Do You Support The "Gun Show Loophole?"

[Coyote]

you can change a magazine in two seconds. I don't think anyone who is unarmed and under fire is going to be able to react that quickly.

Some can change a magazine in two seconds - that's an ideal for a pro. It gives someone an opening that could divert a shooters attention long enough to make a difference.

Why does anyone need to have a high capacity magazine - any more than say a rocket launcher?

Some can change a magazine in less time than that. The standard for Infantry soldiers is that you must be able to clear a misfire in you weapon (which requires many more steps than changing magazines) in under 5 seconds. So, how many of those could there possibly be in the country. Hmmm....lessee. We graduate about maybe 50 or 60 thousand a year. They probably live to more than 70, but let's just say 60 years old. So about 50,000 times 40. So that's roughly a couple million people. And, that's just the former Infantry out of one branch and not giving anyone else any credit.

Why do I need a need a "high capacity" magazine. I don't. I consider a "High Capacity" magazine something that is larger than the manufacturer recommended for that weapon. I don't need anything larger than a 20 or 30 round magazine.

Why do I need a normal sized magazine for my rifle? For the same reason the military does. We all have a second amendment responsibility that goes along with the right. We have a responsibility to overthrow a tyrannical government should one arise. A military weapon would be nice to have for that. But, since we can't have that, we have to make due with semi-autos. That's bad enough, but limiting the capacity of the magazine is unconscionable. The rocket launcher would no doubt go past it's due date before I ever used it. They have a shelf life.....did you know?

Had no idea of rocket launcher shelf life (haven't gone shopping for one yet)

Interesting information though, and thanks. I think one of the fundamental differences in thought we probably have is the view that "we have a responsibility to overthrow a tyrannical government should one arise" and that should drive our choices as to what firearms we can own.

Personally - I tend to be less paranoid of government and trust in the ability of our political system, as slow and half-assed crazy as it is - to prevent the rise of a tyrannical government. That could change, but that is my view at this point.

 

[Spoonman]

And without background checks, how are you going to prevent that?

i'll go back to my previous point, adam lanza failed a background check. did it stop him? the ft hood shooter and the CA cop both passed background checks. did it stop them from killing?

What you're doing is pointing out the flaws in the system - but no system and no law is perfect. If you are going to base a decision on whether or not a law catches 100% of the offenders, then we need have no laws what so ever, becuase none of them are 100%.

so what does this background check get me? again, the majority of the gun violence occurs with the criminal element. how many of them get a gun through the system? they don't. it's black market

 

[Spoonman]

Some can change a magazine in two seconds - that's an ideal for a pro. It gives someone an opening that could divert a shooters attention long enough to make a difference.

Why does anyone need to have a high capacity magazine - any more than say a rocket launcher?

Some can change a magazine in less time than that. The standard for Infantry soldiers is that you must be able to clear a misfire in you weapon (which requires many more steps than changing magazines) in under 5 seconds. So, how many of those could there possibly be in the country. Hmmm....lessee. We graduate about maybe 50 or 60 thousand a year. They probably live to more than 70, but let's just say 60 years old. So about 50,000 times 40. So that's roughly a couple million people. And, that's just the former Infantry out of one branch and not giving anyone else any credit.

Why do I need a need a "high capacity" magazine. I don't. I consider a "High Capacity" magazine something that is larger than the manufacturer recommended for that weapon. I don't need anything larger than a 20 or 30 round magazine.

Why do I need a normal sized magazine for my rifle? For the same reason the military does. We all have a second amendment responsibility that goes along with the right. We have a responsibility to overthrow a tyrannical government should one arise. A military weapon would be nice to have for that. But, since we can't have that, we have to make due with semi-autos. That's bad enough, but limiting the capacity of the magazine is unconscionable. The rocket launcher would no doubt go past it's due date before I ever used it. They have a shelf life.....did you know?

Had no idea of rocket launcher shelf life (haven't gone shopping for one yet)

Interesting information though, and thanks. I think one of the fundamental differences in thought we probably have is the view that "we have a responsibility to overthrow a tyrannical government should one arise" and that should drive our choices as to what firearms we can own.

Personally - I tend to be less paranoid of government and trust in the ability of our political system, as slow and half-assed crazy as it is - to prevent the rise of a tyrannical government. That could change, but that is my view at this point.

our country has that point of view. just take a look at iraq, egypy, libya, syria.

 

[Coyote]

You think a troll is someone who doesn't agree with you and a troll is actually people like you who will change the subject to an ad hom attack. The issue or the person's point of view on it has nothing to do with being a troll. It's a political forum, so figure it out!

I am having a rather nice coversation with Coyote in this very thread, and they do not hold the same position as me. YOU are the one who keeps adding FOOL at the end of your posts, and keeps egging people on with your gleeful threats of arrest for non registration.

Your style is what shows you as a troll, not your position (which is wrong anyway).

Before your rep was turned off, you were on your way down, not up, and it wasn't just me negging you. yet plenty of progressive posters on here have plenty of rep. Why is that?

I didn't start the bullshit ad hom attacks that you trolls start, so don't come crying to me when you get it in return. You're the one who can't form an opinion based on case law and the Constitution, so you have to troll to show off.

Consider this: Guns and firearms are not explicitly mentioned in the Constitution and neither is the right to vote. There is a prohibition against disarming the populace and a prohibition against denying a citizen their rights based on race and gender, but the Constitution has never said a woman or a Black person has the right to vote.

Since we all believe we have the right to vote, why are we required to register to vote? Why shouldn't that right be the way you view gun rights where you believe registration is taking away a right? The Constitution didn't say I could only vote once or that I needed to register to vote, did it?

Can you see how ridiculous an argument against gun registration can become for people who have very little understanding of what the Constitution truly says?

Do you see how to make a point and not troll people? Try it sometime, but don't expect the people you have trolled to immediately start discussing everything with the likes of you!

Interesting points....

 

[Coyote]

Some can change a magazine in less time than that. The standard for Infantry soldiers is that you must be able to clear a misfire in you weapon (which requires many more steps than changing magazines) in under 5 seconds. So, how many of those could there possibly be in the country. Hmmm....lessee. We graduate about maybe 50 or 60 thousand a year. They probably live to more than 70, but let's just say 60 years old. So about 50,000 times 40. So that's roughly a couple million people. And, that's just the former Infantry out of one branch and not giving anyone else any credit.

Why do I need a need a "high capacity" magazine. I don't. I consider a "High Capacity" magazine something that is larger than the manufacturer recommended for that weapon. I don't need anything larger than a 20 or 30 round magazine.

Why do I need a normal sized magazine for my rifle? For the same reason the military does. We all have a second amendment responsibility that goes along with the right. We have a responsibility to overthrow a tyrannical government should one arise. A military weapon would be nice to have for that. But, since we can't have that, we have to make due with semi-autos. That's bad enough, but limiting the capacity of the magazine is unconscionable. The rocket launcher would no doubt go past it's due date before I ever used it. They have a shelf life.....did you know?

Had no idea of rocket launcher shelf life (haven't gone shopping for one yet)

Interesting information though, and thanks. I think one of the fundamental differences in thought we probably have is the view that "we have a responsibility to overthrow a tyrannical government should one arise" and that should drive our choices as to what firearms we can own.

Personally - I tend to be less paranoid of government and trust in the ability of our political system, as slow and half-assed crazy as it is - to prevent the rise of a tyrannical government. That could change, but that is my view at this point.

our country has that point of view. just take a look at iraq, egypy, libya, syria.

Not sure what you mean here because there is zero cultural or political similarity with any of those countries.

Edited to add: I see what you mean in terms of our country's views - they are very ingrained in our culture and in the founding of our country - more so than any other country. I don't think any other country as a specifically stated right to bare arms.

 

[martybegan]

What you're doing is pointing out the flaws in the system - but no system and no law is perfect. If you are going to base a decision on whether or not a law catches 100% of the offenders, then we need have no laws what so ever, becuase none of them are 100%.

But there is not a glut of people running out there to commit murder on a daily basis, nor rape, nor robbery. Laws that a vast majority of the population support are never a problem. Also again, most of these laws are AFTER the fact of committing some act, not just the mere ownership of some item.

An overwhelming number of people dont want others owning nukes, or cannons, or PU-36 explosive space modulators, and thus those laws are easy for people to agree on.

I see the point here but at this time, a growing majority of people are supporting a universal background check - that would seem to be something we could all agree upon.

What gun control people are trying now to do is make the very ownership of certain commonly owned firearms illegeal.

Are they that commonly owned? This lists the most popular guns: HowStuffWorks "Top 5 Most Popular Guns -- and Why"

And...again, like with rocket launchers - ownership of certain weapons is already illegal.

And don't go with the whole "we are only banning new people from owning them." Its a ban that flies in the face of equal protection, as the only condition is owning it before the law was passed. I can have the same clean record and would be banned only because I did not excercise my right prior to a given date. Thats like saying I no longer have a right to trial by jury because I wasn't arrested before "Date X"

A lot of stuff gets grandfathered in - for example, when they change emissions standards for new cars they grandfather in the old ones. I don't see how this would be any different.

In the case of cars it is to protect the owner of a car with an older technology from having to buy something NEWER and BETTER. In the case of this, it is to prevent ME from excercising a right someone else is still able to exercise through no detrimental or illegal action on my part. Owning a car is also not a right enshrined in the consitution, and thus does not have the hurdle that right attaches.

A rocket launcher and ANY firearm are two entirely different things. All a rocket launcher is really is a propulsion device for a grenade, which is an explosive device, not a projectile as in a firearm. You notice you dont see people clammoring for grenades, but some of us do get pissed off when you go after semi automatic rifles.

 

[Vast LWC]

Your side wants to point at failure as evidence that they need more power.

In that case, "none" is the correct answer....Compromising with doubling down on failure would be stupid.

What failure?

Failure to block legislation from NRA-bribed congressmen that made it impossible to enforce existing laws?

That is failure I guess.

However, background checks and a gun registry would certainly help the current situation.

 

[Spoonman]

You think a troll is someone who doesn't agree with you and a troll is actually people like you who will change the subject to an ad hom attack. The issue or the person's point of view on it has nothing to do with being a troll. It's a political forum, so figure it out!

I am having a rather nice coversation with Coyote in this very thread, and they do not hold the same position as me. YOU are the one who keeps adding FOOL at the end of your posts, and keeps egging people on with your gleeful threats of arrest for non registration.

Your style is what shows you as a troll, not your position (which is wrong anyway).

Before your rep was turned off, you were on your way down, not up, and it wasn't just me negging you. yet plenty of progressive posters on here have plenty of rep. Why is that?

I didn't start the bullshit ad hom attacks that you trolls start, so don't come crying to me when you get it in return. You're the one who can't form an opinion based on case law and the Constitution, so you have to troll to show off.

Consider this: Guns and firearms are not explicitly mentioned in the Constitution and neither is the right to vote. There is a prohibition against disarming the populace and a prohibition against denying a citizen their rights based on race and gender, but the Constitution has never said a woman or a Black person has the right to vote.

Since we all believe we have the right to vote, why are we required to register to vote? Why shouldn't that right be the way you view gun rights where you believe registration is taking away a right? The Constitution didn't say I could only vote once or that I needed to register to vote, did it?

Can you see how ridiculous an argument against gun registration can become for people who have very little understanding of what the Constitution truly says?

Do you see how to make a point and not troll people? Try it sometime, but don't expect the people you have trolled to immediately start discussing everything with the likes of you!

so when do we start doing background checks on people registering to vote and force them to have some form of government ID? Now i recall when conservatives made this type of recommendation you cried it was a violation of their constitutional rights and unfairly inconvenieced the poor. why do you have a sudden change of heart all of a sudden? why the double standard?

 

[Coyote]

i'll go back to my previous point, adam lanza failed a background check. did it stop him? the ft hood shooter and the CA cop both passed background checks. did it stop them from killing?

What you're doing is pointing out the flaws in the system - but no system and no law is perfect. If you are going to base a decision on whether or not a law catches 100% of the offenders, then we need have no laws what so ever, becuase none of them are 100%.

so what does this background check get me? again, the majority of the gun violence occurs with the criminal element. how many of them get a gun through the system? they don't. it's black market

Again - no law is perfect or catches 100% of the offenders. Criminals always find a way around it if they want to badly enough. You're position is basically stating there is no need for any criminal laws because they'll find a way around it.

 

[OKTexas]

Guns built from scratch have no serial numbers to register, nitwit.

The more this thread goes on, the more it becomes evident who knows about guns and who probably wouldn't know which end of a weapon to point where.

Well there's a massive red herring.

Tell me, what percentage of the guns out there do you feel were "Built from scratch"?

.001%?

Really, many weapons produced prior to 1968 had no serial numbers, any idea how many that could be?

 

[OKTexas]

I know that the cities with the tightest gun control laws have the highest murder rates.

I also know that that none of the perps of the mass shootings that has a bug up the asses of all of you bedwetting lolberals went through a background check to get their weapons.

Background checks are completely ineffective....Period.

Well that is just altogether false.

New York City is one of the safest large cities to live in in the nation, and it has very strict gun control laws.

Missouri doesn't have a particularly strict set of Gun Laws, as far as I know, and is is the most dangerous city in the nation.

Virginia has basically no gun laws, and Richmond is regularly in the top 10 most dangerous cities.

Missouri a dangerous city, REALLY? Do you think anyone should take your seriously after that. I think you need to get out more.

 

[Coyote]

But there is not a glut of people running out there to commit murder on a daily basis, nor rape, nor robbery. Laws that a vast majority of the population support are never a problem. Also again, most of these laws are AFTER the fact of committing some act, not just the mere ownership of some item.

An overwhelming number of people dont want others owning nukes, or cannons, or PU-36 explosive space modulators, and thus those laws are easy for people to agree on.

I see the point here but at this time, a growing majority of people are supporting a universal background check - that would seem to be something we could all agree upon.



Are they that commonly owned? This lists the most popular guns: HowStuffWorks "Top 5 Most Popular Guns -- and Why"

And...again, like with rocket launchers - ownership of certain weapons is already illegal.

And don't go with the whole "we are only banning new people from owning them." Its a ban that flies in the face of equal protection, as the only condition is owning it before the law was passed. I can have the same clean record and would be banned only because I did not excercise my right prior to a given date. Thats like saying I no longer have a right to trial by jury because I wasn't arrested before "Date X"

A lot of stuff gets grandfathered in - for example, when they change emissions standards for new cars they grandfather in the old ones. I don't see how this would be any different.

In the case of cars it is to protect the owner of a car with an older technology from having to buy something NEWER and BETTER. In the case of this, it is to prevent ME from excercising a right someone else is still able to exercise through no detrimental or illegal action on my part. Owning a car is also not a right enshrined in the consitution, and thus does not have the hurdle that right attaches.

Exactly - and grandfathering in certain weapons means that a gunowner doesn't have to get rid of what he currently has and buy something new because it's now illegal. There is no essential difference there.

Agree - owning a car is not a right. However, owning a specific type of gun is also not a right.

A rocket launcher and ANY firearm are two entirely different things. All a rocket launcher is really is a propulsion device for a grenade, which is an explosive device, not a projectile as in a firearm. You notice you dont see people clammoring for grenades, but some of us do get pissed off when you go after semi automatic rifles.

They aren't two completely different types of things - they are different mostly in terms of degree of damage they can do and that is often the difference between many categories of fire arms. People aren't clamoring for them because they've been illegal for a long long time.

 

[Vast LWC]

Gun registration is a precondition to the exercise of the right not inherent to same, and thus, an infringement - that alone is enough to oppose it.

That is only true if a person is charged for gun registration. If they are not, then it is not a precondition, but simply an official record keeping, kept for public safety purposes.

Background checks are in fact a precondition, but preconditions based on the public good, where criminals and the insane are concerned, certainly have plenty of precedent, and have been ruled constitutional time and time again.

The governemt knowing who has guns and who does not will not reduce gun-related crime as nothing prevents someone from using a gun regustered to them to commit a crime; it is therefore nearly impossible to show how gun registration is an effective means to affect a compelling state interest.

Keeping tabs on who has guns is not only not a violation of the Second Amendment, but is in perfect keeping with organizing "a well-regulated militia", which is the entire purpose of the Second Amendment in the first place.

 

[Spoonman]

What you're doing is pointing out the flaws in the system - but no system and no law is perfect. If you are going to base a decision on whether or not a law catches 100% of the offenders, then we need have no laws what so ever, becuase none of them are 100%.

so what does this background check get me? again, the majority of the gun violence occurs with the criminal element. how many of them get a gun through the system? they don't. it's black market

Again - no law is perfect or catches 100% of the offenders. Criminals always find a way around it if they want to badly enough. You're position is basically stating there is no need for any criminal laws because they'll find a way around it.

So let me ask this question again. No one supporting background checks seem to want to answer it. We do this background check and we some how determine this person is not fit to own a gun becasue we feel they are at risk of killing someone with it. So do we just not allow them to have a gun and move on? or do we take it a step further and intrude in their lives additionally and make sure they don't commit murder by some other method? because you know once you start labeling someone as a potential risk, you know they are. So when they do snap in some other form you are going to have a lawsuit, because you had prior knowledge they were a risk.

 

[martybegan]

You think a troll is someone who doesn't agree with you and a troll is actually people like you who will change the subject to an ad hom attack. The issue or the person's point of view on it has nothing to do with being a troll. It's a political forum, so figure it out!

I am having a rather nice coversation with Coyote in this very thread, and they do not hold the same position as me. YOU are the one who keeps adding FOOL at the end of your posts, and keeps egging people on with your gleeful threats of arrest for non registration.

Your style is what shows you as a troll, not your position (which is wrong anyway).

Before your rep was turned off, you were on your way down, not up, and it wasn't just me negging you. yet plenty of progressive posters on here have plenty of rep. Why is that?

I didn't start the bullshit ad hom attacks that you trolls start, so don't come crying to me when you get it in return. You're the one who can't form an opinion based on case law and the Constitution, so you have to troll to show off.

Consider this: Guns and firearms are not explicitly mentioned in the Constitution and neither is the right to vote. There is a prohibition against disarming the populace and a prohibition against denying a citizen their rights based on race and gender, but the Constitution has never said a woman or a Black person has the right to vote.

Since we all believe we have the right to vote, why are we required to register to vote? Why shouldn't that right be the way you view gun rights where you believe registration is taking away a right? The Constitution didn't say I could only vote once or that I needed to register to vote, did it?

Can you see how ridiculous an argument against gun registration can become for people who have very little understanding of what the Constitution truly says?

Do you see how to make a point and not troll people? Try it sometime, but don't expect the people you have trolled to immediately start discussing everything with the likes of you!

The 2nd amendment says the word "arms." That means firearms.

Clause 1 of Article 1 of the consitution states how each state deterimines how representatives are selected, and who can vote for them:

The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second Year by the People of the several States, and the Electors in each State shall have the Qualifications requisite for Electors of the most numerous Branch of the State Legislature.

So the states determine voting requirements, and to vote in a federal election you must meet the requirements of the largest part of the state legislature. The states, I am sure have 1 person 1 vote provisions, and thus this passes on to federal elections. This is modifed by the restrictions on disqualifying voting for race, sex and age after age 18 VIA AMENDMENT (which you are free to attempt with the 2nd)

Registering to vote is required because you actually have to interact with the government to cast your vote, Also to assure each person only casts one vote. You also need the # of voters to determine legislative breakdown by state.

A person keeping thier guns in thier house does not interact with the government, nor do thier guns impact how many votes they have, or the outcome of elections.

You make points yes, but they are wrong and based on a flawed intepretation of the constitution.

 

[Spoonman]

I see the point here but at this time, a growing majority of people are supporting a universal background check - that would seem to be something we could all agree upon.



Are they that commonly owned? This lists the most popular guns: HowStuffWorks "Top 5 Most Popular Guns -- and Why"

And...again, like with rocket launchers - ownership of certain weapons is already illegal.



A lot of stuff gets grandfathered in - for example, when they change emissions standards for new cars they grandfather in the old ones. I don't see how this would be any different.

In the case of cars it is to protect the owner of a car with an older technology from having to buy something NEWER and BETTER. In the case of this, it is to prevent ME from excercising a right someone else is still able to exercise through no detrimental or illegal action on my part. Owning a car is also not a right enshrined in the consitution, and thus does not have the hurdle that right attaches.

Exactly - and grandfathering in certain weapons means that a gunowner doesn't have to get rid of what he currently has and buy something new because it's now illegal. There is no essential difference there.
Agree - owning a car is not a right. However, owning a specific type of gun is also not a right.

A rocket launcher and ANY firearm are two entirely different things. All a rocket launcher is really is a propulsion device for a grenade, which is an explosive device, not a projectile as in a firearm. You notice you dont see people clammoring for grenades, but some of us do get pissed off when you go after semi automatic rifles.

They aren't two completely different types of things - they are different mostly in terms of degree of damage they can do and that is often the difference between many categories of fire arms. People aren't clamoring for them because they've been illegal for a long long time.

have you read the california proposals and the recently passed NY laws. That isn't what they are talking about.

 

[OKTexas]

You don't know, so what's the difference. Gun shows aren't all the same. The real point is people who oppose universal or gun show background checks aren't interested in solving the problems of our open gun market.

The potential exists to resell a weapon at a gun show to someone who can't pass a background check and just because it's illegal doesn't mean there is a way of catching someone doing it or that a gun show doesn't promote doing it.

Sensible gun control laws would require registration of all firearms from the time of manufacturing and sales involving transfer of registration, which would always require a background check. Let me explain it in simple terms! Every gun from the time of manufacture is registered with an ID. The registration can be transferred to an organization or individual, but the organization has to be something like the military or law enforcement. Every gun is registered and checked each year to determine the same person owns it. The rifled firearms are periodically ballistics tested with the bullets being sent to FBI for scanning and the data is put in a data base. The FBI can work out a quick scan process. People would think twice before using a gun in a crime and the reason to possess a gun on the streets of our cities would fade away.

It's the nature of criminals to draw heat, so possessing an illegal firearm should be dealt with severely, when they've drawn heat. Let's say the cops find a firearm in the residence of someone suspected for a crime. I doubt a criminal wipes down his weapon everytime he touches it, so fingerprints can be lifted connecting a person to the weapon. A weapon could be associated with any type of crime the police would get a search warrant for and listed on the warrant.

I haven't been advocating these piecemeal, feelgood changes in the law, but have advocated a comprehensive approach that reduces gun violence and discourages illegal ownership of guns. Closing the gun show loophole is just a small part of what should be done.

And criminals will obey all of that.

Criminals in general do not obey laws. So, should there then be no laws?

Enforce them, before passing new ones that won't be enforced either, and will just add expense to the law abiding. Sound like a plan?

 

[Coyote]

ok, when you look at where most of the gun violence occurs it is among the criminal element. inner city disputes, gang retaliation, drug related violence. the sandy hooks, the colorado theaters are really the minority. and what is the majority is not going to obey any law you pass. regardless. and you can take every gun from every law abiding citizen and that illegal element will still have their weapons and large capacity clips and still commit their murders.

And what will you do in the process? Destroy a legitimate $36 billion dollar industry and replace it with an even larger black market. just like drugs today. just like alcohol years ago. the black market is already out there, but it will mushroom. and yes even law abiding citizens will turn to a black market. just like they do with drugs today.

No one is talking about "destroying" an industry with proposed regulation- that's quite an exageration.

 

[Tech_Esq]

Some can change a magazine in two seconds - that's an ideal for a pro. It gives someone an opening that could divert a shooters attention long enough to make a difference.

Why does anyone need to have a high capacity magazine - any more than say a rocket launcher?

Some can change a magazine in less time than that. The standard for Infantry soldiers is that you must be able to clear a misfire in you weapon (which requires many more steps than changing magazines) in under 5 seconds. So, how many of those could there possibly be in the country. Hmmm....lessee. We graduate about maybe 50 or 60 thousand a year. They probably live to more than 70, but let's just say 60 years old. So about 50,000 times 40. So that's roughly a couple million people. And, that's just the former Infantry out of one branch and not giving anyone else any credit.

Why do I need a need a "high capacity" magazine. I don't. I consider a "High Capacity" magazine something that is larger than the manufacturer recommended for that weapon. I don't need anything larger than a 20 or 30 round magazine.

Why do I need a normal sized magazine for my rifle? For the same reason the military does. We all have a second amendment responsibility that goes along with the right. We have a responsibility to overthrow a tyrannical government should one arise. A military weapon would be nice to have for that. But, since we can't have that, we have to make due with semi-autos. That's bad enough, but limiting the capacity of the magazine is unconscionable. The rocket launcher would no doubt go past it's due date before I ever used it. They have a shelf life.....did you know?

Had no idea of rocket launcher shelf life (haven't gone shopping for one yet)

Interesting information though, and thanks. I think one of the fundamental differences in thought we probably have is the view that "we have a responsibility to overthrow a tyrannical government should one arise" and that should drive our choices as to what firearms we can own.

Personally - I tend to be less paranoid of government and trust in the ability of our political system, as slow and half-assed crazy as it is - to prevent the rise of a tyrannical government. That could change, but that is my view at this point.

Well, it's not paranoid craziness that drives my decision of weapon choice. I have one dual purpose weapon. It's an M1A 7.62x51mm similar looking to the M-14. I can shoot deer or larger game with it. If ever called upon, it would serve just fine in providing me the fire power I need to participate in the overthrow of a tyrannical government. When did I buy it? I bought it after I got out of the Army in 1988. So, it's not like it got it in reaction to anything that's going on that I saw as harmful or dangerous. But, I do take the responsibility seriously. One has to be at least somewhat prepared to fulfill their civic duties. I don't have a big stockpile of anything, much less ammo, but I have enough to get me started. I have other firearms too, but that's the only "go to war" weapon I have. I feel like that's enough for me. I'd say people should have one weapon that they can reasonably expect to be sufficient to participate in their 2nd amendment responsibility.

Yes, I believe in the other parts of doing your civic duty too and we all hope it never comes to that. And, yes, that's my point of view too. But, it doesn't take much. In 1929, almost no German would have allowed as how Hitler could possibly rule Germany. Yet, 3 years later, there he was.

 

[martybegan]

I see the point here but at this time, a growing majority of people are supporting a universal background check - that would seem to be something we could all agree upon.



Are they that commonly owned? This lists the most popular guns: HowStuffWorks "Top 5 Most Popular Guns -- and Why"

And...again, like with rocket launchers - ownership of certain weapons is already illegal.



A lot of stuff gets grandfathered in - for example, when they change emissions standards for new cars they grandfather in the old ones. I don't see how this would be any different.

In the case of cars it is to protect the owner of a car with an older technology from having to buy something NEWER and BETTER. In the case of this, it is to prevent ME from excercising a right someone else is still able to exercise through no detrimental or illegal action on my part. Owning a car is also not a right enshrined in the consitution, and thus does not have the hurdle that right attaches.

Exactly - and grandfathering in certain weapons means that a gunowner doesn't have to get rid of what he currently has and buy something new because it's now illegal. There is no essential difference there.

Agree - owning a car is not a right. However, owning a specific type of gun is also not a right.

A rocket launcher and ANY firearm are two entirely different things. All a rocket launcher is really is a propulsion device for a grenade, which is an explosive device, not a projectile as in a firearm. You notice you dont see people clammoring for grenades, but some of us do get pissed off when you go after semi automatic rifles.

They aren't two completely different types of things - they are different mostly in terms of degree of damage they can do and that is often the difference between many categories of fire arms. People aren't clamoring for them because they've been illegal for a long long time.

That still makes me a 2nd class citizen, unable to own something someone else of equal qualification does. The person who bought a car after the grandfathering is getting something better.

I am getting something worse. Add to the fact that this would place me at a disadvantage against someone with no respect for the law, then whats the point?

I disagree on your last point. people are not clammoring for rocket launchers because in reality they are piss poor weapons of self defense. A semi automatic rifle is a very good weapon of self defense.

In the end the burden is on someone wanting to take away my right, not on me to prove I need some item. If people don't like it they can repeal the 2nd amendment.