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 livewire9880 Seriously? I believe he might be referring to this... http://www.defensivecarry.com/vbulle...el-good-letter...

Page 9 of 13 FirstFirst ... 5678910111213 LastLast
Results 121 to 135 of 186

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

  1. #121
    Distinguished Member Array razor02097's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Ohio
    Posts
    1,974
    Quote Originally Posted by livewire9880 View Post
    Seriously?
    I believe he might be referring to this...
    http://www.defensivecarry.com/vbulle...el-good-letter
    There is something about firing 4,200 thirty millimeter rounds/min that makes me feel all warm and fuzzy inside.

  2. Remove Ads

  3. #122
    VIP Member Array mlr1m's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    okla
    Posts
    4,298
    Imagine if the Allies had said to Germany, "You can have Europe, but you STAY OUT OF AFRICA!" You can't win by giving up ground.
    It worked for Chamberlain. Oh wait not it didn't. Never mind.

    Michael
    Last edited by mlr1m; January 13th, 2011 at 07:44 PM. Reason: I keep making oopsies

  4. #123
    Sponsor
    Array luvmy40's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Youngstown, OH
    Posts
    1,646
    Quote Originally Posted by hamlet View Post
    Jeff just got the howitzer, let's give him some slack here, some time to fire around the neighborhood, see how close he can get to occupied homes without hitting them like he wants - before we get hysterical about fire-bombs and such.

    O by the way, sorry to hear you lost your job as a city-teacher and hope the article I published on the front page detailing your sexual interactions with children wasn't part it.
    Course we both know the article was absolute trash and BS, but as my protest against the government think it fine to take a few liberties here and there, Freedom of Speech and the Government and all that....... Anyway, not personal at all! Stiff upper and all that......good, knew you wouldn't mind.

    Later,

    Peter
    Hamlet,
    Your argument is completely off base here. I realize that you have the constitutional right to voice your opinion and that you have no responsibility at all to make your opinion conform to mine. However, slander/libel is illegal as is wanton disregard for the safety of others. Neither of which would be or could be construed as a restriction of a right as either would be an infringement of the rights of others.

    My owning a gun or high cap. mags or even a howitzer for that matter would not make it legal for me to use any of them in any act that would infringe upon anyone's rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. And don't come back with the old "the mugger was only exercising his right to the same" mantra. That circular logic is fallacious and straw man at it's root.
    T*A*N*S*T*A*A*F*L
    The best things in life are not free.
    They are paid for with the blood of brave men and women!
    M&P Forum
    Ohioans For Concealed Carry
    Holsters

  5. #124
    Ex Member Array hamlet's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    new york
    Posts
    1,291
    Quote Originally Posted by luvmy40 View Post
    Hamlet,
    Your argument is completely off base here. I realize that you have the constitutional right to voice your opinion and that you have no responsibility at all to make your opinion conform to mine. However, slander/libel is illegal as is wanton disregard for the safety of others. Neither of which would be or could be construed as a restriction of a right as either would be an infringement of the rights of others.

    My owning a gun or high cap. mags or even a howitzer for that matter would not make it legal for me to use any of them in any act that would infringe upon anyone's rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. And don't come back with the old "the mugger was only exercising his right to the same" mantra. That circular logic is fallacious and straw man at it's root.
    Yes I know, you'd trample over others' rights if you want your own to be absolute: but in the satire/parody/lampoon they ARE absolute. So is Freedom of Speech. And your rights and those laws that protect them, are over-ruled. And that's why Rights are basic but not Absolute and can be regulated - and are. Thank the heavens our Founders were wise and invented such a system of balances.....including the very structure of our Government. (Wish we'd get some more mature members in it though)

  6. #125
    Distinguished Member Array razor02097's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Ohio
    Posts
    1,974
    The thing that seems to keep escaping is nobody has given one good reason banning high capacity magazines would make a difference.
    All I hear is "I don't want 30 round magazines" and "I don't see any use for 30 round magazines" Followed by "I don't think it's unreasonable to regulate them".

    Most people don't need a 50 gallon fuel tank in their vehicle, should we ban those too?

    If a bill went through to ban magazines over 10 rounds would it be unreasonable to start another bill to regulate the number of firearms each house hold is allowed to have? Because you don't need more than one gun right? Well you said you didn't need a 30 round magazine... I see it very unreasonable to regulate something as stupid as how many rounds a magazine holds... It is pointless and is only a foot in the door for more gun control that affects the law abiding citizen and not the criminal.
    There is something about firing 4,200 thirty millimeter rounds/min that makes me feel all warm and fuzzy inside.

  7. #126
    VIP Member Array zacii's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    arizona
    Posts
    3,749
    Quote Originally Posted by razor02097 View Post
    The thing that seems to keep escaping is nobody has given one good reason banning high capacity magazines would make a difference.
    All I hear is "I don't want 30 round magazines" and "I don't see any use for 30 round magazines" Followed by "I don't think it's unreasonable to regulate them".

    Most people don't need a 50 gallon fuel tank in their vehicle, should we ban those too?

    If a bill went through to ban magazines over 10 rounds would it be unreasonable to start another bill to regulate the number of firearms each house hold is allowed to have? Because you don't need more than one gun right?
    I see it very unreasonable to regulate something as stupid as how many rounds a magazine holds... It is pointless and is only a foot in the door for more gun control that affects the law abiding citizen and not the criminal.
    An excellent observation.

    Everyone started screaming for regulations on high capacity magazines, just because that's what the shooter used. Absolutely no logic in it. Methinks that some people just like to argue.
    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

  8. #127
    Senior Member Array Bubbiesdad's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    East TN
    Posts
    1,043
    Let's see, the shooter took a taxi to the Safeway, should we ban taxis, or all privately owned vehicles?
    Always remember that others may hate you but those who hate you don't win unless you hate them. And then you destroy yourself.
    Richard M Nixon
    Owning a handgun doesn't make you armed any more than owning a guitar makes you a musician.”
    Jeff Cooper

  9. #128
    VIP Member Array Guantes's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Idaho
    Posts
    5,272
    The easy answers are nearly always the first ones suggested to solve problems, whether or not they are effective.
    "I do what I do." Cpl 'coach' Bowden, "Southern Comfort".

  10. #129
    Senior Member Array Bubbiesdad's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    East TN
    Posts
    1,043
    Quote Originally Posted by Hopyard View Post
    I'm uncertain of your position on availability of illegal and legal drugs. Assuming you oppose their use as they are presently illegal, and you support that, does the "they are mass produced all over the world" remark make any difference? Same here with the magazines. It matters not if they are mass produced all over the world. What matters is whether or not a legislature somewhere determines that they may not be possessed. We elect legislators to make these difficult decisions for us.

    Understandable. That is a good argument for you to have them. But, that same argument could be extended to claiming you should be able to carry a grenade with you when you go hunting near the border as doing so would also in your opinion make you safer.



    Would you also say it is not a drug problem but a people problem? And if it is a people problem, do we not have a societal duty to help our officers not face an unnecessary extra hazard in their daily lives?

    Yes, but as availability is cut the chances of the wrong people getting them will go down. We don't see shootouts with full auto very often precisely because availability isn't present.



    Yes, but slip ups are inevitable.

    I want to address one semantic point. There is a difference in the meaning of the word "regulate" and the word "infringe." I think Mr. Scalia already basically addressed that. 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. Clearly, you have a different situation if you hunt near the border. I would like to think that any law regulating high caps would either be produced at the individual state level, as it is now, or would have some wording inserted by your Congressmen that would take your AZ border situation into account.
    I want to address one semantic point. There is a difference in the meaning of the word "regulate" and the word "infringe." I think Mr. Scalia already basically addressed that.

    Really



    in·fringe/inˈfrinj/Verb
    1. Actively break the terms of (a law, agreement, etc.): "infringe a copyright".
    2. Act so as to limit or undermine (something); encroach on: "infringe on his privacy".

    Regulation "infringes"
    Always remember that others may hate you but those who hate you don't win unless you hate them. And then you destroy yourself.
    Richard M Nixon
    Owning a handgun doesn't make you armed any more than owning a guitar makes you a musician.”
    Jeff Cooper

  11. #130
    VIP Member
    Array Hopyard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Disappeared
    Posts
    11,602
    Quote Originally Posted by Bubbiesdad View Post
    I want to address one semantic point. There is a difference in the meaning of the word "regulate" and the word "infringe." I think Mr. Scalia already basically addressed that.

    Really



    in·fringe/inˈfrinj/Verb
    1. Actively break the terms of (a law, agreement, etc.): "infringe a copyright".
    2. Act so as to limit or undermine (something); encroach on: "infringe on his privacy".

    Regulation "infringes"
    Infringed: to encroach upon in a way that violates law or the rights of another infringed — U.S. Constitution amendment II>; especially : to violate a holder's rights under (a copyright, patent, trademark, or trade name) intransitive verb

    regulate: to adjust to some standard or requirement, as amount, degree, etc.

    Mr. Scalia and The Supremes made it plain that DC could not abrogate, abolish, ignore, pick your word, "infringe" on 2A, while at the same time they did not rule out regulation. Had they ruled out regulation you would now be free to walk around armed in DC as you are in a few states.

    You can have a broad right which is not infringed by being regulated. Not all regulations = infringement, but some do.

    Moving away from 2A to 1A, the right of assembly can not be infringed either (though it doesn't explicitly say that in the text). OTOH, it can be regulated as with the issuance of permits for marches, demonstrations, gatherings of more than some given number of people, location.

    I'm not about to be a purist on the word "infringed" as I happen to like the regulation of CHL issuance here in TX.

    Another example of the difference between infringed and regulated: we regulate by law that felons can't possess. That is not an infringement on the right to carry; or at least very few 2A advocates are such absolutists on the matter that they would argue to allow felons possession of guns.

    Hope that clear up the point, though I doubt it will. Oh, the word regulated does appear in the wording of 2A, as does the word infringed. Different meanings. Different words. And both in the same sentence.
    Last edited by Hopyard; January 15th, 2011 at 09:46 AM. Reason: : added after word infringed

  12. #131
    VIP Member Array livewire's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    2,050
    Come on guys. . . it's not that hard to say. Take a deep breath, and say to yourself "I support gun control".

    It's simple. You support things that restrict our rights while simultaneously doing absolutely nothing to stop crime or protect people.

    Hamlet doesn't mind restricting the ability to carry ammunition, and would happily relegate us to minimal capacity firearms, and Hopyard likes the fact that in Texas you can't carry a gun if you're too poor to pay for an expensive license and the time and money for a training course. Of course, this is in addition to the several hundred dollars for a firearm and ammunition.

    How much does it cost for a permit with the training class in TX, btw? Here in WA it's $56 total, since there isn't a class required. Hell, we even include the laws in a handy book the Department of Wildlife issues, cost included in the permit.
    Last edited by livewire; January 15th, 2011 at 02:57 AM. Reason: buy -> carry

  13. #132
    Ex Member Array hamlet's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    new york
    Posts
    1,291
    I don't restrict anyone's rights, nor would I go to the stake about the particulars of magazines; but the idea that somehow it is precluded to have your Favorite Right unregulated by (and for) or even have it considered by others who also have rights ? Of course not. Every right has boundaries/regulations/limits and this protects the rights of everyone - and if the boundaries go too far they are declared unconstitutional. That's our system. Intentionally. It's what gave us the Heller Opinion, and what also made it limited and with stated boundaries - .

    If some few want to rail about it and use "ad hominem" and "straw man" techniques towards others who disagree with them in any way, or challenge their religious belief of always being right - that's the way they are. Fine. Most aren't. So it goes.
    Last edited by hamlet; January 15th, 2011 at 01:13 PM.

  14. #133
    VIP Member
    Array Hopyard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Disappeared
    Posts
    11,602
    Quote Originally Posted by livewire9880 View Post
    Hopyard likes the fact that in Texas you can't carry a gun if you're too poor to pay for an expensive license and the time and money for a training course.
    This could be readily fixed, if the legislature was concerned with the cost issue. There is almost no reason why a standardized course couldn't be created which was web based, which contained self-testing, or which allowed for the test to be taken at DPS, and which was free or nearly free. However, the range test, as minimal as it is makes good sense. It gives a real live instructor an opportunity to observe the gun handling ability.

    The course, also gives a real live instructor the ability to assess the individuals in the course and to quietly let DPS know if someone is concerning. Perhaps if AZ had a similar requirement the tragedy in AZ wouldn't have happened as the guy probably would have acted out during the class, as he did at regular school, and been denied a license. There is IMO a very good public safety based reason for doing it the way TX has been doing it.


    Here in WA it's $56 total, since there isn't a class required.
    My BIL lives in WA and is licensed there. He would benefit greatly from some formal training on the WA laws. He is mostly clueless on matters of when lethal force can be employed. A course would do him a great deal of good. It would help to protect him from some foolish mistake.
    Last edited by Hopyard; January 15th, 2011 at 09:49 AM. Reason: edited first few words for clarity

  15. #134
    Ex Member Array BikerRN's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    State of Discombobulation
    Posts
    5,253
    Quote Originally Posted by Hopyard View Post
    This could be readily fixed, if the legislature was concerned with the cost issue. There is almost no reason why a standardized course couldn't be created which was web based, which contained self-testing, or which allowed for the test to be taken at DPS, and which was free or nearly free. However, the range test, as minimal as it is makes good sense. It gives a real live instructor an opportunity to observe the gun handling ability.

    The course, also gives a real live instructor the ability to assess the individuals in the course and to quietly let DPS know if someone is concerning. Perhaps if AZ had a similar requirement the tragedy in AZ wouldn't have happened as the guy probably would have acted out during the class, as he did at regular school, and been denied a license. There is IMO a very good public safety based reason for doing it the way TX has been doing it.




    My BIL lives in WA and is licensed there. He would benefit greatly from some formal training on the WA laws. He is mostly clueless on matters of when lethal force can be employed. A course would do him a great deal of good. It would help to protect him from some foolish mistake.
    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

  16. #135
    Ex Member Array hamlet's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    new york
    Posts
    1,291
    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
    So you won't mind your Fire Department closing.

Page 9 of 13 FirstFirst ... 5678910111213 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.