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.
I'm not for taking away people's guns. Well, I do think it would be better that way, but I don't believe it's fair to responsible gun owners, and I don't think it's possible. Also, on the chance that there really are people getting together in secret with the sole goal of protecting us in case the government turns against us, I don't want to hurt their efforts.
I do want to make it harder to get, and then amass a collection of guns. We have very strict rules governing our ability to drive, and I think we need them even stronger for guns.
Training, classes, and a test before you can purchase a gun. A database of owners, and what they own. Required Maintenance checks, safe storage requirements, and stricter rules on previous offenders, and possession while under the influence.
If you're in charge of our safety, these should be simple requirements to follow.
What would be the point in all of the statement in bold if you are for having responsible gun owners willing to do what is necessary? A registry, on what weapons you have exists. However, a newer style of registry would make it that much easier to confiscate if the government were to ever enact tyrannical laws...
Training, a test, provides more registry to find these members of the militia easier.
Safe storage requirements. That is figurative at best. One safe or case that locks may be more prone to being cut open lock drilled than the other.
Ditch your requirements. That's not conducive. Just makes it that more obvious who has what and where...
Repeat offenders there are already laws that adressing them the punishments should be more severe and longer.
Per Florida state law it is a felony to create a record or registry of firearms for it may be a shopping list for criminals and serve as prejudice against gun owners.
So... you have to literally drop the emotional connection to it and look at the legitimate logical side of these types of debates.
Require all you want, the law is on the books, murder is illegal... what did that law prevent?
I don't mean to be offensive or rude... it just comes across as another emotional argument that states you are willing to forfeit your rights and everyone else's for a cause that's while noble, already have laws to prevent, restrictions to prevent.
Trading liberty for security... isn't a good thing.
Face it no future law would bring those people back. And won't prevent another event like this from ever happening again... it simply wont. Subjective requirements won't do anything, who's the anointed one who decides what training is sufficient? You'd probably discount the police from carrying if you are a competitive shooter who also trains in force on force. You want police barred? That's what you pose... it's a real posibility. In NY state, police woke up hearing their side arms were illegal over night due to the safe act gun portion. They had to ratify it immediately to give the police anointed powers to hold and carry weapons...
"I ask who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people, except a few public officers."
- George Mason, Address to the Virginia Ratifying Convention, June 4, 1788"
""The Constitution of most of our states (and of the United States) assert that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed."
- Thomas Jefferson, letter to to John Cartwright, 5 June 1824
"Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of."
- James Madison, Federalist No. 46, January 29, 1788
"The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the best and most natural defense of a free country."
- James Madison, I Annals of Congress 434, June 8, 1789
"...the ultimate authority, wherever the derivative may be found, resides in the people alone..."
- James Madison, Federalist No. 46, January 29, 1788
If you can find ANY quotes that differ, please post them.
As part of a "well-regulated" militia. Ammosexuals always forget about that part of 2A. Even the NRA can't quote it correctly.
What needs to happen is a ban on ammunition sales except to licensed gun owners. Self-contained ammo is not covered under 2A, since it didn't exist at the time and is not mentioned snce everyone molded their own. Let everyone have all the licensed guns they want, but control the supply of fodder.
and you are at the MINIMUM caliber of rifle used in the Revolutionary War. Only difference is shape of the projectile and a less pain in the rear end loading process.
To get to the ridiculous .75 caliber musket ammo (again, common enough during that period), Anzio makes a rifle that fires 20mm Vulcan shells that cost like $45 each.
This is one of those things I disagree with left. This affects both sides equally so if the population wants to own bazookas f it, I dont care. The hysteria for this mass shootings is unwarranted, in our open society if someone has the resources and will they can do that kind of mass shooting, that is what is. Are you going to check everyones bags before going in to a hotel? even if you had a real registry are you going to have 24/7 surveillance for every person that owns more than 10 guns? My stance on this has always been the price of freedom angle, but unlike conservatives i think that applies universally not only to middle age white dudes, so when there is an event by a muslim I dont think we should ban all muslims from entering our country.
I would like universal registration for all sales including private, I think this will lessen the availability of weapons in inner cities and stop the profiteering of individuals who abuse our current laws.
"so if the population wants to own bazookas f it, I don't care."
MANY people own cannons, tanks and military airplanes.
Your argument is just as equally ridiculous. If you need arms that can put up an adequate fight against the enemy, you are going to need tanks, drones, aircraft, field artillery and nuclear weapons. A group of citizens are going to be just as helpless with muskets as they would be with full auto rifles against the government or an organized army.
The idea that a bunch of ammosexuals could use their gun collections to eliminate a tyrannical government is just a juvenile fantasy.
"The idea that a bunch of ammosexuals could use their gun collections to eliminate a tyrannical government is just a juvenile fantasy"
We DID beat the "best military army in the world" to gain our independence!
Nowhere in the constitution does it specify which arms a well regulated militia many carry but the SCOTUS, the final arbiter of constitutional interpretation, as specified by the constitution, states that the second amendment is subject to reasonable restrictions which includes various types of firearms and other destructive devices.
As a comparison, nowhere in the first amendment does it say you can't yell fire in a crowded theater as an act of freedom of speech yet it's applied to the first amendment as a reasonable restriction.
What exactly is your point? That anyone can own any firearm they chose and bring it anywhere at any time?
Likewise, that anyone can incite mob panic with their speech anytime, anywhere?
Do you agree with EVERY decision the Supreme Court has made?
At one time they "ruled" that blacks are only 3/5 of a person.
and you are at the MINIMUM caliber of rifle used in the Revolutionary War. Only difference is shape of the projectile and a less pain in the rear end loading process.
To get to the ridiculous .75 caliber musket ammo (again, common enough during that period), Anzio makes a rifle that fires 20mm Vulcan shells that cost like $45 each.
But 'com on man, that looks scary. Cant be legal or good, I bet if you look at it the wrong way it will go off and kill 5-6 people. Ban it!
Liberty means having the capability to gun down hundreds of your fellow citizens in a matter of minutes? I`ll take security any day.
liberty does not mean legal criminal activity and you know it. that is why we do have laws for when people do wrong we can punish them
Quote:
Originally Posted by NY_refugee87
*pats sheep on the head*
So much for land of the free home of the brave.
9/11 happens, nobody bats an eye but has the outrage to be groped at TSA to prevent another 9/11...
That's what happens when you adopt the victim mentality, and live in fear, and trade liberty for security.
Watch and see who profits off of this. Same folks that developed X ray luggage equipment. Same folks that developed the body scanners, the private security contractors that employ people to sift through your purses coats and grope you, being present at every place that holds a gathering of people.
Sporting events.
Casinos.
City celebrations.
Kiss 4th of July fireworks presentations goodbye for the report of fireworks mask gun fire.
Keep living in fear. Shareholders are hoping that you do.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tovarisch
Until you resolve what they meant by a militia it's all speculation.
Quote:
Originally Posted by NY_refugee87
Militia would be armed citizens to protect from threats foreign and domestic and protect against tyranny.
Militia being well regulated in well working order.
Not regulated as subjective legislation passed to fit a political agenda.
An armed society is a free society. Preventing tyranny and overstep of government will onto the lives of its citizens.
you beat me to it. tovarish, the militia is in fact WE THE PEOPLE of the united states. the founders envisioned a citizen army that would go about their day to day routines of farming, metal working, accounting, etc. but when there was a threat to the state or the nation, the people would rise up, bring their firearms to the battle and defend the state or nation. and when the battle or war was over, they would go home to their previous daily lives, if they survived.
and if we look at the well regulated part of the amendment, at that time the phrase well regulated meant in good working order. which meant that the founders also envisioned the people getting together once in a while and drilling with each other to prevent issues of everyone doing their own thing, and not working as a team.
and if you read the constitution, the only military service that is in fact authorized by the constitution specifically is the navy.
Quote:
Originally Posted by NY_refugee87
To summarize.
The NFA of 1934, the Hughes Amendment and any other gun control measures as it stands, are completely unconstitutional.
and the only reason they are considered constitutional is because FDR threatened to pack the supreme court with 16 judges if he didnt get the ruling he wanted on that act. and people fear trump?
Quote:
Originally Posted by FatBob96
This line of reasoning has been debunked many, many times on this forum and elsewhere.
The evolution of weapons technology did not begin in 1776.
The forefathers had seen weapons evolve in the past and during their lifetimes, so it can be easily deduced that they would expect the power and efficiency of weapons to continue to increase.
Prototype semi automatic weapons pre date the constitution by 50 years.
Private citizens owned artillery and even battleships.
Learn some history before trying to base your argument on it.
the problem is that she doesnt educate herself properly because she doesnt want to. she has been told many times in the past that she is full of crap, and what the real truth is, and she refuses to accept it.
It was ruled that the second amendment is not to limit the rights of what the populace may have available to them.
This guy, clearly isn't part of the 3% movement or a militia. The militia is to protect from all threats foreign and domestic and to prevent tyranny. So that right there squashes your argument as saying the militia is turning against its citizens.
It's not an "ammo sexual" argument, it's not a "pro gunner" argument.
It expresses clearly, which ever instruments the government has at their disposal shall be at your disposal and everyone elses. Thus well regulated, in well working order. The militia does not function as a structured military as you would know it. There could be someone living next door to you, and you wouldn't know they were a part of a militia unless presenting evidence. But he/she, they, may go away for a weekend and for all you know they went on a weekend trip, meanwhile they're running drills and exercises with people from within your state at certain location. That's how most modern militias work. Some are nurses. Some are lawyers, some are former military, some are active or former law enforcement. Some are just regular Joes and Janes and you wouldn't know it.
When we get talking about "nuclear warheads" that's exactly where I draw the line as the militia is to act in accordance for the benefit of society. Not to turn a nation rogue to fire off at an opposing country say north Korea or Russia... that's what the meme warfare is for...
Propose this. Whether you are a democrat or a republican. Picture a piece of legislation that will have heavy consequence or be very harmful in one shape or another.
What's from stopping it from passing?
The very thing you seek to ban...
Interpretation and emotion restricts access in vain of the incident that has occurred is a reason I became a Republican when I became of age. I can't politicize a tragedy.
For those who want to say obamas administration is responsible that's just a farce.
The ATF ruled that the implement did not alter the mechanical functionality of the firearm which is why they are legal. You are not altering by law the mechanism of the firearm.
Further proving my theory on what this POS motive was.
If he was so bent on slaying so many people... a bomb could have been far more effective.
But this wasn't a bomb. This was carried out with something conservatives and gun owners all over "cling to" I have no doubt in my mind this was his motive. Nothing else seems to add up. Wealthy... old... this dude lived a life most envy and would give anything for.... and carries out a vile act. And just so happens to be with modified rifles that have a stigma attached via the media and left... riiigghhttt he just snapped. Sure...
"It was ruled that the second amendment is not to limit the rights of what the populace may have available to them."
"It was ruled that the second amendment is not to limit the rights of what the populace may have available to them."
Are you aware that may rulings have later been overturned by newer courts?
Today's court could OVERRULE that decision.
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.
no future law would bring those people back. And won't prevent another event like this from ever happening again... it simply wont. Subjective requirements won't do anything, who's the anointed one who decides what training is sufficient? You'd probably discount the police from carrying if you are a competitive shooter who also trains in force on force. You want police barred? That's what you pose... it's a real posibility. In NY state, police woke up hearing their side arms were illegal over night due to the safe act gun portion. They had to ratify it immediately to give the police anointed powers to hold and carry weapons...
this dude lived a life most envy and would give anything for.... and carries out a vile act. And just so happens to be with modified rifles that have a stigma attached via the media and left... riiigghhttt he just snapped. Sure...
