Obama's plan for gun control

[tr0llaccount]

Shouldn't really be a surprise to anyone (http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/Story?id=6960824&page=1)

[St. Earl]

i find it amazing that gun owning adults will let the government tell them they can't buy decent fireworks and then turn around and bitch about not being able to buy a war gun.

[burnt]

weak sauce. I have to give up a major part of my 2nd amendment rights - because the beaners down south are killing cops down south?

the only way I would concede to this is if they have a gasoline or transportation ban in Mexico. to stop the illegal flow of drugs up north. I mean - if the problem is our guns are going down south to drug dealers... so America has to fix Mexico's problem by sacrificing one of the cornerstones of our liberty?? then fuck it. I want Mexicans to sacrifice too.

if we can't shoot things, they don't get to drive anywhere or grow anything.

[tr0llaccount]

i find it amazing that gun owning adults will let the government tell them they can't buy decent fireworks and then turn around and bitch about not being able to buy a war gun.

i see what you're saying, but i think it's an issue of priorities for the most part.

[Roddimus]

oh great, the guy who argued for the outright ban on all handguns in DC is pushing for nationwide controls. fuck eric holder. i can't believe he's now our country's top lawyer.
and the mexico argument is so messed up. the only reason why our guns are getting sent over the border is because mexico has the same gun bans that holder has argued for. only the corrupt mexican cops and military are allowed to freely own guns, and surprise surprise, the rest of the criminals are going to the US to fill the gap.

[tr0llaccount]

oh great, the guy who argued for the outright ban on all handguns in DC is pushing for nationwide controls. fuck eric holder. i can't believe he's now our country's top lawyer.
and the mexico argument is so messed up. the only reason why our guns are getting sent over the border is because mexico has the same gun bans that holder has argued for. only the corrupt mexican cops and military are allowed to freely own guns, and surprise surprise, the rest of the criminals are going to the US to fill the gap.

i'd say it's even more messed up than that; the last time i checked it's REALLY hard to get fully auto firearms and grenades here (which is what they're concerned about the cartels using).

eta: i've never seen any credible evidence whatsoever that guns are being transported south.

[seattle science]

Put in your order NOW for a decent Bushmaster or Colt AR-15. Do not wait. PM for a good place to do so.

[tr0llaccount]

Put in your order NOW for a decent Bushmaster or Colt AR-15. Do not wait. PM for a good place to do so.

heck, it's already just about too late. i've heard that there is a 90 day wait for any decent brand, and you can expect to pay >$1k.

[seattle science]

You are correct on both accounts. That's why, if you have the cash, you need order yours now.

I guess the good news is that there are going to be a lot more "pre-bans" on the market than before w/ the old ban, but then you're looking at spending >$3k

[Kohei]

2nd amendment = lol

[tr0llaccount]

You are correct on both accounts. That's why, if you have the cash, you need order yours now.

I guess the good news is that there are going to be a lot more "pre-bans" on the market than before w/ the old ban, but then you're looking at spending >$3k

Yeah, it's good news for those of us who already have 'em! ;)

stock up on stripped lowers and magazines while you still can. heck, even if you're not interested in owning firearms, they'll probably be a decent investment.

what i would give to go back in time and load up on 5.56 when it was ~$100/case...

[Roddimus]

2nd amendment = lol
explain...

[Cethe]

firearms, ammo & alcohol are the only safe investments left.

watch prices go up even more in coming months, on all guns & ammo....

[Kohei]

explain...

Clearly for the ability to start a militia. Fast forward into the future with America's crazy ass gun-culture and you have a god-given right to possess a firearm. It's just funny to me, I've lived in places where gun prohibition works exceedingly well, and in places where it leaves all the guns in the hand of criminals, like inner city ghetto style. The psychology of the gun possessing conservative, living in fear out in the sprawl, crying that his ability to defend his rights are being taken away is weird Americana imagery at its best. It's cartoonish if you aren't enculturated by it all.

[forrest303]

Clearly for the ability to start a militia. Fast forward into the future with America's crazy ass gun-culture and you have a god-given right to possess a firearm. It's just funny to me, I've lived in places where gun prohibition works exceedingly well, and in places where it leaves all the guns in the hand of criminals, like inner city ghetto style. The psychology of the gun possessing conservative, living in fear out in the sprawl, crying that his ability to defend his rights are being taken away is weird Americana imagery at its best. It's cartoonish if you aren't enculturated by it all.

Gotta agree with ya.

You don't need a fully automatic weapon with a 30 round clip to hunt Bambi. You're a shitty shot if you do and you should probably stop hunting.

[seattle science]

My brother used to explain to me how Bush was probably sending out black helicopters to pick up dissenters, and throwing them in secret prison camps. In fact, those choppers could be on their way to this very house right now because "I post on an anti-Bush forum online!"

Well that's not the weird part, because now that a new politician has been elected he must think all of those black helicopters have been painted pink. Suddenly, only a crazy person could be wary of goverment power.

Lately I've tried telling him that either scenario is probably not very realistic. But for chrissakes, man, you bought a home and are starting a family in Renton. Stop being an absolute moron and buy a fucking shotgun.

Luckily I think he's going to.

[seattle science]

Gotta agree with ya.

You don't need a fully automatic weapon with a 30 round clip to hunt Bambi. You're a shitty shot if you do and you should probably stop hunting.

You're right. Only the guy breaking into your house or stealing your car should have that kind of firearm.

[St. Earl]

i really don't know the politics of this mexico deal, but still i'll ask if you all didn't think good shotguns and hand guns aren't better for home defense.

at distance, a good high powered semi auto hunting rifle w/ scope.

i mean, if you have a long dirt road heading up to your enclave.

i'm not saying i'm gonna charge you if you have an assault rifle though.

oh well, i guess you do need one for that middle range.:p

[forrest303]

You're right. Only the guy breaking into your house or stealing your car should have that kind of firearm.

Gimme a fucking break...its HANDGUNS that are used most commonly for committing crimes against people. You are not going to be sitting at a stoplight and have some guy stick an assault rifle in your face and jack your Kia.

[seattle science]

What kind of handgun? A 9mm with an hc 17 rd mag, maybe? And it's a Scion, thank you.

Also, if criminals do not use assault rifles... exactly what is the point of banning something only used by law abiding citizens?

[Kohei]

My brother used to explain to me how Bush was probably sending out black helicopters to pick up dissenters, and throwing them in secret prison camps. In fact, those choppers could be on their way to this very house right now because "I post on an anti-Bush forum online!"

Well that's not the weird part, because now that a new politician has been elected he must think all of those black helicopters have been painted pink. Suddenly, only a crazy person could be wary of goverment power.


That is a false step in logic. The desire to lower the availability of guns (regardless of your ideas on the actual effectiveness of prohibition) doesn't equate to a lack in skepticism of authority. They are separate issues.

[seattle science]

That is a false step in logic. The desire to lower the availability of guns (regardless of your ideas on the actual effectiveness of prohibition) doesn't equate to a lack in skepticism of authority. They are separate issues.

Please explain how it does not.

[Roddimus]

Clearly for the ability to start a militia.
and a militia is...(ahem, i mean was)?
Fast forward into the future with America's crazy ass gun-culture and you have a god-given right to possess a firearm. It's just funny to me, I've lived in places where gun prohibition works exceedingly well, and in places where it leaves all the guns in the hand of criminals, like inner city ghetto style. The psychology of the gun possessing conservative, living in fear out in the sprawl, crying that his ability to defend his rights are being taken away is weird Americana imagery at its best. It's cartoonish if you aren't enculturated by it all.
OK, so people who value their rights to own guns are paranoid right wing nut jobs. gotcha.
it's a good thing federal agents aren't using things like hurricanes as an excuse to forcibly take people's firearms from their homes (not to mention the people themselves (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YhvV2uz10eA)). otherwise all those gun possessing conservatives might actually have a reason to be genuinely concerned.

[Kohei]

OK, so people who value their rights to own guns are paranoid right wing nut jobs

Nah, it's people who lack the perspective of what it's like to live in different societies where guns aren't so readily available, loosely controlled, and ingrained in the culture. And it's not that they're nutjobs, they just have a very limited reality.

Different culture, different case...but I'm thinking level of gun crime in Northern Ireland vs. availability of guns for the IRA during the '90s. Britain's relatively decent implementation of gun control held up in civilian peace time, but simultaneously the IRA didn't have an issue procuring black market guns at an inflated price. So you have this case here about the degree of availability restriction being fairly successful (although the assaults moved to knives instead of firearms, but the total number of deaths are predictably low), which is the case most gun control people hammer.

[HexRei]

im too afraid of the government to give up my right to own guns. let's not forget this amendment was drafted largely in response to a tyrannical empire. *cough*

PS I voted for obama

[B_tech]

I just don't see how people think that the cool, even-headed Obama would make a decision that would revoke the rights to gun ownership. Such an act doesn't jive with his words OR actions... I just don't see why people are creating this fake hype. Bush was the type of president to make those kinds of decisions, but Obama doesn't roll like that.

[tr0llaccount]

i'll ask if you all didn't think good shotguns and hand guns aren't better for home defense.

they are not better than an ar-15 in any way.

pistol pros:
light
compact

pistol cons:
much less powerful
much more difficult to be accurate with
much less capacity
maneuverability is better, but not enough to override the above
much more difficult for the average woman to operate (heavy trigger on revolvers, some women have trouble racking the slide on semi-auto)

shotgun pros:
inexpensive
very powerful at short range
(do not insert "does not need to be aimed." this is a ridiculous myth. the average shot spread over self defense distances is only a couple of inches)

shotguns cons:
heavier
much lower capacity
much more complicated to operate (referring to pump-actions there. semi-autos are rarely as reliable as a basic ar-15)
much slower to reload
much stronger recoil (often beyond managability for the average woman)
much shorter effective range (probably not an issue for self defense, but why limit yourself?)

ar-15 cons:
relatively expensive (ammo too)
(do not insert "unreliable." another myth)

ar-15 pros:
very accurate
powerful
high capacity
low recoil
simple to operate
light and maneuverable (shouldered 16" carbine is not significantly longer than a properly wielded pistol)

[tr0llaccount]

I just don't see how people think that the cool, even-headed Obama would make a decision that would revoke the rights to gun ownership. Such an act doesn't jive with his words OR actions... I just don't see why people are creating this fake hype. Bush was the type of president to make those kinds of decisions, but Obama doesn't roll like that.

wait, did you not read the article, or was there something in that article that you don't believe? do you believe that holder is going on about this without obama's consent? what's obama's track record on gun control?

[St. Earl]

they are not better than an ar-15 in any way.

pistol pros:
light
compact

pistol cons:
much less powerful
much more difficult to be accurate with
much less capacity
maneuverability is better, but not enough to override the above
much more difficult for the average woman to operate (heavy trigger on revolvers, some women have trouble racking the slide on semi-auto)

shotgun pros:
inexpensive
very powerful at short range
(do not insert "does not need to be aimed." this is a ridiculous myth. the average shot spread over self defense distances is only a couple of inches)

shotguns cons:
heavier
much lower capacity
much more complicated to operate (referring to pump-actions there. semi-autos are rarely as reliable as a basic ar-15)
much slower to reload
much stronger recoil (often beyond managability for the average woman)
much shorter effective range (probably not an issue for self defense, but why limit yourself?)

ar-15 cons:
relatively expensive (ammo too)
(do not insert "unreliable." another myth)

ar-15 pros:
very accurate
powerful
high capacity
low recoil
simple to operate
light and maneuverable (shouldered 16" carbine is not significantly longer than a properly wielded pistol)

HA! i guess all the video games i've played have it modeled right then.:D

i always hate the shot gun. lol.

i have a this feeling i'm gonna make it to my dirt nap before i ever need a gun.
i like not having one.

even the clash says "you never need a gun says tai chi."

i'm just gonna bow out of this thread.

if you read i've been killed by a home invader, you can say "i told you so".

peace,
w

[tr0llaccount]

i have a this feeling i'm gonna make it to my dirt nap before i ever need a gun.

you and me both. however, i don't feel inconvenienced in any way by having one.

whatever works for you though.

[Roddimus]

I just don't see how people think that the cool, even-headed Obama would make a decision that would revoke the rights to gun ownership.
is this the same cool, even-headed obama who thinks it's fine and dandy to delegate unconstitutional authority to the DoJ?

[St. Earl]

ok, so one more post.

i just realized i can't say for sure how i feel about an assault weapons ban.


truly, i prefer not to have to think about it, but this conversation just made me reallize i don't have the information i'd need to have an opinion i can stand behind.

i don't think guns are bad per se.

part of me is just always going to want to continue to see the way things could, but probably never will, be in this world.

this inner view does not make me trust humans any more than i ever will.

we are the most dangerous animal on the planet.

the times when i thought i should have a gun are the times i go out camping alone.

only there have i ever felt the absence of something i have only ever owned once.


ok, for me i would buy a handgun perhaps.
i'm not gonna be wanting anything else though.

hey, btw. i would love the chance to shoot some long guns.
if you live in pdx and shoot rifles somewhere, i'd love to try it out.

i've only ever shot a rifle once.
in videos i'm sniper dude.

later folks,
wes

[IrisSilverMoon]

what's obama's track record on gun control?

i believe obama is pro-second amendment rights, but has ALWAYS legislated for further control.

Personally i don't have a problem with increased control over who buys guns at gun shows, you can wait.

I also don't think we need semi-automatic assault weapons, i can pop off a load of rounds of a 9mm with pretty decent accuracy (and i don't shoot that often) and with decent speed, why the fuck do you need more power?

[B_tech]

is this the same cool, even-headed obama who thinks it's fine and dandy to delegate unconstitutional authority to the DoJ?
Nobody responded to me in the other thread... are those dolts in the DoJ brief Obama's boys or are they still there from King Bush's reign?

I don't see how his vocalization one way or the other would affect the litigation that's in process; expecially since his authority in the matter is what's being questioned. He should, though, get people in the DoJ to represent his views and then submit briefs accordingly.

[B_tech]

wait, did you not read the article, or was there something in that article that you don't believe? do you believe that holder is going on about this without obama's consent? what's obama's track record on gun control?
No... I'm replying to the notion that some of you (and others in the blog-o-sphere) have made that the assault ban is a pandora's box to banning ALL gun ownership. Obama is all for banning guns and backs the Cook County ban on pistol ownership... that's nothing new.

BUT... like I said, I highly doubt that his personal beliefs are going to manifest into law like our previous tyran... err, I mean president.

[tr0llaccount]

No... I'm replying to the notion that some of you (and others in the blog-o-sphere) have made that the assault ban is a pandora's box to banning ALL gun ownership. Obama is all for banning guns and backs the Cook County ban on pistol ownership... that's nothing new.

BUT... like I said, I highly doubt that his personal beliefs are going to manifest into law like our previous tyran... err, I mean president.

can you help me reconcile these two points? i'm just not getting how someone who has been "all for banning guns," and has explicitly said (himself and through his appointees) that he's going to push for more gun control, isn't actually going to do it.

(i'd also like to clarify that i don't think that banning "assault weapons" is opening a pandora's box. it's a bullshit idea that a) won't do anything to solve the "gun problem" b) is questionable in it's constitutional legality)

[Roddimus]

Nobody responded to me in the other thread... are those dolts in the DoJ brief Obama's boys or are they still there from King Bush's reign?
eric holder is the AG and he's definitely one of obama's boys.
He should, though, get people in the DoJ to represent his views and then submit briefs accordingly.
considering obama himself has voiced support for bush's warrantless wiretapping program, it's fair to say they already do.
but you seem happy hoping against hope that the obvious still isn't obvious enough.

[tr0llaccount]

i believe obama is pro-second amendment rights, but has ALWAYS legislated for further control.

oh, i see...


I also don't think we need semi-automatic assault weapons, i can pop off a load of rounds of a 9mm with pretty decent accuracy (and i don't shoot that often) and with decent speed, why the fuck do you need more power?

a) there is no such thing as a semi-automatic assault weapon. would you like to ban semi-automatic rifles (or all semi-autos?) or increase the current federal restrictions on select-fire/full auto ownership?

b) the government is not in any position to legislate "need."

[B_tech]

can you help me reconcile these two points? i'm just not getting how someone who has been "all for banning guns," and has explicitly said (himself and through his appointees) that he's going to push for more gun control, isn't actually going to do it.

There's a big difference between Obama and Bush: Obama is beholden to the people and he's not going to trounce on the civil liberties of the people for his own agenda.

So for as much as he WANTS to ban all guns, he's not going to do it, because he actually cares about fundamental rights of the people. He may try to make certain weapons less accessable, but he won't ban hand guns because he believes they deserve to be.

[Roddimus]

There's a big difference between Obama and Bush: Obama is beholden to the people and he's not going to trounce on the civil liberties of the people for his own agenda.

So for as much as he WANTS to ban all guns, he's not going to do it, because he actually cares about fundamental rights of the people.
is this the same obama who thinks it's fine and dandy to delegate unconstitutional authority to the DoJ and wiretap without warrants?

[Boyd Main]

I also don't think we need semi-automatic assault weapons, i can pop off a load of rounds of a 9mm with pretty decent accuracy (and i don't shoot that often) and with decent speed, why the fuck do you need more power?


b) the government is not in any position to legislate "need."

I'm not sure I understand the response here. Does this mean that you think that the government has no role in deciding what are the 'arms' which the second ammendment protects your right to bear? If so, do you think your average citizen should have a protected right to own or manufacture chemical or biological weapons?

If not, then where do you draw the line? And who draws it?

[B_tech]

is this the same obama who thinks it's fine and dandy to delegate unconstitutional authority to the DoJ and wiretap without warrants?
Funny, I don't recall hearing him state he was of that position at all. I also think it's a tad convenient for someone to assume that because he was 'for' the act when it was signed that he's for it 100%.

Don't you think that he'd SAY so if he was for it? Or do you believe (as many here seem to) that silence equals acceptance?

[tr0llaccount]

Does this mean that you think that the government has no role in deciding what are the 'arms' which the second ammendment protects your right to bear?

If not, then where do you draw the line? And who draws it?

the line is drawn at the definition of the us of 'arms' in the 2nd amendment in regards to their intended purpose.

do you really think that the government can do a good job of determining (probably the word i should have used), and then legislating need?

no one really "needs" tobacco, and it costs this country exponentially more in dollars and lives than firearms do. same for alcohol, cars that don't meet particularly safety standards (or go more than 5 mph), and a litany of other things.

[B_tech]

the line is drawn at the definition of the us of 'arms' in the 2nd amendment in regards to their intended purpose.

And by that account, rifles should be allowed, but pistols should not, as a rifle is more feasible for a militia (military) and a pistol is not.

You can't have it both ways. Either you want to follow the constitution to the letter and only weapons for the militia should be allowed (which is not going to happen, because it's just the 'letter of the law') or, you can allow the courts to interpret the law (aka the 'spirit of the law') and decide which firearms are feasible for society, in accordance with the constitution.

[tr0llaccount]

Don't you think that he'd SAY so if he was for it? Or do you believe (as many here seem to) that silence equals acceptance?

i don't think many of us give one shit what he says. it's his actions, and the actions that he permits to occur, that concern us.

[B_tech]

i don't think many of us give one shit what he says. it's his actions, and the actions that he permits to occur, that concern us.
hmm.. it's been what... 1 month? The guy has a million other FAR more pressing issues to deal with right now... maybe wait and see what he does once some of the current crises have passed before making snap judgements?

[tr0llaccount]

And by that account, rifles should be allowed, but pistols should not, as a rifle is more feasible for a militia (military) and a pistol is not.

tell that to beretta.

[tr0llaccount]

hmm.. it's been what... 1 month? The guy has a million other FAR more pressing issues to deal with right now... maybe wait and see what he does once some of the current crises have passed before making snap judgements?

the issues roddimus raised are not "snap judgments.' they're bullshit that has already occured.

[Boyd Main]

the line is drawn at the definition of the us of 'arms' in the 2nd amendment in regards to their intended purpose.

are there classes of weapons that fall outside that definition of arms? of course there are (nukes, chem/bio, aircraft carriers, subs, etc), but to try to segment different weapons within a particular class is ridiculous, and does not get to the root of the actual problem.

If the purpose is to defend the security of a free state through militia - then certainly jet fighters, tanks, missiles, even subs, would be needed to even begin to stave off the US military. Should these be allowed for private ownership?



do you really think that the government can do a good job of determining (probably the word i should have used), and then legislating need?

It already has set up it's need to legislate need by being founded on the constitution which includes the 2nd amendment. You seem to think that the definition of 'arms' in that sense is self evident - I don't think it is, or if it is, it includes attack helicopters in the current military context. So again, who should draw the line? Or perhaps there shouldn't be a line, and anyone should be able to possess any kind of weapon they see fit to maintain the security of their free state?

[Roddimus]

Funny, I don't recall hearing him state he was of that position at all. I also think it's a tad convenient for someone to assume that because he was 'for' the act when it was signed that he's for it 100%.

Don't you think that he'd SAY so if he was for it? Or do you believe (as many here seem to) that silence equals acceptance?
that, and the fact that his DoJ is holding the bush line to a tee.
but oh no, it's just the leftover bush people in his DoJ! oh wait, it's the AG obama appointed? well, obama himself never expressed explicit support for warrantless wiretapping! yeah, that totally convinces me he's actually opposed to all the things his cabinet is carrying out!

[seattle science]

Do criminals really use AK's and AR-15's?

If yes, then no argument can be made against allowing a law abiding citizen to have at least equal firepower in defense of their household.

If no, then why would there ever be a need to ban such weapons in the first place? Besides as an attempt to set babystep precedents down the path to an outright ban on gun ownership.

Basically, whether the answer is yes or no, I should be able to own an AR-15.

[B_tech]

that, and the fact that his DoJ is holding the bush line to a tee.
but oh no, it's just the leftover bush people in his DoJ! oh wait, it's the AG obama appointed?
K, so now story time is over.

Here's who submitted the brief:

MICHAEL F. HERTZ
Acting Assistant Attorney General, Civil Division
DOUGLAS N. LETTER
Terrorism Litigation Counsel
JOSEPH H. HUNT
Director, Federal Programs Branch
ANTHONY J. COPPOLINO
Special Litigation Counsel
MARC KRICKBAUM

Don't you suppose maybe, JUST MAYBE, they were working on this brief BEFORE the AG was confirmed and the AG didn't know that these left over Bushies were planning on submitting this brief?

[seattle science]

K, so now story time is over.

Here's who submitted the brief:

MICHAEL F. HERTZ
Acting Assistant Attorney General, Civil Division
DOUGLAS N. LETTER
Terrorism Litigation Counsel
JOSEPH H. HUNT
Director, Federal Programs Branch
ANTHONY J. COPPOLINO
Special Litigation Counsel
MARC KRICKBAUM

Don't you suppose maybe, JUST MAYBE, they were working on this brief BEFORE the AG was confirmed and the AG didn't know that these left over Bushies were planning on submitting this brief?

Does it matter who the AG is and which lawyers worked on it? The man at the top makes the ultimate decision to proceed, right?

[B_tech]

tell that to beretta.
Gladly. I'd be happy to show them all the pics of US soliders fighting and NOT shooting pistols at 'enemies'.

[B_tech]

Does it matter who the AG is and which lawyers worked on it? The man at the top makes the ultimate decision to proceed, right?
Not if his employees did it without his knowledge. You mean to tell me it's impossible for your employees to do something you don't know about... especially when you just get the position? c'mon.

He's responsible, sure, but to assume he's knowledgable is just implausible.

[seattle science]

He's responsible, sure, but to assume he's knowledgable is just implausible.

lol, kay... well let's go ahead and assume that he's knowledgable now. Couldn't he say "nope, we're not doing that"?

[Roddimus]

Not if his employees did it without his knowledge. You mean to tell me it's impossible for your employees to do something you don't know about... especially when you just get the position? c'mon.
i don't know of many companies where employees are allowed to make PR, policy or financial statements without the knowledge and consent of the CEO.

[seattle science]

And by that account, rifles should be allowed, but pistols should not, as a rifle is more feasible for a militia (military) and a pistol is not.


The "militia use only" defense is kaput.

Supreme Court in the most recent 2nd Amendment case (2008): "the Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home."

[St. Earl]

yeah. but who's taking me shooting rifles?

[B_tech]

The "militia use only" defense is kaput.

Supreme Court in the most recent 2nd Amendment case (2008): "the Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home."
That's true... the recent D.C. opinion. Tho if you need to protect your home with an AR-10, then you may want to rethink your living arrangements. :D

[tr0llaccount]

Gladly. I'd be happy to show them all the pics of US soliders fighting and NOT shooting pistols at 'enemies'.

start with this one:

http://images.military.com/pics/050204_WoundedMarine.jpg

just got back from lunch; will address other points once i get caught up.

[B_tech]

You know what I meant by that statement. If pistols were such an important part of warfare, they'd be the first choice, rather than the rifle.

[tr0llaccount]

You know what I meant by that statement. If pistols were such an important part of warfare, they'd be the first choice, rather than the rifle.

first choice isn't a rifle either. it's an airstrike or artillery bombardment. unfortunately the first choice, and sometimes the second choice isn't always available. it doesn't mean that other options aren't viable.

to say that a pistol isn't an effective tool for a militia is simply ignorant.

[B_tech]

to say that a pistol isn't an effective tool for a militia is simply ignorant.
I don't recall saying it wasn't effective. But given the choice between a pistol and a rifle, the rifle is more effective for firing at targets and for general use. Otherwise, Marines would be patrolling the streets of Baghdad with them, rather than rifles.

[tr0llaccount]

I don't recall saying it wasn't effective. But given the choice between a pistol and a rifle, the rifle is more effective for firing at targets and for general use. Otherwise, Marines would be patrolling the streets of Baghdad with them, rather than rifles.

i guess i misunderstood a previous post then. i thought you were saying that pistols should be banned because they aren't effective military/militia weapons.

dumb mistake on my part, because who in their right mind would ban weapons (and potential weapons) that aren't effective military tools? you'd have to start banning bb guns, slingshots, rocks, hammers, 2x4s etc.

[Nukegrrrl]

If the purpose is to defend the security of a free state through militia - then certainly jet fighters, tanks, missiles, even subs, would be needed to even begin to stave off the US military. Should these be allowed for private ownership?I think that some of those examples are allowed for private ownership, but you're right about the jet fighter. Travis Webbwerx even threw a rave in a submarine that used to have its tours advertised on a billboard by the Fife I-5 exit. I know that citizens can't own jet fighters because of that Pepsi contest about 20 years back where the grand prize was a jet fighter and the Feds said no way, the winners can't have one.

[tr0llaccount]

If the purpose is to defend the security of a free state through militia - then certainly jet fighters, tanks, missiles, even subs, would be needed to even begin to stave off the US military. Should these be allowed for private ownership?

It already has set up it's need to legislate need by being founded on the constitution which includes the 2nd amendment. You seem to think that the definition of 'arms' in that sense is self evident - I don't think it is, or if it is, it includes attack helicopters in the current military context. So again, who should draw the line? Or perhaps there shouldn't be a line, and anyone should be able to possess any kind of weapon they see fit to maintain the security of their free state?

(short version):
i can agree that the definition isn't 100% clear. obviously technologies/capabilities have changed beyond anything the founding fathers could have imagined.

i could see private ownership of tanks/subs/jet fighters etc, provided restrictions are similar to the current nfa (perhaps even more strict)

don't forget, select fire and explosive devices are legal now, albeit insanely expensive (an m-16 costs nearly as much as a new car. perhaps more than some). how many crimes have been committed with such legally purchased devices?

i don't think, even if they were legalized, you'd be able to just walk into cosco an pick up an abrams. at least i wouldn't support that option.

eta: nukegrrl is correct as well. you can buy certain (operational) tanks (http://www.armyjeeps.net/), and ww2 fighters for sure. not sure about other vehicles.

[B_tech]

i guess i misunderstood a previous post then. i thought you were saying that pistols should be banned because they aren't effective military/militia weapons.

dumb mistake on my part, because who in their right mind would ban weapons (and potential weapons) that aren't effective military tools? you'd have to start banning bb guns, slingshots, rocks, hammers, 2x4s etc.
Ohhh no no... I was kind of saying that people who think we should follow the Constitution to the letter should then follow it as the writers intended, which would have been muskets and such. Of course, that kind of reasoning is just foolish and your above point it totally true. If I were in a pinch, I could go Braveheart on someone's ass and go to war with a hammer.

[HexRei]

(short version):
don't forget, select fire and explosive devices are legal now, albeit insanely expensive (an m-16 costs nearly as much as a new car. perhaps more than some).
you can get an m-16 for under 2 G's. What kind of new car can you get for that price or anything close?

[tr0llaccount]

you can get an m-16 for under 2 G's. What kind of new car can you get for that price or anything close?

huh? where? let me know, 'cause i'll buy 3-4. they're a great investment being that none have been, or will be, registered with the batfe for legal civilian posession since may 1986.

i've never seen a registered, pre-'86 manufacture (the only legal kind) m-16 for less than 5 figures. 12k i think is the cheapest.

eta: this site (http://www.sturmgewehr.com/) is pretty much the biggest nfa marketplace on the net, and i guarantee you won't find an m-16 for less than 10k.

colt for 14k (http://www.sturmgewehr.com/webBBS/nfa4sale.cgi?read=116392)

colt for 11k (http://www.sturmgewehr.com/webBBS/nfa4sale.cgi?read=116200)

this guy (http://www.sturmgewehr.com/webBBS/nfa4sale.cgi?read=116386) has a decent selection, and all prices are pretty representative of what i've seen/heard of.

mac-10's are generally the cheapest full auto($2k-$4k)

[tr0llaccount]

Ohhh no no... I was kind of saying that people who think we should follow the Constitution to the letter should then follow it as the writers intended, which would have been muskets and such. Of course, that kind of reasoning is just foolish and your above point it totally true. If I were in a pinch, I could go Braveheart on someone's ass and go to war with a hammer.

i hear crowbars work well too! ;)

[burnt]

hey troll account can you get me a mac 10 for $2000?

[tr0llaccount]

hey troll account can you get me a mac 10 for $2000?

i'm not a licensed class 3 dealer, so no i can't. keep your eyes open here (http://www.sturmgewehr.com), and you shouldn't have much trouble finding one. heck in my last post there's one with a suppressor for 4k (although in retrospect it's probably not a great deal for you considering your wacky suppressor laws in wa)

eta: looks like prices are up a bit since the last time i checked
another for 3200 (http://www.sturmgewehr.com/webBBS/nfa4sale.cgi?read=116370)
in a "man's caliber" for 3400 (http://www.sturmgewehr.com/webBBS/nfa4sale.cgi?read=116373)
another source (http://www.impactguns.com/store/machineguns.html)

don't forget to add $200 to all prices for the tax stamp required for all nfa transfers.

[B_tech]

now those mean business.

[HexRei]

huh? where? let me know, 'cause i'll buy 3-4. they're a great investment being that none have been, or will be, registered with the batfe for legal civilian posession since may 1986.

i've never seen a registered, pre-'86 manufacture (the only legal kind) m-16 for less than 5 figures. 12k i think is the cheapest.

eta: this site (http://www.sturmgewehr.com/) is pretty much the biggest nfa marketplace on the net, and i guarantee you won't find an m-16 for less than 10k.

colt for 14k (http://www.sturmgewehr.com/webBBS/nfa4sale.cgi?read=116392)

colt for 11k (http://www.sturmgewehr.com/webBBS/nfa4sale.cgi?read=116200)

this guy (http://www.sturmgewehr.com/webBBS/nfa4sale.cgi?read=116386) has a decent selection, and all prices are pretty representative of what i've seen/heard of.

mac-10's are generally the cheapest full auto($2k-$4k)

well i didnt realize you had a bias against airsoft and stolen goods!

[tr0llaccount]

well i didnt realize you had a bias against airsoft and stolen goods!

i'm weird like that!