Democrats filibustering for gun control
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
15-06-2016, 08:41 PM
RE: Democrats filibustering for gun control
(15-06-2016 05:15 PM)Thumpalumpacus Wrote:  
(15-06-2016 03:40 PM)Carlo_The_Bugsmasher_Driver Wrote:  Yeah I agree. I on a lot of guns and enjoy shooting but I will say that the gun culture in this country has just become fucking insane and we are so myopic as to not see that is facilitates these kinds of atrocities.

I think the answer lies in the hands of the American public, not in legislation. But something has to change. We cannot continue to have these kinds of massacres or 18,000 people easily committing suicide with firearms annually and shamelessly try to justify this with the Second Amendment

I have no problem with gun ownership being ensconced as a Constitutional right, but I think that many Americans (not you, if I read you correctly) are under the misapprehension that rights are unlimited permissions.

They are not, and they never have been. Every right listed in the First Amendment has legal limitations in place in order to bar its abuse, and I think it's only sensible that when dealing with the ownership of an instrument of death, restrictions should be in place as well. There are many right now, of course, but as we're seeing in this and other cases, the law cannot account for every exigency.

Because of that, even though I don't like the idea of removing an American's rights based merely on an unproven suspicion, I'm glad the Democrats are forcing the issue.

In doing so, they are forcing a long-overdue Congressional discussion.

There's a lot to unpack here Thumpalumpacus, but here are my issues in a nutshell:

Yes you are correct. Rights are not unlimited and totally at the discretion of the individual. The first amendment doesn't guarantee you the right to incite a riot, the second amendment doesn't guarantee you the right to own a hydrogen bomb, the fourth amendment does not guarantee you privacy if you invite a police officer into your home, etc.

I believe in the right of the individual to keep and bear arms, including military small arms. For a person willing to put in the time to learn to properly use a gun, it can be an extremely useful tool in a life threatening emergency, an implement for hunting and survival, and, in the extreme, used to forcibly remove a capricious government or a cabal within and make it behave according to the terms of the US Constitution or the individual constitutions of the states themselves.

While that works well in a charter form as stated above, there do have to be some practical exceptions made that balance personal freedom and the right to protection with safeguarding against the sheer havoc which a deranged or criminal minded person can do with a gun. And most firearm laws are on the books for that reason. The NFA was passed as a result of the violent gangland shootouts from the Prohibition era. The GCA of 68 passed as a result of learning the hard way that a lone nut can casually order a rifle from a Montgomery Ward catalog and use it to shoot the president as he rides in an open top limo in Dallas. The Firearms Protection Act of 86 passed as a result of the Miami Cocaine Wars of the late '70s and early '80s, and so on. This is, in fact the reason we place certain restrictions on all arms and arm-related sales.

My position is that certain kinds of gun control, used judiciously, can be effective in reducing violence, suffering, and deaths associated with criminal activity. There are limits to this; certain kinds of gun control do NOT work, in my opinion. I'm for expanded background checks which include denial of sale to people with recent diagnoses of severe mental health problems eg schizophrenia, suicidal ideations, etc., and ending person to person gun sales without checks. But I do not support, for example, an 'assault weapons' ban nor microstamping requirements because they do absolutely nothing to curb crime or violence.

What I have become appalled with in recent times is the 'gun culture' in America which has gotten totally out of hand; we pass laws, for example Texas' law which allows hunters to use suppressors - silencers - on their rifles, or a law in Indiana, supported by the NRA, which allows people to shoot public servants on their property. It has evolved into a paranoid, lunatic fringe which can't see the insanity of what they propose or want, views the Second Amendment as an entitlement to whatever weaponry they want, any time they want it, any where they want and don't give a shit about how this attitude, coupled with a country awash in firearms facilitates the kind of tragedy which occurred in Orlando early Sunday morning.

I've posted threads on this forum where I railed against the NRA for its bullshit as well as proposed an individual license for buying and selling firearms, so I do understand the purpose of regulation, but what is proposed should be critically examined for 1) effectiveness 2) constitutionality 3) anterior motives behind the legislation. On the last point, if your interest in 'common sense gun control' is to create a palatable PC label, a buzzword for an incremental plan of stifling restrictions on gun ownership culminating in the forcible confiscation of all firearms, I don't want to be on your team; pick another kid. I like guns and hate people who want a society which sees the oligarchy being entitled to keep the sharp objects away from the wretched masses. I will fight against you and your unconstitutional bullshit any day.

"IN THRUST WE TRUST"

"We were conservative Jews and that meant we obeyed God's Commandments until His rules became a royal pain in the ass."

- Joel Chastnoff, The 188th Crybaby Brigade
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 5 users Like Carlo_The_Bugsmasher_Driver's post
15-06-2016, 09:11 PM
RE: Democrats filibustering for gun control
I agree the time has come for a discussion. I also agree with you on your points Carlo Thumbsup
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like skyking's post
15-06-2016, 09:32 PM
RE: Democrats filibustering for gun control
(15-06-2016 08:41 PM)Carlo_The_Bugsmasher_Driver Wrote:  
(15-06-2016 05:15 PM)Thumpalumpacus Wrote:  I have no problem with gun ownership being ensconced as a Constitutional right, but I think that many Americans (not you, if I read you correctly) are under the misapprehension that rights are unlimited permissions.

They are not, and they never have been. Every right listed in the First Amendment has legal limitations in place in order to bar its abuse, and I think it's only sensible that when dealing with the ownership of an instrument of death, restrictions should be in place as well. There are many right now, of course, but as we're seeing in this and other cases, the law cannot account for every exigency.

Because of that, even though I don't like the idea of removing an American's rights based merely on an unproven suspicion, I'm glad the Democrats are forcing the issue.

In doing so, they are forcing a long-overdue Congressional discussion.

There's a lot to unpack here Thumpalumpacus, but here are my issues in a nutshell:

Yes you are correct. Rights are not unlimited and totally at the discretion of the individual. The first amendment doesn't guarantee you the right to incite a riot, the second amendment doesn't guarantee you the right to own a hydrogen bomb, the fourth amendment does not guarantee you privacy if you invite a police officer into your home, etc.

I believe in the right of the individual to keep and bear arms, including military small arms. For a person willing to put in the time to learn to properly use a gun, it can be an extremely useful tool in a life threatening emergency, an implement for hunting and survival, and, in the extreme, used to forcibly remove a capricious government or a cabal within and make it behave according to the terms of the US Constitution or the individual constitutions of the states themselves.

While that works well in a charter form as stated above, there do have to be some practical exceptions made that balance personal freedom and the right to protection with safeguarding against the sheer havoc which a deranged or criminal minded person can do with a gun. And most firearm laws are on the books for that reason. The NFA was passed as a result of the violent gangland shootouts from the Prohibition era. The GCA of 68 passed as a result of learning the hard way that a lone nut can casually order a rifle from a Montgomery Ward catalog and use it to shoot the president as he rides in an open top limo in Dallas. The Firearms Protection Act of 86 passed as a result of the Miami Cocaine Wars of the late '70s and early '80s, and so on. This is, in fact the reason we place certain restrictions on all arms and arm-related sales.

My position is that certain kinds of gun control, used judiciously, can be effective in reducing violence, suffering, and deaths associated with criminal activity. There are limits to this; certain kinds of gun control do NOT work, in my opinion. I'm for expanded background checks which include denial of sale to people with recent diagnoses of severe mental health problems eg schizophrenia, suicidal ideations, etc., and ending person to person gun sales without checks. But I do not support, for example, an 'assault weapons' ban nor microstamping requirements because they do absolutely nothing to curb crime or violence.

What I have become appalled with in recent times is the 'gun culture' in America which has gotten totally out of hand; we pass laws, for example Texas' law which allows hunters to use suppressors - silencers - on their rifles, or a law in Indiana, supported by the NRA, which allows people to shoot public servants on their property. It has evolved into a paranoid, lunatic fringe which can't see the insanity of what they propose or want, views the Second Amendment as an entitlement to whatever weaponry they want, any time they want it, any where they want and don't give a shit about how this attitude, coupled with a country awash in firearms facilitates the kind of tragedy which occurred in Orlando early Sunday morning.

I've posted threads on this forum where I railed against the NRA for its bullshit as well as proposed an individual license for buying and selling firearms, so I do understand the purpose of regulation, but what is proposed should be critically examined for 1) effectiveness 2) constitutionality 3) anterior motives behind the legislation. On the last point, if your interest in 'common sense gun control' is to create a palatable PC label, a buzzword for an incremental plan of stifling restrictions on gun ownership culminating in the forcible confiscation of all firearms, I don't want to be on your team; pick another kid. I like guns and hate people who want a society which sees the oligarchy being entitled to keep the sharp objects away from the wretched masses. I will fight against you and your unconstitutional bullshit any day.

Well stated and reasonable. Thumbsup

EXCEPT: What is wrong with the use of suppressors on rifles? Consider

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-06-2016, 09:36 PM
RE: Democrats filibustering for gun control
My gripe with suppressors on rifles is simple enough. If it is loud enough to disturb others, you are likely too close to houses and the general public. Ranges are the notable exception.
I could see them getting abused.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-06-2016, 09:54 PM
RE: Democrats filibustering for gun control
(15-06-2016 09:36 PM)skyking Wrote:  My gripe with suppressors on rifles is simple enough. If it is loud enough to disturb others, you are likely too close to houses and the general public. Ranges are the notable exception.
I could see them getting abused.

It's not about others - it's about the hunter's hearing protection. You don't wear hearing protection when hunting.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-06-2016, 09:58 PM
RE: Democrats filibustering for gun control
that cuts both ways, many ways. I want to know if rounds are coming my way without having to be close enough to hear the crack-snap as it flies by. Hunters are supposed to be sure of where they shoot, what's behind. Does not mean they always do a good job of it.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-06-2016, 10:16 PM
RE: Democrats filibustering for gun control
(15-06-2016 09:58 PM)skyking Wrote:  that cuts both ways, many ways. I want to know if rounds are coming my way without having to be close enough to hear the crack-snap as it flies by. Hunters are supposed to be sure of where they shoot, what's behind. Does not mean they always do a good job of it.

If you hear the gunshot, the bullet has already missed you.

Speed of sound = 1126 ft/sec.

Muzzle velocity > 1126 ft/sec.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Chas's post
15-06-2016, 10:18 PM
RE: Democrats filibustering for gun control
Everybody knows that. I am a gun owner too.
I want to know about the first round so I can plan on being elsewhere for subsequent shots. Other than urban gun ranges I don't find the idea of suppressed long guns too comforting.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes skyking's post
15-06-2016, 10:23 PM
RE: Democrats filibustering for gun control
(15-06-2016 08:41 PM)Carlo_The_Bugsmasher_Driver Wrote:  
(15-06-2016 05:15 PM)Thumpalumpacus Wrote:  I have no problem with gun ownership being ensconced as a Constitutional right, but I think that many Americans (not you, if I read you correctly) are under the misapprehension that rights are unlimited permissions.

They are not, and they never have been. Every right listed in the First Amendment has legal limitations in place in order to bar its abuse, and I think it's only sensible that when dealing with the ownership of an instrument of death, restrictions should be in place as well. There are many right now, of course, but as we're seeing in this and other cases, the law cannot account for every exigency.

Because of that, even though I don't like the idea of removing an American's rights based merely on an unproven suspicion, I'm glad the Democrats are forcing the issue.

In doing so, they are forcing a long-overdue Congressional discussion.

There's a lot to unpack here Thumpalumpacus, but here are my issues in a nutshell:

Yes you are correct. Rights are not unlimited and totally at the discretion of the individual. The first amendment doesn't guarantee you the right to incite a riot, the second amendment doesn't guarantee you the right to own a hydrogen bomb, the fourth amendment does not guarantee you privacy if you invite a police officer into your home, etc.

I believe in the right of the individual to keep and bear arms, including military small arms. For a person willing to put in the time to learn to properly use a gun, it can be an extremely useful tool in a life threatening emergency, an implement for hunting and survival, and, in the extreme, used to forcibly remove a capricious government or a cabal within and make it behave according to the terms of the US Constitution or the individual constitutions of the states themselves.

While that works well in a charter form as stated above, there do have to be some practical exceptions made that balance personal freedom and the right to protection with safeguarding against the sheer havoc which a deranged or criminal minded person can do with a gun. And most firearm laws are on the books for that reason. The NFA was passed as a result of the violent gangland shootouts from the Prohibition era. The GCA of 68 passed as a result of learning the hard way that a lone nut can casually order a rifle from a Montgomery Ward catalog and use it to shoot the president as he rides in an open top limo in Dallas. The Firearms Protection Act of 86 passed as a result of the Miami Cocaine Wars of the late '70s and early '80s, and so on. This is, in fact the reason we place certain restrictions on all arms and arm-related sales.

My position is that certain kinds of gun control, used judiciously, can be effective in reducing violence, suffering, and deaths associated with criminal activity. There are limits to this; certain kinds of gun control do NOT work, in my opinion. I'm for expanded background checks which include denial of sale to people with recent diagnoses of severe mental health problems eg schizophrenia, suicidal ideations, etc., and ending person to person gun sales without checks. But I do not support, for example, an 'assault weapons' ban nor microstamping requirements because they do absolutely nothing to curb crime or violence.

What I have become appalled with in recent times is the 'gun culture' in America which has gotten totally out of hand; we pass laws, for example Texas' law which allows hunters to use suppressors - silencers - on their rifles, or a law in Indiana, supported by the NRA, which allows people to shoot public servants on their property. It has evolved into a paranoid, lunatic fringe which can't see the insanity of what they propose or want, views the Second Amendment as an entitlement to whatever weaponry they want, any time they want it, any where they want and don't give a shit about how this attitude, coupled with a country awash in firearms facilitates the kind of tragedy which occurred in Orlando early Sunday morning.

I've posted threads on this forum where I railed against the NRA for its bullshit as well as proposed an individual license for buying and selling firearms, so I do understand the purpose of regulation, but what is proposed should be critically examined for 1) effectiveness 2) constitutionality 3) anterior motives behind the legislation. On the last point, if your interest in 'common sense gun control' is to create a palatable PC label, a buzzword for an incremental plan of stifling restrictions on gun ownership culminating in the forcible confiscation of all firearms, I don't want to be on your team; pick another kid. I like guns and hate people who want a society which sees the oligarchy being entitled to keep the sharp objects away from the wretched masses. I will fight against you and your unconstitutional bullshit any day.

Notwithstanding your last paragraph, everything else I completely agree with. I think we're both centrists in this campaign, trying to find a happy medium. I don't think I'm proposing any "unconstitutional bullshit". We both know that rights aren't untrammelled; we both know that rights cannot be eviscerated, either.

At base, I'm a pragmatist. I want the fine ideals in our Constitution to be upheld as closely as possible while at the same time "insure domestic tranquility" and "establish the general welfare" as the preamble lays out.

Though I don't personally own a gun, I think that responsible gun ownership is a boon to the nation.

You need not fight against me and my bullshit, for my sentiments are similar to yours, and my bullshit is by and large harmless.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-06-2016, 10:25 PM
RE: Democrats filibustering for gun control
(15-06-2016 10:18 PM)skyking Wrote:  Everybody knows that. I am a gun owner too.
I want to know about the first round so I can plan on being elsewhere for subsequent shots. Other than urban gun ranges I don't find the idea of suppressed long guns too comforting.

Well, suppressors do not make guns silent, or even quiet. They just make them less noisy.
You will still hear the supersonic crack of the bullet.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Chas's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: