All the BATF need do is re define what a machine gun is.
Not really. A machine gun is defined by the NFA. They have a lot of room to classify things, but machine guns are pretty well defined.
All the BATF need do is re define what a machine gun is.
Thank you, you said the words I was looking for.....common sense
Some of us seem to be able to agree that these common sense gun laws are not such a bad idea though they are technically infringement.
1) the insane should have ther second ammendmant right infringed
2) inmates in a prison should have there second ammendmant rights infringed
3) carrying while drinking alcohol is illegal yet it’s in infringement on our second ammendmant rights (guns and alcohol are a bad pairing in my mind)
You can’t say we aren’t budging an inch on the second ammendmant and then also say these 3 common sense laws are reasonable, that would be hypocritical. Some here today are were clearly ok with anyone having any armament they want, grenades, SMAWS, RPG, chemical weapons, nukes and that doesn’t seem like a good idea to me.
1 & 2) If someone is so dangerous to society that we can justify removing ALL freedom, then rights infringement is not "common sense" it's a logical requirement. However, I am also of the opinion that once such a person's freedom is restored, so should their rights. If a person is so dangerous that we feel we can never restore their full rights, then likely their freedom shouldn't be restored either.
3) As far as I know, it is not illegal to drink and bear arms. It is illegal - IN THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA (not a Fed.gov rule) - to carry in an establishment that makes the majority of it's money off alcohol.
I don't see any infringement.
I don’t disagree with you comments here, 1&2) I honestly think we have a poor correctoinal system wherein once a person becomes a felon they drastically reduce their odds of holding meaningful employment. And indirectly you are punished for your mistake long after the debt to the state / feds / society has been paid. I believe it’s why many people return to crime because they have a permanent black mark after prison a stigma.
3) limiting people’s right keep and bear arms on their person whirl they are drinking is a form of infringement.
The broader point I was making is at that point time when we agreed that any law at all could be passed that didn’t adhere to the strict adherence to “have the right to keep and bear arms” it was at that point that the battle war was lost, we will have hundreds of battles over the next century but it all falls back to the one point.
The same could be said for the 1st Amendmant, it’s under attack from the “hate speech” crowd, and also laws concerning obscenity, libel , slander, incitement ...etc . Those laws all infringe on the right to the compete unabridged freedom of speech using the princiboe of unfair harm they can cause. But it doesn’t change the fact that they do alter the strict interpretation of the first ammendmant and they are widely accepted. Freedom of religion is now infringed try refusing to bake a cake for a gay wedding and you get crushed.
Once you accept laws that adjust strict interpretation of the constitutional ammendmants, you have already opened Pandora’s box and the slippery slope will almost always win.
I think to many people want to make a simple statement and say “we simply need a return to common decency”, which is 100% accurate but short of a miracle I don’t see this ever happening. When I say common decency in my mind it’s the old fashioned yes ma’am, no sir, respect for other people and their property, etc .......what many of us likely grew up with in Oklahoma. But common decency may have different meanings to different people.
There comes a time when it may be necessary to forfeit a battle in order to win the war.
Just a thought.
Because this is OSAWhy are we arguing amongst ourselves about some plastic attachment that serves no practical purpose, and has no bearing on defending us against an evil government?
We've got much bigger issues to defend.
Rights carry responsibilities, and it seems that a very large portion of society has forgotten about self control, so we end up with laws, and new interpretations of the Constitution.
Sorry, my point on 3) should have been that yes, Oklahoma infringes the 2A - by not allowing me to carry to a "bar". However they do NOT restrict my right to carry while drinking in general as you keep saying. And that it is not a Federal restriction. I disagree with OK's infringement. I'm not sure where I lost my train of thought when writing my initial post.
As far as your first amendment example. That's been discussed ad nauseam. The right to free speech does not mean I have the right to say whatever whenever I want. Just as I can't use my rightfully owned arms however and whenever I want.
Are there infringements on many rights? Yes. Does that mean I agree with them? NO! You keep bringing up examples of existing infringements as if that means we are OK with them.
"Leather toe tabs" ...?
Ah . . . don't ask"Leather toe tabs" ...?