OBAMAHAHs latest AW Ban list!

[Guest nraforlife]

I'm with ya, man. I would think the founding fathers would want us to be as well armed as any potential force of tyranny.

+1 Guess we need a SA run to get us some real firepower off the books. Anyone speak Spanish or Russian real real well?

[Guest jackdog]

I see the list; I see a list of links at the bottom of the page; However, I see no source for this "list," but nor would I have much of a problem with seeing any of the guns on that list unavailable (Edit: I would miss the SVD). In this day and age, you are not going to outgun the U.S. government no matter what the gun laws are, so the revolution argument is out the window. Would you be able to more than adequately defend yourself without the guns on that list? I think so.

Bulls**t

[Guest jackdog]

Banned (two n's) for an opinion (I do, however, love your avatar)? I was kind of hoping that TGO is an inclusive and welcoming place when I signed up. I am honestly not trying to troll, or stir the pot, but as a gun owner (who owns some of the things on that list), I happen to agree with some forms of gun control and was simply stating such. A line needs to be drawn somewhere. I, for one, don't have a problem if, as a society, we draw that line at assault weapons. The one great thing about our constitution is that nothing is ever set in stone either. It has always been necessary in a democratic state to balance individual rights with collective rights. To use a hyperbolic example, certainly you would concede that the second amendment should not provide any U.S. citizen with the right to own nuclear weapons?

"That will satisfy them for a few months or years,then they will come for the rest of the guns."

This is a classic case of the slippery slope logical fallacy. There is zero evidence to suggest that the proposed assault rifle ban will lead to the banning of any other weapons, and in fact, plenty of evidence to the contrary.

Once again you are so wrong. the only way you change the constitution is by an amendment that is ratified by the states. Read the 2nd amendment. you may stop when you get to the part shall not be infringed. Since you do not understand how or why that was written I suggest you go steady the bill of rights and the constitution

[Guest crotalus01]

I dont buy that list - it has streetsweepers included and they are NFA items and as such not available in the same "easy" manner as a SKS/AK47 etc.

[I_Like_Pie]

WTF is the PSG-1 on there!?!? there are very, very few here in the USA, they cost like $11,000 and only do what a garden variety semi-auto deer rifle can do and any practical scenario. Don't get me wrong...they are super sweet, but really not that unique.

Edited March 19, 2009 by I_Like_Pie

[Guest lci419]

"Partly, this is a grammatical issue. "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State" is an introductory clause modifying everything the comes after it. It is also notable to look at the nouns in the second amendment. With the exception of the word "arms," all the nouns are inclusive, and only make reference to the individual and the individual right as part of and relative to a larger group:"militia," "State," "People." I see no mention of individual protection, or individual rights there at all.

There are clear differences between arms, sometimes not of category, but of degree and effect. The second amendment makes such distinctions by virtue of the weapon's effect of the society as a whole, i.e. its success or failure in defending the free state (note again, there is no mention of defending the individual). "

Personally, I always find this kind of thought process amusing. Something I have never heard anybody mention is....if the founding fathers only meant that "militias" or authorized military forces have weapons, then why didn't they confiscate all weapons at the time the Constitution was enacted?

[Mike.357]

if the founding fathers only meant that "militias" or authorized military forces have weapons, then why didn't they confiscate all weapons at the time the Constitution was enacted

Probably because gun and powder confiscation was the straw that broke the camels back. Once the crown started doing that the revolution really ratcheted up. I believe guns and ammo were the reason the colonies finally revolted.

[9teeneleven]

I'm not too big to come back on here and say I was wrong. I've been thinking about it since this thread started. I made no secret that this is an issue I haven't given much attention to. In fact, gun ownership on the whole is not an issue I had given much serious thought to until the last few years. I was raised in a home without guns, and never shot one until after I was 21. We are often ingrained with ideas without fully considering them. I have had long guns in my home for years, but only in the last few years brought a handgun in. I tend to not think about guns with regard to defense, though do have them available if the need arises. I primarily enjoy shooting, and shooting sports.

I still stand by the idea that there are some limits which we should accept on the 2nd amendment, and my previous posts present that argument. However, I was wrong on my original post regarding the "assault weapon" ban. After consideration, I agree that these semi-autos are not justifiably different than any other firearm that we as a society should consider acceptable for civilian ownership and use.

Gun ownership should be treated as a right, but not one that is earned. However, I still believe that that right is one you can and should be able to lose. I do acknowledge that this is a slightly problematic position given that unjust laws exist, especially in an unjust government. I can live with this contradiction if it keeps weapons out of the hands of those who would use them to do injustice. However, law abiding citizens should not be treated as potential criminals, and gun laws should not be legislated based on that premise.

Thanks for you patience. I would like to stay around this forum, and hope that I didn't make too abrupt of an entrance.

[Guest siegfried]

[ukerduker]

...Gun ownership should be treated as a right, but not one that is earned. However, I still believe that that right is one you can and should be able to lose. I do acknowledge that this is a slightly problematic position given that unjust laws exist, especially in an unjust government. I can live with this contradiction if it keeps weapons out of the hands of those who would use them to do injustice. However, law abiding citizens should not be treated as potential criminals, and gun laws should not be legislated based on that premise.

Thanks for you patience. I would like to stay around this forum, and hope that I didn't make too abrupt of an entrance.

How can you think this "right" is capable of being lost? IMO, the words "shall not be infringed" equate to a right that cannot be legislated away. But here's a thought, we are given the 2nd amendment as a tool for the people to repell a tyranical gov't, but if you move to express your constitutional right with "arms" and repell a threat to our countries core values(such as lawmakers breaking laws, constitutional violations, or violations of your oath), you are considered a criminal. How is this not in conflict with the 2nd amendment? There has been recent military training to conduct operations during the enactment of martial law. The Patriot Act (falsely named) and FEMA intrudes more so on your rights than people realize.

It's truly scary what the elected officials call necessary for the defense of our nation. I do not subscribe to the tin-foil nature of some of the people here, nor do I want to simply label people, as many have done, an official member of the tin-foil brigade. Knowledge is power and I want to retain the rights that were given to us. Our elected officials should fear us, as citizens. We put them into office and we can remove them. But before a number of you jump on the Alcoa band-wagon, consider this. This is just a thought, nothing more (first amendement). I do not advocate overthrowing the gov't or an armed up-rising. I prefer to think about all angles without bowing to one.

[9teeneleven]

How can you think this "right" is capable of being lost? IMO, the words "shall not be infringed" equate to a right that cannot be legislated away. But here's a thought, we are given the 2nd amendment as a tool for the people to repell a tyranical gov't, but if you move to express your constitutional right with "arms" and repell a threat to our countries core values(such as lawmakers breaking laws, constitutional violations, or violations of your oath), you are considered a criminal. How is this not in conflict with the 2nd amendment? There has been recent military training to conduct operations during the enactment of martial law. The Patriot Act (falsely named) and FEMA intrudes more so on your rights than people realize.

It's truly scary what the elected officials call necessary for the defense of our nation. I do not subscribe to the tin-foil nature of some of the people here, nor do I want to simply label people, as many have done, an official member of the tin-foil brigade. Knowledge is power and I want to retain the rights that were given to us. Our elected officials should fear us, as citizens. We put them into office and we can remove them. But before a number of you jump on the Alcoa band-wagon, consider this. This is just a thought, nothing more (first amendement). I do not advocate overthrowing the gov't or an armed up-rising. I prefer to think about all angles without bowing to one.

I completely agree with you (though, what is the Alcoa bandwagon?). However, it is simply untenable in my mind to let, say, a person convicted of violent crime to legally own a gun. That is what I meant by a right that can be lost. I realize that this is not a position without contradiction or danger. For starters, laws themselves are not a guarantee of a perfect justice system. Additionally, laws which might be broken may be unjust. However, the declaration of independence also argues that there is a time when it is justified to break the laws of an unjust state. You do not revolt against an unjust state without becoming a criminal anyway (Nor am I advocating, just discussing the issue).

[ukerduker]

I completely agree with you (though, what is the Alcoa bandwagon?). However, it is simply untenable in my mind to let, say, a person convicted of violent crime to legally own a gun. That is what I meant by a right that can be lost. I realize that this is not a position without contradiction or danger. For starters, laws themselves are not a guarantee of a perfect justice system. Additionally, laws which might be broken may be unjust. However, the declaration of independence also argues that there is a time when it is justified to break the laws of an unjust state. You do not revolt against an unjust state without becoming a criminal anyway (Nor am I advocating, just discussing the issue).

Alcoa bandwagon = reference to people who label other with a conspiracy theory label.

This is the simple labeling of a person as a tin-foil hat wearer. Comes from person who it too lazy or too weak to actually involve themself or engage in an issue, but rather slap a simple, ridiculous label on a person rather than addressing or debating it. There are many side to an issue. I guess it easier to just label someone rather than debate a point they know nothing about. I respect your opinion, but I do not agree with it.

[Daniel]

I didnt get it either. I guess hes talking about the fact that alcoa makes aluminum. How he didnt recognize that you were talking about criminals losing the right to own guns I do not know.

[Ninja9]

...there are some limits which we should accept on the 2nd amendment...

I respect you for being open to revising your argument, and hope you do stick around What you are saying now is somewhat easier to swallow. But i honestly think we have *already* accepted those limits and then some. We should not entertain the thought of giving up any more ground. To do so would be of no use to anyone but those who break the laws.

[9teeneleven]

Alcoa= aluminum foil?

[Guest clownsdd]

I wouldn't be posting on here that you have some on the list.

[9teeneleven]

I wouldn't be posting on here that you have some on the list.

Eh, I like old guns, I am sure there are plenty of people on this forum who would admit to owning an M1. And would like to own a PSL since I am a fan of 7.62x54r.

Interesting link:

http://www.politico.com/static/PPM116_mike_ross.html

Edited March 23, 2009 by 9teeneleven
Link added.

[ukerduker]

Alcoa= aluminum foil?

You are correct sir.

Alcoa is the world's leading producer and manager of primary aluminum, fabricated aluminum and alumina facilities, and is active in all major aspects of the industry. (per their website)