For those of you who think

[Lueyen]

Arlos something I got to thinking about, as I recall you were adamantly opposed to requiring identification to vote. This would seem a bit inconsistent in supporting requiring identification to purchase a fire arm, although voter registration could be compared to firearm registration.

I would generally be supportive for requiring identification and and instant check especially regarding a criminal record for both due to restrictions placed on convicted felons. That being said my views are inconsistent in an opposite but similar matter in that I don't have an issue with voter registration, but for the very same reason Minrott stated I do have an issue with gun registration (this is the same reason I am not a member of the NRA, although I appreciate some of the efforts the organization makes I'll never be a member, because it is a potential list of fire arm owners).

While a firearm may represent a more immediate threat in the hands of someone who shouldn't be able to purchase one, I would submit that the threat represented by voter fraud could have a much more significant impact albeit it would have to be on a much larger scale then a single individual.

Understand I'm not screaming hypocrite at you, as I see the same inconsistency in my own general view. Thinking about it, perhaps I should have an issue with voter registration simply because if I find myself thinking that it's reasonable possible for the government to at some point go door to door confiscating firearms, then it is not unreasonable to imagine a political take over where voters registration lists were used to eliminate or neutralize political adversaries. The one difference is that with voter registration you can register as an independent, or even a party who's views you don't hold or support (I've actually considered this)

[Evermore]

About machine guns. People can't get liscenses to own machine guns. Because a license to own a machine gun is not required.

this is not correct. licensing requirements vary from state to state and you have to have an FFL and a Class 3 to even transfer a mg from owner to owner. Your own state requires some licensing for certain mg's. See this

The only way Congress could (semi)legally control machine guns or other NFA regulated weapons is by using Interstate Commerce. Not by saying "this type of gun is illegal." So they taxed them. They put a cost prohibitive (at the time, 1934) tax of $200 per weapon on them. This is where the BATF came from. Treasury agents with time on their hands after prohibition started enforcing this obscure and generally unrecognized law. Eventually the agency was formed. The whole reason behind Waco is because those poor people were in posession of guns that required a $200 tax they had not payed. Not because the guns were against the law to own.

You can get a license to deal or manufacture NFA weapons, which is a Federal Firearms License coupled with a Special Occupational Tax #2 (manufacturer) or #3 (dealer). But any non-felon civilian living in a state that does not ban the weapon may own an NFA regulated weapon.

So long as it was made pre 1986. after that these weapons are classified as military or law enforcement use,

It would be interesting to note here that since 1934 only 1, one single crime has been committed with a legally owned machine gun, and that was committed by an off duty police officer, and no one was injured. Can Corvettes claim that track record of safety?

Finally, no, for the next two years I do not see a change in gun laws happening. That's why I'm going to be using this time wisely buy buying and storing what they DID ban in 1994, buy reloading as much ammunition as possible and preparing for the worst in '08. Because believe you me, Nancy Pelosi, Schumer and Feinstein are rabidly anti gun, and will force their hand with a Democratic president.


I was asked to explain my position and I believe I've done so coherently and politely. I never started this with the intention of changing anyones mind. Most people are either so engrained in their position, or completely uneducated on it that they refuse to look at evidence or facts, much less at what can be considered simply my opinion. However if I opened anyones eyes to simply see my side and why I believe what I do (because about 50% of the gun owning community believes what I do, the rest couldn't care less what happened as long as they get to keep their deer rifle) then I'm happy to have said my piece.


I believe in personal responsibility and liability. I believe in the rights gauranteed me, because they were gauranteed me with just as much reason as freedom of speech and assembly. I believe that any further infringment on these rights is a downhill slope to fascism, and that's why I'm as unbending in my beliefs as I appear to be.

Minrott i gotta say i am finding myself agreeing with you. and i am kinda suprised that we seem to think the same way on these points.

This should clear up any questions on owning this type of fire arm

[Minrott]

I meant that by federal law no license is required to own. I know Wisconsin requires some sort of license for pistol caliber MG's, however nothing for suppressors, short barreled rifles, AOW's, rifle caliber MG's. And yes I forgot to note the 1986 'ban'.


In 1986 Congress told the BATF to no longer accept Form 1's or Form 4's for new machine guns. They didn't make them illegal, they simply made it illegal for the BATF to accept the tax required on the guns. Talk about circumspect.

Tikker, you and Zanchief must be the minority in Canada then. I seem to remember how when your government spent some billions of dollars on a registration program that should have encompassed millions of privately owned guns, but only a few hundred thousand could be found.

[Zanchief]

The gun registry program was a complete fuck up.

[Minrott]

Well before I go put the plow on my truck because there's already 3" of snow and I didn't think it would stick, I'd like to mention the other thing that scares me. That's the complete uncontrolled action of the BATFE.

Numerous times the BATFE, which used to be an agency of the Treasury Department, but with the Homeland Security mandate became part of the Justice department, has "interputed" laws however they chose. Rather than using the law to go after criminals, i.e. people who use firearms in crime, or whom are in the business of selling illegal firearms, they have repeatedly gone after "low hanging fruit" like law abiding dealers and citizens.

They flip flop constantly on their defenition of what a firearm is, what part of a gun is the firearm itself, what a machine gun is (recently they termed a shoe lace as an unregistered machine gun, because on certain semi automatic firearms a shoe lace or piece of string can be wound in a way to pull the trigger automatically. Completely useless, as you would dump a whole magazine in this fashion with no control, but I digress).

Because an agency is allowed the leniency of doing the courts job of interputing law, their main tactic has become charging innocent people with fabricated crimes in order to bankrupt them in the ensuing court battles.

For example, the gunsmith who was recently charged with manufacturing firearms. Previously, you were a manufacturer of firearms if you manufactured the firearm reciever, the main part of most guns, usually requiring the most machine work and knowledge, and without which a gun would not be a gun. This gunsmith had a gunsmithing FFL type 07, and was installing new barrels on firearms for customers. The BATFE charged him with manufacturing (even though he made NO receivers) because he "drastically altered" the guns given to him by the customers.

For the previous 100 years, the replacement of barrels has been a standard practice by gunsmiths, as barrels do wear out and need replacement. This cannot be considered "manufacturing" by any reasonably intelligent person, because it has nothing whatsoever to do with the receiver of a gun, and as far as the law is concerned, the receiver is the only thing that is even considered a gun, the rest is just chunks of steel.

This poor citizen has had to fight for his life in court, spend hundreds of thousands of dollars on court fees just to clear his name of these fraudulent charges.

This is just one example of a long litany of persecution by this agency, and nothing is being done to curb their free hand.

This is akin to charging your mechanic with manufacturing an automobile without a license because he changed your spark plugs, and if there were an agency doing that, I gaurantee that there would be a public outcry.

[Tikker]

Tikker, you and Zanchief must be the minority in Canada then. I seem to remember how when your government spent some billions of dollars on a registration program that should have encompassed millions of privately owned guns, but only a few hundred thousand could be found.

the problem with the gun registry is that it didn't really make a whole lot of sense with the way it was implemented. it was too expensive, to the point where people who collected guns, or were just avid hunters would rather hide their guns than register them


I think you guys just keep skipping over the point I"m trying to make

I don't have an issue with people having guns
All I'm saying is that someone, somewhere has to decide what allowable level of gun is that you're allowed to own

ie, citizens can own hunting rifles and nothing else
citizens can own anything that fires less than 100 rounds per minute

or whatever

if everyone wants to keep a rifle hanging over their bed, that's their prerogative

I just think it's retarded that people think they need an M-16

[Minrott]

I understand completely what you're saying, I just disagree with the end result. Yes, restrict explosives, explosive devices, artillery. However, I don't believe small arms should be.

When you say "Hunting" rifles, does that inlcude the thousands of SKS' that people use to hunt deer with in the US because they're so inexpensive and ammunition is cheap? That's a semiautomatic military weapon. Does it include the accurized AR15's that litter every single prairie dog shoot or DMC competition? Does it include sporterized military bolt action Mausers that were military rifles in WW2?


I would be happy if the definition of what was legal and what was not legal was clear cut, black and white, but it isn't. People get in trouble for things that technically by the letter of the law ARE legal, but are interputed by government employees as Illegal.

In the 1940's, a man was arrested for having a shotgun with a barrel shorter than 18". By the 1934 NFA, shotguns with barrels shorter than 18" were regulated weapons, whether they were single shot 20 gauges or anything else. His case went to the Supreme Court, his defense was that the NFA was in violation of his second amendment rights. The Supreme Court convicted him because "there was no military application for a short barreled shotgun, therefore it is not protected by the second amendment." Aside from the fact that short barreled shotguns were in fact issued by the Army in WW1 and today in Iraq, their interputation clearly states that the purpose of the second amendment is as I've described. To protect the populaces right to own military weapons of the day, as all men 18-40 make up the states militia.

But because of Congress' convoluted power through Interstate Commerce, and the BATFE's unkempt hand, gun owners of ANY kind live in fear of whether what they're doing or what they own may land them in jail because it's next to impossible for law abiding citizens to knowingly follow the law.

That is unacceptable.

[Spazz]

Tikker why dont you think people need m16s ?

[Tikker]

more to the point, why would a regular citizen NEED a M16?

it's only purpose is to kill people. again, guns aren't defensive weapons, only offensive




and Minrott

why do people need weapons other than for hunting?

[Spazz]

No tikker you are mistaken. What if after another terrorist attack our country goes completely insane. What if you should find yourself with no power no 911 and no order of any sort at all ( katrina la riot etc). Hell maybe your not a hunter or a self defense type maybe you just really enjoy shooting. There is no reason why any citizen who passes to buy the weapon in the first place should be restricted on what type of small arm they can buy.Badguys arent restricted in any way on what type of arms they can buy. Canada is the land of rainbows and sunshine but down here in the states shit happens and its a right to defend you and yours when it does.

[Lueyen]

more to the point, why would a regular citizen NEED a M16?

it's only purpose is to kill people. again, guns aren't defensive weapons, only offensive




and Minrott

why do people need weapons other than for hunting?

No weapon by nature is wholly defensive, even non lethal weapons are designed to maim or incapacitate, what is your point with guns being offensive?

"Need" is an irrelevant consideration. We do not place stipulations of need concerning any other civil right, and the government certainly doesn't have the power to do so. In fact the only situation where government is allowed to make lawful restrictions on civil rights is in making laws designed to directly protect the civil rights of others (such as laws against slander where freedom of speech is concerned).

[Iccarra]

[font=Tahoma]Personally, I've never used a firearm....I think I've only ever held one once and it made me uncomfortable. However, that uneasiness does not sway my opinion as to whether there should be more restrictions placed on ordinary citizens when it is indeed their right to own them. Being responsible about owning/storing those firearms is my only big concern especially when there is the possibility of either another family member or friend who is not familiar with weapon safety has free access.[/font]

"Need" is an irrelevant consideration.

[font=Tahoma]I agree with this, mainly because it really is irrelevant. (Put this on the calender, Luey. ;p) One person's need is another person's want and vice versa....like with anything outside of food, clothing, & shelter.[/font]

[Minrott]

I've explained repeatedly my reasoning Tikker.

[Tikker]

I've explained repeatedly my reasoning Tikker.

maybe I'm not explaining myself very well


what happened that you feel the need to have to defend yourself constantly?

why are you so distrustful of your democratically elected government that you feel the need to stand on guard?

[Bodin]

In here Tikker:

(Interesting Post BTW Minrott. I Might not agree with it all but well said sir.)

Since this seems to be a fairly intelligent discussion I'll play. Usually this topic goes right down the shitter.

First of all, Evermore, unless you live in a state that requires registration of firearms, and very few do, none of your guns are "registered." Registration of guns is illegal by the federal government. There are cases of the BATF going to gun stores and filing the NICS they have to keep by law, but by doing that they're committing an illegal act, no one seems to care though because they are a government agency.

Zanchief: My "fanatic" belief in gun ownership stems from the idea that governments in power will always, eventually become toletarian over time. It's just a nature of human history that those in power want more and eventually try to get it. The checks and balances of the American system slow this process down, but they do not stop it. The final check and balance of any governmental system is the citizens of the country, when they stand up and say, "No, enough is enough, we demand change and we are willing to fight for it."

In every, single case of toletarian regimes over recorded human history, the first step of the government in power was to remove small arms from the citizenship. Every single time. Whether it had been rifles, or muskets, or swords, the first step for total control is to disarm the populace of the military style weapons of the time period. Our revolutionary war started long before some tea was spilled over the port side of a schooner in Boston. It began when the British started confiscating muskets.

The entire reasoning behind the Second Amendment is to protect this citizens rights to keep and bear military small arms of the time period. It has nothing to do with hunting. It has nothing to do with target shooting or other recreation.

You state I disagree with "any reasonable control." This isn't true. I do believe in reasonable controls. Some things I consider reasonable and feasible are instant back ground checks. I don't have any problem with my gun dealer calling the FBI and running my SSN to find out that in fact no, I have not committed a felony and show no reason to believe that I would use the gun I intend to purchase in a crime. That's perfectly acceptable to me. However, outright bans on certain types of firearms have absolutely no effect on crime. I cannot abide by laws that make me a criminal for simply owning something, when I haven't committed any crime.

Guns are inanimate objects that require the will of a person to do bad or good. The banning of firearms is just another way of taking personal responsibility for actions out of the hands of people. The spoon made Rosey O'Donnel fat.

Lyion once made a comment on this discussion previously that what did I think, "we should allow people to have artillery pieces in their front lawn to fire off at the government every time they don't agree with what's happened?"

Not in that context. But if you look back at when the Bill of Rights were drafted, the revolutionary government was using privateers and regular civilians as their navy. These people were in posession of cannons and small (2inch) guns and the purpose of the law was to make such a thing legal. In the entire history of our country, the firearm industry has been driven by civilians dating back to this precident.

Nothing in the U.S. Army's small arms arsenal today came from government development. The M16 system of firearms was invented by Eugene Stoner and Armalite, civilians. The Beretta M9 by Beretta of Italy, a civilian company. The M249 SAW by FN Herstal, a civilian company. The M240B or MAG58 by FN Herstal. The M40A1 by Remington, the oldest civilian arms maker in the country.

To say that only the military or police should own/have certain kinds of firearms destroys this industry, destroys any advancement or competition. By saying that I, as an American citizen cannot own a military type rifle, you're saying that I cannot invent one, I can't develop one or start a business with the idea of landing military contracts. That's about as un-American of a thing as I can think of.


The bottom line is that I believe firearms are a necessary part of not just American culture, but a civil right that is not to be denied by governmental devices, and that when it is denied, it's a precursor to toletarian regimes.

If you're concerned with crime, then fight crime. If I were a criminal, or I was going to commit a crime in a fit of rage, I certainly wouldn't be concerned with whether or not the tool I was going to use in the comission of said crime was legal to own or not.

Drugs are illegal, but not to hard to get. Booze was illegal, but wasn't too hard to get. Bans on any substance or thing that people want to have never work, and only serve to create more criminals by the stroke of a pen.

I don't want a missle launcher or other "Destructive Devices." I want what my constitution gives me a gaurantee of, and that is the military small arms of the day.

[Arlos]

Leuyen, the difference between ID for voting and ID for owning a gun are 2 fundamentally different things.

Voting is the fundamental underpinning of our society. It is THE cornerstone upon which our entire system of government is based. As such, access to it needs to be as free and as unfettered as possible, with no impediments whatsoever. Also, I feel that voter fraud, while existant, is a fairly negligible factor when compared to the overall number of votes cast.

Gun ownership is a completely and purely voluntary activity. While I can understand Minrott's position on gun ownership, I also don't happen to agree with it, at least in today's society. If I could wave a magic wand and remove all guns from all civilian owners, this country wouldn't even begin to miss a beat.

-Arlos

[Minrott]

what happened that you feel the need to have to defend yourself constantly?

why are you so distrustful of your democratically elected government that you feel the need to stand on guard?

It's not that I feel the need to constantly stand guard for myself. I feel an inherent need to be allowed to do so when necessary. I'd rather have a gun and not need it than need it and not have it, so to speak.

I'm distrustful of my democratically elected government for a number of reasons. First, I don't think anyone in their right mind should fully trust those with the power of government. History has shown repeatedly, dare I say in every case that when citizens let goverments become too powerful, it ends up poorly for the citizens. Second, I believe the US government has strayed too far from it's original path, ever since FDR, and Federal power has become too great. The more centralized the power, the easier it is for those in power to consolidate and force their will. Third, and most importantly, because of rogue, illegal agencys like the BATFE.

If my democratically elected government not only allows, but funds and stands behind the abhorrent actions committed by an agency like that, how can I not be somewhat afraid that that agency will become even more draconian in it's deeds, or that another, even worse agency is allowed to run wild?

Leuyen, the difference between ID for voting and ID for owning a gun are 2 fundamentally different things.

Voting is the fundamental underpinning of our society. It is THE cornerstone upon which our entire system of government is based. As such, access to it needs to be as free and as unfettered as possible, with no impediments whatsoever. Also, I feel that voter fraud, while existant, is a fairly negligible factor when compared to the overall number of votes cast.

I would counter that an armed citizenry is the only thing protecting your right to vote Arlos, and without that, the underpinning of our society would be cast away in a few short decades.

It wasn't some crazy redneck who said:

The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.

That wasn't some stained NASCAR tshirt wearing jackass. That was one of our most important founding fathers.

While I don't believe we're to that point, or even close, I don't understand how it's so hard to fathom we might one day be and protecting our only gaurantee of check on government has just as much importance as voting rights.

[Arlos]

Minrott, I know who said that quote, Thomas Jefferson. It also, however, can apply in a number of situations, not just in a discussion abotu individuals and gun ownership.

See, I don't share your apocalyptic view of a future were the citizenry suddenly disarmed.

First of all, the other examples you cited, such as Germany in the 30s, where guns were forcibly confiscated were VERY different societies than ours. Yes, Germany at that point was a democracy, but for how long had it existed? 15 years since the Kaiser had stepped down and they'd abandoned monarchy? The entire culture was still one of absolute obedience to an absolute authority.

This country, however, has had democracy for well over 200 years now. There is no living memory whatsoever of a time when America was NOT a democracy. As a result, we are not conditioned to anywhere near that degree towards conformity to an absolute rule. Indeed, I'd argue strongly that much of the country is socialized to REJECT such an authority.

Now, I don't argue that with Bush and his tame legislature we were moving in that direction, where he kept gathering more and more centralized power onto his office. However, for him (or anyone else) to make that final step to totalitarian power, he would have to have the complicity of not only the legislative branch, but the judicial branch AND not only the leaders of the army, but everyone IN the army.

Remember, our army is one brought up on the lessons of WW2, where everyone knows quite well that "I was just following orders" is not a valid defence of inhuman actions. As such, were someone in power to attempt to use the army as a weapon against the civilian populace of the US, I believe they would fail. Sure, you'd get the fanatical core doing so, but a large enough fraction, even into the high command ranks, would refuse to follow such orders, resulting in the army paralyzing itself as it tears itself apart from the inside.

So, ultimately, as I said, I simply do not share your view of the ultimate outcome of a civilian disarmament. This is not to say that I wish to see such a thing happen, as I would be the last one to say that you should have your constitutional rights abrogated.

In any case, I repeat my assertion of a few posts ago: You needent fear the new Democratic congress to make a rabid leap after your firearms. Look at how high a percentage of that democratic majority are new members that come from conservative states, especially rural western states like MOntana, etc. You know as well as I do what the reaction would be in Montana, Colorado, etc. if such a move were to be attempted. Those representatives and senators would be comitting political suicide by supporting any such thing, and so would the entire Democratic party. Sorry, but they're not that dumb.

-Arlos

[Tikker]

what happened that you feel the need to have to defend yourself constantly?

why are you so distrustful of your democratically elected government that you feel the need to stand on guard?

It's not that I feel the need to constantly stand guard for myself. I feel an inherent need to be allowed to do so when necessary. I'd rather have a gun and not need it than need it and not have it, so to speak.

I guess I just don't get that viewpoint

I'm just not paranoid enough

[Minrott]

I'd like to hear what Ganzo has to say about this subject.

[Evermore]

what happened that you feel the need to have to defend yourself constantly?

why are you so distrustful of your democratically elected government that you feel the need to stand on guard?

It's not that I feel the need to constantly stand guard for myself. I feel an inherent need to be allowed to do so when necessary. I'd rather have a gun and not need it than need it and not have it, so to speak.

I'm distrustful of my democratically elected government for a number of reasons. First, I don't think anyone in their right mind should fully trust those with the power of government. History has shown repeatedly, dare I say in every case that when citizens let goverments become too powerful, it ends up poorly for the citizens. Second, I believe the US government has strayed too far from it's original path, ever since FDR, and Federal power has become too great. The more centralized the power, the easier it is for those in power to consolidate and force their will. Third, and most importantly, because of rogue, illegal agencys like the BATFE.

If my democratically elected government not only allows, but funds and stands behind the abhorrent actions committed by an agency like that, how can I not be somewhat afraid that that agency will become even more draconian in it's deeds, or that another, even worse agency is allowed to run wild?

Leuyen, the difference between ID for voting and ID for owning a gun are 2 fundamentally different things.

Voting is the fundamental underpinning of our society. It is THE cornerstone upon which our entire system of government is based. As such, access to it needs to be as free and as unfettered as possible, with no impediments whatsoever. Also, I feel that voter fraud, while existant, is a fairly negligible factor when compared to the overall number of votes cast.

I would counter that an armed citizenry is the only thing protecting your right to vote Arlos, and without that, the underpinning of our society would be cast away in a few short decades.

It wasn't some crazy redneck who said:

The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.

That wasn't some stained NASCAR tshirt wearing jackass. That was one of our most important founding fathers.

While I don't believe we're to that point, or even close, I don't understand how it's so hard to fathom we might one day be and protecting our only gaurantee of check on government has just as much importance as voting rights.

here here


Tikker it isnt paranoia. its a civil right.

[Lueyen]

There is also one aspect that no one has really addressed, most likely due to it being even more unthinkable then draconian governmental take over. An armed populace represents a much more formidable defense against a foreign attacker. To be sure the lack of coordination with civilian defenses would be problematic in some cases (such as a civilian group taking out an enemy installation which was compromised by the local military and hence providing valuable information about enemy movements ect) but those negative aspects are far out weighed by the positive ones.

[Minrott]

Gun dealers are commanded by law to destroy the 4473's if we're ever invaded by another country. The 4473 is the form you fill out when you purchase a gun, and is kept by the dealer (not the government.)


Red Dawn, great movie

[Eziekial]

Yes. That was a great movie. BTW I agree with Minrott 100%. Excellent posts.

[Tikker]

Evermore, It's a civil right because of paranoia