Observations regarding the anti-gun crowd

[M14 Shooter]

I think we could restrict who can sell firearms. I can go into the flea market up the road from me tomorrow and purchase a used firearm with no background checks, or criminal checks. They'd ask for my ID, to prove age, and that's pretty much it. This is how criminals can get their hands on guns easier. (this is just in Florida, I don't know the laws for other states).

The difference here is licensed dealers v private sales. Licensed dealers are currently required to follow exsting law regardless where they sell. The 'flea market' example, above, is almost certainly a private sale, and is then under the exact same restrictions as if you were to sell a gun to your brother while standing in your house.
You are suggesting that you should not be able to so sell a gun to your brother?

I can buy prescription drugs with a prescription but I doubt I'm allowed to resell them legally to someone without a prescription,

is that wrong?

The difference is that the drugs were prescribed to you and are non-transferrable. Guns (most of them anyway) are under no such restriction.

 

[M14 Shooter]

We need to quit labelling political ideals as conservative or liberal. President Obama is considered more of a conservative than President Bush.

Only by complete loons.
Aside from that, this is beside the point.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Simple. If you are in a gun battle you may need high capacity magazines.

Then the restrictions/bans on automatic weapons can't be justified, can they?

They cannot. All of them are considered "arms" as the term is used in the 2nd.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Simple. If you are in a gun battle you may need high capacity magazines.

Then the restrictions/bans on automatic weapons can't be justified, can they? or grenades.

Pretty clearly, there can be no need for assault weapons unless some are permitted to be sold.

'Assault weapons' are -exactly- the sort of weapons that the 2nd was intended to protect.
So are assault rifles, proper machineguns, all forms of handguns and shotguns, as well as any sort of rifle.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Then the restrictions/bans on automatic weapons can't be justified, can they? or grenades.

Pretty clearly, there can be no need for assault weapons unless some are permitted to be sold. Nobody "needs" a street sweeper, except for the military and law enforcement.

And "no restrictions" is a lovely slogan but if we followed it, people could own grenade launchers, etc. Is that what the constitution requires? Is it rational?

According to the gun nut rationale, the right to bear arms is about the right of the people to protect themselves from a tyrannical government;
if that were true, then logically the 2nd amendment protects the right of the People to own any weapons the government owns.

False premise; non sequitur

The 2nd was, among other things, intended to ensure the people in the militia would always have access to weapons suitable for use in said militia, as the militia is necessary for the security of a free state, The security of a free state has many facets, only one of which deals with opposing a tyrannical government.

To this end, it has been held that "arms", as the term is use din the 2nd, refers to weapons sutiable for use in the militia that are in common use, and are examples of 'ordinary military equipment'. This precludes any notion of nukes or B52s or SSBNs.

Aside from that, this is a red herring - the issue is guns, not nukes or B52s or SSBNs.

 

[M14 Shooter]

There really isn't a middle ground.

There isn't. People like you, w/o and sound argument to that end. want to infringe on the rihts of the law abiding; people like me want to secure those rights.
Given that you have nothing to offer in return those would lose those rights, it is, by definition, impossible to compromise with you and your ilk.

People like myself think the "right" is collective.

And in doing so, your are legally, historically and constitutionally wrong.
You -know- this and yet you choose to be wrong, which means that you are incapable of creating a sound argument.

But no..I don't ever see a need for private citizens to own military weapons. Or a need for them to have clips with large amounts of ammunition.

You failing to see this need is meaningless.
I dont see the need to take a statue of Mary, cover it in feces and drop it in a vase of urine as a means to convey an opinion regarding religion -- but the right to do so clearly exists.

That's the impasse. People who advocate for guns are not reasonable

Please note the illustratuion of -your- inabaility to produce a resoned argument, above.
Any time you think you can poke a logical hole in any of -my- arguments, please be my guest.

 

[M14 Shooter]

There really isn't a middle ground.

People like myself think the "right" is collective. However, I personally understand there are situations where there is a need for home protection and in some cases business people may need to carry for protection because they are transporting items of large value or large sums of money.

But no..I don't ever see a need for private citizens to own military weapons. Or a need for them to have clips with large amounts of ammunition.

That's the impasse. People who advocate for guns are not reasonable. Nor will they ever be.

There is middle ground. The high capacity clips were banned for 10 years and the world of guns and gun rights was not destroyed.

Nor was there any decrease in violent crime that could be attributed to that ban while the ban was in effect, nor have violent crimes associated with assault weapons or hi-cap mags increased in the 6+ years since the ban expired. In both regards, the arguments, warnings, fears and predictions of those that support the ban have all failed to materialize.

Given that, there's no rational reason to continue said ban.

 

[M14 Shooter]

There is middle ground. The high capacity clips were banned for 10 years and the world of guns and gun rights was not destroyed. The slippery slope that every gun nut invokes never materialized.

What is a "high capacity clip"?

Stop trolling.

He makes a valid point:
If you aren't familiar enough with the subject matter to correctly use the basic terminology of that subject, how can you possibly form any sort of sound argumenr regarding said subject.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Pretty clearly, there can be no need for assault weapons unless some are permitted to be sold. Nobody "needs" a street sweeper, except for the military and law enforcement.

And "no restrictions" is a lovely slogan but if we followed it, people could own grenade launchers, etc. Is that what the constitution requires? Is it rational?

According to the gun nut rationale, the right to bear arms is about the right of the people to protect themselves from a tyrannical government;
if that were true, then logically the 2nd amendment protects the right of the People to own any weapons the government owns.

False premise; non sequitur

The 2nd was, among other things, intended to ensure the people in the militia would always have access to weapons suitable for use in said militia, as the militia is necessary for the security of a free state, The security of a free state has many facets, only one of which deals with opposing a tyrannical government.

To this end, it has been held that "arms", as the term is use din the 2nd, refers to weapons sutiable for use in the militia that are in common use, and are examples of 'ordinary military equipment'. This precludes any notion of nukes or B52s or SSBNs.

Aside from that, this is a red herring - the issue is guns, not nukes or B52s or SSBNs.

Then I guess all those guys who say the right to bear arms is about defending us from tyranny are full of shit?

The issue is automatic weapons, hand held grenade launchers, rocket launchers. What makes it constitutional for any of those to be banned?

 

[NYcarbineer]

What is a "high capacity clip"?

Stop trolling.

He makes a valid point:
If you aren't familiar enough with the subject matter to correctly use the basic terminology of that subject, how can you possibly form any sort of sound argumenr regarding said subject.

So you're saying that every person who refers to a magazine as a clip is a gun-ignorant moron who ought not be talking about guns in the first place?

Is that what you tell the customers who come into your gun store?

 

[M14 Shooter]

True.
So all people that get guns have to now join a militia that will be under the power of Congress to be called forth in times of need to defend the nation.
Kewl.

This is another illustration of the anti-gun ignorance discussed in the OP.
The idea that to exercise the right to arms, and to have that exercise protected by the Constitution, one must be a member of a 'well-regulated militia' and then subject to regulation by Congress is legally, historically and Constitutionally wrong.

To contine to hold this position is to engage in willful ignorance.

 

[NYcarbineer]

What is a "high capacity clip"?

Stop trolling.

He makes a valid point:
If you aren't familiar enough with the subject matter to correctly use the basic terminology of that subject, how can you possibly form any sort of sound argumenr regarding said subject.

I've owned guns since I was twelve; I qualified 2nd out of about 150 with M-16 in basic, and 2nd out of about 150 with a .45 in military police AIT. So unless you did better, STFU. You know fucking well people call magazines clips all the time and don't give a shit what a tight-ass poser like CMike thinks about it.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Personally, I still believe the right to bear arms is a fundamentally necessary right for American citizens to have, for various reasons.
---
With that said, I believe a more scrutinizing permit process should be in place rather than a ban of firearms.

The right to keep and bear arms is a fundamental right of the individual citizen, specifically protected by the Constitution.

How does requiring a permit from the government to exercise this right get past a Strict Scutiny test?

Gun manufactures should have less lobbying and political buying power...

Free speech. It applies to everyone, especialy anyone that manufactures and sells a legal product.

 

[M14 Shooter]

In the military fully automatic weapons are not considered personal weapons but rather squad or team weapons.

M16, M4, MP5, M249.
All full auto, all personal weapons. None have crews.

 

[M14 Shooter]

True.

So all people that get guns have to now join a militia that will be under the power of Congress to be called forth in times of need to defend the nation.

Kewl.

Wrong as usual. The 2nd Amendment imparts 2 protected rights. One is to the States, granting them the right to create and maintain militias, which most States have quit doing. The second right is to the INDIVIDUAL , a protected right to OWN, maintain and use firearms. Further Congress can not call forth the entirety of a States Militia. Only a portion.

Incorrect. There is no such indivdual right. You can't find it. The right is assigned to the People..not the Person.
First the Constitution designates indivdual rights to "persons"..collective rights to people.

Under you argument, above, there then is no individual right to:

-Vote for a congressman
-Vote for a Senator
-Peacably assemble
-to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Fact of the matter is, every time "the people" is used in the Constitution, it refers to the individual citizen and/or his actions.
See: United States v. Verdugo-Urquirdez, where The Court unanimously held that the term "the people" in the Second Amendment had the same meaning as in the Preamble to the Constitution and in the First, Fourth, and Ninth Amendments, i.e., that "the people" means at least all citizens and legal aliens while in the United States.

What we have now is a perversion of original intent.

Not that you have any capacity to show.

 

[M14 Shooter]

I would still like somebody to point out why we shouldn't make it so people who're selling guns would need a license to do so?

They do. Federal Firearms License. All dealers need them.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Then I guess all those guys who say the right to bear arms is about defending us from tyranny are full of shit?

The 2nd was, among other things, intended to ensure the people in the militia would always have access to weapons suitable for use in said militia, as the militia is necessary for the security of a free state, The security of a free state has many facets, only one of which deals with opposing a tyrannical government.

Pointing out one of the reaosns for the 2nd amendment neither precludes nor negates any of the others.

The issue is automatic weapons, hand held grenade launchers, rocket launchers. What makes it constitutional for any of those to be banned?

Any weapon that falls under "arms" is protected by the Constitution.
You may, at your leisure, discuss rocket launchers, grenades, etc -- but, unquestionably, the term covers --all-- firearms. Given that the topic is centered around, well, firearms, discussion of those other weapons is beside the point.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Stop trolling.

He makes a valid point:
If you aren't familiar enough with the subject matter to correctly use the basic terminology of that subject, how can you possibly form any sort of sound argumenr regarding said subject.

So you're saying that every person who refers to a magazine as a clip is a gun-ignorant moron who ought not be talking about guns in the first place?

That's more than plausible, especially if they continue to do so after being told otherwise.
You DO agree that if you do not have a basic grasp of the subject, you cannot have an informed discussion concerning said subject - don't you?

 

[M14 Shooter]

Stop trolling.

He makes a valid point:
If you aren't familiar enough with the subject matter to correctly use the basic terminology of that subject, how can you possibly form any sort of sound argumenr regarding said subject.

I've owned guns since I was twelve; I qualified 2nd out of about 150 with M-16 in basic, and 2nd out of about 150 with a .45 in military police AIT. So unless you did better, STFU. You know fucking well people call magazines clips all the time and don't give a shit what a tight-ass poser like CMike thinks about it.

If you choose to sound like an ignorant fool, expect to be treated like an ignorant fool.
:shrug:

 

[CMike]

He makes a valid point:
If you aren't familiar enough with the subject matter to correctly use the basic terminology of that subject, how can you possibly form any sort of sound argumenr regarding said subject.

So you're saying that every person who refers to a magazine as a clip is a gun-ignorant moron who ought not be talking about guns in the first place?

That's more than plausible, especially if they continue to do so after being told otherwise.
You DO agree that if you do not have a basic grasp of the subject, you cannot have an informed discussion concerning said subject - don't you?

What I found rather rediculous is that I corrected him at least 3 times and he still didn't "get it".