If Machine Guns are illegal

So, register people, not guns. Have a national firearms license.

 

While I tend to agree with many of your points, I think you would do well to avoid insulting people concerned about firearms. Guns make a lot people nervous. They aren't likely to arm themselves, but instead look to disarm the people who make them afraid.

The push to ban AR-15s is where the debate can go when we stop communicating. You're not hearing their real concern, or if you are then you don't care. In that case, I can only say you may get what you deserve for taunting them.

Ah, so now it's a good idea to dismiss any effort on their part to have a common experience?

Socialist? They want to collectivize production? Really?

How about working toward an environment where they can feel safe--or more safe--and we can get away from banning some semiautomatic weapons while not banning others?

You must think your views are shared by most Americans. I wouldn't be so sure.

 

We have one. It's called the Second Amendment.

 

LOL as far as my arming myself that is far in the past as in forty years or so with a few revolvers and a shotgun currently in my home along with CC permit.

Guns do not made me nervous rifles that are copies of military rifles with every features of a military rifle have but for either burst mode or fully auto made me nervous with special note of someone who can not even legally buy a can of beer can buy any number of such weapons.

There is no earthly reason to allow commerce rifles to be able to accept very very large magazines just to start with.

With up to a hundred rounds mags that is not a hunting tool or even a self defense tool but a large scale murder weapon.

 

All manner of guns restrictions had been found to be constitutional by the SC under the second amendment but if the choice should come down to doing away with the second amendment or seeing one school after another year after year turn into slaughter houses then I guess we as a people will have no choice but to do away with it.

Hopefully that is not the choice we will be force to as I would like to keep my guns if possible.

 

The problem is that it won't solve the gun problem. A lot of energy will be wasted banning one semiautomatic weapon only to see it replaced by another. Worse still, 3-D printer technology allows bad guys to make banned weapons, including automatics.

IMO, we should focus on licensing gun owners, and making as sure as we can that people who shouldn't have weapons aren't getting them easily and don't dare carry them around. The shooters in many of these school situations would have been caught with weapons they shouldn't have had if we had a national firearms permit.

You can't legally require people lock up weapons they wish to use for self-defense. SCOTUS ruled on this one.

Actually, only some of the guns were held illegally. But we can with a national firearms license make sure only others will a licensee will get a weapon.

 

Good luck repealing the 2nd. I won't happen.

 

Registering (code word for taxing by socialist) cows, horses, chickens, pig's, dogs and guns would lead to a toilet paper shortage.

And there is no more a Sears Catalog today because you can no longer buy a mail order gun today.

Explains why all mass gun shootings came to an end in 1968.

 

I might buy it if you were upset President Bone Spurs gins up hatred at his campaign rallies and with his tweets.

The media are there to make money. When the Tea Party was getting started, the media played them up.

You're blaming the media for your political failure.

 

LOL you had forgotten that there is one hell of a lot of school children turning 18 year after year and not only do they have the right to vote and a damn good reason to vote thank to the NRA but also their families and friends.

Sorry but if the NRA and such are not willing to take some minor steps and allow some minor restrictions on such matters as the size of magazines and used the 2 amendment to block such moves resulting in the killings to go on you can kiss the second amendment good-by.

 

The license would be free.

It's not about mass shootings, but everyday gun violence.

You don't want to keep track of guns or people having guns. In short, you want it all your own way. Well, good luck with that when less than 40% have guns.

 

I taught high school students for decades and I wouldn't bank on them holding the same views on guns in ten years, nor would I bank on them even now supporting repeal of the 2nd. They do tend to have liberal social values and I think that mindset will be carried forward.

I think the pressure for change will move toward a national firearms law like I'm talking about. We need to make sure people who legally have firearms are mentally well, aren't senile, aren't guilty of even misdemeanour violence, aren't criminals or members of gangs. Guns should be RADIOACTIVE for bad guys.

We have the technology with facial recognition to make sure people carrying weapons on the street have a firearms license. Police don't have to stop people, although they could. Mass shooters who shouldn't have guns would probably be on police radar before they work up to harming people.

 

Where should the NRA draw the line?
Where should the NRA say "not another inch"?

 

The only issue? No. One of them? Absolutely.

I inevitably have to shake my head at the ignorance intrinsic to this and similar remarks.

 

The way to protect the kids is security schools, NOT banning guns.

"Kiss the second amendment good-by"?? Not without a civil war.

 

How come the issue wasn't included in the Declaration of Independence?

I was replying to @Reality in an earlier message when he wrote: "Which brings us full circle to: What you want will light the fuse again. Its a bad idea. Don't touch the stove timmy, its hot." So, what did I "want"? A free national firearms permit that would be granted to every citizen if they applied, was fingerprinted, isn't a felon, gang member, senile, guilty of a violent misdemeanour, or mentally ill." It would allow permit holders to transfer weapons to any other permit holder without cumbersome background checks or waiting periods. It would allow permit holders to carry in any state that didn't specifically carrying weapons and avoid permit holders having to deal with individual states.

We could go a little further and have police use facial recognition to check on anyone carrying. If they weren't recognized, police could ask for their permit or check their fingerprints. This would allow anti-gun folks who fear firearms a large measure of what they want while not restricting the rights of law-abiding citizens.

That's going to "light the fuse again," is it?

So where are you since you've decided my comment was ignorant? Do you think Americans are going to put up with a bunch of yahoos running an action against the country because of a gun license?

 

Law enforcement officers also have the ability to make others nervous.

It is difficult to hear what the real concern is, when the message becomes drowned out by other various points being raised at the same time, and swallowed up in what ultimately becomes a laundry list of complaints. The protests by students is not limited exclusively to firearms, but has now expanded to include brutality by law enforcement, the militarization of law enforcement, and united states imperialism being exported to other countries.

If those who wish to demonstrate concern wish to be taken seriously, they must be able to present a coherent, well-articulated delivery, so they do not resemble a screaming mass driven by chaos and disorder.

Feeling safe is not the same thing as being safe. The students at the Parkland school felt safe up until the moment that Nikolas Cruz opened fire on them. Feeling safe is nothing more than a flawed perception.

 

Virginia tech involved no rifles, no magazines capable of holding more than ten rounds of ammunition, and is still the deadliest school shooting in the history of the untied states. Therefore the points of objection being raised by yourself are invalid.

 

Nota Bene:


. . . abolishing our most valuable Laws and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:. . . ( Bearing arms for the common defense was a long established bit of the English Common Law. The attempted confiscation of arms was truly the last straw for free men (as opposed to peasant serfs. Serfs are barred from bearing arms, not free men.), as referenced below. This would be just one of the laws effected, I'm not claiming its the only one here.)

. . . He has plundered our seas, ravaged our coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people. . . .
(Another reference, burning towns and destroying lives of people (ie stealing their **** and killing them))

. . . He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us. . . .
(another reference, declaring that the militias arms were to be seized signaled that the militias had aroused the ire of the king. Sending troops to confiscate their arms would be an act of war against them. )

. . . He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation, and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty & Perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation.
(another reference, Perfidy is another word for theft. Bearing arms had long been an outright DUTY of EVERY MALE under the English common law. To take that away was unheard of to do to one's citizens not in open rebellion.)


"In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince, whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people."
(You think the taking of rights to keep and bear arms was repeatedly referenced as explained above right at the end there for no reason? Bless your heart)

- The Declaration of Independence, 1776 -
Parenthesis mine.

You want to turn a right into a privilege. THAT is what will light the fuse, as it has done before. Its a bad idea, civil wars get ugly this is common knowledge.

Because of that alone? As before, no. Will that set off the powder magazine's worth of tension that has been building for numerous other reasons some related some not? As before, yes.

 

Ok good point that we will need to ban all repeat all semi auto firearms................

No need to start with just banning all large magazine weapons.

Thanks for you input and opinion that all semi should be ban at once as the only means of stopping mass murders by firearms.

Hunting and target shootings and self defense use of firearms should not be impacted by such a limit in any case.

In fact it been my opinion for some time that we should at least consider moving the police side arms back to revolvers as there been a lot of reports of police just doing spraying and praying to the point that the police themselves are at times becoming victims of friendly fire as in the case of the Boston bombers shoot out.

 

" Some have made the argument, bordering on the frivolous, that only those arms in existence in the 18th century are protected by the Second Amendment . We do not interpret constitutional rights that way. Just as the First Amendment protects modern forms of communications, e.g., Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U. S. 844, Fourth Amendment applies to modern forms of search, e.g., Kyllo v. United States, 533 U. S. 27, Second Amendment extends, prima facie,to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding."
https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-290.ZO.html

You'll need a constitutional amendment. Don't hold you breath waiting on that

 

The Declaration spoke of the "long train of abuses and usurpations", which infringements of the right to be armed qualify as.

There's a lot in your proposal that sounds good on the surface, but again, I believe that the only way to make such a course of action legitimate is to pursue a Constitutional Amendment. We are too quick to ignore the Constitution, or to try and pretend it doesn't exist.

Sorry, the thought of living in a society where Big Brother watches our every move leaves me cold.

What was ignorant was saying that any attempt to rise up against government tyranny in this country would be readily and summarily terminated, AND it's even MORE ignorant to say that such an insurgency would be just "because of a gun license."

People who think history began when Obama was elected don’t understand the dangerous game they are playing when they talk about how they want to impose their brown shirt vision upon the rest of America. The keyboard commandos of the left seek to hand wave away the massive strategic challenge of imposing control by force upon a well-armed, decentralized citizenry occupying the vast majority of the territory, so they babble about drones and tanks as counterinsurgency trump cards. But there are no trump cards in war. There are men, with rifles, standing on patches of dirt, killing the people trying to push them off. That’s the ugly reality of war. And multiply the usual brutality of war by ten when it’s a civil war.

There are two Civil War II scenarios, and the political left is poorly positioned to prevail in either one. The first scenario is that the Democrats take power and violate the Constitution in order to use the apparatus of the federal government to suppress and oppress Normal Americans. In that scenario, red Americans are the insurgents. In the second scenario, which we can even now see the stirrings of in California’s campaign to nullify federal immigration law, it is the blue states that are the insurgents.

The leftists lose both wars. Big time.

Let’s talk terrain and numbers. Remember the famous red v. blue voting map? There is a lot of red, and in the interior the few blue splotches are all cities like Las Vegas or Denver. That is a lot of territory for a counter-insurgent force to control, and this is critical. The red is where the food is grown, the oil pumped, and through which everything is transported. And that red space is filled with millions of American citizens with small arms, a fairly large percentage of whom have military training.

Remember what two untrained idiots did in Boston with a couple of pistols? They shut a city down. Now multiply that by several million, with better weapons and training.

Let’s look at the counter-insurgent forces in the Democrat oppression scenario should they attempt to misuse our law enforcement and military in an unconstitutional manner to take the rights of American citizens. There are a lot of civilian law enforcement officers, but the vast majority of the agencies are local – sheriffs, small town police departments. They will not be reliable allies in supporting unlawful oppression of their friends and neighbors. The major cities’ police departments are run by Democrat appointees, so the commands would be loyal. But the rank-and-file? A small percentage would be ideologically loyal. More would be loyal because that’s their paycheck – they could be swayed or intimidated to support the rebels. Others would be actively sympathetic to the insurgents. This is true of federal law enforcement agencies as well.

And the military? Well, wouldn’t the military just crush any resistance? Not so fast. The military would have the combat power to win any major engagement, but insurgents don’t get into major engagements with forces that have more combat power. They instead leverage their decentralized ability to strike at the counter-insurgents’ weak points to eliminate the government’s firepower advantage. In other words, hit and run, and no stand-up fights.

For example, how do a bunch of hunters in Wisconsin defeat a company of M1A2 Abrams tanks? They ambush the fuel and ammo trucks. Oh, and they wait until the gunner pops the hatch to take a leak and put a .30-06 round in his back from 300 meters. Then they disappear. What do the tanks do then? Go level the nearest town? Great. Now they just moved the needle in favor of the insurgents among the population. Pretty soon, they can’t be outside of their armored vehicles in public. Their forces are spending 90% of their efforts not on actual counter-insurgency operations but on force protection. Sure, they own their forward operating bases, and they own a few hundred meters around them wherever they happen to be standing at the moment, but the rest of the territory is bright red.

But the military is so big it would overwhelm any rebels, right? Well, how big do you think the military is? And, more importantly, how many actual boots on the ground can it deploy? Let’s put it in terms of brigade combat teams, which total about 4,500 troops each. There are about 60 brigades in the Army, active and reserve, here and abroad, and let’s give the Marines another 10 brigades, for about 70 brigades. Sounds impressive. But that’s deceptive.

Let’s put aside a big consideration – the existence of red states that would provide for an insurgent government structure and possibly attract the loyalty of some National Guard and even federal brigades. For example, if a President in the vein of Hillary Clinton put down her chardonnay long enough to sign a ban on privately owned guns, it’s not unreasonable to expect the governor of Texas to reject federal authority – after all, California just taught us that this is totally cool. But in this case, look for several brigades located there to hoist the Lone Star flag.

So, now the blue states are facing unconventional and conventional forces.

Let’s ignore that problem and focus on a different challenge. Even a normal unit has about 10% non-deployable members. Now, if these troops were assigned to combat operations against other Americans, you would have significant additional losses through desertion. Many of the senior leaders would participate – the Obama generation – and there is a certain type of junior officer only too happy to curry favor by sucking up in defiance of their oath (which is to the Constitution, not to some leftist president). You can identify them because they usually have “strategist” in their Twitter bios. But a lot of key, capable officer and NCO leaders, and enlisted troops, would vanish. That is proper. It is a violation of their oath to unconstitutionally oppress fellow Americans; their duty would be to refuse such unlawful orders.

So, you have significantly understrength units going in. Now, how many of the troops in a brigade are actually even front line combat troops? About a third – the rest are support. So a brigade is really about 1500 riflemen tops before you count losses. Cut those in half for sleep, training, and refitting at any one time (which is very generous) and your brigade is really 750 troops on your best day with everyone showing up. Realistically, it’s 300.

That holds one mid-sized town. And there are hundreds of mid-sized towns. Plus there are millions of Normal Americans who would fight back. Nothing would move without their permission – a few guys shooting up big rigs along the interstate would shut down the entire trucking industry. Bottom line: there simply are not enough military forces to clear and hold red America.

What about drones and bombers? Both are useful. But the minute a bombing strike kills some red civilians the families of counter-insurgent drone operators and pilots will be knocking at the base gates to be let inside. Now you’ll need many of those brigades to protect the civilians you now need to protect from retribution.

Civil wars are harsh. That’s why you avoid them.

How about the blue insurgency scenario? That goes even worse for the Democrats. You have the federal government apparatus in the hands of red America, and the insurgents are the opposite of decentralized and armed. They are conveniently centered in gun-unfriendly blue cities. In other words, the blue civilian population is much less of a threat.

A red counter-insurgency avoids the problem of a decentralized insurgency and insecure logistical lines. In the case of California, whose sessessionist antics are approaching the point where President Trump could legitimately employ his power to crush insurrections, the tactical problem is relatively simple. For example, San Francisco is a hotbed of treason, but the populace is largely unarmed and is trapped in a confined area. You put a brigade on securing the Golden Gate and Bay Bridges, then put a brigade on the San Francisco Peninsula to cut off the I-280 and US-101 corridors. Next you go to the Crystal Springs Dam and cut off the water. Then you watch and wait as the tech hipsters run out of artisanal sushi rice and kombucha.

After about a week, they surrender. After all, you can’t eat and drink smugness. LA is just bigger in scope – more corridors to cut off, but in the end the population concentrations in large liberal urban areas that are their strength also make them extremely vulnerable to logistical pressure.

Then there’s another factor, an intangible but a crucial one. It’s commitment. The Democrat threat to peace is based on its policies designed to deprive Normal Americans of their right to speak freely, to worship freely, and to defend themselves and their rights with firearms. Make no mistake – millions of Normal Americans are willing to risk death to defend those rights. In fact, many swore to do so when they entered our military and law enforcement. But who is the leftist big talker willing to die to impose the fascist dream of censorship, religious oppression, and disarmament on Normal American citizens? Is the screeching SJW at Yale going to suit up in Kevlar? Is the Voxcolumnist going to grab a M4? Is the Hollywood poser going to switch her gyno-beanie for a helmet?

No. Hell, we just heard our liberal opponents explaining why a cop shouldn’t be expected to go fight a scumbag murdering kids because it’s scary. America might split apart, but it’s highly unlikely Team Kale n’ Vinyl would fight should their big talk finally push Normal America too far.

(with thanks to Col. Schlicter: https://townhall.com/columnists/kur...-would-lose-the-second-civil-war-too-n2459833

 

First the SC had rule more then one that limits on firearms are in fact constitutional with the second amendment in place.

Next somehow if the mass killing of children keep occurring and all steps to slow it are being block by the second amendment I can not see it not being repeal as some of us love firearms more then the welfare and the very lives of our children but that is hardly a large percent of the population that would allow our schools to be turn into killing grounds.

For those such as myself that would not wish the second amendment to be repeal we can only hope that whatever guns restrictions are needed to deal with this current problem will not be block by the second amendment so we will not need to repeal it completely.

 

But not which limits, specifically, as the SCotuS has not heard such a case since Heller.
So, your point is meaningless.

It takes just 13 states to stop an amendment.
Can you think of 13 states that will never support a repeal of the 2nd? I can.

 

Cite them then.
10 bucks you're going to trot out the dicta from Heller, US v Miller sans the context of the actual record or similar.

The steps you're taking won't slow a thing. Faulty assumptions lead to faulty thinking.