Are you a Democrat, a Republican, or a Redneck?

[quote="Ed.A

Actually, if you were a real man "..........







You just wont stop name calling will you!

Your heroic signature says this:
"People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf.
George Orwell (1903 - 1950),".......

You are one of the peaceful sleepers who owes much to those "rough men" you obviously admire so much & seek to emulate. Dont forget it!




In another Winston Churchill quote , please substitute your name for "Mr. Atlee" & it is quite accurate:



Mr. Attlee is a very modest man. Indeed he has a lot to be modest about.
Winston Churchill

mikeandgerry wrote:"This country was alot different in 1776 than it is in 2008. "

Yes, the people need to have the Supreme Court clarify that long gun ownership in 1776 put the people's militia on par with the military infantry. The people have the right to keep and bear machine guns, rocket launchers, grenades, communications, etc. to be on par with the modern military infantry.

I had thought I was as pro-gun as the next guy, but apparently I was wrong.

I disagree that the 2nd amendment acknowledges a right of citizens to keep and bear RPGs. As a practical matter, where you going to go to get in some target practice?

I don't think militias were meant to be kept on a par with national armies. Indeed a militia's strength was in having adequate weapons, quick response, a lot of bodies (and adequate weapons) to throw at a problem, a lot of gile, and fighting for their property and lives. Parity of armorment and training wasn't what the 2nd amendment was about so far as I understand it. However, I can see how that might be what you understand it to mean. So, I'm in favor of a new amendment that specifies what firearms fall under the 2nd amendment right and what "keep and bear" means more specifically as it applies in today's world. The one thing anti-gunners are right about is that times have changed and the law needs to keep up with the times. They are just dead wrong about it being correct and reasonable to "update" it through judicial fiat and extraconstitutional (and often unconstitutional) legislation.

The constitution is a living, breathing document, but it lives and breathes through amendment, not through judicial whim, common law, or mere legislative tinkering. Until an amendment is passed to override it, the 2nd amendment, just like all the others, means what it says and what it meant at the time it was wrote. Nothing more, nothing less.

Ideas for the amendment:

• There is a federal ban on non-sanctioned firearm possession of any type, except these types: rifles, pistols, shotguns, machine guns.
• Ban non-state sanctioned possession of all firearms except for single barrel, single shot and semi-automatic rifles; single and double barrel, single shot and semi-automatic shotguns; and single barrel, single and semi-automatic pistols.
• Ban on non-state sanctioned vehicle mounted weaponry. Excludes mere possession and transport within a vehicle. Excludes interior mounted vaults or safes. Excludes "gun racks". Idea here is to prevent people from mounting a weapon for firing at targets outside a vehicle or inside a vehicle. States can write in exclusions as they see fit.
• The identity of a buyer must be established and they must pass a national instant background check performed on them prior to any sale or transfer of a firearm, including private person-to-person sales and transfers. No records of the check or sale which identify the buyer may be kept by any government or government actor (the buyer and seller must keep a record of the check and sale for 3 years). All sales must be performed with a reciept of some kind which is witnessed by a state sanctioned gun dealer or if between two private citizens is notarized.
• Transport of locked, unloaded sanctioned firearms within a state is always permitted. Transport across state borders is permitted if the firearm is sanctioned in that state. States can define less restrictive transport laws as they see fit. States may mandate use of carrying cases or bags, but not of locking devices on those containters.
• Hidden (trunk, glove compartment, under/behind seat, etc.) storage of locked, unloaded sanctioned firearms in a locked vehicle is always permitted. States may exclude local, state, and federal public buildings and indoor and rooftop parking facilities. Private citizens and organizations may exclude their buildings, their indoor and rooftop parking facilities too, but not outdoor, street, or adjacent open air parking structures. States can define less restrictive vehicle storage laws as they see fit. States may mandate use of carrying cases or bags, but not of locking devices on those containters.
• Possession of sanctioned firearms in the owner's home and enclosed structures on his/her land in any manner the firearm owner sees fit is permitted.
• Possession of sanctioned firearms at a shooting range facility is always permitted and subject to the rules of the facility.
• Concealed carry possession is permitted for sanctioned handguns. States may define a non-subjective permit process that include background check, character references, fingerprinting, picture, and state sanctioned, privately run defensive handgun use training course. Permit applications must be processed and granted or denied within 30 business days upon receipt of all applicant provided application materials, or else it is defaulted to being granted. Permit processes, with the exception of a training course, must be made available for a maximum inflation adjusted price of $100. States may define a period after which a permit must be renewed. The period must not be shorter than 1 year. Renewal can include all elements of initial application process but can only cost the applicant an inflation adjusted $25 (excluding training course) and again must be granted or denied for cause within 30 days. Training courses must cost no more than an inflation adjusted $50, last no longer than 8 hours, and be provided over 1 day. Such courses have no pass or fail.

Devil5052 wrote:Those who argue that the individual need for gun ownership is the same today, with instant communication, fast police response, over-crowded neighborhoods, etc, are just kidding themselves.

I disagree whole-heatedly. Do you live next door to a police station? I'm not in the boonies here and it can take several minutes for police to respond to a call. That's fine if they are responding to an incident that is over and done, but it might as well be 30 minutes or more for crimes in progress, particularly for those who come with violent intent or don't care about human life like we do.

I do live 1/4 of mile away from the fire station. I still have two fire extinguishers, two hoses, a few buckets, a few smoke/CO alarms and several water spigots around my house both inside and outside. I am armed to the teeth for a fire because I know, despite being within spitting distance of the firebarn and having nice neighbors, that matters little should the time come and its only a matter of seconds between a controllable fire and my house burning down. I also have escape plans should I be too late to deal with it myself.

Thankfully I don't have family here so I don't have that to worry about. If I did I suppose I'd have to install an automatic sprinkler system, which I suppose is the same as an automated, armed sentry bot guarding the windows and doors when it comes to criminals.

pvolcko wrote:

mikeandgerry wrote:"This country was alot different in 1776 than it is in 2008. "

Yes, the people need to have the Supreme Court clarify that long gun ownership in 1776 put the people's militia on par with the military infantry. The people have the right to keep and bear machine guns, rocket launchers, grenades, communications, etc. to be on par with the modern military infantry.

I had thought I was as pro-gun as the next guy, but apparently I was wrong.

I disagree that the 2nd amendment acknowledges a right of citizens to keep and bear RPGs. As a practical matter, where you going to go to get in some target practice?

I disagree whole-heatedly. Do you live next door to a police station? I'm not in the boonies here and it can take several minutes for police to respond to a call. That's fine if they are responding to an incident that is over and done, but it might as well be 30 minutes or more for crimes in progress, particularly for those who come with violent intent or don't care about human life like we do.









Response below:

If you read my whole post, I think I covered what your pointis here in that where you live makes all the difference & that most people are not that close to a Police station. (personaly I dont think you could ever expect the police to protect you unless you have a few of them with you at all times)

I only had time to skim your new amendment ideas but they seem fine. What I didn't see was a ban on the huge ammo magazines that are unnecessary for personal protection & provide terrrible lethality to large groups when in the hands of a deranged killer like we've recently seen. Why would anyone have a legitinate need for a 30+ magazine for sporting or defense purposes?

Well said Paul, I can attest to the police response time. A neighbor (lady) up the road from us called 9-11 because some punk/punks were banging on her door either trying to scare her or break in. The police barracks are 10 mins drive time away (IF YOU FOLLOW POSTED LIMITS) they arrived 15mins after the call was placed. The husband was livid when he found out. Not very reassuring if you ask me. I work nights, I always feel confident knowing my wife is permitted to and is a trained CCW holder, as well as my son who has been the Co-chair of the Friends of the NRA since he was 16 and is well versed in handling and usage.

[quote="Devil5052"]I disagree that the 2nd amendment acknowledges a right of citizens to keep and bear RPGs. As a practical matter, where you going to go to get in some target practice? [quote]

ATF does agree, it states arms, not flintlock muskets. You can purchase RPGs, machine guns, 5" cannons, "destructive devices" or whatever else you want, it just takes the proper paperwork and a clean record. There is no case of a legally registered item on that list of ever being used in a crime to my knowledge so I don't think anyone will lose their right to purchase these things in the near term. I'll warn you that these items are pricey however.

What I didn't see was a ban on the huge ammo magazines that are unnecessary for personal protection & provide terrrible lethality to large groups when in the hands of a deranged killer like we've recently seen. Why would anyone have a legitinate need for a 30+ magazine for sporting or defense purposes?

It all goes back to this, why do Corvettes have such large motors? Your only allowed to do 60 mph most places aways. I They have banned Barette 50 cals. in Califorina, not because they've been used in a crime, but because PERHAPS they could be used, never mind the fact that these things are huge and very expensive, they're simply very popular competition rifles. This type of BS could be applied to all types of everyday implements. I posted in another thread about Canada talking about banning "Rambo Knives"....again, not because they've been used in any crimes, but because they're scary and mean looking. The meat cleaver used on NY was actually pretty benign looking until it was being used to hack a woman to death, are we to ban Meat Cleavers next?
Take this example, in the State of Connecticut it is illegal to own a AK-47 in 7.62 x 39 but yet it is perfectly legal to own a SKS in 7.62 x 39, why? Becuase the the SKS does not have a pistol grip, same caliber same firing rate (semi-auto)...make alot sense to you? Here, it gets better, it's perfectly legal to own a AK-74 in 5.45 x 39, same action, same exact looks different caliber.
And yes I enjoy the hell out of shooting using my 30 round magazines and they have never been used in any crime. Although I can change out a 10 round magazine in less than 3 seconds if I have to, any damage being inflicted upon is still going to be extemely ugly be it a a double magazine ( 60 rounds, my personal favorite) or bunch 10 round mags.

Devil5052 wrote:If you read my whole post, I think I covered what your pointis here in that where you live makes all the difference & that most people are not that close to a Police station. (personaly I dont think you could ever expect the police to protect you unless you have a few of them with you at all times)

You did say that, but it seemed in conflict with the point I was referring to. It seems we agree it can make some difference where one lives and their proximity to police response, but as you say only 24/7 on premesis (or perhaps neighborhood) police presence will be good enough to protect a person, so doesn't that leave us at a right to keep and bear arms, at least in one's domicile and on one's land, regardless of neighbor proximity, urban/suburban/rural locale, or other such considerations? Unless you live in an apartment building with armed guards and a magnetometer screening everyone entering doesn't the natural right to effective self defense lead to a right to keep and bear arms in that living space for personal defense?

I only had time to skim your new amendment ideas but they seem fine. What I didn't see was a ban on the huge ammo magazines that are unnecessary for personal protection & provide terrrible lethality to large groups when in the hands of a deranged killer like we've recently seen. Why would anyone have a legitinate need for a 30+ magazine for sporting or defense purposes?

I didn't call this one out in the list. I did it off the cuff and no doubt missed some items.

At first blush I'd tend to agree 30 round mags aren't necessary but for the most dire of circumstances. Actually high powered rifles are relatively bad for home defense purposes in general. Shotgun with bird shot or frangible handgun ammo are probably the safest to others who might be in the house or next door neighbors, and tend to be most effective against an assailant. However such circumstances where more uninterrupted rounds are needed do happen from time to time. Most are probably scenarios untrained people would be well advised to hide or get away from, but even home intrusion (particularly multiple person) where reloading can be fatal once you've begun shooting in defense is a reasonable scenario for high cap mags. I know that if I were faced with a home intrusion I'd rather have a full capacity mag of frangibles than a state mandated 5, 6, or 7 plus 1. I'd hope I'd only need one round, but from what I've been told and read and heard trained people often get flustered and panic and miss, I can't be sure I wouldn't too. I'd want as many backup shots as I could get. Police don't roll into a break-in scenario with restricted capacity mags, not sure why I should.

They are practically useless for hunting purposes except maybe very big game, but if you need that many shots you're either very bad or have the wrong gun for the hunt. They can eliminate some of the hassle (and be quite a bit of fun) at a shooting range.

And as far as mass killings go, they seem to be making do with legal lower capacity mags, inflicting huge carnage. So far as I remember the Virginia Tech and recent NIU attacks were both done with multiple weapons and multiple low capacity mags. They both were reported to be calm and to reload at some point. So I don't see this potential threat as a good reason to mandate lower capacities, only a good reason to encourage more responsible, legally permitted people to carry concealed (or increase armed guard presence or both).

Lastly, the higher capacity mags are out there, no way to undo that or change that. If the bad guys can get them then it is only fair we should be able to, too.

coaledsweat wrote:ATF does agree, it states arms, not flintlock muskets. You can purchase RPGs, machine guns, 5" cannons, "destructive devices" or whatever else you want, it just takes the proper paperwork and a clean record. There is no case of a legally registered item on that list of ever being used in a crime to my knowledge so I don't think anyone will lose their right to purchase these things in the near term. I'll warn you that these items are pricey however.

I've seen the machine gun and cannon videos taken out in some US desert on the intertubes. Looked like piles of fun. Can't say I've seen the RPG fun in the US video though. Don't think I've seen the grenade or mortar in Nevada desert video's either. Maybe I'm just not looking hard enough.

I'm guessing that possession and use of these is also regulated by state law too, not just federal laws? As I proposed, there would be nothing to stop a state from allowing these. And I'd get the feds out of it entirely (except for monitoring and regulating import and export of them into and out of the country). With such weapons I could see a strong case for regulating where they can be used. A minigun isn't really safe to use for home defense in the suburbs. Though I suppose it would be highly effective. Park it out on the porch and chances are no one is going to screw with burglarizing your place.

And just in case it has to be said: My views are my own and should not be taken to reflect the attitudes or positions of Automation Correct.

I really should stay out of these discussions. I've probably offended 10 customers and turned away another 10 potential customers since getting into these topics.

Neil will eventually stumble upon these and "have a talk" with me.

I guess this discussion leads in a circle. It sounds like most of us beleive there needs to be some kind of restrictions on what an individual can arm himself with. The question is what those restrictions should be. Again, setting aside the difficulty & costs involved, would anyone argue there should be no legal restrictions keeping an individual from owning nuclear weapons? OK..then how about flame throwers,howitzers, hand grenades, etc.?? Where do you draw the line?
(or do you see no need for any lines whatsoever?.....(In which case I would like to know your whereabouts at all times!))

Devil5052 wrote: I think my arguments were absolutely accurate & I really dont understand your obvious anger, as the thrust of my post was to point out the inherant problems dividing the sides in the gun ownership debate when neither side is totaly right or wrong.

Your arguments are not even well thought out. To wit:

1) The second amendment is not known as Article II

2) Here is Article I section 8 (selected excerpt):

Section 8. The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

...To declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water;

To raise and support armies, but no appropriation of money to that use shall be for a longer term than two years;

To provide and maintain a navy;

To make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces;

To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the states respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

To exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten miles square) as may, by cession of particular states, and the acceptance of Congress, become the seat of the government of the United States, and to exercise like authority over all places purchased by the consent of the legislature of the state in which the same shall be, for the erection of forts, magazines, arsenals, dockyards, and other needful buildings;--And

To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof.

3)Article I Section 10 (in its entirety):

No state shall, without the consent of Congress, lay any duty of tonnage, keep troops, or ships of war in time of peace, enter into any agreement or compact with another state, or with a foreign power, or engage in war, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent danger as will not admit of delay.

4) Amendment II

"A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed."


5)The Tenth Amendment
Amendment X

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.



-------------------------

In other words,

1) The federal government has OTHER constitutional authority to provide and maintain an Army and Navy.

2) the US states cannot keep militias without the consent of congress but are authorized to do it today.

3) the People, not the just the states, retain the right to keep and bear arms. There was simply no other reason to put that amendment in the Constitution since Article I covers the bases of keeping an army and a militia (see 1) &2)).

4) And, since the constitution doesn't spcifically exclude the keeping and bearing of arms by the people, the tenth amendment guarantees that they can.

I only get angry at capricious arguments foisted upon the People to seize their clearly enumerated rights. Your ignorance is apalling. You need to read the Constitution with annotations.

There should be no argument concerning gun ownership that needs to be settled. Only the left thinks there is a problem with it and they are summarily wrong.

pvolcko wrote:I disagree that the 2nd amendment acknowledges a right of citizens to keep and bear RPGs. As a practical matter, where you going to go to get in some target practice?

I don't think militias were meant to be kept on a par with national armies. Indeed a militia's strength was in having adequate weapons, quick response, a lot of bodies (and adequate weapons) to throw at a problem, a lot of gile, and fighting for their property and lives.

The constitution is a living, breathing document, but it lives and breathes through amendment, not through judicial whim, common law, or mere legislative tinkering. Until an amendment is passed to override it, the 2nd amendment, just like all the others, means what it says and what it meant at the time it was wrote. Nothing more, nothing less.

I didn't say "on par with national armies", I said on par with INFANTRY. The intent was to be like the minutemen of the revolution, and they were nearly on par with the British army in small arms, at least enough that their zeal could overcome their lack of "regulation".

It's a pointless amendment if it doesn't have teeth. The Founders agreed that it needed teeth. People today want to give it dentures.

I only own one long gun. I am no gun nut. I am a Constitution nut and I am happy to hear you also insist on the need to change the law correctly. Without that we are lost. But please, please, no verbosity in the Constitution; Keep the verbosity in debate. Leave alone the elegant economy of words our forefathers laid down. Let us rebuild our society with the Law of our forefathers, not expand the number of legal tomes we need to control our fellow man.

We need only to read more often.

Devil5052 wrote:What I didn't see was a ban on the huge ammo magazines that are unnecessary for personal protection & provide terrrible lethality to large groups when in the hands of a deranged killer like we've recently seen. Why would anyone have a legitinate need for a 30+ magazine for sporting or defense purposes?

The second amendment isn't about personal protection. It isn't about hunting either. It's about freedom. It's about freedom from the tyranny. Your argument is like me saying, "it's unnecessary that you have that huge Hummer in your driveway. No one needs one. There should be a law against that because...blah blah blah." And then you answer, but I need one to protect my family on the road. and I say: "but if you run into my Ford escort you will kill my family" etc etc.

The difference here is that firearm ownership is about defending freedom from governmnet tyranny and it is a constitutional right. To my way of thinking it is a duty. That's also how our Forefathers thought and I wish Americans would just start reading and thinking instead of assuming they know about their government and history because they watch TV.

Try defending this nation's culture just once instead of "changing" it. Today's society thinks their forefathers were dolts. If they only knew.

69Drag wrote:I mentioned this in my first post but I'll say it again. The U.S. Dept of Justice completed an in depth study on the Second Amendment. If you consider them to be an unbiased source, its worth checking out. Its long and parts of it are very wordy but they do explain it in easy to understand text as well. They didn't get into what types of guns are covered, just what it means and who it applies to. They spell out that only people (individuals) have rights, not government entities. They operate under authority. The people have rights to protect them from government. As soon as I find the link I'll post it. That is, as soon as I figure out how to post a link! Ha!

John

Thanks, I'd love to read it.

stockingfull wrote:My point on ccw laws is simple. Nobody ever would have thought of them, much less enacted them, if there hadn't been a serious public safety concern with packing.

No different than cowboys checking their holsters as they rode into Dodge in the old days.

Our forebears long ago evaluated the risks and benefits and came up with various forms of ccw laws. As the old saying goes, we either study history or are doomed to repeat it.

I think they came out of the Bonnie and Clyde/Dillinger days but I could be wrong. I haven't researched it.

I can understand a frightened public who sees gangs slaughter themselves and innocents with machine guns and hand guns and knives and whatever. But, as was stated by a Democrat in a time of public fear of a murderous bunch of thugs, "We have nothing to fear, but fear itself"

The irrational killing by thugs, gangs and antisocials will NEVER be corrected by a cowering, disarmed populace stripped of its guns. Eliminating CCW laws eliminates the ability of the brave to stop the depraved.