Cops: Woman Shot Dead at 'Blade Runner' Home

[BSB]

More rejection of freedom of information, aka lying.

They banned fully automatic weapons and they can ban the AR15 in a New York second. When they do it will infringe only on the demented minds of a few fruit loops. You lose Sirs.

BSB

[BT]

My understanding is that you can still own automatic weapons as long as you are willing to file the appropriate paperwork and pay the appropriate fees. Is that no longer the case?

[sirs]

More rejection of freedom of information, aka lying.

ROFL.......this is truly hilarious.  We've gone from the ridiculous notion that I'm advocating some suppression of information or is it rejecting information, or is it......, (only God knows how that irrational conclusion was reached), and now that equates to "lying".  LYING ABOUT WHAT??  Good gravy     

They banned fully automatic weapons and they can ban the AR15 in a New York second.

Meaning exactly what I've been saying....this class semi-automatic, then another, then another, then we'll all be left to what Xo advocates, single shot black powder muskets, where the musket balls will have a 2000% tax applied to every ball purchased.  Sure they could ban it, but that's never been the issue.

The issue is why would you ban this "class" of weapon, when its a mere fraction of a fraction in in choice by murderers, leaving the vast majority of the law abiding without the choice of that weapon to better defend or use, as they see fit??  Answer......it's just the next step.  Then it'll be another class, then it'll be another class, all with the soft hearted rhetoric "We're not banning them all, just these, that you don't really 'need'.  Look at all the rest we're still permitting you to keep..............until we decide you don't need them either"

SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.  You don't like it....amend it

[sirs]

My understanding is that you can still own automatic weapons as long as you are willing to file the appropriate paperwork and pay the appropriate fees. Is that no longer the case?

You have to have a special ATF license, and have pretty much been mugged by government bureaucracy & mounds of paperwork, pass all manner of background checks, pay all fees, and be willing to be "visited" by Government agents, at any time, to inspect your inventory

Or so I've read.  And then yes, you can own military assault rifles & pistols

[BT]

So what the government did was restrict access instead of banning that class. Am i still correct in this understanding?

[Plane]

Hiding behind semantics. Translation, posting the facts. The facts being that banning a class of weapons is not contradictory to the constitution. The facts being that American citizens have the right to pursue their dreams without the threat of being killed by a weapon that the military uses in combat.  The only one playing semantic games is you. Ret. Gen McChrystal doesn't say that the AR15 is the same weapon our soldiers carry just to run his mouth off. He says it because its true. I say it because it's true. It's a fact because it's true. We know, we've carried them. You on the other hand haven't carried one. (and don't give me this dogshit about auto vs semi, any soldier will tell you that semi-auto is the most effective selection)

Freedom is having the right as a people to pick and chose. A lack of freedom is not having that right. The right to strengthen gun laws is a freedom. Not being able to is a lack of freedom. The only one advocating for a reduction of our liberties in this debate is you sirs. You're the one who knows nothing about what freedom means. You're the one who is using the constitution to reduce our liberties. But that's your game Sirs. Reducing choice all the while pretending it's strengthening our freedoms.

BSB

I think I am in agreement with the founders , particularly Madison , that there should be strict restrictions on the governments freedom to restrict the freedom of the people.

In particuilar they thought the freedom to keep and bear arms was important so that the people would not have to fear the government , Madison wrote that the people had many times the military might that the US Army had and he thought this was a good situation that should be preserved.

As laws against gun ownership began and increased in the 30's and until the 70's there was a coincidental increase in gun crime. Since the 90's the number of guns in private hands has increased a lot, coincidental with a decrease in shooting crimes overall. This co-relation is not enought to prove causality, but it is enough to indicate that feaer based on public ownership of guns is based on imagination.

[Xavier_Onassis]

In the 1790's, there was no way that the government could have taken away anyone's guns. Most people lived in the country, where there was little or no law enforcement,and depended on hunting to keep them through the winter. Indians and bandits were common.

They justified it by saying that it was all for a militia, but the elite who ran the country has no power to disarm anyone.

[Plane]

In the 1790's, there was no way that the government could have taken away anyone's guns. Most people lived in the country, where there was little or no law enforcement,and depended on hunting to keep them through the winter. Indians and bandits were common.

They justified it by saying that it was all for a militia, but the elite who ran the country has no power to disarm anyone.

The King thought he could .

The Patriots didn't think the King should have that freedom.

This turned into a fight.

[BT]

They justified it by saying that it was all for a militia, but the elite who ran the country has no power to disarm anyone.

Looks like they have the means to disarm everyone now, if they so wish. I just wonder at what cost.

[Xavier_Onassis]

I do not expect this to happen. I don't even think that this is the purpose of having people register their guns.

The British troops that fought in the American Revolution ended up fighting in Spain against Napoleon's brother and with the old reactionary king. They made even kitchen knives illegal, as testified by the etchings of Goya. Or perhaps it was the French that did this.

[sirs]

So what the government did was restrict access instead of banning that class. Am i still correct in this understanding?

Yes, you could say so........heavily restricted.  Someone like me would be unable to jump thru all the required hoops.  Former military and law enforcement have far lower & fewer hoops

[sirs]

They justified it by saying that it was all for a militia, but the elite who ran the country has no power to disarm anyone.

Looks like they have the means to disarm everyone now, if they so wish. I just wonder at what cost.

Which adds an additional question......how much does one trust the Government?  If they have everyone's registration of who owns what, and as Xo keeps pointing out, that we the people are completely out-gunned, what's to prevent the Government from simply saying, "well, we just have to do this.....for the children of course.  Can't be having people having the possibility of going out and shooting up anyone"  It wouldn't be that blatant....it would simply be a progression of "classes".  1st this class of gun, then after the next massacre, that class of gun, then eventually, the'll go after all semi-automatics, because of course, they've already banned so many others, and we'll be in no position to fight back, by that time......but of course, that was the whole point of the agenda

[BSB]

"So what the government did was restrict access instead of banning that class."

You can buy and sell almost anything if you have the proper license. You can buy heroine if you're properly licensed. You can buy anthrax if you're properly licensed.  I think most people would think of them as being banned though.

Getting a Class III License for a fully automatic weapon, or a silencer, or a short barreled rifle, is difficult on the one hand but not so difficult on the other hand.  I know 3 guys who have them. It took one of them over 20 years to get it. It took another only about 3 or 4 years. Can't remember exactly. And third guy was an active duty police officer. The funny thing is though the guy who had to wait 20 years was the only one I would have given a license to. It took him that long because he didn't suck up to local police chief.  And yes, all 3 of them are Vietnam Vets.

The thing is you have to want it bad enough to put up with the red tape, and you have to hang in there. If you have a clean record in the end they almost have to give it to you.  I thought about it but I didn't want to wait it out. Further, as an example, the guy who waited 20 years went and bought an M60 machinegun. This was over 20 years ago. The price, $14,000. It's probably about 3 times that now.  So it isn't a cheap hobby.

Also if you think you need one that badly enough due to societal circumstances, converting an AR15 type firearm to full auto is very easy to accomplish. And if things have gotten that bad they'll be no need to worry about the law. Further, the worse things get the more fully automatic weapons will surface. That's the fallacy in this concern about a rouge government. All sorts of things begin to become available if there are enough people with the guts to push back. 

Oh yeah, one more thing. You want a fully automatic Russian AK? Take a little trip in your boat out to international fishing waters. It's that easy. And up here those huge Russian fish factories aren't that far out.

BSB

[BSB]

Probably the best way to ban firearms is to take all the pussy guns off the market. Make the gun owners have to step up to the plate if they want to shoot. No more .223s for example. Make them step up at least to a 308 or 30'06. I'd like to start heavier but I like the 308 so I have to leave that in. And with sidearms make them start at the .45. No more .357s or 9mms. And no more Redhawks or Super Blackhawks. Make them shoot the heavy magnums out of a lighter weapon. Nothing heavier then a Blackhawk say. And for shotguns only 8 and 10 gauge. Just goose guns. Only teeth rattlers. That should weed out a lot of the wannabes. 


BSB

[BT]

Probably the best way to ban firearms is to take all the pussy guns off the market. Make the gun owners have to step up to the plate if they want to shoot. No more .223s for example. Make them step up at least to a 308 or 30'06. I'd like to start heavier but I like the 308 so I have to leave that in. And with sidearms make them start at the .45. No more .357s or 9mms. And no more Redhawks or Super Blackhawks. Make them shoot the heavy magnums out of a lighter weapon. Nothing heavier then a Blackhawk say. And for shotguns only 8 and 10 gauge. Just goose guns. Only teeth rattlers. That should weed out a lot of the wannabes. 


BSB

So are you in favor of banning guns, or just in favor of pulling gun owners chains?