Feinsteins Gun Control Bill

[Stiletto11]

The first mistake is to assume they are operating under the ordained Constitution of 1787. The second mistake is to assume they are dejure. Never assume.

[plato]

Originally Posted by MR2

The Second Amendment was put into place to guarantee the rights of the individual to be equally armed as military, both foreign and domestic, in the event that the citizenry might actually, at some point, have to fight their own government," explained Swann.

I wondered if I were comprehension-impeded. The 2nd Amendment doesn't say ""well equipped", "well armed", "quickly assembled". It speaks to "well regulated" (well controlled). It avoids the obvious "right of the militia to keep and bear arms".

The above (obvious) interpretation seems......well, obvious.

[cbtengr]

Originally Posted by Peregrino

I will be engaged in some "light" reading over the next few weeks in whatever down time I have.

http://www.amazon.com/Living-Guns-Li.../dp/1610391691

It appears from Amazon's synopsis that this book advocates (attempts to put a reasonable facade on) some of the ideas being looked at by the VP's "task force". It's obviously time to look at the other side's arguments and get educated about the enemy POV.

It certainly had a couple of well thought out reviews, send it my way when you are finished I will pay the postage and see that you get it back.

[Peregrino]

Originally Posted by cbtengr

It certainly had a couple of well thought out reviews, send it my way when you are finished I will pay the postage and see that you get it back.

Ebooks don't mail well. I'll be travelling and I bought the Kindle version because I'm taking the Ipad anyway. Better luck next time.

[Dozer523]

Originally Posted by MR2

"This is where American history becomes very politically incorrect because the Second Amendment was not drafted for hunting, or just self defense from an attacker. The Second Amendment was put into place to guarantee the rights of the individual to be equally armed as military, both foreign and domestic, in the event that the citizenry might actually, at some point, have to fight their own government," explained Swann.

"The Second Amendment is about making sure the population would not be controlled, dominated or oppressed by a government," Swann explained. "It's not my place to tell you what the Founders were thinking, or what they would be thinking today. But the principle of what they put into place had nothing to do with the kind of weapon they were guaranteeing, it was simply about matching force."

"Again, it's a very controversial subject. But if we're going to have a debate about what rights we're actually going to guarantee under the Constitution, then we need to have an honest debate about what the Founders were attempting to guarantee," Swann said.

That is three very interesting paragraphs which, I rearranged.
In the first paragraph Mr Swann tells us what the Founder intended. The Second Amendment is really about common citizens being able to go "mano a mano" with the duly constituted (nice word choice, eh?) military. And without a shred of evidence so . . . merely his opinion paraded as fact.
In the second paragraph he says its not his place to tell what he told us the founders intended and then tells us again what his opinion is paraded as a fact.
And finally in the third paragraph he gets it right -- " it's a very controversial subject". And he is right that the debate has to be honest but facts is facts, and opinions is opinions no matter how many times you you state the later don't make it the prior. Maybe this reporter should report the news instead of trying to make the news. maybe.

[GratefulCitizen]

Elements of this seem eerily familiar.

http://www.davekopel.org/2A/LawRev/a...n-control.html

[Dozer523]

Originally Posted by Stiletto11

The first mistake is to assume they are operating under the ordained Constitution of 1787. The second mistake is to assume they are dejure. Never assume.

What do you mean when you use the word "ordained"?
Catholic boys want to know . . . and Episcopalians and Presbyterians too

[Hand]

I found the following to be an interesting and unique perspective to the current topic. <source>

Since last month’s horrifying and heartbreaking school massacre in Newtown, Conn., politicians and the press have, as everyone knows, been totally obsessed with firearms.

Indeed, President Obama has vowed to impose strong new gun-control measures on the nation – very soon, with or without Congress.

Other possible factors – from violent video games to the “failure of our mental-health system” to the unintended consequences of making schools “gun-free zones” – have taken a back seat to guns. Within hours of the gruesome mega-crime, the media had provided extensive, round-the-clock coverage of precisely which firearms, manufacturers and calibers the perpetrator had used, how he had obtained them from his mother, where they were originally purchased, and so on.

But where, I’d like to ask my colleagues in the media, is the reporting about the psychiatric medications the perpetrator – who had been under treatment for mental-health problems – may have been taking? After all, Mark and Louise Tambascio, family friends of the shooter and his mother, were interviewed on CBS’ “60 Minutes,” during which Louise Tambascio told correspondent Scott Pelley: “I know he was on medication and everything, but she homeschooled him at home cause he couldn’t deal with the school classes sometimes, so she just homeschooled Adam at home. And that was her life.” And here, Tambascio tells ABC News, “I knew he was on medication, but that’s all I know.”

It has been more than three weeks since the shooting. We know all about the guns he used, but what “medication” may he have used? (One brief mini-hoax emerged when the New York Daily News published a story claiming the shooter, according to his uncle, had been on the controversial antipsychotic drug Fanapt. That story was quickly withdrawn after the “uncle” turned out to be a fraudster with no relation to the murderer.)

And do we REALLY know what guns were used? Last I heard, they were still unsure if the AR was in the car or had been used.

[DIYPatriot]

In the future, disarming Americans may be as easy as hacking into their gun or flipping a switch. Let's just hope Microsoft doesn't get involved. I can't imagine having a reboot while fighting for my life.

How might this work? Start with locational "self-awareness." Guns should know where they are and if another gun is nearby. Global positioning systems can meet most of the need, refining a gun's location to the building level, even within buildings. Control of the gun would remain in the hand of the person carrying it, but the ability to fire multiple shots in crowded areas or when no other guns are present would be limited by software that understands where the gun is being used.

Guns should also be designed to sense where they are being aimed. Artificial vision and optical sensing technology can be adapted from military and medical communities. Sensory data can be used by built-in software to disable firing if the gun is pointed at a child or someone holding a child.

Building software into guns need not affect gun owners' desire to protect their homes. Trigger control software could be relaxed when the gun is at home or in a car, while other safety features stay on to prevent accidental discharges. Guns used by the police would be exempt from such controls.

Article

[orion5]

Diane Feinstein: "The criteria for serving one's country should be competence and courage."

Oh well. You were schooled by a six year old. Any more quotable things you wanted to say?

[SF18C]

Three women shot dead in 'politically motivated' Paris slayings

http://worldnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2...slayings?lite=

But I thought Europe was so super safe from "Gun Violence"!

[Lan]

Statement From the NRA Regarding Today's White House Task Force Meeting

Fairfax, Va. – The National Rifle Association of America is made up of over 4 million moms and dads, daughters and sons, who are involved in the national conversation about how to prevent a tragedy like Newtown from ever happening again. We attended today's White House meeting to discuss how to keep our children safe and were prepared to have a meaningful conversation about school safety, mental health issues, the marketing of violence to our kids and the collapse of federal prosecutions of violent criminals.

We were disappointed with how little this meeting had to do with keeping our children safe and how much it had to do with an agenda to attack the Second Amendment. While claiming that no policy proposals would be “prejudged,” this Task Force spent most of its time on proposed restrictions on lawful firearms owners - honest, taxpaying, hardworking Americans. It is unfortunate that this Administration continues to insist on pushing failed solutions to our nation's most pressing problems. We will not allow law-abiding gun owners to be blamed for the acts of criminals and madmen. Instead, we will now take our commitment and meaningful contributions to members of congress of both parties who are interested in having an honest conversation about what works - and what does not.

[Pete]

Originally Posted by Lan

.............. Instead, we will now take our commitment and meaningful contributions to members of congress of both parties who are interested in having an honest conversation about what works - and what does not.

The NRA is not a political arm of the Republican party. They have made clear over the years - though few listen or understand - that 1. They will support any member with a good voting record on firearms issues and 2. They will support the incumbent over the challenger.

The "who's who list" of gun control is about to become pretty cut and dried.

Pete
NRA Life Member

[Pete]

The Southern States PBA official stand on gun control in America

http://www.sspba.org/gen/articles/Th...merica_323.jsp

"..."As president of Southern States PBA, a professional law enforcement association with over 30,000 members from federal, state, county and municipal agencies, I would like to express our support for the 2nd Amendment of the Constitution and for law abiding citizens to purchase and own firearms. From hunting to shooting sports, firearms are a part of the American culture that are passed from generation to generation. Rank and file law enforcement officers realize that gun ownership from law abiding citizens poses no threat to the law enforcement community or to the public. New legislation aimed at reducing or restricting law abiding citizens from purchasing or owning firearms will do nothing to reduce violent crime nor will it stop criminals or those who want to commit evil acts from obtaining weapons. We, as law enforcement officers, take an oath of office to enforce the laws in our communities and support and defend the Constitution of the United States. We will continue to do so. It is our hope that our leaders in Washington will look at reasonable measures to help keep guns out of the hands of the criminals and punish those more severely who are violating those laws."...."

[Streck-Fu]

We, as law enforcement officers, take an oath of office to enforce the laws in our communities and support and defend the Constitution of the United States. We will continue to do so.

At some point, those two become exclusive. Which will they choose?