Reason for Right to Bear Arms

[bigrebnc1775]

They didn't intend Americans to own every kind of gun imaginable, that is for sure.

Who told you this?

Do you honestly believe, that over 200 years ago, the founding fathers intended for you to own every single gun you ever wanted?

Suitable for militia use yes they did.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

You left out one option - so that Americans could feel strong and powerful knowing they could shoot a person dead and then claim 'Stand Your Ground'.

Do you honestly believe, that over 200 years ago, the founding fathers intended for you to own every single gun you ever wanted?

Yes. They did NOT have your irrational fear of guns.

Had they fought in World War I and II, Vietnam, Iraq or Afghanistan - I suspect their fear of guns would have greatly increased. Watching the U.S. drop atomic bombs on Japan would have really excited them.

The founders believed that Americans would still have a backbone, guess they were wrong about some.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Do you honestly believe, that over 200 years ago, the founding fathers intended for you to own every single gun you ever wanted?

I honestly believe 200 years ago, the founding fathers intended me to have the same type of guns available to me that the government has available to it.

Yo................Crotch Sniffing Sleazer.....................you DO realize that machine guns are illegal, right?

You also realize that the military has machine guns as well?

And............................why are machine guns illegal right now? Because of the gangsters in the 20's.

.you DO realize that machine guns are illegal, right?

I like saying this
YOU ARE WRONG.

Instructions
1
Complete an ATF Form 4 (5320.4). The transferor, the one transferring or selling the automatic weapon and the transferee, the one receiving or buying the automatic weapon, must both complete sections of this form. The "Law Enforcement Certification" section must also be signed by the head of the local law enforcement, which is often the sheriff.

2
Include a 2 by 2-inch photograph of the transferee on each copy of the ATF form. This must be taken within the last year and include the transferee's address. This address cannot be a post office box.

3
Submit a fingerprint on FBI Form FD-258. This must be done by someone who is approved to take them, such as the police department. The fingerprints are accompanied by a photograph and a certificate which states that the individual seeking to obtain the automatic weapon has no justifiable reason that prevents them from obtaining an automatic weapon.

4
Check your local and state guidelines. If your area requires a permit or license to buy, receive or possess an automatic weapon you must send in a copy of the transferee's license or permit with the application and a $200 tax payment.

5
Send the completed form and proper tax payment to Bureau of ATF, P.O. Box 73201, Chicago, IL 60673. If you are approved to obtain an automatic weapon, the original form is returned to you with an approval stamped on it. If you are denied, you are refunded the tax payment.



Read more: How to Buy an Automatic Weapon | eHow.com How to Buy an Automatic Weapon | eHow.com

 

[JakeStarkey]

SniperFire has offered nothing of worth to rebuttal, only an opinion, which is not fact.

 

[CrotchetyGeezer]

Nice quote!!!!

And, it made perfect sense - then. While it continues to be true in principle, the reality of it is nonsensical.

If every man, woman and child in the US (and in some states, fetuses ... ) owned 10 military assault rifles and endless ammo for their high capacity clips, they would not even be a gnat on the butt of the US military.

I wonder why some people don't seem to understand that.

An excellent point. It is all very nice to find little snippets (inaccurate in this case) from the Founding Fathers. But the truth is that they are dead and we are dealing with the now. This is not the 18th century. Washington, Jefferson, Hamilton, et al had the issues of their day, took responsibility and created a nation. We now have the responsibility of moving that nation forward. We do so in an environment massively changed from the 18th century.

This is our country now, not Washington's. If the majority don't wish people to own certain types of weapons, then they will be banned. That is how it works. If it is the will of the people to have a complete ban, then they will pass another amendment to repeal the 2nd. If not, then we will continue with status quo.

People don't pass amendments...Congress does. And, you are not going to get enough people to demand that Congress pass an amendment banning firearms...period. You can have all the pipe dreams you want but, it isn't going to happen.

However, regardless of what happens with weapons it will make no difference in the latest tradegy. Weapons are not creating that problem. Neither are movies or video games. What is creating the problem is that there are now more than 300 million of us crammed into smaller and smaller spaces. As the population rises and the stress of overcrowding increases, the number of these incidents will rise. Weapon bans won't change that, only make it minimally more inconvenient.

I will agree with you entirely on this point, that increasing numbers of people crowded into one place is causing a problem. And, folks are going to have to start learning how to deal with it and start learning how to get along because it likely isn't going to get any better for quite some time.

 

[francoHFW]

a, b, and d

 

[PratchettFan]

And, it made perfect sense - then. While it continues to be true in principle, the reality of it is nonsensical.

If every man, woman and child in the US (and in some states, fetuses ... ) owned 10 military assault rifles and endless ammo for their high capacity clips, they would not even be a gnat on the butt of the US military.

I wonder why some people don't seem to understand that.

An excellent point. It is all very nice to find little snippets (inaccurate in this case) from the Founding Fathers. But the truth is that they are dead and we are dealing with the now. This is not the 18th century. Washington, Jefferson, Hamilton, et al had the issues of their day, took responsibility and created a nation. We now have the responsibility of moving that nation forward. We do so in an environment massively changed from the 18th century.

This is our country now, not Washington's. If the majority don't wish people to own certain types of weapons, then they will be banned. That is how it works. If it is the will of the people to have a complete ban, then they will pass another amendment to repeal the 2nd. If not, then we will continue with status quo.

People don't pass amendments...Congress does. And, you are not going to get enough people to demand that Congress pass an amendment banning firearms...period. You can have all the pipe dreams you want but, it isn't going to happen.

However, regardless of what happens with weapons it will make no difference in the latest tradegy. Weapons are not creating that problem. Neither are movies or video games. What is creating the problem is that there are now more than 300 million of us crammed into smaller and smaller spaces. As the population rises and the stress of overcrowding increases, the number of these incidents will rise. Weapon bans won't change that, only make it minimally more inconvenient.

I will agree with you entirely on this point, that increasing numbers of people crowded into one place is causing a problem. And, folks are going to have to start learning how to deal with it and start learning how to get along because it likely isn't going to get any better for quite some time.

I am aware of the process for an amendment. I was being general rather than specific. In theory, if the people want the amendment then their representatives will initiate it and the various states will ratify it. Personally, I don't want a change to the amendment and I don't see much chance for it. I don't believe people should be restricted from owning any weapon if they use it lawfully, so long as the weapon itself is not inherently dangerous. Such as a 500 pound bomb sitting in my neighbor's garage. However, just because I feel that way does not mean I am just going to pretend the 2nd amendment does not say what it says or that the SC has not interpreted it the way they have. The fact is the SC does not see it as an unlimited right and the states and feds do have the ability to regulate. Like it or not, that is the reality.

 

[CrotchetyGeezer]

An excellent point. It is all very nice to find little snippets (inaccurate in this case) from the Founding Fathers. But the truth is that they are dead and we are dealing with the now. This is not the 18th century. Washington, Jefferson, Hamilton, et al had the issues of their day, took responsibility and created a nation. We now have the responsibility of moving that nation forward. We do so in an environment massively changed from the 18th century.

This is our country now, not Washington's. If the majority don't wish people to own certain types of weapons, then they will be banned. That is how it works. If it is the will of the people to have a complete ban, then they will pass another amendment to repeal the 2nd. If not, then we will continue with status quo.

People don't pass amendments...Congress does. And, you are not going to get enough people to demand that Congress pass an amendment banning firearms...period. You can have all the pipe dreams you want but, it isn't going to happen.

However, regardless of what happens with weapons it will make no difference in the latest tradegy. Weapons are not creating that problem. Neither are movies or video games. What is creating the problem is that there are now more than 300 million of us crammed into smaller and smaller spaces. As the population rises and the stress of overcrowding increases, the number of these incidents will rise. Weapon bans won't change that, only make it minimally more inconvenient.

I will agree with you entirely on this point, that increasing numbers of people crowded into one place is causing a problem. And, folks are going to have to start learning how to deal with it and start learning how to get along because it likely isn't going to get any better for quite some time.

I am aware of the process for an amendment. I was being general rather than specific. In theory, if the people want the amendment then their representatives will initiate it and the various states will ratify it. Personally, I don't want a change to the amendment and I don't see much chance for it. I don't believe people should be restricted from owning any weapon if they use it lawfully, so long as the weapon itself is not inherently dangerous. Such as a 500 pound bomb sitting in my neighbor's garage. However, just because I feel that way does not mean I am just going to pretend the 2nd amendment does not say what it says or that the SC has not interpreted it the way they have. The fact is the SC does not see it as an unlimited right and the states and feds do have the ability to regulate. Like it or not, that is the reality.

Define "inherently dangerous". How is a 500 pound bomb in your neighbor's garage any more "inherently dangerous" than a .22? I love how some folks use these linguistic gymnastics to add drama to words. Such as, "assault weapon". If I hit you in the head with my computer monitor, it's an "assault weapon". And, it's "inherently dangerous"...too. Life is "inherently dangerous". The day you were born, your life was put in peril.

Further, to regulate and "ban"? Two different things. If "assault weapons" are banned, they're not being "regulated". They're being "banned". If 30-round clips are banned? They're not being "regulated". They're being "banned".

 

[JakeStarkey]

To ban firearms would be anti-American.

To permit all sorts of firearms would be anti-American.

Neither is going to happen.

And, it made perfect sense - then. While it continues to be true in principle, the reality of it is nonsensical.

If every man, woman and child in the US (and in some states, fetuses ... ) owned 10 military assault rifles and endless ammo for their high capacity clips, they would not even be a gnat on the butt of the US military.

I wonder why some people don't seem to understand that.

An excellent point. It is all very nice to find little snippets (inaccurate in this case) from the Founding Fathers. But the truth is that they are dead and we are dealing with the now. This is not the 18th century. Washington, Jefferson, Hamilton, et al had the issues of their day, took responsibility and created a nation. We now have the responsibility of moving that nation forward. We do so in an environment massively changed from the 18th century.

This is our country now, not Washington's. If the majority don't wish people to own certain types of weapons, then they will be banned. That is how it works. If it is the will of the people to have a complete ban, then they will pass another amendment to repeal the 2nd. If not, then we will continue with status quo.

People don't pass amendments...Congress does. And, you are not going to get enough people to demand that Congress pass an amendment banning firearms...period. You can have all the pipe dreams you want but, it isn't going to happen.

However, regardless of what happens with weapons it will make no difference in the latest tradegy. Weapons are not creating that problem. Neither are movies or video games. What is creating the problem is that there are now more than 300 million of us crammed into smaller and smaller spaces. As the population rises and the stress of overcrowding increases, the number of these incidents will rise. Weapon bans won't change that, only make it minimally more inconvenient.

I will agree with you entirely on this point, that increasing numbers of people crowded into one place is causing a problem. And, folks are going to have to start learning how to deal with it and start learning how to get along because it likely isn't going to get any better for quite some time.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Heller carefully does not prohibt regulation of certain types of firearms, which means Congress can ban assault weapons as it did in 1994. And as it will in this coming year.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Heller carefully does not prohibt regulation of certain types of firearms, which means Congress can ban assault weapons as it did in 1994. And as it will in this coming year.

U.S. v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939) states which firearms are protected by the second amendment

Lewis v. United States, 445 U.S. 95 (1980) reaffirms what miller ruled

 

[JakeStarkey]

Heller overrules either of them. Miller and Lewis were not pertinent in 1994, they are not pertinent now, and Heller holds sway.

 

[CrotchetyGeezer]

Heller carefully does not prohibt regulation of certain types of firearms, which means Congress can ban assault weapons as it did in 1994. And as it will in this coming year.

U.S. v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939) states which firearms are protected by the second amendment

Lewis v. United States, 445 U.S. 95 (1980) reaffirms what miller ruled

And District of Columbia v. Heller (07-290) and McDonald v. City of Chicago (08-1521) modified U.S. v. Miller.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Heller carefully states that prohibtion of regulation cannot be inferred in its findings. Subsection F. Look it up. Congress has the legal authority to ban assault weapons.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Heller carefully does not prohibt regulation of certain types of firearms, which means Congress can ban assault weapons as it did in 1994. And as it will in this coming year.

U.S. v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939) states which firearms are protected by the second amendment

Lewis v. United States, 445 U.S. 95 (1980) reaffirms what miller ruled

And District of Columbia v. Heller (07-290) and McDonald v. City of Chicago (08-1521) modified U.S. v. Miller.

Neither McDonald nor Heller were great second amendment victory's the ruling were to vague and left the door open to gun restrictions. Miller and Lewis are more specific dealing with gun types.,

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Heller carefully states that prohibtion of regulation cannot be inferred in its findings. Subsection F. Look it up. Congress has the legal authority to ban assault weapons.

Has Lewis or Miller been overturned?

 

[JakeStarkey]

Thank you for a succinct comment, bigrebnc. Perhaps SCOTUS will agree with your interpretation. I don't think it will, but then again I thought Roberts was going to sink ACA.

 

[Avatar4321]

I would only add self defense to the list.

 

[CrotchetyGeezer]

U.S. v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939) states which firearms are protected by the second amendment

Lewis v. United States, 445 U.S. 95 (1980) reaffirms what miller ruled

And District of Columbia v. Heller (07-290) and McDonald v. City of Chicago (08-1521) modified U.S. v. Miller.

Neither McDonald nor Heller were great second amendment victory's the ruling were to vague and left the door open to gun restrictions. Miller and Lewis are more specific dealing with gun types.,

Actually it looks like they just referred to the National Firearms Act, which was more specific with gun types.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

And District of Columbia v. Heller (07-290) and McDonald v. City of Chicago (08-1521) modified U.S. v. Miller.

Neither McDonald nor Heller were great second amendment victory's the ruling were to vague and left the door open to gun restrictions. Miller and Lewis are more specific dealing with gun types.,

Actually it looks like they just referred to the National Firearms Act, which was more specific with gun types.

Miller and lewis state that the only weapons protected by the second amendment are those
that have some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia