Sen. Feinstien (Calif) to intro gun control bill

Address the real problems

This is a very early opinion, but in my view, the crime of enablement, allowing someone with deep mental issues access to weapons, happened first.
We can channel this ban energy to accomplish something meaningful in legislation, that actually makes the public safer, without alienating the lawful population of gun owners. Something along the lines of "Security of American Firearms Act". If you have a black gun, get a safe and lock it up, too.
Secure your weapons. Be responsible. Don't give the combination to impaired family members. Prevent loss from burglaries.
With great power comes great responsibility. This is very early, but it's where my thoughts lead me.
 
So in these words as I read them I also interpret that to mean that regardless of might
Click to expand...

I am talking about interpreting the ideas of the founding fathers that led to the document, not actually the Bill of Rights itself. For myself I agree with you 100%.

I have however learned from others that legal language is different, I leave it to them to explain it. I'm not discrediting the explanations, nor our legal history. I'm just saying for myself, I see it as you do, but I understand the reality of history was different..
 
Last edited:
Nothing will be done about the continuing failure of our mental health system that is really causing this.
Click to expand...
Personally I disagree.
Obama's agenda from day one has been energy and health care.
I have no doubts he'd be happy to go along with any and all Democratic party sanctioned gun control, I believe his main focus will be to use the most recent tragedy to further push one of his "pet" agendas - health related issues.
 
Fact is, there are as many Republicans as Democrats that might sign onto a new AWB bill.
Click to expand...

Given history, that seems unlikely, but not pertinent. I would not say it is too early to contact members of the house and senate of both parties, just because we don't have text of a bill yet.
 
@Al Norris; I appreciate the "Cut the party ranting" comment, as its just that. I am a lifetime Democrat, and a serious life-long gun-guy. I know and have worked with untold numbers of Republicans who are just as anti-gun as any of the big DEM names you can throw out there.

Stick with the issue rather than FOX News talking points.....attack the issue, not an entire voting block (how smart is that?). Believe me, I work it behind the scenes with my fellow Democrats, but do get frustrated when I see such comments from "supposed" gun advocates.

Republicans are not alone in this fight.



Marc
 
I agree with Tom, there are plenty of democrats who won't support this legislation along with plenty of republicans who will. It isn't a Republican vs Democrat issue.

I'll have to find the article again, but the real issue seems to be the doping of america's children. By that, I'm talking about the so called mood modifiers that are getting prescribed to children at a young age. Instead of recognizing and dealing with children's problems and teaching them how to cope, the schools and doctors are instead doping them up to mask the issues. If memory serves and the article was right, all of these mass school shooting have been committed by people who were doped up early in life to deal with "issues" instead of being taught how to cope with every day life.

Long story short, it's a society problem of masking mental health issues instead of fixing them. Not a gun control issue
 
I don't want to be political - sigh but I cite this as a risk to the RKBA.

It's the blah, blah sporting use argument:

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/12/17/renewed-and-some-new-support-for-gun-control/

Here is a supposed gun rights advocate who immediately falls back on that mantra

“I don’t know anybody in the sporting or hunting arena that goes out with an assault rifle,” Mr. Manchin said, speaking on the MSNBC program “Morning Joe.”
Click to expand...

So you can support the Right to shoot ducks and bambi and that's it.

I have little respect for that. Last night, the wife and I drove home through a herd of the cutest little deer. About 15 of them, we just drifted through them slowly. Why should I care about a guy who wants to shoot them when he can eat tofu (actually I like tofu in the local Chinese restaurant - they have a great dish)?

So he's a sportsman and a hunter. Who gives a crap about that? That's not the purpose of the 2nd Amendment.

We elect unthinking idiots of all parties to our government. They only care about getting in office for their own greed, IMHO.
 
Glenn, What I see worse about...
“I don’t know anybody in the sporting or hunting arena that goes out with an assault rifle,” Mr. Manchin said, speaking on the MSNBC program “Morning Joe.”
Click to expand...

...is that there are many who routinely hunt, and very well, with their AR's and other modern rifle designs also used in military type applications...

For them to say that either shows them to not really have the expertise to speak of sporting or hunting disciplines or he is a liar and knows these designs can make a right fine repeating hunting weapon...

PS... I just heard Rick Leventhal on FOX call the "Bushmaster" one of the most powerful rifles in America... Granny would laugh her self to death in the grave reflecting on her arguments with grampa regarding her .30-06 being so much more powerful than his little .30-30:D
Brent
 
Yes, I saw CNN Reporter Don Lemon today and he made the point that no one hunts with an AR 15. He went on to say that if they did they could not use the meat because the animal would be destroyed.

So, why would he say that? It can’t just be lack of knowledge it has to be part of a bigger planned offensive. Yes, I know tin foil hat stuff, but someone is feeding all these talking heads this false information that they are to intellectually lazy to research for themselves.
 
Glenn E. Meyer said:
It's the blah, blah sporting use argument:
Click to expand...

That one annoys me too, but it is a smart way to argue a restriction of the right.

Principled defense of a right is literally abnormal. Normal people go about their lives and so long as someone doesn't bother them pretty directly, they don't worry about it much. This makes it easy for a fellow with a shotgun who only shoots a couple of geese a year to run for an illusory middle ground of banning almost everything else.

The NRA likes to tell us how many americans own firearms, but a lot of those people don't perceive their use as part of the same right as other peoples' uses. It is somewhat like the phenomenon of people supporting free speech rights for those with whom they agree. It is a natural but regrettable reflex, and arguments that play on that reflex work.
 
The NSSF has made an attempt to portray these guns as the new sporting guns and Remington has specific models for that view.

The sporting use defense is risky, I think because:

a. Why can't you go hunting with a Ruger Model One? If you are competent that should work. If you want a semi - why not a 5 round magazine? You don't need 30.

b. Why can't you keep your hunting gun locked up at all times till you go hunting, etc.?

So I agree that Sen. Munchking doesn't know what he is talking about. I've taken my AR out in the field. But sports doesn't defend the RKBA. We could all be bow hunters.
 
This is a risky deal. They will get rich righties to buy in saying it will eliminate guns from desperate(poor under $300k /yr) criminals while protecting sportsmen(think H&H or Purdey pricing).

Any tax is infringement...any named ban is infringement...any additional requirement to buy is infringement.

Remember John Lott, statistician, tells us all mass shootings happen in "gun prohibited" areas...remember, the Oregan mall shooting tells us what happens with CCW thrown in the mix...


MORE GUNS = LESS CRIME
 
As much as I support carry - Lott must be taken with a grain of salt about gun free zones. We've been down this road before.

Rampages depend on the shooter characteristic and we have plenty in zones with guns.

It is not the strongest argument.

The better argument is that in a gun free zone, you do not have the ability to defend yourself efficaciously.

You can be a human shield or charge waving your IPAD.

It's OREGON by the way! And the Tacoma mall carrier can trump the Oregon story if true. BE CAREFUL with cliched arguments!
 
Any tax is infringement...any named ban is infringement...
Click to expand...
I'll agree with you on the latter, but the former is much more complicated.

Regarding bans, see my prior post; virtually anyone willing to do some research should realize that the main effect of the 94 AWB was to enrich those lucky enough to be in possession of large quantities of pre-ban items, while having little or no measurable effect on gun crime. :rolleyes: That's not to say that those who supported the AWB wouldn't support the exact same legislation again, drawbacks and all, to appease their constituents. However, in order to be realistically effective, a revised AWB II would have to either ban simple possession of certain items, which is unlikely to survive a court challenge in a post-Heller environment, or it would have to proactively ban resale of the items, which is unlikely to survive court challenges for various other reasons, and IMHO is unlikely to pass in the first place because it would be so invasive and cumbersome to enforce.

However, the Supreme Court has generally upheld Congress' power to levy taxes in most cases. On one hand, excessively punitive and overly specific taxes have been disallowed on 1A grounds; see Minneapolis Star Tribune Company v. Commissioner. However, on the other hand, the Roberts court upheld an arguably very broad and invasive law* under the Taxing and Spending Clause in National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius. Furthermore, the NFA- while obnoxious, cumbersome, and arguably unconstitutional in some respects- is settled law.

My hunch is that an "NFA Lite" would be held as constitutional if (a) the taxes on commonly possessed items are reasonably low, at least to start, and (b) the tax collection method is sufficiently streamlined that the taxes could be readily collected on a retail level. It could also function as a back-door registration scheme under the guise of keeping tax records. Therein lies the danger.

*Please note: I do NOT intend to digress into discussing the PPACA here, and I feel that such a discussion would be inappropriate and irrelevant to the topic at hand; this case is simply cited as an example.
 
Lets don't lose our grip on reality, based on some heated rhetoric. Politicians say things to appeal to their donors. All sides are guilty of this on a myriad of hot button issues, that will never become law.
 
Time and delay is our best ally IMHO. Delay the bills and let the news cycle pass. I also think that in time we will see one of these mass shootings stopped by a CCW in a way that is hard for the media to ignore (Oregon) or water down (Appalachian State law school) and then the tide will turn. For now it will be hard to argue gun rights without appearing insensitive to the plight of the children. Using the argument that these shootings are just a part of american life won't get it either. We have to walk fine now as this incident is a possible game changer... to the bad.
 
Nate, I hope you are correct, but I am not confident that you are.
Click to expand...

I'm a big believer in a positive mental attitude and cognitive therapy. Negative thinking is never useful. It has nothing to do with ignoring reality, or being pollyannish either. It also isn't about not having contingency plans. It's about saving time, effort, and ill physical/mental effects.
 
Yes, but could this be the ultimate “compromise” that is reached in Washington concerning the proposed AWB? This way everyone “wins” as the items are still available, but obviously heavily regulated.

Exactly. That way "no one loses their gun". They just have to go through a ton of paperwork and extra costs.

They'll probably grandfather current owners.
 
So during the Clinton ban, how did "assault" rifle owners sell the firearms? Could they sell person to person, or did the transaction have to be documented?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top