Loving the lefty tolerance

Tektite said:
First off, sorry i didn't quote in the last reply....It was for Damocles (obviously, I reckon)
Click to expand...
not a problem. was easy to figure out.

Tektite said:
Smarter, I actually am a bit ignorant on the wording. Where do 'arms' end, so-to-speak? (honest question)
Click to expand...

Arms, as has been usually defined by the founders, framers, and most all courts, consists of weapons that can be carried by an individual. Should include knives, swords, pistols, and rifles. Now, some may try to use the RPG and grenade launcher examples....I actually think they should be ownable but the ammo for them would be rather expensive and would limit owning them to only the wealthy, which I disagree with.
 
A little machine gun magic here:

"In 1995 there were over 240,000 machine guns registered with the BATF.....Since 1934, there appear to have been at least two homicides committed with legally owned automatic weapons. One was a murder committed by a law enforcement officer (as opposed to a civilian). On September 15th, 1988, a 13-year veteran of the Dayton, Ohio police department, Patrolman Roger Waller, then 32, used his fully automatic MAC-11 .380 caliber submachine gun to kill a police informant, 52-year-old Lawrence Hileman. Patrolman Waller pleaded guilty in 1990, and he and an accomplice were sentenced to 18 years in prison. The 1986 'ban' on sales of new machine guns does not apply to purchases by law enforcement or government agencies."

http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcfullau.html

By the way, I think "arms" means "small arms." I also think it is common sense. I don't imagine Paul Revere toting around a canon behind his horse. I don't think a so-called assault weapons ban is needed and it will backfire on Obama and the rest if it goes through again. All it did and will do is ban weapons based solely on cosmetics.
 
SmarterThanYou said:
of course
Click to expand...

Maybe I used a bad analogy, but my point was this: same day, same subject, same protest....was part inside or were there truly two completely separate groups/faction/whateva who happened to be at the same church at the same time on the same day?
 
Tektite said:
Being another man from NC, I can only guess that you've not seen anything like this around your church. In the mountains this sort of thing is NOT normal and to my knowledge is not happening around here.

I would hope you understand that these 'Bash Back Lansing' folks do not represent the majority of 'social liberals' out there; they certainly don't speak for me and my ilk. I for one look forward with hope to the next presidency while at the same time I respect the beliefs of those with whom I disagree. Your church is your church and so on.

Before I google it, do you have a more moderate website illustrating the aforementioned deeds?

In summary, it ain't "us lefties", it's a small group of whackjobs (assuming the article is truthful in its assertions).
Click to expand...

Nicely done!
 
SmarterThanYou said:
not a problem. was easy to figure out.



Arms, as has been usually defined by the founders, framers, and most all courts, consists of weapons that can be carried by an individual. Should include knives, swords, pistols, and rifles. Now, some may try to use the RPG and grenade launcher examples....I actually think they should be ownable but the ammo for them would be rather expensive and would limit owning them to only the wealthy, which I disagree with.
Click to expand...

So you'd agree with allowing people to own grenade launchers as long as it was government subsidized so that poors could afford them?
 
leaningright said:
A little machine gun magic here:

"In 1995 there were over 240,000 machine guns registered with the BATF.....Since 1934, there appear to have been at least two homicides committed with legally owned automatic weapons. One was a murder committed by a law enforcement officer (as opposed to a civilian). On September 15th, 1988, a 13-year veteran of the Dayton, Ohio police department, Patrolman Roger Waller, then 32, used his fully automatic MAC-11 .380 caliber submachine gun to kill a police informant, 52-year-old Lawrence Hileman. Patrolman Waller pleaded guilty in 1990, and he and an accomplice were sentenced to 18 years in prison. The 1986 'ban' on sales of new machine guns does not apply to purchases by law enforcement or government agencies."

http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcfullau.html

By the way, I think "arms" means "small arms." I also think it is common sense. I don't imagine Paul Revere toting around a canon behind his horse. I don't think a so-called assault weapons ban is needed and it will backfire on Obama and the rest if it goes through again. All it did and will do is ban weapons based solely on cosmetics.
Click to expand...

Your statistics are made up.

And people get illegal weapons from "law-abiding" citizens all the time. That's the primary way gangs get armed: they steal a persons car and get the gun.
 
Watermark said:
So you'd agree with allowing people to own grenade launchers as long as it was government subsidized so that poors could afford them?
Click to expand...

no. government subsidation would not work because it would only drive up the price of said ammo. I also tend to think since grenades are wide range casualty devices, they aren't really related to small arms. In the end, I'd probably say that they should not be ownable.
 
SmarterThanYou said:
whats your take on the constitutionality of this 'ban', considering that it exempts government agencies and law enforcement?
Click to expand...

Personally I don't think it is constitutional but it is not something that I would put a lot of effort lobbying to have removed.
 
leaningright said:
I need to clarify here. Are you talking about the 1934 ban or the Clinton Assault Weapons ban?
Click to expand...

I'd love to get rid of the 34 NFA, which is not a ban, it's a 'tax' on certain weapons, namely machine guns, short barreled shotguns, and silencers.

What I'd like to do away with is the 1986 ban on civilian ownership of machine guns manufactured AFTER May 19, 1986.
 
SmarterThanYou said:
I'd love to get rid of the 34 NFA, which is not a ban, it's a 'tax' on certain weapons, namely machine guns, short barreled shotguns, and silencers.

What I'd like to do away with is the 1986 ban on civilian ownership of machine guns manufactured AFTER May 19, 1986.
Click to expand...

OK. Now that I am clear on what we're talking about. I am not so revved up about making machine gun ownership legal again because I think there are more important battles to fight to maintain what we currently have. Obama will try to implement the Clinton ban again, and he will prevail. When Pelosi and the gang have this "victory" they will try for a little more and a little more. Most of them already don't want the average person to have handguns and this is what they will pursue next. Look for it in the next 4 if not 6 years.
 
leaningright said:
OK. Now that I am clear on what we're talking about. I am not so revved up about making machine gun ownership legal again because I think there are more important battles to fight to maintain what we currently have. Obama will try to implement the Clinton ban again, and he will prevail. When Pelosi and the gang have this "victory" they will try for a little more and a little more. Most of them already don't want the average person to have handguns and this is what they will pursue next. Look for it in the next 4 if not 6 years.
Click to expand...

The AWB of 09, or H.R. 1022 doesn't have a chance even if passed by the house and senate. The lawsuit to stop it would be filed within minutes of Obama signing it. With Heller decided and the 'in common use' portion of that decision, every federal court in the land would have to decide one of three things.
1) every weapon in the AWB is not a weapon in common use (which would never work considering the list of weapons they have in there)
2) take a case by case basis which would totally flood the courts and overwhelm the system. Not going to happen.
3) decide the unconstitutionality of it. no brainer.

machine gun ownership is not illegal. you can still own machine guns made and taxed BEFORE May 19, 1986. It's only machine guns made AFTER that date that are banned and it's not even a ban. You can own a machine gun made after that date if you can get a tax stamp for it. The problem is that congress is not providing the ability for the ATF to accept the tax payment. Now we have a commerce clause violation. Why not fight that?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top