A conservative case for an assault weapons ban

[gatormoe1]

Originally Posted by chompalot

If they don't turn their AR in the perpetrator would just be fined every time the he's found with this type of weapon. It might be too "messy" and wouldn't be practical to do it any other way. The fine should have a very large minimum but also should have the ability to larger based on a persons wealth or income (some type of formulation would need to be figured out) and it would increase exponentially with each additional offense. I think a buy-back program and a fine would be a sufficient carrot and stick for most people to comply.

Please leave my country.

[wgbgator]

Originally Posted by Minister_of_Information

Not really a side issue. The judge's argument rests upon there being no civilian purpose for such arms. But civilians in this country are considered part of the ("people's") militia, a paramilitary force. And these weapons have a paramilitary purpose. Whether they are compatible with public safety is a matter that can be debated and potentially regulated, but the argument that they are ipso facto inappropriate for civilian possession is erroneous.

Considered by whom? Militias were nationalized a long time ago, because they were terrible at performing any sort of military function. Even in the Revolution, all those militia routinely quit to go back to their farms, whereas the professional soldiers and mercenaries did the bulk of the soldiering and competent fighting. There is no formal people's paramilitary force, not even really an informal one. Mostly, its an obsessive love of amatuerism, than a real defense force of any kind.

[gator996]

Originally Posted by gatorman_07732

All those in favor of an oppressive government say Yea

I know you enjoy one liners with no real response to the question asked....

I'm just asking if gun control is a conservative litmus test in your mind...

[Minister_of_Information]

Originally Posted by wgbgator

Considered by whom? Militias were nationalized a long time ago, because they were terrible at performing any sort of military function. Even in the Revolution, all those militia routinely quit to go back to their farms, whereas the professional soldiers and mercenaries did the bulk of the soldiering and competent fighting. There is no formal people's paramilitary force, not even really an informal one. Mostly, its an obsessive love of amatuerism, than a real defense force of any kind.

Considered by the Constitution, the SCOTUS, the Founding Fathers, and the Federal Code, among others.

From the Federal perspective (not necessarily the definitive one, but notable nonetheless):

10 USC § 311 - Militia: composition and classes

(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.

(b) The classes of the militia are—

(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and

(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.

So congrats on your militia membership.

[HALLGATOR]

10 USC § 311 - Militia: composition and classes

(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.

(b) The classes of the militia are—

(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and

(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.

Well that leaves me out at age 62.

Dammit, Just when I was getting my old 1912 double barrel 16 gauge ready for a march on D.C.

[gatorman_07732]

Originally Posted by gator996

I know you enjoy one liners with no real response to the question asked....

I'm just asking if gun control is a conservative litmus test in your mind...

Do you understand the premise of this thread? It's about a powerful and over-reaching federal government with regard to the confiscation of firearms. I hate to burst your bubble but that is not exactly conservative. Perhaps you're looking to hijack this thread, but I'm not biting. What is quite alarming is you don't see this as oppressive

[Minister_of_Information]

Originally Posted by HALLGATOR

Well that leaves me out at age 62.

Dammit, Just when I was getting my old 1912 double barrel 16 gauge ready for a march on D.C.

That's just the Federal definition. It's not the only one. The aged and infirm as well as the young have been included in the militia during extremities. Basically the people (being sovereign) have a natural right to provide for their own defense, and this cannot be superseded by legislation.

[rivergator]

I think I'm in favor of an assault rifle ban. I am not in favor of raiding people's homes to see who has them and confiscating ....
But I also don't ever see that happening, even with a ban.

[ArtVandelay]

There are plenty of sick people, murderers who were once law abiding citizens. Criminals are all law abiding citizens until they break the law.

[Minister_of_Information]

Originally Posted by ArtVandelay

There are plenty of sick people, murderers who were once law abiding citizens. Criminals are all law abiding citizens until they break the law.

Yet the government is composed of angels that need not be watched by the people with continual armed vigilance. As the founders intended.

[gatormoe1]

Lets enforce a ban on criminals owning assault rifles... Oh wait, they get theirs through the blackmarket illegally.

[gator996]

Originally Posted by gatorman_07732

Do you understand the premise of this thread? It's about a powerful and over-reaching federal government with regard to the confiscation of firearms. I hate to burst your bubble but that is not exactly conservative. Perhaps you're looking to hijack this thread, but I'm not biting. What is quite alarming is you don't see this as oppressive

Chief, I already said my question was a side topic...

I wasn't going to debate it...just wanted to know if it was a litmus test in your opinion.

That is all.

[gatorman_07732]

Originally Posted by gator996

Chief, I already said my question was a side topic...

I wasn't going to debate it...just wanted to know if it was a litmus test in your opinion.

That is all.

And I gave you an answer

[Lawdog88]

Originally Posted by MichiGator2002

It would translate here about as well as soccer has. They will always rope in PT Barnum's favorite people, but the reality -- the fantastic, good, freedom-preserving reality -- is that disarming the law-abiding American citizenry would for the most part be a cold, dead finger proposition. The attempt at which would definitively prove the point of putting the 2nd Amendment in there in the first place.

Yet it will. We are not England, Australia, or anywhere else that said subjugation to tyranny was OK. And we aren't, for a reason.

[MichiGator2002]

Originally Posted by wgbgator

Ok, but you'd be a minority. I think every gun control measure ever has been partly passed because politcally dangerous, bad or unsavory people had guns or were intent on getting them and using them.

Which is of course the great comedy as bad, unsavory people intent on getting then and using them are the only people metaphysically certain to be unaffected by gun control laws.

[Minister_of_Information]

Originally Posted by Lawdog88

Yet it will. We are not England, Australia, or anywhere else that said subjugation to tyranny was OK. And we aren't, for a reason.

It's the difference between a sovereign people and mere subjects.

I hope the liberals will forgive us for not feeling instructed by the attitudes towards liberty held elsewhere around the world. I for one simply do not care what England, Australia, or any other nation thinks about our Constitution and our liberty. Give me liberty or give me death, even if we stand alone. Forever.

[HALLGATOR]

Originally Posted by Minister_of_Information

That's just the Federal definition. It's not the only one. The aged and infirm as well as the young have been included in the militia during extremities. Basically the people (being sovereign) have a natural right to organize their own defense, and this cannot be superseded by legislation.

That's good news. Of course with my eyesight and bad hearing most people may want to march behind me. There's also the added problem of me forgetting what the reason was of why I was going to begin with.

But I'm ready General Lee.

[gator996]

Originally Posted by gatorman_07732

And I gave you an answer

Cool.

[wgbgator]

Originally Posted by Minister_of_Information

Considered by the Constitution, the SCOTUS, the Founding Fathers, and the Federal Code, among others.

From the Federal perspective (not necessarily the definitive one, but notable nonetheless):



So congrats on your militia membership.

So, would it then be permissive to ban assault weapons, and indeed guns in general for people outside of those criteria? Since they could have no legal militia purpose in using those weapons.

[Minister_of_Information]

Originally Posted by HALLGATOR

That's good news. Of course with my eyesight and bad hearing most people may want to march behind me. There's also the added problem of me forgetting what the reason was of why I was going to begin with.

But I'm ready General Lee.

You are excused.