Gun Bans

[Dyakovo]

i like my firearms and i dont like our "wonderful" president and im white to top it all off im a dumb redneck yall no where this is going.

You're going to post ignorant crap that makes intelligent, responsible gun owners look bad?

[United Prefectures of Appia]

I am still wondering just who is going to provide for the security of myself, my property and my family if guns were banned.

And there's that stupid and idiotic notion once again that somehow, gun control advocates are demanding a ban on all guns. Sheesh.

[AiliailiA]

A right to 3 guns would be an acceptable compromise.

Except it's not.

Whatever. I was talking to Big Jim P, not to you.

[Grinning Dragon]

Except it's not.

Whatever. I was talking to Big Jim P, not to you.

So now we need to dictate on how many of a legal product that can be in ones possession? Why stop at weapons, lets expand this to vehicles, booze, and televisions.

[Dyakovo]

I am still wondering just who is going to provide for the security of myself, my property and my family if guns were banned.

And there's that stupid and idiotic notion once again that somehow, gun control advocates are demanding a ban on all guns. Sheesh.

In case you hadn't noticed, this thread happens to be about guns being banned... Also, Sen Feinstein's proposal does call for guns being banned.
In addition, there have been people advocating banning all guns in this thread.

[Dyakovo]

Except it's not.

Whatever. I was talking to Big Jim P, not to you.

There are no private conversations when you post on the forum.

[United Prefectures of Appia]

And there's that stupid and idiotic notion once again that somehow, gun control advocates are demanding a ban on all guns. Sheesh.

In case you hadn't noticed, this thread happens to be about guns being banned... Also, Sen Feinstein's proposal does call for guns being banned.
In addition, there have been people advocating banning all guns in this thread.

Saying "Gun Ban" is far too vague. It could either mean repealing the 2nd Amendment or simply banning specific type of firearms, in this case the assault-weapon happens to be a popular target. As for Feinstein's proposal, it's to reinstate a new assault-weapons ban and improve on removing potential loopholes for gun makers to exploit that was present in the 1994 FAWB. Either way, this isn't in direct violation of the 2nd Amendment, and certainly, all notions that Obama wants to take people's guns away is very asinine. But don't expect to convince gun nuts otherwise.

[Chernoslavia]

And the people in chains of command are infallible? Are they working to defend me at all times? Will they stop someone from taking my life, will they put THEIR life on the line for ME?

Not nessesarily infallible, but a hell of a lot better than John P. Civilian in most if not all cases. That is rather the point of them, yes.



Most people aren't. Myself included.

But those who are? That's why we have Class III Licenses. So those who are not can get autos



Hey, me too, what a coincidence.

Are you ex-Military/Law Enforcement? If not, then you don't. And you don't have superiors and hundreds of armed people around you constantly to enforce those rule.



Like me.

No, not like you. You don't need an automatic weapon, and if you happen to be insane, then the harm outweighs the negligable benefit


So we have to punish the majority for the few people who are stupid, then? Everyone needs to suffer?

The needs of the potential victims of gun violence outweigh the wants of a few people, yes. Though I wouldn't call not being allowed to own an automatic weapon suffering in any sense of the word.



You don't have the authority or knowledge of me to say that. You know nothing about me.

No, I don't know anything about you. Which means I must consider the possibility that you are a crazy wacko. Oh, and assuming that everyone in the US is identical to yourself is a fallacy, by the by




The police will not instantly show up and put their life on the line the second I need them too. They aren't magic, they aren't angels, and they aren't always self-sacrificing or even always great shots. I can't count on police, though I do respect them and recognize them as necessary.

Not always, no. But the chances of you actually needing them too? Slim to none. Even less if people are not walking around with automatic weapons. And in the case of needing to? I hardly think you'd need an automatic.



This is also true.



I disagree, I disagree a lot.

The only thing you need an automatic weapon for is suppressing fire. That's something only the military and law enforcement needs. All you need is a decent pistol to protect yourself from attack by most if not all criminals.



"durr u think ur an akshun heroo lol"

Then stop acting like you do, and get a grip on reality.



Jesus Christ, all of this argument for you to end up AGREEING with me? holy shit

I never said unqualified people should be able to own weapons. I argue AGAINST that all the time.

Well, why didn't you say so? Seemed to me you were arguing for any Tom, Dick or Harry being allowed to own an M249 because teh ebil gubernments. But, if we agree that regulation is required, and that the current regulation of automatic weapons is sufficent, then your arguement is rather moot...

Responses in red.

What class 3 license?

[Chernoslavia]

i like my firearms and i dont like our "wonderful" president and im white to top it all off im a dumb redneck yall no where this is going.

You're going to post ignorant veal that makes intelligent, responsible gun owners look bad?

Its obviously a puppet account.

[Dyakovo]

You're going to post ignorant veal that makes intelligent, responsible gun owners look bad?

Its obviously a puppet account.

That's part of the reason I did nothing more than mock the poster.

---

In case you hadn't noticed, this thread happens to be about guns being banned... Also, Sen Feinstein's proposal does call for guns being banned.
In addition, there have been people advocating banning all guns in this thread.

Saying "Gun Ban" is far too vague. It could either mean repealing the 2nd Amendment or simply banning specific type of firearms, in this case the assault-weapon happens to be a popular target. As for Feinstein's proposal, it's to reinstate a new assault-weapons ban and improve on removing potential loopholes for gun makers to exploit that was present in the 1994 FAWB. Either way, this isn't in direct violation of the 2nd Amendment, and certainly, all notions that Obama wants to take people's guns away is very asinine. But don't expect to convince gun nuts otherwise.

In addition, there have been people advocating banning all guns in this thread.

[Czechanada]

Its obviously a puppet account.

That's part of the reason I did nothing more than mock the poster.

One does not simply mock into Dyakovo.

[Caninope]

In case you hadn't noticed, this thread happens to be about guns being banned... Also, Sen Feinstein's proposal does call for guns being banned.
In addition, there have been people advocating banning all guns in this thread.

Saying "Gun Ban" is far too vague. It could either mean repealing the 2nd Amendment or simply banning specific type of firearms, in this case the assault-weapon happens to be a popular target. As for Feinstein's proposal, it's to reinstate a new assault-weapons ban and improve on removing potential loopholes for gun makers to exploit that was present in the 1994 FAWB. Either way, this isn't in direct violation of the 2nd Amendment, and certainly, all notions that Obama wants to take people's guns away is very asinine. But don't expect to convince gun nuts otherwise.

Given the Supreme Court's rulings in DC v Heller and McDonald v Chicago, an AWB may indeed be unconstitutional.

[United Prefectures of Appia]

Given the Supreme Court's rulings in DC v Heller and McDonald v Chicago, an AWB may indeed be unconstitutional.

And if not, would that mean Conservatives may have to grudge once more to blame Bush again? Cause that's what happened the last time when one Conservative Supreme Court judge ruled in favor of Obamacare.

[Caninope]

Given the Supreme Court's rulings in DC v Heller and McDonald v Chicago, an AWB may indeed be unconstitutional.

And if not, would that mean Conservatives may have to grudge once more to blame Bush again? Cause that's what happened the last time when one Conservative Supreme Court judge ruled in favor of Obamacare.

I doubt such a thing would happen. The Supreme Court's ruling in DC v Heller was based off the availability and widespread use of handguns in America; if anything, "assault weapons" are just as common.

[United Prefectures of Appia]

I doubt such a thing would happen.

You're probably right though, as SCOTUS is primarily Conservative, so no surprise there, just as they ruled in 2008 that the 2nd Amendment meant individual rights, instead of rights towards militia.

if anything, "assault weapons" are just as common.

I wouldn't be surprise if that term gets redefined even more just to circumvent around gun control reforms.

[Greed and Death]

In case you hadn't noticed, this thread happens to be about guns being banned... Also, Sen Feinstein's proposal does call for guns being banned.
In addition, there have been people advocating banning all guns in this thread.

Saying "Gun Ban" is far too vague. It could either mean repealing the 2nd Amendment or simply banning specific type of firearms, in this case the assault-weapon happens to be a popular target. As for Feinstein's proposal, it's to reinstate a new assault-weapons ban and improve on removing potential loopholes for gun makers to exploit that was present in the 1994 FAWB. Either way, this isn't in direct violation of the 2nd Amendment, and certainly, all notions that Obama wants to take people's guns away is very asinine. But don't expect to convince gun nuts otherwise.

It may be a 2nd amendment violation, Heller is not particularly clear on what the standard is for 2nd amendment cases.
As the most commonly purchased rifle between 2004 and now is the AR-15, an FAWB may ban the purchase of weapons in common use. Common use is the standard set forth in Heller.

As for why gun owners deride a renewed FAWB as an attempt to ban guns piecemeal is because an "Assault weapon" is no more dangerous than any other semi automatic. The only logical conclusion anyone who knows anything about Sports rifle can reach is that the FAWB is an attempt to ban class of guns with the goal of banning other classes later.

That said he lack of rational reason for a renewed FAWB and the common use of the weapons today I think the current court would rule the ban unconstitutional.

[Big Jim P]

Except it's not.

Whatever. I was talking to Big Jim P, not to you.

Caninope is right.

[United Prefectures of Appia]

Why stop at weapons, lets expand this to vehicles, booze, and televisions.

Vehicles, booze, and televisions are not weapons, guns are. Big difference there.

[Idaho Conservatives]

Saying "Gun Ban" is far too vague. It could either mean repealing the 2nd Amendment or simply banning specific type of firearms, in this case the assault-weapon happens to be a popular target. As for Feinstein's proposal, it's to reinstate a new assault-weapons ban and improve on removing potential loopholes for gun makers to exploit that was present in the 1994 FAWB. Either way, this isn't in direct violation of the 2nd Amendment, and certainly, all notions that Obama wants to take people's guns away is very asinine. But don't expect to convince gun nuts otherwise.

Given the Supreme Court's rulings in DC v Heller and McDonald v Chicago, an AWB may indeed be unconstitutional.

With the precedent of the '94 AWB, I think this legislation would be ruled constitutional, though the bill's effective banning of semi-auto handguns would get a long look in light of SCOTUS's recent rulings.

[Grinning Dragon]

Why stop at weapons, lets expand this to vehicles, booze, and televisions.

Vehicles, booze, and televisions are not weapons, guns are. Big difference there.

Matters not of the difference, all of these are legal products to own, if you start dictating on certain number legal products a person can own, where does it stop?
Why does someone get to determine a set number of something that I can own and purchase with MY money? I reject such a notion, I can determine all on my own on how much of certain product to own without any interference or guidance, thank you very much!

[United Prefectures of Appia]

Matters not of the difference, all of these are legal products to own, if you start dictating on certain number legal products a person can own, where does it stop?
Why does someone get to determine a set number of something that I can own and purchase with MY money? I reject such a notion, I can determine all on my own on how much of certain product to own without any interference or guidance, thank you very much!

It does matter. Weapons are design to kill, destroy life! Cars are not designed as weapons, they are designed to take you from point A to point B, period! Stop trying to compare apples to oranges. I've seen that rhetoric crap far too many times.

[Nua Corda]

Matters not of the difference, all of these are legal products to own, if you start dictating on certain number legal products a person can own, where does it stop?
Why does someone get to determine a set number of something that I can own and purchase with MY money? I reject such a notion, I can determine all on my own on how much of certain product to own without any interference or guidance, thank you very much!

It does matter. Weapons are design to kill, destroy life! Cars are not designed as weapons, they are designed to take you from point A to point B, period! Stop trying to compare apples to oranges. I've seen that rhetoric crap far too many times.

Cars kill more people than guns. By a HUGE factor. If you really wanted to protect life by banning shit you know nothing about, it would be more effective to ban them than guns.

[Grinning Dragon]

Given the Supreme Court's rulings in DC v Heller and McDonald v Chicago, an AWB may indeed be unconstitutional.

With the precedent of the '94 AWB, I think this legislation would be ruled constitutional, though the bill's effective banning of semi-auto handguns would get a long look in light of SCOTUS's recent rulings.

This time around it would be ruled UNCONSTITUTIONAL, the ruling would be based on Scalia's writing from the Heller ruling.
Since an AR or AK's or any other variant of semi-auto sporting rifle would fall under the common use.

[Caninope]

I doubt such a thing would happen.

You're probably right though, as SCOTUS is primarily Conservative,

It's hard to apply the terms "conservative" and "liberal" in regards to the court unless one is referring to Thomas or (arguably) Scalia.

so no surprise there, just as they ruled in 2008 that the 2nd Amendment meant individual rights, instead of rights towards militia.

Which is not a bad thing, imo.

[Caninope]

Given the Supreme Court's rulings in DC v Heller and McDonald v Chicago, an AWB may indeed be unconstitutional.

With the precedent of the '94 AWB, I think this legislation would be ruled constitutional, though the bill's effective banning of semi-auto handguns would get a long look in light of SCOTUS's recent rulings.

SCOTUS, AFAIK, never ruled on the '94 AWB.

SCOTUS has also never hesitated in striking down laws either.