Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

4 branches of Government?

Is the 4th branch the people or something?

 Grey Templar wrote:
4 branches of Government?

Is the 4th branch the people or something?

It's the administrative branch in which the Department of Veterans Affairs reports directly to the Department of Defense and neither of them are a cabinet level agency.

Or something like that, I'm not sure. I just remember a slight warning from my boss when I told that person "that's the dumbest thing I have heard all year and I have to walk away from you before I get Forest Whitaker eye".



PS: totally worth it.

I'm pretty sure that's a misuse of the concept of the 4th Estate, but whatever.



Speaking of anti-gun agenda, I guess there was a commission to investigate the events of Sandy Hook that just released its results. Since it was a violent crime committed with firearms, they had a list of recommended laws intended to prevent future Sandy Hook-style shootings. The list is pretty sad. Instead of actually looking at the events of Sandy Hook and saying "how can we prevent this from happening again", instead they just copy/pasted a bunch of unrelated "recommendations" off of like, the Brady Campaign's website. Almost none of them are even remotely applicable to what occurred at Sandy Hook. Here's some of the list:

RECOMMENDATION NO. 1. Mandatory background checks on the sale or
transfer of any firearm, including long guns, at private and gun show sales.

Adam Lanza stole his firearms from his mother, who legally owned them. Gun show sales have nothing to do with Sandy Hook.

NO. 2. Require registration, including a certificate of
registration, for every firearm. This certificate of registration should be issued
subsequent to the completion of a background check and is separate and
distinct from a permit to carry.

NO. 3. Require firearms permits to be renewed on a
regular basis. This renewal process should include a test of firearms handling
capacity as well as an understanding of applicable laws and regulations.

NO. 6. Allow ammunition purchases only for registered
firearms.

NO. 7. Evaluate best practices for determining the
regulation or prohibition of the sale and purchase of ammunition via the
Internet.

NO. 8. Evaluate the effectiveness of federal law in
limiting the purchase of firearms via the Internet to only those individuals who
have passed the appropriate background screening.

NO. 9. Limit the amount of ammunition that can be
purchased at any given time.

NO. 14. Require gun clubs to report any negligent or
reckless behavior with a firearm, or illegal possession of any firearm or
magazine, to the Connecticut Department of Emergency Services and Public
Protection, Commissioner of Public Safety, and local law enforcement.

NO. 15. Requiring promoters of gun shows to receive a
permit from the Chief of Police or Chief Elected Official as well as provide notice
to the Commissioner of the Connecticut Department of Emergency Services
and Public Protection.

NO. 17. Any person seeking a license to sell, purchase
or carry any type of firearm in the state should be required to pass a suitability
screening process.

Again, AL stole the firearms (and ammo), so his inability to get a certificate or purchase guns or ammo over the internet is irrelevant.

NO. 5. Institute a ban on the possession or sale of all
armor-piercing and incendiary bullets, regardless of caliber. First-time
offenses should be classified as a Class D Felony.

He just used normal bullets here, no one was wearing any body armor, etc. Nothing to do with Sandy Hook.

C. Assault Weapons
The Commission found that the legal definition of ―assault weapon‖ at
the time it issued its Interim Report allowed for cosmetic changes to militarystyle
firearms that did not reduce their lethality, yet facilitated their lawful
purchase. The Commission determined that defining an ―assault weapon‖ by
its form rather than its function had been ineffective. The consensus of the
Commission was that gun violence is an issue that transcends the tragedy at
Sandy Hook, and the commonality of high-capacity firearms in violent crimes
had to be acknowledged. According to the 2011 Connecticut Uniform Crime
Reporting Program, only two (2) of 94 firearm-related homicides in the state
were committed with a rifle or a shotgun. It was the consensus of the
Commission that firearm lethality directly correlated to capacity, a correlation
borne out not only in Sandy Hook Elementary School, but in other violent
confrontations in and beyond Connecticut. Therefore, the Commission
proposed the following recommendation:
RECOMMENDATION NO. 10. Prohibit the possession, sale or transfer of any
firearm capable of firing more than 10 rounds without reloading. This
prohibition would extend to military-style firearms as well as handguns. Law
enforcement and military would be exempt from this ban.

So... they directly state that rifles and shotguns are rarely used in crimes and virtually all crimes are committed with handguns, then directly contradict that statement that the "lethality" of a firearm is based on magazine capacity? I mean, I guess AL did use an AR-15 for most of the shooting, but with the lack of resistance and the fact it took police over 10 minutes to respond, even with a handgun or anything with 10 round magazines, there was nothing stopping him from putting out as many rounds as he wanted. Magazine swaps only take a handful of seconds each, and even with 10 round magazines you can put hundreds of rounds downrange in 10 minutes. And their initial argument is completely disconnected with the recommendation. If they at least stated "AL used normal capacity magazines, and that allowed him to shoot more students" or something, I can at least see that argument even if a 10-round limit wouldn't have been a meaningful restriction. But they don't back up their recommendation to even that extent.

NO. 16. Require that any shell casing for ammunition
sold or possessed in Connecticut have a serial number laser etched on it for
tracing purposes.

At least this is better than the stupid firing pin stamp idea...




There are one or two items that might arguably possibly be relevant (one other recommendation was to require gun owners to lock up all firearms always all the time), but for the most part as far as gun control is concerned this is just an excuse to use a tragedy to further a bunch of bs. This is an official government commission formed by the state's Govenor consisting of 16 members ranging from teachers, police/fire, political staff, etc. An anti-gun sentiment would be perfectly understandable, but this is just so detached from the reality of what occurred at Sandy Hook that it's hard to take these recommendations seriously.

Darklink I know I'm preaching to the choir but I think your point illustrates the disgusting practices of the antigun left - they have no interest in actually saving lives and think nothing of dancing on the graves of children to push their agenda.

Theoretically, though, wouldn't a background check on the mother have turned up information on the son, thus possibly stopping the sale to the mother, and stopping the son from stealing from the mother?

That's my Convoluted Thought for the Day™.

And as far as "dancing on graves" to pursue an agenda, let's be honest about it, the right is just as fething guilty of it as the left.

Not really. Why should me having a crazy relative effect my rights? I have no control over that.

 Tannhauser42 wrote:
Theoretically, though, wouldn't a background check on the mother have turned up information on the son, thus possibly stopping the sale to the mother, and stopping the son from stealing from the mother?

That's my Convoluted Thought for the Day™.

feth 'theoretically'. The mother did go through the required background checks. The background checks did NOT turn up info on the son, nor should they have.

 Gordon Shumway wrote:
Sorry, but something being on ballots and getting voted down does not make it unconstitutional. It makes it unpopular. The vast majority of the population couldn't name the Secretary of State- forget about them knowing about constitutional law..

Except it was voted up, and still thrown out, due to being unconstitutional. (if they voted against it, you'd have a point)



Automatically Appended Next Post:

Gordon Shumway wrote:
Sure thing. I think people who cling to firearms (or any physical weapon) as the end all and be all as an oppositional perspective are inherently weak. Anybody who needs to resort to a physical weapon of violence to resolve any conflict, be it personal or political has already lost the war.

Churchill could give a hell of a speech. That didn't bother the Luftwaffe in the least. But men in planes with guns did.

Grey Templar wrote:Weapons are a necessary tool however. This is because there are always going to be arguments which cannot be settled with words, and there are always going to be evil people who will seek to impose their will on others. They cannot be resisted with words.

Wars always start with words, they always end with weapons.

This.

Well, technically, unless you're completely eradicating the enemy entirely, wars start with words, are fought with weapons, and then end with words again.

 Ouze wrote:
Well, technically, unless you're completely eradicating the enemy entirely, wars start with words, are fought with weapons, and then end with words again.

Some words:

"Sure, we want to go home. We want this war over with. The quickest way to get it over with is to go get the bastards who started it. The quicker they are whipped, the quicker we can go home." George Patton

 NuggzTheNinja wrote:
Darklink I know I'm preaching to the choir but I think your point illustrates the disgusting practices of the antigun left - they have no interest in actually saving lives and think nothing of dancing on the graves of children to push their agenda.

This being said in a thread where the OP claimed that Obama had used executive actions to implement gun control.

 NuggzTheNinja wrote:
Darklink I know I'm preaching to the choir but I think your point illustrates the disgusting practices of the antigun left - they have no interest in actually saving lives and think nothing of dancing on the graves of children to push their agenda.

This post is really repugnant, when you consider that the anti-regulation crowd are the ones that allowed VA Tech to happen. Or Newtown.

Thanks to the "ER MER GERD, SLERPERY SLERP" crowd, voluntary committal to a mental facility does not prevent gun ownership. Cho should never have been allowed to purchase those guns. Nor the "ER MER GERD ERPERCALERPSE!" woman that was Lanza's mother.

So you can make your idiotic posts about "dancing on the graves of children", but common sense legislation could have left those graves empty to begin with.

edited for clarity.

No existing or proposed regulations would have prevented those attacks.

 streamdragon wrote:

 NuggzTheNinja wrote:
Darklink I know I'm preaching to the choir but I think your point illustrates the disgusting practices of the antigun left - they have no interest in actually saving lives and think nothing of dancing on the graves of children to push their agenda.

This post is really repugnant, when you consider that the anti-regulation crowd are the ones that allowed VA Tech to happen. Or Newtown.

Thanks to the "ER MER GERD, SLERPERY SLERP" crowd, voluntary committal to a mental facility does not prevent gun ownership. Cho should never have been allowed to purchase those guns. Nor the "ER MER GERD ERPERCALERPSE!" woman that was Lanza's mother.

So you can make your idiotic posts about "dancing on the graves of children", but common sense legislation could have left those graves empty to begin with.

edited for clarity.

Lanza stole his guns, and Cho didn't have any kind of criminal record and was not involuntarily committed according to VA law. The only thing your post convinces me of, is that you know absolutely nothing about this topic.

But I doubt that will stop you from sharing your wisdom about how restricting the rights of millions of Americans would have prevented these acts.

 DarkLink wrote:

NO. 16. Require that any shell casing for ammunition
sold or possessed in Connecticut have a serial number laser etched on it for
tracing purposes.

At least this is better than the stupid firing pin stamp idea...

That doesn't make it workable though. It completely ignores those who reload their own bullets.

 streamdragon wrote:
This post is really repugnant, when you consider that the anti-regulation crowd are the ones that allowed VA Tech to happen. Or Newtown.

Thanks to the "ER MER GERD, SLERPERY SLERP" crowd, voluntary committal to a mental facility does not prevent gun ownership. Cho should never have been allowed to purchase those guns. Nor the "ER MER GERD ERPERCALERPSE!" woman that was Lanza's mother.

So you can make your idiotic posts about "dancing on the graves of children", but common sense legislation could have left those graves empty to begin with.

edited for clarity.

Specifically what "common sense" legislation would have prevented Newtown? The Commission's findings and recommendations did not put forward a proposal that would have prevented Newtown. Instead it was just a re-tread of primarily previously rejected gun control ideas.

 Spacemanvic wrote:
We havent, Ill help you keep up:

2012, November "Sporting Purpose" determination made without public comment. Links to November determination PDF pulled from ATF by December.

2014, ATF published rules (December) exclude exemption for SS109/ XM855, no public comment period preceded change of published rules. ATF claims exclusion was a "typo".

2015, ATF solicits public comment on how best to stop manufacture and importation of XM855 bullets.

It's ok, it was just a publishing error; http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2015/03/robert-farago/breaking-atf-claims-guide-with-m855-ban-was-a-publishing-error/

BREAKING: ATF Claims Guide with M855 Ban Was a “Publishing Error”
By Robert Farago on March 6, 2015
ATF Press Release on the recently revealed Regulation Guide Announcing M855 Ammo Ban. Note: this does NOT mean the AFT have given-up on their proposed ban. It simply means that they announced its adoption and implementation prematurely. We can assume that they assumed it would go through, prepared their Guide accordingly and released it inadvertently.

On Feb. 13, 2015, ATF released for public comment a proposed framework, including legal and technical analysis, to guide its determination on what ammunition is “primarily intended for sporting purposes” for purposes of granting exemptions to the Gun Control Act’s prohibition on Armor Piecing Ammunition. This proposed framework is posted for public comment only; no final decisions have been made as to its adoption . . .


Media reports have noted that the 2014 ATF Regulation Guide published online does not contain a listing of the exemptions for Armor Piercing Ammunition, and concluding that the absence of this listing indicates these exemptions have been rescinded.

Please be advised that ATF has not rescinded any Armor Piercing Ammunition exemption, and the fact they are not listed in the 2014 online edition of the regulations, was an error, which has no legal impact on the validity of the exemptions. The existing exemptions for armor piercing ammunition, which apply to 5.56 mm (.223) SS 109 and M855 projectiles (identified by a green coating on the projectile tip), and the U.S .30-06 M2AP projectile (identified by a black coating on the projectile tip), remain in effect.

The listing of Armor Piercing Ammunition exemptions can be found in the 2005 ATF Regulation Guide on page 166, which is posted here.

The 2014 Regulation Guide will be corrected in PDF format to include the listing of Armor Piercing Ammunition exemptions and posted shortly. The e-book/iBook version of the Regulation Guide will be corrected in the near future. ATF apologizes for any confusion caused by this publishing error.

 NuggzTheNinja wrote:


Lanza stole his guns, and Cho didn't have any kind of criminal record and was not involuntarily committed according to VA law. The only thing your post convinces me of, is that you know absolutely nothing about this topic.

But I doubt that will stop you from sharing your wisdom about how restricting the rights of millions of Americans would have prevented these acts.

And your post shows literacy is not your strong point.

I did not say Cho was involuntarily committed. I did in fact point out that because he was voluntarily committed, despite every therapist he saw saying "he is a ticking time bomb", he was still able to purchase guns.

I did not say Adam Lanza bought his guns. I referred specifically to his mentally unstable mother, whose guns he stole and murdered her with.

My post's point was to show exactly how suggesting "dancing on children's graves" is somehow a tactic of the "liberal agenda", when groups like the NRA are responsible for blocking common sense legislation that could have prevented either tragedy.

My post never suggested that guns should be banned; I am a gun owner myself. My post was to point out the absolute grotesquery in your post suggesting that liberal groups are somehow rejoicing in dead children as a means of pushing their agenda, especially when GRA groups like the NRA are the ones whose lobbying efforts put those children in a crosshair to begin with.

 Gordon Shumway wrote:
Sorry, but something being on ballots and getting voted down does not make it unconstitutional. It makes it unpopular. The vast majority of the population couldn't name the Secretary of State- forget about them knowing about constitutional law.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Frazzled, show me a conservative, even yourself, who doesn't want some form of gun control and I will show you a nut. .

Right. Now please somehow relate that to anything in reality.

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

Specifically what "common sense" legislation would have prevented Newtown? The Commission's findings and recommendations did not put forward a proposal that would have prevented Newtown. Instead it was just a re-tread of primarily previously rejected gun control ideas.

Nothing suggested after Newton would have prevented it; I agree on that. I admit that part of my posts focuses more on Cho's ability to purchase guns, despite being obviously unstable.

Nancy Lanza knew her son was unhinged. She even said as much to various people she knew. "Common sense", to me, would be not keeping guns in the same location as someone whose obsession with death, murder and mass killings was pretty well documented. If you'd like to argue she herself is still allowed to have guns, I would not disagree, provided they were safely secured (have we since discovered if she had a gun safe? Honest question, I can't find anything definitive.)

Again, I'm a gun owner. I'm not looking to ban guns or ammo.


I am also not suggesting that those trying to pass legislation are "dancing on children's graves", while ignoring all the ways that the Gun Lobby has made their lives more dangerous to begin with.

 streamdragon wrote:

 NuggzTheNinja wrote:
Darklink I know I'm preaching to the choir but I think your point illustrates the disgusting practices of the antigun left - they have no interest in actually saving lives and think nothing of dancing on the graves of children to push their agenda.

This post is really repugnant, when you consider that the anti-regulation crowd are the ones that allowed VA Tech to happen. Or Newtown.

Thanks to the "ER MER GERD, SLERPERY SLERP" crowd, voluntary committal to a mental facility does not prevent gun ownership. Cho should never have been allowed to purchase those guns. Nor the "ER MER GERD ERPERCALERPSE!" woman that was Lanza's mother.

So you can make your idiotic posts about "dancing on the graves of children", but common sense legislation could have left those graves empty to begin with.

edited for clarity.

And you seem to be blind to how repugnant your statement that "anti-regulation crowd are the ones that allowed VA Tech to happen. Or Newtown."

 streamdragon wrote:
Nothing suggested after Newton would have prevented it; I agree on that. I admit that part of my posts focuses more on Cho's ability to purchase guns, despite being obviously unstable.

It seems that there is some discussion on that topic;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seung-Hui_Cho#Psychiatric_evaluation
On December 13, 2005, Cho was found "mentally ill and in need of hospitalization" by New River Valley Community Services Board.[65] The physician who examined Cho noted that he had a flat affect and depressed mood, even though Cho "denied suicidal thoughts and did not acknowledge symptoms of a thought disorder."[65] Based on this mental health examination and because Cho was suspected of being "an imminent danger to himself or others", he was detained temporarily at Carilion St. Albans Behavioral Health Center in Radford, Virginia, pending a commitment hearing before the Montgomery County, Virginia district court.[65]

Virginia Special Justice Paul Barnett certified in an order that Cho "presented an imminent danger to himself as a result of mental illness," but instead recommended treatment for Cho as an outpatient. On December 14, 2005, Cho was released from the mental health facility after Judge Barnett ordered Cho to undergo mental health treatment on an outpatient basis,[66] with a directive for the "court-ordered [outpatient] to follow all recommended treatments." Since Cho underwent only a minimal psychiatric assessment,[65] the true diagnosis for Cho's mental health status remains unknown.

“Virginia state law on mental health disqualifications to firearms purchases, however, is worded slightly differently from the federal statute. So the form that Virginia courts use to notify state police about a mental health disqualification addresses only the state criteria, which list two potential categories that would warrant notification to the state police: someone who was "involuntarily committed" or ruled mentally "incapacitated".[67] ”
Because Cho was not involuntarily committed to a mental health facility as an inpatient, he was still legally eligible to buy guns under Virginia law.[67] However, according to Virginia law, "A magistrate has the authority to issue a detention order upon a finding that a person is mentally ill and in need of hospitalization or treatment." The magistrate also must find that the person is an imminent danger to himself or others.[66][68] Virginia officials and other law experts have argued that, under United States federal law, Barnett's order meant that Cho had been "adjudicated as a mental defective" and was thus ineligible to purchase firearms under federal law; and that the state of Virginia erred in not enforcing the requirements of the federal law
Had the Magistrate used the powers at his disposal this could have been averted. And without new laws.

 streamdragon wrote:
Nancy Lanza knew her son was unhinged. She even said as much to various people she knew. "Common sense", to me, would be not keeping guns in the same location as someone whose obsession with death, murder and mass killings was pretty well documented. If you'd like to argue she herself is still allowed to have guns, I would not disagree, provided they were safely secured (have we since discovered if she had a gun safe? Honest question, I can't find anything definitive.)

You specifically said "common sense legislation could have left those graves empty to begin with". What "common sense legislation" do you believe could have prevented Adam Lanza from his vile deeds? No Commission or government recommendation has been able to specify what "common sense legislation" would have prevented Newtown.

The question to how her firearms were secured is one that I have never had a satisfactory answer to either.

 streamdragon wrote:
I am also not suggesting that those trying to pass legislation are "dancing on children's graves", while ignoring all the ways that the Gun Lobby has made their lives more dangerous to begin with.

In what ways has the gun lobby "made their lives more dangerous to begin with"?

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

 streamdragon wrote:
I am also not suggesting that those trying to pass legislation are "dancing on children's graves", while ignoring all the ways that the Gun Lobby has made their lives more dangerous to begin with.

In what ways has the gun lobby "made their lives more dangerous to begin with"?

Presumably by using up a year's worth of slippery slope fallacies every time anything remotely resembling gun control is mentioned.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

 streamdragon wrote:
I am also not suggesting that those trying to pass legislation are "dancing on children's graves", while ignoring all the ways that the Gun Lobby has made their lives more dangerous to begin with.

In what ways has the gun lobby "made their lives more dangerous to begin with"?

Presumably by using up a year's worth of slippery slope fallacies every time anything remotely resembling gun control is mentioned.

Infringing upon peoples' rights isn't something you should do because you "feel" a certain way about things. The left has a serious issue with providing evidence that a regulation would do anything other than screw law abiding citizens.

Show me the money. How would ANY of the left's proposed legislation save ANY lives? Without that proof, it's merely dancing on the graves of children and it's absolutely disgusting.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
Presumably by using up a year's worth of slippery slope fallacies every time anything remotely resembling gun control is mentioned.

Because the constant effort to rescind or restrict gun rights is not a reality?

I'll ask this again- how many police officers have been shot/injured/killed by the M855 round?

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
Presumably by using up a year's worth of slippery slope fallacies every time anything remotely resembling gun control is mentioned.

Because the constant effort to rescind or restrict gun rights is not a reality?

I'll ask this again- how many police officers have been shot/injured/killed by the M855 round?

Come on, lets give them a fighting chance.

How many people of any kind have been shot at by someone using an M855 round in the US?

 Grey Templar wrote:

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
Presumably by using up a year's worth of slippery slope fallacies every time anything remotely resembling gun control is mentioned.

Because the constant effort to rescind or restrict gun rights is not a reality?

I'll ask this again- how many police officers have been shot/injured/killed by the M855 round?

Come on, lets give them a fighting chance.

How many people of any kind have been shot at by someone using an M855 round in the US?

How many armed uprisings by citizens of the United States have been successful?

 streamdragon wrote:
I am also not suggesting that those trying to pass legislation are "dancing on children's graves", while ignoring all the ways that the Gun Lobby has made their lives more dangerous to begin with.

The common arguments used to restrict gun rights are;
1.) Think of the children
2.) If it saves one life

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/08/obama-gun-control-speech-_n_3040363.html
"Obama is hoping to build support among lawmakers for several gun control measures, including universal background checks for gun buyers. The Senate is expected to take up gun control legislation as early as this week.

The president has invited 11 parents of children killed in Newtown to fly back to Washington with him aboard Air Force One after his speech"

http://nbcpolitics.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/01/16/16544842-obama-unveils-sweeping-new-gun-control-proposals?lite
"if there's even one life that can be saved, then we've got an obligation to try it."

And when that doesn't work it's "a shameful day"

 d-usa wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
Presumably by using up a year's worth of slippery slope fallacies every time anything remotely resembling gun control is mentioned.

Because the constant effort to rescind or restrict gun rights is not a reality?

I'll ask this again- how many police officers have been shot/injured/killed by the M855 round?

Come on, lets give them a fighting chance.

How many people of any kind have been shot at by someone using an M855 round in the US?

How many armed uprisings by citizens of the United States have been successful?

2. The American Revolution and that one incident in, I want to say, Indiana where there was a rigged election and the citizens rose up and got rid of the corrupt sheriff and his lackeys. Don't remember what it was called.

The American revolution was a successful uprising of US citizens against the United States?

 Grey Templar wrote:
Come on, lets give them a fighting chance.

How many people of any kind have been shot at by someone using an M855 round in the US?

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/leoka/2013/tables/table_27_leos_fk_type_of_weapon_2004-2013.xls
In 2013 (most recent figures) 5 Police Officers were slain by rifles of all types, not just AR15 derivatives. In the same time period 2 Federal Agents were killed "with firearms" (no breakdown given as to type of firearm).

Were those guys killed with M855 rounds?

 d-usa wrote:
The American revolution was a successful uprising of US citizens against the United States?

No, but it should because its the same deal. We beat off the most powerful empire in the world.