A question of trust of fellow citizens

Here is Reagan on guns:

http://www.snopes.com/politics/guns/reaganak47.asp

http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/ronald-reagan-helped-pass-the-1994-assault-weapons-ban/

And this:

"Before the National Rifle Association became what it was today, Reagan worked with them to ban guns. Specifically, automatic weapons: civilians were legally allowed to own fully automatic rifles until 1986, when Reagan signed the Firearm Owners’ Protection Act banning them. After his Presidency, Reagan backed the Brady gun law establishing many of the major restrictions on gun purchases today. His support for the 1994 Assault Weapon Ban pushed the ban to its two vote margin of victory — according to two of the Congressmen who made the difference."

http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2014/02/06/3258121/reasons-tea-party-hated-ronald-reagan/

 

I'll see your thinkprogress and raise you the ATF's own (*)(*)(*)(*)ing website. https://www.atf.gov/qa-category/national-firearms-act-nfa

Here's a website for a store that caters to Class 3's. Look what they've got for sale: http://westernfirearms.com/wfc/autos?sz=800x600
http://westernfirearms.com/wfc/other?sz=800x600

 

And boy its a good thing we got that law passed!

I mean the US was experiencing massive problems with automatic weapons right?

No.

Since 1934, there have been TWO uses of automatic weapons in crimes. One of them was a Police officer, so he doesn't really count, as he would have access either way.

How much money was spent passing a law that had one violation in 52 years (when the law was passed)?

 

They have no trust of their fellow man. That's the problem. They fully believe that, unless government FORCES people to be good, that people will choose to be bad. This was made clear to me during the 'gay wedding cake' threads. They fully believe that unless government FORCES businesses to not discriminate, that the majority of businesses would immediately post 'no gays' or 'no blacks' signs and we would immediately return to Jim Crow. I can't understand that mindset. It's as if they think the default mindset is evil, and that the only thing that can counter that is government.

 

The advantage to being old is that you can remember the good old days.

In the 1980s (before Reagan) you could go to the grocery store and buy an issue of Firepower. Each month they would include the instructions for converting two different weapons to full auto. Today, such a mere conversation about the process is a felony.

You claim we have so much, but the $200 Polytech AK is over $1200! The MAC 10 is history; you wouldn't even know what a Manville gun is (yeah, cheat a little and use the Internet to pretend you knew.)

The government takes away a Right, then allows it to come back minus a few firearms and adding more bureaucracy in its place. Know this: What you have is not nowhere near what the people of my generation had a couple of decades ago.

 

No (*)(*)(*)(*) sherlock. You said they were BANNED. They are not BANNED they are HEAVILY REGULATED AND TAXED.

I was quibbling with your use of language that doesn't mean what you think it means not with the fact that we can't order machineguns from the sears catalog anymore because polio didn't do a good enough job on FDR or that machineguns are harder to get because reagan was going senile.

 

I don't know what you're getting your boxers in a bunch over, but the bottom line is that many weapons of the 1980s are no longer available because they have been BANNED from future manufacture. Some, due to a bad marketing name were put out of business (the "Street Sweeper comes to mind.)

Both the Ds and the Rs participated in the destruction of our Rights. But, any way you slice it, many weapons have been BANNED... the .45 automatic from Norinco... BANNED from future importation... open bolt weapons, BANNED from future production. When I say the word BANNED, it means that the firearms are BANNED. When the existing supply is exhausted, there are no more.

If you could see a copy of Shotgun News from the 1980s, it was TWICE the size of the current issues. The new belt fed M 60 that fetches $80,000 today was selling for $3500 or so when I was interested in them. By contrast the M1 Garand costs about the same as they did in the 1980s.

 

If they were BANNED you wouldn't be able to possess them at all. You can still possess them and transfer them. And repair them. That's not a ban. Nuance matters in use of language.

 

In the good old days you could buy coke wth cocaine
You could buy dynamite and blasting caps
You coud buy morphine and heroin
There was no income tax
You did not need a passport
Or a drivers license
Etc etc etc

 

You guys are splitting hairs really.

Post '86 guns are banned, but not all select fire weapons are banned.

Remember that there are people who think it's not a "ban" as long as rubber band guns are still legal.

 

People don't seem to realise a few things:

1) Just how effective a self-loading handgun actually is - DA revolvers included. If a mass shooter is given a choice between a semi-automatic handgun and any "assault weapon" they like, 9 times out of 10 they'll pick the handgun - it's concealable (90% of the weighting criminals use), it's got a high rate of fire, they have easily detachable magazines, etc. Just as the Virginia Tech shooter - a handgun is all you need. It's a superior choice than the select fire rifle.

2) How comically easy it is to get a black market firearm if you so desire. Guns are (*)(*)(*)(*)ing everywhere. Cannabis dealers have handguns. They are common as (*)(*)(*)(*) in the criminal community, even in prohibitionist countries like Aus/UK.

3) Just how little gun control actually does to cut the gun homicide rate. All of their measures do practically nothing: banning CCW, banning self-loading rifles, banning detachable magazines over 10rds capacity, etc - the sum of everything they've implemented targets maybe 10% of gun homicides.

4) Just how much we've lost our heads on this issue. If we applied the same reasoning to any other area of the economy people would be up in arms (no pun intended).

 

Are you implying all of that is a bad thing?

Coke was discovered because of a cocaine based prescription drug

My father used to buy dynamite and caps in order to blast rocks when digging wells. I never saw any harm in us being able to do so

The income tax was illegally ratified and it is unconstitutional, immoral, illegal, indefensible, unnecessary, and unconscionable

I long for the days when we could utilize our Right to travel and not need a driver's license, passport, etc.

None of it has squat to do with gun control (for the most part), but the Right to Life that culminates in the Right of individual protection is an unalienable Right that the government has no de jure (that is legal) authority to infringe upon.

 

We are always downsizing our ability to defend ourselves; always participating in the incremental steps toward the elimination of firearms; always undermining the ability of the citizen to insure the security of a free State. A wise man once said that those who would trade essential Liberty for the promise of temporary Safety deserves neither Liberty nor Safety.

 

Post '86 otherwise class 3s are indeed banned. But that's not what he said. He said "machineguns" which are certainly not banned just regulated to within an inch of life.

 

From your response, your views are clear
And you are entitled to them
Unfortunately having dynamite and blasting caps on the shelf at walmart has some downsides
Which many people think out weigh the upside of your liberty of blasting out tree stumps
When the mood strikes you

Perhaps you can fnd another country with such liberty
off hand, i am not aware of any countries that meet your requirements

But the discussion does raise a related issue
Why is it that things have changed in this country?

Some might propose all sorts of nefarious reasons
Imo, the changes are largely related to the fact that there are inherent differences
Between three or four families living in a vast wilderness vs those same tree or four families living in a suburban neighborhood, vs those same three or four families living in manhattan.
As population density increases there are more things that need to be regulated
If you live in manhattan it does not work well for people to throw their trash out back and burn it
Or to dig an outhouse for those needs, or to go out front and test out your new fire arm on a few bottles,
Or for that matter to take some dynamite to an old tree stump

 

I guess if you enjoy semantics, you have a point. However, when good ol' George Bush got rid of semi - automatic imports, he called it a ban. Who are we to argue?

The weapons cannot be "banned" by your definition because the Constitution prohibits ex post facto laws. But, ex post facto laws aside, the guy who cannot get a MAC 10 or a XM18 cannot get them because they were banned from future manufacture / importation. When you don't have it, that's what really matters.

 

While what you say has a little merit, you should note that even in remote areas where you don't have the disadvantage of population density, there are a myriad of laws that don't allow you live freely - and for no justifiable reason.

"Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!' - Isaiah 5:20

 

I do enjoy semantics. I blame law school being on break for a semester. Usually I work it out of my system there, but on break I inflict it upon yall.

A ban on future IMPORTATION sure. Not a ban on those arms entire.

 

What possible difference can the semantics possibly make when the objective is that every man be armed?

"The great object is that every man be armed." Patrick Henry

 

The most recent mass killing and the talking points from the last in its wake are very telling.
"Don't judge all Muslims by the actions of a few" and "All gun owners are a threat and we should severely restrict gun ownership".
SO stereotype gun owners, but not Muslims?

 

Because when you're wrong on a technicality the graboids concentrate on that to discredit you and it works on the rubes. I like seeing the arguments only able to be attacked on substance.

Plus as stated I'm bored as (*)(*)(*)(*).

 

and how exactly are gun sellers supposed to know who is a felon and who is an honest & law abiding citizen??????

that's right, background checks. Which you OPPOSE!!!!

 

MOD EDIT - Rule 3

http://www.potowmack.org/emerappi.html#pathen

 

A felon would be in a prison, and a law abiding citizen would not be in a prison.

 

most felonies don't have life prison terms.