While y'all are bickering about guns...

[k9nanny]

... Do you forget too easily or is the NRA taking over your brain?

I kind of doubt the brain has much to do with MA's gun obsession. Indeed, I get a creepy suspicion that talking about guns gives him a boner.

[Leo Lyons]

... Do you forget too easily or is the NRA taking over your brain?

I kind of doubt the brain has much to do with MA's gun obsession. Indeed, I get a creepy suspicion that talking about guns gives him a boner.

Piques your interest doesn't it?

Gee, K9 has an obsession with MA's boner! Where does the line start?

[O Really]

Yes, I agree that there needs to be a REASONABLE restriction on the definition of arms and I feel that definition can be found in looking at your incorrect analogy of single shot muzzleloaders. By that I mean a hand held weapon that delivers a single non-exploding projectile, or a single semi-contained group of small projectiles (shotguns) with each pull of the trigger. Technology has decreased "lock time", increased capacity and decreased re-load time. However, firearms today are nothing more than modern day "muzzleloaders" that technology have improved over time.

Actually, that's a pretty good point. So would it be a fair inference that in your view the "line" would be drawn with that definition - i.e., one pull of trigger, one shot fired - and that anything that does that would be legal, anything else would be illegal?

[Mad American]

Yes, I agree that there needs to be a REASONABLE restriction on the definition of arms and I feel that definition can be found in looking at your incorrect analogy of single shot muzzleloaders. By that I mean a hand held weapon that delivers a single non-exploding projectile, or a single semi-contained group of small projectiles (shotguns) with each pull of the trigger. Technology has decreased "lock time", increased capacity and decreased re-load time. However, firearms today are nothing more than modern day "muzzleloaders" that technology have improved over time.

Actually, that's a pretty good point. So would it be a fair inference that in your view the "line" would be drawn with that definition - i.e., one pull of trigger, one shot fired - and that anything that does that would be legal, anything else would be illegal?

That is close. Projectile type must also be figured into the equation which is why I listed non-exploding projectiles. Without that, things such as grenade launchers would be legal. Also, I left out self sustained projectile propulsion, which should also be illegal, in my earlier post. That would address "rockets" and "missles".

[O Really]

Lets talk about the REAL efforts by the NRA as they lobby for stiffer penalties for gun offenders. Lets talk about the continuing NRA efforts to teach firearms safety to people all over the nation. Sure, we can talk about regulating the people. Lets talk.

Organizations are known for their primary efforts, and are often not given credit (or credibility) for other things they do. For example, NAMBLA has lobbied for greater punishment for coerced sex and juvenile pornography, adopting the statement "NAMBLA has always opposed any form of abuse or coercion... and "NAMBLA condemns rape and sexual assault." [adopted December 4, 1983]

Nevertheless, most of use still think NAMBLA is a bunch of scum-bag pedophiles.

[Mad American]

True, and I think that the NRA has been given a bad rap because they oppose restrictions on weapons that fit the criteria that I previously stated. The NRA is not opposed to "reasonable" restriction. It is in anti-gunner's fantasy world where the NRA is opposed to any and all restrictions. In all my years as a NRA member I've never seen them lobby for the right to own a tank or a nuke. However, I have seen them vehementley oppsed to any effort to restrict ownership of modern sporting arms and magazine capacity.

[O Really]

True, and I think that the NRA has been given a bad rap because they oppose restrictions on weapons that fit the criteria that I previously stated. The NRA is not opposed to "reasonable" restriction. It is in anti-gunner's fantasy world where the NRA is opposed to any and all restrictions. In all my years as a NRA member I've never seen them lobby for the right to own a tank or a nuke. However, I have seen them vehementley oppsed to any effort to restrict ownership of modern sporting arms and magazine capacity.

Not exactly. I've read NRA publications, NRA website, and LaPierre's writings. Their efforts go far past simple opposition to "any effort to restrict ownership of modern sporting arms and magazine capacity." Registration, for example, doesn't restrict anybody's ownership. How do they feel about that? Requiring private owners and gun show sellers to follow the same level background check and verification as real dealers doesn't restrict anybody's ownership. Much of their effort is engaged in creating paranoia among gun owners to encourage gun and ammunition sales. Besides, I don't know anybody who actually said the NRA ever lobbied for the right to own a nuke. That's just a logical extension of the reasoning they put forth to avoid restrictions on firearms.

[O Really]

Anyway, IMNVHO, (and in a dreamworld that will never happen) I don't care so much about banning any particular type of gun as I am in favor of making them much more difficult to get, and increasing penalties for illegal use and possession to the point that large numbers of people will find owning one isn't worth the risk. Those that go through real training and licensing could have any kind of weapon they like.

[O Really]

Again, anyone other than a "well regulated militia", according to the second amendment, does not have the innate right to bear arms (on a warm day, of course, they can bare them).

The 2nd amendment has been far too twisted out of the "original intent" thereof by the gun-nutters.

Not that I personally disagree with you, but unfortunately the Supreme Court in Heller in 2008 disagreed with both of us and created (out of whole cloth some would say) an individual right outside the "militia" concept. Before then, and for decadess, the Supreme Court had given more weight to the "well regulated militia" part than the "bear arms" part. Opps. NRA wins again.

[O Really]

And just wondering, what with all the discussion over what is and isn't an "assault rifle" or whether that term has any actual meaning, I wonder if it would be unreasonable to consider any weapon named by its manufacturer as an "Adaptive Combat Rifle" to fit that description.

I wonder if the NRA would find a Second Amendment (or First) violation if advertising content for guns was restricted in the way advertising for other dangerous products is.

[Mad American]

Historically, registration has been a precursor to seizure of firearms, I'd say that is pretty restrictive. I can not speak to the "gun show loop hole" in other states but I do know that here in NC the 4473 is filled out at shows and that a permit is REQUIRED for handgun purchases. It seems if there is a "loop hole" it does not exist or is VERY SMALL here in NC. So, how do you define, "real training and licensing" and what would be illegal "possession" if there are no bans? From the sounds of your post O'really you are actually living in your dream world and just do not realize it.

[Mad American]

And just wondering, what with all the discussion over what is and isn't an "assault rifle" or whether that term has any actual meaning, I wonder if it would be unreasonable to consider any weapon named by its manufacturer as an "Adaptive Combat Rifle" to fit that description.

I wonder if the NRA would find a Second Amendment (or First) violation if advertising content for guns was restricted in the way advertising for other dangerous products is.

A poor choice in wording, but the term ACR "adaptive combat rifle" is used to describe the modular platform and ease with which accessories are attached and removed. The inner mechanics of the weapon are not altered in any way compared to other modern sporting rifles.

[O Really]

Historically, registration has been a precursor to seizure of firearms, I'd say that is pretty restrictive. I can not speak to the "gun show loop hole" in other states but I do know that here in NC the 4473 is filled out at shows and that a permit is REQUIRED for handgun purchases. It seems if there is a "loop hole" it does not exist or is VERY SMALL here in NC. So, how do you define, "real training and licensing" and what would be illegal "possession" if there are no bans? From the sounds of your post O'really you are actually living in your dream world and just do not realize it.

I'm under no illusions that any meaningful restrictions on firearm ownership will actually occur. But I have no problem discussion theoretical possibilities even if I know they have no chance of becoming real.

However, there has never been a "seizure of firearms" in any country that has an equivalent law to the Second Amendment. And there has never been a plausible, practical, and detailed description of how "they" actually could "take away our guns" even if "they" were a President.

The current training required for a concealed carry license is ridiculous. At least in Florida, and if you get a Florida license you can use it in more than 30-something other states. There is no training required as far as I know to buy a rifle or shotgun. In my "dream" world, I would have a national firearm proficiency course designed that everyone wanting to buy/own a gun would have to successfully complete. And it would require a lot more than firing 50 rounds into the wall and answering third-grade level test questions after hints from the instructor. If each legal gun owner and his/her guns were registered, it would make it a bit easier to do something about the illegal owners. No card? Owner doesn't match the weapon? Opps - felony offence.

[O Really]

And just wondering, what with all the discussion over what is and isn't an "assault rifle" or whether that term has any actual meaning, I wonder if it would be unreasonable to consider any weapon named by its manufacturer as an "Adaptive Combat Rifle" to fit that description.

I wonder if the NRA would find a Second Amendment (or First) violation if advertising content for guns was restricted in the way advertising for other dangerous products is.

A poor choice in wording, but the term ACR "adaptive combat rifle" is used to describe the modular platform and ease with which accessories are attached and removed. The inner mechanics of the weapon are not altered in any way compared to other modern sporting rifles.

I don't know that it's a poor choice of words. The weapons in question actually were designed to be used by combat units. I'm just saying, nobody would know to call these weapons "assault rifles" without having had a lot of help in the past from manufacturers and users.

[Mad American]

Second amendment aside, the reason there has never a plausible, practical, description of how they would take away guns is because they do not know where to look. However, if a registration program was implemented that little problem is eliminated. Which is the primary reason the NRA is oppsed to it. Again, national registration has historically been a precursor to civilian disarmament.

We had a firearms training course and competition when I was in high school. However, that has now pretty much been stopped. The school still attempts to have the competition team but all practicing and training are done far away from the campus and the days of storing your rifle in your locker are very much over. I would love to have a nickel for every one of the thousands of rounds I fired from 9th through 12th grade. I wonder how you would deal with firearms as family hierlooms? Most of my collection has passed to me through several generations. If I did not have a "card" would I be a felon? Do I have to re-register my guns because my great-grandfather originally bought them and they have passed to me?

True "assault weapons" were banned in 1986. Simply because a rifle is based on a design orignally used for military combat use and calling it an ACR does not make it an assault weapon. The Winchester lever action was originally designed for combat use by the US Cavalry (military) does that make it an "assault rifle"?

[rstrong]

I wonder how you would deal with firearms as family hierlooms? Most of my collection has passed to me through several generations. If I did not have a "card" would I be a felon?

You can own a Sherman Tank if you want to. They'll simply make you weld the breech shut and pour cement down the barrel. You won't notice any difference by looking at it.

True "assault weapons" were banned in 1986.

True "assault rifles", not "assault weapons." The distinction being whether the rifle is fully automatic.

Fully automatic rifles like the M-16 were banned in 1986. (Any such weapon manufactured and registered before the May 19 1986 could still be legally owned and transferred by civilians.)

The semi-automatic version of the M16, the AR-15, is still legal - while still legally considered an "assault weapon."

Simply because a rifle is based on a design orignally used for military combat use and calling it an ACR does not make it an assault weapon. The Winchester lever action was originally designed for combat use by the US Cavalry (military) does that make it an "assault rifle"?

This is an incorrect understanding of the definition. It's not based on whether a weapon was once used by the military. It's based on the features of the weapon. Not only does the AR-15 have those features, but it's specifically mentioned in the legislation as an assault weapon.

[O Really]

Second amendment aside, the reason there has never a plausible, practical, description of how they would take away guns is because they do not know where to look. However, if a registration program was implemented that little problem is eliminated. Which is the primary reason the NRA is oppsed to it. Again, national registration has historically been a precursor to civilian disarmament.

?

The Second Amendment cannot be "aside" because it is the basis of all sides of the argument. Again, name one country where civilian disarmament has occurred where that country had some Second Amendment equivalent law in its most fundamental body of law.

Besides, it doesn't matter whether they know where to look. There's absolutely no realistic and practical way to get to the point where anybody would be able to look.

[Mad American]

I wonder how you would deal with firearms as family hierlooms? Most of my collection has passed to me through several generations. If I did not have a "card" would I be a felon?

You can own a Sherman Tank if you want to. They'll simply make you weld the breech shut and pour cement down the barrel. You won't notice any difference by looking at it.

So a 100 year old single barrel breech loading shotgun should be rendered inoperable?

True "assault weapons" were banned in 1986.

True "assault rifles", not "assault weapons." The distinction being whether the rifle is fully automatic.

Good catch! It was for "rifles" not "weapons"

Fully automatic rifles like the M-16 were banned in 1986. (Any such weapon manufactured and registered before the May 19 1986 could still be legally owned and transferred by civilians.)

True, but only after very in depth paperwork

The semi-automatic version of the M16, the AR-15, is still legal - while still legally considered an "assault weapon."

Considered by whom? Just because it is called such by legislation does not make it so. We have already established that assault rifles were banned in 1986. However, the AR-15 is still legal.

Simply because a rifle is based on a design orignally used for military combat use and calling it an ACR does not make it an assault weapon. The Winchester lever action was originally designed for combat use by the US Cavalry (military) does that make it an "assault rifle"?

This is an incorrect understanding of the definition. It's not based on whether a weapon was once used by the military. It's based on the features of the weapon. Not only does the AR-15 have those features, but it's specifically mentioned in the legislation as an assault weapon.

So we are once again back to simply what a weapon looks like. High heels and a short skirt does not make a female a hooker. There is legislation that, if introduced, will label some single shot muzzleloaders as "assault weapons". That does not mean that the description is correct.

[Mad American]

Second amendment aside, the reason there has never a plausible, practical, description of how they would take away guns is because they do not know where to look. However, if a registration program was implemented that little problem is eliminated. Which is the primary reason the NRA is oppsed to it. Again, national registration has historically been a precursor to civilian disarmament.

?

The Second Amendment cannot be "aside" because it is the basis of all sides of the argument. Again, name one country where civilian disarmament has occurred where that country had some Second Amendment equivalent law in its most fundamental body of law.

Besides, it doesn't matter whether they know where to look. There's absolutely no realistic and practical way to get to the point where anybody would be able to look.

It would take nothing to collect all registered firearms once the locations were known. To think otherwise is historically inaccurate and naive. All it would take is the right panel of justices to be selected to the Supreme Court and the 2nd Amendment as we know it could cease to exist. Point being there is more than just the second amendment preventing civilian disarmament.

[O Really]

It's not exactly a gun story, but sorta... anyway it's funny... http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/nascar-fr ... ascar.html