The Gun debate sandbox

Search
Go

Discussion Topic

Return to Forum List
Post a Reply
Messages 5421 - 5440 of total 5785 in this topic << First  |  < Previous  |  Show All  |  Next >  |  Last >>
Ron Anderson

Trad climber
Soon to be Nipple suckling Liberal
Apr 20, 2013 - 12:48pm PT
F that Philo,, we already had it figured out with the Submarine!
philo

Trad climber
Is that light the end of the tunnel or a train?
Apr 20, 2013 - 01:03pm PT
Credit: philo
Woo Lse

climber
Apr 22, 2013 - 09:44am PT
Dave Kos:


I stated that the Federal Papers have answers to questions asked here, but did not make any attempt to say what those answers were or even what the questions they answer were.

So just how can you say they prove me wrong about something? Pray tell, exactly what is it they they say I am wrong about?


Perhaps you can learn to type faster and give me something to consider?


Your weakly worded opinion of my veracity and accuracy is cheaply earned, vague scoundrel. Please pass on more of your deep wisdom. Are you saying that the FP does NOT pro-port to answer how the Constitution was formed and envisioned to work in the nation that was imagined to be coming in the obvious fullness of time?




((Translation:

Cut the crap Dave. You got a bitch about what I say, spill it and don't be so cute. The Strawman-Ad hominen bull is very old hat here. What do you think you got?))

Gary

Social climber
Desolation Basin, Calif.
Apr 22, 2013 - 10:26am PT
Why would you want to? WTF would you do with a gun on an airplane?

Why, shoot snakes, of course!
Dr. F.

Big Wall climber
SoCal
Apr 22, 2013 - 10:52am PT
How Conservatives “Reinvented” the Second Amendment

December 18, 2012, 3:42 pm ET by Azmat Khan
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/government-elections-politics/how-conservatives-reinvented-the-second-amendment/

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.

While conventional wisdom suggests that an individual’s right to bear arms is enshrined in the Second Amendment of the Constitution, it is, in fact, a relatively recent interpretation, according to New Yorker writer and legal analyst Jeffrey Toobin.

As politicians weigh new gun-control legislation in the wake of Friday’s brutal shooting in Newtown, Conn., FRONTLINE spoke with Toobin, author of The Oath, about what he describes as “the conservative re-casting of the Second Amendment” and whether potential new gun control laws could conflict with it.

Describe early understandings of the Second Amendment. Was there uncertainty or ambiguity about what it meant?

The overwhelming consensus was that the Second Amendment gave state militias a right to obtain and bear arms, but it did it not give individuals any rights. … The words of the Second Amendment are ungrammatical and difficult to understand in the best of circumstances. But if you look at the history and context of the amendment, including other references to state militias in the Constitution, it suggests that the amendment only applied to state militias.

“It was simply taken as a given in constitutional law that the Second Amendment did not give individuals a right to bear arms.”Now what makes this subject so difficult in the modern world is that state militias don’t exist anymore, so we have no familiarity with what a state militia is. But it was simply taken as a given in constitutional law that the Second Amendment did not give individuals a right to bear arms.

When and how did that understanding begin to change to reflect an individual’s right?

It really started to change with the rise of the modern conservative movement in the ’70s and ’80s. You had Ronald Reagan, Edwin Meese, who was his attorney general, Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) in the Senate, really making a very sustained argument that the courts had misunderstood the Second Amendment for hundreds of years, and the NRA was an indispensable partner in this moment. And it became the conservative conventional wisdom that the Second Amendment gave an individual the right to bear arms.

1977 is really a key moment here, because that’s when the National Rifle Association went from being a largely apolitical gun-safety organization to a mobilized political operation that was dedicated to fighting gun control. … It both reflected and reinforced the growing conservatism of the Republican Party generally.

You had Orrin Hatch, when he was chairman of the judiciary subcommittee, putting forth a major report [PDF] that said all the courts were wrong about the Second Amendment. You have Clarence Thomas on the Supreme Court starting to advocate a renewed understanding of the Second Amendment. The country appears to have gotten more sympathetic to the argument that guns make people safer, not more dangerous.

The idea that the Second Amendment gives individuals a right to bear arms was advocated so forcefully, so broadly and so persuasively that Democrats gave up on fighting the issue.

In your book The Oath, you explore how even then-Sen. Barack Obama took on this individual rights understanding and walked back some of his earlier views on gun control. What does that convey?

I think Obama personally illustrates how much the individual rights view has evolved into the conventional wisdom even for Democrats.

Now, I think Obama and at least some Republicans would differ about the extent of what the Second Amendment represents, but I think Obama’s embrace of the individual rights theory illustrates how pervasive that theory has become.

How did these efforts to recast the amendment culminate?

… The climax of this reinvention of the Second Amendment came with the [District of Columbia v.] Heller case in 2008 with the Supreme Court when it reversed decades of precedent and [gave] individuals a right to bear arms. What the court left unclear was how extensive that right was.

“The country appears to have gotten more sympathetic to the argument that guns make people safer, not more dangerous.”What Heller says is that you have a right to a handgun in your home. It does not say anything about assault weapons. It does not say anything about concealed weapons.

So the limits — and it does suggest there are some limits, like you can’t have a tank, you can’t have a Stinger missile — but the courts are really struggling now with defining what the limits of the Second Amendment are.

Some legislators, like Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), have promised to introduce new gun-control legislation that could ban particular weapons in the next session. What’s the likelihood of such laws conflicting with Heller?

I think there’s considerable ambiguity at the moment about what’s constitutional and what’s not. Now that didn’t used to be the case. All through the ’60s and ’70s, we had arguments about how much gun control was appropriate, but no one suggested that any of it was unconstitutional.

Now we have two levels of arguments: What is the right level of gun control and is it constitutional? It’s uncertain about their constitutionality today.

On Meet the Press on Sunday, Sen. Feinstein said her plan to introduce legislation similar to the now-expired assault-weapons ban wouldn’t conflict with the law, saying: “The National Rifle Association never brought the ‘94 assault weapons legislation to court. They knew it would be sustained from the beginning. And I believe this will be sustained as well.” Is she right?

The assault weapons ban ended in 2004, which was before Heller. My guess is that an assault weapons ban would be constitutional, but you would get a powerful argument on the other side.

This is political as much as legal. This is about justices who come out of the conservative movement advocating positions that they’ve advocated for a long time. And what the Second Amendment means is not determined by the Second Amendment, it’s determined by who wins presidential elections and gets to appoint their like-minded justices.

These decisions about what the Constitution means are deeply political. Always have been, always will be.
mechrist

Gym climber
South of Heaven
Apr 22, 2013 - 11:49am PT
Why would you want to? WTF would you do with a gun on an airplane?

Self-defense... and resistance against a tyrannical government... duh!
bookworm

Social climber
Falls Church, VA
Apr 24, 2013 - 10:50am PT
the (il)logic of liberal thinking:

barry claims "90% of americans" supported the failed gun bill

barry also claims the senators who voted against him...er...the bill are cowardly and caved to the "gun lobby" to ensure their re-election

(of course, one might reasonably wonder why barry didn't push for gun control when dems controlled the house and had a filibuster-proof majority in the senate, but i digress)

but, but, but...if "90% of americans" supported the bill, wasn't voting against it the COURAGEOUS thing to do? wasn't voting against the bill and, by barry's stats, against the constituents, a vote of conviction and proof that re-election was not their concern?

in what way is it "cowardly" to vote FOR something that "90% of americans" (i.e. 90% of voters) support?


maybe barry was lying...er...mistaken about that 90% stat:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2013/04/24/why-the-american-public-isnt-mad-as-hell-about-the-failure-of-the-gun-bill-in-numbers/
philo

Trad climber
Is that light the end of the tunnel or a train?
Apr 24, 2013 - 11:17am PT
Credit: philo
Norton

Social climber
the Wastelands
Apr 24, 2013 - 11:44am PT
telling graphic you posted, Philo

and as much as anything, it shows the gross disproportionate voting influence of each state regardless of population having exactly two Senators

maybe two Senators from each of the original 13 states seemed like a good idea over two hundred years ago

but as is said, things have changed

California has 35 million people and two Senators

New Mexico where I live has two million people and two Senators


of course, the entire Senate vote was quite irrelevant wasn't it?

considering that the bill was dead on arrival in the Republican House
jghedge

climber
Apr 24, 2013 - 12:10pm PT
"but, but, but...if "90% of americans" supported the bill, wasn't voting against it the COURAGEOUS thing to do? wasn't voting against the bill and, by barry's stats, against the constituents, a vote of conviction and proof that re-election was not their concern?"

"in what way is it "cowardly" to vote FOR something that "90% of americans" (i.e. 90% of voters) support?"


Logic FAIL.
Topo gigio

Gym climber
Sprain
Apr 24, 2013 - 12:11pm PT
Lose one vote and you are ready to change the entire Federal System of Govt and tip the scales of power with a fat finger?



There are just no 800 pound gorillas in the Senate, thats all. Protection from bullies, at least a little. Everybody is equal in the Senate, more or less.

Balanced.

Senate proposes law, representatives vote on them.
Norton

Social climber
the Wastelands
Apr 24, 2013 - 12:18pm PT
Senate proposes law, representatives vote on them.

well, here in the USA either the Senate OR the House can "create" and vote on ALMOST all legislation (spending being the exception)

however, ONLY the House can originate "spending" bills, per our Constitution
Norton

Social climber
the Wastelands
Apr 24, 2013 - 12:21pm PT
"in what way is it "cowardly" to vote FOR something that "90% of americans" (i.e. 90% of voters) support?"

that is NOT what happened

background checks are supported by 90% of the public, yet it was voted down as in NO

see how this is the opposite of what your thought process came up with?

it would be cowardly to vote against the wishes of the people who elected you
jghedge

climber
May 1, 2013 - 10:09pm PT


CA To Begin Gun Confiscations


http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-guns-20130502,0,5559910.story

SACRAMENTO — The state will send dozens of new agents into California neighborhoods this summer to confiscate nearly 40,000 handguns and assault rifles from people barred by law from owning firearms, officials said Wednesday.

The plan received the green light Wednesday, when Gov. Jerry Brown signed legislation providing $24 million to clear the backlog of weapons known to be in the hands of about 20,000 people who acquired them legally. They were later disqualified because of criminal convictions, restraining orders or serious mental illness.

The bill is the first of more than a dozen gun measures introduced by California lawmakers after the December massacre of 20 children and six adults at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Conn.

"This bipartisan bill makes our communities safer by giving law enforcement the resources they need to get guns out of the hands of potentially dangerous individuals," said Evan Westrup, a spokesman for the governor.

California is the only state in the nation to operate a database that cross-references gun owners with those who are subsequently disqualified from owning firearms. But budget cuts have prevented the state Department of Justice from keeping up with the list, which grows by 15 to 20 names every day, officials said.

The new funds will allow the department to hire 36 additional special agents and support staff, with the first officers expected to hit the streets in July, said Lynda Gledhill, a spokeswoman for Atty. Gen. Kamala Harris. The money comes from a surplus in fees paid for background checks by people purchasing guns.

The new agents will work primarily in cities including Los Angeles, San Francisco, Sacramento, Fresno and Riverside, which have requested additional help, Gledhill said. The effort is expected to take three years.

"Our reinvestment in this tracking program gives us the opportunity to confiscate" guns from those who should not have them, said state Sen. Mark Leno (D-San Francisco), author of the legislation.

Opponents of the measure include the National Rifle Assn. of America and Sam Paredes, executive director of Gun Owners of California, who said any confiscation campaign should be paid for by the state general fund.

"Going after criminals is a good thing, but the way they are paying for it is grossly unfair," Paredes said. "They are putting the entire burden on the back of law-abiding gun purchasers."

Paredes said some gun owners may not know that they are disqualified from possessing guns for reasons that include, for example, a restraining order in a domestic violence case. He said an education campaign urging people to turn in weapons would be less costly and safer than sending out armed agents.

Some Republican lawmakers voted against the bill, SB 140, because they too objected to tapping money not intended for the new purpose. Other Republican legislators supported the allocation, helping to give it two-thirds approval in both houses.

Of the gun owners on the prohibition list, 32% were disqualified by conviction on a felony or a violent misdemeanor, Gledhill said. About 30% were disqualified for mental health reasons, including court determinations that they are dangerous; 20% are the subject of an active restraining order for cases including domestic violence; 18% are wanted by authorities for violent crimes.

The existing squad of 33 special agents investigated nearly 4,000 people and seized about that same number of weapons, including 300 assault weapons, during the last two years, officials said.

"California is leading the nation in a common-sense effort to protect public safety by taking guns away from dangerous, violent individuals who are prohibited by law from owning them," Harris said in a prepared statement.

The California Legislature is still considering measures that would require ammunition purchasers to pay for a permit, close loopholes on the existing assault rifle ban and impose a nickel-per-bullet tax to pay for mental health programs.



And so it begins.





hillrat

Trad climber
reno, nv
May 1, 2013 - 10:42pm PT
How about a straight-up nickel-per-resident tax to pay for mental health programs?

Oh wait... it's the gun nuts fault that people are nuts. I see now.
Some people use guns irresponsibly, so lets just f*#k all of them.

Hmmm... some rockclimbers bolt irresponsibly, so let's just ban rock climbing.

How long will it take to destroy a society internally simply by restricting the majority for the actions of a minority? What will it take? Oh my god no... we can't punish the individual, we have to pass a blanket prohibition that affects everyone! That's the way this country works! That's how we get things done! F*#k everyone! It's for the greater good!

I'll be out this weekend bolting some useless choss at a trail near you, for those of you who give a sh#t. Maybe do a little chipping, just for good measure. Auburn Quarry maybe? I should teach my dog to run a hammer drill to pass the time between goose kebabs.
jghedge

climber
May 1, 2013 - 11:23pm PT
"Oh wait... it's the gun nuts fault that people are nuts. I see now.
Some people use guns irresponsibly, so lets just f*#k all of them."

The main danger of guns is that mentally unstable people (i.e., gun nuts) will get ahold of them, therefore taxing gun users, who currently insist that everyone be armed, including the mentally unstable (gun nuts) makes perfect sense.


"we can't punish the individual, we have to pass a blanket prohibition that affects everyone! "

This is how the law works - it applies to everyone, not just those who claim to be responsible enough for it not to apply to them. Pretty basic concept, really...

If you can come up with a way to keep guns out of some people's hands and not others, while maintaining the current status quo, I'd like to hear it.
hillrat

Trad climber
reno, nv
May 1, 2013 - 11:43pm PT
Why bother? There's too many people in the world anyway. After all, it's the low-end of the population spectrum that really ends up being victims of themselves in the greater overall scheme of things. Hell, I think we ought to do EXACTLY as you think the gun nuts think... arm EVERYONE. Things will sort themselves out shortly, and those who survive will be the stronger for it in the end, Darwinism and all. While we're at it, we ought to just skip the whole nukes-as-a-defensive-weapon thing and launch a few. Ship 'em on over to Iran and N.Korea, cut 'em loose, and just f*#king have at it.

Global warming? Solved. Nuke winter.
Too many guns? Nah, nobody left to supply ammo. Solved.
Bolt wars and raptor closures? Not anymore!
crankster

Trad climber
South Lake Tahoe, CA
May 2, 2013 - 05:53am PT
Guns for 5 year--old's.
http://www.cnn.com/2013/05/01/us/kentucky-accidential-shooting/index.html?hpt=hp_t2

philo

Trad climber
Is that light the end of the tunnel or a train?
May 2, 2013 - 08:45am PT
Hurry, hurry, hurry bullet bois there is another thread making guns look bad. You are dropping the ball here. By now I would have expected dozens of posts ridiculing anyone guilty of not knowing the correct weapon vernacular and explaining that if his "little cricket" had had an extended magazine he could have also taken out the family dog, cat and goldfish.
Ron Anderson

Trad climber
Soon to be Nipple suckling Liberal
May 2, 2013 - 08:53am PT
Yeah well a teen was killed yesterday in school by being hit in the head with a softball while playing..
Messages 5421 - 5440 of total 5785 in this topic << First  |  < Previous  |  Show All  |  Next >  |  Last >>
Return to Forum List
Post a Reply
 
Our Guidebooks
Check 'em out!
SuperTopo Guidebooks


Try a free sample topo!

 
SuperTopo on the Web

Review Categories
Recent Trip Report and Articles
Recent Route Beta
Recent Gear Reviews