NRA backs new regs on device used in Vegas shootings

[roamer_1]

Really?

Do you think that the government would have put in a clause in its own constitution encouraging a right to violently overthrow itself, when in the same bill of rights it guarantees a right to life and liberty?

The 2nd Amendment is meant to provide for a right of the people to organize and prevent foreign invasion. It also requires that said organization be "well-regulated." You have a right to bear arms, but the government has the right to regulate it. It does not grant a right to use those arms against said government.

The Second Amendment guarantees what was first declared in the Declaration of Independence.

The government exists to defend the God given rights of the people - And when it no longer does, it is the duty of the people to dissolve it and create it anew. Dissolving governments takes high powered detergents.

[mrclose]

Really?

Do you think that the government would have put in a clause in its own constitution encouraging a right to violently overthrow itself, when in the same bill of rights it guarantees a right to life and liberty?

The 2nd Amendment is meant to provide for a right of the people to organize and prevent foreign invasion. It also requires that said organization be "well-regulated." You have a right to bear arms, but the government has the right to regulate it. It does not grant a right to use those arms against said government.

Go back and do another study of history please!

A widely reprinted article by Tench Coxe, an ally and correspondent of James Madison, described the Second Amendment's overriding goal as a check upon the national government's standing army:

As civil rulers, not having their duty to the people duly before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as the military forces which must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow citizens, the people are confirmed by the next article in their right to keep and bear their private arms.

History shows that all conquerors who have allowed their subject races to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by so doing.

Adolph Hitler

TENCH COXE

A fascinating read on this relatively unknown Secondary Founder at the PDF link below.

https://tinyurl.com/yb43ymbr

[edpc]

Really?

Do you think that the government would have put in a clause in its own constitution encouraging a right to violently overthrow itself, when in the same bill of rights it guarantees a right to life and liberty?

The 2nd Amendment is meant to provide for a right of the people to organize and prevent foreign invasion. It also requires that said organization be "well-regulated." You have a right to bear arms, but the government has the right to regulate it. It does not grant a right to use those arms against said government.

The Second Amendment was based partially on the right to keep and bear arms in English common law and was influenced by the English Bill of Rights of 1689. Sir William Blackstone described this right as an auxiliary right, supporting the natural rights of self-defense, resistance to oppression, and the civic duty to act in concert in defense of the state.

[Smokin Joe]

Really?

Do you think that the government would have put in a clause in its own constitution encouraging a right to violently overthrow itself, when in the same bill of rights it guarantees a right to life and liberty?

The 2nd Amendment is meant to provide for a right of the people to organize and prevent foreign invasion. It also requires that said organization be "well-regulated." You have a right to bear arms, but the government has the right to regulate it. It does not grant a right to use those arms against said government.

Actually, NO.

The security of any 'free state' depends on the people having the means to retain that freedom.

The people were the device by which any attempt to use the army to take away their liberty (something the Founders had just overthrown) would be repulsed.
The military was to be under civilian control, and the civilian control exerted by the People to prevent the abuse of the military to impose tyranny.
Their arms are the tools which would make that possible, and thus the right to keep and bear them sacrosanct.  ...The Right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. 

[roamer_1]

Go back and do another study of history please!

A widely reprinted article by Tench Coxe, an ally and correspondent of James Madison, described the Second Amendment's overriding goal as a check upon the national government's standing army:

Quite right - And that being the proto-genesis - The very reason why the BOR was penned - To guard the citizen against the power of a standing federal army, which was, in that same breath, being granted for the first time.

[Oceander]

@Right_in_Virginia
What reason is there to have an electronic email system for communicating?  Or for more than one pair of shoes?   If you are going to start questioning 'need' for Constitutionally protected rights then you should just join the leftists.

Legal automatic weapons have been used in crimes 3 times.   Two of those were by FBI agents.

Automatic weapons are not of much use except in close quarters.    He most likely would have done far more damage with more disciplined semi-automatic fire.  The firearm is much easier to control and keep on target.

No Constitutional right is so absolute that it cannot be subject to reasonable limitations.  The obvious one being that laws that make it illegal to shout “fire” in a crowded theater are not unconstitutional as a violation of the right to free speech. 

Limiting access to fully automatic weapons, and devices that can make semi-auto function almost like full-auto, is reasonable in exactly the same way. 

[roamer_1]

No Constitutional right is so absolute that it cannot be subject to reasonable limitations.  The obvious one being that laws that make it illegal to shout “fire” in a crowded theater are not unconstitutional as a violation of the right to free speech. 

Limiting access to fully automatic weapons, and devices that can make semi-auto function almost like full-auto, is reasonable in exactly the same way.

I will differ from you in this, at least in effect. All such measures can do is keep honest people honest. All the laws in the world won't stop the black market from generating what you need... the price will just get higher.

[Smokin Joe]

No Constitutional right is so absolute that it cannot be subject to reasonable limitations.  The obvious one being that laws that make it illegal to shout “fire” in a crowded theater are not unconstitutional as a violation of the right to free speech. 

Limiting access to fully automatic weapons, and devices that can make semi-auto function almost like full-auto, is reasonable in exactly the same way.

So, pray tell, what do you shout if there is a fire in the theater?

A common device used in rape is a .....penis! Penises should be regulated to prevent rape! Large penises should be banned! If the response time is quick, they need to be regulated!

Oh wait. Ridiculous?

Yep.

But you can see where that goes. We can play the same game with cars and horsepower, with the height of trucks, with the length of a knife, the heft of a stick, baseball bats, there is literally no limit to the number of things we can regulate! It's a totalitarian dream, nocturnal emissions and all.

[mrclose]

No Constitutional right is so absolute that it cannot be subject to reasonable limitations.  The obvious one being that laws that make it illegal to shout “fire” in a crowded theater are not unconstitutional as a violation of the right to free speech. 

Limiting access to fully automatic weapons, and devices that can make semi-auto function almost like full-auto, is reasonable in exactly the same way.

What is it about "Shall not be infringed" that escapes you?

The Rulers are the ones that you entrust to make the rules?

You would have been a nazi sympathizer if that is the case.

Actually, you would have agree with all of the dictatorships who upon seizing power .. seized everyone's ability to fight back!

It was the very first thing that dictators do!

The difference with us is we have the second amendment but it is slowly being chipped away.
(Infringed Upon)

[thackney]

Really?

Do you think that the government would have put in a clause in its own constitution encouraging a right to violently overthrow itself, when in the same bill of rights it guarantees a right to life and liberty?

The 2nd Amendment is meant to provide for a right of the people to organize and prevent foreign invasion. It also requires that said organization be "well-regulated." You have a right to bear arms, but the government has the right to regulate it. It does not grant a right to use those arms against said government.

I don't agree.  These people writing the Constitution just threw out the lawful government for being overbearing to the Citizens.  Go read the intro to the Declaration of Independence again.  It was strong on their minds.

[Smokin Joe]

I don't agree.  These people writing the Constitution just threw out the lawful government for being overbearing to the Citizens. Go read the intro to the Declaration of Independence again.  It was strong on their minds.

All the more reason for the People to retain the ability to do so again, and to protect that against any new lawful government!

[driftdiver]

You do realize back when the 2nd Amendment was written, the only advance equipment the Government had at the time was the Cannon?  Right now the Military has the capability to shoot someone with a drone.


Trust me the Government is going to win.

@kevindavis

You do realize there are about 80 million firearm owners, right?

[edpc]

@kevindavis

You do realize there are about 80 million firearm owners, right?

Scattered, disorganized, many without training or discipline and definitely not in fighting shape.  Indian tribes has us outnumbered, with superior firepower volume, until the mass production of repeating firearms.  Had they been able to unite, they would have kicked us off the continent long before the nation's founding.

[driftdiver]

Scattered, disorganized, many without training or discipline and definitely not in fighting shape.  Indian tribes has us outnumbered, with superior firepower volume, until the mass production of repeating firearms.  Had they been able to unite, they would have kicked us off the continent long before the nation's founding.

It wouldn't be pretty but I doubt there would be that many military who would fight.  The real deterrent is at a political level.

[edpc]

 

It wouldn't be pretty but I doubt there would be that many military who would fight.  The real deterrent is at a political level.

Yes and I'm looking at it in the worst case, dystopian perspective.

[NavyCanDo]

If the NRA Tried to defend the right to use bump-stocks they would be falling on their own sword. The NRA  is right not take on that fight. I support them in this decision.

[starstruck]

NRA backs new regs on device used in Vegas shootings
By Ian Swanson - 10/05/17 02:21 PM EDT

The National Rifle Association in its first statement on the Las Vegas shootings is calling for additional regulations on a device used by the shooter that allows more rounds to be fired by a single pull of the trigger.

The NRA stops short of calling for legislation on "bump stocks," however, and instead urges lawmakers to pass "National Right-to-Carry reciprocity" which it says would allow people to defend themselves.

Here is the full NRA statement:

"In the aftermath of the evil and senseless attack in Las Vegas, the American people are looking for answers as to how future tragedies can be prevented. 

"Unfortunately, the first response from some politicians has been to call for more gun control. Banning guns from law-abiding Americans based on the criminal act of a madman will do nothing to prevent future attacks. This is a fact that has been proven time and again in countries across the world.

In Las Vegas, reports indicate that certain devices were used to modify the firearms involved. Despite the fact that the Obama administration approved the sale of bump fire stocks on at least two occasions, the National Rifle Association is calling on the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (BATFE) to immediately review whether these devices comply with federal law. 

"The NRA believes that devices designed to allow semi-automatic rifles to function like fully-automatic rifles should be subject to additional regulations.

"In an increasingly dangerous world, the NRA remains focused on our mission: strengthening Americans' Second Amendment freedom to defend themselves, their families and their communities. 

"To that end, on behalf of our five million members across the country, we urge Congress to pass National Right-to-Carry reciprocity, which will allow law-abiding Americans to defend themselves and their families from acts of violence."

DEVELOPING

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/354081-nra-backs-new-regs-on-device-used-in-vegas-shootings

Other than having fun at the range bump stocks etc. have no particular use to me. What concerns me is if the NRA gives away anything I will no longer be a member. They will be like the GOP. Sellouts. Don't give anything away unless you are getting something in return.

[Oceander]

I will differ from you in this, at least in effect. All such measures can do is keep honest people honest. All the laws in the world won't stop the black market from generating what you need... the price will just get higher.

The existence of an illegal market does not vitiate the basic premise that the Second Amendment is subject to reasonable limits, just like every other constitutional right. 

[kevindavis007]

Scattered, disorganized, many without training or discipline and definitely not in fighting shape.  Indian tribes has us outnumbered, with superior firepower volume, until the mass production of repeating firearms.  Had they been able to unite, they would have kicked us off the continent long before the nation's founding.

Exactly.  Today's military is much better than it was 200 years ago.   All they can do is send in a drone and shoot some nut bag who thinks they can take on the Feds.

[driftdiver]

The existence of an illegal market does not vitiate the basic premise that the Second Amendment is subject to reasonable limits, just like every other constitutional right.

What reasonable limits exist for other constitutional rights

[driftdiver]

Exactly.  Today's military is much better than it was 200 years ago.   All they can do is send in a drone and shoot some nut bag who thinks they can take on the Feds.

Well aren't you just the good little bootlicker

[mrclose]

You do realize back when the 2nd Amendment was written, the only advance equipment the Government had at the time was the Cannon?  Right now the Military has the capability to shoot someone with a drone.


Trust me the Government is going to win.

All you had to do was to do a search of this site to see the fallacy of your statement!

http://www.gopbriefingroom.com/index.php/topic,215233.msg958861.html#msg958861

[Smokin Joe]

The existence of an illegal market does not vitiate the basic premise that the Second Amendment is subject to reasonable limits, just like every other constitutional right.

I disagree, counselor. First off, "reasonable limitations" are unconstitutionally vague. "Reasonable limitations", in this instance, have been defined from total prohibition to absolutely and completely unmolested.

Limitations have been placed upon the 2nd Amendment rights of those who have been found guilty of serious or violent crimes or found to be Non Compos Mentis using Due Process, and that is where that should end.
Anything else is a prediction of guilt levied against a very large class of individuals.

What part of "Shall Not Be  Infringed"  are you having trouble with?

[Right_in_Virginia]

Why shouldn't bump stocks be subject to the same regulations as automatic weapons?

[Smokin Joe]

Why shouldn't bump stocks be subject to the same regulations as automatic weapons?

I am not saying they couldn't be. (Can't have one made after 1986 unless you are law enforcement or military? --Oh, that won't work.)
First off, the BATF twice okayed them under the Obama administration. So they haven't been.

Second, and here is where the waters get muddy, is defining a "bump stock". Is that any device which permits a semi-automatic weapon to be fired like a full automatic weapon? Because the finger is an integral part of that, as is a trigger. There are a large number of Machine Gun parts which are defined as "a machine gun" under BATF rules, and doing something similar with bump stocks could redefine a rubber band. A bootlace. A piece of para cord as such an enhancement device and subject someone to felony charges, imprisonment and fine for a bootlace.

If there is to be such a definition, it must be specific and narrow or it will end up hurting a lot of people who are law abiding folks. For that reason, I am against it.