A third option would be to provide a means for the buyer to obtain the background check and be issued some means of assuring the seller they are a lawful buyer. Similar in some ways to the DTV converter coupons. (hard to fake, limited term of validity)
I for one would be 100% for this…as it stands the “instant” background check never is in my case. For some reason I always get flagged, and it takes from an extra half hour to an extra couple of days to receive my blessing. The rules are currently such that the FFL can’t initiate the background check when I order the gun, so my purchases under the “instant” system are typically delayed more than they were under the early Brady bill’s waiting period.
Well we all know how important your opinion is to me. But I’ve actually read your posts (only Dagda knows why) and I feel fairly comfortable grouping you with Der and Elvis.
I think, Dio, that you don’t understand what an anti is, nor do you understand what elucidator just wrote.
It’s a shame that the OP is no longer being discussed since we’ve all gone over this same gun control stuff many times.
I think maybe you’re the one who doesn’t understand. I support gun rights. I think the 2nd Amendment grants an individual right. I just don’t like gun nuts. They’re not in any danger of losing their guns and there are far more important things to worry about.
Well the OP is pretty well asked and answered. Obama doesn’t care about your guns, and even if he’d did, there’s very little he’d be able to do about it. The people who are stocking up on ammo are paranoid idiots. It’s gun industry, Chicken Little hype designed to sell merchandise. They do it with every Democratic President.
I do not recall any state in which your appeal to Niemöller actually occurred. I do recall bans on smoking in the workplace, but never accompanied by a promise not to ban it in restaurants. I have never seen it banned in restaurants where it was not banned in bars at the very same time. It has very much been an all-or-nothing ban in every state where I have seen it put in place, so I think the appeal to a slippery slope is without foundation.
BTW, belated thanks to **E-Sabbath **and **Ex-Tank **for actually and sincerely answering my question as to what is their worry with that bill, regardless of the extent of agreement or disagreement that there may be between our takes on the issue. (We already get accessed in databases, tracked as to our transactions and regulated in our activities a myriad ways in everyday life so having it happen with guns is just more of the same to me, it doesn’t particularly please me but I don’t see applying it to guns as specially worse than when it applies to my banking transactions, airline travel or P2P traffic… and I am fully aware it’s because of a different cultural conditioning that I feel differently). I also thank Kevbo for seeking to think of some other way around the (alleged) problem (and yes, I believe that there should be a way to distinguish bona fide private, individual trades from folks who make it a “side business” to be a de facto part-time dealer; the devil is in the details, obviously).
I think Obama has more pressing problems on his agenda. But on a gun nutters agenda there is only one important problem. I hate guns. But I do not advocate taking them away. It is far too late. Most anti gunners know that. Quit being so damn paranoid.
If you mean assault rifle, those are selective fire (read: capable of fully automatic fire), intermediate caliber long guns.
No one is saying anything about conquering, they’re talking about defending.
If you think it’s so difficult to defend a land from an occupational force, I suggest you read into Iraq a bit more.
You really think American Troops would be willing to fight American Civilians who are trying to defend their land, especially when faced with a war of occupation? Think again.
My understanding was that the definition of a militia (when it was written) was every able bodied man between the ages of 17 and 34.
I assume that would be altered now to be every able bodied man and woman ages 17+.
Then let me tell you how I’d like to accomplish that end. By convincing you that you don’t need one. That protecting yourself from an irrational fear is harmful to your mental health, it doesn’t cure paranoia, it fosters it.
I’ve long given up on arguing the 2nd Amendment, its a masterpiece of poor thought and poorer construction. “Yes, I repeat, no!”. Far as I’m concerned, the very inclusion of “militia” reveals its intent, but it is so badly worded that its intent is smothered.
You spend any time in a big-city emergency room, and you will get two lessons. Numero uno, people should not drink and drive. Numero two-o, very young men should not possess high-powered handguns.
Now, if you can come up with a legal mechanism that will keep guns out of the hands where they really, really don’t belong, I’m all ears. But I have to see it to believe it.
Some problems don’t have solutions. We don’t need better laws, we need better people.
Whatever Congress says it is. It’s a statutory definition, not a technical one.
No, they’re talking about an armed insurgency against the US. They would be attacking America, not defending it.
Since when is the US governemnt an “occupational force?” A state cannot occupy itself, and in the US, the people ARE the state.
Occupation by what? Where are you getting that word from.
US troops swear an oath to defend the US against all enemies, foreign and domestic. Anyone involved in homegrown, guerilla insurgency would be an enemy of the US (not to mention unlawful combatants) and US troops would have no moral compunction about doing their duty and wiping them out. The people would side with America, I assure you.
That’s true as far as it goes, but it doesn’t mean that “gun control” isn’t a serious potential threat. The worst of all worlds would be a nationwide situation like Chicago, in which guns are completely illegal but lawbreakers have no difficulty in obtaining them. Then the only three classes of people who would possess guns would be (1.) the police (2.) the gang members and other career criminals (3.) The otherwise law-abiding people who would keep clandestine guns. Then any person with a clean record who resorts to using a gun to fend off an attack will be arrested for illegal gun possession and accused of “escalating the violence”. To paraphrase a famous saying “When guns are outlawed, then gun owners will be outlaws”.
The 500% tax increase on ammo thing is horseshit. There is no record of Obama ever advocating or legislatively sponsoring any such thing. It’s NRA propgnda.
U.S. v. Miller says that only the militia is allowed to have guns
[/quote]
Wrong. When it was the ruling precedent, it held that only militia use was protected. Other uses were simply not addressed. So you’re 0 for 1 s
Can you show any such a quote, or even anything reasonably paraphrasable as saying that? No? Then you’re 0 for 2.
There can be other reasons. Heller provides hunting and self-defense among them. But you limited that statement falsely.
0 for 3. Not good. Is that lack of comprehension on your part, or simple misrepresentation?
Gawdamighty. :rolleyes:
Nobody has offered any specific support for the claims you are asserting have been made, true. Because they haven’t been made.
Try reading Miller sometime. Or, for that matter, try reading the entire Second. Fascinating stuff; I recommend it.
When come back, bring truth.
I think such a scenario is absurdly implausible. He wouldn’t have been able to do that. That’s what’s so great about checks and balances. Congress controls the money. No money = no power. Congress can also impeach. Bush would have been removed from power without a shot being fired.
You first. Provide us a compendium of that “legal analysis” you find “overwhelming”, including that which does *not *support your preferred outcome. Also provide support for your view that Miller did not constitute precedent, and that nearly without exception all federal courts did not treat it as such.
You may wish it not to be so, but Miller was controlling until Heller, and Heller merely carved out added protected purposes. You have made it quite clear that you consider the decision to have been incorrectly reasoned, but you have provided no support for your view that it wasn’t therefore law and did not need to be respected as law.
Not in the reality-based community, you didn’t.
(“Lackey”? When did I get lackeys? Where have they been my whole life? I could have used a few lackeys at times, if I’d only known.)
To repeat: You claimed Miller was incorrectly reasoned. I replied that that just doesn’t matter, that, like it or not, it was nevertheless the law until changed. It has since had exceptions added, but it is still the law otherwise. Rather than acknowledge what the law is, you kept on going with your assertions that it was incorrectly reasoned, as if that was all that matters. Well, it ain’t.
You still have trouble with that concept, I see. Why do you think that only the laws you agree with are binding on you?
I’m sure tom is laughing his ass off at that one.
Do you always believe every word of campaign rhetoric?
No, of course, not. The Chicago Reader and Creative Loafing have a specific patch on the vBulletin code that interrupts all, (and only), those posts that support the rights of U.S. citizens to own firearms.
(Although, why you decided to adress me on the issue, given that I am not an advocate of banning gun ownership, puzzles me.)
There will be no more references to phallic symbols or “manly” things from either side.
There will be no more attacks on the quality of the posters from either side.
If you folks can’t fight this out on the merits, then you will have to continue it in the Pit because I will shut this mess down.
[ /Moderating ]
(For that matter, most of you have ignored the OP’s specific request to discuss the ammunition registration issue simply for the pleasure of re-hashing the same old feud over ownership and I am really close to shutting down this trainwreck on general principles, anyway.)
If Bush had cancelled the election and declared matial law, are you saying the military would have gone along with it?
The guys in the military aren’t brainwashed killers who blindly follow orders. Bush can’t make himself dictator unless the military agrees to make him dictator. Are you saying our military would support Bush? Of course they wouldn’t. When Bush orders the military to shut down the election, they military would tell him to go fuck himself. Then Bush would be impeached and kicked out of office, then tried for treason, and spend the rest of his life in a 10x10 cell at Gitmo.
You guys with your fantasies of heroic resistance to the fascist United States Military are just deluding yourselves. If the military is in favor of fascism, then the militia types are going to be in favor of fascism too. They aren’t going to organize themselves into paramilitaries to resist the army, they’re going to organize themselves into paramilitaries to help the army.
