Celtics Blog Forums

Other Discussions => Off Topic => Current Events / Political Discussion => Topic started by: Ogaju on December 15, 2012, 02:55:27 PM

Title: US Constitution / Gun Law Talk (Merged Threads)
Post by: Ogaju on December 15, 2012, 02:55:27 PM
The recent tragedy in Connecticut got me thinking, and it kept goiong back to gun control and the impact of the second amendement on that debate. My first impression was the second amendement does not justify the access to assauklt weapons for ordinary citizens, and if it does then we should make all efforts to get rid of the second amendment. Then it hit me that we often talk about the US Constitution as if it was unassailable and a perfect document. It is definitely not a perfect document, it did not treat black or women very well that is for sure. So why cant the second amendment be one of the imperfections of the current document. Why is the second amendment seen as sarcosanct? It is not, and should not be.

The USC Constitution is a dynamic document, it lays out broad principles that should be adapted to realities of the time. So far the treatment of the second amendment has been anything but dynamic - we allow people to buy assaulkt weapons as if the framers of the second amendment had an inkling that there would be weapons that could unleash 700 engine block piercing bullets per minute. Why is the second amendment used to justify private ownership of assault weapons. It is time to scrap the second amendment if it justifies the private ownership of assault weapons.

It is also time to revisit the US Constitution to adapt it to modern day realities.
Title: Re: Should US Const be revisited?
Post by: The Rondo Show on December 15, 2012, 03:06:46 PM
Please keep your political agenda out of the Celtics' basketball talk
Title: Re: Should US Const be revisited?
Post by: PhoSita on December 15, 2012, 03:15:25 PM
Think there's another part of the forum for this stuff.

Also, it is my understanding that amendments to the constitution are interpreted in different ways all the time.  Don't necessarily need an amendment to fix things.
Title: Re: Should US Const be revisited?
Post by: jambr380 on December 15, 2012, 03:17:57 PM
Please keep your political agenda out of the Celtics' basketball talk

I am not one to overly participate in the off-topic forums, or any others for that matter, but political discussions have been on this blog for far far longer than you have been a member here. He has given his opinion, but has also asked the question of others. Who are you to tell him to keep his views to himself? Let Jeff, Roy, or the other mods make the decision of what should or shouldn't be on here.

Edit: If this is just in the wrong part of the forums, it will be assigned to where it should be. You should have probably just asked for that to be done.
Title: Re: Should US Const be revisited?
Post by: Brendan on December 15, 2012, 03:24:44 PM
This should be in Off Topic: Current Events. I'm sure an admin will move this thread. I won't comment until it's moved.
Title: Re: Should US Const be revisited?
Post by: Ogaju on December 15, 2012, 03:25:58 PM
I apologize I did not mean to offend anyone. Perhaps the mods should please move the thread. Again, I am sorry, I did not know there was another forum for this since I have seen discussions on the constitution here.
Title: Re: Should US Const be revisited?
Post by: Roy H. on December 15, 2012, 03:37:49 PM
My first impression was the second amendement does not justify the access to assauklt weapons for ordinary citizens, and if it does then we should make all efforts to get rid of the second amendment.

The issue here is that the weapons used here aren't ordinarily defined as "assault weapons".  Neither the handguns or the rifle were fully automatic.

I'm supportive of all kinds of gun control laws.  I'm fine with limiting clip size, increasing jail sentences for those who use guns, restricting when and where people can have guns, increasing restrictions on those with criminal or mental health backgrounds, and banning fully automatic weapons. 

I'm not in favor of banning hand guns used for self-defense in the home, or rifles used for hunting.
Title: Re: Should US Const be revisited?
Post by: JSD on December 15, 2012, 03:38:59 PM
The Preamble states: "To provide for the COMMON Defense...". What that means is to create an atmosphere in which people are allowed to protect themselves from the possible aggression of others. The Second Amendment begins with "A well armed militia...", but that did NOT refer to an Army. HUGE difference.

We live under imperfect laws in an imperfect world where there are and always have been a percentage (and a VERY small one at that) of people who are either insane or just plain evil. It is IMPOSSIBLE to rid our society or any society of firearms, short of maybe introducing a completely fascist state. Modern technology makes the world a much smaller and more immediate place than it ever was. It also makes it SEEM scarier and a manifestation of that is that the US Constitution SEEMS to be outdated or unable to function in the modern world. I say that nothing could be further from the truth. Human nature has not changed and the Constitution is based on NATURAL laws. Those poor people killed in Connecticut--as unspeakably horrible as it is--happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time... but that is all.

IF we abandon our Constitution in favor of something that invites someone--ANYONE--telling us what's best for us and imposing it upon us if we disagree (aka Fascism) then we will live as slaves and serfs, dependent upon the whims and subject to the fickle whimsy of whoever the demagogue happens to be. Given that choice, I'll take my chances under the US Constitution.
Title: Re: Should US Const be revisited?
Post by: Ogaju on December 15, 2012, 03:40:08 PM
since the crotch for liberal gun laws is the second amendment, is it not time for we the people to get rid of this amendment, or to amend it? Or do you consider that too dangerous.
Title: Re: Should US Const be revisited?
Post by: Ogaju on December 15, 2012, 03:42:19 PM
The Preamble states: "To provide for the COMMON Defense...". What that means is to create an atmosphere in which people are allowed to protect themselves from the possible aggression of others. The Second Amendment begins with "A well armed militia...", but that did NOT refer to an Army. HUGE difference.

We live under imperfect laws in an imperfect world where there are and always have been a percentage (and a VERY small one at that) of people who are either insane or just plain evil. It is IMPOSSIBLE to rid our society or any society of firearms, short of maybe introducing a completely fascist state. Modern technology makes the world a much smaller and more immediate place than it ever was. It also makes it SEEM scarier and a manifestation of that is that the US Constitution SEEMS to be outdated or unable to function in the modern world. I say that nothing could be further from the truth. Human nature has not changed and the Constitution is based on NATURAL laws. Those poor people killed in Connecticut--as unspeakably horrible as it is--happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time... but that is all.

IF we abandon our Constitution in favor of something that invites someone--ANYONE--telling us what's best for us and imposing it upon us if we disagree (aka Fascism) then we will live as slaves and serfs, dependent upon the whims and subject to the fickle whimsy of whoever the demagogue happens to be. Given that choice, I'll take my chances under the US Constitution.

I considered this argument, but do we really have any chance of being as armed as the state? If the state really wants to enslave us, with military might, do we stand a chance?
Title: Re: Should US Const be revisited?
Post by: Celtics4ever on December 15, 2012, 03:51:41 PM
Maybe they should get of the militia part and just keep the right to bear arms.  We have not used militias for nigh a century and to be honest they would get owned by regular troops in a conflict.   I am like Audie Murphy when I play paintball with guys who have not had training as I was a soldier.  I imagine it would be even worse with real weapons.

I am for reasonable gun laws, I do not think we need assault weapons.  They have one purpose to kill people.   I would also be for having metal detectors in schools and armed guards.  It's good enough for judges  why not kids?

People should be able to hunt and possess firearms for self defense but not assault weapons.   But folks this is not going to happen the NRA are better at lobbying than this tragedy will be at swaying public opinion.  I think gun shows ought to be regulated.
Title: Re: Should US Const be revisited?
Post by: Brendan on December 17, 2012, 12:05:56 PM
No.

The reality is people over weight incidences like Newtown, Aurora, etc. because they get a huge amount of media attention. The actual risk posed by these kinds of shooters is small. And when these guys are thwarted by a CCP holder, its not reported: http://www.examiner.com/article/media-blackout-oregon-mall-shooter-was-stopped-by-an-armed-citizen

Title: Re: Should US Const be revisited?
Post by: D.o.s. on December 17, 2012, 12:09:04 PM
The answer is yes--the Constitution should always been open for revision and update.

And, voila, we have a whole process for it. In fact I believe the end results are often known as Amendments.
Title: Re: Should US Const be revisited?
Post by: kozlodoev on December 17, 2012, 12:10:08 PM
No.

The reality is people over weight incidences like Newtown, Aurora, etc. because they get a huge amount of media attention. The actual risk posed by these kinds of shooters is small. And when these guys are thwarted by a CCP holder, its not reported: http://www.examiner.com/article/media-blackout-oregon-mall-shooter-was-stopped-by-an-armed-citizen
Right, and if the Oregon shooter didn't have a gun in the first place, it wouldn't have mattered that the "armed citizen" wasn't armed. This is just plain ridiculous.
Title: Re: Should US Const be revisited?
Post by: ebrick0340 on December 17, 2012, 12:37:33 PM
No.

The reality is people over weight incidences like Newtown, Aurora, etc. because they get a huge amount of media attention. The actual risk posed by these kinds of shooters is small. And when these guys are thwarted by a CCP holder, its not reported: http://www.examiner.com/article/media-blackout-oregon-mall-shooter-was-stopped-by-an-armed-citizen



Wow, this post made me shake my head. Tell that to the poor parents in Newtown. People are "Over weighting" an incident where 20 helpless 5-7 year olds were murdered in cold blood?  Really?
Title: Re: Should US Const be revisited?
Post by: Brendan on December 18, 2012, 04:41:38 PM
No.

The reality is people over weight incidences like Newtown, Aurora, etc. because they get a huge amount of media attention. The actual risk posed by these kinds of shooters is small. And when these guys are thwarted by a CCP holder, its not reported: http://www.examiner.com/article/media-blackout-oregon-mall-shooter-was-stopped-by-an-armed-citizen



Wow, this post made me shake my head. Tell that to the poor parents in Newtown. People are "Over weighting" an incident where 20 helpless 5-7 year olds were murdered in cold blood?  Really?

Yes. Really. People do over weight these incidents. They are not common. They are not even a large percentage of gun homicides or gun crime in the US. If you are proposing a huge change to the constitution, you need better rationale than how the parents of a recent murder/tragedy would react.

BTW - do you propose going to tell the 40 parents of those children that you are working on a constitutional amendment to ban the 2nd? If they reacted negatively would you then reverse your position?

Just a completely silly response.
Title: Re: school shooting at Newtown Conn elementary school
Post by: Chelm on December 18, 2012, 05:15:13 PM
And I'm not saying the woman is just another opportunist, or that she's being insincere or anything. The piece was probably conceived with the best of intentions, but on execution it hits all the wrong notes with me and comes off as overly self-indulgent, clumsily manipulative, and lacking actual insight into real parallels between the killers and her (abet, clearly emotionally disturbed) son.
The biggest point that is made is that we as a society have a dysfunctional way of dealing with the mentally ill (pre-tragedy, that is) - my psychiatrist buddy has had two of his patients (at a mental hospital in SF) go on to murder after released (and several commit suicide) when his professional opinion at the time was that they were not fit to be free at that time.  Despite his diagnoses, he had no legal means to keep them in, or to mandate medication.

I think the main point is that we tend to focus solely on the gun control aspect when there is clearly another serious component to the issue that is dangerous to ignore.  I think it's short-sighted and ignorant to simply write them off as "evil", and doesn't solve the problem.  It's easy to put someone in jail after they go on a shooting spree... but wouldn't it be better if we could put effort into finding some sort of preventative measure?

EDIT:  an article he wrote after a prior tragedy (http://www.sfgate.com/opinion/article/Ignore-the-severely-mentally-ill-court-disaster-2325988.php):  "After decades of trying to get my mother help for her relentless psychotic symptoms and being told by mental health professionals that she did not meet the legal criteria for involuntary hospitalization, my family was left feeling confused and abandoned. Eventually, we realized that she would never voluntarily agree to treatment for an illness she did not believe she had."
Title: Re: Re: school shooting at Newtown Conn elementary school
Post by: Roy H. on December 18, 2012, 07:07:50 PM
Quote
The National Rifle Association on Tuesday broke its silence on last Friday's mass shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Conn., denouncing the "horrific and senseless murders" and vowing to "help make sure this never happens again."

Facing a fierce push for new restrictions on gun ownership in the tragedy’s aftermath, the group said it would hold "a major news conference" in Washington on Friday. It did not elaborate.

"The National Rifle Association of America is made up of four million moms and dads, sons and daughters—and we were shocked, saddened and heartbroken by the news of the horrific and senseless murders in Newtown," the organization said in a statement emailed to reporters.

"The NRA is prepared to offer meaningful contributions to help make sure this never happens again," it said.

In keeping with its past practice after other mass shootings, the NRA kept quiet after the killings of 20 children and six adults at the school, plus the gunman's mother. Gun control advocates, however, have ramped up calls for new restrictions to prevent such tragedies from occurring in the future. And President Barack Obama himself has called for a strong response to the massacre.

"Out of respect for the families, and as a matter of common decency, we have given time for mourning, prayer and a full investigation of the facts before commenting," the NRA said in its statement.

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/nra-breaks-silence-horrific-senseless-newtown-massacre-214755738--politics.html
Title: Re: Re: school shooting at Newtown Conn elementary school
Post by: nickagneta on December 18, 2012, 07:09:27 PM
Okay I'm a guy calling for the 2nd Amendment to be repealed but here are some concessions I would be all for:

- complete ban on automatic weapons of any kind.

- complete ban on any semi-automatic weapons that are easily converted to fully automatic.

- limit of cartridge size for all weapons other than those used in the military and law enforcement.

- limit of one weapon per person.

- comprehensive psychological study of any person who currently owns weapons and those applying for weapons.

- buy back program at fair market value for all people who currently own more than one weapon and have to turn in their extra weapons.

- special permits allowed to own more than weapon for gun collector's and firing ranges or those that can prove they have hunting licenses to hunt more than one type of game. Permits are yearly and hefty in size.

And as a way to ensure our children are protected in all public elementary, middle or high schools, at least one officer per 500 students must be stationed at the school whenever the school is in session. It will mean more police officers, but maybe that can be offset by removing police details from officers and creating companies that do the detail work that police officers receive time and a half for.
Title: Re: Re: school shooting at Newtown Conn elementary school
Post by: nickagneta on December 18, 2012, 07:18:14 PM
Quote
The National Rifle Association on Tuesday broke its silence on last Friday's mass shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Conn., denouncing the "horrific and senseless murders" and vowing to "help make sure this never happens again."

Facing a fierce push for new restrictions on gun ownership in the tragedy’s aftermath, the group said it would hold "a major news conference" in Washington on Friday. It did not elaborate.

"The National Rifle Association of America is made up of four million moms and dads, sons and daughters—and we were shocked, saddened and heartbroken by the news of the horrific and senseless murders in Newtown," the organization said in a statement emailed to reporters.

"The NRA is prepared to offer meaningful contributions to help make sure this never happens again," it said.

In keeping with its past practice after other mass shootings, the NRA kept quiet after the killings of 20 children and six adults at the school, plus the gunman's mother. Gun control advocates, however, have ramped up calls for new restrictions to prevent such tragedies from occurring in the future. And President Barack Obama himself has called for a strong response to the massacre.

"Out of respect for the families, and as a matter of common decency, we have given time for mourning, prayer and a full investigation of the facts before commenting," the NRA said in its statement.

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/nra-breaks-silence-horrific-senseless-newtown-massacre-214755738--politics.html
Better though I think their silence had more to do with their own best interests. A condemnation of the event and then silence until stating what they did here would have made me think they were silent out of respect.

My guess is they have been forewarned about what the President is going to call for regarding gun control. My guess is also the President will make this proposal during the State of the Union address. Gun control is going to become a very large topic in this country.
Title: Re: Re: school shooting at Newtown Conn elementary school
Post by: Roy H. on December 18, 2012, 07:32:58 PM

- limit of one weapon per person.


This one wouldn't fly, especially for people who keep shotguns / pistols for home defense, and use rifles for hunting.
Title: Re: Re: school shooting at Newtown Conn elementary school
Post by: 2short on December 18, 2012, 07:41:16 PM
Okay I'm a guy calling for the 2nd Amendment to be repealed but here are some concessions I would be all for:

- complete ban on automatic weapons of any kind.

- complete ban on any semi-automatic weapons that are easily converted to fully automatic.

- limit of cartridge size for all weapons other than those used in the military and law enforcement.

- limit of one weapon per person.

- comprehensive psychological study of any person who currently owns weapons and those applying for weapons.

- buy back program at fair market value for all people who currently own more than one weapon and have to turn in their extra weapons.

- special permits allowed to own more than weapon for gun collector's and firing ranges or those that can prove they have hunting licenses to hunt more than one type of game. Permits are yearly and hefty in size.

And as a way to ensure our children are protected in all public elementary, middle or high schools, at least one officer per 500 students must be stationed at the school whenever the school is in session. It will mean more police officers, but maybe that can be offset by removing police details from officers and creating companies that do the detail work that police officers receive time and a half for.
I agree on a lot of points and unlike some here I'm not going to get into a political argument but am going to be writing my congressman expressing my opinions.  We need pressure on this,  anyone who thinks this way can do the same.
I completely agree on your ideas 1-3 and think it is possible to get these passed.  I also think anyone currently owning these type of weapons should be given back their money and HAVE to trade them in no matter when they were purchased.  Also another point that was brought up on NPR this evening, armor piercing bullets, these should not be available for public purchase.  As the interviewer(ee) stated deer don't wear bulletproof clothing and for the life of me I cannot understand WHO needs these weapons.  Bullet piercing ammunition is for shooters or criminals.  If the criminals would only shoot each other great but it is mainly to shoot police officers.  A gun collector should be able to look at the big picture and instead of having a military assault rifle purchase a really nice browning or something like that instead.
Title: Re: Re: school shooting at Newtown Conn elementary school
Post by: D Dub on December 18, 2012, 07:44:56 PM

- limit of one weapon per person.


This one wouldn't fly, especially for people who keep shotguns / pistols for home defense, and use rifles for hunting.
Why wouldn't a rifle be suitable for home defense? 
Title: Re: Re: school shooting at Newtown Conn elementary school
Post by: Roy H. on December 18, 2012, 07:46:07 PM

- limit of one weapon per person.


This one wouldn't fly, especially for people who keep shotguns / pistols for home defense, and use rifles for hunting.
Why wouldn't a rifle be suitable for home defense?

Have you ever tried to fire a rifle at a moving target at close range?

It's not what they're meant for.
Title: Re: Re: school shooting at Newtown Conn elementary school
Post by: nickagneta on December 18, 2012, 07:49:28 PM

- limit of one weapon per person.


This one wouldn't fly, especially for people who keep shotguns / pistols for home defense, and use rifles for hunting.
Well anything but a complete ban on all guns might not fly with about 40% of the populace but I am trying to reach a middle ground.

Only an agreement where both sides are unhappy is going to work and gun owners are going to have to make a choice. Do I want a gun for hunting or for self protection? If I want one for each, I'm going to have to pay for it.
Title: Re: Re: school shooting at Newtown Conn elementary school
Post by: Roy H. on December 18, 2012, 07:51:46 PM
Quote
A former co-chairman of the Congressional Sportsmen's Caucus, Democratic Rep. Mike Thompson, D-Calif., and 10-term House Republican Jack Kingston — a Georgia lawmaker elected with strong National Rifle Association backing — were the latest to join the call to consider gun control as part of a comprehensive, anti-violence effort next year.

"Put guns on the table, also put video games on the table, put mental health on the table," Kingston said.

My initial reaction was, seriously, video games?  Video games aren't the reason that people kill children in cold blood. 

However, there's an argument that video games desensitize people to violence.  If there's a realistic and sensible way to keep violent, rated-M games out of the hands of teenagers, I guess I'm fine with it.  However, it's a small, small part of any violence problem.
Title: Re: Re: school shooting at Newtown Conn elementary school
Post by: Celtics18 on December 18, 2012, 07:53:25 PM
Quote
A former co-chairman of the Congressional Sportsmen's Caucus, Democratic Rep. Mike Thompson, D-Calif., and 10-term House Republican Jack Kingston — a Georgia lawmaker elected with strong National Rifle Association backing — were the latest to join the call to consider gun control as part of a comprehensive, anti-violence effort next year.

"Put guns on the table, also put video games on the table, put mental health on the table," Kingston said.

My initial reaction was, seriously, video games?  Video games aren't the reason that people kill children in cold blood. 

However, there's an argument that video games desensitize people to violence.  If there's a realistic and sensible way to keep violent, rated-M games out of the hands of teenagers, I guess I'm fine with it.  However, it's a small, small part of any violence problem.

Where's Dee Snider when you need him?
Title: Re: Re: school shooting at Newtown Conn elementary school
Post by: bdm860 on December 18, 2012, 08:01:34 PM
Quote
A former co-chairman of the Congressional Sportsmen's Caucus, Democratic Rep. Mike Thompson, D-Calif., and 10-term House Republican Jack Kingston — a Georgia lawmaker elected with strong National Rifle Association backing — were the latest to join the call to consider gun control as part of a comprehensive, anti-violence effort next year.

"Put guns on the table, also put video games on the table, put mental health on the table," Kingston said.

My initial reaction was, seriously, video games?  Video games aren't the reason that people kill children in cold blood. 

However, there's an argument that video games desensitize people to violence.  If there's a realistic and sensible way to keep violent, rated-M games out of the hands of teenagers, I guess I'm fine with it.  However, it's a small, small part of any violence problem.

(http://i.imgur.com/ez81N.png)
Title: Re: Re: school shooting at Newtown Conn elementary school
Post by: Chris on December 19, 2012, 12:09:21 PM
Quote
A former co-chairman of the Congressional Sportsmen's Caucus, Democratic Rep. Mike Thompson, D-Calif., and 10-term House Republican Jack Kingston — a Georgia lawmaker elected with strong National Rifle Association backing — were the latest to join the call to consider gun control as part of a comprehensive, anti-violence effort next year.

"Put guns on the table, also put video games on the table, put mental health on the table," Kingston said.

My initial reaction was, seriously, video games?  Video games aren't the reason that people kill children in cold blood. 

However, there's an argument that video games desensitize people to violence.  If there's a realistic and sensible way to keep violent, rated-M games out of the hands of teenagers, I guess I'm fine with it.  However, it's a small, small part of any violence problem.

I am kind of with them.  Video Games have gone way over the edge IMO.  It is shocking how realistic they are, and how violent.

This isn't mortal combat, where cartoonish characters are jumping 12 feet in the air and throwing fireballs.  It is realistic, and from an outsider, looks like they are trying to train killers and criminals. 

Considering that many adolescents are often still developing their abilities to differentiate fact from fiction, I think there could be a real issue here.

AND GET OFF MY LAWN!
Title: Re: Re: school shooting at Newtown Conn elementary school
Post by: Moranis on December 19, 2012, 12:47:38 PM

- limit of one weapon per person.


This one wouldn't fly, especially for people who keep shotguns / pistols for home defense, and use rifles for hunting.
Why wouldn't a rifle be suitable for home defense?
not meant for close range and too easy to get it taken (like say you come around a corner with the gun in front of you, the attacker would easily be able to grab the barrell before you saw him)
Title: Re: Re: school shooting at Newtown Conn elementary school
Post by: Moranis on December 19, 2012, 12:49:08 PM
http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/lookout/gun-deaths-set-outstrip-car-fatalities-first-time-152632492.html (http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/lookout/gun-deaths-set-outstrip-car-fatalities-first-time-152632492.html)
Title: Re: Re: school shooting at Newtown Conn elementary school
Post by: Kiorrik on December 19, 2012, 05:55:05 PM
Quote
A former co-chairman of the Congressional Sportsmen's Caucus, Democratic Rep. Mike Thompson, D-Calif., and 10-term House Republican Jack Kingston — a Georgia lawmaker elected with strong National Rifle Association backing — were the latest to join the call to consider gun control as part of a comprehensive, anti-violence effort next year.

"Put guns on the table, also put video games on the table, put mental health on the table," Kingston said.

My initial reaction was, seriously, video games?  Video games aren't the reason that people kill children in cold blood. 

However, there's an argument that video games desensitize people to violence.  If there's a realistic and sensible way to keep violent, rated-M games out of the hands of teenagers, I guess I'm fine with it.  However, it's a small, small part of any violence problem.

I am kind of with them.  Video Games have gone way over the edge IMO.  It is shocking how realistic they are, and how violent.

This isn't mortal combat, where cartoonish characters are jumping 12 feet in the air and throwing fireballs.  It is realistic, and from an outsider, looks like they are trying to train killers and criminals. 

Considering that many adolescents are often still developing their abilities to differentiate fact from fiction, I think there could be a real issue here.

AND GET OFF MY LAWN!
That last line is pretty spot on, imo ;)

No offense, obviously, but I have to disagree.

I play Counterstrike and Modern Warfare, two pretty realistic shooters.

Though the story draws you in like nothing else, I can hardly say it's making me feel like I'm holding a gun and shooting at people. It's a game. Kids nowadays *grow up* with games. They know that it's not real, and that the real thing is different.

I've never punched or kicked a person in my life, let alone shoot at people with guns.

Heck I wouldn't even know how to get the safety off a gun (guns have a safety switch thing right?) let alone reload one.

I'd give you this much;

If I was a person in the midst of a depression, who had trouble discerning games from reality, who knew how to get his hands on guns, who was unable to feel for others, and if I was also planning on ending my own life...

Sure, in that situation, the games add to it.

But swap the game for Tom Glancy books/Rambo movies and you've got that same person.
Title: Re: Re: school shooting at Newtown Conn elementary school
Post by: D.o.s. on December 19, 2012, 06:09:07 PM
Quote
A former co-chairman of the Congressional Sportsmen's Caucus, Democratic Rep. Mike Thompson, D-Calif., and 10-term House Republican Jack Kingston — a Georgia lawmaker elected with strong National Rifle Association backing — were the latest to join the call to consider gun control as part of a comprehensive, anti-violence effort next year.

"Put guns on the table, also put video games on the table, put mental health on the table," Kingston said.

My initial reaction was, seriously, video games?  Video games aren't the reason that people kill children in cold blood. 

However, there's an argument that video games desensitize people to violence.  If there's a realistic and sensible way to keep violent, rated-M games out of the hands of teenagers, I guess I'm fine with it.  However, it's a small, small part of any violence problem.

It's a false equivalency, plain and simple.

Here's one for ya--mandatory IQ/other intelligence testing prior to gun ownership. No possibility of gun ownership if any member of immediate family has any kind of recorded history of mental health issues, from a prozac prescription to a stint in an asylum. No possibility of gun ownership if any member of the immediate family owns a Playstation, an Xbox, a Nintendo, or a personal computer.


There, I've successfully put all three things on the table.
But I think you'll find that...one of these things is not like the other. One of these things just doesn't belong.
Title: Re: Should US Const be revisited?
Post by: TripleOT on December 19, 2012, 06:44:51 PM
The Preamble states: "To provide for the COMMON Defense...". What that means is to create an atmosphere in which people are allowed to protect themselves from the possible aggression of others. The Second Amendment begins with "A well armed militia...", but that did NOT refer to an Army. HUGE difference.

Amendment II

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.



It does not begin with "A well armed militia" as you wrote in your post. 

Many 2nd Amendment types seem to forget the "well regulated" part of the amendment.  NRA headquarters in DC only has the second part of  the 2nd Amendment on their headquarters, conveniently omitting the word "regulated."

Title: Re: Re: school shooting at Newtown Conn elementary school
Post by: Celtics4ever on December 19, 2012, 06:48:53 PM
Quote
--mandatory IQ/other intelligence testing prior to gun ownership.

I would support this as it would get a lot of guns out of idiots hands but sociopaths can have a IQ.

http://www.healthguidance.org/entry/15850/1/Characteristics-of-a-Sociopath.html

High IQ is in fact a common trait of a sociopath.  So it could do very little to stop things.

This kid and the kid in Denver were smart by all accounts.
Title: Re: Re: school shooting at Newtown Conn elementary school
Post by: Roy H. on December 19, 2012, 06:55:07 PM
Quote
--mandatory IQ/other intelligence testing prior to gun ownership.

I would support this as it would get a lot of guns out of idiots hands but sociopaths can have a IQ.

http://www.healthguidance.org/entry/15850/1/Characteristics-of-a-Sociopath.html

High IQ is in fact a common trait of a sociopath.  So it could do very little to stop things.

This kid and the kid in Denver were smart by all accounts.

Likewise, a lot of "idiots" are extremely responsible gun owners.
Title: Re: Re: school shooting at Newtown Conn elementary school
Post by: Bombastic Jones on December 19, 2012, 07:02:21 PM
Okay I'm a guy calling for the 2nd Amendment to be repealed but here are some concessions I would be all for:

- complete ban on automatic weapons of any kind.

- complete ban on any semi-automatic weapons that are easily converted to fully automatic.

- limit of cartridge size for all weapons other than those used in the military and law enforcement.

- limit of one weapon per person.

- comprehensive psychological study of any person who currently owns weapons and those applying for weapons.

- buy back program at fair market value for all people who currently own more than one weapon and have to turn in their extra weapons.

- special permits allowed to own more than weapon for gun collector's and firing ranges or those that can prove they have hunting licenses to hunt more than one type of game. Permits are yearly and hefty in size.

And as a way to ensure our children are protected in all public elementary, middle or high schools, at least one officer per 500 students must be stationed at the school whenever the school is in session. It will mean more police officers, but maybe that can be offset by removing police details from officers and creating companies that do the detail work that police officers receive time and a half for.

Great list.  I dont agree with all of them, but I think this is what we need ... ideas to move us forward.  Where we are isnt working.

I agree on a lot of points and unlike some here I'm not going to get into a political argument but am going to be writing my congressman expressing my opinions.  We need pressure on this,  anyone who thinks this way can do the same.
I completely agree on your ideas 1-3 and think it is possible to get these passed.  I also think anyone currently owning these type of weapons should be given back their money and HAVE to trade them in no matter when they were purchased.  Also another point that was brought up on NPR this evening, armor piercing bullets, these should not be available for public purchase.  As the interviewer(ee) stated deer don't wear bulletproof clothing and for the life of me I cannot understand WHO needs these weapons.  Bullet piercing ammunition is for shooters or criminals.  If the criminals would only shoot each other great but it is mainly to shoot police officers.  A gun collector should be able to look at the big picture and instead of having a military assault rifle purchase a really nice browning or something like that instead.

TP
Title: Re: Should US Const be revisited?
Post by: JSD on December 19, 2012, 07:02:35 PM
The Preamble states: "To provide for the COMMON Defense...". What that means is to create an atmosphere in which people are allowed to protect themselves from the possible aggression of others. The Second Amendment begins with "A well armed militia...", but that did NOT refer to an Army. HUGE difference.

Amendment II

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.



It does not being with "A well armed militia" as you wrote in your post. 

Many 2nd Amendment types seem to forget the "well regulated" part of the amendment.  NRA headquarters in DC only has the second part of  the 2nd Amendment on their headquarters, conveniently omitting the word "regulated."

“Well regulated” was not used in the way you are suggesting. Most “2nd amendment types” understand that. To suggest it meant, in any form, “More government”, represents a complete lack of acknowledgement of contexts and time in which the Constitution was written.

Quote
The Second Amendment to the United States Constitution states: "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." The reference to a "well regulated" militia, probably conjures up a connotation at odds with the meaning intended by the Framers. In today's English, the term "well regulated" probably implies heavy and intense government regulation. However, that conclusion is erroneous.

The words "well regulated" had a far different meaning at the time the Second Amendment was drafted. In the context of the Constitution's provisions for Congressional power over certain aspects of the militia, and in the context of the Framers' definition of "militia," government regulation was not the intended meaning. Rather, the term meant only what it says, that the necessary militia be well regulated, but not by the national government.

To determine the meaning of the Constitution, one must start with the words of the Constitution itself. If the meaning is plain, that meaning controls. To ascertain the meaning of the term "well regulated" as it was used in the Second Amendment, it is necessary to begin with the purpose of the Second Amendment itself. The overriding purpose of the Framers in guaranteeing the right of the people to keep and bear arms was as a check on the standing army, which the Constitution gave the Congress the power to "raise and support."

As Noah Webster put it in a pamphlet urging ratification of the Constitution, "Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe." George Mason remarked to his Virginia delegates regarding the colonies' recent experience with Britain, in which the Monarch's goal had been "to disarm the people; that [that] . . . was the best and most effectual way to enslave them." A widely reprinted article by Tench Coxe, an ally and correspondent of James Madison, described the Second Amendment's overriding goal as a check upon the national government's standing army: As civil rulers, not having their duty to the people duly before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as the military forces which must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow citizens, the people are confirmed by the next article in their right to keep and bear their private arms.

Thus, the well regulated militia necessary to the security of a free state was a militia that might someday fight against a standing army raised and supported by a tyrannical national government. Obviously, for that reason, the Framers did not say "A Militia well regulated by the Congress, being necessary to the security of a free State" -- because a militia so regulated might not be separate enough from, or free enough from, the national government, in the sense of both physical and operational control, to preserve the "security of a free State."


http://www.lectlaw.com/files/gun01.htm
Title: Re: Re: school shooting at Newtown Conn elementary school
Post by: TripleOT on December 19, 2012, 07:39:56 PM
I'm in favor of strict gun control/regulation, but every political instinct I have tells me that after a flurry of hearings and legislation, nothing more than renewed ban on assault weapons will pass.

Around the same number of Newtown victims are killed every day in the US by guns (and that doesn't even include suicides).   

Japan (pop. 127m) has violent video games, and about 20 people are shot to death yearly in Japan, which would quality for a somewhat peaceful DAY in the US. They have extremely restrictive gun laws (.25 guns per 100 citizens. The US has 88/100). 

Canada (pop 35m), which has the same video games, easy gun access, and a lot of guns (24 per 100 citizens), but they have less than 200 gun murders a year (.06 gun murders per 100,000.  Almost all of Canada's guns are registered.

The US (pop 310m) has 88 guns per 100 citizens, the highest percentage in the world by far.  We have 9000 or so gun murders a year (around 3 per 100,000). 

Here's a great resource of guns in the US and other countries  http://www.gunpolicy.org/

I'd love to see a true debate about our country and it's history of gun violence, but I'm not going to hold my breath. 

Just a cursory look at other countries would show anyone who was serious about limiting gun deaths that reducing the number of guns and making mandatory registration of guns would be prudent. 

I don't see how mandating that every single gun is registered will infringe on anyone's Second Amendment rights. 

 
Title: Re: Should US Const be revisited?
Post by: TripleOT on December 19, 2012, 07:44:06 PM
The Preamble states: "To provide for the COMMON Defense...". What that means is to create an atmosphere in which people are allowed to protect themselves from the possible aggression of others. The Second Amendment begins with "A well armed militia...", but that did NOT refer to an Army. HUGE difference.

Amendment II

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.



It does not being with "A well armed militia" as you wrote in your post. 

Many 2nd Amendment types seem to forget the "well regulated" part of the amendment.  NRA headquarters in DC only has the second part of  the 2nd Amendment on their headquarters, conveniently omitting the word "regulated."

“Well regulated” was not used in the way you are suggesting. Most “2nd amendment types” understand that. To suggest it meant, in any form, “More government”, represents a complete lack of acknowledgement of contexts and time in which the Constitution was written.

Quote
The Second Amendment to the United States Constitution states: "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." The reference to a "well regulated" militia, probably conjures up a connotation at odds with the meaning intended by the Framers. In today's English, the term "well regulated" probably implies heavy and intense government regulation. However, that conclusion is erroneous.

The words "well regulated" had a far different meaning at the time the Second Amendment was drafted. In the context of the Constitution's provisions for Congressional power over certain aspects of the militia, and in the context of the Framers' definition of "militia," government regulation was not the intended meaning. Rather, the term meant only what it says, that the necessary militia be well regulated, but not by the national government.

To determine the meaning of the Constitution, one must start with the words of the Constitution itself. If the meaning is plain, that meaning controls. To ascertain the meaning of the term "well regulated" as it was used in the Second Amendment, it is necessary to begin with the purpose of the Second Amendment itself. The overriding purpose of the Framers in guaranteeing the right of the people to keep and bear arms was as a check on the standing army, which the Constitution gave the Congress the power to "raise and support."

As Noah Webster put it in a pamphlet urging ratification of the Constitution, "Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe." George Mason remarked to his Virginia delegates regarding the colonies' recent experience with Britain, in which the Monarch's goal had been "to disarm the people; that [that] . . . was the best and most effectual way to enslave them." A widely reprinted article by Tench Coxe, an ally and correspondent of James Madison, described the Second Amendment's overriding goal as a check upon the national government's standing army: As civil rulers, not having their duty to the people duly before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as the military forces which must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow citizens, the people are confirmed by the next article in their right to keep and bear their private arms.

Thus, the well regulated militia necessary to the security of a free state was a militia that might someday fight against a standing army raised and supported by a tyrannical national government. Obviously, for that reason, the Framers did not say "A Militia well regulated by the Congress, being necessary to the security of a free State" -- because a militia so regulated might not be separate enough from, or free enough from, the national government, in the sense of both physical and operational control, to preserve the "security of a free State."


http://www.lectlaw.com/files/gun01.htm

I quotes the amendment to correct your post that claimed that it said "a well armed militia."

I'm familiar with how the "related" part of the 2nd amendment has been interpreted to mean.  I was merely pointing out how NRA types so fiercely fight against any government regulation that they don't even quote the entire Second Amendment on the side of their headquarters.   
Title: Re: Re: school shooting at Newtown Conn elementary school
Post by: JSD on December 19, 2012, 07:57:32 PM
The gun violence you talk about here is directly related to the war on drugs that doesn't exist in these other countries. When folks do business without protected rights of contract, bloodshed becomes the only means of justice when things go wrong. Compare the incarceration rates and drugs laws of these other countries to the United States and you will see a growing disparity. Gun violence dropped exponentially the further we got away from prohibtion and only rose again when Nixon began the War On Drugs.

We as a community need to look at the problem at root cause, which I believe is mental illness. I'm not suggesting anything more than that. Living in a free country has inherent risk.
Title: Re: Should US Const be revisited?
Post by: Celtics4ever on December 19, 2012, 08:02:28 PM
We are not a frontier nation prone to attack by natives anymore.   

Jefferson said:  "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots & tyrants".  But I am sure he was not talking about open revolt.  One has to understand the mindset then and the dangers. 

Times are different today.  If you need a gun to defend yourself, sir, then you should not wear the mantle of man.

Are you aware that under seven yards a man with a knife can easily beat a man with a gun.  The FBI has tested this as well.

http://www.your-krav-maga-expert.com/gun-vs-knife.html

People think they are good with their guns but most are not.  I bet many would shoot themselves in the leg in a crisis situation or kill bystanders.   But not in our John Wanye culture everyone is a tough guy.   But thing is these tough guys are never around when the going is tough.

It takes more than a gun to win a fight.   Training really helps.  I am a combat veteran and I 've seen trained soldiers screw up in a fight and civilians are much worse and untrained.   Just ask the cops here.

Title: Re: Should US Const be revisited?
Post by: JSD on December 19, 2012, 08:07:52 PM
Benjamin Franklin once said: "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.”

I believe that is as true today as it ever was.
Title: Re: Should US Const be revisited?
Post by: Roy H. on December 19, 2012, 08:08:12 PM
Times are different today.  If you need a gun to defend yourself, sir, then you should not wear the mantle of man.

I'm not sure that's true.  Even "real men" are going to have a hard time using their bare hands to defend their homes against armed burglars, or their possessions / livestock against wild animals.
Title: Re: Re: school shooting at Newtown Conn elementary school
Post by: TripleOT on December 19, 2012, 10:55:04 PM
The gun violence you talk about here is directly related to the war on drugs that doesn't exist in these other countries. When folks do business without protected rights of contract, bloodshed becomes the only means of justice when things go wrong. Compare the incarceration rates and drugs laws of these other countries to the United States and you will see a growing disparity. Gun violence dropped exponentially the further we got away from prohibtion and only rose again when Nixon began the War On Drugs.

We as a community need to look at the problem at root cause, which I believe is mental illness. I'm not suggesting anything more than that. Living in a free country has inherent risk.

The US murder rate per 100,000 citizens in 1960 and 2010 is similar.

Canada is a free country and their murder rate by gun is a lot lower.  The root cause in the US might be our history of violence combined with our lax gun laws and easy availability of guns. 

Unless you'e trying to claim that Americans are more predisposed to mental illness than other first world countries, all of whom have drastically lower gun murder rates. 
Title: Re: Re: school shooting at Newtown Conn elementary school
Post by: Amonkey on December 20, 2012, 12:56:37 AM
Quote
Okay I'm a guy calling for the 2nd Amendment to be repealed but here are some concessions I would be all for:

- complete ban on automatic weapons of any kind.

- complete ban on any semi-automatic weapons that are easily converted to fully automatic.

- limit of cartridge size for all weapons other than those used in the military and law enforcement.

- limit of one weapon per person.

- comprehensive psychological study of any person who currently owns weapons and those applying for weapons.

- buy back program at fair market value for all people who currently own more than one weapon and have to turn in their extra weapons.

- special permits allowed to own more than weapon for gun collector's and firing ranges or those that can prove they have hunting licenses to hunt more than one type of game. Permits are yearly and hefty in size.

And as a way to ensure our children are protected in all public elementary, middle or high schools, at least one officer per 500 students must be stationed at the school whenever the school is in session. It will mean more police officers, but maybe that can be offset by removing police details from officers and creating companies that do the detail work that police officers receive time and a half for

This is a great list, although I don't agree with it all. I think it would be interesting for people to cross out some of the points they agree or don't agree and see where we have the common ground. Perhaps even a poll. I think this is a great topic and very through from gun control, to mental illness and even video games. That is why I enjoy going through the Celticsblog forum and see some good, rationalized discussions instead of all the crap comments from Yahoo stories.

I crossed out the only one gun rule just because I do believe that most gun owners are responsible enough to own multiple guns. Now if somebody is buying more guns, it should raise a red flag somewhere just to be aware of the person, but it should not be limited to just one gun.
Title: Re: Re: school shooting at Newtown Conn elementary school
Post by: KCattheStripe on December 20, 2012, 01:08:09 AM
Quote
A former co-chairman of the Congressional Sportsmen's Caucus, Democratic Rep. Mike Thompson, D-Calif., and 10-term House Republican Jack Kingston — a Georgia lawmaker elected with strong National Rifle Association backing — were the latest to join the call to consider gun control as part of a comprehensive, anti-violence effort next year.

"Put guns on the table, also put video games on the table, put mental health on the table," Kingston said.

My initial reaction was, seriously, video games?  Video games aren't the reason that people kill children in cold blood. 

However, there's an argument that video games desensitize people to violence.  If there's a realistic and sensible way to keep violent, rated-M games out of the hands of teenagers, I guess I'm fine with it.  However, it's a small, small part of any violence problem.

(http://i.imgur.com/ez81N.png)


In the words of Chris Rock:

What was Hitler listening to? What was in his CD case?
Title: Re: Re: school shooting at Newtown Conn elementary school
Post by: LooseCannon on December 20, 2012, 01:09:38 AM
I crossed out the only one gun rule just because I do believe that most gun owners are responsible enough to own multiple guns. Now if somebody is buying more guns, it should raise a red flag somewhere just to be aware of the person, but it should not be limited to just one gun.

In order to have buying more guns raise a red flag somewhere, the federal government should have a federal database in which all current guns are registered and to which all future gun and ammo purchased will be added.  I am in favor of creating such a database, to be administered by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms.
Title: Re: Re: school shooting at Newtown Conn elementary school
Post by: Celtics4ever on December 20, 2012, 06:55:36 AM
I think your wrong about most guns owner are responsible.  I would say that 75% of them are responsible but a lot of these incidents are done with other people's guns. 

An ounce of responsibilty and parental oversight might have stopped Columbine.   ( Warning sign if your kid is watching history it might be a bad sign).  These guns were his mothers.   As a parent I actually check the history button on my kid's computers ( I know more about them than they do).

I have seen countless guns without triggerlocks improperly stored.   These are ticking time bombs if the wrong hands get ahold of them.   Guns tucked in nightstands, under mattresses or pillows are not secure.  Guns in pickup truck rifle mounts are not secure.   Guns in gun safes are secure.

This doesn't take into account the yahoos who think they are hunters or tough guys because they got a gun.  Do you know how far that Bush master .223 can shoot?   It is not  a safe gun to have in an urban area.  I have seen guys not clear their field of fire before they shoot. Or point their guns are other people when they are loaded and crossing a fence.  So there are a lot of idiots out there who legally own guns.

I do not think the one gun month limit is a bad thing.  When last I looked people only had 2 hands, so how many can you fire at once.   That is still 12 guns a year.   You can't carry swords around and people collect them so why not some reasonable limits on guns?

It not like most people can competently use them to defend themselves?  And it is not like most people would last long in a militia or fighting tyranny.   So using the 2nd amendment is ridiculous as it really doesn't apply in most cases.   

Perhaps we ought to only let people with military training to own them.   Most people in the olden days actually did have some experience fighting and your militia was trained so ex vets make sense.   They could also use them without a danger to others.   The negative to that is a lot of vets are not always stable.   41% have PTSD which is a danger.

The bad guys will always find a way however.   Some one this committed to kill will find a way to circumvent the rules.   I am all for making it more difficult for them and I am law abiding so I don't the rules nor do I need a gun to defend myself.  These ideas are great but do nothing to stop people from selling their guns are gun shows or the like.
Title: Re: Re: school shooting at Newtown Conn elementary school
Post by: indeedproceed on December 20, 2012, 12:04:46 PM
Some fallout from the shootings:

Quote from: NPR News Blog (http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2012/12/20/167698310/armored-backpacks-volunteer-guards-among-responses-to-school-shootings?ft=1&f=103943429)
— Sales Of Armored Backpacks Reportedly Soar: News outlets are picking up on a Mother Jones report that a manufacturer of lightweight body armor for children and backpacks lined with material designed to protect against bullets says sales "have gone through the roof" since the Newtown shootings.

— Marine Veteran "Stands Guard At California School": Marine Corps Reserve Sgt. Craig Pusley "was on duty Wednesday," the Modesto Bee writes. "Desert camo fatigues, knees slightly bent, the young father stood a self-imposed watch at Hughson Elementary School. One man. No rifle. No pay. No breaks."

"I swore to defend this country from all enemies, foreign and domestic," Pusley said. As for not having a weapon, Pusley said: "I don't need to be armed to do this."

— Staffer Put On Leave After Gun Is Found In Her Locker: In Minneapolis, a staff member at a public school was "put on administrative leave after bringing a loaded gun to school Wednesday morning," Minnesota Public Radio writes. The Star Tribune says the unidentified woman "has a permit to carry a weapon." She was not arrested.

It's not necessarily against the law for staffers to have guns in Minnesota schools, as the Star Tribune also reports. There's an exception in the state law that bans guns from schools and school grounds — if a staffer has the proper permits and "written permission of the principal or other person having general control and supervision of the school or the director of a child care center."

Greg Lund, a principal at a high school in northwestern Minnesota, tells the newspaper he carried a loaded gun "for years." He had the district's permission. Lund's school was in a rural area and he wanted the weapon in case his students were put in danger. "It would be 20 minutes or more before we would have police in the building," he says.

Related post: "Let Teachers Carry Guns? Some State Lawmakers Say Yes."

— Gun Sales Take Off: After previous mass shootings, sales of guns, ammunition and related products surged because some enthusiasts concluded that new laws might soon make them illegal. That's happening again. "Prices for handgun magazines are surging on EBay and semi-automatic rifles are sold out at many Wal-Mart stores," Bloomberg News says.
Title: Re: Re: school shooting at Newtown Conn elementary school
Post by: Brendan on December 20, 2012, 12:57:42 PM
I think your wrong about most guns owner are responsible.  I would say that 75% of them are responsible but a lot of these incidents are done with other people's guns. 

An ounce of responsibilty and parental oversight might have stopped Columbine.   ( Warning sign if your kid is watching history it might be a bad sign).  These guns were his mothers.   As a parent I actually check the history button on my kid's computers ( I know more about them than they do).

I have seen countless guns without triggerlocks improperly stored.   These are ticking time bombs if the wrong hands get ahold of them.   Guns tucked in nightstands, under mattresses or pillows are not secure.  Guns in pickup truck rifle mounts are not secure.   Guns in gun safes are secure.

This doesn't take into account the yahoos who think they are hunters or tough guys because they got a gun.  Do you know how far that Bush master .223 can shoot?   It is not  a safe gun to have in an urban area.  I have seen guys not clear their field of fire before they shoot. Or point their guns are other people when they are loaded and crossing a fence.  So there are a lot of idiots out there who legally own guns.

I do not think the one gun month limit is a bad thing.  When last I looked people only had 2 hands, so how many can you fire at once.   That is still 12 guns a year.   You can't carry swords around and people collect them so why not some reasonable limits on guns?

It not like most people can competently use them to defend themselves?  And it is not like most people would last long in a militia or fighting tyranny.   So using the 2nd amendment is ridiculous as it really doesn't apply in most cases.   

Perhaps we ought to only let people with military training to own them.   Most people in the olden days actually did have some experience fighting and your militia was trained so ex vets make sense.   They could also use them without a danger to others.   The negative to that is a lot of vets are not always stable.   41% have PTSD which is a danger.

The bad guys will always find a way however.   Some one this committed to kill will find a way to circumvent the rules.   I am all for making it more difficult for them and I am law abiding so I don't the rules nor do I need a gun to defend myself.  These ideas are great but do nothing to stop people from selling their guns are gun shows or the like.
Maybe you just hang out with idiotspeople who don't know how to take care of guns?
Title: Re: Should US Const be revisited?
Post by: Roy H. on December 20, 2012, 07:05:09 PM
The real problem isn't guns, or video games...  it's "ping pongs".

Quote
Incoming Texas State Rep. Kyle Kacal says guns don’t kill people—ping-pong kills people.

"I've heard of people being killed playing ping-pong—ping-pongs are more dangerous than guns," he says. "Flat-screen TVs are injuring more kids today than anything."

... The lifetime rancher, who will take his seat in 2013 as a freshman, says that new gun restrictions are unnecessary. Kacal, who reportedly operates a hunting business, notably came out against a bill instructing Texans how to secure their assault weapons.

"People know what they need to do to be safe. We don't need to legislate that—it's common sense," he said. "Once everyone's gun is locked up, then the bad guys know everyone's gun is locked up."

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/texas-lawmaker-ping-pongs-deadlier-guns-211551404--politics.html
Title: Re: Should US Const be revisited?
Post by: kozlodoev on December 20, 2012, 07:08:43 PM
Benjamin Franklin once said: "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.”

I believe that is as true today as it ever was.
That's excellent. Except I'm not sure who decided that walking around with an assault rifle is an "essential liberty".
Title: Re: Should US Const be revisited?
Post by: Celtics4ever on December 20, 2012, 07:11:28 PM
Quote
Even "real men" are going to have a hard time using their bare hands to defend their homes against armed burglars, or their possessions / livestock against wild animals.

Care to try, I will send you my address and you can press your luck. 

A man can easily kill a dog even a large one if he knows what he is doing.  A bear no, a wolf yes, lions and tigers heck no.

Title: Re: Should US Const be revisited?
Post by: Roy H. on December 20, 2012, 07:12:49 PM
Quote
Even "real men" are going to have a hard time using their bare hands to defend their homes against armed burglars, or their possessions / livestock against wild animals.

Care to try, I will send you my address and you can press your luck.

(http://nextlol.com/images/29689-internet-tough-guys.jpg)
Title: Re: Should US Const be revisited?
Post by: Celtics4ever on December 20, 2012, 07:16:00 PM
Really, you want me to post my DD214 with my military records, bud.  Then you can post yours, oh wait, I bet you never served.
Title: Re: Should US Const be revisited?
Post by: kozlodoev on December 20, 2012, 07:17:31 PM
This is getting better by the minute.
Title: Re: Should US Const be revisited?
Post by: Roy H. on December 20, 2012, 07:17:42 PM
Really, you want me to post my DD214 with my military records, bud.  Then you can post yours, oh wait, I bet you never served.

I'd suggest you come back in an hour or so, and reflect on how ridiculous you sound.

In the meantime, I guess practice up on your wolf fighting, Liam Neeson style?
Title: Re: Should US Const be revisited?
Post by: kozlodoev on December 20, 2012, 07:20:14 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hfb0-U0ydj8

Yarr!
Title: Re: Should US Const be revisited?
Post by: Celtics4ever on December 20, 2012, 07:31:19 PM
Man fought beasts off for thousand of years off without guns. Otherwise we'd not be here, Roy.

I think times clearly have changed.  You stated they have not.  Have Indians burned down any houses in your area lately.  They have not in mine.   When the Constitution was written there were many frontier areas,   I am part Indian so my ancestors fought on both sides.   We also have allies to the North now.   Back then Britain and France and Spain had terrorities adjacent to us and sometimes hostilities came about like the War of 1812.  There were wild beasts back then common in the east.  There are bad men today and there were bad men back then.   I think law enforcement has a better rate of catching guys today so that would make it safer.    We had a very small standing Army back then.  We have a large and powerful Army today.  We don't use militias as back up today we have the National Guard and Army Reserve.   I think times are vastly different.

How many livesstock have you lost to beasts, Roy.  Mountain lions, black bear and coyotes kill stuff where I live.   You live in Boston, no?    I live in the Cumberland Mountains in KY.   You have two legged predators there where you might need a gun but noise works pretty good against beasts.  A radio on at night and your livestock are usually safe.  Usually only starving old animals are a danger to men or ones startled.  Most avoid man like a plague.


I am pretty good with my fists and was a bouncer.   I really do need a firearm.  I have a few but I have kids and I don't keep them loaded.   I think I could best an armed burglar.

I didn't think you 'd have a DD214.
Title: Re: Should US Const be revisited?
Post by: BballTim on December 20, 2012, 09:29:49 PM

Jefferson said:  "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots & tyrants".  But I am sure he was not talking about open revolt.

   What do you think he was talking about then?

Are you aware that under seven yards a man with a knife can easily beat a man with a gun.  The FBI has tested this as well.

http://www.your-krav-maga-expert.com/gun-vs-knife.html

  That's a person with a drawn knife vs a person with a holstered gun.
Title: Re: Should US Const be revisited?
Post by: jdz101 on December 20, 2012, 09:38:44 PM
I dont understand why guns are still legal to own anywhere except for farmers using rifles to get rid of pests and law enforcement officers.

I am australian though, and our gun laws are extremely harsh, and I've seen my country benefit from it.
Title: Re: Should US Const be revisited?
Post by: Redz on December 20, 2012, 10:04:53 PM

Jefferson said:  "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots & tyrants".  But I am sure he was not talking about open revolt.

   What do you think he was talking about then?

Are you aware that under seven yards a man with a knife can easily beat a man with a gun.  The FBI has tested this as well.

http://www.your-krav-maga-expert.com/gun-vs-knife.html

  That's a person with a drawn knife vs a person with a holstered gun.

and both arms tied behind his back  ;)
Title: Re: school shooting at Newtown Conn elementary school
Post by: Amonkey on December 20, 2012, 10:28:34 PM
I crossed out the only one gun rule just because I do believe that most gun owners are responsible enough to own multiple guns. Now if somebody is buying more guns, it should raise a red flag somewhere just to be aware of the person, but it should not be limited to just one gun.

In order to have buying more guns raise a red flag somewhere, the federal government should have a federal database in which all current guns are registered and to which all future gun and ammo purchased will be added.  I am in favor of creating such a database, to be administered by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms.

That's a good one. I agree with that, but I believe in the past the NRA have been very against that because it would be government watching over you. I do think if u want to own guns, then you should be exposed to a national database.

I dont wanna take this too off topic here, but the other day I was listening to a local radio show with a couple of African American pastors as guests talking about the role of race and the attention this issue gets. I understand their point of how urban violence doesnt get the same attention as this tragedy, but I fail to recognize how the two things are equals. One act is more of a Random Act of Violence, where somebody is going someplace to kill as many innocent people as possible. Another are horrible violent acts, but it may come from a bad drug transaction, retaliation, snitching...

I think a better example are acts of terrorism from Muslims and this incident. After 9/11 and afterwards, there was immediate action to prevent those horrible things from happening again, whether it be profiling in the airport, undercover agents in mosques, wiretapping and what not. A lot of it targeted toward a specific group of people. However, after all these acts of terrorism from Caucasian suburban kids, you dont see any aftermath or any follow through.

Not that I see too much racism in this thing. I just thought it is interesting how the perception of the tragedy may have different interpretation with different races.
Title: Re: Should US Const be revisited?
Post by: Cman on December 20, 2012, 10:36:58 PM

Jefferson said:  "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots & tyrants".  But I am sure he was not talking about open revolt.

   What do you think he was talking about then?

Are you aware that under seven yards a man with a knife can easily beat a man with a gun.  The FBI has tested this as well.

http://www.your-krav-maga-expert.com/gun-vs-knife.html

  That's a person with a drawn knife vs a person with a holstered gun.

^^sounds to me like that's a strike against concealed weapons. They won't make u any safer against a mugger w a knife.
Title: Re: Should US Const be revisited?
Post by: nickagneta on December 20, 2012, 10:42:59 PM
Over 33000 people die because of guns every year in America and 9000+ are murders. In just the last 30 years that's a million deaths due to guns and over a quarter of a million murders because of guns.

The 2nd Amendment is there because the Founders knew the USA didn't have a standing army, navy or air force. They knew there was an exceedingly good chance of attack on their soil from foreign countries. They knew there was a good chance of attack from natives that lived in America. They knew that the states didn't trust each other and that one or a group of them could band together and attempt to attack another. They knew that wild animals roamed the country uncontrolled and could kill American citizens easily. They knew they needed guns to hunt for food. They knew they needed guns for local militia for defense and law enforcement and that meant everyday citizens being called to defend themselves and their homes.

If the Founders knew that weapons technology would take huge leaps in advancement in the mid 1800's and lead to the situations that exist today, I seriously doubt they would believe that guns in the hands of the populace was a good idea or that there was a need for them any longer.

The US Army, Navy, Air Force, Coast Guard and Marines protect this country from an attack on our own soil better than any country has been protected on their own soil in the history of mankind.

Modern agriculture, herding of cattle, pigs and poultry make the need for hunting for food obsolete.

The states are united better than ever and none ever expect an attack of one state on another and since the Civil War secession from the Union is an absurd notion.

Dangerous wild animals live almost exclusively in the most remote areas of the country or national park lands and are no longer a threat to virtually all Americans.

Native Americans are Americans and the idea of them attacking other Americans is ridiculous.

Militias have gone the way of wooden ships, horse and buggies, and the pony express. Law enforcement exists in every section of America on state, country, city and town levels. It is its own profession now.

Self protection and hunting are the only reasons to have guns today and if guns were removed from the equation basically guns would be needed only because of a need to hunt for sport.

Guns for protection are like nuclear weapons, if the other guy doesn't have them then you don't need them. If the 2nd amendment was struck down 100 years ago, getting a gun would be virtually impossible for anyone today.

Repeal the 2nd amendment because in 25, 50 or 100 years from now getting a hold of guns will be virtually impossible. Technology in that field will make weapons even more deadly and you won't want that advancement in the hands of everyday people. And it could save the lives of millions of Americans and hundreds of thousands to millions of people under the age of 21.

Guns should be in the hands of law enforcement and the military only.

And I don't want to here about the ridiculous notion of the government becoming a dictatorship because if you think the average group of unorganized and lightly armed Americans grouped together could beat the combined force of the US Armed Forces, you're crazy.
Title: Re: US Constitution / Gum Law Talk (Merged Threads)
Post by: nickagneta on December 20, 2012, 10:55:23 PM
Scary thought now that I live in Florida:

Florida leads the nation in conceal and carry permits with 1 million(or soon to be one million). In a state of 19 million people that means greater than 5% of the people conceal and carry a weapon. With the Stand Your Ground law, if you even think of getting into an argument publicly with someone there's a great chance that person could whip out a gun, shoot you dead, say he felt threatened for his life and get away with it.

That's freaking ridiculous. more than 5% of the populace with conceal and carry permits. I'm not sure that I would consider greater than 5% of the populace anywhere in America qualified to own a gun never mind qualified to conceal and carry.
Title: Re: US Constitution / Gun Law Talk (Merged Threads)
Post by: Redz on December 20, 2012, 11:07:45 PM
Well said Nick. 

It sort of reminds of when we tell my kids we can go out for ice cream and I don't ending taking them because they've been bratty.  They pull out the old "YEH BUT YOU PROMISED!" line.

Methinks the Founding Fathers would not be taking the kids out for treats if he saw how they were behaving. 



Title: Re: Should US Const be revisited?
Post by: D.o.s. on December 21, 2012, 12:12:09 AM
I dont understand why guns are still legal to own anywhere except for farmers using rifles to get rid of pests and law enforcement officers.

Farmers: Getting rid of cops (and pests) since 2000 B.C.  ;)
Title: Re: US Constitution / Gun Law Talk (Merged Threads)
Post by: KGs Knee on December 21, 2012, 12:43:22 AM
The 2nd Ammendment will NEVER be repealed.  Accpet it, folks.  Quite frankly, talk of it burns me till no end.

I refuse to allow the irresponsible acts of others, no matter how horrific or tragic they may be, to take away my rights.

Now, I am perfectly amenable to better restrictions.  I would willingly accept more stringent conditions on who can purchase a firearm (mental evaluations).  Private sales, while I would be reticent to concede, could very well be eliminated.  Ownership of auto/semi-automatic weapons could be confined to regulated shooting ranges (some ranges are really just "clubs", where any member can just show up, alone, and shoot).  All guns must be registered.  Tougher standards for who can obtain a concealed-carry permit.

Beyond gun control though, we really need to put substantially more effort into identifying individuals with sociopathic tendencies, or other mental illnesses.  Otherwise, we're just putting a band-aid on the "wound".
Title: Re: US Constitution / Gun Law Talk (Merged Threads)
Post by: TripleOT on December 21, 2012, 09:47:33 AM
The 2nd Ammendment will NEVER be repealed.  Accpet it, folks.  Quite frankly, talk of it burns me till no end.

I refuse to allow the irresponsible acts of others, no matter how horrific or tragic they may be, to take away my rights.

Now, I am perfectly amenable to better restrictions.  I would willingly accept more stringent conditions on who can purchase a firearm (mental evaluations).  Private sales, while I would be reticent to concede, could very well be eliminated.  Ownership of auto/semi-automatic weapons could be confined to regulated shooting ranges (some ranges are really just "clubs", where any member can just show up, alone, and shoot).  All guns must be registered.  Tougher standards for who can obtain a concealed-carry permit.

Beyond gun control though, we really need to put substantially more effort into identifying individuals with sociopathic tendencies, or other mental illnesses.  Otherwise, we're just putting a band-aid on the "wound".

Too bad your willingness to be reasonable as a responsible gun owner and agree with regulation on all gun owners and restrictions on assault weapons isn't shared by many of the 4 million+ NRA members in our country. 

Title: Re: US Constitution / Gun Law Talk (Merged Threads)
Post by: Rondo2287 on December 21, 2012, 09:59:24 AM
The 2nd Ammendment will NEVER be repealed.  Accpet it, folks.  Quite frankly, talk of it burns me till no end.

I refuse to allow the irresponsible acts of others, no matter how horrific or tragic they may be, to take away my rights.

Now, I am perfectly amenable to better restrictions.  I would willingly accept more stringent conditions on who can purchase a firearm (mental evaluations).  Private sales, while I would be reticent to concede, could very well be eliminated.  Ownership of auto/semi-automatic weapons could be confined to regulated shooting ranges (some ranges are really just "clubs", where any member can just show up, alone, and shoot).  All guns must be registered.  Tougher standards for who can obtain a concealed-carry permit.

Beyond gun control though, we really need to put substantially more effort into identifying individuals with sociopathic tendencies, or other mental illnesses.  Otherwise, we're just putting a band-aid on the "wound".

Too bad your willingness to be reasonable as a responsible gun owner and agree with regulation on all gun owners and restrictions on assault weapons isn't shared by many of the 4 million+ NRA members in our country.

So prosecute them, not the ones following the law.
Title: Re: US Constitution / Gun Law Talk (Merged Threads)
Post by: LB3533 on December 21, 2012, 10:31:17 AM
Gun control would not prevent the Newtown shooting nor any other school shootings.

Criminals do not go into schools and shoot up kids, students and teachers.

Heck, even the mentally ill do not do this.

Only the mentally deranged, the sociopaths who have that certain amount of crazy within them are capable of going into schools and shooting up kids and the such.

Let's remove IQ/intellect from the equation. The vast majority of people, normal good people have functioning minds and hearts. These are the people who need to protect their rights and freedoms. They should not be punished for the few f'd up individuals in this country/world.

We need to find solutions to minimize the number of messed up people in society. Or maybe the best job we can do is to diminish the intensity of that messed up level.

We need to address the source of the problem, not band-aid the symptoms.

Title: Re: US Constitution / Gun Law Talk (Merged Threads)
Post by: Moranis on December 21, 2012, 10:35:10 AM
Quote
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 actual text of the 2nd Amendment.  You can't just read the part after the comma, you have to take it in context, and that is what the country has not done as a whole throughout its history.  The purpose of the 2nd Amendment was to allow citizens to form militias to stop tyranny of the federal (or state) government and to allow the citizens a means to defend themselves from invasion or attack.  In today's society that is outdated because as nick points out there is military, law enforcement, etc.  Additionally, at the time of the 2nd Amendment things like jet planes, missiles, nukes, chemical and biological weapons, etc. did not exist and thus the citizen militias could actually defend themselves from attack of a governmental force (whether foreign or from within).  That is impossible today given the technology difference between governments and citizens.

All that said a complete ban on guns (1) would never pass and if by some miracle it did (2) would be an utter disaster.  If you think prohibition was bad imagine what it will be like with a ban on guns with the much better technology.  The reality is Roy seems to have the right idea, ban automatic weapons (and semi-autos that are easily converted), limit clip sizes, do a better job with registration and licenses, etc.  Gun regulation does not mean a ban on guns, and those that argue it does are just silly.
Title: Re: US Constitution / Gum Law Talk (Merged Threads)
Post by: angryguy77 on December 21, 2012, 10:36:20 AM
Scary thought now that I live in Florida:

Florida leads the nation in conceal and carry permits with 1 million(or soon to be one million). In a state of 19 million people that means greater than 5% of the people conceal and carry a weapon. With the Stand Your Ground law, if you even think of getting into an argument publicly with someone there's a great chance that person could whip out a gun, shoot you dead, say he felt threatened for his life and get away with it.

That's freaking ridiculous. more than 5% of the populace with conceal and carry permits. I'm not sure that I would consider greater than 5% of the populace anywhere in America qualified to own a gun never mind qualified to conceal and carry.

Nick, I don't think you understand how the SYG law works:

Quote
When a person in Florida uses force against another, it may result in a criminal charge such as Assault, Battery, Manslaughter or Murder, just to name a few. However, it is a defense to such a charge if the person accused of using force was justified in doing so. Florida law defines the justifiable use of force in Chapter 776, of the Florida Statutes.

Traditionally, the justifiable use of force in Florida was known as “self-defense” or the “defense of others”. The traditional “self defense” aspect of the law is still available. Under the old law, a person had a duty to retreat, if possible, and could not defend a home/property with force. The defense had to be asserted as an affirmative defense at trial only.

Florida’s so called “Stand your Ground” law allows for the defense of yourself or another without a duty to retreat. It creates a presumption that a person in a home is in reasonable fear of imminent harm when someone unlawfully enters their home, and therefore is justified in the use force. The law even extends outside the home when it states that if a person is not engaged in an unlawful activity and is attacked while in a place where the person has a right to be, he may stand his ground and have no duty to retreat- and may meet force with force, including deadly force, if he reasonably believes it necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or another, or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.

Furthermore, a person who asserts the Stand Your Ground law has a right to a pre-trial judicial determination as to whether he falls under the protection of the law; and, if so, he is immune from prosecution and may recover money damages if wrongfully arrested or prosecuted for the use of force under such circumstances.

Practically, this allows an attorney to seek to avoid the arrest and prosecution of a client who is accused of the unlawful use of force. Even if a client is arrested, a motion may be filed with the court to have the client declared immune from prosecution. This way we can get a hearing with the Judge and if we prove by a preponderance of evidence that the use of force falls under the Stand Your Ground law, the case must be dismissed. If successful the client never faces the risk of a jury trial.

If the judge isn’t willing to dismiss the case based on the Stand Your Ground Law, an attorney may still assert a traditional affirmative defense of justifiable use of force, such as a self-defense claim, at trial.


After Illinois rewrites their law, all 50 states will have some sort of CC. That means 49 states have already allowed their citizens to carry. I keep hearing people talk about these nightmare scenarios, but they never happen. Our country has not turned into the wild west because law abiding people choose to carry a weapon. The people that are using the guns in these crimes would do so anyway.

(http://www.emeryreddy.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/car-accident.jpg)

If we don't need guns because people will act irrationally, then we should follow that logic and mandate no car can go over 55. Nobody needs to drive faster than that anyway.
Title: Re: US Constitution / Gun Law Talk (Merged Threads)
Post by: indeedproceed on December 21, 2012, 11:21:25 AM
Anyone who thought the NRA's event today would be a classy even handed look at tragedy and a frank self-examination of firearm regulation and its role in the shootings...well let's just say you didn't win the pool.

Whoever thought it would be a hyperbolic crazy-fest of wild unsubstantiated claims, please claim your prize at the back bar.
Title: Re: US Constitution / Gun Law Talk (Merged Threads)
Post by: The4Time2Doctor0 on December 21, 2012, 11:35:30 AM
 I would love for the NRA to explain to me the difference between responsible gun ownership and responsible playing/viewing of violent video games and movies? these clowns just did a great disservice to responsible gun owners. talk about being completely out of touch. its time for these old buttholes to go away. wow, I knew they didn't get it, but I still can't believe what I just listened to. all they said is its everybody's fault but ours. clowns. clowns.
Title: Re: US Constitution / Gun Law Talk (Merged Threads)
Post by: colincb on December 21, 2012, 12:11:36 PM
I would love for the NRA to explain to me the difference between responsible gun ownership and responsible playing/viewing of violent video games and movies? these clowns just did a great disservice to responsible gun owners. talk about being completely out of touch. its time for these old buttholes to go away. wow, I knew they didn't get it, but I still can't believe what I just listened to. all they said is its everybody's fault but ours. clowns. clowns.
You mean more guns won't result in fewer gun deaths?  How socialist of you.
Title: Re: US Constitution / Gun Law Talk (Merged Threads)
Post by: KGs Knee on December 21, 2012, 12:14:52 PM
Today's statements by the NRA need to be viewed in two parts.

Yes, some of the staements made towards assigning blame seemed out of place a bit.  Take from that what you will.

The second part, which I think deserves more attention, deals with protecting our schools better.

We have armed guards at airports, courthouses, and other govenrment buildings.  The reason for this is to protect people from danger.  Why should we not protect our children as well?

Another point I often wonder about, and it somewhat related to the above, deals with where many of these shooting s take place.  Just based on simple observation, it seems most take place in suburban or rural areas.  You don't hear of very many occurences in urban areas.  Coincidentally, most inner-city schools have armed police.
Title: Re: US Constitution / Gun Law Talk (Merged Threads)
Post by: indeedproceed on December 21, 2012, 03:10:51 PM
Here is a former army sniper on gun control, and his reasoning behind it:

http://soundcloud.com/onpointradio/caller-frank-on-gun-control
Title: Re: US Constitution / Gun Law Talk (Merged Threads)
Post by: hpantazo on December 21, 2012, 04:47:09 PM
Anyone who thought the NRA's event today would be a classy even handed look at tragedy and a frank self-examination of firearm regulation and its role in the shootings...well let's just say you didn't win the pool.

Whoever thought it would be a hyperbolic crazy-fest of wild unsubstantiated claims, please claim your prize at the back bar.

Wow, the NRA had a chance to show some class, compassion, and leadership on a major issue, and threw it all away. What an awful response to the recent tragic events. Seriously? Putting armed police offers in every school is the proposed solution!?! That's just terrible. Turn our school systems and our society into a police state with armed officers at every corner to protect from all of the armed crazy people, yea, that really helps  ::)

It would be a dream come true for the NRA of course, the amount of gun sales would skyrocket.
Title: Re: US Constitution / Gun Law Talk (Merged Threads)
Post by: colincb on December 21, 2012, 04:59:43 PM
Today's statements by the NRA need to be viewed in two parts.

Yes, some of the staements made towards assigning blame seemed out of place a bit.  Take from that what you will.

The second part, which I think deserves more attention, deals with protecting our schools better.

We have armed guards at airports, courthouses, and other govenrment buildings.  The reason for this is to protect people from danger.  Why should we not protect our children as well?

Another point I often wonder about, and it somewhat related to the above, deals with where many of these shooting s take place.  Just based on simple observation, it seems most take place in suburban or rural areas.  You don't hear of very many occurences in urban areas.  Coincidentally, most inner-city schools have armed police.
... and most of them are semi-retired from my personal observation, just like a lot of rent-a-cops that I've used myself. They're useless against professionals or some nut who comes in with guns blazing. We'd need well-trained armed guards everywhere including day care centers, grocery stores, Chucky Cheese, movie theatres, churches, schools, etc ad infinitum wherever people congregate OR we get rid of the semi-automatics that multiply the power of evil.  The latter is a lot cheaper alternative without the military state. I've travelled to countries where there are arms everywhere and it's not something I want to see here just to placate the nitwit who thinks he can fend off an army only to have their whackjob offspring use the semi-automatics to slaughter innocents.
Title: Re: US Constitution / Gun Law Talk (Merged Threads)
Post by: hpantazo on December 21, 2012, 05:11:35 PM
Today's statements by the NRA need to be viewed in two parts.

Yes, some of the staements made towards assigning blame seemed out of place a bit.  Take from that what you will.

The second part, which I think deserves more attention, deals with protecting our schools better.

We have armed guards at airports, courthouses, and other govenrment buildings.  The reason for this is to protect people from danger.  Why should we not protect our children as well?

Another point I often wonder about, and it somewhat related to the above, deals with where many of these shooting s take place.  Just based on simple observation, it seems most take place in suburban or rural areas.  You don't hear of very many occurences in urban areas.  Coincidentally, most inner-city schools have armed police.
... and most of them are semi-retired from my personal observation, just like a lot of rent-a-cops that I've used myself. They're useless against professionals or some nut who comes in with guns blazing. We'd need well-trained armed guards everywhere including day care centers, grocery stores, Chucky Cheese, movie theatres, churches, schools, etc ad infinitum wherever people congregate OR we get rid of the semi-automatics that multiply the power of evil.  The latter is a lot cheaper alternative without the military state. I've travelled to countries where there are arms everywhere and it's not something I want to see here just to placate the nitwit who thinks he can fend off an army only to have their whackjob offspring use the semi-automatics to slaughter innocents.

that's right, I mean, do people really believe that if you put armed guards at schools the shooters won't attack playgrounds, Chucky Cheese, movie theaters, malls, etc.? It would quickly escalate to having armed guards literally everywhere. That's not the type of society I want to live in.
Title: Re: US Constitution / Gum Law Talk (Merged Threads)
Post by: D.o.s. on December 21, 2012, 05:16:12 PM
If we don't need guns because people will act irrationally, then we should follow that logic and mandate no car can go over 55. Nobody needs to drive faster than that anyway.

The car to gun analogy is ridiculous.

Guns are made to fire projectiles at lethal speed. Cars are transportation devices. In order to obtain a driver's license, I have to sit through a written exam and a road exam. My car has to meet safety and emission standards. Owning and operating a car is outrageously more regulated than owning an operating a gun.


Tangent:I would much rather see gun ownership face a tobacco style escalation of taxes and restrictions than armed guards posted at every public place.
Title: Re: US Constitution / Gun Law Talk (Merged Threads)
Post by: colincb on December 21, 2012, 06:32:17 PM
"According to a 2002 Secret Service study of 41 targeted school attacks, in 8% of the incidents, a law enforcement officer ended the violence. In most cases, researchers noted, the attack was so quick that it could not be stopped."

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2012/12/21/nra-newtown-police-in-schools/1784953/
Title: Re: US Constitution / Gum Law Talk (Merged Threads)
Post by: Bombastic Jones on December 21, 2012, 06:44:34 PM
If we don't need guns because people will act irrationally, then we should follow that logic and mandate no car can go over 55. Nobody needs to drive faster than that anyway.

The car to gun analogy is ridiculous.

Guns are made to fire projectiles at lethal speed. Cars are transportation devices. In order to obtain a driver's license, I have to sit through a written exam and a road exam. My car has to meet safety and emission standards. Owning and operating a car is outrageously more regulated than owning an operating a gun.


Tangent:I would much rather see gun ownership face a tobacco style escalation of taxes and restrictions than armed guards posted at every public place.

I think a steep Pigovian tax; restrictions; and at least as much licensing as it takes to drive.

As for the NRA solution, three things:

1) Columbine had armed guards, it didnt help there and most likely would not help in future situations;
2) Would the NRA agree to a gun/ammo tax to pay for the armed guards?;
3) the "school to prison pipeline" is a crappy thing, putting more cops in schools would increase this problem.
Title: Re: US Constitution / Gun Law Talk (Merged Threads)
Post by: nickagneta on December 21, 2012, 08:44:33 PM
Wasnt there trained professionals that were well armed at Camp Hood? Shooter then was still able to kill 12 and injured 20 before all those trained soldiers with guns were able to get to him and take him out.
Title: Re: US Constitution / Gun Law Talk (Merged Threads)
Post by: celtsfan619 on December 21, 2012, 09:26:55 PM
A LITTLE GUN HISTORY

In 1929, the Soviet Union established gun control. >From 1929 to 1953, about 20 million dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated
In 1911, Turkey established gun control. From 1915 to 1917, 1.5 million Armenians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
Germany established gun control in 1938 and from 1939 to 1945, a total
of 13 million Jews and others who were unable to defend themselves were rounded up and exterminated.
China established gun control in 1935. From 1948 to 1952, 20 million political dissidents, unable to defend themselves were rounded up and exterminated
Guatemala established gun control in 1964. From 1964 to 1981, 100,000 Mayan Indians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
Uganda established gun control in 1970. From 1971 to 1979, 300,000 Christians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
Cambodia established gun control in 1956. From 1975 to 1977, one million educated people, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
Defenseless people rounded up and exterminated in the 20th Century because of gun control: 56 million.
You won't see this data on the US evening news, or hear politicians disseminating this information.
Guns in the hands of honest citizens save lives and property and, yes, gun-control laws adversely affect only the law-abiding citizens.
Take note my fellow Americans, before it's too late!
The next time someone talks in favor of gun control, please remind them of this history lesson.
With guns, we are 'citizens'. Without them, we are 'subjects'.
During WWII the Japanese decided not to invade America because they knew most Americans were ARMED!
SWITZERLAND ISSUES EVERY HOUSEHOLD A GUN!
SWITZERLAND'S GOVERNMENT TRAINS EVERY ADULT THEY ISSUE A RIFLE.
SWITZERLAND HAS THE LOWEST GUN RELATED CRIME RATE OF ANY CIVILIZED COUNTRY IN THE WORLD!!!
IT'S A NO BRAINER!
OUR GOVERNMENT WOULD JUST BE WASTING MILLIONS OF OUR TAX DOLLARS IN AN EFFORT TO MAKE ALL LAW ABIDING CITIZENS AN EASY TARGET FOR ANY OF OUR MANY ENEMIES.
the solution to this problem isn't in reforming gun laws
Title: Re: US Constitution / Gun Law Talk (Merged Threads)
Post by: D.o.s. on December 22, 2012, 08:35:45 PM
A LITTLE GUN HISTORY

In 1929, the Soviet Union established gun control. >From 1929 to 1953, about 20 million dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated
In 1911, Turkey established gun control. From 1915 to 1917, 1.5 million Armenians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
Germany established gun control in 1938 and from 1939 to 1945, a total
of 13 million Jews and others who were unable to defend themselves were rounded up and exterminated.
China established gun control in 1935. From 1948 to 1952, 20 million political dissidents, unable to defend themselves were rounded up and exterminated
Guatemala established gun control in 1964. From 1964 to 1981, 100,000 Mayan Indians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
Uganda established gun control in 1970. From 1971 to 1979, 300,000 Christians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
Cambodia established gun control in 1956. From 1975 to 1977, one million educated people, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
Defenseless people rounded up and exterminated in the 20th Century because of gun control: 56 million.
You won't see this data on the US evening news, or hear politicians disseminating this information.
Guns in the hands of honest citizens save lives and property and, yes, gun-control laws adversely affect only the law-abiding citizens.
Take note my fellow Americans, before it's too late!
The next time someone talks in favor of gun control, please remind them of this history lesson.
With guns, we are 'citizens'. Without them, we are 'subjects'.
During WWII the Japanese decided not to invade America because they knew most Americans were ARMED!
SWITZERLAND ISSUES EVERY HOUSEHOLD A GUN!
SWITZERLAND'S GOVERNMENT TRAINS EVERY ADULT THEY ISSUE A RIFLE.
SWITZERLAND HAS THE LOWEST GUN RELATED CRIME RATE OF ANY CIVILIZED COUNTRY IN THE WORLD!!!
IT'S A NO BRAINER!
OUR GOVERNMENT WOULD JUST BE WASTING MILLIONS OF OUR TAX DOLLARS IN AN EFFORT TO MAKE ALL LAW ABIDING CITIZENS AN EASY TARGET FOR ANY OF OUR MANY ENEMIES.
the solution to this problem isn't in reforming gun laws

A) Correlation does not equate to causation
B) Seriously, dude? So Switzerland's low gun crime rate has nothing to do with how homogeneous they are, the relatively low population, and several bazillion other factor, but is only due to the guns in every home?
Title: Re: US Constitution / Gun Law Talk (Merged Threads)
Post by: JSD on December 22, 2012, 09:13:26 PM
A LITTLE GUN HISTORY

In 1929, the Soviet Union established gun control. >From 1929 to 1953, about 20 million dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated
In 1911, Turkey established gun control. From 1915 to 1917, 1.5 million Armenians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
Germany established gun control in 1938 and from 1939 to 1945, a total
of 13 million Jews and others who were unable to defend themselves were rounded up and exterminated.
China established gun control in 1935. From 1948 to 1952, 20 million political dissidents, unable to defend themselves were rounded up and exterminated
Guatemala established gun control in 1964. From 1964 to 1981, 100,000 Mayan Indians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
Uganda established gun control in 1970. From 1971 to 1979, 300,000 Christians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
Cambodia established gun control in 1956. From 1975 to 1977, one million educated people, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
Defenseless people rounded up and exterminated in the 20th Century because of gun control: 56 million.
You won't see this data on the US evening news, or hear politicians disseminating this information.
Guns in the hands of honest citizens save lives and property and, yes, gun-control laws adversely affect only the law-abiding citizens.
Take note my fellow Americans, before it's too late!
The next time someone talks in favor of gun control, please remind them of this history lesson.
With guns, we are 'citizens'. Without them, we are 'subjects'.
During WWII the Japanese decided not to invade America because they knew most Americans were ARMED!
SWITZERLAND ISSUES EVERY HOUSEHOLD A GUN!
SWITZERLAND'S GOVERNMENT TRAINS EVERY ADULT THEY ISSUE A RIFLE.
SWITZERLAND HAS THE LOWEST GUN RELATED CRIME RATE OF ANY CIVILIZED COUNTRY IN THE WORLD!!!
IT'S A NO BRAINER!
OUR GOVERNMENT WOULD JUST BE WASTING MILLIONS OF OUR TAX DOLLARS IN AN EFFORT TO MAKE ALL LAW ABIDING CITIZENS AN EASY TARGET FOR ANY OF OUR MANY ENEMIES.
the solution to this problem isn't in reforming gun laws

Amen! TP.
Title: Re: US Constitution / Gun Law Talk (Merged Threads)
Post by: thirstyboots18 on December 23, 2012, 03:12:06 PM
I am torn right down the middle over this issue, too.  (Seems to be a favorite perch of mine...the middle.

I imagine that one of the reasons our forefathers left the right to bear weapons clause in, was to protect the citizenry from the government, itself.  As British subjects, the country was attacked by Britain, after all.

Even today, Iraqis were attacked by their government, Serbs have been attacked by their government, etc.  If the U. S. had not gone through the Civil War, I wonder if it would be as powerful a unit as it has become.  That was surely a factor in centering power in the Federal part of the government, rather than in individual  States.


Title: Re: US Constitution / Gun Law Talk (Merged Threads)
Post by: Ogaju on December 23, 2012, 03:29:05 PM
let me get this right..

The NRA believes that we need guns to protect us against a tyrannical government, but their response to gun violence is to allow the government more gun presence in our everyday lives. WOW, that makes no sense at all.

Wont giving the government more gun presence in our lives require us to carry more guns to prevent the government from tyranny?
Title: Re: US Constitution / Gun Law Talk (Merged Threads)
Post by: thirstyboots18 on December 23, 2012, 06:15:46 PM
let me get this right..

The NRA believes that we need guns to protect us against a tyrannical government, but their response to gun violence is to allow the government more gun presence in our everyday lives. WOW, that makes no sense at all.

Wont giving the government more gun presence in our lives require us to carry more guns to prevent the government from tyranny?
Wait a minute, Ogaju.  Did the NRA say that, or are you attributing my statement to the NRA?  I am not a member of the NRA, don't even own a gun.  That was just my take it.
Title: Re: US Constitution / Gun Law Talk (Merged Threads)
Post by: indeedproceed on December 23, 2012, 06:40:18 PM
let me get this right..

The NRA believes that we need guns to protect us against a tyrannical government, but their response to gun violence is to allow the government more gun presence in our everyday lives. WOW, that makes no sense at all.

Wont giving the government more gun presence in our lives require us to carry more guns to prevent the government from tyranny?
Wait a minute, Ogaju.  Did the NRA say that, or are you attributing my statement to the NRA?  I am not a member of the NRA, don't even own a gun.  That was just my take it.

NRA said they wanted armed policemen (or guards, they used both terms) at all schools.
Title: Re: US Constitution / Gun Law Talk (Merged Threads)
Post by: hpantazo on December 23, 2012, 06:45:16 PM
let me get this right..

The NRA believes that we need guns to protect us against a tyrannical government, but their response to gun violence is to allow the government more gun presence in our everyday lives. WOW, that makes no sense at all.

Wont giving the government more gun presence in our lives require us to carry more guns to prevent the government from tyranny?

Have we ever, even once, had any hint of a tyrannical government? That's the worst excuse for gun ownership that I have heard. That threat has never existed since the U.S. was founded after the revolutionary war.

Also, with the weapons our military and that of other nations have in tanks and fighter jets, a bunch of civillians with rifles wouldn't stand a chance, just ask the people in the middle east.

Should we allow citizens to purchase rocket launchers and other surface to air weapons now too?
Title: Re: US Constitution / Gun Law Talk (Merged Threads)
Post by: vinnie on December 23, 2012, 06:52:15 PM
let me get this right..

The NRA believes that we need guns to protect us against a tyrannical government, but their response to gun violence is to allow the government more gun presence in our everyday lives. WOW, that makes no sense at all.

Wont giving the government more gun presence in our lives require us to carry more guns to prevent the government from tyranny?

Have we ever, even once, had any hint of a tyrannical government? That's the worst excuse for gun ownership that I have heard. That threat has never existed since the U.S. was founded after the revolutionary war.

Also, with the weapons our military and that of other nations have in tanks and fighter jets, a bunch of civillians with rifles wouldn't stand a chance, just ask the people in the middle east. S

hould we allow citizens to purchase rocket launchers and other surface to air weapons now too?

The tyrannical government exists in the minds of all of the conspiracy theorists who read evil into everything that is done in Washington. It also exists in the minds of all of the people who listen to nutjobs like Alex Jones. I don't know how these people live their lives every day knowing that someone around the next corner is going to capture them and put them in a FEMA prison camp --  ;D
Title: Re: US Constitution / Gun Law Talk (Merged Threads)
Post by: hpantazo on December 23, 2012, 06:57:05 PM
let me get this right..

The NRA believes that we need guns to protect us against a tyrannical government, but their response to gun violence is to allow the government more gun presence in our everyday lives. WOW, that makes no sense at all.

Wont giving the government more gun presence in our lives require us to carry more guns to prevent the government from tyranny?

Have we ever, even once, had any hint of a tyrannical government? That's the worst excuse for gun ownership that I have heard. That threat has never existed since the U.S. was founded after the revolutionary war.

Also, with the weapons our military and that of other nations have in tanks and fighter jets, a bunch of civillians with rifles wouldn't stand a chance, just ask the people in the middle east. S

hould we allow citizens to purchase rocket launchers and other surface to air weapons now too?

The tyrannical government exists in the minds of all of the conspiracy theorists who read evil into everything that is done in Washington. It also exists in the minds of all of the people who listen to nutjobs like Alex Jones. I don't know how these people live their lives every day knowing that someone around the next corner is going to capture them and put them in a FEMA prison camp --  ;D

LOL. Yea, there is that. Do any of those people actually believe that owning an automatic weapon will prevent them from ending up in a FEMA camp? I don't think so. They are even more frightened by the technological weapons and trained agents our government has than most NRA members.

Or do they think that having guns will prevent the government from passing policies such as Obamacare? Nope. From enforcing unfair tax regulations or health policy or you name it? Nope.
Title: Re: US Constitution / Gun Law Talk (Merged Threads)
Post by: Ogaju on December 23, 2012, 06:58:33 PM
I know that is silly because there is no way the citizens can compete with the firepower of the state.

The idea that we can arm ourselves to the extent necessary to defeat the might of the US is a silly as the folks who believe that we can sustain the level of development and social infrastructure we have in a capitalist society without an adequate tax structure.
Title: Re: US Constitution / Gun Law Talk (Merged Threads)
Post by: thirstyboots18 on December 23, 2012, 07:00:10 PM
let me get this right..

The NRA believes that we need guns to protect us against a tyrannical government, but their response to gun violence is to allow the government more gun presence in our everyday lives. WOW, that makes no sense at all.

Wont giving the government more gun presence in our lives require us to carry more guns to prevent the government from tyranny?
Wait a minute, Ogaju.  Did the NRA say that, or are you attributing my statement to the NRA?  I am not a member of the NRA, don't even own a gun.  That was just my take it.

NRA said they wanted armed policemen (or guards, they used both terms) at all schools.
Aren't police considered local government as opposed to federal government?
Title: Re: US Constitution / Gun Law Talk (Merged Threads)
Post by: hpantazo on December 23, 2012, 07:02:09 PM
let me get this right..

The NRA believes that we need guns to protect us against a tyrannical government, but their response to gun violence is to allow the government more gun presence in our everyday lives. WOW, that makes no sense at all.

Wont giving the government more gun presence in our lives require us to carry more guns to prevent the government from tyranny?
Wait a minute, Ogaju.  Did the NRA say that, or are you attributing my statement to the NRA?  I am not a member of the NRA, don't even own a gun.  That was just my take it.

NRA said they wanted armed policemen (or guards, they used both terms) at all schools.
Aren't police considered local government as opposed to federal government?

Does it even matter? The whole idea is ridiculous.
Title: Re: US Constitution / Gun Law Talk (Merged Threads)
Post by: hpantazo on December 23, 2012, 07:03:48 PM
I know that is silly because there is no way the citizens can compete with the firepower of the state.

The idea that we can arm ourselves to the extent necessary to defeat the might of the US is a silly as the folks who believe that we can sustain the level of development and social infrastructure we have in a capitalist society without an adequate tax structure.

I agree with you on both points. We aren't getting anywhere as a nation on agreeing on tax structure either unfortunately.
Title: Re: US Constitution / Gun Law Talk (Merged Threads)
Post by: indeedproceed on December 23, 2012, 07:47:52 PM
let me get this right..

The NRA believes that we need guns to protect us against a tyrannical government, but their response to gun violence is to allow the government more gun presence in our everyday lives. WOW, that makes no sense at all.

Wont giving the government more gun presence in our lives require us to carry more guns to prevent the government from tyranny?
Wait a minute, Ogaju.  Did the NRA say that, or are you attributing my statement to the NRA?  I am not a member of the NRA, don't even own a gun.  That was just my take it.

NRA said they wanted armed policemen (or guards, they used both terms) at all schools.
Aren't police considered local government as opposed to federal government?

Most times, not all the time (a lot of townships have no local police force, and rely on county sheriffs or state troopers.)

The thing that kinda annoyed me about the whole thing was 'We protect airports with policemen, we put policemen at sports games and rock concerts, but we won't protect our own children??'

With all the emphasis and implied finger pointing at the most offensive parts.
Title: Re: US Constitution / Gun Law Talk (Merged Threads)
Post by: thirstyboots18 on December 23, 2012, 08:02:10 PM
I know that my old high school in NH has a policeman on campus.  I think he is available to any student who wants to talk to him regarding bullying, drugs, gang related things, etc.

Sorry, I fail to see the problem.  If it were an armed soldier I may have a problem, although the school also offers ROTC, I believe, and I don't have a problem with that.   As I said, I am very conflicted about this question.
Title: Re: US Constitution / Gun Law Talk (Merged Threads)
Post by: mgent on December 23, 2012, 09:47:28 PM
As unsafe as my old high school was, there sure as heck would never be any problems with an outside threat.  We even had German Shepherds sometimes.   ;D ;D
Title: Re: US Constitution / Gun Law Talk (Merged Threads)
Post by: KCattheStripe on December 23, 2012, 10:37:59 PM
I know that is silly because there is no way the citizens can compete with the firepower of the state.

The idea that we can arm ourselves to the extent necessary to defeat the might of the US is a silly as the folks who believe that we can sustain the level of development and social infrastructure we have in a capitalist society without an adequate tax structure.

Especially when it failed in 1865.
Title: Re: US Constitution / Gun Law Talk (Merged Threads)
Post by: Moranis on December 24, 2012, 02:21:51 PM
let me get this right..

The NRA believes that we need guns to protect us against a tyrannical government, but their response to gun violence is to allow the government more gun presence in our everyday lives. WOW, that makes no sense at all.

Wont giving the government more gun presence in our lives require us to carry more guns to prevent the government from tyranny?
Wait a minute, Ogaju.  Did the NRA say that, or are you attributing my statement to the NRA?  I am not a member of the NRA, don't even own a gun.  That was just my take it.

NRA said they wanted armed policemen (or guards, they used both terms) at all schools.
What about movie theaters?  Do we need armed police at all movie theaters?  You know because of Aurora, Co.

Should we also station them at malls?

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/12/13/us-usa-shooting-oregon-idUSBRE8BB01720121213?feedType=RSS&virtualBrandChannel=11563 (http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/12/13/us-usa-shooting-oregon-idUSBRE8BB01720121213?feedType=RSS&virtualBrandChannel=11563)

How about just random houses?

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/lookout/two-firefighters-shot-killed-while-responding-webster-n-163105823.html (http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/lookout/two-firefighters-shot-killed-while-responding-webster-n-163105823.html)


Unless we want to live a police state, the whole concept is totally ridiculous.  Armed attacks happen everywhere and can happen at any time. 
Title: Re: US Constitution / Gun Law Talk (Merged Threads)
Post by: hpantazo on December 24, 2012, 02:25:12 PM
let me get this right..

The NRA believes that we need guns to protect us against a tyrannical government, but their response to gun violence is to allow the government more gun presence in our everyday lives. WOW, that makes no sense at all.

Wont giving the government more gun presence in our lives require us to carry more guns to prevent the government from tyranny?
Wait a minute, Ogaju.  Did the NRA say that, or are you attributing my statement to the NRA?  I am not a member of the NRA, don't even own a gun.  That was just my take it.

NRA said they wanted armed policemen (or guards, they used both terms) at all schools.
What about movie theaters?  Do we need armed police at all movie theaters?  You know because of Aurora, Co.

Should we also station them at malls?

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/12/13/us-usa-shooting-oregon-idUSBRE8BB01720121213?feedType=RSS&virtualBrandChannel=11563 (http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/12/13/us-usa-shooting-oregon-idUSBRE8BB01720121213?feedType=RSS&virtualBrandChannel=11563)

How about just random houses?

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/lookout/two-firefighters-shot-killed-while-responding-webster-n-163105823.html (http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/lookout/two-firefighters-shot-killed-while-responding-webster-n-163105823.html)


Unless we want to live a police state, the whole concept is totally ridiculous.  Armed attacks happen everywhere and can happen at any time.

Exactly.  The idea of solving gun violence by placing armed guards where the violence occurs is just ridiculous. It's offensive that the NRA even responded with that garbage.
Title: Re: US Constitution / Gun Law Talk (Merged Threads)
Post by: fairweatherfan on December 24, 2012, 04:09:31 PM
http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/lookout/two-firefighters-shot-killed-while-responding-webster-n-163105823.html (http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/lookout/two-firefighters-shot-killed-while-responding-webster-n-163105823.html)


I have some friends in Webster.  Horrible event, especially since it appears the fire may have been set deliberately to shoot the firefighters that arrived.

I think the most ludicrous thing about the NRA statement (and there are many) is that a lot of the same people who will earnestly argue that would-be killers who can't get a gun will just find another way to do it are now arguing that having a gun is essential to defending against them.  Apparently access to guns is irrelevant for committing mass murder but highly effective and vitally important to stopping it.
Title: Re: US Constitution / Gun Law Talk (Merged Threads)
Post by: hpantazo on December 24, 2012, 06:10:20 PM
armed police officer and a bystander killed after a shootout following a car chase...

http://www.cnn.com/2012/12/24/us/houston-police-killed/index.html?hpt=hp_t2

Guess if the cop had a gun he could have prevented...oh wait, nevermind
Title: Re: US Constitution / Gun Law Talk (Merged Threads)
Post by: indeedproceed on December 26, 2012, 01:58:08 PM
http://www.lohud.com/interactive/article/20121223/NEWS01/121221011/Map-Where-gun-permits-your-neighborhood-?nclick_check=1

Bit weird, innn'it?
Title: Re: US Constitution / Gun Law Talk (Merged Threads)
Post by: Chris on December 26, 2012, 02:04:25 PM
http://www.lohud.com/interactive/article/20121223/NEWS01/121221011/Map-Where-gun-permits-your-neighborhood-?nclick_check=1

Bit weird, innn'it?

What's weird about it?  (seriously, I am curious, it just looks like a bunch of dots on a map to me).
Title: Re: US Constitution / Gun Law Talk (Merged Threads)
Post by: indeedproceed on December 26, 2012, 02:27:37 PM
http://www.lohud.com/interactive/article/20121223/NEWS01/121221011/Map-Where-gun-permits-your-neighborhood-?nclick_check=1

Bit weird, innn'it?

What's weird about it?  (seriously, I am curious, it just looks like a bunch of dots on a map to me).

Just the idea that someone took all the registered guns and put them on a map, like the sexual offender map. I think its a logical use of public record, just not something I thought I'd ever see. It kind of infringes upon that whole 'big brother' paranoia thing that is so pervasive now.
Title: Re: US Constitution / Gun Law Talk (Merged Threads)
Post by: Chris on December 26, 2012, 08:16:57 PM
http://www.lohud.com/interactive/article/20121223/NEWS01/121221011/Map-Where-gun-permits-your-neighborhood-?nclick_check=1

Bit weird, innn'it?

What's weird about it?  (seriously, I am curious, it just looks like a bunch of dots on a map to me).

Just the idea that someone took all the registered guns and put them on a map, like the sexual offender map. I think its a logical use of public record, just not something I thought I'd ever see. It kind of infringes upon that whole 'big brother' paranoia thing that is so pervasive now.

OOHHH, ok, that makes sense.  I thought you saw some sort of pattern or something.
Title: Re: US Constitution / Gun Law Talk (Merged Threads)
Post by: Brendan on December 27, 2012, 12:37:50 AM
Thought this was a good explanation of the overall conservative position, without descending into hysterics. Nice mix of history, philosophy, practicality, and constitutionality. (Crank used to write on Sports Guy's old BSG site as a baseball sabermatician for those not in the know.)

http://baseballcrank.com/archives2/2012/12/politicslaw_gun_1.php
Title: Re: US Constitution / Gun Law Talk (Merged Threads)
Post by: indeedproceed on December 27, 2012, 12:57:50 AM
Appreciate the link Brendan, too late to read something extensive tonight but I'll give it a good looksee tomorrow.
Title: Re: US Constitution / Gun Law Talk (Merged Threads)
Post by: Bombastic Jones on December 27, 2012, 05:30:23 PM
Thought this was a good explanation of the overall conservative position, without descending into hysterics. Nice mix of history, philosophy, practicality, and constitutionality. (Crank used to write on Sports Guy's old BSG site as a baseball sabermatician for those not in the know.)

http://baseballcrank.com/archives2/2012/12/politicslaw_gun_1.php

Is this the overall conservative position? 

Quote
By contrast, the Second Amendment specifically speaks of the militia being "well-regulated" and gives to Congress explicit powers relating to that regulation. That makes the right to bear arms less like the more absolute rights to free speech and free exercise of religion (about which "Congress shall make no law") and more like the right against searches and seizures, which the Fourth Amendment bans only when "unreasonable." Indeed, Congress used that authority in 1792 to require gun registration and ownership. The obvious conclusion is that, while neither Congress nor the states can properly bar the ownership or possession of any class of guns, one or both may impose reasonable regulations. Again, we can argue about the limits of what kind of regulation is wise or permitted - I personally tend to support background checks, limited waiting periods and even a gun registry - but there's no particular reason to believe that the Second Amendment is intended to present a meaningful obstacle to such regulations of the right.
Title: Re: US Constitution / Gun Law Talk (Merged Threads)
Post by: Moranis on January 04, 2013, 02:36:32 PM
http://touch.latimes.com/#section/-1/article/p2p-73885048/?related=true (http://touch.latimes.com/#section/-1/article/p2p-73885048/?related=true)
Title: Re: US Constitution / Gun Law Talk (Merged Threads)
Post by: Roy H. on January 04, 2013, 02:41:51 PM
http://touch.latimes.com/#section/-1/article/p2p-73885048/?related=true (http://touch.latimes.com/#section/-1/article/p2p-73885048/?related=true)

Except for the (relatively) few accidental gun deaths, I'm not sure what's to be achieved here from a health standpoint.

Doctors have a role in educating people about drugs, cigarettes, fatty foods, etc.  However, is it really necessary to spend millions of dollars warning about guns, or studying their effects?

Guns are made for killing.  That's pretty much their primary purpose, to tear through flesh and to end a life, whether it be an animal's or a person's.  People who own guns generally know that, and I'm not sure that any amount of education from somebody's physician is going to be of any use in preventing gun injuries or crimes.

Perhaps I'm cynical, but this seems to be more about political goals (or perhaps a method to extract more money from the government for "research") than it is a genuine health concern.
Title: Re: US Constitution / Gun Law Talk (Merged Threads)
Post by: Interceptor on January 04, 2013, 03:03:12 PM
Except for the (relatively) few accidental gun deaths, I'm not sure what's to be achieved here from a health standpoint.
How about injuries?

I know that this has the sound of "scientists spend $20M doing research study, conclude that beer makes you drunk", but the same is true of smoking. Is there anyone in the country who doesn't know that cancer sticks will kill you? Or that cupcakes make you fat? The third brake light still pays for itself.

Maybe there's no value, but it's hard to know if we're not even permitted to do the research in the first place.
Title: Re: US Constitution / Gun Law Talk (Merged Threads)
Post by: Roy H. on January 04, 2013, 03:09:17 PM

Maybe there's no value, but it's hard to know if we're not even permitted to do the research in the first place.

Study away, I guess.  Just don't do it on the government's / public's dime.
Title: Re: US Constitution / Gun Law Talk (Merged Threads)
Post by: Cman on January 04, 2013, 03:18:56 PM

Maybe there's no value, but it's hard to know if we're not even permitted to do the research in the first place.

Study away, I guess.  Just don't do it on the government's / public's dime.

Why not? What if research costs $20M, but ends up saving $20B?
Title: Re: US Constitution / Gun Law Talk (Merged Threads)
Post by: Interceptor on January 04, 2013, 03:24:30 PM
Study away, I guess.  Just don't do it on the government's / public's dime.
Great. So I guess that you're in favor of un-doing all the damage that the NRA has done to the ability of government agencies to share the information that they already have?

Not that I agree with your standpoint. The people who want gun studies done, are also taxpaying citizens.
Title: Re: US Constitution / Gun Law Talk (Merged Threads)
Post by: Roy H. on January 04, 2013, 03:38:49 PM
Study away, I guess.  Just don't do it on the government's / public's dime.
Great. So I guess that you're in favor of un-doing all the damage that the NRA has done to the ability of government agencies to share the information that they already have?

Not that I agree with your standpoint. The people who want gun studies done, are also taxpaying citizens.

This is why our country is bankrupt.  Too many people can never say "no" to spending money on things that are of little value.

Multi-million dollar studies that prove that weapons designed to end life are dangerous shouldn't be near the top of the nation's priority list.
Title: Re: US Constitution / Gun Law Talk (Merged Threads)
Post by: Roy H. on January 04, 2013, 03:40:11 PM

Maybe there's no value, but it's hard to know if we're not even permitted to do the research in the first place.

Study away, I guess.  Just don't do it on the government's / public's dime.

Why not? What if research costs $20M, but ends up saving $20B?

What is there to study that's going to save $20 billion?

The purpose of guns is to kill things.  From the standpoint of a physician, that's about all you need to know.
Title: Re: US Constitution / Gun Law Talk (Merged Threads)
Post by: indeedproceed on January 04, 2013, 03:43:53 PM

Maybe there's no value, but it's hard to know if we're not even permitted to do the research in the first place.

Study away, I guess.  Just don't do it on the government's / public's dime.

Why not? What if research costs $20M, but ends up saving $20B?

"I'm not in the business of answering hypotheticals."
Title: Re: US Constitution / Gun Law Talk (Merged Threads)
Post by: Cman on January 04, 2013, 03:44:47 PM

Maybe there's no value, but it's hard to know if we're not even permitted to do the research in the first place.

Study away, I guess.  Just don't do it on the government's / public's dime.

Why not? What if research costs $20M, but ends up saving $20B?

What is there to study that's going to save $20 billion?

The purpose of guns is to kill things.  From the standpoint of a physician, that's about all you need to know.

I was thinking more broadly -- I think more research should be publicly funded. I don't think the government should decide what to fund and not fund, but to have a panel of experts decide. This is the current set up (ie: the NSF administers grants, but area experts drawn from the academic community sit on boards that review which grants gets funded, which do not).
Title: Re: US Constitution / Gun Law Talk (Merged Threads)
Post by: Roy H. on January 04, 2013, 03:46:39 PM

Maybe there's no value, but it's hard to know if we're not even permitted to do the research in the first place.

Study away, I guess.  Just don't do it on the government's / public's dime.

Why not? What if research costs $20M, but ends up saving $20B?

What is there to study that's going to save $20 billion?

The purpose of guns is to kill things.  From the standpoint of a physician, that's about all you need to know.

I was thinking more broadly -- I think more research should be publicly funded. I don't think the government should decide what to fund and not fund, but to have a panel of experts decide. This is the current set up (ie: the NSF administers grants, but area experts drawn from the academic community sit on boards that review which grants gets funded, which do not).

Where's the money coming from?  Our government is bleeding money, and we're going to give even more of it out?  Sounds like a great payday for lobbyists, and a bad one for taxpayers.
Title: Re: US Constitution / Gun Law Talk (Merged Threads)
Post by: Interceptor on January 04, 2013, 03:47:15 PM
This is why our country is bankrupt.  Too many people can never say "no" to spending money on things that are of little value.

Multi-million dollar studies that prove that weapons designed to end life are dangerous shouldn't be near the top of the nation's priority list.
This is the McCain argument: little things like earmarks grease the skids for the big things. In reality, our country is "bankrupt" because of things like unpaid-for wars and tax cuts, growth of medical costs, and retirement promises that are perhaps not realistic. Nothing else even rates.

It's not because of turtle tunnels.

You don't know that the studies would have little value. How could you? How could anyone? We have the data, but aren't permitted to use it.
Title: Re: US Constitution / Gun Law Talk (Merged Threads)
Post by: Moranis on January 04, 2013, 03:49:01 PM

Maybe there's no value, but it's hard to know if we're not even permitted to do the research in the first place.

Study away, I guess.  Just don't do it on the government's / public's dime.

Why not? What if research costs $20M, but ends up saving $20B?

What is there to study that's going to save $20 billion?

The purpose of guns is to kill things.  From the standpoint of a physician, that's about all you need to know.
I believe the point of the study wasn't to show that guns kill people, but would be in finding ways to regulate guns to stop people from using guns to kill people, or to at least make it much harder to do.  Maybe the study can find a link in 60% of the mass killings, which could then be monitored more closely.  Maybe the studies could find simple methods for making guns more safely used or harder to make into automatic weapons.  Who knows, but to say something that leads to 31,000 deaths a year and countless other serious injuries, shouldn't be studied at all is just silly.
Title: Re: US Constitution / Gun Law Talk (Merged Threads)
Post by: Cman on January 04, 2013, 04:03:06 PM

Maybe there's no value, but it's hard to know if we're not even permitted to do the research in the first place.

Study away, I guess.  Just don't do it on the government's / public's dime.

Why not? What if research costs $20M, but ends up saving $20B?

What is there to study that's going to save $20 billion?

The purpose of guns is to kill things.  From the standpoint of a physician, that's about all you need to know.

I was thinking more broadly -- I think more research should be publicly funded. I don't think the government should decide what to fund and not fund, but to have a panel of experts decide. This is the current set up (ie: the NSF administers grants, but area experts drawn from the academic community sit on boards that review which grants gets funded, which do not).

Where's the money coming from?  Our government is bleeding money, and we're going to give even more of it out?  Sounds like a great payday for lobbyists, and a bad one for taxpayers.

The argument is that investment in research pays off in very large multiples in the future. The common example given is funding for basic science research, that leads to scientific discoveries that lead to the birth of new industries generating thousands of jobs (e.g.: US biotech and aeronautic industries). Admittedly, it is less clear that the studies described in the link above will have the same type of "payoff" in the future. But on the other hand, I think it is best left to NSF experts and the like to decide what might be of scientific merit, and what might not be.
Title: Re: US Constitution / Gun Law Talk (Merged Threads)
Post by: nickagneta on January 04, 2013, 04:21:22 PM
Save the money from the study and just use it to buy back guns when major gun control goes into effect. It would be a much better way of using the money.

Studying the fact that guns kill is pretty ridiculous allocation of research money in my book.We might as well spend research money on whether having a roof on a house is a good idea or not.

Seems like in both cases the study results will be rather obvious.
Title: Re: US Constitution / Gun Law Talk (Merged Threads)
Post by: Cman on January 04, 2013, 04:25:37 PM
Save the money from the study and just use it to buy back guns when major gun control goes into effect. It would be a much better way of using the money.

Studying the fact that guns kill is pretty ridiculous allocation of research money in my book.We might as well spend research money on whether having a roof on a house is a good idea or not.

Seems like in both cases the study results will be rather obvious.

Just to clarify, the research is not to determine "if guns kill" but whether steps can be taken to "curb gun injuries"

Here is the quote from the newspaper article:
Quote
Between 1985 and 1997, public health research on guns was beginning to make inroads in identifying what steps might curb gun injuries.

The article is, of course, sufficiently bland as to provide very little additional information.
Title: Re: US Constitution / Gun Law Talk (Merged Threads)
Post by: nickagneta on January 04, 2013, 04:30:07 PM
Save the money from the study and just use it to buy back guns when major gun control goes into effect. It would be a much better way of using the money.

Studying the fact that guns kill is pretty ridiculous allocation of research money in my book.We might as well spend research money on whether having a roof on a house is a good idea or not.

Seems like in both cases the study results will be rather obvious.

Just to clarify, the research is not to determine "if guns kill" but whether steps can be taken to "curb gun injuries"

Here is the quote from the newspaper article:
Quote
Between 1985 and 1997, public health research on guns was beginning to make inroads in identifying what steps might curb gun injuries.

The article is, of course, sufficiently bland as to provide very little additional information.
How to curb gun injuries....try not loading the gun with ammunition and firing them. Seems pretty straightforward to me.

Want to stop gun accidents, don't let the populace have guns. Again, seems pretty straightforward to me.
Title: Re: US Constitution / Gun Law Talk (Merged Threads)
Post by: Roy H. on January 04, 2013, 04:32:46 PM
Save the money from the study and just use it to buy back guns when major gun control goes into effect. It would be a much better way of using the money.

Studying the fact that guns kill is pretty ridiculous allocation of research money in my book.We might as well spend research money on whether having a roof on a house is a good idea or not.

Seems like in both cases the study results will be rather obvious.

Just to clarify, the research is not to determine "if guns kill" but whether steps can be taken to "curb gun injuries"

Here is the quote from the newspaper article:
Quote
Between 1985 and 1997, public health research on guns was beginning to make inroads in identifying what steps might curb gun injuries.

The article is, of course, sufficiently bland as to provide very little additional information.

Seriously?  12 years at the government trough to make "inroads" into figuring out how to lower gun injuries?

More training courses.  Fewer guns in the hands of criminals and the mentally ill.  Lower capacity magazines.  Restrictions on certain types of ammunition.

Can I have my $20 million now?
Title: Re: US Constitution / Gun Law Talk (Merged Threads)
Post by: angryguy77 on January 04, 2013, 04:43:25 PM
This is why our country is bankrupt.  Too many people can never say "no" to spending money on things that are of little value.

Multi-million dollar studies that prove that weapons designed to end life are dangerous shouldn't be near the top of the nation's priority list.
This is the McCain argument: little things like earmarks grease the skids for the big things. In reality, our country is "bankrupt" because of things like unpaid-for wars and tax cuts, growth of medical costs, and retirement promises that are perhaps not realistic. Nothing else even rates.

It's not because of turtle tunnels.

You don't know that the studies would have little value. How could you? How could anyone? We have the data, but aren't permitted to use it.

It's not always about the dollar amount, it's about wasting money that someone worked to earn before they gave it to the government. The money that our government pays for useless studies tells us all how little they value how much work goes into creating that wealth in the first place.

Title: Re: US Constitution / Gun Law Talk (Merged Threads)
Post by: Interceptor on January 04, 2013, 04:51:39 PM
Seriously?  12 years at the government trough to make "inroads" into figuring out how to lower gun injuries?

More training courses.  Fewer guns in the hands of criminals and the mentally ill.  Lower capacity magazines.  Restrictions on certain types of ammunition.

Can I have my $20 million now?
This is a double oversimplification: once for the original problem, and then for the solution to the first thing. Scientific study isn't about condensing conventional wisdom into action items, it's about testable hypotheses. Not everything that people assume is true, actually is. Psychology studies frequently have counter-intuitive findings in particular.
Title: Re: US Constitution / Gun Law Talk (Merged Threads)
Post by: Roy H. on January 04, 2013, 04:54:49 PM
Seriously?  12 years at the government trough to make "inroads" into figuring out how to lower gun injuries?

More training courses.  Fewer guns in the hands of criminals and the mentally ill.  Lower capacity magazines.  Restrictions on certain types of ammunition.

Can I have my $20 million now?
This is a double oversimplification: once for the original problem, and then for the solution to the first thing. Scientific study isn't about condensing conventional wisdom into action items, it's about testable hypotheses. Not everything that people assume is true, actually is. Psychology studies frequently have counter-intuitive findings in particular.

Maybe the government can give scientists sympathetic to the NRA $20 million to prove that guns *aren't*, in fact, dangerous.  That's perhaps counter-intuitive, but you don't know until you spend millions of dollars studying it, right?
Title: Re: US Constitution / Gun Law Talk (Merged Threads)
Post by: Cman on January 04, 2013, 05:05:38 PM
Seriously?  12 years at the government trough to make "inroads" into figuring out how to lower gun injuries?

More training courses.  Fewer guns in the hands of criminals and the mentally ill.  Lower capacity magazines.  Restrictions on certain types of ammunition.

Can I have my $20 million now?
This is a double oversimplification: once for the original problem, and then for the solution to the first thing. Scientific study isn't about condensing conventional wisdom into action items, it's about testable hypotheses. Not everything that people assume is true, actually is. Psychology studies frequently have counter-intuitive findings in particular.

Maybe the government can give scientists sympathetic to the NRA $20 million to prove that guns *aren't*, in fact, dangerous.  That's perhaps counter-intuitive, but you don't know until you spend millions of dollars studying it, right?

I don't want the government deciding how to spend the money. I want academic experts who can assess a potential study and determine its scientific merits to decide.
Title: Re: US Constitution / Gun Law Talk (Merged Threads)
Post by: Interceptor on January 04, 2013, 05:09:48 PM
Maybe the government can give scientists sympathetic to the NRA $20 million to prove that guns *aren't*, in fact, dangerous.  That's perhaps counter-intuitive, but you don't know until you spend millions of dollars studying it, right?
As I said: this is not about answering the question "are guns dangerous?", which is an oversimplification of the proposal.

There is a wealth of data on gun violence, locked up for no good (for the public) reason. Some of the conclusions drawn may in fact validate some of the NRA's claims. But the problem is, almost certainly it will also contain data that they won't like, such as exactly how often "assault" rifles are used in crimes, as an example. All of it is suppressed.
Title: Re: US Constitution / Gun Law Talk (Merged Threads)
Post by: indeedproceed on January 09, 2013, 10:10:05 AM
This seems like an unnecessary fight for the NRA right now:

http://www.npr.org/2013/01/09/168926749/nra-vows-to-stop-tuscon-from-destroying-guns

Quote
Anna Jolivet had four old rifles she didn't want: "They belonged to my husband, and he passed away four years ago, and I haven't had any success in having someone take them off of me since then. So I thought this is a good time to turn them in."

That's exactly what Republican Tucson City Councilman Steve Kozachik expected when he asked the police to do the buyback. What he didn't expect was the response after he announced the event.

"I've been getting threats," Kozachik says. "I've been getting emails. I've been getting phone calls in the office trying to shut this thing down or 'We're going to sue you' or 'Who do you think you are?' "

Todd Rathner, an Arizona lobbyist and a national board member of the NRA, may sue. He has no problem with the gun buyback, but he does have a problem with the fate of the guns once police take possession of them.

"We do believe that it is illegal for them to destroy those guns," he says.
Title: Re: US Constitution / Gun Law Talk (Merged Threads)
Post by: Roy H. on January 09, 2013, 10:13:42 AM
This seems like an unnecessary fight for the NRA right now:

http://www.npr.org/2013/01/09/168926749/nra-vows-to-stop-tuscon-from-destroying-guns

Quote
Anna Jolivet had four old rifles she didn't want: "They belonged to my husband, and he passed away four years ago, and I haven't had any success in having someone take them off of me since then. So I thought this is a good time to turn them in."

That's exactly what Republican Tucson City Councilman Steve Kozachik expected when he asked the police to do the buyback. What he didn't expect was the response after he announced the event.

"I've been getting threats," Kozachik says. "I've been getting emails. I've been getting phone calls in the office trying to shut this thing down or 'We're going to sue you' or 'Who do you think you are?' "

Todd Rathner, an Arizona lobbyist and a national board member of the NRA, may sue. He has no problem with the gun buyback, but he does have a problem with the fate of the guns once police take possession of them.

"We do believe that it is illegal for them to destroy those guns," he says.

Too lazy to read the link.  Why is it illegal to destroy the guns?  If they're "bought back", don't they now belong to the buyer, who can do whatever it wants with them?
Title: Re: US Constitution / Gun Law Talk (Merged Threads)
Post by: indeedproceed on January 09, 2013, 10:18:47 AM
This seems like an unnecessary fight for the NRA right now:

http://www.npr.org/2013/01/09/168926749/nra-vows-to-stop-tuscon-from-destroying-guns

Quote
Anna Jolivet had four old rifles she didn't want: "They belonged to my husband, and he passed away four years ago, and I haven't had any success in having someone take them off of me since then. So I thought this is a good time to turn them in."

That's exactly what Republican Tucson City Councilman Steve Kozachik expected when he asked the police to do the buyback. What he didn't expect was the response after he announced the event.

"I've been getting threats," Kozachik says. "I've been getting emails. I've been getting phone calls in the office trying to shut this thing down or 'We're going to sue you' or 'Who do you think you are?' "

Todd Rathner, an Arizona lobbyist and a national board member of the NRA, may sue. He has no problem with the gun buyback, but he does have a problem with the fate of the guns once police take possession of them.

"We do believe that it is illegal for them to destroy those guns," he says.

Too lazy to read the link.  Why is it illegal to destroy the guns?  If they're "bought back", don't they now belong to the buyer, who can do whatever it wants with them?



Quote
Rathner says Arizona state law forces local governments to sell seized or abandoned property to the highest bidder.

"If property has been abandoned to the police, then they are required by ARS 12-945 to sell it to a federally licensed firearms dealer, and that's exactly what they should do," he says.

That way, Rathner says, the guns can be put back in circulation or given away.
Title: Re: US Constitution / Gun Law Talk (Merged Threads)
Post by: Roy H. on January 09, 2013, 10:21:29 AM
^ But if guns are sold back, how is that "abandonment"?  Aren't those two different things?

(Clearly the police think so, I guess.)
Title: Re: US Constitution / Gun Law Talk (Merged Threads)
Post by: indeedproceed on January 09, 2013, 10:24:30 AM
^ But if guns are sold back, how is that "abandonment"?  Aren't those two different things?

(Clearly the police think so, I guess.)

It really is a pretty wacky position for the NRA to take. Here is the 'vow' to stop it:

Quote
Rathner says the NRA will ask for an accounting of every weapon turned in and then go to court to stop the firearms from being destroyed. If that doesn't work, Rathner says they'll change the law.

"We just go back and we tweak it and tune it up, and we work with our friends in the Legislature and fix it so they can't do it," Rathner adds.

At the gun buyback, gun-rights advocates held signs reading "Cash For Guns" and "Pay Double for Your Guns." As cars pulled into the parking lot, they asked drivers if they wanted to sell their guns privately rather than turn them in. There were few takers.

Doug Deahn couldn't understand it: "Can't figure they'd rather line up and give them away. Can't figure that out."
Title: Re: US Constitution / Gun Law Talk (Merged Threads)
Post by: Interceptor on January 09, 2013, 10:39:49 AM
Wacky for sure, but not by the NRA's standards. I give them credit for being 100% consistent at all times.
Title: Re: US Constitution / Gun Law Talk (Merged Threads)
Post by: nickagneta on January 10, 2013, 09:04:23 AM
You know, there have been a lot of suggestions about gun control, such as:

- eliminate all semi automatic weapons
- eliminate high load magazines
- offer buy back gun programs nationwide
- create a national standard whereby all gun purchases must be put into a certain time frame hold to allow for background checks of buyers
- mental health examinations for all prospective purchasers

I think this is reasonable to begin with.

But I think a part of this problem is that the government doesn't know just how many guns are out there, what types of guns are out there and who owns them. I really think the government needs to rectify this situation:

- Gun shows where dealers can just trade guns or buy guns without a background check or without a registration of the gun purchase or a background check of the individual must end

- All guns must be registered in a national database

- If caught with an unregistered gun, you are committing a crime punishable by $1000 and/or 6 months in jail. A second offense is considered a felony and punishable by a fine of $5000 and up to 5 years in jail. A third offense would result in harsher punishments

- When applying for hunting licenses you must register which gun(s) you will be using with that license. If caught hunting with a gun different from that license fines and eventually jail time for repeat offenders

- Cross check the database when created with that of known felons and mental health patients that have been hospitalized for mental health reasons and take the guns from all those people. Known felons are outlawed from ever owning a gun ever again.

These restrictions would be hated by gun owners as well as the NRA but if you have to register and insure you car and have to have a license to drive a car, I see no problem with these restrictions to guns.


Title: Re: US Constitution / Gun Law Talk (Merged Threads)
Post by: slamtheking on January 10, 2013, 09:29:16 AM
You know, there have been a lot of suggestions about gun control, such as:

- eliminate all semi automatic weapons
- eliminate high load magazines
- offer buy back gun programs nationwide
- create a national standard whereby all gun purchases must be put into a certain time frame hold to allow for background checks of buyers
- mental health examinations for all prospective purchasers

I think this is reasonable to begin with.

But I think a part of this problem is that the government doesn't know just how many guns are out there, what types of guns are out there and who owns them. I really think the government needs to rectify this situation:

- Gun shows where dealers can just trade guns or buy guns without a background check or without a registration of the gun purchase or a background check of the individual must end

- All guns must be registered in a national database

- If caught with an unregistered gun, you are committing a crime punishable by $1000 and/or 6 months in jail. A second offense is considered a felony and punishable by a fine of $5000 and up to 5 years in jail. A third offense would result in harsher punishments

- When applying for hunting licenses you must register which gun(s) you will be using with that license. If caught hunting with a gun different from that license fines and eventually jail time for repeat offenders

- Cross check the database when created with that of known felons and mental health patients that have been hospitalized for mental health reasons and take the guns from all those people. Known felons are outlawed from ever owning a gun ever again.

These restrictions would be hated by gun owners as well as the NRA but if you have to register and insure you car and have to have a license to drive a car, I see no problem with these restrictions to guns.
All good suggestions Nick.  I'd add a couple of others.
- All guns sold must undergo a ballistics test to register their ballistics pattern.  I'd like to make all existing guns undergo the same requirement but I don't see that ever happening.
- Altering a guns barrel or possession of other parts capable of altering a gun's ballistic signature are felonies.  Purchase/sale/ownership transfer of such guns is also a felony.  Commission of a crime with this type of gun adds an automatic minimum of 10 years to the sentence.
Title: Re: US Constitution / Gun Law Talk (Merged Threads)
Post by: Interceptor on January 10, 2013, 06:41:45 PM
The Onion nails it again:

http://www.theonion.com/articles/gorilla-sales-skyrocket-after-latest-gorilla-attac,30860/
Title: Re: US Constitution / Gun Law Talk (Merged Threads)
Post by: nickagneta on January 10, 2013, 07:31:30 PM
The Onion nails it again:

http://www.theonion.com/articles/gorilla-sales-skyrocket-after-latest-gorilla-attac,30860/
That's freaking funny!!! TP!!
Title: Re: US Constitution / Gun Law Talk (Merged Threads)
Post by: Master Po on January 10, 2013, 08:09:24 PM
I am not saying this to offend anyone, nickagenta, Indeed, interceptor. etc. I am just saying this honestly.

1st - I am not a member of the NRA... I don't need to be a member of any club especially a club that lobby's an already corrupt and totally inept government.

I do own guns...they have all been given to me as gifts in the past.

I know how to shoot them as I grew up in the Ozarks and was surrounded by hunters.

I don't hunt because I don't like killing anything for sport and I don't really care for the taste of most wild game.

If I had to survive or lived in Alaska in the wild I would have no problem killing an mammal or fish to survive.

If my home was invaded (as is happening more and more in Kansas so it must be happening in bigger cities) I would have absolutely no issue in using one of my guns to try and stop the invader. I could fail but I would want to try and I should have that right.

I think there are basically two types of people politically in this current events forum (to simplify my post) First, those who look to the government to solve many problems that may or have already come into existence, or to address problems that may arise in the future that they would like some form of government to fix or regulate. The second group are those who generally think government should be severely limited to a few tasks as outlined by the constitution.

Without trying to sound to conspiratorial I simply have never seen government employees, government institutions, or government programs ever produce anything that impressed me or come up with solutions that actually solved a problem. I have seem them come with programs, regulations and spending bills that generally fail and overregulate the common citizen or business.

Why would I trust the government to not screw up and over regulate and over spend and become even more bloated on the issue of gun control?

Government institutions, regulations and government people just can't seem to do anything that works in my opinion.

There are other layers of gun control that could be discussed but on the first layer is that I do not trust the government n any level to act smart, efficient, creatively or honestly and that would include gun control.

 




Title: Re: US Constitution / Gun Law Talk (Merged Threads)
Post by: nickagneta on January 10, 2013, 08:32:02 PM
I am not saying this to offend anyone, nickagenta, Indeed, interceptor. etc. I am just saying this honestly.

1st - I am not a member of the NRA... I don't need to be a member of any club especially a club that lobby's an already corrupt and totally inept government.

I do own guns...they have all been given to me as gifts in the past.

I know how to shoot them as I grew up in the Ozarks and was surrounded by hunters.

I don't hunt because I don't like killing anything for sport and I don't really care for the taste of most wild game.

If I had to survive or lived in Alaska in the wild I would have no problem killing an mammal or fish to survive.

If my home was invaded (as is happening more and more in Kansas so it must be happening in bigger cities) I would have absolutely no issue in using one of my guns to try and stop the invader. I could fail but I would want to try and I should have that right.

I think there are basically two types of people politically in this current events forum (to simplify my post) First, those who look to the government to solve many problems that may or have already come into existence, or to address problems that may arise in the future that they would like some form of government to fix or regulate. The second group are those who generally think government should be severely limited to a few tasks as outlined by the constitution.

Without trying to sound to conspiratorial I simply have never seen government employees, government institutions, or government programs ever produce anything that impressed me or come up with solutions that actually solved a problem. I have seem them come with programs, regulations and spending bills that generally fail and overregulate the common citizen or business.

Why would I trust the government to not screw up and over regulate and over spend and become even more bloated on the issue of gun control?

Government institutions, regulations and government people just can't seem to do anything that works in my opinion.

There are other layers of gun control that could be discussed but on the first layer is that I do not trust the government n any level to act smart, efficient, creatively or honestly and that would include gun control.
I respect that. And while I do not know you or where you have lived, you did say you live in kansas and was from the Ozarks. Sp perhaps you haven't a lot of experience with good government.

I will say that most die hard conservative areas of the country that have as little government as possible are also the areas with the highest rate of poverty, the poorest living conditions, and the worst educational systems. They also have the most common and open forms of racial, sexual, religious and sexual preference bias.

I can understand why if you only lived in areas like these that you would feel the way you do about government. I don't necessarily trust government. But I trust big business exponentially less.

Companies selling guns make obscene profits. The NRA is their largest marketing firm. They have generations of Americans convinced guns are not bad, If I am going to trust anyone, I will trust the US government  a lot more than the NRA and the weapons manufacturers they lobby for.

No insult intended either. Just the way I view things.

BTW, I am a fairly fiscal conservative. I gotta believe the reduction in gun injuries, gun death, gun violence, etc. would over a half century save this country tons of money and more than make up for the government spending needed to make happen everything I have suggested, even a complete repeal of the 2nd Amendment.
Title: Re: US Constitution / Gun Law Talk (Merged Threads)
Post by: Interceptor on January 10, 2013, 08:33:17 PM
I am not saying this to offend anyone, nickagenta, Indeed, interceptor. etc. I am just saying this honestly.
I don't get offended unless people insult me.

Quote
Without trying to sound to conspiratorial I simply have never seen government employees, government institutions, or government programs ever produce anything that impressed me or come up with solutions that actually solved a problem. I have seem them come with programs, regulations and spending bills that generally fail and overregulate the common citizen or business.
I don't see how you can possibly square this. There are millions of government employees. If you haven't met an exceptional one, I'd suspect either confirmation bias, or lack of exposure. It's one thing to be skeptical of government, but to go to the extreme and not even concede the smallest point in favor of government intervention?

It's easy to bag on programs and regulations when you compare them against perfection that doesn't exist in nature. The reality is, the alternative often times is just as good (bad) or non-existent. Do you like wifi? Cell phones? Without regulation of the spectrum, it would be a Wild Wild West of uselessness.

If you want an example of a successful government program, I give you the FDIC.

Quote
Why would I trust the government to not screw up and over regulate and over spend and become even more bloated on the issue of gun control?
Nobody else can do it but the government. Gun control via the honor system doesn't really work.

This isn't to suggest that government is the answer everywhere, but it's the best option for some things. I don't want a private military, for example.
Title: Re: US Constitution / Gun Law Talk (Merged Threads)
Post by: Master Po on January 10, 2013, 11:07:30 PM
Interceptor please read


http://www.depositaccounts.com/blog/the-fdic-is-running-out-of-money-is-your-money-safe.html

When the FDIC needs more money it has to borrow from who? The Government - the Treasury ....

now read this

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204731804574385072164619640.html

so in 2009 the FDIC went to the well (the US Treasury) for more money to shore up commercial banks who fail. This is of course for the purpose of  "protecting depositors". As more banks failed in 2008 the FDIC was running out of money. While an honorable thing (protect depositors from poorly run banks) in all reality the FDIC had to be bailed out as a private agency of the government. So where did the Treasury get the money? Well the Federal Reserve prints it of course ...Now we all know the Federal Reserve is NOT owned by the Federal Government but rather by a consortium of private bankers who control essentially our supply of money in this country. Now of course this currency they control is a fiat currency backed by nothing except a promise. A promise from who? The government!! The same government who is 16 trillion dollars in debt and who can't stop spending, borrowing and propping things up they created or want to control. So..... we (the people who work) pay interest on that debt and new spending programs via taxes.... and therefore taxes need to be raised etc.. etc. because the government needs more money to pay to monitor even more regulations and to set up more programs that won't work. and so on

You cannot borrow your way into safety or prosperity. and you can't print enough money to keep things like the FDIC solvent. At some point a broke government can't continue (think Greece on a much bigger scale) and thing start to implode and more control is needed by a military type force to keep things from chaos. What eventually emerges from a police state is some sort of chapter from George Orwell's "1984" It is possible this could happen sooner rather than later...If things get that bad in my lifetime then having a few guns won't help protect me from a "Big Brother" government. In the meantime I want to be armed for a variety of reasons and won't acquiesce my constitutional right to have them in my home. 


Nickagenta ...thank you for your reply but unintentionally it was a bit insulting. 

Quote
I respect that. And while I do not know you or where you have lived, you did say you live in kansas and was from the Ozarks. Sp perhaps you haven't a lot of experience with good government.

Kansas state government works much better than the Federal government you seem to value so much (not a high bar to jump over I know) This better performance is from a fiscal standpoint so you should perhaps check that out if you so desire.

Kansas is not a poverty state by any stretch of the imagination. A majority of Kansas citizens do quite well. I am proud to say Kansas recently turned down Federal government assistance to jumpstart  Obamacare in Kansas. This money we turned down was to help start a Health Care Exchange ....As a related side note I was invited to be a member of the Kansas committee to investigate the formation of a state based and state run health care exchange due to my 20 + years in health care. It was a disaster from the start as state government employees having a limited understanding of real health care issues immediately got mired down in their inefficient world of regulation, politics and just ignorance on how to get something up and running effectively. Lots and lots of meetings and zero results. Spent lots of taxpayer money though.
 

Trust me, Nickagenta I have had plenty of exposure to government but none of it impressive.

Earlier in my career I was a lead finance negotiator for Boeing (in Kansas) and I negotiated (as part of team) with the Air Force on the B1-Bomber Program and the B-52 OAS/CMI program. In this job I also dealt extensively with the Governments military auditing contracting agency - the DCAA ( Defense Contract Audit Agency).

I was often quoted as saying (as were others) that the only entity who I saw who were lass competent in doing things efficiently than Boeing in building military airplanes was the Air Force and the DCAA in trying to say what they really wanted and needed and how they should be built. They (Air Force negotiators and DCAA) wasted more time changing their mind and instituted more stupid regulations than Boeing could keep up with. This is why you end up with the famous $2,000 toilet seats you hear about.

So I have lots of experience and exposure with government.

Finally my father worked for the government for many years and retired early at the age 47. Why? Because they were driving him nuts in how he did his job of designing, redesigning,  and setting up Post Offices across the midwest in the 1960's. The good thing is that they paid him so well and gave him such good retirement benefits that he could retire at 47. He retired to the Ozarks built a new house on a beautiful lake and worked part time to supplement his early retirement income provided by the government at taxpayer expense. And yes we all wore shoes and we didn;t make moonshine.

In retrospect the government should never have provided my father such great retirement health care and benefits for an early retirement. But they waste money like this everyday and in a billion/trillion ways different ways.

I will never convince either one of you about the value of limited government. To me, something other than a very limited small government is a direct path to socialism. You of course can't convince me of your beliefs in so much faith in government including the government taking more and more control of things like guns....not sure why I even came in here to bother and discuss... waste  of time ....thank you though

Title: Re: US Constitution / Gun Law Talk (Merged Threads)
Post by: Interceptor on January 10, 2013, 11:48:06 PM
Interceptor please read
Those articles are both old (2009) and beside the point. The success of the FDIC is not the forever-solvency of the organization as an independent corporation in the aftermath of a financial crisis (although one notes that it did fine anyway): the success is that no insured depositor has lost a single red cent as a result of a bank failure in the entire 77+ year history of the organization.

Whatever quibbles one may have with the FDIC, if you don't consider that a success, or a problem solved, I'd say that your bar is so high as to be unrealistic.

Quote
I will never convince either one of you about the value of limited government. To me, something other than a very limited small government is a direct path to socialism. You of course can't convince me of your beliefs in so much faith in government including the government taking more and more control of things like guns....not sure why I even came in here to bother and discuss... waste  of time ....thank you though
This is not a discussion. You ignored the point that I made, went on a tangential rant about federal spending, and assumed things about my position on things that aren't true. Not a way to have a conversation about anything.
Title: Re: US Constitution / Gun Law Talk (Merged Threads)
Post by: wayupnorth on January 10, 2013, 11:49:20 PM
Interceptor please read


http://www.depositaccounts.com/blog/the-fdic-is-running-out-of-money-is-your-money-safe.html

When the FDIC needs more money it has to borrow from who? The Government - the Treasury ....

now read this

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204731804574385072164619640.html

so in 2009 the FDIC went to the well (the US Treasury) for more money to shore up commercial banks who fail. This is of course for the purpose of  "protecting depositors". As more banks failed in 2008 the FDIC was running out of money. While an honorable thing (protect depositors from poorly run banks) in all reality the FDIC had to be bailed out as a private agency of the government. So where did the Treasury get the money? Well the Federal Reserve prints it of course ...Now we all know the Federal Reserve is NOT owned by the Federal Government but rather by a consortium of private bankers who control essentially our supply of money in this country. Now of course this currency they control is a fiat currency backed by nothing except a promise. A promise for who? The government!! The same government who in 16 trillion dollars in debt and who can't stop spending, borrowing and propping things up they created or want to control. So..... we (the people who work) pay interest on that debt and new spending programs via taxes.... and therefore taxes need to be raised etc.. etc. because the government needs more money to pay to monitor even more regulations and to set up more programs that won't work. and so on

You cannot borrow your way into safety or prosperity. and you can't print enough money to keep things like the FDIC solvent. At some point a broke government can't continue (think Greece on a much bigger scale) and thing start to implode and more control is needed by a military type force to keep things from chaos. What eventually emerges from a police state is some sort of chapter from George Orwell's "1984" It is possible this could happen sooner rather than later...If things get that bad in my lifetime then having a few guns won't help protect me from a "Big Brother" government. In the meantime I want to be armed for a variety of reasons and won't acquiesce my constitutional right to have them in my home. 


Nickagenta ...thank you for your reply but unintentionally it was a bit insulting. 

Quote
I respect that. And while I do not know you or where you have lived, you did say you live in kansas and was from the Ozarks. Sp perhaps you haven't a lot of experience with good government.

Kansas state government works much better than the Federal government you seem to value so much (not a high bar to jump over I know) This better performance is from a fiscal standpoint so you should perhaps check that out if you so desire.

Kansas is not a poverty state by any stretch of the imagination. A majority of Kansas citizens do quite well. I am proud to say Kansas recently turned down Federal government assistance to jumpstart  Obamacare in Kansas. This money we turned down was to help start a Health Care Exchange ....As a related side note I was invited to be a member of the Kansas committee to investigate the formation of a state based and state run health care exchange due to my 20 + years in health care. It was a disaster from the start as state government employees having a limited understanding of real health care issues immediately got mired down in their inefficient world of regulation, politics and just ignorance on how to get something up and running effectively. Lots and lots of meetings and zero results. Spent lots of taxpayer money though.
 

Trust me, Nickagenta I have had plenty of exposure to government but none of it impressive.

Earlier in my career I was a lead finance negotiator for Boeing (in Kansas) and I negotiated (as part of team) with the Air Force on the B1-Bomber Program and the B-52 OAS/CMI program. In this job I also dealt extensively with the Governments military auditing contracting agency - the DCAA ( Defense Contract Audit Agency).

I was often quoted as saying (as were others) that the only entity who I saw who were lass competent in doing things efficiently than Boeing in building military airplanes was the Air Force and the DCAA in trying to say what they really wanted and needed and how they should be built. They (Air Force negotiators and DCAA) wasted more time changing their mind and instituted more stupid regulations than Boeing could keep up with. This is why you end up with the famous $2,000 toilet seats you hear about.

So I have lots of experience and exposure with government.

Finally my father worked for the government for many years and retired early at the age 47. Why? Because they were driving him nuts in how he did his job of designing, redesigning,  and setting up Post Offices across the midwest in the 1960's. The good thing is that they paid him so well and gave him such good retirement benefits that he could retire at 47. He retired to the Ozarks built a new house on a beautiful lake and worked part time to supplement his early retirement income provided by the government at taxpayer expense. And yes we all wore shoes and we didn;t make moonshine.

In retrospect the government should never have provided my father such great retirement health care and benefits for an early retirement. But they waste money like this everyday and in a billion/trillion ways different ways.

I will never convince either one of you about the value of limited government. To me, something other than a very limited small government is a direct path to socialism. You of course can't convince me of your beliefs in so much faith in government including the government taking more and more control of things like guns....not sure why I even came in here to bother and discuss... waste  of time ....thank you though


Bravo!

TP
Title: Re: US Constitution / Gun Law Talk (Merged Threads)
Post by: Master Po on January 11, 2013, 12:03:48 AM
Interceptor ...thank you for your kind tone....you certainly seem worthy of time spent on discussion ....

now I'll slip out the back door to freedom.
Title: Re: US Constitution / Gun Law Talk (Merged Threads)
Post by: LB3533 on January 11, 2013, 12:05:38 AM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=I8D8b51EwrI

/end of thread.

Edit: I am not a gun owner and not a member of the NRA. I have never entertained the thought of buying a firearm and I can count on one hand how many people I know who own guns (2)....I am, however seriously considering to go out and purchase a firearm or 2.
Title: Re: US Constitution / Gun Law Talk (Merged Threads)
Post by: Celtics18 on January 11, 2013, 09:39:02 AM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=I8D8b51EwrI

/end of thread.

Edit: I am not a gun owner and not a member of the NRA. I have never entertained the thought of buying a firearm and I can count on one hand how many people I know who own guns (2)....I am, however seriously considering to go out and purchase a firearm or 2.

Ben Swann in no way destroys the anti-gun argument in that piece.  There's a distinction that the clip misses; Morgan--and others--aren't claiming that less guns will equal less crime, what they argue is that less guns could well equal less murder.  Swann talks a lot about violent crime, but I suggest that there is a lot of violent crime that does not come close to being as devastating as murder. 
Title: Re: US Constitution / Gun Law Talk (Merged Threads)
Post by: nickagneta on January 11, 2013, 09:56:56 AM
Interceptor please read


http://www.depositaccounts.com/blog/the-fdic-is-running-out-of-money-is-your-money-safe.html

When the FDIC needs more money it has to borrow from who? The Government - the Treasury ....

now read this

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204731804574385072164619640.html

so in 2009 the FDIC went to the well (the US Treasury) for more money to shore up commercial banks who fail. This is of course for the purpose of  "protecting depositors". As more banks failed in 2008 the FDIC was running out of money. While an honorable thing (protect depositors from poorly run banks) in all reality the FDIC had to be bailed out as a private agency of the government. So where did the Treasury get the money? Well the Federal Reserve prints it of course ...Now we all know the Federal Reserve is NOT owned by the Federal Government but rather by a consortium of private bankers who control essentially our supply of money in this country. Now of course this currency they control is a fiat currency backed by nothing except a promise. A promise from who? The government!! The same government who is 16 trillion dollars in debt and who can't stop spending, borrowing and propping things up they created or want to control. So..... we (the people who work) pay interest on that debt and new spending programs via taxes.... and therefore taxes need to be raised etc.. etc. because the government needs more money to pay to monitor even more regulations and to set up more programs that won't work. and so on

You cannot borrow your way into safety or prosperity. and you can't print enough money to keep things like the FDIC solvent. At some point a broke government can't continue (think Greece on a much bigger scale) and thing start to implode and more control is needed by a military type force to keep things from chaos. What eventually emerges from a police state is some sort of chapter from George Orwell's "1984" It is possible this could happen sooner rather than later...If things get that bad in my lifetime then having a few guns won't help protect me from a "Big Brother" government. In the meantime I want to be armed for a variety of reasons and won't acquiesce my constitutional right to have them in my home. 


Nickagenta ...thank you for your reply but unintentionally it was a bit insulting. 

Quote
I respect that. And while I do not know you or where you have lived, you did say you live in kansas and was from the Ozarks. Sp perhaps you haven't a lot of experience with good government.

Kansas state government works much better than the Federal government you seem to value so much (not a high bar to jump over I know) This better performance is from a fiscal standpoint so you should perhaps check that out if you so desire.

Kansas is not a poverty state by any stretch of the imagination. A majority of Kansas citizens do quite well. I am proud to say Kansas recently turned down Federal government assistance to jumpstart  Obamacare in Kansas. This money we turned down was to help start a Health Care Exchange ....As a related side note I was invited to be a member of the Kansas committee to investigate the formation of a state based and state run health care exchange due to my 20 + years in health care. It was a disaster from the start as state government employees having a limited understanding of real health care issues immediately got mired down in their inefficient world of regulation, politics and just ignorance on how to get something up and running effectively. Lots and lots of meetings and zero results. Spent lots of taxpayer money though.
 

Trust me, Nickagenta I have had plenty of exposure to government but none of it impressive.

Earlier in my career I was a lead finance negotiator for Boeing (in Kansas) and I negotiated (as part of team) with the Air Force on the B1-Bomber Program and the B-52 OAS/CMI program. In this job I also dealt extensively with the Governments military auditing contracting agency - the DCAA ( Defense Contract Audit Agency).

I was often quoted as saying (as were others) that the only entity who I saw who were lass competent in doing things efficiently than Boeing in building military airplanes was the Air Force and the DCAA in trying to say what they really wanted and needed and how they should be built. They (Air Force negotiators and DCAA) wasted more time changing their mind and instituted more stupid regulations than Boeing could keep up with. This is why you end up with the famous $2,000 toilet seats you hear about.

So I have lots of experience and exposure with government.

Finally my father worked for the government for many years and retired early at the age 47. Why? Because they were driving him nuts in how he did his job of designing, redesigning,  and setting up Post Offices across the midwest in the 1960's. The good thing is that they paid him so well and gave him such good retirement benefits that he could retire at 47. He retired to the Ozarks built a new house on a beautiful lake and worked part time to supplement his early retirement income provided by the government at taxpayer expense. And yes we all wore shoes and we didn;t make moonshine.

In retrospect the government should never have provided my father such great retirement health care and benefits for an early retirement. But they waste money like this everyday and in a billion/trillion ways different ways.

I will never convince either one of you about the value of limited government. To me, something other than a very limited small government is a direct path to socialism. You of course can't convince me of your beliefs in so much faith in government including the government taking more and more control of things like guns....not sure why I even came in here to bother and discuss... waste  of time ....thank you though

Well I completely apologize as it was never my intent to insult you. Obviously from your experience, government hasn't been something you feel you can trust. It's inefficiency bothers you. I can understand that. It bothers me as well.

But I trust government more than big business. The government, though frustratingly inefficient and maddening in the way they operate, i find, is still more trustworthy than big business and has the best interest of all Americans in mind and not just those they employ or are invested in their company.

I too have had a lot of experience in government. And I have seen many poor children get excellent public schools educations and go on to be successful people. I have seen the government provide scholarships and grants to go to further their education and become doctors and lawyers and engineers and other jobs that help propel this great society we have. I have seen the government provide grants to law enforcement to reduce domestic violence and rape, two of the most under reported and heinous crimes there are.

I don't like big or small government and prefer efficient government. And while I think the government has their collective heads stuck up their collective asses way too often, I still trust our government to make our way of life and society better.

Therefore, I would trust them in controlling guns. Every state has a registry or department of motor vehicles. Every state, city, town and county has a tax collection office. These areas are pretty efficient along with law enforcement, at regulating what they need to, keeping track of data and enforcing and collecting the money needed.

If they can handle keeping track of cars and taxes, they can handle keeping track of guns.
Title: Re: US Constitution / Gun Law Talk (Merged Threads)
Post by: Celtics18 on January 11, 2013, 10:09:24 AM
Interceptor please read


http://www.depositaccounts.com/blog/the-fdic-is-running-out-of-money-is-your-money-safe.html

When the FDIC needs more money it has to borrow from who? The Government - the Treasury ....

now read this

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204731804574385072164619640.html

so in 2009 the FDIC went to the well (the US Treasury) for more money to shore up commercial banks who fail. This is of course for the purpose of  "protecting depositors". As more banks failed in 2008 the FDIC was running out of money. While an honorable thing (protect depositors from poorly run banks) in all reality the FDIC had to be bailed out as a private agency of the government. So where did the Treasury get the money? Well the Federal Reserve prints it of course ...Now we all know the Federal Reserve is NOT owned by the Federal Government but rather by a consortium of private bankers who control essentially our supply of money in this country. Now of course this currency they control is a fiat currency backed by nothing except a promise. A promise from who? The government!! The same government who is 16 trillion dollars in debt and who can't stop spending, borrowing and propping things up they created or want to control. So..... we (the people who work) pay interest on that debt and new spending programs via taxes.... and therefore taxes need to be raised etc.. etc. because the government needs more money to pay to monitor even more regulations and to set up more programs that won't work. and so on

You cannot borrow your way into safety or prosperity. and you can't print enough money to keep things like the FDIC solvent. At some point a broke government can't continue (think Greece on a much bigger scale) and thing start to implode and more control is needed by a military type force to keep things from chaos. What eventually emerges from a police state is some sort of chapter from George Orwell's "1984" It is possible this could happen sooner rather than later...If things get that bad in my lifetime then having a few guns won't help protect me from a "Big Brother" government. In the meantime I want to be armed for a variety of reasons and won't acquiesce my constitutional right to have them in my home. 


Nickagenta ...thank you for your reply but unintentionally it was a bit insulting. 

Quote
I respect that. And while I do not know you or where you have lived, you did say you live in kansas and was from the Ozarks. Sp perhaps you haven't a lot of experience with good government.

Kansas state government works much better than the Federal government you seem to value so much (not a high bar to jump over I know) This better performance is from a fiscal standpoint so you should perhaps check that out if you so desire.

Kansas is not a poverty state by any stretch of the imagination. A majority of Kansas citizens do quite well. I am proud to say Kansas recently turned down Federal government assistance to jumpstart  Obamacare in Kansas. This money we turned down was to help start a Health Care Exchange ....As a related side note I was invited to be a member of the Kansas committee to investigate the formation of a state based and state run health care exchange due to my 20 + years in health care. It was a disaster from the start as state government employees having a limited understanding of real health care issues immediately got mired down in their inefficient world of regulation, politics and just ignorance on how to get something up and running effectively. Lots and lots of meetings and zero results. Spent lots of taxpayer money though.
 

Trust me, Nickagenta I have had plenty of exposure to government but none of it impressive.

Earlier in my career I was a lead finance negotiator for Boeing (in Kansas) and I negotiated (as part of team) with the Air Force on the B1-Bomber Program and the B-52 OAS/CMI program. In this job I also dealt extensively with the Governments military auditing contracting agency - the DCAA ( Defense Contract Audit Agency).

I was often quoted as saying (as were others) that the only entity who I saw who were lass competent in doing things efficiently than Boeing in building military airplanes was the Air Force and the DCAA in trying to say what they really wanted and needed and how they should be built. They (Air Force negotiators and DCAA) wasted more time changing their mind and instituted more stupid regulations than Boeing could keep up with. This is why you end up with the famous $2,000 toilet seats you hear about.

So I have lots of experience and exposure with government.

Finally my father worked for the government for many years and retired early at the age 47. Why? Because they were driving him nuts in how he did his job of designing, redesigning,  and setting up Post Offices across the midwest in the 1960's. The good thing is that they paid him so well and gave him such good retirement benefits that he could retire at 47. He retired to the Ozarks built a new house on a beautiful lake and worked part time to supplement his early retirement income provided by the government at taxpayer expense. And yes we all wore shoes and we didn;t make moonshine.

In retrospect the government should never have provided my father such great retirement health care and benefits for an early retirement. But they waste money like this everyday and in a billion/trillion ways different ways.

I will never convince either one of you about the value of limited government. To me, something other than a very limited small government is a direct path to socialism. You of course can't convince me of your beliefs in so much faith in government including the government taking more and more control of things like guns....not sure why I even came in here to bother and discuss... waste  of time ....thank you though

Well I completely apologize as it was never my intent to insult you. Obviously from your experience, government hasn't been something you feel you can trust. It's inefficiency bothers you. I can understand that. It bothers me as well.

But I trust government more than big business. The government, though frustratingly inefficient and maddening in the way they operate, i find, is still more trustworthy than big business and has the best interest of all Americans in mind and not just those they employ or are invested in their company.

I too have had a lot of experience in government. And I have seen many poor children get excellent public schools educations and go on to be successful people. I have seen the government provide scholarships and grants to go to further their education and become doctors and lawyers and engineers and other jobs that help propel this great society we have. I have seen the government provide grants to law enforcement to reduce domestic violence and rape, two of the most under reported and heinous crimes there are.

I don't like big or small government and prefer efficient government. And while I think the government has their collective heads stuck up their collective asses way too often, I still trust our government to make our way of life and society better.

Therefore, I would trust them in controlling guns. Every state has a registry or department of motor vehicles. Every state, city, town and county has a tax collection office. These areas are pretty efficient along with law enforcement, at regulating what they need to, keeping track of data and enforcing and collecting the money needed.

If they can handle keeping track of cars and taxes, they can handle keeping track of guns.

Our country was founded on the idea that the government is supposed to be "by the people and for the people."  Unfortunately, I agree that it often seems that this is not the case.  This can be very frustrating for the citizens, but I still believe in the concept, and believe that the only way we can begin to reform our country is if the citizens don't get so frustrated that they give up on the idea that the government is indeed ours. 
Title: Re: US Constitution / Gun Law Talk (Merged Threads)
Post by: nickagneta on January 16, 2013, 04:17:09 AM
Anyone seen this bit of "news" as reported by Anne Coulter on Sean Hannity's Fox program:

Quote
Ann Coulter is insisting that guns don’t kill people, non-white people kill people.

The conservative columnist on Monday told Fox News host Sean Hannity that the country had a “demographic problem” because “white populations” in the U.S. and Belgium had the same low murder rate.

“As you know, I just got back from England,” Coulter explained. “On the gun crimes, we keep hearing how low they are in Europe and, ‘Oh, they’re so low and they have no guns.’ If you compare white populations, we have the same murder rate as Belgium.”

“So, perhaps, it’s not a gun problem, it is a demographic problem, which liberals are the one are pushing, pushing, pushing, ‘Let’s add more [African-American mass murderer] Colin Fergusons and more whoever the [Muslim] guy was who shot up Fort Hood.’ Why are they coming in to begin with?”

“It’s when you have a home invasion that you need a large-capacity magazine, especially if you are a female who isn’t constantly at the gun range,” she opined.

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/01/15/coulter-not-a-gun-problem-u-s-has-demographic-problem-with-non-whites/

She can really be way way out there at times but Fox allowing her overt racial remark there is astonishing even for them.
Title: Re: US Constitution / Gun Law Talk (Merged Threads)
Post by: jdz101 on January 16, 2013, 07:10:27 AM
Since the port arthur massacre in 1996 and the new extremely strict firearm and weapon laws were introduced, australia has had no mass killings of any kind.
Title: Re: US Constitution / Gun Law Talk (Merged Threads)
Post by: Roy H. on January 16, 2013, 08:19:53 AM
Since the port arthur massacre in 1996 and the new extremely strict firearm and weapon laws were introduced, australia has had no mass killings of any kind.

The overall homicide rate with firearms apparently hasn't been impacted, though.

104 people were killed over 18 years in Australia due to mass shootings.  The reforms cost at least $500 million, and restricted the rights of millions of citizens.  I think there's an argument that $500 million to save less than 6 lives per year isn't the best use of state resources.  Isn't there a more cost-effective means, whether through education or some other means, to save six lives per year?
Title: Re: US Constitution / Gun Law Talk (Merged Threads)
Post by: thirstyboots18 on January 16, 2013, 08:38:53 AM
Since the port arthur massacre in 1996 and the new extremely strict firearm and weapon laws were introduced, australia has had no mass killings of any kind.

The overall homicide rate with firearms apparently hasn't been impacted, though.

104 people were killed over 18 years in Australia due to mass shootings.  The reforms cost at least $500 million, and restricted the rights of millions of citizens.  I think there's an argument that $500 million to save less than 6 lives per year isn't the best use of state resources.
While I agree in principle, I would find it infinitely better spent than money studying and protecting, for example, endangered species. 

(If we could know with certainty that the life potentially saved was someone close to us, it would be infinitely more acceptable.)
Title: Re: US Constitution / Gun Law Talk (Merged Threads)
Post by: Roy H. on January 16, 2013, 08:47:26 AM
Since the port arthur massacre in 1996 and the new extremely strict firearm and weapon laws were introduced, australia has had no mass killings of any kind.

The overall homicide rate with firearms apparently hasn't been impacted, though.

104 people were killed over 18 years in Australia due to mass shootings.  The reforms cost at least $500 million, and restricted the rights of millions of citizens.  I think there's an argument that $500 million to save less than 6 lives per year isn't the best use of state resources.
While I agree in principle, I would find it infinitely better spent than money studying and protecting, for example, endangered species. 

(If we could know with certainty that the life potentially saved was someone close to us, it would be infinitely more acceptable.)

Sure, on an individual level, we're all going to want the government to spend as much money as possible.  However, at some point you need to make tough decisions.

Look at it in our own lives.  The absolute safest thing on the highways for ourselves and our families would be to drive a tank.  That would essentially eliminate the risk of death.  However, we don't do that because it's just not a good use of money for most of us to buy a tank.

As for endangered species, I disagree.  One (or six) human lives generally aren't worth the cost of an entire species to me. 
Title: Re: US Constitution / Gun Law Talk (Merged Threads)
Post by: indeedproceed on January 16, 2013, 09:18:52 AM
Anyone seen this bit of "news" as reported by Anne Coulter on Sean Hannity's Fox program:

Quote
Ann Coulter is insisting that guns don’t kill people, non-white people kill people.

The conservative columnist on Monday told Fox News host Sean Hannity that the country had a “demographic problem” because “white populations” in the U.S. and Belgium had the same low murder rate.

“As you know, I just got back from England,” Coulter explained. “On the gun crimes, we keep hearing how low they are in Europe and, ‘Oh, they’re so low and they have no guns.’ If you compare white populations, we have the same murder rate as Belgium.”

“So, perhaps, it’s not a gun problem, it is a demographic problem, which liberals are the one are pushing, pushing, pushing, ‘Let’s add more [African-American mass murderer] Colin Fergusons and more whoever the [Muslim] guy was who shot up Fort Hood.’ Why are they coming in to begin with?”

“It’s when you have a home invasion that you need a large-capacity magazine, especially if you are a female who isn’t constantly at the gun range,” she opined.

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/01/15/coulter-not-a-gun-problem-u-s-has-demographic-problem-with-non-whites/

She can really be way way out there at times but Fox allowing her overt racial remark there is astonishing even for them.

Yeah, usually their race-baiting is much more subtle. Anne Coulter must be getting insecure.
Title: Re: US Constitution / Gun Law Talk (Merged Threads)
Post by: fairweatherfan on January 16, 2013, 09:25:35 AM
Anyone seen this bit of "news" as reported by Anne Coulter on Sean Hannity's Fox program:

Quote
Ann Coulter is insisting that guns don’t kill people, non-white people kill people.

The conservative columnist on Monday told Fox News host Sean Hannity that the country had a “demographic problem” because “white populations” in the U.S. and Belgium had the same low murder rate.

“As you know, I just got back from England,” Coulter explained. “On the gun crimes, we keep hearing how low they are in Europe and, ‘Oh, they’re so low and they have no guns.’ If you compare white populations, we have the same murder rate as Belgium.”

“So, perhaps, it’s not a gun problem, it is a demographic problem, which liberals are the one are pushing, pushing, pushing, ‘Let’s add more [African-American mass murderer] Colin Fergusons and more whoever the [Muslim] guy was who shot up Fort Hood.’ Why are they coming in to begin with?”

“It’s when you have a home invasion that you need a large-capacity magazine, especially if you are a female who isn’t constantly at the gun range,” she opined.

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/01/15/coulter-not-a-gun-problem-u-s-has-demographic-problem-with-non-whites/

She can really be way way out there at times but Fox allowing her overt racial remark there is astonishing even for them.

Yeah, usually their race-baiting is much more subtle. Anne Coulter must be getting insecure.

A lot of pundits are basically just professional trolls, and Coulter's one of the more obvious ones.  I think very little of it is sincere.  Whether that makes it more or less despicable is a judgment call.
Title: Re: US Constitution / Gun Law Talk (Merged Threads)
Post by: fairweatherfan on January 16, 2013, 09:34:39 AM
On a somewhat different note, there are Sandy Hook truthers now.  I'm not going to link to anything because screw those guys, but they generally seem to believe either that the attack was completely staged by actors, or that the kids were killed but by a US or Israeli commando squad.

I probably shouldn't, but in some ways I find this more offensive than the original killings themselves.
Title: Re: US Constitution / Gun Law Talk (Merged Threads)
Post by: Roy H. on January 16, 2013, 09:35:00 AM
I can't stand Anne Coulter.  There's a serious conversation to be had about demographics as related to crime statistics.  Rather than attempt to have that conversation, Coulter just resorts to blatant racism.

For instance, if the murder rate between non-gang members in Belgium is the same as non-gang members in the U.S., that tells us something.  If most gun violence is coming out of poor urban areas, that tells us something.  Suggesting that "non-white" is the only important factor is just shorthand, lazy, racism.

In Coulter's case, she's probably trying to sell books.  The sad thing is, this will probably up her sales.
Title: Re: US Constitution / Gun Law Talk (Merged Threads)
Post by: Roy H. on January 16, 2013, 09:35:58 AM
On a somewhat different note, there are Sandy Hook truthers now.  I'm not going to link to anything because screw those guys, but they generally seem to believe either that the attack was completely staged by actors, or that the kids were killed but by a US or Israeli commando squad.

I probably shouldn't, but in some ways I find this more offensive than the original killings themselves.

Yeah, I read a story about how one of the witnesses who helped out students in the aftermath is being hounded by the truthers, harassing him about why he's involved in the cover-up.

Sickening.
Title: Re: US Constitution / Gun Law Talk (Merged Threads)
Post by: indeedproceed on January 16, 2013, 09:40:20 AM
On a somewhat different note, there are Sandy Hook truthers now.  I'm not going to link to anything because screw those guys, but they generally seem to believe either that the attack was completely staged by actors, or that the kids were killed but by a US or Israeli commando squad.

I probably shouldn't, but in some ways I find this more offensive than the original killings themselves.

My sister in law put one for those videos up on facebook with a, "Does anyone know if any of this is true? If so, WOW!"

I defriended her.
Title: Re: US Constitution / Gun Law Talk (Merged Threads)
Post by: Roy H. on January 16, 2013, 09:43:19 AM
On a somewhat different note, there are Sandy Hook truthers now.  I'm not going to link to anything because screw those guys, but they generally seem to believe either that the attack was completely staged by actors, or that the kids were killed but by a US or Israeli commando squad.

I probably shouldn't, but in some ways I find this more offensive than the original killings themselves.

My sister in law put one for those videos up on facebook with a, "Does anyone know if any of this is true? If so, WOW!"

I defriended her.

People are just ridiculously stupid.

It's why I get on Ron Paul's case for going on Alex Jones' show.  When you legitimize craziness, you're part of the problem.
Title: Re: US Constitution / Gun Law Talk (Merged Threads)
Post by: LB3533 on January 16, 2013, 10:39:29 AM
On a somewhat different note, there are Sandy Hook truthers now.  I'm not going to link to anything because screw those guys, but they generally seem to believe either that the attack was completely staged by actors, or that the kids were killed but by a US or Israeli commando squad.

I probably shouldn't, but in some ways I find this more offensive than the original killings themselves.

My sister in law put one for those videos up on facebook with a, "Does anyone know if any of this is true? If so, WOW!"

I defriended her.

People are just ridiculously stupid.

It's why I get on Ron Paul's case for going on Alex Jones' show.  When you legitimize craziness, you're part of the problem.

There are different kinds of crazy...the loud and out in the open kind of crazy is infinitely less harmful than the quiet, concealed crazy.
Title: Re: US Constitution / Gun Law Talk (Merged Threads)
Post by: Rondo2287 on January 16, 2013, 10:40:33 AM
(http://images.bimedia.net/images/130115linn_county_sheriff_letter6601.jpg)

Good read
Title: Re: US Constitution / Gun Law Talk (Merged Threads)
Post by: fairweatherfan on January 16, 2013, 10:59:48 AM
(http://images.bimedia.net/images/130115linn_county_sheriff_letter6601.jpg)

Good read

I don't disagree with the gist of what he's saying, but I disagree strongly with the implication that he (and not the court system) gets to decide what is and is not an infringement of Constitutional rights.  If the courts find a new law or regulation unconstitutional, then this guy doesn't have to do anything to stop them.  If they find them constitutional, then saying "Nope, I still think they're unconstitutional, not enforcing them" is a pretty major breach of his duties as law enforcement.

Too many people seem to want to appoint themselves as arbiters of Constitutionality these days.
Title: Re: US Constitution / Gun Law Talk (Merged Threads)
Post by: Donoghus on January 16, 2013, 11:03:39 AM
(http://images.bimedia.net/images/130115linn_county_sheriff_letter6601.jpg)

Good read

Idiot.

So someone whose job is to "uphold the law" is now gonna to pick & choose what laws to uphold depending on whether or not he agrees with the law?

Yeah, a real gem of a public official.  ::)
Title: Re: US Constitution / Gun Law Talk (Merged Threads)
Post by: Rondo2287 on January 16, 2013, 11:06:39 AM
(http://images.bimedia.net/images/130115linn_county_sheriff_letter6601.jpg)

Good read

Idiot.

So someone whose job is to "uphold the law" is now gonna to pick & choose what laws to uphold depending on whether or not he agrees with the law?

Yeah, a real gem of a public official.  ::)

Honest question, if a law is passed that contradicts the rights granted to us in the constituion is it legal?
Title: Re: US Constitution / Gun Law Talk (Merged Threads)
Post by: Donoghus on January 16, 2013, 11:10:06 AM
(http://images.bimedia.net/images/130115linn_county_sheriff_letter6601.jpg)

Good read

Idiot.

So someone whose job is to "uphold the law" is now gonna to pick & choose what laws to uphold depending on whether or not he agrees with the law?

Yeah, a real gem of a public official.  ::)

Honest question, if a law is passed that contradicts the rights granted to us in the constituion is it legal?

What's the contradiction?  What has been ruled unconstitional here besides what this sheriff is claiming to be unconstituional in his own eyes?
Title: Re: US Constitution / Gun Law Talk (Merged Threads)
Post by: Rondo2287 on January 16, 2013, 11:13:45 AM
(http://images.bimedia.net/images/130115linn_county_sheriff_letter6601.jpg)

Good read

Idiot.

So someone whose job is to "uphold the law" is now gonna to pick & choose what laws to uphold depending on whether or not he agrees with the law?

Yeah, a real gem of a public official.  ::)

Honest question, if a law is passed that contradicts the rights granted to us in the constituion is it legal?

What's the contradiction?  What has been ruled unconstitional here besides what this sheriff is claiming to be unconstituional in his own eyes?
Nothing yet, they havent passed any laws yet, I was just curious
Title: Re: US Constitution / Gun Law Talk (Merged Threads)
Post by: indeedproceed on January 16, 2013, 11:26:06 AM
(http://images.bimedia.net/images/130115linn_county_sheriff_letter6601.jpg)

Good read

Idiot.

So someone whose job is to "uphold the law" is now gonna to pick & choose what laws to uphold depending on whether or not he agrees with the law?

Yeah, a real gem of a public official.  ::)

Honest question, if a law is passed that contradicts the rights granted to us in the constituion is it legal?

What's the contradiction?  What has been ruled unconstitional here besides what this sheriff is claiming to be unconstituional in his own eyes?
Nothing yet, they havent passed any laws yet, I was just curious

If a law is upheld by the Supreme Court, it is constitutionally valid, right? So, if a law is passed that some people think is unconstitutional, and they challenge it in the Supreme Court, and the SC upholds the law, isn't it be default constitutional?
Title: Re: US Constitution / Gun Law Talk (Merged Threads)
Post by: Rondo2287 on January 16, 2013, 11:36:02 AM
(http://images.bimedia.net/images/130115linn_county_sheriff_letter6601.jpg)

Good read

Idiot.

So someone whose job is to "uphold the law" is now gonna to pick & choose what laws to uphold depending on whether or not he agrees with the law?

Yeah, a real gem of a public official.  ::)

Honest question, if a law is passed that contradicts the rights granted to us in the constituion is it legal?

What's the contradiction?  What has been ruled unconstitional here besides what this sheriff is claiming to be unconstituional in his own eyes?
Nothing yet, they havent passed any laws yet, I was just curious

If a law is upheld by the Supreme Court, it is constitutionally valid, right? So, if a law is passed that some people think is unconstitutional, and they challenge it in the Supreme Court, and the SC upholds the law, isn't it be default constitutional?

Right, from the looks of this he is saying that between the time the law is passed and the time it takes to get to the supreme court he won't enforce
Title: Re: US Constitution / Gun Law Talk (Merged Threads)
Post by: indeedproceed on January 16, 2013, 11:47:45 AM
(http://images.bimedia.net/images/130115linn_county_sheriff_letter6601.jpg)

Good read

Idiot.

So someone whose job is to "uphold the law" is now gonna to pick & choose what laws to uphold depending on whether or not he agrees with the law?

Yeah, a real gem of a public official.  ::)

Honest question, if a law is passed that contradicts the rights granted to us in the constituion is it legal?

What's the contradiction?  What has been ruled unconstitional here besides what this sheriff is claiming to be unconstituional in his own eyes?
Nothing yet, they havent passed any laws yet, I was just curious

If a law is upheld by the Supreme Court, it is constitutionally valid, right? So, if a law is passed that some people think is unconstitutional, and they challenge it in the Supreme Court, and the SC upholds the law, isn't it be default constitutional?

Right, from the looks of this he is saying that between the time the law is passed and the time it takes to get to the supreme court he won't enforce

Oh, I thought we were talking about an unrelated hypothetical. This guy, opting to take the law into his own hands, that's his right as a free willed human being. There are histories of specific law enforcement officials choosing what laws to enforce, whether it is to help in the persecution of one group (failing to enforce civil rights laws), or to aid in stopping what they feel is the persecution of one group (for instance, failing to enforce New Mexico's new citizen check laws).

Ultimately, time moves on. Either the law stands or it doesn't, but this sheriff will come around or be replaced.
Title: Re: US Constitution / Gun Law Talk (Merged Threads)
Post by: indeedproceed on January 16, 2013, 11:58:29 AM
Is it New Mexico or Arizona who has the new immigration laws?
Title: Re: US Constitution / Gun Law Talk (Merged Threads)
Post by: fairweatherfan on January 16, 2013, 12:37:34 PM
Obama's announced his executive orders on gun control, here's the list, as described by the administration:

Quote
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."

Some of these seem pretty minor, while others are so vague that I'd have to see the details to have an opinion on them. 

It seems like the big ones mostly involve revamping the background check system, mainly broadening the range of situations where background checks are used to cover any type of gun sale and more law enforcement actions.  #2 and #4 are two of the really broad ones that could go in any number of directions.  I am glad to see the focus on research in #14 - too much of these debates rely on people just batting their intuitions around.  Some hard data would really help inform whatever actions we might choose to take in the future.
Title: Re: US Constitution / Gun Law Talk (Merged Threads)
Post by: Roy H. on January 16, 2013, 02:17:15 PM
On a somewhat different note, there are Sandy Hook truthers now.  I'm not going to link to anything because screw those guys, but they generally seem to believe either that the attack was completely staged by actors, or that the kids were killed but by a US or Israeli commando squad.

I probably shouldn't, but in some ways I find this more offensive than the original killings themselves.

My sister in law put one for those videos up on facebook with a, "Does anyone know if any of this is true? If so, WOW!"

I defriended her.

People are just ridiculously stupid.

It's why I get on Ron Paul's case for going on Alex Jones' show.  When you legitimize craziness, you're part of the problem.

There are different kinds of crazy...the loud and out in the open kind of crazy is infinitely less harmful than the quiet, concealed crazy.

Often, the loud, open crazies are profiteering off of -- and enabling the sick fantasies of -- the quiet, concealed crazies.
Title: Re: US Constitution / Gun Law Talk (Merged Threads)
Post by: Roy H. on January 16, 2013, 02:21:53 PM
(http://images.bimedia.net/images/130115linn_county_sheriff_letter6601.jpg)

Good read

I don't disagree with the gist of what he's saying, but I disagree strongly with the implication that he (and not the court system) gets to decide what is and is not an infringement of Constitutional rights.  If the courts find a new law or regulation unconstitutional, then this guy doesn't have to do anything to stop them.  If they find them constitutional, then saying "Nope, I still think they're unconstitutional, not enforcing them" is a pretty major breach of his duties as law enforcement.

Too many people seem to want to appoint themselves as arbiters of Constitutionality these days.

I agree.  However, the Supreme Court has held that Congress can't compel state executive officers to execute Federal law. 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Printz_v._United_States
Title: Re: US Constitution / Gun Law Talk (Merged Threads)
Post by: indeedproceed on January 16, 2013, 02:23:14 PM
I don't think any 'revolutions' are going to be started by those.

Can't wait to hear Alex Jones connect the dots back to 9-11.
Title: Re: US Constitution / Gun Law Talk (Merged Threads)
Post by: fairweatherfan on January 16, 2013, 02:59:54 PM
I don't think any 'revolutions' are going to be started by those.

Can't wait to hear Alex Jones connect the dots back to 9-11.

Just wait, it's pretty quiet now because most people don't like developing opinions from primary sources, but by tomorrow the blogs and pundits will have cranked out the outrage rationale du jour.
Title: Re: US Constitution / Gun Law Talk (Merged Threads)
Post by: LB3533 on January 16, 2013, 03:18:12 PM
People, the world is really messed up.

If things like 9/11, mass killings in Aurora and Sandyhook all can happen then our government oppressing our rights to an even higher level can happen.

With everything that has happened, it shouldn't surprise anyone if conspiracy theorists end up being right.

Title: Re: US Constitution / Gun Law Talk (Merged Threads)
Post by: Roy H. on January 16, 2013, 03:21:32 PM
People, the world is really messed up.

If things like 9/11, mass killings in Aurora and Sandyhook all can happen then our government oppressing our rights to an even higher level can happen.

With everything that has happened, it shouldn't surprise anyone if conspiracy theorists end up being right.

Why do you choose to live in a country with a government that you believe would (or at least, could) massacre 3,000 of its own citizens, or ruthlessly execute young children?
Title: Re: US Constitution / Gun Law Talk (Merged Threads)
Post by: indeedproceed on January 16, 2013, 03:52:51 PM
On a somewhat different note, there are Sandy Hook truthers now.  I'm not going to link to anything because screw those guys, but they generally seem to believe either that the attack was completely staged by actors, or that the kids were killed but by a US or Israeli commando squad.

I probably shouldn't, but in some ways I find this more offensive than the original killings themselves.

gawker.com/5976204/behind-the-sandy-hook-truther-conspiracy-video-that-five-million-people-have-watched-in-one-week
Title: Re: US Constitution / Gun Law Talk (Merged Threads)
Post by: nickagneta on January 16, 2013, 04:10:58 PM
(http://images.bimedia.net/images/130115linn_county_sheriff_letter6601.jpg)

Good read
Another moron with a God complex because of the fact he has a gun in his hands.

He's a sworn upholder of the Constitution and won't uphold the Constitution because he wants his guns. My guess is that he and his ilk will be lumped in with the large amount of law officers in the late 19th and 20th centuries that decided they weren't going to enforce laws pertaining to the color of a person's skin because the Constitution said blacks were only 5/8 of a white person and hence shouldn't have the same rights as whites.
Title: Re: US Constitution / Gun Law Talk (Merged Threads)
Post by: fairweatherfan on January 16, 2013, 04:18:03 PM
On a somewhat different note, there are Sandy Hook truthers now.  I'm not going to link to anything because screw those guys, but they generally seem to believe either that the attack was completely staged by actors, or that the kids were killed but by a US or Israeli commando squad.

I probably shouldn't, but in some ways I find this more offensive than the original killings themselves.

gawker.com/5976204/behind-the-sandy-hook-truther-conspiracy-video-that-five-million-people-have-watched-in-one-week

Yeah, that's the video my wife was watching last night that brought it up (she doesn't buy it for a second either, just wanted to see what people were talking about on her Facebook).

I was astonished that someone could take so much time to produce something so willfully clueless.  Some media reports being taken as 100% accurate, others disregarded or deliberately misinterpreted, treating witnesses forgetting to mention details or acting awkward on camera as "evidence" that they're lying, failure to follow through on the most inane, easily answerable "questions", complete ignorance of how family members behave in high-stress, emotionally traumatic situations...the stupid just oozes out of that thing. 

I think my favorite is when they show footage of the scene slowed down, then within 30 seconds claim it's staged because "why's that guy walking so slowly?  Certainly doesn't seem like an emergency."  Even ignoring the offensiveness of the position taken, it's like an atlas of logical fallacy and lazy conclusion-driven thinking.
Title: Re: US Constitution / Gun Law Talk (Merged Threads)
Post by: Roy H. on January 16, 2013, 05:18:38 PM
(http://images.bimedia.net/images/130115linn_county_sheriff_letter6601.jpg)

Good read
Another moron with a God complex because of the fact he has a gun in his hands.

He's a sworn upholder of the Constitution and won't uphold the Constitution because he wants his guns. My guess is that he and his ilk will be lumped in with the large amount of law officers in the late 19th and 20th centuries that decided they weren't going to enforce laws pertaining to the color of a person's skin because the Constitution said blacks were only 5/8 of a white person and hence shouldn't have the same rights as whites.

Do you feel the same way when the Justice Department doesn't enforce immigration laws due to "prosecutorial discretion"?  When they don't enforce drug laws?

It's grandstanding, but refusing to enforce certain laws doesn't mean he's not upholding the Constitution.  In fact, as cited earlier, neither Congress nor the President can't force him as a state executive to enforce a Federal law.  I'd say he's on much firmer ground regarding his role in our federal republic than, say, Federal immigration officials who refuse to enforce Federal immigration law.
Title: Re: US Constitution / Gun Law Talk (Merged Threads)
Post by: nickagneta on January 16, 2013, 06:26:34 PM

Do you feel the same way when the Justice Department doesn't enforce immigration laws due to "prosecutorial discretion"?  When they don't enforce drug laws?

Actually, yeah, I kinda do feel the same way. If you are getting paid to uphold the law, then do your job.

Also, when you don't agree with a particular law, don't go grandstanding that you are only going to enforce certain laws and ignore others because, are you really upholding the Constitution if that's what you are going to do?

BTW, regarding Federal law versus local law and a Sheriff's responsibility, if he took an oath to uphold the Constitution shouldn't he be required to enforce the laws of the federal government? Seems a bit hypocritical to take that oath if you are going to decide when and where not to uphold that oath?

So if he sees white people refusing to allow a black person to vote by refusing them access to a voting booth, he can just turn his head  If he sees someone that openly has a slave(think human trafficking), he can ignore that and not do anything because, after all, that is enforcing a Federal law and the Constitution?
Title: Re: US Constitution / Gun Law Talk (Merged Threads)
Post by: D.o.s. on January 16, 2013, 06:59:49 PM
Too many people seem to want to appoint themselves as arbiters of Constitutionality these days.

This is probably the best thing in the entire thread.

Mostly because I really get sick of people, persons, and organizations acting like they're the only ones who have ever read the Constitution.

Like it or not, there are some things best left to those of us qualified to study the law--you know, like the law. Just because everyone is allowed to voice their opinions does not mean that all opinions are given equal weight (nor should they be).

Full disclosure: not a lawyer. Don't even play one on television.
Title: Re: US Constitution / Gun Law Talk (Merged Threads)
Post by: Quinn on January 16, 2013, 07:18:39 PM
People, the world is really messed up.

If things like 9/11, mass killings in Aurora and Sandyhook all can happen then our government oppressing our rights to an even higher level can happen.

With everything that has happened, it shouldn't surprise anyone if conspiracy theorists end up being right.

Why do you choose to live in a country with a government that you believe would (or at least, could) massacre 3,000 of its own citizens, or ruthlessly execute young children?

Quite frankly a lot of people don't choose to live here, just born and raised and financially it's impossible to leave.
Title: Re: US Constitution / Gun Law Talk (Merged Threads)
Post by: Roy H. on January 16, 2013, 08:36:51 PM
People, the world is really messed up.

If things like 9/11, mass killings in Aurora and Sandyhook all can happen then our government oppressing our rights to an even higher level can happen.

With everything that has happened, it shouldn't surprise anyone if conspiracy theorists end up being right.

Why do you choose to live in a country with a government that you believe would (or at least, could) massacre 3,000 of its own citizens, or ruthlessly execute young children?

Quite frankly a lot of people don't choose to live here, just born and raised and financially it's impossible to leave.

In all serious, if I thought my government murdered 3,000 citizens to justify a foreign war, or executed 20 school children to justify gun control, I'd get my money together and move to Canada. 

I mean, who's to say that the government isn't going to come for any one of us if that's the case?  What amount of money is worth your family's safety and freedom?
Title: Re: US Constitution / Gun Law Talk (Merged Threads)
Post by: indeedproceed on January 20, 2013, 04:22:57 PM
School in Michigan took NRA's advice and hired a retired sheriff with 30+ years on the job experience who was most recently a firearms instructor as full time security:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CUc1H7pOWZ0

Been a bit rough so far.

Quote from:
Security guard leaves gun unattended in restroom at Lapeer charter school (http://www.mlive.com/news/flint/index.ssf/2013/01/security_guard_leaves_gun_unat.html#incart_river)
Lapeer, MI -- A security officer at a Lapeer charter school left a firearm unattended in a school bathroom on Monday, Jan. 14, a school official said.
The Chatfield School The Chatfield School in Lapeer. Lauren Justice | MLive.com 

The security officer "made a breach in security protocol" and left an unloaded weapon in a restroom "for a few moments," said Chatfield School Director Matt Young.

Young said the school has been in contact with local authorities about the matter and wouldn't discuss any possible repercussion for the officer, calling it "a personnel matter." Young also declined to name the security officer.

"The school has put additional security procedures in place that follow local law enforcement practices and guidelines," Young said in a statement. "At no time was any student involved in this breach of protocol. We will continue to work on improving school security."

Young stressed that no children were exposed to the handgun or put in danger, and declined to comment more on specifics of the incident.
Title: Re: US Constitution / Gun Law Talk (Merged Threads)
Post by: LB3533 on January 20, 2013, 04:46:10 PM
People, the world is really messed up.

If things like 9/11, mass killings in Aurora and Sandyhook all can happen then our government oppressing our rights to an even higher level can happen.

With everything that has happened, it shouldn't surprise anyone if conspiracy theorists end up being right.

Why do you choose to live in a country with a government that you believe would (or at least, could) massacre 3,000 of its own citizens, or ruthlessly execute young children?

Quite frankly a lot of people don't choose to live here, just born and raised and financially it's impossible to leave.

In all serious, if I thought my government murdered 3,000 citizens to justify a foreign war, or executed 20 school children to justify gun control, I'd get my money together and move to Canada. 

I mean, who's to say that the government isn't going to come for any one of us if that's the case?  What amount of money is worth your family's safety and freedom?


Roy, there are 3 options which one could basically follow....

1.) Stay and just keep taking it up on the chin.

2.) Stay and help defend the righteous cause.

3.) Retreat and move to another place and deal with other issues which that may entail.


(4.) Stay and join the nefarious ways and maybe one can profit and gain, but lose your soul (if we have one or if you believe in this sort of thing) in the process.


I have not yet made up my mind or heart on which path to take. If I had family and little children, those things would definitely speed up my thought processing and decision making.

There are a ton more good people in the USA, but more and more each day are lost to the brainwashing of mainstream and conventional group thinking.

I still believe in this country's founding principles and I still believe this mess is worth fixing and its people worth saving.

 
Title: Re: US Constitution / Gun Law Talk (Merged Threads)
Post by: indeedproceed on January 20, 2013, 05:04:12 PM
People, the world is really messed up.

If things like 9/11, mass killings in Aurora and Sandyhook all can happen then our government oppressing our rights to an even higher level can happen.

With everything that has happened, it shouldn't surprise anyone if conspiracy theorists end up being right.

Why do you choose to live in a country with a government that you believe would (or at least, could) massacre 3,000 of its own citizens, or ruthlessly execute young children?

Quite frankly a lot of people don't choose to live here, just born and raised and financially it's impossible to leave.

In all serious, if I thought my government murdered 3,000 citizens to justify a foreign war, or executed 20 school children to justify gun control, I'd get my money together and move to Canada. 

I mean, who's to say that the government isn't going to come for any one of us if that's the case?  What amount of money is worth your family's safety and freedom?


Roy, there are 3 options which one could basically follow....

1.) Stay and just keep taking it up on the chin.

2.) Stay and help defend the righteous cause.

3.) Retreat and move to another place and deal with other issues which that may entail.


(4.) Stay and join the nefarious ways and maybe one can profit and gain, but lose your soul (if we have one or if you believe in this sort of thing) in the process.


I have not yet made up my mind or heart on which path to take. If I had family and little children, those things would definitely speed up my thought processing and decision making.

There are a ton more good people in the USA, but more and more each day are lost to the brainwashing of mainstream and conventional group thinking.

I still believe in this country's founding principles and I still believe this mess is worth fixing and its people worth saving.

 

The bonus, and I'm absolutely not directing this as you personally LB, of 'staying and defending the righteous cause' is that basically that's limited to going to the firing range, buying lots of crap, and posting obnoxious things on facebook and frequenting fringe forums.

The scary thing about 'staying and defending the righteous cause' is that there are hundreds of heavily armed highly strung conspiracy theorists out there who are preparing for a fight that really shouldn't ever come, and I worry that eventually they'll get a bit antsy in the pantsy. We saw it in Waco, and resulting from that we saw it in Oklahoma City. McVeigh of course was defending a 'righteous cause', was defending what he thought was a nation led astray by a corrupt government.

Not that everyone who goes to infowars is a militant terrorist in the making, not that most, or half, or any number of them are. I can't possibly know that, and I have no reason to think its an imminent danger. But when people start saying things like 'the revolution will rise again' and talk about blood spilling for a righteous cause, I get a little worried.

EDIT: I edited my post to reflect my views a little more clearly.
Title: Re: US Constitution / Gun Law Talk (Merged Threads)
Post by: jdz101 on January 20, 2013, 05:19:49 PM
Since the port arthur massacre in 1996 and the new extremely strict firearm and weapon laws were introduced, australia has had no mass killings of any kind.

The overall homicide rate with firearms apparently hasn't been impacted, though.

104 people were killed over 18 years in Australia due to mass shootings.  The reforms cost at least $500 million, and restricted the rights of millions of citizens.  I think there's an argument that $500 million to save less than 6 lives per year isn't the best use of state resources.  Isn't there a more cost-effective means, whether through education or some other means, to save six lives per year?

Whilst I understand your point, I dont think you can put a price tag on saving people's lives. Our government spends a huge amount of money on discouraging smoking and skin cancer awareness aswell. (due to our climate) A heap of people still die from lung cancer and melanoma in our country, but if there is a way to help the situation as a governing body, you have the obligation to do so.

As far as gun regulations and violence go, was this not a reaction to a mass killing? Is the aim here to prevent mass killings or overall gun violence? If having harsh gun laws stops these killings from happening (or makes them far less frequent), is that not a great thing? If statistics show that violence overall stays the same would you not take the victory of at least stopping massacres?

As far as the cost goes I'm sure the US government will continue to print money for quantitative easing purposes therefore a billion here or there to restrict firearms surely wouldn't put a hole in the pocket.


Title: Re: US Constitution / Gun Law Talk (Merged Threads)
Post by: Roy H. on January 20, 2013, 05:24:30 PM
Since the port arthur massacre in 1996 and the new extremely strict firearm and weapon laws were introduced, australia has had no mass killings of any kind.

The overall homicide rate with firearms apparently hasn't been impacted, though.

104 people were killed over 18 years in Australia due to mass shootings.  The reforms cost at least $500 million, and restricted the rights of millions of citizens.  I think there's an argument that $500 million to save less than 6 lives per year isn't the best use of state resources.  Isn't there a more cost-effective means, whether through education or some other means, to save six lives per year?

Whilst I understand your point, I dont think you can put a price tag on saving people's lives. Our government spends a huge amount of money on discouraging smoking and skin cancer awareness aswell. (due to our climate) A heap of people still die from lung cancer and melanoma in our country, but if there is a way to help the situation as a governing body, you have the obligation to do so.

As far as gun regulations and violence go, was this not a reaction to a mass killing? Is the aim here to prevent mass killings or overall gun violence? If having harsh gun laws stops these killings from happening (or makes them far less frequent), is that not a great thing? If statistics show that violence overall stays the same would you not take the victory of at least stopping massacres?

As far as the cost goes I'm sure the US government will continue to print money for quantitative easing purposes therefore a billion here or there to restrict firearms surely wouldn't put a hole in the pocket.

Well, people like to say things like "I dont think you can put a price tag on saving people's lives", but I don't think anybody in a position of power actually thinks that way (and rightfully so).  I mean, heck, our soldiers go without body army due to budgetary reasons; spending billions of dollars on policies that don't save any lives (at best, six lives per year) just doesn't seem like good policy.
Title: Re: US Constitution / Gun Law Talk (Merged Threads)
Post by: Celtics4ever on January 20, 2013, 05:44:42 PM
Canada has guns but no crime of this sort.   The government and the guns are not the problem it's our people and culture.
Title: Re: US Constitution / Gun Law Talk (Merged Threads)
Post by: indeedproceed on January 20, 2013, 05:57:04 PM
Canada has guns but no crime of this sort.   The government and the guns are not the problem it's our people and culture.

I was in Ottawa like 6 years ago and my friend got headbutted because he skipped to the front of a food truck line after the bars closed. Explain that, Dudley Doright!
Title: Re: US Constitution / Gun Law Talk (Merged Threads)
Post by: Roy H. on January 20, 2013, 06:01:00 PM
Canada has guns but no crime of this sort.   The government and the guns are not the problem it's our people and culture.

I was in Ottawa like 6 years ago and my friend got headbutted because he skipped to the front of a food truck line after the bars closed. Explain that, Dudley Doright!

Sometimes, violence is justified.
Title: Re: US Constitution / Gun Law Talk (Merged Threads)
Post by: jdz101 on January 20, 2013, 07:12:42 PM
Since the port arthur massacre in 1996 and the new extremely strict firearm and weapon laws were introduced, australia has had no mass killings of any kind.

The overall homicide rate with firearms apparently hasn't been impacted, though.

104 people were killed over 18 years in Australia due to mass shootings.  The reforms cost at least $500 million, and restricted the rights of millions of citizens.  I think there's an argument that $500 million to save less than 6 lives per year isn't the best use of state resources.  Isn't there a more cost-effective means, whether through education or some other means, to save six lives per year?

Whilst I understand your point, I dont think you can put a price tag on saving people's lives. Our government spends a huge amount of money on discouraging smoking and skin cancer awareness aswell. (due to our climate) A heap of people still die from lung cancer and melanoma in our country, but if there is a way to help the situation as a governing body, you have the obligation to do so.

As far as gun regulations and violence go, was this not a reaction to a mass killing? Is the aim here to prevent mass killings or overall gun violence? If having harsh gun laws stops these killings from happening (or makes them far less frequent), is that not a great thing? If statistics show that violence overall stays the same would you not take the victory of at least stopping massacres?

As far as the cost goes I'm sure the US government will continue to print money for quantitative easing purposes therefore a billion here or there to restrict firearms surely wouldn't put a hole in the pocket.

Well, people like to say things like "I dont think you can put a price tag on saving people's lives", but I don't think anybody in a position of power actually thinks that way (and rightfully so).  I mean, heck, our soldiers go without body army due to budgetary reasons; spending billions of dollars on policies that don't save any lives (at best, six lives per year) just doesn't seem like good policy.

Assuming the impact is the same, and considering the populations of the two nations, your number of 6 balloons to about 100 in the US.

Mentally unstable teenagers thinking about shooting up their school don't consider the law of averages when they're getting out their semi-automatic either. They won't just kill 6, they'll kill 30.

That event then plants a seed for other mentally disturbed people and it snowballs from there into other atrocities. How many times do hear that these people are "inspired" by previous shootings or massacres before they commit their own.

The US QE policy prints hundreds of billions of dollars a year just to service it's debts, im not convinced that the cost outweighs the benefit here.
Title: Re: US Constitution / Gun Law Talk (Merged Threads)
Post by: LB3533 on January 20, 2013, 11:05:43 PM
Stop the bullying because each day that happens it adds fuel to the fire of "courage" for the mentally/emotionally unstable to do something about it.

I think teachers need to do a better job of policing the halls and the classrooms.

I think parents need to do a better job of raising children with higher character and no I do not necessarily suggest religion or god-like teachings.

I feel past generations had good evolved people with higher character, much more so than today.

I feel with the advancement of technology the principle of hard work has lost its muster.

Today we are a country filled with too much flash and forgotten fundamentals.
Title: Re: US Constitution / Gun Law Talk (Merged Threads)
Post by: indeedproceed on January 20, 2013, 11:21:05 PM
Stop the bullying because each day that happens it adds fuel to the fire of "courage" for the mentally/emotionally unstable to do something about it.

Love the idea, don't see how it's possible. Two biggest issues: 1) Ratio of teachers to students is getting smaller not bigger. When you leave kids unattended, they revert back to their default sociopathic tendencies. They wrote a book about it, called 'Lord of the Flies'. 2) Social media means kids never get disconnect from each other. Constant contact without someone remindjng them not to be terrible to each other=more opportunities for bullying.

Quote
I think teachers need to do a better job of policing the halls and the classrooms.
again, need more teachers to make this happen

Quote
I think parents need to do a better job of raising children with higher character and no I do not necessarily suggest religion or god-like teachings.

I feel past generations had good evolved people with higher character, much more so than today.

Parents always 'have to do a better job' according to the public. How do you think people talked about kids in the 20s? 'Those darn flappers and their jazz music...'

Quote
I feel with the advancement of technology the principle of hard work has lost its muster.
maybe. I have no idea how to address this. Or stop it, or how to know if it's true.

Quote
Today we are a country filled with too much flash and forgotten fundamentals.

Again, who knows? The whole 'kids today..' criticism is as old as time. Did we peak in the 1950's? Depends on who you're talking about. It was a pretty awesome time to be a white male. Every generation has its worts.
Title: Re: US Constitution / Gun Law Talk (Merged Threads)
Post by: Moranis on January 21, 2013, 12:13:21 PM
Stop the bullying because each day that happens it adds fuel to the fire of "courage" for the mentally/emotionally unstable to do something about it.

Love the idea, don't see how it's possible. Two biggest issues: 1) Ratio of teachers to students is getting smaller not bigger. When you leave kids unattended, they revert back to their default sociopathic tendencies. They wrote a book about it, called 'Lord of the Flies'. 2) Social media means kids never get disconnect from each other. Constant contact without someone remindjng them not to be terrible to each other=more opportunities for bullying.
Yeah but does bullying really lead to this.  I mean were the Aurora and Sandy Hook incidents related at all to some sort of bullying.  I know Columbine had bullying as an underlying theme and probably some others have, but I suspect a lot of sociopaths that would kill people, were not bullied.

Then there is also what is the line between bullying and normal child interaction.  That line is pretty darn hard to draw. 
Title: Re: US Constitution / Gun Law Talk (Merged Threads)
Post by: nickagneta on January 21, 2013, 01:37:23 PM
Stop the bullying because each day that happens it adds fuel to the fire of "courage" for the mentally/emotionally unstable to do something about it.

Love the idea, don't see how it's possible. Two biggest issues: 1) Ratio of teachers to students is getting smaller not bigger. When you leave kids unattended, they revert back to their default sociopathic tendencies. They wrote a book about it, called 'Lord of the Flies'. 2) Social media means kids never get disconnect from each other. Constant contact without someone remindjng them not to be terrible to each other=more opportunities for bullying.
Yeah but does bullying really lead to this.  I mean were the Aurora and Sandy Hook incidents related at all to some sort of bullying.  I know Columbine had bullying as an underlying theme and probably some others have, but I suspect a lot of sociopaths that would kill people, were not bullied.

Then there is also what is the line between bullying and normal child interaction.  That line is pretty darn hard to draw.
There is also the line that has to be drawn about what constitutes bullying when dealing with a sociopath or psychopath. What normal people consider talking to a person a sociopath or psychopath might see completely differently because they are so out of touch with reality.
Title: Re: US Constitution / Gun Law Talk (Merged Threads)
Post by: Cman on January 21, 2013, 01:39:32 PM

Whilst I understand your point, I dont think you can put a price tag on saving people's lives.

We as a society do that often, though. The EPA puts the value of a (statistical) life at $7.4M.
http://yosemite.epa.gov/ee/epa/eed.nsf/pages/MortalityRiskValuation.html#whatisvsl
Title: Re: US Constitution / Gun Law Talk (Merged Threads)
Post by: indeedproceed on April 12, 2013, 11:14:36 PM
So I had an interesting couple of weeks vis a vis (is that even how you spell that? Man I'm dumb..) gun control and myself.

I recently became a gun owner, a single barrel 12 gauge for hunting purposes, and that led me to think about my squirrel problem. We have a LOT of squirrels around my property, and we also have rabbits, and vegetable gardens. The three tend to co-mingle, to my disappointment.

So I decided I was going to buy an air-rifle. I was looking at different models, and found one I liked, that fired special Bbs at around 1200 fps (max). It was said to be able to take down a ground hog with a single head shot, and at $84 seemed ideal.

But I thought, 'I think it's legal to own and fire this within city limits..but I don't know for certain.'

So I called my village office. They had no idea, and referred me towards the DEC (for the potential dead squirrels), and the sheriffs (for the actual gun).

Skipped the DEC, and went right for the sheriff. Sheriff refers me to a Sergeant who specializes in these types of questions. His answer:

"Honestly, and im not telling you that you can or cannot own the air rifle or fire it within city limits, I have no idea. With gun laws in flux, I'm having a really hard time figuring out what does and doesn't qualify as a legal firearm; so basically I'm going to say I honestly don't know. I think it's legal, but you can get charged with menacing with a weapon if you're pointing it at person just like with a real gun. And if people complain, they'll send a car out. But if you're just going to use it for target practice or pest control, and you do it responsibly, how am I supposed to know about it, you know?"

I thanked him sincerely for his honesty, but I still have no idea if I can shoot an air rifle in my backyard (as long as its not pointed at anyone).
Title: Re: US Constitution / Gun Law Talk (Merged Threads)
Post by: CelticConcourse on April 12, 2013, 11:20:31 PM
So I had an interesting couple of weeks vis a vis (is that even how you spell that? Man I'm dumb..) gun control and myself.

I recently became a gun owner, a single barrel 12 gauge for hunting purposes, and that led me to think about my squirrel problem. We have a LOT of squirrels around my property, and we also have rabbits, and vegetable gardens. The three tend to co-mingle, to my disappointment.

So I decided I was going to buy an air-rifle. I was looking at different models, and found one I liked, that fired special Bbs at around 1200 fps (max). It was said to be able to take down a ground hog with a single head shot, and at $84 seemed ideal.

But I thought, 'I think it's legal to own and fire this within city limits..but I don't know for certain.'

So I called my village office. They had no idea, and referred me towards the DEC (for the potential dead squirrels), and the sheriffs (for the actual gun).

Skipped the DEC, and went right for the sheriff. Sheriff refers me to a Sergeant who specializes in these types of questions. His answer:

"Honestly, and im not telling you that you can or cannot own the air rifle or fire it within city limits, I have no idea. With gun laws in flux, I'm having a really hard time figuring out what does and doesn't qualify as a legal firearm; so basically I'm going to say I honestly don't know. I think it's legal, but you can get charged with menacing with a weapon if you're pointing it at person just like with a real gun. And if people complain, they'll send a car out. But if you're just going to use it for target practice or pest control, and you do it responsibly, how am I supposed to know about it, you know?"

I thanked him sincerely for his honesty, but I still have no idea if I can shoot an air rifle in my backyard (as long as its not pointed at anyone).

I find it rather sad that a person in authority doesn't even know the answer. Strange times in the USofA...

Interesting story though!
Title: Re: US Constitution / Gun Law Talk (Merged Threads)
Post by: Bahku on April 12, 2013, 11:30:12 PM
So I had an interesting couple of weeks vis a vis (is that even how you spell that? Man I'm dumb..) gun control and myself.

I recently became a gun owner, a single barrel 12 gauge for hunting purposes, and that led me to think about my squirrel problem. We have a LOT of squirrels around my property, and we also have rabbits, and vegetable gardens. The three tend to co-mingle, to my disappointment.

So I decided I was going to buy an air-rifle. I was looking at different models, and found one I liked, that fired special Bbs at around 1200 fps (max). It was said to be able to take down a ground hog with a single head shot, and at $84 seemed ideal.

But I thought, 'I think it's legal to own and fire this within city limits..but I don't know for certain.'

So I called my village office. They had no idea, and referred me towards the DEC (for the potential dead squirrels), and the sheriffs (for the actual gun).

Skipped the DEC, and went right for the sheriff. Sheriff refers me to a Sergeant who specializes in these types of questions. His answer:

"Honestly, and im not telling you that you can or cannot own the air rifle or fire it within city limits, I have no idea. With gun laws in flux, I'm having a really hard time figuring out what does and doesn't qualify as a legal firearm; so basically I'm going to say I honestly don't know. I think it's legal, but you can get charged with menacing with a weapon if you're pointing it at person just like with a real gun. And if people complain, they'll send a car out. But if you're just going to use it for target practice or pest control, and you do it responsibly, how am I supposed to know about it, you know?"

I thanked him sincerely for his honesty, but I still have no idea if I can shoot an air rifle in my backyard (as long as its not pointed at anyone).
Time to push for a new sheriff ... the secretary's assistant at my town's police department knows all the gun laws ... seriously. This guy is just screaming ignorance.