NRA

[scottw]

Originally Posted by spence

My expectation is that you can read a sentence and think critically.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

your sentences are so frequently full of convoluted points, made up reality and vague claims of fact....it's difficult sometimes to make sense of them...but they can be amusing

no doubt you'll demand evidence....sooo...just start with the post that you made to open the thread......


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"NRA

I'm surprised nobody has remarked about the quite surreal response by the NRA given after the Newtown tragedy. Even usual conservative papers are drilling into LaPierre for being a nut case.

Why is it that the NRA can't even have an adult conversation about tho topic of gun violence without going into near apoplexy over the notion that a weapon was even at the crime scene?

The NRA has the potential here to add constructive representation to the firearm violence discussion which is going to happen this year like it or not...but this early position I think has done much to hurt their credibility and likely their membership as well.

-spence"


a lot of opinion/hyperbole based in no fact and as for the last sentence...

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/0...n_2449236.html

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/publ...child_s_school

[JohnR]

Hi Carl - long time

[ReelinRod]

Originally Posted by spence

Legislative interp was meant to infer a lot of legislation has been interpreted and found Constitutional by the Judicial branch. Doubt it's a standard phrase...

And your fundamental premise is as flawed as your lexicon.

Yes, hundreds of state and federal gun control have been challenged and upheld over the last 71 years . . . problem for your side is that the legal support for those decisions has been extinguished.

The "militia right" and state's right" interpretations were inserted into the federal courts in 1942. The First and Third Circuits ignored and dismissed SCOTUS in order to do this. Subsequent gun / 2nd Amendment cases were decided citing this invented "militia right" or "state's right" and the claims of 2ndA rights injury by various and assorted individual American citizens were denied / struck down.

In 2008 Heller slapped the federal courts back into obeying SCOTUS and finally invalidated those perversions . . . So . . . the mass of state and lower federal court decisions resting on that invalid reasoning are now themselves infirm and stand as merely "presumptively lawful".

Scalia's oft quoted:

"nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. 26"

Shouldn't be read divorced from its footnote:

"26 We identify these presumptively lawful regulatory measures only as examples; our list does not purport to be exhaustive."

No doubt was cast because none of those presumptively lawful laws were being examined under Heller's re-affirmed doctrine and the Court in Heller, did not "undertake an exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of the Second Amendment".

One of the first cases to follow Heller was the California case of Nordyke v King which was re-heard after Heller:

". . . we must first decide whether Heller abrogated Hickman. It did. Hickman rested on our conclusion that the Second Amendment protects only a collective right; Heller squarely overruled such conclusion. . . . Thus the basis for Hickman’s holding has evaporated, and the opinion is clearly irreconcilable with Heller. In such circumstances, we consider our prior decision abrogated by higher authority."

Nordyke v King, pg 4475-4476, (April 20, 2009) (194KB .pdf)

That is what's in store for hundreds of gun control laws that you take for granted right now which rest only on collective / militia / State "right" perversions. As an aside, most of those state cases recognize the root incompatibility of their holdings with the concept of liberty, so they claim that even if the 2ndA does secure an individual right, the 2nd has no force against state laws . . . Well, that is now dead too, post McDonald v Chicago.

[detbuch]

I am not overly optimistic that any SCOTUS decision is written in stone, including Heller and Mcdonald. Those were 5 to 4 decisions as are so many nowadays. A matter of one vote can affirm or reverse decisions. Considering what has happened to the rest of the Constitution, ex Bill of Rights, and the constant nibbling even at those rights, I think we have to be reminded that eternal vigilance is the price of liberty. I think, also, that vigilance without wisdom or understanding, is merely vigilance by the ignorant. When the people see through a glass darkly, or glasses tinted by the color of a soft tyranny which paints pictures of a benevolent state giving them happiness merely paid for by the price of transferring their awsome burden of responsibility to the State, they are ripe for less soft, harsher tyrannies.

[ReelinRod]

Originally Posted by detbuch

I am not overly optimistic that any SCOTUS decision is written in stone, including Heller and Mcdonald. Those were 5 to 4 decisions as are so many nowadays. A matter of one vote can affirm or reverse decisions.

But what is left to reverse in Heller?

Both dissents rely on twisted logic and hiding from sight many fundamental tenets of the Constitution that the Court has settled long ago and are not open to revisiting.

Both dissents agree that the right secured by the 2nd is an individual right, possessed and enforceable by individuals but they each embrace a "militia conditioned individual right" model. This theory is just the latest in a series of endless step backs from more restrictive interpretive mutations. As each previous layer is torn away and discarded the anti-individual right side just embraces a new restrictive model and present it as the original meaning of the 2nd Amendment. Typical shape-shifting leftists that we are forced to endure . . .

The original, "militia right" and "state's right" interpretations inserted in the federal courts in 1942 which only served to completely extinguish the individual right interpretation, are dead; there is no going back to them. The flesh has been flayed off those theories to the point where now just a couple bones (the "militia conditioned individual right) are being rattled and shaken by the leftist Witch Doctors to try to scare away the the "individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia" interpretation. Well, it isn't going to work.

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.

This theory that the dissents are arguing is just the very last straw to grasp before the entire anti-individual right camp is discarded into the "flat-earth" bin . . .

[spence]

Originally Posted by ReelinRod

And your fundamental premise is as flawed as your lexicon.

My lexicon is not flawed. Judges interpret legislation to test adherence to the Constitution.

Yes, hundreds of state and federal gun control have been challenged and upheld over the last 71 years . . . problem for your side is that the legal support for those decisions has been extinguished.

The "militia right" and state's right" interpretations were inserted into the federal courts in 1942. The First and Third Circuits ignored and dismissed SCOTUS in order to do this. Subsequent gun / 2nd Amendment cases were decided citing this invented "militia right" or "state's right" and the claims of 2ndA rights injury by various and assorted individual American citizens were denied / struck down.

In 2008 Heller slapped the federal courts back into obeying SCOTUS and finally invalidated those perversions . . . So . . . the mass of state and lower federal court decisions resting on that invalid reasoning are now themselves infirm and stand as merely "presumptively lawful".

People say the big deal about Heller was the validation of the individual right but I'm not so sure. The idea of the a militia at the time of the Constitution was made up of individuals who would bring the guns they'd use for hunting or personal protection into service with them. The individual right to own has always been there, it just hasn't been explicitly validated, what to own or for what purpose is still an open question.

Scalia's oft quoted:

"nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. 26"

Shouldn't be read divorced from its footnote:

"26 We identify these presumptively lawful regulatory measures only as examples; our list does not purport to be exhaustive."

No doubt was cast because none of those presumptively lawful laws were being examined under Heller's re-affirmed doctrine and the Court in Heller, did not "undertake an exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of the Second Amendment".

You're spinning the footnote.

That the research was not "exhaustive" is irrelevant as the opinion is very clear in it's support for Miller. To say they didn't contest because that was outside of the case would be wrong as the opinion appears to endorse previous judgements.

One of the first cases to follow Heller was the California case of Nordyke v King which was re-heard after Heller:

". . . we must first decide whether Heller abrogated Hickman. It did. Hickman rested on our conclusion that the Second Amendment protects only a collective right; Heller squarely overruled such conclusion. . . . Thus the basis for Hickman’s holding has evaporated, and the opinion is clearly irreconcilable with Heller. In such circumstances, we consider our prior decision abrogated by higher authority."

Nordyke v King, pg 4475-4476, (April 20, 2009) (194KB .pdf)

You're mixing cut and pastes together.

That is what's in store for hundreds of gun control laws that you take for granted right now which rest only on collective / militia / State "right" perversions. As an aside, most of those state cases recognize the root incompatibility of their holdings with the concept of liberty, so they claim that even if the 2ndA does secure an individual right, the 2nd has no force against state laws . . . Well, that is now dead too, post McDonald v Chicago.

What's significant about these cases is also what's not significant. Yes, by narrow margin they established that common firearms can't be totally banned and that States must adhere to the Second Amendment...but beyond that don't expand on what that really means in any new way.

The idea that the potential is now there to invalidate all gun laws is pretty absurd and generally runs against public opinion.

-spence

[spence]

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

[ReelinRod]

Originally Posted by spence

My lexicon is not flawed. Judges interpret legislation to test adherence to the Constitution.

I was having a laugh at your expense, re: your exchange with Scott and the ungoogleability of the words you were using . . . LOL

Originally Posted by spence

People say the big deal about Heller was the validation of the individual right but I'm not so sure.

The reaffirming of the individual right was not new or remarkable nor did it upset any Supreme Court precedent. What it did do was invalidate the "militia right" and "state's right" interpretations established by U.S. v. Tot, 131 F.2d 261 (3 rd Cir. 1942) and Cases v. U.S, 131 F.2d 916 (1 st Cir. 1942) respectively. Those new interpretations forced gun rights / 2nd Amendment jurisprudence off the constitutional rail between 1942 and 2008. Every case decided between those dates that use the "militia right" or "state's right" (or as we have seen in Nordyke citing Hickman, the catch all "collective right") are now infirm which means the laws that they upheld on those grounds are now infirm.

Those decisions are like a group of drunks all leaning on one another leaning on the same lamppost. . . Heller knocked the lamp post down . . .

Originally Posted by spence

The individual right to own has always been there, it just hasn't been explicitly validated, what to own or for what purpose is still an open question.

Of course it has been established. Miller did that and Heller follows that lead. The hyperbolic explanation of what Miller set out was the justification for the Cases court to invent the "militia right" out of thin air.

" . . . if the rule of the Miller case is general and complete, the result would follow that, under present day conditions, the federal government would be empowered only to regulate the possession or use of weapons such as a flintlock musket or a matchlock harquebus. But to hold that the Second Amendment limits the federal government to regulations concerning only weapons which can be classed as antiques or curiosities,-- almost any other might bear some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia unit of the present day,-- is in effect to hold that the limitation of the Second Amendment is absolute. Another objection to the rule of the Miller case as a full and general statement is that according to it Congress would be prevented by the Second Amendment from regulating the possession or use by private persons not present or prospective members of any military unit, of distinctly military arms, such as machine guns, trench mortars, anti-tank or anti-aircraft guns, even though under the circumstances surrounding such possession or use it would be inconceivable that a private person could have any legitimate reason for having such a weapon. It seems to us unlikely that the framers of the Amendment intended any such result."

Cases v. U.S, 131 F.2d 916 (1 st Cir. 1942) (40K pdf)

Originally Posted by spence

You're spinning the footnote.

Not really. Circuit courts are still examining what should be unimpeachable felon dispossession statutes and Heller's "presumptively lawful" statement is why. Felon dispossession statutes do not rely on the "militia right" or "state's right" interpretations of the 2nd Amendment so they have passed constitutional muster but Heller does direct these Courts to hear argument that "presumptively lawful" restrictions fail constitutional muster:

"As the Government concedes, Heller’s statement regarding the presumptive validity of felon gun dispossession statutes does not foreclose Barton’s as-applied challenge. By describing the felon disarmament ban as “presumptively” lawful, the Supreme Court implied that the presumption may be rebutted."

U.S. v. Barton, 633 F.3d 168 (3d Cir. 2011) (58kb pdf) (internal citation removed)

Pretend all you want but when laws upheld with cites to Tot or Cases (or later cases Stevens or Warin etc, etc citing Tot or Cases) come before any court, they will fall.

Originally Posted by spence

That the research was not "exhaustive" is irrelevant as the opinion is very clear in it's support for Miller. To say they didn't contest because that was outside of the case would be wrong as the opinion appears to endorse previous judgements.

Previous Supreme Court decisions . . . I am talking about lower federal and state court decisions post Cases and Tot that used the "militia right" and "state's right" to sustain the constitutionality of gun control laws contested on 2nd Amendment grounds . . . The premise of those holdings has been invalidated by higher authority (and were in fact invalid when Cases and Tot inserted them into the federal court system but that's another discussion).

Originally Posted by spence

You're mixing cut and pastes together.

No, I'm not, but please, feel free to point out and explain my error . . .

Originally Posted by spence

What's significant about these cases is also what's not significant. Yes, by narrow margin they established that common firearms can't be totally banned and that States must adhere to the Second Amendment...but beyond that don't expand on what that really means in any new way.

If you don't appreciate the significance of having the 2nd Amendment applied to state action then I guess you will never 'get it'. What do you think the implications are for a state like NJ which has no right to arms provisions in its own Constitution and the state legislature has taken that to mean anything goes?

Especially given the fact that nearly all NJ's draconian gun control was affirmed in a single state supreme court case that relies totally on the "militia right" theory and that the 2nd is not an impediment to the NJ state legislature.

Originally Posted by spence

The idea that the potential is now there to invalidate all gun laws is pretty absurd and generally runs against public opinion.

In a constitutional republic, public opinion has absolutely no bearing on the rights of the citizen.

"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)

.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by ReelinRod

But what is left to reverse in Heller?

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.

[JohnnyD]

Originally Posted by spence

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.

Bill Clinton stated in his own memoirs that the 1994 sweep by the Republicans was a direct result of the Federal Assault Weapon ban. No disrespect spence, but I put more stock in the opinion of the person who was President during the political situation at the time over yours.

(edit: I tried to find a citation available online but you'll just have to read the book if anyone disagrees that Clinton made that statement.)

I assume you meant plausible denialability?

-spence

I did. That's what I get for using dictation software and not proofreading.

[scottw]

Originally Posted by detbuch

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

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

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...

[Piscator]

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

[Fishpart]

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

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

[scottw]

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

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-a...b_2457871.html
"It's absolutely long past time to repeal the Second Amendment"

[scottw]

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/mitchel...-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......

[The Dad Fisherman]

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...

[scottw]

Originally Posted by The Dad Fisherman

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 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/20...#ixzz2I3GqgUmK

[buckman]

Originally Posted by The Dad Fisherman

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

[The Dad Fisherman]

Originally Posted by buckman

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.

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

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/por...ports/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?

[buckman]

Originally Posted by The Dad Fisherman

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

[Fishpart]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

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.

[Jay Dog]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

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.

[buckman]

Originally Posted by Jay Dog

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

[JohnnyD]

Originally Posted by Jay Dog

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

[Jay Dog]

Originally Posted by Jay Dog

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.

Originally Posted by buckman

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.

[buckman]

Originally Posted by Jay Dog

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

[scottw]

Originally Posted by buckman

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...



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.

[buckman]

Originally Posted by scottw

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...



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

[scottw]

Originally Posted by buckman

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

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