I wish them luck.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/06/aclu-police-militarization-swat_n_2813334.html
QuoteACLU Launches Nationwide Police Militarization Investigation
Posted: 03/06/2013 8:38 am EST | Updated: 03/06/2013 4:56 pm EST
The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) has launched a nationwide campaign to assess police militarization in the United States. Starting Wednesday, ACLU affiliates in 23 states are sending open records requests to hundreds of state and local police agencies requesting information about their SWAT teams, such as how often and for what reasons they're deployed, what types of weapons they use, how often citizens are injured during SWAT raids, and how they're funded. More affiliates may join the effort in the coming weeks.
Additionally, the affiliates will ask for information about drones, GPS tracking devices, how much military equipment the police agencies have obtained through programs run through the Pentagon and the Department of Homeland Security, and how often and for what purpose state National Guards are participating in enforcement of drug laws.
"We've known for a while now that American neighborhoods are increasingly being policed by cops armed with the weapons and tactics of war," said Kara Dansky, senior counsel at the ACLU's Center for Justice, which is coordinating the investigation. "The aim of this investigation is to find out just how pervasive this is, and to what extent federal funding is incentivizing this trend."
The militarization of America's police forces has been going on for about a generation now. Former Los Angeles Police Chief Daryl Gates first conceived the idea of the SWAT team in the late 1960s, in response to the Watts riots and a few mass shooting incidents for which he thought the police were unprepared. Gates wanted an elite team of specialized cops similar to groups like the Army Rangers or Navy SEALs that could respond to riots, barricades, shootouts, or hostage-takings with more skill and precision than everyday patrol officers.
The concept caught on, particularly after a couple of high-profile, televised confrontations between Gates' SWAT team and a Black Panther holdout in 1969, and then with the Symbionese Liberation Army in 1973. Given the rioting, protests, and general social unrest of the time, Gates' idea quickly grew popular in law enforcement circles, particularly in cities worried about rioting and domestic terrorism.
From Gates' lone team in LA, according to a New York Times investigation, the number of SWAT teams in the U.S. grew to 500 by 1975. By 1982, nearly 60 percent of American cities with 50,000 or more people had a SWAT team.
Throughout those early years, SWAT teams were generally used as Gates had intended. They deployed when there was a suspect, gunman or escaped fugitive who posed an immediate threat to the public, using force to defuse an already violent situation.
By 1995, however, nearly 90 percent of cities with 50,000 or more people had a SWAT team -- and many had several, according to Peter Kraska, a criminologist at Eastern Kentucky University, who in the late 1990s conducted two highly publicized surveys of police departments across the country, and a follow-up survey several years later. Even in smaller towns -- municipalities with 25,000 to 50,000 people -- Kraska found that the number of SWAT teams increased by more than 300 percent between 1984 and 1995. By 2000, 75 percent of those towns also had their own SWAT team.
Kraska estimates that total number of SWAT raids in America jumped from just a few hundred per year in the 1970s, to a few thousand by the early 1980s, to around 50,000 by the mid-2000s.
The vast majority of those raids are to serve warrants on people suspected of nonviolent drug crimes. Police forces were no longer reserving SWAT teams and paramilitary tactics for events that presented an immediate threat to the public. They were now using them mostly as an investigative tool in drug cases, creating violent confrontations with people suspected of nonviolent, consensual crimes.
It was during the Reagan administration that the SWAT-ification of America really began to accelerate. Reagan (and a compliant Congress) passed policies encouraging cooperation and mutual training between the military and police agencies. The president set up joint task forces in which domestic cops and soldiers worked together on anti-drug operations. And, with some help from Congress, he nudged the Pentagon to start loaning or even giving surplus military gear to law enforcement agencies. Subsequent administrations continued all of these policies -- and a number of new ones.
After Reagan, new federal policies provided yet more incentive for militarization. In 1988, Congress created the Byrne grant program, which gives money to local police departments and prosecutors for a number of different criminal justice purposes. But a large portion of Byrne grant money over the years has been earmarked for anti-drug policing. Competition among police agencies for the pool of cash has made anti-drug policing a high priority. And once there was federal cash available for drug busts, drug raids became more common.
Byrne grants also created and funded anti-narcotics multi-jurisdictional task forces. These roving teams of drug cops are often entirely funded with grants and through asset forfeiture, and usually don't report to any single police agency. The poor incentives and lack of real accountability have produced some catastrophic results, like the mass drug raid debacles in Tulia and Hearne, Texas, in the late 1990s.
But politicians love the Byrne grant program. Congressmen get to put out press releases announcing the new half-million dollar grant they've just helped secure for the hometown police department. And everyone gets to look tough on crime.
During the Clinton administration, Congress passed what's now known as the "1033 Program," which formalized and streamlined the Reagan administration's directive to the Pentagon to share surplus military gear with domestic police agencies. Since then, millions of pieces of military equipment designed for use on a battlefield have been transferred to local cops -- SWAT teams and others -- including machine guns, tanks, armored personnel carriers, helicopters, bayonets, and weapons that shoot .50-caliber ammunition. Clinton also created the "Troops to Cops" program, which offered grants to police departments who hired soldiers returning from battle, contributing even further to the militarization of the police force.
Even programs with noble aims have gone awry. Clinton also created the Community-Oriented Policing Services program (COPS), the aim of which was to promote a less confrontational style of policing. But subsequent investigations by publications in Portland, Ore., and Madison, Wis., showed that those grants often went to start or fund SWAT teams. In fact, in interviews with police chiefs as part of his study, Kraska found that many of them believed SWAT raids and militarized policing were perfectly consistent with a community policing approach to crime control.
There hasn't been a major effort to quantify the militarization trend since Kraska's studies in the late 1990s. That's what the ACLU is hoping to do with this investigation.
"You may remember the story from late last year about Pargould, Arkansas, where the mayor and police chief announced that they were going to send the SWAT team out on routine patrols in 'problem neighborhoods' to stop and harass the people who lived in them. After the story made national news, they changed that policy. But how many places is this happening where it isn't making news? That's one of the things we're hoping to find out," Dansky said.
One problem the ACLU may run into is a lack of cooperation from the police agencies it's investigating. Kraska said that when he conducted his surveys in the 1990s, police departments were forthcoming, and even boastful about their SWAT teams. "We had a really high response rate," he said. "But when the reports came out and were critical, and the press coverage was critical, they stopped cooperating." Kraska said the response rate for his follow-up survey dropped off, and that police agencies haven't cooperated with subsequent similar efforts by other criminologists.
In 2009, Maryland passed a SWAT transparency law. It requires every police agency in the state with a SWAT team to provide data twice per year on the number of times the SWAT team is deployed, the reason for the deployment, whether any shots were fired, and whether the raid resulted in criminal charges. The effort to get the law passed was led by Cheye Calvo, the mayor of Berwyn Heights, Md., who was the victim of a highly publicized mistaken raid on his home in which a Prince George's County SWAT team shot and killed his two black Labradors. The bill puts no restrictions on SWAT teams or how they're used. Its only purpose is transparency. Still, it was vigorously opposed by every police agency in the state.
"This is one of the most intrusive things a government can do," Calvo said. "These are government agents, breaking down your door, invading your home. And yet it's all done in secret. In most cases, no one knows what criteria police are using when they decide how to serve a search warrant. There's no transparency, there's no oversight."
"After the law was passed," he continued, "we found out that there are ZIP codes in Maryland where every search warrant is served by a SWAT team. I mean, even if you don't care about civil liberties, in some places less than half of these raids result in so much as a single arrest. So you're conducting these dangerous, volatile raids, you're terrifying people and putting them at risk, and you're serving no law enforcement purpose."
Neither Kraska nor Calvo are optimistic that the ACLU will get much cooperation. "I'd imagine they'll mostly be declined," Calvo said.
"My experience is that they'll have a very difficult time getting comprehensive, forthright information," Kraska said. "If the goal here is to impose some transparency, you have to understand, that's not what the SWAT industry wants."
Dansky said the ACLU is prepared to go to court to get access to the information it's seeking. "We don't expect we'll need to for information on the equipment these police agencies have received from the Defense Department or Homeland Security," she said. "But if we need to challenge these departments on the information about their SWAT teams, we'll do that. And if these police agencies do refuse to release this public information to our affiliates, that in itself is something the public should know."
The National Sheriffs Association and the National Association of Chiefs of Police did not respond to HuffPost requests for comment. But Mark Lomax, executive director of the National Tactical Officers Association -- a trade association and lobbying group for SWAT teams -- said he has no problem with releasing the information the ACLU is requesting.
"There's nothing to hide here," Lomax said. "The only stipulations I'd add is that I'd oppose releasing information about the specific tactics a police department uses. There also might be legal reasons for not releasing information -- if cases are in litigation, for example. I'd also be concerned about how the data is used. You can make information like that say whatever you want it to. But in general I wouldn't have a problem with making it available."
It's almost certain that if the police agencies cooperate, the ACLU will find that the militarization trend has accelerated since Kraska's studies more than a decade ago. All of the policies, incentives and funding mechanisms that were driving the trend then are still in effect now. And most of them have grown in size and scope.
The George W. Bush administration actually began scaling down the Byrne and COPS programs in the early 2000s, part of a general strategy of leaving law enforcement to states and localities. But the Obama administration has since resurrected both programs. The Byrne program got a $2 billion surge in funding as part of the 2009 American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, by far the largest budget in the program's 25-year history. Obama also gave the COPS program $1.55 billion that same year, a 250 percent increase over its 2008 budget, and again the largest budget in the program's history. Vice President Joe Biden had championed both programs during his time in the Senate.
The Pentagon's 1033 program has also exploded under Obama. In the program's monthly newsletter (Motto: "From Warfighter to Crimefighter"), its director announced in October 2011 that his office had given away a record $500 million in military gear in fiscal year 2011, which he noted, "passes the previous mark by several hundred million dollars." He added, "I believe we can exceed that in FY 12."
Then there are the Department of Homeland Security's anti-terrorism grants. The Center for Investigative Reporting found in a 2011 investigation that since 2001, DHS has given out more than $34 billion in grants to police departments across the country, many of which have been used to purchase military-grade guns, tanks, armor, and armored personnel carriers. The grants have gone to such unlikely terrorism targets as Fargo, N.D.; Canyon County, Idaho; and Tuscaloosa, Ala.
In the tiny town of Keene, N.H.,, the citizens protested plans to purchase a Lenco Bearcat armored personnel carrier with a DHS grant. One resident told HuffPost last year, "Keene is a beautiful place. It's gorgeous, and it's safe, and we love it here. We just don't want to live in the kind of place where there's an armored personnel carrier parked outside of City Hall ... It's just not who we are."
They succeeded only in delaying the purchase by a few months. Keene now has a Bearcat. To town officials, it was a no-brainer. Keene was getting a $400,000 vehicle from the federal government, essentially for free. Why wouldn't it accept?
"From all indications, I would think the DHS grants and increased federal funding could only speed up the militarization process," Kraska said. "And now you have an entire industry that has sprung up just to take advantage of those grants -- and to lobby to make sure they keep coming."
Like the Maryland law, the ACLU program is really only seeking information. Once it gets the information, Dansky said the organization will analyze the figures and recommend policies to minimize the effects of police militarization on civil liberties. "We're also concerned that these tactics are disproportionately used against poor people, and in communities of color," Dansky said. "And SWAT is really only part of it. The effects of militarization also happen beyond and outside of just an increase in SWAT deployments."
Of course, you can always gather information showing a troubling rise in the use of military weapons and tactics among domestic police agencies, make sensible recommendations for reform, and get no interest at all from politicians and policymakers. Kraska's studies in the late 1990s, and subsequent media reports, did nothing to stem the increased militarization of the police.
And in Maryland, the transparency law has shown that police departments in the state are using SWAT tactics in precisely the ways critics have claimed: to break into homes to serve warrants on people suspected of low-level drug crimes. Many times, they're not even finding enough contraband to make an arrest. Yet there haven't been any calls in the state to reform the way SWAT teams are used.
"I wish the ACLU success," Calvo said. "And I suspect that once they force the police agencies to cooperate, they'll find that this problem is even more dramatic and pronounced than most people know. But then the question is, now what? Even if you can show that people are being victimized and terrorized by these tactics -- and to no good end -- if no one cares, then what does it matter?"
It is a very strange thing the militarization of the cops, and a good example of federal programs and money having perverse unintended consequences.
Quote from: Valmy on March 06, 2013, 05:26:02 PM
It is a very strange thing the militarization of the cops, and a good example of federal programs and money having perverse unintended consequences.
I bet the paramilitary thing is fun for them. Plus, cops are too fat to join the real military so this is their only chance to wear tactical gear & shoot military grade weapons.
In one sense I can see this as an entirely appropriate response to the growing militarisation of the American populous at large.
Quote from: mongers on March 06, 2013, 05:35:59 PM
In one sense I can see this as an entirely appropriate response to the growing militarisation of the American populous at large.
Which isn't happening, but thanks for playing :)
Quote from: mongers on March 06, 2013, 05:35:59 PM
In one sense I can see this as an entirely appropriate response to the growing militarisation of the American populous at large.
What do you mean?
Quote from: jimmy olsen on March 06, 2013, 05:37:03 PM
Quote from: mongers on March 06, 2013, 05:35:59 PM
In one sense I can see this as an entirely appropriate response to the growing militarisation of the American populous at large.
What do you mean?
What I said.
Quote from: mongers on March 06, 2013, 06:07:40 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on March 06, 2013, 05:37:03 PM
Quote from: mongers on March 06, 2013, 05:35:59 PM
In one sense I can see this as an entirely appropriate response to the growing militarisation of the American populous at large.
What do you mean?
What I said.
What you said was vague. What are the characteristics of the militirization of the American populace?
Quote from: mongers on March 06, 2013, 05:35:59 PM
In one sense I can see this as an entirely appropriate response to the growing militarisation of the American populous at large.
I'm not sure I see this happening. If anything, Americans are a lot less jingoistic these days than we were just after 9/11.
Quote from: derspiess on March 06, 2013, 05:32:16 PM
Plus, cops are too fat to join the real military so this is their only chance to wear tactical gear & shoot military grade weapons.
There's that crowd and then there are the ex-military/ex-military police crowd. This militarization thing is perfectly natural for them.
Quote from: fahdiz on March 06, 2013, 06:43:11 PM
Quote from: mongers on March 06, 2013, 05:35:59 PM
In one sense I can see this as an entirely appropriate response to the growing militarisation of the American populous at large.
I'm not sure I see this happening. If anything, Americans are a lot less jingoistic these days than we were just after 9/11.
I'm not talking about the national attitudes, but the 'physicality' of 200+ million firearms and growing. Plus the burying frenzy as recently detailed by 11B4V in the firearms thread.
And that amounts to militarization? :lol:
I am a Kentucky Colonel.
Quote from: Ed Anger on March 06, 2013, 07:16:25 PM
I am a Kentucky Colonel.
And that makes Caliga cry himself to sleep every night.
Quote from: derspiess on March 06, 2013, 07:14:22 PM
And that amounts to militarization? :lol:
That and the talk of the need to fight the tyranny of the federal government.
Quote from: Razgovory on March 06, 2013, 07:36:58 PM
Quote from: derspiess on March 06, 2013, 07:14:22 PM
And that amounts to militarization? :lol:
That and the talk of the need to fight the tyranny of the federal government.
Nope, still not militarization.
What is "militarization" in your book?
Quote from: Razgovory on March 06, 2013, 08:14:39 PM
What is "militarization" in your book?
Organizing and equipping for military action.
Quote from: Razgovory on March 06, 2013, 07:36:58 PM
Quote from: derspiess on March 06, 2013, 07:14:22 PM
And that amounts to militarization? :lol:
That and the talk of the need to fight the tyranny of the federal government.
Exercising free speech is a component of militarization? Interesting view.
:unsure: Mostly, the local examples that immediately come to mind are Philadelphia (specifically right off Temple campus) and Camden, and I have a hard time faulting the police for militarizing in those areas- they're pretty much literal war zones. Each one armed itself in the 90s as a response to drug gangs picking up increasingly heavy firepower.
I love how the Languish m.o. is to deliberately misunderstand/misinterpret what other posters are saying and then come up with idiotic semantic points.
Even if you think that the phenomenon happening among the US civilian populace, mongers was referring to, does not amount to "militarization" but is something else, it is pretty fucking clear what he meant so why don't you fucking address his point (i.e. is the "militarization" of the US police forces an appropriate response to the civilian phenomenon that is real, even if you do not think it is "militarization") and not argue some strawman based on a misinterpretation of his words that is clearly at odds with their intended use.
Quote from: Martinus on March 07, 2013, 01:45:15 AMEven if you think that the phenomenon mongers was referring to does not amount to "militarization" but is something else, it is pretty fucking clear what he meant so why don't you fucking address his point and not argue some strawmen based on interpretation of his words that is clearly at odds with their intended use.
Ok then. What is the phenomenon? Gun violence and gun crime are down, dramatically so in comparison to the 1980s for example. So what is growing? And we are talking about literal militarization in the police forces, so using it to mean something besides that is out of context.
And in any case this is not a response to guns in the hands of the American public, it is primarily driven by the drug war.
He explained this - growing gun ownership, coupled with "we are at war" rhetoric from some quarters of the populace. And while gun violence is down, does it also apply to mass gun violence and gun violence for political reasons?
Quote from: HVC on March 06, 2013, 08:02:52 PM
Quote from: Ed Anger on March 06, 2013, 07:16:25 PM
I am a Kentucky Colonel.
you make crappy chicken.
You have to go to Claudia Sanders Dinner House in Shelbyville, KY to get the real stuff now.
Quote from: derspiess on March 06, 2013, 08:36:19 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on March 06, 2013, 08:14:39 PM
What is "militarization" in your book?
Organizing and equipping for military action.
Oh so like a militia.
Quote from: Martinus on March 07, 2013, 01:59:14 AM
He explained this - growing gun ownership, coupled with "we are at war" rhetoric from some quarters of the populace. And while gun violence is down, does it also apply to mass gun violence and gun violence for political reasons?
You have an example of political gun violence going on? I live here, in Texas where supposedly everybody has 50 guns and hates Obama, and I have seen nothing either publicly or privately or statistically to suggest the citizenry is organizing themselves for war against the cops.
But anyway this has nothing to do with what has been going on with the cops, and even if the populace were forming militias to defend themselves from imaginary black helicopters the local cops probably wouldn't have much to do with that.
But my frustration here is it is not related to the subject at hand.
Quote from: Ed Anger on March 06, 2013, 07:16:25 PM
I am a Kentucky Colonel.
Then why the fuck did you close the KFC right outside the base. Shameful. :mad:
People hate the cops until the need one. :lol:
Quote from: 11B4V on March 07, 2013, 12:03:52 PM
People hate the cops until the need one. :lol:
I don't :unsure:
Paying attention to the impacts of unintended government incentives is not the same as hatred.
Quote from: Valmy on March 07, 2013, 12:06:09 PM
Quote from: 11B4V on March 07, 2013, 12:03:52 PM
People hate the cops until the need one. :lol:
I don't :unsure:
Paying attention to the impacts of unintended government incentives is not the same as hatred.
Cops are heavily armed in response to society.
Quote from: 11B4V on March 07, 2013, 12:09:49 PM
Cops are heavily armed in response to society.
Not really. Virtually none of the weapons cops are confronted with are more than handguns. That is just a statistical fact.
Quote from: citizen k on March 06, 2013, 06:45:14 PM
Quote from: derspiess on March 06, 2013, 05:32:16 PM
Plus, cops are too fat to join the real military so this is their only chance to wear tactical gear & shoot military grade weapons.
There's that crowd and then there are the ex-military/ex-military police crowd. This militarization thing is perfectly natural for them.
True statement. Ill add..the "type" of former military matters too. Generally Army/Marines fit your def. of "ex-military". Even though I dislike the term.
Quote from: 11B4V on March 07, 2013, 12:03:52 PM
People hate the cops until the need one. :lol:
How often to people need one vs. getting jammed up by one?
Quote from: garbon on March 07, 2013, 12:31:06 PM
Quote from: 11B4V on March 07, 2013, 12:03:52 PM
People hate the cops until the need one. :lol:
How often to people need one vs. getting jammed up by one?
They wouldnt get jammed up if they werent doing something fucked up.
Quote from: 11B4V on March 07, 2013, 12:34:07 PM
Quote from: garbon on March 07, 2013, 12:31:06 PM
Quote from: 11B4V on March 07, 2013, 12:03:52 PM
People hate the cops until the need one. :lol:
How often to people need one vs. getting jammed up by one?
They wouldnt get jammed up if they werent doing something fucked up.
False.
Quote from: Valmy on March 07, 2013, 12:11:14 PM
Quote from: 11B4V on March 07, 2013, 12:09:49 PM
Cops are heavily armed in response to society.
Not really. Virtually none of the weapons cops are confronted with are more than handguns. That is just a statistical fact.
And SWAT teams do not regularly patrol the city in full gear. I am not sure of your point here?!?
Quote from: Strix on March 07, 2013, 12:37:30 PM
Quote from: Valmy on March 07, 2013, 12:11:14 PM
Quote from: 11B4V on March 07, 2013, 12:09:49 PM
Cops are heavily armed in response to society.
Not really. Virtually none of the weapons cops are confronted with are more than handguns. That is just a statistical fact.
And SWAT teams do not regularly patrol the city in full gear. I am not sure of your point here?!?
Most departments are putting SWAT trained officers on regular Patrol.
Quote from: garbon on March 07, 2013, 12:36:45 PM
Quote from: 11B4V on March 07, 2013, 12:34:07 PM
Quote from: garbon on March 07, 2013, 12:31:06 PM
Quote from: 11B4V on March 07, 2013, 12:03:52 PM
People hate the cops until the need one. :lol:
How often to people need one vs. getting jammed up by one?
They wouldnt get jammed up if they werent doing something fucked up.
False.
That's not false. It doesn't hold true for 100% of the instances but it does have merit. A majority of the shootings and stabbings in Rochester involve groups of people doing fucked up things (drug deals gone bad, screwing each others shorties, disrespect, home invasions looking for drug stashs/money, and so on). Rochester has a lot of crime but most of it involves people engaged in illicit transactions or inappropriate behaviors.
Quote from: Valmy on March 07, 2013, 12:11:14 PM
Quote from: 11B4V on March 07, 2013, 12:09:49 PM
Cops are heavily armed in response to society.
Not really. Virtually none of the weapons cops are confronted with are more than handguns. That is just a statistical fact.
Clueless really. Why have the regular Patrol officers now generally carry a patrol rifle?..i.e. M4 etc.
Quote from: 11B4V on March 07, 2013, 12:42:01 PM
Quote from: Strix on March 07, 2013, 12:37:30 PM
Quote from: Valmy on March 07, 2013, 12:11:14 PM
Quote from: 11B4V on March 07, 2013, 12:09:49 PM
Cops are heavily armed in response to society.
Not really. Virtually none of the weapons cops are confronted with are more than handguns. That is just a statistical fact.
And SWAT teams do not regularly patrol the city in full gear. I am not sure of your point here?!?
Most departments are putting SWAT trained officers on regular Patrol.
:lmfao:
Oh wait, you seem serious.
:lmfao:
Of course the SWAT trained officers are on regular patrols. I do not know of any cities that can afford to have a SWAT team that just sits there waiting for a SWAT worthy emergency.
However, the SWAT officers do not go out in their SWAT gear nor do they engage in SWAT tactics while on patrol. They usually have it in the trunk, so they are ready if they get a call.
Rochester has SCUBA trained officers as well (we get a lot of people dying/falling into the Genesee River...remember that if you drink Genny beer of any type) and they don't patrol in their masks, flippers, and tanks either...
Quote from: Strix on March 07, 2013, 12:46:17 PM
Quote from: 11B4V on March 07, 2013, 12:42:01 PM
Quote from: Strix on March 07, 2013, 12:37:30 PM
Quote from: Valmy on March 07, 2013, 12:11:14 PM
Quote from: 11B4V on March 07, 2013, 12:09:49 PM
Cops are heavily armed in response to society.
Not really. Virtually none of the weapons cops are confronted with are more than handguns. That is just a statistical fact.
And SWAT teams do not regularly patrol the city in full gear. I am not sure of your point here?!?
Most departments are putting SWAT trained officers on regular Patrol.
:lmfao:
Oh wait, you seem serious.
:lmfao:
Of course the SWAT trained officers are on regular patrols. I do not know of any cities that can afford to have a SWAT team that just sits there waiting for a SWAT worthy emergency.
However, the SWAT officers do not go out in their SWAT gear nor do they engage in SWAT tactics while on patrol. They usually have it in the trunk, so they are ready if they get a call.
Rochester has SCUBA trained officers as well (we get a lot of people dying/falling into the Genesee River...remember that if you drink Genny beer of any type) and they don't patrol in their masks, flippers, and tanks either...
Are you that obtuse. :lol: Really.
Quote from: 11B4V on March 07, 2013, 12:48:07 PM
Are you that obtuse. :lol: Really.
I was trying to respond to your pointless post. So if it seems obtuse that is only because of the material I had to work with.
Quote from: Strix on March 07, 2013, 12:53:21 PM
Quote from: 11B4V on March 07, 2013, 12:48:07 PM
Are you that obtuse. :lol: Really.
I was trying to respond to your pointless post. So if it seems obtuse that is only because of the material I had to work with.
I wouldnt call either one "pointless". How many civies know that heavily armed SWAT officers are on Patrol?. Or most departments have trained regular patrol officers in SWAT tactics? Or....I could go on. Point is your average civilian probaly doesnt know. Quit beind a Languish poster and put yourself in average civilian context. Valmey's post, is proof that both our posts were not pointless. His shows how ignorant the civilian masses are.
SCUBA qualed officers patrolling in flippers and masks... :lol: Really, but dont laugh to hard.
Valmy how do you feel to be an example of "how ignorant the civilian masses are"?
Quote from: 11B4V on March 07, 2013, 01:20:13 PM
I wouldnt call either one "pointless". How many civies know that heavily armed SWAT officers are on Patrol?. Or most departments have trained regular patrol officers in SWAT tactics? Or....I could go on. Point is your average civilian probaly doesnt know. Quit beind a Languish poster and put yourself in average civilian context. Valmey's post, is proof that both our posts were not pointless. His shows how ignorant the civilian masses are.
SCUBA qualed officers patrolling in flippers and masks... :lol: Really, but dont laugh to hard.
I posted because Valmy appeared to be trying to insinuate that heavily armed SWAT officers in full gear were(are) patrolling the streets using squad based military tactics to enter neighborhoods.
SWAT trained officers carry regulation firearms and wear the same uniforms and gear that other officers do during the normal course of their duties as police officers. The heavy vests, web gear, grenades, rifles, and so on, are kept locked away until the officer is required to fulfill the capacity of a SWAT officer (which doesn't happen that often).
The whole issue of military tactics is a red herring being used by the ACLU to scare people. Ex-military have been becoming police officers since probably time began. In NY, they get extra points on police exams. And, it's only natural that ex-military gravitate towards their departments SWAT unit because of it's extra military type atmosphere (as compared to the average police unit). The only way to change this would be to ban ALL ex-military from working in law enforcement.
Quote from: mongers on March 06, 2013, 05:35:59 PM
In one sense I can see this as an entirely appropriate response to the growing militarisation of the American populous at large.
Hey, we need to offset the militarization of the police and homeland security! :ph34r:
Damn ACLU though. Can't even have a quasi police state anymore. :glare:
On the bright side for the ACLU...
Once the SAFE act takes effect in NY. Most police/peace officers will be to busy arresting each other for carrying magazines that can hold more than seven bullets at a time to bother the average citizen.
And don't forget, in the case of a Sandy Hook episode in NY, there won't be anyone in the schools with firearms. Police will now have to get written permission from the school administration to bring firearms on the premises.
Quote from: 11B4V on March 07, 2013, 01:20:13 PM
How many civies know that heavily armed SWAT officers are on Patrol?. Or most departments have trained regular patrol officers in SWAT tactics?
How many? How about anyone who's watched or read the news in the weeks immediately following any active shooter- incident- ramping up police tactics and training ALWAYS comes up.
I didn't know that. I thought they sat around in their SWAT club house all day wisecracking and talking tough.
Quote from: Strix on March 07, 2013, 01:38:23 PM
On the bright side for the ACLU...
Once the SAFE act takes effect in NY. Most police/peace officers will be to busy arresting each other for carrying magazines that can hold more than seven bullets at a time to bother the average citizen.
That is a lie. The state has already stated that the act does not apply to law enforcement officers, and would not be enforced in that manner.
Quote
And don't forget, in the case of a Sandy Hook episode in NY, there won't be anyone in the schools with firearms. Police will now have to get written permission from the school administration to bring firearms on the premises.
That is utter bullshit.
Why do you bother just blatantly lying about stuff like this? You have to know that there are people who will know it is a lie and call you out on it.
The SAFE act is a hot mess of legislation, but you just look like an a-hole when you just make shit up, which ends up making people actually MORE supportive of stupid crap like SAFE, not less.
Quote from: Berkut on March 07, 2013, 02:05:16 PM
Quote from: Strix on March 07, 2013, 01:38:23 PM
On the bright side for the ACLU...
Once the SAFE act takes effect in NY. Most police/peace officers will be to busy arresting each other for carrying magazines that can hold more than seven bullets at a time to bother the average citizen.
That is a lie. The state has already stated that the act does not apply to law enforcement officers, and would not be enforced in that manner.
Quote
And don't forget, in the case of a Sandy Hook episode in NY, there won't be anyone in the schools with firearms. Police will now have to get written permission from the school administration to bring firearms on the premises.
That is utter bullshit.
Why do you bother just blatantly lying about stuff like this? You have to know that there are people who will know it is a lie and call you out on it.
The SAFE act is a hot mess of legislation, but you just look like an a-hole when you just make shit up, which ends up making people actually MORE supportive of stupid crap like SAFE, not less.
Berkut, provide some facts when calling me a liar.
Quote from: Strix on March 07, 2013, 02:23:11 PM
Berkut, provide some facts when calling me a liar.
The burden of proof's on you, dude, sorry.
You're the one who made the statements. Back 'em up or GTFO.
Quote from: fahdiz on March 07, 2013, 02:29:23 PM
Quote from: Strix on March 07, 2013, 02:23:11 PM
Berkut, provide some facts when calling me a liar.
The burden of proof's on you, dude, sorry.
You're the one who made the statements. Back 'em up or GTFO.
Quote from: SAFE Act
S 265.36 UNLAWFUL POSSESSION OF A LARGE CAPACITY AMMUNITION FEEDING
22 DEVICE.
23 IT SHALL BE UNLAWFUL FOR A PERSON TO KNOWINGLY POSSESS A LARGE CAPACI-
24 TY AMMUNITION FEEDING DEVICE MANUFACTURED BEFORE SEPTEMBER THIRTEENTH,
25 NINETEEN HUNDRED NINETY-FOUR, AND IF SUCH PERSON LAWFULLY POSSESSED SUCH
26 LARGE CAPACITY FEEDING DEVICE BEFORE THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THE CHAPTER
27 OF THE LAWS OF TWO THOUSAND THIRTEEN WHICH ADDED THIS SECTION, THAT HAS
28 A CAPACITY OF, OR THAT CAN BE READILY RESTORED OR CONVERTED TO ACCEPT,
29 MORE THAN TEN ROUNDS OF AMMUNITION.
30 AN INDIVIDUAL WHO HAS A REASONABLE BELIEF THAT SUCH DEVICE IS OF SUCH
31 A CHARACTER THAT IT MAY LAWFULLY BE POSSESSED AND WHO SURRENDERS OR
32 LAWFULLY DISPOSES OF SUCH DEVICE WITHIN THIRTY DAYS OF BEING NOTIFIED BY
33 LAW ENFORCEMENT OR COUNTY LICENSING OFFICIALS THAT SUCH POSSESSION IS
34 UNLAWFUL SHALL NOT BE GUILTY OF THIS OFFENSE. IT SHALL BE A REBUTTABLE
35 PRESUMPTION THAT SUCH PERSON KNOWS THAT SUCH LARGE CAPACITY AMMUNITION
36 FEEDING DEVICE MAY NOT BE LAWFULLY POSSESSED IF HE OR SHE HAS BEEN
37 CONTACTED BY LAW ENFORCEMENT OR COUNTY LICENSING OFFICIALS AND INFORMED
38 THAT SUCH DEVICE MAY NOT BE LAWFULLY POSSESSED.
39 UNLAWFUL POSSESSION OF A LARGE CAPACITY AMMUNITION FEEDING DEVICE IS A
40 CLASS A MISDEMEANOR.
41 S 265.37 UNLAWFUL POSSESSION OF CERTAIN AMMUNITION FEEDING DEVICES.
42 IT SHALL BE UNLAWFUL FOR A PERSON TO KNOWINGLY POSSESS AN AMMUNITION
43 FEEDING DEVICE THAT SUCH PERSON LAWFULLY POSSESSED BEFORE THE EFFECTIVE
44 DATE OF THE CHAPTER OF THE LAWS OF TWO THOUSAND THIRTEEN WHICH ADDED
45 THIS SECTION, THAT HAS A CAPACITY OF, OR THAT CAN BE READILY RESTORED OR
46 CONVERTED TO ACCEPT MORE THAN SEVEN BUT LESS THAN TEN ROUNDS OF AMMUNI-
47 TION, WHERE SUCH DEVICE CONTAINS MORE THAN SEVEN ROUNDS OF AMMUNITION.
48 IF SUCH DEVICE CONTAINING MORE THAN SEVEN ROUNDS OF AMMUNITION IS
49 POSSESSED WITHIN THE HOME OF THE POSSESSOR, THE PERSON SO POSSESSING THE
50 DEVICE SHALL, FOR A FIRST OFFENSE, BE GUILTY OF A VIOLATION AND SUBJECT
51 TO A FINE OF TWO HUNDRED DOLLARS, AND FOR A SECOND OFFENSE, BE GUILTY OF
52 A CLASS B MISDEMEANOR AND SUBJECT TO A FINE OF TWO HUNDRED DOLLARS AND A
53 TERM OF UP TO THREE MONTHS IMPRISONMENT.
54 IF SUCH DEVICE CONTAINING MORE THAN SEVEN ROUNDS OF AMMUNITION IS
55 POSSESSED IN ANY LOCATION OTHER THAN THE HOME OF THE POSSESSOR, THE
56 PERSON SO POSSESSING THE DEVICE SHALL, FOR A FIRST OFFENSE, BE GUILTY OF
S. 2230 25 A. 2388
1 A CLASS B MISDEMEANOR AND SUBJECT TO A FINE OF TWO HUNDRED DOLLARS AND A
2 TERM OF UP TO SIX MONTHS IMPRISONMENT, AND FOR A SECOND OFFENSE, BE
3 GUILTY OF A CLASS A MISDEMEANOR.
That is the section on magazines. There is no exemption for police/peace officers.
I am looking up the school one now...We were given a memo by our administration not to enter school grounds with a weapon unless given permission because of the SAFE act, so it is in there.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 07, 2013, 01:44:18 PM
I didn't know that. I thought they sat around in their SWAT club house all day wisecracking and talking tough.
Depends if they're detailed full-time to the unit or not. Most of your larger cities' agencies have their tactical people on a rotational basis for full-time detail since 9/11, but usually on day shift, and for only a couple weeks at a time.
And they're usually at the range punching holes in paper whilst wisecracking and talking tough.
Cuomo has already publically stated that the law does not in any way restrict police officers or make anything police officers are currently do or able to do illegal.
So your claim that "...Once the SAFE act takes effect in NY. Most police/peace officers will be to busy arresting each other for carrying magazines that can hold more than seven bullets at a time" is a lie. You knew it was a lie when you said it.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/01/18/ny-guv-looks-to-clarify-gun-law-after-concern-about-exemption-for-police/
QuoteNew York Gov. Andrew Cuomo's office is working on amendments to clarify the newly passed gun-control law, following complaints that it did not explicitly exempt police officers from a ban on high-capacity magazines.
The state law bans magazines over seven rounds -- police officers typically use magazines that hold twice as many bullets. Critics of the law claimed the alleged oversight was a product of the haste with which the package was passed through the legislature.
"This could have been avoided," Republican Assemblyman Al Graf told FoxNews.com.
However, Cuomo's office insists police officers are still exempt.
"Police officers possessing ammunition clip with more than seven bullets are not in violation of this law and they never will be, period," Cuomo spokesman Matthew Wing said.
While the new law did not include an explicit exemption for police, the old law which capped the number of rounds in a magazine at 10 bullets did. Technically, the new law likely would not override that exemption.
But some lawmakers were concerned there could be confusion. Graf said if the governor's office does not craft an amendment explicitly exempting officers, he will.
"If (Cuomo) didn't do this the way he did, he wouldn't be so embarrassed today," said Graf, complaining that lawmakers had very little time to read and digest the bill before it was muscled through the legislature and signed into law.
Graf also said he wants to write an amendment explicitly exempting retired officers -- further, he claimed there is confusion about whether on- and off-duty officers can have a gun on school grounds.
The law, though, does not actually create a new rule against having a firearm on school grounds. Rather, it upgrades the offense from a misdemeanor to a felony.
The New York package was the first signed into law since the mass shooting in Newtown, Conn. - which has galvanized the gun-control movement to push for new laws at the state and federal level.
On Wednesday, President Obama called for a new and stronger assault-weapons ban and a 10-round cap on magazines.
The New York law strengthened the state's assault-weapons ban, while imposing stricter registration and reporting requirements on gun dealers. The law also banned direct sales of ammunition on the Internet, and enacted universal background checks.
Further, the law imposed a requirement on mental health professionals to report if a patient appears likely to commit a violent act. More than two-dozen states already have such a requirement on the books.
Still, the move by New York to impose one stirred criticism that it could discourage patients from seeking help - the law says local law enforcement can seize the guns of any patient deemed a threat.
"The people who arguably most need to be in treatment and most need to feel free to talk about these disturbing impulses, may be the ones we make least likely to do so," Dr. Paul Appelbaum at Columbia University told The Associated Press.
Should have added - So suck it, Strix.
And here is the section on schools...
Quote from: SAFE Act
48 S 265.01-A. CRIMINAL POSSESSION OF A WEAPON ON SCHOOL GROUNDS.
49 A PERSON IS GUILTY OF CRIMINAL POSSESSION OF A WEAPON ON SCHOOL
50 GROUNDS WHEN HE OR SHE KNOWINGLY HAS IN HIS OR HER POSSESSION A RIFLE,
51 SHOTGUN, OR FIREARM IN OR UPON A BUILDING OR GROUNDS, USED FOR EDUCA-
52 TIONAL PURPOSES, OF ANY SCHOOL, COLLEGE, OR UNIVERSITY, EXCEPT THE
53 FORESTRY LANDS, WHEREVER LOCATED, OWNED AND MAINTAINED BY THE STATE
54 UNIVERSITY OF NEW YORK COLLEGE OF ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE AND FORESTRY, OR
55 UPON A SCHOOL BUS AS DEFINED IN SECTION ONE HUNDRED FORTY-TWO OF THE
S. 2230 22 A. 2388
1 VEHICLE AND TRAFFIC LAW, WITHOUT THE WRITTEN AUTHORIZATION OF SUCH
2 EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTION.
3 CRIMINAL POSSESSION OF A WEAPON ON SCHOOL GROUNDS IS A CLASS E FELONY.
They also didn't add an exemption for Hollywood. So, Cuomo is scrambling to make changes so that the movie industry will be able to continue filming movies involving high capacity firearms in them in NY.
Quote from: 11B4V on March 07, 2013, 01:20:13 PM
How many civies know that heavily armed SWAT officers are on Patrol?
Just roll on past your local international airport. They're there. Ours are the ones in black BDUs with G36s at BWI.
Quote from: garbon on March 07, 2013, 02:54:23 PM
Should have added - So suck it, Strix.
I thought it helped make his case. SAFE, as currently written, does not have an exemption for coppers.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 07, 2013, 02:57:56 PM
Quote from: garbon on March 07, 2013, 02:54:23 PM
Should have added - So suck it, Strix.
I thought it helped make his case. SAFE, as currently written, does not have an exemption for coppers.
Except that the state said that they consider police exempt and are working on amendments to make that clear for all. :mellow:
Quote from: Berkut on March 07, 2013, 02:52:25 PM
Cuomo has already publically stated that the law does not in any way restrict police officers or make anything police officers are currently do or able to do illegal.
So your claim that "...Once the SAFE act takes effect in NY. Most police/peace officers will be to busy arresting each other for carrying magazines that can hold more than seven bullets at a time" is a lie. You knew it was a lie when you said it.
Well, that would be wonderful if he had that power. He does not. It would be up to the Courts to decide. And I would hate to be the Officer who gets in front of a Republican DA in front of a Republican Judge looking to make an example of how the SAFE Act is messed up.
We have been told by the State, that the issue is being discussed at the highest levels. Which means that the Executive Branch (Cuomo) is waiting for the Legislative Branch (the State Assembly) to propose amendments so that the Judicial Branch (the Courts) doesn't have to create case law.
Or, do I have to explain the whole check and balance system of our government to you?
Quote from: garbon on March 07, 2013, 03:00:46 PM
Except that the state said that they consider police exempt and are working on amendments to make that clear for all. :mellow:
I got that. :mellow:
Strix is so butch sometimes. It makes me wet.
Quote from: Strix on March 07, 2013, 03:01:36 PM
Quote from: Berkut on March 07, 2013, 02:52:25 PM
Cuomo has already publically stated that the law does not in any way restrict police officers or make anything police officers are currently do or able to do illegal.
So your claim that "...Once the SAFE act takes effect in NY. Most police/peace officers will be to busy arresting each other for carrying magazines that can hold more than seven bullets at a time" is a lie. You knew it was a lie when you said it.
Well, that would be wonderful if he had that power. He does not. It would be up to the Courts to decide. And I would hate to be the Officer who gets in front of a Republican DA in front of a Republican Judge looking to make an example of how the SAFE Act is messed up.
You claimed that when the law was passed cops would have to start arresting each other. That is false. Cops will not arrest each other, not does the law demand that they do so.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 07, 2013, 03:02:03 PM
Quote from: garbon on March 07, 2013, 03:00:46 PM
Except that the state said that they consider police exempt and are working on amendments to make that clear for all. :mellow:
I got that. :mellow:
So what is confusing about the fact that Strix's claim that once the law goes into effect police will have to start arresting each other is a blatant lie?
Since it is in fact the executive who instructs the police on how to enforce law, and they have said that they won't be arresting anyone, claiming that they will do exactly that is a clear falsehood.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 07, 2013, 02:57:56 PM
Quote from: garbon on March 07, 2013, 02:54:23 PM
Should have added - So suck it, Strix.
I thought it helped make his case. SAFE, as currently written, does not have an exemption for coppers.
That was not his claim.
His claim was that once SAFE goes into effect, police would spend their time arresting each other, and cops could not enter into a school in an active shooting situation.
Both of those are rather obviously not true.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on March 07, 2013, 02:49:49 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 07, 2013, 01:44:18 PM
I didn't know that. I thought they sat around in their SWAT club house all day wisecracking and talking tough.
Depends if they're detailed full-time to the unit or not. Most of your larger cities' agencies have their tactical people on a rotational basis for full-time detail since 9/11, but usually on day shift, and for only a couple weeks at a time.
And they're usually at the range punching holes in paper whilst wisecracking and talking tough.
Yes.
To get back to Timms article. Are the police heavily armed than 20-30 years ago..sure, why wouldnt they be. Are they more agressive..yes. Why, because of society.
TWo incidents, more than any other have brought these issues to the forefront.
The "LA Shootout" brought into question Police firepower.
Columbine brought into question police tactics. The first deputy on scene actually went in and engaged those two dumbasses. He then backed off to establish a containment perimeter and "WAIT" for SWAT. Why? That was the tactics of the time. It took the first SWAT team
45 min to organize and deploy. The second over an
hour and a half. I am being very generous with those times. It was OVER by that time. This brings us to SWAT
trained officers on
regular patrol more so nowadays as a common practice compared to back then. They dont wait to engage the shooter. Time is critical. It doesnt matter if you have three units, two, or one. Or whether any of the intial resonders are SWAT trained. They're primary focus is to neutralize the shooter(s) as quickly as possible.
So I repeat: Are the police heavily armed than 20-30 years ago..sure, why wouldnt they be. Are they more agressive..yes. Why, because of society.
Quote from: Berkut on March 07, 2013, 03:10:13 PM
So what is confusing about the fact that Strix's claim that once the law goes into effect police will have to start arresting each other is a blatant lie?
Since it is in fact the executive who instructs the police on how to enforce law, and they have said that they won't be arresting anyone, claiming that they will do exactly that is a clear falsehood.
Frankly that seems like a lawyer's weasel.
Technically you're right. AFAIK there's nothing that *forces* police to arrest someone committing a crime.
I cant believe you thought the Police would not be exempt Strix. :lol:
Quote from: Berkut on March 07, 2013, 03:10:13 PM
So what is confusing about the fact that Strix's claim that once the law goes into effect police will have to start arresting each other is a blatant lie?
Since it is in fact the executive who instructs the police on how to enforce law, and they have said that they won't be arresting anyone, claiming that they will do exactly that is a clear falsehood.
The part about law enforcement arresting each other was a joke for the most part. There have been stories about law enforcement getting threatened by school rent-a-cops about bringing their weapons on the premises (the one case I remember the cop was actually just picking up his kid).
Local law enforcement doesn't work for the State, so Prince Cuomo can issue all the proclamations he wishes about telling them what to do but they don't have to listen.
Realistically, a scenario involving a police shoot out where someone gets killed/hurt by police firing more than seven rounds before reloading which is followed by a lawsuit citing the current law is probably what will occur first. I doubt a letter from Prince Cuomo will make the lawsuit go away.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 07, 2013, 03:14:43 PM
AFAIK there's nothing that *forces* police to arrest someone committing a crime.
Especially if the shift's over in an hour. Fuck it, I've got a date tonight. Give the nice lady at the register that bag of Cheetos in your shirt back, dammit. Don't do it again or I thump you. Have a blessed day.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on March 07, 2013, 03:18:13 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 07, 2013, 03:14:43 PM
AFAIK there's nothing that *forces* police to arrest someone committing a crime.
Especially if the shift's over in an hour. Fuck it, I've got a date tonight. Give the nice lady at the register that bag of Cheetos in your shirt back, dammit. Don't do it again or I thump you. Have a blessed day.
:lmfao: How true
Quote from: 11B4V on March 07, 2013, 03:15:24 PM
I cant believe you thought the Police would not be exempt Strix. :lol:
Talk to my bosses, they are considering going back to .38's because of the SAFE Act.
That's because you're all idiots up there.
I'm not sure what Berkut's beef with Strix is. I think it's obvious from the context (the author being Strix) that all of it was just an utterly not clever hyperbole. It wasn't meant to inform or make a point.
Quote from: Strix on March 07, 2013, 03:22:39 PM
Quote from: 11B4V on March 07, 2013, 03:15:24 PM
I cant believe you thought the Police would not be exempt Strix. :lol:
Talk to my bosses, they are considering going back to .38's because of the SAFE Act.
Upper echeolon histerics. :lol:
Quote from: DGuller on March 07, 2013, 03:26:41 PM
I'm not sure what Berkut's beef with Strix is. I think it's obvious from the context (the author being Strix) that all of it was just an utterly not clever hyperbole. It wasn't meant to inform or make a point.
It's languish is what it is.
Quote from: DGuller on March 07, 2013, 03:26:41 PM
I'm not sure what Berkut's beef with Strix is. I think it's obvious from the context (the author being Strix) that all of it was just an utterly not clever hyperbole. It wasn't meant to inform or make a point.
I find it annoying when people say bullshit they know is bullshit in the hopes that some percentage of the reader won't know.
The entire SAFE act has been in the news in New York for the last month or so - so anyone aware of the issue is also certainly aware of the resolutions to them. If you know that they fucked up and didn't make the normal law enforcement exemptions part of the act, then you also know that they know they fucked up, have stated that as of right now the agreed upon interpretation is that the previous exemptions are still in effect, agree that there will be no attempt to enforce this law on law enforcement officers in any case, and agree that the law will be amended to fix the issues.
Was it stupid to jam the law through without going over it and making sure the i's were dotted and the t's crossed? Of course.
But stating that the law is going to have an effect that everyone who knows anything about the law knows it will not is just an attempt to claim that those passing the law were trying to do something they were clearly not doing in order to mislead those who don't know much of anything about the law.
Like I said, anyone who lives in New York and has been paying attention to this knows that law will have ZERO practical or legal impact on the ability of the police to do their job.
It is is intellectually dishonest, and lazy. Yes, it is Strix, so that should probably be expected, but I am Berkut, so calling Strix on being a dishonest, lazy ass is to be expected as well...:P
Quote from: Berkut on March 07, 2013, 03:50:23 PM
Quote from: DGuller on March 07, 2013, 03:26:41 PM
I'm not sure what Berkut's beef with Strix is. I think it's obvious from the context (the author being Strix) that all of it was just an utterly not clever hyperbole. It wasn't meant to inform or make a point.
I find it annoying when people say bullshit they know is bullshit in the hopes that some percentage of the reader won't know.
The entire SAFE act has been in the news in New York for the last month or so - so anyone aware of the issue is also certainly aware of the resolutions to them. If you know that they fucked up and didn't make the normal law enforcement exemptions part of the act, then you also know that they know they fucked up, have stated that as of right now the agreed upon interpretation is that the previous exemptions are still in effect, agree that there will be no attempt to enforce this law on law enforcement officers in any case, and agree that the law will be amended to fix the issues.
Was it stupid to jam the law through without going over it and making sure the i's were dotted and the t's crossed? Of course.
But stating that the law is going to have an effect that everyone who knows anything about the law knows it will not is just an attempt to claim that those passing the law were trying to do something they were clearly not doing in order to mislead those who don't know much of anything about the law.
Like I said, anyone who lives in New York and has been paying attention to this knows that law will have ZERO practical or legal impact on the ability of the police to do their job.
It is is intellectually dishonest, and lazy. Yes, it is Strix, so that should probably be expected, but I am Berkut, so calling Strix on being a dishonest, lazy ass is to be expected as well...:P
You called me a liar but it was you that lied. You can add all the qualifiers possible but it still does not change the fact that you lied and I didn't.
Is there an exemption for law enforcement? No. I provided the laws in question. You haven't provided anything to support your position. Why? you can't beyond the suggestion that an understanding is in place. Show us something where Governor Cuomo says that there is an exemption for law enforcement? You can't because he hasn't. His office has issued statements but he has avoided going on record.
I noticed you haven't mentioned the whole school issue? And, I don't blame you because there is a good chance that some sort of legal issue will occur.
Will an exemption be put in place? Yes, eventually. Does one exist now? No. The governor will probably get around to it a few days after he resolves the FRACKING issue which will be the day after he resigns to run for President.
When all is said and done, you tried to call me a liar, you were proven wrong, and proven to be the liar. So, now you are attacking me because you have no other avenue to pursue.
Typical Berkut
Quote from: 11B4V on March 07, 2013, 12:01:30 PM
Quote from: Ed Anger on March 06, 2013, 07:16:25 PM
I am a Kentucky Colonel.
Then why the fuck did you close the KFC right outside the base. Shameful. :mad:
Eat at Chick-Fil-A.
Quote from: Strix on March 07, 2013, 04:14:41 PM
When all is said and done, you tried to call me a liar, you were proven wrong, and proven to be the liar. So, now you are attacking me because you have no other avenue to pursue.
Typical Berkut
Yopu said when the law is passed, police officers would have to arrest one another. That is a lie.
I called you on it, you weaseled. Indeed typical Berkut.
The law will not result in even one police officer arresting another, much less them not being able to do anything but arrest one another.
And you knew that was true. Hence you lied. Again.
I declare Berkut the thread winner. 11Bravo gets Honorable Mention.
Whether or not the exemption is stated, unstated, implied, grandfathered, or whatever, the thought of SAFE applying to LEOs in New York still makes me giggle.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 07, 2013, 02:57:56 PM
Quote from: garbon on March 07, 2013, 02:54:23 PM
Should have added - So suck it, Strix.
I thought it helped make his case. SAFE, as currently written, does not have an exemption for coppers.
The story garbon quoted points out the exemption already existed in the NY statutes. As long as SAFE isn't repealing the exemption it probably still applies (i.e presuming the exemption is written to apply to the entire chapter or section that SAFE is amending).
Interesting.
Just checked and as it turns out the large capacity ammo provision strix quoted was added a brand new section and thus is not covered by the existing law enforcement exemption, which applies to only to specifically enumerated sections.
That is, the legislature forgot to amend and update the exemption to cover the new section.
Oops.
Don't think there is any practical risk to law enforcement, but it does suggest sloppy draftsmanship.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on March 07, 2013, 07:31:51 PM
Interesting.
Just checked and as it turns out the large capacity ammo provision strix quoted was added a brand new section and thus is not covered by the existing law enforcement exemption, which applies to only to specifically enumerated sections.
That is, the legislature forgot to amend and update the exemption to cover the new section.
Oops.
Don't think there is any practical risk to law enforcement, but it does suggest sloppy draftsmanship.
Why is that not surprising.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on March 07, 2013, 07:31:51 PM
Interesting.
Just checked and as it turns out the large capacity ammo provision strix quoted was added a brand new section and thus is not covered by the existing law enforcement exemption, which applies to only to specifically enumerated sections.
That is, the legislature forgot to amend and update the exemption to cover the new section.
Oops.
Don't think there is any practical risk to law enforcement, but it does suggest sloppy draftsmanship.
Cuomo had to be the first to "get something done". That was of paramount importance.
Quote from: 11B4V on March 07, 2013, 01:20:13 PM
I wouldnt call either one "pointless". How many civies know that heavily armed SWAT officers are on Patrol?. Or most departments have trained regular patrol officers in SWAT tactics? Or....I could go on. Point is your average civilian probaly doesnt know. Quit beind a Languish poster and put yourself in average civilian context. Valmey's post, is proof that both our posts were not pointless. His shows how ignorant the civilian masses are.
It's not that they're on patrol, it's they're used too much for things like serving warrants. The article I posted said there are police departments in Maryland which served every warrant with a SWAT team.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on March 07, 2013, 08:04:00 PM
Quote from: 11B4V on March 07, 2013, 01:20:13 PM
I wouldnt call either one "pointless". How many civies know that heavily armed SWAT officers are on Patrol?. Or most departments have trained regular patrol officers in SWAT tactics? Or....I could go on. Point is your average civilian probaly doesnt know. Quit beind a Languish poster and put yourself in average civilian context. Valmey's post, is proof that both our posts were not pointless. His shows how ignorant the civilian masses are.
It's not that they're on patrol, it's they're used to much for things like serving warrants. The article I posted said there are police departments in Maryland which served every warrant with a SWAT team.
So
:lol: Ever been to PG county, Tim?
They dont even mention what type of warrant. I would bet money they are not serving non-felony warrants.
*Mr. Shitbag come with us. You have a warrant for failure to appear for unpaid parking tickets.*
Why doesnt the ACLU investigate that clusterfuck on The Hill. The people have a right to competent government. Fucking knobs.
Quote from: derspiess on March 07, 2013, 08:43:11 PM
:lol: Ever been to PG county, Tim?
Knowing PG County PD, it's probably the officers escorting the tactical guys so they have witnesses in case they execute somebody.
Quote from: derspiess on March 07, 2013, 04:47:09 PM
Whether or not the exemption is stated, unstated, implied, grandfathered, or whatever, the thought of SAFE applying to LEOs in New York still makes me giggle.
It is pretty funny that they managed to fuck up that bill so badly.
Quote from: derspiess on March 07, 2013, 07:36:42 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on March 07, 2013, 07:31:51 PM
Interesting.
Just checked and as it turns out the large capacity ammo provision strix quoted was added a brand new section and thus is not covered by the existing law enforcement exemption, which applies to only to specifically enumerated sections.
That is, the legislature forgot to amend and update the exemption to cover the new section.
Oops.
Don't think there is any practical risk to law enforcement, but it does suggest sloppy draftsmanship.
Cuomo had to be the first to "get something done". That was of paramount importance.
I figured he was just trying to ram something through while the iron was hot, so to speak.
What is funny is that the faux outrage is aimed exclusively at Cuomo - he didn't pass the bill, he just signed it. It was passed by the legislature, right?
Quote from: Berkut on March 07, 2013, 10:54:29 PM
I figured he was just trying to ram something through while the iron was hot, so to speak.
What is funny is that the faux outrage is aimed exclusively at Cuomo - he didn't pass the bill, he just signed it. It was passed by the legislature, right?
Yep. But he didn't "just sign it". He actively pushed for the legislation. Doesn't let the legislature off the hook, but he deserves all the "faux outrage" he gets. But it's not my state. If you guys are okay with limiting your freedom like that, go ahead.
I don't think it is entirely unfair for Cuomo to share in reaping some of the blame, though. He seems to have been a vital component in getting that bill going.
Quote from: derspiess on March 07, 2013, 11:03:47 PM
Quote from: Berkut on March 07, 2013, 10:54:29 PM
I figured he was just trying to ram something through while the iron was hot, so to speak.
What is funny is that the faux outrage is aimed exclusively at Cuomo - he didn't pass the bill, he just signed it. It was passed by the legislature, right?
Yep. But he didn't "just sign it". He actively pushed for the legislation. Doesn't let the legislature off the hook, but he deserves all the "faux outrage" he gets. But it's not my state. If you guys are okay with limiting your freedom like that, go ahead.
:yes:
Quote from: derspiess on March 07, 2013, 11:03:47 PM
Quote from: Berkut on March 07, 2013, 10:54:29 PM
I figured he was just trying to ram something through while the iron was hot, so to speak.
What is funny is that the faux outrage is aimed exclusively at Cuomo - he didn't pass the bill, he just signed it. It was passed by the legislature, right?
Yep. But he didn't "just sign it". He actively pushed for the legislation. Doesn't let the legislature off the hook, but he deserves all the "faux outrage" he gets. But it's not my state. If you guys are okay with limiting your freedom like that, go ahead.
Oh, I am not saying he doesn't deserve the blame, just that he doesn't deserve it all.
And the idea that not being able to put 10 rounds in my gun is some kind of imposition on "freedom" is not very convincing to me.
Quote from: Berkut on March 08, 2013, 12:22:24 AM
Quote from: derspiess on March 07, 2013, 11:03:47 PM
Quote from: Berkut on March 07, 2013, 10:54:29 PM
I figured he was just trying to ram something through while the iron was hot, so to speak.
What is funny is that the faux outrage is aimed exclusively at Cuomo - he didn't pass the bill, he just signed it. It was passed by the legislature, right?
Yep. But he didn't "just sign it". He actively pushed for the legislation. Doesn't let the legislature off the hook, but he deserves all the "faux outrage" he gets. But it's not my state. If you guys are okay with limiting your freedom like that, go ahead.
Oh, I am not saying he doesn't deserve the blame, just that he doesn't deserve it all.
Cool.
QuoteAnd the idea that not being able to put 10 rounds in my gun is some kind of imposition on "freedom" is not very convincing to me.
Yeah, but then again you're on record as saying you want the 2nd Amendment repealed, so I'm not surprised to hear you say that. In fact I guess I should just assume all your views on gun laws to be fringe-left and ignore them.
I can't fit 10 rounds into my revolver anyway, so it doesn't bother me a bit.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on March 08, 2013, 09:54:29 AM
I can't fit 10 rounds into my revolver anyway, so it doesn't bother me a bit.
So you'd be okay with Maryland reducing the legal mag capacity to 7?
I'll have my dealer send you a copy of his FFL so you can transfer your P38 to me :)
I've been really put out by the safe act. :(
I don't need to hear about you putting out.
Quote from: derspiess on March 08, 2013, 09:53:05 AM
Yeah, but then again you're on record as saying you want the 2nd Amendment repealed, so I'm not surprised to hear you say that.
Last I checked, a musket only held one round. Hard to argue that the Founding Fathers intended for the Second to protect the "right" of a citizen to fire some arbitrary number of rounds, isn't it?
Quote
In fact I guess I should just assume all your views on gun laws to be fringe-left and ignore them.
Fringe left? The idea that we should be able to talk about gun control without reference every ten seconds to crap exactly like this - that the ability to carry 10 rounds instead of 7 is some kind of basic human freedom?
Color me fringe then.
What is funny is that I actually think the law is stupid. But not on the basis of it imposing on anyone's "freedom".
Quote from: Berkut on March 08, 2013, 10:20:25 AM
Last I checked, a musket only held one round. Hard to argue that the Founding Fathers intended for the Second to protect the "right" of a citizen to fire some arbitrary number of rounds, isn't it?
Last I checked, the 2nd Amendment did not state that it was limited to muskets. Seriously, you're using that retarded argument?
Quote
Fringe left? The idea that we should be able to talk about gun control without reference every ten seconds to crap exactly like this - that the ability to carry 10 rounds instead of 7 is some kind of basic human freedom?
Color me fringe then.
Done! :hug:
Quote from: derspiess on March 08, 2013, 10:26:39 AM
Done! :hug:
Glad we have successfully catagorized Berkut.
Quote from: Berkut on March 08, 2013, 10:20:25 AM
Quote from: derspiess on March 08, 2013, 09:53:05 AM
Yeah, but then again you're on record as saying you want the 2nd Amendment repealed, so I'm not surprised to hear you say that.
Last I checked, a musket only held one round. Hard to argue that the Founding Fathers intended for the Second to protect the "right" of a citizen to fire some arbitrary number of rounds, isn't it?
:lmfao: Lame
You can double- or even triple-shot a musket. :nerd:
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 08, 2013, 11:01:02 AM
You can double- or even triple-shot a musket. :nerd:
Like...putting three bullets in the barrel?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 08, 2013, 11:01:02 AM
You can double- or even triple-shot a musket. :nerd:
No Yi, according to Berkut, it doesnt state such, so therefore, no multiple musket balls for you.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2F2.bp.blogspot.com%2F-94j_PX_3dRE%2FTwwiR5wKcMI%2FAAAAAAAAAC8%2Fg9ZIDi2vsWM%2Fs1600%2FNo-soup-for-ME-Well-fuck-YOU-pal.jpg&hash=2f92c39a8c70b60dd681e19b7609ecda649fcfb1)
Quote from: 11B4V on March 08, 2013, 10:43:16 AM
Quote from: Berkut on March 08, 2013, 10:20:25 AM
Quote from: derspiess on March 08, 2013, 09:53:05 AM
Yeah, but then again you're on record as saying you want the 2nd Amendment repealed, so I'm not surprised to hear you say that.
Last I checked, a musket only held one round. Hard to argue that the Founding Fathers intended for the Second to protect the "right" of a citizen to fire some arbitrary number of rounds, isn't it?
:lmfao: Lame
How so?
What, there isn't ANY restriction on the term "arms" then - since the term can mean anything, then it must mean everything?
That is simply idiotic - even the most ardent gun nut agrees that there are limits, and that the second does NOT guarantee the right of everyone to carry any weapons that can be considered "arms". Therefore pointing out that a gun law specifying that X rounds is ok while Y rounds is not is pretty obviously NOT relevant to the second, since there is no way the numbers of rounds could possibly have been a relevant factor to people who had never even experienced a weapon that could fire more than one round at a time.
This is EXACTLY my point in regards to the second amendment - it is trotted out every single time any law is brought up, even when it obviously does not apply in any real way.
This is a perfect example - we cannot even discuss the SAFE act provisions on magazine capacity (which incidentally I don't even support) without someone bleating on about "freedom", as if "freedom" is defined by the ability to shove 10 rounds in your gun instead of 7, or 50 instead of 30, or 200 instead of 100, or 5 instead of 3.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 08, 2013, 11:01:02 AM
You can double- or even triple-shot a musket. :nerd:
The SAFE act does not in any way restrict your ability to place multiple rounds in the barrel of your weapon. Knock yourself out. :)
Quote from: Berkut on March 08, 2013, 11:24:06 AM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 08, 2013, 11:01:02 AM
You can double- or even triple-shot a musket. :nerd:
The SAFE act does not in any way restrict your ability to place multiple rounds in the barrel of your weapon. Knock yourself out. :)
In fact, it should be encouraged. :unsure:
Quote from: Berkut on March 08, 2013, 11:23:01 AM
This is a perfect example - we cannot even discuss the SAFE act provisions on magazine capacity (which incidentally I don't even support) without someone bleating on about "freedom", as if "freedom" is defined by the ability to shove 10 rounds in your gun instead of 7, or 50 instead of 30, or 200 instead of 100, or 5 instead of 3.
Not sure why you have such a big problem with my use of the word "freedom". Any time you lower the magazine capacity limit, you are placing further limitations on gun freedom. It could be a particular freedom you don't use or don't care about, but that doesn't make it less of a freedom.
You really like to pick the silliest things to take issue with.
Quote from: derspiess on March 08, 2013, 11:45:29 AM
Quote from: Berkut on March 08, 2013, 11:23:01 AM
This is a perfect example - we cannot even discuss the SAFE act provisions on magazine capacity (which incidentally I don't even support) without someone bleating on about "freedom", as if "freedom" is defined by the ability to shove 10 rounds in your gun instead of 7, or 50 instead of 30, or 200 instead of 100, or 5 instead of 3.
Not sure why you have such a big problem with my use of the word "freedom". Any time you lower the magazine capacity limit, you are placing further limitations on gun freedom. It could be a particular freedom you don't use or don't care about, but that doesn't make it less of a freedom.
You really like to pick the silliest things to take issue with.
OK, I thought you were using the term more in its "Freedom!" connotation - as in, "How can we be a free people if you take away our ability to oppose the gub'mint with many, many bullets!" as opposed to simply espousing the basic Libertarian ideal that any law should not restrict the ability of people to act as they wish without good reason.
You never struck me as much of a libertarian though, but that's cool - that is pretty much why I oppose the rule as well - I don't think that the change from 10 to 7 is meaningful in any manner that can be credibly claimed to actually make a difference.
But that position is not dependent on the Second existing to begin with.
Quote from: Berkut on March 08, 2013, 11:23:01 AM
Quote from: 11B4V on March 08, 2013, 10:43:16 AM
Quote from: Berkut on March 08, 2013, 10:20:25 AM
Quote from: derspiess on March 08, 2013, 09:53:05 AM
Yeah, but then again you're on record as saying you want the 2nd Amendment repealed, so I'm not surprised to hear you say that.
Last I checked, a musket only held one round. Hard to argue that the Founding Fathers intended for the Second to protect the "right" of a citizen to fire some arbitrary number of rounds, isn't it?
:lmfao: Lame
How so?
What, there isn't ANY restriction on the term "arms" then - since the term can mean anything, then it must mean everything?
Exactly. That is why your argument is circular and therefore rather lame.
QuoteLast I checked, a musket only held one round. Hard to argue that the Founding Fathers intended for the Second to protect the "right" of a citizen to fire some arbitrary number of rounds, isn't it?
No where does it (2nd Amd) state it refers to muskets or any type of arms for that matter. So it's idiotic to pose it as an example.
But then what is a high cap mag? What defines high capacity? By
your example anything that holds more than one round. Holds more than one round in a detachable magazine? A non detachable magazine area? A cylindrical storage area ala revovler? Nor does it limit the number of barrels. A double barrel shot gun doesnt fit
your definition.
It's a 'clip'.
So 11b and spicey, you say the founder's intentions are an idiotic thing to consider. Is that a consistant argument in all things for you?
Quote from: Berkut on March 08, 2013, 12:03:42 PM
OK, I thought you were using the term more in its "Freedom!" connotation - as in, "How can we be a free people if you take away our ability to oppose the gub'mint with many, many bullets!" as opposed to simply espousing the basic Libertarian ideal that any law should not restrict the ability of people to act as they wish without good reason.
You never struck me as much of a libertarian though, but that's cool - that is pretty much why I oppose the rule as well - I don't think that the change from 10 to 7 is meaningful in any manner that can be credibly claimed to actually make a difference.
But that position is not dependent on the Second existing to begin with.
I'm actually libertarian on more issues than not. And I tend toward the libertarian side on the "Freedom!" thingie you mention but as I wasn't invoking that, let's not go there.
Quote from: sbr on March 08, 2013, 12:11:09 PM
So 11b and spicey, you say the founder's intentions are an idiotic thing to consider. Is that a consistant argument in all things for you?
:huh: Nice false premise there.
@ spicey it was not intended as a gotcha or trick question. I haven't been around long enough to know or remember much.
It appeared to me you thought any discussing of the founder's intentions when drafting the 2nd amendment is not worth considering. I know 11b called it idiotic.
Quote from: derspiess on March 08, 2013, 12:11:34 PM
I'm actually libertarian on more issues than not.
:yeahright: You're a libertarian in a way that most conservatives are libertarian: highly selectively. If your position happens to match the libertarian one, you'll milk the libertarian dogma for added legitimacy, but in no way would your position be driven by libertarian ideals. Even Soviet Union was "libertarian on some issues".
Quote from: derspiess on March 08, 2013, 12:12:41 PM
Quote from: sbr on March 08, 2013, 12:11:09 PM
So 11b and spicey, you say the founder's intentions are an idiotic thing to consider. Is that a consistant argument in all things for you?
:huh: Nice false premise there.
Seems like a very true premise. You seem to interpret the wording of the amendment literally, without taking into account the context that those who wrote it lived under at that time.
Quote from: sbr on March 08, 2013, 12:16:00 PM
@ spicey it was not intended as a gotcha or trick question. I haven't been around long enough to know or remember much.
It appeared to me you thought any discussing of the founder's intentions when drafting the 2nd amendment is not worth considering. I know 11b called it idiotic.
What's idiotic is the assumption that the founders only intended the 2nd Amendment to cover individual firearms technology that was available for that precise moment in 1787.
Quote from: sbr on March 08, 2013, 12:11:09 PM
So 11b and spicey, you say the founder's intentions are an idiotic thing to consider. Is that a consistant argument in all things for you?
Ask Berkut he seems to know :P. Do you "know" what their intentions "were"? Is their intentions defined somewhere? Were they thinking about the possibility that firearms technology would advance from the point of the musket. To them a six shot cap and ball black powder revolver would be high capacity. Or did they leave the 2nd amd purposely general in definition? Was there any that dissented with the second amendment at the time of it's construction? Is there a record of that dissent and what was their arguement?
Anyone can tout their intentions all they want. Unless it's defined, your pissing in the wind.
Quote from: derspiess on March 08, 2013, 12:21:50 PM
Quote from: sbr on March 08, 2013, 12:16:00 PM
@ spicey it was not intended as a gotcha or trick question. I haven't been around long enough to know or remember much.
It appeared to me you thought any discussing of the founder's intentions when drafting the 2nd amendment is not worth considering. I know 11b called it idiotic.
What's idiotic is the assumption that the founders only intended the 2nd Amendment to cover individual firearms technology that was available for that precise moment in 1787.
Yes
QuoteI know 11b called it idiotic.
and no I did not. Nice try. I did not state their intentions were idiotic. We dont know their intentions. Berkuts use of musket was idiotic as an example.
Quote from: derspiess on March 08, 2013, 12:21:50 PM
What's idiotic is the assumption that the founders only intended the 2nd Amendment to cover individual firearms technology that was available for that precise moment in 1787.
Agreed. The founders were not totally unfamiliar with the concept of technological advancement.
Quote from: DGuller on March 08, 2013, 12:19:04 PM
Quote from: derspiess on March 08, 2013, 12:11:34 PM
I'm actually libertarian on more issues than not.
:yeahright: You're a libertarian in a way that most conservatives are libertarian: highly selectively. If your position happens to match the libertarian one, you'll milk the libertarian dogma for added legitimacy, but in no way would your position be driven by libertarian ideals. Even Soviet Union was "libertarian on some issues".
STOP STALKING ME
But seriously, you don't know me. On the political scale I'm somewhere between conservative and libertarian. I've never denied my conservative leanings. I happen to agree with libertarianism on greater than 50% of the issues and I very much believe in the philosophical underpinnings of libertarianism.
Words are cheap.
Can you give me an example of Speesh's selective libertarianism DGuller?
Quote from: derspiess on March 08, 2013, 12:21:50 PM
Quote from: sbr on March 08, 2013, 12:16:00 PM
@ spicey it was not intended as a gotcha or trick question. I haven't been around long enough to know or remember much.
It appeared to me you thought any discussing of the founder's intentions when drafting the 2nd amendment is not worth considering. I know 11b called it idiotic.
What's idiotic is the assumption that the founders only intended the 2nd Amendment to cover individual firearms technology that was available for that precise moment in 1787.
That would be rather idiotic. Who is saying such a thing?
Quote from: Berkut on March 08, 2013, 12:34:08 PM
Quote from: derspiess on March 08, 2013, 12:21:50 PM
Quote from: sbr on March 08, 2013, 12:16:00 PM
@ spicey it was not intended as a gotcha or trick question. I haven't been around long enough to know or remember much.
It appeared to me you thought any discussing of the founder's intentions when drafting the 2nd amendment is not worth considering. I know 11b called it idiotic.
What's idiotic is the assumption that the founders only intended the 2nd Amendment to cover individual firearms technology that was available for that precise moment in 1787.
That would be rather idiotic. Who is saying such a thing?
People who think the 2nd Amendment only grants the right to keep and bear flintlock muskets.
Quote from: Berkut on March 08, 2013, 12:34:08 PM
Quote from: derspiess on March 08, 2013, 12:21:50 PM
Quote from: sbr on March 08, 2013, 12:16:00 PM
@ spicey it was not intended as a gotcha or trick question. I haven't been around long enough to know or remember much.
It appeared to me you thought any discussing of the founder's intentions when drafting the 2nd amendment is not worth considering. I know 11b called it idiotic.
What's idiotic is the assumption that the founders only intended the 2nd Amendment to cover individual firearms technology that was available for that precise moment in 1787.
That would be rather idiotic. Who is saying such a thing?
QuoteLast I checked, a musket only held one round. Hard to argue that the Founding Fathers intended for the Second to protect the "right" of a citizen to fire some arbitrary number of rounds, isn't it?
:rolleyes:
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 08, 2013, 12:27:47 PM
Quote from: derspiess on March 08, 2013, 12:21:50 PM
What's idiotic is the assumption that the founders only intended the 2nd Amendment to cover individual firearms technology that was available for that precise moment in 1787.
Agreed. The founders were not totally unfamiliar with the concept of technological advancement.
My point is that the founders were not familiar with the concept of a magazine, so it is clear that they could not have possibly intended for the second to cover a question about how many rounds a weapon can have in its magazine to begin with.
That isn't saying they would or would not approve had they been aware, simply that you cannot claim that a seven round limit is clearly a violation of the 2nd, while a 10 round limit is not - they had no idea about either of them, so hence could not have a viewpoint.
We already accept that there is SOME limit that is acceptable - nobody argues that the second says you should be able to tote around 200 round belt fed machine guns because that is an "arm". Therefore, the question of 10 vs 7, or 200 vs 10, is clearly NOT a second amendment issue.
This is very relevant, because the SC has in fact used the basic concept of what a individual "arm" is in interpreting the second in the past. At least that is my understanding.
That doesn't mean that it only applies to muskets of course, but it does mean that it likely applies to the basic modern equivalents, at least once the SC changed the 2nd to include the personal right to bear in the first place. But specific details about nuances like how many rounds it can carry? No way (IMO) that you can argue that the second could have a viewpoint on that fine of granularity as to decide HOW MANY rounds is permissible.
Quote from: 11B4V on March 08, 2013, 12:36:41 PM
Quote from: Berkut on March 08, 2013, 12:34:08 PM
Quote from: derspiess on March 08, 2013, 12:21:50 PM
Quote from: sbr on March 08, 2013, 12:16:00 PM
@ spicey it was not intended as a gotcha or trick question. I haven't been around long enough to know or remember much.
It appeared to me you thought any discussing of the founder's intentions when drafting the 2nd amendment is not worth considering. I know 11b called it idiotic.
What's idiotic is the assumption that the founders only intended the 2nd Amendment to cover individual firearms technology that was available for that precise moment in 1787.
That would be rather idiotic. Who is saying such a thing?
QuoteLast I checked, a musket only held one round. Hard to argue that the Founding Fathers intended for the Second to protect the "right" of a citizen to fire some arbitrary number of rounds, isn't it?
:rolleyes:
You don't read so good, do you?
Quote from: derspiess on March 08, 2013, 12:35:25 PM
Quote from: Berkut on March 08, 2013, 12:34:08 PM
Quote from: derspiess on March 08, 2013, 12:21:50 PM
Quote from: sbr on March 08, 2013, 12:16:00 PM
@ spicey it was not intended as a gotcha or trick question. I haven't been around long enough to know or remember much.
It appeared to me you thought any discussing of the founder's intentions when drafting the 2nd amendment is not worth considering. I know 11b called it idiotic.
What's idiotic is the assumption that the founders only intended the 2nd Amendment to cover individual firearms technology that was available for that precise moment in 1787.
That would be rather idiotic. Who is saying such a thing?
People who think the 2nd Amendment only grants the right to keep and bear flintlock muskets.
Who would those people be?
Quote from: Berkut on March 08, 2013, 12:42:06 PM
Who would those people be?
Some guy named Berkut seems to be one of them.
Quote from: derspiess on March 08, 2013, 12:44:11 PM
Quote from: Berkut on March 08, 2013, 12:42:06 PM
Who would those people be?
Some guy named Berkut seems to be one of them.
I love it when people are so attached to their strawmen, that someone actually stating "I don't think that" doesn't even dissuade them demanding that they do...
Quote from: Berkut on March 08, 2013, 12:41:50 PM
Quote from: 11B4V on March 08, 2013, 12:36:41 PM
Quote from: Berkut on March 08, 2013, 12:34:08 PM
Quote from: derspiess on March 08, 2013, 12:21:50 PM
Quote from: sbr on March 08, 2013, 12:16:00 PM
@ spicey it was not intended as a gotcha or trick question. I haven't been around long enough to know or remember much.
It appeared to me you thought any discussing of the founder's intentions when drafting the 2nd amendment is not worth considering. I know 11b called it idiotic.
What's idiotic is the assumption that the founders only intended the 2nd Amendment to cover individual firearms technology that was available for that precise moment in 1787.
That would be rather idiotic. Who is saying such a thing?
QuoteLast I checked, a musket only held one round. Hard to argue that the Founding Fathers intended for the Second to protect the "right" of a citizen to fire some arbitrary number of rounds, isn't it?
:rolleyes:
You don't read so good, do you?
I read very well thank you. Your making the wrong argument.
Berkut, why do you oppose the SAFE Act?
Quote from: Berkut on March 08, 2013, 12:47:42 PM
Quote from: derspiess on March 08, 2013, 12:44:11 PM
Quote from: Berkut on March 08, 2013, 12:42:06 PM
Who would those people be?
Some guy named Berkut seems to be one of them.
I love it when people are so attached to their strawmen, that someone actually stating "I don't think that" doesn't even dissuade them demanding that they do...
I was wondering when the strawman defense would come out. :lmfao:
I may very well be making the wrong argument, but nobody would know, since neither of you have the balls to actually address my argument.
Instead you just fall back on this rather idiotic strawman.
Quote from: Berkut on March 08, 2013, 12:50:56 PM
I may very well be making the wrong argument, but nobody would know, since neither of you have the balls to actually address my argument.
Instead you just fall back on this rather idiotic strawman.
Your whole argument is a strawman. I'm still here, DS is still here, so fuck your lack of balls. I will not let you off the hook with the musket reference. Your in defensive mode right now. All that's left is for you to gradually shift the discussion to some miniscule topic.
Got to go to work. See ya in 1.5 hours.
Quote from: derspiess on March 08, 2013, 10:01:19 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on March 08, 2013, 09:54:29 AM
I can't fit 10 rounds into my revolver anyway, so it doesn't bother me a bit.
So you'd be okay with Maryland reducing the legal mag capacity to 7?
I'll have my dealer send you a copy of his FFL so you can transfer your P38 to me :)
Considering how that was the provisions under the Brady Bill last time--civilian purchases of semi-automatics did not exceed 7 rounds--it wouldn't be much of a big deal, Koresh.
And go fuck yourself with a fetus skull, Teabagger.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on March 08, 2013, 01:06:37 PM
Considering how that was the provisions under the Brady Bill last time--civilian purchases of semi-automatics did not exceed 7 rounds--it wouldn't be much of a big deal, Koresh.
It was??
QuoteAnd go fuck yourself with a fetus skull, Teabagger.
So that's a no, then? I wanted a P38 to put next to my Tokarev :(
Quote from: Berkut on March 08, 2013, 12:41:15 PM
My point is that the founders were not familiar with the concept of a magazine, so it is clear that they could not have possibly intended for the second to cover a question about how many rounds a weapon can have in its magazine to begin with.
That isn't saying they would or would not approve had they been aware, simply that you cannot claim that a seven round limit is clearly a violation of the 2nd, while a 10 round limit is not - they had no idea about either of them, so hence could not have a viewpoint.
No, it's not clear they could not possibly have intended for the 2nd to cover the question of magazine size, just as it's not clear that they could not possibly have intended for equal protection to cover transexuals or for the 1st to cover the internet.
The much better argument is the one you switch to in the latter part of your post. We have always recognized the possibility of limitations on our rights when the public policy objective that is the goal of those limitations is important enough.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on March 08, 2013, 01:06:37 PM
Quote from: derspiess on March 08, 2013, 10:01:19 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on March 08, 2013, 09:54:29 AM
I can't fit 10 rounds into my revolver anyway, so it doesn't bother me a bit.
So you'd be okay with Maryland reducing the legal mag capacity to 7?
I'll have my dealer send you a copy of his FFL so you can transfer your P38 to me :)
Considering how that was the provisions under the Brady Bill last time--civilian purchases of semi-automatics did not exceed 7 rounds--it wouldn't be much of a big deal, Koresh.
And go fuck yourself with a fetus skull, Teabagger.
and that's why it not an infringement on the right to bear arms. It's not an infringement on anything but opinion. Nowhere in the 2nd does it state you have the right to 15 rounds in a MAGAZINE. Hell get a Govmint model 1911. Capacity 7 rounds.
Look Ma.. no musket reference.
Most states I have lived in only allow 3 rounds loaded in a shotgun when bird hunting. I have used an old Remington Model 11 20 ga (semi-auto) since I was 12 for bird hunting. It will hold five shells in the tube if I take the plug out. The law states that cant be done and I'm allowed only three. It doesnt infringe on my right to own the shotgun and doesnt infringe on my right to hunt. Therefore any argument as to round capacity in that shotgun within the structure of the 2nd is irrelevant and only opinion.
Quote from: 11B4V on March 08, 2013, 01:17:05 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on March 08, 2013, 01:06:37 PM
Quote from: derspiess on March 08, 2013, 10:01:19 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on March 08, 2013, 09:54:29 AM
I can't fit 10 rounds into my revolver anyway, so it doesn't bother me a bit.
So you'd be okay with Maryland reducing the legal mag capacity to 7?
I'll have my dealer send you a copy of his FFL so you can transfer your P38 to me :)
Considering how that was the provisions under the Brady Bill last time--civilian purchases of semi-automatics did not exceed 7 rounds--it wouldn't be much of a big deal, Koresh.
And go fuck yourself with a fetus skull, Teabagger.
and that's why it not an infringement on the right to bear arms. It's not an infringement on anything but opinion. Nowhere in the 2nd does it state you have the right to 15 rounds in a MAGAZINE. Hell get a Govmint model 1911. Capacity 7 rounds.
I will take your concession on the argument.
The SAFE act provision restricting magazine sizes is not challengeable on second amendment grounds.
Noted that you didn't have the balls to just agree with me to begin with, and instead are doing so without actually having the courage to just say you were wrong in your idiotic characterization of my argument.
Quote from: 11B4V on March 08, 2013, 12:56:04 PM
Quote from: Berkut on March 08, 2013, 12:50:56 PM
I may very well be making the wrong argument, but nobody would know, since neither of you have the balls to actually address my argument.
Instead you just fall back on this rather idiotic strawman.
Your whole argument is a strawman.
My argument is that the second amendment has no bearing on the SAFE act provisions restricting magazine size. How can that be a strawman, since it is MY argument - I make no claim about anyone else's argument, except insofar as I mis-understood spiceys argument, he explained what he meant, and I agreed with him once he palced it in terms of liberal ideals of freedom, rather than second amendment ideals.
You know what? Saying I didn't understand his argument? It didn't even hurt a little bit - didn't make me feel less manly, didn't make me worry that others might not think I am smart or tough or anything. You really should try it sometime, it isn't as bad as you imagine it to be.
How could that possibly be a strawman?
Note the difference - I make an argument, you claim I said something I did not, I respond by saying I did not mean that, and you respond by insisting that I did, and that you won't even accept me saying that I don't believe that!
What is the point of this - the argument that the founding fathers only intended the 2nd to cover a musket is so infantile that nobody with half a brain would ever say that - yet you insist that in fact that MUST be what I meant, even after I simply state that it is not. Why? If you really think I am that stupid, why even bother arguing with me?
Answer: Because you know I never thought that, but want to hold onto to it because you imagine it is scoring you fake internet points?
Quote from: derspiess on March 08, 2013, 01:13:33 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on March 08, 2013, 01:06:37 PM
Considering how that was the provisions under the Brady Bill last time--civilian purchases of semi-automatics did not exceed 7 rounds--it wouldn't be much of a big deal, Koresh.
It was??
I dunno, pretty sure it was something like that but I may be wrong. Then again, I'm not a semi-auto fan, so it's not like I noticed.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on March 08, 2013, 02:22:25 PM
Quote from: derspiess on March 08, 2013, 01:13:33 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on March 08, 2013, 01:06:37 PM
Considering how that was the provisions under the Brady Bill last time--civilian purchases of semi-automatics did not exceed 7 rounds--it wouldn't be much of a big deal, Koresh.
It was??
I dunno, pretty sure it was something like that but I may be wrong. Then again, I'm not a semi-auto fan, so it's not like I noticed.
The Brady Bill is just the required background check, Seedy. You're thinking of the Federal Assault Weapons Ban, and the cutoff was 10 rounds.
Quote from: ulmont on March 08, 2013, 02:29:21 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on March 08, 2013, 02:22:25 PM
Quote from: derspiess on March 08, 2013, 01:13:33 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on March 08, 2013, 01:06:37 PM
Considering how that was the provisions under the Brady Bill last time--civilian purchases of semi-automatics did not exceed 7 rounds--it wouldn't be much of a big deal, Koresh.
It was??
I dunno, pretty sure it was something like that but I may be wrong. Then again, I'm not a semi-auto fan, so it's not like I noticed.
The Brady Bill is just the required background check, Seedy. You're thinking of the Federal Assault Weapons Ban, and the cutoff was 10 rounds.
Plus that only applied to the guns as sold. My Glock 17 came with a 10-round magazine but in a separate transaction I bought a couple 17-round mags off the shelf in the same store.
I just thought of something - with the SAFE act, my unregistered pistol is not unregistered in New York, AND has an illegal magazine!
I really should get rid of that thing...
Quote from: Berkut on March 08, 2013, 02:48:11 PM
I just thought of something - with the SAFE act, my unregistered pistol is not unregistered in New York, AND has an illegal magazine!
I really should get rid of that thing...
I told you to find a gun buyback program and get yourself a nice $100 Amazon gift card for it.
Quote from: Berkut on March 08, 2013, 01:43:31 PM
Quote from: 11B4V on March 08, 2013, 01:17:05 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on March 08, 2013, 01:06:37 PM
Quote from: derspiess on March 08, 2013, 10:01:19 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on March 08, 2013, 09:54:29 AM
I can't fit 10 rounds into my revolver anyway, so it doesn't bother me a bit.
So you'd be okay with Maryland reducing the legal mag capacity to 7?
I'll have my dealer send you a copy of his FFL so you can transfer your P38 to me :)
Considering how that was the provisions under the Brady Bill last time--civilian purchases of semi-automatics did not exceed 7 rounds--it wouldn't be much of a big deal, Koresh.
And go fuck yourself with a fetus skull, Teabagger.
and that's why it not an infringement on the right to bear arms. It's not an infringement on anything but opinion. Nowhere in the 2nd does it state you have the right to 15 rounds in a MAGAZINE. Hell get a Govmint model 1911. Capacity 7 rounds.
I will take your concession on the argument.
The SAFE act provision restricting magazine sizes is not challengeable on second amendment grounds.
Noted that you didn't have the balls to just agree with me to begin with, and instead are doing so without actually having the courage to just say you were wrong in your idiotic characterization of my argument.
I "made" your arguement for you despite "your" error. Yi also point out your error more succinctly than I. I told you, you were making the wrong arguement. I never agreed or disagreed on magazine capacties you dumb fuck. Never stated whether it was right, wrong or otherwise pior to Post #156. I disagreed with your retarded musket and founding fathers intentions BS. Scroll your fucking disingenuous pile of shit self back and check. You
assumed I was on the opposite end of your arguement. Never stated I was, was I? Never made an arguement against your or anyone elses premise of the SAFE act. Another ERROR on your part.
You just keep fuckin up aint ya boy. I pointed out the idiocy you tried to spew with the musket/ FF's intentions. You, Berkut. Your idoitic error. You are a disingenuous person by your statements above.
Courage is lacked by you and your chicken shit inability to admit a mistake. Goes to your character.
Quote from: Berkut on March 08, 2013, 01:50:37 PM
Answer: Because you know I never thought that, but want to hold onto to it because you imagine it is scoring you fake internet points?
I need no internet points or what ever you are again trying to imply. Again disingenuous on your part. Typical
QuoteLast I checked, a musket only held one round. Hard to argue that the Founding Fathers intended for the Second to protect the "right" of a citizen to fire some arbitrary number of rounds, isn't it?
Squirm, boy squirm away. Again typical Berkut tactic.
It would appear that this debate needs Raz to come down from high and choose a winner. I pick the gun nuts. My will be done. :pope:
Quote from: Razgovory on March 08, 2013, 03:29:40 PM
It would appear that this debate needs Raz to come down from high and choose a winner. I pick the gun nuts. My will be done. :pope:
Raz, I careless about winning or losing, scoring internet points (whatever the fuck that is) :lmfao:. Apparently it's important to Berkut at any cost, to include his character.
Where's that damned microwave popcorn? Thought I had some in my desk.
Before: I dont' think disingenuine is a word.
Quote from: derspiess on March 08, 2013, 02:40:13 PM
Quote from: ulmont on March 08, 2013, 02:29:21 PM
The Brady Bill is just the required background check, Seedy. You're thinking of the Federal Assault Weapons Ban, and the cutoff was 10 rounds.
Plus that only applied to the guns as sold. My Glock 17 came with a 10-round magazine but in a separate transaction I bought a couple 17-round mags off the shelf in the same store.
The magazine ban did apply to magazines generally, but grandfathered in any magazines produced before the ban went into effect.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 08, 2013, 03:38:20 PM
Before: I dont' think disingenuine is a word.
Yes that is a mistake. Unlike Berkut I can admit a mistake.
Quote from: derspiess on March 08, 2013, 03:15:14 PM
Quote from: Berkut on March 08, 2013, 02:48:11 PM
I just thought of something - with the SAFE act, my unregistered pistol is not unregistered in New York, AND has an illegal magazine!
I really should get rid of that thing...
I told you to find a gun buyback program and get yourself a nice $100 Amazon gift card for it.
You can get wargames from amazon now. :)
Quote from: ulmont on March 08, 2013, 03:41:07 PM
Quote from: derspiess on March 08, 2013, 02:40:13 PM
Quote from: ulmont on March 08, 2013, 02:29:21 PM
The Brady Bill is just the required background check, Seedy. You're thinking of the Federal Assault Weapons Ban, and the cutoff was 10 rounds.
Plus that only applied to the guns as sold. My Glock 17 came with a 10-round magazine but in a separate transaction I bought a couple 17-round mags off the shelf in the same store.
The magazine ban did apply to magazines generally, but grandfathered in any magazines produced before the ban went into effect.
There were lots of large capacity magazines available back then though (1998) and I could swear that somehow they were still being manufactured or imported using some sort of loophole.
Quote from: derspiess on March 08, 2013, 02:40:13 PM
Plus that only applied to the guns as sold. My Glock 17 came with a 10-round magazine but in a separate transaction I bought a couple 17-round mags off the shelf in the same store.
Interesting. I bought my FNP-9 in 2005 and it came with two 16 round mags.
Quote from: 11B4V on March 08, 2013, 04:01:16 PM
Quote from: derspiess on March 08, 2013, 02:40:13 PM
Plus that only applied to the guns as sold. My Glock 17 came with a 10-round magazine but in a separate transaction I bought a couple 17-round mags off the shelf in the same store.
Interesting. I bought my FNP-9 in 2005 and it came with two 16 round mags.
Well, you're a cop.
I jack off into my 30 round magazines.
Quote from: derspiess on March 08, 2013, 04:04:23 PM
Quote from: 11B4V on March 08, 2013, 04:01:16 PM
Quote from: derspiess on March 08, 2013, 02:40:13 PM
Plus that only applied to the guns as sold. My Glock 17 came with a 10-round magazine but in a separate transaction I bought a couple 17-round mags off the shelf in the same store.
Interesting. I bought my FNP-9 in 2005 and it came with two 16 round mags.
Well, you're a cop.
Not at that time. Not until 2006.
Quote from: Ed Anger on March 08, 2013, 04:06:11 PM
I jack off into my 30 round magazines.
Ed if you knew how many 20 and 30 rd mags I had in my possession from 20 years in the Army you'd be shocked. I gave them away in the last to years of my career. I had a footlocker full.
It was not controlled in the least bit. All I had to do was go to the armorer and he'd give me six new ones. No turn in of the old ones. Unsure how controlled it is now.
I imagine the military treats them as semi-discardable anyway. Surely in the middle of a firefight you're not supposed to hand them into a supply sargeant and have him sign for them and give you a receipt.
Quote from: 11B4V on March 08, 2013, 04:10:13 PM
Quote from: Ed Anger on March 08, 2013, 04:06:11 PM
I jack off into my 30 round magazines.
Ed if you knew how many 20 and 30 rd mags I had in my possession from 20 years in the Army you'd be shocked. I gave them away in the last to years of my career. I had a footlocker full.
It was not controlled in the least bit. All I had to do was go to the armorer and he'd give me six new ones. No turn in of the old ones. Unsure how controlled it is now.
I'm sure some pinhead in supply is selling them to gunshow sellers.
Quote from: Ed Anger on March 08, 2013, 04:06:11 PM
I jack off into my 30 round magazines.
I used to have a 40-round magazine when I had my AK. Never used it, due to our weird-ass state law that says it's legal to *own* a magazine with a capacity higher than 30 rounds, you can't insert it into a firearm or that firearm instantly becomes a class 3 machinegun :huh:
Quote from: 11B4V on March 08, 2013, 03:27:45 PM
Quote from: Berkut on March 08, 2013, 01:50:37 PM
Answer: Because you know I never thought that, but want to hold onto to it because you imagine it is scoring you fake internet points?
I need no internet points or what ever you are again trying to imply. Again disingenuous on your part. Typical
QuoteLast I checked, a musket only held one round. Hard to argue that the Founding Fathers intended for the Second to protect the "right" of a citizen to fire some arbitrary number of rounds, isn't it?
Squirm, boy squirm away. Again typical Berkut tactic.
What is their to squirm about? My statement is exactly as it says - the FF never said anything about magazine capacity, nor could they since they wouldn't even know what one is.
You are the one who then claimed that I said the second only applies to the right to own a musket, which is not at all what I said, rather obviously, since I then re-stated it several times.
That's not exactly what your statement said Berkut.
Quote from: 11B4V on March 08, 2013, 03:22:32 PM
Quote from: Berkut on March 08, 2013, 01:43:31 PM
Quote from: 11B4V on March 08, 2013, 01:17:05 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on March 08, 2013, 01:06:37 PM
Quote from: derspiess on March 08, 2013, 10:01:19 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on March 08, 2013, 09:54:29 AM
I can't fit 10 rounds into my revolver anyway, so it doesn't bother me a bit.
So you'd be okay with Maryland reducing the legal mag capacity to 7?
I'll have my dealer send you a copy of his FFL so you can transfer your P38 to me :)
Considering how that was the provisions under the Brady Bill last time--civilian purchases of semi-automatics did not exceed 7 rounds--it wouldn't be much of a big deal, Koresh.
And go fuck yourself with a fetus skull, Teabagger.
and that's why it not an infringement on the right to bear arms. It's not an infringement on anything but opinion. Nowhere in the 2nd does it state you have the right to 15 rounds in a MAGAZINE. Hell get a Govmint model 1911. Capacity 7 rounds.
I will take your concession on the argument.
The SAFE act provision restricting magazine sizes is not challengeable on second amendment grounds.
Noted that you didn't have the balls to just agree with me to begin with, and instead are doing so without actually having the courage to just say you were wrong in your idiotic characterization of my argument.
I "made" your arguement for you despite "your" error. Yi also point out your error more succinctly than I. I told you, you were making the wrong arguement. I never agreed or disagreed on magazine capacties you dumb fuck. Never stated whether it was right, wrong or otherwise pior to Post #156. I disagreed with your retarded musket and founding fathers intentions BS. Scroll your fucking disingenuous pile of shit self back and check.
My oh my, the internet rage is strong in this one.
You never made any argument for me, as I don't require your assistance in demolishing your own strawman.
But keep on with the rage. It suits you better than your strawman building.
Quote
You assumed I was on the opposite end of your arguement. Never stated I was, was I?
I never stated anything about where you were on the point I was making, until you agreed with me.
Just pointed out that I never made the point you continue to insist that I was making, even after I've stated I am not.
Quote
Never made an arguement against your or anyone elses premise of the SAFE act. Another ERROR on your part. You just keep fuckin up aint ya boy. I pointed out the idiocy you tried to spew with the musket/ FF's intentions. You, Berkut. Your idoitic error. You are a disingenuous person by your statements above.
Oh please.
You claim I say something.
I say I didn't say that.
You insist that I did - I state unequivocally that I do not believe such a thing, and that it is stupid.
You continue to bleat and swear and get super internet enraged that I so totally do think that...and for what reason...?
Quote
Courage is lacked by you and your chicken shit inability to admit a mistake. Goes to your character.
Yawn. At least you got some Raz internet points - congrats on that.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 08, 2013, 04:17:54 PM
That's not exactly what your statement said Berkut.
So, the reasonable thing to assume then is that what I meant was:
" the founders only intended the 2nd Amendment to cover individual firearms technology that was available for that precise moment in 1787."
Even though THAT sure as hell isn't "exactly what I said" either, and since then I've posted about a dozen posts stating precisely what I did mean?
And of course all of them are ignored in favor of this imaginary statement?
Quote from: Berkut on March 08, 2013, 04:23:03 PM
So, the reasonable thing to assume then is that what I meant was:
" the founders only intended the 2nd Amendment to cover individual firearms technology that was available for that precise moment in 1787."
Even though THAT sure as hell isn't "exactly what I said" either, and since then I've posted about a dozen posts stating precisely what I did mean?
And of course all of them are ignored in favor of this imaginary statement?
Yes, that's a reasonable inference. You stated (and I paraphrase) that the 2nd amendment can't cover magazines because the founders weren't aware of them. It naturally follows that they only wanted the 2nd amendment to cover firearms technology they were aware of. The unnatural conclusion is that the 2nd amendment doesn't cover magazines, but it does cover other technology not yet invented at the time...just because.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 08, 2013, 04:30:43 PM
Quote from: Berkut on March 08, 2013, 04:23:03 PM
So, the reasonable thing to assume then is that what I meant was:
" the founders only intended the 2nd Amendment to cover individual firearms technology that was available for that precise moment in 1787."
Even though THAT sure as hell isn't "exactly what I said" either, and since then I've posted about a dozen posts stating precisely what I did mean?
And of course all of them are ignored in favor of this imaginary statement?
Yes, that's a reasonable inference. You stated (and I paraphrase) that the 2nd amendment can't cover magazines because the founders weren't aware of them. It naturally follows that they only wanted the 2nd amendment to cover firearms technology they were aware of. The unnatural conclusion is that the 2nd amendment doesn't cover magazines, but it does cover other technology not yet invented at the time...just because.
Horsehit.
That is an idiotic inference. That is NOT what I stated - my statement was specifically addressed to the question of how many rounds a magazine could have.
I stated exactly what I was arguing - that the second could not cover a very particular element of a specific law (the reduction in magazine size from 10 to 7) because they certainly did not know what a magazine was,so how could they possibly have an opinion about what size was necessary? That doesn't mean the second doesn't apply to anything they could not know, only that it cannot apply to specifically whether a magazine can have 7 or 10 rounds in it. I think this must be about the tenth time I've stated that.
It is YOUR leap to then assume that I am arguing that then the second should only cover technology they are aware of - that is a huge leap.
And then to continue that I MUST mean that even when I state time and again I do not, and state exactly what I do mean? WTF is the point of that?
You are taking a single line in a few hundred, and insisting that you can only draw a conclusion about my argument (and of course it is an idiotic conclusion) from THAT singular sentence, and anything I say otherwise (before or after) should be ignored in favor of this precious, precious strawman.
Quote from: 11B4V on March 08, 2013, 04:01:16 PM
Quote from: derspiess on March 08, 2013, 02:40:13 PM
Plus that only applied to the guns as sold. My Glock 17 came with a 10-round magazine but in a separate transaction I bought a couple 17-round mags off the shelf in the same store.
Interesting. I bought my FNP-9 in 2005 and it came with two 16 round mags.
...which was after the ban had expired in 2004.
Quote from: derspiess on March 08, 2013, 04:00:10 PM
There were lots of large capacity magazines available back then though (1998) and I could swear that somehow they were still being manufactured or imported using some sort of loophole.
Large capacity magazines were produced feverishly before the ban actually kicked in.
https://www.ncjrs.gov/txtfiles1/173405.txt
Quote from: Berkut on March 08, 2013, 04:37:56 PM
I stated exactly what I was arguing - that the second could not cover a very particular element of a specific law (the reduction in magazine size from 10 to 7) because they certainly did not know what a magazine was,so how could they possibly have an opinion about what size was necessary? That doesn't mean the second doesn't apply to anything they could not know, only that it cannot apply to specifically whether a magazine can have 7 or 10 rounds in it. I think this must be about the tenth time I've stated that.
And this is the tenth time it doesn't make any sense to me. How could they have an opinion on semi-auto vs. full auto vs. single shot? How could they have an opinion on folding stocks? How could they have an opinion on teflon bullets? How could they have an opinion on percussion caps vs. flint locks? How could they have an opinion on *any* of the technological advancements in firearms since their time?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 08, 2013, 04:45:13 PM
Quote from: Berkut on March 08, 2013, 04:37:56 PM
I stated exactly what I was arguing - that the second could not cover a very particular element of a specific law (the reduction in magazine size from 10 to 7) because they certainly did not know what a magazine was,so how could they possibly have an opinion about what size was necessary? That doesn't mean the second doesn't apply to anything they could not know, only that it cannot apply to specifically whether a magazine can have 7 or 10 rounds in it. I think this must be about the tenth time I've stated that.
And this is the tenth time it doesn't make any sense to me. How could they have an opinion on semi-auto vs. full auto vs. single shot? How could they have an opinion on folding stocks? How could they have an opinion on teflon bullets? How could they have an opinion on percussion caps vs. flint locks? How could they have an opinion on *any* of the technological advancements in firearms since their time?
Well, at least now we are arguing about what I said, rather than what you wish I had said!
The answer is that in most cases, they can't have an opinion on most of those things, except insofar as the basic SC finding that the second does cover weapons that are the equivalent of a arm of the time (at least I think that is what the SC said).
If someone proposes a ban on folding stocks, I think it is crazy to try to argue that said ban is a violation of the second amendment - how could it be, since the second clearly has nothing to say about folding stocks? The only way to claim that it would cover such a thing is to claim that it's scope if incredibly broad, and if it was THAT broad, then it would cover all kinds of other things that we as a society have already clearly stated it does NOT cover - like machine guns and AT missiles, which are arms as well.
I think you can make some arguments of course, if you limit their scope to reason, but of course that becomes pretty slippery. Which is part of the reason why I think the second is ridiculously over-used in all these arguments, and we would be better off if it simply did not exist and we debated the merits of gun control legislation without reference to it.
There we go-- repeal the 2nd Amendment! :lol:
Quote from: derspiess on March 08, 2013, 04:57:25 PM
There we go-- repeal the 2nd Amendment! :lol:
Haven't we already agree that the 2nd Amendment has nothing to do with this issue anyway?
Or is this just you finding the idea of its repeal so incredible that you like to mention it regardless?
Quote from: Berkut on March 08, 2013, 05:00:19 PM
Or is this just you finding the idea of its repeal so incredible that you like to mention it regardless?
Pretty much, yeah. Prevents me from wasting much time listening to your opinions if that's what you ultimately think should happen.
Quote from: ulmont on March 08, 2013, 02:29:21 PM
The Brady Bill is just the required background check, Seedy. You're thinking of the Federal Assault Weapons Ban, and the cutoff was 10 rounds.
Ah, that's right. I remember buying my .45 and it came with only 7 round magazines because, well, it was a .45. D'oh.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on March 08, 2013, 05:11:46 PM
Quote from: ulmont on March 08, 2013, 02:29:21 PM
The Brady Bill is just the required background check, Seedy. You're thinking of the Federal Assault Weapons Ban, and the cutoff was 10 rounds.
Ah, that's right. I remember buying my .45 and it came with only 7 round magazines because, well, it was a .45. D'oh.
Did you have it retrofitted with a cylinder?
Quote from: derspiess on March 08, 2013, 05:12:31 PM
Did you have it retrofitted with a cylinder?
:P No, but using speed loaders for it is a real bitch.
Quote from: derspiess on March 08, 2013, 05:08:11 PM
Quote from: Berkut on March 08, 2013, 05:00:19 PM
Or is this just you finding the idea of its repeal so incredible that you like to mention it regardless?
Pretty much, yeah. Prevents me from wasting much time listening to your opinions if that's what you ultimately think should happen.
Meh, I think it would be best - I know it won't ever actually happen. Too many people with an emotional response (like yours) to the very idea.
Yep, that's me. Mr. Emotional.
Quote from: derspiess on March 08, 2013, 05:19:53 PM
Yep, that's me. Mr. Emotional.
When it comes to those wonderful, beautiful guns? Oh yeah.
Quote from: ulmont on March 08, 2013, 04:42:08 PM
Quote from: 11B4V on March 08, 2013, 04:01:16 PM
Quote from: derspiess on March 08, 2013, 02:40:13 PM
Plus that only applied to the guns as sold. My Glock 17 came with a 10-round magazine but in a separate transaction I bought a couple 17-round mags off the shelf in the same store.
Interesting. I bought my FNP-9 in 2005 and it came with two 16 round mags.
...which was after the ban had expired in 2004.
Quote from: derspiess on March 08, 2013, 04:00:10 PM
There were lots of large capacity magazines available back then though (1998) and I could swear that somehow they were still being manufactured or imported using some sort of loophole.
Large capacity magazines were produced feverishly before the ban actually kicked in.
https://www.ncjrs.gov/txtfiles1/173405.txt
aH HA THANKS
Quote
My oh my, the internet rage is strong in this one.
You never made any argument for me, as I don't require your assistance in demolishing your own strawman.
But keep on with the rage. It suits you better than your strawman building.
No rage. :lol: You just keep exposing your disingenuous character. You are the only one who presented a strawman "musket boy". Then tried to use the usual Berkut tactic and got called. Yes, I helped you destroy your strawman. Your welcome.
Quote
Oh please.
You claim I say something.
I say I didn't say that.
You insist that I did - I state unequivocally that I do not believe such a thing, and that it is stupid.
You continue to bleat and swear and get super internet enraged that I so totally do think that...and for what reason...?
I showed what you stated. You wont admit it. Your character flaw.
Quote
Yawn. At least you got some Raz internet points - congrats on that.
Dont understand what the internet point thing is. Explain please since it seems so important to you.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 08, 2013, 04:13:09 PM
I imagine the military treats them as semi-discardable anyway.
Which always raised an eyebrow to me.
Quote from: 11B4V on March 08, 2013, 06:13:00 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 08, 2013, 04:13:09 PM
I imagine the military treats them as semi-discardable anyway.
Which always raised an eyebrow to me.
Why? Do you ever see a guy in any movie put spent clips in the pocket, and then refill them once he got home after a gunfight? Hell, half of them treat the guns themselves as discardable once they run out of ammo.
Quote from: DGuller on March 08, 2013, 06:17:28 PM
Quote from: 11B4V on March 08, 2013, 06:13:00 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 08, 2013, 04:13:09 PM
I imagine the military treats them as semi-discardable anyway.
Which always raised an eyebrow to me.
Why? Do you ever see a guy in any movie put spent clips in the pocket, and then refill them once he got home after a gunfight? Hell, half of them treat the guns themselves as discardable once they run out of ammo.
Please dont be that dense. I am not talking in a firefight or even in theater :lol:. CONUS and back in garrison.
Quote from: Berkut on March 08, 2013, 05:25:55 PM
Quote from: derspiess on March 08, 2013, 05:19:53 PM
Yep, that's me. Mr. Emotional.
When it comes to those wonderful, beautiful guns? Oh yeah.
No, sir. Being emotional is more your thing.
Quote from: 11B4V on March 08, 2013, 03:32:28 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on March 08, 2013, 03:29:40 PM
It would appear that this debate needs Raz to come down from high and choose a winner. I pick the gun nuts. My will be done. :pope:
Raz, I careless about winning or losing, scoring internet points (whatever the fuck that is) :lmfao:. Apparently it's important to Berkut at any cost, to include his character.
You guys know that while I enjoy poking you guys with your gun fixation, I'm not really for gun control. It's in the Constitution and I don't like fucking with that document. Besides, I remember 1992, I remember those Korean shop owners in LA.
Quote from: Razgovory on March 08, 2013, 07:28:32 PM
Quote from: 11B4V on March 08, 2013, 03:32:28 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on March 08, 2013, 03:29:40 PM
It would appear that this debate needs Raz to come down from high and choose a winner. I pick the gun nuts. My will be done. :pope:
Raz, I careless about winning or losing, scoring internet points (whatever the fuck that is) :lmfao:. Apparently it's important to Berkut at any cost, to include his character.
Besides, I remember 1992, I remember those Korean shop owners in LA.
Yippers. getting ready to go all kimchi on some brothers.
Me rikey.
I went to happy hour with a Korean dude. He's a prevert and has 8 total fingers. Funny as hell, though.
Quote from: derspiess on March 08, 2013, 09:14:25 PM
I went to happy hour with a Korean dude. He's a prevert and has 8 total fingers. Funny as hell, though.
That's bizzare :lol:
So Berkut, you're a strict constructionist then?
I know limousine liberals like Minksy abhor the judgment, but read the Heller decision, I think it would be instructive for you.
You'd probably be surprised how much you agree with it, based on what you're saying here, except for a few key points. For one, the Heller decision doesn't in anyway support your contention that "the Amendment only covers arms as they were known at the time the Amendment was written." That's really a very strict constructionist argument that only really conservative constitutionalists hold to strictly (even Scalia deviates from it as he wishes.) I have a suspicion you'll object to my characterization of your argument, but after reading you go over it for 10+ posts I'm still not 100% clear on what you meant, so if I've misinterpreted let's just agree to move on and not e-rage about it.
Instead it establishes what I think is a pretty good, sane, reasonable concept. "The government cannot blanket ban arms that are in common usage." I think that's a reasonable approach. It doesn't say you can't regulate them, so it would actually (and does, IMO) allow for a lot of proposed gun control legislation. Where it would draw the line on magazine limits is hard to say. I think if you said any magazine over 7 rounds is strictly banned, it could fall afoul of the "common usage" standard because it's pretty common to have weapons with larger magazines.
We'd have to see another ruling to know how it would go. Sadly I imagine Obama's next justice will overturn Heller, but I do think the concept is a good one. You can outright ban some weapons if you want, but they can't be weapons in common usage. Additionally, it elaborates a fundamental right to self defense and owning guns in general for that purpose.
A lot of the most meaningful gun regulations are the regulations I've always pushed for, I don't believe in unlimited gun rights. Over the years I've become more and more elitist, right now I'm at a place where I think I personally should be able to buy any damn gun made in the world. However, I also think there should be very strict licensing and registration requirements such that 95% of the country would not fall into this category with me. Strict licensing requirements, storage requirements, and meaningful enforcement mechanisms for both would do a hell of a lot more in my opinion than magazine limits which are just liberals attacking the hardware instead of the licensing regime (which is where most meaningful reform will come.) The hardware limitations between the U.S. and say Sweden/Norway/Germany actually isn't all that dramatic, but those countries are serious about licensing/registration and who is allowed to just go buy a gun and how they store a gun. I think that's a much bigger difference than limits on bullets in a magazine. For some reason American liberals have never gotten serious down that path and instead want to go down the hardware regulation path, a failure of an approach that does nothing to stop gun crimes.
But to go back to the SC, Heller leaves us able to pass almost any kind of storage/licensing/registration requirement while adding a "common usage" clause that would prevent just banning popular arms. So that seems a pretty reasonable place to start with in terms of what the 2nd Amendment protects. According to the SC the 2nd Amendment protects owning a firearm for home or personal defense and owning weapons that are in "common usage." What the Founders intent was is irrelevant as modern day SC rulings take precedence.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on March 09, 2013, 12:03:27 PM
Additionally, it elaborates a fundamental right to self defense and owning guns in general for that purpose.
Strict licensing requirements, storage requirements, and meaningful enforcement mechanisms for both
How do you establish strict licensing requirements if there's a fundamental right to own guns for self defense? And what would constitute meaningful enforcement of storage requirements other than periodic inspections of how people are storing their guns inside their homes?
You can still regulate purchases and ownership, you can say "you need a license to own or buy this thing." Heller only banned, explicitly, blanket bans of arms in common usage. The provision on a fundamental right to self defense invalidated a portion of D.C. law where if you went through the Byzantine process in D.C. that allowed you to own a gun pre-Heller you had to store it in a totally inoperable state. That was seen as incompatible with an individual's fundamental right of self defense in their home. But there's nothing in the text of Heller that denies a jurisdiction the power to create a comprehensive licensing regime.
Like with other rights see: Abortion, most likely if your licensing regime was just a clever de facto ban the current court would strike it down, but it's less clear they'd strike down a strict licensing regime requiring law enforcement interviews, testing, etc.
Storage is the more difficult one. In Germany you cede some of your protection from government searches if you own a gun, as the local police are allowed to periodically come into your home to inspect your gun storage. I'm not 100% sure if that law could get past fourth amendment protections in the U.S., and if not storage laws would only really be enforceable "after something happens." Ex make it a felony to store a gun in a manner a child could easily access it, a kid at your house gets a gun and shoots self, you're now guilty of a felony when in the investigation the police find you had no gun safe or etc in your home.
On the self defense angle it's questionable if trigger locks or gun safes wouldn't be seen as similar to the old D.C. requirement that you store you gun in an inoperable state. Personally I think there are some good "quick open" options out there for pistols where you punch in a four digit combo and the case pops open, that would be sufficient for any realistic home defense scenarios, but who knows what the current court would say.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on March 10, 2013, 10:25:54 AM
invalidated a portion of D.C. law where if you went through the Byzantine process in D.C. that allowed you to own a gun pre-Heller you had to store it in a totally inoperable state.
Store it, or just transport it? I don't recall that particular aspect for storage unless it was during transportation.
Thank god I've never been a district resident so I won't say for sure, but I thought if you jumped through all the hoops to get a gun license in D.C. during the pre-Heller days you had to keep it basically disassembled in your home. Maybe for handguns only, and you were allowed to store shotguns and rifles however you want?
The results are in.
I think this kind of thing is in part responsible for the acceleration of the marijuana legalization movement.
https://www.aclu.org/war-comes-home-excessive-militarization-american-policing
http://www.theguardian.com/law/2014/jun/24/military-us-police-swat-teams-raids-aclu
Quote
US police departments are increasingly militarised, finds report
• ACLU cites soaring use of war zone equipment and tactics
• Swat teams increasingly deployed in local police raids
• Seven civilians killed and 46 injured in incidents since 2010
Ed Pilkington in New York
theguardian.com, Tuesday 24 June 2014 05.01 BST
Jump to comments (349)
Link to video: Minority Report meets the Wire: how New Jersey police use military technology to fight crime – video
At 3am on 28 May, Alecia Phonesavanh was asleep in the room she was temporarily occupying together with her husband and four children in the small town of Cornelia, Georgia. Her baby, 18-month-old Bou Bou, was sleeping peacefully in his cot.
Suddenly there was a loud bang and several strangers dressed in black burst into the room. A blinding flash burst out with a deafening roar from the direction of the cot. Amid the confusion, Phonesavanh could see her husband pinned down and handcuffed under one of the men in black, and while her son was being held by another. Everyone was yelling, screaming, crying. "I kept asking the officers to let me have my baby, but they said shut up and sit down," she said.
As the pandemonium died down, it became clear that the strangers in black were a Swat team of police officers from the local Habersham County force – they had raided the house on the incorrect assumption that occupants were involved in drugs. It also became clear to Phonesavanh that something had happened to Bou Bou and that the officers had taken him away.
"They told me that they had taken my baby to the hospital. They said he was fine he had only lost a tooth, but they wanted him in for observation," Phonesavanh said.
When she got to the hospital she was horrified by what she saw. Bou Bou was in a medically-induced coma in the intensive care unit of Brady Memorial hospital. "His face was blown open. He had a hole in his chest that left his rib-cage visible."
The Swat team that burst into the Phonesavanh's room looking for a drug dealer had deployed a tactic commonly used by the US military in warzones, and increasingly by domestic police forces across the US. They threw an explosive device called a flashbang that is designed to distract and temporarily blind suspects to allow officers to overpower and detain them. The device had landed in Bou Bou's cot and detonated in the baby's face.
"My son is clinging to life. He's hurting and there's nothing I can do to help him," Phonesavanh said. "It breaks you, it breaks your spirit."
Bou Bou is not alone. A growing number of innocent people, many of them children and a high proportion African American, are becoming caught up in violent law enforcement raids that are part of an ongoing trend in America towards paramilitary policing.
The American Civil Liberties Union has released the results of its new survey into the use of Swat teams by police forces across the country. It concludes that policing has become dangerously and unnecessarily militarized, literally so with equipment and strategies being imported directly from the US army.
The findings set up a striking and troubling paradox. The Obama administration is completing its withdrawal from Afghanistan, and the US is on the verge of being free from war for the first time in more than a decade; yet at the same time the hardware and tactics of the war zone are quietly proliferating at home.
The ACLU's report, War Comes Home, looks at 818 Swat incidents that were carried out by more than 20 law enforcement agencies in 11 states. The raids spanned the period from July 2010 to last October.
swat team seattle washington maurice clemmons Heavily militarised equipment, such as APCs and flashbang grenades, are increasingly entering police arsenals. Photograph: Marcus Donner/Reuters
At the very least, the ACLU finds, the growing use of battering rams to smash down doors is causing property damage to the homes that are raided. At worst, people are dying or being injured by police teams deploying the techniques of the battlefield.
The survey, which covered only a small snapshot of what is going on around the country each year, found seven cases where civilians died in connection with the deployment of the Swat teams, two of which appeared to be suicides. A further 46 civilians were injured, often due to use of force by officers.
The victims include Aiyana Stanley-Jones, seven, who was killed in 2010 when a Swat team threw a flashbang grenade like the one that injured Bou Bou into the room where she was sleeping. The device set fire to Aiyana's blanket and when officers burst into the room they shot at the flames and hit her.
Then there was Tarika Wilson who was shot dead by Swat officers as she was holding her 14-month-old son in Lima, Ohio; the baby was injured but survived. And Eurie Stamp, a grandfather of 12, who was sitting watching baseball on TV in his pajamas in Farmington, Massachusetts, in January 2011 when a Swat team battered down his door, threw a flashbang device into the room and forced him to lie facedown on the floor. One of the officers' guns discharged and killed Stamp, who was not the man they had come to apprehend, as he lay there.
Also in 2011, Jose Guerena, a veteran of the Iraq war, was shot 22 times in his kitchen at home in Tucson, Arizona, by officers in a Swat team that was searching the neighbourhood for drugs. Nothing was found in the Guerena home.
Swat teams were a late 1960s invention that emerged out of the Los Angeles police department. Initially, they were designed to help officers react to perilous situations such as riots, hostage taking and where an active shooter was barricaded into a house.
But they have developed into something entirely different. The ACLU survey found that 62% of Swat team call-outs were for drug searches. Some 79% involved raids on private homes, and a similar proportion were done on the back of warrants authorizing searches. By contrast, only about 7% fell into those categories for which the technique was originally intended, such as hostage situations or barricades.
"Law enforcement agencies are increasingly using paramilitary squads to search people's homes for drugs," the ACLU writes. It adds: "Neighbourhoods are not war zones and our police officers should not be treating us like wartime enemies."
Research by Peter Kraska, a professor at Kentucky University, has tracked the exponential growth in the use of paramilitary tactics in the US. In the 1980s there were as few as 3,000 Swat raids a year, but by around 2005 that number had leapt to 45,000.
Such a rapid proliferation has been actively encouraged by the federal government, particularly by the Department of Homeland Security after 9/11, and by the Defense Department. The Pentagon channels military equipment used in Iraq and Afghanistan to domestic police forces under its 1033 programme, which the ACLU found had transmitted 15,000 items of battle uniforms and personal protective gear during the survey period.
The amount of equipment handed over can be substantial. North Little Rock police force in Arkansas, for instance, was granted 34 automatic and semi-automatic rifles, two MARCbot robots from Afghanistan that can be weaponised, helmets for ground troops and a tactical armoured vehicle.
Armoured personnel carriers, or APCs, have proliferated dramatically under the 1033 programme. About 500 law enforcement agencies believed to have received military vehicles built specifically to resist roadside bombs. The local police for Ohio state university even has an APC for use on American football match days.
Once the equipment has been handed over, the temptation is to use it. That certainly was the case for the mayor of Peoria, Illinois, who in April sent a Swat team to search the house of someone who had poked fun at him in a satirical Twitter account.
As the ACLU notes: "if the federal government gives the police a huge cache of military-style weaponry, they are highly likely to use it, even if they do not really need to."
As for the infant, Bou Bou Phonesavanh, he remains in intensive care after having been through a series of operations. "Everything is touch and go. Nothing is determined, nothing is decided," Alecia Phonesavanh said.
The Phonesavanhs' lawyer, Mawuli Davis, said the Swat team should have known that young children were present in the room they were raiding as there were clear tell-tale signs: a playpen outside the door and a van parked outside with four child seats in it. "We have to address the way that police in this country are armed as if they are invading a foreign land," Mawuli said. "It's disturbing, and innocent people are hurting."
A few hours after the raid took place, police located the suspect they had been seeking at a different house in the neighbourhood. The officers knocked on the door, the suspect opened it, and agreed peacefully to come in for questioning.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on March 10, 2013, 12:20:05 PM
Thank god I've never been a district resident so I won't say for sure, but I thought if you jumped through all the hoops to get a gun license in D.C. during the pre-Heller days you had to keep it basically disassembled in your home. Maybe for handguns only, and you were allowed to store shotguns and rifles however you want?
My understanding of the old DC laws is:
1) only longarms
2) transport only in your trunk with the bolt removed
3) only transport between your home and a shooting range
QuoteThe Swat team that burst into the Phonesavanh's room looking for a drug dealer had deployed a tactic commonly used by the US military in warzones, and increasingly by domestic police forces across the US. They threw an explosive device called a flashbang that is designed to distract and temporarily blind suspects to allow officers to overpower and detain them. The device had landed in Bou Bou's cot and detonated in the baby's face.
What a horror story. An adult wouldn't do so well either with that crap going off in their face! Cops need to learn how to properly use such equipment, and when to use it. Damn, that's just nuts.
Quote from: KRonn on June 24, 2014, 12:26:53 PM
QuoteThe Swat team that burst into the Phonesavanh's room looking for a drug dealer had deployed a tactic commonly used by the US military in warzones, and increasingly by domestic police forces across the US. They threw an explosive device called a flashbang that is designed to distract and temporarily blind suspects to allow officers to overpower and detain them. The device had landed in Bou Bou's cot and detonated in the baby's face.
What a horror story. An adult wouldn't do so well either with that crap going off in their face! Cops need to learn how to properly use such equipment, and when to use it. Damn, that's just nuts.
They do learn how to use it properly. That isn't the point.
User in the safest possible manner, throwing a fucking grenade into a room with people in it, even a flashbang, is still going to have some cases of people getting hurt. It isn't a training problem. More training won't make SWAT teams being used constantly a-ok.
Quotehad deployed a tactic commonly used by the US military in warzones, and increasingly by domestic police forces across the US.
And just where does the author think law enforcement has been getting the majority of its applicants from the last 10+ years? It was always a common practice, but it's getting ridiculuous now.
What kind of name is Bou Bou? :wacko:
It's French. And obviously criminally negligent.