Spot on, John Howell.
"says the group is not anti-gun but does advocate for "common sense gun laws." "
Yeah, that is what they all say. That is the mantra of Michael "32 Oz"/"Colorado Springs doesn't have paved roads" Bloomberg's groups Everytown and MAIG, of the Brady Camp (formerly Handgun Control Incorporated, formerly National Council to Control Handguns) which was part of the National Coalition to Ban Handguns (now Coalition to Stop Gun Violence), of Americans for Responsible Solutions, and others. If you truly believe them, I have a metric Crescent wrench I'll sell you.
"Common sense" means different things to different people and is a "poisoning the well" ploy to paint anyone who disagrees as not having any sense. To some people, banning guns is common sense. To others, banning handguns is common sense. To others, banning so called "assault weapons" is common sense. To yet others, exercising concealed carry or open carry is common sense, or owning multiple firearms including handguns and "assault weapons" is common sense.
"The first ensures all gun buyers pass a background check — whether buying from a licensed gun dealer, a private citizen or a gun show. "
A law which actually makes very little sense.
"The second states that domestic abusers cannot own guns, even if a state classifies domestic abuse as a misdemeanor instead of a felony,"
Which is actually redundant with previously existing federal law and therefore makes no actual sense. They have been working to pass a law to make something that is already illegal, illegal.
"The group also takes credit for defeating some 200 "bad laws" in states, including those that would allow guns on college campuses or in K-12 schools."
Again, what they consider a "bad law" is actually considered by many to be a "good law".
"Colorado passed a package of gun control laws in 2013, including expanded background checks and limits on ammunition magazines. "
Both of which were great examples of actual bad laws.
If you think "cracking" the 2 party system will stop things being about $ and favors, you are delusional. Additionally, if there ever were a string 3rd or 4th party, the result would be the coalition governments found in Europe which fall apart all the time. Also it would be very likely that nobody would receive enough votes resulting in the President being chosen by the House of Representatives.
"Odin brings up a very good question. My question to Odin, ok, what is the Second Amendment about?" - Lil Mick
The Second is about the ability to keep and bear arms. This right is an extension of our inherent AKA natural or fundamental right to self-defense and community defense and it exists with or without the Second Amendment. The Second Amendment merely protects this existing right. One of the reasons it protects this right is because of community defense.
"it was originally about protecting the rights of citizens to arm themselves as a militia, keeping the militia, or military at that time separate from the government, enabling the citizenry to protect themselves from a oppressive government."
The military was never intended to be separate from the government. Please, read the Constitution. Being able to defend against an oppressive government is just one facet of a militia -- they were also for providing for immediate defense against invasions and insurrections, among other things.
"The Supreme Court and those who oppose gun legislation have made it clear, the need for a militia separate from the government is no longer necessary,"
Please, point to where the Supreme Court has said this.
" therefore that part of the Second Amendment can be ignored, it is not necessary.
So, since that is no longer the purpose, I argue, there is no longer a purpose for the Second Amendment."
You confuse the first 13 words of the Second Amendment with the reason the right exists. They are not the same thing. The first 13 words give one reason the right must be protected, not the reason it exists. Remember, the Bill of Rights does not grant any rights, it recognizes rights we already have.
"What we now have is a constitutional protection on a privately manufactured and privately marketed product. We have no such protection for any other privately manufactured and privately marketed products."
Except for the whole unreasonable search and seizure bit. Seems to me that homes are privately manufactured and privately marketed, yet there are Constitutional protections about when they can be searched, when they can be taken, and if we can be forced to share them. And even if true, so what? It doesn't mean that we can have any arms we please. It doesn't mean there cannot be any laws, restrictions, or limitations.
Therefore, I find your arguments to be extremely flawed and therefore not worth the electrons used to express them.
"If gun ownership pre-existed the Constitution why did the Founders insist on the 2nd Amendment?" - Vietnamized
To protect the pre-existing right. The Bill of Rights does not grant any rights to people, it recognizes rights we already have and protects them.
"As far as hunting for horns, the meaning was a little unclear - maybe trophy hunting says it better. "
Trophy hunting is a loaded term and is actually says it worse. To most people it invokes visions of people who kill an animal for a symbolic part to display, such as horns or antlers, but then leave the rest of the animal to go to waste. These types of hunters are very uncommon and again, this kind of hunting is often illegal. In reality, many hunters who try to take a really nice buck or bull based on the antlers, use the meat, and keep the antlers as a trophy are considered trophy hunters.
"and those guys aren't interested in the tenderloin. "
Yeah, actually, they are. They are after both the meat and the chance to take an exotic or trophy animal. The meat gets used and usually is divided between the outfitter and the hunter.
"If it were illegal to trophy hunt then all these Boone and Crockett lists would be meaningless."
Again, that will depend on your definition of a trophy hunt. Hunters who get nice B&C animals don't just leave the meat to rot, they use much of the animal.
"I prefer the youngest, tastiest elk I can find, "
So, you prefer to take an elk before it has a chance to contribute to the elk population, removing its genetics from the gene pool, thereby hurting the elk population overall; instead of taking a management bull which is no longer contributing, already passed on its genes, and is merely using up resources. Maybe the management bull isn't as tasty, but as far as ethics go, it is far more ethical to take the management bull than the young elk.
"Local governments do not have the ability to create no fly zones for any aircraft. (The FAA released a Fact Sheet on this very topic)."
Actually the FAA simply says that consultation with the FAA regarding such a ban is recommended, not blanket rule that a city cannot do it.
Jim Krier While not a "multi-rotor" UAV, please see the link below. The fact is that people have in fact been killed and seriously injured in crashes involving RC aircraft. http://blogs.wsj.com/metropolis/2013/09/05…
All Comments »
All content © Copyright 2016, The Colorado Springs Independent
Website powered by Foundation