REAL WORLD EVENT DISCUSSIONS

Obama announces gun control measures

POSTED BY: MAGONSDAUGHTER
UPDATED: Tuesday, January 22, 2013 17:57
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 2074
PAGE 1 of 1

Wednesday, January 16, 2013 11:19 AM

MAGONSDAUGHTER


http://www.theage.com.au/world/it-is-how-we-will-be-judged-obama-annou
nces-widest-gun-control-measures-in-18-years-20130117-2cufc.html


Quote:

WASHINGTON: The US President, Barack Obama, has announced sweeping gun control measures, calling on Congress to act fast to reintroduce a ban on assault rifles and to introduce a ban on high capacity magazines, as well as expand mandatory background checks to all gun sales.

Should the measures be passed they would be the most significant new laws on gun control created in the US since 1994.
Sweeping measures: US President Barack Obama, accompanied by Vice President Joe Biden, announces his proposals to reduce gun violence.

Making his announcement before four children who had written to him asking for action after the Sandy Hook massacre, he then sat before the assembled audience and signed 23 executive actions – orders he can issue without Congressional action – he believes will help cut gun violence.
Advertisement

They include instructing the Centres for Disease Control to study gun violence (doctors had been banned from gathering data or discussing guns with patients under regulations backed by the National Rifle Association), increasing funding for security in schools, nominating a new director for the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, increasing access to mental health treatment and instructing government agencies to share information for the background checks.

He acknowledged the political fight to have the measures passed would be long and difficult, but declared, “This is are first task as a society – keeping our children safe. It is how we will be judged.”

He said the measures he was announcing were not only intended to help prevent future mass shootings, but also the daily toll of gun violence in America. He noted that since 20 children and six adults were shot in Sandy Hook a further 900 people had died “at the end of a gun” in America.

In the audience watching the announcement were Chris and Lynn McDonnell, the parents of seven-year-old Grace who was killed in Sandy Hook. He said for them time since the killings had been measured in seconds and minutes rather than in days.

Also in the audience was Colin Goddard, who was shot four times in the Virginia Tech massacre. He earlier told the Vice President, Joe Biden, that he was in the audience not because of what happened to him, but because “what happened to me keeps happening to other people and we have to do something about it.”

“Colin, I promise you we will,” said Mr Biden, who had put the package of reforms together on behalf of Mr Obama.

Minutes after the President spoke the Texas representative Steve Toth appeared on CNN to say God conferred rights upon the people, not the Congress, and he would introduce legislation that would make it illegal to for federal agents to enforce the laws in Texas. A similar bill has already been introduced in Wyoming while other states and counties are considering following suit.

Constitutional lawyers could argue federal law overrides state law, should the laws be challenged.

The Floridian Republican senator, Marco Rubio, considered a potential future presidential candidate, quickly came out opposing the proposed ban on military-style rifles.

"I think it's completely misplaced. Because here's the issue in this public policy debate that's different from others: There is a constitutional right to bear arms," he told the Laura Ingram radio show.

"I did not create that and he cannot erase that. It is in the Constitution. If they want to change the Constitution, if they want to believe the Second Amendment should not be in there or if they believe it should be rewritten in the 21st century then let them have the guts to stand up and propose that."

He also condemned the President for choosing to share the stage with children as he made his announcement.

"I think most of us would have preferred if it just had been a straightforward address to the country because it implies that somehow those of us who do not agree with his public policy prescriptions don't equally care about children."

There was also much discussion today of a new advertisement released by the National Rifle Association which calls the President an elitist hypocrite because his children are protected by armed guards, but he does not support the NRA's proposal to install armed guards in all American schools – rather he wants to make them “gun-free zones”.

Though recent polls have shown a majority of Americans support some increased gun controls – especially with regards to background checks – there is no certainty any of the measures he has proposed will become law.

As he finished speaking the Republican speaker of the House of Representatives, John Boehner, said the House would consider any bills when and if they were first passed by the Senate. And even though Democrats control the Senate, many of them are backed by the NRA and are sympathetic to its cause.

Over the weekend even the Democratic Senate Majority Leader, Harry Reid, called for caution in acting on guns.

In 1994, then-president Bill Clinton championed another ban on assault rifles that expired 10 years later.

That ban is thought to have cost the party its control of the House and is one of the reasons the party has since been so fearful of gun control. Recent analysis shows the coalition of voters that supported the President in the recent election broadly support gun control.

Read more: http://www.theage.com.au/world/it-is-how-we-will-be-judged-obama-annou
nces-widest-gun-control-measures-in-18-years-20130117-2cufc.html#ixzz2IAvcUlP3



NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, January 16, 2013 12:13 PM

HERO


Clearly they spent a great deal of time trying to come up with things to talk about. In the end he didn't do much of practical value or concern.

Don't worry though. The 'Obama Turn Your Head and Cough' gun control plan using doctors to police this issue is sure to have a dramatic impact.

Doctor: "Do you own guns."
Me: "Nope."

Other acceptable answers are:
"No."
"Uh, uh."
"Yes...big guns and I plan to use them!...to hunt or shoot targets."
"Maybe, maybe not."
"I decline to answer."
"........" (aka silece)
"Do YOU own guns...and what is your address?"

His other big plans include...a study of video game violence but not Hollywood. He also plans to publish some letters so gun dealers know how to give background checks (all the dealers I know could teach a law class on background checks). Oh, and launch a national dialogue...you know...about guns and how great they are and how everybody should have one (or not). He had this great idea about putting more cops on the streets, to bad nobody's suggested that one before.

And he promised to "try real hard" to get the mean old congress to pass lots of new legislation banning assault weapons (nope), high capacity magazines (not going to happen), and closing the gun show loophole (which everybody agrees is a good idea and one I've figured out how to make money off of).

H



Hero...must be right on all of this. ALL of the rest of us are wrong. Chrisisall, 2012

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, January 16, 2013 1:01 PM

CHRISISALL


God wants us to have really big guns with extended magazines; responsible adults with high-paying jobs have said this, so it's gotta be true.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, January 16, 2013 5:51 PM

JONGSSTRAW

We carry in our hearts the true country, and that cannot be stolen.


When Obama referenced Ronald Reagan I got all teary-eyed. At least the man is trying.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, January 17, 2013 4:04 AM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up


There's actually some good in Pres. Obama's proposals, along with some stuff thats mostly 'feel good' but will have no practical effect.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/docs/wh_now_is_the_time_
full.pdf


For example, addressing the perceived legal barriers that prevent states from reporting people whose mental health status would prohibit them from owning guns seems a good idea, considering the number of folks with identified issues that have been involved in shootings.

Going after folks who provide guns to criminals through 'straw' purchases, or illegally sell to criminals would be worthwhile, although current laws prohibiting straw purchases are enforced in a rather spotty manner. Perhaps this will get DOJ and Federal prosecutors to move on more of these cases.

The item about prosecuting gun crime sounds good. maybe it'll also get Federal prosecutors to start bringing cases under existing laws prohibiting felons from possessing firearms. NB: Maybe this would be a good time to also consider getting folks convicted of non-violent drug possession and small-time dealing out of the prison system to make room for the actually dangerous folk.

The Making Schools Safer section seems a mixed bag, with some proposals pretty generic. Nice to see a note about reducing bullying in schools, since that's seemed to be the trigger in some recent incidents.

The whole section on improving mental health services seems worthwhile, even if it wasn't in relation to violence.

Encouraging folks to get gun safes and locks seems like a good idea, although making such things mandatory would be an enforcement nightmare from both cost and civil rights issues.

15,000 more cops on the street might be useful, depending on whether they're fighting crime or writing traffic tickets.

Now the 'feel good'

Doing background checks on intra-state private sales(interstate private sales already require a check) might seem a good idea, but it'll mostly inconvenience the law-abiding folks who sell or trade firearms as a hobby. Folks who want guns for criminal purposes will get them the same way they do now, from straw purchases and illegal sellers. The increased prosecution of straw purchasers and illegal sellers will probably do a lot more to keep guns out of their hands.

The "assault weapon" and magazine capacity restrictions on sales end up as mostly 'feel good' for several reasons. First, there are millions of semi-automatic rifles with detatchable magazines in private hands already. There are probably hundreds of millions of magazines holding more than 10 rounds, for both rifles and pistols. Second, anyone who is willing to practice for a few days can reload any magazine-fed firearm,(or even a revolver, if properly equipped) in just a second, so folks carrying more low-capacity magazines can shoot just about as fast. Third, most shootings don't involve as many as ten rounds being fired.

The 'armor-piercing bullets' ban just won't die, although documented instances of folks using them in crimes are pretty much nil.

It'll be intersting to see what makes it through the legislative process, and what ends up as Executive Orders.


"When your heart breaks, you choose what to fill the cracks with. Love or hate. But hate won't ever heal. Only love can do that."

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, January 17, 2013 7:10 AM

NIKI2

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...


Interestingly, Geezer, for once I mostly agree with you. It appears to me that they have come at this from every angle they can think of, and a lot of them have been good ideas having little or nothing to do with guns themselves. Which is good, because we all know guns aren't the whole problem.

As to the assault weapons ban, however, that argument has been made many times. Certainly a ban would do no good on weapons already existing, and aside from the paranoid, the rest of us might note that it says "prohibition on assault weapons sales", nothing about taking away your guns.

Over time, less access to assault weapons would lessen their impact and lessen how many people possess them, were the ban to remain in place. Certainly those who wanted them could get them through illegal means, but it would lessen accessibility to the general public. We would need it to last longer than the ten years the last one did to make any determination on that. It is my belief that fewer of them being sold legally would have an impact over time.

The other side of that argument is that,
Quote:

According to a 2004 study from the University of Pennsylvania, the number of people killed in mass shootings did go down generally during the years that the ban was in effect. The exception was 1999, the year that the shooting at Columbine High School happened.

The number of mass shootings per year has doubled since the ban expired, but the researchers say it's difficult to discern whether there was a cause-and-effect relationship.

The study found that gun crimes involving assault weapons declined by as much as 72 percent in the localities examined after the ban went into effect. However, the authors note that these types of weapons were only used in 2 to 8 percent of the gun crimes committed prior to the ban, so the larger impact on gun violence was minimal.

Gun control proponents argued the assault weapons ban was too narrow, and its language was too lenient. There were hundreds of assault weapons unaffected by the law, they said, and many loopholes that allowed for the continued manufacturing of models similar to those banned. More at http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/OTUS/newtown-connecticut-shootings-assa
ult-weapons-ban-work/story?id=18000724


Given many more assault weapons are used nowadays, especially in mass killings, we'd have to wait and see if an assault-weapons ban had a larger impact. Any cause and effect regarding the guns themselves is questionable, to me, as there are many other factors that come into play TODAY which didn't exist in previous years.

The previous ban also WAS an extremely watered-down version. In order to get it through Congress, it couldn't be very strong and had myriad loopholes. Whether that can change or not, nobody knows at this time.

I guess I should wait to see where this thread goes; I was surprised not to see all our pro-gun folk jump on it immediately, and some of the more 'intense' among them start talking about shredding the constitution, end of America, etc., etc. I'm guessing that will come in time.

When it does, however, do bear in mind that In 1968, President Lyndon B. Johnson signed an executive order in conjunction with his signing of the Gun Control Act of 1968, which regulated the type and amount of guns to be legally imported into the United States.

President George H.W. Bush used his executive authority under the 1968 law to permanently ban the import of 43 specific firearms including modified versions of the AK-47 and the Uzi.

In 1998, President Bill Clinton issued an executive order banning over 50 types of assault weapons.

Also, it was Governor Ronald Reagan of California who signed the Mulford Act in 1967, "prohibiting the carrying of firearms on one's person or in a vehicle, in any public place or on any public street." Twenty-four years later, Reagan was still pushing gun control. "I support the Brady Bill," he said in a March 28, 1991 speech, "and I urge the Congress to enact it without further delay."

So Obama isn't alone, and I don't see what he's proposed as having any effect whatsoever on existing gun owners' rights. I know the "slippery-slope" argument, but I don't believe it for a minute. Given the love of and tolerance of guns in our society, I can't see anyone or anything even being attempted when it comes to confiscating guns. Examples have been provided, but they are irrelevant in my opinion, given America is unique in its attitude toward guns (and in many other pertinent ways as well), it is a very big, diverse country, the strength of the Second Amendment, and the fact that no legislator will ever even try to take guns away. I think any comparison between America today and the confiscation of guns in other countries in the past is illogical.

Tit for tat got us where we are today. If we want to be grownups, we need to resist the ugliness. If we each did, this would be a better reflection on Firefly and a more welcome place. I will try.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, January 17, 2013 11:57 AM

HERO


Quote:

Originally posted by Geezer:
There's actually some good in Pres. Obama's proposals, along with some stuff thats mostly 'feel good' but will have no practical effect.

For example, addressing the perceived legal barriers that prevent states from reporting people whose mental health status would prohibit them from owning guns seems a good idea, considering the number of folks with identified issues that have been involved in shootings.


This sounds reasonable, but study is needed because of the impact on privacy.

My concern is that people will not seek the help they need if they can't be certain the help is confidential. I don't want a Vet dealing with PTSD or adult dealing with the loss of a child to suddenly find themselves on the 'can't buy' list because they may not be any sort of threat to anyone unless the choose NOT to get help.

It may not be an issue, but we should consider unintended consequences.
Quote:


Going after folks who provide guns to criminals through 'straw' purchases, or illegally sell to criminals would be worthwhile, although current laws prohibiting straw purchases are enforced in a rather spotty manner. Perhaps this will get DOJ and Federal prosecutors to move on more of these cases.


I note for the record that the govt probably wont want to do much with this aside from some symbolic actions. After all...they were doing this themselves and like to pretend it never happened.
Quote:


The item about prosecuting gun crime sounds good. maybe it'll also get Federal prosecutors to start bringing cases under existing laws prohibiting felons from possessing firearms. NB: Maybe this would be a good time to also consider getting folks convicted of non-violent drug possession and small-time dealing out of the prison system to make room for the actually dangerous folk.


Good luck with that. 'Legalize drugs so we can go after guns.' Yeah, that'll sell big in Congress. Soft on crime...
Quote:


The Making Schools Safer section seems a mixed bag, with some proposals pretty generic. Nice to see a note about reducing bullying in schools, since that's seemed to be the trigger in some recent incidents.


I like programs that try to deal with school socialization issues.
Quote:


The whole section on improving mental health services seems worthwhile, even if it wasn't in relation to violence.


This really is needed. I'd like to see block grants to county level mental health services rather then Federal programs.
Quote:


Encouraging folks to get gun safes and locks seems like a good idea, although making such things mandatory would be an enforcement nightmare from both cost and civil rights issues.


Make them tax deductable (or a rebate like the ones for buying energy efficient appliances).
Quote:


15,000 more cops on the street might be useful, depending on whether they're fighting crime or writing traffic tickets.


Seems to me they should be at the schools...kinda like the NRA suggested.

I note for the record that the Democrats always want more cops and more teachers. I think its in every "plan" ever floated. How do we deal with (insert generic domestic problem)? Cops and teachers.
Quote:


Doing background checks on intra-state private sales(interstate private sales already require a check) might seem a good idea, but it'll mostly inconvenience the law-abiding folks who sell or trade firearms as a hobby. Folks who want guns for criminal purposes will get them the same way they do now, from straw purchases and illegal sellers. The increased prosecution of straw purchasers and illegal sellers will probably do a lot more to keep guns out of their hands.


It should not inconvience people too much. Last gun I bought took five minutes to run the check. I would suggest...as a money maker...you set up a booth at the gun show with your computer and do a 'check for $20' service for all the dealers and private sellers. Comes with a certificate and a keychain for 'Checks R Us'.
Quote:


The "assault weapon" and magazine capacity restrictions on sales end up as mostly 'feel good' for several reasons. First, there are millions of semi-automatic rifles with detatchable magazines in private hands already. There are probably hundreds of millions of magazines holding more than 10 rounds, for both rifles and pistols. Second, anyone who is willing to practice for a few days can reload any magazine-fed firearm,(or even a revolver, if properly equipped) in just a second, so folks carrying more low-capacity magazines can shoot just about as fast. Third, most shootings don't involve as many as ten rounds being fired.


Well argued.
Quote:


The 'armor-piercing bullets' ban just won't die, although documented instances of folks using them in crimes are pretty much nil.


It happens, but not often.
Quote:


It'll be intersting to see what makes it through the legislative process, and what ends up as Executive Orders.


You forgot the courts since the Supreme Court has already ruled on the 2nd Amendment twice in recent years. New York's new law, for example, likely wont survive in its current form.

H

Hero...must be right on all of this. ALL of the rest of us are wrong. Chrisisall, 2012

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, January 17, 2013 7:24 PM

KWICKO

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)


Quote:

The "assault weapon" and magazine capacity restrictions on sales end up as mostly 'feel good' for several reasons. First, there are millions of semi-automatic rifles with detatchable magazines in private hands already. There are probably hundreds of millions of magazines holding more than 10 rounds, for both rifles and pistols.


Yes, and there were hundreds of millions of gas-guzzlers on the roads polluting our air before clean air standards and higher gas mileage standards were introduced.

Quote:

Second, anyone who is willing to practice for a few days can reload any magazine-fed firearm,(or even a revolver, if properly equipped) in just a second, so folks carrying more low-capacity magazines can shoot just about as fast.



Bullshit. "Anyone" can't reload a magazine in one second. If there is anyone who can, it's very rare.


Quote:

Third, most shootings don't involve as many as ten rounds being fired.



Except mass shootings like Sandy Hook, Aurora, Tucson, Virginia Tech, Killeen, Fort Hood, Columbine, etc. You don't get those kinds of massive casualty numbers from fewer than ten rounds.




"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero

"I was wrong" - Hero, 2012

Mitt Romney, introducing his running mate: "Join me in welcoming the next President of the United States, Paul Ryan!"

Rappy's response? "You're lying, gullible ( believing in some BS you heard on msnbc ) or hard of hearing."

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, January 18, 2013 2:14 AM

FREMDFIRMA



Raise your hand if you think they'll apply that 10 round limit to police.

Anyone ?

Bueller ?

.....

Yeah, thought so.

Everyone - or - No one.
Anything else is tyranny, which that is.

-F

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, January 18, 2013 4:09 AM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up


Quote:

Originally posted by Kwicko:
Quote:

The "assault weapon" and magazine capacity restrictions on sales end up as mostly 'feel good' for several reasons. First, there are millions of semi-automatic rifles with detatchable magazines in private hands already. There are probably hundreds of millions of magazines holding more than 10 rounds, for both rifles and pistols.


Yes, and there were hundreds of millions of gas-guzzlers on the roads polluting our air before clean air standards and higher gas mileage standards were introduced.



If rifles and magazines wore out in five or ten years, you might have a point. My almost 70 year old M1 Garand works great, so I have no need to replace it. Same with most semi-auto rifles with removable magazines. They're going to be around for a long time.

Quote:

Quote:

Second, anyone who is willing to practice for a few days can reload any magazine-fed firearm,(or even a revolver, if properly equipped) in just a second, so folks carrying more low-capacity magazines can shoot just about as fast.



Bullshit. "Anyone" can't reload a magazine in one second. If there is anyone who can, it's very rare.


Never been to a Practical Pistol match, have you? Lots of recreational shooters can indeed reload a firearm very quickly. It just takes some practice. While it's faster than most, the record for 12 aimed shots with a revolver, including a reload, is 2.99 seconds.


Quote:

Quote:

Third, most shootings don't involve as many as ten rounds being fired.



Except mass shootings like Sandy Hook, Aurora, Tucson, Virginia Tech, Killeen, Fort Hood, Columbine, etc. You don't get those kinds of massive casualty numbers from fewer than ten rounds.



But those are actually pretty rare instances. As noted above, MOST shootings involve less than 10 shots. And the shootings you listed all had something else in common, folks who were mentally unstable. Might it be a better use of resources to focus on helping these folks before they get to the point where they think killing others is the only solution?


"When your heart breaks, you choose what to fill the cracks with. Love or hate. But hate won't ever heal. Only love can do that."

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, January 18, 2013 8:05 AM

M52NICKERSON

DALEK!


Quote:

Originally posted by FREMDFIRMA:Everyone - or - No one.
Anything else is tyranny, which that is.

-F



I think you need a dictionary.

I do not fear God, I fear the ignorance of man.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, January 18, 2013 8:34 AM

6IXSTRINGJACK


Hehe Frem.....

Also raise your hand if the local neighborhood criminal will make sure to adhere to any local, state and federal restrictions on their guns when they're having them modded.


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, January 18, 2013 9:46 AM

STORYMARK


Quote:

Originally posted by m52nickerson:
Quote:

Originally posted by FREMDFIRMA:Everyone - or - No one.
Anything else is tyranny, which that is.

-F



I think you need a dictionary.

I do not fear God, I fear the ignorance of man.



The Daily Show did a whole bit last night about folks consistently mis-using the term "tyranny"....




Excuse me while I soak in all these sweet, sweet conservative tears.

"We will never have the elite, smart people on our side." -- Rick "Frothy" Santorum

"Goram it kid, let's frak this thing and go home! Engage!"

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, January 18, 2013 10:11 AM

FREMDFIRMA


Quote:


tyr·an·ny
[tir-uh-nee]
noun, plural tyr·an·nies.
1. arbitrary or unrestrained exercise of power; despotic abuse of authority.
2. the government or rule of a tyrant or absolute ruler.
3. a state ruled by a tyrant or absolute ruler.
4. oppressive or unjustly severe government on the part of any ruler.
5. undue severity or harshness.


1. Executive Orders.
2. See Above.
3. Inapplicable, currently.
4. Invasion of privacy, lack of respect for the consititution, overbearing legal code.
(See Also: Three Felonies A Day.)
5. The War on (some) Drugs.

Seems pretty clear to me.

If you wanna get COMPLETELY nitpicky, where I am referencing ties in with the "arbitrary" portion of number 1. here - when you make a law that applies only to SOME people, then you've just violated the necessary equality provision, rule of law, and due process.

When you make a law, it should either apply to EVERYONE, or it should apply to NO ONE.
(And thus should not BE a law)

Otherwise you're just recreating what is essentially a caste society, something this whole nation was founded on the opposition of.

-Frem

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, January 18, 2013 11:04 AM

M52NICKERSON

DALEK!


Quote:

Originally posted by FREMDFIRMA:
Quote:


tyr·an·ny
[tir-uh-nee]
noun, plural tyr·an·nies.
1. arbitrary or unrestrained exercise of power; despotic abuse of authority.
2. the government or rule of a tyrant or absolute ruler.
3. a state ruled by a tyrant or absolute ruler.
4. oppressive or unjustly severe government on the part of any ruler.
5. undue severity or harshness.


1. Executive Orders.
2. See Above.
3. Inapplicable, currently.
4. Invasion of privacy, lack of respect for the consititution, overbearing legal code.
(See Also: Three Felonies A Day.)
5. The War on (some) Drugs.

Seems pretty clear to me.

If you wanna get COMPLETELY nitpicky, where I am referencing ties in with the "arbitrary" portion of number 1. here - when you make a law that applies only to SOME people, then you've just violated the necessary equality provision, rule of law, and due process.

When you make a law, it should either apply to EVERYONE, or it should apply to NO ONE.
(And thus should not BE a law)

Otherwise you're just recreating what is essentially a caste society, something this whole nation was founded on the opposition of.

-Frem



1. You obviously don't understand executive orders.
2. You obviously don't understand how the government works
3. okay
4. Perhaps, you have the courts to rectify that. Remember the Supreme Court is the ultimate arbiter of the constitution.
5. Simply your opinion.

Allowing the police to have weapons civilians can't is not making laws that only apply to some people. It is an exemption in the law for certain positions, not certain people.


I do not fear God, I fear the ignorance of man.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, January 18, 2013 12:37 PM

NIKI2

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...


I've already expressed myself on this issue, so I will only add two things:
Quote:

My concern is that people will not seek the help they need if they can't be certain the help is confidential.
Bear in mind that, as far as I can tell, he's suggested more
Quote:

a request that funds be made available to help treat mental illness

and everything I've heard on the mental-illness front has been about those "adjudicated" or psychiatrists speaking up about those who might be a danger to themselves or others. I don't think anyone's talking about a list of ALL people with mental illness at this point:

I agree with Mike about police and guns. There are all kinds of restrictions on the public which those specifically charged with a job. The public can't just walk into a 747 and try to fly it, or set demolition charges to blow up a building, and so forth. And please, don't refute the two small EXAMPLES I've given, there are many examples of people handling or utilizing dangerous things the public cannot, everyone knows what I'm saying.


Tit for tat got us where we are today. If we want to be grownups, we need to resist the ugliness. If we each did, this would be a better reflection on Firefly and a more welcome place. I will try.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, January 18, 2013 7:51 PM

FREMDFIRMA


Quote:

Originally posted by m52nickerson:
Allowing the police to have weapons civilians can't is not making laws that only apply to some people. It is an exemption in the law for certain positions, not certain people.


I fail to see the difference.

That's like saying "Oh the fall didn't kill him, he died from impact related trauma".

Semantics and excuses, nothing more.

-F

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, January 19, 2013 7:28 AM

NIKI2

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...



I think you know it's not at all the same, Frem, and if you TRULY believe it is, I have serious questions about your reasoning ability.

Tit for tat got us where we are today. If we want to be grownups, we need to resist the ugliness. If we each did, this would be a better reflection on Firefly and a more welcome place. I will try.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, January 19, 2013 8:18 AM

FREMDFIRMA



Question it all you like: my assertion holds.

I do not play that "some more equal than others" game and never have.

You might consider what I have posted on the office wall here, despite us being Contract Security rather than actual police, I still think they're good principles and applicable to both us and our local Law Enforcement.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peelian_Principles

It is principle 7 that I am referencing here.
Quote:

Police, at all times, should maintain a relationship with the public that gives reality to the historic tradition that the police are the public and the public are the police; the police being only members of the public who are paid to give full-time attention to duties which are incumbent upon every citizen in the interests of community welfare and existence.

More relevant to us in a Contract Security role is principle 9
aka "It's SUPPOSED to be *boring* you nimrods, it means we're doin a good job!"

Mind you, I have ALWAYS felt that Police should be subject in full to every single petty nitpick that we mere peons are, specifically including weapons yes, but across the board - in order to prevent the very caste system mentality which has crept into them, and because if they *DID* have to labor under the same plethora of restrictions one would swiftly find the will to enforce arbitrary, counterproductive, or unenforceable ones fading very quickly.

This is far from the first time I have made this assertion, and previously it was not questioned in this fashion so I have to wonder exactly how holding a belief which was not considered unreasonable any time before all of the sudden becomes unreasonable when holding it becomes inconvenient for some.

There is also the Rule of Law to consider - if one wishes to change the Second Amendment, there's a process for that, *BY* Constitutional Amendment, you cannot just ignore the rules when they become inconvenient either, or make Laws in contravention of those rights, because it defies the very purpose of the Bill of Rights and further demeans them all.

This is in fact no different from my stand on violations of the Fourth Amendment in exactly the same fashion, and I didn't see this much animosity about me doin that, ehe ?

-Frem

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, January 20, 2013 8:44 PM

RIONAEIRE

Beir bua agus beannacht


I'm okay with banning assault weapons. I think the law we had under Clinton would be just fine to renew. I don't think I want anything more restrictive than that, but that law is good with me.

"A completely coherant River means writers don't deliver" KatTaya

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, January 21, 2013 7:15 AM

NIKI2

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...


It was your comment that "the fall didn't kill him, he died from impact related trauma" was the same as what was suggested with which I disagreed. It wasn't about you believing the population should be as well armed as the police, I'm fully aware that is your and Anthony's position. It was merely your comparison which I found illogical.

Riona, the previous assault-weapons ban was pretty full of loopholes, which, as usual, is how one side gets the other to vote on just about anything. In my opinion, what Obama is proposing now is more all-encompassing and comes at the problem from many different directions, which I think is a better idea. I have no expectation an assault-weapon ban will make it through, but some of the rest just might...

Tit for tat got us where we are today. If we want to be grownups, we need to resist the ugliness. If we each did, this would be a better reflection on Firefly and a more welcome place. I will try.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, January 21, 2013 10:13 AM

FREMDFIRMA



Umm, just to throw in the perspective of enforceability, because it is absolutely not, and may well lead us right down the same path as the "War on (some) Drugs" with the same brand of predictably 'happy' consequences....
You *DO* know that a 3D Printer can crank out a high capacity magazine quite easily, do you not ?

-F

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, January 21, 2013 12:02 PM

NIKI2

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...


Yeah, I read all about that a while ago...might even have posted about it. It's a long way from being viable at this point, and I doubt they'll be able to make an automatic or semi-auto gun for a long time to come. Hopefully after I'm gone.

Tit for tat got us where we are today. If we want to be grownups, we need to resist the ugliness. If we each did, this would be a better reflection on Firefly and a more welcome place. I will try.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, January 21, 2013 12:11 PM

PIRATENEWS

John Lee, conspiracy therapist at Hollywood award-winner History Channel-mocked SNL-spoofed PirateNew.org wooHOO!!!!!!




47 states revolt against Obama gun ban
http://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/presidential-actions
http://www.wnd.com/2013/01/47-states-revolt-against-obama-gun-control/

Quote:

COMMUNIST CHINA ORDERS OBAMA TO BAN GUNS IN USA DECEMBER 2012
http://www.infowars.com/communist-chinese-government-calls-for-america
ns-to-be-disarmed
/

China's Public Executions in Sports Stadiums Big Hit on TV
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-17303746
http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?tid=53842
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/1425570.stm



























"There's going to be a Marxist revolution in Amerika. We need to be organized and grow the movement."
-Barack Hussein Obama Soetoro, member of the Young Marxist Club at Occidental College
http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/02/meeting_young_obama.html


NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, January 21, 2013 4:54 PM

FREMDFIRMA


Quote:

Originally posted by Niki2:
Yeah, I read all about that a while ago...might even have posted about it. It's a long way from being viable at this point, and I doubt they'll be able to make an automatic or semi-auto gun for a long time to come.


Unfortunately, or fortunately, I really don't know....
That genie has done escaped the bottle.
Last known test of a 3D Printed semi-auto got off six shots before it broke, and that was the first week of last Decemeber, but I wasn't speaking of weapons actually, a weapon receiver and bolt has to endure some pretty hefty stresses since it's essentially containing and directing an explosion.

What I was more speaking of was high capacity magazines, for if they were "banned" it would be easy enough to produce them on any 3D Printer with the right template, many of which ALREADY exist because of difficulty obtaining them or expense involved, and many high capacity magazines are already made of plastics to begin with, and the springs are no harder to make or obtain.

Which means such a ban would be utterly and thoroughly unenforceable and would simply create an underground market, and the same resultant consequences as prohibition or the "War on (some) Drugs" - and every penny wasted there just making the problem worse is one less that COULD have been spent on better mental health care, you see ?

-Frem

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, January 21, 2013 5:19 PM

CHRISISALL


I get it, Frem.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, January 21, 2013 5:51 PM

KWICKO

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)


Quote:

Originally posted by piratenews:






Nope. Never said it. We've already been over this. Did your crazy inbred redneck ass already forget?



"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero

"I was wrong" - Hero, 2012

Mitt Romney, introducing his running mate: "Join me in welcoming the next President of the United States, Paul Ryan!"

Rappy's response? "You're lying, gullible ( believing in some BS you heard on msnbc ) or hard of hearing."

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, January 21, 2013 6:23 PM

PIRATENEWS

John Lee, conspiracy therapist at Hollywood award-winner History Channel-mocked SNL-spoofed PirateNew.org wooHOO!!!!!!

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, January 21, 2013 6:31 PM

PIRATENEWS

John Lee, conspiracy therapist at Hollywood award-winner History Channel-mocked SNL-spoofed PirateNew.org wooHOO!!!!!!


Quote:

Originally posted by Kwicko:
Quote:

Originally posted by piratenews:





Nope. Never said it. We've already been over this. Did your crazy inbred redneck ass already forget?



Yeah, Hitler allowed lots of guns inside the death camps...for the death squads.



Lots on guns for Germans on the Eastern Front...not much firewood though.




NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, January 22, 2013 7:51 AM

NIKI2

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...


Mike: And that would matter to PN...exactly WHY? He adores that kind of crap, and hasn't the slightest interest in whether it's true or not--any more than anything ELSE!

You know,

Tit for tat got us where we are today. If we want to be grownups, we need to resist the ugliness. If we each did, this would be a better reflection on Firefly and a more welcome place. I will try.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, January 22, 2013 8:17 AM

M52NICKERSON

DALEK!


Quote:

Originally posted by FREMDFIRMA:
I fail to see the difference.



No, you simply do not want to see the difference.

I do not fear God, I fear the ignorance of man.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, January 22, 2013 10:10 AM

NIKI2

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...


Here's an interesting one which, to me, reflects some of the mentality we've seen right here:
Quote:

Guns were last straw for me with GOP

In defiance of Newton's law that every action has an equal and opposite reaction, any discussion of legitimate controls on the use, handling and sale of firearms routinely yields an explosive overreaction of opposition. I learned that firsthand when I organized a voluntary gun buyback program for January 8 in Tucson, Arizona.

It was the tipping point for me to change my party affiliation from Republican to Democratic.

On January 8 in 2011, a seriously deranged young man murdered six people, including a 9-year-old girl, and wounded 13, including Rep. Gabby Giffords, during a 45-second shooting rampage in Tucson. He was finally subdued when he stopped to change clips in his semiautomatic weapon, after firing 31 rounds.

In the immediate aftermath, our community came together as one in our grieving over the deaths and in our resolve to do what we could to prevent a repeat of the tragedy.

But the irrational fears of the gun lobby succeeded in shouting down the debate, and in the intervening two years not a single piece of meaningful legislation has been adopted that would even begin to solve the problem.

I was the target of some of that violent overreaction in the two weeks leading up to the buyback. Thinly veiled threats were leveled at me. I was referred to as "Hitler." The response made it clear the event I was planning hit a nerve among a group who evidently believe the proper disposal of a firearm is tantamount to the desecration of a holy icon.

Guns are not fetish objects. The buyback was simply an offer to people who were uncomfortable with having a weapon in their homes to trade those weapons into the Tucson Police Department in exchange for a $50 grocery gift card. More than $10,000 in gift cards were distributed during the event.

The money I used to buy those cards was donated in just under two weeks by Tucson residents, who still cling to the hope we will re-engage on the topic of rational gun control. They showed that the loud voices are not going to shout down the discussion this time around.

But on the periphery of my buyback, and on the periphery of rational discourse, was a group of gun and NRA enthusiasts holding a "cash for guns" firearms flea market. They held it on the boundary of the police department parking lot in which my buyback was taking place.

In Arizona, it is legal for a person to walk up to another on a street corner, hand him cash for a firearm and simply walk off with it, with no need for a background check into his psychological or criminal history. That was exactly what happened with those who came to my buyback to "score some deals" on weapons by outbidding the gift cards I was offering.

I was a Republican at the time, but less than one week after the buyback, I chose to switch parties. I believe there is a centrist element among the rank and file in the GOP, but the leadership is led by the far right and openly beholden to the NRA and the gun lobby. It is that rigid ideology that is driving the party into irrelevancy. The overreaction to the gun buyback made it clear that, in Tucson at least, the Republican Party is out of touch with the values of the community.

The cash for guns event clearly highlighted that anyone, a criminal or someone who is mentally ill, can immediately buy a gun with no questions asked in Tucson. It's obvious that public safety demands that background checks be incorporated somehow in private, person-to-person purchases of guns.

That really is low-hanging fruit in the regulation of weapons sales. Legislators have got to stand up to the gun lobbyists who resist even this minimal change in the law and adopt it -- federally and immediately.

Consider if the Tucson shooter had needed to change clips after just five rounds had been fired, or even 10. The carnage of the day would have been significantly decreased. Lives would have been saved. The size of gun magazines is also low-hanging fruit in this conversation.

So is the need to stop selling armor-piercing ammunition on the open market. Unless the goal is to kill a police officer, certainly rational people can agree that restrictions on the manufacture and sale of this sort of ammunition is in order.

Over the past three years, the Arizona Legislature, with a Republican supermajority, has adopted statutes that have been offensive to Latinos, women and youth. I have openly resisted those bills, and after the recent elections in which those three demographic groups rejected the Republican brand, I had hoped things would change, and that the party leadership would resist the continuing lurch to the far right.

But even after 20 schoolchildren were killed in Newtown, leaders of the GOP have shown no inclination to resist the gun lobbyists who fund campaigns, but who come empty-handed when asked to craft reasonable gun legislation.

Until the Republican Party hemorrhages more and more centrists, leaders will not wake up to the damage they're doing to themselves and the party. The debate over rational gun control legislation is an opportunity for them to engage in a productive manner to make this nation safer.
http://www.cnn.com/2013/01/22/opinion/kozachik-gun-buyback/index.html?
hpt=hp_t3



Tit for tat got us where we are today. If we want to be grownups, we need to resist the ugliness. If we each did, this would be a better reflection on Firefly and a more welcome place. I will try.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, January 22, 2013 5:57 PM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up


Quote:

Originally posted by FREMDFIRMA:
Unfortunately, or fortunately, I really don't know....
That genie has done escaped the bottle.
Last known test of a 3D Printed semi-auto got off six shots before it broke, and that was the first week of last Decemeber, but I wasn't speaking of weapons actually, a weapon receiver and bolt has to endure some pretty hefty stresses since it's essentially containing and directing an explosion.

What I was more speaking of was high capacity magazines, for if they were "banned" it would be easy enough to produce them on any 3D Printer with the right template, many of which ALREADY exist because of difficulty obtaining them or expense involved, and many high capacity magazines are already made of plastics to begin with, and the springs are no harder to make or obtain.

Which means such a ban would be utterly and thoroughly unenforceable and would simply create an underground market, and the same resultant consequences as prohibition or the "War on (some) Drugs" - and every penny wasted there just making the problem worse is one less that COULD have been spent on better mental health care, you see ?

-Frem



Don't need to go all high tech to accomplish this. Anyone with a basic sheet metal brake, a spot welder, and minimal skills should be able to take a 10 round magazine and turn it into a 30 round magazine in short order. Then again, considering the tens (hundreds?) of millions of higher capacity magazines already out there - that aren't going to break down or wear out any time soon - why bother?


"When your heart breaks, you choose what to fill the cracks with. Love or hate. But hate won't ever heal. Only love can do that."

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

YOUR OPTIONS

NEW POSTS TODAY

USERPOST DATE

OTHER TOPICS

DISCUSSIONS
Questions that conservatives can't answer
Thu, September 18, 2014 21:23 - 95 posts
The NFL - beating women less offensive than talking bad about gays, or getting free tattoos.
Thu, September 18, 2014 21:17 - 157 posts
Where is John Galt?
Thu, September 18, 2014 17:52 - 10 posts
Administration Official Says Saudi Arabia Borders Syria
Thu, September 18, 2014 17:47 - 8 posts
Another Unarmed Black Teen Killed
Thu, September 18, 2014 17:44 - 486 posts
Obama hindsight
Thu, September 18, 2014 17:43 - 8 posts
More great moments from that religion of PEACE !
Thu, September 18, 2014 17:39 - 55 posts
The tyranny of Big Small Government
Thu, September 18, 2014 17:31 - 18 posts
The American Way?
Thu, September 18, 2014 17:29 - 30 posts
Voter fraud probe roils Ga. Senate race
Thu, September 18, 2014 17:18 - 6 posts
I don't even know what most of you are talking about anymore.....
Thu, September 18, 2014 17:17 - 59 posts
Study: Number-crunching could lead to unethical choices
Thu, September 18, 2014 17:12 - 8 posts

FFF.NET SOCIAL

OUR SPONSORS