Second Amendment

reply to post by Galvatron

ahh, then we have one of "those" posters on our hands, i was vaguely suspicious when all of my counter points were addressed with a rewording of the original question. time to exit the thread methinks.

can you provide an example of when these weapons (that have been legal to own for decades) have caused a problem in the hands of a citizen? death tolls, violation of rights, etc?

edit on 4-6-2013 by Bob Sholtz because: (no reason given)

Since the National Firearms act of 1934, there have been two deaths by individuals who legally owned a title two weapon. i.e. "machine gun", "destructive device", or "any other weapon". Both after the FOPA of 1986:

On September 15th, 1988, a 13-year veteran of the Dayton, Ohio police department, Patrolman Roger Waller, then 32, used his fully automatic MAC-11 .380 caliber submachine gun to kill a police informant, 52-year-old Lawrence Hileman. Patrolman Waller pleaded guilty in 1990, and he and an accomplice were sentenced to 18 years in prison. The 1986 'ban' on sales of new machine guns does not apply to purchases by law enforcement or government agencies.

The other in 1992. Both, oddly enough, were in the state of Ohio.

Since the NFA registry of 1934, two deaths from legally owned title two (class III) weapons.

Edite: What Xtrozero said.


Since it is extremely illegal to both transfer or sell title two weaponry in the US without FBI and ATF authorization, it is highly suspect that deaths in the US by illegal fully automatic firearms were originally legal weapons.in the first place. Either they are converted semi-auto weapons (depending on the weapon can range from moderate to extremely difficult), or were smuggled into the US from abroad. Considering how many containers come into the US a day and how many are actually searched, I have a feeling customs misses a few.

reply to post by Rocker2013


Ah the CRUX of your failure are clear now.
We are keeping the Constitution, thank you very much,however progressives like you we have and will go without.

Originally posted by Xtrozero

Originally posted by TheFlash

So should any US citizen be allowed to obtain, own and use .50 caliber automatic machine guns, mini-guns and other other gun in existence?

To bear means to hold so any gun that a single person can hold and operate should be allowed. Can you bear a 50. cal on full auto? As I said the framers did suggest a limit by saying only "arms" in their amendment so twin 50. cals mounted on you pickup truck would be going well away from their intent and more in the area of artillery, ordinance, cannon, which all are not arms as to the framers intent.

Since the 1934 regulation act there has been 2, count them, 2 deaths from machine guns in America, one was a cop killing an informant after 1986. In 1986 they were outlawed for citizens to own...can you explain the driving force behind that? Was it the one death in the 30s to cause this?

Explain to me why my M4 should not be full auto if I so desire? I have 28 years of military service, well trained, carry one in the field still as a contractor, but at home I can't own one.

edit on 4-6-2013 by Xtrozero because: (no reason given)

You STILL have not answered my question so I will try asking one more time,

Do you think that any US citizen who wants one should be allowed to own any "arm" that he wants?

And another - what checks should be done on a person before selling him a gun?

Originally posted by TheFlash
You STILL have not answered my question so I will try asking one more time,

Do you think that any US citizen who wants one should be allowed to own any "arm" that he wants?

And another - what checks should be done on a person before selling him a gun?

You still haven't acknowledged or replied to a single post that adequately explains/counters/addresses your opening post.

reply to post by TheFlash


NOPE,not at all.
Happy?
We can own jet fighters:www.globalplanesearch.com...

Disarmed of course.
Cannons,tanks we can have all of these,disarmed of course.

Originally posted by cavtrooper7
reply to post by TheFlash

 

NOPE,not at all.
Happy?
We can own jet fighters:www.globalplanesearch.com...

Disarmed of course.
Cannons,tanks we can have all of these,disarmed of course.

edit on 4-6-2013 by cavtrooper7 because: (no reason given)

Yep, even SU27s. A friend of mine is in specialty aviation underwriting. There are a handful of Ukrainian SU27 Flankers in private possession in the US. They fly. One of them was refit with US avionics, engines, the whole shebang to make maintenance easier since everything on the original planes was in Cyrillic. I think there's a video on youtube somewhere where the guy is testing his new GE engines in a Ukrainian SU27... pretty cool stuff. I don't have that kind of cash, and I'm not sure I'd want that kind of cash, but boys and their toys. Behind every great man is a woman rolling her eyes.

Originally posted by TheFlash


So are you saying that there should be no limits on what "arms" US citizens can own and that anyone who wants one should be allowed to obtain, own and use RPGs, hand grenades, chemical weapons, biological weapons, and nuclear weapons?

Ah. the tired old crap argument of hand-grenades and RPGs.

Got anything outside group think to offer?

reply to post by Rocker2013


You still pre-faced an argument with one thing, and then turn around and do that which you stated would happen to you.

You cry wolf, only to be eaten by the wolf, while crying wolf.

Dishonest, as that is the nicest thing to say, given your statements.

Originally posted by Xtrozero


Explain to me why my M4 should not be full auto if I so desire? I have 28 years of military service, well trained, carry one in the field still as a contractor, but at home I can't own one.

Because it is scary to him and other Anti-Gin Rights people.

Originally posted by macman

Originally posted by Xtrozero


Explain to me why my M4 should not be full auto if I so desire? I have 28 years of military service, well trained, carry one in the field still as a contractor, but at home I can't own one.

Because it is scary to him and other Anti-Gin Rights people.

Even though only two people have been killed by legally owned machine guns since 1934.

Originally posted by TheFlash

You STILL have not answered my question so I will try asking one more time,

Do you think that any US citizen who wants one should be allowed to own any "arm" that he wants?

And another - what checks should be done on a person before selling him a gun?

To directly answer your question.

1. Yes, ANY arms that has been defined to ad nauseam as firearms that can be held and operated by a single person and which is not considered, artillery, ordnance or cannon in nature. I would also agree to limit the one offs weapons that are a grey area but are considered mass destruction in nature, and beyond normal military issue.

2. Yes, ANY citizen that has not revoked/suspended their right to do so. Once again the point here is to limit the ill responsible, criminal and mentally ill, but all three normally require some kind of physical action on the individual to be so labeled except for age that would be defined as ill responsible without physical action also applied.

3. Background checks are already required, but we need to be careful with that too since this is a way to infringe on our right to bear arms. Once again this means nothing to the person that doesn't have a history of problems, but then I do recall that we are innocent until proven guilty.

Originally posted by Xtrozero

Originally posted by TheFlash

You STILL have not answered my question so I will try asking one more time,

Do you think that any US citizen who wants one should be allowed to own any "arm" that he wants?

And another - what checks should be done on a person before selling him a gun?

To directly answer your question.

1. Yes, ANY arms that has been defined to ad nauseam as firearms that can be held and operated by a single person and which is not considered, artillery, ordnance or cannon in nature. I would also agree to limit the one offs weapons that are a grey area but are considered mass destruction in nature, and beyond normal military issue.

2. Yes, ANY citizen that has not revoked their right to do so. Once again the point here is to limit the ill responsible, criminal and mentally ill, but all three normally require some kind of physical action on the individual to be so labeled except for age that would be defined as ill responsible without physical action also applied.

3. Background checks are already required, but we need to be careful with that too since this is a way to infringe on our right to bear arms. Once again this means nothing to the person that doesn't have a history of problems, but then I do recall that we are innocent until proven guilty.

"Revoked their right", eh? That would seem to imply an act of volition and involuntary mental illness would not seem to fit, would you agree?

reply to post by Xtrozero


Sounds reasonable to me. I agree with that. Oh wait, isn't most of that already law and criteria by which citizens can own arms of differing nature?

Sure there are some exceptions you mention, but before the NFA of 1934, the Gun Control Act of 1968, and the FOPA of 1986, all of your exceptions weren't exceptions, and we didn't have a problem then. So why the problem now?

reply to post by TheFlash


Voluntary or not, someone, through criminal action, and proven to be guilty of said action, has by the very fact that they are the ones to have done the action, has revoked their own right. Think involuntary manslaughter for a drunk driver killing someone. There's already more than enough precedent. If I drink myself silly, I am quite literally temporarily insane, hence why it is called involuntary manslaughter. My sober self wouldn't voluntarily commit that crime. Again, it has to be proven in court that it was involuntary.

The point is you can't make examples of people for potentiality. If that were the case, then by that logic, Muslims would not be allowed to live in the US because of the risk of them committing terrorism. Likewise, you can't prevent someone from owning a firearm because they hate their job, or take anti-depressants. You can only do something if they commit a crime. Considering how many people are on anti-depressants and how small a problem, in the grand scheme of things, firearm ownership is for violent crime, I would say it's a bit of a stretch.

reply to post by Galvatron

I think that is their point, we scare them worse because they are either hoplophobic or party members towing the line.
I don't see how anyone cannot put the facts together.Bad people can't be stopped by restraining good people from basic self defense.It won't be tolerated and it will be turned back,like here in Colo.

We engender the fear of those would would invade because we are are indeed armed and capable.

##snipped##

Originally posted by macman

Because it is scary to him and other Anti-Gin Rights people.

99% of the guns on the banned list were there because they are "scary looking" the deer rifle with the same fire power is OK since it is not scary.


I came across this article The 5 deadliest guns you can buy online legally

The funny part is all these guns combined contribute less than 100 murders out of the 8k.

I would say the most dangerous gun is one that cost less than 50 bucks.

Originally posted by TheFlash

Originally posted by spock51

Originally posted by TheFlash

Originally posted by spock51
All references arguing the inapplicability of the Heller decision are from the Washington Post.

You are the wrong one my friend. First of all, the ruling occurred in Washington in a case in Washington DC. Which paper did you think it should be reported in - The Miami Herald? The second thing you were wrong about was that all the references I posted with regard to this legal issue were from the Washington Post. My 7:50 AM post on 5/31 linked to the Touro Law Review as a reference which states:

it leaves unresolved the incorporation issue-whether the Second Amendment applies to the states or only to the federal government. That basic question was not presented or resolved in Heller because at issue in Heller was a D.C. law, and the District of Columbia is a federal enclave.

If you believe otherwise please share your legal degrees with us. I hope that you were more observant in your time as a law enforcement official.

I have clearly shown here that you are in error and that the things you say should are to be doubted at the very least.

Pardon me for my erroneous claim that ALL your references quote the Post. My bad. We all know that the Touro Law Group is the DEFINITIVE authority on matters of constitutionality and in no way a liberal enclave expressing a legal OPINION on a ruling.
I do not have a law degree, but I will bet you that I have spent more time with lawyers and judges in courtrooms trying actual cases than you have. I have seen first hand some of the absolutely ridiculous, ludicrous and downright STUPID sh*t lawyers espouse as fact in open court. You will have to do a hell of a lot better at refuting my argument than that, sonny. American law is dynamic, complex and most definitely open to debate. If every single legal opinion espoused by every single lawyer choosing to express one were to be considered fact, we would be in a helluva fix now wouldn't we?
When you come to debate and your base consists of legal opinions, be adult enough to openly state that they are opinions but you feel they are logical, sensible and applicable to your position. When you come here and try to smack down people who disagree by portraying these legal OPINIONS as fact, you marginalize your argument and your credibility. You become irrelevant.
You did not open this thread to debate the 2nd Amendment. You opened it to bash ":gunners" and to be snarky with those who disagree.
Knock yourself out kid.
I have better things to do these days.

I await your references to reputable, legal sources proclaiming that the ruling in question applies to all US states and not just to Federal Enclaves. I have seen no such evidence and until I do, my evidence stands.

If you have any shred of evidence showing that the "Touro Law Group is ... a liberal enclave" and not just your opinion then share that also.

edit on 4-6-2013 by TheFlash because: (no reason given)

There is only one reputable source having the authority to give a definitive ruling on the intent of the Heller case. If the court sees fit to explain its intent, then we will have our answer. Otherwise, your assertion that said ruling only applies to Federal Enclaves is based solely on OPINIONS, as is mine. My entire point has been that you are arguing a moot technicality which you see as a negation of the moral and ethical value of the ruling, and; therefore, the 2nd Amendment itself when, in fact, it is irrelevant to both the intent of the 2nd amendment and to the authority of the States in regulating firearms. It makes no damn difference in any sensible debate about the 2nd Amendment.
As to the Touro Law Group, look over the list of "distinguished" alumni and their contributions. Besides, universities in general are liberal. Having trod the ivy draped halls of academia as both student and guest lecturer (Criminal Justice, Criminal Psychology from the Police Perspective) , I have no problem recognizing liberal notions when confronted by them.
Admittedly, this was all close to 40years ago, but, hey, liberalism hasn't changed since then. Neither has the murder rate in Chicago, and other bastions of near Draconian gun restrictions, except to go up and up. I reiterate, stop whining about law abiding citizens having guns and start hammering away at the system that fails to rigidly enforce the laws we already have, to address the social issues which breed crime and to focus public resources on those areas instead of anthropomorphizing a tool and laying all the blame there. Americans will NOT submit to blanket gun registrations and universal background checks when they have committed no crime. It is an unwarranted invasion of privacy.

reply to post by cavtrooper7


My wife's friend is a dyed in the wool anti 2a person. Which is funny because my wife is a shooter. Anyway, I was getting ready to go train a little bit over a weekend this winter and my wife's friend was over. She quite literally recoiled in fear when I was putting my kit together. Not knowing at this point that she was anti 2a, I cleared the handgun I was taking (glock 17), removed the magazine, and tried to hand her the weapon. She literally took a step back and had a deer in headlights look on her face. She asked me where I was going and what I was doing. I work as a private military contractor, usually in Afghanistan, Iraq, but more often in Indonesia (malacca strait) now guarding container ships from potential pirates. There's actually a whole lot more action in that than it seems. I'm at the end of a 6 month medical for a leg injury. Basically I was trying to stay fresh. Marksmanship and fitness are perishable. She looked at me, and continues to look at me like I'm some weirdo. I hate it. It's a shame, because I get along well with her husband, who doesn't seem to care either way about the 2a.

She had never seen a real gun until that point, but she was sacred stiff at the sight of one. Talk about indoctrinated.

Hoplophobia is a great word. I will use it!

reply to post by spock51


You have not provided proof nor any evidence that the ruling applies to all states. I have already shown how the opinions of many here regarding the sample size numbers needed for accurate polling were wrong, yet no one was man enough to admit that. I have also provided evidence that the ruling in question applies to Federal enclaves and I have not seen anything to the contrary. Nor do I see the evidence that the Touro group is liberal. That is merely your opinion.