To provide the best experiences, we use technologies like cookies to store and/or access device information. Consenting to these technologies will allow us to process data such as browsing behavior or unique IDs on this site. Not consenting or withdrawing consent, may adversely affect certain features and functions.
The technical storage or access is strictly necessary for the legitimate purpose of enabling the use of a specific service explicitly requested by the subscriber or user, or for the sole purpose of carrying out the transmission of a communication over an electronic communications network.
The technical storage or access is necessary for the legitimate purpose of storing preferences that are not requested by the subscriber or user.
The technical storage or access that is used exclusively for statistical purposes.
The technical storage or access that is used exclusively for anonymous statistical purposes. Without a subpoena, voluntary compliance on the part of your Internet Service Provider, or additional records from a third party, information stored or retrieved for this purpose alone cannot usually be used to identify you.
The technical storage or access is required to create user profiles to send advertising, or to track the user on a website or across several websites for similar marketing purposes.
That actually hurt my head a little.
I have GOT to stop grinding my teeth while reading TTAG. One or the other, but not both…
Always “reasonable” regulation and control. Who determines reasonable? The same people who define “common sense?”
“reasonable regulation and control” means stopping an assailant or armed robber.
Such non-preemptive regulation isn’t a bad idea.
We have the right with or without 2A. The second amendment just so states it for the ill informed. The only legitimate regulation is of those who lose certain of their rights through incarceration.
Correct me if I’m wrong, but isn’t he basically just stating what the Supremes have recently decreed? It’s an individual right, but still subject to some amount of regulations and/or restrictions?
I concur Flubnut.
By the way I do NOT agree with the recent Supreme Court holding that the 2nd Amendment is subject to “reasonable regulations”. That is Pandora’s box and totally guts the right. Any number of entities can enact an infinite number of “regulations”. And if/when any regulations appear before the courts, the courts can use just about any level of judicial scrutiny to review the regulations. All the Supreme did was create a massive bonanza for attorneys and political action entities.
Let’s think about this for a sec, Dan. Why would somebody put a regulation on a right? Hmmm, very interesting…
Here’s the way I see it, Dan. Guy puts a fancy regulation on a right ’cause he wants you to feel all warm and toasty inside.
And, ‘course you do. Why shouldn’t ya? Ya figure you put that little regulation under your pillow at night, the Regulation Fairy might come by and leave a quarter, am I right, Dan?
The point is, how do you know the Regulation Fairy isn’t a crazy glue sniffer? “Building model airplanes” says the little Fairy; well, we’re not buying it. He sneaks into your house once, that’s all it takes. The next thing you know, there’s money missing off the dresser, and your daughter’s knocked up. I seen it a hundred times.
See, they know all they sold ya was some regulated piece of shit. And, that’s all the regulation really is, isn’t it?
But hey, if you want me to take a dump on a right and mark it regulation, I will. I got spare time. But for now, for your right’s sake, and for your daughter’s sake, ya might wanna stop thinking your rights are subject regulations.
“subject to reasonable regulation and control”
At first blush that sounds sensible. So here is the ginormous problem. Who defines “reasonable”? Who creates the regulations and controls?
That’s the catch all, isn’t it ?
To me, it’s reasonable to to eat right and exercise. To others, it’s reasonable to intravenously use heroin.
What defines reasonable?
I would say that if there were not a single gun control law on the books we would have reasonable regulations in the form of laws making illegal the crimes of murder, robbery, rape, assault, etc. using any weapon or no weapon at all.
A regulated right is not a right at all. It is a privilege they haven’t gotten around to taking away yet.
ignorance is like deodorant….the people that really need it don’t use it….
Quick translation: “I believe tha 2nd amendment means what it says, but….”
Here’s what sets us “fanatics” apart from the grabbers. Here’s a study which clearly disproves a huge argument put forth as “fact” by the state committee for disarmament. But instead of running with the ball and drawing all sorts of wild conclusions and then publicizing them until our eyes bleed, we take an objective approach and actually ask what, exactly, has been proven.
Not like the “90% of gun owners support gun control” trope that continues to be trotted out day after day after day by the opposition. A meaningless factoid borne out of a flawed “study” on its best day.
Just like voting is an individual right – subject to “reasonable” restrictions (like photo ID).
Slow down people – he may or may not be an enemy, but that statement is not sufficient to say what he is by itself. Payne is both right and wrong at the same time, which is not that uncommon on this topic. Yes, RKBA is an individual right, defined as such by the framers (“the right of the People to keep and bear arms”). Confirmed by SCOTUS in Heller.
So, now the sticky part. SCOTUS in Heller said the RKBA was subject to regulation defined by legislators; the whole thing about RKBA not including rocket launchers. So, Payne’s statement is technically and legally accurate. But it is also wrong in the sense that the framers were quite explicit with “shall not be infringed.”
Here’s the source of the problem. When the NFA was passed in 1934, the government began infringing on the RKBA, per the language in the Constitution, because the NFA clearly – per dictionary definition – infringes on the RKBA. At least that’s what I personally think, as do most of the people on this site.
SCOTUS has never fundamentally interpreted, via opinion, exactly what “shall not be infringed” means. Their opinions start from a basic premise that the RKBA has already been infringed and their rulings start from that historical precedent. To most of us on the 2A activism side, the meaning is clear. No regulation. No limitation. NOTHING. And then the fun starts. Does it include nukes? Does it include tanks and jet fighters and JDAMS and SAWs and on and on and on…
Some people on our side, myself included, think everything passed in and since the NFA is basically wrong, at least in terms of hand-held weapons, and should be repealed. Some very reasonable people ON OUR SIDE think that the NFA is ok, except maybe for suppressors and barrel length, but are cool with restrictions on full auto. Some very reasonable people ON OUR SIDE, think the NFA is basically ok, but everything passed since then is wrong. Or everything passed in 1968 is wrong/ok, and everything since then should be repealed, and on and on and on.
The guy basically re-stated Heller. Payne is accurate. The only way to see where he falls in the wide spectrum of what “infringed” practically means is to engage him in conversation, not condemnation.
Simple enough. Repeal the NFA!
Yes the 2nd Amendment is an individual right just as the 1st Amendment is an individual right. Neither can be infringed by regulations or controls. The flip side, where folks get confused, is that both Amendments do not provide absolute immunity for an individual abusing their rights. You can yell fire in a crowded theater, but you cannot invoke the 1st Amendment as your defense if you knew your fire yell was a hoax. As a civilization, we can and should hold you accountable for your abuse and dangerously reckless behavior. The 2nd Amendment should work the same way.
The unlawful discharge of a firearm statute specifically exempts use of deadly force under ARS Title 13 Chapter 4 Justification statutes. I don’t see a conviction happening here. This includes defense of third parties.
If they feel his actions were not reasonable and immediately necessary, aggravated assault, disorderly conduct, or endangerment charges would have made more sense. The fact he wasn’t charged with any of those is defects saying he was acting under the justification statutes.
I bet that guard is thankful he step in!
I’m sick and tired of this “gun violence” term that is being thrown around. Everyone must be perfectly happy with all of the other forms of violence, as long as we get rid of “gun violence”. Ridiculous! It’s time we start exerting some political pressure on our representatives about this. Violence, in and of itself, should be reduced. Yes, it’s a complex problem, but unless we identify the causes, there will never be a real chance of combating this problem.
Todd Vandermyde
he has done good work in Illinois and is a 2A guy all the way. One of us.
You can’t have Vandermyde. We need him in IL.
I can’t believe they are charging Brewer! I sorry but it must be said. The criminals weren’t BLACK. If they were black I could understand political pressure, but they were all white.
First, outside of a sidearm and Pmags, polymer has no place being in a battle system.
Second, one *4 shot* group does not make this a sub-moa gun.
It is a stupid ad and an enormous waste of money.
Concealed carry permits are the state’s way of finding out who tends to be law-abiding, supportive of order, yet skilled with firearms. This is very useful information at times when serious disorder breaks out. CCW holders are the least likely to take advantage of disorder and the government knows it. I’m good with that, but I suspect many have a different view of the matter and of themselves.
The only firearms-related question current governing power coalitions have is whether, under chaotic circumstances, they have enough CCW types to help return the status quo, or whether, instead, even the CCW-types would wish for the overthrow of the prior arrangements. I’d take Michigan as a state believing in the former, and NY (or NYC) being an example of the latter belief. It isn’t chance that the core zones of densely populated inequality (ratio of poor service workers to seriously rich folks) are exactly those where CCW permits are difficult to get (SF, Chicago, NYC, the CT financial centers, DE’s chateau country, etc.).
Briefly, then, Detroit’s PD chief can fairly assume that the CCW’s or legal gun owners remaining in Detroit are law-abiding. Since the seriously rich don’t live within Detroit any more (unlike NYC, SF, and others) he doesn’t see gun ownership as a serious class issue. He would prefer a home-grown violence-damping solution to yet another humiliating call-out of the National Guard. He is entirely sensible his conclusion.
I was at a Christmas function in my home town and I had a guy running for sheriff stop to talk about getting my vote…in the beginning of the conversation he asked me if I had my CCW permit yet and that if I don’t I need to go get one…he got my vote…not just for that but his long remarkable resume he had.
seems to me every one has their own opinon on the c9. cant really6 get a true rating on the hp. think the best thing is just take the one I bought out and shoot it and see what I think about it. don’t have anything to compare it to tho as I havnt fired a simi auto in a pistol before which might be a good thing.
Every time a gun rights group takes on one of these cases and wins, the government has to write a nice check payable to the SAF etc.
I guess that our rulers are getting tired of funding the opposition.
I realize that police officers have to wear some sort of rank on their uniforms. However, any chief, of even the largest city, who wears General of the Army insignia is someone who does a disservice to Marshall, MacArthur, Eisenhower, Bradley, Leahy, King, Nimitz, Halsey, and Arnold. Those men bore colossal responsibilities that far exceed those that are borne by Chief Craig.
The DEA/CIA gets drugs from the cartels, turns it into money using Rick Ross[1], and then completes shipments of arms in reciprocation through the ATF [2]. To recoup any losses, the NSA provides them with drug interdiction tip-offs on “accidental” recordings[3] if the ATF/DEA promises to strip citizens of their rights to vote and bear arms [citation needed?]. In combination with NAFTA[4] this is far more than an effective plan to keep the hardest working country in the world poor[5]. Thus keeping them from ever becoming a North American super power.
Lol, that was actually very fun to write. Alex Jones would be proud…….. Too bad I’m gonna get strip searched at the border next time :/
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%22Freeway%22_Rick_Ross
[2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ATF_gunwalking_scandal
[3] http://www.huffingtonpost.com/richard-shrubb/nsa-involved-in-drugs-bus_b_3719810.html
[4] http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/11/mexican-farmers-agricultural-subsidies_n_2457845.html
[5] http://www.businessinsider.com/the-hardest-working-countries-in-the-world-2011-4?op=1
Afghani Dutch Oven
There is more to the ear tip selection than you may think. I use a pair of GSP-15’s and do not shoot without them. I shoot competitive long range bench rest.
I found the black foam tips to seal the best. The seal of the ear tip is key!
The silicon ribbed tips can not only be uncomfortable if the size isn’t exactly right, but they can be difficult to seal. And, if they don’t seal, you will not get proper noise protection. The NRR attenuation mandated by OSHA is the maximum attenuation minus the statistical worse case error in poor fitting. The fitting is up to the user! With proper fitting, the attenuation will be limited by the attenuation through your mastoid bone, not through the GSP-15!
I am a long time user of Etymotic products, I have a pair of old ER-6 insert earphones (since replaced by the HF series) and they originally came with soft 2 ridge silicon tips. If they weren’t fitted correctly, you had absolutely no bass response as they were leaking! I wore them on my sport-touring motorcycle to listen to music from an mp3 player as well as blocking out other outside environmental noises. On the bike, if I heard wind noise, I knew I had a poor seal. Without the wind noise indicator, I just lost Bass.
With the GSP-15, without a seal, you lose protection.
Just insert them carefully! And, pick the correct for you tip!
Accursed spawn of a camel infidel! I will shoot you with my Koran-approved AK as soon as I chew some eye holes in this stinkin’ veil!
If for some reason you wanted to buy one of threes, or two other models, Woot has them for $249, which does not sound like a deal. http://sport.woot.com/offers/rapid-reticle-evolution-scope-3-choices?utm_source=Commission+Junction+Publisher+-+5426040&utm_medium=affiliate+-+Product+Catalog&utm_campaign=Commission+Junction+-+10860750