WakeWorld

WakeWorld (http://www.wakeworld.com/forum/index.php)
-   Non-Wakeboarding Discussion (http://www.wakeworld.com/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=4387)
-   -   Letter from Feinstein (http://www.wakeworld.com/forum/showthread.php?t=796968)

steezyshots 02-15-2013 10:13 AM

Letter from Feinstein
 
I sent a letter to all my congressmen and senators and this is what came back from Feinstein...

Dear Riley:



Thank you for contacting me to share your opposition to assault weapons legislation. I respect your opinion on this important issue and welcome the opportunity to provide my point of view.



Mass shootings are a serious problem in our country, and I have watched this problem get worse and worse over the 40 years I have been in public life. From the 1966 shooting rampage at the University of Texas that killed 14 people and wounded 32 others, to the Newtown massacre that killed 20 children and 6 school teachers and faculty, I have seen more and more of these killings. I have had families tell me that they no longer feel safe in a mall, in a movie theater, in their business, and in other public places, because these deadly weapons are so readily available. These assault weapons too often fall into the hands of grievance killers, juveniles, gangs, and the deranged.



I recognize that the Second Amendment provides an individual right to bear arms, but I do not believe that right is unlimited or that it precludes taking action to prevent mass shootings. Indeed, in the same Supreme Court decision that recognized the individual right to bear arms, District of Columbia v. Heller, the Court also held that this right, like other constitutional rights, is not unlimited. That is why assault weapons bans have consistently been upheld in the courts, both before and after the Heller decision. I believe regulation of these weapons is appropriate.




Once again, thank you for your letter. Although we may disagree, I appreciate hearing from you and will be mindful of your thoughts as the debate on this issue continues. If you have any additional comments or questions, please do not hesitate to contact my Washington, D.C. office at (202) 224-3841.



Sincerely yours,


Dianne Feinstein
United States Senator

Further information about my position on issues of concern to California and the nation are available at my website, Feinstein.senate.gov. You can also receive electronic e-mail updates by subscribing to my e-mail list. Click here to sign up. And please visit my YouTube, Facebook and Twitter for more ways to communicate with me.

grant_west 02-15-2013 5:02 PM

I think this quote fits Dianes thoughts after reading your letter
i reject your reality and substitute my own

Laker1234 02-15-2013 6:33 PM

At least you tried. This reminds me to get an email out to mt representative.

Laker1234 02-15-2013 6:34 PM

(my) not mt

poser007 02-15-2013 9:27 PM

Grant has that exactly right. Basically they candy coated the reply to make it look like then totally sympathize with your point of view, but in reality, her view is the great one plain and simple.

breakz77 02-16-2013 9:37 AM

Riley I got the exact same email from her yesterday...... You probably got the same one as I got from Boxer also.

steezyshots 02-19-2013 10:49 AM

Yeah they are all form letters, that's to be expected. She has been a proponent to banning assault weapons long before mass shootings were a media topic. Just goes to show what we all know is true. Politicians will use anything to get their agenda passed. Liberal or Conservative.

jarrod 02-19-2013 11:14 AM

Does she realize that an "Assault weapon" was not used for the Newtown massacre? Wait, does she know that there WAS NO NEWTON MASSACRE and that it's entirely bull****?

wake77 02-20-2013 1:07 PM

^Please tell me you are being sarcastic.

barry 02-20-2013 4:18 PM

He's not being sarcastic about no AR-15 used at Newtown.

fouroheight68 02-20-2013 4:33 PM

An AR-15 was used. http://www.ctpost.com/newtownshootin...th-4222299.php

wake77 02-20-2013 5:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by barry (Post 1807730)
He's not being sarcastic about no AR-15 used at Newtown.

Well, I guess the police lied in their report, because they said they found a Bushmaster .223 XM15-E2S along with two handguns inside the school. Now, if you are referring to the BS that has been circulating around the web saying the Bushmaster was recovered from inside the trunk of Lanza's car, it was actually an Izhmash Canta-12 (a shotgun).

Now Barry, maybe you and Jarrod have some inside information that contradicts what the police report says and you would be willing to share it with the rest of us. I am more than willing to read it. However, I am not willing to watch that YouTube video that attempts to prove the massacre is a hoax.

detonate69 02-20-2013 8:04 PM

When will people realize it doesn't matter what weapon was used in a massacre. that person could have killed just as many people with two handguns. It's the crazy person not the weapon. I can get 30 round magazines for a glock just as easily as an AR. I'm in California where anything bigger then 10 rounds is illegal, still easy to get.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I777 using Tapatalk 2

westsidarider 02-20-2013 8:05 PM

I can't believe what I'm reading right now and the fact that people are still being led to believe that ANY sort of rifle was used in newtown. This is old news now. The coroner even issued a retracting statement a few weeks ago and confirming reports had been coming in for a couple months that no rifle of ANY kind was used. Handguns were the only thing found inside the campus on the shooters person

westsidarider 02-20-2013 8:29 PM

Just goes to show how ignorant the public is and how much power the media has over people. Notice that less than a week after the shooting you never heard anything except for "we need to ban guns"? The abuse of power in this country is appalling. Not once has the media reported on how often guns save lives and stop criminals.

barry 02-20-2013 9:34 PM

Quote:

An AR-15 was used.
No, it wasn't.

Jeremy, you're a victim of assumptive language- It seems to be a pattern.

Coroners report will be 'officially' out sometime in June. Do a PRA request, then come back and tell me how wrong I am. I will be anxiously awaiting...

pesos 02-20-2013 10:39 PM

Not saying anyone's right or wrong, just curious where you guys are getting this concrete information from. Can you share with the group?

ncsuuh 02-21-2013 7:46 AM

I always heard it was a bushmaster AR-15? Little confused.

http://www.greenwichtime.com/newtown...th-4220548.php

By the way, I have mixed feelings about the gun regulations. If there is a mass gun reform that comes about, everyone knows it will be the law abiding citizen that is ultimately the loser. The criminal will always have access to illegal weapons.

One thought that my friends and I tossed around is if we were to limit or restrict ammunition. Maybe put a unique identifier that can track down the purchaser of the ammunition. Just a thought.

brettw 02-21-2013 8:03 AM

The law abiding citizen will continue to be able to get guns. They may not be able to get some, but who cares? They'll be plenty available that are more than enough for personal defense as well as hunting. Part of the point is to cut down on the over availability of guns as well as certain kinds of guns. Will the new regs help that much? I doubt it.

fouroheight68 02-21-2013 8:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by westsidarider (Post 1807780)
I can't believe what I'm reading right now and the fact that people are still being led to believe that ANY sort of rifle was used in newtown. This is old news now. The coroner even issued a retracting statement a few weeks ago and confirming reports had been coming in for a couple months that no rifle of ANY kind was used. Handguns were the only thing found inside the campus on the shooters person

Cite your source.

brettw 02-21-2013 9:05 AM

Does it matter what kind of weapons were used in Newton? Do we need to wait until a particular AR is used in a massacre before making laws restricting them? I'm a gun owner but not an enthusiast and don't know my ARs. However, just due to common sense, I'd be against allowing fully automatic weapons with no restrictions at all on clip sizes as an example. That's how I think this should be looked at - not so much exactly which weapons have been used so far in these shootings but which ones are deemed too dangerous to be legal. I know finding that common ground between the NRA and gun enthusiasts (and especially gun nuts) and those wanting restrictions isn't easy. Compromise is required on both sides.

jarrod 02-21-2013 9:36 AM

I was only half way kidding. They is a plethora of information out there that suggests that the Newton Massacre was a Fema training exercise that gun control lobbyist jumped on as a chance to lie to the public and push their agenda. There is a lot of conflicting information between what the media reported, what was shared in interviews, and what the actual evidence supports. There was a lot of lying going on, no doubt about that.

brettw 02-21-2013 9:56 AM

I hope you're fully kidding about Newton being a conspiracy. It's insulting to the families of the victims, young and older. The conspiracy theorists on this shooting and the one in the theater that are harassing the victims' families deserve to be locked up - possibly in an asylum.

pesos 02-21-2013 10:00 AM

Or in a foodless room with the Westboro a$$hats so they can have at each other.

jarrod 02-21-2013 10:43 AM

I'm not kidding. I haven't decided one way or the other, but I certainly don't think that it happened the way that the media reported it.

How insulting would it be to every family in America is it was found to be a hoax? The entire country was crying, including the president, and including me, the father of a 6 year old. And now decisions that impact all of us are being made, potentially on lies.

Brearly_Mason 02-21-2013 12:43 PM

I rank Glenn Beck right up there with Alex Jones, but check this post on his website out:

This Is TheBlaze’s Point-by-Point Sandy Hook Conspiracy Theory Debunk

but then again,

I still got the shovel!

<iframe width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/jlokCn3j8B0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

brettw 02-21-2013 1:04 PM

It's pathetic that anyone thinks that was a hoax. How do you think they made up all the grieving families in that town and missing kids? - just for starters. You'd have to be blind or a complete idiot to think those kids (and adults) weren't killed that day.

wake77 02-21-2013 2:44 PM

1 Attachment(s)
Quote:

Originally Posted by westsidarider (Post 1807780)
I can't believe what I'm reading right now and the fact that people are still being led to believe that ANY sort of rifle was used in newtown. This is old news now. The coroner even issued a retracting statement a few weeks ago and confirming reports had been coming in for a couple months that no rifle of ANY kind was used. Handguns were the only thing found inside the campus on the shooters person

Quit believing everything you watch on YouTube, you sound like a kook who will believe anything, not someone who is informed.

And Barry, share your info. Here is what the state of CT reports (I'm sure this is just part of the conspiracy also):
Attachment 27948

jarrod 02-21-2013 3:09 PM

They've changed the story of the weapons used multiple times. So should we just believe the latest information that they're giving us? Isn't it a little too convenient that they go back to the .223 as the murder weapon as as 'assault weapon' ban is initiated, after evidence stated that all of the cartridges found at the scene were pistol?

jarrod 02-21-2013 3:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by brettw (Post 1807894)
It's pathetic that anyone thinks that was a hoax. How do you think they made up all the grieving families in that town and missing kids? - just for starters. You'd have to be blind or a complete idiot to think those kids (and adults) weren't killed that day.

How many grieving families did you actually see? How many funerals did you here about? And why did the story disappear after such a short time?

Brearly_Mason 02-21-2013 3:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jarrod (Post 1807947)
How many grieving families did you actually see? How many funerals did you here about? And why did the story disappear after such a short time?

Did you read the Glenn Beck page?

wake77 02-21-2013 5:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jarrod (Post 1807944)
They've changed the story of the weapons used multiple times. So should we just believe the latest information that they're giving us? Isn't it a little too convenient that they go back to the .223 as the murder weapon as as 'assault weapon' ban is initiated, after evidence stated that all of the cartridges found at the scene were pistol?

Who is "they"? The original police report had the Bushmaster along with the two handguns were found inside the school. What I posted was a restatement by the Connecticut State Police; they have been consistent in their findings. Share this mysterious information that you seem to believe is true. And what is this "assault weapon" ban that has been "initiated"? My friend just bought an AR-15 at a sporting goods store here in TN.

magic 02-22-2013 9:48 PM

Cali peps, is this for real?
http://offgridsurvival.com/californi...scatefirearms/

ttrigo 02-23-2013 12:35 AM

In this day and age, how can you possibly believe a story like this could be fabricated? Something of this magnitude would have been leaked by now. Get your tinfoil hat off, and show the proper respect. Stop trying to pretend your ar-15 is needed for hunting.

deltahoosier 02-25-2013 8:55 PM

What do you know about a AR-15? You know how many configurations it comes in? Can you tell me which part of the AR-15 is considered the firearm that is registered? How do you know know what "my" AR-15 is for?

westsidarider 02-25-2013 9:29 PM

Triggo- no one is pretending that their AR15 is needed for hunting. It is a suitable riffle for hunting however, it is ABSOLUTELY NECESSARY for protection from forces that want to impede on our freedom. The second amendment was established to keep tyranny and outside movements in check.

deltahoosier 02-26-2013 10:46 AM

People who rail against the AR-15 know nothing about it. The part that is considered the weapon is the lower section of the rifle that houses the magazine and the trigger kit. It is just a piece of aluminum with nothing in it. That is the registered part of a AR-15. The thing that makes a AR-15 excellent is that is modular. You can pin on any upper (not the part that is a registered rifle) to or about any configuration you want with different quality of parts. You can make it into a long shooter or into a home defense weapon. The AR-15 is only a metal box per the Feds. It also very expensive compared to other rifles. Remember back in the day they wanted get rid of "Saturday Night Specials"? They wanted them gone because people were using cheap guns to do crime. There is nothing cheap about an AR. You can buy 2 or 3 semi auto pistols for the cost of an AR. Some AR's cost over $2000 to $3000 for higher end builds. The minimum build costs near $1000. It is not a street crime weapon. Statistics prove it. So I hate to say it this way but you need to put your vagina away and quit talking about emotional crap you know nothing about.

02-26-2013 11:22 AM

Fantastic advice from our VP. This is the kind of advice and misinformation that upsets firearm advocates. This is an extremely serious issue, those in a position of power owe it to everyone to at least do their homework and know what they are talking about. Problem is, they don't or just don't care.

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/jafkVM-jnbE" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

magic 02-26-2013 12:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sperbet (Post 1808734)
Fantastic advice from our VP. This is the kind of advice and misinformation that upsets firearm advocates. This is an extremely serious issue, those in a position of power owe it to everyone to at least do their homework and know what they are talking about. Problem is, they don't or just don't care.

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/jafkVM-jnbE" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

That's good stuff. My wife does not like our 12 gauge, even with 2 1/2 or 2 3/4 shells, let alone 3" ones. I tend to keep 2 3/4 00 and deer slugs in it. She is pretty good with my AR once she got over the mechanical noise it makes and stopped flinching.

brettw 02-26-2013 1:22 PM

" it is ABSOLUTELY NECESSARY for protection from forces that want to impede on our freedom"

Okay, not even that I'm arguing against ARs here, but what 'forces' would that be in THIS day and age (vs. when the 2nd amendment was written) on our own U.S. turf?

jason_ssr 02-26-2013 3:38 PM

Quote:

Okay, not even that I'm arguing against ARs here, but what 'forces' would that be in THIS day and age (vs. when the 2nd amendment was written) on our own U.S. turf?
Do you really need to know what force it would be to understand the importance of being able to defend yourself? We don't always know what the force may be. There might not be one today, or tomorrow, but the amendment is there for all times, not just today. You don't end it just because there isn't a current invasion or tyranny.

Guns have always been the foundation of what keeps a free people free. It keeps governments honest. When governments become corrupt and try to squeeze its citizens or a portion there of, whats the first thing they need to do? They need to do what General Thomas Gage tried to do at Lexington and Concord. remember what happened there? Britain was screwing the colonists with illegal taxation. Men were gathering guns in Lexington and Concord for a POTENTIAL battle. Gage went there with his army to disarm them. Men with no guns cannot revolt. Lessening the ability of the citizens is historically the first move of authorities who know their unfairness has not gone unnoticed. its how you stop a revolt before it starts.

The UN (including us) just supported the revolution in Libya. How could that happen without an armed citizens rebellion?

Revolution may never be necessary again in the US. You may never have your home invaded by a criminal for the rest of your life either. The 2nd A isn't there for what probably will happen in these times, its there to defend against what possibly could happen for all times for all people. it gives everyone the right to defend themselves against anyone in the best way technology allows. An AR-15 is extremely efficient.

jhartt3 02-26-2013 5:07 PM

i dont own any guns probably never will.. but who am i to say what someone should have and what they shouldnt. to continue down this road we should also take boats and cars away from everyone who has ever had a drink in their life b/c drunk driving/ boating is dangerous and kills people... What do people need AR's for? i dont know and i dont care. but we dont "need" boats either... maybe they enjoy shooting them for fun... just like we enjoy boating for FUN...

barry 02-26-2013 5:27 PM

http://www.davekopel.org/2A/LawRev/a...n-control.html

http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.c...act_id=1967702

ttrigo 02-26-2013 5:59 PM

I still don't know why people need semi or automatic assault weaponry. I don't pretend to know everything about these weapons. However, I am tired of seeing crazy people use these in mass shootings. They are too readily available, and are really unnecessary for a civilian to own. Heck, even former military and cops don't need them. See Chris former for an example. He had quite a collection of weapons at his disposal.

wakeboardern1 02-26-2013 6:57 PM

I'm tired of seeing crazy people slip through the cracks because we have a mental healthcare system that is absolutely broken. I am sick of seeing people who get out of prison only to be unable to get honest work, turn back to crime to support themselves. I am sick of people telling me that I don't have the right to protect myself and my family because they are scared of the tool that I use.

I have a right to life, and my family has a right to life, and the moment that someone attempts to take that from me, they are unjust and I shouldn't have to die so that they can be locked up in jail. I should have the right to defend myself and those I love from people who would take away our fundamental right to live.

You're still far more likely to be murdered with a bludgeoning weapon than with a rifle, much less an assault rifle. The stats are there in the FBI's UCR for 2011. Why the tools used in these crimes are being villainized instead of the people, or the system that drives people to this point is beyond me.

shawndoggy 02-26-2013 7:27 PM

And way way way way more likely to be shot dead with a handgun than bludgeoned.

wakeboardern1 02-26-2013 8:42 PM

That's true. Generally moreso if you are in a city where handgun (and guns in general) ownership is highly restricted versus the country where everyone around seems to have guns. Although the spread is pretty variable and it really depends on the area overall, I can tell you right now that the country area that I live in has a huge gun ownership ratio, but a relatively low violent crime rate.

Basically, restricting guns in one area might work, but it does the opposite in another.


http://www.timesdispatch.com/news/lo...9bb30f31a.html

barry 02-26-2013 10:06 PM

Quote:

However, I am tired of seeing crazy people use these in mass shootings. They are too readily available, and are really unnecessary for a civilian to own. Heck, even former military and cops don't need them. See Chris former for an example. He had quite a collection of weapons at his disposal.
I'm sick and tired of people who take no interest in firearm and due to their lack of interest, presume nobody else should have one. I'm also sick of people who pretend that taking away inanimate objects will control the behavior of evil men set of harming others. I'm sick of people who liberally use their first amendment right to voice an opinion, yet are eager to stifle other constitutional rights that they deem unimportant, or outdated. I'm sick and tired of people clinging to the idea that in order for them to approve of my weapon, I must demonstrate a reason to own it.

Welcome to America.. You keep running your mouth and I'll keep running my weapons.

westsidarider 02-26-2013 10:19 PM

^ exactly my feelings.
Regardless if "assault weapons" were available or not, sick demented people would find a way. Has no one ever heard the term "if there's a will, there's a way"? That doesn't just apply to good deeds and positive goals. Anyone with a will, can find a way to do what they set out to, good or bad

ttrigo 02-27-2013 8:40 AM

So the only real reason to own these types of weapons are because you can, and because youre afraid that during the next revolution you will need something to defends yourself. Got it.
I support the second amendment. I just find some of the reasons here for owning these types of weapons to be lame.

jason_ssr 02-27-2013 9:53 AM

It's more the reasoning for why the right to own them is important. What reasoning to possess one are you looking for? People enjoy the many shooting activities like hunting, competition, plinking, etc. Is that not good enough reason for you?

steezyshots 02-27-2013 9:56 AM

The second Amendment is there for the people to protect themselves from a tyrannical government. If the government has Assault weapons to enforce tyranny on it's people, then it's people should have the same weapons to protect our freedoms.

shane97210 02-27-2013 10:10 AM

A "need/reason" doesn't have to be present or explained when we are talking about constitutional rights. Do we ask people of faith why they need to practice a certain type of religion or why someone needs to protest/speak/write about a cause they believe in?

I'm so sick of, "why do you need an AR15?" none of your fing business.

The part of this whole debate that boils my blood the most is the gun grabbers hiding behind children and taking advantage of tragedy to further their agenda. Some people just like guns, and the democratic party does not like people who like guns. Which is worse?

Brearly_Mason 02-27-2013 10:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by shane97210 (Post 1808905)
A "need/reason" doesn't have to be present or explained when we are talking about constitutional rights.

The 2nd Amendment and the others are not Constitutional Rights, they are rights given to us by our creator that are protected by US Constitution. The Constitution did not give those rights to us, the already existed, the Constitution just recognized them.

A right given to you by a man can be taken away from you by a man.

shawndoggy 02-27-2013 10:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brearly_Mason (Post 1808908)
The 2nd Amendment and the others are not Constitutional Rights, they are rights given to us by our creator that are protected by US Constitution. The Constitution did not give those rights to us, the already existed, the Constitution just recognized them.

A right given to you by a man can be taken away from you by a man.

LOL! Man, God sure was specific in some of those constitutional rights! My favorite is the Seventh Amendment, which clearly shows that God is a lawyer (and how much God must love the U.S.A.)

Seventh Amendment – Civil trial by jury.
In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.

Brearly_Mason 02-27-2013 12:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by shawndoggy (Post 1808909)
LOL! Man, God sure was specific in some of those constitutional rights! My favorite is the Seventh Amendment, which clearly shows that God is a lawyer (and how much God must love the U.S.A.)

Seventh Amendment – Civil trial by jury.
In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.

First, I should have added the word "some" in front of "the others".

Second, is it your assertion that some of the rights in the US Constitution are not endowed to us by our Creator and are unalienable Rights? Do you not recognize Natural Rights and Natural Law?

or Third, are you just being a smartass and don't really have anything of value to say?

shawndoggy 02-27-2013 1:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brearly_Mason (Post 1808933)
First, I should have added the word "some" in front of "the others".

Second, is it your assertion that some of the rights in the US Constitution are not endowed to us by our Creator and are unalienable Rights? Do you not recognize Natural Rights and Natural Law?

or Third, are you just being a smartass and don't really have anything of value to say?

The natural rights of life liberty and pursuit of happiness, which appear nowhere in the Constitution, are certainly one of our nation's organic concepts. The foundational bedrock of our republic, if you will.

But do I agree that the constitution "hard codes" those concepts into the law of the land? That we can somehow ignore the particular text and just hide behind "life liberty and pursuit of happiness" when engaging in any conduct? NO. The founders may have relied on those concepts when coming up with the constitution and the bill of rights in particular, but the constitution itself was not "ordained by God" in any sense.

EDIT: is there any biblical evidence for an individual right to firearms? How do we know that that's what God wants us to have? Are we sure he doesn't want us to have RPGs? (Honest Q, I'm not a bible scholar).

wake77 02-27-2013 1:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by steezyshots (Post 1808900)
The second Amendment is there for the people to protect themselves from a tyrannical government. If the government has Assault weapons to enforce tyranny on it's people, then it's people should have the same weapons to protect our freedoms.

The government has nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons. Should the people also have nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons?

wake77 02-27-2013 1:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brearly_Mason (Post 1808933)
First, I should have added the word "some" in front of "the others".

Second, is it your assertion that some of the rights in the US Constitution are not endowed to us by our Creator and are unalienable Rights? Do you not recognize Natural Rights and Natural Law?

or Third, are you just being a smartass and don't really have anything of value to say?

Which rights are you saying are "endowed to us by our Creator"?

jason_ssr 02-27-2013 3:35 PM

Quote:

Should the people also have nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons?
Should the government?

steezyshots 02-27-2013 3:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by wake77 (Post 1808943)
The government has nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons. Should the people also have nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons?

That's a little extreme but no I don't think citizens should wield that kind of power. There is a big difference between what an AR-15 or M4 can do compared to a nuclear weapon. The 2nd amendment gives the people of the country the power to defend themselves from a government drunk with power.

shawndoggy 02-27-2013 4:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by steezyshots (Post 1808987)
The 2nd amendment gives the people of the country the power to defend themselves from a government drunk with power.

Where does it say that? What it actually says is:

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

The term Militia is actually used a couple of other times in the original text of the Constitution.

Article I Section 8 says that Congress has the power:

"To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

and

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;"

That sure doesn't sound like the sort of Militia that the modern day gun enthusiast wants to belong to, having to submit to discipline prescribed by Congress and being called upon by Congress to suppress insurrections and repel invasions.

And then, egads, there's the power of the President over the Militia:

Article II, Section 2 says

"The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States; he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices, and he shall have Power to Grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offenses against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment."

Sooooooo.... It seems that it would be totally reasonable within the context of the constitution to restrict the use of firearms to those using them for military purposes. Whatever the framers may have thought about it, they certainly didn't write any of that "throwing off the chains of tyranny" stuff into the constitution. In fact, sport shooting, hunting, target practice, shootin' up watermelons... none of that has express constitutional basis.

barry 02-27-2013 5:21 PM

Ummm, there's a bit of historical context you're missing, Champ. heh!

wake77 02-27-2013 5:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jason_ssr (Post 1808980)
Should the government?

I would like to think that if a foreign entity has the ability to use them against us, we should have the ability to use those weapons against them. So I guess my answer would be yes.

shawndoggy 02-27-2013 5:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by barry (Post 1809012)
Ummm, there's a bit of historical context you're missing, Champ. heh!

But that would require an "activist judge" to intepret, no? Strict construction means look at the words doesn't it?

What's the historical basis for the word "militia" to have different meanings in the body of the constitution and the bill of rights were adopted contemporaneously?

jason_ssr 02-27-2013 6:30 PM

Quote:

I would like to think that if a foreign entity has the ability to use them against us, we should have the ability to use those weapons against them. So I guess my answer would be yes.
Because we should be able to defend ourselves, right? Our government is made up of ordinary men. They could use it for nefarious reasons too. Why do you trust those Americans and not the rest?


Shawndoggy, the 2nd amendment is broad on purpose. Implying that since it lacks specifics, that they aren't included is missing the point of the writing. Are you familiar with the Federalist papers? They are a series of explanations written by the founders to bolster support for the ratification of the Constitution. They give many examples of what the 2nd A is to protect, including this tyranny you seem to think doesn't apply.

barry 02-27-2013 6:31 PM

Fair enough! Let's use the document itself for definition- that would be the strictest interpretation.

let's examine the first three and we can continue if you're still confused.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.


This is fairly simple: "The people" in 1 and 3 mean individual, but "The people" in the 2nd refers to the militia.

No, sir.

barry 02-27-2013 6:36 PM

For the record:
The word "Militia" in the COTUS is not defined, but the framers relied upon English heritage for their legal and political definition. What we think of today as the militia--that is, the National Guard--would have been viewed as a "standing army" by political leaders of the Revolutionary era.

shawndoggy 02-27-2013 6:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by barry (Post 1809036)
For the record:
The word "Militia" in the COTUS is not defined, but the framers relied upon English heritage for their legal and political definition. What we think of today as the militia--that is, the National Guard--would have been viewed as a "standing army" by political leaders of the Revolutionary era.

Then why do we see the word army as something different from militia in Article II, Section 2 (the President being the CIC of both the army and the militias of the several states)?

And why is Congress's power "To raise and support Armies" in Article I separate and distinct from the power to organize, arm and discipline the Militia?

barry 02-27-2013 6:40 PM

and quite frankly, I don't even care to argue about this.. Your opinion is irrelevant to my position and ownership of firearms. That's not likely to change regardless of how our corrupt officials decide to define the 2A. There are MILLIONS more just like me.

Actually, they're probably much cooler than me, but we share the same sentiment toward people bent on disarming us.

shawndoggy 02-27-2013 6:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by barry (Post 1809034)
Fair enough! Let's use the document itself for definition- that would be the strictest interpretation.

let's examine the first three and we can continue if you're still confused.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.


This is fairly simple: "The people" in 1 and 3 mean individual, but "The people" in the 2nd refers to the militia.

No, sir.

Well really you have to do what Strict-constuctionist-except-when-I-want-a-different-result Scalia did in Heller and throw out the prefatory clause of the second as essentially superfluous. It's a stretch, it's activist, but I'll agree, it's the law of the land.

http://scholar.google.com/scholar_ca...=2,29&as_vis=1

shawndoggy 02-27-2013 6:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by barry (Post 1809038)
and quite frankly, I don't even care to argue about this.. Your opinion is irrelevant to my position and ownership of firearms. That's not likely to change regardless of how our corrupt officials decide to define the 2A. There are MILLIONS more just like me.

Actually, they're probably much cooler than me, but we share the same sentiment toward people bent on disarming us.

LOL, and that's where the rub lies, I guess. On the one hand we can be a nation of laws, and on the other a nation where the second amendment is a God given right of all people to own all manner of firearms (but not other destructive weapons, cuz God wouldn't want THAT).

The argument that you have a right to all guns, but not being able to justify the right except with a veiled threat about the millions more just like you (cold dead hand types, I'm sure), is like the bully kicking the smart kid's ass when he gets beaten in an argument.

Either you recognize constitution (and the parameters of the rights enumerated) or you don't.

barry 02-27-2013 7:14 PM

Yeah, you got me. I can't defend myself.. No, wait! I CAN defend myself... ;)

I see no point in continuing- I'm not going to change anyone's mind, I don't even care to. When I say your opinion is irrelevant, I mean it. I don't care.

02-27-2013 10:28 PM

Shawn, since you seem to support the proposed legislation, lets try this in something we can all relate to on WW. Question: Why is there a need for ballast in your boat? It only benefits your enjoyment while at the expense of the environment. You pollute the water, erode the banks, and burn more fossil fuels in the process. Wouldn't a lighter boat create less wake to erode the banks and burn less fossil fuels, serve the same purpose? Why do you absolutely have to have ballast in your boat?

ttrigo 02-27-2013 11:08 PM

"Why do you absolutely have to have ballast in your boat"

Great quote. The funny thing is, so many people that do, dont need it, or dont utilize it to their benefit. So many people ride with thousands of pounds of additional weight, but cant go wake to wake. Much like a lot of gun owners. They dont need all of them, and cant utilize them for what they were designed for.

I appreciate everyones passion for this subject. I have my opinion, and you guys have yours.

02-27-2013 11:25 PM

^^^ So do you ride with additional weight other than just the weight of the boat, gear, gas, and people? My point being is that do you really need ballast or is it more of a tool in achieving more enjoyment out of the sport.

02-27-2013 11:35 PM

Ultimately the point i'm trying to get at is the way this argument is set up. Trying to justify a legitimate need for an AR-15 is analogous for the need of ballast. Is there a legitimate justifiable excuse to run ballast in your boat? No. So why do so many people run ballast in their boat? Why can't people own AR-15s?

shawndoggy 02-28-2013 6:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 9Drozd (Post 1809071)
Shawn, since you seem to support the proposed legislation, lets try this in something we can all relate to on WW. Question: Why is there a need for ballast in your boat? It only benefits your enjoyment while at the expense of the environment. You pollute the water, erode the banks, and burn more fossil fuels in the process. Wouldn't a lighter boat create less wake to erode the banks and burn less fossil fuels, serve the same purpose? Why do you absolutely have to have ballast in your boat?


I never said I support the proposed legislation. What I dispute is whether there is a constitutional individual right to own an unlimited number of the most powerful firearms withot regulation.


If there is no constitutionally protected right, or if the scope of the right does not go as far as allowingpeople to have personal armories, then congress and the states can regulate.


Quite honestly, I do not have a constitutionally protected right to lots of ballast. If my government regulates ballast, I'll have to comply or be deemed a scofflaw. Of course as a citizen I would let my legislators know that I oppose the legislation,and I would hope that the political process arrives at the right result.

magic 02-28-2013 8:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by shawndoggy (Post 1809097)
I never said I support the proposed legislation. What I dispute is whether there is a constitutional individual right to own an unlimited number of the most powerful firearms withot regulation.


If there is no constitutionally protected right, or if the scope of the right does not go as far as allowingpeople to have personal armories, then congress and the states can regulate.


Quite honestly, I do not have a constitutionally protected right to lots of ballast. If my government regulates ballast, I'll have to comply or be deemed a scofflaw. Of course as a citizen I would let my legislators know that I oppose the legislation,and I would hope that the political process arrives at the right result.

What does most powerful firearms mean?

BTW, the AR rifle typically uses a .223 round which has much less ballistic damage capability than many other rifle rounds.

shawndoggy 02-28-2013 9:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by magic (Post 1809117)
What does most powerful firearms mean?

BTW, the AR rifle typically uses a .223 round which has much less ballistic damage capability than many other rifle rounds.

Dunno, I'm not an expert. I'd leave that to lawmakers and their ability to find facts (and listen to lobbyists, obviously).


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 6:52 PM.