Play online chess!

Pages:  « Previous 1 2 3 Next »
From	Message
dmaestro 22-Dec-12, 14:53	We have the NRA's extremist views on the defensive. As you would expect in a bitterly divided country, they will fight to the bitter end in their red state enclaves. But they are losing the PR battle. Experts expect gun violence to continue to climb, and eventually enouh people will balme and prevail over the gun lobby. Thumper will be the one seeking asylum, not me.
changeling 22-Dec-12, 15:10	thumper When are you going to take the discussion seriously? Do you have any issue with what dm just posted? If it was another who posted the comments would you be inclined to agree with them?
changeling 22-Dec-12, 15:12	I mean dm's post of 11:23 of course!
softaire 22-Dec-12, 15:30	change The only thing I don't really like about DMs ideas is that the government will then have a list of people who have guns. Actually they do now already have those lists (at least for people who obey laws and get guns legally). And, here is why I don't like the government having lists like that... after Hurricane Katrina they confiscated guns in New Orleans. The more complete the lists, the easier to confiscate the guns.
dmaestro 22-Dec-12, 15:35	Softaire what authority was used to confiscate guns from law abiding citizens? And they never got them back?
softaire 22-Dec-12, 15:45	Here is one video of several gun confiscations... www.youtube.com
softaire 22-Dec-12, 15:54	Here is more about that... Confiscation of civilian firearms Even though a law was subsequently passed regarding this, the government will simply ignore it when they want to ignore it. THAT is the problem. We have a government that ignores laws and the Constitution when it wants to do so. THAT is why we need guns with the civilian population. ******************************************************************* Controversy arose over a September 8 city-wide order by New Orleans Police Superintendent Eddie Compass to local police, U.S. Army National Guard soldiers, and Deputy U.S. Marshals to confiscate all civilian-held firearms. "No one will be able to be armed," Compass said. "Guns will be taken. Only law enforcement will be allowed to have guns." Seizures were carried out without warrant, and in some cases with excessive force; one instance captured on film involved 58 year old New Orleans resident Patricia Konie. Konie stayed behind, in her well provisioned home, and had an old revolver for protection. A group of police entered the house, and when she refused to surrender her revolver, she was tackled and it was removed by force. Konie's shoulder was fractured, and she was taken into police custody for failing to surrender her firearm.[79][80] Even U.S. Army National Guard soldiers, armed with M16 assault rifles, were used for house to house searches, seizing firearms and attempting to get those remaining in the city to leave.[81] Angered citizens, backed by the National Rifle Association and other organizations, filed protests over the constitutionality of such an order and the difficulty in tracking seizures, as paperwork was rarely filed during the searches. Wayne LaPierre, CEO of the National Rifle Association, defended the right of affected citizens to retain firearms, saying that, "What we’ve seen in Louisiana - the breakdown of law and order in the aftermath of disaster - is exactly the kind of situation where the Second Amendment was intended to allow citizens to protect themselves." The searches received little news coverage, though reaction from groups such as the NRA, the Second Amendment Foundation, and Gun Owners of America was immediate and heated, and a lawsuit was filed September 22 by the NRA and SAF on behalf of two firearm owners whose firearms were seized. On September 23, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana issued a restraining order to bar further firearms confiscations.[79] After refusing to admit that it had any seized firearms, the city revealed in mid-March that it did have a cache of some 1000 firearms seized after the hurricane; this disclosure came after the NRA filed a motion in court to hold the city in contempt for failure to comply with the U.S. District Court's earlier order to return all seized firearms. On April 14, 2006, it was announced that the city will begin to return seized firearms, however as of early 2008, many firearms were still in police possession, and the matter was still in court.[79] The matter was finally settled in favor of the NRA in October 2008. Per the agreement, the city was required to relax the strict proof of ownership requirements previously used, and was to release firearms to their owners with an affidavit claiming ownership and a background check to verify that the owner is legally able to possess a firearm.[82] Louisiana legislator Steve Scalise introduced Louisiana House Bill 760, which would prohibit confiscation of firearms in a state of emergency, unless the seizure is pursuant to the investigation of a crime, or if the seizure is necessary to prevent immediate harm to the officer or another individual. On June 8, 2006, HB 760 was signed into law.[83] 21 other states joined Louisiana in enacting similar laws. A federal law prohibiting seizure of lawfully held firearms during an emergency, the Disaster Recovery Personal Protection Act of 2006, passed in the House with a vote of 322 to 99, and in the Senate by 84-16. The bill was signed into law by President Bush on October 9, 2006.[84] en.wikipedia.org
dmaestro 22-Dec-12, 16:10	This was an isolated instance in one city where the law was not clear about emergency situations. There was bipartisan support for a law specifically prohibiting this. And this incident occurred before the Supreme Court decisions prohibiting gun bans and extending this to the states. I don't see how you think the government will be seizing guns from citizens.
softaire 22-Dec-12, 17:23	dm You saw it happen in the video. When the government wants to do something, they will do it... to hell with the law. Then, after the fact, they can say whatever they want... like we didn't know, like we thought this was a terrorist incident, like this was an emergency situation... etc. With lists of people who own guns, they will know right where to go. Once again, it will be the criminals, gangs, deranged people and law breakers who they won't know about.
changeling 22-Dec-12, 17:31	softy We joust yet again I think (but only in questioning your posts validity). A quote within your post states this gem: "... "What we’ve seen in Louisiana - the breakdown of law and order in the aftermath of disaster - is exactly the kind of situation where the Second Amendment was intended to allow citizens to protect themselves..." The citizens were not protecting themselves, they were taking property belonging to others were they not? Please correct me if I am wrong, but, the seizure of private citizens firearms was done after mass looting, not so they could not protect themselves (from who, each other perhaps because they had guns?). Civil authority breakdown, perhaps, or insurrection? What do you think? I suppose the case of the lady getting a broken shoulder was a over the top though!
softaire 22-Dec-12, 17:45	change I think you have misunderstood the posts and the video. In New Orleans and surrounding areas, most people that had weapons confiscated were leaving the area and taking their things with them, including their weapons. In some cases, they were remaining at home and the police barged in and took the weapons. In no cases did anybody deny having the weapons. In all cases, they were legally owned. In no cases did anybody do anything wrong, threatening or subversive. Yet, we see actual footage and commentary of police acting against the Constitution, doing what they wanted to do. What can you imagine will happen when the "emergency" is perceived to be NOT a natural disaster but an insurrection of some group, or a terrorist threat? Do you think, based on what you saw, that the government would be any more "sensitive" to liberty and rights, or legislation previously passed like DM seems to think? My opinion is that in some perceived threat, all civil liberties will be thrown out the window. Governmental force will rule. There will be NO individual rights. The scary thought is that BO (and any president) could declare Marshall Law at any time or issue an Executive Order, for almost any perceived threat. Lyndon Johnson basically did that with the Gulf of Tonkin incident. It could happen at any time.
changeling 22-Dec-12, 18:04	Just when we were getting somewhere you have to get an Obama dig in, again (fear monger).   There was no mention of this stuff during the administration of Bush when Katrina actually happened, or the extremely slow federal response of help in Louisiana. Simply a state led shutdown, or was that actually done by the federal government? In regard to armed people attempting to leave the area. Was it not neighbouring states that wanted this exodus stopped (not the private citizens who did indeed help enormously even when their own circumstances were dire), in case of rampage and looting spilling over state lines? Perhaps we get different (more extended and detailed) reports than the average American gets when these issues come up, and not so much fox news type reporting. That's not to say the people had no right to survive any way they could. It is simply that no-one else (in authority) wanted them to or particularly cared if they did or not (an impression from the perspective of watching that particular horror daily).
changeling 22-Dec-12, 18:08	Just read your post again to make I was clear: "...Controversy arose over a September 8 city-wide order by New Orleans Police Superintendent Eddie Compass to local police, U.S. Army National Guard soldiers, and Deputy U.S. Marshals to confiscate all civilian-held firearms. "No one will be able to be armed," Compass said. "Guns will be taken. Only law enforcement will be allowed to have guns..." Not a federal directive then but a local state one! So why all this hoopla about the federal government and taking away of rights? Would it not be better to concentrate on tin pot state governments? The second amendment states that 'officers' of militias etc (or words to that effect) must come from the states and not federal government.
softaire 22-Dec-12, 18:09	change I am enjoying your twisting and turning here to avoid acknowledging what you see in the video. You may continue making your excuses and hypotheticals as you see fit. But, what you see is what you get. It is what it is. And, it is a government operation whether Bush or BO. I mention BO because he is currently the President with the power. Had it been Bush, I would have mentioned him. But, of course, I can't prove that.
changeling 22-Dec-12, 18:15	softy I believe it was George W Bush that was president during Hurricane Katrina. Not excuses and/or hypotheticals. Yes or no, was New Orleans (Louisiana) shut down by the federal government or on orders from its own state Governor? Under whose orders was the police chief who ordered the gun seizures?
changeling 22-Dec-12, 18:21	softy Watched the video you posted (first couple of minutes anyway). What a crock of misrepresentation! The woman was removed for her own safety. Yes I have no doubt she was very frightened by 'linebacker' sized policemen in her house. Did they go in to her home specifically to confiscate her hand gun, or to take her out to a safer environment?
softaire 22-Dec-12, 19:55	change "What a crock of misrepresentation!" Really! And, just how do you know that?
thumper 22-Dec-12, 20:18	"We're from the government and we're here to help."
changeling 23-Dec-12, 01:09	softy Watch your own video post again, tell us what is happening in the first few minutes, describe the manner and general disposition of the (quite elderly) lady in question. Then use a little common sense, would you leave an elderly woman on her own in that situation? They were trying to get her out for whatever reason to another place of safety. Would you have liked your mother's in her situation with many in surrounding areas looting. She had food and supplies. Get serious about this stuff. We actually watched quite a few direct live reports from New Orleans during that time (there was quite a few Australians trapped there as well reporting back via mobile phone cameras etc).
thumper 23-Dec-12, 06:38	>changeling 22-Dec-12, 15:10 thumper. When are you going to take the discussion seriously? Do you have any issue with what dm just posted? If it was another who posted the comments would you be inclined to agree with them? changeling 22-Dec-12, 15:12 I mean dm's post of 11:23 of course!< Here's that post you want me to take seriously: >dmaestro 22-Dec-12, 11:23 It is simple. You have to have a license to drive and to register your cars in a national database. Why not guns? Owners should be licensed annually and the government should know who has guns, what type, and how many. Possessing unregistered or significantly modified guns should be a serious crime and automatically trigger losing rights to have guns. All ammunition sales should be tied to a specific firearm and quantities limited without a permit. Outside of pre designated weapons for self defense purposes, extra guns and ammunition at residences should be secured and stored and owners should be liable for theft/misuse of improperly secured items. DUI triggers immediate seizure of guns. Medical doctors should annually certify under penalty that they know of nothing that might warrant suspension of gun rights. All this can be paid for by progressive taxation on guns and ammunition.< Are you serious? This post is so goofy and twisted it begs to be mocked on so many levels that it would be a gross waste of my intellect to answer yet again (taking candy from a baby), but for you I shall endeavour to persevere... My oft repeated answer; 'I' don't need permission from the government or anyone else to avail myself of my rights. YOU cannot give away or abdicate MY rights. This 'argument' has been well settled. The claim and exercise of a constitutional right cannot be converted into a crime, neither can there be sanctions or penalties placed upon the claiming of those rights. Any attempt to do so is null and void on it's face and constitutes a felony crime against 'me'.
softaire 23-Dec-12, 06:47	change Along the same lines of thought for the old woman in her own house: She has the right to remain in her own house. It is her decision to remain there... not yours, not mine, and certainly not the governments decision. She seems to have been perfectly capable of taking care of herself, but even if she was not... it is still her decision. She is responsible for the decision and the results. Why are you so eager to give you rights and decision making to a government?
dmaestro 23-Dec-12, 12:10	As you see once again compromise is not possible anymore. You can only build a bridge so far...joe McCarthy has to be sitting in hell LHAO.
thumper 25-Dec-12, 10:24	A friend of mine just bought a gun.
proginoskes 26-Dec-12, 21:46	I don't see how anything that DM proposed in this thread would do anything to stop gun violence or stop what happened in CT. The only thing a registry does is make it easier for the government to confiscate guns when it finally does decide to do so.
dmaestro 26-Dec-12, 22:35	When you know where all the guns are and have background checks you find associated with permits and renewals you find out about people like Adam Lanza who is an adult in the house. solution is just to shoot him before he kills too many kids. He'll figure out some way to get as many as he can. No access to such firearms, no massacre. Your paranoia about the government is what allows a huge underground gun culture to flourish and gun murder rates typical of the Wild West or third world outpost. Eventually when enough die and people are fed up you will wish you had been more reasonable in return and not just proposed more guns for all. Your fantasy of taking on a government that has the power it does militarily is laughable.
proginoskes 27-Dec-12, 07:54	Nothing you are suggesting would have prevent Adam Lanza from doing what he did though. None of it. Sure, in a world without ANY guns, AT ALL, there would be no gun deaths, but this a tautology used rather effectively on people who are scared of guns at baseline. It's a meaningless statement. Are you going to tell me water is wet next? I don't have a "paranoia" about any government. I've seen history and objective history clearly supports the sober position that registration ultimately leads to confiscation in almost every situation. When people like you who don't like guns, know where they are, you will eventually try and get them all, and this registration is a nice little way to get everyone to line up and play ball. Seems reasonable, right? But when you actually look at it, nothing you propose would have stopped crazy from walking into a school and killing a bunch of kids. The "wild west" wasn't as "wild" as many persume, just FYI. Much like today, outside of a few hotspots, gun violence was pretty low. I don't have a fantasy about taking on the government. I'm not interested in some kind "fight" with the government, and no gun owner is. Though, it's not a fight that the military or police would want or could win. Goat herders in afghanistan with aftermarket AK-47s have been enough to keep the most powerful military in the world from conquering their country. If you really think that the american military could take on the entire armed american populace and win, you're high. One man with a rifle against a helicopter, or a tank, or battleship, or whatever is laughable, but when taken in the aggregate, the American population is the largest armed group in the world, and even if the american gun owners took out 1 illegally operating police or military for every 10 they took out, the american gun owners still win. What are you going to do carpet bomb whole states?? You can ask softie how that worked for the Americans in Vietnam. Which is all part of the reason your kind would like guns registered and eventually taken. Your kind knows you ultimately cannot get the soft slavery you would like to see forced onto the world, unless the means to fight back is taken away.
chaz- 27-Dec-12, 08:01	jdh ... ... do the wishes of those who do not want guns around matter? Said another way, if a majority of the population seek to reduce the number of weapons or the type of weapons or the size of weapons in the country, would they not have the right to amend the laws re weapons? If so, would it not be imperative for those who wish to retain 2-A privileges to become more effective at persuading "moderates" by being more "moderate" in their approach? BTW, these are rhetorical questions, not an advocacy for no guns defense.
proginoskes 27-Dec-12, 08:23	chaz No one forces anyone who doesn't want a gun to have or own one, but you know this. Your question is akin to asking, what if the majority of people don't want women voting, is there any respect for such a position, or a "moderate" approach to limiting the suffrage of women? "shall not be infringed" - I mean how do we get "moderate" when the 2A ends with that phrase? Look, I think gun owners have been MORE than moderate. There are lots of gun laws. You have to have a background check to get a rifle or a handgun. You can't carry a concealed handgun in almost every state unless you've passed a course, more thorough background check, and been approve by your local sheriff. Automatic weapons or generally illegal. Military explosives are generally illegal. I think we've approached a line in the sand, and we're simply not willing to cross over it, not any longer. And I think it would be one thing if we actually trusted our opposition on this issue but we don't. Look, if you or anyone else can propose something you'd like to see done and further ESTABLISH that it would have or make any meaningful difference in gun crimes or the kind of thing that happened in CT, I'll listen. However, a registry of all guns is something that doesn't prevent crime. For instance you can't prevent the theft of doughnuts simply by knowing where every doughnut is. The idea there is soft at best and idiotic at worst. Now, if you would like some mandatory "training" prior to *any* gun ownership - the driver's license analogy - . . . I'm generally ok with that, provided it didn't become too time or cost prohibitive - I can see how the government could make it VERY difficult to obtain one of these licenses once we allow it, so I'm even reticent there. I mean I look at the tactics of those who don't like gun and it's fairly obvious they are trying to come after this right from every single angle they can, by preventing ammo sales, to limit ownership of ammo, to high taxes on ammo, etc. Yeah, you can own the gun, in theory, if you jump through all these hoops, and can afford to buy ammo, etc. Even then . . . you require people to get some basic training before they can own a firearm, how does that stop what happened in CT? It doesn't. You see chaz "compromise" is meeting someone HALFWAY. It's not you demand I move closer to your position and then throw a tantrum when I don't after seeing you've got no intention of moving my way. What happened in CT and the way the left is using it is nothing more than a cynical pawn play to "never let a crisis go to waste". We can talk though about ideas you'd think would help, for sure. I'd be interested in hearing anything you have to say.
chaz- 27-Dec-12, 09:36	... OK ... and thank you for elaborating your position quite well. But, let me also extend my rhetorical discussion here. Actually, I'm not arguing about the original language of 2-A; and, I understand your defense using the originally-intended position 250 years ago. First, women's suffrage is not really comparable. There are lots of similar things one could use for such arguments ... and it seems an attempt to make it a black/white issue (suffrage is black/white ... women vote or they don't). In modern America, gun ownership is not a black/white issue despite attempts to make it one. There are limitations to weapons in the hands of the public ... limitations that could not have been conceived 250 years ago. Weapons must be better defined so that a line can be drawn on which the public may own and which they cannot. Second, regarding cultural evolution. Times change. The Bill of Rights was designed to be changed over time, and it has been. Many folks consider 2-A needs to be re-evaluated (with more contemporary laws/applications) or revised (by federal law) or rewritten; some believe it needs to be revoked. If a majority of folks (a sufficient majority to effect a change in the Bill of Rights) believe in one of these possibilities, then the Constitution's Bill of Rights will thence change. If a sufficient amount of people (perhaps just a simple majority in some cases) want changes to local laws, these will become even more cumbersome in applying laws from state to state (even chaotic). Finally, the public gets caught up with a causation argument (the more guns, the more crime, the more gun deaths, etc.). To use an argument re causation (to argue against it or to use it as an argument) actually proves little ... the only viable argument is what people believe to be true. What I'm saying here is that the "truth" in a majority of people's minds is trending heavily against a wide open definition of weapons, weapons use, weapons size, etc. including the rights of those who have guns (registration, published lists of gun users, licensing, rules associated with ownership, etc.). Do citizens have just as much the right to know who owns a weapon in their neighborhood or city or state? I'm not advocating a certain position, per se ... but I am trying to make the point that there may logically be compromises required to get past this. If gun owners become intransigent, they may lose more than they might otherwise with a good sense of modern evolution on this subject. I am still formulating my own resolution for this ... I don't have one yet.
dmaestro 27-Dec-12, 12:20	Jdh, I totally disagree that registration inevitably means confiscation. Other countries do not have a 2A or the democratic tradition with guns that we have. And what about Switzerland, also with a long history of democracy and gun ownership, where the government has strict gun control? Nobody is taking all the guns there, and they would not there either. Having guns around means that there are going to be more gun deaths. As I said, that toll should be minimized in return for that freedom. It is the irresponsible way you all fight any meaningful gun control or knowing who has access to what guns that creates the environment where criminals can get all the guns they want. The red herring of gun confiscation is just that, paranoia. We should know who owns guns and what they have, period. And we can't just rely on the flawed judgement of Adam Lanza's mother that giving him ready training and access to all those guns was a good idea. Had there been an annual medical review and background check on the family as I propose, it is quite possible that there would have been restrictions on storing those guns in that home. Gun deaths are increasing and will continue to increase. At some point people will have had enough.
Pages:  « Previous 1 2 3 Next »

GameKnot: play chess online, chess clubs, Internet chess league, monthly chess tournaments, chess teams, online chess puzzles, free online chess games database and more.