FINALLY! A defeat for the NRA

[Manlove]

Guns and Americans. You realise how f@&@ing stupid this makes you seem to the rest of the (non gun-toting) world?

[kj]

Gutenberg wrote:
Wow, you really do not get the purpose of having laws, do you? The reason that the use both guns and automobiles by minors is generally regulated is that both have the potential to cause grievous bodily harm and serious property damage and therefore are generally--in more enlightened societies, at least--their use is limited to adults or near-adults.

I was jesting Gute. It seems every time I make similar comparisons, people take it in an oddly concrete way. kj.

[Panopticon]

"Each year, locally elected sheriffs deny permits, in most cases because the applicant has a serious criminal history," Daugaard wrote in his veto message.

Gov. Daugaard is an attorney and never studied Federal Public Law?
Those 'elected sheriffs' should be arresting anyone with a "serious criminal history"
they find possessing a firearm. 18USC44-§922 prohibits said possession and it doesn't just apply to felony convictions. A TRO or a Dishonorable Military Discharge are just two of the disabilities specified under the statute.

It Takes a Village still holds true but it's become increasingly more difficult given the growing number of Village Idiots holding public office!

[$tevie]

Panopticon wrote: It Takes a Village still holds true but it's become increasingly more difficult given the growing number of Village Idiots holding public office!

Great line! :-)

[Mac-A-Matic]

Quite simply, the Constitution grants us the "right" to bear arms. It does not discuss restriction on that right and allows for open ownership and carry of weapons.

If the NRA is the organization that fights to prevent the passage of laws that infringe upon on rights, then I support the NRA.

The "threat" of an armed citizenry is not the concern that the citizens might shoot one another, it's the concern that the citizenry might rise up against an oppressive government that no longer represents the people. That has always been the concern of governments and is the very reason why the Founding Fathers included the Right To Bear Arms in the first place - as they were the ones who rose up against an oppressive government.

An interesting side note: regardless of your stance pro/con on guns, if you had purchased a Class 3 full automatic weapon in the mid-1990s, you probably would have paid somewhere in the region of $2K-4K for an H&K MP5 select fire 9mm automatic firearm. A couple of years ago (the last time I checked), you could have sold that same firearm for $20K. Not a bad way to make a little profit on an investment.

Part of the truth behind this is that legal automatic weapons are extremely scarce in America today. How many of the rank and file criminals are going to spend $15K plus on an automatic weapon, along with going through the extremely stringent Class 3 background check, in order to use the weapon in the commission of a crime? Which leads us back to the truth that those who commit crimes are utilizing illegally obtained weapons and the passage of laws restricting weapons only serves to castrate those who actually follow the Rule of Law.

[Spock]

The NRA and its members have blood on their hands. The blood of innocents.

Will all great Neptune's ocean wash this blood Clean from my hand? No

Methought I heard a voice cry "Sleep no more! NRA does murder sleep," *


That they can sleep at all without nightmares is a mystery.





*Apologies to the immortal bard.

[Lux Interior]

Mac-A-Matic wrote:
That has always been the concern of governments and is the very reason why the Founding Fathers included the Right To Bear Arms in the first place - as they were the ones who rose up against an oppressive government.

That argument is outdated. In the 1700s, the soldiers had muskets and the civilians had muskets. Today, the government has weapons that can destroy a city. Even if you are armed with fully automatic weapons and a rocket launcher, you are out-gunned.

Mac-A-Matic wrote: W[...] and the passage of laws restricting weapons only serves to castrate those who actually follow the Rule of Law.

You're a little vague there. Restricting the ownership? The manner in which you can "carry"? How you can use them (like in the FL "stand your ground" law)?

[Sam3]

Mac-A-Matic wrote:
Quite simply, the Constitution grants us the "right" to bear arms. It does not discuss restriction on that right and allows for open ownership and carry of weapons...

BS!

As I posted in another thread, people seem to forget that the 2nd amendment is made up of two parts, and everyone ignores the first part:

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state,...

This immediately places a restriction on that right. It does not say, "Any yahoo who wants a gun can get one and use it and the people can't say anything about it."

[Grace62]

Like the NRA I'm a constitutional purist and despite the many other parts of the constitution that have been changed since it was first written, and I like those changes, when it comes to guns I don't want anything to come between me and the late 18th century. Not even 230 years of progress. As the founders understood and intended, I'm for everyone owning muskets, powder, and rifles made before 1789. Grab a cannon if you must. Conceal carry that baby.