Facepalm:
Printed From: Tippmann Paintball
Category: News And Views
Forum Name: Thoughts and Opinions
Forum Description: Got something you need to say?
URL: http://www.tippmannsports.com/forum/wwf77a/forum_posts.asp?TID=180524
Printed Date: 19 December 2025 at 1:56pm
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 12.04 - http://www.webwizforums.com
Topic: Facepalm:
Posted By: tallen702
Subject: Facepalm:
Date Posted: 26 February 2009 at 11:14am
Everyone who said "Obama's not going to take your guns" can now effectively shut the hell up. ------------- <Removed overly wide sig. Tsk, you know better.> |
Obama to Seek New Assault Weapons Ban
Replies:
Posted By: Skillet42565
Date Posted: 26 February 2009 at 11:19am
|
Even as a supporter of the 2nd amendment, do we really need AK47s...?
------------- 
|
Posted By: Monk
Date Posted: 26 February 2009 at 11:24am
| Huge difference in the automatic AK and the semi-auto variants. The semi-auto versions are pretty much a deer rifle in comparison. Yet under the ban, they are considered highly deadly. |
Posted By: Benjichang
Date Posted: 26 February 2009 at 11:33am
|
Noes. There go my 25 round .22 clips.
-------------  irc.esper.net #paintball |
Posted By: Lightningbolt
Date Posted: 26 February 2009 at 11:35am
| I can see how this will cut down on illegal guns held by criminals. Just like the lack of illegal drugs we have here in the states considering that they are illegal and all. sheep |
Posted By: Eville
Date Posted: 26 February 2009 at 11:36am
are they still legal now? yes? i think you know what to do now. |
Posted By: tallen702
Date Posted: 26 February 2009 at 11:41am
They make a good deer and target rifle as well as a good varmint rifle. Soooo yes. ------------- <Removed overly wide sig. Tsk, you know better.> |
Posted By: thejudge
Date Posted: 26 February 2009 at 11:41am
I honestly think it will raise illegal gun sales. if someone that is a criminal wants one and would have gotten it illegaly anyways, then this will not stop them at all. Personally I think that if the criminals can have them so should we  ------------- Stay low, run fast, and hope that paintball doesn't hit your... http://www.deltasquad.info/"> 
|
Posted By: Evil Elvis
Date Posted: 26 February 2009 at 11:47am
|
i'm just going to take up the Dim Mak. Then Obama will be forced to ban arms on all citizens. ------------- 
|
Posted By: Lightningbolt
Date Posted: 26 February 2009 at 11:47am
| You noted my sarcasm right? the extension is .sheep |
Posted By: Mack
Date Posted: 26 February 2009 at 11:49am
------------- 
|
Posted By: oldpbnoob
Date Posted: 26 February 2009 at 11:51am
And we give a crap why?...... Maybe if we start giving every Mexican that jumps the border an AK when we deport them back, the Mexican government will try a little harder to keep them from doing it.
|
Posted By: Lightningbolt
Date Posted: 26 February 2009 at 11:52am
wow.sheep
|
Posted By: Eville
Date Posted: 26 February 2009 at 11:52am
just like keeping that pile of dead babies in my basement is illegal. |
Posted By: Eville
Date Posted: 26 February 2009 at 11:54am
How would we fund that? are you willing to give Jose your AK? |
Posted By: Benjichang
Date Posted: 26 February 2009 at 11:54am
|
RON PAUL 08
------------- irc.esper.net #paintball |
Posted By: oldpbnoob
Date Posted: 26 February 2009 at 12:05pm
I actually don't own any guns, but it could be financed with all of the money the government will save by having socialized medicine... DUH!
|
Posted By: Skillet42565
Date Posted: 26 February 2009 at 12:05pm
-------------
|
Posted By: IMPULS3.
Date Posted: 26 February 2009 at 12:27pm
|
Can anyone please explain what a "assault" weapon is. Did you know, under the specs of a "assault" weapon ban. A semi auto P90 is NOT considered an assault weapon. |
Posted By: IMPULS3.
Date Posted: 26 February 2009 at 12:30pm
 BANNED  LEGAL |
Posted By: FreeEnterprise
Date Posted: 26 February 2009 at 12:34pm
|
wow, I didn't see that one coming...
hmm. Obama is for taking guns away... who would have thought?... ------------- They tremble at my name... 
|
Posted By: evillepaintball
Date Posted: 26 February 2009 at 12:41pm
|
"...and Ezekial said unto the Israelites, go forth and getteth thou guns and do not alloweth the democrats to taketh them away"
------------- 
|
Posted By: FreeEnterprise
Date Posted: 26 February 2009 at 12:47pm
|
nice paraphrase... Oh, bruce, I mean spidy, someone is paraphrasing again............. ------------- They tremble at my name...
|
Posted By: agentwhale007
Date Posted: 26 February 2009 at 12:48pm
|
I hear Obama wants to take ALL guns away. We should all probably overact. |
Posted By: IMPULS3.
Date Posted: 26 February 2009 at 12:48pm
| Ok FE. I will let you rant about this topic. |
Posted By: IMPULS3.
Date Posted: 26 February 2009 at 12:49pm
He is the number 1 gun salesman right now. |
Posted By: Lightningbolt
Date Posted: 26 February 2009 at 12:50pm
| Actually it was stated that "Let us disarmeth the law-abiding sheep herder whilst we strengthen the position of the wolf" |
Posted By: FreeEnterprise
Date Posted: 26 February 2009 at 1:04pm
I hope every paintball gun you own is a single shot pump...
Because in a overmatched firefight, you could easily take out 20 enemies with one shot, at a time... While they are shooting fully auto speed ball guns...
If the chips came down, and you could only grab one gun to defend yourself... Say, if the government failed because they ran out of money (I know, that couldn NEVER happen...)
You would want to grab a gun with only 10 shots?
really?
My latest pistol falls under this proposed law, as it holds 17 per magazine.
------------- They tremble at my name...
|
Posted By: Benjichang
Date Posted: 26 February 2009 at 1:08pm
|
10 shots seems sufficient. I don't expect to be fighting off hordes of enemies anytime soon...until the inevitable zombie apocalypse, of course.
------------- irc.esper.net #paintball |
Posted By: Lightningbolt
Date Posted: 26 February 2009 at 1:14pm
I hear that game is pretty good.
|
Posted By: FreeEnterprise
Date Posted: 26 February 2009 at 1:15pm
obviously you've never seen a riot...
 ------------- They tremble at my name...
|
Posted By: Bunkered
Date Posted: 26 February 2009 at 1:15pm
|
Does anyone wonder why it is that Mexico, a country which until fairly recently had very low rates of drug use, is suddenly rife with substance abuse and extreme gang violence?
There's a pretty simple explanation, and (surprise, surprise), it is tied right in with our failed "war on drugs." With more drugs being stopped at the border, there is a huge excess across the country. Not being able to get them over to high-profit markets, the Mexican cartels dump drugs off to the locals dirt-cheap. Example: 1 gram of pure cocaine in the US is valued at $119. In Mexico: $19. The Mexican drug cartels are now so bold as to put up billboards looking for recruits, offering better pay than the country's police, as well as some measure of protection against other gangs. So in our futile attempt to keep drugs off of our streets, we flood the markets of our neighbors with cheap product while simultaneously demanding that they "crack down" on drug cartels who are now just as powerful or moreso than the police. The list of problems that could be solved by legalizing and taxing drugs is astounding. Unfortunately, it "sends the wrong message to children" if you legalize drugs. Since when is the government's job to raise the nation's children? ------------- 
|
Posted By: Lightningbolt
Date Posted: 26 February 2009 at 1:17pm
| better there than here.truthhurtssomtimes |
Posted By: oldpbnoob
Date Posted: 26 February 2009 at 1:25pm
| Good. Maybe they all will develop $500/day drug habits and quit working for $.50 an hour. Or they'll all be so smacked out of their minds that they wont be able to climb fences anymore. |
Posted By: Bunkered
Date Posted: 26 February 2009 at 1:31pm
|
Maybe the problem could be made lesser if there were no black market for drugs.
Of course, that's politically un-palatable, even if it's hard to argue with. -------------
|
Posted By: agentwhale007
Date Posted: 26 February 2009 at 1:34pm
 |
Posted By: tallen702
Date Posted: 26 February 2009 at 1:44pm
This one makes me really want to facepalm. Seriously? You think the drug and murder rates are just now rising in Mexico? Cancun may have seen an uptake in crime and border cities are as well, but on a whole, Mexico has always been a corrupt and lawless hotbed for drug runners and bandits. The police are corrupt to a point that is unimaginable in most 1st and 2nd world countries. Anyone who stands up to the corruption is summarily executed by the cartels or even the local law enforcement officials (most of which are one in the same). We haven't stopped jack at the border in the way of drugs. We put up fences and they find a way around. Do you really think that cartels are happy selling drugs on the cheap? No, like any other business they'd prefer to be in a high profit market. The guns in Mexico aren't coming from the US. Notice how the article states that automatic weapons are the issue south of the border? They aren't being imported through the US. They're coming from Venezuela, FARC rebels, Cuba, and El Salvador. All countries which have close ties to organized crime and easy access to foreign arms markets. ------------- <Removed overly wide sig. Tsk, you know better.> |
Posted By: oldpbnoob
Date Posted: 26 February 2009 at 2:03pm
Legalizing a lot of things would lessen the problem of fighting it, but not the results of the legalization. Are you seriously suggesting legalizing heroin, cocaine, meth etc. ? Really? Why not legalize child pornography as well? We could save all sorts of money. Prostitution, loan sharking, all victimless crimes, lets open the flood gates. Why have any laws? If it feels good do it.
Vote Bunkered in 012"
|
Posted By: Mack
Date Posted: 26 February 2009 at 2:15pm
wow.fixyoursarcasmmeter -------------
|
Posted By: TheWrAith
Date Posted: 26 February 2009 at 2:53pm
|
I think it's time to head over to Shooters...
------------- Black*1* then*1* White Are*2* All I see*3* in my infancy*5* red and yellow then came to be*8* reaching out to me*5* lets me see*3* Swing on the Spiral= 1,1,2,3,5,8,13,8,5,3,2,1 |
Posted By: Lightningbolt
Date Posted: 26 February 2009 at 3:06pm
yeah I don't lurk around here enough to know where everyone stands on issues. I'm afraid I might get too edgimicated by listening to the real world opinions of what people learn from their teacher's and text books.
Kind of like the certified engineer that couldn't understand why his truss design figures weren't correct and would not work out in the field. "But it looks good on paper"
Metaphorically speaking, I bet he had never pounded a nail in his life. but really I'm sure he never had.
|
Posted By: jmac3
Date Posted: 26 February 2009 at 3:17pm
Yes paintball is completely comparable to guns being limited to 10 round clips. Your pistol I am pretty sure DOES NOT fall under this law. Why would it?... Also, this:
------------- Que pasa? 
|
Posted By: Eville
Date Posted: 26 February 2009 at 3:19pm
| need? no. want? hell yes. the freedom to do stuff shouldnt be limited to just what is necessary. |
Posted By: stratoaxe
Date Posted: 26 February 2009 at 3:24pm
|
I have a challenge- Give me one way in which the assault weapons ban will make society safer. Cookies to anybody who can answer that. ------------- 
|
Posted By: Lightningbolt
Date Posted: 26 February 2009 at 3:28pm
I guess to be more blunt, some of you don't have callus one on your hands yet. My disclaimer on this is that I explain to people I know that this group at TF to be one of the most intellectual groups I've come across on teh intrunetzez
|
Posted By: Rofl_Mao
Date Posted: 26 February 2009 at 3:35pm
There is none. Though the dems will try to back Obama even though they are beat on this one. |
Posted By: Tolgak
Date Posted: 26 February 2009 at 3:38pm
I love that jump from voluntary drug use to involuntary child abuse. If nobody is harmed by an action, why make it illegal? There's a reason that "victimless crimes" are so hotly debated. They shouldn't be crimes because they have no victims, but people who want to legislate morality are way too stupid and powerful to allow them. Child porn and loan sharking do have victims. Legal prostitution does not; and, in most cases, neither does voluntary, personal drug use (provided those drugs are obtained by legal outlets). Of course, we still factor in potential to do harm. That's why we still have speed limits and other such preventative laws. Legal gun ownership and use has no victims and the potential for death is very slim. Yes, it does happen due to stupidity, but incidents are pretty rare. If we take a rational approach to lawmaking, one in which people aren't punished for actions that do not victimize people, there is no reason whatsoever to ban most firearms. ------------- 
|
Posted By: Eville
Date Posted: 26 February 2009 at 3:43pm
|
Posted By: High Voltage
Date Posted: 26 February 2009 at 3:58pm
Would the ban bring greater penalties(more jail time) upon those arrested in possession of an assault rifle? ------------- 
|
Posted By: oldpbnoob
Date Posted: 26 February 2009 at 4:27pm
Not once did I mention any support for banning firearms.
I love the jump from disussion of how stuipid it is to propose legalizing hardcore drugs to alleging support of the banning of firearms.
As for there being no victims of drug use.. whatever. I'll tell that to the kids who end up in foster care, or better yet get to watch their parents whore themselves out everyday so they can get their next fix while the kids sit around dirty, hungry and often times abused. As for prostitution, I would venture to guess a vast majority of prostitutes are in the trade to pay for drugs. Back to square one. Don't take my position against legalizing hard core drugs with being a holy roller. Truthfully, I support legalizing pot. I think it should be legal and taxed like cigarettes. However, I think there is a specific difference between legalizing mary jane and giving the green light to sell crack in the isle next to the beer.
As for legislating morality how does that have to do with speed limits? Personally, I am all for opening up the highways simliar to the Autobahn. And before anyone says it, they have better safety records than we do here.
I personally don't care about banning assault rifles. I don't plan on ever having one, so it would never effect me anyways. Do I think people should have them? Not sure. Do I think there is any good derived from someone having them? Not really. Do I think there is more potential harm from someone having them, than good? Absolutely. If they were banned, do I think it would stop people from having them? No, it would just create a black market where only criminals would have access to them.
|
Posted By: merc
Date Posted: 26 February 2009 at 4:49pm
|
as for mexico... dont ban guns in the US just BUILD A FREAKIN WALL!
automatic weapons and hand grenades are not part of the AWB... im having a hard enough time finding ways to buy them legally at an affordable price how are mexicans getting them in a legal mannor in the USA? there not, the weapons they are getting (if from the USA) are already illegal here... "I think closing the gun show loophole, the banning of cop-killer bullets and I also think that making the assault weapons ban permanent" there is no "gun show loophole", remember a few weeks ago we talked about how this is lefty BS... armor piercing hand gun ammo is already illegal, and class 3 body armor is not designed to take a round from a rifle. the AWB banned any semi auto rifle with with more than 2 of the following: detachable mag, pistol grip, front vertical grip, bayonet lug, quick change barrel, threaded muzzle, grenade launcher, folding/collapsible stock. (muzzle break may have been in that list too) (the ar15 was not banned by the AWB, you just couldent get the rifle with a bayonet lug or threaded muzzle.) the P90 would be banned under it IN that configuration. they arnt banning the guns they are banning the features, (at least thats how it was with the last one) you can still keep the ones you have you just cant modify or build any new ones after the ban date. now, for those of you who think "no need for a scary black rifle" the 2nd amendment was for combat effective arms to be in the hands of the people. A lot of people think America is headed in a bad direction, only about 50% of the population wanted a dem in office, and now that hes pushing for banning guns, and taking money from the working and giving it to the non working or illegal immigrants, many people are VERY unhappy. as Americans are loosing rights it it putting tension on the relationship between the government and the people. while it sounds paranoid the American people will only stand for it for so long. (sounds stupid when we talk about guns but what happens when they start banning the type of food you can eat? or the type of car you can drive? already happening) the question is not "why are assault rifles are needed" its "when will assault rifles be needed". it might not be in our lifetime or our kids life time but its coming. ------------- saving the world, one warship at a time. |
Posted By: IMPULS3.
Date Posted: 26 February 2009 at 4:53pm
The only gun I own is a pump.  Bring on all the noobs with ions and r/t triggers.  |
Posted By: Tolgak
Date Posted: 26 February 2009 at 4:57pm
-------------
|
Posted By: tallen702
Date Posted: 26 February 2009 at 5:18pm
|
Merc hit upon something interesting in his post that many people either do not know or choose to ignore. SCOTUS ruled in the USA v Miller case of 1938 in favor of the state of Arkansas' argument that Miller's weapon which he was arrested for transporting was not a military type weapon (it was a double-barrel shotgun) and thus was not protected by the 2nd amendment under the provisions of the NFA of 1934. In short, in 1938, SCOTUS ruled that the only weapons that we DO have a guaranteed right to own as civilians are military firearms in a configuration which would be suitable for wartime action. The Miller case has never been challenged in that sense and therefore still stands as precedence to this day. ------------- <Removed overly wide sig. Tsk, you know better.> |
Posted By: ammolord
Date Posted: 26 February 2009 at 6:26pm
|
wow. just wow. ------------- PSN Tag: AmmoLord XBL: xXAmmoLordXx ~Minister of Tinkering With Things That Go "BOOM!"(AKA Minister of Munitions)~ |
Posted By: Peter Parker
Date Posted: 26 February 2009 at 6:48pm
|
Let's see...
Granted I kind of zoomed through the article, but I think I missed the part where the government is going to take your guns. Comparing the legalization of heroin to the legalization of child porn does in fact make me want to facepalm. Slightly more educated on the "gun show loophole" now, and while that is a misnomer, it is real. Real in the sense that sales by individuals are generally unregulated, and gun shows allow a bazaar-type situation where large numbers of individuals have an opportunity to buy/sell/trade their guns. Where under normal circumstances a "regular" gun owner would sell his gun to his friend/cousin/neighbor, in the gun show context individually owned guns can more easily fall off the radar. The 1938 Miller case did rule on the "military applicability" of a sawed-off shotgun, but the exact interpretation of that case has been hotly disputed since the ruling. It is certainly not clear from Miller that the only weapons we have a right to own are military-style weapons. That is NOT a holding of that case. Miller interpretation issues were aided somewhat by the recent DC gun case, which addressed Miller(but danced around overturning it). That case ruled (among other things) that there is an individual right to own handguns, subject to reasonable restrictions, but with no mention of any "military-style" requirement. Citing Miller without also citing the DC case is a mistake. The DC case does, on the other hand, specifically state that the second amendment simply does not apply to weapons of a type that a normal citizen would not normally possess (such as fully automatic weapons, nuclear warheads, and whatnot). Whether that exception to the second amendment covers "assault rifles" is not clear - but it seems pretty clear that there is no constitutional right to a pistol grip, bayonet lug, or hi-cap magazine. I would be shocked if any second amendment challenge to a new AWB would go anywhere at all. ------------- "E Pluribus Unum" does not mean "Every man for himself". Pop Quiz: What do all the Framers of the Constitution have in common? |
Posted By: stratoaxe
Date Posted: 26 February 2009 at 7:24pm
In theory yes, but that brings to light a few questions-
A-How many gun crimes a year involve assault weapons? I have't been able to find a reliable site for information, but a conglomerate of these sites generally pointed to less than 1%. If anybody has different stats, I'll be glad to entertain then,
B-That argument could be made for anything. Why is extra penalty needed for a crime with an assault weapon? There are already laws in place that prevent certain people from owning weapons of any kind, and those laws are tacked on to convictions.
The goal here is to keep weapons out of the hands of criminals, and there are laws in place to do that.
From Wikipedia-
That being said, how many common thugs can afford an AR-15, or AK-47? That aside, look at the specifics of the law. Do folding stocks and pistol grips really make a weapon more deadly? How many hardened criminals have the access to grenade launcher?I'm not saying you're wrong, I'm just saying that this isn't a black and white issue with simple answer. -------------
|
Posted By: Linus
Date Posted: 26 February 2009 at 7:38pm
|
If they really wanted to attempt to make the country safer, they would ban pistols, and not assault weapons, as pistols are used in SO MANY MORE crimes. Simple as that.
And on top of that, if a criminal wants to buy a gun, he will get any gun he so chooses. They aren't called criminals for having the mentality "Oh, this gun is illegal so I won't buy it". If anything, criminals are much less likely to legally buy assault weapons for a few reasons--- the cost and the fact that it could be traced back to them. It's just a case of "people think it's worse if we call it an "assault weapon, so let's ban it". ------------- 
|
Posted By: merc
Date Posted: 26 February 2009 at 7:43pm
|
the law states that any dealer selling a firearm must record it, any privet seller selling to a privet buyer without cause to suspect they cannot legally own a firearm can make the sale with no records.
that is the laws, gun shows do not change this. gun shows are just a venue that bring privet sellers and privet buyers together. privet seller selling to a privet buyer with no paper trail = LEGAL (maybe not in NY) but down here in VA its 100% legal and under federal law it is legal. dealer selling to a buyer with no paper work = illegal. does not change regardless of where it is taking place. (within the USA of corse) thats the law, no loophole specific to gun shows. (personal opinion, all gun sales should go though an FFL) gun shows dont change laws they just make it easier to find buyers and sellers. (if you want to argue this find me an example of a LAW that is being bypassed LEGALLY at a gun show) from OED: Militia: An organized body of people comparable to a military force. as the technology of the military advance so should the capabilities of the militia as to keep them comparable. machine guns, artiliary, explosives including but not limited to; mines, grenades, rockets, bombs, artillery and morter(sp) shells are all very much legal under federal law. (all you need to do is pay your taxes) also surplus armored vehicles and amphibious craft are fairly common within the united states (in privet hands, just need to know where to look) edit: an ak47 or an ar15 can be had for about the same price as a good pistol from a privet seller ($400 for an AK, $800 for an AR) quote "If they want to make the country safer, they would ban pistols, and not assault weapons. Simple as that" back this up with reason? CCW... the more aware people are that concealed carry of hand guns is legal the less they will think about jumping someone on the street... ------------- saving the world, one warship at a time. |
Posted By: Peter Parker
Date Posted: 26 February 2009 at 7:55pm
That is my understanding of the law as well. And that is also pretty much the definition of a loophole. A legal loophole is what you get when clever people find ways around the law, or when a law inadvertently fails to cover something intended - not something written out in the law. If it is written in the law, then it isn't a loophole, but just part of the law. A loophole is an unintented consequence, not an intended one. So I think you and I are on the same page here. I do not believe there are any special "gun show free-for-all" laws, but instead a specific exception that has been stretched beyond its original intent. Whether we call that a "loophole" is merely a matter semantics, but that is certainly how I use the word.
Well, you have to do more than just pay taxes to get a Class III license... But anyway - those weapons may be legal under federal law, but as I read the DC case they are no longer protected by the second amendment. ------------- "E Pluribus Unum" does not mean "Every man for himself". Pop Quiz: What do all the Framers of the Constitution have in common? |
Posted By: merc
Date Posted: 26 February 2009 at 8:05pm
|
the law states plane as day. dealer sales are required to have paper work, privet sales within the same state do not. no loop hole, no getting around anything.
you do not need a class 3 licance to own NFA firearms, most require a $200 tax and an aproved letter from the BATF. (edit: i think some have a $5 transfer tax (AOW)) machine guns are expensive but a 200$ tax and a letter saying your not a felon, crazy or a threat to public can get you one. ------------- saving the world, one warship at a time. |
Posted By: jmac3
Date Posted: 26 February 2009 at 8:09pm
That is what makes it a loophole at a gun show. People are going to gun shows with guns to sell knowing there will be buyers. They are not actually dealers so they are not required yhe same paperwork. ------------- Que pasa?
|
Posted By: Shub
Date Posted: 26 February 2009 at 8:18pm
It would, actually. Under the Clinton era assault weapons ban, any and all ammunition magazines were limited to 10 rounds. So, he could still buy that handgun, he just wouldn't be able to buy a 17 round clip for it. |
Posted By: merc
Date Posted: 26 February 2009 at 8:23pm
that is the LAW no a loophole. a loophole would be something along the lines of "no one has to fill out paper work at gun shows" Many dealers rent booths at gun shows and have to do the same background checks as they would in a shop. its not getting around anything, internet forums do the same thing. ------------- saving the world, one warship at a time. |
Posted By: jmac3
Date Posted: 26 February 2009 at 8:26pm
Find me where it says that because I won't look any further than wikipedia. Wikipedia has this to say: "
------------- Que pasa?
|
Posted By: GI JOES SON
Date Posted: 26 February 2009 at 8:26pm
i dont know that i would aim at varmint with a 7.62 but otherwise, your right and as far as high capacity magazines go, if its preban made, theres no issue as far as i know, or if you already own it, its grandfathered in. |
Posted By: stratoaxe
Date Posted: 26 February 2009 at 8:28pm
Also from Wiki-
-------------
|
Posted By: Peter Parker
Date Posted: 26 February 2009 at 8:29pm
I agree that the law is clear. Where we disagree is perhaps on the intent of the law. My suspicion is that the drafters of the various weapons laws required dealers to have paperwork and not individual sellers because dealers would sell to strangers and in large volumes. Individuals would sell/give their shotgun to their cousin. My suspicion is that the drafters of the laws did not anticipate the size of gun shows, where an individual seller can basically be a dealer for a day - lots of strangers/customers to buy his gun(s). Like you said, gun shows bring buyers and sellers together. If my suspicions about the intent of the drafters are correct, then gun shows allow an individual to legally conduct a sale of a type that the drafters intended to require registration. And that is the very definition of a loophole. It all comes down to what the laws are intended to accomplish. If, due to poor drafting or changed circumstances, the laws do not accomplish their intended purpose, then we have a loophole.
Not entirely accurate. The 1986 FOPA gun law flat out prohibits sale of any "machine gun" manufactured after 1986 - that's why they are expensive, since there is a limited pool of possible guns to buy. You are correct that an actual class III license is not required for ownership - my mistake. What I meant to say that the requirements for legal REGISTRATION of a class III firearm requires more than a tax - more specifically, it requires the approval of your local sheriff or equivalent. And in many counties that amounts to a complete prohibition on class III weapons. ------------- "E Pluribus Unum" does not mean "Every man for himself". Pop Quiz: What do all the Framers of the Constitution have in common? |
Posted By: jmac3
Date Posted: 26 February 2009 at 8:29pm
|
Yeah and? The only thing it says about pistols is the thing I copied. EDIT: Why do you need a pistol with more than 10 rounds anyway? ------------- Que pasa?
|
Posted By: Peter Parker
Date Posted: 26 February 2009 at 8:33pm
No - that would be an "exception." We are all in agreement on the law here, but arguing about semantics. And I am quite confident that the proper use of "loophole" in a legal context is to describe an unintended consequence or flaw. If the law specifically excepted gun shows, then that would not be a loophole at all, just an exception like many others. ------------- "E Pluribus Unum" does not mean "Every man for himself". Pop Quiz: What do all the Framers of the Constitution have in common? |
Posted By: Peter Parker
Date Posted: 26 February 2009 at 8:33pm
To shoot 11 bad guys? ------------- "E Pluribus Unum" does not mean "Every man for himself". Pop Quiz: What do all the Framers of the Constitution have in common? |
Posted By: stratoaxe
Date Posted: 26 February 2009 at 8:36pm
I'm not sure that clause about magazines was specific to any type of weapon-just magazines and feeding devices in general. In other words, that's the largest magazine or ammo feeding device that could be manufactured and sold to civilians by law.
And when did need come into play as far as law making goes?
Gun laws should be governed specifically by law enforcement agencies' ability to control a threat. There's very little difference in having 10 rounds and an extra mag, or 30 rounds in one mag in the hands of a skilled shooter.
I'm confident with my limited shooting skills I could cause just as much death and destruction with a single shot 12 guage as some reprobate with an sks who's never been to a shooting range. Deadly isn't defined by the tool, it's defined by the user.
-------------
|
Posted By: merc
Date Posted: 26 February 2009 at 8:54pm
|
12... always keep 1 in the tube
"The 1986 FOPA gun law flat out prohibits sale of any "machine gun" manufactured after 1986" just for the sake of arguing, that is about 25% true. (i have a feeling you know this already) post 86 mgs can be manufactured or sold by/to dealers for demos with LEO letter. also they can be manufactured or bought for scientific purposes (still trying to pin this one down but im guessing that a manufacturer can make/buy for research for a product for a LEO/GOV at a later date) post 86 mgs can be had in the entertainment industry for movies and the such. also congress can add SNs to the ATF list of transferable MGs. (cant remember who but a republican in the 90s had them do that with a bunch of surplus M16s that he sold to fund his campaign) anyways back to the original topic. is a gun ban the right choice? i would much rather see a mandatory registration of firearms (much like the NFA system), and mandatory transfers through FFLs. Keep the pistols, ARs and AKs with high cap mags in the hands of the people. allow open and concealed (with permit) carry. even go as far as letting citizens have armed patrols (like police officers). of coarse with training and working with and watched over by local law enforcement. (1 officer and 4-5 civilians) banning guns just lets people know you dont have that extra tool to defend your self with. if they are unsure weather or not you have a firearm they might think twice before picking you as a target. ------------- saving the world, one warship at a time. |
Posted By: jmac3
Date Posted: 26 February 2009 at 9:01pm
Yeah because that isn't asking for someone to get shot by accident... ------------- Que pasa?
|
Posted By: Lightningbolt
Date Posted: 26 February 2009 at 9:39pm
|
What's going on in Illinois? They're trying to put in place the requirement that you need to hold 1 million in insurance to own a gun. Seems like a good start for trimming our right to own. Also there's no need to ban the firearms that our Constitution states that we have a right to own but they can ban ammunition or place restrictions on it. |
Posted By: tallen702
Date Posted: 26 February 2009 at 9:55pm
|
*Cough Cough* There's no such thing as a Class III weapon, only Title II weapons *Cough Cough* excuse me! Bad cold there.... ------------- <Removed overly wide sig. Tsk, you know better.> |
Posted By: agentwhale007
Date Posted: 26 February 2009 at 11:18pm
I'm pretty sure a good chunk of social research done on this subject has not turned up any conclusive trends. |
Posted By: stratoaxe
Date Posted: 26 February 2009 at 11:30pm
|
I disagree that gun ownership is as much about protection as it is the right to protection.
As I stated in our last multi page gun argument, the odds of getting to a weapon in time to use it for self defense are pretty low. Compare the amount of murders you hear of on the news to the amount of self defense killings, and you'll get an idea of how effective firearms are at stopping crime.
So all Chuck Norris stories of self preservation alive, gun ownership comes down to the right of a civilian population to arm itself, and is a core component to independence, IMO. I believe at is my choice to have the best tools available to defend my family from any threats, regardless of whether that defense is entirely effective.
Gun ownership for me isn't so much my need of a gun, but my desire thereof. It's a slippery slope when the government decides what the population is responsible enough to bear. And again, before the usual OMG WHAT ABOUT TEH NUKES, WHAT IF PPL WANT WMD's!!!11oneone crown starts chirping, as I've said over and over, a government should regulate what it can't defend against. People can't own tanks because tanks are difficult to regulate on a state and local level-firearms are not.
The problem with politicians that support extreme and unnecessary gun control is that instead of trying to deal with the core issue, the criminal, they attempt to deal with the weapon. -------------
|
Posted By: Lightningbolt
Date Posted: 27 February 2009 at 6:48am
Statistically speaking, I agree. However, I can get to my gun from a dead sleep in under 7 seconds and it's in a safe. By the time my dogs freak out at the first strange noise in the house and the invader has to unload on them =( My slide will be racked back and he's going to have some SERIOUS decisions to make. The question for him will be "do I want a loose group of Hydro-Shocks in my chest?" I guess if he thinks it's worth the risk, lead with be flying and the law can sort it out later. I'd rather be judged by 12 than burried by 6 in this scenario. If he's going to try to operate under the cover of darkness I have the advantage of knowing the lay-out of my environment. If he's using a flashlight the fool is showing me where the target is. I say home protection tools create a very dangerous environment for criminals. I'm only speaking for myself here.
I'd like to see some statistics on how a purpotrator moves through a house once he's in. Time frame etc.
My point is that if someone think's that gun's are dangerous fine. Don't use them. Just don't do my thinking for me. Simple.
|
Posted By: Ceesman762
Date Posted: 27 February 2009 at 10:26am
 Assault Rifle in NYC. Can any one tell me why? Cookie to the first! ------------- Innocence proves nothing FUAC!!!!! |
Posted By: Skillet42565
Date Posted: 27 February 2009 at 10:29am
|
Length or bayonet.
-------------
|
Posted By: Lightningbolt
Date Posted: 27 February 2009 at 10:29am
| bayonette? |
Posted By: Ceesman762
Date Posted: 27 February 2009 at 10:36am
|
Ahh posting at the same time! Very good gentlemen. The bayonet. What kind of cookie?
------------- Innocence proves nothing FUAC!!!!! |
Posted By: Eville
Date Posted: 27 February 2009 at 11:11am
| your bayonet is longer than mine, it would appear. Mine is only 8 inches. |
Posted By: Ceesman762
Date Posted: 27 February 2009 at 11:17am
I hear the have pills for that. ------------- Innocence proves nothing FUAC!!!!! |
Posted By: Eville
Date Posted: 27 February 2009 at 11:26am
| pelosi has stated that they are not going to be introducing any AWB bill. She says she will start with enforcing the laws that are already on the books. Your guns are safe for now. |
Posted By: Ceesman762
Date Posted: 27 February 2009 at 11:27am
Interesting side note. I stopped by my friend's gun shop this week. As you know, gun sales are up, mainly for AR15's and AK variants. My friend got into asking them (the buyers/customers for these rifles) is this their first firearm purchase? He said more than half of those who came in to his shop to buy are first time buyers and of that half, almost half of those voted for President Obama. 
------------- Innocence proves nothing FUAC!!!!! |
Posted By: Mack
Date Posted: 27 February 2009 at 11:28am
|
Pelosi lies. (She's a politician.)
-------------
|
Posted By: Ceesman762
Date Posted: 27 February 2009 at 11:31am
Some one should tell Nancy they have been doing this for quite sometime now. ------------- Innocence proves nothing FUAC!!!!! |
Posted By: Kayback
Date Posted: 27 February 2009 at 11:51am
|
Personally I like the 7.62x39mm for jackals and caracal sized animals. It works wonders.
KBK |
Posted By: Ceesman762
Date Posted: 27 February 2009 at 11:58am
Would that be South African made 7.62x39mm, KBK?? or Chinese/Russian?? ------------- Innocence proves nothing FUAC!!!!! |
Posted By: stratoaxe
Date Posted: 27 February 2009 at 2:08pm
-------------
|
Posted By: FreeEnterprise
Date Posted: 27 February 2009 at 2:16pm
and obama said you would get a $1,000 tax break if you voted for him, too...
now we see it is $400, and because they didn't chang the tax rates, its taxable income... Not a tax "break"!
Which could bump you into the next tax bracket next year when you claim it...
I remember a bunch of you guys saying that there was no way obama would get rid of the bush tax cuts.
That won't happen either...
http://www.nypost.com/seven/02272009/news/politics/1t_in_taxes_is_hell_to_pay_157199.htm - http://www.nypost.com/seven/02272009/news/politics/1t_in_taxes_is_hell_to_pay_157199.htm
------------- They tremble at my name...
|
Posted By: PaiNTbALLfReNzY
Date Posted: 27 February 2009 at 2:22pm
| I hope they don't think assault weapons will just disappear once they are banned. Criminals will always find a means to procure them. All the ban will do is keep the law-abiding gun owners from owning them. |
Posted By: Ceesman762
Date Posted: 27 February 2009 at 2:23pm
What has this to do with gun ownership? ------------- Innocence proves nothing FUAC!!!!! |
Posted By: Ceesman762
Date Posted: 27 February 2009 at 2:24pm
"Locks are made to keep honest people honest, they are not made to stop a thief." ------------- Innocence proves nothing FUAC!!!!! |
Posted By: PaiNTbALLfReNzY
Date Posted: 27 February 2009 at 2:31pm
Agreed. Although I do fail to see the need for an assault weapon, I respect the fact that most people who own them are low-risk operators who are 99% likely to follow the rules and regs. |
Posted By: Ceesman762
Date Posted: 27 February 2009 at 2:38pm
|
Individual preference to hazard a guess. I have met people who only collect assault style rifles, Why? I have no idea.
------------- Innocence proves nothing FUAC!!!!! |
Posted By: Peter Parker
Date Posted: 27 February 2009 at 2:40pm
I did in fact not know that, although I am not surprised. Congress does like to add backdoors for their own use... :) ------------- "E Pluribus Unum" does not mean "Every man for himself". Pop Quiz: What do all the Framers of the Constitution have in common? |
Posted By: Lightningbolt
Date Posted: 27 February 2009 at 3:35pm
But they seem to ALWAYS tell the truth when it becomes a left/right, I'm right you're wrong argument. How convenient.
|