CIVIL WAR: Senate To Go For Handguns

Originally posted by butcherguy


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

edit on 28-12-2012 by butcherguy because: (no reason given)

They post it on their own websites, so they have the same protection that their newspaper has. We're just posting on a website owned by someone else. We have only the rights the T&C say we have.

Originally posted by EarthCitizen07


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!

Definitely agree. If someone wants to own a class 3 weapon, they should pay for the requirements for owning it. They aren't cheap to begin with, so the people purchasing them would have the funds with which to pay for the requirements.
The normal background checks are nowhere close to being enough to suffice for them

Originally posted by Bob Sholtz


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

granted, that wouldn't be the method used, it's just an example of things to compare to

Originally posted by MrSpad

No it is excactly the same law. Word for word.

Where was the registration & fingerprinting part during 1994-2004?

What about the part where they went from double feature to single feature rule?

How could you even know when as of this writing no draft has been published? do you have access under NDA??



PS: baselessly assume much?

Originally posted by netwarrior
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.

Nope. If the law was to be changed there should be no retroactive clause to it. Those already in possesion of such weapons would not lose them. Only those applying after the law was voted in would be effective. Or you could be a fool and go to san francisco and sell it for $200; a gun worth thousands!

reply to post by L8RT8RZ

the government isn't fit to judge because of it's agenda.

according to the CDC in 2006 there were 642 accidental deaths due to guns, and 12,791 homicides. in the same year almost 44,000 died in car crashes, 37,000+ from poisoning, 21,000 from unintentional falls...

almost twice as many people died from ACCIDENTALLY FALLING than were murdered with guns.

gun violence has been decreasing, only mass shootings have been increasing, and their source is suspect. guns are given a very bad rap by the media in an attempt to have them banned so america can be raped.

Originally posted by butcherguy
reply to post by L8RT8RZ

 

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.

Not necessarily.
I have had the opportunity to shoot with members of the armed forces that had qualified with the M16 and M240....
They were woefully inaccurate with the Sten and Thompson subguns, and they were slightly better with the AC556 that we fired that day. Their burst control on the subguns was terrible.
I have no idea how accurate they may have been with an M16 or M240, but their military experience did not help them with other weapons.

I think it is a very common misconception that you need at least 9mm to kill someone....so common that fbi uses 10mm and local police have upgraded to .38special or .38super. These rounds are extremely hot and can over-penetrate past the intended target into unintended targets. I think it is outright bs that caliber is more important than good aim.

Hydro-Static shock is being pushed as though it is the only reliable way to stop someone. I never realised you had to kill someone to stop them. I guess the old cops that were using .32acp or .380acp must have been morons.

Or the local police comming out with sound cannons, armored personnel carriers, military grade rifles, etc....just to be sure of course.

From my experience the lower caliber rounds are much easier to control, encourage a relaxed but firm grip, encourage smooth trigger action, and you normally get many more rounds on target than with the big hot rounds. You can kill someone(if you need to) just as easy(if not easier) with .32acp jhp or .380acp fmj shooting in the chest with well placed rounds as you can with those big bulky, recoil filled, expensive, flinching inducing rounds.

reply to post by AngryCymraeg


The entire purpose of owning any wepons with "millitary characteristics" is so the civilian population of a free nation be just as well armed as the millitary. The reason for this is to insure that no standing domestic army may be turned against the people by a tyranical government. It is all there in the Federalist Papers, as well as private correspondance between our founding fathers. A well regulated millitia, by the language used at the time, means a citizen, whom participates as an able-bodied member of a local millitia group, must be well trained in the use of firearms. State National Gaurd units do not qualify as a millitia, as they are still a government entity, under titular control of the Department of Defense. Under a litteral interpretation of The Second Ammendment, fully automatic wepons should have never been denied to lawful citizens. If you look at your history, and I am a history major, this bill she has proposed is nearly identical to the gun control acts passed by Adolf Hitler. Such laws are always a first step in the complete disarmament of a population. A large scale killing of those civilians always follows. You may say, " It cant happen here." And yet, one would think the Kennedy Assasination, The Libor Scandal, 9/11, The U.S.S. Libery attack, or The Gulf of Tonkin incident could not happen to a nation such as ours. Yet they all occured. All of the above happened either as a government operation, or had at least some titular approval at some level of our government. Consider that. Johnson was quoted by an Admiral as saying to send that damn ship to the bottom, regarding the U.S.S. Liberty. The Gulf of Tonkin incident was used as justification for the sending of half a millionn combat troops to Vietnam, and recently declassified documents shown it never happened. They made it up. 9/11 has far too many simularities to Operation Northwoods for me to trust the official narrative. The Libor Scandal occured right under the nose of the SEC. If such things are possible under our government, what makes you think they have your best intrests at heart in this case?

Please can all Americans watch the following video from 21:00 onward & pay careful attention to what the guy says at 24:50



youtu.be...

What exactly is going to happen, the American people are going to all march to Washington with their guns held high to force change, really ? i do not think so.

I know it is hard for you but have a think about how the gun loving people of America are perceived from the perspective of people like me & other from around the world.

I cannot understand it, it is not the wild west anymore & i am quite sure the founding fathers would have thought & hoped that the American people had progressed by now, guns are simply a cowards weapon.

A couple of really amazing quotes referenced by the SCOTUS in their decision in District of Columbia v Heller (in which they ruled the Second Amendment affords us, as INDIVIDUALS, the right to keep and bear arms).

First a quote from Joseph Story's "Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States" written in 1833:

One of the ordinary modes, by which tyrants accomplish their purposes without resistance, is, by disarming the people, and making it an offence to keep arms, and by substituting a regular army in the stead of a resort to the militia.

And then a quote from William Rawle, who helped to ratify the constitution while being a member of the Pennsylvania Assembly, from 1825:

No clause in the constitution could by any rule of construction be conceived to give to congress a power to disarm the people. Such a flagitious attempt could only be made under some general pretence by a state legislature. But if in any blind pursuit of inordinate power, either should attempt it, this amendment may be appealed to as a restraint on both.

Okay, these debates are getting plain stupid sometimes around here. Outright, ignorant ...one might say. Let me clarify something since..it seems..more than one message since my last reply would imply I feel 100% opposite from how I actually do.

- I AM 100% AGAINST ANY LAW, BILL OR SUGGESTED COURSE OF STATE SANCTIONED ACTION WHICH WOULD RESTRICT, LIMIT OR OTHERWISE IMPEDE, IN ANY FORM OR FASHION, THE FREE OWNERSHIP, USE AND TRANSFER OF ANY FIREARM NOT ALREADY COVERED UNDER THE NATIONAL FIREARMS ACT FOR CLASS III STATUS. (That should leave absolutely 0 possible question to my position..and if it doesn't? Well..I can KNOW the misunderstanding isn't my doing)

I just hate it when people start a reply by repeating how I'm for something ...I never even played with the idea of supporting.

What I'm supporting here is an accurate and HONEST reading of the issue we are facing. THAT is what seems mighty hard to come by. Some say this will ban magazines or any weapon that feeds from an external magazine. Okay, to my knowledge, that is OUTRIGHT DISINFORMATION. Why?

Prohibits the domestic manufacture and the importation of magazines that hold more than 10 rounds of ammunition. The 1994 ban allowed the importation of such magazines that were manufactured before the ban took effect. Whereas the 1994 ban protected gun owners from errant prosecution by making the government prove when a magazine was made, the new ban includes no such protection. The new ban also requires firearm dealers to certify the date of manufacture of any >10-round magazine sold, a virtually impossible task, given that virtually no magazines are stamped with their date of manufacture.

Source - NRA Summary of the current AWB Proposal(emphasis mine)

It's simply not what is being proposed. That's why.

*I* know as well as everyone else.....and from having lived under Feinstein's anti-gun Utopia, I know AT LEAST as well as anyone else...this WILL lead to what people fear, eventually. ...Eventually.

However.. some aren't saying 'lead to'...too many are saying THIS DOES ban Firearms or External magazines which it absolutely, as currently proposed, DOES NOT.


Now my intention in being a part of the public debate both online and with other efforts right now in the RW is to WIN....not just look good or sound right. WINNING means being accurate....and accurate isn't saying they are banning guns with this as some general term. It isn't saying this bans 'magazines'. Which, it does not.

It's saying this bans some specific makes and models..and hey, I don't think that's legal or right personally. It's saying this bans any magazine over 10 rds..and who are they to say I should get blisters reloading 10rd toy mags ALL DAY LONG when I go out planning to shoot a few hundred rounds?


If some want to be loosey goosey with debate points, language and winning the real fight we're about to get into as a nation.... Fine... We'll lose that way as our side has generally always lost in nose to nose debates and legislative fights on this. Hyperbole ends a debate ...a REAL one where outcome MATTERS....before it even starts. That's just my opinion...take it for what ya will and I'll continue being precise in language when a LEGAL debate is the whole topic. After all, the outcome of this debate may come to define too much in American futures to be less than precise, IMO.

reply to post by Wrabbit2000


It seems to me you are arguing semantics in poor taste.

And what makes you think the government gives a # about your opinion any more than it gives a # about anyone else's?

No offense to you meant, but anyone with a gun using greater than 10 round magazines might as well throw their gun in the garbage and buy a new gun after this piece of # legislation passes. Hopefully it fails, because it deserves to fail.

My "two cents"

reply to post by Wrabbit2000

your interpretation of the bill is incorrect. here is the website of the senator who is introducing the bill, and a summary from the horses mouth.

Stops the sale, transfer, importation and manufacturing of more than 100 specifically-named firearms as well as certain semiautomatic rifles, handguns and shotguns THAT CAN ACCEPT a detachable magazine and semiautomatic rifles and handguns with a fixed magazine that can accept more than 10 rounds.

notice it bans the GUNS that CAN ACCEPT a magazine, AND any semi-auto gun WITH A FIXED MAGAZINE of over 10 rounds.

it directly bans the guns, and then farther down, you'll notice it ALSO bans the magazines:

Stops the sale, transfer, importation and manufacturing of large-capacity ammunition feeding devices (magazines, strips and drums) capable of accepting more than 10 rounds.

i only use caps for emphasis because i think you missed it. this is a summary from the woman who wrote the bill and is introducing it, first hand. no misinformation here.

and sorry for the double post, but those 100+ specifically named guns are guns that don't fall into the category of guns banned by the wording of the bill, but they ban them anyways.

guns like the SKS, which can have fixed magazines.

the bill is worded in such a way as to make you think it only bans large magazines, when in reality it bans all semi-auto guns that accept magazines, then further down, bans the magazines themselves.

it leaves us with target practice "plinking" handguns (no guns with detachable clips allowed, remember?) and a few guns meant for hunting that can only hold a few rounds. hell, even many tube-fed .22's are banned because they can hold more than 10 rounds.

Originally posted by EarthCitizen07
reply to post by Wrabbit2000

 

It seems to me you are arguing semantics in poor taste.

And what makes you think the government gives a # about your opinion any more than it gives a # about anyone else's?

No offense to you meant, but anyone with a gun using greater than 10 round magazines might as well throw their gun in the garbage and buy a new gun after this piece of # legislation passes. Hopefully it fails, because it deserves to fail.

My "two cents"

Heck... I'm just trying to argue against the actual proposal ..and not 2 or 3 steps out to what it might say..or what right come after losing this. I'd rather NOT lose THIS one. The proposal itself isn't even in any formal form to read beyond leaks at the National Rifle Association that I have myself above and the other one linked afterward with "talking points" from Feinstein's own site.


There was a thought I'd meant to finish up there..and I'll leave things for now with it instead. When I started to say debates have gotten stupid around here...it wasn't about people but approach. Once, you could debate ASPECTS of a topic and pick apart details ...without being required to stand 110% to one side or the other of it.

No more, apparently. If I say a single word against the Pro-Gun Interpretation of the worst case scenario feared behind her proposed words ....then I'm jumped as an Anti-Gunner or somehow I must be for it all what she is.

Likewise, If I say anything about how I don't see a problem with someone having their AR rifle converted to belt feed out of a little box on wheels to give them 10,000 rounds ..if being a clown at the range is their thing.... then I must be for all firearms, to all people and under any circumstances imaginable without any restrictions of any kind. (Facepalm)

Things are getting dumb... especially with the Gun debate..because we seem to have lost all capability for proportion and reasoned thinking. It's WAR ...and in war, you're on one side or the other. No playing "devil's advocate' to the enemy or trying to see their side. You destroy enemies...you don't debate in good faith. Indeed.. (looks around a bit) That sure is how it works..huh?

Well... I consider myself debating my fellow citizens whom I'll call friends until they've made a debate personal to where I can't. Even the gun debate.... Those I'd call actual enemies on this? I'll never be within a country mile of seeing face to face or even on a site to debate anyway. So...Why the need for all out one sided destruction in debate? (Not you personally..in general...it's just so bad lately. )

Originally posted by L8RT8RZ

Originally posted by butcherguy


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

edit on 28-12-2012 by butcherguy because: (no reason given)

They post it on their own websites, so they have the same protection that their newspaper has. We're just posting on a website owned by someone else. We have only the rights the T&C say we have.

Let's try this, we'll take websites put of the picture.
You say that assault weapons did not exist when the Constitution was written, so it can be argued that they do not have protection under the Second Amendment.

Let's say that I write a letter to the editor of a newspaper. In the letter, I call President Obama a poo poo head. WhentWhen newspaper publishes the letter, President Obama is offended and has me thrown in jail. When I claim that I have a right to say that granted by the First Amendment, the government says that I don't.... because I wrote the letter with a ballpoint pen. Ballpoint pens did not exist when the Constitution was written.

The point is that the thing that is protected is the speech, no matter what I write it with.

The right to be armed is not about being allowed to have a sharpened stick when the government has rifles. The amendment was included to give the people the means to protect the rest of the Constitution.

Originally posted by DanaKatherineScully

I know it is hard for you but have a think about how the gun loving people of America are perceived from the perspective of people like me & other from around the world.

I cannot understand it, it is not the wild west anymore & i am quite sure the founding fathers would have thought & hoped that the American people had progressed by now, guns are simply a cowards weapon.

We don't care how we are perceived. Perception isn't reality.

I'm not ashamed to admit it: I live in the best country in the entire world. I have freedoms that other people only dream of. I don't care that someone in another country with restricted freedoms doesn't understand the importance of every single one of my freedoms. And, if you want to call that arrogance, so be it. There's a reason people scramble to the US to live.

No country in existence became a country without the use of guns. You call that cowardly, huh?

You don't live in America. You can't understand our culture. Just as I cannot understand why England has a modern-day queen that doesn't do anything and why the British love her so much. I don't get it. I don't get why it's acceptable for the English to have bad teeth. But, hey... that's part of England's history and part of England's culture. Guns are part of my American culture that insure my freedom against tyranny.

You don't have to understand something or agree with it in order to respect it.

Originally posted by Bob Sholtz
and sorry for the double post, but those 100+ specifically named guns are guns that don't fall into the category of guns banned by the wording of the bill, but they ban them anyways.

guns like the SKS, which can have fixed magazines.

the bill is worded in such a way as to make you think it only bans large magazines, when in reality it bans all semi-auto guns that accept magazines, then further down, bans the magazines themselves.

it leaves us with target practice "plinking" handguns (no guns with detachable clips allowed, remember?) and a few guns meant for hunting that can only hold a few rounds. hell, even many tube-fed .22's are banned because they can hold more than 10 rounds.

All they have to do is ban magazines capable of storing more than ten rounds to make the guns themselves obsolete. Think about it. You have a gun that holds 15 rounds, then the law passes and even if it is not retro-active forcing you to surrender the firearm, if your magazine gets damaged and you need to change it or you want a second magazine, you are out of luck.

But it seems they do go further and ban the gun itself. Wonder retro-active or from this point on?

My everyday carry holds 16+1....In fact, there's no mag for it that holds 10 or less, to my knowledge.

My everday carry backup even holds 10+1.

That "law" would outlaw many, many guns. And, I hope that we have enough thinking, sane individuals in our government (it's a stretch, I know) who recognize the idiocy of such and shoot it down immediately (pun intended).

reply to post by lilmehere


to me, the risk of a smaller gun (like a pocket carry type pistol, along the lines of the 740 by Taurus) is that the aiming degrades the smaller the barrel.

I carry my taurus .40. It is 6 + 1, but i never load the "+1" (its double action, and always ready).