2nd Amendment

Discussion in 'Fly Fishing Forum' started by Mark Walker, Nov 16, 2008.

  1. Ed Call

    Ed Call Mumbling Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jun 9, 2008
    Messages:
    19,557
    Likes Received:
    4,554
    Location:
    Kitsap Peninsula

    Ed, I think we're good!:beer2:Oh, and you must be certifyably crazy too, IPA can't hold a candle to a nice Porter, but if you're buying IPA again, I think we're good.:beer2:

    Nothing like sharing beers over a casual conversation about the Constitution and Constitutional Ammendments!

    Good luck with the Akroyd, will we see photos?
     
  2. hookedonthefly

    hookedonthefly Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 17, 2008
    Messages:
    573
    Likes Received:
    125
    Haaaaa! You're an elitist fly fishing snob...drinkin' porter.

    Photos...hmmmmm...The akroyd is half finished, that's how fast I am. The dogs however had a good jaunt whilst I was swillin' on some peasant beer.

    I do have a Xmas fly that was d'round as a prototype for a CCA Xmas tying fest for them little chitlins. Here you go. Not super classic but I figured out the Golden P on the sweep which I was pretty stoked about.

    Back on topic. Here's two of the three solutions for household security too:D.

    Ed
     

    Attached Files:

  3. KerryS

    KerryS Ignored Member

    Joined:
    Oct 19, 2001
    Messages:
    8,378
    Likes Received:
    4,320
    Location:
    Sedro Woolley, WA, USA.
    Recently in Skagit County they tried a guy for shooting 2 people on his front porch, killing one and permanently disabling the other. Both men that were shot were not armed and neither had entered the man’s house. The shooter used a defense that he was in fear for his and his daughter’s safety; he was acquitted.
     
  4. gt

    gt Active Member

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2005
    Messages:
    2,617
    Likes Received:
    9
    Location:
    sequim, WA
    government infringing on an individuals rights?????????

    hey there, wake up, we have just spent the last 8 dark years with the government doing just that.

    the NRA has lost a major voice in congress and the WH with this election. that is the one and only reason they are making so much noise about guns and the 2nd. they have been marginalized and they don't really like that at all. but all of you citizens need to wake up to the fact that this is very small potatoes compared to what is still going on, right now, by the bush administration and the constitutional rights of US citizens.

    and i have to say, any person here who thinks they can kill and walk is delusional. without 'imminent danger' you are just a murderer, plain and simple.
     
  5. Sahalee

    Sahalee Fishin' beats workin'

    Joined:
    Dec 14, 2004
    Messages:
    31
    Likes Received:
    3
    Location:
    Sammamish, WA
    I'm a little late to the thread but I wanted to comment on something. Earlier in the thread the discussion had some focus on the constitution and whether Obama would respect it or try to change it etc. I don't believe those are the issues of concern. The Constitution will not be changed (I can't imagine another amendment in my lifetime for anything) and yes, Obama is a constitutional scholar and I have no reason to believe he doesn't respect it.

    The concern about the second amendment is not respecting it or changing it, it's in the "interpretation" of it. Further, the interpretation of it as it relates to the political and ideological positions of just 9 people in this country (you see where I am going). Constitutional Scholars disagree with each other all the time in good conscience and with good intent. To those both scholarly and otherwise who believe the 2nd amendment (and the various writings of the time they cite supporting it's "intent") gives the common citizen the right to bear arms, the issue is clear cut. But look at the recent Supreme Court ruling in District of Columbia v. Heller. It passed 5 to 4 with the the votes falling on very well known ideological and political lines. I would love to think that politics has nothing to do with it and my preferred ideal is that the justices are voting their conscience and what they truly believe from a scholarly standpoint. However, Presidents pick justices who match their ideology and interpretations of major issues. Once in a while you get a justice who goes rogue, but history shows by in large they reflect the politics of the Presidents who appoint them.

    In his dissent, Justice Breyer wrote:

    "The self-defense interest in maintaining loaded handguns in the home to shoot intruders is not the primary interest, but at most a subsidiary interest," he wrote. "The Second Amendment's language, while speaking of a 'militia,' says nothing of 'self-defense.' "​

    President-Elect Obama has said that he supported the DC gun ban. Even with the DC v. Heller ruling, citizens in DC can only have a gun in their home. President Obama will likely have the opportunity to appoint more than one Supreme Court Justice, maybe three or four if he serves 8 years. I am inclined to think that there will be more Breyers, Ginsburg's and Souter's on the bench than Scalia's after he leaves office.

    my .02 cents


    < / Begin prayer >
    < Please God let me catch my first Steelhead soon, my arm is getting very tired and my spirits weak>
    < / End Prayer >
     
  6. Kent Lufkin

    Kent Lufkin Remember when you could remember everything?

    Joined:
    Apr 7, 2004
    Messages:
    7,183
    Likes Received:
    1,295
    Location:
    Not sure
    Good points all. Thanks for your well-reasoned and articulate response.

    K
     
  7. speyfisher

    speyfisher Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2006
    Messages:
    1,326
    Likes Received:
    354
    Location:
    State of Jefferson U.S.A.
    What? Perhaps you haven't heard about Australia. And they have a complete ban on guns. Get real.
     
  8. johnnyrockfish

    johnnyrockfish Member

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2007
    Messages:
    324
    Likes Received:
    3
    Location:
    Kitsap County, WA
    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.
    [​IMG]
     
  9. papafsh

    papafsh Piscatorial predilection

    Joined:
    Oct 1, 2002
    Messages:
    2,398
    Likes Received:
    189
    Location:
    Camano Island, WA, USA.
    Home Page:
    Well, this has been an interesting read....
    I'll let the attached speak for my take on the gun issue.

    LB
     
  10. KerryS

    KerryS Ignored Member

    Joined:
    Oct 19, 2001
    Messages:
    8,378
    Likes Received:
    4,320
    Location:
    Sedro Woolley, WA, USA.
    What about Australia?
     
  11. Sahalee

    Sahalee Fishin' beats workin'

    Joined:
    Dec 14, 2004
    Messages:
    31
    Likes Received:
    3
    Location:
    Sammamish, WA
    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.
     
  12. Sloan Craven

    Sloan Craven Active Member

    Joined:
    Jun 3, 2005
    Messages:
    2,472
    Likes Received:
    49
    Location:
    NoSho, ma
    I respectfully disagree. Taking a stroll on any college campus will demonstrate that educated people are just as susceptible to fear, paranoia, and propaganda.
     
  13. shotgunner

    shotgunner Anywhere ~ Anytime

    Joined:
    Sep 21, 2008
    Messages:
    1,148
    Likes Received:
    561
    Location:
    45th Parallel NW Michigan
    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.
     
  14. johnnyrockfish

    johnnyrockfish Member

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2007
    Messages:
    324
    Likes Received:
    3
    Location:
    Kitsap County, WA
    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!
     
  15. shotgunner

    shotgunner Anywhere ~ Anytime

    Joined:
    Sep 21, 2008
    Messages:
    1,148
    Likes Received:
    561
    Location:
    45th Parallel NW Michigan
    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?