BF2S Forums New US gun laws !

apollo_fi wrote:

JG1567JG wrote:

Now in another thread people were slamming the NRA for being against a bill that would stop gun sales to these suspected terrorist, but what if after 5 years of investigation the guy is no longer suspected for this reason or that.  That would be five years that this guy was denied his civil rights.  What the NRA is against is punishing someone by taken away their rights when they have done nothing wrong.

The guy would've been denied his civil rights for five years in any case, whether he was able to buy guns or not. Why is the 4th amendment regarded as something less sacred than the 2nd?

The 4th amendment is no less sacred than the second and if you would read back at the post where I posted the Bill of Rights you would see where I said that.

What civil rights would he be denied under the 4th amendment?

I'm guessing that your answer would also include the government violating the 1st, 2nd, 4th, 5th, 6th, and 8th amendments.

Last edited by JG1567JG (2007-05-07 05:11:57)

The Government should have absolutely no control over any guns that civilians own. I know that bums some of you out, but I fear Big Brother.

The day martial law is declared in this country, the Gov't will be dragging gun owners out of their houses in the middle of the night.

The 2nd amendment should never be infringed for law-abiding mentally stable citizens.

apollo_fi wrote:

JG1567JG wrote:

apollo_fi wrote:

The guy would've been denied his civil rights for five years in any case, whether he was able to buy guns or not. Why is the 4th amendment regarded as something less sacred than the 2nd?

The 4th amendment is no less sacred than the second and if you would read back at the post where I posted the Bill of Rights you would see where I said that.

What civil rights would he be denied under the 4th amendment?

I'm guessing that your answer would also include the government violating the 1st, 2nd, 4th, 5th, 6th, and 8th amendments.

Our hypotethical guy is on the 'suspected terrorist' list, and his 4th amendment rights are being violated under the section 505 of the Patriot Act.

'Section 505 authorizes the use of what's essentially an administrative subpoena of personal records. The subpoenas require no probable cause or judicial oversight.

Before Patriot, these letters could only be issued against individuals who were reasonably suspected of espionage. But Patriot loosened the standard by allowing the letters to be used against anyone, including U.S. citizens, even if they themselves are not suspected of espionage or criminal activity.'

Now you do have me thinking here.  Now that I think about it the founding fathers should have put the Second Amendment first since it is the only one able of protecting the rest of the U.S. Constitution.  I do now believe that I hold some of the amendments more sacred than others.  To me the first and second are the most sacred.  This is not saying the others are not important to say the least.

Varegg wrote:

So when do you feel or what line do you draw for the 2nd amendment to be infringed ?

To what level is it already infringed by the "40.000" gun-laws you already have ?

I also believe that gun laws in their self are an infringement on my rights.  As was said earlier, back when the second amendment was written most guns weather hunting or military were the same.  In fact most rifles of the time were Hunting rifles that the Military adopted. 
The case of United States vs. Miller (1939?) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Miller

wiki wrote:

On May 15, 1939 the Supreme Court, in a unanimous opinion by Justice McReynolds, reversed and remanded the District Court decision. The Supreme Court declared that no conflict between the NFA and the Second Amendment had been established, writing:

In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a 'shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length' at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument.
The Court indicated that only military type arms are constitutionally protected

This was a case wher the government stated that Miller had no right to own a sawed off shotgun since it didn't have a military purpose and was of no use in the militia.
In other words The Court indicated that only military type arms are constitutionally protected.

Last edited by JG1567JG (2007-05-07 15:04:53)

^^I can`t possibly see a scenario where US citizens fights against the US army, that kind of a civil war is to far fetched.

So if i as a US citizen want to buy myself a gun like say a .38 handgun and a M16 assault rifle, what are the steps i`d take to get them ?

What hindrance or lack of such is there ?

How long would i have to wait ?

Is that possible and if so in all 50 states ?

Varegg wrote:

^^I can`t possibly see a scenario where US citizens fights against the US army, that kind of a civil war is to far fetched.

So if i as a US citizen want to buy myself a gun like say a .38 handgun and a M16 assault rifle, what are the steps i`d take to get them ?

What hindrance or lack of such is there ?

How long would i have to wait ?

Is that possible and if so in all 50 states ?

I live in Indiana and we have some of the less strict gun laws out of the 50 states.
To buy a handgun you would have to go to the gunstore and they would run a background check and you could walk out within an hour or so with the gun.  You have to also fill out some paperwork.  To actually be allowed to carry the gun you would have to go to the local police station (do not bring the gun) and apply for a permit.  Get fingerprinted then send the info to the state who runs more checks on you then in 6-10 weeks I would recieve my permit in the mail.

To buy the M-16 Assault rifle you have to jump through hoops since it is a selective fire weapon that is capable of full auto fire.  Simple possesion of one is a felony without the proper license.  I don't really know what all is involved with getting a FFL (Federal Firearms License)

If you wanted to just go with the AR-15 that is only able to fire one shot with each trigger pull then you can just buy one from the gunstore and take the rifle home with you after you fill out the paperwork.  I think they run a background check for rifles too but it has been a long time since I bought one. These are the rifles that the American Media has claimed to be assualt rifles and want banned, but in all reality they are used in hardly no crimes. I think it is less than 1% of all gun crimes.

All states have their own laws with firearms. Handguns are banned in Washington D.C. which was just ruled unconstitutional.  Some states are trying to outlaw the .50 cal rifle even though it has never been used in a crime to date in the states.  I have a carry permit for the state of Indiana but I cannot legally carry my handgun into Ohio, Illinois, or Michigan.  I am pretty sure Kentucky recognizes my Indiana permit.  Just in case you are not real familiar with U.S. geography those are the four states that surround Indian but I bet you know that already.

Last edited by JG1567JG (2007-05-07 15:49:59)

PureFodder wrote:

mKmalfunction wrote:

Varegg wrote:

So when do you feel or what line do you draw for the 2nd amendment to be infringed ?

To what level is it already infringed by the "40.000" gun-laws you already have ?

I think having gun laws is an infringement period. I view gun crimes as a social problem. The tragedies that occur in school shootings, etc. are caused by social issues, not the guns themselves.

In Americas early days everyone owned a gun. They were more practical for day to day survival then, I will admit that. But it was also comforting knowing you were able to protect yourself from an oppressive government, one of the main ideas that America was founded on.

The Civil War was the launching point of our Gov't perverting our Constitution. (Our country was founded on the idea that if you felt your government was misrepresenting you, you have the God given right to secede.)

Our current gun laws give us even less protection than before, considering the hunting rifles of those days weren't too dissimilar to the military rifles. Thats why I believe citizens and states should have the right to a militia, and fully automatic weapons. With every year that passes, the USA becomes less of a system 'for the people, by the people.'

One day good old Uncle Sam's going to completely betray his nieces and nephews, and we'll be left throwing rocks at tanks. That's not working out very well for Palestine, and I doubt it'll do us much good either.

I doubt your rifles and shotguns will be much use against the tanks either.

Look at Iraq.  I do not know of a single American tank that had been destroyed there to date, and yet many people believe us to be losing the war.  Our government would really have to think twice before doing anything really oppressive to us.  You think the war in Iraq is bad?  Well why don't we see what happens when they are sorrounded by millions of oppressed firearm owners, instead of just a few thousand Iraqi insurgents, who are thousands of miles away from the people who they are at was against.  That is why, before the government begins their reign of oppression, they will first take away or severly limit our right to bear arms.

theelviscerator wrote:

Varegg wrote:

What could be done with the existing gun laws on restrictions and alterations without hurting your rights given by the 2nd amendment ?

*You would have to be a member of an state approved gun club and attend a minimum of meetings pr year to keep your membership !

*You must apply for a certificate for each caliber gun you want to by !

*The ATF must register a ballistic test of your gun before you are issued the certificate, like a gun fingerprint database !

*You must acquire a hunting licence to buy a rifle !

*You must attend a test showing you are capable of handling the gun before the certificate is issued !

*Special permits for collectors !

*A doctor must declare you mentally fit to own a gun !

*A variation of all of the above !

First of all being a non us Citizen, nobody in the US cares what you think about our laws.

The actual feelings may seem a bit rude so I will spare you that.

You may return to vandalizing elevators.

"You may return to vandalizing elevators" both hilariously insulting and random at the same time.

Last edited by Deadmonkiefart (2007-05-07 19:44:00)

Varegg wrote:

unnamednewbie13 wrote:

1. And what happens if the state shuts down their gun club?
2. Why? Just make the permit requirements more strict all around, because you can kill as easily with a .38 as a .45.
3. A machine shop could alter that as easily as pulling on a latex glove.
4. The point being? What if you'd rather just buy meat, but still want to go out every other weekend to an outdoor range for long-range target practice? You can hunt with certain handgun, too.
5. I agree.
6. The point being? You don't require a permit to collect household chemicals, and look what can be done with those. A hardware store won't even look at you twice if you buy certain sets of them.
7. As long as you aren't declared mentally-unsound just because your ex-wife didn't like being yelled at once.

1. If the state shuts down a gunclub they would prolly have a very good reason.

2. It would make it more difficult to and time consuming to get large amounts of guns that really isn`t needed for personal safety.

3. That may very well be the case, but a criminal with a stolen gun might not take the time to do alterations to a gun he is planning to use in a hold up or for a quick murder.

4. Might not be the best of restrictions i agree but still if you really wan`t a rifle that bad why not, besides a handgun is much more handy for personal safety than a rifle.

5. Goody.


6. A special permit for collectors is one of the means we have in Norway so you can actually own an operational heavy machine gun from lets say WW2.

7. That`s why such doctors should get a state approval from lets say ATF to do such evaluations.

1. Sure would, but it would curb the right to gun ownership.
2. Not really. You'd just buy plenty of the same caliber. Makes it easier to stock ammunition.
3. He might not have time to pick up his brass, either. Police just love those.
4. A handgun is, though a rifle is much more handy for hiking. Even if you have no intention to hunt, there are still predators about, and a rifle can be much cheaper than, say, a S&W Model 500.
6. Remember that here in the US, firearms laws vary from state to state: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_laws_i … ed_States_(by_state)

Interesting sub-topic: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Castle_Doctrine

Last edited by unnamednewbie13 (2007-05-07 19:59:36)

Varegg wrote:

@theelviscerator & ghostgr: Are you really this stupid or did you just not bother reading the posts in this thread ?

Cause if you had bothered reading it you would have known i`m not after changing your gun laws - i wan`t to understand your "obsession" with the 2nd amendment.

Varegg wrote:

What could be done with the existing gun laws on restrictions and alterations without hurting your rights given by the 2nd amendment ?

Meaning what would or could you accept of changes that doesn`t infringe your right to bear arms.

Or do you see it as any change at all is in violation to that amendment ?

I find the fact some kook in norway is obsessing over our gun laws a bit strange.

Some posts here reminds me of:

smtt686 wrote:

Varegg wrote:

What could be done with the existing gun laws on restrictions and alterations without hurting your rights given by the 2nd amendment ?

*You would have to be a member of an state approved gun club and attend a minimum of meetings pr year to keep your membership !

*You must apply for a certificate for each caliber gun you want to by !

*The ATF must register a ballistic test of your gun before you are issued the certificate, like a gun fingerprint database !

*You must acquire a hunting licence to buy a rifle !

*You must attend a test showing you are capable of handling the gun before the certificate is issued !

*Special permits for collectors !

*A doctor must declare you mentally fit to own a gun !

*A variation of all of the above !

I don't live in Norway, so therefore I have no opinion on what should happen in Norway.  You don't live in the United States so keep your nose out. 

You have a problem with our gun laws, fine.  Stay the F&*K out.

Who, exactly do you think you are?

Take your medication, read the hole thread please .... then you have deserved the right to flame me if you want .......

Last edited by Varegg (2007-05-08 12:41:18)

smtt686 wrote:

Varegg wrote:

What could be done with the existing gun laws on restrictions and alterations without hurting your rights given by the 2nd amendment ?

*You would have to be a member of an state approved gun club and attend a minimum of meetings pr year to keep your membership !

*You must apply for a certificate for each caliber gun you want to by !

*The ATF must register a ballistic test of your gun before you are issued the certificate, like a gun fingerprint database !

*You must acquire a hunting licence to buy a rifle !

*You must attend a test showing you are capable of handling the gun before the certificate is issued !

*Special permits for collectors !

*A doctor must declare you mentally fit to own a gun !

*A variation of all of the above !

I don't live in Norway, so therefore I have no opinion on what should happen in Norway.  You don't live in the United States so keep your nose out. 

You have a problem with our gun laws, fine.  Stay the F&*K out.

Who, exactly do you think you are?

PMS?...  Geez dude...  chill out.