PDA

View Full Version : Wow. Just wow.


gunsandrockets
12-17-2012, 4:55 AM
Just watched Joe Scarborough go into full demagogue mode on MSNBC.

He says "we don't want to take your guns" followed up by mentioning Australia's gun policies as a path U.S. should follow! But the real jaw dropper was a virtual call for revolutionary upheaval, singling out for attack 'violent video games' and 'assault weapons', and to hell with normal political process or constitutional limits. Something must be done! Now is the beginning of a new age!

http://dailycaller.com/2012/12/17/scarborough-on-gun-issues-the-ideologies-of-my-past-career-were-no-longer-relevant-video/

The anti-gunners are really trying to hype up this latest incident of mass murder. I don't think they can get too far at the Federal level, though they may try anyway. But California has a supermajority of Democrats, and if they choose to go too far here in California, no action by us at state level can stop them.

In the rough and tumble at Federal level, it will be quickly and easily pointed out that Connecticut law already banned so-called "assault weapons", and therefore the absence of the Feinstein ban made no difference to the Connecticut murders. While that may help forestall action at the Federal level, that also gives an excuse to Connecticut and California law makers to tighten the screws even more, perhaps even forcing confiscation as was done in Australia.

One handy debate tip in the battle to come, is to remember the futility of AW/mag bans to prevent massacres. The Hi-Point 9mm carbine (and its 10 round magazines) used in the 1999 Columbine massacre was perfectly adequate to the task, despite conforming to the restrictions of the Federal ban. You might even call such a weapon a Feinstein Special.

Ford8N
12-17-2012, 5:05 AM
It is beginning. I bet in California we might see some Katrina type confiscations eventually.

Left Coast Conservative
12-17-2012, 5:19 AM
It is beginning. I bet in California we might see some Katrina type confiscations eventually.

Did not California pass a law to prevent this from happening? A Federal law outlawing such confiscations was passed in 2006. Stop predicting doom and deal in facts.

jonc
12-17-2012, 5:21 AM
Good luck to us !

Ford8N
12-17-2012, 5:30 AM
Did not California pass a law to prevent this from happening? A Federal law outlawing such confiscations was passed in 2006. Stop predicting doom and deal in facts.

I hope I'm wrong, but mob mentality is quite strong in the halls of government in Sacramento.

dieselpower
12-17-2012, 5:38 AM
why do you think a law saying they cant take guns stops them from making a law forcing us to turn our EVIL guns in? Are you freaking kidding me

RRangel
12-17-2012, 5:39 AM
Just watched Joe Scarborough go into full demagogue mode on MSNBC.

He says "we don't want to take your guns" followed up by mentioning Australia's gun policies as a path U.S. should follow! But the real jaw dropper was a virtual call for revolutionary upheaval, singling out for attack 'violent video games' and 'assault weapons', and to hell with normal political process or constitutional limits. Something must be done! Now is the beginning of a new age!

The anti-gunners are really trying to hype up this latest incident of mass murder. I don't think they can get too far at the Federal level, though they may try anyway. But California has a supermajority of Democrats, and if they choose to go too far here in California, no action by us at state level can stop them.

In the rough and tumble at Federal level, it will be quickly and easily pointed out that Connecticut law already banned so-called "assault weapons", and therefore the absence of the Feinstein ban made no difference to the Connecticut murders. While that may help forestall action at the Federal level, that also gives an excuse to Connecticut and California law makers to tighten the screws even more, perhaps even forcing confiscation as was done in Australia.

One handy debate tip in the battle to come, is to remember the futility of AW/mag bans to prevent massacres. The Hi-Point 9mm carbine (and its 10 round magazines) used in the 1999 Columbine massacre was perfectly adequate to the task, despite conforming to the restrictions of the Federal ban. You might even call such a weapon a Feinstein Special.

The gun controllers have been pretty much getting what they want in California without their super majority. What has changed? The situation in California has already played out, to the extent that gun prohibitionists in the legislature, are running out of options. There are big legal hurdles for them.

Remember today we have an incorporated Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms. That wasn't the case in the past.

vantec08
12-17-2012, 6:05 AM
Did not California pass a law to prevent this from happening? A Federal law outlawing such confiscations was passed in 2006. Stop predicting doom and deal in facts.


Predict gloom? ok, I'll play. The trump card is who the hustler-in-chief appoints to SCOTUS. He will not appoint 2nd-friendly types. Guarantee.

lilro
12-17-2012, 6:07 AM
Did not California pass a law to prevent this from happening? A Federal law outlawing such confiscations was passed in 2006. Stop predicting doom and deal in facts.

There's federal law outlawing marijuana use. Didn't stop Colorado or Washington. It is naive to believe federal law OR state law will stop the politicians in CA from doing whatever the hell they want.

USMCM16A2
12-17-2012, 6:16 AM
Folks,



Schwartzenegger signed into law a bill that PREVENTS this kind of thing. I think you guys are getting way ahead of yourselves, does not say it is going to happen. The Government does NOT have the resources to go door to door and confiscate peoples firearms. A2

Wiz-of-Awd
12-17-2012, 6:47 AM
Did not California pass a law to prevent this from happening? A Federal law outlawing such confiscations was passed in 2006. Stop predicting doom and deal in facts.

Yes, and just as other criminal elements in our society follow the law, so shall...

A.W.D.

ScottB
12-17-2012, 6:56 AM
The gun controllers have been pretty much getting what they want in California without their super majority. What has changed? The situation in California has already played out, to the extent that gun prohibitionists in the legislature, are running out of options. There are big legal hurdles for them.

Remember today we have an incorporated Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms. That wasn't the case in the past.

Leland Yee doesn't think it has played out. He has a whole laundry list of new CA bans - starting with all your OLLs and eventually semiautomatic actions generally. And really, what legitimate sporting purpose is served by 10 round mags, or even detachable ones? Why not let cities pass stricter laws than the state or the feds if they want? The banners still have lots of arrows in their quivers.

Now is not the time to be sanguine about our supposedly "secured" 2A rights

dave3223
12-17-2012, 7:05 AM
Not to digress people...

What strikes me as interesting about the OPs comment is that Scarborough is a Republican who feels this way. This is where we should be concerned. Too many times, we like to blame Democrats as being anti-2A and all, however we have a tendency to turn the cheek when it is a Republican. Unfortunately, this is where we should pay attention rather than allowing "group-think mentalities" to blur our vision. Do we all honestly believe that it is only Democrats that feel this way? If something is going to happen it will be because a number of Republicans will swing the other way. Yes, it's fun to crack jokes and blame the Democrats for everything anti-gun, however too many times we allow ourselves to miss the point and not hold Republicans just as accountable.

LCU1670
12-17-2012, 7:10 AM
Look at the statistics of crime/rapes AFTER the weapons ban in Australia. When will people see that gun laws don't work, i.e. Illinois, Washington DC, and so on. What we need is to stop these gun free zones (victim zones). Change how we look at gun control, and say.... maybe it is better to have law abiding citizens carry. Sure, maybe one of the ccw holders may not be perfect and actually hit the wrong person (as police do as well), but in the big picture, a massacure was prevented.

MaHoTex
12-17-2012, 7:13 AM
Not to digress people...

What strikes me as interesting about the OPs comment is that Scarborough is a Republican who feels this way. This is where we should be concerned. Too many times, we like to blame Democrats as being anti-2A and all, however we have a tendency to turn the cheek when it is a Republican. Unfortunately, this is where we should pay attention rather than allowing "group-think mentalities" to blur our vision. Do we all honestly believe that it is only Democrats that feel this way? If something is going to happen it will be because a number of Republicans will swing the other way. Yes, it's fun to crack jokes and blame the Democrats for everything anti-gun, however too many times we allow ourselves to miss the point and not hold Republicans just as accountable.

Ok, I'll play along...

If you had to choose, would you rather have 10 Dems locked in a room to decide the fate of your OLL or 10 Reps locked in a room decide the fate of you OLL?

It is a VERY easy decision for me.

FoxTrot87
12-17-2012, 7:15 AM
Did not California pass a law to prevent this from happening? A Federal law outlawing such confiscations was passed in 2006. Stop predicting doom and deal in facts.

Laws are nothing when they aren't enforced.

ScottB
12-17-2012, 7:16 AM
Scarborogh is just a blowhard trying to get ratings on the lowest rated cable channel there is. The news was this:

Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W.V.), a conservative Democrat and National Rifle Association member, said Monday that after the shooting in Newtown, Conn., on Friday, it’s time to discuss new regulations on assault weapons.

“I don’t know anyone in the sporting or hunting arena that goes out with an assault rifle,” Manchin told MSNBC’s “Morning Joe.” ”I don’t know anyone that needs 30 rounds in a clip to go hunting. I mean, these are things that need to be talked about.”

This guy is a sitting US Senator from a conservative gun-friendly state, elected with the help of the NRA and he's already turned. He will actually vote on if not sponsor or introduce bills. Its guys like Joe Manchin that are going to be trouble for us.

Colt
12-17-2012, 7:47 AM
Ok, I'll play along...

If you had to choose, would you rather have 10 Dems locked in a room to decide the fate of your OLL or 10 Reps locked in a room decide the fate of you OLL?

It is a VERY easy decision for me.

Why ten? Couldn't there be a hi-cap room?

Rangem4
12-17-2012, 7:53 AM
Folks,



Schwartzenegger signed into law a bill that PREVENTS this kind of thing. I think you guys are getting way ahead of yourselves, does not say it is going to happen. The Government does NOT have the resources to go door to door and confiscate peoples firearms. A2

Not to mention it may be a very hazardous job to walk up to homes and demand their guns. I would not want that job and the police officers I know would not perform the task with any vigor.

taperxz
12-17-2012, 7:54 AM
Predict gloom? ok, I'll play. The trump card is who the hustler-in-chief appoints to SCOTUS. He will not appoint 2nd-friendly types. Guarantee.

No wonder you post all those "tin toil hat threads"!

Please tell me how Obama is going to appoint a new SCOTUS justice IF no one retires or dies??????

There is no opening at this juncture in time. It also appears there will not be a planned opening in the next 4 years.

rodngun762
12-17-2012, 7:56 AM
Sorry, US or CA LEOs are not going to be going into people's houses Australia style and seizing guns. There is no way they will do this. They know its too ingrained in the culture to forcefully seize firearms and that people will get killed if they try. Unless they want to have a Waco standoff with every 1 in 10 homes they visit you will not have to worry about forceful seizure of your arms.

winnre
12-17-2012, 7:56 AM
I'm glad DC vs Heller already concluded!

IVC
12-17-2012, 8:27 AM
This guy is a sitting US Senator from a conservative gun-friendly state, elected with the help of the NRA and he's already turned. He will actually vote on if not sponsor or introduce bills. Its guys like Joe Manchin that are going to be trouble for us.

On the other hand, he has the most to lose should he vote publicly in the Senate (provided Reid lets it happen) and the bill doesn't even get a vote in the House.

The politics is more often about preventing damaging public votes then about sending a message.

ScottB
12-17-2012, 8:42 AM
On the other hand, he has the most to lose should he vote publicly in the Senate (provided Reid lets it happen) and the bill doesn't even get a vote in the House.

The politics is more often about preventing damaging public votes then about sending a message.

The guy just went on the record as favoring an AW and hi cap mag ban. Maybe he's stupid, but I think he probably did the political math before he opened his mouth.

MaHoTex
12-17-2012, 9:11 AM
Why ten? Couldn't there be a hi-cap room?

:D

Classic.

epilepticninja
12-17-2012, 9:17 AM
Scarborogh is just a blowhard trying to get ratings on the lowest rated cable channel there is. The news was this:



This guy is a sitting US Senator from a conservative gun-friendly state, elected with the help of the NRA and he's already turned. He will actually vote on if not sponsor or introduce bills. Its guys like Joe Manchin that are going to be trouble for us.

I think we will see more and more of this in the coming months. And I have a feeling we are going to get another "bullet button" ban law going, and this time the libtards are going to get someone with a bunch more crediability and horsepower than Lee to push it. I'm supposed to pick up my AR-10 today out of jail. I almost want to just cancel the order.

IVC
12-17-2012, 9:26 AM
The guy just went on the record as favoring an AW and hi cap mag ban. Maybe he's stupid, but I think he probably did the political math before he opened his mouth.

Talk is cheap. Votes and actions count.

If I were cynical, I'd say let them all go on record with nonsense like this, then let the bill die a slow bureaucratic death in either/both chambers when the emotions are not this raw and the real questions are asked.

Lip service is, unfortunately, how real politics works. Just last month we've all seen how effective it can be...

navycorpsman
12-17-2012, 9:28 AM
I hope I'm wrong, but mob mentality is quite strong in the halls of government in Sacramento.

The california Government CAN NOT CONFISCATE WEAPONS, IT IS ILLEGAL IN THE EYES OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT. FEDERAL LAW ALWAYS WIN OVER STATE

POLICESTATE
12-17-2012, 9:28 AM
Did not California pass a law to prevent this from happening? A Federal law outlawing such confiscations was passed in 2006. Stop predicting doom and deal in facts.

Laws can be repealed, as well as constitutional amendments.

ScottB
12-17-2012, 9:57 AM
I think we will see more and more of this in the coming months. And I have a feeling we are going to get another "bullet button" ban law going, and this time the libtards are going to get someone with a bunch more crediability and horsepower than Lee to push it. I'm supposed to pick up my AR-10 today out of jail. I almost want to just cancel the order.

I'd close on the deal. Banning future sales and registering currently possessed rifles is way easier than confiscation. Plan B: Buy some cosmoline, 'cause sometimes stuff gets stolen, you know...

ScottB
12-17-2012, 10:00 AM
The california Government CAN NOT CONFISCATE WEAPONS, IT IS ILLEGAL IN THE EYES OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT. FEDERAL LAW ALWAYS WIN OVER STATE

I believe that law is limited to confiscations persuant to a disaster, etc to prevent a Katrina-like scenario. Does the law explicitly state that they cannot ban a type through legislation and then confiscate like they did with SKS with detachable mags?

Wiz-of-Awd
12-17-2012, 10:14 AM
dupe

Wiz-of-Awd
12-17-2012, 10:15 AM
The california Government CAN NOT CONFISCATE WEAPONS, IT IS ILLEGAL IN THE EYES OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT. FEDERAL LAW ALWAYS WIN OVER STATE

Right, just as it does with MJ in Washington and Colorado (and here in Cali), which Obama has already stated "not going after."

A.W.D.

MigNoche
12-17-2012, 10:37 AM
I had a discussion over the weekend with an Anti and one of his arguments was that "Guns are by no stretch of the imagination inanimate objects". It was at that point that I realized I was wasting my time. This person is a very well educated engineer.

I also linked him to the Harvard Study: Do more guns equal more murder & suicide?

http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Vol30_No2_KatesMauseronline.pdf

I also informed him that all of these mass shootings occur in "GUN FREE ZONES" which essentially equates to "CRIMINAL SAFE ZONE".

I am confident that we have history, logic, rights, and facts on our side. While the Anti's only asset is that they have the Media on their side.

penguinofsleep
12-17-2012, 10:50 AM
I had a discussion over the weekend with an Anti and one of his arguments was that "Guns are by no stretch of the imagination inanimate objects". It was at that point that I realized I was wasting my time. This person is a very well educated engineer.

I also linked him to the Harvard Study: Do more guns equal more murder & suicide?

http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Vol30_No2_KatesMauseronline.pdf

I also informed him that all of these mass shootings occur in "GUN FREE ZONES" which essentially equates to "CRIMINAL SAFE ZONE".

I am confident that we have history, logic, rights, and facts on our side. While the Anti's only asset is that they have the Media on their side.

this is CA. your history, logic, rights, and other such factual information is invalid. nothing bad could ever happen in candy unicorn pony sprinkly land duuhhhhhhhh. :D

krazz
12-17-2012, 10:51 AM
Not to mention it may be a very hazardous job to walk up to homes and demand their guns. I would not want that job and the police officers I know would not perform the task with any vigor.

Sorry, US or CA LEOs are not going to be going into people's houses Australia style and seizing guns. There is no way they will do this. They know its too ingrained in the culture to forcefully seize firearms and that people will get killed if they try. Unless they want to have a Waco standoff with every 1 in 10 homes they visit you will not have to worry about forceful seizure of your arms.

HAHA... That's a laugh. All the SWAT clowns would be lining out the door in order to bust down doors and crack skulls.

LMTluvr
12-17-2012, 10:59 AM
HAHA... That's a laugh. All the SWAT clowns would be lining out the door in order to bust down doors and crack skulls.

That superiority complex is out there.
However I think the common sense type outnumber the " I can and you can't types".

Moonshine
12-17-2012, 11:08 AM
Mr. Yee already wrote a law that would have resulted in some confiscations and it was DOA in committee. The constitution forbids ex post facto laws, something even Dianne Feinstein acknowledges in her "prospective" language.

The majority of states in the United States are Red States so you can forget a constitutional convention to change the second amendment happening. The anti-gun folks are free to use their first amendment rights to whine and lobby but with a GOP dominated house nothing will come of it... In fact the GOP may even gain seats as a result should any Pro-gun democrat vote for a ban (yes believe it or not there are NRA grade A democrats just not many."

MigNoche
12-17-2012, 11:13 AM
this is CA. your history, logic, rights, and other such factual information is invalid. nothing bad could ever happen in candy unicorn pony sprinkly land duuhhhhhhhh. :D

^ That made me LOL:laugh:

Luieburger
12-17-2012, 11:21 AM
I used to watch Morning Joe religiously. No more.

Also, this...

DE7I6B13QSg

dave3223
12-17-2012, 11:51 AM
Ok, I'll play along...

If you had to choose, would you rather have 10 Dems locked in a room to decide the fate of your OLL or 10 Reps locked in a room decide the fate of you OLL?

It is a VERY easy decision for me.


For me the answer is neither! That's the problem. You expect that Repubs will defend you whereas I realize that neither party will. Both will cave in the face of public sentiments that cause emotional responses such as this latest one. Good luck with your beliefs, however I don't like to believe that any one party over the other will protect my 2A rights. Politics is simply a game and elected officials from both parties love to play the game rather than often times holding to their values and beliefs. There used to be a time where Dems feared the NRA. That belief is not as it once was due to public sentiments.

SilverTauron
12-17-2012, 11:56 AM
Technically the MSNBc pundit was right,since Austrailia never actually sent authorities to directly confiscate firearms.They initiated a "voluntary" buy back,with the current owners of firearms treated to more scrutiny then a Taliban prisoner.

strummerenator
12-17-2012, 12:08 PM
Why do people "need" sports cars, when they can clearly make a more economical and green choice? Why do we "need" alcoholic beverages that clearly lead to so many innocent deaths? Why do we "need" choices and freedom period with such wise, elite shepherds to oversee the flock? Be very careful with letting emotion dictate legislation and long term policy. I am not in favor of an outright ban on anything in a free society. They can put in place very tight restrictions and controls on firearms purchases like they currently have in California and other states. I feel education should be required as well, however, with every removal of individual rights we allow "in the name of the greater good", we walk one step closer to a state of tyranny and oppression as you rarely see individual rights being given back once removed. I feel we as a society are looking to proxy values and personal responsibilities to Washington, ironically, a place that has demonstrated neither. We should not allow cowardly acts to propel cowardly legislation that will inevitably strangle all citizens, but rather unite and put more focus on domestic issues rather than international wars. Perhaps they are looking for more "assault weapons" to use in their illegal occupations abroad?

MigNoche
12-17-2012, 12:28 PM
Why do people "need" sports cars, when they can clearly make a more economical and green choice? Why do we "need" alcoholic beverages that clearly lead to so many innocent deaths? Why do we "need" choices and freedom period with such wise, elite shepherds to oversee the flock? Be very careful with letting emotion dictate legislation and long term policy. I am not in favor of an outright ban on anything in a free society. They can put in place very tight restrictions and controls on firearms purchases like they currently have in California and other states. I feel education should be required as well, however, with every removal of individual rights we allow "in the name of the greater good", we walk one step closer to a state of tyranny and oppression as you rarely see individual rights being given back once removed. I feel we as a society are looking to proxy values and personal responsibilities to Washington, ironically, a place that has demonstrated neither. We should not allow cowardly acts to propel cowardly legislation that will inevitably strangle all citizens, but rather unite and put more focus on domestic issues rather than international wars. Perhaps they are looking for more "assault weapons" to use in their illegal occupations abroad?

Great points, in the following the Anti's logic we should also outlaw Alcohol. But I am sure they would not be so thrilled about that.

Also, when has prohibition of anything in America been successful? I wont hold my breath for examples, lol

MaHoTex
12-17-2012, 12:33 PM
For me the answer is neither! That's the problem. You expect that Repubs will defend you whereas I realize that neither party will. Both will cave in the face of public sentiments that cause emotional responses such as this latest one. Good luck with your beliefs, however I don't like to believe that any one party over the other will protect my 2A rights. Politics is simply a game and elected officials from both parties love to play the game rather than often times holding to their values and beliefs. There used to be a time where Dems feared the NRA. That belief is not as it once was due to public sentiments.

You dodged the question. I thought the rules of the game were quite elementary: You must pick one of the options and "neither" was not one of the selections presented.

As for my belief, it is that twice as many R's will support the 2A than Dems. Both options suck, but if you are a single issue voter (2A) then the R's are twice as good as D's.

As unfortunate as it is, this country is a two party system and Ron Paul (read that as a third party) is never going to be a legitimate option.

tcrpe
12-17-2012, 12:35 PM
Also, when has prohibition of anything in America been successful? I wont hold my breath for examples, lol

Prohibition of murder certainly hasn't work.

nobody_special
12-17-2012, 1:01 PM
The only thing that might preclude confiscation is Heller / MacDonald. A ban with no grandfather clause is not an ex post facto law, and I suspect the 5th amendment takings issue is also avoidable.

vantec08
12-17-2012, 1:09 PM
No wonder you post all those "tin toil hat threads"!

Please tell me how Obama is going to appoint a new SCOTUS justice IF no one retires or dies??????

There is no opening at this juncture in time. It also appears there will not be a planned opening in the next 4 years.


No wonder you post Horse Feathers and "it cant happen here." There will be at least one and possibly two leave the bench. Guarantee. Then you'll owe me one.
Nice, huh?

Wherryj
12-17-2012, 1:12 PM
Did not California pass a law to prevent this from happening? A Federal law outlawing such confiscations was passed in 2006. Stop predicting doom and deal in facts.

It is also illegal under CA law to use an airplane, a set of painted lines and a timing device to issue tickets, but that doesn't keep pretty much EVERY community in the state from doing so (or at least threatening). Since when does the government ever pay attention to laws? Look what they've done to the Constitution.

SilverTauron
12-17-2012, 1:35 PM
The only thing that might preclude confiscation is Heller / MacDonald. A ban with no grandfather clause is not an ex post facto law, and I suspect the 5th amendment takings issue is also avoidable.

The only way to dodge the 5th amendment issue is to provide some form of grandfathering or registration for people who currently own prohibited weapons.

jdmcgee
12-17-2012, 6:06 PM
You dodged the question. I thought the rules of the game were quite elementary: You must pick one of the options and "neither" was not one of the selections presented.

As for my belief, it is that twice as many R's will support the 2A than Dems. Both options suck, but if you are a single issue voter (2A) then the R's are twice as good as D's.

As unfortunate as it is, this country is a two party system and Ron Paul (read that as a third party) is never going to be a legitimate option.

True, we are a two party system but instead of making it a Democrat or Republican issue we need to concentrate on the fact that we are a government of the people, by the people and for the people. If every one of us doesn't make our individual voice heard it doesn't matter what political party our leaders are affiliated with because they will do what they personally want to do or what they think, with their fallible judgement, is best for us. None of us can ever depend on anyone or any group, even the NRA or CalGuns, to ensure our freedoms.

We must, as always, depend on only our own voices & actions to ensure our freedoms. If you expect someone else, even a like-minded individual, to ensure your rights & freedoms, you will ultimately be dissatisfied with the results.

JD

RRangel
12-17-2012, 8:43 PM
Leland Yee doesn't think it has played out. He has a whole laundry list of new CA bans - starting with all your OLLs and eventually semiautomatic actions generally. And really, what legitimate sporting purpose is served by 10 round mags, or even detachable ones? Why not let cities pass stricter laws than the state or the feds if they want? The banners still have lots of arrows in their quivers.

Now is not the time to be sanguine about our supposedly "secured" 2A rights

You don't even make sense Mr. panic. Leland Yee just can't snap his fingers and have gun control.

gunsandrockets
12-17-2012, 11:04 PM
You don't even make sense Mr. panic. Leland Yee just can't snap his fingers and have gun control.

Hello? Hello? Do you know what's different between now and then? The last time Yee tried to move his expanded ban?:facepalm:

Supermajority

20 dead 7 year olds.

IVC
12-17-2012, 11:14 PM
Supermajority

It never got to a vote, so majority vs. supermajority doesn't matter.

nobody_special
12-18-2012, 12:25 AM
The only way to dodge the 5th amendment issue is to provide some form of grandfathering or registration for people who currently own prohibited weapons.

There are potential ways (http://www.leagle.com/xmlResult.aspx?xmldoc=19901007464NW2d543_1988.xml&docbase=CSLWAR2-1986-2006) around that.

RT13
12-18-2012, 12:30 AM
I really think they want a war, a civil war.

MigNoche
12-18-2012, 10:16 AM
Clinton enacted an assault weapons ban from 1994-2004, here's the results:
11/15/95 - Lynville, Tn School shooting
2/2/96 - Moses Lake, Wa School shooting
2/19/97 - Bethel, Ak School shooting
10/1/97 - Pearl, Ms School shooting
12/1/97 - West Paducah, Ky School shooting
4/24/98 - Edinboro, Pa School shooting
5/21/98 - Springfield, Or School shooting
4/20/99 - Columbine, Co School shooting
5/20/99 - Conyers, Ga School shooting
11/2/99 - Honolulu, Hi Office Shooting
12/26/00 - Wakefield, Ma Office Shooting
3/5/01 - Santee, Ca School Shooting
3/22/01 El Cajon, Ca School Shooting
1/16/02 Grundy, Va College Shooting
4/14/03 New Orleans, La School Shooting

gunsandrockets
12-18-2012, 7:04 PM
I just watched a segment on the PBS News Hour where they interviewed a small group of Newton residents who were not directly involved in the Newton shootings but had banded together to seek action that prevents another school shooting.

Naturally they had immediately gravitated towards expanded gun control: bans on "assault weapons", bans on "high capacity magazines", and even bans on ammunition.

When asked about alternatives to gun-control, such as armed defense of schools, they immediately piped up with objections due to cost, training, practicality etc. They were very sensitive to the potential drawbacks of any alternatives.

What struck me about that conversation was that these seemingly intelligent people are only choosing the route of gun-control because of their total ignorance about guns and gun policy. The problem is that right now they see gun control as a no-cost panacea. If they were made aware of how futile and most importantly how costly anti-gun measures truly are, I believe their support for gun-control would quickly melt away.

I am reminded of a conversation I had with an elderly couple who were demonstrating in favor of the (now defunct) group, The Million Mom March, back in 2000. This nice old couple had no idea just how harsh the policy advocated by the MMM actually was. At the time the MMM wanted mandatory registration of firearms, which the couple agreed with. When I asked them what the penalty should be for violating such a law, they hemmed and hawed but said a misdemeanor crime of six months jailing. They were plainly shocked when I told them the MMM wanted it to be a felony crime with 2 years imprisonment!

I think if we hit people with the fact that AW bans have been tried and already failed, that bans divert law enforcement resources, that bans harm innocent gun-owners who trip over arcane and arbitrary rules, that we can deflate any grass-roots support for a new AW or magazine ban.

UPDATE: This is the story I saw on PBS

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/social_issues/july-dec12/connecticut_12-18.html

gunsandrockets
12-18-2012, 7:27 PM
Ah, I must have missed the beginning of the PBS story. This Newton group calls itself Newton United, and is focused on gun control.

http://www.cnn.com/2012/12/18/us/connecticut-school-shooting-group/index.html

https://www.facebook.com/NewtownUnited

RRangel
12-18-2012, 8:00 PM
I just watched a segment on the PBS News Hour where they interviewed a small group of Newton residents who were not directly involved in the Newton shootings but had banded together to seek action that prevents another school shooting.

Naturally they had immediately gravitated towards expanded gun control: bans on "assault weapons", bans on "high capacity magazines", and even bans on ammunition.

When asked about alternatives to gun-control, such as armed defense of schools, they immediately piped up with objections due to cost, training, practicality etc. They were very sensitive to the potential drawbacks of any alternatives.

What struck me about that conversation was that these seemingly intelligent people are only choosing the route of gun-control because of their total ignorance about guns and gun policy. The problem is that right now they see gun control as a no-cost panacea. If they were made aware of how futile and most importantly how costly anti-gun measures truly are, I believe their support for gun-control would quickly melt away.

I am reminded of a conversation I had with an elderly couple who were demonstrating in favor of the (now defunct) group, The Million Mom March, back in 2000. This nice old couple had no idea just how harsh the policy advocated by the MMM actually was. At the time the MMM wanted mandatory registration of firearms, which the couple agreed with. When I asked them what the penalty should be for violating such a law, they hemmed and hawed but said a misdemeanor crime of six months jailing. They were plainly shocked when I told them the MMM wanted it to be a felony crime with 2 years imprisonment!

I think if we hit people with the fact that AW bans have been tried and already failed, that bans divert law enforcement resources, that bans harm innocent gun-owners who trip over arcane and arbitrary rules, that we can deflate any grass-roots support for a new AW or magazine ban.

UPDATE: This is the story I saw on PBS

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/social_issues/july-dec12/connecticut_12-18.html

True, but specifically, someone should have hit the morons with the fact that Connecticut already has an "assault weapon" ban. The recent school atrocity just proves the point how stupid such laws are.

gunsandrockets
12-18-2012, 8:27 PM
True, but specifically, someone should have hit the morons with the fact that Connecticut already has an "assault weapon" ban. The recent school atrocity just proves the point how stupid such laws are.

Very true. I'm struck how this important fact is almost always left out when the topic of new gun-control is raised by the press. It just points out what weak ground the ban people are standing on. The press can't get away with this memory hole either, we have too many alternative ways of getting the truth out there to compete with news-media propaganda. Very much unlike 1994.

gunsandrockets
12-18-2012, 8:40 PM
In the rough and tumble at Federal level, it will be quickly and easily pointed out that Connecticut law already banned so-called "assault weapons", and therefore the absence of the Feinstein ban made no difference to the Connecticut murders. While that may help forestall action at the Federal level, that also gives an excuse to Connecticut and California law makers to tighten the screws even more, perhaps even forcing confiscation as was done in Australia.

One handy debate tip in the battle to come, is to remember the futility of AW/mag bans to prevent massacres. The Hi-Point 9mm carbine (and its 10 round magazines) used in the 1999 Columbine massacre was perfectly adequate to the task, despite conforming to the restrictions of the Federal ban. You might even call such a weapon a Feinstein Special.

For example, currently Connecticut does not have a magazine ban. Expect that to change shortly, even at the cost of driving out gun companies (and their jobs) from the state. See the story...

http://www.businessweek.com/news/2012-12-16/ban-on-30-round-gun-magazines-in-connecticut-died-after-pressure#p1