Gun Ban Possibly Over Today ??

GeauxLSU

Senior Member
chewie1014 said:
I feel some sort of effective legislation towards the banning of true assault weapons is warranted.
Chewie my man! :D
OK, I won't comment on the contradictions in your first post and I'll just try and get it to it's most basic level, since believe it or not, I actually understand what you are saying. But here's the problem, look at your above quote. YOU tell me, what an 'assault' weapon is and IF you can define it, tell me why you think THAT particular weapon should be banned and also, why any other should not.
(By the way, personally, I don't own a single weapon that was covered by the AWB nor am I likely ever to. However, you can bet your last nickle I'd fight it with my last breathe in support of those law abiding citizens that DO own one or want one.)
TIA for your input,
Hunt/fish safely,
Phil
 

Mechanicaldawg

Roosevelt Ranger
chewie,

Yes I am a member of a well regulated militia!

And when the need arises I'm sure that you will us spring into action.

There was no statute of limitations put on the Second Amendment. It is still as stong as it was the day it was ratified.
 

Mechanicaldawg

Roosevelt Ranger
I almost forgot, anything you read that was pinned by me, if similar in anyway to the NRA's rhetoric, it is merely coinsidental.

I don't drink that Koolaid.

BTW, can anyone provide any stats on how many people were murder by knives compared to "assault weapons"?
 

chewie1014

Senior Member
GTBuzz - I'm serious...first the 2nd Ammendment was written in 1789 and ratified in 1791 to apply to our nation's future, thus making it important in the 1800s. Why would it be more important in the 1700s when it was only effective for 9 years? And yes, I have read much of what our founding fathers said in regards to self arms...and much of it is quoted in support of the right to bear them. But a small quote is often misrepresented when not taken into context of the entire document or situation. Nearly every single time, our founding fathers were speaking to this right as part of a UNIFIED effort to protect ourselves. Not in the sense of a bunch of individuals storing up guns to protect there own self interest. Therefore, I ask again, is your primary reason for owning these guns as an effort to protect the state and nation?

Clint - you misquote me...my intention is not to say that only the "military" should own weapons. But when people say that the second ammendment gives them the right bear arms in order to protect themselves from theives, foreign armies and tyranical gov'ts, that is wrong. The only purpose that is directly addressed by the 2nd ammendment for bearing arms is for having a well established militia. The rest of these "reasons" are not mentioned and therefore merely implied or understood. And here's a real kick in the pants, many of our founding fathers were in support of a King, but knew that the american public would revolt at the idea.

Generally speaking, I genuinely believe the 2nd ammendment would have been widely reconsidered and changed had our founding fathers been able to see America in present terms.
 

GeauxLSU

Senior Member
Causes of death...

"In 2000, the most common actual causes of death in the United States were tobacco (435,000), poor diet and physical inactivity (400,000), alcohol consumption (85,000), microbial agents (e.g., influenza and pneumonia, 75,000), toxic agents (e.g., pollutants and asbestos, 55,000), motor vehicle accidents (43,000), firearms (29,000), sexual behavior (20,000) and illicit use of drugs (17,000)."
http://www.cdc.gov/nccdphp/factsheets/death_causes2000.htm

Though a miniscule sample.... http://www.childwelfare.net/CFR/1999Report/firearm.html#figure38

Hunt/fish safely,
Phil
 

Clint-06

Member
Yes, some did want to install a Monarchy here, just as some wanted our National launguage to be German! BF wanted the national bird to be the Turkey! What does this have to do with anything?

What came out of these discussions was our great nation, And they put in place a system (amendments) to change the constitution when needed. So in more than 200 years we have not yet banned firearms from the general public. This country is based on Freedom, yet with that freedom comes responsibility.

The Supreme Court has also ruled that the 2nd DOES indeed relate to the everyday person's RIGHT to bear arms..

Please don't take my post's the wrong way, I am really enjoying the discussion! :flag: This is what makes us a great nation.

Clint-06
 

GeauxLSU

Senior Member
King Chewie.....

GeauxLSU said:
YOU tell me, what an 'assault' weapon is and IF you can define it, tell me why you think THAT particular weapon should be banned and also, why any other should not.
Come on Chewie, YOU get to make this law that you say is 'warranted'. You are the 'king' and you get to single handedly decide what guns should and should not be in the hands of your subjects, excuse me, citizens. So what is this law?
Hunt/fish safely,
Phil
 

chewie1014

Senior Member
Phil - I am neither qualified nor willing to make those decisions...primarily because I'd have to face all of you if I did. :D :D

Certainly a method that would qualify a weapon on something other than just appearance and look is warranted (which I am man enough to admit I was ignorant to before GTBuzz enlightened me). That fact alone is enough to make me change my mind to the current AWB. However, this doesn't mean I wouldn't be receptive to some sort of legislation in support of true assault weapons bans...I know, I know...what do I consider an assault weapon. I guess my primary qualification would be fully automatic rifles/guns that are modified for public sale.
 

GeauxLSU

Senior Member
Chewie...

But you already know fully automatic weapons are restricted outside of the AWB. So what else would you restrict?
Do you think sawed-off shotguns should be illegal? Why or why not?
OK, to save us some time here's my point with another seemingly unrelated, topic.
I motorcycle ride. I 'used to be' in favor of mandatory helmet laws. I mean, I ALWAYS wear one, seems like common sense. Why would you not, right? Then as I debated with other riders and began to think about it. OK, so first the goverment would tell me I MUST wear a helmet. Then they'd tell me I must wear a 'FULL FACE' helment. Then they'd tell me I MUST wear long sleeves pants and shirst. Then full leathers. Then full steel toe boots. Then armored wear. I mean where does it stop? There was actually some legislation proposed concerning motorcycles themselves that would have actually made the machines virtually inoperable and EXTREMELY unsafe. The irrationality of this is VERY similar to 'gun control' legislation.
I say all that to simply point out, as you, the AWB did no effect my personal firearm inventory one bit and never would have. However, it likewise made no SENSE at all and was in fact an infringement on my rights, whether or not I chose to exercise them (though it appears you are arguing I do not have a 'right' to bear arms. If that's the single issue, then I'll bow out and say, we just clearly disagree.) The AWB was a bad bad, arbitrary, misconceived idea. If you think the AWB saved one single life, you should think again. If you still think it saved one life, I can use the exact same 'logic' to say it cost another.
Hunt/fish safely,
Phil
 

chewie1014

Senior Member
Phil - I do believe that we have the right to bear arms. I also believe that the original intent of the 2nd ammendment was to support the local militia in the protection of the state. I do believe we have the right to protect ourselves and our families, using weapons and lethal force if necessary. I do believe that the 2nd ammendment does not restrict nor qualify any specific type of weapons - allowing us the right to own defined "assault weapons."

However, I also know that the legal sale of fully automatic weapons that have been modified to be semi-automatic can and does lead to more "assault weapons" on the street. While the sale of fully automatic weapons is restricted outside the AWB, many of these are modified to be semi-automatic and legal for sale. Many are also easily converted back to fully automatic post sale. Will the ban of these fully-automatic-weapons-modified-to-be-semi-automatic weapons get them all off the street? Again, No. Will such a ban make it more difficult for criminals to get their hands on them and convert them back to fully-automatic? Again, Yes. Is the right to own these specific types of weapons something I am willing to give up in an effort to make it more difficult for criminals to obtain them, thus reducing the number of them on them street? Yes. I will not say that doing so will save lives. I simply believe it would reduce the number of them on the streets. Not eradicate, just reduce. It's simply something I'm willing to give up for better protection on our streets.

I haven't said it's not anyone's right to bear arms. If I implied that, then I argued poorly or you mistook what I said. My apologies.
 

Buzz

Senior Member
Chewie - it sounds to me like what you would propose is already existing law. The National Firearms Act of 1934 prohibits the ownership of Class III firearms (full auto) without paying a lot of money to the governement for a license and background checks. If I am not mistaken to this date there has not been a legally registered class III weapon used in the commission of a crime. That is a pretty darn good 70 year record. In 1986 a law was passed (I don't remember the name) that prohibits the sale and manufacturer of any firearm that can be converted to full auto in under 8 hours by an "average" machinist. Hence, the other media fantasy that any goober off the street can purchase an AR15 and with a nail file convert it to full auto is complete nonsense. I think it is also a big no no to own the parts to convert your AR15 into full auto without having a Class III license. The govt doesn't play games with full auto firearms; if you get caught with a machine gun or you are caught trying to convert a semi auto into one - you are going to go away for a long time.
 
Last edited:

GeauxLSU

Senior Member
chewie1014 said:
I will not say that doing so will save lives. I simply believe it would reduce the number of them on the streets. Not eradicate, just reduce. It's simply something I'm willing to give up for better protection on our streets.
I don't know that there is a better example of the proverbial "slippery slope". I hope you can see that and rethink your position.
Hunt/fish safely,
Phil
 

reylamb

Senior Member
Chewie, are there any other amendments that we should dispose of while we are at it? How many more are not useful today, and only aplied to the 1800's?
 

Schulze

Senior Member
GT BUZZ there was 1 crime commited with a legal NFA rifle. It was by a cop. Cant remember the details
 

Schulze

Senior Member
I also love how SPort shooting is not an ok way to use a firearm LOL.

Some of the people would have heart attacks if they went to Camp Perry
 

dbodkin

Senior Member
I am an owner

I bought a Rock River Arms Varminter. Extremely accurate and yes I use it hunting Varmints... Randy mentioned yotes.. but Groundhogs, ground squirrels and prarie dogs if I can get to SD. :bounce: The only theing the AWB did was jack the prices up on preban weapons and high cap magazines. It didnt prevent me from buying anything. I have nearly twenty five 30 round magazines and one drum. Besides hunting it is just a real kick to target shoot. Very accurate, light recoil and cheap ammo. Now as far as bad guys getting an ***ault weapon before, during and now after the sunset.. I believe they can get absolutely ANY weapon they want. What do they care they are already crooks. They dont care what laws are on the books. Give me enough cash and it could be bought....See Chewie I didnt try to decap you :bounce:
 

Schulze

Senior Member
dbod through some LE friends of mine I can go to a certain place and get a new Chicom AK47 with ammo for 450. That is full auto people
 

Mrbowdeadly

Senior Member
Some thoughts...
Terrorism is HERE NOW. Every time I see a pic of a terrorist he is toting a fully auto AK. I sure don't want to be fighting him here with my 22 single shot (refer to California cops getting their butts whooped by bank robbers) There is alot our fore fathers did not fore-see, including terrorism.

Funny how countries can find a way to buy enriched uranium on the black market, but people insist criminals would have a hard time getting an automatic weapon on the street if they were against the law.

I mean HOW could they. DO YOU KNOW how much cash you would need to buy that auto weapon? (by the way, now we do, $450)

WHERE could the criminals get their hands on that kind of cash??

I mean, unless they sold drugs or something.........


MBD
 
Top