Trump just caved on gun control

[txradioguy]

Yup that's it in a nutshell. 

[geronl]

Thy Noble Steed, sir!

[sneakypete]

Trump believes he can punish a business if it moves offshore.  He believes he can do it all by himself.

So we know he doesn't give a damn about due process.

Why is that surprising? The man STILL thinks the job of a VP is to be his assistant,the guy he tells what he wants to happen,and then sends out to make it happen.

Trump is without a doubt the most clueless fool we have ever had running for president.

[sneakypete]

[quote author=mrpotatohead link=topic=211948.msg928882#msg928882 date=14660079

I've fired an "assault rifle" and it was fun to shoot, but not practical for hunting, unless you want to slaughter hogs, which may not be such a bad idea.  Personally I don't own one and would likely never buy one, just because it's not practical.  If you are looking to protect yourself from your overreaching government I could see owning one.


[/quote]

The Second Amendment WAS NOT written to protect your right to hunt,collect guns,target shoot,shoot trap,shoot skeet,or even to shoot a home invader.

It was written to insure that Americans would forever be able to own MILITARY GRADE WEAPONS TYPICAL OF THOSE CARRIED BY THE REGULAR INFANTRYMAN SO THAT IF/WHEN THE TIME COMES TO TAKE BACK CONTROL OF AN OUT OF CONTROL DICTATORIAL GOVERNMENT,THE COMMON MAN WILL HAVE THE SAME ARMAMENT AS THE PROFESSIONAL SOLDIERS HE WILL BE FACING.

The fact that these weapons are also suitable,if not ideal,for hunting,self-defense,target shooting,or any other shooting activity is irrelevant even if it is a bonus.

Which means,that it is the AR-15's and ACTUAL FULL-AUTO M-4's of today that are the very weapons whose ownership and possession by citizens that are protected by the Second Amendment.

Having said that,since even machine gun ownership is a protected RIGHT,on what grounds can the government use to justify taking away your handgun,bolt-action rifle,or shotgun,GIVEN THAT ALL THREE ARE ISSUE ITEMS TO INFANTRY SOLDIERS?

The feral government even knows this,which is why there are no federal laws forbidding citizens from owning machine guns.  Yeah,they passed the Machine Gun Act of 1934 into law,but even then they had to provide ownership by common citizens by allowing anyone with enough money to buy their $200 "tax stamp" to buy one. $200 was a TON of money back in Depression era America,but not a problem to the Rockefellers and others who needed to buy machine guns to arm their family bodyguards. Some of those people liked to flaunt their wealth back in the 30's by lighting their cigars with 100 dollar bills.

Now that $200 isn't that much money,they came up with a new way of controlling access to full-auto weapons by working-class swine,they started destroying them when they became surplus,instead of selling them,and they banned the importation of any of them into the US. Even the ones originally made here and shipped to foreign countries as military aid over the decades. The result is a simple M-3 "greasegun" that GM and others made for WW-2 tank and airborne troops for $3 each that were selling for around $350 each suddenly went up to over $3,000 each because once they get worn out they are gone forever because there are no replacements.

[sneakypete]

excerpt:  'plan by Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, that would let the government delay firearms sales to suspected terrorists for up to 72 hours. Under that proposal, the transaction could be halted permanently if federal officials could persuade a judge to do so during that waiting period.

The NRA has backed Cornyn's plan.'

http://www.sfgate.com/news/article/Trump-to-discuss-terrorism-watch-list-no-fly-ban-8199467.php

Personally I like the idea of DEPORTING anyone on that 'terror watch list'......

Let me see if I understand this properly,ok? The proposed plan the NRA agrees with gives the feral government up to 3 days to shop around for  a judge that agrees with them to assign the case to so they get the outcome they want,and this is a GOOD idea?

How about this,if the MoFo's are such a threat to the US that we have to remove their 2nd Amendment Rights,why haven't they been arrested and had all their rights temporarily suspended until after they are found guilty in a trial or they plead guilty?

[sneakypete]

This is one of those ideas that sounds inarguable on its face, until the administration consults with the Southern Poverty Law Center to decide who should be put on the terrorist watch list.

BINGO!

[sneakypete]

Cannons weren't uncommon on civilian ships when it was written, even as late as the Civil War you had private purchases of Gatlin guns by those forming their own military units.

IIRC,you had to get a "Letter of Marquis" from either the governor of your state or the feds to mount cannons on ships,and then you were free to loot and pillage ships owned by the Spanish or English as long as the Governor or the feds got a cut of the booty.

Owning cannons was wide open on shore,though. Mostly because they were damn near useless unless you were defending a fort and had a bunch of them,and damn few people could afford one.

[sneakypete]

ote author=Jazzhead link=topic=211948.msg928914#msg928914 date=1466009346]
If folks on a terrorist no-fly list can be banned from boarding a plane,  why cannot they be banned from buying guns?

If the answer is the need for due process, then let's address what due process can be employed to protect our rights.   We have already established tribunals - the FISA courts - to provide due process with respect to government attempts to engage specific surveillance of individuals.    Maybe the solution is to require the government to provide evidence to a FISA court in order to place an individual on a no-buy list.
[/quote]

Let's cut to the chase. The fact is that if they are so dangerous to the Republic that they can't be trusted to board a commercial airliner,they can't be trusted to remain in America,and we need to deport them as we find them.

If they are Americans,we need to have them arrested and held on probable cause until a Grand Jury says to send them off to a trial.

Possession of guns shouldn't even be a consideration. It should never go that far.

[sneakypete]

They have stopping power but less over penetration than even a 9mm, 45ACP or even a shotgun with 00.

The ar-15 round tends to break up after going through sheetrock.   Tests I've seen found the ar-15 round wouldn't go thru 3 layers of sheetrock in simulated walls.    All the other calibers went through at least 4 layers.

Say WHAT? The standard US/Nato 5.56mm round will penetrate a steel helmet at up to 400 yards

And whose tests were they? Were they using glass bullets?

[sitetest]

And that brings full circle back to why it's a bad idea to abrogated the second amendment rights of citizens on watch lists.  If you've got enough stuff on them to withstand the scrutiny of due process, then bring them to trial, if not, then don't abrogated their rights.

[sneakypete]

What if the person is a American citizen?

Yew muss be wunna them hippy trublemakers.

Weeze watch-in you ,boy!

[Puss-N-Boots]

Not if due process is employed.   It's not impossible,  the mechanisms exist.   But it is madness to refuse to consider limiting the ability of known terrorist sympathizers to get guns.   

I'm leaning toward that view as well.  There has to be some sort of due process; too many people end up on these lists that shouldn't be.

[NavyCanDo]

She gets it!


The 2nd Amendment explained by a 14 year old Girl.

Gun Control according to King George III

In England, King George III, wanting to suppress the rebellious spirit of the colonist, stripped the colonist of their right to bear arms through “an aggressive gun control program in 1774-1776.” England banned the import of guns and ammunition, confiscated the colonist personal guns and gunpowder and the central repositories that served as a “holding room” for the towns guns and powder. British soldiers placed Boston under military occupation and went house to house confiscating firearms, the British navy threatened to bombard and destroy towns that did not comply. You can now see why citizens “right to bear arms was so important to our founders.

THE BOTTOM LINE
The second Amendment establishes that the militia has the right to secure a state, and you have the right to own a firearm for defense

WHAT WERE THEY THINKING?
Our Founding Fathers believed the right to bear arms protects the First Amendment, and it was the best guarantee for the United States and its people to remain free.

WHY SHOULD I CARE?
Amendment II of the United States Constitution is among the most cherished rights of American citizens. If the right to bear arms is infringed upon, the chances for invasion and tyrannical control of America greatly increases.

BREAKING IT DOWN
The Amendment gives the people the right to bear arms, or own guns, even if not in the military. States also are allowed to organize their own militias.


Juliette Turner  age 14 from her book Our Constitution Rocks!

[GrouchoTex]

It is madness to believe that a president such as Obama, or Hillary, or Trump for that matter, would not declare any political enemy as a "known terrorist sympathizer". Members of Obama's government are already on record as saying the "extreme right wing" is as dangerous as Islamic terrorism. Do you really believe they don't consider you and I members of the "extreme right wing", and therefore that we shouldn't be able to buy a gun?

You are correct. Today it could be us, tomorrow, someone else.

Whoever runs the program, whoever is in charge at the time, will determine just who is and who is not a terrorist.
The left could do it today, banning us from buying guns, and the Right could do it tomorrow.

For example, the government could declare Washington Post reporters as a menace to society and put them on a "no buy" list.

[Elderberry]

I'm leaning toward that view as well.  There has to be some sort of due process; too many people end up on these lists that shouldn't be.

My fear is what comes next?

First your name is placed on the Suspicious Person List.

Then your name is placed on a No Purchase List.

Then your name is  placed on the No Possession List.

Then your name is placed on the Confiscation List.

Then your name is placed on the Reeducation List.

[Puss-N-Boots]

I wish I had the answers.  I just have to believe there's some sensible middle ground that doesn't impact law abiding citizens.

The trouble is I don't really trust the current crop of elected officials to be ethical.

[sneakypete]

I wish I had the answers.  I just have to believe there's some sensible middle ground that doesn't impact law abiding citizens.

The trouble is I don't really trust the current crop of elected officials to be ethical.

I am not a lawyer,but I am pretty sure there is such a mechanism in place in our legal code,and it is called "due process".

IF it is determined these people are a danger to the Republic to the point we can't allow them to buy a airline ticket and fly,WHY haven't they been charged with some sort of crime so they can appear before a judge and have him either free them or certify them for trial?

Airline tickets and guns shouldn't even be  a part of the conversation.

[Elderberry]

The barrel is to long for me and my house has several relatively narrow door ways in close proximity. I prefer either my Dan Wesson 357 with 158 gr. JHP's or the Colt 1911 with 240 gr. roundball. But as you said each to his own

I would stick with the 45. The 357 is going to be awfully loud inside.

LOUDNESS OF A GUNSHOT

Dr. Krammer, Ph.D., Ball State University, Muncie, Indiana has documented the following sound pressure levels.

 
SHOTGUN NOISE DATA (DECIBEL AVERAGES)

.410 Bore 28″ barrel, 150 dB
.410 Bore 26″ barrel, 150 dB
.410 Bore 18″ barrel, 156 dB
20 Gauge 28″ barrel, 152 dB
20 Gauge 22″ barrel, 155 dB
12 Gauge 28″ barrel, 152 dB
12 Gauge 26″ barrel, 156 dB
12 Gauge 18″ barrel, 162 dB

 
CENTERFIRE RIFLE DATA

.223, 55GR. Commercial load 18″ barrel, 156 dB
.243 in 22″ barrel, 156 dB
.30-30 in 20″ barrel, 156 dB
7mm Magnum in 20″ barrel, 158 dB
.308 in 24″ barrel, 156 dB
.30-06 in 24″ barrel, 159 dB
.30-06 in 18″ barrel, 163 dB
.375 — 18″ barrel with muzzle brake, 170 dB

 
CENTERFIRE PISTOL DATA

.25 ACP, 155 dB
.32 LONG, 152 dB
.32 ACP, 154 dB
.380, 158 dB
9mm, 160 dB
.38 S&W, 154 dB
.38 Spl, 156 dB
.357 Magnum, 164 dB
.41 Magnum, 163 dB
.44 Spl, 156 dB
.45 ACP, 157 dB
.45 COLT, 155 dB

[Ghost Bear]

You are correct. Today it could be us, tomorrow, someone else.

Whoever runs the program, whoever is in charge at the time, will determine just who is and who is not a terrorist.
The left could do it today, banning us from buying guns, and the Right could do it tomorrow.

For example, the government could declare Washington Post reporters as a menace to society and put them on a "no buy" list.

A government led by President Trump could definitely do that. I don't think any regular politician would do it though. 

[Suppressed]

@sneakypete @geronl

IIRC,you had to get a "Letter of Marquis" from either the governor of your state or the feds to mount cannons on ships,and then you were free to loot and pillage ships owned by the Spanish or English as long as the Governor or the feds got a cut of the booty.

Are you sure that a letter of marque and reprisal was required to mount the cannon, or just to use it to attack?

Owning cannons was wide open on shore,though. Mostly because they were damn near useless unless you were defending a fort and had a bunch of them,and damn few people could afford one.

Stone houses acted as "forts" and the government even gave cannons to private citizens for defense.  They were far from useless, especially as they had great deterrent effect.

For example, here's an example of use of a small cannon that had been given to a private citizen by the New York government for defense of himself and neighbors...


https://books.google.com/books?id=mZQ-AAAAYAAJ&lpg=PA668&ots=WfhUu9i-K2&pg=PA668#v=onepage&q&f=false

[Suppressed]

The original quote also included "known enemy of State" a legal term meaning accessory before the fact.

If that's the case, why did Mr. Trump change his tweet to no longer say it?

[sneakypete]

I would stick with the 45. The 357 is going to be awfully loud inside.

It's been my experience that they are all painfully loud inside a building if they are accidental discharges,but I suspect that like outside gun fire,if you are involved in a gun fight at the time you wouldn't even notice the noise.

I do admit to being able to cringe just from thinking about the blast of a centerfire rifle or magnum pistol inside a house,though.

[Idaho_Cowboy]

My fear is what comes next?

First your name is placed on the Suspicious Person List.

Then your name is placed on a No Purchase List.

Then your name is  placed on the No Possession List.

Then your name is placed on the Confiscation List.

Then your name is placed on the Reeducation List.

And the next thing you know, someone wants you to take off your ring so you can take a shower.

[sneakypete]

@sneakypete @geronl

Are you sure that a letter of marque and reprisal was required to mount the cannon, or just to use it to attack? <<

Well,I AM sure that if you don't have them mounted you ain't going to have any luck firing them at an enemy.

>>Stone houses acted as "forts" and the government even gave cannons to private citizens for defense.  They were far from useless, especially as they had great deterrent effect.<<

Pretty useless unless it was  a really big house with enough able-bodied males around to man the cannons and reload them. Even then you would need grapeshot to be effective against casual infantry.

Cannons were good against "things" like siege engines,forts,walls,doors,etc,etc,etc,but pretty much wasted against personnel because cannonballs didn't fragment.

[Idaho_Cowboy]

@sneakypete @geronl

Are you sure that a letter of marque and reprisal was required to mount the cannon, or just to use it to attack?

Stone houses acted as "forts" and the government even gave cannons to private citizens for defense.  They were far from useless, especially as they had great deterrent effect.

For example, here's an example of use of a small cannon that had been given to a private citizen by the New York government for defense of himself and neighbors...


https://books.google.com/books?id=mZQ-AAAAYAAJ&lpg=PA668&ots=WfhUu9i-K2&pg=PA668#v=onepage&q&f=false

At least one of the early wagon master's had a cannon for fighting Indians. They were also used for fighting fires in the oil fields back in the early days.
http://aoghs.org/technology/oilfield-artillery-fights-fires/