Executive Action

[airlocksniffer]

I think the NRA should be taking a stance on the federal lands issue as its bearing on the member ship is huge.

But they are not taking a stance. If I support something, I won't hide the fact that I support it. Many conservatives are for the federal land grab, said conservatives take money from the NRA. Not hard to connect the dots.

However regardless of that I don't see that issue as a bearing on what these EA's mean to our 2A right.
We are past the point of compromise. Why is that ? When the people you are compromising with have the ultimate objective to repeal of the second amendment then any compromise brings them one step closer to their goal.

Not sure who they are but as I stated, most people are not all right or left. The fact is most Americans are somewhere in the middle. The 2A does not guarantee your right to AR's and 10 round clips. The 2A is pretty vague on the definition of "arms". The Supreme Court is left to interpret the Constitution. You may be surprised that some of the more conservative justices have more or less stated that the 2A doesn't guarantee your right to possess assault weapons.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller

 

[Trial153]

But they are not taking a stance. If I support something, I won't hide the fact that I support it. Many conservatives are for the federal land grab, said conservatives take money from the NRA. Not hard to connect the dots.


Not sure who they are but as I stated, most people are not all right or left. The fact is most Americans are somewhere in the middle. The 2A does not guarantee your right to AR's and 10 round clips. The 2A is pretty vague on the definition of "arms". The Supreme Court is left to interpret the Constitution. You may be surprised that some of the more conservative justices have more or less stated that the 2A doesn't guarantee your right to possess assault weapons.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller

I agree that not taking a stance is many times showing support by default. Despite that fact that doesn't mean that I shouldn't support the NRA to help protect our constitutional rights I don't see these issue as being mutually exclusive.

Assault is not a weapon it's an action. I can use just about any object to commit an assault. The 2nd confirms my right to keep and bear arms, what I do with them and what they are are my decision as a citizen.

 

[-bowfreak-]

I just saw this quote from Obama's EA:

This is the most dangerous thing to come out of this EA. This is WAY overstepping any bounds......not just Presidential Authority bounds. Funny thing is.......I truly believe that liberals suffer from a mental defect. This should prevent any and all liberals from passing a background check. The problem is........this new authority gives unbelievable power to all health care providers. So much for ever going to the doctor again. So the question will remain......who has final authority to determine one's mental capabilities. The government could just as well by EA deem all conservatives or Christians or otherwise mentally deficient just to suit their agenda. This one is absolutely the most danger to our country as a whole. So.......when someone is deemed mentally ill, are all their other so-called rights taken away as well?

The Constitution does not give the government a right to take citizen's rights away. That's not a right, that's Tyranny.

Just in case some missed this the first time. Please read this carefully and tell me this latest Obama edict seems reasonable.

 

[MULEPACKHUNTER]

From first hand knowledge I can say steps should be taken to help keep guns out of the hands of those who by law should not have them or by principle should not have them. The path to that is consequenses. If people had to pay for their actions things would be different. Most of the world has lost complete touch with right and wrong. From my neighbor who walked away from 200 grand in debt and now lives high on the hog, to these criminals who are getting shot by police and then they are made marters by the media, to thief's, to rapists, to mass shooters of the past who still have not been punished at all. It seems more important to not hurt someone's feelings than to punish. I know of several hard felons who went to gun shows the day out of prison and bought guns, yes plural, I don't believe laws will ever solve anything at all, the person we don't want to do wrong just needs the fear of god in them from seeing what happens when you break the law, and that's not getting support from the media after you are mistreated by cops or if you are sentenced to death. An eye for an eye whould be the only law needed to fix all this. I'm sick and tired of this crap and no leaders have any vision whatsoever past the current term they are milking.

 

[realunlucky]

If we can't protect the fundamentals this country was built on does it really matters who owns the lands because we are no longer a republic. You have to follow the rules to change the rules. The supreme court was never intended to set policy they over step thier bounds by following political trends for constitutional interpretation

 

[Shrek]

But they are not taking a stance. If I support something, I won't hide the fact that I support it. Many conservatives are for the federal land grab, said conservatives take money from the NRA. Not hard to connect the dots.


Not sure who they are but as I stated, most people are not all right or left. The fact is most Americans are somewhere in the middle. The 2A does not guarantee your right to AR's and 10 round clips. The 2A is pretty vague on the definition of "arms". The Supreme Court is left to interpret the Constitution. You may be surprised that some of the more conservative justices have more or less stated that the 2A doesn't guarantee your right to possess assault weapons.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller

Actually the plain reading along with the historical context shows that the constitution does mean we have the right to all types of military weapons. The founders meant for all military power rest with the people and warned against a standing army along with foreign entanglements. Today we are a world wide imperialist with a huge standing army and a military industial base that corrupts our political process.

 

[airlocksniffer]

Actually the plain reading along with the historical context shows that the constitution does mean we have the right to all types of military weapons.

Fighter Jets? JDAMS? Daisy Cutters? Nukes? Doesn't appear to be what the SC has interpreted the 2A to mean.

Today we are a world wide imperialist with a huge standing army and a military industrial base that corrupts our political process.

Couldn't agree more.

 

[Ironman8]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller

Since we're quoting Heller and all...

Decision:

The Supreme Court held:[43]
(1) The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Pp. 2–53.

(a) The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms. Pp. 2–22.

(b) The prefatory clause comports with the Court’s interpretation of the operative clause. The “militia” comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. The Antifederalists feared that the Federal Government would disarm the people in order to disable this citizens’ militia, enabling a politicized standing army or a select militia to rule. The response was to deny Congress power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and bear arms, so that the ideal of a citizens’ militia would be preserved. Pp. 22–28.

(c) The Court’s interpretation is confirmed by analogous arms-bearing rights in state constitutions that preceded and immediately followed the Second Amendment. Pp. 28–30.

(d) The Second Amendment’s drafting history, while of dubious interpretive worth, reveals three state Second Amendment proposals that unequivocally referred to an individual right to bear arms. Pp. 30–32.

(e) Interpretation of the Second Amendment by scholars, courts and legislators, from immediately after its ratification through the late 19th century also supports the Court’s conclusion. Pp. 32–47.

(f) None of the Court’s precedents forecloses the Court’s interpretation. Neither. United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542 , nor Presser v. Illinois, 116 U. S. 252 , refutes the individual-rights interpretation. United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174 , does not limit the right to keep and bear arms to militia purposes, but rather limits the type of weapon to which the right applies to those used by the militia, i.e., those in common use for lawful purposes.

(2) Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons.

SO lets talk about two of the main FACTS from the above:
1) The decision upheld that the 2A isn't about sporting or militias. It's about an individual RIGHT.
2) The decision upheld that the 2A protects those weapons that are in COMMON USE at the time. Wanna take a guess what is the most common and most used long gun in America today and in recent history?.....yep AR15...so for you to say we don't need or don't have a right to posses AR's and STANDARD CAPACITY MAGAZINES (30 rds in case you were wondering) is flat out incorrect...and frankly pisses me off!

*Also, the answer to your tired old question about why we can't have military weaponry is in there too.


Here's some other facts:

- Criminals don't obey laws...should go without saying...so any NEW laws would be broken just like the OLD ones that already infringe on our (law abiding citizens) rights.
- Still don't know what part of "Shall not be infringed" isn't understood by those who continue to try to erode the 2A.
- The new laws/EO's (which are unconstitunal by the way - both in creation and enforcement of) would have done nothing to stop the recent mass shootings that have occured...and won't stop future ones (see first point)
- If you look at the states with the strictest gun laws, you would find that the violent crime rate AND "gun violence" rate is much higher than those with more constitutional leanings.
- "Compromise" means that each side gives/receives something. As far as I can tell, we have only been giving up our rights for some time now. What have we gotten in return?
- Our goverenment is currently a Republic, which means that those in ELECTED positions are there to REPRESENT the will of their constituents. Please tell me with a straight face that We The People are being represented fairly and Constitutionally when people are voting with their pocketbooks (gun purchases at an all time high) and support for AWB's are at an all time low (http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/12/16/abc-newswashington-post-poll-highest-opposition-ever-assault-weapons-ban/)
- History shows that the path we are on leads to registration, and then confiscation. It also shows that when the citizen is disarmed, the government can do as it pleases with no fear of uprising. I'm not saying this is absolutely the end game, but history does show that it is...so excuse me for not wanting to give up more!
- Make no mistake, when/if they come for the "AR's" and Handguns, your deer rifle and shotgun are up next! It's not and never has been about the guns. It's all about control. (Case in point: Look at the stats on gun violence with handguns vs those with "assault rifles". If it was really about guns and protecting the people, then "assault rifles" wouldn't even be mentioned! It's not even statistically relevant the number of crimes committed with AR's when compared to other weapons. And if you took out the "gun violence" that was the result of gang violence, drugs, or other related crimes, you would be left with an incredibly low rate of violence done by those who aren't already known criminals.)
- Crazy people gonna be cray cray, criminals gonna commit crimes, and bad people will do bad things...so tell me why I need to give up my rights for those rejects of society?? Why should I turn myself into a sheep and fall prey to the wolves???

 

[2ski]

I think that we people need to take way all regulation of guns cause any regulation will lead to more regulation, ect. The regulation we already have is unconstitutional and will lead to more regulation. Every 5 year old should be able to buy a gun. Doesn't matter they have no concept of what a gun is nor do they have money. There is no reason for anyone to ever not have a gun. This is a slippery slope that will only lead to more regulation. A five year old not getting a gun is the first step in the frog and the pot. Its the pinky toe in the pot. From my baby's cold dead hands...... Heck, that kid's parents shouldn't even supervise it when the kid wants to use the gun. Parental regulation. Bad deal there.

Seriously. I don't have time right now to craft a well thought out response that I'd like to. Maybe later I'll have time. Airlocksniffer, I'm buying you a beer at Blackfoot next time I'm through Helena. I think we'd get along. You sound like a pretty even-tempered, intelligent person.

 

[2ski]

Look if the founding fathers were these super geniuses and all that were omniscient and we don't need to interpret the constitution at all, then black people wouldn't be able to own guns. It wasn't stated in the constitution they couldn't but since they weren't citizens, then it should go without saying, right? They knew something we don't.

And nukes. I want a nuke.

 

[airlocksniffer]

(2) Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.

Basically what the EA does. Not sure how this is the federal government imposing on the 2A.

I'd be interested to hear from some the Australian members of Rokslide on the gun buyback in that country and how that has impacted the procurement of firearms, hunting, etc.

Why this is such a divisive issue if brought forward by the terrible mass shootings in the last few years. As pointed out, this EA wouldn't have prevented this. But I think what's most disheartening is that the reaction from many people is ¯\_(ツ)_/¯. As a great headline on the Onion put it:

‘No Way To Prevent This,’ Says Only Nation Where This Regularly Happens

I do not think confiscation is the way to go. I'm sure if level headed people put their egos aside and thoughtfully discussed the problem and worked to address the problem, we could cut down on a lot of mass shootings or other gun violence in this country while still respecting the lawful use and possession of firearms.

 

[Shrek]

Of course common use is affected by the prior restraint of previous trampling of the right. If the people have a problem with the private possession of military grade weapons there is a constitutional way to address this. The amendment process is clear. The greatest crime in the history of the United States is the destruction of freedom lead by Lincoln and the coercion adoption of the post civil war amendments that total victory to the statis federalist. The death of freedom and the birth of the imperialist monster known as the federal government.

 

[NEhunter]

Since we're quoting Heller and all...



SO lets talk about two of the main FACTS from the above:
1) The decision upheld that the 2A isn't about sporting or militias. It's about an individual RIGHT.
2) The decision upheld that the 2A protects those weapons that are in COMMON USE at the time. Wanna take a guess what is the most common and most used long gun in America today and in recent history?.....yep AR15...so for you to say we don't need or don't have a right to posses AR's and STANDARD CAPACITY MAGAZINES (30 rds in case you were wondering) is flat out incorrect...and frankly pisses me off!

*Also, the answer to your tired old question about why we can't have military weaponry is in there too.


Here's some other facts:

- Criminals don't obey laws...should go without saying...so any NEW laws would be broken just like the OLD ones that already infringe on our (law abiding citizens) rights.
- Still don't know what part of "Shall not be infringed" isn't understood by those who continue to try to erode the 2A.
- The new laws/EO's (which are unconstitunal by the way - both in creation and enforcement of) would have done nothing to stop the recent mass shootings that have occured...and won't stop future ones (see first point)
- If you look at the states with the strictest gun laws, you would find that the violent crime rate AND "gun violence" rate is much higher than those with more constitutional leanings.
- "Compromise" means that each side gives/receives something. As far as I can tell, we have only been giving up our rights for some time now. What have we gotten in return?
- Our goverenment is currently a Republic, which means that those in ELECTED positions are there to REPRESENT the will of their constituents. Please tell me with a straight face that We The People are being represented fairly and Constitutionally when people are voting with their pocketbooks (gun purchases at an all time high) and support for AWB's are at an all time low (http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/12/16/abc-newswashington-post-poll-highest-opposition-ever-assault-weapons-ban/)
- History shows that the path we are on leads to registration, and then confiscation. It also shows that when the citizen is disarmed, the government can do as it pleases with no fear of uprising. I'm not saying this is absolutely the end game, but history does show that it is...so excuse me for not wanting to give up more!
- Make no mistake, when/if they come for the "AR's" and Handguns, your deer rifle and shotgun are up next! It's not and never has been about the guns. It's all about control. (Case in point: Look at the stats on gun violence with handguns vs those with "assault rifles". If it was really about guns and protecting the people, then "assault rifles" wouldn't even be mentioned! It's not even statistically relevant the number of crimes committed with AR's when compared to other weapons. And if you took out the "gun violence" that was the result of gang violence, drugs, or other related crimes, you would be left with an incredibly low rate of violence done by those who aren't already known criminals.)
- Crazy people gonna be cray cray, criminals gonna commit crimes, and bad people will do bad things...so tell me why I need to give up my rights for those rejects of society?? Why should I turn myself into a sheep and fall prey to the wolves???

Dude.... Well said.

 

[airlocksniffer]

Airlocksniffer, I'm buying you a beer at Blackfoot next time I'm through Helena. I think we'd get along. You sound like a pretty even-tempered, intelligent person.

You may be the only one on this thread who feels that way but it's appreciated. Too bad I'm on the wagon until May (don't ask me why I thought that was a good idea!!). I'm willing to listen to cogent opinions, no matter what they are. I really appreciate the community on Rokslide and being able to participate in a thread that's as divisive as this with minimal personal insults and poor etiquette that is evident on other hunting forums. Bottom line is we are all hunters and live to hunt in the wild places of this country. Whether you agree with my points on this thread or not, we can at least agree on our passion for hunting.

 

[Shrek]

Says Only Nation Where This Regularly Happens.

You really should get off the Huffington Post some time and do a little independent research. Norway , France , Germany, and just about everywhere else in the world and all with much more stringent firearm law than here. In fact , mass murder is very common all over the world and when relatively ineffective firearms are in short supply mass casualty weapons are employed with much greater efficiency.

 

[Ironman8]

Basically what the EA does. Not sure how this is the federal government imposing on the 2A.

I think you're confusing commercial sale (which is already highly regulated) with personal/private sale. Yes, the new EA can/will affect private sale.

I'd be interested to hear from some the Australian members of Rokslide on the gun buyback in that country and how that has impacted the procurement of firearms, hunting, etc.

Why this is such a divisive issue if brought forward by the terrible mass shootings in the last few years. As pointed out, this EA wouldn't have prevented this. But I think what's most disheartening is that the reaction from many people is ¯\_(ツ)_/¯. As a great headline on the Onion put it:

‘No Way To Prevent This,’ Says Only Nation Where This Regularly Happens

Australia, GB, and others don't have the same Constitution and Government that we do. Period.

As for the US being the only one with this problem (according to the ever un-biased and honest Onion)...please watch: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pELwCqz2JfE

I do not think confiscation is the way to go. I'm sure if level headed people put their egos aside and thoughtfully discussed the problem and worked to address the problem, we could cut down on a lot of mass shootings or other gun violence in this country while still respecting the lawful use and possession of firearms.

One great way to do this is to eliminate victims only...er I mean, gun free zones.

 

[airlocksniffer]

You really should get off the Huffington Post some time and do a little independent research.

Yikes, I avoid Huffington Post as much as Fox News. Both are rubbish and play to one extreme or another. But thanks for assuming something about me. Not sure if Wall Street Journal is liberal or conservative but:

http://www.wsj.com/articles/u-s-leads-world-in-mass-shootings-1443905359

Or maybe the site you were referring to (also don't know which way it leans):

http://www.ijreview.com/2015/12/348197-paris-attack-claim-mass-shootings/

The Internets are confusing sometimes.

 

[jmez]

I do not think confiscation is the way to go. I'm sure if level headed people put their egos aside and thoughtfully discussed the problem and worked to address the problem, we could cut down on a lot of mass shootings or other gun violence in this country while still respecting the lawful use and possession of firearms.

Never ever going to happen in a politically correct society/environment. Guns themselves are pretty far down on the list of problems leading to these episodes. They make an easy scapegoat and blaming the problem on an inanimate object doesn't offend anyone and leaves the real taboo topics alone. It has absolutely nothing to do with ego's either.

 

[airlocksniffer]

Never ever going to happen in a politically correct society/environment. Guns themselves are pretty far down on the list of problems leading to these episodes. They make an easy scapegoat and blaming the problem on an inanimate object doesn't offend anyone and leaves the real taboo topics alone. It has absolutely nothing to do with ego's either.

Guns are tools, plain and simple. I agree guns are not the cause of these issues, they just make it much easier for some jackass to kill lots of people really fast. Mental health, lack of empathy, etc need to be addressed. The how is the question we need to ask ourselves.

When my kids have an issue, I don't tell them to stand their ground no matter what. I tell them to work it out. Sometimes that means compromise.

 

[Ironman8]

Of course common use is affected by the prior restraint of previous trampling of the right. If the people have a problem with the private possession of military grade weapons there is a constitutional way to address this. The amendment process is clear. The greatest crime in the history of the United States is the destruction of freedom lead by Lincoln and the coercion adoption of the post civil war amendments that total victory to the statis federalist. The death of freedom and the birth of the imperialist monster known as the federal government.

I do agree with you here btw.