JoeBob

Cars are not rights. But anybody can own any car they want and use it all they want on private property. A 12 year old driver can cut doughnuts in a hayfield all day long and not break the law. (Your state may vary.) But driving a car on PUBLIC highways with other members of the public is a PRIVILEGE, and you are subject to legal restrictions and control in order to maintain that privilege.

I'm on board. The banks are subsidized and insured to the point that they can't lose money? But everyone else is losing money? I've always been curious about the FDIC limit of $100,000. Is that limit per individual or per account? ie - if you have 1.5 million to invest do you need to spread it around into 15 different $100k accounts?

Think it's all Hollywood? Skip to the end and read the historical marker. Look at the actual photos of the participants. I was struck by how young they were. BTW, since it was the National Guard being mobilized to support the crooked politicians, I'm guessing that it was the Army Reserve armory referred to in the re-enactment.

An example in American history (1940s) of arms being used rightfully to resist the government: http://voxvocispublicus.homestead.com/Battle-of-Athens.html

Schiff, Re : M1 I'd seek a ruling on "Ability to accept a detachable magazine". As you know, M1s have a solid floor (Unlike M14s). The clips that hold the rounds together INSIDE might not be considered a 'magazine'. Ever trim your thumbnail when loading?

Hey Schiff, I hadn't even thought about my M1 clips. Can this really be called a 'Magazine'? http://www.brownells.com/magazines/rifle-magazines/magazines/m1-garand-ammo-clips-prod42370.aspx To New York residents seeking to sell your ARs: I'm looking for a 6.5 Grendel. I'm betting that the Fed magazine limitation is limited to 20. There are way too many pistols that are natively configured to hold 15 to 17 rounds.

acco, I merely took your statement: "I guess I have issues with someone serving as a SM or SA who thinks spending a weekend with fellow scouters camping, learning or teaching scout skills "a complete waste of time" serving as a leader to the youth." and turned it on you: "I guess I have issues with someone serving as a SM IOLS trainer who thinks that experienced woodsmen and scouters should be pushed aside in favor of pencil-pushers." You negative reaction to Eagle92's opinion of BSA training made me question the efficacy of BSA requiring training. Before you tear off down the wrong trail, I am a strong supporter of having knowledgeable skilled leaders for our Scouts. But I am not sure that the 'Trained' strip signifies anything more than 4 weeknights in a classroom and a weekend of car-camping. Required training may very well have kept more knowledge and experience out of Scouting than required training has taught skills to new leaders. I like training, if it's GOOD training. Even if I'm expert in the topic, I still enjoy seeing a good presentation. Constant required re-training is just plain stupid. Specifically, CS shooting sports. I taught Archery for a few years, after taking the initial training required. The first training had important information about range set-up and handling masses of boys that would have not occurred to me beforehand. I had the same partner working with me every year; we had a steady stream of Boy Scout helpers forming an experienced cadre. We were complimented from multiple quarters about the quality instruction, safety, and efficiency of our archery range. Many older Cubs said they only came back to Daycamp to shoot. But then the two year re-training requirement came to light. (Seems I hadn't been 'legal' for a bit there...) My boy had crossed over, so I was no longer vested in the CS Daycamp program. District was scrambling for shooting instructors. It takes two full days and four .75 days standing in a sunny open field. I was already taking time off for BS Summer Camp, but I could wrangle the time for CS Daycamp archery. It was fun. I wanted to do it. But I had to be re-trained? Schedule a whole Saturday to be wasted holding my tongue? I had a work commitment on the Saturday that training was available, but I could hire a replacement for that. But then it occurred to me that in another two years I'd have to do the whole dog-and-pony-show again. I declined, and haven't regretted it. *** acco, your disdain for someone who criticized BSA training riled me. Sorry I made it personal. In her OP, moosetracker was fine tuning a test out for IOLS in order to retain experienced Scouters. That's a direction I strongly support. I fear that if if BSA continues to weed out woodsmen in favor of bureaucrats, we soon will lack the skills to go outside.

4. Ban on possession or transfer of armor-piercing bullets. The last time they tried this the definition was so vague that it would have included just about EVERY hunting bullet. Has anyone ever seen real 'armor piercing' bullets for sale to the public?

acco40: "I guess I have issues with someone serving as a SM or SA who thinks spending a weekend with fellow scouters camping, learning or teaching scout skills "a complete waste of time" serving as a leader to the youth." "If one really feels that spending a weekend camping, cooking and practicing or teaching basic scout skills is a waste of their time - maybe they really shouldn't be an SM or SA." But what if it IS a waste of their time? If a scouter knows most of what is taught at IOLS, would not that time be better spent with his own troop teaching boys, or home with family mending fences? Half of what was taught when I attended IOLS I will not use with my boys! (Not gonna get specific. Don't want to rile up any trainers...) There were either more entertaining ways to teach the topics, or they were nonsense. Read the recent posts about training quality. IOLS is close to being a negative for the scouting program. *** I guess I have issues with someone serving as a SM IOLS trainer who thinks that experienced woodsmen and scouters should be pushed aside in favor of pencil-pushers.

Hmmmm..... Firearms. Corporal punishment. Corporal punishment. Firearms. Does 'F' = Firing Squad? Better study!

I don't think an armed teacher is going to defeat a spree shooter at the front door. After hearing gunshots in the hall (probably the shooter taking out the armed security guard), a teacher with only average gun skills should 1- Lock the door, 2- herd her students into the corner most out of the line of fire, 3- retrieve her pistol, 4- flip a sturdy desk over for cover 5- wait. (Calmly. Don't shoot the janitor coming in to apologize for dropping light bulbs...) If you have teachers with more training and confidence: 1- retrieve weapon 2- don the brightly colored over-garment that marks them as armed teachers. (selected in advance in conjunction with the local PD) 3- move to the rendezvous point to pair up with another teacher 4- cover and advance toward the sound of gunfire. ---- 5- after neutralizing any threat, cover and advance to clear the building of any additional shooters. *** 6- Call the media. Broadcast to the world that schools are no longer free-fire zones. When psychos learn that school teachers are waiting for them with plans and weapons, potential shooters will direct their evil at softer targets. Maybe churches...

Here's an example of someone violating the legal Gun Free Zone to positive effect: "Another shooter in a high school in 1997 in Pearl, Miss., was stopped in the midst of a shooting spree when the vice principal ran out to his car, loaded his gun, and held the gunman at bay until police arrived, according to local media reports. The student reportedly wanted to head to another nearby school and kill additional students. He first killed his mother then arrived at Pearl High School and killed two students. No mention of the vice principals actions appeared in stories on the shooting published at the time on CNN and in the New York Times." http://freebeacon.com/protecting-our-kids/ I wonder if the AP was charged?

Beavah, I don't follow you argument here: "So a law which makes it clearly illegal to carry near school premises makes it likely that folks will call earlier, when they first see somethin', eh? Rather than just figurin' it's a lawful carrier and ignoring it." **** No carry zones make good sense where there is an armed presence to enforce them: Court Houses, Airports, and sporting events. One or two guards at a metal detector are too easily blown through (bad pun, sorry) to protect a school for long enough to make a difference. I'm of two minds about saloons. If you're not drinking, CCW might be okay. Any alcohol should void your permit. (So why go to a bar if you're not gonna drink?) *** I'm glad the second amendment protects my right to carry; but that's not my focus regarding 'Gun Free Zones'. I look at it completely from the functional aspect: do Gun Free Zones work?

Ah... Derision. Sarcasm. You can't answer the argument, huh?

Hey Calico, The discussion is not about whether or not to obey the law. The discussion is whether or not the law is stupid and accomplishes anything. Since the more valid argument is that 'Gun Free Zones' augment spree shooters, should we not revoke a law that does no good and only causes harm??

From the end of the parent thread: A crazy / evil person has decided that he wants to kill a bunch of people. What penalty for violating a 'Gun Free Zone' will deter the crazy / evil person who is going to kill? A person who is going to be punished for multiple murders or kill himself anyway will be swayed by what punishment? One penalty. Anybody? Come on, one?

Since y'all insist on squabbling about minutia and refuse to address the larger issue, let's try another angle. Scenario: A crazy/evil person has decided that he wants to kill a bunch of people. What penalty for violation of a 'Gun Free Zone' will deter the crazy/evil person? The person who is going to be punished for multiple murders or kill himself anyway? One penalty. Come on, one?

Beavah, does it really surprise you that John Lott was hounded from one temple of holy academia to another because he didn't drink the Flavoraid? Not all of us think that Yale, Stanford, and UCLA are at the top of the reality food chain. But move your thinking beyond Lott. Does not the fact that 90% of mass shootings in public places take place where guns are legally or otherwise prohibited tell you anything? **** 'Gun Free Zones' kill more people that they protect. Concealed carry of firearms saves way more lives and stops way more crime than CCWs cause. If you can't accept that basic reality as a starting point for discussion, how can you possibly expect the other side to take you seriously? Why would anyone waste time negotiating magazine capacity, firearms liability insurance, background checks, and cosmetic rifle features with a clueless ideologue?

Beavah: "JoeBob, yeh aren't really tryin' to defend Lott, are yeh? A fellow who appears to have committed repeated research fraud, who is a clearly biased lobbyist makin' his living off this stuff now? You're goin' to quote his "research"? " Yeah, Beavah, I'll defend John Lott. I didn't know much about him until I read the Wiki article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Lott I see where he has been relentlessly attacked by the leftist elite because they hated his results, but I also read to the end of each accusation and found that he was vindicated and actually won a defamation lawsuit against one attacker. Research is not 'fraudulent' just because you don't like the findings. Lott proved he has never been paid by the gun industry or NRA. He does get paid now by FoxNews, but that only makes him not credible in a liberal's eyes. The worst thing Lott ever did was use a fake persona to write himself complementary book reviews. I wish my past hold up to such scrutiny! Beavah, is your curriculum vitae better than this: "Lott studied economics at UCLA, receiving his B.A. in 1980, M.A. in 1982, and Ph.D. in 1984. Lott has held positions in law and economics at several institutions, including the Yale Law School, Stanford, UCLA, the Wharton Business School, Texas A&M University, and Rice University. Lott was the chief economist at the United States Sentencing Commission (19881989). He spent five years as a visiting professor (199495) and as a fellow (199599) at the University of Chicago. Lott was a resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute (20012006). He left AEI for SUNY Binghamton.[10] From July 2007 to 2010, Lott was a senior research scientist at the University of Maryland Foundation at the University of Maryland, College Park.[11][12]" Sorry Beavah, but I'll trust the academic who has spent years actually working to research unpopular conclusions and never has shied from his results just because of they didn't fit the elite academia media myth.

Hey Basement, Thanks for the challenge. I think we both win: Sticking to the wording of Lott's study, I read the nine shooting stories you posted. These three were in churches, and were supposed to be free of guns: Sikh Temple, Living Church of God (Terry Ratzman), Seattle Jewish Federation Trolley Square was a mall, where guns weren't welcome. Azana Spa saw only 3 innocents die. (Lott's criteria was more than 3.) Wah Mee gambling club even checked for guns, but: " Mak and his accomplices defeated the system only because they were known and trusted by the people at the club." Three happened in private locations not open to the public: Chai Vang trespassed onto private hunting land in Wisconsin, Appomattox was in and around one private home, and the Capitol Hill rave killings were at a private residence. (Remember, Lott said "public shootings". So, all nine of the examples from Wiki fall outside the criteria: "public shooting since at least 1950 in the U.S. in which more than three people have been killed has taken place where citizens are not allowed to carry guns" But looking through the Mother Jones Timeline I did find one rampage that needs to be added to the exception list: Mark Barton, Atlanta day trader killed 22 people in two businesses. I think that would have to be considered 'public'. So, for the sake of argument, let me amend the statement: 90% of public shootings since at least 1950 in the U.S. in which more than three people have been killed has taken place where citizens are not allowed to carry guns. Now, does anyone seriously want to argue that 'Gun Free Zones' are a good thing? Beavah, since one third of Basement's Wiki examples took place in a house of worship, do you want to reconsider: "Gun free zones at churches seemed prudent because with various carry laws, it would be perfectly possible for a group of white supremacists to legally carry into a black church, again with no clear basis on which to stop them." The only way to stop the scenario that you described is with a congregation of armed black men shooting back. In fact you have made my point, haven't you? If the white supremacists are not deterred by the penalties for murder, then they sure as hell won't be deterred by 'Gun Free Zone' violations!

Found the cite: http://articles.courant.com/2012-12-21/news/hc-op-fund-gun-free-zones-attract-killers-1223-20121221_1_gun-free-zones-mass-shootings-gun-control "With just one single exception, the attack on Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords in Tucson in 2011, every public shooting since at least 1950 in the U.S. in which more than three people have been killed has taken place where citizens are not allowed to carry guns."

Beavah, Ft Hood was a gun free zone. Through laughing? Weapons and ammunition on military posts are very strictly controlled. You get caught with a stray round of 5.56 in your shirt pocket, and you'll spend time in the brig. The Ft Hood shooter wasn't slowed until the MPs arrived. (BTW: MPs response time is usually much faster than civilian LEOs.) Your scenario of an teenager taking a gun to school being detered by a gun-free zone? Totally invalid: 1- He is already breaking multiple laws and doesn't give a hoot about how many extra years you may want to add because he's in a 'Gun-Free Zone'. 2- Tools for law enforcement? If the penalties for underage possession of a firearm and unlicensed carry don't stop him, Gun Free Zone penatlties won't either. 3- If his school was NOT a Gun Free Zone, and he had no idea of which teachers were carrying what weapons to shoot back at him, he might be deterred, and would certainly be stopped faster than waiting on the locals. basement: "Smears.......your just flat ignorant..... " I happily join the list of folks you attempt to demean. (Curious: Do I own 'just flat ignorant'? Or did you mean 'you're'?) You called Schiff 'unreasonable' because he is pro-gun. Trying to prove to us that you have an open mind? You called sheldonsmom dishonest because she chooses not to tell the healthcare community that she has firearms in the house. Why do they need to know? So they can question your intelligence for owning guns? So an HHS professional (?) can visit your home to see if your guns are locked up? So your health insurance company can charge you more? I I thought my doctor wanted to come over and help me clean my guns, then I'd be glad to share; otherwise, nope.

sheldonmom and Schiff, be complimented by Basementdweller's smears. It's what happens when your argument can't be answered. I heard this morning that all mass shootings since 1970 have happened in 'gun-free zones' with only one exception. Does anyone know differently? Perhaps the slogan ought to be: "Guns don't kill people. GUN-FREE ZONES kill people." The Biden proposal will increase penalties for violating a gun-free zone. Anyone care to explain the logic behind that?

Hey Beavah, "Nah, you're mistakin' straw men for what is really satire of an absurd position." What we reject is your assertion that armed citizens can't/don't defend themselves and others with firearms. Here's a link to 5,680 examples of armed self-defense that made the news. http://www.nraila.org/gun-laws/armed-citizen.aspx?pageNum=1 Many many other incidents go unreported, so our position is far from absurd.

Beavah, I can agree with most of your ideas for sensible legislation. "Of course, over the last 15 years or so we gun rights advocates have also had our mission creep, eh? Repeal da assault weapons ban." That did little to halt crime. "Overturn handgun laws in big cities with handgun crime problems." Where the residents needed them the most... "gun show sales to avoid background checks" I'm with you on background checks at gunshows. Technology should enable this to work. "Now folks introducing bills to eliminate gun-free zones and encouragin' da second grade teacher to go loaded to the fingerpainting activity." Hyperbolic much? "Strengthening firearm education and proficiency should be somethin' we and the NRA are at da forefront of, eh? I've got no problem with mandatory training and recurrent demonstrated proficiency, for example." Totally with you on this one. Competent gun owners dread hearing stories about bozos brandishing, shooting, or killing an innocent. We know we are under hard scrutiny. "I'd be in favor of a no-alcohol, no-judgment-altering drugs rule." Concealed carry permits should have a clause voiding the license if ANY alcohol registers in the bloodstream. It's okay to carry in a bar. Just not carry and drink. "If that means we have to purchase insurance to guard against catastrophe, so be it." I understand your reasoning on this, but I fear that it would result in cries of "Only rich people are allowed to have guns!" Folks living in poor areas that police avoid have a greater need for self-protection... There are many conscientious gun toters who accept additional responsibility for their fellow man's safety. We carry where allowed with the fervent hope that we will NEVER have to pull our weapon. The paperwork, the inconvenience, the legal fees, the guilt of shooting another human are all huge motivators for us to avoid situations where a gun may be needed. That is outweighed, however, by the fear that violence may find us unprepared; and we fail to save a life because we were too embarrassed or too lazy to stay proficient and carry responsibly.