Print from Airliners.net discussion forum
http://www.airliners.net/aviation-forums/non_aviation/read.main/2479661/

Topic: Obama, To Impose Gun Control By Decree
Username: AR385
Posted 2012-12-26 23:53:10 and read 7600 times.

Sorry in Spanish only:

http://internacional.elpais.com/inte.../actualidad/1356556578_642632.html

Excerpts, translated by me.

1."La Casa Blanca amenaza con imponer por decreto medidas para el desarme si para finales de enero el Congreso no logra consensuar propuestas."

The White house threatens to impose by decree measures for disarmament if by the end of January Congress does not manage to agree on proposals

2. "Obama pretende que se logren acciones coordinadas con el Congreso y con las autoridades estatales. Si no se consiguen avances rápidos por ese lado, el presidente parece dispuesto a imponer algunas medidas por decreto. “Utilizaré todos los recursos de mi cargo para hacerlo”, aseguró."

Obama intends to achieve coordinated actions with Congress and with states´ authorities. If no quick advances are reached that way, the President seems intent on imposing certain measurements by decree. "I will use any means available through my office," he stated.

I have no dog in this fight. I am just wondering what impact will an American President generate by controlling guns by decree, if Congress can´t come up with something.

Topic: RE: Obama, To Impose Gun Control By Decree
Username: Dreadnought
Posted 2012-12-26 23:59:52 and read 7597 times.

Quoting AR385 (Thread starter):
I have no dog in this fight. I am just wondering what impact will an American President generate by controlling guns by decree, if Congress can´t come up with something.

If he is not very careful, he can be impeached. While the US Constitution holds only a tiny fraction of its former authority, some barriers are not to be crossed without consequence.

Topic: RE: Obama, To Impose Gun Control By Decree
Username: kiwirob
Posted 2012-12-27 00:01:52 and read 7586 times.

Quoting AR385 (Thread starter):
I have no dog in this fight. I am just wondering what impact will an American President generate by controlling guns by decree, if Congress can´t come up with something.

He doesn't have to worry about re-election so he can get tough and ram through the necessary measurers.

Topic: RE: Obama, To Impose Gun Control By Decree
Username: kiwirob
Posted 2012-12-27 00:04:17 and read 7578 times.

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 1):
If he is not very careful, he can be impeached.

Could you imagine the uproar if a President was impeached over a sensible solution to gun control, I'm pretty sure that would end up breaking the NRA and ensure that gun control issue would be finally sorted in the US.

Topic: RE: Obama, To Impose Gun Control By Decree
Username: Airstud
Posted 2012-12-27 00:16:40 and read 7565 times.

Quoting kiwirob (Reply 3):
I'm pretty sure that would end up breaking the NRA

You're fairly out of touch with the way things are in this country, if you think there's something that could break the NRA.

The NRA has actually gotten stronger in the aftermath of Sandy Hook, not weaker.

[Edited 2012-12-27 01:15:00]

Topic: RE: Obama, To Impose Gun Control By Decree
Username: MD-90
Posted 2012-12-27 00:16:50 and read 7562 times.

The Democrats aren't that stupid. There's a reason why Biden was appointed to the commission.

Topic: RE: Obama, To Impose Gun Control By Decree
Username: fr8mech
Posted 2012-12-27 00:19:30 and read 7560 times.

Quoting kiwirob (Reply 2):
he can get tough and ram through the necessary measurers.


The necessary measures are defined by Congress. He can request certain things, but it is up to Congress to pass those measures.

Say what you want to say about partisanship, but, here in the US, there is bipartisan support for gun rights. Both Democrats and Republicans are on the record as strong supporters of The Second Amendment.

Any executive order or regulation pushed through the BATFE (the most probably course of action) will be vacated by the Court system if it runs afoul of legislation and The Second Amendment.

Quoting kiwirob (Reply 3):
Could you imagine the uproar if a President was impeached over a sensible solution to gun control,


No, the president would not be impeached for imposing "a sensible solution to gun control", he would be impeached for exceeding his power as the chief executive by circumventing the constitutional process. The question is: is that an impeachable offense?

[Edited 2012-12-27 00:20:33]

Topic: RE: Obama, To Impose Gun Control By Decree
Username: Aaron747
Posted 2012-12-27 00:43:00 and read 7529 times.

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 1):
While the US Constitution holds only a tiny fraction of its former authority, some barriers are not to be crossed without consequence.

True enough but executive orders have always been a very grey area in Constitutional law, and past Presidents have got away with extraordinary extensions of executive power as a means of implementing policy change, sometimes with the help of Congress, but other times without.

The internment of Japanese and German Americans in WWII under FDR, the desegregation of schools under Ike, racial integration of the armed forces under Truman - all of these were huge extensions of power under executive order that were neither successfully challenged in Court or thwarted by the Constitutional authority granted to the Congress.

Topic: RE: Obama, To Impose Gun Control By Decree
Username: fr8mech
Posted 2012-12-27 01:04:18 and read 7506 times.

Quoting Aaron747 (Reply 7):
True enough but executive orders have always been a very grey area in Constitutional law, and past Presidents have got away with extraordinary extensions of executive power as a means of implementing policy change, sometimes with the help of Congress, but other times without.

While true, I can't see Congress standing for an infringement into The Second Amendment. Again, there is strong, bipartisan support for gun rights.

I guess it really depends on the measures he decrees and how far he pushes the anti-gun agenda without congressional approval.

Either way, you can depend that any executive order or regulation will be sitting in front of the Supreme Court pretty quick.

Topic: RE: Obama, To Impose Gun Control By Decree
Username: TheCommodore
Posted 2012-12-27 01:05:01 and read 7505 times.

Quoting Airstud (Reply 4):
The NRA has actually gotten stronger in the aftermath of Sandy Hook, not weaker.

Then its only a matter of time, because....

http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/worl...-gun-laws-poll-20121227-2bx3b.html

Quoting kiwirob (Reply 3):
Could you imagine the uproar if a President was impeached over a sensible solution to gun control, I'm pretty sure that would end up breaking the NRA and ensure that gun control issue would be finally sorted in the US.

Never say never, crazier things have happened !

Topic: RE: Obama, To Impose Gun Control By Decree
Username: JakeOrion
Posted 2012-12-27 01:05:16 and read 7509 times.

Being a gun owner myself, you can say I'm biased. With that said, I have been pondering both pro and anti-gun stances since the school shooting. Where did everything go wrong? What can be done to stop it from occurring again? What are our options?

Questions I've asked myself over and over again, and slowly developed my own realistic answers which would have to happen.

The first question: why not just outright ban guns?

The simple answer, you can't. The more complex answer, you are virtually asking for the entire restructuring of America. The first step that would have to happen is people who comply with the laws would turn in their guns. You have to follow this up by going after registered owners who have not turned in their weapons. Then comes the very hard truth; be forced by authorities for being allowed to search your house for any guns, regardless if you were an owner or not. If you are going to ban guns, they must all be confiscated, which means a house to house, building to building search. There are no other ways around this; it would have to be done.

If the searching wasn't bad enough, the entire boarder of Mexico and Canada would have to be shut down and every single import shipping container would have to be checked to prevent the already huge illegal arms trade. We already have difficulty enough just trying to stop the drugs and illegal crossings, so good luck getting the political will for a virtual customs blockade.

So what do we do to prevent this tragedy from happening again?

Realistically, we can't. You can't stop lunacy or evil. It's everywhere, every continent, every country, down to every city. Unless you want to completely wipe out the human race or figure out a drug that devoids us of emotions, the only responsible answer I can think of is free reign on concealed carry. What I mean by "free reign" is if you are licensed and have been trained to discreetly carry a gun, you are allowed to carry anywhere, anytime, regardless of circumstance. Of course, a yearly refresher course on training as well as a conversation with a police officer or some other authority figure to verify you are sane and are still able to carry your person would be required.

As sadistic as this may come, you can't stop the attempt, but you can minimize the losses.

Topic: RE: Obama, To Impose Gun Control By Decree
Username: kiwirob
Posted 2012-12-27 03:59:57 and read 7415 times.

Quoting Airstud (Reply 4):
The NRA has actually gotten stronger in the aftermath of Sandy Hook, not weaker.

   You don't say

Quote:
The USA Today/Gallup Poll found 54 per cent have a favourable opinion of the NRA, down six points from 2005, but generally in line with a series of polls done from 1993-2000.

Read more: http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/worl...-20121227-2bx3b.html#ixzz2GFjYlbWp

Topic: RE: Obama, To Impose Gun Control By Decree
Username: JoePatroni707
Posted 2012-12-27 04:56:53 and read 7373 times.

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 1):
If he is not very careful, he can be impeached

I think Obama is pretty much impeachment proof. If he is impeached we would be stuck with Biden who is far worse.

Topic: RE: Obama, To Impose Gun Control By Decree
Username: Rara
Posted 2012-12-27 05:23:16 and read 7345 times.

Quoting Airstud (Reply 4):
The NRA has actually gotten stronger in the aftermath of Sandy Hook, not weaker.

Let me first say that I have no idea whether that's the case or not. I don't have the necessary insight.

However, on a more general note - when institutions radicalise, they appear to get stronger on first sight because they have a firmer grip on their core constituents, many of whom may be radicals themselves. People rally around the institution, and it appears to be on the upsurge. What really happens, however, is that the more numerous and probably more important people at the fringes turn away from the institution because they're increasingly alienated. They aren't vocal about the process however, in part because the institution appears to gain traction (see above). This can be called radicalisation bias. Again, I don't know whether it applies in the current situation, but it could well apply in the case of the NRA.

Topic: RE: Obama, To Impose Gun Control By Decree
Username: rfields5421
Posted 2012-12-27 06:54:08 and read 7300 times.

Quoting AR385 (Thread starter):
The White house threatens to impose by decree measures for disarmament if by the end of January Congress does not manage to agree on proposals

The story is a bogus scare hoax.

The White House (assuming they mean the President) does not have such power.

There are a lot of things the President can do. Ordering gun control isn't one of them.

The Federal Assualt Weapons Ban was passed in 1994 and stayed in effect for 10 years. That is the thing I hear most often as being re-implemented. However, the President cannot impose that by decree. It will take the Congress to pass a law to make it happen.

So far, no bill to re-authorize that ban have reached the floor of the House for a vote. It is very unlikley to occur in the next two years.

Topic: RE: Obama, To Impose Gun Control By Decree
Username: einsteinboricua
Posted 2012-12-27 07:16:40 and read 7278 times.

Quoting rfields5421 (Reply 14):
Quoting AR385 (Thread starter):
The White house threatens to impose by decree measures for disarmament if by the end of January Congress does not manage to agree on proposals

The story is a bogus scare hoax.

The White House (assuming they mean the President) does not have such power.

There are a lot of things the President can do. Ordering gun control isn't one of them.

The Federal Assualt Weapons Ban was passed in 1994 and stayed in effect for 10 years. That is the thing I hear most often as being re-implemented. However, the President cannot impose that by decree. It will take the Congress to pass a law to make it happen.

So far, no bill to re-authorize that ban have reached the floor of the House for a vote. It is very unlikley to occur in the next two years.

  

Exactly what I was gonna say. While Obama doesn't specify what measures he could take, there's no evidence to suggest he'll rule by decree. I seriously doubt a person who just won reelection would jeopardize his (still to begin) second term in office.

Topic: RE: Obama, To Impose Gun Control By Decree
Username: Mir
Posted 2012-12-27 07:26:10 and read 7263 times.

Quoting Rara (Reply 13):
However, on a more general note - when institutions radicalise, they appear to get stronger on first sight because they have a firmer grip on their core constituents, many of whom may be radicals themselves. People rally around the institution, and it appears to be on the upsurge. What really happens, however, is that the more numerous and probably more important people at the fringes turn away from the institution because they're increasingly alienated.

   See the Republican party post-2010.

-Mir

Topic: RE: Obama, To Impose Gun Control By Decree
Username: DeltaMD90
Posted 2012-12-27 08:10:17 and read 7235 times.

I don't like this executive order business... seems to circumvent Congress, doesn't it? Of course, when the executive order is in favor of want you want people magically seem to be in favor of them.

Both sides have done it so I'm not singling anyone out

What are the ideas being proposed anyway?

Edit: I do think it's ironic that in other threads, I said it wouldn't be crazy for the President to push gun control in his second term, and I thought he would. I got called paranoid and berated, guess I was right

[Edited 2012-12-27 08:14:04]

Topic: RE: Obama, To Impose Gun Control By Decree
Username: rfields5421
Posted 2012-12-27 08:17:49 and read 7228 times.

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 17):
I said it wouldn't be crazy for the President to push gun control in his second term,

During the 2008 campaign, bring the Federal Assualt Weapons Ban back before Congress and getting it passed was part of the Obama platform. It was also mentioned in the 2012 platform, but not discusses much.

As far as I can tell, that is the only 'gun control' measure Obama has campaigned or proposed to have occur.

Topic: RE: Obama, To Impose Gun Control By Decree
Username: D L X
Posted 2012-12-27 08:18:14 and read 7222 times.

Quoting AR385 (Thread starter):
The White house threatens to impose by decree measures for disarmament if by the end of January Congress does not manage to agree on proposals

This is an extremely dubious allegation. Bogus even. I would love to hear this newspaper's source for this.


However...

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 1):
If he is not very careful, he can be impeached.

Impeached? Come on man. Get real. Impeachment comes after a "high crime or misdemeanor." Performing governmental duties is inherently NOT an impeachable offense.

In any event, conviction on impeachment requires a two-thirds majority of the Senate. Which 20 democrat Senators do you think are going to vote to convict Obama?

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 1):
While the US Constitution holds only a tiny fraction of its former authority

If you're saying that the Second Amendment used not to grant an individual right to own a handgun, I agree.

Topic: RE: Obama, To Impose Gun Control By Decree
Username: D L X
Posted 2012-12-27 08:35:59 and read 7209 times.

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 17):

I don't like this executive order business... seems to circumvent Congress

Congress's power is not absolute, and the President has the power to be the executive from the Constitution.

Btw, every president, even George Washington, issued these executive orders. Those early presidents did so while the authors of the Constitution were still living, and saw no objection because it was well understood that they were supported by the Constitution.

Also, FWIW, guns were banned in various places in the United States during and after the Second Amendment's ratification, confirming that no one at the time believed that guns were an individual right.

Topic: RE: Obama, To Impose Gun Control By Decree
Username: DocLightning
Posted 2012-12-27 09:30:26 and read 7169 times.

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 1):
If he is not very careful, he can be impeached. While the US Constitution holds only a tiny fraction of its former authority, some barriers are not to be crossed without consequence.

I will be absolutely unsurprised if Mr. Obama is impeached by the GOP-controlled House this term.

I will be shocked if he is removed by the Senate. In fact, it would be very interesting to see a GOP-controlled House impeach two out of two Democratic Presidents in a row. It would say a lot about how the GOP plays the game.

In the end, this is horse-honkey. Some basic (and I hope "common sense") restrictions on assault weapons will be put in place. Jack-booted, black-clad thugs are not going to show up at your door to take your guns, wife, kids, and dog. I rapidly tire of hearing about how Mr. Obama is going to do all these horrid, dictatorial things in his second term. He's never even mentioned guns until recent events. It's really all a straw man tactic to draw attention from the real issue, which is the Fiscal Cliff and the GOP's absolute refusal to come to the table and negotiate.

The fact is that Mr. Obama has made less sweeping use of his Presidential powers than the majority of his predecessors. Perhaps it's time he started doing exactly what the GOP is so fond of accusing him of doing.

Topic: RE: Obama, To Impose Gun Control By Decree
Username: L-188
Posted 2012-12-27 09:59:20 and read 7141 times.

As long as the senate is in the hands of democrats there will be no impeachment.

But I have no doubt that Obummer will try and use his executive privileges to restrict this critical civil right.

It definitely would confirm my thoughts about the SOB

Topic: RE: Obama, To Impose Gun Control By Decree
Username: Superfly
Posted 2012-12-27 10:02:07 and read 7135 times.

Not surprised by any of this. Obama has been wanting disarm the American people his entire political career. Just look at his voting record as a state Senator in Illinois. Obama was simply looking for a disaster and take advantage of the situation to push legislation he has always wanted to push.

Topic: RE: Obama, To Impose Gun Control By Decree
Username: Mir
Posted 2012-12-27 10:15:22 and read 7128 times.

Quoting Superfly (Reply 23):
Obama was simply looking for a disaster

If he was looking for a disaster, he must have missed Ft. Hood and Aurora.

-Mir

Topic: RE: Obama, To Impose Gun Control By Decree
Username: rfields5421
Posted 2012-12-27 10:35:21 and read 7248 times.

Quoting L-188 (Reply 22):
As long as the senate is in the hands of democrats there will be no impeachment.

Impeachment is solely the responsibility/ authority of the House - the Senate has nothing to do with impeachment until after the fact.

The Senate is where the trial is held after the President, or other person (normally federal judges) are impeached.

Impeachment is about the same as having a grand jury indictment. It is not a conviction.

No one on this thread thinks the President could be removed from office after a Senate trial.

Only that the House Republicans might force the country to spend tens of millions of your tax dollars for another useless show trial like they did with Clinton.

Topic: RE: Obama, To Impose Gun Control By Decree
Username: Superfly
Posted 2012-12-27 10:43:47 and read 7245 times.

Quoting Mir (Reply 24):
he must have missed Ft. Hood



He didn't want to 'rush to judgment' in that case even though it was clear what the motive was behind that. Of course Barack Hussein Obama would never come out call that for what it was.

Quoting Mir (Reply 24):
Aurora.


That was before the election.

Topic: RE: Obama, To Impose Gun Control By Decree
Username: seb146
Posted 2012-12-27 11:08:07 and read 7281 times.

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 1):
If he is not very careful, he can be impeached. While the US Constitution holds only a tiny fraction of its former authority, some barriers are not to be crossed without consequence.

oh, for the love of....

Because no president ever in the history of the Republic has ever issued a presidential delcaration and circumvented congress, have they? Let's not forget the previous administration firing judges who "serve at the pleasure of the president" and the uproar over that? Or did that not happen because it was the previous administration who's name shall never be mentioned?

Topic: RE: Obama, To Impose Gun Control By Decree
Username: D L X
Posted 2012-12-27 11:10:32 and read 7268 times.

Quoting rfields5421 (Reply 25):
Only that the House Republicans might force the country to spend tens of millions of your tax dollars for another useless show trial like they did with Clinton.

Republicans didn't even get their show trial with Clinton. The Senate shut the whole thing down almost immediately when it got to them.

Impeachment is not, and was never meant to be a political tool. Dreadnought severely overreached in his post.

Quoting Superfly (Reply 26):
He didn't want to 'rush to judgment' in that case even though it was clear what the motive was behind that.

What does this even mean?

What the motive was behind what?

I swear, sometimes you say these things as if you know the guy, but you have never met him. Your hatred for this man is so personal.

Topic: RE: Obama, To Impose Gun Control By Decree
Username: Superfly
Posted 2012-12-27 11:51:31 and read 7229 times.

Quoting D L X (Reply 28):
What does this even mean?

What the motive was behind what?



It's so obvious that Obama has an affinity for the religion the Fort Hood terrorist belonged to. In fact, Obama and his justice refused to call it a terrorist attack. Instead he calls it "workplace violence".  
There were no actions by Obama to ban guns in that case. Of course he doesn't mind if a certain religious group clinks to their guns & religion...

Topic: RE: Obama, To Impose Gun Control By Decree
Username: D L X
Posted 2012-12-27 12:08:36 and read 7193 times.

Quoting Superfly (Reply 29):
It's so obvious that Obama has an affinity for the religion the Fort Hood terrorist belonged to. In fact, Obama and his justice refused to call it a terrorist attack. Instead he calls it "workplace violence".  
There were no actions by Obama to ban guns in that case. Of course he doesn't mind if a certain religious group clinks to their guns & religion...

Right.

Where is this shooter today? Is he free?

 

Topic: RE: Obama, To Impose Gun Control By Decree
Username: Superfly
Posted 2012-12-27 12:12:23 and read 7186 times.

Quoting D L X (Reply 30):
Where is this shooter today? Is he free?

In jail like a lot of criminals for workplace violence.

Topic: RE: Obama, To Impose Gun Control By Decree
Username: casinterest
Posted 2012-12-27 12:32:45 and read 7155 times.

Quoting Superfly (Reply 31):
In jail like a lot of criminals for workplace violence.

And calling it terrorism makes you feel warm and comfortable at night? Was this guy any different from a postal worker that goes postal?

Although evidence points to ties to Al Queda, and a serious ideological manifestation of fundamentalism, it seems to me that his final motive is unclear. Some could be correct that he wanted to avoid being deployed to afghanistan and snapped. His mental state is unclear, and it is better for the FBI and Defense Department to sort it out.

Workplace violence is just as valid as terrorism for the case of this trial. Even better, he faces the death penalty under either scenerio.

Topic: RE: Obama, To Impose Gun Control By Decree
Username: mham001
Posted 2012-12-27 13:33:08 and read 7108 times.

It seems we are discussing somebodies interpretation of something which has then been re-translated.

Obama never said anything about "disarmament".

Topic: RE: Obama, To Impose Gun Control By Decree
Username: seb146
Posted 2012-12-27 15:00:06 and read 7066 times.

And another thing I want to clear up:

There have been a number of mass shootings over the past four years. More over the course of the nation, but I am keeping it to four years just for my point.

On a completely unrelated issue, extremists keep screaming about "That Kenyan Muslim Communist Marxist Maoist Facist Liberal Radical who went to a Christian church for 20 years where the pastor had a sermon we disagree with is gonna take our guns if he is elected again!".

So, now, after all these shooings, innocent people dead at the hands of automatic weapons, the most powerful lobby in the nation telling us there is no problem at all, there might be one hint from a Spanish language source that there is talk about maybe talking about doing something and, again comes the cries and hews of "That Kenyan Muslim Communist Marxist Maoist Facist Liberal Radical is gonna take our guns!"

But, they don't see what one has to do with the other.

Topic: RE: Obama, To Impose Gun Control By Decree
Username: Ken777
Posted 2012-12-27 15:13:29 and read 7049 times.

Queer, isn't it., that this is the only link.

How about a major news outlet in the US?

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 1):
If he is not very careful, he can be impeached.

My bet is that Obama knows more about the Constitution than all of us combined? I also look for him to do a better job of protecting the American people than most people.

Quoting Airstud (Reply 4):
The NRA has actually gotten stronger in the aftermath of Sandy Hook, not weaker.

Which is sad. Actually pathetic when you consider that they gain strength from a pile of slaughtered 6 year old.

Topic: RE: Obama, To Impose Gun Control By Decree
Username: GDB
Posted 2012-12-27 16:20:55 and read 6993 times.

Quoting Superfly (Reply 29):
It's so obvious that Obama has an affinity for the religion the Fort Hood terrorist belonged to. In fact, Obama and his justice refused to call it a terrorist attack. Instead he calls it "workplace violence".  
There were no actions by Obama to ban guns in that case. Of course he doesn't mind if a certain religious group clinks to their guns & religion...

You've really lost it this time.......
I could mention the hugely accelerated erosion of Al Queda and affiliates leadership and top members under Obama's watch and direction, including Osama Bin-Sleeps With the Fishes but I don't really think logic and facts play well here.

You and Donald Trump....and a bunch of other people you really don't want to be associated with.
(Or maybe you do).

You do know 'The Flat Earth Society' still exists?
No great stretch for you to give them a shot at this point?

Topic: RE: Obama, To Impose Gun Control By Decree
Username: connies4ever
Posted 2012-12-27 16:43:47 and read 6964 times.

Quoting GDB (Reply 36):
You've really lost it this time.......
I could mention the hugely accelerated erosion of Al Queda and affiliates leadership and top members under Obama's watch and direction, including Osama Bin-Sleeps With the Fishes but I don't really think logic and facts play well here.

You and Donald Trump....and a bunch of other people you really don't want to be associated with.
(Or maybe you do).

You do know 'The Flat Earth Society' still exists?
No great stretch for you to give them a shot at this point?

GDB: All excellent points !  

Does it strike you that the increasingly shrill responses from the far right are starting to encroach onto the turf usually described as "behaviourally disturbed" if not "loony bin" ? Sadly, I have to ascribe some of the anti-Obama positions taken on this and other threads are a manifestation of racial viewpoints that have been discarded by most.

Topic: RE: Obama, To Impose Gun Control By Decree
Username: PHX787
Posted 2012-12-27 17:13:55 and read 6931 times.

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 1):
If he is not very careful, he can be impeached. While the US Constitution holds only a tiny fraction of its former authority, some barriers are not to be crossed without consequence.

Just wanna add to this: if he is not careful, he could get impeached, AND shot at by some gun-happy southerners.

Topic: RE: Obama, To Impose Gun Control By Decree
Username: DocLightning
Posted 2012-12-27 17:19:39 and read 6929 times.

Quoting PHX787 (Reply 38):
Just wanna add to this: if he is not careful, he could get impeached, AND shot at by some gun-happy southerners.

I can guarantee you that the Secret Service is absolutely prepared for such an attempt. Nobody will ever get a clear shot at the President.

Topic: RE: Obama, To Impose Gun Control By Decree
Username: Mir
Posted 2012-12-27 17:36:23 and read 6907 times.

Quoting PHX787 (Reply 38):
Just wanna add to this: if he is not careful, he could get impeached, AND shot at by some gun-happy southerners.

Which really paints gun owners as reasonable, responsible people....  

-Mir

Topic: RE: Obama, To Impose Gun Control By Decree
Username: DeltaMD90
Posted 2012-12-27 17:45:12 and read 6902 times.

Quoting seb146 (Reply 34):
So, now, after all these shooings, innocent people dead at the hands of automatic weapons, the most powerful lobby in the nation telling us there is no problem at all, there might be one hint from a Spanish language source that there is talk about maybe talking about doing something and, again comes the cries and hews of "That Kenyan Muslim Communist Marxist Maoist Facist Liberal Radical is gonna take our guns!"

I doubt I'm in the boat you refer to, but I did post a few months ago that I was surprised the President hasn't touched the gun issue and I wouldn't be surprised if he did this term. And it seems like I was right. But to be fair, I don't think he's a "Kenyan Muslim Communist Marxist Maoist Racist Radical" (although he is liberal   ) and I don't think he's gonna take "all guns" but I do see some "assault weapons" going away or some high capacity magazines disappearing.

If high capacity mags go away, that would be annoying at most, and I'd hope they'd at least allow high capacity .22 mags (pretty much harmless,) exemptions for guns like SKS's which ONLY have a 10 round internal magazine, and maybe some annoying hoops to go through to get high capacity mags... kinda like getting a silencer. As a collector, I'd be halfway happy having my AK having a full length magazine for looks even if it only holds 5 rounds.


I'm bending really far back, just trying to find common ground. It's brutal here, being seen as a traitor from my fellow gun owners and a 'gun nut' from everyone else lol. And seb, they aren't automatic weapons!!   Semi semi semi lol

Topic: RE: Obama, To Impose Gun Control By Decree
Username: ouboy79
Posted 2012-12-27 18:02:51 and read 6891 times.

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 1):
If he is not very careful, he can be impeached. While the US Constitution holds only a tiny fraction of its former authority, some barriers are not to be crossed without consequence.

House Impeaches...which didn't really do much to get rid of Clinton.

Senate tries for removal...guess who is in charge there.

Topic: RE: Obama, To Impose Gun Control By Decree
Username: EA CO AS
Posted 2012-12-27 18:46:04 and read 6864 times.

Quoting kiwirob (Reply 11):
Quoting Airstud (Reply 4):The NRA has actually gotten stronger in the aftermath of Sandy Hook, not weaker.
You don't say

Quote:The USA Today/Gallup Poll found 54 per cent have a favourable opinion of the NRA, down six points from 2005, but generally in line with a series of polls done from 1993-2000.

You DO realize that equating favorability poll results with the strength and political clout of an organization is like using jersey sales to forecast which team has the best shot at winning the Super Bowl, right?   

Topic: RE: Obama, To Impose Gun Control By Decree
Username: Dreadnought
Posted 2012-12-27 19:17:45 and read 6852 times.

Quoting PHX787 (Reply 38):
Just wanna add to this: if he is not careful, he could get impeached, AND shot at by some gun-happy southerners.

Awww, you're just saying that to make me feel good...

  

Topic: RE: Obama, To Impose Gun Control By Decree
Username: StarAC17
Posted 2012-12-27 19:37:27 and read 6835 times.

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 8):
While true, I can't see Congress standing for an infringement into The Second Amendment. Again, there is strong, bipartisan support for gun rights.

Here is the question Americans have to ask themselves. Does the constitution grant the right for any citizen to carry a gun regardless of their ability to use one responsibly? (ie. former criminal or someone with mental health issues)

Most Americans don't think everyone can just walk in and buy a gun if you have done things in your life that put you at risk for using it as a weapon.

Quoting JakeOrion (Reply 10):
The first question: why not just outright ban guns?

No sensible American is suggesting that.

What sensible people are suggesting is that anyone wanting to own a gun no matter how they buy it (dealer, private sale, or gun show) be subjected to a background check. I would say that that should include criminal, all medical records and 2-3 character references of 5 years or more that the prospective gun owner can supply.

I know why the NRA and gun dealers don't want to because it will hurt their sales, it simply goes back to the money and sadly (I mean very   ) a massacre like Newtown gives them a boost in business.

Quoting JakeOrion (Reply 10):
Realistically, we can't. You can't stop lunacy or evil. It's everywhere, every continent, every country, down to every city.
Quoting Superfly (Reply 26):
Quoting Mir (Reply 24):
Aurora.


That was before the election.

Obama was president then and had he lost the election he still would be president today

Quoting Superfly (Reply 31):
Quoting D L X (Reply 30):
Where is this shooter today? Is he free?

In jail like a lot of criminals for workplace violence.

Where he will stay and he will probably get then needle.

Quoting PHX787 (Reply 38):
Just wanna add to this: if he is not careful, he could get impeached, AND shot at by some gun-happy southerners.

Believe me the GOP is probably looking into every reason to throw Obama out of office but with a democratic senate and no concrete evidence of Obama intentionally deceiving anyone to the people like Clinton did (forgetting the reason).

Also I bet the same is true with your second point, IIRC in 2009 alone the secret service recorded about 400% the assassination threats in a given time-frame than Bush II got.

Topic: RE: Obama, To Impose Gun Control By Decree
Username: Revelation
Posted 2012-12-27 20:37:14 and read 6808 times.

Quoting seb146 (Reply 34):
So, now, after all these shooings, innocent people dead at the hands of automatic weapons, the most powerful lobby in the nation telling us there is no problem at all, there might be one hint from a Spanish language source that there is talk about maybe talking about doing something and, again comes the cries and hews of "That Kenyan Muslim Communist Marxist Maoist Facist Liberal Radical is gonna take our guns!"

Goes to show you how far people will go to slam square pegs into round holes to fit their self-invented conspiracy theories.

Clearly any amount of gun control is something they don't want, so they immediately paint any attempt at change as jack booted storm troopers coming to take their guns, and impregnate their dogs while they are at it.

For a bunch of people who are convinced any gun control is futile, they sure go to great lengths to avoid it.

Topic: RE: Obama, To Impose Gun Control By Decree
Username: kpitrrat
Posted 2012-12-27 21:40:59 and read 6770 times.

The way I see it is along these lines:

Heroin is illegal.
Cocaine is illegal.
Marijuana is illegal (Federally)
Dog Fighting is illegal.

So some examples of illegal things. So if they are illegal..........Why do they still occur/people use them?

Because, lets be honest, there is no way to truly prevent the people who want them/to do such things from doing so or acquiring them.

Guns.....I remember something called 'Fast and Furious.' Not the movie.

Anyways, the people who want guns will get them. Lets face it. I believe our best defense it, as some have mentioned, more lenient conceal/carry laws that apply to those who demonstrate an ability to use a firearm in a responsible and safe manner.
I believe that in the future, a civilian (non-police/military) person is going to SAVE people because they have a gun in a situation where that is the only defense.

I would rather have 50 people carrying concealed weapons in a mall, who are responsible and honest, than 1 who intends to do harm.

Sure, this is a somewhat hopeful view, but teh fact of the matter is, this is the world we live in and there are many out there who would do something as terrible as the connecticut shootings.

Still I will say this, becasue I am capable of understanding two sides to an agruement. The shooter in Connecticut had a mental/behaviorial disorder. HOWEVER, he lived in a household where he was trained to use and access his mothers weapons. I really question that.

In addition. There is NO reason why anyone should own a fully automatic weapon. That I do believe is unnecessary.

Topic: RE: Obama, To Impose Gun Control By Decree
Username: Superfly
Posted 2012-12-27 21:57:42 and read 6768 times.

Quoting GDB (Reply 36):
You've really lost it this time.......
Quoting connies4ever (Reply 37):
"behaviourally disturbed" if not "loony bin"

Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan guns down people shouting "Allahu Akbar!" and Obama can't acknowledge it as terrorism, yet I am "behaviourally disturbed" and have "lost it "?
It's pretty obvious to me and millions of others what that killing was all about.
Keep up with the personal insults towards those that don't share your views. It really helps the discussion.  

Topic: RE: Obama, To Impose Gun Control By Decree
Username: seb146
Posted 2012-12-27 22:00:02 and read 6758 times.

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 41):
And seb, they aren't automatic weapons!

The only difference I know is automatic/semi-automatic weapons can take out mass amounts of people at one time. My rant was directed toward the screaming "conservatives" that seem to be the only ones the media wants to listen to. Probably for ratings. I was in no way referring to sane people.

I, too, have no problem with *RESPONSIBLE* gun ownership. I do not see the need for private citizens to own automatic/semi-automatic weapons. Maybe if collecters would disarm them? Make them so they don't fire as many rounds?

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 35):
My bet is that Obama knows more about the Constitution than all of us combined?

Well, he was editor of Harvard Law Review and studies Constitutional law. Which the right loves to forget.

Topic: RE: Obama, To Impose Gun Control By Decree
Username: AF1624
Posted 2012-12-28 01:14:39 and read 6700 times.

Quoting kpitrrat (Reply 47):

This is an argument that I often see used in gun control debates and it doesn't take the whole picture into account.

Cocaine and Heroin are accessible for those who want it, yes, but not freely accessible.

That makes these drugs EXTREMELY EXPENSIVE. Hundreds of times more than if they weren't illegal. They're extremely pricy because they're rare and hard to get.

Now consider the same principle with guns. If they are not freely accessible they become hard to get, hence as offer diminishes, price rises critically. So instead of spending $1000 on a handgun, one would spend maybe 10x that, only to get a lower quality gun, and having dealt with some less-than-recommendable people to buy it.

This makes gun control effective, no-one is saying that guns won't be accessible. But they'll become that much harder to get.

Topic: RE: Obama, To Impose Gun Control By Decree
Username: kiwirob
Posted 2012-12-28 05:02:46 and read 6647 times.

Quoting Superfly (Reply 48):
Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan guns down people shouting "Allahu Akbar!" and Obama can't acknowledge it as terrorism,

What if he had shouted "I'm doing this for Jesus", would that be terrorism?

Topic: RE: Obama, To Impose Gun Control By Decree
Username: MD-90
Posted 2012-12-28 06:41:53 and read 6583 times.

Quoting AF1624 (Reply 50):
This makes gun control effective, no-one is saying that guns won't be accessible. But they'll become that much harder to get.

Not in a country that already has 300 million guns.

Topic: RE: Obama, To Impose Gun Control By Decree
Username: rfields5421
Posted 2012-12-28 08:41:22 and read 6531 times.

Quoting AF1624 (Reply 50):
This makes gun control effective, no-one is saying that guns won't be accessible. But they'll become that much harder to get.

Gun control bans cannot be 'retro-active' requiring that guns already in owner hands be turned in. There can be requirements for licensing, but those have to be very carefully worded to be legal. There are plenty of court case precedents which have to be considered when writing gun control regulations.

The Federal Assualt Weapons Ban - which is probably the only measure that could be implemented - is a 'from this point forward' measure. It only stops sales of new weapons.

The Federal Assualt Weapons Ban was in force for 10 years. There is no independent data to support that the measure in anyway reduced the amount of crime, the number of mass shootings, etc.

The only thing the Ban is known to have done is create massive profits for the gun companies in the months before the measure was implemented, and in the months after it expired.

The cynical part of me thinks that most of this current hype about new gun control is created by the firearms industry trying to boost their profits.

Topic: RE: Obama, To Impose Gun Control By Decree
Username: Aesma
Posted 2012-12-28 09:09:37 and read 6518 times.

Quoting kpitrrat (Reply 47):
I would rather have 50 people carrying concealed weapons in a mall, who are responsible and honest, than 1 who intends to do harm.

How do you ensure that having 50 people carrying doesn't mean you automatically have 1 if not more irresponsible person carrying ? I certainly wouldn't trust half the people I know with a gun, let alone 98% of them !

Quoting kpitrrat (Reply 47):
Sure, this is a somewhat hopeful view, but teh fact of the matter is, this is the world we live in

This is the country you live in, not the world.

Somehow most countries can prosper without that "civil right".

Quoting rfields5421 (Reply 53):
Gun control bans cannot be 'retro-active' requiring that guns already in owner hands be turned in.

Why ? When a new synthetic drug becomes illegal, you better get rid of what you own ! When a pesticide becomes illegal, you have to get rid of it (in a legally defined way). I don't see why guns are a special case. It doesn't mean any kind of search would have to happen, many people are law abiding, people who keep their guns home won't get into trouble because of them (but if they get into trouble for another reason and guns are found, then the trouble will worsen), of course shooting at a range or belonging to a club would mean getting a license and declaring your guns.

Topic: RE: Obama, To Impose Gun Control By Decree
Username: kiwirob
Posted 2012-12-28 09:13:50 and read 6510 times.

Quoting rfields5421 (Reply 53):

Gun control bans cannot be 'retro-active' requiring that guns already in owner hands be turned in.

No reason why a total ban on assault type weapons couldn't be retroactive, this has been done this in other countries, so no reason for the US to be special. Or you could make it illegal for people to use those types of weapons without having a special license.

Topic: RE: Obama, To Impose Gun Control By Decree
Username: Dreadnought
Posted 2012-12-28 09:20:31 and read 6508 times.

Quoting rfields5421 (Reply 53):
The Federal Assualt Weapons Ban was in force for 10 years. There is no independent data to support that the measure in anyway reduced the amount of crime, the number of mass shootings, etc.

I am no big fan of assault rifles (I've done military service, and I've had my fill) but my understanding is that while the AWB was in place, an AK-47 could be made legal simply by putting on a non-collapsible stock (which was the original config anyway).



But all this is BS anyway - First of all, "Assault rifles" aren't legal anyway, because they would be full-automatic capable. They just sell the semi-auto versions, which to me is not an assault rifle. And full-auto is overrated anyway - for anything but a belt-fed weapon, you run out of ammo in 2 seconds. Semi-auto is plenty, but it's not an assault rifle.

And what is a semi-auto? It's nothing that has not been available for a century.

Topic: RE: Obama, To Impose Gun Control By Decree
Username: rfields5421
Posted 2012-12-28 09:24:28 and read 6505 times.

Quoting Aesma (Reply 54):
Why ?
Quoting kiwirob (Reply 55):
No reason why a total ban on assault type weapons couldn't be retroactive,

Two reasons.

There has never been the political will to pass a retroactive ban on a nationwide basis.

Secondly, there is a lot of case law in the US as people have fought against gun bans passed in the past.

Yes, licensing could be required, under limited circumstances - due to previous cases.

There is federal licensing required for certain types of weapons.

The biggest 'threat' is economic. The possibility that some 'liberal' multi-millionaire might finance the purchase of a company making a certain type of gun, and stop production. That other companies might decide to stop selling a certain type of gun, ammunition or magazine.

If a major company stops selling a cetain gun, it in no way makes it more difficult to obtain such guns. It will slightly increase the price. The last place I saw the Bushmaster used in the elementary school shooting on sale was the Fort Sill Oklahoma Base Exchange - for $655 back in August. A quick check shows Cabela's selling the gun for $759.99 today.

But as I said - the main impact of such bans as being discussed on this thread is to INCREASE gun and ammunition sales.

If folks want to look for a conspiracy - that is where to look.

After every mass shooting in the US, gun sales increase.

Topic: RE: Obama, To Impose Gun Control By Decree
Username: Aesma
Posted 2012-12-28 10:48:25 and read 6468 times.

So, the problem is just political will, nothing that can't change.

Topic: RE: Obama, To Impose Gun Control By Decree
Username: GDB
Posted 2012-12-28 12:21:09 and read 6452 times.

Quoting Superfly (Reply 48):

Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan guns down people shouting "Allahu Akbar!" and Obama can't acknowledge it as terrorism, yet I am "behaviourally disturbed" and have "lost it "?
It's pretty obvious to me and millions of others what that killing was all about.
Keep up with the personal insults towards those that don't share your views. It really helps the discussion.

And has Obama actually, really, denied that Maj Hassan was NOT killing due to his opposition to US Foreign Policy?
But that's not all, is it? Far from it, not by a long way.
He was bitter, passed over, warned about poor performance, was unhappy about deploying too, almost certainly mentally ill.
It's rarely just one thing with these types.

Insults? You should see me really do an insult.
No, I was reacting to disingenuousness, the sneaky implication that Maj Hassan is seen as some kind of kindred spirit, a brother in faith, the Trump stuff.

Hassan IS an odd case, a mass shooting carried out by a serving solider inside a military base.
It does have most of the features of the (increasing) numbers of mass shootings.
But a planned, sponsored Al Qaeda operation would not go down that route, they'd look to blow the base up.
More likely to create mass casualties than some disturbed Officer who might be shot down right away.
They've been doing and attempting enough of those for the past 15 years, not noticed that yet?

Are you trying to somehow claim that Obama has been soft of Islamist terrorism?
Even the GOP pretty much gave that up in the election.
(And if they want to bang on about the events of Sept 11th 2012 in Libya, well how about the events of Sept 11th 2001 in the US? On whose watch was that?)

Topic: RE: Obama, To Impose Gun Control By Decree
Username: DocLightning
Posted 2012-12-28 12:43:59 and read 6430 times.

Quoting GDB (Reply 59):
Hassan IS an odd case, a mass shooting carried out by a serving solider inside a military base.

Where, I might point out, I'm pretty sure that there might be a few armed guards around. Didn't seem to stop it.

Topic: RE: Obama, To Impose Gun Control By Decree
Username: fr8mech
Posted 2012-12-28 13:54:12 and read 6391 times.

Quoting Aesma (Reply 54):
I certainly wouldn't trust half the people I know with a gun, let alone 98% of them !

Then you need to start hanging around with different people.

I, and other gun owners/concealed carry permit holders, have a trust for our fellow citizen. We have no problem allowing someone, who has met the legal hurdles, to carry a firearm. Those who are against concealed carry and/or private ownership of firearms do not trust those around them.

Quoting kiwirob (Reply 51):
What if he had shouted "I'm doing this for Jesus", would that be terrorism?

Yup, it would be. But, how many of those folks do we see?

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 60):
Where, I might point out, I'm pretty sure that there might be a few armed guards around. Didn't seem to stop it.

Nope. The vast majority of federal installations, military installations included, are gun free zones under 18USC930.

Topic: RE: Obama, To Impose Gun Control By Decree
Username: rfields5421
Posted 2012-12-28 14:45:28 and read 6366 times.

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 60):
Where, I might point out, I'm pretty sure that there might be a few armed guards around. Didn't seem to stop it.
Quoting fr8mech (Reply 62):
Nope. The vast majority of federal installations, military installations included, are gun free zones under 18USC930.

First - this was Hasan's normal workplace - where he was supposed to be at that time. His job was interviewing troops at the Readiness Processing Center. His being there was not unusual or out of the ordinary.

One armed base civilian police officer arrived at the center and engaged Hasan. He hit her twice with bullets, and once with shrapnel from a near miss. I've seen reports that she hit him at least once. After she fell, he kicked her pistol out of the way after approaching the down officer and continued outside the center. He did not finish her off while she was down. She survived.

Hasan passed over several civilians, targeting military personnel in uniform. The only civilian killed was a physician's assistant who tried to stop Hasan early in the shooting.

----------------------------------------------------------------

As far as terrorism attack vs workplace violence

It was his workplace.

However, I think the lawyers have been at this definition.

If his attack is classified as terrorism - the injuries and death become combat zone related. This will add a lot of additional expense to DOD/ Dept of Army

[Edited 2012-12-28 14:53:01]

Topic: RE: Obama, To Impose Gun Control By Decree
Username: cptkrell
Posted 2012-12-28 15:07:19 and read 6353 times.

"A free people ought to be armed." George Washington
"Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little safety, deserve neither liberty or safety." Benj. Franklin
"No free man shall ever be de-barred the use of arms." Thom. Jefferson
"Arms in the hands of individual citizens may be used at individual discretion in private self defense." John Adams
"I ask, sir, what is the militia? It's the whole people except for a few politicians." George Mason
"(We) should not blame a gun itself for any crime for acts of violence, any more than we can blame a pen for misspelling a word." SEN Geo Bennett

More recently...

"Gun control has not worked in D.C. The only people who have guns are the criminals. We have the strictest gun cintrol laws in the nation and the highest murder rates." D.C. Police Chief and president of the black police caucus.

Back again a little while...
"This year will go down in history. For the first time, a civilized nation has full gun registration. Our streets will be safer, our police will be more efficient and the world will follow our lead into the future." Adolf Hitler (Weapons Act, 1935, Nazi Germany)-

Irrespective of how society and times and technology has progressed(?), I ain't voting for the last guy. best regards...jack

Topic: RE: Obama, To Impose Gun Control By Decree
Username: falstaff
Posted 2012-12-28 15:18:43 and read 6335 times.

Quoting AF1624 (Reply 50):
Cocaine and Heroin are accessible for those who want it, yes, but not freely accessible.

Sure they are. If I wanted them I could drive less than one mile from my house and buy them from a street corner. I am sure I could buy whatever drug I felt like, if I felt like using drugs, from the students at work. Over the last few years students have been caught with every drug under the sun.

Quoting kiwirob (Reply 55):
No reason why a total ban on assault type weapons couldn't be retroactive, this has been done this in other countries, so no reason for the US to be special. Or you could make it illegal for people to use those types of weapons without having a special license.

How would you know who the owners are? We do not require long gun registration in Michigan so unless you go house to house you'll never know where they all are.

Quoting Airstud (Reply 4):
if you think there's something that could break the NRA.

I hope not. Millions of people like me keep giving them money to keep them strong.

Quoting JakeOrion (Reply 10):
Then comes the very hard truth; be forced by authorities for being allowed to search your house for any guns, regardless if you were an owner or not.

Lets see Obama try that. The civil rights groups would go insane, along with the NRA. I can just imagine what the ACLU and the NAACP would do when federal agents start searching house to house. I have read about people in the city of Detroit who aren't big fans of guns, but own them anyway to defend their homes and families from thugs.



Quoting StarAC17 (Reply 45):
Does the constitution grant the right for any citizen to carry a gun regardless of their ability to use one responsibly?

Yes....

Quoting JakeOrion (Reply 10):
There are no other ways around this; it would have to be done.

I wonder who would do it? When I walk around on the floor at the NRA Annual Meeting (convention) I see hundreds of uniformed policeman from all over the country. There are likely 1000s more who are not wearing their uniform. Most of the police officers I know are gun buffs themselves and wouldn't want to start taking away people's guns, including the guns they actually own (not their service gun). There aren't enough federal agents to do the job either. The Army can't do it. I have guns that have been in my family long enough that there is no record that they even exist, becuase prior to 1968 the rules were almost non existant.

Topic: RE: Obama, To Impose Gun Control By Decree
Username: EA CO AS
Posted 2012-12-28 15:23:55 and read 6337 times.

Quoting AF1624 (Reply 50):
Cocaine and Heroin are accessible for those who want it, yes, but not freely accessible.

That makes these drugs EXTREMELY EXPENSIVE. Hundreds of times more than if they weren't illegal. They're extremely pricy because they're rare and hard to get.

And that scarcity/price inflation actually increases the likelihood that violent means will be used to acquire them and/or protect the black market for drugs. Haven't you seen the news? Or do you somehow mistakenly think the "War on Drugs" has been a rip-roaring success that resulted in lower drug-related deaths?

The very same will occur with firearms if they are banned; prices will go up and violence will increase as those owning, buying or selling them engage in smuggling and black-market commerce.

Topic: RE: Obama, To Impose Gun Control By Decree
Username: rfields5421
Posted 2012-12-28 15:36:47 and read 6323 times.

Quoting falstaff (Reply 65):
Lets see Obama try that.

No where is anyone involved in the administration proposing that.

Where the stories and scare tactic posts are coming from is the gun manufactures, trying to get people to rush out and buy more guns.

Topic: RE: Obama, To Impose Gun Control By Decree
Username: falstaff
Posted 2012-12-28 15:48:59 and read 6318 times.

Quoting rfields5421 (Reply 67):
Where the stories and scare tactic posts are coming from is the gun manufactures

Which Manufacturer? Name one US based manufacturer that is doing that and I want some proof.

Topic: RE: Obama, To Impose Gun Control By Decree
Username: fr8mech
Posted 2012-12-28 19:20:41 and read 6237 times.

I think that's the problem with it. The language tends to be vague. I read an article some time ago that mentioned that under the current (at that time) language of the draft treaty any transfers betwen non-state entities could be construed as illegal.

Need to do more research on the matter.

Quoting rfields5421 (Reply 63):
One armed base civilian police officer arrived at the center and engaged Hasan.

This civilian officer, Sergeant Kimberly Munley, was responding to the scene. She engaged him outside the building after he finished shooting the place up. No one in the building or in the immediate area was allowed to be armed because Fort Hood, at the time (and presumably, now) was a gun-free zone.

Quoting rfields5421 (Reply 63):
It was his workplace.

So, if an employee at an abortion clinic stormed into the place and started shooting, shouting "I'm doing this for the children", we should treat that as a workplace violence issue and not a terrorist attack?

[Edited 2012-12-28 23:20:00 by SA7700]

Topic: RE: Obama, To Impose Gun Control By Decree
Username: FlyDeltaJets
Posted 2012-12-28 20:52:54 and read 6210 times.

Quoting Superfly (Reply 23):
Not surprised by any of this. Obama has been wanting disarm the American people his entire political career. Just look at his voting record as a state Senator in Illinois. Obama was simply looking for a disaster and take advantage of the situation to push legislation he has always wanted to push.

All Obama has done since becoming president was expand gun rights. Obama has removed the ban on carrying firearms in National Parks. He allows Amtrak passengers the ablility carry firearms in their checked baggage.

Topic: RE: Obama, To Impose Gun Control By Decree
Username: rfields5421
Posted 2012-12-28 21:09:50 and read 6200 times.

Quoting falstaff (Reply 68):
Which Manufacturer? Name one US based manufacturer that is doing that and I want some proof.

You've got to be kidding me.

New stories like this thread is based upon are the best advertising the gun manufacturers and the NRA can get. Liberals are not the only ones who can have a conspiracy.

It is GREAT for their marketing.

How can any intelligent person not believe they are behind such stories?

[Edited 2012-12-28 21:10:22]

Topic: RE: Obama, To Impose Gun Control By Decree
Username: seb146
Posted 2012-12-28 21:28:54 and read 6190 times.

Quoting falstaff (Reply 65):
Quoting StarAC17 (Reply 45): Does the constitution grant the right for any citizen to carry a gun regardless of their ability to use one responsibly?
Yes....

As part of a well-regulated militia.

And, show me where in the Constitution it says we can all carry and use semi-automatic or automatic weapons with no concequence?

Topic: RE: Obama, To Impose Gun Control By Decree
Username: fr8mech
Posted 2012-12-28 21:54:36 and read 6174 times.

Quoting seb146 (Reply 74):
As part of a well-regulated militia.


Again? Just because you keep saying it does not make it true.

And, I will quote, once again, from the Heller opinion:

"(a) The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms. Pp. 2–22."

So, basically, the amendment could say "...because venison tastes so goods, the right of the people....", it does not change the fact that we are allowed to keep and bear arms as a constitutional right.

Quoting seb146 (Reply 74):
And, show me where in the Constitution it says we can all carry and use semi-automatic or automatic weapons with no concequence?


Right next to where it says the Internet, radio, television, etc. are protected by The First Amendment. Right next to where it says that hard drive contents, phone conversations, text message archives, etc. are protected by The Fourth Amendment.

Topic: RE: Obama, To Impose Gun Control By Decree
Username: AR385
Posted 2012-12-29 00:12:56 and read 6104 times.

I´d like to clarify a few things, having read a few comments:

El Pais which is the newspaper where I took the article I linked and translated a few paragraphs is one of the most important newspapers in the planet. It is read throughout the Spanish speaking world and by many people, whose Spanish may not be their main language, but want to be informed from various quaity sources. The link I provided at the time said many things, but the key points I translated and put here, were there. I don´t know if that is still true, I have not gone back to check it.

While my English may not be perfect, I think that what I translated was very close to the key ideas in the article.

Another point to keep in mind is that a there is a lot of information that appears in news sources that are not American that do not appear in American mainstream news. I don´t know why that is the case, but it happens often. In this particular instance I suppose that it is because everybody is so concerned with the fiscal cliff that certain newspieces like this one are not taken up. These days it´s all about the fiscal cliff. However, just because the NYT, CBS, NBC or ABC don´t mention it, it does not mean it´s false.

In any case, my intention, as I said in my OP was to hear opinions on what would happen when the POTUS starts doing gun control by executive orders. I did not want this to become another gun control thread. I do have an opinion on gun control, but it is not for this thread.

Topic: RE: Obama, To Impose Gun Control By Decree
Username: fr8mech
Posted 2012-12-29 00:53:01 and read 6093 times.

Quoting AR385 (Reply 73):
In any case, my intention, as I said in my OP was to hear opinions on what would happen when the POTUS starts doing gun control by executive orders. I did not want this to become another gun control thread. I do have an opinion on gun control, but it is not for this thread.


Thank you for re-centering the thread.

President Obama has shown a rather casual disdain for the legislative process when it suits his political or ideological needs. One just has to look at his implementation of certain provisions of the failed DREAM Act or the lifting of work requirements in the Welfare to Work program. It appears his regulatory agencies are doing what Congress has refused to do through legislation.

So, what do I think will happen if he signs an executive order or instructs the BATFE to restrict 'assault weapons' or high-capacity magazines or some other such provision? I think the order gets hauled up in front of the US Court System and is promptly vacated.

This is the purview of the Congress. If Congress decides that there will be a new assault weapons ban, then so be it, but, it is not up to the president to decree such a thing.

My guess is that if he does decree something like this, he will lose quite a bit of support from his side of the aisle.

Topic: RE: Obama, To Impose Gun Control By Decree
Username: Maverick623
Posted 2012-12-29 00:58:14 and read 6086 times.

Quoting rfields5421 (Reply 62):
If his attack is classified as terrorism - the injuries and death become combat zone related. This will add a lot of additional expense to DOD/ Dept of Army

It has less to do with that and more to do with making absolutely sure that, should the President and the military chain choose to allow it, this guy gets the death penalty.

Remember, Hassan was a trained psychologist... he might be crazy, but he still would know how to play the system. Prosecuting him under a terrorism statue without doing their homework would severely damage a death penalty case.

Quoting AR385 (Reply 73):
to hear opinions on what would happen when the POTUS starts doing gun control by executive orders.

Frankly, I don't think he has the balls to pull something like that. He knows that any such action would be swiftly brought to court by the NRA and other interest groups, where it would be struck down.

Quoting AR385 (Reply 73):
I did not want this to become another gun control thread.

No offense, but that's like giving candy to a 5 year old and telling them not to eat it.  
Quoting fr8mech (Reply 72):

Right next to where it says the Internet, radio, television, etc. are protected by The First Amendment.

That's actually not a very good argument, because public radio and television waves are indeed restricted from engaging in certain types of speech and showing certain things during daytime hours.

Quoting seb146 (Reply 71):
As part of a well-regulated militia.

The 2nd Amendment reads "A well regulated militia(,) being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed", not "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, so long as they are part of a well-regulated militia".

The militia clause is used as a justification for the right, but does not limit the right to the militia (as it specifically mentions the right belongs to "the people").

Topic: RE: Obama, To Impose Gun Control By Decree
Username: fr8mech
Posted 2012-12-29 01:39:50 and read 6079 times.

Quoting Maverick623 (Reply 75):
That's actually not a very good argument, because public radio and television waves are indeed restricted from engaging in certain types of speech and showing certain things during daytime hours.

Seb implies that The Second Amendment only covers arms in existence during the ratification. I just pointed out that if we use that measure, The First and Fourth Amendments would also be restricted to the what was available at ratification.

I also just learned (through reading all 157 pages of the opinion) that it's an argument used by Justice Scalia in Heller.

Topic: RE: Obama, To Impose Gun Control By Decree
Username: Mir
Posted 2012-12-29 06:13:40 and read 6016 times.

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 72):
And, I will quote, once again, from the Heller opinion:

"(a) The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms. Pp. 2–22."

This is one of the parts of the Heller opinion that make no sense to me. The 2nd Amendment is unique among all the other amendments in "announcing a purpose". The 1st Amendment doesn't say why we need free speech or freedom of the press, it just says we have it. The 5th Amendment doesn't say why we are protected from self-incrimination, it just says that we are. The 13th Amendment doesn't say why slavery should be illegal, it just says that it is.

I tend to believe that those who wrote the Constitution did so with a great deal of thought and care, and if there's a part of it that's written differently from all other parts, there's probably a reason for it, and it's not a good idea to just pretend that half of an amendment isn't there (which is basically what Scalia is saying).

-Mir

Topic: RE: Obama, To Impose Gun Control By Decree
Username: Dreadnought
Posted 2012-12-29 06:20:46 and read 6011 times.

Quoting Mir (Reply 77):

I tend to believe that those who wrote the Constitution did so with a great deal of thought and care,

Then why do you, and those on the left, chose to completely ignore the 10th amendment?

Topic: RE: Obama, To Impose Gun Control By Decree
Username: Mir
Posted 2012-12-29 07:06:24 and read 5990 times.

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 78):
Then why do you, and those on the left, chose to completely ignore the 10th amendment?

First of all, that's a completely irrelevant point, since my comment had to do with how the text was worded.

But since you brought it up, we don't - you're choosing to confuse ignoring the 10th Amendment with a more expansive interpretation of what the powers delegated to the United States are.

-Mir

Topic: RE: Obama, To Impose Gun Control By Decree
Username: DeltaMD90
Posted 2012-12-29 08:07:27 and read 5971 times.

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 60):
Where, I might point out, I'm pretty sure that there might be a few armed guards around. Didn't seem to stop it.

Already pointed out, but every base I've been to is completely gun free (sometimes there are exceptions to go to ranges, but that process is tedious and very regulated) and yes, many bases have shooting ranges, but they are almost always far away from post and the weapons and ammo are extremely regulated. Other than that, there is base security, which seems to have a higher presence than most police forces, but still, I can easily see Hassan getting off twice as many shots before an officer arrived.

There is a notion that everyone on a military base walks around with a loaded M-4. It's like that overseas in many war zones, but in garrison, we have even less rights to carry than in the outside world!

Quoting seb146 (Reply 71):
As part of a well-regulated militia.

Honestly, and I'm trying to remove all bias, I think the part about the militia is saying "we need a militia," break, end thought, and the rights to bear arms shouldn't be taken away. I don't think that prevents some arms from being taken away, barriers to make it more difficult to bear arms (training and tests) are borderline, and even though militias are outdated, it has no provision that calls for the situation today.

In other words, it is poorly worded, only because the founding fathers couldn't envision the US today.

That being said, Constitutionally, the right to bear arms cannot go away until an amendment is introduced, even though we don't need militias

Topic: RE: Obama, To Impose Gun Control By Decree
Username: D L X
Posted 2012-12-29 08:36:56 and read 5964 times.

Quoting Maverick623 (Reply 75):
The 2nd Amendment reads "A well regulated militia(,) being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed", not "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, so long as they are part of a well-regulated militia".

The militia clause is used as a justification for the right,

As has been stated many times, this is revisionist history -- applying your own desires for how the text should be read in 2012 to a text that was written with a much different intention in circa 1790.

In fact, guns WERE banned in various places in the United States before, during, and after the Second Amendment. It was only 200 years later that such bans were declared unconstitutional. Whyfor, you should ask.

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 78):
Then why do you, and those on the left, chose to completely ignore the 10th amendment?

Probably the same reason why you ignore the Ninth. And also this:

Quoting Mir (Reply 79):
you're choosing to confuse ignoring the 10th Amendment with a more expansive interpretation of what the powers delegated to the United States are.

  

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 80):
That being said, Constitutionally, the right to bear arms cannot go away until an amendment is introduced, even though we don't need militias

Post-Heller, this is true. That's why the Second Amendment should be repealed, so that reasonable gun policy can be adopted. That doesn't mean a ban. That means sense returns to the argument.

I bet no one on here from Connecticut is arguing for more guns, for instance.

Topic: RE: Obama, To Impose Gun Control By Decree
Username: DeltaMD90
Posted 2012-12-29 09:13:31 and read 5942 times.

Quoting D L X (Reply 81):
Post-Heller, this is true. That's why the Second Amendment should be repealed, so that reasonable gun policy can be adopted. That doesn't mean a ban. That means sense returns to the argument.

Well, I think we all know that this isn't going to happen anytime soon. I am not even sure if a new gun law will make it past the Republican controlled House... try a repeal of an amendment!

Quoting D L X (Reply 81):
I bet no one on here from Connecticut is arguing for more guns, for instance.

The answer is not more guns or less... it is better control of the guns. Training, registration, background checks. I see this doing the most good and at the same time, not removing any rights

Topic: RE: Obama, To Impose Gun Control By Decree
Username: seb146
Posted 2012-12-29 09:19:22 and read 5940 times.

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

That is the entire text of the Second Amendment. Where does it say every American *needs* or is *guaranteed* semi automatic weapons by the truck load? The way I interpret it (and others do too), a more updated version would be "Since we need a militia, we can not keep people from having guns." However, since there is no need for a milita, we don't really need guns. Especially semi- and automatic weapons.

To paraphrase a meme from Facebook:

There have been far too many people senselessly gunned down over the past few decades in public. But, one nipple is show on public television for less than three seconds killing no one and Congress is in session within days to hold hearings and make laws against boobs.

Topic: RE: Obama, To Impose Gun Control By Decree
Username: Superfly
Posted 2012-12-29 09:41:24 and read 5937 times.

If you really think about it, having the right to be armed build in to the Constitution to fight against a tyrannical government is a very liberal concept. Not sure why liberals today have made an about-face and are so willingly giving more powers to the government.

Topic: RE: Obama, To Impose Gun Control By Decree
Username: Revelation
Posted 2012-12-29 09:42:57 and read 5931 times.

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 74):
This is the purview of the Congress. If Congress decides that there will be a new assault weapons ban, then so be it, but, it is not up to the president to decree such a thing.

So why all the apocyliptic rhetoric?

I listened to Obama's speech at Newtown and he clearly understands the role he plays.

I just looked up the speech on-line and it said:

Quote:

In the coming weeks, I’ll use whatever power this office holds to engage my fellow citizens, from law enforcement, to mental health professionals, to parents and educators, in an effort aimed at preventing more tragedies like this, because what choice do we have? We can’t accept events like this as routine.

How clearer does he need to be? Why all this right wing over reaction?

IMHO it's clear the right exaggerates the situation for their own gain, and most of the nation sees right through it.

Indeed Obama has played games and directed parts of the Administration to not prioritize enforcement of certain laws to try to goad Congress into dealing with situations it isn't dealing with, but he's not inventing laws out of whole cloth, as opposed to what GWB and neo-cons did after 9/11.

Quoting Maverick623 (Reply 75):
The 2nd Amendment reads "A well regulated militia(,) being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed", not "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, so long as they are part of a well-regulated militia".

The militia clause is used as a justification for the right, but does not limit the right to the militia (as it specifically mentions the right belongs to "the people").

Yet I still can't own a fully functional tank, and reasonable people understand why this is so.

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 76):
I also just learned (through reading all 157 pages of the opinion) that it's an argument used by Justice Scalia in Heller.

Have you read the dissenting opinion?

Here's a little snip for you to ponder.

Quote:

In a dissenting opinion, Justice John Paul Stevens stated that the court's judgment was "a strained and unpersuasive reading" which overturned longstanding precedent, and that the court had "bestowed a dramatic upheaval in the law".[49] Stevens also stated that the amendment was notable for the "omission of any statement of purpose related to the right to use firearms for hunting or personal self-defense" which was present in the Declarations of Rights of Pennsylvania and Vermont.[49]

The Stevens dissent seems to rest on four main points of disagreement: that the Founders would have made the individual right aspect of the Second Amendment express if that was what was intended; that the "militia" preamble and exact phrase "to keep and bear arms" demands the conclusion that the Second Amendment touches on state militia service only; that many lower courts' later "collective-right" reading of the Miller decision constitutes stare decisis, which may only be overturned at great peril; and that the Court has not considered gun-control laws (e.g., the National Firearms Act) unconstitutional. The dissent concludes, "The Court would have us believe that over 200 years ago, the Framers made a choice to limit the tools available to elected officials wishing to regulate civilian uses of weapons.... I could not possibly conclude that the Framers made such a choice."

So, while Heller is indeed the law of the land (just as Roe vs. Wade) it's quite controversial.

Topic: RE: Obama, To Impose Gun Control By Decree
Username: StarAC17
Posted 2012-12-29 09:46:54 and read 5931 times.

Quoting Superfly (Reply 84):
If you really think about it, having the right to be armed build in to the Constitution to fight against a tyrannical government is a very liberal concept. Not sure why liberals today have made an about-face and are so willingly giving more powers to the government.

By that logic conservatives should be 100% for legalizing drugs and wouldn't kick and scream about the eventual legalization of gay marriage. They want the government out of their lives but in reality just out of their wallets and what to be very involved when it comes to what one does in their bedroom or puts in their body.

Topic: RE: Obama, To Impose Gun Control By Decree
Username: scbriml
Posted 2012-12-29 09:47:20 and read 5936 times.

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 80):
I think the part about the militia is saying "we need a militia," break, end thought, and the rights to bear arms shouldn't be taken away.

You think the framers of the 2nd Amendment didn't know the difference between a comma and a full-stop?   

Topic: RE: Obama, To Impose Gun Control By Decree
Username: mt99
Posted 2012-12-29 10:08:13 and read 5918 times.

Quoting Revelation (Reply 85):
So, while Heller is indeed the law of the land (just as Roe vs. Wade) it's quite controversial.

Exactly. There are plenty of conservatives that want to overturn Roe vs Wade. Why is Heller nor up for discussion?

Topic: RE: Obama, To Impose Gun Control By Decree
Username: D L X
Posted 2012-12-29 10:11:42 and read 5916 times.

Quoting Superfly (Reply 84):

If you really think about it, having the right to be armed build in to the Constitution to fight against a tyrannical government is a very liberal concept. Not sure why liberals today have made an about-face and are so willingly giving more powers to the government.

Even if your premise were correct (it is not), the answer is because liberals adapt to change, hence the name "liberal." Conservatives do not, also hence the name "conservative."

Topic: RE: Obama, To Impose Gun Control By Decree
Username: roswell41
Posted 2012-12-29 10:19:12 and read 5909 times.

Many 'liberals' in the U.S. today are not classical liberals. They are statists, plain and simply. They want government to have more control and influence in our everyday lives. I say to them regarding gun control what many women say regarding abortion: If you don't like abortions, don't have one; if you don't like guns, don't have one. Please, don't tell me how I get to protect my body.

Topic: RE: Obama, To Impose Gun Control By Decree
Username: DeltaMD90
Posted 2012-12-29 10:20:29 and read 5903 times.

Quoting seb146 (Reply 83):
a more updated version would be

If the law was made today, it would indeed be different... but do you think (unbiasedly) it actually does mean what you say? I know the intentions have changed and it's dated, but as it is written, I see it differently. Not what I think it should, I'm talking about how it is

Quoting scbriml (Reply 87):
You think the framers of the 2nd Amendment didn't know the difference between a comma and a full-stop?   

I didn't mean it like that. I meant as far as the phrasing goes, they stated that as an opening or justification for the rest of the Amendment, but nothing in the Amendment itself says "as long as we need a militia blah blah blah," or "until we have a federal armed forces blah blah blah." Sorry, I was just being sloppy in my response

I'm not trying to push an agenda, this is just how I see it. I think they needed grammar lessons, and I think if they saw today's world they would have modified it, but as it is now what we can do is very limited

Topic: RE: Obama, To Impose Gun Control By Decree
Username: D L X
Posted 2012-12-29 10:27:37 and read 5896 times.

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 91):
If the law was made today, it would indeed be different.

There's no way anything remotely approaching the Second Amendment could be ratified today.

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 91):
but do you think (unbiasedly) it actually does mean what you say? I know the intentions have changed and it's dated, but as it is written, I see it differently. Not what I think it should, I'm talking about how it is

Yes. There were gun bans in place before, during, and after the ratification of the Second Amendment which were not disturbed by its ratification. Everyone knew that they were talking about militias back then, and not talking about an individual right.

Conservatives that scream bloody murder about activist judges sat back and said nothing about the judicial activism that is Heller.

Topic: RE: Obama, To Impose Gun Control By Decree
Username: Superfly
Posted 2012-12-29 10:34:07 and read 5893 times.

Quoting StarAC17 (Reply 86):
By that logic conservatives should be 100% for legalizing drugs and wouldn't kick and scream about the eventual legalization of gay marriage.


  
Exactly!
That is why I became a Libertarian, not a Conservative.

Quoting D L X (Reply 89):
Even if your premise were correct (it is not),


Actually I am correct.

Quoting roswell41 (Reply 90):
Many 'liberals' in the U.S. today are not classical liberals. They are statists, plain and simply. They want government to have more control and influence in our everyday lives. I say to them regarding gun control what many women say regarding abortion: If you don't like abortions, don't have one; if you don't like guns, don't have one. Please, don't tell me how I get to protect my body.


  
Spot on my friend!
Many liberals I was protesting with less than 10 years ago in San Francisco have decided to go along with heavy-handed government control, wiretapping, wars, NDAA, etc because the government now has an attractive, articulate and first man of color as their spokesman to sell Statist ideals - Obama.
Criticize him? You're a racist, loony, out of touch, bigot, idiot.

Topic: RE: Obama, To Impose Gun Control By Decree
Username: D L X
Posted 2012-12-29 10:44:57 and read 5882 times.

Quoting Superfly (Reply 93):
Quoting D L X (Reply 89):
Even if your premise were correct (it is not),


Actually I am correct.

The words "liberal" and "conservative" did not share the meaning in 1790 as they do now. Hell, political parties did not exist in the way they do today until around Nixon. But hey, believe what you want. Don't ever let facts get in your way.

Topic: RE: Obama, To Impose Gun Control By Decree
Username: Superfly
Posted 2012-12-29 10:53:33 and read 5878 times.

Quoting D L X (Reply 94):
The words "liberal" and "conservative" did not share the meaning in 1790 as they do now.



Re-read my statement and let it sink in. I had specifically stated "very liberal concept" . I never stated that the framers were liberals.

Quoting D L X (Reply 94):
But hey, believe what you want. Don't ever let facts get in your way.


You do the same.  

Topic: RE: Obama, To Impose Gun Control By Decree
Username: Mir
Posted 2012-12-29 11:33:22 and read 5856 times.

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 80):
Honestly, and I'm trying to remove all bias, I think the part about the militia is saying "we need a militia," break, end thought, and the rights to bear arms shouldn't be taken away.

I can't agree with that interpretation - the "we need a militia" part is elsewhere in the Constitution in the powers delegated to Congress (namely, the power to call up the militia and to organize, arm, and discipline it).

I see it as a statement that the people should be allowed to keep and bear arms, but in the context of providing for a well-organized state militia. And that implies a collective right and not an absolute individual right, and a general delegation to the individual states (attention Dreadnought, 10th Amendment going on here) could determine what their specific gun policies would be.

-Mir

Topic: RE: Obama, To Impose Gun Control By Decree
Username: fr8mech
Posted 2012-12-29 11:39:27 and read 5851 times.

Quoting Mir (Reply 77):

This is one of the parts of the Heller opinion that make no sense to me. The 2nd Amendment is unique among all the other amendments in "announcing a purpose". The 1st Amendment doesn't say why we need free speech or freedom of the press, it just says we have it. The 5th Amendment doesn't say why we are protected from self-incrimination, it just says that we are. The 13th Amendment doesn't say why slavery should be illegal, it just says that it is.

Read the opinion...your concern is addressed.

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 82):
Well, I think we all know that this isn't going to happen anytime soon. I am not even sure if a new gun law will make it past the Republican controlled House... try a repeal of an amendment!

I'm not sure that the Democrat controlled Senate would pass the bill Sen. Feinstein is proposing.

Quoting Revelation (Reply 85):
So why all the apocyliptic rhetoric?

What rhetoric? The OP asked a question and it's been answered. Those of us who oppose stricter gun control laws did not come up with this scenario.

Quoting Revelation (Reply 85):
How clearer does he need to be? Why all this right wing over reaction?

He can be as clear as he wants. He has played very loose with the powers of the Executive; DREAM Act, expanded regulation, Welfare to Work, etc. So, it's not beyond the realm of possibility that he would attempt to circumvent Congress in this matter. Truth be known, I don't think President Obama has the political will (read that as: balls) to do such a thing. He would do something he hasn't been able to do in the past: bring bi-partisenship to The Senate...of course, it will be in opposition to his position. Oh, wait, he did do that with his budget proposals.

Quoting Revelation (Reply 85):
Have you read the dissenting opinion?

Yes, I have. And while dissents may mean something to the legal scholars and historians, they (and please correct me if I'm wrong) mean nothing when it comes to implementation.

Quoting D L X (Reply 92):
Everyone knew that they were talking about militias back then, and not talking about an individual right.

Again, the majority of the United States Supreme Court disagrees with you.

Topic: RE: Obama, To Impose Gun Control By Decree
Username: itsjustme
Posted 2012-12-29 11:48:38 and read 5847 times.

Quoting roswell41 (Reply 90):
If you don't like abortions, don't have one; if you don't like guns, don't have one. Please, don't tell me how I get to protect my body.

Which begs the question, why do you need to protect your body with a weapon that fires several hundred rounds a minute? If you can't protect yourself with six .357 magnum rounds, then you need to spend more time at the range.

Hopefully, there is some truth to the article quoted by the OP and President Obama will realize that one doesn't need a semiautomatic weapon for personal protection or hunting reasons. And hopefully that realization will come sooner rather than later.

Topic: RE: Obama, To Impose Gun Control By Decree
Username: roswell41
Posted 2012-12-29 11:54:33 and read 5842 times.

It's not for me to justify why I need something that is a right, the onus is on you to specifically articulate why I, a free citizen, should be denied that right.

Topic: RE: Obama, To Impose Gun Control By Decree
Username: D L X
Posted 2012-12-29 11:56:57 and read 5845 times.

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 97):
Those of us who oppose stricter gun control laws did not come up with this scenario.

The NRA website before the election was all about getting the word out that Obama planned to take everyone's guns away. The hysteria is clear.

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 97):
Quoting D L X (Reply 92):
Everyone knew that they were talking about militias back then, and not talking about an individual right.

Again, the majority of the United States Supreme Court disagrees with you.

Actually, they do not disagree with me. They did not address the point I just made.

Topic: RE: Obama, To Impose Gun Control By Decree
Username: Superfly
Posted 2012-12-29 12:05:54 and read 5844 times.

Quoting itsjustme (Reply 98):
Which begs the question, why do you need to protect your body with a weapon that fires several hundred rounds a minute? If you can't protect yourself with six .357 magnum rounds, then you need to spend more time at the range.






May come in handy against the government should the government go down the path of tyranny.

Quoting roswell41 (Reply 99):
It's not for me to justify why I need something that is a right, the onus is on you to specifically articulate why I, a free citizen, should be denied that right.

  

Quoting Mir (Reply 96):
"we need a militia" part is elsewhere in the Constitution in the powers delegated to Congress



A militia led by Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid and John Boner?   
I rather random citizens be well armed.

[Edited 2012-12-29 12:14:28]

Topic: RE: Obama, To Impose Gun Control By Decree
Username: Mir
Posted 2012-12-29 12:21:10 and read 5830 times.

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 97):
Read the opinion...your concern is addressed.

Not really. The opinion doesn't mention the fact that other amendments have no prefatory clauses, it only looks at whether the prefatory clause fits the interpretation of the operative clause that it has chosen to draw (and even that is tenuous, as there's some contradictory logic there when it talks about "free state" being a "term of art" after earlier saying that the Constitution's words and phrases were "used in their normal and ordinary as distinguished from technical meaning"). It asks why one might need a prefatory clause, but that's not the same as why one amendment has one and all the others don't.

Quoting Superfly (Reply 101):
A militia led by Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid and John Boner?

No, actually. The Constitution says so.

-Mir

Topic: RE: Obama, To Impose Gun Control By Decree
Username: Superfly
Posted 2012-12-29 12:56:29 and read 5813 times.

Quoting Mir (Reply 102):
No, actually. The Constitution says so.

So gun owners have had it wrong for the last 236 years?   

Topic: RE: Obama, To Impose Gun Control By Decree
Username: Maverick623
Posted 2012-12-29 12:57:27 and read 5809 times.

Quoting D L X (Reply 92):
There's no way anything remotely approaching the Second Amendment could be ratified today.

Oh please, most of the Amendments (and nearly all of the first 10) couldn't be ratified today.

The 4th-8th Amendments would weaken our national security and allow zOMG TERRORISTS!!!111 to roam free in 'Murica.

The 14th Amendment? Can't let them pesky Messicant's come over and make anchor babies and drain our resources.

Quoting itsjustme (Reply 98):
Which begs the question, why do you need to protect your body with a weapon that fires several hundred rounds a minute? If you can't protect yourself with six .357 magnum rounds, then you need to spend more time at the range.

Excellent. I propose we move to eliminate semi-automatic and automatic guns from the police and National Guard as well. After all, they should be able to protect themselves with just six .357 rounds from a revolver, since they are far more trained then the average civilian. Heck, limit them to 4 because they're so good.

 

Topic: RE: Obama, To Impose Gun Control By Decree
Username: HoMsaR
Posted 2012-12-29 14:18:12 and read 5774 times.

Quoting Superfly (Reply 93):

Quoting roswell41 (Reply 90):
Many 'liberals' in the U.S. today are not classical liberals. They are statists, plain and simply. They want government to have more control and influence in our everyday lives. I say to them regarding gun control what many women say regarding abortion: If you don't like abortions, don't have one; if you don't like guns, don't have one. Please, don't tell me how I get to protect my body.



Spot on my friend!
Many liberals I was protesting with less than 10 years ago in San Francisco have decided to go along with heavy-handed government control, wiretapping, wars, NDAA, etc because the government now has an attractive, articulate and first man of color as their spokesman to sell Statist ideals - Obama.

I guess you have an out by the use of the vague word "many," but this certainly does not describe "many" of the liberals I know/have seen. Hell, for the first three years of Obama's presidency, many liberal supporters were quite disappointed (and vocally so) by Obama's lack of action on some items (particularly those related to wars and the military).

Those who opposed the wars under Bush continued to do so under Obama.

Topic: RE: Obama, To Impose Gun Control By Decree
Username: rfields5421
Posted 2012-12-29 14:50:01 and read 5765 times.

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 76):
I also just learned (through reading all 157 pages of the opinion) that it's an argument used by Justice Scalia in Heller.

Quoting the 'King of Situational Ethics' won't make you look smarter. Scalia is going to go down in history as one, if not THE, most biased, most personal agenda driven people every to be on the court. And one of the worst constitutional scholars.

Quoting Revelation (Reply 85):
How clearer does he need to be? Why all this right wing over reaction?

To make MONEY.

I spent some time at the Fort Worth gun show this weekend. (Yes, I do own guns, and I'm not afraid of having them taken away. I'm looking for something special for my brother.)

Gun sellers are loving the internet discussions like this one. Prices for guns are at record highs. Over and over I heard "You have to buy it now because Obama is going to outlaw these guns soon."

Obama is President of the United States. He is not King.

He doesn't have the power to impose gun control on his own.

Period.

[Edited 2012-12-29 14:51:23]

Topic: RE: Obama, To Impose Gun Control By Decree
Username: itsjustme
Posted 2012-12-29 15:07:48 and read 5753 times.

Roswell, I'm not denying you or anyone else your right to own a firearm and that's not what I am proposing. I'm just questioning why you and others feel the need to own one that fires several hundred rounds a minute. So far, all I've heard is references to "freedom" and "because I want to" and "because they're fun to shoot". And please don't play the "The Second Amendment says I have the right...." card. Several Supreme Court justices have already voiced an opinion the Second Amendment doesn't provide one with the right to own any weapon they so choose.

Quoting Maverick623 (Reply 104):
Excellent. I propose we move to eliminate semi-automatic and automatic guns from the police and National Guard as well. After all, they should be able to protect themselves with just six .357 rounds from a revolver, since they are far more trained then the average civilian. Heck, limit them to 4 because they're so good.

Your comment is almost too senseless to garner a response. But, that being said... First, how often is the average citizen confronted with a semiautomatic weapon? For those of us in law enforcement, it's a daily occurrence. And how often is the average citizen confronted with automatic rifle fire? I am guessing not nearly as often as a National Guardsman in Afghanistan or Iraq.
I don't know how old you are but, not too long ago the standard issue duty weapon for a police officer in the U.S. was a Smith and Wesson Model 66 revolver capable of firing .38 or .357 ammunition. Our back up ammunition consisted of two six-round speed loaders, giving us a total of 18 rounds. Ah yes, the good old days. But then the wheels came off the wagon and we found on a recurring basis the bad guys we came in contact with were armed with heavier fire power than us. So we were forced to upgrade to a Glock 19, a semiautomatic handgun with a high capacity magazine that fired 9mm ammunition. But then, a couple of bank robbers in North Hollywood California showed up and, after having to scramble to a nearby gun store and borrowing weapons of comparable stopping power as those of the bad guys, we found ourselves again in the predicament of having to upgrade our weapons. Perhaps if our laws addressing purchase and use of semiautomatic weapons had been as strong as they should have been, I'd still be carrying my S&W Model 66.

Topic: RE: Obama, To Impose Gun Control By Decree
Username: scbriml
Posted 2012-12-29 15:11:11 and read 5755 times.

Quoting Superfly (Reply 101):
May come in handy against the government should the government go down the path of tyranny.

Seriously, this is the lamest of all the lame pro-gun arguments.

Topic: RE: Obama, To Impose Gun Control By Decree
Username: GDB
Posted 2012-12-29 17:08:28 and read 5711 times.

Quoting roswell41 (Reply 90):
Many 'liberals' in the U.S. today are not classical liberals. They are statists, plain and simply. They want government to have more control and influence in our everyday lives. I say to them regarding gun control what many women say regarding abortion: If you don't like abortions, don't have one; if you don't like guns, don't have one. Please, don't tell me how I get to protect my body.

Ah, that other total obsession of the US right.

So the termination of a pregnancy - which despite the rhetoric by your GOP knuckle draggers often is a traumatic experience for the woman, not only in the aftermath of rape or a real medical imperative - is analogous to deliberately trying to kill as many people as possible, even close family, or little kids, or Amish, usually culminating in the killer saving the last bullet for himself. Or when the cops are closing in.
(The doughty NRA armed citizen carrying heat and saving the day, or at least stopping the slaughter before the perpetrator chooses to, never seems to be around, does he?)

It all seems rather darkly Freudian, these twin obsessions.

As for the doubly laughable idea that this armed citizenry is some kind of bulwark against oppression?
Get out more, see some of the world, not just the tourist stops, or just learn something.
The US has probably the most layers of democratic control, checks and balances and oversight of any nation, from the top to the most local. Downside is perhaps the gridlock you have now but which proves this is the case.
Yet still this ingrained paranoia.
Just a brief glimpse around the world will show what tyranny is.

But for the sake of argument, if by some pretty far out set of circumstances, this armed citizenry had to make a stand against the US Government, you reckon the chances of a bunch of often paunchy suburbanites against the might of the world's most powerful military?
I suspect some have some illusion that they could be a US version of say, the French Resistance of WW2, or Viet Cong, or Taliban, or maybe more comfortably for them, 21st Century incarnations of the original American Revolutionaries, really they flatter themselves.
Most of those groups lived lives of privation unimaginable to the average Westerner today.

Plus there is another dark side to all this, or rather taken perhaps to it's logical - if that's the word - conclusion.
The US Government is out to get me/oppress me, has been the subject of a novel.
Not one you'd find in your average bookstore, have to find a vendor and order it.
But it's a story about a patriotic group of US citizens rising up to counter government oppression as they saw it, to take back THEIR country.
You may well have heard of it but like me not read it.
The Turner Dairies.
One well known person read it, was inspired by it.
Timothy McVeigh.

Topic: RE: Obama, To Impose Gun Control By Decree
Username: D L X
Posted 2012-12-29 17:54:33 and read 5684 times.

Quoting roswell41 (Reply 90):

Many 'liberals' in the U.S. today are not classical liberals. They are statists, plain and simply.

What does it make you if you believe that your state-granted right to dangerous weapons is more important than protecting 6 year olds from being shot up to 10 times each in class?

Quoting Superfly (Reply 101):
May come in handy against the government should the government go down the path of tyranny.

You will never know tyranny in the United States.

And if you did, your high capacity magazine is no match for the US Military. You're justifying your right (which I know you did not give a damn about 5 years ago) with an argument that is not only untrue, but also absolutely could not ever work.

Topic: RE: Obama, To Impose Gun Control By Decree
Username: seb146
Posted 2012-12-29 18:50:18 and read 5668 times.

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 91):
but do you think (unbiasedly) it actually does mean what you say?

Yes. I believe the Second Amendment was written in the wake of the British forces having better and more firepower. I believe the Second Amendment was written for military applications. Since we do not have a need for militias, I believe it is outdated.

Topic: RE: Obama, To Impose Gun Control By Decree
Username: DeltaMD90
Posted 2012-12-29 19:03:59 and read 5664 times.

Quoting seb146 (Reply 111):
I believe it is outdated.

Exactly, I'm just saying that despite its age, there is nothing that nullifies it. That is basically my whole point. We can't say we don't need militias so ignore the 2nd Amendment, we'd need to repeal it. If that makes any sense

Topic: RE: Obama, To Impose Gun Control By Decree
Username: mt99
Posted 2012-12-29 20:19:26 and read 5651 times.

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 112):
the 2nd Amendment, we'd need to repeal it.

Correct. And this option should be on the table for discussion.

Topic: RE: Obama, To Impose Gun Control By Decree
Username: DeltaMD90
Posted 2012-12-29 20:27:04 and read 5644 times.

Quoting mt99 (Reply 113):
Correct. And this option should be on the table for discussion.

I'd go about it a better, more realistic way. Do you honestly think they'd get even close to the votes/support needed? There is no way

Topic: RE: Obama, To Impose Gun Control By Decree
Username: seb146
Posted 2012-12-29 20:28:02 and read 5641 times.

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 112):
We can't say we don't need militias so ignore the 2nd Amendment, we'd need to repeal it. If that makes any sense

Yes, but I don't think repeal it. Just make it for modern times. Keep in mind there are people who hunt so they can stay alive and people that hoard automatic weapons. Guns are okay in the right hands and in the right situations. But not "everyone should have an automatic weapon any time they want."

Topic: RE: Obama, To Impose Gun Control By Decree
Username: DeltaMD90
Posted 2012-12-29 21:06:59 and read 5630 times.

Quoting seb146 (Reply 115):
Yes, but I don't think repeal it. Just make it for modern times. Keep in mind there are people who hunt so they can stay alive and people that hoard automatic weapons. Guns are okay in the right hands and in the right situations. But not "everyone should have an automatic weapon any time they want."

Honestly, I think this can be done without a repeal or modification. Registration, safety classes, requirement of safe storage, and a few other common sense measures would do a ton of good and, in my pro-gun opinion, doesn't infringe on any rights.


I don't get the thing about gun hoarding though. I have no stats on it, but your typical gun "hoarder" is a collector and enthusiast while your normal criminal has a handgun or two. I've never heard of a collector going on a rampage. In fact, I trust people with 20 guns more than I'd trust a random guy with 1 gun (though I wouldn't necessarily be skeptical of that guy either)

Also, I don't get the mentality against ammo in bulk. I'm looking right now to buy some 7.62x25 ammo... I can either get a box of 50 rounds for $26.86 which is $0.54 a round, or I can get some surplus (corrosive) ammo... a crate of 2280 for $279 (the best I've seen, still researching) which is $0.12 a round! Yep, never have to order 7.62x25 ammo again. What I am getting at with all this is you only need 1 round to kill someone, a few boxes for a mass shooting, but beyond that, you're either preparing to arm an army or you are buying in bulk.

The measures against ammo, IMO, do NOTHING to prevent crime and ONLY punish enthusiasts. If I want to murder someone, yeah, I'll pay $200 for a box of 20 bullets... meanwhile, people going to the range shooting a few hundred rounds (very easily done) will end up paying $thousands... and crime is not deterred...

Topic: RE: Obama, To Impose Gun Control By Decree
Username: Mir
Posted 2012-12-29 21:12:29 and read 5628 times.

Quoting mt99 (Reply 113):
Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 112):
the 2nd Amendment, we'd need to repeal it.

Correct. And this option should be on the table for discussion.

Except that it's never going to happen. There's stuff that you can get done (closing the gun show loophole, registration), there's stuff that's going to be very difficult (banning certain types of weapons or high-capacity magazines), and then there's stuff that's just flat-out impossible in this day and age. Discussing the impossible is just a waste of time and energy - better to focus on what is achievable.

-Mir

Topic: RE: Obama, To Impose Gun Control By Decree
Username: seb146
Posted 2012-12-29 23:13:53 and read 5604 times.

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 116):
I have no stats on it, but your typical gun "hoarder" is a collector and enthusiast while your normal criminal has a handgun or two.

There are the collectors. I have no problem with them. But, there are those who believe with all their mind that Obama has already taken away all our guns. Those are the ones who have issues and the ones who need their hoard of guns examined.

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 116):
I don't get the mentality against ammo in bulk.

Because ammo in bulk kills many people. If one person firing one round can kill 25 people, we should ban it. Not an issue. But, one person firing 30 rounds kills 20 people. That is the issue.

Topic: RE: Obama, To Impose Gun Control By Decree
Username: itsjustme
Posted 2012-12-29 23:47:39 and read 5594 times.

Quoting Superfly (Reply 101):
May come in handy against the government should the government go down the path of tyranny.

Your response would be entertaining, even funny if you were kidding. But you're not and that makes your response and attempt at logic a bit concerning.

Topic: RE: Obama, To Impose Gun Control By Decree
Username: Superfly
Posted 2012-12-30 00:13:23 and read 5592 times.

Quoting itsjustme (Reply 119):



Your lack of knowledge of the Constitution is a bit concerning.
I guess our public schools stopped teaching this some time ago.

Topic: RE: Obama, To Impose Gun Control By Decree
Username: fr8mech
Posted 2012-12-30 05:34:34 and read 5556 times.

Quoting itsjustme (Reply 98):
Hopefully, there is some truth to the article quoted by the OP and President Obama will realize that one doesn't need a semiautomatic weapon for personal protection or hunting reasons. And hopefully that realization will come sooner rather than later.

So, you would be ok if a conservative president, in the future, decided to take matters into his own hands and impose restrictions on, say, abortions? Abortions kill more everyday than folks using firearms. Wait, what about alcohol? Should we restrict alcohol more, by presidential fiat, than it now is? Alcohol certainly causes more harm, both immediate and long term than someone using a firearm.

Be very careful when you decide to restrict a right or activity you disagree with.

Quoting D L X (Reply 100):

The NRA website before the election was all about getting the word out that Obama planned to take everyone's guns away

The NRA consistently pointed out President Obama's voting record in the Illinois and US Senate. They pointed out his own words on the matter. They also pointed out that he was just waiting for the right opportunity to tackle gun control. Were they wrong?

Quoting D L X (Reply 100):
Actually, they do not disagree with me. They did not address the point I just made

Yes. Yes, they do. The quote heavily from several commentaries of the time that indicate that the right to "keep and bear arms" is an individual right, unrelated to military service.

Quoting rfields5421 (Reply 106):
Quoting the 'King of Situational Ethics' won't make you look smarter. Scalia is going to go down in history as one, if not THE, most biased, most personal agenda driven people every to be on the court. And one of the worst constitutional scholars.

Oh, I think Justice Ginsburg may hold that title. No, I withdraw that...not being a Supreme Court historian, I've no clue what kind of idealouges were appointed to The Court in the past.

Quoting rfields5421 (Reply 106):
He doesn't have the power to impose gun control on his own.

No, he does not. And that's supposed to be the topic of this thread. What happens if President Obama "decrees" that a certain class of weapons is illegal?

Quoting scbriml (Reply 108):
Seriously, this is the lamest of all the lame pro-gun arguments.

But, it was one of the key reasons the Founders included the right to keep and bear arms in The Bill of Rights. You can't ignore the reasoning behind an amendment (or other provisions of The Constitution) just because they hold a mere fraction of the validity they held at ratification.

Quoting mt99 (Reply 113):
Correct. And this option should be on the table for discussion.

I say, bring it on. Let's see what the mood of the people really is on this issue. Let's see if 2/3 of The Senate will propose it. Let's see if 2/3 of The House will propose it. Then, let's see if 3/4 of the state legislatures ratify it.

Quoting seb146 (Reply 118):
Because ammo in bulk kills many people.

Bulk ammo is cheaper than single box ammo. Pure economics.

Quoting seb146 (Reply 118):
There are the collectors.

I now own 5 handguns and 5 rifles. Am I a hoarder or collector? What about a police officer buddy of mine that owns a total of 12 firearms...only 4 of which are connected to his police duties? Or, is he ok because he's an agent of the state?

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 116):
Honestly, I think this can be done without a repeal or modification. Registration, safety classes, requirement of safe storage, and a few other common sense measures would do a ton of good and, in my pro-gun opinion, doesn't infringe on any rights.

I'm not opposed to some measures but, I'm going to come down, and change my position, on registration. I see no valid reason for registration. Exactly what crime or accident will registration prevent? What valid crime prevention reason exists for registration? Will criminals register weapons? Will a registration database prevent massacres? The police can already track down a firearm's history from the day it was manufactured to when it was sold...and to whom it was sold. We should make laws that have a purpose, not laws that make us feel good.

I'm not opposed to narrowing the 'gun show loophole', but a private citizen should be able to sell a firearm without the aid (and paid services) of an FFL holder.

Topic: RE: Obama, To Impose Gun Control By Decree
Username: windy95
Posted 2012-12-30 06:08:23 and read 5543 times.

Quoting itsjustme (Reply 119):
Quoting Superfly (Reply 101): May come in handy against the government should the government go down the path of tyranny. Your response would be entertaining, even funny if you were kidding. But you're not and that makes your response and attempt at logic a bit concerning.

Your lack of understanding the Constitution seems to be the problem.

Quoting itsjustme (Reply 98):
Hopefully, there is some truth to the article quoted by the OP and President Obama will realize that one doesn't need a semiautomatic weapon for personal protection or hunting reasons. And hopefully that realization will come sooner rather than later

Once again you fail to understand the intent of the 2nd amendment. And like someone else said what woudl happen when a conservative became President.? change it again.?

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 121):
I'm going to come down, and change my position, on registration. I see no valid reason for registration. Exactly what crime or accident will registration prevent? What valid crime prevention reason exists for registration? Will criminals register weapons? Will a registration database prevent massacres?

Registration and classes will prevent no crimes. Training will stop some accidents but no crimes. It is just a rouse for big brother to know who has them.

Topic: RE: Obama, To Impose Gun Control By Decree
Username: scbriml
Posted 2012-12-30 07:16:27 and read 5527 times.

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 121):
But, it was one of the key reasons the Founders included the right to keep and bear arms in The Bill of Rights.

Oh I understand exactly why it's there.   

But for the pro-gun lobby to use the "threat of a tyrannical government" as a justification for needing guns in the 21st century in a mature democracy like the US, is patently ludicrous. That reason is as relevant today as the single shot muskets in use when the amendment was written.

Topic: RE: Obama, To Impose Gun Control By Decree
Username: rfields5421
Posted 2012-12-30 07:21:20 and read 5524 times.

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 121):
What happens if President Obama "decrees" that a certain class of weapons is illegal?

He can't. He doesn't have that power.

If he tried, he could not enforce it.

That doesn't even count the court challenges which would be filed immediately. With plenty of precedent to support that such a decree would be illegal.

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 121):
Exactly what crime or accident will registration prevent? What valid crime prevention reason exists for registration? Will criminals register weapons? Will a registration database prevent massacres?

Registration only helps police track ownership of a weapon. It has helped solve some crimes when weapons were recovered and the registration led to the person who created the crime. Usually 'crimes of passion'.

Such as the firefighter shooting, where a person apparently purchased guns for and gave them to a person who was unable to legally purchase guns due to past criminal convictions.

Criminals will not register weapons. But criminals seldom acquire weapons legally - at least that is the position of the NRA.

Nothing except removal of firearms from the general public will prevent mass shooting incidents like we have seen in the US. The only way a registration database might help is if the police start reviewing the number of guns someone owns, and starts making inspections. Something the American people will not stand for occurring.

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 121):
We should make laws that have a purpose, not laws that make us feel good.

Yes, and I can't think of any laws which will actually help.

I do however, believe that the sale of large capacity magazines might possibly need to be stopped. But we need more research on that. How many magazines of what capacity did all these shooters have.

Is there a sporting reason for 20 or 30 or 50 round magazines?

Recently on the first day of deer season in Texas, we were camped at a COE campground in south central Texas. A few minutes before dawn, the surround woods errupted in gunfire. Sounded like Beirut to me, and Baghdad to my son.

Throughout the day, we constantly heard someone firing eight to 12 shots in a very few seconds. What were they shooting at? You either hit the deer with the first two shots, or you are just shooting up tree leaves.

Don't people learn to really hunt anymore?

Topic: RE: Obama, To Impose Gun Control By Decree
Username: DeltaMD90
Posted 2012-12-30 08:08:45 and read 5515 times.

Quoting seb146 (Reply 118):
Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 116):
I don't get the mentality against ammo in bulk.

Because ammo in bulk kills many people. If one person firing one round can kill 25 people, we should ban it. Not an issue. But, one person firing 30 rounds kills 20 people. That is the issue.

You don't need bulk ammo to do mass shootings. I'd be willing to bet that most people that go to the range shoot multiple times as much as the worst mass shootings. It is very easy to shoot off a 1000 rounds with your friends at the range.

How do you stop mass shooters from getting a couple boxes, 100 rounds will do the trick? That is very easy to get even with some of the most stringent ammo laws I've seen proposed. All it does is punish people getting them in bulk.

2000 rounds sitting in a basement isn't going to kill a bunch of people. Trust me, if you were a shooter and went to the range often, you would either buy in bulk or understand why people do. Why spend twice as much to shoot?

I see where you're going with trying to prevent people from storing up ammo for doing mass shootings. BUT... the number of rounds you'd need is about 2 simple boxes. It's a very difficult, fruitless avenue of approach that only punishes legit gun owners

Topic: RE: Obama, To Impose Gun Control By Decree
Username: Revelation
Posted 2012-12-30 10:32:25 and read 5482 times.

Quoting Mir (Reply 117):
There's stuff that you can get done (closing the gun show loophole, registration), there's stuff that's going to be very difficult (banning certain types of weapons or high-capacity magazines), and then there's stuff that's just flat-out impossible in this day and age. Discussing the impossible is just a waste of time and energy - better to focus on what is achievable.

Clearly the NRA et al want to focus on the impossible, because they dislike the possible.

Quoting seb146 (Reply 118):
There are the collectors. I have no problem with them. But, there are those who believe with all their mind that Obama has already taken away all our guns. Those are the ones who have issues and the ones who need their hoard of guns examined.

There is no clear way to differentiate between collectors and non-collectors.

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 121):
The NRA consistently pointed out President Obama's voting record in the Illinois and US Senate. They pointed out his own words on the matter. They also pointed out that he was just waiting for the right opportunity to tackle gun control. Were they wrong?

It's far from the first massacre during Obama's administration, so they were wrong.

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 121):
No, he does not. And that's supposed to be the topic of this thread. What happens if President Obama "decrees" that a certain class of weapons is illegal?

As much as some dislike him, the man is well aware of what he can and cannot do as President. He's pushed the edges of that already, but if he felt he could issue decrees, there's already ares where he could/would have done so. If he were able to do so, why hasn't it happened already? Why not as a part of the Newtown speech?

It's clear that GWB was far more willing to issue "Executive Orders".

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 121):
I'm not opposed to narrowing the 'gun show loophole', but a private citizen should be able to sell a firearm without the aid (and paid services) of an FFL holder.

The majority of gun owners are in favor of screening gun owners, and it's hard to see how this could happen without some sort of traceable process with an approved middle-man.

Quoting rfields5421 (Reply 124):
The only way a registration database might help is if the police start reviewing the number of guns someone owns, and starts making inspections. Something the American people will not stand for occurring.

Right, but it's already procedure for police to inspect firearms they encounter as a part of their duties. I'm not a law enforcement professional at all, but when I see cop shows on TV they always check guns to see if they are stolen or if they have been used in commission of a crime. A registration database would totally be consistent with this.

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 125):
2000 rounds sitting in a basement isn't going to kill a bunch of people. Trust me, if you were a shooter and went to the range often, you would either buy in bulk or understand why people do. Why spend twice as much to shoot?

I see where you're going with trying to prevent people from storing up ammo for doing mass shootings. BUT... the number of rounds you'd need is about 2 simple boxes. It's a very difficult, fruitless avenue of approach that only punishes legit gun owners

Ok, then why not create a mechanism where gun owners could keep these bulk purchases at a range in a secure storage facility, and mandate that bulk purchases be delivered to such secure facilities? Scalia says bearing arms has nothing to do with militias, and it can't be both ways, so you can't say this would impact citizen militias, but it would have made it less likely that the Newtown shooter would have hundreds of rounds at his disposal.

Topic: RE: Obama, To Impose Gun Control By Decree
Username: cmf
Posted 2012-12-30 10:54:06 and read 5483 times.

Quoting Revelation (Reply 126):
Right, but it's already procedure for police to inspect firearms they encounter as a part of their duties. I'm not a law enforcement professional at all, but when I see cop shows on TV they always check guns to see if they are stolen or if they have been used in commission of a crime. A registration database would totally be consistent with this.

There is a system to track weapons from manufacturing down to sales with licensed dealers. It is essentially a paper system so as ineffective as can be. It rely is looking at sales receits The NRA lobby have been successful in preventing it to take the step in to modern civilization.

Why they do this? Great question, I can't come up with any reasonable answers.

Topic: RE: Obama, To Impose Gun Control By Decree
Username: DeltaMD90
Posted 2012-12-30 11:20:14 and read 5469 times.

Quoting Revelation (Reply 126):
There is no clear way to differentiate between collectors and non-collectors.

I believe in other countries they actually have collector licenses

Quoting Revelation (Reply 126):
Ok, then why not create a mechanism where gun owners could keep these bulk purchases at a range in a secure storage facility, and mandate that bulk purchases be delivered to such secure facilities?

What if you are not shooting a single range? What if you have land you want to shoot on? And again, that doesn't even matter, you only need to "stockpile" a little bit in order to commit murders or mass murders. Once you get past 2 simple 50 round boxes, you are already into mass shooting range. What's the difference between a mass shooter rolling in with 100 rounds or 2000 rounds? In order to regulate ammo like you are saying, you basically have to regulate ALL ammo


Again, I see a lot of fear surrounding bulk ammo... but no one is fearful of a box or two... THAT is all your need for a big shooting. Doesn't it seem ridiculous to regulate it that much?

There are much better avenues to go about reducing crime. Punishing bulk purchases may sound good to people that are ignorant (not in a derogatory way) in shooting and gun owning but it really doesn't make any practical sense

Topic: RE: Obama, To Impose Gun Control By Decree
Username: itsjustme
Posted 2012-12-30 11:31:55 and read 5462 times.

After watching the President on this morning's Meet the Press, and seeing him dance around the topic of gun control (I got the impression he wouldn't have even addressed it, had the show's host not brought it up), aside from resurrecting the assault weapons ban and maybe, MAYBE instituting some regulations on high capacity magazines, I'm doubtful we're going to see any significant actions from this Administration. Disappointing, to say the least.

Topic: RE: Obama, To Impose Gun Control By Decree
Username: DeltaMD90
Posted 2012-12-30 11:39:27 and read 5453 times.

Quoting itsjustme (Reply 129):
Disappointing, to say the least.

I know it goes "against me" but I agree... there are some measures I disagree with but there are also some that most gun owners I know actually agree with. Of course my biggest concern are the lives that could be saved employing these simple measures, but from a greedy standpoint, I see the polarization from both sides presenting 2 options: one that offers no common sense controls, and one that goes way too far. Right now the needle seems to be slightly in the former's favor, but all of the sudden, it's going to switch to the other side once we hit 50.0001%

If the NRA would introduce common sense measures, not only could lives be saved, public opinion would swing more their way, and we'd have better alternatives than the all or nothing approaches currently being offered

Topic: RE: Obama, To Impose Gun Control By Decree
Username: PHX787
Posted 2012-12-30 12:30:11 and read 5431 times.

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 39):
I can guarantee you that the Secret Service is absolutely prepared for such an attempt. Nobody will ever get a clear shot at the President.
Quoting Mir (Reply 40):
Which really paints gun owners as reasonable, responsible people....

Well I'll admit some arent but most are. Me for example. I only use my glock for hunting and for protecting my house. My dad and I are both trained to use it.

Topic: RE: Obama, To Impose Gun Control By Decree
Username: rfields5421
Posted 2012-12-30 14:11:51 and read 5398 times.

Quoting Revelation (Reply 126):
Ok, then why not create a mechanism where gun owners could keep these bulk purchases at a range in a secure storage facility, and mandate that bulk purchases be delivered to such secure facilities?

While I live on the edge of a major metropolitan area - and do all my local shooting at a range, most of my family don't live anywhere near a publicly accessible range.

No one runs a range in rural Arkansas because it isn't worth the investment.

If I want to to a bit of practice when I'm back in my home town, I can use my brothers property, or some my father owns which was once part of my mother's family farm.

I was taught from a very early age how to properly use a gun for practice, how to ensure my rounds don't overshoot and endanger other people. I got my first gun for Christmas when I was 10. I still have it 50 years later. I was allowed to go hunting and practice (target) shooting with that gun alone, or with my little brothers, at age 10.

Sadly I was never in a position to teach my own children such familiarity with guns, and only minimally my grandchildren.

But on a recent trip back home for Thanksgiving, we all practiced with either my guns or my brothers guns. The focus of the practice was gun safety for my grandchildren.

There is no range. And I carried about 1,000 rounds with me on the trip over. With 8 people shooting, that isn't much.

Interestingly - those rural reaches of Arkansas don't guarantee a school shooting won't happen. It did in 1998 in another part of the state.

Also interestingly, my sister is a school administrator, a nephew and his wife teachers - and they tell most teachers and administrators do not want armed guards at their schools. And certainly not teachers being able to have guns in their classrooms.

Topic: RE: Obama, To Impose Gun Control By Decree
Username: fr8mech
Posted 2012-12-30 14:29:17 and read 5393 times.

Quoting rfields5421 (Reply 124):
Registration only helps police track ownership of a weapon. It has helped solve some crimes when weapons were recovered and the registration led to the person who created the crime. Usually 'crimes of passion'.

Police are already able to do that. We (a few familie, including that of 2 officers) at a game-watching party last night and the conversation after that turned to what happened in CT. and other issues surrounding firearms and gun laws and Feinstein's bill. Police can already track a firearm to the original owner. They need a court order, but they can do it. So, what exactly will a new gun registry database do?

Quoting Revelation (Reply 126):
It's far from the first massacre during Obama's administration, so they were wrong.

But, it's tyhe first one (and, hopefully, the only one) after his re-election. He has a lot less to lose if he alienates members of his party.

Quoting Revelation (Reply 126):
Ok, then why not create a mechanism where gun owners could keep these bulk purchases at a range in a secure storage facility, and mandate that bulk purchases be delivered to such secure facilities?

Because, I use 3 different ranges. Because a range would charge to keep my ammunition, therefore eliminating the bulk purchase savings. Because, on occasion, I've gone out with friends and burned up a couple of hundred rounds in the woods (on private property).

Topic: RE: Obama, To Impose Gun Control By Decree
Username: Revelation
Posted 2012-12-30 15:38:39 and read 5365 times.

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 133):
Police can already track a firearm to the original owner.

I thought this was only for guns sold via FFLs.

Topic: RE: Obama, To Impose Gun Control By Decree
Username: cmf
Posted 2012-12-30 15:50:26 and read 5367 times.

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 133):
Police can already track a firearm to the original owner. They need a court order, but they can do it. So, what exactly will a new gun registry database do?

They can track it to original owner in an incredibly inefficient way. Importantly, original owner is of little interest, it is current owner that matters.

Police should be able to confirm that the person on possession of a weapon is the registered owner.

Topic: RE: Obama, To Impose Gun Control By Decree
Username: Mir
Posted 2012-12-30 15:52:12 and read 5367 times.

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 133):
Police can already track a firearm to the original owner. They need a court order, but they can do it. So, what exactly will a new gun registry database do?

Make the process faster and easier (in addition to all the other benefits of keeping track of weapons sold by people other than licensed dealers that would come from requiring background checks for all sales).

-Mir

Topic: RE: Obama, To Impose Gun Control By Decree
Username: fr8mech
Posted 2012-12-30 16:39:25 and read 5358 times.

Quoting Revelation (Reply 134):
I thought this was only for guns sold via FFLs.

Buying through an FFL is the only way to buy a new gun.

Quoting cmf (Reply 135):
Importantly, original owner is of little interest, it is current owner that matters.

So, you're assuming a stolen gun will be registered???

Quoting Mir (Reply 136):
Make the process faster and easier (in addition to all the other benefits of keeping track of weapons sold by people other than licensed dealers that would come from requiring background checks for all sales).

That's nice...make the background checks free and I'm game. Then, a new 'assault weapons' registry doesn't matter, does it?

You know what I find particularly onerous about Feinstein's Assault Weapons Ban? When I pass, I will not be able to pass the weapons onto my children. This is in effect a confiscatory ban on assault weapons and "certain other" firearms. It just takes a few years to happen.

Topic: RE: Obama, To Impose Gun Control By Decree
Username: cmf
Posted 2012-12-30 16:45:40 and read 5354 times.

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 137):
So, you're assuming a stolen gun will be registered???

Why all the question marks?

I expect that the gun is registered to someone. That person better have reported the gun stolen, showing it was stored properly, or have a very good explanation. Then maybe we can stop having half a million guns provided to criminals each year.

Topic: RE: Obama, To Impose Gun Control By Decree
Username: Revelation
Posted 2012-12-30 17:24:19 and read 5342 times.

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 137):
Buying through an FFL is the only way to buy a new gun.

Hmm, Wiki's description of "gun show" includes:

Quote:

U.S. federal law requires persons engaged in interstate firearm commerce, or those who are "engaged in the business" of dealing firearms, to hold a Federal Firearms License and perform background checks through the National Instant Criminal Background Check System maintained by the FBI prior to transferring a firearm. Under the terms of the Firearm Owners Protection Act of 1986, however, individuals "not engaged in the business" of dealing firearms, or who only make "occasional" sales within their state of residence, are under no requirement to conduct background checks on purchasers or maintain records of sale (although even private sellers are forbidden under federal law from selling firearms to persons they have reason to believe are felons or otherwise prohibited from purchasing firearms).

So what am I missing?

Topic: RE: Obama, To Impose Gun Control By Decree
Username: fr8mech
Posted 2012-12-30 17:34:29 and read 5341 times.

Quoting cmf (Reply 138):
I expect that the gun is registered to someone. That person better have reported the gun stolen, showing it was stored properly, or have a very good explanation.

But, that's where registration breaks down. If the weapon is stolen, the trail is lost.

And again, registration will not stop one crime. It will not stop one massacre. It may assist in solving a crime, and that is desirable, but is that worth the cost (to liberty)? What registration does do, is provide the government...and any other enterprising soul...a list of gun owners, so that Senator Feinstein and her legislative progeny have a path to confiscation.

Quoting cmf (Reply 138):
having half a million guns provided to criminals each year

Assuming that number is correct (I've seen anything from 200,000 to 600,000/year) how will registration stop firearm theft? Oh it may hamper the straw buyer, but will that really make a difference?

Topic: RE: Obama, To Impose Gun Control By Decree
Username: Maverick623
Posted 2012-12-30 17:37:11 and read 5338 times.

Quoting itsjustme (Reply 107):
First, how often is the average citizen confronted with a semiautomatic weapon?
Quoting itsjustme (Reply 107):
For those of us in law enforcement, it's a daily occurrence.

I'd be hard pressed to find a cop that has a gun pulled on them every day (in fact, I can guarantee you it simply doesn't happen). And no, you don't get to individualize the "average citizen" experience while using a collective experience for law enforcement.

Oh, by the way, when cops like you respond to a call of a person with a gun, usually it's because that person has confronted your "average citizen" with said gun.

Quoting itsjustme (Reply 107):
Perhaps if our laws addressing purchase and use of semiautomatic weapons had been as strong as they should have been, I'd still be carrying my S&W Model 66.

Sorry, your revisionist history isn't going to work here. Semi-autos have been widely available and used for decades. Just because certain police departments refused to properly equip their officers doesn't mean there was never a problem.

Quoting itsjustme (Reply 107):
But then, a couple of bank robbers in North Hollywood California showed up

With illegal weapons, I might add.

Quoting D L X (Reply 110):

What does it make you if you believe that your state-granted right

You just proved his point. The theory behind the Bill of Rights (and the Constitution) is that there are individual, natural rights that should not be infringed upon, and it was a way of the state preventing itself from infringing upon those rights.

Unfortunately, "statists" like you believe that there are no such thing as individual rights and that what are referred to a "rights" are merely privileges granted by a state actor in accordance with "the good of the people".

Quoting Revelation (Reply 139):

So what am I missing?

He is talking about brand-new, fresh off the factory floor guns. You are talking about guns that have been owned by at least one person.

Topic: RE: Obama, To Impose Gun Control By Decree
Username: fr8mech
Posted 2012-12-30 17:39:07 and read 5337 times.

Quoting Revelation (Reply 139):
So what am I missing?

You're missing the "new". I can not contact a manufacturer and buy a gun from him without the proper paperwork. I'm guessing that I, a private citizen without an FFL, can't purchase directly from a manufacturer. I'd have to go through an FFL.

Topic: RE: Obama, To Impose Gun Control By Decree
Username: cmf
Posted 2012-12-30 18:18:01 and read 5328 times.

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 140):
But, that's where registration breaks down. If the weapon is stolen, the trail is lost.

As has been explained so many times before. Owners must be held responsible for how they store guns. If they were not stored properly they should be part responsible for how they are used. If someone frequently have guns stolen or frequently sell/provide to people who use them for criminal activity they should also be held responsible. That can't happen today since there is no track record.

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 140):
And again, registration will not stop one crime.

That is where your theory breaks down. If my name is on a weapon and I thus am held responsible for how it is used I am not very likely to do straw purchases. Which is the most common way for weapons used in criminal activity.

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 140):
Assuming that number is correct (I've seen anything from 200,000 to 600,000/year) how will registration stop firearm theft? Oh it may hamper the straw buyer, but will that really make a difference?

Combined with requirement to store properly it will. Sadly not included in the proposal I saw.

Topic: RE: Obama, To Impose Gun Control By Decree
Username: Mir
Posted 2012-12-30 19:03:55 and read 5316 times.

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 137):
That's nice...make the background checks free and I'm game. Then, a new 'assault weapons' registry doesn't matter, does it?

Here's what I want to have happen:

First, make it impossible for someone who couldn't pass a background check to buy a gun legally, which means requiring background checks for all sales, whether they're from a dealer, whether they're at a gun show, or whether they're just private individuals making a transaction.

Second, make it very unattractive for people to buy a gun illegally, which really means making it difficult for people to sell guns illegally, by tracking guns from owner to owner and going after people when guns that are registered to them end up being used in crimes (the intent being to punish those who engage in gunrunning or straw purchases).

The exact mechanics of how that's done doesn't really matter to me. If we've got existing laws that can be tweaked (or, perish the thought, actually enforced), fine. If we need new laws, that's fine too. The result is far more important then the process.

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 140):
And again, registration will not stop one crime. It will not stop one massacre. It may assist in solving a crime, and that is desirable, but is that worth the cost (to liberty)?

Actually, it will stop crimes. Not right away, but eventually once the supply of illegal guns starts drying up because the people who sell illegal guns with either be in prison or will be scared off from taking part in that business, you'll see a drop in gun crimes simply because people won't have the weapons to commit them with.

As far as massacres, that's a different issue. But it's also a small percentage of the gun deaths that occur in the country, so there's significant value in trying to prevent the other 99% of gun deaths that occur yearly.

-Mir

Topic: RE: Obama, To Impose Gun Control By Decree
Username: itsjustme
Posted 2012-12-30 20:40:57 and read 5292 times.

Quoting Maverick623 (Reply 141):
Oh, by the way, when cops like you respond to a call of a person with a gun, usually it's because that person has confronted your "average citizen" with said gun.

Well, you can speculate all you want but speaking from experience, and the experiences of fellow officers, you're mistaken. You'd be surprised at the number of guns police officers encounter on a daily basis, most of which nowadays are semiautomatic handguns and being carried illegally. For example, two days ago, at roughly 30 minutes into my shift, I stopped a vehicle for not coming to a complete stop prior to making a right turn on a red signal (actually, the woman didn't even make an attempt slow down prior to making the turn). A perfect example of what the media loves to refer to as a "routine traffic stop". After I asked her for her driver license, registration and proof of insurance, she handed me her license and then reached toward the glove compartment. As she reached to open it, I instinctively placed my hand on my weapon and crouched slightly so I could get a better look at the area she was reaching toward. As the door to the glove compartment fell open, I saw the butt of a handgun and I drew my weapon and ordered her to freeze. The look on her face was one of terror. Why? Because she had completely forgotten the gun was in there. She had become so accustom to carrying a fully loaded firearm in her car, the thought never crossed her mind that what she was doing constituted a felony (the weapon belonged to her husband, the vehicle was registered to her, and neither of them had a permit to carry). After processing her, I handled a couple of report runs and then backed another officer on a ped stop of a known, documented gang member who was a parolee. During a pat down, we found a Baretta .380 tucked in the wasteband of his jeans. So, within the first four hours of my shift, I encountered two semiautomatic weapons that were being carried illegally. Did either of these incidents get a mention in the media? No, of course not. Even though the L.A. Times and The Orange County Register had knowledge of both incidents, encounters like this have become so routine in law enforcement, they're no longer newsworthy. So tell me, how many semiautomatic weapons do you think the "average citizen" encountered within a four hour period last Friday?

But, fret not, my friend. As I stated in an earlier post, given President Obama's, shall I say less than enthusiastic, if not down right lethargic response to David Gregory's question on today's Meet The Press about his future plans to address our gun control issues, nothing is going to change and everyone from parolee gang members to 62 year old women will continue to illegally carry semiautomatic weapons without giving it a second thought.

[Edited 2012-12-30 20:42:56]

Topic: RE: Obama, To Impose Gun Control By Decree
Username: seb146
Posted 2012-12-30 22:43:16 and read 5264 times.

My point is: there is nothing we can ever do about criminals and undesireables owning guns so why do anything about it but we can sure as hell keep kids from seeing a nipple for 3/10 of a second so let's make sure that is the awful and most horrible thing in this country. But, they can rest assured that they will be gunned down in their school because this is America where we are proud of our guns and ashamed of bare breasts. Now, gimme another beer because those women in string bikinis playing volleyball on the beach like this brand.

Topic: RE: Obama, To Impose Gun Control By Decree
Username: cmf
Posted 2012-12-31 00:01:27 and read 5253 times.

Quoting Mir (Reply 144):
but eventually once the supply of illegal guns starts drying

Wish I had saved the link but I read the other day that 80% of weapons used in crimes are less than 3 years old.

Quoting seb146 (Reply 146):
My point is: there is nothing we can ever do about criminals and undesireables owning guns so why do anything about it

Why so defeatist? That we can't stop everyone shouldn't be a reason not to stop as many as we can.

Topic: RE: Obama, To Impose Gun Control By Decree
Username: NAV20
Posted 2012-12-31 03:41:34 and read 5229 times.

I've always felt that the Second Amendment is a clumsy, ungrammatical sentence, with commas in the wrong places, and that consequently none of us will ever know for certain what the Founding Fathers actually intended:-

"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

Maintaining 'a well regulated militia' (for reasons of security) and awarding the people the right to 'keep and bear arms,' are obviously two different things. Whoever wrote that (pretty clumsy) text just mixed the two issues up.

My own guess is that the people in Congress who voted for it probably held differing opinions.

On the one hand, the 'United States' at that time consisted only of the original 13 states, strung along the Atlantic coast. They had the British in Canada to the north, the Spanish in Florida and Texas to the south, and the French controlling the Mississippi to the west, and most of the Great Lakes. Plus a lot of 'Indian country' between them and the French. On the other hand they only had a small population, and very limited scope for the sort of taxation required to build and maintain a large standing army. And the War of Independence had largely been won not by 'regular soldiers' but by self-motivated groups that we would nowadays term 'freedom fighters.' So there was every reason to fear invasion by one or other of the neighbouring 'great powers' - and therefore to encourage people to arm themselves and form 'militia units' on their own initiative (and at their own expense ).

The second 'angle' was that there were quite a few people in the newly-established USA who still had close links to Britain - so there was a clear risk that there might be some sort of internal 'counter-revolution.' In which case a loyal 'citizen army' that armed and trained itself at its own expense, and was prepared to fight again if necessary, could have proved to be a useful asset.

So - in my opinion anyway - the Second Amendment was a very sensible measure back in those days. But it has no useful purpose nowadays. And it has resulted in a situation where there are now almost as many guns in private hands in the United States as there are men, women, and children. And more 'gun deaths' per head of population per annum than any other halfway-civilised nation on earth..........

The only answer is a proper, country-wide, system of licensing and permits. Even that will take years to establish itself and make progress towards preventing nutcases getting hold of guns. But it's high time that it was introduced. The United States has the strongest and best-armed military in the world - a thing for which all of us have had cause to be grateful on many occasions.

But, seems to me, there is no need whatever for it to have any sort of 'well-regulated militia' any more.......

[Edited 2012-12-31 03:48:24]

Topic: RE: Obama, To Impose Gun Control By Decree
Username: connies4ever
Posted 2012-12-31 04:50:13 and read 5206 times.

Quoting NAV20 (Reply 148):
The only answer is a proper, country-wide, system of licensing and permits. Even that will take years to establish itself and make progress towards preventing nutcases getting hold of guns. But it's high time that it was introduced. The United States has the strongest and best-armed military in the world - a thing for which all of us have had cause to be grateful on many occasions.

And I would agree. We had a (somewhat complicated) gun registry program here in Canada set up under the Liberal government of Mr Chretien. Now that we have a Tory government, they've sen fit to terminate the registry. At least one province (Quebec) wants to maintain a provincial registry as a fall-back, but the feds have actually destroyed the data. And this is progress, apparently.

Topic: RE: Obama, To Impose Gun Control By Decree
Username: L-188
Posted 2012-12-31 07:34:38 and read 5154 times.

The collapse of the Canadian registry system was a great moment for our southern neighbors as it was never intended to be a crime fighting tool. It was always a taxation tool. Also notable was the rate of noncompliance among the normally lambish Canadian citizenry. In the end it cost more to run then income brought in.

Unfortunate Canadian laws has forced changes in Alaska law. The state of Alaska had to drop its requirement that survival kits on aircraft include a firearm. This has compromised safety in this state.

Topic: RE: Obama, To Impose Gun Control By Decree
Username: D L X
Posted 2012-12-31 08:37:06 and read 5134 times.

Quoting Superfly (Reply 120):
Your lack of knowledge of the Constitution is a bit concerning.

What is itsjustme misunderstanding about the Constitution?

(Before you answer, bone up on the Treason Clause and let us know how it squares with your interpretation of the Second Amendment.)

Quoting Maverick623 (Reply 141):
You just proved his point. The theory behind the Bill of Rights (and the Constitution) is that there are individual, natural rights that should not be infringed upon, and it was a way of the state preventing itself from infringing upon those rights.

No, that is not the theory behind the Bill of Rights, and certainly not the theory behind the Constitution. Where did you read that?

The Bill of Rights, including the Ninth Amendment, details both individual rights (such as the right against self-incrimination) and group rights (such as the prohibition of the government to endorse a religion).

Go back and read all 10 amendments. Then read the 2 amendments that were promulgated but not ratified, and then tell me that they're all about individual rights.

Quoting Maverick623 (Reply 141):
Unfortunately, "statists" like you

Ah name calling. How cute. When you can't win an argument, call the guy a name.

Quoting Maverick623 (Reply 141):
believe that there are no such thing as individual rights and that what are referred to a "rights" are merely privileges granted by a state actor in accordance with "the good of the people".

First, you don't know me, so don't tell me what I believe. I am perfectly capable and quite willing to tell you what I believe.

Second, what I believe on this matter is based on studying the historical record, not listening to right wing radio or reading some blog.

The FACT is that there were gun bans before, during, and after the second amendment. I notice that is a point you fail to refute.

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 121):
Quoting D L X (Reply 100):
Actually, they do not disagree with me. They did not address the point I just made

Yes. Yes, they do. The quote heavily from several commentaries of the time that indicate that the right to "keep and bear arms" is an individual right, unrelated to military service.

No, no they do not address the point that gun bans existed before, during, and after the second amendment. No, they do not address that for 200 years, gun bans were not challenged in the courts, and no they do not address that before Heller, no gun ban had ever been held unconstitutional. If you believe that I am wrong, cut and paste the passage that says I am wrong.

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 121):
They also pointed out that he was just waiting for the right opportunity to tackle gun control. Were they wrong?

Yes. Because of the lax gun laws in this country, Obama has unfortunately had plenty of opportunities to tackle gun control, including the near murder of a sitting Congresswoman.

[Edited 2012-12-31 08:55:28]

[Edited 2012-12-31 09:02:09]

Topic: RE: Obama, To Impose Gun Control By Decree
Username: itsjustme
Posted 2012-12-31 09:32:14 and read 5112 times.

Quoting D L X (Reply 151):
Yes. Because of the lax gun laws in this country, Obama has unfortunately had plenty of opportunities to tackle gun control, including the near murder of a sitting Congresswoman.

And the successful murder of six people nearby, including a Federal judge and a 9 year old girl and the wounding of 13 others. What was the weapon of choice in that massacre? A semiautomatic 9mm Glock 19 with an extended clip. When did the shooting stop and how was the gunman subdued? The shooting stopped when he ran out of rounds and was in the process of reloading. In doing so, he dropped the fresh clip to the ground and it was quickly grabbed by a female bystander who was unarmed. Another bystander, a male who was also unarmed then smacked the gunman in the head with a folding chair. At that time, a third bystander, a 74 year old male who is a retired Army colonel and who was also unarmed, tackled the suspect to the ground. By the time a fourth bystander got involved, a man who had a CCW and who was legally armed, the suspect had already been neutralized.

This portion of my post may get deleted as irrelevant to the topic but hopefully the Mods will have a sense of humor and allow it. This "All In The Family" episode aired over 40 years ago. Turns out, Archie was just a few decades ahead of his time:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-lDb0Dn8OXE&feature=youtu.be

Topic: RE: Obama, To Impose Gun Control By Decree
Username: D L X
Posted 2012-12-31 09:39:22 and read 5108 times.

Quoting itsjustme (Reply 152):
By the time a fourth bystander got involved, a man who had a CCW and who was legally armed, the suspect had already been neutralized.

On top of that, the man with the CCW later admitted that he wasn't sure whom to shoot, and nearly SHOT THE WRONG GUY. Fortunately, he decided not to shoot a single round.

(And also fortunately, none of the first responders saw his gun and shot him.)

Topic: RE: Obama, To Impose Gun Control By Decree
Username: flipdewaf
Posted 2012-12-31 10:24:35 and read 5089 times.

I don't understand the issue of having all guns registered and ensuring that all people who wish to keep them have to do so in a safe manner, have gun handling training and have to take tests including background checks and psychological tests. if your gun gets stolen you report it and someone comes to your house and checks you were doing everything correctly, checks if you were storing everything correctly and then registers the relevant weapons stolen and shows them not being in your possession. If you are found to be doing things wrong ie keeping a gun in an unlocked drawer with a big sign saying gun on it then you suffer the consequences.

What is the problem with this?

How would this affect 2nd amendment rights?

Fred

Topic: RE: Obama, To Impose Gun Control By Decree
Username: L-188
Posted 2012-12-31 10:30:17 and read 5083 times.

DLX

So you confirmed that CCW holders dont go in guns blazing?

Topic: RE: Obama, To Impose Gun Control By Decree
Username: D L X
Posted 2012-12-31 10:39:31 and read 5077 times.

Quoting L-188 (Reply 155):
So you confirmed that CCW holders dont go in guns blazing?

I've never claimed that they did. I also do not treat them as a monolithic group.

Topic: RE: Obama, To Impose Gun Control By Decree
Username: flipdewaf
Posted 2012-12-31 10:44:37 and read 5076 times.

Quoting L-188 (Reply 155):
DLX

So you confirmed that CCW holders dont go in guns blazing?

No, he mentioned that one did not and added that a the CCW understood that a public shooting is not solved by others having guns.

Fred

Topic: RE: Obama, To Impose Gun Control By Decree
Username: L-188
Posted 2012-12-31 10:48:02 and read 5077 times.

But at least he had the option

Topic: RE: Obama, To Impose Gun Control By Decree
Username: seb146
Posted 2012-12-31 10:52:15 and read 5075 times.

Quoting cmf (Reply 147):
Why so defeatist? That we can't stop everyone shouldn't be a reason not to stop as many as we can.

That is how I see what is going on. We can't show skin but we can shoot to our heart's content.

Topic: RE: Obama, To Impose Gun Control By Decree
Username: connies4ever
Posted 2012-12-31 11:34:37 and read 5062 times.

Quoting flipdewaf (Reply 154):
I don't understand the issue of having all guns registered and ensuring that all people who wish to keep them have to do so in a safe manner, have gun handling training and have to take tests including background checks and psychological tests.

I don't know, but I'll launch this idea: we have to register and insure our cars/trucks/whatever. Why should guns be any different ? I would think that if folks had to actually insure their weapons (against theft, wrongful use, etc.) there would likely be fewer gun owners. Part of the insurance policy would most likely be a requirement for secure storage. All to the good.

Quoting L-188 (Reply 150):
The collapse of the Canadian registry system was a great moment for our southern neighbors as it was never intended to be a crime fighting tool. It was always a taxation tool. Also notable was the rate of noncompliance among the normally lambish Canadian citizenry. In the end it cost more to run then income brought in.

Actually, it was intended to be a crime fighting tool. In theory, when fully effected, police could pull up to 123 Middle St, Anytown, and be able to access the database and know if there was a legally registered weapon on the premises, thus making whatever intervention required proceed more effectively. It was never intended as a taxation tool, you'd know that if you lived here. It was expensive as it was rolled out and public opposition was not so much about registering the weapons but the cost. At least, what my weapons owning friends tell me.

Lambish ? Don't forget we kicked your ass in 1812. In fact every time Americans have tried to invade Canada. The real pity is we didn't move on Alaska before the USA. Also Hawaii.

Topic: RE: Obama, To Impose Gun Control By Decree
Username: DeltaMD90
Posted 2012-12-31 11:57:08 and read 5057 times.

Quoting connies4ever (Reply 160):
Lambish ? Don't forget we kicked your ass in 1812. In fact every time Americans have tried to invade Canada. The real pity is we didn't move on Alaska before the USA. Also Hawaii.

What are you talking about?

Quoting flipdewaf (Reply 154):
What is the problem with this?

How would this affect 2nd amendment rights?

I can only think of the slippery slope argument. I don't see what is wrong with it honestly, and I own guns myself

Topic: RE: Obama, To Impose Gun Control By Decree
Username: L-188
Posted 2012-12-31 12:34:52 and read 5041 times.

DeltaMD90

It's a Canadian thing. They like trying to claim they won the war of 1812. Even though it was British troops that fought it. It is sort of like taking credit for another countries actions. it would have been hard for a Canadian to participate in that war...Canada wasn't created until the british merged three provinces in 1867 and even then didn't really sever most ties with GB until the 1982 Canda act was passed by the British parliament.

It would have been hard for a Canadian to participate in the war of 1812 if the country didn't exist for another 55 years!

Connie......it was sold to you as a crime fighting tool.....it was a revenue generator. That is pretty universal to how politicians operate, create a tax and then sell it as something else.

Topic: RE: Obama, To Impose Gun Control By Decree
Username: connies4ever
Posted 2012-12-31 13:03:46 and read 5025 times.

Quoting L-188 (Reply 162):
It's a Canadian thing. They like trying to claim they won the war of 1812. Even though it was British troops that fought it. It is sort of like taking credit for another countries actions. it would have been hard for a Canadian to participate in that war...Canada wasn't created until the british merged three provinces in 1867 and even then didn't really sever most ties with GB until the 1982 Canda act was passed by the British parliament.


Not really. There were a lot of Canadian irregulars involved, mostly farmers, who organised independently, as well as the Mohawks & Shawnee (under Tecumseh). At the time,the involved territories were usually referred to as "The Canadas" (Upper - Ontario today, Lower - Quebec today). Locals called themselves "Canadians" at that time, particularly from Lower Canada. If you knew anything about Canadian history you'd know that. Yes, British troops were indeed involved, mostly Scottish, in fact. But I guess in American schools there is a divergent form of history.

When Canada emerged as an independent nation in 1867, it was four provinces, not three. Get it right. Ontario, Quebec, New Brunswick, Nova Scotia.

Quoting L-188 (Reply 162):
Connie......it was sold to you as a crime fighting tool.....it was a revenue generator. That is pretty universal to how politicians operate, create a tax and then sell it as something else.

BS. You've been in Alaska too long. The registry never generated anywhere near the revenue needed to fund its' operation. It was a money pit. But I suppose if you can only view it through the lens of gun control, then perhaps your viewpoint makes a 'sort of' sense.

Topic: RE: Obama, To Impose Gun Control By Decree
Username: L-188
Posted 2012-12-31 13:18:15 and read 5023 times.

Yes it was a money pit. That is why it was dropped!

I do need to read more on the 1812 war. The US made many intakes especially at the bringing of the war, main,h because of assumptions that where made about the success that American milita troops would have against professional British troops based on the US success during the war of independence.

By the end war that leaning curve had been mastered, as Abel's demonstrated at the Battle of New Orleans

I. The end lessons learned led to the founding of the USMA at West Point and demonstrated the need to maintain a larger force of professional troops.

Those lessons would later pay off during the 1836 War for Texas Independence (a lot of US vets fought for Texas and the 1845 war with Mexico,

Topic: RE: Obama, To Impose Gun Control By Decree
Username: StarAC17
Posted 2012-12-31 14:45:00 and read 4999 times.

[

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 140):
And again, registration will not stop one crime. It will not stop one massacre. It may assist in solving a crime, and that is desirable, but is that worth the cost (to liberty)? What registration does do, is provide the government...and any other enterprising soul...a list of gun owners, so that Senator Feinstein and her legislative progeny have a path to confiscation.

It well may and possibly could solve them which can prevent future crime by taking criminals off the street.

Regarding liberty in a lot of area it is long gone as you leave a trail everywhere. Unless you are on a public computer and live off the grid the government with probable cause (and with the Patriot act often times without) can track pretty much everything about you. Who you e-mail, your phone records and conversations, bank account records etc.

The government knows where you live, where you work, what you drive etc. So why them knowing what gun you have is suddenly over the line when this information would only be called upon when you are suspected of something and your gun used in a crime is a good reason for cops to knock on your door. If someone did steal it then the evidence that is in your house may solve the crime and your property can be returned to you possibly. If you sold it to a someone then the cops can question them or is it because you are up to something.

Furthermore the fact that you think that one senator is going to take your freedom to bear arms (something most legislators are not even considering) means you have lost the will to engage in the democratic progress as it was designed. If you disagree with a legislator make it known at the polls they should fear you and you appear to fear people like Mayor Bloomberg and Senator Feinstein. You have to hold the government's feet to the fire that this information will be used responsibly (that's our responsibility as voters) and if you feel it won't be no matter who is in power then your liberty is already gone.

Quoting L-188 (Reply 150):

The collapse of the Canadian registry system was a great moment for our southern neighbors as it was never intended to be a crime fighting tool.

Tell that to the police departments who wanted Harper to keep it in place, they saw a benefit to it in solving crimes because if a legally owned gun is stolen they can connect the crimes if the stolen gun is ever used in a shooting.

Most gun crimes in Canada is because of illegal weapons because getting a semi-automatic weapon here cannot happen overnight even if you pass a check. Furthermore we know a good chuck of the guns used in crimes in Canada come from the states so someone is illegally selling guns in Canada or stealing guns in the states and selling them in Canada.

Quoting connies4ever (Reply 163):
BS. You've been in Alaska too long. The registry never generated anywhere near the revenue needed to fund its' operation. It was a money pit.

That is the biggest reason it was scrapped, not the usefulness of it.

Topic: RE: Obama, To Impose Gun Control By Decree
Username: Revelation
Posted 2012-12-31 16:11:38 and read 4975 times.

Kind of strange how a statement that no one can show a US president actually made has drifted into a discussion of Canadian history...

Topic: RE: Obama, To Impose Gun Control By Decree
Username: L-188
Posted 2012-12-31 17:37:00 and read 4957 times.

Tell you the truth

,at this point I prefer discussing the Canadians.

Topic: RE: Obama, To Impose Gun Control By Decree
Username: cws818
Posted 2012-12-31 19:01:09 and read 4947 times.

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 44):
Quoting PHX787 (Reply 38):
Just wanna add to this: if he is not careful, he could get impeached, AND shot at by some gun-happy southerners.

Awww, you're just saying that to make me feel good...

Charming  

Now, grow up.

Topic: RE: Obama, To Impose Gun Control By Decree
Username: AR385
Posted 2013-01-09 21:15:06 and read 4617 times.

http://www.myfoxaustin.com/story/205...tion-on-guns#.UO5I4kuquc8.facebook

Topic: RE: Obama, To Impose Gun Control By Decree
Username: seb146
Posted 2013-01-09 21:39:10 and read 4601 times.

Quoting StarAC17 (Reply 165):
So why them knowing what gun you have is suddenly over the line

I find it interesting that the same people who said "well, if the government wants to look at your e-mails and listen to your phone calls without a warrent, why not? you have done nothing wrong, so no big deal!" are the same people who say "NO BIG GUB'MINT TAKIN MY GUNS!!!" when no one has said anything about taking guns but simply limiting the number of rounds an automatic weapon can fire or even making citizens register every single gun they own.

If you have done nothing wrong, you should register every gun you own with no problem.

Topic: RE: Obama, To Impose Gun Control By Decree
Username: Maverick623
Posted 2013-01-09 22:15:36 and read 4585 times.

Quoting seb146 (Reply 170):
I find it interesting that the same people who said "well, if the government wants to look at your e-mails and listen to your phone calls without a warrent, why not? you have done nothing wrong, so no big deal!" are the same people who say "NO BIG GUB'MINT TAKIN MY GUNS!!!"

  

That is one of the most egregious examples of a strawman I have ever seen.

Quoting seb146 (Reply 170):
when no one has said anything about taking guns

Funny, because there are several Senators and Representatives that have gone on record saying they would love nothing more than to take all the guns away, with several cities having attempted to do just that, and being smacked down by the SCOTUS in every case.

Quoting StarAC17 (Reply 165):
So why them knowing what gun you have is suddenly over the line when this information would only be called upon when you are suspected of something

Oh, the naivete. Sure, I'll admit that I don't think this administration is going to use any such information in a way that is dangerous to us... but that doesn't mean someone won't come along and use it for nefarious purposes.

Quoting StarAC17 (Reply 165):

Furthermore the fact that you think that one senator is going to take your freedom to bear arms (something most legislators are not even considering) means you have lost the will to engage in the democratic progress as it was designed. If you disagree with a legislator make it known at the polls they should fear you and you appear to fear people like Mayor Bloomberg and Senator Feinstein.

I don't get to vote for either Bloomberg or Feinstein. I'm not particularly worried about the former, as I don't really have to go to New York City if I don't want to. However, Senators do have quite a bit power.

Topic: RE: Obama, To Impose Gun Control By Decree
Username: TheCommodore
Posted 2013-01-09 22:26:24 and read 4580 times.

Quoting seb146 (Reply 170):
If you have done nothing wrong, you should register every gun you own with no problem.

You'd think that wouldn't you, as any rational person would. But apparently there's a problem, with that line of thinking ?

Anyway.....

From Today's SMH.

US website 'outs' gun owners. From what the article says, they obtained all the owners details, under FOI requests.

Read more.

http://www.smh.com.au/world/us-websi...uts-gun-owners-20130110-2chgs.html

Topic: RE: Obama, To Impose Gun Control By Decree
Username: DeltaMD90
Posted 2013-01-09 22:34:41 and read 4579 times.

A few months ago I was called an NRA nut and cook for thinking the President would enact gun control this term... hmm. I hadn't subscribed to any NRA fear mongering, just thought that he'd tackle the issue when reelection wasn't at stake. Some say that CT was the final straw, but I think Aurora was just as bad and nothing was done

And I am actually wrong on the "taking the guns away" issue... I have seen several Congressmen/women suggest this. Don't think it would happen, but I don't see this going well if it did happen.

A random pet peeve of mine is the vocabulary that is lacking... clip? What's a clip? A clip is something that rounds are attached to that are fed into a magazine or weapon and are discarded... what people are trying to say is magazine. Rounds don't fire off clips. Another one is automatic... a stupid way of trying to make something sound scarier (or they truly don't know what they're talking about.) Call it as it is--semi-automatic.

And again, I really don't like executive orders. I know I'll get the lecture of "President _______" did it and "they're legitimate" but IDK, I still see them as circumventing. Ah well, hopefully whatever laws come about don't punish the good 99.9% and actually focus on the terrible 0.1%

Topic: RE: Obama, To Impose Gun Control By Decree
Username: flipdewaf
Posted 2013-01-10 02:56:12 and read 4536 times.

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 173):
Ah well, hopefully whatever laws come about don't punish the good 99.9% and actually focus on the terrible 0.1%

Then registration would be good as it would not villify the 99.9% (probably higher than that).

Fred

Topic: RE: Obama, To Impose Gun Control By Decree
Username: DeltaMD90
Posted 2013-01-10 07:55:18 and read 4496 times.

Quoting flipdewaf (Reply 174):
Then registration would be good as it would not villify the 99.9% (probably higher than that).

Yes and I am not opposed to that

Topic: RE: Obama, To Impose Gun Control By Decree
Username: StarAC17
Posted 2013-01-10 09:18:15 and read 4466 times.

Quoting Maverick623 (Reply 171):
Oh, the naivete. Sure, I'll admit that I don't think this administration is going to use any such information in a way that is dangerous to us... but that doesn't mean someone won't come along and use it for nefarious purposes.

What is wrong with requiring gun owner to register their firearms I don't see how that violates the constitution in any way. Look at the Swiss they have a lot of guns in their homes also and you need a permit and have to register your firearm if you choose to have one.

No government is going to consider taking guns as they know its political suicide to do so.

Topic: RE: Obama, To Impose Gun Control By Decree
Username: L-188
Posted 2013-01-10 09:48:26 and read 4456 times.

Star registration leads to confisxation.....history is repleat with examples.

Topic: RE: Obama, To Impose Gun Control By Decree
Username: DeltaMD90
Posted 2013-01-10 10:11:16 and read 4437 times.

Quoting L-188 (Reply 177):
Star registration leads to confisxation.....history is repleat with examples.

Yeah, I remember when the government took our cars away... should never have had them registered!

Topic: RE: Obama, To Impose Gun Control By Decree
Username: ER757
Posted 2013-01-10 10:14:21 and read 4434 times.

Quoting L-188 (Reply 177):
Star registration leads to confisxation.....history is repleat with examples.

My car and dog are both registered, no one has ever confiscated them  

Topic: RE: Obama, To Impose Gun Control By Decree
Username: Ken777
Posted 2013-01-10 10:19:55 and read 4433 times.

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 72):
Right next to where it says the Internet, radio, television, etc. are protected by The First Amendment.

If you look at free speech you see that it is not totally free. Make various types of comments against another person and you can start spending money on legal services. Those lawsuits certainly aren't free.

Make various types of public statements and your employer may be free to terminate your employment.

A lot of times your rights and when it adversely impacts others.

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 74):
President Obama has shown a rather casual disdain for the legislative process when it suits his political or ideological needs.

I believe that was some disease he caught from W. At least we don't have the Cheney/Rummy act screwing things up any more.

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 74):
I think the order gets hauled up in front of the US Court System and is promptly vacated.

I think you need to give Obama a little credit for knowing the Constitution. He actually taught it in a respectable Law School.

Quoting Superfly (Reply 84):

If you really think about it, having the right to be armed build in to the Constitution to fight against a tyrannical government is a very liberal concept.

I believe that could be true when you have a true Dictator acting against the general interest of the population, no real elections, true tyranny in the land, etc.

A President who is actually working within a absolute set term of 4 years, with only one re-election possible, doesn't really fit that approach - even though there are some yo-yo's who try to compare Obama to Hitler & Stalin.

Obama is a President who worked hard to improve the general health of this country with Health Care Reform - even though the conservatives really, really hate health care for those not related to wealth.

We simply don't have the environment in this country that would allow people to consider a violent overthrow a liberal act.

All you have to do is look at that nut Tim McVey to see what those nuts are really about.

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 121):
Be very careful when you decide to restrict a right or activity you disagree with.

And be careful when you look to diminish the powers of the President (any President, even W who took us into a totally unnecessary war in Iraq). We seem to want the Presidents we like to have more powers and those we don't like to be stripped of as much as possible.

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 121):
The NRA consistently pointed out President Obama's voting record in the Illinois and US Senate.

The NRA really hates Obama. They always have and they always will. That is what they are paid to do.

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 121):
Were they wrong?

The NRA is neither right or wrong - they are simply there, paid for by the gun industry. There is a ton of money they are involved in. I understand that CEO-With-A-Bad-Combover pulls in more than a million a year.

Topic: RE: Obama, To Impose Gun Control By Decree
Username: Mir
Posted 2013-01-10 10:26:53 and read 4429 times.

Quoting Maverick623 (Reply 171):
Sure, I'll admit that I don't think this administration is going to use any such information in a way that is dangerous to us... but that doesn't mean someone won't come along and use it for nefarious purposes.

I don't recall car registration information being used for nefarious purposes.

-Mir

Topic: RE: Obama, To Impose Gun Control By Decree
Username: n318ea
Posted 2013-01-10 11:06:01 and read 4401 times.

Quoting Mir (Reply 181):

I don't recall car registration information being used for nefarious purposes.

Never has a Governor of New York called for up to confiscation or Senator from Kalifornia proposing basically the same either. It has been a constant effort to insure BATF doesn't maintain records beyond the law for some time.
Registration is step 1 to confiscation!

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 180):
I believe that was some disease he caught from W. At least we don't have the Cheney/Rummy act screwing things up any more.

You missed FOX NEWS in there  

Topic: RE: Obama, To Impose Gun Control By Decree
Username: seb146
Posted 2013-01-10 11:12:43 and read 4395 times.

Quoting Maverick623 (Reply 171):
That is one of the most egregious examples of a strawman I have ever seen.

How so? That is exactly what has happened.

Not only that, but the Congresspeople who the right claim are trying to take away every gun are actually just trying to limit access to high capacity magazines and weapons. That is not what the right-wing media talks about. What the right-wing media says is "They are taking away all our guns!" which is not true if you actually read what they say.

If owners of semi-automatic weapons were made to renew their guns every year, what would be the problem with that? We have to renew our cars every year. They are just as deadly. How many times has a person plowed into a crowded sidewalk and mowed down several innocent people? How many people are killed each year by drunk, tired or just plain stupid drivers? Yet, we don't have to register high capacity semi-automatic weapons?

Tell me again, anyone on the right, why one person *needs* 20 or more semi-automatic weapons with 30+ round clip? Oh, that's right... "shootin thems is fun" and.....? How does that contribute to a "well regualted militia" per the Constitution?

Topic: RE: Obama, To Impose Gun Control By Decree
Username: Dreadnought
Posted 2013-01-10 11:27:15 and read 4378 times.

Quoting seb146 (Reply 183):
Not only that, but the Congresspeople who the right claim are trying to take away every gun are actually just trying to limit access to high capacity magazines and weapons.

I was in a couple of gun stores over the weekend, and there is a massive rush for 30-round AR Clips. They were being limited to 2 per person, and they were still emptying crates by the dozen. My cousin had only 2 for many years - now he's bought about 20.

So all this talk of limiting access is just serving to ensure that a whole lot more are out there.

Topic: RE: Obama, To Impose Gun Control By Decree
Username: bhill
Posted 2013-01-10 11:29:04 and read 4371 times.

The Government already has all the information it needs, for men anyway...Selective Service. And this "registration?"...no problem, perhaps it should enforce the "well regulated" part of the Amendment.

Topic: RE: Obama, To Impose Gun Control By Decree
Username: Maverick623
Posted 2013-01-10 12:09:33 and read 4343 times.

Quoting Mir (Reply 181):
I don't recall car registration information being used for nefarious purposes.

I don't recall a reason why the government would ever want to eliminate the distribution of cars.

And as it is, vehicle registration is nothing more than a source of revenue for states and a source of protection for the police.

Quoting seb146 (Reply 183):

How so? That is exactly what has happened.

If you can show me where on this forum (or any commentator on the airwaves) as made both those claims, I'll concede. Until then, it's a strawman.

Topic: RE: Obama, To Impose Gun Control By Decree
Username: fr8mech
Posted 2013-01-10 12:10:39 and read 4340 times.

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 180):
If you look at free speech you see that it is not totally free. Make various types of comments against another person and you can start spending money on legal services. Those lawsuits certainly aren't free.

But, that would be private actors bringing lawsuits, wouldn't it? And yes, the government can and does limit free speech in certain situations where they can show a compelling interest to do so.

Much like firearms are regulated under the Firearms Act of 1934 and 1968. Much like most states have regulated firearms or access to them at some level. No freedom is absolute. As the saying goes: your rights end where mine begin. It's up to the courts to decide where that line is (id it appears the various legislatures and executives muck it up) and the court has ruled on this particular right, haven't they?

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 180):
Make various types of public statements and your employer may be free to terminate your employment

But, my employer is not the government and they are free to do what they want because they are not restrained or restricted by the Constitution, nor the Bill of Rights.

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 180):
I think you need to give Obama a little credit for knowing the Constitution. He actually taught it in a respectable Law School.

I know he knows it. Just like someone can know the law and still break it. Dare I say DREAM ACT again?

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 180):
paid for by the gun industry.

I'll hazard that the bulk of the NRA's funding comes from its membership (over 4,000,000) and private donations. And, what if it was the gun industry funding them? The NRA is a special interest group that represents gun owners and the industry.

Quoting seb146 (Reply 183):
trying to take away every gun are actually just trying to limit access to high capacity magazines and weapons.

You've noticed that the preliminary release of Feinstein bill prohibits transferring assault weapons and high capacity magazines. Not only that, it expands the definition of assault weapon and includes all kinds of handguns.

I do admire one thing about the Left. They do take the long view on things. Will Feinstein's bill ban assault weapons, outright? No, but it will effectively ban them within a generation or two.

[Edited 2013-01-10 12:12:48]

Topic: RE: Obama, To Impose Gun Control By Decree
Username: tugger
Posted 2013-01-10 12:18:54 and read 4337 times.

I say the easiest way to do something is to require gun owners to have liability insurance for their firearms against misuse. I would impose the same for the purchase of "maxi" clips too. That will take care of an awful lot.

And no it won't be the government infringing on any right, already plenty of people cannot afford to buy a gun anyway and it will be private industry that decides the prices of insurance not government.

Tugg

Topic: RE: Obama, To Impose Gun Control By Decree
Username: fr8mech
Posted 2013-01-10 12:32:45 and read 4327 times.

Quoting tugger (Reply 188):
I say the easiest way to do something is to require gun owners to have liability insurance for their firearms against misuse. I would impose the same for the purchase of "maxi" clips too. That will take care of an awful lot.

So, I buy liability insurance. My gun is stolen. I cancel my insurance on that gun. What exactly have you done? Well, you've enriched the insurance industry a little bit at the expense of gun owners...but, that's about it.

Or, are you suggesting that when I insure a firearm that I have to maintain that insurance in perpetuity?

Topic: RE: Obama, To Impose Gun Control By Decree
Username: tugger
Posted 2013-01-10 12:40:14 and read 4318 times.

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 189):
So, I buy liability insurance. My gun is stolen. I cancel my insurance on that gun. What exactly have you done? Well, you've enriched the insurance industry a little bit at the expense of gun owners...but, that's about it.

Or, are you suggesting that when I insure a firearm that I have to maintain that insurance in perpetuity?

Yes, if you own it, you must insure it, you and or the insurance company is responsible for the liability involved with it. If it is stolen then it is either you or the insurance company that retain liability for the firearm (depending on the type of policy you buy).

And why should it be any other way?

Tugg

Topic: RE: Obama, To Impose Gun Control By Decree
Username: fr8mech
Posted 2013-01-10 12:51:48 and read 4301 times.

Quoting tugger (Reply 190):
And why should it be any other way?

Because a law that forces an insurance company to maintain coverage on a stolen firearm is a defacto ban.

What insurance company would enter into a contract that forces it to maintain insurance on a firearm that, at some point, may no longer be in the possession of the legal owner?

Topic: RE: Obama, To Impose Gun Control By Decree
Username: mt99
Posted 2013-01-10 12:54:13 and read 4294 times.

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 191):
Because a law that forces an insurance company to maintain coverage on a stolen firearm is a defacto ban.

What insurance company would enter into a contract that forces it to maintain insurance on a firearm that, at some point, may no longer be in the possession of the legal owner?

How does car insurance work after your car is stolen?

Topic: RE: Obama, To Impose Gun Control By Decree
Username: tugger
Posted 2013-01-10 13:09:43 and read 4289 times.

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 191):
Because a law that forces an insurance company to maintain coverage on a stolen firearm is a defacto ban.

What insurance company would enter into a contract that forces it to maintain insurance on a firearm that, at some point, may no longer be in the possession of the legal owner?

If ownership changes hands then the person it goes to assumes liability for said firearm, they will simply have insurance prior to obtaining it. I am sure that gunshops will also be able to easily handle such a transaction.

These are items that can cause immense damage and destruction if lost control of or used in an improper manner.

It is a unique right already, one that is not solely based on an individual but rather the ability of an individual to have a specific thing. And it is also the only right that has a thing that can directly kill other rights bearing citizens.

I personally would support "gun clubs" being established as insurance groupings and you can obtain your insurance through them. That would spread the cost and the liability and continue to keep the government out of it and allow you to more easily transfer ownership of your gun.

And if you are correct, then why are gun companies not required to provide free firearms to people who otherwise could not afford them because it is their right and that is not to be infringed?

Tugg

Topic: RE: Obama, To Impose Gun Control By Decree
Username: fr8mech
Posted 2013-01-10 13:10:29 and read 4292 times.

Quoting mt99 (Reply 192):
How does car insurance work after your car is stolen?

The policy is canceled. I, the previous owner is longer responsible for the car (unless it is returned to me). The insurance company holds no liabilty on the car. As far as they're concerned, when the car has been stolen (and they have fulfilled their obligation to me) they no longer have an interest in the vehicle. They most certainly do not pay out if the thief runs the car into a school bus full of nuns and orphans. The vehicle is simply uninsured.

Maybe we should force criminals to carry liabilty insurance.   

Topic: RE: Obama, To Impose Gun Control By Decree
Username: D L X
Posted 2013-01-10 13:14:05 and read 4287 times.

Quoting L-188 (Reply 177):
Star registration leads to confisxation.....history is repleat with examples.

That explains why all the cars disappeared, and why my rush hour commute is only 30 minutes.

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 189):
So, I buy liability insurance. My gun is stolen. I cancel my insurance on that gun. What exactly have you done? Well, you've enriched the insurance industry a little bit at the expense of gun owners...but, that's about it.

Or, are you suggesting that when I insure a firearm that I have to maintain that insurance in perpetuity?

Does this sound to anyone else like a gun owner that simply does not want to be responsible for his gun?

Topic: RE: Obama, To Impose Gun Control By Decree
Username: mt99
Posted 2013-01-10 13:15:04 and read 4287 times.

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 194):
he policy is canceled. I, the previous owner is longer responsible for the car (unless it is returned to me). The insurance company holds no liabilty on the car. As far as they're concerned, when the car has been stolen (and they have fulfilled their obligation to me) they no longer have an interest in the vehicle. They most certainly do not pay out if the thief runs the car into a school bus full of nuns and orphans. The vehicle is simply uninsured.

Right - and how is that different from asking gun owners to carry insurance?

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 189):
So, I buy liability insurance. My gun is stolen. I cancel my insurance on that gun. What exactly have you done? Well, you've enriched the insurance industry a little bit at the expense of gun owners...but, that's about it.

Same with a car.

Topic: RE: Obama, To Impose Gun Control By Decree
Username: fr8mech
Posted 2013-01-10 13:18:22 and read 4286 times.

Quoting tugger (Reply 193):
If ownership changes hands then the person it goes to assumes liability for said firearm, they will simply have insurance prior to obtaining it.

What if the gun is stolen? I no longer have control of the firearm. I cancel my liability insurance on the firearm. The firearm is now uninsured. Or, would you have me continue coverage on an item I no longer possess? What insurer would agree to this?

Quoting tugger (Reply 193):
And if you are correct, then why are gun companies not required to provide free firearms to people who otherwise could not afford them because it is their right and that is not to be infringed?

You are absolutely correct. But, I would have the government provide me the firearm through a dealer. Of course, there would have to be mandates as to the minimum caliber and capacity of the firearm. Of course, if I were to choose to NOT get a firearm, I would be subject to penalty. But, if I currently have a firearm, I will absolutely be able to keep it.

There is a precedent for that, isn't there?

Topic: RE: Obama, To Impose Gun Control By Decree
Username: tugger
Posted 2013-01-10 13:20:06 and read 4282 times.

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 194):
Maybe we should force criminals to carry liabilty insurance.

In actuality, if my suggestion is followed, they would in fact have insurance. That's the beauty of this idea. As the insurance company that last had responsibility (and I suspect that gun owner that lost control of the gun as I do not see insurance companies not working to get as much money back as possible) would still be covering it. Provided the firearm is found and identified.

This would reduce the burden on every other system that is touched by firearms so it is not like it is "just a cost on gun owners". Hospitals could be reimbursed (so their costs to other could go down i.e. insurance rates), other insurance companies (other insurance rates), people whose lives are damaged and impacted (the social and public support systems). It is a very simple and elegant solution.

Tugg

Topic: RE: Obama, To Impose Gun Control By Decree
Username: tugger
Posted 2013-01-10 13:26:45 and read 4271 times.

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 197):
You are absolutely correct. But, I would have the government provide me the firearm through a dealer. Of course, there would have to be mandates as to the minimum caliber and capacity of the firearm. Of course, if I were to choose to NOT get a firearm, I would be subject to penalty. But, if I currently have a firearm, I will absolutely be able to keep it.

There is a precedent for that, isn't there?

Go for it. Get that passed and see how friendly the gun industry is to your cause. And by the way how is that not getting government directly involved?

Tugg

Topic: RE: Obama, To Impose Gun Control By Decree
Username: fr8mech
Posted 2013-01-10 13:28:12 and read 4269 times.

Quoting mt99 (Reply 196):
Right - and how is that different from asking gun owners to carry insurance?

Read the thread. Tugger is suggesting that insurance is maintained on the firearm even after I no longer have it in my possesion. In other words, if it's stolen from me, I, or my insurance company, would still be liable for damages. This is not how car insurance works.

Quoting tugger (Reply 198):
In actuality, if my suggestion is followed, they would in fact have insurance.

No, if your suggestion were enacted, then we would have a defacto gun ban. No insurance company would take on that kind of liability. And, if one did, the gun owner would not be able to afford the premium.

Quoting tugger (Reply 198):
It is a very simple and elegant solution.

It is a back door gun ban.

Quoting D L X (Reply 195):
That explains why all the cars disappeared, and why my rush hour commute is only 30 minutes.

And what interest does the government have in taking away my car?

Topic: RE: Obama, To Impose Gun Control By Decree
Username: mt99
Posted 2013-01-10 13:33:40 and read 4263 times.

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 197):

What if the gun is stolen? I no longer have control of the firearm. I cancel my liability insurance on the firearm. The firearm is now uninsured. Or, would you have me continue coverage on an item I no longer possess? What insurer would agree to this?

I still don't see how its any different on how car insurance works.

But how about this, when you buy a gun (after you are certified "not crazy" via psychological evaluation - of course) - you pay for the gun and the cost includes a "lifetime insurance" charge. An X dollar adder to the cost of the weapon. One time charge. The insurance CO is liable for the lifetime of the gun - regardless of who owns it

And to roll it out to current owners - add the charge on bullets sold.

And from the proceeds - fund mental illness help!

[Edited 2013-01-10 13:36:30]

Topic: RE: Obama, To Impose Gun Control By Decree
Username: mt99
Posted 2013-01-10 13:35:34 and read 4265 times.

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 200):
Read the thread. Tugger is suggesting that insurance is maintained on the firearm even after I no longer have it in my possesion. In other words, if it's stolen from me, I, or my insurance company, would still be liable for damages. This is not how car insurance works.

true but this is how car insurance works - and you poo poo the idea:

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 197):
What if the gun is stolen? I no longer have control of the firearm. I cancel my liability insurance on the firearm. The firearm is now uninsured

Topic: RE: Obama, To Impose Gun Control By Decree
Username: tugger
Posted 2013-01-10 13:35:54 and read 4264 times.

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 200):
Read the thread. Tugger is suggesting that insurance is maintained on the firearm even after I no longer have it in my possesion. In other words, if it's stolen from me, I, or my insurance company, would still be liable for damages. This is not how car insurance works.

How is a gun stolen? Did you have it properly secured, were you using it in a proper and safe fashion when it was lost and stolen? These things can all be covered by how the policy is written.

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 200):
No, if your suggestion were enacted, then we would have a defacto gun ban. No insurance company would take on that kind of liability. And, if one did, the gun owner would not be able to afford the premium.

So you want everyone else to bear the cost of the gun and its misuse? How about if insurance is simply required for "maxi" clips?

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 200):
It is a back door gun ban.

It is not. It is simply ensuring that the guns are properly used and and cared for and secured, and if not then any damage caused is provided for. Private gun clubs would be a simple and inexpensive way to assist in the cost etc.

Or are you saying that guns are just too expensive and costly and that costs can actually not be borne by the users of guns? Perhaps a government sponsored plan like flood insurance to back up excessive costs to the insurance industry to keep rate lower for you? Why should the cost of guns not be covered and provided for?

Why should the hospitals and health insurance bear the cost of misused firearms? Why should the public at large do so in such an uncontrolled fashion as it has been?

The hard part for you and many gun owners and gun rights advocates is trying to actually account for the cost of guns. You are implying with your statements that those cost cannot be sustained by the gun industry, gun owners, and even society itself (the publicly backed option). I for one do not think that it would become a defacto ban, I think it just places the cost of gun ownership where it belongs and keeps the government out of it.

I do not think the the cost of "guns in society" is to high to be borne by those that use them.

Tugg

[Edited 2013-01-10 13:43:58]

Topic: RE: Obama, To Impose Gun Control By Decree
Username: Mir
Posted 2013-01-10 13:47:33 and read 4247 times.

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 184):
So all this talk of limiting access is just serving to ensure that a whole lot more are out there.

Until the law gets passed, and then they won't be doing it. The rush to get ammunition while you still can is a natural consequence of the process of passing a law, but that doesn't mean that the law is a bad idea. Otherwise, we'd never pass any laws at all because it wouldn't stop people from doing the thing we wanted to end in the interim.

-Mir

Topic: RE: Obama, To Impose Gun Control By Decree
Username: flipdewaf
Posted 2013-01-10 13:50:43 and read 4246 times.

Quoting bhill (Reply 185):
perhaps it should enforce the "well regulated" part of the Amendment.

no no NO! Stop reading all the information and using it all in a balanced way.
You are only supposed read the bits you like, that's how internet debating works.

Fred

Topic: RE: Obama, To Impose Gun Control By Decree
Username: fr8mech
Posted 2013-01-10 14:05:55 and read 4238 times.

Quoting mt99 (Reply 201):
still don't see how its any different on how car insurance works.

After a car is stolen (and it is properly documented) it ceases to be insured by anyone. Not the previous owner and not the insurance company. It is uninsured.

Tugger, and it appears you, are suggesting that the insurance remain in force and the owner or insurance company still be liable for any damages caused by the car thief. It does not work that way.

Quoting mt99 (Reply 201):
The insurance CO is liable for the lifetime of the gun - regardless of who owns it

And, that would make the gun prohibitively expensive or unavailable because no insurance company would assume unlimited liability. Would you? So, it's a de facto gun ban.

Quoting mt99 (Reply 202):
true but this is how car insurance works - and you poo poo the idea:

No, it's not. My liability (and my insurance company's liability) ends when I file a police report and cancel the policy.

Quoting tugger (Reply 203):
It is not. It is simply ensuring that the guns are properly used and and cared for and secured, and if not then any damage caused is provided for. Private gun clubs would be a simple and inexpensive way to assist in the cost etc.

Yes, it is. What insurance company would assume the unlimited liability if the government passed a law that required that a gun (not the owner, the gun) carried liability insurance in perpetuity? None. So, through legislation, the government will have banned firearms. It would take about 3 seconds for a court to strike down any such provision.

Quoting tugger (Reply 203):
Perhaps a government sponsored plan like flood insurance to back up excessive costs to the insurance industry to keep rate lower for you?

I am not required by the government to buy flood insurance. I no longer have to carry flood insurance after I sell a house. Flood insurance providers do not assume unlimited liability for a structure that the insured no longer owns.

Topic: RE: Obama, To Impose Gun Control By Decree
Username: fr8mech
Posted 2013-01-10 14:11:11 and read 4228 times.

Quoting flipdewaf (Reply 205):
no no NO! Stop reading all the information and using it all in a balanced way.
You are only supposed read the bits you like, that's how internet debating works.
Heller Decision. Pages 2-22.

Topic: RE: Obama, To Impose Gun Control By Decree
Username: mt99
Posted 2013-01-10 14:18:06 and read 4221 times.

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 206):
And, that would make the gun prohibitively expensive or unavailable because no insurance company would assume unlimited liability. Would you? So, it's a de facto gun ban.

How do you know that they wouldn't? After all its not an unlimited liability. People killed by guns is miniscule - as the gun lobby claims. So out of the hundred of thousands of guns and ammo sold - only a few are actually used to killed people. I think that any insurance company could come up with a premium for that, That what they do.

You can always lets get the government to run the insurance. Lets pay all pay up to fund this. It should be added to the deficit.

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 206):
No, it's not. My liability (and my insurance company's liability) ends when I file a police report and cancel the policy.

Same thing with the original proposal. Are you suggesting that we do not need car insurance because when the car is stolen, the it becomes un - insured?

Topic: RE: Obama, To Impose Gun Control By Decree
Username: mt99
Posted 2013-01-10 14:20:32 and read 4216 times.

We can always put gun laws to popular vote. Let the people decide.

We put constitutional amendments for public vote all the time.

Topic: RE: Obama, To Impose Gun Control By Decree
Username: DeltaMD90
Posted 2013-01-10 14:45:03 and read 4197 times.

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 180):
The NRA is neither right or wrong - they are simply there, paid for by the gun industry. There is a ton of money they are involved in. I understand that CEO-With-A-Bad-Combover pulls in more than a million a year.

Although lobbying and big money does come into play, they are THE interest representing millions of gun owners. It's not all corrupt big business, there is a large chunk of our everyday population that is a member or supports them. Most gun owners I know aren't in the NRA, so you can't look at their membership number to see how vast their support is.

I don't agree with all their decisions, but it's not all just corruption

Quoting seb146 (Reply 183):
Tell me again, anyone on the right, why one person *needs* 20 or more semi-automatic weapons with 30 round clip? Oh, that's right... "shootin thems is fun" and.....? How does that contribute to a "well regualted militia" per the Constitution?

It's not, lots of things aren't in the Constitution. It's freedom, and we must decide where the line is drawn. Personally, I think we can do a whole lotta good without limiting these weapons and MAGAZINES (not "clips"   )

It's just like anything in life, those who aren't interested in the hobby are obviously not as sympathetic to the cause. You really got to look at it from our view... me and MILLIONS of others use these 30 round magazines peacefully every year, and when you look at it, only a few ***holes use them maliciously. Should they be handed out like candy? Of course not. Firearms et all should be responsibly maintained. But ban them for millions of people because of a few people? Well, that's the choice we gotta make. I'm obviously in the shoes I am in, but I try to fight for freedom in any case.

I despise the Westboro Baptist Church, but I support their right to be dicks. I think it was wrong when the tiny minority of people who consider themselves airplane spotters were told they couldn't take pictures wherever... the public couldn't care less because they weren't interested in that, so who cares if we strip their rights.

Obviously, firearms kill and the WBC and spotting don't, I realize that. But sad to say, sometimes freedom does kill... people abuse alcohol every year for example. Minus prohibition violence (like the mob), prohibiting alcohol would indeed save lives... but we need to balance freedom with public safety...

That's how I feel about the gun issue. Yes, measures need to be in place, but I don't think EVERY measure should be put in place and our freedoms do need to be respected

Quoting seb146 (Reply 183):
What the right-wing media says is "They are taking away all our guns!" which is not true if you actually read what they say.

There is a lot of misinformation, I agree, BUT, some of the things I've been hearing from some congressmen/women are pretty scary... retroactive, sweeping bans. No bueno...

Topic: RE: Obama, To Impose Gun Control By Decree
Username: L-188
Posted 2013-01-10 14:52:27 and read 4194 times.

Well it appears Bidens meeting today was the dog and pony show we all knew it would be.

If he is going to announce recommendations Tuesday they were already written and will be very repressive of our freedoms. Funnier still EricHolder was at the meeting despite having sold 2500 rifles to mexican drug gangs as part of fast and furious.

Topic: RE: Obama, To Impose Gun Control By Decree
Username: fr8mech
Posted 2013-01-10 14:55:45 and read 4188 times.

Quoting mt99 (Reply 208):
After all its not an unlimited liability.

Of course it is. If you say that once a firearm is insured, it remains insured, even if it is stolen, then the liability for that firearm is unlimited. No insurance company would accept that type of liability. Would you?

Quoting mt99 (Reply 208):
Same thing with the original proposal. Are you suggesting that we do not need car insurance because when the car is stolen, the it becomes un - insured?

No, not at all. Tugger is saying that once a firearm is insured, it remains insured, even if stolen or lost. That the firearm never becomes un-insured? That is way different than any other form of insurance.

Quoting mt99 (Reply 209):
We can always put gun laws to popular vote. Let the people decide

Let's do it. Over 250,000,000 firearms in non-state hands. It's estimated that at least one-third of the households in the US have at least one firearm. I like the odds. Of course, that would have no bearing on the 2nd Amendment...but, let's do it for fun anyway.

Quoting mt99 (Reply 209):
We put constitutional amendments for public vote all the time.

No we don't. The Constitution is amended when 2/3rds of The House and 2/3rds of the Senate propose an amendment AND after 3/4 of the state legislatures ratify the proposal. I guess some of the states can put up the amendment for popular vote, but its hardly necessary.

Topic: RE: Obama, To Impose Gun Control By Decree
Username: mt99
Posted 2013-01-10 15:06:44 and read 4181 times.

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 212):
I guess some of the states can put up the amendment for popular vote, but its hardly necessary.

Why not?

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 212):
Quoting mt99 (Reply 208):
After all its not an unlimited liability.

Of course it is. If you say that once a firearm is insured, it remains insured, even if it is stolen, then the liability for that firearm is unlimited. No insurance company would accept that type of liability. Would you?

Only 11,000 gun deaths happened in 2011. Alex Jones (very convincingly) told me that gun killings are negligible. Insurance companies deals with risks greater than cause more than 11,000 deaths a year.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tf-i3Y5iRYo

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 212):

Let's do it. Over 250,000,000 firearms in non-state hands. It's estimated that at least one-third of the households in the US have at least one firearm. I like the odds. Of course, that would have no bearing on the 2nd Amendment...but, let's do it for fun anyway.

We absolutely should. If one parent from Sandy Hook - owns a gun - how do you think he or she would vote?

[Edited 2013-01-10 15:08:12]

Topic: RE: Obama, To Impose Gun Control By Decree
Username: tugger
Posted 2013-01-10 15:08:31 and read 4180 times.

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 206):
No, it's not. My liability (and my insurance company's liability) ends when I file a police report and cancel the policy.

Tugger, and it appears you, are suggesting that the insurance remain in force and the owner or insurance company still be liable for any damages caused by the car thief. It does not work that way.

Not all insured things are like that. If you own a company that does blasting (or otherwise uses explosives), if explosives that you own/bought are lost and used in other ways that cause damage, you and the insurance company are still on the hook for that. So while using the "cars" example is always popular, as it is well known, it most certainly does not directly apply.

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 206):
And, that would make the gun prohibitively expensive or unavailable because no insurance company would assume unlimited liability. Would you? So, it's a de facto gun ban.

I still do not believe that. There are 300 million-plus guns out there in the USA, if each had a $10 insurance fee then that would provide THREE BILLION DOLLARS EVERY YEAR! Do you really think that the illegal use of guns that are lost control of by law abiding citizens would cause that much damage each year? I don't and everything I read says that they do not cause that type of damage.

Remember this is an insurance for "going forward", not to cover what is already "out there", that is a cost we are already bearing unfortunately. But over time several things would happen:
1.) peoples behavior would change based simply on the cost benefit element ("Hmmm says here I get a discount if I own a gun safe, take the gun safety course , and....".
2.) (and this is the big one) because of this change (people being more careful because their responsibility - or irresponsibility - has a cost to them) the supply of guns out in "the wild" will slowly decrease.
And finally 3.) Costs would be better covered for the deleterious effects and overall cost to society (those hospitals and public support services) would go down.

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 206):
Yes, it is. What insurance company would assume the unlimited liability if the government passed a law that required that a gun (not the owner, the gun) carried liability insurance in perpetuity? None. So, through legislation, the government will have banned firearms. It would take about 3 seconds for a court to strike down any such provision.

See above.

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 206):
I am not required by the government to buy flood insurance. I no longer have to carry flood insurance after I sell a house. Flood insurance providers do not assume unlimited liability for a structure that the insured no longer owns.

You not carrying flood insurance only places a high direct cost on you if something goes wrong. This is not the case with guns. You being irresponsible with your guns could lead directly to the death and or harm of others, you being irresponsible with not having flood really only impacts you the most.

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 207):
Heller Decision. Pages 2-22.

And this does not conflict with that.

Why can you not see that this is a very good idea? It moves costs of said responsibility directly to those with the item responsible. And gun rights supports could easily develop "back-stop" insurance to minimize the cost to everyone that owns a gun. I am a big fan that everyone be responsible for their actions and what they do and own. How is this a bad thing?

Tugg

Topic: RE: Obama, To Impose Gun Control By Decree
Username: n318ea
Posted 2013-01-10 15:14:23 and read 4170 times.

Why not make all CRIMINALS buy insurance. Seems they don't normally follow laws do they? How about Judges that are wuss's and give B$ sentences and Parole Boards let hoodlums out early. They should be liable too.
You want to see a dog and pony show, watch all Obama's Hollywood Homey's get a pass on violence in movies and any attempt at violent video games. Adam Lanza was in his basement playing "Call of Duty" duty for days but noooooooo. We can't step on your 1st Amendment Rights.

[Edited 2013-01-10 15:21:37]

Topic: RE: Obama, To Impose Gun Control By Decree
Username: mt99
Posted 2013-01-10 15:18:12 and read 4165 times.

Quoting n318ea (Reply 215):
Why not make all CRIMINALS buy insurance.

if you add a "lifetime insurance" charge to every gun and ammo sale - you are in fact doing that.

Topic: RE: Obama, To Impose Gun Control By Decree
Username: NAV20
Posted 2013-01-10 16:00:29 and read 4148 times.

Quoting tugger (Reply 214):
2.) (and this is the big one) because of this change (people being more careful because their responsibility - or irresponsibility - has a cost to them) the supply of guns out in "the wild" will slowly decrease.

Agree entirely - in fact, I think a nationwide licensing system, plus a duty on everybody (individuals and gun dealers) to report all sales, and to sell only to someone who can show a suitable licence, would quite rapidly reduce the number of Sandy Hook-style gun massacres.

Lets face it, the people who do this sort of thing are not likely to be 'responsible owners' who go mad after many years of responsible gun ownership - they're nutcases whose craziness takes the form of wanting to mass-murder large numbers of innocent people. And my guess is that a high proportion of them are relatively young.

If a proper licensing system was introduced, no-one would want to sell a licensed gun without making damn sure that the buyer can also show a suitable licence? If anyone did, they'd be risking seeing their own name headlined coast to coast as the guy who sold the gun that was used in the next Sandy Hook? Indeed, on the face of it, it might be a good idea for both parties to the deal to report the sale to their local police, and secure a guarantee that both licences are legal and valid, before the sale is finalised?

[Edited 2013-01-10 16:01:09]

Topic: RE: Obama, To Impose Gun Control By Decree
Username: Mir
Posted 2013-01-10 16:00:50 and read 4150 times.

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 210):
You really got to look at it from our view... me and MILLIONS of others use these 30 round magazines peacefully every year, and when you look at it, only a few ***holes use them maliciously.

True. But the problem is that controlling high-capacity magazines is one of the only defenses possible against mass shootings. The gunmen involved generally got the firearms legally, they wouldn't have been caught by a background check, so the only way to stop them from getting the guns in the first place would be an outright ban, which would be overbearing and wouldn't be that effective anyway.

The Tucson shooter was stopped when he ran out of bullets and had to reload, so we know that if he had had a smaller magazine, he would have been able to fire fewer shots and injure fewer people. The same won't be true in all other cases, but it will be true in some. There's not a whole lot of practical purpose to high-capacity magazines, and while that's not enough reason to restrict them on its own, the fact that such a restriction could make a real difference in a mass shooting situation makes it a reasonable step to take. The world won't stop spinning on its axis because people have to reload after 10 shots instead of 30.

Quoting n318ea (Reply 215):
You want to see a dog and pony show, watch all Obama's Hollywood Homey's get a pass on violence in movies and any attempt at violent video games. Adam Lanza was in his basement playing "Call of Duty" duty for days but noooooooo. We can't step on your 1st Amendment Rights.

"Don't infringe on my 2nd Amendment rights, instead why not give up some of your 1st Amendment rights" is an incredibly hypocritical argument to make.

-Mir

Topic: RE: Obama, To Impose Gun Control By Decree
Username: DeltaMD90
Posted 2013-01-10 17:04:01 and read 4122 times.

Quoting Mir (Reply 218):
But the problem is that controlling high-capacity magazines is one of the only defenses possible against mass shootings.

Yes but does "controlling" = "outright ban?" There are lots of weird exceptions too. Do you know about C&R guns? They are basically very old guns that have collector value. You can actually get a license to have them delivered to your home, vs through an FFL. They aren't bought for crime, but for collection. That being said, you have some 1950s gun that has a 12 round magazine... can't you see that "banning all magazines greater than 10 rounds" would be silly in this case, as no manufacturer makes 10 round magazines for these guns (or any magazines at all.)

If we up the ante (sp?) on assault weapons, can we not use similar screening for 30 round mags? I mean, they still have automatic weapons floating around. A $200 tax stamp would be excessive, but you know where I'm going, I'm sure some kind of compromise can be reached. I'm trying to reach out, it is way easier to say **** yall and not budge on this issue (comment not directed at you, Mir, just in general)

Topic: RE: Obama, To Impose Gun Control By Decree
Username: NAV20
Posted 2013-01-10 18:02:58 and read 4098 times.

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 219):
you have some 1950s gun that has a 12 round magazine... can't you see that "banning all magazines greater than 10 rounds" would be silly in this case, as no manufacturer makes 10 round magazines for these guns (or any magazines at all.)
Quoting Mir (Reply 218):
the fact that such a restriction could make a real difference in a mass shooting situation makes it a reasonable step to take.

DeltaMD90, it would be easy enough to include special clauses allowing exceptions for the odd historical type. But, for my money, Mir is dead right - I recall seeing a list of the children killed and the number of rounds each was hit with; from memory, most were hit up to six times, and one poor child received eleven. There's not much doubt that having 30-round mags enabled the killer to kill more kids and teachers more quickly than he would have been able to if he'd had to reload more often.

Plenty of earlier posters have recorded the fact that 30-round mags are 'flying off the shelves' at the moment. No doubt the vast majority of the buyers are legitimate sporting shooters. Can you - or anyone else - please tell us what the attraction of such large mags is? You certainly don't need thirty rounds to kill a deer or shoot at targets? What on Earth do legitimate 'sporting' shooting enthusiasts need them for, and therefore buy them so avidly?

[Edited 2013-01-10 18:06:45]

Topic: RE: Obama, To Impose Gun Control By Decree
Username: Mir
Posted 2013-01-10 18:03:32 and read 4097 times.

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 219):
Yes but does "controlling" = "outright ban?"

It doesn't have to, and I'd prefer if it didn't. If there's a practical way to allow some people to have them while still denying access to those who would do harm with them (within a reasonable range of probability), I'd be fine with that. The problem is that I'm not sure that such a way exists, which is why I tend to lean more toward an outright ban (with certain exceptions, see below). But I'd be willing to listen to ideas.

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 219):
That being said, you have some 1950s gun that has a 12 round magazine... can't you see that "banning all magazines greater than 10 rounds" would be silly in this case, as no manufacturer makes 10 round magazines for these guns (or any magazines at all.)

I don't see that as an issue that can't be worked around in whatever legislation might be drawn up. Obviously 1950s-era guns aren't going to be the weapons of choice for anyone looking to go on a killing spree. I don't know how the guns in question work, but I'd imagine it wouldn't be too difficult to provide a permit system connected to the registration of those guns that would allow the owners to purchase magazines that fit them.

-Mir

Topic: RE: Obama, To Impose Gun Control By Decree
Username: fr8mech
Posted 2013-01-10 18:26:29 and read 4086 times.

Quoting mt99 (Reply 213):
Why not?


Because, it's not necessary under the Constitution. If a state wants to put it to a popular vote, they can...but it is not required.

Quoting tugger (Reply 214):
Not all insured things are like that. If you own a company that does blasting (or otherwise uses explosives), if explosives that you own/bought are lost and used in other ways that cause damage,


I'd be interested to see the case law. If I lose (and if I lose explosives my license should be yanked) explosives or they are stolen (and I stored them properly) and I properly notify the authorities, I fail to see how I can be held liable if a criminal uses them. Now, if I were negligent or complicit...different story.

Quoting tugger (Reply 214):
THREE BILLION DOLLARS EVERY YEAR!


Which could easily be wiped out by the trial lawyers that will jump on every shooting and ask for $100M for pain and suffering. Or, are you willing to cap that through tort reform? How much is a person worth?

Quoting tugger (Reply 214):
And this does not conflict with that.


I was just answering the "well regulated militia" argument advanced in reply 205.

Quoting tugger (Reply 214):
Why can you not see that this is a very good idea?


Because it isn't. It places an unreasonable restriction on a constitutionally protected right. A lifetime (of the firearm) mandatory liability insurance requirement would not stand constitutional scrutiny.

Quoting Mir (Reply 221):
The problem is that I'm not sure that such a way exists, which is why I tend to lean more toward an outright ban (with certain exceptions, see below). But I'd be willing to listen to ideas


Which is opposite of the way our system is supposed to work. I remember a long time ago in a basic Constitutional law class where I learned that it was better for 10 guilty men to go free than one innocent man jailed. You know, the presumption of innocence?

[Edited 2013-01-10 18:39:28]

Topic: RE: Obama, To Impose Gun Control By Decree
Username: Dreadnought
Posted 2013-01-10 18:38:50 and read 4082 times.

Quoting Mir (Reply 218):
Quoting n318ea (Reply 215):
You want to see a dog and pony show, watch all Obama's Hollywood Homey's get a pass on violence in movies and any attempt at violent video games. Adam Lanza was in his basement playing "Call of Duty" duty for days but noooooooo. We can't step on your 1st Amendment Rights.

"Don't infringe on my 2nd Amendment rights, instead why not give up some of your 1st Amendment rights" is an incredibly hypocritical argument to make.

Reminds me of a little montage on Youtube. A bunch of Hollywood folks "Demand a Plan" to reduce gun violence, interlaced with all of them making a lot of money glamorizing guns themselves.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=pItiypwjHx4

THAT's hypocritical.

Quoting Mir (Reply 218):
True. But the problem is that controlling high-capacity magazines is one of the only defenses possible against mass shootings.

Let's put a few things in perspective.

The violent crime rate - which includes murder, rape, and beatings - is half of what it was in the early 1990s. And the violent crime rate involving the use of weapons has also declined at a similar pace.

http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/pub/pdf/cv11.pdf

Despite terrifying events like Sandy Hook or last summer’s theater shooting in Aurora, Colorado, mass shootings are not becoming more frequent. Other data shows that mass killings peaked in 1929.

http://reason.com/blog/2012/12/17/ar...ass-shootings-becoming-more-common

Even I was surprised at this one - Across the board, schools are less dangerous than they used be. Over the past 20 years, the rate of theft per 1,000 students dropped from 101 to 18. For violent crime, the victimization rate per 1,000 students dropped from 53 to 14. And yes, even the homicide rate has trended downward.

http://nces.ed.gov/programs/crimeind...dicators2011/tables/table_02_1.asp

http://nces.ed.gov/programs/crimeind...dicators2011/tables/table_01_2.asp

All this in spite of the fact that there are more guns in America now than ever before - around 300 million - nearly every one is a semi-automatic. The real difference is perception. Now we have 24/7 new coverage.

And finally, the "Assault Weapons Ban", which had no real effect, according to a DOJ-commisioned study.

https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/204431.pdf

I have no issue with reasonable measures to stem violence - particularly the premeditated wanton kind like these mass shootings. Even drastic measures, if they prove to be effective. Mandatory lethal injection for anyone convicted of a violent crime (or attempted violent crime) using a gun? I think that could deter a few people. Go for it.

But people must beware of politicians and hollywood blowhards demanding "action" - not in order to actually help, but simply to make it LOOK like they care - when really they don't give a rat's ass.

Topic: RE: Obama, To Impose Gun Control By Decree
Username: DeltaMD90
Posted 2013-01-10 19:32:21 and read 4063 times.

Quoting NAV20 (Reply 220):
Can you - or anyone else - please tell us what the attraction of such large mags is? You certainly don't need thirty rounds to kill a deer or shoot at targets? What on Earth do legitimate 'sporting' shooting enthusiasts need them for, and therefore buy them so avidly?

I'd say the biggest reason is convenience. May be hard to do, but go shooting with 30 round mags then do it with 5 round mags all day. Another that hits closer to home for me as a collector is originality. I have a knack for old Eastern Bloc stuff, especially Soviet-Russian stuff. Of course, my gun collection is mostly compromised with Eastern Bloc weapons. I won't list them all, they start as the stuff that are undoubtedly collector items (how many murderers use Mosin Nagants?)

http://ww2total.com/WW2/Weapons/Infa...Mosin-Nagant-1944-single-px800.jpg

Yes, I keep the bayonet on mine, standing up, it's almost as tall as me  

The problem I'm undoubtedly gonna run into is not the next rifle (the SKS, internal 10 round magazine) but Russia's next weapon: the AK-47. Until this craziness, I was planning on buying a semi-automatic, legal receiver and then getting the parts kit from an authentic Eastern Bloc weapon and assembling it. Even to non-gun enthusiasts, I think you can see how it's kinda cool, a piece of history. The magazines used are the classic 30 round mags or even the 75 round drum.

Sorry for writing a novel, back to the original point: yes, I see that there is a problem. 30 round mags are used to kill more efficiently, even though it kills me to say it and works against me. I do not blame people for wanting them banned, but I think everyone can agree that 99.9% of 30 round mag owners aren't the problem. What I'm trying to find out is if there is a way to mostly keep them out of the crazy's hands without affecting everyone else. It's stupid and trivial to a lot of people, but it means a lot to me. I will follow the law, obviously... I'm not going to kill any ATF agents or hide them illegally.

The next best thing would be the 30 round magazine look modified to only take 10 rounds. It would suck, but at least aesthetically it would look the same. But again, I think we can cut down crime without blanket bans. Sorry for the 10 paragraph answer to a simple question  
Quoting Mir (Reply 221):
I don't see that as an issue that can't be worked around in whatever legislation might be drawn up. Obviously 1950s-era guns aren't going to be the weapons of choice for anyone looking to go on a killing spree. I don't know how the guns in question work, but I'd imagine it wouldn't be too difficult to provide a permit system connected to the registration of those guns that would allow the owners to purchase magazines that fit them.

Well, kinda going on a tangent, but it's called C&R, curio and relic. The ATF puts old/historic weapons on this list. They differ from antiques, which are pre-1898 IIRC and have almost 0 limitations.

These C&R weapons can be sent straight to a person's house if they get a C&R license (versus having it go through a FFL.) The license is a lot easier to get than regular a FFL. The rifles aren't subjected to section 922, basically, all rifles coming into America have to have no more than 10 foreign parts (something like that.) There are a few other things. Obviously, these guns are not a criminal's choice, and most shooters I know think they are crap. I think they are crap, old Soviet crap, which is why I like them  

Topic: RE: Obama, To Impose Gun Control By Decree
Username: fr8mech
Posted 2013-01-10 19:46:37 and read 4063 times.

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 224):
the SKS,

Which is on Diane Feinstein's (D-CA) ban list.

Quoting NAV20 (Reply 220):
Can you - or anyone else - please tell us what the attraction of such large mags is? You certainly don't need thirty rounds to kill a deer or shoot at targets? What on Earth do legitimate 'sporting' shooting enthusiasts need them for, and therefore buy them so avidly?

You know, 5 round, 10 round or 30 round mags...I don't think it would make much of a difference. When there is no oppositon, reloading is a matter of seconds. Fire 5, drop the mag, insert a new one, fire 5 more. You can do that all day long.

Unless someone is there to engage the shooter, all a high capacity magazine ban does is slow him down a couple of seconds.

I don't think it would be effective in stopping mass killings.

Topic: RE: Obama, To Impose Gun Control By Decree
Username: Mir
Posted 2013-01-10 20:01:08 and read 4053 times.

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 225):
Unless someone is there to engage the shooter, all a high capacity magazine ban does is slow him down a couple of seconds.

I don't think it would be effective in stopping mass killings.

The experience in Tucson would say otherwise. It didn't prevent that incident, of course, but it did limit the damage.

-Mir

Topic: RE: Obama, To Impose Gun Control By Decree
Username: DeltaMD90
Posted 2013-01-10 20:07:10 and read 4053 times.

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 225):
Which is on Diane Feinstein's (D-CA) ban list.

Yeah, she goes way too extreme. IIRC, basically anything semi-automatic is a no-no. Didn't she carry years ago?

Topic: RE: Obama, To Impose Gun Control By Decree
Username: itsjustme
Posted 2013-01-10 20:24:28 and read 4051 times.

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 225):
Unless someone is there to engage the shooter, all a high capacity magazine ban does is slow him down a couple of seconds.

I don't think it would be effective in stopping mass killings.

Well, it worked in the mass shooting involving Congresswoman Giffords. The shooter was "engaged" by a bystander with a folding chair after he had stopped shooting because he had to reload. As he was attempting to shove another magazine into his semiautomatic weapon, the new clip fell to the ground and it was quickly grabbed up by an unarmed, female bystander. An unarmed male bystander then smashed the gunman over the head with a folding chair. A third bystander, an unarmed 74 year old gentleman then tackled the gunman to the ground. By the time an armed bystander arrived, not only was the gunman already neutralized, but when interviewed later, the armed citizen said he came extremely close to shooting an innocent bystander. Someone had picked up the gun to keep it out of the hands of the gunman and he came quite close to taking friendly fire for doing so.

Topic: RE: Obama, To Impose Gun Control By Decree
Username: itsjustme
Posted 2013-01-10 20:31:51 and read 4049 times.

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 227):
Yeah, she goes way too extreme. IIRC, basically anything semi-automatic is a no-no

I respectfully disagree. I don't see a ban on private citizens purchasing and/or possessing semiautomatic weapons as "way too extreme". One can protect themselves and hunt quiet effectively with non semiautomatic weapons.

Topic: RE: Obama, To Impose Gun Control By Decree
Username: Dreadnought
Posted 2013-01-10 20:54:11 and read 4039 times.

Quoting itsjustme (Reply 229):
I respectfully disagree. I don't see a ban on private citizens purchasing and/or possessing semiautomatic weapons as "way too extreme". One can protect themselves and hunt quiet effectively with non semiautomatic weapons.

So we should all be reduced to single-shot flintlocks? Just about every gun available the last 150 years is a semi-auto, or a revolver which is little slower than a semi-auto.

Topic: RE: Obama, To Impose Gun Control By Decree
Username: DeltaMD90
Posted 2013-01-10 21:04:52 and read 4034 times.

Quoting itsjustme (Reply 229):
One can protect themselves and hunt quiet effectively with non semiautomatic weapons.

There's more to it that defense and hunting... plus, besides a pump action shotgun, what non-semiautomatic weapon would be good for defense??? Well I don't know if this is a topic worth debating because we obviously aren't gonna see eye to eye

Topic: RE: Obama, To Impose Gun Control By Decree
Username: fr8mech
Posted 2013-01-10 21:18:03 and read 4030 times.

Quoting Mir (Reply 226):
The experience in Tucson would say otherwise. It didn't prevent that incident, of course, but it did limit the damage.
Quoting itsjustme (Reply 228):
The shooter was "engaged" by a bystander with a folding chair after he had stopped shooting because he had to reload.

Agreed, in the case of Tuscon, the shooter was engaged when he went to reload. There were people around who were physically able to engage the shooter.

What about other shootings? Do you think it would have made a bit of difference in Sandy Hook? I have enough intellectual honest to admit that it may have made a difference. I don't think it would have, because of the nature of the victims and the location.

I do think that an legally armed teacher/administrator or teacher would have made a difference but there were none because they were in a gun free zone.

Topic: RE: Obama, To Impose Gun Control By Decree
Username: seb146
Posted 2013-01-10 21:24:33 and read 4029 times.

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 232):
I do think that an legally armed teacher/administrator or teacher would have made a difference but there were none because they were in a gun free zone.

But, keep in mind, there was an armed guard at Columbine. What about Aurora? Wasn't there police there? I know for a fact, having lived there so long, there are armed police at Clakcamas Town Center in Portland but shots still got off. That kept the deaths and injuries at zero, right?

[Edited 2013-01-10 21:26:00]

Topic: RE: Obama, To Impose Gun Control By Decree
Username: fr8mech
Posted 2013-01-10 21:46:58 and read 4019 times.

Quoting seb146 (Reply 233):
But, keep in mind, there was an armed guard at Columbine.


He was off campus and away from the initial scene of action. He drove his car to the scene and engaged a shooter at 60 yards. He managed to distract that shooter for a few seconds. How many lives were saved because of that distraction?

Quoting seb146 (Reply 233):
What about Aurora? Wasn't there police there?


They were outside the theatre that the shooting occurred in. They had to determine where it was happening.

Quoting seb146 (Reply 233):
That kept the deaths and injuries at zero, right?


Never said deaths would be at zero, but I do think that an armed person can minimize death and injury. We damn well know that an unarmed person has very limited options.

Topic: RE: Obama, To Impose Gun Control By Decree
Username: ATCtower
Posted 2013-01-10 21:54:16 and read 4018 times.

While I pray with all my might that our government doesnt take the stance of tyrants our founding fathers guaranteed our Second Amendment rights to protect against, I wholeheartedly believe BHO would limit those rights.

One of the greatest presidents of my time, Clinton, did the same and while I was not of legal gun owning age at the time, thus did not fight (much less understand) imposed a limited version of what we are terrified is to come.

The Second Amendment was crafted AS THE SECOND AMENDMENT (not the 5th, 9th, or 24th) to protect the citizens of the United States against the possible tyranny of the government. Our right to bear arms was not granted so we could legally shoot food, hence FAR, FAR, FAR more governance on hunting game than gun ownership.

There is fortunately bi-partisan support for gun ownership, and likely always will be, because no matter how many "Ignorant", "Incompetent", "Insane", "not responsible for whatever reason" people that will be out there, limiting the right of the "Law Abiding Citizens" merely staunches their right to defend themselves from tyrants and the lawless.

My $.02

Topic: RE: Obama, To Impose Gun Control By Decree
Username: seb146
Posted 2013-01-10 22:01:23 and read 4019 times.

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 234):
I do think that an armed person can minimize death and injury.

In a darkened theater. With little clue as to where the shots are coming from and how many people are between the shooter and the authorities? Or, at a crowded political rally. Where people have guns and don't know exactly in the five seconds before shooting they don't know where the shots are coming from exactly? How many more innocent people would have been murdered then?

What is wrong with being liable and responsible for your weapon? Having your finger prints and picture on file so the authorities know when a gun is stolen who the last legal person is to have it? Why is that agains the Second Amendment? Bigger question: Why is that so important but the government looking at our e-mails and listening to our phone calls is fine but don't dare take away 100 round clips!???

Topic: RE: Obama, To Impose Gun Control By Decree
Username: Mir
Posted 2013-01-10 22:20:31 and read 4013 times.

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 232):
Agreed, in the case of Tuscon, the shooter was engaged when he went to reload. There were people around who were physically able to engage the shooter.

What about other shootings? Do you think it would have made a bit of difference in Sandy Hook?

As I said earlier on this thread (or it might have been another one - there are so many of them), I do not think that it would make a difference in all mass shootings, only that it had made an impact in one and that it would make an impact in some (not all) in the future. That, when combined with the fact that it really doesn't represent much of an imposition on gun owners, is reason enough to do it.

-Mir

Topic: RE: Obama, To Impose Gun Control By Decree
Username: itsjustme
Posted 2013-01-10 22:38:33 and read 4009 times.

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 231):
plus, besides a pump action shotgun, what non-semiautomatic weapon would be good for defense??? Well I don't know if this is a topic worth debating because we obviously aren't gonna see eye to eye

Six .357 magnum rounds have plenty of stopping power for defense. But you're right, I don't see us agreeing on this.

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 234):
He was off campus and away from the initial scene of action. He drove his car to the scene and engaged a shooter at 60 yards. He managed to distract that shooter for a few seconds. How many lives were saved because of that distraction?

The officer wasn't off campus. He and an unarmed school resource officer were having lunch in the officer's patrol car while monitoring an area where the students would sometimes congregate to smoke. Yes, he was 60 yards away from the shooter when he engaged him. However, when the shooter went back inside the school, the officer waited outside for assistance. Police tactics have changed in the thirteen years since Columbine. Today, that officer would pursue the shooter into the school rather than stage outside and wait for assistance.

I get so tired of hearing Columbine used as the only example from those who oppose putting police officers in our schools. As I said, not only have police tactics changed in the thirteen years since that incident occurred, but there has been an incident where an armed school police officer DID stop a shooter before he had a chance to kill anyone. In August of 2010 at Sullivan Central High School in TN, a man armed with a semiautomatic weapon entered the school and he was confronted by the school's principal. Does this scenario sound at all familiar? It should - the same thing happened at Sandy Hook Elementary. We know how Sandy Hook turned out but at Sullivan High, the school resource officer, an armed Deputy was also present when the principal confronted the gunman. The officer held the gunman at gunpoint which allowed the principal to escape, unharmed. Other officers soon arrived and when the gunman refused to lower his weapon, he was shot and killed. There were approximately 1000 students in the school that day not to mention an unknown number of staff members. Not only didn't the gunman get off a single shot, but there were no injuries and he was the only fatality. So tell me again how having police officers in our schools has failed to make a difference.

[Edited 2013-01-10 22:39:43]

Topic: RE: Obama, To Impose Gun Control By Decree
Username: fr8mech
Posted 2013-01-10 23:11:00 and read 3997 times.

Quoting itsjustme (Reply 238):
The officer wasn't off campus. He and an unarmed school resource officer were having lunch in the officer's patrol car while monitoring an area where the students would sometimes congregate to smoke.

Not to quibble, but he was on the other side of campus and had to leave campus to drive back onto campus.

Quoting itsjustme (Reply 238):
Today, that officer would pursue the shooter into the school rather than stage outside and wait for assistance.

Agreed. The active shooter protocols are designed to engage the shooter as soon as possible and force him to turn his attention from what he is intent on doing. In essence, distract him and have him focus his attention on the police.

Quoting itsjustme (Reply 238):
So tell me again how having police officers in our schools has failed to make a difference.

You mistake me. I have no problem at all with police officers in the school. I was just pointing out that the deputy was not in the immediate area when the shooting began. Too many folks point out that armed people in schools will not stop a massacre and point to Columbine.

I want the Gun Free Zones Act repealed and the various state gun free zones lifted. That will allow licensed folks to carry firearms into a school if they choose to do so.

Topic: RE: Obama, To Impose Gun Control By Decree
Username: KiwiRob
Posted 2013-01-11 06:27:43 and read 3949 times.

Everyone should have the right to buy and own a gun yeah right, if fools like this can run a gun shop Americans desirve all the massacres they can handle.

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/01/1...ng-people-over-obamas-gun-control/

Quote:

The CEO of a Tennessee company that specializes weapons and tactical training is threatening to “start killing people” if President Barack Obama moves forward with gun control measures.

In a video posted to YouTube and Facebook on Wednesday, Tactical Response CEO James Yeager went ballistic over reports that the president could take executive action with minor gun control measures after the mass shooting of 20 school children in Connecticut last month.

After the Drudge Report likened Obama to Adolf Hitler and Joseph Stalin on Wednesday, pro-gun conservatives expressed outrage over the idea that the White House could act without Congress.

Raw Story (http://s.tt/1yf6S)

Topic: RE: Obama, To Impose Gun Control By Decree
Username: D L X
Posted 2013-01-11 07:20:40 and read 3929 times.

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 200):
Quoting D L X (Reply 195):
That explains why all the cars disappeared, and why my rush hour commute is only 30 minutes.

And what interest does the government have in taking away my car?

First, "the government" is the people. We elected them, and they represent us. It is not some evil anthropomorphic entity.

Second, the interest the people have to take away a gun from an individual is the same as the interest the people have to take away a car from an individual. Keeping them out of the possession of people who cannot or will not operate them responsibly.

Topic: RE: Obama, To Impose Gun Control By Decree
Username: DeltaMD90
Posted 2013-01-11 08:05:47 and read 3916 times.

Quoting KiwiRob (Reply 240):
Everyone should have the right to buy and own a gun yeah right, if fools like this can run a gun shop Americans desirve all the massacres they can handle.

Sigh... I argue so hard and then idiots like this ruin it for all of us. THIS is the type of crap we shouldn't tolerate, this is irresponsible behavior. That goes beyond his 1st Amendment rights and I don't trust him with the 2nd Amendment at this point either

Topic: RE: Obama, To Impose Gun Control By Decree
Username: seb146
Posted 2013-01-11 08:22:49 and read 3908 times.

Quoting D L X (Reply 241):
First, "the government" is the people. We elected them, and they represent us. It is not some evil anthropomorphic entity.

Anymore, though, it is how much money is pumped into elections. We, we end up with the best government corporations can buy. The NRA is pumping millions into coffers of various Congress people. I'll bet you dollars to doughnuts that, in 2014, any and all those in Congress who support any weapons legislation will try to be unseated by an NRA money backed candidate.

Quoting KiwiRob (Reply 240):
Everyone should have the right to buy and own a gun yeah right, if fools like this can run a gun shop Americans desirve all the massacres they can handle.

Why are people not talking about the "gun show" loophole, either?

Topic: RE: Obama, To Impose Gun Control By Decree
Username: DeltaMD90
Posted 2013-01-11 08:30:53 and read 3908 times.

Quoting seb146 (Reply 243):
Why are people not talking about the "gun show" loophole, either?

People are... I'm pretty sure it came up yesterday in Biden's discussion and will be implemented soon. But like I said, I think the gun show loophole is overblown... every gun show I've been too required a background check before I could get anything.

The real issue is private sales. It is still illegal to sell a felon a gun, but who is gonna know? If we put registration in place and that gun ends up a few states away in a murder and Joe Blow is now responsible for the murder, I'm sure we'll see a LOT less straw men purchases. They can scratch off the serial number, but if they have a ballistic sample of the barrel prior to the original sale, Joe Blow is pretty much screwed.

That being said, registration is still being fought. But the gun show loophole isn't that big of a deal anymore (though I don't oppose a law closing it)

Topic: RE: Obama, To Impose Gun Control By Decree
Username: L-188
Posted 2013-01-11 08:54:53 and read 3893 times.

At this point I am fully a full array of draconian measures to be proposed by Biden and Obummer to support them.

With any luck congress will not pass them

Topic: RE: Obama, To Impose Gun Control By Decree
Username: DeltaMD90
Posted 2013-01-11 09:00:26 and read 3886 times.

Quoting L-188 (Reply 245):
At this point I am fully a full array of draconian measures to be proposed by Biden and Obummer to support them.

What are they?

Topic: RE: Obama, To Impose Gun Control By Decree
Username: Ken777
Posted 2013-01-11 09:36:38 and read 3877 times.

Quoting n318ea (Reply 182):
You missed FOX NEWS in there

I avoid FOX News so I don't worry about what I miss.   

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 184):
My cousin had only 2 for many years - now he's bought about 20.

So how much money did he spend and what is he going to do with another 20? Decorate his Christmas Tree? Or do deers wait around while you change clips?

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 187):
But, that would be private actors bringing lawsuits, wouldn't it?
Quoting fr8mech (Reply 187):
And yes, the government can and does limit free speech in certain situations where they can show a compelling interest to do so.

Then why worry about the government acting in limited areas of gun control " in certain situations where they can show a compelling interest to do so"?

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 187):
As the saying goes: your rights end where mine begin

Unless you of course come at me with an assault weapon with mega clips and 20 spares sticking out of your pocket.

Quoting tugger (Reply 188):
I say the easiest way to do something is to require gun owners to have liability insurance for their firearms against misuse.

Between the cost of treating people with GSWs and addressing the economic damage done from some of the shootings it may well be unrealistic for private insurance companies to deliver intelligent & affordable coverage. Look at the pathetic bang for the buck they deliver in health care.

That makes it logical to establish federal taxes on purchases of both guns & ammunition for both medical care delivery and providing financial care for the economic damage that GSWs cause. A federal tax paid by the (US) manufacturers directly and the importers of foreign made products.

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 189):
My gun is stolen.

Then you will have just joined the group of Americans who deliver guns to criminals. You can then watch the local news for shootings and try to guess if your gun was used. Just be sure to keep the serial number(s) somewhere safe so you can report the theft as soon as possible.

Quoting L-188 (Reply 211):
Well it appears Bidens meeting today was the dog and pony show we all knew it would be.

Every one, including Bad-Comb-Over will have a chance to put their thoughts on the table.

Quoting L-188 (Reply 211):
If he is going to announce recommendations Tuesday they were already written and will be very repressive of our freedoms.

"Very repressive"? Was it very repressive of our freedoms when there was previously a ban on assault weapons? Did fewer deer get killed? Fewer people successfully defending their home from invaders?

Reality is that people who support reasonable gun laws should be at the front of the group discussing changes. We certainly don't need the nut that was on Piers Morgan loosing control, or the Bad-Comb-Over from the NRA playing Big Testicles for the day.

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 212):
Of course it is. If you say that once a firearm is insured, it remains insured, even if it is stolen, then the liability for that firearm is unlimited. No insurance company would accept that type of liability. Would you?

Which is why we need a tax base on guns & ammunition. Maybe a Federal Tax on licenses that need to be renewed annually. Just as long as the users pay for the damage they cause I'm OK.

Topic: RE: Obama, To Impose Gun Control By Decree
Username: mt99
Posted 2013-01-11 10:20:24 and read 3863 times.

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 189):
e. My gun is stolen. I

Why would your gun be stolen? Guns are used to protect yourself and your home - you know = to prevent robberies.,

If your gun is stolen - you are not using it properly; and therefore should not be eligible to have one.

Topic: RE: Obama, To Impose Gun Control By Decree
Username: Maverick623
Posted 2013-01-11 12:58:57 and read 3830 times.

Quoting KiwiRob (Reply 240):
Everyone should have the right to buy and own a gun yeah right, if fools like this can run a gun shop Americans desirve all the massacres they can handle.

That fool made some serious boo-boos in his video. It wouldn't surprise me to see him arrested for making terrorist threats, and he should NOT be running a gun shop. But don't lump everyone in with one lunatic.

He was right in one regard: if you tried to ban all guns nationwide, you would have, at a minimum, a collapse of our government. While you may be able to get police departments in major urban areas along the coast to enforce such a ban, you have to remember the vast majority of our armed forces are conservative gun owners themselves and would refuse to enforce it.

Quoting D L X (Reply 241):

Second, the interest the people have to take away a gun from an individual is the same as the interest the people have to take away a car from an individual. Keeping them out of the possession of people who cannot or will not operate them responsibly.

AFAIK, the only way to have your car taken away permanently is by using it as an instrument in a felony crime, i.e., drug trafficking, get away car, or using the car to intentionally run somebody down. For people who just plain don't know how to drive, all that's done is a license suspension, which any cop can tell you doesn't stop anyone from driving.

Topic: RE: Obama, To Impose Gun Control By Decree
Username: fr8mech
Posted 2013-01-11 13:27:56 and read 3823 times.

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 244):
I'm pretty sure it came up yesterday in Biden's discussion and will be implemented soon.

The 'gun show loophole' would have to be addressed through legislation.

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 244):
every gun show I've been too required a background check before I could get anything.

Yup, whenever I buy a firearm at a gunshow, I fill out the transfer form and the background check happens.

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 247):
Then why worry about the government acting in limited areas of gun control " in certain situations where they can show a compelling interest to do so"?

Because guns are already regulated and the government has failed to show a compelling interest in limited the Second Amendment any further..at least ta the federal level.

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 247):
Unless you of course come at me with an assault weapon with mega clips and 20 spares sticking out of your pocket.

Hyperbole.

Quoting mt99 (Reply 248):

If your gun is stolen - you are not using it properly; and therefore should not be eligible to have one.

That is a fallacious argument and you know it.

But, I'll play. If your car is stolen you clearly shouldn't have one. If your identity is stolen, someone else is better off with it, because you clearly don't know how to secure it. If you property is stolen, you obviously were incapable of holding on to it. If your life is stolen, you clearly didn't value it because you failed to defend it properly.

I'm just going to wait for the next gun control thread to pop up and jump in there. This one is way to long.

Everyone stay safe and enjoy the new year. I think it will be a bumpy one.

Topic: RE: Obama, To Impose Gun Control By Decree
Username: mt99
Posted 2013-01-11 13:30:48 and read 3821 times.

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 250):

That is a fallacious argument and you know it.

But, I'll play. If your car is stolen you clearly shouldn't have one.

No because a car does not prevent robberies. A gun is (supposedly) used to avoid robberies. ..

Topic: RE: Obama, To Impose Gun Control By Decree
Username: StarAC17
Posted 2013-01-11 13:34:06 and read 3821 times.

Quoting mt99 (Reply 248):

Why would your gun be stolen? Guns are used to protect yourself and your home - you know = to prevent robberies.,

If your gun is stolen - you are not using it properly; and therefore should not be eligible to have one.

That is a pretty big stretch to say that if a gun is stolen the owner should no longer be eligible to have one again, but you should be reporting it and letting the proper authorities deal with the theft potentially putting a criminal away for multiple crimes.

Things get stolen, but if its a gun is registered it can be traced by the serial number or the ballistics record of the barrel and if that gun is ever used in a crime it the criminal in question can likely be traced back to the theft in question.

For anyone who has seen SkyFall can't we make gun owners have a fingerprint reader (like Bond had) that only allows the person who owns the gun from firing it. That can't be that expensive and would be a big deterrent to steal guns that you can't shoot.

Topic: RE: Obama, To Impose Gun Control By Decree
Username: mt99
Posted 2013-01-11 13:49:16 and read 3818 times.

Quoting StarAC17 (Reply 252):
That is a pretty big stretch to say that if a gun is stolen the owner should no longer be eligible to have one again,

Just as much as stretch as more guns = less crime argument,

I can even go further. If you have a gun and ANYTHING of yours gets stolen.. you loose all claims in getting it back.  

Topic: RE: Obama, To Impose Gun Control By Decree
Username: Ken777
Posted 2013-01-11 14:19:06 and read 3801 times.

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 250):
Because guns are already regulated and the government has failed to show a compelling interest in limited the Second Amendment any further..at least ta the federal level.

Gun regulation changes over time. SOmeone was talking about "back when" the Black Panthers were talking about the 2nd Amendment right for them to have guns in their cars when they drove around on patrol to help reduce police abuses.

Governor Ronald Reagan and the NRA were AT THAT TIME strongly in favor of gun control legislation because of those angry Black Panthers.


Quoting fr8mech (Reply 250):
Hyperbole.

Take away most of the 20 spare mega clips and it isn't. That is the scary part.

Topic: RE: Obama, To Impose Gun Control By Decree
Username: Mir
Posted 2013-01-11 16:04:46 and read 3774 times.

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 242):
I argue so hard and then idiots like this ruin it for all of us. THIS is the type of crap we shouldn't tolerate, this is irresponsible behavior. That goes beyond his 1st Amendment rights and I don't trust him with the 2nd Amendment at this point either

Well, the state of Tennessee hasn't tolerated it either - they've revoked his CCW permit.

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 244):
But like I said, I think the gun show loophole is overblown... every gun show I've been too required a background check before I could get anything.

The real issue is private sales.

The "gun show loophole" is somewhat of a misnomer - it really is a private sale loophole. I'd imagine that the reason that it got its name is because of the jurisdictions in which private sellers can go to gun shows and sell without background checks, and the fact that some of those private sellers are little different from a licensed dealer in terms of what and how much they have to offer.

-Mir

Topic: RE: Obama, To Impose Gun Control By Decree
Username: itsjustme
Posted 2013-01-11 16:24:42 and read 3770 times.

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 239):
Not to quibble, but he was on the other side of campus and had to leave campus to drive back onto campus.

That's not quibbling - that's grasping at straws. Because the officer had to drive off campus and then back on to get to where Harris was translates to the officer being "off campus"? Let's put things in perspective this way: The school resource officer received a call over his radio from the school custodian advising him of a problem in the back lot of the school. I believe the information given was, "A female down". And just two minutes after receiving that radio call, the officer arrived and began engaging Harris in gunfire.

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 239):

Quoting itsjustme (Reply 238):
So tell me again how having police officers in our schools has failed to make a difference.

You mistake me. I have no problem at all with police officers in the school

Actually, that statement wasn't directed at you. From your previous posts, I've gotten the impression you're in favor of armed security in schools. It was directed to anyone who continues to use the (lame) defense that because an armed officer at Columbine didn't thwart that massacre, there's no sense in putting officers in any of our schools.

Topic: RE: Obama, To Impose Gun Control By Decree
Username: Maverick623
Posted 2013-01-11 16:28:24 and read 3767 times.

Quoting itsjustme (Reply 256):
And just two minutes after receiving that radio call, the officer arrived and began engaging Harris in gunfire.

And IIRC he actually hit Harris, either in a non-vital area or in his bullet-proof vest.

Topic: RE: Obama, To Impose Gun Control By Decree
Username: Mir
Posted 2013-01-11 17:52:55 and read 3743 times.

Quoting itsjustme (Reply 256):
It was directed to anyone who continues to use the (lame) defense that because an armed officer at Columbine didn't thwart that massacre, there's no sense in putting officers in any of our schools.

Is it really any more lame than the argument that because laws haven't stopped one particular shooting, there's no sense in passing any of them?

-Mir

Topic: RE: Obama, To Impose Gun Control By Decree
Username: seb146
Posted 2013-01-11 18:26:00 and read 3738 times.

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 244):
every gun show I've been too required a background check before I could get anything.

And that's fine, but how many guns is a person able to buy at a time at a gun show?

If people have to be responsible to own a car to the point where they have to register it with the state and prove they can safely operate it, why can't it be the same for guns?

Quoting L-188 (Reply 245):
With any luck congress will not pass them

Don't worry. The right-wing in both houses are still hell-bent on making Obama look bad. Which is why they have not nothing over the past four years.

Topic: RE: Obama, To Impose Gun Control By Decree
Username: Maverick623
Posted 2013-01-11 18:33:14 and read 3732 times.

Quoting seb146 (Reply 259):
If people have to be responsible to own a car to the point where they have to register it with the state and prove they can safely operate it, why can't it be the same for guns?

False analogy. You do not have to register a car or prove anything as long as the car isn't operated on public roads.

Topic: RE: Obama, To Impose Gun Control By Decree
Username: itsjustme
Posted 2013-01-11 19:56:52 and read 3710 times.

Quoting Maverick623 (Reply 260):
False analogy. You do not have to register a car or prove anything as long as the car isn't operated on public roads.

Not true in California. Even if the vehicle isn't going to be operated, it still has to be registered as "PNO" (planned non operation).

Topic: RE: Obama, To Impose Gun Control By Decree
Username: itsjustme
Posted 2013-01-11 20:09:41 and read 3703 times.

Quoting Mir (Reply 258):
Is it really any more lame than the argument that because laws haven't stopped one particular shooting, there's no sense in passing any of them?

No, of course it isn't any more lame. To quote Jon Stewart, "So if something doesn't succeed the first time, we say fuck it"? No, you keep tweaking laws until they accurately and successfully address the problem that exists. Look at our drunk driving laws, for example. Did we say, "well, an unlawful BAC of .15 hasn't had an impact on decreasing alcohol-related deaths while driving so, fuck it"? No. We kept tweaking that law and today, every state in the country recognizes a BAC of .08 or higher as being the threshold.

And it's a little off topic but, did anyone catch the story on Anderson Cooper 360 tonight about the whack job professor at a FL university who is saying the entire Sandy Hook incident was staged by crisis actors? And this nut job is teaching our kids?

Topic: RE: Obama, To Impose Gun Control By Decree
Username: DeltaMD90
Posted 2013-01-11 20:57:33 and read 3693 times.

Quoting seb146 (Reply 259):
And that's fine, but how many guns is a person able to buy at a time at a gun show?

As many as you want... I never got the whole # of guns argument... 1 gun with ammo is just as dangerous as 7 with ammo. It's not like you can buy 10 guns and use them all at the same time in a commission of a crime. Most of my guns are old historic ones... a lot of people think I have an armory but with bolt action rifles, Soviet revolvers, etc with strange, hard to find ammo, I'm not really dangerous even if I wanted to be. But that is besides the point. Unless you are trafficking guns, who cares if someone has 200 guns (as long as he keeps them secured safely) ?

Quoting Mir (Reply 258):
Is it really any more lame than the argument that because laws haven't stopped one particular shooting, there's no sense in passing any of them?

Yeah I don't understand where that argument is going at all



Something I haven't seen mentioned, and I am not trying to divert the discussion, but it really is important: most guns used in crime aren't AR-15s, they are crappy, small handguns, often with 5 or 6 round clips. I have no stats but I'd guess that AR-15s and similar guns make up less than 1% of shootings. I'm not saying we shouldn't ignore one problem and focus exclusively on another, but I find the bulk of your crime is not: 1. with an AR, 2. a mass shooting, 3. just about killing random people

Topic: RE: Obama, To Impose Gun Control By Decree
Username: itsjustme
Posted 2013-01-11 21:51:50 and read 3684 times.

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 263):
Something I haven't seen mentioned, and I am not trying to divert the discussion, but it really is important: most guns used in crime aren't AR-15s, they are crappy, small handguns, often with 5 or 6 round clips

True. Which is why the current issue at hand is "gun control" and not "crime control".

Topic: RE: Obama, To Impose Gun Control By Decree
Username: seb146
Posted 2013-01-11 22:10:07 and read 3679 times.

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 263):
I never got the whole # of guns argument

Person A buys 100 guns at a gun show and sells them out of his/her house. One of those guns is used in a mass shooting or a simple robbery at a 7-11. No accountability at all. But, that's fine. No problem. Move along. Nothing to see here.

If the criminals in the latest round of mass shootings had only 5 rounds, why did it take so long for someone to bring them down? It took a lawn chair to bring down the Tucson shooter down. James Holmes? Sandy Hook? Clackamas? I am pretty sure a well placed scissors to the throat at Sandy Hook would have stopped it. But, he managed to get off more than 5 rounds. Not because he had to re-load, I'm sure.

[Edited 2013-01-11 22:14:00]

Topic: RE: Obama, To Impose Gun Control By Decree
Username: flipdewaf
Posted 2013-01-12 02:41:11 and read 3652 times.

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 207):
Heller Decision. Pages 2-22.

Why stop there, we were discussing the meaning of "well regulated" and how this seems to not have any bearing on the constitution

Quote:
from page 26
Finally, the adjective %u201Cwell-regulated%u201D implies nothingmore than the imposition of proper discipline and training.

Sounds logical to me, well trained and disciplined people will be fine with them.

The other thing I don't get about the second amendment is the second word:
"Amendment" :-The act of changing for the better; improvement
Amend it again and start living in the 21st century.

Fred

Topic: RE: Obama, To Impose Gun Control By Decree
Username: NAV20
Posted 2013-01-12 04:37:14 and read 3637 times.

Thanks for lots of pretty thoughtful posts, DeltaMD90. One query about something you said earlier:-

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 224):
Quoting NAV20 (Reply 220):
Can you - or anyone else - please tell us what the attraction of such large mags is? You certainly don't need thirty rounds to kill a deer or shoot at targets? What on Earth do legitimate 'sporting' shooting enthusiasts need them for, and therefore buy them so avidly?

I'd say the biggest reason is convenience. May be hard to do, but go shooting with 30 round mags then do it with 5 round mags all day.

Turning that on its head, what sort of hobby shooting involves 30-round mags and shooting 'all day''? Where do you go, what are you shooting at? I hope you're not mowing down deer by the dozen?  
Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 224):
The next best thing would be the 30 round magazine look modified to only take 10 rounds. It would suck, but at least aesthetically it would look the same.

That's quite a good suggestion - I can see how aesthetics would be important to an enthusiast. Just possibly a way of ending the impasse?

If I'm allowed a digression, funny about 30-round magazines - the only thing I ever fired that had one was a crude thing called the 'Sten machine carbine,' in the reserve army. It was hurriedly designed in 1940 (as a counter to the German MP40). Funnily enough, although the magazine held up to 32 9mm. rounds, our instructor advised us only to put 30 into those things. The ammunition in the magazine was in a sort of 'double column,' which had to 'sort itself out' on a kind of 'after you, sir' basis just before it entered the breech - the spring in the mag was a bit under-powered and his view was that a full load carried a risk of the whole thing jamming.

The other 'endearing' thing about the Sten was that there was no proper place to put your front hand. If you held the magazine, you lost accuracy through not being 'balanced' - if you held it by the forward grip, as recommended in the manual, you faced the risk of losing the tip of your little finger in the ejection slot if your hand slipped. Not, in my view, a 'collector's item,' though lots of people DO collect them..............

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tNTjT_eGPx4

Topic: RE: Obama, To Impose Gun Control By Decree
Username: Maverick623
Posted 2013-01-12 07:17:45 and read 3618 times.

Quoting flipdewaf (Reply 266):
The other thing I don't get about the second amendment is the second word:
"Amendment" :-The act of changing for the better; improvement
Amend it again and start living in the 21st century.

  

2. In public bodies; Any alteration made or proposed to be made in a bill or motion that adds, changes, substitutes, or omits.

Topic: RE: Obama, To Impose Gun Control By Decree
Username: Mir
Posted 2013-01-12 07:32:42 and read 3609 times.

Quoting itsjustme (Reply 262):
To quote Jon Stewart, "So if something doesn't succeed the first time, we say fuck it"? No, you keep tweaking laws until they accurately and successfully address the problem that exists. Look at our drunk driving laws, for example. Did we say, "well, an unlawful BAC of .15 hasn't had an impact on decreasing alcohol-related deaths while driving so, fuck it"? No. We kept tweaking that law and today, every state in the country recognizes a BAC of .08 or higher as being the threshold.

And since I watched that segment as well, it's important to add that those laws and the enforcement thereof did have a tremendous effect on drunk driving deaths over time.

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 263):
Something I haven't seen mentioned, and I am not trying to divert the discussion, but it really is important: most guns used in crime aren't AR-15s, they are crappy, small handguns, often with 5 or 6 round clips.

That's true. However, if one looks at mass shootings recently, AR-15s have been used. Sandy Hook, the Oregon mall shooting, and the Aurora shooting all involved AR-15s.

Quoting seb146 (Reply 265):
Person A buys 100 guns at a gun show and sells them out of his/her house. One of those guns is used in a mass shooting or a simple robbery at a 7-11. No accountability at all. But, that's fine. No problem. Move along. Nothing to see here.

If the guns are required to be registered, then there would be accountability. There's still no accountability if Person A buys 5 guns at a gun show and sells them out of his or her house, so I don't really see how the number of guns is the primary issue in that situation.

-Mir

Topic: RE: Obama, To Impose Gun Control By Decree
Username: Dreadnought
Posted 2013-01-12 07:49:38 and read 3603 times.

Quoting NAV20 (Reply 267):
Turning that on its head, what sort of hobby shooting involves 30-round mags and shooting 'all day''? Where do you go, what are you shooting at?

There are gun clubs all over the place. I was at one a couple of months ago where someone actually brought in a mini-gun, and used it to blow away a few old hulks. God, that thing is LOUD. A club just north of where I live is a huge property with a dozen different ranges, for everything from shotguns, pistols to medium and large caliber rifles, like 50 cal. In places like that, safety is paramount. If you are seen just one time doing something stupid and/or unsafe, you are escorted to the gate - no warnings.

Topic: RE: Obama, To Impose Gun Control By Decree
Username: rfields5421
Posted 2013-01-12 08:06:00 and read 3596 times.

Quoting seb146 (Reply 259):
And that's fine, but how many guns is a person able to buy at a time at a gun show?

Recently at the Fort Worth Gun Show - I saw a group of four or five Hispanic men buying high count magazine handguns. They were not buying any guns from the 'retail' sellers who were doing checks, only from 'private' sellers who were not doing background checks.

I mentioned it to one of the FTWPD folks working as security. He said they had also noticed and that undercover ATF agents were at the show. They suspected the guns were destined for Mexico, but as long as they only purchased them from the private sellers there was no background check requirements.

The group bought an estimated 50 handguns and left in the same van together.


My brother has purchased 12 guns at a single gun show. He lives in a rural area, and uses various guns for different types of hunting, a varmit rifle, a snake pistol, a squirrel shotgun, a dove shotgun, a deer rifle, a wild pig rifle, an elk rifle, etc. His wife also hunts and she has a similar set of guns.

Topic: RE: Obama, To Impose Gun Control By Decree
Username: DeltaMD90
Posted 2013-01-12 08:23:20 and read 3592 times.

Quoting itsjustme (Reply 264):
True. Which is why the current issue at hand is "gun control" and not "crime control".

Um, well what is the point of gun control? I can't think of any reason besides stopping crime...

As for accidental shootings, mandatory safety classes (to prevent idiots from shooting each other) or proper storage (to stop kids from getting access to guns) would stop that. 1 shot to the head from a single round .22 would do as much damage as a single 7.62x39 round in 30 round magazine.

So it's fair to say that the point of limiting guns/magazines is to stop crime

Quoting seb146 (Reply 265):
Person A buys 100 guns at a gun show and sells them out of his/her house. One of those guns is used in a mass shooting or a simple robbery at a 7-11. No accountability at all. But, that's fine. No problem. Move along. Nothing to see here.

I don't have an answer to this Seb, but I honestly don't think this happens very often. If you ever been to a gun show, you'll know it's hardly a place for bargains. But registration would really tackle that issue... what happens with the feds see you buy 50 guns and 10 of them show up in a crime during a week? I'm against the 1 handgun / person / month rules, only because I've gotten a couple in a month (good deals, and subsequently go months without a purchase) but a 5 or 10 / person / month isn't too unreasonable.

I'd exclude C&R guns which I've talked about before, because they often come 20 to a crate straight from Eastern Europe (these are the guns that have collector value only and are not used in crime, like a Mosin Nagant.) And no, I've never have or will bought a crate of them, but I know of people who have, lol. Why, I have no idea, but I've NEVER heard of a Mosin Nagant in a crime

Quoting seb146 (Reply 265):
But, he managed to get off more than 5 rounds. Not because he had to re-load, I'm sure.

Well I get what you are saying, and rather than a flat out ban, I wouldn't be opposed to a restriction. Maybe a single 30 round magazine per gun? Registered the same way? That way you only have one, not a bunch.

And not to split hairs, but I'm sure he did have to reload unless he had a 200 round drum or something. He shot more that 30 rounds.

Where I am getting at is yes, I see the problem and don't want large capacity magazines in the hands of criminals. Yet, 99.9999% of them aren't used in crime, I think there may be a middle ground then to screw everyone

Quoting NAV20 (Reply 267):
Turning that on its head, what sort of hobby shooting involves 30-round mags and shooting 'all day''? Where do you go, what are you shooting at? I hope you're not mowing down deer by the dozen?  

My favorite type of shooting is privately owned land vs a range, but I like setting up various blocks or even objects that are completely broken (one time I found a bunch of very broken TVs at the side of the road.) In my college town, there was a place in the mountains where people would bring the most random stuff and we went to town.

I'm the kind of person that tries to catch insects and release them outside. When outside, I often look at my feet to avoid ants. On my internship with the police department, we had to put a deer down that was hit by a car and was beyond saving, and that was so sad to see her get shot. Now, I'm not against hunting, but me personally, I'd never shoot at an animal, and especially won't ever be shooting at people lol

Quoting NAV20 (Reply 267):
That's quite a good suggestion - I can see how aesthetics would be important to an enthusiast. Just possibly a way of ending the impasse?

Well if the ban does go into effect, that is the option I'll be pursuing. It's not very common, and I don't think they'd be produced, really. For the AKs, I have seen California compliant 10/30 magazines... it's the shape of a 30 round magazine but is somehow modified to take only 10. If California allows it, you know it's definitely liberal proof lol. Most manufacturers do and probably will just make the stubby short magazines. Won't be the end of the world, but I'd cringe every time I'd see it  

Topic: RE: Obama, To Impose Gun Control By Decree
Username: itsjustme
Posted 2013-01-12 09:18:42 and read 3577 times.

Quoting rfields5421 (Reply 271):
My brother has purchased 12 guns at a single gun show. He lives in a rural area, and uses various guns for different types of hunting, a varmit rifle, a snake pistol, a squirrel shotgun, a dove shotgun, a deer rifle, a wild pig rifle, an elk rifle, etc. His wife also hunts and she has a similar set of guns.

Their last name isn't "Robertson" by any chance, is it? (You'd have to be a Duck Dynasty watcher to get that).

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 272):
Um, well what is the point of gun control? I can't think of any reason besides stopping crime...

Yeah, that was my point, in a round about way. "Gun control" laws are and will probably remain to be "feel good" laws. Politicians will give the illusion they're actually taking steps to address an extremely political issue - our guns and our right, or at least our interpretation of our right to own and carry them. The real issue IS crime control but to address that, and address it seriously, they'd have to look at the tool typically used to commit our more serious crimes (typically those against people rather than property) and there's no politician that's going to do that. Hell, even the phrase "gun control" is misleading, given the anticipated recommendations Biden will be making to Obama on Tuesday. Limiting the number of rounds a magazine can carry or requiring background checks on all firearm purchases isn't "gun" control.

Topic: RE: Obama, To Impose Gun Control By Decree
Username: Mir
Posted 2013-01-12 09:47:29 and read 3573 times.

Quoting rfields5421 (Reply 271):
Recently at the Fort Worth Gun Show - I saw a group of four or five Hispanic men buying high count magazine handguns. They were not buying any guns from the 'retail' sellers who were doing checks, only from 'private' sellers who were not doing background checks.

I mentioned it to one of the FTWPD folks working as security. He said they had also noticed and that undercover ATF agents were at the show. They suspected the guns were destined for Mexico, but as long as they only purchased them from the private sellers there was no background check requirements.

The group bought an estimated 50 handguns and left in the same van together.


And that's how guns end up in the hands of gangs and street criminals. Why in the world haven't we done something about this yet?

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 272):
Well if the ban does go into effect, that is the option I'll be pursuing. It's not very common, and I don't think they'd be produced, really. For the AKs, I have seen California compliant 10/30 magazines... it's the shape of a 30 round magazine but is somehow modified to take only 10.

If there's demand (and I'd predict there would be), they'll be produced.

-Mir

Topic: RE: Obama, To Impose Gun Control By Decree
Username: DeltaMD90
Posted 2013-01-12 10:36:19 and read 3562 times.

Quoting Mir (Reply 274):
If there's demand (and I'd predict there would be), they'll be produced.

The problem I see is getting the before product legally... There are thousands of 30 round mags overseas, can there be a way to import them and allow for the modification? Because before the mod, they'd be technically illegal.

We are having a rational debate and trying to work out kinks, but you know our friends in Washington are just gonna ram through something stupid, stupid in favor or me or in favor of you...

Topic: RE: Obama, To Impose Gun Control By Decree
Username: D L X
Posted 2013-01-12 12:10:10 and read 3549 times.

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 275):
but you know our friends in Washington are just gonna ram through something stupid, stupid in favor or me or in favor of you...


Don't you think that's kind of what happens when the _enthusiast_ don't self-police their craft?

Topic: RE: Obama, To Impose Gun Control By Decree
Username: roswell41
Posted 2013-01-12 12:44:03 and read 3549 times.

No legislation will pass Congress. Obama will sign some type of executive order and throw his hands in the air and demonize the House Republicans. The order may change the background check system in some way and/or alter the importation of guns and ammo from overseas. Prices on certain guns and ammo will soar. Largely, nothing will change and life goes on. We have a debt ceiling to worry about. Obama would go for broke on this issue as he has no elections left in his career, though he would be asking many of his caucus to 'walk the political plank' for him. Being largely self-interested, as most politicians are, they won't oblige him.

Topic: RE: Obama, To Impose Gun Control By Decree
Username: DeltaMD90
Posted 2013-01-12 13:03:38 and read 3541 times.

Quoting D L X (Reply 276):
Don't you think that's kind of what happens when the _enthusiast_ don't self-police their craft?

Yeah, I was mainly talking about DC's incompetence. I think something needs to be done, but I predict not enough or too much will be done...

Quoting roswell41 (Reply 277):
No legislation will pass Congress. Obama will sign some type of executive order and throw his hands in the air and demonize the House Republicans. The order may change the background check system in some way and/or alter the importation of guns and ammo from overseas.

I agree, though it would be advantageous for us gun owners to come up with something, because the political landscape might favor no change now, but it would stay like that forever. I'd rather we put through some changes than Sen. Feinstein & company passing something truly awful

Topic: RE: Obama, To Impose Gun Control By Decree
Username: itsjustme
Posted 2013-01-12 13:58:31 and read 3522 times.

Quoting roswell41 (Reply 277):
Largely, nothing will change and life goes on

Historically speaking, if nothing changes, life will not go on.

Quoting D L X (Reply 276):
Don't you think that's kind of what happens when the _enthusiast_ don't self-police their craft?

I agree and I've said the same thing, although not quite as tactfully as you. Simply put, there are times when the Government has to step in and do what's best for the populace. Pretty much like they did when seat belt use was made mandatory when operating a motor vehicle (I believe that's a law in each state now but I could be mistaken). Look at all the crap that stirred up but at the end of the day, wearing a seat belt does significantly decrease the chances of being severely injured or killed in an automobile crash. And if it comes down to the Government explaining their decision to invoke certain gun laws by saying, "Because I said so", then so be it.

Topic: RE: Obama, To Impose Gun Control By Decree
Username: roswell41
Posted 2013-01-12 14:08:56 and read 3517 times.

The government is us. They do our bidding and millions of us are tired of every heinous act being used to strip away our freedoms. The government is not a parent or master. The government works for us. Hundreds of thousands of us call, write and donate millions of dollars to ensure things stay as they are.

Topic: RE: Obama, To Impose Gun Control By Decree
Username: DeltaMD90
Posted 2013-01-12 15:19:48 and read 3504 times.

Quoting roswell41 (Reply 280):
The government is us.

Yes but just like the government is comprised of gun owners, it's also comprised with people who want measures put in place and want nothing to do with guns. We don't want them to trample over us, but at the same time, we can do things to police our own ranks and help stop the violence from affecting them

Topic: RE: Obama, To Impose Gun Control By Decree
Username: itsjustme
Posted 2013-01-12 15:34:03 and read 3502 times.

Quoting roswell41 (Reply 280):
They do our bidding and millions of us are tired of every heinous act being used to strip away our freedoms.

And millions of us are tired of it taking heinous acts before something is done to keep more heinous acts from occurring. And for the record, I never said anything about being in favor of "stripping away" your freedoms. Just can't understand a supposed civilized nation that continues to look the other way while screaming "SECOND AMENDMENT" whenever some whack job goes crazy with a weapon that has a sole purpose of destroying whatever it's aimed at. One would think the slaughter of 20 six year olds in just a few minutes would have an impact but, in your opinion, that was "just another heinous act that will be used to strip away your freedoms". Un-frickin'-believable. And you wonder why gun enthusiasts have a tendency to be referred to as gun "nuts"?

Topic: RE: Obama, To Impose Gun Control By Decree
Username: roswell41
Posted 2013-01-12 19:33:51 and read 3477 times.

Call me names and huff and puff all you'd like. And, 'one wouldn't think' as you do. Punish the crime, punish the perpetrator but do not indict millions of law abiding Americans for the sins of a few deranged people. Your logic is fatally flawed and I'm sure even you realize, however intellectually dishonest you may be. Facts and logic, anathema to the secular progressive left In America, rather than emotion shall carry the day.

Topic: RE: Obama, To Impose Gun Control By Decree
Username: seb146
Posted 2013-01-12 19:46:28 and read 3467 times.

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 272):
I see the problem and don't want large capacity magazines in the hands of criminals. Yet, 99.9999% of them aren't used in crime, I think there may be a middle ground then to screw everyone

99.9999% of cars are not used in crime, but they end up in the hands of criminals or are used for crimes. Yet, everyone still has to give up their personal information (name, address) and a picture of themselves in order to LEGALLY operate a vehicle. Those who do not LEGALLY operate a vehicle are subject to additional penalty.

Also, in some states, those who LEGALLY vote are subject to the same requirements as law abiding vehicle owners. Meaning: they have to give up their personal information and give a picture to the state. That is not a problem, but God forbid anyone give any information when buing a gun!

Quoting Mir (Reply 274):
And that's how guns end up in the hands of gangs and street criminals. Why in the world haven't we done something about this yet?

Because it is a violation of the Second Amendment, according to SCOTUS. But, corporations are people.

Topic: RE: Obama, To Impose Gun Control By Decree
Username: DeltaMD90
Posted 2013-01-12 19:49:45 and read 3466 times.

Quoting seb146 (Reply 284):
99.9999% of cars are not used in crime, but they end up in the hands of criminals or are used for crimes. Yet, everyone still has to give up their personal information (name, address) and a picture of themselves in order to LEGALLY operate a vehicle. Those who do not LEGALLY operate a vehicle are subject to additional penalty.

Um, yes, I am in favor of registration (as long as that info isn't publicly available)

Topic: RE: Obama, To Impose Gun Control By Decree
Username: itsjustme
Posted 2013-01-12 19:56:53 and read 3465 times.

Quoting roswell41 (Reply 283):
Call me names and huff and puff all you'd like.

Well, I am going to assume this was directed to me (you do know how to use the "quote selected text" feature, right?). And my response is, not only don't I huff and puff on this forum but I challenge you to point out where I called you a name.

Topic: RE: Obama, To Impose Gun Control By Decree
Username: MadameConcorde
Posted 2013-01-13 06:38:17 and read 3415 times.

Quoting roswell41 (Reply 277):
Obama would go for broke on this issue as he has no elections left in his career, though he would be asking many of his caucus to 'walk the political plank' for him. Being largely self-interested, as most politicians are, they won't oblige him.

Anonymous Responds To Obama gun control policy
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=JZhHyA9z_vI

Anonymous Responds To Obama gun control policy. (full version)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=DSdBx8Em4zg

Who is (are) Anonymous? Have they been infiltrated by the U.S. government?

 Wow!  

Topic: RE: Obama, To Impose Gun Control By Decree
Username: StarAC17
Posted 2013-01-13 09:30:48 and read 3391 times.

Quoting MadameConcorde (Reply 287):
Who is (are) Anonymous? Have they been infiltrated by the U.S. government?

They are a group of hackers (often called hacktivists) who threaten to and have shut down websites like those of the CIA and FBI and have also hacked into Israels intelligence agency for their actions regarding the Palestinians.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anonymous_(group)

Quoting seb146 (Reply 284):
99.9999% of cars are not used in crime, but they end up in the hands of criminals or are used for crimes. Yet, everyone still has to give up their personal information (name, address) and a picture of themselves in order to LEGALLY operate a vehicle.

The biggest thing that voids the comparison between guns and cars are that cars aren't intended to kill people where as guns especially assault weapons have one purpose, to kill.

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 285):
Um, yes, I am in favor of registration (as long as that info isn't publicly available)

That's fair.

Topic: RE: Obama, To Impose Gun Control By Decree
Username: DeltaMD90
Posted 2013-01-13 20:11:35 and read 3332 times.

Quoting MadameConcorde (Reply 287):
Anonymous Responds To Obama gun control policy

Oh brother. Anonymous is for gun rights like they are against it. They are not an organized group and some of its members will break off and do something under the Anonymous name.

I'll give you an example to demonstrate... it's like if me and 4 other posters proclaimed that Airliners.net is completely against changing any gun laws! You know that isn't true since a bunch on A.net don't agree with that.

I'd say about 99% of "Anonymous" do absolutely nothing in regards to hacking and just like laughing at lolcats...

Don't be surprised if you see Anonymous come out with a video completely against what these guys are saying. They aren't a homogeneous group, they are as diverse as this site, and they are not very organized (at all)

Topic: RE: Obama, To Impose Gun Control By Decree
Username: n318ea
Posted 2013-01-14 11:25:37 and read 3269 times.

Quoting Mir (Reply 218):
"Don't infringe on my 2nd Amendment rights, instead why not give up some of your 1st Amendment rights" is an incredibly hypocritical argument to make.

Thank you that's the point I was trying to make. Come after me as a lawful gun who has passed Federal Background checks over someone whom is protected by HIPPA or privacy rights over their mental health issues.

Quoting mt99 (Reply 216):

if you add a "lifetime insurance" charge to every gun and ammo sale - you are in fact doing that.

Penalize lawful gun owner's again right?
Make every convicted criminal buy coverage or a bond when they are convicted or released from jail. They'd just use their EBT Cards anyway.

Well it's been fun having these deep exchanges of ideology with the Lefties here. I am going back to looking at Legacy Aircraft from a better time when planes were loud, smokey and this country wasn't headed for the toilet.
Sorry I won't read the lovely responses here!  

[Edited 2013-01-14 11:26:37]

Topic: RE: Obama, To Impose Gun Control By Decree
Username: Maverick623
Posted 2013-01-14 11:54:10 and read 3252 times.

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 289):
Oh brother. Anonymous is for gun rights like they are against it. They are not an organized group and some of its members will break off and do something under the Anonymous name.

Labeling "Anonymous" as a group with set ideals is purely the creation of big media who either:

a) Failed miserably at recognizing the history behind people signing their posts as "Anonymous", or

b) Intentionally put a label on a "group", so as to create a guilt-by-association angle and make the story fit in with their radical hard-line party stance, or

c) Both a and b.

I always laugh when I hear a story claiming that "Anonymous takes credit...", or "Anonymous is suspected...", because Anonymous isn't intended to be a group name, but the signature of one or many who do not wish to be publicly identified.

Topic: RE: Obama, To Impose Gun Control By Decree
Username: fr8mech
Posted 2013-01-14 12:25:27 and read 3243 times.

So, since this is the "Gun ban by decree" thread I thought I'd post here what President Obama said today.

Mods, please feel free to send me an email to start a new thread or delete my posts entirely and lock this one, but, I'm thinking I'm posting within the original topic.

President Obama said:

“My starting point is not to worry about the politics. My starting point is to focus on what makes sense, what works, what should we be doing to make sure that our children are safe and that we’re reducing the incidence of gun violence. I think we can do that in a sensible way that comports with the Second Amendment.”

I'm glad he said that. Because, if you look at this dispassionately and look at the facts without the political blinders on, you will come to one conclusion...based on the data...that gun control and the assault weapons ban(s) don't work. Aristotle once said "The law is reason, free from passion." Well, if the ideologues put the politics (passion) aside, they will see that crime has been on a steady decline for the past 2 decades, while gun ownership and gun carrying have gone up. The FBI data is right there.

Here we see the language changing:

" that those who oppose any common-sense gun-control or gun-safety measures"

So gun-control is now gun-safety? I've seen this gradual move over the last few years, but this may be the first time I've heard President Obama say it. Pop-quiz...which organization is the biggest gun-safety organization in the country...if not the world?

The following is what concerns me:

“I’m confident that there are some steps that we can take that don’t require legislation and are within my authority as president,"

He, of course, is taking executive orders or regulation. I think some are within his scope as president, but would they really be effective? Or, would they be used as a stepping stone to some kind of legislation?

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/o...e-11-15-m-141554262--politics.html

Now, this article just covered the whole press conference. I'm sure there will be on the "list of sensible, common-sense steps" that Vice-President Biden has presented to President Obama. I wait with bated breath.

[Edited 2013-01-14 12:28:03]

Topic: RE: Obama, To Impose Gun Control By Decree
Username: Ken777
Posted 2013-01-14 13:36:02 and read 3219 times.

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 285):
Um, yes, I am in favor of registration (as long as that info isn't publicly available)

Unfortunately the Freedom of Information Act allows us to demand the information related to registrations. One publication actually published the locations of guns using a map and red pins.

Topic: RE: Obama, To Impose Gun Control By Decree
Username: L-188
Posted 2013-01-14 13:41:04 and read 3215 times.

And Ken777, yesterday it appears the first house to be targeted by burglars using that data was hit yesterday.

Topic: RE: Obama, To Impose Gun Control By Decree
Username: Maverick623
Posted 2013-01-14 13:55:51 and read 3209 times.

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 293):
Unfortunately the Freedom of Information Act allows us to demand the information related to registrations.

The FOIA is easily circumvented, as it is merely a law and not a Constitutional Amendment. Just write a new law exempting certain data from the provisions of FOIA, and that's it.

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 293):
One publication actually published the locations of guns using a map and red pins.

It was The Journal News, a newspaper published in the Hudson Valley region north of NYC... and they've caught so much heat over it that they've had to post armed guards outside their offices. How's that for irony?

Topic: RE: Obama, To Impose Gun Control By Decree
Username: Mir
Posted 2013-01-14 14:13:08 and read 3197 times.

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 292):
Because, if you look at this dispassionately and look at the facts without the political blinders on, you will come to one conclusion...based on the data...that gun control and the assault weapons ban(s) don't work. Aristotle once said "The law is reason, free from passion." Well, if the ideologues put the politics (passion) aside, they will see that crime has been on a steady decline for the past 2 decades, while gun ownership and gun carrying have gone up. The FBI data is right there.

Correlation does not equal causation. In order to make a claim that the increase in guns is responsible for a decrease in crime, you'd have to show that places that haven't had an increase in guns have not had a corresponding decrease in crime. New York City has some very tough gun laws, and yet its crime rate has also been dropping. Since crime is down generally across the country, I can't buy the argument that an increase in gun ownership is singularly responsible, or that it even has any significance at all.

-Mir

Topic: RE: Obama, To Impose Gun Control By Decree
Username: fr8mech
Posted 2013-01-14 14:53:34 and read 3183 times.

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 293):
Unfortunately the Freedom of Information Act allows us to demand the information related to registrations. One publication actually published the locations of guns using a map and red pins.

That's a problem. For those with permits and those without.

Quoting Mir (Reply 296):
New York City has some very tough gun laws, and yet its crime rate has also been dropping. Since crime is down generally across the country, I can't buy the argument that an increase in gun ownership is singularly responsible, or that it even has any significance at all.

I agree. But, the data can't be discounted. Look at Washington D.C. and Chicago.

Violent crime has been going doen and we have not become the Old West, as many of the fear-mongering left claimed we would become when Florida started the shall issue concealed carry movement.

Topic: RE: Obama, To Impose Gun Control By Decree
Username: cmf
Posted 2013-01-14 15:00:24 and read 3180 times.

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 225):
I don't think it would be effective in stopping mass killings.

It is how 6 kids in Newtown escaped. Pretty big difference to them and their relatives.

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 292):
Well, if the ideologues put the politics (passion) aside, they will see that crime has been on a steady decline for the past 2 decades, while gun ownership and gun carrying have gone up. The FBI data is right there.

Looking at the data you presented without blinders it is clear that it doesn't state display what connection there is between increased gun ownership and crime.

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 292):
So gun-control is now gun-safety?

How do you reach that conclusion?

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 292):
Pop-quiz...which organization is the biggest gun-safety organization in the country...if not the world?

I thought you wanted to look at this without blinders. Biggest doesn't mean anything. And you need to include the fear factor provided when things are labeled:
- NRA Basic Personal Protection In The Home Course
- NRA Basics of Personal Protection Outside The Home Course
- Refuse To Be A Victim

Topic: RE: Obama, To Impose Gun Control By Decree
Username: Ken777
Posted 2013-01-14 15:07:36 and read 3175 times.

Quoting L-188 (Reply 294):

And Ken777, yesterday it appears the first house to be targeted by burglars using that data was hit yesterday.

That, I would assume, could be called a clash of freedoms.

Did the home owners defend their home from the hit with their gun?

Quoting Maverick623 (Reply 295):
Just write a new law exempting certain data from the provisions of FOIA, and that's it.

That in itself opens up flood gate of potential for abuse. Politicians would probably start by excluding anything that would be embarrassing to them.

Topic: RE: Obama, To Impose Gun Control By Decree
Username: fr8mech
Posted 2013-01-14 16:02:08 and read 3153 times.

Quoting cmf (Reply 298):
How do you reach that conclusion?

Because he conflated gun-control and gun-safety. It's not the first time I've heard it from the gun-control, er, gun-safety, er, gun-control folks...just the first time I've heard the president say it.

President Obama: "...that those who oppose any common-sense gun-control or gun-safety measures..."

Remember, when you control the language, you control the debate.

Quoting cmf (Reply 298):
Biggest doesn't mean anything

Yes they offer self defense courses. Exactly what is wrong with that? Or do you think that folks shouldn't take their training to a higher level and learn to properly use the firearm outside a range environment. Isn't that want the gun-control folks are saying? That people need to be better trained. You can't get all bent out of shape when people do what you ask them to do.
General Training
Law Enforcement Training
Youth Programs
Women's Programs

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 299):
That, I would assume, could be called a clash of freedoms.

So you say it's ok for a news outlet to put law-abiding citizens in jeopardy?

What that paper did is a problem. I hope there isn't any blood spilled because of their actions. I hope no guns are stolen that are later used in crimes. By the way, it appears the targeted (if he was targeted) gun owner took the proper precautions in storing his firearms. Article

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 299):
That in itself opens up flood gate of potential for abuse.

Strange, it seems to work fine here. KRS 237-110 reads, in part:

(10) The Department of Kentucky State Police shall maintain an automated listing of license holders and pertinent information, and this information shall be available on-line, upon request, at all times to all Kentucky, federal, and other states' law enforcement agencies. A request for the entire list of licensees, or for all licensees in a geographic area, shall be denied. Only requests relating to a named licensee shall
be honored or available on-line. Information on applications for licenses, names and addresses, or other identifying information relating to license holders shall be confidential and shall not be made available except to law enforcement agencies. No request for lists of local or statewide permit holders shall be made to any state or local law enforcement agency, peace officer, or other agency of government other than the Department of Kentucky State Police, and no state or local law enforcement agency, peace officer, or agency of government, other than the Department of Kentucky State Police, shall provide any information not entitled to it by law.

Topic: RE: Obama, To Impose Gun Control By Decree
Username: cmf
Posted 2013-01-14 16:32:54 and read 3145 times.

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 300):
Because he conflated gun-control and gun-safety.

I don't think he is conflating them. I am convinced he knows they are closely related but different issues. Both should be addressed, thus he mentioned both.

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 300):
Remember, when you control the language, you control the debate.

We know NRA has been very successful in that.

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 300):
Yes they offer self defense courses. Exactly what is wrong with that? Or do you think that folks shouldn't take their training to a higher level and learn to properly use the firearm outside a range environment.

I mean exactly what I said - Biggest doesn't mean anything. It doesn't mean they provide a quality product. Nor does it mean they provide a poor product.

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 300):
That people need to be better trained. You can't get all bent out of shape when people do what you ask them to do.

I see you want to control the language... I do want anyone holding a gun properly trained. I do not want them to take classes because they are told that they need it for self defense, because someone may break in to your house and you must be able to violently defend yourself. Conflation...

Topic: RE: Obama, To Impose Gun Control By Decree
Username: DeltaMD90
Posted 2013-01-14 16:38:58 and read 3145 times.

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 293):
Unfortunately the Freedom of Information Act allows us to demand the information related to registrations. One publication actually published the locations of guns using a map and red pins.

Ok... well in that case, I change my mind. I am against registration. Sorry. Unless they change that I am not supporting it

I can't believe how people overlook the blatant safety factor in this and just want to stick it to the gun owners

Topic: RE: Obama, To Impose Gun Control By Decree
Username: fr8mech
Posted 2013-01-14 16:48:58 and read 3135 times.

Quoting cmf (Reply 301):
I do want anyone holding a gun properly trained. I do not want them to take classes because they are told that they need it for self defense, because someone may break in to your house and you must be able to violently defend yourself. Conflation...

Let's examine that.

You say you want someone properly trained. Yet, you don't want them to be trained in the usage of the firearm outside of a training environment. I come to that conclusion because you say you don't want them to take classes because "they are told they need it for self defense". But, if the primary reason someone buys a firearm is for self defense, should they not avail themselves to whatever training is available? Even if the training is offered by the big, bad NRA?

Or, should the gun owner just bring the thing home and forget about it until it's too late.

Quoting cmf (Reply 301):
I don't think he is conflating them.

I do. He's an astute political operator and he knows that if he starts mentioning the two terms together, people will naturally associate the two. Like I said, not the first time...and I'm sure it won't be the last. But, if I'm wrong, I'm wrong. I hope I am wrong...

Topic: RE: Obama, To Impose Gun Control By Decree
Username: flymia
Posted 2013-01-14 17:05:10 and read 3119 times.

I am all for better background checks even at a national scale. However, if gun control laws continue to become more stringent then people who are able to complete the checks and courses etc.. Should have the right to carry their weapons. To own a gun and keep it in your home there should not be much too it. A course, register, background check. What we need is for the background check to include mental health history. We also need laws which can prosecute gun owners who are negligent in how they store their guns at home.

As for gun free zones. They are a literal joke and only make body counts higher. I suggest everyone take a look at this. Read the news stories linked. These are the mass shootings no one knows about. Why? Because someone was carrying their handgun on them. http://gunwatch.blogspot.com/2012/12...stopped-by-armed-citizens.html?m=1
I means seriously people how in the world is a gun free zone a good idea in a country full of criminals with guns?



Also this story really is something to think about. If this happend on most college campuses or in my case even off campus where I went to school. (Washington D.C.) there would have been nothing to do but pray. When i lived in D.C. handguns were illegal for most of the time. Even when they were legal students on and off campus were not allowed to have weapons. That is what gun free laws are about. When danger comes you just hope and pray and if possible call 911 and hope police get there in time.
http://www.wsbtv.com/news/news/colle...t-shoots-kills-home-invader/nD9XG/

Mental health is a larger issue IMO. I have a friend with a mentally ill brother. He just hitch hiked across the country. He told someone that he was going into the mountains to die. After surviving 5 days in the mountains in winter he was detained due to his mental health. Guess what? He is not being detained for anymore than 72 hrs and will soon be out in the streets. Right now the best thing they can do is give him money for a hotel. THIS is the problem.

Topic: RE: Obama, To Impose Gun Control By Decree
Username: seb146
Posted 2013-01-14 17:07:27 and read 3119 times.

Why is everyone up in arms over Obama doing things by executive order? Bush II did it how many times, including raising the debt ceiling and no one batted an eye! This is all "we hate Democrats, so we are going to raise hell" mindset. Get over it. Your guy did it and you said nothing. Don't make a big stink like this is the only time in history it has ever happened.

Topic: RE: Obama, To Impose Gun Control By Decree
Username: Dreadnought
Posted 2013-01-14 17:38:27 and read 3114 times.

Quoting seb146 (Reply 305):
Why is everyone up in arms over Obama doing things by executive order? Bush II did it how many times, including raising the debt ceiling
http://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/news/orders/

Here is a list of his executive orders. Where did he raise the debt cieling?

I'm sorry, but anyone who says that GWB's deficits are in any way comparable to Obama's is simply being dishonest.

Topic: RE: Obama, To Impose Gun Control By Decree
Username: NAV20
Posted 2013-01-14 17:44:32 and read 3111 times.

Quoting cmf (Reply 301):
Quoting fr8mech (Reply 300):
That people need to be better trained. You can't get all bent out of shape when people do what you ask them to do.

I see you want to control the language... I do want anyone holding a gun properly trained. I do not want them to take classes because they are told that they need it for self defense

Did a bit more research on the Second Amendment, with specific reference to what the Founding Fathers originally intended it to achieve. We all know that it was approved in 1791, and that it refers to 'a well regulated militia'. But what appears to be less well-known is that, in Section 8 (Powers of Congress), the original Constitution refers very specifically to such militia:-

"To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

"To provide and maintain a Navy;

"To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

"To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

"To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;"


http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html

Further, in the following year, 1792, the Militia Act was passed, providing:-

"That each and every free able-bodied white male citizen of the respective States, resident therein, who is or shall be of age of eighteen years, and under the age of forty-five years (except as is herein after excepted) shall severally and respectively be enrolled in the militia, ... every citizen, so enrolled and notified, shall, within six months thereafter, provide himself with a good musket or firelock...."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Militia#Nineteenth_Century_2

The more ardent supporters of the Second Amendment on here often say that they see it as a provision aimed at enabling citizens to resist any attempt by government to establish any sort of dictatorship. But it is pretty clear, on the evidence above, that the original intention was the very reverse - to provide Congress with a 'readymade army' which was required to buy its own weapons, and whose first duty appears to have been to enforce the law and suppress insurrections.

Seems pretty clear to me that Congress, way back then, recognised that it had no option but to create a strong Navy; but that (in all probability because of shortage of money) they resisted the formation of a large standing army, and instead provided for all able-bodied men to join a 'militia' which was required by law to arm itself at its own expense, report for training, and stand ready either to maintain order or to defend the United States against invasion.

They certainly don't appear to have intended a situation where every 'little old lady' who cares to can keep a Colt 45 under her pillow; or, for that matter, one where any citizen can own and use virtually any kind of weapon, excluding only full-automatic assault rifles?

Hope some or all of that's of interest.........  

[Edited 2013-01-14 17:49:02]

Topic: RE: Obama, To Impose Gun Control By Decree
Username: cmf
Posted 2013-01-14 17:57:34 and read 3103 times.

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 303):
You say you want someone properly trained. Yet, you don't want them to be trained in the usage of the firearm outside of a training environment. I come to that conclusion because you say you don't want them to take classes because "they are told they need it for self defense". But, if the primary reason someone buys a firearm is for self defense, should they not avail themselves to whatever training is available? Even if the training is offered by the big, bad NRA?

You really make strange conclusions.

I certainly do not want anyone who isn't well trained to carry outside a training environment. Hope you agree.

I also find the hyperbole self defense argument the gun industry, including NRA, have created to be really dangerous. To see NRA first insist guns do not kill people and then claim video games and Hollywood kill people. Video games do not kill people. People with guns kill 10k+ and injures 30k+ each year. Last thing we need is more poorly trained people with guns because fear is showed down their throats.

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 303):
I do. He's an astute political operator and he knows that if he starts mentioning the two terms together, people will naturally associate the two. Like I said, not the first time...and I'm sure it won't be the last. But, if I'm wrong, I'm wrong. I hope I am wrong...

If you want gun control, instead of gun ban, then you need to address safety too. There is no conflation. Not unless you want to avoid owner responsibility.

Quoting flymia (Reply 304):
What we need is for the background check to include mental health history

Mental history is just one pert of the problem. The other parts must be addressed too.

Quoting flymia (Reply 304):
As for gun free zones. They are a literal joke and only make body counts higher.

Nonsense, look at the number of "moments of anger" shootings there are in bars and other public locations. If people didn't bring weapons, had to go home to get them, then most of them would not happen.

The solution isn't to have loaded weapons everywhere. The solution is to change peoples mentality.

Topic: RE: Obama, To Impose Gun Control By Decree
Username: EA CO AS
Posted 2013-01-14 18:00:25 and read 3096 times.

Quoting Mir (Reply 296):
I can't buy the argument that an increase in gun ownership is singularly responsible, or that it even has any significance at all.

Can't, or don't wish to?

Topic: RE: Obama, To Impose Gun Control By Decree
Username: DeltaMD90
Posted 2013-01-14 18:21:01 and read 3085 times.

Quoting seb146 (Reply 305):
Why is everyone up in arms over Obama doing things by executive order? Bush II did it how many times, including raising the debt ceiling and no one batted an eye!

I'm against it just like I would be against Bush's EOs... (I was too young at the time to even understand.) I don't like the business of whipping out EO when you are using it to circumvent Congress, just doesn't seem right to me.

Are you saying you are in favor of Bush's EOs?

Topic: RE: Obama, To Impose Gun Control By Decree
Username: iowaman
Posted 2013-01-14 18:24:01 and read 3084 times.

Since this thread has reached over 300 replies, please continue the discussion here: Obama, To Impose Gun Control By Decree #2 (by iowaman Jan 14 2013 in Non Aviation)

Topic: RE: Obama, To Impose Gun Control By Decree
Username: itsjustme
Posted 2013-01-14 18:41:20 and read 3075 times.

Quoting seb146 (Reply 305):
Why is everyone up in arms over Obama doing things by executive order?

Because the blunt truth is this forum is comprised of mostly "right thinking" members. At least they seem to be the most verbal on issues like this.

Quoting cmf (Reply 308):
Mental history is just one pert of the problem. The other parts must be addressed too.

It's one small part of the problem. In the majority of gun crimes, and I'm not just talking about mass shootings, but gun crimes in general, the shooter doesn't legally own or possess his/her weapon of choice. A fact that Messrs La Pierre and Keene and their membership keep failing to address. I've said it before but it bears repeating; The current gun laws in CT actually worked, with regard to the Newtown shooter. He tried to purchase a firearm and didn't to comply with that state's background and waiting period laws and left the store empty handed. Instead, he used the weapons legally owned by a relative. All the mental background checks the NRA and some contributors to this thread are suggesting would not have had any impact on the outcome on most of the gun crimes in this country.


The messages in this discussion express the views of the author of the message, not necessarily the views of Airliners.net or any entity associated with Airliners.net.

Copyright © Lundgren Aerospace. All rights reserved.
http://www.airliners.net/