Gun Control Proposals as Found by Gharkal

Since no politician is supporting a gun buy-back program your comments, while they may be true, are irrelevant. Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX

The only gun control I care about is, know what you're shooting at, use both hands gently squeeze the trigger and nail your target.

If a politician supported open borders, then there would be no illegal immigration, therefore no need to enforce it. Originally Posted by gnadfly

Very true but the point to be made is that no politician supports open borders for our country. Okay, you might find some illiterate politician in some Podunk state that supports open borders but no one else.

The only gun control I care about is, know what you're shooting at, use both hands gently squeeze the trigger and nail your target. Originally Posted by bb1961

.."both hands" and "gently squeeze"?

Your dead.

Politicians lie to the public. Always remember that. Kind of like the old saying about sex partners; a guy will always treble his conquests that he tells you about and a woman will divide her experiences by four. If a politician is voluntarily telling you about some guns being banned then understand that they probably mean three or four times more than that. We have to pass the bill to what is in the bill. Originally Posted by the_real_Barleycorn

You could certainly be right. Or wrong. I don't believe in condemning someone on what they might be thinking. When they actually do it is the time for condemnation.

You could certainly be right. Or wrong. I don't believe in condemning someone on what they might be thinking. When they actually do it is the time for condemnation. Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX

People are convicted daily on what they "might be thinking" ...

... it's called "intent" ... and it is proven beyond a reasonable doubt with circumstantial evidence, which is IMPLIED from what they say and do.

Example: President Trump who has been convicted by many claiming they know what he's "thinking" .... those same goof-balls pyschoanalyze him while watching him on TV and reading his "tweets"!

They aren't going to use the phrase "open borders" ... but when they oppose aggressive border security, facilitate the uninvited, illegal guests by providing "sanctuaries," and accuse those wanting to exclude the illegal guests from coming into the country or tossing them out (when they are caught) of being a "racist" ... then those are "circumstances" from which a reasonable mind could imply they are advocating "open borders"!

Very true but the point to be made is that no politician supports open borders for our country. Okay, you might find some illiterate politician in some Podunk state that supports open borders but no one else. Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX

If you abolish ICE who is going to stem the influx of immigrants??
So I guess this isn't support...you abolish ICE and it is pretty much open boards!!
http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-n...712-story.html

.."both hands" and "gently squeeze"?

Your dead. Originally Posted by LexusLover

I do a lot of target shooting and that works for me on accuracy ...emergency situations...quite different.

I do a lot of target shooting and that works for me on accuracy ...emergency situations...quite different. Originally Posted by bb1961

uhhhhh ... I'm struggling to remember a situation in which I needed a firearm to protect myself, someone else, and/or property that wasn't an "emergency situation" ...

.. I could swear you were describing shooting someone!

I guess some "targets" look like people.

I recall when the black silhoette had to be changed to blue ... "cultural sensitivity" ... on the other hand I've had to face photo targets of people in various "emergency situations" in which there was a "shoot/don't shoot" decision to make with a timer running .... holding with "both hands" and "gently squeezing" wasn't an option .... neither is it on the street. That's why we carry!

Carry on .... the paper is waiting.

Hilary Clinton did not propose a buy-back program as instituted in Australia. Guns are not outlawed in Australia but gun control laws are VERY strict. What Clinton said in the article is:

"So I think that's worth considering. I do not know enough detail to tell you how we would do it, or how would it work, but certainly your example is worth looking at."

So I would say that Clinton's comments are very far from a proposal to taking away guns from law-abiding citizens. Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX

But the fact she was ok with doing something similar, which amounted to being a MANDATORY buyback (You had no damn choice in whether you participated or not), IS where she effectively steped into the 'i want to take your guns' crowd.

I should have made my comment more specific. I was talking about banning ALL guns. I would certainly agree that some politicians would like to pass legislation banning certain types of guns. Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX

And as the link showed, some want to ban Semi-autos.. WHICH Practically means all guns.. Hell even pump action shotguns are 'semi-automatic.

With all due respects, the survey was conducted with average citizens, not politicians. Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX

Well, without those 'average joes' voting IN The politicians, or protesting/demanding they do stuff, the politicians wouldn't be onboard with these suggestions.. would they.

Cuomo said “Confiscation could be an option,” Cuomo opined. “Mandatory sale to the state could be an option.” Like Clinton, he has proposed nothing. He is stating that it could be an option to look at. Here is a comment from Cuomo made on June 13th: "We need a gun policy in this state that is reasonable, that is balanced, that is measured. We respect hunters and sportsmen. This is not taking away people's guns. I own a Remington shotgun. I've hunted, I've shot. That's not what this is about. It is about ending the unnecessary risk of high-capacity assault rifles." Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX

The fact he's even considering confiscation is scary..

Again, Feinstein was talking about assault weapons only. Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX

And with what these liberals claim are assault weapons, that effectively means ALL guns..

Essentially the same group who doesn't want ID's for voting wants to know who possesses firearms, and whether they are "qualified" to possess one. Originally Posted by LexusLover

Just like those same folks, seem to think "WE can't go out, locate and round up 30 million or so illegal aliens" but think its fully feasable to identify who owns all these 300 million + guns that are in personal ownership, and POTENTIALLY confiscate them..

Very true but the point to be made is that no politician supports open borders for our country. Okay, you might find some illiterate politician in some Podunk state that supports open borders but no one else. Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX

Strange.. Doing a search i found these three sites..


https://www.fairus.org/legislation/s...s-get-arrested


http://dailycaller.com/2017/01/29/th...-open-borders/


https://www.investors.com/politics/e...-open-borders/


Certainly seems to ME there are democrats who support open borders.

I do a lot of target shooting and that works for me on accuracy ...emergency situations...quite different. Originally Posted by bb1961

And when we were trained on shooting in the Navy, we were told "Squeese the trigger, don't jerk or pull it.

People are convicted daily on what they "might be thinking" ...

... it's called "intent" ... and it is proven beyond a reasonable doubt with circumstantial evidence, which is IMPLIED from what they say and do.

Example: President Trump who has been convicted by many claiming they know what he's "thinking" .... those same goof-balls pyschoanalyze him while watching him on TV and reading his "tweets"!

They aren't going to use the phrase "open borders" ... but when they oppose aggressive border security, facilitate the uninvited, illegal guests by providing "sanctuaries," and accuse those wanting to exclude the illegal guests from coming into the country or tossing them out (when they are caught) of being a "racist" ... then those are "circumstances" from which a reasonable mind could imply they are advocating "open borders"! Originally Posted by LexusLover

"Intent" as you first used it is a term relevant to criminal law. The discussion is whether or not you can assume a person really believes one thing but says something else. For example, Diane Feinstein wants to ban semi-automatic weapons but in reality wants to ban ALL guns. May be true. May be untrue.

There may very well be some handful of politicians who fit the description in your last paragraph. I am not sure what you consider to be "aggressive border security" and "facilitate the uninvited".

intent

n. mental desire and will to act in a particular way, including wishing not to participate. Intent is a crucial element in determining if certain acts were criminal. Occasionally a judge or jury may find that "there was no criminal intent." Example: lack of intent may reduce a charge of manslaughter to a finding of reckless homicide or other lesser crime.

"Intent" as you first used it is a term relevant to criminal law. The discussion is whether or not you can assume a person really believes one thing but says something else. For example, Diane Feinstein wants to ban semi-automatic weapons but in reality wants to ban ALL guns. May be true. May be untrue.

There may very well be some handful of politicians who fit the description in your last paragraph. I am not sure what you consider to be "aggressive border security" and "facilitate the uninvited".

intent

n. mental desire and will to act in a particular way, including wishing not to participate. Intent is a crucial element in determining if certain acts were criminal. Occasionally a judge or jury may find that "there was no criminal intent." Example: lack of intent may reduce a charge of manslaughter to a finding of reckless homicide or other lesser crime.

Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX

Politician Feinstein's definition of "assault weapon" has never been substantively established. Her attempts to put it in codified law have always been too vague and open ended. Hence, no one has yet conclusively proved that Feinstein's definition of an "assault weapon" doesn't include anything and everything with a trigger and a barrel for firing bullets.

"Intent" as you first used it is a term relevant to criminal law. Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX

That is incorrect. It is relevant to civil law, which involves the interpretation of statutes AND regulations as well. Appellate courts are daily evaluating legislative "intent" and legislative records are utilized in identifying such "intent."

Please don't attempt to engage me in a discussion about "the law"!

Of course you could dispute Justice Roberts if you wish!

When analyzing an agency’s interpretation of a statute, we often apply the two-step framework announced in Chevron, 467 U. S. 837. Under that framework, we ask whether the statute is ambiguous and, if so, whether the agency’s interpretation is reasonable. Id., at 842–843. This approach “is premised on the theory that a statute’s ambiguity constitutes an implicit delegation from Congress to the agency to fill in the statutory gaps.” FDA v.Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp., 529 U. S. 120, 159 (2000). “In extraordinary cases, however, there may be reason to hesitate before concluding that Congress has intended such an implicit delegation.” Ibid.

I'm sure you carefully read the opinion in which that quote was taken:

KING ET AL. v. BURWELL, SECRETARY OF HEALTH

AND HUMAN SERVICES, ET AL.
CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR
THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 14–114. Argued March 4, 2015—Decided June 25, 2015

[QUOTE=garhkal;1060897274]But the fact she was ok with doing something similar, which amounted to being a MANDATORY buyback (You had no damn choice in whether you participated or not), IS where she effectively steped into the 'i want to take your guns' crowd.

I have no idea what you mean by "something similar" to a mandatory buyback.


And as the link showed, some want to ban Semi-autos.. WHICH Practically means all guns.. Hell even pump action shotguns are 'semi-automatic.

You will find little agreement on what is and is not a semi-automatic gun. Whatever we would agree on, it certainly would not mean ALL guns.

Well, without those 'average joes' voting IN The politicians, or protesting/demanding they do stuff, the politicians wouldn't be onboard with these suggestions.. would they.

That is very true. That is what our country is all about.


The fact he's even considering confiscation is scary..

Again, Cuomo never has asked for gun confiscation or promoted it. It is certainly an option, but one that has never carried much weight. The quote I provided is where he currently stands on gun control.


And with what these liberals claim are assault weapons, that effectively means ALL guns..

As I said before, there seems to be no concrete definition of what an assault weapon is. I would dare to say that whatever that definition is and if they were banned, it would not prevent any citizen from protecting himself or his home. whether inside the home, in the car, or on the streets.


But that is a different discussion and, BTW, I am not at all saying assault weapons, whatever the definition, should be banned.


Strange.. Doing a search i found these three sites..

https://www.fairus.org/legislation/s...s-get-arrested

http://dailycaller.com/2017/01/29/th...-open-borders/

https://www.investors.com/politics/e...-open-borders/


Certainly seems to ME there are democrats who support open borders.

The first link supports my statement that you will find some minor politicians in the country who may support open borders. A state senator from Minnesota. A city councilman from LA. A state representative from Arizona.

The second link did not mention politicians at all.

The third link was about people wanting to abolish ICE which is a different issue. Most of those who want to abolish ICE are NOT talking about abolishing the responsibilities of those who work for ICE, but rather putting those jobs into other agencies.


Good discussion.

Politician Feinstein's definition of "assault weapon" has never been substantively established. Her attempts to put it in codified law have always been too vague and open ended. Hence, no one has yet conclusively proved that Feinstein's definition of an "assault weapon" doesn't include anything and everything with a trigger and a barrel for firing bullets. Originally Posted by I B Hankering

True. But to assume that Feinstein's definition of an assault weapon is "anything and everything with a trigger and a barrel for firing bullets" borders on the absurd. Let's be reasonable.

That is incorrect. It is relevant to civil law, which involves the interpretation of statutes AND regulations as well. Appellate courts are daily evaluating legislative "intent" and legislative records are utilized in identifying such "intent."

Please don't attempt to engage me in a discussion about "the law"!

Of course you could dispute Justice Roberts if you wish!
Outs
I'm sure you carefully read the opinion in which that quote was taken: Originally Posted by LexusLover

No I'm not going to argue with you or Justice Roberts on the law. I will say that "intent" whether in criminal cases or civil law is totally irrelevant in what is being discussed, which is assuming that when a person says one thing they really mean another. Outside the court room. People have assumed Feinstein wants ALL guns banned. From what she has said there is absolutely no justification in making that statement.

Time to move on.