|
Forum Rules | Firearms Safety | Firearms Photos | Links | Library | Lost Password | Email Changes |
Register | FAQ | Calendar | Today's Posts | Search |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
July 30, 2012, 04:29 PM | #176 | |
Staff
Join Date: September 27, 2008
Location: Foothills of the Appalachians
Posts: 13,059
|
According to the article, the bill,
Quote:
__________________
Sometimes it’s nice not to destroy the world for a change. --Randall Munroe |
|
July 30, 2012, 04:44 PM | #177 |
Senior Member
Join Date: December 9, 2011
Posts: 177
|
I live on the south Texas border with Mexico and am armed as much as possible. I don't live in or near a city. If you took away my guns (ak 47, m92 Yugo krinkov) I'd essentially lose control of my property. It's that simple.
|
July 30, 2012, 06:48 PM | #178 |
Member
Join Date: April 23, 2009
Location: Oregon
Posts: 20
|
Can anyone provide a link to data on American crime statistics that parses out cities like Chicago, New York, Washington DC, etc. As those areas have the most restrictive firearm laws and for the most part also seem to have the highest crime rates.
I was just hoping to determine how we would stand up to other countries in the crime rate gun argument if we eliminated the anti-gun areas of the country. |
July 30, 2012, 07:47 PM | #179 | |
Staff
Join Date: July 28, 2010
Location: Arkansas
Posts: 8,821
|
Quote:
__________________
I'm a lawyer, but I'm not your lawyer. If you need some honest-to-goodness legal advice, go buy some. |
|
July 30, 2012, 08:43 PM | #180 |
Junior member
Join Date: July 26, 2012
Posts: 36
|
To get a real AK 47 you need a class 3 license and the selector switch has 3 positions where the look alikes they sell have 2 positions but how many people in the media and the W.H really understand.
|
July 31, 2012, 05:37 AM | #181 | ||
Senior Member
Join Date: August 23, 2010
Location: US South
Posts: 857
|
Quote:
Quote:
Thx for confirming that chuckee. That's the very point I'm going to make in some personal discussions about these new gun control laws - They don't even know what they’re talking about! |
||
July 31, 2012, 09:57 AM | #182 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: April 22, 2010
Location: MPLS, MN
Posts: 1,214
|
Quote:
__________________
597 VTR, because there's so many cans and so little time! |
|
July 31, 2012, 06:09 PM | #183 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: January 27, 2008
Posts: 2,199
|
Quote:
|
|
July 31, 2012, 08:12 PM | #184 | |
Staff
Join Date: September 27, 2008
Location: Foothills of the Appalachians
Posts: 13,059
|
Quote:
Also, the weapons available for civilian purchase aren't really AK-47's. They're sporter versions of the AKM. The AK-47 had a milled receiver instead of stamped sheet metal. Do I expect a politician to know that, or to care, when all he's looking for is a convenient soundbyte to appease his base? Nope. The general public just knows "AK-47."
__________________
Sometimes it’s nice not to destroy the world for a change. --Randall Munroe |
|
August 1, 2012, 12:10 PM | #185 |
Senior Member
Join Date: January 27, 2008
Posts: 2,199
|
Thanks for the correction.
|
August 28, 2012, 04:48 PM | #186 | |
Junior member
Join Date: October 4, 2007
Location: All the way to NEBRASKA
Posts: 8,722
|
Quote:
When in doubt, err on the side of Liberty. A waiting period might provide a bit of (likely temporary) security, but is will most surely erode Liberty. There is a natural tendency among today's "legislators" to legislate.... as if piling on just. one. more. Law. will stop the inherently lawless ....... to quote one local "Progressive" lawmaker, "Do you suggest we do Nothing!?!?!..... I really don't care what he does, so long as it does not affect me and mine. |
|
August 28, 2012, 06:14 PM | #187 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: September 7, 2008
Posts: 550
|
Tom Servo said:
Quote:
__________________
In my hour of darkness In my time of need Oh Lord grant me vision Oh Lord grant me speed - Gram Parsons |
|
August 28, 2012, 07:21 PM | #188 | ||
Staff
Join Date: September 27, 2008
Location: Foothills of the Appalachians
Posts: 13,059
|
Quote:
Quote:
__________________
Sometimes it’s nice not to destroy the world for a change. --Randall Munroe |
||
August 31, 2012, 06:33 PM | #189 |
Senior Member
Join Date: December 4, 2009
Location: Frozen Tundra
Posts: 2,414
|
What kills me is the assumption that the semi auto "Assault Weapons" which are mechanically no different than any other semi-auto are somehow more deadly. For the most part other than molding and places to hang things off of they are no different than a traditional semi-auto sporting rifle...
Im also amused (in a horrible way) that the general public seems to buy the idea that these "Assault Weapons" are "Heavy Weapons" or somehow endowed with enormous amounts of power.. Yet 2.23, 5.56, is not by any measure a particularly powerful round compared to many other offerings... Molding the plastic to look whatever and apparently it becomes a death laser..
__________________
Molon Labe Last edited by BGutzman; August 31, 2012 at 06:46 PM. |
September 27, 2012, 01:59 AM | #190 |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 15, 2007
Location: Outside KC, MO
Posts: 10,128
|
Without getting into party politics, it is not uncommon for office holders to exercise discretion while reelection is a potential concern.
It is also not uncommon for lame ducks to suddenly embrace positions they could not embrace when reelection was a concern. IE a first term's caution may be thrown to the winds in a second (and last allowed) term. |
September 27, 2012, 03:28 AM | #191 |
Senior Member
Join Date: January 27, 2008
Posts: 2,199
|
Only one of the two major parties has an AWB as one of their stated goals. The candidate that actually signed a state-wide AWB belongs to the other major party.
As a matter of law, who we elect to congress would play a bigger part in an AWB becoming law or not, IMO. Who we elect as President helps determine who gets nominated for any empty SCOTUS seats. As to the original comment by the current President, well, kind of. Mr. Kalashnikov did design them for the battlefield...specifically the Russian steppe. Now, whether that is the ONLY place they should legally be, that's different! Besides, AK-47s shouldn't be on our streets. Somebody might run them over and ruin them! |
September 27, 2012, 09:26 AM | #192 |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 15, 2007
Location: Outside KC, MO
Posts: 10,128
|
raimius, SCOTUS appointments are not the only way the Executive can attack firearm ownership or carry.
Executive orders and ATF and Justice rules and policies can also be implemented or changed. |
September 27, 2012, 04:59 PM | #193 |
Senior Member
Join Date: December 23, 2010
Location: Chicagoland
Posts: 1,293
|
I am not a constitutional lawyer so someone educate me. Could in theory President Obama direct the ATF/JD via an EO to ban the manufacturer/import/sale of "assault weapons"? Could he use an EO to order the confiscation of all "Assault weapons"?
I took some basic govt classes in college but EO's were not brought up much. The extent to where the power of EO's end is a bit murky and honestly kind of alarming. |
September 27, 2012, 09:15 PM | #194 |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 15, 2007
Location: Outside KC, MO
Posts: 10,128
|
Patriot86, note the recent furor (pre F&F) about ATF attempting to require FFL reporting of multiple long gun sales. Since that happened, F&F broke; Congress specifically denied funding to ATF to enforce that directive. Last I heard, there was still an effort to enforce this in the four states bordering Mexico.
Then, ATF was going to try a new ban on shotgun importations, with a "sporting purposes" review last year. On a non-gun note, an Executive Order has re-prioritized immigration enforcement so that a wide swath of illegal aliens will not be deported, for now. EO's can have a big impact, sometimes permanently, but sometimes only until Congress or SCOTUS take countermeasures. |
September 27, 2012, 09:46 PM | #195 | |
Staff
Join Date: September 27, 2008
Location: Foothills of the Appalachians
Posts: 13,059
|
Quote:
__________________
Sometimes it’s nice not to destroy the world for a change. --Randall Munroe |
|
September 27, 2012, 09:53 PM | #196 |
Junior member
Join Date: January 24, 2010
Location: South West Riverside County California
Posts: 2,763
|
^ We have a few million new "residents" who would disagree with you. For sure EOs could be used on importation of firearms/ammunition and the executive branch deported a few firearms to Mexico not too long ago.
|
October 3, 2012, 11:09 AM | #197 | ||
Senior Member
Join Date: February 12, 2010
Location: Georgia
Posts: 556
|
Quote:
On the EO notion. I understand the premise of it, in that it was [I]supposed[I] to be used as a way for Congress not to be flooded with legislation. The stuff that wasn't "important" enough for Congressional approval was given to the Executive to pass on their own. Or that's how I was taught it and understand it. But I think that the EO power has spiraled out of control with the power that it grants the Executive Branch. You mean one person can give an EO and instantly enforce something as large as the country's immigration policy without Congressional approval? That's insane. I think it would be a much different story if an EO was put out to confiscate "assault weapons" in that they would have a huge 2nd amend lawsuit but I can see an EO banning importation as a possibility.
__________________
Quote:
Last edited by cannonfire; October 3, 2012 at 09:38 PM. |
||
October 3, 2012, 11:36 AM | #198 | |
Staff
Join Date: September 27, 2008
Location: Foothills of the Appalachians
Posts: 13,059
|
Quote:
For example, the 1989 import ban met with a collective "meh" by most gun owners, and it was ignored by the general public. Things are different today. There's a greater mistrust of government, and there's a greater awareness of the 2nd Amendment. Pulling something like that in 2012 would very likely result in a court challenge on the constitutionality of the ban. It could also give the Supreme Court a chance to clamp down on just what can and cannot be done with EO's.
__________________
Sometimes it’s nice not to destroy the world for a change. --Randall Munroe |
|
October 3, 2012, 12:35 PM | #199 |
Senior Member
Join Date: December 23, 2010
Location: Chicagoland
Posts: 1,293
|
The problem is if we lose one of those 5 votes we have been relying on to WIN these very important 2A cases in the next 4 years. The SCOTUS is scary close to shifting towards 5-4 votes AGAINST things like Concealed Carry and other firearms issues; so who is to say if EO's are abused to enact defacto AWB's that the SCOTUS would not back the administration in just a few short years.
Assuming we have a divided congress and white house after November and during the next 4 years; if you have a Senate controlled by people who are for an AWB and the house by those against it no Legislation will ever works its way through to go around the EO. That is the only way I could see an AWB being passed/forced anytime soon; even with one party or the other having a slight majority voting for an AWB would be politicial suicide for many "moderate" candidates in both parties. I cannot stress how important the November federal elections are going to be for gun owners and how potentially detrimental it can be as well. 1 vote in the SCOTUS and a President who is not afraid to use EO's to enact "common sense" gun control can spell decades of disaster for gun owners. I am not going to get into who is for what or against what but all of us here in the states need to make sure as gun owners we are voting for and electing people willing to protect our 2A rights. |
October 3, 2012, 03:06 PM | #200 |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 17, 2000
Posts: 20,064
|
Close to the political edge but not there yet, IMHO.
Be careful folks.
__________________
NRA, TSRA, IDPA, NTI, Polite Soc. - Aux Armes, Citoyens |
|
|