Marlin Firearms Forum banner

1 - 20 of 31 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
244 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
I'm a black gun guy. Love my Ar-15. Love the flexibility of switching calibers simply by changing the upper. Certainly not the best battle rifle ever built. Unfortunately that title belongs to the enemies ak-47 or ak-74. Anyway. I'm guessing that most here are levergun fans. Hey, I am now too. LOVE my guide gun.

I am however very excited about AWB ban dieing. Why? Here's why:

Presumption one: Nearly every conflict that is resolved w/o the use of firepower is resolved through one thing: Compromise.

Presumption two: Compromise is good.

Position: Think of the gun control as a tug of war with a big knot in the middle of the rope. Anti's on one end. Anarchists w/illegal full-autos on the other. If the full-auto guys (and gals) pull hard enough that knot (which represents the compromised outcome) ends up closer to their views. Because we're pro-gun we're on their side of the knot, just closer to the middle in our views most likely.

Question: How can you be a proponent of our freedom to keep and bear arms, without compromising (if you say regulation of full-auto is ok, then you are in favor of gun control) and without sounding like a freak to the general public?

My position: I think some regulation has it's place. The government however realizes it's untenable position in regulating full-auto weapons and has done so through the COMMERCE CLAUSE. That's right. You pay a tax and get a stamp and if it's ok in your state you can own full-auto. At the same time I think that some regulation has it's place, I wonder, am I doing myself and the lawful gun owners a disservice?

Please don't flame, let's just debate, argue, whatever. No personal attacks though unless someone wants to take our guns.

R
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
706 Posts
It is my feeling that there should be no regulation for those of us who do not have a criminal record.

An honest person will not suddenly turn bad just because his gun is full-auto any more than a bad guy turns good just because he can only have a 10 shot semi-auto.

Did you know that you are 9,000 times more apt to die at the hands of a doctor than to die from a gun?

Just think about that.

Below is an E-mail I got. While I can’t verify the exact numbers, but I know they are pretty close to the real thing.

----------------------------------------------

FACTS
a. The number of physicians in the United States is about 700,000

b. Accidental deaths caused by Physicians per year is about 120,000.

c. Accidental deaths per physician is 0.171. (US Dept. of Health &Human Services)



THINK ABOUT THIS:

a. The number of gun owners in the US is 80,000,000 (yes, eighty-million!).

b. The number of accidental gun deaths per year (all age groups) is 1,500.

c. The number of accidental deaths per gun owner is .0000188. Statistically, doctors are about 9,000 times more dangerous than gun owners.



FACT:

NOT EVERYONE HAS A GUN, BUT ALMOST EVERYONE HAS A DOCTOR.

Alert your friends to this threat. We must ban doctors before this gets out of hand. :lol: As a public health measure -- I have withheld the statistics on lawyers for fear that the shock could cause people to seek medical attention. :lol: :lol: :roll:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
243 Posts
" I think some regulation has it's place."

If you're talking about each state making laws - that's OK.
However the Constitution FORBIDS the federal government from making ANY laws with respect to the ownership or transportation of arms held by Citizens.( even cannon & missels)
Jim.e

PS but abraham lincoln pretty well trashed the Constiturion.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,151 Posts
The Federalist papers will tell you that the citizens of the United States are to be able to keep and bear the small arms of the standing army. Now this throws in a little kink with the laws today as what is considered "small arms". Civilians are only allowed to own a .50 calliber or smaller rifle, back in colonial times people had friggin CANNONS (literally)!

As a Sport Utility Rifle lover myself I am hoping and praying that the AWB is let to sunset and not replaced in any capacity.

As far as who should own guns...any free man.
 
G

·
excellent

This is good. Don't read my post the wrong way, my feeling is pretty close to what you said, "anyone with no criminal record should be able to own any gun they want." But....that also means that you favor gun control, albeit some. You've deemed this reasonable in your mind. What's reasonable to one is not reasonable to another.

This isn't an attack. I'm just examining my position. Thinking that following the constitution no regulation is allowable. As I said above, the feds recognize this and regulate full autos under the guise of the commerce clause. BUT, I think most of us agree that some regulation is necessary. I think one way to look at it is that by forbidding felons from legally owning guns is that we are regulating the felons, not the guns.

That is a whole issue unto itself. Should someone who is a felon because they sold stock after some insider tip be punished for the rest of their life the same way as someone who kills someone with a gun with malice aforethought? I think not. But how do you draw the line?

I think we need beers and a campfire for this. Even though I don't drink I still enjoy campfires and good discussion. A tussle here and there (just to emphasize your point if necessary) keeps the night interesting. :)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
244 Posts
Discussion Starter · #6 ·
just validating

That was my post. "abrogado not signed in"

Just if anyone wonders.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
2,406 Posts
Sniper,if things don't change that law will stay,just like taxes,once on the books it ist very hard to remove.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
244 Posts
Discussion Starter · #8 ·
The way I understand it. The vote not to renew it was successful. So, barring any further legislation, the ban will sunset as planned.

<compensators crossed>
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
243 Posts
"anyone with no criminal record should be able to own any gun they want." But....that also means that you favor gun control, albeit some."

There was a similar topic on the old Marlin Talk.
I assume you are speaking of the federal government doing the controling.
If that is true then you do not understand the purpose of the Bill OF Rights .
They are PROHIBITIONS (things which are not allowed) on the congress from making certain enactments. NOTICE that I did not say laws, because enactments of the congress in contravention of the Constitution are NOT LAWS they are void. That doesn't mean that the ATF won't kill you - they will - but what they are doing is not lawful because congress doesn't have the Constiturional authority to operate in this area.
As far as the "felon" argument goes - either a person is a Citizen or not. If a person has been released from prison then that person has their full rights. If you do'nt want them to have their full Citizenship then keep them in prison - we cannot have CLASSES OF CITIZENSHIP.

I guess I'm going to have to be the point man on this one.
Jim.e
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,151 Posts
There was never (to my knowledge) any bill to let the AWB sunset, it was written into the original law.


Sb 659 (Lawful Commerce in Arms Act), later renamed to SB 1805 had a rider on it for the AWB to become permanent. That bill was defeated, but it was bittersweet as the frivolous lawsuits against firearms manufacturers are still permitted.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
244 Posts
Discussion Starter · #11 ·
Good points Jim E....gotta think on 'em.

If prison is supposed to rehab and the sentence is deemed appropriate, why isnt' the felon given full rights (read: citizenship) upon return to society. Kinda like they're saying prison doesn't work so well so we'll keep punishing you even though you've paid your debt.

Gonna walk the dog and think on that.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
3,589 Posts
Ever check the old books, there is a law, that as far as I can find has never been repealed, that if you do 30 days in jail or more,when released you get a winchester 30-30 and a horse. Course the fact it is a winchester is probably a part of the punishment. lol
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
706 Posts
jim.e said:
If you do'nt want them to have their full Citizenship then keep them in prison - we cannot have CLASSES OF CITIZENSHIP.

Jim.e

That is a point I had not thought of. If prison time has been paid then it should be over.

If one re-offends then the prison time should be greater and a third time (like in our state) would be life. But if they behave then they should be like everyone else.

But I still stick by what I said before: An honest person will not suddenly turn bad just because his gun is full-auto any more than a bad guy turns good just because he can only have a 10 shot semi-auto.

Gun laws don't change people and guns can't do ANYTHING without poeples help.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
706 Posts
BTT
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
9 Posts
I am with Jim.e and the others on this. If you have done the time, then you get your rights back. Besides, when has this law stopped a repeat offender from procurring a firearm? A criminal, by definition, ignores laws. Same thing with idiotic "waiting periods". For a first time buyer, maybe it would have some small effect on a small percentage of hotheads. But, if one already owns one or more firearms, what good is a waiting period? One simply goes to where one's arms are stored and grabs one. I say repeal every last one of the 20,000 plus gun control laws on the books and do it NOW!

Aa an aside, any law that imposes a penalty / jail sentence for a victimless crime is a method of control and a hidden taxation scheme. There has to be a victim and / or property damage for a crime to have taken place. Look around at all of the things we can be fined and / or jailed for and you will realize this is now the land of the FEE and the home of the SLAVE.
 
G

·
I submit the following not to inflame but to present a viewpoint.........

The 2nd Amendment recognises a basic fact of nature. Kill or be killed. There are those, and always will be those, who would kill. Sometimes that is done individually by criminals and sometimes collectively by invading armys. Either way each person either defends their own life, or way of life (or both)... or dies. Nature says that the one who has the biggest teeth will most likely win and survive.... the one with the smaller teeth does not.

Ok... so who gets to decide who lives or dies? We do. We each do as individuals. We each have the right to survive as best we can in a life or death struggle. No other person has the right to decide that I cannot have the means to protect myself. No other person has the right to deny me (or you) the right to use a gun(of any kind!), a rock(of any shape!), a knife(of any length!), a stick(of any size!), or anything else, to protect myself.

Aha! Here is the stickler. As long as I use something to PROTECT myself it should... and is logical that it be.... perfectly legal. However, if I use the very same thing in a predatory manner against another person then it should... and is logical that it be... definately illegal.

Actually, even a predator has the right to defend themselves. And the law recognises this. In a self defense situation if the intended victim gains control of the situation... then decides to go after the predator... the law will prosecute both the intended victim and the original predator as..... predators.

Confusing? A dude approaches with a knife and clearly wants to take your life, you pull a gun....... the dude changes his mind and turns to run away... (you now have control of the situation)... you decide to run after him and shoot him. It is at that point that you become the predator and the dude is now your intended victim. The dude who just wanted to kill you now has the right to defend himself against you!

Those who would kill need to be removed from society. Either by life imprisonment or by death. If a person who would kill is kept in prison his gun rights are a moot point and he can keep them but can't exercise them. If a crime isn't heinous enough to keep that person in prison then it isn't heinous enough to remove their right to defend themselves either and they can use anything, including a gun, to protect themselves.

What does that all mean? EVERYONE has the right to defend themselves from becoming a victim in any way possible, including using a gun of any kind... single shot, semi-auto, full auto.... or a rock... or a sharp stick... but NO ONE has the right to use any of those things for the purpose of victimizing another.

The law should... and it is logical that it be... used to determine who is the predator and who is the victim, then punish the predator. Regardless of the implement used.

Gun control in any form is illogical.... predator control is the most logical thing of all.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
14,841 Posts
BikeNut,

That is the BEST I have ever seen it written.

Cudos to you!!

Dave :)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
70 Posts
Bravo! to Squirrel Sniper, jim e., Bike Nut, and whoever I've neglected to
mention. This question, or a variation of it, was indeed on the old Marlintalk
website about a year or more back. I just about wore myself out with that
one!

An individual who has been released from prison should indeed be
considered to have paid their debt. Otherwise, if we (society) believe them
too dangerous to release...well, by Gumby, we keep them on ice longer.
That should be the end of the story.

But too many people - including many of us in the shooting community- don't know that before the Gun Control Act of 1968 any and all released felons could immediately go out and purchase firearms upon their release. For that matter, long guns were for sale through the mails. We did not have an out-of-control crime problem back then. The restoration of rights
is the proper order of things. "Felons" who've been released from prison, having been considered to have "served their time" and "paid their debt" are perpetually screwed over if we buy into the nonsense that there are different classes of people in this country who deserve only a partial respect of their rights too.

To avoid any problems here, I think I should state that I believe first
degree murder of innocents, rape, and molestation of children, to be
crimes for which there should be no release from prison - ever. That
solves the problem for most of us, though I'm sure I've forgotten at
least one or another person's pet peeve. (How about life sentences for
telemarketers who call during ball games?)

The question of "what kind of arm does society draw the line at" should be
answered this way, and I think someone here has already touched on this
one: the 2nd Amendment was enshrined so that Americans would always
have the weaponry necessary to defeat government tyranny. This might
typically be seen with the installation of an occupying force in a city or
town. Well, the people should have access to whatever arms might be
necessary to defeat that occupying army. "Weapons of the day" they used
to call it. In Washington's day this meant Brown Bess muskets. Today, it
means selective fire rifles, and maybe more. Recognizing this fact also
allows you to respond to the nitwit who says "well...suppose I want an
A-bomb?" Well, I'm sorry, but your A-bomb would make our entire city
uninhabitable, and is useless for driving out an occupying army, as it also
would drive out all those who were attempting to defend and protect their
own homes.

Okay, that's it for me for now. Good thread here, and it's a pleasure to see
it showing such good sense from the crew. - DixieBoy
 
1 - 20 of 31 Posts
Top