Murdoughnut
Well sized member
Go get 'em Barack!
The Attack on the 2nd Amendment Continues
- Thread starter Hacker15e
- Start date
Lawman
Well-Known Member
But that's just it. We aren't negotiating. The one side is continuing a march towards exactly what they think is right, a complete ban in violation of the bill of rights through means other than amending of amendment.
Nowhere else is a law restricted that way. Gowdy puts it perfectly in his video clip. No other right gets the same disregard or dismissal of what it means (even after Heller said what it means) by the side in opposition to it. If you said you were gonna restrict the use of the Internet because the founders could never have foreseen its ability to create massed speech you would be laughed at. More specifically if you wanted to do it people would demand you do it through amendment with a constitutional congress and ratification. But that doesn't matter to people like Seggy or Murdoughnut or others. They don't see the 2nd amendment as a right, they don't see the heller decision as real, and they don't give damn if we trample on a constitutional amendment through legislation. And they will continue to argue stupidity today like it means militia which is the national guard when both the federalist papers and codified law has stated repeatedly otherwise. Or my favorite that "well regulated" means heavily restricted ignoring the use of the phrase in the language of the time.
As hacker said Murder is illegal, so is brandishing, so is the use of a firearm for intimidation. Restricting the ability to even have a firearm is not akin to a ruling saying you are civilly liable for injury to the public if you scream fire in a theatre.
And for one side or the middle of the political spectrum to try and say "oh it's ok we are compromising" is disingenuous of exactly what the majority of the progressive platform thinks about guns and gun ownership. That we can "let you" (wtf it's a Right!) so long as you meet a list of qualifiers unlike every other constitutional right you enjoy.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
exneophyte
Well-Known Member
Acadia
Well-Known Member
You are probably talking about 1% of far left anti gun folks. The vast majority of the left isn't that extreme and is not looking to ban guns at all.
I was born in 1970. Can you tell me what guns I can't own now versus the year I was born? As far as I can tell it has hardly changed my right is just as intact as it was 45 years ago.
Acadia
Well-Known Member
You could make a nice image like that for every president in history other than Harrison.
Lawman
Well-Known Member
Depends where you live.
If you live in the state of NY for example and you want to buy a handgun or rifle that excepts more than 7 rounds in a a magazine you can't.
That law is two years old and was passed in direct response to Sandy Hook. One event and overnight something like 70-80% of the firearms in common usage became illegal overnight.
Tell me again that gun bans and outright restriction from your ability to use a right is just a "fringe" thing?
Like I said how do you justify the outright restriction of use of a right meaning it's become a state sanctioned privilege when there is no other constitutionally guaranteed right that we do that for. Because that's what firearms ownership is in many states across the country.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Acadia
Well-Known Member
SCOTUS has allowed such restrictions in specific states and municipalities. If they are unconstitutional, they will be removed in time, which is how our system should work. Without getting into nitty gritty details, all of the guns I have owned for the last 25 years have never become illegal. I agree that the assault weapons ban of the 90's was pure foolishness, and look, it was repealed. More evidence that our process works. Even with that, it only effected the sale of new clips and firearms, so it was nothing more than an inconvenience during that period.
Look, I am not saying that folks should not advocate for firearms ownership; it takes that effort to balance things out. I do object to pretending that the anti gun position is patently wrong, crazy or anti american. It is a different viewpoint and folks are welcome to push for it. I think the SCOTUS, based on past statements, will allow for certain restrictions, but I have zero concerns about any meaningful loss of firearms access in the United States.
Look, I am not saying that folks should not advocate for firearms ownership; it takes that effort to balance things out. I do object to pretending that the anti gun position is patently wrong, crazy or anti american. It is a different viewpoint and folks are welcome to push for it. I think the SCOTUS, based on past statements, will allow for certain restrictions, but I have zero concerns about any meaningful loss of firearms access in the United States.
Lawman
Well-Known Member
Except that isn't what happened at all. It had a sunset date written into it and it just happened to expire during a period with a republican congress and president who were not going to go against their base and re-up that law. The law was never repealed and had the congress had a different make up would still be in place today without an expectation.
That hasn't stopped states from putting similarly modeled laws in place. It hasn't stopped states and localities from putting new even more restrictive laws in place after being told their outright bans (Chicago/DC) were unconstitutional which serve in every way as difficult a hurdle to achieve to allow citizens to be armed they might as well be outright bans. And that hasn't stopped federal law makers on the democratic side from calling for new even more restrictive (much more so than 94) assault weapons bans which have no sunset date written into the law.
And as I said it's about more than "assault weapons." Look at the ban on Barret .50 caps in California and other places. Here is a rifle that has yet to be used in a crime in the United States yet it poses such an imagined danger that it is singled out for its ability to be used as a sniper rifle against airplanes. Now anybody that knows anything about firearms knows that's just ridiculous but it hasn't stopped the lobbying or the bans or anything else where logic should be applied. How then do people with .338 Lapua deer rifles think somehow just because their gun doesn't look like a weapon used in crime they don't see how that exact standard of fear and possible danger to remove their right to own those weapons.
This isn't a negotiation for some, it's a hostage situation. They aren't going to give hostages back once they take them away.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
jtrain609
Antisocial Monster
Not one person has referenced Youngstown Sheet & Tube, also known as the Steel Seizure Case, and that's how I know not one person has made a rational argument on either side of this discussion.
But go ahead, keep talking about this like someone discussing how their flight cancelled due to flaps being on the tarmac during the thunderstorm, because that's what this sounds like.
But go ahead, keep talking about this like someone discussing how their flight cancelled due to flaps being on the tarmac during the thunderstorm, because that's what this sounds like.
Acadia
Well-Known Member
Thanks, I forgot that was how it played out.
Hacker15e
Who am I? Where are my pants?
All chinese-made imports have been banned since 1989. Other imports that do not meet a "sporting purposes" test are banned from import or sale. The TEC-9 was banned for sale as part of this. The Cobray Streetsweeper was re-classified as a "Destructive device" rather than a shotgun in the late 90s. Essentially all semiautos that fire from an open bolt have been banned from manufacture and import by ATF rule since the early 80s.
There are others, but this is just off the top of my head.
Hacker15e
Who am I? Where are my pants?
I think the fact that nobody yet knows the content of the (proposed) EOs means that this entire thread is peeing into the wind, anyway.
Lawman
Well-Known Member
Unfortunately like so many others until it bites them directly nobody sees the problem.
That's why I hate all the Fudds that think 1. The second amendment all about hunting/bird guns and 2. That they will never come for those after they get rid of "assault weapons."
People need to remember the term assault weapon didn't exist until somebody though of it as a good buzzword for all the guns they don't think you should own. It wasn't Armalite or Ruger marketing their firearms that way. It was a way to roll a big list of all the guns a group of people deemed as scary and make them illegal. Just as easy to apply that logic and make any rifle capable of accepting a scope a sniper rifle and has no practical use for the common man (since to them it's all about the ability to hunt).
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Acadia
Well-Known Member
I can still readily get a huge list of semi-auto rifles and handguns right? Nothing on that list significantly alters my ability to find and own the same kinds of arms our government and law enforcement agencies use, with the exception of full automatic. Maybe not perfect, but it does not seem like constitutionally abusive limitation, or a meaningful impact on what I may own. Have any of these restrictions ever been brought to the SCOTUS?
Acadia
Well-Known Member
I agree with that completely. I have found that in most cases, when you explain this to folks that tend to lean more restrictive on guns, that they also find it to be a pointless restriction.
Lawman
Well-Known Member
There is no requirement for the SCOTUS to hear a case.
That's an important factor when considering the whole "if it's wrong the courts will correct it" approach.
The best example would be concealed carry which despite a myriad of federal appeals courts rulings all saying different things still has not been taken up by the Supreme Court.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Hacker15e
Who am I? Where are my pants?
I don't think anyone is arguing that today we live under federal restrictions that are "constitutionally abusive". Rather, the discussion is about where a good number of leftists and politicians (and folks on this site) want firearms laws to go.
So far as I know, Heller is the only firearms law case that has gone to the SCOTUS since Miller in 1939. What will be interesting is that any "Assault Weapons Ban" that makes it in front of SCOTUS will be bound by Miller's ruling about the arms in question having "reasonable relation to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia".
As a side note, since gun control folks keep talking about "compromise", I'd entertain agreeing to "Universal Background Checks" if they'd entertain a repeal of NFA '34 and/or GCA '68 and/or the Hughes Amendment of '86. Compromise means that we both give something up...not that one side gives up less than what was originally asked.
Seggy
Well-Known Member
You can ask @ATN_Pilot as well as post 219 in this thread...
http://forums.jetcareers.com/threads/palestinian-knife-attacks.226988/page-11
The other thing to be done, besides changing the Amendment, would be an Executive Order. This isn't the only thread where I have mentioned Executive Orders as a way of handling the gun problem in this country.
TUCKnTRUCK
That guy
What makes you think any EO will be useful?
re-pubs have already said they will defund any measures in the EO. BO doesn't control the funding, and, if no funds are allocated to his EO, it doesn't happen.