Firearm & Gun Forum - FireArmsTalk.com > General Firearms Forums > Legal and Activism > Scalia: Guns May be Regulated

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 07-31-2012, 04:08 PM   #41
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
hawkguy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: austin,tx
Posts: 3,201
Liked 2040 Times on 1196 Posts
Likes Given: 1234

Default

ok, i'm out again.

i think i have been posting here cause the mini board is so dead recently.

i'm not a political guy. someone once told me, "if you wanna have fun, don't discuss religion or politics." another case where i should have listened better.

anyway, i'll end on this. everybody here loves guns and thinks 2A is an american right. i just get a little worried about how we come off as responsible gun owners when some won't support laws to keep guns out of the hands of criminals. i worry for how this reflects on gunsowners as a whole.

and also, as a whole...i am on your side....even though i don't completly agree with some of you on all of these issues.

you are all entitled to your opinions and i respect that. i am going back to the gun boards. politics just ain't my thing. boredom got the better of me again......

have a good day everyone!

__________________
hawkguy is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 07-31-2012, 04:24 PM   #42
Deader Bears=Better Bears
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
orangello's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: BFE,Mississippi
Posts: 19,060
Liked 5617 Times on 3303 Posts
Likes Given: 4695

Question

Quote:
Originally Posted by TDS92A View Post
Suffice it to say that if an individual has a magazine that can hold 100 rounds, then they have a weapon that can fire that many rounds, which means that they have an FFL. I can see no other logical reason why a person would want a 100 magazine otherwise. Please! No one yell at me for this! It is just my opinion

Not yelling, but what the heck are you talking about? Did they pass a law that requires an FFL to own a 100 round magazine? WTHeck?

...as for Cannons, all that they require is an FFL.

Again, what? Is an FFL required to own a cannon?

In simple terms, we have Gun Control / Regulations in place and for us Law Abiding Citizens, they work.
I don't see the "gun control" being effective at preventing misuse of firearms, but it is effective at pissing people off. Did you mean the GC regulations are effective at pissing people off?
__________________

Dead Bears, the only good kind.
GANDER MOUNTAIN OF HATTIESBURG, MS IS OVERPRICED, HAS LOUSY CUSTOMER SERVICE, & SELLS BEAT UP PISTOLS TO LITTLE OLD LADIES AS "NEW". :p

orangello is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 07-31-2012, 07:11 PM   #43
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
locutus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Wyoming
Posts: 8,364
Liked 4718 Times on 2693 Posts
Likes Given: 3735

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by hawkguy View Post
ok, i'm out again.

i think i have been posting here cause the mini board is so dead recently.

i'm not a political guy. someone once told me, "if you wanna have fun, don't discuss religion or politics." another case where i should have listened better.

anyway, i'll end on this. everybody here loves guns and thinks 2A is an american right. i just get a little worried about how we come off as responsible gun owners when some won't support laws to keep guns out of the hands of criminals. i worry for how this reflects on gunsowners as a whole.

and also, as a whole...i am on your side....even though i don't completly agree with some of you on all of these issues.

you are all entitled to your opinions and i respect that. i am going back to the gun boards. politics just ain't my thing. boredom got the better of me again......

have a good day everyone!
That's the beauty of the FIRST AMENDMENT.
We all have the righjt to express out opinion!
locutus is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 07-31-2012, 07:33 PM   #44
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
PrimePorkchop's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Urbana,Illinois
Posts: 1,748
Liked 991 Times on 499 Posts
Likes Given: 2547

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by hawkguy View Post
how we come off as responsible gun owners when some won't support laws to keep guns out of the hands of criminals
I have yet to see one person who doesn't support any law that keeps guns out of the hands of criminals.

I also have yet to see one law that keeps guns out of the hands of criminals. Show me one that works, and you bet your ass i'll support it.
__________________
VICTORY IS OURS
Because of members of THIS FORUM - Bass Pro Shops have reversed their anti-2nd Amendment policies on ammunition sales in the State of Illinois
PrimePorkchop is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 07-31-2012, 07:56 PM   #45
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
hawkguy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: austin,tx
Posts: 3,201
Liked 2040 Times on 1196 Posts
Likes Given: 1234

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by locutus View Post
That's the beauty of the FIRST AMENDMENT.
We all have the righjt to express out opinion!
so true, good post!
__________________
hawkguy is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 07-31-2012, 08:08 PM   #46
Deader Bears=Better Bears
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
orangello's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: BFE,Mississippi
Posts: 19,060
Liked 5617 Times on 3303 Posts
Likes Given: 4695

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by PrimePorkchop View Post
I have yet to see one person who doesn't support any law that keeps guns out of the hands of criminals.
I don't, depending on how you define "criminals".
__________________

Dead Bears, the only good kind.
GANDER MOUNTAIN OF HATTIESBURG, MS IS OVERPRICED, HAS LOUSY CUSTOMER SERVICE, & SELLS BEAT UP PISTOLS TO LITTLE OLD LADIES AS "NEW". :p

orangello is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 07-31-2012, 08:30 PM   #47
Dispossessed Mechwarrior.
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
TDS92A's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: Southern Alabama or Northern Florida, the jury is still out.
Posts: 1,887
Liked 1286 Times on 761 Posts
Likes Given: 3195

Default

To answer this this question: "Not yelling, but what the heck are you talking about? Did they pass a law that requires an FFL to own a 100 round magazine? WTHeck?" No. It is not required to have an FFL in order to have a 100 round drum. I simply meant that in order to have an effective use of one you would need a weapon that would require and FFL. I mean, I personnally do not have the strength to stand there and hold a semi-auto AK or M16 variant and squeeze off 100 rounds one at a time. They are best used on automatic versions, which require an FFL

To answer this question: Is an FFL required to own a cannon? In some states it is required to have an FFL for a cannon, so yes. If someone here knows different, site your source and educate me. I have no problems with admitting my errors.

As mentioned before, "Gun Control / Regulations" is a gray area. Having a CWP is a regulation. They control who can carry consealed. The paperwork that you fill out in order to get your favorite weapon is a form of control that the FBI has to monitor weapons sales.

Please do not mistake "Gun Control / Restrictions" for "Gun Control / Regulations"

If my statements "angered" or "pissed" anyone off, I apologize.

Quote:
Originally Posted by TDS92A
Suffice it to say that if an individual has a magazine that can hold 100 rounds, then they have a weapon that can fire that many rounds, which means that they have an FFL. I can see no other logical reason why a person would want a 100 magazine otherwise. Please! No one yell at me for this! It is just my opinion

Not yelling, but what the heck are you talking about? Did they pass a law that requires an FFL to own a 100 round magazine? WTHeck?

...as for Cannons, all that they require is an FFL.

Again, what? Is an FFL required to own a cannon?

In simple terms, we have Gun Control / Regulations in place and for us Law Abiding Citizens, they work.

I don't see the "gun control" being effective at preventing misuse of firearms, but it is effective at pissing people off. Did you mean the GC regulations are effective at pissing people off?
__________________




Quote:
Originally Posted by orangello View Post
I don't see the "gun control" being effective at preventing misuse of firearms, but it is effective at pissing people off. Did you mean the GC regulations are effective at pissing people off?
__________________
The difficult I do immediately, the impossible takes me a few minutes longer.
NRA, U.S. Army (Ret), AGA, F&AM
A Person has to stand for something, or they will fall for anything.
How different the new order would be if we could consult the Veteran instead of the Politician - Henry Miller
The Soldier, above all other people, prays for peace, for he must suffer and bear the deepest wounds and scars of war. - Gen. Douglas MacArthur
TDS92A is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 07-31-2012, 08:35 PM   #48
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
hawkguy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: austin,tx
Posts: 3,201
Liked 2040 Times on 1196 Posts
Likes Given: 1234

Default

deleted post, staying away so....difficult .....

__________________

Last edited by hawkguy; 07-31-2012 at 08:40 PM.
hawkguy is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 07-31-2012, 08:42 PM   #49
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
KalashnikovJosh's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 1,156
Liked 315 Times on 187 Posts
Likes Given: 426

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by PrimePorkchop View Post
Ya know...i've been thinking about your words all day, and I have to admit that i'm ashamed that I didnt think of this on my own. You are exactly right.

Punishment for screaming fire in a theater *IS* a reaction, not a prevention. The crime was already committed.

Just wanted to give credit where it was due...*hanging head in shame*
DON"T be ashamed of expressing yourself.

EVER.



For those of you who don't like long winded posts,its simple.

The government didn't create the right that the 2a is written to protect,therefor,it does not get to lawfully destroy that right (by denying it to people) or dictate the terms of its application or use (by regulating it).

Its that simple.

You don't need to read any further to get the gist of my post.



Hawkguy-

The blanket statement that "as long as americans (who have permission) can legally keep and bear arms (a list of allowed guns), regulation of firearms IS NOT unconstitutional." doesn't cut it.

The legislative authority,as well as the entire government,and by extension of the Supremacy Clause- the state governments who agreed to the Constitution as well,are bound by law to not infringe on the inalienable right of the people to keep and bear arms.

Here is the definition of "infringe" from the Merriam Webster online dictionary:

"to encroach upon in a way that violates law or the rights of another"

listed as "obsolete" is:

"defeat, frustrate"

The obsolete is relevant because back when the words were used to formulate the Constitution,things might have meant slightly different things.

But we see that generally speaking that "to infringe" means pretty broadly to "violate,encroach,defeat,or frustrate".

This is a word with a pretty broad definition that in my opinion was intentionally used,in the Second Amendment, to make it clear that the government was not to "violate,encroach,defeat,or frustrate" the right of the people to keep and bear arms.

Therfore,the government doesn't get to put up a whole host of regulations and restrictions that has the effect of telling people who can own what.

Saying it does basically legitimizes the ridiculous notion that people sometimes sarcastically comment about that if gun control advocates got the Second Amendment they wanted,we would all be limited to single shot bolt action .22 rifles,break breech single barrel .410 shotguns,and gate loaded 5 round .38 revolvers;and that only those specifically on government permission lists may own these weapons,that all weapons must be stored at special,licensed gun clubs,and that ammunition must be used the same day its purchased.

People can still,by definition of your assertion,legally keep guns (at the gun club) and bear them (while target shooting and hunting),right?

So,by your definition,the Second Amendment hasn't been infringed?

Right?





Another of the constant themes I keep coming across is all this "law abiding citizen" stuff as well as the ridiculous notion that background checks and other regulations do not infringe on the Second Amendment.

Where in the Constitution does it say you have to be "law abiding" to have inalienable rights?

Last time I checked,all you had to be is A HUMAN BEING ENDOWED BY YOUR CREATOR to have inalienable rights.

As well,the Second Amendment does not "grant" us the right it declares.It is actually a prohibition on government from infringing on that right.

Government does not grant us these rights,people.

These rights are ours by virtue of our humanity.

Government is incapable of taking them away or of designating that only those who abide by its rules get to have rights.In fact,when those conditions do exist,when government gets to dictate who has what rights,these are not "rights" at all,but government administered privileges.

There is a world of difference between a government that has the power to treat "rights" as government administered privileges and a government restrained from infringing upon the inalienable rights of all humans.

For a good example,just look at the "rights" granted to people under the Soviet government of Russia.Oh yes,they had a "Constitution" and even a "bill of rights" in soviet Russia......go look it up.

Then compare that to what our Founders intended when they set forth to create a government limited by law to not being allowed to infringe on natural,inalienable rights.


TDS92A-

I strongly disagree with your re-branding of "gun control" as "gun regulations".

I have looked for many years,but have yet to find in the Second Amendment where it says that government has the power to regulate arms.

I see where it says gov't doesn't get to infringe on the right of the people to keep and bear arms,but I don't see where any exception is made to allow the "reasonable regulations" that are now being debated.

Also,I think your wholly in error when you claim these "regulations" work.

James Holmes abided by them and they did nothing to protect the lives of the innocent people he assailed.Same with Jared Loughner.

If someone who wants to do something bad wants to do it with a weapon,he'll find a weapon.




An interesting paradox also just occurred to me as well about this here.
The second amendment doesn't particularly say "firearms" does it?

So why all the regulations on just that type of arms?

The liberals would have you believe that its because guns are so easy to kill with.I disagree.Its just as easy to kill people with a sword,in fact hundreds of millions upon thousands of millions of people have died by the sword throughout history.
You could also use the blade to kill lots of unarmed people in one instance of mass murder.Theres no limit to how many times a sword or big knife can cut,stab or slash.

No.

The reason why "gun control" exists isn't to prevent criminal mischief or to regulate one particularly dangerous or deadly form of arms.

Like weapons laws in ancient times in places like feudal China and Japan,and some conquered lands in feudal era Europe,these laws exist to create a class of people that are legally allowed the use of force by ownership of -MODERN WEAPONS- vs. a class of people who are not,and are thus SUBJECT to the class that has the power.

These laws exist to deny some people the lawful use of modern weapons so that they may be subjected to those that have such power.

THESE LAWS EXIST TO CREATE A MONOPOLY ON THE USE OF FORCE.

PERIOD.

And I'm sorry,but no matter how you try to legitimize it,by claiming that certain people shouldn't have guns so we need these "laws" or by magically concocting a case for "reasonable regulation" in the highest court itself,this is EXACTLY the kind of thing that our Founders -after fighting off a tyrannical monarchy that sought to subject them by taking their arms,which in fact provoked the first battles of the Revolution at Lexington and Concord- wrote the Second Amendment to prohibit.

The only people that shouldn't have access to weapons -ANY weapons- are those incarcerated for committing crimes against their fellow man.

Otherwise,the entire concept of "gun control" "regulations'" whatever- serve no other purpose then to create a class of elite at the cost of those who are subjected to them,which is the EXACT kind of monarchical tyranny that our Founders escaped by fighting a revolution against.

That we as a people should have unfettered,unrestricted and unregulated right to arms is what the Second Amendment protects,and that there should be no group with a monopoly on the use of force in this nation is what its object principle entails.

It is one of the principles this nation was founded on.



"There are certain vital principles in our free Republican governments, which will determine and over-rule an apparent and flagrant abuse of legislative power. . . . An ACT of the Legislature (for I cannot call it a law) contrary to the great first principles of the social compact, cannot be considered a rightful exercise of legislative authority."
-Justice Samuel Chase,1798



To sum,I do believe that government has the right to require that people not be armed on its property.I believe government has the power to incarcerate people for violating the rights of others,and I believe it has the DUTY to see to it that they do not release people who will continue to behave in such a way.
I believe that private companies and private businesses and people have the right to ask other people to not be armed on their property.
I believe the government has the right to punish people for the misuse of their private property.

I believe in property rights and personal responsibility.

But I do not believe the government has the right to enact taxes that demand people pay them to own certain types of weapons,nor to I believe that government has the right to enact "gun control" laws that create lists of people who government will not respect the rights of,or arms classified as lawful or unlawful to own.

I believe the Second Amendment applies to all privately obtainable small arms,"arms" being,in fact,the exact word used by the founders in crafting the amendment,and that people have the right to own and carry these arms anywhere they have the right to be that does not infringe on the rights of others when they do so.

I do not place any credence in the argument that "if there were no regulations people would have nuclear weapons" because the last time I checked nukes weren't available at the local stores,making it a straw man argument without any merit because it is not possible,no matter how small they are,for an individual to obtain a nuclear weapon without the help of one nation state or another- which,by the way,SHOULD be regulated in their use of such arms.
Hell,some nations have been trying for quite some time to aquire these arms but haven't been able to.If its hard for an entire nation to do it,thinking that a single person,on his own,could is blatantly ridiculous.

Some gentlemen here even have evidence to suggest that people should be able to own hand grenades and such,but in my opinion the second amendment is and pretty much has always been about "arms" of a "small",or personal,nature.

Therefor,I think arguments about needing government intervention to prevent my neighbor from having a 500lb bomb in his basement are red herrings and have no real merit in a debate about personal ownership of small arms as protected by the 2A.


Ultimately,however,and as I'm fond of saying-



The people get the government they deserve.


Keep arguing for more government regulation as being necessary and lawful,and you'll end up being so regulated that you'll be lucky if you can still have single shot bolt action .22 rifles,break breech single barrel .410 shotguns,and gate loaded 5 round .38 revolvers.


Just don't say you weren't warned when it happens.
__________________
"You assist an evil system most effectively by obeying its orders and decrees. An evil system never deserves such allegiance. Allegiance to it means partaking of the evil. A good person will resist an evil system with his or her whole soul."
-Mahatma Gandhi

http://jpfo.org/
III%

Last edited by KalashnikovJosh; 07-31-2012 at 10:00 PM.
KalashnikovJosh is offline  
PrimePorkchop Likes This 
Reply With Quote
Old 07-31-2012, 08:59 PM   #50
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
dog2000tj's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 8,309
Liked 3731 Times on 1821 Posts
Likes Given: 13267

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TDS92A View Post
I simply meant that in order to have an effective use of one you would need a weapon that would require and FFL. I mean, I personnally do not have the strength to stand there and hold a semi-auto AK or M16 variant and squeeze off 100 rounds one at a time.
using a 100rd drum mag save me from having to reload 3 times, thus allowing me to continue suppressing fire against a target. If a 100rd drum is too heavy for you to use, might I suggest you add some more push ups in your regimen


I fail to see where regulating components of a weapon system has reduced, limited or eliminated crime. Can someone please post data on this claim?
__________________

Member: NRA GOA

ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ
Est sularas oth mithas

"either way, you were guilty by association, so you were smited...." JD

My AR15 Build - Range Report
My AR458SOCOM Build

dog2000tj is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Firearms Forum Replies Last Post
All guns are loaded guns! downsouth Training & Safety 24 06-03-2012 01:55 AM
Kagan goes hunting wth Scalia Mongo Legal and Activism 3 05-10-2012 02:30 PM
THIS is the reason normal people are scared of guns and people with guns DodgerBlue Legal and Activism 51 03-28-2012 02:58 AM
40,000 lbs of guns melted down by LAPD - LAPD Implies Owning Guns Is Illegal crowbar Legal and Activism 17 02-25-2010 01:28 AM
Video: Guns, Guns, Guns sculker The Club House 15 02-22-2010 12:53 AM