Do you support background checks at gun shows?
I don't know why Wayne had such a problem with the question. I would have made it simple for the Senator.
Should have replied NRA supports background checks for all sales going through a licensed dealer. Private sales are regulated by the states. We support the States that want to allow private sales and we also support the States that want to regulate them.
I'd take your question up with the State legislatures Senator. We don't believe Federal laws that violate the constitution should be the end all game plan if the states want to take over that area of regulation.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OSH-zgt0n3w
Should have replied NRA supports background checks for all sales going through a licensed dealer. Private sales are regulated by the states. We support the States that want to allow private sales and we also support the States that want to regulate them.
I'd take your question up with the State legislatures Senator. We don't believe Federal laws that violate the constitution should be the end all game plan if the states want to take over that area of regulation.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OSH-zgt0n3w
0
-
quote:Originally posted by Jim Rau
No, we should set the clock back to about 1910 or even further!
What I am saying about the Ominous Crime Control Act of 1968 is they (the progressives) were using the same a old tired arguments they are using today and they keep using to push use further down the slippery slope. [:(] This 'act' was passed in the interest of 'controlling crime', which MANY thought to be their true agenda. But as we all know they, the progressives, will not stop until they disarm us completely!!! This not about 'gun control', it is about 'people control'!!![:(!]
Agreed 100%. 1910 would be a good place to start:
No background checks.
No restrictions on felons.
No restrictions on full-auto weaponry.
Order a 1921A1 on-line and have it shipped to a post office box.
Your're coming around, Jim. Very good to see.0 -
quote:Originally posted by Barzillia
You are still refusing to accept the point of limitation vs infringement. The framers used the term "abridged" in the first amendment, you reckon they changed the wording to infringe just for style's sake ? Until the basic and proper usage of the language terms involved is appreciated, there is not much use in trying to convince others of something that does not exist.
Define your terms again?
In common usage, and in the context of Amendments 2 and 1, infringe is to encroach and abridge is to deny. This suggests that the framers made a much stronger statement in the 2nd than in the first.
Please point to something, a contemporaneous definition, for example, that would suggest that the common usage of these words has changed over time and that in 1791 the prohibition upon abridgment was actually a stronger statement than the prohibition upon infringement.0 -
quote:Originally posted by Don McManus
quote:Originally posted by Hunter Mag
It seems to me NICS checks have become widely accepted. What's next 20+ years from now? "Assault weapon" possession being completely illegal/a felony becoming widely accepted also? Then handguns, then long guns until we're down to a sling shot and stones?
Maybe I misread but does the second ammendment say "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed after a background/NICS check"?
Read the Heller Decision.
Scalia basically states that it says the right of the people to keep and bear arms cannot be denied. Governments have the power to mandate the registration of firearms, to mandate the licensing of individuals who wish to keep or bear firearms, and to establish regulations as to which types of firearms can be kept or borne.
So yes, currently the 2nd Amendment does state that a background check can be required.
The amendment has been rendered virtually meaningless.
I agree with the last sentence even though the sentences above it are true. [xx(]0 -
quote:Originally posted by Don McManus
quote:Originally posted by Jim Rau
No, we should set the clock back to about 1910 or even further!
What I am saying about the Ominous Crime Control Act of 1968 is they (the progressives) were using the same a old tired arguments they are using today and they keep using to push use further down the slippery slope. [:(] This 'act' was passed in the interest of 'controlling crime', which MANY thought to be their true agenda. But as we all know they, the progressives, will not stop until they disarm us completely!!! This not about 'gun control', it is about 'people control'!!![:(!]
Agreed 100%. 1910 would be a good place to start:
No background checks.
No restrictions on felons.
No restrictions on full-auto weaponry.
Order a 1921A1 on-line and have it shipped to a post office box.
Your're coming around, Jim. Very good to see.
I am not coming around.[;)] This has been my position for about the past 20+ years. Now this is were we part company. If we could 'start over' I would say to purchase a true 'assault weapon (select fire) a background check, like we do for all purchases now, would be in order. I think dealers should keep records of whom they sell to, but not require any 'checks' on the buyers. I think those convicted of violent 'persons' crimes should not be allowed to 'rearm'!!! Concealed carry should not be outlawed ANYWHERE! If you use a weapon to commit a crime you should be prosecuted, and you should not be allowed to CCW after your convection.
If you study the history of the anti-gun laws you will find their roots in the corrupt political machines of our large cities. They are still well rooted there. The reason they made laws restricting the right of self defense is because those who opposed the corruption were able to be armed the same as the corrupt machine. Like today, where the corrupt NATIONAL political machine is in power, they were able to control the opposition by allowing those who support them to be armed and those opposing them to be arrested for being armed. Thus ALL those involved at all levels of government are in violation of the Constitution and violating the oath to protect the Constitution.[:(!]0 -
quote:Originally posted by Jim Rau
I am not coming around.[;)] This has been my position for about the past 20+ years. Now this is were we part company. If we could 'start over' I would say to purchase a true 'assault weapon (select fire) a background check, like we do for all purchases now, would be in order. I think dealers should keep records of whom they sell to, but not require any 'checks' on the buyers. I think those convicted of violent 'persons' crimes should not be allowed to 'rearm'!!! Concealed carry should not be outlawed ANYWHERE! If you use a weapon to commit a crime you should be prosecuted, and you should not be allowed to CCW after your convection.
If you study the history of the anti-gun laws you will find their roots in the corrupt political machines of our large cities. They are still well rooted there. The reason they made laws restricting the right of self defense is because those who opposed the corruption were able to be armed the same as the corrupt machine. Like today, where the corrupt NATIONAL political machine is in power, they were able to control the opposition by allowing those who support them to be armed and those opposing them to be arrested for being armed. Thus ALL those involved at all levels of government are in violation of the Constitution and violating the oath to protect the Constitution.[:(!]
One last(?) question, Jim.
You state emphatically 'I think those convicted of violent 'persons' crimes should not be allowed to 'rearm'!!!' yet object to background checks on anyone save for select-fire or full-auto weapons. You also support dealers being forced to maintain records of sales. I assume you do not extend this to private sales.
This suggests that if a person once convicted of a violent 'persons' crime purchases a firearm from a dealer, it is only that person who has breached the law. In essence, complete removal of active government control (which I obviously support), and the act of purchase is illegal, but the sale is not.
What is the point of the paper trail? It does nothing to keep weapons out of the hands of those once violent, it just points to where the firearm used was released into the public.0 -
quote:Originally posted by Barzillia
It is only your definition and usage that has changed, and is not in accordance with the standard usage, Don. The denotations and connotations have not changed over time.
Limitations are still limitations, and infringements are still infringements, but the terms are not interchangeable.
That is the point. Infringements are, in a categorical sense, a subset of limitations. Infringement is by it's nature and usage an improper limitation. No one says, for example,in law or common usage, " My farm is infringed by the property line." You could say, "My farm is limited by, My farm is bounded by, My farm is bordered by," or several other phrases, and be perfectly understood. try that with infringed and it simply does not ring true, it is clumsy, it just doesn't fit what you are trying to communicate.
Not all limitations are infringements, although all infringements are limitations.
All infringements are improper, but not so with all limitations.
Compare, for example, with the concept of abridgments.
Dictionaries are abridged, with no hint of impropriety, for example.
But no lessening or abridgment of the "full and perfect" ( a common term and concept when discussing such things) freedom of religion is allowable under the BOR.
Does that mean, then, that any conceivable practice of "religion" is protected under the BOR, even though the freedom of practice may not be abridged ?
Nope, definitely not.
But that is a different discussion.
There is no suggestion that 'limitation' and 'infringement' are in any way interchangeable. I also do not see how you can suggest that infringements are any sort of subset of limitations.
To infringe could be considered the act of of exceeding a limitation, a suppose.
In the case of the 2nd Amendment, the limitation is the Right to Keep and Bear Arms. The creation of the concept that an infringement is only an improper limitation builds into the 2nd Amendment an infinite number of proper limitations. Justice Scalia is on board with the viewpoint, though it seems that in this context the 2nd Amendment is, as originally suggested, meaningless as a check upon governments.
If we are to believe that there is substance in the Constitution, this simply cannot be the case.0 -
I know this is a discussion on background checks at gun shows, but as one that believes the Constitution means what it says:
verb (infringes, infringing, infringed)
[with object]
actively break the terms of (a law, agreement, etc.): making an unauthorized copy would infringe copyright
act so as to limit or undermine (something); encroach on: his legal rights were being infringed [no object]: I wouldn't infringe on his privacy
This includes the States as well.
If the country feels a need to limit or control firearms then amend the constitution. Ignoring it should not be an option.
Unless this is done then IMHO ALL gun laws, including background checks, are unconstitutional.0 -
No background checks. Period.
As for as Criminals getting guns: If you remove a persons right to protect themselves then you effectively remove thier citizenship. Thats not Constitutional. At some point bad people of all sorts need to be restircted but that doesnt mean if you go to jail you should automatically loose your rights.
Rememeber we live in a FREE Country. There are going to be some dangers in doing so. The dangers are much higher when protected by the Gov. Just ask the Germans in WWII time.
What next: no dirving on Pikes Peak since we might accidentally drive off the side?0 -
I hate it because I always get put on a three day wait so I cant buy at a Gun Show. 0 -
"The neighbor's fence infringes my property due to its lean across the boundary" is a proper corollary to how "the government infringes my right to keep and bear arms". The boundary set for our government is the individual's right to keep and bear arms. Anything the government does across that boundary is an infringement. 0 -
no background checks needed in the show. Just check out everyone entering the show. 0 -
quote:Originally posted by Don McManus
quote:Originally posted by Jim Rau
I am not coming around.[;)] This has been my position for about the past 20+ years. Now this is were we part company. If we could 'start over' I would say to purchase a true 'assault weapon (select fire) a background check, like we do for all purchases now, would be in order. I think dealers should keep records of whom they sell to, but not require any 'checks' on the buyers. I think those convicted of violent 'persons' crimes should not be allowed to 'rearm'!!! Concealed carry should not be outlawed ANYWHERE! If you use a weapon to commit a crime you should be prosecuted, and you should not be allowed to CCW after your convection.
If you study the history of the anti-gun laws you will find their roots in the corrupt political machines of our large cities. They are still well rooted there. The reason they made laws restricting the right of self defense is because those who opposed the corruption were able to be armed the same as the corrupt machine. Like today, where the corrupt NATIONAL political machine is in power, they were able to control the opposition by allowing those who support them to be armed and those opposing them to be arrested for being armed. Thus ALL those involved at all levels of government are in violation of the Constitution and violating the oath to protect the Constitution.[:(!]
One last(?) question, Jim.
You state emphatically 'I think those convicted of violent 'persons' crimes should not be allowed to 'rearm'!!!' yet object to background checks on anyone save for select-fire or full-auto weapons. You also support dealers being forced to maintain records of sales. I assume you do not extend this to private sales.
This suggests that if a person once convicted of a violent 'persons' crime purchases a firearm from a dealer, it is only that person who has breached the law. In essence, complete removal of active government control (which I obviously support), and the act of purchase is illegal, but the sale is not.
What is the point of the paper trail? It does nothing to keep weapons out of the hands of those once violent, it just points to where the firearm used was released into the public.
You are correct. The sale would not be a violation, but the purchase by a prohibited person would be. The point of the 'paper trail' is to trace weapons found to be used in a crime. This would give LE a 'lead' to work. It would start at the manufacture and end with the original purchaser of the firearm from a dealer, not further. This would give LE a place to start in their investigation.0 -
quote:Originally posted by Jim Rau
quote:Originally posted by Don McManus
One last(?) question, Jim.
You state emphatically 'I think those convicted of violent 'persons' crimes should not be allowed to 'rearm'!!!' yet object to background checks on anyone save for select-fire or full-auto weapons. You also support dealers being forced to maintain records of sales. I assume you do not extend this to private sales.
This suggests that if a person once convicted of a violent 'persons' crime purchases a firearm from a dealer, it is only that person who has breached the law. In essence, complete removal of active government control (which I obviously support), and the act of purchase is illegal, but the sale is not.
What is the point of the paper trail? It does nothing to keep weapons out of the hands of those once violent, it just points to where the firearm used was released into the public.
You are correct. The sale would not be a violation, but the purchase by a prohibited person would be. The point of the 'paper trail' is to trace weapons found to be used in a crime. This would give LE a 'lead' to work. It would start at the manufacture and end with the original purchaser of the firearm from a dealer, not further. This would give LE a place to start in their investigation.
While I am not a fan of any paper trail, Jim, this approach is a big step in the right direction. It reduces the burden on the individual, and places responsibility only upon those that have done or do wrong. It also throws a bone to those that think it important for Government to know where firearms may be.
(I am thinking, however, that the 'honor system for ex-cons' may not be the easiest concept to sell to the general public.)[:)]
The paper trail, while giving law enforcement a starting point after the fact obviously does not stem violence, but, as you and I and thousands of others already understand, neither does the current system of background checks, nor would they if expanded to every transfer.0 -
Ok now I am confused. What is being discussed is what IS now not WOULD be.
The NICS does not create a paper trail. The ATF 4473 would be the paper trail.
The paper trail could only be accomplished by requiring all firearm sales or transfers be done thru an FFL. This may work for new weapons but almost worthless for older weapons. When an FFL goes out of business they are required to send all records to the NTC.
"When an FFL discontinues business, the FFL must send their firearms transactions records to the National Tracing Center (NTC). The NTC receives an average of 1.2 million out-of-business records per month and is the only repository for these records within the United States."
A government black hole! And a 10 Amendment violation.
I am amazed at what is missing from the discussion "MINORITIES AND SINGLE MOMS HARDEST HIT" by increasing gun control.(LOL)0 -
quote:Originally posted by Barzillia
quote:Originally posted by Don McManus
There is no suggestion that 'limitation' and 'infringement' are in any way interchangeable. I also do not see how you can suggest that infringements are any sort of subset of limitations.
Easy. Try a Venn diagram, a common logical tool.
To infringe could be considered the act of of exceeding a limitation, a suppose.
In the case of the 2nd Amendment, the limitation is the Right to Keep and Bear Arms. The creation of the concept that an infringement is only an improper limitation builds into the 2nd Amendment an infinite number of proper limitations. Justice Scalia is on board with the viewpoint, though it seems that in this context the 2nd Amendment is, as originally suggested, meaningless as a check upon governments.
If we are to believe that there is substance in the Constitution, this simply cannot be the case.
No offense intended, but this would only be the case for the uninformed. There is ample thought in both natural law, and God's law, to address the issue. Should disagreements arise about what limitations are proper, there is both legislative and judicial means to resolve the issue. There is no right that is absolute under every circumstance, and no such amendment. If one tries to live without such conventions and understanding, you end up with confusion.
As is common in such discussions, and even Jefferson predicted such devolution of political thought.
If one chooses a logical tool, but starts with a false assumption as you are doing, the end result remains in error, regardless of how logical the path.
As to the latter, it is curious that you suggest the presentation of an uniformed position and then confirm that it is correct. Legislative and judicial means to resolve an issue, when it is patently obvious that neither the legislative or judicial process in play today in this country have any respect for, nor do they follow Natural Law or God's Law.
One only need read Scalia's tortured path towards legitimacy in Heller to see this. This expansion of Government Power was legimized through court precedent, in addition to 'common usage' and 'long-standing prohibitioins' absent any Constitutional basis.
In effect, virtually unlimited power of proper limitation. The limits on government are specific regarding the D.C. law, 'But the enshrinement of constitutional rights necessarily takes certain policy choices off the table. These include the absolute prohibition of handguns held and used for self-defense in the home'. as an example. The powers created are not limited, however, and are stated to include licensing of individuals, registration of firearms and regulations as to the types of firearms allowed.
Heller tells us that 'absolute prohibition of handguns held and used for self-defense in the home' is unconstitutional. This, I guess would be one of your 'improper limitations' by government, though actually the infringement by government of a limit the Constitution places upon Government. Heller also tells us that the legislative and judicial process can be used to prohibit persons from owning firearms and to prohibit types of firearms from all persons, as you have also stated.
Granted, I have not played with sets and subsets since grammar school, but I am fairly confident that when one removes a sub-set of 1 from an infinite set, the original set remains infinite.0 -
I don't see how background checks on private sales can be effectively enforced without registration of all weapons. As of the effective date of such a law, guns sold through dealers from that point would have a paper trail for tracking them. Without registration the gun I bought from a dealer in 1984 and sold a few years later has probably been sold numerous times by now through private sales and has no documentation to tie it to its current owner. It could continue to be sold without background checks until someone was caught in the act because there is no documentation to follow it. 0 -
quote:Originally posted by Barzillia
quote:Originally posted by Don McManus
If one chooses a logical tool, but starts with a false assumption as you are doing, the end result remains in error, regardless of how logical the path.
You have presented no evidence that the one is not a subset of the other, and apparently refuse to use the simplest of logical tools to evaluate your claim, Don. There is nothing else I can add, I guess.
As to the latter, it is curious that you suggest the presentation of an uniformed position and then confirm that it is correct.
You will need to be a bit clearer there in what you are saying.
Legislative and judicial means to resolve an issue, when it is patently obvious that neither the legislative or judicial process in play today in this country have any respect for, nor do they follow Natural Law or God's Law.
But that is a choice, not a logical necessity. Simply because a process can be misused in no way demonstrates that the process cannot be well used. Not everything is a failure, no matter how you feel about it.
One only need read Scalia's tortured path towards legitimacy in Heller to see this. This expansion of Government Power was legimized through court precedent, in addition to 'common usage' and 'long-standing prohibitioins' absent any Constitutional basis.
You have certainly convinced yourself, apparently.
In effect, virtually unlimited power of proper limitation.
I understand what you are saying, but then you are ignoring that proper limitation may not be proper if "unlimited". You are playing fast and loose with the terms, whether intentionally or not. But that does not change the fact that limitations are present in every amendment, not just the ones you feel like recognizing.
The limits on government are specific regarding the D.C. law, 'But the enshrinement of constitutional rights necessarily takes certain policy choices off the table. These include the absolute prohibition of handguns held and used for self-defense in the home'. as an example. The powers created are not limited, however, and are stated to include licensing of individuals, registration of firearms and regulations as to the types of firearms allowed.
I did not present the DC law as perfect,but you surely must recognize that DC is a special jurisdictional case.
Heller tells us that 'absolute prohibition of handguns held and used for self-defense in the home' is unconstitutional. This, I guess would be one of your 'improper limitations' by government, though actually the infringement by government of a limit the Constitution places upon Government.
To hold that there is an absolute prohibition for all persons in all circumstances in all places and times would certainly be improper limitation, and hence, infringement.
To hold that slaves cannot possess weapons would be the same idea.
To hold that the criminally insane cannot possess arms, however, would not.
I would also limit the possession of firearms among those incarcerated, as well.
I would be real tempted to limit possession to citizens, however, or at least prohibit possession by illegal aliens.
And, nope, I see no rationale for the possession of CBW by individuals, either.
Heller also tells us that the legislative and judicial process can be used to prohibit persons from owning firearms and to prohibit types of firearms from all persons, as you have also stated.
As above.
Granted, I have not played with sets and subsets since grammar school, but I am fairly confident that when one removes a sub-set of 1 from an infinite set, the original set remains infinite.
Not quite sure the importance of that to this discussion, but Venn diagrams are simple and may be googled for further information.
It is as I had assumed. You believe government has the wisdom and ability to properly determine the application of a right absent Constitutional guidance. You accept that common usage, what makes sense, etc. Laws are fleeting, but the law should not be.
You can cease your simple Venn Diagram discussion. I am familiar with the concept and with application. If you seriously believe that a Venn Diagram can be used to logically present the relationship between limitation and infringement, you apparently lack such understanding.
As previously noted, as with any logic tool, you have start with understanding the subject. You believe I do not, I believe you do not. Our circles do not intersect.0 -
The 'Heller' case findings were wrong. 'WE' don't need a law degree or a black robe to understand either the letter or the spirit of the Bill of Rights. "We the people" are MORE capable than ANY one in government to interrupt the 'law'. There is a very obvious 'conflict of interest' when we allow the government to tell us 'what the law means'!!!![xx(] 0 -
quote:Originally posted by Jim Rau
The 'Heller' case findings were wrong. 'WE' don't need a law degree or a black robe to understand either the letter or the spirit of the Bill of Rights. "We the people" are MORE capable than ANY one in government to interrupt the 'law'. There is a very obvious 'conflict of interest' when we allow the government to tell us 'what the law means'!!!![xx(]
The festering wound that is our government is leagues ahead of the ordinary citizens, insofar as "interrupting" the law is concerned.0 -
quote:Originally posted by Mr. Perfect
quote:Originally posted by Jim Rau
The 'Heller' case findings were wrong. 'WE' don't need a law degree or a black robe to understand either the letter or the spirit of the Bill of Rights. "We the people" are MORE capable than ANY one in government to interrupt the 'law'. There is a very obvious 'conflict of interest' when we allow the government to tell us 'what the law means'!!!![xx(]
The festering wound that is our government is leagues ahead of the ordinary citizens, insofar as "interrupting" the law is concerned.
Most of us are 'law abiding' citizens, BUT we MUST start thinking like Rosa Parks and refuse to go to the back of the bus. We MUST do this TOGETHER or it is useless. That is why I try to get those on ALL sides of this issue to stop the in-fighting and realize we must ALL agree no matter how we think it 'should be' it has gone way to far NOW and we must ALL 'draw a line in the sand' and push back collectively or 'resistance is futile'!!!!!!!!!!![V][xx(]0 -
Mr. Rau,
Re:
"I do not support ANY background checks for the purchase or transfer of any weapon which is not FULL AUTO!!!"
Why do you exclude select-fire firearms? The founders likely knew of the 'plunger' automatic/gatling-type firearm and they chose not to exclude it.
In my time with the US Army and the Army National Guard, I shot and qualified with both the old full-auto M-16 and the M-60 machine gun.
I found that semi-auto in a man-portable rifle was much more lethal and it wasted less ammo. That became much more important when Uncle Sam stopped buying the ammo.
We used to be able to buy full autos. Except for prohibition gangstas (the root cause of that was more laws) there was no carnage.
My guess is that an 18 Y.O. with a full load of crazy and a full-auto rifle would make the intended target the safest person.
What's the reason for your prejudice against full-auto? Am I missing something?
Terry0 -
quote:Originally posted by cat66hat
Mr. Rau,
Re:
"I do not support ANY background checks for the purchase or transfer of any weapon which is not FULL AUTO!!!"
Why do you exclude select-fire firearms? The founders likely knew of the 'plunger' automatic/gatling-type firearm and they chose not to exclude it.
In my time with the US Army and the Army National Guard, I shot and qualified with both the old full-auto M-16 and the M-60 machine gun.
I found that semi-auto in a man-portable rifle was much more lethal and it wasted less ammo. That became much more important when Uncle Sam stopped buying the ammo.
We used to be able to buy full autos. Except for prohibition gangstas (the root cause of that was more laws) there was no carnage.
My guess is that an 18 Y.O. with a full load of crazy and a full-auto rifle would make the intended target the safest person.
What's the reason for your prejudice against full-auto? Am I missing something?
Terry
Because I have 30++ years in law enforcement I know how the real world works. In an 'ideal' world you are correct, BUT realistically, if any one could walk in a buy any select fire (full auto) weapon the primary buyers would be the 'gangs' in the big city's. When it was legal for all to buy these weapons VERY FEW every day people bought them, it was the gangsters, thus NFA. I do not think it would be wise (common sense) to allow this to happen. It would hurt our cause to see even more gang violence in the 'full auto' mode. I know this is not a 'perfect/ideal' world, but to flood the market with 'full auto' true 'assault weapons' would do more real and political harm then good even though those who are 'purest'when it comes to the Constitution will have a fit about this.[;)]0 -
quote:Originally posted by Jim Rau
quote:Originally posted by cat66hat
Mr. Rau,
Re:
"I do not support ANY background checks for the purchase or transfer of any weapon which is not FULL AUTO!!!"
Why do you exclude select-fire firearms? The founders likely knew of the 'plunger' automatic/gatling-type firearm and they chose not to exclude it.
In my time with the US Army and the Army National Guard, I shot and qualified with both the old full-auto M-16 and the M-60 machine gun.
I found that semi-auto in a man-portable rifle was much more lethal and it wasted less ammo. That became much more important when Uncle Sam stopped buying the ammo.
We used to be able to buy full autos. Except for prohibition gangstas (the root cause of that was more laws) there was no carnage.
My guess is that an 18 Y.O. with a full load of crazy and a full-auto rifle would make the intended target the safest person.
What's the reason for your prejudice against full-auto? Am I missing something?
Terry
Because I have 30++ years in law enforcement I know how the real world works. In an 'ideal' world you are correct, BUT realistically, if any one could walk in a buy any select fire (full auto) weapon the primary buyers would be the 'gangs' in the big city's. When it was legal for all to buy these weapons VERY FEW every day people bought them, it was the gangsters, thus NFA. I do not think it would be wise (common sense) to allow this to happen. It would hurt our cause to see even more gang violence in the 'full auto' mode. I know this is not a 'perfect/ideal' world, but to flood the market with 'full auto' true 'assault weapons' would do more real and political harm then good even though those who are 'purest'when it comes to the Constitution will have a fit about this.[;)]
Cue the violins!0 -
Hi Jim,
Thanks for responding. It's good to understand the views that support your typing. I am glad to see, and I support, your concern for the public welfare.
I am getting to be more Libertarian each day, it seems. I think we need to focus on the reason for the 2A. We need to be able to at least provide a token resistance to government oppression. Personally, I would only buy a full-auto for the fun of chasing pop cans around the range. As I mentioned, unless you are talking about keeping the enemies' heads down, a bunch of semi-autos work as well or better than than a full-auto.
My concern is that any time we agree to be 'reasonable' about firearms ownership, we get 'reasonable' shoved up our behinds. It's 'reasonable' in your mind to restrict full-autos. OK, that's not what the 2A says. Do you support the US Constitution or not? This is not supposed to be a pick-and-choose deal here. Maybe it's OK to restrict Joe-Bob's church, as long as we leave the snake-handlers alone?
The above was not intended to be an attack on your beliefs, it is simply my personal view of the whole mess. Freedom is really messy sometimes.
Terry0 -
quote:Originally posted by Barzillia
quote:Originally posted by Mr. Perfect
quote:Originally posted by Jim Rau
quote:Originally posted by cat66hat
Mr. Rau,
Re:
"I do not support ANY background checks for the purchase or transfer of any weapon which is not FULL AUTO!!!"
Why do you exclude select-fire firearms? The founders likely knew of the 'plunger' automatic/gatling-type firearm and they chose not to exclude it.
In my time with the US Army and the Army National Guard, I shot and qualified with both the old full-auto M-16 and the M-60 machine gun.
I found that semi-auto in a man-portable rifle was much more lethal and it wasted less ammo. That became much more important when Uncle Sam stopped buying the ammo.
We used to be able to buy full autos. Except for prohibition gangstas (the root cause of that was more laws) there was no carnage.
My guess is that an 18 Y.O. with a full load of crazy and a full-auto rifle would make the intended target the safest person.
What's the reason for your prejudice against full-auto? Am I missing something?
Terry
Because I have 30++ years in law enforcement I know how the real world works. In an 'ideal' world you are correct, BUT realistically, if any one could walk in a buy any select fire (full auto) weapon the primary buyers would be the 'gangs' in the big city's. When it was legal for all to buy these weapons VERY FEW every day people bought them, it was the gangsters, thus NFA. I do not think it would be wise (common sense) to allow this to happen. It would hurt our cause to see even more gang violence in the 'full auto' mode. I know this is not a 'perfect/ideal' world, but to flood the market with 'full auto' true 'assault weapons' would do more real and political harm then good even though those who are 'purest'when it comes to the Constitution will have a fit about this.[;)]
Cue the violins!
The laws have changed over time through gradualism, or incrementalism.
Why do you think that cannot change by the same type of process, in the other direction ?
Because the 'progressives' are in power! As long as they are in control it will not be changed by legislation, only our 'action' will change it.
We have our backs against the wall right NOW! I have given all I am going to give! [:(!]
"If you give them an inch they will take a mile"! This has been proven time and time again and it MUST STOP NOW! [xx(]
Regardless of how we stand on the 'way it should be' we must all refuse to 'go to the back of the bus'. Once we STOP this erosion of our rights we can have the conversation of how to 'rebuild' them![:)]0 -
After attending shows for many years I. Have to admit that some of the "buyers" at shows make me nervous.
some I would not trust with a bag of pretzels.
I have noticed that many sellers are attuned to this and will refuse to sell if they fell hinky about someone.
at the same time I have to defend and extend them the same rights that I expect for myself.
Even if they have on a bandanna and have their pants down around their knees and have gang tats.0 -
quote:Originally posted by Barzillia
quote:Originally posted by Mr. Perfect
quote:Originally posted by Jim Rau
quote:Originally posted by cat66hat
Mr. Rau,
Re:
"I do not support ANY background checks for the purchase or transfer of any weapon which is not FULL AUTO!!!"
Why do you exclude select-fire firearms? The founders likely knew of the 'plunger' automatic/gatling-type firearm and they chose not to exclude it.
In my time with the US Army and the Army National Guard, I shot and qualified with both the old full-auto M-16 and the M-60 machine gun.
I found that semi-auto in a man-portable rifle was much more lethal and it wasted less ammo. That became much more important when Uncle Sam stopped buying the ammo.
We used to be able to buy full autos. Except for prohibition gangstas (the root cause of that was more laws) there was no carnage.
My guess is that an 18 Y.O. with a full load of crazy and a full-auto rifle would make the intended target the safest person.
What's the reason for your prejudice against full-auto? Am I missing something?
Terry
Because I have 30++ years in law enforcement I know how the real world works. In an 'ideal' world you are correct, BUT realistically, if any one could walk in a buy any select fire (full auto) weapon the primary buyers would be the 'gangs' in the big city's. When it was legal for all to buy these weapons VERY FEW every day people bought them, it was the gangsters, thus NFA. I do not think it would be wise (common sense) to allow this to happen. It would hurt our cause to see even more gang violence in the 'full auto' mode. I know this is not a 'perfect/ideal' world, but to flood the market with 'full auto' true 'assault weapons' would do more real and political harm then good even though those who are 'purest'when it comes to the Constitution will have a fit about this.[;)]
Cue the violins!
The laws have changed over time through gradualism, or incrementalism.
Why do you think that cannot change by the same type of process, in the other direction ?
Why do you think that I think that it cannot?0 -
quote:Originally posted by Barzillia
quote:Originally posted by Mr. Perfect
quote:Originally posted by Barzillia
quote:Originally posted by Mr. Perfect
quote:Originally posted by Jim Rau
quote:Originally posted by cat66hat
Mr. Rau,
Re:
"I do not support ANY background checks for the purchase or transfer of any weapon which is not FULL AUTO!!!"
Why do you exclude select-fire firearms? The founders likely knew of the 'plunger' automatic/gatling-type firearm and they chose not to exclude it.
In my time with the US Army and the Army National Guard, I shot and qualified with both the old full-auto M-16 and the M-60 machine gun.
I found that semi-auto in a man-portable rifle was much more lethal and it wasted less ammo. That became much more important when Uncle Sam stopped buying the ammo.
We used to be able to buy full autos. Except for prohibition gangstas (the root cause of that was more laws) there was no carnage.
My guess is that an 18 Y.O. with a full load of crazy and a full-auto rifle would make the intended target the safest person.
What's the reason for your prejudice against full-auto? Am I missing something?
Terry
Because I have 30++ years in law enforcement I know how the real world works. In an 'ideal' world you are correct, BUT realistically, if any one could walk in a buy any select fire (full auto) weapon the primary buyers would be the 'gangs' in the big city's. When it was legal for all to buy these weapons VERY FEW every day people bought them, it was the gangsters, thus NFA. I do not think it would be wise (common sense) to allow this to happen. It would hurt our cause to see even more gang violence in the 'full auto' mode. I know this is not a 'perfect/ideal' world, but to flood the market with 'full auto' true 'assault weapons' would do more real and political harm then good even though those who are 'purest'when it comes to the Constitution will have a fit about this.[;)]
Cue the violins!
The laws have changed over time through gradualism, or incrementalism.
Why do you think that cannot change by the same type of process, in the other direction ?
Why do you think that I think that it cannot?
Because it seems to me from reading your posts that I see nothing much suggesting that you do.
Which is why I was asking.
Is that not a correct appraisal ?
Not even remotely.0 -
quote:Originally posted by Jim Rau
quote:Originally posted by Barzillia
quote:Originally posted by Mr. Perfect
quote:Originally posted by Jim Rau
quote:Originally posted by cat66hat
Mr. Rau,
Re:
"I do not support ANY background checks for the purchase or transfer of any weapon which is not FULL AUTO!!!"
Why do you exclude select-fire firearms? The founders likely knew of the 'plunger' automatic/gatling-type firearm and they chose not to exclude it.
In my time with the US Army and the Army National Guard, I shot and qualified with both the old full-auto M-16 and the M-60 machine gun.
I found that semi-auto in a man-portable rifle was much more lethal and it wasted less ammo. That became much more important when Uncle Sam stopped buying the ammo.
We used to be able to buy full autos. Except for prohibition gangstas (the root cause of that was more laws) there was no carnage.
My guess is that an 18 Y.O. with a full load of crazy and a full-auto rifle would make the intended target the safest person.
What's the reason for your prejudice against full-auto? Am I missing something?
Terry
Because I have 30++ years in law enforcement I know how the real world works. In an 'ideal' world you are correct, BUT realistically, if any one could walk in a buy any select fire (full auto) weapon the primary buyers would be the 'gangs' in the big city's. When it was legal for all to buy these weapons VERY FEW every day people bought them, it was the gangsters, thus NFA. I do not think it would be wise (common sense) to allow this to happen. It would hurt our cause to see even more gang violence in the 'full auto' mode. I know this is not a 'perfect/ideal' world, but to flood the market with 'full auto' true 'assault weapons' would do more real and political harm then good even though those who are 'purest'when it comes to the Constitution will have a fit about this.[;)]
Cue the violins!
The laws have changed over time through gradualism, or incrementalism.
Why do you think that cannot change by the same type of process, in the other direction ?
Because the 'progressives' are in power! As long as they are in control it will not be changed by legislation, only our 'action' will change it.
We have our backs against the wall right NOW! I have given all I am going to give! [:(!]
"If you give them an inch they will take a mile"! This has been proven time and time again and it MUST STOP NOW! [xx(]
Regardless of how we stand on the 'way it should be' we must all refuse to 'go to the back of the bus'. Once we STOP this erosion of our rights we can have the conversation of how to 'rebuild' them![:)]
Did that answer your question???[?]0 -
I support the idea, only on the grounds that penalties resulting in loss of firearms rights aren't increased. It's to the point where an argument with your room-mate or calling your wife stupid for filling every single room of the house with child related toys can possibly result in loss of firearms rights. That has to be a large portion of the population from time to time I imagine. If every instance were reported to police practically no-one would have a right to a gun.
The text of Lautenberg amendment directly implies that just one instance of verbal abuse between spouses or roomates can result in loss of firearms rights. The text is rather vauge and I'm unsure if my interpretation is the correct one. So basically I can't call my room-mate a stinky dumb*** who doesn't take a shower without him possibly reporting me and having me arrested for verbal abuse under the Lautenberg amendment. Applies to both men and women as well.
Screw the Lautenberg amendment!0
Please sign in to leave a comment.
Comments
104 comments