posted
I suspect the point might merely be that the initial attack-teachers as thugs-was profoundly stupid and offensive.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yeah okay I guess I should address the teacher angle specifically?
So are right wingers actually saying we should force teachers to carry guns? Or just saying that teachers should be allowed to do so? I've seen the latter, not the former. Big difference, and if if the latter, my above post applies.
Also, I bet right wingers woukd agree that even a union thug would try to defend some innocent kids. I mean, come on.
Posts: 3580 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Stone Wolf: Technically I think Sam is correct. But you need special permission from the ATF and it doesn't apply to guns made after... Some time. Thirty or forty years ago, I think. So the gun has to already have been made and registered before then.
It's basically an exception put in to appease gun collectors, as far as I can recall. To this extent, I spoke sloppily. My bad.
Posts: 3580 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Come on, generally speaking automatic (burst fire) weapons are illegal to own. There may be some weird old exceptions floating around, but as a common rule of law, it fires more then once per trigger pull = felony.
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:I suspect the point might merely be that the initial attack-teachers as thugs-was profoundly stupid and offensive.
Especially considering that coming right off of the heels of well-established right wing assaults of teachers as overpaid members of thuggish tax-sucking teachers unions and that they need to be cut down to size or held more accountable blahblah merit pay blahblah (countdown to people saying this was totally not a common right-wing sentiment, 3, 2, 1), turning around and saying that teachers should now also have any expectation from them in any sense to play armed security on account of our kids to account for our little Murica!™ mass school shooting spree problem is just eyeroll territory at its finest.
This is literally the only place I have seen the message misinterpreted at all, to say nothing of it being misinterpreted so severely, which is weird given the profound conservatism of some of the places I'm at.
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: Come on, generally speaking automatic (burst fire) weapons are illegal to own.
Superficial statement. Generally speaking, a semi is illegal to drive. It, like owning burst mode weapons, requires a specific permit and ~states ritez~ your mileage may vary ~states ritez~
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
If you see a burst fire or machine gun in a movie, then it's legal to own in the U.S. Yes you need a federal license, and I imagine they're hard to get, but yes you can own one. Even in CA.
I know this because my friend Scott Buckwald is a property master in Hollywood, and has such a license. He also has many funny stories about being pulled over by police with a truck full of machine guns and ammunition (including explosives). Before he got the license on his own he relied on gun hobbyists who had similar licenses.
Also, if you go to Las Vegas, you'll see lots of advertising for gun shops where you can go and fire a machine gun, apparently for free, as a promotional tool.
Posts: 3735 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Sam, if it helps you understand: my initial response wasn't based on a misinterpretation.
I was objecting to the language used, and ignoring the message of the picture. I got it, I was just more interested in ranting about assault weapon misinformation.
Sorry for the confusion!
Posts: 3580 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro: Otherwise known as a poll tax? You love the constitution so much. Tell us all about how that's okay.
This isn't the proper thread to discuss voting issues. And if you have a problem with constitutional interpretations, take it up with the Supreme Court.
quote:Originally posted by scholarette: I had to register my car, demonstrate my ability to drive, yearly show the car is in good repair and I have to follow all sorts of rules while driving. I see no reason why a car, designed for transportation, has more regulation than a product designed to kill (killing animals counts as killing). In ten states there are more gun deaths than driving deaths. Regulation things that kill that many people is a good idea. There are also a bunch of safety items that could be implemented in guns but since you cant sue gun companies, the companies don't bother. For example, the gun James bond uses that will only fire for him is actually available, but gun companies won't implement it. Gun companies have no accountability right now and that is a problem.
That would be a persuasive argument except cars don't have a constitutional amendment protecting their possession and use. If one doesn't think the current interpretation of the 2nd Amendment is what the founding fathers intended, that't fine, but current laws reflect the view of the highest judicial authority in our nation.
Regarding your other point, which safety measures do you want gun manufacturers to be forced to implement? And for what do you want them to be accountable?
Posts: 570 | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank: An "assault rifle" is none of that, though. To be an assault rifle a weapon must be capable of automatic or burst fire. Such weapons are illegal to the public and have been for many decades. Since the thirties, if I remember right.
I know of no such federal law. The GCA of 1986 banned new assault weapons from being distributed, not owned. I don't know where you get this business about the 30's. It is not illegal, full stop, to own an assault rifle in the US- though it illegal to buy a new one.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: Come on, generally speaking automatic (burst fire) weapons are illegal to own.
Superficial statement. Generally speaking, a semi is illegal to drive. It, like owning burst mode weapons, requires a specific permit and ~states ritez~ your mileage may vary ~states ritez~
Because semi trucks are just as common as legal automatic weapons...I repeat, automatic weapons are commonly illegal in the US.
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
The Federal Assault Weapons Ban expired on September 13, 2004. It is once again legal to buy them, as well as high capacity magazines. Which is why Nancy Lanza was able to own both.
BTW, there is no automatic or burst fire capability required for a weapon to be considered an Assault Weapon.
Posts: 3735 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Even though Dan and I have tried to make this clear in the past, let's just get all the confusion removed:
quote:An assault rifle is a select-fire (either fully automatic or burst capable) rifle that uses an intermediate cartridge and a detachable magazine. It is not to be confused with assault weapons.[1] Assault rifles are the standard service rifles in most modern armies. Assault rifles are categorized in between light machine guns, which are intended more for sustained automatic fire in a light support role, and submachine guns, which fire a pistol cartridge rather than a rifle cartridge.
quote: In the United States, there are a variety of statutory definitions of assault weapons in local, state, and federal laws that define them by a set of characteristics they possess, sometimes described as military-style features useful in combat.[2] Using lists of physical features or specific firearms in defining assault weapons in the U.S. was first codified by the language of the now-expired 1994 Federal Assault Weapons Ban.[3] A common usage is to interchange the term with assault rifle, but unlike that term, "assault weapon" has no consistent or specific definition and so is subject to varying definitions for varying purposes, including definitions that include common non-military-style firearms.
Assault rifle = one thing and one thing only. A rifle with selective fire chambered in a shortened full rifle round.
Assault weapon = political term meant to elicit an emotional reaction for the purposes of gathering support for gun control.
posted
See the confusion between, e.g. Orincoro and Glenn's posts for why the asinine "assault weapons" legislature is so confusing and obfuscating.
Glenn is referring to "assault weapons," i.e. semi automatic weapons. Not only did the assault weapons ban not require guns be automatic (i.e. that they be assault rifles), I don't think there were even any provisions for automatic weapons. To my knowledge the language focused entirely on semi autos.
Orincoro is referring to fully automatic assault rifles (not assault weapons) and machine guns. Orincoro, I was thinking I the NFA of the 1930s, but it didn't ban machine guns outright, that's true. As I already clarified to Stone Wolf, I was oversimplifying when I said that.
Posts: 3580 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank: Sam, if it helps you understand: my initial response wasn't based on a misinterpretation.
Even when I asked you to consider it without the apparently triggering language, you still didn't get what it was about.
quote:I was objecting to the language used, and ignoring the message of the picture. I got it, I was just more interested in ranting about assault weapon misinformation.
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: Come on, generally speaking automatic (burst fire) weapons are illegal to own.
Superficial statement. Generally speaking, a semi is illegal to drive. It, like owning burst mode weapons, requires a specific permit and ~states ritez~ your mileage may vary ~states ritez~
Because semi trucks are just as common as legal automatic weapons...I repeat, automatic weapons are commonly illegal in the US.
You're wrong. You can own an automatic firearm in most of the united states. Automatic firearms are only illegal in about 9 states. Just adjust to the fact that the prior belief that automatic weapons were illegal in the united states was incorrect and move on.
quote:Originally posted by capaxinfiniti:
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro: Otherwise known as a poll tax? You love the constitution so much. Tell us all about how that's okay.
This isn't the proper thread to discuss voting issues.
That's why you were talking about them in the quote orincoro is responding to here, right?
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: That's why you were talking about them in the quote orincoro is responding to here, right?
You're having trouble following the exchange of posts. That's why you don't understand what's being said.
Posts: 570 | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Contrary to popular belief, fully automatic weapons are NOT illegal. They are however HIGHLY regulated. Full auto weapons have been regulated with three different pieces of legislation. The first was the National Firearms Act of 1934, then the Gun Control Act of 1968, and finally the Hughes Amendment in 1986. In essence, what these three laws have done is to say respectfully that fully automatic firearms must be taxed and regulated, cannot be imported from outside the United States, and can no longer manufacture and/or register new/existing full auto weapons with the federal government (BATFE).
In order to legally own one, you must first find one that you wish to buy. For it to be legal, it must have been made and registered with the BATFE prior to 19 May 1986. These are what are known as transferrable NFA or Class III items.
Your next step will be to negotiate a price with the buyer. Most buyers have their prices set pretty firm and the going rate for a M16 varies by condition and model (M16A1, A2, AR-15 conversion, etc). A brand new, unfired, factory Colt M16A2 is going to run you about $18,000+ while a used AR-15 conversion will run you about $9,500-$13,000+. You will just have to shop around and look for the best deal out there.
Once you find one and negotiate a price you will need to pay the seller. Depending on if you are buying the item from out of state or not, you may also need to find a local Class III FFL/SOT to handle the transfer. NFA/Class III items CANNOT be shipped or carried across state lines without the proper prior approved paperwork. If buying out of state, you would need to have it transferred to a local seller who would then transfer it to you. Once you have found a FFL/SOT if needed, you will need to pay the seller. Unlike with other firearms where you can often do installment payments for years or put it on a credit card, most NFA sellers want full funds up front although some are willing to work with you and do half now, half when the paperwork comes back. At best, you are looking at half up front before he will even start the paperwork.
Once the seller is satisfied with the payment plan and has his funds, he will begin the paperwork. This requires a little bit of work on your end. You will need to get a few things in order for the process to be complete. You will need to get two sets of fingerprint cards done, two passport photos, and fill out a Form 4 (to include the signature of the CLEO of the area you live in) and write a check to the Department of the Treasury for the $200 transfer tax. It is this special tax that will allow you to legally own the weapon. Once you have all this together along with the required paperwork from the seller, you will ship it all to the BATFE who will then have one of their 10 or so inspectors sit down and review it. Any little error will cause it to be rejected and sent back. This is where the frustration begins as the wait starts. It generally takes anywhere from 50-90 days for them to process an application. The main thing that they will be doing is running an extensive background check on you through the FBI criminal database using all your information as well as your fingerprints.
Once the paperwork finally comes back, the seller can then legally ship/transfer the weapon to you. You CANNOT take posession of it before this time or it will be the same as being in possession of an unregistered machine gun which carries a stiff penalty in federal prison.
And that is all there is to it. Once you receive the tax stamp, always makes sure you keep a COPY with the weapon at all times no matter where it goes. Also, remember to keep the original in a SAFE place where nothing will happen to it as the BATFE does not replace lost, stolen, or destroyed tax stamps.
The above advice assumes you are buying in state. If buying out of state, the process is the same, except that you will be required to do two to three transfers. One from the seller to a Class III FFL/SOT if he is not already one, then one from the FFL/SOT in his state to an FFL/SOT in your state, and then from your local FFL/SOT to you. There is no wait time or transfer tax between FFL/SOT's. This means that you will basically only be waiting on the time it takes for two transfers if buying out of state.
With a sign off by the commanding law enforcement officer in your city/county, at least $10,000+, after an extensive background check and 90 days...in about 80% of the US you too can own a legal full auto firearm. I'm still going with "full auto firearms are commonly illegal", but I'll add the caveat that "With enough money and effort one can get one legally."
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank: Sam, if it helps you understand: my initial response wasn't based on a misinterpretation.
Even when I asked you to consider it without the apparently triggering language, you still didn't get what it was about.
I'm not sure which response you're referring to here. There was some cross posting between us, so you asked me to do that once, I continued posting not having seen that, you asked me to do so again, and then I did. I think? Maybe you disagree.
Not sure how important that is though, regardless. I get the point of the image, and I disagree both with its intended point and the implicit assumption it made.
Posts: 3580 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
The implicit assumption is in the word choice, which does matter, that I reacted to already. The "trigger."
The point I tried to explain in two posts, bottom of last page and top of this one. I totally may have missed something, that's just the point I gleaned from it.
If I missed it, though, spell out exactly how and why you think so, though. Don't do a drive by on that, unless you intend to signal that you have zero interest in actually discussing it with me.
Posts: 3580 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I already spelled it out, miss my post? The right wing moved from well-established assaults of teachers as overpaid members of thuggish unions that need to be cut down to size or held more accountable, then after this incident you get a disconcertingly large amount of "these teachers are heroes, we should let them be armed!" The attitude that teachers usually get from the right results in this kind of eyerolling "gee, glad to know you care" sentiment. The right wing in a lot of this country engages in consistently denigrating public teachers and now after six of them get shot, they move to saying that in the wake of this tragedy we should in any sense saddle them with the additional potential obligation of being armed security for the kids, but don't expect that to be paired with the right-wing offering them anything more in the way of benefits or pay. The picture is these 'unionized teacher thugs' are mocking the shallow advocacy offered for them by the same people that call them thugs.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: That's why you were talking about them in the quote orincoro is responding to here, right?
You're having trouble following the exchange of posts. That's why you don't understand what's being said.
yeah, capax. Let's just remember why your opinion on voter ID laws was brought up in the first place.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:...With a sign off by the commanding law enforcement officer in your city/county,...
This right here is the rub that prevents most people from the ability to legally aquire class III weapons without moving someplace rural and very pro-gun (If they have 20k and a clean background). The chief L.E.O.'s in the counties where the vast majority of the U.S. population lives simply won't sign off unless you are one of the special people. I imagine these hurdles might be minor for a rich politically connected type, but they're not for joe sixpack.
Posts: 3 | Registered: Sep 2012
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: That's why you were talking about them in the quote orincoro is responding to here, right?
You're having trouble following the exchange of posts. That's why you don't understand what's being said.
yeah, capax. Let's just remember why your opinion on voter ID laws was brought up in the first place.
Because he said a previously proposed gun regulation proposal would be heavily scrutinzed by the courts, since the right to bear arms is an enumerated right. And so if it was burdensome or cost prohibitive for many people, it probably wouldn't fly.
Then Blayne tried to score rhetorical points by likening the regulation (which he would presumably agree with) to voter ID (which he presumably disagrees with...). Except voting is apparently a universal human right and gun ownership is just a not-very important sort of right.
Capax ignored him, so then Tom repeated Blayne's hypocritical accusation, but he kept it pithy and without as many head scratching assertions.
And now here we are! It was a hypocritical, spurious, "gotcha" to begin with, and it's no different now. I think Capax is right to ignore it, frankly.
Posts: 3580 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
Tell me Dan, where in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights is "the right to bear arms" listed? Which article? Thus, the right to bear arms is not a universal right, nor even a negative right.
IP: Logged |
posted
I don't think you even get what that 'hypocritical association' was either, but you could ask tom.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: Tell me Dan, where in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights is "the right to bear arms" listed? Which article? Thus, the right to bear arms is not a universal right, nor even a negative right.
It didn't occur to me that you were referencing an irrelevant UN document in a discussion of American gun control.
Something being enumerated there doesn't actually make it a universal right, though, Blayne. Sorry.
Sam: no? Okay. Never mind that I've already responded to it, twice now, lets play this game. But why ask Tom? You understood it, right? So you can explain it too. So go for it.
Posts: 3580 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
And give up the drive by snark? Unlikely!
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
How is it a right than Dan? What makes gun ownership a right? Should it be by international consensus? We afterall accept UN standards for a large variety of matters so why not gun control? What makes gun control a universal right? Because if it isn't universal and self evident, than I do not see the ultimate relevance of discussing rights or why you should feel it is important to discuss outside of a more vague but more easily regulated notion of property rights, which IS enumerated.
Also I think I will agree with your other point, if something being enumerated does not make it a right, than right to bear arms is not a right regardless of its constitutional status.
IP: Logged |
posted
Blayne, it's difficult to credit this is a genuine misunderstanding on your part. I am fairly certain you know that the (qualified) right to bear arms is directly mentioned in our Bill of Rights. There aren't many things that are so mentioned (plenty are included by not-mentioning them to the states and people) in the first edition of our original and current governing document.
Maybe you don't understand why they wrote it that way, or why we haven't changed it, but in an American context 'why is gun ownership a right?' is a beginner's level question.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: And give up the drive by snark? Unlikely!
- Stone_Wolf, in a post which was drive-by snark
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: Also I think I will agree with your other point, if something being enumerated does not make it a right, than right to bear arms is not a right regardless of its constitutional status.
Yeah, so just throw out this whole "constitution" thing? What are you even talking about?
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: How is it a right than Dan? What makes gun ownership a right?
Like the rest of the Bill of Rights, they are rights that the Constitution guarantees each citizen possesses. The federal and state governments are controlled by what the Constitution allows them to do.
Since the Second Amendment specifically states that militias are necessary, therefore citizens have a basic right to keep and bear arms.
The UN is a fine institution, and I wish it well in what it does. But its charter does not hold a candle to our Constitution when we are discussing law enforcement in the US.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: Except voting is apparently a universal human right and gun ownership is just a not-very important sort of right.
The quote from Dan, where I do not feel he understands what exactly constitutes a right and not at all mentioning the constitution.
Thus "why do you consider gun control a right" is a very important question because the constitutionality of the question is irrelevant. Practically the courts will rule however they will, and in the context of discussion whether or not its a right is something that should be able to consistently stand on its own two feet, and demonstably so rather than rely on a piece of paper.
Or we could just fall back on how apparently my pointing out capax's hypocrisy is apparently 'gotcha' journalism.
IP: Logged |
posted
Blayne, you're all over the place. You're speaking about an American event and what 'rights' should mean to Americans. You can't reasonably just insist the Constitution is irrelevant to that question. The gotcha attempt was yours, I'm afraid.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: [QUOTE]Thus "why do you consider gun control a right" is a very important question because the constitutionality of the question is irrelevant.
The constitutionality of guns and literally the entire second amendment is irrelevant as to why any american would consider gun ownership a right?
This is like saying the first amendment is irrelevant to an american considering free speech a right, or irrelevant to the issue of free speech as a right at all.
You're completely wrong and you need to own up to it and move on.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Saying that last week's mass shooting at an elementary school in Newtown, Conn., could have been prevented or stopped if there had been armed, trained security personnel on site, officials of the National Rifle Association on Friday called for Congress to appropriate funds to put police officers in every American school.
"The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun," said Wayne LaPierre, NRA's executive vice president.
The NRA also said it is launching a "National School Shield" training program to help — at no cost — schools train security personnel and develop security plans.
And, NRA officials blamed the news media for focusing on what they view as the wrong issue — guns — rather than violent video games and the nation's mental health care programs.
The event was briefly interrupted twice by individuals who stood up with banners and shouted that the NRA has "blood on its hands" and is "killing our kids."
It was the organization's first lengthy response to the attack that left 20 school children and six adults dead at Newtown's Sandy Hook Elementary School, which has reignited a national debate over whether gun laws need to be tightened. LaPierre and others who spoke gave no indication they favor any such actions.
Ladies and gentlemen, the NRA.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: Except voting is apparently a universal human right and gun ownership is just a not-very important sort of right.
The quote from Dan, where I do not feel he understands what exactly constitutes a right and not at all mentioning the constitution.
What's especially bizarre about this the extent to which you're proving unable to follow this conversation.
The post above, wherein I do "not at all [mention] the constitution," was me summarizing some events on the first page of this thread. Specifically, you attacking Capax because he referred to the right to bear arms as an "enumerated right," that is, enumerated in the US Constitution.
Your response to him, at the time, was to pshaw the right to bear arms as irrelevant, and point out that Capax had different standards when it came to the "universal" right to vote.
Even back then, you were still trying to pretend that a freaking UN charter is more relevant to a discussion of American gun control than the US Constitution.
It was preposterous then, but, as I said, nobody paid attention to it then. Tom restated your attack in a more pithy manner that excised the most absurd elements of it.
It's still preposterous now.
Trying to flip it around and say I don't know what rights are is just grasping at straws, man. Ironically, I think I'm one of the few people here who would be happy to have a purely theoretical, abstract discussion with you about what ought to be rights and what oughtn't, largely leaving the Constitution out of it. And yet you're accusing me of... something. It's hard to parse exactly what. Ignorance and incompetence, at minimum. Charming.
Oh, and if you're going to keep accusing Capax of hypocrisy, you really ought to get around to explaining why your inverted belief system isn't just as hypocritical.
Posts: 3580 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
The world's largest army... America 's hunters! I had never thought about this...A blogger added up the deer license sales in just a handful of states and arrived at a striking conclusion:
There were over 600,000 hunters this season in the state of Wisconsin .. Allow me to restate that number: 600,000
Over the last several months, Wisconsin's hunters became the eighth largest army in the world.
More men under arms than in Iran .
More than France and Germany combined.
These men deployed to the woods of a single American state, Wisconsin , to hunt with firearms, and no one was killed.
That number pales in comparison to the 750,000 who hunted the woods of Pennsylvania and Michigan's 700,000 hunters, all of whom have now returned home safely. Toss in a quarter million hunters in West Virginia and it literally establishes the fact that the hunters of those four states alone would comprise the largest army in the world. And then add in the total number of hunters in the other 46 states. It's millions more.
The point?
America will forever be safe from foreign invasion with that kind of home-grown firepower.
Hunting... it's not just a way to fill the freezer. It's a matter of national security.
That's why all enemies, foreign and domestic, want to see us disarmed.
Food for thought, when next we consider gun control.
Overall it's true, so if we disregard some assumptions that hunters don't possess the same skills as soldiers, the question would still remain... What army of 2 million would want to face 30, 40, 50 million armed citizens???
My grandmother sent me this.
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
Except any modern military with sufficient mobility based firepower would decimate any such opposition as the flotsam they are. The process of doing so was perfected in 1945.
IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
