Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: hawk220 on May 08, 2003, 12:09:12 PM
-
from the NY times
(NY Times) - President Bush and the National Rifle Association, long regarded as staunch allies, find themselves unlikely adversaries over one of the most significant pieces of gun-control legislation in the last decade, a ban on semiautomatic assault weapons. At issue is a measure to be introduced by Senate Democrats on Thursday to continue the ban. Groundbreaking 1994 legislation outlawing the sale and possession of such firearms will expire next year unless Congress extends it, and many gun-rights groups have made it their top priority to fight it.
Even some advocates of gun control say the prohibition has been largely ineffective because of its loopholes.
Despite those concerns, the White House says Mr. Bush supports the extension of the current law a position that has put him in opposition to the N.R.A. and left many gun owners angry and dumbfounded.
"This is a president who has been so good on the Second Amendment that it's just unbelievable to gun owners that he would really sign the ban," said Grover G. Norquist, a leading conservative and an N.R.A. board member who opposes the weapons ban. "I don't think it's sunk in for a lot of people yet."
-
Not trying to start a war or anything but I'd really like to understand the rationale behind the NRA's opposition to banning assault weapons. Can someone explain why semi automatic assault weapons, which were not around when the 2nd amendment was written, are somehow covered by an amendment which simply says you have a right to bear arms.
I mean, Geez, I like firearms. I shoot them whenever I can. I've taught my children about them. I'v ehad my wife fire them. I've fired semi-auto's. But, why go to the extreme and demand that ANY firearm is protected. None of our other rights is so openly interpreted. For example, we all have the right to free speech but you are not protected if you yell FIRE! in a crowded theater. What's the difference between limiting the 1st amendment rights and limiting the 2nd amendment rights?
Just curious here?
:D :D
-
what is a 'semiautomatic assault weapon'?
what is 'gun control'?
what is 'loophole'?
can you yell "fire" if the theater is on fire?
-
Can someone explain why semi automatic assault weapons, which were not around when the 2nd amendment was written, are somehow covered by an amendment which simply says you have a right to bear arms.
First of all, the term 'assault weapon' is made up. These are just semi-automatic rifles with a military look to them. Secondly, these weapons are perfectly suited for home defense and civil defense. Thirdly, they are used in a tiny minority of gun crimes, so what exactly is the purpose of banning them? If congress wants to add more restrictions to a constitutional right they should at least present a justification.
ra
-
why would anyone want to ban semi auto or even full auto firearms? Is there some huge problem being caused by semi or full auto firearms that I am not aware of?
lazs
-
Just a bunch of weenie politicians trying to make it look like they're "doing something" about crime. Normally, I expect this from the Dems but am amazed to see the war mongering bush join in. Shows he'll do anything he thinks will help get him re-elected.
-
Oh, I don't think this would help him get re-elected.
Considering what the gun culture/NRA did for his father due to the fact that they felt betrayed back in 91/92 (not voting, or not voting for Rep), this could be disasterous for the Reps in 04.
-
This is a perception thing, as the ban is only about looks not about the weapons ability. The ban states that a weapon may only have two of the following items, if it has three it is banned from being sold as a NEW weapon. All weapons made before the law went into effect are grandfathered in and are ok to own.
1. Bayonet lug
2. Prominent pistol grip (like AR-15 in my avatar)
3. Removable magazine
4. Flash suppressor
Any two items are ok but not three, if you look at the new AR,s you will find no flash suppresser or bayonet lug (makes them so much safer don't ya know)
It is the most absurd law and does nothing to lower crime.
The Bushmaster used by the DC sniper was completely legal as it has no flash suppresser or bayonet lug (really slowed him down I'm sure).
This is what congress does with our tax dollars pass crap that helps them keep their jobs by people who don't know any better.
Mini-14 or Mini-30 is fine as it has no prompt pistol grip or bayonet lug (you may even add a flash suppresser) and it will kill you just as well as a AKM or AR-15
Pretty Stupid Don't ya think?!!?
-
Mini-14 or Mini-30 is fine as it has no prompt pistol grip or bayonet lug (you may even add a flash suppresser) and it will kill you just as well as a AKM or AR-15
You can buy a .30-06 hunting rifle for much less, and it will do even more damage than any of these quasi-military guns. Don't let the regulators find out.
ra
-
If a weapon has three of those four elemetns, it is an "assault weapon" or is that a media term?
With Grandfather to allow in all such weapons already inexistence prior to 1995 seems to make the law totally toothless.
Surely gunsmiths can refurbish and rebuild old weapons. So, in actuality it is a law without any real effect, right, excpet as to "newly" manufactured weapons?
:D
-
Oh hell yeah. The year before Klinton and his commie buddies passed the ban, I bought an Oly Arms Car-15 for $350. A very sweet weapon. After that idiot and his morons passed the ban I sold it for $1800 and turned right around and bought a Oly Arms PCR-5 for $400 (PCR-5 was a CAR-15 minus the collapsable buttstock, bayonet lug and had a few more inches on the barrel to be legal after the ban, I kept my dozen 30rnd clips and plugged em right into the PCR-5 as the clips were grandfathered in). That damned PCR-5 is a superior weapon to the CAR-15 in most applications anyway.
Idiots and morons supported that ban and deserve nothing but hatefull indignation in return. the 92 AWB was the most blatent piece of anti american self masturbatory legislation ever created and was the sole most important reason I developed a hatred for all things liberal and socialist.
Do not renew that ban and if you do, who gives a sh*t.
Keep your powder dry and your barrel clear!
-
Gman,
I am an active shooter and gunsmith, and everyone I know in the hobby of firearms is a Rep. the mere mention of most Libs. is not even allowed. This is a very conservative group and ALL vote and will vote for Bush. This may disappoint, us but we understand the politics involved and know W needs to not piss off all the left as the conservative Libs may vote on our side this election as well.Just my $.02
member
AOPA
NRA
IPMA
PADI
NGSA
NAHB
FHBA
-
Originally posted by Syzygyone
If a weapon has three of those four elemetns, it is an "assault weapon" or is that a media term?
With Grandfather to allow in all such weapons already inexistence prior to 1995 seems to make the law totally toothless.
Surely gunsmiths can refurbish and rebuild old weapons. So, in actuality it is a law without any real effect, right, excpet as to "newly" manufactured weapons?
:D
Not really,
wish this were true but the receiver (with ID number) is the weapon according to the BATF. If you bought 10 old receivers and then built a working weapon with them, the day you put them together is the date of manufacture. If you use a Post Ban receiver and change it to include three or more banned items this is also a no no. I have been asked to build a bunch of weapons this way and have refused. What are your chances of getting caught?, well sense it is a federal offence and in this new post 911 world you probably do a year at club fed and loose you rights to own any firearms, you do the math.
And Yeager, just one thing
I love ya man!!
you is so right
-
So what do you use these "assault weapons" for, anyway?
-
I use it to put .22cal holes very very close togeather on a target at around 100 or 200 yards.
and every now and again get a plaque or a trophy or something
What do u use a golf club for?
Same thing just different strokes
-
Fast jack rabbits.
-
Originally posted by Syzygyone
So what do you use these "assault weapons" for, anyway?
From a poster in another BB I frequent, regarding full-auto weapons...
"Because I want to be better armed than the criminals."
By the way, check out this link:
http://64.177.53.248/ubb/Forum23/HTML/000542.html
It is about the 9th Circuit Court's panel decision to deny a full court hearing regarding the individual right to keep and bear arms. It was a three memeber panel, but it seems that four other judges dissented and their explanations can be found in subsequent posts in that thread.
Agreed Scootter, a law based on threatening appearance. Along a similar note... would anyone be more affraid if someone tries to mug you with a switchblade (which is now obtainable only by LEO/Military) instead of an equivalent size folding knife? (those with CCW need not answer...)
mauser
-
well suzy... in our galaxy they are quite useful and fun to own.
lazs
-
ROFL
-
This is just another cynical political move from Bush, and a classic example of the triumph of expediency over integrity in American politics. The renewal is not going to pass in the Republican House and will never get to the president's desk. It barely passed when the Democrats controlled it in '94! He's going to get the best of both worlds: 1) gun control advocates will think he's really a moderate even though he won't have to put his money where his mouth is. 2) Gun fanatics on the far, far right will forget what Bush said after the ban sunsets and will keep their vote with him. There's no way Bush would sign an AWB renewal - he might as well run on the Democratic platform in '04 if he were to do so.
Bush is a typical politician - all apearances, no substance.
-
I have always been an advocate of owning, using, and teacjing about firearms. They just happen to be something that I was brought up around, and have always enjoyed. I own quite a few, from muzzleloaders to Ar-15's to M1A Carbines (have 19 different ones) to an MP5K. At no time have I ever violated the law with the wepons I own, nor do I intend to. Hence, I see no benefit, other than jacking up prices of pre-ban weapons, that behoove us or make us safer by banning any weapon. Class 3 Weapons, full auto and heavier rounds bigger than .50 Cal, are used in less than 1% of all crimes. So, where is the problem? Why not put a ban on $40 .38 specials, they are used in more crimes, or better yet, how about you just get rid of the criminal that uses them instead of putting the buggers right back on the street after 5 yrs in the vacation home. Cripes, liberals need to worry about more important things like Economics than guns....
:rolleyes:
-
Jan. 17, 1989: Patrick Purdy, 26, armed with an AK-47 assault rifle, opened fire on a playground at a Stockton, Ca., elementary school. Five children died and 29 children and one teacher were wounded before Purdy killed himself.
IIRC, no gun control legislation has ever been overturned on 2nd amendment grounds.
-
Originally posted by Scootter
Not really,
wish this were true but the receiver (with ID number) is the weapon according to the BATF. If you bought 10 old receivers and then built a working weapon with them, the day you put them together is the date of manufacture. If you use a Post Ban receiver and change it to include three or more banned items this is also a no no. I have been asked to build a bunch of weapons this way and have refused. What are your chances of getting caught?, well sense it is a federal offence and in this new post 911 world you probably do a year at club fed and loose you rights to own any firearms, you do the math.
You can still buy a pre-ban receiver and build it as you see fit (3 or more of the banned items). Since there is no tracking of the individual components, the receiver number is the only real means of establishing a recorded build date. If that receiver has been used to build a fully functional gun prior to 1994, you can do whatever you want with it.
I don't know what "special" arm twisting goes on with gunsmiths, but if it can't be tracked, it can't be proven.
MiniD
-
BTW, flash supressors have been replaced by muzzel brakes (look the same... more effective). And... I wonder if anyone as ever used a bayonet attatched to a rifle in a crime anywhere in the U.S. since the 19th century. A big who cares anyways on that one.
The only real downer to the rule is you can't have a colapsable stock on a new AR-15 anymore... since the AR-15 automatically triggers 2 of the rules in its raw state (detatchable mag and pistol grip).
MiniD
-
Originally posted by Bodhi
Class 3 Weapons, full auto and heavier rounds bigger than .50 Cal, are used in less than 1% of all crimes. So, where is the problem?
If this is the case, then doesn't it speak to the effectiveness of the 1934 NFA?
-
Originally posted by Erlkonig
If this is the case, then doesn't it speak to the effectiveness of the 1934 NFA?
No, not considering there are more automatic weapons (and .50 cals) on the market than in 1934.
MiniD
-
Originally posted by Bodhi
I have always been an advocate of owning, using, and teacjing about firearms. They just happen to be something that I was brought up around, and have always enjoyed. I own quite a few, from muzzleloaders to Ar-15's to M1A Carbines (have 19 different ones) to an MP5K. At no time have I ever violated the law with the wepons I own, nor do I intend to. Hence, I see no benefit, other than jacking up prices of pre-ban weapons, that behoove us or make us safer by banning any weapon. Class 3 Weapons, full auto and heavier rounds bigger than .50 Cal, are used in less than 1% of all crimes. So, where is the problem? Why not put a ban on $40 .38 specials, they are used in more crimes, or better yet, how about you just get rid of the criminal that uses them instead of putting the buggers right back on the street after 5 yrs in the vacation home. Cripes, liberals need to worry about more important things like Economics than guns....
:rolleyes:
This just in... Bush is a republican.
-
The NRA also opposes a Federal background check on perspective gun buyers, mandatory logs of handgun ammo purchases and the ban of "Cop Killer" bullets.
-
We should ban guns, then maybe we could have crime rates like the UK.
-
By default, they oppose any perceived restriction on firearms. Its pretty much the only way to run the show, because if they start to pick and choose, they concede the fundamental "some restrictions are O.K."
BTW, "cop killer" bullets have never been banned. Ordinance companies have voluntarily pulled them off of the shelves to avoid any precedent setting court rulings.
One I always thought was funny... "Fingerprint resistant coatings" on weapons was touted as being something you'd only need if you were a criminal and the NRA was villified for defending it. I think about that every time I'm having to re-whipe down a pistol that I've had at the range. Yep... only criminals like to keep fingerprints off of guns. Just like only criminals like to keep fingerprints off of glasses.
The NRA has been pretty unwavering in their opposition to any form of gun restrictions. They are definately more consistant than those on the other side of the fence.
MiniD
-
Originally posted by Airhead
The NRA also opposes a Federal background check on perspective gun buyers, mandatory logs of handgun ammo purchases and the ban of "Cop Killer" bullets.
Here's a link on the supposed "Cop Killer" bullets:
http://www.guncite.com/gcgvcopk.html
An excerpt:
Despite the facts that "KTW" ammunition had never been available to the general public and that no police officer has ever been killed by a handgun bullet penetrating their body armor, the media incorrectly reported that the Teflon coated bullets were designed to defeat the body armor that law enforcement officers were beginning to use. The myth of "Cop-killer" bullets was born.
In January of 1982, NBC Television broadcast a sensationalist prime time special titled "Cop Killer Bullets." Law enforcement officials had asked NBC not to air the program as the use of body armor by police officers was still not common knowledge and the "KTW" ammunition was virtually unheard of outside law enforcement circles. The safety of law enforcement officers took a back seat to ratings at NBC however and they not only broadcast the show, but re-broadcast it again six months later.
mauser
-
Winchester "Black Talon" bullets were sold on the market. They too were teflon coated and potentially body armor defeating. Winchester pulled them off the shelves after a couple of months voluntarily. Once again, no ammo company wants to open the pandora's box that comes with legal presidence.
MiniD
-
Originally posted by Mini D
No, not considering there are more automatic weapons (and .50 cals) on the market than in 1934.
MiniD
So what? The NFA did not ban machine guns, only taxed and regulated their manufacture and transfer. .50 caliber rifles aren't NFA weapons anyway.
-
Then let me put it another way for you erl... do you think there are more or less "illegal" automatic rifles in the U.S. today than in 1934?
Do you think that there are more or less drive by shootings today than in 1934?
Did violent crime drop as a result of anti-gun legislation intruduced in 1934... or did people simply start using different weapons?
Did 1934 legislation really restrict the use of automatic weapons in crime syndicates?
MiniD
-
Originally posted by Sandman_SBM
This just in... Bush is a republican.
This just in... Republicans are socialist control freaks just like the Democrats. :)
-
Mauser, I stand corrected- the NRA opposes background checks for perspective firearms buyers, they oppose a log recording the name of purchasers of handgun ammunition and they initally opposed the restriction of "Cop Killer" bullets then later compromised on the issue and softened their stance.
-
ya England's crime rate went to the roof after banning guns,,got the highest rate of crime for population size,,gun related went up,,because the criminals can still get plenty of guns,,,all they did was dissarm the good people from defending there homes,,thats all guns rights do
and whats makes ya mad,,is every president comes in shooting guns and going hunting before they get elected,,like cliton did,,,and after billy became president,,he started passing gun law after gun law,,they are 2 faces after they get in,,lol cant let them take simple simi's because the bans wont stop there,,,they will just go down the line faster,,,this will make it tuffer for bush to get relected again,,lol
-
Originally posted by Mini D
Then let me put it another way for you erl... do you think there are more or less "illegal" automatic rifles in the U.S. today than in 1934?
Do you think that there are more or less drive by shootings today than in 1934?
Did violent crime drop as a result of anti-gun legislation intruduced in 1934... or did people simply start using different weapons?
Did 1934 legislation really restrict the use of automatic weapons in crime syndicates?
MiniD
1) Less
2) Probably more. What that has to do with the NFA I don't know.
3) I've never seen any statistics. Of course I would prefer that if criminals are going to commit crime, they do it with sticks and stones. But I can settle with restricting access to automatic weapons. That seems to be the case if what Bodhi said is true.
4) I'm sure they did not bother to register their tommy guns and sawed-off BARs. But you don't see them around anymore, do you? Again, the "less than 1%" would suggest they're just not worth the effort to obtain.
I was looking through that Leftist-Liberal GunCite page that mauser posted, and they have a page on machine guns (http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcfullau.html) . They claim this:
In 1980, when Miami's homicide rate was at an all-time high, less than 1% of all homicides involved machine guns. (Miami was supposedly a "machine gun Mecca" and drug trafficking capital of the U.S.) Although there are no national figures to compare to, machine gun deaths were probably lower elsewhere. Kleck cites several examples:
Of 2,200 guns recovered by Minneapolis police (1987-1989), not one was fully automatic.
A total of 420 weapons, including 375 guns, were seized during drug warrant executions and arrests by the Metropolitan Area Narcotics Squad (Will and Grundie counties in the Chicago metropolitan area, 1980-1989). None of the guns was a machine gun.
16 of 2,359 (0.7%) of the guns seized in the Detroit area (1991-1992) in connection with "the investigation of narcotics trafficking operations" were machine guns.
-
Ah.... gotcha. So now, illegal weapons are only those used by drug dealers. I see how handy that statistic can be.
I'll wager that drug dealers posses a minor fraction of the illegal automatic weapons in the U.S.
I know a few people that have them, wether modified or black market purchased. None of them sell drugs. None of them have done drive by shootings.
However, we've had a few drive by shootings in the happy metropolis of Portland this year... seems they still kick around.... no matter what was banned.
Automatic weapons are not as available for purchase, but they're every bit as available if you are even remotely creative. Fortunately, most criminals are not. And fortunately, automatic weapons are seldomely a good alternative simply because they are not effective for most reasons people poses illegal weapons these days.... despite what imp might try to say.
Automatic weapons are more difficult for the law abiding citizen to get, but are readily available if you have a library card and the desire to "bend" the law.
MiniD
-
The NRA also opposes a Federal background check on perspective gun buyers
Typical anti-gun misrepresentation. The NRA pushed hard for instant background checks. But the system the FBI came up with had an Orwellian twist to it. If you underwent a background check and were approved, it kept a record of who you were. There is no reason for the feds to keep record of this, except to know who is in the market for a gun. So the NRA went against this type of record keeping. The purpose of the background check was to keep guns away from felons and wackos, not to monitor law-abiding citizens.
ra
-
Syzygyone,
I'd like to remind that yelling "fire" in a crowded theater is not a "speech" and therefore most definately not covered by the amendment :D
-
The most restrictive and "real" part of the Assault Weapon Ban was the limit of 10 rounds per magazine.
Of course this only applies to new manufacture, and there are a TON of full size magazines on the market. The ony real effect was to drive up the price of the existing magazines by about 3 times.
One question for you AR-15 experts. Which is the "registered" part of a pre-ban AR15, the upper or the lower receiver? I've never quite figured that out.
Personally, I think the law is more about "looks" and not about function. But this is because a law restricting the functionality of semi-automatic weapons would never have been passed, and the Democrats knew it. Totally asinine. I hope it doesn't get renewed.
Oh, and FYI, I watched the original vote on this legislation on CSPAN. The time limit expired on the vote and the bill did not pass, but the Democratic leadership extended the time limit for over an hour while they "worked" on a swing voter, who switched his vote at the last minute and it passed by that single vote.
-
The lower receiver on AR-15s is the registered portion. Basically, you just have to look for the weapon's serial number... its a dead give away.
MiniD
-
Every bullet that comes out of my 44, even those I cast out of wheelweights will penetrate a woven vest without trauma plates.
I think that MT has got to the crux of it... the law was passed in hysteria by democratic opportunists over the action of one unstoppable nutjob. in...... 1989! nevermind that if he would have chosen his weapon more wisely, a fertilizer bomb or even a Peterbuilt truck or even a Honda sedan... he would have killed far more children.
The democrats have a pattern... they push through distastefull and wrong legeslation when the women and womenly men are at their most hysterical... they are like vultures waiting for disaster so that they can pretend to be compassionate and.... well.... more caring than you... superior.
lazs
-
Originally posted by Mini D
You can still buy a pre-ban receiver and build it as you see fit (3 or more of the banned items). Since there is no tracking of the individual components, the receiver number is the only real means of establishing a recorded build date. If that receiver has been used to build a fully functional gun prior to 1994, you can do whatever you want with it.
I don't know what "special" arm twisting goes on with gunsmiths, but if it can't be tracked, it can't be proven.
MiniD
In this instance the BATF will require YOU to provide proof that your receiver was built into a weapon prior to the ban. The manufactures have (I have a list if anyone is interested) a record of the date they manufactured the receiver and that it was not built into a weapon at that time. You become the manufacture with all the responsibilities that go with it when you build a weapon (ask my attorney how I sleep at night when I have built over a hundred all legal .45 autos and AR's).
What about rebuilding an old preban rifle, no problem as it was a complete assembly and has a legal birthday you can do what you want with it (I have 5 or 6 of these).
What do you lose in a post ban weapon? Not much, the flash suppresser is only a real help in low light (by the way most breaks really increase the sound of the shot to the shooter and blast back can be a problem for others next to you). I have never found a suppresser or a break to hurt or help accuracy in way. What in the world do you do with a bayonet on an AR anyway, I can see one on an M1A or even an M-14 but not a plastic two piece stocked AR. The collapsible stock kind of looses something with the long 16.5” barrel, but it is nice with a real CAR-15/16 with the short barrel. They are very hard to shoot well as you can not get a cheek weld to the weapon and forget a scope as it is even worse as it requires you head to be held even further off the stock.
What is the chance of finding a preban receiver? slim as all were snatched up and made into weapons and sold for big bucks (I know I did) but if you do and after you spend 8 or 9 bills on it, then another 5 or 6 hundred for the rest of the illegal weapon what have you got that you could not get legally and perhaps for less?
You are right the chances of getting caught are pretty slim, but not zero, and that’s the name of that tune.
can it be tracked?
Yes it can be tracked as it has a number on it and there is a record of it from manufacture to its first sale to a distributor through the resale and to the first sale to the public. Then the Fed transfer paperwork (all states) so yes I can be tracked.
-
Originally posted by Vermillion
The most restrictive and "real" part of the Assault Weapon Ban was the limit of 10 rounds per magazine.
Of course this only applies to new manufacture, and there are a TON of full size magazines on the market. The ony real effect was to drive up the price of the existing magazines by about 3 times.
One question for you AR-15 experts. Which is the "registered" part of a pre-ban AR15, the upper or the lower receiver? I've never quite figured that out.
Personally, I think the law is more about "looks" and not about function. But this is because a law restricting the functionality of semi-automatic weapons would never have been passed, and the Democrats knew it. Totally asinine. I hope it doesn't get renewed.
Oh, and FYI, I watched the original vote on this legislation on CSPAN. The time limit expired on the vote and the bill did not pass, but the Democratic leadership extended the time limit for over an hour while they "worked" on a swing voter, who switched his vote at the last minute and it passed by that single vote.
The lower is the gun everything else is fluff, by the way the Cal (as in left coast )AR-15 has a solid mag well and will only hold 10 rounds and mags are not leagle if they hold over 10 rds in Cal.
-
Once again, if you aren't buying from a distributor, there is no way to track any assembly date. You are not required by law to register the assembly date of a weapon and retailers can sell the receivers... right?
There is no way to track this once its in the civilian market. Serial numbers on the receiver and the initial purchase date from a retailer are it.
And.. I didn't say it'd be cheap;)
MiniD
-
Originally posted by hyena426
ya England's crime rate went to the roof after banning guns,,got the highest rate of crime for population size,,gun related went up,,because the criminals can still get plenty of guns,,,all they did was dissarm the good people from defending there homes,,thats all guns rights do
and whats makes ya mad,,is every president comes in shooting guns and going hunting before they get elected,,like cliton did,,,and after billy became president,,he started passing gun law after gun law,,they are 2 faces after they get in,,lol cant let them take simple simi's because the bans wont stop there,,,they will just go down the line faster,,,this will make it tuffer for bush to get relected again,,lol
If you've got statistics and proof or at least sourcing of this statement, I am sure we'd all like to see it. Sure would go along way to proving that if you outlaw guns only criminal wil have guns.
Thanks in advance:D
-
You are correct, but you will be the manufacture of the weapon and the BATF requires that this type of weapon have a birth date for the purposes that you are decribing. You as the manufacture must have a record of the date of manufacture (to be leagel). If you just said you bought the weapon from a garage sale they would have a hard time proving you otherwise, or even tracking it back very far.
-
Syzygyone: ... why semi automatic assault weapons, which were not around when the 2nd amendment was written, are somehow covered by an amendment which simply says you have a right to bear arms.
That is why the wise Founding Fathers did not say "muskets must always be allowed" but "right to bear arms shall not be infringed."
BTW, the Second Amendment does not grant the right to bear arms but just affirms it. The right exists because the Constitution never gave the government authority to regulate arms and any right not specifically reserved to the government is belongs to the people.
For example, we all have the right to free speech but you are not protected if you yell FIRE! in a crowded theater. What's the difference between limiting the 1st amendment rights and limiting the 2nd amendment rights?
Prosecuting one for shouting "fire" in the theater does not have anything to do with one's right to a free speech.
He will be prosecuted for the specific damage and danger he's caused by his action.
miko
-
So miko is saying that there is no real restriction on free speech?
-
Originally posted by ra
Typical anti-gun misrepresentation. The NRA pushed hard for instant background checks. But the system the FBI came up with had an Orwellian twist to it. If you underwent a background check and were approved, it kept a record of who you were. There is no reason for the feds to keep record of this, except to know who is in the market for a gun. So the NRA went against this type of record keeping. The purpose of the background check was to keep guns away from felons and wackos, not to monitor law-abiding citizens.
ra
First you say that I'm spouting off typical anti-gun misrepesentation- and then you agree with my statement "the NRA opposed background checks for gun purchasers." It's laughable to claim the NRA opposes background checks because it leaves a "record" of who owns firearms. Really, what are you afraid of? The black helicopters? Ra, do you own a hunting license? Because if you do even the bumbling beaucrats who muck things up can safely assume you own a firearm.
The NRA opposes background checks because they oppose EVERY restriction on the Second Amendment unless an issue (Cop Killer bullets) can be spun to make them appear more moderate (especially if they've been under attack for their stance). The fact is they are a lobby group sworn to fight any and all proposed restrictions of the Second Amendment. They are subjective and single minded in this purpose, which is exactly what you'd expect in an advocate.
The fact is, though, most Americans favor background checks for gun purchases and most Americans are in favor of removing "Saturday Night Specials" from our streets. Spin it however you want, but the truth is the NRA opposes IN PRINCIPLE ANY restriction on gun ownership.
-
Originally posted by Airhead
First you say that I'm spouting off typical anti-gun misrepesentation- and then you agree with my statement "the NRA opposed background checks for gun purchasers." It's laughable to claim the NRA opposes background checks because it leaves a "record" of who owns firearms. Really, what are you afraid of? The black helicopters? Ra, do you own a hunting license? Because if you do even the bumbling beaucrats who muck things up can safely assume you own a firearm.
The NRA opposes background checks because they oppose EVERY restriction on the Second Amendment unless an issue (Cop Killer bullets) can be spun to make them appear more moderate (especially if they've been under attack for their stance). The fact is they are a lobby group sworn to fight any and all proposed restrictions of the Second Amendment. They are subjective and single minded in this purpose, which is exactly what you'd expect in an advocate.
The fact is, though, most Americans favor background checks for gun purchases and most Americans are in favor of removing "Saturday Night Specials" from our streets. Spin it however you want, but the truth is the NRA opposes IN PRINCIPLE ANY restriction on gun ownership.
Airhead, you don't know what you are talking about. Again, typical.
-
midnight Target: So miko is saying that there is no real restriction on free speech?
Theoretically no, practically there has been occasional violations of that principle.
Even when that principle is violated, the prosecution is not presented as punishment for person having and sharing some ideas (which is what free speech is about) but for causing harm or endangering people by his/her actions.
In a famous case a women was convicted for telling her mother that "I wish all hispanics learned English" (in a bit more rude form) that was overheard and presented as having caused harm to anothrr person.
While the case is clearly trumped up, it clearly indicates that authorities respect the principle and try to avoid or misrepresent the case as other than a free speech issue, rather than violate it.
Her right to say bad things about hispanics to a willing audience was not disputed, like a preson can shout "fire" all he wants in his house as long as nobody objects.
Sometimes the distinction between speech and act is narrow and may be misrepresented.
For instance it is prefectly OK to discuss in a company that some person should be killed or government violently overturned but it is illegal to actually plot a murder or conspire a violent coup to that effect.
Wishfull thinking is a free speech while an act of conspiracy is a crime. the latter can be misrepresented as the former, as multiple government prosecutions and blacklistings of people in the 50s illustrate.
There are many borderline controversial cases that are solved one way or another to dissatisfaction of some people.
Is production of child pornography pictures that was generated artificially (no actual children involved and endangered) or creating fictional erotic literature cause harm to anyone? If not, it is a free speech issue and is protected, however disgusting.
Is preaching communism without conspiring to overturn the current order by force harms someone or puts him/her into imminent danger? If not, it is protected, however unpalatable.
What about profane language in public places? Many people feel hurt if they are forced to listen to it, so the profane language is banned in public though it is not a violation in a company of like-minded peope.
People who do not feel that profane language causes any harm feel unfairly restricted.
Some speech provokes or threatens to provoke violence. In those cases what's punished is the provocation, not the speech.
Airhead: the NRA opposes IN PRINCIPLE ANY restriction on gun ownership.
I am not current on the registration issue, but guns ownership is a right of all people who have not lost it. Felons do lose certain rights in our society and verification whether a person is a felon is totally consistent with gun ownerhsip right and NRA should not oppose it.
If what they oppose is not a verification itself but the governmental database kept on people who've applied for such verification, it's a very different issue altogether.
Such information may endanger a person if it falls into the wrong hands and the government has no business maintaining it. Desiring to legally own a firearm is not a crime and such people should not be treated differently from everyone else - otherwise it violates Equal Protection clause.
miko
-
Originally posted by ra
Airhead, you don't know what you are talking about. Again, typical.
ROFL...
Jane you ignorant slut!
(wanted to get in on the intelligent reparte')
-
NRA does not oppose background checks.... NRA does oppose record keeping... they oppossed keeping records for ammo purchases for the same reasons... invasion of privacy for no reason... No criminal was ever caught by the recording of ammo purchases the expensive and cumbersome program has been abondoned.
I personaly feel that if someone robs a bank or even shoots school children or snipes at people from a rooftop.... when they let him out of prison they should hand him his gun back.
lazs
-
Typical Ra tatics- he can't debate the issue so he resorts to personal attacks. As a matter of fact the NRA is to the Second Amendment as PETA is to animal rights. They are of the extreme positions of their advocacy. Nothing wrong with it- just the way it is.
-
Originally posted by Airhead
Typical Ra tatics- he can't debate the issue so he resorts to personal attacks. As a matter of fact the NRA is to the Second Amendment as PETA is to animal rights. They are of the extreme positions of their advocacy. Nothing wrong with it- just the way it is.
Airhead,
I always debate the issue. You just throw out New York Times editorial statements as though they are fact.
By the way, which amendment to the Constitution does PETA fight for?
ra
-
Originally posted by ra
Airhead,
I always debate the issue. You just throw out New York Times editorial statements as though they are fact.
By the way, which amendment to the Constitution does PETA fight for?
ra
the K9th
-
Originally posted by lazs2
NRA does not oppose background checks.... NRA does oppose record keeping... they oppossed keeping records for ammo purchases for the same reasons... invasion of privacy for no reason... No criminal was ever caught by the recording of ammo purchases the expensive and cumbersome program has been abondoned.
We never saw the recording of ammo purchases here... at least I never did.
As for the "does not oppose background checks, just record keeping" spin on things...
The fundamental flaw to the distinction between the two is that the NRA claims you can't do one without the other, no matter what the system.
Also, there was a certain "tradeoff" with the background check. Most states waived the cool off period once it was implimented. For a handgun, some states would require you to wait up to two weeks after purchase to actually take the weapon home. I don't know exact stats now, but I'd be willing to bet there aren't many (if any) states that still have that restriction (even on handguns).
Airhead hit it pretty much on the head, despite ra's claims otherwise, with this statement:The NRA opposes background checks because they oppose EVERY restriction on the Second Amendment unless an issue (Cop Killer bullets) can be spun to make them appear more moderate (especially if they've been under attack for their stance). The fact is they are a lobby group sworn to fight any and all proposed restrictions of the Second Amendment. They are subjective and single minded in this purpose, which is exactly what you'd expect in an advocate.
Its easy to disprove... just find one restriction they've supported. Background checks? Nah... I've shown the catch on that one. Hard to justify being against them... so you have to identify the implicities of having them and attack that.
I like having the NRA around... it has a tendancy to keep legislatures honest. Well... as honest as can be expected. Its basically all you can hope for out of any lobby group. Because they are all singleminded and semi-militant in their behavior. Its what makes them all so easy to attack.
MiniD
-
MT.. not sure if any gun control laws have been abandoned based on 2nd amendment rights but many gun control laws have been recinded and it would be silly to believe that if we didn't have a 2nd amendment right that they would have been. I mean... if we didn't have the 2nd amendment we wouldn't be able to buy ammo and we wouldn't even have a use for record keeping of ammo sales much less recinding said record keeping... kinda chicken and egg.
lazs
-
I disagree lazs. Check it out. Restrictions on firearm ownership (gun control laws) have never been overturned based upon the 2nd amendment. Even that famouse case down in Texas (whos name escapes me) was overturned based on "Due Process" not 2nd amendment rights.
-
I don't see your point... the laws are overturned... if we didn't have gun rights they wouldn't be. They wouldn't even exist...There would not be any cause to .... you are saying that the gun rights people are as gutless as the gun control advocates? I agree.... neither side wants to openly defend or challenge the 2nd.
lazs
-
Airhead: ...NRA is to the Second Amendment as PETA is to animal rights. They are of the extreme positions of their advocacy.
Not even close.
NRA is fighting to protect certain existing rights from infringement. Protecting existing right of the people does not restrict any other rights of the people.
PETA is fighting to create new rights that never existed before. Creation of new rights does restrict existing rights of the people by placing new obligations on the people to respect whatever those new rights consist of.
NRA is about fixing that which is broken and preventing further damage. PETA is about creation of a totally new thing. It may be a good thing but the cases are clearly different and have different priorities.
If the existing rights are not respected and are unconstitutionally violated by the government, it reduces the urgency of enacting more rights to be disregarded.
miko
-
Target: Restrictions on firearm ownership (gun control laws) have never been overturned based upon the 2nd amendment. Even that famouse case down in Texas (whos name escapes me) was overturned based on "Due Process" not 2nd amendment rights.
Was it a federal or a State case? States can impose restrictions that federal government may not according to the Constitution.
miko
-
Originally posted by funkedup
This just in... Republicans are socialist control freaks just like the Democrats. :)
Sometimes, we agree so violently that it scares me. :D
-
Maiking fun of me for this.
he was saying "Dude you favorite buddy shrub, is for banning guns, HAHAH he is even screwing the people who like him"
WHat a tool.... lol
This is pure politics, it prolly wont pass congress, but even if it does, I can still get an AR-15 or an M1a.. lol who needs a flash hider?
WIN WIN for me... lol he didnt like hearing the though lol
Whats funny is I walked into a gun store and bought my M1 Garand and walked out with it the same day since it is considered a relic! lol
The people who make gun laws know so little about guns it is funny in a sad way..
-
One more "lol" and I'd have put you on my ignore list.
-
Originally posted by ra
One more "lol" and I'd have put you on my ignore list.
amen to that. :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:
-
I have no problem at all with gun control.... I just feel that it should be up to the individual to do the controling.
lazs
-
Damn... LOL I will have to work on that LOL!
Fing bastages
-
NANANANANANA I don't hear you NANANANANANANA
-
LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL