| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
raynebc
Joined: 16 Jun 2008
Posts: 992
|
 Posted: Tue Jan 15, 2013 11:18 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| blingdomepiece wrote: | | And the criminals will end up in prison for having them, which will flip the cost-benefit analysis against having them. |
Criminals already have an incentive to use illegally obtained guns. New gun controls won't change that.
| bclare wrote: | | Yeah, I honestly don't see a problem with that. |
What about if they say that citizens shouldn't even be allowed a semi-automatic gun? What if they say you aren't allowed to have any weapons at all? Freedom is easier to lose than to reclaim.
| WhYYZ wrote: | Obama will release a new weapon law tomorrow. That doesn't need the Congress to take place.
Any thoughts? |
States will not necessarily enforce something if it's blatantly unconstitutional. Some states have already declared their defiance to would-be executive orders to ban guns without Congressional approval. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
bclare
Joined: 21 Jun 2008
Posts: 6048
Location: Boston
|
| Posted: Wed Jan 16, 2013 3:50 am Post subject: |
|
|
States don't have to enforce federal laws; the feds will. In the battle of states vs federal government, the federal government wins. Why do people still argue the other way?
And for the record, I would not object if firearms were illegal to own for non-police/military personnel in the US. That law would never happen because too many people already have guns, but in theory I wouldn't oppose it. My sincere view is that gun ownership does more harm than good.
_________________
I'm back I suppose |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
raynebc
Joined: 16 Jun 2008
Posts: 992
|
| Posted: Wed Jan 16, 2013 6:28 am Post subject: |
|
|
Because there are times the federal government is wrong. In any case, the president doesn't have authority to unilaterally override the constitution.
As for your complacency to the entire country being disarmed, I'm surprised there are people that are so dangerously trusting. Such a wide ban would never happen without a civil war breaking out. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bclare
Joined: 21 Jun 2008
Posts: 6048
Location: Boston
|
| Posted: Wed Jan 16, 2013 8:24 am Post subject: |
|
|
| raynebc wrote: | Because there are times the federal government is wrong. In any case, the president doesn't have authority to unilaterally override the constitution.
As for your complacency to the entire country being disarmed, I'm surprised there are people that are so dangerously trusting. Such a wide ban would never happen without a civil war breaking out. |
Like I said, I don't think that such a ban would ever happen, because as you're alluding there are a lot of people with guns who would get angry. I just think that guns do more harm than good.
I trust our government system to work without having to apply violence from the outside. Sometimes the federal government is wrong, and the states are right; however giving the states the right to ignore any federal laws that they don't like is a recipe for disaster, and would possibly lead to a civil war anyway. The Articles of Confederacy didn't work; the US Constitution which you love the 2nd Amendment of so much is fundamentally based on a strong central government.
| Quote: | The president will call for banning assault weapons and limiting ammunition magazines to 10 rounds or fewer, and also propose a federal statute to stop "straw man" purchases of guns and crack down on trafficking rings. He'll order federal agencies to conduct more research on gun use and crimes, something Republican congressional majorities have limited through language in budget bills, the lobbyist said.
On education, Obama will call for more anti-bullying efforts; more training for teachers, counselors and principles; and providing resources for schools for more counselors and resource officers.
And on mental health, Obama will focus on more availability of mental health services, training more school counselors and mental health professionals, and mental health first aid training for first responders, according to the lobbyist briefed on the plans. |
Notice that about half of that is "the president will call for" ie asking Congress to pass laws, not actually doing anything just by him saying so. The CDC has been effectively unable to do research on gun violence for a couple decades now since the NRA has been lobbying for certain restrictions to their budget, and it's stupid. More data on gun violence should be a good thing for everyone. If you think availability of guns doesn't lead to more deaths, then get a study to back it up.
Which part of all of that is unconstitutional exactly?
_________________
I'm back I suppose |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
raynebc
Joined: 16 Jun 2008
Posts: 992
|
| Posted: Wed Jan 16, 2013 7:27 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| bclare wrote: | | Like I said, I don't think that such a ban would ever happen, because as you're alluding there are a lot of people with guns who would get angry. I just think that guns do more harm than good. |
You can consider yourself to be one of us lucky individuals that have never been in a situation where our survival depended on having a weapon to protect ourselves.
| Quote: | | I trust our government system to work without having to apply violence from the outside. |
The Supreme Court has ruled that the 2nd amendment allows for citizens to have guns for their own personal protection inside and outside their home. It's not just for overthrowing tyrannical government.
| Quote: | | the US Constitution which you love the 2nd Amendment of so much is fundamentally based on a strong central government. |
With the power of the individual states and the citizens very strongly established. The constitution does not explicitly allow for the federal government to restrict which guns citizens can and cannot have, so as per the content of that document, the ability to restrict them as such would lie with individual states if anything.
| Quote: | The president will call for banning assault weapons and limiting ammunition magazines to 10 rounds or fewer, and also propose a federal statute to stop "straw man" purchases of guns and crack down on trafficking rings. He'll order federal agencies to conduct more research on gun use and crimes, something Republican congressional majorities have limited through language in budget bills, the lobbyist said.
On education, Obama will call for more anti-bullying efforts; more training for teachers, counselors and principles; and providing resources for schools for more counselors and resource officers.
And on mental health, Obama will focus on more availability of mental health services, training more school counselors and mental health professionals, and mental health first aid training for first responders, according to the lobbyist briefed on the plans. |
The magazine capacity sounds arbitrary, they should revisit it once they can prove this number is meaningful. Straw man purchases are generally already illegal, except perhaps in some cases such as willing your firearms to your family when you die (it's also funny that this administration is cracking down on straw purchases after their big Fast and Furious mess). If they're going to invest in more student education and sensitivity training, they should also do something more materially physical to safeguard children, such as having armed personnel in schools. There have already been concerns raised about the requirement for mental health professionals to report on their patients, to the effect that people will avoid confiding if they think it will lead to the confiscation of their guns (and I can definitely see this happening).
I agree with the increased penalties for murdering first aid responders, and in general that's how I think it should be: The right to bear arms is a RIGHT first and foremost, but abusers should be punished harshly. This is how the right to arms can be protected so that law abiding citizens can keep their guns to protect themselves when police can't or won't (they aren't required to save people).
| Quote: | | Notice that about half of that is "the president will call for" ie asking Congress to pass laws, not actually doing anything just by him saying so. |
The president and vice president had been waving the possibility of using executive orders around for days now, which is viewable as a threat from them to take what they want if they can't get their ideology passed through Congress.
| Quote: | | The CDC has been effectively unable to do research on gun violence for a couple decades now since the NRA has been lobbying for certain restrictions to their budget, and it's stupid. More data on gun violence should be a good thing for everyone. If you think availability of guns doesn't lead to more deaths, then get a study to back it up. |
To be honest, I'd rather they properly investigate and back up their legislation with proper research instead of proposing knee-jerk gun bans. Tight gun laws in the murder capitals of the country haven't brought those homicide rates in check, and I don't expect we'll see otherwise with even stricter controls.
| Quote: | | Which part of all of that is unconstitutional exactly? |
An executive order to immediately ban all "assault weapons" under the ever-changing definition of the gun control crowd would likely be found unconstitutional. If they feel that strongly about it, they can try to legally amend the constitution to at least allow the states to define which firearms are allowed.
As far as I'm concerned, "military style" is a pointless political term when it doesn't apply to non aesthetic features such firing rate, bullet caliber, etc. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
Copyright © 2006-2024 ScoreHero, LLC
|
Powered by phpBB
|
![Inbox [ Login ]](templates/subSilver/images/icon_mini_message.gif){kind=icon}
Inbox [ Login ]
Search
Memberlist
Profile
Log in
