The Firing Line Forums

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

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old November 8, 2012, 12:29 PM   #51
Brian Pfleuger
Staff
 
Join Date: June 25, 2008
Location: Central, Southern NY, USA
Posts: 18,791
Quote:
Originally Posted by jmortimer
That is why I believe we fail to keep it real. If you voted for a "D" that loves them there guns, you just put a another nail in the coffin.
Once again, it's not about PC, it's about accuracy, realism and civility.

Your UN Treaty comment, for example. Do you realize that treaties can not override constitutional provisions? Do you realize that the treaty specifically includes qualifiers in it's own text which state that the treaty does not apply to firearms commerce within individual countries, that it does not override any of those countries laws or constitutional provisions and that it specifically applies only to trade between nations?

In other words, whining about it being used to override the 2A is Chicken Little, The Sky is Falling nonsense. That's why it's called such, because it IS.
__________________
Still happily answering to the call-sign Peetza.
---
The problem, as you so eloquently put it, is choice.
-The Architect
-----
He is no fool who gives what he can not keep to gain what he can not lose.
-Jim Eliott, paraphrasing Philip Henry.
Brian Pfleuger is offline  
Old November 8, 2012, 01:15 PM   #52
jmortimer
Junior member
 
Join Date: January 24, 2010
Location: South West Riverside County California
Posts: 2,763
From my post:
"But mention that the UN arms treaty just went back up for negotiation today,big surprise,and you are Chicken Little. No I don't think much of that..." And yes, I know how it works and "I don't think much of that.
You missed the fact that "I don't think much of that," i.e. the treaty. So my "treatment" of that issue was in line with your "treatment." But, I do think the judicial nominations will bite us the the arse big time, and no it won't take "10 years" for us to feel the impact, we are feeling it now, both on a trial level and on the appellate level. Look at the judges who are currently deciding pending cases and considering appeals and who nominated them.
jmortimer is offline  
Old November 8, 2012, 01:16 PM   #53
BarryLee
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 29, 2010
Location: The ATL (OTP)
Posts: 2,755
Quote:
well they caucus with the wrong side, but "that boy sure do love his guns
Yes, I understand what you are saying as these folks do enable their party to hold the leadership positions and determine which bills get debated and voted on. I also have seen some friends and family who are involved in shooting and hunting vote for anti-gun candidates, but state it doesn’t matter since the candidate will be in the minority in The House. I fear we could potentially reach a “tipping point” where things could shift if more and more anti-gun candidates are elected even if they start off in the minority.

However, there is another way to look at this and that is the strategy of disassociating Second Amendment Freedoms with any one particular party. We should not be in a situation where a change in the Presidency automatically means that a Constitutional freedom is under attack. If we can change the image of gun owners from that of angry white right wingers and to the more realistic image I see at the range we’ll be much better off. While I support the NRA they need to seek out and cultivate stronger relationships with members of the Democratic Party.

At the end of the day I support the party I believe most likely to protect and advance my personal freedoms and economic principals. However, I must be realistic and recognize that party only includes roughly half of Americans at best. So, we can either sit here and grumble or seek ways to educate and persuade those in the other party about freedom.
__________________
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 November 8, 2012, 01:30 PM   #54
K_Mac
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 15, 2010
Posts: 470
One of the reasons I like TFL as I do is the maintenance of civility here, and the limited discussion of political or religious issues. I wasn't here for the "unpleasantness" but have been around enough sites to know that vitriol from heated discussions in these areas effects the tone of the entire site. This forum walks a razor thin line allowing for discussion of legal and judicial issues related to firearms. Without tight control, ideological and partisan beliefs and opinions quickly destroy any chance of meaningful discussion.

Like many I have real concerns about the direction we are headed as a country and what that means in all areas, including the 2A. Y'all come on over to the house and we will have a cup of coffee and solve all these problems.

Kirby
__________________
"Any fool can criticize, condemn and complain and most fools do." Benjamin Franklin

"If you let "need" be a requirement and Government be the arbiter of that "need", then Liberty is as dead as King Tut." Jimbob86
K_Mac is online now  
Old November 8, 2012, 01:33 PM   #55
jmortimer
Junior member
 
Join Date: January 24, 2010
Location: South West Riverside County California
Posts: 2,763
^ BarryLee - Agree, better than nothing if you are in the minority. Doing something is better than nothing. But, the NRA tried the whole endorse Harry Reid and then unendorse him after Kagan/Sotomayor. Did not turn out so well. In the end, I'm banking on State's rights and the 10th Amendment and so much good has been accomplished by certain states in such a short time.
jmortimer is offline  
Old November 8, 2012, 02:12 PM   #56
StainlessSteel215
Junior member
 
Join Date: September 26, 2012
Posts: 250
Happy there are some knowledgable brains on this forum that understand the law of politics....I am learning much myself during this election season and glad this thread remains open for any pressing updates that would impact the folks on this forum. Keeping an eye on this thread, thanks everyone for contributing
StainlessSteel215 is offline  
Old November 8, 2012, 02:37 PM   #57
Brian Pfleuger
Staff
 
Join Date: June 25, 2008
Location: Central, Southern NY, USA
Posts: 18,791
Quote:
Originally Posted by jmortimer
From my post:
"But mention that the UN arms treaty just went back up for negotiation today,big surprise,and you are Chicken Little. No I don't think much of that..." And yes, I know how it works and "I don't think much of that.
Apparently a difference in the usage and assumed subject of the statement. I took it to mean that you didn't think much of the treaty, as in you don't like it, rather than you don't think much of the discussion/paranoia.
__________________
Still happily answering to the call-sign Peetza.
---
The problem, as you so eloquently put it, is choice.
-The Architect
-----
He is no fool who gives what he can not keep to gain what he can not lose.
-Jim Eliott, paraphrasing Philip Henry.
Brian Pfleuger is offline  
Old November 8, 2012, 02:51 PM   #58
Chaz88
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 4, 2010
Posts: 1,006
Quote:
I think we need to take a wait and see attitude because nothing is going to stop EO's.
Something to remember about executive orders is that there is a built in opportunity cancel them. When a president takes office they have to approve or rescind all existing orders.

I do not think most presidents want to rely on the next president's approval to make a lasting policy.
__________________
Seams like once we the people give what, at the time, seams like a reasonable inch and "they" take the unreasonable mile we can only get that mile back one inch at a time.

No spelun and grammar is not my specialty. So please don't hurt my sensitive little feelings by teasing me about it.
Chaz88 is offline  
Old November 8, 2012, 03:34 PM   #59
Gaerek
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 3, 2012
Location: Arizona
Posts: 939
Quote:
our UN Treaty comment, for example. Do you realize that treaties can not override constitutional provisions? Do you realize that the treaty specifically includes qualifiers in it's own text which state that the treaty does not apply to firearms commerce within individual countries, that it does not override any of those countries laws or constitutional provisions and that it specifically applies only to trade between nations?
While this is true, it cannot affect our individual right to keep and bear arms, it can have other affects. Most notably, the possibility of making it more difficult to get imported guns. If your preferred manufacturer doesn't have a factory in the country, it could potentially be more difficult/more expensive/impossible to get one of their guns.
Gaerek is offline  
Old November 8, 2012, 04:37 PM   #60
carguychris
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 20, 2007
Location: Richardson, TX
Posts: 5,501
Quote:
Most notably, the possibility of making it more difficult to get imported guns. If your preferred manufacturer doesn't have a factory in the country, it could potentially be more difficult/more expensive/impossible to get one of their guns.
IMHO that is unlikely to happen because of free trade issues, the 2A notwithstanding.

Most of the countries on America's "Not Good" list- China, Russia, Iran, the DPRK, etc.- already cannot legally export guns to the USA, or are limited to a very short and specific list of models (e.g. China and Russia).

The countries that currently export firearms to the USA in large numbers are all countries with which the USA has friendly trade relations: Germany, Austria, Italy, Belgium, Brazil, the Czech Republic, Canada, Switzerland, even Japan. If the administration tries to shut down the import pipeline from these countries, their trade representatives are likely to squeal very loudly, and may retaliate against American exports in other sectors of the economy- during a time when the administration is trying to present itself as a friend of U.S. export manufacturers!

Furthermore, such a move would probably have little effect on the overall volume of gun sales, because the 68 GCA has already shut most foreign makers- with the possible exception of Taurus- out of the high-volume lower end of the market. American gunmakers have that territory staked out now.

The only scenario under which I could foresee a large firearms import prohibition would be a generalized return to trade protectionism, but I don't see that happening in the current political climate, because of its potential to destabilize global trade at a time of uncertainty.
__________________
"Smokey, this is not 'Nam. This is bowling. There are rules... MARK IT ZERO!!" - Walter Sobchak

Last edited by carguychris; November 8, 2012 at 04:39 PM. Reason: Minor reword...
carguychris is offline  
Old November 8, 2012, 06:29 PM   #61
GodWeTrust
Member
 
Join Date: October 15, 2008
Posts: 36
Another thing to remember is that even though the new president doesn't have to worry about what he does because he can't be reelected, his fellow party members may not want him to mess things up so bad that they can't ever get another guy into office.
__________________
SP101, M&P9c, Bersa 390, Savage MarkIIGLY
GodWeTrust is offline  
Old November 8, 2012, 07:32 PM   #62
jhenry
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 27, 2006
Location: Ozarks
Posts: 1,813
My concern is that WE may not get a guy into office, ever.
__________________
"A Liberal is someone who doesn't care what you do, as long as it's mandatory". - Charles Krauthammer
jhenry is offline  
Old November 8, 2012, 10:53 PM   #63
Tom Servo
Staff
 
Join Date: September 27, 2008
Location: Foothills of the Appalachians
Posts: 10,391
Quote:
We know for a fact that a strong majority of members of the party in (2/3) control are in favor of gun control and it is a badge of honor to say you are for gun control.
Do we really? Outside of the regular dozen chest-beaters, how many are really in favor of it?

You might be surprised how few really are. And that's not just the folks who are afraid of the implications for their future careers: we've got strong supporters (and some who aren't) on both sides of the aisle.

Quote:
My concern is that WE may not get a guy into office, ever.
If you mean someone who's unequivocably on board for the 2A, you'd be right. Politics is the art of compromise and underhanded deals. That's what many, many folks never understand, and they get angry.

One does not get to rise to prominence in politics on virtue alone. In fact, many do so quite in spite of it.
__________________
Sometimes it’s nice not to destroy the world for a change.
--Randall Munroe
Tom Servo is offline  
Old November 9, 2012, 02:42 AM   #64
Ben Towe
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 6, 2009
Location: Middle Tennessee
Posts: 1,120
There is so much misinformation out there that it boggles the mind. From the U.N. treaty to EO's, people saying Obama will declare martial law and declare himself dictator, and a blue million other excellent plots to a Hollywood blockbuster. While any of them are theoretically possible, it is also theoretically possible that little green men will land a flying saucer in my back yard in the next five minutes, but it isn't terribly likely.

Before you buy into (or spread) the hysteria, do some research.

Many people have lost faith in our system but it is still working pretty well. My concerns for the moment lean more toward economic and foreign policy. That's not to say we shouldn't keep an ever watchful eye on threats to RKBA.

I do foresee a spike in weapons and ammo prices, perhaps as bad as 2008, perhaps not. I was loafing at the LGS today and the owner spoke to one of his distributors (not sure who) around noon and learned that they had filled $4,000,000 worth of orders for AR-15s this morning... that's between 5,000 and 10,000 rifles folks. Assuming they open at 8am, that's a million bucks an hour, just in ARs. Food for thought...
__________________
'Merica: Back to back World War Champs
Ben Towe is offline  
Old November 9, 2012, 05:11 AM   #65
Sparks1957
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 4, 2011
Location: Vermont
Posts: 1,471
Quote:
Before you buy into (or spread) the hysteria, do some research.
I'm with Ben on this one. There are some vocal Ds who want more more gun control, but most of them realize their political careers are over if they threaten 2A rights, realistically.

If Obama was going to impose more gun control, it would have happened in his first two years when he had the House on his side.

I think the economy and foreign policy is going to keep everyone plenty busy, and though I think we all have to be vigilant, the anti-gunners are weaker than they've been in a long while.
Sparks1957 is offline  
Old November 9, 2012, 09:19 AM   #66
StainlessSteel215
Junior member
 
Join Date: September 26, 2012
Posts: 250
Amen fellas.
StainlessSteel215 is offline  
Old November 9, 2012, 10:36 AM   #67
Mike Irwin
Staff
 
Join Date: April 13, 2000
Location: Northern Virginia
Posts: 36,074
Spemack, I see this question got pushed aside in the ensuing conversation:

"How did President H.W. Bush get buy with enacting the import ban?"

I may be wrong about this, but it seems that Bush exploited something of a loop hole, or gap, in the law and Constitution when he issued an executive order directed at firearms imported from foreign nations.

Clinton, in 1994, issued a similar executive order that banned most firearms and ammunition imports from China.

Neither of those orders, on their face, addressed interstate commerce in any meaningful way, and that's why I think they weren't really pursued to any meaningful degree through the courts.
__________________
"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 November 9, 2012, 12:08 PM   #68
Gaerek
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 3, 2012
Location: Arizona
Posts: 939
Quote:
If Obama was going to impose more gun control, it would have happened in his first two years when he had the House on his side.
I'm not going to say you're wrong with this, but there's no way you can know this is true. Obama had other "headlining" issues in his first 2 years that were more important to him. We know the D platform wants more gun control. Obama himself, as recently as debate 3 (EDIT: I think it was actually debate 2) said he wants more gun control. While I'm in the camp that says it will be very difficult for him to get any gun control legislation passed due to the fact he doesn't have control of the House, it certainly isn't impossible. It could be as simple as an ammo tax rider (or anything, for that matter) attached to some piece of legislation the republicans want passed.

To say that he won't do it because he didn't do it earlier is false security. Just remember what happened when our military leaders believed the Viet Cong wouldn't attack on Tet, because they hadn't done it before. We know what he believes. We know what his party believes (for the most part). If he wants something passed, there's 1001 ways for him to accomplish it.

I do not believe the sky is falling, but we shouldn't let down our guard because he didn't do it when the D's had control of the house.

Last edited by Gaerek; November 9, 2012 at 12:48 PM.
Gaerek is offline  
Old November 9, 2012, 12:15 PM   #69
Don P
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 17, 2005
Location: Florida
Posts: 4,808
I recieved this from Mas Ayoob today, food for thought,
Quote:
WELL, THAT DIDN’T TAKE LONG, DID IT?
Posted: 08 Nov 2012 07:08 AM PST
Our newly re-elected President told Sarah Brady and company that he was working “under the radar” for more “gun control.” We reported it here. He told the Russians that he’d have “more flexibility” after he was re-elected. We told you that here.
About 12 hours after he was declared the victor in the Presidential race, it was announced that his administration was calling for NATO to reconsider the onerous international small arms treaty that would have profoundly chilling effects on the rights of American gun owners. My friend Dave Workman, a tireless activist for gun owners’ civil rights, explains it all here: http://www.examiner.com/article/the-...id=db_articles .
Simultaneously, Dianne Feinstein is apparently introducing a new semi-automatic firearms ban, one which is vastly farther-reaching and more draconian than the one Bill Clinton ramrodded through and forced us to live with for a decade. This one will have no sunset clause. You won’t be able to sell the guns you own which “fit the (ridiculous) profile” of what will be forbidden…which very likely means you won’t be able to bequeath those guns to your children. Check it out here: http://www.examiner.com/article/fein...bama-reelected
Carolyn McCarthy, a vehement single issue anti-gunner, doesn’t just encourage President Obama to use executive orders to curtail your rights to own firearms: she publicly states that she thinks he’ll actually do it, according to HuffPost, here: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/0...n_1699641.html
Hey, all you Obama apologists who wrote into this blog over the last few months saying that he didn’t want to interfere with your gun ownership rights…what do you think NOW?
One of our regular blog commentators said recently that he wished I’d get off politics and back to talking about guns. I hear ya, Doc, but the thing of it is…there ain’t much more important “about guns” than the right to acquire, own, and keep them.
Share or Bookmark
__________________
NRA Life Member, NRA Range Safety Officer, IDPA Safety Officer, USPSA NROI Range Officer
As you are, I once was, As I am, You will be.
Don P is offline  
Old November 9, 2012, 12:42 PM   #70
sigcurious
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 25, 2011
Posts: 1,755
The above loses credibility right off the bat to me when they confuse NATO with the UN.

So you have two of the usual gun control suspects, doing what they usually do, and further discussion of a treaty that even if then UN got around to passing it would not be likely to be ratified by the senate.

Quote:
The Obama administration, she continued, has "a limitation on what they can do, but I'm hoping they'll look on the books and see what they can do. I think that's fair."
Quote:
any major reforms to gun laws will have to come through Congress. And McCarthy said that won't happen until lawmakers are ready to stand up to the NRA
McCarthy's own statements indicate she knows her rhetoric is all bark and no bite.

Quote:
McCarthy was one of just four lawmakers who held a press conference Tuesday urging action on gun control in response to the Colorado shootings.
Only 4 people used a critical incident to attempt to garner favor for gun control, on top of which 51 of our senators openly opposed the UN arms trade treaty. None of these numbers have changed significantly since the elections.

As for Feinstein specifically

Quote:
Feinstein’s rumored bill “would ban pistol grips and "high-capacity" magazines, eliminate any grandfathering and ban sales of ‘weapons in possession’" Shepherd writes
Any solid evidence yet? I don't doubt she's working on something, but it's jumping the gun when it's all based on rumor.

Quote:
"The ATF personnel noted are indeed the players,” the source replied, “but what is noticeably absent is anyone from the executive level, AD or DAD [Assistant Director/Deputy Assistant Director]--the policy implementer/makers. That part is strange and shows that while ATF may have had to go to the meeting, the Bureau and DoJ are not necessarily supportive.
All the huff and puff then a statement that again indicates it's all bluster. The real players aren't even mentioned in the rumors.

Articles like these do nothing but to stir the pot with shoddy information. Responding to actual threats to the 2A is one thing, but filling peoples minds with speculation, and unverified and unsupported, information causes confusion and is not helpful in supporting our rights.
sigcurious is offline  
Old November 9, 2012, 12:49 PM   #71
Don P
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 17, 2005
Location: Florida
Posts: 4,808
Quote:
Articles like these do nothing but to stir the pot with shoddy information
.

My apologies, I didn't realize that Massad Ayoob wrote articles to stir the pot with shoddy information.
I have found his writings to be on point and to be accurate and truthful.
__________________
NRA Life Member, NRA Range Safety Officer, IDPA Safety Officer, USPSA NROI Range Officer
As you are, I once was, As I am, You will be.
Don P is offline  
Old November 9, 2012, 12:50 PM   #72
jmortimer
Junior member
 
Join Date: January 24, 2010
Location: South West Riverside County California
Posts: 2,763
Mas Ayoob repeated exactly what members here get hammered for, repeating the exact same thing, but since he is a "scared cow" his reporting of the same information is "really cool."
jmortimer is offline  
Old November 9, 2012, 12:50 PM   #73
Gaerek
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 3, 2012
Location: Arizona
Posts: 939
I have a lot of respect for Mas Ayoob. I read that same thing yesterday on his blog. I really think he needs to lay off the politics, though, and stick with what he's good at. Namely, legal issues dealing with defensive shooting, and teaching people to be better defensive shooters. He seems to not fully understand all of the issues at hand. It's unfortunate, because of all the gun writers I read regularly, I figured he'd be the least likely to jump on the "Sky is Falling" bandwagon.
Gaerek is offline  
Old November 9, 2012, 01:09 PM   #74
sigcurious
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 25, 2011
Posts: 1,755
Quote:
My apologies, I didn't realize that Massad Ayoob wrote articles to stir the pot with shoddy information.
I have found his writings to be on point and to be accurate and truthful.
I cannot and am not commenting on his articles in general but specifically the one you pasted and the articles he used as reference. What is accurate or truthful about speculation and rumor based on unsubstantiated and unsupported information?
sigcurious is offline  
Old November 9, 2012, 01:21 PM   #75
Gaerek
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 3, 2012
Location: Arizona
Posts: 939
Quote:
I cannot and am not commenting on his articles in general but specifically the one you pasted and the articles he used as reference. What is accurate or truthful about speculation and rumor based on unsubstantiated and unsupported information?
The issue, from where I'm standing, is that article is really out of character for him. He'll touch on the political from time to time, but rarely digs deep. Even he says he's not a political writer so he stays out, so I'm not sure why he wrote that. When he writes what he knows, he's very good. That article is pure, unsubstantiated crap, unfortunately, which isn't something he does very often at all.
Gaerek 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 11:41 AM.


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 0.17128 seconds with 7 queries