How much are we willing to give up?

hso said:

Not quite correct. Eight states have provisions for carry on school grounds by staff'/teachers.
https://www.cnn.com/2018/02/24/us/armed-teachers-states-trnd/index.html

Click to expand...

Utah is one of those states and every time I've gone into a school (when my kids were still in school) since I've had my CFP, I've been carrying. I also know of at least a couple of teachers/administrators in each of the schools who carry daily along with many other parents who also carry in schools. I've even open carried at our High School during our neighborhood meetings. No one even batted an eye. I'm a firm believer that it should be expanded nationwide and that it shouldn't be the any of the school districts business which properly licensed employees are carrying.

Had Coach Feis had a gun during the attack, I think things might have turned out much differently. With the current laws in Florida, that wasn't even an option.

Matt

The White Tiger said:

No, actually. The Constitution was intended to be the law of the land. The court was NEVER intended to interpret the US Constitution.

Click to expand...

The Constitution is the law of the land, but it is not the only law of the land. Actually, it's just a basic framework with the details to be filled in by legislation. And ambiguities in both the Constitution and the laws have to be resolved by the courts. "Judicial review" was recognized in the early case of Marbury v. Madison (1803).

The White Tiger said:

Yes, and as I recall...they blamed the shooter that day...not the access to the scoped, bolt action, hunting rifle, he used to kill college kids...right?

Click to expand...

They did. And found later he had a brain tumor. Kid was ill. Just like so many others.

danez71 said:

I'm not so sure he bought it legally.

Click to expand...

He passed the NICS check. Why would he not have bought it legally?

danez71 said:

Question 11F (or is it E?)

Click to expand...

11.e. is the drug question. 11.f. is the mental question, but you have to be adjudicated a mental defective or have been involuntarily committed. Cruz was neither.

Being merely "troubled" doesn't disqualify you from buying a gun. Nor, really, should it.

The White Tiger said:

Yes, and as I recall...they blamed the shooter that day...not the access to the scoped, bolt action, hunting rifle, he used to kill college kids...right?

Click to expand...

There wasn't a huge outcry for gun control after the Whitman shooting. One reason may have been that there were lots of "good guys with guns" (students and others who brought out their hunting rifles) who shot back, forcing Whitman to keep his head down until the police (and a civilian volunteer) could close with him and take him down. This probably saved a lot of lives.

The big push for gun control came two years later, after the assassinations of Martin Luther King and Robert Kennedy. Still, the GCA '68 is relatively mild compared to what is being proposed today.

Wisco said:

Are you kidding?

Article III
Section 1.
The judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and in such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The judges, both of the supreme and inferior courts, shall hold their offices during good behaviour, and shall, at stated times, receive for their services, a compensation, which shall not be diminished during their continuance in office.

Section 2.
The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority;--to all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls;--to all cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction;--to controversies to which the United States shall be a party

Click to expand...

That explains a lot, take a look at the sentence in bold and italics... the courts operate under, and only within the context of, the authority of the US Constitution. Court cases were NEVER intended to sublimate the duly elected representative of this country. They were NOT intended to MAKE law. they were to decide if legislative initiatives/law/bills were processed correctly, and if those newly written bills/laws/initiative fit within some confine of the Constitutional. It can declare laws UN-constitutional, it doesn't rule on a single Bill of RIGHTS issue. It can't, it doesn't have the authority.

In fact, the US Supreme Court was used so little in the beginning of these United States, it did not even have its own building until 1935...the last of the the separate branches of government to have it's own building...thats 144 years.

What you have been taught & think you know about the US Constitution, just isn't so.

The correct understanding of the court(s) is that the framers/founders did NOT trust ANY single branch of government to interpret RIGHTS...because governments tend to turn on their people. Therefore, they empowered the people via a representative legislature. Remember, they were guarding AGAINST the growth of government.

The biggest final debate was whether or not they NEEDED to draft a Bill of RIGHTS (not privileges). Because they didn't think they'd need to enumerate basic human RIGHTS that they'd all just finished fighting to have recognized & acknowledged - thank God they did.

Because words have meaning.

AlexanderA said:

There wasn't a huge outcry for gun control after the Whitman shooting. One reason may have been that there were lots of "good guys with guns" (students and others who brought out their hunting rifles) who shot back, forcing Whitman to keep his head down until the police (and a civilian volunteer) could close with him and take him down. This probably saved a lot of lives.

Click to expand...

I agree with this part of your post.

AlexanderA said:

The big push for gun control came two years later, after the assassinations of Martin Luther King and Robert Kennedy. Still, the GCA '68 is relatively mild compared to what is being proposed today.

Click to expand...

The GCA of '68 established "Common Sense" background checks - which are conducted by the FBI. So, one has to ask, do the brilliant children who chew on laundry detergent to get high, even KNOW that we ALREADY HAVE BACKGROUND CHECKS?

The '68 NFA ended the mandatory registration from the 1934 GCA. The 1993 GCA invented the term "Assault Rifle"...then set up the first (successful) attempt to ban rifles.

but...again, this was just another "slippery slope" event ...where a determined cadre of well intentioned progressives simply lost faith in ALL men being able to govern themselves - and took matters into their own hands - utilizing emotional triggers to pass ever more crippling phases of GCA's. The PEOPLE have not sought to give up their guns - the government has come for them several times. We have been fortunate in that we have effectively utilized elections to roll back those governmental overreaches. But the damage is done when we give up our RIGHTS, or portions of our RIGHTS...in order to make GOVERNMENT feel better.

We must ALL be careful of their use of emotion in their "death by a thousand cuts" strategy and vigilant against ANY representative legislator or executive seeking to curry favor by surrendering our RIGHTS in the name of emotion. They are TRULY working to rid America of ALL guns...one group, age limit, caliber, long gun, hand gun...at a time.

I am vehemently opposed to ANY infringement. Think about the fact that the government HAS infringed, when they were expressly FORBIDDEN from doing so. If they can gin up teenagers to forfeit your 2nd amendment RIGHTS, you may want to start making sure their REAL goal isn't silencing dissent - because you just might find out that the only thing protecting your 1st amendment RIGHT, is your 2nd amendment RIGHT...

To answer the original question...how much am I willing to give up? Nothing, unless I get something in return.

But that isn't reality. The reality is that if they do what they're threatening, you won't have a say. New York passed the SAFE Act in 2013, and most of it, except the 7-round load limit, still stands. It went from not existing as written legislation to passed and signed in less than eighteen hours.

After a nearly 5-year legal fight, here's where the situation stands now:

Pistol permit re-certification extended until 2019 or longer. There were simply too many renewals to process in the allotted time.
7-round load limit gone, and the state finally stopped appealing the decision.
Background checks for ammo purchases scrapped because NYS was not allowed to use NICS to process them.
NYS tried to say that the Thordsen FRS-15 stock was a thumb-hole grip, but BATFE said they are legal because there's a gap between the stock and the buffer tube.

Botttom line...THEY ARE TRYING, PIECE BY PIECE, TO TAKE AWAY FROM YOU ANYTHING THAT CAN USE GUNPOWDER TO DISCHARGE A PROJECTILE. YOUR QUESTION SHOULD NOT BE "WHAT ARE YOU WILLING TO GIVE UP?"

YOUR QUESTION SHOULD BE "HOW FAR ARE YOU WILLING TO TAKE THE FIGHT TO KEEP THEM?"

The White Tiger said:

The GCA of '68 established "Common Sense" background checks - which are conducted by the FBI.

Click to expand...

The GCA '68 established the Form 4473 qualification requirements for purchasing at FFL dealers (although the requirements were not as extensive as they are now). But people more or less filled out the Form 4473 "on the honor system." Dealers had no way of verifying the buyer's statements on the form. Background checks, originally with a 5-day wait for completion, weren't mandated until the Brady Bill of 1993. The "instant check" NICS phone-in system, which replaced the 5-day wait, was fully implemented in 1998.

The White Tiger said:

The '68 NFA ended the mandatory registration from the 1934 GCA. The 1993 GCA invented the term "Assault Rifle"...then set up the first (successful) attempt to ban rifles.

Click to expand...

I don't follow what you're driving at. The NFA of 1934 mandated the registration of machine guns, silencers, short-barrel rifles and shotguns, and "any other weapons" (a technical category). The GCA '68 didn't end this registration; instead it expanded it by requiring the registration of destructive devices and DEWATS, with a 30-day amnesty for bringing registrations up to date. "Assault weapons" came into the lexicon with the AWB of 1994, which really didn't ban anything. Existing guns were grandfathered, and future guns had to be made without certain cosmetic features, such as folding stocks, flash hiders and bayonet lugs. A bigger effect was limiting magazines to 10 rounds, but, again, plenty of grandfathered pre-ban magazines were available. The whole thing expired in 2004.

Hokkmike said:

The inevitability of some kind of gun control in the wake of the latest school shooting weighs heavily.

Click to expand...

No it doesn't and I refuse to give up.

AlexanderA said:

He passed the NICS check. Why would he not have bought it legally?

11.e. is the drug question. 11.f. is the mental question, but you have to be adjudicated a mental defective or have been involuntarily committed. Cruz was neither.

Being merely "troubled" doesn't disqualify you from buying a gun. Nor, really, should it.

Click to expand...

It was F that was referring to.

I've read reports that he had been involuntarily committed at one point. I'm not sure for how long though; I think less than 72 hrs.

Also that he has some degree of autism and the Deschamps are considered his caregivers and that is the basis of them filing a claim to take control of the $800,00 he was due to inherent when he turned 22.

Does any of that matter for question 11F?

I'm not sure. Only a proper investigation will determine that.... which is why I said I'm not so sure he did buy it legally.

No can you be sure he did buy it legally.

We're only sure that he bought it thru a legal channel.


But as hso said, it's pretty irrelevant.

The gun didn't walk itself in to the school.

The line would be much farther for me, but incremental gun control is a real thing.

I'm perfectly OK with reasonable gun control, but I know it won't end there, so I can't support it.

We live in a pretty messed up world.....

George P said:

Who decides if you have mental issues? Maybe an anti-gun doctor?

Click to expand...

4th amendment due process provisions would require the production of evidence and for it to also go through a judge so you are not the victim of political bias. At least 2 entities would be involved, a trained medical professional and a judge followed by another judge and a jury of your peers if you appeal.

armoredman said:

No it doesn't and I refuse to give up.

Click to expand...

While I do appreciate your defiant stance I do think you need to read closely what many conservative politicians are saying. So, here is a question, you "refuse to give up" and I ADMIRE that, just what does it entail? Is it a state of mind or does it require and entail some kind of response.

AlexanderA said:

Another way of saying this is that things may reach the point where measures are taken without our input, and then the question "How much are we willing to give up?" becomes a moot point. We will not be asked.

This is why some flexibility is needed, instead of simply braying "Not one more inch!" You can afford to say "Not one more inch!" when you are holding all the cards. If not, well, it may become time to negotiate, to salvage the best deal possible.

I'm not being a defeatist here. We have not reached that stage yet.

Click to expand...

Do you think we are close?

M118LR said:

I don't believe that any of US where there back then, but if that's all the flexibility WE are capable of? WE THE PEOPLE might have let down our fore-fathers? This was supposed to be an evolving experiment, capable of change based on the needs of the Common Man. So if we want to accept the Solutions to the Tyranny of the far past as OUR course of action in the future, how far are Y'all willing to go to desecrate our Grandchildren's Freedoms in order that they once again bear the yolk of oppression?

Is thier future more important to OUR unwillingness to change, than those that come after US?

Click to expand...

It doesn't matter if we were there or not.

The Constitution and our Rights does not change, and it shouldn't. We cannot move an inch either. The anti-gunners always use the arguement that the 2A is outdated, but it is not. If it is, then it can also mean that our other rights such as those for free speech, religion, etc are outdated.

Nope, not giving up anything.

Hokkmike said:

While I do appreciate your defiant stance I do think you need to read closely what many conservative politicians are saying. So, here is a question, you "refuse to give up" and I ADMIRE that, just what does it entail? Is it a state of mind or does it require and entail some kind of response.

Click to expand...

We refuse to give up our gun rights as stated in 2A.

Its quite simple really. The anti-gunners have already chipped away little by little. It is time to push back.

So you're saying that if some conservatives are willing to allow semiauto rifles to be banned in some way, you are let that happen?

justice06rr said:

We refuse to give up our gun rights as stated in 2A.

Its quite simple really. The anti-gunners have already chipped away little by little. It is time to push back.

So you're saying that if some conservatives are willing to allow semiauto rifles to be banned in some way, you are let that happen?

Click to expand...

Do you read that anywhere in my writing? I am asking, to use your own words, what the "push back" might look like. Do you have any ideas? We are on the same side here.

Hokkmike said:

Do you read that anywhere in my writing? I am asking, to use your own words, what the "push back" might look like. Do you have any ideas? We are on the same side here.

Click to expand...

Yep, I don't think its that hard to understand what I meant.

No I'm not giving up any guns, AR15's, or any part of my rights. Its that simple.

AlexanderA said:

For the sake of intellectual honesty, I have to say that UBC's could be set up in such a way as to not create a usable gun registry. For example, you could clear the person and not the gun. Sen. Tom Coburn proposed such a system after Sandy Hook, but it didn't go anywhere.

Click to expand...

???

Universal Background Checks are done on the person buying the person, not on the gun to see if it stolen or wanted as evidence in a crime.

I don't need to know or even care what gun(s) a person owns. Once I know who they are and where they live then it is simply a matter of using enough resources to go and take them when ordered to.

Walkalong said:

They are not asking now, they are demanding, and we have to demand back that no, no more useless gun control.
Not being defeatist? Do you really think you are being realistic? Do you really think if we give in they'll stop? You already posted they will not. Of course this is a defeatist attitude. It's wanting to deal from fear of losing the end game. The only way to win is to never give up and fight tooth and nail against all infringements on gun rights. If they win a skirmish here and there, so be it, but never roll over and give it to them.

No deals, we never get anything, they only enact more gun control. If you are on our side, you might start by not parroting their side of the arguments.

Click to expand...

Yes.... another one of us that embraces the repeatedly failed method of what I described in post 32. - Failing at Negotiations 102.