Constitutional Gun Rights Reality Ya In Or Out

[Santa's Little Helper]

Restrictive gun rights is the norm after recent mass shootings they want more

Our FOREFATHERS guaranteed ALL CITIZENS the RIGHT to BEAR ARMS

LIBERALS want to take everybody's guns

YOU CONSERVATIVES basically PRETEND and support restrictive laws limiting access

Look I made afew mistakes in my life been in jail felon and illegal to own firearms

I currently posses 4 guns despite illegal just to show the law means SQUAT

It's you conservatives who cry sour grapes convict and act all high and mighty like you squeaky clean and boo who

Are you pussies talk tough

Now think you gun nuts are paranoid yet you SUPPORT taking another citizens CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS cause you people perfect

SEE The IRONY

now WHY should I care about your gun rights

1 good compelling reason Lay It On Me

[littlejohn]

Restrictive gun rights is the norm after recent mass shootings they want more

now WHY should I care about your gun rights

1 good compelling reason Lay It On Me

If you got your own, and dont need anybody,and dont care if others are left helpless then there is no compelling reason.
If however, you think maybe everybody cant get illegal guns, and folks dont need to be helpless, or you might want to get together with 50 other folks and get something done.... then maybe there is a compelling reason.
make sense ?

[Chris]

Second topic on this and second time I'll comment:


Constitutional Gun Rights ... Our FOREFATHERS guaranteed ALL CITIZENS the RIGHT to BEAR ARMS

No such thing and no they didn't. Rights are natural, inherent, and inalienable--can't be taken away, or given. Founders in the Constitution restricted government from making laws about these rights. But not if you're an alien or a youth or a convicted felon, then such rights are not protected, nor should they be.

[junie]

what do you think "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State" means...?


despite the hyperbole, i don't see anyone advocating taking away "all guns". it is only rational to impose upon ourselves whatever regulation is necessary to the security of our streets from assault weapons mayhem.

[Captain Obvious]

Yet the majority of murders come from non-assault weapons.

[junie]

you can't stop people from being crazy or volatile but you can somehow restrict their ability to impose mass mayhem in rapid fire succession, so why wouldn't you, as necessary to the security of the free state?

what law abiding purpose is there to owning an assault weapon? we live by rule of law and ours is a government by the people for the people. our law enforcement officers are getting outgunned on our streets, so let's be careful what we wish for...

[junie]

Yet the majority of murders come from non-assault weapons.



the fact that most drownings occur in the ocean or that you could drown in your bath tub, doesn't mean i shouldn't put a fence around my pool... (damn, i wish i had a pool! lol)

[Captain Obvious]

Because you cannot stop the bad guys from obtaining and possessing advanced firearms.

Guarantee that and you have a point.

Illegalizing stuff like drugs, assault weapons only fuels the black market and what is being done is preventing law abiding citizens from possessing assault weapons and these laws, bans do nothing to keep them out of the hands of the bad guys.

[Captain Obvious]

And, while everyone is fiddle fucking around with assault weapons bans and background checks, the real root of the issue is virtually ignored.

The psycho-social aspect which is the root of the issue.

[junie]

yes, now everyone and their grandmother is running out to buy an assault weapon "just in case" they need to have a violent revolution, you want to talk about mental health? lol irrational fears are being fed into by the NRA, scaring people just so they can sell shit loads of stuff and make tons of money...

[Chris]

what do you think "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State" means...?


despite the hyperbole, i don't see anyone advocating taking away "all guns". it is only rational to impose upon ourselves whatever regulation is necessary to the security of our streets from assault weapons mayhem.

It's a reason the right to keep and bear arms is protected, to secure freedom from intrusive government. But not the only reason. It is a natural right.

What rational restriction do you propose?

[Captain Obvious]

yes, now everyone and their grandmother is running out to buy an assault weapon "just in case" they need to have a violent revolution, you want to talk about mental health? lol irrational fears are being fed into by the NRA, scaring people just so they can sell shit loads of stuff and make tons of money...

Not sure about most of that, but what does any of it have to do with preventing law abiding citizens from possessing assault weapons while we sit back and watch thugs accumulate and use them?

[junie]

Not sure about most of that, but what does any of it have to do with preventing law abiding citizens from possessing assault weapons while we sit back and watch thugs accumulate and use them?



we were making progress on our streets until the sunset provision in the assault weapons ban was allowed to expire. as soon as it expired all the thugs went shopping, so it's been a set-back, but we can't just give up and be sitting ducks just because people don't understand the meaning and purpose of the second amendment.

[Captain Obvious]

Who is getting killed by assault weapons?

Do you understand the statistics on gun deaths?

[Mister D]

yes, now everyone and their grandmother is running out to buy an assault weapon "just in case" they need to have a violent revolution, you want to talk about mental health? lol irrational fears are being fed into by the NRA, scaring people just so they can sell shit loads of stuff and make tons of money...

No, it's the irresponsible rhetoric of anti-gun kooks (you know, the kind of kooks who think banning assault weapons will make a significant impact on gun violence?) that drives up gun sales. We see a lot of that rhetoric, emotionalism, and fear mongering here. The irony is somewhat amusing.

[junie]

No, it's the irresponsible rhetoric of anti-gun kooks (you know, the kind of kooks who think banning assault weapons will make a significant impact on gun violence?) that drives up gun sales. We see a lot of that rhetoric, emotionalism, and fear mongering here. The irony is somewhat amusing.



yes the impending legislation to reimpose the assault weapon bans is precipitating gun sales, no doubt.

[Captain Obvious]

Exactly (D), and the thing is (and I'm not trying to beat junie up on this either) is that these measures that are being debated - it's statistically shown that they will have little or no impact on violence and/or gun deaths.

What is being debated is typical legislative "feel good" actions and what is being ignored is statistical proofs and common sense.

Show me a piece of legislation that is likely to have an impact on gun violence with a minimal impact on our Constitutionally protected right to bear arms and yeah, I'll consider it. I have not yet seen this proposal.

[Santa's Little Helper]

I TROLLED you people good or as another member calls it "You PEOPLING "

Wait let me grab my........:happy1: :happy1: :happy1:

[Captain Obvious]

Substitute "yinz" for "you people" and all is good.

:afro:

[junie]

Who is getting killed by assault weapons?

Do you understand the statistics on gun deaths?



do you understand my drowning analogy? perhaps you could make a compelling argument for assault weapons ownership not needing to be well regulated for law abiding purposes...?

[hanger4]

we were making progress on our streets until the sunset provision in the assault weapons ban was allowed to expire. as soon as it expired all the thugs went shopping, so it's been a set-back,

This is just not true. The first ban expired in September 2004, murder and overall violent-crime rates have fallen. Just 2.6% of all murders are committed using any type of rifle.


but we can't just give up and be sitting ducks just because people don't understand the meaning and purpose of the second amendment.

"meaning and purpose of the second amendment" ??

Please, let's hear your version of the meaning !!

[junie]

And, while everyone is fiddle fucking around with assault weapons bans and background checks, the real root of the issue is virtually ignored.

The psycho-social aspect which is the root of the issue.




you think?



If the National Rifle Association's plan to curb violence was, in part, arming school employees with guns, President Obama wants to arm them with something quite different: mental health training.


The president's plan centers largely on training teachers and others who work with children, teens and young adults to recognize mental illness as it's developing.


"I think this is really putting the focus on children's mental health as child issue," says Dr. Paramjit Joshi (http://www.childrensnational.org/FindADoctor/Profiles/Paramjit-Joshi-2922.aspx), the president-elect of the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry. She notes that "about 50 percent of lifetime mental illness starts before the age of 14."


Joshi says 3 of 4 people with mental illness develop their condition — including bipolar disorder, depression and schizophrenia — by young adulthood, when the intricate structures of the brain are taking shape. But fewer than half receive treatment.
The president has called for a new initiative, which would need congressional approval, that would provide mental health first-aid training for teachers. It would also set up a robust referral system for children with mental health and behavioral problems.
Mike Fitzpatrick, executive director of the National Alliance on Mental Illness (http://www.nami.org/template.cfm?section=About_NAMI), says that training is critical.


http://www.npr.org/blogs/health/2013/01/17/169597304/obamas-plans-for-guns-put-focus-on-mental-health-of-the-young

[Captain Obvious]

do you understand my drowning analogy? perhaps you could make a compelling argument for assault weapons ownership not needing to be well regulated for law abiding purposes...?

Where did I suggest assault weapons not be regulated?

They should be. I don't want every trailer trash shithead stockpiling assault weapons.

Want sensible legislation? Have special licensing for the lawful possession of certain "assault" weapons and require training.

Did anybody bother to suggest that in the frenzy of debating background checks and clip sizes?

[Private Pickle]

what do you think "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State" means...?


despite the hyperbole, i don't see anyone advocating taking away "all guns". it is only rational to impose upon ourselves whatever regulation is necessary to the security of our streets from assault weapons mayhem.

Again with this argument.

Tell you what, you can have your First Amendment Rights but you can't espouse Democrats anymore. I mean I'm not taking away "all" of your rights. Hows that sound?

And "Assault Rifle Mahem"? Really? Have you ever seen an assault rifle in real life let alone "mayhem" caused by one? POLEEASSSE.

[Captain Obvious]

you think?

Yes, I think.

One blog entry does not make a serious discussion.

If you want to "think", check the proposed legislation and tell me how much of it touches on this point.

[Mister D]

Exactly (D), and the thing is (and I'm not trying to beat @junie (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=699) up on this either) is that these measures that are being debated - it's statistically shown that they will have little or no impact on violence and/or gun deaths.

What is being debated is typical legislative "feel good" actions and what is being ignored is statistical proofs and common sense.

Show me a piece of legislation that is likely to have an impact on gun violence with a minimal impact on our Constitutionally protected right to bear arms and yeah, I'll consider it. I have not yet seen this proposal.

It's pure emotionalism. There is this impulse to do something. It doesn't seem to matter to a lot of these folks if that something is efficacious. Others are just being opportunistic dirt bags.

[Private Pickle]

yes, now everyone and their grandmother is running out to buy an assault weapon "just in case" they need to have a violent revolution, you want to talk about mental health? lol irrational fears are being fed into by the NRA, scaring people just so they can sell shit loads of stuff and make tons of money...

You just said you want to take those guns away and then you say it's irrational for people to run out and get one before it's too late? Maybe if you read your posts aloud before you submit them you will spare yourself this type of awkard position.

By the way...the NRA is a lobby...it doesn't sell guns...

[junie]

This is just not true. The first ban expired in September 2004, murder and overall violent-crime rates have fallen. Just 2.6% of all murders are committed using any type of rifle.



"meaning and purpose of the second amendment" ??

Please, let's hear your version of the meaning !!



i didn't comment on murder rates... people are being hyped up on fear of their government as they insist on their "right" to own an assault weapon, but ask yourself, how does the second amendment reconcile with how our constitution defines treason?

[Private Pickle]

we were making progress on our streets until the sunset provision in the assault weapons ban was allowed to expire. as soon as it expired all the thugs went shopping, so it's been a set-back, but we can't just give up and be sitting ducks just because people don't understand the meaning and purpose of the second amendment.


A 2004 critical review of research on firearms by a National Research Council (http://thepoliticalforums.com/wiki/United_States_National_Research_Council) panel also noted that academic studies of the assault weapon ban "did not reveal any clear impacts on gun violence" and noted "due to the fact that the relative rarity with which the banned guns were used in crime before the ban ... the maximum potential effect of the ban on gun violence outcomes would be very small...."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Assault_Weapons_Ban#Expiration_and_effect_ on_crime

Annnnnnnnnnnd fail.

[junie]

It's pure emotionalism. There is this impulse to do something. It doesn't seem to matter to a lot of these folks if that something is efficacious. Others are just being opportunistic dirt bags.



i say it's pure emotionalism that makes some people cling to their assault weapons out of fear. what is their law abiding purpose...?

[Captain Obvious]

i say it's pure emotionalism that makes some people cling to their assault weapons out of fear. what is their law abiding purpose...?

Self protection. If my family is under attack, what good is a knife when they have guns.

And fun. Ever rip off a magazine on beer cans lined up in a row?

It's breathtaking.

[junie]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Assault_Weapons_Ban#Expiration_and_effect_ on_crime

Annnnnnnnnnnd fail.




lol whatever you say, pickle, my opinion is not based on selective pie chart stats, but rather on principle...

[junie]

Where did I suggest assault weapons not be regulated?

They should be. I don't want every trailer trash shithead stockpiling assault weapons.

Want sensible legislation? Have special licensing for the lawful possession of certain "assault" weapons and require training.

Did anybody bother to suggest that in the frenzy of debating background checks and clip sizes?




so we agree... excellent. that's all i am saying...

[Mister D]

i say it's pure emotionalism that makes some people cling to their assault weapons out of fear. what is their law abiding purpose...?

Who does such a thing? Why do I need to justify my right to own an "assault weapon" to you or anyone else?

[Captain Obvious]

so we agree... excellent. that's all i am saying...

Not sure. Where did I say they should be banned?

Unless I'm misunderstanding you.

[Mister D]

so we agree... excellent. that's all i am saying...

Why are you saying it? They've been regulated since before I was born. In fact, all guns have. Where's the fire?

[junie]

Who does such a thing? Why do I need to justify my right to own an "assault weapon" to you or anyone else?



despite the rhetorical hyperbole of late, ours is not in fact a fascist government, but a constitutional republic, and we secure our free state by rule of law...

What Law Enforcement Says About Assault Weapons


Following several high-profile mass shootings and attacks on law enforcement involving military-style assault weapons, Congress enacted the federal Assault Weapons Ban in 1994. The ban expired on September 13, 2004 without any consideration or action by Congress, despite the pleas of law enforcement officials across the country. Today, our nation's police find themselves increasingly outgunned by criminals armed with sophisticated firearms and detachable, high-capacity ammuniton magazines (the manufacture of magazines holding more than 10 rounds was prohibited under the federal ban). The following timeline examines law enforcement's experience with assault weapons since the federal ban lapsed:

http://www.csgv.org/issues-and-campaigns/assault-weapons/what-law-enforcement-says-about-assault-weapons

[Private Pickle]

lol whatever you say, pickle, my opinion is not based on selective pie chart stats, but rather on principle...

Your principles (which have been proven to have nothing to do with fact) shouldn't be forced on others... That's the opinion of the Constitution.

[Private Pickle]

i say it's pure emotionalism that makes some people cling to their assault weapons out of fear. what is their law abiding purpose...?

If it's law abiding, what business is it of yours what their purpose is...

[Chris]

I TROLLED you people good or as another member calls it "You PEOPLING "

Wait let me grab my........:happy1: :happy1: :happy1:

Good to see you admit you're a troll.

[Chris]

do you understand my drowning analogy? perhaps you could make a compelling argument for assault weapons ownership not needing to be well regulated for law abiding purposes...?

The citation you made about a well-regulated militia did not refer to regulations but regular as in trained and ready to go. Anachronisms don't make for good rational arguments.

[Chris]

It's pure emotionalism. There is this impulse to do something. It doesn't seem to matter to a lot of these folks if that something is efficacious. Others are just being opportunistic dirt bags.

Exactly, and by do something is meant have government do something regardless of consequences.

[Chris]

On the assault weapon myth...


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=STeyS6LYIx4

[hanger4]

i didn't comment on murder rates... people are being hyped up on fear of their government as they insist on their "right" to own an assault weapon, but ask yourself, how does the second amendment reconcile with how our constitution defines treason?


You said;



as soon as it expired all the thugs went shopping, so it's been a set-back,


If murder rates and violent crime rates have gone down, then where's the "set-back" ??


Other than the leftist agenda.

[Chris]

as soon as it expired all the thugs went shopping, so it's been a set-back,


http://i.snag.gy/7IFNo.jpg

[junie]

Restrictive gun rights is the norm after recent mass shootings they want more

Our FOREFATHERS guaranteed ALL CITIZENS the RIGHT to BEAR ARMS

LIBERALS want to take everybody's guns

YOU CONSERVATIVES basically PRETEND and support restrictive laws limiting access

Look I made afew mistakes in my life been in jail felon and illegal to own firearms

I currently posses 4 guns despite illegal just to show the law means SQUAT

It's you conservatives who cry sour grapes convict and act all high and mighty like you squeaky clean and boo who

Are you pussies talk tough

Now think you gun nuts are paranoid yet you SUPPORT taking another citizens CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS cause you people perfect

SEE The IRONY

now WHY should I care about your gun rights

1 good compelling reason Lay It On Me



lol boy you really showed them! way to stick it to the man! :shakeshead:

[hanger4]

http://thepoliticalforums.com/images/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by junie http://thepoliticalforums.com/images/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://thepoliticalforums.com/showthread.php?p=254159#post254159)
i didn't comment on murder rates... people are being hyped up on fear of their government as they insist on their "right" to own an assault weapon, but ask yourself, how does the second amendment reconcile with how our constitution defines treason?





You said;



http://thepoliticalforums.com/images/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by junie http://thepoliticalforums.com/images/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://thepoliticalforums.com/showthread.php?p=254136#post254136)
as soon as it expired all the thugs went shopping, so it's been a set-back,





If murder rates and violent crime rates have gone down, then where's the "set-back" ??


Other than the leftist agend

Due to your lack of response,

I can safely assume that the only

"set-back" was to a leftist agenda.

[junie]

Exactly, and by do something is meant have government do something regardless of consequences.



what "consequences" do you fear?

[junie]

You said;





If murder rates and violent crime rates have gone down, then where's the "set-back" ??


Other than the leftist agenda.



2087
http://www.snopes.com/politics/guns/reaganak47.asp



Lawmakers argued over how to define the ban, and which specific weapons and features it would apply to. They eventually settled on a list of 19 guns and agreed to sunset the law entirely in 10 years. Those concessions were necessary to win support for the ban.


Perhaps the biggest difference between then and now: In 1994, there were House Republicans who backed the crime bill.

"There were a group of Republicans, approximately 40 or so, who represented more moderate districts, districts in the North, Midwest, where they weren't in complete opposition to an assault weapon ban," McNulty says.
In fact, 46 House Republicans voted for the 1994 assault weapons ban — a total that's unimaginable now.

http://www.npr.org/blogs/itsallpolitics/2013/01/29/169551103/banning-assault-weapons-now-much-more-difficult-than-94-aides-say

[junie]

Because you cannot stop the bad guys from obtaining and possessing advanced firearms.

Guarantee that and you have a point.

Illegalizing stuff like drugs, assault weapons only fuels the black market and what is being done is preventing law abiding citizens from possessing assault weapons and these laws, bans do nothing to keep them out of the hands of the bad guys.



that is the compelling argument but i just think we have to start somewhere and set a standard for ownership...

[junie]

2nd Amendment Annotations Prior to the Supreme Court's 2008 decision in District of Columbia v. Heller,1 (http://constitution.findlaw.com/amendment2/amendment.html#_ftn1) the courts had yet to definitively state what right the Second Amendment protected. The opposing theories, perhaps oversimplified, were (1) an "individual rights" approach, whereby the Amendment protected individuals' rights to firearm ownership, possession, and transportation; and (2) a "states' rights" approach, under which the Amendment only protected the right to keep and bear arms in connection with organized state militia units.2 (http://constitution.findlaw.com/amendment2/amendment.html#_ftn2) Moreover, it was generally believed that the Amendment was only a bar to federal action, not to state or municipal restraints.3 (http://constitution.findlaw.com/amendment2/amendment.html#_ftn3)

However, the Supreme Court has now definitively held that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that weapon for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Moreover, this right applies not just to the federal government, but to states and municipalities as well.


http://constitution.findlaw.com/amendment2/amendment.html

[hanger4]

2087
http://www.snopes.com/politics/guns/reaganak47.asp

What's the "set-back" junie ??

It matters not who voted or didn't vote in 1994

It seems like you're avoiding the question,

What's the "set-back" ??

[junie]

What's the "set-back" junie ??

It matters not who voted or didn't vote in 1994

It seems like you're avoiding the question,

What's the "set-back" ??




lol the set-back does not depend upon your perception... did you miss post number 37 for example?


What Law Enforcement Says About Assault Weapons

Following several high-profile mass shootings and attacks on law enforcement involving military-style assault weapons, Congress enacted the federal Assault Weapons Ban in 1994. The ban expired on September 13, 2004 without any consideration or action by Congress, despite the pleas of law enforcement officials across the country. Today, our nation's police find themselves increasingly outgunned by criminals armed with sophisticated firearms and detachable, high-capacity ammuniton magazines (the manufacture of magazines holding more than 10 rounds was prohibited under the federal ban). The following timeline examines law enforcement's experience with assault weapons since the federal ban lapsed:

http://www.csgv.org/issues-and-campa...ssault-weapons (http://www.csgv.org/issues-and-campaigns/assault-weapons/what-law-enforcement-says-about-assault-weapons)

[Chris]

2nd Amendment Annotations Prior to the Supreme Court's 2008 decision in District of Columbia v. Heller,1 (http://constitution.findlaw.com/amendment2/amendment.html#_ftn1) the courts had yet to definitively state what right the Second Amendment protected. The opposing theories, perhaps oversimplified, were (1) an "individual rights" approach, whereby the Amendment protected individuals' rights to firearm ownership, possession, and transportation; and (2) a "states' rights" approach, under which the Amendment only protected the right to keep and bear arms in connection with organized state militia units.2 (http://constitution.findlaw.com/amendment2/amendment.html#_ftn2) Moreover, it was generally believed that the Amendment was only a bar to federal action, not to state or municipal restraints.3 (http://constitution.findlaw.com/amendment2/amendment.html#_ftn3)

However, the Supreme Court has now definitively held that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that weapon for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Moreover, this right applies not just to the federal government, but to states and municipalities as well.


http://constitution.findlaw.com/amendment2/amendment.html

If you read the entire 2nd amendment it covers both an individual right and a social right. Natural rights had just been derived from natural law by Locke and others; if you read Burke for example, rights are still considered social or group rights. So the founders bridged the gap, saying the individual right to keep and bear arms provided security of the social right.

[Pete7469]

Restrictive gun rights is the norm after recent mass shootings they want more

Our FOREFATHERS guaranteed ALL CITIZENS the RIGHT to BEAR ARMS

LIBERALS want to take everybody's guns

YOU CONSERVATIVES basically PRETEND and support restrictive laws limiting access

Look I made afew mistakes in my life been in jail felon and illegal to own firearms

I currently posses 4 guns despite illegal just to show the law means SQUAT

It's you conservatives who cry sour grapes convict and act all high and mighty like you squeaky clean and boo who

Are you pussies talk tough

Now think you gun nuts are paranoid yet you SUPPORT taking another citizens CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS cause you people perfect

SEE The IRONY

now WHY should I care about your gun rights

1 good compelling reason Lay It On Me

For me personally, if a person is truly no longer a threat to society they should be allowed to own guns for personal security.

Otherwise they should still be locked up.

[hanger4]

lol the set-back does not depend upon your perception... did you miss post number 37 for example?

My perception is irrelevant, I just asked a simple question.




What Law Enforcement Says About Assault Weapons

Following several high-profile mass shootings and attacks on law enforcement involving military-style assault weapons, Congress enacted the federal Assault Weapons Ban in 1994. The ban expired on September 13, 2004 without any consideration or action by Congress, despite the pleas of law enforcement officials across the country. Today, our nation's police find themselves increasingly outgunned by criminals armed with sophisticated firearms and detachable, high-capacity ammuniton magazines (the manufacture of magazines holding more than 10 rounds was prohibited under the federal ban). The following timeline examines law enforcement's experience with assault weapons since the federal ban lapsed:

http://www.csgv.org/issues-and-campa...ssault-weapons (http://www.csgv.org/issues-and-campaigns/assault-weapons/what-law-enforcement-says-about-assault-weapons)

So the "set-back" is "criminals armed with sophisticated firearms and detachable, high-capacity ammuniton magazines" ??Yet the murder and violent crime rates decreased after 2004 ??

[hanger4]

lol the set-back does not depend upon your perception... did you miss post number 37 for example?

My perception is irrelevant, I just asked a simple question.




What Law Enforcement Says About Assault Weapons

Following several high-profile mass shootings and attacks on law enforcement involving military-style assault weapons, Congress enacted the federal Assault Weapons Ban in 1994. The ban expired on September 13, 2004 without any consideration or action by Congress, despite the pleas of law enforcement officials across the country. Today, our nation's police find themselves increasingly outgunned by criminals armed with sophisticated firearms and detachable, high-capacity ammuniton magazines (the manufacture of magazines holding more than 10 rounds was prohibited under the federal ban). The following timeline examines law enforcement's experience with assault weapons since the federal ban lapsed:

http://www.csgv.org/issues-and-campa...ssault-weapons (http://www.csgv.org/issues-and-campaigns/assault-weapons/what-law-enforcement-says-about-assault-weapons)

So the "set-back" is "criminals armed with sophisticated firearms and detachable, high-capacity ammuniton magazines" ??

Yet the murder and violent crime rates decreased after 2004 ??

[Captain Obvious]

Nice avatar hanger4

[Peter1469]

what do you think "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State" means...?


despite the hyperbole, i don't see anyone advocating taking away "all guns". it is only rational to impose upon ourselves whatever regulation is necessary to the security of our streets from assault weapons mayhem.

Under the Colonies, and later the States, the militia was the "whole people" generally able-bodied males between 15 and 45.

[Peter1469]

yes, now everyone and their grandmother is running out to buy an assault weapon "just in case" they need to have a violent revolution, you want to talk about mental health? lol irrational fears are being fed into by the NRA, scaring people just so they can sell shit loads of stuff and make tons of money...

No they aren't. We are misusing the term "assault weapon." To get a real "assault weapon" you need a federal firearms license. They are buy weapons that look like assault weapons.

[zelmo1234]

yes, now everyone and their grandmother is running out to buy an assault weapon "just in case" they need to have a violent revolution, you want to talk about mental health? lol irrational fears are being fed into by the NRA, scaring people just so they can sell shit loads of stuff and make tons of money...

What does the NRA sell???

What Grandmothers are buying guns.

I think that you might be barking up the wrong tree here

[zelmo1234]

we were making progress on our streets until the sunset provision in the assault weapons ban was allowed to expire. as soon as it expired all the thugs went shopping, so it's been a set-back, but we can't just give up and be sitting ducks just because people don't understand the meaning and purpose of the second amendment.

http://themonkeycage.org/blog/2012/07/21/the-declining-culture-of-guns-and-violence-in-the-united-states/

Wrong gun vilence and murders have been dropping since the assualt weapons ban was lifted

Now What?

[zelmo1234]

do you understand my drowning analogy? perhaps you could make a compelling argument for assault weapons ownership not needing to be well regulated for law abiding purposes...?

No, not at all I think that everyone that owns an assualt weapon should learn how to use it the the fullest extent of the weapons capability!

You do understand that what you are calling well regulated, has nothing to do with government regulations do you not????

[zelmo1234]

i say it's pure emotionalism that makes some people cling to their assault weapons out of fear. what is their law abiding purpose...?

Shooting, 3 gun, distance, and carbine conpetitions. Hjunting, especially varmits, it is the #1 rifle for that. Home defense!

So now what? You have very little knowledge of weapons and what they will and will not do, nore do you understand what they used for!

[zelmo1234]

lol whatever you say, pickle, my opinion is not based on selective pie chart stats, but rather on principle...

So your emotion trumps facts? How very liveral of you?

[zelmo1234]

2087
http://www.snopes.com/politics/guns/reaganak47.asp

Yep he was wrong too!

[zelmo1234]

lol the set-back does not depend upon your perception... did you miss post number 37 for example?


What Law Enforcement Says About Assault Weapons

Following several high-profile mass shootings and attacks on law enforcement involving military-style assault weapons, Congress enacted the federal Assault Weapons Ban in 1994. The ban expired on September 13, 2004 without any consideration or action by Congress, despite the pleas of law enforcement officials across the country. Today, our nation's police find themselves increasingly outgunned by criminals armed with sophisticated firearms and detachable, high-capacity ammuniton magazines (the manufacture of magazines holding more than 10 rounds was prohibited under the federal ban). The following timeline examines law enforcement's experience with assault weapons since the federal ban lapsed:

http://www.csgv.org/issues-and-campa...ssault-weapons (http://www.csgv.org/issues-and-campaigns/assault-weapons/what-law-enforcement-says-about-assault-weapons)

Here are some things that you might want to know. the police do not ahve an obligations to protect you

http://www.firearmsandliberty.com/kasler-protection.html

The police are warning you that they can't protect you?

http://detroit.cbslocal.com/2012/10/06/enter-at-your-own-risk-police-union-says-war-like-detroit-is-unsafe-for-visitors/

And they suggest that you protect yourself

http://detroit.cbslocal.com/2012/10/06/enter-at-your-own-risk-police-union-says-war-like-detroit-is-unsafe-for-visitors/

So your quotes that are nearly 20 years old are outdated. Now What?

[junie]

What does the NRA sell???

What Grandmothers are buying guns.

I think that you might be barking up the wrong tree here



fear...?



Last year, shortly after the shooting of then-Congresswoman Gabby Giffords, a financial analyst asked Mike Fifer—CEO of one of the largest gun companies in America—if the incident would lead to a wave of new gun sales. “The commentary from the NRA that President Obama might be coming out with some sort of speech on some sort of gun control,” asked the analyst, “has that stirred gun owners and prospective gun owners to go visit the stores?”


Gun companies, like almost any profit-driven enterprise, must keep pace with investor demands. Unlike most consumer businesses, however, people generally only need to buy their product once. Guns are very durable, and a well-maintained one can last a lifetime.


That’s where the National Rifle Association comes in.


NRA-stoked (http://mediamatters.org/blog/2011/12/27/2011-a-year-in-the-nras-insane-paranoid-conspir/185712) fear about the government coming to seize America’s guns has been a useful marketing tool to the gun industry, which must continually encourage gun-owners to buy more and more weapons.


This dynamic drives rather macabre incentives. Horrific gun violence leads to calls for gun control, which in turn leads to NRA-organized fear-mongering (http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2012/12/21/1368881/everything-you-need-to-know-about-the-nras-wayne-lapierre/) and conspiracy theories that inevitably results in more gun sales. What the financial analyst pondered last year with the Giffords shooting is playing out with Newtown—and the NRA and the gun industry is earning what is likely to be an unprecedented fortune.


While pundits and politicians debate the possibility of new gun restrictions in the wake of the Newtown massacre, the NRA is playing it’s now-familiar role spreading paranoia, and Americans are flocking to stores to stock up on weapons—lots of them.




http://www.thenation.com/blog/171913/nra-and-gun-companies-stand-profit-newtown-tragedy

[Mister D]

Junie, among which populations does most gun violence occur?

[junie]

"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."



In 1939 the U.S. Supreme Court considered the matter in United States v. Miller (http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/search/display.html?terms=United States V Miller&url=/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0307_0174_ZS.html). 307 U.S. 174. The Court adopted a collective rights approach (http://www.law.cornell.edu/anncon/html/amdt2_user.html#amdt2_hd1) in this case, determining that Congress could regulate a sawed-off shotgun that had moved in interstate commerce under the National Firearms Act of 1934 because the evidence did not suggest that the shotgun "has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated milita . . . ."

The Court then explained that the Framers included the Second Amendment to ensure the effectiveness of the military.

This precedent stood for nearly 70 years when in 2008 the U.S. Supreme Court revisited the issue in the case of District of Columbia v. Heller (http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-290.ZS.html)(07-290). The plaintiff in Heller challenged the constitutionality of the Washington D.C. handgun ban, a statute that had stood for 32 years. Many considered the statute the most stringent in the nation.

In a 5-4 decision, the Court, meticulously detailing the history and tradition of the Second Amendment at the time of the Constitutional Convention, proclaimed that the Second Amendment established an individual right for U.S. citizens to possess firearms and struck down the D.C. handgun ban as violative of that right.

The majority carved out Miller as an exception to the general rule that Americans may possess firearms, claiming that law-abiding citizens cannot use sawed-off shotguns for any law-abiding purchase. Similarly, the Court in its dicta found regulations of similar weaponry that cannot be used for law-abiding purchases as laws that would not implicate the Second Amendment.

Further, the Court suggested that the United States Constitution would not disallow regulations prohibiting criminals and the mentally ill from firearm possession.

Thus, the Supreme Court has revitalized the Second Amendment.

The Court continued to strengthen the Second Amendment through the 2010 decision in McDonald v. City of Chicago (http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/08-1521.ZS.html) (08-1521). The plaintiff in McDonald challenged the constitutionally of the Chicago handgun ban, which prohibited handgun possession by almost all private citizens.

In a 5-4 decisions, the Court, citing the intentions of the framers and ratifiers of the Fourteenth Amendment, held that the Second Amendment applies to the states through the incorporation doctrine (http://topics.law.cornell.edu/wex/due_process).

However, the Court did not have a majority on which clause of the Fourteenth Amendment incorporates the fundamental right to keep and bear arms for the purpose of self-defense. While Justice Alito and his supporters looked to the Due Process Clause, Justice Thomas in his concurrence stated that the Privileges and Immunities Clause should justify incorporation.

However, several questions still remain unanswered, such as whether regulations less stringent than the D.C. statute implicate the Second Amendment, whether lower courts will apply their dicta regarding permissible restrictions, and what level of scrutiny the courts should apply (http://www.concurringopinions.com/archives/2008/06/meet_your_secon_2.html) when analyzing a statute that infringes on the Second Amendment.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/second_amendment

[Common]

Junie, I believe americans should have the right to gun ownership. We should be free to protect ourselves.
Having said that Im not against some restrictions that have no bearing on home defense and sports.

[zelmo1234]

The above post is correct in that there are regulations that are considered reasonable.

However, If we decide that the word,"the people" used in the statement "the right of the people to keep and bare arms shal not be infringed"

We have damaged the intire constitution, because then everywhere in the constitution where the words "the people" exist, they can and will be viewed as the collective!

So the right to free speach, search and seasure, even to a trial could be viewed as the collective, and thus rights denied.

So my suggestion for those on the left that want to see gunrights restricted. I guess that they want more violence??? But if they are detirmined, then they should intorduce and seek to pass a constitutional amendment repealing the 2nd amendment.

[junie]

Junie, among which populations does most gun violence occur?


i'm not sure what you're getting at, but factcheck dot org does a great job hashing out the significance of various such statistics, if you're interested... just keep in mind that statistics don't effect the constitutionality issues involved...


"The United States has the highest rate of gun ownership in the world — by far. And it has the highest rate of homicides among advanced countries. "

http://factcheck.org/2012/12/gun-rhetoric-vs-gun-facts/

[Captain Obvious]

i'm not sure what you're getting at, but factcheck dot org does a great job hashing out the significance of various such statistics, if you're interested... just keep in mind that statistics don't effect the constitutionality issues involved...


"The United States has the highest rate of gun ownership in the world — by far. And it has the highest rate of homicides among advanced countries. "

http://factcheck.org/2012/12/gun-rhetoric-vs-gun-facts/

From your source:

http://factcheck.org/UploadedFiles/2012/12/FirearmFacts.png

[Peter1469]

Fact Check is more like a dreidel, oy vey!

Spin, spin, spin.

[junie]

Fact Check is more like a dreidel, oy vey!

Spin, spin, spin.



what exactly do you think they spun???



notice how that graphic warns at the bottom "no single number can tell the whole story"...?

it goes on to say "Read our Analysis for more insight on what these statistics mean."


people who cherry pick stats and draw incorrect conclusions to suit their agenda are the ones who are spinning...

[junie]

From your source:

http://factcheck.org/UploadedFiles/2012/12/FirearmFacts.png



yes, i know... that is why i posted it... ;)


did you stop there, or did you actually read their objective analysis for more insight on what these statistics mean (and don't mean)?

[Mister D]

i'm not sure what you're getting at, but factcheck dot org does a great job hashing out the significance of various such statistics, if you're interested... just keep in mind that statistics don't effect the constitutionality issues involved...


"The United States has the highest rate of gun ownership in the world — by far. And it has the highest rate of homicides among advanced countries. "

http://factcheck.org/2012/12/gun-rhetoric-vs-gun-facts/

Junie, among which populations does most gun violence in the US occur?

[junie]

Junie, among which populations does most gun violence in the US occur?




why don't you educate me, and then let me know what those statistics have to do with the constitutionality of rational gun control measures...

[Mister D]

why don't you educate me, and then let me know what those statistics have to do with the constitutionality of rational gun control measures...

We may take it that you know among whom most of this violence occurs. Now the question is what will further restrictions do to impact the problem?

[junie]

We may take it that you know among whom most of this violence occurs. Now the question is what will further restrictions do to impact the problem?




what difference does it make among whom the gun violence occurs???


if you read the fact check piece, you'd understand that there is no way to accurately measure the impact one way or the other.






...there is simply a dearth of good data.

“We really don’t have answers to a lot of the questions that we should have answers to,” Sorenson.


In part, she said, that’s because the gold standard for scientists — a randomly assigned study in which you gave one group of people guns, and another none — is simply not possible.


There is work the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention could and should be doing, she said, but has not since the late 1990s.

CDC has been wary of studying gun issues (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/26/us/26guns.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0) after NRA lobbyists convinced Congress to cut into its funding after a series of studies in the mid-1990s were viewed by the NRA as advocating for gun control.

What kind of study is CDC not doing? “The kind of information we need at the policy-making tables,” Sorenson said.



The bottom line... the issue is much too unsettled for such a definitive claim.


...



Why can’t a statistical relationship prove a causal one? There are many other factors besides the presence of guns.




Hemenway, director of the Harvard Injury Control Research Center, says he would “bet a lot of money” that the prevalence of guns increases homicide, all other things being equal. “I think the evidence is very consistent with the notion that more guns have made us less safe.” But it’s “almost impossible” to prove a causal relationship. “All the data are consistent with a causal relationship, but it’s very hard to say anything is causal,” he says.


Hemenway and coauthor Lisa M. Hepburn reviewed research from peer-reviewed journals and found that the evidence from studies of U.S. cities, states and regions “is quite consistent … where there are higher levels of gun prevalence, homicide rates are substantially higher, primarily due to higher firearm homicide rates.” But, again, the 2004 report said: “None of the studies can prove causation. They merely examine the statistical association between gun availability and homicide.”


There’s also a chicken-and-egg question when it comes to gun violence. Did the violence come first, and then the guns followed, or the other way around?


“I don’t think any of us believe the arrow points in one direction,” says Garen Wintemute, director of the Violence Prevention Research Program at the University of California-Davis and an emergency room doctor.

...

One thing that is clear: Guns are effective lethal weapons. “If there were no guns, the lethality of crimes would be less,” says Wellford. “You can’t have a drive-by knifing.”


In all cases of injury prevention, says Hemenway, the agent, or method, involved makes a difference. On Dec. 14, the day of the shooting in Newtown, another attack occurred at an elementary school in China (http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/headlines/2012/12/22-kids-slashed-in-china-elementary-school-knife-attack/). The attacker there had a knife, and injured 22 kids and one adult. But no one was killed. Why the stark difference in fatalities? “The answer is the type of weapon they had,” Hemenway says.


The NRC report, like Sorenson, said that more research was needed. “The federal government has to invest some money in doing research on what role guns play in violence,” Wellford says.


When we spoke with Wellford in 2008, he cautioned against drawing conclusions from statistics that didn’t prove causation. “Work that knowingly reports findings that do not meet a causal test knowing they will be used as if they do can only produce confusion especially in such contentious issues,” he said.



http://factcheck.org/2012/12/gun-rhetoric-vs-gun-facts/

[Mister D]

If it makes no difference you ought to be able to tell me how further restrictions will make a significant impact on the problem.

Oh...hold on. Now you're telling us there is no way to accurately measure the impact of the restrictions you're calling for?

[junie]

If it makes no difference you ought to be able to tell me how further restrictions will make a significant impact on the problem.

Oh...hold on. Now you're telling us there is no way to accurately measure the impact of the restrictions you're calling for?



those quotes are from the link i posted yesterday, so the difference between then and now is only in your imagination...


i responded to the OP which is about the constitutionality of gun control legislation, care to explain what you are getting at in repeatedly asking me who shoots whom the most...??

[Mister D]

those quotes are from the link i posted yesterday, so the difference between then and now is only in your imagination...


i responded to the OP which is about the constitutionality of gun control legislation, care to explain what you are getting at in repeatedly asking me who shoots whom the most...??

So you simply do not know how further restrictions will significantly impact the problem. You don't find that problematic?

[junie]

So you simply do not know how further restrictions will significantly impact the problem. You don't find that problematic?



i could ask you the same question in the converse and IF either of us could come up with a definitive answer (we can't), it still wouldn't make gun control unconstitutional.


what i find problematic is there is no law abiding purpose for average citizens to own high capacity assault weapons...

why does the NRA fear monger over rational gun control measures which have received bi-partisan support in the past...?







...more guns, but fewer households reporting that they have a gun — is simply a reflection of fewer gun owners purchasing more guns.

Gun manufacturing has increased in recent years, most dramatically since Obama was elected.

Figures from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (http://www.atf.gov/statistics/) show the total firearms produced in the U.S. (minus exports) at 3.5 million in 1998.

That figure fluctuated, reaching 3.7 million in 2007. Then, it jumped drastically, rising 64 percent from 2007 to 2011, topping 6.1 million that year.

http://factcheck.org/2012/12/gun-rhetoric-vs-gun-facts/

[Mister D]

Sure there is. I enjoy shooting guns. I enjoy collecting them. There is my law abiding purpose. Don't like it? Too bad. It's none of your business anyway.

Why does the NRA fear monger? Don't know if they do. Don't care. I'm not a member. Why do you propose solutions to the wrong problem? Solutions, I might add, that you acknowledge are of doubtful efficacy? That is, you have no idea if they'll work which is no surprise considering that we don't actually have a gun problem in the US but a cultural problem in certain communities.

[junie]

If it makes no difference you ought to be able to tell me how further restrictions will make a significant impact on the problem.

Oh...hold on. Now you're telling us there is no way to accurately measure the impact of the restrictions you're calling for?




i didn't say it makes no difference, i asked you what is the difference.

you've asked me several times, essentially, who among us shoots whom the most, as if you assumed it makes a difference...

so now it is on you to simply explain, what do you claim to be the difference, specifically as it relates to the constitutionality of gun control...???

[Mister D]

i didn't say it makes no difference, i asked you what is the difference.

you've asked me several times, essentially, who among us shoots whom the most, as if you assumed it makes a difference...

so now it is on you to simply explain, what do you claim to be the difference, specifically as it relates to the constitutionality of gun control...???

The constitutionality of gun control isn't my concern. Guns are already effectively regulated and have been since before my birth.

[junie]

Sure there is. I enjoy shooting guns. I enjoy collecting them. There is my law abiding purpose. Don't like it? Too bad. It's none of your business anyway.

Why does the NRA fear monger? Don't know if they do. Don't care. I'm not a member. Why do you propose solutions to the wrong problem? Solutions, I might add, that you acknowledge are of doubtful efficacy? That is, you have no idea if they'll work which is no surprise considering that we don't actually have a gun problem in the US but a cultural problem in certain communities.



i bet you'd enjoy the adrenaline rush of driving a nascar on the freeway too, but we have laws restricting the types of vehicles you may register to drive on public roads. ;)

[nic34]

Another question is this:

Do guns make us safer?

Prove it.

[Mister D]

i bet you'd enjoy the adrenaline rush of driving a nascar on the freeway too, but we have laws restricting the types of vehicles you may register to drive on public roads. ;)

No, I wouldn't and I don't get an adrenaline rush from shooting. Nor do I think it appropriate for me to own grenade launchers and fully automatic weapons. You demonstrate the ignorance and dishonesty typical of progressive gun control kooks. You want more restrictions. I'm asking why. You tell me you don't really know. I'd laugh but it's really not that funny.

[Mister D]

Another question is this:

Do guns make us safer?

Prove it.

Irrelevant.

[Cigar]

Another question is this:

Do guns make us safer?

Prove it.

The first time someone pulls a gun of them they would piss in their pants.

[junie]

No, I wouldn't and I don't get an adrenaline rush from shooting. Nor do I think it appropriate for me to own grenade launchers and fully automatic weapons.

You demonstrate the ignorance and dishonesty typical of progressive gun control kooks. You want more restrictions. I'm asking why. You tell me you don't really know. I'd laugh but it's really not that funny.



lol you put words into my mouth just to amuse yourself?

so what is your rationale against fully automatic weapons when we can't quantify the impact of that restriction either?

[Mister D]

lol you put words into my mouth just to amuse yourself?

so what is your rationale against fully automatic weapons when we can't quantify the impact of that restriction either?

Did I? You suggested I don't care for any restrictions at all. That's a straw man and an exhausted one.

They are already illegal and are genuine military weapons as opposed to "assault rifles".

[junie]

Did I? You suggested I don't care for any restrictions at all. That's a straw man and an exhausted one.

They are already illegal and are genuine military weapons as opposed to "assault rifles".



lol where did i do that?

you answered my question about lawful purposes with, essentially, "i enjoy shooting and it's nobody's business"...so i used the nascar analogy to make a point, which apparently went over your head. you want to talk about typical dishonesty? you badger me over who shoots whom, as if it matters despite my factual links to the contrary which you conveniently ignored.

you claim not being able to quantify the impact makes me ignorant, but in so doing you've demonstrated your own ignorance of scientific method.


now, the question i asked, which you also ignored, if you think quantifying the impact is so important in justifying restrictions, what do you suppose is the rationale for restricting full-auto weapons when that impact could never be accurately measured either...? does your support of those restrictions, despite lack of statistical evidence of impact, make your support of those restrictions somehow "dishonest? your skirting response that they are already illegal does not answer the question...

[Mister D]

lol where did i do that?

you answered my question about lawful purposes with, essentially, "i enjoy shooting and it's nobody's business"...so i used the nascar analogy to make a point, which apparently went over your head. you want to talk about typical dishonesty? you badger me over who shoots whom, as if it matters despite my factual links to the contrary which you conveniently ignored.

you claim not being able to quantify the impact makes me ignorant, but in so doing you've demonstrated your own ignorance of scientific method.


now, the question i asked, which you also ignored, if you think quantifying the impact is so important in justifying restrictions, what do you suppose is the rationale for restricting full-auto weapons when that impact could never be accurately measured either...? does your support of those restrictions, despite statistical evidence of impact, make your support of those restrictions somehow "dishonest? your skirting response that they are already illegal does not answer the question...

You implied that I don't want any regulations on my use of firearms. Again, that was a straw man. Guns are already well regulated as are automobiles. Now if you did not mean to imply that then your analogy was meaningless. Again, I enjoy shoooting and i enjoy collecting guns. Why do you want ever more restrictions? What will they solve? Do you know?

No, I said you're ignorant because you are unaware that guns are already highly regulated. Why do you want ever more restrictions? What will they solve? Do you know?

The case is yours to make. You want more restrictions. More regulations. Why? What will they solve? Do you know? or do we just alter current law to suit emotional arguments like yours?

Junie, you frankly admit that more restrictions could very well be pointless. Do you know how silly you look now?

[junie]

The Unceremonious Sunset of the Federal Assault Weapons Ban



September 15, 2004



The federal assault weapons ban, which was signed into law by President Clinton in 1994, expired Monday, Sept. 13. The ban explicitly prohibited the manufacture and sale of 19 types of rapid-fire, military-style firearms, but included in the law was a 10-year sunset provision. Thus, the weapons that are once again commercially available to the general public now include AK-47s, UZIs, MAC-10s, and TEC-9s. According to www.stoptheNRA.com (http://www.stopthenra.com), AK-47s will be available in many states to children as young as 13.

...


According to the Annenberg Public Policy Center of the University of Pennsylvania (http://www.annenbergpublicpolicycenter.org/), the majority of Americans supports a renewal of the ban. In a survey conducted between October 2003 and April 2004, the center found that 71% of the public would like to see the ban extended, and 64% of gun-owners support the ban's renewal.

http://www.acslaw.org/acsblog/the-unceremonious-sunset-of-the-federal-assault-weapons-ban

[Mister D]

That's nice. Are you trying to say something?

[junie]

That's nice. Are you trying to say something?



emotional reactions to rational gun control measures are what's "silly".

fear mongering how the president wants to take away our second amendment rights is what's "dishonest".

[Mister D]

emotional reactions to rational gun control measures are what's "silly".

fear mongering how the president wants to take away our second amendment rights is what's "dishonest".

If your proposals were rational you could demonstrate their efficacy or at least explain to me what you expect them to do and why. You can't. Secondly, for our cynical pols to prey on people like you in the wake of shootings is despicable.

[junie]

claiming rational gun control measures are some obama conspiracy or some liberal agenda, is dishonest as well...



"A majority of Americans agree with us on this. And, by the way, so did Ronald Reagan, one of the staunchest defenders of the Second Amendment, who wrote to Congress in 1994, urging them -- this is Ronald Reagan speaking -- urging them to listen to the American public and to the law-enforcement community and support a ban on the further manufacture of military-style assault weapons."

http://www.politifact.com/georgia/statements/2013/feb/05/barack-obama/did-reagan-support-assault-weapons-ban/

[Mister D]

claiming rational gun control measures are some obama conspiracy or some liberal agenda, is dishonest as well...

No one has. Another straw man. Do you create them because you're lonely? :sad:

[junie]

No one has. Another straw man. Do you create them because you're lonely? :sad:



lol now you want to pretend there has been no fear mongering about the liberal agenda to take away 2nd amendment rights?

one of us looks silly, for sure...people do it all the time, and in FACT someone has done so right in this very thread...






If murder rates and violent crime rates have gone down, then where's the "set-back" ??


Other than the leftist agenda.





http://thepoliticalforums.com/images/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by junie http://thepoliticalforums.com/images/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://thepoliticalforums.com/showthread.php?p=254159#post254159)
i didn't comment on murder rates... people are being hyped up on fear of their government as they insist on their "right" to own an assault weapon, but ask yourself, how does the second amendment reconcile with how our constitution defines treason?








http://thepoliticalforums.com/images/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by junie http://thepoliticalforums.com/images/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://thepoliticalforums.com/showthread.php?p=254136#post254136)
as soon as it expired all the thugs went shopping, so it's been a set-back,






Due to your lack of response,

I can safely assume that the only

"set-back" was to a leftist agenda.

[Mister D]

Sorry, my handle is not Hanger4. Secondly, you claimed "rational" gun control has been painted as a liberal agenda but you have failed to demonstrate the rationality of your proposals. In fact, you've done the opposite. You admit you have no idea if they will work or not. Hell, you haven't even explained why they could possibly work or why we need them at all.

[junie]

Sorry, my handle is not Hanger4. Secondly, you claimed "rational" gun control has been painted as a liberal agenda but you have failed to demonstrate the rationality of your proposals. In fact, you've done the opposite. You admit you have no idea if they will work or not. Hell, you haven't even explained why they could possibly work or why we need them at all.



sorry this topic is not all about you. ;)


simply put, i would like to see the 1994 restrictions reinstated, what's so irrational about that???

[Mister D]

sorry this topic is not all about you. ;)


simply put, i would like to see the 1994 restrictions reinstated, what's so irrational about that???

Actually, it's about you and I. No one else is involved. Focus, hon.

It's irrational because you don't know why.

[junie]

Actually, it's about you and I. No one else is involved. Focus, hon.

It's irrational because you don't know why.



lol uh nooo, it's not... :rollseyes:

[Mister D]

lol uh nooo, it's not... :rollseyes:

Yes, it is. I'm having a discussion with you, sweetie. No one else.

[junie]

Yes, it is. I'm having a discussion with you, sweetie. No one else.



try not to be so emotional, it's nothing personal... ;)

[Mister D]

try not to be so emotional, it's nothing personal... ;)

Your putdowns are almost as lame as your arguments for gun control. :wink:

[hanger4]

lol now you want to pretend there has been no fear mongering about the liberal agenda to take away 2nd amendment rights?

one of us looks silly, for sure...people do it all the time, and in FACT someone has done so right in this very thread...

Then what's the "set-back" junie ??

Who have yet to answer.

[hanger4]

simply put, i would like to see the 1994 restrictions reinstated, what's so irrational about that???

What's the point ??

The murder and violent crime rates have gone down since the "ban" ended.

[junie]

Then what's the "set-back" junie ??

Who have yet to answer.



i did answer you, after my answer was already in the thread too... iirc post 37 was the original link with all sorts of sources citing the reality of the situation on the streets for our law enforcement personnel. then the fact check links and sources also speak to the inability to accurately quantify impact of legislation based on the statistics you cling to... did you not bother to read the relevant information i posted, or are you just having an emotional reaction...? lol

[Mister D]

Juine, you're the one who insists on further restrictions without being able to explain why. That's sloppy emotionalism.

[nic34]

How many little 6 year olds would not have been killed if the shooter had to reload 15 times instead of 5?

What weapon would he have used to do this much damage if these types of guns had remained illegal (assault weapon ban of 1994) to purchase by the shooter's mother....?

[Mister D]

How many little 6 year olds would not have been killed if the shooter had to reload 15 times instead of 5?

What weapon would he have used to do this much damage if these types of guns had remained illegal (assault weapon ban of 1994) to purchase by the shooter's mother....?

I could wipe a classroom with my semi-auto Remington. Easily. It would probably be easier with the shotgun than with the "military style assault weapon".

[hanger4]

i did answer you, after my answer was already in the thread too... iirc post 37 was the original link with all sorts of sources citing the reality of the situation on the streets for our law enforcement personnel. then the fact check links and sources also speak to the inability to accurately quantify impact of legislation based on the statistics you cling to... did you not bother to read the relevant information i posted, or are you just having an emotional reaction...? lol

If all you got is some selectively chosen policemen claiming they're out-gunned on the streets,

which is BS BTW,

and crime rates have gone down

then I ask again, What's the point ??

[junie]

Juine, you're the one who insists on further restrictions without being able to explain why. That's sloppy emotionalism.



if you're ignorant of the scientific method and incapable of comprehending the fact-check statistical analysis, you could have just said so...

[Mister D]

if you're ignorant of the scientific method and incapable of comprehending the fact-check statistical analysis, you could have just said so...

Still waiting, sweetie. Let us know when you can tell us what effect your proposed restrictions will have.

[zelmo1234]

i could ask you the same question in the converse and IF either of us could come up with a definitive answer (we can't), it still wouldn't make gun control unconstitutional.


what i find problematic is there is no law abiding purpose for average citizens to own high capacity assault weapons...

why does the NRA fear monger over rational gun control measures which have received bi-partisan support in the past...?

If it has so much support, then why is it not the law of the land???

[junie]

Still waiting, sweetie. Let us know when you can tell us what effect your proposed restrictions will have.


lol speaking of sloppy emotionalism... :juggler:

[zelmo1234]

i bet you'd enjoy the adrenaline rush of driving a nascar on the freeway too, but we have laws restricting the types of vehicles you may register to drive on public roads. ;)

But cars are not mentioned in the constitution? Why don't those on the left just propose a repeal of the second amendment and go the legal route, The founding fathers left that option open so the constitution cold be changed.

[Mister D]

lol speaking of sloppy emotionalism... :juggler:

Still waiting. :smiley: No worries. I have plenty of time.

[zelmo1234]

Another question is this:

Do guns make us safer?

Prove it.

Yes

#1 http://westnet.com/~levins/guncontrol5.html

and even better when you carry them

http://www.wral.com/news/state/nccapitol/story/11204311/

[zelmo1234]

The first time someone pulls a gun of them they would piss in their pants.

If they do not take the time for training You are correct, and that is why I am for more training for those that want to conceal carry!

[hanger4]

But cars are not mentioned in the constitution? Why don't those on the left just propose a repeal of the second amendment and go the legal route, The founding fathers left that option open so the constitution cold be changed.

Not to mention driving is a privilege,

not an inalienable right.

[zelmo1234]

lol you put words into my mouth just to amuse yourself?

so what is your rationale against fully automatic weapons when we can't quantify the impact of that restriction either?

You are absolutly correct, there is no logical reason for not allowing law abiding citizens to own automatic weapons. with the added dificutlty of shooting one of them, most likely people would be safer with an assialant having an automatic weapon over a semi auto

[junie]

Still waiting. :smiley: No worries. I have plenty of time.




lol don't hold your breath... it's already been established that the effect of the ten year ban can not be quantified, so why the repeated dishonesty?


btw i noticed you twice failed to answer my simple question. why is that?

[zelmo1234]

sorry this topic is not all about you. ;)


simply put, i would like to see the 1994 restrictions reinstated, what's so irrational about that???

Well the crime and violent crime rates were higher then than they are now. why would you pass laws that put people in danger?

[junie]

2nd Amendment Annotations

Prior to the Supreme Court's 2008 decision in District of Columbia v. Heller,1 (http://constitution.findlaw.com/amendment2/amendment.html#_ftn1) the courts had yet to definitively state what right the Second Amendment protected. The opposing theories, perhaps oversimplified, were (1) an "individual rights" approach, whereby the Amendment protected individuals' rights to firearm ownership, possession, and transportation; and (2) a "states' rights" approach, under which the Amendment only protected the right to keep and bear arms in connection with organized state militia units.2 (http://constitution.findlaw.com/amendment2/amendment.html#_ftn2) Moreover, it was generally believed that the Amendment was only a bar to federal action, not to state or municipal restraints.3 (http://constitution.findlaw.com/amendment2/amendment.html#_ftn3)

However, the Supreme Court has now definitively held that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that weapon for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Moreover, this right applies not just to the federal government, but to states and municipalities as well.


http://constitution.findlaw.com/amendment2/amendment.html





"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."



In 1939 the U.S. Supreme Court considered the matter in United States v. Miller (http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/search/display.html?terms=United States V Miller&url=/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0307_0174_ZS.html). 307 U.S. 174. The Court adopted a collective rights approach (http://www.law.cornell.edu/anncon/html/amdt2_user.html#amdt2_hd1) in this case, determining that Congress could regulate a sawed-off shotgun that had moved in interstate commerce under the National Firearms Act of 1934 because the evidence did not suggest that the shotgun "has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated milita . . . ."

The Court then explained that the Framers included the Second Amendment to ensure the effectiveness of the military.

This precedent stood for nearly 70 years when in 2008 the U.S. Supreme Court revisited the issue in the case of District of Columbia v. Heller (http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-290.ZS.html)(07-290). The plaintiff in Heller challenged the constitutionality of the Washington D.C. handgun ban, a statute that had stood for 32 years. Many considered the statute the most stringent in the nation.

In a 5-4 decision, the Court, meticulously detailing the history and tradition of the Second Amendment at the time of the Constitutional Convention, proclaimed that the Second Amendment established an individual right for U.S. citizens to possess firearms and struck down the D.C. handgun ban as violative of that right.

The majority carved out Miller as an exception to the general rule that Americans may possess firearms, claiming that law-abiding citizens cannot use sawed-off shotguns for any law-abiding purchase. Similarly, the Court in its dicta found regulations of similar weaponry that cannot be used for law-abiding purchases as laws that would not implicate the Second Amendment.

Further, the Court suggested that the United States Constitution would not disallow regulations prohibiting criminals and the mentally ill from firearm possession.

Thus, the Supreme Court has revitalized the Second Amendment.

The Court continued to strengthen the Second Amendment through the 2010 decision in McDonald v. City of Chicago (http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/08-1521.ZS.html) (08-1521). The plaintiff in McDonald challenged the constitutionally of the Chicago handgun ban, which prohibited handgun possession by almost all private citizens.

In a 5-4 decisions, the Court, citing the intentions of the framers and ratifiers of the Fourteenth Amendment, held that the Second Amendment applies to the states through the incorporation doctrine (http://topics.law.cornell.edu/wex/due_process).

However, the Court did not have a majority on which clause of the Fourteenth Amendment incorporates the fundamental right to keep and bear arms for the purpose of self-defense. While Justice Alito and his supporters looked to the Due Process Clause, Justice Thomas in his concurrence stated that the Privileges and Immunities Clause should justify incorporation.

However, several questions still remain unanswered, such as whether regulations less stringent than the D.C. statute implicate the Second Amendment, whether lower courts will apply their dicta regarding permissible restrictions, and what level of scrutiny the courts should apply (http://www.concurringopinions.com/archives/2008/06/meet_your_secon_2.html) when analyzing a statute that infringes on the Second Amendment.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/second_amendment

[zelmo1234]

How many little 6 year olds would not have been killed if the shooter had to reload 15 times instead of 5?

What weapon would he have used to do this much damage if these types of guns had remained illegal (assault weapon ban of 1994) to purchase by the shooter's mother....?

I know that you know little about guns so I do not falult you for this, but it is likely that he would have killed more children I would have taken him about 2 seconds to reload, and that would have also gave him time to reset his stance, grip and site picture. like I have said before we have been very lucky that a fully trainied person has not comited one of these crimes.

Now that I have answered your question I have one for your, what if the Principle was carrying a gun and was trained in how to use it? how many less 6 year olds would have been killed.

[nic34]

Yes

#1 http://westnet.com/~levins/guncontrol5.html

and even better when you carry them

http://www.wral.com/news/state/nccapitol/story/11204311/

"An assault weapon in the hands of a young woman defending her babies in her home becomes a defense weapon, and the peace of mind that a woman has as she's facing three, four, five violent attackers, intruders in her home, with her children screaming in the background, the peace of mind that she has knowing that she has a scary-looking gun gives her more courage when she's fighting hardened, violent criminals."

Such Rambo-like defenses of home and hearth do not happen in real life, unless the home also happens to contain a meth lab. (The oft-cited statistic that gun owners draw in self-defense 2.5 million times a year is a classic of bad social science (http://www.cnn.com/2012/07/30/opinion/frum-guns-safer).)

As for guns in the home, Hemenway reports studies find that "(G)uns are used far more often in the home to intimidate and frighten intimates than to protect against intruders."
These are facts about guns that are well-known to the social scientists who study gun injury but poorly understood by the general public.


http://www.cnn.com/2013/02/18/opinion/frum-obama-plan-b-on-guns/

[Newpublius]

In liberal minds, the government is the preferred vehicle of positive social change, so why pray tell would anyone want to arm themselves to potentially defend themselves against the governments? One might note that many state constitutions expressly note an individuals "natural right of revolution" -- 'lawful' revolution as opposed to 'unlawful' rebellion.

The current state of affairs isn't necessarily a predictor of the future state of things anymore than the Weimar Republic necessitated the emergence of Nazi Germany. Most people suffer from the same defect everybody else, they can't predict the future. If I could, I'd be standing in front of the NJ lottery machine.

[nic34]

I know that you know little about guns so I do not falult you for this, but it is likely that he would have killed more children I would have taken him about 2 seconds to reload, and that would have also gave him time to reset his stance, grip and site picture. like I have said before we have been very lucky that a fully trainied person has not comited one of these crimes.

That is not even a logical answer. reloading 15 times vs 5 times.... try again.

BTW, never assume anything about folks you do not know.


Now that I have answered your question I have one for your, what if the Principle was carrying a gun and was trained in how to use it? how many less 6 year olds would have been killed.

The principal would have been killed too because in a SANE school, his gun would have been locked up.

[Bigred1cav]

That may be true. The faces of 1st grade children blown off as were their arms, is plenty of indictment for the banishment of war like weapons. Any thinking person knows such weapons are designed to take human life not deer and rabbits. To state otherwise is folly.

To think our government is out to get us is mental illness and that claim is prima facia evidence one is to crazy to be permitted ownership of a firearm.

[Newpublius]

To think our government is out to get us is mental illness and that claim is prima facia evidence one is to crazy to be permitted ownership of a firearm.

Oh, so you'll take on the role of guarantor of individual rights, then? Its not about the current state of the government. Fact of the matter is that you have no idea what the future will hold in store for the nation. The historical evidence is overwhelming actually, aside from natural death, disease and the like, the modern nation state has stacked more bodies than any organization hitherto in existence and that includes organized religion.

Let's ask the African-Americans, the Native Americans, the Filipino rebels who the US government specifically enslaved, gunned down, injected with syphillis or whose revolution to self determine was crushed.

Or even today, why not look up the number of filings in Federal court for a claim under 42 USC 1983? How many lawsuits actually wind up in a judgment against the state government for violating the constitutional rights of the American people. Its ALOT or its Federal companion under the V Amendment, aka a Bivens action. That's happening today, fortunately we live in a society which at least attempt to offer some modicum of judicial redress. So don't give me this sanctimonious nonsense, I see it, with my own eyes.

Trust the government? I'll let you give them carte blance.

[Peter1469]

I was listening to the Clerk of SCOTUS this afternoon; he talked about the Heller case (and lots of other stuff). He reminds us, that the decision that the 2nd Amendment is an individual right was 7-2. It was the remedy in the case that was 5-4.

Other random statistics: 40% of all SCOTUS decisions are unanimous; 15% are 5-4.

[Ivan88]

what do you think "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State" means...?


What it means is that the police, military and other "law enforcement" types are the militia. They are the force of the governed-men-t.

The govern-men-t are the American People who are supposed to govern the governedmen who consented to be governed to get their jobs.

But all that has been lost. And, our nice Communist schools have brainwashed most of us to suppose that WE consented to be governed.

If the American People have consented to be governed, then, we should shut up, sit down and do what we are ordered.

However, the American 1774 Declaration of Rights said that the American People never consented to be governed.

However, we have tolerated too many lies, too many aggressions, slaughters and sufferings to not be under the Judgment of "nature's God" (America's God according to the Declaration of Independence).

Furthermore our public "servants" have us out gunned big time.

The Prophet Moses warned us they when we go astray from our Divine Mandate to do good, "Those who hate you shall rule over you." Leviticus 26:17

The Prophets have given us the way out:
Confess our sins, repent, follow the ways of "nature's God" and humbly submit to the punishments of our iniquity.
2113