The Gun Thread

[jdc1244]

jdc1244 - Federal Assault Weapon Ban expired in 2004

That wasn’t an assault weapons ban – it was a ban on semi-auto weapons that looked like assault weapons.

The AK and AR semi-auto clones sold to civilians before and after the ban are no more assault weapons than a Mini 14.

Legislating in ignorance is always frustrating and sometimes dangerous.

[cmbdiesel]

Originally Posted by jdc1244

That wasn’t an assault weapons ban – it was a ban on semi-auto weapons that looked like assault weapons.

The AK and AR semi-auto clones sold to civilians before and after the ban are no more assault weapons than a Mini 14.

Legislating in ignorance is always frustrating and sometimes dangerous.

AK-47 in the hands of an ignorant is always dangerous and sometimes frustrating

[toomany MBZ]

Originally Posted by el presidente

If I'm not mistaken, you can still mail-order blackpowder guns.

My local gun store has one.

[cmbdiesel]

Originally Posted by toomany MBZ

My local gun store has one.

I lost mine to a fire in Colorado, and need another. Here in CT the black powder season for deer is much better than the shotgun season. No rifle seasons at all. I'm a pretty darn good shot with a black powder gun too. On a side note, the black powder guns are the best I've seen for penetrating a vehicle. If the jack-booted thugs have you surrounded, use the black powder weapons to punch right through their cars. We discovered this by repeatedly firing upon a couple dead vehicles. A .50 cal sabot drove right through the A-pillar of a '67 Dodge P/U. The high power rifles (30-06 and Weatherby 300) have too much velocity and too little mass.

[JollyRoger]

Originally Posted by jdc1244

That wasn’t an assault weapons ban – it was a ban on semi-auto weapons that looked like assault weapons.

The AK and AR semi-auto clones sold to civilians before and after the ban are no more assault weapons than a Mini 14.

Legislating in ignorance is always frustrating and sometimes dangerous.

Tell that to the four cops who got shot by the nut with the semi-auto AK-47. I mean, I hate to bring common sense into the argument, but these are high-ammo-capacity weapons capable of a rapid rate of fire, with an ability to hide muzzle flash as a counter-measure to suppression. That's an assualt weapon, not a deer rifle - these weapons are designed specifically for one purpose: killing people. Human beings. It is not a target rifle, it is not a hunting rifle, it is not a varmit gun, it is a weapon design to kill PEOPLE and as many as possible, as fast as possible.

These things need to be controlled, along with every other type of firearm. While the Constitution does not ban their ownership anymore than it bans owning a car, they should be subjected to the same laws that owning a car is - they should be registered to the owner, the owner should go through a licensing process to prove he is mentally fit and trained to own and operate the weapon, and he should obtain insurance to pay the taxpayers back for all the emergency room expenses they will have to bear if his gun gets stolen or his kids get ahold of it. Ignorance? No, just common sense, and after 57 people slaughtered with "legally" obtained firearms in the last month alone, including six police officers, it's about time we had some. The Constitution provides the right of gun ownership to a well-regulated militia. It's about time we had one.

[pj67coll]

Originally Posted by JollyRoger

The Constitution provides the right of gun ownership to a well-regulated militia. It's about time we had one.

It does not and you know it.

- Peter.

[cmbdiesel]

Originally Posted by pj67coll

It does not and you know it.

- Peter.

Really? The Constitution does NOT - "provide the right of gun ownership to a well-regulated militia."?

I thought the 2nd amendment said we could bear arms?

[cmbdiesel]

Originally Posted by helpplease

I thought the 2nd amendment said we could bear arms?

"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."

Obviously those words have been interpreted MANY ways, but I'm willing to say that it DOES mean "right of gun ownership to a well-regulated militia". Does it mean other things as well? Quite possibly.

[Botnst]

Originally Posted by cmbdiesel

"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."

Obviously those words have been interpreted MANY ways, but I'm willing to say that it DOES mean "right of gun ownership to a well-regulated militia". Does it mean other things as well? Quite possibly.

You really need to read the Supreme Court decision taht addressed that argument directly. Also, Lawrence Tribe, liberal constitutional law prof at Harvard. And many other constitutional scholars agree: bearing arms is an individual right. Look it up.

B

[cmbdiesel]

Originally Posted by Botnst

You really need to read the Supreme Court decision taht addressed that argument directly. Also, Lawrence Tribe, liberal constitutional law prof at Harvard. And many other constitutional scholars agree: bearing arms is an individual right. Look it up.

B

Go back and read the posts.
Did not address the issue of individual ownership in the slightest.

as posted -
Quote:
Originally Posted by JollyRoger
The Constitution provides the right of gun ownership to a well-regulated militia.


It does not and you know it.

- Peter.


Are you saying that JR's statement is wrong?
Maybe it does not go as far as some interpretations, or rulings for that matter, but it is not wrong.

[Botnst]

Originally Posted by cmbdiesel

Go back and read the posts.
Did not address the issue of individual ownership in the slightest.

I must have misunderstood. The way I read your posts it looks like you're arguing that the 2nd applies to well-regulated militias.

B

[JollyRoger]

Originally Posted by Botnst

You really need to read the Supreme Court decision taht addressed that argument directly. Also, Lawrence Tribe, liberal constitutional law prof at Harvard. And many other constitutional scholars agree: bearing arms is an individual right. Look it up.

B

And no one denies that right to citizens in good standing. A mental case, a criminal, a dope addict, none of these are citizens in good standing. A person should have a right to own one, as much as they have the right to own an automobile, and like an automobile, it should be registered, licensed and insured, in other words, like automobiles, well regulated to keep nuts, alcoholics and addicts, and criminals from operating them. Simple common sense.

[pj67coll]

Automobiles did not exist at the time the 2'nd was written. However nobody at the time suggested horses or wagons had to "licensed, inspected, insured etc. Weapons and horses have nothing to do with each other. Automobiles have nothing to do with the second amendment and trying to pretend they do is merely obfuscating the issue.

- Peter.

[pj67coll]

Originally Posted by JollyRoger

And no one denies that right to citizens in good standing.

On the contrary. Plenty of people do, and many more want to.

- Peter.