Obama to Seek New Assault Weapons Ban

bionicarm

bionicarm

Active Member
Originally Posted by 1journeyman
http:///forum/post/2970785
Wrong.
Go back and read my post. I very clearly said the Founding Fathers would not have envisioned gun control today if they were willing to give Congress the authority to issue Letters of Marque.
OK, but your logic is completely skewed. You can't compare the two. The Letters Of Marque were intended to retaliate against an enemy who essentially stole from us. Just because a privateer could arm the boat that was used to 'pilfer' from this enemy, doesn't mean the Founding Fathers would associate that with a normal citizen owning guns. It's all speculative. There's no way to imagine what the people in those days would've thought if the same technology we have today was available to them. That's the problem with applying Constitutional Law that was written over 200 years ago to today's world. The Framers would've never imagined we'd have WMD's, planes, cars, computers, etc. They based their ideologies and principles on their lives and what was occuring during their timeframe. They tried as best they could to write the Constitution so that the laws would apply to future generations, but with the massive technological advances over the last 200 or so years, some of the amendments are somewhat outdated. You can agree to disagree with this theory, but if the Constitution was written today, just imagine how different it would look.
 
scsinet

scsinet

Active Member
Originally Posted by acrylics
http:///forum/post/2970820
No Sir, to quote your previous post
This is called a "straw purchase" and it is illegal. Buying a gun for someone else is illegal.
Not to mention the fact that purchasing a gun with the intent at the time of purchase of using it to commit a crime is also illegal.
It is only legal to buy guns for LAWFUL purposes.
 
fishyfun2

fishyfun2

Member
Bionic,
Let's just boil it down. Do you honestly think gun bans of any kind keep bad people from obtaining guns and committing crimes?
 
bionicarm

bionicarm

Active Member
Originally Posted by acrylics
http:///forum/post/2970820
No Sir, to quote your previous post
This is called a "straw purchase" and it is illegal. Buying a gun for someone else is illegal. And by the way, you cannot go into any gun show and buy a full-auto Uzi or Tec-9, you can only buy semi-autos. So the Uzi you buy has no advantage in any way over any other semi-auto. Or are you simply using the "evil black gun" to further your argument?
I understand buying a gun for someone else is illegal. However, until the person who originally purchased the gun hands the gun over to the kid (or someone else who intends to use it for criminal purposes), the gun is considered legally purchased. Some of these school killings involved the use of guns that were owned by the parents, uncles, or some other relative. They were purchased legally, and removed from their homes by these kids.
I can take an Uzi or TEC-9 and file down the firing pin in five minutes, making it a fully auto gun. What's your point?
 
fishyfun2

fishyfun2

Member
Originally Posted by bionicarm
http:///forum/post/2970826
OK, but your logic is completely skewed. You can't compare the two. The Letters Of Marque were intended to retaliate against an enemy who essentially stole from us. Just because a privateer could arm the boat that was used to 'pilfer' from this enemy, doesn't mean the Founding Fathers would associate that with a normal citizen owning guns. It's all speculative. There's no way to imagine what the people in those days would've thought if the same technology we have today was available to them. That's the problem with applying Constitutional Law that was written over 200 years ago to today's world. The Framers would've never imagined we'd have WMD's, planes, cars, computers, etc. They based their ideologies and principles on their lives and what was occuring during their timeframe. They tried as best they could to write the Constitution so that the laws would apply to future generations, but with the massive technological advances over the last 200 or so years, some of the amendments are somewhat outdated. You can agree to disagree with this theory, but if the Constitution was written today, just imagine how different it would look.
You said it right there. They were well aware that government can easily get out of control, they obviously had experience with that. They trusted themselves, private citizens to make their own decisions and run their own lives. The believed in working hard and being responsible for themselves, protecting themselves. They wanted government to stay out of people's private lives. Today, some citizens want government to be their Nanny. They want the government to provide everything, or darn near. Self-reliance has gone by the wayside.
 
fishyfun2

fishyfun2

Member
Originally Posted by bionicarm
http:///forum/post/2970836
Some of these school killings involved the use of guns that were owned by the parents, uncles, or some other relative. They were purchased legally, and removed from their homes by these kids.
I can take an Uzi or TEC-9 and file down the firing pin in five minutes, making it a fully auto gun. What's your point?
You are never going to be able to stop all violence. There will always be stupid parents who let their kids do bad things. The homeless guy on the corner could much easier (and let's be serious, more realistically) be paid by the kid to go into the liquor store and by booze. The kid or kids get drunk, someone dies, maybe in a drunk driving accident.
Kids can look on the internet and easily build a bomb.
 
acrylics

acrylics

Member
Originally Posted by bionicarm
http:///forum/post/2970836
I understand buying a gun for someone else is illegal. However, until the person who originally purchased the gun hands the gun over to the kid (or someone else who intends to use it for criminal purposes), the gun is considered legally purchased. Some of these school killings involved the use of guns that were owned by the parents, uncles, or some other relative. They were purchased legally, and removed from their homes by these kids.
I can take an Uzi or TEC-9 and file down the firing pin in five minutes, making it a fully auto gun. What's your point?
Actually no, buying the gun with the intent of handing it over to the kid is illegal. First check box on a 4473 asks if the gun is for you. By checking "yes" with the intent of giving it to someone else is illegal. Hence the purchase is not a legal one.
I was curious why you picked an Uzi or Tec-9 for your example, that's all. As I'm sure you know, almost all semi-autos can be converted quickly, provided you know what you're doing and have the part to do so.
 
bionicarm

bionicarm

Active Member
Originally Posted by FishyFun2
http:///forum/post/2970834
Bionic,
Let's just boil it down. Do you honestly think gun bans of any kind keep bad people from obtaining guns and committing crimes?
Of course not. If a criminal wants a gun, they'll find a way of getting one. The purpose of the assault weapons ban is to make it harder for those criminals to obtain them. Like my example about the homeless guy buying the Uzi or TEC-9 at the gun show. If those guns couldn't be purchased at the gun show, that's just one less place for a criminal to get them in their hands.
Don't get me wrong. I understand the aura of owning what is considered an 'assault type' weapon. I owned several Colt AR-15's years ago. I used them exclusively for deer hunting. I can attest to its accuracy at 150 - 200 yards, and it's usage for that sport. However, you can't tell me there's a reasonable use for an Uzi or TEC-9 for the average citizen. Those guns are designed for one purpose and one purpose only, to be used in some type of criminal activity.
 
bang guy

bang guy

Moderator
Originally Posted by bionicarm
http:///forum/post/2970836
I understand buying a gun for someone else is illegal. However, until the person who originally purchased the gun hands the gun over to the kid (or someone else who intends to use it for criminal purposes), the gun is considered legally purchased.
No, that would be an illegal purchase. Just find a better example.
 
wattsupdoc

wattsupdoc

Active Member
I always wonder how many anti gun advocates support abortion?
That to me is the ultimate hypocrisy.
Also. You know it wasn't the guns that did the killing in Columbine. It was the person behind then gun.
Why is it that gun haters have this stupid perception that if someone has a gun around they are just "waiting to shoot everything and anything"? This is ludicrous.
Oh it can only be because these people have not been raised with a respect for firearms. Because the gun represents power, it is feared by them. Because THEIR PARENTS didn't teach them/raise them with them they have no idea how to properly use them. A gun in these hands is a very dangerous thing. Why don't we ban lousy parenting? Surely that would be as enforceable a law as banning weapons to keep them from killing indiscriminately. Additionally if some actually BECAME GOOD PARENTS that would possibly "Save just one kids life"...
The problem with firearms is the same problem we have with so many things...IT'S you lousy **edited** parents out there.

If I ever go on a killing spree I'm going to use this.This is a 11 1/4 in blade. Sometimes I just set and gleem at it and dream of what it could do. It is definetly illegal for me to carry it concealed and people freak out if I go 'round wearing it.%
OOOOPS wrong paste.
 
turningtim

turningtim

Active Member
Originally Posted by Veni Vidi Vici
http:///forum/post/2970275
The liberal losing an argument battle cry
"WELL WHAT ABOUT BUSH......."

Ah followed by the conservative "What about Nazi Germany".....
This coming from someone who actually has the nerve to suggest that "if" the Jews in Germany had the use of firearms that the slaughter that took place would have somehow been different.
Here a little fact for you. 15-20 MILLION German soldiers vs. less than 250,000 Jews in 1939. Yup they had a chance.
My friend when the blood of those 6 MILLION humans that where put to slaughter runs through your child's veins you kinda take offense to this comparison. I've have heard this WWII argument far to many times and it holds no water.
BTW I asked someone that was there in 1939. They had GUNS!
Besides all this the argument that we will somehow lose all of our rights b/c a ban on a single materiel device is a joke by any standard. Believe this or not YOU have recourse! File a injunction in Federal Court. Please take your valid Constitutional arguments to court.
What I really don't like is when anyone uses this living and breathing document as a big stick to beat the opposition about the head and face. Also the use of the Constitution as a grocery store is absurd at best. To pick and choose.... really?
Some pretty educated and smart people from both sides of the isle have said that some of the most egregious assaults on the constitution have happened in the last 8 years. But now all the sudden the new administration is presenting a ban on a "thing" and you're all up in arms about how its unconstitutional.
And we're talking about citizens being allowed to have battleships?

Theory and arguments that are well thought out and well spoken does give them anymore validity in the eyes of the LAW!
 
darthtang aw

darthtang aw

Active Member
Also, assault weapons account for 1-2% of all crimes committed involving guns. Yet they account for almost 20% of the gun sales.
So this ban, would cut the gun crime rate 1-2% yet cut the economy in gun sales across the board almost 20%.
Britain has also enaxcted strict gun laws, even banning many....It is harder to get a Gun in Britain now than in the states.A very small percentage of the population legally owns guns. After they passed this bill since then gun crimes have risen 242%.................yeah, this will curb crime a lot.
 
1journeyman

1journeyman

Active Member
Originally Posted by bionicarm
http:///forum/post/2970826
OK, but your logic is completely skewed. You can't compare the two. The Letters Of Marque were intended to retaliate against an enemy who essentially stole from us. Just because a privateer could arm the boat that was used to 'pilfer' from this enemy, doesn't mean the Founding Fathers would associate that with a normal citizen owning guns. It's all speculative. There's no way to imagine what the people in those days would've thought if the same technology we have today was available to them. That's the problem with applying Constitutional Law that was written over 200 years ago to today's world. The Framers would've never imagined we'd have WMD's, planes, cars, computers, etc. They based their ideologies and principles on their lives and what was occuring during their timeframe. They tried as best they could to write the Constitution so that the laws would apply to future generations, but with the massive technological advances over the last 200 or so years, some of the amendments are somewhat outdated. You can agree to disagree with this theory, but if the Constitution was written today, just imagine how different it would look.
Bionic, Letters of Marque were simply a way for the Founding Fathers to allow the private citizens to be used as a Navy in times of War. Basically they were hiring "pirates", aka Privateers.
The Constitution would look a lot different if it were written today; Not because the ideas are outdated, but because we don't have men willing to take the stand the Founding Fathers were willing to take serving the Nation today.
The Constitution very clearly shows the Founding Fathers did not believe in restricting the general public from owning weapons. It's been pointed out already; a 54 gun Schooner is quite a bit more firepower than a semi-auto M4. If the founding fathers promoted the ideas of private warships, why would they restrict firearms??
 
bang guy

bang guy

Moderator
Originally Posted by TurningTim
http:///forum/post/2970862
Theory and arguments that are well thought out and well spoken does give them anymore validity in the eyes of the LAW!
Yes, that is true. But should a law be created or changed without well thought out and well spoken arguement?
 
bionicarm

bionicarm

Active Member
Originally Posted by Bang Guy
http:///forum/post/2970856
Target shooting is a popular, and reasonable, activity.
So the gun manufacturers that designed and built the Uzi and TEC-9 did it for the sole purpose of being used for target practice?
Give me a break. Those guns were built to be used strictly for military purposes, plain and simple. They weren't designed for some Joe NRA Fanatic to go plunking tin cans out in their corn fields.
 
bang guy

bang guy

Moderator
Originally Posted by Darthtang AW
http:///forum/post/2970866
So this ban, would cut the gun crime rate 1-2% yet cut the economy in gun sales across the board almost 20%.
I believe you make a bad assumption here. Your sentence appears to imply that if the perpetrators of the 1-2% crime with assult weapons could not legally acquire such weapons then they would not have comitted a gun crime.
I don't believe that to be true.
 
wattsupdoc

wattsupdoc

Active Member
So change it now to only being able to purchase and own a firearm to use it for what the designers of it built it for. This is ludicrous also. My sons 4 wheeler was designed for racing. Do I let him race it competitively?
People like to shoot guns because they are FUN TO SHOOT sometimes you know.
 
1journeyman

1journeyman

Active Member
Originally Posted by TurningTim
http:///forum/post/2970862
...
This coming from someone who actually has the nerve to suggest that "if" the Jews in Germany had the use of firearms that the slaughter that took place would have somehow been different.
Here a little fact for you. 15-20 MILLION German soldiers vs. less than 250,000 Jews in 1939. Yup they had a chance....
While we are stating facts; There are well documented accounts of Jews surviving the holocaust by taking up arms and fighting back... More guns obviously would have equaled more survivors.
Take that to the next level... Would the German army have been so brazen as to allow relatively few soldiers to round up thousands of Jews and send them to death camps if the villages they were raiding were armed? Of course not.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top