Teabagger Whacktard Joe the Plumber blames gun control for the Holocaust

[JoeTheJuggler]

Originally Posted by BStrong

From the holdings as well:

Sorry, but you've added nothing to support the assertion that the banning of a category of firearms is necessarily a violation of the Second Amendment. You've simply repeated the test for which categories would be a violation and which would not. This supports my position, that the debate should be on the pros and cons of those specific proposals and not on some blanket ideology that says any prohibition of possession of any category of firearms is unconstitutional.

[BStrong]

Originally Posted by Foolmewunz

Since we're talking about something that's not going to happen, let's give some grounding to the hypothetical. One morning the POTUS wakes up and says, "Hmm, I think I'll go round up the Freemen on the Land and Gun Lovers for Jeebus" and issues an order to attack and if they resist, just shoot 'em all?

If this was ever to happen (and again, I don't see it happening) there will be some sort of very plausible back story, possibly an accurate back story, e.g. the attempt to exploit the veterans army and possibly seize the government in the 30s. With the back story, there would be a legal basis for their actions. I don't think as many uniformed personnel as you do would pause with thoughts of whether what they were doing would stand up to the scrutiny of a tribunal judging them according to the UCMJ. Did that stop the clowns at Abu Ghraib from their Photo Phrolics episodes? Did someone put one in Calley because "it's just wrong, man"? Do you think that the Guard at Jacksonville or at Kent State paused and thought, "Hmm, is this righteous, what we're doing? How would it be interpreted under the UCMJ?"

I have nothing against military personnel, per se. I just don't have faith in humans behaving honorably at all times, especially with peer pressure and orders from superiors who they are conditioned to obey.

Posse Comitatus

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posse_Comitatus_Act

An order to a military unit in your hypothetical example would constitute a crime.

The military can be used to "keep the peace" in pretty narrow circumstances, but even in the most extreme case (think the end of the Waco incident) the military loaned vehicles to the F.B.I. and stood off - they did not participate in the operation.

The second bolded portion above - no put-down meant, but you're not in the loop.

I am.

If you believe that even a simple majority of U.S troops would fire on or carry out combat operations against civilians minus a real rootin' tootin' shootin' civil war situation, you're very sadly misinformed.

Even though it pains me to admit it, I've giot some O rates in my circle of friends, and I can't imagine any of them carrying out such orders either.

[BStrong]

Originally Posted by JoeTheJuggler

Sorry, but you've added nothing to support the assertion that the banning of a category of firearms is necessarily a violation of the Second Amendment. You've simply repeated the test for which categories would be a violation and which would not. This supports my position, that the debate should be on the pros and cons of those specific proposals and not on some blanket ideology that says any prohibition of possession of any category of firearms is unconstitutional.

Hey Joe - I don't know if you realize this, but even the most stricly controlled class of firearms and devices aren't banned - The N.F.A. provides for qualifying individuals to lawfully possess those weapons, and that class of weapons is the only class currently recognized by law as not being in common use.

Take a look at Staples v. U.S.:

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/92-1441.ZO.html

Case involving a conviction for possession of an AR-15 type rifle converted from semi auto to select fire w/o being unregistered pursuant to the N.F.A.

In a nutshell - an ummodifed semi-automatic firearm is no different for the purposes of civilian possession than any other legal firearm.

The petioner who had been covicted of illegal possession had their conviction overturned by the court...One reason being that the BATFE, as a consequence of the Firearms Owners Protection Act of 1986 will no longer allow registrations of automatic weapons by individuals or transferable to individuals as of 19 May '86.

Very much like state laws in New York, New Jersey and California that do not allow individuals to lawfully register otherwise legal firearms.

Just like Washington D.C in the Heller case.

ETA: Current state case in litagation:

http://www.state.il.us/court/opinion...012/112026.pdf

[davefoc]

Originally Posted by BStrong

Hey Joe - I don't know if you realize this, but even the most stricly controlled class of firearms and devices aren't banned - The N.F.A. provides for qualifying individuals to lawfully possess those weapons, and that class of weapons is the only class currently recognized by law as not being in common use.

Take a look at Staples v. U.S.:

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/92-1441.ZO.html

Case involving a conviction for possession of an AR-15 type rifle converted from semi auto to select fire w/o being unregistered pursuant to the N.F.A.

In a nutshell - an ummodifed semi-automatic firearm is no different for the purposes of civilian possession than any other legal firearm.

The petioner who had been covicted of illegal possession had their conviction overturned by the court...One reason being that the BATFE, as a consequence of the Firearms Owners Protection Act of 1986 will no longer allow registrations of automatic weapons by individuals or transferable to individuals as of 19 May '86.

Very much like state laws in New York, New Jersey and California that do not allow individuals to lawfully register otherwise legal firearms.

Just like Washington D.C in the Heller case.

ETA: Current state case in litagation:

http://www.state.il.us/court/opinion...012/112026.pdf

My apologies, but I didn't read your post. The dialog that is going on between you and JoeTheJuggler is one that has been repeated many many times in gun control threads. What JoeTheJuggler said is unassailably true but that doesn't stop gun enthusiasts from ignoring that and blathering on about some esoteric details unrelated to the issue.

There are obviously limits on gun ownership in the US and obviously the Supreme Court has agreed that they are constitutional. Acknowledge that simple fact and I might be interested a bit in what you have to say. Otherwise you just look like one more gun enthusiast who refuses to acknowledge the fact that there is no unlimited right to own all types of arms buried either by word or practice in the constitution because that fact somehow doesn't fit with the message you are pushing. Which is fine, but that reduces your credibility to me below the level that I might have an interest in whatever it is you have chosen to go on about.

[crimresearch]

Originally Posted by davefoc

My apologies, but I didn't read your post. The dialog that is going on between you and JoeTheJuggler is one that has been repeated many many times in gun control threads. What JoeTheJuggler said is unassailably true but that doesn't stop gun enthusiasts from ignoring that and blathering on about some esoteric details unrelated to the issue.

There are obviously limits on gun ownership in the US and obviously the Supreme Court has agreed that they are constitutional. Acknowledge that simple fact and I might be interested a bit in what you have to say. Otherwise you just look like one more gun enthusiast who refuses to acknowledge the fact that there is no unlimited right to own all types of arms buried either by word or practice in the constitution because that fact somehow doesn't fit with the message you are pushing. Which is fine, but that reduces your credibility to me below the level that I might have an interest in whatever it is you have chosen to go on about.

So Joe's constant flood of erroneous spin is infallible and unquestionable dogma?

God said it, you believe it, and that settles it? And correctly citing the Supreme Court verbatim reduces credibility to the point that you aren't interested?

But that doesn't stop you from being interested enough to fabricate claims that were never made, and fraudulently putting them in other people's mouths?

And all that FTW??

Riiiight...



OK

[BStrong]

Originally Posted by davefoc

My apologies, but I didn't read your post. The dialog that is going on between you and JoeTheJuggler is one that has been repeated many many times in gun control threads. What JoeTheJuggler said is unassailably true but that doesn't stop gun enthusiasts from ignoring that and blathering on about some esoteric details unrelated to the issue.

There are obviously limits on gun ownership in the US and obviously the Supreme Court has agreed that they are constitutional. Acknowledge that simple fact and I might be interested a bit in what you have to say. Otherwise you just look like one more gun enthusiast who refuses to acknowledge the fact that there is no unlimited right to own all types of arms buried either by word or practice in the constitution because that fact somehow doesn't fit with the message you are pushing. Which is fine, but that reduces your credibility to me below the level that I might have an interest in whatever it is you have chosen to go on about.

I'll make it as simple as possible.

Yes, there are absolutely limits on firearms ownership.

In most states, you can't carry a concealed weapon on your person w/o a license or permit from the state.

You can not carry a concealed weapon into areas deemed sensitive, even with a permit.

You can not purchase N.F.A. weapons without complying with various state and federal laws.

You may not engage in the manufacturing of firearms for the purpose of resale without a license from the federal and state governments, and in some cases the local authorities as well.

You may not manufacture N.F.A. weapons or devices without federal and state licensing under any circumstances.

You can not sell firearms across state lines without going through a federally licensed dealer.

You may not sell firearms to minors, drug addicts or users, convicted felons or certain classes of individuals ajudicated as having mental illness that would pose a threat to themselves or others.

That's pretty much the high points of gun control that are fairly well established as within the scope of the Second Amendment, even after the Heller and Mcdonald decisions.

Where the question is now going, is truely what firearms not covered in the N.F.A. - (for those are the only legally defined "Dangerous and Unusual" weapons) - are protected under the Second. Handguns are specifically now protected under the Second due to Heller and Mcdonald.

So far, the term that the court came up with is "in common use." A firearm that fits that definition is protected by the Second.

Since 2008, the best selling title 1 (non-N.F.A.) firearm in the United States is any one of the commercially available variations of the AR-15 semi-automatic rifle.

I know you didn't read the link to the Illinois case, but the state supreme court overturned in part a lower courts decision to dismiss a challenge to a local ordinance banning "assault rifles" on the basis of that very wording - if the plaintiffs can prove that the rifles in question that are banned are indeed "in common use," the lower court needs to consider the merits of their case.

I've got a reading recommendation for you. There is a professor of law at UOT Austin by the name of Sanford Levinson:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sanford_Levinson

He is not a supporter of the Second Amendment, and if you choose to read his paper from The Yale Law Journal I'm going to recommend, he makes it clear that he supports stronger gun control.

The only problem with that is in his reading of the Second, the contemporary writings at the time of adoption, along with his reading (the first honest interpatation of U.S. v. Miller, imo) of the oft cited U.S. v. Miller, he doesn't find much support for a whole range of current gun laws, most specificlly, bans or restrictions on any type of firearm useful for militia service.

The piece he wrote is called The Embarrassing Second Amendment

I have not linked to it, You can read the Wiki page about him before making up your mind, if you're so inclined.

FTR, I'm not some redneck fat guy worrying about the guvmint comin' to take my gunz.

I'm a retired LEO, ex-Army 6 years E6, and a certified armorer and instructor on all types of small arms from handguns to HMG's. I'm also a former S.O.T. (Special Occupational Taxpayer) who manufactured N.F.A. weapons and devices for lawful users. I'm second generation to the job, and after seeing the level of outright deception involved on the part of certain police administrators first hand, I'm very active in attempting to at least bring some honesty into the public discussion.

It's needed, and here's why:

http://wiki.calgunsfoundation.org/Helsley%27s_Memoire

S. C. Helsley, Assistant Director
Investigation & Enforcement Branch


"Information on assault weapons would not be sought from
forensic laboratories as it was unlikely to support the theses on
which the legislation would be based (Attachment 2)."

And further:

"A lot of people worked very hard to make the Roberti/Roos Act
successful. Those with some knowledge of firearms felt the task
was an impossibility. Those with little or no knowledge of the
subject were ever emboldened. As Montaingue said "Nothing is so
firmly believed as that which is least known." The more our staff
has worked with the legislation the more confused they have
become. How the average cop on the beat or Joe "Six Pack" who
owns one of the weapons will ever figure it all out escapes me.
There is no simple fix. Publication of a manual for public or law
enforcement use will require that we reach some yet unreached
conclusion about which weapons are covered.

We can effectively control all semi-automatic weapons or leave
them all alone. What I don't think we can accomplish is proper
implementation of a vague and ambiguous law."

What Steve memorialized in his memo here is very important. Officers like myself were to be deliberately excluded from the process of formulating this proposal because it was known by Roberti et al that actual "assault weapon" criminal use was more anomaly that routine, even in Oakland and L.A.

If you're really interested in how slimey the process was during the enactment of California's first AW law, go here:

http://dmc.members.sonic.net/sentinel/usa2.html

What the courts will now be forced to sort out in several different jurisdictions is if standard title one rifles, shotguns and handguns having certain charcteristics are firearms in common use.

I believe that several examples of these firearms will pass the test, others may not, but the gun control landscape in America has been forever changed by Staples, Heller and Mcdonald.

[Foolmewunz]

Originally Posted by BStrong

Posse Comitatus

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posse_Comitatus_Act

An order to a military unit in your hypothetical example would constitute a crime.

The military can be used to "keep the peace" in pretty narrow circumstances, but even in the most extreme case (think the end of the Waco incident) the military loaned vehicles to the F.B.I. and stood off - they did not participate in the operation.

The second bolded portion above - no put-down meant, but you're not in the loop.

I am.

If you believe that even a simple majority of U.S troops would fire on or carry out combat operations against civilians minus a real rootin' tootin' shootin' civil war situation, you're very sadly misinformed.

Even though it pains me to admit it, I've giot some O rates in my circle of friends, and I can't imagine any of them carrying out such orders either.

Bolded Part
This is really nonsensical, you know? Since we're discussing a hypothetical that isn't going to happen, I did say that you give some credence to the hypothetical. Whether or not there was an actual civil war going on, you can bet your bippy that the government would be spinning the situation to make it seem as if there was one.

How many troops refused to invade Iraq? Invading a country on trumped up charges of WMD is a fairly immoral act. In defense of the troops, of course, is the fact that everyone fell for the lies, including a majority of both houses and every media outlet in the country. How's that any different from the potential in our ridiculous hypothetical?

Note that I'm not saying that the "uprising" is from the left or right. Alex Jones has it coming from the left, of course, and the attack being on god-fearing supporters of The American Way. I know a lot of radicals on the left who think the same scenario is plausible, but coming from the right. Personally, I think it has a 1:1,000,000 probability of ever happening so I'm free to see it coming from either side. And if it came from a right wing administration, do you not think that the military would back them?

We're never going to know because it's not going to happen, but I think your faith in the decency and upright morality of the members of the military is touching, if misguided in my opinion.

[crimresearch]

Originally Posted by Foolmewunz

Bolded Part
This is really nonsensical, you know? Since we're discussing a hypothetical that isn't going to happen, I did say that you give some credence to the hypothetical. Whether or not there was an actual civil war going on, you can bet your bippy that the government would be spinning the situation to make it seem as if there was one.

How many troops refused to invade Iraq? Invading a country on trumped up charges of WMD is a fairly immoral act. In defense of the troops, of course, is the fact that everyone fell for the lies, including a majority of both houses and every media outlet in the country. How's that any different from the potential in our ridiculous hypothetical?

Note that I'm not saying that the "uprising" is from the left or right. Alex Jones has it coming from the left, of course, and the attack being on god-fearing supporters of The American Way. I know a lot of radicals on the left who think the same scenario is plausible, but coming from the right. Personally, I think it has a 1:1,000,000 probability of ever happening so I'm free to see it coming from either side. And if it came from a right wing administration, do you not think that the military would back them?

We're never going to know because it's not going to happen, but I think your faith in the decency and upright morality of the members of the military is touching, if misguided in my opinion.

I doubt if it is faith in decency as much as a first hand understanding that the demarcation between using the military to attack US citizens inside the country over political issues, has been clearly understood at a gut level for a while now.

And this isn't your grandfather's National Guard anymore, they've been used as regular troops too long to be local pawns like Kent State.

Arguments over whether or not to obey Obama and so forth are scuttlebutt, rarely acted on.

[BStrong]

Foolmewunz,

I'll be attending a Swords to Plowshares group meeting Wed. night - if I were to ask my fellow vets your question, would you be interested in me reporting back as to what their opinion is?

[Foolmewunz]

Originally Posted by BStrong

Foolmewunz,

I'll be attending a Swords to Plowshares group meeting Wed. night - if I were to ask my fellow vets your question, would you be interested in me reporting back as to what their opinion is?

Swords to Plowshares SFO? While I think they're pretty terrific, I sincerely have to question whether the individuals are going to be indicative of the mindset of all vets in America? Aren't you all a bunch of commie tree-huggers out there?

But I'd say that the response would be based on the war(civil) games hypothetical used. "Federal Forces march on California because there's too much sunshine" isn't going to get many Californians agreeing to shoot at their neighbors. "Arizona National Guard occupies area from San Diego to Mexicali to use as a private prison - Supreme Court supports move on technicality" might get a different result.

[Ausmerican]

Originally Posted by Foolmewunz

Swords to Plowshares SFO? While I think they're pretty terrific, I sincerely have to question whether the individuals are going to be indicative of the mindset of all vets in America? Aren't you all a bunch of commie tree-huggers out there?

But I'd say that the response would be based on the war(civil) games hypothetical used. "Federal Forces march on California because there's too much sunshine" isn't going to get many Californians agreeing to shoot at their neighbors. "Arizona National Guard occupies area from San Diego to Mexicali to use as a private prison - Supreme Court supports move on technicality" might get a different result.

Also, lets not forget the Milgram experiment and the very similar results the other time the same experiment was tried. People, and these were regular folks not conditioned to following orders from superior officers had no problems electro shocking other people at what they thought was high levels of electricity as long there was a figure of authority to tell them to continue.

The screams didn't deter them, even when the screaming ominously stopped a couple of times those people werent deterred. They just followed the orders of the authority figure. And he was a non threatenting professor telling them very mildly that "The experiment requires that you continue."

These were "victims" that they had met beforehand and exchanged pleasantries with, not 'enemy combatants' that had been thoroughly demonized before contact.