The Nation's Gun Laws: Helps or Hurts?

reply to post by AngryCymraeg


The beginning of the sentence explains why "the people" have "the right" it is explainatory as to why, but in the U.S. Constitution, "the people" are the citizens of the United States. If they had wanted the "right" to only be the militia, then it would have read, 'the militia' has 'the right' but this is not how it is written. The framers and drafters of the Constitution were highly intelligent, and worked diligently to word everything very carefully. This says "the people", as in "We, the people".

It is this way because of what the militia was for, an out of control governmental body. In the case of our government becoming tyrannical, "the people" have the ability to stand against such tyranny by being armed, thus effectively turning "the people" into a militia.

For everyones further reading pleasure, this poster, has already explained in depth:
reply to post by vor78


star for you by the way vor, an excellent post!

reply to post by AngryCymraeg


Nope, nope, nope and nope. That is an all to common misconception of the 2nd. That has all been straightened out now. You are looking at the wrong part and not realizing what that says. " A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state". That is the premise of the right. It is the intended purpose, but it is not the right itself. Also research the word militia. It is not the national guard. The national guard is reserve force of federal troops. Definitely not a militia. A militia is composed of citizens with arms, not soldiers. "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed". This is a right guaranteed by the constitution, not granted by. It is an inalienable right granted to all free men by their creator. All the 2nd means is the federal government cannot infringe on your natural right to own arms...

Originally posted by AngryCymraeg

Originally posted by OpinionatedB
reply to post by Cosmic911

 

Well... the constitution says that American citizens have the right to bear arms...

the constitution says 'right'.... it does not say which citizens, it says all citizens, therefore, anyone who is an American has the god given constitutional right....

it is not a privilege it is a RIGHT... you cannot put fees, or permits, or restrictions willy nilly on a RIGHT.

Yes, but you need to read the whole amendment to get the context behind it. IIRC the relevant bit is: "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed", which makes it very clear that people in the Militia (an early form of National Guard, similar to the Tderritorials here in the UK) have the right to bear arms.
Personally speaking, over on this side of the Atlantic the consensus is that the US obsession with guns is just freaking nuts. If you want a machine gun then join the bloody army.

I just have to jump in here real quick and note something because this concept is so dated now, it vibrates.

The District Of Columbia Vs. Heller (June, 2008) ended that debate once and for all and it was one hell of a gamble they took. The case was for all the marbles and if the court had gone the other way, we'd have been screwed and had to live with it as much as the actual finding is something the Anti-gun people HAVE to live with.

The finding most relevant to this thread from the Heller case was that the right to bear arms in the United States was found to be an INDIVIDUAL right of the people and totally unrelated to formal service in a militia or military organization.


Citizens who enjoy the shooting sports and other aspects of our 2nd Amendment fought for decades to see such a thing settled, once and for all. The arguments about Militia vs. Citizen and what it all meant were endless. Well, quite literally, there is no debate and that argument is over. The Super Court is THE law of the land and they have spoken with 100% clarity (that alone was a nice change) on this issue. It is now and always an individual right, not a collective one. They also incorporated the Amendment which means it has equal force to the States as the Federal Government. That SOUNDS like a no-brainer and a minor thing but that effect was HUGE.

No one has to like it, they just have to accept it. It IS the law of our land and that, as they say, is that.

Originally posted by Cosmic911
reply to post by Wrabbit2000

 

State lines apparently make worlds and worlds of difference. I was hurting in just reading what you have to go through in New York state. It's like a different nation from this region (outside Illinois).

That was the point of the thread, to point out (mostly to anti-gun members) how different it is from state to state and that in some states there are very aggressive and restrictive gun laws. No one from NY wants to hear about more gun laws, especially if they are additionally restrictive.

Thanks for chiming in. And feeling my pain!

Compared to most states, its a nightmare to obtain a handgun permit here.

Vermont has the most permissive gun laws in the country, and our rate of gun homicide is behind only New Hampshire (per Wikipedia). If someone gets shot anywhere in the state, it will be on all of the local news stations in the state and in every newspaper because it's such big news for us. Open and concealed carry are permitted anywhere in the state with the exception of the usual places. Vermont doesn't even issue permits to carry weapons. This is a drawback in some sense, as many states will reciprocate permits. Obviously, in the case of this one particular state, lack of legislation has not caused rampant gun violence. It seems that it's usually the drug dealers from Massachusetts and New York who are coming up here and 'capping' people.

en.wikipedia.org...

Fair enough. I stand by my point however that people who want to fire off lots of machine guns should join the bloody army.

reply to post by AngryCymraeg


No argument there. Machine guns are pretty much illegal and unobtainable here in the US. You can actually own one, if you jump through tons of paperwork hoops and get the necessary ATF license to do so. It is ridiculously expensive and is pretty much restricted to wealthy collectors and gun shop owners. Most gun owners have no interest in fully automatic weapons whatsoever. The media generally characterizes any semi automatic rifle as a "machine gun" through ignorance or by deliberate purpose to inflame the public. The weapons used in the Colorado shooting where semi automatic, i.e. one trigger pull one round fired. These are legal in most, if not all states. It is the states here that truly regulate firearms, not the federal government. Where I live they are legal, and though I do not own any such guns, I do not fear civilian ownership. Guns are simply tools, like hammers. You can effectively kill with a hammer, just like a gun. Although a gun is, of course much more efficient. Further regulation, by laws, federal or state, will have small effect, if any, on shooting crimes. Criminals by there very nature, do not follow laws...

Originally posted by AngryCymraeg

Originally posted by OpinionatedB
reply to post by Cosmic911

 

Yes, but you need to read the whole amendment to get the context behind it. IIRC the relevant bit is: "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed", which makes it very clear that people in the Militia (an early form of National Guard, similar to the Tderritorials here in the UK) have the right to bear arms.
Personally speaking, over on this side of the Atlantic the consensus is that the US obsession with guns is just freaking nuts. If you want a machine gun then join the bloody army.

Sir YOU need not only to read BUT UNDERSTAND what that means.

Every anit-gun nut uses "well regulated militia" as proof who can have a gun. This ignores THREE BASIC FACTS.

1. A militia is NOT a "national guard" but a citizen who volunteers and at times upon to defend his home. state or country.
The National Guard is part of the regular army that can be called upon by the governor of a state, but THE MILITARY can OVERRIDE THE GOVERNOR AT ANY TIME. In other words they are only under the control of the governor at the whim (as it were) of the federal government. The ONLY EXCEPTION is the texas national guard who is ONLY answerable to texas (there is a national guard in texas as well).

So the idea a Militia is the same as the armed forces is incorrect. A militia member may be under the COMMAND of the regular military, but it was not historically or by definition federal military

2. The whole amendment is seperated by commas that make it individual points and rights. This is very important style and is repeated in the first amendment

"bridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble"

It does not say or imply you can have freedom of speech, involving the press while peacefully assembling, thus only applying if all three are tied together.
But each is individual, arguable, and independent.

3. As with the first amendment no one is saying (and have done in the first amendment case) you cannot have REASONABLE REQUIREMENTS/LIMITS. For example you cannot yell fire in a crowded theater.
No one is saying you cannot limit people from having rocket launchers, artiilery, tank guns or special licence for fully automatic weapons. In fact laws are in place and even the NRA supports this.

We sir do NOT HAVE A OBSESSION WITH GUNS, just with BASIC RIGHTS that other countries DO NOT ENJOY.

The cold hard truth is you cannot prevent someone who is evil from doing harm to another if they so want to.

The TRUE CRIME is there are those who put the "rights" of someone to steal/harm/kill you above the RIGHT TO DEFEND ONESELF.

Originally posted by AngryCymraeg
Fair enough. I stand by my point however that people who want to fire off lots of machine guns should join the bloody army.

So should we limit how much candy you buy because alot is unheathy for you?

Should we limit how may video games you use?

How big your TV is?


Really and those who want to drive cars that go above 65 (or 75 in some states) should become race car drivers?

Or better yet take away all the "bullet" bikes (motorcycles) and make them become motorbike racers if they want to drive one?

Before you say they don;t kill like guns just go to the local fire dept and ask them how many people they scrape off the highway

My point is this if you like something LEGAL and your not using it illegally who cares?

If I can affoard it, full out the paperwork and want to go shoot 1,000 rounds at targets all afternoon what business it of yours?

I think people would have much easier time to worry about themselves than what I am LEGALLY doing.

OP, I applaud your posting of the process you went through to get your permit in NYS. I hope it will answer others questions and effectively cause more people to lawfully apply to carry concealed in your state.

I am currently stationed in South Carolina, and it is a bit different, as the state has no registration/oversight of who buys a firearm. Only the required federal checks apply. South Carolina is a shall issue state, meaning that if you do not have a record, SC Law Enforcement Division WILL issue your permit providing you've paid the necessary fees and completed the required training (waiverable for trained military). There is no open carry in the state, and the usual places are all off limits (schools, government buildings, etc.). There is one law on the books that is ridiculous, there is no carrying permitted in an establishment serving alcohol. That law is in the process of being changed as we speak, to be stricken and just provide harsh penalties for people that conume alcohol while carrying. Because we all know there is no reason to need to protect yourself in an Applebee's or insert restaurant name here.

Originally posted by benrl
reply to post by Cosmic911

 

New York is also one of three states that requires a spent cartridge be forwarded from the manufacturer to the state to be maintained in a database

See thats why I think gun laws are stupid, thats a perfect example. IF i was a criminal, the first thing I would do would be Change the barrel, and firing pin. (which people often do if they are a hobbyist as well)

All fairly cheep and easy, and I just beat that gun law with out even trying, I did this for my first gun, buying "performance" parts.

Someone who is intent to do harm will, no amount of "regulation" will make us safe, Just as the TSA is a joke, so are most Gun control laws.

edit on 28-7-2012 by benrl because: (no reason given)

Agree:
Go ahead pile on the state "gun Laws" and the criminal who buys his gun illegally from his "homeys"(or takes them off a dead "gang banger" in the alley) to do illegal things ;just laughs long and loud
The only people attempting to obtain a legal pistol permit arethe people least likely to commit crimes& mayhem.. (It's farkin' idiotic).

There is no shortage of guns in private hands. Threats of confiscation would just increase sales and "cache-ing"..

Originally posted by AngryCymraeg

Originally posted by OpinionatedB
reply to post by Cosmic911

 

Well... the constitution says that American citizens have the right to bear arms...

the constitution says 'right'.... it does not say which citizens, it says all citizens, therefore, anyone who is an American has the god given constitutional right....

it is not a privilege it is a RIGHT... you cannot put fees, or permits, or restrictions willy nilly on a RIGHT.

Yes, but you need to read the whole amendment to get the context behind it. IIRC the relevant bit is: "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed", which makes it very clear that people in the Militia (an early form of National Guard, similar to the Tderritorials here in the UK) have the right to bear arms.
Personally speaking, over on this side of the Atlantic the consensus is that the US obsession with guns is just freaking nuts. If you want a machine gun then join the bloody army.

My turn (rant):

""well regulated" in the common usage of the time meant "equipped, trained, disciplined" i.e."finely tuned & Ready to fight".

Try:
Because a "combat ready" militia is necessary to the security of a free state (COMMA)...
The right of the people ( the people (technically all "able bodied males18-46") form the "militia")SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.
The requirement to equip the militia negates the idea only single shot.22's are legitimate civilian firearms.(i.e "sporting purposes" does not enter into it.)

The revolutionary war era musket was the equal of or better than the finest issued military arms of its time.
Do I "need" 30round magazines and a semi automatic battle rifle?

NO: Not until there is a need for the civilian militia to standup to an oppressive govt.

How long until that possibility expires?

As trustworthy as our politicians have proven to be: When a flock of pigs fly south outside my window (i.e. Never).
And I don't give one tiny rats' azz what your "consensus is" after all: you're all still freaking "SUBJECTS"!
" join the bloody army : "And a lot of us ARE trained military vets!

Guns aren't the problem: Crazy people are the problem!

reply to post by Cosmic911


There are NO gun "laws", only regulations, statute and code which DO NOT APPLY to human beings. We have property rights LONG antecedent to the creation of government. That's right...LONG ANTECEDENT to the creation of government. The government CAN NOT tell you what you may own, how you may use it or where you can take it. So long as you are responsible and threaten no one, harm no one and damage no property. Please for the love of god and your fellow man, repeat this again and again. I am the power and the authority, government is MY servant and slave, not the other way round. Government can kiss my rear and kiss my feet, I AM THE POWER and the AUTHORITY......They WILL respect that.

Originally posted by OpinionatedB
reply to post by Cosmic911

 

Well... the constitution says that American citizens have the right to bear arms...

the constitution says 'right'.... it does not say which citizens, it says all citizens, therefore, anyone who is an American has the god given constitutional right....

it is not a privilege it is a RIGHT... you cannot put fees, or permits, or restrictions willy nilly on a RIGHT.

First off, would YOU knowingly sell a gun to someone (a citizen) who had a history of violence? Would you sell a gun who had a known mental problem?. How would you know if you didn't do a background check.

Sure, there are people who may be violent/andor have mental problems that do not have a recorded history. So, they are citizens, would you say that there should be NO restrictions on their "right" to own a weapon they more than likely will use against someone?

Or are you arguing that everyone, even kids (who are citizens) should be trained and armed at all times in order to prevent a known violent individual from killing them?

That obviously would be the ONLY way you could get around that. Using your reasoning.

Originally posted by 46ACE


Yes, but you need to read the whole amendment to get the context behind it. IIRC the relevant bit is: "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed", which makes it very clear that people in the Militia (an early form of National Guard, similar to the Tderritorials here in the UK) have the right to bear arms.
Personally speaking, over on this side of the Atlantic the consensus is that the US obsession with guns is just freaking nuts. If you want a machine gun then join the bloody army.

My turn (rant):

""well regulated" in the common usage of the time meant "equipped, trained, disciplined" i.e."finely tuned & Ready to fight".

Try:
Because a "combat ready" militia is necessary to the security of a free state (COMMA)...
The right of the people ( the people (technically all "able bodied males18-46") form the "militia")SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.
The requirement to equip the militia negates the idea only single shot.22's are legitimate civilian firearms.(i.e "sporting purposes" does not enter into it.)

The revolutionary war era musket was the equal of or better than the finest issued military arms of its time.
Do I "need" 30round magazines and a semi automatic battle rifle?

NO: Not until there is a need for the civilian militia to standup to an oppressive govt.

How long until that possibility expires?

As trustworthy as our politicians have proven to be: When a flock of pigs fly south outside my window (i.e. Never).
And I don't give one tiny rats' azz what your "consensus is" after all: you're all still freaking "SUBJECTS"!
" join the bloody army : "And a lot of us ARE trained military vets!

Guns aren't the problem: Crazy people are the problem!



I generally am against semi automatic military grade weapons to be sold to whoever. HOWEVER, today I heard a fairly reasonable argument that actually made me change my mind. I highly recommend checking out Mark Passio's WHAT ON EARTH IS HAPPENING Podcast. Excellent show with a TON of vital information.

whatonearthishappening.com...

In todays show he ranted a bit about the gun control lobby. (and Howard Stern in particular). I didn't agree with him at first. Basically he said that the 2nd amendment was not really about hunting but about a citizen militia to protect against "enemies foreign and DOMESTIC". One can look around today and with the Occupy Movement being attacked by the violent police you could honestly argue that we may need to have the same level of armarment as our oppressors.

I usually have stated that "well a pistol is fine or a 22 shotgun is fine.. but not a semi automatic machine gun'. For the record, I own a handgun AND a 22 rifle . I am NOT a big gun nut. I have them for protection and eventually hunting. I honestly "hate" guns. I respect them.. but I do not find them objects to obsess over. They are tools and tools only. However, with the way things are going I actually understand now why the average citizen MAY NEED a semi automatic assault rifle, or whatever. If your military or police turn on you (which they have been shown to do recently and in the past) will your little 22 match the fire power they will have at their disposal? Yes, it sound outrageous and a bit fear mongerish and I honstly hope that it will never in a million years happen.. but I guess the argument is that "it keeps everything in BALANCE".

We should not be afraid of our govt, our govt should be afraid of us.

(and the private corporate elite sector that owns the govt should be afraid of us as well!)

Originally posted by AngryCymraeg
Fair enough. I stand by my point however that people who want to fire off lots of machine guns should join the bloody army.

My friend spent 4 years in the navy and never fired a single live round - you have no right to say that people should be limited in there means of defending themselves to what you find acceptable. You wait 6-10 minutes for the police to arrive if you want. I hope your family's life is worth it.

The gun laws are ridiculous - if you want to stop crime increase the severity of the punishment until it ends. 1 day training course mandatory for each rifle and pistol at 18.

The biggest problem is that jail is not a deterrent and can be viewed as an all expenses paid retirement home by some. There have been many cons who say if you are in for 10 years you shouldn't be let out - well if you are of no use to society any longer except to drain it of resources - take this pill and say goodnight.

Originally posted by danny7147
Every time someone defends gun laws and quotes the constitution I just tell them to watch this

Anyone who watch this filth and believes it, is truely brainwashed and stupid.

Absolutely pathetic.

Originally posted by AngryCymraeg
If you want a machine gun then join the bloody army.

We pretty much have to join the army, because 98% of us, don't have machine guns.

You guys don't understand our gun laws, because all this crap I hear against them is people who don't understand what a semi-automatic rifle is.

semi automatic thats like a fully autonomous killing machine right - where every time you get near it a small village of invisible people are automatically targeted and destroyed - plus it has something to do with WMD's right ?

Originally posted by xstealth
You guys don't understand our gun laws, because all this crap I hear against them is people who don't understand what a semi-automatic rifle is.

Unfortunately, that's what we're up against. It seems that a good portion of the antis simply know little to nothing about firearms except that the media has told them they're really, really bad.

The thing I've find truly amazing is the number of gun control proponents who would ban semi-automatic 'assault' rifles, but say they're fine with civilian ownership of handguns. Check the homicide stats by weapon type, folks...those handguns are used about 20 times more often in homicides than semi-automatic, bolt and lever action, and single shot rifles combined.

Meanwhile, I see a collection of idiots has proposed a magazine ban in the Senate. Of course, those evil 'assault rifles' would still be legal, but just with a smaller magazine that takes about a second to change out. Too bad about that old lever action, tube fed .357 in the closet, though. Seems it holds 12 rounds. Can't have that anymore. Idiots.

Oh, and who could forget this classic:



And they wonder why gun rights supporters don't listen to them anymore. Is it really any wonder?

I can't help but be amused sometimes when the subject of Full Automatic weapons comes up. There is so much confusion and deliberate misinformation by some. I don't mean anyone in this thread per say for that last, but there is sure enough of it across the topic.

The law most directly handling this is the National Firearms Act and then states break it down from there. In my state, it's perfectly legal to own a fully automatic weapon and we have automatic weapons on the gun show tables every time it comes to town. That is full military automatic fire. Not just anyone can buy one, but it's about money more than anything else if someone is clean and able to pass a federal background check. To illustrate the point in a way I thought some might find interesting, I visited my favorite site for private party gun sales and pulled up a few examples of what can be had, today, if someone has the record, the money and the patience to get the tax stamp and Class III permit.



Here we have an M-60 Light Machine Gun. It looks a little different from the one Rambo had in the movies but the ad assures the buyer that original parts to restore it to original configuration do appear to be included.
Price: $44,000



Next up is a 9mm Uzi. The ad doesn't specify whether this comes from Israel or not but I'd be surprised to learn otherwise. As one can see, the purchase includes everything someone might want to start off with it.
Price: $8,500

Finally, I saved the best for last and what I'd personally give my left arm to have. Unfortunately, it would take my right one to feed it. .50 Caliber isn't .22 Long Rifle to say the very least. Meet the venerable Ma-Deuce.



This is a version of the well known Browning M-2 Heavy Machine Gun. As the ad shows, this one isn't a browning and why I imagine it wouldn't take a full second mortgage to buy it. It is a fully automatic heavy machine gun though.
Price: $18,050


Now it would be easy to suggest these are unique or this is something new. The fact is, neither would be true. I was pricing Class III weapons on this site many years ago and long before the current debates and events.

To note once again, the above weapons are NOT what you would buy at the corner pawn shop, but the requirements are about two things. Money and Record. You need the money for the price tag and a Tax Stamp per weapon ($200 for the stamp, last I checked some time ago) and of course, you need the record to pass the ATF check for criminal history on a Class III weapons permit.. That's it! You too can have your very own heavy machine gun.