Forget the 2nd Amendment, now the President wants to take away College Football

[nsplayr]

What is reasonable, and what do you mean by common sense regulations?

That's the crux of the matter right here. The problem is that some people don't agree, even in principle, that the government can limit firearms rights. We've literally had the discussion about tanks and etc. with a few people seeming to argue seriously that as long as the technology isn't classified, it's ok for private ownership.

I'm fully on board with having a discussion of where to draw the line WRT what private citizens should be allowed to own, but until we can agree that such a line should even exist (and stop making false equivalencies between private ownerships and use by military/police/FBI/Secret Service) it's hard to have that conversation.

Personally I think the NFA is reasonable and existing controls on automatic weapons are reasonable. Why don't we start from there and drop the whole "you want an A10 and Patriot missile battery" bullshit?

I personally agree with you here for the most part, although people who want stricter gun rights limitations keep bringing up tanks et al around here because it's been argued that people should have the right to own them as well. Once an argument goes full-retard it's hard to go back.

Ultimately the courts will have to provide some more specific guidance.

Exactly! If you feel your rights are infringed by new laws, vote against those legislators who pass them if they're from your state or district and file suit in court if you have standing. While it may seem easy to armchair quarterback what's Constitutional and what's not, until a case is decided in court every law duly passed is considered Constitutional until proven otherwise; that's how the system is setup to work.

It goes back to drawing that line, and I think unfortunately in our system, it's often up to the courts to do so rather than the legislators.

Regarding bans on magazines, etc. I'll agree to whatever limitations are placed on the POTUS, FLOTUS, VPOTUS, and SOH security details, including what is in the escorting Suburbans. If they don't need it for their safety and well being, then I don't need it. But if the experts deem a particular weapon or capability important, I don't see why my familys safety is inconsequential and entitled to less security.

The President is guarded by the military in some situations, do you want access to all the weapons the military has access to? Bad standard to set, see above about false equivalencies.

[slackline]

The President is guarded by the military in some situations, do you want access to all the weapons the military has access to? Bad standard to set, see above about false equivalencies.

The President's main defense is by civilian govt employees/agents, not the military. Just because we step in occasionally to do things outside our main area we're not the first line of defense. While we are still civilians, we fall in a different group as the military. While extreme and exaggerated to make a point, I think his argument about SS, FBI, etc is valid.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

[nsplayr]

While extreme and exaggerated to make a point, I think his argument about SS, FBI, etc is valid.

I'll agree that it's extreme and exaggerated. Although they are civilians, cops/FBI/SS, etc. are allowed to play by different rules in some regards in the execution of their official duties. I would put firearms usage into one of those categories, although I don't support an AWB anyways so it's all academic. If you disagree fine, but I think it's pretty clear that there can be slightly different rules for different people when official duties are thrown in the mix, that part should go without saying.

[338skybolt]

The only sounds echoing in the woods I make are from the three dozen rifles in my home in the US.

Cool story.

Jesus ######ing Christ. Where do these people come from?

Usually either coast, but there are exceptions.

[HeloDude]

When "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed" is infringed upon. Limited access to 30 round mags doesn't infringe upon that in my opinion.

Not sure what your personal reason for owning weapons is, but mine is not in preparation to fight the government But let's say for a minute that the damn near impossible has come true, there is a dictator in The White House trying to take our guns. Just how are those people that you would be fighting against? The US military? The same military of individuals that you and I make/made up???? Hmmm.... Take it a bit farther, if we need a militia to protect ourselves from a tyrant, well then, I want the best equipment available to fight the mighty US military and law enforcement that are going to come after my guns! After all what's the point of a militia if it can't even compare to a potential adversary? Therefore I want A-10s, M-1 Abrams, Patriot Batteries.etc to at least allow my militia to have a fighting chance! And dammit, this is all outlawed! Shit, that must mean my 2nd Amendment right is being tramped upon!

Common sense limits don't equal violations of rights. When, in my opinion, these limits go past common sense I start to write my Representatives.You obviously have different and more sensitive to change opinions than I do.

Only if the the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments violate my right to buy leaded gasoline or purchasing a car requires insurance. Isn't it my right to choose which gasoline I want to use? Leaded has more power, I want that one! But the oppressive gov't is infringing upon my right to fill up my car how I please! To top it off, they also require me to buy insurance! That's right! The oppressive gov't is telling me that I have to spend my own money on my car! And if a 12 year old wants to work in a factory 16 hours a day, why shouldn't he? But no! Washington has once again taken away his right to choose! Tyrants!!

You're personal opinion is that NY has violated the Constitution. Not the courts or others. If you want to live in a state where the gun laws a more lax, you're free to go to TX. Don't want to? Go to NY. States are free to create laws as long as they don't contradict federal ones. Federal law reigns supreme.

I look forward to your passionate insight...

I responded to your nonsense in The Constitution thread...seems more appropriate to have the discussion there vs in the college football thread.

http://www.flyingsquadron.com/forums/index.php?/topic/19515-liberty-rights-and-the-constitution/page__st__40__gopid__340800#entry340800

[TreeA10]

According to Feinstein, us military types are one flashback away from going postal and are not to be trusted.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2013/03/08/feinstein_veterans_may_have_ptsd_and_should_not_be_exempt_from_assault_weapons_ban.html

[Marco]

Stupid State Senator who is regrettably from my own city wants to institute mandatory anger-management training in Florida prior to purchasing ammo. WTF are these idiots smoking when they dream up this shit?!

[ClearedHot]

Jesus fucking Christ. Where do these people come from?

It is so pointless to argue with these dipshits.

There is a small group on this board that serves no purpose other than to throw shit and wait for a reaction.

[tac airlifter]

It is so pointless to argue with these dipshits.

Yup.

[disgruntledemployee]

Yup.

Yup.

[LockheedFix]

Yup.

Yup.