Feinsteins Gun Control Bill

[ChuckG]

The same people that are promoting gun control endorse the aborting of 1 million children in the United States every year. Rather hypocritical.

[ddoering]

Originally Posted by Peregrino

Richard – I find your characterization of my comment in post #142 disingenuous and personally insulting. Dismissing my attempt to restore perspective to discussions wherein a local tragedy is being exploited nationally by entrenched leftist interests by insinuating that I considered it a “meh” event reflects poorly on your appeal for reasoned compromise.

Not to worry though, in this instance your appeal falls on deaf ears. In order for compromise to work both sides need to see a win-win. There is no win for conservatives when negotiating with the left; there is only a delaying action and I for one am sick of continually losing. One test for insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results each time. Compromising with the left meets that test. As examples, I offer the current budget impasse, and any federal firearms law you wish to examine. I’m tired of suffering the “death of a thousand cuts”. Turn the other cheek has been an abysmal failure; the time has come to return each incivility in kind, proportional to the insult.

The problem is not and never has been firearms. Firearms are tools, and like all tools can be used responsibly or otherwise. Tools only do what the mind using them directs. Failures in the mental health system, the criminal justice system, and the zero personal responsibility/soccer trophy for everyone mindset that has shaped American society today are the root causes. Until actions have consequences and people are held accountable, the amoral, self-centered, and destructive behaviors that lead to these tragedies will not stop.

As an example I invite you to look at http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/12/24...tern-ny-blaze/. Especially the part about his “extensive criminal record” – one that made him ineligible to possess firearms. This tragedy could have been prevented by executing the perpetrator for the murder of his grandmother years ago.

You (or anyone else of like mind) are cordially invited to offer a solution that is effective (20,000 gun laws already on the books in this country haven't stopped these incidents) and that does not compromise my rights. Implementing new laws that have already been proven ineffective and demanding in the process that I surrender a right so sheep can bask in the illusion of security isn't an acceptable option.

Personally, I think America has passed the 50% +1 that marks the turning point in every society. The ancient Chinese curse about living in interesting times has come to pass. I feel for the next generation. Indications are they will not enjoy the opportunities and freedoms we did – and it’ll largely be because Conservatives surrendered them without a whimper because they couldn’t stand being called “insensitive” by the left. So no – I’m not better than this. You can only kick a dog so many times before you get bit. Maybe leftists should give that some consideration.

Amen brother.

[ddoering]

Originally Posted by ChuckG

The same people that are promoting gun control endorse the aborting of 1 million children in the United States every year. Rather hypocritical.

Yeah but it kills more potential Dems so who cares.

[GratefulCitizen]

Originally Posted by Peregrino

You can only kick a dog so many times before you get bit. Maybe leftists should give that some consideration.

Leftists think in terms of hierarchies.
They think that they are now dominant and everyone else is submissive.

It hasn't occurred to them that they are merely being tolerated.
They genuinely believe intimidation will work.

Andrew Wilkow calls this "fighting the heavy bag."
The heavy bag doesn't punch back.

[Sigaba]

Originally Posted by koz

Please state the writings, letters and quotes of a writer or signer of the Constitution that said free men should not own guns/arms. For that matter which didn't believe that the power should remain with the people. Hamilton, the Federalist, still wanted the people armed.

Koz--

You have misread my post. I did not argue either of those two points. That is, having agreed that free men should have the right to bear arms, there was concurrently an ongoing debate over how, to use your words, "that power should remain with the people" within the context of the time.

For example, in the Federalist no. 29, Hamilton, who, IMO, clearly favored a more powerful central government than many of his contemporaries, specifically called for "confiding the regulation of the militia to the direction of the national authority." By contrast, in a letter to Patrick Henry dated 14 September 1789, Richard Henry Lee worried that the Federalists were appropriating terms like "the people" in order to prop up the federal state at the expense of a "Union of Confederated States." (IIRC, Hamilton, in the Federalist number 84, had questioned the need for a Bill of Rights at all.)

My previous post is not an argument for using the past as justification for more (or less) gun control. Instead, my previous post is simply a caution for those who would use the past to justify positions (either for or against) in present day policy debates without having an in-depth understanding of the historical contexts. These contexts include the personal and political rivalries among various framers as well as the pressures under which the framers worked to hammer out a constitution in the first place. (FWIW, a contemporaneous discussion of these contexts, dated 12 December 1787, is available here. This document also addresses the perceived failure of the Constitution to mention hunting, self defense, and fowling.)

One last point. As this post implies, I do not agree that the only people who should be considered historically relevant IRT the debates over the constitution and its ratification should be the drafters or signers of that document.

[dollarbill]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3EdiT...e_gdata_player

Agree that firearms are tools of choice. I only own four. A Millennium .40, that I carry while on the road, a XD 40, Rem 870, and a Sig. These are the tools that I have decided that would surfice for protecting my family, myself, or God forbid someone else. I live a good law abiding life, and set an excellent example for my kids to follow. One of my concerns of somebody telling me what type of weapon I can own is would it stop there. Would someone then say, I think all the violence actually starts with the Bible. It's full of murder, death and distrution. So let's get rid of all the Bible. I for one will not give up either one.

[Razor]

Originally Posted by Dozer523

Here is what i think so you know and stop telling me what I think.

I think weapons designed for military use have no business being on the streets of America. Someone want to pack an M-4, enlist.
I think it's bullshit to claim that a weapon that can fire as fast as you can pull the trigger is not dangerous -- that because it isn't full automatic it is somehow safer.
I think military style magazines have no place on the streets of America.
I think many Americans are not going to continue to accept the NRA position that being armed to the teeth to the exclusion of the safety of others is IAW the framers of the Constitution.

I'd like to think reasonable gun-owners will view this mass murder as something more then unavoidably sad.
I'd like to think their participation in the conversation will be more then "no change" or "arm more people".
I'd like to think they could get behind something like a mandatory security system for every gun.
I'd like to think they could get behind something like limiting the size of magazines.

I'd like to think that someone with your background that certainly knows better would provide more than feel-good platitudes for actual, workable solutions.

I'd like to think that in claiming that more control of guns would save lives, you would also be advocating for a new Prohibition and a total ban on tobacco, as both kill far more people and ruin far more lives than maniacs with guns (and neither are Constitutionally protected, I might add).

I'd like to think that as someone that's actually held a real assault weapon (i.e., is capable of automatic fire) and is well-trained in its employment, you would know better than to try to compare what is fundamentally a semi-auto only rifle (just like a Remington 750, a Ruger Model 44, a Winchester Model 100, etc.) to a "weapon designed for military use".

I'd like to think that having training and experience in completing area studies, IPB, mission analysis and other research-based, logical analysis of information, you'd be able to look at cities and countries where stricter gun controls have been enacted (or where they haven't been) and recognize what actual effect these measures have created.

I think it's bullshit that simply because you don't feel comfortable having firearms in and around your home, you do feel completely comfortable in dictating what I should and shouldn't be allowed to have (again, despite what the Constitution states and the Supreme Court has taken intial steps in confirming).

[frostfire]

Originally Posted by Old Dog New Trick

I suppose it doesn't matter much, the pantywaists in congress are going to go after black guns and magazines over 10-rds and they will soon become collectors items and rarely seen outside a Three Gun Competition Match.

(

I don't think three gun matches can survive the ban. Without (affordable) proper equipment and newcomers to support its continuation, it will perish. I sling 33rds to a 6" plate at 7 yards in 10 seconds with a reload, and I'm not even that good. If we are really heading that way, it is a matter of time before such training/skill becomes the next witch hunt.

I do agree with some of dozer's sentiments though.

[Kyobanim]

This is worth a watch. don't know how old it is but I think it applies. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p8RDWltHxRc

[craigepo]

Originally Posted by Sigaba

Koz--

You have misread my post. I did not argue either of those two points. That is, having agreed that free men should have the right to bear arms, there was concurrently an ongoing debate over how, to use your words, "that power should remain with the people" within the context of the time.

For example, in the Federalist no. 29, Hamilton, who, IMO, clearly favored a more powerful central government than many of his contemporaries, specifically called for "confiding the regulation of the militia to the direction of the national authority." By contrast, in a letter to Patrick Henry dated 14 September 1789, Richard Henry Lee worried that the Federalists were appropriating terms like "the people" in order to prop up the federal state at the expense of a "Union of Confederated States." (IIRC, Hamilton, in the Federalist number 84, had questioned the need for a Bill of Rights at all.)

My previous post is not an argument for using the past as justification for more (or less) gun control. Instead, my previous post is simply a caution for those who would use the past to justify positions (either for or against) in present day policy debates without having an in-depth understanding of the historical contexts. These contexts include the personal and political rivalries among various framers as well as the pressures under which the framers worked to hammer out a constitution in the first place. (FWIW, a contemporaneous discussion of these contexts, dated 12 December 1787, is available here. This document also addresses the perceived failure of the Constitution to mention hunting, self defense, and fowling.)

One last point. As this post implies, I do not agree that the only people who should be considered historically relevant IRT the debates over the constitution and its ratification should be the drafters or signers of that document.

Historical contexts are good to know. However, people need to tread lightly when venturing into that morass.

Our Constitution, which includes the Bill of Rights, was ratified by vote of the 13 colonies. Subsequently, every state that entered the Union, prior to statehood, had to affirm that this Constitution was and is the supreme law of the land. Neither the Federalist Papers, nor Paine's "Common Sense", nor arguments on the floor during debates, were part of what was ratified. If some old document helps in understanding, fine. But, if those documents imply a holding other than the plain text of the Constitution, they are nothing more than ink stains on really old paper.

(Lawyer's trick---when the law says something that hurts, try to find something else to talk about, i.e. if the 2nd amendment says the people have the right to bear arms, and you don't like that, try to find a delegate to the Constitutional Convention who said something contrary during arguments, then quote him, and hope like hell people quit paying attention to what the Convention ratified).

I recently finished reading "Paul Revere's Ride". The book detailed the days and months around the battle of Lexington and Concord. The colonial militia drilled regularly, kept their muskets at their homes, and had armories in central locations in their villages. Cannon, extra muskets, powder and ball were kept at the armory. When the call came, the men grabbed their muskets, headed to town, fell into formation, hooked up the artillery, and marched to battle.

Interestingly, each village militia unit was led by a person elected by the unit. The unit was funded by the locals. There was no government oversight.

In another post on this Forum, I saw that a New York paper printed a list of CCW owners addresses. While printing the addresses is a stretch, American history does show that local militia leaders were known, and of course they were armed. (They had to be known, or else nobody would know who to contact when the militia was needed).

Clearly, the 2nd Amendment protects a person's right to bear small arms, to defend himself and his village. I'm just not sure how the local militia cannon fits in.

(Sorry for the stream-of-consciousness post. Merry Christmas).

[Richard]

Originally Posted by Peregrino

Richard – I find your characterization of my comment in post #142 disingenuous and personally insulting. Dismissing my attempt to restore perspective to discussions wherein a local tragedy is being exploited nationally by entrenched leftist interests by insinuating that I considered it a “meh” event reflects poorly on your appeal for reasoned compromise.

I understood what I think you were trying to say - I was pointing out how callous the statement sounded to me, and I assume others who may have been reading this forum.

As for the arming of teachers, have the teachers asked to be armed? I haven't seen such a request - yet - and knowing the profession, worry about how such an action would change the preceived role of teachers in our culture - among themselves and especially their relationships with their students and families. The ed blogs I frequent and the response from my old faculty is a resounding no at this point; but that can always change.

I know there should be exceptions, as is the case with the small rural district in North Texas, but I see that as a community issue and not somehting the DofEd or state ed agency should dictate.

I was talking about it with a long-time friend yesterday who is a retired Sheriff's Dept and DA Inestigator. He said the biggest issue they dealt with was gang-related violence with weapons that had been purchased legally but stolen from owners who had not properly secured them.

I have no solution(s) to this complicated matter, but worry about the consequences - both predictable and unintended - as well as the seemingly 'strident' tones these discussions are fostering amongst us all at this point.

Richard

[Pete]

Originally Posted by Richard

...........I was talking about it with a long-time friend yesterday who is a retired Sheriff's Dept and DA Inestigator. He said the biggest issue they dealt with was gang-related violence with weapons that had been purchased legally but stolen from owners who had not properly secured them....................

How "property secured" does a weapon have to be when it's in your own home?

Most folks have a reasonable expectation that when they go out to eat supper nobody is going to kick in their front door and steal everything of value they own.

[7624U]

Originally Posted by Pete

How "property secured" does a weapon have to be when it's in your own home?

Most folks have a reasonable expectation that when they go out to eat supper nobody is going to kick in their front door and steal everything of value they own.

Not when all the world knows you have guns in the house

http://professionalsoldiers.com/foru...ad.php?t=40351

Originally Posted by Pete

How "property secured" does a weapon have to be when it's in your own home?

Most folks have a reasonable expectation that when they go out to eat supper nobody is going to kick in their front door and steal everything of value they own.

Better than Nancy Lanza did!

Then why do so many people keep their valuables in safes, have home security systems, and home owners insurance riders to cover theft of valuables?

[Damocles]

I apologize for the stream of consciousness of this post. I have nieces and nephews going crazy all around me, and I'm doing my best to concentrate and keep this from rambling too much. That being said, Merry Christmas to everyone!

Originally Posted by Dozer523

You DON'T see a score of Kindergarteners killed with multiple gunshots in a matter of minutes is a huge national crisis? That's disturbing to me.
As for the rest of your post -- maintaining control, not caring about mass murder, this being a means to an end, arguments based on fear, teaching fear . . .
Are you talking about the NRA?

No, I do not see this as being a huge national crisis that needs immediate action. Actually, this event is a relatively localized crisis. Should we feel empathy for the victims and their families? Of course we should. Should we feel this loss as a nation? Of course we should. As much as we should feel the loss when an unsupervised child falls into a swimming pool and drowns. As much as we should when a drunk driver plows through a group of people on the sidewalk.

In a free society, these kinds of events cannot be avoided. No amount of regulation will prevent this, short of a martial law situation (which means we would no longer be a free society).

The "individuals" I refer to are the Statists. They want the populace to fear each other. They want the populace to run to the Government for protection from their untrustworthy neighbor. They want the flock to run to the Government for help (as many have already been conditioned to do). The statists reject the idea of personal responsibility.

I argue that the answer is the idea of personal responsibility itself. If every person was taught a responsibility to hold him/herself accountable for being a positively contributing member of society (or at the very least, to keep themselves from contributing in a negative manner), we would have very little of this type of thing to deal with. Unfortunately, its not much of an answer, because it will not happen on a national level.

Humans have become too advanced (and therefore too comfortable) for their own good. Historically, people had to possess a strong feeling of personal responsibility in order to survive. It was the norm. If you didn't possess it, you didn't survive. In that world, firearms not only meant survival, but in more basic terms they meant safety. Safety from animals, both four-legged as well as two-legged.

The only sure thing about life is death. The idea I draw from this truth is that life carries inherent risk that cannot be fully mitigated. To live is to risk everything. If we as a nation were to try and fully mitigate all risk to life, we'd all be wearing padded suits, mouthguards and helmets 24/7. There would be a ban on vehicles of all types, and any movement of an individual faster than a walk would be forbidden. It would be illegal to pick up sticks or rocks. Eating utensils of all types would be banned. Personal contact of any kind would be strictly forbidden, save that intended for procreation - and even that would be strictly regulated. Sounds fun, doesn't it? It would be like living in a huge "bouncy castle" where the act of bouncing is forbidden.

Personally, I choose to accept a high level of personal responsibility. Not only for myself, but for my countrymen as well. It is the only way to truly be a free society. I believe that this is the society our forefathers had in mind. Rely more on the innate responsibility of our citizenry, and less on governmental regulation.

Should we have programs in place to manage those individuals who are unable to manage themselves? Yes. Could the existing programs designed for this be improved upon? Certainly. We should also make more of an effort to understand those afflictions so we might treat them more effectively. Our over-arching goal should be to do our best to allow every citizen to exercise his freedoms as he/she sees fit. To do otherwise is a form of oppression, plain and simple. That being said, should SOME common sense regulation exist? I say yes. I believe the founding fathers had it right to begin with, and that we have been spiraling downward since the Constitution was introduced.


The Second Amendment, as passed by the Congress, reads thusly:
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

What this means to me is this:
The God-given right of the people to organize a militia in defense of a free state, and to own and carry weapons in defense of that free state, shall not be infringed.

In my opinion, my right to own and carry in order to defend our free state from tyranny has already been infringed upon enough. There is already a disproportionate difference between the military and the citizenry in terms of weaponry. I'm sure I don't need to say this, but I will anyway. The QPs here are experts on the formation and operation of organizations designed to combat a tyrannical government. I'm sure you would all agree that if it came to a US Militia / US Government conflict, the US militia would already be at a severe disadvantage. I doubt the founding fathers would be overly happy at this information.

This may not be the most well written post, but I hope its enough to get my various points across.

Merry Christmas to all. Hope you all have a great day. To those downrange, thank you and be safe.