Political ThreadsThis section is for Political Threads - Enter at your own risk. If you say you don't want to see what someone posts - don't read it :hihi:
Every child is in more danger of dying an early death from obesity than an "assault" rifle.
That's another argument I keep saying...because these weapons aren't the number 1 cause of death, we don't need to discuss it?
To put it another way...more kids will die from obesity than will drown. Does that mean you are equally dismissive of laws that require little kids to wear life jackets on a boat? Why have those laws! It's not the number 1 cause of death, so why the hell should we care?
That's another argument I keep saying...because these weapons aren't the number 1 cause of death, we don't need to discuss it?
To put it another way...more kids will die from obesity than will drown. Does that mean you are equally dismissive of laws that require little kids to wear life jackets on a boat? Why have those laws! It's not the number 1 cause of death, so why the hell should we care?
Funny you missed the whole point he made.....WE HAVE ENOUGH LAWS Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Maybe another analogy. Since there are 10 of thousands of auto related deaths every year (give or take, very close to the same number as gun related deaths) and we don't ban cars why would we ban guns for gun related deaths? Driver license may get revoked (which does not stop someone from driving)
Also keep in mind about 1/2 of all gun related deaths are gang and drug related.
If the legislators gave equal effort and the news gave equal air time to addressing mental health, reducing drug related violence, gang violence, suicides, prosecuting and convicting those that break current gun laws, along with conversations as to how do high capacity magazines and scary guns contribute to crime (ie crime control instead of only gun control, then maybe a "reasonable" and "sensible" discussion can be had. It seems to me most of the "discussion" is rhetoric and real issues are not addressed.
As long as "gun control" is an agenda instead of focusing on crime control and the issues that lead to crime, a real conversation will not happen.
Maybe another analogy. Since there are 10 of thousands of auto related deaths every year (give or take, very close to the same number as gun related deaths) and we don't ban cars why would we ban guns for gun related deaths? Driver license may get revoked (which does not stop someone from driving)
Also keep in mind about 1/2 of all gun related deaths are gang and drug related.
If the legislators gave equal effort and the news gave equal air time to addressing mental health, reducing drug related violence, gang violence, suicides, prosecuting and convicting those that break current gun laws, along with conversations as to how do high capacity magazines and scary guns contribute to crime (ie crime control instead of only gun control, then maybe a "reasonable" and "sensible" discussion can be had. It seems to me most of the "discussion" is rhetoric and real issues are not addressed.
As long as "gun control" is an agenda instead of focusing on crime control and the issues that lead to crime, a real conversation will not happen.
"Since there are 10 of thousands of auto related deaths every year (give or take, very close to the same number as gun related deaths) and we don't ban cars why would we ban guns for gun related deaths?"
Once again, for like the tenth time, because almost everyone in America has a legitimate need for a car. Cars allowed us to get out of the cities and into the suburbs. Just about no one (except law enforcement and military) has a need for a high-capacity magazine. There is a reason why no one is calling for a car ban, but many are calling for a ban on the most lethal weapons.
"ie crime control instead of only gun control"
Agreed 100%. But I don't think that means we necessarily ignore gun control.
Violence is a learned behavior. It is not genetic.
The games kids play, where they plot online with several teammates, how to kill as many people as they need to win I believe has a negative effect on sociaty . In some cases its the only place in kide these kids win .The NRA was ridiculed for mentioning it.
My kids have always been brought around firearms and the respect needed to handle them. I didn't encourage these games. Hell, I bet alot of anti gun advocates bought their children these games got Christmas. Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Maybe I can turn the thread around a bit and still keep the "guns" theme. How many individuals here have their LTC? I am currently waiting for mine in the mail. I actually had my interview and firing range test 4 days after Newtown. Apparently since Newtown they have been inundated with applications and the city of Boston is 2 months behind due to the increased volume. Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Maybe I can turn the thread around a bit and still keep the "guns" theme. How many individuals here have their LTC? I am currently waiting for mine in the mail. I actually had my interview and firing range test 4 days after Newtown. Apparently since Newtown they have been inundated with applications and the city of Boston is 2 months behind due to the increased volume. Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
I'm in the process as well. Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
"I know a taxidermy man back home. He gonna have a heart attack when he see what I brung him!"
Maybe I can turn the thread around a bit and still keep the "guns" theme. How many individuals here have their LTC? I am currently waiting for mine in the mail. I actually had my interview and firing range test 4 days after Newtown. Apparently since Newtown they have been inundated with applications and the city of Boston is 2 months behind due to the increased volume. Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
I have been shooting since 5 or 6 years old, and I have a class A ltc.
You guys just want your houses to be on the list of ones not to break into (CC permit holders)
Frasier: Niles, I’ve just had the most marvelous idea for a website! People will post their opinions, cheeky bon mots, and insights, and others will reply in kind!
I've got it
Make them green
The politicians will fund them, liberals will want them and the conservatives will get rid of theirs.
Frasier: Niles, I’ve just had the most marvelous idea for a website! People will post their opinions, cheeky bon mots, and insights, and others will reply in kind!
Obama has nothing to lose now, he can not run again so his real "It's my way or the highway" persona will show through..
As an individual, Obama has nothing to lose. As a party, the Democrats were completely destroyed in the election after the last time they passed the FAWB.
This is why I think Obama is trying to exploit Executive Orders in order to push a gun-control agenda. It gives the Democratic legislators "plausible dependability" so that Republicans can't point at the incumbents during the next election and say "that guy voted to take away your freedoms. That guy found it less important to focus on a balanced budget and resolving our fiscal time bomb than the importance he put in making law-abiding citizens less safe in their own homes."
As of 2010, federal law does not prohibit members of terrorist organizations from purchasing or possessing firearms or explosives.
Between February 2004 and February 2010, 1,225 firearm and three explosives background checks for people on terrorist watch lists were processed through the federal background check system. Of these, 91% of the firearm transactions and 100% of the explosives transactions were allowed
Under federal law, individuals who have been convicted of a felony offense that would typically prohibit them from possessing firearms can lawfully possess firearms if their civil rights are restored by the requisite government entities. As of 2002, 15 states automatically restore the firearm rights of convicts upon their release from prison or completion of parole, and 6 other states automatically restore the firearm rights of juvenile convicts upon their release from prison or completion of parole.
To undergo a background check, prospective gun buyers are required by federal regulations to present "photo-identification issued by a government entity." Using fake driver's licenses bearing fictitious names, investigators with the Government Accountability Office had a 100% success rate buying firearms in five states that met the minimum requirements of the federal background check system. A 2001 report of this investigation states that the federal background check system "does not positively identify purchasers of firearms," and thus, people using fake IDs are not flagged by the system
Now, I do agree with having a background check system. Not everyone should be allowed to own a gun. But I have an issue with the government telling me I cannot legally and lawfully own a certain gun / # of bullets / size of magazine because someone who should have never had a gun in the first place committed a hideous crime, which in many cases could have been prevented if the government did what they were supposed to do (both support and enforce the all the current laws and regulations)
As an individual, Obama has nothing to lose. As a party, the Democrats were completely destroyed in the election after the last time they passed the FAWB.
The 1994 sweep didn't happen because of the assault weapons ban, if anything that was a late sideshow...the GOP was successful because they ran against excess attributed to longstanding control by Dem's and the Contract With America.
Quote:
This is why I think Obama is trying to exploit Executive Orders in order to push a gun-control agenda. It gives the Democratic legislators "plausible dependability" so that Republicans can't point at the incumbents during the next election and say "that guy voted to take away your freedoms. That guy found it less important to focus on a balanced budget and resolving our fiscal time bomb than the importance he put in making law-abiding citizens less safe in their own homes."
I am not overly optimistic that any SCOTUS decision is written in stone, including Heller and Mcdonald. Those were 5 to 4 decisions as are so many nowadays. A matter of one vote can affirm or reverse decisions. Considering what has happened to the rest of the Constitution, ex Bill of Rights, and the constant nibbling even at those rights, I think we have to be reminded that eternal vigilance is the price of liberty. I think, also, that vigilance without wisdom or understanding, is merely vigilance by the ignorant. When the people see through a glass darkly, or glasses tinted by the color of a soft tyranny which paints pictures of a benevolent state giving them happiness merely paid for by the price of transferring their awsome burden of responsibility to the State, they are ripe for less soft, harsher tyrannies.
I am not overly optimistic that any SCOTUS decision is written in stone, including Heller and Mcdonald. Those were 5 to 4 decisions as are so many nowadays. A matter of one vote can affirm or reverse decisions.
But what is left to reverse in Heller?
Both dissents rely on twisted logic and hiding from sight many fundamental tenets of the Constitution that the Court has settled long ago and are not open to revisiting.
Both dissents agree that the right secured by the 2nd is an individual right, possessed and enforceable by individuals but they each embrace a "militia conditioned individual right" model. This theory is just the latest in a series of endless step backs from more restrictive interpretive mutations. As each previous layer is torn away and discarded the anti-individual right side just embraces a new restrictive model and present it as the original meaning of the 2nd Amendment. Typical shape-shifting leftists that we are forced to endure . . .
The original, "militia right" and "state's right" interpretations inserted in the federal courts in 1942 which only served to completely extinguish the individual right interpretation, are dead; there is no going back to them. The flesh has been flayed off those theories to the point where now just a couple bones (the "militia conditioned individual right) are being rattled and shaken by the leftist Witch Doctors to try to scare away the the "individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia" interpretation. Well, it isn't going to work.
Breyer's and Stevens' dissents, like most treatises advocating for a restrictive interpretation, focus on what the 2nd Amendment isn't and what it doesn't do . . . Rare indeed is any explanation of what the 2nd does under their interpretation and how it has functioned with that action in the courts. Of course there is no such record to cite; theirs is just a grand thought experiment that can't withstand scrutiny.
This theory that the dissents are arguing is just the very last straw to grasp before the entire anti-individual right camp is discarded into the "flat-earth" bin . . .
You can’t truly call yourself “peaceful” unless you are capable of great violence.
If you are incapable of violence, you are not peaceful, you are just harmless.
Breyer's and Stevens' dissents, like most treatises advocating for a restrictive interpretation, focus on what the 2nd Amendment isn't and what it doesn't do . . . Rare indeed is any explanation of what the 2nd does under their interpretation and how it has functioned with that action in the courts. Of course there is no such record to cite; theirs is just a grand thought experiment that can't withstand scrutiny.
That's simply not true. Seven's dissent on Heller is quite lucid and describes precisely what they believe the Second Amendment to be.
Not so much "what" is left, but "who" is left to do so. If one of the five concurring justices had previously died and Obama had appointed another Kagan or Soto Mayor type, what do you think the Heller decision would have been? He may well be able to appoint a couple of justices in his final term. Then we may have a period when the Constitution is "subject" to those "liberal interpretations," which Spence speaks of.
Not so much "what" is left, but "who" is left to do so. If one of the five concurring justices had previously died and Obama had appointed another Kagan or Soto Mayor type, what do you think the Heller decision would have been? He may well be able to appoint a couple of justices in his final term. Then we may have a period when the Constitution is "subject" to those "liberal interpretations," which Spence speaks of.
pretty stark contrast (and I'd argue frightening) in the dissent...this is great... Breyer's dissent goes on to conclude, "there simply is no untouchable constitutional right guaranteed by the Second Amendment to keep loaded handguns in the house in crime-ridden urban areas."
I'm pretty confident that these liberals/progressives could apply the "no untouchable Constitutional right" thing to pretty much all/any of our Constitutional guarantees if they were in the mood
...........................................
Quote:
Originally Posted by ReelinRod
Breyer's and Stevens' dissents, like most treatises advocating for a restrictive interpretation, focus on what the 2nd Amendment isn't and what it doesn't do . . . Rare indeed is any explanation of what the 2nd does under their interpretation and how it has functioned with that action in the courts. Of course there is no such record to cite; theirs is just a grand thought experiment that can't withstand scrutiny.
That's simply not true. Seven's dissent on Heller is quite lucid and describes precisely what they believe the Second Amendment to be.
-spence
this is hilarious...Steven's dissent is a laundry list of liberal pretensions that prove the basic and obvious difference in thought process between the competing ideaologies....which is that some seek to follow the Constitution and others are always seeking a way around it...
WASHINGTON (CBS DC) – Annual FBI crime statistics show that more people are killed with clubs and hammers each year than by rifles or shotguns.
In 2011, there were 323 murders committed with a rifle but 496 murders committed with hammers and clubs. There were 356 murders in which a shotgun was the deadly weapon of choice.
Why is it every time there is a discussion it is the law abiding citizen fighting for their rights against TYRANTS who incite the masses to hysteria by using emotion rather than facts. It is no coincidence that the same leaders who want to ban firearms are also the most willing to pass laws through executive decree.
As noted by Corrie Terry, founder of "Mothers Against Murders and Shootings," the U.S. government is addressing the wrong problem - it legalizes marijuana, it is concerned about the people's rights to own a gun, but it does not think what makes mentally unstable people commit mass murder. In response, Democratic Senator Dianne Feinstein said that next year the amendment to the law on sale of automatic weapons will be considered by the Senate and House of Representatives. Whether this measure would help to curb mass murder is not yet known.
Sergei Vasilenkov
Pravda.Ru
“It’s not up to the courts to invent new minorities that get special protections,” Antonin Scalia
By REID J. EPSTEIN | 1/14/13 6:49 PM EST Updated: 1/15/13 6:15 AM EST
The White House has identified 19 executive actions for President Barack Obama to move unilaterally on gun control, Vice President Joe Biden told a group of House Democrats on Monday, the administration’s first definitive statements about its response to last month’s mass shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School.
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
infringed past participle, past tense of in·fringe (Verb)
Verb
1.Actively break the terms of (a law, agreement, etc.): "infringe a copyright".
2.Act so as to limit or undermine (something); encroach on: "infringe on his privacy".
The Commerce Clause describes an enumerated power listed in the United States Constitution (Article I, Section 8, Clause 3).
Article I, Section 8, Clause 3:[3]
[The Congress shall have Power] To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian tribes;
Amendment IX
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by "the people".
“My understanding is the vice president is going to provide a range of steps that we can do to prevent gun violence. Some of them will require legislation,” Obama said. “Some of them I can accomplish through executive action."
”Justice Stevens took the plain language of the statute and made legal contortions to get to the result the Court wanted to get to,”
“It was turning statutory interpretation and the interpretation of a record upside down, in my opinion, to get a predetermined result. ” Senator Lindsey Graham
I have a question for Obama...he hails from Chicago where he spent some time in politics, and which also happens to be one of the, if not the most violent city on earth...he's been President for quite a while now and supposedly has quite a bit of support from the exact areas where most of the violence takes place on a daily basis in Chicago....I searched a bit for stories of Obama addressing the violence in his adopted hometown using his bullypulpit and influence in the community and the best that I could find was a mention in a videotaped address to some small group of students which included "We have to provide stronger role models than the gang-banger on the corner,” Obama said.
Obama had declined the invitation to serve as grand marshal in this year’s parade. But he sent Deputy Assistant Michael Strautmanis, who is a trusted aid to presidential adviser Valerie Jarrett, to represent Obama and First Lady Michelle Obama.
The president’s absence was a particular burn to some of the parade organizers.
For one thing, they had chosen as a theme: “Education: Built to Last; A Tribute to President Barack Obama.” And given Chicago’s growing reputation as a violent city, it seemed only fitting that a president who was from the city would be especially concerned.http://www.suntimes.com/news/mitchel...-hometown.html
....if this were your "hometown"...I'm pretty sure he still owns a house there...wouldn't this be a great opportunity if as President, you cared a wit about what is going on there??????
he can certainly spend a fortune to pop in there for an anniversary dinner with the wifey, he can fly over on his way to a multimillion dollar vacation in Hawaii ...and now we're supposed to believe that Blowhard Biden and Barry are going to magically....
"provide a range of steps that we can do to prevent gun violence"...sidestepping Congress in may cases
Hybrid Mode
