|
Post by Warkitty on Jan 15, 2013 12:16:33 GMT -5
You won't get it from me. I understand why some want to put controls on gun sales and ownership, but that doesn't mean I agree with their opinion.
Besides, I've a history of illegal concealed carry. Not that I've done so in many years (no need to worry there, officer) but it's been known to happen, largely in reaction to having a gun pointed at my dog and I for the apparent amusement of it's holder. My reaction isn't to think "we gotta make it harder for him to get one of those" because I know he already has it. My reaction is "I should be ready to shoot back if it happens again."
|
|
|
Post by Conservator on Jan 15, 2013 12:45:45 GMT -5
My concern is the new legislation that is coming soon that will be justified as an attempt to prevent or reduce gun violence. Neither of which will it have any effect on. Not sure where the line will be drawn, (so it's a little difficult to argue it at this point) but I'm guessing Joe Biden will tell me I should be able to hit my intruder or intruders needing no more than X amount of rounds in my clip. While he enjoys the comfort and safety of armed SS. Who most certainly any new leg will not apply to.
Also, semi-auto rifles... will probably be on the chopping block. There's already been requests by Dem leaders for major sporting goods chains to cease the sales of such guns until new legislation passed or the debate is settled. While sales are at an all time high. This is what will fill the lib media airwaves... "those aren't for sporting/hunting" and/or "do you really need those for self defense?"
As for those that literally fear they might try to confiscate guns... Though I think it's highly unlikely on a national level, after hearing what they did in NO after Katrina. I'm assuming nothing is out of the realm of possibilities. They went door to door collecting guns... whether residents were home or not. That is precisely when I'd want/need my 2nd amendment rights the most!
|
|
|
Post by Warkitty on Jan 15, 2013 13:42:53 GMT -5
Yeah, the lesson of Katrina gun confiscation is pretty freaking disturbing. Then again, a lot of what came out of Katrina is disturbing.
|
|
BlackFox
Senior Forumite
Stay thirsty my friends
Posts: 4,496
|
Post by BlackFox on Jan 15, 2013 13:54:25 GMT -5
Not a lot of "pro gun control" comment on this thread. It's hard to argue for an obviously illegal action. Yet the rape of the 4th and 5th amendments have suited you just fine in order to prosecute the War on Drugs. Meanwhile you rise up in righteous indignation that anyone would dare point out the words "well regulated" in the 2nd. “This is a matter of vital importance to the public safety ... While we recognize that assault-weapon legislation will not stop all assault-weapon crime, statistics prove that we can dry up the supply of these guns, making them less accessible to criminals.”-Ronald Reagan
|
|
|
Post by Justin Thyme on Jan 15, 2013 17:08:19 GMT -5
|
|
BlackFox
Senior Forumite
Stay thirsty my friends
Posts: 4,496
|
Post by BlackFox on Jan 16, 2013 13:38:55 GMT -5
Now that the Executive Orders are out, can one of our conservative friends please give details on which ones are unconstitutional and worthy of impeachment or stifle your second amendment rights in any way?
I'll hang up and listen.
|
|
JC
Full Forumite
No Messiah
Posts: 1,919
|
Post by JC on Jan 16, 2013 14:50:06 GMT -5
Assault weapons ban - Unconstitutional. Ban on high-capacity magazines - Unconstitutional. Universal background checks - Unconstitutional. Federal funds for national background checks - To pay for the unconstitutional checks of privately owned items. Will also likely lead to gun registration because.... well.... how else are they gonna enforce and track the sales? Research on gun violence - Not sure where this will lead. Bloomberg says ammunition will be "researched" and will lead to regulation. Unconstitutional. Mental health - This is good. Nearly every single one of the mass-shootings are related to mental health and psych drugs. 90 percent of those shooters were on psych meds when they committed their act. www.wnd.com/2012/12/psych-meds-linked-to-90-of-school-shootings/#oBp2LjT481sJwJfh.99
|
|
BlackFox
Senior Forumite
Stay thirsty my friends
Posts: 4,496
|
Post by BlackFox on Jan 16, 2013 15:08:54 GMT -5
Those first three are not executive orders. He asked Congress to pass laws. That's their job. This will die there. Your guns, I assure you, are safe.
Your next two items sound like Limbaughesque garble. Searching desperately to find something that isn't there.
Totally agree on your third point. Everyone in Washington is afraid of Big Pharma because Big Pharma gives them money, and could easily give that money to their opponent. Phsycotropic drugs are the main culprit here, and no one will do a damn thing about it.
Find something new to get outraged about republicans. He let you down again.
|
|
JC
Full Forumite
No Messiah
Posts: 1,919
|
Post by JC on Jan 16, 2013 15:19:43 GMT -5
I agree that my guns are safe. Already stated that in this thread earlier. These bills will never be passed Biden and Bloomberg are pushing for EOs to be issued on those three items. An EO on a gun ban is unlikely. An EO on ammo or mags is not unlikely.
Background checks are as efficient as anything the guberment does. They can either play face to improve them or actually "improve" them. In order to actually outlaw private sales and enforce the law, they would have to make a gun registry. that's not tinfoil hattery. How else are they gonna do it? An honor system, perhaps?
I'm not a Republican.
|
|
|
Post by Half-Tard on Jan 16, 2013 15:20:17 GMT -5
Man it's gonna get real up in here. The next few months are going to be comedy gold. Keep an eye on the ones who scream the loudest.
|
|
JC
Full Forumite
No Messiah
Posts: 1,919
|
Post by JC on Jan 16, 2013 15:24:12 GMT -5
What type of 22 do you have BF?
Is it a Ruger 10/22? Those are on the chopping block, too, along with other 22s that can accept "tactical" goddies.
|
|
|
Post by Warkitty on Jan 16, 2013 17:03:32 GMT -5
Well hell, why not. Fictional crime shows have been supposedly tracing guns "registered" to people for a long time now.
|
|
frayne
Senior Member
Shortsighted rocket scientist
Posts: 648
|
Post by frayne on Jan 16, 2013 18:02:59 GMT -5
Assault weapons ban - Unconstitutional. Ban on high-capacity magazines - Unconstitutional. Universal background checks - Unconstitutional. Federal funds for national background checks - To pay for the unconstitutional checks of privately owned items. Will also likely lead to gun registration because.... well.... how else are they gonna enforce and track the sales? Research on gun violence - Not sure where this will lead. Bloomberg says ammunition will be "researched" and will lead to regulation. Unconstitutional. Mental health - This is good. Nearly every single one of the mass-shootings are related to mental health and psych drugs. 90 percent of those shooters were on psych meds when they committed their act. www.wnd.com/2012/12/psych-meds-linked-to-90-of-school-shootings/#oBp2LjT481sJwJfh.99As a republican, combat vet and a CCP holder I don't have any problems with what the president proposed. It is time to put some common sense with the issue of firearms.
|
|
|
Post by Justin Thyme on Jan 16, 2013 19:14:34 GMT -5
Well, the president has released his report on 23 executive orders he will issue to curb gun violence and I have no objections to any of the exective orders he mentioned. I think most of them are window dressing but some of them I actually like, especially his commitment to mental health issues. Then he gets into the legislative ideas. He lists nine of those: 1) Require criminal background checks for all gun sales. (a.k.a. closing the “gun show loophole.”) You folks do realize that this will require registering all firearms to be effective. Don’t you? If this is passed you will be required to fill out a form stating what firearm with what serial number you own. A database will be kept of this and you will probably have to periodically re-register the weapon. You will be required to report if it is lost or stolen and if you sell it you will have to do so in a very specific manner so that a background check on the buyer can be performed. I have no problem with a background check made on every buyer. I’m concerned about the penalties incurred by the honest and peaceful gun owner who simply fails to register a gun he never intends to sell or somehow fills out the registration form wrong. 2) Reinstate and strengthen the assault weapons ban. I am fully opposed to this. In the first place I don’t know what they mean by an assault weapon and neither do they, including Senator Feinstein. There is no data showing that the weapons they would like to classify as assault weapons are a particular problem. It was just unfortunate circumstances that led to a few of these being used in recent mass killings. Most mass killings are accomplished by handguns, not long guns and certainly not so-called assault weapons. 3) Restore the 10-round limit on ammunition magazines. Why? Just because you manage to shoot the intruder coming into your house doesn’t mean he’s going to stop. “Why would anyone need a 30 round magazine,” you ask? Because sometimes 29 rounds isn’t enough to stop an attack. With adrenaline running you are going to miss with some rounds and other rounds are going to hit non-vital parts of the body and the attacker’s adrenaline is running so he may take ten or fifteen rounds and be dead but he’s still coming. Before he takes that last breath he can still take you life. So if he’s still coming you need to be able to keep shooting. Limiting the capacity of our magazines limits our ability to defend ourselves. For this reason I’m fully opposed to limiting the capacity of magazines. 4) Protect police by finishing the job of getting rid of armor-piercing bullets. I have no problem with this proposal but it’s symbolic. It won’t save any lives and it’s possible it could be used to turn an otherwise law abiding citizen into a criminal. 5) Give law enforcement additional tools to prevent and prosecute gun crime. I’ll have to see the bill. Those additional tools may make it easier to turn a normally law abiding citizen into a technical felon. 6) End the freeze on gun violence research. Again, I’ll have to see the bill. I have no problem with this as long as it doesn’t invade our privacy. 7) Make our schools safer with more school resource officers and school counselors, safer climates, and better emergency response plans. Okay but isn’t this the job of state and local government? Do we need the feds involved here? 8) Help ensure that young people get the mental health treatment they need. This sounds good. I might be able to support it if I can be assured it won’t be used to persecute weird kids. Just because you are different doesn’t make you mentally ill or even troubled. 9) Ensure health insurance plans cover mental health benefits. At first I thought this would be something I could fully support but then I realized it’s going to raise our health care costs. We need to be aware of that. That’s my take on the suggestions. I think my opposition is reasonable.
|
|
JC
Full Forumite
No Messiah
Posts: 1,919
|
Post by JC on Jan 16, 2013 19:16:58 GMT -5
Me too, Fryne. Real shame that common sense isn't common. The President's entire plan: www.scribd.com/doc/120650415/White-House-list-of-executive-orders-on-gun-violenceThey are wanting to ban "armor piercing bullets". There's your 22, BF. 22 rifles can penetrate body armor. All it takes is about a 10 inch barrel. There are 23 Executive Orders. They are creating new "gun trafficking" laws. There's your Limbaughesque garble - aka: gun registration.
|
|
|
Post by mikeydokey on Jan 16, 2013 22:03:13 GMT -5
Well being a combat vet, chances are that you suffer from some form of Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) which could be considered a mental disorder, which could mean that you are unable to obtain a gun owners license. You and the rest of the Vets.
|
|
|
Post by LimitedRecourse on Jan 17, 2013 9:33:01 GMT -5
"Your next two items sound like Limbaughesque garble. Searching desperately to find something that isn't there."
So all you got is name calling and hyberbole?
|
|
BlackFox
Senior Forumite
Stay thirsty my friends
Posts: 4,496
|
Post by BlackFox on Jan 17, 2013 10:38:34 GMT -5
"Your next two items sound like Limbaughesque garble. Searching desperately to find something that isn't there." So all you got is name calling and hyberbole? If you'll notice, there was some more writing right there in the very same post. I wanted to respond to all his points, but had to point out how convoluted and reaching those two points were. You're right though, I shouldn't compare anyone to Limbaugh. That's too much. Sorry JC.
|
|
elf
Regular
Posts: 39
|
Post by elf on Jan 17, 2013 11:40:03 GMT -5
The people that can legally buy a fire arm are not the ones committing the crimes. So why isn't the punishment of criminals more important? I still believe in the death penalty. Insanity should not be a defense. You have to be damn crazy to do the type of damage in the first place.
|
|
|
Post by wheels on Jan 17, 2013 13:09:03 GMT -5
Well, the president has released his report on 23 executive orders he will issue to curb gun violence and I have no objections to any of the exective orders he mentioned. I think most of them are window dressing but some of them I actually like, especially his commitment to mental health issues. the problem i have is that those EO's, even the window dressing orders, carry a cost. w/ our current spending situation we don't need to spend money on window dressing. that is, of course, dependent on whether or not congress decides to fund these orders. 3) Restore the 10-round limit on ammunition magazines. Why? Just because you manage to shoot the intruder coming into your house doesn’t mean he’s going to stop. “Why would anyone need a 30 round magazine,” you ask? Because sometimes 29 rounds isn’t enough to stop an attack. With adrenaline running you are going to miss with some rounds and other rounds are going to hit non-vital parts of the body and the attacker’s adrenaline is running so he may take ten or fifteen rounds and be dead but he’s still coming. Before he takes that last breath he can still take you life. So if he’s still coming you need to be able to keep shooting. Limiting the capacity of our magazines limits our ability to defend ourselves. For this reason I’m fully opposed to limiting the capacity of magazines. an even worse thought... what about the possibility that you may have to defend yourself from multiple intruders? 10 rounds just isn't enough.
|
|
frayne
Senior Member
Shortsighted rocket scientist
Posts: 648
|
Post by frayne on Jan 17, 2013 16:17:34 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Conservator on Jan 18, 2013 10:25:44 GMT -5
The people that can legally buy a fire arm are not the ones committing the crimes. So why isn't the punishment of criminals more important? I still believe in the death penalty. Insanity should not be a defense. You have to be damn crazy to do the type of damage in the first place. Our little elfin friend nailed it. If it's gun crime you're going after... it should start with stiffer sentencing. I like the idea of FL's 10-20-life. As for the mass shootings by the suicidal, mentally ill in public areas/schools/movies... With all respect to the victims and families of, these are not that frequent. There's certainly more than anyone would like, but there's very little we can do to prevent them. I think armed guards may be the best deterrent. No law is going to stop a suicidal gunman. And infringing on the rights of 95% of the law abiding citizens is just an unconstitutional dog pony show... As for your question mr. fox, your beloved President has abused his EO privileges before, just did it again and will most definitely do it more in the next 4 years. It wasn't/isn't absurd to fear just how far he was/is going to go...
|
|
BlackFox
Senior Forumite
Stay thirsty my friends
Posts: 4,496
|
Post by BlackFox on Jan 18, 2013 10:57:20 GMT -5
Our little elfin friend nailed it. If it's gun crime you're going after... it should start with stiffer sentencing. I like the idea of FL's 10-20-life. As for the mass shootings by the suicidal, mentally ill in public areas/schools/movies... With all respect to the victims and families of, these are not that frequent. There's certainly more than anyone would like, but there's very little we can do to prevent them. I think armed guards may be the best deterrent. No law is going to stop a suicidal gunman. And infringing on the rights of 95% of the law abiding citizens is just an unconstitutional dog pony show... But stopping 200 cars at a roadblock to maybe catch one guy is ok? To demonize and criminalize all drug users because of what a tiny fraction of a percent of users do is ok? All of you that are now crowing about the 2nd amendment, and applying a very narrow reading of it to do so,should take a look at what you have ignored. The old quote about "First they came for" comes to mind. If you've supported those policies, then it's a bit hypocritical to be so apoplectic about policies that inconvenience the many for the protection of a few now. To abuse the executive power of EO, then he must have done something unconstitutional. Please point to where. Also, which of these EO's infringe on your 2nd amendment rights?
|
|
|
Post by LimitedRecourse on Jan 18, 2013 11:01:02 GMT -5
Driving is not a right guaranteed by the Constitution---apples & oranges.
Using drugs is not a right.
Your logic is flawed.
|
|
JC
Full Forumite
No Messiah
Posts: 1,919
|
Post by JC on Jan 18, 2013 13:32:51 GMT -5
You know you live in a country run by idiots... When smoking Pot is legal and widely accepted but owning guns is treated like a criminal offense. EOs are not to be used to bypass Congress. They are to further a law put forth by Congress or to direct federal agencies, etc. www.thisnation.com/question/040.htmlOur Founders put in place a little known document that keeps ONE man from possessing all power. That's why these powers are split between the legislative and executive branches - the Commander-in-Chief and law makers. The president is not called the "Supreme Legislator and Commander-in-Chief", yanno. One writes and debates new bills, and the other approves and authorizes the bill to become law. Both branches have the power to override the other, but these powers were never intended to interchange. It takes two keys to turn on this bitch (3 if you count judicial branch). One key holder can demand the other to turn or not to turn their key, often under the rule of courts, but at no time was it ever meant for one man to hold both keys. The simple question to ask here is; why do we have the legislative branch if the president can write whatever law he wants?
|
|
|
Post by Conservator on Jan 18, 2013 15:04:25 GMT -5
^this.
And an EO can be an abuse without it being clearly unconstitutional. I'd hope our checks & balances system would prevent that, but my faith in man (particularly our gubbermint) is at an all time low.
|
|
|
Post by Justin Thyme on Jan 18, 2013 15:21:57 GMT -5
^this. And an EO can be an abuse without it being clearly unconstitutional. I'd hope our checks & balances system would prevent that, but my faith in man (particularly our gubbermint) is at an all time low. Here's a list of his EOs given at his press conference. I can't say that I'm opposed to any of them, in fact some of them I like, I just think most of them will have no significant effect on gun violence. 1. Issue a Presidential Memorandum to require federal agencies to make relevant data available to the federal background check system. 2. Address unnecessary legal barriers, particularly relating to the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, that may prevent states from making information available to the background check system. 3. Improve incentives for states to share information with the background check system. 4. Direct the Attorney General to review categories of individuals prohibited from having a gun to make sure dangerous people are not slipping through the cracks. 5. Propose rulemaking to give law enforcement the ability to run a full background check on an individual before returning a seized gun. 6. Publish a letter from ATF to federally licensed gun dealers providing guidance on how to run background checks for private sellers. 7. Launch a national safe and responsible gun ownership campaign. 8. Review safety standards for gun locks and gun safes (Consumer Product Safety Commission). 9. Issue a Presidential Memorandum to require federal law enforcement to trace guns recovered in criminal investigations. 10. Release a DOJ report analyzing information on lost and stolen guns and make it widely available to law enforcement. 11. Nominate an ATF director. 12. Provide law enforcement, first responders, and school officials with proper training for active shooter situations. 13. Maximize enforcement efforts to prevent gun violence and prosecute gun crime. 14. Issue a Presidential Memorandum directing the Centers for Disease Control to research the causes and prevention of gun violence. 15. Direct the Attorney General to issue a report on the availability and most effective use of new gun safety technologies and challenge the private sector to develop innovative technologies 16. Clarify that the Affordable Care Act does not prohibit doctors asking their patients about guns in their homes. 17. Release a letter to health care providers clarifying that no federal law prohibits them from reporting threats of violence to law enforcement authorities. 18. Provide incentives for schools to hire school resource officers. 19. Develop model emergency response plans for schools, houses of worship and institutions of higher education. 20. Release a letter to state health officials clarifying the scope of mental health services that Medicaid plans must cover. 21. Finalize regulations clarifying essential health benefits and parity requirements within ACA exchanges. 22. Commit to finalizing mental health parity regulations. 23. Launch a national dialogue led by Secretaries Sebelius and Duncan on mental health. The only real objection I have here is that some of what is being asked for in these orders will cost a significant sum of money. Where is this money coming from?
|
|
BlackFox
Senior Forumite
Stay thirsty my friends
Posts: 4,496
|
Post by BlackFox on Jan 19, 2013 13:45:53 GMT -5
^this. And an EO can be an abuse without it being clearly unconstitutional. I'd hope our checks & balances system would prevent that, but my faith in man (particularly our gubbermint) is at an all time low. Again, name one. What about signing statements?
|
|
BlackFox
Senior Forumite
Stay thirsty my friends
Posts: 4,496
|
Post by BlackFox on Jan 19, 2013 13:54:35 GMT -5
Driving is not a right guaranteed by the Constitution---apples & oranges. Using drugs is not a right. Your logic is flawed. I still have a 4th amendment right. Doesn't matter what activity you apply it to. Are you actually saying that I give up my rights when driving? By your logic, it is perfectly acceptable to say that you have no constitutional right to ammunition. I believe that we should all have the right to be left alone. I don't give it up just by going out in public.
|
|
|
Post by LimitedRecourse on Jan 20, 2013 12:50:50 GMT -5
But you think you should give up your 2nd amendment rights just by going out in public?
|
|