• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Lautenberg, McCarthy propose high-capacity magazine ban[W:178]

Spring99 said:
Limiting magazine quantity to 10 rounds, hurts no one.

Its not even an inconvenience. No hunter needs 10 let aline 5 round his a magazine to hunt deer or turkey (unless they totally suck at shooting).

You don't need 100 or 25 rounds per magazine to defend your home against a robber, unless you're preparing for a shoot out.

Politicians should seperate the gun bills into many focused bills, so that each one can be voted on seperately. I have confidence a magazine limit bill would pass the House.

Folks who already have high-capacity magazines should be required to permanently fix their magazines to only hold 10 rounds, or sell them to the govt. ar fair-market value.

Folks caught owning high-capacity magazines after the ban goes into place, should face a Misdemeanor charge and $1,000 penalty, unless the magazine is used in a crime..which should be a felony with a minimum 5 year sentence.
Click to expand...

More idiocy. the police of NY carry 15-17 round magazines. if it hurts them then it hurts anyone else who might face a criminal

EVERY HEARD OF IPSC- guess not

your claims are dismissed as being the product of ignorance
 
Catawba said:
No way to track sales from gun shows in 40 states that do not require BGC's, that's the point.
Click to expand...

no way to track guns after a sale based on a BGC-the BGC does not record who bought what

again you prove your ignorance
 
Spring99 said:
Limiting magazine quantity to 10 rounds, hurts no one.

Its not even an inconvenience. No hunter needs 10 let aline 5 round his a magazine to hunt deer or turkey (unless they totally suck at shooting).

You don't need 100 or 25 rounds per magazine to defend your home against a robber, unless you're preparing for a shoot out.

Politicians should seperate the gun bills into many focused bills, so that each one can be voted on seperately. I have confidence a magazine limit bill would pass the House.

Folks who already have high-capacity magazines should be required to permanently fix their magazines to only hold 10 rounds, or sell them to the govt. ar fair-market value.

Folks caught owning high-capacity magazines after the ban goes into place, should face a Misdemeanor charge and $1,000 penalty, unless the magazine is used in a crime..which should be a felony with a minimum 5 year sentence.
Click to expand...

No.

Government should obey the Constitution, and keep its filthy hands off of the people's right to keep and bear arms.

Any legislator, judge, executive, or law-enforcement officer who is complicit in enacting, upholding, or enforcing any unconstitutional law which infringes upon this right ought to face felony charges, with a minimum of twenty years in prison if convicted.

We, the people, need to hold our public servants accountable to their oath to uphold and defend the Constitution; and we need to very forcefully remind them that they are our servants, and not our masters.
 
Bob Blaylock said:
No.

Government should obey the Constitution, and keep its filthy hands off of the people's right to keep and bear arms.

Any legislator, judge, executive, or law-enforcement officer who is complicit in enacting, upholding, or enforcing any unconstitutional law which infringes upon this right ought to face felony charges, with a minimum of twenty years in prison if convicted.

We, the people, need to hold our public servants accountable to their oath to uphold and defend the Constitution; and we need to very forcefully remind them that they are our servants, and not our masters.
Click to expand...

Best post ever!
 
TurtleDude said:
its illegal to deal in guns without a federal firearms license
Click to expand...

No, it is not. The laws which purport to make it so, do so in violation of the Constitution. The right to keep and bear arms, as affirmed in the Second Amendment, necessarily must include the right to buy, manufacture, sell, trade, or otherwise exchange arms, and no level of government has any business infringing in any way upon this right.
 
Bob Blaylock said:
No.

Government should obey the Constitution, and keep its filthy hands off of the people's right to keep and bear arms.

Any legislator, judge, executive, or law-enforcement officer who is complicit in enacting, upholding, or enforcing any unconstitutional law which infringes upon this right ought to face felony charges, with a minimum of twenty years in prison if convicted.

We, the people, need to hold our public servants accountable to their oath to uphold and defend the Constitution; and we need to very forcefully remind them that they are our servants, and not our masters.
Click to expand...

any government agent who says a 17 round magazine is suitable for CIVILIAN agents to use for SELF DEFENSE should be precluded-under the penalty of felony perjury-from arguing that "NO CIVILIAN has a NEED for such
a weapon or magazine
 
Bob Blaylock said:
No, it is not. The laws which purport to make it so, do so in violation of the Constitution. The right to keep and bear arms, as affirmed in the Second Amendment, necessarily must include the right to buy, manufacture, sell, trade, or otherwise exchange arms, and no level of government has any business infringing in any way upon this right.
Click to expand...


I agree but I note that the GCA of 68 makes it illegal to be in business of dealing firearms without a license

I agree that only the states should have the authority to regulate such stuff under the tenth amendment
 
TurtleDude said:
Bob Blaylock said:
TurtleDude said:
its illegal to deal in guns without a federal firearms license
Click to expand...

No, it is not. The laws which purport to make it so, do so in violation of the Constitution. The right to keep and bear arms, as affirmed in the Second Amendment, necessarily must include the right to buy, manufacture, sell, trade, or otherwise exchange arms, and no level of government has any business infringing in any way upon this right.
Click to expand...

I agree but I note that the GCA of 68 makes it illegal to be in business of dealing firearms without a license
Click to expand...

No, it does not. That's what it purports to do, but as it violates the Constitution, it is invalid.

It cannot be illegal to exercise a right which the Constitution explicitly affirms. That a law exists that clearly violates the Constitution, that such a law may be upheld by corrupt courts and judges, that a person may be arrested, convicted, and imprisoned for breaking that law, does not render that law valid. I say that any such law is invalid, that a citizen commits no genuine crime by violating such a law, and that any government officials who enforce it are the ones committing the crime.

The Constitution is the highest law of the land, and it trumps any lower law which is in conflict therewith.

TurtleDude said:
I agree that only the states should have the authority to regulate such stuff under the tenth amendment
Click to expand...

Per the Second Amendment, states don't have that authority either. The Second Amendment doesn't say that only the federal government is forbidden from infringing upon the right which it affirms; it says that this right shall not be infringed, period. This means by any agency of any level of government.
 
TurtleDude said:
no way to track guns after a sale based on a BGC-the BGC does not record who bought what

again you prove your ignorance
Click to expand...

No way to track huh? FFL dealers are required to retain the BGC applications for 5 years, which includes name and address of the buyer.
 
Bob Blaylock said:
No, it does not. That's what it purports to do, but as it violates the Constitution, it is invalid.

It cannot be illegal to exercise a right which the Constitution explicitly affirms. That a law exists that clearly violates the Constitution, that such a law may be upheld by corrupt courts and judges, that a person may be arrested, convicted, and imprisoned for breaking that law, does not render that law valid. I say that any such law is invalid, that a citizen commits no genuine crime by violating such a law, and that any government officials who enforce it are the ones committing the crime.

The Constitution is the highest law of the land, and it trumps any lower law which is in conflict therewith.



Per the Second Amendment, states don't have that authority either. The Second Amendment doesn't say that only the federal government is forbidden from infringing upon the right which it affirms; it says that this right shall not be infringed, period. This means by any agency of any level of government.
Click to expand...

I agree but until the supreme court actually follows the constitution, you might not succeed
 
Catawba said:
No way to track huh? FFL dealers are required to retain the BGC applications for 5 years, which includes name and address of the buyer.
Click to expand...


that is the 4473 and the ATF does not have the right to compile who owned what until the actual weapon is used in a crime. the NICS does not get told what the weapon was other than long gun or pistol (for age reasons)
 
TurtleDude said:
that is the 4473 and the ATF does not have the right to compile who owned what until the actual weapon is used in a crime. the NICS does not get told what the weapon was other than long gun or pistol (for age reasons)
Click to expand...


My point was they have a way to track guns for which the BGC was required. You said they had no way to do that.

This may be used more in light of the of one of the President's new executive orders:

"— Require federal law enforcement to trace all recovered guns."

Obama reveals proposal to reduce gun violence, 23 executive orders
 
TurtleDude said:
right now there is no data base where the ATF can determine who owns what

and we need to keep it that way
Click to expand...

If you are a gun expert, you should know the government can track the history of a gun, including its first buyer and seller, after it's used in a crime.
 
Catawba said:
If you are a gun expert, you should know the government can track the history of a gun, including its first buyer and seller, after it's used in a crime.
Click to expand...

There is a huge difference between finding out this information as part of a crime investigation and just keeping a database on the gun ownership of law abiding citizens.

Why do you need to viloate the privacy of law abiding citizens?
 
Catawba said:
If you are a gun expert, you should know the government can track the history of a gun, including its first buyer and seller, after it's used in a crime.
Click to expand...

first retail buyer yes

who would be its first seller-yes

IF THE GUN was bought after the 1968 GCA and if the dealer still has the records

in many cases that is no longer true
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom