Right to bear arms? More like privilege - Page 4
You are Unregistered, please register to use all of the features of FirearmsTalk.com!    
Firearm & Gun Forum - FireArmsTalk.com > General Firearms Forums > Legal and Activism > Right to bear arms? More like privilege

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 01-12-2011, 02:36 PM   #31
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Saint Louis,Missouri
Posts: 123
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by dickmansky View Post
I'm angry over weapons being sold to drug cartels in Mexico, that this psycho could buy a 30 bullet clip, that people are wearing guns to political and other kinds of events. It's gone too far. The second amendment says _well regulated_, but I don't see the regulated. It might as well be Tombstone in the 19th century.

I'm new as a gun poster, don't own nor want a gun, but I'm wondering where the second amendment says the right to bear arms includes every new gun innovation that comes down the pike, no matter how deadly. Unless you are in law enforcement or a war zone, why does a citizen need an assault rifle?
I agree with you, Richard. Personally, I don't believe that US citizens need assault weapons.

However, here's a problem: My wife's owns this gun.. In California, New York, and New Jersey, it is considered an "Assault Weapon" because it has a pistol grip and a collapsible stock. However, when you get down to the ballistics of it, it fires the exact same round asthis gun that I own.

Now, the reason that she bought the gun is that she's probably 6 inches shorter than me, and she wanted a rifle with a shorter stock and that was lighter than my rifle. However, since it is an AR-15 style (which stands for ArmaLight Model 15, not Assault Rifle) firearm, she can take it apart, clean it, and have it back together again in the time it takes me to take my rifle apart.

However, her gun is considered an "assault weapon". Nevermind I could take a screwdriver to my gun, change the stock to something that is collapsible and add a pistol grip. Nevermind that there are pellet and air guns that shoot more dangerous calibers than our rifles.

I agree that gun ownership needs regulation. However, I demand that those regulations are based in reality and true capability, not "it looks like an M-16 so it must be an M-16."
__________________
There are two types of idiocy: Believing everything one is told without question, and never listening to what others have to say.
corrinavatan is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 01-12-2011, 03:08 PM   #32
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Steve32's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: .,US
Posts: 74
Liked 7 Times on 2 Posts
Likes Given: 40

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by corrinavatan View Post
You DO have the right to bear arms. However, if you want to bear a handgun in detroit, you pay a fee. I assume that there is no fee on, say, a knife, or a sword, or a crossbow.
I don't think you can just walk on the street with a big knife, a sword or with a crossbow. You can have these things at home, probably. But I don't see why is that better if you shot a robber is the feet or you do a knifefight and you seriously injure your attacker. A knifeinjury can worse than a bullet wound, just check the photos on Google.

Quote:
Let's extrapolate your argument. Using your logic, I should be able to own an M1A1 Abrams without paying any type of fee.
You buy a radio. Do you pay other fees? Yes, you pay fees after you buy a house, for the local school, police station, etc, and you pay fees, when you buy your car, because you using roads. But can you use a shooting ranges, when you pay fees for your firearm?

Quote:
On the other hand, does Michigan even have a sales tax on firearms?
My FFL dealer collects the 6%.

Quote:
The right to bear arms is not an unconditional right with absolutely no limitations.
I have problem with this. Ok, I see the point why not buying explosions and such, but a flash suppressor? Or a pistol grip? Or a 20 round mag and such?

Quote:
You have the right to free speech, until you start maliciously lying about someone with the intent to cause them harm, for example.
The problem is, you can lie whatever you want. Sometimes the truth is restricted.

Quote:
Excuse me, but how is a "poor" man going to afford a $200 gun if he can't afford a $10 permit? I'd entertain that argument a bit more if the permit cost more, but a person could pawn some old clothing and come up with $10.
Purchase permit $105, CCW permit $150. So, if you want to buy a $99 Russian revolver, you must pay 255 for the state. + 6% taxes for the firearm itself. The $10 is not a big deal I think the other fees are much worse.

Fortunately people don't need to pay -only the tax- for the shotguns and rifles. But it's possible they change the law and that would be... no fun for the citizens...

Quote:
I'm angry over weapons being sold to drug cartels in Mexico, that this psycho could buy a 30 bullet clip, that people are wearing guns to political and other kinds of events. It's gone too far.
No, the US sold firearms for the Mexican army. I guess because the corruption, the Mexican army sold those firearms to the drug cartels. Blaming the US for this, is just ridiculous.
Steve32 is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 01-12-2011, 04:18 PM   #33
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Lima,Ohio
Posts: 3,309
Liked 3100 Times on 1395 Posts
Likes Given: 2878

Default

They aren't "fees or permits" they are "TAXES" Another wonderful gift from the left "call it something else maybe they won't notice". I really like the "School Levy" term. It's a TAX. A dog license = Dog TAX. Anything that hinders you from purchasing a firearm is definitely an infringement. Whatever happened to "Shall not be infringed"? Words mean things.

As far as "assualt weapons" go, why shouldn't we own them. 2A isn't about hunting. It's about stopping tyranny. I find the whole debate about magizine size laughable. Like it would have been ok for the guy to kill 6 people with 6 single shot pistols. If he had been 500 yards away with 30-06 and a 5 round mag I think he could have actually killed more people. Lots of penetration there. If you start agreeing that's it's ok to ban this or that sooner or later they will get around to banning what you own too.
rjd3282 is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 01-12-2011, 06:18 PM   #34
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 178
Default

I don't get how the 2nd amendment is so difficult to understand. I couldn't not understand it if I tried. And I have only a high school diploma. Yet you have judges and politicians with advanced law degrees that act like they can't understand a few basic sentences.
clip11 is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 01-12-2011, 07:58 PM   #35
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
General_lee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Lumpkin,Georgia
Posts: 1,268
Liked 17 Times on 9 Posts

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by clip11 View Post
I don't get how the 2nd amendment is so difficult to understand. I couldn't not understand it if I tried. And I have only a high school diploma. Yet you have judges and politicians with advanced law degrees that act like they can't understand a few basic sentences.
Amen to that.
It is quite easy to understand.

To dickmansky:
The average person cannot have an "assault rifle".
Fully automatic weapons cost thousands and thousands of dollars and the procedure to legally buy one is FAR more difficult than buying other firearms.
Sure, you can go in a gun store and see scary tactical looking guns that look like "assault rifles",
but they're not, they're semi-automatic, one shot per pull of the trigger, not a full auto machine gun.
As has already been said, the main reason for the 2nd Amendment is not for hunting, or even self defense, it's about protecting the country from tyranny. Civilians are this country's absolute last line of defense, a non-military national guard if you will.

Last edited by General_lee; 01-12-2011 at 08:15 PM.
General_lee is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 01-12-2011, 09:13 PM   #36
bkt
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Rochester, NY
Posts: 6,973
Liked 1305 Times on 664 Posts
Likes Given: 151

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by dickmansky View Post
I'm angry over weapons being sold to drug cartels in Mexico,
Google the words atf walking guns. It may well be our friends at the BATFE are deliberately supplying firearms to Mexicans. And it is suspected BP officer Brian Terry was killed by one such rifle.

Quote:
Originally Posted by dickmansky View Post
that this psycho could buy a 30 bullet clip,
Magazine. Do you object to my owning several 30-round mags?

Quote:
Originally Posted by dickmansky View Post
that people are wearing guns to political and other kinds of events.
I can't think of a better venue for open carry than a political event. Any politician or candidate who would object to open carry at his or her event is probably not one I would want in office.

"When governments fear the people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny. The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government." -Thomas Jefferson

Open carry is not the same as an open threat. It's a reminder: the people are not sheep and they cannot be pushed around. The government works for us, not the other way 'round.

Quote:
Originally Posted by dickmansky View Post
It's gone too far. The second amendment says _well regulated_, but I don't see the regulated.
The word "regulated" has another meaning intended when the Second Amendment was written. It means "working well together" or "to adjust so as to ensure accuracy of operation". It does NOT mean "overseen and controlled by the all-powerful government".

Quote:
Originally Posted by dickmansky View Post
I'm new as a gun poster, don't own nor want a gun, but I'm wondering where the second amendment says the right to bear arms includes every new gun innovation that comes down the pike, no matter how deadly.
Oh, I wouldn't limit it to merely guns. Citizens a while back owned cannon, grenades, grapeshot, huge stores of powder as well as rifles and pistols. The objective of the Framers was to ensure the military power rested with the people; there were to be no standing armies or navies.

It would seem we've strayed a bit from the Supreme Law of the Land, eh?

Quote:
Originally Posted by dickmansky View Post
Unless you are in law enforcement or a war zone, why does a citizen need an assault rifle?
To protect my liberty, property, wealth, life and the lives of my family from government thugs and other miscreants who would take all of that away. If you think that sounds off-the-map nuts, you need to study history. If you say "but that can't happen here" you need to study history more.

If you don't want to own firearms, that's perfectly fine with me. But my owning one is absolutely no threat to you or yours. Why do you object, then?
bkt is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 01-13-2011, 02:35 PM   #37
JTJ
FTF_SUPPORTER.png
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
JTJ's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Lake Havasu,Arizona
Posts: 7,196
Liked 2784 Times on 1520 Posts
Likes Given: 796

Default

Interpreting 2A requires that you use the vernacular of the day. Words have a habit of changing the their meaning over time.
Well regulated, at the time it was written means well equiped and trained in the use of those arms. There were many local and state militias that saw to the training. We need to go back to those times and reinstitute those local militias. They were all volunteers and supplied their own weapons. Today we dont have the organized base and have to rely on gun clubs, forums like this and some privately formed militias like the Minutemen.
__________________
Patron Member NRA
"I would not be an old man if I had not been an armed young man." JTJ
I was taught to respect my elders but they are getting harder to find.
JTJ is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 01-13-2011, 07:16 PM   #38
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Saint Louis,Missouri
Posts: 123
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by JTJ View Post
Interpreting 2A requires that you use the vernacular of the day. Words have a habit of changing the their meaning over time.
Well regulated, at the time it was written means well equiped and trained in the use of those arms. There were many local and state militias that saw to the training. We need to go back to those times and reinstitute those local militias. They were all volunteers and supplied their own weapons. Today we dont have the organized base and have to rely on gun clubs, forums like this and some privately formed militias like the Minutemen.
Words do change meaning, very true. Just like "Militia" means "group of racist, misogynist hillbillies who are really a codeword for a group of people who want to enforce white supremacy" to a lot of people.
__________________
There are two types of idiocy: Believing everything one is told without question, and never listening to what others have to say.
corrinavatan is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 01-14-2011, 07:43 AM   #39
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Lima,Ohio
Posts: 3,309
Liked 3100 Times on 1395 Posts
Likes Given: 2878

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by corrinavatan View Post
Words do change meaning, very true. Just like "Militia" means "group of racist, misogynist hillbillies who are really a codeword for a group of people who want to enforce white supremacy" to a lot of people.

Talk about stereotyping a group of people. You know that's what the left says about all gun owners don't you?
rjd3282 is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 01-14-2011, 12:24 PM   #40
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 94
Liked 2 Times on 1 Posts

Default

A problem that I see is that you live in Michigan. Ten years ago, that state had one of the best gun-rights organizations in the country. It got the shall-issue concealed carry passed, and kept working with the legislature to make it better, it sued cities and counties that weren't following the law to the letter (and it usually won!) and it had a fantastic public presence in the media whenever guns made the news--it was a great organization that I was proud to belong to when I lived there.

But then there was some infighting on the board of directors, and the NRA stepped in to muddle things because this group's Executive Director wasn't following the NRA on endorsements for less-than-pro-gun candidates at election time. The malcontents on the Board took counsel from the NRA and pushed the Executive Director out even though he'd founded the group and built it up to what it was, and they replaced him with a former legislator that the NRA had promised a job to. That guy promptly closed the group's office, dismissed all the other paid and volunteer staff, and turned the group into one of those "letterhead only" groups that has a website and a newsletter but doesn't do anything else. He gets paid a ton while he sits at home or does other unrelated work, and there are no more meetings or shooting events in legislators districts, no more public relations efforts, no more lawsuits...nothing.

Gun owners in Michigan let that happen. I could never figure out why. The ex-legislator as far as I know is still there, doing very little but receiving most of the money sent into that group by the members.

Anyway, sorry to rant it, but I have to think that the old group that I remember would have taken care of that issue in Detroit for you. The government works for us when we make it work for us, and Michigan used to have the golden goose in that regard.

Last edited by 1919A4; 01-14-2011 at 12:49 PM.
1919A4 is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Firearms Forum Replies Last Post
The fight for the right to keep and bear arms opaww Legal and Activism 21 02-13-2011 02:39 AM
The right to bear arms Davyboy The Club House 10 12-14-2010 10:42 PM
To Keep and Bear Arms Kelly J Politics, Religion and Controversy 3 12-04-2009 09:24 PM
To keep and bear arms Kelly J Politics, Religion and Controversy 1 01-16-2009 07:21 PM
Nevada ACLU supports an individualís right to bear arms opaww Legal and Activism 3 07-13-2008 08:30 AM



Newest Threads