gun control rant thread

Beer Baron wrote:

Osterkraut wrote: Sayings "I am saying the government has more resources (money to acquire weapons, space to practice with them, and time to train people in their use) than civilians ever will. The weapons a civilian could conceivably acquire and train with just don't hold up." IS SAYING THAT THE GOVERNMENT KNOWS BETTER. Jesus H. Christ, do I have to break it down Barney-style for you?

Apparently. I thought I was saying "Entities with more money have the power to buy things that entities with less money can't afford." Last I checked, money and knowledge are not the same thing. I'm fairly certain I know better than Paris Hilton.

"I am saying the government has more resources (money to acquire weapons, space to practice with them, and time to train people in their use) than civilians ever will. "

You said more than money, friend. Overall, though, you're still giving the government inherent superiority, which is, as I said before, terrifying.

If it were truly just about money, will you agree that a person who can afford to fuel, maintain, and equip a fighter jet should have access to armed versions? Training wouldn't be a problem, it's quite possible to get MORE flight time than military personnel.

Love this:

http://www.assaultweapon.info/

Thanks for sticking with that theme, Osterkraut. I am not sure why people trust the government more than their neighbor. I know which I would turn to if I needed something.

tuna55 wrote: Love this: http://www.assaultweapon.info/ Thanks for sticking with that theme, Osterkraut. I am not sure why people trust the government more than their neighbor. I know which I would turn to if I needed something.

People trust the government because the government tells them too.

Osterkraut wrote: ...If it were truly just about money, will you agree that a person who can afford to fuel, maintain, and equip a fighter jet should have access to armed versions? Training wouldn't be a problem, it's quite possible to get MORE flight time than military personnel.

I am not entirely sure what you guys are talking about anymore, but in regards to aircraft, it is not that complicated. The FAA in general does not care what you fly. The craft however, must meet various airworthy requirements, cannot be flown supersonic, and cannot be armed in any way (not sure why you would want to anyway).

They have made specific restrictions though. I remember Larry Ellison wanted a Mig-29, they said he could buy it, but not fly it.

Flying an aircraft, much like driving a car, is of course a privilege in the US, not a right.

aircooled wrote:

Osterkraut wrote: ...If it were truly just about money, will you agree that a person who can afford to fuel, maintain, and equip a fighter jet should have access to armed versions? Training wouldn't be a problem, it's quite possible to get MORE flight time than military personnel.

I am not entirely sure what you guys are talking about anymore, but in regards to aircraft, it is not that complicated. The FAA really does not care what you fly. The craft however, must meet various airworthy requirements, cannot be flown supersonic, and cannot be armed in any way (not sure why you would anyway). Flying an aircraft, much like driving a car, is of course a privilege in the US, not a right.

Indeed, I'm using an aircraft as synonymous for an "arm." As I said earlier, there's a question of when a something stops being an "arm" and starts being, say, a tank or an aircraft (which are not rights).

I will get a little "lol" at you saying the process to get the FAA to sign off on an aircraft isn't complicated. Their website does state this, too: "Certain surplus military aircraft are not eligible for FAA airworthiness certification in the standard, restricted, or limited classifications. "

You are correct, I should not have implied it was not complicated. The FAA is not exactly know for simple processes. They are though, generally very well defined processes.

An "arm" (as in armament) is simply a weapon (which a tank or an armed fighter would be), and is a huge issue with the 2nd, since it is not differentiated at all. Of course there would be no way to do that when it was written (considering the state of technology at the time).

That is one thing that I have found very interesting, and surprising, about this discussion. I really still have no idea where people are getting "gun" out of "arms". Someone stated previously that it was defined in the 14th amendment, which I did not find to be true.

If someone wants to give it a shot I would love to hear it. (I suspect this may have already been gone over in the last 33 pages, for that I apologize)

I have seen a few p51's floating around that still have their working armament of 50's......I'll presume those are either under the FAA's radar(pun intended) OR are under a special exemption due to authenticity?

Working? Are you sure? If they are working the are very much not approved by the FAA. I know there are planes with non-firing guns. I believe there was a P-47 at Oskosh that had it's original armor in it! (for authenticity)

It honestly would not be that hard to have working guns on a plane, the FAA does not personally inspect planes unless there is a complaint. Get caught thought... most probably would not risk it.

Unless they were modified to only fire blanks.....

Hmmm, don't know, but I suspect that would be possible. Probably a LOT of paperwork involved though!

In reply to aircooled:

The last p51 I saw listed for sale required 6 class 3 tax stamps and approval.....my local sheriff would die from laughter over that. And then probably ask me if he could "borrow" it sometime.

I agree with you though, flying nor driving are a given right, so its definitely not the same arguement.

Apparently someone just got robbed outside my wife's work. Fanberkeleyingtastic.

yamaha wrote: In reply to aircooled: The last p51 I saw listed for sale required 6 class 3 tax stamps and approval.....my local sheriff would die from laughter over that. And then probably ask me if he could "borrow" it sometime. I agree with you though, flying nor driving are a given right, so its definitely not the same arguement.

Be sure to write in the reasoning field, "In preparation for a zombie apocalypse."

Osterkraut wrote:

Beer Baron wrote:

Osterkraut wrote: Civilian ownership of ex-warbirds is extremely regulated, why that's stupid is a debate for another thread. That you can't have a MiG with a functioning weapons loadout IS a topic for this thread, and the fact you cannot clearly flys (pun intended) in the face of both the letter and the intent of the second Amendment. You SHOULD be allowed to slap .50 cal machine guns on the hood of your car... that act is harming exactly no one.

I'll go back to the, "Right to swing your arm ends at my nose," argument. This is incorrect. The right to swing your arm ends when it threatens to contact my nose. The line is crossed as soon as you start to haul your fist back. It ends before damage is done, not after. You do not have the right to point a weapon at me. "Do not point a weapon at anything you are not prepared to destroy." I do not care if the weapon is not loaded or if you have no intention of pulling the trigger. The act of pointing it in my direction is indication enough that you are prepared to destroy me. You don't get that right. You have the right to keep and bear arms. You do not have the right to bear them in a way that threatens me. If you slap machine guns on the hood of your car, you are indicating that you are prepared to destroy anything in front of that car. If you arm an aircraft, you are indicating that you are prepared to destroy any item covered by the range of those weapons. That is a threat. You do not have the right to make that threat.

Now see, now we get there: you think possession of a weapon implies a threat. I think a threat requires intent (or gross negligence), which is already illegal. An armed aircraft, just so you know, is not indicating that it is prepared to destroy anything in range. Your super-smart, well trained, and well funded USAF allows fighter jets to refuel with tankers while armed, I'm sure they're quite interested in keeping those things from getting shot down. The same USAF understands that there's such a thing as friendly intercepts by armed aircraft, threat not implied.

The fact that we could own firearms that could be bolted to a vehicle circumvents the need to keep them bolted to the vehicle. We have the 2nd amendment in case of the need too revolt. In the case of a revolt, feel free to bolt that baby up.

As for taking a swing at me, I don't care if you are closed fisted, or swinging a finger, thats a threat, and you're hitting the ground and getting cuffed.

Airplanes? Take the firing mechanism out.

For the anti-gun-control in this crowd, if your state isn't willing to look at something like this, maybe you're in the wrong state. I am not sure if mine will do anything about it.

http://legisweb.state.wy.us/2013/Introduced/HB0104.pdf

tuna55 wrote: For the anti-gun-control in this crowd, if your state isn't willing to look at something like this, maybe you're in the wrong state. I am not sure if mine will do anything about it. http://legisweb.state.wy.us/2013/Introduced/HB0104.pdf

F yeah Wyoming! I hope more states slowly start to stand up against the monster that we have allowed to become our Federal Gov't.

Bobzilla wrote:

tuna55 wrote: For the anti-gun-control in this crowd, if your state isn't willing to look at something like this, maybe you're in the wrong state. I am not sure if mine will do anything about it. http://legisweb.state.wy.us/2013/Introduced/HB0104.pdf

F yeah Wyoming! I hope more states slowly start to stand up against the monster that we have allowed to become our Federal Gov't.

Indiana was working on the same thing before december.....I haven't heard anything else since, but as we seem to have reasonable people in office now, we're probably not far off.

^ I wouldn't be surprised. After an idiotic Federal judge decided that the 4th Ammendment didn't apply any more, they passed a law allowing people to refuse illegal entry into their homes.

This is an example of what I am trying to figure out.

If they are passing a law to keep the Federal Government from restricting gun "rights" (I know the bill does not say that), and those are rights given by the 2nd amendment, then why don't they just fight it on violating the 2nd amendment?

Is this effectively a statement that they realize there is not a solid constitutional case for not allowing federal government regulation of firearms?

I hear a lot of talk about the "right" and constant reference to the 2nd A, but I don't see anyone directly addressing that right (or restriction of it) constitutionally. It seems to be dealt with on a federal and state level as a privilege (much like auto or aircraft licenses) Or at least, that fight does not seem to have any "teeth". Is the 2nd amendment considered so vague that they effectively ignore it?

It just seems like we have to either stop referring to the 2nd A for gun rights, or fight to enforce it at a federal level. What am I missing here?

(I am admitting I am probably being ignorant of challenges in the past)

As analogy: If the federal government was trying to restrict voting rights of citizens, a state would not pass laws re-instating those rights. They would just challenge the laws constitutionally at the federal level.

aircooled wrote: This is an example of what I am trying to figure out. If they are passing a law to keep the Federal Government from restricting gun "rights" (I know the bill does not say that), and those are rights given by the 2nd amendment, then why don't they just fight it on violating the 2nd amendment? Is this effectively a statement that they realize there is not a solid constitutional case for not allowing federal government regulation of firearms? I hear a lot of talk about the "right" and constant reference to the 2nd A, but I don't see anyone directly addressing that right (or restriction of it) constitutionally. It seems to be dealt with on a federal and state level as a privilege (much like auto or aircraft licenses) Or at least, that fight does not seem to have any "teeth". Is the 2nd amendment considered so vague that they effectively ignore it? It just seems like we have to either stop referring to the 2nd A for gun rights, or fight to enforce it at a federal level. What am I missing here? (I am admitting I am probably being ignorant of challenges in the past) As analogy: If the federal government was trying to restrict voting rights of citizens, a state would not pass laws re-instating those rights. They would just challenge the laws constitutionally at the federal level.

Close, but you're missing something. The federal government try to pass nearly everything as constitutional by referring to the interstate commerce clause. The bill SC is considering only works for guns made in SC and doesn't go as far as Wyoming.

As far as Wyoming goes, I think you're right, but the reason why they don't fight the feds on it is that the supreme court (where it would go if challenged by the state attorney general) doesn't care about the constitution either, and the folks making these state laws don't have the ear of the federal government. In my state, they get paid $10,400 annually to represent us. They are probably a bit better at passing laws people actually want most of the time than those guys up in DC.

http://www.scstatehouse.gov/sess120_2013-2014/bills/85.htm

tuna55 wrote: http://www.scstatehouse.gov/sess120_2013-2014/bills/85.htm

Sweet but once upon a time, only Saturday Night Specials were made in this state.

Are we now going to be able to mosey over the FN plant in Cola and pick a nice machine gun from the outlet store?

In reply to spitfirebill:

Perhaps.....and the Feds will scream bloody berkeleying murder and "who will think of the children?" I don't see the Federal level swarming a state or using military action against them.

Edit: Bill, that also includes individuals who hold a manufacturing license.....FN won't have to worry about loosing their FFL either, because....well, the govt needs them.

Wrote this:

This should actually be worded "federal government control". With the tides in DC changing so rapidly that it seems many broad-brush changes are going to get rushed along without many getting any sort of chance to review, or indeed even vote on any legislation. Even if time was taken to review and vote on each measure proposed by overzealous DC lawmakers, we can fully expect the US Constitution to be trampled upon, and our rights as citizens to be cut back. Some states have considered, and at least some have advanced legislation to prohibit federal gun control measures from affecting their citizens. Wyoming HB104 (http://legisweb.state.wy.us/2013/Introduced/HB0104.pdf) is currently under consideration. Montana has already adopted legislation which was very similar in 2009. Can we count on our state representatives to follow suit and pass something along these lines, and fast? Thanks for your time Sincerely, Brian B

To my state legislature, en masse. Got a few E-mails and one very good phone call from my actual legislator back within a few hours. I like this state.

Wait a second, that's not even constitutional. Federal law trumps state every time, you can't legalize something the federal government has made illegal. (Which is why DEA can still raid pot stuff to their hearts' content in CA and nobody tries to stop them.)