Sponsor Message:
Non Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Obama, To Impose Gun Control By Decree  
User currently onlineAR385 From Mexico, joined Nov 2003, 6209 posts, RR: 30
Posted (1 year 8 months 3 weeks 5 days 4 hours ago) and read 7887 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

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.


MGGS
312 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineDreadnought From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 8841 posts, RR: 24
Reply 1, posted (1 year 8 months 3 weeks 5 days 4 hours ago) and read 7884 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.



Veni Vidi Castratavi Illegitimos
User currently offlinekiwirob From New Zealand, joined Jun 2005, 7387 posts, RR: 5
Reply 2, posted (1 year 8 months 3 weeks 5 days 4 hours ago) and read 7873 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.


User currently offlinekiwirob From New Zealand, joined Jun 2005, 7387 posts, RR: 5
Reply 3, posted (1 year 8 months 3 weeks 5 days 4 hours ago) and read 7865 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.


User currently offlineAirstud From United States of America, joined Nov 2000, 2668 posts, RR: 4
Reply 4, posted (1 year 8 months 3 weeks 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 7852 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]


Pancakes are delicious.
User currently offlineMD-90 From United States of America, joined Jan 2000, 8507 posts, RR: 12
Reply 5, posted (1 year 8 months 3 weeks 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 7849 times:

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

User currently offlinefr8mech From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 5452 posts, RR: 14
Reply 6, posted (1 year 8 months 3 weeks 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 7847 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]


When seconds count...the police are minutes away.
User currently onlineAaron747 From Japan, joined Aug 2003, 8153 posts, RR: 26
Reply 7, posted (1 year 8 months 3 weeks 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 7816 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.



If you need someone to blame / throw a rock in the air / you'll hit someone guilty
User currently offlinefr8mech From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 5452 posts, RR: 14
Reply 8, posted (1 year 8 months 3 weeks 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 7793 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.



When seconds count...the police are minutes away.
User currently offlineTheCommodore From Australia, joined Dec 2007, 2873 posts, RR: 8
Reply 9, posted (1 year 8 months 3 weeks 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 7792 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 !



Flown 905,468 kms or 2.356 times to the moon, 1296 hrs, Longest flight 10,524 kms
User currently offlineJakeOrion From United States of America, joined Oct 2005, 1253 posts, RR: 2
Reply 10, posted (1 year 8 months 3 weeks 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 7796 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.



Every problem has a simple solution; finding the simple solution is the difficult problem.
User currently offlinekiwirob From New Zealand, joined Jun 2005, 7387 posts, RR: 5
Reply 11, posted (1 year 8 months 3 weeks 5 days ago) and read 7702 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


User currently offlineJoePatroni707 From United States of America, joined Dec 2012, 493 posts, RR: 0
Reply 12, posted (1 year 8 months 3 weeks 4 days 23 hours ago) and read 7660 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.


User currently offlineRara From Germany, joined Jan 2007, 2089 posts, RR: 2
Reply 13, posted (1 year 8 months 3 weeks 4 days 22 hours ago) and read 7632 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.



Samson was a biblical tough guy, but his dad Samsonite was even more of a hard case.
User currently offlinerfields5421 From United States of America, joined Jul 2007, 7607 posts, RR: 31
Reply 14, posted (1 year 8 months 3 weeks 4 days 21 hours ago) and read 7587 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.


User currently offlineeinsteinboricua From Puerto Rico, joined Apr 2010, 3102 posts, RR: 8
Reply 15, posted (1 year 8 months 3 weeks 4 days 20 hours ago) and read 7565 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.



"You haven't seen a tree until you've seen its shadow from the sky."
User currently offlineMir From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 21634 posts, RR: 55
Reply 16, posted (1 year 8 months 3 weeks 4 days 20 hours ago) and read 7550 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



7 billion, one nation, imagination...it's a beautiful day
User currently offlineDeltaMD90 From United States of America, joined Apr 2008, 7908 posts, RR: 51
Reply 17, posted (1 year 8 months 3 weeks 4 days 19 hours ago) and read 7522 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]


Ironically I have never flown a Delta MD-90 :)
User currently offlinerfields5421 From United States of America, joined Jul 2007, 7607 posts, RR: 31
Reply 18, posted (1 year 8 months 3 weeks 4 days 19 hours ago) and read 7515 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.


User currently offlineD L X From United States of America, joined May 1999, 11351 posts, RR: 52
Reply 19, posted (1 year 8 months 3 weeks 4 days 19 hours ago) and read 7509 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.



Send me a PM at http://www.airliners.net/aviation-forums/sendmessage.main?from_username=NULL
User currently offlineD L X From United States of America, joined May 1999, 11351 posts, RR: 52
Reply 20, posted (1 year 8 months 3 weeks 4 days 19 hours ago) and read 7496 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.



Send me a PM at http://www.airliners.net/aviation-forums/sendmessage.main?from_username=NULL
User currently offlineDocLightning From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 19708 posts, RR: 58
Reply 21, posted (1 year 8 months 3 weeks 4 days 18 hours ago) and read 7456 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.


User currently offlineL-188 From United States of America, joined Jul 1999, 29799 posts, RR: 58
Reply 22, posted (1 year 8 months 3 weeks 4 days 18 hours ago) and read 7428 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



OBAMA-WORST PRESIDENT EVER....Even SKOORB would be better.
User currently offlineSuperfly From Thailand, joined May 2000, 39886 posts, RR: 74
Reply 23, posted (1 year 8 months 3 weeks 4 days 18 hours ago) and read 7422 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.


Bring back the Concorde
User currently offlineMir From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 21634 posts, RR: 55
Reply 24, posted (1 year 8 months 3 weeks 4 days 17 hours ago) and read 7415 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



7 billion, one nation, imagination...it's a beautiful day
User currently offlinerfields5421 From United States of America, joined Jul 2007, 7607 posts, RR: 31
Reply 25, posted (1 year 8 months 3 weeks 4 days 17 hours ago) and read 7535 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.


User currently offlineSuperfly From Thailand, joined May 2000, 39886 posts, RR: 74
Reply 26, posted (1 year 8 months 3 weeks 4 days 17 hours ago) and read 7532 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.



Bring back the Concorde
User currently offlineseb146 From United States of America, joined Nov 1999, 11657 posts, RR: 15
Reply 27, posted (1 year 8 months 3 weeks 4 days 17 hours ago) and read 7568 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?



Life in the wall is a drag.
User currently offlineD L X From United States of America, joined May 1999, 11351 posts, RR: 52
Reply 28, posted (1 year 8 months 3 weeks 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 7555 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.



Send me a PM at http://www.airliners.net/aviation-forums/sendmessage.main?from_username=NULL
User currently offlineSuperfly From Thailand, joined May 2000, 39886 posts, RR: 74
Reply 29, posted (1 year 8 months 3 weeks 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 7516 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...



Bring back the Concorde
User currently offlineD L X From United States of America, joined May 1999, 11351 posts, RR: 52
Reply 30, posted (1 year 8 months 3 weeks 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 7480 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?

 



Send me a PM at http://www.airliners.net/aviation-forums/sendmessage.main?from_username=NULL
User currently offlineSuperfly From Thailand, joined May 2000, 39886 posts, RR: 74
Reply 31, posted (1 year 8 months 3 weeks 4 days 15 hours ago) and read 7473 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.



Bring back the Concorde
User currently offlinecasinterest From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 4625 posts, RR: 2
Reply 32, posted (1 year 8 months 3 weeks 4 days 15 hours ago) and read 7442 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.



Older than I just was ,and younger than I will soo be.
User currently offlinemham001 From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 3647 posts, RR: 5
Reply 33, posted (1 year 8 months 3 weeks 4 days 14 hours ago) and read 7395 times:

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

Obama never said anything about "disarmament".


User currently offlineseb146 From United States of America, joined Nov 1999, 11657 posts, RR: 15
Reply 34, posted (1 year 8 months 3 weeks 4 days 13 hours ago) and read 7353 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.



Life in the wall is a drag.
User currently offlineKen777 From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 8276 posts, RR: 8
Reply 35, posted (1 year 8 months 3 weeks 4 days 12 hours ago) and read 7336 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.


User currently offlineGDB From United Kingdom, joined May 2001, 13208 posts, RR: 77
Reply 36, posted (1 year 8 months 3 weeks 4 days 11 hours ago) and read 7280 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?


User currently offlineconnies4ever From Canada, joined Feb 2006, 4066 posts, RR: 13
Reply 37, posted (1 year 8 months 3 weeks 4 days 11 hours ago) and read 7251 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.



Nostalgia isn't what it used to be.
User currently offlinePHX787 From Japan, joined Mar 2012, 7560 posts, RR: 18
Reply 38, posted (1 year 8 months 3 weeks 4 days 10 hours ago) and read 7218 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.



次は、渋谷、渋谷。出口は、右側です。電車とホームの間は広く開いておりますので、足元に注意下さい。
User currently offlineDocLightning From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 19708 posts, RR: 58
Reply 39, posted (1 year 8 months 3 weeks 4 days 10 hours ago) and read 7216 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.


User currently offlineMir From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 21634 posts, RR: 55
Reply 40, posted (1 year 8 months 3 weeks 4 days 10 hours ago) and read 7194 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



7 billion, one nation, imagination...it's a beautiful day
User currently offlineDeltaMD90 From United States of America, joined Apr 2008, 7908 posts, RR: 51
Reply 41, posted (1 year 8 months 3 weeks 4 days 10 hours ago) and read 7189 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



Ironically I have never flown a Delta MD-90 :)
User currently offlineouboy79 From United States of America, joined Nov 2001, 4599 posts, RR: 22
Reply 42, posted (1 year 8 months 3 weeks 4 days 10 hours ago) and read 7178 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.


User currently offlineEA CO AS From United States of America, joined Nov 2001, 13602 posts, RR: 61
Reply 43, posted (1 year 8 months 3 weeks 4 days 9 hours ago) and read 7151 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

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?   



"In this present crisis, government is not the solution to our problem - government IS the problem." - Ronald Reagan
User currently offlineDreadnought From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 8841 posts, RR: 24
Reply 44, posted (1 year 8 months 3 weeks 4 days 8 hours ago) and read 7139 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...

  



Veni Vidi Castratavi Illegitimos
User currently offlineStarAC17 From Canada, joined Aug 2003, 3376 posts, RR: 9
Reply 45, posted (1 year 8 months 3 weeks 4 days 8 hours ago) and read 7122 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.



Engineers Rule The World!!!!!
User currently offlineRevelation From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 12561 posts, RR: 25
Reply 46, posted (1 year 8 months 3 weeks 4 days 7 hours ago) and read 7095 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.



Inspiration, move me brightly!
User currently offlinekpitrrat From United States of America, joined Oct 2011, 187 posts, RR: 0
Reply 47, posted (1 year 8 months 3 weeks 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 7057 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.


User currently offlineSuperfly From Thailand, joined May 2000, 39886 posts, RR: 74
Reply 48, posted (1 year 8 months 3 weeks 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 7055 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.  



Bring back the Concorde
User currently offlineseb146 From United States of America, joined Nov 1999, 11657 posts, RR: 15
Reply 49, posted (1 year 8 months 3 weeks 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 7045 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.



Life in the wall is a drag.
User currently offlineAF1624 From France, joined Jul 2006, 659 posts, RR: 0
Reply 50, posted (1 year 8 months 3 weeks 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 6987 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.



Cheers
User currently offlinekiwirob From New Zealand, joined Jun 2005, 7387 posts, RR: 5
Reply 51, posted (1 year 8 months 3 weeks 3 days 23 hours ago) and read 6934 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?


User currently offlineMD-90 From United States of America, joined Jan 2000, 8507 posts, RR: 12
Reply 52, posted (1 year 8 months 3 weeks 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 6870 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.


User currently offlinerfields5421 From United States of America, joined Jul 2007, 7607 posts, RR: 31
Reply 53, posted (1 year 8 months 3 weeks 3 days 19 hours ago) and read 6818 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.


User currently offlineAesma From France, joined Nov 2009, 6658 posts, RR: 11
Reply 54, posted (1 year 8 months 3 weeks 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 6805 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.



New Technology is the name we give to stuff that doesn't work yet. Douglas Adams
User currently offlinekiwirob From New Zealand, joined Jun 2005, 7387 posts, RR: 5
Reply 55, posted (1 year 8 months 3 weeks 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 6797 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.


User currently offlineDreadnought From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 8841 posts, RR: 24
Reply 56, posted (1 year 8 months 3 weeks 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 6795 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.



Veni Vidi Castratavi Illegitimos
User currently offlinerfields5421 From United States of America, joined Jul 2007, 7607 posts, RR: 31
Reply 57, posted (1 year 8 months 3 weeks 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 6792 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.


User currently offlineAesma From France, joined Nov 2009, 6658 posts, RR: 11
Reply 58, posted (1 year 8 months 3 weeks 3 days 17 hours ago) and read 6755 times:

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


New Technology is the name we give to stuff that doesn't work yet. Douglas Adams
User currently offlineGDB From United Kingdom, joined May 2001, 13208 posts, RR: 77
Reply 59, posted (1 year 8 months 3 weeks 3 days 15 hours ago) and read 6739 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?)


User currently offlineDocLightning From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 19708 posts, RR: 58
Reply 60, posted (1 year 8 months 3 weeks 3 days 15 hours ago) and read 6717 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.


User currently offlinefr8mech From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 5452 posts, RR: 14
Reply 61, posted (1 year 8 months 3 weeks 3 days 14 hours ago) and read 6678 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.



When seconds count...the police are minutes away.
User currently offlinerfields5421 From United States of America, joined Jul 2007, 7607 posts, RR: 31
Reply 62, posted (1 year 8 months 3 weeks 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 6653 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]

User currently offlinecptkrell From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 3220 posts, RR: 12
Reply 63, posted (1 year 8 months 3 weeks 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 6640 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



all best; jack
User currently offlinefalstaff From United States of America, joined Jun 2006, 6104 posts, RR: 28
Reply 64, posted (1 year 8 months 3 weeks 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 6622 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

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.



My mug slaketh over on Falstaff N503
User currently offlineEA CO AS From United States of America, joined Nov 2001, 13602 posts, RR: 61
Reply 65, posted (1 year 8 months 3 weeks 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 6624 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

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.



"In this present crisis, government is not the solution to our problem - government IS the problem." - Ronald Reagan
User currently offlinerfields5421 From United States of America, joined Jul 2007, 7607 posts, RR: 31
Reply 66, posted (1 year 8 months 3 weeks 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 6610 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.


User currently offlinefalstaff From United States of America, joined Jun 2006, 6104 posts, RR: 28
Reply 67, posted (1 year 8 months 3 weeks 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 6605 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

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.



My mug slaketh over on Falstaff N503
User currently offlinefr8mech From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 5452 posts, RR: 14
Reply 68, posted (1 year 8 months 3 weeks 3 days 8 hours ago) and read 6524 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]


When seconds count...the police are minutes away.
User currently offlineFlyDeltaJets From United States of America, joined Feb 2006, 1882 posts, RR: 2
Reply 69, posted (1 year 8 months 3 weeks 3 days 7 hours ago) and read 6497 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

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.



The only valid opinions are those based in facts
User currently offlinerfields5421 From United States of America, joined Jul 2007, 7607 posts, RR: 31
Reply 70, posted (1 year 8 months 3 weeks 3 days 6 hours ago) and read 6487 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]

User currently offlineseb146 From United States of America, joined Nov 1999, 11657 posts, RR: 15
Reply 71, posted (1 year 8 months 3 weeks 3 days 6 hours ago) and read 6477 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?



Life in the wall is a drag.
User currently offlinefr8mech From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 5452 posts, RR: 14
Reply 72, posted (1 year 8 months 3 weeks 3 days 6 hours ago) and read 6461 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.



When seconds count...the police are minutes away.
User currently onlineAR385 From Mexico, joined Nov 2003, 6209 posts, RR: 30
Reply 73, posted (1 year 8 months 3 weeks 3 days 3 hours ago) and read 6391 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

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.



MGGS
User currently offlinefr8mech From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 5452 posts, RR: 14
Reply 74, posted (1 year 8 months 3 weeks 3 days 3 hours ago) and read 6380 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.



When seconds count...the police are minutes away.
User currently offlineMaverick623 From United States of America, joined Nov 2006, 5647 posts, RR: 6
Reply 75, posted (1 year 8 months 3 weeks 3 days 3 hours ago) and read 6373 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").



"PHX is Phoenix, PDX is the other city" -777Way
User currently offlinefr8mech From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 5452 posts, RR: 14
Reply 76, posted (1 year 8 months 3 weeks 3 days 2 hours ago) and read 6366 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.



When seconds count...the police are minutes away.
User currently offlineMir From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 21634 posts, RR: 55
Reply 77, posted (1 year 8 months 3 weeks 2 days 21 hours ago) and read 6303 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



7 billion, one nation, imagination...it's a beautiful day
User currently offlineDreadnought From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 8841 posts, RR: 24
Reply 78, posted (1 year 8 months 3 weeks 2 days 21 hours ago) and read 6298 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?



Veni Vidi Castratavi Illegitimos
User currently offlineMir From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 21634 posts, RR: 55
Reply 79, posted (1 year 8 months 3 weeks 2 days 21 hours ago) and read 6277 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



7 billion, one nation, imagination...it's a beautiful day
User currently offlineDeltaMD90 From United States of America, joined Apr 2008, 7908 posts, RR: 51
Reply 80, posted (1 year 8 months 3 weeks 2 days 20 hours ago) and read 6258 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



Ironically I have never flown a Delta MD-90 :)
User currently offlineD L X From United States of America, joined May 1999, 11351 posts, RR: 52
Reply 81, posted (1 year 8 months 3 weeks 2 days 19 hours ago) and read 6251 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.



Send me a PM at http://www.airliners.net/aviation-forums/sendmessage.main?from_username=NULL
User currently offlineDeltaMD90 From United States of America, joined Apr 2008, 7908 posts, RR: 51
Reply 82, posted (1 year 8 months 3 weeks 2 days 18 hours ago) and read 6229 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



Ironically I have never flown a Delta MD-90 :)
User currently offlineseb146 From United States of America, joined Nov 1999, 11657 posts, RR: 15
Reply 83, posted (1 year 8 months 3 weeks 2 days 18 hours ago) and read 6227 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.



Life in the wall is a drag.
User currently offlineSuperfly From Thailand, joined May 2000, 39886 posts, RR: 74
Reply 84, posted (1 year 8 months 3 weeks 2 days 18 hours ago) and read 6224 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.


Bring back the Concorde
User currently offlineRevelation From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 12561 posts, RR: 25
Reply 85, posted (1 year 8 months 3 weeks 2 days 18 hours ago) and read 6218 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.



Inspiration, move me brightly!
User currently offlineStarAC17 From Canada, joined Aug 2003, 3376 posts, RR: 9
Reply 86, posted (1 year 8 months 3 weeks 2 days 18 hours ago) and read 6218 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.



Engineers Rule The World!!!!!
User currently offlinescbriml From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2003, 12566 posts, RR: 46
Reply 87, posted (1 year 8 months 3 weeks 2 days 18 hours ago) and read 6223 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

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?   



Time flies like an arrow, but fruit flies like a banana!
User currently offlinemt99 From United States of America, joined May 1999, 6593 posts, RR: 6
Reply 88, posted (1 year 8 months 3 weeks 2 days 18 hours ago) and read 6205 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

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?



Step into my office, baby
User currently offlineD L X From United States of America, joined May 1999, 11351 posts, RR: 52
Reply 89, posted (1 year 8 months 3 weeks 2 days 17 hours ago) and read 6203 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."



Send me a PM at http://www.airliners.net/aviation-forums/sendmessage.main?from_username=NULL
User currently offlineroswell41 From United States of America, joined Aug 2001, 781 posts, RR: 1
Reply 90, posted (1 year 8 months 3 weeks 2 days 17 hours ago) and read 6196 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.

User currently offlineDeltaMD90 From United States of America, joined Apr 2008, 7908 posts, RR: 51
Reply 91, posted (1 year 8 months 3 weeks 2 days 17 hours ago) and read 6190 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



Ironically I have never flown a Delta MD-90 :)
User currently offlineD L X From United States of America, joined May 1999, 11351 posts, RR: 52
Reply 92, posted (1 year 8 months 3 weeks 2 days 17 hours ago) and read 6183 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.



Send me a PM at http://www.airliners.net/aviation-forums/sendmessage.main?from_username=NULL
User currently offlineSuperfly From Thailand, joined May 2000, 39886 posts, RR: 74
Reply 93, posted (1 year 8 months 3 weeks 2 days 17 hours ago) and read 6180 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.



Bring back the Concorde
User currently offlineD L X From United States of America, joined May 1999, 11351 posts, RR: 52
Reply 94, posted (1 year 8 months 3 weeks 2 days 17 hours ago) and read 6169 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.



Send me a PM at http://www.airliners.net/aviation-forums/sendmessage.main?from_username=NULL
User currently offlineSuperfly From Thailand, joined May 2000, 39886 posts, RR: 74
Reply 95, posted (1 year 8 months 3 weeks 2 days 17 hours ago) and read 6165 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.  



Bring back the Concorde
User currently offlineMir From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 21634 posts, RR: 55
Reply 96, posted (1 year 8 months 3 weeks 2 days 16 hours ago) and read 6143 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



7 billion, one nation, imagination...it's a beautiful day
User currently offlinefr8mech From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 5452 posts, RR: 14
Reply 97, posted (1 year 8 months 3 weeks 2 days 16 hours ago) and read 6138 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.



When seconds count...the police are minutes away.
User currently offlineitsjustme From United States of America, joined Apr 2004, 2768 posts, RR: 9
Reply 98, posted (1 year 8 months 3 weeks 2 days 16 hours ago) and read 6134 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.


User currently offlineroswell41 From United States of America, joined Aug 2001, 781 posts, RR: 1
Reply 99, posted (1 year 8 months 3 weeks 2 days 16 hours ago) and read 6129 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.

User currently offlineD L X From United States of America, joined May 1999, 11351 posts, RR: 52
Reply 100, posted (1 year 8 months 3 weeks 2 days 16 hours ago) and read 6132 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.



Send me a PM at http://www.airliners.net/aviation-forums/sendmessage.main?from_username=NULL
User currently offlineSuperfly From Thailand, joined May 2000, 39886 posts, RR: 74
Reply 101, posted (1 year 8 months 3 weeks 2 days 16 hours ago) and read 6131 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]


Bring back the Concorde
User currently offlineMir From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 21634 posts, RR: 55
Reply 102, posted (1 year 8 months 3 weeks 2 days 15 hours ago) and read 6117 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



7 billion, one nation, imagination...it's a beautiful day
User currently offlineSuperfly From Thailand, joined May 2000, 39886 posts, RR: 74
Reply 103, posted (1 year 8 months 3 weeks 2 days 15 hours ago) and read 6100 times:

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

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



Bring back the Concorde
User currently offlineMaverick623 From United States of America, joined Nov 2006, 5647 posts, RR: 6
Reply 104, posted (1 year 8 months 3 weeks 2 days 15 hours ago) and read 6096 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.

 



"PHX is Phoenix, PDX is the other city" -777Way
User currently offlineHoMsaR From United States of America, joined Jan 2010, 1183 posts, RR: 0
Reply 105, posted (1 year 8 months 3 weeks 2 days 13 hours ago) and read 6061 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.



I was raised by a cup of coffee.
User currently offlinerfields5421 From United States of America, joined Jul 2007, 7607 posts, RR: 31
Reply 106, posted (1 year 8 months 3 weeks 2 days 13 hours ago) and read 6052 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]

User currently offlineitsjustme From United States of America, joined Apr 2004, 2768 posts, RR: 9
Reply 107, posted (1 year 8 months 3 weeks 2 days 13 hours ago) and read 6040 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.


User currently offlinescbriml From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2003, 12566 posts, RR: 46
Reply 108, posted (1 year 8 months 3 weeks 2 days 12 hours ago) and read 6042 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

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.



Time flies like an arrow, but fruit flies like a banana!
User currently offlineGDB From United Kingdom, joined May 2001, 13208 posts, RR: 77
Reply 109, posted (1 year 8 months 3 weeks 2 days 11 hours ago) and read 5998 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.


User currently offlineD L X From United States of America, joined May 1999, 11351 posts, RR: 52
Reply 110, posted (1 year 8 months 3 weeks 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 5971 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.



Send me a PM at http://www.airliners.net/aviation-forums/sendmessage.main?from_username=NULL
User currently offlineseb146 From United States of America, joined Nov 1999, 11657 posts, RR: 15
Reply 111, posted (1 year 8 months 3 weeks 2 days 9 hours ago) and read 5955 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.



Life in the wall is a drag.
User currently offlineDeltaMD90 From United States of America, joined Apr 2008, 7908 posts, RR: 51
Reply 112, posted (1 year 8 months 3 weeks 2 days 9 hours ago) and read 5951 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



Ironically I have never flown a Delta MD-90 :)
User currently offlinemt99 From United States of America, joined May 1999, 6593 posts, RR: 6
Reply 113, posted (1 year 8 months 3 weeks 2 days 7 hours ago) and read 5938 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

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

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



Step into my office, baby
User currently offlineDeltaMD90 From United States of America, joined Apr 2008, 7908 posts, RR: 51
Reply 114, posted (1 year 8 months 3 weeks 2 days 7 hours ago) and read 5931 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



Ironically I have never flown a Delta MD-90 :)
User currently offlineseb146 From United States of America, joined Nov 1999, 11657 posts, RR: 15
Reply 115, posted (1 year 8 months 3 weeks 2 days 7 hours ago) and read 5928 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."



Life in the wall is a drag.
User currently offlineDeltaMD90 From United States of America, joined Apr 2008, 7908 posts, RR: 51
Reply 116, posted (1 year 8 months 3 weeks 2 days 7 hours ago) and read 5917 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...



Ironically I have never flown a Delta MD-90 :)
User currently offlineMir From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 21634 posts, RR: 55
Reply 117, posted (1 year 8 months 3 weeks 2 days 6 hours ago) and read 5915 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



7 billion, one nation, imagination...it's a beautiful day
User currently offlineseb146 From United States of America, joined Nov 1999, 11657 posts, RR: 15
Reply 118, posted (1 year 8 months 3 weeks 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 5891 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.



Life in the wall is a drag.
User currently offlineitsjustme From United States of America, joined Apr 2004, 2768 posts, RR: 9
Reply 119, posted (1 year 8 months 3 weeks 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 5881 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.


User currently offlineSuperfly From Thailand, joined May 2000, 39886 posts, RR: 74
Reply 120, posted (1 year 8 months 3 weeks 2 days 3 hours ago) and read 5879 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.



Bring back the Concorde
User currently offlinefr8mech From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 5452 posts, RR: 14
Reply 121, posted (1 year 8 months 3 weeks 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 5843 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.



When seconds count...the police are minutes away.
User currently offlinewindy95 From United States of America, joined Dec 2008, 2727 posts, RR: 8
Reply 122, posted (1 year 8 months 3 weeks 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 5830 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.



OMG-Obama Must Go
User currently offlinescbriml From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2003, 12566 posts, RR: 46
Reply 123, posted (1 year 8 months 3 weeks 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 5814 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

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.



Time flies like an arrow, but fruit flies like a banana!
User currently offlinerfields5421 From United States of America, joined Jul 2007, 7607 posts, RR: 31
Reply 124, posted (1 year 8 months 3 weeks 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 5811 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?


User currently offlineDeltaMD90 From United States of America, joined Apr 2008, 7908 posts, RR: 51
Reply 125, posted (1 year 8 months 3 weeks 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 5802 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



Ironically I have never flown a Delta MD-90 :)
User currently offlineRevelation From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 12561 posts, RR: 25
Reply 126, posted (1 year 8 months 3 weeks 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 5769 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.



Inspiration, move me brightly!
User currently offlinecmf From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 127, posted (1 year 8 months 3 weeks 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 5770 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.


User currently offlineDeltaMD90 From United States of America, joined Apr 2008, 7908 posts, RR: 51
Reply 128, posted (1 year 8 months 3 weeks 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 5756 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



Ironically I have never flown a Delta MD-90 :)
User currently offlineitsjustme From United States of America, joined Apr 2004, 2768 posts, RR: 9
Reply 129, posted (1 year 8 months 3 weeks 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 5749 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.

User currently offlineDeltaMD90 From United States of America, joined Apr 2008, 7908 posts, RR: 51
Reply 130, posted (1 year 8 months 3 weeks 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 5740 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



Ironically I have never flown a Delta MD-90 :)
User currently offlinePHX787 From Japan, joined Mar 2012, 7560 posts, RR: 18
Reply 131, posted (1 year 8 months 3 weeks 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 5718 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.



次は、渋谷、渋谷。出口は、右側です。電車とホームの間は広く開いておりますので、足元に注意下さい。
User currently offlinerfields5421 From United States of America, joined Jul 2007, 7607 posts, RR: 31
Reply 132, posted (1 year 8 months 3 weeks 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 5685 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.


User currently offlinefr8mech From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 5452 posts, RR: 14
Reply 133, posted (1 year 8 months 3 weeks 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 5680 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).



When seconds count...the police are minutes away.
User currently offlineRevelation From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 12561 posts, RR: 25
Reply 134, posted (1 year 8 months 3 weeks 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 5652 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.



Inspiration, move me brightly!
User currently offlinecmf From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 135, posted (1 year 8 months 3 weeks 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 5654 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.


User currently offlineMir From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 21634 posts, RR: 55
Reply 136, posted (1 year 8 months 3 weeks 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 5654 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



7 billion, one nation, imagination...it's a beautiful day
User currently offlinefr8mech From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 5452 posts, RR: 14
Reply 137, posted (1 year 8 months 3 weeks 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 5645 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.



When seconds count...the police are minutes away.
User currently offlinecmf From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 138, posted (1 year 8 months 3 weeks 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 5641 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.


User currently offlineRevelation From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 12561 posts, RR: 25
Reply 139, posted (1 year 8 months 3 weeks 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 5629 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?



Inspiration, move me brightly!
User currently offlinefr8mech From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 5452 posts, RR: 14
Reply 140, posted (1 year 8 months 3 weeks 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 5628 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?



When seconds count...the police are minutes away.
User currently offlineMaverick623 From United States of America, joined Nov 2006, 5647 posts, RR: 6
Reply 141, posted (1 year 8 months 3 weeks 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 5625 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.



"PHX is Phoenix, PDX is the other city" -777Way
User currently offlinefr8mech From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 5452 posts, RR: 14
Reply 142, posted (1 year 8 months 3 weeks 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 5624 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.



When seconds count...the police are minutes away.
User currently offlinecmf From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 143, posted (1 year 8 months 3 weeks 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 5615 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.


User currently offlineMir From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 21634 posts, RR: 55
Reply 144, posted (1 year 8 months 3 weeks 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 5603 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



7 billion, one nation, imagination...it's a beautiful day
User currently offlineitsjustme From United States of America, joined Apr 2004, 2768 posts, RR: 9
Reply 145, posted (1 year 8 months 3 weeks 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 5579 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]

User currently offlineseb146 From United States of America, joined Nov 1999, 11657 posts, RR: 15
Reply 146, posted (1 year 8 months 3 weeks 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 5551 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.


Life in the wall is a drag.
User currently offlinecmf From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 147, posted (1 year 8 months 3 weeks 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 5540 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.


User currently offlineNAV20 From Australia, joined Nov 2003, 9909 posts, RR: 35
Reply 148, posted (1 year 8 months 3 weeks 1 day ago) and read 5516 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]


"Once you have flown, you will walk the earth with your eyes turned skywards.." - Leonardo da Vinci
User currently offlineconnies4ever From Canada, joined Feb 2006, 4066 posts, RR: 13
Reply 149, posted (1 year 8 months 3 weeks 23 hours ago) and read 5493 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.



Nostalgia isn't what it used to be.
User currently offlineL-188 From United States of America, joined Jul 1999, 29799 posts, RR: 58
Reply 150, posted (1 year 8 months 3 weeks 20 hours ago) and read 5441 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.



OBAMA-WORST PRESIDENT EVER....Even SKOORB would be better.
User currently offlineD L X From United States of America, joined May 1999, 11351 posts, RR: 52
Reply 151, posted (1 year 8 months 3 weeks 19 hours ago) and read 5421 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]


Send me a PM at http://www.airliners.net/aviation-forums/sendmessage.main?from_username=NULL
User currently offlineitsjustme From United States of America, joined Apr 2004, 2768 posts, RR: 9
Reply 152, posted (1 year 8 months 3 weeks 18 hours ago) and read 5399 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


User currently offlineD L X From United States of America, joined May 1999, 11351 posts, RR: 52
Reply 153, posted (1 year 8 months 3 weeks 18 hours ago) and read 5395 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.)



Send me a PM at http://www.airliners.net/aviation-forums/sendmessage.main?from_username=NULL
User currently offlineflipdewaf From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2006, 1572 posts, RR: 0
Reply 154, posted (1 year 8 months 3 weeks 17 hours ago) and read 5376 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

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