Libertarian "sees the light" on assault weapons

Discussion in 'Anything Else' started by Netfotoj, Nov 14, 2007.

  1. Netfotoj

    Netfotoj Premium Member

    2,652
    2
    0
    A libertarian in Portland changes his mind about assault weapons and writes Shots Fired in Anger when a lunatic with a shotgun comes calling.

     
  2. ChillyWilly

    ChillyWilly New Member

    180
    1
    0
    Less restrictions, more penalties my 2 pesos
     

  3. I have always thought that certain firearms laws are long over due for a legal challenge as the enforcement of them by the government are acts in violation of the Second Amendment.

    For instance,

    A. The 1934 nfa has in it a requirement that approval be granted from a local Chief LEO, which in my mind violates Due Process.

    B. The 1968 gca "Sporting Purposes" clause is current enforced by the BATFE to prevent the import of all foreign firearms they deem "not sporting." I believe this government act is tantamount to a ban and is not a restriction. I believe bans on firearms are in violation of the Second Amendment.

    C. The 1968 fopa "machine gun ban," while I can see an argument made for the registration of these types of firearms the outright ban against civilian ownership of them is in violation of the Second Amendment.

    Even if you were to take the words of the Second Amendment "...well regulated..." a regulation does not hold the same meaning as a ban and I think the wording of the Second Amendment makes clear the intent is to provide firearms for individual defense against tyranny. This would in my opinion include the ownership, sale, and purchase of military style arms. I also think that restrictions that are to complicated or expensive beyond what is required to administrate them would be tantamount to a ban and again in violation of the Second Amendment.

    If the anti-gun crowd wishes to make firearm ownership a collective state right and allow for bans of firearms applied to individuals they need to amend the Constitution. Some may argue that the Second Amendment no longer applies to our modern world or has no use (I would disagree greatly) and they are free to petition their elected representatives to seek to amend the Constitution. This is our process of Constitutional rule of law in this country and I think the acts of those who wish to violate it have gone unchecked for far too long.
     
  4. I have always thought that certain firearms laws are long over due for a legal challenge as the enforcement of them by the government are acts in violation of the Second Amendment.

    For instance,

    A. The 1934 nfa has in it a requirement that approval be granted from a local Chief LEO, which in my mind violates Due Process.

    B. The 1968 gca "Sporting Purposes" clause is current enforced by the BATFE to prevent the import of all foreign firearms they deem "not sporting." I believe this government act is tantamount to a ban and is not a restriction. I believe bans on firearms are in violation of the Second Amendment.

    C. The 1968 fopa "machine gun ban," while I can see an argument made for the registration of these types of firearms the outright ban against civilian ownership of them is in violation of the Second Amendment.

    Even if you were to take the words of the Second Amendment "...well regulated..." a regulation does not hold the same meaning as a ban and I think the wording of the Second Amendment makes clear the intent is to provide firearms for individual defense against tyranny. This would in my opinion include the ownership, sale, and purchase of military style arms. I also think that restrictions that are to complicated or expensive beyond what is required to administrate them would be tantamount to a ban and again in violation of the Second Amendment.

    If the anti-gun crowd wishes to make firearm ownership a collective state right and allow for bans of firearms applied to individuals they need to amend the Constitution. Some may argue that the Second Amendment no longer applies to our modern world or has no use (I would disagree greatly) and they are free to petition their elected representatives to seek to amend the Constitution. This is our process of Constitutional rule of law in this country and I think the acts of those who wish to violate it have gone unchecked for far too long.
     
  5. SELFDEFENSE

    SELFDEFENSE Premium Member

    3,817
    31
    48
    Not much of a "Libertarian" if he had a problem with semi-auto "assault rifles" to begin with. More like a Liberaltarian.
     
  6. ThaiBoxer

    ThaiBoxer Active Member

    1,284
    9
    38
    I agree. What type of libertarian ideology does he run on? Could it be he means the "L" in ACLU?

    Libertarian ideology is strong in RTKBA.