Senate Blocked Gun Control Measures

Sig · Jul 26, 2013

Meagain said:

What other reasons do you feel are justified for owning a high fire rate large magazine weapon, without adequate registration and regulation, and do you feel that those reasons outweigh any additional dangers that may arise from said ownership?
Click to expand...

I am one of those who believes such weapons give the citizenry valuable tools to resist tyranny.

Of course, that begs the question "what constitutes tyranny that requires armed resistance?" That is a subject for another thread though, I think.

Starsrainbow · Jul 26, 2013

You know it! Too many guns in wrong hands.....:iagree:eace:
I'm not against those wanting to arm themselves its the mass madness that gets me to wondering.

hillbillyhippy · Jul 26, 2013

Meagain said:

Sig:I was responding to these two posts. Maybe I am incorrect in assuming he is saying that he needs a high fire rate and a large magazine(s) to resist a home break-in. He hasn't responded, so we'll see.

What other reasons do you feel are justified for owning a high fire rate large magazine weapon, without adequate registration and regulation, and do you feel that those reasons outweigh any additional dangers that may arise from said ownership?

If the only rational is so that you can:as LetLovin said, then I think the dangers out way the "right to have fun." Just my opinion.
Click to expand...

I am a law abiding citizen, why the fuck should it matter how many bullets I have. If shtf and there are hoards of looters trying to steal what I have, I like having a 30 round magazine, also if you target shoot for fun, magazines are expensive, easier to have 30 round magazines so you don't have to reload as much, and don't need to buy so many magazines.

SnakePlissken · Jul 26, 2013

rjhangover said:

Hey newbie, you should take your own advise on educating yourself. Start by reading the posts on this thread. One of the most prevalent "misinformations", is the gun nuts claiming that the government is trying to take everybody's guns away, when in reality, it's only trying to get assault weapons out of the hands of nut jobs that want to kill large numbers of innocent people. No one needs a hundred round weapon to defend their home. It's illegal to own stinger missiles, bombs any any other weapons of mass destruction. And if you need an M-16 to hunt deer, try bowling.
Click to expand...

Senator Dianne Feinstein: "If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an out-right ban, picking up every one of them... 'Mr. and Mrs. America, turn 'em all in,' I would have done it. I could not do that. The votes weren't here." CBS-TV's "60 Minutes", February 5, 1995

We already have laws that keep guns out of the hands of criminals but criminals don't follow the law.

There is no such thing as an "assault" weapon. There are weapons that can be used to assault. ANY weapon.

Rifles, (all rifles) account for less than 2% of gun deaths.

*advice

With regard to "educating myself" I'll stick with resources like the FBI instead of reading what is posted here.

SnakePlissken · Jul 26, 2013

Karen_J said:

Definitely. He's already pretty much guaranteed that the two of us will never have a serious, rational discussion about the issue. I have zero tolerance for the attitude of "you must be an idiot because your opinion is different from mine".

I wish you luck dealing with that shit. You're much better at that sort of thing than I am.

All but two of your assumptions are nowhere close to the truth.

I can't think of a worse way to get started off in a new forum than to come in and identify all the supposed shortcomings of a long-term member, in an angry way, based on one post. But...I'm guessing you're not here to make friends. So...whatever.
Click to expand...

I was just stating my opinion - a guess as to why you might think the way you do. If you were insulted, that was your choice. No insult intended. I was hoping you might post up some detail refuting my guesses.

Meagain said:

Snake,
A suggestion: divide your responses up by breaking up the quotes into smaller segments. I almost missed your responses as you included them in with the quotes you made of my posts.

I'm on an iPad. It's difficult.

I know what the term collective means, but how are you using it here? I assume you are referring to the the right of the people to keep and bear Arms. The word people is a plural word, people are made up of persons which are individuals. So I don't understand what you mean by the founders referring to people.

?..common rights (natural rights common to each individual) with collective rights (those that have been delegated to the community or its government). Common rights are inalienable, individual rights -- the very opposite of collective rights. Classical liberalism was based on the idea of common rights..

The Constitution both defines and limits. Under the Constitution, which proclaims "Natural Rights", powers have been granted to elected and appointed officials to establish positive laws (man made) which both limit and protect those natural laws based upon their interpretation of those natural laws and in accordance with their constituents wishes while at the same time protecting the natural rights of minorities irregardless of the views of the constituents.

Wrong. It limits what THE GOVERNMENT can do. Not the people

While that may be true, the law has placed limits on how you can obtain and keep ownership.
To own a firearm in the U.S. under Federal Law you can not be:

1. under indictment for or have been convicted of a felony that doesn't include non-violent business related crimes. Rights are generally restored after the sentence is completed for felonies that are not crimes against persons.
2. a fugitive from justice.
3. an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance. (This makes many gun owners technical criminals.)
4. adjudicated as a mental defective or has been committed to a mental institution.
5. an alien who is illegally or unlawfully in the United States.
6. discharged from the Armed Forces under dishonorable conditions.
someone who has renounced his or her U.S. citizenship.
7. subject to a court order that restrains the person from harassing, stalking, or threatening an intimate partner of the person or child of such intimate partner or person, or engaging in other conduct that would place an intimate partner in reasonable fear of bodily injury to the partner or child.
8. convicted in any court of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence.

In addition most states limit the type of weapons you may own and who may own them. In Pennsylvania several types of weapons are outlawed including shotguns with revolving cylinders, grenade launchers, forward pistol grips, etc.

Under the 1928 Law on Firearms and Ammunition act, citizens were required to have a permit to carry a firearm and a separate permit to acquire a firearm. Furthermore, the law restricted ownership of firearms to "...persons whose trustworthiness is not in question and who can show a need for a (gun) permit." Under the new German law of 1938:

1. The legal age at which guns could be purchased was lowered from 20 to 18.[5]

2. Permits were valid for three years, rather than one year.[5]

3. The groups of people who were exempt from the acquisition permit requirement expanded. Holders of annual hunting permits, government workers, and NSDAP members were no longer subject to gun ownership restrictions. Prior to the 1938 law, only officials of the central government, the states, and employees of the German Reichsbahn Railways were exempted.[4]

Just because the government made rules doesn't mean they are constitutional

4. Jews were outlawed from owning guns, which wouldn't have helped them anyway.

The Russian people under the Czars, were never allowed the “right to bear arms”. Few Russians owned guns when Stalin came to power. The Soviet gun law of 1939 was aimed at the military, not the citizens.
Click to expand...

So that makes the other dozen or so cases irrelevant?

hillbillyhippy · Jul 26, 2013

lol really is no such thing as an assault weapon, as they are semi autos, they just "look evil" oooo so scary, again you guys..criminals don't obey laws. Hmmm lets see there are some people who are killed by pot, when ONE DUMB ASS ruins it for all the responsible smokers decides to drive his car and run over someone. Same can be said for guns, ONE DUMB ASS ruins it for all the people who are responsible users.

I am not in favor of the government telling me I can not own something which in general has no effect on other people, when used LEGALLY

Another thing, canada said they would only take "assault weapons" look how that turned out...

the Nexus · Jul 26, 2013

Maelstrom said:

Real hippies could not bring themselves to hurt a fly, much less own a gun.
Click to expand...

Where do people get these ideas?

Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk 2

SnakePlissken · Jul 26, 2013

Meagain said:

Snake,
Continuing:
Exactly. That's what a government does. It writes laws and then gives power to enact them. And if you don't like the laws it enacts, you have certain legal outlets to address those issues, guaranteed by the Constitution and Bill of Rights. Both written by representatives of the citizens.

First, thank you for the discussion. I wish you would understand that you don't pick and choose rights. The legal outlet is by amending the constitution. But the politic isn't using this legal method. They are legislating by fiat.

Don't try to pull that stuff on me. You want me to say magazines? Okay magazines.

So what, I am not talking about them. Are you suggesting we need tighter restrictions on them, if so I would probably agree. If there is nothing special about them you will have no trouble giving them up, as any other rifle will do just as well.

Are you talking about the U.S.? If not you need to tell me what other government has the same Constitution and Bill of Rights as the U.S., the same State laws, citizens, educational system, GNP, etc. otherwise you are not making a valid comparison.

In addition, I see no section of the Constitution that prohibits the Federal government from requiring the registration of arms.Do you wish to talk about conjectures, rumors, and hyperbole; or do you wish to discuss what the law is and what is or is not right, about those laws, in your opinion?

Most of us break laws, I am the first to admit that I have broken a number of them such as speeding, however non rises to the level of illegal firearm use. In terms of using a gun illegally, no one does until they do.

I never said that gun ownership, per se was illegal, unless the ownership in itself is illegal.

I eagerly await the acquisition of knowledge and may even admit to being wrong from time to time. Please continue to point out any errors you find in my responses.

Have I ever said that all gun owners are homicidal?For a variety of reasons, some are descendant from the family, some for target shooting, some for home protection, some because I like mechanical objects. I haven't shot any for about a year now, I hate cleaning them. I don't own any assault type weapons, if you will forgive me for using the term.

I am a natural born citizen of the U.S. of A.
Click to expand...

Instead of going tit for tat with you, which wastes your time and mine, i will simply state the following.

You are operating on feelings. Much of what you have posted is I'll informed (no insult - it just is.

At the end of the day, you want to impose your will on others.

Nobody is forcing you to buy a scary black rifle. However it is another thing entirely to tell me I can't.

Want to change the law of the land? Put it up for a vote and change the constitution.

hillbillyhippy · Jul 26, 2013

I personally do not think they can even amend said part of the constitution, because it is part of the bill of rights and says it will and shall not be infringed, so wouldn't even making an amendment, be infringing on said rights?

Maelstrom · Jul 26, 2013

The second amendment has been amended before.

For more than a hundred years, the answer was clear, even if the words of the amendment itself were not. The text of the amendment is divided into two clauses and is, as a whole, ungrammatical: “A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” The courts had found that the first part, the “militia clause,” trumped the second part, the “bear arms” clause. In other words, according to the Supreme Court, and the lower courts as well, the amendment conferred on state militias a right to bear arms—but did not give individuals a right to own or carry a weapon.

Enter the modern National Rifle Association. Before the nineteen-seventies, the N.R.A. had been devoted mostly to non-political issues, like gun safety. But a coup d’état at the group’s annual convention in 1977 brought a group of committed political conservatives to power—as part of the leading edge of the new, more rightward-leaning Republican Party. (Jill Lepore recounted this history in a recent piece for The New Yorker.) The new group pushed for a novel interpretation of the Second Amendment, one that gave individuals, not just militias, the right to bear arms. It was an uphill struggle. At first, their views were widely scorned. Chief Justice Warren E. Burger, who was no liberal, mocked the individual-rights theory of the amendment as “a fraud.”

But the N.R.A. kept pushing—and there’s a lesson here. Conservatives often embrace “originalism,” the idea that the meaning of the Constitution was fixed when it was ratified, in 1787. They mock the so-called liberal idea of a “living” constitution, whose meaning changes with the values of the country at large. But there is no better example of the living Constitution than the conservative re-casting of the Second Amendment in the last few decades of the twentieth century. (Reva Siegel, of Yale Law School, elaborates on this point in a brilliant article.)

The re-interpretation of the Second Amendment was an elaborate and brilliantly executed political operation, inside and outside of government.
Click to expand...

http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/comment/2012/12/jeffrey-toobin-second-amendment.html

the Nexus · Jul 26, 2013

Maelstrom said:

The second amendment has been amended before.

http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/comment/2012/12/jeffrey-toobin-second-amendment.html
Click to expand...

I don't see on here where the Second amendment was actually amended before, and actually, there was no change in interpretation because when it was written, each man in the militia was responsible for keeping and maintaining his own rifle

Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk 2

LetLovinTakeHold · Jul 26, 2013

I dont see any ammendment either. The well regulated militias that helped win independence from Britain, were not trained military men. They were farmers, and every other profession that came together together to fight tyranny. The 2nd ammendment as I see it, always granted American citizens the right to own firearms with the main reasoning of banding together to fight tyranny incase the situation ever represents itself. Foriegn or domestic. Sure, if the government singles you out for destruction no single man will survive no matter what weapons they have. But entire communities that come together, or even cities. Who are armed to the teeth. Could make a stand.

MeAgain · Jul 27, 2013

Before I respond, thanks to everyone for keeping it civil.

hillbillyhippy,

I am a law abiding citizen, why the fuck should it matter how many bullets I have.
Click to expand...

While an ordinary gun can be used for violence it can not reek the havoc of an assault style weapon in the same amount of time. This was clearly shown by the 1997 North Hollywood shootout when two heavily armed and armored bank robbers out gunned the police. The ready availability of those types of weapons, bullets, and armor argue for them being outlawed. The argument that criminals would still be able to get the weapons does not nullify the need for their removal and the elimination of their ease of procurement.
Even though you are a law abiding citizen, there is no "natural right" for you to own such a weapon without heavy regulation, machine guns may be owned in several states but they are heavily regulated and registered and not available to every Tom, Dick, and Harry.

MeAgain · Jul 27, 2013

SnakePlissken said:

There is no such thing as an "assault" weapon. There are weapons that can be used to assault. ANY weapon.
Click to expand...

Assault weapon is a legal term,

In the U.S. the term assault weapon refers primarily but not exclusively to semi-automatic firearms that are able to accept detachable magazines and possess certain features.[7][12]
Click to expand...

Here is Conn's law defining and concerning assault weapons.

The term assault rifle is also a legal term and these weapons are different from assault weapons..

MeAgain · Jul 27, 2013

SnakePlissken said:

So that makes the other dozen or so cases irrelevant?
Click to expand...

I'm sorry, to what cases are you referring?

the Nexus · Jul 27, 2013

If I raise my right hand and solemnly swear to only ever use my guns for recreational purposes, and not even defend myself, my family, or you with them, would that give you the peace of mind you need to let me keep my guns?

Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk 2

MeAgain · Jul 27, 2013

SnakePlissken said:

You are operating on feelings. Much of what you have posted is I'll informed (no insult - it just is.
Click to expand...

You'll have to point out what I have said that is ill informed, I accept that that is possible but I would have to see to what you are referring.

At the end of the day, you want to impose your will on others.
Click to expand...

Society imposes its collective will on you every day.

Nobody is forcing you to buy a scary black rifle. However it is another thing entirely to tell me I can't.
Click to expand...

There are many laws that define what we may and may not do and what we may and may not buy for a variety of reasons.

Want to change the law of the land? Put it up for a vote and change the constitution.
Click to expand...

Who is talking about changing the Constitution?

MeAgain · Jul 27, 2013

There are several ways to enact an Amendment in the U.S.
In addition the meaning of any Amendment can be reinterpreted due to changing circumstances, judicial rule, or popular amendment.

As Wilson noted in 1787, "... the people may change the constitutions whenever and however they please. This is a right of which no positive institution can ever deprive them."
Click to expand...

And I have commented on the origin of the 2nd Amendment before. Originally it referred to well regulated militias, not individuals, which were to support the government and the standing army, not for the purpose of overthrowing the lawful government.

the Nexus · Jul 27, 2013

Meagain said:

There are several ways to enact an Amendment in the U.S.
In addition the meaning of any Amendment can be reinterpreted due to changing circumstances, judicial rule, or popular amendment.And I have commented on the origin of the 2nd Amendment before. Originally it referred to well regulated militias, not individuals, which were to support the government and the standing army, not for the purpose of overthrowing the lawful government.
Click to expand...

I can partially agree with this post, each generation should write its own constitution, rather than obey the laws of men who are long since dead.

Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk 2

NoxiousGas · Jul 27, 2013

Meagain said:

There are several ways to enact an Amendment in the U.S.
In addition the meaning of any Amendment can be reinterpreted due to changing circumstances, judicial rule, or popular amendment.And I have commented on the origin of the 2nd Amendment before. Originally it referred to well regulated militias, not individuals, which were to support the government and the standing army, not for the purpose of overthrowing the lawful government.
Click to expand...

you need to go back and read ALL the documents leading up to the amendments. Just picking the line out of all the surrounding documentation is folly and leads to an incomplete understanding of the reasons, intent and future purpose for the way it is constructed.

This;
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

says absolutely nothing about supporting the government or standing army.
In actuality the new government was opposed to the concept of a standing army, another reason for the adoption of a civil militia.
But where it does speak of a civilian militia being necessary to the security of a free state is in reference to security from tyrannical governments.
Go back and read it all if you don't believe me.
When taken in context of the entire process of drawing up the Constitution and later the Bill of Rights, it takes on a completely different meaning, and NOT the one you suggest.

I posted the pertinent documents relating to it in another thread;
http://www.hipforums.com/newforums/showpost.php?p=7644251&postcount=723

It may help if you read them again and entirely. It is rather clear that one of the intentions and purposes of citizens maintaining arms is exactly to be able to overthrow a corrupt government.

The likelihood of that happening are slight given the population numbers, but to say that wasn't the part of the original intention just indicates that you aren't as well versed in the Constitution and amendments and stuff as you believe.

Log in or Sign up

Senate Blocked Gun Control Measures

Sig Senior Member

Starsrainbow ~om~

hillbillyhippy Member

SnakePlissken Guest

SnakePlissken Guest

hillbillyhippy Member

the Nexus Member

SnakePlissken Guest

hillbillyhippy Member

Maelstrom Banned

the Nexus Member

LetLovinTakeHold Cuz it will if you let it

MeAgain Dazed & Confused Lifetime Supporter Super Moderator

MeAgain Dazed & Confused Lifetime Supporter Super Moderator

MeAgain Dazed & Confused Lifetime Supporter Super Moderator

the Nexus Member

MeAgain Dazed & Confused Lifetime Supporter Super Moderator

MeAgain Dazed & Confused Lifetime Supporter Super Moderator

the Nexus Member

NoxiousGas Old Fart

Share This Page

Log in or Sign up

Senate Blocked Gun Control Measures

Sig Senior Member

Starsrainbow ~om~

hillbillyhippy Member

SnakePlissken Guest

SnakePlissken Guest

hillbillyhippy Member

the Nexus Member

SnakePlissken Guest

hillbillyhippy Member

Maelstrom Banned

the Nexus Member

LetLovinTakeHold Cuz it will if you let it

MeAgain Dazed & Confused Lifetime Supporter Super Moderator

MeAgain Dazed & Confused Lifetime Supporter Super Moderator

MeAgain Dazed & Confused Lifetime Supporter Super Moderator

the Nexus Member

MeAgain Dazed & Confused Lifetime Supporter Super Moderator

MeAgain Dazed & Confused Lifetime Supporter Super Moderator

the Nexus Member

NoxiousGas Old Fart

Share This Page

Useful Searches