Assault Weapons Ban being introduced

Master

2083

Houston, TX

Subject: RE: Assault Weapons Ban being introduced

I can not read the subject header of this thread without thinking about peanuts.

It's driving me crazy.

My Race Log

Pro

15655

Subject: RE: Assault Weapons Ban being introduced

jmk-brooklyn - 2012-12-27 3:39 PM

powerman - 2012-12-27 3:25 PM

jmk-brooklyn - 2012-12-27 1:43 PM You totally missed my point. I understand they're not apples and oranges-- even said so at the beginning of my post. But a lot of the reasons that people feel so strongly against national gun registration has to do with their fear of the government intruding into their lives. My point is that as people in general becomes more and more comfortable with a loss of privacy, I could see people becoming less concerned about national registration of guns. I don't mean to suggest that this will happen in the next six months. If you told people ten years ago that 90% of the population will be carrying around a device 24 hours a day that allows the government to precisely track their location people would have imagined some dystopian "1984" scenario. Now we just call them cell phones.

You fail to realize there are many that flocked to this country from every corner of the world that are not wired that way. They have no intention of becomeing so complacent to loss of freedoms to accept being tended to like sheep. I'm not necessarily that guy. I'm not trying to talk tough. But people fought and died for their freedoms. People died protecting them. People sign up today and risk their lives for the same reason. This country guaranteed freedom, there are many that see no reason to change that.

I live in the most ethnically and culturally diverse place in the country; I'm surrounded every day by thousands of people who flocked here from every other part of the world. I don't presume to speak for all of them, but I can tell you that freedom means different things to different people, and not everyone who comes to the US defines "freedom" as the right to bear arms. In fact, I think for many, they define freedom as the right not to have to bear arms.

I would hope that they always feel that way in this country!

Elite

6387

Subject: RE: Assault Weapons Ban being introduced

jmk-brooklyn - 2012-12-27 2:39 PM

powerman - 2012-12-27 3:25 PM

jmk-brooklyn - 2012-12-27 1:43 PM You totally missed my point. I understand they're not apples and oranges-- even said so at the beginning of my post. But a lot of the reasons that people feel so strongly against national gun registration has to do with their fear of the government intruding into their lives. My point is that as people in general becomes more and more comfortable with a loss of privacy, I could see people becoming less concerned about national registration of guns. I don't mean to suggest that this will happen in the next six months. If you told people ten years ago that 90% of the population will be carrying around a device 24 hours a day that allows the government to precisely track their location people would have imagined some dystopian "1984" scenario. Now we just call them cell phones.

You fail to realize there are many that flocked to this country from every corner of the world that are not wired that way. They have no intention of becomeing so complacent to loss of freedoms to accept being tended to like sheep. I'm not necessarily that guy. I'm not trying to talk tough. But people fought and died for their freedoms. People died protecting them. People sign up today and risk their lives for the same reason. This country guaranteed freedom, there are many that see no reason to change that.

I live in the most ethnically and culturally diverse place in the country; I'm surrounded every day by thousands of people who flocked here from every other part of the world. I don't presume to speak for all of them, but I can tell you that freedom means different things to different people, and not everyone who comes to the US defines "freedom" as the right to bear arms. In fact, I think for many, they define freedom as the right not to have to bear arms.

That's not a right, that's a choice they are perfectly free to make... see how that works?

Do you know why they have that choice.... because people died to give it to them.

Edited by powerman 2012-12-27 3:47 PM

My Race Log

Subject: RE: Assault Weapons Ban being introduced

"The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to permit the conquered Eastern peoples to have arms. History teaches that all conquerors who have allowed their subject races to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by doing so. Indeed I would go so far as to say that the underdog is a sine qua non for the overthrow of any sovereignty. So let's not have any native militia or police. German troops alone will bear the sole responsibility for the maintenance of law and order." - Adolf Hitler, April 11, 1942, quoted in Hitlers Tischegesprache Im Fuhrerhauptquartier 1941-1942. [Translation: Hitler's Table-Talk at the Fuhrer's Headquarters 1941-1942], Dr. Henry Picker, ed. (Athenaum-Verlag, Bonn, 1951)

I am the NRA!

My Race Log

Master

2802

Minnetonka, Minnesota

Subject: RE: Assault Weapons Ban being introduced

^ Godwin's Law at last!

My Training Log My Race Log

Subject: RE: Assault Weapons Ban being introduced

Wearing seatbelts was never a law when I started driving

Then it was a warning if you got pulled over for something else and you did not have your seatbelt on

Then if you got pulled over for something else it was a ticket.

Then it was a reason to pull you over and issue a ticket.

If anyone in your car does not have a seatbelt on, ticket

Of course when it all started it was jsut a common sense thing to do..warn the drivers.

Things always start with a "it's just"

My Race Log

Pro

15655

Subject: RE: Assault Weapons Ban being introduced

Can you possibly imagine a day in this country when good people open up their safes, gather up their guns, and turn them over to the govt.??

HA!!!!!!!!!!!!

Subject: RE: Assault Weapons Ban being introduced

Puppetmaster - 2012-12-27 2:23 PM

"The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to permit the conquered Eastern peoples to have arms. History teaches that all conquerors who have allowed their subject races to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by doing so. Indeed I would go so far as to say that the underdog is a sine qua non for the overthrow of any sovereignty. So let's not have any native militia or police. German troops alone will bear the sole responsibility for the maintenance of law and order." - Adolf Hitler, April 11, 1942, quoted in Hitlers Tischegesprache Im Fuhrerhauptquartier 1941-1942. [Translation: Hitler's Table-Talk at the Fuhrer's Headquarters 1941-1942], Dr. Henry Picker, ed. (Athenaum-Verlag, Bonn, 1951)

I am the NRA!

Well these folks agree that strict gun control works!

My Race Log

Elite

6387

Subject: RE: Assault Weapons Ban being introduced

powerman - 2012-12-27 11:51 AM

Brock Samson - 2012-12-27 10:43 AM

So Bigfuzzy and Pit are OK with a rule that says you can't own or posses a gun if someone in your house doesn't pass the mental health criteria for owning a gun. (What ever that may be)

Brock, can you explain something for me... Basically the Constitution says the Federal Government can't infringe... but it never said States can't. States can regulate arms, just as long as it isn't an out right prohibition thereby trumping the Constitution.... Heller

Do you feel that a Federal ban of all semi-auto weapons is Constitutional?

This legislation is basically doing that, and those that are owned must be registered and can never be transfered, and there fore will eventually never exist.

So, with the intent of the 2A, to allow individuals the right to own weapons consistent with personal arms for militia use... do you feel an out right ban is Constitutional by the Federal Government? And if it isn't, what would satisfy regulation of such arms without flat out banning them?

Bump.

Was really hoping to get some input on this from Brock

My Race Log

Master

2702

CHINA GROVE N.C., North Carolina

Subject: RE: Assault Weapons Ban being introduced

jmk-brooklyn - 2012-12-27 4:39 PM

powerman - 2012-12-27 3:25 PM

jmk-brooklyn - 2012-12-27 1:43 PM You totally missed my point. I understand they're not apples and oranges-- even said so at the beginning of my post. But a lot of the reasons that people feel so strongly against national gun registration has to do with their fear of the government intruding into their lives. My point is that as people in general becomes more and more comfortable with a loss of privacy, I could see people becoming less concerned about national registration of guns. I don't mean to suggest that this will happen in the next six months. If you told people ten years ago that 90% of the population will be carrying around a device 24 hours a day that allows the government to precisely track their location people would have imagined some dystopian "1984" scenario. Now we just call them cell phones.

You fail to realize there are many that flocked to this country from every corner of the world that are not wired that way. They have no intention of becomeing so complacent to loss of freedoms to accept being tended to like sheep. I'm not necessarily that guy. I'm not trying to talk tough. But people fought and died for their freedoms. People died protecting them. People sign up today and risk their lives for the same reason. This country guaranteed freedom, there are many that see no reason to change that.

I live in the most ethnically and culturally diverse place in the country; I'm surrounded every day by thousands of people who flocked here from every other part of the world. I don't presume to speak for all of them, but I can tell you that freedom means different things to different people, and not everyone who comes to the US defines "freedom" as the right to bear arms. In fact, I think for many, they define freedom as the right not to have to bear arms.

They DEFINE freedom as the right not to have to bear arms ? WTH ?? Maybe they came from an oppressive govt. but I don't think not having to bear arms is the defining point of freedom to them, even among the most extreme pacifists.

My Race Log

Pro

15655

Subject: RE: Assault Weapons Ban being introduced

tri42 - 2012-12-27 9:43 PM

jmk-brooklyn - 2012-12-27 4:39 PM

powerman - 2012-12-27 3:25 PM

jmk-brooklyn - 2012-12-27 1:43 PM You totally missed my point. I understand they're not apples and oranges-- even said so at the beginning of my post. But a lot of the reasons that people feel so strongly against national gun registration has to do with their fear of the government intruding into their lives. My point is that as people in general becomes more and more comfortable with a loss of privacy, I could see people becoming less concerned about national registration of guns. I don't mean to suggest that this will happen in the next six months. If you told people ten years ago that 90% of the population will be carrying around a device 24 hours a day that allows the government to precisely track their location people would have imagined some dystopian "1984" scenario. Now we just call them cell phones.

You fail to realize there are many that flocked to this country from every corner of the world that are not wired that way. They have no intention of becomeing so complacent to loss of freedoms to accept being tended to like sheep. I'm not necessarily that guy. I'm not trying to talk tough. But people fought and died for their freedoms. People died protecting them. People sign up today and risk their lives for the same reason. This country guaranteed freedom, there are many that see no reason to change that.

I live in the most ethnically and culturally diverse place in the country; I'm surrounded every day by thousands of people who flocked here from every other part of the world. I don't presume to speak for all of them, but I can tell you that freedom means different things to different people, and not everyone who comes to the US defines "freedom" as the right to bear arms. In fact, I think for many, they define freedom as the right not to have to bear arms.

They DEFINE freedom as the right not to have to bear arms ? WTH ?? Maybe they came from an oppressive govt. but I don't think not having to bear arms is the defining point of freedom to them, even among the most extreme pacifists.

Bro....just.....roll with it.

51	Subject: RE: Assault Weapons Ban being introduced Has anyone seen the comprehensive proposed list of the banned weapons? Just curious what they decided to single out on paper.

Elite

2733

Venture Industries,

Subject: RE: Assault Weapons Ban being introduced

powerman - 2012-12-27 7:12 PM

powerman - 2012-12-27 11:51 AM

Brock Samson - 2012-12-27 10:43 AM

So Bigfuzzy and Pit are OK with a rule that says you can't own or posses a gun if someone in your house doesn't pass the mental health criteria for owning a gun. (What ever that may be)

Brock, can you explain something for me... Basically the Constitution says the Federal Government can't infringe... but it never said States can't. States can regulate arms, just as long as it isn't an out right prohibition thereby trumping the Constitution.... Heller

Do you feel that a Federal ban of all semi-auto weapons is Constitutional?

This legislation is basically doing that, and those that are owned must be registered and can never be transfered, and there fore will eventually never exist.

So, with the intent of the 2A, to allow individuals the right to own weapons consistent with personal arms for militia use... do you feel an out right ban is Constitutional by the Federal Government? And if it isn't, what would satisfy regulation of such arms without flat out banning them?

Bump.

Was really hoping to get some input on this from Brock

Sorry (1) I have a life away from this board so didn't see the post and (2) I was re-reading Heller.

A. Heller specifically decided that the 2nd Amendment protected an Individuals personal right to posses firearms unconected with service in the/a militia.

B. In reaching this conclusion the Court looked at the history of the 2nd Amendment and it's passage. Interestingly the Court specifically noted the fears of the Anti-Federalists that the central government would disarm the citizens militia in order to form a politisized standing arm. The responce to this fear was to deny Congress the power "to abridge the ancient right of the individuals to keep and bear arms"

C. However, and it's the BIG HOWEVER,the COurt also specifically noted that no right is "unlimited." And specifically stated that it is not a right to keep and carry any weapon in any manner whatsoever and for any purpose whatsoever. Thus, noting that it is permissible, and there is historic precidence, for the banning of "carrying dangerous and unusual weapons."

D. In rejecting the DC handgun ban the Court noted that the ban amounted to a ban on an entire class of weapons "that Americans overwhelming choose for lawful purpose of self defense."

E. The COurt called "Frivolouos" arguments that the 2nd Amendment only protects those types of "arms" in existance at the time of the ratification of the Bill of Rights. The Court specifically noted that the Constitutional rights are not interpreted that way, and specifically made the analogy to the 1st Amendment and noted that the 1st Amendment right protects "Modern forms of communications" Thus, the 2nd Amendment "extends to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existance at the time of the founding."

F. In the Heller opinion the majority opinion specifically mentions the M-16 as a weapon that could be and is properly banned. However, it seems in context of the military weapon, rather than the civilan non-selective fire weapon.

Based on all of this my answer is and emphatic and overwhelming....I don't know, if an "assault weapons" ban would be Constitutional. The Supreme COurt doesn't seem to like total bans on weapons or types of weapons that were "in existance" at the time of the drafting. But they also concede that the 2nd Amendment protects things that are modern as does all of the Amendments. So, it seems that it would come down to are semi-automatic weapons with large magazines an "unusual and dangerous" weapon and not one "in existance at the time." I'm not really sure how the Court would come down on that.

So, how's that for an anwer.

My Race Log

Expert

839

Central Mass

Subject: RE: Assault Weapons Ban being introduced

powerman - 2012-12-27 1:19 PM

scorpio516 - 2012-12-27 1:59 PM

powerman - 2012-12-27 12:09 PM

jmk-brooklyn - 2012-12-27 1:00 PM

Left Brain - 2012-12-27 1:48 PM

jmk-brooklyn - 2012-12-27 1:15 PM

Left Brain - 2012-12-27 1:13 PM

jmk-brooklyn - 2012-12-27 1:12 PM

Left Brain - 2012-12-27 1:10 PM

As long as everyone realizes that nothing proposed here or in the new law is going to have a single effect on the murder rate in this country I'm good with the discussion. But if there is anyone who thinks this will make a difference in the number of gun murders per year....you're delusional.

In fact, there a5re more guns in our society now than at any other timein our history....and gun deaths have beenin a steady decline.

I know it all feels good.....but it's a MONUMENTAL waste of time, energy, and money.

Yes, yes, we've covered that.

Yeah, we have.....but geez, what an absolute waste this all is.

Right, because when I come to COJ, I expect it to be productive.

No, not this that we do, of course THIS is a waste LOL ......the time and money that will spent on new laws and regulations that will not have any effect on the shootings that people think they will prevent. I'll never understand it.

You’re probably right, and I know it’s not exactly apples and oranges, but I bet if you had told people in the 40’s and 50’s that, in the late 70’s and 80’s there would be a huge backlash against smoking, so much so that smoking would be virtually nonexistent by comparison twenty years later, people wouldn’t have believed you. I think that as the population of this country continues to gravitate towards major cities, which tend to have more stringent gun laws and, more importantly, where hunting and recreational shooting is less a part of daily life, that you’ll see a sharp decrease in the number of Americans who feel as strongly about gun ownership as you do. ETA, I also think that the degree to which each successive generation becomes more and more comfortable with a loss of privacy that comes from our increasingly “connected” existence means that you will see the concerns about national registries and more stringent licensing requirements lessen as well. For better or worse, people aren’t as worried about government intrusion into their lives as they probably were a generation ago. If they were, they wouldn’t all be carrying cell phones with trackable GPS chips in them and posting every trivial moment of their lives on facebook.

Good Lord.... smoking is not Constitutionaly PROTECTED!

But slavery was.

Drinking was constutionaly prohibited.

Rights change.

You're kidding right?

Where was slavery protected in the Bill of rights?

Where is drinking Constitutionaly protected in the Bill of Rights?

If you want to repeal the 2a... good luck with that.

Slavery didn't have to be mentioned in the bill of rights, which were added after the constitution was written. Slavery is in the body of the constitution.

Drinking was made illegal with the 18th amendment. the 18th was no more or less powerful than the 1st or 5th (until the 21st amendment repealed it)

New user

900

,

Subject: RE: Assault Weapons Ban being introduced

tuwood - 2012-12-27 11:04 AM

Bigfuzzydoug - 2012-12-27 11:03 AM

NXS - 2012-12-27 11:56 AM The only reason for registration, is for later confiscation.

More like if your home is broken into, your gun stolen, and later recovered at a crime scene - it can help the police to possibly track down the suspect.

More like if you use your gun and the police investigate, they can prove you obtained it legally and you're not charged with illegal possession.

More like Google has more information on you than the county sheriff has from your gun. So there's no need to get all tin-foil-hat about it.

I like my tinfoil hat. It's very comfortable. :-P

http://www.opposingviews.com/i/society/guns/new-york-governor-andrew-cuomo-says-gun-confiscation-could-be-option

Just caught up on the thread since leaving yesterday, but as was stated, I believe by leftbrain, none of the propositions will prevent anything. As for my statement, how else will Mr. Cuomo be able to confiscate guns if they are not registered (knowing where they are)?

Pro

9391

Omaha, NE

Subject: RE: Assault Weapons Ban being introduced

NXS - 2012-12-28 8:55 AM

tuwood - 2012-12-27 11:04 AM

Bigfuzzydoug - 2012-12-27 11:03 AM

NXS - 2012-12-27 11:56 AM The only reason for registration, is for later confiscation.

More like if your home is broken into, your gun stolen, and later recovered at a crime scene - it can help the police to possibly track down the suspect.

More like if you use your gun and the police investigate, they can prove you obtained it legally and you're not charged with illegal possession.

More like Google has more information on you than the county sheriff has from your gun. So there's no need to get all tin-foil-hat about it.

I like my tinfoil hat. It's very comfortable. :-P

http://www.opposingviews.com/i/society/guns/new-york-governor-andrew-cuomo-says-gun-confiscation-could-be-option

Just caught up on the thread since leaving yesterday, but as was stated, I believe by leftbrain, none of the propositions will prevent anything. As for my statement, how else will Mr. Cuomo be able to confiscate guns if they are not registered (knowing where they are)?

Come to think of it, I may need to go on a fishing trip in some deep water with all my guns in the near future.

My Race Log

Pro

15655

Subject: RE: Assault Weapons Ban being introduced

Cuomo is an idiot.

Now MORE people will buy MORE guns. You can't make this stuff up.

Champion

17756

SoCal

Subject: RE: Assault Weapons Ban being introduced

Left Brain - 2012-12-28 7:00 AM

Cuomo is an idiot.

Now MORE people will buy MORE guns. You can't make this stuff up.

It is crazy here in CA You can't find an AR or even a lower anywhere. I heard that at my local shooting range people were offering double the going price for the range's AR rental. My friends went to the range yesterday and said it was packed and mostly with new shooters who just bought a firearm for the first time and this is left wing crazy CA.

My Race Log

Pro

9391

Omaha, NE

Subject: RE: Assault Weapons Ban being introduced

I just saw this from Gallup yesterday. The numbers actually pleasantly surprised me and I'm most surprised at the public opposition to an AWB.

My Race Log

Pro

9391

Omaha, NE

Subject: RE: Assault Weapons Ban being introduced

Big Appa - 2012-12-28 9:04 AM

Left Brain - 2012-12-28 7:00 AM

Cuomo is an idiot.

Now MORE people will buy MORE guns. You can't make this stuff up.

It is crazy here in CA You can't find an AR or even a lower anywhere. I heard that at my local shooting range people were offering double the going price for the range's AR rental. My friends went to the range yesterday and said it was packed and mostly with new shooters who just bought a firearm for the first time and this is left wing crazy CA.

Same thing here in NE. Gun stores are stripped clean. Ironically the number one cause of more guns in households in America is the Democratic party and the Media.

My Race Log

Pro

9391

Omaha, NE

Subject: RE: Assault Weapons Ban being introduced

I saw this in a NE gun forum last night, and thought it was interesting. I know there's a lot of "panic" in the air about them passing a new AWB, but it wasn't exactly easy last time around.

Remember it took 4 years to pass the last one, when:

1) ARs, "high cap" mags, etc were an oddity, not mainstream like now

2) Dems controlled both houses, with slick willy

3) The bill was used as a bargaining chip for troops in Haiti

4) Even with all that, it BARELY passed

My Race Log

Pro

15655

Subject: RE: Assault Weapons Ban being introduced

There will be no weapons ban........watch and see. It's completely unworkable in today's climate.

People have figured out that the best way to protect yourself from criminals is to arm yourself.....it is what it is....you can agree or not, but it won't change where we are now.

The truth is, once you get through all of the emotion and hyperbole, crime is down. While it's true that one may not have any correlation on the other, one thing is certain......more guns has not meant MORE crime.

Deep in the Heart of Texas

Subject: RE: Assault Weapons Ban being introduced

Brock Samson - 2012-12-28 8:15 AM