My understanding is he wants tighter rules. I'm OK with that.

 

The problem with the guns right folks is that nothing is acceptable. That's where I diverge. I am pro-gun ownership. I also believe it's too easy to get a gun. I'm not naive enough to think you can eradicate all illegal gun transactions. I do believe you can make it tougher and also enforce rules about ammo and types of guns that are acceptable.

 

If that's his agenda I'm OK with that.

 

Mr. Obama and his AG should be charged with their illegal gun running that has been swept under the rug...he is the cause of a lot of deaths.

Oh, joy! I'm now thoroughly convinced that rational thought is hard to come by anymore.

I know, but we keep hope for you all.

So we should legalize drugs?

You took that way off the tracks, Clyde. He made a very valid point, but since you brought up the question, my answer would be yes. But that's for another thread.

As posted above, if anyone is using Obama to increase gun sales it is probably the weapons industry itself. Let there be no doubt - law abiding competent adults will always be able to acquire guns and no Democrat president will be able stop that. Yes, maybe you will have to fill out a form, maybe wait a day or two, maybe even wait longer while they do a background check ... is that a problem? I don't see that as being any more of a pain than having to buy a gun cabinet to secure your weapons in. Perhaps someone can explain to me why having laws that try to keep weapons out of the hands of criminals or the incompetent are a problem (please ... for the sake of this discussion let's not get into the constituional arguments because that one isn't valid in what I am asking here).

 

:popcorn:

 

Not for nothing but the background checks are already in place and are done on the spot. They call it in with your SS#, even at gun shows. I have purchased at both gun shows and in stores, they do the background checks then and there. They also have forms they need to keep on file for it that you fill out. It is already in place. The problem is that many people are blissfully unaware of what laws are already in place. The vast majority of suggestions people have for these things are already on the books.

Is it acceptable that someone owns a high powered weapon with a 32 bullet/cartridge magazine? I am not saying yes or no ... just asking.

 

A standard hunting rifle is chambered for a .30-06 round, which if we are going to use a metric designation for for the sake of standardization is 7.62 x 85mm(diameter of bullet by overall length of cartidge), or even the .308 round which is 7.62 x 51 mm. The standard round of an M-16 is 5.56 x 45 mm, this is a smaller round with less powder behind it simply by the dimensions. Which is the more "high powered" round? If you are deer hunting a 5.56 is not going to stop a deer nearly as well as either of the other rounds mentioned. Yet as far as the impact of the bullet is concerned the other two are more powerful.

 

What is the standard you use to say what is, or isn't allowed? Why should I, if I truly enjoy shooting as a hobby be prevented from having magazines of whatever size I want as long as the weapons themselves are not in violation of any laws?

 

Many civilian weapons look like their military counterparts, yet outside of the round they fire and some inner workings they do not have the same mechanisms internally to make them near the threat that their military versions are. I don't see the harm in magazines of a 30 rounds or so being allowed. Now if we are talking belt fed weapons or fully automatic ones then that is a different story and those types of weapons are regulated far differently. Fully automatic weapons require different licensing, stamps and tracking than semi-automatic or single shot weapons do. As such if you own a weapon that fires more than one round per trigger pull then you are required to have a Class III license which has all sorts of things to go along with it that you are required to do. All items which fit that description have to be registered with the ATF, all buyers must register obtain approval from the ATF, obtain a signature from the Chief Law Enforcement Officer in their area(who can refuse to sign it which will prevent the purchase), pass an even more extensive background check than is required for most firearms, submit a photograph, fingerprints, fully register the firearm and receive written permission from the ATF in order to move the weapon across state lines and pay a tax.

 

 

Back ground checks are done even if you win a gun at a DU function or elsewhere. It's the folks who do not own guns that have no idea how many laws are already in place. It's like the difference in a conservative vegetarian and a liberal vegetarian.. A conservative vegetarian will simply just not eat meat. A liberal vegetarian doesn't want ANYONE to eat meat.

The Second Amendment - "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

 

It could not be more clear. Infringe means to act so as to limit or undermine; encroach on. Any type of regulating or controlling gun ownership, even in the name of so called safety, is a direct violation of the second amendment. To make guns harder to get by paperwork, waiting, taxing or banning IS infringing the right of the people, or limiting and undermining, which is something that is clearly stated SHALL NOT BE DONE!

 

The Bill of Rights is part of what forged, shaped and defined who and what we are as a free nation and people, and we should never let fears, lack of knowledge and the progressive thoughts of some people infringe, ignore or change this document and therefore the rights that were clearly viewed as invaluable and mandatory to a free nation.

 

To restrict, regulate and hinder gun ownership in the United Stated is a direct violation of the 2nd amendment and those who are proponents for restrictions, regulations, and infringement of rights are clearly in violation of our defining and sacred second amendment. Don't get made at me, I didn't write it, I am only trusting, choosing to believe and holding onto what was clearly put before us by wise people who were clearly defining what a free nation shall hold onto and look like. If we cherish freedom, I mean truly cherish it, then we will be courageous enough to stick with, protect and FULLY live by what was written to be our guide and ensure and provide our freedom, even when we think we have a better idea. We can't let progressive thinking, drift us away from our foundation, simply because getting away from the foundation is to move away from freedom.

 

Simply put - to remain free - we must follow the bill of rights, without any compromise or infringement.

Is it acceptable that someone owns a high powered weapon with a 32 bullet/cartridge magazine? I am not saying yes or no ... just asking.

 

Is my AR15 what you would consider high powered?

So we should legalize drugs?

Does the constitution afford the right to drugs?

The Second Amendment - "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

 

It could not be more clear. Infringe means to act so as to limit or undermine; encroach on. Any type of regulating or controlling gun ownership, even in the name of so called safety, is a direct violation of the second amendment. To make guns harder to get by paperwork, waiting, taxing or banning IS infringing the right of the people, or limiting and undermining, which is something that is clearly stated SHALL NOT BE DONE!

 

The Bill of Rights is part of what forged, shaped and defined who and what we are as a free nation and people, and we should never let fears, lack of knowledge and the progressive thoughts of some people infringe, ignore or change this document and therefore the rights that were clearly viewed as invaluable and mandatory to a free nation.

 

To restrict, regulate and hinder gun ownership in the United Stated is a direct violation of the 2nd amendment and those who are proponents for restrictions, regulations, and infringement of rights are clearly in violation of our defining and sacred second amendment. Don't get made at me, I didn't write it, I am only trusting, choosing to believe and holding onto what was clearly put before us by wise people who were clearly defining what a free nation shall hold onto and look like. If we cherish freedom, I mean truly cherish it, then we will be courageous enough to stick with, protect and FULLY live by what was written to be our guide and ensure and provide our freedom, even when we think we have a better idea. We can't let progressive thinking, drift us away from our foundation, simply because getting away from the foundation is to move away from freedom.

 

Simply put - to remain free - we must follow the bill of rights, without any compromise or infringement.

 

Why did you not bold the first 4 words of the amendment, especially "well regulated"?

Does the constitution afford the right to drugs?

 

The argument was that laws and regulations do not work as evidenced by the easy availability of crack. So if you're saying criminals are still going to find guns regardless of how much you regulate it then it seems like you're questioning why we have have laws against drugs. Why are we wasting our time? Criminals still get drugs.

 

In other words, bad analogy.

I'm still trying to figure out how the people rushing to buy their guns and ammo believe the POTUS is going to overturn the Constitution.

How many rounds would be acceptable to you.. I have several with 50 round magazines, but I can change a 10 round magazine in less than 2 seconds..

 

No, my argument would be for plinking, collecting, self defense or any and all legal reasons. Like commando, I'm curious as to how many rounds are acceptable to you and I'm curious as to what your reasons are.

 

I don't care how many rounds. If you are a law abiding competent citizen, buy whatever you are allowed to legally. But I don't have a problem if they limit the purchase of these types of weapons either and I don't consider that a violation of the 2nd Amendment.

So how would the POTUS go about removing the 2nd Amendment?

 

I don't know.

 

Shoot all the 2nd supporters?

 

In all seriousness, I just love the "Well he hasn't done anything yet, but just you wait until next term" Chicken Little stuff.

The argument was that laws and regulations do not work as evidenced by the easy availability of crack. So if you're saying criminals are still going to find guns regardless of how much you regulate it then it seems like you're questioning why we have have laws against drugs. Why are we wasting our time? Criminals still get drugs.

 

In other words, bad analogy.

No it wasn't. You claim we need tighter regulations on guns, my point is how would tighter regulations on guns change anything? Would they make drugs harder to get? Have they made drugs harder to get?