login
Obama considering an executive order on gun control (Page 12)
-
No new posts
|
 2013-01-18 1:22 AM in reply to: #4570405 |
Pro  15655    |  Subject: RE: Obama considering an executive order on gun controlObama did the Obama thing....he made a big show of nothing. Genius on some level. There is nothing in the Executive order that means anything. Even the items that could make a difference, like loosening of medical records in order to keep guns out of the hands of the mentally ill, is unworkable as formatted. He doesn't have a prayer in hell of getting an assault weapons ban, much less a magazine capacity limit...... and wake up, he didn't dare try it as an executive order. It's just emotional fluff for the uninitiated. You've been played!! He'll get universal background checks and claim victory. Lawful gun owners will laugh and go along with it, anti-gun folks will bow to their leader..........life rolls on....nothing changes. Edited by Left Brain 2013-01-18 1:26 AM |
| 2013-01-18 1:39 AM in reply to: #4572911 |
Elite 2608  Denver, Colorado | Subject: RE: Obama considering an executive order on gun control Jackemy1 - 2013-01-10 5:17 PM powerman - 2013-01-10 5:05 PM Jackemy1 - 2013-01-10 4:02 PM powerman - 2013-01-10 3:28 PM drewb8 - 2013-01-10 9:19 AM kmanus - 2013-01-10 9:12 AM I agree that that's its purpose, but if that's true, than what I struggle with, is how can you justify any sort of regulation on any kind of armament at all? Except the 2A isn't about hunting or sports. It's about protecting from a tyrannical government. Self-defense, hunting, sporting are all benefits. Drew... the argument that I should be able to own anything is another distraction. No Supreme Court Justice has ever claimed we should own anything, and even the NRA has never made such a proposal. The intent of the 2A was for "The People" to own common arms of the type he would bring for militia duty. That does not mean a rocket launcher, that does not mean a tank, that does not mean claymore mines... it mean fire arms in common use... which most certainly are semi-auto rifles... and one could argue full auto rifles... but there has not been much complaining about not having those. It isn't in the enumerated powers of the Supreme Court or any of the branches of the federal government, especially the executive one, to define what is meant by "arms". But you find me a candidate for Governor with a campaign pledge to legalize personal nuke devices and I'll show you a candidate that will get blown out on election day.
But in the SCOTUS ruling that have dealt with the 2A, they have at times defined what was meant by militia and arms and the type in common use. Obviously today, there will be another discussion on semi-auto rifles and possibly another challenge to seek better definition. But there is case law that deals with this. Ok, fair enough. I am not a Constitutional lawyer so by me making a statement instead of opinion was me talking out of my arse. I think what I I meant to say is that it is not in the powers the court to initiate the definition of what is are arm, they would only determine what was the "original intent" of framers when they wrote the 2A. This is one of those implied powers thing. Let's start with the text of Article III, Sections 1 and 2: Section 1 The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services, a Compensation, which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office. Section 2 1: The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;--to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls;--to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;--to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;--to Controversies between two or more States;--between a State and Citizens of another State;10 --between Citizens of different States, --between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects. It is difficult to exercise judicial power over a case arising under the Constitution if the Supreme Court cannot give meaning to the words in the Constitution. And trying to figure out "original intent" is basically an exercise in interpretation. And if you feel that "original intent" should be the touchstone, they you may want to be careful what you wish for. I've seen it argued that original intent should be based on what things were like when the Framers were around. Okay, when the Constitution was written, there were no automatic or semi-auto weapons; only muskets and single shot pistols. So, an argument can be made that the 2A only allows possession of these types of weapons. Say goodbye to your 9mm. On the other hand, a plain text reading (Scalia actually likes this approach) shows that the 2A never uses the word guns but "arms." Arms include tanks, nukes, and automatic weapons. I have also heard it argued that the 2A only applied to the needs of "A well regulated Militia." Since we now have a professional military, there is no longer a need for a "militia" and thus no need for citizens (other than those in the military) to possess guns. Fortunately for gun owners, the Supreme Court has now definitively held that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that weapon for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Moreover, this right applies not just to the federal government, but to states and municipalities as well. So, here is an instance of the Supreme Court interpreting a portion of the Constitution to extend a right perhaps beyond what was originally intended. Court interpretation is not always bad. |
| 2013-01-18 5:46 AM in reply to: #4583826 |
Sneaky Slow 8694 Herndon, VA, | Subject: RE: Obama considering an executive order on gun control Left Brain - 2013-01-18 2:22 AM Obama did the Obama typical politician thing....he made a big show of nothing. Genius on some level. Fixed. |
| 2013-01-18 6:21 AM in reply to: #4583830 |
Elite 6387 | Subject: RE: Obama considering an executive order on gun control MikeTheBear - 2013-01-18 12:39 AM It is difficult to exercise judicial power over a case arising under the Constitution if the Supreme Court cannot give meaning to the words in the Constitution. And trying to figure out "original intent" is basically an exercise in interpretation. And if you feel that "original intent" should be the touchstone, they you may want to be careful what you wish for. I've seen it argued that original intent should be based on what things were like when the Framers were around. Okay, when the Constitution was written, there were no automatic or semi-auto weapons; only muskets and single shot pistols. So, an argument can be made that the 2A only allows possession of these types of weapons. Say goodbye to your 9mm. On the other hand, a plain text reading (Scalia actually likes this approach) shows that the 2A never uses the word guns but "arms." Arms include tanks, nukes, and automatic weapons. I have also heard it argued that the 2A only applied to the needs of "A well regulated Militia." Since we now have a professional military, there is no longer a need for a "militia" and thus no need for citizens (other than those in the military) to possess guns. Fortunately for gun owners, the Supreme Court has now definitively held that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that weapon for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Moreover, this right applies not just to the federal government, but to states and municipalities as well. So, here is an instance of the Supreme Court interpreting a portion of the Constitution to extend a right perhaps beyond what was originally intended. Court interpretation is not always bad. You can't "bear" a nuclear weapon or a tank... but yes you can bear and automatic fire arm. I am not familiar with any interpretation other than personal arms. Original "intent"... is not the same as original "application". The 2A may have originally applied to muskets, but the original intent most certainly meant person fire arms commonly used. Just like freedom of speech originally applied to speech and print... but original intent meant all forms of speech and sharing of ideas including the internet today. |
| 2013-01-18 7:40 AM in reply to: #4583826 |
| Subject: RE: Obama considering an executive order on gun control Left Brain. Just to ochange for a minute, you fire any Federal HST 155gr? I was wondering how it cycles in Sigs |
| 2013-01-18 7:53 AM in reply to: #4583361 |
Champion 17756 SoCal | Subject: RE: Obama considering an executive order on gun control GomesBolt - 2013-01-17 2:58 PM Aarondb4 - 2013-01-17 4:37 PM ChineseDemocracy - 2013-01-17 3:34 PM BrianRunsPhilly - 2013-01-17 10:17 AM Let's all just cut to the chase! The kitten never would have been put into that position if he was packing heat! Fortunately, the gun will be limited to 7 bullets...quick math tells me kitty will still be left with 2 lives thanks to the new 7 round limit. Thank you so much for this post! I have been wracking my brain trying to figure out why 7 rounds is so much better than 10. Know that I know it is to protect the kittys it all makes sense! I think CD's post is hilarious, but the 7 round magazine is a standard magazine for a .45 acp 1911. That's what it was when they made the first one in response to the need for "stopping power" to kill guerillas in the Philippines. I think that's the reason for the 7 round clip. If you stack 7 .45 acp rounds on-top of each other, they fit in your hand (or in a pistol grip). A revolver usually holds 5 or 6 depending on the caliber so 7 was just one more in 1911. And they could load so much quicker than they could load a revolver. The 10 round clip seems a little more arbitrary. The magazines used in the original M16s in Vietnam (the predecessor to the AR15) had a 10-round magazine which was twice the rounds of the standard M14 clip which had 5. Of course nowadays, riflemen carry 30-round clips for M16A2s and other variants and 100 round drums for the 5.56 mm Squad Automatic Weapon (SAW). Of course, you always add 1 to the capacity of a magazine because you could have a round chambered so 7 round clip + 1 in the chamber for the .45, 11 for the M16, etc. The SAW doesn't count because it's an open-bolt weapon... Magazine |
| 2013-01-18 8:00 AM in reply to: #4584013 |
| Austin, Texas or Jupiter, Florida | Subject: RE: Obama considering an executive order on gun control Big Appa - 2013-01-18 7:53 AM . GomesBolt - 2013-01-17 2:58 PM Aarondb4 - 2013-01-17 4:37 PM ChineseDemocracy - 2013-01-17 3:34 PM BrianRunsPhilly - 2013-01-17 10:17 AM Let's all just cut to the chase! The kitten never would have been put into that position if he was packing heat! Fortunately, the gun will be limited to 7 bullets...quick math tells me kitty will still be left with 2 lives thanks to the new 7 round limit. Thank you so much for this post! I have been wracking my brain trying to figure out why 7 rounds is so much better than 10. Know that I know it is to protect the kittys it all makes sense! I think CD's post is hilarious, but the 7 round magazine is a standard magazine for a .45 acp 1911. That's what it was when they made the first one in response to the need for "stopping power" to kill guerillas in the Philippines. I think that's the reason for the 7 round clip. If you stack 7 .45 acp rounds on-top of each other, they fit in your hand (or in a pistol grip). A revolver usually holds 5 or 6 depending on the caliber so 7 was just one more in 1911. And they could load so much quicker than they could load a revolver. The 10 round clip seems a little more arbitrary. The magazines used in the original M16s in Vietnam (the predecessor to the AR15) had a 10-round magazine which was twice the rounds of the standard M14 clip which had 5. Of course nowadays, riflemen carry 30-round clips for M16A2s and other variants and 100 round drums for the 5.56 mm Squad Automatic Weapon (SAW). Of course, you always add 1 to the capacity of a magazine because you could have a round chambered so 7 round clip + 1 in the chamber for the .45, 11 for the M16, etc. The SAW doesn't count because it's an open-bolt weapon... Magazine Are you saying those aren't interchangeable? |
| 2013-01-18 8:15 AM in reply to: #4584024 |
Elite 6387 | Subject: RE: Obama considering an executive order on gun control GomesBolt - 2013-01-18 7:00 AM Big Appa - 2013-01-18 7:53 AM .GomesBolt - 2013-01-17 2:58 PM Aarondb4 - 2013-01-17 4:37 PM ChineseDemocracy - 2013-01-17 3:34 PM BrianRunsPhilly - 2013-01-17 10:17 AM Let's all just cut to the chase! The kitten never would have been put into that position if he was packing heat! Fortunately, the gun will be limited to 7 bullets...quick math tells me kitty will still be left with 2 lives thanks to the new 7 round limit. Thank you so much for this post! I have been wracking my brain trying to figure out why 7 rounds is so much better than 10. Know that I know it is to protect the kittys it all makes sense! I think CD's post is hilarious, but the 7 round magazine is a standard magazine for a .45 acp 1911. That's what it was when they made the first one in response to the need for "stopping power" to kill guerillas in the Philippines. I think that's the reason for the 7 round clip. If you stack 7 .45 acp rounds on-top of each other, they fit in your hand (or in a pistol grip). A revolver usually holds 5 or 6 depending on the caliber so 7 was just one more in 1911. And they could load so much quicker than they could load a revolver. The 10 round clip seems a little more arbitrary. The magazines used in the original M16s in Vietnam (the predecessor to the AR15) had a 10-round magazine which was twice the rounds of the standard M14 clip which had 5. Of course nowadays, riflemen carry 30-round clips for M16A2s and other variants and 100 round drums for the 5.56 mm Squad Automatic Weapon (SAW). Of course, you always add 1 to the capacity of a magazine because you could have a round chambered so 7 round clip + 1 in the chamber for the .45, 11 for the M16, etc. The SAW doesn't count because it's an open-bolt weapon... Magazine Are you saying those aren't interchangeable? I have personally winessed several people's heads litterally explode from the number of times they have heard "clip" recently. |
| 2013-01-18 8:16 AM in reply to: #4584024 |
Champion 17756 SoCal | Subject: RE: Obama considering an executive order on gun control GomesBolt - 2013-01-18 6:00 AM Are you saying those aren't interchangeable? A clip is becoming a normal term used for a magazine but by definition a clip is not a magazine. It's something to nitpick like after fast and furious came out everyone referred to nitrous and Nos even though Nos is a brand name for Holley nitrous. It doesn't really matter and we all know what people mean but it is wrong. |
| 2013-01-18 8:19 AM in reply to: #4582415 |
Pro 5755 | Subject: RE: Obama considering an executive order on gun control BrianRunsPhilly - 2013-01-17 10:17 AM Let's all just cut to the chase! This kitteh ain't gonna be no victim. He'll give up his guns when they pry them out of his cold dead paws Edited by BrianRunsPhilly 2013-01-18 8:22 AM (cat with gun.jpg) Attachments ---------------- cat with gun.jpg (44KB - 14 downloads) |
| 2013-01-18 8:20 AM in reply to: #4584059 |
Pro 5755 | Subject: RE: Obama considering an executive order on gun control I honestly have nothing useful to contribute other than cat pictures  Edited by BrianRunsPhilly 2013-01-18 8:21 AM |
| 2013-01-18 8:26 AM in reply to: #4584064 |
Elite 6387 | Subject: RE: Obama considering an executive order on gun control BrianRunsPhilly - 2013-01-18 7:20 AM I honestly have nothing useful to contribute other than cat pictures Never underestimate the power of a cat picture....
But you do realize you just demonstrated the gun rights argument... kitty gets held up.... kitty gets a gun. "More guns" is the answer. Edited by powerman 2013-01-18 8:27 AM |
| 2013-01-18 8:36 AM in reply to: #4584079 |
Champion 17756 SoCal | Subject: RE: Obama considering an executive order on gun control powerman - 2013-01-18 6:26 AM BrianRunsPhilly - 2013-01-18 7:20 AM I honestly have nothing useful to contribute other than cat pictures Never underestimate the power of a cat picture....
But you do realize you just demonstrated the gun rights argument... kitty gets held up.... kitty gets a gun. "More guns" is the answer. The cat will always be out gunned by the government.
|
| 2013-01-18 10:11 AM in reply to: #4584079 |
Pro 5755 | Subject: RE: Obama considering an executive order on gun control powerman - 2013-01-18 9:26 AM BrianRunsPhilly - 2013-01-18 7:20 AM I honestly have nothing useful to contribute other than cat pictures Never underestimate the power of a cat picture....
But you do realize you just demonstrated the gun rights argument... kitty gets held up.... kitty gets a gun. "More guns" is the answer. Well that animal wouldn't pass the new universal background check. Everyone knows all cats are psycho. |
| 2013-01-18 10:42 AM in reply to: #4584055 |
Champion 7347 SRQ, FL | Subject: RE: Obama considering an executive order on gun control Big Appa - 2013-01-18 9:16 AM GomesBolt - 2013-01-18 6:00 AM Are you saying those aren't interchangeable? A clip is becoming a normal term used for a magazine but by definition a clip is not a magazine. It's something to nitpick like after fast and furious came out everyone referred to nitrous and Nos even though Nos is a brand name for Holley nitrous. It doesn't really matter and we all know what people mean but it is wrong.
|
| 2013-01-18 10:47 AM in reply to: #4584064 |
| Subject: RE: Obama considering an executive order on gun control BrianRunsPhilly - 2013-01-18 6:20 AM I honestly have nothing useful to contribute other than cat pictures
Keep em coming. |
| 2013-01-18 10:54 AM in reply to: #4570405 |
Expert 3126 Boise, ID | Subject: RE: Obama considering an executive order on gun control
All my clips only hold 10 rounds anyway so any new legislation won't affect me. Now my magazines may be a different story, but they don't seem to worried about magazines. |
| 2013-01-18 11:25 AM in reply to: #4584406 |
Member 465 | Subject: RE: Obama considering an executive order on gun control TriRSquared - 2013-01-18 10:42 AM Big Appa - 2013-01-18 9:16 AM GomesBolt - 2013-01-18 6:00 AM Are you saying those aren't interchangeable? A clip is becoming a normal term used for a magazine but by definition a clip is not a magazine. It's something to nitpick like after fast and furious came out everyone referred to nitrous and Nos even though Nos is a brand name for Holley nitrous. It doesn't really matter and we all know what people mean but it is wrong.
The picture on the left looks more scary than the one on the right so ban that one. |
| 2013-01-19 12:07 PM in reply to: #4583361 |
| Member 35 The Woodlands, TX | Subject: RE: Obama considering an executive order on gun control GomesBolt - 2013-01-17 4:58 PM The original magazine for the M16 as used in Vietnam was 20 rounds. This was increased to 30 rounds in the early to mid 1970's. The M14 also used a 20 round magazine. The M14 grew out of the M1 Garand with used an 8 round en-bloc clip. The M249 Squad Automatic Weapon is mostly fielded with disintegrating link belted ammunition in 250 round belts. Aarondb4 - 2013-01-17 4:37 PM ChineseDemocracy - 2013-01-17 3:34 PM BrianRunsPhilly - 2013-01-17 10:17 AM Let's all just cut to the chase! The kitten never would have been put into that position if he was packing heat! Fortunately, the gun will be limited to 7 bullets...quick math tells me kitty will still be left with 2 lives thanks to the new 7 round limit. Thank you so much for this post! I have been wracking my brain trying to figure out why 7 rounds is so much better than 10. Know that I know it is to protect the kittys it all makes sense! I think CD's post is hilarious, but the 7 round magazine is a standard magazine for a .45 acp 1911. That's what it was when they made the first one in response to the need for "stopping power" to kill guerillas in the Philippines. I think that's the reason for the 7 round clip. If you stack 7 .45 acp rounds on-top of each other, they fit in your hand (or in a pistol grip). A revolver usually holds 5 or 6 depending on the caliber so 7 was just one more in 1911. And they could load so much quicker than they could load a revolver. The 10 round clip seems a little more arbitrary. The magazines used in the original M16s in Vietnam (the predecessor to the AR15) had a 10-round magazine which was twice the rounds of the standard M14 clip which had 5. Of course nowadays, riflemen carry 30-round clips for M16A2s and other variants and 100 round drums for the 5.56 mm Squad Automatic Weapon (SAW). Of course, you always add 1 to the capacity of a magazine because you could have a round chambered so 7 round clip + 1 in the chamber for the .45, 11 for the M16, etc. The SAW doesn't count because it's an open-bolt weapon... |
| 2013-01-19 12:51 PM in reply to: #4570405 |
Elite 3972 Reno | Subject: RE: Obama considering an executive order on gun control I see your cat picture and raise you a Dog picture. My border collie is part of a well regulated melitia. Edited by bootygirl 2013-01-19 12:56 PM (get off my lawn.JPG) Attachments ---------------- get off my lawn.JPG (41KB - 15 downloads) |
|
|
|
|
View profile
Add to friends
Go to training log
Go to race log
Send a message
View album
CONNECT WITH FACEBOOK