Printable View
The only way I'm giving up my guns is bullets first. If you want them, come and get them.Quote:
Originally Posted by hank moon
At some point in time with any ban that actually removes guns from the street you will have to find someone willing to physically enter homes and confiscate them... good luck with that.
Sent using Tapatalk
Quote:
Originally Posted by hank moon
Ah. Still....bad guys are very adept at smuggling. In my opinion they would all have to go the way of the Dodo in order to be completely banned. And that's a tall order.
And just to throw in a little moderation...I wonder if when the constitution was written there existed assault rifles (I know, I know - asenine scenario), that the founding fathers would still have granted the general populace access to them?
Discuss.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iceaxe
That's been my stance all along. They can ban them, but it's going to take a door-to-door campaign to completely eradicate them all. And that will never happen.
And then there's that issue about AW getting smuggled in over borders, yada yada yada....I'd sooner believe in Santa Claus as believe in a complete AW ban.
So, to go there--lets go here.Quote:
Originally Posted by rockgremlin
First Amendment:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
Certainly at the time of the BOR, when long distance communication was via horseback and a "press" was a mechanical device one inserted block letters into, they knew of landlines, cell phones, ipads, computers, etc, Right?
That argument has never held.
Assault rifles were in existence when the Constitution was written, but at the time they were called muskets. But just to be clear, they were the same type of firearm used by every modern army on the planet at the time.Quote:
Originally Posted by rockgremlin
Some things take time...and the goal of moderate gun control is not to "completely eradicate" anything. That is impossible. Nor is the goal to "take away" anything (as previously discussed). It would be helpful if we didn't have to rehash the same points every couple of days. Progress is made by agreeing on certain fundamentals and moving from there. Can we agree that we don't need to talk about:Quote:
Originally Posted by rockgremlin
1) The gov't physically "taking away" guns from existing owners (i.e. 'pry from cold dead fingers'). There is no rational basis for such belief. I think some use it to avoid and/or end discussion. A kind of strawman variant.
2) Gun control that attempts to immediately solve some problem that clearly has no quick solution. Some things take time.
3) Impossible absolutes such as complete eradication of some type of gun. We still have black powder weapons and enthusiasts. Always will*.
What say you?
Yes, things were then a bit more equal, then. But...weapons technology aside, one of the biggest changes that might influence a "we the people armed with AR-15s" vs. "them the gov't armed with drones, tanks, and nukes" is a world that holds different expectations from those of 200-odd years ago. In a purely physical contest between "organized militia" and Uncle Sam, the latter would clearly prevail. It is only the more civilized expectations of the civilized world that would save the poor freedom fighters from rapid extinction. That, and Twitter.Quote:
Originally Posted by Iceaxe
Quote:
Originally Posted by hank moon
I think this is a reasonable stance. I can agree with those points.
My apologies for rehashing some above points. I fell out of the discussion for a little while and just rejoined the discussion today,
I disagree.... gun control as being discussed by Congress takes away part of my rights given to me under the 2nd amendment. I don't intend to give away any of those rights, or the rights of future generations without a fight... and I'm not alone.Quote:
Originally Posted by hank moon
And I disagree with your version of extinction of the freedom fighter.... it doesn't matter how many tanks and planes you have... so long as the citizens of the US are armed they can never be defeated if they chose to fight. As I mentioned before. The most feared weapon on the battlefield is still the lone soldier with a high powered rifle.
Sent using Tapatalk
I keep waiting for the "rational discussion" to begin. On one side, you have folks like me...champions of the 2nd, and on the other, you have folks that want to "do SOMETHING". O.K., do what?
Limit mags? Ban any gun that goes "rat, tat tat?" Those two things are all I'm hearing, and neither is going to happen. Even if no one owned a gun that could fire no more that 6 rounds at a time before reloading, those ate up dudes will still take people out. Some guy with two revolvers corners 10 people...the result is a mass shooting.
The best solution is obvious to me...arm yourself. That's it, end of discussion. It's like this:
"Byron, we need to have a discussion about gun control"
"No, we don't"
"But you're being unreasonable"
"No, I'm not"
They may as well have a debate with a brick wall. You wanna talk? O.K., come up with a way to head guys like Lanza off at the pass and you'll get my attention.
^^^THIS^^^
Tell me a way to stop criminals for using guns illegally and I'm all ears.
:cool2:
You are never going to be able to put the gun genie back in the bottle.
SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED!!!!!!!
The Amendments to the constitution GUARANTEE RIGHTS of the people!!!
No where does it say these amendments are good ideas--It states they are RIGHTS of the people.
Lets make this easy--
I suggest we round up ALL gays/muslims/mentally ill, and send them to Guantanamo--Then in 100 years, this country will be better.
Ahhh..but for those first three words in the 2nd Amendment...
"A well regulated..."
Better access to better mental health care would help.
One does wonder about "regulating" though. I'm not afraid of my government. I wouldn't hunt with an "assault weapon".
Be interesting to see with the folks come up with. After all, its a "government of the people, by the people, for the people."
Power to the people!
That is an old issue used by the anti-gun crowd in an attempt to regulate firearms. That isssue has now been resolved.Quote:
Originally Posted by Brian in SLC
The Supreme Court ruled that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to possess a firearm, unconnected to service in a militia.
Quote:
In 2008 and 2010, the Supreme Court issued two landmark decisions concerning the Second Amendment. In District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), the Court ruled that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to possess a firearm, unconnected to service in a militia and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. In dicta, the Court listed many longstanding prohibitions and restrictions on firearms possession as being consistent with the Second Amendment. In McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U.S. 3025 (2010), the Court ruled that the Second Amendment limits state and local governments to the same extent that it limits the federal government.
First I've seen this....And it's from nbc
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature...;v=wcF3X0zJe5s
hmmm--can't find any further documentation of the video.
Was it a voice over?
I would think breaking news of that caliber would be everywhere.
There have been some strange instances with this event. I am not willing to put on the tin foil yet, but wish they could release more facts.
There is a video of LE at night taking what is clearly a Saiga 12 gauge shotgun out of the trunk. The LEO removes the fat magazine and ejects a red 12 gauge shell. These shotguns look a lot like an AK-47. I have not heard any mention of the Saiga.
I Agree.... I would not put away the tin foil hat for a long time.
From the Sandy Hooks Thread.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iceaxe
Of course this could not and should not happen. My point is that all citizens in the US are protected from this by a combination of the 1st,7th,9th, 14th amendments.Quote:
Originally Posted by oldno7
So if it's important to protect these peoples RIGHTS, why is it not equally important to protect the freedom of law abiding gun owners? Who's RIGHTS are guaranteed under the 2nd Amendment.
I've said it before--the BOR's is not an al-lacarte menu. It's an ALL encompassing framework that has and does protect all citizens. When it becomes inconvenient to back an Amendment that does not affect you,think how inconvenient it will be when your cause is under attack.
Early gun buy back in L.A.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vqsnV_kdWIM&sns=em
My take all along is if you believe in the Constitution and Bill of Rights you must defend them all, not just the ones that you like.
:cool2:
Heres the cliff notes on feinsteins gun BAN
Pretty much all inclusive of ANY semi automatic, by stating banning any semi automatic rifle, pistol or shotgun that "CAN" accept larger mags.
ANY semiautomatic firearm is capable of being used with clips in excess of 10 rds. But hey, it's only words.
And of course continuing to own a firearm requires registration and fingerprinting along with a note from local law enforcement that they think it's o.k. for you to own a firearm.
[COLOR=#000000][FONT=tahoma]Summary of 2013 Feinstein Assault Weapons Legislation
Bans the sale, transfer, importation, or manufacturing of:
120 specifically-named firearms
Certain other semiautomatic rifles, handguns, shotguns that can accept a
detachable magazine and have one military characteristic
Semiautomatic rifles and handguns with a fixed magazine that can accept
more than 10 rounds
Strengthens the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban and various state bans by:
Moving from a 2-characteristic test to a 1-characteristic test
Eliminating the easy-to-remove bayonet mounts and flash suppressors from
the characteristics test
Banning firearms with
Los Angeles mayor looks like an underground mob boss thug. Kinda smells like one too.
Ah I see you met Tony Villar... He is a local hero around these parts. Him and Schwarzenegger.Quote:
Originally Posted by rockgremlin
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eric Holden
Kinda looks like he made it into office the Latin America way....nepotism, connections, and blood money.
Rockgremlin, it is this kind of statement that i was talking about before ("rehash"). Ice, why do you say this? No-one is discussing anything like the points you keep making. Can we have a discussion here or will you keep tossing out strawmen? This is an honest question to you. Maybe we can't have a discussion, and that's cool. LMK.Quote:
Originally Posted by Iceaxe
Can you explain precisely how the 2nd amendment (individual right to own and bear arms) is under threat? It should be obvious that this right does not include the right to own and bear any kind of weapon whatsoever. If you choose to draw the line at semi-automatic rifles and large-capacity magazines, can you explain why? I do not accept "slippery slope" arguments as they are based in supposition.Quote:
Originally Posted by Iceaxe
IF you seriously think you can't live w/o an AR-15, I am totally open to hearing that viewpoint, 'cuz I honestly don't understand it
Quote:
Originally Posted by hank moon
Yeah I see your frustration Hank, and I share in it to an extent. I am somewhat divided on the issue. I refuse to agree with either extreme -- IOW, I reject an outright ban, but I also believe that current gun laws may be improved. There has to be a reasonable middle-ground. To bury your head in the sand on either side of the fence is not forward progress.
Yes, there is some middle ground. Lemme see if I can dig it up here...must be under this pile of moldy strawmen. :haha: WHat do you mean by "outright ban"?Quote:
Originally Posted by rockgremlin
Quote:
Originally Posted by hank moon
I get it that you are honestly trying to understand the problem and I really appriciate that.
First off you really need to read this as it will save me hours of trying to explain the sutle differences in firearms:
http://kontradictions.wordpress.com/...-ill-tell-you/
My problem is basically this.... there is absolutely no difference between a nasty looking AR-15
Attachment 62274
And the cute pink gun I gave my daughter for her birthday.
http://www.bogley.com/forum/attachme...5&d=1356137420
Unless you are going to outlaw guns painted black, there is absolutely no method of legislating one out of existence and not outlawing the other.
For the record... The picture below is the exact same rifle (Ruger 10-22) that Sierra is holding in the picture above. It just has a different stock and is painted black instead of pink
Attachment 62275
The pink gun looks cute and fun to shoot, the black gun looks evil and scary. But they are the same gun, both just as deadly, or fun.... Does that help you understand the problem?
FWIW: That Ruger 10-22 Sierra is holding is one of the most popular sporting rifles on the planet. I would be hard to find a gun owning family in Utah that doesn't have at least one in the family. Last time I looked thay had sold over 5 million of them.
Ice...that is outstanding. Hank, I'm eagerly awaiting your reply.
http://www.americanhunter.org/Webcon...emington_m.jpg
http://www.mossyoak.com/absolutenm/a...048-R%2025.jpg
http://www.oa2.org/Ar15Hunter/images...ravis_buck.jpg
http://www.grousecreek.com/Images/Hu...erKimber-2.JPG
:phew: Good thing finestine doesn't want to take away my hunting rifles. [sarcasm]{
So, for you "gun toters" is there ANY acceptable limit on what type of arms a private citizen can own? RPGs, claymore mines, nuclear bombs?
It seems we have to draw a line somewhere. If so, the question becomes where.
No right is without limits. Try yelling "fire" in a crowed theater then arguing with the judge that you were just exercising your first amendment right. If the right to free speech, perhaps our most cherished, has limits, why is the second amendment without limits?
There is nothing wrong with the current line. Just enforce the laws already on the books.
Currently you can't own automatic weapons, claymores, tanks etc without a lot of paperwork, money, background checks etc.... they are not within reach of the average citizen....
Sent using Tapatalk
At some point somebody in pro ban arena needs to provide compelling evidence of how changing the current gun laws will improve the safety of the citizens. Nothing based on an emotional decision or a hope that it can become better. There is plenty of evidence that correlates strict gun laws with high crime rates. I'm here to listen if something intellectual can be said.
There is none. The UK and Australia are the two models held up by the anti gun crowd. And both have had major increases in violent crimes since their gun bans.Quote:
Originally Posted by 2065toyota
The assault weapons ban being proposed to congress is the same one we had 10 years ago... and every study to date says that ban had no measurable effect.
The gun genie is out of the bottle. Its not something you can magically put back in the bottle.
Every proposal I have seen to date only takes rights away from law abiding citizens and does nothing to stop crime or criminals.
The only new gun law I can think of that might have some effect is to require gun owners to store weapons in a secure place (gun safe). And hold those that don't accountable.
Sent using Tapatalk
But ya gotta love it when someone considers the 2nd Amendment a strawman.Quote:
Originally Posted by 2065toyota
And BC, respectfully, just as Shane mentioned, the laws are already in place for what you see as a problem.
Look at Chicago's murder rate for 2012 thus far and they have the strictest gun laws!
Lots of EVIDENCE showing compelling reasons why taking something away from law abiding citizens, is bad policy.