Obama's "Non-executive order" was just grand standing?

[jgoose71 0]

DanG

Quote

You can be a real asshole and still do what's right. Sometimes to do what's right it helps to be a real asshole...

Exactly why the government is never going to take all our guns. The goverment is made of people, and most people, like you, know confiscating guns is against the Constitution. Evil Obama can make all the proclaimations he wants. He needs the rest of the government, mainly the police and military, to execute them.

As long as most people in the government still believe in the rule of law, our guns are safe.

That's why the government is kept in check, not becase private citizens are armed, but because citizens who get a paycheck from the government are essentially no different from those who get their paycheck elsewhere.

I wish it were true, but it's not. The Supreme court has refused to hear any challenge to gun regulations/ bans except D.C v Heller (they couldn't back out of it because it's DC. They couldn't pass it to another court.)

And our country now has a political class. They will write all the rules in the world to surround them selves with armed gun men and not afford us the same protection... for our protection.

With only an estimated 38% of the house holds in the US owning a gun, the rest of the country just doesn't care, because it does not effect them.

I don't like those odds. The good news is more people are realizing that they are the first line of defense, not the police, when something goes wrong. They are starting to take an interest in protecting them selves until the police arrive. So maybe things will change.... maybe......

"There is an art, it says, or, rather, a knack to flying. The knack lies in learning how to throw yourself at the ground and miss."
Life, the Universe, and Everything

[billvon 3,085]

> The Supreme court has refused to hear any challenge to gun regulations/ bans
>except D.C v Heller (they couldn't back out of it because it's DC. They couldn't
>pass it to another court.)

And except Bailey vs. US. And Beecham vs. US. And Caron vs. US. And Barrett vs. US. And Bryan vs. US. And Dickerson vs New Banner. And Haynes vs. US. And Huddleston vs. US. And Lewis vs. US. And Morrisette vs. US. And Muscarello vs. US. And Perpich vs Dept. of Defense. And Presser vs. Illinois. And Staples vs. US. And about a dozen more.

>And our country now has a political class. They will write all the rules in the world
>to surround them selves with armed gun men and not afford us the same
>protection... for our protection.

The people in charge of the legislature, you mean? Republicans?

>So maybe things will change.... maybe......

Right now you can own a gun. What, exactly, do you want to change?

[cvfd1399 0]

SkyDekker

******

Quote

His answer is a bit hyperbolic. But the basic concept is valid.

Concept isn't valid. None of the regulations you listed made guns non-lethal or even less-lethal.

Then why did the government enact the law that regulated them if those accessories do not make the rifle any more lethal??

No idea.....but that doesn't change anything.

You are right everything they propose does not change anything. Obama even said it himself this time. They propose restrictions on gun owners that does nothing, and they usually admit it, so why fucking do it other than to test how far you can go with the 2nd amendment restrictions....that is the point. Why spin your wheels and limit Americans to what they can or cannot do when before the ink is dry is already worthless limits on freedom.

[jgoose71 0]

billvon

> The Supreme court has refused to hear any challenge to gun regulations/ bans
>except D.C v Heller (they couldn't back out of it because it's DC. They couldn't
>pass it to another court.)

And except Bailey vs. US. And Beecham vs. US. And Caron vs. US. And Barrett vs. US. And Bryan vs. US. And Dickerson vs New Banner. And Haynes vs. US. And Huddleston vs. US. And Lewis vs. US. And Morrisette vs. US. And Muscarello vs. US. And Perpich vs Dept. of Defense. And Presser vs. Illinois. And Staples vs. US. And about a dozen more.

Yup, I recognize a couple of those cases. Most of them pretty old and justified MORE regulation.

Quote

>And our country now has a political class. They will write all the rules in the world
>to surround them selves with armed gun men and not afford us the same
>protection... for our protection.

The people in charge of the legislature, you mean? Republicans?

republicans today, democrats tomorrow. Clintons, Bushes, Kennedys, pick a clan. Long gone are the days of citizen legislatures. We now have royal families.

Quote

>So maybe things will change.... maybe......

Right now you can own a gun. What, exactly, do you want to change?

For starters, either allow me to have the same guns as my government overlords, or limit my government overlords so they only can have the same guns as me.

As I have said before, there are 2 classes of citizens regulated into existence now. Government officials and us.

"There is an art, it says, or, rather, a knack to flying. The knack lies in learning how to throw yourself at the ground and miss."
Life, the Universe, and Everything

[billvon 3,085]

>For starters, either allow me to have the same guns as my government
>overlords, or limit my government overlords so they only can have the same
>guns as me.

Sorry, no, you can't have a Davy Crockett recoilless gun. You want to ban the US government's use of such weapons? Knock yourself out.

>As I have said before, there are 2 classes of citizens regulated into
>existence now. Government officials and us.

Hmm. I know a bunch of people who are both, so I'll have to disagree.

[winsor 236]

DanG

...
That's why the government is kept in check, not because private citizens are armed, but because citizens who get a paycheck from the government are essentially no different from those who get their paycheck elsewhere.

That assessment is overly optimistic.

[jgoose71 0]

billvon

>For starters, either allow me to have the same guns as my government
>overlords, or limit my government overlords so they only can have the same
>guns as me.

Sorry, no, you can't have a Davy Crockett recoilless gun. You want to ban the US government's use of such weapons? Knock yourself out.

There are war zones, and then there are American streets. Do you really think a police officer needs a recoilless rifle, TOW missile, or M2 .50cal machine gun to patrol the streets?

If a police man needs it to defend the streets or protect politicians, I need it to defend my home. That's my argument. I'm no less deserving of the same protections as our government officials.

Quote

>As I have said before, there are 2 classes of citizens regulated into
>existence now. Government officials and us.

Hmm. I know a bunch of people who are both, so I'll have to disagree.

If they can carry a pistol or M4 rifle for self protection and I can't, we are not the same.

"There is an art, it says, or, rather, a knack to flying. The knack lies in learning how to throw yourself at the ground and miss."
Life, the Universe, and Everything

[billvon 3,085]

> Do you really think a police officer needs a recoilless rifle, TOW missile, or M2
>.50cal machine gun to patrol the streets?

Probably not.

>If they can carry a pistol or M4 rifle for self protection and I can't, we are not
>the same.

Well, they can be ousted by impeachment and you can't, so you are not the same, either. You don't have any degrees from MIT so you're not the same as me. And I don't have ovaries so I'm not the same as Wendy. I can do some demos that other jumpers are not allowed to do. That doesn't mean that there are two (or N) classes - it just means we are different, as everyone is.

[jgoose71 0]

billvon

Well, they can be ousted by impeachment and you can't, so you are not the same, either. You don't have any degrees from MIT so you're not the same as me. And I don't have ovaries so I'm not the same as Wendy. I can do some demos that other jumpers are not allowed to do. That doesn't mean that there are two (or N) classes - it just means we are different, as everyone is.

Invalid arguments. We are talking about the same under the constitution. Not skills, education, or sex organs.

"There is an art, it says, or, rather, a knack to flying. The knack lies in learning how to throw yourself at the ground and miss."
Life, the Universe, and Everything

[normiss 868]

Someone was confused in sex ed class.

[billvon 3,085]

> We are talking about the same under the constitution.

We are all the same under the Constitution. You have the same _opportunities_ they do. You can try to get the same jobs and apply for the same permits. Doesn't mean you will get them, of course - the Constitution does not guarantee success, just the right to try.

[jgoose71 0]

billvon

....and apply for the same permits.

No, we can't. That is the point. Rights are not supposed to be given out in stages depending on who you are and what your job is. All equal under the constitution.

"There is an art, it says, or, rather, a knack to flying. The knack lies in learning how to throw yourself at the ground and miss."
Life, the Universe, and Everything

[SkyDekker 1,465]

Quote

Rights are not supposed to be given out in stages depending on who you are and what your job is.

The constitution gives a right to bear arms. Not the right to specific arms. I doubt you will find much widespread support for being allowed to own all arms owned by military.

[DanG 1]

As a soldier in the US military, you have been granted the right to travel to war zones and kill people without prosecution. "Regular" citizens don't have that right. Are you saying that you shouldn't have that right, or that any American should be able to go to Afghanistan and kill people with impunity?

- Dan G

[wolfriverjoe 1,523]

SkyDekker

Quote

Rights are not supposed to be given out in stages depending on who you are and what your job is.

The constitution gives a right to bear arms. Not the right to specific arms. I doubt you will find much widespread support for being allowed to own all arms owned by military.

Well, how about being allowed to own the same stuff that the (supposedly "civilian") police force and the bodyguards for the politicians use?

And the "Miller" decision by the Supreme Court confirmed the validity of the 1934 National Firearms Act that severely restricted short barreled stuff, silencers and full auto based on it not being used by the military.

The US argued that

Quote

The Second Amendment protects only the ownership of military-type weapons appropriate for use in an organized militia.

Wiki Clicky

"There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy

"~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo

[jgoose71 0]

SkyDekker

Quote

Rights are not supposed to be given out in stages depending on who you are and what your job is.

The constitution gives a right to bear arms. Not the right to specific arms. I doubt you will find much widespread support for being allowed to own all arms owned by military.

And as I have repeated over and over again in this thread, the police are not the military.

The police have firearms for their defense. If a firearm has a valid defensive purpose, and the police can use it, so should the people. The police (and politicians) are a special or "more equal" class of people deserving of more protections than your average citizen.

I'm OK with "just" a revolver if that's what every one has.

"There is an art, it says, or, rather, a knack to flying. The knack lies in learning how to throw yourself at the ground and miss."
Life, the Universe, and Everything

[jgoose71 0]

DanG

As a soldier in the US military, you have been granted the right to travel to war zones and kill people without prosecution. "Regular" citizens don't have that right. Are you saying that you shouldn't have that right, or that any American should be able to go to Afghanistan and kill people with impunity?

yes, I joined the military. Not to get more rights, but to defend the ones we got. Not to watch them get spread unequally to those who deem them selves more deserving.

And what is this "killing with impunity" bullshit? What do you think I do?

"There is an art, it says, or, rather, a knack to flying. The knack lies in learning how to throw yourself at the ground and miss."
Life, the Universe, and Everything

[rehmwa 2]

jgoose71

And what is this "killing with impunity" bullshit? What do you think I do?

apparently you must be killing.....a lot.......with impunity


but that's ok, you aren't really doing it. it's the gun. it's always the gun.

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[SkyDekker 1,465]

Quote

And as I have repeated over and over again in this thread, the police are not the military.

Then why your repeated argument about 2 different classes of people with differing rights based on their jobs?

You are clearly fine with that concept, you just want to decide which classes belong where.

[SkyDekker 1,465]

Quote

Well, how about being allowed to own the same stuff that the (supposedly "civilian") police force and the bodyguards for the politicians use?

I could care less.

I was responding to the asinine 2 class argument jgoose is using. You want to load up on the same guns cops have, go nuts.

[DanG 1]

Quote

yes, I joined the military. Not to get more rights, but to defend the ones we got.

Me too. But your rights change when you put on the uniform. Your free speech rights get limited, but your rights in terms of weapons and their uses gets expanded.

Quote

And what is this "killing with impunity" bullshit? What do you think I do?

I didn't say you are killing with impunity. I said that as a soldier you have different rights regarding the use of force in a combat zone. If you engage the enemy and kill him, you are well within your rights. There are special treaties with host countries that grant you different rights than civilians. Your argument is that you shouldn't have those rights. If you lose those rights, many soldiers who successfully engage the enemy (especially when they are not in imminent danger) should expect to be taken up on murder charges.

Different peeople have different rights. I simply can't believe you don't understand that.

- Dan G

[DanG 1]

Quote

apparently you must be killing.....a lot.......with impunity

Never said he was killing. But if he was, and he was killing the right people, he'd be hailed as a hero, not a mass murderer. Because he's a soldier in a war zone, his rights and responibilities are different than a civilian back home.

That was all I was trying to point out.

Quote

but that's ok, you aren't really doing it. it's the gun. it's always the gun.

For the children.

- Dan G

[billvon 3,085]

> Rights are not supposed to be given out in stages depending on who you are and what your job is.

Yes, they are. You have the right to free speech - but you can't have a protest parade in many places until you get a permit from the town or city. You have the right to travel - but you can't drive a car without a license or fly a plane without a license. And some airplanes you can't fly at all unless you are in the military. You have the right to own guns - but for some guns you are going to need a license or permit, or need to be working a certain job to get one.

[jgoose71 0]

SkyDekker

Quote

Well, how about being allowed to own the same stuff that the (supposedly "civilian") police force and the bodyguards for the politicians use?

I could care less.

I was responding to the asinine 2 class argument jgoose is using. You want to load up on the same guns cops have, go nuts.

Inside the US there is 2 classes. Inside the US there should not be.

The US military is only allowed to operate outside the US as per the Posse Comitatus Act.

This is why I'm OK with the military having nuclear weapons and tanks. If their jobs were inside the US, I would have a different opinion.

Police on the other hand, operate inside the US.

"There is an art, it says, or, rather, a knack to flying. The knack lies in learning how to throw yourself at the ground and miss."
Life, the Universe, and Everything

[jgoose71 0]

billvon

> Rights are not supposed to be given out in stages depending on who you are and what your job is.

Yes, they are. You have the right to free speech - but you can't have a protest parade in many places until you get a permit from the town or city. You have the right to travel - but you can't drive a car without a license or fly a plane without a license. And some airplanes you can't fly at all unless you are in the military. You have the right to own guns - but for some guns you are going to need a license or permit, or need to be working a certain job to get one.

We may have to agree to disagree then. Your OK with the government having more and bigger guns to point at you and you think that our politicians deserve more protections than the average person.

I do not. This is the core of my argument.

"There is an art, it says, or, rather, a knack to flying. The knack lies in learning how to throw yourself at the ground and miss."
Life, the Universe, and Everything