Current concerns to our 2A, and what can we do right now?

This is a discussion on Current concerns to our 2A, and what can we do right now? within the The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion forums, part of the Related Topics category; Go ahead and make all the restrictions you want. It still won't stop any lunatic; but will only serve to further infringe on the rest ...

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 16 to 30 of 44
Like Tree41Likes

Thread: Current concerns to our 2A, and what can we do right now?

  1. #16
    VIP Member Array zacii's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    arizona
    Posts
    3,749
    Go ahead and make all the restrictions you want.

    It still won't stop any lunatic; but will only serve to further infringe on the rest of us.

    The process to get class III items is an unreasonable burden. Besides 6 months of paperwork and fees, you still have to get permission from local law enforcement, which in some places is a guaranteed 'no'.
    Trust in God and keep your powder dry

    "A heavily armed citizenry is not about overthrowing the government; it is about preventing the government from overthrowing liberty. A people stripped of their right of self defense is defenseless against their own government." -source

  2. Remove Ads

  3. #17
    VIP Member Array peckman28's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Maryland
    Posts
    2,079
    Hopyard you have got to be kidding me. I have the right to do anything that doesn't harm another human-being, and that includes buying a 100-rd drum magazine. Restricting it is an infringement on my rights, and no Brady Campaign-style rationale for the "public safety" changes that. There are all kinds of things your "average civilian" doesn't need, but that does NOT give some government official, or closed-minded voter through said official, the right to deprive them of their property. I've seen some amazing things posted by you, but that is way up there on the list of "cannot possibly come close to agreeing with him". Just wow.

  4. #18
    VIP Member Array suntzu's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    TX/NH
    Posts
    5,822
    Quote Originally Posted by Hopyard View Post
    First part in bold: HG, I don't follow your point. Why would he have had to kill 60 people?
    A very high cap magazine gave him an ability to throw a lot of lead out without giving anyone an opportunity
    to rush him.

    Second part in bold: I understand, but we live with all sorts of these restrictions, and as you have pointed
    out many of them aren't really a big deal to get through the hoops-- e.g., the cans thing. Our prior conversation
    about that opened my eyes a bit to the fact that yes we can have our toys and also have a modicum of
    control on them. What was it you said it cost to apply to get a can? Ten bucks a can? The cost is hardly a
    deterrent; but the mentally disorganized won't usually be together enough jump that hoop.

    We have had at least three mass shooting in recent years--- The Crazy military shrink; crazy Lochner;
    and this guy. There have been other incidents. Sunzu worries about not being able to have fun; but that
    concern really falls short when compared to being dead.

    This sort of reminds me of a conversation I had with a building inspector when I wanted to install a
    ventless furnace; something that would have met my needs but which was prohibited by code. "I don't want you to
    wake up dead" he said. Well, I can jump and scream about not being able to do what I want with my own house,
    but the guy is right--- its better to wake up than to wake up dead.
    Hop, don't minimize and try to trivialize what I said. If you want to use your logic about infringing on folks rights or making laws tighter then you are better off advocating for a ban on alcoohol which causes more drunkk driving deaths every year than folks killed by high capacity mags. I know that is ludicrous but this shooting is not the norm. Your logic is banned this or that and then he would have killed less. The Brady Bunch says the same thing, "ban gun and of course folks will still die from stabbings...but it will be far less"
    DPro.40 likes this.

  5. #19
    Senior Moderator
    Array HotGuns's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Arkansas
    Posts
    14,846
    Hopyard, its 200 bucks per suppressor,short barrelled rifle or short barrelled shotgun and YES, it is a detterant. Since that tax was established in 1934, in todays worth it would be over 3300 bucks per suppressor.Luckily for us, its about the only tax left that hasnt been raised.


    Look at it like this...

    There are several million 30 round magazines out there. I have several dozen myself.

    Very few, out of the millions, participated in a killing and I'd be willing to be that it would be far less than one tenth of a percent.



    Now, explain to me why you would penalize every single individual for owning one because a couple of yahoos broke the law with one. I want to understand how that liberal mindeset works, because so far, I see no ryhme or reason to it.
    BurgerBoy, DPro.40 and Spirit51 like this.
    I would rather stand against the cannons of the wicked than against the prayers of the righteous.


    AR. CHL Instr. 07/02 FFL
    Like custom guns and stuff? Check this out...
    http://bobbailey1959.wordpress.com/

  6. #20
    VIP Member Array mlr1m's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    okla
    Posts
    4,298
    The Government has redefined the meaning of the word infringement. It no longer means an encroachment on someones rights. They now define it to mean a total loss of ones rights.
    Under this new definition they can encroach on your rights all they want so long as they do not take them completely away. If for example I force you to travel ten thousand miles out of your way to get to your destination I have not in any way infringed on your right to travel so long as you can still reach that destination somehow. I can make it hard for you to own a weapon and I have not infringed on your rights so long as in the end after all the hoops I make you jump through you can still own some sort of weapon.

    Michael

  7. #21
    Senior Member Array Sig35seven's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    1,115
    If I want to go berserk and shoot up the joint having only 15 round capacity mags is NOT going to stop me. Two 15 round mags equals one 30 round. Pop'em in and out as many as you want to carry. I really don't see restrictions on capacity as an answer.
    "Confidence is food for the wise man but liquor for the fool"

  8. #22
    Senior Member Array Sig35seven's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    1,115
    Both Obama and Romney have made statements saying they won't look to enact any new gun legislation due to this isolated incident.
    "Confidence is food for the wise man but liquor for the fool"

  9. #23
    VIP Member Array mlr1m's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    okla
    Posts
    4,298
    Quote Originally Posted by Sig35seven View Post
    Both Obama and Romney have made statements saying they won't look to enact any new gun legislation due to this isolated incident.
    But, would they sign it if it were to reach their desk?

    Michael

  10. #24
    VIP Member Array zacii's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    arizona
    Posts
    3,749
    The magazine capacity restrictions of the 94 AWB did nothing to prevent the Columbine shooting, or the LA shootout.

    On the other hand, some LA residents were well armed, with semi automatic weapons and 'standard' capacity magazines, to protect themselves during the riots.



    Sent from my Galaxy S2
    Trust in God and keep your powder dry

    "A heavily armed citizenry is not about overthrowing the government; it is about preventing the government from overthrowing liberty. A people stripped of their right of self defense is defenseless against their own government." -source

  11. #25
    VIP Member
    Array Hopyard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Disappeared
    Posts
    11,600
    Quote Originally Posted by HotGuns View Post
    Hopyard, its 200 bucks per suppressor,short barrelled rifle or short barrelled shotgun and YES, it is a detterant. Since that tax was established in 1934, in todays worth it would be over 3300 bucks per suppressor.Luckily for us, its about the only tax left that hasnt been raised.


    Look at it like this...

    There are several million 30 round magazines out there. I have several dozen myself.

    Very few, out of the millions, participated in a killing and I'd be willing to be that it would be far less than one tenth of a percent.



    Now, explain to me why you would penalize every single individual for owning one because a couple of yahoos broke the law with one. I want to understand how that liberal mindeset works, because so far, I see no ryhme or reason to it.
    Maybe I misunderstood the cost when we discussed this earlier. I knew it was 200 FA, but I thought you had
    said something considerably smaller, 10 ? , for a suppressor for a handgun.

    So, what I was trying to get at was not the tax, and not a ban, but a means of slowing down purchases by
    the deranged in the hope that they won't be together enough to complete a plan. Holmes however would not have
    been stopped by the need to pay the tax and file some papers. Lochner I think would have been. It all depends
    on the nature of the derangement.
    If the Union is once severed, the line of separation will grow wider and wider, and the controversies which are now debated and settled in the halls of legislation will then be tried in fields of battle and determined by the sword.
    Andrew Jackson

  12. #26
    VIP Member Array mlr1m's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    okla
    Posts
    4,298
    Quote Originally Posted by Hopyard View Post
    Maybe I misunderstood the cost when we discussed this earlier. I knew it was 200 FA, but I thought you had
    said something considerably smaller, 10 ? , for a suppressor for a handgun.

    So, what I was trying to get at was not the tax, and not a ban, but a means of slowing down purchases by
    the deranged in the hope that they won't be together enough to complete a plan. Holmes however would not have
    been stopped by the need to pay the tax and file some papers. Lochner I think would have been. It all depends
    on the nature of the derangement.
    Set it high enough to work and it would affect us folks on fixed income too.

    Michael

  13. #27
    Senior Member Array ntkb's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Detroit Michigan
    Posts
    666
    Gun restriction, registration has proven a dismal failure throughout the planet. After WWI Hitler built up an armed force while the country was under restrictions, it did a lot of good then now didn’t it. The new UN plot to keep the world safe, by gun control will fail, not just because the UN is a failure in itself, but because the idea that anyone can control weapons or drugs for that matter it not thinking clearly, this sort of nonsense has never worked.

    The only way man can fight this type of madness that took place in the theater is with immediate force, you can make all the laws you want it won’t change a thing.

    Anyone remember the hotel shootings in Mumbai full auto weapons where guns are outlawed, a fine example of gun control.

    AN ARMED SOCIETY IS A POLIGHT SOCIETY.

    And the second amendment isn’t about toys.

  14. #28
    VIP Member
    Array Hopyard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Disappeared
    Posts
    11,600
    Quote Originally Posted by mlr1m View Post
    Set it high enough to work and it would affect us folks on fixed income too.

    Michael
    That's not what I'm suggesting. It could be free for all I care. I'm talking about creating hoops that
    most of the folks who are deranged won't be able to jump through. This guy Holmes I think, and probably that
    guy in Norway, would have slid through hoops; a Lochner probably not.

    Anyway, I've drifted a bit from my original thought-- put directly, I'd like to know that when HG and Sixto
    and my friends and neighbors go to work in the morning they are unlikely to have to deal with someone
    "ready for war" with a very high cap magazine. If throwing a few hoops in the way slows or stops the deranged,
    that's fine with me.
    DoctorBob likes this.
    If the Union is once severed, the line of separation will grow wider and wider, and the controversies which are now debated and settled in the halls of legislation will then be tried in fields of battle and determined by the sword.
    Andrew Jackson

  15. #29
    Member Array cthruit's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Tennessee
    Posts
    425
    Quote Originally Posted by Hopyard View Post
    I refer one and all to the other thread about "is 5 enough." I think a 15 rnd limited is plenty
    for ordinary civilian purposes and would regulate ultra high cap.

    I don't consider magazine capacity regulations 'gun control.' It is related but not the same thing.

    When I listened to the Police Chief of Aurora last night he was uncertain if the AR was fired as a semi-auto
    or if it was fired FA/bursts. He just didn't have the info. That creep who shot everyone was smart enough
    to have converted his AR, but doing so would have been near worthless if his magazine capacity were limited.
    By this logic, it can be decided that we'd be "safer" if we limited calibers to .17 or .22, and then we may need to look at velocities next. And who will be the one's that decide these issues? It sure as hell won't be anyone who will give a damn about the constitution, states rights, and has an ounce of common sense.
    I wasn't in the theater in Aurora, but my reasoning says "bullet proof"ed or not, an armed response very well have made a difference. Mentally ill or not, most folks don't like being shot. Maybe a fortuitous shot might have landed and at the very least slowed this tragedy down a little. Rounds on target beat harsh language any time.

    And since I'm already here....We've been neutered as a society. If the 9/11 stories taught us anything, is should be that the respond to a threat instead of hoping for the best is not a good plan....or is all this discussion of carrying a defensing arm just a hobby?

    Disclaimer: I'm not flamin' anybody.

  16. #30
    VIP Member Array mlr1m's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    okla
    Posts
    4,298
    At one time they only wanted to restrict machine guns. The gradual loss of freedom cannot be denied. They are winning no doubt about it.

    Michael

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast

Links

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Search tags for this page

arkansas black powder restrictions
,

constitutional carry now

,
mortar civilian ownership
,
powered by mybb best toys for 5 year old
,
powered by mybb family pact
,
powered by mybb fixed income
,

powered by mybb second industrial revolution

,

powered by mybb should beauty contest imposed on a ban

,
what should we do right now
,
why can't they restrict the 2a
Click on a term to search for related topics.