Give me your guns

Swaye said:

2001400ex said:

GrundleStiltzkin said:

2001400ex said:

GrundleStiltzkin said:

2001400ex said:

...

But with any proposed gun restrictions automatically being deemed "unconstitutional" by factions, I'm curious what self-proclaimed patriots think is "constitutional" regarding an amendment written when muskets fired once or twice followed by bayonet and close quarter physical fighting was the rule in 1791—not like when the Tucson killer expended over 30 rounds in a brief terrifying moment and received 19 charges of murder and attempted murder for the minimal effort of twitching his finger.

...

Lost me there. Rights are rights and immutable, not subject to the state of contemporary technology. The free press in 1791 was laboriously manually. It's doubtful the Framers could imagine a HP LaserJet turning out—automatically—a thousand pages in a day, much less the Internet. Yet the principal right protected, not granted, remains.

Serious questions.

Do you consider a background check on a private sale an infringement on your rights?

Do you consider the fact that felons can't legally by a guy an infringement on rights?

Semantics, but both are absolutely infringement of rights. The issue is whether justifiable and legal. I don't know the legal means for depriving convicted but released felons from owning firearms. Felons also lose their right to vote in most states. Both constitutionally protected civil rights stripped as a consequence of a felony, for which a penal sentence has been served. I'm fine with both as a means of risk reduction if there is a reasonable appeal process to regain those rights.

Ostensibly, your first question depends on the second, in that background checks are supposed to prevent felons and other restricted classes from legally purchasing firearms. For that purpose, it seems fine.

Great, we agree and are getting somewhere. All I have said, along with most gun control fanatics, is for background checks on all sales. I think we should allow assualt rifles with a registry, similar to fully automatic weapons, but not nearly that intense. Maybe something like after a lame gun control class or demonstrating 5 years of gun ownership, you can own one. The vast majority of mass shooters are not people who have owned guns for a long period.

What do you think about those measures and infringement on rights?

My take. They aren't assault rifles, they are sporting rifles. People actually hunt with them. Mostly feral hogs, but sometimes deer, though rarely chambered for .223. Point, the only thing that distinguishes an AR (ARmalite NOT Assault Rifle) is that you can buy large magazines for them, and they look scary to city boys who have never chopped firewood, cleaned and gutted a fish, or changed their own oil. In fact, Browning (sucks) makes a very famous hinting rifle called a BAR. Stands for Browning (sucks) Automatic Rifle. Hundreds of thousands sold I'd imagine, and used all over the world to take game - box mag fed. Pretty much an AR only with wood furniture. Trying to make AR's something they aren't is silly. If you have a problem with AR's, then go after the magazine capacity - which I would still disagree with but at least makes more sense then banning an entire class of weapons because of a made up name and they look scary to the aforementioned girly men.

FFS I can go get a BAR in 243 and do just as much damage, but they look like a regular old huntin' rifle your grand pappy had so it's hard to get people stirred up with that one.

Also, fuck registries. Registration = confiscation. Think I'll go back to pressing out rounds now. And Taco Bell.

2001400ex said:

Swaye said:

2001400ex said:

GrundleStiltzkin said:

2001400ex said:

GrundleStiltzkin said:

2001400ex said:

...

But with any proposed gun restrictions automatically being deemed "unconstitutional" by factions, I'm curious what self-proclaimed patriots think is "constitutional" regarding an amendment written when muskets fired once or twice followed by bayonet and close quarter physical fighting was the rule in 1791—not like when the Tucson killer expended over 30 rounds in a brief terrifying moment and received 19 charges of murder and attempted murder for the minimal effort of twitching his finger.

...

Lost me there. Rights are rights and immutable, not subject to the state of contemporary technology. The free press in 1791 was laboriously manually. It's doubtful the Framers could imagine a HP LaserJet turning out—automatically—a thousand pages in a day, much less the Internet. Yet the principal right protected, not granted, remains.

Serious questions.

Do you consider a background check on a private sale an infringement on your rights?

Do you consider the fact that felons can't legally by a guy an infringement on rights?

Semantics, but both are absolutely infringement of rights. The issue is whether justifiable and legal. I don't know the legal means for depriving convicted but released felons from owning firearms. Felons also lose their right to vote in most states. Both constitutionally protected civil rights stripped as a consequence of a felony, for which a penal sentence has been served. I'm fine with both as a means of risk reduction if there is a reasonable appeal process to regain those rights.

Ostensibly, your first question depends on the second, in that background checks are supposed to prevent felons and other restricted classes from legally purchasing firearms. For that purpose, it seems fine.

Great, we agree and are getting somewhere. All I have said, along with most gun control fanatics, is for background checks on all sales. I think we should allow assualt rifles with a registry, similar to fully automatic weapons, but not nearly that intense. Maybe something like after a lame gun control class or demonstrating 5 years of gun ownership, you can own one. The vast majority of mass shooters are not people who have owned guns for a long period.

What do you think about those measures and infringement on rights?

My take. They aren't assault rifles, they are sporting rifles. People actually hunt with them. Mostly feral hogs, but sometimes deer, though rarely chambered for .223. Point, the only thing that distinguishes an AR (ARmalite NOT Assault Rifle) is that you can buy large magazines for them, and they look scary to city boys who have never chopped firewood, cleaned and gutted a fish, or changed their own oil. In fact, Browning (sucks) makes a very famous hinting rifle called a BAR. Stands for Browning (sucks) Automatic Rifle. Hundreds of thousands sold I'd imagine, and used all over the world to take game - box mag fed. Pretty much an AR only with wood furniture. Trying to make AR's something they aren't is silly. If you have a problem with AR's, then go after the magazine capacity - which I would still disagree with but at least makes more sense then banning an entire class of weapons because of a made up name and they look scary to the aforementioned girly men.

FFS I can go get a BAR in 243 and do just as much damage, but they look like a regular old huntin' rifle your grand pappy had so it's hard to get people stirred up with that one.

Also, fuck registries. Registration = confiscation. Think I'll go back to pressing out rounds now. And Taco Bell.

Yes I used the term assualt rifle as a generic term. I'm referring to high capacity guns that can do more damage than an average rifle. Most mass shooters are not skilled shooters and can't reload a weapon quickly like a trained military officer or cop.