The no-longer-the-Newspaper-of-Record-of-the-United-States, the New York Times, has an article in today's edition. which depicts the walking back of the cat on the issue of gun control.
When President Obama took office, gun rights advocates sounded the alarm, warning that he intended to strip them of their arms and ammunition.
And yet the opposite is happening. Mr. Obama has been largely silent on the issue while states are engaged in a new and largely successful push for expanded gun rights, even passing measures that have been rejected in the past.
As you read the article, you can see the slant against gun rights and gun owners plain as day in the choice of words Ian Urbana uses. You will also note that he beats the drum of "close the gun show loophole" while conveniently omitting the FBI's conclusion that much less than 1% of criminals obtain guns at gun shows. He also tries to make much of the 'successes' the anti-gunners have had with votes on 20 college campuses banning concealed carry by students licensed to carry concealed, while downplaying pro-gun laws passed by state legislatures around the country.
When a reporter for a national paper has to dip down to board of regents votes to come up with a meaningless statistic to support his anti-gun position, you know the situation must be getting desperate for the anti-gunners. It surely will be fun to watch these leftists try to tapdance around the ass-kicking I fully expect Alan Gura to give to the lawyer supporting the anti-gun Chicago position in front of the Supreme Court next week!
The no-longer-the-Newspaper-of-Record-of-the-United-States, the New York Times, has an article in today's edition. which depicts the walking back of the cat on the issue of gun control. When President Obama took office, gun rights advocates sounded the alarm, warning that he intended to strip them of their arms and ammunition.
And yet the opposite is happening. Mr. Obama has been largely silent on the issue while states are engaged in a new and largely successful push for expanded gun rights, even passing measures that have been rejected in the past.
Here is the complete article: NYT: States push looser gun laws - The New York Times- msnbc.com
As you read the article, you can see the slant against gun rights and gun owners plain as day in the choice of words Ian Urbana uses. You will also note that he beats the drum of "close the gun show loophole" while conveniently omitting the FBI's conclusion that much less than 1% of criminals obtain guns at gun shows. He also tries to make much of the 'successes' the anti-gunners have had with votes on 20 college campuses banning concealed carry by students licensed to carry concealed, while downplaying pro-gun laws passed by state legislatures around the country.
When a reporter for a national paper has to dip down to board of regents votes to come up with a meaningless statistic to support his anti-gun position, you know the situation must be getting desperate for the anti-gunners. It surely will be fun to watch these leftists try to tapdance around the ass-kicking I fully expect Alan Gura to give to the lawyer supporting the anti-gun Chicago position in front of the Supreme Court next week!
Simply put...Ian Urbana is a tard..
Quote:
Originally Posted by NY Times Article
Arizona and Wyoming lawmakers are considering nearly a half dozen pro-gun measures, including one that would allow residents to carry concealed weapons without a permit. And lawmakers in Montana and Tennessee passed measures last year — the first of their kind — to exempt their states from federal regulation of firearms and ammunition that are made, sold and used in state. Similar bills have been proposed in at least three other states.
Quote:
Originally Posted by NY Times Article
The Montana law is being challenged in federal court, and the United States Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives has sent a letter to Tennessee and Montana gun dealers stating that federal law supersedes the state measure.
What happened to checks and balances?? Someone needs to put some checks and balances on the Feds...chances are alot of people will be fired for abuse of power and tyranny.
__________________
The great object is that every man be armed. Everyone who is able may have a gun.
—Patrick Henry
Last edited by Archetype_wyo; 02-24-2010 at 10:54 AM.
I hope you take the time to read through my thoughts here, this is from the eyes of a 19yr old attending college who sees the political spectrum as a Middle-of-the-road Libertarian/Republican. Please do not confuse Libertarian with Liberal, they are definitely not the same.
Quote:
When President Obama took office, gun rights advocates sounded the alarm, warning that he intended to strip them of their arms and ammunition. And yet the opposite is happening. Mr. Obama has been largely silent on the issue while states are engaged in a new and largely successful push for expanded gun rights, even passing measures that have been rejected in the past.
In Virginia, the General Assembly approved a bill last week that allows people to carry concealed weapons in bars and restaurants that serve alcohol, and the House of Delegates voted to repeal a 17-year-old ban on buying more than one handgun a month. The actions came less than three years after the shootings at Virginia Tech that claimed 33 lives and prompted a major national push for increased gun control.
I like how Obama hasn't done much about gun control, he has neither pushed or pulled on the gun control issue as of yet to me. The thing that does scare me is guns on campus, legally or illegally. I have first hand experience with this issue right now. My biggest problem is this: We have the right to protect ourselves, but campuses in general speaking, are pretty safe. I feel that the legal introduction of firearms on campus is not a good idea, because of the all the emotional states a student can go through. Stress, anger, peer to peer relations, and the general up and downs of life can go unchecked on campus. This is why I feel a snap decision can happen more easily causing either a shooting or a suicide. You can argue that other students could protect themselves with the right to carry, but this situation wouldn't have happened in the first place if guns were not allowed on campus. Even though I don't think its a great idea for guns on campuses, its always good to remember "When Seconds Count, The Police Are Only Minutes Away".
Quote:
Arizona and Wyoming lawmakers are considering nearly a half dozen pro-gun measures, including one that would allow residents to carry concealed weapons without a permit. And lawmakers in Montana and Tennessee passed measures last year — the first of their kind — to exempt their states from federal regulation of firearms and ammunition that are made, sold and used in state. Similar bills have been proposed in at least three other states. Assault weapons ban In the meantime, gun control advocates say, Mr. Obama has failed to deliver on campaign promises to close a loophole that allows unlicensed dealers at gun shows to sell firearms without background checks; to revive the assault weapons ban; and to push states to release data about guns used in crimes.
He also signed bills last year allowing guns to be carried in national parks and in luggage on Amtrak trains.
“We expected a very different picture at this stage,” said Paul Helmke, president of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, a gun control group that last month issued a report card failing the administration in all seven of the group’s major indicators.
Gun control advocates have had some successes recently, Mr. Helmke said. Proposed bills to allow students to carry guns on college campuses have been blocked in the 20 or so states where they have been proposed since the Virginia Tech shootings. Last year, New Jersey limited gun purchases to one a month, a law similar to the one Virginia may revoke.
But recent setbacks to gun control have been many.
Last month, the Indiana legislature passed bills that block private employers from forbidding workers to keep firearms in their vehicles on company property.
Gun rights supporters also showed their strength last year by blocking legislation to give District of Columbia residents a full vote in Congress by attaching an amendment to repeal Washington’s ban on handguns.
These bills are a step in the right direction, but the question remains, would these have made it if they weren't piggybacked on another bill? The Virginia ones would and did, but the federal ones?
Quote:
'Common-sense steps' Asked by reporters about the Brady group’s critical report on the Obama administration, a White House spokesman, Ben LaBolt, pointed out that the latest F.B.I. statistics showed that violent crime dropped in the first half of 2009 to its lowest levels since the 1960s.
The Brady campaign just shot themselves in the foot. No major gun control law changes were put into affect. The only thing that happened was that the DC vs Heller case was decided (in favor of Heller) and similar lawsuits followed. This lawsuit, as we all know, was pro-gun.
Quote:
“The president supports and respects the Second Amendment,” Mr. LaBolt said, “and he believes we can take common-sense steps to keep our streets safe and to stem the flow of illegal guns to criminals.”
Still, gun rights groups remain skeptical of the administration.
“The watchword for gun owners is stay ready,” said Wayne LaPierre, chief executive of the National Rifle Association. “We have had some successes, but we know that the first chance Obama gets, he will pounce on us.”
That Mr. Obama signed legislation allowing guns in national parks and on Amtrak trains should not be seen as respect for the Second Amendment, Mr. LaPierre said. The two measures had been attached as amendments to larger pieces of legislation — a bill cracking down on credit card companies and a transportation appropriations bill, respectively — that the president wanted passed, Mr. LaPierre said.
Regardless of Mr. Obama’s agenda, gun dealers seem to be reaping the benefits of fears surrounding it. Federal background checks for gun purchases rose to 14 million in 2009, up from 12.7 million in 2008 and 11.2 million in 2007. But from November 2009 to January 2010, the number of background checks fell 12 percent, compared with the same months a year earlier.
In Virginia, the success of new pro-gun laws is partly a result of the Republican Party’s taking the governor’s office after eight years of Democratic control.
A major setback for state gun control advocates was this week’s House vote repealing the one-gun-per-month law, which was passed in 1993 under Gov. L. Douglas Wilder, a Democrat, and has long been upheld as the state’s signature gun control restriction. Supporters of limiting gun purchases to one a month said the law was important to avoid Virginia’s becoming the East Coast’s top gun-running hub. Opponents dismissed the concern.
“We shouldn’t get rid of our Second Amendment rights because some people in New York City want to abuse theirs,” Robert G. Marshall, a Republican delegate from Manassas who supported repeal of the one-gun-a-month limit, told reporters.
Guns-in-bars bill
Gun control advocates hoped to win new restrictions after the Virginia Tech massacre on April 16, 2007, in which a student, Seung-Hui Cho, shot and killed 32 people before turning a gun on himself.
After the shooting, Gov. Tim Kaine, a Democrat, pushed for stronger gun control measures. But last year the legislature rejected a bill requiring background checks for private sales at gun shows and repealed a law that Mr. Kaine had supported to prohibit anyone from carrying concealed weapons into a club or restaurant where alcohol is served.
In previous years, the guns-in-bars bill cleared both chambers but was vetoed by Mr. Kaine. But the new governor, Robert F. McDonnell, has said he supports the measure.
These sort of common sense laws are the razor's edge of 2nd amendment rights. The question come to this, how far is too far? Where does it get ridiculous?
Point #1:
I do not believe in the one-gun-a-month law, it is just impeding legal gun owners. I do however believe in background checks and knowing who I'm going to sell a gun to. I am also in support of background checks for private sales (aka the loophole). Even though the statistics are against a criminal using this loophole, it won't hurt me to make sure the guy trying to buy my gun isn't a criminal. I've bought guns at gun shows and it take ~30 minutes to get a background check done. It just gives me more time to browse around and check ammo prices for my purchase.
Point #2:
Even though I don't think it is a good idea for colleges to allow weapons on campus, I do believe in the fact that you should be able to defend yourself any where you go. Think about it for a second. If you go to a restaurant or a bar, 9 times out of 10 you are going to spend more than 30 minutes in there. This whole time you are unprotected while you are out of reach of your firearm. Guns should be allowed in bars as long as the gun owner/carrier is not drinking or in an altered state of mind (ie. drugs or alcohol). This is a good thing, guns and alcohol do not mix. Ever.
Quote:
Virginia is also considering a measure adopted in Montana and Tennessee that declares that firearms made and retained in-state are beyond the authority of Congress. The measure is primarily a challenge to Congress’s power to regulate commerce among the states.
The Montana law is being challenged in federal court, and the United States Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives has sent a letter to Tennessee and Montana gun dealers stating that federal law supersedes the state measure.
As we all know, the Freedom of Firearms Act (FFA) is one of the most radical pro-gun bills to be passed by a state.
For those of you who don't know here it is in a nutshell: If the FFA bill is passed in a state, guns of any kind can be manufactured and purchased within state boundaries only to be used within state boundaries without going through the Feds (the ATFE). This would nullify the ATFE and federal law because the state is choosing to not follow federal law therefore nullifying it.
The basic argument of this is that if Montana can manufacture and sell these weapons to be used within the state, these guns will not cross state boundaries. By definition the federal government is allowed to take over when manufactured products cross state boundaries (this is considered interstate traffic).
Just throwing this here to be clear of what I mean by nullification:
Nullification - the failure or refusal of a U.S. state to aid in enforcement of federal laws within its limits, esp. on Constitutional grounds.
The problem is this:
-The ATFE is claiming that Montana cannot nullify the laws they enforce.
-Montana is nullifying the laws the ATFE enforces in their interpretation of the tenth amendment and the through their interpretation of the Commerce Clause (Article I, Section 8, Clause 3 of the constitution).
Basically this whole decision is how far will the federal government go before it will surrender power to the states. Nullification has been used successfully in the past, but this is the first time where it will apply to the second amendment, arguably the most important amendment.
**Disclaimer: This is my opinion and my opinion only, it may have faults, but they are my faults. Do not take my word as law, I am only interpreting what I read and hear. I am at no fault if you use this information and it is wrong in any way.**
That's my $.02 about that.
__________________
He called his twelve disciples together and gave them power and authority over all demons -Luke 9:1
The thing that does scare me is guns on campus, legally or illegally. I have first hand experience with this issue right now. My biggest problem is this: We have the right to protect ourselves, but campuses in general speaking, are pretty safe. I feel that the legal introduction of firearms on campus is not a good idea, because of the all the emotional states a student can go through. Stress, anger, peer to peer relations, and the general up and downs of life can go unchecked on campus. This is why I feel a snap decision can happen more easily causing either a shooting or a suicide. You can argue that other students could protect themselves with the right to carry, but this situation wouldn't have happened in the first place if guns were not allowed on campus. Even though I don't think its a great idea for guns on campuses, its always good to remember "When Seconds Count, The Police Are Only Minutes Away".
Hate to point this put, but there are more mass shootings at workplaces than will ever happen at schools. All those same stressors exist at almost every jobsite already.
Most students at colleges at under 21 and can't have a handgun anyway.
So that leaves the OLDER students who have matured properly and have their heads on straight...and CCW permits. Which means they've received training and have spent serious time thinking about what they will do if some nutbag starts popping off rounds on their campus.
I carried during college, all five years. No problems occured where I ever even had to unzip the bag, much less grab for my Star model 30. But I was VERY assured that the three 15-round mags inside would be more than enough to stop any bad guys. And I'm thankful that I had taken the time to get properly trained, through the military and through the state CCW course, that if anything had occured, I would have responded in a proper manner.
Besides, all it means when you have a No Gun Campus...is that the bad guys know they have a Live Shooting Range with ZERO chance of getting shot themselves!!!
__________________ Marlin & Calico Specialist
I'm not just Trigger Happy, I'm Trigger Ecstatic!!
Shrek, you have a good point, but I know some people who are twice my age and still haven't matured enough in my opinion to own a gun. I think it is conditional upon who should be carrying. Don't quote me on this, but I believe VA law states that a CCW permit holder has to attain permission from the president of the school to carry on campus. Other than that there is no law against it.
The question of concealed carrying on campus is a great big "if...then..." for me.
__________________
He called his twelve disciples together and gave them power and authority over all demons -Luke 9:1
Perhaps, just perhaps, Obama and his liberal braintrust(?) will look beyond the White House lawn to see gun control is a vote magnet for the Republican Party.
Basically the University passed a no guns on campus "policy" and the enforcing sheriff who is in charge of the county the college is on says he won't enforce anything.
__________________
He called his twelve disciples together and gave them power and authority over all demons -Luke 9:1
The morons at CSU were warned by Rocky Mountain Gun Owners Assoc. that the rule is unconstitutional and a lawsuit will be filed to challenge it. It flies in the face of the Colorado Revised Statutes which prohibits enacting more stringent gun laws/policy than the State's. The time is long overdue for lawsuits to be filed by survivng families when these jackasses fail to protect those who have their right of self-defense taken away by decree that creates criminal free-fire zones.
I'm glad the Sheriff is willing to take a stand in favor of lawful, properly trained, responsible gun owners. My hat's off to him.
__________________
The possession of arms is the distinction of a free man from a slave.
-Andrew Fletcher
