REGISTER | LOGIN
Weekdays noon - 3pm et / weekends 9am - noon et
Sirius | XM Satellite Radio
Call Andrew at 1-866-95-patriot
Book AndrewFree Trial

Today's Show » Gun Control

Home » Forums » Today's Show » Gun Control (6 posts)
marnesdad
1 year, 12 months ago
Yesterday, Wilkow chastised a caller for saying that federal law should require some sort of background check for someone trying to purchase 6,000 rounds of ammunition. Wilkow said that the law should be Colorado's law, and cited the 10th Amendment as his reasoning. Why? Limits placed on a Constitutional right should be decided at the state level??? That's just not what the Constitution says. The 10th Amendment says that "powers NOT delegated to the United States" ... How the 2nd Amendment is limited IS very much within the powers of the United States (Article 1, Section 8:18). That said, the federal government should be the only governing body making laws that affect the 2nd Amendment.
marnesdad
1 year, 12 months ago
Also, why does the common sense questioning of 6,000 rounds of ammunition being sold to someone without a background check need to be ignored and repackaged as a liberal attempt to abridge second amendment rights? In just about every debate I heard yesterday, the specific question (on the 6,000 rounds unchecked) was ignored... By Wilkow, by Hannity, by Beck, and by Webb. Certainly, one person's OPINION on what limits there are on the second amendment are as good as the next person's. The 2nd Amendment is ALREADY limited. The extent to which is all about public opinion. I think that the Right would do well to address the specific question instead of looking silly trying to dodge it..
crossofcrimson
1 year, 12 months ago
I still think most of these constitutional "debates" are a matter of the chasm between the normative and (legally) positive. One is arguing theory (ideal), and the other is arguing precedent (law). They aren't the same...despite what legal positivists may try to tell you. As long as that distinction isn't being made, the parties are going to continue talking past each other. There's really no point. Each side isn't taking the other side in the same context. Regarding ammo purchases/caches, I've always been a bit puzzled by the idea that there should be any particular maximum allowable amount. I think it might be a useful indicator in some regards, so maybe there is an argument for better record-keeping of said stockpiling. But I think that would hit its limit of usefuless pretty quickly. And if we're just talking about strict limitation of purchases, I'd be curious to know exactly what limitation people have in mind. I don't think I come anywhere close to constituting a "gun-enthusiast", but I'm willing to bet I have well over 2,000 rounds "stockpiled" between the four firearms that I own. Part of that is for self-defense purposes. Part of that is because ammo is cheaper in bulk. Part of that is because it's easy to go through several hundred rounds at a time in casual target-practice (which I don't even do that often). So what would a "common-sense" restriction look like? Let's look at the case with our current suspect. They found out that he had over 6,000 rounds gathered. Alright. How many did he need to do what he did in that theater? Less that 100, I think (according to reports so far). So I guess if we had gone to an extreme and limited every individual to, say, 100 rounds, what would that have achieved here? So, maybe, again, a stockpiling of 6,000 rounds might have been some kind of indicator (although I think people who don't own firearms have no idea how many normal gun-owners have far more than this amount). But he certainly didn't need to buy in such quantities to do what he did. Maybe we would limit it to 25 rounds. That seems fairly draconian. And, yet, he still would have been capable of killing twice as many as he actually killed. So what then? 10? 5? Would 5 people dying as opposed to 12 be a non-problem? I think there are perfectly reasonable questions for people to ask in the wake of such terrible events. But I think some people are too-often putting their dispositions in front of their rationality. And that goes for people on all sides. I'm just as annoyed that many conservatives seem to believe that any Joe with a gun in that theatre could have prevented this whole thing as I am with every liberal I hear decrying the legality of "assault rifles" (when they haven't been legal - without serious licensing - in over 75 years). I see an aweful lot of non sequiturs. And I see an aweful lot misunderstanding and miscommunication. It would be nice if we'd all take a little step back to let our passions die out before we start engaging in these tired polemics. On another note, this forum (and I mean the structure and upkeep) has to be the absolute worst forum I've ever had the misfortune of frequenting. It's like a hood ornament on a shitty car - functionally worthless.
marnesdad
1 year, 12 months ago
Goods points. Mine was that, 1) this isn't a question the States should be answering, and 2) failing to address the direct question and avoiding it altogether by re-framing it as just another attack on responsible gun owners just keeps the ridiculousness of the argument going. The fact is that second amendment rights are not unlimited. We, as a people, have already placed limits on it as time, technology, accessibility, etc has progressed. We have, again, as a people, decided that some "arms" are protected, and some aren't. It has and always will be an argument because those limits are a matter of opinion. For example, 6,000 rounds of ammunition is a lot for some, and only 'Saturday' for others. How is 6,000 rounds bought at once on the Internet distinqushable to six separate purchases of 1,000 rounds for some yahoo who's simply patient? Where do you draw the line on too much? I think you're exactly correct... It seems that both the Left and the Right are putting forth arguments that are on entirely different planes -- neither addresses what the other side is complaining about and neither seems to understand that it's all about opinion... Not fact.
marnesdad
1 year, 12 months ago
...and, as far as this forum goes, it's amazing that it still exists. Wilkow and Obama must have the same advisors. LOL.
crossofcrimson
1 year, 12 months ago
I agree with most of your points (at least if we are remaining in the realm of positive law...and I think Wilkow is likely selectively walking the line between the world of positive law and the world of political theory. I think there are very good arguments to the effect that, for instance, most of the restrictions that have been placed on fire-arms (at the federal level), without amendment, are unconstitutional. But those views did not win out judicially - and 9/10s of the law is precedent (don't let them tell you it's property...). As far as "who should decide" regarding the 2nd Amendment...I think the argument can actually get a little stickier than you're letting on (in the world of political theory at least), but certainly the way that things have unfolded would seem to indicate that the federal government will have most of the pull in defining the (re)defining the boundaries placed upon it by the states acting in union on that fateful day. But I don't want to get sidetracked into that particular discussion at the moment. Suffice it to say that defining our terms would get us all much further along in discussion - and suffice it to say that people like Andrew are more interested in proving they are right than thinking their point through or walking someone through an argument (when he has one). Although, to be fair, I haven't listened to a Wilkow airing in...I'm guessing at least a year maybe. This craptastic forum doesn't help.

Post a Reply

Please login to post a reply.