On Saturday, February 16, 2013 10:55:18 PM UTC-5, Snag wrote:
GOP_Decline_and_Fall wrote:

On Sat, 16 Feb 2013 00:39:09 -0700, Steve from Colorado

(5) In order to continue to possess an assault weapon that was

legally possessed on the effective date of this section, the person

possessing the assault weapon shall do all of the following:

(a) Safely and securely store the assault weapon. The sheriff of the

county may, no more than once per year, conduct an inspection to

ensure compliance with this subsection;



"That," the Observation Post says, "is an absolute violation of the

Fourth Amendment. It shouldn't come as any surprise that the people

who come up with these things obviously have no idea what the Fourth

Amendment is."



The 4A isn't license to flout safety regulations and avoid legal

inspections.







"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses,

papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures,

shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon

probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly

describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be

seized," the Fourth Amendment says.



It's no more an "unreasonable search" than a Health Department

check on a restaurant is.



If the county sheriff doesn't think the "assault" weapon is secure,

it can be confiscated and the person loses the "privilege" of owning

it.



Just as a restaurant can be shut down if in violation of Health and

safety procedures.



The difference is that when you get that license to prepare and serve food

to the public you also agree to adhere to laws and regulations pertaining to

sanitation and cleanliness of the business and that you agree to inspections

to verify compliance with said regulations . When I buy a firearm I give no

such assurances - the only assurance I give is that I have no mental or

legal reasons to have lost my RIGHT to own such items . I give NO permission

to inspect the conditions of storage or use of said firearms . The exception

to that is if and ONLY if I pay the tax to purchase and own an NFA firearm .

There is no provision in the Constitution or Bill of Rights that says I must

have any kind of "license" to own and use firearms . Quite the opposite ,

there are provisions in those documents (supported by writings of those who

framed those documents) to prevent exactly that .

--

Snag

And you don't see anything wrong with that picture? Say, for instance, that your next-door neighbor has built up, quite legally, a huge arsenal. Then something happens that makes him ****ed off enough at you and everyone else around him that he threatens to use that arsenal against you and yours, You'd still be OK with that? No exceptions?

On Tuesday, February 19, 2013 1:13:30 PM UTC-5, rangerssuck wrote:
On Saturday, February 16, 2013 10:55:18 PM UTC-5, Snag wrote:

GOP_Decline_and_Fall wrote:



On Sat, 16 Feb 2013 00:39:09 -0700, Steve from Colorado



(5) In order to continue to possess an assault weapon that was



legally possessed on the effective date of this section, the person



possessing the assault weapon shall do all of the following:



(a) Safely and securely store the assault weapon. The sheriff of the



county may, no more than once per year, conduct an inspection to



ensure compliance with this subsection;







"That," the Observation Post says, "is an absolute violation of the



Fourth Amendment. It shouldn't come as any surprise that the people



who come up with these things obviously have no idea what the Fourth



Amendment is."







The 4A isn't license to flout safety regulations and avoid legal



inspections.















"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses,



papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures,



shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon



probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly



describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be



seized," the Fourth Amendment says.







It's no more an "unreasonable search" than a Health Department



check on a restaurant is.







If the county sheriff doesn't think the "assault" weapon is secure,



it can be confiscated and the person loses the "privilege" of owning



it.







Just as a restaurant can be shut down if in violation of Health and



safety procedures.







The difference is that when you get that license to prepare and serve food



to the public you also agree to adhere to laws and regulations pertaining to



sanitation and cleanliness of the business and that you agree to inspections



to verify compliance with said regulations . When I buy a firearm I give no



such assurances - the only assurance I give is that I have no mental or



legal reasons to have lost my RIGHT to own such items . I give NO permission



to inspect the conditions of storage or use of said firearms . The exception



to that is if and ONLY if I pay the tax to purchase and own an NFA firearm .



There is no provision in the Constitution or Bill of Rights that says I must



have any kind of "license" to own and use firearms . Quite the opposite ,



there are provisions in those documents (supported by writings of those who



framed those documents) to prevent exactly that .



--



Snag



And you don't see anything wrong with that picture? Say, for instance, that your next-door neighbor has built up, quite legally, a huge arsenal. Then something happens that makes him ****ed off enough at you and everyone else around him that he threatens to use that arsenal against you and yours, You'd still be OK with that? No exceptions?

You guys keep saying that the 2A is inviolable. That it says what it says, and that's it. End of discussion. I know that they founders were real smart and all, and that the Constitution and Bill of Rights is a masterpiece, but isn't a little ridiculous to just accept that it is infallable? It's perfectly obvious (to me and, I think, every thinking person) that the framers did not forsee the developments in modern weaponry. Do you really want to live in a world where all of our laws are based on 250 year old technology?

I STILL haven't read a posting here that has put forth a plausible reason why Snag or any other civilian needs to own a high-capacity killing machine other than "because the second ammendment says I can."

Personally, I'm not sure I have any problem with non-murderers owning weapons. But (and I know this is not the immediate topic of this thread), what's wrong with requiring registration of those weapons, and some record keeping of who had them last? Is it really that onerous a task to keep track of your guns? If it is, perhaps you shouldn't have them in the first place. And I know that registration will not prevent every criminal from getting his hands on a gun, but I don't think that there is any question that it would prevent SOME criminals from getting SOME guns, and at least that's a start. And, while it's preventing thos criminals from getting guns, it is not preventing, in any way, the legal ownership of any guns. So what's the problem?

As to the current subject - my understanding is that similar laws have been in place for quite some time in, at least, NY. What has been the huge negative result?

rangerssuck wrote in
:

[huuuuge snip]
As to the current subject - my understanding is that similar
laws have been in place for quite some time in, at least, NY.

And in Connecticut, too, I believe.

What has been the huge negative result?

Twenty children murdered by a violent nutball because law-abiding adults were prohibited
from carrying weapons that could have been used to defend them.

On Tuesday, February 19, 2013 3:43:15 PM UTC-5, Doug Miller wrote:
rangerssuck wrote in

:



[huuuuge snip]

As to the current subject - my understanding is that similar

laws have been in place for quite some time in, at least, NY.



And in Connecticut, too, I believe.



What has been the huge negative result?



Twenty children murdered by a violent nutball because law-abiding adults were prohibited

from carrying weapons that could have been used to defend them.

Oh bull****. Y'know, Doug, for an otherwise intelligent guy, you surely have come up with some asinine remarks in this gun control discussion. There is no part of the law we are discussing here that would have prohibited anyone from carrying a reasonably sized weapon that would have surely, in the hands of someone reasonably skilled at marksmanship, been more than sufficient to stop Lanza.

If it would have taken larger than a ten-shot magazine to do the job, I submit that the "defensive" shooter would not have been aiming carefully or accurately enough to prevent killing even more innocent kids.

rangerssuck wrote in
:

On Tuesday, February 19, 2013 3:43:15 PM UTC-5, Doug Miller
wrote:
rangerssuck wrote in
:

[huuuuge snip]

As to the current subject - my understanding is that similar
laws have been in place for quite some time in, at least, NY.

And in Connecticut, too, I believe.

What has been the huge negative result?

Twenty children murdered by a violent nutball because
law-abiding adults were prohibited
from carrying weapons that could have been used to defend them.

Oh bull****. Y'know, Doug, for an otherwise intelligent guy, you
surely have come up with some asinine remarks in this gun
control discussion.

ad hominem noted with disappointment, but not surprise.

There is no part of the law we are
discussing here that would have prohibited anyone from carrying
a reasonably sized weapon that would have surely, in the hands
of someone reasonably skilled at marksmanship, been more than
sufficient to stop Lanza.

Nonsense. That school was, and is, by law a "gun free zone".

*That* worked well, didn't it.

Laws don't change the behavior of the lawless.

If it would have taken larger than a ten-shot magazine to do the
job, I submit that the "defensive" shooter would not have been
aiming carefully or accurately enough to prevent killing even
more innocent kids.

The principal went after the shooter with her bare hands. Don't you think the results might
have been a little better for the kids if the law had allowed her to be armed?