UnThreaded | Threaded | Whole Thread (17) | Ignore Thread Prev Thread | Next Thread
Author: PeterRabit Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: of 1932899  
Subject: Gun confiscation or cancer? Which to fear more? Date: 10/8/2012 9:31 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 28
CNN) -- Jill Thacker was dying for a cup of coffee when she recently ran into a 7-Eleven convenience store. To her pleasant surprise, the coffee was free -- as long as she would commit to drinking it in either a red Mitt Romney cup or a blue Barack Obama cup.

"Which are you going to choose, Mom?" her son asked.

Which, indeed. A gun-owning, big-government-hating Republican, Thacker's every instinct told her to buy a Romney cup. But Thacker, 56, and her daughter have asthma -- a pre-existing condition -- and with Obama as president they'll be guaranteed the ability to buy insurance.
Thacker stood in the 7-Eleven and stared at the red and blue cups, stymied by the choice they represented.

Perhaps no other election has posed such a difficult personal decision for some conservatives: How do you vote if you're ideologically conservative, but you're benefiting, or stand to benefit, from the Affordable Care Act, often referred to as "Obamacare"?

"In 2008, health care was a very conceptual, a very theoretical issue," said Michael Traugott, a professor of political science and communication at the University of Michigan. "This year it's very concrete and real."
...
Obamacare tells insurance companies they can't say no to people with preexisting conditions, or charge them more because of their health issues.

http://www.cnn.com/2012/10/06/health/republicans-conflicted-...

Amazing how stupid issues can lead people to vote against their self-interest.

Peter
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: CairnDad Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool CAPS All Star Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 1822494 of 1932899
Subject: Re: Gun confiscation or cancer? Which to fear mo Date: 10/9/2012 12:06 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
Amazing how stupid issues can lead people to vote against their self-interest.

The Second Amendment is not a stupid issue.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: 1poorguy Big funky green star, 20000 posts Top Recommended Fools Old School Fool CAPS All Star Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 1822548 of 1932899
Subject: Re: Gun confiscation or cancer? Which to fear mo Date: 10/9/2012 1:36 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 5
The Second Amendment is not a stupid issue.

And your point is....???

Has the 2nd Amendment been threatened by Obama in any way? Has he done anything in the past four years to make anyone believe he's going to touch it? No. Even after Aurora, not a peep from him about it.

Because he's not going to.

But gun-nuts (as distinguished from reasonable gun owners) are circling the wagons and proclaiming that Obama is threatening the 2nd Amendment. The guy sitting on the other side of my cube wall is just such a person.

It's truly nuts.

1poorguy

Print the post Back To Top
Author: CairnDad Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool CAPS All Star Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 1822589 of 1932899
Subject: Re: Gun confiscation or cancer? Which to fear mo Date: 10/9/2012 2:59 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
Has he done anything in the past four years to make anyone believe he's going to touch it?

“This is my last election. After my election I have more flexibility.”

http://thelede.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/03/26/microphone-picks...

"we can work together to enact commonsense improvements—like reinstating the assault weapons ban"

http://www.democrats.org/democratic-national-platform

Print the post Back To Top
Author: PeterRabit Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 1822629 of 1932899
Subject: Re: Gun confiscation or cancer? Which to fear mo Date: 10/9/2012 4:20 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
CD quoting DNC platform:

"we can work together to enact commonsense improvements—like reinstating the assault weapons ban"

Full paragraph:

Firearms. We recognize that the individual right to bear arms is an important part of the American tradition, and we will preserve Americans' Second Amendment right to own and use firearms. We believe that the right to own firearms is subject to reasonable regulation. We understand the terrible consequences of gun violence; it serves as a reminder that life is fragile, and our time here is limited and precious. We believe in an honest, open national conversation about firearms. We can focus on effective enforcement of existing laws, especially strengthening our background check system, and we can work together to enact commonsense improvements—like reinstating the assault weapons ban and closing the gun show loophole—so that guns do not fall into the hands of those irresponsible, law-breaking few.
http://www.democrats.org/democratic-national-platform

So, CairnDad, I assume you think an assault weapons ban is a bad idea.

Peter

Print the post Back To Top
Author: 1poorguy Big funky green star, 20000 posts Top Recommended Fools Old School Fool CAPS All Star Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 1822657 of 1932899
Subject: Re: Gun confiscation or cancer? Which to fear mo Date: 10/9/2012 5:09 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
A bit before the excerpt you grabbed was this bit:

We recognize that the individual right to bear arms is an important part of the American tradition, and we will preserve Americans' Second Amendment right to own and use firearms.


Print the post Back To Top
Author: CairnDad Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool CAPS All Star Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 1822667 of 1932899
Subject: Re: Gun confiscation or cancer? Which to fear mo Date: 10/9/2012 5:35 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
We recognize that the individual right to bear arms is an important part of the American tradition, and we will preserve Americans' Second Amendment right to own and use firearms.

They paid lip service to it. Then they proposed the assault weapons ban, which in my opinion is a violation of the 2nd Amendment.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: 1poorguy Big funky green star, 20000 posts Top Recommended Fools Old School Fool CAPS All Star Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 1822672 of 1932899
Subject: Re: Gun confiscation or cancer? Which to fear mo Date: 10/9/2012 5:42 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
I could just as easily say they paid lip-service to the "commonsense regulation", asserting they have no intention of doing anything. Which is exactly what I think is the case.

Then they proposed the assault weapons ban, which in my opinion is a violation of the 2nd Amendment.

Why? And where (if anywhere) would you draw a line?

Print the post Back To Top
Author: PeterRabit Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 1822675 of 1932899
Subject: Re: Gun confiscation or cancer? Which to fear mo Date: 10/9/2012 5:44 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
CD Then they proposed the assault weapons ban, which in my opinion is a violation of the 2nd Amendment.

So do you think it is a great idea for lots of Americans to own assault rifles?

Or do you believe we have to do this because of the 2nd Amendment even if it is not good for the country?

Is there any weapon that Americans should not be allowed to own?

Peter

Print the post Back To Top
Author: CairnDad Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool CAPS All Star Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 1822676 of 1932899
Subject: Re: Gun confiscation or cancer? Which to fear mo Date: 10/9/2012 5:44 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
Firearms. We recognize that the individual right to bear arms is an important part of the American tradition, and we will preserve Americans' Second Amendment right to own and use firearms. We believe that the right to own firearms is subject to reasonable regulation.

The above is lip service given that the assault weapons ban is supported.

We understand the terrible consequences of gun violence; it serves as a reminder that life is fragile, and our time here is limited and precious. We believe in an honest, open national conversation about firearms. We can focus on effective enforcement of existing laws, especially strengthening our background check system, and we can work together to enact commonsense improvements—like reinstating the assault weapons ban and closing the gun show loophole—so that guns do not fall into the hands of those irresponsible, law-breaking few.

So, CairnDad, I assume you think an assault weapons ban is a bad idea.

A bad idea and unconstitutional.

Next thing you know, the Obama Administration will pay lip service to First Amendment rights but then infringe on First Amendment rights by trying to tell churches what a minister is.

Oh wait, they already did. See Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church and School v. EEOC. The USSC disagreed with the Obama Administration on First Amendment grounds.

That must have been a partisan decision, right? Nope. The USSC found against the Obama Administration 9-0

Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: CairnDad Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool CAPS All Star Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 1822733 of 1932899
Subject: Re: Gun confiscation or cancer? Which to fear mo Date: 10/9/2012 7:07 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
Why? And where (if anywhere) would you draw a line?

United States v. Miller (as cited in District of Columbia v. Heller) found that the Second Amendment applied to guns “in common use at the time". Most, if not all, things banned by the assault weapons ban are in common use at this time. In fact, the 1994 law banned AR-15s by name, which are now one of the most popular rifles. That's pretty much the definition of "in common use at the time".

Print the post Back To Top
Author: CairnDad Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool CAPS All Star Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 1822735 of 1932899
Subject: Re: Gun confiscation or cancer? Which to fear mo Date: 10/9/2012 7:12 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
So do you think it is a great idea for lots of Americans to own assault rifles?

Yes, except for felons and the mentally ill.

Is there any weapon that Americans should not be allowed to own?

I think we should use the "in common use at the time" test.

United States v. Miller (as cited in District of Columbia v. Heller) found that the Second Amendment applied to guns “in common use at the time".

Print the post Back To Top
Author: 1poorguy Big funky green star, 20000 posts Top Recommended Fools Old School Fool CAPS All Star Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 1822741 of 1932899
Subject: Re: Gun confiscation or cancer? Which to fear mo Date: 10/9/2012 8:01 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Miller

"In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a 'shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length' at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument."

Describing the constitutional authority under which Congress could call forth state militia, the Court stated, "With obvious purpose to assure the continuation and render possible the effectiveness of such forces the declaration and guarantee of the Second Amendment were made. It must be interpreted and applied with that end in view."

In dicta, the Court also looked to historical sources to explain the meaning of "militia" as set down by the authors of the Constitution:
"The significance attributed to the term Militia appears from the debates in the Convention, the history and legislation of Colonies and States, and the writings of approved commentators. These show plainly enough that the Militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. 'A body of citizens enrolled for military discipline.' And further, that ordinarily when called for service these men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time."


That's not supporting your case.

And "common use at that time" is when? When the 2nd Amendment was drafted? That means only flintlocks. Or in 1939? Which would be bolt-action rifles, mostly. Though there was the tommy-gun (very popular with gangsters in that era). A weapon can only be in "common use" if it is legal in the first place. The decision in Heller clearly states that they are not saying the right is unrestricted, and further is specific that the handgun ban in DC was not legal, and that Heller could have one in his home.

So that's not really supporting your position either.

My mother owns a pistol. I would be most vociferous of any attempts to make it illegal. Somewhere between that and weapons with large-capacity magazines and high rates of fire we cross a line, IMO.

Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: CairnDad Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool CAPS All Star Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 1849652 of 1932899
Subject: Re: Gun confiscation or cancer? Which to fear mo Date: 12/30/2012 11:29 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
Has the 2nd Amendment been threatened by Obama in any way? Has he done anything in the past four years to make anyone believe he's going to touch it? No. Even after Aurora, not a peep from him about it.

Because he's not going to.


'President Obama on Sunday said he would make gun control a priority in his new term, pledging to put his “full weight” behind passing new restrictions on firearms in 2013.
“I'm going to be putting forward a package and I'm going to be putting my full weight behind it,” said Obama in an interview aired on NBC’s “Meet the Press.” “I'm going to be making an argument to the American people about why this is important and why we have to do everything we can to make sure that something like what happened at Sandy Hook Elementary does not happen again.”'

It appears Obama is going to do just about everything the NRA warned us he would do.

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/274881-obam...

Print the post Back To Top
Author: 1poorguy Big funky green star, 20000 posts Top Recommended Fools Old School Fool CAPS All Star Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 1852212 of 1932899
Subject: Re: Gun confiscation or cancer? Which to fear mo Date: 1/10/2013 3:59 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
It appears Obama is going to do just about everything the NRA warned us he would do.

Oh no, he's coming for our guns!!

B.S.

A more rational (and recent) article:

http://www.cnn.com/2013/01/09/politics/gun-control-battle/

"We haven't decided what this is yet, but we're compiling it all with the help of the attorney general and all the rest of the Cabinet members."

If he was going to confiscate them, as I've heard some folks assert, he'd just do it. He wouldn't have these conferences with his cabinet and the Attorney General. What is most likely is some form of reinstatement of the assault weapons ban, which honestly probably won't help much (e.g. the Virginia Tech shooter didn't use an assault weapon, he had a pistol with several extra magazines). If he went much further he'd end up with a Constitutional legal challenge (he may anyway) that he likely would not win with the present SCOTUS.

So remain calm. Neither you nor my mother are in danger of losing your firearms.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: 1poorguy Big funky green star, 20000 posts Top Recommended Fools Old School Fool CAPS All Star Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 1852213 of 1932899
Subject: Re: Gun confiscation or cancer? Which to fear mo Date: 1/10/2013 4:00 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
And, as an additional note, it took Sandy Hook to get people even talking about this. After Aurora there was barely a peep from anyone.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: BuyLower Big red star, 1000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 1852239 of 1932899
Subject: Re: Gun confiscation or cancer? Which to fear mo Date: 1/10/2013 5:38 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
Somewhere between that and weapons with large-capacity magazines and high rates of fire we cross a line, IMO.

The line as it is currently drawn is good. Banning large capacity magazines won't be useful except to generate "warm fuzzies". The rate of fire for all current semiautomatics is the same (1 bullet per trigger pull). Rate of fire is associated with fully automatic weapons.

Get behind something that will make a difference. Go after strawman purchases and "bad apple" sellers. Go after gun manufacturers that have poor inventory control. That will make a bigger difference. Figure out the why behind gun homicides and attack that. Regulations only work on the law abiding.

Print the post Back To Top
UnThreaded | Threaded | Whole Thread (17) | Ignore Thread Prev Thread | Next Thread
Advertisement