Change Brady to a charity, or give it away for free.

[GNTLGNT]

It is quite difficult to actually comprehend anything that you type Pat.

...right back 'atcha there squire...at least Pat is trying to make his point in his own inimitable style, whilst you continue hell-bent on a dead-end course to piss everybody off, just because they don't agree with YOUR viewpoint...wake up bunkie, we outnumber you....

[Moderator]

Because exzel and jay1799, I do not believe that anyone except the military should have ever had those types of weapons. I do not believe in the slightest that taking away those weapons is against your civil rights as you are still allowed to have guns to defend yourself. I further believe that the proliferation of these weapons and the easy access to obtaining them is a major contributing factor and a self-fulfilling prophecy for the fear-based thinking and paranoia that has also become prevalent in our society. By owning and promoting ownership of these types of weapons you, just as much as criminals, are creating a situation that is endangering the general population by escalating the alleged "need" for them. You are not the solution, you are a part of the problem and by refusing to accept that until something is done to reduce the amount and types of weapons and ammunition that can so easily massacre large numbers of innocent victims and by continuing to make them accessible to the general public, you are indeed violating my civil rights and the general welfare of the country to expect a safe and secure environment in which to live. In spite of my personal convictions against guns, I would support your right to own certain ones but not the ones being discussed for future bans as I see it as a slippery slope to escalating to even more dangerous ones.

[GNTLGNT]

Because exzel and jay1799, I do not believe that anyone except the military should have ever had those types of weapons. I do not believe in the slightest that taking away those weapons is against your civil rights as you are still allowed to have guns to defend yourself. I further believe that the proliferation of these weapons and the easy access to obtaining them is a major contributing factor and a self-fulfilling prophecy for the fear-based thinking and paranoia that has also become prevalent in our society. By owning and promoting ownership of these types of weapons you, just as much as criminals, are creating a situation that is endangering the general population by escalating the alleged "need" for them. You are not the solution, you are a part of the problem and by refusing to accept that until something is done to reduce the amount and types of weapons and ammunition that can so easily massacre large numbers of innocent victims and by continuing to make them accessible to the general public, you are indeed violating my civil rights and the general welfare of the country to expect a safe and secure environment in which to live. In spite of my personal convictions against guns, I would support your right to own certain ones but not the ones being discussed for future bans as I see it as a slippery slope to escalating to even more dangerous ones.

....Hear, Hear!!!!....

[exzel]

Ms. Mod and the majority here… The second amendment gives me no right. I have such a right “BY RIGHT.”

A right cannot be legislated. It can only be lost for improper application by one so possessing by murder, violence or threat of violence and so forth.

After much reflection and research, I am reaching the point that so-called “compromise” is becoming little more than “Salami Tactics”^[1] utilized by our current administration and special interest groups (like the Brady Campaign) to diminish our rights under the constitution.

^[1]Salami tactics, also known as the salami-slice strategy, is a divide and conquer process of threats and alliances used to overcome opposition. With it, an aggressor can influence and eventually dominate a landscape, typically political, piece by piece. In this fashion, the opposition is eliminated "slice by slice" until one realizes (too late) that it's gone in its entirety. In some cases it includes the creation of several factions within the opposing political party and then dismantling that party from the inside, without causing the "sliced" sides to protest. Salami tactics are most likely to succeed when the perpetrators keep their true long-term motives hidden and maintain a posture of cooperativeness and helpfulness while engaged in the intended gradual subversion.

[jay1799]

There are indeed limitations to voting, which differ from area to area. Some of those have withstood court challenge; some have not. That is how US law works. And of course no matter HOW involved and passionate you might be at the age of 17, you are not allowed to express that on a ballot.

You mean like restricting your ability to commit libel or slander? The criminalizing of inciting panic in a public place? The restriction of freedom of expression to certain venues? The determination that some things, in fact, are obscene from a legal standpoint? The criminalization of child pornography?

Unless you're in Gitmo. Or Texas.

You mean those things you pretty much have none of at work?

And they all, each and every one, down to the very last, have limitations.

The "no restrictions should be allowed" argument is demonstrably, clearly, plainly without merit. Your fist, my nose. My fist, your nose. That's how it works. That's how it has always worked.

Yes. There are limitations. And we already have them. And they should all fall into the exact quote you use at the end. The old, "Your right to swing your fist ends at my nose"

Am I asking for the right to shoot anyone anywhere? Of course not. We have laws against murder.

My right to OWN an item however and use it lawfully to defend myself does not effect 'your nose' at all, unless you are the one coming at me to hurt me and I am using a firearm to defend myself. And in that case, you are the one swinging a fist, and I am defending myself.

[jay1799]

Isn’t the main problem in the Miller case was that by the time SCOTUS heard the case, Miller was dead and nobody argued his side?

And I might be wrong, but when it comes to semi-automatic rifles, I believe no case involving them has yet reached the US Supreme Court, so therefore the issue remains unresolved, and will remain unresolved until a law restricting once again comes into play and it is challenged all the way up to the SCOTUS.

We keep hearing nobody wants to take away your guns. But I believe the recent pattern of history dictates differently. A century ago there were very few laws at all regarding guns. Up until the mid-1930’s anyone could order a Thompson submachine gun from the Sears catalogue for about $200. Then there were laws restricting certain types of weapon. Then cam laws against importation and manufacturing. Then came laws restricting who could own them. Then we get laws restricting where you could carry them. Then came laws involving background checks. Anyone see a pattern here? Perhaps this is the time to finally take a stand against the constant assault against the second amendment.

Chief Justice Kozinski of the 9th Circuit (and offspring of holocaust survivors) dissenting in a case in 2003, wrote:
"My excellent colleagues have forgotten these bitter lessons of history. The prospect of tyranny may not grab the headlines the way vivid stories of gun crime routinely do. But few saw the Third Reich coming until it was too late. The Second Amendment is a doomsday provision, one designed for those exceptionally rare circumstances where all other rights have failed-where the government refuses to stand for reelection and silences those who protest; where courts have lost the courage to oppose, or can find no one to enforce their decrees. However improbable these contingencies may seem today, facing them unprepared is a mistake a free people get to make only once."

Yes. Miller was dead. And there was no defense at all. It was basically The Government against no one. But I did not want to get into the whole....Miller isnt applicable because no one was there to defend the case.

It could certainly be argued as such in front of SCOTUS. I have no idea how that would go.

But overall exzel, I agree with you. And I saw when I reviewed the other thread, that you were one basically arguing the same point I am.

[Lily Sawyer]

Because exzel and jay1799, I do not believe that anyone except the military should have ever had those types of weapons. I do not believe in the slightest that taking away those weapons is against your civil rights as you are still allowed to have guns to defend yourself. I further believe that the proliferation of these weapons and the easy access to obtaining them is a major contributing factor and a self-fulfilling prophecy for the fear-based thinking and paranoia that has also become prevalent in our society. By owning and promoting ownership of these types of weapons you, just as much as criminals, are creating a situation that is endangering the general population by escalating the alleged "need" for them. You are not the solution, you are a part of the problem and by refusing to accept that until something is done to reduce the amount and types of weapons and ammunition that can so easily massacre large numbers of innocent victims and by continuing to make them accessible to the general public, you are indeed violating my civil rights and the general welfare of the country to expect a safe and secure environment in which to live. In spite of my personal convictions against guns, I would support your right to own certain ones but not the ones being discussed for future bans as I see it as a slippery slope to escalating to even more dangerous ones.

I don't believe that the more zealous American Gunners have argued their point well by demonstrating that buying a gun empowers them. Against what? Adam Lanza's mother exercised her right to own and operate guns. That didn't work out well for her. The surge in gun sales and ammunition immediately following the Sandy Hook tragedy was appalling for two reasons: it was a slap in the face to the victims who died and their families, and it ensured that police departments across the U.S. are now experiencing bullet shortages. The fewer bullets available, the less time spent training. And that in turn lowers local law enforcement's effectiveness.

And I don't trust Wayne LaPierre further than I can throw him - and neither should NRA members. He's an opinion flipper of the tallest order and will say anything to retain his position of power. http://thinkprogress.org/politics/20...lop/?mobile=nc

[jay1799]

...right back 'atcha there squire...at least Pat is trying to make his point in his own inimitable style, whilst you continue hell-bent on a dead-end course to piss everybody off, just because they don't agree with YOUR viewpoint...wake up bunkie, we outnumber you....

And that is the way you want to 'rule the world'?? With the power of the majority?

I hate to burst your bubble, but we are not a true democracy. We are a Constitutional republic for the very reason you are describing. ie, the power of the large to roll over the small. It is the reason we have so many checks and balances in our government. And why we have a Bill of Rights, and why Amending those rights are not simply due to a majority in congress...but an overwhelming majority of the states.

However, I would argue that 80 million gun owners is not exactly 'small'

Now maybe you are simply stating it in regards to here...at this forum. And that is quite alright. I did not exactly think I would be welcomed with open arms. But I am a vocal person. I speak my mind. So I made the decision to come here and state my viewpoint.

[exzel]

Hmmm… So because I only favor one of the "trio of reasonable measures to curb gun violence" proposed by King, I am part of the problem, not the solution? Sounds more like a verdict than rational discussion.

[Moderator]

Ms. Mod and the majority here… The second amendment gives me no right. I have such a right “BY RIGHT.”

A right cannot be legislated. It can only be lost for improper application by one so possessing by murder, violence or threat of violence and so forth.

After much reflection and research, I am reaching the point that so-called “compromise” is becoming little more than “Salami Tactics”^[1] utilized by our current administration and special interest groups (like the Brady Campaign) to diminish our rights under the constitution.

^[1]Salami tactics, also known as the salami-slice strategy, is a divide and conquer process of threats and alliances used to overcome opposition. With it, an aggressor can influence and eventually dominate a landscape, typically political, piece by piece. In this fashion, the opposition is eliminated "slice by slice" until one realizes (too late) that it's gone in its entirety. In some cases it includes the creation of several factions within the opposing political party and then dismantling that party from the inside, without causing the "sliced" sides to protest. Salami tactics are most likely to succeed when the perpetrators keep their true long-term motives hidden and maintain a posture of cooperativeness and helpfulness while engaged in the intended gradual subversion.

It's all perspective, isn't it? I see the Brady Campaign and other like organizations as defending my views. I see Wayne LaPierre as the voice of the NRA POV diminishing my opportunities for a safe environment in which to live. In spite of the vast amount of research that supports gun control as being the biggest factor in reducing gun violence, those who oppose any limits do not see it and you could make the same claim with your research to support your view. I'm inclined to go along with the President's recent quote, "We don't have to agree on everything to agree it's time to do something."