Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

---

And JoS? You never did respond to my question of how you would calculate the one time fee to offset the cost of multiple fees over the course of a gun owner's lifetime.

---

At 3/20/09 11:06 PM, Proteas wrote:

At 3/20/09 12:45 PM, JoS wrote: And did you even bother to read what what i posted.

Yeah, I read it, they said they were going to almost triple the fee for background checks in order to help cover both the cost of the check and budget shortfalls in other areas. What you failed to acknowledge was the fact that if you eliminated said background check fee, what cash they would have brought in from having those fees up so high will have to be made up for from other areas, like raising taxes or cutting the budget in other areas.

Except for the last x number of years they have been running a deficit from those background checks. So hey if we eliminated those extra state checks we would have extra money available (even without charging). If it costs $13 and you charge $8, you have to take money out of the general revenue to pay that extra $4. But if you cut out that program entirely you suddenly have $4 that you would have lost now available for you to use. You stopped collecting that fee, but you still have more money.

The point is the fees are not that high and for years the government has been LOOSING money on these checks. They have had to make up for this by charging more in taxes or other forms of revenue not related to the sale of the guns.

At 3/20/09 08:06 PM, JoS wrote: By having each individual assigned a unique ID number with their license, at POS delays are reduced to almost nothing because any issues with multiple names can be dealt with immediately when it reaches the office, not every time a check is done.

Uh huh.... so.... what's stopping someone from stealing my number and buying guns under my good name, sort of like how people can steal your social security number and fuck up your credit now?

Picture ID?WHOA! Its more than simply a number. Show your card that has your picture on it, clerk takes said card and swipes it or types your ID number into the website and presto.

---

At 3/20/09 11:19 PM, JoS wrote: You stopped collecting that fee, but you still have more money.

Fair enough. Now what about the other $20 they were banking on getting per charge?

Picture ID?

Fake driver's license.

---

Rape is a felony, and under U.S. Law you automatically loose the right to purchase guns for life anyway (which I'm surprised you didn't know), same for robbery depending on the amount taken.

I'm aware of this, but the second a person commits these crimes the guns he may have do not magically disappear, they stay.

"Suspected criminal" wouldn't work for this argument under your system anyway because they wouldn't be necessarily be registered to buy a gun, now would they?

Obviously my idea isn't going to stop all crime, I never said it would.

Also, this idea still predicates on the idea that (a) the perpetrator clearly identifying himself by his real name or (b) actually being at the residence where the cops go to and him having his legally registered weapon on his person at the time, which doesn't take into account that criminals wouldn't sign up to legally buy a gun to begin with.

When people buy guns, they don't think, "Oh shit, I may be driven to a life of crime later in life, I should commit massive fraud and sign myself up incorrectly or avoid the system entirely.

A lot of crimes are committed with legally bought weapons because a lot of crimes are done in the heat of passion or with another friend's or family member's gun.

Paranoia =/= insanity. It might be defined as an irrational psychosis, but I've laid out my reasons for why I'm paranoid of our government, and you. And I have as yet to have anyone besides you claim me insane for being wary of the government or the arguments you've put forth, and that's only because you've been taking my arguments and throwing them back to me an with an appeal to ridicule twist on them.

I have never ONCE said people are insane for being wary of the government, I have said that absolutely any movement the government could make against gun owners is completely unfeasible. I'm not using appeal to ridicule, what you're suggesting is military action against anywhere from 40-100 million US citizens. That's insane.

I'm not a conspiracy theorist, I don't believe the government will necessarily come at me with guns blazing because I have (or will have) guns. Even if I wasn't wary of our government's disrespect of personal privacy rights as of late, I'd still be wary of anyone saying that I should give up that right for my own personal freedom.

But having somebody out there knowing you have guns isn't giving up your personal freedom. It can hardly be called spying! Have you told any of your friends or family that you have guns? If so, statistically, they're more likely to take them away than the government is.

Just because you're on the left doesn't mean your ideas are inherently better than those presented by members of the right.

Never said the were.

No, what you're saying is that legal gun owners who would be part of this license system are potential criminals and should be monitored as such. That is not a statement that will help you win friends and influence, especially out here in the "flyover states."

We are not monitoring you, we are putting your name on a list. Jesus, when you were a kid, were you furious that santa Claus had a list with your name on it and knew whether you were naughty or nice?

And I don't want to make friends.

So... what incentive is there to be on the list, then?

So law enforcement can do law enforcement shit.

Nobody here has answered that question, or provided a response to the fact that there are no laws regarding background checks and licensing for person to person sales. And to drive this point home; $750. My coworker offered me a .357 Magnum Desert Eagle for $750.

Should be illegal. It's completely untraceable, and personal sales like that are how illegal guns are getting into this country. Maybe there should be some bartering system where a gun is put up on sale at a licensed gun store and you can buy it from there.

What's stopping me from buying said weapon, either now, or under your system? Because I sure as hell don't see any incentive in signing up for a gun license under your system at this point.

Why do you insist on believing that I said my system will fix every problem out there?

Privacy is considered a right under the consitution (see 4th and 9th amendments), and the 14th amendment re-enforces that right to privacy (for women inparticular) through the Roe V Wade case.

So it invades your privacy to be put on a list? While I don't think having a name on a list IS an invasion of privacy, even if it was, it shouldn't be a right. Losing privacy (Within reason) doesn't hurt or restrict you in any way.

Liberty is defined as the ability to go about your life free from government harassment, the law was written to support that, and you're going to sit there an honestly try to argue that privacy is not a right I should enjoy.

HAVING A NAME ON A LIST IS NOT HARASSMENT. You could have just as easily said having to wait three days is harassment, but no. You're just scared of change.

.... are you just parodying yourself at this point?

No, and you're subtly putting up a Straw Man here. You're posing me as some sort of person who doesn't give a shit about rights or privacy. I do. But having your name on a list is not the same as wiretapping or hiding in the bushes. It's just a god damned list.

You just argued that you were fully in support of the government keeping a list of gun owners because legal gun owners are potential criminals,

Like eveybody else, but citizens that don't own guns aren't quite as capable of committing gun crimes, now are they?

you just argued that you were fully for invasion of privacy

It's not an invasion of privacy.

where personal security was a concern, and then you cap the whole thing off by claiming you DON'T support privacy invasions?

I don't. At ALL. But sometimes we have to just suck it up and let our names be put on a list. If it's for a better good. And at this point you haven't shown me how the card idea is a bad idea, you've only shown me what it can't fix and that somehow having a name on a list violates your freedoms.

This is a joke, right? Just admit it, you're just messing with me at this point.

Yes. Sure. I am. Ha ha.

That's not the argument I was refuting, I was pointing out that the constitution was written by normal men, not politicians by today's standards.

Politicians today, you, me, and the Founding fathers are all the same level of person. Politicians today, in fact, are more civilized and less corrupt than back then.

I never used the word "slaughter," I just said "come after." The scenario presented by LazyDrunk (which you conveniently ignored) is more likely to happen than anything.

I actually answered it. Then what would they do? Imprison 40 million to 100 million people? Deport 40 million to 100 million people? What COULD they do? The only thing they could do is take all the guns away, in which it wouldn't make a difference if the government had a list or not, because they would simply take any gun they see. It wouldn't matter if you hid them and never used them, because that defeats the point of having them. Sure, without a list, you could hide them and never use them, but that would defeat the point of having them. You could hide them and go on a liberation spree later, but it still wouldn't matter if they knew who had guns and who didn't, because you could go on said spree at any time, whether they come for you directly or you hide them and use them later.

---

Since criminals almost always get their guns illegally, this system would be virtually useless. It'd identify homes with registered guns, but not home with unregistered guns, which, are the homes the police most typically are going to.

Any source to back this up? Because from what I've been hearing, most crimes are small-scale, and are done with legally purchased handguns in the heat of passion.

We should get a list of all men too since they are potential rape-crime committers.

Yes, but there is no tool to assist in rape. There IS a tool to assist in gun crimes. Namely, a gun. If there was some sort of legally purchasable, 'Rape-Easy' tool, then maybe we could make a list for them, too.

---

Grammernazi (lol):

Do you agree with the tactics and methodology behind the expired AWB that this thread is all about?

Do you believe that every felon is imprisoned?

Do you have knowledge of felonious behavior, and do you believe possessing visually-threatening firearms should be a legitimate basis for stripping God-given rights?

---

At 3/20/09 11:32 PM, Proteas wrote:

At 3/20/09 11:19 PM, JoS wrote: You stopped collecting that fee, but you still have more money.

Fair enough. Now what about the other $20 they were banking on getting per charge?

My point is they have not been collecting that extra money for years, and they still are not doing it now. Politicians always come up with ideas of getting new revenue, not all of them fly though. They had not raised the price of checks for I think it was over a decade.

Picture ID?

Fake driver's license.

I mean the license itself is the picture ID. I don't know about your drivers licenses, but we have a magnetic strip on the back encoded with our information, as well as numerous security features (holographic pictures of ourselves etc). The license would be more than just a card with a number on it. It would be a secure piece of ID just like other documents.

---

At 3/21/09 03:16 AM, GrammerNaziElite wrote:

Since criminals almost always get their guns illegally, this system would be virtually useless. It'd identify homes with registered guns, but not home with unregistered guns, which, are the homes the police most typically are going to.

Any source to back this up? Because from what I've been hearing, most crimes are small-scale, and are done with legally purchased handguns in the heat of passion.

I guess we might be in disagreement over the homes police going to that would cause their concern. I assume the police are more concerned about the existence of firearms when going after violent criminals. I suspect you are thinking in terms of police going to the homes of petty criminals. If true, then I don't think the police would be that concerned over firearm ownership. A pickpocket, for example, typically wouldn't will shoot it out with the police. Someone wanted for murder would.

From http://rkba.org/research/wright/armed-cr iminal.summary.html : "Only about one-sixth of the gun-owning felons obtained their most recent handguns through a customary retail transaction involving a licensed firearms dealer. The remainder -- five out of six -- obtained them via informal, off-the-record transactions involving friends and associates, family members, and various black market outlets. The means of acquisition from these informal sources included cash purchase, swaps and trades, borrowing and renting, and often theft. The criminal handgun market is overwhelmingly dominated by informal transactions and theft as mechanisms of supply."

We should get a list of all men too since they are potential rape-crime committers.

Yes, but there is no tool to assist in rape. There IS a tool to assist in gun crimes. Namely, a gun. If there was some sort of legally purchasable, 'Rape-Easy' tool, then maybe we could make a list for them, too.

Ok, them lets register baseball players because they possess baseball bats (known to have been used to commit murder), golf players (clubs have been used to commit murder), martial arts trained people (known to have been used to commit murder), etc.

Heres some interesting factoids:

From Statistics Canada, Oct 1, 2003 -
"Canadian homicide rates were virtually unchanged before and after gun registration requirements were implemented (151/100,000 people in 1998 and 149/100,000 in 2002)."

From Ted Drane, Why Gun Registration will Fail -
"The Federal Republic of Germany began comprehensive gun registration in 1972. The government estimated that between 17,000,000 and 20,000,000 guns were to be registered, but only 3,200,000 surfaced, leaving 80% unaccounted for."

From David B. Kopel, "The Samurai, the Mountie, and the Cowboy: Should America Adopt the Gun Controls of Other Democracies" 231, n.210 (1992) -
"These cities and states require registration of "assault weapons." The compliance rate in Boston and Cleveland is about 1%"

From gunfacts.info (regarding the question of whether the government having a list of gun owners would be a bad thing) -
"In 1967, New York City passed an ordinance requiring a citizen to obtain a permit to own a rifle or shotgun, which would then be registered. In 1991, the city passed a ban on the private possession of some semi-automatic rifles and shotguns, and "registered" owners were told that those firearms had to be surrendered, rendered inoperable, or taken out of the city"

---

At 3/21/09 10:13 AM, JoS wrote:

I mean the license itself is the picture ID. I don't know about your drivers licenses, but we have a magnetic strip on the back encoded with our information, as well as numerous security features (holographic pictures of ourselves etc). The license would be more than just a card with a number on it. It would be a secure piece of ID just like other documents.

ID cards that can't be forged are the holy grail. If we had such a thing, we could easily identify illegal immigrants. Build a better mousetrap and the criminals build a better mouse.

---

At 3/21/09 03:14 AM, GrammerNaziElite wrote: Obviously my idea isn't going to stop all crime, I never said it would.

The point your making is that someone who is a felon would have a legally registered gun under their name, which is a contradiction of terms and does not acknowledge that your average criminal wouldn't use such a weapon.

A lot of crimes are committed with legally bought weapons because a lot of crimes are done in the heat of passion or with another friend's or family member's gun.

You just argue that crimes of passion don't happen that much to begin with, and shouldn't really be worried about.

I have never ONCE said people are insane for being wary of the government

You said I was insane.

what you're suggesting is military action against anywhere from 40-100 million US citizens. That's insane.

And I never said a word about the military, your words trying to put a ridiculous light on my ideas in order to undercut me in this debate. That is appeal to ridicule.

But having somebody out there knowing you have guns isn't giving up your personal freedom. It can hardly be called spying!

You just admitted it was a few posts back and that you were all for it, now you want to back pedal and say it's not and you're not? How stupid do you think I am?

Have you told any of your friends or family that you have guns?

Go back and re-read my fucking post; I'm about to buy a gun. I don't have any currently.

We are not monitoring you, we are putting your name on a list.

You're putting my name on a list of people who own guns to keep an eye on us because in your eyes, we're all potential criminals... and it's not monitoring.

Is it getting difficult at this point to keep all your ideas straight AND try to discredit my argument by showing me insane? Because I'm having quite a bit of fun at this point letting you hang yourself with your own arguments.

And I don't want to make friends.

You sure as hell wouldn't get my vote.

So law enforcement can do law enforcement shit.

Uh huh. Yeah, I'm going to sign up for this list because I want the cops knowing I have a gun. Big incentive there.

Should be illegal.

Supreme court ruled it completely legal because they can't rule against anything that would interfere with interstate commerce. You make this illegal, and you set a precedent that can screw with EVERYTHING from import and export laws, buying shit on eBay, buying shit online, getting your cheese from Wisconsin.... plus, how the fuck would you enforce it? How would you show that the gun I purchased was done this way, and not simply given to me by a relative, or bought pre-license system?

Why do you insist on believing that I said my system will fix every problem out there?

Because you're the little teenage know-it-all who's trying to tell me how your system is so much BETTER than what we have now, when you don't know enough ABOUT THE LAW as it stands now to tell me what's wrong with the laws to begin with. So I'm going to take you to task on every little nitpicky detail you haven't thought of for as long as you keep posting.

So it invades your privacy to be put on a list?

Yep.

HAVING A NAME ON A LIST IS NOT HARASSMENT. You could have just as easily said having to wait three days is harassment, but no. You're just scared of change.

If I am a law abiding citizen, there should be no reason why the government would want to monitor me for any reason whatsoever.

You're posing me as some sort of person who doesn't give a shit about rights or privacy. I do.

I don't have to pose you as anything, your own posts show you as someone who doesn't give a shit about rights or privacy.

Like eveybody else, but citizens that don't own guns aren't quite as capable of committing gun crimes, now are they?

This whole idea predicates on the idea that every criminal out there bought their gun legally to begin with. This whole system predicates on the idea that only law abiding gun owners are the ones out there doing these crimes. This whole system does not take reality into account and it targets people who aren't that likely to be committing the crimes to begin with.

But sometimes we have to just suck it up and let our names be put on a list.

"Sometimes?" So there's already a legal precedent for this?

Bring it on.

You want to sit there and argue legal precedent, show me one. And I want to see you sit there and argue our government was justified in doing it, too.

Yes. Sure. I am. Ha ha.

You realize I can ban you for trolling, right?

Politicians today, you, me, and the Founding fathers are all the same level of person.

Uh huh. I'm waiting for the explanation on this.

The only thing they could do is take all the guns away, in which it wouldn't make a difference if the government had a list or not, because they would simply take any gun they see.

Japan did it at the turn of the last century when they outlawed the Samurai Warrior social class and ordered everyone to turn in their family swords, those who refused were executed. It can happen.

At 3/21/09 03:16 AM, GrammerNaziElite wrote: Any source to back this up?

Click.

Yes, but there is no tool to assist in rape.

Look between your legs, and then tell another lie.

At 3/21/09 10:13 AM, JoS wrote: My point is they have not been collecting that extra money for years, and they still are not doing it now. Politicians always come up with ideas of getting new revenue, not all of them fly though. They had not raised the price of checks for I think it was over a decade.

My point is they are doing it now to help offset budget cuts in other areas. This has the potential to help them balance their budget. If they opted for your system, where would they get that extra money they are banking on getting? Instead of screwing over gun owners, they'll have to screw over everyone else, and probably cut the budget for essential services as well.

And you still haven't touched how you intend to set up the fee for getting one of these gun licenses.

I mean the license itself is the picture ID.

And I meant that you can fake a photo i.d. And that's just one instance, you can pull up all sorts of such stories on google by typing in "fake license ring busted." There was a story out of Nashville a while back where one group actually had the full machine from the Department of Motor Vehicles, so they had the right cards (bar code scans and all), the laminations with the hologramed seal of the Tennessee State Government in them, the whole deal.

Hell, as I was typing that up in google to search, it came up with "fake license [creator, license, template]" and a bunch of other shit.

Having a fake driver's license to get a car, or get some beer, or to show yourself residence inside the government is one thing. Now you're going to have to deal with people getting fake licenses to get guns, and this time it's going to be that much worse because it will have involve an honest law abiding citizen's number to do so. Somebody is going to get framed for having an arsenal spread across several states, which is going to be one HUGE legal mess to sort out in court.

---

At 3/21/09 03:14 AM, GrammerNaziElite wrote:

Why do you insist on believing that I said my system will fix every problem out there?

I think a better question is why pass a law that won't fix ANY problem out there. We have 20,000 of them already that don't fix anything. Furthermore, as quoted from the previous post's link, 20 out of 22 federal gun laws aren't enforced currently. We know that few felons caught by NICS are prosecuted (I believe 3 years had 0 prosecutions resulting from NICS failures).

So it invades your privacy to be put on a list? While I don't think having a name on a list IS an invasion of privacy, even if it was, it shouldn't be a right. Losing privacy (Within reason) doesn't hurt or restrict you in any way.

I think a good group to ask that question to would be OH and VA concealed carry licensees. Local papers thought they'd do the community a "public service" by publishing the names of licensees. Turns out if you are looking to steal a gun, you now know where to target. Oh, and suppose you had a CCW to protect yourself from a stalker, or were in hiding. Guess who now has your address?

So, in answer to your question - yes. It is an invasion of privacy.

But more important, the whole reason for the 2nd amendment was to protect yourself FROM the government - so everything else is moot.

---

At 3/21/09 10:25 AM, LiquidSperber wrote:

I guess we might be in disagreement over the homes police going to that would cause their concern. I assume the police are more concerned about the existence of firearms when going after violent criminals. I suspect you are thinking in terms of police going to the homes of petty criminals. If true, then I don't think the police would be that concerned over firearm ownership. A pickpocket, for example, typically wouldn't will shoot it out with the police. Someone wanted for murder would.

You're correct in that, but I'm not suggesting that a pickpocket would shoot it out with the police. However, crimes of passion, of which there are many, are almost always done with legally purchased guns.

From http://rkba.org/research/wright/armed-cr iminal.summary.html : "Only about one-sixth of the gun-owning felons obtained their most recent handguns through a customary retail transaction involving a licensed firearms dealer. The remainder -- five out of six -- obtained them via informal, off-the-record transactions involving friends and associates, family members, and various black market outlets. The means of acquisition from these informal sources included cash purchase, swaps and trades, borrowing and renting, and often theft. The criminal handgun market is overwhelmingly dominated by informal transactions and theft as mechanisms of supply."

That's because crimes of passion are considered temporary insanity, not felony.

As for the crimes done with illegally bought or family-bought weapons, I don't have a solution. Do you?

Ok, them lets register baseball players because they possess baseball bats (known to have been used to commit murder), golf players (clubs have been used to commit murder), martial arts trained people (known to have been used to commit murder), etc.

We both know damn well that it's fucking stupid of you to bring up blunt objects. I could bludgeon my family to death right now with my computer. Guns propel a piece of lead at an extraordinary speed and can be used from a distance. My computer can not.

Heres some interesting factoids:

Okay.

From Statistics Canada, Oct 1, 2003 -
"Canadian homicide rates were virtually unchanged before and after gun registration requirements were implemented (151/100,000 people in 1998 and 149/100,000 in 2002)."

The rate of homicide in Canada peaked in 1975 at 3.03 per 100,000 and has dropped since then, reaching lower peaks in 1985 (2.72 per 100,000) and 1991 (2.69 per 100,000) while declining to 1.73 per 100,000 in 2003. The average murder rate between 1970 and 1976 was 2.52, between 1977 and 1983 it was 2.67, between 1984 and 1990 it was 2.41, between 1991 and 1997 it was 2.23 and between 1998 to 2004 it was 1.82.[16] In 2007, the murder was 1.98.
Spousal homicide rates have fallen significantly as well. For females in a relationship the rate of homicide fell from 1.65 per 100,000 in 1974 to 0.71 per 100,000 in 2004 while for males in a relationship the rate dropped from 0.44 per 100,000 in 1974 to 0.14 per 100,000 in 2004.[17] Spousal homicides committed with firearms dropped by 77% for women between 1974 and 2000 and by 80% for men during the same time period.[18]
While the homicide rate using firearms dropped by over half from 1977, homicide rate using other methods declined less sharply. The firearm homicide rate was 1.15 per 100,000 in 1977 and dropped to 0.50 in 2003 while the non-firearm rate went from 1.85 per 100,000 to 1.23 per 100,000 in the same time period.

So says Wiki. I don't know where you got those stats you used.

From Ted Drane, Why Gun Registration will Fail -
"The Federal Republic of Germany began comprehensive gun registration in 1972. The government estimated that between 17,000,000 and 20,000,000 guns were to be registered, but only 3,200,000 surfaced, leaving 80% unaccounted for."

I stated that I would not try to have current gun owners register their guns, because it would be almost impossible and be a massive waste of money. Only guns purchased a set date after the law is passed will have to be registered.

From David B. Kopel, "The Samurai, the Mountie, and the Cowboy: Should America Adopt the Gun Controls of Other Democracies" 231, n.210 (1992) -
"These cities and states require registration of "assault weapons." The compliance rate in Boston and Cleveland is about 1%"

I'm not talking about assault weapons.

From gunfacts.info (regarding the question of whether the government having a list of gun owners would be a bad thing) -
"In 1967, New York City passed an ordinance requiring a citizen to obtain a permit to own a rifle or shotgun, which would then be registered. In 1991, the city passed a ban on the private possession of some semi-automatic rifles and shotguns, and "registered" owners were told that those firearms had to be surrendered, rendered inoperable, or taken out of the city"

Now imagine that on a country-wide scale. That's right, you can't.

At 3/21/09 09:38 AM, LazyDrunk wrote: Grammernazi (lol):

Do you agree with the tactics and methodology behind the expired AWB that this thread is all about?

No, I think the Assault Weapon ban was pointless and I've never even once mentioned it.

Do you believe that every felon is imprisoned?

No.

Do you have knowledge of felonious behavior, and do you believe possessing visually-threatening firearms should be a legitimate basis for stripping God-given rights?

Having never been a felon, I believe I have a decent amount of knowledge as to felonious behavior, and i don't consider not having your name on a list a God-given right.

---

The point your making is that someone who is a felon would have a legally registered gun under their name, which is a contradiction of terms and does not acknowledge that your average criminal wouldn't use such a weapon.

My solution mostly targets crimes of passion, and furthermore, I know that it won't stop most crimes. Fortunately for me, neither I nor anyone else seems to know how to effectively stop illegal gun trade, so it's not as though you should expect of me to know how.

A lot of crimes are committed with legally bought weapons because a lot of crimes are done in the heat of passion or with another friend's or family member's gun.

You just argue that crimes of passion don't happen that much to begin with, and shouldn't really be worried about.

I don't recall saying that once, in fact, the whole crime group I'm spearheading against is crimes of passion.

You said I was insane.

Maybe irrational would have been a better choice of words on my part. But I said you were insane for thinking the government could do anything against so many people, not about being wary of the government. Hell, I'm wary of the government.

And I never said a word about the military, your words trying to put a ridiculous light on my ideas in order to undercut me in this debate. That is appeal to ridicule.

Then what exactly do you think they will do against 40-100 million people, all of which have guns, and some of which have guns FOR THE OCCASION THAT THEY ARE TAKEN AWAY? Do you think the police can handle that? Or even SWAT? Use logic.

You just admitted it was a few posts back and that you were all for it, now you want to back pedal and say it's not and you're not? How stupid do you think I am?

I said that I would prefer to be spied upon and be safe as opposed to the opposite. That statement I made was a philosophy and not connected to this debate. Then I said that having a name on a list is not spying.

Go back and re-read my fucking post; I'm about to buy a gun. I don't have any currently.

Have you told them that you're going to?

You're putting my name on a list of people who own guns to keep an eye on us because in your eyes, we're all potential criminals... and it's not monitoring.

But we're not keeping an eye on you. It's an electronic database that is automatically updated when you buy a gun. No other purpose.

Is it getting difficult at this point to keep all your ideas straight AND try to discredit my argument by showing me insane? Because I'm having quite a bit of fun at this point letting you hang yourself with your own arguments.

No, it's not difficult at all. I slip up occasionally in typing, but that's just because I'm a wee bit hasty.

You sure as hell wouldn't get my vote.

I wouldn't expect to.

Uh huh. Yeah, I'm going to sign up for this list because I want the cops knowing I have a gun. Big incentive there.

Yeah. It is. I wouldn't care. What are they going to do? Run to your house every time there's a crime?

Supreme court ruled it completely legal...

eBay, exports and imports are all regulated by some means, whether it's a dock, a airport, or the internet. I proposed a regulated borrowing system. And as for enforcing it? I have no idea. But the bartering idea wouldn't cost the state any money, so it can't hurt to have it there.

Because you're the little teenage know-it-all ...

I never once said that my idea was SO MUCH BETTER, you did. Straw man. In fact, it's barely better. However, there are gun problems out there. Some people are content to let them sit, some try to stop them with stupid laws. I'm just proposing a small step. Furthermore, while it's true that I didn't know the Tennessee gun laws, I think that's fair because that law isn't Country-wide and is therefor incomplete.

Yep.

I disagree. Your mailman knows where you live. Does that bother you?

If I am a law abiding citizen, there should be no reason why the government would want to monitor me for any reason whatsoever.

Having a name on a list is, once again, not monitoring. The government 'monitors' you in a thousand ways. Through taxes, for instance, they know what you but and spend money on, and, if you add them as deductions, how many kids you have. Want to bitch about those too?

I don't have to pose you as anything, your own posts show you as someone who doesn't give a shit about rights or privacy.

Because I want names on a list.

This whole idea predicates on the idea...

Once again, I do not have a proposed solution for unlicensed weapons. However, until you do, you can't burn me for not having one.

"Sometimes?" So there's already a legal precedent for this?

'Sometimes', like 'I'm offended', is one of those expressions I use. But if you want one, sure. Driving licenses have a list of everybody who can legally drive. And you could argue that they treat you like future criminals, too, because you have to buy car insurance before you even do anything wrong.

^I think that works out just fine.

You realize I can ban you for trolling, right?

But that would make you look extraordinarily stupid, because you sat there and argued for days with a person and banned him midway through it because I posted, 'Ha ha'.

I know that freedom of speech isn't and shouldn't be regulated on the intertubes, but if you ban me we both know it wouldn't because I posted 'Ha ha'. More likely, it's because you're sick of arguing with me. And I hate arguing, I'm a pathetically slow typer. But, you know, I may even get something out of this. Statistically, I'm probably going to lose this debate, but at least I'm better at it than I was last year.

Uh huh. I'm waiting for the explanation on this.

You're right, I'm absolutely wrong. The founding Fathers were all God-men, who did not succumb to sins and led a tireless life dedicated to helping others.

But my jokes aside, how do you want me to disprove that they were more of a person than us? Or how could you prove that they were? Since neither of those points can be supported, I take the logical stance, that they were normal, albeit intelligent people, who led normal lives and succumbed to sin occasionally.

Japan did it at the turn of the last century when they outlawed the Samurai Warrior social class and ordered everyone to turn in their family swords, those who refused were executed. It can happen.

Back when Japan had a tyrannical dictatorship? And had an emperor? You might as well compare America to Nazi Germany. We're better than that. Or maybe not Nazis, but I'm sure you can agree with me that America is a long way off from a dictatorship. We're still the freest nation on Earth.

Click.

True, and I concede on that point. We'll have to help the people who are killed with legal firearms then. Can't solve every problem.

I was very interested in this quote, though.

Studies show that 1 percent of gun stores sell the weapons traced to 57 percent of gun crimes.

This seems like something that could be exploited.

Look between your legs, and then tell another lie.

Rape can be committed by either gender, and without the use of the genitalia. Furthermore, gun owners CHOOSE to buy guns, whereas I did not choose to be born with a penis, and gun crimes can only be committed with a gun.

---

At 3/21/09 02:23 PM, GrammerNaziElite wrote:

That's because crimes of passion are considered temporary insanity, not felony.

As for the crimes done with illegally bought or family-bought weapons, I don't have a solution. Do you?

Yes, I do. Lock violent criminals away for a LONG time. Since the vast majority of murders are committed by previous criminals this would prevent future violent crime. The dirty secret is that there is a relatively small number of criminals committing the majority of crimes. Rather than releasing them with a slap on the wrist - punish them.

We both know damn well that it's fucking stupid of you to bring up blunt objects. I could bludgeon my family to death right now with my computer. Guns propel a piece of lead at an extraordinary speed and can be used from a distance. My computer can not.

Since 3/4's of murders are committed without ANY firearms I think my statement is VERY valid. You cling to the notion that people with guns are committing all the crimes. The vast vast vast majority of gun owners are not criminal. The vast majority of murders don't commit murder with guns.

Heres some interesting factoids:

Okay.

The rate of homicide in Canada peaked in 1975 at 3.03 per 100,000 and has dropped since then, reaching lower peaks in 1985 (2.72 per 100,000) and 1991 (2.69 per 100,000) while declining to 1.73 per 100,000 in 2003. The average murder rate between 1970 and 1976 was 2.52, between 1977 and 1983 it was 2.67, between 1984 and 1990 it was 2.41, between 1991 and 1997 it was 2.23 and between 1998 to 2004 it was 1.82.[16] In 2007, the murder was 1.98.
Spousal homicide rates have fallen significantly as well. For females in a relationship the rate of homicide fell from 1.65 per 100,000 in 1974 to 0.71 per 100,000 in 2004 while for males in a relationship the rate dropped from 0.44 per 100,000 in 1974 to 0.14 per 100,000 in 2004.[17] Spousal homicides committed with firearms dropped by 77% for women between 1974 and 2000 and by 80% for men during the same time period.[18]
While the homicide rate using firearms dropped by over half from 1977, homicide rate using other methods declined less sharply. The firearm homicide rate was 1.15 per 100,000 in 1977 and dropped to 0.50 in 2003 while the non-firearm rate went from 1.85 per 100,000 to 1.23 per 100,000 in the same time period.

So says Wiki. I don't know where you got those stats you used.

My source was listed right on the header. Homicide rates in the US have been dropping during that same period - and we didn't adopt registration.

From David B. Kopel, "The Samurai, the Mountie, and the Cowboy: Should America Adopt the Gun Controls of Other Democracies" 231, n.210 (1992) -
"These cities and states require registration of "assault weapons." The compliance rate in Boston and Cleveland is about 1%"

I'm not talking about assault weapons.

Time for some multi-dimensional thinking. The point was about compliance. Most people can reach the conclusion that if there was 1% compliance on assault weapons, there most likely would be a similar rate of compliance for other guns too.

From gunfacts.info (regarding the question of whether the government having a list of gun owners would be a bad thing) -
"In 1967, New York City passed an ordinance requiring a citizen to obtain a permit to own a rifle or shotgun, which would then be registered. In 1991, the city passed a ban on the private possession of some semi-automatic rifles and shotguns, and "registered" owners were told that those firearms had to be surrendered, rendered inoperable, or taken out of the city"

Now imagine that on a country-wide scale. That's right, you can't.

And why wouldn't/couldn't this happen country wide? I'm sure you've seen that Hillary and BHO both voted against a prohibition against gun confiscation during an emergency. That was brought on by New Orleans confiscating guns during Katrina - and found to be unconstitutional. Yet even afterwards, those two thought it ok to confiscate guns.

---

Yes, I do. Lock violent criminals away for a LONG time. Since the vast majority of murders are committed by previous criminals this would prevent future violent crime. The dirty secret is that there is a relatively small number of criminals committing the majority of crimes. Rather than releasing them with a slap on the wrist - punish them.

I thought that was self-evident. I agree with you in this. Life sentence or death. For mass murderers I might even consider torture. I never argued against this point.

Since 3/4's of murders are committed without ANY firearms I think my statement is VERY valid. You cling to the notion that people with guns are committing all the crimes. The vast vast vast majority of gun owners are not criminal. The vast majority of murders don't commit murder with guns.

I never said that only gun owners can commit crimes or that crimes can only be committed with guns. However, this is a gun thread, so I'm talking about guns.

The rate of homicide in Canada peaked in 1975 at 3.03 per 100,000 and has dropped since then, reaching lower peaks in 1985 (2.72 per 100,000) and 1991 (2.69 per 100,000) while declining to 1.73 per 100,000 in 2003. The average murder rate between 1970 and 1976 was 2.52, between 1977 and 1983 it was 2.67, between 1984 and 1990 it was 2.41, between 1991 and 1997 it was 2.23 and between 1998 to 2004 it was 1.82.[16] In 2007, the murder was 1.98.
Spousal homicide rates have fallen significantly as well. For females in a relationship the rate of homicide fell from 1.65 per 100,000 in 1974 to 0.71 per 100,000 in 2004 while for males in a relationship the rate dropped from 0.44 per 100,000 in 1974 to 0.14 per 100,000 in 2004.[17] Spousal homicides committed with firearms dropped by 77% for women between 1974 and 2000 and by 80% for men during the same time period.[18]
While the homicide rate using firearms dropped by over half from 1977, homicide rate using other methods declined less sharply. The firearm homicide rate was 1.15 per 100,000 in 1977 and dropped to 0.50 in 2003 while the non-firearm rate went from 1.85 per 100,000 to 1.23 per 100,000 in the same time period.

So says Wiki. I don't know where you got those stats you used.

My source was listed right on the header. Homicide rates in the US have been dropping during that same period - and we didn't adopt registration.

True, but our death rates are still much higher.

From David B. Kopel, "The Samurai, the Mountie, and the Cowboy: Should America Adopt the Gun Controls of Other Democracies" 231, n.210 (1992) -
"These cities and states require registration of "assault weapons." The compliance rate in Boston and Cleveland is about 1%"

I'm not talking about assault weapons.

Time for some multi-dimensional thinking. The point was about compliance. Most people can reach the conclusion that if there was 1% compliance on assault weapons, there most likely would be a similar rate of compliance for other guns too.

I disagree. People that own assault weapons are usually much more avid gun owners than most people, and many of the people who own assault rifles have that fear of the government taking them away. I'm sure compliance would be much higher for handguns. And, like I said, CURRENT GUN OWNERS DO NOT NEED TO BE REGISTERED. So no compliance would be necessary, because carding would only occur for new gun purchases.

From gunfacts.info (regarding the question of whether the government having a list of gun owners would be a bad thing) -
"In 1967, New York City passed an ordinance requiring a citizen to obtain a permit to own a rifle or shotgun, which would then be registered. In 1991, the city passed a ban on the private possession of some semi-automatic rifles and shotguns, and "registered" owners were told that those firearms had to be surrendered, rendered inoperable, or taken out of the city"

Now imagine that on a country-wide scale. That's right, you can't.

And why wouldn't/couldn't this happen country wide? I'm sure you've seen that Hillary and BHO both voted against a prohibition against gun confiscation during an emergency. That was brought on by New Orleans confiscating guns during Katrina - and found to be unconstitutional. Yet even afterwards, those two thought it ok to confiscate guns.

Because I have in other posts explained why it is completely impossible for the government to take any action against 40-100 million people. It just doesn't work.

I can't justify other politicians' actions.

---

At 3/21/09 10:30 AM, LiquidSperber wrote: ID cards that can't be forged are the holy grail. If we had such a thing, we could easily identify illegal immigrants. Build a better mousetrap and the criminals build a better mouse.

Why bother forging a fake license to buy a gun when you can just buy a illegal gun? Besides, the only thing you could do is change the picture on the card since the information on a fake card would not match the database resulting in a denial of the card.

---

At 3/21/09 04:30 PM, GrammerNaziElite wrote:

I thought that was self-evident. I agree with you in this. Life sentence or death. For mass murderers I might even consider torture. I never argued against this point.

You asked whether I had a solution. I responded I had. I'm not arguing that you aren't agreeing with this. Again, I'm only answering the question you asked.

Since 3/4's of murders are committed without ANY firearms I think my statement is VERY valid. You cling to the notion that people with guns are committing all the crimes. The vast vast vast majority of gun owners are not criminal. The vast majority of murders don't commit murder with guns.

I never said that only gun owners can commit crimes or that crimes can only be committed with guns. However, this is a gun thread, so I'm talking about guns.

Again you seem to be changing the question or statement originally made. You suggested that only people armed with guns are somehow extraordinarily dangerous - thus requiring they be "listed" I pointed out that the blunt objects you aren't threatened by are used in the majority of murders.

My source was listed right on the header. Homicide rates in the US have been dropping during that same period - and we didn't adopt registration.

True, but our death rates are still much higher.

OK, now remove ALL gun murders in this country and our murder rate is STILL higher than Canada's. We are a more murderous country than most - not just a murderous with gun country. However, MOST of those murders are gang related - which frankly doesn't bother me (that whole "live by the sword" thing).

---

At 3/21/09 05:51 PM, JoS wrote:

Why bother forging a fake license to buy a gun when you can just buy a illegal gun? Besides, the only thing you could do is change the picture on the card since the information on a fake card would not match the database resulting in a denial of the card.

Don't ask me man. This whole debate seems silly. The card won't stop felons because they don't buy legal guns (plus the existing system already prevents that). The card won't stop crimes of passion because these folks don't have records yet (not entirely true as most girl friend/wife murderers already have a record) and wouldn't be flagged by the card. So, other than telling the government who has them (which is counter to the 2nd amendments purpose) the card seems pointless.

But, us pro rights folks are used to hearing:

"it won't really do anything, but its a first step"
"well we have to try SOMETHING"
and a thousand other silly utterances - which is why we now have 20,000 gun laws and people still demanding even more.

---

Just because criminals wills till find ways to buy them does not mean we should make it easy for them to do so. People will still break into our homes and steal our stuff, yet we put locks on our doors anyways.

---

At 3/21/09 08:45 PM, JoS wrote: Just because criminals wills till find ways to buy them does not mean we should make it easy for them to do so. People will still break into our homes and steal our stuff, yet we put locks on our doors anyways.

It's not a crime to leave your door unlocked.

---

At 3/21/09 08:57 PM, LazyDrunk wrote:

At 3/21/09 08:45 PM, JoS wrote: Just because criminals wills till find ways to buy them does not mean we should make it easy for them to do so. People will still break into our homes and steal our stuff, yet we put locks on our doors anyways.

It's not a crime to leave your door unlocked.

Its not a crime to not pass a law making it more difficult for criminals to buy guns.

---

It would be a crime if a supreme court said it was.

---

At 3/21/09 09:55 PM, LazyDrunk wrote: It would be a crime if a supreme court said it was.

Excellent point. If the supremes actually acted on the constitution/bill of rights and not "interpreted" based on political expedience, the "gun card" would be considered an infringement of the right to keep and bear arms. Unfortunately, the court wants to play politics rather than do its job.

---

At 3/21/09 03:07 PM, GrammerNaziElite wrote: Fortunately for me, neither I nor anyone else seems to know how to effectively stop illegal gun trade, so it's not as though you should expect of me to know how.

So by your own admission, this will do jack shit to take stop the real criminals.

One more nail in the coffin of this argument.

I don't recall saying that once, in fact, the whole crime group I'm spearheading against is crimes of passion.

"Crimes of passion are done within the moment. They do not last with you in the time it takes to go down to the store, and if they do, you were going to end up trying to kill people anyway. Everybody in their life has a brief instant where they want to kill somebody, but it does not last any longer than that moment. Sometimes it lasts long enough for you to get a gun out. It almost NEVER lasts a trip down to the local gun store."

So, you're arguing for a law that is aimed at combating something that rarely (or so stated in your opinion, anyway) happens. Or at least doesn't happen often enough to matter, unless you want to go on and continue arguing that law abiding citizens are all potential citizens who should be monitored under your system.

Do you think the police can handle that? Or even SWAT? Use logic.

Actually, I haven't really given serious thought about who would be actually doing the gun repossessing. I imagine that in the event it does happen, there would be a small revolt inside the nation's police forces because they themselves would be on the list first off, and then another small revolt inside each branch of the nation's armed forces AND the separate branches of the government (FBI, CIA, NSA). I'm speaking of privately owned weapons, however, not standard issue weaponry.

I'll get back to you on that one.

I said that I would prefer to be spied upon and be safe as opposed to the opposite.

So... you're not safe now, and you would feel safer being spied on? But you live in California, with some of the most draconian gun laws in our nation, and you don't feel safe?

Why is that?

Have you told them that you're going to?

Told who? I've talked it over with my dad, and he's recommending against buying a pistol grip shotgun for the simple fact that they're more difficult to aim. He's also recommending against buying online because I can always go to a pawnshop and get one cheaper used, which makes a HELL of a lot more sense than trying to buy online and organize a Federal Firearms Licensee to receive my gun.

But we're not keeping an eye on you.

Yes you are, that's the entire point of your argument and you've repeated this fact numerous times; law abiding citizens need to be monitored because they are potential criminals.

I wouldn't expect to.

Oh, funny. You don't want me to view you as a friendly candidate, and you don't want my vote. You're going to do well in the primaries.

Yeah. It is. I wouldn't care. What are they going to do? Run to your house every time there's a crime?

That's what you're implying would happen anyway if I'm a criminal with a gun registered to my legal name, which you still haven't explained how it would work considering you wouldn't be able to sign up for it in the first place if you're a felon.

And as for enforcing it? I have no idea.

Then how do you intend to make it illegal, much less regulate it?

In fact, it's barely better.

Then why bother with it?

Furthermore, while it's true that I didn't know the Tennessee gun laws

I didn't say a word about Tennessee laws, I said gun laws in general, which so far has been true.

I disagree. Your mailman knows where you live. Does that bother you?

Nope, because the mail man doesn't give a shit what I get in the mail.

Having a name on a list is, once again, not monitoring.

Yes, it is. You've admitted it, you've said you were for it whole heatedly, you said we NEEDED it to be safe. Quit lying.

Because I want names on a list.

Because you said "I don't think privacy is a right." Because you said we NEED to be monitored. I'm just throwing your own arguments back at you, dude. You're trying to argue that you don't give a damn about rights to privacy while arguing that you're not as a bad and uncaring individual as you've presented yourself to be. You're trying to have your cake and eat it too.

Once again, I do not have a proposed solution for unlicensed weapons. However, until you do, you can't burn me for not having one.

That's because there is no solution for it; the Supreme Court can't rule against it because it would mess with interstate commerce. You're the one wanting to make it illegal, and you can't even argue a solvent way to make it happen. The most you could do is penalize someone who shouldn't have guns to begin with (which makes a lot more sense than monitoring someone who wouldn't commit a crime anyway because they MIGHT be potential criminals for having a gun), because otherwise it's a victimless crime.

Driving licenses have a list of everybody who can legally drive.

And as you previously pointed out; cars don't have a primary purpose or design intended to kill people. They're modes of transportation. That was the excuse presented for why you and JoS wouldn't crack down on bad drivers when you both know for a fact that you're 60 times more likely to die in a car wreck than you are to be shot dead by a relative.

But that would make you look extraordinarily stupid

Actually, it would make me look extraordinarily biased because I would be silencing my opposition.

Since neither of those points can be supported, I take the logical stance, that they were normal, albeit intelligent people, who led normal lives and succumbed to sin occasionally.

You put them on the same level as politicians of today, I pointed out that most of the men who constructed the constitution died in abject poverty because they didn't take advantage of their office for personal gain after they left (which they did). Can you say that about any of the Kennedy's? How about Bill Clinton and Al Gore?

You might as well compare America to Nazi Germany.

For what you're proposing, I might as well start making comparisons, because we'll be well on our way to it.

This seems like something that could be exploited.

It is exploited; crooked gun store owners selling weapons illegally. How else could 1% of gun stores account for 52% of guns used in gun crimes? They're selling them illegally.

Rape can be committed by either gender

You know, I've often wondered... when was the last time a woman was convicted of raping a man?

At 3/21/09 05:51 PM, JoS wrote: Why bother forging a fake license to buy a gun when you can just buy a illegal gun?

That's one point I've that plays into the "what incentive" argument I've been making, but I guess I was being too subtle.

Besides, the only thing you could do is change the picture on the card since the information on a fake card would not match the database resulting in a denial of the card.

Unless they were able to program the card to match someone else's information, which in an age where identity theft is a very real threat, could very easily happen. All they would need is one number, or a crooked desk clerk in a cubicle somewhere, and this whole damn thing would come crashing down on your ears.

---

At 3/22/09 12:19 AM, Proteas wrote:

At 3/21/09 05:51 PM, JoS wrote: Why bother forging a fake license to buy a gun when you can just buy a illegal gun?

That's one point I've that plays into the "what incentive" argument I've been making, but I guess I was being too subtle.

Your right, there is no incentive for criminals who really want to get their hands on a gun. some people who want a gun though and can't legally have it will be deterred enough to not get a gun. Not everyone knows where to buy an illegal gun on the street, or is willing to. Will someone who is very motivated, yes. Once again though, should we make it easy since people will do it anyways? No. We put The Club on our cars, or alarms, but people will still steal it if they want to, so why bother?

Besides, the only thing you could do is change the picture on the card since the information on a fake card would not match the database resulting in a denial of the card.

Unless they were able to program the card to match someone else's information, which in an age where identity theft is a very real threat, could very easily happen. All they would need is one number, or a crooked desk clerk in a cubicle somewhere, and this whole damn thing would come crashing down on your ears.

Same thing happens with credit cards and debit cards, but we still continue to use them. Simply because someone committed enough may find a way to circumvent the process does not mean we should not do it at all. The current system, all it takes is a fake ID or someone else's and you can get around the NICS. Is any system foolproof, no, but again that does not mean we should just give up.

Why bother revoking the drivers license of people who get too many demerit points or drink and drive, when if they want there is nothing stopping them from getting behind the wheel. Why make insurance mandatory when some people wills till drive without it. Every system has flaws, that does not mean we shoudl just give up on the idea.

---

OAKLAND, Calif. - A police officer was battling for his life and three more were dead after a parolee with an "extensive criminal history" opened fire at a routine traffic stop and hours later gunned down members of a SWAT team searching for him.

The gunman was also killed Saturday, capping a day of violence that the Oakland Police Department said was the worst in its history. Never before had three police officers died in the line of duty on the same day.

"It's in these moments that words are extraordinarily inadequate," said Mayor Ron Dellums at a somber news conference Saturday night.

The mayhem began that afternoon, when two motorcycle patrol officers stopped a 1995 Buick sedan in east Oakland, Oakland police spokesman Jeff Thomason said. The driver opened fire, killing Sgt. Mark Dunakin, 40, and gravely wounding Officer John Hege, 41.

Gunman flees on foot
The gunman then fled on foot, police said, leading to an intense manhunt by dozens of Oakland police, California Highway Patrol officers and Alameda County sheriff deputies. Streets were roped off and an entire area of east Oakland closed to traffic.

About two hours later, officers got an anonymous tip that the gunman was inside a nearby apartment building.

A SWAT team had entered an apartment to clear and search it when the gunman shot them with an assault rifle, police said.

Sgt. Ervin Romans, 43, and Sgt. Daniel Sakai, 35, were killed and a third officer was grazed by a bullet, police said.

SWAT team members returned fire, killing 26-year-old Lovelle Mixon of Oakland, Acting Oakland police Chief Howard Jordan said.

Officer Hege suffered brain damage and may not survive, his father, Dr. John S. Hege, said late Saturday.

"It is a stunning thing to face," he said.

Grieving officers
Grieving officers at the police station hugged and consoled each other. People left four bouquets of white roses under a granite memorial wall inside the building lobby that lists 47 officers killed in the line of duty. The wall shows the last officer killed in Oakland was in January of 1999.

Police said Mixon wielded two different weapons. One gun was used at the first scene and an assault rifle was used at the apartment building where he was hiding.

Jordan said Mixon had an "extensive criminal history" and was wanted on a no-bail warrant.

"(Mixon) was on parole and he had a warrant out for his arrest for violating that parole. And he was on parole for assault with a deadly weapon," said Oakland police Deputy Chief Jeffery Israel.

Police said they did not know exactly why the officers initially stopped the suspect, but said it apparently was a routine traffic stop.

People lingered at the scene of the first shooting. About 20 bystanders taunted police.

Tension between police and the community has risen steadily since the fatal shooting of unarmed 22-year-old Oscar Grant by a transit police officer at an Oakland train station on Jan. 1.

That former Bay Area Rapid Transit officer, Johannes Mehserle, has pleaded not guilty to a murder charge. A preliminary hearing is scheduled for Monday. Violent protests erupted on the streets of Oakland in the weeks after Grant's death, further inflaming tensions.

Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger planned to fly to Oakland on Sunday from Washington, D.C., to meet with police and Mayor Dellums, the govenor's office said.
Source

This is where the danger of assault weapons lies. Its not that they are often used, especially in the commission of crimes, but criminals and drug dealers may have them in their homes, stash house etc and when police come to arrest these suspects they may face this. So while average citizens may not be as concerned about them, police officers are.

This man killed two SWAT officers with his assault rifle.

---

"SWAT team members returned fire, killing 26-year-old Lovelle Mixon of Oakland, Acting Oakland police Chief Howard Jordan said."

They killed their own guy? That sucks.

---

Obama's assault rifle ban is sickening...

As we speak, 20,000 troops are being put onto US streets by the Pentagon, and Obama is setting up a million-man domestic youth brigade...

People need assault weapons to protect themselves against that awful tyranny.

---

All you need to protect yourself from tyranny is a compass and your feet.

---

At 3/22/09 01:06 PM, JackPhantasm wrote: "SWAT team members returned fire, killing 26-year-old Lovelle Mixon of Oakland, Acting Oakland police Chief Howard Jordan said."

They killed their own guy? That sucks.

Lovelle Mixon was the suspect who killed 3 police officers and wounded 2 others, 1 seriously. The SWAT team returned fire and killed the suspect, not one of the SWAT team members.