The Firing Line Forums

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

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old December 24, 2012, 10:46 AM   #201
Alabama Shooter
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 20, 2012
Location: Sweet Home
Posts: 886
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
I would like to make two points about this "argument of needs," both of which I will explain just a little. First, it's not about "need." The 2nd Amendment is contained in the Bill of Rights, not the Bill of Needs. One of the things to remember with Rights is that they're not necessarily predicated on need, nor are they typically subject to a popular vote. A person with an incredibly unpopular political opinion still has a 1st Amendment right to express it, regardless of how the vast majority of Americans might view that political opinion.
Granted. But note that there is 'harmful speech' that is regulated. That is/was a cost/benefit discrimination.
This is very misleading and mostly untrue. Harmful speech is not "regulated".

I can yell "fire" in my living room all day long and the police can not come and arrest me. I can even yell it at the beach and the shooting range.

Words are not banned. It is the inappropriate and dangerous use of them that can be illegal. Inappropriate and dangerous use of a firearm is already illegal, or is made illegal when possible. Simply owning a gun won't hurt a soul. This goes back to one of the "big lies" that gun control groups spread.
__________________
Tomorrow is the most important thing in life. Comes into us at midnight very clean. It's perfect when it arrives and it puts itself in our hands. It hopes we've learned something from yesterday.
Alabama Shooter is offline  
Old December 24, 2012, 02:55 PM   #202
No1der
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 19, 2012
Location: NOVA aka Northern VA
Posts: 123
Yes, there possibly are some regulations I could live with though I'm hard pressed to tell you what they are right now.

I'm guessing that some sort of reasonable expanded background check, which we already do anyway, would be alright if it helps to keep a firearm out of the wrong hands.

It's an inconvenience to be sure but it's only an inconvenience and it's something I can live with for the greater good. It seems to work in some situations.
__________________
I didn't know you could bend it like that?
No1der is offline  
Old December 24, 2012, 03:32 PM   #203
BGutzman
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 4, 2009
Location: Frozen Tundra
Posts: 2,414
Would that be cavity check and blood type? If you don't think what the FBI may have on file isn't comprehensive you'd likely be wrong. In recent weeks a Agent quit the National Security Agency over data collection on US citizens and the Justice Department was lightly scolded over authorizing dossiers on any citizen with a 5 year life span to the documentation even if no criminal wrong doing was involved.

http://www.ask.com/wiki/Trailblazer_Project

http://www.ask.com/wiki/NSA_warrantl...ce_controversy

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2965947/posts

http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/201...n-us-citizens/

Some of this is legislated, under the Patriot Act and some is well maybe questionable... But without a tin hat my point is there is plenty of information gathered, have no doubt they know who you are and what your about with the click of a few keys..
__________________
Molon Labe
BGutzman is offline  
Old December 24, 2012, 07:06 PM   #204
Aguila Blanca
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 25, 2008
Location: CONUS
Posts: 6,373
I'm fairly certain I've pointed this out before, but possibly not on this site and almost certainly not in this thread: Let us remember -- and be sure to point out to other people -- that Connecticut still has in effect an "assault weapon" ban that very closely mirrors the now-expired Federal AWB. All reports to date indicate that all Nancy Lanza's firearms were purchased legally. Ergo -- whatever the rifle used was, it was NOT (by definition) an "assault weapon."

It couldn't have been, because Nancy Lanza could not have legally purchased an assault weapon in Connecticut.
Aguila Blanca is offline  
Old December 24, 2012, 07:10 PM   #205
jimbob86
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 4, 2007
Location: All the way to NEBRASKA
Posts: 6,778
So ...if it was not by definition, an "Assault Weapon" why all the fuss about them?
__________________
TheGolden Rule of Tool Use: "If you don't know what you are doing, DON'T."

http://nefirearm.com/
jimbob86 is offline  
Old December 24, 2012, 07:30 PM   #206
Al Norris
Staff
 
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,315
Quote:
Originally Posted by JimBob86
So ...if it was not by definition, an "Assault Weapon" why all the fuss about them?
My Guess? Because they can no longer target handguns. But EBR's make a good target, even amongst gun owners (and you can see that right here).
__________________
National listings of the Current 2A Cases.
Al Norris is offline  
Old December 24, 2012, 07:45 PM   #207
MLeake
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 15, 2007
Location: Outside KC, MO
Posts: 10,128
Divide and conquer worked for Caesar, and it has worked in the past for the antis.
MLeake is offline  
Old December 24, 2012, 08:05 PM   #208
Eghad
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 28, 2005
Location: Texas
Posts: 6,231
I see gun owner posting about their hunting firearms and that we don't need evil assault rifles. I take a minute to remind them that The Second Amendment is not about hunting. It is about your right to defend yourself. That citizens do not own assault rifles as those are only in the military. I do own a semi-auto version of it.
__________________
Have a nice day at the range

NRA Life Member
Eghad is offline  
Old December 25, 2012, 12:00 AM   #209
Aguila Blanca
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 25, 2008
Location: CONUS
Posts: 6,373
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimbob86
So ...if it was not by definition, an "Assault Weapon" why all the fuss about them?
Because the politicians and the media know that by calling anything that looks vaguely military-like an "assault weapon" they can generate fear of it, and thereby support for outlawing it. That's why we must be ever vigilant in correcting such incorrect terminology when we hear people using it.

Another one is the ubiquitous "high powered" rifle. I can't recall ever reading a story that in any way involved rifle fire without its having been described as "high powered."

Really?

If the .223 Remington/5.56x45 round is so powerful, why do so many states prohibit using it for hunting deer on the grounds that it ISN'T powerful enough? Toss that at them and watch their heads explode.
Aguila Blanca is offline  
Old December 26, 2012, 10:05 AM   #210
mayosligo
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 16, 2006
Location: Baton Rouge, LA
Posts: 301
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimbob86 View Post
So ...if it was not by definition, an "Assault Weapon" why all the fuss about them?
Because the media never let's facts get in the way of their reporting. They loved to report about the Assault Weapon in the Aurora CO shooting even though the 100 round mag jammed rendering it useless.
mayosligo is offline  
Old December 26, 2012, 11:55 AM   #211
Alabama Shooter
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 20, 2012
Location: Sweet Home
Posts: 886
Quote:
Another one is the ubiquitous "high powered" rifle. I can't recall ever reading a story that in any way involved rifle fire without its having been described as "high powered."
Every once in while an article will say ".22 rifle". I assume that means .22lr rf. If it is not a .22 lr rf than it is high powered.
__________________
Tomorrow is the most important thing in life. Comes into us at midnight very clean. It's perfect when it arrives and it puts itself in our hands. It hopes we've learned something from yesterday.
Alabama Shooter is offline  
Old December 26, 2012, 03:08 PM   #212
Mello2u
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 21, 2009
Location: Georgia
Posts: 1,424
Quote:
gaseousclay


are there any sensible gun regulations you would support?

for example, is it unreasonable to require new gun owners to take a mandatory safety course and test to prove their capability with a firearm? the way I see it, it's not that different from the laws surrounding car ownership. you have to take a test and demonstrate you know the rules of driving and most importantly, safety.
Is it unreasonable to regulate private sales, so that gun buyers would have to go through a business with a legally held FFL?
Is it unreasonable to require new gun owners to have some sort of safe or means of safely storing their firearms out of reach of others?
Quote:
musher

The way you framed the question is loaded.

If you're asking whether folks support reasonable gun regulations, then anyone who says 'no' is by definition unreasonable.

If you're asking what is reasonable, then you should evaluate the proposed restriction by asking

1. Does it serve a compelling government interest (a necessary or crucial interest)
2. Is the restriction narrowly tailored to meet that interest.
3. Is it the least restrictive means for meeting that interest.

Notice that "reducing access to guns" or any other rephrasing of an intent to weaken a fundamental right is NOT a compelling interest.

As far as I can tell, none of the "reasonable" restrictions that "reasonable" people seem to be floating would pass the test--not even close.
musher,
I agree with your statement of what is reasonable. I don't think that the OP gaseousclay framed his questions as you characterize. gaseousclay asked three questions beginning with "Is it unreasonable to . . ." Some have address those questions in detail.

Rather than just doing "something" perhaps we should seek to do only things which are constructive to achieve the goal of actually making the students safer.
If we focus on the motive for change: to institute policies/actions which will make school children safer in their school; what can be done?

1) Design changes to schools to make access by unauthorized person much more difficult if not impossible. Have "safe rooms" for students to retreat to in the event of a shooter (could also be used in the event of a tornado).
2) Increase remote surveillance to provide time to react to someone seeking unauthorized access and to determine the level of threat.
3) Place trained armed guards in schools, like the president's children's school has. (Qualified volunteers could reduce the expense)
4) Have school drills on actions that teachers and students should take in the event of an active shooter. Something like tornado and fire drills.
__________________
NRA Life Member - Orange Gunsite Member - NRA Certified Pistol Instructor
"When plunder becomes a way of life for a group of men living together in society,
they create for themselves in the course of time a legal system that authorizes it and a moral code that justifies it.
" Frederic Bastiat
Mello2u is offline  
Old December 26, 2012, 04:16 PM   #213
Dr Big Bird PhD
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 26, 2012
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Posts: 778
Mello2u, while youre heart is in the right place, that would cost WAY too much money for an already bankrupt state.

How about we just have ccw's for teachers?

this just seems so easy and simple to me its mind boggling.
__________________
I told the new me,
"Meet me at the bus station and hold a sign that reads: 'Today is the first day of the rest of your life.'"
But the old me met me with a sign that read: "Welcome back."
Who you are is not a function of where you are. -Off Minor
Dr Big Bird PhD is offline  
Old December 26, 2012, 04:47 PM   #214
JimDandy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 8, 2012
Posts: 2,427
You don't need new volunteers. The states already have quite a few. One weekend a month, and two weeks a year. Instead of a weekend, they'd just have to report Monday, Tuesday, or Wed-Thu, Fri-Mon etc etc.
JimDandy is offline  
Old December 26, 2012, 06:03 PM   #215
BGutzman
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 4, 2009
Location: Frozen Tundra
Posts: 2,414
I finally found one!!! We need a law passed saying that prior to any Senator or Congressman being qualified to vote on any law that pertains to firearms or firearm accessories they have to undergo a mandatory 80 hours of gun familiarization and training. Training should include a wide selection of arms...

At least for once they could have at least some small idea of what they are even legislating about.
__________________
Molon Labe

Last edited by BGutzman; December 26, 2012 at 06:13 PM.
BGutzman is offline  
Old December 26, 2012, 06:05 PM   #216
throttleup
Member
 
Join Date: February 12, 2011
Posts: 31
No.
throttleup is offline  
Old December 26, 2012, 09:09 PM   #217
wayneinFL
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 18, 2004
Posts: 1,934
Quote:
yes, there is. you can call or name it anything you want. you can disagree with it also, but it does exist. someone who would never even attempt to buy a gun at a gunstore would seek a gunshow if he had malicious intentions. Private sales many times are with people who know you or with someone who knows someone who knows you. What I am getting at, is private sales are different then the gunshow loophole in my opinion. gunshow loophole law would heavily cutdown on guns getting in the wrong people's hands.
If they ban private sales at gun shows, private sales will just go underground. Hell, they already are- imagine how many guns were traded to prohibited parties for crack in this day alone.

The only thing you'll see is a surge in straw sales, which are almost impossible to prevent, unless the buyer/seller is just really stupid about it.
wayneinFL is offline  
Old December 26, 2012, 09:14 PM   #218
wayneinFL
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 18, 2004
Posts: 1,934
BTW, to answer the question, "Are there any sensible gun regulations you would support?"

Yes. I support a prohibition on sales to minors under 18. They should have parental permission. Prisons and jails ought to be able to keep their occupants from owning firearms. I might support a requirement for the general militia or organized to own firearms and train with them. Other than that, I really don't see a need for regulations.
wayneinFL is offline  
Old December 26, 2012, 09:56 PM   #219
Xfire68
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 31, 2010
Location: Communist State of IL.
Posts: 1,423
Quote:
If the criminals are said to be using stolen guns they must be the guns lying on the floor in the closet and not in a gun safe.
Not always the case. There were some robberies of gun shops here in IL last year where the bad guys drove a stolen pickup truck into the side of the gun shop and knocked down the brick wall that housed the guns. They reportedly got away with 70 guns. They had it planed out well as the police were investigating this robbery they were across town doing the same thing at another gun shop.

They were not caught.
__________________
NRA Life Member, SAF Member

www.aac300blackoutbrass.com A Veteran owned Business.
Xfire68 is offline  
Old December 26, 2012, 10:25 PM   #220
wayneinFL
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 18, 2004
Posts: 1,934
Quote:
If the criminals are said to be using stolen guns they must be the guns lying on the floor in the closet and not in a gun safe.
I have insurance on mine and the company only offered a 10% discount, and only if the safe was 800# and bolted down. This means that 90% of the time the safe didn't help. And when the safe was less than 800#, it didn't matter at all. I'm pretty sure my kids could get into the average RSC in a couple of minutes with the tools they have.

In any case, even if you have a real safe, I'm sure you travel with your guns from time to time. I'd be willing to bet most firearms are stolen in transit from people who CCW or hunt than from a home.
wayneinFL is offline  
Old December 27, 2012, 04:20 AM   #221
imthegrumpyone
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 3, 2007
Location: spring tx
Posts: 1,037
Yes, all that keeps them out of the hands of criminals and unstable people.
__________________
chambered and unlocked
imthegrumpyone is offline  
Old December 27, 2012, 11:40 AM   #222
JimDandy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 8, 2012
Posts: 2,427
Quote:
BTW, to answer the question, "Are there any sensible gun regulations you would support?"

Yes. I support a prohibition on sales to minors under 18. They should have parental permission. Prisons and jails ought to be able to keep their occupants from owning firearms. I might support a requirement for the general militia or organized to own firearms and train with them. Other than that, I really don't see a need for regulations.
I'll go you a few better... 4473 and NICS check on new "replicas" of black powder weapons. Treating them differently is somewhat ridiculous.

Even after prison, I'm ok with convicted felons, especially the violent ones still being denied firearm ownership.
JimDandy is offline  
Old December 27, 2012, 12:10 PM   #223
BGutzman
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 4, 2009
Location: Frozen Tundra
Posts: 2,414
I do think felony restriction on arms must be tied to violence... Tons of people have felony's for check writing and all kinds of very minor offenses...
__________________
Molon Labe
BGutzman is offline  
Old December 27, 2012, 01:11 PM   #224
JimDandy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 8, 2012
Posts: 2,427
Quote:
There were some robberies of gun shops here in IL last year
There are stories I have no personal knowledge of where a cop gets bashed over the head from behind and has his service weapon stolen.
JimDandy is offline  
Old December 27, 2012, 01:17 PM   #225
mrlizzzard
Junior Member
 
Join Date: December 16, 2012
Posts: 7
No and here's why.The second amendment gives me the right to own what the military or the police have.If I can afford it I should be able to own it with the exception of full auto unless one is licensed.This is not about trap or skeet or rabbits.It is about not living in tyranny,ever.Enforce current laws and get a mental health program.
mrlizzzard is offline  
Reply

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 04:52 PM.


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 0.15020 seconds with 7 queries