The Firing Line Forums

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

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old December 18, 2012, 10:31 AM   #76
nate45
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 15, 2007
Location: Illinois
Posts: 3,746
Quote:
Originally Posted by nate45
I believe it goes way beyond the slippery slope, when its common knowledge that most antis think the 2nd Amendment applies to muzzle loading muskets.
Quote:
Originally Posted by geetarman View Post
Most of us who are opposed to compromise in the issue of guns have lived long enough to see what happens with "temporary" measures for this or that reason become permanent.

Rights given up for the "greater" good will not come back except at great cost.

I don't think there is any way to create legislation that will provide protection against the bad things that can occur by living in a free society.

It just won't happen.



I ran across the following a few minutes ago.

Attached Images
File Type: png Piers Morgan Tweets.png (64.8 KB, 110 views)
__________________
"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms."- Thomas Jefferson
ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ
(>_<)

Last edited by nate45; December 18, 2012 at 10:49 AM. Reason: added quote for context, since the page changed
nate45 is offline  
Old December 18, 2012, 10:36 AM   #77
Patriot86
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 23, 2010
Location: Chicagoland
Posts: 1,293
That was actually after the Moore V Madigan ruling I think but it applies here too.
__________________
"....The swords of others will set you your limits".
Patriot86 is offline  
Old December 18, 2012, 10:42 AM   #78
BlueTrain
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 26, 2005
Location: Northern Virginia
Posts: 5,825
Some people think the 2nd amendment applies to a well-regulated militia. Can't imagine where that idea comes from.

Some people think the 2nd amendment allows women to carry concealed guns. Can't imagine where that idea comes from either.

Do you suppose the 2nd amendment should be rewritten instead of being reinterpreted?
__________________
Shoot low, sheriff. They're riding Shetlands!
Underneath the starry flag, civilize 'em with a Krag,
and return us to our own beloved homes!
Buy War Bonds.
BlueTrain is offline  
Old December 18, 2012, 10:51 AM   #79
Patriot86
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 23, 2010
Location: Chicagoland
Posts: 1,293
@ Blue: I wouldn't trust our Government to "Re Write" the 2A....if it ain't broke don't fix it.

There is a reason the anti gun types have not in recent history pushed for an amendment which repeals the 2A. They wouldn't have the votes in congress and would never get 3/4 of the states to ratify it.
__________________
"....The swords of others will set you your limits".
Patriot86 is offline  
Old December 18, 2012, 10:54 AM   #80
K_Mac
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 15, 2010
Posts: 471
Nate the posted conversation clearly illustrates the attitude of the anti-gun crowd. That it is a self-righteous and condescending Brit taking the anti-gun side is interesting. That "we know better" attitude is exactly what we are dealing with when it comes to those who would ultimately take all weapons from civilians.

As has been said a number of times in this thread, I too morn for the loss of innocent lives taken by troubled men, and I agree with Tyme that if some sort of reasonable compromise could be reached that would prevent this kind of tragedy I would support it. I will say it once more: This is not about high capacity magazines or specific guns, it is about control; and, for that reason it is ultimately about freedom.
__________________
"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 December 18, 2012, 11:47 AM   #81
jimbob86
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 4, 2007
Location: All the way to NEBRASKA
Posts: 7,109
Quote:
No need for them in my opinion.
Need's got nothing to do with it.

By that "need" argument, no privately automobile should be capable of going faster than 55 m.p.h. , or have more seating capacity than the owner's household.

If you let "need" be a requirement and Government be the arbiter of that "need", then Liberty is as dead as King Tut.

Such a notion should be killed, and with fire.
__________________
TheGolden Rule of Tool Use: "If you don't know what you are doing, DON'T."

http://nefirearm.com/
jimbob86 is offline  
Old December 18, 2012, 12:07 PM   #82
JimDandy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 8, 2012
Posts: 2,479
Quote:
Hunting is irrelevant to the argument. There is no right to hunt. In fact, whitetails are very pretty and the young ones are cute. It is hard for most recreational hunters to argue that they need to hunt for food. I would ban hunting for whitetails except in special circumstances. Pest control can be handled by agents of the state.

Those who need to hunt for food should be specially licensed after strict mental exams and only allowed to bow hunt as those weapons would be unlikely to be used in most crimes or rampages.

-- OK, see my point. Hunting is not a reason for the Second Amendment. Nor is bowling or being an artisan producer of cheese.

What rights must we sacrifice or don't people believe in?

1. All the young males diagnosed with mental illnesses MUST be incarcerated or committed. It might save a life.

2. No violence should be allowed in media, games, etc. as some might be affected by it. It might save a life. Rainbow Bright cartoons should suffice for entertainment. You might be interested in the study that showed that violent
Biblical passages make some violent. Certainly some religions preach violence and thus most religions should be banned. To save a life.

3. Only single shot rifles should be allowed. If you can't take a whitetail with a Ruger Model One and scope, you are incompetent anyway.

So to save a life and do something, we violate freedom of the press, the right to keep and bear arms, freedom of religion and the right not to be imprisoned. These violations would be on massive levels.
You forgot

4. Because being illegal obviously isn't enough to stop the people who inevitably fall through the cracks, every home in America will be required to house at least one member of the military who will periodically go through all of your belongings and tear apart your home and hearth looking for proof you are violating these new laws, or any of the old ones. If he finds anything, you will be incarcerated without a trial. Because this could very well be unpopular with pot-smokers and others, there will be no discussion of this practice by private individuals or news media.

Now we've gotten rid of those other pesky bill of rights amendments.
JimDandy is offline  
Old December 18, 2012, 12:30 PM   #83
Yankee Traveler
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 17, 2008
Location: Middle Tennessee
Posts: 232
Another WH Pole

I received this in an email from Buds Gunshop.

I apologize if it has already been posted. I have not had the time to read through all 4 pages.

https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/pet...PR#thank-you=p

Excuse me, petition, not pole.
Yankee Traveler is offline  
Old December 18, 2012, 12:36 PM   #84
Yankee Traveler
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 17, 2008
Location: Middle Tennessee
Posts: 232
Just saw the closed petition thread...my bad.
Yankee Traveler is offline  
Old December 18, 2012, 12:45 PM   #85
Stressfire
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 16, 2011
Location: Ohio
Posts: 1,497
So, just what is it that the antis calling for compromise are giving up?

I keep hearing that they want to pass laws and ask for concessions "in the spirit of compromise." So what exactly is it that is being compromised by the other side?

I'm willing to compromise, but the idea of a good compromise is for neither side to be happy in equal amounts.

Gun owner groups are consistently accused of being all-or-nothing. Why doesn't it go both ways? In the media spotlight, anti groups are always wanting to compromise, but they are just as "all-or-nothing" as we are supposed to be.
__________________
"The best diplomat I know is a fully charged phaser bank" - Montgomery Scott
Stressfire is offline  
Old December 18, 2012, 12:59 PM   #86
jimbob86
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 4, 2007
Location: All the way to NEBRASKA
Posts: 7,109
Lawdog had an entertaining (yet so very true!) post on "Compromise" and "Sensible Gun Control Restrictions" ....

http://thelawdogfiles.blogspot.com/2...-ill-play.html

Read the whole thing, particularly the response to the last question:

Quote:
Will you continue a reasonable discussion towards an end that might lead somewhere or is this an exercise in futility?
Great Stuff, as always.
__________________
TheGolden Rule of Tool Use: "If you don't know what you are doing, DON'T."

http://nefirearm.com/
jimbob86 is offline  
Old December 18, 2012, 01:00 PM   #87
Tom Servo
Staff
 
Join Date: September 27, 2008
Location: Foothills of the Appalachians
Posts: 10,618
Quote:
I keep hearing that they want to pass laws and ask for concessions "in the spirit of compromise." So what exactly is it that is being compromised by the other side?
Wait and see. I've spoken to two of my Reps, and they plan on tacking unacceptable amendments on to any bill that might stand a chance.

Want to ban magazines over 10 rounds? OK. Let's cut OSHA's budget in half? What? If you want your ban, each side has to give something!

You want to ban all the rifles on this list? OK. Let's lower the Federal speed limit back to 55. Hey, if it only saves one life. Where are you going?
__________________
Sometimes it’s nice not to destroy the world for a change.
--Randall Munroe
Tom Servo is offline  
Old December 18, 2012, 01:12 PM   #88
Stressfire
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 16, 2011
Location: Ohio
Posts: 1,497
Quote:
Lawdog had an entertaining (yet so very true!) post on "Compromise" and "Sensible Gun Control Restrictions" ....
That is exactly what was rolling around in my head. Couldn't find it readily
__________________
"The best diplomat I know is a fully charged phaser bank" - Montgomery Scott
Stressfire is offline  
Old December 18, 2012, 01:18 PM   #89
DesertFox5768
Member
 
Join Date: February 28, 2002
Posts: 32
Perhaps it's too soon to be saying this, but I'm really looking for a gun rights org or politician to stand up and lead in public against the anti-gun crowd. Perhaps the NRA's apparent strategy of trying to wait the worst anti-gun sentiment out isn't entirely ill-advised, but what about when the next mass shooting comes, or the one after that? For days, the anti-gun side has gotten all of the play, the treacherous, supposedly pro-gun turncoats all of the headlines. The anti-gun crowd is in motion, and I want to see our guys on TV, in the papers, wherever, making our case to the public, convincing those on the fence that the trampling of our liberties won't be tolerated.
DesertFox5768 is offline  
Old December 18, 2012, 01:22 PM   #90
Patriot86
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 23, 2010
Location: Chicagoland
Posts: 1,293
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012...n-sources-say/

NRA is going to start "hitting back" soon.
__________________
"....The swords of others will set you your limits".
Patriot86 is offline  
Old December 18, 2012, 01:26 PM   #91
JimDandy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 8, 2012
Posts: 2,479
I have issues with some of his answers, but overall a decent post.

Accidental discharges can and do happen. Some AR-15's have been known to slam fire. Parts break. Little nubbins that do important things wear down. That's why you use a safety but don't rely on it. The important thing is to use the rules for safe gun handling to make sure it's just a scary second, not a tragedy.

Background checks don't infringe on my rights, and I'm not averse to them.
JimDandy is offline  
Old December 18, 2012, 01:28 PM   #92
Fishing_Cabin
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 10, 2010
Posts: 717
I think there should be a hard definition on what is in "common use" and allow that, which would include standard capacity mags (the designed capicity, not the misnomer the antis put out) and also firearms such as AR's Glocks etc.

Trying to restrict that, would basically put us back to basically traditionally hunting type firearms, and well, I have never seen hunting linked to the second amendment, except by the anti's, since the second amendment deals with defense of oneself, community, and country from my reading of it. If they take away the firearms in common use for defense, its going to be easy to ban the non-protected hunting type firearms.
Fishing_Cabin is offline  
Old December 18, 2012, 01:43 PM   #93
JimDandy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 8, 2012
Posts: 2,479
I'd like to see a revolver enthusiast gather up several speed loaders and make a video showing just how may rounds they can send downrange. Aside from most (if not all, I'm not into them yet maybe) black powder pistols being single action, I imagine they're almost as fast.
JimDandy is offline  
Old December 18, 2012, 01:54 PM   #94
Glenn E. Meyer
Staff
 
Join Date: November 17, 2000
Posts: 15,836
So they will ban speedloaders. I've seen this argument before. See I can shoot my revolver fast - well, then you don't need that.

The average gun fight as only two shots fired. Everything banned but derringers?

Bolt guns will become sniper rifles. Shotguns will fill a room with death. Why do you need to shoot 8 or 9 pellets each equivalent to a 9mm rouind at one time?

Can't you defend your house with rock salt rounds?
__________________
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 December 18, 2012, 02:04 PM   #95
zincwarrior
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 1, 2011
Location: Texas, land of Tex-Mex
Posts: 1,289
I would rather ban high capacity magazines than the weapons themselves.

However, what we will see is a ban on both. California - USA here we come.
zincwarrior is offline  
Old December 18, 2012, 02:28 PM   #96
Kimio
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 2, 2011
Location: Utah
Posts: 925
To quote Lawdog, and I completely agree while chuckling at that.

This pretty much sums it all up IMO.

Quote:
Originally Posted by LawDog
**Anti-gunner: Will you continue a reasonable discussion towards an end that might lead somewhere or is this an exercise in futility?

**LawDog: Since what you consider to be reasonable isn't even in the same plane of reality with what I consider reasonable, probably not.

Allow me to explain.

I hear a lot about "compromise" from your camp ... except, it's not compromise.

Let's say I have this cake. It is a very nice cake, with "GUN RIGHTS" written across the top in lovely floral icing. Along you come and say, "Give me that cake."

I say, "No, it's my cake."

You say, "Let's compromise. Give me half." I respond by asking what I get out of this compromise, and you reply that I get to keep half of my cake.

Okay, we compromise. Let us call this compromise The National Firearms Act of 1934.

There I am with my half of the cake, and you walk back up and say, "Give me that cake."

I say, "No, it's my cake."

You say, "Let's compromise." What do I get out of this compromise? Why, I get to keep half of what's left of the cake I already own.

So, we have your compromise -- let us call this one the Gun Control Act of 1968 -- and I'm left holding what is now just a quarter of my cake.

And I'm sitting in the corner with my quarter piece of cake, and here you come again. You want my cake. Again.

This time you take several bites -- we'll call this compromise the Clinton Executive Orders -- and I'm left with about a tenth of what has always been MY DAMN CAKE and you've got nine-tenths of it.

Then we compromised with the Lautenberg Act (nibble, nibble), the HUD/Smith and Wesson agreement (nibble, nibble), the Brady Law (NOM NOM NOM), the School Safety and Law Enforcement Improvement Act (sweet tap-dancing Freyja, my finger!)

I'm left holding crumbs of what was once a large and satisfying cake, and you're standing there with most of MY CAKE, making anime eyes and whining about being "reasonable", and wondering "why we won't compromise".

I'm done with being reasonable, and I'm done with compromise. Nothing about gun control in this country has ever been "reasonable" nor a genuine "compromise".
Kimio is offline  
Old December 18, 2012, 04:03 PM   #97
JimDandy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 8, 2012
Posts: 2,479
Should blood alchohol tests be required on all ignition systems of motor vehichles?


Should you be required to go to the doctors office or ER to consume any medication from aspirin on up?

Should everyone with a backyard pool be required to hire a full time lifeguard?

Should every family of four be required to undergo cholesterol and blood sugar testing before going to a Red Lobster? And then take along a licensed nutritionist for the trip to advise and consent to their entree choices?

Should we ban the pill because it causes increased Stroke risk?

All of these are much more likely to cause your or my death than a shooting. All of those activities are more relevant to their cause than a hi-cap magazine is on a shooting spree.

Edit: OK maybe not the one about the pill...
JimDandy is offline  
Old December 18, 2012, 04:07 PM   #98
geetarman
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 18, 2009
Location: Arizona
Posts: 2,794
Well, I did go to the LGS to check on mags. There was a pretty good crowd but there was not a run on mags.

I picked up 2 each for an XDM, G21,G30, G17, G19 and SP-01.

I also checked with the guy I bought my safe from on the .223. The guy had one case left. I walked away with 1000 rds for $430. Not a bad deal in this area.

When I bought my safe two weeks ago, he had a couple of pallets of .223 and 9mm. He sold all the 9mm and most of the .223 at the big gun show.

He has more coming but his cost has risen a lot but has not yet doubled.

The storm clouds are brewing and it is going to be a blow.
__________________
Geetarman

Carpe Cerveza
geetarman is offline  
Old December 18, 2012, 04:18 PM   #99
K_Mac
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 15, 2010
Posts: 471
Quote:
If you let "need" be a requirement and Government be the arbiter of that "need", then Liberty is as dead as King Tut.
Jimbo86 that is as good a line as I have read in a long while. Would you mind if I add it to my signature line, citing you as the author of course?
__________________
"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 December 18, 2012, 04:33 PM   #100
nate45
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 15, 2007
Location: Illinois
Posts: 3,746
Quote:
Originally Posted by GEM
So they will ban speedloaders. I've seen this argument before. See I can shoot my revolver fast - well, then you don't need that.

The average gun fight as only two shots fired. Everything banned but derringers?

Bolt guns will become sniper rifles. Shotguns will fill a room with death. Why do you need to shoot 8 or 9 pellets each equivalent to a 9mm rouind at one time?

Can't you defend your house with rock salt rounds?
Read that very carefully, everyone of you. If we compromise on giving up anything, that we still legally own, your favorite part of the firearms world could be next.

Think not? Well, when only hunting rifles are readily available, or only skeet guns, etc, etc and they are used to kill children, shoot up the mall, whatever they will be the next evil instrument of death that needs banning.

Also, take a real close look at the main voices of the anti-gun politicians and major donors. Are we really going to let a tiny minority of millionaires and billionaires, who have 24/7 armed guards, tell us plebs that we don't need weapons?

We the people of the United States, as free citizens, deserve no less, than the current Service Rifles of our Nation as our individual weapons, if we so choose to own one. Sadly we have already largely given up that right, thanks mainly to the Hughes Amendment. Let us not give away what we have now and the gains we have made since the dark days of 1994.
__________________
"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms."- Thomas Jefferson
ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ
(>_<)
nate45 is offline  
Closed Thread

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 01:38 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 0.13058 seconds with 8 queries