|
Forum Rules | Firearms Safety | Firearms Photos | Links | Library | Lost Password | Email Changes |
Register | FAQ | Calendar | Search | Today's Posts | Mark Forums Read |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
January 30, 2013, 01:42 PM | #251 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: August 3, 2009
Posts: 509
|
Quote:
Perhaps I wasn't paying as much attention to this particular argument. Addressing it now... I don't think this argument is very strong... The Feds already do regulate intrastate commerce... they regulate Dr.'s writing prescriptions for their patients and pharmacies filling them, they regulate securities exchanges between the broker/seller and purchaser, they regulate local banks, etc....... I think we need a better argument. |
|
January 30, 2013, 01:51 PM | #252 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: May 25, 2011
Posts: 1,755
|
Quote:
Unfortunately, that number has been co-opted by other "credible" sourcesmaking it difficult to sort out. That "source" was used a cite in this anti-document. If you look at both of them you see multiple problems. The anti-document says it's "fact", while the "source" says perhaps 40% yet provides no basis for that number. |
|
January 30, 2013, 02:01 PM | #253 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: May 25, 2011
Posts: 1,755
|
Quote:
|
|
January 30, 2013, 02:09 PM | #254 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: August 3, 2009
Posts: 509
|
Quote:
I'm being a stubborn goat on this issue because I see this item as being the one item with the greatest chance of coming to fruition and the anti's are going to load it to the best of their ability. What makes me so sure of this prediction is MY OWN conviction that I PERSONALLY should do "due diligence" in ensuring that I don't sell a firearm to a prohibited person. This is going to ring very true to most "middle of the road people", as evidenced by the foxnews poll quoted earlier in this thread. Now, if all that is going to be said has been said, then I will say "Uncle" and let this be.... |
|
January 30, 2013, 02:38 PM | #255 | |
Staff
Join Date: September 27, 2008
Location: Foothills of the Appalachians
Posts: 13,057
|
Quote:
For those who don't remember, Arthur Kellerman did a study in the 1980's in which he claimed that someone was 43 times more likely to be a victim of gun violence if they kept a gun in the home. He never provided raw data, his methods of collection were suspect, and he later recanted to some extent. However, the media picked up on that number, and the horse was out of the barn. I'm seeing a real parallel here.
__________________
Sometimes it’s nice not to destroy the world for a change. --Randall Munroe |
|
January 30, 2013, 05:54 PM | #256 | ||
Senior Member
Join Date: May 15, 2011
Posts: 1,405
|
Well then how about this link as a foundation.
http://www.thenation.com/blog/171774...d-2012-84-dead This is a link to a news article listing all of 2012's mass shootings defined as Quote:
I made many notes, I have a text file I have attached with the notes, but alas I was well into the document when I figured maybe I should have noted the links to the info. Alas, take it for what it is, unproven documentation from unproven sources but, it isn't that inaccurate. Here are my analytic notes; Quote:
__________________
Colt M1911, AR-15 | S&W Model 19, Model 27| SIG P238 | Berreta 85B Cheetah | Ruger Blackhawk .357MAG, Bearcat "Shopkeeper" .22LR| Remington Marine Magnum SP 12GA., Model 700 SPS .223 |
||
January 30, 2013, 06:11 PM | #257 |
Senior Member
Join Date: May 15, 2011
Posts: 1,405
|
Persuasive only by your standards Win_lose.
The Feds don't need to be pushing this because it's a State issue. When my State brings it up our people will deal with it our own way. But assume it is proposed at the State level; No one can show that a background check on personal sales of firearms would prevent a single crime and in fact the very concept is completely illogical. I have explained this to you several times and you keep blowing it off never addressing it. Laws have a purpose, they guide the law abiding, they form a justification to punish the law breaker. But laws can not prevent illegal actions. My proof is simple, if laws themselves could prevent illegal actions then there would be no crime. I say this is a perfectly valid argument though you refuse to acknowledge it. Lastly I bridle at your dogged pursuit on this topic. I could have used the same 8 hours I spent screwing around about background checks actually researching something that actually has a chance to be an effective measure. **** I could have at least gone to bed early enough to have gotten some from my wife
__________________
Colt M1911, AR-15 | S&W Model 19, Model 27| SIG P238 | Berreta 85B Cheetah | Ruger Blackhawk .357MAG, Bearcat "Shopkeeper" .22LR| Remington Marine Magnum SP 12GA., Model 700 SPS .223 |
January 30, 2013, 06:17 PM | #258 |
Senior Member
Join Date: January 15, 2013
Location: South Jersey
Posts: 1,416
|
@lcpiper,
Was the Ft Hood shooting included? If so, would the following also apply... "So as far as background checks goes, we have one case where closing the loophole might have had some effect, [England/Watts] Tulsa hate crime shooting, three black people killed, randomly selected, but not truly random because the target selected was the entire black race." ..as the shooter was asian descent and all the victims were white. |
January 30, 2013, 06:40 PM | #259 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: May 15, 2011
Posts: 1,405
|
No, the Fort Hood shooting happened in 2009, not during the last year, 2012.
Quote:
If my understanding of the details are correct. Maj. Hassan is being charged by the Army under the Uniform Code of Military Justice(UCMJ). This system makes no distinction between murders motivated by hate from any other murder. For the Army, murder is just murder. What an outstanding concept.
__________________
Colt M1911, AR-15 | S&W Model 19, Model 27| SIG P238 | Berreta 85B Cheetah | Ruger Blackhawk .357MAG, Bearcat "Shopkeeper" .22LR| Remington Marine Magnum SP 12GA., Model 700 SPS .223 |
|
January 30, 2013, 08:07 PM | #260 | |
Staff
Join Date: September 27, 2008
Location: Foothills of the Appalachians
Posts: 13,057
|
I'm on the Brady Campaign's mailing list. Long story, but nobody there has figured out that Pynchon Voltaire isn't my real name yet.
Anyhow, this went out today in response to the Senate hearings: Quote:
__________________
Sometimes it’s nice not to destroy the world for a change. --Randall Munroe |
|
January 31, 2013, 12:57 AM | #261 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: April 18, 2010
Location: South Carolina
Posts: 237
|
Quote:
What it sounds like to the unwashed masses is arguing for chaos in the streets. That's a long way from the political theory of Anarchism. We do not want to look like we're supporting chaos in the streets, because we are not. At least I don't. In this fight the Anarchist and the Conservatives are on the same side and marching in lockstep. I just want verbiage correct. We don't need to alienate anyone at all. A real smart guy once said, and I paraphrase, we all hang together or we'll all hang separately. Once this is over then the Conservatives and Anarchists can bicker again. At least that is if you can find any here who'll engage. |
|
January 31, 2013, 08:15 AM | #262 |
Senior Member
Join Date: May 15, 2011
Posts: 1,405
|
He is also far from the mark suggesting that I am an Anarchist. Anarchists don't last to retirment in the Army
But I am strongly against piling useless laws on top of useless laws in a vain effort to legislate a utopean paradise. In Floride as in every state I know of, it is illegal to deface highway signs and public property. And like most every state there are some people who still just have to shoot signs with paintball guns. Now this was already an illegal act, but these fine Floridians passed a law making it unlawfull to have a loaded paintball gun anywhere in a car. Please keep in mind that the Federal Government does not classify paintball guns as weapons. Now here is the situation, Dad, Susie and young Tom, are out playing paintball because Dad feels this is good for the kids. The kids want to hang around for the last big match and Dad knows that they will be pusing it to get back home in time for dinner. Mom has a big roast cooking. Dad does not want Mom angry because she has been busting it while all the kids are out having fun. But Dad wants to go another round too so they stay. The last match is done, it was great, but the clock, oh my, throw that stuff in the trunk kids, we gota wheel. Down the road they go, Dad is pushing the speed limit a little, and you know what happens right? You have been down this road yourselves. Deputy DoRight is on your bumper and hits the lights. Hmmm, speeding, slow it down Dad. BTW, you all are dressed for the Paintball field, let's pop the trunk Dad. Ohh, what's this? Tom forgot to unload his paintball gun, Dad didn't check it, and now...... Dad is hauled in on a misdemeanor, Kids in tow, Mom's big meal is ruined, and for what? Dad, Suzie and Tom didn't shoot any highway signs. But they broke the law that is supposed to "prevent" the other law from being broken. This is the kind of thing I am against. This is what I see as foolishness. Sorry I had to lay out a book, but there it is in the best way I can explain it. Last edited by Brian Pfleuger; January 31, 2013 at 08:29 AM. |
January 31, 2013, 09:23 AM | #263 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: August 3, 2009
Posts: 509
|
Quote:
I don't think they are going to risk 2014 with all the ban stuff. I do think they are going to build on top of the universal background checks. This is low risk for them. If they can sneak through national registration, this will be more than enough to move their agenda forward. Personally, I hope they push hard for the bans and make 2014 a one issue election. Otherwise, if they take the house and keep the senate in 2014, the very next tragedy we will be devastating to us. Last edited by win-lose; January 31, 2013 at 09:56 AM. |
|
January 31, 2013, 09:43 AM | #264 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: August 3, 2009
Posts: 509
|
Quote:
Being a city-boy, I had to look up what you meant by "bridle". I'm sorry you feel this way. It is not my intent to make you upset. It is clear by your years of service and your love of individual liberty that you are a Patriot, and for these I sincerely thank you. I completely agree that the negative, unintended consequences of some truly silly laws tend to far out way the benefits of the intended consequences (your paintball example is good). I also agree that law does not block free will. However, as you said, it does guide it by defining expectations of behavior and consequences. The argument that "laws don't control behavior and therefore this should not be done" is just not a strong argument that people are going to listen to... I'm sorry.. again I agree, laws do not control free will, but they do influence it. If I could buy you a beer, I would.... |
|
January 31, 2013, 09:51 AM | #265 |
Junior member
Join Date: January 21, 2013
Location: NY
Posts: 150
|
These laws are relying an awful lot on the good faith of lawful gun owners to comply. Here in NY good faith went out the window when Emperor Cuomo and his cronies passed the SafeAct!
|
January 31, 2013, 10:32 AM | #266 |
Senior Member
Join Date: May 15, 2011
Posts: 1,405
|
LOL Revolver1.
Win-Lose, Thank You for your comments. Keep on looking for your top argument. I have offered the best I have to offer. I'll leave this one to others more capable then I.
__________________
Colt M1911, AR-15 | S&W Model 19, Model 27| SIG P238 | Berreta 85B Cheetah | Ruger Blackhawk .357MAG, Bearcat "Shopkeeper" .22LR| Remington Marine Magnum SP 12GA., Model 700 SPS .223 |
January 31, 2013, 10:51 AM | #267 | |||||
Senior Member
Join Date: December 20, 2012
Location: Sweet Home
Posts: 886
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
- Sooner or later they will - It is long overdue. Quote:
While I find the abuse of the ICC abhorent we are stuck with it until it is defanged in some way.
__________________
Tomorrow is the most important thing in life. Comes into us at midnight very clean. It's perfect when it arrives and it puts itself in our hands. It hopes we've learned something from yesterday. Last edited by Alabama Shooter; January 31, 2013 at 10:57 AM. |
|||||
January 31, 2013, 11:20 AM | #268 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: May 15, 2011
Posts: 1,405
|
Quote:
Would be worth looking into wouldn't it.
__________________
Colt M1911, AR-15 | S&W Model 19, Model 27| SIG P238 | Berreta 85B Cheetah | Ruger Blackhawk .357MAG, Bearcat "Shopkeeper" .22LR| Remington Marine Magnum SP 12GA., Model 700 SPS .223 |
|
January 31, 2013, 11:25 AM | #269 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: December 20, 2012
Location: Sweet Home
Posts: 886
|
Quote:
I don't know of any historical research that shows where thieves target a place becuase they know there are guns inside. That would be interesting I imagine.
__________________
Tomorrow is the most important thing in life. Comes into us at midnight very clean. It's perfect when it arrives and it puts itself in our hands. It hopes we've learned something from yesterday. |
|
January 31, 2013, 12:17 PM | #270 | |||
Senior Member
Join Date: May 15, 2011
Posts: 1,405
|
No, but this is close and along those lines.
Quote:
Quote:
At least we can say that the majority of gun thefts are from homes, and home thefts decreased steadily over the years from 1994 to 2010. And that brings to light this; Quote:
__________________
Colt M1911, AR-15 | S&W Model 19, Model 27| SIG P238 | Berreta 85B Cheetah | Ruger Blackhawk .357MAG, Bearcat "Shopkeeper" .22LR| Remington Marine Magnum SP 12GA., Model 700 SPS .223 |
|||
January 31, 2013, 12:24 PM | #271 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: October 9, 1998
Location: Ohio USA
Posts: 8,563
|
Quote:
I don't understand this line of reasoning. It's like saying if I might as well swill beer since I'm already fat... You're not going to lose any weight with that type of thinking. |
|
January 31, 2013, 12:36 PM | #272 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: December 20, 2012
Location: Sweet Home
Posts: 886
|
Quote:
Background checks went into effect in most states in 1994. Many sherriffs and other law officials filed lawsuits on tenth ammendment grounds due to the unfair burden and cost that the Brady Bill imposed upon them. This was overturned in the court conviently about the same time NICS came on line in Printz v. United States.
__________________
Tomorrow is the most important thing in life. Comes into us at midnight very clean. It's perfect when it arrives and it puts itself in our hands. It hopes we've learned something from yesterday. |
|
January 31, 2013, 01:39 PM | #273 | ||||||
Staff
Join Date: July 28, 2010
Location: Arkansas
Posts: 8,819
|
Quote:
Quote:
We've looked at the issue of individual sales. Government regulation is a horse of a different color, though. For looking at that issue, I'd suggest shifting away from the Civil Rights Act of 1968. Let's go back to the Civil Rights Act of 1871. In particular, take a look at 42 U.S.C. § 1983, where the CRA of 1871 is codified: Quote:
Quote:
I said earlier that Congress has not caught up with SCOTUS. SCOTUS has declared that the RKBA is a fundamental, individual civil right. SCOTUS has said that the protections of the 2A are applicable to the States. The CRA of 1968 has not been amended to include "purchase of firearms" as a protected activity, to be protected, regardless of whether or not the actor (alleged violator of the right) is acting in an individual or public or governmental role. The CRA of 1968 does prohibit members of the protected classes from being discriminated against in public facilities (i.e. stores which hold themselves out for public business), but it does not protect against purely private discrimination. If I worked for a chain of gun stores, "Spats' Shootin' Irons," and I declined to sell to members of a protected class, or more clearly yet, to employ members of a protected class, that's no longer purely private. Then we'd be off to the races in a civil suit under the CRA of 1968. The CRA of 1871, on the other hand, protects the federal constitutional and civil rights from governmental action. That's what the "color of law" language means. If one of my officers, on duty, in his patrol car, wearing uniform and badge, etc., arrests someone, he's acting "under color of law." If someone sues him for excessive force for making an arrest under those conditions, it'd be under 42 USC 1983. If he were not acting under color of law, 42 usc 1983 wouldn't apply. (Think bar fight on his own time.) That's why Heller and McDonald are so important. They tell us something about the extent and boundaries of the 2A right. They tell us that the RKBA is a civil right. Not only that, it's a fundamental, individual right. They tell us that the 2A also applies to the states, so it's limits apply to your local city council, as well as Congress. They tell us that your local city council cannot impose an outright prohibition on handguns, for example. The RKBA is a constitutional right. It's a civil right. It's a fundamental, individual right. It's just not subject to being violated in the way that you supposed.
__________________
I'm a lawyer, but I'm not your lawyer. If you need some honest-to-goodness legal advice, go buy some. |
||||||
January 31, 2013, 02:05 PM | #274 | |
Junior member
Join Date: October 13, 2008
Location: Hermit's Peak
Posts: 623
|
Quote:
|
|
January 31, 2013, 04:23 PM | #275 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: May 15, 2011
Posts: 1,405
|
AH.74 I My thinking was that I had remembered reading something about England having a criminal history and that if background checks had been required of personal firearms sales at that time, then maybe he wouldn't have been able to purchase the gun used in the killings.
Here is all I could find looking back, it's not as significant as I had thought at the time. Quote:
__________________
Colt M1911, AR-15 | S&W Model 19, Model 27| SIG P238 | Berreta 85B Cheetah | Ruger Blackhawk .357MAG, Bearcat "Shopkeeper" .22LR| Remington Marine Magnum SP 12GA., Model 700 SPS .223 |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
|