Wyoming Bill Would Nullify Obama Gun Control, Jail Feds

[piezoe]

Quote from 377OHMS:

I've never understood why the focus is on this very narrow definition of "assault weapon" which involves the barrel length, short or folding stock, the presence of a flash suppressor and the accommodation of large detachable magazines.

You can still buy an M1A (.308) but they don't seem concerned about those because they are "long rifles". Buying an M1A in California requires nothing but a 10-day waiting period. You can sell the gun to anyone afterwards and no record of the sale is needed.

Buying a .22 Pistol requires a background check and the weapon must be registered, there is the waiting period and the seller will usually required to you look at a safety video after which they give you a safety card to carry in your wallet. Ownership cannot be transferred without an FFL holder handling the sale.

I think the whole idea of banning semi-automatics is unworkable. I don't have a link but I'm pretty certain that the majority of guns being sold are semi-automatic and after years of shunning them I've bought a few myself in recent years. I've read that there are something like 65 million gun owners in the USA and I suppose that nearly all of them have a semi-automatic or even more than one. Are they going to go door-to-door asking for them or just place draconian criminal sentences on people who are caught with them? If the ban is only on new sales of semi-automatics how is that effective if there is 60 or so million of them already in private hands?

I still haven't gotten a direct answer on the question "why punish millions upon millions of law abiding gun owners instead of concentrating on the mentally ill people who are shooting up schools, theaters and political events?

I'd be interested in what you think, if anything, that might be good legislation that would 1) have a good probability of cutting down on gun violence, and 2) that would not unduly infringe on 2nd amendment rights.

 

[piezoe]

Quote from PiggyBank:

Two things:

1) If the US Army comes for ordinary citizens, regardless of why, this country is finished.

2) I'm not sure exactly how the Swiss system works, I have read different things. I know they became more restrictive in the past decade or so, but I'm not sure why as I haven't been able to find any evidence that they've ever had anything even remotely resembling a crime problem.

One older article (1990) I skimmed the other day described their system and it seems like they are or were much more lax in certain areas of the law with regards to what they could purchase and their ability to open carry. Also, only certain types of firearms were registered, which included hand guns but not semi-auto rifles. However like Achilles mentioned, the army there, at least at the time this was written, sold full-auto's, howitzers, and even anti-tank/anti-aircraft weaponry to citizens, which required only an 'easily-obtainable' license. the cantons set their own rules but I don't think they're anything like we have here.

I would honestly prefer this type of system here because it really puts power in the people's hands and is the ultimate safeguard against govt oppression AND foreign invasion. We could also have a much smaller standing army (less cost). If I can find the article I'll post it, I believe it was written by pro-gun right Americans.

I'd be interested in reading that article. The wiki article on guns in Switzerland is very informative.

 

[L-Kabong]

Quote from pspr:


Just like gay marriage is on it's way to becoming the same as hetro marriage in all respects and government dependency is on course to become available for all.

I don't agree with bundling the issue of gay marriage with your fears of an all out assault as you described, but gay marriage is just plain weird. I support the pairing and monogamous pledging between two people who want to build thier lives together but marriage between different sexes and marriage of the same sex is simply different.

One reason I think many people have difficulty with gay marriage is because they confuse the legal and religious institutions of marriage, because they often go hand in hand. Marriage by the church has no legal and civil consequence. Try getting married at city hall and divorcing and tell the judge you had no church ceremony and see what happens. Alimony will happen plus a kick in the ass.

However, the sexes are different. A monogamous pairing of a man and a woman is fundamentally different than a monogamous pairing between a man and a man or a woman and a woman. I don't think that there should be a legal difference - two committed people should have the same rights and benefits from the state regardless of gender. I'd rather have gays pair up than cruise endlessly on the margins of society. But I think we ought to be willing to recognize and respect the difference we all know and feel exists between gay and hetero marriages. And that means using terms to describe it properly . Call it civil union, call it gay marriage, but calling it marriage takes an undue liberty and trespasses on a planet wide age old human institution that has been well defined for millenia. The right to pair and the institution of marriage can create a dissonance in the minds of many and we have to face the dissonance that exists and examine what it is without fear of be branded politically incorrect. Hetero pair bonding in hominids is probably older than homosexuality, but homosexuality is at least as old as Judeo Christian marriage.

We can all live together and extend equal protection and equal rights under the law. But we can all go further and extend equal regard for each other as humans in a way that law cannot prescribe or demand. And in so doing we should respect and honor the traditional institution of marriage between the sexes and accept the new concept of gay marriage, but recognize the differences and let language properly describe those differences.

If we are to grow and prosper as a society and a united people,
we must be willing conserve, nurture and allow the growth of the best of what we have and be open to the new that change presents us.

 

[Lucrum]

Quote from piezoe:

I'd be interested in what you think, if anything, that might be good legislation that would 1) have a good probability of cutting down on gun violence, and 2) that would not unduly infringe on 2nd amendment rights.

Though not directed at me I'd like to answer.

1)Nationwide "constitutional carry"
2)Eliminate so called "gun free zones", they only invite mass murderers.
3)Institutionalize the mentally ill.
4)I wouldn't mind bringing back public torture and execution, but I don't see that happening.

 

[PHOENIX TRADING]

Quote from L-Kabong:

I don't agree with bundling the issue of gay marriage with your fears of an all out assault as you described, but gay marriage is just plain weird. I support the pairing and monogamous pledging between two people who want to build thier lives together but marriage between different sexes and marriage of the same sex is simply different.

One reason I think many people have difficulty with gay marriage is because they confuse the legal and religious institutions of marriage, because they often go hand in hand. Marriage by the church has no legal and civil consequence. Try getting married at city hall and divorcing and tell the judge you had no church ceremony and see what happens. Alimony will happen plus a kick in the ass.

However, the sexes are different. A monogamous pairing of a man and a woman is fundamentally different than a monogamous pairing between a man and a man or a woman and a woman. I don't think that there should be a legal difference - two committed people should have the same rights and benefits from the state regardless of gender. I'd rather have gays pair up than cruise endlessly on the margins of society. But I think we ought to be willing to recognize and respect the difference we all know and feel exists between gay and hetero marriages. And that means using terms to describe it properly . Call it civil union, call it gay marriage, but calling it marriage takes an undue liberty and trespasses on a planet wide age old human institution that has been well defined for millenia. The right to pair and the institution of marriage can create a dissonance in the minds of many and we have to face the dissonance that exists and examine what it is without fear of be branded politically incorrect. Hetero pair bonding in hominids is probably older than homosexuality, but homosexuality is at least as old as Judeo Christian marriage.

We can all live together and extend equal protection and equal rights under the law. But we can all go further and extend equal regard for each other as humans in a way that law cannot prescribe or demand. And in so doing we should respect and honor the traditional institution of marriage between the sexes and accept the new concept of gay marriage, but recognize the differences and let language properly describe those differences.

If we are to grow and prosper as a society and a united people,
we must be willing conserve, nurture and allow the growth of the best of what we have and be open to the new that change presents us.

Well just call it a consequence of you dipshits wanting to let big gubbermint poke it's nose into every fricken thing, issue, concept under the sun without limit.

I think as you've stated before , don't like it ,fricken leave and don't let the door hit your sorry ass on the way out, just make sure you pay your tax penalty and surrender your citizenship first.

 

[Lucrum]

Quote from L-Kabong:

...If we are to grow and prosper as a society and a united people,
we must be willing conserve, nurture and allow the growth of the best of what we have....

That would be the ever shrinking number of responsible productive tax payers. Utterly despised by most leftists.

 

[Tsing Tao]

Quote from L-Kabong:

I don't think you understand what the United States of America is
as a Republic. You really need to audit a local college's US Government 101 class.

You are simply too uneducated to converse with. Or too dumb. Or both.

So you have no answer other than an insult. I accept your surrender from the argument.

 

[Tsing Tao]

Quote from piezoe:

That's a good point regarding state by state regulation. Uniform regulation is the only thing that makes sense to me. It is also clear that amendment, as difficult as that could be, could lead to definitive rule on firearm ownership, at least for now.

Re the statement: "The Constitution was followed." I have to ask was it? And I think it was, and it wasn't.

I doubt that there was much consideration given to the advancement of weapon design when the 2nd Amendment was drafted. The purpose of the amendment is clearly stated. It was because "A well regulated Militia [was] necessary to the security of a free State."

So why would the drafters of the amendment have been concerned with future advancements in "arms," which at that time meant hand-held muzzle loaders and single shot pistols? The answer is, they would not have been. They would have been O.K. with fully automatic assault rifles, because their purpose was to be able to raise a "well regulated militia... to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions..." The purpose of a militia, as intended in the 18th century, is made crystal clear in Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution. The meaning would have been exactly the same at the drafting of the second amendment.

A militia, in the 18th century, was a part-time army, just as it is today. Our militia today consists of the National Guard, and no one is suggesting the National Guard should be limited to muzzle loaders.

Furthermore the second amendment does not speak at all to the question of owning firearms for the purpose of sport. That is a strictly modern day issue to be determined by modern day law, so long as that law does not violate the Constitution. The second amendment says that you and I can keep (own) firearms and have them on our person (bear them, and presumably use them for any reasonable purpose) because they might be needed to raise a militia .

The amendment cannot be divorced from the 18th century need to raise a militia. And this is where we are confounded by the fact that we have a militia -- The National Guard. Hence we have not only the issue of how the definition of arms may have changed over the centuries, but also the issue of how militias may have changed. I maintain that the drafters of the amendment would have been perfectly OK with the National Guard (our militia) shouldering AK-47's and missile launchers, but rather shocked to hear of anyone wanting them for hunting.

Furthermore, I can't see any support in the second amendment for the often expressed idea that it was intended to protect the citizenry from a tyrannical government. On the contrary, it was the raising of a militia to protect the government from rebellion that was used as the justification for the second amendment. There is nothing, nothing whatsoever!, in that amendment that suggests that the citizens were to be allowed to own firearms in case the government got too oppressive, and the citizens therefore were moved to rise up against the government. This is a kind of nonsense we are being subjected to by some in the gun lobby today.

I am not saying that you might not be very glad to have an AK-47 under the bed in case your government wants to take your liberties away. I'm saying the intent of the second amendment, as written, was just the opposite. The government wanted you and your muzzle loader on their side.

So now we have a little problem on our hands as far as the courts might ultimately be concerned. 1) the purpose of the second amendment was to facilitate the raising of a militia. We have a militia already. It is called the National Guard.
2) A literal interpretation of the second amendment might presuppose an expansion of "arms" to any weapon useful in the raising of a militia, that expanded definition of "arms" is already embodied in our National Guard.

Have the private gun owners of America been left out in the cold, so to speak, by the second amendment. Does it, or does it not apply to them? It may have applied to them at one time, before we had a National Guard. But does it still apply?

Are those falling back on the second amendment to protect their right to own guns designed specifically to kill people, assuming that "arms" in the second amendment means any weapon designed to be useful to a militia, going to to lose this battle in the courts, because their arms are not needed to raise a militia. Does the second amendment apply to those with guns that have nothing whatsoever to do with raising a militia?

The constitution is obsolescent, and the second amendment is obsolete. This is the current problem we must resolve. We can if cool heads prevail.

Again, if you want to make things more "relevant" to your thoughts, amend the constitution and get the clarity you so desperately seek.

 

[Wallet]

Quote from L-Kabong:

I don't think you understand what the United States of America is
as a Republic. You really need to audit a local college's US Government 101 class.

You are simply too uneducated to converse with. Or too dumb. Or both.

Do you understand the concept of a Republic?

Republics are based on "Individual" rights compared to the group in a Democracy.

http://www.1215.org/lawnotes/lawnotes/repvsdem.htm

 

[piezoe]

Quote from Tsing Tao:

Again, if you want to make things more "relevant" to your thoughts, amend the constitution and get the clarity you so desperately seek.

That would be a good idea, but so difficult to do. You would have to initiate it in the States. You can't get any amendment through Congress right now, because a single senator can stop anything with the filibuster under the current rules.

I'm OK with the Court's interpretation of the second amendment. I don't like some of their decisions, but that's my problem. Until Senate rules are changed, which will happen but I don't know when, we will be depending on the Court more than we should have to.