the technology train so humans can choose to vacate Earth and colonize other places to help ensure the long-term survival of the species.
(Score: 2) by LaminatorX on Tuesday March 10 2015, @06:23PM
You can't gather any number of free people together to justify the group's decision to kidnap and enslave a victim human; neither can the US government justly exceed its originating authority which was that of one single individual among a group that voted to send representatives to the Constitutional Convention.
That's perhaps not the best example to cite. Quite a few of those folks did plenty of enslaving under the aegis of law. It's all well and good to put The Constitution up on a pedestal now that we have something like universal suffrage, but that's been there for a minority of our history.
(Score: 1) by Fauxlosopher on Tuesday March 10 2015, @06:51PM
The Constitution's predecessors were (perhaps wisely) silent on the matter of human slavery, while the Declaration was quite clear that ALL men (and, yes, women) are created equal and with certain unalienable rights, including life. (A right to life absolutely requires exclusive ownership of a human body by its lone inhabitant.) Slavery was a reality in the colonies/nation (and world) at the time.
You'll note I'm not holding up the US Constitution as some sort of perfect law; I am in fact attacking several pieces of it (e.g. 16th Amendment) by pointing out the historical details of its creation, specifically that its authority ultimately rests upon that of a single individual human.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 11 2015, @01:40AM
A right to life absolutely requires exclusive ownership of a human body by its lone inhabitant.)
Speak for yourself, please, about that "lone" part! _Me
_the other Me
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 10 2015, @07:20PM
no, it's not absurd. you just don't believe in actual freedom. you believe peolple are free as long as they do what their overlords say.
now you're advocating for thermonuclear weapons! why you so crazy?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 10 2015, @07:06PM
bullshit, you dumbass troll. read the founders' letters to each other.
(Score: 2) by Kromagv0 on Tuesday March 10 2015, @02:46PM
I doubt that the statement of the judge was the intended consequence although it may have been the intended consequence of the founders. Given the rest of the things the judge mentions I get the feeling that they are fairly anti arms for individuals.
T-Shirts and bumper stickers [zazzle.com] to offend someone
(Score: 2) by gnuman on Tuesday March 10 2015, @05:00PM
The military was never meant to be better armed than its citizens.
And who is the military composed of if not the very citizens of a nation? If you have to fight the military, all you end up is a civil war like in Syria. Not recommended.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Tuesday March 10 2015, @07:23PM
And yet, sometimes necessary.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by theluggage on Tuesday March 10 2015, @01:55PM
What I find interesting is that with this ruling the court has basically stated that a firearm suitable for military use is perfectly allowable for individual ownership.
Ok, I Am Not An American, but I thought the intention of the Second Amendment was to stop the Fedaral Government disarming local militias and that empowering everyday folk to routinely walk around with guns in their purses* was just an unintended consequence of the definition of "firearm".
*Not sure why people want to do this unless muggers in the US are very polite and wait patiently for you to get out your gun and remove the safety, and then let you step back out of their reach so you can safely raise it. Perhaps they also help you choose the best Clint Eastwood quote for the occasion? Or do they take the gun and leave your wallet? Sorry, but if you can reach your gun quickly enough to react to trouble, so can the professional pickpocket standing behind you in the crowd. However I run the scenario in my head, it ends up either with me being held up with either with either my own gun or the one the mugger stole from their last victim.
Not sure Tasers are any better, but at least if I accidentally tase myself it might cure my atrial fibrillation for a couple of days.
(Score: 3, Informative) by The Mighty Buzzard on Tuesday March 10 2015, @02:15PM
The militia, according to us law and tradition, is every man old enough to fight. So, no, that is not an unintended consequence. It is very much an intended consequence. To poorly quote some Japanese general or other, "We cannot invade the United states, there would be a rifle behind every blade of grass."
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 10 2015, @03:40PM
So, in other words, the "militia" is everyone registered for selective service (the draft), which means only men meet the requirement of the 2nd's "A well regulated militia" clause, which means women are not constitutionally allowed to own or carry firearms.
The 2nd needs to be amended to remove the "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state" clause so that it just says "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed". The people who claim thats what it says already are by definition cherrypicking which parts they think should apply and which shouldn't.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 10 2015, @04:40PM
So, in other words, the "militia" is everyone registered for selective service (the draft)
The selective service didn't even exist at the time. Private individuals owned weapons from the beginning of the country, draft or no draft. Your interpretation ignores historical documents, as well as long legal precedent that has long held that the 2nd amendment guarantees private individuals the right to own firearms (precedents which correctly take into account historical document). You instead choose to focus on wording, using a modern understanding of the language. That's a recipe for disaster.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 10 2015, @06:58PM
Which is exactly why it should be amended, so that the wording can't be used to justify different interpretations in the future. Although the specific wording is already used to say the 4th Amendment doesn't apply to the internet, etc, because they didn't exist at the time it was written. So either the spirit applies or the wording does, choose one; you cannot say the spirit applies for the 2nd but the wording applies for the 4th and other amendments, which is what we have going on now.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 10 2015, @08:42PM
Which is exactly why it should be amended, so that the wording can't be used to justify different interpretations in the future.
And then language will change and people will misinterpret it again. Then we'll need another amendment, which will take a long time.
you cannot say the spirit applies for the 2nd but the wording applies for the 4th and other amendments
I don't say that. The government violates the 4th amendment with mass surveillance, etc. The spirit applies to both.
(Score: 2) by tathra on Tuesday March 10 2015, @09:19PM
Which is the entire point of having the Constitutional Amendment process in the first place, to update the Constitution when necessary due to changes in times or meanings of words.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Tuesday March 10 2015, @07:28PM
Not really. I know it excludes women. I however am not a woman and thus it is not my problem.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 10 2015, @07:48PM
If it wasn't already well known that you were a sociopath, it would certainly be clear now. Worse still, anyone who fights for equal rights for all gets derided and attacked as an "SJW". Not doing anything about it personally is fine, but actively attacking people who want to do anything about it makes you the same as bigots.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Tuesday March 10 2015, @09:52PM
Sweet cheeks, I have no problem with equal rights but SJWs never ask for Equal, they demand Special and call anyone who disagrees a sociopath. Well, we're not sociopaths. See, normal human beings care to a diminishing degree about family, friends, their town, their state, their nation, and the rest of the world. SJWs care in the reverse order to a degree so irrational that they see equality as oppression and become absolutely maddened when the world doesn't agree with them. Tell me again, who has mental issues here?
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 10 2015, @11:34PM
A few extremist nutjobs having mental issues doesn't mean you don't. If anything, so-called "SJW"s are a response to your brand of extremism since people like you have been around for far longer. And don't act like other people's bad actions somehow absolve you of your own - they don't. The correct counter to extremism and hatred is not more extremism and hatred.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Wednesday March 11 2015, @12:39AM
Nothing wrong with my actions, spanky. I stand by every word I've said. And if you really think my views are extreme, you should get out more. The only things I'm extreme about are equality and liberty. If you're not extreme about those, you really should ask yourself why you aren't.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 11 2015, @05:10AM
lol
(Score: 1) by Fauxlosopher on Tuesday March 10 2015, @10:52PM
You COMPLETELY overlook the US Constitution's purpose, and take Buzzard's lack of personal concern over women being included in the militia , and assume that the purpose of the US Constitution is to tell We the People what we may or may not do.
Wrong. Completely wrong.
If a woman wants to own a bazooka, all she has to do do to lawfully acquire one is head down to True Value Hardware And Bazookas and pay for one. (All laws repugnant to the Constitution are void; all laws restricting or forbidding the keeping or carrying of any type of arms are completely null and void [findlaw.com].)
(Score: 1) by tftp on Tuesday March 10 2015, @07:28PM
Not sure why people want to do this unless muggers in the US are very polite and wait patiently for you to get out your gun and remove the safety, and then let you step back out of their reach so you can safely raise it.
There are many confrontations that occur at a reasonable distance, or give you a reasonable time to prepare. You lose in other situations, no matter how well you might be armed and trained.
(Score: 2) by LaminatorX on Tuesday March 10 2015, @02:03PM
The Firearms Act actually does provide a framework for private citizens to own Actual Machine Guns. They have a paper trail much like car titles, and your local Sheriff's Dept needs to be notified in-person when you recieve ownership. As there are no crimes being committed with Actual Machine Guns, I often think that model might be a good one for reasonable regulation of arms generally. It's a minor hassle when a legitimate user buys, sells, or gifts a weapon, but wouldn't prevent legitimate uses. It would however put the kabosh on the straw buyers who funnel weapons to criminals and arm the civil war in Mexico.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by The Mighty Buzzard on Tuesday March 10 2015, @02:19PM
If you have to ask permission, it is not a right. And since it most assuredly is a right...
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by LaminatorX on Tuesday March 10 2015, @02:55PM
That sort of absolutism leads to our current "Tens of thousands of Mexicans shot with guns bought in the US." situation. I have no problem with people owning firearms for hunting, sport, home defense (though I think the value there is overrated), and so on. However, the current setup prioritizes a fear of a possible-but-unlikely scenario (some sort of authoritarian crackdown mass seizure) over something that is actually killing thousands of people right now (our lax regulation facilitating large-scale smuggling into the war-zone next door).
I don't suggest that someone should have to go play "Mother may I?" with Barney Fife to own a weapon, but deliberately erasing purchase records like we do now gives carte-blanche to smugglers. Ignoring that reality and refusing to even consider common-sense solutions makes us all a little complicit in their crimes, and I hate that.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Tuesday March 10 2015, @03:16PM
Personally, I'd be more worried about the ones the government sells to the Mexican cartels [wikipedia.org]. Smuggling there and violating Mexican law should have no meaning to an American unless they are caught in Mexico; we're meant to be free to do what we like both in commerce and with firearm ownership.
As for the rest, there is no valid argument to regulate anything you do not wish to control and private firearms were specifically meant to be off limits to government control. Safety? I'd rather have liberty every single time. Me and Patrick Henry, we're funny that way.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by Kromagv0 on Tuesday March 10 2015, @04:11PM
Speaking to the belief that the automatic weapons the drug cartels are using originated from legal US purchases. The thing is that those firearms that were bought in the US and used to kill Mexicans were all legal hunting and sporting firearms when they were purchased in the US. Despite what the law says it really isn't difficult to turn a semi auto AK type weapon into one that can fire semi auto or fully auto as well. I don't know about the AR type weapons as I have never looked at one in any detail but I would imagine that a similar hack would be possible. Granted this would require fabricating some new metal to attach but anyone who has any skill in metal working could do it easily. I highly doubt that someone would go through the effort to purchase an exceedingly expensive fully automatic weapon, with the background check and fingerprinting, only to hand it over to some Mexican drug cartel. Seems like a really quick and easy way to end up in prison as those are tracked very closely.
T-Shirts and bumper stickers [zazzle.com] to offend someone
(Score: 2) by Spook brat on Tuesday March 10 2015, @05:16PM
. . . it really isn't difficult to turn a semi auto AK type weapon into one that can fire semi auto or fully auto as well. I don't know about the AR type weapons as I have never looked at one in any detail but I would imagine that a similar hack would be possible. Granted this would require fabricating some new metal to attach but anyone who has any skill in metal working could do it easily.
You are correct. Most civilian gunsmiths could make the conversion given the appropriate plans for the parts, resulting in a permanently full-auto rifle. In practice, people do exactly what you suggest: there are a couple of ways to add aftermarket components to the firing mechanism. The new parts trick the firing mechanism into thinking you released pressure from the trigger after firing, making the rifle effectively full-auto. At least one of these methods is easily removed and hidden, making proof of the violation tricky (compared to a permanent modification, anyhow).
Friendly reminder: performing these conversions makes you a felon, and the BATF takes keen interest in prosecuting violators. Please don't be stupid.
Travel the galaxy! Meet fascinating life forms... And kill them [schlockmercenary.com]
(Score: 2) by Kromagv0 on Tuesday March 10 2015, @06:19PM
While I did figure out how to modify an AK type weapon in fairly short order (can a semi-auto firearm get much simpler than one of these?) you are correct in that one would be a fool to actually proceed with any such modifications for the exact reasons you cite. My impression of the AK was that it wouldn't even take a skilled gunsmith just someone who can use a hacksaw and files to fabricate something of reasonable quality. The modification I thought of would not have been permanent so the fact that others have likely had similar thoughts and implemented them shouldn't be a surprise. Also full auto is good for expending copious amounts of ammo but not much else. Granted with an AK that would only come out to about $7 per 30 round mag but that still gets expensive quick. Then again I am someone who follows the law and if I get a desire to waste some money one of the gun ranges nearby well rent you one and you don't have to deal with acquiring (legal or otherwise) and maintaining the thing either.
T-Shirts and bumper stickers [zazzle.com] to offend someone
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 10 2015, @04:47PM
That sort of absolutism leads to our current "Tens of thousands of Mexicans shot with guns bought in the US." situation.
You cannot say, "That interpretation leads to undesirable thing X, so it's wrong." If you want to change the constitution, you have to amend it. You can't have the government ignoring it because you don't like the consequences.
As for me, I'll take freedom over safety. Get rid of the TSA, the NSA's mass surveillance, DUI checkpoints, protest permits, stop-and-frisk-like policies, free speech zones, unjust asset forfeiture, unfettered border searches, unconstitutional wiretapping of all forms, and the countless other violations of our liberties and constitution.
(Score: 2) by LaminatorX on Tuesday March 10 2015, @06:50PM
None of our rights are absolute, they all are subject to tests of reasonableness based on the trade off between the freedom of the individual and the harm to others that individual can cause in the exercise of that freedom. I tend to think that keeping track of ownership of dangerous things is not an infringement on one's right to keep and bear them, and could mitigate a lot of harm. It's fine if you disagree and have good reasons for thinking that particular line should be drawn elsewhere, but don't pretend that an absolute interpretation of our rights is the only valid one, or even the norm.
(Score: 1) by Fauxlosopher on Tuesday March 10 2015, @07:01PM
The phrase you're looking for is "prior restraint [wikipedia.org]", and the concept applies just as much to other rights as it does to free speech.
You may well be correct in a nation where those in government own the rest of the people. In a nation where the government's authority originates from and is limited to that of ultimately a single individual, you cannot be correct. Rights are absolute, with the only boundary being those absolute rights of other humans. Protip: there is no right to "feel safe".
(Score: 2) by Anal Pumpernickel on Tuesday March 10 2015, @07:29PM
None of our rights are absolute
In the US, if the constitution says they are, then the government has no legitimate authority to claim otherwise.
they all are subject to tests of reasonableness
As defined by the constitution. Sometimes there are no tests of "reasonableness" at all.
There is no reason a right couldn't logically be absolute. That the government chooses to ignore the constitution is a different matter. Some rights are absolute if you apply a logical interpretation of the constitution, rather than modifying it with invisible ink so you can include restrictions you believe are 'reasonable.'
I tend to think that keeping track of ownership of dangerous things is not an infringement on one's right to keep and bear them
Nonsense. What happens if you don't allow yourself to be tracked? You will be punished for keeping and bearing arms in a way the government did not like, which obviously violates your rights.
but don't pretend that an absolute interpretation of our rights is the only valid one, or even the norm.
Whether it is valid or not depends on the issue; sometimes it is. As for being the norm, I don't care what is the norm; most people are both ignorant and unintelligent. Plenty support the NSA's mass surveillance, after all.
(Score: 2) by Kromagv0 on Tuesday March 10 2015, @02:42PM
Yes people are allowed to own machine guns in the US but owning one is expensive (typically start at $15,000 and go up from there) as they have to have been made before 1986 so the supply is rather limited. Also if one owns a machine gun the feds can supposedly come and check up on your machine gun at any time. It is more than just notifying your local sheriff to get one since to buy one requires, living in a state that allows you to own one, passing an intensive background check (done by the FBI IIRC), submitting fingerprints, as well as paying a tax for the privilege of owning one.
At one point I looked into what it would take to get one since I was moderately curious and thought it would be neat to own but apart from wasting copious amounts of ammo at the range it really wouldn't be useful. Besides if I get the urge to shoot a machine gun the range offers rentals and I only have to pay for ammo and not deal with the maintenance.
T-Shirts and bumper stickers [zazzle.com] to offend someone
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 10 2015, @05:25PM
Machine-guns are useful for pinning down an enemy while your riflemen advance on them.
This is why it IS effectivly illegal for mere peon civillian pieces of shit like oursleves to have such things: our rulers wish to deny us that tactic.
(Score: 2) by cmn32480 on Tuesday March 10 2015, @02:48PM
Caveats:
1) The current law requires that transferable Actual Machine Guns were made before May 19, 1986. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Firearms_Act [wikipedia.org] - See the section on Registration, Purchases, Taxes, and Transfers) The guns sell in price exponentially higher than their original sale value because of this.
2) They must be legal in the state where you live.
"It's a dog eat dog world, and I'm wearing Milkbone underwear" - Norm Peterson
(Score: 1) by redneckmother on Tuesday March 10 2015, @04:14PM
Erm, like Eric Holder?
Mas cerveza por favor.
(Score: 5, Informative) by tibman on Tuesday March 10 2015, @03:49PM
I was in the US Army and was issued a "stun gun" for a few weeks. It seemed perfectly suitable for that job. I also had a shotgun with various less-than-lethal rounds. I had a compressed air gun (like a paintball gun) that shot fin-stabilized rounds. I had assorted less-than-lethal rounds for my m203 (a shotgun-like 48x 48cal pellet round and a foam projectile round). I had a pepper spray like devices, one that shot streams and one that shot fog. I had pepper spray grenade things. They landed, self-righted, then popped up into the air before exploding pepperspray down onto people. There were some mounted systems ones too, like the LRAD (long range acoustic device). I was also issued a stick (they called it a baton).
The best weapon to use for a less-than-lethal situation was ALWAYS the stun gun. OC/Pepper spray stays around afterwards and basically continues to attack the subject even after they are complying. Rubber pellets and torpedos can kill (saw an X-Ray of a rubber round inside someone's skull). Compressed air gun can kill, like the shotgun. M203 could kill. The glue that holds the foam dart to the plastic casing could melt. Firing it would cause the foam dart to veer off target. The weighted plastic part stays on course. Not good. I never fired the massive m203 48 pellet grenade and TBH was afraid too. Shit was huge and barely fit into the breech. LRAD was like lasers and shrill sirens had a baby. It was a good deterrent but worthless to control any situation. Stun gun was the best less-than-lethal weapon. That "top court" is stupid.
SN won't survive on lurkers alone. Write comments.
(Score: 2) by Kromagv0 on Tuesday March 10 2015, @04:22PM
<sarcasm>Don't worry this case like the old one I linked to are not about a judges understanding of what are useful to the military and in actual use but about their personal feelings on ownership of arms.</sarcasm>
The issue in the first case was around the ownership of a sawed off shotgun and there the government argued that there was not military purpose for one of those. Even though during WWI sawed off shotguns were very effective and even had a name for how they were used and they were very effective in trench fighting. One thing of note in the old case is that the defendant was black and there seemed to be a lot of racism at play in that one and in this new case I wonder if a similar thing is going one. I have no way to tell as the defendant's race isn't mentioned and I can't find a picture of her but it wouln't surprise me to find out the defendant is a minority.
T-Shirts and bumper stickers [zazzle.com] to offend someone
(Score: 2) by TheRaven on Tuesday March 10 2015, @04:41PM
Stun gun was the best less-than-lethal weapon.
The fact that you were trained with them, yet apparently believe that they are not in the 'can kill' category that you put some other less-lethal weapons in is slightly alarming. They're likely to be fatal to anyone with a heart condition or pacemaker and can be lethal to otherwise healthy people depending on where you hit them and a few other factors. There is no such thing as a 'less-than-lethal weapon' there are only less-probable-to-be-lethal weapons.
One of the problems with giving the police Tasers is that they are far more likely to fire a 'non-lethal' weapon at someone than a gun (though the police in the USA seem to be redressing this) and are often not aware of how likely that weapon actually is to be lethal.
sudo mod me up
(Score: 2) by tibman on Tuesday March 10 2015, @09:37PM
You are actually mixing terms. Non-Lethal means that it cannot kill. Less-than-lethal means that it is designed to be non-lethal but can result in death. Lethal is a weapon intended to kill. I was never trained with a non-lethal weapon.
SN won't survive on lurkers alone. Write comments.
(Score: 2) by MichaelDavidCrawford on Tuesday March 10 2015, @06:53PM
I've been tazed four times, each time by Clark County, Washington Sheriff's Deputies. The last time I grabbed the wires and yanked them free of the tazer.
Note that these were law enforcement tazers, they have a much higher voltage than the public is permitted to use.
The effectiveness of a tazer has a lot to do with that it is frightening. There's not a whole lot that frightens me, with the exception of security cameras everywhere I go.
Yes I Have No Bananas. [gofundme.com]
(Score: 2) by tibman on Tuesday March 10 2015, @09:59PM
I think you are both right and wrong :) Yes, it is intended to be frightening. But you were only able to pull the wires out after the tazing was done (or it was dialed down). My buddies and i tazed each other while attempting to perform simple duties (like tying a shoe) and it is impossible. I can do it while holding the electrodes in one hand, or if the electrodes did not penetrate my skin. But if those electrodes bury themselves in you like intended then nothing short of pliers are going to get them free of your body. Those wires are over 10 meters long too. So "yanking them free of the tazer" would require pulling several meters of wire towards you. But maybe you are different and can perform actual tasks. That's far better than myself and buddies ever managed.
SN won't survive on lurkers alone. Write comments.
(Score: 1) by Fauxlosopher on Tuesday March 10 2015, @10:40PM
Nah. You can watch federal agents taser one man multiple times [youtube.com], and each time he's mobile (which, yes, depends on where the electrodes hit) and has them pulled out almost immediately by himself or by other bystanders. Later photos show him bloody [nydailynews.com] in spots, but pliers are absolutely not required. There have also been several news reports I've read (but cannot remember enough details to quickly find) that give accounts of lone individuals being tasered and pulling out the electrodes themselves.