And therein lies the problem w/ the thought patterns of the uneducated, chattering, nattering "masses" re: the 2nd.
Brownell's: Frank talk about guns
-
Please take a moment and update your account profile. If you have an updated account profile with basic information on why you are on Air Warriors it will help other people respond to your posts. How do you update your profile you ask?
Go here:
Edit Account Details and Profile
Very sad - Cooper firearms
- Thread starter Pugs
- Start date
And therein lies the problem w/ the thought patterns of the uneducated, chattering, nattering "masses" re: the 2nd.
Brownell's: Frank talk about guns
I've said it before and I'll say it again....
I don't have to prove that I should be allowed to have any particular weapon...the second amendment guarantees me that right. Quite the opposite in fact, the government must prove that I have a detrimental effect on the rights, liberty and freedom of other citizens to prevent me from having one. Period. Full stop.
The burden of proof must lie with the government, just as it does with the prosecution in a criminal case.
Whats the need to use words like c**t and f**k when simple, gentle, lower-caliber words will do?
It would be helpful if you quoted what you were responding to (you P**sy
)Sir,
I have read possibly 1,000 of your posts. I have disagreed with your opinions often but always learned something. Your comments have caused me to read and reflect on some of my views. and I appreciate the learning.
This post however reminded me that you're as human as me. And capable of making no sense whatsoever on occasion.
V/R, Z
I touched a nerve, I am shocked.
Do you all honestly believe the government should not put limits on what arms American citizens can own? You can use all of the same arguments above to allow people to own anti-tank missiles, RPG's, grenades, artillery, plastic explosives or even a ZU-23. They are a thrill to shoot/use too, and each offer a challenge employing them. And there is no definition of 'arms' in the Constitution, why not apply it to all of the arms I listed?
I am not a great fan of gun control in this country, I think it is largely ineffective for several reasons. But gun control has been used to great effect for a few types of weapons, like fully automatic weapons and some of the other 'arms' I listed.
And if you disagree with me and say that all of the above examples are strawmen, where would you define the 'upper' limit? I am familiar with what the law considers the limit, how about you all? I really would like to know.
But would do I know, I would have to defer to Justice Antonin Scalia in this case:
"Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues......Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons."
District of Columbia v. Heller
I touched a nerve, I am shocked.
Do you all honestly believe the government should not put limits on what arms American citizens can own? You can use all of the same arguments above to allow people to own anti-tank missiles, RPG's, grenades, artillery, plastic explosives or even a ZU-23. They are a thrill to shoot/use too, and each offer a challenge employing them. And there is no definition of 'arms' in the Constitution, why not apply it to all of the arms I listed?
I am not a great fan of gun control in this country, I think it is largely ineffective for several reasons. But gun control has been used to great effect for a few types of weapons, like fully automatic weapons and some of the other 'arms' I listed.
And if you disagree with me and say that all of the above examples are strawmen, where would you define the 'upper' limit? I am familiar with what the law considers the limit, how about you all? I really would like to know.
But would do I know, I would have to defer to Justice Antonin Scalia in this case:
"Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues......Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons."
District of Columbia v. Heller
Well there are a few things to consider when talking about limiting arms. There is a limit on arms right now. You can't go to Wallyworld to go buy an RPG-7 obviously. You can't buy machine gun either at Wallyworld.
Class III License. When you have one the guvahment knows what you got and if they don't you're breaking the law.
As I said before I don't see why it is such a big deal. One the government is supposed to keep track of the class III weapons a person owns and if they start acquiring a pretty large amount of automatic weapons the Feds roll up and check it out and say "Hey broski how come you are stocking up on full-autos?" Insert his response whatever it may be.
The fact is that he registered those weapons with the government.
Now if we start marking foolish arguments about how they can be used for criminal acts let's go ahead and take a gander at history. Now as I said before I haven't heard of anyone taking .50 cals to the head or running around with a Ma Deuce gunning people down.
And yes I recall the LA shooting involving the AK-47. That was more on the fault of the ill-prepared LAPD than anything.
The problem is that criminals don't obey laws. That's why they are criminals. Sure I don't need a machine gun to defend myself from a robber. The noise of a 12-gauge pump shotgun will probably make him shit himself but hey if the zombies attack I do need them.(insert sarcasm, funny haha) I probably don't need an RPG-7. Also I can't afford it and most people can't afford it. Just like I can't afford to buy a Ma Deuce, but someone can and if you're successful enough to be able to afford them and you register that Class III weapon I think it is your right to be able to blow away some 50 gallon drums all day long.
The day you need it most is the day you don't have it. I don't want to be in that situation. Let common sense
prevail.
And what was the point of quoting the passage of the case that reversed the DC handgun ban? (Actually curious)
I am pretty certain that specialized .50 cal sniper rifles are a relatively recent development
I thought that .50 caliber rifles were not covered National Firearms Act, hence the proposed law:
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=h109-654
The point was that even a conservative justice like Justice Scalia agrees that there should be limits imposed on arms ownership.
"Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose"
I understand that .50cal rifles are not covered. I was not trying to imply that they were more so that they have not in recent memory to my knowledge been used in an abusive manner which would warrant such a restriction. Yea it's a cannon.
But that's like saying hey you're gonna need a Class III for that .44 Mag.
You don't need a .44 Mag for self-defense.
But you might want to use that hand-cannon to have a little fun or maybe you're just a sick bastard who waits for the opportunity to play Harry Callahan.
I think the lines drawn now are fine and I also think Justice Scalia was referring to those restrictions already in place to a certain extent. To what he might have been alluding to, I don't know. I'd need to ask for clarification.
The point is that a .50 cal rifle is not going to pose as large a threat to an individual as 9mm pistol if we sit back and face reality. Does that mean you take the right away from people to defend themselves with such weapons even they are more often used in crimes. No.
If it ain't broke don't fix it.
Respectfully, screw that. That proposed law is the slippery slope that we should all legitimately fear. No reason other than to kill someone? That opens up the can of worms that handguns, which are rarely used to hunt other than to finish off wounded game from a bad shot, have no purpose other than to kill someone...and ought to be banned as well. On top of this, how many .50 sniper rifles have actually been used to murder anyone? If the numbers are low (i don't know them, but I'm assuming they're probably in the same range as assault weapons used in crime), then this really isn't about controlling crime at all, it's about controlling the law abiding citizenry.
Too many dominoes start tipping over when I think about a government that's this interested in controlling what citizens do for no purpose other than just that: control.
Too many dominoes start tipping over when I think about a government that's this interested in controlling what citizens do for no purpose other than just that: control.
I don't think anyone has been killed in a crime involving a .50 cal sniper rifle in this country. They are relatively new weapons, especially in the civilian world.
Just because they have not been used yet does not mean they shouldn't be restricted just like fully sutomatic weapons. Those are restricted, but have only been used in a very small number of crimes. Should we let people have ZU-23's until someone decides to take out their neighbor's car with it?
How much does a ZU-23 cost? And why would I try to take out a car with an anti-aircraft cannon? I don't understand why you are using that example.
We are on the same page right?
If so I'm pretty sure that falls under Class III's if it's even legal to own.
Not to mention it's probably out of reach for most consumers.
I don't think we are on the same page. I was trying to use what I thought was an absurd example of what could be legal if you took the definition of 'arms' to the extreme.
As for taking out a car, you aren't thinking outside the box.
I hope they ain't legal.......
http://www.metacafe.com/watch/182858/mini_gun/
From about 23 seconds on...Legal, unneccessary, expensive and absolutely awesome!
And yes Flash, I don't think that the 2nd Amendment is an absolute right...there must be reasonable limitations, just like there are with the First Amendment rights etc...however, I think in all cases, while limiting Constitutionally protected rights, the burden of cause must lie with the party seeking to limit the right.
From about 23 seconds on...Legal, unneccessary, expensive and absolutely awesome!
And yes Flash
, I don't think that the 2nd Amendment is an absolute right...there must be reasonable limitations, just like there are with the First Amendment rights etc...however, I think in all cases, while limiting Constitutionally protected rights, the burden of cause must lie with the party seeking to limit the right.
I hope they ain't legal.......
Flash,
Invoking the "I know it when I see it" wrt firearms is as insane as it is with porn.
Just because you or "them" think it might be dangerous is no reason to restrict their ownership. My experience is that people that go to the expense/trouble to own stuff like this don't use them for criminal acts. There has not been a criminal act with a legally owned machine gun since the inception of the National Firearms Act of 1934 so why do you give a damn if your neighbor owns one?
You remind me of a fellow ECMO, Biscuit, a well educated guy from Boston with no mental connection to how the rest of the country lives and works. He was a completely hopeless liberal and thought we should all be like him. (decent ECMO though)