Cruz is saying any reasonable restriction is bad on any of his constitutional rights. In that he is wrong. This is about the rights of manufacturers to make certain type of guns for public sale. DiFi is clear on this with her exemptions

Assault Weapons Ban: Feinstein Bill Exempts 2,220 Guns; Critics Complain List Is Arbitrary

Quote:

---

The list of 2,220 exempted guns includes weapons used for hunting and sporting. Any gun owners who possess any of the 157 guns banned under the bill don't have to turn in their firearms; the legislation only bans the models from being manufactured in the future. Feinstein said banned guns include military-style firearms and semi-automatic weapons.

---

It takes away nothing, penalizes no one, but may put a dent in gun sales which can be made up with other exempted options. So this isn't even a second amendment issue at all the way I see it. This isn't even a right to go to armed war against the government either.

The Liberals that are pushing these laws are only after one thing-to eventually disarm the American public. Although a resolution made it through committee, it, in no way, guarantees that it will make it through the house. And I very much doubt that it will. Everyone is looking at two faced Harry Reid on this. Once a proponent of gun ownership, he is going to be made to decide and we all pretty much know where he will end up in the end. Feinstein showed her true colors the other day by being arrogant and just plain despicable. This should not be acceptable.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tuttyd

Bazookas have already been decided upon. AR-15 are probably legal under Heller. What I am saying is that if Cruz wants to defend the legitimacy of AR-15 then it can be done so by claiming it as a weapon that is currently acceptable for the purposes of self-defense.

What I am also saying is that Heller doesn't extend much beyond this. In other words, Cruz cannot use Heller as a means of defeating larger gun laws and regulations in the same way as one would try to defeat restrictions associated with the First Amendment. Despite what Cruz thinks, the First amendment is not of the same type as the Second Amendment.

It is not inconsistent with Heller to say that owning a gun of any type can and does come with regulations and restrictions.

---

Again, anyone arguing that Cruz is arguing the absolute right to own any weapon is wrong. He has on more than occasion acknowledged restrictions so all this talk about absolutism is just political bluster... or in the case of Democrats a political fundraiser.

http://www.tedcruz.org/blog/2013/01/24/defeat-the-assault-weapons-ban-of-2013/

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by talaniman

Cruz is saying any reasonable restriction is bad on any of his constitutional rights. In that he is wrong. This is about the rights of manufacturers to make certain type of guns for public sale. DiFi is clear on this with her exemptions

Assault Weapons Ban: Feinstein Bill Exempts 2,220 Guns; Critics Complain List Is Arbitrary

Quote:

---

The list of 2,220 exempted guns includes weapons used for hunting and sporting. Any gun owners who possess any of the 157 guns banned under the bill don't have to turn in their firearms; the legislation only bans the models from being manufactured in the future. Feinstein said banned guns include military-style firearms and semi-automatic weapons.

---

It takes away nothing, penalizes no one, but may put a dent in gun sales which can be made up with other exempted options. So this isn't even a second amendment issue at all the way I see it. This isn't even a right to go to armed war against the government either.

---

I think it is a Second Amendment issue. However, this is why Cruz is choosing not to interpret the Heller decision correctly. "In common use" is actually, "in common use at the time"

Despite what Cruz thinks I would say that Heller is useless as a means of overturning bans and regulations of the future.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tuttyd

I think it is a Second Amendment issue. However, this is why Cruz is choosing not to interpret the Heller decision correctly. "In common use" is actually, "in common use at the time"

Despite what Cruz thinks I would say that Heller is useless as a means of overturning bans and regulations of the future.

---

At the time of what?

Hello again,

Cruz is a smarmy impertinent sleaze bag.

excon

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by excon

Hello again,

Cruz is a smarmy impertinent sleaze bag.

excon

---

Really gets under your skin, eh? Good for him.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by talaniman

It takes away nothing, penalizes no one, but may put a dent in gun sales which can be made up with other exempted options. So this isn't even a second amendment issue at all the way I see it. This isn't even a right to go to armed war against the government either.

---

Actually it does take away choice. Something the libs used to cry about. Also it interferes with my rights to pass onto my children what may be a lifetime collection. Rendering it to scrap. Also it puts manufacturers out of business with the stroke of a pen. I guess those aren't real losses ?

As much as I admire DF for what she has been through in the political areana. Yes I remember her as Mayor of SF and how she got there. On this one she is wrong. Look up the reason she has a carry permit. Find the real truth behind all of this. Its about an over bloated government that is at a breaking point and is so scared of its own people they are will to go to extreme lengths to push their agenda.

Why not stick to enforcing what is already on the books and realize that we don't live and never will in a "perfect" world.

Lets see about the guy who went to a school full of communist teachers, who wanted to take over the government, He stayed and graduated. Bet he wants his kids to go there too! He didn't tranfer after finding he was in a nest of communists, but he blasts his alma mater. That's real class right?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by talaniman

Lets see about the guy who went to a school full of communist teachers, who wanted to take over the government, He stayed and graduated. Bet he wants his kids to go there too! He didn't tranfer after finding he was in a nest of communists, but he blasts his alma mater. Thats real class right?

---

Ive never heard Obama speak poorly of his alma mater ;)

You have to read into the "exempt" weapons. They are exempt but by the way the "assault weapons ban" reads, they are ALL considered assault weapons. There are just 2200 of thm NOW that are not going to be banned. You have to think like those little beady eyed liberals do,, sneaky,sneaky

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cdad

Actually it does take away choice. Something the libs used to cry about. Also it interferes with my rights to pass onto my children what may be a lifetime collection. Rendering it to scrap. Also it puts manufacturers out of busines with the stroke of a pen. I guess those arent real losses ?

As much as I admire DF for what she has been through in the political areana. Yes I remember her as Mayor of SF and how she got there. On this one she is wrong. Look up the reason she has a carry permit. Find the real truth behind all of this. Its about an over bloated government that is at a breaking point and is so scared of its own people they are will to go to extreme lengths to push thier agenda.

Why not stick to enforcing what is already on the books and realize that we dont live and never will in a "perfect" world.

---

What's wrong with making sure your children don't have issues before they can get those antiques or whatever passed down to them? I doubt any manufacturer goes out of business because they can sell a particular weapon and other choices will certainly be available.

But I will take you up on searching some more background about the conceal and carry permit. But I ain't buying the conspiracy theory. I do realize MY agenda, may be different from yours. And my elected officials have a different agenda than yours. You have read enough of my beef with right wing thoughts and policies to know that.

I mean banning 157 models of guns and leaving 2700 as choices is not that far fetched to me. And keeping track of 360 million guns sounds good to me for finding criminals, which is the point of a national database for law enforcement, and background checks.

Now if you think they are coming for your guns then you must be a criminal, or paranoid. Which is worse because both are a concerned if armed.

There is not one good reason why "assault weapons" should be banned based on the Newtown killings. That is what brought this all to the front lines. It was just an opportune moment for the Anti Gun people to try and make their case. There have been more lies told about the so called "assault weapons" than truth. Law abiding citizens DO NOT use weapons to commit crimes. Criminals do. More background checks and limiting fire power to the law abiding citizen will not change crime statistics. Enforcing the 20,000 some laws we have and convictions instead of plea bargains will.

Hello handydude:

Quote:

---

Enforcing the 20,000 some laws we have and convictions instead of plea bargains will.

---

We are the worlds largest jailer, but we're still not big enough for you..

Let me tell you something handyboy. I can buy a gun at a gun show THIS weekend right here in my state.. Now, as my friends can attest, I'm a NICE exconvict... But, there are some who are NOT so nice, and I don't want them to have guns... A universal background check would STOP people like me from getting guns. YOU, apparently, don't mind, at ALL, that people like me can buy guns... That's not very right wing of you. It's not very American of you. In fact, it's the most PRO CRIMINAL position I've seen the right wing take...

It makes no sense to me. But, NOTHING red necked republicans do surprise's me.

Excon

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by excon

Hello handydude:

We are the worlds largest jailer, but we're still not big enough for you..

Lemme tell you something handyboy. I can buy a gun at a gun show THIS weekend right here in my state.. Now, as my friends can attest, I'm a NICE exconvict... But, there are some who are NOT so nice, and I don't want them to have guns... A universal background check would STOP people like me from getting guns. YOU, apparently, don't mind, at ALL, that people like me can buy guns... That's not very right wing of you. It's not very American of you. In fact, it's the most PRO CRIMINAL position I've seen the right wing take...

It makes no sense to me. But, NOTHING red necked republicans do surprise's me.

excon

---

The universal background check bill could get you a felony conviction if you let a friend house sit with your guns there for over a week or loan him a gun to go hunting. We're paying attention to all the BS you libs are trying to sneak in.

Cruz and others here are right, we can't rule by emotion which is what you're trying to do, just as DiFi's indignant rant in the face of constitutional questions was.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by talaniman

Whats wrong with making sure your children don't have issues before they can get those antiques or whatever passed down to them? I doubt any manufacturer goes out of business because they can sell a particular weapon and other choices will certainly be available.

But I will take you up on searching some more background about the conceal and carry permit. But I ain't buying the conspiracy theory. I do realize MY agenda, may be different from yours. And my elected officials have a different agenda than yours. You have read enough of my beef with right wing thoughts and policies to know that.

I mean banning 157 models of guns and leaving 2700 as choices is not that far fetched to me. And keeping track of 360 million guns sounds good to me for finding criminals, which is the point of a national database for law enforcement, and background checks.

Now if you think they are coming for your guns then you must be a criminal, or paranoid. Which is worse because both are a concerned if armed.

---

If they ban a weapon then they are doing so under the sale or transfer of that weapon. If I should die and try to pass them to my children then that right has been stripped from me. As the ones in question CAN NOT be transferred. So unless your saying there is some part in it that allows for Heirloom guns then what we are talking about is removal of rights.

You may doubt things right now. But the way it is written then almost ANY semi auto pistol is on the ban list because it has the potential to have a large magazine inserted into it. That is the way it reads. For casual shooters like myself then it will create a lot of headaches. Also there is one gun manufacturer that will close for sure as they are written into that bill. Im sure they don't even know it yet. Enforce what you have first then worry about restrictions. What is to stop them from doing as was proposed that they at will can enter your home anytime of the day or night to check on what you have ?

How many rights do you have to give up before it becomes all wrong ? The law abiding citizen shouldn't have to fear the law. But more and more it is moving in that direction. Home invasions are becoming more popular in some areas. Try defending with a 6 shooter.

You don't have a "right" to pass property by inheritance nor do you have a "right" to traffic in arms when you are deceased.

It might be a good thing if some gun manufacturers close, less guns available, there are already enough guns in the world, we don't need more

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cdad

How many rights do you have to give up before it becomes all wrong ?

---

The right to any non-specifically enumerated right they cherish. Like free contraceptives or abortion.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by paraclete

you don't have a "right" to pass property by inheritance nor do you have a "right" to traffic in arms when you are deceased.

it might be a good thing if some gun manufacturers close, less guns available, there are already enough guns in the world, we don't need more

---

So when you pass there is a law that everything you own goes to the government? There are rights in this country and they also are written for just that purpose of passing items or monies within the family unit. So like any other collection one might accumulate it should be allowed to pass through to heirs.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cdad

So when you pass there is a law that everything you own goes to the government? There are rights in this country and they also are written for just that purpose of passing items or monies within the family unit. So like any other collection one might accumulate it should be allowed to pass through to heirs.

---

My husband says if I don't have a FOID card (IL), I will not be able to keep his gun collection.