Re: The FAST Approaching Gun Ban
Quote:
Originally Posted by
NYBURBS
The same could be more easily said about most of the federal regulations and programs that the left wing in this country hold dear. Social Security, Medicare, Federal Labor regulations, regulation of intra-state affairs via the inter-state commerce clause, and the right to an abortion were all products of the early-mid 20th century progressive era, and many were decided by split courts if I recall correctly. That's the nature of our system, and I wouldn't hold my breath for seeing Heller overturned anytime soon.
Oh, I don't expect Heller to be overturned. Not at all. But Dave32111 asserted that "the USSC has sided with the individual's right to keep and bear arms." That is not true. Americans do not have an unambiguous individual right to bear arms.
Various courts at various times have upheld gun bans in the face of Second Amendment challenges. There are many gun regulations that have never been argued before the Supreme Court. And the entire issue of whether or not states can implement gun bans is an open question.
Re: The FAST Approaching Gun Ban
For instance, this douchebag just had his concealed carry permit revoked for being a douchebag:
http://www.newschannel5.com/story/20...rol-rage-video
Re: The FAST Approaching Gun Ban
Quote:
Originally Posted by
thombergeron
Interestingly, that person isn't an unknown guy. He was a PSC in Iraq. He is known for being caught in an ambush that led to the death of three PSCs. What happened is mired in controversy. The story was all over the internet. Plus, he created a shit storm by making a video of people shooting at targets with a cameraman standing next to one of the targets. He is simply a colorful character...to say the least.
Re: The FAST Approaching Gun Ban
Quote:
Originally Posted by
notdrunk
Interestingly, that person isn't an unknown guy. He was a PSC in Iraq. He is known for being caught in an ambush that led to the death of three PSCs. What happened is mired in controversy. The story was all over the internet. Plus, he created a shit storm by making a video of people shooting at targets with a cameraman standing next to one of the targets. He is simply a colorful character...to say the least.
Yes, I know who James Yeager is, and I'm familiar with his need to draw attention to himself by doing something stupid on the Internet every year or two.
The point being, the state has a right and an obligation to regulate this douchebag's access to and use of firearms, despite the holy Second Amendment.
Re: The FAST Approaching Gun Ban
Quote:
Originally Posted by
buttslinger
I think it's funny that the pro-gun people are anti-abortion, and the anti-gun people are pro-abortion,... I mean, pro-choice. Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of happiness......who writes this stuff?
Yes, that hasn't slipped my attention either, though I think one could make a stronger argument for being in favor of gun rights since the mere possession of a weapon does not mean someone will die, but having an abortion will always result in the taking of a life. The 2nd Amendment does not abrogate a state's right to pass laws related to homicide, but the abortion cases do do just that.
Re: The FAST Approaching Gun Ban
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Prospero
So many of the pro-gun lobby try to distract from the core issue with this kind of nit picking question. Just because you know the detailed specifications of this or that weapon is really rather irrelevent. The core issue is the obsessive concentration on the right to own these weapons, guns generally, despite the ongoing death count from their use by lunatics. Guns may not kill people, but they make it much,much easier for those who want to carry out massacres to make it happen.
Change the law and, if necessary, change your constitution. As i have said before it is NOT written in stone, You are a large and powerful nation with some of the most talented and creative and innovative minds in the world but you seem to lack the power to control the idiotic impulse to own weapons of death.
I asked you that question because I find many that are opposed to gun rights have never actually held or fired one themselves. Virtually every handgun sold in the US now is semi-automatic, and the police all use semi-automatic handguns. All it means is that when you pull the trigger the spent casing it automatically ejected and a new round is loaded. It is not a machine gun where you can just hold down the trigger and it will continue to fire. And it's not an irrelevant detail since much of this debate is about banning certain weapons because they are semi-automatic.
PS- It takes 2/3 of the Congress to propose an Amendment and 3/4 of the States to ratify it, and that's just not going to happen.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Prospero
NYBURBS... these programmes should be "held dear" by everyone. They are designed to help make your nation a healtier, happier, safer and more just place. Unlike guns which are made for killing.
Not necessarily, especially since one of the issues is federalism, or more succinctly, limited central government. England has a population of roughly 53 million, whereas just California and New York have a combined population in excess of 56 million people. Correct me if I'm wrong, but many English do not like the EU, and there is a push there to remove the UK from it, partly because you don't trust people in far away nations to make sound decisions for you. Well, that same issue resides here, and some don't really care for a small legislative body holding so much power over so many. So when you look at US politics it's not as simple as "hey that's a good program, people should love it!" because it's almost always more complicated than that. To give you an example, when the federal government decides to raise a trillion dollars in taxes, much of it will come from income taxes. They do it by scaled income levels, thus someone in New York City that makes 71k a year might pay 25% in income tax and someone in Alabama making 55k per year will pay 15% in income tax, even though when adjusted for cost of living they are basically at the same standard of living. That inequity is just one of the sources of contention in our politics, and of course I acknowledge that there are actual ideological splits about whether such programs should exist.
Re: The FAST Approaching Gun Ban
I do realise that, with Congress in the thrall of the ludicrous tea party, many GOP members virtually enchained by the NRA and the public's obsession with guns that a change to the constitution is not likely to happen... probably ever. But that doesn't mean that interpretations of it cannot be considered and that some greater degree of control can be introduced.
Re: The FAST Approaching Gun Ban
within 3-4 months it will all be forgetten about and gun sales/ammo etc will be back to normal service in the usa .... then when the next mass shooting happens it will boot off again and the cycle will repeat itself ..
Getting americans to stop owning guns would be like getting the english to stop drinking tea .. never going to happen ..
my view anyway :)
Re: The FAST Approaching Gun Ban
Quote:
Originally Posted by
buttslinger
I think it's funny that the pro-gun people are anti-abortion, and the anti-gun people are pro-abortion,... I mean, pro-choice. Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of happiness......who writes this stuff?
Not always true. I love guns and have many of them but I'm pro-choice and would be considered extremely liberal by most people.
Re: The FAST Approaching Gun Ban
Quote:
I asked you that question because I find many that are opposed to gun rights have never actually held or fired one themselves. Virtually every handgun sold in the US now is semi-automatic, and the police all use semi-automatic handguns.
I won't speak for Prospero, but I am a firearm owner and I have hunted with and have fired guns. MANY who urge tightening regulations on guns have first hand experience with gun. MANY of us practice gun safety and wish other owners would be more diligent too. I've have fired semi-automatics but I do not own any. I own an old bolt action Remington thirty 'aught six that has a fixed magazine that holds five rounds. After firing one round, the act of manually ejecting it also loads the next round into the chamber. It's a marvelous mechanism. More you don't need. When deer hunting I have never desired a faster weapon. No hunter worth his salt needs a faster weapon. When hunting fowl and other small game I used a single barrel, single round twelve gauge shotgun. To load you have to break it open, pull out the spent cartridge and shove in the live round. I never need more. No hunter worth his salt does.
Yes, manufacturers are shoving semi-automatic handguns and weapons down our throats and gun-enthusiasts predictably respond to the marketing. But marketing is not what we should consider when designing regulative law.
There is a huge gap between what we can do and what we will do. What I think we can do is limit magazine capacity and require background checks in all situations in which guns legally change hands.
We can also strike those laws that excuse manufacturers and gun owners from liability. Currently a gun can blowup in your hand and you can't sue the manufacturer. A kid can steal a weapon from his grandfather, kill someone and the old fart is immune from any kind of liability. Like auto-insurance, every gun owner should carry insurance on each of his or her weapons. None of these measure comes anywhere closed to infringing on anyone's second amendment rights.
