The Attack on the 2nd Amendment Continues

Cptnchia said:
You're right, it is assumption. On both of you. Every thing you've posted, is your opinion and assumption. Nothing more.
Click to expand...

Ok.

I have spend more time as an ALPA volunteer than you have, and paid more than you have too, 20 years worth on both counts, so spare me.
Click to expand...

Ok.

What I haven't done though, is use that experience to grandstand, or as a basis to browbeat my opinion that may have differed from others. Your failing is that you believe yourself to be the most educated and smartest guy here. Problem is, you're not.
Click to expand...

Grand stand? Thinking I am the most educated or smartest guy here? Not respecting others opinions?

Hardly.
 
Im still waiting for the "majority who want gun control" to step in and back Seggy up...

Your fears are not a valid reason to infringe upon the rights of others.

You can't legislate safety.

You can't lock up all of the criminals.

If you are really that worried about your kids school getting shot up, then you sure as hell better not drive him to school (accident statistics are pretty scary you know)

In reality there are somewhere over 99,000 public school buildings in the US, not including universities. Since 1770's there have been 350ish gun related incidents in school, school zones and on school busses. So... .0035% of all schools have had a shooting.

Further, you'll note that far less than 350 deaths have resulted.

From 1770 until now the number of school related shooting that were not Drug related have remained relatively constant, as has the general mortality rate.

What has increased sharply since the 1980's is drug related shootings inside of the "gun/drug" free areas.

I bet if we outlawed drugs that would fix the problem...

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_school_shootings_in_the_United_States
 
TUCKnTRUCK said:
Im still waiting for the "majority who want gun control" to step in and back Seggy up...
Click to expand...

As the poll shows, a majority of Americans want stricter gun laws.


Your fears are not a valid reason to infringe upon the rights of others.
Click to expand...

A safer society is a valid reason to enact stronger gun laws.

You can't legislate safety.
Click to expand...

Yes you can.

You can't lock up all of the criminals.
Click to expand...

Where did I see that?

If you are really that worried about your kids school getting shot up, then you sure as hell better not drive him to school (accident statistics are pretty scary you know)
Click to expand...

http://www.forbes.com/sites/dandiamond/2015/08/26/americas-gun-violence-problem-in-three-charts/

In reality there are somewhere over 99,000 public school buildings in the US, not including universities. Since 1770's there have been 350ish gun related incidents in school, school zones and on school busses. So... .0035% of all schools have had a shooting.

Further, you'll note that far less than 350 deaths have resulted.

From 1770 until now the number of school related shooting that were not Drug related have remained relatively constant, as has the general mortality rate.

What has increased sharply since the 1980's is drug related shootings inside of the "gun/drug" free areas.

I bet if we outlawed drugs that would fix the problem...

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_school_shootings_in_the_United_States
Click to expand...

One death at school by a gun is one to many.
 
Seggy said:
As the poll shows, a majority of Americans want stricter gun laws.


Your poll has been refuted.. By CNN

A safer society is a valid reason to enact stronger gun laws.

There is no data to show that gun control us ever worked in the US

Yes you can.

No- you can't

Where did I see that?

No clue

http://www.forbes.com/sites/dandiamond/2015/08/26/americas-gun-violence-problem-in-three-charts/



One death at school by a gun is one to many.
Agreed, but, the occurrence has not changed since the signing of the constitution. If it hasn't been a reason to change the 2a for centuries, then it still isn't.
Click to expand...
 
Seggy said:
A safer society is a valid reason to enact stronger gun laws.
.
Click to expand...

Then I suggest, as a society, that we increase our prosecution of drug and alcohol offenses. After all, the odds of being injured or killed by someone under the influence is higher than being involved in a mass shooting.

We also need to increase or stiffen sentencing guidelines. Expand crimes punishable by the death penalty. Increase the incarceration of criminals. Outlaw or ban certain foods, sports, activities. All of these things will enhance and promote a safer society, but I don't see you advocating for all this.

30690180.jpg
 
av8tr1 said:
@Seggy how old are you? Are you actually a pilot or just a wanna be? Your ramblings come across like arguing with a 13 year old. Your posts make no sense other than to rile up people.

Does anyone here actually know this guy in the real world? Is he who/what he claims to be?
Click to expand...

He is a real adult married male who works for an airline. Many people here have met him.
 
Seggy said:
Key words are 'if the act appears to be intended to'.
Click to expand...

Not really, their actions are conducive to conspiracy to commit acts, they do not appear to intend to cause harm yet in action. Hopefully you will read this case, which is admittedly a bit long, but the opinion discusses a Militia in MI whose leader earned a conspiracy charge related to terrorism, but did not act in violation of terrorism laws:

"— [T]he district court's determination that the defendant's § 371 conspiracy was "intended to promote" a federal crime of terrorism, in particular the crime of maliciously damaging or destroying, by means of fire or an explosive, any building, vehicle, or other real or personal property used in interstate or foreign commerce, was not error."

However, they were not sentenced as terrorists as the exception for that level on sentencing was too narrow. Why the sentencing did not hold to that level:

"To approve of the action of the district court effectively labels Graham a terrorist and his activity as displayed in the record as terroristic activity, as was done by applying the 3A1.4 enhancement, and is grossly contrary to the language of 18 U.S.C. 2332b(g) (5) defining a "Federal crime of terrorism" as well as the Congressional intent to keep the definition narrow: "in order to keep a sentencing judge from assigning a terrorist label to crimes that are truly not terrorist, and to adequately punish the terrorist for his offense, it is appropriate to define the term." H. Rep. No. 104-383 (1995), at p. 114

Simply put, the record of the Sentencing Commission's actions in promulgating 3A1.4 as a discrete guideline regarding terrorism and the legislative history of the statutes which mandated 3A1.4 initially and as amended, leads to the conclusion that a conviction of one of the enumerated offenses listed in 18 U.S.C. 2332b(g) (5) is an absolute condition precedent to the enhancement called for by 3A1.4. Plainly, the legislative history of the statutes reflects a concern by Congress, much like the concern of the delegates to the Constitutional Convention of 1787 over the definition of "treason," that "terrorism" being a phrase which carries far-reaching connotations that is not to be used indiscriminately and must be carefully defined."

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Randy GRAHAM

http://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F3/275/490/592371/

18 U.S. Code § 2332b - Acts of terrorism transcending national boundaries

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2332b

Just because they are armed on Federal property does not mean they have committed any of these violations under 2332 in act, but possibly in conspiracy. I have noticed that "Because I know enough about law (I have been exposed to it a lot)" you fail to miss you mark often in basic understanding, basic sourcing, and basic research from where your opinion comes from (Sorry - you got the 'well regulated militia' part wrong earlier: that is usually a quick google search). That is just an observation, I hope I am wrong, because if I understand correctly people do rely on your ability to do such with your level of involvement in aviation circles.
 
TUCKnTRUCK said:
26,491 users on this site... Why only 3 pushing for more control?

https://www.magpul.com/products/pmag-40-ar-m4-gen-m3

And, I'm going to leave them loaded. In a case. With bullets.

Thinking I'll grab some of these when back in stock

https://www.magpul.com/products/pmag-d60-ar-m4

Will work really well in an AR pistol.
Click to expand...

I betcha that Hillary Clinton is going to be President.

But, so far, I am the only one on here that has come out vocally supporting her. What does that mean?
 
Cptnchia said:
Then I suggest, as a society, that we increase our prosecution of drug and alcohol offenses. After all, the odds of being injured or killed by someone under the influence is higher than being involved in a mass shooting.

We also need to increase or stiffen sentencing guidelines. Expand crimes punishable by the death penalty. Increase the incarceration of criminals. Outlaw or ban certain foods, sports, activities. All of these things will enhance and promote a safer society, but I don't see you advocating for all this.

30690180.jpg
Click to expand...

I think that if we move towards a more socialist society and embrace it, all crime will go down and the discussion concerning guns will be moot.

Yet, for those yelling 'IT IS MENTAL HEALTH' after a mass shooting have yet said, we need better healthcare access for free.
 
Seggy said:
I betcha that Hillary Clinton is going to be President.

But, so far, I am the only one on here that has come out vocally supporting her. What does that mean?
Click to expand...
I worked with a pilot that flew the Clintons during his second term. The stories he told... There was a reason nobody liked her.

But, I don't care who you vote for.. The freedom to chose is one that was secured by the tools that are protected by the 2nd
 
n57flyguy said:
Not really, their actions are conducive to conspiracy to commit acts, they do not appear to intend to cause harm yet in action. Hopefully you will read this case, which is admittedly a bit long, but the opinion discusses a Militia in MI whose leader earned a conspiracy charge related to terrorism, but did not act in violation of terrorism laws:

"— [T]he district court's determination that the defendant's § 371 conspiracy was "intended to promote" a federal crime of terrorism, in particular the crime of maliciously damaging or destroying, by means of fire or an explosive, any building, vehicle, or other real or personal property used in interstate or foreign commerce, was not error."

However, they were not sentenced as terrorists as the exception for that level on sentencing was too narrow. Why the sentencing did not hold to that level:

"To approve of the action of the district court effectively labels Graham a terrorist and his activity as displayed in the record as terroristic activity, as was done by applying the 3A1.4 enhancement, and is grossly contrary to the language of 18 U.S.C. 2332b(g) (5) defining a "Federal crime of terrorism" as well as the Congressional intent to keep the definition narrow: "in order to keep a sentencing judge from assigning a terrorist label to crimes that are truly not terrorist, and to adequately punish the terrorist for his offense, it is appropriate to define the term." H. Rep. No. 104-383 (1995), at p. 114

Simply put, the record of the Sentencing Commission's actions in promulgating 3A1.4 as a discrete guideline regarding terrorism and the legislative history of the statutes which mandated 3A1.4 initially and as amended, leads to the conclusion that a conviction of one of the enumerated offenses listed in 18 U.S.C. 2332b(g) (5) is an absolute condition precedent to the enhancement called for by 3A1.4. Plainly, the legislative history of the statutes reflects a concern by Congress, much like the concern of the delegates to the Constitutional Convention of 1787 over the definition of "treason," that "terrorism" being a phrase which carries far-reaching connotations that is not to be used indiscriminately and must be carefully defined."

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Randy GRAHAM

http://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F3/275/490/592371/

18 U.S. Code § 2332b - Acts of terrorism transcending national boundaries

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2332b

Just because they are armed on Federal property does not mean they have committed any of these violations under 2332 in act, but possibly in conspiracy. I have noticed that "Because I know enough about law (I have been exposed to it a lot)" you fail to miss you mark often in basic understanding, basic sourcing, and basic research from where your opinion comes from (Sorry - you got the 'well regulated militia' part wrong earlier: that is usually a quick google search). That is just an observation, I hope I am wrong, because if I understand correctly people do rely on your ability to do such with your level of involvement in aviation circles.
Click to expand...

Pretty sure the Michigan Militia didn't occupy a federal building.
 
TUCKnTRUCK said:
I worked with a pilot that flew the Clintons during his second term. The stories he told... There was a reason nobody liked her.

But, I don't care who you vote for.. The freedom to chose is one that was secured by the tools that are protected by the 2nd
Click to expand...

The 2nd Amendment was written to allow folks to have guns to form militias (todays National Guard) to protect the newly formed, broke at the time Federal Government.
 
The bottom line is that I think that this stand off in Oregon will end peacefully.

It doesn't take away the fact that these folks want to overthrow the government, want anarchy, and are disgracing the Constitution.
 
TUCKnTRUCK said:
I worked with a pilot that flew the Clintons during his second term. The stories he told... There was a reason nobody liked her.

But, I don't care who you vote for.. The freedom to chose is one that was secured by the tools that are protected by the 2nd
Click to expand...

This also ignores the point I made.

She is going to win, yet as you say, nobody likes her. Why would she win then?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top