Discussion: The Second Amendment III

[enterthemadness]

Why don't schools have armed guards at entrances with metal detectors and/or x-ray like an airport? NO really....why not?

Because it creates a police state like vibe imo. I really rather not see armed guards at schools or metal detectors, even though the Libertarian Party is for armed guards or arming teachers. I honestly forget it if's armed guards, both or just the armed teachers. But at the same time something needs to be done, and I rather not see anything at all happen to the 'Right to bear Arms'. So if arming teachers and staff, thus having them trained, having armed guards at school and metal detectors...if that what it takes to leave the 'Right to bears arms' alone, well, that is fine. Because something does need to be done, we cannot keep having gun shootings at schools...but at same time, we should not be re-working the Second Amendment.

 

[samsnee]

Gorilla sales skyrocket after latest Gorilla attack:

http://www.theonion.com/articles/gorilla-sales-skyrocket-after-latest-gorilla-attac,30860/

 

[Webfoot Hero]

Because it creates a police state like vibe imo. I really rather not see armed guards at schools or metal detectors, even though the Libertarian Party is for armed guards or arming teachers. I honestly forget it if's armed guards, both or just the armed teachers. But at the same time something needs to be done, and I rather not see anything at all happen to the 'Right to bear Arms'. So if arming teachers and staff, thus having them trained, having armed guards at school and metal detectors...if that what it takes to leave the 'Right to bears arms' alone, well, that is fine. Because something does need to be done, we cannot keep having gun shootings at schools...but at same time, we should not be re-working the Second Amendment.

I kind of actually think having guards works at bigger schools since there are so many kids to check and not having to worry about a school shooting is one less worry. I can't remember the last time a school that had both armed guards and metal detectors had a school shooting. Seems the shootings that have happened occurred at schools with very little security measures.

 

[dnno1]

I saw that about the guard. It makes me wonder, did the boy know the guard wasn't going to be there that day? If not, the guard certainly wasn't a deterrent. My main point was that it's been argued in this thread that the only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun, is a good guy with a gun. In this case, the people who stopped him, we're unarmed.

Yeah, I heard the guard was snowed in that day. That's the thing. People are not dumb (and neither are criminals). They can wait you out. They plan out their crimes and commit them when the threat risk is low. It is better to make sure that a firearm does not get into the hands of a criminal and to hold those who do knowingly give them the weapons accountable.

 

[Thundercrack85]

Most (I'd imagine all, but there probably are exceptions) high schools do have armed security. But they're not there just to look out for random spree shooters. High schools are rampant with crime. They do other stuff.

It's very different from having armed security in an elementary school. Lack of narcotics, for one thing.

 

[Spider-Who?]

I don't get how that's legal. It's someone's personal property and they should be able to give it to whomever they desire once they die (as long as the inheritors aren't convicted felons.)

I remember not too long ago reading an article about how companies want to change the laws so that all consumer goods we buy we do not own, only lease from them. If something like that were to actually happen, then one could argue that it WOULD be legal to confiscate personal property.

(I tried hunting down the article but was unable to find it. I'm sure others might have better luck).

 

[Thundercrack85]

Soooo, a multi-thousand dollar gun collection goes to California?

That is BS....has that been challenged in California? if not, why the hell not....?

Presumably in that sort of case (where it's a small fortune), they get the hell out of California. I haven't read too many cases, probably because most "assault weapons" are fairly new. Plus, if you inherit an AR-15... you could certainly keep it without telling anyone. Against the law, but, in some areas, no one cares (provided you don't use it).

There is a long line for gun law challenges, the courts either ignore them, or postpone them indefinitely. Look at New York. Or better yet, Chicago. DC, until recently, had no real challenge to its blatantly unconstitutional laws (the handgun ban, for example).

San Francisco outlawed all handguns, but it was overruled by the courts (that one got less coverage, for some reason).

 

[Spider-Who?]

Most (I'd imagine all, but there probably are exceptions) high schools do have armed security. But they're not there just to look out for random spree shooters. High schools are rampant with crime. They do other stuff.

It's very different from having armed security in an elementary school. Lack of narcotics, for one thing.

Yeah my high school had a sheriffs deputy. He pretty much acted like a glorified hall monitor (in the sense that we never gave his presence much thought). It wasn't a big deal, no one felt weird that there was a cop around, if anything people felt safer, especially during the dc sniper attacks.

 

[Thundercrack85]

I don't get how that's legal. It's someone's personal property and they should be able to give it to whomever they desire once they die (as long as the inheritors aren't convicted felons.)

It's illegal to transfer outlawed weapons.

Plus, you need to register all firearms in California. So if you inherit any firearm, you have to register it (at which point you surrender it, if it's an outlawed weapon). If you don't, that's a crime. So, not registering it, and keeping it (two serious crimes )... that's a nice prison sentence.

 

[Spider-Who?]

He ordered the confiscation of ALL THEIR PROPERTY.

Point to where I say he didn't. Once again, I'm not talking about everything else Hitler did because we were discussing gun laws in this thread. Hitler's confiscation of Jewish guns was a separate act, done within days of the violence and imprisonment of Jews during the Night of Broken Glass in 1938. It was a regulation under the 1938 German Weapons Act, which "effectively deprived all Jews of the right to possess firearms or other weapons."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_Germany

The fact you call this "gun control", is bizarre. It's stripping people of their citizenship. Your comparison is not only invalid, it's insulting.

It's insulting that I'm speaking of ONE of the MANY things Hitler did? Do you need me to admonish all of Hitler's evil acts one by one before you feel better? Again, the law against Jews owning guns was separate from the laws that stripped the Jews of citizenship (a five year difference); it was one of many laws written over several years. Yes, we can generalize and say that Germany took everything away from the Jews as you say, but we can also seperate the incidents for discussion without limiting the horror of the situation as a whole. Am I saying the gun laws were worse or more important than the razing of property or the imprisonment and deaths of countless innocents? Absolutely not. We're in a gun law thread, so I'm discussing the gun laws.

Gun control law- regulation of the selling, owning, and use of guns

Law making it illegal for Jews to own guns - §1: Jews are prohibited from acquiring, possessing, and carrying firearms and ammunition, as well as truncheons or stabbing weapons. Those now possessing weapons and ammunition are at once to turn them over to the local police authority....§4: Whoever willfully or negligently violates the provisions of §1 will be punished with imprisonment and a fine. In especially severe cases of deliberate violations, the punishment is imprisonment in a penitentiary for up to five years.
http://jpfo.org/filegen-n-z/NaziLawEnglish.htm

Sounds a hell of a lot like a gun control law to me.

Whatever laws that existed in Germany only regard to German citizens. The Jews weren't citizens, they were subject races, so they were wards of the state.

Hitler took away Jews' citizenship in 1933, yes, but that didn't mean they weren't subject to Germany's laws. Ever hear of the Nuremberg Laws? The Law for the Restoration of the Professional Civil Service? The Law for the Protection of German Blood and German Honor? These were anti-semetic laws passed in Germany, and upheld in it's courts. If only German citizens were subject to these and other laws (including the Regulations Against Jews' Possession of Weapons), than why would germany bother writing those laws, and why didn't the Jews just shrug and say "hey, we're not citizens any more, we're only state subjects, so these laws don't apply to us"?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_Germany
http://www.ushmm.org/wlc/en/article.php?ModuleId=10005681
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuremberg_Laws

I think you need to do a lot more reading, and spend less time hurling insults.

And with that, I'm done. Wasted enough time with you and derailed this thread enough (sorry all).

 

[Thundercrack85]

I believe it's an unwritten rule that Hitler must be brought up at least once in every thread, so you're cool.

 

[enterthemadness]

You all need to watch this as to why a gun ban on certain guns would be a nightmare in the courts.


http://www.fox19.com/story/20559098/reality-check-executive-order-for-gun-control-can-it-happen

Dat Ben Swann, with his reporting truth.

 

[roach]

Possible. My brother once told a bully, "It's kids like you that make kids like me bring guns to school."

I called it....he was bullied

 

[dnno1]

You all need to watch this as to why a gun ban on certain guns would be a nightmare in the courts.


http://www.fox19.com/story/20559098/reality-check-executive-order-for-gun-control-can-it-happen

Dat Ben Swann, with his reporting truth.

Ben Swann is a tool of the NRA. His report tried to make it look like Presidential Executive Orders on gun control would be unprecedented and could be overturned by the Supreme Court. The fact of the matter is that in 1989, George H. W. Bush issued an executive order that banned the importation assault weapons unless they were used for sporting purposes and that President Clinton in 1996 expanded the Bush Administration ban by including almost five dozen different assault weapons that had been modified to get through that "sporting purposes" exemption. Neither of these orders were overturned. The key here is that these presidents used existing law as a justification for their actions and the same thing would apply with the Obama Administration.

 

[enterthemadness]

Ben Swann is a tool of the NRA. His report tried to make it look like Presidential Executive Orders on gun control would be unprecedented and could be overturned by the Supreme Court. The fact of the matter is that in 1989, George H. W. Bush issued an executive order that banned the importation assault weapons unless they were used for sporting purposes and that President Clinton in 1996 expanded the Bush Administration ban by including almost five dozen different assault weapons that had been modified to get through that "sporting purposes" exemption. Neither of these orders were overturned. The key here is that these presidents used existing law as a justification for their actions and the same thing would apply with the Obama Administration.

...That actually made my heart hurt there....ouch. I see Ben Swann as a good, honest, man, reporting on things others do no want to or cannot report on. But eh, to each his own.

 

[Destructus86]

Because it creates a police state like vibe imo. I really rather not see armed guards at schools or metal detectors, even though the Libertarian Party is for armed guards or arming teachers. I honestly forget it if's armed guards, both or just the armed teachers. But at the same time something needs to be done, and I rather not see anything at all happen to the 'Right to bear Arms'. So if arming teachers and staff, thus having them trained, having armed guards at school and metal detectors...if that what it takes to leave the 'Right to bears arms' alone, well, that is fine. Because something does need to be done, we cannot keep having gun shootings at schools...but at same time, we should not be re-working the Second Amendment.

uh...people go through that every single time they fly. So, what...we would rather feel warm and cuddly rather than safe?

 

[Spider-Who?]

Dnno, do you have proof that swann is a member of the NRA, or that they have him in their pocket, or are you just saying he's a tool for the NRA because he pointed out fallacies in Morgan's stats?

 

[dnno1]

Dnno, do you have proof that swann is a member of the NRA, or that they have him in their pocket, or are you just saying he's a tool for the NRA because he pointed out fallacies in Morgan's stats?

I didn't say he was a member. I said he was a tool. Case in point, the NRA has often taken his videos and spread it around on the internet. Swan may sound like he is hard hitting and honest, but he can be just a misleading as the rest. What everyone should know is that it all depends on where you get your sources from and how you use them as to how reliable they are and that is not always the case with Mr. Swan.

 

[dnno1]

...That actually made my heart hurt there....ouch. I see Ben Swann as a good, honest, man, reporting on things others do no want to or cannot report on. But eh, to each his own.

He's only saying things you want to hear. It doesn't mean that it is totally factual.

 

[Spider-Who?]

I didn't say he was a member. I said he was a tool. Case in point, the NRA has often taken his videos and spread it around on the internet. Swan may sound like he is hard hitting and honest, but he can be just a misleading as the rest. What everyone should know is that it all depends on where you get your sources from and how you use them as to how reliable they are and that is not always the case with Mr. Swan.

I'm still not seeing any evidence that he is a tool of the NRA.

The NRA posting a link to his video makes him no more a tool than it would make one of us a tool by posting videos here that talk about gun control.

Swann makes a point to be fair and balanced and tries to give clear information on the topics he addresses, regardless of which political party it helps. He also displays his sources.

His report tried to make it look like Presidential Executive Orders on gun control would be unprecedented

I rewatched the video and saw nothing that suggested this.

and could be overturned by the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court can, and has overturned Executive Orders. And as a whole, Executive Orders have constantly been met with criticism for exceeding the Presidents power and/or circumventing Congress.

I'm all for questioning talking heads on the TV, but I think you may be reading too much into this video, especially considering Swann addressed the fact that the Supreme Court ruled that the Government CAN limit what guns we are allowed to own. People are wondering what Biden meant about the coming EO on gun control, and Swann gave a concise explanation. Nothing more. Nothing less.

 

[dnno1]

I'm still not seeing any evidence that he is a tool of the NRA.

The NRA posting a link to his video makes him no more a tool than it would make one of us a tool by posting videos here that talk about gun control.

Swan has produced a lot of episodes that have favored the NRA's stance on gun control. The have consistently posted these videos on their social media pages. Swan is a tool for the NRA.

Swann makes a point to be fair and balanced and tries to give clear information on the topics he addresses, regardless of which political party it helps. He also displays his sources.

I don't think so. The edition of Reality Check I posed before, had Swan caliming that Piers Morgan was wrong with his figures on gun deaths in the United States and Great Brittan. That all depends on where you get your data from. Swan cited the FBI figures. Piers Morgan got his 11,000 homicides figure from the National Vital Statistics report published by the Center for Disease Control (http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr61/nvsr61_06.pdf, page 42). He got the 35 number from the British National Office of Statistics (http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/crime...ng-march-2012/rft-bulletin-tables-2011-12.xls -- 31 males and 5 females were murdered by firearms in 2010). Swan also threw out a lot of facts that convoluted the whole issue. Morgan was comparing the United States to Great Brittan (two developed nations). I don't think we need to get into any other countries here since that was not part of Morgans discussion.

I rewatched the video and saw nothing that suggested this.

If you actually watched it, they you would have saw where Swan asked the question if it were possible that the President could create some gun laws via executive order and then said that although it was possible it might not be upheld by the supreme court. He then throws out the point that no executive order may direct federal agencies to do anything that is illegal or unconstitutional (as if what the President would do was going to do that). The truth of the matter is that Ben Swan ignored the fact that two previous administrations have legislated gun bans via executive order and they were not overturned by the SCOTUS. Not disclosing this leads the viewer to believe that the President can not do this and this is why he is not being sincere if not being misleading.

The Supreme Court can, and has overturned Executive Orders. And as a whole, Executive Orders have constantly been met with criticism for exceeding the Presidents power and/or circumventing Congress.

I only know of two Executive orders in the history of the United States that were overturned by the Supreme Court and neither of them involved an order that actually enforced existing laws. That is what the Obama Administration wants to do, two previous Presidents have done something like this before, so I don't see why this is even a question.

I'm all for questioning talking heads on the TV, but I think you may be reading too much into this video, especially considering Swann addressed the fact that the Supreme Court ruled that the Government CAN limit what guns we are allowed to own. People are wondering what Biden meant about the coming EO on gun control, and Swann gave a concise explanation. Nothing more. Nothing less.

That's your point of view. It clearly is misleading.

 

[Hotwire]

Point to where I say he didn't. Once again, I'm not talking about everything else Hitler did because we were discussing gun laws in this thread. Hitler's confiscation of Jewish guns was a separate act, done within days of the violence and imprisonment of Jews during the Night of Broken Glass in 1938. It was a regulation under the 1938 German Weapons Act, which "effectively deprived all Jews of the right to possess firearms or other weapons."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_Germany



It's insulting that I'm speaking of ONE of the MANY things Hitler did? Do you need me to admonish all of Hitler's evil acts one by one before you feel better? Again, the law against Jews owning guns was separate from the laws that stripped the Jews of citizenship (a five year difference); it was one of many laws written over several years. Yes, we can generalize and say that Germany took everything away from the Jews as you say, but we can also seperate the incidents for discussion without limiting the horror of the situation as a whole. Am I saying the gun laws were worse or more important than the razing of property or the imprisonment and deaths of countless innocents? Absolutely not. We're in a gun law thread, so I'm discussing the gun laws.

Gun control law- regulation of the selling, owning, and use of guns

Law making it illegal for Jews to own guns - §1: Jews are prohibited from acquiring, possessing, and carrying firearms and ammunition, as well as truncheons or stabbing weapons. Those now possessing weapons and ammunition are at once to turn them over to the local police authority....§4: Whoever willfully or negligently violates the provisions of §1 will be punished with imprisonment and a fine. In especially severe cases of deliberate violations, the punishment is imprisonment in a penitentiary for up to five years.
http://jpfo.org/filegen-n-z/NaziLawEnglish.htm

Sounds a hell of a lot like a gun control law to me.



Hitler took away Jews' citizenship in 1933, yes, but that didn't mean they weren't subject to Germany's laws. Ever hear of the Nuremberg Laws? The Law for the Restoration of the Professional Civil Service? The Law for the Protection of German Blood and German Honor? These were anti-semetic laws passed in Germany, and upheld in it's courts. If only German citizens were subject to these and other laws (including the Regulations Against Jews' Possession of Weapons), than why would germany bother writing those laws, and why didn't the Jews just shrug and say "hey, we're not citizens any more, we're only state subjects, so these laws don't apply to us"?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_Germany
http://www.ushmm.org/wlc/en/article.php?ModuleId=10005681
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuremberg_Laws

I think you need to do a lot more reading, and spend less time hurling insults.

And with that, I'm done. Wasted enough time with you and derailed this thread enough (sorry all).

What Hitler did was try to make it easier on himself to round up pretty the Jews. Laws like this gave him legal grounds to imprison some of them. Whether he passed these laws or not, he was going to do the same thing anyway. And, even if the Jews had weapons, Holter had a trained army that had the Jews out gunned. "Oh, you have a rifle? I have a machine gun and he's got a tank."

 

[Spider-Who?]

What Hitler did was try to make it easier on himself to round up pretty the Jews.

Which was exactly my point from the very beginning of the dictator talk, which I stated several times.

 

[Optimus_Prime_]

What Hitler did was try to make it easier on himself to round up pretty the Jews. Laws like this gave him legal grounds to imprison some of them. Whether he passed these laws or not, he was going to do the same thing anyway. And, even if the Jews had weapons, Holter had a trained army that had the Jews out gunned. "Oh, you have a rifle? I have a machine gun and he's got a tank."

In many [most] cases the Jews ignored what Hitler said. There were several armed revolts, and like you said, with his army, he put them down pretty swiftly. I believe one town of Jews did hold him off for a rather long time, I want to say it was about a year or so, but that may be an exaggeration.

However, the point you just made, and the point I *sigh* tried to make was like you said, the Jews were targets. Regardless of how he pursued whatever policy he did pursue, the end result was always intended to be the same. The Jews weren't sold "gun control" and then found out the wool had been pulled over their eyes. During Hitler's rise to power they were very aware of his ultimate intentions. He was quite upfront about hating Jews, and wanting them exterminated. In fact, it was rather common for people in that era to hate Jews.

 

[Optimus_Prime_]

Which was exactly my point from the very beginning of the dictator talk, which I stated several times.

That has nothing to do with gun control.

Controlling guns to cut down on gun violence is not the same as rounding up people for extermination. Dictators do it all the time, and frequently they don't issue orders to confiscate weapons beforehand, or even during. Saddam never had gun control, neither did America, but we both carried out genocide and relocation against subject races.

You're just falling for propaganda. "I don't like this so let me associate it with this violent dictator". Politicians do it all the time, and it's a logical fallacy of guilt by association. Frequently, and in this case, the dictator in question had nothing to do with pre-existing laws.