What are the acceptable limits of the 2nd Amendment?

[TarJak]

http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/politics/amendment-is-not-a-catchall-20130119-2czvj.html

This opinion piece by a local barrister prompts some questions in my mind. Given that there are limits imposed on the 2nd Amendment (as stated by Justice Antonin Scalia), exactly what would be acceptable limits in the eyes of the judiciary?

This is meant to be a serious discussion on the law and not an argument for or against the bearing of arms as that right is already understood.

[Tribesman]

exactly what would be acceptable limits in the eyes of the judiciary?

Simple clear limits.
Convicted violent criminals.
Unconvicted accused criminals awaiting trial who are judged to present a credible risk of reoffending.
Mentally unstable(including substance abusers).
Restrictions on minors.
No carrying in licensed premesis as alcohol and firearms do not mix(bar owners and staff may be exempt).
Ban on fully auto(with exceptions)
Full up to date record of guns and gun owners to impliment all firearms regulations

[Platapus]

One acceptable limit to the 2nd Amendment is to enact and enforce very very harsh sentences for criminals that use a gun to commit a crime.

In my opinion, if someone uses a firearm to commit a felony (or types of felonies) there should be an automatic 10 year sentence that can not be plea bargained, and must be served consecutively to all other sentences.

The second amendment grants citizens a considerable amount of power. With that power comes responsibility, accountability, and consequence for using that power.

Another acceptable limit to the 2nd Amendment is that there needs to be some codification on who can legally own a gun. Almost all states have some limitations, but they are not uniform. Nor are the states always communicating with other states/federal government.

There is a delicate balance between medical privacy and public safety.

If I had some very contagious disease, where just by coughing/breathing on people I could cause many deaths, would my right to medical privacy trump the public safety concern? Probably not. Depending on the disease and the situation, the state has, and should have, the right to guarantee me to include involuntary confinement.

I believe the same schema should apply to types of mental illness and owning of firearms. We already had a thread where I outlined my wacky plan. But the bottom line is that IF there is medical evidence that a person may pose a danger to society if they have access to firearms, then it is the responsibility of the states to work together to prevent such individuals from legally obtaining firearms. The devil is, of course, in the details.

Another acceptable limitation to the 2nd Amendment concerns the right to "keep" firearms. There needs to be a legal responsibility to keep firearms securely. The intent is to prevent people not capable of owning firearms from obtaining someone else's firearms.

If a firearm owner chooses not to securely keep their firearm, then that owner should have to accept some level of responsibility if his or her firearms are obtained by someone else. What that level of responsibility is, I don't know.

Again, being able to "keep" firearms is a source of power and that power must be balanced with responsibility, accountability, and consequence.

The Second Amendment states that the government can not infringe on a citizens right to keep and bear arms. By the Incorporation Doctrine, this has also been applied to the state. But no where in the Constitution does it state that there is no responsibility, accountability, or consequence to keeping and bearing arms.

[Stealhead]

One acceptable limit to the 2nd Amendment is to enact and enforce very very harsh sentences for criminals that use a gun to commit a crime.

In my opinion, if someone uses a firearm to commit a felony (or types of felonies) there should be an automatic 10 year sentence that can not be plea bargained, and must be served consecutively to all other sentences.





I do not know about other states but in Florida it goes like this 1)be in possession of of a firearm while committing a crime 10 years 2)ANY assault with that firearm in commission of said crime 20 years 3)harm any person in any way if having fired said firearm life.(obviously death is possible if a murder was committed)

[Armistead]

We have 1000's of gun laws in varying states, the problem will remain, criminals don't care about laws. The other issue, we hardly enforce the laws that exist, so we feel the need to make more laws to deal with the other laws we don't enforce.

Mental health is tricky. Today big pharma loves to create diseases so they can sell all their pills. Millions of Americans get a little depressed, go to Doc, placed on several meds and labeled mentally ill. It's mostly a profit scam. Fact is, many of these meds are causing issues, not solving them.

Ending, they will pass laws that are most profitable or create more government control and spending.

[TarJak]

In terms of federal laws, where do you think the limits will lie for restrictions on particular weapons/classes of weapon?

There are already limitations on full automatic, certain classes of firearm including RPG's, etc. Where do you think these will land with the proposed changes?

[August]

In terms of federal laws, where do you think the limits will lie for restrictions on particular weapons/classes of weapon?

There are already limitations on full automatic, certain classes of firearm including RPG's, etc. Where do you think these will land with the proposed changes?


There are no limits. Wherever the latest push ends up the government will soon begin pushing for even more restrictions.

[Rilder]

I agree. But the "right to bear arms" can be interpreted many ways. The right to bear "what kind of arms"?

Muskets, that's what the 2nd Amendment was drafted with in mind after all. :O:

(Well that and towns having the ability to raise a defensive militia in case of invasion because the US didn't have a standing army at the time.)

[Sailor Steve]

This is meant to be a serious discussion on the law and not an argument for or against the bearing of arms as that right is already understood.
I started off at the beginning writing a lengthy post, but found myself unable to stay within that parameter. It looks like I wasn't the only one.

As for the original question of what do we think would be an acceptable limit in the eyes of the Judiciary, I think that changes just as often as the judiciary does. Presidents appoint justices who feel as they do politically. Of course sometimes they get a nasty surprise when push comes to shove, but for the most part Supreme Court justices seem to follow party lines just as much as anyone else in Washington.

[ZeeWolf]

Well, being the only nation on earth with such an expressed right to bare
arms the notion of a truly "free people" in not vary popular. Worth noting
the New Marxist doctrine of so called "Human Rights" is totally void of such an
expression. And yet it is sweeping the enlightened civilized world.
Our only hope, as a nation, is keeping the whites a huge majority.
And interpreting the constitution as it was originally intended by the (all white) Founding Fathers.


ZeeWolf

[em2nought]

Citizens should have access to any weapon that gov't has access to. Would make for much more responsible gov't. :arrgh!:

[Tribesman]

Our only hope, as a nation, is keeping the whites a huge majority.


Acceptabe limits for firearm regulation eh????
Don't forget your mission to exterminate the jews too you nazi clown:doh:

[TarJak]

Citizens should have access to any weapon that gov't has access to. Would make for much more responsible gov't. :arrgh!:

Nuke 'em eh? Might make for a short lived USA.:nope:

[em2nought]

Nuke 'em eh? Might make for a short lived USA.:nope:

You're assuming that people that could afford one would be less responsible than our gov't? :har:

[Sailor Steve]

You're assuming that people that could afford one would be less responsible than our gov't? :har:
When was the last time our government irresponsibly nuked anyone?

[em2nought]

When was the last time our government irresponsibly nuked anyone?

Balance that budget or else.... :D It doesn't take a nuke to ruin us. It's pretty obvious that we've lost our ability to check and balance.

[Sailor Steve]

Balance that budget or else.... :D It doesn't take a nuke to ruin us. It's pretty obvious that we've lost our ability to check and balance.
That's always been true of any government, at any time. You were talking about nukes. Of course the thread is about something else entirely.

[Armistead]

Well, being the only nation on earth with such an expressed right to bare
arms the notion of a truly "free people" in not vary popular. Worth noting
the New Marxist doctrine of so called "Human Rights" is totally void of such an
expression. And yet it is sweeping the enlightened civilized world.
Our only hope, as a nation, is keeping the whites a huge majority.
And interpreting the constitution as it was originally intended by the (all white) Founding Fathers.


ZeeWolf


Our only hope is to keep a huge white majority, you can't be serious, whites have always had a huge white majority.

You're nothing but a racist pig and can go F yourself. Surprised you haven't been banned for such racist statements.

[Hottentot]

Surprised you haven't been banned for such racist statements.

I'm more surprised he bothers coming back here. It's not like he is the first one preaching such message here, but the rest have simply buggered off sooner or later.

[Dowly]

I'm more surprised he bothers coming back here. It's not like he is the first one preaching such message here, but the rest have simply buggered off sooner or later.

Well he needs to sell his overpriced "ready when ready" T34vT expansion somewhere. :O:

[Armistead]

I'm more surprised he bothers coming back here. It's not like he is the first one preaching such message here, but the rest have simply buggered off sooner or later.

We are all humans and all have some bias towards something, but that is different than hate. When you point out all races somehow aren't equal to the "white man" that is beyond personal bias, nothing but pure hate towards people because of the way they were born. Hopefully a mod will soon help him bugger off than later. You would think a member since 2007 would have more sense than to post such crap.

"Subsim allows for a wide range of opinions, politics, and attitudes but we do not accept members who are associated with hate groups. Examples include but are not limited to Neo-Nazi groups, Westboro Baptist Church types, racist supremacists, Klansmen, black militants, Islamic militants, Jewish conspiracists, anti-Semites, posting links to racist music, propaganda denying the Holocaust."

[Tribesman]

When was the last time our government irresponsibly nuked anyone?
Downwinders?:03:

[Neptunus Rex]

Simple clear limits.
Convicted violent criminals.
Unconvicted accused criminals awaiting trial who are judged to present a credible risk of reoffending.
Mentally unstable(including substance abusers).
Restrictions on minors.
No carrying in licensed premesis as alcohol and firearms do not mix(bar owners and staff may be exempt).
Ban on fully auto(with exceptions)
Full up to date record of guns and gun owners to impliment all firearms regulations

Also, thanks to Sen Schumer of NY and Sen Lautenberg of NJ, anyone ever convicted of a domestic violence charge is banned from owning or handling any firearm, at any time, even those convicted prior to enactment of this law.

[Platapus]

When was the last time our government irresponsibly nuked anyone?

Nuclear testing in the Pacific?

Starfish Prime?

[mapuc]

If I was the president of USA

I would say this to the American people

the 2nd Amendment say that you have the right to bear arms. It does not say which kind of weapon it must be.(from what I understand of it)

So from now and forward all weapons that have armo bigger than 6 millimeter is banned.

Guess I would be very little loved if I said that

Markus

[Sailor Steve]

Nuclear testing in the Pacific?
Who did we kill there?

Starfish Prime?
Gojira.

[ETR3(SS)]

Well let me play devils advocate here. Like it was said earlier, anything the military has the people should also be able to have. So in theory if I can afford the price tag of say an F/A-18 along with the additional price tag of the ordnance, FAA approved pilots license, fuel, maintenance, etc why not? I can already own a fully automatic weapon if I can afford the weapon itself along with the fees and permits.

[Sailor Steve]

They might invoke the militia clause and insist that you show up for regular training and be prepared for a call-up. I suppose if you're the right age you could just join the Air Guard or Air Force or Navy reserve.

[August]

Well let me play devils advocate here. Like it was said earlier, anything the military has the people should also be able to have. So in theory if I can afford the price tag of say an F/A-18 along with the additional price tag of the ordnance, FAA approved pilots license, fuel, maintenance, etc why not? I can already own a fully automatic weapon if I can afford the weapon itself along with the fees and permits.

Actually you can legally have all of that including ordinance as long as it's not explosive.

The particular model of Aircraft might be difficult to obtain seeing as it's being built under contract for the government atm but an older model fighter of slightly less capability is quite legal. Kinda like so called military "style" semi-automatics.

[Platapus]

Who did we kill there?



That is not an easy question to answer. No one, to my recollection, died due to either the nuclear blast or heat/fireball. But determining who died because of radioactive contamination is a lot harder to "prove". At various times, the courts have ruled that there were instances in which the US government was negligent in protecting human life during nuclear testing both domestically and internationally.

Here is one example

On 10 May 1984, U.S. District Court Judge Bruce S. Jenkins ruled that radioactive fallout from above-ground nuclear tests in the 1950s had caused ten people to die of cancer and that the government was guilty of negligence in the way it had conducted the tests.

http://www.ctbto.org/?id=2664

[ETR3(SS)]

They might invoke the militia clause and insist that you show up for regular training and be prepared for a call-up. I suppose if you're the right age you could just join the Air Guard or Air Force or Navy reserve.True they might and that could be an assumed part of ownership of said plane. But I would still be a civilian. And if I joined the Guard or Reserve I don't actually own the equipment, the government does. Not to mention I would be subject to the whims of the military because I would be a part of the military.

Actually you can legally have all of that including ordinance as long as it's not explosive.

The particular model of Aircraft might be difficult to obtain seeing as it's being built under contract for the government atm but an older model fighter of slightly less capability is quite legal. Kinda like so called military "style" semi-automatics.Correct. But there are regulations regarding this that these warbirds as they're called be demiled. Which would defeat the purpose of having it in the first place.

[August]

True they might and that could be an assumed part of ownership of said plane. But I would still be a civilian. And if I joined the Guard or Reserve I don't actually own the equipment, the government does. Not to mention I would be subject to the whims of the military because I would be a part of the military.

Correct. But there are regulations regarding this that these warbirds as they're called be demiled. Which would defeat the purpose of having it in the first place.

Depends on what you mean by "demiled". One might say that the lack of automatic fire "demils" my AR-15.

[Sailor Steve]

True they might and that could be an assumed part of ownership of said plane. But I would still be a civilian. And if I joined the Guard or Reserve I don't actually own the equipment, the government does. Not to mention I would be subject to the whims of the military because I would be a part of the military.
All true. Something that gets lost in that exact discussion is the Letter of Marque. During the Revolution and the war of 1812 Civilian owners of armed merchant ships (read 'cannons') were given official authorization to attack British Shipping, for the very reason that they had exactly the same cannons U.S. warships had. This left official warships free to act like warships, while armed citizens became privateers.

[August]

All true. Something that gets lost in that exact discussion is the Letter of Marque. During the Revolution and the war of 1812 Civilian owners of armed merchant ships (read 'cannons') were given official authorization to attack British Shipping, for the very reason that they had exactly the same cannons U.S. warships had. This left official warships free to act like warships, while armed citizens became privateers.

That implies they were armed in response to the authorization but in those days merchant ships already had cannons and other armaments for self protection. Letters of Marque were just authorization to use their arms in an offensive role.

[ETR3(SS)]

Depends on what you mean by "demiled". One might say that the lack of automatic fire "demils" my AR-15.Usually any weapons and mounts for weapons are removed along with possibly the avionics. Pretty much anything the military can use on another aircraft they strip out before selling.

All true. Something that gets lost in that exact discussion is the Letter of Marque. During the Revolution and the war of 1812 Civilian owners of armed merchant ships (read 'cannons') were given official authorization to attack British Shipping, for the very reason that they had exactly the same cannons U.S. warships had. This left official warships free to act like warships, while armed citizens became privateers.A good example. But who owned the cannon? It's clear that the merchants were privately owned, but it's the ownership of the cannon that makes the difference.

[August]

A good example. But who owned the cannon? It's clear that the merchants were privately owned, but it's the ownership of the cannon that makes the difference.

Ship, crew and armaments are all provided by the owner. The government just writes the letter.

[ETR3(SS)]

Ship, crew and armaments are all provided by the owner. The government just writes the letter.So the question remains. If I can afford it, why not?

[August]

So the question remains. If I can afford it, why not?

I thought the question was whether you could own such things. As far as I know legally you can.

[Sailor Steve]

A good example. But who owned the cannon? It's clear that the merchants were privately owned, but it's the ownership of the cannon that makes the difference.
August cleared that up. I just wanted to add that the American Revolution had many causes, but the shooting started when the Colonial Governor of Massachussetts sent regular troops to confiscate a private armory, including cannons. Yes, the actual war started over a gun control issue.

[TarJak]

There are no limits.
So what was Justice Antonin Scalia referring to?

[August]

So what was Justice Antonin Scalia referring to?

Something else than what I was referring to?

You asked:
In terms of federal laws, where do you think the limits will lie for restrictions on particular weapons/classes of weapon?

There are already limitations on full automatic, certain classes of firearm including RPG's, etc. Where do you think these will land with the proposed changes?

There are no limits to what the government can and will impose if they can get away with it. If semi-autos are banned then handguns will become the new target for restrictions. If they are banned then hunting rifles will be next after that.

Like a friend of mine just posted recently:

http://sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-snc7/379664_10151198194646721_2039723451_n.jpg

[Armistead]

I thought the question was whether you could own such things. As far as I know legally you can.

What things, I don't want to read every post. If it's weapons, yea, if you can afford the class stamp and license, you can about buy anything you want.

[ETR3(SS)]

I thought the question was whether you could own such things. As far as I know legally you can.If I could afford it why couldn't I own it was the question. Although I am still interested in others opinions on the matter.

August cleared that up. I just wanted to add that the American Revolution had many causes, but the shooting started when the Colonial Governor of Massachussetts sent regular troops to confiscate a private armory, including cannons. Yes, the actual war started over a gun control issue.This leads to another question in my mind. Would it be possible if I were in possession of my own fighter aircraft (keeping with the same platform here) to be issued a Letter of Marque?

What things, I don't want to read every post. If it's weapons, yea, if you can afford the class stamp and license, you can about buy anything you want.I posed the question that if I could afford an F/A-18 complete with all the trimmings why shouldn't I be able to have one.

[Armistead]

If I could afford it why couldn't I own it was the question. Although I am still interested in others opinions on the matter.

This leads to another question in my mind. Would it be possible if I were in possession of my own fighter aircraft (keeping with the same platform here) to be issued a Letter of Marque?

I posed the question that if I could afford an F/A-18 complete with all the trimmings why shouldn't I be able to have one.

There was a protection act in 1986 that prohibited the sale of new machine guns to the public. You can still buy one if you go through all the costly licenses, fees and approval process, but about the only ones that do are gun dealers. Course laws vary state to state. The same with explosives. I think they're about 300,000 registered fully auto guns in the US, more owned by the public than police.

If you could find a F/A-18 for sale, you could own one, many private pilots own figher aircraft, use them at airshows. However, you couldn't purchase the missles, etc. Course, you could always go to another country and buy any weapon you want or have it shipped here. Just search online, you can buy about any type weapon or plane you want at auction. However, weapon systems have to be decommisioned if you want it shipped to the US.

[Rilder]

http://sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-snc7/379664_10151198194646721_2039723451_n.jpg

To be fair, most hunting these days is done by barbarians, with full fridges/freezers, who just want to go out and kill a living thing for fun and pleasure. :nope:

[August]

To be fair, most hunting these days is done by barbarians, with full fridges/freezers, who just want to go out and kill a living thing for fun and pleasure. :nope:

The demonizing begins already.

One doesn't really "need" to hunt, right?

[Cybermat47]

The demonizing begins already.

One doesn't really "need" to hunt, right?

I'm not really fond of hunting, but it would be a good skill to have if I got lost in the wild.

[Sailor Steve]

Rilder, please read:

This is meant to be a serious discussion on the law and not an argument for or against the bearing of arms as that right is already understood.

[Tribesman]

To be fair, most hunting these days is done by barbarians, with full fridges/freezers, who just want to go out and kill a living thing for fun and pleasure. :nope:

Lets ban fishing then.
We can't have those anglers enjoying themselves can we.

[Armistead]

Our county and the next one has mass hunting land, private and public, bout are rather poor counties. They're several drop freezers where many hunters take their kills and give them to the poor for food. I seldom hunt, but when I did, all but one deer I shot was given to the poor.

[Platapus]

Meanwhile on 10 Jan 13, "The Former Presidents Protection Act of 2012) was signed in to law

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/112/hr6620

Giving former presidents Secret Service protection for life.

If I had USSS protection for life, I might think that personal gun ownership is not necessary too. :03:

[Stealhead]

Our county and the next one has mass hunting land, private and public, bout are rather poor counties. They're several drop freezers where many hunters take their kills and give them to the poor for food. I seldom hunt, but when I did, all but one deer I shot was given to the poor.


From I understand in many states the game wardens have contacts with groups that will take game so when they confiscate illegally gathered game once they gather the evidence they give the good meat away of course only with fresh kills.

Myself when I have extra I will give it friends and neighbors.In my area there is no group that actively takes game though if you gave them some that was already to go and butchered they would take it.I hunt boars myself so I suppose that a Jew or Muslim is out of luck.

[Armistead]

From I understand in many states the game wardens have contacts with groups that will take game so when they confiscate illegally gathered game once they gather the evidence they give the good meat away of course only with fresh kills.

Myself when I have extra I will give it friends and neighbors.In my area there is no group that actively takes game though if you gave them some that was already to go and butchered they would take it.I hunt boars myself so I suppose that a Jew or Muslim is out of luck.

I was lived in the woods hunting, I like most wild game, but only a few parts of deer, mostly the loin. I bet I turned over 30 plus deer to food banks for the poor. I do love a good rabbit....

I caught Pierce Morgan on CNN again last night, still on his gun crusade, inviting pro gun people on his show, but never letting them get a complete sentence out before he goes nuts....

[Stealhead]

Seems like every one loves backstrap when it comes to venison.I agree with you hare is pretty damn good.I use the term hare because I find that a hare tastes
much better than a farm raised rabbit any day of the week.I have have eaten hare from the US,Germany and Italy. Italian hare was the best is was a Corsican hare and
fresh as well a little old Italian farmer had shot them the previous day I was invited to come eat with his family the dog got some as well for his assistance.

[Cybermat47]

I caught Pierce Morgan on CNN again last night, still on his gun crusade, inviting pro gun people on his show, but never letting them get a complete sentence out before he goes nuts....

Is that guy actually trying to get more supporters that way?

[ETR3(SS)]

From what I've hear about this Morgan the Brits didn't like him so they sent him across the pond. I think he was meant for Canada and ended up here instead. :O:

[geetrue]

In terms of federal laws, where do you think the limits will lie for restrictions on particular weapons/classes of weapon?

There are already limitations on full automatic, certain classes of firearm including RPG's, etc. Where do you think these will land with the proposed changes?

The news today was that VP Biden has a plan to limit the kinds of guns you may purcahse that are the same kind being used in these terrible crimes from Arizona to Colorado to New England area.

He is also recomending limits on clips capicity to be limited to ten rounds.

They say these laws can be passed at the top levels of our country without public approval. I'm no really sure about that, but I do know the president is not running for office, perhaps he really does feel strongly about doing something.

Seems impossible to me ... How do you stop mental illness that constantly tries to figure out to murder someone and get the attention that particular person is really after.

Have you ever really seen somone that has Alzheimer’s disease and dementia?

They will try to untie the knots that bind them all day till they succeed.

Same with these mental ill people if they even know someone with guns they will figure out a way to obtain them and then use them for whatever it takes to gradifiy their senses.

What I want to know is what happens to people that already have these guns and the clips that may or may not become available in the near future?

Surely everyone won't have to march down to their nearest police station and turn them in.

We are talking tens of thousands of clips and semi-automatic guns in private hands.

It is almost impossible to stop what is going on and and no matter what they pass nothing would've stopped that crazy teen from killing his mother to obtain his guns and kill all of those poor innocent children ... not one law that is.

One armed teacher nearby would've saved perhaps half of the casualities, but not all.

[Stealhead]

The news today was that VP Biden has a plan to limit the kinds of guns you may purcahse that are the same kind being used in these terrible crimes from Arizona to Colorado to New England area.

He is also recomending limits on clips capicity to be limited to ten rounds.

They say these laws can be passed at the top levels of our country without public approval. I'm no really sure about that, but I do know the president is not running for office, perhaps he really does feel strongly about doing something.

Seems impossible to me ... How do you stop mental illness that constantly tries to figure out to murder someone and get the attention that particular person is really after.

Have you ever really seen somone that has Alzheimer’s disease and dementia?

They will try to untie the knots that bind them all day till they succeed.

Same with these mental ill people if they even know someone with guns they will figure out a way to obtain them and then use them for whatever it takes to gradifiy their senses.

What I want to know is what happens to people that already have these guns and the clips that may or may not become available in the near future?

Surely everyone won't have to march down to their nearest police station and turn them in.

We are talking tens of thousands of clips and semi-automatic guns in private hands.

It is almost impossible to stop what is going on and and no matter what they pass nothing would've stopped that crazy teen from killing his mother to obtain his guns and kill all of those poor innocent children ... not one law that is.

One armed teacher nearby would've saved perhaps half of the casualities, but not all.

My guess is that they would(notice i did not use will) wind up grandfathering in already produced magazines just like they did with previous bans.Even that New York ban makes it crime only if you happen to get caught with an illegal magazine so a smart New York gun owner would move to another state if they can not do this then they just keep their high cap magazines out of sight.

It will be nearly impossible to pass any such laws through congress though and even if they did there are more than enough states that would not ratify.That leaves an executive order but those can be vetoed by Congress 2/3 majority.I think in the end what they will wind up with is some sort unilateral requirement on back ground checks right now private sales and in some states sales at guns shows do not require a back ground check.In a way this is good for any gun store because they would be the broker of the back ground check which gives them the chance to sell something else to the person wishing to purchase the firearm and at least the gun store gets a fee for the background check and most likely some will try to get the person to buy some better firearm than the one they are about to buy from the private seller I can see that.

To be honest right now I wish I had about two dozen AR-15s if i did I'd sell them for two grand to all the yahoos just now deciding to buy one because it is trendy.$2,000 is the going rate for a AR15 right now.A buddy said he saw a guy selling used ones for $1500 at a gun show which is what a good one made by Colt or Rock River used to go for new two years ago depending on what you ordered.I have about 50 30 and 20 round STANAGs that I do not have need for that have never been used. I was on a job the other day this guy wanted some so I said I have brand new ones he said name your price I said $30 each for a 20 rounder $50 each for a 30 rounder half jokingly and he said yes and bought 3 30 rounders from me $150.00 dollars for magazines that I paid about $8.00 a pop for when I was in high school.

[TarJak]

What I want to know is what happens to people that already have these guns and the clips that may or may not become available in the near future?

Surely everyone won't have to march down to their nearest police station and turn them in.

We are talking tens of thousands of clips and semi-automatic guns in private hands.

You are talking millions of semi-automatic rifles: http://www.slate.com/blogs/crime/2012/12/20/assault_rifle_stats_how_many_assault_rifles_are_th ere_in_america.html

A November 2012 Congressional Research Service report found that, as of 2009, there were approximately 310 million firearms in the United States: “114 million handguns, 110 million rifles, and 86 million shotguns.” However, author William J. Krouse went on to note that “data are not available on the number of ‘assault weapons’ in private possession or available for sale, but one study estimated that 1.5 million assault weapons were privately owned in 1994.

Even if you say only 2% of the 110 million rifles are in the banned categories you are still talking about 2.2 million guns plus all the mags to go with them. I've said elsewhere that I can't see the US being able to afford to run a buy back of these weapons as at below market rate of $1500 per weapon you'd be talking a cost of $3.3bn plus mag costs. If there are more than that then the math gets worse for the Treasury. Nothing in comparison to the deficit mind, but can you see Congress passing another $3bn plus in the current economic climate? Not to mention the bleating that will come from the manufacturers about jobs etc.

My guess is that they would(notice i did not use will) wind up grandfathering in already produced magazines just like they did with previous bans.Even that New York ban makes it crime only if you happen to get caught with an illegal magazine so a smart New York gun owner would move to another state if they can not do this then they just keep their high cap magazines out of sight.

It will be nearly impossible to pass any such laws through congress though and even if they did there are more than enough states that would not ratify.That leaves an executive order but those can be vetoed by Congress 2/3 majority.I think in the end what they will wind up with is some sort unilateral requirement on back ground checks right now private sales and in some states sales at guns shows do not require a back ground check.
And so the US will go around the same buoy again with the next shooting of children.

So how does the Congress veto look in the current make-up? If it goes along party lines then the executive order would stand would it not? If its a conscience vote then I'd say its up in the air.

[Stealhead]

The US Congress is expert in going around buoys on most every matter I don't see why that would change.Also the general public does not support total bans as I understand universal background checks are most widely supported.

Honestly banning certain firearms is not going to stop anyone from shooting children or anyone for that matter.A person like that will find a way people in China run into schools and stab kids to death.If you made magazine size limited then a person simply carries more magazines. If you ban all guns they'll use a knife or some other weapon or make some type of bomb.

No offense but from what I understand Australia seems to be very much a nanny state they even have restrictions on what can be in video games and entertainment.No thanks I say I'll take the risks of having a little more freedom myself.

[Armistead]

The true number of guns is probably around a billion. Most studies say they're over 200,000 guns per year smuggled into the US, including full autos. Anyone that wants to buy one, doing a little leg work, can easily buy one, inner cities are full of them.

I may have said, but the US public owns more fully autos than the police, about 300,000.

The majority of Americans will never turn in their guns and all this talk has done is increase the buying of all guns 300%.

I don't see anything getting passed, cept maybe 100% background check on legally purchased guns.

Many of the gun states have already made it clear they will ignore gun laws passed by the feds.

[Betonov]

It's a gun culture. Let them have their guns. If I move there and get citizenship I'll buy myself some guns.

I love guns, but I love my countries gun control better. Would never support a free carry here. But even here if I decide to shoot up my village, it would take me a few weeks to get an AK.

The solution is the hardest to implement. Less guns won't solve it. It's identifying the psycho before the bloody deed.

[TarJak]

The US Congress is expert in going around buoys on most every matter I don't see why that would change.Also the general public does not support total bans as I understand universal background checks are most widely supported.
I certainly agree with that.

Honestly banning certain firearms is not going to stop anyone from shooting children or anyone for that matter.A person like that will find a way people in China run into schools and stab kids to death.If you made magazine size limited then a person simply carries more magazines. If you ban all guns they'll use a knife or some other weapon or make some type of bomb.Given the lack of evidence supporting your claim I have to disagree. In fact the evidence here in Australia is that since the restrictions on military style semi-auto's (1997) there have been ZERO mass shootings in Australia. Did it remove all violent crime here? No and there are still deaths caused by gunshot wounds all to regularly. However nothing like Port Arthur, Newman, Aurora, Comumbine etc. has happened since. Did it reduce the risk? Do the math.

You can still obtain semi-automatic rifles here. They are even manufactured here: https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&ved=0CDUQqQIwAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.smh.com.au%2Fnational%2Faustr alianmade-but-only-for-gmen-and-the-movies-20130123-2d7j9.html&ei=COgCUei_B4WuiQfe24CQAQ&usg=AFQjCNEN9cJT2pXmoXcW680t7RS4Kv7c2Q&sig2=wxVUUXmZm1skwke5k0XXaQ&bvm=bv.41524429,d.aGc

Its just that much harder and the restrictions make it harder for nutters to get hold of them.

No offense
The standard precursor to a very offensive statement.

but from what I understand Australia seems to be very much a nanny state they even have restrictions on what can be in video games and entertainment.
Do your research before you make ludicrous statements. http://civilliberty.about.com/od/freespeech/tp/History-of-Censorship.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motion_Picture_Association_of_America_film_rating_ system
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_Classification_Board

No thanks I say I'll take the risks of having a little more freedom myself.
I'd rather live in a place where I do not feel the need to carry a gun to protect myself and my family. Oh wait... I do.:03:

Does our government annoy me. Yes. Do they do stupid things. Yes. Are there restrictions on my life I don't like. Yes. Having visited the US several times I find the intrusion of Homeland security much more invasive and "nanny state" than anything I've seen out here.

[Stealhead]

@Tarjak You got me there I had heard the "nanny state" complaints from some Aussies on holiday while back.Not sure where I heard the part about the control over media.I never really went into in depth research on the topic honestly.

I am unsure what makes you think that people feel unsafe without a firearm in the US.This does not seem to be the view held by every American or even a majority.I easily know personally more people that dislike firearms or do not feel the need to own one.

In Australia the strict regulation may have had an effect thing is how many murders did it really prevent?Did the violent crime rate go down and was it because of simply the firearms restrictions? The way I see it many things can have an effect on crime.

@Armistead There is no way that there are 1 billion firearms in the US not modern functional ones that is an over estimation by a substantial amount. Personally I feel that the number of illegal firearms in the US is greatly exaggerated by parties that wish to claim that firearms laws only punish "good guys".

[TarJak]

@Tarjak You got me there I had heard the "nanny state" complaints from some Aussies on holiday while back.Not sure where I heard the part about the control over media.I never really went into in depth research on the topic honestly.

I am unsure what makes you think that people feel unsafe without a firearm in the US.This does not seem to be the view held by every American or even a majority.I easily know personally more people that dislike firearms or do not feel the need to own one.
Mainly some of the comments from people I've met both here and in the US. Quite a lot of comments here on Subsim also. I know no-one here (yes there will be some I don't know), who owns a weapon for home defence. I know many people who are gun owners, but all only have them for hunting or recreational (target), shooting.

In Australia the strict regulation may have had an effect thing is how many murders did it really prevent?Did the violent crime rate go down and was it because of simply the firearms restrictions? The way I see it many things can have an effect on crime.
I agree there are many things which can have an effect on crime, however this legislation, (as the proposed US legislation is), was aimed at a particular type of crime. So far since introduction here, there has not been a repeat of that type of crime. Shootings still happen and violent crime still happens and criminals still have illegal guns, but nutters don't go on rampages in schools or public places.

[Buddahaid]

Tarjak, just how many assault style weapons were confiscated there? How many mass shootings before? Could you're statistic be skewed due to low numbers in the first place.

[Cybermat47]

Tarjak, just how many assault style weapons were confiscated there? How many mass shootings before? Could you're statistic be skewed due to low numbers in the first place.

There were 13 mass shootings between 1978 and 1996. After gun control legislation was passed, there were none.

[TarJak]

Tarjak, just how many assault style weapons were confiscated there? How many mass shootings before? Could you're statistic be skewed due to low numbers in the first place.

There we over 600,000 weapons bought back by the government and over a million volunteered under an amnesty.

Small in comparison to the US, but comparable on a per capita basis. Interesting factoid is that recently gun ownership went through the pre- 1997 levels. http://www.smh.com.au/national/australia-reloads-as-gun-amnesties-fail-to-cut-arms-20130113-2cnnq.html

Its just the type of guns that changed.

[Ducimus]

1. ) Choose Your Own Crime Stats (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ooa98FHuaU0)

2.) War of the Words (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q2riOiBaZrg)

3.) The Second Amendment in 2013 (David B. Kopel) (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6swSM_nqCnk) - Cato Instittute

4.) Interview with West Virginia Citizens Defense League President, Keith Morgan, on The State Journal's Decision Makers. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ECxDvwObwZk)

5.) The PRIVILEGE of Being ANTI-GUN (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kdkiLC06Nso)

6.) What's an ASSAULT RIFLE for DUMMIES (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4wUGiuMpFJ0)

7.) WHY does anyone NEED an ASSAULT RIFLE? (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0R3uLTnzs60)

8.) How to Stop MASS SHOOTINGS (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hR3t7j2tUec)

9.) Gun Misconceptions (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eM81hQqWIx0)

Lastly, for the love of god,
10.) Magazine vs Clip (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UoSNHe413rY)

[Stealhead]

1. ) Choose Your Own Crime Stats (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ooa98FHuaU0)

2.) War of the Words (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q2riOiBaZrg)

3.) The Second Amendment in 2013 (David B. Kopel) (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6swSM_nqCnk) - Cato Instittute

4.) Interview with West Virginia Citizens Defense League President, Keith Morgan, on The State Journal's Decision Makers. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ECxDvwObwZk)

5.) The PRIVILEGE of Being ANTI-GUN (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kdkiLC06Nso)

6.) What's an ASSAULT RIFLE for DUMMIES (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4wUGiuMpFJ0)

7.) WHY does anyone NEED an ASSAULT RIFLE? (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0R3uLTnzs60)

8.) How to Stop MASS SHOOTINGS (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hR3t7j2tUec)

9.) Gun Misconceptions (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eM81hQqWIx0)

Lastly, for the love of god,
10.) Magazine vs Clip (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UoSNHe413rY)


Long time no see there old Ducimus.
I liked the Reds fan video and I like hickok45's channel his vids are long but always interesting.

[Armistead]

Good to see you posting Duci, didn't know what happened to you, even started a post asking about you and wanted to know you were OK.

[Ducimus]

Long time no see there old Ducimus.
I liked the Reds fan video and I like hickok45's channel his vids are long but always interesting.

Watch them all. Every argument i could make, hell every argument ANY pro gun person could make is there.

Good to see you posting Duci, didn't know what happened to you, even started a post asking about you and wanted to know you were OK.

Yeah i saw that. Responded to it. Basically, i found a new hobby. Target shooting. Wife and I go every weekend, and if that wasn't enough im reloading our own ammo, which is a hobby unto itself. So yeah im definatly pro gun. I don't think its right that the whole country should have their constitutional rights infringed because of a handful of nutjobs.

[Tribesman]

8.) How to Stop MASS SHOOTINGS (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hR3t7j2tUec)

If you can name one just mass murderer from the past decade then its insane as you are making them into heroes?????
What a muppet:doh:

1. ) Choose Your Own Crime Stats (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ooa98FHuaU0)

Simple basic error, it does not compare

[reignofdeath]

1. ) Choose Your Own Crime Stats (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ooa98FHuaU0)

2.) War of the Words (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q2riOiBaZrg)

3.) The Second Amendment in 2013 (David B. Kopel) (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6swSM_nqCnk) - Cato Instittute

4.) Interview with West Virginia Citizens Defense League President, Keith Morgan, on The State Journal's Decision Makers. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ECxDvwObwZk)

5.) The PRIVILEGE of Being ANTI-GUN (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kdkiLC06Nso)

6.) What's an ASSAULT RIFLE for DUMMIES (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4wUGiuMpFJ0)

7.) WHY does anyone NEED an ASSAULT RIFLE? (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0R3uLTnzs60)

8.) How to Stop MASS SHOOTINGS (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hR3t7j2tUec)

9.) Gun Misconceptions (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eM81hQqWIx0)

Lastly, for the love of god,
10.) Magazine vs Clip (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UoSNHe413rY)
Made me chuckle, good finds Duc :arrgh!:

[Tribesman]

good finds Duc
Not really, most of it is in the same level as the Brady bunch but on the opposite end of the scale.
Kopel does make a good point on capacity, but his statement on shotguns under the '34 act is absolutely ridiculous.