Latest news suggests only 35% of US homes possess guns so it seems gun possession is a minority issue, a very vocal minority but a minority issue nonetheless. If only 35% will be alienated by improved gun control what is stopping government from getting the job done?

First of all I doubt that percentage is correct. Secondly, that has no bearing on the second amendment. The right is guaranteed regardless unless and until the states ratify a change.

Greenie handyguy, I have to agree, there are no deterrents in the system, just higher education to make a criminal better. And police can only react after the fact in most cases, and the perp is long gone.

A complex problem indeed.


Latest news suggests only 35% of US homes possess guns so it seems gun possession is a minority issue, a very vocal minority but a minority issue nonetheless. If only 35% will be alienated by improved gun control what is stopping government from getting the job done?

Fear of losing their jobs by supporting reasonable gun control/safety, that most agree with anyway. And an NRA shilling for the gun manufacturers. 4 million members of the NRA and most agree with the rest of the population on reasonable solutions for gun safety.

90% of my friends are hunters but what surprised me was NONE of them where members of the NRA. They would rather buy more hunting and fishing stuff with that membership money. Other clubs have better discounts on "stuff".

Rights are one thing, practicality another. There are certain weapons it is undesirable to allow in the hands of the general population, banning such weapons does not prevent weapon ownership. The Constitution is not prescriptive as to what form arms might take, but it is unlikely it suggests any and all arms should exist in the general population when the founders couldn't see beyond the end of their muzzle loading muskets and swords were still in use

Rights are one thing, practicality another. There are certain weapons it is undesirable to allow in the hands of the general population, banning such weapons does not prevent weapon ownership. The Constitution is not prescriptive as to what form arms might take, but it is unlikely it suggests any and all arms should exist in the general population when the founders couldn't see beyond the end of their muzzle loading muskets and swords were still in use

One of my best friends has a working cannon, get over it.

One of my best friends has a working cannon, get over it.

Legally or otherwise, I wonder is stupidity a right

The city that Our president hails from, Chicago
He isn't from Chicago. He lived here for a while.

Chicago is in the throes of improving education, especially to keep kids in school for the long haul, increasing the number of after-school activities, taking back neighborhoods block by block, etc. I'm thinking there is a future for preventing gang activity with the use of mini drones.

legally or otherwise, I wonder is stupidity a right

According to our stupid secretary of state it is, but the stupid part here is thinking a guy that can build a working cannon is the stupid one.

http://mobile.reuters.com/article/idUSBRE91P0HJ20130226?irpc=932

I do not know where that 35% comes from but I think it is more regional. If you live in New Hampshire or Maine , I think it is around 80%. New York City, less than 2%. So the 35% is a real shot in the dark, excuse the pun. But gun sales are way up and the amount of LEGALLY owned guns in this country is close to 250 million.

He isn't from Chicago. He lived here for a while.

Chicago is in the throes of improving education, especially to keep kids in school for the long haul, increasing the number of after-school activities, taking back neighborhoods block by block, etc. I'm thinking there is a future for preventing gang activity with the use of mini drones.

The only people taking back the neighborhoods are the thugs and gangsters. Don't let the liberal media candy coat the actual facts.

legally or otherwise, I wonder is stupidity a right




So you are saying owning a gun is stupid?

The only people taking back the neighborhoods are the thugs and gangsters. Don;t let the liberal media candy coat the actual facts.
It's not from the media. It's from professionals I know who are hard at work in Chicago.

Really. Officials in Chicago. Do you really know Chicago's history?

Rights are one thing, practicality another. There are certain weapons it is undesirable to allow in the hands of the general population, banning such weapons does not prevent weapon ownership. The Constitution is not prescriptive as to what form arms might take, but it is unlikely it suggests any and all arms should exist in the general population when the founders couldn't see beyond the end of their muzzle loading muskets and swords were still in use
That's not what the Federalist papers make abundantly clear... it does very clearly demostrate the people have the same access to the same weapons the government would use to prevent a tyrannical government exactly like the one we fought a war to free ourselves from... specifically the British government.

Here's a situation. A city is under siege by the US Military. Who has the advantage- the military with their tanks and automatic weapons or the citizens with their semi auto arms and 20 times the numbers of military personnel and the knowledge of the city.
And you are correct, there is no absolute description of what weapons or arms that can be owned. There is nothing stating anything about carrying concealed weapons. There is nothing stating that a citizen cannot own a mortar or grenade launcher. The Government has decided that for us. Do you know that Constitutionally and according to Federal Firearms possession laws, a police officer, either local OR state has no authority to take your weapons unless you are suspected of a crime. If I am stopped on my way top the target range and get stopped by the police for a traffic stop and I am in possession of my legally registered firearm, they have no authority to take possession of it. NONE.

Really. Officials in Chicago. Do you really know Chicago's history?
I said professionals, not officials. I've lived here since 1963, and my father was a native, so yes, I know Chicago's history.

Here's a situation. A city is under siege by the US Military. Who has the advantage- the military with their tanks and automatic weapons or the citizens with their semi auto arms and 20 times the numbers of military personnel and the knowledge of the city.
And you are correct, there is no absolute description of what weapons or arms that can be owned. There is nothing stating anything about carrying concealed weapons. There is nothing stating that a citizen cannot own a mortar or grenade launcher. The Government has decided that for us. Do you know that Constitutionally and according to Federal Firearms possession laws, a police officer, either local OR state has no authority to take your weapons unless you are suspected of a crime. If I am stopped on my way top the target range and get stopped by the police for a traffic stop and I am in possession of my legally registered firearm, they have no authority to take possession of it. NONE.


Do you know that Constitutionally and according to Federal Firearms possession laws, a police officer, either local OR state has no authority to take your weapons unless you are suspected of a crime

You see there's the rub the Constitution doesn't say anything about crime in relation to arms, the thinking hadn't got that far, but no one challences that a criminal should not be disarmed, so it naturally follows that certain situations are excepted.

The idea that an armed population would be successful in repelling a well armed force of trained troops in the twenty-first century is fantasy. Urban warfare is the worst sort of warfare, high casuality rate and slow progress and there may be some successes but fire power will prevail. Perhaps the fantasy is bouyed by the success of insurgencies in Libya and maybe Syria, but that sort of thinking is very out of date. In Libya the insurgents had help and it took months, in Syria the insurgents have not had help and it goes on relentlessly. You have a standing army to protect against invasion, you have a police force to stop crime, You don't need semi automatic military style weapons or any other military weapon

The sack of Washington in 1814 proved conclusively that relying on a militia to defend against a military force was fantasy but you still cling to the idea

you see there's the rub the Constitution doesn't say anything about crime in relation to arms, the thinking hadn't got that far, but noone challences that a criminal should not be disarmed, so it naturally follows that certain situations are excepted.

The idea that an armed population would be successful in repelling a well armed force of trained troops in the twenty-first century is fantasy. Urban warfare is the worst sort of warfare, high casuality rate and slow progress and there may be some successes but fire power will prevail. Perhaps the fantasy is bouyed by the success of insurgencies in Libya and maybe Syria, but that sort of thinking is very out of date. In Libya the insurgents had help and it took months, in Syria the insurgents have not had help and it goes on relentlessly. You have a standing army to protect against invasion, you have a police force to stop crime, You don't need semi automatic military style weapons or any other military weapon

The sack of Washington in 1814 proved conclusively that relying on a militia to defend against a military force was fantasy but you still cling to the idea



That's the typical liberal argument...

If there really isn't a chance the people could overthrow a tyranical socialist government... then why are the people that lean socialist so concerneed about denying the people their constitutional right to own guns... except that maybe that assumption is wrong? And that only the most hard core socialists/ communists in the Military at that moment would not stop attacking an armed populace that is fighting back.

Thats the typical liberal argument....

If there really isn't a chance the people could overthrow a tyranical socialist government...then why are the people that lean socialist so concerneed about denying the people their constitutional right to own guns....except that maybe that assumption is wrong? And that only the most hard core socialists/ communists in the Military at that moment would not stop attacking an armed populace that is fighting back.?

You don't get it, it isn't about denying a right, it is about removing a threat, about protecting the innocents. Again it is fantasy that an armed population is going to stop a mass murder or any murder for that matter, for that to happen everyone would have to carrying and willing to get involved. Vigilantism is not a solution. It is fantasy that an armed population is going to rise up and take back the streets, there surely has been enough provocation and it hasn't happened. Where is this threat to the population you speak of, it is in your mind! The day of the cowboy is over

You don't get it, it isn't about denying a right, it is about removing a threat, about protecting the innocents. again it is fantasy that an armed population is going to stop a mass murder or any murder for that matter, for that to happen everyone would have to carrying and willing to get involved. Vigilantism is not a solution. It is fantasy that an armed population is going to rise up and take back the streets, there surely has been enough provocation and it hasn't happened. where is this threat to the population you speak of, it is in your mind! the day of the cowboy is over

IT IS ABOUT DENYING A RIGHT... trying to say or claim anything else is nothing but smoke and mirrors. And a typical liberal tactic. Change the topic.. call it anything else... do anything but call it what it is.

Luntics running looses on the st4reets are a threat... yet they are allowed to run free...

Illegals are a threat yet they aren't being removed... Socialists and COmmunists are a threat and yet they are allowed to run free... people with criminal records that are repeat offenders are allowed to run free..

Want to talk about real threats... those are the real threats people face every day... not people owning guns legally who actually have a legal RIGHT to have them... something none of the previous threats have...

Hello smoothy:


people with criminal records that are repeat offenders are allowed to run free.. I'm not a threat. Commies, socialists and your local leaf blower aren't threats either..

I thought right wingers loved the Constitution... No, huh?

Excon

I get it, I have a right to keep and bear arms. Get over it.

Meanwhile, a Maryland legislator is pushing back against the silliness...


‘Toaster Pastry Gun Freedom Act’ proposed in Maryland
(http://dailycaller.com/2013/03/10/toaster-pastry-gun-freedom-act-proposed-in-maryland/)
A Maryland state senator has crafted a bill to curb the zeal of public school officials who are tempted to suspend students as young as kindergarten for having things — or talking about things, or eating things — that represent guns, but aren’t actually anything like real guns.

Sen. J. B. Jennings, a Republican who represents Baltimore Harford Counties, introduced “The Reasonable School Discipline Act of 2013″ on Thursday, reports The Star Democrat.

“We really need to re-evaluate how kids are punished,” Jennings told The Star Democrat. “These kids can’t comprehend what they are doing or the ramifications of their actions.”

“These suspensions are going on their permanent records and could have lasting effects on their educations,” he added.

A nationwide flurry of suspensions seemed to reach an absurd level recently when Josh Welch, a second-grader at Park Elementary School in Baltimore, Maryland, was suspended for two days because his teacher thought he shaped a strawberry, pre-baked toaster pastry into something resembling a gun. (RELATED: Second-grader suspended for breakfast pastry)

“I just kept on biting it and biting it and tore off the top of it and kind of looked like a gun,” the seven-year-old told Fox News.

“But it wasn’t,” he astutely added.

Smart kid. I particularly like this portion of the bill:


The bill also includes a section mandating counseling for school officials who fail to distinguish between guns and things that resemble guns. School officials who fail to make such a distinction more than once would face discipline themselves.

I love it.

Hello smoothy:

I'm not a threat. Commies, socialists and your local leaf blower aren't threats either..

I thought right wingers loved the Constitution... No, huh?

excon
Repeat offenders commit crimes... repeat offenders commit more than the two crimes they were convicted of... repeat offenders by definition don't stop after their first crime.

Communists and Socialists want the contitution gone because it prevents most of their policies... so they can impose their tyranny on the people.

The differences are... we have a written right to bear arms... the others have no rights to continue their behaviour specifically in writing...

What bill of rights specifically give the criminals.. the Socialists or the communists or the Lunatics... by name... the unabated right to do what they do? And what number would that one be?

Hello again, smoothy:

I'M a repeat offender. In fact, I'm committing a felony AS we speak. I'm going to do it again, too. Fully HALF of the people you lock up are like me. We owe you NOTHING.

Wanting the Constitution gone is Constitutionally protected thought. You might not LIKE what they think, but they have the RIGHT to think it. There's nothing illegal about BEING a lunatic either.

Where did you learn about the Constitution? Montgomery Wards?

excon

Early this AM in gun-free DC.

Eleven people shot on D.C. street corner overnight - The Washington Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/crime/up-to-11-people-shot-on-dc-street-corner-overnight/2013/03/11/d7c5197e-8a39-11e2-a051-6810d606108d_story.html?hpid=z1)

Early this AM in gun-free DC.

Eleven people shot on D.C. street corner overnight - The Washington Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/crime/up-to-11-people-shot-on-dc-street-corner-overnight/2013/03/11/d7c5197e-8a39-11e2-a051-6810d606108d_story.html?hpid=z1)

Yes they had a constitutional right to die

Hello again, smoothy:

I'M a repeat offender. In fact, I'm committing a felony AS we speak. I'm gonna do it again, too. Fully HALF of the people you lock up are like me. We owe you NOTHING.

Wanting the Constitution gone is Constitutionally protected thought. You might not LIKE what they think, but they have the RIGHT to think it. There's nothing illegal about BEING a lunatic either.

Where did you learn about the Constitution? Montgomery Wards??

excon

I apparently know far more about it than you do...

Next time some repeat offender breaks in and beats the crap out of you during a robbery... keep your own words in mind... or the next time a repeat offender robs and kills someone close to you.

If you was younger and still had small children.. if some repeat offender Childmolestor got a hold of one of your kids... remember they don't owe you anything.

Like how often does that happen Smoothy, you have a three strike rule so there is a window there and little else, again nothing says you can't own a gun but remember you just might be putting a weapon in the hands of that offender. You don't need a semi automatic with a large magazine to defend yourself

like how often does that happen Smoothy, you have a three strike rule so there is a window there and little else, again nothing says you can't own a gun but remember you just might be putting a weapon in the hands of that offender. you don't need a semi automatic with a large magazine to defend yourself

I and every other American have the RIGHT to any damn gun we want... and until the government itself restricts itself to what kind THEY have... they have less than NO excuse to dictate to anyone else.

Why exactly does a police force need grenades and fully automatic weapons for anyway? I expect to hear a really good answer there... because they aren't the Military... and in the USA. No paramilitary Police force exists.

I know this might really upset you lefties... but I can actually own a Class 3 firearm if I so desire (look it up, It's for REAL assault weapons... not what the morons on the left THINK are assault weapons)... That actually requires a license... because there is no legal justification for a rejection if I so applied for it (my background actually is clean Unlike Obamas)... because I actually live in a state that believes in the Constitution.

They would also HAVE to give me a Concealed carry permit if I apply for the very same reason.. I think I might just get one of those just for sh*ts and grins.

The bottom line here is the FACT that the Second Amendment gives every American citizen the specific right to own firearms.That is the law. There is nothing in the amendment that specifically describes what type can or cannot be owned and the fact of what smoothy said reinforces that fact. If I want to own a fully automatic Tommy Gun,, I have to apply for a permit from the Government. If I have absolutely no type of criminal record, I CANNOT be denied that permit and firearm CONSTITUTIONALLY. If I were, The Supreme Court would over ride the decision as unconstitutional because there would no valid reason why I cannot own that weapon. It's simple. This argument has gone on for over 200 years and the law abiding citizens of this country ALWAYS prevail.

Why exactly does a police force need grenades and fully automatic weapons for anyway? I expect to hear a really good answer there...because they aren't the Military...and in the USA. No paramilitary Police force exists.



Do you think it might be because you have an armed population and the police want to outgun their opponents. In any case isn't SWAT a paramilitary force within the various police forces. If you didn't have an armed population full of loonies it wouldn't be necessary

Do you think it might be because you have an armed population and the police want to outgun their opponents. In any case isn't SWAT a paramilitary force within the various police forces. If you didn't have an armed population full of loonies it wouldn't be necessary

Have you ever been here? I drive the streets every day and I've never seen "an armed population full of loonies," and I live in Texas where we all ride horses and still have gun fights on the street at noon.

Why exactly does a police force need grenades and fully automatic weapons for anyway? I expect to hear a really good answer there...because they aren't the Military...and in the USA. No paramilitary Police force exists.



Police are regarded as the first line in maintaining civil order, law enforcement and protection. Police have the power to use legal force when necessary to maintain this order.

In consultation with the states and local law enforcement commands police would be given the weaponry necessary to achieve these aims.


I think you will probably find this is close to the answer.

Police are regarded as the first line in maintaining civil order, law enforcement and protection. Police have the power to use legal force when necessary to maintain this order.

In consultation with the states and local law enforcement commands police would be given the weaponry necessary to achieve these aims.


I think you will probably find this is close to the answer.

More like to assure the government can oppress the people when it gets down to it... because the people have the right to the very same weapons... as a defense against a government gone overboard...

I drive the streets every day and I've never seen "an armed population full of loonies," and I live in Texas where we all ride horses and still have gun fights on the street at noon.

Well that certainly explains it!

More like to assure the government can oppress the people when it gets down to it....because the people have the right to the very same weapons.....as a defense against a government gone overboard.....


Justice Scalia on the types of weapons that fall OUTSIDE of the Second Amendment:

If the purpose of the Second amendment is to ensure an armed militia, then we might think that it especially protects just these weapons that are made useful in military service.

In modern times, that would mean machine guns, rocket propelled grenades, tanks and other such heavy weaponry. But recognizing the danger such weapons in private possession would pose they fall outside the Second Amendment.

Justice Scalia on the types of weapons that fall OUTSIDE of the Second Amendment:

If the purpose of the Second amendment is to ensure an armed militia, then we might think that it especially protects just these weapons that are made useful in military service.

In modern times, that would mean machine guns, rocket propelled grenades, tanks and other such heavy weaponry. But recognizing the danger such weapons in private possession would pose they fall outside the Second Amendment.

But apparenty it doesn't preclude muzzle loading cannons. You see Tut the definition of machine gun is a little vague but I would agree the founders really didn't see beyond single shot rifles, single shot hand guns and and even single shot cannon? Such weapons were common for many decades later. In the early days they overcame this by carrying as many guns as was practical and this thinking pervails today

Justice Scalia on the types of weapons that fall OUTSIDE of the Second Amendment:

If the purpose of the Second amendment is to ensure an armed militia, then we might think that it especially protects just these weapons that are made useful in military service.

In modern times, that would mean machine guns, rocket propelled grenades, tanks and other such heavy weaponry. But recognizing the danger such weapons in private possession would pose they fall outside the Second Amendment.

Machine guns are legal if you get a special license. Same with Silencers... those are class 3 firearms.

I don't have one because I don't have the money for one just for the sake of having it... but if I wanted to... I could have one... legally.

The Police have no more legitimate need for a machine gun that I do... or is that really the intention of the left... to eventually impose their tyranny on the population? There is no other legitimate reason than that.

But apparenty it doesn't preclude muzzle loading cannons. You see Tut the definition of machine gun is a little vague but I would agree the founders really didn't see beyond single shot rifles, single shot hand guns and and even single shot cannon? Such weapons were common for many decades later. In the early days they overcame this by carrying as many guns as was practical and this thinking pervails today

We can legally own a cannon... in fact many hobbyists do... functioning ones, that shoot real projectiles... and not just make noise..

We can legally own a cannon....in fact many hobbyists do....functioning ones, that shoot real projectiles...and not just make noise..
And there are enough of them to protect us from the evil federal government? Anyone have drones or nuclear bombs?

Machine guns are legal if you get a special license. Same with Silencers...those are class 3 firearms.

I don't have one because I don't have the money for one just for the sake of having it....but if I wanted to....I could have one....legally.

The Police have no more legitimate need for a machine gun that I do....or is that really the intention of the left....to eventually impose their tyranny on the population? There is no other legitimate reason than that.


The states have the right to impose certain rules and regulations when it comes to weapons. Such things as licenses, restrictions on certain types of hardware, gun free zones, police having the right to certain types of weapons; all would fall inside the parameters of the Second Amendment.

A more specific example would be:

If you feel as though it is not constitutional for police to be armed with certain types of weapons then you can take the case to the Supreme Court. However, I am confident there would be a 9/0 ruling against your claim.

Justice Scalia is a conservative SCOTUS judge.

Don't you just love a society where machine guns and cannons are legal and yet you cannot own an armed jet fighter

dont you just love a society where machine guns and cannons are legal and yet you cannot own an armed jet fighter

Who says you can't own a jet fighter... there are several wealthy pilots that do own ex- airforce fighter jets... from Russian, to British... etc

They aren't cheap... but if you have the money... why not. Heck, John Travolta has a Boeing 727 parked in his driveway... seriously, he does.He lives in a development where every house has direct access to private runway.

http://www.military-heat.com/27/military-jets-sale-civilian-market/

Hello again,

I LOVE Horsey..

You need to have a talk with that brain damaged tw@t named Barara Fienstein, because she's on the record as saying that's EXACTLY what she wants to do.

I'd link her rant... but the corporate censors are blocking access form this computer... I couldn't do it until I get home.

Here's one from Fox News,

The Immoral Minority: Senator Feinstein is forced to school Ted Cruz on the Constitution. Update! (http://theimmoralminority.blogspot.com/2013/03/senator-feinstein-is-forced-to-school.html)


This excerpt was taken from Fox Nation, so of course they left off the part where Senator Feinstien made a very important point about what these new gun laws actually do. She continued on to say:

"Incidentally this does not prohibit, you use the word 'prohibit,' it 'exempts' 2.271 weapons. Isn't that enough for the people in the United States? Do they need a bazooka? Do they need other high powered weapons that military people use to kill in close combat? I don't think so!"

Here's one from Fox News,

The Immoral Minority: Senator Feinstein is forced to school Ted Cruz on the Constitution. Update! (http://theimmoralminority.blogspot.com/2013/03/senator-feinstein-is-forced-to-school.html)

How dare he patronize Ms Feinstein.

Colorado's new law to limit magazine sizes makes virtually all magazines illegal because most are readily convertible. Washington gave cops the power to inspect your guns without a warrant. Don't Democrats think before passing laws?

Here's one from Fox News,

The Immoral Minority: Senator Feinstein is forced to school Ted Cruz on the Constitution. Update! (http://theimmoralminority.blogspot.com/2013/03/senator-feinstein-is-forced-to-school.html)

Cruz made her look like the post menopausal fool everyone knows she is... the witch couldn't even answer the question asked because she didn't have the brainpower to understand it... she's really a legend in her own mind.

You righties don't get it, but we are going that way any way. Kicking and screaming is par for the course, that's the way you have always been, ever since they freed the slaves and democrats were republican.

We ain't going back.

Here's one from Fox News,

The Immoral Minority: Senator Feinstein is forced to school Ted Cruz on the Constitution. Update! (http://theimmoralminority.blogspot.com/2013/03/senator-feinstein-is-forced-to-school.html)

That's odd, but your source that whined about Fox leaving part of the clip out left this part out:

UNUhWoIdFb4

Cruz is right of course but who cares? He shouldn't be lecturing DiFi on the constitution, she's been around forever and why should Congress concern themselves with the constitutionality of the laws they write anyway?

Maybe because they don't have a free pass to do whatever they want and they swore to uphold the constitution?

You righties don't get it, but we are going that way any way. Kicking and screaming is par for the course, thats the way you have always been, ever since they freed the slaves and democrats were republican.

We ain't going back.

Geez you guys sure have forgotten your behavior during the Bush years. I've never seen so much kicking, screaming, whining and pouting in my life.

It is good to see you guys at least admitting you don't give a rat's patoot about us. Perhaps if you didn't insist on dragging us down with you we might not have to dig our heels in so deep.

EVERYBODY hollered and whined about Bush! Didn't you? He damn near ran the Rangers out of Texas!

EVERYBODY hollered and whined about Bush! Didn't you? He damn near ran the Rangers out of Texas!

I hear the price of rice is up in China.

That's odd, but your source that whined about Fox leaving part of the clip out left this part out:

UNUhWoIdFb4

Cruz is right of course but who cares? He shouldn't be lecturing DiFi on the constitution, she's been around forever and why should Congress concern themselves with the constitutionality of the laws they write anyway?

Maybe because they don't have a free pass to do whatever they want and they swore to uphold the constitution?

I think Cruz has left out an important bit.

Towards the end of his response:

"I would suggest that 4 million weapons qualifies as, 'in common use'. So under the the terms of Heller they cannot be constitutionally prohibited.

Cruz might be right if this is what SCOTUS said, but the court didn't say this.
What SCOTUS actually said was," in common use at the time".

The Heller decision invokes the claim that the right to bear arms rests with the individual and does not have to be connect to service with a militia.

With this in mind the court ruled that a total ban on handguns was unconstitutional because of its conflict with the self-defense purpose of the Second Amendment.

The court added an additional statement regarding the wider possibility of the types of weapons that might be used for self-defense. In addressing this issue SCOTUS draws on the Miller decision to reinforce the claim that handguns are constitutional for the purpose of self-defense.

Handguns are constitutional for self-defense because they can be regarded as being,"in common use at the time" for this purpose.

It would be a matter of constitutional debate as to whether such things as machine guns, or similar weapons would be considered necessary for self-defense. Nonetheless, Cruz is wrong if he is giving trying to give the impression that, Heller gives the blessing for all types of weapons to be used in self-defense.

It would be a matter of constitutional debate as to whether such things as machine guns, or similar weapons would be considered necessary for self-defense. Nonetheless, Cruz is wrong if he is giving trying to give the impression that, Heller gives the blessing for all types of weapons to be used in self-defense.

Yes obviously it is debatable... Machine gun restrictions have been in effect for years without much debate. But the other side exploits the difference between machine guns and semi-automatic weapons because they look alike . Once the Clintoon ban was lifted ,the NY Slimes wrote that semi-automatic guns were often “the guns of choice for many hunters, target shooters and would-be home defenders”
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/03/business/yourmoney/03rifle.html?pagewanted=print&_r=0

The Heller decision reinforced the already standing 'United States v. Miller' that was confirmed in 1939 . Clearly with the growth of the sales of the AR-15 type weapons( the best-selling firearm in the United States) ,it is hard to dispute that they are not common. They are in fact the weapon of choice for law abiding citizens.

yes obviously it is debatable ... Machine gun restrictions have been in effect for years without much debate. But the other side exploits the difference between machine guns and semi-automatic weapons because they look alike . Once the Clintoon ban was lifted ,the NY Slimes wrote that semi-automatic guns were often “the guns of choice for many hunters, target shooters and would-be home defenders”
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/03/business/yourmoney/03rifle.html?pagewanted=print&_r=0

The Heller decision reinforced the already standing 'United States v. Miller' that was confirmed in 1939 . Clearly with the growth of the sales of the AR-15 type weapons( the best-selling firearm in the United States) ,it is hard to dispute that they are not common. They are in fact the weapon of choice for law abiding citizens.


I'm not actually disputing what you are saying here. What I am saying is

Yes, I would agree that such weapons would be lawful for self-defense.

You do have a right to own a gun not connect to a militia.

You do have a constitutional right to these things, but how that that right goes will be determined by way of future court cases. The Heller decision is limited in it's scope.

The issue I am raising is that Heller is not to be interpreted in a way Cruz makes out. He portrays Heller as some sort of justification for the Second Amendment in toto. In fact sees it as being of the same type as the First Amendment.

The weakness in his argument was the absolutism. Franken-Feinstein should've easily deflected it on Constitutional grounds... There are limited restrictions on the other 2 amendments he cited . She instead got defensive (probably because as a lefty ,she thinks the constitution is this pliable "living breathing " ,"not worth the parchment it's written on " document instead of the law of the land). Was her best counter to his constitutional point ."I've seen dead children" ? She should consider another profession.

I disagree, I don't believe he's arguing that at all, he's arguing within the confines of Heller. I doubt seriously you would hear him say yes, we have the unconditional right to carry a bazooka. The context is the discussion of an assault weapons ban, not shoulder fired rocket launchers.

Is the AR-15 "in common use at the time"? Yes. Is it especially "dangerous and unusual"? No more than many other semi-automatic weapons not in line to be banned.

The absurdity is this grandstanding about bazookas and cannons, not defending the legality of an AR-15.

Speech no one can deny you have a right to own weapons, what you don't have is the right to blow each other away because that is not part of the common good

speech no one can deny you have a right to own weapons, what you don't have is the right to blow each other away because that is not part of the common good

I guess you'll have to point out where anyone is trying to legalize mass murder.

I disagree, I don't believe he's arguing that at all, he's arguing within the confines of Heller. I doubt seriously you would hear him say yes, we have the unconditional right to carry a bazooka. The context is the discussion of an assault weapons ban, not shoulder fired rocket launchers.

Is the AR-15 "in common use at the time"? Yes. Is it especially "dangerous and unusual"? No more than many other semi-automatic weapons not in line to be banned.

The absurdity is this grandstanding about bazookas and cannons, not defending the legality of an AR-15.

Bazookas have already been decided upon. AR-15 are probably legal under Heller. What I am saying is that if Cruz wants to defend the legitimacy of AR-15 then it can be done so by claiming it as a weapon that is currently acceptable for the purposes of self-defense.

What I am also saying is that Heller doesn't extend much beyond this. In other words, Cruz cannot use Heller as a means of defeating larger gun laws and regulations in the same way as one would try to defeat restrictions associated with the First Amendment. Despite what Cruz thinks, the First amendment is not of the same type as the Second Amendment.

It is not inconsistent with Heller to say that owning a gun of any type can and does come with regulations and restrictions.

Cruz is saying any reasonable restriction is bad on any of his constitutional rights. In that he is wrong. This is about the rights of manufacturers to make certain type of guns for public sale. DiFi is clear on this with her exemptions

Assault Weapons Ban: Feinstein Bill Exempts 2,220 Guns; Critics Complain List Is Arbitrary (http://www.ibtimes.com/assault-weapons-ban-feinstein-bill-exempts-2220-guns-critics-complain-list-arbitrary-1091344)


The list of 2,220 exempted guns includes weapons used for hunting and sporting. Any gun owners who possess any of the 157 guns banned under the bill don't have to turn in their firearms; the legislation only bans the models from being manufactured in the future. Feinstein said banned guns include military-style firearms and semi-automatic weapons.

It takes away nothing, penalizes no one, but may put a dent in gun sales which can be made up with other exempted options. So this isn't even a second amendment issue at all the way I see it. This isn't even a right to go to armed war against the government either.

The Liberals that are pushing these laws are only after one thing-to eventually disarm the American public. Although a resolution made it through committee, it, in no way, guarantees that it will make it through the house. And I very much doubt that it will. Everyone is looking at two faced Harry Reid on this. Once a proponent of gun ownership, he is going to be made to decide and we all pretty much know where he will end up in the end. Feinstein showed her true colors the other day by being arrogant and just plain despicable. This should not be acceptable.

Bazookas have already been decided upon. AR-15 are probably legal under Heller. What I am saying is that if Cruz wants to defend the legitimacy of AR-15 then it can be done so by claiming it as a weapon that is currently acceptable for the purposes of self-defense.

What I am also saying is that Heller doesn't extend much beyond this. In other words, Cruz cannot use Heller as a means of defeating larger gun laws and regulations in the same way as one would try to defeat restrictions associated with the First Amendment. Despite what Cruz thinks, the First amendment is not of the same type as the Second Amendment.

It is not inconsistent with Heller to say that owning a gun of any type can and does come with regulations and restrictions.

Again, anyone arguing that Cruz is arguing the absolute right to own any weapon is wrong. He has on more than occasion acknowledged restrictions so all this talk about absolutism is just political bluster... or in the case of Democrats a political fundraiser.

http://www.tedcruz.org/blog/2013/01/24/defeat-the-assault-weapons-ban-of-2013/

Cruz is saying any reasonable restriction is bad on any of his constitutional rights. In that he is wrong. This is about the rights of manufacturers to make certain type of guns for public sale. DiFi is clear on this with her exemptions

Assault Weapons Ban: Feinstein Bill Exempts 2,220 Guns; Critics Complain List Is Arbitrary (http://www.ibtimes.com/assault-weapons-ban-feinstein-bill-exempts-2220-guns-critics-complain-list-arbitrary-1091344)


The list of 2,220 exempted guns includes weapons used for hunting and sporting. Any gun owners who possess any of the 157 guns banned under the bill don't have to turn in their firearms; the legislation only bans the models from being manufactured in the future. Feinstein said banned guns include military-style firearms and semi-automatic weapons.

It takes away nothing, penalizes no one, but may put a dent in gun sales which can be made up with other exempted options. So this isn't even a second amendment issue at all the way I see it. This isn't even a right to go to armed war against the government either.

I think it is a Second Amendment issue. However, this is why Cruz is choosing not to interpret the Heller decision correctly. "In common use" is actually, "in common use at the time"

Despite what Cruz thinks I would say that Heller is useless as a means of overturning bans and regulations of the future.

I think it is a Second Amendment issue. However, this is why Cruz is choosing not to interpret the Heller decision correctly. "In common use" is actually, "in common use at the time"

Despite what Cruz thinks I would say that Heller is useless as a means of overturning bans and regulations of the future.

At the time of what?

Hello again,

Cruz is a smarmy impertinent sleaze bag.

excon

Hello again,

Cruz is a smarmy impertinent sleaze bag.

excon

Really gets under your skin, eh? Good for him.

It takes away nothing, penalizes no one, but may put a dent in gun sales which can be made up with other exempted options. So this isn't even a second amendment issue at all the way I see it. This isn't even a right to go to armed war against the government either.



Actually it does take away choice. Something the libs used to cry about. Also it interferes with my rights to pass onto my children what may be a lifetime collection. Rendering it to scrap. Also it puts manufacturers out of business with the stroke of a pen. I guess those aren't real losses ?

As much as I admire DF for what she has been through in the political areana. Yes I remember her as Mayor of SF and how she got there. On this one she is wrong. Look up the reason she has a carry permit. Find the real truth behind all of this. Its about an over bloated government that is at a breaking point and is so scared of its own people they are will to go to extreme lengths to push their agenda.

Why not stick to enforcing what is already on the books and realize that we don't live and never will in a "perfect" world.

Lets see about the guy who went to a school full of communist teachers, who wanted to take over the government, He stayed and graduated. Bet he wants his kids to go there too! He didn't tranfer after finding he was in a nest of communists, but he blasts his alma mater. That's real class right?

Lets see about the guy who went to a school full of communist teachers, who wanted to take over the government, He stayed and graduated. Bet he wants his kids to go there too! He didn't tranfer after finding he was in a nest of communists, but he blasts his alma mater. Thats real class right?

Ive never heard Obama speak poorly of his alma mater ;)

You have to read into the "exempt" weapons. They are exempt but by the way the "assault weapons ban" reads, they are ALL considered assault weapons. There are just 2200 of thm NOW that are not going to be banned. You have to think like those little beady eyed liberals do,, sneaky,sneaky

Actually it does take away choice. Something the libs used to cry about. Also it interferes with my rights to pass onto my children what may be a lifetime collection. Rendering it to scrap. Also it puts manufacturers out of busines with the stroke of a pen. I guess those arent real losses ?

As much as I admire DF for what she has been through in the political areana. Yes I remember her as Mayor of SF and how she got there. On this one she is wrong. Look up the reason she has a carry permit. Find the real truth behind all of this. Its about an over bloated government that is at a breaking point and is so scared of its own people they are will to go to extreme lengths to push thier agenda.

Why not stick to enforcing what is already on the books and realize that we dont live and never will in a "perfect" world.

What's wrong with making sure your children don't have issues before they can get those antiques or whatever passed down to them? I doubt any manufacturer goes out of business because they can sell a particular weapon and other choices will certainly be available.

But I will take you up on searching some more background about the conceal and carry permit. But I ain't buying the conspiracy theory. I do realize MY agenda, may be different from yours. And my elected officials have a different agenda than yours. You have read enough of my beef with right wing thoughts and policies to know that.

I mean banning 157 models of guns and leaving 2700 as choices is not that far fetched to me. And keeping track of 360 million guns sounds good to me for finding criminals, which is the point of a national database for law enforcement, and background checks.

Now if you think they are coming for your guns then you must be a criminal, or paranoid. Which is worse because both are a concerned if armed.

There is not one good reason why "assault weapons" should be banned based on the Newtown killings. That is what brought this all to the front lines. It was just an opportune moment for the Anti Gun people to try and make their case. There have been more lies told about the so called "assault weapons" than truth. Law abiding citizens DO NOT use weapons to commit crimes. Criminals do. More background checks and limiting fire power to the law abiding citizen will not change crime statistics. Enforcing the 20,000 some laws we have and convictions instead of plea bargains will.

Hello handydude:


Enforcing the 20,000 some laws we have and convictions instead of plea bargains will.We are the worlds largest jailer, but we're still not big enough for you..

Let me tell you something handyboy. I can buy a gun at a gun show THIS weekend right here in my state.. Now, as my friends can attest, I'm a NICE exconvict... But, there are some who are NOT so nice, and I don't want them to have guns... A universal background check would STOP people like me from getting guns. YOU, apparently, don't mind, at ALL, that people like me can buy guns... That's not very right wing of you. It's not very American of you. In fact, it's the most PRO CRIMINAL position I've seen the right wing take...

It makes no sense to me. But, NOTHING red necked republicans do surprise's me.

Excon

Hello handydude:

We are the worlds largest jailer, but we're still not big enough for you..

Lemme tell you something handyboy. I can buy a gun at a gun show THIS weekend right here in my state.. Now, as my friends can attest, I'm a NICE exconvict... But, there are some who are NOT so nice, and I don't want them to have guns... A universal background check would STOP people like me from getting guns. YOU, apparently, don't mind, at ALL, that people like me can buy guns... That's not very right wing of you. It's not very American of you. In fact, it's the most PRO CRIMINAL position I've seen the right wing take...

It makes no sense to me. But, NOTHING red necked republicans do surprise's me.

excon

The universal background check bill could get you a felony conviction if you let a friend house sit with your guns there for over a week or loan him a gun to go hunting. We're paying attention to all the BS you libs are trying to sneak in.

Cruz and others here are right, we can't rule by emotion which is what you're trying to do, just as DiFi's indignant rant in the face of constitutional questions was.

Whats wrong with making sure your children don't have issues before they can get those antiques or whatever passed down to them? I doubt any manufacturer goes out of business because they can sell a particular weapon and other choices will certainly be available.

But I will take you up on searching some more background about the conceal and carry permit. But I ain't buying the conspiracy theory. I do realize MY agenda, may be different from yours. And my elected officials have a different agenda than yours. You have read enough of my beef with right wing thoughts and policies to know that.

I mean banning 157 models of guns and leaving 2700 as choices is not that far fetched to me. And keeping track of 360 million guns sounds good to me for finding criminals, which is the point of a national database for law enforcement, and background checks.

Now if you think they are coming for your guns then you must be a criminal, or paranoid. Which is worse because both are a concerned if armed.



If they ban a weapon then they are doing so under the sale or transfer of that weapon. If I should die and try to pass them to my children then that right has been stripped from me. As the ones in question CAN NOT be transferred. So unless your saying there is some part in it that allows for Heirloom guns then what we are talking about is removal of rights.

You may doubt things right now. But the way it is written then almost ANY semi auto pistol is on the ban list because it has the potential to have a large magazine inserted into it. That is the way it reads. For casual shooters like myself then it will create a lot of headaches. Also there is one gun manufacturer that will close for sure as they are written into that bill. Im sure they don't even know it yet. Enforce what you have first then worry about restrictions. What is to stop them from doing as was proposed that they at will can enter your home anytime of the day or night to check on what you have ?

How many rights do you have to give up before it becomes all wrong ? The law abiding citizen shouldn't have to fear the law. But more and more it is moving in that direction. Home invasions are becoming more popular in some areas. Try defending with a 6 shooter.

You don't have a "right" to pass property by inheritance nor do you have a "right" to traffic in arms when you are deceased.

It might be a good thing if some gun manufacturers close, less guns available, there are already enough guns in the world, we don't need more

How many rights do you have to give up before it becomes all wrong ?

The right to any non-specifically enumerated right they cherish. Like free contraceptives or abortion.

you don't have a "right" to pass property by inheritance nor do you have a "right" to traffic in arms when you are deceased.

it might be a good thing if some gun manufacturers close, less guns available, there are already enough guns in the world, we don't need more

So when you pass there is a law that everything you own goes to the government? There are rights in this country and they also are written for just that purpose of passing items or monies within the family unit. So like any other collection one might accumulate it should be allowed to pass through to heirs.

So when you pass there is a law that everything you own goes to the government? There are rights in this country and they also are written for just that purpose of passing items or monies within the family unit. So like any other collection one might accumulate it should be allowed to pass through to heirs.
My husband says if I don't have a FOID card (IL), I will not be able to keep his gun collection.

My husband says if I don't have a FOID card (IL), I will not be able to keep his gun collection.




If you are his sole heir, you will have the opportunity to apply for one. Guns are no different than any other personal property when it comes to inheritance. Several people I know have passed on and their spouses automatically became the owner of their firearms. They were given the opportunity of expedited application processes for licenses for the handguns. They were advised to keep the original permits with the firearms in a locked safe with a copy of the death certificate of the original owner and also to provide a copy of the DC with their application.

There are already laws in place for passing guns to family or anyone else a part of an estate.

Gun Control Laws & Inheritance, Federal Firearms Laws, Inheriting Guns (http://www.greystonelaw.com/articles_federal_gun_law_firearms_inheritance.html )

The Gun Debate has gone on for years. Everyone has an answer. The Supreme Court has the final say. If this ban comes before the SC, then they will decide whether it is Constitutional and infringes on anyone's Second Amendment rights. And everyone involved is passionate about their opinions. By doing all of this, it only give fodder to both sides to say bad things about the others arguments.

There are already laws in place for passing guns to family or anyone else a part of an estate.

Gun Control Laws & Inheritance, Federal Firearms Laws, Inheriting Guns (http://www.greystonelaw.com/articles_federal_gun_law_firearms_inheritance.html )

That is how it is right now. But with a gun ban they may strip the right to transfer it. So that means the government owns it and turns it to junk and the kids get nothing.

There are already laws in place

Which should be the entire gun control debate in a nutshell, except for political grandstanding on both sides.

Lets see about the guy who went to a school full of communist teachers, who wanted to take over the government, He stayed and graduated. Bet he wants his kids to go there too! He didn't tranfer after finding he was in a nest of communists, but he blasts his alma mater. Thats real class right?

I look forward for the opportunity of some day voting for him. Cruz critique of the Harvard Law school was that there were many proponents of the Marxist inspired 'critical legal studies' (CLS) school of thought.
CLS says that laws are actually no more than a means by which the powerful in society oppress the lower classes, and perpetuates and legitimizes injustices. They say the rich use the law as an instrument for oppression. They say judges should use political considerations to change laws because laws are nothing more than politics anyway. CLS is an American movement that indeed relies heavily on the works of Marx ,Engels ,Max Weber,and Antonio Gramsci among others .
That Harvard law is infested with this type of professor is indisputable . Time Mag identified it as a hot bed of CLS in 2005.
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1050592,00.html

While Obama was at Harvard law ,he studied under Roberto Mangabeira Unger ;the leading proponent of the CLS movement. This last election ,Unger turned on Obama and called for his defeat . Why ? Because Obama wasn't radical enough in advancing the cause of 'progressivism'.
This is who's teaching our future crop of Harvard Law School graduates .

Yes Cruz was right . It is absurd to suggest that he should've just abandoned his studies . For what purpose? Had he gone to Yale ,or Georgetown ,or many of the other prestigious schools of law in the country he would've encountered the same atmosphere. You can deny it all you want to ,but lefties dominate academia .

Hello again,

Cruz is a smarmy impertinent sleaze bag.

excon

I just got my 'Proud Wacko Bird' tee shirt in the mail.

Yes I've got one that says; a little bird told me you are stupid, must be the same bird

I look forward for the opportunity of some day voting for him. Cruz critique of the Harvard Law school was that there were many proponents of the Marxist inspired 'critical legal studies' (CLS) school of thought.
CLS says that laws are actually no more than a means by which the powerful in society oppress the lower classes, and perpetuates and legitimizes injustices. They say the rich use the law as an instrument for oppression. They say judges should use political considerations to change laws because laws are nothing more than politics anyway. CLS is an American movement that indeed relies heavily on the works of Marx ,Engels ,Max Weber,and Antonio Gramsci among others .
That Harvard law is infested with this type of professor is indisputable . Time Mag identified it as a hot bed of CLS in 2005.
Law: Critical Legal Times at Harvard - TIME (http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1050592,00.html)

While Obama was at Harvard law ,he studied under Roberto Mangabeira Unger ;the leading proponent of the CLS movement. This last election ,Unger turned on Obama and called for his defeat . Why ? Because Obama wasn't radical enough in advancing the cause of 'progressivism'.
This is who's teaching our future crop of Harvard Law School graduates .

Yes Cruz was right . It is absurd to suggest that he should've just abandoned his studies . For what purpose? Had he gone to Yale ,or Georgetown ,or many of the other prestigious schools of law in the country he would've encountered the same atmosphere. You can deny it all you want to ,but lefties dominate academia .

Eight years ago you could not get an undergraduate degree by exclusively studying CLS for 4 years.

It is likely that CLS was a unit component of philosophy or some other related discipline which would represent a Unit choice. CLS would represent a Unit of study worth so many unit points toward a degree.

There would be many other Unit components to choose from. For example: Corporate Law; Criminal law; Law and Social Change, etc.

No one really studies under anyone, except for post graduate students. Undergraduates would have a variety of teachers and tutors for a variety of courses.

I believe the key word was "proponents" of CLS.

http://rasica.files.wordpress.com/2013/01/feinstein-jefferson-washington.jpg

Food For Thought
If you can get arrested for hunting or fishing without a license, but not for being in the country illegally... you might live in a country founded by geniuses but run by idiots.

If you have to get your parents' permission to go on a field trip or take an aspirin in school, but not to get an abortion... you might live in a country founded by geniuses but run by idiots.

If the only school curriculum allowed to explain how we got here is evolution, but the government stops a $15 million construction project to keep a rare spider from evolving to extinction... you might live in a country founded by geniuses but run by idiots.

If you have to show identification to board an airplane, cash a check, buy liquor or check out a library book, but not to vote who runs the government... you might live in a country founded by geniuses but run by idiots.

If the government wants to ban stable, law-abiding citizens from owning gun magazines with more than ten rounds, but gives 20 F-16 fighter jets to the crazy new terrorist Muslim Brotherhood leaders in Egypt... you might live in a country founded by geniuses but run by idiots.

If, in the largest city, you can buy two 16-ounce sodas, but not a 24-ounce soda because 24-ounces of a sugary drink might make you fat... you might live in a country founded by geniuses but run by idiots.

If an 80-year-old woman can be stripped searched by the TSA but a woman in a hijab is only subject to having her neck and head searched... you might live in a country founded by geniuses but run by idiots.

If your government believes that the best way to eradicate trillions of dollars of debt is to spend trillions more... you might live in a country founded by geniuses but run by idiots.

If a seven year old boy can be thrown out of school for saying his teacher's "cute," but hosting a sexual exploration or diversity class in grade school is perfectly acceptable... you might live in a country founded by geniuses but run by idiots.

If children are forcibly removed from parents who discipline them with spankings while children of addicts are left in filth and drug infested “homes”... you might live in a country founded by geniuses but run by idiots.

If hard work and success are met with higher taxes and more government intrusion, while not working is rewarded with EBT cards, WIC checks, Medicaid, subsidized housing and free cell phones... you might live in a country founded by geniuses but run by idiots.

If the government's plan for getting people back to work is to incentivize NOT working with 99 weeks of unemployment checks and no requirement to prove they applied but can't find work... you might live in a country founded by geniuses but run by idiots.

If being stripped of the ability to defend yourself makes you more "safe" according to the government... you might live in a country founded by geniuses but run by idiots.

Hello smoothy:

Washington is right. That's why we HAVE a Second Amendment.

But, like many in the tin foil hat crowd, you believe the government is going to take away ALL your guns.

There ain't nothing I can say about that.

excon

Eight years ago you could not get an undergraduate degree by exclusively studying CLS for 4 years.

It is likely that CLS was a unit component of philosophy or some other related discipline which would represent a Unit choice. CLS would represent a Unit of study worth so many unit points toward a degree.

There would be many other Unit components to choose from. For example: Corporate Law; Criminal law; Law and Social Change, etc.

No one really studies under anyone, except for post graduate students. Undergraduates would have a variety of teachers and tutors for a variety of courses.

What speech said.. even if CLS was but one course for credit ,a significant number of professors at Harvard have it as their ideological foundation. Harvard Law is an advanced degree,not undergraduate . One of the few things that have been discovered about our President's past was which people influenced the direction he took . Unger is right up there with Bill Ayers ,and Obama's early mentor Frank Marshall Davis .

Hello smoothy:

Washington is right. That's why we HAVE a Second Amendment.

But, like many in the tin foil hat crowd, you believe the government is gonna take away ALL your guns.

There ain't nothing I can say about that.

excon

Ex... pull those earplugs OUT of your ears... and open your eyes... because it's the lunatics in YOUR party that's trying to do exactly that...

Barara Fienstien flat out said it... wrote a bill to do it... and is ramming it through the Senate...

That's VERY real... not imaginary..

Hello smoothy:


Barara Fienstien flat out said it... wrote a bill to do it... and is ramming it through the Senate... Got a link?

No, you don't, because it's just not so. The Feinstien bill (http://www.feinstein.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/assault-weapons-ban-summary) lists 157 brands specifically to be banned, and EXCLUDES 2,258 legitimate hunting and sporting rifles and shotguns by specific name..

Now, to ME, being able to buy 2,258 kinds of long guns ISN'T a ban. It isn't even close, no matter how you spin it.

Excon

Hello smoothy:

Got a link?

No, you don't, because it's just not so. The Feinstien bill (http://www.feinstein.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/assault-weapons-ban-summary) lists 157 brands specifically to be banned, and EXCLUDES 2,258 legitimate hunting and sporting rifles and shotguns by specific name ..

Now, to ME, being able to buy 2,258 kinds of long guns ISN'T a ban. It isn't even close, no matter how you spin it.

excon

Boy you lefties really are gullible... you believe absolutely everything a Democrat tells you to believe.

Ever hear the phrase "you can't see the forrest for the trees"? Understand what it means?

Hello smoothy:


.. you believe absolutely everything a Democrat tells you to believe. Ever hear the phrase "you can't see the forrest for the trees"?What I pay attention to is the BILLS they introduce, NOT the noise. There are MORE than enough gun lovers in the Democratic party to STOP any perceived gun ban.. Plus, the only PERCEIVED gun ban resides in the heads of right wingers.

I KNOW that because the only person you said WANTS to ban guns, DOESN'T want to ban them.

The forest and the trees ARE the Constitution. The Second Amendment is NOT in danger of being repealed... I know you don't believe it. I can't help that.

Excon

What you don't pay attention to (or ignore) is the DETAILS in those bills. As I mentioned before, one of them will make it a FELONY to go on vacation for more than 7 days while letting a friend house sit with your guns there unless you do a background check and transfer via Federal Firearm License holder . It also makes it a FELONY for many other so-called "transfers" without the FFL transfer and background check such as loaning your best friend a gun to use at the shooting range for a couple of hours.

Hello smoothy:

What I pay attention to is the BILLS they introduce, NOT the noise. There are MORE than enough gun lovers in the Democratic party to STOP any perceived gun ban.. Plus, the only PERCEIVED gun ban resides in the heads of right wingers.

I KNOW that because the only person you said WANTS to ban guns, DOESN'T want to ban them.

The forest and the trees ARE the Constitution. The Second Amendment is NOT in danger of being repealed... I know you don't believe it. I can't help that.

excon

THEN YOU BETTER GET YOUR LEFTY FRIENDS TO STOP TRYING... like find them somethig productrive to do... like poking mountain lions with a stick or something.

Hello smoothy:

Got a link?

No, you don't, because it's just not so. The Feinstien bill (http://www.feinstein.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/assault-weapons-ban-summary) lists 157 brands specifically to be banned, and EXCLUDES 2,258 legitimate hunting and sporting rifles and shotguns by specific name ..

Now, to ME, being able to buy 2,258 kinds of long guns ISN'T a ban. It isn't even close, no matter how you spin it.

excon

Greenies are forever.

It's a ban... we need to ban idiots Like Boxer.. Fientstein and Pelosi and Ried from ever opening their lips... they have no more right to talk than I have to buy any damn gun I want.

What speech said .. even if CLS was but one course for credit ,a significant number of professors at Harvard have it as their ideological foundation. Harvard Law is an advanced degree,not undergraduate . One of the few things that have been discovered about our President's past was which people influenced the direction he took . Unger is right up there with Bill Ayers ,and Obama's early mentor Frank Marshall Davis .

I knew I had posted this (https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/3408560-post469.html)somewhere before. In response to Cruz' remarks the Harvard Crimson offered an op-ed to future critics, don't enroll (http://www.thecrimson.com/article/2013/2/28/do-not-enroll/).

Your righties have evey right to throw intellectual rocks, and we have every right to throw them back and add our own.

Your righties have evey right to throw intellectual rocks, and we have every right to throw them back and add our own.

In other words you're OK with blatant intolerance toward conservatives in higher education and the free exercise of their first amendment rights.

The real question is where is a conservative to go to get a law degree ? Law schools are hotbeds of neo-progressivism . In fact most 4 year colleges in this country are . Took me years to cleanse the indoctrination from my head .

Your righties have evey right to throw intellectual rocks, and we have every right to throw them back and add our own.

Doesn't work if its Obama or Biden... neither of them are half as smart as they think they are.

Haven't you learned smoothy a leader doesn't have to be the brightest in the room after all he has the best of the best of the best to select one of to run each program. How's that working out for you?

haven't you learned smoothy a leader doesn't have to be the brightest in the room afterall he has the best of the best of the best to select one of to run each program. How's that working out for you?

Fact is Obama picks people dumber than he is because his ego is so huge and so fragile.. he can't stand being second guessed or having smarter people around...

What you described is how it USED to be... and how it SHOULD be... unfortunately the last 4 years is wasn't and the next 4 its unlikely to be.

What you described is how it USED to be.....and how it SHOULD be....unfortunately the last 4 years is wasn't and the next 4 its unlikely to be.


Could it be the best of the best of the best are no longer available?

Could it be the best of the best of the best are no longer available?


Oh they are still around... they just don't view Obama as the Messiah as is required to work for him.

Your righties have evey right to throw intellectual rocks, and we have every right to throw them back and add our own.

Try this rock then. If you read the bill it talks about "potential" and that goes a lot further then just the ones listed.

Im not sure why since it is suppose to be plain english its not understood unless you have blinders on.

Try this rock then. If you read the bill it talks about "potential" and that goes a lot further then just the ones listed.

Im not sure why since it is suppose to be plain english its not understood unless you have blinders on.

Lefties can't grasp the fact that the ENTIRE bill of rights... enumerates the rights of private individuals... NOT states.. not the Federal government.

Lefties can't grasp the fact that the ENTIRE bill of rights...enumerates the rights of private individuals...NOT states..not the Federal government.

This is patently false.

What is not understood is that the First Amendment is ostensibly natural rights while the Second Amendment deals with civil rights.

Your history show this to be the case. When it comes to natural rights rights most limitations are very difficult to impose because these rights are seen to have a degree of universality about them.

Civil rights are those rights that come about through a civic process. As such they are amenable to the civil process of limitations and restrictions. SCOTUS has already acknowledged several times that restrictions and limitations are within the parameters of the Second Amendment.

It is incorrect to say that all rights are interpreted as only pertaining to the individual.

Again, anyone arguing that Cruz is arguing the absolute right to own any weapon is wrong. He has on more than occasion acknowledged restrictions so all this talk about absolutism is just political bluster...or in the case of Democrats a political fundraiser.

Ted Cruz for U.S. Senate Defeat the Assault Weapons Ban of 2013 - Ted Cruz for U.S. Senate (http://www.tedcruz.org/blog/2013/01/24/defeat-the-assault-weapons-ban-of-2013/)

That wasn't my criticism of Cruz. I understand that he is not arguing for an absolute right.

My argument here is that Heller is of little value when arguing against bans and limitations for the future. I would argue this is because Heller is limited in its scope.

To suggest Heller is somehow a link to first Amendment rights in terms of 'scope' is to fail to understand the difference between natural rights and civil rights

This is patently false.

What is not understood is that the First Amendment is ostensibly natural rights while the Second Amendment deals with civil rights.

Your history show this to be the case. When it comes to natural rights rights most limitations are very difficult to impose because these rights are seen to have a degree of universality about them.

Civil rights are those rights that come about through a civic process. As such they are amenable to the civil process of limitations and restrictions. SCOTUS has already acknowledged several times that restrictions and limitations are within the parameters of the Second Amendment.

It is incorrect to say that all rights are interpreted as only pertaining to the individual.
Rights are for individuals ;powers are for states and individuals . Not even in the 10th amendment is the word rights used in connection to the states powers .
The 9th amendment also clearly uses rights for the people.. not the state .
The fact that the founders deemed it important enough to add the 2nd amendment to the "Bill of Rights " makes it clear that any reference to the right to bear arms is an individual right .

That view is also in Heller where they did refer to the 1689 English Bill of Rights "clearly an individual right, having nothing whatsoever to do with service in the militia" and that it was a right not to be disarmed by the King .
However , like the British Bill of Rights ;the right to bear arms is not absolute . But neither is any of the other rights .

Strange Tom not a King in sight and yet you cling to the quaint intrepretation of events

The road to serfdom is paved with liberal progressive intentions

Serf ;now there is a quaint notion, has there ever been a serf in North America, probably not since the spanish grande, no wait, all those on minimum wages are serfs, you could get all those job creators to pay the cash out as dividends, that way they share it with their rich mates and your 401(k) accounts, better still they could pay higher wages

rights are for individuals ;powers are for states and individuals . not even in the 10th amendment is the word rights used in connection to the states powers .
The 9th amendment also clearly uses rights for the people .. not the state .
The fact that the founders deemed it important enough to add the 2nd amendment to the "Bill of Rights " makes it clear that any reference to the right to bear arms is an individual right .

That view is also in Heller where they did refer to the 1689 English Bill of Rights "clearly an individual right, having nothing whatsoever to do with service in the militia" and that it was a right not to be disarmed by the King .
However , like the British Bill of Rights ;the right to bear arms is not absolute . But neither is any of the other rights .


Yes, I know all of this.

The criticism I am making is the blurring of the distinction when it comes to natural rights and civil rights. Rights are of course for individuals. In the case of civil rights these rights are granted by the state. Natural rights are different because exist outside of state control.This is only almost true because (as you point out) no rights are absolute despite natural rights claiming a element of universality.

The right to arms is a civil right it is not a natural right. There is no natural right to bear arms except perhaps for the 1689 Bill. But as you point out Heller has established it as an individual right to bear arms. Again, I am not disputing the individuality of the decision. This has little or nothing do with my argument on Heller.

If I made it sound like states have rights then this was not my intention. Courts historically courts have trod very carefully when it comes to rights such as freedom of speech and religion. Historically, rights granted to the individual by the state tend to be the most regulated and subject to constant revision. This explains why the right to bear arms has so many federal and state regulations attached to it. If it were a natural right then this would not be tolerated.

What speech said .. even if CLS was but one course for credit ,a significant number of professors at Harvard have it as their ideological foundation. Harvard Law is an advanced degree,not undergraduate . One of the few things that have been discovered about our President's past was which people influenced the direction he took . Unger is right up there with Bill Ayers ,and Obama's early mentor Frank Marshall Davis .

Yes, Speech makes a good point when he talks about it in terms of proponents.

Interestingly enough many of our universities still offer law as an undergraduate and postgraduate qualification. I also believe this is under the process of change at the moment.

I googled Harvard Law School. Apparently there are some 400 plus courses being offered with an teaching staff of about 245. According to your calculations and/or the posted articles calculations, what percentage of teaching staff would be proponents of CLS? Fifty percent, sixty percent, or seventy percent? Perhaps even higher?

Hello:

I don't know. If I had a choice between Harvard Law, where I'd learn CLS, or say Liberty University, or Trinity Law School, where I'd learn that homos aren't entitled to ANYTHING, I'd choose Harvard...

That's just me.

excon

Maybe I would too. But I'd go to Hillsdale college for my pre-law undergraduate studies 1st .

Hello:

I dunno. If I had a choice between Harvard Law, where I'd learn CLS, or say Liberty University, or Trinity Law School, where I'd learn that homos aren't entitled to ANYTHING, I'd choose Harvard...

That's just me.

excon

I've met Falwell and he was nothing like the ogre he was made out to be, and I know many Liberty graduates - they aren't kooks either. I think a case can certainly be made that defending traditional marriage is a lot less onerous than defending the right to kill your baby.

That wasn't my criticism of Cruz. I understand that he is not arguing for an absolute right.

My argument here is that Heller is of little value when arguing against bans and limitations for the future. I would argue this is because Heller is limited in its scope.

To suggest Heller is somehow a link to first Amendment rights in terms of 'scope' is to fail to understand the difference between natural rights and civil rights

I think my last question to you was "at the time of what"?

Colorado-based Magpul has stated that if Hickenlooper signs their new, unenforceable (http://www.greeleytribune.com/news/local/5575283-113/gun-state-background-colorado) gun bill that they will begin to immediately leave the state and take hundreds of jobs with them as the bill bans the core of their business, gun magazines.

Democrats offered them a bone to stick around, they can still make and sale their illegal to own magazines to other states - just export the death and destruction elsewhere. You just can't make this stuff up.


A Colorado-based magazine manufacturer said it would leave the state if the new restrictions were passed, taking hundreds of jobs with it. Democrats tried to ease the concerns from Magpul Industries, saying the company can still manufacture higher-capacity magazines if they were sold out of state.
(http://www.lcsun-news.com/new_mexico-news/ci_22818944/colorado-governor-sign-gun-controls-into-law)
Waller blasted Democrats on that amendment, saying it was hypocritical because they are telling the company "you can sell (magazines) at any other place where any of these tragic shootings have happened."

Waller called the exemption "a monumental inconsistency in their thought process."

Meanwhile, Texas and Pennsylvania have both made overtures to weapons manufacturers in hostile states, but Pennsylvania gets points on their pitch.

Republican Rep Seth Grove, said “Pennsylvania is known all over the country for clinging to its guns, and it’s time that we use this reputation to our advantage.”

"Other states woo Maryland's gun manufacturers
Beretta USA contends gun control proposal may force it to leave Maryland.
March 09, 2013|By Erin Cox, The Baltimore Sun

As Maryland contemplates passing one of the nation's strictest gun laws, at least seven other states have courted its gun manufacturers, offering tax incentives and open arms elsewhere.

The governor of Texas, West Virginia's House speaker and an Illinois congressman have written to Beretta USA officials, inviting a move and promising a better business climate if the 400-year-old Italian company chooses to abandon its U.S. headquarters on the Potomac. "

Beretta could stay on the Potomac by moving a short distance to WV, where the legislature is working on or has already passed laws such as the ban on confiscation of weapons in emergency situations:

From Charleston Daily Mail, March 10, 2013
" (WV) Delegates are scheduled to vote Monday on a bill that would repeal such local gun ordinances as Charleston's limit of one handgun purchase per month, with the buyer required to wait 72 hours before getting the weapon. Of the 13 measures already passed by the House this session, one approved unanimously makes clear that the government cannot confiscate guns or ammunition during declared states of emergency and that citizens can sue if it tries. "

Well, that half wit lunatic Dian Feinsteins syphillus ridden brain that dreamed up the anti-American gun ban got shot down for a serious lack of support... only having maybe 40 of the needed 60 votes.

Lets hope she continues to emulate her hero Hugo Chavez and contracts cancer that resistes treatment so she doesn't blight the human race much longer.

Hello smoothy:

Obama doesn't care.. He's coming after your guns anyway, and he's going to put you in a FEMA camp. Don't worry. They have wi-fi.

excon

Hello smoothy:

Obama doesn't care.. He's coming after your guns anyway, and he's gonna put you in a FEMA camp. Don't worry. They have wi-fi.

excon

They can try... and a lot of them aren't going to see their friends and families again if they do.

Further news... Democrat lawmakers in an effort to show how just how stupid they are move to ban Idaho, Florida and Oklahoma because they look like guns when positioned correctly under existing zero tollerance policy.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/rf/image_404h/2010-2019/WashingtonPost/2013/03/14/Local/Images/poptarts.JPG

Guns (or Pop Tarts) are not the problem:

http://danieljmitchell.files.wordpress.com/2013/03/houston-chicago-guns-weather.jpg?w=500&h=500

Guns (or Pop Tarts) are not the problem:

http://danieljmitchell.files.wordpress.com/2013/03/houston-chicago-guns-weather.jpg?w=500&h=500

There are other inferences you could draw

Less AA more HA equals less murder
More whites equal more murder

Solution move the AA population to Houston then the 5% whites and 8% AA will have no one to kill

there are other inferences you could draw

less AA more HA equals less murder
more whites equal more murder

solution move the AA population to Houston then the 5% whites and 8% AA will have no one to kill
We can send them back to africa since so many of them can't seem to get over something that ended over 160 years ago... should make then happy to go home since so many of then aren't grateful to be here.

We can send them back to africa since so many of them can't seem to get over something that ended over 160 years ago...should make then happy to go home since so many of then aren't grateful to be here.

Strange thing about black people, they have long memories, but I thought that solution had already been tried; Liberia wasn't it? How did that work out for you?

You have a problem; they have no place in your land because you really haven't shed the thinking that brought them there in the first place. I would like to send our indigenous back to India but we can't do that as we have many Indian migrants, We could hope the indians will teach the indigenous something about being industrious

strange thing about black people, they have long memories, but I thought that solution had already been tried; Liberia wasn't it? how did that work out for you?

You have a problem; they have no place in your land because you really haven't shed the thinking that brought them there in the first place. I would like to send our indigenous back to India but we can't do that as we have many Indian migrants, We could hope the indians will teach the indigenous something about being industrious

Listen... its this simple... I owe them (the blacks) nothing. Zip, nada Zilch...

My grandmothers immigrated here under Kaiser Wilhelm, meaning well AFTER 1900... and besides there are no freed slaves alive... nor children of freed slaves... or even grandchildren of freed slaves...

Their destiny is in their own hands and is their own responsibility. They either face it or we will buy then a one way ticket to their homeland if they want it so bad... either way its shut up or get out.

I have a bigger justification to being owed something from the English Government than any blacks are here...
My grandfather (who immigrated here himself after WW1) and his family were abused and subjugated for far, far longer and far worse by the English in Ireland than the Blacks were here. But I don't think the Queen owes me anything.

Listen....its this simple...I owe them (the blacks) nothing. Zip, nada Zilch....

My grandmothers immigrated here under Kaiser Wilhelm, meaning well AFTER 1900 ....and besides there are no freed slaves alive...nor children of freed slaves...or even grandchildren of freed slaves...

Their destiny is in their own hands and is their own responsibility. They either face it or we will buy then a one way ticket to their homeland if they want it so bad...either way its shut up or get out.

I have a bigger justification to being owed something from the English Government than any blacks are here....
My grandfather (who immigrated here himself after WW1) and his family were abused and subjugated for far, far longer and far worse by the English in Ireland than the Blacks were here. But I don't think the Queen owes me anything.

I'll put it to you this way my people have been here since 1822 and came as free settlers fleeing the troubles in Ireland. We don't owe the indigenous of this place anything, we didn't take anything from them and because we have been here long enough to be indigenous ourselves and in any case it is people like us who forged this nation, not the indigenous, who just roamed about. Show me an indigenous who can trace his family as far as I can, there aren't many. My people suffered centuries of attrition at the hands of the British and all we ask is they stay the hell away from here. Eureka forever