Discussion: The Second Amendment III

[enterthemadness]

dnno1 is shattering my world view man...shattering it.

-_- answer me this. Mr. Swann did two videos on NDAA 2013. On his YouTube channel. So, err, question is, is he still a tool of the NRA?!

Maybe I am a tool for the NRA and don't even know it...dun, dun, dun.

 

[Spider-Who?]

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.

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.

Swann also listed these as his sources on the RC site:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...ain-worse-South-Africa-U-S.html#ixzz2HQDkC3re
http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2012/jul/22/gun-homicides-ownership-world-list#data

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).

That's a pretty important fact for those who don't understand executive orders, don't you think? He didn't throw out the point to insinuate the President was going to do something illegal; he made a valid point about the limitations of the power of an executive order; a very important fact, especially for panicky people who are unaware of it and think that Obama is going to do some god awful terrible thing with his "unlimited power".

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.

I'll go as far as to say that mentioning the previous examples wouldn't have hurt, but their exclusion is hardly evidence of ill intent. I can see your point, but I look at it differently. To each their own.

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.

Yeah, you're correct - only two executive orders have been overturned (I'd have to check to see which ones as I don't recall). The fact is that many people don't understand the laws surrounding an executive order, and with all the crap crazies are spewing out on both sides of this gun debate, many people are afraid of what will happen...of what power the president actually has in this instance, especially with the long history of controversy surrounding executive orders. This one in particular, while not unprecedented, will be an important issue that people will take up arms against (figuratively). Interestingly, the last two presidents who issued EOs about stricter gun control were hurt politically as well (GHB lost the re-election, and the Democrats were kicked out of the majority in Congress after Clinton signed the AWB in 94). I'm curious to see what political ramifications (if any) we'll see if/when this EO passes, whatever it may be.

 

[dnno1]

dnno1 is shattering my world view man...shattering it.

-_- answer me this. Mr. Swann did two videos on NDAA 2013. On his YouTube channel. So, err, question is, is he still a tool of the NRA?!

Maybe I am a tool for the NRA and don't even know it...dun, dun, dun.

If you spout out their talking points then, yes. The NDAA is a very tricky piece of legislation. The NRA was in favor of it only because it restricted the government form collecting information regarding private firearms ownership by military personnel. The Obama Administration was against it at one time because of their concern that it would limit the power of the office of Chief Executive. Of course there are many who were concerned with limiting the freedoms of U.S. Citizens, but certainly, just because you are opposed to certain things does not mean that you are not a tool for others.

 

[SentinelMind]

I've never seen a TV host lose so many debates consecutively on same topic. You'd think Piers Morgan would take a cue from O'Reilly or Maddow on framing the debate in your favor instead of repeating the same lame talking points and getting decimated.

Here are all Piers Morgan's gun control losses for your view...make sure you have an hour or 2 to spare...

I like how Piers Morgan falls into this pattern of lame talking points...
1. If you don't favor any more gun control, you don't care about the children of the Sandy Hook massacre.
2.Let's only look at successful gun massacres (many in gun-free zones) and ignore unsuccessful attempts stopped by concealed carry bystanders in assessing gun control success.
3. Let's ignore that highest gun murder rates are in areas with high gun bans.
4. Let's ignore that most crimes are committed by recidivist gang bangers.
5. Let's ignore that most gun murders are committed with handguns, not the automatic guns that the Obama/Biden want to ban, so attempting to focus on those scary looking guns is inconsistent.


Morgan Loses Ben Shapiro
[YT]EpJqGaic0F8[/YT]

Morgan Loses Ted Nugent
[YT]V0kANlBAfs8[/YT]

Alex Jones owns Morgan
[YT]AtyKofFih8Y[/YT]

I didn't like how Morgan tries to associate 2nd amendment activism with conspiracy theorists....his purpose of inviting Jones...but whatever your view..Jones does the job. I didn't know suicide is now biggest 'injury'-related killer of Americans.

Gun Owners of America Larry Pratt humiliates Morgan at his own (best of the pack in my opinion)
[YT]_fHJcSsC0aY[/YT]

Larry Pratt does it again
[YT]Q8FGDiKNoYs[/YT]

 

[dnno1]

...Morgan Loses Ben Shapiro
[YT]EpJqGaic0F8[/YT]...

A lot of people believe that the Second Amendment was written so that the people could rebel against the government, but the truth of the matter is that if you buy a firearm for that reason it is treasonous. The Constitution specifically states that anyone who levies war against the United States is guilty of treason (upon the testimony of at least two witnesses). That was not the intent of the Second Amendment. It was written so that people could defend the country (or their state).

 

[dnno1]

Swann also listed these as his sources on the RC site:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...ain-worse-South-Africa-U-S.html#ixzz2HQDkC3re
http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2012/jul/22/gun-homicides-ownership-world-list#data

The Daily Mail is a tabloid magazine and the data that The Guardian used came from the United Nations Office on Drug Crime (they didn't even list any data on the UK). I would think that the Center for Disease Control and Prevention and the British Office of National Statistics would have slightly more comprehensive information than two foreign newspapers (or even the United Nations).

That's a pretty important fact for those who don't understand executive orders, don't you think? He didn't throw out the point to insinuate the President was going to do something illegal; he made a valid point about the limitations of the power of an executive order; a very important fact, especially for panicky people who are unaware of it and think that Obama is going to do some god awful terrible thing with his "unlimited power".

This is true, but the way Swan was presenting it was as if the President wasn't going to do that (when in fact he is). The President has been proposing working on gun control from the stand point of existing law for years now.

I'll go as far as to say that mentioning the previous examples wouldn't have hurt, but their exclusion is hardly evidence of ill intent. I can see your point, but I look at it differently. To each their own.

Why certainly it is. By not admitting to the history of executive orders on gun control, you make the non informed viewer believe that the President is over reaching when he is actually not since he has the president established by two different administrations.

Yeah, you're correct - only two executive orders have been overturned (I'd have to check to see which ones as I don't recall). The fact is that many people don't understand the laws surrounding an executive order, and with all the crap crazies are spewing out on both sides of this gun debate, many people are afraid of what will happen...of what power the president actually has in this instance, especially with the long history of controversy surrounding executive orders. This one in particular, while not unprecedented, will be an important issue that people will take up arms against (figuratively). Interestingly, the last two presidents who issued EOs about stricter gun control were hurt politically as well (GHB lost the re-election, and the Democrats were kicked out of the majority in Congress after Clinton signed the AWB in 94). I'm curious to see what political ramifications (if any) we'll see if/when this EO passes, whatever it may be.

Well, obviously the Executive Order proposal is more of a threat right now than anything else and the hope is to get Congress to enact some positive legislation. But don't think that the President couldn't reinforce some of the existing legislation in order to establish better gun control.

 

[Victarion]

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/lookout/gun-control-debate-assault-weapons-ban-reach-094810128.html

This seems relevant.

 

[Thundercrack85]

Outlawing the M1? That's just un-American.

 

[Kable24]

I was at a gun show today. The building was so packed they stopped letting people come in until some people left. People were buying left and right. Every table that were selling guns always had people filling out the paper work. It was so busy the PICS system went down. Prices were very high for high cap mags and rifles. It's a sellers market. an $800 rifle was selling for $1200 or more easily. a $4 20 round magazine was selling for $25.00 and a $15.00 30 round Magpul P-Mag was going for $45 or more.
I was going to buy an AK47, but the PICS system went down and I wasn't going to sit and wait for it to come up with how crazy the place was with all of the people.

 

[terry78]

It feels like people are just buying **** out of spite now.

 

[Kable24]

I think people are buying to turn it around and make a profit. It sucks for people like me who just wants to be able to buy one here and there. The demand is crazy and manufacturers can't keep up. Magpul is 1 million units behind on PMag orders. .223, 9mm and .45ACP ammo is getting really hard to find.

 

[Spider-Who?]

Yeah, it's like this whenever there's murmurs of more regulation. Everyone's trying to stock up before things are banned.

 

[Thundercrack85]

I'm sort of on the fence when it comes to the issue of "assault weapons". On the one hand, I definitely believe in a Second Amendment. On the other hand, having millions of weapons like the AR-15 in circulation, does mean that there will inevitably be some serious massacres.

Personally I like the Swiss model, where you can only own serious firepower if you complete serious training.

Unfortunately, as a general rule, gun control people seem to be ill informed, and... quite incompetent when it comes to legislation. Also most of them are rather extreme (wanting to ban all handguns for example).

I also think there should be an exception made for guns of historical value.

 

[Kelly]

The mass buying is definitely for a turn around profit. And honestly, who can blame them.....the problem is, WHO ARE THEY TURNING AROUND AND SELLING IT TO...?????

And to the "historical value" comment above? I totally agree.

 

[Spider-Who?]

That's true for some people, but not most. Whenever there's a threat of stricter gun laws, people go out in droves to aquire anything that might be affected by said ban...it's a "get it while you can" mentality. Then you also have people who don't normally buy guns, who decide to get stuff because everyone is talking about it. We last saw this back when Obama was first elected - everyone and their mother was afraid he was going to take away their guns and bought up everything in sight. It's so extreme that I'm surprised conspiracy freaks aren't saying the anti-gun people are actually in league with gun manufacturers.

 

[Thundercrack85]

I admit I was tempted to buy a gun with a bayonet attachment. Not really sure why I'd need one if I have a gun with enough ammo to take out 300 Spartans... but it's like twinkies, never much cared for them, but when I found out they would be gone forever, I wanted one.

 

[Kable24]

My one AR has the bayonet lug, but I don't have a bayonet. I don't see myself having to charge anyone. It's kind of stupid that the anti gun politicians picked that particular rifle attachment.

 

[Thundercrack85]

I'd guess it's because most military-style rifles have the feature. I doubt they actually care about people using bayonets.

...probably. Then again they also want to ban all knives, so maybe it is actually about the bayonet.

For that matter is an AR-15 well suited for home defense? I figured they'd be too unwieldily. Unless you live on like a ranch, and the cartel shows up.

 

[Spider-Who?]

I'd guess it's because most military-style rifles have the feature. I doubt they actually care about people using bayonets.

...probably. Then again they also want to ban all knives, so maybe it is actually about the bayonet.

For that matter is an AR-15 well suited for home defense? I figured they'd be too unwieldily. Unless you live on like a ranch, and the cartel shows up.

I've got an M4, but I'd never think to use it for home defense - its purely for target shooting for me. I'd say a larger caliber pistol is ideal - its small and compact, but with a lot of stopping power. Then again, I can't imagine a lot of intruders not stopping to rethink their decision if they hear the sound of a shotgun slug being chambered, either.

 

[Kable24]

I'd guess it's because most military-style rifles have the feature. I doubt they actually care about people using bayonets.

...probably. Then again they also want to ban all knives, so maybe it is actually about the bayonet.

For that matter is an AR-15 well suited for home defense? I figured they'd be too unwieldily. Unless you live on like a ranch, and the cartel shows up.

I wouldn't use my M4 or Ar15's for home protection. I live in an apartment and I wouldn't want the bullet to travel through walls into someone's apt. i recommend for home defense a shotgun that uses high velocity buck shot. it's 28 pellet buck shot and designed for rabbit hunting. At close range it can be devestating to humans and not go through walls to hurt innocents.
Since I only have 9 pellet buckshot and slugs, I don't use my shotgun. I keep a pistol next to my bed.

 

[Thundercrack85]

I've got an M4, but I'd never think to use it for home defense - its purely for target shooting for me. I'd say a larger caliber pistol is ideal - its small and compact, but with a lot of stopping power. Then again, I can't imagine a lot of intruders not stopping to rethink their decision if they hear the sound of a shotgun slug being chambered, either.

Should have an app that makes that sound on your phone.

 

[Thundercrack85]

I wouldn't use my M4 or Ar15's for home protection. I live in an apartment and I wouldn't want the bullet to travel through walls into someone's apt. i recommend for home defense a shotgun that uses high velocity buck shot. it's 28 pellet buck shot and designed for rabbit hunting. At close range it can be devestating to humans and not go through walls to hurt innocents.
Since I only have 9 pellet buckshot and slugs, I don't use my shotgun. I keep a pistol next to my bed.

So what do you do with them? Just recreational shooting?

 

[Kable24]

So what do you do with them? Just recreational shooting?

Yep. I enjoy the sport. My gun range is in the woods and it's so relaxing to just spend a day at the bench and shoot and see if I can hit the target at 200 yards.

 

[Thundercrack85]

When the zombie apocalypse breaks out we're all coming to your house.

 

[Kable24]

That's fine, but I won't be here. haha My apartment is one of those where it's just below ground and my windows are ground level. Not very good to defend, so I'll be bugging out and heading to my dads.