iowaman
Topic Author
Posts: 3874
Joined: Thu May 20, 2004 2:29 am

NRA "Big Announcement" Statement... Really? #2

Wed Dec 26, 2012 3:35 am

As the last thread is almost 300 replies please continue the discussion here.

Previous thread:

NRA "Big Announcement" Statement... Really? (by tugger Dec 21 2012 in Non Aviation)
 
itsjustme
Posts: 2727
Joined: Sun Apr 25, 2004 6:58 pm

RE: NRA "Big Announcement" Statement... Really? #2

Wed Dec 26, 2012 4:10 am

D.C. police are looking into whether or not "Meet The Press" host David Gregory violated local law when he displayed what he described as a 30 round magazine as part of an interview with an NRA rep on last Sunday's show. And, not too surprisingly, it was "several conservative commentators" who first raised the issue of whether Gregory had broken D.C. law by using the magazine. Sour grapes?

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com...-moderator-violated-law/?hpt=hp_t3
 
seb146
Posts: 14049
Joined: Wed Dec 01, 1999 7:19 am

RE: NRA "Big Announcement" Statement... Really? #2

Wed Dec 26, 2012 4:16 am

Quoting itsjustme (Reply 1):
D.C. police are looking into whether or not

So, they have time to go after a TV host but not real criminals who are using real bullets to kill real people?

We know where their priorities are...
Patriotic and Proud Liberal
 
itsjustme
Posts: 2727
Joined: Sun Apr 25, 2004 6:58 pm

RE: NRA "Big Announcement" Statement... Really? #2

Wed Dec 26, 2012 4:22 am

Quoting seb146 (Reply 2):
So, they have time to go after a TV host but not real criminals who are using real bullets to kill real people?

We know where their priorities are...

I have a strong suspicion there was some political pressure applied to make them open an investigation. I'm pretty sure a police force whose jurisdiction saw a 40% increase in violent crimes this year has higher priorities than going after Daivd Gregory for displaying an empty high-capacity magazine.
 
FlyDeltaJets
Posts: 1631
Joined: Thu Feb 02, 2006 4:24 pm

RE: NRA "Big Announcement" Statement... Really? #2

Wed Dec 26, 2012 4:30 am

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 281):
If I have to explain why I should be allowed to own something, then I'm not really free to own it. It's really that simple. Gun licenses and registrations are fine as far as restrictions go and proving one is responsible enough.

You can be free to own a firearm you just should't be free to own any firearm. All freedom comes with restrictions. There is no such thing as unrestricted freedom. It is not conducive to a civlized society.
The only valid opinions are those based in facts
 
itsjustme
Posts: 2727
Joined: Sun Apr 25, 2004 6:58 pm

RE: NRA "Big Announcement" Statement... Really? #2

Wed Dec 26, 2012 4:37 am

Quoting FlyDeltaJets (Reply 4):
You can be free to own a firearm you just should't be free to own any firearm

Which is exactly what Justice Scalia and four others ruled in D.C v. Heller. But in BMI727's eyes, his opinion carries more weight than that of five Supreme Court Justices.
 
BMI727
Posts: 11123
Joined: Mon Feb 02, 2009 9:29 pm

RE: NRA "Big Announcement" Statement... Really? #2

Wed Dec 26, 2012 4:56 am

Quoting FlyDeltaJets (Reply 4):
You can be free to own a firearm you just should't be free to own any firearm. All freedom comes with restrictions. There is no such thing as unrestricted freedom.

If someone can explain how your rights are violated by someone having a 30 round magazine rather than 10 rounds, you might be able to make a case for restricting that freedom.
Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
 
User avatar
Tugger
Posts: 6079
Joined: Tue Apr 18, 2006 8:38 am

RE: NRA "Big Announcement" Statement... Really? #2

Wed Dec 26, 2012 5:06 am

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 6):
If someone can explain how your rights are violated by someone having a 30 round magazine rather than 10 rounds, you might be able to make a case for restricting that freedom.

It's not always/primarily about "rights" being violated, it is often about potential damage and usefulness to society versus the effect of the restriction on the right. Hence the speech restriction on crying "FIRE!!" in a crowded theater etc.

A restriction on 30 round magazines will neither deprive you of your right to a firearm or your ability to use it when needed.

So I will ask you how a restriction on 30 round magazines will detrimentally harm you, your life, or your right to own and bear a firearm?

Tugg

[Edited 2012-12-25 21:57:52]
I don’t know that I am unafraid to be myself, but it is hard to be somebody else. -W. Shatner
 
FlyDeltaJets
Posts: 1631
Joined: Thu Feb 02, 2006 4:24 pm

RE: NRA "Big Announcement" Statement... Really? #2

Wed Dec 26, 2012 5:08 am

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 6):
If someone can explain how your rights are violated by someone having a 30 round magazine rather than 10 rounds, you might be able to make a case for restricting that freedom.

It's not a question of my right's being violated its a matter of the safety of the society at large over weighing your freedom. In the sense you are saying a person owning a bomb or missle does not violate any one else's rights either. There has to be limits. I don't see how it's unreasonable to understand. There are limits to all freedom's why should firearms be exempt.
The only valid opinions are those based in facts
 
TheCommodore
Posts: 3458
Joined: Tue Dec 25, 2007 2:14 am

RE: NRA "Big Announcement" Statement... Really? #2

Wed Dec 26, 2012 5:27 am

Quoting FlyDeltaJets (Reply 8):
There has to be limits. I don't see how it's unreasonable to understand. There are limits to all freedom's why should firearms be exempt.

Precisely.


You ask a very good question of your fellow country men.

In every civilized society, there are limits placed on what people can and cant do, from smoking in public, to limiting how fast people can drive. Everyone accepts this without question.....

But when it comes to guns, apparently that's different ????????

Completely bizarre, that its so hard to get this message across.
“At first, they'll only dislike what you say, but the more correct you start sounding the more they'll dislike you.”
 
BMI727
Posts: 11123
Joined: Mon Feb 02, 2009 9:29 pm

RE: NRA "Big Announcement" Statement... Really? #2

Wed Dec 26, 2012 5:58 am

Quoting tugger (Reply 7):
It's not always/primarily about "rights" being violated,

It is. That has to be the primary criteria when it comes to outlawing something: "Whose rights are being violated if it's allowed to continue." If the question is concerning shooting in public places, the answer is obvious. If the question is concerning the ownership of assault weapons, the answer is "nobody."

Quoting tugger (Reply 7):
Hence the speech restriction on crying "FIRE!!" in a crowded theater etc.

But I still get to have a voice. Possession of a voice does not violate anyone's rights or constitute a crime. Using it in a way that violates someone's rights is a problem, and is illegal. The same should apply to guns. All guns.

Quoting tugger (Reply 7):
So I will ask you how a restriction on 30 round magazines will detrimentally harm you, your life, or you right to own and bear a firearm?

Personally, none. I don't feel the need to own any gun, let alone an assault rifle.

But it does violate the rights of people who wish to own such things and do nothing to harm others. Law should be permissive by default rather than restrictive by default. That's what freedom is. The question should be how allowing ownership of such things by others would harm me. The answer is that it wouldn't. Shooting at me would, but of course that's already illegal.

Quoting FlyDeltaJets (Reply 8):
It's not a question of my right's being violated its a matter of the safety of the society at large over weighing your freedom.

No it isn't. If something you want to do doesn't violate anyone's rights you should be able to do it. If you want to harm my safety by shooting at me, then you're committing a crime. But if you move in next to me with your cache of AR-15s and ammunition, there is absolutely nothing I could do before that I could not continue, nor any onerous task that didn't need to be done before.

Quoting TheCommodore (Reply 9):
In every civilized society, there are limits placed on what people can and cant do, from smoking in public, to limiting how fast people can drive.

There are already plenty of wise limitations on where and how firearms may be used, but this does not have any bearing on the ownership of weapons. Just as limits on public smoking or speed limits do not constitute or necessitate restrictions on ownership of cigarettes or sports cars.

Quoting TheCommodore (Reply 9):
Completely bizarre, that its so hard to get this message across.

I'll tell you what this gun control outrage in the wake of Newtown is: it's bullying. It's a large scale scapegoating of gun owners and shouting down of those who don't agree. It has a base of enforced conformity in the form of "I don't need a gun. The (insert nationality) don't need guns. You don't need guns either."

It's like during the Vietnam war when protesters couldn't stop the politicians in charge, so they took it out on returning veterans. After 9/11 people couldn't get their hands on the hijackers. but that didn't stop many from blaming other brown skinned men with beards. And now we can't get a hold of Adam Lanza, so people who own guns like the one he used will have to do. Never mind that most such people pose no threat nor do they infringe upon the rights of others, it isn't good enough. Something has to be done. Americans have to somehow give themselves the illusion of control and justice in the face of chaos, and it's turned many into bullies seeking retribution where none is possible.
Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
 
User avatar
Tugger
Posts: 6079
Joined: Tue Apr 18, 2006 8:38 am

RE: NRA "Big Announcement" Statement... Really? #2

Wed Dec 26, 2012 6:05 am

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 10):
It is. That has to be the primary criteria when it comes to outlawing something: "Whose rights are being violated if it's allowed to continue." If the question is concerning shooting in public places, the answer is obvious. If the question is concerning the ownership of assault weapons, the answer is "nobody."

No, the question is: "Is a restriction on "X" (in this case a 30 round magazine) infringing on the right to "bear arms"? And in what we are talking about here it does not.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 10):
But it does violate the rights of people who wish to own such things and do nothing to harm others. Law should be permissive by default rather than restrictive by default. That's what freedom is. The question should be how allowing ownership of such things by others would harm me. The answer is that it wouldn't. Shooting at me would, but of course that's already illegal.

But that is not the discussion. There is no "right" to bear "high capacity magazines". Is there?

Tugg
I don’t know that I am unafraid to be myself, but it is hard to be somebody else. -W. Shatner
 
BMI727
Posts: 11123
Joined: Mon Feb 02, 2009 9:29 pm

RE: NRA "Big Announcement" Statement... Really? #2

Wed Dec 26, 2012 6:18 am

Quoting tugger (Reply 11):
But that is not the discussion.

That has to be the discussion.

Quoting tugger (Reply 11):
There is no "right" to bear "high capacity magazines". Is there?

Not written down, but that's why Alexander Hamilton was correct about the Bill of Rights.
Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
 
User avatar
Tugger
Posts: 6079
Joined: Tue Apr 18, 2006 8:38 am

RE: NRA "Big Announcement" Statement... Really? #2

Wed Dec 26, 2012 6:21 am

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 12):
That has to be the discussion.

Actually no. Because I do not advocate for the denial of the right to keep and bear arms.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 12):
Not written down,

Then it is not an "enshrined" right and can be changed without any impact on the people's rights. It is just is not that big a deal.

Tugg

[Edited 2012-12-25 22:29:50]
I don’t know that I am unafraid to be myself, but it is hard to be somebody else. -W. Shatner
 
BMI727
Posts: 11123
Joined: Mon Feb 02, 2009 9:29 pm

RE: NRA "Big Announcement" Statement... Really? #2

Wed Dec 26, 2012 6:33 am

Quoting tugger (Reply 13):
Actually no.

When freedom has value, the law has to be permissive by default. Better too much freedom than too little.

Quoting tugger (Reply 13):
Then it is not an "enshrined" right and can be changed without any impact on the people's rights. It is just is not that big a deal.

That's an unspeakably backwards way of thinking. If that's the way many people think, then the Bill of Rights is possibly the biggest blunder of American government.
Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
 
User avatar
Tugger
Posts: 6079
Joined: Tue Apr 18, 2006 8:38 am

RE: NRA "Big Announcement" Statement... Really? #2

Wed Dec 26, 2012 6:43 am

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 14):
When freedom has value, the law has to be permissive by default. Better too much freedom than too little.

Very true.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 14):
That's an unspeakably backwards way of thinking. If that's the way many people think, then the Bill of Rights is possibly the biggest blunder of American government.

You are thinking backwards. Rights belong to people not things but people do have the "right" to those things that are legal and meet the requirement of applicable law.. Passing legislation on how "things" should be does not grossly affect the rights of people. Cars are required to have seat belts. Aircraft required to pass rigorous certification. Products required to have certain information available on demand. Are you saying these are all blunders? Are you saying this is "backwards"?

Tugg

[Edited 2012-12-25 22:45:15]
I don’t know that I am unafraid to be myself, but it is hard to be somebody else. -W. Shatner
 
FlyDeltaJets
Posts: 1631
Joined: Thu Feb 02, 2006 4:24 pm

RE: NRA "Big Announcement" Statement... Really? #2

Wed Dec 26, 2012 8:40 am

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 10):
It is. That has to be the primary criteria when it comes to outlawing something: "Whose rights are being violated if it's allowed to continue." If the question is concerning shooting in public places, the answer is obvious. If the question is concerning the ownership of assault weapons, the answer is "nobody."

How are your rights to bear arms being violated when restrictions are placed on what type of arms you can bear. With your interpetation I have the right to own a missle or bomb. If you believe that I shouldn't have the right to own that, then it has to be feesable that others can believe that the right to own an assult rifle. A gun designed for infatry usage during wartime.
The only valid opinions are those based in facts
 
cmf
Posts: 3120
Joined: Sun Jun 12, 2011 11:22 pm

RE: NRA "Big Announcement" Statement... Really? #2

Wed Dec 26, 2012 12:56 pm

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 10):
I'll tell you what this gun control outrage in the wake of Newtown is: it's bullying.

Other way around. It is a reaction to the bullying pro-gunners have done over the last 40 years.
Don’t repeat earlier generations mistakes. Learn history for a better future.
 
MD11Engineer
Posts: 13916
Joined: Sun Oct 26, 2003 5:25 am

RE: NRA "Big Announcement" Statement... Really? #2

Wed Dec 26, 2012 3:05 pm

To add to the discussion above:
Actually the public has nothing to fear from a law abiding, responsible gun owner, who knows gun safety by heart, stores his guns and ammunition safely and has no mental issues (and I think that the large majority of the gun owners in the US fall into this category, though training might be an issue as I´ve been rold by a licenced gun trainer. Too many people buy guns in the US without having any idea about gun safety. He assumes that only 1 % of all gun owners in the US had formal training).

The problem is a minority of unsafe, criminal or plain crazy gun owners. They are the real danger, and as I have said in the previous thread, I wouldn´t let them get their hands on on anything more dangerous than a plastic spoon.

The question is how to reasonably prevent guns or other dangerous materials (e.g. chemicals which can be used for making bombs) to fall into the hands of the last group. 30 years ago, when I was a teenager interested in chemical experiments, I still could buy a lot of chemicals freely at the local chemicals supplier. Nowadays you´ll need documentation of commercial use and police clearances before they will sell you anything. To be fair, it is not only the threat of terrorist bombs, which caused this change, also a lot of formerly easily available chemicals (e.g. potassium permanganate) have been used for the manufactire of illegal synthetic drugs.
Similarly possession of lasers will probably restricted because of of idiots, who aim them at aircraft. Nobody cares if this rule will affect those who e.g. create holographic pictures as a hobby in their garage or carry out scientific experiments as a hobby.
I know you can never really stop a determined person from getting what he wants. E.g. during WW2 the Danish resistance built thousands of copies of the British Army Sten submachine gun right under the noses of the Gestapo
During my apprenticeship as a mechanic I have been trained in operating tooling machines, like lathes and milling machines as well as to weld. I could easily churn out illegal guns, with the quality ranging from crude to professional.

One thing I´ve heard about (but don´t know if it true) the US that once it becomes official that you are insane (and maybe get put into a closed institution), you´ll lose your constitutional citizen´s rights for good and for life, even if your condition has been successfully treated. Maybe this is also one of the reasons why people with mental issues in the US are so reluctant to go for help.

Jan
Je Suis Charlie et je suis Ahmet aussi
 
luv2fly
Posts: 11056
Joined: Tue May 13, 2003 2:57 am

RE: NRA "Big Announcement" Statement... Really? #2

Wed Dec 26, 2012 3:18 pm

What is sad is that NYC has laws on the size of sodas to curb obesity and the gun people won't work with us to limit the size of magazine to hopefully save lives. What does that tell us about our society.
You can cut the irony with a knife
 
cmf
Posts: 3120
Joined: Sun Jun 12, 2011 11:22 pm

RE: NRA "Big Announcement" Statement... Really? #2

Wed Dec 26, 2012 3:43 pm

Quoting MD11Engineer (Reply 18):
Actually the public has nothing to fear from a law abiding, responsible gun owner, who knows gun safety by heart, stores his guns and ammunition safely and has no mental issues

Problem is how to identify those who are not. How do you identify the guy who shot a person for complaining that the pizza line is moving too slow. How do you identify the guy who gets too angry over some incident out in public? The warning signals expressed by them are expressed by large parts of the population. I don't think it is possibly to track.
Don’t repeat earlier generations mistakes. Learn history for a better future.
 
User avatar
DeltaMD90
Posts: 8245
Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 11:25 pm

RE: NRA "Big Announcement" Statement... Really? #2

Wed Dec 26, 2012 3:49 pm

I wouldn't be opposed to making 30 round magazines harder to get, but after going through hoops, let legal, good gun owners use them. I'll flat out tell you now there is no reason why they are NEEDED. The reason why they are desirable is simple: go shooting using 30 round magazines, then shoot the same amount using 5 round magazines.

Very annoying.

MILLIONS of Americans use them safely and legally every year. We have a problem that needs to be addressed, yes. Isn't there a middle ground that limits them from the hands of weirdos yet allows the MILLIONS of good gun owners the right to possess them?
Ironically I have never flown a Delta MD-90 :)
 
brilondon
Posts: 3018
Joined: Sun Aug 21, 2005 6:56 am

RE: NRA "Big Announcement" Statement... Really? #2

Wed Dec 26, 2012 4:18 pm

"I'm perfectly fine with punishing those who actually do something illegal. As far as the rest, I really don't care what guns they own. Believe me, I'll be the first to throw the book at anyone who shoots at me, but until someone does I don't have any interest in punishing people for what they might do."

The above is a quote from the previous thread in which I would like to respond.

The 26 kindergarten children and adults and their families I am sure would like to do like wise. I would like to know how to prevent such atrocities from occurring and to take semi-automatic assault files out the hands of the untrained and the general populace would be a great way to start.
Rush for ever; Yankees all the way!!
 
FlyDeltaJets
Posts: 1631
Joined: Thu Feb 02, 2006 4:24 pm

RE: NRA "Big Announcement" Statement... Really? #2

Wed Dec 26, 2012 4:22 pm

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 21):
Isn't there a middle ground that limits them from the hands of weirdos yet allows the MILLIONS of good gun owners the right to possess them?

How about only shooting ranges. So you can have the joy of shooting it and low chance of getting into unsavory hands.
The only valid opinions are those based in facts
 
MD11Engineer
Posts: 13916
Joined: Sun Oct 26, 2003 5:25 am

RE: NRA "Big Announcement" Statement... Really? #2

Wed Dec 26, 2012 4:32 pm

Quoting brilondon (Reply 22):

The 26 kindergarten children and adults and their families I am sure would like to do like wise. I would like to know how to prevent such atrocities from occurring and to take semi-automatic assault files out the hands of the untrained and the general populace would be a great way to start.

AFAIK there were no semiautomatic rifles used in the kindergarten massacre. AFAIK, the killing was carried out with handguns.
And per definition a semiautomatic rifle is NOT an assault rifle, even if it looks like an M-16 or an AK-47. Per definition an assault rifle has to have a full auto function and is as such not accessible to the general population in the US.

Jan
Je Suis Charlie et je suis Ahmet aussi
 
User avatar
scbriml
Posts: 13467
Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2003 10:37 pm

RE: NRA "Big Announcement" Statement... Really? #2

Wed Dec 26, 2012 5:11 pm

Quoting MD11Engineer (Reply 24):
AFAIK there were no semiautomatic rifles used in the kindergarten massacre. AFAIK, the killing was carried out with handguns.

Then it looks like you'd be wrong.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-20744701

Quote:
The state's chief medical examiner said the gunman used a rifle as his main weapon, and all the victims appeared to have been shot several times.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sandy_Hook_Elementary_School_shooting

Quote:
A large quantity of unused ammunition was recovered from the school along with three semi-automatic firearms found with Adam Lanza: a .223-caliber Bushmaster XM-15 rifle, a 10mm Glock 20 SF handgun and a 9mm SIG Sauer handgun.
...
According to the state's chief medical examiner, H. Wayne Carver, many of the victims were shot up to 11 times with the same "long weapon"—the Bushmaster rifle.
Time flies like an arrow. Fruit flies like a banana!
 
MD11Engineer
Posts: 13916
Joined: Sun Oct 26, 2003 5:25 am

RE: NRA "Big Announcement" Statement... Really? #2

Wed Dec 26, 2012 5:55 pm

Quoting scbriml (Reply 25):

Then it looks like you'd be wrong.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-20744701

Quote:
The state's chief medical examiner said the gunman used a rifle as his main weapon, and all the victims appeared to have been shot several times.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sandy_Hook_Elementary_School_shooting

Quote:
A large quantity of unused ammunition was recovered from the school along with three semi-automatic firearms found with Adam Lanza: a .223-caliber Bushmaster XM-15 rifle, a 10mm Glock 20 SF handgun and a 9mm SIG Sauer handgun.
...
According to the state's chief medical examiner, H. Wayne Carver, many of the victims were shot up to 11 times with the same "long weapon"—the Bushmaster rifle.

I stand corrected.

But what Istill wonder is the increased frequency of such massacres (and especially of copy cat attacks a short while after) during the last 20 or so years. Massacres like this were virtually unknown before. Could it be that the fast electronic news networks and the opportunity of everybody getting his 15 minutes in the news as long as he just does something attrocious play a role?

Also, if you compare porn from 20-30 years ago with porn from today, you´ll find a lot more sadistic themed porn.

It is a very complex subject and just going for a kneejerk gun ban reaction is IMO too simplicistic.

To me it seems like the proverbial Nanny state. Remember when we were little children and were not allowed to touch knives or matchsticks because it was considered too dangerous for us? Mummy knew best.
Today, with the gun ban and some other bans (e.g. chemicals to be sold for industrial use only) it seems that the government and it´s employees (civil servants, military, police etc.) have taken over the Mummy role. The citizens of a stare, though formaly the souvereign, are not to be trusted in general. I hear this in the gun debate quite noften from soldiers and police officers, who consider themselves to be the state´s elite and only they should be trusted with weapons or chemicals or lasers etc.. Everybody else is either too stupid or not disciplined enough.
E.g. in the UK, you are strongly discouraged from defending yourself, even if attacked. You are either supposed to run, if you can or to endure the attack and let the police sort it out later.

On the other hand there exist people in the population who really can´t be trusted. Either because the decide to ignore the basic rules of living together in a community (these are called laws and the people who break them are called criminals) or they simply don´t have the ability to control themselves and their impulses, those people have mrntal issues.
Now it is considered not to be PC to declare somebody with mental issues unfit to live in a society unless this person does something extreme.

Over here in Germany, if you apply for a gun licence, if you are below 25, or if the issuing civil servant deems so (maybe because you appeared to be weird in the interview), you´ll have to undergo a psychological evaluation.
IIRC the law in the US states quite clearly that felons and people with mental issues are not allowed to have access to guns. The problem is the implementation, because any check beyond a criminal records check is considered interference into the privacy of the person. Even if possession of guns is anchored in the constitution, why would it not to be possible to issue a "no objections" card, which gets issued based on a criminal background check, a psychological evaluation and a certificate of having successfully passed gun safety training?

Jan
Je Suis Charlie et je suis Ahmet aussi
 
cmf
Posts: 3120
Joined: Sun Jun 12, 2011 11:22 pm

RE: NRA "Big Announcement" Statement... Really? #2

Wed Dec 26, 2012 6:00 pm

Quoting MD11Engineer (Reply 24):
AFAIK there were no semiautomatic rifles used in the kindergarten massacre.

The reports I have see state AR-15 but I have not seen an official report.

Quoting MD11Engineer (Reply 24):
And per definition a semiautomatic rifle is NOT an assault rifle, even if it looks like an M-16 or an AK-47. Per definition an assault rifle has to have a full auto function and is as such not accessible to the general population in the US.

I think that is a difference without meaning. It is the closest thing you can legally get and if you look at how it is advertised there is no question.
Don’t repeat earlier generations mistakes. Learn history for a better future.
 
MD11Engineer
Posts: 13916
Joined: Sun Oct 26, 2003 5:25 am

RE: NRA "Big Announcement" Statement... Really? #2

Wed Dec 26, 2012 6:12 pm

Quoting cmf (Reply 27):
Quoting MD11Engineer (Reply 24):
And per definition a semiautomatic rifle is NOT an assault rifle, even if it looks like an M-16 or an AK-47. Per definition an assault rifle has to have a full auto function and is as such not accessible to the general population in the US.

I think that is a difference without meaning. It is the closest thing you can legally get and if you look at how it is advertised there is no question.

The definition clearly marks weapons which in the US would fall under the 1934 Federal Firearms Act as machine guns and are highly regulated (very difficult to legally obtain by civilians and very expensive). They are basically only available to the military and police in the US (with the exception of some older, grandfathered weapons, but these are so expensive and the owners are more or less contantly watched by the BATF and FBI, that these weapons are effectively rare collector´s items and investments. The owners know that any misstep will get them up to ten years in prison plus a bankruptcy inducing fine, so they obey the rules extremely well. I know of only one case of a homicide carried out with one of these weapons since 1934 and this case involved a police officer, who stole his weapon from the police armoury).

Here is short breakdown of the German gun law from Wikipedia:

Quote:
Firearms ownership license

A firearms ownership license (Waffenbesitzkarte) must be obtained before a weapon can be purchased. Owners of multiple firearms need separate ownership licenses for every single firearm they own. It entitles owners to purchase firearms and handle them on their own property and any private property with property owner consent. On public premises, a licensed firearm must be transported unloaded and in a stable, fully enclosing, locked container. A weapons ownership license does not entitle the owner to shoot the weapon or carry it on public premises without the prescribed container. Owners must obtain mandatory insurance and a means to securely store the weapon on their premises (a weapons locker). Blanket ownership licenses are issued to arms dealers, firearms experts and – with limitations – to collectors. Today, there are ca. four million legal private gun owners.[11]

A number of criteria must be met before a firearms ownership license is issued:

age of majority (18 years) (§ 4 WaffG)
trustworthiness (§ 5 WaffG)
personal adequacy (§ 6 WaffG)
expert knowledge (§ 7 WaffG) and
necessity (§ 8 WaffG)

Necessity is automatically assumed present for licensed hunters and owners of a carry permit (Waffenschein). Competition shooters can demonstrate necessity by being an active member of a Schützenverein (marksmen club) for over a year. A competition shooter can lose necessity – and be required to give up owned firearms – by abandoning the shooting sport. Self-defense is not a recognized ground for necessity, outside the narrow requirements of a carry permit.

Inheritors of legal firearms can obtain a permit without having to demonstrate expert knowledge or necessity, but without them, the firearm has to be blocked by an arms dealer (§ 20 WaffG) and an inheritor's license does not include the right to acquire or handle ammunition.

Persons who are

convicted felons
have a record of mental disorder or
are deemed unreliable (which includes people with drug or alcohol addiction histories and known violent or aggressive persons)

are barred from obtaining a firearms ownership license.

Firearms ownership licenses come in three color-coded varieties: Green licenses enable the holder to acquire and own all non-assault weapons. Every acquisition requires prior approval and per-firearm necessity. License holders are normally limited to two short firearms and three semi-automatic rifles. Yellow licenses enable the holder to acquire and own single-shot and repeater long firearms and single-shot short ones, without having to obtain prior approval or demonstrate individual necessity. Acquisition is limited to two firearms per half-year. Red licenses are available to collectors and experts. They allow unlimited acquisition of firearms, for collectors they are usually constrained to a specific collectible "theme".
Firearms carry permit

Firearms carry permits (Waffenschein) entitle licensees to publicly carry legally owned weapons, loaded in a concealed or non-concealed manner. A mandatory legal and safety class and shooting proficiency tests are required to obtain such a permit. Carry permits are usually only issued to persons with a particular need for carrying a firearm. This includes some private security personnel and persons living under a raised threat-level like celebrities and politicians. They are valid up to three years and can be extended. Carrying at public events is prohibited. Licensed hunters do not need a permit to carry weapons while hunting.
Small firearms carry permit

A small firearms carry permit (Kleiner Waffenschein) was introduced in 2002. It can be obtained without having to demonstrate expert knowledge, necessity or a mandatory insurance. The only requirements are that the applicant be of legal age, trustworthy and personally adequate. It entitles the licensee to publicly carry gas pistols (both of the blank and irritant kind) and flare guns. These types of firearms are freely available to adults; only the actual carrying on public property requires the permit. Similarly to the "real" or big permit, carrying at public events is prohibited.
Firearms without a license

For persons over 18 years of age, a license is not required to own a single shot percussion firearm developed before 1870, as well as all muzzle loaders with a flintlock or earlier design. Participating in competitive shooting can require additional permits, as well as the purchase of black powder or similar.

Note that there is an estimate of about 4 million licenced civilian gun owners in Germany. I´ve read about an estimate of about 20 million legally registered guns in civilian hands. But an estimate by the BKA (Germany´s equivalent to the FBI) I once read states that they assume at least the same number of illegal guns being around, among them guns normally not available to civilians, like machine guns.

Jan
Je Suis Charlie et je suis Ahmet aussi
 
BMI727
Posts: 11123
Joined: Mon Feb 02, 2009 9:29 pm

RE: NRA "Big Announcement" Statement... Really? #2

Wed Dec 26, 2012 6:39 pm

Quoting tugger (Reply 15):
Are you saying these are all blunders?

I'm saying the Bill of Rights was a blunder, and for exactly the reasons some opposed it when it was written.

Quoting cmf (Reply 17):
It is a reaction to the bullying pro-gunners have done over the last 40 years.

What bullying? What of your rights have been taken away by gun owners? What rights did you lose when the assault weapons ban expired? No, this is bullying by the gun control faction against the gun owners. You can't get your hands on Adam Lanza, so taking it out on people who own guns like the one he used will have to do.

Quoting brilondon (Reply 22):
I would like to know how to prevent such atrocities from occurring and to take semi-automatic assault files out the hands of the untrained and the general populace would be a great way to start.

Too much freedom is taken away. There are plenty of (well trained) people who own such guns with no problems whatsoever. And allowing a crazy person to have a pistol is maybe only marginally better than them having an assault rifle. What happens when the next massacre takes place using a weapon with a fifteen round clip?
Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
 
cmf
Posts: 3120
Joined: Sun Jun 12, 2011 11:22 pm

RE: NRA "Big Announcement" Statement... Really? #2

Wed Dec 26, 2012 7:16 pm

Quoting MD11Engineer (Reply 28):
The definition clearly marks weapons which in the US would fall under the 1934 Federal Firearms Act as machine guns and are highly regulated

Technically that is absolutely correct. But everyone know what weapons are meant and we all know how they are advertised. It is pretty much the same image NRA stated as reason for the mass shootings. Do you want your man card back...
Don’t repeat earlier generations mistakes. Learn history for a better future.
 
D L X
Posts: 11663
Joined: Thu May 27, 1999 3:30 am

RE: NRA "Big Announcement" Statement... Really? #2

Wed Dec 26, 2012 7:28 pm

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 14):
If that's the way many people think, then the Bill of Rights is possibly the biggest blunder of American government.

I come onto this thread only to state that on this point alone, I agree with BMI -- the Bill of Rights was a blunder, put into the Constitution as an afterthought. (Which is why they're all amendments, and why in some cases, they are contradictory to each other.)
 
cmf
Posts: 3120
Joined: Sun Jun 12, 2011 11:22 pm

RE: NRA "Big Announcement" Statement... Really? #2

Wed Dec 26, 2012 7:29 pm

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 29):
What bullying? What of your rights have been taken away by gun owners?

You have been told several times. The freedom to walk in public spaces without fear that a weapon will be used because a person not adequately trained will accidentally use it or that a person who shouldn't have access to a weapon he shouldn't and will use it either in public or to commit crime.

In no small mean because the meaning of the Second Amendment has been rewritten over the last 40 years.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 29):
Too much freedom is taken away.

Provide a solution that works for all sides.
Don’t repeat earlier generations mistakes. Learn history for a better future.
 
MD11Engineer
Posts: 13916
Joined: Sun Oct 26, 2003 5:25 am

RE: NRA "Big Announcement" Statement... Really? #2

Wed Dec 26, 2012 7:41 pm

Well, you could interpret the "well regulated" part of the 2nd amendment that whoever wants to own a gun has to fullfill certain conditions, e.g. be trained and fit to hold the responsibility that goes with it to own or handle a gun.

The German gun law automatically excludes people from owning guns:
- who are below the age of 18
- have a criminal record
- have mental health issues
- or have other issues which make them unreliable to follow the laws and regulations, e.g. being drug addicts or alcoholics, having a history of violence etc.


Jan
Je Suis Charlie et je suis Ahmet aussi
 
User avatar
ER757
Posts: 2473
Joined: Tue May 10, 2005 10:16 am

RE: NRA "Big Announcement" Statement... Really? #2

Wed Dec 26, 2012 7:59 pm

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 10):
But it does violate the rights of people who wish to own such things and do nothing to harm others.

Let's go back to the speed limit for cars analogy and try it to help explain suggested restrictions on guns and or ammo.
Why are some cars classified as "street legal" and others not? By your definition if I wanted to buy a funny car or a top fuel dragster and go tooling down the I-405, my rights are violated because they aren't "street legal." By the same token, what others are trying to point out is that your 2nd amendment rights are NOT infringed upon by placing certain limits on the type of firearms you can own or the size of the ammo clip. Hope this helps illustrate their point.
 
BMI727
Posts: 11123
Joined: Mon Feb 02, 2009 9:29 pm

RE: NRA "Big Announcement" Statement... Really? #2

Wed Dec 26, 2012 8:01 pm

Quoting cmf (Reply 32):
The freedom to walk in public spaces without fear that a weapon will be used because a person not adequately trained will accidentally use it or that a person who shouldn't have access to a weapon he shouldn't and will use it either in public or to commit crime.

Fear is in your own mind. Unless someone is threatening you, there is nothing that can be done. Again, you're trying to preemptively punish those who probably won't violate any of your rights. Unless there is a solid reason to believe that a given gun owner is likely to commit a crime, there is no reason to violate their rights.

Quoting cmf (Reply 32):
Provide a solution that works for all sides

Just do this:

Quoting MD11Engineer (Reply 33):
The German gun law automatically excludes people from owning guns:
- who are below the age of 18
- have a criminal record
- have mental health issues
- or have other issues which make them unreliable to follow the laws and regulations, e.g. being drug addicts or alcoholics, having a history of violence etc.

None of that has anything to do with clip size however, but that's just fine. You don't get to limit everyone else on the off chance that someone might do something to you.
Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
 
Maverick623
Posts: 4640
Joined: Thu Nov 30, 2006 9:13 am

RE: NRA "Big Announcement" Statement... Really? #2

Wed Dec 26, 2012 8:23 pm

Quoting cmf (Reply 32):
The freedom to walk in public spaces without fear

Is NOT a right enumerated in the Constitution... similar to when people want to ban "offensive" speech, with not only the right to free speech enumerated, but no right to not be offended.

And even if it were, what about the right to walk in public spaces without fear of being defenseless?

Quoting cmf (Reply 32):

In no small mean because the meaning of the Second Amendment has been rewritten over the last 40 years.

Has it really?

Quoting ER757 (Reply 34):

Let's go back to the speed limit for cars analogy and try it to help explain suggested restrictions on guns and or ammo.

False analogy. There is nothing in the Constitution that says, "The right of the people to keep and operate cars on public rights-of-way shall not be infringed."
"PHX is Phoenix, PDX is the other city" -777Way
 
User avatar
ER757
Posts: 2473
Joined: Tue May 10, 2005 10:16 am

RE: NRA "Big Announcement" Statement... Really? #2

Wed Dec 26, 2012 8:37 pm

[quote=Maverick623,reply=36]False analogy. There is nothing in the Constitution that says, "The right of the people to keep and operate cars on public rights-of-way shall not be infringed."

There's lots of things not in the constitution. Doesn't mean I don't have the "right" to own one of whatever. It's not a false analogy at all. As others have pointed out - the 2nd amendment doesn't give you the right to own a rocket launcher or an RPG. The point of the post was to illustrate that we do not have "absolute" freedoms. There are limitations placed on nearly any right or freedom - what BMI727 was referring to sounded more like anarchy and that was more or less the point I was trying to make. There are reasonable limitations placed on society even in a democracy and one which provides its citizens with many "freedoms."
 
cmf
Posts: 3120
Joined: Sun Jun 12, 2011 11:22 pm

RE: NRA "Big Announcement" Statement... Really? #2

Wed Dec 26, 2012 8:48 pm

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 35):
Quoting cmf (Reply 32):
Provide a solution that works for all sides

Just do this:

Great, lets implement the German system. It more than covers what I feel is needed.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 35):
None of that has anything to do with clip size however, but that's just fine. You don't get to limit everyone else on the off chance that someone might do something to you.

That is not what the Supreme Court said.

Quoting Maverick623 (Reply 36):
Is NOT a right enumerated in the Constitution

It is a basic human right.
Don’t repeat earlier generations mistakes. Learn history for a better future.
 
MD11Engineer
Posts: 13916
Joined: Sun Oct 26, 2003 5:25 am

RE: NRA "Big Announcement" Statement... Really? #2

Wed Dec 26, 2012 9:06 pm

I could take a 100 years old British Army WW1 Lee Enfield rifle in .303 (therefore mudch stronger than the .223 round of the AR-15 / M-16)


and fill my jacket pockets full with 5 round chargers, as issued to the Commonwealth soldiers in WW1 and WW2
.

With a bit of practice it would take me only seconds to reload the internal 10 round magazine of the rifle (a British WW1 soldier was issued cloth bandoliers containing 50 rounds packed in those charger clips).
Then the Lee Enfield is famous for it´s smooth manual action (nothing automatic or semiautomatic there), so I could fire the rounds almost as fast as with a semiautomatic weapon.
This oldstyle bolt action battle rifle is still used in many places for hunting or in India, rechambered to 7.62 NATO, as a police weapon.

A British WW1 soldier would be expected to fire 30 aimed shot per minute and to hit a target at a range of 600 metres regularly using simple iron sights. This means one round every 2 seconds, including reloading the magazine twice.

Jan
Je Suis Charlie et je suis Ahmet aussi
 
D L X
Posts: 11663
Joined: Thu May 27, 1999 3:30 am

RE: NRA "Big Announcement" Statement... Really? #2

Wed Dec 26, 2012 9:31 pm

Quoting Maverick623 (Reply 36):
Quoting cmf (Reply 32):
The freedom to walk in public spaces without fear

Is NOT a right enumerated in the Constitution.

So? Lots of Constitutional rights are not enumerated. These rights are specifically protected by the Ninth Amendment.

"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

Quoting Maverick623 (Reply 36):
Quoting cmf (Reply 32):

In no small mean because the meaning of the Second Amendment has been rewritten over the last 40 years.

Has it really?

Yup. It used to be about regulating militia. It was never an individual right to own a handgun until the current Supreme Court decided that it was.
 
TheCommodore
Posts: 3458
Joined: Tue Dec 25, 2007 2:14 am

RE: NRA "Big Announcement" Statement... Really? #2

Wed Dec 26, 2012 9:42 pm

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 35):
Fear is in your own mind.

BMI727

With all due respect.

How can you say its "in his mind" when killings occur on such a regular, almost daily basis in the US ?

It is a reality, not some far fetched nightmare.

I would have thought its was perfectly normal, to have reservations about how armed people will behave in general. And with what I have read about the mental health care system in the US, I think everyone should be concerned, gun owners included !

[Edited 2012-12-26 13:43:53]
“At first, they'll only dislike what you say, but the more correct you start sounding the more they'll dislike you.”
 
MD11Engineer
Posts: 13916
Joined: Sun Oct 26, 2003 5:25 am

RE: NRA "Big Announcement" Statement... Really? #2

Wed Dec 26, 2012 9:47 pm

Quoting D L X (Reply 40):

Yup. It used to be about regulating militia. It was never an individual right to own a handgun until the current Supreme Court decided that it was.

Well, as I´ve written in the other thread you could argue that "well regulated" can mean:
Everybody has the right to own guns provided he fullfills certain requirement:

- being older than 18
- have no criminal history (felonies)
- is not mentally ill
- there is no evidence that he might not obey laws and regulations, e.g. being a drug addict or alcoholic, having a history of violence. This means that he is reliable
- has received minimum traing in gun safety.

Issue a "no objections" card, which the applicant has to renew every 2 years. If anybody gets caught with a gun and none of such cards, come down hard on him. The punishment included in the 1934 Federal Firearms Act has IMO quite a sobering effect (10 years jail and $100.000 fine for the illegal possession of a machine gun).

Also pass a law that guns have to be securely stored when not in direct control by the owner and that the owner is responsible for whatever happens with them (even in the military guns are never left unguarded).

Jan
Je Suis Charlie et je suis Ahmet aussi
 
TheCommodore
Posts: 3458
Joined: Tue Dec 25, 2007 2:14 am

RE: NRA "Big Announcement" Statement... Really? #2

Wed Dec 26, 2012 10:05 pm

Quoting MD11Engineer (Reply 42):
Also pass a law that guns have to be securely stored when not in direct control by the owner and that the owner is responsible for whatever happens with them (even in the military guns are never left unguarded).

That fact that this isn't already a requirement on behalf of the gun owner is simply unbelievable....   

I suppose its got something to do with peoples "rights" again                    
“At first, they'll only dislike what you say, but the more correct you start sounding the more they'll dislike you.”
 
MD11Engineer
Posts: 13916
Joined: Sun Oct 26, 2003 5:25 am

RE: NRA "Big Announcement" Statement... Really? #2

Wed Dec 26, 2012 10:21 pm

Mentalities have changed. When my mother was a little girl back in the 1950s my grandfather was a customs officer, who used to patrol along the border to East Germany. When he came home from work he usually would bring his carbine, which then went on the top of living room cabinet. The four children were threatened with drastic consequences should they ever touch the rifle (think about belt and bare bottom). According to my mother they obeyed .

Today this wouldn´t be possible anymore, therefore the rule that the guns have to be stored in a gun safe with minimum security requirements concerning how it is designed (you need power tools to cut it open). On the other hand, if a gun owner had obeyed all security regulations and his guns still got stolen (e.g. professional safecrackers used the opportunity while has on vacation to use power tools to open the safe), them he wouldn´t be in trouble if he reported the theft to the police.

Jan
Je Suis Charlie et je suis Ahmet aussi
 
cptkrell
Posts: 3186
Joined: Sun Sep 23, 2001 10:50 pm

RE: NRA "Big Announcement" Statement... Really? #2

Wed Dec 26, 2012 11:05 pm

In reference to the occassionally presented "car analogy", it certainly isn't against the law for me to own a top fuel dragster or another racing only or off-road only vehicle; it is against the law for me operate them illegally (ie: public roads, etc).

It isn't against the law to own an F-86 Sabre jet fighter. It is against the law to operate said aircraft illegally.

It's not against the law for me to fertilize my acreage but it is illegal for me to blow up a building with amonium nitrate.

And, it shouldn't be against the law to responsibly own firearms and their accessories; And it's already against the law to use said materiel illegally.

I'm certainly not a know-it-all, but I'll bet I know this debate will outlast even the AvsB debate.

BTW; I'm surprised nobody has yet screamed about the Knob Creek Gun Range in Bullit County (apropos, eh?), Kentucky where they yearly hold the world's largest machine gun shooting and assault rifle competitions. Legal owners bring their weapons (along with flame throwers, vintage tanks, etc) to blow stuff up for fun. What's wrong with that? Regards...jack
all best; jack
 
FlyDeltaJets
Posts: 1631
Joined: Thu Feb 02, 2006 4:24 pm

RE: NRA "Big Announcement" Statement... Really? #2

Wed Dec 26, 2012 11:12 pm

Quoting cptkrell (Reply 45):
In reference to the occassionally presented "car analogy", it certainly isn't against the law for me to own a top fuel dragster or another racing only or off-road only vehicle; it is against the law for me operate them illegally (ie: public roads, etc).

The car analogy I use is that all cars are registered so why not all guns. Also cars are not designed to kill so it would only make sense that they would be regulated slightly more strictly. As for owning the fighter jet I'm sure there are tons of restrictions regarding its ownership as well.
The only valid opinions are those based in facts
 
cptkrell
Posts: 3186
Joined: Sun Sep 23, 2001 10:50 pm

RE: NRA "Big Announcement" Statement... Really? #2

Wed Dec 26, 2012 11:24 pm

FlyDeltaJets: I support 100% registering all guns and also support licensing (only after training) people passing a background check. I simply do not support banning them. regards...jack
all best; jack
 
FlyDeltaJets
Posts: 1631
Joined: Thu Feb 02, 2006 4:24 pm

RE: NRA "Big Announcement" Statement... Really? #2

Thu Dec 27, 2012 12:33 am

We have come to far to ban them but track ability and ease of access needs to be addressed. Also a right to gun ownership just for the sake of having one is ridiculous. We need to really think why we are the only country in the world that enshrined ownership of a gun into our constitution.
The only valid opinions are those based in facts
 
itsjustme
Posts: 2727
Joined: Sun Apr 25, 2004 6:58 pm

RE: NRA "Big Announcement" Statement... Really? #2

Thu Dec 27, 2012 2:20 am

Quoting FlyDeltaJets (Reply 46):
The car analogy I use is that all cars are registered so why not all guns

I'm having a hard time understanding and accepting the argument that registration is the answer, or even a partial answer to the number of firearm-related injuries and deaths we have in this country. We have to register our automobiles but that doesn't stop people from doing stupid things with them (driving drunk, driving recklessly, texting while driving, shaving while driving, ect...) that often have catastrophic results. It also doesn't stop those who legally can't operate an automobile for one reason or another from getting behind the wheel and driving. Same applies to firearms. For all intents and purposes, our current restrictive system worked and Lanza was unsuccessful when he tried to buy a gun at Dick's Sporting Goods three days before his rampage. He didn't want to comply with the waiting period that CT requires and he left the store empty handed. But that didn't stop him from killing 27 people with a Bushmaster semi-automatic rifle three days later , did it?

The statement that because we "can't get our hands on Adam Lanza" we want to take our frustration out on everyone who owns a gun like the one he used is ridiculous. We're finally fed up with the number of firearm-related injuries and deaths that occur in this country and we want to put a stop to it. Not being able to get our hands on Adam Lanza or Eric Harris or Dylan Kleybold or William Spengler has nothing to do with it. The fact THEY were able to get THEIR hands on the weapons they used to kill people is what we're pissed off about. Scream and reference the Second Amendment all you want but it does not give you the right to own any firearm of your choosing. While it's too bad that it has taken the deaths of 20 six year olds to get our politicians off their asses, maybe their deaths won't be in vain.

As several, including myself have already said, there is absolutely no sensible reason or need for a private citizen to own a weapon that fires a couple hundred rounds a minute. None. "Because I want to" isn't good enough. That argument is one I'd expect to hear from a 5 year old child. So, if that's your argument then the Federal Government needs to assume the role of the adult in this equation and do what's best for the child, and simply say "No - Because I said so".

I know there are some of you who like to shoot automatic and semiautomatic weapons "for fun". I don't understand it, although I do think Dr. Freud could shed some insight if he were still around, but so be it. You don't need to own one of those weapons to fulfill that want or that need. As I have said in previous posts, let's equip a few gun ranges in each state, have the Feds operate and oversee them, and you can go there and rent and shoot as many high velocity rounds from an automatic or semi-automatic weapon as it takes to fulfill that need.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 8 guests