Privacy guaranteed - Your email is not shared with anyone.
Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'The Okie Corral' started by Kingarthurhk, Dec 8, 2012.
Or from the federal armories spread across all 50 states. Seem to work in the 1860s pretty well
See that is one manual I would take the time to sit down and read unlike the ones that never leave the case the gun came in.
Ms. Fienstein is that you? I was talking about CONGRESS directing war. I thought attorneys were supposed to have a superior reading comprehension.
Actually it appears that ~ 3.8% of the population of Massachusetts has a carry permit while ~2% of the population of Texas has a permit. Unless my math is off.
I have to say straight out that the military cannot truly win against armed citizens because people such as in foreign lands just step out the door and shoot you.
Not sure about that, could be true. Of course in Texas you can now carry a handgun inside your car/truck without a CHL. That is enough for some folks I think. It would thus lessen the number of those seeking CHL.
Either way No way are the gun laws in Mass as open/free as they are in Texas. Sad really as both states have rich history when it comes to firearms. Something just wrong with Mass being so anti gun IMO.
Exactly, if you can carry it, generally it should be covered in the second amendment. And since what the colonists carried was equivalent to the military then, then it stands to reasonable minds that ARs and AKs (non automatic) should be available for US citizens. Note I prefer the SKS now, but that is just me.
Why? Machine guns are fun to shoot.
Let's be realistic here for a moment. Do I think the founding fathers ever imagined that we would have the weaponry that we have today...of course not. Do I think their idea of keeping and bearing arms included RPGs, Claymores, and Browning M2's...of course not. Also, do I think the normal idiots I see on a daily basis should have access to any of these...no, because YouTube would be littered with videos of people blowing up everything from trash to houses to probably even animals if not blowing themselves up (on accident). As usual, the few that abuse it ruin it for the many. Now, with that being said, I think there is nothing wrong with legalizing it and just making it either a pain in the butt to get or just let cost weed out the idiots. As stated in an earlier post, your average Walmart junkie cannot afford an RPG, Claymore, or an M2. IF they could afford an M2, you certainly couldn't afford to run it at $2+ a round. Heck, monster trucks are legal and so are dragsters but you don't see people rolling around town in them because the average run of the mill joe can't afford it.
So lets look at who can afford it...in my opinion there are two kinds of people with money. Those that earned it legally and those that earned it illegally. Those that earn enough money to own and operate full auto weapons and explosives and tanks and whatever are probably responsible enough to have them, because they obviously were responsible enough to be in a job or own a business that can support it. Those that make that same money illegally really don't care about the law and those are the criminals that own a lot of these weapons illegally now anyway. Once again, you are just limiting the honest people.
Believe me, if you legalized all this foolishness tomorrow, I might be able to buy a few auto firearms, I might be able to even swing an M2...but what good is it in my shop if I can never afford to run it at the range. I just wouldn't own one. I think like everything else, you make it monetarily unattractive for the average Walmart person to own. If you want a monster truck, that's cool...enjoy that tax bill every year. If you want a tank...enjoy that's sales tax on $250,000. If you want any weapon that the military has...enjoy that price tag and the tax you are going to pay when you shell out full price and tax for one of those. I just think it would not be as big of a deal as the lawmakers are making it out to be.
Also, and this maybe unpopular here, but I am ok with the steps to own a Class 3 weapon. It further weeds out the people that want them for no good. Who wants to fill out paperwork and pay an additional $200 to Uncle Sam THEN wait 4-6 months on the paperwork to own just one. Only law abiding citizens. Again, if you are a gang banger, you won't be going to all that trouble to obtain one legally when you want to knock off a store or a person. It is cost prohibitive. So once again, all you are doing is limiting the honest person. Ok...rant over.
Wow, could've sworn this was written by someone from "The Brady Campaign"
If we put the same regulations and laws on other "dangerous to society" things, how would you feel? Let's say boats: You can't have a boat with more than 5hp, anything else you have to have a special license for because there'd be too much havoc on the water.
Swimming pools kill far more people, especially children, than anyone has with a gun, should we put special licenses and taxes on those, as well as hot tubs? Poor people shouldn't own pools, they're dangerous. Only people who can afford to be responsible should have them.
Have a great gun carryin' Kenpo day
That's what I was thinking.
They had free access to the 18the century equivalents.
If we are going to use the "idiot test" then we should just abandon the Constitution, and simply ban people from things they are too "dumb" to handle. I guess that would decrease the populous exponentially when the folks that need to read caution lables on simple items died out by attrition.
On that note we may as well deny stupid people the right to voe (look where that has gotten us). We should deny stupid people driver's licenses so they can't injure themselves or others with 5 ton weapons that hurtle down the from at 85 plus miles per hour.
There are already a whole group of stupid people that already own firearms. I have met many. Loading the wrong ammo in a weapon, inserting magazines backwards, causually waving around a loaded weapon like it is a ciagrette. I could go on.
Which constitutional guarantees should we arbitrarily strip from the stupid? I am sure we can think of more than just the 2A.
The idiots already have them. They are called criminals, and laws mean nothing to them. Go to Peurto Rico, it is not uncommon for neighborhoods to already have these prohibited NFA items including RPG's. But, they belong to the criminal element that holds its populous capitve and the police don't dare venture in to do anything about it. They are outgunned.
I had a friend that worked and lived there. He said on a quiet night from his high rise he could watch and listen to the automatic fire and explosions going on. So, what I am hearing is that the regular folk can't be trusted with what the criminal element already have at their personal disposal.
These NFA weapons aren't affordable beause they have been made purposely expensive for those that actually want to obey the law. Now, if you are a Crip or a Blood on the West Coast, you simply have your full auto AK's smuggled in from China. They have them. You don't. Seems unablanced, don't you think? I have yet to meet a smart gang member of any gang. So, now you have supid criminals with NFA weapons, and law abiding citizens who can't possibly afford the legal ones that Congress infringed upon in the 1980's.
So, only trust fund weirdos like Ralph Lauren the rapist should own them? I guess they are the only people who should be able to vote too? The reason these weapons are expensive is because the 2A was infringed upon to make them rare. When there are few items, the market makes them more expensive.
Yes, because regular middle class folks can't be trusted to tie their own shoes? There are plenty of honest middl class people who can't pay for an NFA firearm what it would cost to buy a new car. Again, because the 2A was infringed upon making them cost prohibitive to anyone but the wealthy elite, and the criminal class who steal them, modify prexisting ones, or have them smuggled into the country.
Look at your stryrophome coffee cup some time and read the warning lable. Foolishness has been legal for a long time now.
Because middle class people are by their nature dumb and ignorant?
The price tag on NFA items has been artificailly inflated. Before the NFA they were available in any hardware store.
Again, the middle class people. Strange everyone hates them. They are the backbone of the country. Who else should we infringe upon their constitutional rights in your opinion?
Let's take your though process a step further. How about doing that to all firearms? Then, of course, only the law abiding citizens would put up with that. But, if they are law abiding, you don't trust them with their own liberty. Yet, you just blithely accept the criminal element having them. That is a really dysfunctional perspective.
Yeah, because we want gang bangers to have ease of access and the the law abiding citizen to be wrapped up in red tape.
Ok, I think my entire post was taken out of context. Maybe I wrote it wrong since I was up well before my morning coffee. I am no way implying that the middle class shouldn't own weapons of any type. But again, I am saying what is reasonable. Here is the hard truth...under NO circumstances are we ever going to see the NFA or 86 ban just go away and they say, ok have fun...buy whatever you want. And before you say something like "not with that attitude", I am just being realistic. I wish it wasn't that way but it is. So how can we get as much out of this as we can? Having the all or none attitude is not getting us anywhere. We can complain all day long about how this is unconstitutional and that is not fair...but it is reality. The only people that are going to overturn any of our gun issues today will be the Supreme Court. I don't know about all of you, but I am not holding out hope on them saying, you have to lift alllll restrictions. It will never happen. So how can we get some or a few restrictions lifted? I think at best they will lift the MG ban, but you will still have to go through red tape. So, y'all can call me a Brady supporter (which I am not), you can jump me for being the unpopular thinker, but I am saying this is the world we live in now, and shy of overthrowing the government, I don't see this stuff being unrestrictive to the point of buying it in hardware stores. So instead of trying and swing for the fence, maybe we should fight one little fight at a time and be reasonable about what is expected of us. Like I said, don't blame me, you can blame the few or many that have chosen to not follow the laws and rules, and in general, common sense. More importantly, you forget that people...citizens...voted for these people that put these laws into place. And what's worse is that they continue to vote for them. So I am not the problem here.
And, while some gun prices are waaaayyy over inflated, stuff like heavy machine guns (M2's) and light machine guns (M60, M249) are not cheap to begin with, even for the us government who buy boat loads of them. So you aren't going to see 3-400 dollar machine guns...never. Plus you still have to operate them and that is expensive...maybe over inflated, but still isn't cheap.
I agree that we may be a ways of from being able to buy a mine at Tractor Supply or a MANPADS at Walmart. But there may be some items that perhaps the restrictions for which could be relaxed. Maybe try silencers for .22s first. If there isn't a huge increase in crimes involving suppressed .22 pistols and rifles, then maybe move to center fire versions.
This is not correct. During the Revolutionary War the govt encouraged private citizens to arm ships and attack British shipping.
it's nice to someone standing up for our rights, and it's alarming to see people spouting rhetoric that will end private arms ownership on a pro gun forum
Yes, you are the problem because you will accept it as "it's the thing now". And yes, you still sound exactly like a Brady Campainer.
If Rosa Parks hadn't stayed put, where would we be?????
Have a great gun carryin' Kenpo day
Well, first you have to find 10 people at wal-mart that have the $$$ to purchase those items. They aren't cheap.
The problem with "well reasoned" is by whose standards? And are those standards unilaterally accepted? See this is the problem I have with "well reasoned" and "common sense", those two prose are subjective to the author and discount the audience in many cases.