The Guns of Spring

[BigJimCalhoun]

I just ordered the two remaining parts for my AR last night and the place shipped them today. (Buttstock kit and rear sight). I really did not want to spend any more money right now, but given recent events, wanted to get the project completed.

My wife and I (both civilians) are new gun owners within the last two years. We each have our carry licenses and have taken classes past the basic CCW class. A number of people at my place of employ (large software company) have made multiple purchases also. My neighbors across the street each just applied for their licences too and bought two handguns.

My point is that though we do not pretend to be of the caliber of those quiet professionals here as it relates to firearm training but the more law abiding citizens that aqcuire firearms, the more citizens there are willing to fight for 2A.

The second ammendment is not about the right to hunt and I am sick of seeing that argument.

[6.8SPC_DUMP]

Here's a bill I can get behind:

Self-Defense Act of 2009 - Declares that a person not prohibited under the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act from receiving a firearm shall have the right to obtain firearms for security and to use firearms in defense of:

(1) self or family against a reasonably perceived threat of imminent and unlawful infliction of serious bodily injury;

(2) self or family in the course of the commission by another person of a violent felony against the person or a member of the person's family; and

(3) the person's home in the course of the commission of a felony by another person. Authorizes persons whose rights under this Act have been violated to bring an action in U.S. district court against the United States, any state, or any person for damages, injunctive relief, and such other relief as the court deems appropriate.

1/6/2009--Introduced.
Sponsor - Rep. Roscoe Bartlett [R, MD-6]

http://www.opencongress.org/bill/111-h17/show

[grog18b]

I've addressed this many times... You cannot legislate human behavior, and you also cannot keep mentally unstable people from killing people. Whether it's a gun, knife, car, or club, humans kill humans. Fact of life. We passed laws against it, but darn it... People STILL keep killing other people. So...

What logic do these people use to even propose that more strict laws, or bans, or confiscation will stop the mentally unstable from killing people?

Rape laws, have never prevented one single rape. There are laws against theft, but people continue to steal. There are laws against murder, but alas... People are still killing each other.

I can only assume that the people coming up with these proposed bans, and anti-gun laws sit around thinking "How can I punish society for these crimes? I have to do something, but I am too stupid to just realize the simple fact that, people kill people, and there's not a damn thing I can do about it."

As horrible as these mass killings are, the writer totally misses the point of what he is writing about, and assumes that, if guns were removed from the equation, no more killings would occur, and these mental defectives would just sit at home, harmless... This is a very stupid assumption on his part.

One has to look no further than human history, at other mass killings before the firearm was even invented, or at other mass murderers that did not use firearms. Jack the ripper for one. Jeffery Dahmer, Ray and Faye Copeland, Dean Corll, Angelo Buono, Jr, Jerry Brudos, Debbie Brown, William Bonin, Jim Jones, Ted Bundy, the 911 terrorists... Here's a link to photos and stories: http://crime.about.com/od/serial/ig/serialkillerphotos/

Note, most all of these killers did NOT use firearms, but media and the writer fails to recognize that fact, and only sees the problem as the gun. Agreed, he is a dumbass. Mental defective murderers will use any means at their disposal in order to kill people. It is their desire to kill people, and that is what this guy fails to understand. To believe that guns are the problem in today's society is the problem. Failure to recognize mental propensity for violence, by whatever means available. Guns are easy, but not the preferred method by most serial killers... Why? Because these people get their jollies from killing up close and personal, and a firearm does not allow them to do that. It takes the "fun" out of their pleasure. Do they sometimes use firearms? Yes, they do. But they have also used their bare hands, cars, jet planes, poisoned kool aid, knives, clubs, and any other weapon they can come up with. Legislating guns will do nothing but prepare a disarmed populace for whatever the Government has in mind, and leave them at the mercy of criminals.

I also firmly believe that Governments, unchecked by an armed populace, have killed more people in human history than all criminals and mental defectives put together. So... Which is more dangerous? The most dangerous thing to freedom and liberty is an unarmed populace. The asshat that wrote that article proves that the pen is more dangerous than the gun. Sheep will read, and believe his writings. That, is dangerous.

[Onward]

All a citizen can do is ask for some common sense around the Second Amendment. The assault weapons ban, outlawing 19 military style guns that no hunter with sense of fair play would ever use, ( ) should be reinstated. President Bush and Congress let it expire in 2004, even though it was a godsend for police officers and supported by a majority of gun owners.


"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

Didn't the Second Amendment have more to do with hunting the British at the time? Since when did fair play become an issue here?

Sorry if I'm out of line posting here. Back to lurking...

[The Reaper]

Originally Posted by Onward

All a citizen can do is ask for some common sense around the Second Amendment. The assault weapons ban, outlawing 19 military style guns that no hunter with sense of fair play would ever use, ( ) should be reinstated. President Bush and Congress let it expire in 2004, even though it was a godsend for police officers and supported by a majority of gun owners.
...

Source for this information?

TR

[Dozer523]

Originally Posted by HOLLiS

The war on private ownership is escalating.

Only against idiots who shouldn't have them in the first place. Nobody is saying take them from people like you. But, does it seem (maybe) a little reasonable to not let these loonies have them?

[The Reaper]

Originally Posted by Dozer523

Only against idiots who shouldn't have them in the first place. Nobody is saying take them from people like you.

Bullshit.

You better reread the proposed legislation.

There ain't any "good guy" exception.

It would apply to all of us.

TR

[Dozer523]

Originally Posted by The Reaper

Bullshit.

You better reread the proposed legislation.

There ain't any "good guy" exception.

It would apply to all of us.

TR

I guess we're going to have to disagree on this one, like allowing weapons on school grounds.

[Pete]

Originally Posted by Dozer523

I guess we're going to have to disagree on this one, like allowing weapons on school grounds.

If I go out to the range for a couple of hours I have to remember to swing by the house to drop the weapons off before I pick up my child at school.

So if no "weapons on school grounds" is such a great law why have there been so many school shootings?

Remember when they were pushing the weapons exclusion zones for around schools? I don't remember the exact distance but it was something like 1/4 mile. Sit down at a county map, set a compass to that distance and draw a circle around every public and private school. That would have impacted a bunch of people.

[Blitzzz (RIP)]

All of these attempts are "infringements" of the 2nd amendment.
Onward your arguement is typical of fodder used by the anti-s. the second amendment is not for hunting and you right to bear arms is for a militia parity with the central governments military. Written when there was not much disparity between the military and the civilian populace weaponry. the 2nd amemdment really does not regulate the types of weaponry a citizen can own only the governments worries over the citizen's ability to join into a militia and over throw a tyrannical government.
There is all ways a crew who believe they know more than the founders and try to relegate the 2nd amendment to hunting privileges. Blitzzz

[nmap]

I believe we have an example of gun control legislation that reveals something of the actual goals - and those goals include (at least) restricting acquisition of firearms.

The National Firearms Act of 1934 began the regulation of, among other things, machine guns under title II. Under the law, it was possible for an individual to go to a dealer licensed to sell the particular class of firearms, pay for the weapon, but not take delivery. The dealer prepared papers, which the buyer then took for completion.

The process required the prospective buyer to obtain fingerprint cards and passport photos. The purchaser then went to a specified official - in the local case here, it was the county sheriff. The Sheriff's office then ran a quick check for criminal offenses and warrants and approved (if appropriate) the papers.

The next step required the purchaser (or the dealer on the purchaser's behalf) to send a $200 fee to the BATF. They, in turn, arranged for a background check. The waiting period was at least months, and could extend to as much as a year. At the end of that time, papers with a tax stamp affixed were issued and the purchaser could lawfully take delivery of the firearm.

Notice that we have 2 independent background checks, registration, and a multi-month waiting period.

It is my understanding that for the entire duration of the law, no lawful owner of a registered machine gun ever committed a crime with the registered firearm.

However, the Firearms Owners' Protection Act of 1986 included a last-minute addition that banned the registration of new machine guns to civilians. It is worth noting that the ban has not been repealed, nor has there been any serious discussion of repealing it.

It is worth noting that Vice President Cheney has a substantial collection of such weapons.

So....if registration, background checks, and waiting periods suffice, why was the purchase of newly manufactured machine guns banned? Why has the ban not been repealed? Why have a ban if the purchasers who obeyed the law as it was have not committed crimes with the weapons?

Now, as to firearms on school campuses...

At UTSA in San Antonio, the campus is fairly dispersed. It has nearly 30,000 registered students, with the great majority commuting between home and class, and only a few students in residence.

After the West Virginia shootings, a rather bored-looking officer parked his patrol car where everyone entering the campus could see him.

To get to class, the students drove past him, parked, then took their books and other supplies to class. The supplies were in back packs, rolling luggage, and other such items. There was, and is, no mechanism to discern what is in such packs and luggage.

So....if I were attending a class...or, for that matter, teaching one...and a bad guy shows up with a firearm and starts doing bad things...

1) Will a person intent on mass murder really be deterred by a law that prohibits bringing a weapon on campus?

2) What should I do if faced with such a situation? Use sarcasm? Glare at the perp? Make a last gesture of defiance? Throw chalk?

I pose the second question partly in jest. But the issue is serious. Are the law-abiding people in the University to be sacrificed for someone else's ideal?

[The Reaper]

Originally Posted by Dozer523

I guess we're going to have to disagree on this one, like allowing weapons on school grounds.

We can disagree on our opinions.

We cannot disagree about the facts.

Read the proposed legislation. It is what it is. It does not discriminate. All citizens who own firearms will register. Those who can be denied the right to keep and bear arms will be denied. Eventually, it will be those with PTSD, then those who have been suspected of being disturbed, eventually, it will encompass everyone. See the results of the Lautenberg Amendment. All guns will be registered and taxed. With the new "Assault Weapon Ban", all semi-autos will be restricted, registered, and eventually banned. Then they will outlaw all other types of firearms. First, large, powerful firearms, then small concealable firearms, weapons with scopes, weapons with no scopes, weapons that hold more than ten rounds, weapons that hold more than six rounds, weapons that hold more than two rounds, weapons over .45 caliber. Weapons over .30 caliber. Weapons over .22 caliber. High cap magazines will no longer be allowed. All ammunition sales will be restricted and taxed out of existence.

You will probably live to see the total evisceration of the Second Amendment. A total ban on private firearms ownership in the United States is the eventual goal. They understand that they cannot get it all at once, but they eventually will, due to a thousand new firearms laws, complacence and the oblivious. The situation in Great Britain is the template, and while not yet complete, is the eventual goal.

Those who choose to ignore the facts and who believe that just a few more laws are needed to keep the bad guys from getting guns, are the sheep.

I believe that criminals are responsible for their actions, not the objects they choose to employ. Those who wrongfully harm others should be punished to the maximum extent of the law.

I further believe that there are a lot of people walking the streets who should be locked up, if not executed.

Thoroughly read what is being proposed, and get back to us.

TR

[Saoirse]

Originally Posted by The Reaper

We can disagree on our opinions.

We cannot disagree about the facts.

Read the proposed legislation. It is what it is. It does not discriminate. All citizens who own firearms will register. Those who can be denied the right to keep and bear arms will be denied. Eventually, it will be those with PTSD, then those who have been suspected of being disturbed, eventually, it will encompass everyone. See the results of the Lautenberg Amendment. All guns will be registered and taxed. With the new "Assault Weapon Ban", all semi-autos will be restricted, registered, and eventually banned. Then they will outlaw all other types of firearms. First, large, powerful firearms, then small concealable firearms, weapons with scopes, weapons with no scopes, weapons that hold more than ten rounds, weapons that hold more than six rounds, weapons that hold more than two rounds, weapons over .45 caliber. Weapons over .30 caliber. Weapons over .22 caliber. High cap magazines will no longer be allowed. All ammunition sales will be restricted and taxed out of existence.

You will probably live to see the total evisceration of the Second Amendment. A total ban on private firearms ownership in the United States is the eventual goal. They understand that they cannot get it all at once, but they eventually will, due to a thousand new firearms laws, complacence and the oblivious. The situation in Great Britain is the template, and while not yet complete, is the eventual goal.

Those who choose to ignore the facts and who believe that just a few more laws are needed to keep the bad guys from getting guns, are the sheep.

I believe that criminals are responsible for their actions, not the objects they choose to employ. Those who wrongfully harm others should be punished to the maximum extent of the law.

I further believe that there are a lot of people walking the streets who should be locked up, if not executed.

Thoroughly read what is being proposed, and get back to us.

TR

Well said TR and I completely agree. As seen in Great Britain, citizens that have held back weapons and tried to protect their property and their lives go to prison for much longer than the POS's who threaten them! Self-defense will not longer be "self defense" it will be called out right murder, the victim thus becoming the perpetrator!
A few weeks ago I watched a documentary on the History Channel about Hitlers SS...they spoke to several Germans who recalled what life was like after their right to own weapons was taken away. One old man said that they couldn't fight the Nazis ..."with what? All we had at that point was our fists, what could we fight them with?" If the constant levying of restrictions and taxes upon our 2nd Amendment continue...we too will be asking similar questions.

[Paslode]

Just my outlandish opinion here, but a reason we have the 2nd Amendment is to curtail the efforts of self absorbed, agenda driven individuals with 'evil' intent like Diane Feinstein.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U3zOU...layer_embedded

Ms. Fienstein and her fellow ilk will have no issue shoving their wishes down our throats with the barrel of a gun. The only thing preventing them from doing so at present is the 2nd Amendment.

[Onward]

TR and Blitzzz,

My apologies if my post came across the wrong way. I was trying to quote Richard's original post without inserting the entire thing, but apparently I went about it the wrong way. I am a firm believer in the second amendment. Though deployed right now (I have the privilege of carrying a long gun everywhere I go), I carry concealed on a daily basis at home, and I own multiple evil black guns.

The point I was trying to make was exactly what you said, Blitzzz, that the second amendment is based on having a militia, and not on the individual's right to hunt. My comment about hunting the British was meant to highlight this point, and the "fair play" comment was meant to relate to the unconstitutionality of regulating the types of guns that citizens can own. I promise you, I am not in any way aligned with the anti-2nd amendment movement. I should have expounded on this, or not posted at all.

My post was poorly thought out, and again, I apologize if I rubbed you gentlemen the wrong way.

Back to lurking in the Weapons Discussion Area...