The Firing Line Forums

Go Back   The Firing Line Forums > The Conference Center > Law and Civil Rights

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old July 26, 2012, 02:43 PM   #76
kraigwy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 16, 2008
Location: Wyoming
Posts: 9,410
Quote:
Look at the UK and other places
Let do look.

The UK has some of the most restrictive gun laws in the world. Nothing new, they've been around a long time.

So what happened after Dunkirk. The British army had to flee back to England leaving most of their equipment behind. England was short of small arms to repel the upcomming German invasion.

They couldn't rely on the British Citizens ownership of arms, so they turned to the US, barrowing individual weapons from US Citizens (The NRA played a big part in that). As luck would have it Germany couldn't defeat the RAF, so the invasion was called off.

To understand any law, you need to study the thinking of the authors of the law. The same applies to the US Constitution. What was the thinking of the authors of the 2nd Amendment. It wasn't about hunting, it was defense agains oppression and self defense.

Here are a few just brought on Google.

http://www.guncite.com/gc2ndfqu.html
__________________
Kraig Stuart
CPT USAR Ret
USAMU Sniper School Oct '78
Distinguished Rifle Badge 1071
kraigwy is online now  
Old July 26, 2012, 03:00 PM   #77
Bartholomew Roberts
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 12, 2000
Location: Texas and Oklahoma area
Posts: 5,659
Hmm, let's quote everyone so we know where they stand:

Quote:
Originally Posted by BigMikey76
Quote:
Quote:
While I don’t fundamentally disagree with this statement either the devil is indeed in the details. For instance what are some ways they might use to reduce access to guns by criminals?

Enact a Federal five day waiting period to buy a gun allowing more detailed background checks.

Require background checks for ammo purchases.

Require all sales to go through a FFL even individual to individual.

Eliminate on-line sales of guns and ammo.
I agree that these measures are probably the most likely steps to be taken, if any steps are taken at all. I don't, however, see these as completely bad things. All of the things you mentioned here are aimed at reducing the chances of criminals getting their hands on guns. If your background has no red flags, then all it would be is an inconvenience.
So waiting five days to buy a gun isn't an inconvenience? We must have a definition of that word - and considering the millions of tax dollars we have sunk into the National Instant Check System, what exactly would be the point of having a 5-day waiting period? A "cooling down" period so that a normal, everyday person who has lived their whole life without committing any crime that disqualifies them from owning a firearm can overcome that impulse to murder someone? What the hell does this accomplish that you are so quick to accept it?

Require background checks for ammo purchases? We required people to fill out a Form 4473 for purchases of handgun ammo from 1968-1986. It was discontinued in 1986 because it was pointless. Now we should revive the same concept? Why stop there? Why not add a five-day waiting period for this too?

Please explain for me, exactly the thought process that goes into surrendering all of these hard-won rights when there is absolutely zero reason to compromise? Do you have some illusion that it is going to make all the critical news articles go away? It will not. It will not stop calls for further gun control. I've watched it my whole life. If you give them an inch, they will be back tomorrow to ask for a mile; but they'll compromise and take only 100yds if you are quick and obsequious enough.

Quote:
Originally Posted by pgdion
One thing some states have and some don't (mine does) is a requirement to have a permit to purchase a hand gun or any AR style rifle. I like this solution myself and feel it offer us all the rights we deserve with an extra barrier between the criminals/crazies and the guns.
If someone kicked me in the butt every morning when I woke up since I was born, I'd probably have some good reasons to justify it to myself too. Texas (3x the size of your state in population) and Florida (2x the size) both have lower murder rates in 2010, despite your permit system. If that system is effective in reducing crime, or in any way justifiable, how are so many states doing better without it? (Source: http://www.ucrdatatool.gov/Search/Cr...YearofData.cfm)

And as I understand it, your state just got rid of this requirement in any case?

Last edited by Tom Servo; July 26, 2012 at 09:12 PM. Reason: Easy, Bart...
Bartholomew Roberts is offline  
Old July 26, 2012, 03:01 PM   #78
tyme
Staff
 
Join Date: October 13, 2001
Posts: 3,155
Quote:
He did not say that he wants to take away the rights of lawful gun owners. He did not say that he wants to ban assault weapons. He made no mention of firearms used for self-defense by law-abiding citizens.
He said specifically that AK-47s belong with soldiers and not with criminals. Given that true AK-47 ownership by criminals is extremely rare, and when it does occur it's usually not isolated criminals deciding "gee I want an AK47 to rob that liquor store", but usually the result of affiliation with a larger criminal enterprise with logistical ties that enable such acquisitions, it's absurd to mention it in the aftermath of a mass killing by a lone shooter who used a rifle that was semi-auto and not even AK-style.

If you also notice, he gets applause for his statement. What are they applauding for? They're applauding because they think (as I think) he's talking about trying to reinstitute whatever kind of AWB II he thinks he can get away with.

"No AK-47s for criminals" may sound harmless when interpreted literally, but it sounds to me like code for, "I haven't forgotten about trying to get rid of those evil assault weapons and high capacity magazines that Bush allowed the evil gun industry to start producing again for sale to private citizens back in 2004."

These sorts of anti-gun politicians would vote for any illogical, impractical, or ineffective gun law 5 times over if they could get away with sneaking around and voting on behalf of absentee colleagues in the House and Senate. They think all such laws are stepping stones to increased public tolerance of gun regulation, even if the laws have no effect or a harmful effect on society.

I think they do this not because they are malicious, but because they genuinely believe an eventual outright ban on guns is possible, and that it would reduce murder and assault rates once completed. They are willing to sacrifice the safety of certain individuals in order to ensure fewer overall gun-related casualties, and they are willing to accept almost any negative consequences in the intermediate stages of restrictions -- gun registration and partial gun bans.

http://thefiringline.com/library/quotes/antifreedom.xml (search for Obama)
__________________
“The egg hatched...” “...the egg hatched... and a hundred baby spiders came out...” (blade runner)
“Who are you?” “A friend. I'm here to prevent you from making a mistake.” “You have no idea what I'm doing here, friend.” “In specific terms, no, but I swore an oath to protect the world...” (continuum)
“It's a goal you won't understand until later. Your job is to make sure he doesn't achieve the goal.” (bsg)

Last edited by tyme; July 26, 2012 at 03:18 PM.
tyme is offline  
Old July 26, 2012, 03:09 PM   #79
Sparks1957
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 4, 2011
Location: Vermont
Posts: 1,470
Thank you, Bartholomew, for that eloquent post.
Sparks1957 is offline  
Old July 26, 2012, 03:10 PM   #80
Bartholomew Roberts
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 12, 2000
Location: Texas and Oklahoma area
Posts: 5,659
Quote:
Originally Posted by BigMikey76
He did not say that he wants to take away the rights of lawful gun owners. He did not say that he wants to ban assault weapons.
The man he appointed as Attorney General said that - in this term no less. You remember Eric Holder right? He'd be the same man that President Obama just used a claim of executive privilege to defend from a Congressional investigation into how the ATF came to be arming Mexican drug cartels with AK47s. Doesn't that seem like an odd move for the President to make given the speech we are dissecting here today?

Quote:
He made no mention of firearms used for self-defense by law-abiding citizens.
At least not since he argued to prosecute such people as an Illinois State Senator. http://www.prnewswire.com/news-relea...-95131129.html

Quote:
I think a lot of people are reacting to their own fears and preconceived notions here. Because he is a Democrat, it is assumed that he is automatically an anti-gun activist, despite the fact that there is no real evidence to support that.
You mean besides his documented actions as an Illinois politician, his support for banning both semi-automatic firearms and handguns in that same capacity, and his role as a Board member of the notoriously anti-gun Joyce Foundation?

Quote:
I, for example, am a Democrat, but I love my guns, and I will stand up right next to you in defense of my right to own them. I know Republicans who don't like guns, and think there ought to be more restrictions on them.
So in this thread, you just welcomed 4 new restrictions as "not a bad thing" but you are going to stand with me on Second Amendment issues? Did I miss something? I welcome Second Amendment supporters from any party. However when someone claims to support the Second Amendment and then spends a great deal of time defending a man with a proven anti-Second record, I have to question how sincere they are in that belief - and it doesn't help when they start talking about additional unnecessary compromises we could make and how reasonable they are.
Bartholomew Roberts is offline  
Old July 26, 2012, 03:15 PM   #81
Glenn E. Meyer
Staff
 
Join Date: November 17, 2000
Posts: 15,629
Bush didn't allow it. He was against the AWB expiring. He said he would sign a new AWB if it got to him. Mitt said he supported the AWB because Bush did.

BTW, all the current 'reasonable' suggstions have been found not to influence crime rates.

However, the antigun folks say that because they haven't been draconian enough - total bans and confiscations are needed. That's why the AWB did nothing.

Have been amazed by pundits who still stay it did something.

Interesting nuance, there have been a wave of op-eds from police and military veterans stating that concealed carry is worthless. NY Times (suprise) has two of them, today. I grant you that the Aurora theatre was a horror show and not an easy one to deal with if you just a have j-frame but that's being used as an indictment of the whole carry idea.
__________________
NRA, TSRA, IDPA, NTI, Polite Soc.
http://www.teddytactical.com/archive...05_Feature.htm
Being an Academic Shooter
http://www.teddytactical.com/archive...11_Feature.htm
Being an Active Shooter
Glenn E. Meyer is online now  
Old July 26, 2012, 03:17 PM   #82
kraigwy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 16, 2008
Location: Wyoming
Posts: 9,410
when the resolution of enslaving America was formed in Great Britain, the British Parliament was advised...to disarm the people; that it was the best and most effectual way to enslave them; but that they should not do it openly, but weaken them, and let them sink gradually, by totally disusing and neglecting the militia...

George Mason In Virginia's Ratifying Convention
__________________
Kraig Stuart
CPT USAR Ret
USAMU Sniper School Oct '78
Distinguished Rifle Badge 1071
kraigwy is online now  
Old July 26, 2012, 03:18 PM   #83
Glenn E. Meyer
Staff
 
Join Date: November 17, 2000
Posts: 15,629
BTW, if someone expresses their idea about this or that policy - let's be polite. You may disagree but we don't have to put forward a purity test in the discussion of ideas. Speak to the logic of what they say and it's not about them.

I could say that I support the RKBA whole heartedly and then say that I think more money should be spent on better mental health status report for the NICS check system. Does that make one a bad anti?

Lighten up, folks.
__________________
NRA, TSRA, IDPA, NTI, Polite Soc.
http://www.teddytactical.com/archive...05_Feature.htm
Being an Academic Shooter
http://www.teddytactical.com/archive...11_Feature.htm
Being an Active Shooter
Glenn E. Meyer is online now  
Old July 26, 2012, 03:26 PM   #84
Young.Gun.612
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 28, 2010
Location: Minneapolis, MN
Posts: 400
Explain this to me:

How would new stricter laws prevent criminals from obtaining guns? Pretty sure its already a crime for felons to possess a firearm. It's also already illegal to commit a crime with a gun. That doesn't seem to be stopping the criminal element from acquiring and using guns in an illegal manner, so why would they stop just because a new law is written?
Young.Gun.612 is offline  
Old July 26, 2012, 03:27 PM   #85
tyme
Staff
 
Join Date: October 13, 2001
Posts: 3,155
Quote:
Bush didn't allow it. He was against the AWB expiring.
He didn't ask congress for an AWB renewal AFAIK. He could have. Presidents have no actual legislative power but they have influence. It may not have been enough to get any sort of AWB passed, but he could have tried a lot harder than he did. Saying he'd sign it was a cute dodge, but I don't think anyone in congress interpreted that as even a weak signal that Bush wanted them to pursue it.

I can say I'll eat pig brains if they show up on my plate, but if I don't order them...

Disclaimer: I think GWB's administration's policies damaged liberty in this country, and I don't think he was really pro-gun.
__________________
“The egg hatched...” “...the egg hatched... and a hundred baby spiders came out...” (blade runner)
“Who are you?” “A friend. I'm here to prevent you from making a mistake.” “You have no idea what I'm doing here, friend.” “In specific terms, no, but I swore an oath to protect the world...” (continuum)
“It's a goal you won't understand until later. Your job is to make sure he doesn't achieve the goal.” (bsg)

Last edited by tyme; July 26, 2012 at 03:40 PM.
tyme is offline  
Old July 26, 2012, 03:38 PM   #86
pgdion
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 22, 2010
Location: MPLS, MN
Posts: 1,106
To Chicago's defense, they have yet to have a mass terroristic type shooting as far as I know though, where as Texas has had 1, Virginia has had 1, AZ has had 1, and Colorado has now had 2, ... . Like it or not those are the stats and those are the fuel our opponents have to work with.

Anything that our side can do that may help prevent something like this is one less piece of fodder the anti-gun people can fling back at you. Even if a system like this doesn't stop it, at least it stops the 'He just walked in and bought a gun without any checks' argument. Just read the comments in some of the news sources. So is it really infringing your rights, or is it helping to protect them?

I'd be happy if there were no changes any where but the last thing I'd want to see is extreme changes everywhere because minor, benign changes, that may have helped the problem, were resisted. If you think a free, 10min of your time, 1 time background check is like getting kicked, well then I guess that's you, I'd call it a poke in the arm (if that).

Also, I never said a system like this would help reduce violent crime in general. Crime is bigger than this, we all know that. And I seriously believe that more responsible people owning guns reduces crime. We are talking about if a system like this would help stop the fluke nutcases from attacks like this one. In some cases it may have. Of course none of us can say for sure.

Gotta run (bummer - work calls), will check back in tomorrow. btw - this has been a good thread.
__________________
597 VTR, because there's so many cans and so little time!

Last edited by Brian Pfleuger; July 26, 2012 at 05:40 PM. Reason: Language
pgdion is offline  
Old July 26, 2012, 03:42 PM   #87
hogdogs
Staff In Memoriam
 
Join Date: October 31, 2007
Location: Western Florida panhandle
Posts: 11,071
Ain't no place in Chicago worth shootin' up like that...

To boot... The violence and predation on society has likely numbed them to the stigma of a situation like these aforementioned ones... They have more violent deaths on a warm weekend...

Brent
hogdogs is offline  
Old July 26, 2012, 03:50 PM   #88
Baba Louie
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 23, 2001
Posts: 1,496
Thru executive order Geo H.W. Bush banned importation of self loading rifles. A fast google search shows this to be hot news right now (1 hour old)

http://www.nationaljournal.com/magaz...ntrol-20120726

3 simple steps
__________________
A free people ought not only to be armed and disciplined, but they should have sufficient arms and ammunition to maintain a status of independence from any who might attempt to abuse them, which would include their own government." - George Washington, January 8, 1790, First State of the Union Address
Baba Louie is offline  
Old July 26, 2012, 03:53 PM   #89
Botswana
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 4, 2012
Posts: 203
Quote:
To Chicago's defense, they have yet to have a mass terroristic type shooting as far as I know though
Chicago has more murders in a week, every week, then what happened in Aurora.

These mass shooting incidents are wildly overblown by a sensationalist media. They are tragic events, but make up a tiny number of overall gun deaths.

Not only that, but IIRC, only one of the above incidents mentioned did not happen in a gun free zone. So in most cases, the states where the shootings have happened have been in places where the local firearm laws were interdicted by another authority.

As mentioned before, there have been plenty of incidents where someone with intent to do harm to many people have been stopped by people with guns. That gets thrown out way too lightly.
Botswana is offline  
Old July 26, 2012, 03:54 PM   #90
kraigwy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 16, 2008
Location: Wyoming
Posts: 9,410
Quote:
We are talking about if a system like this would help stop the fluke nutcases from attacks like this one. In some cases it may have.
And what law would have prevented this. I saw no evidence he didn't buy the gun legally. Looking at the 4473, I see nothing that would have prevented the theather shooter from buying the gun or ammo.

All or most of us have bought firearms on the internet, they are sent to a local firearms dealer who conducts the background check.

I think before one can say any Gun Laws are good, they need to establish where that gun law has prevented a crime.

The theather does prohibit carring firearms inside the theater, How did that work.

Those laws only prevent honest people who have no intent of creating mischieft from the means to protect themselves from those who have mischieft intheir heart.

To say Chicago is a safe city because they havent had any mass killings is............well I wont go there.
__________________
Kraig Stuart
CPT USAR Ret
USAMU Sniper School Oct '78
Distinguished Rifle Badge 1071
kraigwy is online now  
Old July 26, 2012, 04:01 PM   #91
BigMikey76
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 3, 2011
Location: Bellevue, NE
Posts: 432
OK, I thought I was going to stay out, but I feel the need to respond.

Quote:
So waiting five days to buy a gun isn't an inconvenience?
Read my post again. I said that a waiting period IS an inconvenience.

Quote:
A "cooling down" period so that a normal, everyday person who has lived their whole life without committing any crime that disqualifies them from owning a firearm can overcome that impulse to murder someone? What the hell does this accomplish that you are so quick to accept it?
As has been stated in this thread, laws regarding who can or cannot own a firearm can only address people who are already criminals. There is no way to know when a previously law-abaiding citizen will go rogue until it happens. Perhaps a cooling off period will help to diminish such occurrences, perhaps it wont, but unless you can see the future, the only way to know for sure is to try it.

Quote:
Please explain for me, exactly the thought process that goes into surrendering all of these hard-won rights when there is absolutely zero reason to compromise?
Perhaps the word we need to have defined here is "rights." Being able to buy guns without a waiting period, buying ammo with no background check, or any of the other things I was responding to are not RIGHTS. Gun ownership is a right. The laws being discussed do not take away the right to gun ownership, they just make it a slower process, hence my statement that they are inconvenient. In any case, I reiterate from one of my previous posts - Obama said nothing about curtailing the rights of legal gun owners. HE ONLY MENTIONED CRIMINALS!!!
__________________
“Some people are like Slinkies - not really good for anything, but you still can't help but smile when you see one tumble down the stairs.”

A gun should be a tool in the hands of a deadly weapon, not a deadly weapon in the hands of a tool.
BigMikey76 is offline  
Old July 26, 2012, 04:03 PM   #92
Bartholomew Roberts
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 12, 2000
Location: Texas and Oklahoma area
Posts: 5,659
Quote:
Originally Posted by pgdion
To Chicago's defense, they have yet to have a mass terroristic type shooting as far as I know though, where as Texas has had 1, Virginia has had 1, AZ has had 1, and Colorado has now had 2, ... . Like it or not those are the stats and those are the fuel our opponents have to work with.
Frankly, I'd take my chances in Colorado over Chicago any day. Chicago has had multiple weekends with 10 murders occurring over that weekend. That is basically an Aurora every weekend, just spread out over the city (and not packaged quite as media-friendly).

Quote:
Anything that our side can do that may help prevent something like this is one less piece of fodder the anti-gun people can fling back at you. Even if a system like this doesn't stop it, at least it stops the 'He just walked in and bought a gun without any checks' argument.
I thought that was what NICS was supposed to do? Exactly what is the whole point of that system if we now need to go down to the police station and personally request a permit to own a firearm? If two background checks are good and not a serious inconvenience, why not 3? Just skip by the doctor and get his approval too?

You do understand that your whole argument for this system that your own state is giving up is that it will be such an inconvenience to a guy like the Aurora shooter that he will not try to acquire guns; but at the same time you are telling me it is no incovnience to me. How does that work?

Quote:
Just read the comments in some of the news sources. So is it really infringing your rights, or is it helping to protect them?
Yes, it is infringing my rights. Politically, it is a stupid move. We have worked very hard to put people in the House of Representatives who understand and support the Second Amendment. We have been so successful at it that we have a clear-cut majority and a reserve there. There is zero question about whether we can block any new proposed legislation. And yet, you appear to be suggesting that we should take it upon ourselves to add new restrictions in the hopes it will quiet people who have been adding new restrictions to firearms ownership since before I was born and have never once said "Well, maybe that is too much."

To me, what you are suggesting is like folding with a K-Q-J-10-9 flush because the other guy just keeps on raising. We should be taking that guy's money. Not folding.
Bartholomew Roberts is offline  
Old July 26, 2012, 04:09 PM   #93
kraigwy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 16, 2008
Location: Wyoming
Posts: 9,410
Quote:
Perhaps the word we need to have defined here is "rights." Being able to buy guns without a waiting period, buying ammo with no background check, or any of the other things I was responding to are not RIGHTS.
Can you define "infringed" and tell me why "shell not be infringed" was placed in the 2nd Amendment.
__________________
Kraig Stuart
CPT USAR Ret
USAMU Sniper School Oct '78
Distinguished Rifle Badge 1071
kraigwy is online now  
Old July 26, 2012, 04:16 PM   #94
Bartholomew Roberts
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 12, 2000
Location: Texas and Oklahoma area
Posts: 5,659
Quote:
Originally Posted by BigMikey76
As has been stated in this thread, laws regarding who can or cannot own a firearm can only address people who are already criminals. There is no way to know when a previously law-abaiding citizen will go rogue until it happens.
Exactly. The difference is I would prefer to live in a society that treats me like a law-abiding citizen until I demonstrate otherwise by my actions. I don't want to live in a society that focuses in all the ways I might be a potential criminal. I don't think that is going to be a pleasant society.

Quote:
Perhaps a cooling off period will help to diminish such occurrences, perhaps it wont, but unless you can see the future, the only way to know for sure is to try it.
We did try it. How do you think the NICS system came about? The Brady Law as originally passed in 1994 included a 5-day waiting period for all firearms sales. This waiting period was an interim requirement while NICS was established. (http://www.atf.gov/firearms/faq/brady-law.html)

Quote:
Gun ownership is a right. The laws being discussed do not take away the right to gun ownership, they just make it a slower process, hence my statement that they are inconvenient.
So, a poll tax is an infringement on the right to vote; but the laws you mention do not infringe the right to own a firearm?

Same question to you as to pgdion, exactly what was the point of working to put all those NRA A-rated Representatives in the House (Republican and Democrat) if we are just going to compromise before the other side even proposes a bill?

Quote:
Obama said nothing about curtailing the rights of legal gun owners. HE ONLY MENTIONED CRIMINALS!!!
You might want to qualify that by limiting your statement to this particular speech, given President Obama's past statements in support of curtailing the rights of legal gun owners.
Bartholomew Roberts is offline  
Old July 26, 2012, 04:34 PM   #95
RubenX
Member
 
Join Date: December 13, 2011
Location: Florida
Posts: 69
Analyzing the AK-47 comment leaves me with only 2 possible choices:

Option #1: Since Fully Automatic AK's have been banned/restricted for some time, our President must have been referring to semi-automatic weapons.

Option #2: Our President has no clue as per what an AK is.

Either way, he just lost my vote. Be it for being anti-gun or for being gun-ignorant. Take a pick.
__________________
HOWA 1500 30-06 , Savage Mark II 22lr
RubenX is offline  
Old July 26, 2012, 04:43 PM   #96
SIGSHR
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 13, 2005
Posts: 3,059
"Common sense" "Fairness" "Reasonable". Weasel words.
SIGSHR is offline  
Old July 26, 2012, 05:14 PM   #97
Glenn E. Meyer
Staff
 
Join Date: November 17, 2000
Posts: 15,629
Avoid politics - had to delete some. I know it is hard row to hoe but when you start talking about voting and someone being a devil (even obliquely) - we are going to have a problem.
__________________
NRA, TSRA, IDPA, NTI, Polite Soc.
http://www.teddytactical.com/archive...05_Feature.htm
Being an Academic Shooter
http://www.teddytactical.com/archive...11_Feature.htm
Being an Active Shooter
Glenn E. Meyer is online now  
Old July 26, 2012, 05:30 PM   #98
sigcurious
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 25, 2011
Posts: 1,755
Quote:
If you think a free, 10min of your time, 1 time background check is like getting kicked, well then I guess that's you, I'd call it a poke in the arm (if that).
It's not free in all places, $25 here in Nevada, similar fee in California.

As to cooling off periods, in the most recent example of extreme violence and past examples it would not have mattered one bit. These examples are calculated attacks in which either the firearms were purchased before hand or obtained through other means. Would a cooling off period possibly prevent some incidents of gun violence? Maybe, but would it prevent the intended violence all together? On top of which, while there is an increase in purchases of firearms, only a certain percentage of those are people who don't already own firearms. Should someone who already owns firearms wait to get a new one? What's the logic in that? What's the logic of a waiting period at all, when in most states, you can simply go purchase a firearm from a private party?

To that, some might respond well all private transactions should go through an FFL. Given the roles of state and federal governments, I think it would be extremely hard for the federal government to insist on something like that on a national level, as they have no place in intrastate commerce. Which would leave it up to all states to come to a consensus to truly enforce such an idea.

Then what about C&R holders? Are all the regulations going to be rewritten to cover them too? Last time I checked a pistol or rifle that qualifies as C&R is just as capable of hurting someone as one that's not.

My over all point being, while some people don't see minor infringements as a problem, or perhaps even see them as a valid compromise, they are not. Each minor infringement can lead to more and more absurd laws, and in of themselves are often absurd to begin with.

Last edited by Brian Pfleuger; July 26, 2012 at 05:41 PM. Reason: Quote Correction
sigcurious is offline  
Old July 26, 2012, 05:34 PM   #99
carguychris
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 20, 2007
Location: Richardson, TX
Posts: 5,475
Quote:
I know we have to P.C. it up here but it is a fact beyond dispute with 2/3 of his base supporting gun control... it gets the thin-skinned all excited if you try to discuss facts, which are beyond dispute.
I dispute your facts, particularly the 2/3 figure. Let's see your proof.

I believe that 2 decades of "culture war" politics have bred large numbers of voters who hold their noses every election year and support a party based on one or two issues these voters feel are critical. IMHO this goes for BOTH sides, and many of these voters do not feel gun rights or gun control are critical issues.
Quote:
Option #1: Since Fully Automatic AK's have been banned/restricted for some time, our President must have been referring to semi-automatic weapons.

Option #2: Our President has no clue as per what an AK is.
Actually, I believe that the President is perfectly cognizant of what an AK is.

I'm with Bartholomew on this. I foresee stricter regulations on cheap imported AKlone semi-automatics under the "sporting purposes" test.

This could actually have an ironic side effect that the President's pro-labor supporters would favor: rather than choosing a product cobbled together from decades-old Warsaw Pact parts, EBR buyers would have to choose AR's, most of which are made in the good ol' USA, by American workers, using all-new American materials.
__________________
"Smokey, this is not 'Nam. This is bowling. There are rules... MARK IT ZERO!!" - Walter Sobchak

Last edited by carguychris; July 26, 2012 at 05:36 PM. Reason: minor reword...
carguychris is offline  
Old July 26, 2012, 05:38 PM   #100
Wyoredman
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 6, 2011
Location: Wyoming
Posts: 1,249
Quote:
Originally posted by Pond, James Pond
I will follow the developments with interest as I find the US political model interesting and the Bill of Rights quite unique. I've not had this much insight into the real meaning of those statutes before joining here so I find it quite fascinating, but I still have no horse in this race.
Mr. Pond,
You see, this is where some non-Americans go wrong!
Our Bill of Rights are not statutes! They are GOD GIVEN RIGHTS. I understand that sometimes it is hard to grasp, but that is the way it is!

I enjoy your input, please continue the dialog.
__________________
Go Pokes!
Go Rams!
Wyoredman is offline  
Closed Thread

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 09:09 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site and contents, including all posts, Copyright © 1998-2014 S.W.A.T. Magazine
Copyright Complaints: Please direct DMCA Takedown Notices to the registered agent: thefiringline.com
Contact Us
Page generated in 0.16857 seconds with 7 queries