The Down Range Forum

Member Section => Politics & RKBA => Topic started by: DGF on July 08, 2011, 12:04:49 PM

Title: BOHICA
Post by: DGF on July 08, 2011, 12:04:49 PM
Six Months After Tucson Shooting, White House Readies Gun Control Stance
by Kelly Chernenkoff | July 07, 2011 |  0 Comments

Friday marks six months since the Tucson shooting which severely injured Arizona Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords and the White House is now hinting it's prepared to add its own voice to the gun control dialogue that tragedy reignited.

"As you know, the President directed the Attorney General to form working groups with key stakeholders to identify common-sense measures that would improve Americans' safety and security while fully respecting Second Amendment rights," White House Press Secretary Jay Carney said Thursday.

"That process is well underway at the Department of Justice with stakeholders on all sides working through these complex issues. And we expect to have some more specific announcements in the near future."

Carney didn't say how soon those announcements would come, nor what they might entail.

Immediately after the incident, which left six people dead and suspect Jared Lee Loughner in a federal prison hospital, eyes turned to the White House and whether the president might weigh in on the brewing Second Amendment debate.

The answer came in the form of an Arizona Daily Star Op-Ed penned by the president himself and printed on March 13.
Title: Re: BOHICO
Post by: BAC on July 08, 2011, 12:49:32 PM
Whenever they say "common sense..." you know we're in trouble.  And I believe you meant to say "BOHICA".
Title: Re: BOHICA
Post by: DGF on July 08, 2011, 01:28:14 PM
Yes I did mean to say BOHICA. I have fixed it.

Common sense to them = No guns at all
Title: Re: BOHICA
Post by: alfsauve on July 08, 2011, 01:41:46 PM
Quote
That process is well underway at the Department of Justice with stakeholders on all sides.......

Uh, I must have missed the invitation.   


YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT MY RIGHTS.   I'M ONE OF THE STAKEHOLDERS. 



Title: Re: BOHICA
Post by: fightingquaker13 on July 08, 2011, 02:01:21 PM
I wil say this. I've never thought BO was a real threat to the 2A, just because unlike Hillary, he has never given a damn about the issue. If the Hildabeast were in charge, the AWB would have been job two after healthcare. Still, IF this administration is going to push gun control, now is the time (from our POV ;)). They are down in the polls and the election is getting closer. I see  conservative state Dems running from that like rats from a sinking ship. Again, this makes me wonder how seriously to take this stuff. I'd worry about what BO might do in his 2nd term, but now? Is this the hill he wants to lose the Senate and maybe his election over? Maybe, but I doubt it.
FQ13
Title: Re: BOHICA
Post by: DGF on July 08, 2011, 02:05:46 PM
This issue cost Gore his home state and, I believe, the election.
Title: Re: BOHICA
Post by: Solus on July 08, 2011, 02:07:43 PM
The plan is to enact it through Executive Order, thus bypassing all the problems of getting it through Congress.  

Why take the chance on Congress when you can do a slight of hand interpretation of the Constitution, and state it gives you the power to enact the restrictions using an Executive Order.

 
Title: Re: BOHICO
Post by: TAB on July 08, 2011, 02:37:05 PM
Whenever they say "common sense..." you know we're in trouble.  And I believe you meant to say "BOHICA".


Not always, most of the time yes, but there are several gun laws that are a very good thing.  ( granted most of them are in the actual use of fire arms)
Title: Re: BOHICA
Post by: tombogan03884 on July 08, 2011, 02:57:27 PM
There is no gun law that is a "good thing". The Constitution says "shall not be infringed". Any thing beyond that is precedent toward total confiscation.
Title: Re: BOHICA
Post by: TAB on July 08, 2011, 03:04:12 PM
so you don't support laws like its illegal to shoot in the air?


Title: Re: BOHICA
Post by: tombogan03884 on July 08, 2011, 03:05:48 PM
No I don't, do you want to let them ban bird hunting ?
Title: Re: BOHICA
Post by: DGF on July 08, 2011, 05:11:23 PM
The Mythbusters tackled the shooting in the air problem. They found that the bullet returned to earth at the speed of a falling object, 32ft per sec per sec till terminal velocity. Enough to make you say ouch but not enough to seriously injure you.
Title: Re: BOHICA
Post by: tombogan03884 on July 08, 2011, 05:21:42 PM
The Mythbusters tackled the shooting in the air problem. They found that the bullet returned to earth at the speed of a falling object, 32ft per sec per sec till terminal velocity. Enough to make you say ouch but not enough to seriously injure you.

That's only partly true.
If you fire straight up, the bullet rises until it loses momentum, then it begins to fall back to earth back end first at the terminal velocity based on object weight.
However, if you fire upward at any type of angle the bullet follows a nose first ballistic trajectory based on angle and velocity and can retain enough energy to cause injury at extreme ranges.
And that isn't from TV, that's from physics.
Title: Re: BOHICA
Post by: Ichiban on July 08, 2011, 05:29:52 PM
There are many documented fatalities/injuries from guns shot into the air.

Don't confuse Mythbusters with actual science, it's more entrainment masquerading as science.
Title: Re: BOHICA
Post by: Timothy on July 08, 2011, 05:30:54 PM
http://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/k-12/airplane/termv.html

It is physics but it ain't that simple....
Title: Re: BOHICA
Post by: tombogan03884 on July 08, 2011, 05:38:05 PM
http://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/k-12/airplane/termv.html

It is physics but it ain't that simple....

For our purposes it is.
Title: Re: BOHICA
Post by: MikeBjerum on July 08, 2011, 06:00:12 PM
so you don't support laws like its illegal to shoot in the air?




NO!!!  Define "shoot in the air" and how it is clearly defined.

I really should not have taken that bait, because shooting in the air is not a gun law.  It is a law based on an action and applies equally to shooting an arrow in the air, using a slingshot, throwing a rock or even dropping something from above.
Title: Re: BOHICA
Post by: tombogan03884 on July 08, 2011, 09:06:18 PM
NO!!!  Define "shoot in the air" and how it is clearly defined.

I really should not have taken that bait, because shooting in the air is not a gun law.  It is a law based on an action and applies equally to shooting an arrow in the air, using a slingshot, throwing a rock or even dropping something from above.

In Ca it is. Remember the post came from TAB. They passed the law while I was out there.
Title: Re: BOHICA
Post by: TAB on July 08, 2011, 11:33:45 PM
how about shooting into the air as a form of celebration.( 4th of july, new years, what ever....)
Title: Re: BOHICA
Post by: tombogan03884 on July 08, 2011, 11:45:56 PM
You can't legislate good sense or safe practices.
Didn't we just have the same discussion about motorcycle helmet laws ?
The Ca. law that prohibits the shooting into the air that makes the Oakland hills unsafe on New Years eve can very easily be interpreted by an activist judge to prohibit wing shooting of birds.
You live in Ca.with so many examples and you still can't get it through your head that "good intentions" make lousy law.
Title: Re: BOHICA
Post by: TAB on July 08, 2011, 11:49:28 PM
Tom what I'm getting  is,  while laws will never stop anyone from doing anything.  They are sadly apart of life that is needed( not all of them, but alot of them)


You ever hear the saying" there are alot of people alive, only becuase its illegal to kill them."?


Title: Re: BOHICA
Post by: tombogan03884 on July 08, 2011, 11:53:11 PM
Like I said, Good intentions make for bad law.
Why do you feel the urge to follow bad ideas just because a lot of other people have ?
Are you a man ? Or a lemming ?
Title: Re: BOHICA
Post by: TAB on July 09, 2011, 12:09:33 AM
I'm some that knows there are things you can change and things that never will...
Title: Re: BOHICA
Post by: david86440 on July 09, 2011, 12:42:04 AM


How about this BOHICA?

http://www.bohicaarms.com/
Title: Re: BOHICA
Post by: MikeBjerum on July 09, 2011, 07:59:46 AM
how about shooting into the air as a form of celebration.( 4th of july, new years, what ever....)

Is that how the law is worded?  How does that affect Tom Knapp when he throws the three chalk balls up in the air and they explode into red, white and blue as he shoots them UP IN THE AIR?

To outlaw "shooting into the air" is a bad law!  However, it is the typical kneejerk reaction legislation we get when a legislator tries to make hay on a single incident.
Title: Re: BOHICA
Post by: tt11758 on July 09, 2011, 09:57:58 AM
Not sure how to break this to you, TAB, but even without this poorly-conceived piece of legislative crap, people are legally responsible for any damage, injury, death, etc caused by a round they fire.  Always have been.

So tell me again the point of this legislative stool sample?
Title: Re: BOHICA
Post by: jyates on July 12, 2011, 09:38:10 AM
Seems that "common sense" needs to start with DoJ. On their high-horse, they want to preach to us about better "control measures'. I guess that doesn't include looking in the mirror and cleaning their own house. They broke THE LAW with Fast and Furious. Holder should be held accountable. Since it has been found out that FBI and DEA are up to their eyeballs  in Gunrunner, it is clear Holder has no control or oversight of DoJ assets. Not to mention the Cspan video from the WH asst AG stating their involvemnent in Gunrunner. Their stamp on this program should mean they own it, turds in the punch bowl and all.

Cspan Vid: (video source thetruthaboutguns.com)
http://thetruthaboutguns.com/2011/07/brad-kozak/atf-death-watch-33-c-spans-smoking-gun/
Title: Re: BOHICA
Post by: tombogan03884 on July 12, 2011, 12:00:22 PM
Seems that "common sense" needs to start with DoJ. On their high-horse, they want to preach to us about better "control measures'. I guess that doesn't include looking in the mirror and cleaning their own house. They broke THE LAW with Fast and Furious. Holder should be held accountable. Since it has been found out that FBI and DEA are up to their eyeballs  in Gunrunner, it is clear Holder has no control or oversight of DoJ assets. Not to mention the Cspan video from the WH asst AG stating their involvemnent in Gunrunner. Their stamp on this program should mean they own it, turds in the punch bowl and all.

Cspan Vid: (video source thetruthaboutguns.com)
http://thetruthaboutguns.com/2011/07/brad-kozak/atf-death-watch-33-c-spans-smoking-gun/

I have to disagree somewhat, Considering that this operation was put in place at the same time we were being flooded with BS about "98% of traced Mexican crime guns coming from the US", and "The iron river flowing South" I think Holder has the ticket punching azz kissers, and agenda driven socialists  under complete control.    >:(
I also do not think any of those responsible will be punished. That will fall on Whistle Blowers and those who testified truthfully before Congress.
Title: Re: BOHICA
Post by: Rastus on July 12, 2011, 08:35:54 PM
..........
I also do not think any of those responsible will be punished. That will fall on Whistle Blowers and those who testified truthfully before Congress.

Never let a good deed go unpunished...the wave of the future here today!
Title: Re: BOHICA
Post by: jyates on July 12, 2011, 09:45:53 PM
I have to disagree somewhat, Considering that this operation was put in place at the same time we were being flooded with BS about "98% of traced Mexican crime guns coming from the US", and "The iron river flowing South" I think Holder has the ticket punching azz kissers, and agenda driven socialists  under complete control.    >:(
I also do not think any of those responsible will be punished. That will fall on Whistle Blowers and those who testified truthfully before Congress.

I should clarify what I was trying[to say. I meant it to read that he has no positive control or oversight of DoJ assets, meaning, he definitely is responsible for them, but failed in doing his job. Thanks for pointing it out. Sounds like I was trying to distance Holder on the face of it. DEFINITELY didnt mean it that way. :-[