H.R. 1093--The "BATFE Reform Act" Introduced

Rod Snell said:

Congress, the President, and SCOTUS (whom the President appoints and Congress confirms).
Just a reminder for any gun owners who vote based on "other considerations."

Click to expand...

Yeah, it's representative democracy, not a true one. We elect the people who make the decisions... voters rarely take direct part in actual law making.

In the plastic gun ban law, I think only a handful of congressmen voted against the ban. Same with the armor piercing ammo ban... it wasn't a dem vs gop or conservative vs liberal issue, it was pretty much every elected official agreeing.

Koshinn said:

Just like plastic guns are banned and armor piercing handgun ammo is (ineffectually) banned, no one really argues that machine guns are necessary for 2nd ammendment rights. Seriously, they're fun, but not very practical unless you need to kill a large group of people or provide suppressive fire.

Click to expand...

Irrelevant. The 2nd Amendment is not about need nor is it concerned with practicality.

Werewolf said:

Irrelevant. The 2nd Amendment is not about need nor is it concerned with practicality.

Click to expand...

Or hunting or other shooting sports either!

some of this bill will be good and some are not so good (giving more power to a Rouge agency), and i agree with some of the statements that the 2nd Ammendment is for our protection against Tyranny.

Werewolf said:

Irrelevant. The 2nd Amendment is not about need nor is it concerned with practicality.

Click to expand...

You are correct good sir.

grizzly97 said:

You are correct good sir.

Click to expand...

Not according to the supreme court, he isn't.

The 2nd amendment doesn't give everyone the right to own any firearm and to use it anywhere and at any time. You have the right to bear arms, but you do not explicitly have the right to bear every type of arm.

Disallowing the mentally ill, underaged, and felons from owning guns is not unconstitutional. Disallowing the possession of machine guns and silencers is not unconstitutional. Disallowing the possession of completely plastic guns that are undetectable by airport xray machines is not unconstitutional.

Disallowing the possession of handguns is unconstitutional, because it is the primary firearm used for self defense.

The 2nd amendment is much like the 1st amendment, it doesn't give everyone a blanket free pass to do whatever they want, whenever they want.

Individual rights are always balanced with infringing on others' rights. While it may seem like it's impeding my freedom of speech, I cannot hand out pictures of a group of old naked men having anal sex with each other to children. The government would be right to put a stop to that and arrest me. There's a balance that has to be found, and SCOTUS is the final word on what that balance is until the constitution is changed.

Koshinn said:

The 2nd amendment is much like the 1st amendment, it doesn't give everyone a blanket free pass to do whatever they want, whenever they want.

Click to expand...

Well...

Not since 1939 anyway.

The intent of the authors of the 2nd is clear from reading the history of how the constitution was put together and the wheeling and dealing that had to be done to get the BOR. The federalist papers is a very good source as a reference for what the authors intended.

But the modern SCOTUS seems to mostly disregard original intent, especially those members who fall to the left. The 2nd as it stands today bears absolutely no resemblance to what the authors of the constitution intended.

Some believe that we as gun owners/enthusiasts/self defense advocates etc are getting our rights back. What is happening is that SCOTUS is further restricting them with decisions like Heller and MacDonald which essentially reinforced Heller. 1st step towards making it so we eventually won't be able to even take a gun out of our home.

Rights are rights. You don't restrict them. If one exercises a right irresponsibly and causes harm to another you punish the irresponsible act, you do not restrict/punish all those who exercise a right responsibly.

It really isn't that hard to understand.

Unfortunately the restriction of rights means power and control and that is what all, all governments are about with or without good intentions; it is what they do; it is who they are.

Werewolf said:

Well...

Not since 1939 anyway.

The intent of the authors of the 2nd is clear from reading the history of how the constitution was put together and the wheeling and dealing that had to be done to get the BOR. The federalist papers is a very good source as a reference for what the authors intended.

But the modern SCOTUS seems to mostly disregard original intent, especially those members who fall to the left. The 2nd as it stands today bears absolutely no resemblance to what the authors of the constitution intended.

Some believe that we as gun owners/enthusiasts/self defense advocates etc are getting our rights back. What is happening is that SCOTUS is further restricting them with decisions like Heller and MacDonald which essentially reinforced Heller. 1st step towards making it so we eventually won't be able to even take a gun out of our home.

Rights are rights. You don't restrict them. If one exercises a right irresponsibly and causes harm to another you punish the irresponsible act, you do not restrict/punish all those who exercise a right responsibly.

It really isn't that hard to understand.

Unfortunately the restriction of rights means power and control and that is what all, all governments are about with or without good intentions; it is what they do; it is who they are.

Click to expand...

Very well said.

The actual intent, and what we experience now, are two completely seperate things. Especially if you look at the word "regulated" in the 2A. People now-a-days (mainly libs), say that since it says "regulated" that means they can restrict/dictate what we can and cannot do with firearms. Now if you look at how they used that word when it was written (because we all know we do not speak the same "english" they did back then), "regulated" actually meant "well armed". Sadly, until we have a full fledged (sp?) revolution, I don't see the government giving up the massive power they have and letting us "little people" have the rights the way they intended.

Koshinn said:

Not according to the supreme court, he isn't.

The 2nd amendment doesn't give everyone the right to own any firearm and to use it anywhere and at any time. You have the right to bear arms, but you do not explicitly have the right to bear every type of arm.

Disallowing the mentally ill, underaged, and felons from owning guns is not unconstitutional. Disallowing the possession of machine guns and silencers is not unconstitutional. Disallowing the possession of completely plastic guns that are undetectable by airport xray machines is not unconstitutional.

Disallowing the possession of handguns is unconstitutional, because it is the primary firearm used for self defense.

The 2nd amendment is much like the 1st amendment, it doesn't give everyone a blanket free pass to do whatever they want, whenever they want.

Individual rights are always balanced with infringing on others' rights. While it may seem like it's impeding my freedom of speech, I cannot hand out pictures of a group of old naked men having anal sex with each other to children. The government would be right to put a stop to that and arrest me. There's a balance that has to be found, and SCOTUS is the final word on what that balance is until the constitution is changed.

Click to expand...

Acutally, the 2A does. We have just gotten used to government taking rights from us for the name of "safety". The mentally ill and kids usually do not have guns because of their mental capacity. Not saying it's right or wrong, but they don't have the ability to know the consequences of certain actions. Felons gave up their right to guns, as well as voting, when they commit a crime. They do not "disallow" posession of machine guns and supressors, they have just made it so f'n expensive that not everyone can afford it. Good stratagy to disarm us actually.

The 2A is NOT about self-defense. It is so the people (that's you and me) can arm ourselves for protection against a tyrannical gov't. It says "the security of the state", not "security from a thug in your house".

As for the bold part, really? And surely you jest when you compare our 2A rights to showing gay porn to kids? That's a horrible comparison.

grizzly97 said:

Acutally, the 2A does. We have just gotten used to government taking rights from us for the name of "safety". The mentally ill and kids usually do not have guns because of their mental capacity. Not saying it's right or wrong, but they don't have the ability to know the consequences of certain actions. Felons gave up their right to guns, as well as voting, when they commit a crime.

Click to expand...

Mentally ill, children, and criminals are people too. They have rights. Why are they suddenly disallowed their free exercise of their constitutional rights? There is no exception for the mentally ill, children, or felons in the constitution. Why are you trying to disarm them?

They do not "disallow" posession of machine guns and supressors, they have just made it so f'n expensive that not everyone can afford it. Good stratagy to disarm us actually.

Click to expand...

Not federally and not in Oklahoma, but there are states that completely ban the private ownership of machine guns and suppressors. And those laws were upheld as constitutional.
On the flip side, there are states that ALLOW the ownership of suppressors without registration and without the stamp tax, and also allow the possession of brand spankin new machine guns for private owners... as long as the suppressors and machine guns were made in-state and never left the state. And that is legal because the federal congress has power over interstate commerce only. As long as the suppressors or machine guns don't ever cross state borders, state laws apply.

The old gay porn to kids : plastic gun comparison is to show that there are times when it is justifiable to restrict someone's constitutional rights, even if they are mentally capable, over 18, and have never committed a crime in their life. You're essentially holding a double standard; it's ok to sometimes restrict 1A rights, but it's never ok to restrict 2A rights. I'm pointing out that you should rethink your stance from an objective view point.