Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
To be fair, flying on a plane is not a Constitutional right. It's not just a difference in rationale on the part of the observer, there is also an established difference in legal jurisprudence. Ever hear of things like "intermediate scrutiny", "rational basis" and "strict scrutiny" review, etc? Any law that prevents people from exercising a Constitutional right generally falls under the criteria of strict scrutiny. Preventing someone from flying on a plane would likely fall under intermediate scrutiny or rational basis.
But I am consistent in my belief that the "no-fly" list should have no effect on anyone's life whether it be flying on a plane OR buying a gun. The list should not exist in the first place.
Freedom in general is a constitutional right, refusing to allow someone to drive a car, travel on a plane is right. So what right do they have to refuse air travel without due process.
The point I was making was the TWL was not an issue until the proposal to prohibit gun ownership, up until that moment no one could care less.
Was at well known Chantilly, Virginia gun store/shooting range today and it was nuts. They had a continuous line waiting for range time, and their lounge was full of people waiting for their purchase approvals.
The non-stop gunfire made me proud to be American.
If you buy a gun you should be subject to a background check, the only exceptions should be a transfer of a weapon to a family member or spouse. Several states already mandate that and have been requiring background checks for all transfers for decades and people in those states have not had their guns taken away from them and are not in danger of losing them, this is such a paranoid overreaction on the part of some people that it creeps me out.
Yessir, Washington State has had the 100% background check on all firearms transactions (I-594) in place for a little over a year!
How many firearms transfers do you suppose have taken place without background checks in Washington during that time?
Hint: NOBODY KNOWS!
How many prosecutions for violating that law have there been?
None, Zip, ZERO, Zilch, Nada!
What did many county sheriffs and other law enforcement officers say about the law long before it was even voted on?
"We can not and will not even attempt to enforce such a law. We simply do not have the resources available to do it!"
What has been the net effect on public safety with the passage of the law?
Again, None, Zip, ZERO, Zilch, Nada.
Was I-94 presented to the public as a "Common Sense solution to gun violence!"?
Oh, yes, millions were spent on the ad campaign!
Was the law worth the money that was spent on getting it passed?
Not hardly!
But some of you cant be trusted anymore with all of yours, because you want to carry a loaded gun on the seat of your car,just incase someone makes you angry..
I would rather keep a loaded gun to protect myself from gun grabbers. Its only a matter of time before they get so desperate, that some will go "Postal" and resort to violence to push their agenda, since they are just spinning their wheels now and making noises. All one has to do is look at their anger in their posts, because they can't get other Americans to give up their rights as they choose to do. How rational can anyone be, that want bans on guns that look scary? Look at all the interviews that where done with gun grabbers, and questions where asked about what they banned and why. Most of them did not even know what they where pushing. Some of the stuff is not eve on guns. You figure it out. These folks are fruit pies.
Your saying gun grabbers don't trust some gun owners, so how much longer before they get real angry about not getting anywhere, and start to take the Law in their own hands? Obama should worry more about getting gun grabbers some Mental Health help. Never trust an anti-gun person. Never.
Yessir, Washington State has had the 100% background check on all firearms transactions (I-594) in place for a little over a year!
How many firearms transfers do you suppose have taken place without background checks in Washington during that time?
Hint: NOBODY KNOWS!
How many prosecutions for violating that law have there been?
None, Zip, ZERO, Zilch, Nada!
What did many county sheriffs and other law enforcement officers say about the law long before it was even voted on?
"We can not and will not even attempt to enforce such a law. We simply do not have the resources available to do it!"
What has been the net effect on public safety with the passage of the law?
Again, None, Zip, ZERO, Zilch, Nada.
Was I-94 presented to the public as a "Common Sense solution to gun violence!"?
Oh, yes, millions were spent on the ad campaign!
Was the law worth the money that was spent on getting it passed?
Not hardly!
Good post. Obama is just making a lot of noise to see how much pushback he gets, and to appear to his critics that he is doing something about guns.
I also think the NRA should give him an award for being "Top Salesman" of the Year for Guns. He has sold enough semi automatic rifles to arm a large army, single handed. Half of these will be on the open back door market within a year or two, and we can buy them up as they come available, without registration, since most will be private sales from folks who aren't in the gun business. .
So with all of that, how can we give the very people the 2nd Amendment was created to protect against, the ability to regulate the people who can have that right? It makes no logical sense.
First of all, keep in mind that no one seriously expects any system to be perfect. There will always be loopholes, inconsistencies, failures to anticipate every possible contingency, etc. Democracy is the worst form of government, except for every other form of government.
In any case, like it or not, the 2nd Amendment was not really intended to be an absolute right for every individual citizen, and judgments about when to disarm a particular citizen are left to the democratically-elected government. If the government ceases to be a democratically-elected entity, then all bets are off and full-scale revolution is the recommended course of action (which is where the weaponry of the citizens comes into play).
It's messy. There is no clear, perfect means by which either the government or the citizens can make their decisions. The only thing that is clear is that none of our rights are absolute. For any given right, you can name various circumstances under which that right might be revoked. You have the right to life unless you kill somebody, and then the government has the right to take your life. You have the right to free speech, but you still are not allowed to shout "Fire" in a crowed theater. You have the right to free assembly, but if you are lining up in front of a polling place to prevent a racial minority from voting, then the government will bust you up.
You have the right to own a gun, but if you kill innocent people, you will not be allowed to own a gun any more. Children are not allowed to have guns. Adults who function at the cognitive/emotional level of children are not allowed to have guns. People who publicly threaten to kill people will have their weapons taken away. Who makes decisions about who is or is not allowed to have guns? The democratically-elected government does. Who decides whether or not the government is democratically elected? The citizens do. Some citizens might decide that the government needs to be overthrown by force. If enough people follow them, then it is a revolution. If not, then the failed revolutionaries are just hooligans or terrorists and they will go to prison, and they might never be allowed to legally own guns again.
Yessir, Washington State has had the 100% background check on all firearms transactions (I-594) in place for a little over a year! How many firearms transfers do you suppose have taken place without background checks in Washington during that time? Hint: NOBODY KNOWS! How many prosecutions for violating that law have there been? None, Zip, ZERO, Zilch, Nada! What did many county sheriffs and other law enforcement officers say about the law long before it was even voted on? "We can not and will not even attempt to enforce such a law. We simply do not have the resources available to do it!"
What has been the net effect on public safety with the passage of the law? Again, None, Zip, ZERO, Zilch, Nada. Was I-94 presented to the public as a "Common Sense solution to gun violence!"?
Oh, yes, millions were spent on the ad campaign! Was the law worth the money that was spent on getting it passed? Not hardly!
Sounds like that there are problems with the law as passed in Washington State, but I don't think that's a compelling argument against background checks. I mean if you think they are so bad, why not contact the NRA and suggest we just do away with all background checks, because it's really dumb to say that we have such a thing as a background check when 40% of all guns are transferred without one.
The 2nd Amendment was a statement by the founders that government is not to be trusted with functioning in the best interests of the people. It can function in the best interests of the people, but it may not always, always is a very long time. So the function of the 2nd is to provide the people the means to restore rule that acts in it's [the peoples] best interests, by the only means available to those whose government is not acting in its best interests.
So with that I ask, if you know that the government cannot be trusted to always function in the best interests of the people, how can you permit that government (Congress, Executive, and Judiciary) to hold the keys to the ammunition cabinet? It's kind of an oxymoron to permit it, if the government that cannot be trusted is given the ability to regulate the people in the possession of the tools needed to remove an untrusted government, it's not really going to function too well as a means to remove that government, because as soon as a government tends towards untrustworthy, it's going to remove the keys to that ammunition cabinet from those it feels are a threat to its continued existence, and ultimately everyone (because everyone is a threat, or a potential threat).
For instance who determines mentally unstable? That would be a legal term, so the government, it's not a medical term except in it's broadest sense, and there will be a much more specific term used to describe what the specific issue is than "mentally unstable" by the medical profession, mentally unstable is too hand wavy.
Who determines what a felon is? That's also a legal term, so the government.
Who determines what a radical group is? That's kind of a term that tends to be accepted by the public, and the government, we've heard of the Tea Party being considered a radical group, OWS, the Black (and New Black) Panthers, Various Militia, NRA, VPC, Military veterans all are radical groups according to some, in fact in general it would be difficult to find someone who does not know someone who is not involved in some minor way with a group considered radical by someone somewhere.
Who determines what a terrorist group is? That would be the government, and it varies over time, we've seen the photo's of Reagan in the White House with members of Mujahideen from the 80's who are now almost all (if they're still alive) on terrorist kill lists of the US, we know that we supported the Contras in Nicaragua yet now we agree they were terrorists. Terrorist is highly mutable too, and anyone who is liable to take up arms against a government can expect to be classified by that government as a terrorist, because governments don't see things quite the same way as the people do (it's not fascism when they do it) for instance look at some government actions in the US, were they not terrorist actions, like Kent State, by the FBI definition it was an act of domestic terrorism
Involve acts dangerous to human life that violate federal or state law;
Appear intended (i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population;
Occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the U.S.
The question is the first bullet point, did it violate federal or state law? If the triggers were pulled by civilians then yes they did you could not claim self defense at the ranges that the shooting happened at without evidence of an imminent threat (and there was no such evidence), even being pulled by the NG, it went to trial, and based on what happened the sole redeeming fact that cleared the NG was that they were the National Guard.
So with all of that, how can we give the very people the 2nd Amendment was created to protect against, the ability to regulate the people who can have that right? It makes no logical sense.
Excellent post!
But you're asking people to actually have at least a basic level of historical knowledge and critical thinking skills. Just by reading this thread, we can see that many don't, and that includes Obama. They just flit from one irrational knee-jerk reaction to the next. And that's why we find ourselves where we currently are on this.
Adults who function at the cognitive/emotional level of children are not allowed to have guns.
Interesting point. I have a developmentally disabled 50 year old step-sister who has the cognitive abilities of a 6 year old. She lives in the same facility in which David Axelrod has his similarly challenged child in Chicago. Every election, the staff in that facility take the mentally challenged who are old enough to vote to the polls, and tells them who to vote for. Dems, of course.
Should that be happening?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
