CIVIL WAR: Senate To Go For Handguns

reply to post by L8RT8RZ


I'd agree with you, but then we'd both be wrong.

Originally posted by Wrabbit2000

Originally posted by Bob Sholtz
reply to post by Wrabbit2000

 

Well, yes and no in my opinion. It's not a ban..it's regulation.

it's not a ban in your opinion, yet the document clearly says "bans a hundred some named guns, and "certain" guns that accept clips.

that is not regulation. that is a very direct ban of guns. it bans more guns than it allows, and those allowed are fringe guns with very little practical value for defense.

Errrr.... My choice of words was poor. Exceptionally poor, as it happens, since wording is the whole point. My apologies. Sometimes it takes a Thesaurus to debate where Government policy is concerned. How do you say opinion without saying opinion ...and not sounding like you figure you know everything on earth? It's a tough one..I failed. My bad.

In the end...My opinion isn't relevant. Your opinion isn't relevant. There are only 9 human beings on Earth whose opinions matter in this and they've already given them. The 9 Robed Ones of the Supreme Court. They have, clearly and without vague language, said regulation IS permissible and that is an issue for lower courts to have the headaches over. They just said whole CLASSES of guns couldn't be banned.

That's true today by the way. Machine Guns are not banned, contrary to what so many ignorantly believe. This:

was on a major national firearms auction site recently and is a pic I had from a past thread. The price for that fully automatic, belt fed M-60 Light Machine Gun was $44,000. It would take me a few months in the approval for the Class III Permit and a tax stamp to have that weapon in my living room today instead of his. That is an example of not 'banning' something ....but making it so difficult and expensive that a large % of the population honestly believes a private citizen cannot own a light or heavy machine gun and fully functional at that.

This ...will be about the same and with the same games. Language will insure it's not a "ban" until the court balance will uphold one. It'll just do everything short of it..and do all that's needed to MAKE it a full and proper ban almost overnight when the last legal hurdle is cleared.

So..why does language matter? If we call something a ban in the effort to fight it.....Those we oppose will laugh and ridicule our ignorance rather than be challenged to respond.....as they just pass whatever they want and note how we can't manage a viable argument to it. I mean, we're SEEING that happen right here... Daily.

What you are saying is in effect Only the rich will be able to AFFORD to be armed......evenually.....
Much like Canadas policy....first well just restrict this...then that...then this other thing....and now you need to pay for your licences and radually the people get disarmed a small step at a time...while the elite can have any damn gun they desire......right?

reply to post by L8RT8RZ

I'd definitely want a psychiatric exam as well as a possible basic personality test of some sort. There are some people who are dangerous enough without guns, let alone with them

They don't require loonies to pass a psych evaluation to purchase or drive a car. Or to buy a flamethrower for which there are NO current federal restrictions. (Yep, a flamethrower. As in shooting a stream of napalm onto the front of your house)
Loonies can buy gas at a gas station, buy cylinders of LP fuel and aircraft.

They are NOT currently allowed to buy firearms. That is taken care of by the instant background check system. The one that helped get rid of the Brady Law.

Originally posted by paulvh
Well, if Americans get disarmed and there is a rebellion, the Russians will resupply the American rebels just like the Syrian rebels are being armed by the CIA :-)

Originally posted by netwarrior
reply to post by paulvh

 

I highly doubt that, although in a hypothetical scenario that lasts more than several months, I could see it happening...maybe.

Truthfully I honestly have no idea who would come to the aid in such a scenario.

Hate to derail but I think this is an important point…

I think an open rebellion in the US would open up a flood gate of external foreign actors. Any number of nations in the world would not jump at the chance to take the US down a notch.

Some (EU, AU, NATO, United Nations etc.) would hedge their bets with the government; hoping to gain influence if they win with their aid. If they helped the government they could influence future policy and socialist crackdowns making us more like them.

Same would also be true with other actors, say Russia, China and various Middle Eastern Nations along with various organizations and groups that would side with and aide the rebels in hopes that even if they didn’t win the confusion and havoc caused would enable them to benefit economically from the void left by the loss of US production in the world. They would also be hoping to influence any future government by calling in favors provided to the new leaders.

Not a few of these actors would hedge their bets and bet on both sides by openly providing assistance to the government while covertly aiding the rebels.

The US does this all the time why would we think the rest of the world would not jump at the chance to do the same to us if the tables were turned?

reply to post by L8RT8RZ

As far as the second ammendment, most of the firearms we have today weren't even in existance at the time of it's writing and it could be argued that they don't apply to the ammendment at all.

There were no computers when the First Amendment was written. Does that mean that words that you type on them are not afforded First Amendment protections?

Originally posted by butcherguy
reply to post by L8RT8RZ

 

I'd definitely want a psychiatric exam as well as a possible basic personality test of some sort. There are some people who are dangerous enough without guns, let alone with them

They don't require loonies to pass a psych evaluation to purchase or drive a car. Or to buy a flamethrower for which there are NO current federal restrictions. (Yep, a flamethrower. As in shooting a stream of napalm onto the front of your house)
Loonies can buy gas at a gas station, buy cylinders of LP fuel and aircraft.

They are NOT currently allowed to buy firearms. That is taken care of by the instant background check system. The one that helped get rid of the Brady Law.

We definitely need to tighten the laws on driving then!

A bit frightening that flamethrowers have no regulation to them as well.

When I take over the world, I'll sort all that out
don't worry, you'll be safe, you seem to have some sense

Originally posted by butcherguy

reply to post by L8RT8RZ

 

As far as the second ammendment, most of the firearms we have today weren't even in existance at the time of it's writing and it could be argued that they don't apply to the ammendment at all.

There were no computers when the First Amendment was written. Does that mean that words that you type on them are not afforded First Amendment protections?

Since they are typed on a website with given rules, no, they're not afforded First Ammendment protections at all, only T&C protections

reply to post by Wrabbit2000


Machine guns made after 1987 have been banned. That means you can legally buy a machine gun made prior to that day, which means it is used to some degree. The demand is very high, the supply is low thus prices are way above what they should be; some people say 5 to 10 original price!

And yes it is a class 3 weapon and you need to pay a $200 to get the appropriate tax stamp.

I think there is an exception to machine guns made after the cut-off date and it applies to dealer samples or something like that.

[snip]

US Code Title 10 Section 311.
www.law.cornell.edu...

10 USC § 311 - Militia: composition and classes

(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are—
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.

Good thing certain people wouldn't trust me with a slingshot, despite never committing a violent crime in my life, because the law does. For the time being, at least. As it has been said before, you cannot repeal the first 10 amendments. Now, due to laws passed to protect the rights of the individual, it is no longer legal to discriminate age, sex, creed, race, or religious affiliation. I know of one little 12 year old girl now that I would trust to have my back. She's nearly good with a Glock as I am.

Originally posted by L8RT8RZ

Originally posted by EarthCitizen07


They require exceptional finger control, a stable body and exceptional situational awareness. Overall machine guns are way over-rated for the damage they do in relation to how many bullets are used. They are inefficient, offer false sense of security and more of a "don't mess with me" gun. In good hands it can be useful, in untrained hands is a total waste.

Still if they were legal I would actually prefer a select fire weapon over a strict semi-auto variant even if the folding stock was present in the semi-auto which the brady bill controlled access to($200 tax). It is better to have something and never need it than to need it and never have it. I would fire on semi-auto 99% of the time!

That's a very good reason to require that the people purchasing them demonstrate their ability to use them. Of course anyone returning from the military will have previous training and be proficient in their use, but those who just want to look big and bad would actually have to prove they are capable of controlling the weapon before they're just turned loose with it.

There's a big difference in people who are responsible with their guns and people who just want to feel "powerful". There are some here from each group. Although I don't want the ownership to be taken from those who are responsible, there needs to be a way to prevent the "big and bad looking" group for abusing the priveldge.

Part of me says they should be illegal and part of me says they should be legal. At the very least potential buyers should undergo extensive training and pass both a psychiatric evaluation and competancy test. That would ensure only deserving folks would have access to such weapons and secondly it would liberate the market to make the prices drop from such unreasonable levels. It is not a cut and dry situation.

What I do know however is that short barralled rifles and extended magazines are getting controlled or banned without any real merit. This destroys the gun hobby!!

reply to post by L8RT8RZ


The mental health issue is the real issue. There'd be less demand to match "firepower" with nuts and criminals, gov't or civilian, in a sane society.

Trouble is, the current excuse for mental health experts precludes them solving anything. In fact have made things worse with psychotropics. I'm sure they'd love a gov't mandated "mental health check" before purchasing a weapon. We'd end up down the road with a new "illness" that would be attached to being "right wing" or "left wing". Even "moderates" could be labeled.

Every so-called "solution" proposed so far, in their own way, worsens the current mess. Doing nothing, law-wise, does the least damage, IMHO....

reply to post by EarthCitizen07


And who will pay for this expensive psychological evaluation as well as competency testing?

During the Jim Crow era blacks were charged a poll tax to vote. Most black people could not afford this, so it had exactly the same effect as not giving them the right to vote. If you make it financially unfeasible for the average citizen to own guns it creates the same effect as a ban.

Look, i'm not saying if you are convicted of a violent crime (a real one, not a "my girlfriend was beating me with a frying pan so I pushed her and got arrested for it" crime) or have been proven by an overwhelming consensus to be mentally unfit then you have the freedom to buy a damn tank. What I'm saying is that slippery slopes should be avoided at all costs and one thing this government is exceedingly good at is incrementalism.

Originally posted by nwtrucker
reply to post by L8RT8RZ

 

The mental health issue is the real issue. There'd be less demand to match "firepower" with nuts and criminals, gov't or civilian, in a sane society.

Trouble is, the current excuse for mental health experts precludes them solving anything. In fact have made things worse with psychotropics. I'm sure they'd love a gov't mandated "mental health check" before purchasing a weapon. We'd end up down the road with a new "illness" that would be attached to being "right wing" or "left wing". Even "moderates" could be labeled.

Every so-called "solution" proposed so far, in their own way, worsens the current mess. Doing nothing, law-wise, does the least damage, IMHO....

The present system certainly doesn't seem to have a handle on things. As long as they continue to throw medication at whatever illness they decide to define, things aren't going to change much. There are no new illnesses than what have been around for centuries. They were dealt with in different ways in the past ranging from locking people away to giving them enough rope to hang themselves then being dealt with by authorities. Our present method isn't working and needs to be changed.
ADHD? spank them
Obsessive/compulsive? spank them
most of the childhood issues? spank them
A spanking goes a long way, isn't the same as abuse and creates better, more responsible adults who are capable of controlling their own actions instead of having to have a different medication for each imagined illness they have.

The medications themselves probably do more damage than whatever the imaginary illness is.

Could their be a way to keep record of the number of medications a person is presently on and have gun ownership as well as driving priveleges affected in some way if there are more than a certain number of anti-psychotics being used?

or even a simple drug test for the license/registration/insurance renewal as well as gun purchases and some kind of license to allow them to retain the ownership.

Originally posted by netwarrior
reply to post by EarthCitizen07

 

And who will pay for this expensive psychological evaluation as well as competency testing?

The person applying for a class 3 firearm. If they want a machine gun then they should have no problem forking out the money and spending the time to ensure they are qualified for their own sake and more importantly for society's sake.

It would be preferable to keeping them illegal, correct?

I don't think the normal background checks should suffice for any class 3 weapon!

Originally posted by L8RT8RZ

Originally posted by butcherguy

reply to post by L8RT8RZ

 

As far as the second ammendment, most of the firearms we have today weren't even in existance at the time of it's writing and it could be argued that they don't apply to the ammendment at all.

There were no computers when the First Amendment was written. Does that mean that words that you type on them are not afforded First Amendment protections?

Since they are typed on a website with given rules, no, they're not afforded First Ammendment protections at all, only T&C protections

Most newspaper stories are written on computers.
Is it okay if newspapers have no 1st Amendment protections?

the problem i see here is most people aren't being taught what the constitution is about in civics and history class the wholre reason we have the second amendment is so we the people if it becomes absolutely necessary can rise up to defend are nation from tyranny both from abroad and domestic which means if government becomes to crazy its our responsibility to fix the problem .the current government and their cronies are fearful of this hence what is going on now.

reply to post by L8RT8RZ

I strongly feel the bill won't be passed due to the constitutionality of it. However, we do need to look at some serious and responsible solutions as firepower becomes greater and greater. The average civilian on the street doesn't need the firepower that is being developed, they have absolutely no use for it at all.

you're judging someone's ability,common sense, and mental health over comments typed on a forum? not very sensible.

someone can go buy a car that can go over 200 mph, yet there are no public roads that allow those speeds, and it is highly impractical because of gas and tire wear, but those cars can be produced, bought, and a 16 year old can drive them legally. yet overkill guns that have no practical value (in the same manner of supercars) are banned.

do you realize gun crime drops dramatically with more citizens armed? there is a town in georga that requires each head of house to own and maintain a firearm, and since that law was implimented, there has not been a single firearm death in almost 30 years (no murders, accidents, or deaths from using guns defensively), the crime rate dropped by more than 50%. it doesn't take any formal training to be safe and able with firearms.

you picture people who are enthusiastic about guns as crazy hicks trying to be badasses, but that is completely wrong.

the citizen's ability to stage a revolution against a corrupt government is the reason for possessing high powered weapons. every country, and i mean EVERY, will eventually decay into corruption, and every time a bill like this is introduced, it leads to mass murder and genocide.

youtu.be...

An interview with Jesse Ventura on gun control

Jesse love him or hate him kept his cool and IMO made some good points

reply to post by EarthCitizen07



So you want to apply class III restrictions to weapons civilians already own and if they refuse or cannot pay for testing they get their rightfully owned property taken away from them with no recompense.

Good luck with that.