Reply With Quote
I drive in DFW. That's not the most cogent argument you could use.
I'm actually on board with boutons's suggestions vis a vis gun regulation. Guns should be much harder to obtain than they are.
Disincentivizing gun ownership via taxation and heavy regulation is a good way to make it financially painful and a burden for people to get guns. It'd accomplish the goal of getting a lot of guns off the street. And as we all are aware, given the correlation between enactment of gun control laws and a reduction of gun crime, it seems clear that fewer guns on the street probably leads to fewer incidents of gun crime.
I drive in DFW. That's not the most cogent argument you could use.
Camden gun owners turn in record 1,100 guns after Connecticut shootings
Gun owners could turn in up to three guns and receive up to $250 for each.
Of the $156,000 spent during the buy-back event, $110,000 came from criminal forfeitures.
Funds left over from previous cash-for-guns events and future forfeitures were expected to cover the rest.
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2012/12/1...e+Raw+Story%29
I'm pretty sure I don't want an enlightened progressive packing.
http://twitchy.com/2012/12/18/actres...bers-get-shot/
Whoops, I responded to Juggity as if he was serious. Long day.
Exactly.
Good luck getting registration info then...and the "sin" taxes (lol).
Why Isn't The Media Discussing The Unprecedented Law Giving Gun Makers And Dealers Immunity?
As major media outlets report on gun violence prevention strategies in the wake of the Newtown tragedy, they have ignored a controversial law that shields the firearms industry from being held accountable.
In 2005, former President George W. Bush signed into law the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act - the "No. 1 legislative priority of the National Rifle Association" - which immunized gun makers and dealers from civil lawsuits for the crimes committed with the products they sell, a significant barrier to a comprehensive gun violence prevention strategy. Despite its recent reporting on proposed efforts to prevent another tragedy like the one in Newtown, major newspapers and evening television news have not explained this significant legal immunity, according to a Media Matters search of Nexis.
Faced with an increasing number of successful lawsuits over reckless business practices that funneled guns into the hands of criminals, the 2005 immunity law was a victory for the NRA, which "lobbied lawmakers intensely" to shield gun makers and dealers from personal injury law. As described by Erwin Chemerinsky, a leading cons utional scholar and the Dean of the University of California-Irvine School of Law, by eliminating this route for victims to hold the gun industry accountable in court, the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act was a complete deviation from basic "principles of products liability":
http://mediamatters.org/blog/2012/12...edented/191910
God damn, boutons, you really suck at sticking to a topic.
Could registration for assault weapon ownership lead to profiling? And if so, would that be a bad thing?
I think profiling is a natural outcome of information gathering, so yeah. And as an activity, no it's not a bad thing. It depends upon the action taken on the info.
If if each step of the distribution chain was liable for breaking my regulations above, we'd be in much better shape.
explosives and some pesticides and herbicides are more regulated than assault weapons.
, you can't even get the name right.
Those claims would never have survived summary judgment in the first place anywayWhy Isn't The Media Discussing The Unprecedented Law Giving Gun Makers And Dealers Immunity?
As major media outlets report on gun violence prevention strategies in the wake of the Newtown tragedy, they have ignored a controversial law that shields the firearms industry from being held accountable.
In 2005, former President George W. Bush signed into law the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act - the "No. 1 legislative priority of the National Rifle Association" - which immunized gun makers and dealers from civil lawsuits for the crimes committed with the products they sell, a significant barrier to a comprehensive gun violence prevention strategy. Despite its recent reporting on proposed efforts to prevent another tragedy like the one in Newtown, major newspapers and evening television news have not explained this significant legal immunity, according to a Media Matters search of Nexis.
Faced with an increasing number of successful lawsuits over reckless business practices that funneled guns into the hands of criminals, the 2005 immunity law was a victory for the NRA, which "lobbied lawmakers intensely" to shield gun makers and dealers from personal injury law. As described by Erwin Chemerinsky, a leading cons utional scholar and the Dean of the University of California-Irvine School of Law, by eliminating this route for victims to hold the gun industry accountable in court, the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act was a complete deviation from basic "principles of products liability":
http://mediamatters.org/blog/2012/12...edented/191910
Just got off gunsamerica investing in Ruger OEM 25 round extended mags for 1022's.
Ruger just came out with them a few months ago and the Sum es will be like gold in 5 years if they really ban manufacturing them.
Last edited by CosmicCowboy; 12-19-2012 at 06:21 PM.
Sweet
I love being raised with guns/hunting and being damn good at it.
A friend just called me that has a big ranch that's disgusted with all the problems taking rookie guests out to cull (control herd size) on his ranch.
He offered to trade an all expenses paid trip (including airfare) to Palm Beach in February to go fishing on his 60' Viking for sailfish for me finishing up the culling on his ranch and whacking 10 more before January 15. I think I can do that.
*now if I could just find someone I could borrow a gun from*
All I know is that when 60% of the country wants more regulation and over 50% want strict regulation then that means that the culture IS changing NOW. That is the point and this is a democracy.
When I read the cultural argument all I hear is "I am not going to change." I just get the impression that people really do not have a grasp of national at udes especially in a TX based board. Now keep in mind that I own a pistol, rifle and a shottie so I am not some gun hating liberal.
Can someone explain to me the relationship between the second and the fourth? Are we really arguing that being armed to the teeth is an effective deterrent to law enforcement performing illegal searches? I hope it is a better argument then "me and S&W will stop the FBI from searching my house if the courts won't.'
There's a reason people like him never accomplish anything. I don't think they actually want to.
Fortunately Cons utional rights aren't a majority rule concept. There would likely be a majority who thought that the Aurora shooter shouldn't get a trial, just take him out and shoot him. There's probably a majority who thinks Muslims should not have the right to build a mosque near ground zero.
The framers of the Cons ution knew the value of having minute men, people who would take up arms against tyranny when the time came. People now days pretend the military is that militia, but it's not. There was a military then as well, though they were British because the colonies belonged to the British. So the minute men rose up against them, and it was decreed that no law shall be made to remove guns from the citizen, as they have the right to keep and bear arms. There shouldn't be any laws to even infringe upon that right, but there are many that skirt it just far enough to not raise the ire of the Supreme Court.
It's not about being armed to the teeth, that's just a hyperbolic statement anyhow. It's about having the right to keep and bear arms. We're now getting into the Orwellian "some pigs are more equal than others" concept where the term "arms" is being manipulated to mean things other than what they historically have meant. Telling someone they cannot own a semiautomatic rifle is infringing upon their right to keep and bear certain types of arms, and technically is uncons utional, although we seem to allow the knife to penetrate deeply as long as it does so slowly.
Last edited by DMC; 12-19-2012 at 06:47 PM.
Yes. The argument made sense in 1787. Not so much in 2012.
Wow, you were alive in 1787?
There is no direct relationship between the 2nd and the 4th. He was making the point that people that would have their "cold dead fingers" pried off their trigger to protect their 2nd amendment right were willingly giving up their 4th amendment rights to "get them damn terrorists". I got it. Y'all didn't.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
