CDZ Do you Believe Americans Would ever Turn in Our Guns?

[alang1216]

Just who do you think "the people who support such" are if not Americans?

They may reside here, but they're not Americans in my mind.

Don't fret, they probably don't consider you a true American either. Lucky for them you don't get to decide who is an American.

 

[BlackSand]

No, the current ban is due to good old Ronnie Reagan. ...

And the current CEO of the NRA, Wayne Robert LaPierre Jr ...
LaPierre pushed hard to let the machine gun ban amendment to the 1986 Firearm Owners Protection Act remain.



"At the time, Cassidy headed the NRA's lobby, the Institute for Legislative Action. He confirms now that LaPierre, who did not respond to a request for comment, pushed hard to let the machine gun ban stand.

"He said, 'I want to do it. I think we have to do it.' So I said yes, and that was the end of the story. It passed, and as we learned immediately, an element of NRA, a very vociferous element of NRA ... determined that it just couldn't be that way," Cassidy says. "We couldn't give an inch. I don't think they ever forgave me for it."

Gun laws expert Robert Spitzer of the State University of New York at Cortland says the bill President Reagan signed into law was more significant than it was perceived at the time.

"One can view the Congress' action in 1986 to ban civilian possession of fully automatic weapons as something of a kind of a precedent that would open the door for restricting civilian access to semiautomatic, assault-style weapons," Spitzer says."



The Decades-Old Gun Ban That's Still On The Books
Firearm Owners Protection Act - Wikipedia

.

 

[OldLady]

Considering the horrible event in Florida this week, we've again heard all about the idea of banning some or all type of firearms from private ownership by private citizens. We've heard anecdotes about Scotland, England and Australia doing such things.

It's been talked about on tv, radio, and from the mouths of parents who have lost children, among many others. My wuedtion is this...

Do you really believe that the vast majority of American gun owners would turn in their guns if rewuired to?

I dont believe thst the majority of American gun owners would. Here's why...

Three different rdgistratoon/ban attempts gave been made here in the US in the last five years or so. All have fsiled miserably in their attempts.

1. The NY SAFE Act passed in 2013 required gun owners to register "assault weapons" already in their possession by January 1, 2014 or face confiscation.
RESILT: Only a few thousand "assault weapons" registrations were ever filed. Even as of 2018, the number I've heard is less thsn 50,000 guns (A minimal number considering the NYS definition of an assault weapon)

2. At the same time the Stste of Connecticut demanded the registration of all "assault weapons" AND all high capacity magazines by January 1, 2014.
RESULTS: Less thsn 5,000 rifles and less than 3,000 high capacity magazine.registrstion forms filed.

3. After the Las Vegas shooting in the fall of 2017, the Commonwealth of Massachusetts banned bump stocks and trigger cranks, effective February 1, 2018. Owners of such devises were not allowed to sell or transfer them, but expected to turn them in to the Police (without compensation).
RESULT: As of the last report I heard on the radio only one bump stock and three trigger cranks had been turned in.

So, whst does this mean?... If the gun owners in some of the most Liberal areas of the country will not comply with these orders, why would anyone expect other gun owners to do so? Especially when the Governors of all three states hsve failed to impose any form of punishment for the defiance?

Well, if it became illegal to possess a certain type of gun after a reasonable amount of time, and that crime had a hefty fine attached, it might work. There should be a buy back or a "credit" at a sports store to buy a different weapon if you are good enough to turn one in. It will cost a fortune, yes. If not a store credit or cash, something else? Like a "free" speeding ticket? Free ticket to a pro football game? Some teams would donate to a cause like that.
I don't know. Just throwing some ideas out there.

 

[Humorme]

No, the current ban is due to good old Ronnie Reagan. ...

And the current CEO of the NRA, Wayne Robert LaPierre Jr ...
LaPierre pushed hard to let the machine gun ban amendment to the 1986 Firearm Owners Protection Act remain.



"At the time, Cassidy headed the NRA's lobby, the Institute for Legislative Action. He confirms now that LaPierre, who did not respond to a request for comment, pushed hard to let the machine gun ban stand.

"He said, 'I want to do it. I think we have to do it.' So I said yes, and that was the end of the story. It passed, and as we learned immediately, an element of NRA, a very vociferous element of NRA ... determined that it just couldn't be that way," Cassidy says. "We couldn't give an inch. I don't think they ever forgave me for it."

Gun laws expert Robert Spitzer of the State University of New York at Cortland says the bill President Reagan signed into law was more significant than it was perceived at the time.

"One can view the Congress' action in 1986 to ban civilian possession of fully automatic weapons as something of a kind of a precedent that would open the door for restricting civilian access to semiautomatic, assault-style weapons," Spitzer says."



The Decades-Old Gun Ban That's Still On The Books
Firearm Owners Protection Act - Wikipedia

.

In the 1980s I was a lobbyist for the NRA. Once U.S. Congressman Ed Jenkins called me into his office. I had lobbied Ed hard over an armor piercing bullet ban that would have even banned the 30 - 30 cartridge used in lever action rifles.

The NRA supplied us with all these talking points - how the bullet ban was a "Trojan Horse in disguise," etc. While having us waste our time on that idiotic B.S., Harlon Carter, who was the NRA president was busy writing Ed, telling him they would still endorse him if he voted in favor of that ban.

I quit and never looked back. But, there was also Charlatan Heston. He once said.. not once, not twice, but THREE times on a radio program that there was "no legitimate use for an AK 47 rifle." The NRA and "reasonable" (sic) gun control is laughable. You cannot compromise with evil. BTW, Heston even went on to endorse Brady II.

And so, the most protected weapons under the Second Amendment are scheduled for extinction - and it's not like we could not predict it. The NRA did nothing in the meantime.

Gun owners could have stopped the mass shootings without gun control, but they won't. So, when they turn their weapons in, they will no longer deserve Liberty.

 

[Liquid Reigns]

Welcome to the fold. My great, great, great, great grandfather (I think I went back enough generations) was Arthur Middleton, a signer of the Declaration of Independence and fought in the War of Independence. He was captured and spent a year in prison in Florida.

When you know things about your roots, you get closer as to what the original intent of the founders was really about. I've met several people who were loyal to the founding principles BEFORE they learned of their family history. Funny how that works out.

Me thinks you've watched National Treasure one time too many.

Since the government does not grant you the Right to keep and bear Arms, it is anyone that would support limitations / confiscations of firearms who ought to leave. The Right to keep and bear Arms pre-existed before the Constitution was written and is not within the de jure / lawful / constitutional authority of the federal government. They may have the power to take firearms, but they damn well lack the authority.

Funny how it was the govt (the English Government) that granted people (in the colonies) the right to own weapons via the 1689 English Bill of Rights. This is where we, as US citizens, obtain the right to own weapons. This is where the claim comes from that our right predates the US Constitution. Maybe you can explain why firearms were held at the local sheriffs office in the old west in many towns. Maybe you can explain why some states deny some weapons to be carried or sold within the state. imjusayn

 

[Liquid Reigns]

In the 1980s I was a lobbyist for the NRA. Once U.S. Congressman Ed Jenkins called me into his office. I had lobbied Ed hard over an armor piercing bullet ban that would have even banned the 30 - 30 cartridge used in lever action rifles.

The NRA supplied us with all these talking points - how the bullet ban was a "Trojan Horse in disguise," etc. While having us waste our time on that idiotic B.S., Harlon Carter, who was the NRA president was busy writing Ed, telling him they would still endorse him if he voted in favor of that ban.

I quit and never looked back. But, there was also Charlatan Heston. He once said.. not once, not twice, but THREE times on a radio program that there was "no legitimate use for an AK 47 rifle." The NRA and "reasonable" (sic) gun control is laughable. You cannot compromise with evil. BTW, Heston even went on to endorse Brady II.

And so, the most protected weapons under the Second Amendment are scheduled for extinction - and it's not like we could not predict it. The NRA did nothing in the meantime.

Gun owners could have stopped the mass shootings without gun control, but they won't. So, when they turn their weapons in, they will no longer deserve Liberty.

The 2A doesn't protect weapons. SMFH

 

[BlackSand]

...
Maybe you can explain why some states deny some weapons to be carries or sold within the state. imjusayn

States can and do regulate firearms and militias ... There is the 10th Amendment in the Bill of Rights.
Those regulations are not Federal Law though ... That's why they end at the border of the State or municipality.

.

 

[Liquid Reigns]

...
Maybe you can explain why some states deny some weapons to be carries or sold within the state. imjusayn

States can and do regulate firearms and militias ... There is the 10th Amendment in the Bill of Rights.
Those regulations are not Federal Law though ... That's why they end at the border of the State or municipality.

.

The feds have laws regulating weapons, too.

Gun laws of the United States are found in a number of federal statutes. These laws regulate the manufacture, trade, possession, transfer, record keeping, transport, and destruction of firearms, ammunition, and firearms accessories. They are enforced by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF).

Gun law in the United States - Wikipedia

 

[BlackSand]

The feds already have laws regulating weapons.

Gun laws of the United States are found in a number of federal statutes. These laws regulate the manufacture, trade, possession, transfer, record keeping, transport, and destruction of firearms, ammunition, and firearms accessories. They are enforced by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF).

Gun law in the United States - Wikipedia

Regulation does not necessarily mean denial ...

Just like it is a common misconception that a private citizen cannot own a machine gun.
That's not true ... It's just extremely difficult and expensive.

The ATF can most certainly approve the ability for a private citizen to own/transfer a machine gun.
That's the reason firearm "bans" fail so often ... They don't actually "ban" the firearm.

President Clinton's Assault Weapons Ban only banned the purchase of firearms that were manufactured to a certain standard.
It didn't ban manufacturing the firearm to a slightly different standard ... And selling attachments separately ... Thus achieving the same weapon that would be banned.


.

 

[Liquid Reigns]

The feds already have laws regulating weapons.

Gun laws of the United States are found in a number of federal statutes. These laws regulate the manufacture, trade, possession, transfer, record keeping, transport, and destruction of firearms, ammunition, and firearms accessories. They are enforced by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF).

Gun law in the United States - Wikipedia

Regulation does not necessarily mean denial ...

Just like it is a common misconception that a private citizen cannot own a machine gun.
That's not true ... It's just extremely difficult and expensive.

.

Exactly. Regulation doesn't mean denial.

No law, nothing, will stop a person who has chosen to go on a rampage (purchased legally or stole the weapon won't matter). The Florida shooter already owned the weapons prior to any calls to the FBI or the school regarding his threats. The whole point is the FBI failed to investigate the issue and prevent it from happening, and the school officer pussed out. More "regulations" will not stop future incidents.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

Kids don't play cowboy anymore, hunting is down in this country, fewer fathers are shooting with their sons

So you're saying we need gun safety classes in schools. Good idea

When I was in high school I took JROTC. Gun safety and marksmanship was part of that program's curriculum. If it were up to me, that gun safety and marksmanship training that I received in JROTC would be made a standard part of every high school curriculum. Every single young person, by the time he finished high school, would have received that training.

“To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them”—Richard Henry Lee, 1788​

 

[MaryL]

I hate guns. I have held one and shot it, also have been threatened by wankers with guns. My opinion given the flagrant abuse of firearms? Repeal the second amendment. We would all be better off. The moral majority of us feel the same way. I have no hidden agenda, I just want to stop mass shootings.

 

[Humorme]

...
Maybe you can explain why some states deny some weapons to be carries or sold within the state. imjusayn

States can and do regulate firearms and militias ... There is the 10th Amendment in the Bill of Rights.
Those regulations are not Federal Law though ... That's why they end at the border of the State or municipality.

.

Constitutionally, the militia can be regulated; however, the Right to keep and bear Arms is a Right that pre-existed and is not to infringed.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

...
Maybe you can explain why some states deny some weapons to be carries or sold within the state. imjusayn

States can and do regulate firearms and militias ... There is the 10th Amendment in the Bill of Rights.
Those regulations are not Federal Law though ... That's why they end at the border of the State or municipality.

The Tenth Amendment speaks of powers belonging to the federal government, powers belonging to the states, and powers belonging to the people.

To whom does the right to keep and bear arms belong, according to the Second Amendment? Does it belong to the federal government? Does it belong to the states? And what infringements of this right does the Second Amendment allow, and who is allowed to impose those infringements?

Hint: “…the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.”

 

[Humorme]

The feds already have laws regulating weapons.

Gun laws of the United States are found in a number of federal statutes. These laws regulate the manufacture, trade, possession, transfer, record keeping, transport, and destruction of firearms, ammunition, and firearms accessories. They are enforced by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF).

Gun law in the United States - Wikipedia

Regulation does not necessarily mean denial ...

Just like it is a common misconception that a private citizen cannot own a machine gun.
That's not true ... It's just extremely difficult and expensive.

The ATF can most certainly approve the ability for a private citizen to own/transfer a machine gun.
That's the reason firearm "bans" fail so often ... They don't actually "ban" the firearm.

President Clinton's Assault Weapons Ban only banned the purchase of firearms that were manufactured to a certain standard.
It didn't ban manufacturing the firearm to a slightly different standard ... And selling attachments separately ... Thus achieving the same weapon that would be banned.


.

The machine guns in existence right now can be owned, but you cannot legally convert them any longer. That is why an M16 is going for upper $20,000 figures and above. They are being phased out.

I'll admit to your judicious use of the English language. The ATF can "approve the ability." and, in reality, I can too. The real issue is, that this government is no longer bound by the chains of the Constitution.

 

[BlackSand]

Constitutionally, the militia can be regulated; however, the Right to keep and bear Arms is a Right that pre-existed and is not to infringed.

The Tenth Amendment speaks of powers belonging to the federal government, powers belonging to the states, and powers belonging to the people.

To whom does the right to keep and bear arms belong, according to the Second Amendment? Does it belong to the federal government? Does it belong to the states? And what infringements of this right does the Second Amendment allow, and who is allowed to impose those infringements?

Hint: “…the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.”

The State where I live doesn't infringe upon our Second Amendment rights.
In fact ... We recently (a few years ago) ratified an amendment to our State Constitution that strengthens our stance on the Second Amendment.
It has already weathered several challenges ... And attempts to abuse or dilute its purpose ... And has been codified in law with subsequent precedence.

Our State Constitutional Amendment reads ...
“The right of each citizen to keep and bear arms is fundamental and shall not be infringed.
Any restriction on this right shall be subject to strict scrutiny.”

I don't care what other states do ... I suspect they are better equipped to meet the desires of their residents.

.

 

[miketx]

With 300 million guns, it is unlikely

Best we can hope for is limiting access to some guns and accessories and moving away from a gun culture

There is no "gun culture". There are hobbyists, and then there are those prepared for business. That's it.

Deal outright with crime and madness, and 90% of the problem goes away.

America was raised in a gun culture

Cowboys and Indians, hunting, fathers teaching sons how to shoot

Kids don't play cowboy anymore, hunting is down in this country, fewer fathers are shooting with their sons

Stephen King novel?

 

[rightwinger]

If it becomes law that you can't own certain guns then people will turn in their illegal weapons for the most part. The rest will be criminals.

And be clear, all these same people have no problem with gun control on fully automatic machine guns and the rest of the spectrum of weapons that civilians are PROHIBITED BY GOVERNMENT from owning. You never hear them bitch about all that. Why? Because gun manufacturers and the NRA know those are losing arguments.

All these people that have this snowflake belief that they're 'packing jus' in case the gubmint comes fer our guns' already fully accept and have no problem with massive gun control. They just get uptight about assault rifles now because they think every deer they see is 'Charlie' coming over the wire and needs to be stopped.

I still have a problem with the government having outlawed machine guns. It is wholly unconstitutional and idiotic. When the government did that, they could not cite one, single, solitary example of how a legally owned machine gun had ever been used in a crime.

Damn skippy

Nobody has ever robbed a liquor store with a grenade launcher either

 

[Humorme]

...
Maybe you can explain why some states deny some weapons to be carries or sold within the state. imjusayn

States can and do regulate firearms and militias ... There is the 10th Amendment in the Bill of Rights.
Those regulations are not Federal Law though ... That's why they end at the border of the State or municipality.

The Tenth Amendment speaks of powers belonging to the federal government, powers belonging to the states, and powers belonging to the people.

To whom does the right to keep and bear arms belong, according to the Second Amendment? Does it belong to the federal government? Does it belong to the states? And what infringements of this right does the Second Amendment allow, and who is allowed to impose those infringements?

Hint: “…the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.”

The United States Supreme Court ruled:

"The right to bear arms is not granted by the Constitution; neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence."
United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542 (1875)

United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542 (1875)

Note carefully the words in that sentence: neither is IT in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The Right exists according to that sentence, but it is not a Right granted by the Constitution.

The Right to keep and bear Arms is separate from the regulation of the militia. So, from where did we get this Right?

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." (an excerpt from the Declaration of Independence)

So, you have unalienable Rights and among those are a Right to Life. An unalienable Right is, according to the DOI, are presumed to be bestowed upon you by a Creator (your God, whomever you deem that to be) and if you object to the terminology of God given Rights, you can substitute the terminology of natural or inherent Rights. But these Rights were presumed to exist by the founders.

Now, before a case reaches the United States Supreme Court, it must be tried in a trial court and then an appeals court where, except under rare circumstances (where the Supreme Court has exclusive jurisdiction), and then for consideration by the Supreme Court.

Those Justices look at all the lower court decisions to find a general consensus and then they base their decision off of that. So, if we look at how other courts addressed the Second Amendment, we begin to understand the original intent. So let me quote an earlier state court ruling:

"The right of a citizen to bear arms, in lawful defense of himself or the State, is absolute. He does not derive it from the State government. It is one of the "high powers" delegated directly to the citizen, and is excepted out of the general powers of government.' A law cannot be passed to infringe upon or impair it, because it is above the law, and independent of the lawmaking power."

Cockrum v. State 24 Tex. 394, at 401-402 (1859)

The Cruikshank case admitted that, but every time the issue goes before the Court, it hacks and nibbles at it until today the Right has been turned 180 degrees OPPOSITE of what the founders intended. The government has the power to subvert the Constitution, but they do NOT have the authority.

 

[Humorme]

If it becomes law that you can't own certain guns then people will turn in their illegal weapons for the most part. The rest will be criminals.

And be clear, all these same people have no problem with gun control on fully automatic machine guns and the rest of the spectrum of weapons that civilians are PROHIBITED BY GOVERNMENT from owning. You never hear them bitch about all that. Why? Because gun manufacturers and the NRA know those are losing arguments.

All these people that have this snowflake belief that they're 'packing jus' in case the gubmint comes fer our guns' already fully accept and have no problem with massive gun control. They just get uptight about assault rifles now because they think every deer they see is 'Charlie' coming over the wire and needs to be stopped.

I still have a problem with the government having outlawed machine guns. It is wholly unconstitutional and idiotic. When the government did that, they could not cite one, single, solitary example of how a legally owned machine gun had ever been used in a crime.

Damn skippy

Nobody has ever robbed a liquor store with a grenade launcher either

I don't know what your point is. The point of the Second Amendment is to:

A) Guarantee NOT grant an existing Right

B) Assure that the militia, NOT the weapons will be regulated. And what, exactly how did the founders define well regulated?

"The Constitution of most of our states (and of the United States) assert that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed."
- Thomas Jefferson, letter to to John Cartwright, 5 June 1824

“A militia when properly formed are in fact the people themselves…and include, according to the past and general usuage of the states, all men capable of bearing arms… "To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them."
- Richard Henry Lee, Federal Farmer No. 18, January 25, 1788

"The Constitution shall never be construed to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms."
- Samuel Adams, Massachusetts Ratifying Convention, 1788

“That no man should scruple, or hesitate a moment, to use arms in defence of so valuable a blessing, on which all the good and evil of life depends, is clearly my opinion.”
-George Washington, letter to George Mason April 5th 1769

“Are we at last brought to such humiliating and debasing degradation that we cannot be trusted with arms for our defense? Where is the difference between having our arms in possession and under our direction, and having them under the management of Congress? If our defense be the real object of having those arms, in whose hands can they be trusted with more propriety, or equal safety to us, as in our own hands?”

-Patrick Henry, Debates in the Several State Conventions on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution

I could multiply the meaning with the words of the people who took part in our founding and show you that what is taking place is a power grab that is beyond what the Constitution contemplates.