Texas high school shooting

[Hotwrench]

4 minutes ago, 98Z5V said:

I've listened to it throughout this thread. From you.

If you can't have a conversation, and have to resort to what you have been doing, then it's taking a turn in a different direction, and it will rapidly.

You take that for what it's worth.

I will use yet another bit of country wisdom, I will consider the source.

[jtallen83]

30 minutes ago, 98Z5V said:

I'm pretty positive that the article stated that it would be Federal Law in it's base, and states could not over-ride the basic freedoms in that law

It isn't even a bill yet, there has been no debate by the lawmakers, hell it doesn't even have an author. Why start with something that gives up a liberty before you even start negotiating? Start with repeal the NFA and you might end up with something close to the anonymous article.

[jtallen83]

32 minutes ago, NTXshooter said:

The Supreme Court has already ruled that citizens do not have the right to all firearms.  The NFA, AWB and District of Columbia vs. Heller.

This is one of the biggest problems we face as a nation, the lawless nature in which the government operates. They base decisions on stare decisis and not the constitution, this has served them well in their manipulation of our culture. The SCOTUS has swayed back and forth at the whim of the elite for over a century now. Congress has abdicated their authority and allowed the court to run wild. These are the types of problems that must be solved before we can have a competent government that can be trusted. Until then anything they write is worth no more than the paper it is written on.

[NTXshooter]

There are three branches of government.  But only one interprets the constitution and the law.  The other two write the laws and run the country.

It says:  “We also recognize another important limitation on the right to keep and carry arms. Miller (an earlier case) said, as we have explained, that the sorts of weapons protected were those “in common use at the time”. We think that limitation is fairly supported by the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of ‘dangerous and unusual weapons.’ ” 

In the wake of all of the mass shootings, how hard do you think it would be for anti-gun lobby to push the MSR as a "dangerous " firearm to support another assault weapons ban?

4 minutes ago, jtallen83 said:

Start with repeal the NFA and you might end up with something close to the anonymous article.

If you decided to climb Mount Everest and had never climbed before, would you go straight to Everest or would you start on a smaller mountain.

 

 

 

Look, it is apparent that no one is going to change their minds on this subject.  So let's just agree to disagree and move on.  Deal with the issues as you feel the need. I for one am going to go enjoy the rest of my holiday.  THANK YOU TO ALL OF THE MEN AND WOMEN WHO HAVE SERVED AND SACRIFICED.

[98Z5V]

10 minutes ago, jtallen83 said:

 Start with repeal the NFA and you might end up with something close to the anonymous article.

Get it rolling, then - that's my point.  That article listed a pretty damned good idea in how to get something for the 2A, looks like a compromise to the other side, and gives away nothing (in fact gains a few items back, out of the NFA Tax Stamp process).  Anonymous or not, legislation or not - that idea has a better foundation than "repeal the NFA" as a statement, with nothing to outline it.

Education-educate everyone - I've been preaching that for years, and actually went out and did it.  I've been pushing Appleseed for years, and was an Appleseed instructor for 3 years.  I can tell you this about education - the other side wins an overwhelming victory inthe information war, as soon as they capitalize on a mass shooting. Their biggest victory to date was Parkland, when they were able to a huge chunk of those kids in that school into political pawns.  That movement went nation-wide in a matter of days.  There's now a whole generation of kids that aren't even old enough to vote, and they're now Anti-2A, and probably will be for life.

Education is a slow process, a hard process, and the gains are easily erased as soon as more Antis are born, out of mass shooting politicizing. 

So, come up with a framework on "repeal the NFA."  Get it pitched, get people behind it, and get it rolling.  Everything pitched on "repeal the NFA" hasn't been able to gain traction, to date.  There needs to be a way to get that done. 

Until then, this article idea gives you back some NFA items, in the mean time.  If that isn't a huge victory, I don't know what is...

[98Z5V]

24 minutes ago, Hotwrench said:

I will use yet another bit of country wisdom, I will consider the source.

Telling you right now, I've had about enough of it. 

[jtallen83]

37 minutes ago, Hotwrench said:

I will use yet another bit of country wisdom, I will consider the source.

 

12 minutes ago, 98Z5V said:

Telling you right now, I've had about enough of it. 

Come on now guys, in reality this is just mental masturbation.

[Hotwrench]

17 minutes ago, 98Z5V said:

 

Edited May 27, 2018 by Hotwrench
Listened To Jtalen83

[blue109]

Lemme get them inches back...

[jtallen83]

13 minutes ago, blue109 said:

Lemme get them inches back...

Damn, I have read a bunch by the founding fathers, can't believe I missed that one! 

[Docgmt]

On 5/25/2018 at 8:58 PM, 98Z5V said:

You didn't read that article/idea, then.  Not at all.

In there, it fully explains the idea - and it's a damn good one.  Once you get that Federal License - you're GOOD in all states.  All of them.  Also - BIG bonus here, you buy suppressors OVER THE COUNTER, and SBRs/SBSs OVER THE COUNTER.  There's no more NFA Tax Stamp process for those...

Not, tell me, please - what's not to like there?  What are you worried about?  Not passing the process to get the license?!  That's really the only thing it could be...

Go read the article that was linked in the first post...

The idea isn't a damn good one. First off the federal government has no none nota constitutional authority to issue a license. Multiple SCOTUS rulings on first amendment voting right and lic or fees. All of the NFA rules SBR regs by bureaucracy are unconstitutional but when it comes to applying the exact same wieght of first amendment rulings to the second, the courts testicular fortitude stinks down to pea size. Are the Feds going to "give you a lic"? Poll taxes fees or illiterate tests are forbidden for voting, you can't even charge sales tax on a newspaper. we will end up with what amount $$$. Here in VA it already cost us $50 for concealed carry. How often will the lic expire and if you have a lic they have a data base of who is licensed which is a defacto national gun registration. Beside I already have a national carry license it's call the second amendment and it's past damn time to enforce it.

[Sharpshooter]

I thought 98Z5V had a good point: read the article all the way through. So I did. I even went one better and read the Yale article all the way through. Here's what I came up with:

The Politico article was written by Jon Stokes, Editor Emeritus at Ars Technica ezine. He suggests a federally issued license for possession of all semi-automatic firearms. Patterned after the NFA requirements, he believes any possessor should then be allowed to own/possess NFA items (machine guns, suppressors, etc.).

That's all there is to it. The rest is explanations why this would be a good idea.

Let's compare that to the article written by Egon D. Cohen & Kristina M. Johnson, contributors to Yale Law & Policy Review. They suggest a federally issued Restricted Firearms License for possession/ownership of semi-automatic rifles and shotguns plus all handguns. Patterned after the NFA requirements for the owner, then extended by requiring individual
weapons to be licensed. The rest is explanations why this would be a good idea.

And that's all there is to that.

The differences? The Cohen & Johnson approach includes licensing individual weapons.

The similarities? Each suggests a federal license for possessors/owners.

My analysis is that these are functionally identical. Each creates a national registry of gun owners (no, not all gun owners, but certainly a large number of us). In my opinion, that's your first step down the rabbit hole to complete confiscation. Am I being paranoid? Am I being paranoid enough?

Both articles were matters of opinion, not codified into bills. Each was preaching to the choir (both Politico and Yale are distinctly left-leaning organizations), so it's not surprising to me that the articles have so much in common. What does surprise me is hearing us debate which is better, and with such vehemence.

So, which one to back? I choose None Of The Above. I'm still living in a country bound by laws. I may not like all of them, but I'm pretty happy with the overall system, and that system says you can't change the law except by votes in the legislature. Even then, those laws are subject to review by the courts. It's been a bumpy road but, so far, it's still the best one I've seen. When I see a law proposed in the legislature, or an opportunity to voice my opinion to the legislators, then I'll get fired up and do what I can.

In the meantime, I'm only here for the beer!

[Hotwrench]

5 minutes ago, Sharpshooter said:

My analysis is that these are functionally identical. Each creates a national registry of gun owners (no, not all gun owners, but certainly a large number of us). In my opinion, that's your first step down the rabbit hole to complete confiscation. Am I being paranoid? Am I being paranoid enough? 

No argument from me. You are definitely not being paranoid in my view. Thanks for the research.

[Docgmt]

1 hour ago, jtallen83 said:

The Supreme Court has already ruled that citizens do not have the right to all firearms.  The NFA, AWB and District of Columbia vs. Heller.

SCOTUS Did Not rule that, although Scalia insinuated such in dicta that is not a ruling. In Heller the court ruled that Mr Heller could have a working firearm in his home, many liberals then jump on the misguided notion that a positive decision on one question is a negative for everything else that they wanted in gun control. In dicta it notes that self defense is a basic human right and that weapons in common use are protected. Since we have had the NFA since 1934 and the 1986 law in affect for so long how can those effected weapons be in common use, chicken v egg. 

[Hotwrench]

1 minute ago, Hotwrench said:

Am I being paranoid? Am I being paranoid enough?

My wifes comment: Just because you are paranoid doesn't mean they arent out to get you.

[Docgmt]

3 minutes ago, Hotwrench said:

No argument from me. You are definitely not being paranoid in my view. Thanks for the research.

Just because you're  paranoid doesn't mean they are not out to get you!  And yes they are out to get you and repeal the second amendment just ask Justice Stevens who has repeated his call for repeal.

[jtallen83]

4 minutes ago, Docgmt said:

SCOTUS Did Not rule that, 

Damn, how did my name get attached to that quote? For sure nothing that I agree with no matter what the elitist bastards said. That was NTXshooter's quote.

[98Z5V]

16 minutes ago, Docgmt said:

The idea isn't a damn good one. First off the federal government has no none nota constitutional authority to issue a license.

That is in place, right now, and has been for a very long time.  You obtain a "license" in the form of a Tax Stamp in order to buy a suppressor, Short-barreled firearms, Any Other Weapon items, full-auto machine guns, Destructive Devices... It's been in effect for the last 84 years.  It is managed by the federal govt. 

There are not govt overreach problems, and crazy confiscations coming from that.  There just aren't.

Now, would this plan:  Free up some of those NFA items for individuals that would complete the process for this "Fed Semi-Auto License?" Yes it would.  Once licensed, you can buy some of those NFA items straight over the counter - no packet to fill out, and wait your 12~14 months for approval and stamp issuance. "Hey, Gun Dealer, that's a pretty impressive SD-N6 you've got there!  How much is it?..."  Out the door with you, and your new SD-N6.

It gets even better - those items are no longer "registered NFA items."  They're not recorded. The only thing that is verified is that you are licensed to purchase these items. That's it. There's no database, no list - no one knows what you own, just that you are a licensee.  That's it.

Now, for those that want to Repeal The NFA - don't you think this would be a pretty logical step in that goal?  After all, you just took some of the items off the NFA, through this process.  Wouldn't that be a step in the right direction, baby-steps-wise, in a complete repeal?

[jtallen83]

14 minutes ago, 98Z5V said:

There are not govt overreach problems, and crazy confiscations coming from that.  There just aren't.

Some of us originalists see the whole damn nfa as a government overreach! Confiscation has occured on a regular basis since the nfa passed, my ancestors gave up their machine guns because of the unconstitutional law and their inability to pay the $200 tax stamp.

This man had his weapons confiscated because he violated another unconstitional law, this schit happens regularly;

https://www.cnn.com/2018/03/01/us/california-gun-seizure-squads/index.html

How long before the regulation and law is so convoluted we all become violators? If you don't thin k that is the establishments goal then think again!

 

Edited May 27, 2018 by jtallen83

[Docgmt]

20 minutes ago, jtallen83 said:

Damn, how did my name get attached to that quote? For sure nothing that I agree with no matter what the elitist bastards said. That was NTXshooter's quote.

Sorry hit the wrong button on this silly box

[jtallen83]

14 minutes ago, 98Z5V said:

Wouldn't that be a step in the right direction, baby-steps-wise, in a complete repeal?

Yes it would be a step in the right direction barring the licensing issue, that would not be a good thing. I trust the government to eventually use that information to round up the guns and the people with them ala nazi germany. Call me paranoid if you like, I say better safe than sorry or dead like many Jews ended up.

[98Z5V]

5 minutes ago, jtallen83 said:

Some of us originalists see the whole damn nfa as a government overreach! Confiscation has occured on a regular basis since the nfa passed, my ancestors gave up their machine guns because of the unconstitutional law and their inability to pay the $200 tax stamp.

This man had his weapons confiscated because he violated another unconstitional law, this schit happens regularly;

https://www.cnn.com/2018/03/01/us/california-gun-seizure-squads/index.html

How long before the regulation and law is so convoluted we all become violators? If you don't thin k that is the establishments goal then think again!

 

Wouldn't it have been nice for that guy in Cali to have  Federal Semi-Auto License, in this idea, which would render those asinine Cali state laws moot?...

[jtallen83]

Just now, 98Z5V said:

Wouldn't it have been nice for that guy in Cali to have  Federal Semi-Auto License, in this idea, which would render those asinine Cali state laws moot?...

Yes, it would be nice if the federal government would stick to the original intent of the constitution and safeguard all citizens second amendment rights, no license required in that document! Instead they have been complicit in creating these liberal bastions that violate citizens Liberty, hard to trust them now!

[Docgmt]

7 minutes ago, jtallen83 said:

Some of us originalists see the whole damn nfa as a government overreach! Confiscation has occured on a regular basis since the nfa passed, my ancestors gave up their machine guns because of the unconstitutional law and their inability to pay the $200 tax stamp.

This man had his weapons confiscated because he violated another unconstitional law, this schit happens regularly;

https://www.cnn.com/2018/03/01/us/california-gun-seizure-squads/index.html

How long before the regulation and law is so convoluted we all become violators? If you don't thin k that is the establishments goal then think again!

Full out no holds bared war on NFA, 1968 and 1986 take no prisoners no compromise on unconstitutional pansy mongering laws. Let's see what the communists are willing to concede what shall not be infringed really means 

[Docgmt]

6 minutes ago, 98Z5V said:

Wouldn't it have been nice for that guy in Cali to have  Federal Semi-Auto License, in this idea, which would render those asinine Cali state laws moot?...

He already had his constitutional rights, when tyranny is violating them you don't compromise by infecting the entire law abiding citizenry with another infringement. The problem w your lic is it's a law a law that can be changed at anytime at the whims of congress. What guaranteed do you give to that not occurring? Two congresses from the lic declared your lic void and turn them in, your guns that is. The only hope we have to remaining a free people is to have foundational rules far above the governments reach to change as it sees fit.