Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
ColDayMan

Gun Rights

Recommended Posts

I agree with gottaplan on the general proximity of a "line in the sand" for the purposes of 2nd Amendment analysis.  But I think the important thing to recognize is that it is not and never will be a fixed line.  Times change, technology evolves, and the needs are different from one era to the next.  It is a constantly evolving discussion.  Maybe we change something, maybe we don't.  But what I'm tired of is the position that the constitution outright precludes the discussion altogether.

 

As for the thought that banning private ownership of certain weapons will result in only criminals having those weapons...... how does that same line of thinking not apply to an atom bomb?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I remember that they didn't trash Europe in the old days when it was doing crappy, but now that a lot of parts (outside of the PIGS) are doing at least as well as us if not much better they have to trash it constantly. That's without getting into happiness and quality-of-life measurements.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In a civilized society, the gun doesn't exist. ...

...  Reality is that we live in a dangerous world already, ... 

 

All of those firearms, especially handguns, are making that situation *way worse*.  Cities want to regulate handguns so that stupid youths don't kill each other unnecessarily.  The Republican rural/suburban legislators took that right away from Ohio cities.

 

I am on the right forum aren't I?  This is "Urban Ohio".  Aren't we supposed to be supporting the interests of the cities?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Considering that the cities that have the most confiscatory gun-control policies in the nation also generally have some of the highest gun crime rates (e.g., Chicago and Washington, D.C., not coincidentally the loci of the Heller and McDonald cases), the notion that more gun control in cities will actually reduce gun violence in cities is certainly open to question.  Don't simply assume that anyone who dares disagree with you is opposed to the interests of cities--and, frankly, don't simply assume that just because someone is on a city council that they actually have the best interests of their city in mind, either.

 

In addition, "cities" are not monolithic entities.  Even if the official position of any given city government is that the right to keep and bear arms needs to be infringed, Second Amendment be damned, there are absolutely going to be people in those cities who vehemently dissent from that position, and their voices hardly deserve to be excluded from conversations about urban policy.  This isn't a forum for just parroting the Democratic party line that largely dominates big-city policy thinking.

 

Also, I don't think this forum is necessarily intended to be an echo chamber and a wellspring of pro-urban groupthink, either.  If people here want to weigh in in favor of the suburban or rural lifestyle, that's their prerogative.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Considering that the cities that have the most confiscatory gun-control policies in the nation also generally have some of the highest gun crime rates (e.g., Chicago and Washington, D.C., not coincidentally the loci of the Heller and McDonald cases), the notion that more gun control in cities will actually reduce gun violence in cities is certainly open to question.  ...

There is no wall around Chicago to keep the handguns out.  I think you knew that.

 

Despite the wishes of law enforcement, churches, and Mayor Frank Jackson of Cleveland, the pasty suburban legislators took away the cities' ability to regulate possession of handguns. 

 

Perhaps your experience as a lawyer is wills or contracts and not crime, so I will elaborate.  The shootings in Cleveland have been caused by stupid youths getting ahold of handguns and using them.  Had those handguns not been so commonly available, many lives would have been spared.  The incremental weakening of firearms laws such as concealed-carry has made this crime issue harder to manage.  The Cleveland Plain Dealer has reported on this extensively.  www.cleveland.com

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Even if the official position of any given city government is that the right to keep and bear arms needs to be infringed, Second Amendment be damned,

 

As my completely ignored earlier question was trying to point out, we aren't really arguing the validity of the Second Amendment, so much as what are appropriate limits and responsibilities that come with that right.  I haven't heard anyone argue for Bill Gates to be allowed to have a nuclear aircraft carrier, or for slingshots and pocket knives to be made illegal.  I wish we could drop the Second Amendment absolutism, it's really a red herring.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Even if the official position of any given city government is that the right to keep and bear arms needs to be infringed, Second Amendment be damned,

 

As my completely ignored earlier question was trying to point out, we aren't really arguing the validity of the Second Amendment, so much as what are appropriate limits and responsibilities that come with that right.  I haven't heard anyone argue for Bill Gates to be allowed to have a nuclear aircraft carrier, or for slingshots and pocket knives to be made illegal.  I wish we could drop the Second Amendment absolutism, it's really a red herring.

 

If you haven't heard anyone arguing for Bill Gates to be allowed to have a nuclear aircraft carrier, then you can't say you've been hearing Second Amendment absolutism, since that's what absolutism would be.  But the Second Amendment cannot be excised from the discussion because part of the entire point of that amendment was to limit the political discussion (or at least the implementation of public policy) on an issue where it was well known that the passions of the public might in fact be dangerous to the country.  If the Second Amendment can be so easily dismissed as a "red herring," then so can the First when people want to talk about "appropriate limits and responsibilities" that come with that right (and enact legislation limiting that right).  This is not to say that such talk is completely unfathomable; there are, after all, limits on the rights to practice your religion, speak, print, assemble, etc.  But not many, and they generally involve the actual infliction (not just the potential for infliction) of direct harm upon another.  In other words, innocent until proven guilty.  Gun control turns that precept on its head: It presumes that anyone who wants a particular weapon has bad intentions, so denying them to everyone is a net positive, on balance.  That is a dangerous assumption and I'm glad that the Second Amendment is there as at least some restraint on the power of the government to give such wrongheadedness legal force.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This topic seems to knock you off your game a bit, gramarye.  X was not dismissing the 2nd Amendment as a red herring.  He was dismissing 2nd amendment absolutism as a red herring.  And he's right.  You can't even have this discussion without someone suggesting that an outright ban on ALL firearms is either the outright aim or part of some hidden agenda.  It's the typical slippery slope BS popularized by the segment of our population that is analytically challenged

 

BTW, gun control advocates, for the most part, do not presume bad intentions for anyone who wants to own a certain type of weapon.  They just presume the world is a safer place without certain types of weapons in circulation.  They presume that it is much easier to take certain weapons off the market than it is to ensure that those weapons aren't so easily obtained by those who, unknown to even their own family members, do have bad intentions or are capable of falling into a state of mind in which 'intentions' (good and bad) become dangerously blurred.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This topic seems to knock you off your game a bit, gramarye.  X was not dismissing the 2nd Amendment as a red herring.  He was dismissing 2nd amendment absolutism as a red herring.  And he's right.  You can't even have this discussion without someone suggesting that an outright ban on ALL firearms is either the outright aim or part of some hidden agenda.  It's the typical slippery slope BS popularized by the segment of our population that is analytically challenged.

 

Is it?  Perhaps I'm simply analytically challenged, but if so, then so are the Supreme Court and several U.S. courts of appeal.  The firearm restrictions struck down in D.C. and Chicago pretty much were outright bans on all firearms, so the "agenda" was not particularly hidden and in fact was already in place.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

X and Hts121 may not be urging an outright ban on guns owned by citizens, but I am. If I woke up in the morning and learned that all guns had been banned in the USA, I'd consider it one of the happiest days of my life.

 

Hell, I'd even settle for a $1,000 tax on each bullet transferred to private citizen, and that non-payment of the tax would constitute a fifth-degree felony for each bullet. That's one year in prison on each count, punishable consecutively without exception. But at least you get to keep your silly guns, America.


"Life is 10% what happens to you and 90% how you respond." -- Coach Lou Holtz

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Also, I don't think this forum is necessarily intended to be an echo chamber and a wellspring of pro-urban groupthink, either.  If people here want to weigh in in favor of the suburban or rural lifestyle, that's their prerogative.

 

LOL I think that's been established.  :evil:

 

Many Democratic politicians have been coy about their positions vis a vis gun control since at least 2000, when the issue arguably made the difference in the Presidential election.  It's an issue that doesn't gain them any support, and costs them quite a bit.

 

There's little doubt that Feinstein and Schumer at least share Ken's view.  There's others as well.  My suspicion is that Obama does too, but someone sat him down and explained the potential consequences and it sunk in. I don't expect any real action...just as Bush the Younger was able to officially support renewal of the "assault weapons" ban in 2004 knowing full well it wasn't about to happen.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This topic seems to knock you off your game a bit, gramarye.  X was not dismissing the 2nd Amendment as a red herring.  He was dismissing 2nd amendment absolutism as a red herring.  And he's right.  You can't even have this discussion without someone suggesting that an outright ban on ALL firearms is either the outright aim or part of some hidden agenda.  It's the typical slippery slope BS popularized by the segment of our population that is analytically challenged.

 

Is it?  Perhaps I'm simply analytically challenged, but if so, then so are the Supreme Court and several U.S. courts of appeal.  The firearm restrictions struck down in D.C. and Chicago pretty much were outright bans on all firearms, so the "agenda" was not particularly hidden and in fact was already in place.

 

No.  You are far from analytical challenged (I was referring to the "1776 will commence again" yeehaw crowd).  But you are now over expanding the conversation.  What the federal government can and should do with regard to the overall application of the 2nd Amendment, and what smaller governmental institutions - from individual cities, to courthouses, to airports - can and should do are separate conversations.  If you want to go the absolutist route, then you should be able to give the Charlton Heston "from my cold dead hands" line anywhere you want to walk with your rifle on your shoulder...... including right through the security checkpoint at your local airport.

 

As for the DC and Chicago laws, my opinions vary.  Personally, I think the DC law was good in theory, but not workable due to the reality.  Chicago's law was bad in theory and application.  I had no problem with a law that said you can't carry or otherwise possess a firearm in our Nation's capital.  There is good rationale supporting such a law and I really don't see it as much different than not allowing guns in the Capital building or the White House, especially considering how small DC is.  But it is not a workable law because it is not like DC is on an island in the middle of the ocean.  The proximity of both Maryland and Virginia pretty much rendered the law useless.

 

Chicago has the same problem because it borders Indiana and it was just a city ban on carrying.  Again, the surrounding communities were not on board and the city itself is just too big.  That is why the statistical analysis is skewed.  For a better analysis of what the effect could be, you would have to have a statewide ban and then look at the effects on gun violence in a city well within the state's borders.

 

Regardless, gun advocates love to cite Chicago, but never want to look at LA and NYC when discussing the effect of tighter measures on gun control.

 

I think local governments should have greater latitude to decide where you can and can't carry a weapon.  The City of Cleveland absolutely SHOULD be able to ban guns in city parks, for example.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There are some articles and videos going around claiming that all of the mass shooters have been registered democrats. Does anyone know if this is true? It would be interesting because most of the poking fun is aimed towards the conservatives who "love their guns" yeehaw!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
X and Hts121 may not be urging an outright ban on guns owned by citizens, but I am. If I woke up in the morning and learned that all guns had been banned in the USA, I'd consider it one of the happiest days of my life.

 

Hell, I'd even settle for a $1,000 tax on each bullet transferred to private citizen, and that non-payment of the tax would constitute a fifth-degree felony for each bullet. That's one year in prison on each count, punishable consecutively without exception. But at least you get to keep your silly guns, America.

 

Whereas I could occasionally be convinced to support mandatory universal ownership and training for all able-bodied and able-minded adults ages 18-45, at state expense.  That's one of the reasons this is such a divisive issue, notwithstanding how narrow it is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There are some articles and videos going around claiming that all of the mass shooters have been registered democrats. Does anyone know if this is true? It would be interesting because most of the poking fun is aimed towards the conservatives who "love their guns" yeehaw!

 

Another ignorant distraction for the "gotcha" crowd.  They were all whackos.  What does it matter what party they were registered with?  This topic is showing a truly disturbing side of America.  Very disconcerting.  Should we focus on the fact that they are almost always white as well?  Didn't think so....   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

X and Hts121 may not be urging an outright ban on guns owned by citizens, but I am. If I woke up in the morning and learned that all guns had been banned in the USA, I'd consider it one of the happiest days of my life.

 

Hell, I'd even settle for a $1,000 tax on each bullet transferred to private citizen, and that non-payment of the tax would constitute a fifth-degree felony for each bullet. That's one year in prison on each count, punishable consecutively without exception. But at least you get to keep your silly guns, America.

 

Because alcohol prohibition worked so well and drug prohibition has worked so well, you think gun prohibition would work well?  Constitutional challenges aside, it's just not reality

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It isn't a big deal, but it does bring up an important issue for me.  This has been a debate which is based on the premises that republicans care about maintaining gun rights and democrats care about taking guns away.

One of the reasons this isn't a reasonable discussion in america, but instead one filled with vile, is because it has become such a partisan issue.  When gun advocates are said to only care about "God, guns and gays" (an argument that implies that only a bigot would buy a gun) and gun control advocates are compared to socialists it makes me think that this isn't the time to really legislate the issue.

Do we want amendment issues to be decided when heels are dug in and and it comes down to bloc voting and bad blood?  in this congress?  I don't.  In this environment, i don't think people are really down for compromise.

 

Also, as a side note:  violent crime rates are pretty much at a forty year low in both adults and juveniles.  Although this is a gun control thread, I use this to fully support the existence of violent movies and video games.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually, that perception that this is strictly a partisan issue falls apart on closer inspection.  Ted Strickland had an A rating from the NRA.  Harry Reid has been noticeably reticent to move forward with aggressive gun control measures in the Senate.  Many Democrats in red and purple states have gun rights ratings every bit as positive as their Republican counterparts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^^When have politics not been filled with vile? I'm not suggesting that taking our time and getting it right isn't necessary, but waiting till later when we can all get along isn't much better than deciding that there's not a problem and we shouldn't do anything.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually, that perception that this is strictly a partisan issue falls apart on closer inspection.  Ted Strickland had an A rating from the NRA.  Harry Reid has been noticeably reticent to move forward with aggressive gun control measures in the Senate.  Many Democrats in red and purple states have gun rights ratings every bit as positive as their Republican counterparts.

 

Tim Ryan also got an A.  The NRA endorsed Strickland for governor.  Without their endorsement, Reid's a former senator and he knows it.

 

On the other hand, a lot of anti-gun Republicans are generally statists. 

 

To a lot of people who are otherwise politically inactive, whether or not a politician trusts the people to be armed is a major litmus test.  Whether or not one really believes that politicians who want to disarm the population intend to impose a more authoritarian government afterwards, it's pretty much a prerequisite, historically speaking.

 

As for the "1776" thing, a lot of it is warning, not advocacy.  Most of us who believe (or know) such would happen do not advocate it.  The people who seem quite willing for it to don't really talk outside conservative circles, if even there. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

To a lot of people who are otherwise politically inactive, whether or not a politician trusts the people to be armed is a major litmus test.  Whether or not one really believes that politicians who want to disarm the population intend to impose a more authoritarian government afterwards, it's pretty much a prerequisite, historically speaking.

 

 

Armed with what, precisely?  Is a population with hunting rifles, shotguns, and handguns but not semi-auto assault rifles with 30 round clips not armed?  Are they not disarmed already because they aren't allowed fully automatic weapons or their own tanks?  The unwillingness of conservatives to answer this is what makes this discussion so silly to me.  The second amendment doesn't hinge on the AR-15!  Everybody (KJP aside) is really only arguing about moving the line to make one class of weapons illegal or not, but one side is pretending that it is an all or nothing battle royale over the right to bear arms.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

To a lot of people who are otherwise politically inactive, whether or not a politician trusts the people to be armed is a major litmus test.  Whether or not one really believes that politicians who want to disarm the population intend to impose a more authoritarian government afterwards, it's pretty much a prerequisite, historically speaking.

 

 

Armed with what, precisely?  Is a population with hunting rifles, shotguns, and handguns but not semi-auto assault rifles with 30 round clips not armed?  Are they not disarmed already because they aren't allowed fully automatic weapons or their own tanks?  The unwillingness of conservatives to answer this is what makes this discussion so silly to me.  The second amendment doesn't hinge on the AR-15!  Everybody (KJP aside) is really only arguing about moving the line to make one class of weapons illegal or not, but one side is pretending that it is an all or nothing battle royale over the right to bear arms.

 

First, many of us gun rights supporters strongly believe that most of the partisans pushing gun control feel more like KJP than you.

 

Second, even just within the category of "assault rifles," why should they be forbidden to civilians, even if there were no Second Amendment?  You have a far greater chance of dying in a car crash--or even from just about any other type of firearm--than from an assault rifle.  They are not uniquely dangerous or difficult to control the way a land mine (or an atom bomb) would be.  "You don't need them" is not a valid reason; that goes to what I said a page ago about putting the onus diametrically opposite where it should be.  Those who want to outlaw something need to make the case for outlawing it; if you start from the premise that everything is forbidden until the government allows it, then we're simply never going to find common ground.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

First, many of us gun rights supporters strongly believe that most of the partisans pushing gun control feel more like KJP than you.

 

This viewpoint gained a massive amount of credibility due to the NY law capping magazine sizes at seven.  It made the vast majority of handguns effectively illegal and it's very hard to believe this wasn't intentional.  It's a lot like if Bloomberg banned the sale of pop in containers greater than 11 ounces, knowing full well the normal container size is 12.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Again, you guys are muddling federal level and state level regulations.  I suppose this is one of those situations where you don't find appealing that dirty little whore we call "States' Rights" lifting up her skirt?

 

Second, even just within the category of "assault rifles," why should they be forbidden to civilians, even if there were no Second Amendment?  You have a far greater chance of dying in a car crash--or even from just about any other type of firearm--than from an assault rifle.  They are not uniquely dangerous or difficult to control the way a land mine (or an atom bomb) would be.  "You don't need them" is not a valid reason; that goes to what I said a page ago about putting the onus diametrically opposite where it should be.  Those who want to outlaw something need to make the case for outlawing it; if you start from the premise that everything is forbidden until the government allows it, then we're simply never going to find common ground.

 

(a) they are not necessary for the purposes of the Second Amendment.  You would still be allowed to own a gun and carry a gun pretty much wherever you go..... even into a bar where people are getting sloppy drunk or a city park where children are playing here in Ohio.

 

(b) recent history has provided the impetus for further regulation of assault rifles and extended clips.  Let's take a look -

 

Sandy Hook Elementary (12/12) - (28 killed; 1 injured) - Bushmaster .223-caliber assault rifle equipped with a 30-round large capacity

 

Sikh Temple of Wisconsin (8/12) - (7 killed, 3 wounded) - Springfield Armory XD(M) 9mm semiautomatic handgun equipped with a 19-round large capacity ammunition magazine

 

Aurora Colorado Theatre (7/12) - (12 killed, 58 wounded) - Smith and Wesson .223-caliber AR-15-type assault rifle equipped with a 100-round drum large capacity ammunition magazine

 

Carson City IHOP (9/11) - (5 killed, 7 wounded) - AK-47 type assault rifle equipped with a 30-round large capacity ammunition magazine

 

Grand Rapids (7/11) - (8 killed, 2 wounded) - GLOCK 9mm semiautomatic pistol (unknown model) equipped with a 30-round large capacity ammunition magazine

 

Gabriel Giffords (1/11) - (6 killed, 13 wounded) - GLOCK 19 9mm semiautomatic pistol equipped with a 33-round large capacity ammunition magazine

 

Hartford Beer Distributor (8/10) - (9 killed, 2 wounded) - Two Ruger SR9 9mm semiautomatic pistols equipped with 17-round magazines

 

Fort Hood (11/09) - (13 killed, 30 wounded) - FN Herstal 5.7 Tactical Pistol equipped with 20-round large capacity ammunition magazine

 

American Civic Assoc. (4/09) - (14 killed, 3 wounded) - Beretta .45-caliber semiautomatic pistol, Beretta 9mm semiautomatic pistol (models unknown), and two 30-round large capacity ammunition magazines and two 15-round large capacity ammunition magazines

 

Northern Illinois Univ. (2/08) - (6 killed, 21 wounded) - SIG SAUER Kurz 9mm semiautomatic pistol, Hi-Point CF380 .380 caliber semiautomatic pistol, GLOCK 19 9mm semiautomatic pistol, and 33-round and 15-round large capacity ammunition magazines

 

Westroads Mall (12/07) - (9 killed, 5 wounded) - WASR-10 semiautomatic assault rifle and two 30-round large capacity ammunition magazines

 

VaTech (4/07) - (32 killed, 17 wounded) - GLOCK 19 9mm semiautomatic pistol and Walther P22 .22-caliber semiautomatic pistol. Investigators found a total of 17 empty magazines at the scene of the shooting, a mix of several 15-round, and 10-round magazines loaded with hollow-point rounds (bullets with the tip hollowed out, designed to expand upon impact).

 

Meteor, WI (11/04) - (6 killed, 3 wounded) - SKS 7.62mm semiautomatic assault rifle equipped with a 20-round large capacity ammunition magazine.

 

Edgewater Technology Office (12/00) - (7 killed, 0 wounded) - AK-47-type semiautomatic assault rifle, unknown make and model 12-gauge shotgun, unknown make and model .32-caliber semiautomatic pistol, and 60-round large capacity ammunition magazine

 

Xerox Office Bldg (11/99) - (7 killed, 0 wounded) - GLOCK 17 9mm semiautomatic pistol and three 17-round large capacity ammunition magazines, loaded with hollow point bullets

 

Wedgwood Baptist Church (9/99) - (8 killed, 7 wounded) - Ruger P85 9mm semiautomatic pistol, unknown make and model .380 caliber semiautomatic pistol, and three 15-round large capacity ammunition magazines

 

Columbine HS (4/99) - (15 killed, 23 wounded) - Savage Springfield 67H 12-gauge pump-action shotgun, Savage Stevens 311D 12-gauge sawed-off shotgun, Hi-Point 995 9mm semiautomatic rifle, INTRATEC TEC-DC9 9mm semiautomatic pistol, and thirteen 10-round magazines, one 52-, one 32-, one 28-round large capacity ammunition magazines

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

To a lot of people who are otherwise politically inactive, whether or not a politician trusts the people to be armed is a major litmus test.  Whether or not one really believes that politicians who want to disarm the population intend to impose a more authoritarian government afterwards, it's pretty much a prerequisite, historically speaking.

 

 

Armed with what, precisely?  Is a population with hunting rifles, shotguns, and handguns but not semi-auto assault rifles with 30 round clips not armed?  Are they not disarmed already because they aren't allowed fully automatic weapons or their own tanks?  The unwillingness of conservatives to answer this is what makes this discussion so silly to me.  The second amendment doesn't hinge on the AR-15!  Everybody (KJP aside) is really only arguing about moving the line to make one class of weapons illegal or not, but one side is pretending that it is an all or nothing battle royale over the right to bear arms.

 

First, many of us gun rights supporters strongly believe that most of the partisans pushing gun control feel more like KJP than you.

 

Second, even just within the category of "assault rifles," why should they be forbidden to civilians, even if there were no Second Amendment?  You have a far greater chance of dying in a car crash--or even from just about any other type of firearm--than from an assault rifle.  They are not uniquely dangerous or difficult to control the way a land mine (or an atom bomb) would be.  "You don't need them" is not a valid reason; that goes to what I said a page ago about putting the onus diametrically opposite where it should be.  Those who want to outlaw something need to make the case for outlawing it; if you start from the premise that everything is forbidden until the government allows it, then we're simply never going to find common ground.

 

I don't start with the assumption that they should be illegal by default.  I could go either way on the issue, though I'm falling more and more to the "ban them" side.  I think good policy regarding assault rifles comes from a careful look at their value to law abiding citizens versus their social costs. 

 

What is their value to law abiding citizens?  I would assume that it derives from the protection provided by their superior firepower versus other types of legal weapons, but I'm having a hard time imagining plausible scenarios where a law abiding person needs that much firepower.  The whole "right to rebellion" argument doesn't fit my definition of "law abiding person", I am having a hard time thinking of plausible "survivalist" scenarios, and the criminals that nearly anyone are likely to need to fend off really aren't like soldiers who will stick around against armed resistance, so I don't think most home defense scenarios really benefit from the extra firepower.  I could see ranchers on the Mexican borders needing the heavy firepower to fend off drug cartels or coyotes who expect to be able to cross their property.

 

As to costs, they are a quite a bit more obvious of late.  We've frequently seen how assault weapons (and indeed semi-auto pistols) can be used to inflict large numbers of casualties in short amounts of time over the past several years.  Handguns cause more total deaths, no doubt, but that doesn't make the deaths caused by assault weapons irrelevant.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(b) recent history has provided the impetus for further regulation of assault rifles and extended clips.  Let's take a look -

 

Sandy Hook Elementary (12/12) - (28 killed; 1 injured) - Bushmaster .223-caliber assault rifle equipped with a 30-round large capacity

 

I expect that as soon as the gun control lobby succeeds in getting assault rifles banned following the shooting at Sandy Hook, then and only then will they suddenly remember that the the assault rifle that was stolen from the mother was not actually used by the shooter (so then the issue will suddenly pivot towards banning handguns as well, since those were the ones actually used).

 

You cherry pick a handful of incidents nationwide spanning well over a decade.  I don't believe that an assault weapons ban would have stopped any of those shootings (note that some of them occurred while the former AWB was in place), but I also don't believe that those who do believe that such a ban would have prevented the shootings are going to rest at banning assault rifles.  They may feign ignorance because they see assault rifles as low-hanging fruit, but ordinary handguns are the ones most often used in gun crimes, so it's ordinary handguns that those who believe that banning guns reduces crime are really after.  There is no other logical assumption.

 

Again, you guys are muddling federal level and state level regulations.  I suppose this is one of those situations where you don't find appealing that dirty little whore we call "States' Rights" lifting up her skirt?

 

I would actually be comfortable with a greater emphasis on states' rights in gun laws.  That might have allowed Chicago's gun ban to remain in place (assuming that the Illinois Supreme Court would have upheld the ban under the Illinois constitution), while at the same time restricting further gun control efforts at the federal level.

 

Of course, the right to keep and bear arms is protected in the Ohio constitution as well:

 

The people have the right to bear arms for their defense and security; but standing armies, in time of peace, are dangerous to liberty, and shall not be kept up; and the military shall be in strict subordination to the civil power.
  Ohio Const. s. 1.04 (1851).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hah!  The "standing army" language in that provision is a bit duplicative, too, since among the federal Constitution's list of the powers that states gave up to the federal government is this:

 

"No State shall, without the Consent of Congress ... keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace ..."

 

So I guess all the Ohio constitution does is establish that Ohio's government cannot do it even if Congress *did* give its consent.  So Michigan need not fear invasion from Buckeye stormtroopers.

 

tumblr_mdifmxD7F41ru4q6no1_500.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I expect that as soon as the gun control lobby succeeds in getting assault rifles banned following the shooting at Sandy Hook, then and only then will they suddenly remember that the the assault rifle that was stolen from the mother was not actually used by the shooter (so then the issue will suddenly pivot towards banning handguns as well, since those were the ones actually used).

 

Sorry, but the gun control lobby is not as well organized (or unified) as your theory suggests.  As for the weapon actually used by the shooter, I am having trouble finding a source which doesn't start its dialogue on the subject with "the mainstream media......"  I had read some joy-filled comments about how the rifle was not even brought inside the school.  But then there is the Conn. State Police report issued to clarify the confusions which states that it was the shotgun which was left in the trunk.  The rifle I described above was found inside the school.... unless the police are part of the conspiracy.  Three guns were found inside the school - the bushmaster assault rifle with 30 round clip,  a glock handgun, and a 9mm handgun.

 

It appears that the Conn. State Police are getting tired of the conspiracy theories sweeping like wildfire around the conservative blogosphere - http://www.ctpost.com/newtownshooting/article/State-Police-All-26-Newtown-victims-shot-with-4220548.php

 

Lt. J. Paul Vance, the face of an ongoing Connecticut State Police investigation into worst grade-school shooting in U.S. history, Thursday debunked media and Internet reports that Sandy Hook shooter Adam Lanza killed his victims with handguns and not the Bushmaster XM-15 E2S rifle that is now the focus of a proposed federal assault-weapons ban.

 

All 26 of Lanza's victims were shot with the .223-caliber semi-automatic rifle, said Vance, who bristled at claims to the contrary during an interview with Hearst Connecticut Newspapers.

 

"It's all these conspiracy theorists that are trying to mucky up the waters," said Vance, the longtime state police spokesman.

 

.............................

 

"There's no doubt that the rifle was used solely to kill 26 people in that school," Vance said.

 

 

It's actually kind of said that you have to sift through pages and pages of "AmericanPatriot".... "FreedomForPatriots"...... "PatriotWire"..... type websites just to find something which has some semblence of credibility on this issue.  Google really needs to do something about that.

 

BTW, the handgun was used once inside the school...... Lanza spared himself of the rifle and used the handgun to take his own life.

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dangit, I Google searched before I posted that, too ... but I didn't click on the links themselves, I just counted the hits, including one that appeared to link to NBC.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hah!  The "standing army" language in that provision is a bit duplicative, too, since among the federal Constitution's list of the powers that states gave up to the federal government is this:

 

"No State shall, without the Consent of Congress ... keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace ..."

 

So I guess all the Ohio constitution does is establish that Ohio's government cannot do it even if Congress *did* give its consent.  So Michigan need not fear invasion from Buckeye stormtroopers.

 

tumblr_mdifmxD7F41ru4q6no1_500.jpg

 

OK, remember this is UO, so I'm going to have to ask which rail transit system they're using.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So Michigan need not fear invasion from Buckeye stormtroopers.

 

They still need to.  If the 1840 war ever re-ignites,  all we have to do is put Jim Tressel in command.  We'll let them keep Detroit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

...I expect that as soon as the gun control lobby succeeds in getting assault rifles banned following the shooting at Sandy Hook, then and only then will they suddenly remember that the the assault rifle that was stolen from the mother was not actually used by the shooter (so then the issue will suddenly pivot towards banning handguns as well, since those were the ones actually used)....

Sounds good to me.

 

I noticed that you don't have a defense for the Ohio gop ignoring the wishes of law enforcement as I had iterated on the previous page.  "Change the subject"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hah!  The "standing army" language in that provision is a bit duplicative, too, since among the federal Constitution's list of the powers that states gave up to the federal government is this:

 

"No State shall, without the Consent of Congress ... keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace ..."

 

So I guess all the Ohio constitution does is establish that Ohio's government cannot do it even if Congress *did* give its consent.  So Michigan need not fear invasion from Buckeye stormtroopers.

 

tumblr_mdifmxD7F41ru4q6no1_500.jpg

 

OK, remember this is UO, so I'm going to have to ask which rail transit system they're using.

 

Can you even be sure it's rail?  I had assumed that it was probably in Columbus, so assumed it was a bus, given the likelihood that they were riding a rail system in Columbus ...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I noticed that you don't have a defense for the Ohio gop ignoring the wishes of law enforcement as I had iterated on the previous page.  "Change the subject"

 

Depends on who you mean by "law enforcement".  Politicians in uniform like McGrath?

 

The bulk of the cops I know are rank and file guys.  They all seem to oppose gun bans, quite strongly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hah!  The "standing army" language in that provision is a bit duplicative, too, since among the federal Constitution's list of the powers that states gave up to the federal government is this:

 

"No State shall, without the Consent of Congress ... keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace ..."

 

So I guess all the Ohio constitution does is establish that Ohio's government cannot do it even if Congress *did* give its consent.  So Michigan need not fear invasion from Buckeye stormtroopers.

 

tumblr_mdifmxD7F41ru4q6no1_500.jpg

 

OK, remember this is UO, so I'm going to have to ask which rail transit system they're using.

 

Can you even be sure it's rail?  I had assumed that it was probably in Columbus, so assumed it was a bus, given the likelihood that they were riding a rail system in Columbus ...

 

The windows look too far apart to be a bus, but I can see that you have to step down to get off which makes it more likely to be a bus. Maybe it's one of those old COTA buses from the '70s where the windows were really far apart. Especially with the wood paneling in the back.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hah!  The "standing army" language in that provision is a bit duplicative, too, since among the federal Constitution's list of the powers that states gave up to the federal government is this:

 

"No State shall, without the Consent of Congress ... keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace ..."

 

So I guess all the Ohio constitution does is establish that Ohio's government cannot do it even if Congress *did* give its consent.  So Michigan need not fear invasion from Buckeye stormtroopers.

 

tumblr_mdifmxD7F41ru4q6no1_500.jpg

 

OK, remember this is UO, so I'm going to have to ask which rail transit system they're using.

 

Can you even be sure it's rail?  I had assumed that it was probably in Columbus, so assumed it was a bus, given the likelihood that they were riding a rail system in Columbus ...

 

The windows look too far apart to be a bus, but I can see that you have to step down to get off which makes it more likely to be a bus. Maybe it's one of those old COTA buses from the '70s where the windows were really far apart. Especially with the wood paneling in the back.

 

Which might also be known as a CABS bus. 8-)

 

... :-(

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey, did anyone go to the "Breakfast With Bullets" meeting at the Perkins Pancake House oops, my mistake, they're now called Family Restaurants--in Painesville? (free refills included?) Why, oh why do these stories always seem to come out of Ohio? (even though the article points out that there are organizations like this even in--gasp!--Manhattan!) And is there anyone here in a women's shooting league?

 

Rising Voice of Gun Ownership Is Female

By ERICA GOODE

Published: February 10, 2013

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/11/us/rising-voice-of-gun-ownership-is-female.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

 

PAINESVILLE, Ohio — Mary Ann Froebe stood, feet apart and knees slightly bent, and aimed the .22 caliber Ruger semiautomatic.

 

“You’ve got some adrenaline running through you right now,” said Esther Beris, coordinator of the northeastern Ohio chapter of a Girl and a Gun Women’s Shooting League. “It’s O.K., just relax.”

 

Ms. Froebe, 42, a small-business owner who described herself as a “virgin gun shooter,” concentrated and pulled the trigger.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why, oh why do these stories always seem to come out of Ohio?

 

Because Ohio's a state that effectively includes several different parts of the country.

 

I love how the article tried to paint Painesville as a (presumably rural) small town, instead of part of Greater Cleveland.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why, oh why do these stories always seem to come out of Ohio?

 

Because Ohio's a state that effectively includes several different parts of the country.

 

I love how the article tried to paint Painesville as a (presumably rural) small town, instead of part of Greater Cleveland.

lol! But you have to remember that New York Times reporters probably think of Cleveland as rural!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why, oh why do these stories always seem to come out of Ohio?

 

Because Ohio's a state that effectively includes several different parts of the country.

 

I love how the article tried to paint Painesville as a (presumably rural) small town, instead of part of Greater Cleveland.

lol! But you have to remember that New York Times reporters probably think of Cleveland as rural!

 

"Women’s shooting clubs have also proliferated — not just in small towns like Painesville, but also in Atlanta, Houston, even Manhattan"

 

Classic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

“If you want to vote no, that’s your choice.  But these proposals deserve a vote. Because in the two months since Newtown, more than a thousand birthdays, graduations, and anniversaries have been stolen from our lives by a bullet from a gun.....

 

Hadiya’s parents, Nate and Cleo, are in this chamber tonight, along with more than two dozen Americans whose lives have been torn apart by gun violence.  They deserve a vote....

 

Gabby Giffords deserves a vote.  The families of Newtown deserve a vote. The families of Aurora deserve a vote. The families of Oak Creek, and Tucson, and Blacksburg, and the countless other communities ripped open by gun violence–they deserve a simple vote."

 

Well played strategy.  Can anyone argue with that?  He was talking to both sides of the aisle..... but probably moreso to Democrats who fear repurcussions in 2014.  Holding a vote is not too much to ask, is it?  It's what we pay Congress to do.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

a) he never said "he was moving ahead with executive orders regardless".  The line was "if Congress doesn't act, I will".  That's fairly plain English, but for further clarification, it was an urging for Congress to enact legislation and an announcement that, short of such action, he would exercise executive powers.  There was no "regardless"..... although I'm sure it was spun that way.

 

b) more on point for this thread, he wasn't even talking about gun control.  That line came up during his discussion of climate change.  He does hold significant executive discretion under existing law to enact regulations intended to protect the environment.  Romney didn't win.  The EPA is still here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

“If you want to vote no, that’s your choice.  But these proposals deserve a vote. Because in the two months since Newtown, more than a thousand birthdays, graduations, and anniversaries have been stolen from our lives by a bullet from a gun.....

 

Hadiya’s parents, Nate and Cleo, are in this chamber tonight, along with more than two dozen Americans whose lives have been torn apart by gun violence.  They deserve a vote....

 

Gabby Giffords deserves a vote.  The families of Newtown deserve a vote. The families of Aurora deserve a vote. The families of Oak Creek, and Tucson, and Blacksburg, and the countless other communities ripped open by gun violence–they deserve a simple vote."

 

Well played strategy.  Can anyone argue with that?  He was talking to both sides of the aisle..... but probably moreso to Democrats who fear repurcussions in 2014.  Holding a vote is not too much to ask, is it?  It's what we pay Congress to do.

 

 

The very purpose of a Bill of Rights was to withdraw certain subjects from the vicissitudes of political controversy, to place them beyond the reach of majorities and officials and to establish them as legal principles to be applied by the courts. One's right to life, liberty, and property, to free speech, a free press, freedom of worship and assembly, and other fundamental rights may not be submitted to vote; they depend on the outcome of no elections.

 

 

-The United States Supreme Court, WV State Board of Education v Barnette, 1943

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^Under that line of thinking, there could never be a vote of Congress on any limits of "arms" a citizen may own.  Which would mean that Congress has no right to prevent me from buying and owning a nuclear ballistic submarine...... or an uzi.  Similarly, as applied to the other amendments, Congress has no right to stop me from screaming "fire" in a movie theatre or "bomb" on an airplane or sacraficing a lamb in the exercise of my religion.

 

Ironically, the specific holding of the supreme court case you cite is often lambasted by conservatives.  It held that schools could not require children to say the pledge of allegiance or salute the flag. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The very purpose of a Bill of Rights was to withdraw certain subjects from the vicissitudes of political controversy, to place them beyond the reach of majorities and officials and to establish them as legal principles to be applied by the courts. One's right to life, liberty, and property, to free speech, a free press, freedom of worship and assembly, and other fundamental rights may not be submitted to vote; they depend on the outcome of no elections.

 

 

-The United States Supreme Court, WV State Board of Education v Barnette, 1943

 

 

 

^ I wish that sort of logic was adhered to by our leaders before Prohibition. And in relation to other facets of our lives.

 

But really, so much debate continues along like the Constitution is a holy book that cannot be re-written. Well it isn't written in stone. There's certainly an amendment process available where there is popular will to do so. The above quote by Justice Jackson is not really correct here; fundamental rights can certainly be subjected to a vote.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...