Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [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)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 05-29-2018, 10:12 AM
 
Location: San Diego
18,741 posts, read 7,620,616 times
Reputation: 15011

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Redraven View Post
In 1776 and 1789, ALL firearms were "military style weapons".
THINK about that!
Fortunately the Constitution makes no exceptions for people who aren't military. Or for those who are, for that matter. Or whether a certain gun is used by the military or not.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 05-29-2018, 10:31 AM
 
482 posts, read 242,617 times
Reputation: 683
The biggest problem with discussing gun laws is the fact that the extremists always control the narrative.

On one hand, you have people that want to ban one's very right to defend themselves. On the other hand, you have people that still think it's 1776.

Should a law abiding citizen be allowed to conceal carry a handgun anywhere they wish outside of private property which forbids it? I believe so.

Should one be able to purchase a high capacity semi-automatic weapon without some serious licensing? Probably not.

Since there are literally millions of these weapons in this country now, there really is no debate. We should have pumped the breaks said weapons in the 1980's before everything got out of hand. We made our own bed, and now we must sleep in it. I've said for years that the reason I own a weapons like my AK-47 or my Beretta 92 handgun isn't because I fear my government. It's because I know that my ****head neighbors own these weapons.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-29-2018, 11:11 AM
 
Location: San Diego
18,741 posts, read 7,620,616 times
Reputation: 15011
Quote:
Originally Posted by spider99 View Post
Should one be able to purchase a high capacity semi-automatic weapon without some serious licensing? Probably not.
Chalk up another big-govt advocate who believes government should have the power to decide who can own a gun and who can't.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-29-2018, 11:55 AM
 
19,724 posts, read 10,135,138 times
Reputation: 13096
Quote:
Originally Posted by spider99 View Post

Should one be able to purchase a high capacity semi-automatic weapon without some serious licensing? Probably not.
They are not a new thing. I have had one since I was a kid and am 70 years old.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-29-2018, 12:05 PM
 
172 posts, read 108,035 times
Reputation: 552
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pilot1 View Post
Yes, buy you need a Class III License, and Tax Stamp, with extensive background check and fingerprinting. ALL unconstitutional.
You do not need a FFL to own machine guns.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-29-2018, 12:10 PM
 
Location: The Republic of Texas
78,863 posts, read 46,654,236 times
Reputation: 18521
Quote:
Originally Posted by dspguy View Post
In regards to full auto option:

What exactly is your point? It was a document written in the 18th century. Funny how to some people, certain things are obvious... such as the 2nd Amendment giving you la carte blanche for anything up to nuclear weapons (and you'd make that argument too).

Yet, certain things weren't so obvious. We had to go out of our way with amendments to:

- end slavery
- all all men to vote
- allow women to vote
- remind everyone that they can still vote

We needed the Supreme Court to give the "obvious right" to same-sex people to have a legally recognized marriage.

We also needed the Supreme Court to give the "obvious right" for social integration.

I guess my point is... why is it that there's this blanket statement about the 2nd Amendment that apparently just applies to whatever people want it to be, yet it is like pulling teeth to get many other aspects of our Constitution recognized as "obvious."

To you, maybe it is obvious that the 2nd Amendment covers any and all powder-ignited projectiles. To the rest of the nation, it was probably obvious that "all men are created equal" yet apparently it isn't obvious enough.



Legislation cannot add language to the constitution, especially the bill of rights.
Your rights don't come from the Supreme Court.
They come from the barrel of a gun.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-29-2018, 12:15 PM
 
Location: Arizona
7,511 posts, read 4,358,665 times
Reputation: 6165
Quote:
Originally Posted by spider99 View Post
The biggest problem with discussing gun laws is the fact that the extremists always control the narrative.

On one hand, you have people that want to ban one's very right to defend themselves. On the other hand, you have people that still think it's 1776.

Should a law abiding citizen be allowed to conceal carry a handgun anywhere they wish outside of private property which forbids it? I believe so.

Should one be able to purchase a high capacity semi-automatic weapon without some serious licensing? Probably not.

Since there are literally millions of these weapons in this country now, there really is no debate. We should have pumped the breaks said weapons in the 1980's before everything got out of hand. We made our own bed, and now we must sleep in it. I've said for years that the reason I own a weapons like my AK-47 or my Beretta 92 handgun isn't because I fear my government. It's because I know that my ****head neighbors own these weapons.
Law abiding people are law abiding people. PERIOD. Since they can be trusted to "carry a handgun anywhere they wish outside of private property which forbids it". Then they can be trusted to carry and own any type of firearm they wish. The ownership of a high capacity semi-automatic weapon does not somehow suddenly turn them into a mass murderer. No more than a gallon of gas turns them into an arsonist. They can do just as much damage with a coupla' ten round magazines in place of one 30 round magazine. The Santa Fe shooter killed 10 with a .38 revolver and a shotgun. The Happyland Fire arsonist killed 87 with what was a dollars worth of gasoline at the time, a container, and either a match or a lighter.

High capacity semi-automatic weapons have been available to lawfully own well before the 1980's. Up until 1934 fully automatic weapons were legal to own without a Class III license. An "assault weapons" ban was in affect from 1994-2004 and showed no appreciable effect on violent crime and was not renewed after several attempts to reinstate it failed.

If you feel that you have to own an AK-47 and Beretta 92 handgun because you fear your neighbors that much. Then maybe it's you that they have to fear?

I own guns and I don't fear my neighbors at all. I have no reason to fear my neighbors nor have I given them any reason to fear me. I don't consider them to be ****head's. If you consider them to be ****head's then why do you still live there? Especially if they are the reason why you own an AK-47 and Beretta 92 handgun to begin with. It must really suck to be you. If I were you I'd seriously reconsider owning any type of firearm. Not everyone is like you. Maybe that's why you don't trust your neighbors?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-29-2018, 12:19 PM
 
Location: Arizona
7,511 posts, read 4,358,665 times
Reputation: 6165
Quote:
Originally Posted by COJeff View Post
You do not need a FFL to own machine guns.
You need an FFL to engage in the business of selling firearms. Pilot1 is 100% correct:
Quote:
"Yes, but you need a Class III License, and Tax Stamp, with extensive background check and fingerprinting. ALL unconstitutional."
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-29-2018, 12:21 PM
 
Location: Morrison, CO
34,237 posts, read 18,594,984 times
Reputation: 25807
Quote:
Originally Posted by COJeff View Post
You do not need a FFL to own machine guns.
Where did I say you did? You don't need an FFL, but you do need a Class III. I am a former 01 FFL holder.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-29-2018, 12:32 PM
 
Location: Arizona
7,511 posts, read 4,358,665 times
Reputation: 6165
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pilot1 View Post
Where did I say you did? You don't need an FFL, but you do need a Class III. I am a former 01 FFL holder.
Amazing, isn't it? That those who know so little about a subject post as if they know everything about it. Let's just hope they don't vote. In this case I don't think COJeff knows the difference between the two different types of licenses and believes that they are one and the same. Otherwise he wouldn't have stated the obvious?

Last edited by Ex New Yorker; 05-29-2018 at 12:40 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


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 > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - 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, 36, 37 - Top