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.
The problem with the AR-15 is not how it looks but just the fact that it's a weapon with the power of a rifle that can shoot as quickly as a pistol. There is no valid civilian use for such a weapon.
And yes, I am qualified shotgun, M-14, M-16, and M-9 in the USN. Now that I'm a civilian, gun ownership is neither required nor desired.
Yes there is a valid civilian use.
Sporting events using AR-15's, M-1A's. Called the national matches.
The Supreme Court has made very bad decisions in the past and therefore I put no faith in them. The Constitution is as clear as can be on this matter. If you want to cite past cases then go ahead. When the feds start round people up without a trial, Korematsu v. United States gives them a precedent to do so.
To transfer a legal NFA weapon (National Firearms Act) from one person to another requires the use of a Title III NFA licensed dealer to obtain approval from ATF and the payment of $200. That's all.
It isn't, as long as you are in possesion of a class III federal Firearms license.
The average person doesn't need the Title III license. They have to obtain the weapon from a Title III dealer who will run the paperwork through ATF for the buyer. The buyer has to meet all state and Federal regulations for the ownership of such weapons. For instance, you have to get ATF approval to cross state lines with the weapon and the reason for taking the weapon across state lines. The owner also has to plan his route as some states do not allow the ownership of NFA weapons.
Quote:
I can, as long as I have the Class III license, am willing to go through extended background checks, pay a 200 dollar tax stamp, and Register my firearms with the BATFE
Somewhat correct. The average person can own NFA weapons as long as they do pass the background checks and a Title III dealer runs the paperwork through ATF along with the $200. When ATF approves the paperwork, the weapon is transferred to the purchaser. The paperwork will have a $200 tax stamp attached and that is the owners proof of legal ownership of the weapon.
The average person doesn't need the Title III license. They have to obtain the weapon from a Title III dealer who will run the paperwork through ATF for the buyer. The buyer has to meet all state and Federal regulations for the ownership of such weapons. For instance, you have to get ATF approval to cross state lines with the weapon and the reason for taking the weapon across state lines. The owner also has to plan his route as some states do not allow the ownership of NFA weapons.
Somewhat correct. The average person can own NFA weapons as long as they do pass the background checks and a Title III dealer runs the paperwork through ATF along with the $200. When ATF approves the paperwork, the weapon is transferred to the purchaser. The paperwork will have a $200 tax stamp attached and that is the owners proof of legal ownership of the weapon.
Ah, well I guess I learned something today. So what you are saying, is that I don't have to have the classIII license, I just have to buy the weapon from a dealer who does?
Go ahead and post a reference to support your straw man argument...
I really don't like it when I say "If I remember correctly", which hopefully would imply to you that I don't feel like digging up the stats myself. You are certainly welcome to, but I don't feel like doing it so if you want the them you should spend about 3 minutes google them.
But that's okay, I'll post some secondary sources, but if you want originally sources please feel free to look them up yourself. Thanks.
(Also, I don't think you are using the phrase "straw man argument" correctly.)
Quote:
The number of murders in the U.S. in 2011 committed with rifles: 323.
I really don't like it when I say "If I remember correctly", which hopefully would imply to you that I don't feel like digging up the stats myself. You are certainly welcome to, but I don't feel like doing it so if you want the them you should spend about 3 minutes google them.
But that's okay, I'll post some secondary sources, but if you want originally sources please feel free to look them up yourself. Thanks.
(Also, I don't think you are using the phrase "straw man argument" correctly.)
The AR-15 style weapons are very popular these days. My preferences are for bolt action Mauser, a M1A and the 1911 .45 Colt.
There are two parts to the gun banners attitude. One is they are frightened by the thought of having to personally defend themselves and, second, they desperately want to keep guns away from poor and lower income (low class) people.
Are they following an absolutist's version of what the second amendment ought to be? Probably not. Should certain Rights have checks and balances? If not, than the right to free speech should also include screaming fire in a movie theater, and it should also protect slander and Libel as well, correct? So in reality, the government is not following the 1st amendment either....
Yelling "FIRE" when there is none or slandering someone is a criminal act. Owning something should never be criminal.
Quote:
Originally Posted by WhipperSnapper 88
and that is because we as a society have determined that certain infringments on certain rights are acceptable in order to maintain a functional and operational society. So how do we decide where the line should be drawn? I think we have to examine the intent of the right in order to make that determination. Certainly the franmers never intended for you to be able to slander someone or bear false witness against them. They intended for a free exchange of thoughts and ideas to be possible without the fear of repercussion. So ask yourself, does making slander and libel illegal contradict with the intent of the first amendment? I think you'll find the answer is no.
When an act of one person violates, interferes, infringes or or blatantly crushes someone elses rights. Making an object illegal because it MIGHT be used in an illegal manner is just stupid.
Quote:
Originally Posted by WhipperSnapper 88
So what was the intent of the 2A? The truth is, the framers intended for the people to have the tools capable of defending Liberty if necessary. Does making full auto weapons and heavy artillery hard for the average citizen to get contradict the framers intent? I suppose the answer to that question is more subjective than straightforward. In my opinion, the answer is no. We as a country entrust the judges who make up the Supreme Court to make these determinations, and they have determined that weapons that are not in common use, are strange or unusual, or are not ideal for lawful purposes, to not be protected under the Second Amendment. Likewise, the 2A doesn't say that the gov't can restrict access to arms to felons or the mentally ill, but did the founders intend for these type's of people to own arms? The answer is no, and that can be backed up by the statements of the founders themselves, as they believed that "peaceable citizens ought not be barred the use of arms", so it stands to reason that they believed a restriction against the use of arms by people who were not peaceable is more than reasonable.
I don't. They are humans the same as me and they make mistakes. The biggest in the last 100 years has been the Constitutionality of internment camps during WWII. Because no Congress has had the guts to impeach one of them, each new member brings more and more of their personal agenda into their rulings. Per the Constitution, these are not lifetime appointments. Article III, Section 1:
The judicial Power of the United States shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services a Compensation, which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office.
Quote:
Originally Posted by WhipperSnapper 88
I think the 2008 and 2010 decisions by the Supreme Court are fair and honest, and they strike a delicate balance. Obviously there are going to be others who disagree, That said, I don't think the Supreme Court's work on the matter is over. They've yet to determine the Constitutionality of laws pertaining to a citizens right to "bear" arms outside the home and whether or not a citizen's right to defend themselves extends beyond their front door.
My right and everyone's right to life is inherent and does not end when they leave their house.
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.
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.
