NRA on the Side of Terrorists - Page 4 - Mercedes-Benz Forum

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
post #31 of 41 (permalink) Old 05-06-2007, 02:38 PM
~BANNED~
 
Date registered: Aug 2002
Posts: 41,649
Mentioned: 6 Post(s)
Quoted: 1761 Post(s)
^Put down the lap top and drive!
Shane is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #32 of 41 (permalink) Old 05-06-2007, 02:39 PM
Administratoris Emeritus
 
GeeS's Avatar
 
Date registered: Aug 2002
Vehicle: 2021 SL770
Location: Fountain Hills, AZ
Posts: 44,915
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Quoted: 591 Post(s)
Trucks don't kill, people do.

"If spending money you don't have is the height of stupidity, borrowing money to give it away is the height of insanity." -- anon
GeeS is offline  
post #33 of 41 (permalink) Old 05-06-2007, 03:17 PM Thread Starter
BenzWorld Elite
 
Date registered: Sep 2004
Vehicle: 2014 E250 Bluetec 4-Matic, 1983 240D 4-Speed
Location: USA
Posts: 9,257
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Quoted: 256 Post(s)
(Thread Starter)
The reason gun control doesn't work is because it is a farce. The place to control gun distribution from is the manufacturer. Require that every gun is serialized, and every gun is sold to an individual from the manufacturer. The manufacturer and the original owner are responsible for maintaining ownership traceablility by the contract under which the gun was purchased. Lose it, have it stolen, tough shit. You and the manufacturer are liable for damages and costs of recovery.

Today's gun controls don't work because manufacturers make them by the gross per hour and ship them to distributors and shops. Like it was milk. Then shit goes missing and who spends any money looking for a $1,000 investment? Insurance pays anyway.

Arms are not needed for the reasons noted. This is a political argument that says gun control doesn't work because the laws written to control the distribution of guns are toothless and address the wrong guys. Like anti-dope laws focussed on the dope users. Jim
JimSmith is offline  
post #34 of 41 (permalink) Old 05-06-2007, 03:32 PM
BenzWorld Elite
 
yoseyman's Avatar
 
Date registered: Nov 2005
Vehicle: Baby
Location: 1313 Mockingbird lane
Posts: 9,689
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by ThrillKill
I haven't worn leopard print since Dokken was cool. His second ensemble was quite nice though......Had a kind of South Beach feel to it.
Damn, are you implying that Dokken is no longer Cool?
Next you'll try and tell me Krokus is not cool. say it aint so
yoseyman is offline  
post #35 of 41 (permalink) Old 05-06-2007, 03:36 PM
Cruise Control
 
Zeitgeist's Avatar
 
Date registered: Sep 2004
Vehicle: '87 300TD/'90 300D/'94 Quattro/'89 Vanagon TDI/'01 EV Weekender VR6
Location: Cascadia
Posts: 51,730
Mentioned: 6 Post(s)
Quoted: 1426 Post(s)
Lifetime Premium Member
That guy sorta looks like Kip Winger...without the poodle-hair.
Zeitgeist is offline  
post #36 of 41 (permalink) Old 05-06-2007, 05:03 PM
Moderately subtle
 
edfreeman's Avatar
 
Date registered: Dec 2003
Vehicle: 94 E500, 97 500SL
Location: Soddy Daisy, TN
Posts: 8,508
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Quoted: 80 Post(s)
Lifetime Premium Member
Send a message via AIM to edfreeman
The liberal take

NYT: A Liberal Case for Gun Rights Helps Sway Judiciary
A Liberal Case for Gun Rights Helps Sway Judiciary
By ADAM LIPTAK

In March, for the first time in the nation’s history, a federal appeals court struck down a gun control law on Second Amendment grounds. Only a few decades ago, the decision would have been unimaginable.

There used to be an almost complete scholarly and judicial consensus that the Second Amendment protects only a collective right of the states to maintain militias. That consensus no longer exists — thanks largely to the work over the last 20 years of several leading liberal law professors, who have come to embrace the view that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to own guns.

In those two decades, breakneck speed by the standards of constitutional law, they have helped to reshape the debate over gun rights in the United States. Their work culminated in the March decision, Parker v. District of Columbia, and it will doubtless play a major role should the case reach the United States Supreme Court.

Laurence H. Tribe, a law professor at Harvard, said he had come to believe that the Second Amendment protected an individual right.

“My conclusion came as something of a surprise to me, and an unwelcome surprise,” Professor Tribe said. “I have always supported as a matter of policy very comprehensive gun control.”

The first two editions of Professor Tribe’s influential treatise on constitutional law, in 1978 and 1988, endorsed the collective rights view. The latest, published in 2000, sets out his current interpretation.

Several other leading liberal constitutional scholars, notably Akhil Reed Amar at Yale and Sanford Levinson at the University of Texas, are in broad agreement favoring an individual rights interpretation. Their work has in a remarkably short time upended the conventional understanding of the Second Amendment, and it set the stage for the Parker decision.

The earlier consensus, the law professors said in interviews, reflected received wisdom and political preferences rather than a serious consideration of the amendment’s text, history and place in the structure of the Constitution. “The standard liberal position,” Professor Levinson said, “is that the Second Amendment is basically just read out of the Constitution.”

The Second Amendment says, “A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.” (Some transcriptions of the amendment omit the last comma.)

If only as a matter of consistency, Professor Levinson continued, liberals who favor expansive interpretations of other amendments in the Bill of Rights, like those protecting free speech and the rights of criminal defendants, should also embrace a broad reading of the Second Amendment. And just as the First Amendment’s protection of the right to free speech is not absolute, the professors say, the Second Amendment’s protection of the right to keep and bear arms may be limited by the government, though only for good reason.

The individual rights view is far from universally accepted. “The overwhelming weight of scholarly opinion supports the near-unanimous view of the federal courts that the constitutional right to be armed is linked to an organized militia,” said Dennis A. Henigan, director of the legal action project of the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence. “The exceptions attract attention precisely because they are so rare and unexpected.”

Scholars who agree with gun opponents and support the collective rights view say the professors on the other side may have been motivated more by a desire to be provocative than by simple intellectual honesty.

“Contrarian positions get play,” Carl T. Bogus, a law professor at Roger Williams University, wrote in a 2000 study of Second Amendment scholarship. “Liberal professors supporting gun control draw yawns.”

If the full United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit does not step in and reverse the 2-to-1 panel decision striking down a law that forbids residents to keep handguns in their homes, the question of the meaning of the Second Amendment is almost certainly headed to the Supreme Court. The answer there is far from certain.

That too is a change. In 1992, Warren E. Burger, a former chief justice of the United States appointed by President Richard M. Nixon, expressed the prevailing view.

“The Second Amendment doesn’t guarantee the right to have firearms at all,” Mr. Burger said in a speech. In a 1991 interview, Mr. Burger called the individual rights view “one of the greatest pieces of fraud — I repeat the word ‘fraud’ — on the American public by special interest groups that I have ever seen in my lifetime.”

Even as he spoke, though, the ground was shifting underneath him. In 1989, in what most authorities say was the beginning of the modern era of mainstream Second Amendment scholarship, Professor Levinson published an article in The Yale Law Journal called “The Embarrassing Second Amendment.”

“The Levinson piece was very much a turning point,” said Mr. Henigan of the Brady Center. “He was a well-respected scholar, and he was associated with a liberal point of view politically.”

In an interview, Professor Levinson described himself as “an A.C.L.U.-type who has not ever even thought of owning a gun.”

Robert A. Levy, a senior fellow at the Cato Institute, a libertarian group that supports gun rights, and a lawyer for the plaintiffs in the Parker case, said four factors accounted for the success of the suit. The first, Mr. Levy said, was “the shift in scholarship toward an individual rights view, particularly from liberals.”

He also cited empirical research questioning whether gun control laws cut down on crime; a 2001 decision from the federal appeals court in New Orleans that embraced the individual rights view even as it allowed a gun prosecution to go forward; and the Bush administration’s reversal of a longstanding Justice Department position under administrations of both political parties favoring the collective rights view.

Filing suit in the District of Columbia was a conscious decision, too, Mr. Levy said. The gun law there is one of the most restrictive in the nation, and questions about the applicability of the Second Amendment to state laws were avoided because the district is governed by federal law.

“We wanted to proceed very much like the N.A.A.C.P.,” Mr. Levy said, referring to that group’s methodical litigation strategy intended to do away with segregated schools.

Professor Bogus, a supporter of the collective rights view, said the Parker decision represented a milestone in that strategy. “This is the story of an enormously successful and dogged campaign to change the conventional view of the right to bear arms,” he said.

The text of the amendment is not a model of clarity, and arguments over its meaning tend to be concerned with whether the first part of the sentence limits the second. The history of its drafting and contemporary meaning provide support for both sides as well.

The Supreme Court has not decided a Second Amendment case since 1939. That ruling was, as Judge Stephen Reinhardt, a liberal judge on the federal appeals court in San Francisco acknowledged in 2002, “somewhat cryptic,” again allowing both sides to argue that Supreme Court precedent aided their interpretation of the amendment.

Still, nine federal appeals courts around the nation have adopted the collective rights view, opposing the notion that the amendment protects individual gun rights. The only exceptions are the Fifth Circuit, in New Orleans, and the District of Columbia Circuit. The Second Circuit, in New York, has not addressed the question.

Linda Singer, the District of Columbia’s attorney general, said the debate over the meaning of the amendment was not only an academic one.

“It’s truly a life-or-death question for us,” she said. “It’s not theoretical. We all remember very well when D.C. had the highest murder rate in the country, and we won’t go back there.”

The decision in Parker has been stayed while the full appeals court decides whether to rehear the case.

Should the case reach the Supreme Court, Professor Tribe said, “there’s a really quite decent chance that it will be affirmed.”

Copyright 2007 The New York Times Company

edfreeman is offline  
post #37 of 41 (permalink) Old 05-06-2007, 06:12 PM
BenzWorld Elite
 
barberhauler's Avatar
 
Date registered: Jul 2005
Posts: 2,950
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Force and mind are opposites; morality ends where a gun begins.

Ayn Rand
(from a little known, short run musical called "Aynnie get yer gun")....
barberhauler is offline  
post #38 of 41 (permalink) Old 05-06-2007, 07:03 PM
BenzWorld Elite
 
Bruce R.'s Avatar
 
Date registered: Aug 2002
Vehicle: 2002 SLK 32 AMG, bone stock. 1987 190E 2.3-16 valve (destroyed). 2005 E320 new toy.
Location: Near Washington, DC
Posts: 14,926
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Quoted: 41 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by JimSmith
The reason gun control doesn't work is because it is a farce. The place to control gun distribution from is the manufacturer. Require that every gun is serialized, and every gun is sold to an individual from the manufacturer. The manufacturer and the original owner are responsible for maintaining ownership traceablility by the contract under which the gun was purchased. Lose it, have it stolen, tough shit. You and the manufacturer are liable for damages and costs of recovery.
As usual Jim, you haven't a clue as to what you are talking about. Every gun IS serialized, and every gun is accounted for in one way or another. The firearms are sent to a distributer, then to a sales outlet, and then to the individual. In each case the serial numbers are recorded and kept on record.That is REQUIRED by law. The final owner is responcable to report if that weapon is stolen, if he/she sells it and doesn't keep a record of that sale, who do you think the cops are going to look for? I have records for every firearm I have on hand or have sold over the years. It's REQUIRED by law.

Quote:
Originally Posted by JimSmith
Today's gun controls don't work because manufacturers make them by the gross per hour and ship them to distributors and shops. Like it was milk. Then shit goes missing and who spends any money looking for a $1,000 investment? Insurance pays anyway.
You couldn't be more wrong about how things work. The REAL reason that gun laws don't work is because THEY are the FIRST infractions to be plea barganed away. Rob a bank and you MAY get a bank robbery charge in court, the "armed robbery" charges will not be filed if you squeal on your buddies. Talk to the Police if you don't believe me.

Quote:
Originally Posted by JimSmith
Arms are not needed for the reasons noted. This is a political argument that says gun control doesn't work because the laws written to control the distribution of guns are toothless and address the wrong guys. Like anti-dope laws focussed on the dope users. Jim
Only your opinion jimmy not a fact.

"Negotiating with Obama is like playing chess with a pigeon, the pigeon knocks over all the pieces, on the board and then struts around like it won the game."
Vladimir Putin

"They have gun control in Cuba. They have universal health care in Cuba. So why do they want to come here?"
Paul Harvey 8/31/94


"The only people who have quick answers don't have the responsibility of making the decisions."
Justice Clarence Thomas
Bruce R. is offline  
post #39 of 41 (permalink) Old 05-06-2007, 08:20 PM Thread Starter
BenzWorld Elite
 
Date registered: Sep 2004
Vehicle: 2014 E250 Bluetec 4-Matic, 1983 240D 4-Speed
Location: USA
Posts: 9,257
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Quoted: 256 Post(s)
(Thread Starter)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bruce R.
As usual Jim, you haven't a clue as to what you are talking about. Every gun IS serialized, and every gun is accounted for in one way or another. The firearms are sent to a distributer, then to a sales outlet, and then to the individual. In each case the serial numbers are recorded and kept on record.That is REQUIRED by law. The final owner is responcable to report if that weapon is stolen, if he/she sells it and doesn't keep a record of that sale, who do you think the cops are going to look for? I have records for every firearm I have on hand or have sold over the years. It's REQUIRED by law.
I know all guns are serialized. And I know when you buy one a record is made of the number being associated with you. And the rest of the stuff you pointed out.

It doesn't work, which you also pointed out. Because the people who are "in the middle" are never held accountable. Get rid of them, and prosecute the manufacturer and the owner if a gun is used in a crime, as an accomplice.

Don't allow sales of guns between private citizens at all. All such sales have to go through the manufacturer again, and then the original owner is absolved of his or her obligations with regard to the gun with the serial number he or she had owned. The manufacturer can then recertify the gun as being unmodified and fully functional. This process is required in order to be licensed to manufacture guns.

Criminals get guns by means other than the present legal way. You guys have said so yourselves. That means there are guns that have "escaped" the traceability methods you described. By the thousands. So, the point is the implementation of the serial number traceability concept as it is practiced today is meaningless. The idea here is not to invent new constraints, but to close the loopholes. So, either the manufacturers are making guns and not serializing them and reporting the numbers to the feds, or, guns are being stolen in transit from the manufacturer to the distributor to the gunshop, or just from the gunshop or some other holding place. Eliminate those opportunities. People order guns from the manufacturer and the manufacturer is responsible for all guns he makes, and is viewed as an accomplice in any crime committed with one of his guns with more substantial responsiblity for guns that are stolen from the gun manufacturer's facility before they are sold.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bruce R.
You couldn't be more wrong about how things work. The REAL reason that gun laws don't work is because THEY are the FIRST infractions to be plea barganed away. Rob a bank and you MAY get a bank robbery charge in court, the "armed robbery" charges will not be filed if you squeal on your buddies. Talk to the Police if you don't believe me.
That may be another problem, and if it is, it would seem to be relatively easily corrected. Just enforce the existing gun laws. Anyone want to venture a guess as to why the existing gun control laws are not being enforced?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bruce R.
Only your opinion jimmy not a fact.
Yeah, but I like my opinion. Jim
JimSmith is offline  
post #40 of 41 (permalink) Old 05-07-2007, 05:18 AM
BenzWorld Elite
 
Bruce R.'s Avatar
 
Date registered: Aug 2002
Vehicle: 2002 SLK 32 AMG, bone stock. 1987 190E 2.3-16 valve (destroyed). 2005 E320 new toy.
Location: Near Washington, DC
Posts: 14,926
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Quoted: 41 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by JimSmith
Criminals get guns by means other than the present legal way. You guys have said so yourselves. That means there are guns that have "escaped" the traceability methods you described. By the thousands. So, the point is the implementation of the serial number traceability concept as it is practiced today is meaningless. The idea here is not to invent new constraints, but to close the loopholes.
I love hearing how the uninitiated talk about closing the (non existant) loopholes. A thief is NOT a loophole, he's a thief. If you can stop a burglary by the wave of your hand Jim, PLEASE do so, the Police would love you for it....
Quote:
Originally Posted by JimSmith
So, either the manufacturers are making guns and not serializing them and reporting the numbers to the feds, or, guns are being stolen in transit from the manufacturer to the distributor to the gunshop, or just from the gunshop or some other holding place. Eliminate those opportunities.
Do you have any clue how ridicules that last comment of yours is? "Eliminate those opportunities." Do you think just maybe people are working on both sides of that problem, it's just like saying eliminate the opportunity to buy or sell drugs….. That's worked real well hasn't it?

Quote:
Originally Posted by JimSmith
People order guns from the manufacturer and the manufacturer is responsible for all guns he makes, and is viewed as an accomplice in any crime committed with one of his guns with more substantial responsiblity for guns that are stolen from the gun manufacturer's facility before they are sold.
You own a car don't you? Should Mercedes be held responsible for every traffic ticket you get with that car, every accident? I understand that you may not like firearms, but if you're going to try and come up with solutions, at least TRY and make them reasonable and practical.
Law enforcement and plea bargaining are where lots of problems lie, the judges and prosecutors don't go after the weapons charges. Virginia is starting to do that…. Get caught with a gun, go to jail…. Period. More States should follow that lead.
One more thing..... Who do you send to jail when the Fed's have guns stolen from their armories? You might recall there was a TANK stolen in California a few years back, hardly a concealable weapon, yet it caused SEVERE havoc for hours on the back roads and a freeway. What's your answer for that one? Send the chairman of GM to jail?

"Negotiating with Obama is like playing chess with a pigeon, the pigeon knocks over all the pieces, on the board and then struts around like it won the game."
Vladimir Putin

"They have gun control in Cuba. They have universal health care in Cuba. So why do they want to come here?"
Paul Harvey 8/31/94


"The only people who have quick answers don't have the responsibility of making the decisions."
Justice Clarence Thomas
Bruce R. is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Reply

  Mercedes-Benz Forum > General Mercedes-Benz Forums > Off-Topic

Quick Reply
Message:
Options

Register Now



In order to be able to post messages on the Mercedes-Benz Forum forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.

User Name:
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.

Password:


Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.

Email Address:
OR

Log-in











  • Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
     
    Thread Tools
    Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
    Email this Page Email this Page
    Display Modes
    Linear Mode Linear Mode



    Similar Threads
    Topic Author Forum Replies Last Post
    The NRA: Gunning For The World firstmb Off-Topic 0 07-06-2006 07:58 PM
    more damn terrorists 420 SE Off-Topic 7 01-24-2006 06:15 PM
    Should the press help terrorists? tiggerfink Off-Topic 1 08-02-2005 10:06 PM
    Arm teachers, NRA official suggests GeeS Off-Topic 9 03-27-2005 01:22 AM
    You're all supporting terrorists.... TK W163 M-Class 23 01-10-2003 10:03 PM

    Posting Rules  
    You may post new threads
    You may post replies
    You may not post attachments
    You may not edit your posts

    BB code is On
    Smilies are On
    [IMG] code is On
    HTML code is Off
    Trackbacks are On
    Pingbacks are On
    Refbacks are On

     

    Title goes here

    close
    video goes here
    description goes here. Read Full Story
    For the best viewing experience please update your browser to Google Chrome