Gunboards Forums banner

41 - 60 of 74 Posts

·
Silver Bullet Member
sks, tokarev, makarov, combloc
Joined
·
1,910 Posts
In this election, it is very clear cut. Biden has sworn to destroy the 2nd Amendment and take away your Right to Bear Arms. While I agree with you on the bump stocks, there is no doubt they fall within a gray area that unfortunately until it is further clarified by the SCOTUS is no longer so gray.

I view the 2nd Amendment as it was defined by SCOTUS members in Heller. It's primary purpose is defense from tyranny for the people. The First Amendment allows us to discuss openly to include when to use the Second Amendment.

That also means, just as Heller noted, that the citizenry maintaining a rifle that is competitive on the modern battlefield is the intent of the 2nd Amendment.
We do not need fully automatic weapons to be fully competitive. We can still own them, just fill out the paperwork and pay the tax. However they are not necessary to that competitive standard.

Bump Stocks and the subsequent ban IMHO does not put President Trump on any "Anti-Second Amendment" platform.

Bump Stocks are a very hard sell as to any military purpose. It is a waste of ammunition. In order for automatic fire to militarily useful it must do two things. First is provide a degree of accuracy. Bump stocks do not provide that degree of accuracy IMHO. You may feel differently and that is ok.

What cannot be disputed is the second requirement of a militarily useful fully automatic fire is sustainability. That is why fully automatic weapons are engineered to withstand the heat and forces found in sustained automatic fire. Even then, those forces are so high that fully automatic weapons are limited in their sustained fire rates. The M249 SAW for example is 85 rounds per minute sustained fire. The M240B GPMG is limited to 100 rounds per minute, 6-9 round burst, with 4-5 seconds cooling between burst and a change in barrels every 10 minutes.

There is no bump stock fitted rifle that militarily useful as an automatic weapon. Again, it is a gimmicky way to waste ammunition. It might be fun but the ban does not represent a threat to the intent of the 2nd Amendment IMHO. In the current environment in fighting for our rights, I do not see Bump Stocks as something worthy of falling upon our swords. I do not think it is even a good case to pursue before the SCOTUS. The technical reason I listed would be presented and we could very well find find further restrictions depending on how the SCOTUS ruled.
Upon reflection, much of your argument against bump stocks, justifying trumps banning them, sounds familiar. Oh yes, brady et all say there is no need for semi automatic weapons' or high capacity magazines just as you say there is no need for bump stocks. Reminds me of the days when NRA hunters said they did not care if semi auto weapons were banned as they did not use them for hunting. And, contrary to your experiences, I have found bump stocks to be as accurate as full auto AR 15s and Ak 47s.( Now the ak 74, with a bump stock was to me uncontrollable, but others disagree).
The point is, minimizing the ban on bump stocks as of no use, in support or an excuse for trump banning them sounds more and more like political partisan posturing. I said and say again, I do not trust any politicians on protecting our 2en amendment rights and it is naïve to think this guy, based on his record, is any better than the rest.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
845 Posts
Discussion Starter #42 (Edited)
Upon reflection, much of your argument against bump stocks, justifying trumps banning them, sounds familiar. Oh yes, brady et all say there is no need for semi automatic weapons' or high capacity magazines just as you say there is no need for bump stocks. Reminds me of the days when NRA hunters said they did not care if semi auto weapons were banned as they did not use them for hunting. And, contrary to your experiences, I have found bump stocks to be as accurate as full auto AR 15s and Ak 47s.( Now the ak 74, with a bump stock was to me uncontrollable, but others disagree).
The point is, minimizing the ban on bump stocks as of no use, in support or an excuse for trump banning them sounds more and more like political partisan posturing. I said and say again, I do not trust any politicians on protecting our 2en amendment rights and it is naïve to think this guy, based on his record, is any better than the rest.

Here is where Trump stands on Gun control:

President Donald Trump on Gun Control and Gun Rights


President Donald Trump – who said he favored background checks in the days after the shootings in El Paso and Dayton has sent mixed signals since then, after a conversation with Wayne LaPierre, a top NRA official.
Addressing reporters in late August, Trump seemed to renege on his promise to enact stricter laws on gun buyers. He later said he's in favor of closing loopholes in gun laws that are already on the books, and worries any new laws could create a "slippery slope" that could lead to a total handgun ban.
https://www.usnews.com/elections/gun-control-2020

In fact, in his nationally-televised remarks Monday, he made no new calls for new gun legislation.

Nov. 2, 2015: In his book, “Great Again: How to Fix Our Crippled America,” Trump said “Unfortunately, as expected, bringing more government regulation into the situation has accomplished very little. The main ‘benefit’ has been to make it difficult for a law-abiding American to buy a gun. As study after study has proven, few criminals are stupid enough to try to pass a background check or have their names in any kind of system.
Feb. 28, 2017:Trump signed a bill into law rolling back an Obama-era regulation that made it harder for people with mental illness to purchase guns. That Obama-era measure had included people receiving Social Security checks for mental illnesses and people deemed unfit to handle their own financial affairs to the national background check database.
Feb. 26, 2019: Nearly a year later, and two days before the House passed sweeping gun legislation that would require universal background checks for most gun purchases or transfers, Trump threatened a presidential veto on the legislation if it passed Congress.
Sept. 18, 2015: In a campaign position paper published on his website Trump stated that "Gun and magazine bans are a total failure. That’s been proven every time it’s been tried," the policy paper said. "Opponents of gun rights try to come up with scary sounding phrases like “assault weapons”, “military-style weapons” and “high capacity magazines” to confuse people.
March 12, 2018: Trump seemed to back away from his statements a month prior saying that he would leave it to states to set an age limit for buying assault rifles.
Feb. 4, 2016: In a campaign video released on Facebook, Trump posted bluntly, ““I won’t let them take away our guns!!”

Feb. 20, 2018: Following the Parkland massacre where a gunman killed 17 people, Trump ordered the Justice Department to issue a ban on bump stocks, which are used to convert semi-automatic guns into automatic weapons such as the one used in the 2017 Las Vegas mass shooting that left 58 people dead.
Dec. 18, 2018: Trump administration issued an official rule banning bump stocks.

Feb. 21, 2018: During the listening session with Parkland teachers and students Trump suggested arming teachers with guns.
“An attack has lasted, on average, about three minutes. It takes 5 to 8 minutes for responders, for police to come in. If you had a teacher who is adept at firearms, they could very well end the attack very quickly,” Trump said.
https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/timeline-trumps-record-gun-control-reform/story?id=64783662


The fact President Trump seems to hold actual meaning to the promises he makes to the people is evident.

Promises Made,
Promises Kept!


President Donald J. Trump Accomplishments
https://www.promiseskept.com/

While President Trump factually did sign the Bump Stock Ban, it is very hard to make any kind of factual case that he is Anti-Second Amendment or anything but Pro-Gun. Once more, as is evident from his change in views after speaking with the NRA, Trump is reasonable, listening to those who hired him. His agenda is the American People.

President Trump factually stopped a bill broadening back ground checks. He took action and directed Federal Resources to assist in Schools wanting to arm teachers.

If you are Pro-2nd Amendment then this election is clear cut based upon policy.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,143 Posts
There are 2 choices for President , Biden who says he will, along with his running mate, Harris, Ban certain guns and Trump who said he supports the 2nd amendment. Bashing Trump is for a gun owner like biting your nose to spite your face.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
188 Posts
The Constitution of the United States of America was written to protect the Citizens from the "government" Pro Dio et Patria
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,806 Posts
Like I keep saying, SCOTUS is not going to allow a ban on AR 's and large capacity mags.

All this gun ban stuff is baloney. The extremist right uses it FEAR to get elected. No platform to run on, nothing.

Once The President loses the election and refuses to leave the White House it's all over folks. He will be the first dictator of UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.

Then he will declare Marshal law due to the civil war and everyones guns will go bye bye. There will be no stopping him.

It's being set up already, 13 years, should have an extra term because the little guy got treated so badly, wimper wimper.

And he knows he will go to jail. Get ready for a dictator.
Your first two statements are both naive and factually incorrect:
The 1994 assault weapons ban stood for 10 years, SCOTUS certainly did allow it.
NY state "Safe Act" currently bans Assault weapons and high capacity magazines.
Multipule states currently have hi cap magazine bans

Every Democrat presidential candidate during the debates pledged to ban assault weapons, many (including Biden) calling for confiscation, if all that is baloney, then you are acknowledging that
the entire slate of democrats are intentional liars.

The rest of your statements are ridiculous conspiracy theories, reminiscent of the ones the democrats floated when Trump was elected in 2016:
He will bring on the worst depression since 1929 , (Paul Krugman), reality, best economy in 50 years.
He will start WWlll, reality, brokered historic peace accords, strengthened NATO by insisting European countries meet their obligations.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,657 Posts
As an outsider with some knowledge of the Revolution/War of Independence, i find it hard to reconcile the current interpretation of the 2nd Amdt. with that held at the earlier time.
IMO there is serious doubt that the State Assemblies or Committee's of Safety would countenance an unsupervised collection of individuals to comprise a Militia.
The preamble to the Amdt. does not favour the present view and the current interpretation is totally dependent on the verdicts handed down in more recent times by the Supreme Court.
Despite the political history of individual members of the Bench, there are many examples of Judges demonstrating their independence, which may not reflect previously held attitudes.
Certainly a time to be concerned for what the future holds.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
845 Posts
Discussion Starter #47
Staffy

That would make a good topic for another thread to discuss different interpretations of the 2nd Amendment. Thanks for posting but let’s not drag this thread off topic.
 

·
Diamond with Oak Clusters Bullet Member
Joined
·
57,548 Posts
As an outsider with some knowledge of the Revolution/War of Independence, i find it hard to reconcile the current interpretation of the 2nd Amdt. with that held at the earlier time.
IMO there is serious doubt that the State Assemblies or Committee's of Safety would countenance an unsupervised collection of individuals to comprise a Militia.
The preamble to the Amdt. does not favour the present view and the current interpretation is totally dependent on the verdicts handed down in more recent times by the Supreme Court.
Despite the political history of individual members of the Bench, there are many examples of Judges demonstrating their independence, which may not reflect previously held attitudes.
Certainly a time to be concerned for what the future holds.
That also applies to the freedom of the press. Back then printing presses were used. Today, the media outlets (eg CNN, etc) do not have printing presses.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,806 Posts
As an outsider with some knowledge of the Revolution/War of Independence, i find it hard to reconcile the current interpretation of the 2nd Amdt. with that held at the earlier time.
IMO there is serious doubt that the State Assemblies or Committee's of Safety would countenance an unsupervised collection of individuals to comprise a Militia.
The preamble to the Amdt. does not favour the present view and the current interpretation is totally dependent on the verdicts handed down in more recent times by the Supreme Court.
Despite the political history of individual members of the Bench, there are many examples of Judges demonstrating their independence, which may not reflect previously held attitudes.
Certainly a time to be concerned for what the future holds.
Perhaps you should take a look at what the people who wrote the Constitution actually said.

https://thefederalistpapers.org/us/the-founding-fathers-explain-the-second-amendment-this-says-it-all
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,657 Posts
I have read considerably from original accounts, the latest being the correspondence, during the War, between Ebenezer Hazard and Jeremy Belknap, together their correspondents.
It is interesting how the original aims and aspirations during and immediately after the war morphed into something quite different.
Still, an interesting period of history and perhaps the post should go elsewhere, although the question of interpretation of the Amdt. is likely to become a hot topic depending on the results of November.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,629 Posts
That also applies to the freedom of the press. Back then printing presses were used. Today, the media outlets (eg CNN, etc) do not have printing presses.

That is the primary purpose of the Supreme Court, to ensure that the constitution is followed during times of technological upheaval. The internet is one such upheaval. Problem is sometimes they try to change the meaning of the constitution instead of adhere to it. Nowhere is this worse than the second amendment.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,143 Posts
That is the primary purpose of the Supreme Court, to ensure that the constitution is followed during times of technological upheaval. The internet is one such upheaval. Problem is sometimes they try to change the meaning of the constitution instead of adhere to it. Nowhere is this worse than the second amendment.
The fact that SCOTUS has refused to hear several cases involving the 2nd amendment, and instead , referred them back to the appellate court, is troubling . John Roberts has been exceptionally disappointing in that regard as well as some of his decisions on other matters.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
845 Posts
Discussion Starter #53
The fact that SCOTUS has refused to hear several cases involving the 2nd amendment, and instead , referred them back to the appellate court, is troubling . John Roberts has been exceptionally disappointing in that regard as well as some of his decisions on other matters.
IMHO, the SCOTUS is carefully choosing the cases in order to clarify the 2nd Amendment. They have already expressed displeasure at how some of the lower courts have played loosely with their interpretations of the 2nd Amendment which Heller clarified.

In a 5–4 ruling issued on June 26, the Supreme Court affirmed the appellate court’s ruling. In so doing, it endorsed the so-called “individual-right” theory of the Second Amendment’s meaning and rejected a rival interpretation, the “collective-right” theory, according to which the amendment protects a collective right of states to maintain militias or an individual right to keep and bear arms in connection with service in a militia.
The majority held that the Second Amendment’s preamble, “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,” is consistent with this interpretation when understood in light of the framers’ belief that the most effective way to destroy a citizens’ militia was to disarm the citizens.
Finally, the court held that, because the framers understood the right of self-defense to be “the central component” of the right to keep and bear arms, the Second Amendment implicitly protects the right “to use arms in defense of hearth and home.”
https://www.britannica.com/event/District-of-Columbia-v-Heller


The central component in the "Individual Right" of our 2nd Amendment is "Defense from Tyranny". That is noted by the SCOTUS and part of the "Individual Right" and is considered the "Standard Legal Model".

But under the Standard Model approach it is fair to say that the Framers divided power yet another way, by ensuring that the citizenry possessed sufficient military power to offset that of the Federal government.
https://guncite.com/journals/reycrit.html
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
6,061 Posts
That appears to be a great article for everyone here to read davidsog. Very well written. I look forward to pursuing more of it when I get the time.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,122 Posts
Well first let stop calling them assault weapons. That and much stupid advertising by manufacturers helped bring the publics eye out for them.

Second, good ole Ruth Bader Ginsburg just dies, bless her soul. If they can get another justice in there there will never ever be a ban.

Also the ban was on sales. Mine will skyrocket in price as they did before. I'm gonna make a killin.

Third, the stock market is not how well the real economy is doing, thats just for rich people.
 

·
Diamond with Oak Clusters Bullet Member
Joined
·
57,548 Posts
Well first let stop calling them assault weapons. That and much stupid advertising by manufacturers helped bring the publics eye out for them.

Second, good ole Ruth Bader Ginsburg just dies, bless her soul. If they can get another justice in there there will never ever be a ban.

Also the ban was on sales. Mine will skyrocket in price as they did before. I'm gonna make a killin.

Third, the stock market is not how well the real economy is doing, thats just for rich people.
True - if you sell them.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,143 Posts
Well first let stop calling them assault weapons. That and much stupid advertising by manufacturers helped bring the publics eye out for them.

Second, good ole Ruth Bader Ginsburg just dies, bless her soul. If they can get another justice in there there will never ever be a ban.

Also the ban was on sales. Mine will skyrocket in price as they did before. I'm gonna make a killin.

Third, the stock market is not how well the real economy is doing, thats just for rich people.
It was your Democrat buddies that called "semi automatic versions of military rifles, "Assault Weapons" !! It happened in commiefornia when the proposed their "Assault Weapons Bill, Roos/ Roberti" Once they passed it, the guns took on a new name . I refuse to use it and just say "GUN" .
The stock market is for people with 401k's that depend on them for income after retirement . You comment shows the limit of your knowledge !! Ross , IRA and others , all depend on stocks depending on how you invest . SS doesn't do it anymore . You must be on a government pension that the rest of us slobs pay for. Otherwise you'd know better.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,806 Posts
Well first let stop calling them assault weapons. That and much stupid advertising by manufacturers helped bring the publics eye out for them.

Second, good ole Ruth Bader Ginsburg just dies, bless her soul. If they can get another justice in there there will never ever be a ban.

Also the ban was on sales. Mine will skyrocket in price as they did before. I'm gonna make a killin.

Third, the stock market is not how well the real economy is doing, thats just for rich people.
I am not sure what you consider the "real economy", but a 50 year low in unemployment helps a lot of people that are not "rich".
If you have a 401K, or an IRA or if your employer or union provides you a pension, you are in the stock market, that is the majority of American adults.
As for Justice Ginsburg, may she RIP.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,228 Posts
Well first let stop calling them assault weapons.
I totally agree....any weapon used to assault someone is classified as 'assault weapon" and further, I hate "assault rifles".....because its NOT an "assault rifle" they should be called "transvestite rifles".

Because to be classified as 'assault rifles", by definition, they have to have fully automatic capability's....

.......you know when you lift up the skirt and all the important parts are very much wrong....
 
41 - 60 of 74 Posts
Top