Judge Upholds Key Provisions Of N.Y. Gun-Control Law - Polidicks

[QUOTE=.Isak.;43392968]I really hate the concept of "if we make it illegal it will disappear." It's not a partisan problem, either. Republicans? Drugs don't exist if they're illegal. Democrats? Guns aren't a problem if they're illegal. It's completely incorrect but it keeps on happening.[/QUOTE] Sure it doesn't make the disappear, but it does have an effect. The everyman is less likely to have whatever you've banned. It does push whatever it is underground, which can lead to only criminals having it, sure. But it also means what they are getting is a lot less safe normally, they stand out like a sore thumb and it can cost more than it would legally in some cases. [editline]2nd January 2014[/editline] [QUOTE=Eudoxia;43393910]This is why cops are more likely to miss when shooting and more likely to kill innocent bystanders than civilians (At least in America)?[/QUOTE] Do US police departments enforce proper firearms training or anything? Any guy with a gun can pop to a range for as long as he can with his free time and money. A police officer should be able to match that and then some if the department wants decent officers.

[QUOTE=hexpunK;43394868]Sure it doesn't make the disappear, but it does have an effect. The everyman is less likely to have whatever you've banned. It does push whatever it is underground, which can lead to only criminals having it, sure. But it also means what they are getting is a lot less safe normally, they stand out like a sore thumb and it can cost more than it would legally in some cases. [editline]2nd January 2014[/editline] Do US police departments enforce proper firearms training or anything? Any guy with a gun can pop to a range for as long as he can with his free time and money. A police officer should be able to match that and then some if the department wants decent officers.[/QUOTE] Try training in New York, or Chicago. It's impossible since they legislated all ranges out of existence within city limits.

[QUOTE=BrickInHead;43393595]we now exist in a society where the rules and regulations of war are imperative in what is considered legal and illegal conflict[/quote] Because the past few conflicts go to show how everyone obeys the Geneva Conventions flawlessly. [QUOTE=BrickInHead;43393595] the introduction of civilians into such a war would serve to muddle everything and would be severely detrimental to the conclusion of a war. it would not make a war be won more swiftly. it would make it bloodier, and would result in significantly more war crimes.[/quote] That's the point. Modern conflicts don't have to be complete Iraq War situations where everything goes flawlessly with the invasion and all that. Even in regards to Iraq and Afghanistan, we have basically become stuck in the mud with a Vietnam War situation where if wanted to truly win the war, we'd have to invade other countries(Saudi Arabia/Pakistan/Yemen), and theirs no guarantee that such a situation would accomplish anything. So we are stuck fighting a constant conflict involving illegal drone activity, and pissing off a lot of people in the region. [QUOTE=BrickInHead;43393595] you are not a soldier you do not understand war do not pretend to.[/QUOTE] Not even trying to pretend too. My entire post is nothing more, "2nd Amendment exists for this reason, in order to avoid Red Dawn situation, let people train so they are not an issue to logistics."

[QUOTE=hexpunK;43394868]Sure it doesn't make the disappear, but it does have an effect. The everyman is less likely to have whatever you've banned. It does push whatever it is underground, which can lead to only criminals having it, sure. But it also means what they are getting is a lot less safe normally, they stand out like a sore thumb and it can cost more than it would legally in some cases. [editline]2nd January 2014[/editline] Do US police departments enforce proper firearms training or anything? Any guy with a gun can pop to a range for as long as he can with his free time and money. A police officer should be able to match that and then some if the department wants decent officers.[/QUOTE] I don't know about the US, but in Toronto police only NEED to fire 100 shots a year, 50 for training and then 50 for qualification. A lot of departments in the US had recent budget cuts and the ammo shortage, making less rounds available for training. There's also the particular issue in New York of the "New York Trigger" on their service Glocks. The NYPD used to use double-action revolvers with a 12-pound trigger pull. Glocks by standard have a 5.5lb pull, and a lot of NY cops were having negligent discharges because they never re-trained them with the new, lighter trigger like nearly every other department in the country. Instead, they ordered Glocks with 12lb triggers. The issue is, the trigger doesn't pull like the ones on the old revolvers did, so the NYPD has their officers missing a lot due to the abhorrent pull, their gun is jerked off to the side by their tough yanking on the trigger. This was what caused that incident earlier last year where there were 9 people shot outside the Empire State Building by police responding to a targeted shooting, their guns triggers are shitty and they don't get enough training, so they kept missing the guy they were shooting at. A paper from Hartford University, in 1994, talks of a study done in Missouri, where it states: [quote]Another study examined newspaper reports of gun incidents in Missouri, involving police or civilians. In this study, civilians were successful in wounding, driving off, capturing criminals 83% of the time, compared with a 68% success rate for the police. Civilians intervening in crime were slightly less likely to be wounded than were police. Only 2% of shootings by civilians, but 11% of shootings by police, involved an innocent person mistakenly thought to be a criminal.[/quote] [url]http://uhaweb.hartford.edu/kdowst/competen.html[/url] Then there was this disturbing tidbit from another site: [quote]New findings on how offenders train with, carry and deploy the weapons they use to attack police officers have emerged in a just-published, [B]5-year study by the FBI[/B]. Among other things, the data reveal that [B]most would-be cop killers[/B]: –show signs of being armed that officers miss; –have more experience using deadly force in “street combat” than their intended victims; [B]–practice with firearms more often and shoot more accurately[/B];[/quote] [url]http://www.forcescience.org/fsinews/2006/12/new-findings-from-fbi-about-cop-attackers-their-weapons/[/url]

[QUOTE=catbarf;43393053] If America decided to start dumping people in FEMA camps, a few rifles would go a long way. Drones can't patrol city blocks, tanks can't search buildings. Eventually it comes down to boots on the ground, and if you can fight on even terms in that regard you can capture and steal your way up. Just look at Libya, Syria, and Egypt. The rebels didn't start the wars with anti-aircraft guns and RPGs lying in their backyards, they were captured and put to use. If you do a bit of research into weapons designed for insurgents, like the Liberator pistol, they were expressly intended to be used to kill a soldier and then allow the user to steal the soldier's weapon. If you already have a comparable weapon, you can skip a step. Ultimately, the second amendment serves two purposes. In the event of some political upheaval that starts oppressing the populace, it gives the people [i]some[/i] chance to fight back, especially if the military isn't entirely on the side of the new regime. Secondly, it allows for the people to provide for the common defense in the event of invasion, even if it's nothing more than insurgency like the French Resistance in WW2. Even in the days when the Bill of Rights was written, a musket was not enough to make a citizen equivalent to a trained soldier with access to cavalry and artillery support. That wasn't the intent.[/QUOTE] First off, the US military would have massive defection rates as well as an issue with people on the inside. There's also the fact that a lot of Vets are coming back and joining up with militias and helping train them during whatever scheduled meeting dates.

[QUOTE=ilikecorn;43396550]ACTUALLY, since you bring it up. The geneva conventions specifically allow for "civilians" to become lawful combatants, exceptions are made for those who have been conscripted (which they would be, had you read joe's post)(Also, before you can deploy, you sit through HUNDREDS of briefs for everything regarding the AO that you're operating in). That being said, they also specifically define "illegal" combatants, which aren't protected by the geneva conventions. The use of international law is vast and muddled with politics, by the time a civil war/police action/aggressive action, was deemed "illegal" the ball would already be rolling at a pace much faster than anyone could stop. [/quote] um they delineate a civilian as a protected person that loses protected status if they engage in combat unlawfully. that is not the same as providing a mechanism for them to become a lawful combatant. they become what is known as an unprivileged combatant. (aka an unlawful one). i would not consider that effectively encouraging them to become lawful combatants [quote]TL;DR You don't know what you're talking about, don't bring "international law" into a debate that it doesn't apply to.[/QUOTE] (common article 3.)

[QUOTE=Swilly;43396460]First off, the US military would have massive defection rates as well as an issue with people on the inside. There's also the fact that a lot of Vets are coming back and joining up with militias and helping train them during whatever scheduled meeting dates.[/QUOTE] Many of the militias would be fighting on the Governments side in this hypothetical scenario. Since you know, tyrannical governments only exist through popular support. A point in which many forget.

[QUOTE=JoeSkylynx;43395875]Because the past few conflicts go to show how everyone obeys the Geneva Conventions flawlessly.[/quote] they certainly abide by them much better than we used to - and that's because of the increasing professionalization of the militaries of the world. [quote]That's the point. Modern conflicts don't have to be complete Iraq War situations where everything goes flawlessly with the invasion and all that. Even in regards to Iraq and Afghanistan, we have basically become stuck in the mud with a Vietnam War situation where if wanted to truly win the war, we'd have to invade other countries(Saudi Arabia/Pakistan/Yemen), and theirs no guarantee that such a situation would accomplish anything. So we are stuck fighting a constant conflict involving illegal drone activity, and pissing off a lot of people in the region. Not even trying to pretend too. My entire post is nothing more, "2nd Amendment exists for this reason, in order to avoid Red Dawn situation, let people train so they are not an issue to logistics."[/QUOTE] the second amendment from a historical constitutionalist perspective exists not for the purpose of national defense but for state defense

[QUOTE=NoDachi;43396799]Many of the militias would be fighting on the Governments side in this hypothetical scenario. Since you know, tyrannical governments only exist through popular support. A point in which many forget.[/QUOTE] Actually, no its not. Its a mixed bag, some tyrannical governments get in through popular support, others get in through other means. Usually military coups. It depends on the circumstances. As of right now, if the US broke out into Civil War, most militias are completely anti-government. The tyranny would come about not through popular support but system abuses and apathy.

[QUOTE=Swilly;43396839]Actually, no its not. Its a mixed bag, some tyrannical governments get in through popular support, others get in through other means. Usually military coups.[/QUOTE] Which usually followed by a succession of victory parades and Qaddafi like personality cults? My point remains. [QUOTE=Swilly;43396839]It depends on the circumstances. As of right now, if the US broke out into Civil War, most militias are completely anti-government. The tyranny would come about not through popular support but system abuses and apathy.[/QUOTE] Find me a tyranny that did not have support.

[QUOTE=ilikecorn;43396880]But that's not what joe was talking about. He was talking about drafting them into the military, thus making them lawful combatants. Again, international law has nothing to do with this debate.[/QUOTE] And rarely applies, even when it actually is enforced. Most of the time the actions are considered lawful within the State and because the UN can't stop a State from choosing whatever laws, it has little standing. Argentina is a perfect example.

[QUOTE=NoDachi;43396883]Which usually followed by a succession of victory parades and Qaddafi like personality cults? My point remains.[/QUOTE] Not really. For instance, in the American Revolution, even after the success, a good chunk still wanted to be part of the English Empire. We're getting into the part that most people ignore, which is the civilian who don't take up arms.

[QUOTE=Swilly;43396914]Not really. For instance, in the American Revolution, even after the success, a good chunk still wanted to be part of the English Empire. We're getting into the part that most people ignore, which is the civilian who don't take up arms.[/QUOTE] What. That is exactly my point, many colonists sided with the British 'tyranny'.

[QUOTE=NoDachi;43396928]What. That is exactly my point, many colonists sided with the British 'tyranny'.[/QUOTE] And another large portion sided with the rebels, and the rest were apathetic. I'm trying to deal with you oversimplifying pieces of history that really shouldn't be oversimplified.

[QUOTE=Swilly;43396938]And another large portion sided with the rebels, and the rest were apathetic. I'm trying to deal with you oversimplifying pieces of history that really shouldn't be oversimplified.[/QUOTE] saying that many people won't side with the ebil merican government is the only gross simplification in this. This concept of the population of the United States, or any country rising up and breaking their shackles to overthrow their evil minority overlords is just a cringey fantasy that doesn't have any historical grounding. Because it completely ignores why tyrannies exist in the first place.

[QUOTE=NoDachi;43396954]saying that many people won't side with the ebil merican government is the only gross simplification in this.[/QUOTE] Saying that many people won't side with the rebels is also a gross simplification. You're using a blanket statement to make your point.

[QUOTE=Swilly;43396972]Saying that many people won't side with the rebels is also a gross simplification.[/QUOTE] cool can you find who said that

[QUOTE=NoDachi;43396978]cool can you find who said that[/QUOTE] Then what's the point of this? You literally added nothing to the discussion.

huh I'm just asking you to back up your statements

[QUOTE=NoDachi;43397020]huh I'm just asking you to back up your statements[/QUOTE] There was no "Hey man, you gotta a source?" That was a snipe.

[QUOTE=Swilly;43397056]There was no "Hey man, you gotta a source?" That was a snipe.[/QUOTE] a snipe at something that wasn't ever suggested? nice aim bro

[QUOTE=NoDachi;43397079]a snipe at something that wasn't ever suggested? nice aim bro[/QUOTE] Nice job dude.

[QUOTE=ilikecorn;43396880]But that's not what joe was talking about. He was talking about drafting them into the military, thus making them lawful combatants. Again, international law has nothing to do with this debate.[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=JoeSkylynx;43387447]The existence of such a militia in the times of war would require a civilian backbone to act with standing military forces, [B]or behind the frontlines, acting as an insurgent.[/B][/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=Swilly;43396460]First off, the US military would have massive defection rates as well as an issue with people on the inside. There's also the fact that a lot of Vets are coming back and joining up with militias and helping train them during whatever scheduled meeting dates.[/QUOTE] This depends on the context of this hypothetical civil war. The US military would have some desertion, but to be honest they would be very low and punished harshly by the regime. The entire concept of a professional military is built around the idea of using discipline to maintain order and to ensure the soldiers do their job. A good general knows the condition of his men and what they can be used for. He uses the elite forces when he actually needs them, and he seldom puts men into action he knows are rebellious or have questionable loyalties. It also largely depends on how competent each side is. At the present moment in time, if all of the "militias" not a part of the army would be crushed very quickly. In fact I'd reckon some of these militias could be arrested by the police force instead of using the army. Vets are a mixed bag. They have experience and know military strategy, but they don't constitute an organized military and effective fighting force. Kings and rulers found this shit out the hard way during the 16th through 19th centuries as they found that buying loads of guns and giving it to their existing armies wasn't enough. They had to build an entire ministry, taxation systems, logistical supply chains, practically create the modern state in order to administrate modern armies. Now in the modern era armies are very capable at conducting wars. Civilians, by and large, don't experience war. It's why civilians aren't the ones fighting and winning wars. They're the ones getting [b]killed[/b] if they try to do that. Why do popular revolutions succeed? Hint: It's because the army defects or collapses, not because of a few nutters with guns.

[QUOTE=ilikecorn;43397220]Good thing insurgencies are illegal, that surely will stop them! Oh wait it doesn't because the only way for a smaller force to win against a larger, better equipped force is to fight unconventionally.[/QUOTE] Insurgencies don't win unless the ruling regime is so inept it lets the insurgents take power (and is unable to maintain control) or they get foreign support. You can fight unconventionally all you like, but without the ability to present a serious challenge to the state (or strike when the state is weak) you are pretty much able to do jack shit apart from annoy the guys in power.

[QUOTE=ilikecorn;43397298]And you don't think that an insurgency in the US has the potential to get foreign support?[/QUOTE] Don't you think the government would as well? A world power, even a tyrannical one would have plenty of foreign buttbuddies.

anyway I've always liked this article on the matter. [url]http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2012/07/gun-rights[/url]

[QUOTE=ilikecorn;43397220]You overestimate how loyal the US military is. The majority of them would quit in a heartbeat, as it's vastly inefficient, and basically runs on the concept of "i've got more glitter on my shoulder, i'm better" It doesn't reward people who have good ideas, it rewards the person who gladly cleans an entire hallway with a toothbrush because the person in charge couldn't be assed to go ask the shop next door for a mop. There's a reason they have reenlistment bonuses for several jobs, because the environment is shitty as fuck, and with those jobs you get a national certification, so why bother putting up with the bullshit when you can work for a civilian, and make way more money. You see the most "PATRIOTISM" in people who have just enlisted and gotten out of bootcamp/MOS school. After that they usually quickly become disillusioned with the system and eventually grow to hate it.[/QUOTE] You underestimate your generals and officers. They aren't thick bastards. They know how to run an army and keep it loyal. Truth is, even in a horrifically inept regime, the army is going to side with the state until a general goes rogue or they find somebody better suited to ruling and rebel. Most soldiers wouldn't quit in a heartbeat. If they did, your army is filled with officers and generals so hopelessly inept that it's amazing they manage to even walk on two legs. As for soldiers? Most recruiters tend to pick areas with high unemployment rates because there they can find men down on their luck willing to join the army. Soldiers who desert or quit are actually valued to a degree. Men like that know how life in the army is, and can survive it. All that matters is ensuring the soldiers follow orders and are well equipped and trained enough to carry out those orders to the best of their abilities. Officers get commands and use their initiative, directing those beneath them. Fundamentally, armies do not change in how they are run. If the US army was as inept and prone to collapse as you describe, it would have never won a single war.

[QUOTE=NoDachi;43397371]Don't you think the government would as well? A world power, even a tyrannical one would have plenty of foreign buttbuddies.[/QUOTE] All of the world's existing tyrannies hate the US, and if they became a tyranny their democratic allies would hate them too.

[QUOTE=ilikecorn;43397389]I think it'd have to do with the circumstances that the rebellion sprung up. If it was over some minor bullshit like the incandescent light bulb ban, and some militia thought "man this is the perfect time to strike" then yea, i'd imagine they would; however if it was something major like "we're going to start lining up people and executing them in the streets" i'd imagine they wouldn't.[/QUOTE] Assad ordered his airforce to bomb civilian rallies protesting for democratic representation in the very beginning and Russia and China sided with him for years.