Gun Control thread (merged many)

[Ducimus]

Originally Posted by Stealhead

In my opinion the only "assault weapon" ever named as such is the STG.44

Well, i definitely agree that the term is a media and politician coined term. Ever notice how the ? And why am i still posting about this subject? Because it is

[geetrue]

All the gov has to do is put the VA in charge of who can own an assault weapon and who can not own one.

At the present time the VA has a backlog of 900,00 claims that can take up to a year to settle:

http://www.military.com/daily-news/2...4213943&rank=3

Currently, the average wait times for new veteran claimants to see a VA doctor can be up to 600 days, and more in some parts of the country.

Joe Klein blasted VA Secretary Eric Shinseki over the backlog, which now stands at about 900,000, and said he should quit.

[Stealhead]

Originally Posted by geetrue

All the gov has to do is put the VA in charge of who can own an assault weapon and who can not own one.

At the present time the VA has a backlog of 900,00 claims that can take up to a year to settle:

http://www.military.com/daily-news/2...4213943&rank=3

They go out of their way to help those that fought for their country don't they? Sadly it is known that some vets actually committed suicide in frustration.
I heard on NPR a while back they spoke with an Iraq/Afghanistan vet this guy cant work and had been waiting for 2 years at the time they spoke with him and his wife on his complete claim.
He was waiting just for them to get to him and start working on his case mind you.

I would not worry about it because many Sheriffs say that they will not enforce gun bans anyway and not just the right wing ones like Arpiao.

"... shall not be infringed." (my emphasis).

So you cannot have any restrictions on owning firearms.
That obviously includes for convicted felons too.


So to elaborate on your next point, a convicted terrorist has the undeniable right to own a nuclear armed submarine.

Its just so easy to show how that "not be infringed" line of arguement is absolute nonsense isn't it.

[tater]

Originally Posted by Tribesman

So you cannot have any restrictions on owning firearms.
That obviously includes for convicted felons too.


So to elaborate on your next point, a convicted terrorist has the undeniable right to own a nuclear armed submarine.

Its just so easy to show how that "not be infringed" line of arguement is absolute nonsense isn't it.

That's what it says, and there were no such restrictions on felons at the time. I'm fine with that. I'd rather have no restrictions (which was the intent) than unconstitutional ones. Disallowing some felons was part of the Federal Firearms Act of 1938, before that there were no restrictions at all on weapon sales or ownership in the US (except the other FDR crap in 1934 that taxed some guns rather a lot to avoid the 2d).

Of course they were rather more lose about capital punishment back then, and "terrorists" of the exact same persuasion were actually a problem in even the first US administration (the so-called "barbary pirates" were in fact operating under the rules of jihad such as they are out here in dar al harb (slaves may be taken, etc)). Such terrorists would face summary execution for their crimes (like any other pirates), so they'd not likely have a chance at firearms possession in the US. If they managed to get here, then you are right, they'd be no different than anyone else purchasing arms.

The argument is not "nonsense," the language of the 2d is clear, as is the meaning from contemporary writings by its authors.

There is a mechanism to change this for changing times, it's called amending the Constitution. I'm happy to try and come up with a redone 2d that will satisfy 2/3 of both houses, and 3/4 of the State legislatures. You could insert "small" before "arms," for example. They could append "Area-effect weapons, being of indiscriminate effect, may be controlled as deemed necessary by Congress." This would open the door to entirely arbitrary legislation regarding HE, WMD, and even machine guns (which were designed to lay down a "beaten area" not aimed fire for each round).

[Ducimus]

I think the source of this video might be "conspiracy theory central", but... this video makes a good case for what the second amendment is really about.

The argument is not "nonsense," the language of the 2d is clear, as is the meaning from contemporary writings by its authors.

Unless you can show that there have been no restrictions on firearms from the time the authors first put ink in a quill you are obviously incorrect.

The restrictions they have a plain enough, it goes with the thinking at the time.

I see you walked right in to the shipping one

I do like your honest approach though, you think criminals and the insane should be allowed guns. After all if they were not allowed guns then the 2nd cannot mean what you want it to mean.

I think the source of this video might be "conspiracy theory central"

What gave it away? the video on FEMA death camps?