Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: Gun sales increase... Is it panic?

Topic Closed

my profile | my password | search | faq & rules | forum home

»	Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE » Community » Film-Yak » Gun sales increase... Is it panic? (Page 2)

This topic comprises 2 pages: 1 2

Author

Topic: Gun sales increase... Is it panic?

Joe Tommassello
Jedi Master Film Handler

Posts: 547
From: Coatesville, PA, USA
Registered: Jan 2008

posted 11-21-2008 02:11 PM

Sure Tyler.

CNN news coverage heavily favors Obama and the Democrats. Likewise Fox News Channel favors Republicans. That's why you didn't find anything about Obama and gun control on CNN.

On that link you provide in the first paragraph President-Elect Obama says "I believe that the Constitution confers an individual right to bear arms. But just because you have an individual right does not mean that the state or local government can't constrain the exercise of that right..." WTF???

| IP: Logged

Tyler Potts
Expert Film Handler

Posts: 159
From: Anderson, SC, USA
Registered: Sep 2008

posted 11-21-2008 02:18 PM

Haha, while conservative I avoid Fox news at all costs, far too biased. I've never really thought of CNN as favoring but good to keep in mind.

But yeah, as far as ontheissues goes, it just left me more confused. I guess its like, "I'll support your right to smoke, but also support the cause keep you from smoking anywhere public."

| IP: Logged

Gordon McLeod
Film God

Posts: 9532
From: Toronto Ontario Canada
Registered: Jun 99

posted 11-21-2008 02:23 PM

This thread I think is starting to get into politics

| IP: Logged

Joe Tommassello
Jedi Master Film Handler

Posts: 547
From: Coatesville, PA, USA
Registered: Jan 2008

posted 11-21-2008 02:25 PM

Interesting direction Tyler. I am not a smoker but believe that the anti-smoking movement is extreme. Smoking is prohibited in a public building...so you have to walk through a cloud ten times thicker right outside the door instead!

Another interesting point...President Obama is a two-pack a day smoker. They have kept that well hidden while they show him heading to the gym every morning.

For the record NBC/MSNBC are the most biased news station. They had to remove two commentators from their election coverage because of their overt favoritism.

| IP: Logged

Chad Souder
Jedi Master Film Handler

Posts: 962
From: Waterloo, IA, USA
Registered: Feb 2000

posted 11-21-2008 02:50 PM

It is hard to say what will happen regarding purchasing guns. Again, I would be more concerned about what happens at your state level. My guess is that the only thing that will come from the federal level is cosmetic and capacity restrictions, like what the Brady Bill introduced. I am going to stock up on magazines now. What may become more difficult is selling guns. The idea being discussed of no longer allowing a person-to-person sale could lead to the end of the traditional gun show and cripple internet-based exchange sites. Currently, all guns must be shipped from an FFL to an FFL, but there are a lot of local person-to-person sales that originate on sites like Guns America. Requiring all sales to go through an FFL would increase the cost of guns as well, obviously.

quote: Joe Tommassello
Another interesting point...President Obama is a two-pack a day smoker. They have kept that well hidden while they show him heading to the gym every morning.

Do you have a source for this claim? And for the time being, he is still President-Elect Obama. He hasn't been sworn in yet.

| IP: Logged

Chris Slycord
Film God

Posts: 2986
From: 청주시, 경북도, South Korea
Registered: Mar 2007

posted 11-21-2008 03:13 PM

quote: Joe Tommassello
On that link you provide in the first paragraph President-Elect Obama says "I believe that the Constitution confers an individual right to bear arms. But just because you have an individual right does not mean that the state or local government can't constrain the exercise of that right..." WTF???

The argument is that every right we have has some reasonable restraints to it. Like it is illegal for a health care practitioner to give out your health information to someone who you haven't approved, but if your doctor gets back a positive result for a test for tuberculosis he/she MUST report that to the related state health agency. Or even though you have the right to free speech, libel isn't covered. Or right to bear arms. They set a reasonable rule for what kinds of arms you are allowed to have (like excluding you from having automatic assault rifles).

That's their argument, though in the end criminals don't give two shits about what the law says.

| IP: Logged

Joe Tommassello
Jedi Master Film Handler

Posts: 547
From: Coatesville, PA, USA
Registered: Jan 2008

posted 11-21-2008 03:39 PM

Chris:

The Constitution doesn't give you the right to hide the fact that you have a communicable disease. It does guarantee you the right to bear arms. So why can't I do it in the city of Philadelphia where seven cops have been murdered in the last two years? Sure reasonable limits on gun purchases make sense...but that is not what we are talking about. I personally don't care if "gun shows" disappear entirely. But law abiding citizens should be able to purchase and carry firearms for their protection ANYWHERE in the United States. Our Constitution says so.

quote: Chris Slycord
That's their argument, though in the end criminals don't give two shits about what the law says.

Amen Chris!

quote: Chad Souder
Do you have a source for this claim?

Oh for Pete's sake!!!! Go to Google and search for "obama smoking". It's not that hard to get information folks!

| IP: Logged

Bobby Henderson
"Ask me about Trajan."

Posts: 10973
From: Lawton, OK, USA
Registered: Apr 2001

posted 11-21-2008 03:43 PM

quote: Chad Souder
What may become more difficult is selling guns. The idea being discussed of no longer allowing a person-to-person sale could lead to the end of the traditional gun show and cripple internet-based exchange sites.

I have mixed feelings about that. It would be a pain to involve an FFL (or two different FFL merchants) when buying/selling a firearm person to person. There's pros and cons about the situation. Family members sell or give firearms to other relatives. I have a really nice late 1970s Ithaca shotgun I inherited from my Great Uncle Owen. The "con" side is that lots of underground sales of weapons for more sinister purposes take place person to person.

I think anyone selling firearms at a gun show booth should have the necessary setup to run instant background checks and all that good stuff.

quote: Joe Tommassello
Another interesting point...President Obama is a two-pack a day smoker. They have kept that well hidden while they show him heading to the gym every morning.

It's common knowledge the President-elect is a smoker. He has also been trying to quit. The notion that "they" are trying to hide that information makes me start thinking of people wearing tin foil hats.

| IP: Logged

Chris Slycord
Film God

Posts: 2986
From: 청주시, 경북도, South Korea
Registered: Mar 2007

posted 11-21-2008 04:12 PM

quote: Joe Tommassello
The Constitution doesn't give you the right to hide the fact that you have a communicable disease. It does guarantee you the right to bear arms.

I never said the Constitution gives you the right to hide a communicable disease. What I was trying to imply, and you didn't get, is that the laws we have that protect us as individuals are also written in such a way to simultaneously keep public safety.

So while, HIPPA requires that doctors keep health information confidential, a disease such as TB is seen as being something that needs to be reported for public safety. So your right to privacy is reduced to some extent for the good of the people.

| IP: Logged

Todd McCracken
Master Film Handler

Posts: 263
From: Northridge, CA, USA
Registered: Mar 2008

posted 11-21-2008 04:51 PM

Could have something to do with stuff like this.

| IP: Logged

Joe Tommassello
Jedi Master Film Handler

Posts: 547
From: Coatesville, PA, USA
Registered: Jan 2008

posted 11-21-2008 05:04 PM

quote: Bobby Henderson
It's common knowledge the President-elect is a smoker. He has also been trying to quit. The notion that "they" are trying to hide that information makes me start thinking of people wearing tin foil hats.

I only bring it up to demonstrate my point about news outlets covering particular stories and/or candidates selectively. It is hypocritical to focus so much on his healthy routine without telling the whole story.

quote: Chris Slycord
I never said the Constitution gives you the right to hide a communicable disease. What I was trying to imply, and you didn't get, is that the laws we have that protect us as individuals are also written in such a way to simultaneously keep public safety.

The second amendment says - and I quote - "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

You are making my point. The Constitution GUARANTEES us certain rights not implicitly but directly. State and local governments should not be inhibiting these rights by disallowing them. Regulating gun purchases is indeed a public safety benefit. Needing a permit to carry is cool too to weed out high-risk candidates. But saying no one in a certain locale is permitted to own a gun (like in DC) is in direct opposition to our founding documents. Apparently four out of five Supreme Court justices can't read.

As for health information it is nearly a joke. In spite of all the good they pretend they are doing they are still ass backwards. In the state of Pennsylvania you used to have to get a blood test to get a marriage license. Thus if you had a venereal disease you could get a shot of penicillin in the butt before you spread it. Now that it's not politically correct to out someone with AIDS they have done away with the blood test. What kind of fucked up logic is that?

quote: Chad Souder
I am going to stock up on magazines now.

Smartest guy in the debate! Obama won't take your guns...he'll just put a $10 tax on every round.

| IP: Logged

Chris Slycord
Film God

Posts: 2986
From: 청주시, 경북도, South Korea
Registered: Mar 2007

posted 11-21-2008 05:45 PM

quote: Joe Tommassello
You are making my point. The Constitution GUARANTEES us certain rights not implicitly but directly. State and local governments should not be inhibiting these rights by disallowing them. Regulating gun purchases is indeed a public safety benefit. Needing a permit to carry is cool too to weed out high-risk candidates. But saying no one in a certain locale is permitted to own a gun (like in DC) is in direct opposition to our founding documents. Apparently four out of five Supreme Court justices can't read.

And your point is a nonsequitur to what I was talking about the whole time.

Obama said that cities and states can constrain the right. Constraining doesn't mean removing. For instance, the permits constrain the right as do banning certain fully-automatic weapons and requiring a waiting period. All of those constrain the right but within reason.

quote: Joe Tommassello
As for health information it is nearly a joke. In spite of all the good they pretend they are doing they are still ass backwards. In the state of Pennsylvania you used to have to get a blood test to get a marriage license. Thus if you had a venereal disease you could get a shot of penicillin in the butt before you spread it. Now that it's not politically correct to out someone with AIDS they have done away with the blood test. What kind of fucked up logic is that?

I don't see why a blood test was needed to begin with. Why should the tax payers foot the bill for you to get a diagnostic procedure?

edit: To be clear, I don't agree with a ban on guns but I'm not remotely sold on the notion that Obama's gonna ban them either.

| IP: Logged

Joe Tommassello
Jedi Master Film Handler

Posts: 547
From: Coatesville, PA, USA
Registered: Jan 2008

posted 11-21-2008 05:54 PM

quote: Chris Slycord
I don't see why a blood test was needed to begin with. Why should the tax payers foot the bill for you to get a diagnostic procedure?

They didn't. You had to get one first before you applied for the marriage license. It was in 1981. Whatever they were checking for there is a lot worse now so it makes no sense to go backwards. In Mexico you need a blood test AND a chest x-ray!

quote: Chris Slycord
Constraining doesn't mean removing.

Thank you. In Philadelphia they REMOVE your right to carry. You gave me the correct word. In D.C. not only don't they want to remove your right to carry but to even OWN a hand gun in your home. Do we agree on the difference?

| IP: Logged

Bobby Henderson
"Ask me about Trajan."

Posts: 10973
From: Lawton, OK, USA
Registered: Apr 2001

posted 11-21-2008 06:18 PM

No one has the "right" to carry a handgun. Not even here in Oklahoma. That is a privilege, and it is a privilege that should only be granted to people who satisfy certain requirements set by the state to gain a carry permit.

Carry privileges are different from rights of gun ownership like being able to keep a firearm in your house for home defense or legally transporting weapons to a hunting area or gun range for sporting purposes.

I don't think the District of Columbia's gun ban will last. Eventually courts will dismiss it as being unconstitutional.

However, states can vary qualification rules on conceal carry permits to their own discretion. Here in Oklahoma it's not difficult to get a carry permit. You just have to take a 1 day class, shoot 50 rounds at a firing range to demonstrate competence with the weapon, get fingerprinted and pay various fees amounting to near $200 for the 5 year permit. Some states (or cities like New York City) demand that you have some legitimate pressing need for the permit -such as some lady who has an asshole psycho ex-boyfriend stalking her.

As "easy" as it seems to get a carry permit in Oklahoma, it is also very easy to get it revoked. There are strict rules regarding where you can and cannot conceal carry a gun. For instance, if you get pulled over by a police officer and you're carrying by law you must produce your permit and notify the officer you're carrying even if he doesn't ask. Failure to notify gets you fined $500, charged with a misdemeanor and you lose your permit for 1 year.

| IP: Logged

Mike Olpin
Chop Chop!

Posts: 1852
From: Dallas, TX
Registered: Jan 2002

posted 11-21-2008 06:43 PM

Well, this thread was fun while it lasted. [Roll Eyes]

| IP: Logged

All times are Central (GMT -6:00)

This topic comprises 2 pages: 1 2

Printer-friendly view of this topic

The Film-Tech Forums are designed for various members related to the cinema industry to express their opinions, viewpoints and testimonials on various products, services and events based upon speculation, personal knowledge and factual information through use, therefore all views represented here allow no liability upon the publishers of this web site and the owners of said views assume no liability for any ill will resulting from these postings. The posts made here are for educational as well as entertainment purposes and as such anyone viewing this portion of the website must accept these views as statements of the author of that opinion and agrees to release the authors from any and all liability.