U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Great Debates
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 08-24-2009, 09:03 PM
 
4,529 posts, read 4,755,489 times
Reputation: 730

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by NVplumber View Post
"You guys"? By that I guess you mean service rifle competitors?
Yes, of course.

Quote:
Originally Posted by NVplumber View Post
Many of us had or rifles long before the ban, and the 'ban' just halted imports from outfits like HK , Steyr, Norinco, FN and such. New shooters had to look to the used market for pre ban style US manufactured rifles on the AR platform, for the most part all that really changed on the AR's was the removal of the 'evil' flash hiders and bayonet lugs and there was a short trend of puting goofy thumbhole stocks on some of them and changing the name from AR 15 to 'Sporter' and other such sillyness. Crime stats did not change a whit from any of this. The 'ban' was just a knee jerk reaction to a non existant problem. What is being discussed now, re instating this 'ban', with new provisions and many more types of rifles, would make my life miserable. Everything I have in service rifle trim would be considered evil and insidious by rote, simply because of silly little appurtenances like muzzle brakes, detachable mags that hold more than ten rounds (is ten some kind of magic number that makes the rifle less 'evil'?) and , horror of horrors, a bayonet lug that will never see use for it's intended purpose. Oh , and lets not forget about that pistol grip, the single most malicious item on the weapon. It lends the rifle that 'machine gun' look and just scares the bejesus out of people.
I see, so, in effect, "you guys" were merely inconvienced, but only a little bit.

Look, I could care less about the bans on the weapons you use in competition. The ban is over and unlikely to be reinstated, and other firearms were compeltely unaffected, as was the right to own firearms in general.

While fixating on such nonsence, Clinton and her cronies tried to pass legislation that would've required micro-stamping on all brass sold and made in the US, something that would've drove the cost up far past what "casual" shooters (ie non-professionals and non-military/police) would've been able to afford.

While concentrating on the BS that really doesn't affect most people or inconvinience others, or are mere necon snip-and-spin (Bamers want's to ban all guns, oh noes!!!), we MUST be dilligent and watch out for sneaky legislation that would, for all intents and purposes, ban gun ownership or put it out of range for average Joe Citizen.

 
Old 08-24-2009, 09:48 PM
 
Location: Northglenn, Colorado
3,689 posts, read 9,279,520 times
Reputation: 944
Quote:
Originally Posted by jtur88 View Post
There are plenty of countries in the world where the average adult male is about the size of your wife, I suspect, and would require regular issue arms that would be appropriate for their stature. My dad, who was 5'7"/135#, had a WWII Japanese Arisaka, and rebuilt it as a functional hunting rifle.
the Arisaka type 99 is not a small weapon, nor is it light enough for someone of smaller stature, not to mention that the ammo is now deemed "obsolete" and is only produced by one large commercial vendor, and two small individual owned companies.

(we have two that my grandfather um... took when he was discharged after being stationed in Tokyo at the end of the war)
 
Old 08-24-2009, 09:54 PM
 
Location: Northglenn, Colorado
3,689 posts, read 9,279,520 times
Reputation: 944
Quote:
Originally Posted by Greatday View Post
I'm a private pilot - I own my own aircraft. An airplane takes you from point A to point B. They are also fun.

Do you need a military style aircraft to go from a to b? No. But, why not have one if you want one. I'm friends with a couple of former Navy Aviators who own, and fly, F-14 Tomcats.

I don't have a problem with someone owning an Assault weapon as I do not have a problem with someone owning a Military fighter aircraft.
I am sure the shipping charges would kill you, but here is something you might get a kick out of.

Do you need a T-55 MBT? are they fun? I would bet. Can you own a T-55 Main Battle tank (some countries still use them as first line defense weapons) Ohh yell yea you can purchase and own your very own T-55 main battle tank...

www.tanksandjeeps.com T55 tanks for sale page (http://www.tanksforsale.co.uk/T55%20Tanks%20for%20sale_page.htm - broken link)
 
Old 08-24-2009, 09:56 PM
 
Location: Northglenn, Colorado
3,689 posts, read 9,279,520 times
Reputation: 944
Quote:
Originally Posted by AxisMundi View Post
Economy, health care, gay marriage, eminent domain, the wars...

All current issues.

2nd Amendment rights...

Not a current issue since there is nothing in the legislative pipe threatening that Right, but an as usual sensationalist opportunity for the right-wingers.

I give you HR45
Search Results - THOMAS (Library of Congress)


an over the top peice of legislation that would jail you for 5 years if you move, and fail to re register your firearms within 30 days.
 
Old 08-24-2009, 10:12 PM
 
4,529 posts, read 4,755,489 times
Reputation: 730
Quote:
Originally Posted by Noahma View Post
I give you HR45
Search Results - THOMAS (Library of Congress)


an over the top peice of legislation that would jail you for 5 years if you move, and fail to re register your firearms within 30 days.
Thank you for making my point for me.

The Blair Holt Act (HR45) I was already well aware of, thank you.

It seeks to do somethign I have advocated for years, close certain looholes that criminals use to get their weapons, and create interstate controls as well so criminals cannot cross state lines to get their weapons from a legal vendor.

This Act is another case of Regulation, not Elimination, and one long needed.

Do you have another example you would like to try and use?
 
Old 08-24-2009, 10:40 PM
 
Location: Northglenn, Colorado
3,689 posts, read 9,279,520 times
Reputation: 944
Quote:
Originally Posted by AxisMundi View Post
Thank you for making my point for me.

The Blair Holt Act (HR45) I was already well aware of, thank you.

It seeks to do somethign I have advocated for years, close certain looholes that criminals use to get their weapons, and create interstate controls as well so criminals cannot cross state lines to get their weapons from a legal vendor.

This Act is another case of Regulation, not Elimination, and one long needed.

Do you have another example you would like to try and use?
it is over reaching legislation on a constitutional right.
The items listed within the bill are over and beyond "reasonable restrictions"

You had said that there was no legislation being considered that would further erode our second amendment rights, which you now concede yourself is false.

The regulations within the bill are indeed an elimination for the common man to excercise his rights as enumerated within the Constitution of the United States.

not to mention the usurpation of more state rights not relegated to the feds.
 
Old 08-24-2009, 10:50 PM
 
4,529 posts, read 4,755,489 times
Reputation: 730
Quote:
Originally Posted by Noahma View Post
it is over reaching legislation on a constitutional right.
The items listed within the bill are over and beyond "reasonable restrictions"

You had said that there was no legislation being considered that would further erode our second amendment rights, which you now concede yourself is false.

The regulations within the bill are indeed an elimination for the common man to excercise his rights as enumerated within the Constitution of the United States.

not to mention the usurpation of more state rights not relegated to the feds.
No, it isn't.

The Feds control interstate concerns, always have. It's part of their Constitutional Mandate.

And those "reasonable restrictions" are no less, or more, than most licensing requirements at the state level.

This isn;t a case of eroding anything, it is only seeking to standardize licensing requirements and eliminate interstate traficing in illegal weapons.

Of course I invite you to post snippets of the Bill to substantiate your comments.
 
Old 08-24-2009, 11:19 PM
 
Location: Northglenn, Colorado
3,689 posts, read 9,279,520 times
Reputation: 944
Quote:
Originally Posted by AxisMundi View Post
No, it isn't.

The Feds control interstate concerns, always have. It's part of their Constitutional Mandate.

And those "reasonable restrictions" are no less, or more, than most licensing requirements at the state level.

This isn;t a case of eroding anything, it is only seeking to standardize licensing requirements and eliminate interstate traficing in illegal weapons.

Of course I invite you to post snippets of the Bill to substantiate your comments.
Most states in the Union do NOT have required liscensing of firearms. They must however follow the guidelines of the Gun Control Act of 1968 which requires firarm dealers to be licensed, and a NICS background check on the purchaser.



SEC. 402. REGULATIONS.

(a) In General- The Attorney General shall issue regulations governing the licensing of possessors of qualifying firearms and the recorded sale of qualifying firearms, consistent with this Act and the amendments made by this Act, as the Attorney General determines to be reasonably necessary to reduce or prevent deaths or injuries resulting from qualifying firearms, and to assist law enforcement in the apprehension of owners or users of qualifying firearms used in criminal activity.

hmm... the use of the term "qualifying firearm" shows to me that there will be a list if you will of firearms allowed for the general populace to purchase. This list of "qualifying firearms" is decided by the Attorney General. What if he decides with his given powers to only allow BB guns to be on that "qualifying firearms" list? That most certainly would be a restriction of the Second Amendment as outlined in the Constitution of the United States.

under section 601, the usurpation of state law is outlined. Montana sells firearms produced in Montana, to Montana residence, this is well out of the grasp of the Federal government's grubby little hands. No interstate commerce has taken place. Yet this part of the law would require these particular firearms to be licensed before sale?

now its late, I must get to bed.
 
Old 08-24-2009, 11:25 PM
 
4,529 posts, read 4,755,489 times
Reputation: 730
Quote:
Originally Posted by Noahma View Post
Most states in the Union do NOT have required liscensing of firearms. They must however follow the guidelines of the Gun Control Act of 1968 which requires firarm dealers to be licensed, and a NICS background check on the purchaser.



SEC. 402. REGULATIONS.

(a) In General- The Attorney General shall issue regulations governing the licensing of possessors of qualifying firearms and the recorded sale of qualifying firearms, consistent with this Act and the amendments made by this Act, as the Attorney General determines to be reasonably necessary to reduce or prevent deaths or injuries resulting from qualifying firearms, and to assist law enforcement in the apprehension of owners or users of qualifying firearms used in criminal activity.

hmm... the use of the term "qualifying firearm" shows to me that there will be a list if you will of firearms allowed for the general populace to purchase. This list of "qualifying firearms" is decided by the Attorney General. What if he decides with his given powers to only allow BB guns to be on that "qualifying firearms" list? That most certainly would be a restriction of the Second Amendment as outlined in the Constitution of the United States.

under section 601, the usurpation of state law is outlined. Montana sells firearms produced in Montana, to Montana residence, this is well out of the grasp of the Federal government's grubby little hands. No interstate commerce has taken place. Yet this part of the law would require these particular firearms to be licensed before sale?

now its late, I must get to bed.
And your point? (which apperently we msut wait for)

Again, this is merely expanding the lciensing requirement, and not imposing any elimination of the 2nd.
 
Old 08-24-2009, 11:26 PM
 
Location: SE Florida
1,194 posts, read 3,608,853 times
Reputation: 753
I am not new to firearms but I am totally against a citizen being dupped from owning a firearm.

New laws that are considered to make owning a weapon are really looking into the route of giving up a potential gun owners "right arm" to purchase a weapon. In Florida it is not unlawful to purchase a weapon from a private concern. We all know that it circumvents the background check and I for one believe all purchasers of a weapon should really get checked....

Today I purchased a 9mm Beretta and it is so sweet. I will wait 3 days to pick it up and I have no problem because I am a law abiding Vietnam Vet and still waiting for my "Concealed Permit" to arrive. I do carry a good sum of money most of the times because I enjoy buying a car that I could resell and most sellers do not accept cards and do not wait till the potential buyer could or may return with the right money....

I also believe that a firearm purchased within the state of the buyer really should be evaluated almost the same as the "Concealed Weapon" license. Then we may be able to control at least some of the weapons that are gettting in the hands of criminals.

Last edited by Synergy1; 08-24-2009 at 11:59 PM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Closed Thread

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Great Debates
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2018, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top