Seems to me, a well regulated Militia needs assault weapons and not muzzle loaders.

Discussion in 'Gun Control' started by slackercruster, Jan 6, 2013.

  1. Rucker61

    Rucker61 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2016
    Messages:
    9,774
    Likes Received:
    4,103
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Ah, full registration of all firearms. New York and Connecticut have registration laws with about 15% compliance, and those are blue states. What compliance rate can we expect for the rest of the states?

    We already know what the compliance rate of criminals will be - zero. They can't even be charged with failure to register their illegally possessed guns.
     
  2. Logician0311

    Logician0311 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 8, 2013
    Messages:
    5,677
    Likes Received:
    32
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Gender:
    Male
    That's valid. Issues we have today would not be resolved tomorrow, but they would diminish over time. How is this improvement not beneficial?

    The easier it is to commit a crime, the more likely that crime is to be committed. Currently, straw purchasers do not have to go to the trouble of staging a crime scene, attracting attention to themselves by falsifying police reports, etc.
    That being said, I would agree that encouraging safe storage to minimize thefts would be ideal... Far too many folks leave firearms laying around like fashion accessories and have them stolen - ironically the same folks who insist that firearms protect them from criminal activity.
     
  3. Logician0311

    Logician0311 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 8, 2013
    Messages:
    5,677
    Likes Received:
    32
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Gender:
    Male
    In the current system, the illegal avenue of a straw purchase carries negligible (if any) risk of being identified. That makes it a viable option.
     
  4. Rucker61

    Rucker61 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2016
    Messages:
    9,774
    Likes Received:
    4,103
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Because no one will register their guns. Without that database UBCS are useless. Failure to register is a charge that can only be levied against the non-violent gun owners. It's also illegal according to federal law, and hasn't been shown that to be an effective crime solving activity anywhere. Why not give gun owners access to NICS, so they can screen out prohibited buyers?
    Straw purchasers don't have to do anything, as they aren't effectively prosecuted. Jalita Johnson straw purchased a gun that was used to murder a policewoman. She got probation. Daytron Mills was found guilty of over two dozen straw purchases. He got probation.

    Have you figured out that UBCs aren't directed at straw purchasing yet?
     
  5. Logician0311

    Logician0311 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 8, 2013
    Messages:
    5,677
    Likes Received:
    32
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Gender:
    Male
    Wait, weren't you just the one talking about how gun owners will sell firearms to criminals and report them stolen?! Now you're suggesting that these same folks will screen prohibited buyers on their own? That seems to be a contradiction.

    Cherry picking individual cases does not lend credibility to your position, nor does the circular logic of supporting a standard that makes straw purchase laws unenforceable, then complaining that straw purchase laws are unenforced.
     
  6. Rucker61

    Rucker61 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2016
    Messages:
    9,774
    Likes Received:
    4,103
    Trophy Points:
    113
    No, that was not I. We have a UBC law in Colorado, and law abiding citizens follow the law even though it is unenforceable and costs up to $50 to remain in compliance. We do know that it isn't enforceable and that criminals aren't taking their clients to the local FFL to transfer a firearm neither of them has the right to own. I'd be willing to bet that guns are transferred between friends without the payment to CBI or with any accompanying paperwork, and those transfers represent no danger to the community.

    I didn't implement a straw purchase law, and therefore cannot be held responsible for its enforceability. The Democrats and a liberal SCOTUS did implement the Brady Act in 1993, designed to protect us from criminals getting guns. Google "Brady Act Enforcement 2010" to see how well the felony of attempting to purchase a firearm as a prohibited person is currently enforced. Here's the tl;dr sysnopsis. 34k felons were identified trying to buy a gun from an FFL, lying on the Form 4473 to do so, a felony. Another 20k prohibited persons were identified committing the same crime. Identification was through the Form 4473, with name, address and phone number of the felon. That's 54k felons identified trying to buy a gun.

    13 (13!) were found guilty and presumably incarcerated. 13 out of 54 thousand. How many of the remain 54k felons used a straw buyer, illegal street dealer or theft to acquire the gun they wanted, and then committed a violent crime?

    Don't even think about UBCs or registration, which only affect law abiding citizens, when actual felons aren't arrested and incarcerated.
     
  7. Xenamnes

    Xenamnes Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2015
    Messages:
    23,895
    Likes Received:
    7,537
    Trophy Points:
    113
    It is not beneficial because it is unenforceable due to the sheer scope of the number of firearms that the federal government would be tasked with accounting for. Three hundred to five hundred million currently, with forty one thousand more being added daily. That is more firearms in the united states than there are people, and that number is only going to increase significantly. The amount is simply too great to keep track of in a reliable fashion.

    Because even when they are found out, they are almost never prosecuted, even when there is sufficient evidence to warrant such.

    Police officers are among those that leave firearms unsecured, and have them stolen as a result.

    - - - Updated - - -

    The risk of being prosecuted, never mind actually convicted, is even more negligible even when one has been identified.
     
  8. Mr_Truth

    Mr_Truth Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 23, 2012
    Messages:
    33,372
    Likes Received:
    36,882
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male








    A thought occurred to me - some right wingers on this forum believe the USA should intervene in foreign wars. If that's the case, then they should take up weapons and intrude upon the streets of Chicago to stop all disorder there. Heck, why wait for someone else to do it? These people should just get armed and march in.


    OK forum right wingers - let's roll.
     
  9. TOG 6

    TOG 6 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2015
    Messages:
    47,848
    Likes Received:
    19,638
    Trophy Points:
    113
    It is illegal for a criminal to purchase or possess a firearm -- that is, they are banned from doing so.
    How do you make full prohibition "more difficult"?

    Universal background checks will do nothing to quell straw purchases.
     
  10. TOG 6

    TOG 6 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2015
    Messages:
    47,848
    Likes Received:
    19,638
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The state has no standing to grant a license for the basic exercise of a right.
     
  11. Colonel K

    Colonel K Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2010
    Messages:
    9,770
    Likes Received:
    556
    Trophy Points:
    113
    They will if the gun is regstered to an individual, like a car.
     
  12. Rucker61

    Rucker61 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2016
    Messages:
    9,774
    Likes Received:
    4,103
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Straw purchasers buy tens of thousands of guns from FFLs, with their name and the serial number of the firearm linked on the Form 4473, then transfer that gun to a criminal. That's exactly the same linkage that a registry would provide. That "registration" doesn't seem to impede straw purchases at all.

    Getting every single gun in the US registered is a pipe dream, anyway. It will never happen.
     
  13. TOG 6

    TOG 6 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2015
    Messages:
    47,848
    Likes Received:
    19,638
    Trophy Points:
    113
    And there we have it... UBC as a stepping stone to universal registration.
    No one wonders why you want universal registration.
     
  14. BryanVa

    BryanVa Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2015
    Messages:
    451
    Likes Received:
    354
    Trophy Points:
    63
    I don’t believe your system would work or be enforceable.

    But sometimes I think we get so caught up in trying to do something we forget to look at whether we can do it—that is—would the action we want to take be constitutional. Universal registration as a precondition imposed on the possession of any firearm tends to fall in this category. For those who want to impose it, I ask you to consider the following case (striking down a registration requirement for the exercise of 1st Amendment rights):

    “If the exercise of the rights of free speech and free assembly cannot be made a crime, we do not think this can be accomplished by the device of requiring previous registration as a condition for exercising them and making such a condition the foundation for restraining in advance their exercise and for imposing a penalty for violating such a restraining order. So long as no more is involved than exercise of the rights of free speech and free assembly, it is immune to such a restriction. If one who solicits support for the cause of labor may be required to register as a condition to the exercise of his right to make a public speech, so may he who seeks to rally support for any social, business, religious or political cause. We think a requirement that one must register before he undertakes to make a public speech to enlist support for a lawful movement is quite incompatible with the requirements of the First AmendmentWatchtower Bible & Tract Soc. of N. Y., Inc. v. Village of Stratton, 536 U.S. 150, 164 (2002). (Note: This opinion was written by the chief dissenter in Heller, Justice Stevens. Additionally, 2 other Heller dissenters, Ginsburg and Breyer, also joined this opinion….)

    So, if you want registration as a condition for the RKBA (and whether you call it “registration” or “licensing” is of no consequence), then give me your answer when I quote this case to say:

    “If the exercise of the right to keep and bear arms cannot be made a crime, we do not think this can be accomplished by the device of requiring previous registration as a condition for exercising them and making such a condition the foundation for restraining in advance their exercise and for imposing a penalty for violating such a restraining order. So long as no more is involved than exercise of the right to keep and bear arms, it is immune to such a restriction.” (bold being the substituted language)

    So draw me the distinction between the two. Tell me how universal registration of firearms would be constitutional according to the above case.
     
  15. Maccabee

    Maccabee Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2016
    Messages:
    8,901
    Likes Received:
    1,062
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Without registration and inspection I can sell to you without the law ever knowing. All I have to say IF they were able to trace it back to me is "I sold it to Jim Bob who I trusted and he sold it to someone else." There's no way to track the hands in between.
     
  16. Maccabee

    Maccabee Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2016
    Messages:
    8,901
    Likes Received:
    1,062
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    I'm not those posters. Please stick on topic.
     
  17. Mr_Truth

    Mr_Truth Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 23, 2012
    Messages:
    33,372
    Likes Received:
    36,882
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male



    I am on topic by affirming the need for and use of assault weapons. Now let's see the forum right wingers who have been calling for this all along actually stand up for principle and utilize such weaponry.

    OK right wingers - out up or shut up.
     
  18. Moonglow

    Moonglow Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 19, 2013
    Messages:
    20,754
    Likes Received:
    8,047
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    I'd prefer a 105 self propelled howitzer and a grenade launcher for my militia..a couple of nukes would be kewl also..Make that a neutron bomb...
     
  19. Turtledude

    Turtledude Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2015
    Messages:
    30,274
    Likes Received:
    20,263
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    what exactly are you calling for?
     
  20. Mr_Truth

    Mr_Truth Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 23, 2012
    Messages:
    33,372
    Likes Received:
    36,882
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male




    Woops, sorry - mean to say "put up".


    Right wingers have repeatedly used this forum to assert that as free Americans you have the Constitutional right to keep and bear weapons. That this right extends to fending off government repression, self protection, and to solve social problems such as crimes. Recall how so many of you flew into a rage by blaming Democrats for the government stealing of weapons in New Orleans when, in fact, it was your hero traitor Bush who ordered the confiscation of weapons thereby taking away people's rights.

    You people have repeatedly filled this forum with such assertions about weapons. But you have failed to take actions that are consistent with the possession of such weaponry. By contrast, when I have defended the New Black Panther Party when it openly possessed weapons to protect people's rights some (not all) of you objected. Recall again (as I have stated previously) it was the old BPP that tried to stop the drug and gang menace. While it managed some initial success, it was stopped by traitor Reagan, the California state legislature, and by fascist J Edgar Hoover and other right wing traitors.

    Look at post # 193 above. It tells the truth. But it is a truth that is applicable to all, not just to privileged white suburbanites. It is time for the NBPP to assert itself with the endorsement and support of all the forum right wingers and other conservatives. That will stop the problems in Chicago and every other city in the USA by removing the police abuses and government intrusion which create and worsen the problem. If you are a true conservative you would readily agree.


    One last point, as I also mentioned earlier, "well regulated" meant well armed in the parlance used at the time of our Founding Fathers. Therefore, in these modern times the NBPP militia need high powered rifles, machine gun, bazookas, and Sherman tanks among other protective instruments.

    Agree?
     
  21. Rucker61

    Rucker61 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2016
    Messages:
    9,774
    Likes Received:
    4,103
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Och, laddie, the "No True Scotsman" fallacy. Well played.

    Congress is free, indeed they have the responsibility to outfit the militia as they see fit, including modern small arms, crew served automatic weapons, anti-tank weaponry and armored vehicles, and likely not the obsolete versions to which you repeatedly refer. The militia, which currently is defined under 10 USC 311, consists of all able bodied males age 17 to 44 inclusive who are not members of the National Guard or other military. Under the 14th Amendment Congress could likely extend membership to all able bodied females in the same age demographic, but until they are specifically included that is purely conjecture. These men are those required to be in the militia - we don't know how Congress would treat volunteers from outside the 17-44 able bodied male category. Once that militia is called out for training or active service Congress can give them whatever arms they'd wish to. They could perhaps, as they did in the 2nd Militia Act of 1792, require that each one purchase and maintain a suitable rifle with a minimum amount of ammunition. That would be interesting, as it isn't just the men who want to own guns that are in the militia, but every able bodied male age 17-44, including the anti-gun ones.

    That Congress has the power and the duty to equip the militia has no bearing on the arms that are available to individuals exercising their right to private ownership of arms. Since 1792, SCOTUS has defined what arms are protected from restriction by the federal (and later state) governments under Miller, Heller and McDonald: the federal government and the states could limit any weapon types not having a “reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia” and "the amendment protects an individual right to possess and carry firearms “in common use for lawful purposes”.

    In Shew v Malloy, the majority opinion, which actually did uphold the ban on "assault weapons" and "high capacity magazines" under consideration, did so after stating: "In the absence of clearer guidance from the Supreme Court or stronger evidence in the record, we follow the approach taken by the District Courts and by the D.C. Circuit in Heller II and assume for the sake of argument that these “commonly used” weapons and magazines are also “typically possessed by law‐abiding citizens for lawful purposes. In short, we proceed on the assumption that these laws ban weapons protected by the Second Amendment." Under a more conservative Court, that decision will likely be reviewed, and as the firearms in question aren't both "unusual" and "[especially] dangerous" I can see that ban, and similar ones, being overturned.
     
  22. TOG 6

    TOG 6 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2015
    Messages:
    47,848
    Likes Received:
    19,638
    Trophy Points:
    113
    This isn't just an assertion, it is settled law.

    Yes, yes and no.

    This is an unsupportable untruth.

    You proceed from false premises, illustrated above.
    Please free free to continue to do so.
     
  23. Capitalism

    Capitalism Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 24, 2014
    Messages:
    5,129
    Likes Received:
    786
    Trophy Points:
    113
    No, he didn't. Stop trying to rewrite history.

    I grew up with someone that served under Hitler, I still wear his ring everyday. Gun control like everything else in the 3rd Reich was extremely regulated. You had to go through extensive identification checks, reigistration, and proof of your capabilities with said weapon.

    You're probably one of those people that blamed the Koreans in 1992.

    [video]https://youtu.be/IwZpi8sTWz0[/video]
     
  24. Colonel K

    Colonel K Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2010
    Messages:
    9,770
    Likes Received:
    556
    Trophy Points:
    113
    And you are one of those people who make rash assumptions based on their own personal foibles.
     
  25. HereWeGoAgain

    HereWeGoAgain Banned

    Joined:
    Nov 11, 2016
    Messages:
    27,942
    Likes Received:
    19,979
    Trophy Points:
    113
    False premise. The right to bear arms, not a well-regulated militia, is what gives citizens the right to own firearms.

    I happen to agree that we need real weapons if the law is to have any value but your quote missed the mark.
     

Share This Page