New knee-jerk legislation resulting from the AZ shooting (MERGED) - Page 11

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; Sadly, while I agree with Livewire in sentiment, Hopyard and Hamlet are factually correct. That doesn't mean however that I personally don't view a ban ...

Page 11 of 13 FirstFirst ... 78910111213 LastLast
Results 151 to 165 of 186
  1. #151
    Ex Member Array BikerRN's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    State of Discombobulation
    Posts
    5,253
    Sadly, while I agree with Livewire in sentiment, Hopyard and Hamlet are factually correct.

    That doesn't mean however that I personally don't view a ban on magazine capacity as an infringement. The courts however may take a different view.

    Biker


  2. #152
    Ex Member Array hamlet's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    new york
    Posts
    1,290
    Quote Originally Posted by BikerRN View Post
    Sadly, while I agree with Livewire in sentiment, Hopyard and Hamlet are factually correct.

    That doesn't mean however that I personally don't view a ban on magazine capacity as an infringement. The courts however may take a different view.

    Biker
    I would dislike intensely future restrictions on some things I can do with my guns presently, as well as others having nothing to do with guns but in other areas - but you're absolutely right: at the end of the day it's a country where Law is the final decider - and it's much better that we all have basic freedoms due to it, rather than a few having Absolute Freedom and the rest little.

    Best

  3. #153
    VIP Member
    Array Hopyard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Disappeared
    Posts
    11,663
    Quote Originally Posted by BikerRN View Post
    Sadly, while I agree with Livewire in sentiment, Hopyard and Hamlet are factually correct.

    That doesn't mean however that I personally don't view a ban on magazine capacity as an infringement. The courts however may take a different view.

    Biker
    Thank you.

    And for the folks who haven't hung around here for a long time, assuredly Hamlet and I are not the same person and we have not discussed our positions elsewhere. The troll accusation is just silly.

  4. #154
    Ex Member Array BikerRN's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    State of Discombobulation
    Posts
    5,253
    Quote Originally Posted by Hopyard View Post
    Thank you.

    And for the folks who haven't hung around here for a long time, assuredly Hamlet and I are not the same person and we have not discussed our positions elsewhere. The troll accusation is just silly.

  5. #155
    VIP Member Array zacii's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    arizona
    Posts
    3,749
    Hamlet and Hopyard aren't, from what I can gather, anti-gun, but they do support regulation and restrictions on guns; aka gun control.

    We differ in doctrine, but we must respectful with each other. Oft times they speak in terms of law and technicalities that the layman might easily misunderstand.

    I don't share Hopyard's gun doctrine, but like BikeRN pointed out, he is factually correct on how the law is written and enforced in our country.
    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

  6. #156
    Member Array bruce21b's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Lexington Ky
    Posts
    346
    Sen. Chuck Schumer is at it again, too...........Schumer, who has a poster of Sarah Brady hanging up in his office would love to get another opportunity like in 94' to ban the evils of the world

    http://www.cnn.com/2011/POLITICS/01/...ex.html?hpt=C1

  7. #157
    VIP Member
    Array Hopyard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Disappeared
    Posts
    11,663
    Quote Originally Posted by bruce21b View Post
    Sen. Chuck Schumer is at it again, too...........Schumer, who has a poster of Sarah Brady hanging up in his office would love to get another opportunity like in 94' to ban the evils of the world

    http://www.cnn.com/2011/POLITICS/01/...ex.html?hpt=C1
    I hope that I can say this without it being perceived as political. Schumer represents a point of view which is prevalent among the people he represents. He is not being partisan on the matter.

    NY Congressman Peter King (R, NY) has made anti-gun owner proposals (1000 foot zone around politicians) which most on this board would not like and many (myself included) have been astounded by.

    Both, are representing the general will of the people who elected them. If you are from AZ or TX or Idaho, you will represent the position of the people in those states.

    No need to demonize either Schumer or King. They are doing their jobs. No different than Texas Congressman Louie Gohmert who wants to allow guns on the floor of The House. Constituents in different parts of the country have very different ideas about various subjects.

  8. #158
    Member Array bruce21b's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Lexington Ky
    Posts
    346
    Quote Originally Posted by Hopyard View Post
    I hope that I can say this without it being perceived as political. Schumer represents a point of view which is prevalent among the people he represents. He is not being partisan on the matter.

    NY Congressman Peter King (R, NY) has made anti-gun owner proposals (1000 foot zone around politicians) which most on this board would not like and many (myself included) have been astounded by.

    Both, are representing the general will the people who elected them. If you are from AZ or TX or Idaho, you will represent the position of the people in those states.

    No need to demonize either Schumer or King. They are doing their jobs. No different than Texas Congressman Louie Gohmert who wants to allow guns on the floor of The House. Constituents in different parts of the country have very different ideas about various subjects.
    thats why i thank GOD every day i live in Kentucky :)

  9. #159
    VIP Member
    Array Hopyard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Disappeared
    Posts
    11,663
    Quote Originally Posted by zacii View Post
    Hamlet and Hopyard aren't, from what I can gather, anti-gun, but they do support regulation and restrictions on guns; aka gun control.

    We differ in doctrine, but we must respectful with each other. Oft times they speak in terms of law and technicalities that the layman might easily misunderstand.

    I don't share Hopyard's gun doctrine, but like BikeRN pointed out, he is factually correct on how the law is written and enforced in our country.
    First statement is a bit of an overreach. Hamlet said it about right.

    "I would dislike intensely future restrictions on some things I can do with my guns presently, as well as others having nothing to do with guns but in other areas - but you're absolutely right: at the end of the day it's a country where Law is the final decider - and it's much better that we all have basic freedoms due to it, rather than a few having Absolute Freedom and the rest little. "

  10. #160
    VIP Member Array livewire's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    2,052
    Quote Originally Posted by zacii View Post
    Hamlet and Hopyard aren't, from what I can gather, anti-gun, but they do support regulation and restrictions on guns; aka gun control.

    We differ in doctrine, but we must respectful with each other. Oft times they speak in terms of law and technicalities that the layman might easily misunderstand.

    I don't share Hopyard's gun doctrine, but like BikeRN pointed out, he is factually correct on how the law is written and enforced in our country.
    Please don't misunderstand my intent. I don't have any animosity toward the H's here. I don't agree with them, but do respect them.

    I also would like to point out that I understand that they are correct at the current time in their facts. HOWEVER, I don't believe that is how it SHOULD be. Remember that the Supreme Court is 5/4 with liberal Justices in the majority. One (Kennedy?) is a centrist liberal who generally supports the 2A, but in order to get a majority, the conservative Justices had to take a more centrist view than they might have otherwise.

    In Heller and McDonald, the language is actually quite vague, and open to later interpretation. I believe that was in order to get the center-liberal (can someone confirm who that was, I don't have time to look it up) to join their position.

    I believe that if you read the Founders' writings, you'll find that they really did intend for the Bill of Rights to be absolutes. We're slowly moving back to Constitutionality in this country, but it's a slow process.

    And yes, I believe that if the Revolution had happened in the 20th or 21st century, the 2A would be worded differently. I think that if the Founders had known what weapon's technologies would exist today, they would have said that the government could form a military, the people can form militias, and the people can own and carry the common military small arms of the time. Remember, they had just fought a war to escape a tyrannical government that we would consider lax today.

  11. #161
    VIP Member
    Array ppkheat's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    4,130
    Related article-Schumer Pushes for Military to Report Applicant's Drug Use to Prevent Gun Purchases.

    http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011...gun-purchases/
    Turn the election's in 2014 to a "2A Revolution". It will serve as a 1994 refresher not to "infringe" on our Second Amendment. We know who they are now.........SEND 'EM HOME. Our success in this will be proportional to how hard we work to make it happen.

  12. #162
    VIP Member Array zacii's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    arizona
    Posts
    3,749
    Quote Originally Posted by livewire9880 View Post
    Please don't misunderstand my intent. I don't have any animosity toward the H's here. I don't agree with them, but do respect them.

    I also would like to point out that I understand that they are correct at the current time in their facts. HOWEVER, I don't believe that is how it SHOULD be. Remember that the Supreme Court is 5/4 with liberal Justices in the majority. One (Kennedy?) is a centrist liberal who generally supports the 2A, but in order to get a majority, the conservative Justices had to take a more centrist view than they might have otherwise.

    In Heller and McDonald, the language is actually quite vague, and open to later interpretation. I believe that was in order to get the center-liberal (can someone confirm who that was, I don't have time to look it up) to join their position.

    I believe that if you read the Founders' writings, you'll find that they really did intend for the Bill of Rights to be absolutes. We're slowly moving back to Constitutionality in this country, but it's a slow process.

    And yes, I believe that if the Revolution had happened in the 20th or 21st century, the 2A would be worded differently. I think that if the Founders had known what weapon's technologies would exist today, they would have said that the government could form a military, the people can form militias, and the people can own and carry the common military small arms of the time. Remember, they had just fought a war to escape a tyrannical government that we would consider lax today.
    I agree with this sentiment. While there isn't an absolute solution for everything, some things are absolute,
    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

  13. #163
    Member Array Cornelius's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Orlando, FL
    Posts
    140
    Quote Originally Posted by ppkheat View Post
    Related article-Schumer Pushes for Military to Report Applicant's Drug Use to Prevent Gun Purchases.

    http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011...gun-purchases/
    Nice and easy way to sidestep your civil rights without due process. Tad a bit unconstitutional, but that's never stopped Schumer before...
    Ek = 1/2 (m*v^2)

  14. #164
    VIP Member
    Array Hopyard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Disappeared
    Posts
    11,663
    Quote Originally Posted by Cornelius View Post
    Nice and easy way to sidestep your civil rights without due process. Tad a bit unconstitutional, but that's never stopped Schumer before...
    Oh my. Why do you think this would be unconstitutional? What civil right is being violated without due process?

    If I freely admit to having committed a crime, why should that information not be passed along?

    If an illegal alien attempts to enlist and during the process admits their status, why should that information not be passed along?

  15. #165
    VIP Member Array livewire's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    2,052
    Quote Originally Posted by Hopyard View Post
    Oh my. Why do you think this would be unconstitutional? What civil right is being violated without due process?

    If I freely admit to having committed a crime, why should that information not be passed along?

    If an illegal alien attempts to enlist and during the process admits their status, why should that information not be passed along?
    Unconstitutional because you haven't been convicted of committing a crime. Now, if popping positive on a drug test for the military got you arrested and put in front of a jury for conviction, that would be different.

    In this case, the applicant wouldn't be admitting to anything. Someone else is claiming that for you. Does the military allow you to resubmit your application for another attempt if you blow the drug test? I never joined, even though I regret not doing it now :(

    I think the military should pass you off to ICE if you apply for service and you're illegally here, but it's not their responsibility to prosecute you themselves.
    Last edited by livewire; January 17th, 2011 at 01:04 AM. Reason: Corrected agency

Page 11 of 13 FirstFirst ... 78910111213 LastLast

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, 04:27 PM
  2. More knee surgery.
    By Ghettokracker71 in forum Bob & Terry's Place
    Replies: 24
    Last Post: October 19th, 2010, 10:59 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, 12:30 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, 05:18 PM
  5. Knee operation update...
    By TN_Mike in forum Off Topic & Humor Discussion
    Replies: 21
    Last Post: November 22nd, 2008, 10:13 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.

» Log in

User Name:

Password:

Not a member yet?
Register Now!

» DefensiveCarry Sponsors