Most important reason to oppose a new AWB?

This is a discussion on Most important reason to oppose a new AWB? within the The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion forums, part of the Related Topics category; Originally Posted by 38special were created by the government and can be "uncreated" with enough passing votes. If the Second Amendment is repealed then the ...

View Poll Results: #1 reason you need an assault weapon?

Voters
141. You may not vote on this poll
  • Target Shooting

    14 9.93%
  • Varmint Hunting

    4 2.84%
  • Collecting

    2 1.42%
  • Home/Personal Defense

    59 41.84%
  • Countervailing force against foreign enemies

    2 1.42%
  • Countervailing force against tyranny

    60 42.55%
Page 6 of 7 FirstFirst ... 234567 LastLast
Results 76 to 90 of 93
Like Tree67Likes

Thread: Most important reason to oppose a new AWB?

  1. #76
    VIP Member Array zacii's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    arizona
    Posts
    3,749
    Quote Originally Posted by 38special View Post
    were created by the government and can be "uncreated" with enough passing votes. If the Second Amendment is repealed then the government will take your guns and prevent gun ownership. If you refuse then you will be imprisoned. If you fight back then you will be killed...they have tanks, ships, jets, bombed, etc. and they will win.

    Women have not always had the right to vote. Blacks have not always had freedom. Those rights were given to them, not by birth, but at the pleasure of the government...just as gun ownership.
    Quote Originally Posted by 1MoreGoodGuy View Post
    So now you are saying that the government is all-powerful and has the authority to murder the populace at will if the populace disagrees with the government. WOW!

    Do you know about the big buildings where they keep all the books? It's call a library. Please go to one and start reading.
    Quote Originally Posted by 1MoreGoodGuy View Post
    Because the killing you described is murder.

    Why would you be insulted by someone saying you should read books? Do you not like books? Should we ban those too?
    Quote Originally Posted by 38special View Post
    I believe the term would be "justifiable homicide" as opposed to "murder". If the government outlaws firearms, you refuse to relinquish them, and you use your firearms to defend against the execution of signed search warrants, then you would most certainly be killed...and, in they eyes of the government, it would be justifiable.

    And it is insulting because, using my inferencing and contextual skills, you are insinuating that I am uneducated. But kudos on your cute attempt at sarcasm.
    By this logic the Holocaust was justifiable homicide.
    bombthrower77 likes this.
    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. #77
    Senior Member
    Array bombthrower77's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Michigan
    Posts
    527
    FWIW I went out and purchased a nicely used Saiga .308 sporter carbine yesterday. Using the old rules its not an "assault weapon". If things calm down I will convert it.
    "There is only one basic human right, the right to do as you damn well please. And with it comes the only basic human duty, the duty to take the consequences." ~ P. J. O'Rourke

  4. #78
    VIP Member
    Array Echo_Four's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Land of the mostly free
    Posts
    2,810
    Quote Originally Posted by 38special View Post
    I am asking you to explain the legality of CA's magazine capacity restrictions
    The Bill of Rights exists to limit what the federal government can do. The Second Amendment was not written to keep a state from infringing upon your rights to own weapons, but was focused only on the federal government... just as the first amendment was focused only on the federal government not infringing upon your free speech or establishing a religion. It was not until after the 14th Amendment was ratified that the "incorporation" doctrine was put into place. Starting in the 1920s the Supreme Court started saying that the 14th Amendment incorporated the Bill of Rights and made them enforceable against states.

    Most people would say the first amendment was incorporated in NAACP v. Chicago in 1958, and since that time states have been forced to follow the amendment. The 4th Amendment was incorporated in Wolf v. Colorado and then altered and strengthened in Mapp v. Ohio.

    All of that said, the only time that you could say the 2nd Amendment has been incorporated was in McDonald v. Chicago in 2010. However the decision was not worded in such a way as to invalidate any and all gun control laws. Thus the laws that were already on the book will remain valid unless/until they are challenged and a court over turns them. Thus California limiting magazine capacity is still a valid restriction. Since there's a valid legal argument to be had about whether limiting the size of a magazine would infringe upon your right to own a firearm there would have to be a huge case to decide the matter, and through California is not the route that any pro-gun person should choose to take the case.
    "The only people I like besides my wife and children are Marines."
    - Lt. Col. Oliver North

  5. #79
    Member Array 38special's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    Kentucky
    Posts
    79
    Quote Originally Posted by Echo_Four View Post
    The Bill of Rights exists to limit what the federal government can do. The Second Amendment was not written to keep a state from infringing upon your rights to own weapons, but was focused only on the federal government... just as the first amendment was focused only on the federal government not infringing upon your free speech or establishing a religion. It was not until after the 14th Amendment was ratified that the "incorporation" doctrine was put into place. Starting in the 1920s the Supreme Court started saying that the 14th Amendment incorporated the Bill of Rights and made them enforceable against states.

    Most people would say the first amendment was incorporated in NAACP v. Chicago in 1958, and since that time states have been forced to follow the amendment. The 4th Amendment was incorporated in Wolf v. Colorado and then altered and strengthened in Mapp v. Ohio.

    All of that said, the only time that you could say the 2nd Amendment has been incorporated was in McDonald v. Chicago in 2010. However the decision was not worded in such a way as to invalidate any and all gun control laws. Thus the laws that were already on the book will remain valid unless/until they are challenged and a court over turns them. Thus California limiting magazine capacity is still a valid restriction. Since there's a valid legal argument to be had about whether limiting the size of a magazine would infringe upon your right to own a firearm there would have to be a huge case to decide the matter, and through California is not the route that any pro-gun person should choose to take the case.
    Federal assault weapons ban and restrictions on automatic weapons still applies...and the federal Governement has weighed in on state sanctioned gun laws several times.

  6. #80
    Senior Member Array rugergunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    Indiana
    Posts
    672
    Fighting tyranny - both foreign AND domestic.

  7. #81
    Member Array stimpee's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Parrish, FL
    Posts
    46
    I voted, but frankly could have chosen "all of the above" as an option.

    However in reality, I don't need a reason...

  8. #82
    VIP Member
    Array Echo_Four's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Land of the mostly free
    Posts
    2,810
    Quote Originally Posted by 38special View Post
    Federal assault weapons ban and restrictions on automatic weapons still applies...and the federal Governement has weighed in on state sanctioned gun laws several times.
    I'll be honest, I was doing a test. You kept asking the same question over and over and over. I answered a portion of the question fully to see whether you would accept the answer. If so we could address other parts of your question. Instead you responded with something that didn't in any way pertain to what I posted and didn't acknowledge the answer you were given. So I know there's no point in debating the issue, you're just here trying to cause problems... and that's OK. I'm just not here to deal with it.
    1MoreGoodGuy likes this.
    "The only people I like besides my wife and children are Marines."
    - Lt. Col. Oliver North

  9. #83
    Member Array relentless's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    United States
    Posts
    20
    As an attorney, I felt I should chime in with my two cents regarding the California gun laws.

    Echo is correct as far as the the incorporation of the Second Amendment on the states with McDonald and that in order to challenge California's laws somebody would have to mount a legal challenge to it and it has to reach SCOTUS for those laws to get overturned. It is also correct that despite the Heller and McDonald cases most current gun restrictions are currently upheld by federal courts. Some are not, such as the recent 7th Circuit Court of Appeals overturning the Illinois CCW ban as unconstitutional.

    The problem with the Heller decision is that it did not set any firm boundaries on what gun control laws are acceptable. The only central holding of that case is that the Second Amendment is an individual right, not a collective right. They set forth no test of how to decide whether or not gun related legislation is unconstitutional other than to say that an outright ban on a "class of arms in common use by the American people for defense is unconstitutional" so the DC ban on handguns was not constitutional. They also did not define "arms" in American legal terms.

    Heller was a great victory for gun rights but also has left a lot of unanswered questions. In the majority opinion they clearly state that Heller did not overturn longstanding gun control laws such as laws preventing felons or the mentally ill from having firearms. Because of that the California laws still stand because nothing in the Heller decision or the subsequent McDonald incorporation renders them unconstitutional. They do not say at what point a gun control law will be determined as unconstitutional. In the future they will determine these limits. If the Seventh Circuit CCW case comes before the Court it will be critical in determining the scope of state gun control laws.

    All of that said, in my opinion upon reading Heller numerous times, I don't think another Federal Assault Weapon Ban will stand up under Court scrutiny. Semi-Automatic Assault Rifles are in common use by the people, and it is the Gun Control proponents themselves that are saying they are their own class of arms. Under their own definition and applying the Heller precedent, you would have to say that a ban on them is not constitutional. Are magazine capacity limits unconstitutional? Not right now, and not if they continue to use the same rationale as in Heller.

    I predict the Court will hear more cases on gun control in this decade, set up a firm test to decide if gun control legislation is constitutional such as how they use the rational basis test to determine if legislation violates the Equal Protection or Due Process clauses or how they use the imminent lawless action test to determine if legislation violates the First Amendment. Ten years from now, we will have a far greater understanding of the scope of the Second Amendment.
    Last edited by relentless; December 21st, 2012 at 09:08 PM. Reason: Typo

  10. #84
    VIP Member
    Array TX expat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Kansas City
    Posts
    3,668
    ^^^very interesting post^^^

  11. #85
    Distinguished Member Array GlassWolf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Columbia, SC
    Posts
    1,747
    The most important reason is simple. An AWB violates my constitutional RIGHTS.

    It's funny that Obama is pushing for one, as he claims to be a constitutional scholar. Granted, nobody can actually prove he even attended college.

    The fact that your constitutional rights are being stripped away every day and nobody is doing jack about it should absolutely frighten you, and fill you with rage.

  12. #86
    Senior Member Array Fausty's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    oshkosh wisconsin
    Posts
    959
    Quote Originally Posted by TX expat View Post
    I think "justifying" is the wrong approach. The Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear arms and it (outside of the liberal idea of what it means) is pretty clear about its intent and scope.

    The reason I don't like looking for reasons to "need" something is it opens up the idea that it should be up for discussion, and therefore debate on what constitutes "need".
    nailed it on the second post.
    TX expat likes this.
    My metal band: Born under Sirius

    Glock 23, mic holster, clipdraw, abdominal carry.

  13. #87
    Senior Member Array Cold Shot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    880
    Freedom - America is only kind of free, but more so than any other country.

  14. #88
    Member Array bgriffin70's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Enumclaw, WA
    Posts
    144
    The NRA and other groups should not be * defending * our position, but instead; we should be MORE AGGRESSIVE in filing suit against our government and these organizations who are indeed, infringing upon our guaranteed 2nd Amendment rights!
    Boomer Sooner!

  15. #89
    Distinguished Member Array GlassWolf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Columbia, SC
    Posts
    1,747
    Quote Originally Posted by Cold Shot View Post
    Freedom - America is only kind of free, but more so than any other country.
    Do you really believe this? Try to think of one thing you do during the course of a regular day upon which the government hasn't, in some way or form, imposed itself.
    bombthrower77 likes this.

  16. #90
    Senior Member Array zamboni's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    North of the Line
    Posts
    1,186
    1MoreGoodGuy likes this.

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

charlton heston bear arms
,
charlton heston ill give you my gun
,
charlton heston nra cold dead hands
,
charlton heston nra quote
,
charlton heston's gun vault
,

is what we're up against

,
list states that oppose awb
,
protected by the 2nd amendment sign
,

the awb violates the 2nd amendment

,
they don't have the votes for awb
,
what does this mean -do you agree that the second amendment gives citizens the right to own and bear guns without infrin
,
why is it so important to appose gun control
Click on a term to search for related topics.