Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: demaw1 on September 06, 2004, 09:31:52 PM
-
Didnt want to hi jack curlys....
Lets say those that would like to see the guns removed ,got your way and congress past a law against owning them. How would you enforce that law?
Those that own guns what would you do?
-
This is going to be a long thread.
-
ya... banning guns would work just as well as banning various drugs... a great way to empower the criminal underclass.
-
I dont care so long as I am not called a racist because I prefur dark wood to light...lol
-
we can comply or become criminals.
If all firearms were banned it would probly force the supreme court to define the second amendment. I don't think either side wants to go there.
lazs
-
Be cause of lazs ....addendum...
Goes to supreme court , court upholds law as there was 1 of the founding fathers who did not want 2nd amendment included. [true].
-
that would not be reason to uphold the law. The amendment would have to be defined by the supreme court.
this is an extremely unlikely scenario not worth thinking about at this time. There would be much incrementalism before that happened... say a ban on handguns or semi autos or severe restrictions. that is how the battle for our freedom is being fought.
the anti gun nuts are rightfully scared of the fact that more than 60% of the population believes in the personal right to own firearms. they try to appeal to our "reason" by incremantal banning of demonized firearms like so called and non esistent "assault rifles".
they are far to cowardly to attract the attention of the supreme court at this time.
oh... and I can not think of any amendment that had more support than the second. even free speech was frowned upon by some of the founders.... certainly the others were even more controversial.
lazs
-
And I thought this was going to be easier.
Ok lazs I have read but can not comfirm this....
The sec. of something or another of the EU approched the bush adminstration wanting the US to sign a treaty prohibiting the private ownership of weapons thru out the world. Our representive said no way, this sec said well we will wait for kerry to become president as he said he would sign it.[ this was last month]
I dont know so dont blame me, but today I heard a talk radio personilty I trust say the same thing and he was trying to confime it.
Hence the thread.
-
pack all my guns in cosmoline, and bury them around my property as well as the ammo, but keep the my Kel-Tec 32. acp as a juat in case gun easy easy
:aok
Or pack p and move to some family hntin land in alaska:aok :aok
-
Originally posted by demaw1
Didnt want to hi jack curlys....
Lets say those that would like to see the guns removed ,got your way and congress past a law against owning them. How would you enforce that law?
Those that own guns what would you do?
I suspect we would be spending Billions on new prisons for all the new Felons the law would create. I would be one of those new Felons.
-
If this happens? I guess I'll be adorning a skull labeled shirt and taking a "Sabotical" to US congress. The EU would be next just on the fact that they are such handsomehunkes.
-
I would lose all faith in the US govt. We've allready infringed apon free speech.
Religion and the right to practice it has been under fire for years (same way....lets demonize the christians...leave the jews alone of course cause they've had it rough in the past....cept for israel...sorry dont want to change the subject)
Banning the right to own guns (any kind) puts more guns in criminal's hands.
since you brought in the constitution....what if after this election is over with the powers that be decide that talking bad about the president causes harm to our national security and that type of "free speech" needs to be banned for the good of the many.
you start taking the constitution and twisting it to try and get this "perfect" living document and it will eventually not hold any type of power that it was orriginally intended to.
EDIT:
Not to mention you would be alienating a majority of the US population.
My guess is it would be one step closer to civil unrest and one giant leap towards a civil war.
-
My guess is it would be one step closer to civil unrest and one giant leap towards a civil war.
I'd say we are about due for another one. You can pretty much guess upon whom it will be vs. who. And ontop of that, who will win.
-
well.... talk show hosts are by nature... alarmists..
We are approched every day by "world copuncils" that claim to represent every human on the planet (except a few in the U.S.) who would ban something or other or tax the U.S. to pay for some half baked socialist planor another or take over our judicial system.
In order to ban firearms in the U.S. a "world" council would have to tear up our constitution and disband our supreme court.
for kerrie to sign this he would have to declare himself dictator and do away with all the checks and balances in our system.
one also has to ask.... why would the entire population of the world wish to ban private firearms ownership in the U.S.? Who exactly are they protecting? who exactly are they afraid of?
lazs
-
and rpm... you will be voting for the man who wants to make you a felon it appears..
lazs
-
Originally posted by demaw1
And I thought this was going to be easier.
Ok lazs I have read but can not comfirm this....
The sec. of something or another of the EU approched the bush adminstration wanting the US to sign a treaty prohibiting the private ownership of weapons thru out the world. Our representive said no way, this sec said well we will wait for kerry to become president as he said he would sign it.[ this was last month]
I dont know so dont blame me, but today I heard a talk radio personilty I trust say the same thing and he was trying to confime it.
Hence the thread.
That is absurd. You would never get the whole EU to agree to anything so ludicrous. Anyone who knows anything about the EU would realise that. It is obvious anti Kerry electioneering by playing on the irrational fears of some gun owners and others who worry about 'foreign interference'. It's utter nonsense.
-
Originally posted by lazs2
and rpm... you will be voting for the man who wants to make you a felon it appears..
lazs
where have you heard Kerry say he intends to ban guns?
-
No, he doesn't intend to ban all guns. Just the ones that can shoot.
-
Originally posted by demaw1
I dont care so long as I am not called a racist because I prefur dark wood to light...lol
racist!
-
capt... are so called "assault weapons" considered guns to you? kerrie feels they should be banned. He also feels that the NRA needs to be faught for some reason... what possible reason would the NRA need to be fought by the president of the U.S. ?
What about the NRA takes freedom from anyone? Perhaps it is their gun safety classes that he objects to or.... that they consistently rate democrats very low on their gun rights stances? We certainly don't want them to influence gun owners by pulishing voting records of politicians or by supporting pro gun rights politicians eh?
lazs
-
I am sure that cpx is correct and that it is not the eu that is asking for a gun ban in the U.S. at least I hope that is the case...
if there is any truth to this whole thing I would say that it is the "request" of some self appointed "world leader"...
lazs
-
The UN had tried something like that years ago.
sounds a tad far fetched, it would make Kerry a one term president.
If the dems figured out that guns are not the problem and embraced them, they would be a harder thing for the repubs to deal with. MUCH harder.
-
(http://www.treachery.net/~jdyson/do_the_math.jpg)
:D
-
where have you heard Kerry say he intends to ban guns?
Ummm Kerry co-sponsored a bill that would have banned many many guns in the U.S. in fact, it was so loosely worded it could have been interpreted to ban almost all guns in the U.S.
Please, please know your candidate before you vote for him.
-
Steve, could you post the ID # of the bill so we can read it for ourselves and make a note of all the people who supported it?
-
Bill ID# S.1431 from last year.
A semiautomatic rifle or shotgun originally designed for military or law enforcement use, or a firearm based on the design of such a firearm, that is not particularly suitable for sporting purposes, as determined by the Attorney General.
Here is just one broad swipe of the brush. appoint a liberal AG and imagine what could happen.
-
Weirdly enough that is not unlike the gun law here in Ireland except that it's the local Police who decide. Nothing was actually banned just certain weapons considered as 'very dangerous' and subject to special consideration. So in theory you could buy a fifty calibre machine gun and get a licence if you could convince the local Superintendant. Only in theory. In practice even a .22 LR was tough to get.
But that was challenged in court recently. The shooters won and now in theory you can buy handguns and larger calibre rifles if you can justify your use of it. Handgun owners who lost their guns in 1972 when they were taken into 'tempory custody' are demanding them back. There are even ads for handguns in shooting magazines all of a sudden.
The same thing would happen in the US. It would be thrashed out in the courts once and for all if they tried to enforce a law with that kind of wording. The courts would be clogged with appeals.
One other point on the so called EU attempt to ban personal gun ownership. That would cost an enormous number of jobs. Names like Steyr, Benelli, Beretta, Glock, CZ etc etc would disappear. Basically it's ridiculous.
-
The courts would be clogged with appeals.
One cannot appeal a law, nor can one appeal the law as the AG interprets it.
that was challenged in court recently
Nice, except the dems here have been using judicial appointments to legislate since they cannot get a majority in the house/senate. A court challenge of the law is quite risky. For instance, the 9th Circuit is notoriously liberal and would no doubt uphold up a liberal interpretation.
-
Here is the bill.
http://www.congress.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c108:S.1431:
-
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/D?d108:3:./temp/~bdRJTM::
Don't forget this one Kerry voted for. The S.AMDT.2619 admendment to S.1805 would have banned any centerfire rifle cartridge capable of penetrating body armour. Which would have banned almost all hunting ammunition. Kerry the hunter :rolleyes:
-
Kerry was rebuffed by a Democrat that owns a clay shooting shop...
http://www.ofccpac.org/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=1740
-
Originally posted by GtoRA2
The UN had tried something like that years ago.
It appears to me that the UN is still pushing for firearms controls.
A quote from the NZ minister of police:
"There has also been work undertaken by the United Nations on developing common principles for combating the illicit manufacturing of and trafficking in firearms, their parts, components and ammunition in a transnational context. If New Zealand is to be a party to this type of multilateral undertaking, then there will need to be amendments to the Arms Act 1983.
The licensing process in the Arms Act provides a strong basis for firearm control, by requiring that all firearm owners be licensed to own and use firearms. This will remain the cornerstone of firearm control. Other controls, such as firearm registration, have the potential to be useful adjuncts to firearm licensing"
That UN protocol he's referring too requires that firearms are able to be traced in an attempt to prevent illegal trafficking in guns from one country to another.
I don't know if that protocol has been ratified, or what view other country's goverments have on it, but somehow the government and the anti-gun lobby here have interpreted its meaning to be that the UN wants registration of all firearms in NZ so they can be "traced"
Maybe domestic registration of firearms is the UN's true intent and they are just being subversive about how they try and inpliment it. I can't see how a gun can be traced without some form of registration.
Either way it's a crock.
A useful site on gun control with an international flavour (pdf files, acrobat reader is needed)
http://www.wfsa.net/Statistics_&_Research_Documents.htm
Excel
-
so captn... I really would like to know how you can support a man who feels that you and your neighbors can't be trusted to choose what kind of gun you will defend yourself and your family with?
NZ has it right... registration and licenceing is the "first step".
cpxx that sounds about right California is a right to carry state but it is up to the local politician (police chief) to issue a permit. He of course doesn't know you from adam and just simply refuses to issue in most parts of the state.. more realistic local chiefes in rural areas that have to face their constituents issue freely.
Thye way these things should work is that everyone should be able to own and carry anything they like unless the authorities can come up with a damn good reason why not.
lazs
-
so captn... I really would like to know how you can support a man who feels that you and your neighbors can't be trusted to choose what kind of gun you will defend yourself and your family with?
simple, choose your issues.
every gun I've bought in the last 20 years has been bought while a Dem was president.
as I've said many times, while the republicans don't officially support gun control, when they are in office their labor and other economic policy's leave me and many other working Americans without enough disposable income to afford to buy guns. so while they technically didn't ban guns I find them much harder to obtain when they are in office.
also I even if he wanted to I don't think he could pull off a gun ban.
even if they are banned I'm not likely to turn mine in.
many times (more often than not I suspect) the results of what they actually do not actually come out to be the same as what they are going for (either by design or just not having it work out. both parties are equally represented on this).
so while the Dems are officially against private gun ownership, I seem to be able to buy a lot more guns while they are in office.
similarly, while the republicans are anti-abortion, the largest decrease in teen pregnancy and abortion was actually 1993-2000. it seems reasonable hope for a decent job that pays a family wage is more of a deterrent to abortion than any sort of restrictive gov't policies.
-
why dont we just find some lonely programmer and offer him our complete collection of pron if he makes a MMO where we can try out all this crap in a reasonably scientific manner, to end the debate once and for all