Feinsteins Gun Control Bill

[Badger52]

Originally Posted by MR2

Yes my brothers - this wonderful parchment is subject to the whims of the 2/3 majority and we must be very cautious and even more judicious whenever we consider such - especially in the low-information, attention-deficit environment we find ourselves in.

Just because one can doesn't mean one should!

Can vs. should, acknowledging the environment you mention. In terms of what is acknowledged as a natural right, can any majority still hold sway over the individual's natural right in a properly functioning constitutional republic (vs. a pure democracy)? Wonder what the man-on-the-street answers look like nowadays.

[ZonieDiver]

Originally Posted by Streck-Fu

Not my opinion. It was the stated purpose by those whom wrote it.

I guess they could have called it the Bill of Whims.

Then those who wrote it probably should have made that proviso part of the document, shouldn't they?

By the way, I'm still waiting for some links/statistics on the massive amount of SWAT team raids on 'recreational' drug users. Got any?

[Peregrino]

Originally Posted by Richard

[COLOR="Lime"]
So, in your opinion, an amendment to the Constitution is not subject to the same rules for amending as is the base document itself? How interesting.

Richard

Legitimate argument. The 18th and 21st Amendments proving your point. And supporting everybody else's point about amendments enacted in the heat of passion and media manipulation. The unintended consequences of prohibition still resonate through American society today 79 years later. It is my contention that any successful attack on the 2nd Amendment as is the stated purpose of the gun ban movement will be a domino event. YMMV. In the spirit of Sigaba's appeal for a reasoned discussion I will refrain from expressing my opinion of your opinion.

[The Reaper]

Originally Posted by Richard

I see it as an amendable stipulation within a document which contains necessarily onerous provisions for amendment as determined by the needs and cumulative will of the nation it created, a document providing a foundation for a historically important pact of yet to be determined longevity between a citizenry and its democratically constituted government.

How do you see it?

Richard

I see it like this.

The Preamble to The Bill of Rights

Congress of the United States
begun and held at the City of New-York, on
Wednesday the fourth of March, one thousand seven hundred and eighty nine.

THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution.

RESOLVED by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, two thirds of both Houses concurring, that the following Articles be proposed to the Legislatures of the several States, as amendments to the Constitution of the United States, all, or any of which Articles, when ratified by three fourths of the said Legislatures, to be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of the said Constitution; viz.

ARTICLES in addition to, and Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America, proposed by Congress, and ratified by the Legislatures of the several States, pursuant to the fifth Article of the original Constitution.

Looks to me like we are very close to bumping up against that underlined portion right now.

Ultimately, the Bill of Rights is a list of limits on government power, not on the people's power.

Refer to the 10th Amendment specifically:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

If you want to change or rewrite the Second Amendment, there is a process described in the Constitution. Follow it.

TR

[SF18C]

Originally Posted by Paslode

Looks like some Old Goats agree with you:

"Not everything you read on the Internet is true." - Abraham Lincoln

"Ask not what the internet can do for you, but ask what you can make up on the internet." -John F. Kennedy

"Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this Firewall!" -Ronald Reagan

"We have nothing to fear, but being misquoted on the internet." -Franklin Delano Roosevelt.

Some of those aint the way "it was".

"A free people ought not only be armed but disciplined; to which end, a uniform and well digested plan is requisite: And their safety and interest require that they should promote such manufactories, as tend to render them independent on others, for essential, particularly for military supplies."

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?...on.djvu&page=2

http://etext.virginia.edu/etcbin/ot2...le&id=gw300452


http://www.guncite.com/gc2ndbog.html

[Hand]

Originally Posted by Sigaba

In a previous post that proved much more controversial than I intended , I mentioned the role of imagination in dealing with issues that currently seem intractable, polarizing, and divisive. Here's an example of what I mean. There's a growing belief that participating in certain team sports plays a positive role in the development of self esteem among girls/young women. This heightened self esteem, some argue, can translate into girls/young women making better decisions when it comes to risky sexual behavior.*

Would it be possible to match those sensibilities to the present discussion by advocating youth centered team shooting leagues with a focus on "at risk" girls?** Would such leagues reorient the part of the discussion about guns into a discussion about women's health? Might the leagues themselves enable supporters of abortion to think about additional ways to prevent unwanted pregnancies? Might the young women who participate in these leagues come to understand that, what ever their political views, their economic circumstances, their cultural views, or their race/ethnicity, they had benefited personally from knowing how to use firearms? Might league events provide more opportunities for people of differing viewpoints/backgrounds to interact socially rather than to hammer away at each other politically?

Admittedly, such a proposal would likely generate controversy. The issues of liability and risk management alone might lead to complex litigation. Similarly, some will question the fairness of leagues geared towards a specific gender. Moreover, the proposal itself strikes at the heart of how American civilization acculturates women, if not also men.

This is an interesting proprosal. It involves something I hinted at earlier today (which was spawned by another of your post): are the pro-gun crowd in America today the type of people who are capable of/ would choose to use the tactics of subversion and misdirection to further an agenda that is not an agenda, but a Constitutional Right? I think not, hopefully some disagree with me.

That being said...

I think your proposed tactic offers an alternative route to quelling this heated topic, or at least directing the dialouge towards a more intellectual discussion.
On Facebook there are two clearly defined sides to this debate, the "guns are bad and you are stupid if you dont think so" and the "guns are good and your'e not taking mine".

[Dozer523]

Originally Posted by MR2

I disagree with the exclusion part and otherwise agree that the entire document is subject to amendment.

Yes my brothers - this wonderful parchment is subject to the whims of the 2/3 majority and we must be very cautious

Just because one can doesn't mean one should!

The Preamble is Paragraph 2 MISSION. So it's not amendable without a change of mission. If you think it is a piece of paper well. . . (I do get what your trying to say but something's - Bible, Magna Carta, Constitution transcend what they "are" to what they "mean".)
2/3s is a pretty big number hurdle for a whim to get over. Prohibition being the exception proving the rule and proving that amendments can be amended. I'll drink to that!

[MR2]

Originally Posted by Dozer523

The Preamble is Paragraph 2 MISSION. So it's not amendable without a change of mission. If you think it is a piece of paper well. . . (I do get what your trying to say but something's - Bible, Magna Carta, Constitution transcend what they "are" to what they "mean".)
2/3s is a pretty big number hurdle for a whim to get over. Prohibition being the exception proving the rule and proving that amendments can be amended. I'll drink to that!

I see your point and by extension Richards on the Preamble. As for 2/3s - who needs it when those sworn to uphold it routinely pass laws denuding it and appointing judges to uphold the changes? Not to mention the 'We the Idiots' keep voting them in.

Cheers to you both!

[Streck-Fu]

Originally Posted by ZonieDiver

By the way, I'm still waiting for some links/statistics on the massive amount of SWAT team raids on 'recreational' drug users. Got any?

There are tons of examples. Most of these events seem to have a common theme of informants making up information for more lenient treatment and the police charge in without verifying the claims.

Columbia, MO SWAT, 2010 . With video...which the release of prompted the police chief to state, "I hate the internet...."

SWAT raid for drugs, none found, burns 12 year old sleeping girl with flash bang: LINK

Not a casual user but smugglers use FedEx to ship the drugs which are supposed to be intercepted before delivery to the addressee but this time the package made to the house. It happened to be the Mayor but the task foce didn't know that? Lack of due diligence

SWAT goes after former Marine for drugs but none found: LINK

I did write before that they are targeting 'casual users' but it would be more accurate that they are sending SWAT after rumored drug users.....This is a very small sample of the events occurring.

[ZonieDiver]

Originally Posted by Streck-Fu

There are tons of examples. Most of these events seem to have a common theme of informants making up information for more lenient treatment and the police charge in without verifying the claims.

Columbia, MO SWAT, 2010 . With video...which the release of prompted the police chief to state, "I hate the internet...."

SWAT raid for drugs, none found, burns 12 year old sleeping girl with flash bang: LINK

Not a casual user but smugglers use FedEx to ship the drugs which are supposed to be intercepted before delivery to the addressee but this time the package made to the house. It happened to be the Mayor but the task foce didn't know that? Lack of due diligence

SWAT goes after former Marine for drugs but none found: LINK

I did write before that they are targeting 'casual users' but it would be more accurate that they are sending SWAT after rumored drug users.....This is a very small sample of the events occurring.

Thanks for the clarification. I found those as well, along with some others. Thus has it always been, I suspect, with people being set-up by criminals seeking a deal.

I still doubt, in the aggregate, that police SWAT (admittedly lots of problems with the plethora of "SWAT" around the country) are targeting 'recreational drug users' more than 'armed gangs'.

YMMV

[Streck-Fu]

Originally Posted by ZonieDiver

I still doubt, in the aggregate, that police SWAT (admittedly lots of problems with the plethora of "SWAT" around the country) are targeting 'recreational drug users' more than 'armed gangs'.

YMMV

'targeting more than dealers/growers' is a stretch, I admit. It is closer to the truth that they rush in with limited information and do not verify intel before sending in the raid team. There is an extraordinary lack of due diligence before the raid and demonstrated lack of training in that they shoot too often without good target ID....

Thus has it always been,

I don't think so. While mistakes have always been made, the number of incidents like the above are on the rise as the police practice direct action raids more than investigations. They arrest some guy with pot on him, ask him where he got it, he gives up some guy he knows, and cops send in the SWAT team....hopefully they get the right house.....

[MR2]

Reality Check: The "Politically Incorrect Truth" About The Second Amendment

WXIX-TV Tucson reporter Ben Swann takes a look at what he called the "politically incorrect" truth about the Second Amendment. In his "Reality Check" segment for the local FOX affiliate, Swann explains the true intention behind the Second Amendment.

"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.

"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.

"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."

[Streck-Fu]

The idea that this may have to become an Executive Order seems to be getting more possible.....

LINK

Obama’s advisers have calculated that the longer they wait, the more distance there is from the Newtown massacre and the greater the risk that the bipartisan political will to tackle gun violence will dissipate.

“This is not something that I will be putting off,”

[GratefulCitizen]

Originally Posted by Hand

I own guns, I have no problems with the current limitations (in my state). Except for the one prohibiting concealed carry in a church or any public event. Bad things have happened at both of these venues.

My state doesn't require any firearms training to obtain a CCW permit, for some this is fine, for others I think some training should be strongly encouraged.

I don't mind the legal red tape involved with purchasing suppressors, although this has prohibited me from purchasing one.

I don't mind at all, not being able to afford a fully automatic mp5k, although I think this would be a bad ass gun to own.

I'm OK with the current limitations. And I'm pro-gun.

Kennesaw has the right idea on limitations.

[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.