The Firing Line Forums

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

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old March 14, 2013, 06:50 PM   #26
Metal god
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 10, 2012
Location: San Diego CA
Posts: 2,031
I'd like to see the complete video of the hearing today . I read that somebody else brought up pornography and how it is not protected by the 1stA . That would seem to blow his ( Cruz ) argument out of the water . When you think about it the constitution is often restricted and curtailed . I bring this up because I think it's how the anti's will try to make there next argument on the floor and especially in the media .
__________________
As of this date 8-18-14 at 6:42am I became a proud grandfather I guess I'm officially old
Metal god is offline  
Old March 14, 2013, 07:13 PM   #27
SPEMack618
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 21, 2010
Location: Central Georgia
Posts: 1,452
Well, Ted Cruz brought up the comparison in accusing Sen. Feinstein of banning some books but allowing others. After some hemming and hawing, Feinstein fired back with "child pornography is illegal."
__________________
NRA Life Member
Big Sister: "You should be sponsored by Allen"
Me: "If you can't shoot good, at least look good walking to the firing line."
Big Sister: "Can you not afford a Pelican? Then buy an Allen gun bag."
SPEMack618 is offline  
Old March 14, 2013, 07:14 PM   #28
JimDandy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 8, 2012
Posts: 2,453
Its on the Senate Judiciary committee webpage. And Pornography is protected. Child Pornography is not. AR-15s are protected as - to quote/paraphrase the Majority opinion- in common use for a lawful purpose. M-16's are not.
JimDandy is offline  
Old March 14, 2013, 07:17 PM   #29
SPEMack618
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 21, 2010
Location: Central Georgia
Posts: 1,452
Miguel over at the GunFreeZone has this video of the sparring again, concerning the books.
__________________
NRA Life Member
Big Sister: "You should be sponsored by Allen"
Me: "If you can't shoot good, at least look good walking to the firing line."
Big Sister: "Can you not afford a Pelican? Then buy an Allen gun bag."
SPEMack618 is offline  
Old March 14, 2013, 07:18 PM   #30
scrubcedar
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 3, 2012
Location: Southwestern Colorado
Posts: 478
I would absolutely love to get large numbers of our opponents on record comparing us with child pornographers. It would be very clearly stepping over the line and would do them a great deal more harm than good.
__________________
Gaily bedight, A gallant knight In sunshine and in shadow, Had journeyed long, Singing a song, In search of El Dorado
scrubcedar is offline  
Old March 14, 2013, 07:32 PM   #31
Metal god
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 10, 2012
Location: San Diego CA
Posts: 2,031
Quote:
I would absolutely love to get large numbers of our opponents on record comparing us with child pornographers. It would be very clearly stepping over the line and would do them a great deal more harm than good.
I agree but my point is , I'm sure if you look hard enough you will find all kinds of constitutional restrictions that are law . The anti's will bring each and everyone of them up as to show not only has the constitution been restricted but the courts have upheld those restrictions . Therefore restricting the 2nd a little more is not that big a deal .
__________________
As of this date 8-18-14 at 6:42am I became a proud grandfather I guess I'm officially old
Metal god is offline  
Old March 14, 2013, 08:08 PM   #32
scrubcedar
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 3, 2012
Location: Southwestern Colorado
Posts: 478
Metal, you are entirely, even technically (which is more difficult) correct. I think we've all seen that being right hasn't meant a thing in this debate. If we could fire up gun owners because they were being labeled this way that could make a huge difference. The emotion working for us instead of against us. Think of the NRA ad's alone.
__________________
Gaily bedight, A gallant knight In sunshine and in shadow, Had journeyed long, Singing a song, In search of El Dorado
scrubcedar is offline  
Old March 14, 2013, 08:30 PM   #33
USCS
Member
 
Join Date: September 9, 2009
Posts: 60
While Sen. Cruz did indeed make Sen. Feinstein look like a fool (imploding bullets, indeed). She's a fool who got her reprehensible bill to the floor of the Senate. If she becomes the fool who gets a permanent AWB passed who will be laughing then?
USCS is offline  
Old March 14, 2013, 08:33 PM   #34
Jo6pak
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 5, 2010
Location: West Coast...of WI
Posts: 1,497
Just sent another round of Emails to my reps. I will be making phone calls tomorrow.

I hope this is not the only place that we are discussing this
__________________
NRA Life Member, SAF contributor.
Jo6pak is offline  
Old March 14, 2013, 08:35 PM   #35
SPEMack618
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 21, 2010
Location: Central Georgia
Posts: 1,452
Well, considering Sen. Feinstein had a 10-8 party advantage, I applaud Sen. Cruz for pointing out the idiocicy of this legislation.

Not much else the man could do. 10 is always better than 8, unless your counting strokes.
__________________
NRA Life Member
Big Sister: "You should be sponsored by Allen"
Me: "If you can't shoot good, at least look good walking to the firing line."
Big Sister: "Can you not afford a Pelican? Then buy an Allen gun bag."
SPEMack618 is offline  
Old March 14, 2013, 10:23 PM   #36
breakingcontact
Junior member
 
Join Date: October 25, 2012
Location: Austin, TX
Posts: 736
Quote:
I don't know too much about Sen. Ted Cruz, but it appears he, and others like Rand Paul, are really starting to shake Congress up. It will be interesting to see what happens with them in the near future.
Proud of them and Gov Perry.
breakingcontact is offline  
Old March 14, 2013, 10:28 PM   #37
Tom Servo
Staff
 
Join Date: September 27, 2008
Location: Foothills of the Appalachians
Posts: 10,403
Quote:
She's a fool who got her reprehensible bill to the floor of the Senate.
As she said in response to Cruz, she's been around a long time. They can't just ignore her. So, they let her bill go before the Senate for a vote.

I'm glad she didn't write a more modest or moderate bill; the extremity of this one will be what kills it in short order.
__________________
Sometimes it’s nice not to destroy the world for a change.
--Randall Munroe
Tom Servo is offline  
Old March 14, 2013, 11:03 PM   #38
Texshooter
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 17, 2006
Posts: 261
Not sure why he did not retort to her by asking, "so are you saying people can go into a gun store and buy a bazooka?"
Texshooter is offline  
Old March 15, 2013, 02:24 PM   #39
KyJim
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 26, 2005
Location: The Bluegrass
Posts: 7,673
I just watched the Cruz/Feinstein exchange. Okay, I know there are no "imploding bullets" in use but she also refers to child victims at Sandy Hook being "dismembered." How the heck did she get there? Was there any freak "dismemberment" of even a pinky to justify this claim?
__________________
Jim's Rules of Carry: 1. Any gun is better than no gun. 2. A gun that is reliable is better than a gun that is not. 3. A hole in the right place is better than a hole in the wrong place. 4. A bigger hole is a better hole.
KyJim is offline  
Old March 15, 2013, 02:29 PM   #40
Metal god
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 10, 2012
Location: San Diego CA
Posts: 2,031
Quote:
How the heck did she get there? Was there any freak "dismemberment" of even a pinky to justify this claim?
short answer YES . I hear the crime Seine photos of the sany hook shooting are quite disturbing .
__________________
As of this date 8-18-14 at 6:42am I became a proud grandfather I guess I'm officially old

Last edited by Metal god; March 15, 2013 at 02:47 PM.
Metal god is offline  
Old March 15, 2013, 02:30 PM   #41
Spats McGee
Staff
 
Join Date: July 28, 2010
Location: Arkansas
Posts: 5,127
I, for one, was intrigued by her statements: "I was there. I saw people shot." From my research, it appears that she saw: (1) her husband get shot; and (2) Harvey Milk get shot. Further, from what I can gather, both of them were shot with pistols. Now, I don't recall what kind of pistol was used in the murder of her husband (& I don't want to belittle that event in any way), but Harvey Milk was shot with a revolver as far as I can tell.

So what we're left with is a woman who saw two people shot with handguns, and uses that as an excuse to attempt to ban semi-automatic rifles. . .
__________________
A gunfight is not the time to learn new skills.

If you ever have a real need for more than a couple of magazines, your problem is not a shortage of magazines. It's a shortage of people on your side of the argument. -- Art Eatman
Spats McGee is offline  
Old March 15, 2013, 10:10 PM   #42
Tom Servo
Staff
 
Join Date: September 27, 2008
Location: Foothills of the Appalachians
Posts: 10,403
Quote:
So what we're left with is a woman who saw two people shot with handguns, and uses that as an excuse to attempt to ban semi-automatic rifles.
Yes. It's the same mindset that says, "the background check system is broken and unenforced, so we need to extend it to everyone."

It's worth mentioning that the big push until the late 1980's was the banning of handguns. Hence Handgun Control International (the Bradys' original name) and the Coalition to Ban Handguns (now the CSGV).

That movement ran out of steam and support, so inspired by the 1989 Stockton shooting, a new category of "assault weapons" was made up out of whole cloth, and the focus was deliberately switched to that.
__________________
Sometimes it’s nice not to destroy the world for a change.
--Randall Munroe
Tom Servo is offline  
Old March 16, 2013, 03:27 PM   #43
mack59
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 14, 2004
Posts: 409
The analogy between banning child pornography and so called Assault Weapons is flawed and not commensurate. In general pornography is mostly legal in this country, certainly at the federal level. Child pornography is illegal because it involves the sexual exploitation and abuse of a minor. Written depictions of child pornography are not illegal because they don't involve real children, just as pornographic movies portraying children or minors where there are adult actors and no children involved are not banned as child pornography.

The principle reason for bans on child pornography is the harm done to children.

So called Assault Weapons are functionally no different than many other rifles and pistols. Their existence or possession by an individual does not by itself injure anyone. They are tools that may be used for either good or bad purposes depending on the user.

A more apt analogy would be not to pornography but to books on chemistry or electronics that could be used for good or ill like making bombs and detonators.

I doubt baring another tragedy, that the Assault weapons and magazine bans can pass. I doubt the background check and ban on private sales with registration can pass. I think the bill on illegal trafficking might pass in a diluted form. I think money for making schools safer will pass.
mack59 is offline  
Old March 16, 2013, 07:42 PM   #44
Venom1956
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 4, 2008
Location: WI
Posts: 3,027
Win!

I love his face just calm and cool

She gets all angry and animated...
__________________
E-Shock rounds are engineered to expend maximum energy into soft targets, turning the density mass into an expanding rotational cone of NyTrilium matrix particles, causing neurological collapse to the central nervous system.- Yeah I can do that.
I guarantee you will know it if a bicyclist hits your house going 1000 mph.
Venom1956 is offline  
Old March 17, 2013, 04:09 PM   #45
USAFNoDak
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 21, 2000
Location: Minnesota, Twin Cities
Posts: 1,043
so let's say I loan a friend, in my same state, a firearm for two weeks and the firearm never leaves my home state. How does the federal government claim the authority (power) to regulate that activity? It certainly shouldn't be under the authority within the interstate commerce clause. For one thing, no commerce is being conducted. For another thing, the action does not cross state lines. If they are talking about restricting a loan to a friend in another state, they would probably have more standing to invoke the authority under the commerce clause, however, no commerce is being conducted. They are good at twisting things to fit into the commerce clause. They'd probably claim that the loan means one party won't have to purchase a firearm and this then affects commercial firearm sales. Since firearms move in interstate commerce, the loan of a firearm affects interstate commerce.
__________________
"If you love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, go home from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains set lightly upon you and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen." Samuel Adams.
USAFNoDak is offline  
Old March 17, 2013, 04:25 PM   #46
JimDandy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 8, 2012
Posts: 2,453
The interstate commerce clause is practically a rubber stamp. And AFFECTING interstate commerce at some point past, present, or future is all that is required. If the firearm was assembled in whole or in part in another state.. if it means you or your friend bought some ammo manufactured in another state.. a cleaning kit, a bottle of CLP that was shipped by UPS, supporting a corporation that makes its money in interstate trade... Hell, they can say it makes interstate trade safer/more dangerous with more armed individuals out there on the road.

Interstate Trade is how a racist motel was forced into a non-segregation/discrimination policy during the 60's. I forget the name of the case, tho the lawyers in here probably remember it from school. Because the motel/hotel was right next to a freeway exit, it stands to reason they had a lot of out of state customers... ergo Congress could tell the guy how to run his business.
JimDandy is offline  
Old March 17, 2013, 04:25 PM   #47
JRH6856
Member
 
Join Date: February 27, 2013
Location: DFW area
Posts: 94
Quote:
so let's say I loan a friend, in my same state, a firearm for two weeks and the firearm never leaves my home state. How does the federal government claim the authority (power) to regulate that activity? It's certainly shouldn't be under the authority within the interstate commerce clause. For one thing, no commerce is being conducted. For another thing, the action does not cross state lines.
If the firearm has ever been involved in interstate commerce (i.e. was manufactured in another state or the initial retailer purchased it from a distributor in another state) then Congress claims the authority to regulate that firearm and all subsequent transactions involving that firearm regardless of the interstate status of those transactions. It seems that Congress further assumes that all firearms transactions involving parites engaged in interstate commerce, affect and/or are affected by interstate commerce and so are subject to regulation. So the burden falls upon the owner to prove that the firearm in question has never been involved in interstate commerce or bought or sold by anyone engaged in interstate commerce.
__________________
NRA Life Member
All calibers equalize, some calibers equalize more than others.
JRH6856 is offline  
Old March 17, 2013, 05:04 PM   #48
thallub
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 20, 2007
Location: South Western OK
Posts: 2,112
Yep, Feinstein will get her up or down vote. Pro-gun voters will have the opportunity to give a thumbs down to anti-gun senators running for re-election in 2014.
thallub is offline  
Old March 17, 2013, 07:14 PM   #49
JRH6856
Member
 
Join Date: February 27, 2013
Location: DFW area
Posts: 94
Quote:
Yep, Feinstein will get her up or down vote.
Actually, she might not. From what I've read in several sources, the AWB is likely to go to the floor as an amendment to a general bill. The Republicans will filibuster the amendment, if not the general bill, which will require a highly unlikely 60% majority for cloture.
__________________
NRA Life Member
All calibers equalize, some calibers equalize more than others.
JRH6856 is offline  
Old March 17, 2013, 11:42 PM   #50
Bartholomew Roberts
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 12, 2000
Location: Texas and Oklahoma area
Posts: 5,690
If they do the amendment to a general bill thing, then this is all kabuki theater to help pro-gun Dems in 2014. By my rough count, it is questionable if they 50 votes, so 60 is a no-go.

Senator Reid did not get to where he is by not knowing how to count votes ahead of time. Offering up the AWB as an amendment subject to a cloture vote means many vulnerable 2014 Senators go on record for a bill that won't even make it out of the Senate, let alone the House. I can't imagine how that is going to help the Senate Dems; though it explains why even guys like Mark Pryor who supported the AWB renewal in 2004 are now voting no.
Bartholomew Roberts 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 11:49 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 0.12494 seconds with 7 queries