Fungus Gnat
Well-Known Member
I don't think they care if people are armed or not, they attack whatever target they plan to. It's a suicide mission deterrence means shit.
DC Shooter and Obama Care?
- Thread starter Sand4x105
- Start date
nitro harley
Well-Known Member
desert dude
Well-Known Member
What does "background checks" have to do with this incident?
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
here's a hint on how to read, i know you white supremacy types can use all the hints that you can get.
HINT: check the post i was replying to for context before making an ass out of yourself.
you're welcome.
desert dude
Well-Known Member
so, the short answer is that background checks have nothing whatever to do with the DC incident, or the Newtown incident, or the Colorado incident, or the DC sniper incident, or Columbine... Hey, I am beginning to see a pattern here.
They generally go for maximum casualties. Gun free zones gaurantee easy pickings.
ginwilly
Well-Known Member
I think the fact these atrocities keep happening at gun free zones is coincidental, not anecdotal. These places meant something to the shooters, the fact it was gun free was most likely irrelevant to these nut jobs. Of course, if the soldiers were armed at the bases where these occurred, many lives would have been saved. If Newtown had armed security like the schools of our politician's kids, many of those children would still be alive today. That should be obvious to the anti-gun nutjobs, but instead, they blame it on the evil scary looking guns and yell ban them while trying to create infinitely more gun free zones. It's emotional thinking, not rational.
FreedomWorks
Well-Known Member
LIBERTYCHICKEN
Well-Known Member
Are you talking about DC vrs Heller ????????
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
the newtown guy couldn't buy guns because he refused a background check, actually.
the DC guy couldn't buy an AR15 because a check on his background informed the seller that he was from out of state. thus no AR15.
try again. or don't.
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
so the armed guards he shot dead were imaginary, or are you just stupid?
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
no, i'm talking about my imaginary friend who is a hellen keller hybrid who i have affectionately nicknamed heller.
LIBERTYCHICKEN
Well-Known Member
It's responses like yours why I cant stand talking politics with people of other stances
Why the aditude over a simple question ??
D619
Well-Known Member
There are three basic problems with universal background checks; it will have no effect, the numbers don’t prove the case, and the only way to make the scheme remotely effective is repugnant to the people. Those are three big hills to climb. That’s why few politicians seem ready to take the hike.
Most important is that criminals disobey such laws (and according to the Supreme Court in their Haynes vs. U.S. decision, criminals are not legally obligated to). In a report titled “Firearm Use by Offenders”, our own Federal Government noted that nearly 40 percent of all crime guns are acquired from street level dealers, who are criminals in the black market business of peddling stolen and recycled guns. Standing alone, this shows that “universal” background checks would have an incomplete effect on guns used in crimes.
The story gets worse. The same study notes that just as many crime guns were acquired by acquaintances, be they family or friends (this rather lose category also includes fellow criminals, who are equally unlikely to participate in “universal” background checks). Totaled, nearly 80 percent of crime guns are already outside of retail distribution channels (which are 14 percent of crime gun sources) and outside of transactions made by the law abiding folks who would participate in “universal” background checks at gun shows (0.7 percent).
When 80 percent of the problem is not addressed by legislation, even if the law was enforced it would be nearly useless.
In the rush to do “something,” bad legislation is proposed and then has to be justified. When public support for “universal” registration started slipping, politicians brought out statistics to bolster their case. Unsurprisingly those statistics were as weak as the legislation itself.
“As many as 40 percent of all gun purchases are conducted without a background check,” was President Barack Obama’s assertion concerning the National Instant Check System (NICS) which is exercised by every licensed gun retailer in the country. Aside from problem that 80 percent of crime guns come from non-retail acquisitions, the president’s 40 percent number is horribly mangled and completely inaccurate.
The quoted datum (which actually totaled 36 percent, not 40 percent) came from a survey conducted before NICS came into being in 1998. The 1994 survey, reported in the 1997 study “Guns in America: National Survey on Private Ownership and Use of Firearms”, 36 percent of transfers (not sales just simple transfers of possession) were outside of background checks. “Transfer” is another very lose category which include gifts, trades, inheritances, and loans as well as sales. Indeed, 17 percent of all those transactions were non-sales, and 27 percent were outside of normal retail channels. So “universal” background checks would only extend to an additional 9% of firearm transactions under the most favorable circumstances.
Though 80 percent of crime guns already bypass the new system.
To achieve any degree of success, the “universal” background check system would require universal gun registration. Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee (D-Texas) has already acknowledged this, which doomed the bill before it was drafted. Despite denials by some politicians, registration has already led to gun confiscation in the United States – in New York, California, Chicago, District of Columbia. Voters are wary of repeating the same process in their home towns. National registration to support “universal” background checks is almost universally repugnant. This is the insurmountable hill representatives and senators face.
Most important is that criminals disobey such laws (and according to the Supreme Court in their Haynes vs. U.S. decision, criminals are not legally obligated to). In a report titled “Firearm Use by Offenders”, our own Federal Government noted that nearly 40 percent of all crime guns are acquired from street level dealers, who are criminals in the black market business of peddling stolen and recycled guns. Standing alone, this shows that “universal” background checks would have an incomplete effect on guns used in crimes.
The story gets worse. The same study notes that just as many crime guns were acquired by acquaintances, be they family or friends (this rather lose category also includes fellow criminals, who are equally unlikely to participate in “universal” background checks). Totaled, nearly 80 percent of crime guns are already outside of retail distribution channels (which are 14 percent of crime gun sources) and outside of transactions made by the law abiding folks who would participate in “universal” background checks at gun shows (0.7 percent).
When 80 percent of the problem is not addressed by legislation, even if the law was enforced it would be nearly useless.
In the rush to do “something,” bad legislation is proposed and then has to be justified. When public support for “universal” registration started slipping, politicians brought out statistics to bolster their case. Unsurprisingly those statistics were as weak as the legislation itself.
“As many as 40 percent of all gun purchases are conducted without a background check,” was President Barack Obama’s assertion concerning the National Instant Check System (NICS) which is exercised by every licensed gun retailer in the country. Aside from problem that 80 percent of crime guns come from non-retail acquisitions, the president’s 40 percent number is horribly mangled and completely inaccurate.
The quoted datum (which actually totaled 36 percent, not 40 percent) came from a survey conducted before NICS came into being in 1998. The 1994 survey, reported in the 1997 study “Guns in America: National Survey on Private Ownership and Use of Firearms”, 36 percent of transfers (not sales just simple transfers of possession) were outside of background checks. “Transfer” is another very lose category which include gifts, trades, inheritances, and loans as well as sales. Indeed, 17 percent of all those transactions were non-sales, and 27 percent were outside of normal retail channels. So “universal” background checks would only extend to an additional 9% of firearm transactions under the most favorable circumstances.
Though 80 percent of crime guns already bypass the new system.
To achieve any degree of success, the “universal” background check system would require universal gun registration. Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee (D-Texas) has already acknowledged this, which doomed the bill before it was drafted. Despite denials by some politicians, registration has already led to gun confiscation in the United States – in New York, California, Chicago, District of Columbia. Voters are wary of repeating the same process in their home towns. National registration to support “universal” background checks is almost universally repugnant. This is the insurmountable hill representatives and senators face.
D619
Well-Known Member
The Second Amendment (Amendment II) to the United States Constitution protects the right of the people to keep and bear arms from infringement. It was adopted on December 15, 1791, along with the rest of the United States Bill of Rights. The Second Amendment was based partially on the right to keep and bear arms in English common-law and was influenced by the English Bill of Rights of 1689. This right was described by Sir William Blackstone as an auxiliary right, supporting the natural rights of self-defense, resistance to oppression, and the civic duty to act in concert in defense of the state.[1]
In United States v. Cruikshank (1876), the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that, "The right to bear arms is not granted by the Constitution; neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence" and limited the applicability of the Second Amendment to the federal government.[2] In United States v. Miller (1939), the Supreme Court ruled that the federal government and the states could limit any weapon types not having a “reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia”.[3][4]
In the twenty-first century, the amendment has been subjected to renewed academic inquiry and judicial interest.[4] In District of Columbia v. Heller (200
, the Supreme court handed down a landmark decision that held expressly that the amendment protects an individual right to possess and carry firearms.[5][6] In McDonald v. Chicago (2010), the Court clarified its earlier decisions limiting the amendment's impact to a restriction on the federal government and expressly found that it limits state and local governments to the same extent that it limits the federal government.[7]
Despite these decisions, the debate between the 'gun control' and 'gun rights' movements and related organizations continues.[8]
Wiki.
In United States v. Cruikshank (1876), the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that, "The right to bear arms is not granted by the Constitution; neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence" and limited the applicability of the Second Amendment to the federal government.[2] In United States v. Miller (1939), the Supreme Court ruled that the federal government and the states could limit any weapon types not having a “reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia”.[3][4]
In the twenty-first century, the amendment has been subjected to renewed academic inquiry and judicial interest.[4] In District of Columbia v. Heller (200
, the Supreme court handed down a landmark decision that held expressly that the amendment protects an individual right to possess and carry firearms.[5][6] In McDonald v. Chicago (2010), the Court clarified its earlier decisions limiting the amendment's impact to a restriction on the federal government and expressly found that it limits state and local governments to the same extent that it limits the federal government.[7]Despite these decisions, the debate between the 'gun control' and 'gun rights' movements and related organizations continues.[8]
Wiki.
D619
Well-Known Member
One case already waiting at the Supreme Court for a decision about certiorari, however, has staked out the same territory as Wilson’s suit: the area between the Second Amendment and a state’s medical marijuana licensing system.
The case is Winters v. Willis, out of Oregon. It involves two consolidated cases in which Oregon sheriffs tried to deny a state concealed carry permit for weapons to citizens because they had Oregon medical marijuana cards, even though state law would otherwise compel issuance of the permit.
The Oregon Supreme Court agreed with the citizens (as did all the lower courts) that the sheriffs had no good reason to deny the carry permit, even if the possession of the marijuana card might, as the sheriffs insisted, mean that the permitted citizens would fall afoul of federal gun possession law, being (presumptively) drug users.
As the Oregon Supreme Court’s May decision read in part:
it appears that the sheriffs also wish to enforce the federal policy of keeping guns out of the hands of marijuana users by using the state licensing mechanism to deny CHLs [concealed handgun licenses] to medical marijuana users. The problem that the sheriffs have encountered is that Congress has not enacted a law requiring license denial as a means of enforcing the policy that underlies the federal law, and the state has adopted a licensing statute that manifests a policy decision not to use its gun licensing mechanism for that purpose: State law requires sheriffs to issue concealed gun licenses without regard to whether the applicants use medical marijuana.
The sheriffs have appealed the case to the Supreme Court, which has not yet decided on whether to hear it, but the very fact the Court asked for reply briefs from both parties means the Court “at least thinks something is worth looking into there,” says Kopel. While the Wilson suit in Nevada and this Oregon case both involve medical marijuana and guns, they don’t address the same issues. Wilson’s is a straight Second Amendment rights case involving how decisions are properly made as to when a citizen falls under one of the prohibited categories in Sect. 922; the Oregon case involves whether federal gun law properly pre-empts a state licensing scheme. The Oregon Supreme Court thought that the federal law’s purpose regarding possession of firearms had no direct effect on the state law, which merely involved the concealment of firearms.
Even if the Supreme Court takes up Winters v. Willis and decides that the sheriffs can deny the CHLs, that would not settle whether denying gun possession rights to someone strictly for having a state medical marijuana card stands up to Second Amendment scrutiny. As Rainey sees it, “it’s only good for us if Winters goes before the Supreme Court, regardless of the outcome” since a Winters loss for medical marijuana card holders would not necessarily guarantee a Wilson loss. One possible connection from this non-lawyer's perspective: Just as the Oregon CHL does not mean that you are in possession of a gun, a Nevada medical marijuana card does not mean you are using marijuana.
Second Amendment scholar Eugene Volokh of UCLA says regarding Wilson's case that “barring everyone from selling a weapon to her because she has a card denies her her Second Amendment rights without actually showing she is an illegal user. That is a plausible claim, but as to whether the Court will buy it, I’m not at all sure. Courts have been open to some Second Amendment claims but obviously they’ve been skeptical of most, so it’s not clear to me how it will come out. But it is a credible claim. What remedy she might get, I assume, will be [not overturning the prohibition entirely but] a declaratory judgment that she is entitled to get a gun so long as there is no other evidence she is a marijuana user.”
Kopel has enough doubts about the way courts react to cases that involve drugs that he isn’t confident her case will succeed on Second Amendment merits. He offers instead that “the ideal solution would be, have a president who keeps his campaign promises. If Obama were keeping his campaign promises in the first place, he could have had his BATFE not write this new policy statement, and it is within their discretion to say that we interpret ‘unlawful user’ to not cover someone regulated and lawful under state law. But the Barack Obama who ran such a good campaign for president was apparently kidnapped and replaced with a body double who is a drug war nut.”
Senior Editor Brian Doherty
Now the ironic part. Here's a qoute by Sherrif Winters " He further stated the US Government will NEVER be allowed to confiscate guns in Jackson County."
So Sheriff Winters wants to deny a law-biding Citizen of her 2nd Ammendment Rights because she was issued a Medical Marijuana Card, and has wasted millions of Tax dollars in this pursuit, even taking it all the way to the Supreme Court, yet bashes Obama on his anti-gun agenda. Hypocrisy?!
The case is Winters v. Willis, out of Oregon. It involves two consolidated cases in which Oregon sheriffs tried to deny a state concealed carry permit for weapons to citizens because they had Oregon medical marijuana cards, even though state law would otherwise compel issuance of the permit.
The Oregon Supreme Court agreed with the citizens (as did all the lower courts) that the sheriffs had no good reason to deny the carry permit, even if the possession of the marijuana card might, as the sheriffs insisted, mean that the permitted citizens would fall afoul of federal gun possession law, being (presumptively) drug users.
As the Oregon Supreme Court’s May decision read in part:
it appears that the sheriffs also wish to enforce the federal policy of keeping guns out of the hands of marijuana users by using the state licensing mechanism to deny CHLs [concealed handgun licenses] to medical marijuana users. The problem that the sheriffs have encountered is that Congress has not enacted a law requiring license denial as a means of enforcing the policy that underlies the federal law, and the state has adopted a licensing statute that manifests a policy decision not to use its gun licensing mechanism for that purpose: State law requires sheriffs to issue concealed gun licenses without regard to whether the applicants use medical marijuana.
The sheriffs have appealed the case to the Supreme Court, which has not yet decided on whether to hear it, but the very fact the Court asked for reply briefs from both parties means the Court “at least thinks something is worth looking into there,” says Kopel. While the Wilson suit in Nevada and this Oregon case both involve medical marijuana and guns, they don’t address the same issues. Wilson’s is a straight Second Amendment rights case involving how decisions are properly made as to when a citizen falls under one of the prohibited categories in Sect. 922; the Oregon case involves whether federal gun law properly pre-empts a state licensing scheme. The Oregon Supreme Court thought that the federal law’s purpose regarding possession of firearms had no direct effect on the state law, which merely involved the concealment of firearms.
Even if the Supreme Court takes up Winters v. Willis and decides that the sheriffs can deny the CHLs, that would not settle whether denying gun possession rights to someone strictly for having a state medical marijuana card stands up to Second Amendment scrutiny. As Rainey sees it, “it’s only good for us if Winters goes before the Supreme Court, regardless of the outcome” since a Winters loss for medical marijuana card holders would not necessarily guarantee a Wilson loss. One possible connection from this non-lawyer's perspective: Just as the Oregon CHL does not mean that you are in possession of a gun, a Nevada medical marijuana card does not mean you are using marijuana.
Second Amendment scholar Eugene Volokh of UCLA says regarding Wilson's case that “barring everyone from selling a weapon to her because she has a card denies her her Second Amendment rights without actually showing she is an illegal user. That is a plausible claim, but as to whether the Court will buy it, I’m not at all sure. Courts have been open to some Second Amendment claims but obviously they’ve been skeptical of most, so it’s not clear to me how it will come out. But it is a credible claim. What remedy she might get, I assume, will be [not overturning the prohibition entirely but] a declaratory judgment that she is entitled to get a gun so long as there is no other evidence she is a marijuana user.”
Kopel has enough doubts about the way courts react to cases that involve drugs that he isn’t confident her case will succeed on Second Amendment merits. He offers instead that “the ideal solution would be, have a president who keeps his campaign promises. If Obama were keeping his campaign promises in the first place, he could have had his BATFE not write this new policy statement, and it is within their discretion to say that we interpret ‘unlawful user’ to not cover someone regulated and lawful under state law. But the Barack Obama who ran such a good campaign for president was apparently kidnapped and replaced with a body double who is a drug war nut.”
Senior Editor Brian Doherty
Now the ironic part. Here's a qoute by Sherrif Winters " He further stated the US Government will NEVER be allowed to confiscate guns in Jackson County."
So Sheriff Winters wants to deny a law-biding Citizen of her 2nd Ammendment Rights because she was issued a Medical Marijuana Card, and has wasted millions of Tax dollars in this pursuit, even taking it all the way to the Supreme Court, yet bashes Obama on his anti-gun agenda. Hypocrisy?!
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
what a worthless, unattributed, copy and paste.
not only do background checks have 90-95% support, a registry has massive support as well. somewhere in the 60-75% range last time i checked.
a pointless series of reality-challenged copy and pastes won't change that.
try using your own original thought next time.
canndo
Well-Known Member
Scientific polling does not need a very large sample - we don't have to ask everyone in the country in order to get an idea. "Well...... they didn't ask ME", is a bit silly. As far as that old convenient "damn he facts, I am right because everyone else has an agenda", how about YOUR agenda? Hmm? Most pollsters have a single agenda -being as accurate as possible, the ones that are not tend to go out of business.
canndo
Well-Known Member
Except this was not only NOT a "gun free Zone" but the shooter picked up at least one weapon from a downed weapon holder. There goes that often repeated bit of malarkey. There has never been a proven case of a mass shooter "picking" a gun free zone.
