Driving...like alcohol is not protected by the Constitution....
Anyone who thinks magazine limits are A OK is not going to get much agreement on this site...and isn't going to get much other than flak either...
Fake "Gun Rights" Group Supports Gun Control - American Rifle & Pistol Assn
- Thread starter Bartholomew Roberts
- Start date
- Status
Driving...like alcohol is not protected by the Constitution....
Anyone who thinks magazine limits are A OK is not going to get much agreement on this site...and isn't going to get much other than flak either...
Ignition Override
Member
If pro-2nd Amendment groups (the authentic groups) ever Were to compromise on magazines etc, then where is the compromise among the other side?
The antis must have forgotten to tell us. They never offer anything in exchange and settle for it, do they? Some new people on THR might believe that we are not aware of this.
As for Universal Background Checks, isn't it true that right now, among people who fill out the required retail form (typos corrected) and provide info which would prohibit them from buying a gun, only a tiny percentage of those are indicted or prosecuted?
Many of you guys/gals can describe the bigger picture very well.
The antis must have forgotten to tell us. They never offer anything in exchange and settle for it, do they? Some new people on THR might believe that we are not aware of this.
As for Universal Background Checks, isn't it true that right now, among people who fill out the required retail form (typos corrected) and provide info which would prohibit them from buying a gun, only a tiny percentage of those are indicted or prosecuted?
Many of you guys/gals can describe the bigger picture very well.
Last edited:
Guy B. Meredith
Member
JHS1, there may be moderate groups, there may be fake groups. ARPA does need to do some to gain credibility.
First, they are setting up the scenario that firearms industry's goals are different than those of NRA members, creating image of a schism. Smells strongly of Occupy anti corporate, 1% vs (bogus) 99%. They are suggesting that all "extreme" opposition comes from the industry and not NRA members or other firearms owners.
Obviously one trip to these forums disproves that. In fact Smith and Wesson and Ruger have been criticized by firearms owners for not being "extreme" enough.
Second, their logo is UN "occupying force" helmet blue.
First, they are setting up the scenario that firearms industry's goals are different than those of NRA members, creating image of a schism. Smells strongly of Occupy anti corporate, 1% vs (bogus) 99%. They are suggesting that all "extreme" opposition comes from the industry and not NRA members or other firearms owners.
Obviously one trip to these forums disproves that. In fact Smith and Wesson and Ruger have been criticized by firearms owners for not being "extreme" enough.
Second, their logo is UN "occupying force" helmet blue.
I was talking about background checks, not magazine limits. I don't support magazine limits.
The US Supreme Court has held that the right to interstate travel is protected by the Constitution. I provided the citation a post or so ago.
Sent from my SCH-R530U using Tapatalk 2
The original analogy was even worse than that, comparing driving on public roads to merely buying something. There's virtually no restrictions on merely buying or owning a car, all the rules come into play when you want to drive it on public roads. If you only drive the car on private land, as people much richer than myself do with racecars, those rules mean nothing to your car.
As already pointed out alcohol can be bought with the proverbial cash and a handshake. I've never even heard of the existance of a law that says I can't give my cousin who has 4 DUI convictions a bottle of scotch for Christmas, or an enforcement mechanism to prevent me from doing so.
Carl N. Brown
Member
The most cited school massacre in favor of renewing the US AWB (1994-2004) has been the Columbine incident 1999, which was five years into the AWB and involved weapons that complied with the AWB ( (although Klebold had a Tec9 and had 52, 32 and 28 round grandfathered magazines he fired 55 9mm where Harris with carbine and 10 round magazines fired a total of 96 9mm)).
As far as the Australian buyback stopping massacres, well:
National Academy of Sciences, National Research Council,
"Firearms and Violence: A Critical Review" (2004)
http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=10881&page=95
I have read a couple of studies that publicizing mass murderers who go out in a blaze glory death-by-cop etc. helps trigger unstable individuals, like Tasmanian mass murderer Martin Bryant. Wiki: "Professor Paul Mullen, a forensic psychiatrist with extensive involvement following the string of massacres in Australia and New Zealand, attributes both the Port Arthur Massacre and some of the earlier massacres to the copycat effect." Clayton Cramer has written on that subject too. Bryant survived and was present as a pitiful figure, weak and jailed alive and subject to the civil legal process, which may have deterred copycats more than any gun buyback could have.
Now you got me started (I know Tennjed was being sacrastic). My home jurisdiction was "dry" under local option prohibition until 1968. In 1965 I was 17 and knew the locations of seven bootleggers who sold beer and booze, but also some who sold pot, pills, pistols and porn, and served as meeting places for gambling and prostitution. You could call a certain taxi service and tell them to pick up a passenger Jack Daniels at so-and-so and deliver him to your door and you'd pay his cab fare on delivery. Attempts to repeal prohibition were met with wails about blood and likker flowing in gutters together as sinful likker mongers put profit above public safety. ("Red Lee" made midnight deliveries to the homes of some of the loudest public defenders of prohibition; the elite could be trusted to drink responsibly, it was the lower class that had to be protected from themselves and alcohol.) Repeal was gradual--hot beer in stores to take home to put in the fridge at first, followed by state licensed liquor stores controlling distilled liquor and wine. One big noticeable thing was you read less and less about stabbings and shootings at "The Bloody Bucket" and the "Sugar Shack" as legal liquor dried up the bootlegging joints. And that boys and girls is why I am cynical about prohibition, moral panick outrage or other pitchfork-torch-and-noose regulation solving any social problem. Regulation may work up to a tipping point that the profitability of the black market overwelms any good done by over regulation.
All natural ingredient Absinth has been legalized after a 100-year ban. The main effect I believe is that crappy fake and dangerous unnatural "absinth" is harder to find on the markets black or legal.
Last edited:
Bartholomew Roberts
Member
JSH1 said:
I happen to be an attorney who has been following firearms issues since before I went to law school. I am not aware of any definitive legal ruling that magazine limits are completely constitutional. To the best of my knowledge, that issue has never been heard before the Supreme Court of the United States. How did you arrive at that conclusion?
Not true. In 2002, there was a mass shooting at Monash University in Australia that killed two and injured five. Putting aside shootings, there have been three additional mass killings where the murderer burned people to death.
So the gun restrictions have not been effective in preventing further mass shootings, though even had there been no shootings, they happen with such rarity (both here and in Australia) that it would be a leap to automatically assume that the change in gun laws accounted for it.
Clearly, you regard firearms as a hobby and not one you are even particularly interested in. This may come as a shock to you; but many of us see the ability to own and use firearms as more than just a hobby or recreation. We believe the Second Amendment, a fundamental pre-existing right expressly named in the Bill of Rights, guarantees the right to bear arms because it is a key component of our system of government.
As a result, when the same people who have tried unsuccessfully to ban handguns, shotguns, and rifles (under the guise of banning "assault weapons" or "cop killer bullets" or "Saturday Night Specials" or "sniper rifles") for the last 30 years suddenly demand to have paperwork on every transaction of a firearm, I tend to assume it isn't because they have suddenly changed their stripes.
You don't need to look any further than the recent Senate debates to see how true that is. Senator Tom Coburn of Oklahoma proposed a truly universal background check system. It would have applied to MANY more sales than the proposed Schumer-Toomey-Manchin alternative. However, Senator Coburn's approach relied on generating a "certificate" that a purchaser was not a prohibited person. This anonymous approach would have made the Form 4473 irrelevant while still guaranteeing every firearms purchaser underwent a NICS check.
His proposed amendment did not even get a vote in the Senate. Senator Schumer kicked him out of the coalition he was using to push gun control and instead went with Pat Toomey - who agreed to a bill that required CHLs to fill out a form 4473. Why is that significant? Because under the terms of the bill, CHLs were already exempt from the NICS check. They were already background checked and we know they are OK. Yet this bill still forced them to transfer through an FFL. The only reason to do that is to generate a Form 4473 on the transaction.
You obviously are not looking very hard then. When was the last time a United States Senator successfully reduced restrictions on machineguns? Senator Feinstein banned whole classes of firearms in 1994 and has publically advocated for banning long guns, shotguns, and ALL handguns. She has advocated for forced confiscation. As recently as THIS YEAR, the idea that broad classes of firearms can be banned based on cosmetics received 40 votes in the Senate. If that is a small minority on the left, then it is unfortunate for us that they all happen to be in Congress where their fringe views can be forced on the rest of us.
JohnBT
Member
"Either that or I'm a gun owner that happens to disagree with you."
Well which is it? Stop beating around the bush and speak plainly. It isn't difficult with a little practice.
Well which is it? Stop beating around the bush and speak plainly. It isn't difficult with a little practice.
Deanimator
Member
And by "moderate", you no doubt mean "collaborationist".
Were you a member of AHSA?
Were you sorry to see them go?
This appears to merely be the rotting corpse of AHSA trying to claw its way out of the grave.
Not everyone "fears" registration, "assault weapon" bans, magazine capacity limits and confiscation.
The ones who don't are called "anti-gunners".
Last edited:
Deanimator
Member
Then you are "highly in favor of" REGISTRATION, since without registration, "universal" background checks are an utter nullity.
Tell everybody how Chicago's handgun BAN was implemented.
I DARE you.
rbernie
Contributing Member
Can you comfortably say that about any other Constitutional right? Voting, say?
More to the point, can you show any empirical evidence that a lower standard for training has any impact on public safety at all? Or is this just another one of those 'common sense' notions that has no actual basis in fact and simply has emotional resonance?
Deanimator
Member
Conceptually, it's awfully hard to distinguish most impediments to owning and carrying firearms from "literacy", property, and religious conformity tests for voting.
In general, it's even harder to differentiate the malice motivating the advocates of either set of handicaps.
Last edited:
r1derbike
Member
Nobody!
JSH1, nobody, and I mean NOBODY is going to limit my magazine size, when the possibility (it happened at my home, my wife and I nixed it with fast thinking) of multiple armed home invaders is so large.
All I had at the time was a sidearm, lady at front door offering free carpet cleaning with the crew in her beat-up van, saw it, and she immediately left and van tore-off. Wife slammed door as soon as she turned around.
That day, I bought defensive hardware that could deal with multiple intruders.
You and everyone else parroting common sense measures are preaching to the choir here.
I'm surprised some of the comments aren't more colorful, but this is THR.
JSH1, nobody, and I mean NOBODY is going to limit my magazine size, when the possibility (it happened at my home, my wife and I nixed it with fast thinking) of multiple armed home invaders is so large.
All I had at the time was a sidearm, lady at front door offering free carpet cleaning with the crew in her beat-up van, saw it, and she immediately left and van tore-off. Wife slammed door as soon as she turned around.
That day, I bought defensive hardware that could deal with multiple intruders.
You and everyone else parroting common sense measures are preaching to the choir here.
I'm surprised some of the comments aren't more colorful, but this is THR.
Sam Cade
Member
mljdeckard
Member
And I have just as little time for them in here as I have for them anywhere else. More members to block.
It's disappointing how people who disagree with the NRA on even one issue are labeled as "anti-gun." If you disagree with the ACLU on even one issue, does that make you "anti-free-speech" overall? If you disagree with a particular US administration on even one issue, does that make you anti-American? If you disagree with an environmental lobbying group on even one issue, does that make you anti-environment? Etc.
JohnBT
Member
"I do find it troubling that someone can go out a buy a gun, pay $20 for a concealed carry license and then carry that gun in public"
Why? We are law abiding citizens. The number of crimes committed by us are infinitesimal - approaching zero, but not zero.
The crooks don't bother with licenses. I worry about them.
John
Why? We are law abiding citizens. The number of crimes committed by us are infinitesimal - approaching zero, but not zero.
The crooks don't bother with licenses. I worry about them.
John
I don't think you are an anti, I think you are uncritically buying into anti propaganda.
Since you are a n00b you may not realize that there is a long history of Antis coming on THR to "educate" the benighted gun nuts. You are being met with resistance because we have been down this road many times before. It is up to you to find your place within this community, not the other way around.
zxcvbob
Member
"Looks like BS, smells like BS, tastes like BS. Sure glad I didn't step in it"
Yeah this is where we are supposed to compromise our rights away, you know, "common-sense" and "sensible" laws that destroy our 2nd amendment rights, so that we can prove how we can be inclusive and work together and reasonable, blah blah blah ..
NO new gun control, NO new schemes for confiscation, NO.
Now go back to your gun control friends and whine about how mean and unreasonable we are. Don't forget about the NRA, they walloped your plans in the Senate. Ha!
NO new gun control, NO new schemes for confiscation, NO.
Now go back to your gun control friends and whine about how mean and unreasonable we are. Don't forget about the NRA, they walloped your plans in the Senate. Ha!
Last edited:
Deanimator
Member
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
