James Yeager of TacticalResponse threatens to "start killing people"

[Cheech]

How is a nation going to defend itself from a corrupt government if the government and bad guys are the only ones with guns?

I also hear this a lot, especially from self-professed "American Patriots". My answer is simple; you should ask the people of Egypt, Libya, and Tunisia how they executed a actual overthrow of their government, all under a much stringent measure of gun control than we have in the US (Egypt, for example: no long guns, compulsory registration, must re-register every 3 years). Even with all this, they still managed to peacefully (for the most part) gather, voice their grievances, "petition for redress" if you want to get all Constitutional about it, and get a complete revolution. Not the metaphorical "revolution" that I hear all the time from the aforementioned "Patriots".

Again, you're building a strawman argument. At no point, EVER, did I say we should completely take all guns away from legal, responsible owners. Hell, I never even said we should take the possible banned weapons away from those that already bought them (Section 9, Article 1). So no, the "government and bad guys" wouldn't be the only ones with guns.

[crb]

"A free people ought not only to be armed and disciplined, but they should have sufficient arms and ammunition to maintain a status of independence from any who might attempt to abuse them, which would include their own government."

- George Washington

"Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."

- Benjamin Franklin

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms."

- Thomas Jefferson

"I prefer dangerous freedom over peaceful slavery."

- Thomas Jefferson

"The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes.... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man."

- Thomas Jefferson (quoting 18th century criminologist Cesare Beccaria)

"To disarm the people is the most effectual way to enslave them."

- George Mason

"Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed, as they are in almost every country in Europe."

- Noah Webster

"The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops."

- Noah Webster

"A government resting on the minority is an aristocracy, not a Republic, and could not be safe with a numerical and physical force against it, without a standing army, an enslaved press and a disarmed populace."

- James Madison

"Americans have the right and advantage of being armed, unlike the people of other countries, whose leaders are afraid to trust them with arms."

- James Madison

Sums up my thoughts. I'm with the founders!

[jbot]

I don't have any fantasies about armed revolution, but why would you want to be put at even more of a disadvantage than we already are? Just because the populace is armed, doesn't mean peaceful revolution is not possible... it merely gives the populace options.

[Cheech]

Sums up my thoughts. I'm with the founders!

Nice to see you're doing original thinking on this.

[crb]

I don't have any fantasies about armed revolution, but why would you want to be put at even more of a disadvantage than we already are? Just because the populace is armed, doesn't mean peaceful revolution is not possible... it merely gives the populace options.

Cant rep you again. I agree. I bought my first firearm as a self defense tool. I bought additional firearms for sport shooting. Then I lost them all while fishing. While I dont want to see a non peaceful revolution, I understand why the 2nd amendment was included. Also michael moore I don't see black people robbing me or breaking into my home in my dreams sorry. If cheech or anybody else doesn't want to own firearms I respect their right to not own them.

[crb]

Edited January 12, 2013 by crb

[Cheech]

Cant rep you again. I agree. I bought my first firearm as a self defense tool. I bought additional firearms for sport shooting. Then I lost them all while fishing. While I dont want to see a non peaceful revolution, I understand why the 2nd amendment was included. Also michael moore I don't see black people robbing me or breaking into my home in my dreams sorry. If cheech or anybody else doesn't want to own firearms I respect their right to not own them.

Joke's on you, bub: I own several. Been whittling the list down as of late, now it's just down to a 870 Police Mag 7+1 for home defense, and a Mosin 91/30 that's for just fuckin' around, and i enjoy owning a little piece of history. Want to buy a pistol at some point, but can't bring myself to pull the trigger as I have more pressing things to spend money on.

[cOoTeR]

I also hear this a lot, especially from self-professed "American Patriots". My answer is simple; you should ask the people of Egypt, Libya, and Tunisia how they executed a actual overthrow of their government, all under a much stringent measure of gun control than we have in the US (Egypt, for example: no long guns, compulsory registration, must re-register every 3 years). Even with all this, they still managed to peacefully (for the most part) gather, voice their grievances, "petition for redress" if you want to get all Constitutional about it, and get a complete revolution. Not the metaphorical "revolution" that I hear all the time from the aforementioned "Patriots".

Again, you're building a strawman argument. At no point, EVER, did I say we should completely take all guns away from legal, responsible owners. Hell, I never even said we should take the possible banned weapons away from those that already bought them (Section 9, Article 1). So no, the "government and bad guys" wouldn't be the only ones with guns.

I never said anything about overthrowing our government just pointed out that I believe the people of Mexico would have had a better chance of fighting the corrupt government and cartels if they had more guns. I don't really see what your point is at all. You said that Mexico was a bad example of how less guns is a bad thing. It is proof that limiting the rights of what people can own as far as guns is not a good thing.

There is no proof that a ban will reduce violence. All the ban will do is prevent people from being able to purchase equal fire power to protect themselves from bad people who will get the weapons even if it is illegal. All of this talk about bans is just an attack on guns and rights. People do bad stuff why should I have to be punished for the actions of others? People are going to kill people using whatever they can get their hands on. I feel that citizens of the united states should have the means to defend themselves from these people. The only time I would be comfortable with getting rid of my guns is if I knew 100% for sure no one else had one. But you can build a "gun" using 2 pieces of pipe an end cap and a screw. Reducing magazines size will only slow people down for a second or two. This would only make a difference in a shoot out situation. Wouldn't you want the good people to have the same equipment as the bad guys in a shoot out?

[C-bus]

I think we're all losing sight of the Zombie problem.

[Cheech]

I never said anything about overthrowing our government just pointed out that I believe the people of Mexico would have had a better chance of fighting the corrupt government and cartels if they had more guns. I don't really see what your point is at all. You said that Mexico was a bad example of how less guns is a bad thing. It is proof that limiting the rights of what people can own as far as guns is not a good thing.

There is no proof that a ban will reduce violence. All the ban will do is prevent people from being able to purchase equal fire power to protect themselves from bad people who will get the weapons even if it is illegal. All of this talk about bans is just an attack on guns and rights. People do bad stuff why should I have to be punished for the actions of others? People are going to kill people using whatever they can get their hands on. I feel that citizens of the united states should have the means to defend themselves from these people. The only time I would be comfortable with getting rid of my guns is if I knew 100% for sure no one else had one. But you can build a "gun" using 2 pieces of pipe an end cap and a screw. Reducing magazines size will only slow people down for a second or two. This would only make a difference in a shoot out situation. Wouldn't you want the good people to have the same equipment as the bad guys in a shoot out?

My original point was referring to the US, not Mexico. That statement was something that's been made NUMEROUS times in this thread and others, and I welcome you to refute those arguments as they pertain to the US. My apologies if I took your quote out of context.

That being said, let's talk Mexico. The reasons Mexicans don't "fight their government" are roughly the same as the reasons why Americans don't do the same, even though, as you point out, we are much better/heavily armed per capita than our Mexican counterpart. We/They don't do for a variety of reasons, but the notable ones are complacency (Mexicans, for the most part, are largely happy and don't want to see massive bloody upheaval, we are that taken to a completely higher level), and the understanding that your potential adversary is much more heavily armed than you will ever hope to be to secure victory. When the local police station is packing 25 fully-auto M4's, and you have a good idea that the cruiser next you probably has a full-auto weapon in the trunk, with 20 more of those just a radio call away along with a APC, helicopter air support, and whatever other toys the Army supplied them with, do you really think that your clutched tacticool AR-15 in one hand and well-worn copy of Red Dawn in the other stands a chance? To quote one of my favorite shows: "When you play the Game of Thrones, you either win, or you die." Mexicans understand this as well, even more so that the Army does not have the same Posse Comitatus provision that the US Armed Forces do, so they are allowed to deploy on their own citizens. The cartels have capitalized on this to create a separate faction, instead of the Government being the 800lb gorilla, the cartels are the 500lb gorilla that's 10x as aggressive as the larger beast, and doesn't play by any of the same rules which makes him a order of magnitude more dangerous, which pacifies the population even more. It's a feedback loop, and even though more firepower in the hands of the populace could possibly break that loop, I'm willing to bet that the populace isn't willing to reach the levels of open violence and bloodshed to find that out.

As for your last point, I wish I still had my Logic textbooks to point out all the fallacies in that paragraph, but I will just say this for the umpteenth and I hope this is clear enough; I do NOT advocate for the removal, forced or otherwise, of any and all gun or gun-like weapons you are currently possessing. I don't even advocate for removal, forced or otherwise, of any firearm you are currently possessing that would be covered under the scope of any AWB that would be passed, to do so would be a violation of Article 1, Section 9, line 3 of the Constitution. (Seriously, you should read it, especially the part about ex post facto laws) Since guns would still be available, you won't have to worry about someone making a zipgun out of PVC, or feeling anxious in a dark parking lot without your carry weapon.

[crb]

Anybody catch that Ohio state game? What a game!

[Pokey]

Anybody catch that Ohio state game? What a game!

Michigan can't beat us in roundball either.

[crb]

Michigan can't beat us in roundball either.

Lol I was just changing topics I don't watch sports. Zombies should be running scared with all the ammo sold lately.

[cOoTeR]

My original point was referring to the US, not Mexico. That statement was something that's been made NUMEROUS times in this thread and others, and I welcome you to refute those arguments as they pertain to the US. My apologies if I took your quote out of context.

That being said, let's talk Mexico. The reasons Mexicans don't "fight their government" are roughly the same as the reasons why Americans don't do the same, even though, as you point out, we are much better/heavily armed per capita than our Mexican counterpart. We/They don't do for a variety of reasons, but the notable ones are complacency (Mexicans, for the most part, are largely happy and don't want to see massive bloody upheaval, we are that taken to a completely higher level), and the understanding that your potential adversary is much more heavily armed than you will ever hope to be to secure victory. When the local police station is packing 25 fully-auto M4's, and you have a good idea that the cruiser next you probably has a full-auto weapon in the trunk, with 20 more of those just a radio call away along with a APC, helicopter air support, and whatever other toys the Army supplied them with, do you really think that your clutched tacticool AR-15 in one hand and well-worn copy of Red Dawn in the other stands a chance? To quote one of my favorite shows: "When you play the Game of Thrones, you either win, or you die." Mexicans understand this as well, even more so that the Army does not have the same Posse Comitatus provision that the US Armed Forces do, so they are allowed to deploy on their own citizens. The cartels have capitalized on this to create a separate faction, instead of the Government being the 800lb gorilla, the cartels are the 500lb gorilla that's 10x as aggressive as the larger beast, and doesn't play by any of the same rules which makes him a order of magnitude more dangerous, which pacifies the population even more. It's a feedback loop, and even though more firepower in the hands of the populace could possibly break that loop, I'm willing to bet that the populace isn't willing to reach the levels of open violence and bloodshed to find that out.

As for your last point, I wish I still had my Logic textbooks to point out all the fallacies in that paragraph, but I will just say this for the umpteenth and I hope this is clear enough; I do NOT advocate for the removal, forced or otherwise, of any and all gun or gun-like weapons you are currently possessing. I don't even advocate for removal, forced or otherwise, of any firearm you are currently possessing that would be covered under the scope of any AWB that would be passed, to do so would be a violation of Article 1, Section 9, line 3 of the Constitution. (Seriously, you should read it, especially the part about ex post facto laws) Since guns would still be available, you won't have to worry about someone making a zipgun out of PVC, or feeling anxious in a dark parking lot without your carry weapon.

I agree the nations people will not spark the fight. But if the government gets too big with gun control it will spark a bad fight. The big issue with this is how many cops, military etc. are going to fight the American people over a law that is contrary to the Constitution that they've sworn to protect? Too many people have died in the line of duty for any military or law enforcement personnel to just shit on everything this country was founded on. So IF you did pick up arms to fight not just our government but possibly an invading army the cop with the full auto M4 and his buddies will probably be right beside you.

My point is just strengthened by your comment about the cops having superior fire power being a deterrent. Once again my original point was that stricter gun laws do not make a place any safer. Chicago and Mexico are both strict gun law areas and both are very violent. Reducing magazine size (which is what your calling for right?) Has no real benefit. The shooters keep shooting until opposition arrives and puts them down. If everyone has equal firepower it will help keep the peace.

[Cheech]

I agree the nations people will not spark the fight. But if the government gets too big with gun control it will spark a bad fight. The big issue with this is how many cops, military etc. are going to fight the American people over a law that is contrary to the Constitution that they've sworn to protect? Too many people have died in the line of duty for any military or law enforcement personnel to just shit on everything this country was founded on. So IF you did pick up arms to fight not just our government but possibly an invading army the cop with the full auto M4 and his buddies will probably be right beside you.

This is why people like me hate discussing this, because you constantly base the discussion on completely false "facts". A AWB isn't unconstitutional, if was there were 10 years where someone could have challenged it's constitutionality in court. Once again, YOUR FREEDOM TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS IS NOT BEING INFRINGED. Period. You have guns? Keep them. You have guns that are about to be more tightly regulated? Keep those too. You want to buy a gun that's not a part of the AWB after it's passed? Fine, as long as you jump through whatever regulatory hoops there are after it's passing.

YOU CAN STILL BUY GUNS. YOU CAN STILL KEEP GUNS. YOU CAN STILL SHOOT GUNS. YOU CAN STILL HAVE A CCW THAT YOU OBTAINED PRE-AWB. YOU CAN STILL OBTAIN A NEW CCW AFTER THE BAN GOES INTO EFFECT.

Seriously, how hard is this to understand?

As for the police/military, I'm not taking that bait other than to say that they follow orders. Your argument is purely hypothetical, and the assumptions you make that the police will immediately jump ship and join the side of the "protestors" has no basis in any recent American history. Unless you got something to back that up where a police force of any stripe disobeyed orders en masse in the face of a protest, I'm calling bullshit. By the way, nice strawman you have there with inserting the "invading army" thing.

My point is just strengthened by your comment about the cops having superior fire power being a deterrent. Once again my original point was that stricter gun laws do not make a place any safer. Chicago and Mexico are both strict gun law areas and both are very violent. Reducing magazine size (which is what your calling for right?) Has no real benefit. The shooters keep shooting until opposition arrives and puts them down. If everyone has equal firepower it will help keep the peace.

Go back and re-read my argument. EVERYONE DOESN'T HAVE EQUAL FIREPOWER. Not in Mexico, not in Chicago, not in Ohio, and not anywhere else in the US. Police departments have easy access to full-auto rifles, not to mention surplus gear direct from the DoD, for free even. Do you have a APC? Do you have access to a LAW to attempt to penetrate the armor of a APC, thereby evening the odds? No, you don't. You also don't have easy access to full-auto weapons, unless they were made prior to 1986 and even then they're a little cost prohibitive. Just because you can tacticool out your AR15 to look like a SWAT rifle, doesn't make it on par with one.

My point is simple, instead of trotting out the nirvana fallacy, there is headway to be made. You can start with drum magazines. In the event of a mass casualty situation, would I want someone that has a round capacity of 80 or a round capacity of 10? This would cause him to carry less ammo, and therefore inflict less casualties, even more so when he tries to reload, that could possibly create the opportunity for someone to pounce on him and stop the incident (see Giffords shooting) You can hit me with retrospective determinism (found my Logic textbook), or my favorite red herring of "well, I can reload in 1.5s, that's not enough time to do anything!", but out of all the mass shootings in the US in recent times, the VAST majority were from people with no formal firearms training.

[mango_sv]

I think we're all losing sight of the Zombie problem.

+Rep to you sir

[8mmDale]

Assault weapon bans are unconstitutional since the Supreme Court ruled you cant ban a class of fire arms. Infringed is a pretty broad term, but not to difficult to understand.

[8mmDale]

, but out of all the mass shootings in the US in recent times, the VAST majority were from people with no formal firearms training.

Who killed themselves at the first sign of armed resistance.

Your arguments are absurd. Tell the Taliban, al Qaeda, Syrian rebels and Libyan rebels they have no chance against a vastly superior government. I guess that's why we so easily cleaned up in Iraq and Afghanistan. Because guys with 40 year old rifles and home made bombs have no chance against tanks and planes.

[cOoTeR]

This is why people like me hate discussing this, because you constantly base the discussion on completely false "facts". A AWB isn't unconstitutional, if was there were 10 years where someone could have challenged it's constitutionality in court. Once again, YOUR FREEDOM TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS IS NOT BEING INFRINGED. Period. You have guns? Keep them. You have guns that are about to be more tightly regulated? Keep those too. You want to buy a gun that's not a part of the AWB after it's passed? Fine, as long as you jump through whatever regulatory hoops there are after it's passing.

YOU CAN STILL BUY GUNS. YOU CAN STILL KEEP GUNS. YOU CAN STILL SHOOT GUNS. YOU CAN STILL HAVE A CCW THAT YOU OBTAINED PRE-AWB. YOU CAN STILL OBTAIN A NEW CCW AFTER THE BAN GOES INTO EFFECT.

Seriously, how hard is this to understand?

As for the police/military, I'm not taking that bait other than to say that they follow orders. Your argument is purely hypothetical, and the assumptions you make that the police will immediately jump ship and join the side of the "protestors" has no basis in any recent American history. Unless you got something to back that up where a police force of any stripe disobeyed orders en masse in the face of a protest, I'm calling bullshit. By the way, nice strawman you have there with inserting the "invading army" thing.

Go back and re-read my argument. EVERYONE DOESN'T HAVE EQUAL FIREPOWER. Not in Mexico, not in Chicago, not in Ohio, and not anywhere else in the US. Police departments have easy access to full-auto rifles, not to mention surplus gear direct from the DoD, for free even. Do you have a APC? Do you have access to a LAW to attempt to penetrate the armor of a APC, thereby evening the odds? No, you don't. You also don't have easy access to full-auto weapons, unless they were made prior to 1986 and even then they're a little cost prohibitive. Just because you can tacticool out your AR15 to look like a SWAT rifle, doesn't make it on par with one.

My point is simple, instead of trotting out the nirvana fallacy, there is headway to be made. You can start with drum magazines. In the event of a mass casualty situation, would I want someone that has a round capacity of 80 or a round capacity of 10? This would cause him to carry less ammo, and therefore inflict less casualties, even more so when he tries to reload, that could possibly create the opportunity for someone to pounce on him and stop the incident (see Giffords shooting) You can hit me with retrospective determinism (found my Logic textbook), or my favorite red herring of "well, I can reload in 1.5s, that's not enough time to do anything!", but out of all the mass shootings in the US in recent times, the VAST majority were from people with no formal firearms training.

What benefit did the ban have for columbine? Absolutely none. What benefit does the firearms ban have in Mexico? Absolutely none. What benefit do the strict gun laws have in Chicago? Absolutely none? That's all the proof I need that any type of firearms ban is ineffectiveand pointless. Why should I or any other person have to pay extra and jump through hoops because some crazy person does some dumb shit? Should every motorcycle rider have to pay a portion of a speeding ticket because some squid got caught speeding? The hoops you've got to go through to a full auto now would most likely be the same that they would use on a future ban. Such as a super high tax. Not to mention the one that is the most bullshit of giving up your 4th amendment right and giving the ATF the ability to enter your house at any time for inspections. So its not as simple as some extra paperwork and a couple extra bucks to own these restricted weapons like it is to get a ccw.

So having less rounds limits how many people you can kill? A pair of cargo pants and a jacket can old a lot of magazines even if they are 10 round capacity. I can carry several 30 round magazines without a back pack or tying up my hands. How would a person carry an extra drum magazines without a back pack? Basically I could carry the same amount of rounds if I wanted to I would just need to reload more. The shooting continues until someone shows up and confronts the shooter. How many rounds were actually fired in these mass shootings anyways? My point being 10 10 round mags can easily be carried and kill around 40 or more people in a crowded area.

Your argument about reloading being the great savior is total crap. If it takes a person longer than two seconds to reload then they probably don't have the mental capabilities to operate a weapon.

A better solution is prevention. Such as better mental health checks. Hell I would even say it is ok to have to take a 1 time firearms course including the standard background check before being able to purchase a gun similar to the hunter safety courses. As long as the price was minimal, just enough to cover the cost of classes. Maybe even a psych evaluation with minimal cost. Pass that then you receive a permit to purchase firearms. We need to bring back the mental institutions and have help for those that need it. Instead of putting the burden of taking care of people with mental illness on their families and the legal system when the family fails. Do away with gun free zones. The same as you mentioned earlier about cops having M4s being a deterrent, if every person could possibly be armed it would make shooters think twice about shooting the place up. If people were able to be armed in these places you wouldn't need to wait for the shooter to reload and hope you can get to him while he's reloading if he can be shot from a distance.

A weapons ban will affect me and my family. Say I teach my son to shoot using my AR-10 when he gets old enough if he wants to get one it'll cost him a lot more for the taxes to get the same weapon.

Your quick to point out my reasons as being hypothetical but the thought of a weapons ban doing any good is hypothetical. It may reduce gun violence but that will only be replaced with violence using another tool.

Edited January 14, 2013 by cOoTeR

[cOoTeR]

" Go back and re-read my argument. EVERYONE DOESN'T HAVE EQUAL FIREPOWER. Not in Mexico, not in Chicago, not in Ohio, and not anywhere else in the US. Police departments have easy access to full-auto rifles, not to mention surplus gear direct from the DoD, for free even. Do you have a APC? Do you have access to a LAW to attempt to penetrate the armor of a APC, thereby evening the odds? No, you don't. You also don't have easy access to full-auto weapons, unless they were made prior to 1986 and even then they're a little cost prohibitive. Just because you can tacticool out your AR15 to look like a SWAT rifle, doesn't make it on par with one."

No not everyone has equal fire power all the more reason to not restrict what I can have or any other law abiding citizen.

Actually I think I know a little more about the law enforcement aspect than you do. I actually do that stuff its not something I read in a book. I have quick access to a full auto M4A1 so you are wrong there. I have talked with several ATF agents recently and they are also against a weapons ban because they too know it will stir the pot and piss off the real gun nuts like the guy in the video. Especially if its done by way of an executive order. I know that a gun in the hands of a good person is not bad at all. The large majority of who I work with are of the mindset that (as I originally said) if the government gets to big with its gun control laws (not just a magazine restriction) they would not give up theirs or take other peoples guns. When I made the comment about them fighting right beside someone, that was referring to your statement that no one will ever do anything as far as picking up arms because police have full auto. If it got bad enough that people were picking up arms many police and military would also take up arms right beside them. Need an example how about the Revolutionary or Civil wars? Both were sparked out of oppression from the government. Police and military choose sides. If you think the military has the fire power to easily fight rebel groups how do you explain why there are still enemies attacking our troops in Afganistan and Iraq? It's because the military can't see off hand who is friend or foe same as here if it got that bad.

Edited January 14, 2013 by cOoTeR

[Cheech]

Who killed themselves at the first sign of armed resistance.

Your arguments are absurd. Tell the Taliban, al Qaeda, Syrian rebels and Libyan rebels they have no chance against a vastly superior government. I guess that's why we so easily cleaned up in Iraq and Afghanistan. Because guys with 40 year old rifles and home made bombs have no chance against tanks and planes.

Thanks for proving my point, that "equal firepower" isn't necessary to effect change if the populace is willing to make the sacrifice in violence.

[Scruit]

The supreme court recently ruled (in DC v Heller) that "banning a class of firearms that is overwhelmingly chosen for legal purposes does not pass constitutional muster" An AWB would be covered by the same ruling.

In Heller, the U.S. Supreme Court answered a long-standing constitutional question about whether the right to “keep and bear arms” is an individual right unconnected to service in the militia or a collective right that applies only to state-regulated militias.

By a five to four margin, the Court held that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess firearms for lawful use, such as self-defense, in the home (emphasis ours). Accordingly, it struck down as unconstitutional provisions of a D.C. law that (1) effectively banned possession of handguns by non law enforcement officials and (2) required lawfully owned firearms to be kept unloaded, disassembled, or locked when not located at a business place or being used for lawful recreational activities.

According to the Court, the ban on handgun possession in the home amounted to a prohibition on an entire class of 'arms' that Americans overwhelmingly choose for the lawful purpose of self-defense. Similarly, the requirement that any firearm in a home be disassembled or locked made “it impossible for citizens to use arms for the core lawful purpose of self-defense.” These laws were unconstitutional “under any of the standards of scrutiny the Court has applied to enumerated constitutional rights.” But the Court did not cite a specific standard in making its determination, and it rejected the interest-balancing standard; proposed by Justice Breyer, and a “rational basis” standard.

Edited January 14, 2013 by Scruit

[crb]

The supreme court recently ruled (in DC v Heller) that "banning a class of firearms that is overwhelmingly chosen for legal purposes doe snot pass constitutional muster"

We will just over rule that via executive order.

[Scruit]

We will just over rule that via executive order.

Have you seen the EOs they are proposing? It's all funding related. POTUS cannot create law through an EO, only clarify laws.

- Fully fund the prosecutions of people who lie on the NICS form (only 77 of the 70k people caught filing fradulent NICS forms have been prosecuted due to funding)

- Fully fund the NICS database and how it gets data from individual state databases. The system had funding allocated but they only actually received 5% of their funding so the NICS background check only get a small amount of the data it needs.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_order

The Supreme Court ruled in Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer, 343 US 579 (1952) that Executive Order 10340 from President Harry S. Truman placing all steel mills in the country under federal control was invalid because it attempted to make law, rather than clarify or act to further a law put forth by the Congress or the Constitution. Presidents since this decision have generally been careful to cite which specific laws they are acting under when issuing new executive orders.

It's difficult to imagine how any EO that effects a sweeping ban on guns would pass SCOTUS, either under Heller (2a) or Youngtown Sheet & Tube co v Sawyer (Limitations on EO powers)

[Cheech]

What benefit did the ban have for columbine? Absolutely none. What benefit does the firearms ban have in Mexico? Absolutely none. What benefit do the strict gun laws have in Chicago? Absolutely none? That's all the proof I need that any type of firearms ban is ineffectiveand pointless. Why should I or any other person have to pay extra and jump through hoops because some crazy person does some dumb shit? Should every motorcycle rider have to pay a portion of a speeding ticket because some squid got caught speeding? The hoops you've got to go through to a full auto now would most likely be the same that they would use on a future ban. Such as a super high tax. Not to mention the one that is the most bullshit of giving up your 4th amendment right and giving the ATF the ability to enter your house at any time for inspections. So its not as simple as some extra paperwork and a couple extra bucks to own these restricted weapons like it is to get a ccw.

Citation needed on the ATF home inspections, the only thing I'm coming up with is if you are a FFL.

So having less rounds limits how many people you can kill? A pair of cargo pants and a jacket can old a lot of magazines even if they are 10 round capacity. I can carry several 30 round magazines without a back pack or tying up my hands. How would a person carry an extra drum magazines without a back pack? Basically I could carry the same amount of rounds if I wanted to I would just need to reload more. The shooting continues until someone shows up and confronts the shooter. How many rounds were actually fired in these mass shootings anyways? My point being 10 10 round mags can easily be carried and kill around 40 or more people in a crowded area.

Your argument about reloading being the great savior is total crap. If it takes a person longer than two seconds to reload then they probably don't have the mental capabilities to operate a weapon.

Again, you're twisting my argument, so I'll state it again. Magazine capacity is a stopgap, a "lesser of all evils" from clawback of existing guns (which won't happen for Constitutional reasons, and rightly so). It's not the "great savior", it's a small preventative measure. Nice "No True Scotsman" as well, there are plenty of people that don't have the training to reload in 2 seconds, I can think of the Arizona shooter right off the top of my head. As a result of his "incompetence", the situation was defused by a bystander.

A better solution is prevention. Such as better mental health checks. Hell I would even say it is ok to have to take a 1 time firearms course including the standard background check before being able to purchase a gun similar to the hunter safety courses. As long as the price was minimal, just enough to cover the cost of classes. Maybe even a psych evaluation with minimal cost. Pass that then you receive a permit to purchase firearms. We need to bring back the mental institutions and have help for those that need it. Instead of putting the burden of taking care of people with mental illness on their families and the legal system when the family fails.

Yes, exactly. This would be a "perfect" measure, much better than a magazine restriction. However, we tried something similar to this with the ACA, and look where that ended up. Besides, you just want to give them one shallow psych exam, label them crazy or not, and send them on their way? That doesn't seem like it would do much good to fix the problem, just affixing another label. As you point out, they would still get a gun anyway, so why don't we give them the help they need?

Do away with gun free zones. The same as you mentioned earlier about cops having M4s being a deterrent, if every person could possibly be armed it would make shooters think twice about shooting the place up. If people were able to be armed in these places you wouldn't need to wait for the shooter to reload and hope you can get to him while he's reloading if he can be shot from a distance.

That's great, except the Constitution doesn't apply to private property. Never has. I can open up a restaurant and put up a big NO GUNS sign, and if I see you printing/OC I am well within my rights to ask you to leave. As a private business, my rights as the business holder to be free from guns trumps your Constitutional right to carry, as you've made the conscious choice to enter my shop and abide by my rules for the time that you're in there.

A weapons ban will affect me and my family. Say I teach my son to shoot using my AR-10 when he gets old enough if he wants to get one it'll cost him a lot more for the taxes to get the same weapon.

You mean a weapons ban will INCONVENIENCE you and your family.

Your quick to point out my reasons as being hypothetical but the thought of a weapons ban doing any good is hypothetical. It may reduce gun violence but that will only be replaced with violence using another tool.

Ah, the good ol' Slippery Slope. I don't want to ban magazines, I don't want to ban guns. I do want to have a outlet where people that need mental health help can get it, and have that outlet be available for everyone. That's my "great savior", and that's the absolute core of my argument. Apparently, from the level of vitriol that was leveled at the ACA, we can't have those nice things as a country.