Politics of SB Members?

[IndigoBlue]

drbill once bubbled...
FredT-

Not sure that the Constitution EXPLICITLY grants the right for private individuals to bear arms. There is some debate as to whether the reference was to the militia or private individuals.

You can read the 2nd Amendment yourself in any world almanac and see exactly what it says.

Machine guns have been legislated against since the 2nd Amendment and the federal courts have not overruled the legislation. Similarly, exploding or incendiary ammunition has been legislated against as well, with no overrulings. Ammunition larger than 1/2 inch in diameter has been legislated against as well, on the grounds of unsportsmanship in hunting.

Liberal arguments against gun ownership on the grounds of militia rationales, and conservative arguments against any regulation of guns at all on the grounds of the 2nd Amendment itself, represent the two polarizing views of this major issue.

Ultimately the federal courts including the US Supreme Court are the final arbiters of this matter, under the current Bill of Rights.

Amending the US Constitution would probably be needed to make any major changes to current gun laws. You know how hard that is, if you remember what the ERA went through before it finally failed.

At any rate, that is where things stand.

The current issue of the federal courts blocking the implementation of the late-term abortion legislation recently signed by Pres. Bush is a good primer on how the federal courts may stop an apparently un-constitutional piece of legislation and remand it immediately to the US Supreme Court for pre-implementation review.

Like it or not, the USA is a nation of laws. The federal court system works well to make sure it stays that way.

 

[drbill]

IndigoBlue wrote Like it or not, the USA is a nation of laws. The federal court system works well to make sure it stays that way.

I don't mind that "we" are a nation of laws... what I mind is that some lawyers can twist the laws in such a way as to defeat the truth. You can almost achieve any result with "the laws." However it is still better than the law of the jungle... or the urban jungle.

Dr. Bill

 

[IndigoBlue]

FredT once bubbled...

BTW Around here 2/3ds of the cops would quit before enforcing such a collection order, and would be leading the hunt for the other third.
FT

City cops and their chiefs tend to oppose gun ownership by the civilian population for various reasons, possibly because it represents a workplace hazard to themselves (the police), particularly in the realm of domestic disputes. Hand gun ownership is particularly unfavored, as is semiautomatic rifle ownership.

No one so far is complaining much against pump action shotguns or bolt action rifles. These are the primary tools of hunters.

Personally I could not care less if handguns and semiauto rifles were banned. I think the city cops may very well be right in their views of them specifically.

Outlawing all rifles and shotguns would turn the USA into a police state. Not that this would be necessarily all bad, since Nixon did peacefully resign when pressured by the Senate and House.

But what if a Nixon came along who would not resign peacefully when the Senate and House told him to? And what if the Joint Chiefs agreed with him? That would definitely spell the end of the US Constitution, if at least 45% of households did not contain a shotgun or rifle.

Having said all that, any legitimate major change in gun laws would likely require a constitutional amendment. And that seems unlikely, to me, which is fine too. I am not anxious to live in a police state. Even though many police states are very peaceful.

 

[FredT]

IndigoBlue once bubbled...

Machine guns have been legislated against since the 2nd Amendment and the federal courts have not overruled the legislation. Similarly, exploding or incendiary ammunition has been legislated against as well, with no overrulings. Ammunition larger than 1/2 inch in diameter has been legislated against as well, on the grounds of unsportsmanship in hunting.

The NFA (the legislation you refer to above) was written as a TAX bill not as a prohibition on ownership. In fact it resides in the tax code, not in the area generally referring to firearms and was enforced by Treasury as a tax code. It is where "firearms" responsibility was added to the Bureau of Alcohol and Tobacco to become ATF. It imposed an unreasonable tax, but it was written that way because Congeress new it DID NOT HAVE THE AUTHORITY to restrict them any other way!

Go back and read the debates leading up to it's passage, and it's history in the court. Wheither or not the bill is constutuional even as written has yet to be fully defined. The "defining" case so often quoted was sent back to the lower court for a review that never happened. The AG at the time let it die, as both defendants were dead or missing. It's one of the few times I know of that the prosecution "lost" without the defendant or defense lawyer even showing up, then delared the loss a victory.

FT

BTW lets' not hijack an otherwise interesting thread, no matter how big a troll it started out as.

 

[IndigoBlue]

There are several polarizing political issues that seem to spark emotional debate more often than they spark reasonable debate.

Gun ownership is one of them. The key words are usually "crime" vs "freedom." It is somewhat ironic that the political party that is known for strong anti-crime measures is also against gun control.

Abortion is another such issue. The key words there are usually "choice" vs "life." It is somewhat ironic that the liberal party that support "choice" does not do more to extend protections to unborn humans as well. And it is ironic that the party that support "life" does not do more to make life more livable.

Voting is probably the best way to settle all of these issues, and then just let the majority opinion rule. And live with it, whatever it is. And that is a general opinion, not a thread hijacking.

 

[adder70]

IndigoBlue once bubbled...


Gun ownership is one of them. The key words are usually "crime" vs "freedom." It is somewhat ironic that the political party that is known for strong anti-crime measures is also against gun control.

The politics are also a function of basic beliefs. The language of your post leads me to believe you support gun control. Some people believe that controlling guns equals controlling crime. IMO, that is a complete fallacy supported by gun control advocates who are either ignorant or just plain deceitful. (Some might just refuse to see the truth, like the family of a child molester who preys upon their children.) (Gun control advocate=child molester: Good association! )Where was if shown that controlling guns controls crime? The statistics actually show LOWER crime in areas with greater gun ownership.

To stop crime, punish the criminals, not everyone else. When the government shows me it can control guns better than it can presently control illegal drugs, I would still be against gun control, but would not fear a near complete loss of control to criminals in nearly corner of our society. Hey, if you outlaw guns, only the criminals will have guns. Right now, only the criminals have drugs, right? So, why don't you go see how tough it is to get drugs? Then tell me gun control will reduce crime.

 

[IndigoBlue]

adder70 once bubbled...


The politics are also a function of basic beliefs. The language of your post leads me to believe you support gun control. Some people believe that controlling guns equals controlling crime. IMO, that is a complete fallacy supported by gun control advocates who are either ignorant or just plain deceitful. (Some might just refuse to see the truth, like the family of a child molester who preys upon their children.) (Gun control advocate=child molester: Good association! )Where was if shown that controlling guns controls crime? The statistics actually show LOWER crime in areas with greater gun ownership.

To stop crime, punish the criminals, not everyone else. When the government shows me it can control guns better than it can presently control illegal drugs, I would still be against gun control, but would not fear a near complete loss of control to criminals in nearly corner of our society. Hey, if you outlaw guns, only the criminals will have guns. Right now, only the criminals have drugs, right? So, why don't you go see how tough it is to get drugs? Then tell me gun control will reduce crime.

Not to hijack the thread, but here are more thoughts on gun issues.

Adder, I feel your comments are indeed thoughtful on gun issues. I myself am not too worried about gun issues much. I used to hunt, but sold all my hunting stuff to buy scuba stuff. Even as a hunter, I did not view certain firearms as legitimate, such as semi-autos of any kind, since they have no good hunting applications.

Handguns have hunting applications, however these get so misused in the cities that I could go either way on a ban against them. Personally I do not care that much about the issue either way.

The states that seem to have the least crime are Arizona, Texas, and parts of Florida, all of which allow concealed weapons permits. You are probably right, that banning guns does not stop crime.

Most city folk are horrified at the sight of a gun or the thought of one of their neighbors carrying one. Most country and/or southern folk have grown up around guns. Most city cops are horrified by citizens carrying concealed guns as well. Most city cops would draw on you and try to arrest you if they saw you with a gun, permit or no permit, if not shoot you without ever asking questions at all. Therefore concealed weapons permits are probably not safe nor a solution to crime either, in most cities.

Beliefs by and large need to give way to informed debate and democratic processes. Then once the populace votes and resolves an issue, thats where the issue should rest. That is the best way for 300 million people in a democratic republic to get along.

The political issues that I personally do worry a lot about are infrastructure maintenance (roads and bridges), out of control deficits, overextended military operations in multiple foreign locations, corruption in spending programs (including the rebuilding of Iraq), jerrymandering voting districts, reunification of church and state (like the Puritans tried to do centuries ago), and of course the destruction of sea life habitat.

I used to worry about the distruction of elk and deer habitat, but I just do not have occasion to care about that anymore, since I stopped eating venison.

It seems to me that all divers should agree on preserving sea life habitats close to shore. The other political issues do not have much commonality among all divers. So I would not want to hijack the thread onto gun issues.

 

[mempilot]

IndigoBlue once bubbled...

Most city cops are horrified by citizens carrying concealed guns as well. Most city cops would draw on you and try to arrest you if they saw you with a gun, permit or no permit, if not shoot you without ever asking questions at all.

I think you are a little off base here. My 'carry and conceal' permit training class was conducted by local law enforcement officers. Their attitude was exactly the opposite of what you post. Now, if you're breaking the law and carrying, legally or not, that is a different question. It is also a violation of your permit and a felony. In other words, law abiding citizens carrying a concealed weapon are not going to be gunned down or arrested for carrying. In a routine traffic stop, you are obligated to inform the officer that you have a permit. You will be asked to produce the permit under a cautious eye, but that is the form of gun control most would find acceptable.

 

[Bob3]

I've been "hiding in the weeds" half expecting this thread to turn into one of those peeing matches, so far civility & mutual respect has been the rule rather than the exception. Nice job.
There are going to be differences of opinion on a lot of issues, but in the end what we all have in common will still be much greater than than which seperates us.
BTW Mempilot, I can tell you haven't spent much time out here in CA; there's always someone getting blown away for having a cellphone or wallet being "mistaken" for a gun.

 

[mempilot]

Yep, I haven't stepped foot in CA in years. Not that I don't like you guys out there, but hey, I like watching movie stars at the AMC and not at the podium. But I have lived in 6 different states throughout the Midwest and South. Often, American's tend to preach politics based on home state views and concerns and sometimes miss the big picture which involves the vast majorities. California is known for taking politics to the wings. There's nothing wrong with that. But cops aren't blowing away cell phone users around the country. Every state has exceptions to the national norm. Someone earlier in this thread stated that we need further seperation between state and federal enforcement. I agree somewhat. What's good for the gander(national) is not always good for the goose(state), or something like that.

BTW, I'm planning a trip to a family member's wedding next fall in Monteray, CA. Any recommendations on boats and dives? I've never dived the Pacific Coast. Yeah, I'm a tropic weenie!