+- Madison Motorsports (https://forum.mmsports.org)
+-- Forum: Madison Motorsports (https://forum.mmsports.org/forumdisplay.php?fid=3)
+--- Forum: Lounge (https://forum.mmsports.org/forumdisplay.php?fid=6)
+--- Thread: Right to Bear Arms (Split from Firearm Thread) (/showthread.php?tid=7713)
- Maengelito - 11-12-2008
right, I'm giving sarcastic examples to illustrate but the underlying question I'm asking is why are people being unreasonable? What is it about AR's or any other "assualt weapon" that people are running out to buy that make it worth buying right now as opposed to later when maybe its a little bit harder or a bit more expensive?
- Kaan - 11-12-2008
Google "Assualt Weapons Ban"
- Maengelito - 11-12-2008
right, I know what the Assulat Weapons Ban was, but from what I understand (and I may have it wrong since I'm not a gun owner) is that the ban was essentially a joke. If you wanted an AK, you could still get an AK. Didn't gun manufacturers essentially change around a thing or two to make their guns not meet the definition of assualt weapon but it was essentially the same gun it was replacing?
- Jeff - 11-12-2008
Pretty much. My Norinco MAK-90 "Modified AK of 1990" to meet restrictions.
- Maengelito - 11-12-2008
yeah, so why the rush and price gouging and craziness to go buy an AR-15 when essentially a hypothetical "Modified AR-15" or MAR-15 will be available?
- Kaan - 11-12-2008
Obama was quoted saying he wanted to make specific restrictions and expand the ban... he's been quoted many times saying that no rifle that could be on the battle field should be in civilian hands. Thats why everyone is getting their hands on everything they can before (they fear) he'll ban things.
Most Mags are already going up in price. Hand gun mags over 10 rounds are almost double in price. The 26 round 6.5G mags i need for my AR build are already up $25.
- Dragon - 11-12-2008
A perfect example, 17 round clip for my Glock 17 on Cheaper Than Dirt
Cost on 10/3 = $19.97
Cost Today = $29.97
- BLINGMW - 11-12-2008
significantly more expensive than dirt!
I assume some realize it's an investment, and obviously it's paying off very short term. I also suspect there are quite a few who are actually unreasonably scared that the dems will put a dent a large dent in availability. "THEY TOOK OUR GUNS!"
- CaptainHenreh - 11-12-2008
Maengelito Wrote:yeah, so why the rush and price gouging and craziness to go buy an AR-15 when essentially a hypothetical "Modified AR-15" or MAR-15 will be available?
Well, a couple of reasons.
#1: Under the original AWB, "pre-ban" rifles were *always* worth significantly more than "post-ban".
#2: California already pretty much suffers from a AWB, and it sucks. Nobody wants to have to worry if they're breaking the law putting a part on their gun.
#3: Legislation *always* gets worse. Whil e the '94 AWB might have been a joke, politicians aren't stupid, and they do occasionally learn from their mistakes. (Though not well or often enough). For example, in the draft AWB legislation, the magazine size limit was 15 rounds. By the time it was passed, that had dropped to 10. Everyone would just as soon get their hands on stuff *NOW* so it will be grandfathered into any drafted legislation.
- Jeff - 11-13-2008
I want a PSL so bad I can taste it...
![[Image: psla.jpg]](http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v239/villafuego/psla.jpg)
- Evan - 11-13-2008
hot.
isnt that the sniper rifle from Metal Gear Solid?
- CaptainHenreh - 11-13-2008
Close. The gun from MGS is an SVD "Dragunov". The PSL (above) is a Romanian knockoff.
A legitimate SVD is $$$.
- Jeff - 11-13-2008
Yeah...like $2,000+
PSL Group buy anyone? :twisted:
- CaptainHenreh - 11-13-2008
TurboOmni08 Wrote:Yeah...like $2,000+
PSL Group buy anyone? :twisted:
LOL, sniff around and see what a volume order would be. LOL. Hey rezarxt, call your brother and see if he's a CAI dealer.
- rezarxt - 11-13-2008
CaptainHenreh Wrote:TurboOmni08 Wrote:Yeah...like $2,000+
PSL Group buy anyone? :twisted:
LOL, sniff around and see what a volume order would be. LOL. Hey rezarxt, call your brother and see if he's a CAI dealer.
Hes in Alaska right now working a contracting job guarding some radar base so its a pain to get in touch with him because I dont think his cell works. Youre welcome to snoop around his website. armsofamerica.com
My cousin runs it while hes away. He had 400 sales between last tuesday-saturday and my cousin is overwhelmed right now. So hes trying to get back to the states as soon as possible to help. Next time I talk to him Ill be glad to ask.
- Jeff - 11-13-2008
Alaska is a state...
- rezarxt - 11-13-2008
TurboOmni08 Wrote:Alaska is a state...
Lol true. I was like what is he talking about I had to reread it like 5 times to catch it. Hes had a bunch of high paying contracting jobs all over which take him away from his business. Ranging from Iraq to Japan to Alaska. He was a combat medic in the Army and served in Iraq during the very beginning. He decided he could make more money doing this stuff than going to college. I think he might try to go back to Iraq for the third time after alaska.
- CaptainHenreh - 01-18-2009
An interesting read:
<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.cmosnetworks.com/TheTrueMeaningOfTheSecondAmendment.html">http://www.cmosnetworks.com/TheTrueMean ... dment.html</a><!-- m -->
There are a few points I disagree with this guy on (I believe an armed citizenry is necessary for the security of a free state) it's a pretty good read just the same.
- PGK - 01-21-2009
I had a minor epiphany, of sorts, whilst reading some information on the Brady center website, which I read in the context of the other articles linked in this thread, the Lott/Mustard study, and after reading as many articles on second amendment topics as the first three pages of a google search could provide.
The first thing I noticed is that both sides quote different statistics, picking whichever supports their point of view. This is nothing new. My favorite example is DC: after the handgun ban, handgun homicides went down, according to the anti-gun lobby. Handgun violence, on the other hand, went up according to the pro-gun lobby. Both are true. Concurrent, but unrelated to the ban, DC increased funding for emergency rooms, bought more ambulances, and hired more EMTs and emergency room personnel. People were being shot more, but dying less. Second thing I noticed was that both sides quote statistics from studies that were not made available for peer-review. Might as well ignore those. Third, many crime statistics are shoddy at best. Numbers indicating 'crimes involving handguns' are particularly suspect. Got arrested for jaywalking while carrying a pistol? That counts as using a handgun in the commission of a crime. Many statistics are shoddy and incomplete, on both sides of the argument. This is dishonest, but to be expected from politicians, and organizations with agendas.
The anti-gun lobby has on it's side several important legal precedents, like US v Miller, and the general legal consensus seems to be to let the states set their own requirements, inside the existing federal legislation, e.g. the NFA of '32. The anti-gun lobby also seems to stress the first phrase of the amendment, "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state...". Their interpretation of the amendment hinges on that controversial phrase. If, indeed, a well-regulated militia is necessary, then where are they? As one of the articles linked here stated, and as historical context shows, a militia is simply all able-bodied men that own and/or know how to use firearms, and who historically provided their own.
The pro-gun lobby, on the other hand, doesn't have quite the same legal precedents. In fact, they lost most of their steam when the first gun restriction legislation was enacted, and as Rex pointed out, legislation rarely becomes less-restrictive. The pro-gun lobby also emphasizes the second phrase of the amendment, "...the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed". Which, legal precedent has made dependent on the first phrase, membership in a militia.
But the militia doesn't exist. If a standing citizens army is necessary for the security (and preservation) of a free state, where is our well-regulated militia, our citizens army? All we have now is an all-volunteer military and a dependence on private contractors and mercenaries.
My epiphany was that, instead of regulating/deregulating firearms, a militia must be created. A citizens army, compulsory for all able-bodied citizens between 18-40, bring your own autoloading rifle in a NATO caliber. I believe that is the true intent of the second amendment. That every person in America be equipped and ready to fight. In fact, many states had, at one point or another, laws requiring men of fighting age to own rifles. With this constant exposure to, and the necessary constant or frequent use of rifles, the gun would lose it's stigma, lose much of it's controversy, and become another part of daily life. A place it should have never left.
- CaptainHenreh - 01-21-2009
Hey, I don't disagree.
I think that anyone in the "Unorganized Miltia" (a legally defined term in the US Code) should be issued a "Civilian Soldier Rifle" when they register for selective service (excepting conscientious objectors and people with debilitating handicaps) and be required to qualify with it every 5 years. They are responsible for the upkeep and maintenance of said rifle, subject to penalties if a draft is called and your rifle is not in appropriate condition.
I think a semi-automatic M14 would be the perfect rifle for this purpose. It has little use as a select-fire rifle (one of the reasons it isn't our main battle rifle anymore) it is large and difficult to conceal, making it a poor choice for use in criminal actions, it's well suited to peacetime activities such as hunting, target practice, and competition, and we've destroyed or sold millions of them... to foreign countries. We should retool them and give them to the American people.
Regarding US v Miller, I think that it was a clearly bad judgment on the court's part, and anyone who's studied the history of that particular case will probably agree.
Finally, statistics. Everyone has heard the old saying "There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics." The shame of statistics is that there's no other good way to present the "truth" than through numbers because numbers don't lie. Statisticians do, maybe, but the numbers don't. The common things you hear are how many people die from guns, but you can't say how many would have died without guns, or how many more would have died if the law-abiding citizenry were disarmed. Those numbers don't exist, so they have to be extrapolated, often poorly.
You all, of course, know this already. But how else to find the truth?
In the end, courts (and the law) should always err on the right of the individual, rather than the right of the collective or the right of the government. At least, that's what I believe our Founding Fathers, especially James Madison (pbuh, lol) believed and intended for this country.