proposed federal high cap. mag ban

[Fastcast]

Your argument is not topical; the SCOTUS already ruled that restrictions and oversight do not qualify as infringement.

If you want to live in a country with absolute freedom, I'm sure there are some areas of sub Saharan Africa or mountainous Afghanistan that would suit your need for elbow room.

Well, I see your argument as passive/submissive and exactly why we live in a Country now that doesn't resemble the documented, rightful laws of this land and the unalienable rights for all men.....Some rights are not given by a piece of paper and our elected masters.

As SCOTUS continues to chip away at 1A & 2A does that make it justified?....Should we just lay down and roll over or should we continue to push our position to elect constitutionally sound politicians? Who will appoint like minded supreme justices.

Seems like you enjoy and feel more secure with even more oversight and restrictions. Good thing the founders didn't think like you or there would be no USA today.

 

[ShaiVong]

I haven't seen this mentioned, and perhaps it's a bit off the point, but what about the responsibility of the Capitol police to protect members of Congress? Although they do not have to provide the security themselves, they are supposed to notify local law enforcement if a member of Congress is appearing in a public forum. And, according to Sheriff Dupnick, they did not notify his department nor, I believe, did they notify Tucson police. Perhaps a few uniformed LE personnel could have deterred Loughner (but perhaps not), or a few plainclothes agents in the crowd could have prevented the murders or, at least, reduced the number of people murdered.

Yeah, this was one of my first thoughts too - a US Rep was holding a public meeting and not one LEO was in the area?

I'm not a sociologist, but I wonder if changes in society aren't to some extent responsible for the violence we see around us. There were no restrictions on gun ownership when I was a kid (I'm 69), but there was very little gun-related violence of the sort we experience today. I grew up in Houston and most people owned guns and, while there were some killings by cops of criminals and vice versa and some killings of one family member or friend by another, I don't remember a single instance of mass murder.

Something is certainly going wrong with US society that doesn't seem to be reflected in the rest of the first world. Like you, I'm not sure what it is.

 

[eye5600]

The proposed federal laws are going nowhere. At the state level, there could be some action. Connecticut does not have mag capacity limitations, and we have an all-democratic government, so there is some risk, but I was surprised to see this:

"I think it would have been unlikely for this person to legally buy a gun here," said Michael P. Lawlor, a former leading lawmaker on gun control, who recently resigned from the General Assembly to become Gov. Dannel P. Malloy's undersecretary for criminal justice policy and planning in the state Office of Policy and Management.

Malloy was mayor of Stamford, and his police chief was very anti-permit.

The question to ask your legislators is "how many lives do you expect to save?" It takes a very rare combination of circumstances for there to be much difference between 1 30-rounder and 3 ten-rounders. I bet there is not more than one or two incidents a year like the one in AZ where you can make a strong case that it matters. I heard that McCarthy's husband and son were killed by a shooter with a hi-cap mag. I looked it up. Colin Ferguson used 15-rounders and reloaded a couple times before he was tackled while reloading the third time.

If you are anti-gun, the problem with this proposal is that you are going to make a lot of people angry and cost the gov't some enforcement resources for very little gain. If you want to fight the fight, you should ask for a bigger piece of the apple. If you are going to get the votes, then you can also get language to extend NICS checks to F2F sales at gunshows.

 

[eye5600]

a US Rep was holding a public meeting and not one LEO was in the area?

I heard that the federal judge had been assigned a bodyguard due to threats, but the bodyguard was not with him at the time.

 

[ShaiVong]

Well, I see your argument as passive/submissive and exactly why we live in a Country now that doesn't resemble the documented, rightful laws of this land and the unalienable rights for all men.....Some rights are not given by a piece of paper and our elected masters.

I don't really know what you're trying to say. Obviously our rights are provided by a piece of paper, though they're enforced by a government. I do like how you called out men though.

It doesn't necessarily change what you can do, just what you can do within the confines of the law.

As SCOTUS continues to chip away at 1A & 2A does that make it justified?....Should we just lay down and roll over or should we continue to push our position to elect constitutionally sound politicians? Who will appoint like minded supreme justices.

I think you should exercise your right as a citizen and vote for the political representatives that best embody your vision for America. The constitution has changed quite a bit since the original BoR, and it needs to keep being adapted and updated to reflect modern society.

Seems like you enjoy and feel more secure with even more oversight and restrictions. Good thing the founders didn't think like you or there would be no USA today.

Well, you seem wrong. I despise bureaucrats, cops and authority. I especially loathe security guards. Just because I dislike them doesn't mean that I don't understand the utility of a functioning society; we don't all just do things we like and don't do things we dislike. That's part of being an adult.

 

[ShaiVong]

I heard that the federal judge had been assigned a bodyguard due to threats, but the bodyguard was not with him at the time.

I hope they get their money back.

 

[sonick808]

i guarantee Loughner was either beginning, on, or stopping a course of antidepressant or antipsychotic medication. I think it's someting like 98% of shooting by young adults and teens have SSRI's / SNRI's / etc. in play.

Of course, they will continue to ignore the antidepressant connection, and continue passing them out like candy to anyone who doesn't like their job, or is bored.

 

[ShaiVong]

i guarantee Loughner was either beginning, on, or stopping a course of antidepressant or antipsychotic medication. I think it's someting like 98% of shooting by young adults and teens have SSRI's / SNRI's / etc. in play.

Of course, they will continue to ignore the antidepressant connection, and continue passing them out like candy to anyone who doesn't like their job, or is bored.

I turn to ethanol when I'm bored or hate my job; it's the american way.

 

[ETCss Phil McCrackin]

In my opinion, "reasonable restrictions" are some of the most potentially dangerous, because on the surface they seem as their name, reasonable.

Take, for example, the idea of mandating training in order to exercise your second amendment rights. It sounds perfectly reasonable, I mean, after all who among us doesn't believe that training is a good thing? The problem however lies in the people that would inevitably twist the training mandate into something prohibitively expensive and time consuming. (NYC ccw application process comes to mind as an example of de-facto bans via admin mountain)

Any psych screening requirement would almost certianly stand a very significant and ever-present risk of someone like Schumer, Feinstein, or McCarthy getting a say-so. And, I'm sure if people like that had their way, virtually any conceivable mental issue, no matter how small, could be used as a disqualifier. PTSD, mild depression, ADHD, etc..

Go to see the doc because you are having trouble sleeping since the divorce? Whoops, the new law states that your doc has to report your newly diagnosed depression.

Granted, this is worst case, and highly tin foil, but, is there anyone out there that thinks the usual suspects wouldn't be chomping at the bit?

 

[ShaiVong]

In my opinion, "reasonable restrictions" are some of the most potentially dangerous, because on the surface they seem as their name, reasonable.

Take, for example, the idea of mandating training in order to exercise your second amendment rights. It sounds perfectly reasonable, I mean, after all who among us doesn't believe that training is a good thing? The problem however lies in the people that would inevitably twist the training mandate into something prohibitively expensive and time consuming. (NYC ccw application process comes to mind as an example of de-facto bans via admin mountain)

Any psych screening requirement would almost certianly stand a very significant and ever-present risk of someone like Schumer, Feinstein, or McCarthy getting a say-so. And, I'm sure if people like that had their way, virtually any conceivable mental issue, no matter how small, could be used as a disqualifier. PTSD, mild depression, ADHD, etc..

Go to see the doc because you are having trouble sleeping since the divorce? Whoops, the new law states that your doc has to report your newly diagnosed depression.

Granted, this is worst case, and highly tin foil, but, is there anyone out there that thinks the usual suspects wouldn't be chomping at the bit?

I always liked the way that the Swiss do it - (virtually) every household has an assault rifle, but they got it by going through a good deal of training.

 

[Fastcast]

I don't really know what you're trying to say. Obviously our rights are provided by a piece of paper

That's not surprising after reading your sig line....Unalienable, not given by a piece of paper, given to all men by their creator and can NOT be taken away by government......Research it, it's in the founding documents.

The constitution has changed quite a bit since the original BoR, and it needs to keep being adapted and updated to reflect modern society.

BS....keep changing it till when, we resemble old world USSR?

That's part of being an adult.

Well, by todays standards I've lived over half my life. I've never been convicted of a crime, never spent a night in jail. My worst offense, a speeding ticket 20 + years ago........Is this what your type does, tell people you don't agree with they're not an adult?

 

[ShaiVong]

That's not surprising after reading your sig line....Unalienable, not given by a piece of paper, given to all men by their creator and can NOT be taken away by government......Research it, it's in the founding documents.

I prefer to base my politics on foundations that don't require an appeal to fairy tales, but that's just me.

BS....keep changing it till when, we resemble old world USSR?

Well, if the 'original constitution' is all we need, what are your thoughts on Amendments 11 - 27? Scrap 'em?

Well, by todays standards I've lived over half my life. I've never been convicted of a crime, never spent a night in jail. My worst offense, a speeding ticket 20 + years ago........Is this what your type does, tell people you don't agree with they're not an adult?

I never said you weren't an adult, and I'm not sure what my 'type' is. What does your 'type' do, try and freeze time?

 

[Fastcast]

I prefer to base my politics on foundations that don't require an appeal to fairy tales, but that's just me.

The real men who established this greatest of all Countries and wrote the laws of this land apparently believed in what you call fairy tales.

They specifically said that some of these rights are unalienable and can not be taken away. These are not laws that change direction like the wind but things all men are born with, that governments can not legally take away.....Unless of course you're willing to give them away. I'm not!

Whether you like it or not is irrelevant, that's what this Country was founded on (unalienable rights) and what many have died to protect.

Like you told me, if you don't like that I'm sure there is somewhere you can live that suites your ideals.....How about China or North Korea?

 

[Justin]

I prefer to base my politics on foundations that don't require an appeal to fairy tales, but that's just me.

That's pretty funny coming from a self-described socialist.



Regardless, it's pretty clear that this thread is no longer hewing to the original topic.