Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New media
New media comments
Latest activity
Classifieds
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Log in
Register
What's New?
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Navigation
Install the app
Install
More Options
Advertise with us
Contact Us
Close Menu
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Forums
The Range
Law & Order
H.R. 1093--The "BATFE Reform Act" Introduced
Search titles only
By:
Reply to Thread
This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Koshinn" data-source="post: 1565698" data-attributes="member: 18314"><p>The Constitution obviously limits the power of the federal government in that it grants the government certain powers with limits.</p><p></p><p>But again, there is a difference between "infringing upon the citizens' ability to own weapons" and "infringing upon the citizens' ability to own any weapon."</p><p></p><p>As with everything, there is a balance between the public interest and personal rights. I don't generally want to pay taxes, for example, because it eats up a chunk of my paycheck. But those taxes go towards public projects. Knee-jerk reaction is to say that's socialist and you'd be right. You cannot have a completely capitalist nor a completely socialist system, it has to be balanced. More on topic, if I lived in a dense city, would I fight hard against ownership of a Mk19 (automatic 40mm grenade launcher) by civilians? Yes. People are stupid or careless - no matter how careful that person is, the chance of a ND or that weapon being stolen and used to destroy buildings of people is not worth the risk. But I understand that many people here are from a more rural area and by simply visiting okshooters.com, you're of a more responsible breed. Have you ever lived in Los Angeles? If a Mk19 was possible to own by civilians there, you'd see entire neighborhoods go up in flames, I kid you not. But at the same time, getting rid of Cali's ridiculous small arms laws and allowing concealed carry (with criminal background checks) would go a long way towards reducing the hold that gangs have on much of the city.</p><p></p><p>We're not disagreeing on basic principles, we're disagreeing on where to draw the line. Our views on that come from our background. I'm from very urban areas filled with a dense population of idiots. Allowing the purchase of new machine guns WOULD lead to the acquisition of these weapons by "evil" people, regardless of background checks, and WOULD lead to more deaths, at least at some places where I have lived.</p><p></p><p>If I were to rewrite firearms laws, I'd consider allowing new machine gun ownage, but with a $500 tax, a 3 month wait period, and punish criminal use with death. For suppressors, I'd only require a background check, which should take all of 10 minutes. SBR, SBS, and AOWs I'd not restrict. If you're going to criminally use one of those, you'll do it without the stamp tax, and restricting the sale doesn't stop someone with a hacksaw from making one.</p><p></p><p></p><p>(I'll come back to this in a bit)</p><p></p><p></p><p>So I'm responsible for everything wrong with this country, is that what you're saying?</p><p></p><p>You're wrong here and probably very emotional, so I won't take it personally. </p><p></p><p>You're basically saying "think whatever you want, but you're wrong and I'm right." If I really thought the federal government was overstepping their authority on an issue, I would not rationalize it. But my interpretation of their authority, from my legal studies, is different than your interpretation. And there are huge portions of the population that believe like I do, and huge portions of the population that believe like you do. </p><p></p><p>You're seeing my examples as rationalization, which I don't get. They're examples that set the framework for my argument.</p><p></p><p>Here's an example:</p><p>Do you think that the government has the right to require an x-ray scan of you and your belongings before you enter the terminal of the airport? Or do you think they're taking away your 4th amendment rights? It's just a regular x-ray scan that takes not 2 seconds and that has been in use as long as I can remember. I can already see your response as knee-jerking towards the reduction of rights and the government overreaching with its powers. But say you accept that an x-ray scan is ok because it's quick and painless, and the small inconvenience is worth the chance to stop a terrorist from bringing a weapon onboard a plane. Ok, so let's take it a step further, do you accept the backscatter or patdown option? Probably not, but maybe you do. If you do, would you accept a strip search of every airline passenger and a manual inspection of all their luggage?</p><p></p><p>See the balance between the public good and individual rights? Now apply that to guns. You want all guns for everyone all the time. I'm saying that it's not unconstitutional to restrict some of those rights for some situations, and even to remove those rights altogether from certain people. You agree that the mentally ill, criminals, and children should not be allowed to own a gun? Where do you draw the line for who is and is not allowed to own a gun? Or do you think a mentally handicapped, 12 yr old, prior felon should be able to steal $500, go to H&H and buy a pistol?</p><p></p><p></p><p>See, now you're making rationalizations for the reductions in your liberties too. </p><p></p><p></p><p>This is kind of like communism; it works in theory in the perfect world, but the world isn't perfect.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Koshinn, post: 1565698, member: 18314"] The Constitution obviously limits the power of the federal government in that it grants the government certain powers with limits. But again, there is a difference between "infringing upon the citizens' ability to own weapons" and "infringing upon the citizens' ability to own any weapon." As with everything, there is a balance between the public interest and personal rights. I don't generally want to pay taxes, for example, because it eats up a chunk of my paycheck. But those taxes go towards public projects. Knee-jerk reaction is to say that's socialist and you'd be right. You cannot have a completely capitalist nor a completely socialist system, it has to be balanced. More on topic, if I lived in a dense city, would I fight hard against ownership of a Mk19 (automatic 40mm grenade launcher) by civilians? Yes. People are stupid or careless - no matter how careful that person is, the chance of a ND or that weapon being stolen and used to destroy buildings of people is not worth the risk. But I understand that many people here are from a more rural area and by simply visiting okshooters.com, you're of a more responsible breed. Have you ever lived in Los Angeles? If a Mk19 was possible to own by civilians there, you'd see entire neighborhoods go up in flames, I kid you not. But at the same time, getting rid of Cali's ridiculous small arms laws and allowing concealed carry (with criminal background checks) would go a long way towards reducing the hold that gangs have on much of the city. We're not disagreeing on basic principles, we're disagreeing on where to draw the line. Our views on that come from our background. I'm from very urban areas filled with a dense population of idiots. Allowing the purchase of new machine guns WOULD lead to the acquisition of these weapons by "evil" people, regardless of background checks, and WOULD lead to more deaths, at least at some places where I have lived. If I were to rewrite firearms laws, I'd consider allowing new machine gun ownage, but with a $500 tax, a 3 month wait period, and punish criminal use with death. For suppressors, I'd only require a background check, which should take all of 10 minutes. SBR, SBS, and AOWs I'd not restrict. If you're going to criminally use one of those, you'll do it without the stamp tax, and restricting the sale doesn't stop someone with a hacksaw from making one. (I'll come back to this in a bit) So I'm responsible for everything wrong with this country, is that what you're saying? You're wrong here and probably very emotional, so I won't take it personally. You're basically saying "think whatever you want, but you're wrong and I'm right." If I really thought the federal government was overstepping their authority on an issue, I would not rationalize it. But my interpretation of their authority, from my legal studies, is different than your interpretation. And there are huge portions of the population that believe like I do, and huge portions of the population that believe like you do. You're seeing my examples as rationalization, which I don't get. They're examples that set the framework for my argument. Here's an example: Do you think that the government has the right to require an x-ray scan of you and your belongings before you enter the terminal of the airport? Or do you think they're taking away your 4th amendment rights? It's just a regular x-ray scan that takes not 2 seconds and that has been in use as long as I can remember. I can already see your response as knee-jerking towards the reduction of rights and the government overreaching with its powers. But say you accept that an x-ray scan is ok because it's quick and painless, and the small inconvenience is worth the chance to stop a terrorist from bringing a weapon onboard a plane. Ok, so let's take it a step further, do you accept the backscatter or patdown option? Probably not, but maybe you do. If you do, would you accept a strip search of every airline passenger and a manual inspection of all their luggage? See the balance between the public good and individual rights? Now apply that to guns. You want all guns for everyone all the time. I'm saying that it's not unconstitutional to restrict some of those rights for some situations, and even to remove those rights altogether from certain people. You agree that the mentally ill, criminals, and children should not be allowed to own a gun? Where do you draw the line for who is and is not allowed to own a gun? Or do you think a mentally handicapped, 12 yr old, prior felon should be able to steal $500, go to H&H and buy a pistol? See, now you're making rationalizations for the reductions in your liberties too. This is kind of like communism; it works in theory in the perfect world, but the world isn't perfect. [/QUOTE]
Insert Quotes…
Verification
Post Reply
Forums
The Range
Law & Order
H.R. 1093--The "BATFE Reform Act" Introduced
Search titles only
By:
Top
Bottom