billvon 2,394 #26 January 9, 2013 >The reading of the constitution is strict or loose depending upon the subjective >feelings of the person seeing the policy. Agreed. And often, here, it is read both ways at the same time. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawrocket 3 #27 January 9, 2013 Oh, hush. They have a long history of being considered unworthy of rights shared by others. Dont' you know that cocaine and marijuana were banned because drug crazed Negroes would look at white women? Why, right now we know that mass shootings are caused by gun-crazed crazy white boys. Take away the guns and the crazy goes away. My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
masterrig 1 #28 January 9, 2013 I think,we need to take away thecrazies! I really believe, deeper background checks and thorough inspections of those checks would do some good. Any doubt at all and 'No gun for you!' My big thing in regard to any new gun laws and we're going to see them, be done with thought and common sense. We gotta quit the 'knee-jerk'. We need some sanity. A severe crack-down on gang-bangers would bea good thing. Chuck Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rhaig 0 #29 January 9, 2013 QuoteI've heard from a few officers who said their department would not enforce anything, and use the excuse they don't have enough manpower/time, but we will get to it if we can. I've seen public statements from a few TX Sheriffs saying they wouldn't enforce a confiscation order.-- Rob Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
StreetScooby 5 #30 January 9, 2013 Quote but the country needs to have a conversation... How can you have a conversation with someone that can't define "assault weapon"? Can't count the number of times I've seen pictures of NY City council members holding up something like a shotgun claiming that "another assault weapon has been taken off our streets". It's shockingly ridiculous.We are all engines of karma Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,623 #31 January 10, 2013 QuoteIMO This is pretty much the worst case scenerio. If BHO overrides the house and congress to get what he wants...he just might find out that the country could be in worse shape than ever. If he does this he will lose every shred of respect I have for him. No big deal, your past posts indicate that you have no respect anyway.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkyChimp 0 #32 January 10, 2013 England tried to legistlate guns away from the colonists and look what happened! Does anyone else find it funny that we made a SPORT out of an EMERGENCY PROCEDURE?!?! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkyChimp 0 #33 January 10, 2013 Chew on this.... I'm not giving up my guns! I feel horrible about the schools who have had crazy people use guns to go on a rampage but how many schools do we have in america multiplied by how many school days "incident free" over the past 13 years compared to the days that have had school shootings? Does anyone else find it funny that we made a SPORT out of an EMERGENCY PROCEDURE?!?! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawrocket 3 #34 January 10, 2013 Quote I really believe, deeper background checks and thorough inspections of those checks would do some good. Any doubt at all and 'No gun for you!’ I really have a big problem with the last statement because it turns a “right” into a “license.” No gun for somebody unless they can eliminate all doubt that they will be good with it? It’s a nigh practically impossible standard. Also – consider the same thing with other rights. Think of applying this to the Fifth Amendment – created so that a person would not have to prove innocence – being changed to “any doubt at all and you are convicted.” Or the Fourth Amendment – if you can prove that a search won’t reveal anything at all you won’t be searched. Or how about the First Amendment – if you can prove you won’t say or write anything that is seditious then you can speak your mind all you want. The Second Amendment is being popularly viewed as an exception to the standard rules. People aren’t saying, “I don’t like it but it is what it is.” People are saying that the Second Amendment should not be viewed as any of the other Amendments in the Bill of Rights. That the Second Amendment should be subsumed and ignored for the some political purpose. Note the 1st (speech), 4th (search and seizure), 5th (statements made may be incriminating, due process), and 14th Amendment (due process, privacy) issues involved as well as the 2nd Amendment issues. The “right” to a gun, under your proposal, becomes dependent on a person waiving these rights. Imagine wanting to vote and being told told, “well, before you can file it a determination must be made with respect to your mental state. You must submit your medical records from the past 15 years in order for a determination to be made as to whether you are qualified to vote.” Voting is not a “right” if you need to be given permission to do it. My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mpohl 1 #35 January 10, 2013 In my books, the common sense is that NOBODY needs to have a gun. Not an assault weapon, a rifle, nor a pistol! Law enforcement, yes, military, yes. That's about it. That's COMMON sense. QuoteAccording to Biden, he stated that we need a 'common sense approach' to the gun issue. I don't see 'common sense' in Obama's approach. Even the husband of Congresswoman Gifford stated that he and his wife are gun owners and that we need a common sense approach to the gun issue. I whole-heartedly agree with Gifford's thinking but common sense/politicians is an oxy-moron. We have to get away from knee-jerk reactions. Chuck Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
OHCHUTE 0 #36 January 10, 2013 Hitler took the guns then collected the people... for the gas chamber. Common Sense= fight like hell to keep your arms or you might suffer like those under Stalin, Hitler, Pol Pot the list goes on. And tell me they won't kill citizens who protest. 4 DEAD IN OHIO. They were carrying FLOWERS. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rhaig 0 #37 January 10, 2013 http://radio.woai.com/cc-common/mainheadlines3.html?feed=119078&article=10672432 Texas A.G. Abbott: I'll Go to Court to Block Any Congressional Gun Ban Quote Congress may be ramping up to consider gun restrictions in the wake of the Connecticut school shooting, but Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott says the proposals being discussed now are unconstitutional, and he says he will ask the courts to throw them out if they are approved, 1200 WOAI news reports. -- Rob Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
regulator 0 #38 January 10, 2013 QuoteQuoteIMO This is pretty much the worst case scenerio. If BHO overrides the house and congress to get what he wants...he just might find out that the country could be in worse shape than ever. If he does this he will lose every shred of respect I have for him. No big deal, your past posts indicate that you have no respect anyway. ----------------------------------------------------- Wake me up when you've actually said anything significant. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
masterrig 1 #39 January 10, 2013 QuoteQuote I really believe, deeper background checks and thorough inspections of those checks would do some good. Any doubt at all and 'No gun for you!’ I really have a big problem with the last statement because it turns a “right” into a “license.” No gun for somebody unless they can eliminate all doubt that they will be good with it? It’s a nigh practically impossible standard. Also – consider the same thing with other rights. Think of applying this to the Fifth Amendment – created so that a person would not have to prove innocence – being changed to “any doubt at all and you are convicted.” Or the Fourth Amendment – if you can prove that a search won’t reveal anything at all you won’t be searched. Or how about the First Amendment – if you can prove you won’t say or write anything that is seditious then you can speak your mind all you want. The Second Amendment is being popularly viewed as an exception to the standard rules. People aren’t saying, “I don’t like it but it is what it is.” People are saying that the Second Amendment should not be viewed as any of the other Amendments in the Bill of Rights. That the Second Amendment should be subsumed and ignored for the some political purpose. Note the 1st (speech), 4th (search and seizure), 5th (statements made may be incriminating, due process), and 14th Amendment (due process, privacy) issues involved as well as the 2nd Amendment issues. The “right” to a gun, under your proposal, becomes dependent on a person waiving these rights. Imagine wanting to vote and being told told, “well, before you can file it a determination must be made with respect to your mental state. You must submit your medical records from the past 15 years in order for a determination to be made as to whether you are qualified to vote.” Voting is not a “right” if you need to be given permission to do it. What I was getting at was that applications are 'really' looked at and the applicant meets the qualifications. We've all heard the stories of someone shooting up some place and it turns-out the shooter had some mental problem in their history. Chuck Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
masterrig 1 #40 January 10, 2013 Quote In my books, the common sense is that NOBODY needs to have a gun. Not an assault weapon, a rifle, nor a pistol! Law enforcement, yes, military, yes. That's about it. That's COMMON sense. To me, that's a bit on the extreme side. I, like so many others in this country was raised-up around guns and taught the proper handling and safety with guns. I have hunted most of my life and own several guns. I taught my sons about guns and as it happens, they choose not to be involved with them. That's their choice. Men and women alike, enjoy shooting sports and hunting. Are you saying that those folks should be denied that right just because you don't like guns? That's NOT common sense. Chuck QuoteAccording to Biden, he stated that we need a 'common sense approach' to the gun issue. I don't see 'common sense' in Obama's approach. Even the husband of Congresswoman Gifford stated that he and his wife are gun owners and that we need a common sense approach to the gun issue. I whole-heartedly agree with Gifford's thinking but common sense/politicians is an oxy-moron. We have to get away from knee-jerk reactions. Chuck Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
masterrig 1 #41 January 10, 2013 QuoteHitler took the guns then collected the people... for the gas chamber. Common Sense= fight like hell to keep your arms or you might suffer like those under Stalin, Hitler, Pol Pot the list goes on. And tell me they won't kill citizens who protest. 4 DEAD IN OHIO. They were carrying FLOWERS. Shot by National Guard Troops! Chuck Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
regulator 0 #42 January 10, 2013 Can you elaborate more on this situation you are talking about? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
masterrig 1 #43 January 10, 2013 Quote Can you elaborate more on this situation you are talking about? I believe,it was in 1967 that some college students were protesting the Viet Nam War at an Ohio University and something happened to where National Guard troops opened fire on the protesters. I apologise but I cannot recall the name of the University. KENT STATE! Just remembered! Chuck Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gravitymaster 0 #44 January 10, 2013 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kent_State_shootings http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=82CYNj7noic Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
GeorgiaDon 340 #45 January 10, 2013 QuoteThe Second Amendment is being popularly viewed as an exception to the standard rules. People aren’t saying, “I don’t like it but it is what it is.” People are saying that the Second Amendment should not be viewed as any of the other Amendments in the Bill of Rights. That the Second Amendment should be subsumed and ignored for the some political purpose. Well, firstly it seems to me the other constitution rights aren't absolute, in the sense that judicial mechanisms exist for those rights to be suppressed. Police can obtain a warrant to search your property, and seize evidence, so the protection afforded by the fourth is not absolute. Similarly, many rights are extinguished, temporarily or permanently, after a felony conviction. So Congress can act to limit some rights under some circumstances, as long as they provide a mechanism for judicial review and relief if the limitation is unwarranted (so to speak). Also, the 2nd amendment is already circumscribed for everybody, in the sense of how one defines the "arms" that you have a right to bear. Some time ago I started a thread to try to learn why the 2nd doesn't allow private citizens to own a wide range of military arms, including land mines, grenades, surface-to-air missiles, functional tanks with appropriate ammunition, and so on. Are these not "arms" too? Yet even the most pro-gun citizens of SC at the time declined to argue that everyone should be allowed to posses such weapons. The traditional understanding of arms is "guns", though that isn't explicitly stated in the 2nd, and it isn't consistent with the often-stated purpose of the 2nd to allow citizens to resist a tyrannical government (who would have such weapons). There seems to be a general consensus that certain "arms" are too dangerous for the general public, and anyway they aren't much fun as you really can't go into your back yard and shoot off a few SAMs just for the hell of it. If there is already such fuzziness about what is covered by the 2nd, and given that people seem to concede that they shouldn't be allowed to own certain types of weapons, then the 2nd can't really be argued to be an unlimited right to own absolutely any weapon one might imagine. Where is the line between "suitable for self defense" and "so destructive that access is strictly limited to the military"? If we can agree that public safety concerns are sufficient to keep certain classes of weapons out of most people's hands, then why are we not allowed to even have a discussion about where a reasonable balance between public safety and 2nd amendment rights might be found? Note that I'm not saying that that "reasonable balance" necessarily requires a ban on high capacity firearms, I'm just saying it should be possible (even taking into consideration the 2nd amendment) to have a discussion. I'm also curious if there is any degree of mental impairment that you would agree justifies denying someone their 2nd amendment right? Can we (as a society) ever be justified in deciding that someone is so incapable of making rational judgements that they shouldn't be allowed access to firearms? If someone states they want a gun so they take revenge on a boss/ex/ex's new boyfriend, is that sufficient according to the constitution to refuse to sell them a gun? Or do we have to wait until they have actually maimed/killed someone? (I'm only asking because you come across as having very strong ideas on the constitution, and I'm curious if you see any scope at all for factoring public safety into the issue since the 2nd doesn't explicitly mention such limitations). Don_____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawrocket 3 #46 January 10, 2013 QuoteI'm also curious if there is any degree of mental impairment that you would agree justifies denying someone their 2nd amendment right? Can we (as a society) ever be justified in deciding that someone is so incapable of making rational judgements that they shouldn't be allowed access to firearms? Once a person has been convicted of a crime? Yes. Or perhaps adjudged to be a threat to oneself or others. But what about the creepy? The weird? We've got people who have committed no crimes being suggested to have their rights extinguished because of a medical condition that they were born with. QuoteIf someone states they want a gun so they take revenge on a boss/ex/ex's new boyfriend, is that sufficient according to the constitution to refuse to sell them a gun? That's pretty specific. Is it ever that cut and dried? QuoteOr do we have to wait until they have actually maimed/killed someone? Usually I'd like to see a person having been convicted of a crime. Do we deny a person suffrage because that person hasn't committed a felony yet, but might? I know it sounds harsh but it's as black and white as I can make it. If a person hasn't committed a crime then it's not the government's business to deny it because the person might. That's thought police. My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
davjohns 1 #47 January 10, 2013 I'll be surprised if he uses an Executive Order on an issue so devisive, public, and protected by the Constitution. It would invite huge amounts of money being poured into legal battles. I suspect the result would be judicial limitation of the power of the Executive Order. POTUS is many things, but stupid is not one of them.I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet.. But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,623 #48 January 10, 2013 Quote ----------------------------------------------------- Wake me up when you've actually said anything significant. So you admit that your posts involve no conscious thought. Just bad dreams.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawrocket 3 #49 January 10, 2013 QuoteI suspect the result would be judicial limitation of the power of the Executive Order. With the way the legal system works, not until this President is out of office. My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
regulator 0 #50 January 10, 2013 QuoteQuote ----------------------------------------------------- Wake me up when you've actually said anything significant. So you admit that your posts involve no conscious thought. Just bad dreams. ---------------------------------------------------- Perhaps you should check your prescription when I say this...99.% of your post are meaningless and are void of anything worthwhile...unless you consider re-direction and snide comments worthwhile...which would fit right into your political views. Quite frankly you have become so predictable with what you say on these forums its getting boring....YAWN. You are boring me to death. since you do nothing but regurgitate the same crap over and over again this is now my standard reply to anything you have to say. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lMKCsBMIcrE Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
