NRA

[SkinBasket]

yeah, I forgot about the NRA part.... The NRA is evil because some idiot used an illegal weapon to kill 13 people. Or, at least thats one of the things I got from it.

Last I read that idiot used two perfectly legal and registered handguns. Only the guy who ambushed the police used an AK-47, which still hasn't been shown to have been modified to be fully automatic - the only thing that would differentiate from any other rifle.

[Little Whiskey]

I think this is the crux of the problem: the discussion keeps circling around banning weapons that are already banned. The core of this thread is a non-issue.

Actually, machine guns are not banned. just the sale of new fully auto guns. you can still own and purchase these guns used. of course you have to pay a "tax" to the gov't in order to transfer the title. funny huh

[/url]http://www.gunlawnews.org/NFA-34.html

[hoosier]

What was the original point or debate that got this thread going again?

Assault weapons are EVIL and should be banned immediately. Rights be damned.

Yeah. That's it.

I think this is the crux of the problem: the discussion keeps circling around banning weapons that are already banned. The core of this thread is a non-issue. Nobody here, as far as I know, is arguing that currently legal handguns or rifles should be banned, nor is anyone arguing that fully automatic rifles should be legalized. At least nobody has made any of those arguments as far as I can see. So what exactly is the point of contention? I'm not asking this to be snippy, I'm seriously confused about what is being debated. So somebody please make a clear and controversial statement that can be argued ("all guns should be banned," "legalize howitzers now," "free Charlie Manson now") so we can know what we're shooting at.

Well 'NRA' was in the title, but the real question is HOW to restrict weapons (arms) of particular types and remain constitutionally sound. Patler pointed out that the correct procedure would be the amendment process. The rest is typical thread wandering. (Unless I am just being willfully obtuse)

An amendment to restrict weapons is cumbersome, both politically and legally. I guess that's part of its attraction for those who oppose restrictions. The biggest problem is that the amendment option doesn't allow specific communities to decide on anything more or less restrictive than the amendment. If DC wants to ban handguns? Sorry, out of luck, because that would be impinging on the rights of Wyomingans who want to go to DC packing heat. So much for states rights--I guess that principle is only valid when it's convenient.

[mraynrand]

What was the original point or debate that got this thread going again?

Assault weapons are EVIL and should be banned immediately. Rights be damned.

Yeah. That's it.

I think this is the crux of the problem: the discussion keeps circling around banning weapons that are already banned. The core of this thread is a non-issue. Nobody here, as far as I know, is arguing that currently legal handguns or rifles should be banned, nor is anyone arguing that fully automatic rifles should be legalized. At least nobody has made any of those arguments as far as I can see. So what exactly is the point of contention? I'm not asking this to be snippy, I'm seriously confused about what is being debated. So somebody please make a clear and controversial statement that can be argued ("all guns should be banned," "legalize howitzers now," "free Charlie Manson now") so we can know what we're shooting at.

Well 'NRA' was in the title, but the real question is HOW to restrict weapons (arms) of particular types and remain constitutionally sound. Patler pointed out that the correct procedure would be the amendment process. The rest is typical thread wandering. (Unless I am just being willfully obtuse)

An amendment to restrict weapons is cumbersome, both politically and legally. I guess that's part of its attraction for those who oppose restrictions. The biggest problem is that the amendment option doesn't allow specific communities to decide on anything more or less restrictive than the amendment. If DC wants to ban handguns? Sorry, out of luck, because that would be impinging on the rights of Wyomingans who want to go to DC packing heat. So much for states rights--I guess that principle is only valid when it's convenient.

Think deeper. Your conceptualization of the amendment seems pretty limited.

[swede]

...The biggest problem is that the amendment option doesn't allow specific communities to decide on anything more or less restrictive than the amendment. If DC wants to ban handguns? Sorry, out of luck, because that would be impinging on the rights of Wyomingans who want to go to DC packing heat. So much for states rights--I guess that principle is only valid when it's convenient.

Yikes, man.

The powers granted to the Federal Government are limited and specific.

The power granted to the states are many and limited only insofar as the states may not make laws that infringe upon or violate the constitution and its Bill of Rights and other amendments.

The principle of states' rights is valid when it is constitutionally correct, not simply when it is convenient to either invoke it or forget about it.

This is why I'm kind of ambivalent when it comes to issues such as gay marriage. Certainly civil unions are entirely in keeping with the constitution.

[bobblehead]

What was the original point or debate that got this thread going again?

Assault weapons are EVIL and should be banned immediately. Rights be damned.

Yeah. That's it.

I think this is the crux of the problem: the discussion keeps circling around banning weapons that are already banned. The core of this thread is a non-issue. Nobody here, as far as I know, is arguing that currently legal handguns or rifles should be banned, nor is anyone arguing that fully automatic rifles should be legalized. At least nobody has made any of those arguments as far as I can see. So what exactly is the point of contention? I'm not asking this to be snippy, I'm seriously confused about what is being debated. So somebody please make a clear and controversial statement that can be argued ("all guns should be banned," "legalize howitzers now," "free Charlie Manson now") so we can know what we're shooting at.

Quite the contrary, I made that very argument. The framers gave us the right to weaponry for a purpose. That very purpose was to fight an oppressive gov't if need be. You can not tell me that having registered handguns protects that right. (gee, they know where to go, and they have you seriously outgunned). For this right to be useful we must have weaponry that allows us to confront an oppressive police force. ie...damn near anything we can afford. And we have the right to anything we can procure until we break a law and forfeit that right.

Furthermore the gov't does NOT have the right to use the military against citizens ever for any purpose.

[mraynrand]

dp

[mraynrand]

[mraynrand]

tp

[hoosier]

What was the original point or debate that got this thread going again?

Assault weapons are EVIL and should be banned immediately. Rights be damned.

Yeah. That's it.

I think this is the crux of the problem: the discussion keeps circling around banning weapons that are already banned. The core of this thread is a non-issue. Nobody here, as far as I know, is arguing that currently legal handguns or rifles should be banned, nor is anyone arguing that fully automatic rifles should be legalized. At least nobody has made any of those arguments as far as I can see. So what exactly is the point of contention? I'm not asking this to be snippy, I'm seriously confused about what is being debated. So somebody please make a clear and controversial statement that can be argued ("all guns should be banned," "legalize howitzers now," "free Charlie Manson now") so we can know what we're shooting at.

Well 'NRA' was in the title, but the real question is HOW to restrict weapons (arms) of particular types and remain constitutionally sound. Patler pointed out that the correct procedure would be the amendment process. The rest is typical thread wandering. (Unless I am just being willfully obtuse)

An amendment to restrict weapons is cumbersome, both politically and legally. I guess that's part of its attraction for those who oppose restrictions. The biggest problem is that the amendment option doesn't allow specific communities to decide on anything more or less restrictive than the amendment. If DC wants to ban handguns? Sorry, out of luck, because that would be impinging on the rights of Wyomingans who want to go to DC packing heat. So much for states rights--I guess that principle is only valid when it's convenient.

Think deeper. Your conceptualization of the amendment seems pretty limited.

Limited, yes, but limited because of what it is politically feasible to expect. An amendment that allowed specific communities to decide what kind of restrictions to impose on handgun possession (for example) would never get the 75% state support it would need for ratification.

[hoosier]

What was the original point or debate that got this thread going again?

Assault weapons are EVIL and should be banned immediately. Rights be damned.

Yeah. That's it.

I think this is the crux of the problem: the discussion keeps circling around banning weapons that are already banned. The core of this thread is a non-issue. Nobody here, as far as I know, is arguing that currently legal handguns or rifles should be banned, nor is anyone arguing that fully automatic rifles should be legalized. At least nobody has made any of those arguments as far as I can see. So what exactly is the point of contention? I'm not asking this to be snippy, I'm seriously confused about what is being debated. So somebody please make a clear and controversial statement that can be argued ("all guns should be banned," "legalize howitzers now," "free Charlie Manson now") so we can know what we're shooting at.

Quite the contrary, I made that very argument. The framers gave us the right to weaponry for a purpose. That very purpose was to fight an oppressive gov't if need be. You can not tell me that having registered handguns protects that right. (gee, they know where to go, and they have you seriously outgunned). For this right to be useful we must have weaponry that allows us to confront an oppressive police force. ie...damn near anything we can afford. And we have the right to anything we can procure until we break a law and forfeit that right.

Furthermore the gov't does NOT have the right to use the military against citizens ever for any purpose.

Ok, I was wrong. And you are a wing nut if you think (a) that any civilian group is going to stand a chance against a trained, well-equiped military force in this country, and (b) supposing it WERE possible to arm a civilian group sufficiently so that it could take on a professional police or military force in the US, that that would be a good thing--putting that much destructive capability in the hands of a group that doesn't answer to any law other than its own. Thanks but no thanks.

[Little Whiskey]

[
Ok, I was wrong. And you are a wing nut if you think (a) that any civilian group is going to stand a chance against a trained, well-equiped military force in this country, and (b) supposing it WERE possible to arm a civilian group sufficiently so that it could take on a professional police or military force in the US, that that would be a good thing--putting that much destructive capability in the hands of a group that doesn't answer to any law other than its own. Thanks but no thanks.

what has changed (proportionally) from 1770's to 2009?

[HarveyWallbangers]

Ok, I was wrong. And you are a wing nut if you think (a) that any civilian group is going to stand a chance against a trained, well-equiped military force in this country, and (b) supposing it WERE possible to arm a civilian group sufficiently so that it could take on a professional police or military force in the US, that that would be a good thing--putting that much destructive capability in the hands of a group that doesn't answer to any law other than its own. Thanks but no thanks.

Interesting question. Theoretically, let's say Obama and his liberal counterparts in Congress circumvented the Constitution and made guns illegal. A major uprising in this country ensued. Obama authorized use of military force against this large group of civilian dissenters. I'm guessing there would be a great deal of discord in the ranks of our professional, well-trained military. Many would break ranks. Our military is disproportionately rural and conservative. I'm guessing many would have a hard time squashing a movement that many of them would support.

[SkinBasket]

Ok, I was wrong. And you are a wing nut if you think (a) that any civilian group is going to stand a chance against a trained, well-equiped military force in this country, and (b) supposing it WERE possible to arm a civilian group sufficiently so that it could take on a professional police or military force in the US, that that would be a good thing--putting that much destructive capability in the hands of a group that doesn't answer to any law other than its own. Thanks but no thanks.

Interesting question. Theoretically, let's say Obama and his liberal counterparts in Congress circumvented the Constitution and made guns illegal. A major uprising in this country ensued. Obama authorized use of military force against this large group of civilian dissenters. I'm guessing there would be a great deal of discord in the ranks of our professional, well-trained military. Many would break ranks. Our military is disproportionately rural and conservative. I'm guessing many would have a hard time squashing a movement that many of them would support.

Besides, assuming no popular revolt, can you imagine the logistics of trying to collect all the newly banned weaponry out there? Obama and his community organizers can't even run a guns for cash program that collects anything other than a few rusted out revolvers.

[mraynrand]

Ok, I was wrong. And you are a wing nut if you think (a) that any civilian group is going to stand a chance against a trained, well-equiped military force in this country, and (b) supposing it WERE possible to arm a civilian group sufficiently so that it could take on a professional police or military force in the US, that that would be a good thing--putting that much destructive capability in the hands of a group that doesn't answer to any law other than its own. Thanks but no thanks.

Interesting question. Theoretically, let's say Obama and his liberal counterparts in Congress circumvented the Constitution and made guns illegal. A major uprising in this country ensued. Obama authorized use of military force against this large group of civilian dissenters. I'm guessing there would be a great deal of discord in the ranks of our professional, well-trained military. Many would break ranks. Our military is disproportionately rural and conservative. I'm guessing many would have a hard time squashing a movement that many of them would support.

Besides, assuming no popular revolt, can you imagine the logistics of trying to collect all the newly banned weaponry out there? Obama and his community organizers can't even run a guns for cash program that collects anything other than a few rusted out revolvers.

One of my friends has invested in several high tech guns with scopes. Claims he can shoot a soda can off a post at 300 yards. About the impending ammunition changes (making lead illegal, forcing the hand over of illegal ammunition) he says: "If they want to take my bullets, they can come and take them - I'll give 'em to them, one at a time."