Grey Templar wrote: If you didn't believe in the document, the entire document, maybe you shouldn't have signed up to protect it and its people in the first place.
The fact you think The United States citizens belong to the Constitutions is disturbing, nobody in this country owes there life or their freedoms to a political document.
If you think something that is a inanimate object deserves total unquestioning devotion then you have an Issue I could never hope to address.
A piece of paper that can be burnt, or ripped up, or simply ignored is not whats stopping tyranny, chaos and suffering, it's people, it's the guy who works at the justice department doing his best to fight discrimination, it's the soldier who dies to protect his people, it's the man at the FBI trying to catch a serial killer, it's the man in the CIA doing his best to promote US interests, it's the guy in FEMA who wades into disaster zones to help people hes never met, it's the president who tries to keep this country afloat despite all the crap thrown at him.
The Government is not made up of space aliens and Lizard people. It's made of people like me, like you, like all of us.
To claim what has stopped tyranny and oppression in this country is a document signed by a bunch of men to dead to care (and I mean care about what we do now) is to marginalize the sacrifices of every person who has worked to make the idea of a free nation a reality.
The United States isn't about Freedom, it's about people. The idea of a government that is run for the people, comprised of the people, and takes it power from the people is what America is about not obfuscating out of date political documents formed from a political comprise.
So yeah, my loyalties don't lie with documents. They lie with people, I would rather support a living breathing person than a faceless scribble of political ideals that's no more helpful in feeding a hungry family than it is in stopping a dictator who, I'm pretty sure, would be rather unmoved by the condemnations a old document lays upon him.
You have no argument though. Calling me an 18 year old that is "wide eyed and naive" just reasserts the fact rather than put time or effort into trying to refute my points or engage in debate and discussion over an interesting topic you would just throw insults around.
"
So far in this thread you've been wrong about:
1. The principles of libertarianism. You have no clue what they are and claim everything you know is from other 18 year olds who are just as likely to change their political affiliation to get some ass as they are to get drunk on a Friday night. This has been pointed out by a number of people.
2. The "unchanging" constitution. As I said, it's officially changed 27 times. It has provisions built into it to allow for such change. Further, you seem to lack a basic understanding of why those who "cling" to the bill of rights do so, despite multiple people explaining it to you.
3. The basic understanding of gun laws in the United States. You seem to have no idea what's involved in the background check process or, really, any basic gun ownership rights or responsibilities. With that in mind, in first thankful that you don't own a firearm yourself, but am terrified at the prospect of you being responsible for one in ROTC.
I mean, that's just off the top of my head. If I dig back a few pages, I'm sure I'll find more.
Like I said, you're 18. You think you know everything. You took your freshman level poli-sci class and now think you know everything there is to know about government and the constitution. It's okay. But were you a bit more mature, you'd do more hearing than waiting for your turn to talk and realize that nearly every "point" you've "made" in this thread has been directly addressed by someone with more knowledge and experience than you.
A piece of paper that can be burnt, or ripped up, or simply ignored is not whats stopping tyranny, chaos and suffering, it's people, it's the guy who works at the justice department doing his best to fight discrimination, it's the soldier who dies to protect his people, it's the man at the FBI trying to catch a serial killer, it's the man in the CIA doing his best to promote US interests, it's the guy in FEMA who wades into disaster zones to help people hes never met, it's the president who tries to keep this country afloat despite all the crap thrown at him.
To claim what has stopped tyranny and oppression in this country is a document signed by a bunch of men to dead to care (and I mean care about what we do now) is to marginalize the sacrifices of every person who has worked to make the idea of a free nation a reality.
No, it's the people fighting to uphold those rights granted to us by the Constitution that have stopped tyranny and oppression. It is the principles of that document that make the United States the most free country In the world, with citizens granted the utmost liberty to pursue life and happiness.
The United States isn't about Freedom, it's about people. The idea of a government that is run for the people, comprised of the people, and takes it power from the people is what America is about not obfuscating out of date political documents formed from a political comprise.
The ignorance in this statement is astounding, especially today. The United States government is no longer compromised "of the people" and hasn't been the day the first person declared their aspiration was to be a politician. Our founding fathers weren't politicians. They were soldiers and lawyers and publishers and thinkers and dreamers and were firstly "of the people". And for all of those reasons if becomes even more necessary that we the people, the actual people, do everything we can to maintain our freedoms, our liberty, while those who think they know better than us try and wrestle them away.
So yeah, my loyalties don't lie with documents. They lie with people, I would rather support a living breathing person than a faceless scribble of political ideals that's no more helpful in feeding a hungry family than it is in stopping a dictator who, I'm pretty sure, would be rather unmoved by the condemnations a old document lays upon him.
Yeah, as others who are also military/prior-military, you should probably get out while you can.... If you paid even the slightest bit of attention to your oath, or what it means, you'd quickly realize that yes, you are defending the People first, but as the People are protected by a "faceless scribble of political ideals" as you call it, obviously you're trying to get the tail that comes with the Trademarked "Ranger Panties"
With the family history you say you have, I'm VERY surprised you take this view on the Constitution and our rights as Americans. As a person, you can certainly question the validity of certain elements of any aspect of our US Government, however as a Soldier/ Officer, you have to uphold the RAW of the Constitution, and cannot question it.
So yeah, my loyalties don't lie with documents. They lie with people, I would rather support a living breathing person than a faceless scribble of political ideals that's no more helpful in feeding a hungry family than it is in stopping a dictator who, I'm pretty sure, would be rather unmoved by the condemnations a old document lays upon him.
I submit you reread the oath you allegedly took. It is in one of my posts on the previous page.
At this point I think he's trolling on purpose. No one is that ignorant about the importance of the Constitution in the American way of life. It defines what our beliefs are. Everyone is held to it, even the President.
As for my slippery slope parable, It's not slippery slope because I was talking about the past and what has happened already. if I was talking about the future, then sure, but I was talking about the past and showing a pattern.
But those people have put forth a document demonstrating their ideals. Swearing loyalty to that document is swearing loyalty to them.
You do know that the Constitution isn't about ideals right? The bill of rights is a federal regulation plan that was written to appease Jefferson and his braying party members.
You're making the fething thing out to be way more than it really is. The bill of rights is not some document that represents all American ideals, you know why? Because you would be shocked to find how unpopular the second amendment is with victims of gun violence. You would be shocked to find that people's ideals vary person to person.
We have a system of government, a democratic republic, if you want your ideals represented you vote for someone who shares them or run yourself.
The fact that anyone would swear loyalty to a document a bunch of dead men wrote is wrong, nobody should be forced to swear to be loyal to a document that self admits it's not perfect and it's author outright stated that it should not form just more chains to stop the countries governmental progress later on is wrong.
Alexzandvar wrote: nobody should be forced to swear to be loyal to a document that self admits it's not perfect and it's author outright stated that it should not form just more chains to stop the countries governmental progress later on is wrong.
And nobody is being forced to do it. But you apparently did so voluntarily.
And the Constitution is most certainly about ideals. People came together and collectively put it together. And collectively they can change it too. Individual beliefs can vary of course. But you better not make an oath to that document, that the citizens came together and collectively made, unless you are willing to stand by it. You're free to not take that oath.
carlos13th wrote: Yeah I would say that home invasion is a different to someone holding you up for your wallet in the street for example.
I didn't know about those particular studies Fraz will have to check them out. Do you have links to them?
I will look. I swear it was on NPR of all places a few years ago or something. We tried it at the house and its surprising. ESPECIALLY if the person who's already drawn gets talking.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
At 18, he's not commissioned yet. At best his scholarship gets pulled.
Sorry I meant his ROTC commission and scholarship. You're very correct.
No worries!!
Back to defensive gun use, Id read that about 1/4 of the time, the firearm is used outside the home in self defense. One of the reasons I carry in the house.
You have no argument though. Calling me an 18 year old that is "wide eyed and naive" just reasserts the fact rather than put time or effort into trying to refute my points or engage in debate and discussion over an interesting topic you would just throw insults around.
"
So far in this thread you've been wrong about:
1. The principles of libertarianism. You have no clue what they are and claim everything you know is from other 18 year olds who are just as likely to change their political affiliation to get some ass as they are to get drunk on a Friday night. This has been pointed out by a number of people.
2. The "unchanging" constitution. As I said, it's officially changed 27 times. It has provisions built into it to allow for such change. Further, you seem to lack a basic understanding of why those who "cling" to the bill of rights do so, despite multiple people explaining it to you.
3. The basic understanding of gun laws in the United States. You seem to have no idea what's involved in the background check process or, really, any basic gun ownership rights or responsibilities. With that in mind, in first thankful that you don't own a firearm yourself, but am terrified at the prospect of you being responsible for one in ROTC.
I mean, that's just off the top of my head. If I dig back a few pages, I'm sure I'll find more.
Like I said, you're 18. You think you know everything. You took your freshman level poli-sci class and now think you know everything there is to know about government and the constitution. It's okay. But were you a bit more mature, you'd do more hearing than waiting for your turn to talk and realize that nearly every "point" you've "made" in this thread has been directly addressed by someone with more knowledge and experience than you.
A piece of paper that can be burnt, or ripped up, or simply ignored is not whats stopping tyranny, chaos and suffering, it's people, it's the guy who works at the justice department doing his best to fight discrimination, it's the soldier who dies to protect his people, it's the man at the FBI trying to catch a serial killer, it's the man in the CIA doing his best to promote US interests, it's the guy in FEMA who wades into disaster zones to help people hes never met, it's the president who tries to keep this country afloat despite all the crap thrown at him.
To claim what has stopped tyranny and oppression in this country is a document signed by a bunch of men to dead to care (and I mean care about what we do now) is to marginalize the sacrifices of every person who has worked to make the idea of a free nation a reality.
No, it's the people fighting to uphold those rights granted to us by the Constitution that have stopped tyranny and oppression. It is the principles of that document that make the United States the most free country In the world, with citizens granted the utmost liberty to pursue life and happiness.
The United States isn't about Freedom, it's about people. The idea of a government that is run for the people, comprised of the people, and takes it power from the people is what America is about not obfuscating out of date political documents formed from a political comprise.
The ignorance in this statement is astounding, especially today. The United States government is no longer compromised "of the people" and hasn't been the day the first person declared their aspiration was to be a politician. Our founding fathers weren't politicians. They were soldiers and lawyers and publishers and thinkers and dreamers and were firstly "of the people". And for all of those reasons if becomes even more necessary that we the people, the actual people, do everything we can to maintain our freedoms, our liberty, while those who think they know better than us try and wrestle them away.
You are either trolling or are legit kidding yourself with this statement. You do know about the continental congress right? You again ignored my statement that the document was written not in the interest of liberty but in the interest of politics. The fact the Bill of Rights and the Constitution itself being the result of a rather intense political battle is something you can find in pretty much any book about the Constitution itself.
Not to mention the fact you seem to think the government is just the legislative branch, Joe from Accounting at the EPA doesn't run on a platform for his fething desk job.
I also mentioned multiple times that yes, the Constitution had been amended, I never made the claim was a totally unchangeable thing, in fact, I said we need to change a lot about it.
If you also do actually think this country is the most free country in the world you need a reality check and trip around western europe. We are not some last bastion of freedom. We are a country that stands among many .
It's also pretty funny you think the USA is so much better than the rest of the world. Because as we know rampant nationalism and the belief your country is better than all others could never ever turn into something horrible .
So yeah, my loyalties don't lie with documents. They lie with people, I would rather support a living breathing person than a faceless scribble of political ideals that's no more helpful in feeding a hungry family than it is in stopping a dictator who, I'm pretty sure, would be rather unmoved by the condemnations a old document lays upon him.
Yeah, as others who are also military/prior-military, you should probably get out while you can.... If you paid even the slightest bit of attention to your oath, or what it means, you'd quickly realize that yes, you are defending the People first, but as the People are protected by a "faceless scribble of political ideals" as you call it, obviously you're trying to get the tail that comes with the Trademarked "Ranger Panties"
With the family history you say you have, I'm VERY surprised you take this view on the Constitution and our rights as Americans. As a person, you can certainly question the validity of certain elements of any aspect of our US Government, however as a Soldier/ Officer, you have to uphold the RAW of the Constitution, and cannot question it.
That my friends, is tyranny.
The irony dawn on you yet? You literally just said, that despite putting my life on the line for a document, I can not also question that document.
"arbitrary or unrestrained exercise of power; despotic abuse of authority"
Automatically Appended Next Post:
MWHistorian wrote: At this point I think he's trolling on purpose. No one is that ignorant about the importance of the Constitution in the American way of life. It defines what our beliefs are. Everyone is held to it, even the President.
As for my slippery slope parable, It's not slippery slope because I was talking about the past and what has happened already. if I was talking about the future, then sure, but I was talking about the past and showing a pattern.
Yes how ignorant of me to dare question previous notions.
Yeah those damn yankee revolutionaries and there ignorance of the British colonial way of life!
The irony dawn on you yet? You literally just said, that despite putting my life on the line for a document, I can not also question that document.
If you go back and re-read what I put down, you'd see what I actually said.... You, as an individual person, can question the Constitution and the validity of many of its aspects.... BUT!!!! many of us are Soldiers/Sailors, etc. and as we wear the uniform representing our country we cannot do so in the same manner. This is because some people are idiots, and if they see a Uniform saying "X amendment is BS, it should go away" they take it as meaning the US GOVT thinks it should go away. As such, if tomorrow, I went into my Company and was given the order, "Go with X squad to these streets, knock on, or knock down all the doors and confiscate the firearms you find" I would, by oath, and regulation be REQUIRED to not follow it. In your head, you should question that order, because you are already questioning the validity of the "piece of paper"
Is it perfect? No, and the guys' who wrote it knew it... But at the same time, they felt, and many of us still feel that is the best there is AT THE MOMENT.... If you come up with a 100% better governing system/legal system, etc. you be sure to get it out there, so we can all get straight into it.
I have a php function laying around somewhere for generating a square graphic with arbitrary text on it. It could likely be modified for exactly such a purpose.
Needs to have $font set to an appropriate font of where you keep them. Different if you're hosting it in windows. Beyond that, it's just a matter of setting a bunch of strings in an array and calling a random number generator to hit something in that array. The awesome graphics you created a while back would probably require further tinkering.
I could probably get it together at work sometime while bored, unless you want to have a crack at it first.
The irony dawn on you yet? You literally just said, that despite putting my life on the line for a document, I can not also question that document.
If you go back and re-read what I put down, you'd see what I actually said.... You, as an individual person, can question the Constitution and the validity of many of its aspects.... BUT!!!! many of us are Soldiers/Sailors, etc. and as we wear the uniform representing our country we cannot do so in the same manner. This is because some people are idiots, and if they see a Uniform saying "X amendment is BS, it should go away" they take it as meaning the US GOVT thinks it should go away. As such, if tomorrow, I went into my Company and was given the order, "Go with X squad to these streets, knock on, or knock down all the doors and confiscate the firearms you find" I would, by oath, and regulation be REQUIRED to not follow it. In your head, you should question that order, because you are already questioning the validity of the "piece of paper"
Is it perfect? No, and the guys' who wrote it knew it... But at the same time, they felt, and many of us still feel that is the best there is AT THE MOMENT.... If you come up with a 100% better governing system/legal system, etc. you be sure to get it out there, so we can all get straight into it.
It's not the best here at the moment, not even close, because 1 man in the senate can stand up and filibuster a raising of the debt ceiling and cause the destruction of the Western economy. That is broken, that's tyranny, one man can destroy economy, prevent budgets passing, hold up anything his given political creed defines as bad with out any way to stop him in the currently way the system is set up.
Super majorities are very hard to reach anymore, and your sure as hell not going to get one right now to help fix the Constitution through the amendment process.
and yes in my head I can question the constitution, but the fact as a soldier I cannot openly criticize it or recommend changes to it is a far more tyrannical thing then any gun confiscation.
It's very romantic to think that oaths are things than may never be broken, but well real life calls and then you will find people tend to hold on to things like Constitutions or oaths when the chips are down because neither of those things can feed your kids or keep them safe.
Admitting that our system of government needs a rethink is only the start, after it needs to come the realization that life isn't black or white or constitutional or unconstitutional. The day we can stand and be proud of our government not because of a aging political document but because of a peoples willingness to agree on what is right and what is wrong themselves in the forum of a Representative Republic system rather than be constrained by the political posturing of men who could have never predicted current events.
"one man can destroy economy, prevent budgets passing, hold up anything his given political creed defines as bad with out any way to stop him in the currently way the system is set up. "
They did just stop the Cruz (sp?) guy form Texas from filibustering the debt ceiling bill today. Granted I think it was more peer pressure then some sort of "You can't do that button/power" but they did.
MWHistorian wrote: One thing pro gun control people don't understand about pro 2nd A people that 2nd A people are reluctant to budge an inch because its not going to stop with "just one more law." Once that law is in place, a new bill will be proposed and then its another slice taken away.
Here's a parable.
I like the story, illustrates the fear gun owners have quite well.
But consider a person who has a three quarters of a cake, having given away a quarter. And he's sitting there looking at the cake, and there's parts he doesn't actually want. One corner has gone manky, wet and dry at the same time in a way that only packet made cake can, and there's one of those sugary decoration that's technically edible, but everyone only makes that mistake once.
And then he sees that guy come back again, and he knows that jerk is going to ask for more of his cake. Well, now the cake owner has a choice. One option is to fight tooth and nail for every single bit of cake whether he actually wants it or not, and likely set up an antagonistic relationship with that guy that will likely trick that guy in to thinking he has to keep coming back for more and more cake no matter what. But another option is to actually open a real and meaningful dialogue with the other guy, and try and set up mutual respect on both sides to build a solution that works best for everyone. Talk about the bits of cake you don't even want, and then genuinely listen when the other cake owner talks about why he thinks certain bits of cake need to be taken away.
Gun grabbers had been grabbing slices of our 2A cake for some time now. Just as they were at the cusp of taking the last slices, gun owners woke up, slapped the greedy lil hands of the gun grabbers and told them to pound sand. Hence the wailing from the gun grabbers side.
There can be no compromise where demonstrably, the other side wants you gone.
CptJake wrote: Many county and municipality police departments are fielding armored cars and swat teams. How much more funding do you thing they need? Has the vast expenditure of dollars to date had an effect in line with the resources spent? What makes you think MOAR is the answer?
There is wildly varying funding levels between police departments. And too often funding gets put in to unecessary toys, instead of practical but unexciting stuff like training and additional staff.
That said, policing on the whole is a red herring when it comes to explaining the murder rate in the US. Despite the complaints from so many US posters, standards of policing in the US are fine, in comparison to other developed countries. While countries like Brazil can point to their corrupt and frequently incompetent policing and explain it as a major driver of their murder rate, that makes no sense in the US.
And for the record If confiscating guns would feed more people, and help economic improvement I would do it in a heart beat.
I would like to believe it's a soldiers job to fight for what is right, not to cave to the convenience of circumstance, not to cling to a a document that's experiation date is long passed as an excuse for inaction.
Call me a communist, or socialist, or a liberal or what ever. But the idea soldiers are not robots and are capable of independent thought, that given the extreme a soldier may act not in protection of a document but the protection of there people and their peoples welfare is not a bad one, it is rather the opposite, a noble one.
So if the time ever came I had chose between the Constitution and the Fed Gov. I would chose the Fed Gov. My fellow man comes first, I would not use the Constitution as an excuse not to maintain order.
History has shown us that anarchy and chaos always destroy far more than any corrupt government. You want to know how to run the government huh? Start with system restricted not by men or a god, but by science, fact, and how we can serve our fellow man better.
Some of you should watch some Star Trek episodes, but I guess there all filthy communists to you, or oath breakers because they disobey the prime directive in extreme situations.
Attempting to use the existance of some people who would ban guns or allow them only under permit means that such a thing is a likely political end is ludicrous. You live a country where a requirement for a background check couldn't win a vote... and you think that all of a sudden people are going to lurch towards an outright ban on guns.
You have to get a lot more sensible about this. There is an actual reality to this debate that needs to be recognised.
Alexzandvar wrote: And for the record If confiscating guns would feed more people, and help economic improvement I would do it in a heart beat.
Whats awesome is how that that statement has absolutely nothing to do with anything, yet is terrifying. Oh and I am sure you would in your hypothetical. But then again, in your hypothetical, I'd shoot you in the face for trying.
CptJake wrote: Many county and municipality police departments are fielding armored cars and swat teams. How much more funding do you thing they need? Has the vast expenditure of dollars to date had an effect in line with the resources spent? What makes you think MOAR is the answer?
There is wildly varying funding levels between police departments. And too often funding gets put in to unecessary toys, instead of practical but unexciting stuff like training and additional staff.
That said, policing on the whole is a red herring when it comes to explaining the murder rate in the US. Despite the complaints from so many US posters, standards of policing in the US are fine, in comparison to other developed countries. While countries like Brazil can point to their corrupt and frequently incompetent policing and explain it as a major driver of their murder rate, that makes no sense in the US.
26FireGuy0369 wrote: "one man can destroy economy, prevent budgets passing, hold up anything his given political creed defines as bad with out any way to stop him in the currently way the system is set up. "
They did just stop the Cruz (sp?) guy form Texas from filibustering the debt ceiling bill today. Granted I think it was more peer pressure then some sort of "You can't do that button/power" but they did.
The point stands he still could have done it, it doesn't need to be Ted Cruz, and honestly Ted is far to career minded to make that political suicide.
No, it would more likely be someone like Rand Paul who would claim to do it on principle, regardless of the lives that would be destroyed by an total economic collapse.
It's interesting to note the last time the Constitution was changed was 1992, guess what it was?
"No law, varying the compensation for the services of the Senators and Representatives, shall take effect, until an election of Representatives shall have intervened."
A amendment to ensure congress never receives a pay cut
Attempting to use the existance of some people who would ban guns or allow them only under permit means that such a thing is a likely political end is ludicrous. You live a country where a requirement for a background check couldn't win a vote... and you think that all of a sudden people are going to lurch towards an outright ban on guns.
You have to get a lot more sensible about this. There is an actual reality to this debate that needs to be recognised.
Wish you were in the States then. Places like CA, NY (NYC) are seeing confiscation take place. THAT is the reality you seem to be missing.
Gun grabbers had been grabbing slices of our 2A cake for some time now. Just as they were at the cusp of taking the last slices, gun owners woke up, slapped the greedy lil hands of the gun grabbers and told them to pound sand. Hence the wailing from the gun grabbers side.
There can be no compromise where demonstrably, the other side wants you gone.
All you did was repeat the cake analogy, in a poorer form that it was originally posted.
And yes, some Americans want a total ban on guns, but go look up the polls. They're a tiny fraction of a percent. They are as irrelevant as the people who want legalised nuclear weapons. Simply declaring those people representative of the whole of the other side is hopelessly simplistic, and makes a sensible view of the realities of gun control absolutely impossible.
Alexzandvar wrote: And for the record If confiscating guns would feed more people, and help economic improvement I would do it in a heart beat.
Whats awesome is how that that statement has absolutely nothing to do with anything, yet is terrifying.
Oh and I am sure you would in your hypothetical. But then again, in your hypothetical, I'd shoot you in the face for trying.
It has to do with everything, the entire reason we started this conversation was the fact you and others in this thread have used the constitution to stamp out any possibility of resolving the issue.
If you unironically believe that the solution to our current problems is to stick to what got us into this situation you are hurting more than your helping. The second amendment is a thing only as far as the people who enforce it care to do so, and with public opinion turning against fire arms proliferation you might find yourself supreme court ruled out of your "guns" as it were.
By your logic, Eisenhower is not only a terrifying person, but one of those gun control lefties you hate so much:
"Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired, signifies in the final sense a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed."
-Dwight D Eisenhower.
Pray tell me, who is the better authority on how much guns are waste of human resources. You, me, or the man who led the western world's armies against Hitler.
Gun grabbers had been grabbing slices of our 2A cake for some time now. Just as they were at the cusp of taking the last slices, gun owners woke up, slapped the greedy lil hands of the gun grabbers and told them to pound sand. Hence the wailing from the gun grabbers side.
There can be no compromise where demonstrably, the other side wants you gone.
All you did was repeat the cake analogy, in a poorer form that it was originally posted.
And yes, some Americans want a total ban on guns, but go look up the polls. They're a tiny fraction of a percent. They are as irrelevant as the people who want legalised nuclear weapons. Simply declaring those people representative of the whole of the other side is hopelessly simplistic, and makes a sensible view of the realities of gun control absolutely impossible.
Actually, youre the one who took an old anti-gun control analogy and royally screwed it up:
carlos13th wrote: What did the national firearms act of 1934 actually do?
No machine guns, no greeners ( shotgun/rifle combo althugh that seems to have been gotten around). Some other stuff. Also it declared America Hurr you penny ante potrait artist with a bad moustache!
Frazzled wrote: They are trying to confiscate guns in Connecticut as well but having problems as no one is complying.
That's because noone is getting serious jail time if they refuse give up there illegal possessions.
I have a lot less sympathy for a man who refuses to give up his fire arm (Which is designed to cause physical harm and death to other people) than a man who refuses to give up his pot (which is only dangerous if he disobeys the law and smokes it while driving or before driving)
and before you give me the old run around by suggesting that a legally owned fire arm will not be used for evil any more than pot would I will say this:
Cars accidentally kill people yes, but we are working on ways to make cars safer, cars are not designed to kill people
Guns accidentally kill people, but we are working on ways to make guns more deadly, guns are designed to kill people.
People are legislating gun control because guns are only getting deadlier, and I don't know about you but there's no way to sell the proliferation of ever increasingly deadlier weapons.
The idea you must have a gun to be safe is a dated concept, and the more we cling to the idea we need guns to treat each other right the more we slide backwards in societal progression.
carlos13th wrote: What did the national firearms act of 1934 actually do?
FDR (Franklin Delano Roosevelt) was a socialist democrat president who wanted to control the ability of the average citizen to own an automatic weapon. Originally, he wanted to tax all firearms and establish a national registry of guns. When gun owners raised concern, Congress attempted to satiate the gun grabbers by scaling down FDR’s proposal to allow only a restrictive tax on machine guns and sawed-off shotguns, which at the time were thought to be weapons only a gangster would use with no real usefulness for self-defense by the average citizen.
So, the tax was levied at $200 ($3,478.64 in 2013 dollars) which at the time was an exorbitant amount - remember, the Stock Market crash of 1929 had just occurred and this tax took the ability away of the average citizen with little means to purchase such weapons.
This NFA act of 1934 did NOTHING (as do the current gun control laws) to provide for the public safety. It was, as it always has been, an exercise of control
The issue of gun control as well as things like the ATF (now BATF) and the NFA is convoluted and many times, contradictory in accomplishing it's stated intent.
cincydooley wrote: Wow. Way to take that quote completely out of context. I didn't realize the univerisity of Phoenix had an ROTC program.
Pray tell me how I should take the quote of a man who advocated for more spending on social programs versus military programs because he saw much in WW2, enough to convince him continuing the cycle of destruction will just result in more people going hungry as we dedicate more to arming our selves in fear in an ever increasing race to beat the other guys destructive potential.
Again with the insults, and of course, no actual refuting of my claims with evidence and commentary.
barring of course your little tirade on how "America is the bestest country evah" with zero self awareness of how your addressing someone who is speaking outside the norm by literally telling them to shut up and get back in line like America operates like some sort of excelptionalist hive mind.
The idea you think the founders were not politicians gives me a chuckle, I guess the insane gak throwing contest John Adams and Thomas Jefferson had was all in good fun.
Guns accidentally kill people, but we are working on ways to make guns more deadly, guns are designed to kill people.
No, they don't. "Accidental" gun deaths are irresponsible ownership deaths; they aren't accidents.
People are legislating gun control because guns are only getting deadlier, and I don't know about you but there's no way to sell the proliferation of ever increasingly deadlier weapons.
Getting deadlier? Not the ones that the general populace can use. My AR frame rifle is no more deadly than a WWII M1 Garand. And hell, one of the most common officers pistol, the 1911, is effectively unchanged.
The idea you think the founders were not politicians gives me a chuckle, I guess the insane gak throwing contest John Adams and Thomas Jefferson had was all in good fun.
They all became politicians. Prior to being members of the Constitutional congress, very few of them made their livings as politicians, as people do today. There were a bunch of lawyers and merchants and bankers and plantation owners. There were few that made their coin from public office, but they were in the minority.
Frazzled wrote: Says the guy who never had a stalker and had a police captain tell his wife she needed to be armed at all times.
Most of the country is not being stalked.
When two kids are kicking the crap out of each other with their fists you don't run up to them and give them baseball bats hoping they will suddenly decide to stop despite the fact you just empowered them to visit even more harm on the other.
You stop the kids, sit them down, and you tell them that it's not acceptable in society to use force to demand politeness. And if they continue to misbehave you send them to time out.
I think it's far more terrifying that you think humanity is so utterly hopeless we need the threat of violence hanging over our heads at all times to behave like civilized people.
EDIT: I have to stop. This guy has to be a troll looking to get people started then report them. Wow just wow. Where's my daughter to smack him around with her cutting off hand remarks when you need her purple headed keister?
There's no place like home, there's no place like home, there's no place like home. OK time to calm myself with the song of the Great Wienie. Time to go to my happy place.
The idea you think the founders were not politicians gives me a chuckle, I guess the insane gak throwing contest John Adams and Thomas Jefferson had was all in good fun.
They all became politicians. Prior to being members of the Constitutional congress, very few of them made their livings as politicians, as people do today. There were a bunch of lawyers and merchants and bankers and plantation owners. There were few that made their coin from public office, but they were in the minority.
Actually when they kicked off the rev war most of them refused to pull from their own coffers to support the war effort, so that shoots down any I idea our founders weren't as greedy as everyone else is.
You also made the argument that politicians are inherently bad, so you concede that by your logic our founding fathers are scumbags.
Also, if you want proof human ingenuity always finds a way to kill more of their fellow man faster I would refer to the magazine picture near the start of the thread.
Scream that I'm trolling or dense all you want but public opinion says my way, and as I said before, the basic idea that we should restrict guns is not based in stats or in murders but in the idea that it's a fething waste of an investment that could do far more good some were else.
Think of it as a society wide sequester .
But go on you scamps, scurry to your stats on guns in an attempt to justify death and destruction.
I rest easy at least knowing that I will live to see the day a man is judged not on the weapon or force he carries, but on his manner and how he conducts himself.
Actually when they kicked off the rev war most of them refused to pull from their own coffers to support the war effort, so that shoots down any I idea our founders weren't as greedy as everyone else is.
Which has to do with what, exactly?
You also made the argument that politicians are inherently bad, so you concede that by your logic our founding fathers are scumbags.
Absolutely did not say that. I said that when "politician" became a job title one strived to attain and not a civic duty that our republic became less "of the people and for the people". There's no judgement loaded there at all
Also, if you want proof human ingenuity always finds a way to kill more of their fellow man faster I would refer to the magazine picture near the start of the thread.
Or driving bombs into buildings or crashing planes into towers or setting off explosives at marathons.... None of which involved firearms.
.
I rest easy at least knowing that I will live to see the day a man is judged not on the weapon or force he carries, but on his manner and how he conducts himself.
You understand that you're going to be forced to get some basic marksmanship skills as a part of ROTC, right? Or are you going to refuse that? Please, elaborate.
Spacemanvic wrote: Wish you were in the States then. Places like CA, NY (NYC) are seeing confiscation take place. THAT is the reality you seem to be missing.
Some types of firearms in some states being banned is nowhere near a total ban.
Spacemanvic wrote: Wish you were in the States then. Places like CA, NY (NYC) are seeing confiscation take place. THAT is the reality you seem to be missing.
Some types of firearms in some states being banned is nowhere near a total ban.
Plays hell with your rebuttal of the slippery slope argument though.
Spacemanvic wrote: Wish you were in the States then. Places like CA, NY (NYC) are seeing confiscation take place. THAT is the reality you seem to be missing.
Some types of firearms in some states being banned is nowhere near a total ban.
The hilarious ridiculousness of all of these confiscations is that they're taking guns that are involved in a teeny tiny portion of the gun crime. Makes no sense. I like to believe that if enforcement and penalties were harsher for illegally possessing a handgun (which most gun crime is perpetuated with) we'd see some decline, but I sadly doubt it.
I still think the alleged NYC gun confiscations are bogus. It's one of those stories, like the Obama 200 bajillion dollar a day India trip, that only seems to have been picked up in the derposphere and they all seem to boil back down to the same single one source. You'd think they're be tons of these letters, right, not just this one guy? Plus his letter reflects text that actually isn't in the act, and there is some real wonky stuff with the dates...
I think it's probably bogus.
The amount of hatred and vitriol that has also been thrown my way in this thread is more than enough evidence that the idea America is somehow the best country on earth and that questioning our founding fathers actions and the documents they saddled us with is "unamerican" is far more self destructive than any unconstitutional action.
Dare I say the last country that stood on a international level and abused others ,despite what other countrys found it reprehensible, out of a sense that they, were in fact better than everyone else, and that nobody could ever dare to challenge there superior culture and form of governance started a world war and used their super nationalist ideals to justify war crimes.
Well we have the whole pissing off the world part down, causing strife and chaos were we should not down to. We also commit war crimes because we think as the freest country on earth and that we could ever be possibly convicted of a wrong.
And if you tell me that our extreme nationalism is totally okay because it's "American nationalism" then you have less self awareness then that of a brick.
Spacemanvic wrote: Actually, youre the one who took an old anti-gun control analogy and royally screwed it up:
No, once again... you did nothing but repeat the basic premise of the argument as it had already been posted... albeit you did it in less convincingly language.
I attempted to expand on the analogy, question whether the relationship was inherently antagonistic, or if there wasn't some middle ground that both sides could find. A person may or may not agree with that suggestion, and they could certainly argue that it isn't just gun activists that have a responsibility for finding that middle ground (and I'd agree on that point), but you can't say I screwed the analogy up.
I mean, if you want I can explain to you that the cake represents guns, and that the cake owners is the collective group of gun owners, and the person taking repeated pieces of the cake is the anti-gun movement. And then I can explain that in my analogy the parts of the cake that the person doesn't really want are the elements of gun law that are fiercely protected by gun owners but have little actual value to gun owners (absence of background checks, exclusions through gun shows etc).
But then, I'm pretty confident you didn't actually fail to understand any of that the first time. You just found it easier to say 'nuh uh you screwed the analogy up' than to actually, you know, type out a sensible response.
Ouze wrote: I still think the alleged NYC gun confiscations are bogus. It's one of those stories, like the Obama 200 bajillion dollar a day India trip, that only seems to have been picked up in the derposphere and they all seem to boil back down to the same single one source. You'd think they're be tons of these letters, right, not just this one guy? Plus his letter reflects text that actually isn't in the act, and there is some real wonky stuff with the dates...
I think it's probably bogus.
Alexzandvar wrote: The amount of hatred and vitriol that has also been thrown my way in this thread is more than enough evidence that the idea America is somehow the best country on earth and that questioning our founding fathers actions and the documents they saddled us with is "unamerican" is far more self destructive than any unconstitutional action.
Dare I say the last country that stood on a international level and abused others ,despite what other countrys found it reprehensible, out of a sense that they, were in fact better than everyone else, and that nobody could ever dare to challenge there superior culture and form of governance started a world war and used their super nationalist ideals to justify war crimes.
Well we have the whole pissing off the world part down, causing strife and chaos were we should not down to. We also commit war crimes because we think as the freest country on earth and that we could ever be possibly convicted of a wrong.
And if you tell me that our extreme nationalism is totally okay because it's "American nationalism" then you have less self awareness then that of a brick.
Classic example of a troll post. Has nothing to do with anything except designed to inflame.
Spacemanvic wrote: The kid is just doing this for attention. NO ONE can be this dense
You just finished a post in which you concluded that gun restrictions are all about control of the populace and not safety, so I'd be careful about who you choose to write off.
Alexzandvar wrote: The amount of hatred and vitriol that has also been thrown my way in this thread is more than enough evidence that the idea America is somehow the best country on earth and that questioning our founding fathers actions and the documents they saddled us with is "unamerican" is far more self destructive than any unconstitutional action.
No one is arguing that "America is the best country on earth". We're challenging you with your obvious belligerence over your opinion over the founding fathers and being "saddled" with the US Constitution.
Dare I say the last country that stood on a international level and abused others ,despite what other countrys found it reprehensible, out of a sense that they, were in fact better than everyone else, and that nobody could ever dare to challenge there superior culture and form of governance started a world war and used their super nationalist ideals to justify war crimes.
Well we have the whole pissing off the world part down, causing strife and chaos were we should not down to. We also commit war crimes because we think as the freest country on earth and that we could ever be possibly convicted of a wrong.
And if you tell me that our extreme nationalism is totally okay because it's "American nationalism" then you have less self awareness then that of a brick.
Ouze wrote: I still think the alleged NYC gun confiscations are bogus. It's one of those stories, like the Obama 200 bajillion dollar a day India trip, that only seems to have been picked up in the derposphere and they all seem to boil back down to the same single one source. You'd think they're be tons of these letters, right, not just this one guy? Plus his letter reflects text that actually isn't in the act, and there is some real wonky stuff with the dates...
I think it's probably bogus.
I don't know anything about the CA ones though.
Ummm.....the NYC confiscations have been verified:
carlos13th wrote: What did the national firearms act of 1934 actually do?
FDR (Franklin Delano Roosevelt) was a socialist democrat president who wanted to control the ability of the average citizen to own an automatic weapon. Originally, he wanted to tax all firearms and establish a national registry of guns. When gun owners raised concern, Congress attempted to satiate the gun grabbers by scaling down FDR’s proposal to allow only a restrictive tax on machine guns and sawed-off shotguns, which at the time were thought to be weapons only a gangster would use with no real usefulness for self-defense by the average citizen.
So, the tax was levied at $200 ($3,478.64 in 2013 dollars) which at the time was an exorbitant amount - remember, the Stock Market crash of 1929 had just occurred and this tax took the ability away of the average citizen with little means to purchase such weapons.
This NFA act of 1934 did NOTHING (as do the current gun control laws) to provide for the public safety. It was, as it always has been, an exercise of control
The issue of gun control as well as things like the ATF (now BATF) and the NFA is convoluted and many times, contradictory in accomplishing it's stated intent.
Do you really think it was done just to be an exercise of control? Or do you think it was done with the reason to protect people. It may not have achived that but I think its a bit silly to think it was a done for controls sake only.
Do you not think that making automatic weapons illegal was a good move then?
carlos13th wrote: What did the national firearms act of 1934 actually do?
FDR (Franklin Delano Roosevelt) was a socialist democrat president who wanted to control the ability of the average citizen to own an automatic weapon. Originally, he wanted to tax all firearms and establish a national registry of guns. When gun owners raised concern, Congress attempted to satiate the gun grabbers by scaling down FDR’s proposal to allow only a restrictive tax on machine guns and sawed-off shotguns, which at the time were thought to be weapons only a gangster would use with no real usefulness for self-defense by the average citizen.
So, the tax was levied at $200 ($3,478.64 in 2013 dollars) which at the time was an exorbitant amount - remember, the Stock Market crash of 1929 had just occurred and this tax took the ability away of the average citizen with little means to purchase such weapons.
This NFA act of 1934 did NOTHING (as do the current gun control laws) to provide for the public safety. It was, as it always has been, an exercise of control
The issue of gun control as well as things like the ATF (now BATF) and the NFA is convoluted and many times, contradictory in accomplishing it's stated intent.
Do you really think it was done just to be an exercise of control? Or do you think it was done with the reason to protect people. It may not have achived that but I think its a bit silly to think it was a done for controls sake only.
Do you not think that making automatic weapons illegal was a good move then?
Read up on the history of the NFA as well as what has occurred since then, It becomes painfully obvious that this is more about control than about public safety. The guns werent made illegal, they were made so that only the very elite/affluent could afford them for instance.
carlos13th wrote: Sorry it may be because I am tired and have a terrible head ache but I am not quite sure what you mean.
Some folks argue that 2nd amendment grants them the right to own/purchase fully automatics w/o restrictions.
Frazz is sorta advocating that "licensing" requirement in ORDER to own/purchase fully automatic is okay... licensing is a type of restriction as it entails large tax fee and strong background checks (ie, ATF knows you have it and where you live).
But another option is to actually open a real and meaningful dialogue with the other guy, and try and set up mutual respect on both sides to build a solution that works best for everyone. Talk about the bits of cake you don't even want, and then genuinely listen when the other cake owner talks about why he thinks certain bits of cake need to be taken away.
Another option would be to offer me something for my cake, rather than attempt to dictate to me why my cake needs to be taken away. Even if I don't personally care for the gooey overly moist bits, it's still my cake you are after, and I may just like having soggy cake over no cake at all.
You want to ban all private sales between individuals? Ok, cool. Lets talk about this over the paperwork to repeal the Hughes amendment and/or standardized, shall issue CCW nationwide. What's that? You don't want to even entertain the idea of rolling back some gun control in exchange for something that might actually have both sides happier at the end? What a shock!
.....This cake is delicious though. Nom Nom Nom Nom burp Nom.
cincydooley wrote: Carlos, presently to obtain a NFA weapon in the US you need the sign off of a law enforcement official. These are seldom, if ever, granted.
Yes and no. Depends on where you are as well as if you are using a trust to purchase the firearm through.
You have to fill out a Form 4, then have your local Chief Law Enforcement Office - CLEO - sign it (allowing you to purchase a Class 3 firearm). A trust however does not require a CLEO signature.
Then you have a year wait for the ATF to respond. Afterwards, you get your stamp and can purchase your item from the Class 3 vendor.
Of course, those with influence arent so encumbered.
Correct me if I'm wrong but the CLEO is allowed to simply refrain from signing it if he doesn't see a "viable purpose" for your ownership, correct?
I can't say I've ever looked, mostly because I really have no desire to light dollar bills on fire with the amount it would cost to actually shoot one.
cincydooley wrote: Correct me if I'm wrong but the CLEO is allowed to simply refrain from signing it if he doesn't see a "viable purpose" for your ownership, correct?
I can't say I've ever looked, mostly because I really have no desire to light dollar bills on fire with the amount it would cost to actually shoot one.
Of course, which is why some go the trust route.
* Full disclosure, I do some work for a Class 3 vendor.
Ouze wrote: I still think the alleged NYC gun confiscations are bogus. It's one of those stories, like the Obama 200 bajillion dollar a day India trip, that only seems to have been picked up in the derposphere and they all seem to boil back down to the same single one source. You'd think they're be tons of these letters, right, not just this one guy? Plus his letter reflects text that actually isn't in the act, and there is some real wonky stuff with the dates...
I think it's probably bogus.
I don't know anything about the CA ones though.
Ummm.....the NYC confiscations have been verified:
Ouze wrote: I still think the alleged NYC gun confiscations are bogus. It's one of those stories, like the Obama 200 bajillion dollar a day India trip, that only seems to have been picked up in the derposphere and they all seem to boil back down to the same single one source. You'd think they're be tons of these letters, right, not just this one guy? Plus his letter reflects text that actually isn't in the act, and there is some real wonky stuff with the dates...
I think it's probably bogus.
I don't know anything about the CA ones though.
Ummm.....the NYC confiscations have been verified:
Ouze wrote: I still think the alleged NYC gun confiscations are bogus. It's one of those stories, like the Obama 200 bajillion dollar a day India trip, that only seems to have been picked up in the derposphere and they all seem to boil back down to the same single one source. You'd think they're be tons of these letters, right, not just this one guy? Plus his letter reflects text that actually isn't in the act, and there is some real wonky stuff with the dates...
I think it's probably bogus.
I don't know anything about the CA ones though.
Ummm.....the NYC confiscations have been verified:
I've been bouncing around this topic... seems legit tho.
I can't really dig into this because I'm at work and my job bans weapons and gun related sites. But when:
If anyone still feels some level of doubt regarding the veracity of this story, Attorney Tresmond welcomes anyone to visit his website tresmondlaw.com, Facebook page ( https://www.facebook.com/james.tresmond.7 ), or send an email to TresmondLaw@gmail.com.
references 2 nonexistent sites, I'm dubious. Another article I did get to showed it was actually 2 specific people, one of which got his guns back, and another of which was being worked on. So, not to move the goalposts, but a single person having his guns taken away for indeterminate reasons wouldn't fit my idea of what "confiscation has started" entails... but we'll see, I'll look into it more. That other story I think was debunked though.
I've been bouncing around this topic... seems legit tho.
I can't really dig into this because I'm at work and my job bans weapons and gun related sites. But when:
If anyone still feels some level of doubt regarding the veracity of this story, Attorney Tresmond welcomes anyone to visit his website tresmondlaw.com, Facebook page ( https://www.facebook.com/james.tresmond.7 ), or send an email to TresmondLaw@gmail.com.
references 2 nonexistent sites, I'm dubious. Another article I did get to showed it was actually 2 specific people, one of which got his guns back, and another of which was being worked on. So, not to move the goalposts, but a single person having his guns taken away for indeterminate reasons wouldn't fit my idea of what "confiscation has started" entails... but we'll see, I'll look into it more. That other story I think was debunked though.
Here, a non firearms website you can read at work:
BY: Washington Free Beacon Staff
February 6, 2014 4:00 pm
A former member of Michael Bloomberg’s gun control group claimed this week that the group’s objectives are far more radical than it has let on.
John Tkazyik, the mayor of Poughkeepsie, N.Y., said he quit the former New York City mayor’s group, Mayors Against Illegal Guns, after he realized its objective was outright confiscation of firearms from law-abiding citizens.
“Under the guise of helping mayors facing a crime and drug epidemic, MAIG intend[s] to promote confiscation of guns from law-abiding citizens,” Tkazyik wrote in a Wednesday column in the Poughkeepsie Journal.
I’m the mayor of one of the largest cities in the Hudson Valley, just 90 minutes north of New York City. I’m a life member of the National Rifle Association and a former member of Mayors Against Illegal Guns, or MAIG, started by New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg in 2006.
I’m no longer a member of MAIG. Why? Just as Ronald Reagan said of the Democratic Party, it left me. And I’m not alone: Nearly 50 pro-Second Amendment mayors have left the organization. They left for the same reason I did. MAIG became a vehicle for Bloomberg to promote his personal gun-control agenda — violating the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding citizens and taking resources away from initiatives that could actually work to protect our neighborhoods and save precious lives. […]
It did not take long to realize that MAIG’s agenda was much more than ridding felons of illegal guns; that under the guise of helping mayors facing a crime and drug epidemic, MAIG intended to promote confiscation of guns from law-abiding citizens. I don’t believe, never have believed and never will believe that public safety is enhanced by encroaching on our right to bear arms, and I will not be a part of any organization that does.
sebster wrote: You just finished a post in which you concluded that gun restrictions are all about control of the populace and not safety, so I'd be careful about who you choose to write off.
The restrictions being pushed for now are absolutely not about safety.
Alexzandvar wrote: The amount of hatred and vitriol that has also been thrown my way in this thread is more than enough evidence that the idea America is somehow the best country on earth and that questioning our founding fathers actions and the documents they saddled us with is "unamerican" is far more self destructive than any unconstitutional action.
Dare I say the last country that stood on a international level and abused others ,despite what other countrys found it reprehensible, out of a sense that they, were in fact better than everyone else, and that nobody could ever dare to challenge there superior culture and form of governance started a world war and used their super nationalist ideals to justify war crimes.
Well we have the whole pissing off the world part down, causing strife and chaos were we should not down to. We also commit war crimes because we think as the freest country on earth and that we could ever be possibly convicted of a wrong.
And if you tell me that our extreme nationalism is totally okay because it's "American nationalism" then you have less self awareness then that of a brick.
Classic example of a troll post. Has nothing to do with anything except designed to inflame.
But your image macro is not?
I cannot accept that you are not self aware enough to understand there is a difference between trolling and criticism and observation. Hell you have being slinging dirt from the start with out stopping to think that maybe the people that post who don't share you views are not trying to inflame you and are trying to just engage you in discussion.
Is that what you think? That anyone who agrees with you is normal and anyone who doesn't is either trolling or dumb? Do you not see how that kind of attitude is the very thing that is preventing actual proper change and compromise in this country.
Thanks by the way for proving my point that you all will just go own totally unaware of the ramifications of your actions and dismissals with out the slightest iota of doubt and then when crap hits the fan your type will blame the entire government for not changing when only a short time ago you planted your foot firmly in the way of change.
sebster wrote: You just finished a post in which you concluded that gun restrictions are all about control of the populace and not safety, so I'd be careful about who you choose to write off.
The restrictions being pushed for now are absolutely not about safety.
He's trying really hard to avoid that cold fact. It wrecks hell with his narrative.
To obtain a full auto weapon you need either a class III license or a class III dealers license. They are not as hard to get as people think but it still is a long process and a lot of background checks. For a civilian to get a class III weapon, the weapons receiver (the body of the weapon usually where the trigger is) must be manufactured and registered with the ATF prior to May 19, 1986. This prevents standard civilians from getting or making modern full auto assault style weapons.
The act of 1934 was mainly to control the mafia and the Thompson Sub Machine gun. The Thompson was invented in the 1918s and was first produced in the 1920s as a hunting rifle, yes that’s right. One could buy a full automatic Thompson at the local hardware store for hunting or what not. The mafia brought the Thompson to the feared weapon that it is today and so the act of 1934 was to get Thompsons, BARs and other mafia used weapons off the street.
There's no such thing as a "Class III license" in the way you describe it.
You pay for the tax stamp. It's no more a license than a stamp from the post office is license to mail infinite letters for the rest of your life without purchasing additional stamps.
Ruberu wrote: To obtain a full auto weapon you need either a class III license or a class III dealers license. They are not as hard to get as people think but it still is a long process and a lot of background checks. For a civilian to get a class III weapon, the weapons receiver (the body of the weapon usually where the trigger is) must be manufactured and registered with the ATF prior to May 19, 1986. This prevents standard civilians from getting or making modern full auto assault style weapons.
The act of 1934 was mainly to control the mafia and the Thompson Sub Machine gun. The Thompson was invented in the 1918s and was first produced in the 1920s as a hunting rifle, yes that’s right. One could buy a full automatic Thompson at the local hardware store for hunting or what not. The mafia brought the Thompson to the feared weapon that it is today and so the act of 1934 was to get Thompsons, BARs and other mafia used weapons off the street.
The original intent of NFA 1934 was to tax ALL guns and establish a national gun registry. It wasnt until Congress compromised that the scope of NFA 1934 was narrowed to machine guns and sawed off shotguns.
Roosevelt’s original proposal for what would become the National Firearms Act of 1934, the first federal gun control law, sought to tax all firearms and establish a national registry of guns. When gun owners objected, Congress scaled down FDR’s proposal to allow only for a restrictive tax on machine guns and sawed-off shotguns, which were thought to be gangster weapons with no usefulness for self-defense.
Clearly, FDR’s initial proposal is one that would be the dream of every current progressive Democrat and anathema to the NRA and its compatriots in the Tea Party. It’s hard to compare the “paring down” the Congress did with regard to machine guns and sawed-off shotguns to current calls for restrictions on semi-automatic, or at least automatic, weapons.
Ruberu wrote: To obtain a full auto weapon you need either a class III license or a class III dealers license. (snip)
Your post was good. I'd like to add to what you said that those things only cover you from a federal angle. Some states won't allow some stuff regardless of your federal allowances; for example Iowa won't allow me a select-fire weapon, suppressor, or short barreled rifle even if I had the tax stamp.
NuggzTheNinja wrote: There's no such thing as a "Class III license" in the way you describe it.
You pay for the tax stamp. It's no more a license than a stamp from the post office is license to mail infinite letters for the rest of your life without purchasing additional stamps.
Pretty much. It's a Class 3 dealers license, and a Form 4 that the purchaser fills out AFTER receiving permission from a CLEO to purchase an NFA (Class 3) item. Once the form is filled out and sent, and after a year wait, the purchaser get's the stamp that lets him buy the item.
Right now, we have customers waiting a little over a year to get their paperwork back on cans and class 3 weapons.
Ruberu wrote: To obtain a full auto weapon you need either a class III license or a class III dealers license. (snip)
Your post was good. I'd like to add to what you said that those things only cover you from a federal angle. Some states won't allow some stuff regardless of your federal allowances; for example Iowa won't allow me a select-fire weapon, suppressor, or short barreled rifle even if I had the tax stamp.
That's a shame. Shooting with a silencer is highly recommended
Frazzled wrote: Plays hell with your rebuttal of the slippery slope argument though.
No, because such a slope would have to establish that somehow, in enforcing one kind of ban, it made people more willing to accept another. That's the slippery slope - that it makes each act more likely.
So for that example to 'play hell' with my rebuttal of the slippery slope, there would need to be some kind of evidence, either stated or clearly obvious just from the example, that these gun bans were made possible because of earlier gun bans. But that isn't there. It's just a statement that some guns were banned in some states.
cincydooley wrote: Do high powered rifled like Barrett's fall under the NFA? Or are they pretty much "buy it If you can afford it"?
What's high powered about it? It's a semiautomatic (or bolt action, or single shot) rifle costing around $10,000 with glass that has never been used in a crime as far as I'm aware.
Up to .50 caliber is still a regular firearm. Larger than .50 is considered a Destructive Device as far as I know.
cincydooley wrote: Do high powered rifled like Barrett's fall under the NFA? Or are they pretty much "buy it If you can afford it"?
It's a single shot weapon. We have an Armalite AR-50 .50BMG for about $2800. No NFA stamp needed. Bloody thing weighs about 80lbs in the box and its about $40 for a box of 10 rounds.
I have no use for it, but hey, whatever floats your boat!
cincydooley wrote: Do high powered rifled like Barrett's fall under the NFA? Or are they pretty much "buy it If you can afford it"?
What's high powered about it? It's a semiautomatic (or bolt action, or single shot) rifle costing around $10,000 with glass that has never been used in a crime as far as I'm aware.
Up to .50 caliber is still a regular firearm. Larger than .50 is considered a Destructive Device as far as I know.
Yeah, I misspoke with "high powered" perhaps when I meant large caliber.
Frazzled wrote: Plays hell with your rebuttal of the slippery slope argument though.
No, because such a slope would have to establish that somehow, in enforcing one kind of ban, it made people more willing to accept another. That's the slippery slope - that it makes each act more likely.
So for that example to 'play hell' with my rebuttal of the slippery slope, there would need to be some kind of evidence, either stated or clearly obvious just from the example, that these gun bans were made possible because of earlier gun bans.
Like the automatic weapon ban continuation in '86 leading to the "assault weapon" ban in '94, would you say?
cincydooley wrote: Do high powered rifled like Barrett's fall under the NFA? Or are they pretty much "buy it If you can afford it"?
What's high powered about it? It's a semiautomatic (or bolt action, or single shot) rifle costing around $10,000 with glass that has never been used in a crime as far as I'm aware.
Up to .50 caliber is still a regular firearm. Larger than .50 is considered a Destructive Device as far as I know.
Yeah, I misspoke with "high powered" perhaps when I meant large caliber.
No offense man...I get kind of picky about the terminology. Everything is a "high powered rifle," or an "assault rifle" these days. People throw these terms around and all they really mean is, "gak that I don't want people to have" without any bearing on the actual use of these things.
cincydooley wrote: The hilarious ridiculousness of all of these confiscations is that they're taking guns that are involved in a teeny tiny portion of the gun crime. Makes no sense. I like to believe that if enforcement and penalties were harsher for illegally possessing a handgun (which most gun crime is perpetuated with) we'd see some decline, but I sadly doubt it.
I absolutely agree with you there. Those laws, like most gun laws attempted or passed in the last few decades have been absolutely terrible laws.
As I've said a few times, if you just watch what the anti-gun side talks about (scary black guns, clip sizes, bayonet fittings etc), you ought to quickly realise that those people have absolutely no idea what they're talking about.
But the counter to that is that if you spend any time listening to the pro-gun side, then you get just as much nonsense (high murder rate is due to gangs, ludicrous claims about rates of firearms used in home defence etc), and people ought to realise that they also have no idea what they're talking about.
What's needed is informed, sensible people on both sides looking for a ground that looks to minimise the dangers of guns while ensuring legitimate uses are restricted as little as possible. Until the majority of the population decides that the current loons dominating both sides of the debate need to be thrown out, that unfortunately isn't going to happen.
Of course, I'm only saying that because I live in a country with tight restrictions on guns, so I type only what my political masters order me to type.
sebster wrote: But the counter to that is that if you spend any time listening to the pro-gun side, then you get just as much nonsense (high murder rate is due to gangs, ludicrous claims about rates of firearms used in home defence etc), and people ought to realise that they also have no idea what they're talking about.
I'm not sure I've ever heard the NRA or the 2nd Amendment Foundation or pro-gun politicians talks much about either of those statistics, to be honest.
Spacemanvic wrote: Read up on the history of the NFA as well as what has occurred since then, It becomes painfully obvious that this is more about control than about public safety. The guns werent made illegal, they were made so that only the very elite/affluent could afford them for instance.
Which was the final compromise position, after an initial proposal to ban such weapons was resisted. And on seeing that compromise position end up getting passed as law, you conclude it's all more evidence that it's about control and they're taking guns from ordinary Americans while letting the elite keep them... it's control! Control I tell you!
Spacemanvic wrote: Read up on the history of the NFA as well as what has occurred since then, It becomes painfully obvious that this is more about control than about public safety. The guns werent made illegal, they were made so that only the very elite/affluent could afford them for instance.
Which was the final compromise position, after an initial proposal to ban such weapons was resisted. And on seeing that compromise position end up getting passed as law, you conclude it's all more evidence that it's about control and they're taking guns from ordinary Americans while letting the elite keep them... it's control! Control I tell you!
You're being very silly.
And your being extremely dense and naive. See, we can both call each other out.
carlos13th wrote: Sorry it may be because I am tired and have a terrible head ache but I am not quite sure what you mean.
Some folks argue that 2nd amendment grants them the right to own/purchase fully automatics w/o restrictions.
Frazz is sorta advocating that "licensing" requirement in ORDER to own/purchase fully automatic is okay... licensing is a type of restriction as it entails large tax fee and strong background checks (ie, ATF knows you have it and where you live).
cincydooley wrote:Carlos, presently to obtain a NFA weapon in the US you need the sign off of a law enforcement official. These are seldom, if ever, granted.
SOFDC wrote: Another option would be to offer me something for my cake, rather than attempt to dictate to me why my cake needs to be taken away. Even if I don't personally care for the gooey overly moist bits, it's still my cake you are after, and I may just like having soggy cake over no cake at all.
You want to ban all private sales between individuals? Ok, cool. Lets talk about this over the paperwork to repeal the Hughes amendment and/or standardized, shall issue CCW nationwide. What's that? You don't want to even entertain the idea of rolling back some gun control in exchange for something that might actually have both sides happier at the end? What a shock!
Absolutely. I think one of the best approaches to new gun reforms should be to look at giving up some stuff that isn't needed and is likely harmful, in exchange for removing a bunch of stuff that does nothing but annoy gun owners. So giving up bits of cake you don't want, and getting back some bits the cake grabber realised he didn't want. Not that anyone wants cake that been in someone else's hands since, like, the 80s, but no analogy is perfect
And then, if that process can be done well a couple of times, then hopefully a culture will emergy where pro-gun people don't feel they're constantly on the defensive, and anti-gun people don't feel like they have to work incredibly hard just to get minor reforms passed, and the two sides can actually start seeing that they all want the same thing - decent gun laws.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Spacemanvic wrote: And your being extremely dense and naive. See, we can both call each other out.
How does that espouse constructive dialog?
It is what it is, mate. I mean, the position you're holding is simply silly... would you prefer I danced around that out of a sense of politeness?
sebster wrote: But the counter to that is that if you spend any time listening to the pro-gun side, then you get just as much nonsense (high murder rate is due to gangs, ludicrous claims about rates of firearms used in home defence etc), and people ought to realise that they also have no idea what they're talking about.
I'm not sure I've ever heard the NRA or the 2nd Amendment Foundation or pro-gun politicians talks much about either of those statistics, to be honest.
I just spent a whole thread being crucified over my views on the 2nd Amendment so if your looking for hard right knee jerk response read the thread.
This however will be my last post in this thread, I hope that I could at least ask of all the people who's "America" I so utterly do not belong in might pause to consider I never meant to flame or cause harm but that perhaps my views were simply just not congruent for...this board.
Seaward wrote: I'm not sure I've ever heard the NRA or the 2nd Amendment Foundation or pro-gun politicians talks much about either of those statistics, to be honest.
Keep reading, you'll come across it. And there's plenty of other bits of silliness out there, like the claim in this very thread that gun control is about controlling the populace.
sebster wrote: Keep reading, you'll come across it. And there's plenty of other bits of silliness out there, like the claim in this very thread that gun control is about controlling the populace.
But when we're referring to anti-gun movements, we're not speaking of random guys on forums; we're talking about the Brady Campaign, Bloomberg's group, certain politicians, etc.
Kilkrazy wrote: There are also many individual people who support gun control.
They're not the ones consulting on or actually writing legislation.
And, for what it's worth, Connecticut's trying registration right now...and it's not going so hot.
The Hartford Courant wrote:Everyone knew there would be some gun owners flouting the law that legislators hurriedly passed last April, requiring residents to register all military-style rifles with state police by Dec. 31.
But few thought the figures would be this bad.
By the end of 2013, state police had received 47,916 applications for assault weapons certificates, Lt. Paul Vance said. An additional 2,100 that were incomplete could still come in.
That 50,000 figure could be as little as 15 percent of the rifles classified as assault weapons owned by Connecticut residents, according to estimates by people in the industry, including the Newtown-based National Shooting Sports Foundation. No one has anything close to definitive figures, but the most conservative estimates place the number of unregistered assault weapons well above 50,000, and perhaps as high as 350,000.
And that means as of Jan. 1, Connecticut has very likely created tens of thousands of newly minted criminals — perhaps 100,000 people, almost certainly at least 20,000 — who have broken no other laws. By owning unregistered guns defined as assault weapons, all of them are committing Class D felonies.
"I honestly thought from my own standpoint that the vast majority would register," said Sen. Tony Guglielmo, R-Stafford, the ranking GOP senator on the legislature's public safety committee. "If you pass laws that people have no respect for and they don't follow them, then you have a real problem."
The problem could explode if Connecticut officials decide to compare the list of people who underwent background checks to buy military-style rifles in the past, to the list of those who registered in 2013. Do they still own those guns? The state might want to know.
"A lot of it is just a question to ask, and I think the firearms unit would be looking at it," said Mike Lawlor, the state's top official in criminal justice. "They could send them a letter."
An aggressive hunt isn't going to happen, Lawlor said, but even the idea of letters is a scary thought considering thousands of people are now in an uncomfortable position. At the least, the legislature should reopen the registration period this year with an outreach campaign designed to boost the numbers.
It could be a tough sell. On Thursday night, Guglielmo heard from a constituent at a meeting in Ashford, who said most of his friends with military-style rifles such as AR-15s had not come forward.
"He made the analogy to prohibition," Guglielmo said. "I said, 'You're talking about civil disobedience, and he said 'Yes.' "
But it's not just refusers. A reopened registration would help many who failed to come forward out of ignorance.
"There are a lot of people, they just do not know about this law," said Scott Wilson, president of the 12,000-member Connecticut Citizens Defense League, a Second Amendment advocacy group. "There are people finding out now after the fact."
The law was widely covered in the media and Wilson said his group sent information to its members. But gun owners can be an independent bunch.
Guglielmo, who voted against the sweeping gun control bill, said he intends to raise the concern at the next meeting of the public safety committee. Lawlor said Gov. Dannel P. Malloy's administration is willing to talk about solutions.
But Lawlor, an undersecretary in the state Office of Policy and Management, said that even if many thousands of guns remain unregistered and are now illegal, the law is not necessarily failing at its goal.
"Like anything else, people who violate the law face consequences. … that's their decision. The consequences are pretty clear. …There's nothing unique about this," Lawlor said. "The goal is to have fewer of these types of weapons in circulation."
I don't know who said waiting for their class III to come back from the BATF&E takes a year it does not. I went to the store to buy a sound suppressor for my job since one was not provided that was grunt proof... I went to a gun store in Springfield TN, found what I needed, bought it, filled out two original forms, one I would get back and one the BATF&E keeps. So everything is paid I then had to go collect fingerprints, two passport style photos of my mug... then a $200 money order, I went back to the store because they are just awesome and helpful, they checked it all out ans sent the two forms with attached photos and the $200 money order...
Three months later, I got a phone call from the store, said I had been approved, so I went and picked up my sound suppressor, one original form was handed to me, I made a jillion copies, shrunk one to a wallet size and laminated it to carry one me. Then off I went. Oh, the stamp is a real stamp, stuck on the form all fancy, should be able to cook and clean for the price of the little bugger. So after the first one completed more Class III has been so easy for me to obtain. Yeah you pay a $200 for every bit of class III kit you buy but whatever. If you want it bad enough you should get it. It's polite to shoot suppressed anyway. Plus engaging real bad guys, it’s more difficult to spot your lessened barrel flash at night, the sound is hard to locate it you not subsonic, well even if you aren't subsonic a 5.56 is hard to find with the lessened blast it makes.
Cops should have them in tacticle teams, because the goal is to save lives so on multiple target objectives, if they have to engage a bad guy up front then a suppressed shot won't amp up or even alert the rest of the blokes they're after.
. 
.
