List of EO by Barry

The entire matter of banning guns hinges upon the modern concept of stopping potential criminals from becoming defacto criminals. We are all humans, and we all live with human frailties, so by default we are all potential criminals (to the eyes of the state).

"...when there aren't enough criminals one [I.E., the state] makes them. ..."

dcrane wrote:well, i did make some arguments on those other threads... I just dont see the "need" for weapons whos only purpose is to kill humans as fast and efficiently as possible in anyones hands but military, police and registered people who have valid reasons for having them (IE: security, instructors, etc.). I feel that people who wish to carry assault weapons and 30 round clips should have to meet a higher standard then others. Im not saying to ban them, im simply saying to hold "those" folks to a much higher standard then a mere gun lic.

Just say something catastrophic happened. Mob rules. What then? It can happen and does. I want to protect myself and my family the best I can. Its not just about protecting from one person or a tyrannical govt. If you notice we are running out of money. When entitlements are cut. What will happen. So I do feel taking my 30 rd magazines from me does infringe my constitutional Right to defend against all possible threats.
So what it the next argument from Barrys list?

No new laws till they clean up the old ones even then it will be debatable. That is my stand. There are a lot of regs and laws already that make no sense and are not enforced. We should be working off them. If the law serves no purpose any more get rid of it.

Flyer5 wrote:

dcrane wrote:well, i did make some arguments on those other threads... I just dont see the "need" for weapons whos only purpose is to kill humans as fast and efficiently as possible in anyones hands but military, police and registered people who have valid reasons for having them (IE: security, instructors, etc.). I feel that people who wish to carry assault weapons and 30 round clips should have to meet a higher standard then others. Im not saying to ban them, im simply saying to hold "those" folks to a much higher standard then a mere gun lic.

Just say something catastrophic happened. Mob rules. What then? It can happen and does. I want to protect myself and my family the best I can. Its not just about protecting from one person or a tyrannical govt. If you notice we are running out of money. When entitlements are cut. What will happen. So I do feel taking my 30 rd magazines from me does infringe my constitutional Right to defend against all possible threats.
So what it the next argument from Barrys list?

No new laws till they clean up the old ones even then it will be debatable. That is my stand. There are a lot of regs and laws already that make no sense and are not enforced. We should be working off them. If the law serves no purpose any more get rid of it.

I know bro, i really do know what you mean and understand it, Its difficult to say exactly wear or rights as American citizens should be cut off (10 round clips, 30 round clips, hand grenades, missile launchers, etc.) Its a very hard question that would differ in the minds of many and their is no "right" answer to it. I can only say what my personal opinion is (that does not make my opinion the "right" one however and i totally understand that. My feeling is if you need more then 10 round clips to protect yourself your up against something you probably need hand grenades for...

dcrane wrote: My feeling is if you need more then 10 round clips to protect yourself your up against something you probably need hand grenades for...

Cops around here carry a Sig P229 .40 with a 14 round magazine. Maybe they should be carrying grenades as well?

The 2A isn't about JUST "protecting yourself"...it's about protecting yourself from the government.

There is no mention of being able to "keep and bear" one type of weapon vs any other. As such, there are NO restrictions. I don't care if you have a small scale tactical nuke. If you respect my right to life, liberty and property, then I have no fear of you using it against me.

You have to realize that at the time of the Revolutionary War, there were way more warships in private hands than in the government. If it weren't for the privateers, we'd have likely lost the war. If you could own your own battleship, I think a 30 round magazine wouldn't even rate a second glance.

Mr. Crane let me remind you of the LA Riots or perhaps more recently Katrina http://articles.latimes.com/2005/sep/02 ... a-katrina2,

Snipers, roving mobs driving through the streets shooting at people, why do think the National Guard moved in under pseudo marshall law? Why is it so easy to poo poo real concerns of people being allowed to arm themselves with the tools required?

Why is it people want to handicap law abiding citizens ?

That little maniac in Newtown could have been restricted to 5 round mags and he would have killed just as many. The coroner already reported that some of the bodies had up to 11 wounds in them, meaning he just wasted time and rounds shooting at corpses.

franco b wrote:

dcrane wrote: I just dont see the "need" for weapons whos only purpose is to kill humans as fast and efficiently as possible

You don't see the need but our founding fathers did and wrote it into our Constitution.

Ever since the government murder of all those children and adults in Waco Texas it has been obvious that citizens need some form of protection from out of control government, even if in the end it is futile.

The 2nd Amendment was written during a time when the threat to the nation's freedom was VERY real, they did this so we could have militias who outnumberd regualer army 3 to 1, the whole idea failed during the war of 1812 when the militias ran away during battles (out of all the battles in 1812 the militias won 2 with the help of the US army) So now the army is 10x bigger the militias were turned into national guards who are trianed better than they were back then. That is what the founding father were dealing with at that time. Since then, there have been many changes implemented in this same way. Ban's, Unbans, CCW alllowed, not allowed.. ect. In the late 1880's CCW was illegal in 10 states including Texas. My point is that the second amendment has had many challenges through out history and our current President is not the first to suggest changes.

Dave and Ed, Jeff, all make valid points but should paranoia or let's call it "perceived threats" trump what is current reality? As I think about that, one sort of fuels the other.

they did this so we could have militias who outnumberd regualer army 3 to 1

At the outset, the country had no money and had no standing army. Any standing army was probably officers and such to organize the "militia" when it was called up. This does not reflect where we are at in this country at this time either. Although we ravaged the military under Clinton and relied more on the Guard.

Since then, there have been many changes implemented in this same way. Ban's, Unbans, CCW alllowed, not allowed.. ect. In the late 1880's CCW was illegal in 10 states including Texas.

Because it has been done does not make it right. Because it has been done does not make it effective. Because it has been done allows us to study the effects and the studies show that no gun control has ever had the anticipated or hoped for effect on criminals or lunatics. As has been mentioned repeatedly, prohibition did not work and CREATED a criminal element and huge amounts of money flowing into it by the same people that decried it publicly. As in, the politicians and rich will have bodyguards and private guns and you and I will not. Just like David Gregory having his girls protected with guns and then is not charged with possessing an illegal magazine in DC. The rules are not applied evenly and never have been, that is why the populace will not go along with them

Kevin

KLook wrote:

they did this so we could have militias who outnumberd regualer army 3 to 1

At the outset, the country had no money and had no standing army. Any standing army was probably officers and such to organize the "militia" when it was called up. This does not reflect where we are at in this country at this time either. Although we ravaged the military under Clinton and relied more on the Guard.

Since then, there have been many changes implemented in this same way. Ban's, Unbans, CCW alllowed, not allowed.. ect. In the late 1880's CCW was illegal in 10 states including Texas.

Because it has been done does not make it right. Because it has been done does not make it effective. Because it has been done allows us to study the effects and the studies show that no gun control has ever had the anticipated or hoped for effect on criminals or lunatics. As has been mentioned repeatedly, prohibition did not work and CREATED a criminal element and huge amounts of money flowing into it by the same people that decried it publicly. As in, the politicians and rich will have bodyguards and private guns and you and I will not. Just like David Gregory having his girls protected with guns and then is not charged with possessing an illegal magazine in DC. The rules are not applied evenly and never have been, that is why the populace will not go along with them

Kevin

I do agree that prohibitions on the whole do not work Kev. I'm playing a little devil's advocate as you can see. I think Dave and yourself have a good point about enforcement being a real problem and maybe THE problem. Without getting off topic I would like to mention that many have stated the problem lies in mental health "reforms" and treating those people versus gun controls. That means not cutting healthcare programs, as the GOP have suggested, I'm sure you'll agree?

No I don't agree. To make a blanket statement that the GOP just wants to cut all healthcare is wrong. And bringing the healthcare fiasco into this is really going off base and clouding the debate. It has been the Dems and their liberal ideas that have been all for not categorizing people and "mainstreaming" wacko's in schools. And forcing the taxpayer to fund special aids, rebuild schools, buy new buses for sometimes 1 or NO kids with special needs. I remember my brother girlfriend being paid to accompany a girl who was "deaf" at Washington Academy when she could hear well enough and could read lips. But she was entitled to it. She had a cool personal assistant at the taxpayers expense. How about the boy in Machias? His parents kept moving to different towns to force them to comply with the Americans with Disability Act? Whenever you create these wonderful, feel good, there ought to be a law type things, there are consequences. It is the same in everything the gov. tries to do to regulate people or behavior to right a perceived wrong. The PEOPLE decide how they act, not the law, and all it does is create bureaucracy and levels of parasites and taxpayer animosity at the expense.

Kevin

SteveZee wrote:I do agree that prohibitions on the whole do not work Kev. I'm playing a little devil's advocate as you can see. I think Dave and yourself have a good point about enforcement being a real problem and maybe THE problem. Without getting off topic I would like to mention that many have stated the problem lies in mental health "reforms" and treating those people versus gun controls. That means not cutting healthcare programs, as the GOP have suggested, I'm sure you'll agree?

Like I stated most of my issue is they do these laws and rules and never either follow through or look down the road to see ramifications. Every change has some kind of effect downstream. First thing they should do is look at what has worked or not worked in the past. There are laws that have not been enforced just because they are non enforceable or just plain stupid. They should be looked at and removed before making any new ones. Biden is a baffoon. He did nothing for the past month everything he proposed to the Marxist and chief is stuff that has been floating around for decades. I am just adding to my point here.
I do agree to the mental health issues.
As far as health care Ocare has done some real damage to our system. There was a lady speaking the other day how much this has cost hospitals just in clerical costs. They had to hire and form a whole new department of 25 people just for the red tape. At least it did create jobs I guess. My insurance has increased drastically since he pushed this through. Now they are telling my wife who has a history of cancer running in her family. That she now only has to be checked every 3 yrs instead of yearly. So guess who will be paying out of pocket.
Well any way back on subject. My problem with this administration is they care about there approval ratings more than what they are doing actually doing any good. Also Obama scares me the way he keeps pushing on the envelope with these EOs and then saying it is for our own good.

I always cringe when I hear the saying I am from the Govt and I am here to help. I run away.

KLook wrote:No I don't agree. To make a blanket statement that the GOP just wants to cut all healthcare is wrong. And bringing the healthcare fiasco into this is really going off base and clouding the debate. It has been the Dems and their liberal ideas that have been all for not categorizing people and "mainstreaming" wacko's in schools. And forcing the taxpayer to fund special aids, rebuild schools, buy new buses for sometimes 1 or NO kids with special needs. I remember my brother girlfriend being paid to accompany a girl who was "deaf" at Washington Academy when she could hear well enough and could read lips. But she was entitled to it. She had a cool personal assistant at the taxpayers expense. How about the boy in Machias? His parents kept moving to different towns to force them to comply with the Americans with Disability Act? Whenever you create these wonderful, feel good, there ought to be a law type things, there are consequences. It is the same in everything the gov. tries to do to regulate people or behavior to right a perceived wrong. The PEOPLE decide how they act, not the law, and all it does is create bureaucracy and levels of parasites and taxpayer animosity at the expense.

Kevin

The people (the majority of) have decided in the last election and obviously accept the mandate. In the past 3 years, Republican' have cut 4.3 billion from mental health care. Much of this is at the state level yes, but none the less. And yep it's off topic so I'll end it.

Sorry, one election won by a couple percentage points is not a "mandate". See pm

Kevin

Flyer5 wrote:

SteveZee wrote:I do agree that prohibitions on the whole do not work Kev. I'm playing a little devil's advocate as you can see. I think Dave and yourself have a good point about enforcement being a real problem and maybe THE problem. Without getting off topic I would like to mention that many have stated the problem lies in mental health "reforms" and treating those people versus gun controls. That means not cutting healthcare programs, as the GOP have suggested, I'm sure you'll agree?

Like I stated most of my issue is they do these laws and rules and never either follow through or look down the road to see ramifications. Every change has some kind of effect downstream. First thing they should do is look at what has worked or not worked in the past. There are laws that have not been enforced just because they are non enforceable or just plain stupid. They should be looked at and removed before making any new ones. Biden is a baffoon. He did nothing for the past month everything he proposed to the Marxist and chief is stuff that has been floating around for decades. I am just adding to my point here.
I do agree to the mental health issues.
As far as health care Ocare has done some real damage to our system. There was a lady speaking the other day how much this has cost hospitals just in clerical costs. They had to hire and form a whole new department of 25 people just for the red tape. At least it did create jobs I guess. My insurance has increased drastically since he pushed this through. Now they are telling my wife who has a history of cancer running in her family. That she now only has to be checked every 3 yrs instead of yearly. So guess who will be paying out of pocket.
Well any way back on subject. My problem with this administration is they care about there approval ratings more than what they are doing actually doing any good. Also Obama scares me the way he keeps pushing on the envelope with these EOs and then saying it is for our own good.

I always cringe when I hear the saying I am from the Govt and I am here to help. I run away.

Ronald Regan supported a ban on "assault weapons" and Antonin Scalia ruled that it was Constitutional. Again this is nothing new or all Obama.

SteveZee wrote:
Ronald Regan supported a ban on "assault weapons" and Antonin Scalia ruled that it was Constitutional. Again this is nothing new or all Obama.

And it was deemed to have no effect on crime. That was why it was dropped. Also banning any new " assault weapons " at this time would be a waste of money and time. There are probably 100 times the amount of that style rifle in private hands than 1994.

I think it's more about knowing where those rifles are & where they go, I know some people that make a good bit of money just buying & selling without any questions asked. Just like most things once something is done it's done but if it can be harmful to others then why produce more & not even attempt to change what is known to be a problem.
On a personal note to dcrane, you sir obviously don't know what your talking about, just the fact that some had so many wounds shows that he had way too much time & fire power & children don't put up too much resistance to be considered a combat situation but perhaps in a demented mind it does.