Mega-Thread: Gun Control Thread

[Daelak]

You were proven wrong so now you're pouting under the guise of sarcastic snark. Grow up.

Proven wrong? You are using an extreme extenuating circumstance and broad-brushing it as a policy the entire federal and state governments would use to conifscate guns, when it was literally the worst natural disaster in US history. Keep trying.

[Roxinius]

Gun control is not stealing all your guns. We just want to make it harder to get if your an insane killer.

also assaults weapon ban is perfectly fine.

oh you mean a ban on weapons that are hardly used in crimes

[Incredibale]

State politicians fighting against federal gun laws:

2nd Amendment Preservation Act in Arizona

Washington DC - -(Ammoland.com)- Arizona state senator Kelli Ward (R-Lake Havasu City) has been joined by various co-sponsors in putting forth the the Second Amendment Preservation Act: an act that considers any federal laws “invalid and void” in Arizona if said laws infringe on the Second Amendment.
FreedomOutpost.com posted the text of the Second Amendment Preservation Act, which would not only nullify overreaching federal gun laws within the state of Arizona but would also prevent agents of the state from participating in their enforcement.
The bill specifically bars “an agency or political subdivision of [Arizona] or an employee of an agency or political subdivision of [Arizona] acting in the employee’s official capacity or a corporation providing services on behalf of [Arizona] or a political subdivision of [Arizona]” from “[enforcing] any federal act, law, order, rule or regulation that relates to a personal firearm, firearm accessory, or ammunition within the limits of [Arizona].”


Read more: http://www.ammoland.com/2014/02/ariz...#ixzz2skldQrYh
Under Creative Commons License: Attribution
Follow us: @Ammoland on Twitter | Ammoland on Facebook

Flordia State Rep's bill to resist federal gun laws

On January 27th Florida state representative Dane Eagle (R-Cape Coral) put forward a bill to prevent any "agent of the state or its political subdivisions [from participating] with or [assisting] federal agents in the enforcement of federal firearms laws."

It's Happening™

[Rukentuts]

Arizona Republicans love the Constitution, it's why we have to ignore the Supremacy Clause.

[PhaelixWW]

Arizona Republicans love the Constitution, it's why we have to ignore the Supremacy Clause.

Supremacy Clause (wikipedia):

The supremacy of federal law over state law only applies if Congress is acting in pursuance of its constitutionally authorized powers.

The states that are challenging these laws are challenging the fact that those laws are Constitutionally valid. They are instant SCOTUS-bait.

[Rukentuts]

Then you file a lawsuit, and not make false laws that have no legal power. Because it's only overreaching if SCOTUS says so, and not until then. Making a law where a state (and not judge) decides this is unconstitutional.

[PhaelixWW]

Then you file a lawsuit, and not make false laws that have no legal power. Because it's only overreaching if SCOTUS says so, and not until then. Making a law where a state (and not judge) decides this is unconstitutional.

"No legal power" is hardly accurate. It has power because the state, county, and city LEO agencies will follow it. How many people are charged and arrested by the ATF? I think we've been over that.

But yes, it's designed to prompt a confrontation in the SCOTUS, which is why I said it was SCOTUS-bait. It's prompting a face-off, with the state throwing its weight behind one side.

[Rukentuts]

"No legal power" is hardly accurate. It has power because the state, county, and city LEO agencies will follow it. How many people are charged and arrested by the ATF? I think we've been over that.

But yes, it's designed to prompt a confrontation in the SCOTUS, which is why I said it was SCOTUS-bait. It's prompting a face-off, with the state throwing its weight behind one side.

That law is SCOTUS bait. In order to make a gun law in particular SCOTUS bait, one actually has to file a suit against that law.

This law was only done to cater to their constitutionally-illiterate supporters.

[Roxinius]

Lol just read about the huge supporter of the NY safe act showing up to a school with a gun lol

[lockedout]

Yeah, there's no such thing as market viability. I heard we should all subscribe to junk because it increases our prospects. Who needs education anyway, it's not like it's joined at the hip with poverty.

You left out the next sentence taking this totally out of context, but that's par for the course with you.

[Rukentuts]

You left out the next sentence taking this totally out of context, but that's par for the course with you.

You couldn't even stay on the topic we're talking about, but I guess like you said: par for the course. It's why you just fabricate mass absenteeism, with no substantiation.

[lockedout]

You couldn't even stay on the topic we're talking about, but I guess like you said: par for the course. It's why you just fabricate mass absenteeism, with no substantiation.

You're a funny guy.

In an announcement published by his city’s newspaper, Poughkeepsie, N.Y. Mayor John C. Tkazyik said he quit the group after realizing it was simply a vehicle for Michael Bloomberg to “promote his personal gun-control agenda.”
“It did not take long to realize that MAIG’s agenda was much more than ridding felons of illegal guns,” he stated. “Under the guise of helping mayors facing a crime and drug epidemic, MAIG intended to promote confiscation of guns from law-abiding citizens.”
“I don’t believe, never have believed and never will believe that public safety is enhanced by encroaching on our right to bear arms and I will not be a part of any organization that does.”
http://www.infowars.com/mayor-nation...-illegal-guns/

[Rukentuts]

Sweet infowars link there. Now how about something not run by a complete nut?

[lockedout]

Sweet infowars link there. Now how about something not run by a complete nut?

They are reporting about a news paper report which is sourced in the article (http://www.poughkeepsiejournal.com/a...nclick_check=1). They have direct quotes from the person interviewed in the original article.
Couldn't find MSM reporting about it, give them a few days.

[Rukentuts]

Couldn't find MSM reporting about it

Couldn't find any respectable news outlet reporting something from info wars, there's a shocker.

[Ehrenpanzer]

Tell me how many shootings there have been in the last year alone in the US. And what the total body/injured count is. This is hardly a kneejerk reaction.

Tell me how many of those guns loaded themselves, drove themselves to the schools/movies/whereever and shot people of there own accord? yeah......maybe instead of everyone bandwagon hopping on whatever Obama tells you is bad, maybe try looking for root causes of these problems. With that being said, I do support a federal background check to obtain a firearm

[Citizen T]

Story here: link

This guy was one of the public faces of pushing the SAFE act in New York. He is caught carrying a handgun in an elementary school and get arrested and charge with 2 felony counts.

This is quite the example of hypocrisy. I'm not detracting his right to carry the handgun (he even had a license), but his push to enact gun control on others while carrying himself is quite the excellent example of how those that want to regulate other's lives don't feel the need to follow the same set of rules.

He says he forgot he was carrying. If this is true then his license to carry to be revoked immediately for idiocy. The first rule of carrying a weapon is to always be aware that you are carrying a weapon! Police officers (active and retired) that carry as close to 24/7 as is possible don't forget that they are armed.

He was released without bail. Now consider if this person was a Second Amendment advocate and NRA member. What to you think bail would have been set at? Almost certainly considerably higher than the $10,000 that the prosecution asked and was waived by the judge.

What do you think should happen to this guy?

[Beazy]

Story here: link

This guy was one of the public faces of pushing the SAFE act in New York. He is caught carrying a handgun in an elementary school and get arrested and charge with 2 felony counts.

This is quite the example of hypocrisy. I'm not detracting his right to carry the handgun (he even had a license), but his push to enact gun control on others while carrying himself is quite the excellent example of how those that want to regulate other's lives don't feel the need to follow the same set of rules.

He says he forgot he was carrying. If this is true then his license to carry to be revoked immediately for idiocy. The first rule of carrying a weapon is to always be aware that you are carrying a weapon! Police officers (active and retired) that carry as close to 24/7 as is possible don't forget that they are armed.

He was released without bail. Now consider if this person was a Second Amendment advocate and NRA member. What to you think bail would have been set at? Almost certainly considerably higher than the $10,000 that the prosecution asked and was waived by the judge.

What do you think should happen to this guy?

Gun control nuts know better than "you". That's why he had one. Just like all the celebrities who speak out about guns, its totally cool for their body guards to have them, but NOT YOU!

[Endus]

The US is reaching a crisis point.

You can't on the one hand argue that everyone has the right to own and carry a firearm, and then charge a dude with 2 felony counts because he was on school property with a (fully licensed and properly carried) firearm.

Those two stances are directly contradictory. Are guns too dangerous to allow open carry? Then perhaps the 2nd Amendment needs to be revisited. Are they a necessary and fundamental freedom that must be protected? Then what this guy did should've been just fine.

[Citizen T]

The US is reaching a crisis point.

You can't on the one hand argue that everyone has the right to own and carry a firearm, and then charge a dude with 2 felony counts because he was on school property with a (fully licensed and properly carried) firearm.

Those two stances are directly contradictory. Are guns too dangerous to allow open carry? Then perhaps the 2nd Amendment needs to be revisited. Are they a necessary and fundamental freedom that must be protected? Then what this guy did should've been just fine.

The problem is not with him carrying. This should be his fully Constitutional right. The problem is that he helped spear-head the legislation (and later actual law) that he is being charged under. His actions are essentially saying that he believes others should not be allowed to carry but that he knows better than they do and thus can carry.

Guns in and of themselves are not dangerous. If people believe that the Second Amendment should be revised then they should attempt to do so rather than trying to push various disparate laws across the nation.