Busy Swingers Forum - everything you always wanted to know about swingers.
SwingLifeStyle Swingers Personal Ads. | SwingLifeStyle Swingers Clubs

Busy Swingers Forum

Everything you always wanted to know about swingers.

Create A Free Account

HELP
FORUMS General Discussions Politics Twenty Five (25) Forums on Guns
TOPIC: Twenty Five (25) Forums on Guns
GoTo Page: 1 2 3 4 5 ... More 
Start   31 to 40 of 50   End
User Details are only visible to members.
Ban High Capacity Magazines? We Can’t Even Ban Pot!

The possibility of a federal assault weapons ban in the near future is only there if either the Republicans in the House all get lobotomies now or their constituents do in 2014. But politics aside, why not do something very unusual in these kinds of debates.

Let’s talk about reality. The fact that we cannot even define an assault weapon is only one of the problems inherent in trying to ban a class of weapon in a nation where the right to keep and bear arms is enshrined in the Constitution. Now comes the question of so-called high capacity magazines. Just as we find it hard to ban marijuana—a weed that grows in the wild—we would find it’s very difficult to ban a box with a spring inside. That, folks, is what a high capacity magazine is.

It would be one thing if a high capacity magazine were some kind of high tech item that takes a rocket scientist to design and a whole factory to build. But the fact is that any reasonably competent high school shop student could make one in an hour. Further, there are already millions and millions of them in circulation. Standard issue with the World War Two era M1 was a 15 or 30 round magazine. There were something like 6.5-million M1 Carbines manufactured during the war and about a million made after the war. The government sold them to civilian marksmanship programs for something like $20, and there were millions of the magazines made to support them. And that’s only a single semi-automatic weapon on Senator Dianne Feinstein’s list. Our experience in banning things has not been stellar. We turned lots of people into criminals when we banned liquor and completely failed to stop its consumption during prohibition. Billions are bet on the NFL every Sunday, and only a fraction of that is legal. We have so many illegal immigrants in the country that, once again, we’re prepared to grant a form of amnesty so we don’t have to be in the unenviable position of deporting 11-million people. Given this government’s track record, what makes anyone think they would even be remotely successful at banning certain kinds of weapons and their accessories already in mass circulation? So then, we have politicians—including our own clown prince, Harry Reid—who think we can have something called a “universal background check” prior to anyone buying a gun. It sounds reasonable. But, say I have an M1 that I want to sell to my friend. How is a background check enforceable? And even if you could figure out a way to make such a thing practical, do you really think a criminal could not gain access to a gun without going through the process? Here’s a better idea, and I guarantee you it will work. Pass a law on the state level in each state that the use of a gun in the commission of a felony is an automatic additional 15 years in prison over whatever sentence you get. No exceptions, no discretion. Criminals may be criminals; but they watch the news on TV, and they read the newspaper. If they know that using a gun nets them an additional 15 years, they will think more than once before they do. You’re never going to stop all violent crime; but if you hit them where it hurts, you will certainly cause a major dent. And it will certainly be more effective, enforceable, and palatable than trying to take a constitutional right away from people which, even if you could get the law passed, would not apply to criminals anyway. People who want to stop gun violence have their hearts in the right place. But their brains are several zip codes off.

Berryville VA
Username hidden
(1750 posts)
User Details are only visible to members.
The definition of "assault weapon" also varies. There is no federal definition of an assault weapon, and the meaning of the term is inconsistent even within the gun industry. California defines an assault weapon as a "firearm (that) has such a high rate of fire and capacity for fire-power that its function as a legitimate sports or recreational firearm is substantially outweighed by the danger that it can be used to kill and injure human beings." The law specifically lists 60 rifles, 14 pistols and five shotguns. Neighboring states Nevada and Arizona have no assault weapon restrictions.

Federal law does not prohibit the ownership of any weapon, said Ginger Colbrun, an ATF spokeswoman in Washington. In order to buy or own certain firearms, including automatic weapons, machine guns and bazookas, people do have to apply for permission from the federal government. But as long as the application for a restricted firearm is approved, and there is no state law barring ownership of that type of gun, it's legal.

Berryville VA
Username hidden
(1750 posts)
User Details are only visible to members.
January 24, 2013

RICHMOND, Va. - Legislation to close Virginia's so-called "gun show loophole" was sent to its annual death Wednesday after a state senator who assumed a key role in this year's debate pledged to vigorously pursue a compromise between gun control advocates and opponents before the 2014 legislative session.

The Courts of Justice Committee voted 8-7 to kill the legislation, which has suffered the same fate several years in a row. Several other gun control proposals _ including bills mandating universal background checks and banning assault weapons and high-capacity magazines _ also have been rejected during the first two weeks of the 46-day legislative session.

In Virginia, only licensed gun dealers are required to run criminal background checks on buyers at gun shows. The courts committee last week endorsed a bill to allow only licensed dealers to operate as vendors at gun shows, but allow private sellers to place their wares on consignment with those dealers _ thus subjecting all customers to the background checks.

Berryville VA
Username hidden
(1750 posts)
User Details are only visible to members.
I think this is a good argum fiscalconservatives. com/videos/GbH8kHEORdU.html?s=c

Tulare CA
Username hidden
(1880 posts)
User Details are only visible to members.
JJazz, this forum sparring is preferable to their using their guns. Talk is cheap, and easier to clean up. Meanwhile, don't take seriously very much that you see here. People may seem to be "attacking" others, but they're mostly just taking pot shots at their own personal demons.

Flat Rock NC
Username hidden
(2984 posts)
User Details are only visible to members.
I think we should ban people from using assault-keyboards until those people prove they can type several comprehensive sentences in a row, complete with punctuation, spelling, and grammar. The internet is simply becoming too dangerous thanks to people having the means to fire off dozens of unintelligible, crazy forum posts a minute!

Easton PA
Username hidden
(79 posts)
User Details are only visible to members.
form the 60s,we do not want to ban rifes,shotguns, or hand guns.we want to ban saturday night specials.never did find out what a saturday night specials was.50 years later we don't want to ban guns,just assault rifes.what is a assault rifle.form the time in the 60s to today we have banned magzines,barrel lenght,hand grip,bayonet lugs,and a host of other stuff.all in the name of safety.we want to keep felons for having guns.today we even ban people who have misdeoners form having guns.where does it stop.it won't stop.it well never stop.cowards well insist you can not be allowed to protect yourself.why,be cause they are cowards thats why.they demand you to be defenceless just like they chose to be.libbers are cowards.......BS

Kingston TN
Username hidden
(1991 posts)
User Details are only visible to members.
"Heller v US drew a line, it defended ownership of guns while clearly stating "Adaptive combat weapons" (assault weapons as described by Remington) were not 2nd amendment protected. "

Can you point me to the part of the Heller decision that mentions 'Adaptive combat weapons"?

Pittsburgh PA
Username hidden
(17386 posts)
User Details are only visible to members.
"Heller was decided 5-4. It is a close call. I doubt the nine Justices call each other "tard" or "idiots."

If you read the majority opinion by Scalia, you'd know that he did everything but directly call them 'tards'. He points out every flaw in the minority opinion with supporting evidence of why it's illogical.

Pittsburgh PA
Username hidden
(17386 posts)
User Details are only visible to members.
Congress could pass gun ban legislation by a 90%+ margin and it just would not matter. I think some people are very unclear on this. This is the reason we have a Supreme Court, and though I do not doubt that the Supreme Court can also become corrupt, in 2008 they got it right. They supported the constitution. It does not matter what the majority supports because America is not a democracy. A constitutional republic protects the rights of every single citizen, no matter what their "elected servants" say. A majority in America only matters when the constitution is not in play.

Berryville VA
Username hidden
(1750 posts)
GoTo Page: 1 2 3 4 5 ... More 
Start   31 to 40 of 50   End
TOPIC: Twenty Five (25) Forums on Guns