Not so much "what" is left, but "who" is left to do so. If one of the five concurring justices had previously died and Obama had appointed another Kagan or Soto Mayor type, what do you think the Heller decision would have been? He may well be able to appoint a couple of justices in his final term. Then we may have a period when the Constitution is "subject" to those "liberal interpretations," which Spence speaks of.

pretty stark contrast (and I'd argue frightening) in the dissent...this is great... Breyer's dissent goes on to conclude, "there simply is no untouchable constitutional right guaranteed by the Second Amendment to keep loaded handguns in the house in crime-ridden urban areas."


I'm pretty confident that these liberals/progressives could apply the "no untouchable Constitutional right" thing to pretty much all/any of our Constitutional guarantees if they were in the mood:uhuh:

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

Quote:
Originally Posted by ReelinRod
Breyer's and Stevens' dissents, like most treatises advocating for a restrictive interpretation, focus on what the 2nd Amendment isn't and what it doesn't do . . . Rare indeed is any explanation of what the 2nd does under their interpretation and how it has functioned with that action in the courts. Of course there is no such record to cite; theirs is just a grand thought experiment that can't withstand scrutiny.



That's simply not true. Seven's dissent on Heller is quite lucid and describes precisely what they believe the Second Amendment to be.

-spence

this is hilarious...Steven's dissent is a laundry list of liberal pretensions that prove the basic and obvious difference in thought process between the competing ideaologies....which is that some seek to follow the Constitution and others are always seeking a way around it...:uhuh:

Just saying:

WASHINGTON (CBS DC) – Annual FBI crime statistics show that more people are killed with clubs and hammers each year than by rifles or shotguns.

In 2011, there were 323 murders committed with a rifle but 496 murders committed with hammers and clubs. There were 356 murders in which a shotgun was the deadly weapon of choice.

FBI: Hammers, Clubs Kill More People Than Rifles, Shotguns CBS DC (http://washington.cbslocal.com/2013/01/03/fbi-hammers-clubs-kill-more-people-than-rifles-shotguns/)

Why is it every time there is a discussion it is the law abiding citizen fighting for their rights against TYRANTS who incite the masses to hysteria by using emotion rather than facts. It is no coincidence that the same leaders who want to ban firearms are also the most willing to pass laws through executive decree.

Americans never give up your guns - English pravda.ru (http://english.pravda.ru/opinion/columnists/28-12-2012/123335-americans_guns-0/)

The final note from another Pravda article...

As noted by Corrie Terry, founder of "Mothers Against Murders and Shootings," the U.S. government is addressing the wrong problem - it legalizes marijuana, it is concerned about the people's rights to own a gun, but it does not think what makes mentally unstable people commit mass murder. In response, Democratic Senator Dianne Feinstein said that next year the amendment to the law on sale of automatic weapons will be considered by the Senate and House of Representatives. Whether this measure would help to curb mass murder is not yet known.

Sergei Vasilenkov

Pravda.Ru

By REID J. EPSTEIN | 1/14/13 6:49 PM EST Updated: 1/15/13 6:15 AM EST

The White House has identified 19 executive actions for President Barack Obama to move unilaterally on gun control, Vice President Joe Biden told a group of House Democrats on Monday, the administration’s first definitive statements about its response to last month’s mass shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School.

Read more: Joe Biden on guns: White House readies 19 executive actions - POLITICO.com (http://www.politico.com/story/2013/01/biden-guns-executive-actions-86187.html#ixzz2I2pujF2L)

Amendment II

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of "the people" to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed

infringed past participle, past tense of in·fringe (Verb)
Verb
1.Actively break the terms of (a law, agreement, etc.): "infringe a copyright".
2.Act so as to limit or undermine (something); encroach on: "infringe on his privacy".


The Commerce Clause describes an enumerated power listed in the United States Constitution (Article I, Section 8, Clause 3).

Article I, Section 8, Clause 3:[3]

[The Congress shall have Power] To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian tribes;


Amendment IX

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by "the people".


“My understanding is the vice president is going to provide a range of steps that we can do to prevent gun violence. Some of them will require legislation,” Obama said. “Some of them I can accomplish through executive action."

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

”Justice Stevens took the plain language of the statute and made legal contortions to get to the result the Court wanted to get to,”

“It was turning statutory interpretation and the interpretation of a record upside down, in my opinion, to get a predetermined result. ” Senator Lindsey Graham


just sayin'...........


.http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mike-amato/repealing-second-amendment_b_2457871.html
"It's absolutely long past time to repeal the Second Amendment"

I have a question for Obama...he hails from Chicago where he spent some time in politics, and which also happens to be one of the, if not the most violent city on earth...he's been President for quite a while now and supposedly has quite a bit of support from the exact areas where most of the violence takes place on a daily basis in Chicago....I searched a bit for stories of Obama addressing the violence in his adopted hometown using his bullypulpit and influence in the community and the best that I could find was a mention in a videotaped address to some small group of students which included "We have to provide stronger role models than the gang-banger on the corner,” Obama said.


Obama had declined the invitation to serve as grand marshal in this year’s parade. But he sent Deputy Assistant Michael Strautmanis, who is a trusted aid to presidential adviser Valerie Jarrett, to represent Obama and First Lady Michelle Obama.

The president’s absence was a particular burn to some of the parade organizers.

For one thing, they had chosen as a theme: “Education: Built to Last; A Tribute to President Barack Obama.” And given Chicago’s growing reputation as a violent city, it seemed only fitting that a president who was from the city would be especially concerned. http://www.suntimes.com/news/mitchell/14468075-452/president-obama-finally-addresses-violence-in-his-hometown.html

....if this were your "hometown"...I'm pretty sure he still owns a house there...wouldn't this be a great opportunity if as President, you cared a wit about what is going on there??????

he can certainly spend a fortune to pop in there for an anniversary dinner with the wifey, he can fly over on his way to a multimillion dollar vacation in Hawaii ...and now we're supposed to believe that Blowhard Biden and Barry are going to magically....

"provide a range of steps that we can do to prevent gun violence"...sidestepping Congress in may cases



surreal......:uhuh:

having the President participate in a Parade in one of the most violent cities in America is NOT a good idea.....Just Saying.

Think Dallas...

having the President participate in a Parade in one of the most violent cities in America is NOT a good idea.....Just Saying.

Think Dallas...

the fact that a President cannot(?) participate in a parade themed “Education: Built to Last; A Tribute to President Barack Obama.” in the City that he represents(ed) and lives(d) in because of the violence that he has apparently failed(s) to address in any meaningful way...says an awful lot about an awful lot :uhuh: because now he's going to "fix" the nation's violence?...


like this....


Emanuel gives insight to gun control in D.C., makes plans for Chicago
Posted: Jan 14, 2013

Mayor Rahm Emanuel has ordered an analysis of Chicago's city employee pension funds to see if they hold companies that make or sell assault weapons. If so, he wants them sold....

He participated in a panel with the Center for American Progress Action Fund to talk about his role in getting the Assault Weapons Ban passed in 1994, when he was senior adviser to President Clinton.

Emanuel said last week that he is working on a gun control ordinance for the city after an assault weapons ban stalled in the Illinois General Assembly. He is expected to introduce that ordinance at the next City Council meeting. It will include a call on city pensions and retirement fund managers to review their portfolio of investments and eliminate companies that make or sell assault weapons.


At the same time the mayor spoke on the one-month anniversary of the massacre in Newtown, just a few blocks away, President Obama also talked about banning military-style weapons and high-capacity magazines of bullets and requiring background checks on all gun purchasers.


on a related note...

"As we look at the 506 (Chicago) deaths last year, most have been by illegal handguns."

Read more: http://www.myfoxchicago.com/story/20579657/emanuel-biden-meet-with-leaders-to-discuss-gun-control-measures#ixzz2I3GqgUmK

having the President participate in a Parade in one of the most violent cities in America is NOT a good idea.....Just Saying.

Think Dallas...

I remember Bush flying into Iraq early into the war....
Your right though ... Hawaii is a lot safer...and warmer
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I remember Bush flying into Iraq early into the war....
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

That is probably safer than parading down the city streets of Chicago.

and on the flip side...then people would be bitching about the Multi Millions of dollars wasted on Security just so the president can march in a parade.

Here is a study on murders in Chicago.
It is detailed enough so that you could look at the proposed changes in gun laws and see what the effect would be.
Pretty close to nil.
https://portal.chicagopolice.org/portal/page/portal/ClearPath/News/Statistical%20Reports/Murder%20Reports/MA11.pdf

This report tells how many assault weapons were used to commit murder in Chicago in a recent year.
Read it and tell me how effective the assault weapons ban will be?

That is probably safer than parading down the city streets of Chicago.

and on the flip side...then people would be bitching about the Multi Millions of dollars wasted on Security just so the president can march in a parade.

One thing it does indicate is the colossal failure of today's social programs. Trillions wasted.
Maybe Biden has that on his list
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

This report tells how many assault weapons were used to commit murder in Chicago in a recent year.
Read it and tell me how effective the assault weapons ban will be?

It's not about public safety, it's about POWER and CONTROL.

This report tells how many assault weapons were used to commit murder in Chicago in a recent year.
Read it and tell me how effective the assault weapons ban will be?

All these facts are true but at the same time if you were told in the past 6 months in 4 seperate incidents 45 people were killed and over 60 wounded, this included 21 kids under age 8 dead, all by the same type of weapon what do you think the reaction of the average person would be.

All these facts are true but at the same time if you were told in the past 6 months in 4 seperate incidents 45 people were killed and over 60 wounded, this included 21 kids under age 8 dead, all by the same type of weapon what do you think the reaction of the average person would be.

It wasn't the reaction of the average person to ban modern sporting arms. It was the use of this crisis to further an agenda that is calling for a ban
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

All these facts are true but at the same time if you were told in the past 6 months in 4 seperate incidents 45 people were killed and over 60 wounded, this included 21 kids under age 8 dead, all by the same type of weapon what do you think the reaction of the average person would be.
Interestingly enough, if 2012 trends similar to 2011, more children died either as a direct or indirect result of alcohol use.

I don't see anyone calling for sweeping bans on alcohol. With that in mind, AWBs are not about saving lives. They are about taking guns out of the hands of lawful owners.

Also, the stomping on the Constitution has already begun:
NY Senate passes 'landmark' gun control laws - WSJ.com (http://online.wsj.com/article/APac54f3a0b0244dc4b9de764b46ae5f73.html)

All these facts are true but at the same time if you were told in the past 6 months in 4 seperate incidents 45 people were killed and over 60 wounded, this included 21 kids under age 8 dead, all by the same type of weapon what do you think the reaction of the average person would be.

It wasn't the reaction of the average person to ban modern sporting arms. It was the use of this crisis to further an agenda that is calling for a ban
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

What they are trying to do is redefine "Sporting Arms"
The average person see's a rifle with a wood stock and that's a "Hunting Rifle" if that gun is fiberglass and plastic it's an "Assault Rifle" even if the capabilities are the same.
That's the stigma that needs to be overcome.
And having people yelling about rebellion and impeachment is not doing anyone any favors.

And having people yelling about rebellion and impeachment is not doing anyone any favors.

It will be interesting to see what people think when Obama uses schoolchildren as props tomorrow when he makes his announcement.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

It will be interesting to see what people think when Obama uses schoolchildren as props tomorrow when he makes his announcement.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

that's a layup.....

if you agree with Obama you care deeply about little children and give him permission to do whatever he feels is necessary to keep them safe....

if you disagree with Obama you probably hate little children and want to see more of them shot.....


there should never be any assumption of civility, reason or expectation that this bunch will not resort to the most shameful of antics....they will demand that you not engage in certain behaviour(regardless of whether you intend to or have done so or not) just before they begin an all out campaign displaying exactly that behaviour...I wonder how much Americans will continue to stomach...:confused:



W.H. Releases Letters from Little Kids Pleading for Gun Control7:20 AM, Jan 16, 2013 • By DANIEL HALPER

The White House today released letters from little kids pleading for gun control, just hours before President Obama is to release a comprehensive proposal to limit guns and ammunition. The letters were released to the Associated Press in what appears to be a coordinated effort to help shape the narrative the day of Obama's announcement.

"Three days after six teachers and 20 students were killed by a rampaging gunman at their elementary school in Newtown, Conn., an 8-year-old from Maryland pulled out a sheet of paper and asked President Barack Obama for 'some changes in the laws with guns,'" the AP reports.

"It's a free country but I recommend there needs (to) be a limit with guns," Grant wrote in a letter dated Dec. 17. "Please don't let people own machine guns or other powerful guns like that."

In the days after the shooting, children around the country had the same idea as Grant. They put their feelings about the massacre on paper and sent those letters to a receptive White House.

"I am writing to ask you to STOP gun violence," wrote Tajeah, a 10-year-old from Georgia. "I am very sad about the children who lost their lives. So, I thought I would write to you to STOP gun violence."

Half way through the article, the AP admits, "The White House shared three such letters with The Associated Press, from young writers who seemed to agree that Obama should do what's necessary to make it harder for people to get guns."

White House spokesman Jay Carney announced yesterday that Obama will be surrounded by little kids when he announces his gun proposal later today.

that's a layup.....

if you agree with Obama you care deeply about little children and give him permission to do whatever he feels is necessary to keep them safe....

if you disagree with Obama you probably hate little children and want to see more of them shot.....


there should never be any assumption of civility, reason or expectation that this bunch will not resort to the most shameful of antics....they will demand that you not engage in certain behaviour(regardless of whether you intend to or have done so or not) just before they begin an all out campaign displaying exactly that behaviour...I wonder how much Americans will continue to stomach...:confused:



W.H. Releases Letters from Little Kids Pleading for Gun Control7:20 AM, Jan 16, 2013 • By DANIEL HALPER

The White House today released letters from little kids pleading for gun control, just hours before President Obama is to release a comprehensive proposal to limit guns and ammunition. The letters were released to the Associated Press in what appears to be a coordinated effort to help shape the narrative the day of Obama's announcement.

"Three days after six teachers and 20 students were killed by a rampaging gunman at their elementary school in Newtown, Conn., an 8-year-old from Maryland pulled out a sheet of paper and asked President Barack Obama for 'some changes in the laws with guns,'" the AP reports.

"It's a free country but I recommend there needs (to) be a limit with guns," Grant wrote in a letter dated Dec. 17. "Please don't let people own machine guns or other powerful guns like that."

In the days after the shooting, children around the country had the same idea as Grant. They put their feelings about the massacre on paper and sent those letters to a receptive White House.

"I am writing to ask you to STOP gun violence," wrote Tajeah, a 10-year-old from Georgia. "I am very sad about the children who lost their lives. So, I thought I would write to you to STOP gun violence."

Half way through the article, the AP admits, "The White House shared three such letters with The Associated Press, from young writers who seemed to agree that Obama should do what's necessary to make it harder for people to get guns."

White House spokesman Jay Carney announced yesterday that Obama will be surrounded by little kids when he announces his gun proposal later today.

Pathetic!!!!!
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Pathetic!!!!!
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

or.... brilliant...depending on how you look at it...:)

or.... brilliant...depending on how you look at it...:)

There have been other dictators that surrounded themselves with children😬
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Announced on the news this morning:
"Gov. Patrick expected to submit plans for increased income tax and additional Gun Control in Massachusetts during his State of the State address later today."

At that young of an age kids are easily brainwashed by teachers. During the election my daughter was rooting for Obama because her teacher convinced the class he was the man. We will see what she thinks now that I have to pay more in taxes in my paycheck this week and she will have to skip swimming lessons next session.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

During the election my daughter was rooting for Obama because her teacher convinced the class he was the man.
Religious and political ideologies have no business in the public school system.

I'm no fan of access to anything that resembles the style of weapons that are legitmiately needed by the military, even if the resemblance is limited to appearance...

That being said, for anyone to claim that Obama's plan will have a noticable impact on 'gun violence' is ludicrous. 99.99% of gun deaths do not involve the things being banned, this ban will not help the poor black youths in Chicago or in Washington DC.

It's such an obvious, predictable, looks-great-but-won't-do-anything proposal. Better yet, he surrounds himself with cute little kids. That way, if anyone dares to diasgree with Obama, they are painted as being in favor of gunning down little children, as well as racist obviously.

This is precisely what you get when you have an utterly empty suit for a President. It's exactly what I'd expect from a guy who can't get one right even by accident.

You really can't make this up!
The NRA brought up the fact that the Presidents children are protected by armed secret service while in school...all American children deserve the same protection
Jay Carney stated "the Presidents children should not be used as " pawns in a political fight"
The President called it " repugnant and cowardly "
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Agree, the NRA ad was so pathetic many thought it was a hoax.

I'm sorry but that organization is really flipping out.
You really can't make this up!
The NRA brought up the fact that the Presidents children are protected by armed secret service while in school...all American children deserve the same protection
Jay Carney stated "the Presidents children should not be used as " pawns in a political fight"
The President called it " repugnant and cowardly "
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Agree, the NRA ad was so pathetic many thought it was a hoax.

I'm sorry but that organization is really flipping out.

Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
This doesn't even make sense. Gun-grabbing groups politicians that cannot support any of their proposed policies with reliable statistics are the ones flipping out.

The bodies in Connecticut were still warm and liberals were already leveraging those "dead babies" to further their agenda - now that is pathetic.

So, the NRA using Obama's kids as an example is pathetic but the gun control crowd leveraging dead kids is not? This is the most blatant display of the pot calling the kettle black I've seen yet.

Agree, the NRA ad was so pathetic many thought it was a hoax.

I'm sorry but that organization is really flipping out.

Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

And Obama using children ????
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Agree, the NRA ad was so pathetic many thought it was a hoax.

I'm sorry but that organization is really flipping out.

Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

as usual, you are as wrong as you can possibly be.

Maybe in 20 years when those same kids graduate college and are looking at income tax rates of 50% to pay for checks Obama wrote when they were 6 years old, Obama can get them together for another group hug. He can tell those kids why he was in the right to spend money on their behalf (on things that will clearly benefit those kids, like free condoms for life for Sandra Fluke), long before they have a say in how it is spent. Yep, he's really looking out for today's youth.

The point the NRA was trying to make is the school has 11 armed security officers assigned to it. This is not secret service, but armed guards in a school. It did not get translated that way through the press. I think the NRA was trying to point out that the very suggestion which the NRA put forth and was ridiculed is the exact policy of the school where the President's children attend along with other high profile families . All that being said, the children of presidents should be off limits regardless.

The point the NRA was trying to make is the school has 11 armed security officers assigned to it. This is not secret service, but armed guards in a school. It did not get translated that way through the press. I think the NRA was trying to point out that the very suggestion which the NRA put forth and was ridiculed is the exact policy of the school where the President's children attend along with other high profile families . All that being said, the children of presidents should be off limits regardless.

did you watch the ad?...there were no pictures of the kids, their names were not used....it pointed out the blatant hypocricy of this president, he(or I believe, Carney) made that statement dismissing the idea that guards in schools was any kind of alternative ....knowing that the president's own children enjoy the protection of many guards at their school.........I agree that in a less surreal world, the kids should never enter a debate....but these people wave issues in your face and then condemn you for commenting...it's shameful game...but necessary I guess, in the fundamental transformation of America


"repugnant and cowardly"?....those words define the left's leadership in this country currently, listening and watching both the national response and the NY response from liberal politicians I was struck by the "mould" that these people all seem to have been cut from...self-satisfied, arrogant, elitist, superior, blatantly dishonest(seemingly revelling in their own obvious dishonesty) and dismissive of anything but their "enlightened" opinion...I honestly don't think there's any "co-existing" with these people...they will continue to push and sneer and at some point all of the little fires that they are setting will burst into conflict...and they will sit back and watch it burn...it's what community organizers do...

"A People's Organization is dedicated to an eternal war. It is a war(in their minds) against poverty, misery, delinquency, disease, injustice, hopelessness, despair, and unhappiness(which provides them justification). They are basically the same issues for which nations have gone to war in almost every generation. . . . War is not an intellectual debate, and in the war against social evils there are no rules of fair play. . ."Alinsky

rules

1) One's concern with the ethics of means and ends varies inversely with one's personal interest in the issue, and one's distance from the scene of conflict (Alinsky 1972: 26)

2) The judgement of the ethics of means is dependent upon the political position of those sitting in judgement (Alinsky 1972: 26-9).

3) In war, the end justifies almost any means (Alinsky 1972: 29-30)

9) Any effective means is automatically judged by the opposition as being unethical (Alinsky 1972: 35-6).

10) You do what you can with what you have and clothe it with moral garments (Alinsky 1972: 36-45)

4) Make the enemy live up to their own book of rules (Alinsky 1972: 128).

5) Ridicule is man's most potent weapon (Alinsky 1972: 128).

11) If you push a negative hard and deep enough it will break through into its counterside (Alinsky 1972: 129).


"We are being played; it's time we learned the game.

Conservatives have their Constitution. Progressives have their Narrative. The current battle for America is between these two concepts, and each side uses different rules to fight it."
http://www.americanthinker.com/2013/01/the_socialist_mind_game_a_brief_manual.html


You might be a progressive ideologue if:

3. You are a master at projecting or "transferring" what could be your problem or attitude (but not really) on to others.

4. You find that people who don't agree with you are idiots or racists or mean-spirited...or mean-spirited racist idiots.

6. You consider your thinking based on emotion, and you express it through emotion -- even to the point of shameful antics. And you think that's perfectly okay.

10. You are certain that you never ever operate from an ideological position."

I agree, it was sleazy. Pres. kids should be off limits.

Did I hear correctly that Bank of America no longer will allow purchases of firearms or ammunition on a debit card??
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I agree, it was sleazy. Pres. kids should be off limits.

he stated with great sanctimony and a tortured definition of sleazy...:uhuh:....it was TRUE :uhuh:....which is why there's such feigned indignation...

I'm no fan of access to anything that resembles the style of weapons that are legitmiately needed by the military, even if the resemblance is limited to appearance...

Jim, I am also a vet and have seen the devastaion these weapons are capeable of, but I am on the side of the people. Ultimately the intent of the Framers was to prevent Tyrrany by making the government afraid of the people. With that in mind, we should have access to the best available technology.

That being said, for anyone to claim that Obama's plan will have a noticable impact on 'gun violence' is ludicrous. 99.99% of gun deaths do not involve the things being banned, this ban will not help the poor black youths in Chicago or in Washington DC.

It's such an obvious, predictable, looks-great-but-won't-do-anything proposal. Better yet, he surrounds himself with cute little kids. That way, if anyone dares to diasgree with Obama, they are painted as being in favor of gunning down little children, as well as racist obviously.

This is precisely what you get when you have an utterly empty suit for a President. It's exactly what I'd expect from a guy who can't get one right even by accident.

There are far more critical issues the Pres should be working on right now, we are falling into a Fiscal Abyss and he has the country focused on disarming themselves. Typical smoke and mirrors of Fundamental Change.

Did I hear correctly that Bank of America no longer will allow purchases of firearms or ammunition on a debit card??
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

They are one of the least "moral" banks around......lot of balls to be tossing those rules out................

Did I hear correctly that Bank of America no longer will allow purchases of firearms or ammunition on a debit card??
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I agree, it was sleazy. Pres. kids should be off limits.

it wasnt about the presidents kids, it was about their protection - armed guards. The NRA has a point, the president believes his kids should be guarded with guns, but not everyone elses?
I think its a great point.

it wasnt about the presidents kids, it was about their protection - armed guards. The NRA has a point, the president believes his kids should be guarded with guns, but not everyone elses?
I think its a great point.

Exactly, the message being sent is that his children are more important than other people's children. I don't know too many parents who would agree with that.

Did I hear correctly that Bank of America no longer will allow purchases of firearms or ammunition on a debit card??
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

They are one of the least "moral" banks around......lot of balls to be tossing those rules out................

snopes.com: Bank of America Gun Sales (http://www.snopes.com/politics/guns/bankofamerica.asp)

i thought of this thread last night while watching tv. im not a prude, but this is exactly (shorter versions) what I saw last night while watching the Mavs vs rockets game with my kids on TV

Bullet to the Head Official Trailer #1 (2012) - Sylvester Stallone Movie HD - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UuCUpV81tNE)

The Last Stand TRAILER (2012) Arnold Schwarzenegger Movie HD - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hcWS3JA4Kdw)

Parker Trailer (2013) - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KgYaiLcByRo)

This was at 7:30 at night, prime time for LITTLE KIDS to be watching TV. WTF? This crap wasnt available on network television, it was LATE night on cable when I was growing up. We werent exposed to this level of violence. You can tell me this is not contributing to whats going on in the country. The f'in commericals are almost R rated! Where are the hollywood libs? Why arent they protesting their own companies???????????

There are far more critical issues the Pres should be working on right now, we are falling into a Fiscal Abyss and he has the country focused on disarming themselves. Typical smoke and mirrors of Fundamental Change.



"the intent of the Framers was to prevent Tyrrany by making the government afraid of the people. With that in mind, we should have access to the best available technology."

I agree that was the framers intent. However, if someone genuinely believes that the only thing stopping the Marine Corps or the 82nd Airborne from attacking them is the possibility they might be armed...I'd say that person is extremely paranoid and not that bright.

If you want to keep those guns legal on the grounds that banning them is constitutional, I think you could have a valid point. If you say that citizens genuinely need these weapons to keep the federal gov't at bay, I don't think that argument holds water anymore. There are too many safeguards guaranteeing that can't happen.

"There are far more critical issues the Pres should be working on right now"

On that, I absolutely agree 100%. Even if you ignore the economy and say that violence is the most pressing issue, these bans won't do anything. 99.999% of crime is not committed with these weapons. In my opinion, that doesn't mean that some good can't be done by banning them (though we need to also talk aboutthe constitutionality of any proposed ban)...but far more good could be done by addressing the problem of violence at its source, which is family dysfunction, poverty, and mental illness. This ban does absolutely nothing to address these things.

If you want to keep those guns legal on the grounds that banning them is constitutional, I think you could have a valid point. If you say that citizens genuinely need these weapons to keep the federal gov't at bay, I don't think that argument holds water anymore. There are too many safeguards guaranteeing that can't happen.
.

Agreed, and on top of that, I don't care how many semi-auto AR-15s you have, you're going to be no match for a 50-cal machine gun or a Gatling....

Oh and the other funny thing about all of this is that its only helping the gun industry, Ruger stock is up...
A friend of mine purchased a gun a few weeks ago and he said he waited almost an hour just to talk to a sales person because there were so many people buying...

it wasnt about the presidents kids, it was about their protection - armed guards. The NRA has a point, the president believes his kids should be guarded with guns, but not everyone elses?
I think its a great point.

Give me a break. When has a President's kids not had protection? Is he the one who assigned protection for the kids? This is a President that has had more death threats then any other President.

Its not that he believes his kids are more important, it is that the risk of something happening to them is so much higher.

LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Are you high again ? 😜
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

This is a President that has had more death threats then any other President.

Its not that he believes his kids are more important, it is that the risk of something happening to them is so much higher.

Huh? I would love to see your source on this please!!
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Do a quick search on "death threats against Obama".

But is he the one who ordered secret service protection for his kids? Did other President's kids have the protection that seems to have gotten everyone riled up or is he being treated differently?

Do a quick search on "death threats against Obama".

But is he the one who ordered secret service protection for his kids? Did other President's kids have the protection that seems to have gotten everyone riled up or is he being treated differently?

noone has suggested the windmills that you are currently jousting....the "thing" that has everyone riled up was his dismissiveness and ridicule of the notion of having guards at schools... as he himself currently enjoys the assurance as a parent that his own children have guards at the school that they attend...for someone that (mis)uses the "h" word so frequently, you should have gotten that part :)

btw...this happens to be about the only thing that has been proposed that might have stopped the incident at Sandy Hook

Unacceptable when the NRA mentions kids when discussing why gun control won't work. However, it's ok for Obama to leverage the emotional response of children in his speeches and for the gun control crowd to leverage "dead babies" to further their agenda.

Keep guns out of schools (unless the children of high-profile parents attend there).
http://i.imgur.com/cbsYA.jpg

What's good for the King, the peasants aren't worthy of.

Unacceptable when the NRA mentions kids when discussing why gun control won't work. However, it's ok for Obama to leverage the emotional response of children in his speeches and for the gun control crowd to leverage "dead babies" to further their agenda.

Keep guns out of schools (unless the children of high-profile parents attend there).
http://i.imgur.com/cbsYA.jpg

What's good for the King, the peasants aren't worthy of.

pretty funny that Spence began this thread whining about an adult conversation on gun control and we've ended up with his hero signing something with a bunch of 5 year olds standing around him.......

great title

"An Infantile Spectacle"

http://www.politico.com/story/2013/01/an-infantile-spectacle-86311.html

Come on Scott!
" Even if there's one life to save, then we have an obligation to try "
Wish he felt that way about Benghazi .
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Come on Scott!
" Even if there's one life to save, then we have an obligation to try "
Wish he felt that way about Benghazi .
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

not to mention the 40,000 plus..plus..plus....dead in Syria thanks to John Kerry, Hillary Clinton and Nancy Pelosi's favorite "reformer" :uhuh:


this is great...

"Here's Mrs. Clinton's fuller quote, from March 27, 2011, answering CBS's Bob Schieffer on why the U.S. was prepared to intervene against Moammar Gadhafi but not against Assad: "There's a different leader in Syria now," she explained. "Many of the members of Congress of both parties who have gone to Syria in recent months have said they believe he is a reformer."

That caused some raising of eyebrows. So a few days later Mrs. Clinton clarified: "I referenced the opinions of others. That was not speaking either for myself or for the administration." oops:)

How could Mrs. Clinton justify administration policy by citing opinions she supposedly refused to endorse? Because she's a genius, obviously. The more relevant point is that she was mouthing the conventional liberal wisdom of the day, which paid more heed to a dictator than to those he repressed. Maybe it's time Assad's apologists apologize to the people of Syria.

A lengthy and mostly flattering New York Times profile from 2005 portrays Assad and his wife Asma as a progressive duo struggling to drag their unwieldy country into the 21st century—while trying to deal with an inept Bush administration too stupid to engage him or give him latitude for reform. sounds strangely familiar

Also in 2005, a ferocious battle erupted in the U.S. Senate over the confirmation of John Bolton as ambassador to the U.N. A key point of contention: his congressional testimony from late 2003 claiming Damascus had "one of the most advanced Arab state chemical weapons capabilities," and that it might have a covert interest in developing a nuclear bomb. The CIA reportedly went berserk over what it considered Mr. Bolton's undue alarmism, which would later help sink his nomination in the Senate.

What came next was a chorus of congressional sycophancy. In 2007, Nancy Pelosi enthused that "the road to Damascus is a road to peace." On March 16, 2011—the day after the first mass demonstration against the regime—John Kerry said Assad was a man of his word who had been "very generous with me." He added that under Assad "Syria will move; Syria will change as it embraces a legitimate relationship with the United States." This is the man who might be our next secretary of state."



it's just "bizarro world" :uhuh:

" Even if there's one life to save, then we have an obligation to try "
Wish he felt that way about Benghazi .
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I wish someone put that to Obama. Good point!

(Reuters) - New Jersey Republican Governor Chris Christie harshly criticized the National Rifle Association on Thursday for referring to U.S. President Barack Obama's children in an ad that advocates putting armed guards in schools, calling it "reprehensible" and "wrong."

"I think it's awful to bring public figures' children into the political debate," Christie said at a press conference in Trenton, New Jersey.

The NRA ad, posted online on Tuesday, calls Obama a "hypocrite" for expressing skepticism over a NRA proposal to put more armed guards in schools following the shooting in a Newtown, Connecticut, school last month that killed 26 people, 20 of them six and seven years old.

"Are the president's kids more important than yours?" a narrator asks in the ad, pointing out that Obama's two daughters have Secret Service protection.

"To talk about the president's children or any public officer's children who have - not by their own choice, but by requirement - to have protection, to use that somehow to try to make a political point is reprehensible,"

"I think any of us who are public figures, you see that ad and you cringe," said

Christie, who is considered a possible Republican presidential contender in 2016, said the ad undermines the NRA's credibility at time when gun control has moved to the center of the political debate.

"It's wrong and I think it demeans them and it makes them less of a valid trusted source of information on the real issues that confront this debate," he said.

I tend to agree with Christie on this. Obamas kids need more protection just due to the fact that they are his kids.

That being said Obama using children to promote his gun control package is nearly as bad.

"I have seen studies suggesting that stricter gun laws disarm law-abiding citizens and make it easier for violent criminals to operate. But I’m open to reviewing new data if the President has some to offer after he’s done tweeting the most recent missive from an eight-year-old."

This was my favorite quote of an article written by Carrie Lukas - Women And Policy - Forbes (http://blogs.forbes.com/carrielukas/)

She brings up some decent points.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I hear a lot of folks saying that the children of politicians should be off limits. I guess the Democrats forgot to read that memo when Sarah Palin was running for VP, because not only were her kids mentioned, but they were attacked. Her youngest son with Downs Syndrome was used to start rumors about the family. What's good for the goose...

I could care less what Christie said. He's entitled to his opinion of course, but that doesn't mean he's correct.

Obama's children enjoy the peace of mind that can be achieved when you have professionaly trained armed guards looking after your kids.

Christie says that Joe Shmo's kids aren't as threatened as the presidents kids. He may have a point. Then again, 20 parents in Newtown CT might disagree.

Between the threat of terrorism and the threat of crazy would-be mass murderers, our kids are vulnerable to a threat. Is any one child as specifically threatened as the children of the President? Probably not. And that's why no one is saying that every kid needs his own team of secret service agents.

I see the armed guard thing as a local issue. If my town decides it's a good idea and we're willing to pay for it, we should be able to do it.

And anyone who claims that Obama's proposed "gun safety" bill will have a menaingful impact, is a blind ideologue. It's cannot do much. Most crimes don't use these weapons. And his bill completely fails to address the root causes of violence - poverty, family values (or complete lack thereof in the liberal agenda), mental illness.

I hear a lot of folks saying that the children of politicians should be off limits. I guess the Democrats forgot to read that memo when Sarah Palin was running for VP, because not only were her kids mentioned, but they were attacked. Her youngest son with Downs Syndrome was used to start rumors about the family. What's good for the goose...



funny, I remember how indignant you were then (rightfully so). But now it is ok?

Chelsea Clinton? Any Carter?

funny, I remember how indignant you were then (rightfully so). But now it is ok?

Chelsea Clinton? Any Carter?

I remember how upset you were Paul 😆
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

funny, I remember how indignant you were then (rightfully so). But now it is ok?

Chelsea Clinton? Any Carter?

Paul, if those 2 htings were identical, I would be guilty of hypocrisy as you suggest. They aren't even close to being identical.

In the current case, the NRA is saying that if it's morally acceptable for Obama's family to enjoy the peace of mind that comes from armed security, then it's morally acceptable for anyone else to come to that same conclusion.

In Palin's case, folks on your side called her daughter a slut, and claimed that her handicapped son was not actualy her son, but rather her grandson. That speculation served no public policy purpose except to attack Palin personally.

Obama's family is not being personally attacked by people sympathetic to the NRA. Not even remotely close.

Apples and oranges. Nice try.

I remember how upset you were Paul ��
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Pls. pull up some quotes at what I said b/c I'm sensing a little sarcasm.

Paul, if those 2 htings were identical, I would be guilty of hypocrisy as you suggest. They aren't even close to being identical.

In the current case, the NRA is saying that if it's morally acceptable for Obama's family to enjoy the peace of mind that comes from armed security, then it's morally acceptable for anyone else to come to that same conclusion.

In Palin's case, folks on your side called her daughter a slut, and claimed that her handicapped son was not actualy her son, but rather her grandson. That speculation served no public policy purpose except to attack Palin personally.

Obama's family is not being personally attacked by people sympathetic to the NRA. Not even remotely close.

Apples and oranges. Nice try.

Its not my side - I've voted R many, many times in the past.

So at what point is ok to discuss family and how far can you go? How about Amy Carter and Chelsea Clinton?

Its not my side - I've voted R many, many times in the past.

So at what point is ok to discuss family and how far can you go? How about Amy Carter and Chelsea Clinton?

I'd say that personal attacks that are made strictly for the sake of hate (like suggesting that Trig is not Palin's son) are off-limits.

Pointing to irrefutable fact to support a policy position (e.g., saying that guns can be useful, since Obama's kids are protected by men with guns) should be allowed. I don't think it's necessarily wrong to utter the names of a politician's family.

What did anyone say about Amy Carter or Chelsea Clinton? I honestly don't know. Amy Carter's time as First Daughter was before my time, Iamd I don't recall amuch news about Chelsea, other than the fact that she existed. I don't recall anyone using her as a pawn. Except for the fact that some organization named Bill Clinton 'Father Of The Year' for 2012, now that's good for a laugh!

Back on the track of the thread:

Here are some quotes from an article posted today. I did not edit this at all. I pulled a few paragraphs from the article.



Bloomberg: Assault weapons ban is tough sell
By Catherine E. Shoichet, CNN
updated 11:06 AM EST, Fri January 18, 2013

"Nothing the president is proposing would have stopped the massacre at Sandy Hook," Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Florida, said in a statement.
"That's probably true," Bloomberg acknowledged on Thursday. "But that doesn't mean that having fewer guns around isn't a better idea."

Last week, former House Speaker Newt Gingrich told AC360° that the evidence in Chicago tells a different story. "Chicago has very strict gun laws. It is also the deadliest city in America," Gingrich said. Asked Thursday about Gingrich's observation, Bloomberg said gun laws aren't a panacea.
"There's no one solution to this," he said. "This is, however, a very important step. Fewer guns means fewer murders. Fewer guns means fewer suicides. Fewer guns means you and your children are safer."


What are the rest of the steps that Bloomberg suggests?

Your thoughts?

Both of those 2's looks were repeatedly mocked.

They have no idea, nor do they care. Right now they have tunnel vision



Back on the track of the thread:

Here are some quotes from an article posted today. I did not edit this at all. I pulled a few paragraphs from the article.



Bloomberg: Assault weapons ban is tough sell
By Catherine E. Shoichet, CNN
updated 11:06 AM EST, Fri January 18, 2013

"Nothing the president is proposing would have stopped the massacre at Sandy Hook," Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Florida, said in a statement.
"That's probably true," Bloomberg acknowledged on Thursday. "But that doesn't mean that having fewer guns around isn't a better idea."

Last week, former House Speaker Newt Gingrich told AC360° that the evidence in Chicago tells a different story. "Chicago has very strict gun laws. It is also the deadliest city in America," Gingrich said. Asked Thursday about Gingrich's observation, Bloomberg said gun laws aren't a panacea.
"There's no one solution to this," he said. "This is, however, a very important step. Fewer guns means fewer murders. Fewer guns means fewer suicides. Fewer guns means you and your children are safer."


What are the rest of the steps that Bloomberg suggests?

Your thoughts?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Back on the track of the thread:

Here are some quotes from an article posted today. I did not edit this at all. I pulled a few paragraphs from the article.



Bloomberg: Assault weapons ban is tough sell
By Catherine E. Shoichet, CNN
updated 11:06 AM EST, Fri January 18, 2013

"Nothing the president is proposing would have stopped the massacre at Sandy Hook," Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Florida, said in a statement.
"That's probably true," Bloomberg acknowledged on Thursday. "But that doesn't mean that having fewer guns around isn't a better idea."

Last week, former House Speaker Newt Gingrich told AC360° that the evidence in Chicago tells a different story. "Chicago has very strict gun laws. It is also the deadliest city in America," Gingrich said. Asked Thursday about Gingrich's observation, Bloomberg said gun laws aren't a panacea.
"There's no one solution to this," he said. "This is, however, a very important step. Fewer guns means fewer murders. Fewer guns means fewer suicides. Fewer guns means you and your children are safer."


What are the rest of the steps that Bloomberg suggests?

Your thoughts?


Hi Carl, long time :wave:

my thoughts for one are to Bloomberg that -- that doesn't mean that having fewer guns around is a better idea either.
so big deal.
I think the more law abiding citizens that have their own legal weapons, the better off we all are to defend ourselves if need be.

Both of those 2's looks were repeatedly mocked.

By whom? Comedians or news broadcasters?

Here is further proof of the Democratic Agenda to get an Assault Weapons Ban. Biden telling the NRA they have no money, time or resources to go after people breaking Federal gun laws punishable by up to 10 years in prison. Way to go idiot!





VP: We 'don't have the time' to charge background check lies | The Daily Caller (http://dailycaller.com/2013/01/18/biden-to-nra-we-dont-have-the-time-to-prosecute-people-who-lie-on-background-checks/?fb_action_ids=10200488735847271&fb_action_types=og.recommends&fb_source=aggregation&fb_aggregation_id=288381481237582)

Its not my side - I've voted R many, many times in the past. funny, many of my liberal friends and customers says this...but they can never name any :)

So at what point is ok to discuss family and how far can you go? How about Amy Carter and Chelsea Clinton?

Paul...way off on a tangent again...once again...noone made jokes about or ridiculed the Obama children or "mocked their looks", their names were not used, their pictures or likenesses were not used and their appearance or intellect was not commented upon...what was pointed out was the obvious "elitist hypocricy" of their father on this issue...now do you want to argue that he's "not" an arrogant elitist hypocrit? because that's what the ad alleges, there's nothing derrogatory directed at the kids themselves as you've seemed to wander off in search of, I'm pretty sure that most parents are very happy that his kids enjoy that type of protection at their school and wonder why the president dismisses the notion of security in schools for other parents and their kid's safety and peace of mind ....or do you want to keep throwing up phony irrelevant issues? I'd be happy, by the way, to produce a lengthy list of examples where Obama and his various Spokes Poodles have shamelessly used/cited their children and other people's children in political debates to garner emotional reactions and political leverage that were far more direct and egregious than this :uhuh:

what appears to be 'off-limits" is the president's arrogance and hypocricy...buuuuut...we already knew that..:)...it has a very cultish feel to it :uhuh:

Had to laugh as I read the story about more gun enthusiasts displaying exactly why more regulation needs to be applied to the industry. Three different gun shows and five people injured....talk about shooting yourself in the foot.Most of these gun advocates are bozos who will give the government no choice but to step in and tell them what's good for them.

Guys, Wayne LaPierre has the answer to all our woes.
If we ban violent movies and violent video games people will stop shooting each other.

Had to laugh as I read the story about more gun enthusiasts displaying exactly why more regulation needs to be applied to the industry. Three different gun shows and five people injured....talk about shooting yourself in the foot.Most of these gun advocates are bozos who will give the government no choice but to step in and tell them what's good for them.

huh?...wonder why the federal government hasn't "stepped in" to Chicago then.... or yet? :confused: people are actually dying there :uhuh: routinely....

2 shot to death in separate attacks on South, West sides
January 19, 2013|By Peter Nickeas and Liam Ford | Tribune reporters

About 9:15 p.m., a man was shot to death inside a Popeye's Louisiana Kitchen, 5500 W. North Ave. (Peter Nickeas/Tribune)Two young men were shot to death during another night of gun violence in Chicago Friday: One inside a well-lit restaurant along a West Side thoroughfare, the other in a dark gangway on a South Side block populated by vacant brick buildings.

The 1994 sweep didn't happen because of the assault weapons ban, if anything that was a late sideshow...the GOP was successful because they ran against excess attributed to longstanding control by Dem's and the Contract With America.
-spence
Because I like to make sure to cite specific claims I make, but also mostly because you decided to ignore my reply to the above, here's are two interesting points from a speech that Bill Clinton made yesterday:
"And Clinton said that passing the 1994 federal assault weapons ban “devastated” more than a dozen Democratic lawmakers in the 1994 midterms — and cost then-Speaker of the House Tom Foley (D-Wash.) his job and his seat in Congress."

and to close his remarks:
"“Do not be self-congratulatory about how brave you for being for this” gun control push, he said. “The only brave people are the people who are going to lose their jobs if they vote with you.”"

http://www.politico.com/story/2013/01/bill-clinton-to-democrats-dont-trivialize-gun-culture-86443_Page2.html

huh?...wonder why the federal government hasn't "stepped in" to Chicago then.... or yet? :confused: people are actually dying there :uhuh: routinely....



The key, as you clarify, is the FEDERAL Government. We have been so conditioned by the transformation of government in our country that people routinely refer to THE government, and by that they seem to automatically mean the Federal Government. And I don't think most even consider federalism with its separation of sovereign entities when they say THE government. Only when local issues or state issues are presented as such do most pay attention to differences. But, for a great segment of our population, THE government, particularly, the President, is the repository of power to fix all of our problems. When an accident occurs at a gun show in state X, and it is reported in the national media, the hue and cry is not that state X should "solve" the problem, but that THE Government has to do something.

I don't know...I'm counting on the president to surround himself with a bunch of gang bangers on a stage and read some letters that they wrote and sign a bunch of executive orders to fix the problem :) if he can save even one life...it's worth trying....after all, it's his hometown....

Machine guns R needed to rob convience stores in Massachusetts..:rotf2:

were the three men that used machine guns licensed to have them????

Bet cha not

Machine guns R needed to rob convience stores in Massachusetts..:rotf2:

were the three men that used machine guns licensed to have them????

Bet cha not

Isn't that sort of the point? People who rob convenience stores don't get licenses. Those who get licenses, tend not to rob stores. If neither got licenses, would't the results be much the same? If the majority of citizens of a state want licenses to be required, that's their concern, not the Federal Government's.

Isn't that sort of the point? People who rob convenience stores don't get licenses. Those who get licenses, tend not to rob stores. If neither got licenses, would't the results be much the same? If the majority of citizens of a state want licenses to be required, that's their concern, not the Federal Government's.

How many illegal guns started off as legal guns?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Guys, Wayne LaPierre has the answer to all our woes.
If we ban violent movies and violent video games people will stop shooting each other.

Sort of the same answer the president has, if you ban guns it will solve our woes. Both guys are idiotic....
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Sort of the same answer the president has, if you ban guns it will solve our woes. Both guys are idiotic....
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Where did the President say if you banned all guns it would solve our woes?

Where did the President say if you banned all guns it would solve our woes?

He didn't, never has.

It's one of the fundamental problems with the entire gun debate. The gun advocates are pushing against a total ban to give them energy...while public opinion is heavy on reasonable control.

-spence

Ok, so banning certain guns will solve or woes........idiotic
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Ok, so banning certain guns will solve or woes........idiotic
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I think everyone agrees that there are no perfect "solutions" per say.

-spence

The right to keep and bar arms does not in any manner depend on the 2nd Amendment for its existence. The reason why the citizen possesses the right to arms is because no power was ever granted to government to have any interest whatsoever in the personal arms of the private citizen.[/SIZE]

This + This

[QUOTE]Governments can only claim power to restrict "dangerous or unusual' arms.

= Contradiction.

-spence

holy crap did someone actually read dc vs heller?

Guys, Wayne LaPierre has the answer to all our woes.
If we ban violent movies and violent video games people will stop shooting each other.

Where did the President say if you banned all guns it would solve our woes? Likwid.


where/when did LaPierre say that banning violent movies and video games would be the answer to all of our woes????

[QUOTE=ReelinRod;978147]
The right to keep and bar arms does not in any manner depend on the 2nd Amendment for its existence. The reason why the citizen possesses the right to arms is because no power was ever granted to government to have any interest whatsoever in the personal arms of the private citizen.[/SIZE]

This + This

Governments can only claim power to restrict "dangerous or unusual" arms.

= Contradiction.

-spence

The first quote by RR was a response to Jim in Ct re the Second Ammendment, and was meant to show that the ammendment was not really necessary because the right pre-existed the Constitution, and, since no power was granted in the Constitution which was written as a limitation on the central government to only those powers granted to it, the Federal Gvt. should have no interest in private ownership of arms. When RR repeated the statement in response to a post by me, he added the word "federal": "No power was ever granted to the federal government to have any interest whatsoever in the personal arms of the private citizen . . ."

I believe that the second quote: "Governments can only claim power to restrict "dangerous or unusual arms" is referring mostly to state governments since the Federal Gvt is already presumed, via the Second Ammendment and the Constitution's silence, to have no interest in private ownership of arms. Note the plural use of government(s), not singular government. And note the use of "claim" to restrict, and the rest of the sentence left out of your quote: "But government does not get to begin its action presuming the arm is "dangerous and unusual" beause it doesn't think the citizens have any good reason to own it, or it isn't used in hunting (i.e. the present idiotic 'assault weapons' hoopla)."

Considering the entire context of RR's quotes, and his assertion that SCOTUS has not had opportunity to examine the Second Ammendment in its entire relation to private arms ownership, I don't think there is a contradiction in what he says.

Not that I am confident that SCOTUS would rule as RR wishes, especially if rulings come from an Obama packed Court.

Luckily I live in Vermont
Article 16th. Right to bear arms; standing armies; military power subordinate to civil

That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the State - and as standing armies in time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; and that the military should be kept under strict subordination to and governed by the civil power.
this has been in court before and if you are asked: why is that gun loaded, the answer is for my defense.

The right to keep and bar arms does not in any manner depend on the 2nd Amendment for its existence. The reason why the citizen possesses the right to arms is because no power was ever granted to government to have any interest whatsoever in the personal arms of the private citizen.

This + This

Governments can only claim power to restrict "dangerous or unusual" arms.


= Contradiction.

Did you stop reading as soon as you found this supposed "contradiction"?

There was a "But . . . " in there.

Why don't you try again and let's see if this "contradiction" survives:

Governments can only claim power to restrict "dangerous or unusual' arms. But . . . government does not get to begin its action presuming the arm is "dangerous and unusual" because it doesn't think the citizens have any good reason to own it, or it isn't used in hunting (i.e., the present idiotic "Assault Weapons" ban hoopla).

The Supreme Court in 1939 established the criteria for courts (and presumably legislatures:smash:) to determine if an arm is afforded 2nd Amendment protection.

If the type of arm meets any one of them then it cannot be deemed 'dangerous and unusual' and the right to keep and bear that weapon must be preserved and any authority claimed by government to restrict its possession and use is repelled.

Those criteria state that to be protected by the 2nd Amendment the arm must be:

A type in common use at the present time and/or
A type usually employed in civilized warfare / that constitute the ordinary military equipment and/or
A type that can be employed advantageously in the common defense of the citizens.


Failing ALL those tests, the arm could then and only then be argued to be "dangerous and unusual" and the government would be permitted to argue that a legitimate power to restrict that type of arm should be afforded .

"Dangerous and Unusual" is what's left after the protection criteria are all applied and all fail . . . Think of it as legal Scrapple . . .


The type of arm commonly referred to as an "assault weapon" meets ALL the tests for protection so it can not be "dangerous and unusual".

Thus, any government claim of power to restrict / control / ban the possession and use of that type of arm is repelled and the citizens right to possess and use that type of arm will be preserved.

I believe that the second quote: "Governments can only claim power to restrict "dangerous or unusual arms" is referring mostly to state governments since the Federal Gvt is already presumed, via the Second Ammendment and the Constitution's silence, to have no interest in private ownership of arms.

I was referring to the federal government primarily.

Even though no express power was granted via the Constitution the feds can argue that a compelling government interest to restrict any right exists. If government's arguments are convincing and supported it could be afforded the unenumerated power being claimed.

I could see this happening if anyone ever brings action for Title II arms; even though, as Heller recognizes machineguns meet the usefulness protection criteria, the feds could argue that NFA-34 is a legitimate exercise of power even under strict scrutiny* . . .

This after all was what Miller was all about . . . no evidence was offered to show that a "shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length . . . is any part of the ordinary military equipment, or that its use could contribute to the common defense".

No evidence presented and the Court not looking on their own = the Court finding that the arm is -dangerous and unusual- thus government's claim of power to restrict private, individual, civilian possession and use is sustained. Had such evidence been presented the right to own would have been upheld and that part of NFA-34 would have been struck down.

---------------------
* The strict scrutiny standard is the most thorough analysis. The purpose, objective, or interest being pursued by the government must be "compelling". Also, the means to achieve the purpose, objective, or interest is reviewed to determine if it is "narrowly tailored" to the accomplishment of the governmental purpose, objective, or interest. There must not be any less restrictive means that would accomplish the government’s objective just as well.

Strict scrutiny is applied in cases where there is a real and appreciable impact on, or a significant interference with the exercise of a fundamental right. The language of the court's opinion indicates the level of scrutiny applied. If the analysis discusses a compelling interest that is narrowly tailored to achieve its goals, it is a strict scrutiny analysis. Strict scrutiny is at the opposite end of the spectrum for the rational basis test used. Under the rational basis standard, the court determines whether there is any rational justification for the classifications created by a challenged rule, which must further a “legitimate governmental interest". Under intermediate scrutiny, the government must show that the challenged classification serves an important state interest and that the classification is at least substantially related to serving that interest.


US Legal (http://definitions.uslegal.com/s/strict-scrutiny/)

I was referring to the federal government primarily.

Even though no express power was granted via the Constitution the feds can argue that a compelling government interest to restrict any right exists. If government's arguments are convincing and supported it could be afforded the unenumerated power being claimed.

I could see this happening if anyone ever brings action for Title II arms; even though, as Heller recognizes machineguns meet the usefulness protection criteria, the feds could argue that NFA-34 is a legitimate exercise of power even under strict scrutiny* . . .

This after all was what Miller was all about . . . no evidence was offered to show that a "shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length . . . is any part of the ordinary military equipment, or that its use could contribute to the common defense".

No evidence presented and the Court not looking on their own = the Court finding that the arm is -dangerous and unusual- thus government's claim of power to restrict private, individual, civilian possession and use is sustained. Had such evidence been presented the right to own would have been upheld and that part of NFA-34 would have been struck down.

---------------------
* The strict scrutiny standard is the most thorough analysis. The purpose, objective, or interest being pursued by the government must be "compelling". Also, the means to achieve the purpose, objective, or interest is reviewed to determine if it is "narrowly tailored" to the accomplishment of the governmental purpose, objective, or interest. There must not be any less restrictive means that would accomplish the government’s objective just as well.

Strict scrutiny is applied in cases where there is a real and appreciable impact on, or a significant interference with the exercise of a fundamental right. The language of the court's opinion indicates the level of scrutiny applied. If the analysis discusses a compelling interest that is narrowly tailored to achieve its goals, it is a strict scrutiny analysis. Strict scrutiny is at the opposite end of the spectrum for the rational basis test used. Under the rational basis standard, the court determines whether there is any rational justification for the classifications created by a challenged rule, which must further a “legitimate governmental interest". Under intermediate scrutiny, the government must show that the challenged classification serves an important state interest and that the classification is at least substantially related to serving that interest.


US Legal (http://definitions.uslegal.com/s/strict-scrutiny/)




In 1996, Justice Scalia provided an explanation of the Court's application of its standards of scrutiny. He said

“I shall devote most of my analysis to evaluating the Court's opinion on the basis of our current equal protection jurisprudence, which regards this Court as free to evaluate everything under the sun by applying one of three tests: 'rational basis' scrutiny, intermediate scrutiny, or strict scrutiny. These tests are no more scientific than their names suggest, and a further element of randomness is added by the fact that it is largely up to us which test will be applied in each case. Strict scrutiny, we have said, is reserved for state 'classifications based on race or national origin and classifications affecting fundamental rights,' Clark v. Jeter, 486 U.S. 456, 461 (1988) (citation omitted). It is my position that the term 'fundamental rights' should be limited to 'interest[s] traditionally protected by our society,' Michael H. v. Gerald D., 491 U.S. 110, 122 (1989) (plurality opinion of Scalia, J.); but the Court has not accepted that view, so that strict scrutiny will be applied to the deprivation of whatever sort of right we consider 'fundamental.' We have no established criterion for 'intermediate scrutiny' either, but essentially apply it when it seems like a good idea to load the dice. So far it has been applied to content neutral restrictions that place an incidental burden on speech, to disabilities attendant to illegitimacy, and to discrimination on the basis of sex.

I have no problem with a system of abstract tests such as rational basis, intermediate, and strict scrutiny (though I think we can do better than applying strict scrutiny and intermediate scrutiny whenever we feel like it)." (United States v. Virginia et al. (94-1941), 518 U.S. 515 (1996))


I agree with Scalia that "strict scrutiny" as well as the other standards of scrutiny are unscientific and random. I believe they can also, as revealed in the dissents in Heller, be politically inspired in their "interpretation." And if not politically inspired, certainly bias or, simply, a different point of view can result in differing opinions and results. Which is why I don't think the Second Ammendment is "safe" from being transformed from original interpretation to some progressive, "Living Constitution" creature. If the Second Ammendment will in the future be more thoroughly reviewed, it may well depend on who sits on the court whether original interpretations will stand. And whether the idea that government's purpose, objective, or interest must be "compelling" again will ultimately be decided by the makeup of the Court. These are the kinds of judicial mechanisms that have been used to overcome originalism and textualism, and which have evolved to a great extent to do so. They are samples of evolved jurisprudence methodology that has created the "Living Constitution" and enabled progressive rule by men rather than by law.

I believe that the test to determine what a "fundamental right" is, is well established and now that fundamental status has been declared for the right to arms for self defense it can't be undone.

That all that judicial invention of standard of scrutiny exists, (along with selective incorporation), is why many people were so excited when SCOTUS granted cert to McDonald v Chicago and not NRA v Chicago (although they were joined later).

Conservatives and Liberals hoped that McDonald's primary argument that the right to arms is enforceable on the states by way of the 14th Amendment's "privileges or immunities" clause, meant the Court would revisit Slaughterhouse.

Slaughterhouse gutted the "privileges or immunities" clause which only left "due process' as the vehicle to apply the Bill of Rights to the states under the 14th Amendment. This also left unenumerated rights out in the cold, hence the "invention" of prenumbral rights including the right to privacy / Roe v Wade.

"Due process" demands a case by case, fact by fact inspection which of course leaves politically agenda driven judges and Justices plenty of parchment to add to the Constitution.

Thomas' concurrence in McDonald (http://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/08-1521#writing-ZC1) is a history lesson and an explanation and indictment of the "legal fiction" described above.

Thomas's concurrence is a blueprint of where we should be and I recommend everyone read it.

Liberals would be happy because the unenumerated rights they embrace would be secure without questionable reasoning and conservatives (at least those who cherish the Constitution, as opposed to "social' and "cultural" conservatives) would be happy because the Constitution would finally be enforced.

they want to ban assault weapons....it is in the wording if put on paper...define assault weapon....U try or come into my house with a bat....I in turn assault U with my single shot weapon...what would that law mean when given to an attorney???

I have plenty of fire power..not a single shot

He didn't, never has.

It's one of the fundamental problems with the entire gun debate. The gun advocates are pushing against a total ban to give them energy...while public opinion is heavy on reasonable control.

-spence
Again, since you continually ignore my replies, what is "reasonable control"? What is the statistical evidence to support any of the legislation being proposed in any state or at the federal level?

Care to support your claim that "public opinion is heavy on reasonable control"?

Seems more like the public would like existing laws to be enforced, see:
57% Think Enforcing Current Gun Laws More Important Than Creating New Laws - Rasmussen Reports (http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/current_events/gun_control/57_think_enforcing_current_gun_laws_more_important _than_creating_new_laws)
"just 32% of American Adults believe creation of new gun control laws is more important. Fifty-seven percent (57%) think more emphasis should be put on stricter enforcement of existing gun control laws."

65% See Gun Rights As Protection Against Tyranny - Rasmussen Reports (http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/current_events/gun_control/65_see_gun_rights_as_protection_against_tyranny)
"Not surprisingly, 72% of those with a gun in their family regard the Second Amendment as a protection against tyranny. However, even a majority (57%) of those without a gun in their home hold that view. " (emphasis mine)

If someone wants to claim bias, this is from an organization whose head *wants* Congress to enact more laws:
Rasmussen on gun violence: taking no action ‘perfectly wrong’ | TheBlaze.com (http://www.theblaze.com/blog/2013/01/18/scott-rasmussen-gun-violence/)


How about the Gallop poll? 51% against a new AWB.
Guns (http://www.gallup.com/poll/1645/guns.aspx)

So, once again spence, how about putting away feel good terms like "reasonable control" and actually being explicit? Provide some support that "public opinion is heavy on reasonable control".

Also, do you still disagree with Clinton and think it wasn't their gun control measures in '94 that beheaded the Democrats for almost a decade?

It's one of the fundamental problems with the entire gun debate. The gun advocates are pushing against a total ban to give them energy...while public opinion is heavy on reasonable control.

"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."

West Virginia State Bd. of Ed. v. Barnette, 319 U.S. 624, 638 (1943)

I believe that the test to determine what a "fundamental right" is, is well established and now that fundamental status has been declared for the right to arms for self defense it can't be undone.

It is telling that we have to "test" to determine what are fundamental rights. Would that "great residuum of everythng not conferred to government" be comprised of fundamental rights? Isn't that why the Federalists didn't want to create a Bill of Rights? And isn't what they warned against that which has happened? Haven't the Bill of Rights implied exceptions to powers not granted and afforded colorable pretext for the Federal Gvt. to claim more rights than were granted to it. And by doing so, has not that Federal Gvt. suppressed, usurped, or gained power over the vast residuum of individual rights, leaving only a violation of the Bill of Rights worthy of "Strict Scrutiny?"

And aren't even those rights in The Bill of Rights under assault?:

First Ammendment: Contraceptive insurance required even by certain religious orgs. The rather newly "found" Doctrine of Government Speech that can override individual speech.

2nd: The constant attempts by the Federal Gvt. to regulate, restrict, or ban arms.

4th: The Patriot Act.

5th: Kelo v. New London.

9th and 10th: Progressive judicial "interpretation" especially from FDR Court to the present have allowed the Federal Gvt. to wrest powers beyond the enumerated powers or have twisted the meaning of clauses which has debilitated or denied much of that "greate residuum" of rights that were to be retained by the people.

Thomas's concurrence is a blueprint of where we should be and I recommend everyone read it.



I followed your advice and did read it. I agree. Thomas is my favorite SCOTUS Judge. I think he is more faithful to the Constitution even than Scalia.

But Heller and McDonald were both 5 to 4 decisions. Kagan and Sotomayor didn't even bother to write a dissent in McDonald. I think that elections DO matter, and "fundamental rights" can be restricted or denied depending on who legislates and which judges have been appointed by those elected. Thomas and Scalia may not be sitting on the Court in the near future, and if progressive judges take their place, the assault on individual, "fundamental" rights will continue. And even if the Second Ammendment is now unassailable, which I don't think is true, given how that "great residuum" of rights has been gutted or put under the largesse of government, what use would the 2nd be if all others were taken? Are we worthy, as a people, of the Second Ammendment? Would we, under duress of losing our rights, actually put that Ammendment to the use for which it was ultimately intended?

I don't think so.

Looks like the Dems may not have enough votes to pass the ban... Some Dems are bailing because they know this will do nothing... :devil2:

Again, since you continually ignore my replies, what is "reasonable control"? What is the statistical evidence to support any of the legislation being proposed in any state or at the federal level?
I don't ignore your replies, I'm just not paying attention.

But as for gun control, it's certainly been studied and found that more guns = more gun crimes and stricter gun laws employed in other country has indeed had a significant impact on gun violence.

The challenge in the US is that there are so many firearms to begin with...the AWB was too short and too full of loopholes to provide a dramatic impact. That being said, the Feinstein proposal does cite several studies of it's benefits.

Care to support your claim that "public opinion is heavy on reasonable control"?
You could cite polls all day. We'll use yours.

Seems more like the public would like existing laws to be enforced, see:
57% Think Enforcing Current Gun Laws More Important Than Creating New Laws - Rasmussen Reports (http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/current_events/gun_control/57_think_enforcing_current_gun_laws_more_important _than_creating_new_laws)
"just 32% of American Adults believe creation of new gun control laws is more important. Fifty-seven percent (57%) think more emphasis should be put on stricter enforcement of existing gun control laws."

65% See Gun Rights As Protection Against Tyranny - Rasmussen Reports (http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/current_events/gun_control/65_see_gun_rights_as_protection_against_tyranny)
"Not surprisingly, 72% of those with a gun in their family regard the Second Amendment as a protection against tyranny. However, even a majority (57%) of those without a gun in their home hold that view. " (emphasis mine)

If someone wants to claim bias, this is from an organization whose head *wants* Congress to enact more laws:
Rasmussen on gun violence: taking no action ‘perfectly wrong’ | TheBlaze.com (http://www.theblaze.com/blog/2013/01/18/scott-rasmussen-gun-violence/)

I like how your last link cites 86% of Americans favoring stricter background checks :humpty:

Also, they people don't think the government can ban guns in a broad sense does in no way counter public opinion that we need more comprehensive control.

How about the Gallop poll? 51% against a new AWB.
Guns (http://www.gallup.com/poll/1645/guns.aspx)
Are you reading your own polls? This one says 50% of people favor stricter laws. 51% are dissatisfied with current law, A slim majority favors passing new laws over enforcement of existing challenging your earlier claim.

So, once again spence, how about putting away feel good terms like "reasonable control" and actually being explicit? Provide some support that "public opinion is heavy on reasonable control".
See above.

Also, do you still disagree with Clinton and think it wasn't their gun control measures in '94 that beheaded the Democrats for almost a decade?
Why would my position change?

Looks like the Dems may not have enough votes to pass the ban... Some Dems are bailing because they know this will do nothing... :devil2:
I think the real goal is to toughen up background checks more than anything else. There shouldn't be much opposition to closing the gun show loopholes etc...

-spence

I look at it like banning extra large soda drinks. It won't accomplish anything but some will say " well you have to start somewhere " . And there lies the truth behind an agenda
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I look at it like banning extra large soda drinks. It won't accomplish anything but some will say " well you have to start somewhere " . And there lies the truth behind an agenda
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
If the goal is total control over the people I think you'd want them as fat and sickly diabetic as possible.

-spence

I think the real goal is to toughen up background checks more than anything else. There shouldn't be much opposition to closing the gun show loopholes etc...

-spence

I thought the "real goal" was to stop the kind of recent violence that has prompted the latest call for action, how would what you mention as the "real goal" have stopped that violence? And if it wouldn't, how can we believe anything that you state? Pretty shameless and offensive if your "real goal" has nothing to do with your stated motivation, particularly when it involves little children....makes you really wonder about the "real goal" and "real motivation" :confused:

I thought the "real goal" was to stop the kind of recent violence that has prompted the latest call for action, how would what you mention as the "real goal" have stopped that violence? And if it wouldn't, how can we believe anything that you state? Pretty shameless and offensive if your "real goal" has nothing to do with your stated motivation, particularly when it involves little children....makes you really wonder about the "real goal" and "real motivation" :confused:

Real goal as in what they think they can accomplish. I think large cap mags they could probably get passed also. The full Feinstein proposal will be more challenging.

You did sound so passionate and genuine though. Thanks for caring.

-spence

Real goal as in what they think they can accomplish. I think large cap mags they could probably get passed also. The full Feinstein proposal will be more challenging.

You did sound so passionate and genuine though. Thanks for caring.

-spence

you've really got your sneer on today...:devil2:

add large cap mags to the list(tougher background checks and close gun show loopholes) and tell me which of the "real goals as in what they think they can accomplish" would have prevented the incidents that they/you are attempting to build your/their case with?

you've really got your sneer on today...:devil2:

add large cap mags to the list and tell me which of the "real goals as in what they think they can accomplish" would have prevented the incidents that they/you are attempting to build your/their case with?
This isn't about a single event, nor does it mean that there's a desire to restrict assault weapons by many.

-spence

This isn't about a single event, nor does it mean that there's a desire to restrict assault weapons by many.

-spence

BS :uhuh:

BS :uhuh:

Huh?

Do you mean bo schnizzle?

-spence

If the goal is total control over the people I think you'd want them as fat and sickly diabetic as possible.

-spence

You don't seem to grasp the method toward "total" control of the people employed by "soft tyranny" or "soft despotism." A soft despot is one who believes he has the well-being of the people as his goal, but that the people do not know what is best for them. He must convince them that he knows best and should be trusted with their welfare more than they themselves. He does that with language, often Orwellian, more than with weapons. As Woodrow Wilson said in his "The Study of Administration":

"Whoever would effect a change in a modern constitutional government must first educate his fellow-citizens to want some change. That done, he must persuade them to want the particular change he wants. He must first make public opinion willing to listen and then see to it that it listen to the right things. He must stir it up to search for an opinion, and then manage to put the right opinion it its way."

In America he must effect that change in its Constitution by transforming it from an immutable law that protects individual inalienable rights inherited by their nature and granted by nature's God, to a living and changeable system of government which grants those rights and without which there are no rights. And that government will be by men, not by law, and by men who are "experts," who will be the trustees and administrators of the good that will be regulated for and to the people.

And, as competent admistrators, the soft despots must not allow the people to become fat and diabetic, for that would create a financial, distributive, and moral burden on society, and especially on the administration. Limit and regulate the amount of fats and sugars in packaged foods, for instance, and regulate the size of soft drinks and tax and regulate destructive behaviour such as smoking, etc.

Real goal as in what they think they can accomplish.

-spence

That implies that there is a larger goal which they do not think they can accomplish now. Perhaps later. After they make incremental "accomplishments" along the way.

You don't seem to grasp the method toward "total" control of the people employed by "soft tyranny" or "soft despotism." A soft despot is one who believes he has the well-being of the people as his goal, but that the people do not know what is best for them. He must convince them that he knows best and should be trusted with their welfare more than they themselves. He does that with language, often Orwellian, more than with weapons. As Woodrow Wilson said in his "The Study of Administration":

"Whoever would effect a change in a modern constitutional government must first educate his fellow-citizens to want some change. That done, he must persuade them to want the particular change he wants. He must first make public opinion willing to listen and then see to it that it listen to the right things. He must stir it up to search for an opinion, and then manage to put the right opinion it its way."

In America he must effect that change in its Constitution by transforming it from an immutable law that protects individual inalienable rights inherited by their nature and granted by nature's God, to a living and changeable system of government which grants those rights and without which there are no rights. And that government will be by men, not by law, and by men who are "experts," who will be the trustees and administrators of the good that will be regulated for and to the people.

And, as competent admistrators, the soft despots must not allow the people to become fat and diabetic, for that would create a financial, distributive, and moral burden on society, and especially on the administration. Limit and regulate the amount of fats and sugars in packaged foods, for instance, and regulate the size of soft drinks and tax and regulate destructive behaviour such as smoking, etc.
I see, so the majority doesn't want stronger gun control because it's a rationally thought out position...but because their feeble minds have been controlled. Nice...

It's interesting you've quoted Wilson as some thought leader in progressive manipulation as casually as ScottW likes to trot out Saul Alinksy.

I like the text that precedes your quote:

Wherever regard for public opinion is a first principle of government, practical reform must be slow and all reform must be full of compromises. For wherever public opinion exists it must rule. This is now an axiom half the world over, and will presently come to be believed even in Russia.

Context is important here as at the time Alexander III was brutally cracking down on dissent against the will of the people.

-spence

That implies that there is a larger goal which they do not think they can accomplish now. Perhaps later. After they make incremental "accomplishments" along the way.

This assumes a collective agreement to seek the ban on all guns, I don't think there's any evidence that more than a tiny fraction of people (perhaps as small as Little Cats X, Y and Z) who really seek this aim. I don't believe President Obama even cares to tread here.

-spence

Wait, I thought this had nothing to do with his kids...now even their own lobbyist agrees??????

NRA lobbyist: Pro-gun ad referring to Obama's children 'ill-advised' - U.S. News (http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/01/25/16700937-nra-lobbyist-pro-gun-ad-referring-to-obamas-children-ill-advised?lite)

-spence

Wait, I thought this had nothing to do with his kids...now even their own lobbyist agrees??????

-spence

...talk about utter distortion....
'Wait, I thought this had nothing to do with his kids"...straw man...this has been covered...pay attention
"...now even their own lobbyist agrees??????"...he said it was "ill advised"...given the feigned indignation and the media devotion to all things Obama it might have been pedicted to be something that they could launch an assault with...and did, ignoring the obvious point and hypocricy as you continue to do

[QUOTE=spence;981767] I'm just not paying attention. QUOTE]



interesting caption under Obama's picture in your article...

Fulfilling a promise made in Newtown one month ago, President Obama is set to reveal proposals to curb gun violence, which will reportedly include universal background checks, a crackdown on gun trafficking, and a renewed assault weapons ban. NBC's Chuck Todd reports


I'll ask you again Spence...which of these new proposals that "fulfill a promise made at Newtown", would have prevented the gun violence at Newtown......?? are any of these going to "curb gun violence" in Chicago??

This assumes a collective agreement to seek the ban on all guns, I don't think there's any evidence that more than a tiny fraction of people (perhaps as small as Little Cats X, Y and Z) who really seek this aim. I don't believe President Obama even cares to tread here.

-spence

If the real goal was not to stop or diminish gun violence like that of Newtown, why did they use that as the springboard to this new goal of doing what they think they can accomplish? Are they trying to accomplish simply for the sake of accomplishing? Is it merely gathering a feather in their cap? To demonstrate that they are able to "accomplish?" Are they trying to limit large caps and create tighter background checks for no other reason than to limit large caps and create tighter background checks? Very convincing.

I see, so the majority doesn't want stronger gun control because it's a rationally thought out position...but because their feeble minds have been controlled. Nice...

I don't know what you think I was responding to, but it was to your "If the goal is total control over the people I think you'd want them as fat and sickly diabetic as possible." Ergo my note on soft despotism and the Wilsonian quotes. And so how soft tyranny would not "want them as fat and sickly diabetic as possible."

It's interesting you've quoted Wilson as some thought leader in progressive manipulation as casually as ScottW likes to trot out Saul Alinksy.

I have quoted other founders of the progressive movement, and none of it was casual. Nor do I think ScottW casually "trot" out Saul Alinsky. He does so with thoughtful application. Your attempt to marginalize by ridicule is Alinsky-like.

I have quoted Wilson, Dewey, Goodnow, and Croly, because they were intellectual and philosophical founders of the progressive movement. And especially Wilson because he was the most influental, especially as President.

I like the text that precedes your quote:

The text you cite speaks about public opinion ruling and reforms being slow and full of compromises. So what follows (and that which I quote) explains why it is necessary to bend popular opinion to that which would fit the desire of "whoever would effect a change . . ." Wilson was all about changing opinion about our system of government, and knew it would be difficult because it was so entrenched in the American mind. He said in the next paragraph of the same essay:

"Institutions which one generation regards as only a makeshift approximation to the realization of a principle, the next generation honors as the nearest possible approximation to that principle, and the next worships as the principle itself. It takes scarcely three generations for the apotheosis."

He was not an admirer of the common man's intellect, and was an elitist (as well as what liberals would now consider a racist). But he was, as were most progressives of the era, a moralist and a church goer, and was also, when he wrote "The Study of Administration," a believer in maintaining Americanism and its Constitution. Except that the Constitution was to be transformed into a living document, and government was also to be a living organism not merely a static structure.

But he also evolved into a lesser admirer of the Constitution, especially as President when he attempted to apply his progressive ideology. It was in his 1913 essay "What is Progress?" that he expounded his idea of a living Constitution that must evolve with time in a Darwinian fashion and that progress called for the elimination of obstacles such as checks and balances which interfered with the efficient administration of Central governance.

The progressives of today have evolved beyond Wilson and the early founders of the movement. They are not so careful of trying to maintain Americanism, or even a Darwinian Constitution. Quoting the progressives after Wilson would remove the idealism of progressive thought and expose it to be simply a hypocritical massive power grab by central authorities, ostensibly with the same ideal as service to the people, but not with the honor to American principles that Woodrow Wilson thought he espoused. His first disciple to achieve the presidency, FDR, governed in a way that Wilson disapproved. In his 1908 essay "The President of the United States" Wilson said:

"There are illegitimate means by which the President may influence the action of Congress. He may bargain with members, not only with regard to appointments, but also with regard to legislative measures. He may use his local patronage to assist members to get or retain their seats. He may interpose his powerful influence, in one covert way or another, in contests for places in the Senate. He may also overbear Congress by arbitrary acts which ignore the laws or virtually override them. He may even substitute his own orders for acts of Congress which he wants but cannot get. Such things are not only deeply immoral, they are destructive of the fundamental understandings of constitutional government, and, therefor, of constitutional government itself. . . . Nothing in a system like ours can be constitutional which is immoral or which touches the good faith of those who have sworn to obey the fundamental law."

It is in exactly these immoral ways that FDR brought into concrete existence the administrative state that Wilson so wanted, and the ways that president's, even more so progressive presidents, have ruled since. Wilson had too much faith in the progress of history which he believed had arrived at a point where we no longer had to fear powerful centralized government such as had existed under monarchies and ancient tyrannies. He said, also in "The Study of Administration,": "There is no danger in power, if only it be not irresponsible." And that it would be forced to be responsible the more it was centralized rather than dispersed because dispersion would hide it and centralizing it would make it "more easily watched and brought to book." It seems now, on the contrary, that blatant immorally unconstitutional actions by central authority are either not noticed or accepted as the way it should be.

That he favored central control of governance above constitutional checks and balances is also evident in his essay "Socialism and Democracy." In it he is approbative of socialism and he says:

"The thesis of the state socialist is, that no line can be drawn between private and public affairs which the State may not cross at will; that omnipotence of legislation is the first postulate of all just political theory. . . For it is very clear that in fundamental theory socialism and democracy are almost if not quite one and the same. They both rest at bottom upon the absolute right of the community to determine its own destiny and that of its members. Men as communities are supreme over men as individuals."

It is that socialistic strain that engenders the need for central authority and which has remained and expanded in progressive ideology. And not only is power not to be feared but neither is there fear of taint by implanting a powerful foreign 19th century German/French administrative system of governance into the American constitutional way. He said "We borrowed rice but we do not eat it with chopsticks." But governing is not like eating rice. You don't have to eat rice. But you cannot resist a government that is more powerful than you and is decreed by a "living Constitution" to do for you rather than being constrained by a legal Constitution which decrees what it must not do.

The progressives of today have evolved far beyond Wilson's vision, taking on that of FDR and becoming the foreign thing that Wilson thought was not possible. The benevolent central state operates in the way he said was immoral and by a more ancient top down authoritarian way that is antithetical to the Founders "American" way. And in this manner we have been progressively governed from FDR to his disciple Obama. And, like Wilson, we refer to ourselves as a Democracy not a Republic. And, as Wilson said, "in fundamental theory socialism and democracy are almost if not quite one and the same." That minute distinction "not quite" has diminished even further. And progressives are now becoming more open about not just adhering to a "living" Constitution, but about discarding the hypocrisy by openly abandoning constitutional shackles , as the constitutional law professor Seidman proposed in his NY Times op ed.


Context is important here as at the time Alexander III was brutally cracking down on dissent against the will of the people.

-spence

And the obstinate American will could not be cracked down by such harsh tyranny, but had to be persuaded by a softer one which saw "to it that it listen to the right things . . . and then manage to put the right opinion in its way."

I'm tending to my boeuf bourguignon. Take your time :smokin:

-spence

I'm tending to my boeuf bourguignon. Take your time :smokin:

-spence

I will be there in 20! :ss:
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I will be there in 20! :ss:
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Need to set up a dinner party while the other is in RI.

-spence

She's here now. Until May. :love:
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

She's here now. Until May. :love:
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Good luck with that! :rotf2:

Good luck with that! :rotf2:

You also, need to make some chix and dumplings.

-spence

Good luck with that! :rotf2:

Notice how I have scheduled her departure upon morone saxatilus' arrival. :hihi:
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Cinder worm hatch started in April last year

I get tired of the he said, she said.
Here is a subject that has not been discussed by either side, of course it is from a fringe publication............

What Obama's gun proposals left out - CSMonitor.com (http://www.csmonitor.com/Commentary/the-monitors-view/2013/0116/What-Obama-s-gun-proposals-left-out?nav=topic-tag_topic_page-storyLis)

I'm tending to my boeuf bourguignon. Take your time :smokin:

-spence

I'm sure, because of your renowned culinary artistry, that the boeuf was boffo. :)

I get tired of the he said, she said.
Here is a subject that has not been discussed by either side, of course it is from a fringe publication............

What Obama's gun proposals left out - CSMonitor.com (http://www.csmonitor.com/Commentary/the-monitors-view/2013/0116/What-Obama-s-gun-proposals-left-out?nav=topic-tag_topic_page-storyLis)

Lot of sense in the article. But it misses the point that Spence brought up that the real goal wasn't to curb mass shootings, but the real goal is to accomplish what they can accomplish.

Lot of sense in the article. But it misses the point that Spence brought up that the real goal wasn't to curb mass shootings, but the real goal is to accomplish what they can accomplish.
You're not suggesting that this was a plan waiting for the right disaster, are you?
There is also a interesting opinion piece by David Mamet in Newsweek, of course he is now a brain dead conservative rather than a brain dead liberal.
A paragraph that I love from that:
The Left loves a phantom statistic that a firearm in the hands of a citizen is X times more likely to cause accidental damage than to be used in the prevention of crime, but what is there about criminals that ensures that their gun use is accident-free? If, indeed, a firearm were more dangerous to its possessors than to potential aggressors, would it not make sense for the government to arm all criminals, and let them accidentally shoot themselves? Is this absurd? Yes, and yet the government, of course, is arming criminals.

"I'm tending to my boeuf bourguignon. Take your time :smokin:"

-spence

translation....

"I've been evicerated once again. Maybe I'll take up cooking :stir: "

Lot of sense in the article. But it misses the point that Spence brought up that the real goal wasn't to curb mass shootings, but the real goal is to accomplish what they can accomplish.

it only took 1 sentence to miss it...:uhuh: but it at least points out the fact that much of the violence that they claim to address in this unleashing of government letters, memorandums, incentives and such... is actually the (un)? intended consequences of 50 plus years of previous letters, memorandums, incentives and progressive attempts to "solve" our society's problems as they progressively debase our culture....

"President Obama took 23 executive actions on Wednesday to curb firearm-related deaths. That and his proposals to Congress for new gun laws are a necessary response to the shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Conn."

if you just read the bold..... "publish a letter"..it's pretty comical.... the rest is just blather and more progressive power grab

The President is announcing that he and the Administration will:

1. Issue a Presidential Memorandum to require federal agencies to make relevant data available to the federal background check system.

2. Address unnecessary legal barriers, particularly relating to the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, that may prevent states from making information available to the background check system.

3. Improve incentives for states to share information with the background check system.

4. Direct the Attorney General to review categories of individuals prohibited from having a gun to make sure dangerous people are not slipping through the cracks.

5. Propose rulemaking to give law enforcement the ability to run a full background check on an individual before returning a seized gun.

6. Publish a letter from ATF to federally licensed gun dealers providing guidance on how to run background checks for private sellers.

7. Launch a national safe and responsible gun ownership campaign.

8. Review safety standards for gun locks and gun safes (Consumer Product Safety Commission).

9. Issue a Presidential Memorandum to require federal law enforcement to trace guns recovered in criminal investigations.

10. Release a DOJ report analyzing information on lost and stolen guns and make it widely available to law enforcement.

11. Nominate an ATF director.

12. Provide law enforcement, first responders, and school officials with proper training for active shooter situations.

13. Maximize enforcement efforts to prevent gun violence and prosecute gun crime.

14. Issue a Presidential Memorandum directing the Centers for Disease Control to research the causes and prevention of gun violence.

15. Direct the Attorney General to issue a report on the availability and most effective use of new gun safety technologies and challenge the private sector to develop innovative technologies.

16. Clarify that the Affordable Care Act does not prohibit doctors asking their patients about guns in their homes.

17. Release a letter to health-care providers clarifying that no federal law prohibits them from reporting threats of violence to law-enforcement authorities.

18. Provide incentives for schools to hire school resource officers.

19. Develop model emergency-response plans for schools, houses of worship and institutions of higher education.

20. Release a letter to state health officials clarifying the scope of mental-health services that Medicaid plans must cover.

21. Finalize regulations clarifying essential health benefits and parity requirements within ACA exchanges.

22. Commit to finalizing mental-health-parity regulations.

23. Launch a national dialogue led by Secretaries Sebelius and Duncan on mental health


he's gonnna need a vacation after he gets done with all of this launching and letter writing:uhuh:

I think the real goal is to toughen up background checks more than anything else. There shouldn't be much opposition to closing the gun show loopholes etc...

-spence

You wont get any argument here, but down south , they will have a problem with that.

Did I tell you that my grandfather was a cobbler?:biglaugh:

This isn't about a single event, nor does it mean that there's a desire to restrict assault weapons by many.

-spence

Again you are correct, since Feinstein has been telling everyone since last summer she was going to reintroduce this legislation once Obama started a 2nd term..

Did I tell you that my grandfather was a cobbler?:biglaugh:
:cputin:

-spence

Lot of sense in the article. But it misses the point that Spence brought up that the real goal wasn't to curb mass shootings, but the real goal is to accomplish what they can accomplish.
That would be an Alinksy-like manipulation of what I said.

-spence

Again you are correct, since Feinstein has been telling everyone since last summer she was going to reintroduce this legislation once Obama started a 2nd term..

don't encourage him...these were non-answers that he vomited up in response to direct questions...:)

Quote:
Originally Posted by scottw
you've really got your sneer on today...

add large cap mags to the list and tell me which of the "real goals as in what they think they can accomplish" would have prevented the incidents that they/you are attempting to build your/their case with?



Quote:

This isn't about a single event, nor does it mean that there's a desire to restrict assault weapons by many.

-spence


maybe this one??

21. Finalize regulations clarifying essential health benefits and parity requirements within ACA exchanges.

But as for gun control, it's certainly been studied and found that more guns = more gun crimes

I know there are some studies that make that statement, but when one examines them, you see all manner of massaging and imprecise data being cobbled together.

To me, "more guns = more gun crimes" is a very simple premise that demands a simple proof. Once you read those studies and find you need to consider subjective controls and regression coefficient or internalizing externality, you have moved past being able to present that simple premise to us regular clods at face value.

When one actually examines the numbers we find "more guns = more gun crimes" really can't be argued at all, even with all the econometric funny business.
In 1986 13,029 people out of a population of 240,133,048 were killed with a gun.

In 2006 12,791 people out of a population of 298,754,819 were killed with a gun.

20 years + 60,000,000 people + 80,000,000 guns = FEWER HOMICIDES?


How can that be?

and stricter gun laws employed in other country has indeed had a significant impact on gun violence.

Those nations that have strict gun control (usually Britain without Ireland, wink, wink is cited) have had it for centuries and it was enacted and enforced for political reasons not crime control.

That a subservient, obedient, well mannered population doesn't commit much murder isn't so noteworthy. The laws that have been more recently enacted in response to crime have not been all that effective. Trying to control criminals with an over representation of recent immigrant Eastern European and Jamaicans, who have no allegiance to the British traditions and live in separate criminal syndicate enclaves from the British people, is not an easy task no matter how strict the laws are.

the Feinstein proposal does cite several studies of it's benefits.

I am very interested in this never before known attribute of AR-15 rifles the Evil Queen herself was talking about today.

"The more you have these weapons, these military style weapons, that with a single slide stock on the AR-15 can be made fully automatic, the minute you have that, in like the Sandy Hook killer's hands, you have a devastating weapon."


Senator Diane Feinstein (D-CA)
Sunday, January 27, 2013
CNN's "State of the Union with Candy Crowley", @ 6:20 mark (http://sotu.blogs.cnn.com/2013/01/27/sen-feinstein-takes-on-assault-weapons/) (until it is scrubbed)


Between the Evil Queen's full auto stock slide and McCarthy's "stock thing that goes up" barrel shroud, I think these two could go on the road, doing an Abbott and Costello act about these amazing fantasmagorical Chitty Chitty Bang Bang AR-15's.


http://i1289.photobucket.com/albums/b501/Abatis1789/LL_zps52d0462e.jpg

Idiots, absolute idiots taking charge over our rights . . .

Carolyn McCarthy - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ospNRk2uM3U&feature=player_embedded)

I know there are some studies that make that statement, but when one examines them, you see all manner of massaging and imprecise data being cobbled together.

To me, "more guns = more gun crimes" is a very simple premise that demands a simple proof. Once you read those studies and find you need to consider subjective controls and regression coefficient or internalizing externality, you have moved past being able to present that simple premise to us regular clods at face value.

When one actually examines the numbers we find "more guns = more gun crimes" really can't be argued at all, even with all the econometric funny business.
In 1986 13,029 people out of a population of 240,133,048 were killed with a gun.

In 2006 12,791 people out of a population of 298,754,819 were killed with a gun.

20 years + 60,000,000 people + 80,000,000 guns = FEWER HOMICIDES?


How can that be?



Those nations that have strict gun control (usually Britain without Ireland, wink, wink is cited) have had it for centuries and it was enacted and enforced for political reasons not crime control.

That a subservient, obedient, well mannered population doesn't commit much murder isn't so noteworthy. The laws that have been more recently enacted in response to crime have not been all that effective. Trying to control criminals with an over representation of recent immigrant Eastern European and Jamaicans, who have no allegiance to the British traditions and live in separate criminal syndicate enclaves from the British people, is not an easy task no matter how strict the laws are.



I am very interested in this never before known attribute of AR-15 rifles the Evil Queen herself was talking about today.

"The more you have these weapons, these military style weapons, that with a single slide stock on the AR-15 can be made fully automatic, the minute you have that, in like the Sandy Hook killer's hands, you have a devastating weapon."


Senator Diane Feinstein (D-CA)
Sunday, January 27, 2013
CNN's "State of the Union with Candy Crowley", @ 6:20 mark (http://sotu.blogs.cnn.com/2013/01/27/sen-feinstein-takes-on-assault-weapons/) (until it is scrubbed)


Between the Evil Queen's full auto stock slide and McCarthy's "stock thing that goes up" barrel shroud, I think these two could go on the road, doing an Abbott and Costello act about these amazing fantasmagorical Chitty Chitty Bang Bang AR-15's.


http://i1289.photobucket.com/albums/b501/Abatis1789/LL_zps52d0462e.jpg

Idiots, absolute idiots taking charge over our rights . . .

Carolyn McCarthy - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ospNRk2uM3U&feature=player_embedded)


Thats awesome, I like how he asks her flat out what a barrel shroud is, idiots....

While I am not for any more laws with regards to our 2nd ammendment rights, there is a stock that can turn an AR into an almost full auto.

Incredible Bump Fire! New ATF Approved stock for AR-15 Allows Easy and Safe Bump firing - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_U6tORrODJE)

:confused:

Vic

While I am not for any more laws with regards to our 2nd ammendment rights, there is a stock that can turn an AR into an almost full auto.

Incredible Bump Fire! New ATF Approved stock for AR-15 Allows Easy and Safe Bump firing - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_U6tORrODJE)

:confused:

Vic

curious that this is "ATF Approved"...I thought they were all caught up in "curbing gun violence"...or maybe that's just since Sandy Hook

I was curious exactly when this was "approved" and to know more about it's approval...the Wiki link regarding "bump fire"...provides a reference and a link to the ATF approval letter but the link doesn't work....this is apparently a 2011 product so I guess we can't blame it on Bush or the Bush ATF ....and ATF has approved but then reversed decision on previous such devices "Akins Accelerator "

The inaccuracy, difficulty, and ammunition costs render the practice uncommon.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bump_fire

curious that this is "ATF Approved"...I thought they were all caught up in "curbing gun violence"...or maybe that's just since Sandy Hook
My understanding is that they fall into a grey area when it comes to the ATF definition of automatic weapon. Technically, the gun still functions within their definition - only one bullet ejected from the barrel per pull of the trigger.

From what I remember, the ATF has tried to leverage "physical effort" in order to make a ruling against the stocks. Interestingly, many current models of the stock ship with a copy of the ATF letter stating the aftermarket stock has been evaluated by the ATF and is currently legal.

http://www.slidefire.com/downloads/BATFE.pdf

gotta love creeping incrementalism

gotta love creeping incrementalism



:rotf2:

I can't believe people think they will be safer if only the criminals have guns.

Heard on the radio that a little girl , 3 years old , was sent home from preschool for doing the old thumb and forefinger bang , bang , bang thing. Talk about crazy school officials!

If it could work so well in NY, why not Afganistan

Afghanistan Declared Gun-Free Zone | The Duffel Blog (http://www.duffelblog.com/2013/01/afghanistan-declared-gun-free-zone/)



Warning: satire

As I said I am not going to get involved in the debate but only report facts and listen to the uninformed have it.

Don't know if this fact has been reported here yet:

The coroner has released some info along with police. An AR-15 was not used in the school shooting. The shooter even tried weeks earlier to buy a rifle but was turned down in the background check. So he had to kill his mother to steal her rifle. There were initial reports, right after the shooting, that police found the AR-15 in his car, NOT IN THE SCHOOL. The rifle was not used.Not one body was found with a wound caused by a .223(5.56mm) round.The shooter went into the school with 4 handguns, NOT an assault rifle as the media has charged.In the initial hours of this shooting, the Police said they found the rifle in the car.The Media (and the Obama Admin) which included people like Piers Morgan who said the shooter used an AR-15 that shoots hundreds of rounds per minute, as if it were a machine gun continued to report this as fact.

Question:So why the push to ban semi-automatic rifles?

Answer:

The state police reported the primary weapon was the Bushmaster. What's the conflicting source?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

As sad as it is to have Spence be right
State Police: All 26 Newtown victims shot with assault rifle - Connecticut Post (http://www.ctpost.com/newtownshooting/article/State-Police-All-26-Newtown-victims-shot-with-4222299.php)

My question is why Pete Williams reported otherwise.

Some have cited a Dec. 15 Today show video clip from the day after the shooting, in which NBC News Justice Department correspondent Pete Williams said that four handguns were recovered inside Sandy Hook Elementary School and that the Bushmaster rifle was found in the trunk of a car owned by Lanza's slain mother, Nancy Lanza.

The conflicting source is NBC itself.

The state police went so far as a to issue a news release on Jan. 18 listing the weapons recovered from inside the school, which included the Bushmaster, a Glock 10mm handgun and a Sig-Sauer P226 9mm handgun. An Izhmash Canta-12 12-gauge shotgun was taken from the trunk of the suspect's car.Lt. Vance is under extreme pressure by the justice department to state this.

Simply put the above statement is not true.The weapon recovered from the trunk was indeed the aforementioned AR15 and 4 handguns were indeed recovered inside the school.The initial reports are the accurate ones.....they ALWAYS are.

Guess I'm involved now.

My question is why Pete Williams reported otherwise.

Some have cited a Dec. 15 Today show video clip from the day after the shooting, in which NBC News Justice Department correspondent Pete Williams said that four handguns were recovered inside Sandy Hook Elementary School and that the Bushmaster rifle was found in the trunk of a car owned by Lanza's slain mother, Nancy Lanza.

The conflicting source is NBC itself.

The state police went so far as a to issue a news release on Jan. 18 listing the weapons recovered from inside the school, which included the Bushmaster, a Glock 10mm handgun and a Sig-Sauer P226 9mm handgun. An Izhmash Canta-12 12-gauge shotgun was taken from the trunk of the suspect's car.Lt. Vance is under extreme pressure by the justice department to state this.

Simply put the above statement is not true.The weapon recovered from the trunk was indeed the aforementioned AR15 and 4 handguns were indeed recovered inside the school.The initial reports are the accurate ones.....they ALWAYS are.

Guess I'm involved now.

So...
You are basing it on misreporting on NBC, and a conspiracy that the sherrif is being pressured to say this?

For what it's worth, did anyone see LaPierre with Chris Wallace this weekend?

To our anti-constitutionalists here...what country has the lowest crime rate on the planet?

Get it right.You won't believe it and you damn well won't except how its possible.

So...
You are basing it on misreporting on NBC, and a conspiracy that the sherrif is being pressured to say this?

For what it's worth, did anyone see LaPierre with Chris Wallace this weekend?

I'm sure you didn't mean misreporting,you surely must've meant mis-spoke,NBC NEVER misreports.No conspiracy here,he was pressured to say what he did as well as the media.

The initial reports are the accurate ones.....they ALWAYS are.


So it really was Ryan Lanza not Adam Lanza that shot all those kids..... as initially reported

So it really was Ryan Lanza not Adam Lanza that shot all those kids..... as initially reported
Good point, they've arrested the wrong man!

-spence

To our anti-constitutionalists here...what country has the lowest crime rate on the planet?

Get it right.You won't believe it and you damn well won't except how its possible.

Please explain :devil2:

In detail :hihi:

-spence

So it really was Ryan Lanza not Adam Lanza that shot all those kids..... as initially reported

Unreal.Won't even bother with that lameness.

Please explain :devil2:

In detail :hihi:

-spence

You're better that that.You don't need me to hand hold you through this one.Do a little research.

I will give you one clue...it ain't the USA.

I'm sure you didn't mean misreporting,you surely must've meant mis-spoke,NBC NEVER misreports.No conspiracy here,he was pressured to say what he did as well as the media.

Misreport, as in didn't get the story right. You can assume malice if you want, I just figure Pete Williams was rushing to get it on air and had a bad source.

who pressured the sheriff, and do you believe the NBC report over the State Police??

You're better that that.You don't need me to hand hold you through this one.Do a little research.

I will give you one clue...it ain't the USA.

Hahaha you don't mean Switzerland do you? Please say no...

-spence

Here is the part I find interesting
Everyone is scared of the awful Assault rifle
It's pretty hard to conceal an rifle or shotgun
A pistol is much easier to conceal and used in far more murders in the US than rifles or shotguns.
More people are killed by hand, foot or pushed than by rifles
http://www.google.com/url?q=http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/2012/tables/12s0310.pdf&sa=U&ei=Cj4QUdqvMua40QHAwoCIAQ&ved=0CBsQFjAB&usg=AFQjCNGgXfemHsYZ1qeK6CK7BtBHWUayfw
Why is the emphasis on "assault" rifles?
Why is the murder rate per capita so much higher in Chicago than NY?
Do you honestly think gun laws make the difference?

They should make knives illegal too
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Why is the emphasis on "assault" rifles?
Because they look scary and emotion is more effective for politicians to leverage than logic. Being able to ban one type of weapon sets a precedent and allows the gun control crowd to get their foot in the door towards banning all guns.

This is also why the gun grabbers define "legitimate need" to only be hunting.

Because they look scary and emotion is more effective for politicians to leverage than logic. Being able to ban one type of weapon sets a precedent and allows the gun control crowd to get their foot in the door towards banning all guns.

This is also why the gun grabbers define "legitimate need" to only be hunting.
False on all counts.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

How is that lameness.....you said "the initial reports are the accurate ones.They always are"....l pointed out that they didn't even get the shooter right in the initial reports.

Unreal.Won't even bother with that lameness.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

False on all counts.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Then what is the rational thought for banning assault rifles, they are involved in few crimes, though perhaps some horrific ones that have been ranked in the news media.
If the intent is to reduce gun crime, would handguns not be the logical target?

The rational thought is that when someone wants to kill a lot of people with a gun, they go for the weapon with the largest magazine capacity.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

After looking thru the FBI reports on Murder in the United States

FBI — Table 20 (http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in-the-u.s.-2011/tables/table-20)

I had to check at the top under Scams & Safety to see if what the politicians are trying to do is listed there.
If ALL rifles were illegal It would only change the murder rate by 2.5%, now handguns are another story.

The rational thought is that when someone wants to kill a lot of people with a gun, they go for the weapon with the largest magazine capacity.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Fortunately most murderers have only 1 or 2 targets in mind, mass murderers just want to be on top of the list and if quantity is how you are rated by the rating agency (media) then you need the best weapon you can get for the job.
Don't forget the largest school slaying was in 1927 and was done with a bomb.

The way this was reported reminds me of , oh, maybe Benghazi ?? Do I sense a pattern here ?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Ban baseball bats from the Little league up to the pros can be and have been used as assault weapons....:) :)

False on all counts.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Like most of your other drive-by contrarian replies, easy to say when you make no effort to support a claim.

If ALL rifles were illegal It would only change the murder rate by 2.5%, now handguns are another story.
Senator Frankenstein tries to make claims like this, but the conclusion is incorrect because it assumes that if a rifle were not available, another option would not have been used.