2nd Amendment limitations...

[reefraff]

Originally Posted by AquaKnight
http:///forum/post/3234664
Here's an idea...
What's the difference between heavy regulation, and an outright ban? I am, quite unfamiliar with the terms someone has to go through to own an automatic weapon, but I imagine, it's not easy. Is it really a thought that a ban, that would effective only remove the guns from law-abiding citizens, not criminals, really do anything? How many crimes that are committed with automatic weapons, are done so with properly owned/registered/etc auto weapons?
Last I knew the last case of a crime being committed with a legally owned fully automatic weapon the perpetrator was a cop. Just an interesting bit of useless gun trivia.
I am not sure what the current laws were but you had to be a boyscout and pay a lot of money to own a full auto. There was a gun shop in Phoenix with a range where you could run a clip through their house guns in full auto mode. That was fun. Also how I know at 40 yards Rambo couldn't have put more than 3 or 4 rounds into a deer. I shot a heavy barrel with a compensator and at 6'5 and about 280 I still couldn't hold it steady.

 

[jackri]

As a protector of the Constitution what I find offensive from the OP is you're basically saying it's a waste of paper now and doesn't apply. Yeah the 3 branches of gov't seem to forget it's there all the time but we have what I like to call Amendments. When the Constitution needs to be changed -- it is, and has been from the beginning. It was a built in stipulation to ensure it would never become dated and would stay relevent with the time.
It also says that we aren't perfect but we can make changes for the better and try to stay the best nation out there. It's amazing/sad how it takes something like 9/11 for most of the country to show pride. Sorry I know went a little off topic but don't trash my Constitution.

 

[scsinet]

Originally Posted by bionicarm
http:///forum/post/3234586
So if I want to own a nuclear device, as long as it doesn't deprive you of your life, liberty, or property, I can own one because I can do whatever I damn well please?
You know, if you want me to give up the extreme "golf club" analogy then you should be willing to give up the equally extreme "nuclear weapon" analogy. I can't believe I am even going to dignify this with a response.
There is a difference between things that have no practical lawful use and things that do. ANY type of gun that can currently be borne by US citizens can be easily and practically operated in such a way so as to be lawful, and not deprive anyone of life, liberty, or property.
A nuclear weapon has no practical way of using it without depriving someone else of life, liberty, or property, as would be the case with any weapon of mass destruction. Besides, posession of nuclear weapons is governed by international law and treaties, not the US constitution, so the example does not apply here.
Ultimately, again, it comes down to opinion. Your opinion is that assault weapons have no lawful use that justfies their existence in your mind, so you have no problem supporting taking them away. You need to step away from that thinking and thing more along the lines of the erosion of freedoms. The golf club example is extreme, but I made it to prove the point that someone could come along who has no interest in something you do/enjoy, and try to take it away because they see no practical purpose... and use the police power of government to do it. Boating accidents happen. Because I don't own a boat, should I support taking it away? Of course not. You have to stand on principle. Wanting to take something away from others in part because you see no practical purpose can come around and bite you down the road. BOHICA! Sure, the boating example is equally extreme. However, these examples are extreme and the gun example is "not" because of the erosion of freedoms that has happened over decades, bit by bit, ushered in by people like you who don't understand that every little bit that gets taken away is another contributing factor. If you had asked people 100 years ago about the gun example, they'd have thought it was as ridiculous as the boating or golf club example... yet... here we are. You always see me stand and fight to our freedoms, our life, liberty, and property, regardless of whether I stand to benefit from those freedoms or not... becuase we all benefit from freedoms, indirectly if not directly.
You'll keep hearing me preach this life, liberty, and property principle. It should be the litmus test for everything as it applies to freedoms in this country.
Can I do "X" without depriving the life, liberty, or property of "Y" ?? If so, then it should not be restricted by my government.

 

[bionicarm]

This is a prime example as to why the Second could never be repealed..
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/35556799...ew_york_times/

 

[bionicarm]

Originally Posted by reefraff
http:///forum/post/3234722
Last I knew the last case of a crime being committed with a legally owned fully automatic weapon the perpetrator was a cop. Just an interesting bit of useless gun trivia.
I am not sure what the current laws were but you had to be a boyscout and pay a lot of money to own a full auto. There was a gun shop in Phoenix with a range where you could run a clip through their house guns in full auto mode. That was fun. Also how I know at 40 yards Rambo couldn't have put more than 3 or 4 rounds into a deer. I shot a heavy barrel with a compensator and at 6'5 and about 280 I still couldn't hold it steady.
An AR-15 doesn't have that much lift. Why do you think it is the gun of choice for the Army and Marines during the major wars? Now their weapon was the derivative of the AR-15, the M-16, but the technology of the two weapons are the same. When I shot the deer, it had a 50 round clip in it. My brother and I were driving down an old Jeep trail when we came upon the deer. I slowly opened my door, reached back for what I thought was my other AR-15 that wasn't 'modified', knelt down on the ground and aimed for the lower front quarter for a heart shot. When I squeezed the trigger expecting a single shot, it proceeded to unload the entire clip. I didn't count the number of bullets that were in the deer, but the entire front half of the deer was pretty much shredded. You can believe it or not, could care less.
I do know quite a bit about the weapon because my brother and I 'collected' AR-15's as a hobby. We would go to gun shows and purchase the individual parts and build them from scratch. I think we had seven AR-15's at one time in various stages of builds. We'd configure them for my brother's customers, depending on the options they wanted on them, and make a nice little profit. We each kept one standard to use for hunting, then played around with the lower receiver to get one that would best work as a fully auto. It was literally our 'Rambo gun' that we used to run off entire clips when we were bored on deer hunts. A childhood friend's family owned around 4000 acres outside of Terlingua, Texas, down by Big Bend National Park. Every year around Thanksgiving we'd go down to deer hunt. Inevitably, there would always be one or two abandoned cars left somewhere on the property. Never found any buried bodies, but we never asked how the cars got there. So those were our designated targets for emptying a few hundred rounds into with the fully auto AR-15. We reloaded our own shells, so it was a pretty cheap thrill, even if it only lasted for a few minutes.

 

[stdreb27]

Originally Posted by uneverno
http:///forum/post/3234688
Size of the round doesn't matter - it's all about kinetic energy. Yes, a .223 is tiny compared to a .45. Muzzle velocity makes up a substantial portion of the difference - 3,200fps for a typical .223 vs. 960fps for a typical .45. You're also comparing a hollow point to a full metal jacket round. Apples, oranges and potatoes.
Is it an apples to orange comparison. We're talking banning weapons. To what standard would you apply it? How the weapon looks, or what kind of damage it does? Personally I'd rather get his by a full metal jacket .223 than a hollow point 45...

 

[bionicarm]

Originally Posted by AquaKnight
http:///forum/post/3234693
So what are you and/or the OP suggesting then? That because these regulations have not worked, it's now time to ban them? I eluded to it a bit, but is an assault rifle ban going to prevent those gang-banger drive-bys with assault rifles, that are owned illegally anyways?
It's called accessibility. Right now you can walk into any gun shop and buy any type of weapon you desire, whether it's an assault weapon or not. Shoot, you can go online and pick up an AR-15 with pre-ban parts or a optional grenade launcher for the right price:
http://www.ar15sales.com/lmt.htm
If you restricted these types of sales to a specific group, one's that have a practical reason to own these types of weapons, I'd see no reason for banning them or any other gun. As long as they are available for anyone to purchase, they will be filtered down to the individuals that want them for the sole purpose of using them to commit a crime. A guy with a criminal record a mile long can get an assault weapon tomorrow by simply paying someone with a clean record to buy it for him. Is that illegal? Of course it is. But money talks. Gang bangers can go to a anyone and say, "Hey, I'll pay you $500 to go purchase me a new TEC-9. Before you hand it to me, you can file off all the serial numbers and any indicators that show you purchased this gun." If that person has no moral scruples, or cares what this individual will do with that gun, he'll take that $500 for just doing a couple days of 'nothing' work. You may say this doesn't happen, or is not the norm, but I guarantee you it happens all the same.

 

[stdreb27]

Originally Posted by bionicarm
http:///forum/post/3234821
It's called accessibility. Right now you can walk into any gun shop and buy any type of weapon you desire, whether it's an assault weapon or not. Shoot, you can go online and pick up an AR-15 with pre-ban parts or a optional grenade launcher for the right price:
http://www.ar15sales.com/lmt.htm
If you restricted these types of sales to a specific group, one's that have a practical reason to own these types of weapons, I'd see no reason for banning them or any other gun. As long as they are available for anyone to purchase, they will be filtered down to the individuals that want them for the sole purpose of using them to commit a crime. A guy with a criminal record a mile long can get an assault weapon tomorrow by simply paying someone with a clean record to buy it for him. Is that illegal? Of course it is. But money talks. Gang bangers can go to a anyone and say, "Hey, I'll pay you $500 to go purchase me a new TEC-9. Before you hand it to me, you can file off all the serial numbers and any indicators that show you purchased this gun." If that person has no moral scruples, or cares what this individual will do with that gun, he'll take that $500 for just doing a couple days of 'nothing' work. You may say this doesn't happen, or is not the norm, but I guarantee you it happens all the same.
Which is one of the standard arguments that gun rights advocates make, criminal X is going to get a gun one way or the other...

 

[reefraff]

Originally Posted by bionicarm
http:///forum/post/3234769
An AR-15 doesn't have that much lift. Why do you think it is the gun of choice for the Army and Marines during the major wars? Now their weapon was the derivative of the AR-15, the M-16, but the technology of the two weapons are the same. When I shot the deer, it had a 50 round clip in it. My brother and I were driving down an old Jeep trail when we came upon the deer. I slowly opened my door, reached back for what I thought was my other AR-15 that wasn't 'modified', knelt down on the ground and aimed for the lower front quarter for a heart shot. When I squeezed the trigger expecting a single shot, it proceeded to unload the entire clip. I didn't count the number of bullets that were in the deer, but the entire front half of the deer was pretty much shredded. You can believe it or not, could care less.
I do know quite a bit about the weapon because my brother and I 'collected' AR-15's as a hobby. We would go to gun shows and purchase the individual parts and build them from scratch. I think we had seven AR-15's at one time in various stages of builds. We'd configure them for my brother's customers, depending on the options they wanted on them, and make a nice little profit. We each kept one standard to use for hunting, then played around with the lower receiver to get one that would best work as a fully auto. It was literally our 'Rambo gun' that we used to run off entire clips when we were bored on deer hunts. A childhood friend's family owned around 4000 acres outside of Terlingua, Texas, down by Big Bend National Park. Every year around Thanksgiving we'd go down to deer hunt. Inevitably, there would always be one or two abandoned cars left somewhere on the property. Never found any buried bodies, but we never asked how the cars got there. So those were our designated targets for emptying a few hundred rounds into with the fully auto AR-15. We reloaded our own shells, so it was a pretty cheap thrill, even if it only lasted for a few minutes.
I guess my first question would be where did you come up with a 50 round clip?
Why do you think the weapon was altered years ago by the military to have burst fire? My son qualified expert with the M4 version and he said the same thing about full auto mode, without a tripod it is useless.

 

[reefraff]

Originally Posted by bionicarm
http:///forum/post/3234821
It's called accessibility. Right now you can walk into any gun shop and buy any type of weapon you desire, whether it's an assault weapon or not. Shoot, you can go online and pick up an AR-15 with pre-ban parts or a optional grenade launcher for the right price:
http://www.ar15sales.com/lmt.htm
If you restricted these types of sales to a specific group, one's that have a practical reason to own these types of weapons, I'd see no reason for banning them or any other gun. As long as they are available for anyone to purchase, they will be filtered down to the individuals that want them for the sole purpose of using them to commit a crime. A guy with a criminal record a mile long can get an assault weapon tomorrow by simply paying someone with a clean record to buy it for him. Is that illegal? Of course it is. But money talks. Gang bangers can go to a anyone and say, "Hey, I'll pay you $500 to go purchase me a new TEC-9. Before you hand it to me, you can file off all the serial numbers and any indicators that show you purchased this gun." If that person has no moral scruples, or cares what this individual will do with that gun, he'll take that $500 for just doing a couple days of 'nothing' work. You may say this doesn't happen, or is not the norm, but I guarantee you it happens all the same.
You can't just buy the full weapon on line. You can get parts but not the lower receiver which has the serial number. That has to be shipped to a FFL holder who must run a background check before giving you the merchandise.

 

[bionicarm]

Originally Posted by reefraff
http:///forum/post/3234876
You can't just buy the full weapon on line. You can get parts but not the lower receiver which has the serial number. That has to be shipped to a FFL holder who must run a background check before giving you the merchandise.
This is true. But what do background checks matter? My record could be clean as a whistle, but if someone offered me $500 and I was desperate for the money, I may take them up on their offer to purchase the gun for them. Criminals and individuals who support them could care less about gun laws or regulations. If I wanted an AR-15, I wouldn't purchase it online. I'd go to a local gun shop or gun show and buy one. If I want to modify it (i'e add a grnade launcher), I just buy that specific option online.

 

[geridoc]

Originally Posted by SCSInet
http:///forum/post/3234751
There is a difference between things that have no practical lawful use and things that do. ANY type of gun that can currently be borne by US citizens can be easily and practically operated in such a way so as to be lawful, and not deprive anyone of life, liberty, or property.
A nuclear weapon has no practical way of using it without depriving someone else of life, liberty, or property, as would be the case with any weapon of mass destruction. Besides, posession of nuclear weapons is governed by international law and treaties, not the US constitution, so the example does not apply here.
Ultimately, again, it comes down to opinion. Your opinion is that assault weapons have no lawful use that justfies their existence in your mind, so you have no problem supporting taking them away. You need to step away from that thinking and thing more along the lines of the erosion of freedoms. The golf club example is extreme, but I made it to prove the point that someone could come along who has no interest in something you do/enjoy, and try to take it away because they see no practical purpose... and use the police power of government to do it. Boating accidents happen. Because I don't own a boat, should I support taking it away? Of course not. You have to stand on principle. Wanting to take something away from others in part because you see no practical purpose can come around and bite you down the road. BOHICA! Sure, the boating example is equally extreme. However, these examples are extreme and the gun example is "not" because of the erosion of freedoms that has happened over decades, bit by bit, ushered in by people like you who don't understand that every little bit that gets taken away is another contributing factor. If you had asked people 100 years ago about the gun example, they'd have thought it was as ridiculous as the boating or golf club example... yet... here we are. You always see me stand and fight to our freedoms, our life, liberty, and property, regardless of whether I stand to benefit from those freedoms or not... becuase we all benefit from freedoms, indirectly if not directly.
You'll keep hearing me preach this life, liberty, and property principle. It should be the litmus test for everything as it applies to freedoms in this country.
Can I do "X" without depriving the life, liberty, or property of "Y" ?? If so, then it should not be restricted by my government.
Actually, it is only the opinion of the Supreme 9 that counts. They have interpreted the second amendment in light of the "well regulated militia" clause to mean that any arm that is of use to such a militia is covered by the "right to bear arms", but they have repeatedly held that weapons (nuclear weapons?) that do not fit to the "well regulated militia" concept are up for regulation and "infringement". This is the test, not whether it can protect you against an intruder or a foreign invasion, or whatever.

 

[bionicarm]

Originally Posted by reefraff
http:///forum/post/3234873
I guess my first question would be where did you come up with a 50 round clip?
Why do you think the weapon was altered years ago by the military to have burst fire? My son qualified expert with the M4 version and he said the same thing about full auto mode, without a tripod it is useless.
Back in the 70's and 80's, there were companies that produced custom-made magazines for almost all the semi-auto rifles. My brother was a gunsmith and owned his own gun shop, and had access to specialized custom products. I used a 5-round while hunting, had a standard 30 round that came with the gun, and got the 50 round for the 'rapid firing'. My brother had a 100-round drum for his. Heavy sucker, but was a blast to shoot.
I never said a full auto model was useful or accurate. I never used the full auto for anything but target shooting. Grabbing it that one time was an accident. My brother was even laughing at me, asking why I didn't notice the big magazine attached to the gun before I shot. I told him I was so excited and nervous about getting out and taking a shot, I didn't even realize I had the wrong gun until I pulled the trigger.

 

[stdreb27]

Originally Posted by bionicarm
http:///forum/post/3234885
This is true. But what do background checks matter? My record could be clean as a whistle, but if someone offered me $500 and I was desperate for the money, I may take them up on their offer to purchase the gun for them. Criminals and individuals who support them could care less about gun laws or regulations. If I wanted an AR-15, I wouldn't purchase it online. I'd go to a local gun shop or gun show and buy one. If I want to modify it (i'e add a grnade launcher), I just buy that specific option online.
What I really like (being sarcastic) is this argument that popped up last year, (apparently it just got to CC because I saw it again last week even though it had been blasted out of the water) that most of the weapons being used by drug dealers in mexico are from the USA. Acquired the hoaxers surmised by the methods you describe.

 

[darthtang aw]

Time to chime in now that most have said something.
First and foremost the constitution will never be outdated. This was single dumbest remark I have ever seen. The founders, in their ultimate wisdom, foresaw the need for things to change as well with the times. This is why they incorporated the ratification of amendments into the constitution. each time an issue has come up regarding the constitution it has been ratified and amended on numerous occasions. To say it is outdated is asinine. If the people feel the constitution is outdated on a law it can and will be changed.
With that said, I will state this. I believed in an assault weapons ban about 15 years ago. As soon as I started actively following politics, studying the constitution, and the framework of laws in this country, I saw the errors of my beliefs.
The right to bear arms covers ALL armaments. be they guns, tanks, or nukes in my eye.There are laws and regulations in place on the ownership of these items and as long as those are followed the right to bear arms covers them. Yes even Nuclear weapons. While this does fall under international law and regulation I still feel if a private person/entity wishes to own a nuke they must submit themselves to law. The U.S. has agreed to international law through treaties and such and therefore our citizens must abide by the international on nuclear ownership.
Now before someone points out I do not support Iran, N. Korea, or even Iraq owning a WMD, they have violated the law with regards to ownership of such weapons and thus should not be allowed to own them. But if a private citizen wants to foot the bill for the cre4ation, purchase, and maintenance of said device and submit to the law, I have no issue...as crazy as that sounds.
The first thing a person has to explain to me for an assault weapons ban, is "why". The argument that they are not "needed" does not work. Neither is alcohol. Alcohol is involved in more criminal acts each year than all the gun crimes combined. Yet I don't see the outcry for an alcohol ban, nor do I see groups protesting or petitioning their constituents on it. I have NEVER seen a thread started here calling for the banning of alcohol. What makes assault weapons any different? Atleast the assault weapon will help protect the law abiding citizen....does alcohol?
So the fact it is not needed is dumb. we don't "need" a lot of things.You don't NEED a car that can do 150 MPH when the highest posted speed limit in the U.S. is 75 MPH. So why not just govern all vehicles to go only go a top speed of 75, since crash fatalities increase at higher speeds. You don't NEED to go 150 MPH. You don't even NEED to go 75 mph.
If the constitution is "outdated" on "arms" due to the advances in technologies, then congress and the president need to amend the constitution through the correct process to exempt these new "arms". Once done, then, AND ONLY THEN, will and assault weapons ban be constitutional.

 

[stdreb27]

Originally Posted by Darthtang AW
http:///forum/post/3234917
Time to chime in now that most have said something.
First and foremost the constitution will never be outdated. This was single dumbest remark I have ever seen. The founders, in their ultimate wisdom, foresaw the need for things to change as well with the times. This is why they incorporated the ratification of amendments into the constitution. each time an issue has come up regarding the constitution it has been ratified and amended on numerous occasions. To say it is outdated is asinine. If the people feel the constitution is outdated on a law it can and will be changed.
With that said, I will state this. I believed in an assault weapons ban about 15 years ago. As soon as I started actively following politics, studying the constitution, and the framework of laws in this country, I saw the errors of my beliefs.
The right to bear arms covers ALL armaments. be they guns, tanks, or nukes in my eye.There are laws and regulations in place on the ownership of these items and as long as those are followed the right to bear arms covers them. Yes even Nuclear weapons. While this does fall under international law and regulation I still feel if a private person/entity wishes to own a nuke they must submit themselves to law. The U.S. has agreed to international law through treaties and such and therefore our citizens must abide by the international on nuclear ownership.
Now before someone points out I do not support Iran, N. Korea, or even Iraq owning a WMD, they have violated the law with regards to ownership of such weapons and thus should not be allowed to own them. But if a private citizen wants to foot the bill for the cre4ation, purchase, and maintenance of said device and submit to the law, I have no issue...as crazy as that sounds.
The first thing a person has to explain to me for an assault weapons ban, is "why". The argument that they are not "needed" does not work. Neither is alcohol. Alcohol is involved in more criminal acts each year than all the gun crimes combined. Yet I don't see the outcry for an alcohol ban, nor do I see groups protesting or petitioning their constituents on it. I have NEVER seen a thread started here calling for the banning of alcohol. What makes assault weapons any different? Atleast the assault weapon will help protect the law abiding citizen....does alcohol?
So the fact it is not needed is dumb. we don't "need" a lot of things.You don't NEED a car that can do 150 MPH when the highest posted speed limit in the U.S. is 75 MPH. So why not just govern all vehicles to go only go a top speed of 75, since crash fatalities increase at higher speeds. You don't NEED to go 150 MPH. You don't even NEED to go 75 mph.
If the constitution is "outdated" on "arms" due to the advances in technologies, then congress and the president need to amend the constitution through the correct process to exempt these new "arms". Once done, then, AND ONLY THEN, will and assault weapons ban be constitutional.
Out of fairness when these druggies start their pro weed threads. I've said, I think they should ban Alcohol...

 

[darthtang aw]

Originally Posted by stdreb27
http:///forum/post/3234924
Out of fairness when these druggies start their pro weed threads. I've said, I think they should ban Alcohol...
I know you have, but is there the outcry to ban alcohol everytime some drunk driver smashes into a family, killing all? That only happens when a nutjob armed with an "assault" weapon guns down and kills some people....I ask, which is the more lethal killer to society as we know it in this country? Which is protected under the constitution and which isn't? That is my point.

 

[veni vidi vici]

The Second Amendment isn't meant to be a protection for hunters,recreational shooting or even personal protection.It was put forth to protect the people from Tyranny from home or abroad.The founders said things like
"When the people fear the government you have tyranny,when the government fears the people you have liberty"
~Thomas Jefferson
"Firearms are second only to the Constitution in importance; they are the peoples' liberty's teeth."
~George Washington
These quotes are just a small sample,the founders had alot to say about the right to bear arms and it is well documented and very specific as to why it is important.
Further more ,i believe any law abiding citizen of this country should be allowed to own any weapon he or she desires.

 

[reefraff]

So question. How many of you heard about the school shooting in Littleton Colorado? I am amazed at the lack of coverage of this, oh, wait, the guy used a hunting riffle so it gets a mention and then the issue is dropped.

 

[oscardeuce]

Originally Posted by Darthtang AW
http:///forum/post/3234917
So the fact it is not needed is dumb. we don't "need" a lot of things.You don't NEED a car that can do 150 MPH when the highest posted speed limit in the U.S. is 75 MPH. So why not just govern all vehicles to go only go a top speed of 75, since crash fatalities increase at higher speeds. You don't NEED to go 150 MPH. You don't even NEED to go 75 mph.
Would you not be able to define "liberty" as the ability to own things you don't need?