Bush / Kerry / Nader

Wow!!

Never thought my thread would be so popular!!!!
Maybe I could be a published PhD from St. Regis

We have went from the election, to abortion, to gun control.

Ok Gun control.
Own Guns? Yep
Licensed? Yep

Do I believe that law abiding citizens should own weapons?
Yes for all firearms except assault rifles.
Yes for assault rifles only after training.

Anti gun statements:
Cause Crime, Cause Death, Cause Robbery, Cause Violence.

States with the most gun ownership from public carry to assault rifles:

To name a few:

New Hampshire
West Virginia
Pennsylvania
Michigan
Wisconsin
Montana
The Dakotas

States with tightest gun control and beaucratic oversight:

To name a few:

New Jersey
New York
Illinois
Washington, DC
Massachusetts
Maryland
California

Highest crime areas:

New Jersey
New York
California
Washington, DC
Maryland

Something just don't add up.
Lived in NJ for 10 years. Could not even buy BB's at the store but try walking down a side street in Camden or Newark. Good Luck


Veteran Out

PS: Has Buchanon put his name in the ring yet???

 

Kerry Nader Bush.

Getting back to politics.

Something to think about.

What does the democratic leadership
and diapers have in common?

They both need to be changed often, and for the same reason.

Gore
Hillery
Kennedy
Dashel
Jackson
Sharpton
etc.



Just a thought.

TomC.

 

>>Yes for all firearms except assault rifles.<<

Private ownership of true "assault rifles" has been Federally outlawed , with a few exceptions, since, I think, 1939.

 

Unless you have a special license, right? Isn't it the "Cat -3" license? I might be mistaken.

However, although this law has been on the books a long time, most people don't realize it, since the press seems to refer to any gun as an assault weapon these days.

 

I totally agree. You are absolutely 100% correct. Anyone who does not agree must be a mill shill.

 

No, you're correct. A holder of a Category-3 Federal Firearms License (FFL) can own full-automatic weapons. Good luck getting one, though.

Correct again. When I first got out of the police academy in 1988, I worked in the worst area of Boston, at a time when gang violence was at an all-time high. The "prestige" weapon for the bangers was the TEC-9, which does look impressive, but it's a piece of crap that would jam more often than not. Every time we recovered one, the headline would read something like "Police arrest gang member with assault weapon". The TEC-9 is no more an assault weapon than the S&W Model 10 revolver that I carried back then.

 

OK, I have a serious question for the gun advocates:

Where do you draw the line?

Should private citizens be able to have fully automatic weapons? RPG's? Artillery shells? Tactical nukes?

I'm not being facetious, and I do support the Second Amendment. (I want the ability to protect myself from the governmental "jack-booted thugs," as the NRA called them. They are everywhere, including right here.)

But where do we draw the line?

 

The line has been drawn. The better question might be to ask when do we stop moving the line.

 

That is a cop out. Why should I not be allowed to have my own personal nuclear bomb?

The Second Amendment states:
"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

By not allowing me to have a nuke, are you not infringing upon my right to keep and bear arms?

 

Not at all a cop. You pose a philosophical, reductio type question for which there can be no conclusive answer. I deal with the reality of where we are and where some politicos would take us.

 

Indeed my argument is reductio ad absurdum, but that simply points out that there is no clear line.

Please explain to me why, according to the Constitution, some weapons are legal and others are not.

I think I should be allowed to have a nuclear bomb, and I believe that the Constitution supports this. Please point out to me why I am wrong.

Why is outlawing private ownership of handguns, for example, any more unconstitutional than outlawing private ownership of nuclear bombs?

 

I am not a Constitutional expert. If you are then perhaps you'll enlighten me with an exposition on the limits to free speech. Why can I not say whatever I please wherever I please?

 

Nor am I a Constutional expert.

But I do know that you make an exellent point. The point is that there are limits to our civil rights.

And I'm not asking for a "legalistic" answer. I just want someone to explain to me, in layman's terms, how the Constitution protects ownership of handguns but does not protect the ownership of nuclear weapons.

It's a very simple question.

 

Of course not. The overwhelming majority of NRA members would support reasonable gun control legislation. It's not reasonable for the average citizen to have a M-60 machine-gun or a suitcase nuke. However, it's also not reasonable to be denied a gun permit because the Chief of Police hates gun owners.

By reasonable, I mean that is someone has no history of mental instability or drug/alcohol abuse, no felony convictions, and completes training on firearms safety & use of force, they are issued a concealed carry permit.

I own a Colt AR-15, mostly because I carried a M-16 for many years in the military, and having it is a bit nostalgic. Although it would be very fun to have full-auto capability, there is no need whatsoever for me to have it.

As decimon put it, the line has been drawn & then moved several times. You cannot compromise with people like Sarah Brady and Chuck Schumer. Give them an inch, and they'll try to take 100 miles.

 

The old legal term "reasonableness".

 

I have to ask about your exceptions. No history of drug / alcohol abuse.... doesn't that mean our last fearless leader, as well as our current one would be ruled out.........

I agree with the felony and traianing though. But the term "abuse" is a loose term now-a-days. Maybe a definition is in order.

 

The drug/alcohol abuse thing is in the current MA law. It's defined as not having been treated on an in-patient basis within a certain amount of time previously (5 years I think). You also have to provide three references who can attest to your suitability.

 

Wow, I didn't know that, that is intersting. Is this a state driven law, or a federal one? I would assume federal, but not sure.

 

Honestly, I agree with you on this, Bruce. I am an advocate for the Second Amendment.

But people tend to paint it as a black and white issue, and nothing could be further from the truth. Some people believe that they have a God-given (or at least Constitution-given) right to an "assault weapon" (gray term, I know). I really don't know whether or not people do/should have that right, but I do know for sure it is not specified in the Constitution.

Yet anyone who opposes the right to have an "assault weapon" is labled by as an anti-gun radical.

What I want to know is what do the far right gun advocates really want? Where do they think the line should be? Where does the NRA think the line should be?

And don't give me this B.S. that the anti-gun people are the only ones who want to move the line. As soon as the NRA gets the right to fully automatic assualt weapons, they will move on to something else -- RPG's perhaps. And I don't hold that against them.

It's a process. There is no clear line in the Constitution. To claim that there is currently a clear line that we must adhere to forever is nonsensical.