We need a GUN thread: What are you gonna buy when the AWB expires?

[burbleflyer 0]

Quote

Quote

You trying to say it's not?!

Correct. Give the man a cigar!

I see nothing wrong with limiting certain guns. We can banter all day about which ones should or should not be in the hands of the average citizen all day, but I think even you would agree that the Second Amendment does not refer to -all- weapons. If it does not refer to -all- weapons, then clearly -some- restrictions -are- allowable.

Then again, I thought you knew that.

Go to the back of the class and stand with your nose in the corner.
The SA has nothing to do with hunting.
Do some research on US v Miller.
What part of "shall not be infringed" dont you understand? Is english your first language? Have you read any history? Sheesh.

[burbleflyer 0]

Quote

Quote

You need to get to know your rifle.
The AR rifle is a modular rifle. It splits in half very easily by design with two push pins.
The top half is the upper receiver, the bottom half is the lower. You can swap uppers from one rifle to another in seconds. You could swap a flat top with a A2 or anything else and believe me "anything else" covers a lot of ground including calibers.
For legal purposes, the lower is the "gun".

Oh oh oh I remember now. Back 7 years ago (the last time I lived near a range where I could fire my AR-15) I was pretty good (for a self-taught civilian) at taking down and cleaning my rifle. In about half an hour I could probably be just as good as I was 7 years ago.

I seem to recall, though, an admonition to NOT swap parts between rifles, as this could be dangerous. Am I imagining that I remember reading that in the manual? (I have two manuals -- one for the Colt HBAR I have and one for the actual M-16, but they're almost interchangeable.)

As I recall that thing was a LOT of fun to fire, and so gentle, too!

-

They say you shouldnt swap bolts from rifle to rifle but the military does it all the time. If you do, you should recheck headspace. Any other parts are interchangeable.

[TypicalFish 0]

You know, I genuinely didn't know what that one () meant...

Hmmm; I don't know that I would say I am "pro-gun", at least in the common definition. It is my "one vote" opinion that the 2nd amendment has been "interpreted" based on the prejudices of the group doing the interpretation. I personally believe that the founding fathers wanted to ensure that every American could adequately defend his home, state, or country against aggressors.

However, I do not believe that they envisioned the type of weapons that are available now, the utter indiscriminate destruction that can be wreaked by one wacko with an automatic weapon. I think that we as a society have taken the original intention of the statement and perverted it according to our own wants and wishes (as we do most things).

Additonally, at the time of the authoring of the Constitution, the universal thought was that the existence of a standing army in peacetime was the most serious threat to liberty, therefore, there was a real NEED on the part of citizens to do their own defending and policing. Quite frankly, the conditions under which the Second Amendment were written no longer exist.

Does that mean that it should be done away with? No, but I do think it means that it should be open to intelligent interpretation in the name of the common good.

So, honestly I am not sure how you would define position other than "Matt's position"....

"I gargle no man's balls..." ussfpa on SOCNET

[Kennedy 0]

Quote

Does the Second Amendment say "the right of the people to keep and bear ALL TYPES OF arms shall not be infringed?"

See, that's where you and I are differing. I believe rights should be viewed as widely as possible, whereas you seem to think they should be read as strictly as possible.

I ask you, does it say that it DOES NOT refer to ALL TYPES of arms anywhere?

Does the bill of rights say ALL TYPES of press should be free? No? Let's go force all porn mags and tabloid rags out of business....

edit: now in this I agree with you. I just think people should be allowed to choose for themselves how best to accomplish those goals.

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

[burbleflyer 0]

The Supreme Court, in US v Miller asked the question if the weapon in question (a short barreled shotgun) was suitable for military use. It obviously was since in the first world war they were used quite extensively in the trenches. The problem was that Miller nor his lawyers showed up for the argument and the ATF lied that it wasnt.
The firearms laws in this country would be far different if Miller had presented a defence.
How hard is it for a person to understand "shall not be infringed"?

[peacefuljeffrey 0]

Quote

I see nothing wrong with limiting certain guns. We can banter all day about which ones should or should not be in the hands of the average citizen all day, but I think even you would agree that the Second Amendment does not refer to -all- weapons. If it does not refer to -all- weapons, then clearly -some- restrictions -are- allowable.

Then again, I thought you knew that.

The huge trouble arises when those who hate guns and the right to have them try to use this area in which there must be consensus and twist it to serve a clearly anti-gun end.

They launch from the thesis, "Well, clearly there must be some 'common sense' restrictions on some weapons," straight into camouflaged attempts to incrementally reduce the types of allowable guns until there are none left with any semblance of utility, until all we're left with is single-shot .22s.

If the gun is too big, it's "high-powered." If it's too small, it's "too concealable -- a Saturday Night Special." If it's any good for killing deer or elk at 300 yards, even though it's bolt-action, it's a "sniper rifle." If it's semi-automatic, it's an "assault rifle." If it's made with some plastic in it, it's a "terrorist special." The .50 caliber is too big, the Raven .25 is too small. You'd think the .380 would be just right, but they can't even import Walther PPKs because they don't score enough BATF points to meet the "sporting arms" definition. But it's not high-powered! It's not high-capacity!

If the anti-gun morons would just enter the discourse IN GOOD FAITH we could just arrive at some basic level and establish some protected classes of guns based on RATIONALITY and FUNCTION rather than hysterics and cosmetics, and maybe if that were solidly codified in law we could say, alright, we'll give up these other guns. The only problem with that is, if we were left with anything close to reasonably powerful guns that function well for defense and sport alike, it's hard to imagine what would be being saved by banning any of the remainder. I mean, if we said people could keep their HK USPs and their AR-15s and their Glock 22s, 27s, 19s, 17s... but couldn't have a Raven .25 -- what would be the need or argument for banning that Raven .25?? It's like the claim that the AWB prevented murders -- HOW? If someone wanted to murder, he didn't go to a gun shop, find out that he couldn't get a rifle that had a flash suppressor AND bayonet lug, and walk out without a rifle saying, "Shit, now there's no gun I canuse to commit this murder," because he could just buy the same gun without the cosmetics! So what is saved when one "type" of gun is eliminated but hundreds remain available?

So anti-gunners screw up the discourse by constantly lying about what they want, constantly asking for this but with their eyes set on the goal of that. Some of them have actually had the balls to ADMIT that their goal is to take away all guns, incrementally, but most of them are full of shit and lie and say, "All we want is common sense laws." Well, we HAVE those already. They're called the law against murder and shooting people.

So because the anti-gunners are not willing to discuss this in good faith, we cannot even get NEAR a discourse on which arms qualify for Second Amendment protection, because they march in and start wanting everything in the store to be outlawed, granting nothing and conceding nothing and compromising nothing. That's why NRA-types have to stand fast and say NO arm is to be allowed to be infringed, even though we all off-the-record agree that the average citizen shouldn't have RPGs and Howitzers and stuff (or DO we? Some argue that they are necessary to be in the hands of civilians in order to be a constant deterrent to a tyrannical government.).

-

-Jeffrey
"With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

[burbleflyer 0]

Quote

You know, I genuinely didn't know what that one () meant...

Hmmm; I don't know that I would say I am "pro-gun", at least in the common definition. It is my "one vote" opinion that the 2nd amendment has been "interpreted" based on the prejudices of the group doing the interpretation. I personally believe that the founding fathers wanted to ensure that every American could adequately defend his home, state, or country against aggressors.

However, I do not believe that they envisioned the type of weapons that are available now, the utter indiscriminate destruction that can be wreaked by one wacko with an automatic weapon. I think that we as a society have taken the original intention of the statement and perverted it according to our own wants and wishes (as we do most things).

Additonally, at the time of the authoring of the Constitution, the universal thought was that the existence of a standing army in peacetime was the most serious threat to liberty, therefore, there was a real NEED on the part of citizens to do their own defending and policing. Quite frankly, the conditions under which the Second Amendment were written no longer exist.

Does that mean that it should be done away with? No, but I do think it means that it should be open to intelligent interpretation in the name of the common good.

So, honestly I am not sure how you would define position other than "Matt's position"....

How can you say that with a straight face? We have a HUGE standing army!

[TypicalFish 0]

Quote

See, that's where you and I are differing. I believe rights should be viewed as widely as possible, whereas you seem to think they should be read as strictly as possible.

This is a good point, though I think you are putting me a bit too far to the "as strictly as possible" side. I just think that there is room for interpretation without blaspheming the original document and intent.

Quote

I ask you, does it say that it DOES NOT refer to ALL TYPES of arms anywhere?

Absolutely not, as I said, you raise an important point.

Quote

Does the bill of rights say ALL TYPES of press should be free? No? Let's go force all porn mags and tabloid rags out of business....

When was the last time you saw a pedophilia magazine on the news stands? Or a drug magazine? (No, I am not comparing those things to gun ownership. Not at all.) You don't see those things because they are a perversion of that right. What I am saying is that there is room for restriction in the name of the common good without destroying the original intent.

"I gargle no man's balls..." ussfpa on SOCNET

[Kennedy 0]

Just to bring this thread closer to its beginnings, I am now the proud owner of my first revolver (not my first firearm).

It is a Taurus 650 CIA stainless steel. It is sweet.
(do wish I could have afforded the titanium or scandium or other lightweight model, though)

Yeah, I know, it has nothing to do with the AWB, but hey, it's a purchase.

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

[TypicalFish 0]

Quote

How can you say that with a straight face? We have a HUGE standing army!

Exactly my point. At the time of the authoring of the Declaration Of Independence, the thought was that there should not be a standing army. That has changed.

"I gargle no man's balls..." ussfpa on SOCNET

[burbleflyer 0]

The Constitution is not a "living document" open to interpretation. Its pretty freakin simple. It spells out our God given rights in fairly simple language.

Its funny how when interpreting any other amendmendt its real simple and means individuals.
When its the Second it means militia and is subject to restriction.
Get over it. Its a right to carry arms for individuals and it means any arms the military has that are carried by soldiers.

[TypicalFish 0]

Quote

If the anti-gun morons would just enter the discourse IN GOOD FAITH we could just arrive at some basic level and establish some protected classes of guns based on RATIONALITY and FUNCTION rather than hysterics and cosmetics, and maybe if that were solidly codified in law we could say, alright, we'll give up these other guns.

This is a VERY powerful point that quite frankly can probably be applied to most arguments of this nature.

"I gargle no man's balls..." ussfpa on SOCNET

[burbleflyer 0]

Quote

Quote

See, that's where you and I are differing. I believe rights should be viewed as widely as possible, whereas you seem to think they should be read as strictly as possible.

This is a good point, though I think you are putting me a bit too far to the "as strictly as possible" side. I just think that there is room for interpretation without blaspheming the original document and intent.

Quote

I ask you, does it say that it DOES NOT refer to ALL TYPES of arms anywhere?

Absolutely not, as I said, you raise an important point.

Quote

Does the bill of rights say ALL TYPES of press should be free? No? Let's go force all porn mags and tabloid rags out of business....

When was the last time you saw a pedophilia magazine on the news stands? Or a drug magazine? (No, I am not comparing those things to gun ownership. Not at all.) You don't see those things because they are a perversion of that right. What I am saying is that there is room for restriction in the name of the common good without destroying the original intent.

You know what that makes you?

[TypicalFish 0]

Quote

The Constitution is not a "living document" open to interpretation. Its pretty freakin simple. It spells out our God given rights in fairly simple language.

Not true at all. The reason that the amendment process was put in place was to allow the document to evolve with the changing times.Notice the recent furor over the gay marriage ban.

Or, for something nearer and dearer to skydiver's hearts, PROHIBITION was an amendment, just as important and enforceable as the Second amendment, whose time came and went. When it stopped making sense, it was repealed. (And before the dz.com gun lobby has a collective meltdown, I AM NOT SAYING THE 2ND SHOULD BE REPEALED).

"I gargle no man's balls..." ussfpa on SOCNET

[TypicalFish 0]

Quote

You know what that makes you?

Part of a society with laws to promote the common welfare? A citizen of the United States?

"I gargle no man's balls..." ussfpa on SOCNET

[Kennedy 0]

Quote

Quote

If the anti-gun morons would just enter the discourse IN GOOD FAITH we could just arrive at some basic level and establish some protected classes of guns based on RATIONALITY and FUNCTION rather than hysterics and cosmetics, and maybe if that were solidly codified in law we could say, alright, we'll give up these other guns.

This is a VERY powerful point that quite frankly can probably be applied to most arguments of this nature.

And most participants in those arguments.

Oh well, I'm off. Take care, all.

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

[burbleflyer 0]

Quote

Quote

If the anti-gun morons would just enter the discourse IN GOOD FAITH we could just arrive at some basic level and establish some protected classes of guns based on RATIONALITY and FUNCTION rather than hysterics and cosmetics, and maybe if that were solidly codified in law we could say, alright, we'll give up these other guns.

This is a VERY powerful point that quite frankly can probably be applied to most arguments of this nature.

That is absolutely fucking retarded! Then next week they'd ask for a different kind.
You know what? I want new machine guns. New machine were banned in 86. Legal MGs have never been used in a crime except ONCE by a cop. Look it up.
Go fuck yourself. You compromise MY WAY for once!

[peacefuljeffrey 0]

Quote

I personally believe that the founding fathers wanted to ensure that every American could adequately defend his home, state, or country against aggressors.

I definitely agree with the above.

Quote

However, I do not believe that they envisioned the type of weapons that are available now, the utter indiscriminate destruction that can be wreaked by one wacko with an automatic weapon. I think that we as a society have taken the original intention of the statement and perverted it according to our own wants and wishes (as we do most things).

Based on this, "we" (gun owners) are still operating on the ORIGINAL principle of the 2nd Amendment, the change in technology since its writing notwithstanding. WE are not the ones who have sought a change in how the 2nd Amendment is interpreted. It still means that the everyday citizen is entitled to protection of the right to keep and bear arms, regardless of the fact that guns are much more advanced than they were 228 years ago. That's what it meant back when it was written. So the only "we as a society" that has perverted the meaning of the 2nd Amendment to mean what they want it to mean (contrary to what it does mean) are those who now wish to use it to keep the everyday citizen from being able to own guns. (i.e. the discredited "Collectivist" interpretation)

Do you realize that if the technology of the day is used in the "interpretation" of a constitutional right, like saying that semi-autos are not protected under the 2nd Amendment because they weren't around when it was written, then you can forget about being entitled to publish newspapers with offset printing, laser printers, the Internet... these things could not have been dreamed of by the framers when they guaranteed freedom of the press in the 1st Amendment, so who knows, maybe they're too dangerous to be protected! They do have the power to incite large populations to action both good and bad. They can be used to spread vicious lies, dangerous propaganda, instructions on how to make bombs...

You see, you can't have it both ways, and that's what anti-gunners forget when they raise the specious "the framers didn't see this technology coming" argument. There's no way they'll concede that it applies to what they hold dear when it is redirected against them.

Quote

Additonally, at the time of the authoring of the Constitution, the universal thought was that the existence of a standing army in peacetime was the most serious threat to liberty, therefore, there was a real NEED on the part of citizens to do their own defending and policing. Quite frankly, the conditions under which the Second Amendment were written no longer exist.

Then get it repealed, because unless you do, IT STANDS. There is no provision at law or in the Constitution whereby parts that are considered anachronistic no longer have to be adhered to. I have seen this argued time and again, and anti-gunners never grant that it would be terrifyingly dangerous to allow anybody to pick and choose which parts of the Constitution apply today and which do not. Who would have the authoritative say, anyway? Would King Solomon show up to split our Constitution down the middle because both sides couldn't agree on which parts to obey?

Quote

Does that mean that it should be done away with? No, but I do think it means that it should be open to intelligent interpretation in the name of the common good.

So, honestly I am not sure how you would define position other than "Matt's position"....

As long as it says what it means, and it does, there is no room for "interpretation," intelligent or otherwise. You either agree that it must be abided by, or you get rid of it so that you are no longer acting unconstitutionally if you fail to abide by it.

"Matt's position..."? Isn't that usually, "on the floor, getting stepped on"?

-

-Jeffrey
"With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

[burbleflyer 0]

Quote

Quote

You know what that makes you?

Part of a society with laws to promote the common welfare? A citizen of the United States?

Sounds like communist to me.

[TypicalFish 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

If the anti-gun morons would just enter the discourse IN GOOD FAITH we could just arrive at some basic level and establish some protected classes of guns based on RATIONALITY and FUNCTION rather than hysterics and cosmetics, and maybe if that were solidly codified in law we could say, alright, we'll give up these other guns.

This is a VERY powerful point that quite frankly can probably be applied to most arguments of this nature.

That is absolutely fucking retarded! Then next week they'd ask for a different kind.
You know what? I want new machine guns. New machine were banned in 86. Legal MGs have never been used in a crime except ONCE by a cop. Look it up.
Go fuck yourself. You compromise MY WAY for once!

Honestly, you lost me. I was referring to the concept of bringing a level of rationality into heated discussions in the interest of resolution rather than hysterics.

That being said, I guess I'll go fuck myself.

"I gargle no man's balls..." ussfpa on SOCNET

[TypicalFish 0]

Quote

"Matt's position..."? Isn't that usually, "on the floor, getting stepped on"? -

I am not going to bother to dignify this with a reply. You asked me to define my position; for what I assumed was a reasonable, intelligent point that you were trying to make.

"I gargle no man's balls..." ussfpa on SOCNET

[peacefuljeffrey 0]

Quote

When was the last time you saw a pedophilia magazine on the news stands? Or a drug magazine?

High Times

And pedophilia is not a valid example because the act involved in creating it is a crime.

-

-Jeffrey
"With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

[burbleflyer 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

If the anti-gun morons would just enter the discourse IN GOOD FAITH we could just arrive at some basic level and establish some protected classes of guns based on RATIONALITY and FUNCTION rather than hysterics and cosmetics, and maybe if that were solidly codified in law we could say, alright, we'll give up these other guns.

This is a VERY powerful point that quite frankly can probably be applied to most arguments of this nature.

That is absolutely fucking retarded! Then next week they'd ask for a different kind.
You know what? I want new machine guns. New machine were banned in 86. Legal MGs have never been used in a crime except ONCE by a cop. Look it up.
Go fuck yourself. You compromise MY WAY for once!

Honestly, you lost me. I was referring to the concept of bringing a level of rationality into heated discussions in the interest of resolution rather than hysterics.

That being said, I guess I'll go fuck myself.

My point was: Anti gunners always want more restrictions calling it "compromise". Offer us gunners one back. Say repeal of the 86 MG ban. How about it?
Offer us one anti gun law repeal and then I'll talk compromise. Otherwise you are all full of shit.

[TypicalFish 0]

Quote

Quote

When was the last time you saw a pedophilia magazine on the news stands? Or a drug magazine?

High Times

And pedophilia is not a valid example because the act involved in creating it is a crime.

-

So is doing drugs (for now, at least). My point being that interpretation of what is acceptable within society under the protection of these rights HAS been successfully accomplished.

"I gargle no man's balls..." ussfpa on SOCNET

[peacefuljeffrey 0]

Quote

Quote

How can you say that with a straight face? We have a HUGE standing army!

Exactly my point. At the time of the authoring of the Declaration Of Independence, the thought was that there should not be a standing army. That has changed.

The fact that a standing army is now considered universally acceptable is all the more reason that the people should retain the means to oppose it should it run amok.

How do you not see that?

-

-Jeffrey
"With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"