Assault Weapon Ban?

This is a discussion on Assault Weapon Ban? within the The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion forums, part of the Related Topics category; Originally Posted by ksholder Wow. That is all I can say to this post and not get points, just wow. My thoughts exactly....

Page 6 of 7 FirstFirst ... 234567 LastLast
Results 76 to 90 of 101
Like Tree79Likes

Thread: Assault Weapon Ban?

  1. #76
    Distinguished Member Array kapnketel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Northern Kentucky
    Posts
    1,709
    Quote Originally Posted by ksholder View Post
    Wow. That is all I can say to this post and not get points, just wow.
    My thoughts exactly.
    I'd rather be lucky than good any day

    There's nothing that will change someone's moral outlook quicker than cash in large sums.

    Majority rule only works if you're also considering individual rights. Because you can't have five wolves and one sheep voting on what to have for supper.

  2. Remove Ads

  3. #77
    Member Array gator15's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    114
    Quote Originally Posted by skysoldier29 View Post
    There is a big difference between the Colt M-4 that I carry in Afghanistan than the RRA AR-15 I have under my bed. From the little I have read on the subject recently, guns can easily be political suicide for anyone voting to restrict gun ownership. I have not done the research, but I wonder two things. 1. What was the actual effect of the Clinton era assault weapons ban on violent crime in the country. 2. What were the congressional election results preceding the ban? Did the Republicans retake either the House or Senate?
    From wikipedia:

    "The United States Department of Justice and National Institute of Justice found should the ban be renewed, its effects on gun violence would likely be small, and perhaps too small for reliable measurement, because rifles in general, including rifles referred to as "assault rifles" or "assault weapons", are rarely used in gun crimes."

    "Examining 1.4 million guns involved in crime, it determined that since the law was enacted, "assault weapons have made up only 1.61% of the guns ATF has traced to crime"

    And for the guy that said he would want stricter regulations on automatic weapons, there has been only a single crime involving use of an automatic weapon since the restrictions took place in 1932...explain why "you dont feel safe". Heck more crimes and homicides have involved items you can easily pick up at a local hardware store, in fact more people have died from vending machines than automatic weapons...your logic makes zero sense.

  4. #78
    VIP Member Array mprp's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    California
    Posts
    2,811
    Quote Originally Posted by Pythius View Post
    The Right to Bear Arms, meaning the right to own & carry firearms for self-defense & recreation, NOT simply as part of a government regulated Militia, is SETTLED law.

    They will NOT be revisiting that issue, just as the right of women to have an abortion is SETTLED law.

    however, another Liberal on the SCOTUS could very well rule in favor of more gun regulations. This is true. But the basic understanding of the 2nd Amendment, has been settled.
    Yes indeed. We should ALL be a part of a well regulated hunting club. The Constitution is clearly a piece written to entice outdoor activity. Kind of like today's "Get out and play at least an hour a day" routine.
    Vietnam Vets, WELCOME HOME

    Crossman 760 BB/Pellet, Daisy Red Ryder, Crossman Wrist Rocket, 14 Steak Knives, 3 Fillet Knives, Rolling Pin-14", Various Hunting Knives, 2 Baseball Bats, 3 Big Dogs and a big American Flag flying in the yard. I have no firearms; Try the next house.

  5. #79
    Distinguished Member
    Array phreddy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Spartanburg, SC
    Posts
    1,951
    Quote Originally Posted by Pythius View Post
    The Right to Bear Arms, meaning the right to own & carry firearms for self-defense & recreation, NOT simply as part of a government regulated Militia, is SETTLED law.

    They will NOT be revisiting that issue, just as the right of women to have an abortion is SETTLED law.

    however, another Liberal on the SCOTUS could very well rule in favor of more gun regulations. This is true. But the basic understanding of the 2nd Amendment, has been settled.
    I bet alot of people living in "may issue" states would beg to differ with you.

  6. #80
    Ex Member Array Pythius's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Queens
    Posts
    462
    Quote Originally Posted by mprp View Post
    Yes indeed. We should ALL be a part of a well regulated hunting club. The Constitution is clearly a piece written to entice outdoor activity. Kind of like today's "Get out and play at least an hour a day" routine.
    if the 2nd Amendment was only about being part of a well-regulated militia, nobody would own guns as the Militia ceased to exist in the 1920s.

  7. #81
    VIP Member Array mcp1810's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    4,746
    Quote Originally Posted by Pythius View Post
    if the 2nd Amendment was only about being part of a well-regulated militia, nobody would own guns as the Militia ceased to exist in the 1920s.
    Maybe in your state. It is alive and well in Texas. We even have statutes describing the process for the governor to requisition arms from federal armories for us if necessary.
    Infowars- Proving David Hannum right on a daily basis

  8. #82
    Ex Member Array Pythius's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Queens
    Posts
    462
    Quote Originally Posted by mcp1810 View Post
    Maybe in your state. It is alive and well in Texas. We even have statutes describing the process for the governor to requisition arms from federal armories for us if necessary.
    sorry bud, but the 2nd Amendment and the Constitution refers to the well-regulated Militia, that will be serve at the pleasure of the President of the USA in times of crisis & chaos.

    and the well-regulated citizen volunteer Militia was ended in 1903 with the Militia Act, which formalized all state militias into the National Guard, who could be nationalized at the snap of a finger by the President.

  9. #83
    VIP Member Array mcp1810's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    4,746
    Quote Originally Posted by Pythius View Post
    sorry bud, but the 2nd Amendment and the Constitution refers to the well-regulated Militia, that will be serve at the pleasure of the President of the USA in times of crisis & chaos.

    and the well-regulated citizen volunteer Militia was ended in 1903 with the Militia Act, which formalized all state militias into the National Guard, who could be nationalized at the snap of a finger by the President.
    Sorry bud, but the National Guard is only a small part of the military forces of Texas.
    You should read up Texas Government Code, Title 4 Subtitle C Chapter 431
    In regard to the Texas State Guard:
    Texas Statutes - Section 431.058: FEDERAL SERVICE
    This chapter does not authorize the calling, ordering, or drafting of all or part of the Texas State Guard into military service of the United States, but a person is not exempted by enlistment or commission in the Texas State Guard from military service under United States law.
    And as far as equipment:
    Texas Statutes - Section 431.059: RECORDS; ARMS; EQUIPMENT
    (a) The adjutant general shall maintain and preserve the individual, unit, and organization records of the Texas State Guard and the Texas State Guard Honorary Reserve.

    (b) The governor may requisition for use of the Texas State Guard arms and equipment that the United States government possesses and can spare. The governor may make available to the Texas State Guard state armories and their equipment and other available state property.
    The president can have the National Guard, but the State Guard belongs to the Governor of Texas.

    You might want to read 32 USC 109.
    Infowars- Proving David Hannum right on a daily basis

  10. #84
    Member Array bodhisattvya's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Eugene, OR, USA
    Posts
    45
    Quote Originally Posted by Pythius View Post
    The Right to Bear Arms, meaning the right to own & carry firearms for self-defense & recreation, NOT simply as part of a government regulated Militia, is SETTLED law.

    They will NOT be revisiting that issue, just as the right of women to have an abortion is SETTLED law.

    however, another Liberal on the SCOTUS could very well rule in favor of more gun regulations. This is true. But the basic understanding of the 2nd Amendment, has been settled.
    At past points in our history, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of slavery. It was overturned. There is such a thing as legal precedent, but there is no such thing that prevents the Supreme Court from overturning a previous ruling.
    Why do you think the lib's still freak out about the possibility of Roe vs. Wade being overturned?

    From Wikipedia:
    "For example, in the years 1946–1992, the U.S. Supreme Court reversed itself in about 130 cases.[24] The U.S. Supreme Court has further explained as follows:
    [W]hen convinced of former error, this Court has never felt constrained to follow precedent. In constitutional questions, where correction depends upon amendment, and not upon legislative action, this Court throughout its history has freely exercised its power to reexamine the basis of its constitutional decisions."
    —Smith v. Allwright, 321 U.S. 649, 665 (1944)

  11. #85
    Distinguished Member Array kapnketel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Northern Kentucky
    Posts
    1,709
    That is why elections count. A few more Kagans or Sotemeyers and Heller will be reversed. As to precedent, the court had ruled separate but equal schools were legal, then reversed its position in Brown v Board of Education. Do not ever think the law is completely cast in stone.
    I'd rather be lucky than good any day

    There's nothing that will change someone's moral outlook quicker than cash in large sums.

    Majority rule only works if you're also considering individual rights. Because you can't have five wolves and one sheep voting on what to have for supper.

  12. #86
    Senior Moderator
    Array pgrass101's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Alabama
    Posts
    13,096
    I cannot think of a single crime that was prevented by the Assault Weapons ban, but past Republican Presidents have said they would sign one if it came across their desk. This and the National Defense Authorization Act that gives the president the power to indefinitely imprison and even assassinate American citizens without due process makes me very nervous despite which party controls the White house.

    I can only stress that you vote for Congressional representation that will actively defend your rights, especially when they have to buck their parties power structure.
    Sometimes I wonder who the old man in the mirror is....

    Lord, Grant me a good sword and no need to use it.

  13. #87
    Ex Member Array Pythius's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Queens
    Posts
    462
    Quote Originally Posted by pgrass101 View Post
    I cannot think of a single crime that was prevented by the Assault Weapons ban, but past Republican Presidents have said they would sign one if it came across their desk. This and the National Defense Authorization Act that gives the president the power to indefinitely imprison and even assassinate American citizens without due process makes me very nervous despite which party controls the White house....
    #1. A new NDAA is signed every year by the POTUS, for the last 50 years. Its not some new evil conspiracy.

    #2. NDAA 2012 does NOT give anyone authority to detain American citizens, arrested in the USA, without charge/trial indefinitely. After the court cases with Jose Padilla, it was settled that no legal resident of the USA can be held without charge or trial indefinitely. This is why to this day, NO legal residents of the USA are being held indefinitely without charge/trial, and ALL terrorism suspects detained in the USA since Jose Padilla have their day in court.

  14. #88
    Senior Moderator
    Array pgrass101's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Alabama
    Posts
    13,096
    Pyhtius I suggest you look at the ACLU's web site about this Talking Points: 2012 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) | American Civil Liberties Union

    The breadth of the NDAA’s worldwide detention authority violates IMO the Constitution. Under the Bush administration, similar claims of worldwide detention authority were used to hold even a U.S. citizen captured on U.S. soil in military custody, and many in Congress assert that the NDAA should be used in the same way.
    Sometimes I wonder who the old man in the mirror is....

    Lord, Grant me a good sword and no need to use it.

  15. #89
    Ex Member Array Pythius's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Queens
    Posts
    462
    Quote Originally Posted by pgrass101 View Post
    Pyhtius I suggest you look at the ACLU's web site about this Talking Points: 2012 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) | American Civil Liberties Union

    The breadth of the NDAA’s worldwide detention authority violates IMO the Constitution. Under the Bush administration, similar claims of worldwide detention authority were used to hold even a U.S. citizen captured on U.S. soil in military custody, and many in Congress assert that the NDAA should be used in the same way.
    again, after the legal mess with Jose Padilla, its been established that all legal residents of the USA, be they citizens or non-citizens, CANNOT be held indefinitely without charge/trial...even if arrested for terrorism.

    notice how EVERYONE arrested on terrorism charges since Jose Padilla has had their day in court? This is why.

  16. #90
    Senior Moderator
    Array pgrass101's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Alabama
    Posts
    13,096
    That's only if you are a legal resident of the US in the US what if you went to the Bahamas on vacation? And I am not so sure about the legal resident.

    Anyway this thread is about the AWB and we need to get it back on track.

    As mentioned weapons do not cause crime, and a heat shield or bayonet lug does not make a weapon anymore dangerous
    Sometimes I wonder who the old man in the mirror is....

    Lord, Grant me a good sword and no need to use it.

Page 6 of 7 FirstFirst ... 234567 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

2013 assault weapons ban

,
2013 weapons ban
,
assault rifle band 2013
,
assault weapon ban timeline
,
assault weapons ban 2013
,
assault weapons ban timeline
,
assault weappon ban 2013
,

backpedaling on the new assault weapons ban

,
if assult weapon ban happens when will it take effect
,
soonest gun ban could go into effect
,
the president speech on the assault rifle band to take effect in january 2013
,

what happens if assault weapons are banned

Click on a term to search for related topics.