The Federal Assault Weapons Ban

MrJim · Jan 17, 2009

Fish and Bread said:
I don't think there is any need for anyone to have their own personal Uzi for hunting or basic self-defense. A handgun or a rifle seems sufficient to me, in both scenarios. You only really need an Uzi if you're a gangster or a mobster, which aren't particular legal uses for weaponry.

Now, I'm sure there are a few more examples like the ones in the original post of things that, at least to the naked eye, seems kind of borderline to be banning, but, for the most part, what the Federal Assault Weapons Ban addresses is assault weapons, which should be banned.

I'd like to see anyone make the case that they "need" a machine gun. It doesn't seem very sporting to be mowing down deer or pheasants with an automatic weapon, and a handgun should be able to take care of a burglar adequately in most cases.

Full-Autos are too expensive~the real squirtgun enthusiasts (legal) are rather well-to-do folks that can pay for all that ammo and the cost of the weapons..

AMDG · Jan 17, 2009

Fantine said:
Bible quotes for peace--New Testament:...

The Bible can be used to show approval for anything. Here's a quote from Joel 3:10 "Beat your plowshares into swords, and your pruninghooks into spears: let the weak say, I am strong." (And we know that a strongman will not be attacked, but one who looks weak invites attack and guarantees that there will not be peace.)

You know the Church doesn't say that we should not protect ourselves.

Romans 13:3 · Jan 17, 2009

It is a testament to modern society that only a small minority is needed to project the majority. Fantine, I would respectfully request that you read this:
http://www.killology.com/sheep_dog.htm

Romans 13:3 · Jan 17, 2009

And yes, I carry a gun to mass

isshinwhat · Jan 17, 2009

I saw LtCol Grossman speak... Wow... Excellent perspective and profound insight.

"And the wolves will learn what we’ve shown before;
We love our sheep, we Dogs of War."
--Russ Vaughn, 2d Bn, 327th Parachute Infantry Regiment, 101st Airborne Division
Vietnam 65-66

I don't think it is appropriate to joke about the overthrow of the our government. The point, I believe, is that with an armed citizenry we are able to defend our communities as well as ourselves. Well meaning people can differ on what type of restrictions might be appropriate to weapon possession, but an out right ban is a difficult thing to accept.

I was raised in a rural community where the response time for the police was near one hour if they weren't busy; we needed to be in a position to take care of ourselves and our neighbors if warranted. I agree with your statement about government overthrow, as well. Our forefathers left us with a precious gift in our Constitution, and I'm proud to live in a country where I do not feel the need to even ponder a violent uprising against my government. Pro Deo et Patria!

Romans 13:3 · Jan 17, 2009

I had the opportunity to spend a day with LtC Grossman a short time after the Blesdan school massacre. It was a conference for Hostage/Crisis Negotiators. It was probably the best lecture I had ever heard. Getting a better understanding of the physiology of combat was very good.

WarriorAngel · Jan 17, 2009

CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Civil AuthoritySuch a people would scarce require any government. ... If he violates the constitution, he forfeits his authority and the people may cast him out. ...
www.newadvent.org/cathen/02137c.htm

Right of revolution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopediaDec 19, 2008 ... Connecticut's 1818 constitution articulated the people's right "at all times" to alter government "in such a manner as they may think ...

In political philosophy, the right of revolution (or right of rebellion) is a right or duty, variously stated throughout history, possessed by subjects of a state that justifies their action to overthrow the government to whom the subjects otherwise would owe allegiance.

Doctrines of the right of revolution differ on several dimensions:

Whether the right is owned and exercised individually or collectively.
Whether the acquisition of a right to cast off a government also creates a duty to do so.
Whether the right is subject to restrictive conditions before it becomes effective, such as that the right exists only in the face of tyrannical government.
Whether the right is a result of natural law or of positive law.

2 Use in History
3 Whether The Right Of Revolution Is An Individual Or Collective Right
4 Duty versus Right
5 Preconditions to The Right of Revolution
6 Natural Law or Positive Law
7 Examples Of The Right Of Revolution as Positive Law
8 An End To The Right Of Revolution In Positive Law
9 See also
10 References
11 External links

Just some thots. Its a right.
And in time - i am certain Obama will be after removal of the gun rights... in time.

InTheCloud · Jan 18, 2009

As a foreigner I find amusing who "liberal" (true XVIII century liberals would be rolling on their graves!) constitutional experts use the "living constitution" fallacy to destroy right expresily protected by the US Constitution while proclaiming "rights" that are not expresely protected by the Constitution like abortion rights.

The comming bust from Obama to that school of "schorlaship" in the US judiciary is going to be the most enduring damage of a Obama presidency.

And yes, I carry my small S&W 38spl to mass regurlarly. I'm just came form a wedding and my .38 is with me.

don't think there is any need for anyone to have their own personal Uzi for hunting or basic self-defense. A handgun or a rifle seems sufficient to me, in both scenarios. You only really need an Uzi if you're a gangster or a mobster, which aren't particular legal uses for weaponry.

I think that a semiauto only UZI or better a MP 5 will be a better home defense gun than a handgun (easier to shot well) and than a shotgun (less recoil and blast) or a hunting rifle (deafening blast indoors, to much penetration) if the person is small or for most women.

There is a legitimate use for those guns.

Fish and Bread · Jan 18, 2009

Don5925 said:
What in the world are you talking about? Last I knew, warrants were still needed?

The government now conducts warrantless wiretaps of telephone and Internet communications. The Bush administration started doing it years ago, but I have to admit that even Obama voted for the thing later on and I refuse to defend him on that one (Even though I generally like the guy). It's a clear violation of the 4th amendment. Granted, one has to read between the lines and figure out how to apply to modern technology, but I don't think it's a stretch to make the connection that a wiretap is a search.

Caedmon · Jan 18, 2009

isshinwhat said:
What's the difference between this gun:

And this one?

The top one is not banned and the bottom one was, because of a 10 vs 12 round magazine.

The one on bottom will have two more unfired rounds left over at the end of an incident than the one on top will (unless fired at a gun range).

Or this rifle which would have been banned:

And this one?

The top one would have been banned, even though it holds the same number of a smaller caliber bullet and fires that smaller bullet less accurately...

The one on top looks scarier.

Caedmon · Jan 18, 2009

I think any law-abiding citizen should be allowed to own and operate any non-fully-automatic firearm, barring explosive rounds, like grenades and RPGs. And I don't think you absolutely have to use them for hunting or home defense. If I owned a firearm, I would probably use it for enjoyment of the skill and sport of marksmanship.

And if owning and operating a firearm for legal purposes violates the teachings of Jesus, then shooting a deer and eating the flesh and shooting a home invader before he harms you or your loved ones would be sins of grave matter.

jukesk9 · Jan 18, 2009

isshinwhat said:
Jukes, Buddy!!! How in the world are you?

Doin' fine! Thanks for asking. It's been a looooooooooong time since I've been on. Kind of took a hiatus from message boards for one reason or another but gonna try to lurk back around from time to time.

MarkRohfrietsch · Jan 18, 2009

Friends,

Up here in Canada we have had such laws for a number of years.

Fire arms were re-designated into three categories.

Non-restricted (but we still have to register them) which includes black powder canon of any cal.

Restricted: All hand guns, long guns with barrels shorter than 18 1/2", semi automatic assault rifles with detachable magazines.

Prohibited: All hand guns with a barrel shorter than 5", hand guns with large magazine capacity (I think it's more than 8)(semi .22 rimfire with large capacity are exempt from the prohibited rule), full auto of any kind, and destructive devices; grenade launchers, rpgs, all fire arms that use cartridges .50 cal. or larger.
If your house is within 30' of another house, you can no longer home-load ammo in your house either.

I have both long guns and hand guns. Prior to the new laws, all hand guns had to be registered.

One hand gun that I own, a FN .32 semi, has a short barrel and was re-designated "Prohibited". Because I owned it before the new law, I got grandfathered in, and my "Possesion Permit" came back at the highest level, allowing ownership of prohibited weapons. If I took the class, and wrote the exam and got the "Firearms Acquisition Certificate", I would be legaly entitled to buy more prohibited weapons.

No new Prohibited permits are being issued, except to musems.

Now, if I want to still hunt or target shoot I can.

What the law has done that I do not like, is it has instilled such a stigma and fobia to firearms in those who have not used them.

I now feel almost guilty every time I take out a legal firearm, legally cased, to hunt or shoot. I hide it with a coat or blanket when I carry it out to the truck, because the mere sight of it scares the poop out of my neighbors.

The result is that I don't take them out much any more.

This would seem to be the best case. Total prohibition, like in England would be the worst.

I hope and pray that you can fend off laws of this type. Guns are Fun!

Your sporting friend,

Mark

Romans 13:3 · Jan 18, 2009

Fish and Bread said:
The government now conducts warrantless wiretaps of telephone and Internet communications. The Bush administration started doing it years ago, but I have to admit that even Obama voted for the thing later on and I refuse to defend him on that one (Even though I generally like the guy). It's a clear violation of the 4th amendment. Granted, one has to read between the lines and figure out how to apply to modern technology, but I don't think it's a stretch to make the connection that a wiretap is a search.

No, a wiretap is a search. But the wiretaps you write about deal only with national security issues with an overseas nexus. A criminal wiretap requires a warrant from either a state or federal judge demonstrating probable cause. The FISA warrants are still warrants but their application is a bit different.

isshinwhat · Jan 18, 2009

Caedmon said:
The one on bottom will have two more unfired rounds left over at the end of an incident than the one on top will (unless fired at a gun range).
The one on top looks scarier.

Thanks, Joe.

isshinwhat · Jan 18, 2009

Doin' fine! Thanks for asking. It's been a looooooooooong time since I've been on. Kind of took a hiatus from message boards for one reason or another but gonna try to lurk back around from time to time.

I don't get in here too much anymore, myself. It's real good to hear from you.

ProCommunioneFacior · Jan 19, 2009

isshinwhat said:
I don't get in here too much anymore, myself. It's real good to hear from you.

Good thread Neal and I couldn't agree with you more.

I am not a gun owner, but I have been looking at some guns studying up on the issue to see what guns will be a good fit for me and my needs. So I'll probably be a gun owner sometime in the next few years.

MarkRohfrietsch · Jan 19, 2009

ProCommunioneFacior said:
Good thread Neal and I couldn't agree with you more.

I am not a gun owner, but I have been looking at some guns studying up on the issue to see what guns will be a good fit for me and my needs. So I'll probably be a gun owner sometime in the next few years.

What are your needs? Most of us gun owners are more than glad to offer advice, as we all have our preferences!

ProCommunioneFacior · Jan 19, 2009

MarkRohfrietsch said:
What are your needs? Most of us gun owners are more than glad to offer advice, as we all have our preferences!

First, I would like to have something for home defense while living in the city.

I currently live in the city but in 5-10 years time I plan on living a rural agricultural life and go hunting. Therefore I would probably need a hunting rifle or two.

Also I'm not sure but do you think it would be useful to have something that I could carry in a holster for times I am out working in the fields (later on)or taking children out on hikes or something where if I were to encounter a hostile animal that could take care of the job.

isshinwhat · Jan 19, 2009

Remington's 700 series rifles are a good start for a long gun. I like the .308 because the ammunition is fairly inexpensive and readily available, it's accurate, as well as good for taking down deer and other medium sized game at both short and longer ranges.

http://www.remington.com/products/firearms/centerfire_rifles/model_700/

As for handguns, opinions will vary in number according to how many people you ask.

A 9mm won't kick as bad, but a .40 S&W or .45 Auto are generally accepted to have greater stopping potential. I would suggest going to the nearest gun range that will allow you to rent pistols and see which one fits you best, which safety features you are most comfortable with, and balance and weight are issues to consider, as well. A Glock 27 will be more comfortable to carry than a SIG 229, whether in town or on a hike... But I like my SIG better... To each his own.

Popular models available in multiple calibers are:

http://www.sigsauer.com/Products/ShowCatalogProduct.aspx?categoryid=54

http://www.springfield-armory.com/xd.php

http://www.smith-wesson.com/webapp/...angId=-1&parent_category_rn=15711&isFirearm=Y

http://www.glock.com/english/index_pistols.htm

http://www.hk-usa.com/p2000_general.html

The venerable 1911 has been around for nearly 100 years and is still hard to beat. Kimbers are great, but expensive: Springfield, Smith and Wesson, and Para-Ordnance are also great handguns.

http://www.kimberamerica.com/pistols/compactprocarry/pro_tle_II/

I just linked to a few different models, but each company has many models in many calibers and sizes. Some like the SIG 250 are easy to change between calibers... But in the end, get thee to a range, ask for their assistance/instruction, and shoot some different handguns to see what you like. After that, find a reputable firearms instructor and take yourself and your new handgun to a few classes... Then stay familiar with your firearm!

The Federal Assault Weapons Ban

Legend 3/17/05

Tenderized for Christ

Newbie

Newbie

Pro Deo et Patria

Newbie

I close my eyes and see you smile

Veteran

Dona nobis pacem

kawaii

kawaii

Dixie Whistlin' Papist

Unapologetic Apologist

Newbie

Pro Deo et Patria

Pro Deo et Patria

I'm an ultra-traditionalist, run for your life ;)

Unapologetic Apologist

I'm an ultra-traditionalist, run for your life ;)

Pro Deo et Patria

Similar threads