The Obama effect

[sokinwet]

This is not an easy question..balancing our rights under the 2nd amendment and the right of the public to be free from gun violence and IMO it's an area where compromise can truly address everyones concerns. Lack of compromise is the reason that as a gun owner I support neither the NRA or the far left of Ms. Pelosi and others of the "more gun control" group. In the above posts there have been several mis-truths stated from both sides of this issue. 1st..nobody possesses an "automatic" weapon without some very serious ATF review and restrictions. You will not be buying an AK 47 at your local gun shop; you may be able to purchase a semi auto which is in fact no different than your standard Rem. 1100 shotgun in that it is an auto loader not an auto firing weapon. Blame the media (can't believe I said that!) for that mis-truth. 2nd- You will not lose your MA gunownership rights for a restraining order from years ago. If someone tells you this they're lying..and they have some other felony issue in their past. That being said, my best hunting buddy no longer can own a gun in MA because of a pot bust @ 17...he's 57! Guns are aquired illegally every day and the number of guns on the street contributes to this as do many uncontrolled sales of firearms but before we start talking about new laws that restrict "legal" ownership how about some serious enforcement 1st.

[buckman]

Originally Posted by sokinwet

- You will not lose your MA gunownership rights for a restraining order from years ago. .

Depends on the Chief of police.

[MotoXcowboy]

I believe the 2nd amendment was designed to allow the people, "the militia" the right to bear arms and that right shall not be infringed.

These arms should be of equivalent to our common day weaponry used by the common day rifleman/soldier.

I think our founding father's wanted the people/militias well armed and totally capable of defending ourselves against all enemies, foreign and domestic.

[RIROCKHOUND]

Originally Posted by MotoXcowboy

I believe the 2nd amendment was designed to allow the people, "the militia" the right to bear arms and that right shall not be infringed.

These arms should be of equivalent to our common day weaponry used by the common day rifleman/soldier.

I think our founding father's wanted the people/militias well armed and totally capable of defending ourselves against all enemies, foreign and domestic.

I don't think the founding fathers were envisioning up to 800rds/minute either...

I wonder if a personal land-owner could have legally have had a cannon... I really don't know the answer to that...

[MotoXcowboy]

Originally Posted by RIROCKHOUND

I don't think the founding fathers were envisioning up to 800rds/minute either...

I wonder if a personal land-owner could have legally have had a cannon... I really don't know the answer to that...

I pretty sure the personal land-owning "militia members" owned cannons.

[JohnnyD]

Originally Posted by MotoXcowboy

I believe the 2nd amendment was designed to allow the people, "the militia" the right to bear arms and that right shall not be infringed.

These arms should be of equivalent to our common day weaponry used by the common day rifleman/soldier.

I think our founding father's wanted the people/militias well armed and totally capable of defending ourselves against all enemies, foreign and domestic.

Anyone that has done even basic study of Constitutional law would have a field day with you. I wish I had the time to reply to the half dozen ways in which these statements are wrong. Really, you're just spouting out silly propaganda that's handed out by the NRA.

Three times in this thread the question has been asked, yet no one has answered.

What is the *need* for the average citizen to own an Assault Rifle??

[MotoXcowboy]

What is the *need* for the average citizen to own an Assault Rifle??
the rules are set. Some are defined as un-changeable (as in unalienable or inalienable, which ever the case may be). We post them in the Bill of Rights. Some can be changed, but only by a lengthy and cumbersome process; a good idea when it comes to the rules of the game of Liberty.

When some try to trivialize Liberty, the Second Amendment or the Citizen role in the American Militia, take notice of this. Take it as a warning too. What do they fear? They may just want to secure their hold on power and control of the civilian masses by disabling the Citizen ability to speak with force to correct tyranny. I guess you would call that Second Amendment First Amendment Rights, free speech and a petition to redress grievances backed by force.

The American Militia knows this. Defense of liberty is not a radical idea.

[likwid]

Originally Posted by MotoXcowboy

The American Militia knows this. Defense of liberty is not a radical idea.

Which militia? The kooks in Michigan?
Move there.

Originally Posted by MotoXcowboy

so....WHY THE NEED FOR AN ASSUALT RIFLE???

its simple, stupid....F I R E P O W E R

You pretty much proved that you have absolutely no clue what you're talking about.
Have you even held a gun?

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by JohnnyD

Anyone that has done even basic study of Constitutional law would have a field day with you. I wish I had the time to reply to the half dozen ways in which these statements are wrong. Really, you're just spouting out silly propaganda that's handed out by the NRA.

Three times in this thread the question has been asked, yet no one has answered.

What is the need of the average citizen to own a Cadillac rather than a Chevrolet? What is the need of the average citizen to eat a Big Mac? What is the need of the average citizen to own a $200,000 home? Are we guaranteed the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness? Or are we only allowed what someone else thinks we need?

[JohnnyD]

Originally Posted by detbuch

What is the need of the average citizen to own a Cadillac rather than a Chevrolet? What is the need of the average citizen to eat a Big Mac? What is the need of the average citizen to own a $200,000 home? Are we guaranteed the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness? Or are we only allowed what someone else thinks we need?

So for a third time, you're going to skirt around the issue without answering it. As I have said before, the Constitution does not provide for the protection of unlimited avenues in order to pursue "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness".

You're welcome to attempt to quote the Constitution all you'd like. But, I'm not going to answer your last statement since I already answered that poor argument 2 pages ago... twice actually.

Going forward, anyone who cannot give a valid reason (doesn't even have to be good), will be ignored for the rest of this thread.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by JohnnyD

So for a third time, you're going to skirt around the issue without answering it. As I have said before, the Constitution does not provide for the protection of unlimited avenues in order to pursue "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness".

You're welcome to attempt to quote the Constitution all you'd like. But, I'm not going to answer your last statement since I already answered that poor argument 2 pages ago... twice actually.

Going forward, anyone who cannot give a valid reason (doesn't even have to be good), will be ignored for the rest of this thread.

Actually, it was my first attempt to answer your question. And I was quoting the Declaration of Independence, not The Constitution. I apologize if my answer was not valid nor good. So I will try again. I, personally, do not like guns. I am very uncomfortable in the presence of someone holding a gun. So my answer will be as a devil's advocate, not with great conviction.

A few words later in the same long sentence wherein Jefferson states the rights to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" he says "that whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it . . ." To those average citizens who truly believe they have that right, it would seem to be a very valid need to own the types of weapons that, banded with their fellow average citizens, would enable them to alter, etc., that government that threatened to destroy their unalienable rights.

[sokinwet]

Originally Posted by buckman

Depends on the Chief of police.

Buck - If a Chief denies based on an inactive restraining order he is interpreting the law incorrectly. While there are some limited areas covered by chiefs disgression this is not one of them. Only an active restraining order requires surrender of firearms and any applicable permits. Your relative should contact GOAL for the name of an attorney well versed in gun laws.

[buckman]

Originally Posted by sokinwet

Buck - If a Chief denies based on an inactive restraining order he is interpreting the law incorrectly. While there are some limited areas covered by chiefs disgression this is not one of them. Only an active restraining order requires surrender of firearms and any applicable permits. Your relative should contact GOAL for the name of an attorney well versed in gun laws.

I believe you. He's just not up for the fight. I bring his gun up for him and he's good to go. It's just kind of sad. He took the course with me back when the state passed the new laws then got denied . Dedham's the town.