The Firing Line Forums

Go Back   The Firing Line Forums > The Conference Center > Law and Civil Rights

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old July 9, 2011, 12:20 AM   #26
Carry_24/7
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 5, 2011
Posts: 798
Come on! Bush was less polarizing?!? Obama would not have been possible without Bush paving the way with extreme incompetence, national/international embarrassment and corruption.

Guys, relax...no matter what Glenn Beck says, no one is taking our guns, or ammo, or carry permits.
Carry_24/7 is offline  
Old July 9, 2011, 12:24 AM   #27
BarryLee
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 29, 2010
Location: The ATL (OTP)
Posts: 2,652
Yes, no doubt that gun control will not be decided in the Legislative Branch, but in the Judicial. I fear the SCOTUS is very close to tipping to an anti-gun majority and the current Executive Branch is more than ready to push that along.
__________________
A major source of objection to a free economy is precisely that it ... gives people what they want instead of what a particular group thinks they ought to want. Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself.
- Milton Friedman
BarryLee is offline  
Old July 9, 2011, 12:31 AM   #28
youngunz4life
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 15, 2010
Location: United States of America
Posts: 1,877
in reply to goofy, you had some good surmising. I would like to say that you might've gone back too far. Hoover before roosevelt was elected over him had people in a major tizzy. they were in an uproar. he lost re-election handedly in 1932...paving the way for roosevelt for 4terms 1933-1945(FDR was in his 4th term when he passed).

I agree w/carry's last line twp posts ago, but I do worry about a "seed being planted" in the wrong place
__________________
"Damn the torpedoes, full speed ahead!" -Admiral Farragut @ Battle of Mobile Bay 05AUG1864
youngunz4life is offline  
Old July 9, 2011, 12:36 AM   #29
kenno
Junior member
 
Join Date: November 3, 2008
Posts: 180
Executive Orders; are these true?

#12425
Interpol can operate freely within the USA enjoying TOTAL Diplomatic Immunity and now under Obama even free from FOIA Requests. (UN AGENDA 21)
EO #13575 Rural Council made up of EPA, DHS,Dept of Def, DOA, and others to determine if Private property is over or under used and determine if it should be reassigned or purchased by the Federal Govt.(UN AGENDA 21)
PDD (Presidential Directive) #51 The Council of 10 (State Governors) Chosen by Obama will rule over a redistricted "United States" reaportioned into '10 Regions' normal state functions will fall under the Council of 10's rule. Counselors may appoint leutenants without review at thier personel discresion without review or oversight by any elected power below that of POTUS (UN Agenda 21)
OBTW I just read all of Carry 24-7's posts, he's from South Africa? Sounds Pretty "Sinful" to me
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XF0ukVVyVHs
www.youtube.com/watch?v=XF0ukVVyVHs

Last edited by kenno; July 9, 2011 at 12:59 AM.
kenno is offline  
Old July 9, 2011, 02:07 AM   #30
Carry_24/7
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 5, 2011
Posts: 798
YounGunz; i'd say your comment is well put.

In my time on earth (40 years), i've only seen gun laws go more in our favor. Yes, there have been hickups, but overall, the situation steadily moves towards the good.

But, anyway, let the ammo hoarding begin....
Carry_24/7 is offline  
Old July 9, 2011, 09:28 AM   #31
GoOfY-FoOt
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 1, 2011
Location: West Central Florida
Posts: 463
Quote:
In my time on earth (40 years), i've only seen gun laws go more in our favor. Yes, there have been hickups
So, was the Assault Weapons Ban, "in our favor" or a "hickup" (hiccup)?


And to answer your prior question, Bush was polarizing, but there were still many more middle-of-the-road fans of Bush, who liked some things and not others, that he did, or didn't do. It seems with the current administration, that there is really no luke-warm sentiment. At least, I haven't found any.

I never really looked at our country's population in the anti-gun/pro-gun light, even as much as we discuss the differences on TFL, but that seems to be where we are right now, in regard to our country's division.

It all boils down to power, control and money, IMO.
You need one to get the other two. If you don't have any of them, you must make deals with those that do, to continue your quest.
We here at TFL, have a passion for our country, our rights, and our obvious past-times, but as such, we stand in the way of those that wish to acquire those things, mentioned above.
With respect to the 2A movement,
we advance with rationality, respect, and common-sense, and they throw sensationalism, grandstanding and deceptive tactics at the wall, to see what sticks.
Therefore, the battle wages on.
__________________
BILL @ Strongside Arms, Inc. - 1479 W. C-48 Bushnell, FL 33513 352-568-0017
--------------------------------------------------
“Why worry when you can pray? He [God] is the Whole, you are a part. Coordinate your abilities with the Whole.” ~Edgar Cayce~

Last edited by GoOfY-FoOt; July 9, 2011 at 09:53 AM.
GoOfY-FoOt is offline  
Old July 9, 2011, 12:55 PM   #32
Carry_24/7
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 5, 2011
Posts: 798
Yes, for some the Assault Weapons Ban was a step backwards, yet "personally" I don't consider it an issue, while I know others do. I have no "assault" rifles, no ARs, no AK-47s, no Tec-9s, no magazines that hang 6" below my pistols, etc, and nor do I want or need them. I do not crave automatic weapons or suppressors.

I guess everyone has their issues with certain legislation. From my eyes, I have seen nothing but improvement, but I do understand that such improvement is through my personal lenses.
Carry_24/7 is offline  
Old July 9, 2011, 02:16 PM   #33
Glenn E. Meyer
Staff
 
Join Date: November 17, 2000
Posts: 15,519
As my mind consolidated my beliefs on the RKBA, I find that the AWB was an attack on the central tenets of it.

One crucial point is the defense against tyranny. Many regard worrying about that as paranoid. But given the extremes of left and right, the increasing drumbeat of fanatics, political and religious, suggests to me it is a possibility.

History suggests to me that very civilized countries can become monstrous in a short period of time. We see in the recent past and currently, unarmed populace that are killed and oppressed.

The probability of a disaster that disrupts our veneer of civilization is possible. Droughts, Katrina - etc. - suggest the need for reasonable efficacious weaponery.

Thus, the limits were a blow to a central core of our BOR.

Further, one might argue that rights can be limited if too liberal an expression of the rights is truly dangerous to society.

However, solid research conclusively demonstrated that the AWB had NO effect on any know crime indices. Thus, without compelling evidence - the state doesn' t limit our freedoms based on simple appearance or biases.

Not long ago, races were oppressed as they were as seen as risks to living in polite society.

The recent SCOTUS decision on video games speaks to the same issues, a minor risk (which is debateable) cannot limit a right for the entire country.

Thus, the new proposals - whatever they are - will have no effect in preventing future incidents. They are political theatre or based on decisions from folks that don't know the research or appreciate the threats to freedom.

Both sides of the political world engage in political theatre with social issues that constrain liberty. To avoid a flame on, I'll not speak to the nuttiness of the right but it's the same game.

Thus, having folks with ARs or AKs and a 30 round mag, is not something to be controlled based on political/liberty considerations or even proven criminological analyses.

Reasonble and fun sporting uses and hunting could be handled with single shot rifles, singe shot handguns and O/U shotguns, but that's not the point
__________________
NRA, TSRA, IDPA, NTI, Polite Soc.
http://www.teddytactical.com/archive...05_Feature.htm
Being an Academic Shooter
http://www.teddytactical.com/archive...11_Feature.htm
Being an Active Shooter
Glenn E. Meyer is offline  
Old July 9, 2011, 02:21 PM   #34
Mike Irwin
Staff
 
Join Date: April 13, 2000
Location: Northern Virginia
Posts: 35,694
Yes, PDD 51 is absolutely TRUE.

Know why it's true?

Because it's on Utoob...

God, of all days when I so need the rolly eyes guy!

All three of those supposed items contain just the tiniest germ of truth about what was supposedly in them, which was then wildly inflated and exaggerated by hysterical conspiracy theorists.

Sure it's in the President's power to totally circumvent Congress and setting up to rule by dictat.

Sigh.
__________________
"The gift which I am sending you is called a dog, and is in fact the most precious and valuable possession of mankind" -Theodorus Gaza

Baby Jesus cries when the fat redneck doesn't have military-grade firepower.
Mike Irwin is offline  
Old July 9, 2011, 03:50 PM   #35
Carry_24/7
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 5, 2011
Posts: 798
GEM: I see your point. I always looked at it from a more personal point of view.

That was an informative post.
Carry_24/7 is offline  
Old July 9, 2011, 04:53 PM   #36
Wag
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 22, 2010
Location: Rio Rancho, NM
Posts: 572
Great post, Glenn.

--Wag--
__________________
"Great genius will always encounter fierce opposition from mediocre minds." --Albert Einstein.
Wag is offline  
Old July 9, 2011, 07:47 PM   #37
Don P
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 17, 2005
Location: Florida
Posts: 4,769
Receievd today from the NRA-ILA http://www.nraila.org/Legislation/Fe...d.aspx?id=6982
Obama Administration Plans New Gun Control
Quote:
Friday, July 08, 2011

As we pass the six-month anniversary of the tragic Tucson shooting, multiple press reports indicate the Obama administration is planning to unveil new, but unspecified, gun control initiatives.

At a Thursday briefing, White House Press Secretary Jay Carney said, "As you know, the President directed the Attorney General to form working groups with key stakeholders to identify common-sense measures that would improve Americans' safety and security while fully respecting Second Amendment rights. That process is well underway at the Department of Justice with stakeholders on all sides working through these complex issues. And we expect to have some more specific announcements in the near future."

Carney provided no further details on the initiatives, but he isn't the only one saying something is in the works. According to a related article on NPR.org, U.S. Rep. Carolyn McCarthy (D-N.Y.) said, “I have spoken to the president. He is with me on [gun control], and it's just going to be when that opportunity comes forward that we're going to be able to go forward.” And longtime anti-gun activist Sarah Brady has said that in March, the president told her “I just want you to know that we are working on [gun control] ... We have to go through a few processes, but under the radar.”

Rest assured we'll report any significant developments in the weeks ahea

Quote:
Copyright 2011, National Rifle Association of America, Institute for Legislative Action.
This may be reproduced. It may not be reproduced for commercial purposes.
11250 Waples Mill Road, Fairfax, VA 22030 800-392-8683
__________________
NRA Life Member, NRA Range Safety Officer, IDPA Safety Officer
As you are, I once was, As I am, You will be.
Don P is offline  
Old July 9, 2011, 07:54 PM   #38
Tom Servo
Staff
 
Join Date: September 27, 2008
Location: Foothills of the Appalachians
Posts: 10,047
Quote:
Sarah Brady has said that in March, the president told her “I just want you to know that we are working on [gun control] ... We have to go through a few processes, but under the radar.
I find the validity of that statement highly suspect. Even if it were true, there's no way a President would say so directly to anybody outside a very close, trusted circle. I somehow doubt Sarah Brady is part of that circle.

Heck, let the administration try. The ensuing litigation would set some fun precedents.
__________________
In the depth of winter I finally learned that there was in me an invincible summer.
--Albert Camus
Tom Servo is offline  
Old July 9, 2011, 10:54 PM   #39
Silver Bullet
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 6, 2001
Location: Arizona
Posts: 992
Quote:
Obama would not have been possible without Bush paving the way with extreme incompetence, national/international embarrassment and corruption.

Affirming RKBA via Heller: Justices John Roberts, Samuel Alito, Antonin Scalia, Anthony Kennedy, and Clarence Thomas. I'm glad I voted for Bush !
__________________
I am not a real bullet, nor do I play one on television.

American socialism: Democrats trying to get Republicans to provide for them.
Silver Bullet is offline  
Old July 9, 2011, 11:10 PM   #40
Al Norris
Staff
 
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,298
I would caution everyone to reign in the political rhetoric.

Should Partisan Politics rear its ugly head more than it has, this thread will close and whoever posted last (to make the closure) will be summarily banned.
Al Norris is offline  
Old July 9, 2011, 11:58 PM   #41
HoraceHogsnort
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 28, 2008
Location: Stanislaus Co., Mexifornia
Posts: 615
Sefner wrote: "It seems that every 6 months or so the UN Small Arms Treaty makes the e-mail rounds, sometimes a book comes out, sometimes it makes Drudge, about how Obama/Clinton/George Soros is going to take our guns via the Small Arms Treaty without having to go through Congress. It cannot happen this way, it is scare mongering."

^^^^^THIS^^^^^
HoraceHogsnort is offline  
Old July 10, 2011, 07:59 PM   #42
csmsss
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 24, 2008
Location: Orange, TX
Posts: 2,979
HH, one proviso - treaties do NOT require the approval of the full Congress. They pass when approved by 2/3 of the Senate (and subsequent presidential signature, which is a foregone conclusion).

Getting a 2/3 vote in the Senate is certainly a daunting proposition on a controversial matter; however it is arguably more difficult to get majority approval in both houses of Congress.

And when you look at the composition of the Senate, getting this horrific treaty approved is not out of the question, especially if the WH decides to make it a high priority.
csmsss is offline  
Old July 10, 2011, 09:34 PM   #43
grousebuster
Member
 
Join Date: July 2, 2011
Location: sw michigan
Posts: 20
obama gun control.

First be suspicious of anything on wikipedia-it is not a verifiable source.Anyone can post anything and often due.I have American Riflemans back to 1943.Through the years the same concerns about gun control have been raised and yet there have been few national pieces of legislation that heve seriously affected most of us.The 68 gun control act being the worst in my opinion.The assault rifle ban has come and gone and as one person has stated many things have gone in our favor.Do we need to remain vigilant?Yes of coarse.Do we need to panic and wring our hands?I think not.I think a lot of this ranks right up there with the black helicopters and Mark from Michigan crap.The UN has less influence than it ever has and no president or political party is going to commit political sucicide by alowing any such an organization to dictate to us.Continue to support our friend in congress,support the NRA and keep your eyes and ears open.Hysterical "gun nuts" do not do us any favors.I consider myself to be a non hysterical gun nut but a vigilant one.
grousebuster is offline  
Old July 10, 2011, 09:36 PM   #44
Bartholomew Roberts
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 12, 2000
Location: Texas and Oklahoma area
Posts: 5,637
Quote:
And when you look at the composition of the Senate, getting this horrific treaty approved is not out of the question, especially if the WH decides to make it a high priority.
Given the current makeup of the Senate, getting any UN Small Arms Treaty approved without the support of NRA would be extremely difficult. Only 41 votes would be necessary to filibuster. However, the current make up of the Senate is irrelevant as it is the 2012 Senate that will decide whether to take it up.
Bartholomew Roberts is offline  
Old July 10, 2011, 10:15 PM   #45
Tom Servo
Staff
 
Join Date: September 27, 2008
Location: Foothills of the Appalachians
Posts: 10,047
Quote:
However, the current make up of the Senate is irrelevant as it is the 2012 Senate that will decide whether to take it up.
Which means it won't happen at all, what with the asteroid scheduled to hit us in 2012.
__________________
In the depth of winter I finally learned that there was in me an invincible summer.
--Albert Camus
Tom Servo is offline  
Old July 10, 2011, 10:25 PM   #46
csmsss
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 24, 2008
Location: Orange, TX
Posts: 2,979
Bart/Tom, you're apparently discounting the possibility of the so-called "lame duck" session of Congress being able to approve the treaty. Seems to me we had one of them just a few months back that passed a significant piece of legislation through TWO houses of Congress.

I'm not saying it's likely. It's probably a thousand to one possibility. But it's a possibility. And that's enough for me to stay vigilant.
csmsss is offline  
Old July 10, 2011, 10:49 PM   #47
BGutzman
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 4, 2009
Location: Frozen Tundra
Posts: 2,414
Ive got a feeling that this is the calm before the storm concerning this administrations ideas on gun control.
__________________
Molon Labe
BGutzman is offline  
Old July 10, 2011, 11:34 PM   #48
Tom Servo
Staff
 
Join Date: September 27, 2008
Location: Foothills of the Appalachians
Posts: 10,047
Quote:
Bart/Tom, you're apparently discounting the possibility of the so-called "lame duck" session of Congress being able to approve the treaty.
The phrase "lame duck" refers to a person or body that's near the end and has nothing to lose politically. While that may apply to one particular branch, I don't see it applying to the legislature.

We've got a lot of freshmen in Congress. They have to prove themselves, and they have promises to uphold. While a small core of hardliners might push for ratification of such a treaty, they'd be a very insignificant minority. Many who might have some sympathy for the treaty simply wouldn't vote for it because it would represent political suicide.

Joe Sixpack isn't too fond of the UN. Nor would he be very fond of his congressman voting for a treaty that puts them in charge of our domestic policy.
__________________
In the depth of winter I finally learned that there was in me an invincible summer.
--Albert Camus
Tom Servo is offline  
Old July 11, 2011, 08:10 AM   #49
thallub
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 20, 2007
Location: South Western OK
Posts: 2,061
The UN Small Arms treaty is a red herring issue: The folks who start this stuff are counting on the fact that many gunowners will react to threats to their Second Amendment rights, real or imagined, without first vetting them.

No UN treaty trumps the US Constitution. The SCOTUS ruled so in 1957. Read Reid Vs. Covert:

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/htm...4_0001_ZO.html


It is the policy of the UN not to interfere with the rights of gunowners in member countries. It says so in the proposed Treaty outline:

http://www.disarm.emb-japan.go.jp/st...t/N0958107.pdf

Read the last two paragraphs on the first page.

Quote:
Acknowledging also the right of States to regulate internal transfers of arms and national ownership, including through national constitutional protections on private ownership, exclusively within their territory…

Last edited by thallub; July 11, 2011 at 08:20 AM.
thallub is offline  
Old July 11, 2011, 08:37 AM   #50
BGutzman
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 4, 2009
Location: Frozen Tundra
Posts: 2,414
Quote:
The SCOTUS ruled so in 1957. Read Reid Vs. Covert
I hope and wish this statement is held to be true by our legislatures but one only needs to look at Calfornia or Chicago to see governments that clearly ignore supreme court decisions or invents ways to try enact endless laws that each seem to have to be faught individually over and over in the courts.

I understand you provided facts but I am under no illusion that all parties will honor these facts....
__________________
Molon Labe
BGutzman is offline  
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 07:51 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site and contents, including all posts, Copyright © 1998-2014 S.W.A.T. Magazine
Copyright Complaints: Please direct DMCA Takedown Notices to the registered agent: thefiringline.com
Contact Us
Page generated in 0.15200 seconds with 7 queries