I am a little confused about the life expectancy quote--I think we discussed that a long time ago. As for Dorner, perhaps his probationary status made it easier to fire him? Though if he were on probation why couldn't they just find he didn't measure up rather than just try to prove he lied? Maybe they were worried about a racial discrimination lawsuit unless they could prove he lied?

I agree with bbauska, problem is these guys keep calling for bans on "Assault Weapons" when it makes no sense and really means nothing more than banning scary looking rifles ONLY.

The "data" they continue to try and show relates to their arguments is equally full of holes, they keep bringing up statistics that supposedly "prove" their position but looking at every stat they show finds glaring problems they simply refuse to see. Your point about the USC ruling is the bottom line, yet we had a ban on assault weapons for a long while, I can see it happening again. (and honestly, it doesn't bother me if we do ban them, what bothers me is the rally call that this is an important issue when in reality it's pure drivel and a liberal rallying cry to make themselves simply feel better while it does absolutely NOTHING)

regarding this Dorner guy,
True story, his car was found at Big Bear what last Wednesday? he was just killed today at Big Bear. That means he was probably in a cabin at Big Bear over the weekend (a good assumption?)
My daughter was in a cabin at Big Bear this very weekend!!!!!!

how scary could that have been!

bbauska wrote:Tom,
You can bring the issue of what gun is killing the most up all day and night. That is not the issue. The issue is the Constitution. Until the Supreme Court changes the Second Amendment (which it supported in DC v Heller) the issue is moot.

Yeah, that's the only issue.

4 dead Americans in Benghazi, and DF wants people to answer for it, and to bring down a Presidency.

30,000 dead Americans a year on home soil from guns and...

"the issue is the Constitution" (bbauska)

"I could care less about suicides and accidents" (GMTom)

Until the Constitution is amended, all you can do is bellyache about what type of gun killed what person. Let the left try to change the Constitution. If it is the "will of the people" then it should be no problem.

Was the 1994-2004 ban unConstitutional?

If so, how (and how come it was not overturned on that basis)?

If not, then clearly the 2nd Amendment is not what you claim it to be.

Are you refuting the DC v Heller decision? Or perhaps this is opinion on your part?

I stand by my statements. DC v Heller makes the 2nd Amendment clear in it's interpretation. Until that is overturned, and the 2nd Amendment is "re-interpreted" (is that a word?), the law stands.

The issue about the outlawing of weapons is not what type of weapons one can or cannot own. The determination of "military-style" weapons is addressed specifically by the Supreme Court in Heller.

I have said it before:
We need to license all owners
We need to register all weapons
We need to ensure that the mentally ill are not allowed to purchase weapons of any kind
We need to not allow criminals or those with restraining orders against them to have weapons
We need to curb the Media's portrayal of violence (i.e. just like smoking/drinking on TV)

All of these above items are not covered in the Constitution. Work on those...

The NRA's "enemies" list:

http://m.dailykos.com/story/2013/01/31/ ... -it-s-nuts

bbauska wrote:Are you refuting the DC v Heller decision? Or perhaps this is opinion on your part?

Heller was about the DC ban, not the 1994-2004 Federal Assault Weapons ban. You seem to be of the opinion that Heller applies more widely . For a start, it only addresses the position in a Federal enclave, such as DC, but not in the States. It held that the handgun ban and trigger lock requirement were in violation of the 2nd Amendment, but neither of those were features of the 1994-2004 assault weapons ban. The Heller decision referred to US v Miller from 1939, which upheld the 1934 NFA. Miller is important as a precedent because it does allow the Federal government to restrict certain types of weapon, and Heller does not reverse it (indeed, the opinion for Heller claims compatibility).

I stand by my statements. DC v Heller makes the 2nd Amendment clear in it's interpretation. Until that is overturned, and the 2nd Amendment is "re-interpreted" (is that a word?), the law stands.

Yes, re-interpreted is a word. No, Heller does not do what you appear to claim it does and invalidate the 1994-2004 federal assault weapons ban.

The issue about the outlawing of weapons is not what type of weapons one can or cannot own. The determination of "military-style" weapons is addressed specifically by the Supreme Court in Heller.

Heller ( and later McDonald v Chicago, which ultimately has more significance) both allowed for restrictions on gun sales and ownership. What they specifially addressed was incorporation of the 2nd Amendment to DC and then the States. They did not actually overturn other interpretations of the 2nd Amendment that allow for restrictions.

I heard an interesting comment during a radio interview as to what guns should be allowed to the public. It was basically any weapon used against the citizens should be allowed for private ownership. Since police use assault weapons as a regular course of business, citizens should be allowed to have them as well.

danivon wrote:4 dead Americans in Benghazi, and DF wants people to answer for it, and to bring down a Presidency.

Never said and irrelevant to this topic. The President is lying. When the truth is known it will, at the very least, show him to be someone who did not give a fig for the Americans killed (we've already learned that from testimony to Congress).

30,000 dead Americans a year on home soil from guns and...

Again, counting a lot of non-murders, and discounting alcohol, drugs, and cars--none of which enjoy explicit Constitutional protection.

No wonder I stopped this.

30k dead and counting...

Hey, here's an idea, lets introduce laws to limit gun usage, maybe we even limit what types of guns can be considered legal, we can promote all sorts of anti-gun propaganda. Hell it HAS to work, look at how successful it has been against drugs!

A local story that had national (international?) attention..
http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/ny-f ... s-18515807

A small rural town nearby has an annual "Squirrel Slam" hunting contest where people as young as 12 years old compete by shooting squirrels. It suddenly became a big deal, oh the humanity!? Now if we were to kill rats, it might be okay, but squirrels, they happen to be "pretty" so people are in an uproar. Forget how this helps keep the squirrel population low where they have few natural enemies, forget how this teaches responsibility, instead focus on the "slaughter" and hey, why not make some death threats while at it to support your opposition?

What if we were to instead of using guns, bait acorns with large hooks, toss the baited acorns into the trees and when a squirrel bites, drag him in screaming. Then drown him in a bucket of water!? That would be called "fishing" yet fishing gets no condemnation now does it? by the way, the event went off without a hitch (again).

My neighbor had a similar issue. He asked me to help him with his squirrel problem as they were eating his apricots. I started on the business of what I am good at, and after a couple kills, he came out and was all flustered. He did not want me to kill them, he only wanted them "moved somewhere else".

quite literally "not in my backyard"

Sorry, but when did gun issues become about squirrels?

If they were using assault weapons, or even handguns, to shoot the squirrels, perhaps, but I suspect they are using small calibre rifles.

No, just a pellet rifle. Wanted to make sure the backdrop is safe. I think the point Tom was bringing up was that it is not the gun, but the animal that was the problem to those who disagreed with "squirrel slam" He was pointing the difference to fishing.

I gave an cute anecdote. I guess it did not fit with politics. I will try to stay on topic more stringently.

It was simply a gun rights issue, the anti-gun crowd complained about children shooting cute fuzzy animals and how tragic it was simply because they used ghast ...guns!
and one of the prizes given ...an assault Rifle!