CYCLINGFORUM.COM - Where Cyclists Talk Tech --- Return To Home

 

    Register FAQ'sSearchProfileLog In / Log Out

 

****

cyclingforum.com ****

HOMECLUBS | SPONSORS | FEATURESPHOTO GALLERYTTF DONORS | SHOP FOR GEAR

Return to CyclingForum Home Page CYCLING TECH TALK FORUM
          View posts since last visit

Vista Outdoor; CamelBak,Giro,Bell,Blackburn and more.
 Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7  Next

Author Thread Post new topic Reply to topic
Brian Nystrom
Joined: 26 Jan 2004
Posts: 4163
Location: Nashua, NH

3/6/18 6:37 AM

"That leaves us with flintlocks being completely unrestricted. But we can regulate more modern firearms with relevant laws, aligned the immensely greater killing power certain designs/technologies confer."

Nice try, but you don't get to have it both ways. We're talking about the intent of the framers of the Constitution, not some revisionist interpretation.

We've struck a sensible balance by allowing citizens to own light arms, but restricting explosive devices (grenades, mortars, cannons, etc.) to the military only. I'm fine with that.

 Reply to topic    

daddy-o
Joined: 12 Apr 2004
Posts: 3201
Location: Springfield

3/6/18 7:45 AM

We're talking about the intent of the framers of the Constitution, not some revisionist interpretation.

Does "We're talking..." mean "we in this thread" or "we originalists?"

Produce a contemporaneous citation for your definition of 'regulated,' otherwise it is a revisionist interpretation.

Tommy guns?

 Reply to topic     Send e-mail

walter
Joined: 11 Jan 2004
Posts: 4360
Location: metro-motown-area

3/6/18 10:02 AM

originalists having it both ways

2A zealots already have it both ways.

they want an "originalist" interpretation of the 2A with essentially unfettered access to firearms, and they want that lack of restriction to apply to all firearms -- original (flintlocks) and modern (everything since).

"We've struck a sensible balance by allowing citizens to own light arms, but restricting explosive devices (grenades, mortars, cannons, etc.) to the military only."

dont forget full-autos being restricted federally. sawed-off shotguns are a no-no. also restrictions on the manufacture/importation of armor-piercing rounds. also myriad state restrictions on certain classes of rounds. hell, the NFA restricts tons of stuff. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Firearms_Act


Last edited by walter on 3/6/18 2:42 PM; edited 1 time in total

 Reply to topic     Send e-mail

PLee
Joined: 08 Dec 2003
Posts: 3606
Location: Brooklyn, NY

3/6/18 10:58 AM

Swiss gun laws

I'd be happy with Swiss gun laws: (the following from Wikipedia)

Buying guns - In order to purchase most weapons, the purchaser must obtain a weapon acquisition permit. Swiss citizens and foreigners with a C permit over the age of 18 who are not psychiatrically disqualified nor identified as posing security problems, and who have a clean criminal record can request such a permit. Foreigners with the following citizenship are explicitly excluded from the right to possess weapons: Serbia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Kosovo, Macedonia, Turkey, Sri Lanka, Algeria and Albania. The following information must be provided to the cantonal weapon bureau together with the weapon application form:

- valid official identification or passport copy
- residence address
- criminal record copy not older than 3 months
- For each transfer of a weapon or an essential weapon component without weapons acquisition permit, a written contract must be concluded. Each Party shall keep them at least ten years. The contract must include the following information:

- Family name, first name, birth date, residence address and signature of the person who sells the weapon or essential weapon component
- Family name, first name, birth date, residence address and signature of the person who purchases the weapon or an essential weapon component
- Kind of weapon, manufacturer or producer, label, caliber, weapon number, and date and place of transfer
- Type and number of official identification of the person who acquires the weapon or the essential weapon component and an indication of the processing of personal data in connection with the contract in accordance with the privacy policy of the Federation or the cantons, if firearms are transmitted

This information must be sent within 30 days to the cantonal weapon registration bureau, where the weapon holders are registered.

Some weapons do not need a weapon acquisition permit:

Buying ammunition -

Ready ammunition of the Swiss Army. Soldiers equipped with the Sig 550 assault rifle used to be issued 50 rounds of ammunition in a sealed can, to be opened only upon alert and for use while en route to join their unit. This practice was stopped in 2007. Ammunition is now kept at central locations to be accessed in emergencies only.

In order to purchase ammunition the buyer must follow the same legal rules that apply to buying guns. The buyer can only buy ammunition for guns that he/she legally owns and must provide the following information to the seller:

- valid official identification or passport (and must be older than 18 and who are not psychiatrically disqualified nor identified as posing security problems, and must not be a citizen of the following countries: Serbia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Kosovo, Macedonia, Turkey, Sri Lanka, Algeria and Albania)
- residence address
- criminal record copy not older than 3 months
- weapon acquisition permit not older than 2 years, or a weapon carrying permit not older than 5 years

This also applies for weapons which do not require a weapon acquisition permit.

This information must be sent within 30 days to the cantonal weapon registration bureau, where the weapon holder is registered.

The same applies to black powder and modern black powder substitutes for use in firing historical rifles.

The possession of the following munition is generally prohibited:

- Ammunition with armor-piercing bullets
- Ammunition with projectiles containing an explosive or incendiary device
- Ammunition with one or more floors to the release of substances which damage the health of people in the long run
- Ammunition, missiles and missile launchers for military explosive
- Ammunition with projectiles for transmitting electric shocks
- Ammunition for handguns with deformation effect

Carrying guns -

To carry a firearm in public or outdoors (and for a militia member to carry a firearm other than his issued weapons while off-duty), a person must have a gun carrying permit, which in most cases is issued only to private citizens working in occupations such as security. It is, however, quite common to see a person in military service to be en route with his rifle, albeit unloaded. The issue of such exceptional permits are extremely selective.

However, it is permissible to carry firearms in public or outdoors if the holder:

- Has a valid hunting license and is carrying the firearm for hunting
- Is participating in a demonstration and is carrying the firearm in reference to a historical event
- Is participating in a shooting competition for air-soft guns, provided that the competition has a secure perimeter
- Is an airport security officer for an authorized country, a border patrol officer, or a game warden, who is carrying the firearm in the course of their employment

Furthermore, any licensed holder of a gun may transport an unloaded firearm for special situations.

Conditions for obtaining a Carrying Permit -

- fulfilling the conditions for a buying permit (see section above) stating plausibly the need to carry firearms to protect oneself, other people, or real property from a specified danger
- passing an examination proving both weapon handling skills and knowledge regarding lawful use of the weapon

The carrying permit remains valid for a term of five years (unless otherwise surrendered or revoked), and applies only to the type of firearm for which the permit was issued. Additional constraints may be invoked to modify any specific permit.

 Reply to topic    

Brian Nystrom
Joined: 26 Jan 2004
Posts: 4163
Location: Nashua, NH

3/6/18 5:18 PM

''Does "We're talking..." mean "we in this thread" or "we originalists?"

Produce a contemporaneous citation for your definition of 'regulated,' otherwise it is a revisionist interpretation."

As I said, We're talking about the intent of the framers of the Constitution. The following explanation is somewhat long, but it makes the salient points pretty clearly. https://www.lectlaw.com/files/gun01.htm

-
"2A zealots already have it both ways.

they want an "originalist" interpretation of the 2A with essentially unfettered access to firearms, and they want that lack of restriction to apply to all firearms -- original (flintlocks) and modern (everything since)."

This is pretty tortured logic, Walter. If you read the above citation, the actual intent was to make the "militia" equivalent in ability to any standing army. Obviously we've not strictly followed that idea, but from the standpoint of creating a deterrent to government tyranny, what we have is probably sufficient.

"dont forget full-autos being restricted federally. sawed-off shotguns are a no-no. also restrictions on the manufacture/importation of armor-piercing rounds. also myriad state restrictions on certain classes of rounds. hell, the NFA restricts tons of stuff."

I'm not forgetting any of it; I'm quite familiar with the NFA and the GCA of 1968. What's your point?

-
PLee, we actually have a lot of that already in place, but most of it is completed at the time of purchase through Torm 4473 and the NICS background check, which is done by computer in a matter of minutes, rather than manually through a bunch of paperwork. These can also be completed for private transfers, but it's not mandatory.

The requirement for ammunition purchases seem a bit ridiculous. The restrictions on types of ammunition and largely similar here.

The carry regulations are covered by state regulations, but there is no uniformity. Neither VT nor NH require concealed carry permits, but in MA there is an incredible morass of local laws that give way too much authority over permits to local police officials. The open carry during hunting season is typical around here.

 Reply to topic    

walter
Joined: 11 Jan 2004
Posts: 4360
Location: metro-motown-area

3/6/18 8:54 PM

"I'm not forgetting any of it; I'm quite familiar with the NFA and the GCA of 1968. What's your point? "

my point is that firearms are already regulated. originalist aspirations aside, you're already standing in the middle of a slippery slope. i dont see meaningful change in firearm regulation in my lifetime. when our generation ages and dies off, younger more progressive americans will move that line in the sand towards common sense firearm regulation.

<img src=https://instagram.fdet1-1.fna.fbcdn.net/vp/30c8ab4e2f3e4224f3444de02d8d1df8/5B41FB45/t51.2885-15/e35/15043620_694805120689047_1069183751302414336_n.jpg>

 Reply to topic     Send e-mail

daddy-o
Joined: 12 Apr 2004
Posts: 3201
Location: Springfield

3/6/18 9:06 PM

"Could" "ought" "should" and circular reasoning are features of that article.

End note 15 does not support his arguments. Consistently he cites individuals and entities of fortitude that adhere to rules, not skill and training.

My biggest takeaway is the framers were debating the points with the same arguments.

 Reply to topic     Send e-mail

daddy-o
Joined: 12 Apr 2004
Posts: 3201
Location: Springfield

3/6/18 9:31 PM

Firearm-related injuries drop during NRA conventions

Examples of well trained militia members?

(Reuters Health) - Gunshot-related deaths and injuries temporarily show a dramatic decline when the National Rifle Association is holding its annual convention, according to a new analysis in the New England Journal of Medicine.

NEJM Article

 Reply to topic     Send e-mail

Sparky
Joined: 08 Dec 2003
Posts: 16693
Location: Portland, OR

3/6/18 9:40 PM

Drastic? Am I misinterpreting the graph?

 Reply to topic     Send e-mail

April
Joined: 13 Dec 2003
Posts: 6420
Location: Westchester/NYC

3/6/18 10:46 PM

Dumb as "the dumbest"!


quote:
"Considering all the accidental gun death, which is the highest in civilized countries, those "education" clearly not very successful, is it?"

This is one of the dumbest leaps to a conclusion that I've seen you make to date. It's the same as saying "Considering all the accidental deaths on the highway, driver's education is clearly not successful.

There is no requirement for gun owners to attend NRA safety classes . There is no way to know how many current gun owners have done so. It's also abundantly clear that many, if not most, accidental gun deaths are caused by people who do not know how to handle firearms safely, which indicates that they have not had any safety training.

That's because the NRA opposed MANDATORY gun safety classes!!!

First, oppose requirement for safety education (or equivalent). Then to argue the safety education can't help because so many do not attend such education!

And last but not least, suggest the accidental gun death is what? Because people did NOT have such education!!!

Thanks for proving my point. Dumb as dumb goes.

(and consider this is THE most important "safety" contribution you insist the NRA does, it would qualify as the "dumbest" arguments you've made)

 Reply to topic     Send e-mail

Brian Nystrom
Joined: 26 Jan 2004
Posts: 4163
Location: Nashua, NH

3/7/18 6:45 AM

OK April...

...name a Constitutional Right that mandates training before you can exercise it.

Obviously, there's no requirement for training before you can exercise your First Amendment rights and spout off without having to actually think.

Should we perhaps make training in critical thinking a requirement for free speech???


Last edited by Brian Nystrom on 3/7/18 6:47 AM; edited 1 time in total

 Reply to topic    

daddy-o
Joined: 12 Apr 2004
Posts: 3201
Location: Springfield

3/7/18 6:46 AM

Graph

Turn your critical eye on all statistical presentations.

But I agree "20% fewer of almost nobody"

But also look at cancer statistics, cardiovascular, diabetes and so forth, the raw numbers may seem to be unimpressive but the changes are what sells.

And if somebody wants to point out "well diabetes..." etc, I'm generalizing and this is my last stand for statistics in this battle! #humor

 Reply to topic     Send e-mail

walter
Joined: 11 Jan 2004
Posts: 4360
Location: metro-motown-area

3/7/18 8:41 AM

OK Brian...

name a constitutional right that confers a citizen access to lethality comparable to modern firearms.

we already have a precedent for regulating firearms based on lethality in the FFA-1934...now we're just debating where to move that line in the sand.

 Reply to topic     Send e-mail

henoch
Joined: 12 Jan 2004
Posts: 1578

3/7/18 8:47 AM

Ok Brian

Did you even read what you wrote?
While I disagree with you, I respect your opinion, but your last response to April is one of the dumbest things I have ever heard and kind off weakens your whole argument.

 Reply to topic    

Brian Nystrom
Joined: 26 Jan 2004
Posts: 4163
Location: Nashua, NH

3/7/18 12:16 PM

Henoch,I think you missed the point.

We are talking about a Constitutional Right here, not about driving a car or flying a plane or any number of other things where training can be required in order to do them. Mandating training or pretty much any precondition in order for an adult to exercise a Constitutional Right has been struck down repeatedly by the Supreme Court, most notably with the right to vote. While some states have mandated firearms training in some instances, it's questionable whether a federal mandate would pass Constitutional muster. That's what I was getting at.

Additionally, unless the government was willing to provide training to every American who wanted it at no cost and in convenient locations, it would be highly discriminatory. Are you willing to put your tax dollars behind such a program? It would be ripe for abuse, through changing standards and other requirements. It reminds me of "Catch 22" and the number of missions required.

Of course the idea of requiring anything in order to exercise free speech is absurd; it was meant as a joke.

-
Walter, they say that "the pen is mightier than the sword", so perhaps the First Amendment is the best example. ;-)

Yes, we have regulations and we can debate endlessly on what they should be. I don't know about you, but I'm getting pretty tired of this.

 Reply to topic    

Sparky
Joined: 08 Dec 2003
Posts: 16693
Location: Portland, OR

3/7/18 1:27 PM

It's a shit show across the boards. I feel like I said that recently. ;)

 Reply to topic     Send e-mail

Brian Nystrom
Joined: 26 Jan 2004
Posts: 4163
Location: Nashua, NH

3/7/18 4:32 PM

I think so, in another thread.

 Reply to topic    

dan emery
Joined: 11 Jan 2004
Posts: 6019
Location: Maine

3/7/18 5:55 PM

Here's a thought

"Where I come down on it, I think it it's really easy to be a pro gun, gun pro and be pro gun control."

Clare Egan, Olympic biathlete, from Cape Elizabeth, Maine.

Which is obvious to everyone but the NRA, who propagate the myth that every advocate of gun control is anti-gun and anti-hunting in order to perpetuate the NRA's finances and influence.

Several members of the US Biathlon team came out strongly in favor of gun control, including Tim Burke, a self-described avid hunter. They also noted that their European competitors think U.S. gun policy is insane.

Elena Kagan, one of the liberal justices Brian hates, went hunting with Scalia, bagged a deer and enjoyed it.

But Brian is right to be tired of this, we've been having the same discussion for at least 15 years and no one has moved a micron.

 Reply to topic    

Sparky
Joined: 08 Dec 2003
Posts: 16693
Location: Portland, OR

3/7/18 6:49 PM

I am for gun and/or ammunition control and own more than one firearm. [will leave it at that]. One has nothing to do with the other for me. But I guess for holding the line, it is different than it is for me.

 Reply to topic     Send e-mail

dan emery
Joined: 11 Jan 2004
Posts: 6019
Location: Maine

3/10/18 5:58 PM

Nice work NRA

Suing Florida, with its A+ rated governor.

Positioning themselves firmly on the wrong side of history.

 Reply to topic    

Brian Nystrom
Joined: 26 Jan 2004
Posts: 4163
Location: Nashua, NH

3/11/18 9:36 AM

It would have happened anyway, may as well do it now

By increasing the age to buy any firearm to 21, Florida has effectively raised the "age of majority" for exercising a constitutional right. My understanding is that at age 18, a person is considered an adult and has full constitutional rights. Is that not the case? Being a lawyer, perhaps you can shed some light on this and whether a state has ever done this before.

I'm not arguing about whether it's a good idea or not; I'm curious if there's any chance that this even legal. It seems like something that's important enough to challenge in court and get a ruling before it becomes a widespread practice, as it could have broad implications to other constitutional rights.

 Reply to topic    

dan emery
Joined: 11 Jan 2004
Posts: 6019
Location: Maine

3/11/18 10:33 AM

Majority rule

I am not a constitutional lawyer nor scholar so I can't give a learned opinion. I'm not aware that constitutional rights are limited to those of majority, nor that such rights are unrestricted, majority or not. I think a 6 year old has a right of free speech, and a 60 year old can't yell "fire" in a crowded theater.

Lots of places 18 year olds can't buy alcohol - there might not be a constitutional right to booze, but if that is reasonable, it's hard for me to see how restricting firearms is less so. Judge Roy Moore would probably say it's unconstitutional, lots of others not.

We'll see how the litigation turns out but I think the tides of public opninion are turning and the NRA may find itself increasingly marginalized. I know you disagree.

 Reply to topic    

Brian Nystrom
Joined: 26 Jan 2004
Posts: 4163
Location: Nashua, NH

3/11/18 2:29 PM

The NRA has weathered many storms

I'm sure they'll weather this one two. I hear that membership is up considerably, which is a good sign of their staying power.

 Reply to topic    

henoch
Joined: 12 Jan 2004
Posts: 1578

3/11/18 3:19 PM

The tide is turning weather you like it or not.

 Reply to topic    

Brian Nystrom
Joined: 26 Jan 2004
Posts: 4163
Location: Nashua, NH

3/12/18 6:00 AM

We'll see.

 Reply to topic    


Return to CyclingForum Home Page CYCLING TECH TALK FORUM
           View New Threads Since My Last Visit VIEW THREADS SINCE MY LAST VISIT
           Start a New Thread

 Display posts from previous:   


Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7  Next  
Last Thread | Next Thread  >  

  
  

 


If you enjoy this site, please consider pledging your support

cyclingforum.com - where cyclists talk tech
Cycling TTF Rides Throughout The World

Cyclingforum is powered by SYNCRONICITY.NET in Denver, Colorado -

Powered by phpBB: Copyright 2006 phpBB Group | Custom phpCF Template by Syncronicity