Thread: Assault Weapons Ban

OK, so FISA is striving to eleminate due process of requiring a warrant?

Just don't mention, don't tell, don't record, don't write down, don't nothing anywhere that you may have something that could possibly be construed as anything close to being questionable.

For example, I don't have anything that's illegal anywhere in the union so I have no reason to fear the government. They can add as many types of guns as they want to the list, I don't have anything that's illegal.

Strongly opposed to the general public having access to any kind of firearm myself. I might be willing to accept the concept of private citizens bearing firearms on the basis of a percieved need for self-protection if the sale of said firearms and ammunition carried at least a 300% tax that went directly to funding law enforcement and emergency services, since the above must be inadequate or people would not feel the need to buy firearms.

Originally Posted by 7thsfsniper

Actually any removable clip over 10rnds would be illegal, except for pre-ban mags. The tubular mag is common on many 22 rifles(holds 18 usually) and that is what is the exception. Your 30 round 10/22 ruger mags put you on the list of naughty boy! By the wording of this, I would interpret it to mean that all post ban mags would be illegal. We now have a dillemma though because we now have post/post-ban mags now. Gun ban manufactured hi-cap mags where permanently stamped with "for police or military use only". Pre ban had no such stamping. Now, post/post ban manuf mags have no such marks, so how would they determine pre mags from post/posts?

GF(or anyone in the know and sober), correct me if I'm wrong on this(I have been drinking heavily this eve)

The Magpul Pmags would be a big NO NO as they have only been on the market for a couple of years, as to the tube mags a piece of dowling would restrict the capacity, although this will only be a temp mod that can be removed in minutes.

I really hope and pray that this ban doesn't happen, but in this current political and economic crisis no one can even begin to guess just what will happen next.

Tony

Frankly an informed educated community on the use of and storage of firearms is the way to go. The mentally retarded way is to treat firearms owners like criminals that must be treated with suspiceon.

Australia's case in point. One mentally retarded guy, living in Tasmania, goes out and shoots 30 something people. Government responce: All firearms are evil, ban as many as you can, and if there's even a minor breach in storage, don't educate them, don't seek recourse to rectify the problem, in actual fact this is what will happen: your license will be removed, you slapped with ... get this: a criminal record. You will be forcibly prevented by law from regulated industry as a result, and will be prevented them from getting a job in many areas because of the criminal record. All at the whim of a police officer. 1 year and $5000.00 fine max penalty. It's not aimed at educating, nor introducing responsible ownership, it's squarly aimed at making firearms ownership as difficult as possible, not because of a concern that education and public perception needs improvement, but as a xenophobic reaction that people that own guns have the intention of using it to KILL OTHER PEOPLE. Think of the number of minor trafic offenses you can get, as a condition of your drivers license you accept the fines & demerit points. Minor stuffup with storage and your criminally charged.

That, no joke, it Australias retarded responce to gun control. I saw a mentally retarded person cross 4 lanes on the highway the other day at the pedestrian crossing when it was green, was extremely close. What we going to do, ban them from walking without supervision?

The reality is in parts of the country you don't go out at night without a gun because of wild dogs. The reality is, that the owners of firearms used in crimes prolifically categorise as a) mentally retarded b) had an unlicensed gun i.e black market c) were ethnic, ie, an immigrant without australian citizenship or d) manufactured privately (yup, thats right, manufactured).

Basically Australia lost all credibility when it let an interest group combine with a politician, to take advantage of a tragic event done by a mentally ill man, to take away firearms that had legitimate use.

The reality is, you can't even buy a tank with a toy airsoft gun in it in Australia, because naturally it would be used to terrorise people. God forbid you legitimately had an airsoft gun, and one of the bolts used to bolt the cabinet to the wall had shifted and come loose, and you got slapped with a criminal charge, and you stood before a Magistrate which hated firearms. Criminal record for you buddy, nobody will touch you.

Originally Posted by -{SpoonmaN}-

Strongly opposed to the general public having access to any kind of firearm myself. I might be willing to accept the concept of private citizens bearing firearms on the basis of a percieved need for self-protection if the sale of said firearms and ammunition carried at least a 300% tax that went directly to funding law enforcement and emergency services, since the above must be inadequate or people would not feel the need to buy firearms.

In the US, at least, multiple courts have ruled that it is not the legal role of law enforcement to protect individual citizens from crime. So, no, its not the money that's the problem. There will be a need in the US for self-protection as long as we have our current legal structure. We already do pay an excise tax on guns and ammunition (and bows and arrows), but that goes for conservation.

It also depends on what you consider "access." I can go into WalMart, buy a few items, and make a firearm out of them in an afternoon, including ammo. So do you close all the WalMarts, or just empty them of anything that can be used that way?

Originally Posted by GraniteForge

It also depends on what you consider "access." I can go into WalMart, buy a few items, and make a firearm out of them in an afternoon, including ammo. So do you close all the WalMarts, or just empty them of anything that can be used that way?

Luckily not that many people have the knowledge or capability to do so. The true heart of this entire discussion is, why do certain legislature leaders wish to ban firearms? Obviously banning firearms does nothing to decrease crime or increase the safety of individual citizens.

Originally Posted by BadKharma

Luckily not that many people have the knowledge or capability to do so. The true heart of this entire discussion is, why do certain legislature leaders wish to ban firearms? Obviously banning firearms does nothing to decrease crime or increase the safety of individual citizens.

It makes it look like they are doing something about crime. It's simple to blame some inanimate objects as the source of the problem. It's much harder to tackle the real issue of poor upbringing, poor moral judgement, even drugs, or worse yet, the existance of evil people.

Originally Posted by omon

what else do you consider law abiding citizen?? and how do you prove it????

lol, kinda like saying, we shouldn,t automaticly assume that it is hot outside, even thou thermometer shows 100f.

Sorry, that wasn't worded as well as it could have been. I wanted to stress that you should not only be a law-abiding citizen, but have to prove that you're mature enough to handle firearms. The simple fact that you haven't committed any crimes (or, even worse, simply haven't been caught) isn't enough. It's not enough for a car, it shouldn't be enough for a firearm.

Originally Posted by GraniteForge

But that is not really how vehicles are handled. Licensing is only required to operate a motor vehicle on public roads, not to purchase or own one, or to operate on private land. I can take a big wad of cash, drive three states over, and buy all the cars I want, at 4 am, without anyone making a report to the government. Perfectly legal. Can't do that with guns.

Bah, specifics.

How to exercise the control may be different, but the desired end result is basically the same.

Originally Posted by DPrime

Sorry, that wasn't worded as well as it could have been. I wanted to stress that you should not only be a law-abiding citizen, but have to prove that you're mature enough to handle firearms. The simple fact that you haven't committed any crimes (or, even worse, simply haven't been caught) isn't enough. It's not enough for a car, it shouldn't be enough for a firearm.

Your approach has 2 problems.

1. the presumption if guilt
2. gun ownership is a right specified in our constitution

Our constitution doesn't guarantee the right to marry, the right to have an abortion, even the right to vote. But it does guarantee the right to keep and bear arms.

Originally Posted by gunnut

Your approach has 2 problems.

1. the presumption if guilt
2. gun ownership is a right specified in our constitution

Our constitution doesn't guarantee the right to marry, the right to have an abortion, even the right to vote. But it does guarantee the right to keep and bear arms.

I'm not entirely sure the Constitution applies, necessarily. Specifically it's "the right to bear arms", correct? (I'm no expert, nor even a US citizen, so correct me if I'm wrong.) Part of the argument is where to draw the line at "arms", right?

And you can call it the presumption of guilt if you want, but let's face the fact. Just because you're not a criminal does not, nor should it, mean you're mature enough to properly handle a firearm.

I'm not for a ban on assault weapons, but I do think it's necessary to determine who's mature enough to use them. 18+ and no criminal record is no guarantee of maturity - I think we've all seen that.

Originally Posted by DPrime

I'm not entirely sure the Constitution applies, necessarily. Specifically it's "the right to bear arms", correct? (I'm no expert, nor even a US citizen, so correct me if I'm wrong.) Part of the argument is where to draw the line at "arms", right?

And you can call it the presumption of guilt if you want, but let's face the fact. Just because you're not a criminal does not, nor should it, mean you're mature enough to properly handle a firearm.

I'm not for a ban on assault weapons, but I do think it's necessary to determine who's mature enough to use them. 18+ and no criminal record is no guarantee of maturity - I think we've all seen that.

You're wrong. Merry Xmas!

-dale

Originally Posted by DPrime

I'm not entirely sure the Constitution applies, necessarily. Specifically it's "the right to bear arms", correct? (I'm no expert, nor even a US citizen, so correct me if I'm wrong.) Part of the argument is where to draw the line at "arms", right?

The specific wording is:

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.

It is interpreted that this militia means every able bodied man. After all, who makes up the militia? Elected officials? Government organizations? Those are called military. Militia is the masses. The volunteers.

Arms is interpreted as small arms/side arms used by the military. Missiles are not small arms. Grenades and bombs are not small arms. Rifles, pistols, shotguns are. Rifles also include assault rifles. Rifles do not include heavy machineguns since they are known as "crew served weapons."

Originally Posted by DPrime

And you can call it the presumption of guilt if you want, but let's face the fact. Just because you're not a criminal does not, nor should it, mean you're mature enough to properly handle a firearm.

The right to keep and bear arms is guaranteed by the 2nd amendment. It is a right. Not a priviledge. That means we don't earn it. We are given it just by being alive. It is to us a basic human right.

If it's a right, then it cannot be taken away without a proper trial as guaranteed in the 5th amendment of the constitution.

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Originally Posted by DPrime

I'm not for a ban on assault weapons, but I do think it's necessary to determine who's mature enough to use them. 18+ and no criminal record is no guarantee of maturity - I think we've all seen that.

It is a right. Maturity has nothing to do with it. For example, it is my right to run for public office or to vote. You cannot take those rights away from me without due process of the law. Driving is not a right. I need to earn the priviledge to operate a motor vehicle. No court is needed to remove that priviledge from me. All I have to do is fail a state sanctioned test and the state can force me not to drive.