AnimeSuki Forums

Register Forum Rules FAQ Members List Social Groups Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Go Back   AnimeSuki Forum > General > General Chat

Notices

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old 2013-01-18, 21:16   Link #1141
Kyuu
=^^=
 
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: 42 10' N (Latitude) 87 33' W (Longitude)
Age: 35
Quote:
Originally Posted by kyp275 View Post
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brady_Campaign

Pretty much one of the most prominent anti-gun group in the last 3+ decades. Naturally, they don't want to ban all guns, it's just that their definition of guns that should be banned covers, well, most of them
Y'know what's funny? I was curious enough to wonder: "What's the NRA's budget?".

The Brady group budget was displayed on the info. group at $3 million. I see that number - for an organization - and I scoff at it. They can't do squat.

Then I go to the NRA Wiki page... and see no field for the budget on the infobox. Well, I found a nice fresh article giving me a number. Naturally, I edited in the $300 million budget figure right on the NRA page.

I like patting myself on the back.
Kyuu is offline  
Old 2013-01-18, 21:19   Link #1142
Mr. DJ
Schwing!
 
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Central Texas
Age: 30
Quote:
Originally Posted by GundamFan0083 View Post
Exactly Ithekro, and there in lies the problem with those calling for this gross infringement on the 2nd amendment.
If they wish to nullify the 2nd amendment, they need to call for its repeal, otherwise they are in vioation of the Article III, section 3 of the constitution and are liable for treason.
Treason isn't even a option anymore when you have enough money. =\
Mr. DJ is offline  
Old 2013-01-18, 21:20   Link #1143
kyp275
ZA ZOMBIE!!!
 
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Somewhere in the EVE cluster...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kyuu View Post
Y'know what's funny? I was curious enough to wonder: "What's the NRA's budget?".

The Brady group budget was displayed on the info. group at $3 million. I see that number - for an organization - and I scoff at it. They can't do squat.

Then I go to the NRA Wiki page... and see no field for the budget on the infobox. Well, I found a nice fresh article giving me a number. Naturally, I edited in the $300 million budget figure right on the NRA page.

I like patting myself on the back.
hah, I lol'd
kyp275 is offline  
Old 2013-01-18, 21:49   Link #1144
DonQuigleone
Knight Errant
 
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Dublin, Ireland
Age: 26
What executive order did Obama sign that was unconstitutional exactly? I don't see anything that infringes a person's right to own a gun.
DonQuigleone is offline  
Old 2013-01-18, 22:08   Link #1145
Ithekro
The Comet is Coming
 
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Republic of California
Age: 37
The Brady group was more or less defeated when the AWB of 1994 ended (2004) as it was shown to not work. The mention of Columbine (1999), that happened while the AWB was in effect nation wide. Laws put in to place after Columbine have also proved ineffective (safety locks and ban on importation of high capacity magazines, plus making it a crime for criminals and minors to buy guns. Also K-mart stopped selling ammunition for handguns.)
__________________
Dessler Soto, Banzai!
Ithekro is offline  
Old 2013-01-18, 23:17   Link #1146
Solace
(ノಠ益ಠ)ノ彡┻━┻
*Moderator
 
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ithekro View Post
The Brady group was more or less defeated when the AWB of 1994 ended (2004) as it was shown to not work. The mention of Columbine (1999), that happened while the AWB was in effect nation wide. Laws put in to place after Columbine have also proved ineffective (safety locks and ban on importation of high capacity magazines, plus making it a crime for criminals and minors to buy guns. Also K-mart stopped selling ammunition for handguns.)
Unfortunately it's not so simple as "we tried it, and it failed". That's like saying "we tried to regulate banks, but it didn't work". There are forces at play with agendas to make sure they don't work just as there was forces to put those regulations there in the first place. Gun control regulation shouldn't be as cut and dry as "if at first you don't succeed, fuck it". Regulations serve a purpose, if they can be properly enforced.

Any serious look at the problem can tell you that no, our gun regulations are enforced pretty poorly. Yeah, we have a lot of laws, but we lack the regulatory power to do anything with them. Just look at the ATF: no director for six years, can't keep a gun registration database, background checks must be destroyed within 24 hours.....does this sound like a serious attempt, or a joke?

That's why I'm comfortable with saying that guns should be a right, while also saying that we need to do this better. Responsible owners shouldn't be punished, but the situation as it exists is inexcusable. You can pull out any statistic you like, but there are problems here regarding gun regulation and the mechanisms behind why regulation is so weak. And it's not just guns. Just look at HSBC - a bank that got caught laundering money for drug cartels, provided services for nations circumventing banking sanctions, etc. No one goes to jail, and the "fine" is basically profit for a few weeks. That's not even a slap on the wrist. It's an insult to the very concept of the rule of law.
__________________
Solace is offline  
Old 2013-01-18, 23:23   Link #1147
GundamFan0083
Senior Member
 
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: classified
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bri View Post
Wonder how far the media can be considered responsible for creating a culture of fear which propagates violence in the first place.
According to Doctor Park Dietz the media is a major factor in the instigation of these types of incidents (mass shootings). Here is a good (short) video with Dr. Dietz in it.



The news media hasn't changed the way he suggested after Columbine and he was the senior criminal psychiatrist on the Columbine panel.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ArchmageXin View Post
-The entire video game industry took a hit from the crazy NRA guy, for one.

Guns don't kill people, video games does!
That's becaue of a plumber who knew the family claimed that Adam Lanza played "Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare" constantly in his mother's basement.
In Adam's case is may have been a contributing factor to his choice of the school (he also went there as a boy) and the type of weapons he chose to take with him (he left most of his mother's guns at her home: shotgun, Lee Enfield rifle, and others). In Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare (since I've played it) the M16/M4 is a main weapon, as are 9mm pistols.

Quote:
Originally Posted by monir View Post
NRA may have triggered it's downfall when Lapierre gave his statement after the Connecticut incident.
No, actually their ranks have swelled over it, at a rate of 8000 new members a day.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ArchmageXin View Post
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/script...=307&invol=174

The supreme court disagreed.

1938 Supreme Court decision supported a federal gun control law

Ruled that independent gun rights had to be connected to citizens' "common obligation" to serve in militias when called

offered no protection to guns that couldn't reasonably be used in militia service

So for 6 decades, guns were regulated in this country. What did you know?
You are misquoting that case.
The US vs. Miller case made it crystal clear that the militia consisted of every abled bodied male ages 17-45 who were not members of the National Guard.

“The Militia that the States were expected to maintain and train is set in contrast with Troops, which they were forbidden to keep without the consent of Congress. The sentiment at the time strongly disfavored standing armies; the common view was that adequate defense of country and laws could be secured through the Militia–civilians primarily, soldiers on occasion.”

In fact Title 10, Section 311 of the United States Code reads as follows:

CITE-
10 USC Sec. 311 01/03/2012 (112-90)

-EXPCITE-
TITLE 10 - ARMED FORCES
Subtitle A - General Military Law
PART I - ORGANIZATION AND GENERAL MILITARY POWERS
CHAPTER 13 - THE MILITIA

-HEAD-
Sec. 311. Militia: composition and classes

-STATUTE-
(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied
males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section
313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a
declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States
and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the
National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are -
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard
and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of
the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the
Naval Militia.


-SOURCE-
(Aug. 10, 1956, ch. 1041, 70A Stat. 14; Pub. L. 85-861, Sec. 1(7),
Sept. 2, 1958, 72 Stat. 1439; Pub. L. 103-160, div. A, title V,
Sec. 524(a), Nov. 30, 1993, 107 Stat. 1656.)

-MISC1-


Thus the court was keeping with the Militia Act of 1903 which created the National Guard some 114 years after the constitution was ratified. The National Guard is a "select" militia, meaning that it consists of part-time regular troops, not citizen-soldiers. The constitutional militia (unorganized) cannot legally be sent to invade another country or go to war with another country. It has three missions that the court reiterated in US. vs. Miller.

On top of this the National Firearms Act of 1934, which the SCOTUS was ruling on in US. vs. Miller, did not BAN any firearms. All it did was make it so a person had to register their machine gun, and/or short barrel shotgun and pay a $200.00 tax stamp to the IRS to own such a weapon.
The 1968 GCA changed all that, and the 1986 Gun Law made sale of new machine guns illegal (which I view as a gross violation of US vs. Miller). We can thank Ronald Reagan for that infringement.
Not that it did any good, in 1997 we had the North Hollywood Bank robbery where two robbers had fully automatic assault rifles obtained illegally from Mexico.



Quote:
Originally Posted by ArchmageXin View Post
Probably more than you do. SCOTUS are political, even if they are not overtly so. And Marbury vs Madison granted SCOTUS as the ultimate arbiter of the constitution (must to the dismay of Thomas Jefferson, btw).
So yes, while you can claim the latest Supreme Court decision favor Gun Rights and even allowing hate speech, if the court composition change, we could indeed see a return to U.S vs Miller.
No, Chief Justice John Marshall did not make the Supreme Court arbiter (Judge and Jury) of the Constitution, he made the court the Guardian of the Constitution and expected all future courts to be arbiters of lesser statutory law using the constitution as the measure by which all other laws are judged.

Here is the Marbury vs. Madison decision:
“…So if a law be in opposition to the constitution: if both the law and the constitution apply to a particular case, so that the court must either decide that case conformably to the law, disregarding the constitution; or conformably to the constitution, disregarding the law: the court must determine which of these conflicting rules governs the case. This is of the very essence of judicial duty.”
“If then the courts are to regard the constitution; and the constitution is superior to any ordinary act of the legislature; the constitution, and not such ordinary act, must govern the case to which they both apply.”


Thus the Marbury vs. Madison decision is actually detrimental to any gun control law which is in oppostion with the 2nd amendment.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. DJ View Post
Treason isn't even a option anymore when you have enough money. =\
I agree with you 100%.
In my humble opinion Ronald Reagan committed treason over the Iran Contra deal and got away with it, Clinton did it with the 1994 AWB, and George Bush Jr...oh hell I don't even know where to start he was so bad, Obama is following in their footsteps and it is very disheartening to watch (although Romney would have done the same IMO).
__________________
GundamFan0083 is offline  
Old 2013-01-18, 23:56   Link #1148
DonQuigleone
Knight Errant
 
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Dublin, Ireland
Age: 26
As I said, what exactly was unconstitutional about Obama's executive orders? You haven't really told us. I read them, and couldn't see anything that would prevent someone from owning a gun (unless you happen to be mentally ill).
DonQuigleone is offline  
Old 2013-01-19, 00:15   Link #1149
GundamFan0083
Senior Member
 
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: classified
His call for the assault weapon ban and standard mag ban.
He is basing that on Dianne Feinstein's bill which he has previously stated he supports.
That bill calls for mandatory registration with intent to confiscate.
I've downloaded the PDF version and read it.
It is a gross violation of the 2nd amendment.
__________________
GundamFan0083 is offline  
Old 2013-01-19, 00:21   Link #1150
Vexx
Obey the Darkly Cute ...
*Author
 
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: On the whole, I'd rather be in Kyoto ...
Age: 57
The '94 AWB is junk (as in poorly written and junk science bad). I'm disappointed they're so lazy as to reach for that. Feinstein, to be nice, is an idiot on the subject. The senator who "threw her gun in the bay" and regularly puts her foot in her mouth on the subject with schemes that will not only be ineffective but actually make the situation worse. Bleh. Emotional soccer mom irrational garbage output - she does make for hilarious debate team topics though.

Here's the actual text of the '94 AWB. Read it and weep? http://keepandbeararms.com/awban/text.asp
Keep in mind that it was an amendment to be inserted into this text: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d103:s.01607:

Two parties, not enough.
__________________
Vexx is offline  
Old 2013-01-19, 01:01   Link #1151
Lost Cause
Senior Member
 
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Virginia
Age: 37
And yet in his usual way of handling things he's dumped the AWB and Magazine capacity limit in the Congress' lap. We all know most of them are coming up for election next year, therefore I highly doubt you'll see a gun control legislation until after that.
Also witness the defeat of the gun bill in Illinois by voters, sportsmen and women, and anybody south of Chicago. This may have been a preview of what Obama and company may face is the near future.
And with the amount of guns and ammunition being bought now due to the scare of gun control, sensational media, and just a generally pissed off mood of most citizens toward the lack of government handling of the economic crisis, I highly doubt most law enforcement types would actually look forward too any sort of confiscation!
I have asked several service men and women here at Norfolk if they'd follow the orders to confiscate guns from citizens, most said they'd go AWOL and/or turn their attention on a rogue government!
__________________

Ride, Boldly Ride!
Lost Cause is offline  
Old 2013-01-19, 01:25   Link #1152
Ithekro
The Comet is Coming
 
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Republic of California
Age: 37
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lost Cause View Post
And yet in his usual way of handling things he's dumped the AWB and Magazine capacity limit in the Congress' lap. We all know most of them are coming up for election next year, therefore I highly doubt you'll see a gun control legislation until after that.
Also witness the defeat of the gun bill in Illinois by voters, sportsmen and women, and anybody south of Chicago. This may have been a preview of what Obama and company may face is the near future.
And with the amount of guns and ammunition being bought now due to the scare of gun control, sensational media, and just a generally pissed off mood of most citizens toward the lack of government handling of the economic crisis, I highly doubt most law enforcement types would actually look forward too any sort of confiscation!
I have asked several service men and women here at Norfolk if they'd follow the orders to confiscate guns from citizens, most said they'd go AWOL and/or turn their attention on a rogue government!
That reminds me of two things.

1. The Texas police taking about stocking up in case of a rebellion or other similar pospects. (and bad thing)

2. That we have a (volunteer) military sworn to uphold the Constitution and defend it and the nation form threats both foreign and domestic. Which is probably a good thing.


I won't really want those days of my youth spent playing with state flags in a Second Civil War to be premonition. War gaming alternate history can be fun. Living it is something completely different.
__________________
Dessler Soto, Banzai!
Ithekro is offline  
Old 2013-01-19, 01:55   Link #1153
DonQuigleone
Knight Errant
 
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Dublin, Ireland
Age: 26
Quote:
Originally Posted by GundamFan0083 View Post
His call for the assault weapon ban and standard mag ban.
He is basing that on Dianne Feinstein's bill which he has previously stated he supports.
That bill calls for mandatory registration with intent to confiscate.
I've downloaded the PDF version and read it.
It is a gross violation of the 2nd amendment.
Simply calling on congress to ban assault weapons is not unconstitutional. For one thing, he's simply called on congress to do something, he didn't actually do it.

Furthermore, not being able to buy certain guns does not impinge on your right to bear arms. The 2nd amendment states you have a right to a gun, but it does not stipulate what type of gun.

For instance, do you have a right to own a Bazooka? A Gatling Gun? Owning those is already illegal in the United States. Likewise I don't think you can buy military grade weaponry either, and that's not considered unconstitutional by any of the gun owners I've met. If those laws are constitutional, then the same logic applies to an assault rifle ban. Because it's not banning firearms as a whole, but simply a class of firearms.

Now, we can argue all day about whether banning assault rifles is a good idea or not (frankly I don't know), but I don't see how banning an assault rifle is legally any different from banning bazookas, Gatling guns or other military grade weaponry.

As for mandatory registration, other fundamental rights you have are also regulated. You have a right to free speech, but you don't have a right to shout fire in a crowded theater. If by owning a gun you present a danger to your community, your right to own a gun is nullified (say if you're a former criminal, or severely mentally ill).

So again, I don't see how anything he wrote was unconstitutional. Maybe you don't agree they're the right approach, but saying they're illegal is disingenuous.

EDIT: @Ithekro, I really hope the USA doesn't start getting paramilitaries popping up. Because seriously, they make your gangs look like chumps. Northern Ireland should be a warning. That's what happens when people start taking up arms against their government, and take the law into their own hands.
DonQuigleone is offline  
Old 2013-01-19, 02:12   Link #1154
Vexx
Obey the Darkly Cute ...
*Author
 
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: On the whole, I'd rather be in Kyoto ...
Age: 57
Assault *rifles* are already banned and highly restricted. "assault weapons" are an undefined murky term used by people when they wave their hands. Sadly, it often translates into "scary looking gun" and the '94 ban often would ban a configuration with no functional difference whatsoever from another model that wasn't as "scary looking". It is almost as silly as a deer rifle that is black being banned but the same model in brown being "okay".

I posted the text of the '94 AWB text. It is largely a collection of either nonsense or blocks the sale of things that have never been used in any shooting.

I'd be more comfortable if the military tried their hand at writing a bill than the politicians (who apparently have far too much ego to hire someone to explain this to them).
__________________

Last edited by Vexx; 2013-01-19 at 02:33.
Vexx is offline  
Old 2013-01-19, 02:16   Link #1155
DonQuigleone
Knight Errant
 
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Dublin, Ireland
Age: 26
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vexx View Post
Assault *rifles* are already banned and highly restricted. "assault weapons" are an undefined murky term used by people when they wave their hands. Sadly, it often translates into "scary looking gun" and the '94 ban often would ban a configuration with no functional difference whatsoever from another model that wasn't as "scary looking".

I posted the text of the '94 AWB text. It is largely a collection of either nonsense or blocks the sale of things that have never been used in any shooting.

I'd be more comfortable if the military tried their hand at writing a bill than the politicians (who apparently have far too much ego to hire someone to explain this to them).
The bill may indeed be nonsense, I can't really comment one way or another on that, but it's not unconstitutional. Classes of Firearms are already restricted or banned. Restricting or banning another one is the same thing. It might be a silly thing to ban, but there's nothing illegal in it, as it's not banning guns as a whole, which from what I can see is the only thing the constitution protects.
DonQuigleone is offline  
Old 2013-01-19, 02:33   Link #1156
kyp275
ZA ZOMBIE!!!
 
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Somewhere in the EVE cluster...
Quote:
Originally Posted by DonQuigleone View Post
Likewise I don't think you can buy military grade weaponry either.
Good intention, but I think this is where your (and many other people's) lack of knowledge in the field comes into play.

As someone who have spent a decade in the military, as far as small arms goes, outside of fully automatic weapons, there is no such thing as "military-grade".

A gun is not a computer or high tech electronics, the design is simple, and the basic concept hasn't changed much at all in the past century. Many of the current service weapons are designed 40, 50+ years ago, some damn near a century. The things that have changed are improved ergonomics and manufacturing process. A "military grade" pistol can't be any more or less powerful than a civilian pistol of the same type. Your idea is akin to saying people should not be able to purchase military grade vehicle, and then proceed to define it as vehicles with wheels and an engine.

A semi-auto pistol is a semi-auto pistol, there just isn't much difference whether it's a model used by the military or for civilian market. The only thing is that models adopted for use by the military have to meet specific design/fit/reliability standard - basically a guaranteed level of workmanship.
kyp275 is offline  
Old 2013-01-19, 02:40   Link #1157
DonQuigleone
Knight Errant
 
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Dublin, Ireland
Age: 26
Quote:
Originally Posted by kyp275 View Post
Good intention, but I think this is where your (and many other people's) lack of knowledge in the field comes into play.

As someone who have spent a decade in the military, as far as small arms goes, outside of fully automatic weapons, there is no such thing as "military-grade".
Perhaps I err, but it still stands that you can't buy a Gatling Gun or Bazooka, so there is precedent for banning classes of firearms.
DonQuigleone is offline  
Old 2013-01-19, 02:45   Link #1158
kyp275
ZA ZOMBIE!!!
 
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Somewhere in the EVE cluster...
Quote:
Originally Posted by DonQuigleone View Post
Perhaps I err, but it still stands that you can't buy a Gatling Gun or Bazooka, so there is precedent for banning classes of guns.
Indeed, but I think even you can see that there's a difference between a ban on gatling gun/bazooka, and what would essentially be a ban on a vast majority, if not the entirety, of modern firearm.
kyp275 is offline  
Old 2013-01-19, 02:53   Link #1159
GundamFan0083
Senior Member
 
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: classified
Quote:
Originally Posted by DonQuigleone View Post
Simply calling on congress to ban assault weapons is not unconstitutional. For one thing, he's simply called on congress to do something, he didn't actually do it.

Furthermore, not being able to buy certain guns does not impinge on your right to bear arms. The 2nd amendment states you have a right to a gun, but it does not stipulate what type of gun.

For instance, do you have a right to own a Bazooka? A Gatling Gun? Owning those is already illegal in the United States. Likewise I don't think you can buy military grade weaponry either, and that's not considered unconstitutional by any of the gun owners I've met. If those laws are constitutional, then the same logic applies to an assault rifle ban. Because it's not banning firearms as a whole, but simply a class of firearms.
I already explained this above in a previous post.
Also, Gatling guns are not illegal in the US, but they are very expensive due to being hand crafted.
You can buy them.
Machine guns are also legal to purchase, but very expensive and regulated heavily (which I contend is uncontstutional at this point, the NFA of 1934 did its job fine).
Rocket launchers and grenade launchers are also legal to buy with a class 09 FFL.
Here are the FFL classes available to citizens of the US:

FFL (Federal Firearms License)
Type 01 = dealer of Title 1 firearms
Type 02 = pawnbroker
Type 03 = Curio & Relic collector
Type 06 = manufacturer of ammo
Type 07 = manufacturer of Title 1 firearms
Type 08 = importer of Title 1 firearms
Type 09 = dealer of destructive devices
Type 10 = manufacturer of destructive devices
Type 11 = importer of destructive devices

SOT (Special Occupational Taxpayer)
Class I = importer of Title 2 firearms
Class II = manufacturer of Title 2 firearms
Class III = dealer of Title 2 firearms

SOT status is used in conjunction with the corresponding FFL.
For example...
Type 01-FFL Class III SOT = dealer of Title 1 & 2 firearms
Type 07-FFL Class II SOT = manufacturer of Title 1 & 2 firearms


I'd use the FFL class system as a basis for a Martial Arts style (meaning 1st Dan through 10th Dan after proper training) system applied to the Civilian Marksmanship Program in order to comply with the 2nd amendment and the US Constitution. The more competent and trustworthy you prove you are, the more access you should have to higher levels of weaponry.

However, back on point.
Yes, banning a paramilitary rifle is a direct infringement on the 2nd amendment.
There is no question about this.
Banning standard capacity magazines (used by every police department in the US)is an infringement.
Police are not military, and thus under the 2nd amendment, if the police can have it, the citizens can have it in the United States.
In fact, according to the US vs. Miller case, only military weapons are protected by the 2nd amendment.
I'll re-post the decision in US vs. Miller.

“…in the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a shotgun having a barrel of less that eighteen inches in length at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment or that is use could contribute to the common defense…”

Therefore, US v. Miller make four things clear:

•1) The original meaning of “militia” had not changed in 159 years and it still meant “every able bodied man between the ages of 17 and 45.”

•2) The Federal Constitution and Bill of Rights are the SUPREME LAW of the land and take precedence over State laws.

•3) Weapons which are not of a military nature or useful to the common defense are not useful to the militia and thus not protected by the 2nd Amendment.

•4) There IS a “litmus test” for determining what weapons are and are NOT protected by the 2nd Amendment, and that test is simple: the weapon must be of a military nature and useful by the militia to a) uphold the laws of the union (Constitution and Bill of Rights), b) put down insurrections, and c) repel invasions.


Quote:
Now, we can argue all day about whether banning assault rifles is a good idea or not (frankly I don't know), but I don't see how banning an assault rifle is legally any different from banning bazookas, Gatling guns or other military grade weaponry.
It's not a matter of being a good or bad thing, it is whether or not it is lawful in the US, and clearly the SCOTUS has already ruled on this through Presser vs. Illinois, US vs Miller, and DC vs Heller. The argument is over, the 2nd amendment protects such weapons and the collective rights model is dead.

Quote:
As for mandatory registration, other fundamental rights you have are also regulated. You have a right to free speech, but you don't have a right to shout fire in a crowded theater. If by owning a gun you present a danger to your community, your right to own a gun is nullified (say if you're a former criminal, or severely mentally ill).
Registration does not equate to competency as Nancy Lanza proved. Under Connecticut law all of her weapons were registered, and it did nothing to prevent this event.
The reality here is that Nancy was irresponsible and the Gun Free Zone act of 1995 provided the perfect killing field for her son. This problem in the US is more about fixing the Gun Free Zones than it is about guns.
Israel had this problem in 1974 with the Ma'alot Massacre and this is how they solved it.



Quote:
So again, I don't see how anything he wrote was unconstitutional. Maybe you don't agree they're the right approach, but saying they're illegal is disingenuous.
It is unconstitutional when it infringes on the right to keep and bear arms, in fact it also violates the 9th amendment which states:

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

Since the Presser vs Illinois case clearly states the people have the right to keep and bear arms without the 2nd amendment, the case for the so called "assault weapon and high-cap ban" becomes eroded to the point of being nonsensical.

I'll quote Presser again:

“It is undoubtedly true that all citizens capable of bearing arms constitute the reserved military force or reserve militia of the United States as well as of the states, and, in view of this prerogative of the general government, as well as of its general powers, the states cannot, even laying the constitutional provision in question [the Second Amendment] out of view, prohibit the people from keeping and bearing arms, so as to deprive the United States of their rightful resource for maintaining the public security, and disable the people from performing their duty to the general government.”

There's no two-ways about this, gun control has run its course in the US because it is now at odds with both the Constitution and the SCOTUS rulings.
The laws we have can be challenged, and have been as in the McDonald vs City of Chicago case of where the ban on handguns has now been declared unconstitutional.
Justice Alito gave the majority opinion of the court:

Self-defense is a basic right, recognized by many legal systems from ancient times to the present day and in Heller, we held that individual self-defense is the “central component” of the Second Amendment right. . . . [and that] this right applies to handguns because they are 'the most preferred firearm in the nation to 'keep' and use for protection of one's home and family'. . . Heller makes it clear that this right is 'deeply rooted in this Nation's history and tradition'. . . . It cannot be doubted that the right to bear arms was regarded as a substantive guarantee, not a prohibition that could be ignored so long as the States legislated in an evenhanded manner (ibid, pp. 19-20 and 33).

The DC vs. Heller case defers to US. vs. Miller on what kinds of firearms are protected and what kinds are regulatable. In other words, paramilitary arms are protected, hunting arms are not unless they have a usefulness to the common defense.

So the argument is basically over, what we have now are politicians and the media ignoring the SCOTUS and the Constitution to push their pet agenda.
Obama has verbally signed on to that agenda and is thus in violation of his Oath of Office which states the following:

I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States.

His use of EO's to attempt to legislate against the 2nd amendment is a breach of the separation of powers within the constitution.

You should understand that the 2nd amendment does not protect hunting or sport shooting. The founding fathers made it very clear what is was for.

Tench Coxe (1755-1824 American political economist):
) “The militia of these free commonwealths, entitled and accustomed to their arms, when compared with any possible army, must be tremendous and irresistible. Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man against his own bosom. Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birth-right of an American …the unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people.”

James Madison: “The highest number to which a standing army can be carried in any country does not exceed one hundredth part of the souls, or one twenty-fifth part of the number able to bear arms. This portion would not yield, in the United States, an army of more than twenty-five or thirty thousand men. To these would be opposed a militia amounting to near half a million citizens with arms in their hands, officered by men chosen from among themselves, fighting for their common liberties and united and conducted by governments possessing their affections and confidence. It may well be doubted whether a militia thus circumstanced could ever be conquered by such a proportion of regular troops. Besides the advantage of being armed, it forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of. The governments of Europe are afraid to trust the people with arms. If they did, the people would surely shake off the yoke of tyranny, as America did. Let us not insult the free and gallant citizens of America with the suspicion that they would be less able to defend the rights of which they would be in actual possession than the debased subjects of arbitrary power would be to rescue theirs from the hands of their oppressors.”

Thomas Jefferson: “Every citizen should be a soldier. This was the case with the Greeks and Romans, and must be that of every Free State.”

Rep. Elbridge Gerry (of Massachusetts 1789): “What, Sir, is the use of a militia? It is to prevent the establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty…Whenever Governments mean to invade the rights and liberties of the people, they always attempt to destroy the militia, in order to raise an army upon their ruins…”

Patrick Henry: “Are we at last brought to such an humiliating and debasing degradation that we cannot be trusted with arms for our own defense? Where is the difference between having our arms under our own possession and under our own direction, and having them under the management of Congress? If our defense be the real object of having those arms, in whose hands can they be trusted with more propriety, or equal safety to us, as in our own hands?”

Richard Henry (Light Horse Harry) Lee in his Letters from the Federal Farmer to the Republic (1787-1788): “A militia when properly formed are in fact the people themselves . . . and include all men capable of bearing arms . . . To preserve liberty it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them . . . The mind that aims at a select militia, must be influenced by a truly anti-republican principle.”

George Mason: When the resolution of enslaving America was formed in Great Britain, the British Parliament was advised by an artful man, who was governor of Pennsylvania, to disarm the people; that it was the best and most effectual way to enslave them; but that they should not do it openly, but weaken them, and let them sink gradually. . . I ask, who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people, except a few public officers.[1]

Alexander Hamilton Federalist paper #29: There is something so far-fetched and so extravagant in the idea of danger to liberty from the militia, that one is at a loss whether to treat it with gravity or with raillery; whether to consider it as a mere trial of skill, like the paradoxes of rhetoricians; as a disingenuous artifice to instill prejudices at any price; or as the serious offspring of political fanaticism. Where in the name of common-sense, are our fears to end if we may not trust our sons, our brothers, our neighbors, our fellow-citizens? What shadow of danger can there be from men who are daily mingling with the rest of their countrymen and who participate with them in the same feelings, sentiments, habits and interests?

It is obvious that the 2nd amendment is a deterrent to tyranny put another way, it is to prevent a political party from abusing and twisting the federal government into a totalitarian state.
__________________
GundamFan0083 is offline  
Old 2013-01-19, 02:56   Link #1160
Vexx
Obey the Darkly Cute ...
*Author
 
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: On the whole, I'd rather be in Kyoto ...
Age: 57
For some of the anti-gun extremists, they'd like to prevent any law-abiding citizen from owning a gun. This would, of course, skyrocket other options in self-defense since the US simply doesn't have a preventative law enforcement protocol here as such. I've heard swords are absolutely terrifying when used effectively. (Stows the feminist argument *for* firearms for now).

*If* we're going to increase regulation or reduce the number of "loose" guns out there ... somehow banning black toasters while letting chrome toasters pass mostly results in dilution of respect for the law (and the law writers).
__________________
Vexx is offline  
Closed Thread

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 07:04.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
We use Silk.