Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 14, 2020 19:49:14 GMT
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 14, 2020 21:55:05 GMT
Looks like the separation of powers is working just fine. And it looks like he appointed the right judges. Pardon the digression, and because of the disgusting leftist filth that I'm seeing during these protests. this line that caught my eye:
That is exactly...EXACTLY.. why the Southern states broke away from the Union in 1860-1861 and had to fight to make it stick. And every CSA monument was/is the embodiment of the fight to retain the Constitutional right of the states not to be swallowed by the federal government. It's as simple and as undeniable as that. Slavery was a factor, a symptom, perhaps the fuse, but never the cause. The animals tearing them down are either too stupid to know that truth or they actually want an all powerful government enslaving us all. I'm guessing that it's the latter. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 14, 2020 22:09:59 GMT
Looks like the separation of powers is working just fine. And it looks like he appointed the right judges. Sure but that's not the sales pitch, is it? "Vote for me and I'll ensure the right people are in place to stop all of my extra-constitutional overreaching." Sorry, that doesn't inspire confidence. Far better to pick the right people & govern in a way that is constitutional. If this were the only time Trump got caught with his hand in the constitutional cookie jar, I might not make a point of bringing it up but this is a pattern with him. He seems to have little appreciation for the separation of powers. We see what we want. There are folks doing filthy things but the majority of protestors are peaceful and doing the lord's work. More than that, there are filthy acts on the part of the police which are not getting the attention in the media they should. Its a new board. We haven't refought the civil war here yet and I don't see a reason to change that now. Well, the left has had an incomplete view of policy, neglecting to see how government policy is never ideal and is often not in the interests of minority groups or the common person. For example, its hard to square robust gun control with support for minority rights. But the left is waking up to this. You're seeing left wing gun rights groups popping up. You're seeing calls to defund the police. In the past, the left has liked to throw money at problems. More money for education is a common refrain. But not on the issue of the police. The left is tacking right on the police issue, looking to see funding cut (less government spending) and essentially preferring a limited/small government solution. That's progress. That's commendable, right? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 14, 2020 22:20:09 GMT
There is plenty of criticism along these lines that we could also lay at the feet of many Trump style rightists.
Imagine registering your support for aggressive police tactics and the militarization of the police, while minimizing concerns for individual liberty, equality before the law, ethical justifications for the use of force, etc and then claim to be a supporter of limited government, the constitution, the rule of law, republican government and/or western ideals.
It just doesn't compute.
It is similar to how support for free market capitalism and tariffs/trade war doesn't compute.
|
|
|
|
Post by Lomelis on Jun 14, 2020 22:57:38 GMT
I'm kind of wondering if they intended it to be overruled. Do a little EO to make it look like they are serious and get it overturned by the courts.
Regardless it still is the right decision by the courts.
|
|
Odysseus
Legend
Trump = Disaster
Posts: 41,094
|
Post by Odysseus on Jun 15, 2020 4:21:23 GMT
Let's see:
This should be simple: A law passed in 1934 bans civilian possession and use of fully automatic weapons (like machine guns).
Bump stocks effectively turn a semi-automatic rifle into a machine gun.
Why should that not be subject to the 1934 law?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 15, 2020 5:07:38 GMT
Let's see:
This should be simple: A law passed in 1934 bans civilian possession and use of fully automatic weapons (like machine guns).
Bump stocks effectively turn a semi-automatic rifle into a machine gun.
Why should that not be subject to the 1934 law?
The belt loop on a pair of jeans can also turn a semi-auto rifle full auto if used correctly. But my pants aren't a machine gun. (well maybe they are for a moment first thing in the morning!) These are narrow definitional issues about questions that congress should clarify, not the executive branch. I believe that's the core issue. |
|
Odysseus
Legend
Trump = Disaster
Posts: 41,094
|
Post by Odysseus on Jun 15, 2020 6:05:22 GMT
Let's see:
This should be simple: A law passed in 1934 bans civilian possession and use of fully automatic weapons (like machine guns).
Bump stocks effectively turn a semi-automatic rifle into a machine gun.
Why should that not be subject to the 1934 law?
The belt loop on a pair of jeans can also turn a semi-auto rifle full auto if used correctly. But my pants aren't a machine gun. (well maybe they are for a moment first thing in the morning!) These are narrow definitional issues about questions that congress should clarify, not the executive branch. I believe that's the core issue. OK, I was not aware of the belt loop maneuver. Looking at some videos, I'd say it's a bit of an awkward way to go. Aiming is not gonna happen. But then a lot of mgunners probably don't aim anyway. Then there's the setup time involved.
Agreed that the core issue is exec vs congressional jurisdiction. Trump has kind of been hoist by his own petard by appointing strict constructionist judges. Delicious.
And while the House likely would pass a bump stock ban (if it hasn't already), McConnell's Senate wouldn't. But he may not be there next year.
I do wonder however why we need semi-automatics in the first place. Certainly not for hunting. Mechanically they are kind of interesting, but I much prefer the workmanship and operation of a good revolver or bolt action rifle.
|
|
|
|
Post by Fiddler on Jun 15, 2020 16:32:14 GMT
What was the reason a fully automatic (machine gun) ban was implemented in 34? ..
Pee.. ? Jump in here..
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 15, 2020 16:41:56 GMT
The belt loop on a pair of jeans can also turn a semi-auto rifle full auto if used correctly. But my pants aren't a machine gun. (well maybe they are for a moment first thing in the morning!) These are narrow definitional issues about questions that congress should clarify, not the executive branch. I believe that's the core issue. OK, I was not aware of the belt loop maneuver. Looking at some videos, I'd say it's a bit of an awkward way to go. Aiming is not gonna happen. But then a lot of mgunners probably don't aim anyway. Then there's the setup time involved.
Agreed that the core issue is exec vs congressional jurisdiction. Trump has kind of been hoist by his own petard by appointing strict constructionist judges. Delicious. And while the House likely would pass a bump stock ban (if it hasn't already), McConnell's Senate wouldn't. But he may not be there next year. I do wonder however why we need semi-automatics in the first place. Certainly not for hunting. Mechanically they are kind of interesting, but I much prefer the workmanship and operation of a good revolver or bolt action rifle. Yes, it is awkward but that bump fire stock is awkward, too. Its not all that effective. And accuracy is basically out the window. Its really more of a novelty, if you ask me. I don't really care if they are legal or not, to be honest, but if we are to ban them I insist we do it the lawful way. Of course Trump has no idea what that looks like. As far as why we should have semi-autos, I think the events of that last couple weeks have proven that we will probably be entering a period where law enforcement will be doing less (protecting and assaulting) and we will be turning to community based solutions. People can't expect the police to protect them now, I feel that's going to get worse not better. We're in a place where people have to be concerned about providing for their own safety, whether individually or in community groups. This is doubly true if you are a minority, or low income. |
|
Odysseus
Legend
Trump = Disaster
Posts: 41,094
|
Post by Odysseus on Jun 15, 2020 19:34:57 GMT
OK, I was not aware of the belt loop maneuver. Looking at some videos, I'd say it's a bit of an awkward way to go. Aiming is not gonna happen. But then a lot of mgunners probably don't aim anyway. Then there's the setup time involved.
Agreed that the core issue is exec vs congressional jurisdiction. Trump has kind of been hoist by his own petard by appointing strict constructionist judges. Delicious. And while the House likely would pass a bump stock ban (if it hasn't already), McConnell's Senate wouldn't. But he may not be there next year. I do wonder however why we need semi-automatics in the first place. Certainly not for hunting. Mechanically they are kind of interesting, but I much prefer the workmanship and operation of a good revolver or bolt action rifle. Yes, it is awkward but that bump fire stock is awkward, too. Its not all that effective. And accuracy is basically out the window. Its really more of a novelty, if you ask me. I don't really care if they are legal or not, to be honest, but if we are to ban them I insist we do it the lawful way. Of course Trump has no idea what that looks like. As far as why we should have semi-autos, I think the events of that last couple weeks have proven that we will probably be entering a period where law enforcement will be doing less (protecting and assaulting) and we will be turning to community based solutions. People can't expect the police to protect them now, I feel that's going to get worse not better. We're in a place where people have to be concerned about providing for their own safety, whether individually or in community groups. This is doubly true if you are a minority, or low income. It's my impression that bump stocks still allow one to sight down the barrel, which a belt loop maneuver clearly does not allow.
As for the "defund police" resulting in a greater need for automatic weaponry, semi or full, that is a misconception that needs not to be destroyed, it fails all on its own.
Demos' example of ten year old decisions by small towns to disband their police forces also doesn't prove much. That's because in at least one of the cases, the communities are still served by police; they have simply outsourced that protection to their respective counties. Clearly this would be much more unlikely in the case of a large city. And a farce on its face in the case of big cities like San Francisco, where the city and county are one in the same.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 15, 2020 19:42:31 GMT
As for the "defund police" resulting in a greater need for automatic weaponry, semi or full, that is a misconception that needs not to be destroyed, it fails all on its own.
Demos' example of ten year old decisions by small towns to disband their police forces also doesn't prove much. That's because in at least one of the cases, the communities are still served by police; they have simply outsourced that protection to their respective counties. Clearly this would be much more unlikely in the case of a large city. And a farce on its face in the case of big cities like San Francisco, where the city and county are one in the same. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 15, 2020 19:45:07 GMT
And how are my Huey Newton gun club friends going to make white folks nervous without their semi-autos?
|
|
Odysseus
Legend
Trump = Disaster
Posts: 41,094
|
Post by Odysseus on Jun 15, 2020 19:54:20 GMT
As for the "defund police" resulting in a greater need for automatic weaponry, semi or full, that is a misconception that needs not to be destroyed, it fails all on its own.
Demos' example of ten year old decisions by small towns to disband their police forces also doesn't prove much. That's because in at least one of the cases, the communities are still served by police; they have simply outsourced that protection to their respective counties. Clearly this would be much more unlikely in the case of a large city. And a farce on its face in the case of big cities like San Francisco, where the city and county are one in the same. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 15, 2020 20:16:07 GMT
Well, I guess that's that. We have some pretty big perceptual differences of opinion. I have a completely different understanding of the relationship between the police, firearm regulations and minority communities. |
|
