Discussion in 'Fly Fishing Forum' started by Mark Walker, Nov 16, 2008.
Good points all. Thanks for your well-reasoned and articulate response.
What? Perhaps you haven't heard about Australia. And they have a complete ban on guns. Get real.
Always amazes me how before any new president gets in office everyone seems to know exactly what he's going to do. Seems to me lately that we've been getting the exact opposite of what we expected. GW was supposed to be a die hard conservative but we've seen government spending go through the roof and the nationalization of banks. That's not conservative. Then we had Clinton; we got a balanced budget and budget surpluses from this supposed "high spending" liberal.
It's kind of like when they appoint a Supreme Court justice as a conservative and that person turns out to be more liberal than anyone ever thought.
My guess is that Obama's going to be a very moderate president and that gun rights won't suffer unless you insist on owning an assault rifle to kill deer. Important to remember that a politician's overwhelming first priority is to get re-elected. We've had enough of fundamentalist right wing politics to know we don't want the same version from the left. Stay tuned for a balanced, intelligent 4 years. Regardless of your beliefs it seems fair to say that Obama's a brave man to take on this role, he's putting his life on the line.
Well, this has been an interesting read....
I'll let the attached speak for my take on the gun issue.
What about Australia?
I can only speak for my post and my opinion but first, I was trying to point out where the real power on this issue is, with the supreme court and how presidents historically affect the court. Historically I believe I am correct and there will likely be a more "liberal" judge appointed should a "conservative judge choose to retire. However, second, I actually couldn't agree with you more on your points about being surprised by what politicians or appointees do. Heck, just look at Joe Lieberman, who would have ever thought..
I'm not here stocking my bunker with canned goods and buying all the weapons that I fear will be "banned". I consider myself very much a moderate who is looking forward to many of the changes that Obama said he would make while campaigning. At the same time I am a gun owner who was driven to become one when my daughter was assaulted and that experience changed my view of gun ownership and gun rights to err on what is considered the more "conservative" side.
With respect to my point about the next presidents possible effect on the balance of the Supreme Court and the consequences of their rulings on the second amendment; any ruling would be so far removed and so little identified with the President by the voters that I don't believe it would matter come re-election. Even if it was pegged on President Obama and run as an issue against him in 2012, I don't think it would matter a lick. For those of you who are members of the NRA, you know that during this election cycle you were absolutely bombarded with campaigning against Obama like never before. The NRA put all the muscle they have against Obama and it appears that it didn't matter one bit.
It is my opinion that any Supreme Court ruling that is percieved to be "against" the second amendment that was swayed by an Obama appointee, will be so obfuscated from him that it would have zero affect on his re-election.
Again, I couldn't agree with you more. He is a brave man and he is now my President so I wish him well and though I am pessimistic about future gun rights issues, I look forward to changes he will bring.
I respectfully disagree. Taking a stroll on any college campus will demonstrate that educated people are just as susceptible to fear, paranoia, and propaganda.
You see, theres a rub right there. Please define assault rifle? There are no hard specifics other than a blowback actioned fully or semi-automatic firearm. Grampa's old Winchester model 100 would qualify.. Or the trusty Remington 1100 field gun. It's been tried before, sell the 'Assault Weapon' theory to a largely unknowing - uninformed general public.. The NRA aren't the only ones utilising scare tactics.
Merriam-Webster dictionary- Assault Rifle: a military automatic rifle with a large capacity magazine
I've been around firearms, shooting & shooting enthusists my entire life and have never known or heard of anyone possessing a fully automatic firearm. However, I'm unsure where the magazine capacity stands on the national level. It is regulated under state law here in MI.
The Wikipedia definition and discussion of "assault weapon ban" is perhaps more instructive than the Merriam Webster one. And while you may not know anyone who owns a fully automatic weapon, there are plenty of them out there. An innocent 8 year old died 2 weeks ago from Uzi fire. Are Uzi's legal?
Interestingly, reading the Wikipedia definition I discovered that the current Assault Weapons Ban Reauthorization Act of 2008 is Authored and sponsored by 5 Republicans. Dang liberals!
In answer to your question, no they are not legal making possessing one a felony. "there are plenty of them out there" Where, have YOU ever seen one in the flesh? I think thats an overstate on your end.
Nice link. It illustrates my point.
Provisions of the Federal Assault Weapons Ban:
"The act created a definition of "assault weapons" and subjected firearms that met that definition to regulation. Nineteen models of firearms were defined by name as being "assault weapons". Various semi-automatic rifles, pistols, and shotguns were classified as "assault weapons" due to having various combinations of features".
The act addressed only semi-automatic firearms, that is, firearms that fire one shot each time the trigger is pulled. Neither the AWB nor its expiration changed the legal status of fully automatic firearms, which fire more than one round with a single trigger-pull; these had long been regulated by the National Firearms Act of 1934.
The magazine capacity was a factor, as I acknowledged.
"The act separately defined and banned "large capacity ammunition feeding devices", which generally applied to magazines or other ammunition feeding devices with capacities of greater than an arbitrary number of rounds and which up to the time of the act had been considered normal or factory magazines. These ammunition feeding devices were also referred to in the media and popular culture as "high capacity magazines or feeding devices." Depending on the locality, the cutoff between a "normal" capacity and "high" capacity magazine was 3, 7, 10, 12, 15, or 20 rounds. The now defunct federal ban set the limit at 10 rounds"
So maybe [but I doubt it] you could explain to me how forcing more regualtion on top of something thats been federally regulated since 1934 can make an improvment?
thanks for answering my question about uzis.
Just goes to show that the feelings on firearms cut across all Political lines. Liberals and Conservatives are on both sides.
FYI, Full Auto Weapons are legal in Idaho, Oregon, Nevada and Arizona. I know many other States allow them but not which ones, Tennessee?
According to the Vancouver Sun, Vancouver has a higher rate of of violent crime, armed assault and home invasions than does Seattle. Despite handguns being against the law.
When Canada passed the current, and hopefully short lived, gun laws, suicide by firearm went down almost 70%. Interestingly enough suicide itself went up 30%. Go figure.
I agree that Obama isn't the reincarnation of Lenin or Stalin. I'm just afraid he is the reincarnation of Jimmy Carter.
excuse me, no state allows any individual to own a fully automatic firearm, not a one. now if you apply to the federal government for a federal firearms license and ask for an exemption to own a fully automatic firearm, perhaps they will grant that permission.
a fully automatic firearm is federally regulated and has been for decades. geez, get your facts straight before you go off at the keyboard.
A Federal Permit, along with a one time fee of $300.00 and a clean criminal record gets you permission for one fully auto or one fully sound suppressed weapon. An additional charge of $300.00 in Yankee dollars gets you another and so on until you run out of money.
Each State, however, makes it own laws regarding letting it's citizens possess such a tool. In Washington it is illegal to own a fully auto weapon, regardless of the Federal Permit but it is legal to own a silenced weapon, with appropriate permit, but illegal to possess it.
The States I listed trust their citizens to own these weapons while Washington does not.
I suggest you check with Google for current regulations instead of wherever you checked for your previous reply.
Fear. This is about fear.
The "right" use it to uphold their views just as the "left" uses it for theirs.
The NRA would have you believe there is a dark, scary, nasty whomever just around the corner that is set on stripping you of your money, your dignity, your life....Certain anti-gun folks would have the undecided public believe owning a gun makes you one of those people around the corner...and anyone who uses these tactics is ignorant. Unfortunately, they are both still right and still both horribly wrong.
Does access to weapons enable the sickest, vilest scum of our nation to commit heinous crimes againt innocent people. Yes. Would they do it anyway? Likely.
Does everyone with a Glock under their pillow harbor these homicidal tendencies? Not by a long shot, not even close. Probably a percentage of a percentage. If that.
Do we have the right to eliminate a threat around that corner if we are threatened. Yes. Those who don't believe in the right for personal protection would feel differently when they wake up with a knife to their throat and some a-holes hand up their wife's nightgown. (See that...FEAR...it's powerful stuff)
Is Mr. Obama's SS going to show up on your doorstep tomorrow, next year, in four years and take your guns?...Grow up.
The people who want to take "your guns" are as scared of you, John. W. NRA, as you are of the percieved threats againt your life, liberty and property or pastimes.
I believe in your right not to be threatened and live your life as you see fit as much as your right to defend yourself or your right to defer to municipal protections.
I'm probably biased. I own guns. I like them. I like them like you like your Porsche, or that new Burkie, or whatever else fires your rocket. And you know what? If somebody breaks into my house, threatens my family and friends....they aren't going to see the light of another day. I'll be damned if I'll give up that right. But I'll also fight like hell against those who think that blanket rights to assault weapons and legitimately unnecessary firearms are constitutional because they give them a hard-on.
Everyone is afraid and no one will admit it. Common sense debates and legislation don't exist because everyone pulls the fear card in a knee-jerk, slippery-slope endless circular debate to uphold their agenda.
Everybody need to shut up, listen, and reflect within themselves about how the other side feels. I won't hold my breath..........
well stated, and i would just add "Go fishing" to your last line.
On gun cotnrol, we an't count Roosevelt since he was our Commander-in-Chief who died during World War II but we didn't lose our guns when Truman (a Democrat) became president. We didn't lose our guns under Jimmy Carter ( a Democrat). Clinton (another Democrat) didn't try to take our guns. And....President Barak Obama who taught constituional law for eleven years at Chicago University, a respected and very conservative law school, isn't going to take away our guns.
If Obama or any president really went after the guns owned by honest, respectable United States citizens all hell would break loose just like it is now over the present looting of our banks BY THE PEOPLE WHO RUN THEM. To this end I am comforted that we will have the voices all of the good folks speaking out loud and clear which I hope will include each and every one who who has said their piece on this thread.
One thing that I can't figure out is why people are so fearful of "liberals" doing somethning like taking away our firearms....yet they don't seem to fear in the least the robber baron conservatives who cleaned out the savings and loans and collapsed our economy (Reagan and Bush the Elder), or more recently the administration of "W" whose cronies destroyed our economic system and threw us into the worse recession since the Great Depression. Overall we've had it pretty good in this country. Even now I have faith that we'll pull things together again. We have issues a whole lot more critical than mass paranoia over the loss of our gun rights, which isn't going to happen.
Ledfly, I'm no champion for 'assualt rifle' infatuation. My earlier post #88 was meant only to convey how something of seeming simple intent [additional regulation] can turn around and bite after the fact. I remember the Assault weapons Ban in it's infancy. The list of adjectives was nonexistent and without it would have included every semi automatic firearm ever manufactured. Once it's signed into law things are alot tougher to change.. alot like the Bush administration trying to alter the ESA right now.
Gatorator, thanks for the nudge to read up a bit. The internet makes quick work of research and fact checking. This info would have been difficult at best to obtain timely without it. Some interesting stuff available.
"The manufacture of new machine guns that civilians could purchase was effectively banned by language in the Firearm Owners Protection Act of 1986. The language is found in the so-called Hughes Amendment, which was passed under legally questionable circumstances. All machine guns legally registered prior to the date of enactment (ie, May 1986) are still legal for possession by and transfer among civilians where permitted by state law."
Crime: "While NFA weapons as a whole are perceived by the American public as dangerous, their use in crime is exceedingly rare. Legally-owned (ie, NFA-registered) machine guns have been used in only two murders since 1934, one of which was committed by a police officer. A previous director of the ATF testified before Congress that fewer than ten registered machine guns (out of over 240,000 in the nation) have ever been used in any type of crime (including nonviolent offenses such as failing to notify ATF of address changes, etc.) The criminal use of other legally-owned NFA weapons is similarly rare. The Title II weapons used in prominent crimes, such the AK-47s used in the North Hollywood shootout of 1997, have universally been illegally-owned or illegally-converted weapons."
I must admit that I shuddered a bit when I read through the first page of responses to this topic and wondered how long it'd go on before dissolving into the usual rants and name-calling that have gotten similar threads locked and members banned or parked in the past.
The fact that it's now gone on for 4 pages and shows no sign of slowing up is a testimony to the civil tone reflected overall and in each post. This restraint and maturity demonstrates that we can indeed have a discussion which presents differing points of view in a respectful and courteous manner. Thanks to all who have helped to make this an interesting and enlightening discussion even if it's not one that directly relates to fishing.
Shotgunner-It certainly wasn't my intent to call anyone on the carpet for what they have said. My apologies if I suggested that you were what you are not. I think this illustrates the exact reason why this particular topic is so touchy.
Everyones background, knowledge, and opinions on this topic are different. This isn't good or bad, it just IS. Therefore, any language used in the past for these legislative bills may not accurately convey intent, and is likely to draw criticism regardless of whether it successfully does convey intent or not.
Maybe its naive to think that there can be middle ground on this matter. In the atmosphere of this nation, it is certainly not wrong to want to provide what you think is best for the whole. I think that defines you as a decent human being. However, many are obsessed with categorizing beliefs into FOR US or AGAINST US, to the detriment of meaningful and honest discussions.
Apologies to Mr. Lufkin, after posting to this page I realized that the whole thread was against WFF forum rules. I appreciate his willingness to allow the civil discussion of this non-fishing matter among the WFF community and (sort of) like minded individuals.