gun control bills could effect warbirds and military buffs

[Dan Johnson II]

A wholesaler Mrs. Mudge works with sold 1,000 hi-cap magazines in 1 week. It really torques my jaws to keep hearing "assault weapons" this and "assault weapons" that when these gun grabbers and the other terminally ignorant are referring to semi-auto rifles.
OK...rant off.

Mudge the adequately armed

Mudge, as one who owns an AR-15, a semi-auto AK47 and and AK74, it bugs me no end that folks continue to pretend they aren't assault weapons. You and I both know that they are, and we both know why most folks own them, and it has nothing to do with 'varmint hunting', home defense or anything close to that.

What drives me crazy is the gun folks who try and talk down to anyone who wants to be in the discussion from the other side. One of the first staples of their argument is 'you don't know guns', or 'you don't know what an assault weapon is."

My other favorite is the 'it only shoots one round at a time, it's no more dangerous then a six shooter. You can reload fast'

Yeah, that's why the military went to high capacity magazine. Just for looks, cause it had nothing to do with carrying more ammo and having to reload less....

Go ahead and argue about gun control, but don't kid a kidder about AR-15s and other military style rifles and try and pretend they're the same as a bolt action deer rifle, or grandpa's double barrel shotgun. We both know that's complete BS

And before you suggest it's a God given right under the 2nd Amendment, Please read the Supreme Court decision in "Heller vs DC" 5-4 court split and this was a court loaded by Republican presidents with 7 appointees to two by Democratic presidents. Even then two Republican justices disagreed.

Justice Scalia, writing the majority opinion was very clear.

"Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited.
It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any
manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed
weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment
or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast
doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by
felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms
in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or
laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of
arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those
“in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition
of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons."

I notice that no one ever mentions this handy little device for their AR-15 either in the discussions

http://militarygunsupply.com/index.php? ... ts_id=1082

Don't get my wrong. I very much enjoy owning and shooting ARs. I've owned 5 different AR-15s over the past 30 years starting with my first SP-1 that I wish I'd never sold. But it's not my right, it's a privilege in my opinion. Talking about gun safety and gun control is not off limits. We get to talk about stuff and debate it in this country as adults. So talking about it without pretending what's not true is a good start.

[Mudge]

Dan...As one who owns an M-16 (which is an assault rifle because it has full auto capability) and an AK-47, I'm tired of the people who refer to the AR-15s, AK-47s, et al, as "assault weapons" for no other reason than to frighten the folks who don't know the difference between an assault RIFLE and an assault WEAPON. An assault rifle, as defined by the military is, among other things, capable of fully automatic fire. The rifles referred to by the gun grabbers are NOT assault RIFLES. ANYTHING that can be used to "assault" someone, (IE. a baseball bat, hammer, knife, etc) is an assault WEAPON.

Mudge the really well armed

PS. Consider it a "privilege" if you so choose but the Second Amendment doesn't mention privilege, it clearly says "RIGHT to keep and bear....".

But...whatever...you've got your opinion, I've got mine. Nobody wins this argument.

Last edited by Mudge on Mon Jan 28, 2013 10:16 am, edited 2 times in total.

[Dan Johnson II]

Come on Mudge. You are playing games with it. We're not defining this by the military. We're defining it based on common sense. Certainly you can assault someone with anything.

A rifle that fires 30-100 rounds that quickly is far different then the bolt action deer rifle and definitely a bigger threat to a group of people and more frightening.

No hunter needs that kind of firepower. Anyone claiming he does, is a really lousy shot. Target shooters don't use ARs with collapsible stocks and 30 round mags. I've got a copy of "Black Magic-The Ultra Accurate AR-15". Those are full length, no collapsible stocks and every photo shows at max a 20 round mag and more often then not a 10 round.

No one is grabbing for your guns or mine. You'll have your collection and can pass it on, or sell it. And like the last 'ban' you'll be able to buy a new gun if you want it. Ironically my AR-15 that I have left is a 'ban' gun. Shoots just the same.

The "gun grabber' comment is more of the same too. Said to get those who can't read or do the research to think the big bad black helicopters are coming to get them. Sadly there are way too many folks who buy that garbage.

Why do you own fully auto guns Mudge? Why do you feel the need to be 'really well armed' as you say?

I note you didn't comment on Scalia's Supreme Court ruling's words too.

[RyanShort1]

Scalia is human, fallible, and wrong in this case. And Mudge is right.

Ryan

[Dan Johnson II]

Can you explain that a bit better Ryan? Your working knowledge of law and the constitution dwarfs the Supreme Court?

This is the ruling that the gun guys point to. Have you read it?

[RyanShort1]

Can you explain that a bit better Ryan? Your working knowledge of law and the constitution dwarfs the Supreme Court?

This is the ruling that the gun guys point to. Have you read it?

Dan,
I actually did read that entire brief through back when it came out, and I think that Scalia re-interpreted the Constitution for convenience' sake, or for whatever sake he did it. He pointed to case law and previous judges opinoins in order to partially gut the Second Amendment, and just because a Supreme Court Justice can't properly read a long-standing law of the land (the highest law of the land) doesn't make his opinion correct. That in fact, is one of the the primary problems with our law system as it is today. The judges no longer rule on the law itself, but on precedent and case law - even if the majority of the case law is a re-interpretation or extrapolation of the law itself. I had this conversation with a well-versed lawyer last year when I took my renewal for a Concealed Carry license. He said that no judge or court he knows of, would strictly judge anyone on what he called "black letter" law - or the law as it is written in the books, but would rather go to other decisions previously made and make a judgement, EVEN if those previous decisions were questionable. It's even more clear that these judges are ruling by their decisions when you look at the opposing opinions in some of these cases where Supreme Court Justices have even referred to international law and other sources for their decisions in clear violation of their oaths to uphold the Constitution of the United States - not anything else.

Even a child could understand the original intent of the founders IF he WANTED to. I believe a lot of folks do NOT want to. The Second is not about hunting, it has to do with civilians being able to defend themselves against tyranny - whether from their own government and a standing army, or against foreign aggression, and in order to do that, you need military style weapons in the hands of the militia.

I believe that the truth of the matter is, that the US Constitution, and the Bill of Rights - recognizing God-given liberties - are rapidly becoming inconvenient and intolerable to those who have globalist, or some other agenda. This isn't going to end well.

Ryan

[kmiles]

No one is grabbing for your guns or mine. You'll have your collection and can pass it on, or sell it. And like the last 'ban' you'll be able to buy a new gun if you want it. Ironically my AR-15 that I have left is a 'ban' gun. Shoots just the same.

Have you taken a look at the law that recently passed in NY? They are restricting what you can do with any "assault weapon" including prohibiting you from "passing it on" when you pass away. Granted this is on a state level and not a national level, but they are showing that it can be done. Having a registration system for all "assault weapons" so they know where they are, and keeping people from doing anything with them is far different than what happened in 1994.

[bdk]

Didn't this same warbird issue come up about 5 years ago? I know the EAA had sent something out about it and we talked it up here. It was in the defense funding bill I think during the "W" years.

I appreciate guns as objects of art, technical achievement and history. Maybe mine make it out of the safe(s) once or twice a year so I can ogle them. Don't have much time to shoot these days especially since many of the conveniently located rifle ranges are gone from my area now.

The 2nd is about weapons suitable for a militia. To me that includes full-auto. As has been pointed out, with 30 and 100 round magazines in common circulation, I'm not sure how much "more dangerous" a fully automatic firearm is. JFK was shot with a bolt action rifle and it seems that all the rounds fired hit their mark. That required some incredible marksmanship that I doubt that would have been possible with an assault rifle, grassy knoll or not.

Too much emphasis is being put on the tools and not the people involved in these terrible incidents. Politicians overdramatize the dangers and capitalize on the fears of the (generally firearms ignorant) public. Just like anything else you might ration, people are very creative and will adopt other means to accomplish the same result. In a practical sense, I think that handguns pose a far more significant risk than long guns. Unless you are in the gang culture however, the chances of getting shot are infinitesimal. People need to be rational about the real risks they face. Getting shot by a law abiding citizen isn't a risk that I spend a lot of time thinking about.

Looking at "control" in a realistic sense, you may be able to curtail the sales of new guns, but there are so many in circulation as to make that pretty much a waste of time. Licensing schemes and the follow-on act of confiscation (why license unless the ultimate goal is to confiscate?) have a high incidence of noncompliance (see the California AW ban for instance) and turn many otherwise law-abiding citizens into regulatory felons. Confiscations in the UK, Australia and Canada have been very expensive, have destroyed much history and have had either no effect or the opposite effect of what was intended/promised.

All the politicians and lobbyists in the game have much to celebrate. A terrible shooting generates so much fear of regulation that gun and ammo sales soar. Other than some odd collector's guns and odd calibers of ammunition, there is no supply. You may go to a gun store and find almost no remaining stock. A few friends went to buy some ammo at a local store and found many of the customers to be first time gun buyers. The dealers made a mint, but now have no stock. The guns and ammo manufacturers are nunning at full tilt to resupply. NRA membership has swelled by 25%. And the anti-gun folks step up lobbying and campaigning for their cause which creates additional panic buying. It is a snowball rolling downhill for gun sales, just the opposite of what the regulators claim to desire. It really is a comedy of incompetence for the gun-banners! So in the end there will be "common sense" gun regulations added to the rolls of ineffective laws. None of them will do anything except to increase prices which I think is the ultimate goal for the anti-gunners; to price guns out of the market for the lower and middle classes who probably have the greatest need for self-defense.

[Dan Johnson II]

Didn't this same warbird issue come up about 5 years ago? I know the EAA had sent something out about it and we talked it up here. It was in the defense funding bill I think during the "W" years.

I appreciate guns as objects of art, technical achievement and history. Maybe mine make it out of the safe(s) once or twice a year so I can ogle them. Don't have much time to shoot these days especially since many of the conveniently located rifle ranges are gone from my area now.

The 2nd is about weapons suitable for a militia. To me that includes full-auto. As has been pointed out, with 30 and 100 round magazines in common circulation, I'm not sure how much "more dangerous" a fully automatic firearm is. JFK was shot with a bolt action rifle and it seems that all the rounds fired hit their mark. That required some incredible marksmanship that I doubt that would have been possible with an assault rifle, grassy knoll or not.

Too much emphasis is being put on the tools and not the people involved in these terrible incidents. Politicians overdramatize the dangers and capitalize on the fears of the (generally firearms ignorant) public. Just like anything else you might ration, people are very creative and will adopt other means to accomplish the same result. In a practical sense, I think that handguns pose a far more significant risk than long guns. Unless you are in the gang culture however, the chances of getting shot are infinitesimal. People need to be rational about the real risks they face. Getting shot by a law abiding citizen isn't a risk that I spend a lot of time thinking about.

Looking at "control" in a realistic sense, you may be able to curtail the sales of new guns, but there are so many in circulation as to make that pretty much a waste of time. Licensing schemes and the follow-on act of confiscation (why license unless the ultimate goal is to confiscate?) have a high incidence of noncompliance (see the California AW ban for instance) and turn many otherwise law-abiding citizens into regulatory felons. Confiscations in the UK, Australia and Canada have been very expensive, have destroyed much history and have had either no effect or the opposite effect of what was intended/promised.

All the politicians and lobbyists in the game have much to celebrate. A terrible shooting generates so much fear of regulation that gun and ammo sales soar. Other than some odd collector's guns and odd calibers of ammunition, there is no supply. You may go to a gun store and find almost no remaining stock. A few friends went to buy some ammo at a local store and found many of the customers to be first time gun buyers. The dealers made a mint, but now have no stock. The guns and ammo manufacturers are nunning at full tilt to resupply. NRA membership has swelled by 25%. And the anti-gun folks step up lobbying and campaigning for their cause which creates additional panic buying. It is a snowball rolling downhill for gun sales, just the opposite of what the regulators claim to desire. It really is a comedy of incompetence for the gun-banners! So in the end there will be "common sense" gun regulations added to the rolls of ineffective laws. None of them will do anything except to increase prices which I think is the ultimate goal for the anti-gunners; to price guns out of the market for the lower and middle classes who probably have the greatest need for self-defense.

Yours is an interesting premise. Who benefits from the prices skyrocketing and supply being low? I've never heard it suggested that's a political ploy by the 'gun grabbers'. The 'gun grabbers' aren't producing and selling guns and ammo. Prices on ARs jumped over 300 dollars from that Friday to Tuesday after the Connecticut shooting. No one forced anyone selling guns to take advantage of that panic by raising prices. They just did it knowing that the ingrained idea that anytime someone suggests talking about gun control='THEY"RE COMING TO GET MY GUNS" is purely the propaganda of the other group that benefits at these times. You mentioned them. The NRA and they're political lobbying power jumped 25%.

Since its a "Free Market" the gun sellers and producers are within their rights to gouge prices. They don't have to. Production costs didn't jump. Taking advantage of the "panic buying" did. I'm hard pressed to lay that on folks wanting to talk about gun control after a tragedy like that. Next thing you know someone will be suggesting it was a conspiracy killing to get the guns.

My AR-15 changed not one bit from that Friday to Tuesday. No idea how it became that much more valuable other then the market was reset by folks trying to make a buck off the panic.

[Dan Johnson II]

No one is grabbing for your guns or mine. You'll have your collection and can pass it on, or sell it. And like the last 'ban' you'll be able to buy a new gun if you want it. Ironically my AR-15 that I have left is a 'ban' gun. Shoots just the same.

Have you taken a look at the law that recently passed in NY? They are restricting what you can do with any "assault weapon" including prohibiting you from "passing it on" when you pass away. Granted this is on a state level and not a national level, but they are showing that it can be done. Having a registration system for all "assault weapons" so they know where they are, and keeping people from doing anything with them is far different than what happened in 1994.

You said the key words. That's at a state level. States have the ability to set their own gun laws.

To piggyback off of Ryan's post. It's all about states rights. As he said, any child could read the intent of the 2nd Amendment. It's all about States being able to have their own militia separate from a standing federal army.

It's very specific in the Constitution. Congress has the power to:

"To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;


It's never been about Joe and the neighborhood watch getting together with their guns to form the militia. It's always been about a Militia that's 'well regulated" trained and run by officers provided by the individual state. If needed they can be called, with the States permission, to participate in defense of the country as a whole, but they're in place to provide the states a defense against 'tyranny' as Ryan puts it, meaning some sort of external threat to the state itself.

The NRA folks and others have tried to bend that to mean anyone can own anything anytime without regulation. That's not what it says. Scalia, a very conservative Justice tried to bend it that way and the 2nd Amendment folks who believe it does mean I can own any gun anytime jumped on it, which is why I keep posting his qualification about it doesn't mean that.

Do be clear on something. There is no way it will ever come down to taking the guns at a Federal level. You'll be able to own and pass on your AR-15s to your sons.

We do get to talk about how to deal with tragedies when they happen including talking about gun control too. That's part of this democracy bit too. It doesn't mean the sky is falling.

[k5083]

OK, I said I'd ignore this thread but it turned out to be pretty intelligent so far, so I lied.

Dan, you're basically right, especially about the assault rifle/weapon auto/semi-auto hairsplitting, and I tend to agree with where you end up. But the militia stuff is just as much a red herring.

The law, the constitution, and the purpose of the 2nd amendment, evolve. The lawyer Ryan spoke with is either poorly educated or Ryan misinterpreted his words. The USA is a common law jurisdiction. Its system was set up from the outset so that the rulings of judges constitute law just as much as the legislated text. This is not a bad thing that happened recently, it's a key innovation that we adapted from the British along with most of its other former colonies. It was done partly so the law would evolve, and we wouldn't be sitting here trying to read the minds of dead guys who never saw a light bulb. The alternative that Ryan appears to prefer, called a civil law system, is found in most of the rest of the world, such as continental Europe, although my sense is that the EU is sliding toward more of a common law approach. Anyway, both as a matter of law and reality, the question is what role does the 2nd play in the USA of today, when "militia" just means "wacko fringe group".

Today, the significance of the 2nd amendment is that it guarantees every American the right to easily acquire the means to effortlessly kill any of his fellow citizens.

No other society has guaranteed this right. It's uniquely American. Its effect is to set America up as an experiment to find out whether we all get along better in a society where we know that anyone we're not nice to may have, and can certainly acquire, the ability to kill us with a twitch of his finger.

So Brandon is right, it's not about the guns as such, but it's not about the specific people who commit gun crimes either. It's about life and death, and what happens when anyone -- not just the strong, the lawbreaking, the wealthy or the powerful, but anyone -- can decide between life and death for anyone else. Pretty powerful stuff. And the smarter elements of the gun lobby take this head-on and say yes, we do get along better because people have this right, even after deducting the accidents, the escalation of what would otherwise be nonfatal crimes and petty disputes, and the occasional rampage. More badness is prevented than is caused.

I'm not interested in debating whether the experiment is a success thus far, because you're right Dan: there's no turning back. With the place of guns in US culture, plus the nearly 1 gun per capita floating around, neither they nor the awesome power they confer are going anywhere, whatever the current rhetoric. It's a part of the American fabric.

August

[bdk]

Yours is an interesting premise. Who benefits from the prices skyrocketing and supply being low? I've never heard it suggested that's a political ploy by the 'gun grabbers'. The 'gun grabbers' aren't producing and selling guns and ammo. Prices on ARs jumped over 300 dollars from that Friday to Tuesday after the Connecticut shooting. No one forced anyone selling guns to take advantage of that panic by raising prices. They just did it knowing that the ingrained idea that anytime someone suggests talking about gun control='THEY"RE COMING TO GET MY GUNS" is purely the propaganda of the other group that benefits at these times. You mentioned them. The NRA and they're political lobbying power jumped 25%.

The value of my AR-15 may have gone up, but that is meaningless to me since it isn't for sale (although I'm certain it would be at some price point).

I guess I didn't state it clearly, but what I meant is that both sides prosper from this tragedy. The Brady Campaign/HCI engages lobbyists and I'm sure their organization gets an infusion of cash from these tragedies as well. It doesn't all go to the NRA obviously. Just as the amount of Democrats and Republicans is somewhat even, so must the pro and the anti crowd, otherwise there would be either none of this gun control talk, or guns would be already outlawed. Sure the pendulum swings a little, but mostly in the anti's favor. Gun laws are far more restricive now than they were in the 1920s, and more gun control laws, financial disincentives and other impediments to legal gun ownership are enacted every year.

I don't even go to the gun store or gun shows any more (I live in California). There is nothing there I want. It is either not interesting or not a good value. They are winning...

[Mark Allen M]

After initially typing a very lengthy post ..... I think it's better I just tell you guys I've posted some neat airplane pictures in the WIX hangar if anyone's interested.

[Nathan]

Just my feelings here. I think the USA as a culture are ignorant that problems other countries have will never happen here. Someday we may have some sorte of civil war or attacks that will require such weapons in the hands of civilians as discussed. It's really not out of the realm of possibility. That is why OUR foundering fathers gave us that RIGHT.

[Rocketeer]

Just my feelings here. I think the USA as a culture are ignorant that problems other countries have will never happen here. Someday we may have some sort of civil war or attacks that will require such weapons in the hands of civilians as discussed. It's really not out of the realm of possibility. That is why OUR foundering fathers gave us that RIGHT.

AMEN!