Guns Because

[Tyrannical]

http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/co ... overnments

Firearm Makers Boycott Anti-Gun City and State Governments

Among the manufacturers that have publicly announced their plans to prohibit sales to anti-Second Amendment authorities so far are LaRue Tactical, Olympic Arms, Extreme Firepower (EFI, LLC), and Barrett Firearms.

If citizens cannot purchase certain guns or accessories in places such as California, Chicago, or New York, then authorities cannot either, the companies essentially announced. In a press release posted online on Tuesday praising the Constitution and Bill of Rights, Olympic Arms President Brian Schuetz urged all firearm manufacturers to join the boycott effort, saying that they should stand together to repel politicians’ hostile assaults on the rights of citizens.

Another boycott

[Gallstones]

Response to orpheus.

Being anti-gun is a state of mind that doesn't necessarily entitle the holder to press for legislation that would affect the rights and legal lifestyle of other citizens who do not share that view.

You may be anti gun, and that is good for you. It is when you become a Rights Infringer that I start having emotions about your point of view.

You ask me to speak for Gun Proponents. I can't do that because I am not a spokesperson for that group of people and I am not a gun proponent. I am anti-rights infringment, I am against tresspass on my private business and my choice to practice a perfectly legal interest in a legal way--my choice to exercise a Right. I especially resent the intrusion of arrogant outsiders who presume that I, a citizen of the USA, be made into their image. That is an unconscionable overstep and it makes me very angry.

So there's some emotions for you.

I'll ask you not to ascribe traits to me I do not have--like shame.

First, I was speaking of gun proponents in general. Second, I was not ascribing traits to you. I said "I suspect..." In other words, it was speculation on my part. You're misrepresenting me by taking it as a definite personal accusation.

I am not a Gun Proponent nor even a gun proponent. And I can't be joined to a group I am not a member of then asked to speak on their behalf. My speculation would be that it is unlikely that they feel any shame for being so.

Right here, however, you return to the suggestion that I would feel shame, not people of a group in general, but me.
Highlighted so it is easy to see..

With regard to this issue I have nothing to be ashamed of, the opinions of others notwithstanding.

Ok, if you say so.

[Gallstones]

http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/co ... overnments

Firearm Makers Boycott Anti-Gun City and State Governments

Among the manufacturers that have publicly announced their plans to prohibit sales to anti-Second Amendment authorities so far are LaRue Tactical, Olympic Arms, Extreme Firepower (EFI, LLC), and Barrett Firearms.

If citizens cannot purchase certain guns or accessories in places such as California, Chicago, or New York, then authorities cannot either, the companies essentially announced. In a press release posted online on Tuesday praising the Constitution and Bill of Rights, Olympic Arms President Brian Schuetz urged all firearm manufacturers to join the boycott effort, saying that they should stand together to repel politicians’ hostile assaults on the rights of citizens.

Another boycott

This has been going on. There is a long list.

[Tero]

So how is this any different from banning abortions after 6 weeks? It's legal, it does not ban abortion.

[klr]

http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/co ... overnments

Firearm Makers Boycott Anti-Gun City and State Governments

Among the manufacturers that have publicly announced their plans to prohibit sales to anti-Second Amendment authorities so far are LaRue Tactical, Olympic Arms, Extreme Firepower (EFI, LLC), and Barrett Firearms.

If citizens cannot purchase certain guns or accessories in places such as California, Chicago, or New York, then authorities cannot either, the companies essentially announced. In a press release posted online on Tuesday praising the Constitution and Bill of Rights, Olympic Arms President Brian Schuetz urged all firearm manufacturers to join the boycott effort, saying that they should stand together to repel politicians’ hostile assaults on the rights of citizens.

Another boycott

There's nothing to stop the authorities from importing firearms if no local sellers are available. I'm sure the Belgians and Italians (both of whom design a lot of US-manufactured small arms anyway) would only be too happy to take some orders.

[Gallstones]

So how is this any different from banning abortions after 6 weeks? It's legal, it does not ban abortion.

Which Constitutional Amendment is the Woman's Right to an abortion?
I guess that's the difference.

With regard to the Second, it does contain the words ''...shall not be infringed."
Shall not be infringed, that's another difference.

[Tero]

Law, amendment, no difference. FCC is allowed to ban free speech.

[Seth]

Suddenly Colerado doesn't seem quite as bad.

Let the wankers pull out. Eventually they could end up concentrated in one state, which would be easier to avoid.

That's an interesting thought.

Look up "Free State Wyoming"

[Seth]

Orph, it's just an ad hom. They can't beat the argument, so they beat the arguer. Pistol-whipping, it's called.

Ah, well, yes there is that.

Denigrating your opponent's position isn't as much as denigrating their person.

You should know, expert and hoary old denigrator of persons that you are.

[Seth]

Law, amendment, no difference. FCC is allowed to ban free speech.

Depends on the nature of the speech. The FCC is regulating "public airwaves" which are (or were) the property of the government. But buy that spectrum, as satellite providers have, and the FCC can do fuck-all about speech, free or otherwise.

[Gallstones]

Orph, it's just an ad hom. They can't beat the argument, so they beat the arguer. Pistol-whipping, it's called.

Ah, well, yes there is that.

Denigrating your opponent's position isn't as much as denigrating their person.

You should know, expert and hoary old denigrator of persons that you are.

• 

[orpheus]

Response to orpheus.

Being anti-gun is a state of mind that doesn't necessarily entitle the holder to press for legislation that would affect the rights and legal lifestyle of other citizens who do not share that view.

As an American citizen I am entitled to press for any legislation I like. 

You may be anti gun, and that is good for you. It is when you become a Rights Infringer that I start having emotions about your point of view. 

Okay. 

nYou ask me to speak for Gun Proponents. I can't do that because I am not a spokesperson for that group of people and I am not a gun proponent. I am anti-rights infringment, I am against tresspass on my private business and my choice to practice a perfectly legal interest in a legal way--my choice to exercise a Right.

I don't think I did ask you to speak for "Gun Proponents" (capitalization yours, it should be noted). I certainly didn't and don't expect you to speak for anyone but yourself. (I do note, however, that in return you yourself don't hesitate to make generalizations.) You like guns, and have spoken in support of them for various purposes. I don't see how that makes "gun proponent" an inaccurate term for you. In any case, I use it in place of "gun nut" which others here use; I have no wish to be impolite. 

I especially resent the intrusion of arrogant outsiders who presume that I, a citizen of the USA, be made into their image. That is an unconscionable overstep and it makes me very angry.

They have a right to express their opinion. As we do about issues in other countries. Especially since this is an international forum. In any case, I assume you're not talking about me here, since I am a US citizen.  

So there's some emotions for you. 

Ah, good that you admit to them now. Nothing wrong with emotion.

I'll ask you not to ascribe traits to me I do not have--like shame. 

First, I was speaking of gun proponents in general. Second, I was not ascribing traits to you. I said "I suspect..." In other words, it was speculation on my part. You're misrepresenting me by taking it as a definite personal accusation.

I am not a Gun Proponent nor even a gun proponent. And I can't be joined to a group I am not a member of then asked to speak on their behalf. My speculation would be that it is unlikely that they feel any shame for being so.

Right here, however, you return to the suggestion that I would feel shame, not people of a group in general, but me.
Highlighted so it is easy to see..

With regard to this issue I have nothing to be ashamed of, the opinions of others notwithstanding.

Ok, if you say so.

I think you have it the wrong way round. You returned to the issue of shame, not me. I only responded. In fact your colored text makes that clear.

In any case, fine. It's clear that you feel no shame. 

[Gallstones]

Gun proponent is incorrect because to be a gun proponent I would have to be of the opinion that everyone should want and should have arms. I don't want anyone who doesn't want them to have them. What is right is that each person get to choose to exercise the right or not as pleases them.

I am neutral on gun nut, except the term can also apply to people who fear them and don't want anyone else to have them.

[JimC]

Your rights to gun ownership and usage are not absolute or unconstrained at present. I presume you can't walk down the high street of your town firing shots into the air to express your joy at owning a particular gun, and you probably can't buy and use a 50 calibre machine gun...

There is a continuum of restrictions across the world. Australia probably has wider gun ownership than quite a few other countries, and hunting is quite a common pastime, which most people are fine about. It's not some cabal of anti-gun people determined to take all the weapons from all the American people, but a clear majority of Americans that want to slightly increase the restrictions. The result would still be far more lax than most countries in the world, but perhaps, without people being able to purchase guns without any checks at gun shows, and a reduction in the availability of high-powered semi-automatic rifles with huge magazines, you may just have a few less massacres over the years...

[Gallstones]

Your rights to gun ownership and usage are not absolute or unconstrained at present. I presume you can't walk down the high street of your town firing shots into the air to express your joy at owning a particular gun,

Conduct is separate from keeping and bearing. There is law to govern conduct because some conduct infringes on the rights of others. I can walk down our main street openly carrying. That is having and keeping. I can not take it out and brandish at passersby, that is conduct. I can legally take it out and shoot someone coming at me with a 2 x 4 even if we are on Main Street. Defense is legal conduct.

People who act reckless, even if they have an object on them that is legal for the general public to have are going to get attention and probably going to do something stupid that would be illegal and/or criminal.

People who act responsibly, in this specific example--carry in a holster and go about their business, minding their own business--may get some looks for the gun. They are doing nothing illegal plus they are serving as the example of what a responsible gun owner is, how a responsible gun owner exercises their Right, and how to do that without infringing on others. They are the antithesis of reckless and criminal.

and you probably can't buy and use a 50 calibre machine gun...

But I can, if I have the money.
There are a couple additional criteria.
For instance:

• 1) I have to find one that was built and legally registered before May 19, 1986 - the date of the Firearms Owner's Protection Act
  
  2) I then pay the National Firearms Act (1934) $200 Statutory Excise Tax.
  
  Submit to and pass the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act (1993) federal background check. This is a phone call made in the store. I have passed this check with every aquisition I've made.

If I have a Concealed Carry permit I don't have to have the Brady check.

I--me--wouldn't want to own a full auto anyway. It woud be fun from time to time but not really useful for my type of regular use.
I can purchase and own a semi 50 cal. And that transfer would be the standard type and follow the same procedures as all my other purchases.

Here's one I'd like to have.


And before somebody asks what I need it for--I don't need it. I don't have to need it. I can have it if I have the money. I would want it as part of a collection and for the enjoyment of shooting it.


I think we have enough regulation of gun ownership already and more than enough restriction on our Second Amendment Right.