imfdb.org  

Go Back   imfdb.org > The Forum > Just Guns

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #21  
Old 08-22-2016, 05:25 PM
SPEMack618 SPEMack618 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Georgia
Posts: 742
Default

I am willing to compromise.

Remove SBSs, SBRs, and suppressors form the NFA. Disband the BATFE. The IRS can get my money and the FBI can run a back ground check.

Keep the tax stamp for machine guns but repeal the Hughes Amendment.

The Founding Fathers didn't expect the internet, either. Does the first amendment not cover it?
__________________
I like to think, that before that Navy SEAL double tapped bin Laden in the head, he kicked him, so that we could truly say we put a boot in his ass.
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 08-22-2016, 05:56 PM
commando552 commando552 is offline
IMFDB Admin
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: England
Posts: 516
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Excalibur View Post
Yes, I believe we should have phasers as well. They still falls under arms. The more we let governments restrict certain things, the more power we give over to them and then what can we have? Or decides it? You? Me? Or people who don't know who don't know us but makes a bunch of assumptions that we can't be trusted with certain things. That's not a good mindset for governing or a free country.

Hell, we have means of destroying buildings and punching holes through walls that ISN'T using a weapon. Enough fertilizer will do that for you.

Hell, the NFA wasn't passed until the 1930s and by that time, we had machine guns, short barrelled weapons, etc for years up to that point on guess what kind of people use them in crime? People who are committing crime.

I already said that the found fathers might not have predicted actual machine gun, but they are aware of the then current advancing tech of their era and constantly promote the idea that citizens should have arms equal to the military in the event of oppression and tyranny because they just fought a war of Independence that proved that very point.

It's not about actual trust because regulations alone means there is no trust to begin with. It's assumption that the people will do wrong and a rule needs to be set down in case. That's not a very honest thing.

These types of laws don't actually work. You like a lot of others don't trust the vast majority of people with their own responsibility and believe ink on paper will prevent them from doing crime.


I might need actual training to use a machine gun, but I sure as hell don't want to pay for a tax stamp and wait a year for additional background checks to get one and then can't take it out of my state without additional paper work and then keep it even more guarded than my other guns. I want a suppressor on my guns to protect my ears, not again, pay 200 dollars for a stupid stamp and wait for someone else to prove I'm a law abiding American citizen.


Maybe it is just my rather dim view on humanity, but I will freely admit that I don't trust most people. I also do not think that gun control will necessarily prevent people from intending to commit crime, but if it is possible to limit the scope or severity of a crime then I think it is something that is worth looking at.

Another big difference in our opinions is that I think it is totally reasonable that police and military forces are allowed to use weapons that civilians do not have access to. I am a British firearms officer, and in order for me to carry and use the weapons that I do I was vetted, trained, tested, and am held constantly accountable for my actions. This is not the case with the man on the street. From a more selfish point of view, I do a job that on occasion puts me in harms way, and am happier in the knowledge that 99.99% of the time I am better armed and equipped than the other guy.
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 08-22-2016, 05:59 PM
SPEMack618 SPEMack618 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Georgia
Posts: 742
Default

Ah. There lies the root cause of differing views my good friend.

As an American I want the Federal/State/Local cops to be wary that I may be as well, if not better armed than them. They protect and serve me, not the other way around.
__________________
I like to think, that before that Navy SEAL double tapped bin Laden in the head, he kicked him, so that we could truly say we put a boot in his ass.
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 08-22-2016, 06:55 PM
Excalibur's Avatar
Excalibur Excalibur is offline
IMFDB Admin
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: USA
Posts: 3,818
Send a message via AIM to Excalibur Send a message via MSN to Excalibur Send a message via Yahoo to Excalibur
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SPEMack618 View Post
I am willing to compromise.

Remove SBSs, SBRs, and suppressors form the NFA. Disband the BATFE. The IRS can get my money and the FBI can run a back ground check.

Keep the tax stamp for machine guns but repeal the Hughes Amendment.

The Founding Fathers didn't expect the internet, either. Does the first amendment not cover it?
That last part has always been used in reverse to defend why we should have all the cool toys.

Not just the Hughes Amendment, but the 86 ban and the Gun Control Act as well. Also lift importation bans on foreign made rifles. I want me a G36 and if I need a stamp for it, let me not wait a whole year for it. Just do another complete background check. To make the scared people happy, just have me do a double background check. There is literally no point in the months and months of wait process.


Also, from the cops I know and the guys who are former cops, the training level and general mentalities of guns for the average LEO is abysmal. Lack of practice and training and good mindset has lead to more accidents in law enforcement than with civilians...and we're supposed to trust our lives to these people.
__________________

"There's a fine line between not listening and not caring...I like to think I walk that line everyday of my life."

Blessed be the LORD, my rock, Who trains my hands for war, And my fingers for battle
Psalm 144:1

“It is always wrong to use force, unless it is more wrong not to.”
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 08-22-2016, 07:03 PM
funkychinaman's Avatar
funkychinaman funkychinaman is offline
IMFDB & Forum Admin
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Bucks County, PA
Posts: 2,537
Default

Please keep in mind that all of our civil liberties come with restrictions, many in the name of public safety. You can't falsely yell fire in a crowded theater in the name of freedom of speech, you can't have more than one wife in the freedom of religion, and exigent circumstances overrides your fourth amendment rights.

And let's not forget that many of the current restrictions on machine guns were put in place by that commie gungrabber Ronald Reagan.
__________________
"Me fail English? That's unpossible!"
Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old 08-22-2016, 07:54 PM
Excalibur's Avatar
Excalibur Excalibur is offline
IMFDB Admin
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: USA
Posts: 3,818
Send a message via AIM to Excalibur Send a message via MSN to Excalibur Send a message via Yahoo to Excalibur
Default

Being able to marry more than one spouse actually is one of those specifically laws that isn't tied to freedom of religion. It's just a law based on a mostly Christian country. I mean, gay marriage was recently passed, and that's pretty much against Christianity.

The 4th Amendment protects from unwarranted searches. Probable cause needs to happen before the search is legal and any evidence found can hold up in court, otherwise, they can be thrown out. The 4th protects you from just having being searched without cause and that's all.

The yelling fire is only not protected by the 1st amendment if it is a false claim. You can't just yell fire and expect to be protected. That's why the consequences for being irresponsible with your rights is the point, not restricting your rights to begin with. It makes penalties for abusing them that affects things.

You can have your grenade launchers, but the moment you use it not in a justified action, then harsh punishment for endangerment/injuries/death is on your.

Criminals will break the law, but fewer will dare to do it if it becomes a felony and it is made impossible to be thrown out in court, or charges dropped easily for deals. It's already illegal to commit cold blooded murder, but what needs to happen if life-death penalties for committing them, not slaps on the wrists.

Just recently a politician brought a gun on school grounds, got arrested, and then got probation only...for a crime that would have taken away his rights and his guns. He got a slap on a wrist for breaking the law.
__________________

"There's a fine line between not listening and not caring...I like to think I walk that line everyday of my life."

Blessed be the LORD, my rock, Who trains my hands for war, And my fingers for battle
Psalm 144:1

“It is always wrong to use force, unless it is more wrong not to.”
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 08-31-2016, 07:21 PM
StanTheMan StanTheMan is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Location: AR, USA
Posts: 112
Default

I see where Nyles is coming from and even agree to a point, but again, that heel-digging attitude didn't come out of nowhere. While I agree that I too don't like the stigma being placed there as he mentions, keep in mind just where it's being applied from.

I find it rather hypocritical and disingenuous that many on the 'pro-gun' side (which I'll admit are mainly right-leaning) are being demanded to be so accepting in other social and civil issues from the 'other' (left-leaning) side while also being demanded to allow the further chipping away at rights and privileges they care about. Again, our attitude didn't come in a vacuum. Liberty is a door that swings both ways. I've no problem with individual freedoms - I want gays to be married if they want, people to worship as they please (or not), and so on - Yet I can't enjoy my firearms rights as-is (when things are already quite irksome in spots)? Bah.

Bans and many other gun control proposals reek of the same flawed, if not absurd mentality used in applying the War on Drugs. And we know how well that's gone. The Drug War just doesn't fuckin' work in its intended purpose and has lead to a whole culture of abuse and shitting on the citizenry. Much more serious 'gun control' will lead down the same path, all in the same or similar canned excuses of 'common sense', 'public safety', and so on.

Meh, I think I'm repeating myself and as I've said my piece and stand by it I will only repeat that I would consider some stronger measures IF I didn't feel they would be abused by those Excalibur speaks of that wish to ban away anything they find objectionable. It's not like I'm unwilling to accept some restrictions, as indeed there are some limitations on other rights. But for the most part, I believe what is present is plenty enough - short of things like some mandatory training/familiarization I'm really just reluctant to accept them. c552, I share that same distrust, in fact even moreso than you do. But things like bans ignore if not disavow the very concept of trust, automatically assuming it can't be attained. Like Ex I agree that's just a crummy mentality to go with.

For the record, I personally interpret the 2A similarly to Excalibur. I also agree with him that the bigger thing is that more uniform and harsher penalties should be applied to those that break firearms regs and laws. I've read only a small percentage of failed background checks on sales are even prosecuted, which is absurd given we have two if not three whole federal law enforcement agencies that can be involved in that, one supposedly dedicated to that specifically. Granted checks can fail for ridiculous reasons, again, I'm hesitant to trust to gov't there as well. Nonetheless, when serious laws are broken, that's indeed not something that should warrant a mere wrist-slapping. Firearms laws are serious. Or at least they should be.

I agree having the right means having the responsibility - And while I concede that is partly on the user and requires due diligence on their part (again, why I've little problem with checks and training) that has to include backing it up with stiff penalties and the willingness to use them on those that willfully shirk that responsibility.

Eh, just adding a scant bit to some already good and fair thoughts. As I said, I've no real solutions. All I really have is a lot of worry about my rights (not just 2A) being pissed on from other people's misplaced outrage and overbearing sensibilities.
__________________
"..If someone has a gun and is trying to kill you - It would be reasonable to shoot back with your own gun."
- The Dalai Lama

Last edited by StanTheMan; 08-31-2016 at 08:01 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old 08-31-2016, 08:32 PM
Excalibur's Avatar
Excalibur Excalibur is offline
IMFDB Admin
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: USA
Posts: 3,818
Send a message via AIM to Excalibur Send a message via MSN to Excalibur Send a message via Yahoo to Excalibur
Default

With all the regs now and with the recent ATF shit about a specific ingredient in Smokeless Powder...it's only going to get worse.


I would like baby steps to taking down a lot of the laws like most NFA items. SBRs, SBSs, suppressors first. Import restrictions can also be a part of the 2A. Preventing arms from reaching civilians is part of infringement, but of course the ban of weapons trade with China is partly because the CCP is an asshole regime. I wouldn't give them 1 cent no matter how I want to shoot their QBZ rifles
__________________

"There's a fine line between not listening and not caring...I like to think I walk that line everyday of my life."

Blessed be the LORD, my rock, Who trains my hands for war, And my fingers for battle
Psalm 144:1

“It is always wrong to use force, unless it is more wrong not to.”
Reply With Quote
  #29  
Old 10-14-2016, 03:54 AM
Mike Searson Mike Searson is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2015
Location: Nevada
Posts: 17
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Excalibur View Post
With all the regs now and with the recent ATF shit about a specific ingredient in Smokeless Powder...it's only going to get worse.


I would like baby steps to taking down a lot of the laws like most NFA items. SBRs, SBSs, suppressors first. Import restrictions can also be a part of the 2A. Preventing arms from reaching civilians is part of infringement, but of course the ban of weapons trade with China is partly because the CCP is an asshole regime. I wouldn't give them 1 cent no matter how I want to shoot their QBZ rifles
We will never get rid of NFA. Part of me wants to see it changed (repeal Hughes, remove silencers, SBRs, SBS and AOWs) but I know once they get in there that they will bump the price of a tax stamp.

Unfortunately, I think if a certain administration takes power, they will try to add semi-autos to the NFA as well.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 05:34 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.0
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.