What Happened to the Ban on Assault Weapons?

[Vegas]

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/27/opinion/27Carter.html?_r=2&ref=opinion

By JIMMY CARTER

THE evolution in public policy concerning the manufacture, sale and possession of semiautomatic assault weapons like AK-47s, AR-15s and Uzis has been very disturbing. Presidents Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush, Bill Clinton and I all supported a ban on these formidable firearms, and one was finally passed in 1994.

When the 10-year ban was set to expire, many police organizations — including 1,100 police chiefs and sheriffs from around the nation — called on Congress and President George W. Bush to renew and strengthen it. But with a wink from the White House, the gun lobby prevailed and the ban expired.

[ryr8828]

Jimmy will tell some lies, whether he knows he's lying or is too stupid to know is up to you.
He also doesn't understand the 2nd Amendment.

[Vegas]

Jimmy will tell some lies, whether he knows he's lying or is too stupid to know is up to you.
He also doesn't understand the 2nd Amendment.

You're obviously someone that wants to kill police officers according to Jimmy.

[domenick2x]

You're obviously someone that wants to kill police officers according to Jimmy.
... and Ronnie, George and Bill.

[ryr8828]

... and Ronnie, George and Bill.Reagan wasn't perfect, just close.

I don't recall him ever making the statement that Carter made in this thread.

[domenick2x]

Reagan wasn't perfect, just close.

I don't recall him ever making the statement that Carter made in this thread.
Carter posts here?

[domenick2x]

Jimmy will tell some lies, whether he knows he's lying or is too stupid to know is up to you.
He also doesn't understand the 2nd Amendment.
Navegar v. United States.

Feel free to look it up.

[Jesse Helms' Ghost]

Navegar v. United States.

Feel free to look it up. Assault gun ban-mania.

Feel free to look that up.

Merely removing a stock and replacing it could bring a gun into compliance or not. The number of bullets a magazine holds gets changed and all of a sudden the very same gun is compliant.

[thrasymachus]

Assault gun ban-mania.

Feel free to look that up.

Merely removing a stock and replacing it could bring a gun into compliance or not. The number of bullets a magazine holds gets changed and all of a sudden the very same gun is compliant.
Agreed. We should just ban all guns.

[ryr8828]

Navegar v. United States.

Feel free to look it up.

Best I can tell, Navegar vs US has to do with the authority of the congress to regulate interstate commerce. Naveger's attorneys argued the congress had exceeded it's authority.

I can play this game.

Heller vs. DC

Feel free to look it up.

Jimmy Carter has nothing to do with either of these cases and his repeated mention of hunting is just proof that he knows nothing about the 2nd Amendment. The 2nd Amendment has nothing to do with hunting.

[Roy Munson]

Best I can tell, Navegar vs US has to do with the authority of the congress to regulate interstate commerce. Naveger's attorneys argued the congress had exceeded it's authority.

I can play this game.

Heller vs. DC

Feel free to look it up.

Jimmy Carter has nothing to do with either of these cases and his repeated mention of hunting is just proof that he knows nothing about the 2nd Amendment. The 2nd Amendment has nothing to do with hunting.

The 2nd amendment was created when our "arms" were muskets and cannons. I agree that everybody should be allowed to own one of those.

What's wrong with admitting that our founding fathers weren't clairvoyant and some of the things they setup are either outdated, or unnecessary?

[domenick2x]

Best I can tell, Navegar vs US has to do with the authority of the congress to regulate interstate commerce. Naveger's attorneys argued the congress had exceeded it's authority.

I can play this game.

Heller vs. DC

Feel free to look it up.

Jimmy Carter has nothing to do with either of these cases and his repeated mention of hunting is just proof that he knows nothing about the 2nd Amendment. The 2nd Amendment has nothing to do with hunting.

Actually it's DC v Heller.

And there's room enough in that decision to keep certain types of weapons 'illegal'.

We therefore read Miller to say only that the Second Amendment does not protect those weapons not typically possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes, such as short-barreled shotguns.

http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf

Pg 56.

DC v Heller does NOT give a blanket firearms protection, and there's enough information in there to reasonably assume that certain arms would still be able to be restricted - just not 'common use' arms, like handguns.


And I agree that the 2nd Amendment has nothing to do with hunting.

[ryr8828]

The 2nd amendment was created when our "arms" were muskets and cannons. I agree that everybody should be allowed to own one of those.

What's wrong with admitting that our founding fathers weren't clairvoyant and some of the things they setup are either outdated, or unnecessary?

What's wrong with you understanding the concept of tyranny?

Under your assumption the 1st Amendment wouldn't apply to television, radio, or internet news or press, and it would be ok for the government to ban the Mormon religion.

From the Heller decision, the majority opinion:
Some have made the argument, bordering on the frivolous,
that only those arms in existence in the 18th century
are protected by the Second Amendment. We do not interpret
constitutional rights that way. Just as the First
Amendment protects modern forms of communications,
e.g., Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U. S. 844,
849 (1997), and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern
forms of search, e.g., Kyllo v. United States, 533 U. S. 27,
35–36 (2001), the Second Amendment extends, prima
facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms,
even those that were not in existence at the time of the
founding.

[Roy Munson]

What's wrong with you understanding the concept of tyranny?

Under your assumption the 1st Amendment wouldn't apply to television, radio, or internet news or press, and it would be ok for the government to ban the Mormon religion.

From the Heller decision, the majority opinion:

No, thats your interpretation of my opinion and is wrong.

speach is the same no matter what the medium, so is freedom of religion. The point about the increase in technology in firearms is that the founding fathers could have never perceived that we'd have auto/semi-auto weapons mowing down common citizens in the name of "fighting tyranny".

Tyranny is a crutch the gun people use to promote their need for guns. Like their shotgun would be able to hold off a tyrannical government leader that has the full force of the military... if thats the scenario they've made up in their heads. An armed populace would be the last worry on the mind of said tyrannical leader.

Are we to believe that the only thing holding off a 1985 scenario is because people have guns? Doubtful.

[ryr8828]

No, thats your interpretation of my opinion and is wrong.

speach is the same no matter what the medium, so is freedom of religion. The point about the increase in technology in firearms is that the founding fathers could have never perceived that we'd have auto/semi-auto weapons mowing down common citizens in the name of "fighting tyranny".

Tyranny is a crutch the gun people use to promote their need for guns. Like their shotgun would be able to hold off a tyrannical government leader that has the full force of the military... if thats the scenario they've made up in their heads. An armed populace would be the last worry on the mind of said tyrannical leader.

Are we to believe that the only thing holding off a 1985 scenario is because people have guns? Doubtful.

The quote was from supreme court justices who are supposedly smarter than both of us in regards to the constitution and the law. All that you are doing is trying to twist the constitution to fit your point of view.

If you think that a tyrant wouldn't prefer sheep to an armed populace then you're just silly.
I take it that you made a typo and meant 1984 as in the book.

Automatic weapons are damn near illegal if not in the hands of law enforcement or the military.They are no longer manufactured for private citizens. You'd have to have an expensive license and then $10,000 plus to buy one that was manufactured before 1986.

If you think gun owners use tyranny as a crutch maybe you should try living in Cuba, Venezuela, Libya, or any number of countries where oppression is the norm.

Where are all these instances of common citizens being mowed down by auto/semi auto firearms? How many of them were legally able to possess such firearms? What makes you think that they couldn't have accomplished the same scenario with a common wooden stocked hunting rifle or a .22 target pistol?
There are more than enough gun laws on the books already.

[LionFanFormerlyInLA]

The 2nd amendment was created when our "arms" were muskets and cannons. I agree that everybody should be allowed to own one of those.

What's wrong with admitting that our founding fathers weren't clairvoyant and some of the things they setup are either outdated, or unnecessary?

So what? In effect, the citizens were better armed than the government in the late 1700's. That certainly isn't the case today, with the US army vastly better armed than citizens.

[thrasymachus]

The quote was from supreme court justices who are supposedly smarter than both of us in regards to the constitution and the law. All that you are doing is trying to twist the constitution to fit your point of view.

If you think that a tyrant wouldn't prefer sheep to an armed populace then you're just silly.
I take it that you made a typo and meant 1984 as in the book.

Automatic weapons are damn near illegal if not in the hands of law enforcement or the military.They are no longer manufactured for private citizens. You'd have to have an expensive license and then $10,000 plus to buy one that was manufactured before 1986.

If you think gun owners use tyranny as a crutch maybe you should try living in Cuba, Venezuela, Libya, or any number of countries where oppression is the norm.

Where are all these instances of common citizens being mowed down by auto/semi auto firearms? How many of them were legally able to possess such firearms? What makes you think that they couldn't have accomplished the same scenario with a common wooden stocked hunting rifle or a .22 target pistol?
There are more than enough gun laws on the books already.

The bold lines make me think that you've never actually read an opinion of the Supreme Court.

[hannitykillspuppies]

So what? In effect, the citizens were better armed than the government in the late 1700's. That certainly isn't the case today, with the US army vastly better armed than citizens.
making the argument that people need an armory to prevent tyranny even more laughable.

[domenick2x]

making the argument that people need an armory to prevent tyranny even more laughable.
Red Dawn.

Imagine Russian troops are American, trying to prevent Vermont from seceding.

An armed populace is what differentiates us from Surrender Monkeys.


However, I don't see a huge added benefit to automatic weapons. The populace won't be able to outgun the military. The benefit of armed resistance (as opposed to unarmed resistance) is the key, not the arms itself.

Adding in that the danger to the populace from the populace itself with automatic weapons... I'm fine with such a ban.

[hannitykillspuppies]

Red Dawn.

Imagine Russian troops are American, trying to prevent Vermont from seceding.

An armed populace is what differentiates us from Surrender Monkeys.


However, I don't see a huge added benefit to automatic weapons. The populace won't be able to outgun the military. The benefit of armed resistance (as opposed to unarmed resistance) is the key, not the arms itself.

Adding in that the danger to the populace from the populace itself with automatic weapons... I'm fine with such a ban.

exactly, making the argument laughable.

[ryr8828]

The bold lines make me think that you've never actually read an opinion of the Supreme Court.

Well you would be thinking wrong.

[thrasymachus]

Well you would be thinking wrong.
Well then you should know that several of the Justices have been "trying to twist the constitution to fit [their] point of view."

[ryr8828]

Well then you should know that several of the Justices have been "trying to twist the constitution to fit [their] point of view."

I guess the only argument now would be which side.

I'll say the side that Roberts and Thomas aren't on.

[thrasymachus]

I guess the only argument now would be which side.

I'll say the side that Roberts and Thomas aren't on.
I would say both sides do plenty of twisting and manipulating.

[Roy Munson]

The quote was from supreme court justices who are supposedly smarter than both of us in regards to the constitution and the law. All that you are doing is trying to twist the constitution to fit your point of view.

If you think that a tyrant wouldn't prefer sheep to an armed populace then you're just silly.
I take it that you made a typo and meant 1984 as in the book.

Automatic weapons are damn near illegal if not in the hands of law enforcement or the military.They are no longer manufactured for private citizens. You'd have to have an expensive license and then $10,000 plus to buy one that was manufactured before 1986.

If you think gun owners use tyranny as a crutch maybe you should try living in Cuba, Venezuela, Libya, or any number of countries where oppression is the norm.

Where are all these instances of common citizens being mowed down by auto/semi auto firearms? How many of them were legally able to possess such firearms? What makes you think that they couldn't have accomplished the same scenario with a common wooden stocked hunting rifle or a .22 target pistol?
There are more than enough gun laws on the books already.

haha, yes... thats what I get for relying on spell checker.

Its clear we're never going to agree on the gun ownership rights. I don't agree people should be able to own some weapons, but to say there is a need for somebody to own an AK47 or an AR15... I can't agree with that.

[Vegas]

haha, yes... thats what I get for relying on spell checker.

Its clear we're never going to agree on the gun ownership rights. I don't agree people should be able to own some weapons, but to say there is a need for somebody to own an AK47 or an AR15... I can't agree with that.

If you went out and shot an AK47 a couple of times, you'd want one.

[hannitykillspuppies]

If you went out and shot an AK47 a couple of times, you'd want one.

want vs. need.

[ryr8828]

want vs. need.

Constitutional right.

vs.

a bunch of people scared of something because it looks different.

[Roy Munson]

Constitutional right.

vs.

a bunch of people scared of something because it looks different.
disingenuous labeling of sides...

Gun Nuts

vs.

Gun control


I wonder when I can buy my SAM...

[Roy Munson]

If you went out and shot an AK47 a couple of times, you'd want one.
hell, I'll admit that I WANT one now. But I have no need for one.

[ryr8828]

disingenuous labeling of sides...

Gun Nuts

vs.

Gun control


I wonder when I can buy my SAM...

Constitutionalists and Patriots
vs.
Little crybaby sissy mary gun grabbing liberals who expect government to defend them at all times

[hannitykillspuppies]

Constitutional right.

vs.

a bunch of people scared of something because it looks different.you're apparently scared of tyranny.

good luck taking on the united states military. i'm sure you'll fare well.

[hannitykillspuppies]

Constitutionalists and Patriots
vs.
Little crybaby sissy mary gun grabbing liberals who expect government to defend them at all timesyou're a patriot?

[Smoke681]

you're apparently scared of tyranny.

good luck taking on the united states military. i'm sure you'll fare well.
I wouldn't shoot him, if it means anything.

[Roy Munson]

Constitutionalists and Patriots
vs.
Little crybaby sissy mary gun grabbing liberals who expect government to defend them at all times
there you go... why go half way with things.

[hannitykillspuppies]

I wouldn't shoot him, if it means anything.

what if he shot at you first?

[ryr8828]

I wouldn't shoot him, if it means anything.

That's something they don't want to understand, the military takes an oath to the constitution also.

[hannitykillspuppies]

That's something they don't want to understand, the military takes an oath to the constitution also.
so does the person who commands them, so what do you have to worry about? or do you not understand that?

[ryr8828]

what if he shot at you first?

So long as he's not wearing the blue helmet...

http://www.xdtalk.com/forums/avatars/ryr8828.gif?dateline=1238341049

[hannitykillspuppies]

So long as he's not wearing the blue helmet...

http://www.xdtalk.com/forums/avatars/ryr8828.gif?dateline=1238341049

work firewall doesn't like it.

[ryr8828]

so does the person who commands them, so what do you have to worry about? or do you not understand that?

I don't worry about anything. I'm well armed and not a sheep.

[Roy Munson]

I don't worry about anything. I'm well armed and not a sheep.
your being well armed isn't going to prevent it if it happens.

[hannitykillspuppies]

I don't worry about anything. I'm well armed and not a sheep.

you certainly keep talking about it as if you are worried about it.

[ryr8828]

work firewall doesn't like it.Added an attachment.

[Roy Munson]

you certainly keep talking about it as if you are worried about it.
http://www.movieprop.com/tvandmovie/reviews/reddawn.jpg

[ryr8828]

you certainly keep talking about it as if you are worried about it.

I worry about my constitutional rights.

[ryr8828]

http://www.movieprop.com/tvandmovie/reviews/reddawn.jpg

You would be the teacher who walked out and told the Russians to be nice before they gunned him down.

[Roy Munson]

You would be the teacher who walked out and told the Russians to be nice before they gunned him down.
with my FPS skills... no way.

[ryr8828]

with my FPS skills... no way.

Using your single shot hunting weapon approved by Diane Feinstein?

[Vegas]

Using your single shot hunting weapon approved by Diane Feinstein?

The Diane Feinstein that has a concealed carry permit??

[ryr8828]

The Diane Feinstein that has a concealed carry permit??

Yes, that one.

[Vegas]

Yes, that one.

Do you remember when Teddy "Gun Control" Kennedy's bodyguard got nabbed at Washington Airport years ago with 2 submachine guns and 4000 rounds of ammo on his person? Apparently it's a great thing for citizens not to be able to protect themselves but an even better thing for politicians who want to take guns away from said citizens be armed to the teeth.

[Roy Munson]

Using your single shot hunting weapon approved by Diane Feinstein?
I prefer the bolt action R700 sniper rifle over any of the others in COD.

[ryr8828]

I prefer the bolt action R700 sniper rifle over any of the others in COD.


I'll have me one of those one of these days.

http://www.remington.com/images/products/firearms/centerfire/700_vtr_410.jpg

[ryr8828]

Do you remember when Teddy "Gun Control" Kennedy's bodyguard got nabbed at Washington Airport years ago with 2 submachine guns and 4000 rounds of ammo on his person? Apparently it's a great thing for citizens not to be able to protect themselves but an even better thing for politicians who want to take guns away from said citizens be armed to the teeth.

That is the hypocrisy. They want us to be sheep while they're wolves.

[thrasymachus]

So far I'd have to say the gun-nuts are winning the argument here. Constitutional rights aren't protected based on necessity, at least the way you guys are using it.

You could argue no one needs to say "fuck" or "cunt" or "faggot" or "pussy" or any number of words, just like no one needs to own an AK47. Yet, I doubt anyone would seriously want to restrict people's right to say those words. If you're going to argue that ownership of an AK47 isn't constitutionally protected, you've got to argue something other than "nobody needs to own an AK47."

[Roy Munson]

So far I'd have to say the gun-nuts are winning the argument here. Constitutional rights aren't protected based on necessity, at least the way you guys are using it.

You could argue no one needs to say "fuck" or "cunt" or "faggot" or "pussy" or any number of words, just like no one needs to own an AK47. Yet, I doubt anyone would seriously want to restrict people's right to say those words. If you're going to argue that ownership of an AK47 isn't constitutionally protected, you've got to argue something other than "nobody needs to own an AK47."
Then I want my constitutionally protected SAM...

[Roy Munson]

So far I'd have to say the gun-nuts are winning the argument here. Constitutional rights aren't protected based on necessity, at least the way you guys are using it.

You could argue no one needs to say "fuck" or "cunt" or "faggot" or "pussy" or any number of words, just like no one needs to own an AK47. Yet, I doubt anyone would seriously want to restrict people's right to say those words. If you're going to argue that ownership of an AK47 isn't constitutionally protected, you've got to argue something other than "nobody needs to own an AK47."

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.


I see nothing in there about purchasing...

[thrasymachus]

I see nothing in there about purchasing...
Reading that, I wonder if the gun-supporters actually believe in the 2nd Amendment to the strictest degree. Should I have the right to bear arms at all times? For example, should I be able to walk around with an AK47 strapped around my shoulder anywhere I go?

[Smoke681]

I see nothing in there about purchasing...
Indeed, which implies that the drafters of the Constitution clearly meant that we should steal our weaponry.

I'm going to steal some guns tonight. When I get busted, I'm going to cite this constitutional error.

[ryr8828]

Reading that, I wonder if the gun-supporters actually believe in the 2nd Amendment to the strictest degree. Should I have the right to bear arms at all times? For example, should I be able to walk around with an AK47 strapped around my shoulder anywhere I go?

I feel that I should be able to conceal carry a pistol if I wish to do so.

Another picture of Munson's rifle.

http://www.onpointsupply.com/images/remington_700_vtr_1.jpg

[abreu]

Carter is in favor of the ban because he knows his death is imminent unless these weapons are gone soon.

[thrasymachus]

Carter is in favor of the ban because he knows his death is imminent unless these weapons are gone soon.
Ummm...uhhh...err...inappropriate?

[Roy Munson]

I feel that I should be able to conceal carry a pistol if I wish to do so.

Another picture of Munson's rifle.

http://www.onpointsupply.com/images/remington_700_vtr_1.jpg
Mine has red tiger camo

[Roy Munson]

Indeed, which implies that the drafters of the Constitution clearly meant that we should steal our weaponry.

I'm going to steal some guns tonight. When I get busted, I'm going to cite this constitutional error.
You could inhert or make them...

I would suggest that over stealing. Thats still a crime... ability to bear arms or not.

[hannitykillspuppies]

i need a tank, some mortars, 2 dozen grenades, a half dozen rpgs, a rail gun(i don't even know if those are real, but if they are i need one) and a couple nuclear icbms. it's my constitutional right.

[Jesse Helms' Ghost]

Do you remember when Teddy "Gun Control" Kennedy's bodyguard got nabbed at Washington Airport years ago with 2 submachine guns and 4000 rounds of ammo on his person? Apparently it's a great thing for citizens not to be able to protect themselves but an even better thing for politicians who want to take guns away from said citizens be armed to the teeth. But didn't he claim he was a 'bad shot'???

[Jesse Helms' Ghost]

http://www.movieprop.com/tvandmovie/reviews/reddawn.jpg 'Red Dawn'.

The answer to the Jeopordy-esque question, 'What was the very first movie my then g/f (now wife) wanted me to see'.



I'm serious.

[ryr8828]

i need a tank, some mortars, 2 dozen grenades, a half dozen rpgs, a rail gun(i don't even know if those are real, but if they are i need one) and a couple nuclear icbms. it's my constitutional right.
I would suggest you start out with a paintball gun or perhaps a red ryder bb gun. Posts like your last one make me wonder if you qualify under form 4473:


f. Have you ever been adjudicated mentally defective (which includes having been adjudicated incompetent to manage your own
affairs) or have you ever been committed to a mental institution?

[hannitykillspuppies]

I would suggest you start out with a paintball gun or perhaps a red ryder bb gun. Posts like your last one make me wonder if you qualify under form 4473:


f. Have you ever been adjudicated mentally defective (which includes having been adjudicated incompetent to manage your own
affairs) or have you ever been committed to a mental institution?

if wanting to protect against tyranny makes me crazy then call me son of sam.

[ryr8828]

'Red Dawn'.

The answer to the Jeopordy-esque question, 'What was the very first movie my then g/f (now wife) wanted me to see'.



I'm serious.
WOLVERINES!!!!!!!

BoM6IFiyRjE

[ryr8828]

if wanting to protect against tyranny makes me crazy then call me son of sam.

In that case, I suggest this:

http://i30.photobucket.com/albums/c316/raven1121/FnF2000001.jpg

[domenick2x]

That is the hypocrisy. They want us to be sheep while they're wolves.
No, that implies they are preying on us directly.

More like they want the people to be sheep, while they have private sheepdogs at their side.

[ryr8828]

No, that implies they are preying on us directly.

More like they want the people to be sheep, while they have private sheepdogs at their side.

While they steal money from my pocket, and fly all over the country while telling me to drive a scooter.

Or promote wind farms while fighting to keep one out of their vicinity.

[tichabou]

I support the right of an unborn fetus to own and carry an AK-47.

[ryr8828]

I support the right of an unborn fetus to own and carry an AK-47.

Even I don't promote carrying long guns through the streets of our cities and towns.
Outside of that you're right on. All the stances in one sentence.

[tichabou]

That's only partially a joke.