New knee-jerk legislation resulting from the AZ shooting (MERGED) - Page 10

New knee-jerk legislation resulting from the AZ shooting (MERGED)

This is a discussion on New knee-jerk legislation resulting from the AZ shooting (MERGED) within the The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion forums, part of the Related Topics category; Originally Posted by hamlet So you won't mind your Fire Department closing. Nice redirection of the argument. That's what many would consider a straw-man argument. ...

Page 10 of 13 FirstFirst ... 678910111213 LastLast
Results 136 to 150 of 186

Thread: New knee-jerk legislation resulting from the AZ shooting (MERGED)

  1. #136
    Ex Member Array BikerRN's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    State of Discombobulation
    Posts
    5,253
    Quote Originally Posted by hamlet View Post
    So you won't mind your Fire Department closing.
    Nice redirection of the argument.
    That's what many would consider a straw-man argument. The issue was governement intrution to prevent situations like what happened in Tucson last week. Nowhere was the issue of Fire Departments brought up, nor germaine to the issue.

    Biker


  2. #137
    VIP Member Array zacii's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    arizona
    Posts
    3,813
    Quote Originally Posted by Hopyard View Post

    I'm not hot to regulate hi-cap mags because I think there use in crime has been fairly minimal; close to non-existent. But, I also know that I carry for personal protection from ordinary everyday street thugs and for me, I would not miss them at all if they were made illegal.
    That's a spectacular assumption that just because they were made illegal that they would disappear. Unless I'm misunderstanding this statement
    Trust in God and keep your powder dry

    "A heavily armed citizenry is not about overthrowing the government; it is about preventing the government from overthrowing liberty. A people stripped of their right of self defense is defenseless against their own government." -source

  3. #138
    Distinguished Member
    Array fastk9dad's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Location: Location:
    Posts
    1,554
    Banning hi cap mags is like saying we need to ban 30 packs of beer because they are only used to get completely drunk, then drive and kill somebody.

    But hey, you can go by five 6-packs, thats fine.

  4. #139
    Member Array TravisABQ's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Moving to Texas
    Posts
    499
    Quote Originally Posted by fastk9dad View Post
    Banning hi cap mags is like saying we need to ban 30 packs of beer because they are only used to get completely drunk, then drive and kill somebody.

    But hey, you can go by five 6-packs, thats fine.

    Try doing that trick buying sudafed and watch what happens.

    http://jonathanturley.org/2009/09/29...within-a-week/

  5. #140
    VIP Member
    Array Hopyard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Disappeared
    Posts
    12,087
    Quote Originally Posted by TravisABQ View Post
    Try doing that trick buying sudafed and watch what happens.

    http://jonathanturley.org/2009/09/29...within-a-week/
    WOW. Its OT but still an absolutely astounding story of a DA failing to use good judgment. The DA probably should be reprimanded by her bosses for the waste of her resources.

  6. #141
    Distinguished Member
    Array fastk9dad's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Location: Location:
    Posts
    1,554
    Quote Originally Posted by TravisABQ View Post
    Try doing that trick buying sudafed and watch what happens.

    http://jonathanturley.org/2009/09/29...within-a-week/

    Good lord. What a waste of the courts time.

  7. #142
    Ex Member Array hamlet's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    new york
    Posts
    1,290
    Quote Originally Posted by BikerRN View Post
    Nice redirection of the argument.
    That's what many would consider a straw-man argument. The issue was governement intrution to prevent situations like what happened in Tucson last week. Nowhere was the issue of Fire Departments brought up, nor germaine to the issue.

    Biker
    Not really a "straw man" argument, but whatever, good to see you haven't lost your sense of humor.

  8. #143
    VIP Member Array livewire's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    2,054
    Quote Originally Posted by BikerRN View Post
    Mr. Hopyard,

    Once again you are proposing a governmental solution to a problem that government cannot, nor should it fix.

    We are each responsible for our own safety, license to carry or not. The shooter in AZ, even without a permit and Constitutional Carry would've been legal to carry his weapon via the open carry statues. Asking a CCW Instructor to make a determination, or notification to the licensing authorities would be asking someone not trained to make judgements based on their very subjective feelings, and not founded in a medical or legal basis. Can you say lawsuit? I know I sure can.

    Also, this starts a slippery slope, and I'm not so sure even you want to go down that road. I realize that you love all things liberal, from your post here, and welcome more government intrusion on our lives, but I think you must really ask yourself if this is a path you really wish to take. What if the political sentiment was such that anyone that was determined to be a liberal was excluded from obtaining a CCW Permit? While I would be OK with that, as I don't wish the disease of liberalism on anyone, it would not be in accordance with our laws, let alone traditions. Now lets take the other extreme for a moment. I personally wish the laws were such that the border was defended with lethal force against illegal aliens. That is not so, and not something I would condone until it was legal. What if the ruling powers that be determined that my speech was offensive and because I support the lethal defense of our borders against intruders, I am to be denied a CCW Permit?

    Again, you have started a slippery slope that negates the ability of the individual to be responsible for their own actions. While I support CCW Licensing, the State of Arizona has recently voted to allow Constitutional Carry. No permit process, short of an outright ban would've stopped the tradgedy in Tucson. The whackadoodle was legal to carry, either open or concealed, and I highly doubt he would've obeyed any law stating that he couldn't carry. One of my friends is an AZ CCW Permit Instructor. He states that since Constitutional Carry has gone in to effect his business has increased. He says this is because people realize that not only do they have a responsibility to protect themselves, but they also have a responsibility to know the laws and follow them, and most seem to understand that.

    I wish people would stop looking to government for the solution, as most often government is the problem, and not the answer, as Ronald Reagan said.

    Biker

    Excellent points through your post.

    I do have a couple issues with the bolded parts though. First, didn't 'liberal' used to imply a push for extra freedoms and rights beyond the 'norm'? Why do people who want extra rights for 'minority' groups beyond the rights of the majority, and who started groups like the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) want to restrict the rights of the people?

    Second, bringing it up in the manner you did implies a correlation where one may not exist. I'm a die-hard conservative, and disagree with many of the 'liberal' ideas that have been proposed in the spirit of the government giving to people when they would be better served earning for themselves. Even so, Gun control is about 60/40 in the conservative/liberal argument. Sure, more conservatives support gun rights than do liberals, but not all of the gun rights argument is along clean ideological or party lines.

    I'll say it again, as they haven't responded yet. Hopyard and Hamlet need to just accept that they are proponents of expanded gun control. They'll sleep better, and probably have less headaches. They can cut a check to Jim Brady, and live happy. Either that, or they can actually begin to support gun rights like they say they do.

  9. #144
    VIP Member
    Array Hopyard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Disappeared
    Posts
    12,087
    Quote Originally Posted by livewire9880 View Post
    Why do people who want extra rights for 'minority' groups beyond the rights of the majority, and who started groups like the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) want to restrict the rights of the people?
    You cast the question in an inappropriate way. Turn it around. Why would upstanding citizens want to deny government the ability to take reasonable measures to protect public safety?

    The argument turns on what legislatures and the courts deem reasonable.
    That is the position of The Supremes given by Scalia, who last I heard was not a liberal.

    Now, just to give an example of an unreasonable restriction on licensing (IMO), here you can't get a CHL if you are "finally determined to be in default on a student loan made under Chapter 57 of the Education Code. (Texas Government Code 4.11.172 (12).

    That I can see complaining about. It is a restriction divorced from public safety and entirely unrelated to the subject of guns, mental capacity, or anything else beyond enforcing the minutia of the student loan program.

    That IMO rises to infringing on a 2A right. Regulating magazine capacity does not.

  10. #145
    Distinguished Member Array AutoFan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Arid Zone A
    Posts
    1,563
    Regulating magazine capacity absolutely infringes on the 2nd Amendment. Whether a 30, 15, 10, 3 or 1 capacity is illegal, it is an infringement, just like if the government restricted the number of people who could associate at the same time would infringe on the 1st. After all, you can't have a mob riot or gangs if there are only a couple of people allowed to assemble together.

    Banning 30 round mags gets rid of most legal AK and AR mags. Banning anything over 20 even more so. Ban 15 and you eliminate most double stack mags, both handgun and some rifles. Ban 8 and that gets rid of 1911's and M1 Garands. Ban 5 round capacity and there goes revolvers. Ban two and you are down to single shot guns. It really is just a matter of degree.

    If, in theory, you want to reduce crime and assassinations, get rid of revolvers and bolt action rifles, as they are what have been used the most. But in reality, it doesn't work, as criminals in the UK have managed to get guns on an island nation where they have been "infringed" to the point of completely banned.
    Last edited by AutoFan; January 15th, 2011 at 09:53 PM. Reason: spelling

  11. #146
    VIP Member
    Array Hopyard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Disappeared
    Posts
    12,087
    Quote Originally Posted by AutoFan View Post
    Regulating magazine capacity absolutely infringes on the 2nd Amendment. Whether a 30, 15, 10, 3 or 1 capacity is illegal, it is an infringement, just like if the government restricted the number of people who could associate at the same time would infringe on the 1st. After all, you can't have a mob riot or gangs if there are only a couple of people allowed to assemble together.

    Banning 30 round mags gets rid of most legal AK and AR mags. Banning anything over 20 even more so. Ban 15 and you eliminate most double stack mags, both handgun and some rifles. Ban 8 and that gets rid of 1911's and M1 Garands. Ban 5 round capacity and there goes revolvers. Ban two and you are down to single shot guns. It really is just a matter of degree.

    If, in theory, you want to reduce crime and assassinations, get rid of revolvers and bolt action rifles, as they are what have been used the most. But in reality, it doesn't work, as criminals in the UK have managed to get guns on an island nation where they have been "infringed" to the point of completely banned.
    First, let me be clear again, that I am not advocating for the ban on high cap. I've stated repeatedly here that I am neutral on that issue. I'm only suggesting that it would not be illegal/unconstitutional given what was written in Heller.

    I also want to be clear that I'm not a rifle person and my thoughts with regard to restrictions on high cap. mags. were made strictly with handguns in mind. ARs, AKs and similar are really off my radar here and have an entirely different set of issues related to them than high cap mags for pistols-- which in many ways defeat the purpose of a pistol by increasing the size and making concealment difficult to impossible.

    As for baning revolvers because those are used in most crime, that is a bridge too far and would indeed infringe 2A per Heller.

    Now, this is what the court decided: " nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms."

    So, The Supremes made it clear that it was not unconstitutional to impose conditions and qualifications (regulations? limits?) on the sale of arms. I take that to mean it is constitutional to ban high caps. That doing so is not an infringement per the ruling written by Scalia.

    Maybe, "imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms" could mean something different from what would be involved in regulating the selling of high cap. magazines. Perhaps the court only meant stuff like the conditions and qualifications imposed on FFLs and the existence of FFLs. I don't know.

  12. #147
    VIP Member Array livewire's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    2,054
    Quote Originally Posted by Hopyard View Post
    You cast the question in an inappropriate way. Turn it around. Why would upstanding citizens want to deny government the ability to take reasonable measures to protect public safety?

    The argument turns on what legislatures and the courts deem reasonable.
    That is the position of The Supremes given by Scalia, who last I heard was not a liberal.

    Now, just to give an example of an unreasonable restriction on licensing (IMO), here you can't get a CHL if you are "finally determined to be in default on a student loan made under Chapter 57 of the Education Code. (Texas Government Code 4.11.172 (12).

    That I can see complaining about. It is a restriction divorced from public safety and entirely unrelated to the subject of guns, mental capacity, or anything else beyond enforcing the minutia of the student loan program.

    That IMO rises to infringing on a 2A right. Regulating magazine capacity does not.
    Come on. . . you can't practically quote the Brady Bunch in one part of your post, then complain about unreasonable restrictions in the next part. But to answer the question posed in the first part, it's been proven over and over that these restrictions don't do anything to protect public safety. Not only that, but it's rarely the spirit in which they're proposed, they're proposed as a way to disarm the populace because in the hippie mantra, 'guns are bad, man'.

    The more I read you and Hamlet, the more I wonder if he's your Alt. And I'm pretty sure both of you (assuming he's not an Alt) really do support gun control, and you're here trolling.


    /wow, I never thought I'd be having this argument on a forum called DefensiveCarry. I'm used to dealing with it on Fark, which is a hive for the far Left.

  13. #148
    Ex Member Array hamlet's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    new york
    Posts
    1,290
    Quote Originally Posted by AutoFan View Post
    Regulating magazine capacity absolutely infringes on the 2nd Amendment. Whether a 30, 15, 10, 3 or 1 capacity is illegal, it is an infringement, just like if the government restricted the number of people who could associate at the same time would infringe on the 1st. After all, you can't have a mob riot or gangs if there are only a couple of people allowed to assemble together.

    Banning 30 round mags gets rid of most legal AK and AR mags. Banning anything over 20 even more so. Ban 15 and you eliminate most double stack mags, both handgun and some rifles. Ban 8 and that gets rid of 1911's and M1 Garands. Ban 5 round capacity and there goes revolvers. Ban two and you are down to single shot guns. It really is just a matter of degree.

    If, in theory, you want to reduce crime and assassinations, get rid of revolvers and bolt action rifles, as they are what have been used the most. But in reality, it doesn't work, as criminals in the UK have managed to get guns on an island nation where they have been "infringed" to the point of completely banned.
    It's not an "infringement" on the Right to Bear Arms - it doesn't preclude anyone owning a gun or using a gun. An infringement: well the basis of the Heller Opinion: Heller. DC had regulations that even a long gun was to be dismantled if at home - which is no longer a firearm: hence, the restrictions infringed on the basic right ; because practically speaking it would be impossible to own a functioning gun. An infringement on the right to trial by a Jury of Peers is not your inability (or your lawyer's) to only fill a Jury with those you want. The other side has challenges etc. and put forward their own choices. Your not being the sole arbiter of a Jury's population does not preclude you from having your right to trial by peers. But, if only government officials were legally able to serve on a Jury that would be an infringement - because they are not peer citizens. They are officials of the same Government that may be prosecuting you.

    An "infringement" is not being prevented from doing what you want to ideally do, it's when the basic right is not possible due to
    the action of officials.


    The other very important point: if your locale had a law - like some - limiting mags to 10, it would be an error to look at this as dictatorial action of THE GOVERNMENT, as if our government came unwanted from Jupiter. The "government" is the representatives of the people, at least those who make laws and most executives. They are people elected by other people. So, in a restriction 2 things will happen: if the lawmakers are going against the desire of the people who strongly dislike the restriction, the lawmakers will not be re-elected in a short period of time. If they are re-elected, their laws are agreeable to the majority of your fellow who do not feel threatened by the laws that their reps have passed. There is no 'foreign body" removed from your own people, so the majority wants something that you don't want. If you feel, even voted on by your community, the restrictions are still infringing on the basic right, then it can be taken to the courts. If they find it isn't an infringement, the majority of your neighbors' choice in laws remains.
    So it goes in a democracy...

  14. #149
    VIP Member Array livewire's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    2,054
    I'm not far from unsubscribing to this thread. . . the anti-gun sentiment is just too strong. I'm also more convinced that Hopyard and Hamlet are the same person, Hamlet being the Alt.

    The Supreme Court was only ruling on whether it was legal to own guns in DC in Heller. Remember, the Court only writes opinions that are narrow in scope most times. In this case, in spite of the long winded opinions, it came down to simply "it's a violation of the 2nd Amendment to prohibit guns entirely, because that's what Heller et al were contesting." That's why it was only regarding owning firearms for home (keep), not carrying guns in public (bear). Not because the Court didn't want to make that determination, but because it's an answer to a question they weren't asked. They didn't say that restrictions were okay, they said that they may be okay, and that a future case would have to determine that. Because they weren't asked.

    Not only that, but the Court isn't writing absolutes. They're called opinions for a reason, and they can be overturned by future cases.

  15. #150
    Ex Member Array hamlet's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    new york
    Posts
    1,290
    Quote Originally Posted by livewire9880 View Post
    I'm not far from unsubscribing to this thread. . . the anti-gun sentiment is just too strong. I'm also more convinced that Hopyard and Hamlet are the same person, Hamlet being the Alt.

    The Supreme Court was only ruling on whether it was legal to own guns in DC in Heller. Remember, the Court only writes opinions that are narrow in scope most times. In this case, in spite of the long winded opinions, it came down to simply "it's a violation of the 2nd Amendment to prohibit guns entirely, because that's what Heller et al were contesting." That's why it was only regarding owning firearms for home (keep), not carrying guns in public (bear). Not because the Court didn't want to make that determination, but because it's an answer to a question they weren't asked. They didn't say that restrictions were okay, they said that they may be okay, and that a future case would have to determine that. Because they weren't asked.

    Not only that, but the Court isn't writing absolutes. They're called opinions for a reason, and they can be overturned by future cases.
    That is just your inability to tolerate "dissent" - crazy ideas that arise from I or someone else pointing out the obvious: that anyone's Absolute right in any area stomps on others' rights - or that two people pointing this out here are really one. Polls have showed the majority of Americans, gunner and non-gunners together, believe there is a Basic Right to Bear Arms but that it should be restricted, i.e., not absolute. They're not "Antis" anymore than I or Hopyard are. Except to people who think in black and white and use the 'straw man" argument: "you're not white so you're black".

    The Supreme Court in Heller answered the DC restriction only on DC's restriction and how it was applied. Of course they could have decided it for the general reason that all restrictions were unconstitutional. Their reason was not that, and they made a point stating the same in length. They were free to decide on the basis they wanted to. Instead this point was gone into at considerable length: any restriction brought to the court could be allowable or not allowable based on what it was and how it was applied. We know the same is true of all amendments , from the numbers of successful challenges to particular local laws that restrict a right, as well as the numbers of challenges to laws that restrict a Right that are unsuccessful. Rights are Basic, not Absolute.

Page 10 of 13 FirstFirst ... 678910111213 LastLast

Sponsored Links

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Similar Threads

  1. More ridiculous knee jerk legislation
    By fastk9dad in forum The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion
    Replies: 22
    Last Post: January 12th, 2011, 05:27 PM
  2. More knee surgery.
    By Ghettokracker71 in forum Bob & Terry's Place
    Replies: 24
    Last Post: October 19th, 2010, 11:59 PM
  3. 11/19/08 Pending Ammo Legislation in 18 states-MERGED
    By Eagleks in forum The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion
    Replies: 60
    Last Post: June 25th, 2009, 01:30 AM
  4. I would like to thank HITCH KING for a heads up, LIMA for the resulting interest.....
    By yankeeman in forum Concealed Carry Issues & Discussions
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: January 31st, 2009, 06:18 PM
  5. Knee operation update...
    By TN_Mike in forum Off Topic & Humor Discussion
    Replies: 21
    Last Post: November 22nd, 2008, 11:13 PM

Search tags for this page

colin ferguson actor

,
colin furgerson actor
,
free rifle targets 11 x 17
,

hot jerk instructor youtube

,
ruger p89 accessories phoenix,az
,
what is ?knee jerk reaction? legislation
Click on a term to search for related topics.