Login
![]() |
|
![]() |
01-24-2013, 03:13 PM | #45 | |
Lieutenant
![]() ![]() ![]() 91
Rep 418
Posts |
Quote:
As it stands today, a lot of the time, gov has no opportunity to make that ruling at all. They aint saying you are NOT fit, but they aren't saying you are either; they cannot offer any sort of verdict since they are completely absent from that process. In Ariz, if you have a gun, it is legal for you to sell it to me on the streetcorner for cash, with absolutely no oversight whatsoever. I could be an escapee from a mental institution with a list of felony convictions a mile long, and the seller apparently commits no crime. A car cannot be legally transferred that simply. A painfully farcical situation arose in Ariz when a voluntary buy back of guns was organized following the Giffords shooting. The intent was to reduce the number "in circulation", so that bad guys have less supply to use when committing a crime. People showed up to trade in their old unused guns for much needed cash, but many never made it off the street, since gun lovers appeared in a lot next door with signs, offering MORE cash for your weapon than the officials, and it all legally happened in plain view of the police who could do nothing but shake their head and watch. If we got to the place where some agency was always overseeing that transaction, so it would become true to say "the gov saw you fit", then I'd agree that it would make sense to loosen restrictions on you. Of course, just because I can drive a car does not mean I can legally drive an 18-wheeler, so it would make sense to have multiple levels of regulation; this guy is OK to own small caliber rifle that is not full auto, and that guy has taken additional steps to prove competency with something that is potentially more of a handful, so he can own a larger caliber and/or full auto weapon. It seems we are million miles away from that now, especially considering the NRA recently helped oppose and kill several Virginia bills requiring background checks on private firearm transfers, and then sent an email to all Virginia members bragging about it. |
|
Appreciate
0
|
01-24-2013, 03:32 PM | #46 | |
Lieutenant
![]() ![]() ![]() 91
Rep 418
Posts |
Quote:
You can personally hold the opinion of course, but unless you are a supreme court judge or something, that opinion wont change much. My point is that some people here say these NY laws are such a clear violation that they wont stand a chance in court, but looking at what's happened so far, it would seem to me that maybe they are wrong... I'm no fortune teller, so I guess we'll see what really happens. |
|
Appreciate
0
|
01-24-2013, 03:42 PM | #47 | |
Major
![]() 98
Rep 1,105
Posts |
Quote:
Where in the constitution is the government given the authority to enact the '86 ban? I can show you a place where they're specifically prohibited from doing it. Related question: do you know why it took a constitutional amendment to ban alcohol? Last edited by carve; 01-24-2013 at 03:52 PM. |
|
Appreciate
0
|
01-24-2013, 03:43 PM | #48 | |
1 SLY 1
![]() -41
Rep 180
Posts |
Quote:
I have a 9mm with 2 clips that hold 17 bullets plus one in the chamber... I can pump 35 rounds out of it in probably 20 seconds. a clip change is only a half a second. |
|
Appreciate
0
|
01-24-2013, 03:55 PM | #49 |
Lieutenant
![]() ![]() ![]() 91
Rep 418
Posts |
Doesn't matter or not if you or I figure it is a violation. Why don't people get that? It's like yelling at a ref during a football game. His ruling affects the outcome, your screaming from the stands does not.
If the gov was legally unable to enact the '86 ban, then surely it would have been overturned when the NRA threw a bunch of the finest lawyers that big money can buy at it. I'm no constitutional lawyer, but what is clear from observing the past, is that it must not be as simple as, "see, the constitution says you cant do this, case closed". |
Appreciate
0
|
01-24-2013, 03:58 PM | #50 | |
Major
![]() 98
Rep 1,105
Posts |
Quote:
Why was a constitutional amendment required to ban alcohol? Last edited by carve; 01-24-2013 at 04:11 PM. |
|
Appreciate
0
|
01-24-2013, 03:59 PM | #51 | |
Captain
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() 111
Rep 773
Posts |
Quote:
|
|
Appreciate
0
|
01-24-2013, 04:04 PM | #52 |
1 SLY 1
![]() -41
Rep 180
Posts |
http://www.ijreview.com/2013/01/3020...town-shooting/
there is a video directly from NBC news. It is unbelievable actually. As it was unfolding I remember reading the initial police reports that the AR-15 was found in the car and not in the school. Last edited by Foxrus14; 01-24-2013 at 04:10 PM. Reason: video |
Appreciate
0
|
01-24-2013, 04:07 PM | #53 | |
Major
![]() 98
Rep 1,105
Posts |
Quote:
Ultimatelly, it doesn't matter what he used. He could've cause about the same amount of death with a .22 pistol and 7 round mags (one of the weapons used at Virgina Tech). He had all the time he wanted and calmly went from room to room, shooting each victim multiple times at point blank. |
|
Appreciate
0
|
01-24-2013, 04:08 PM | #54 | |
Captain
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() 111
Rep 773
Posts |
Quote:
Talk about jumping the "gun" NYS. Pun intended. |
|
Appreciate
0
|
01-24-2013, 04:12 PM | #55 | ||
is probably out riding.
![]() 6239
Rep 2,288
Posts |
Quote:
Quote:
Full auto weapons, as much as i would love to own a few, should really be left to war time use. But in accordance to the law, if you REALLY want one, you're going to have to pay through the ass for it. So much so that a very select few people will have access to them. Hence the current law. The problem of going from 10 to 7 is one of slow erosion. This clearly leads to having to go from 7 to 4 then any weapon using a detachable magazine is outlawed....
__________________
"There is no greater tyranny than that which is perpetrated under the shield of the law and in the name of justice. -Charles de Secondat"
![]() |
||
Appreciate
0
|
01-24-2013, 04:13 PM | #56 | |
1 SLY 1
![]() -41
Rep 180
Posts |
Quote:
|
|
Appreciate
0
|
01-24-2013, 04:32 PM | #58 |
Major
![]() 98
Rep 1,105
Posts |
This is ironic. All US gun control laws are set on the precedent of US vs. Miller in 1936.
Miller committed a crime with a sawed off shotgun. Since the military didn't use such a weapon, and it was considered unsuitable for militia use, the government saw fit to put restrictions on sawed-off shotguns. Ironic that now we're tying to restrict gun specificially BECAUSE the military uses them and they're suitable for militia use. |
Appreciate
0
|
01-24-2013, 04:58 PM | #59 | |
Lieutenant
![]() ![]() ![]() 91
Rep 418
Posts |
Quote:
The fact the '86 ban was not overturned further reinforces my position that if an arguably bigger offence against the 2nd amd was unable to be stopped then, any legal attacks today on the smaller offence (7-round-rule) are unlikely bear fruit. I suppose time will tell, but if I were a gun owner, I would operate under the assumption that any challenge will probably fail, rather than the assumption that the constitution will save me. You seem to really be dying here, waiting for someone to ask you about the alcohol prohibition thing. Why dont you just go head and tell us? |
|
Appreciate
0
|
01-24-2013, 05:16 PM | #60 |
Major
![]() 98
Rep 1,105
Posts |
The intent of the amendment is to ensure the people have weapons suitable for armed infantry combat. Banning the weapons and mags suitable for this is a violation of the 2A and goes against the intent. Unless the constitution is amended, we should be able to carry anything a typical infantry soldier carries....maybe even something better (the Kentucky Rifle was vastly superior to the British "Brown Bess")
Speaking of amendments, one was required to ban alcohol because nowhere in the constitution is congress given the power to enact such a ban, so it had to be amended to give them that power. That was just controlling a recreational substance- not to violate a constitutionally protected right. |
Appreciate
0
|
01-24-2013, 07:28 PM | #61 | |
Lieutenant
![]() ![]() ![]() 91
Rep 418
Posts |
Quote:
Planes and helicopters were not invented, and neither were many other types of self-propelled, motorized, armored vehicles, some of which could move much faster than the speed of sound. Nobody thought of missiles being launched from a submerged nuclear submarines off the coast, taking out your buildings. Interpreting the 2nd amendment in a more literal, orthodox or old fashioned way would basically enable the populace to be ready to defend against any attacker (foreign or domestic), as long as that attacker just stepped out of time machine from 200 years ago. If they are coming with an armored attack helicopter (with the precision of laser guided armaments and the ability to see clearly in pitch darkness), regardless of the flag painted on the side of the helicopter, the odds are so lopsided even before the 7-round restriction, that I'd argue it no longer creates a deterrant against anyone. IMHO, this is why most people in other countries are not all screaming they can't defend themselves, because they realize if the shit really hits the fan at home, they are dead man walking anyway, regardless of what some limited rights to ownership of rifles an outdated rule in a constitution might grant. To create a REAL deterrant is to give said populace the RPG's, etc. So unless you do that, you are already making a mockery of what the founders intended, IMHO. So, then you gotta ask yourself, do you start down that slope, or do you say, you know what, a different time calls for a different interpretation. Obviously, your opinion may vary, but that's what's informing my statements. |
|
Appreciate
0
|
01-24-2013, 08:16 PM | #62 |
Major
![]() 98
Rep 1,105
Posts |
1) If a guy in a truck with a low-caliber rifle is not an effective weapon of war (particularly an occupation, rather than an invasion), then why is it the primary weapon system of the Army and Marines? Why has that been a successful insurgency weapons system in Afghanistan? Do you know something the Army doesn't?
2) Look around the world to see what modern guerrilla warfare looks like. It's not generally massed formations against military regulars- it's ambushes, harassment, and assassination. 3) Most countries don't want to lay waste to their own neighborhoods- it lowers the neighborhoods value and is not politically acceptable, because people don't like it when gunships strafe their cul-de-sac 4) Rifles offer a means to procure heavier weapons 5) Even if you were right, we can't just start interpreting it to mean the exact opposite of what it says. What's the point of even having a constitution then? We'd require an amendment to change things for the times. Last edited by carve; 01-24-2013 at 08:28 PM. |
Appreciate
0
|
01-24-2013, 08:41 PM | #63 |
is probably out riding.
![]() 6239
Rep 2,288
Posts |
The debate is getting a bit out there. Al, it seem as if you're saying that all citizens of all nations should just lay down to not only their own government but any other that may decide to occupy their country.
Not really an ideal i can get on board with.
__________________
"There is no greater tyranny than that which is perpetrated under the shield of the law and in the name of justice. -Charles de Secondat"
![]() |
Appreciate
0
|
01-24-2013, 08:49 PM | #64 |
Lieutenant
![]() ![]() ![]() 91
Rep 418
Posts |
Afghanistan, and similar theatres to that, are not like modern USA. To occupy and control an area there, you need to go, on foot, farmhouse to farmhouse, in a slow, manual fashion, because people are "off the grid". Much more like what you had to do everywhere when the 2nd amendment was written, ironically enough.
The vast majority of the population today (here) lives not in rural areas, but in dense urban centers. People dont grow their own food and livestock on their own land (for the most part). They are on the grid, and dependently so. If I were to quarterback an assault against any major city, what would I do? First target: Utilities: kill the power, phone, internet, and water supply. Some person in their 20th story condo or townhouse on residential street, waiting to shoot back with his AR-15 at the foot soldiers will be waiting a LONG time, cause they aint coming. With no food, water, electricity you'd be out of food pretty damn quick. You could maybe gather at the nearest restaurant or store, but with no means to refrigerate food, that wouldnt last long either. Control the airport, and fuel distribution centres. Run outta gas and you cant go far, and since nobody owns a horse anymore, you gotta walk or ride your bike. Given obesity rates, mass migrations in a hurry to congregate and defend sounds unlikely. Before long you got a starving, cold, isolated group of people who find themselves in a nasty spot, compared to the Afgan rebel whose family has not come to be dependant on running water, electricity, cars or internet service in generations. He can milk his cow, eat his eggs, survive with limited shelter just fine, and he probably knows how to make an IED off the top of his head. If the internet wasnt down, your accountant across the street could probably look up how to make one too, but.... Taking those key targets with the aid of apache helicopters wouldnt be too hard initially,the "150 million" armed citizens with their 300 million guns would not be pre-massed there ready to defend. Once you have control of that, if the citizens to organize into small groups to try and take them back, I would bet it would be much easier to defend once established, against small arms fire. I'm no military strategist, so I'm sure those who have served may be able to poke small holes in my plan, but hopefully you get the idea where I'm going with this.... and no, it doesnt require using F-18's to carpet bomb suburbs and kill millions of people right away. |
Appreciate
0
|
01-24-2013, 08:51 PM | #65 |
Lieutenant
![]() ![]() ![]() 91
Rep 418
Posts |
Not saying you should choose to, I'm saying, in modern day 21st century, most people would end up having to do so anyways, not out of choice, even if the 2nd amendment grants you the ability to shoot back with your AR-15. See the scenarios Ive described above....
|
Appreciate
0
|
01-24-2013, 09:19 PM | #66 |
Lieutenant Colonel
![]() ![]() 232
Rep 1,888
Posts
Drives: 2011 E92 M3
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: One of the coasts...
|
Wow, I don't even know what to say...
__________________
'11 BMW E92 ///M3 - ZCP and DCT
'15 Ford F-250 - Lariat, 6.7 Powerstroke Turbo-diesel ![]() |
Appreciate
0
|
Post Reply |
Bookmarks |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
|