Short and to the point: Obama the Liar

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

To address the questions I asked Cali, that he did not know the answer to:

1) Yes, it is legal for a lawful person to own an automatic weapon. There are regulatory hurdles. But the primary hurdle is that the govt. has not allowed any new weapons into the legal supply for many, many years now, so this has made these weapons prohibitively expensive. So if you have 20k or so, and want to go through the regulatory procedures and taxes, you could have a fully-auto (now vintage) Colt M16. If the supply were not restricted, the cost would be closer to 1k. Most people can't/aren't willing to pay a 19k tax to own a firearm.

2) Yes, it is legal to own a silencer/suppressor. You have to pay for a tax stamp and go through a regulatory process. Go onto youtube, and it will be apparent that many people own them. People like to shoot with reduced noise. The silencers, however, are not cheap. Combine that with the regulatory hassle and the tax stamp, and most people don't bother.

As it turns out, a suppressor is legal in 38 states, and totally banned in 12 states. Use the hand that isn't patting yourself on the back to navigate to Google. If you are going to hold yourself out as an expert on the topic, at least get it right.

[MikeWaters]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

So you are accepting that training is necessary for ownership of an AK-47? That is a pretty odd admission if you are going to advocate for unfettered rights to own a gun.

Who said sniper rifles should or could be outlawed? Stop reading what you want to read and pay attention.

Training is not required to own an AK-47. In fact, physical possession is not required to own something.

Like any machine of some complexity, training is required to properly operate it. Hence, things like instruction manuals.

The government does not require me to take training to program my remote control. Yet, training is required to be able to do it properly.

Currently, the government does not require training to own a firearm. Nor should it.

In most, if not all states, govt.-approved training is required to 1) hunt and 2) carry concealed handgun.

In Texas, one can carry concealed within ones vehicle (i.e. one's castle) without any permit or training. Under the theory that you do not require the govt's permission to defend your own life on your own property.

[MikeWaters]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

As it turns out, a suppressor is legal in 38 states, and totally banned in 12 states. Use the hand that isn't patting yourself on the back to navigate to Google. If you are going to hold yourself out as an expert on the topic, at least get it right.

It's legal, in the sense that it is not illegal. LOL.

Has having a handgun in your home been legal in the USA? Generally speaking yes, but not in some jurisdictions. Some jurisdictions, crime-ridden, and murder-filled as they are, prefer that criminals be armed, and the law-abiding citizens be defenseless.

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

Training is not required to own an AK-47. In fact, physical possession is not required to own something.

Like any machine of some complexity, training is required to properly operate it. Hence, things like instruction manuals.

The government does not require me to take training to program my remote control. Yet, training is required to be able to do it properly.

Currently, the government does not require training to own a firearm. Nor should it.

In most, if not all states, govt.-approved training is required to 1) hunt and 2) carry concealed handgun.

In Texas, one can carry concealed within ones vehicle (i.e. one's castle) without any permit or training. Under the theory that you do not require the govt's permission to defend your own life on your own property.

Is this the Mike Waters' post of random musings? Where are you going with this? Your next post is even more unintelligible. Stop trying to impress people with knowledge on firearms (particularly given that my one search on one of your "facts" dealing with the legality of suppressors indicates you aren't even correct), and try to address the issue.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

Is this the Mike Waters' post of random musings? Where are you going with this? Your next post is even more unintelligible. Stop trying to impress people with knowledge on firearms (particularly given that my one search on one of your "facts" dealing with the legality of suppressors indicates you aren't even correct), and try to address the issue.

You make a perfect bureaucrat.

The stance is political, not legal, and arising out of natural law. You intend to argue the micro-issues to justify your bureaucratic stance.

Arising out of natural law, mankind has always reserved the right to self-protection, using means reasonably available.

Whether bureaucrats such as yourself seek to make technical, meaningless distinctions to augment government's police powers to minimize personal liberties and to ensure their authoritarian powers is unimpressive.

You expect Mike to know the laws of states in which he does not reside? I am only aware of my state's laws and maybe some of the neighboring states where I wish to hunt. I oppose on terms of personal liberties and on historical grounds the power of the government to erode my liberties further. You may find that extreme, but bureaucrats always do. They seek to eliminate the power of the individual in favor of the omnipresent, big brother state. Bless you, Big Brother Obama.

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by Archaea

You make a perfect bureaucrat.

Well, I was a bureaucrat for about 5 1/2 years, and I never really felt that I excelled at it, but I enjoy the sentiment all the same!

The stance is political, not legal, and arising out of natural law. You intend to argue the micro-issues to justify your bureaucratic stance.

Political? Why in the world would you want this to be a political debate? I will never, ever suggest that my constitutional rights are political rather than legal. I am legally entitled to my rights. They are not subject to the whims of the political climate in which I live.

Arising out of natural law, mankind has always reserved the right to self-protection, using means reasonably available.

Again, also not a debate about self-protection. Natural right may reserve our ability to self-protect, but I am certain it says nothing about whether we must have fully automatic weapons to do so. It seems silly to me that you would argue this debate boils down to self-protection only. If that is the case, then show me that fully automatic weapons are absolutely necessary to your ability to self-protect. If they aren't necessary to your ability to self-protect, then we can freely restrict your ability to own those weapons without infringing at all on your right to self-protect.

Whether bureaucrats such as yourself seek to make technical, meaningless distinctions to augment government's police powers to minimize personal liberties and to ensure their authoritarian powers is unimpressive.

You expect Mike to know the laws of states in which he does not reside? I am only aware of my state's laws and maybe some of the neighboring states where I wish to hunt. I oppose on terms of personal liberties and on historical grounds the power of the government to erode my liberties further. You may find that extreme, but bureaucrats always do. They seek to eliminate the power of the individual in favor of the omnipresent, big brother state. Bless you, Big Brother Obama.

Do I expect him to know the laws of other states? Not at all. I am merely holding him to the same standard he gave to me. I don't pretend to know the law in all 50 states with respect to ownership of fully automatic weapons or suppressors. But Waters does (despite the fact that even if he did know, that knowledge would have been totally irrelevant to the discussion at hand), so it is absolutely fair to call him on being wrong.

You are again falling back on your "personal liberties," but you have yet to give a single articulable explanation as to why those liberties must include ownership of a fully automatic weapon.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

Well, I was a bureaucrat for about 5 1/2 years, and I never really felt that I excelled at it, but I enjoy the sentiment all the same!



Political? Why in the world would you want this to be a political debate? I will never, ever suggest that my constitutional rights are political rather than legal. I am legally entitled to my rights. They are not subject to the whims of the political climate in which I live.



Again, also not a debate about self-protection. Natural right may reserve our ability to self-protect, but I am certain it says nothing about whether we must have fully automatic weapons to do so. It seems silly to me that you would argue this debate boils down to self-protection only. If that is the case, then show me that fully automatic weapons are absolutely necessary to your ability to self-protect. If they aren't necessary to your ability to self-protect, then we can freely restrict your ability to own those weapons without infringing at all on your right to self-protect.



Do I expect him to know the laws of other states? Not at all. I am merely holding him to the same standard he gave to me. I don't pretend to know the law in all 50 states with respect to ownership of fully automatic weapons or suppressors. But Waters does (despite the fact that even if he did know, that knowledge would have been totally irrelevant to the discussion at hand), so it is absolutely fair to call him on being wrong.

You are again falling back on your "personal liberties," but you have yet to give a single articulable explanation as to why those liberties must include ownership of a fully automatic weapon.

Why? Because it is silly to distinguish among them or other weapons. In a few highly well-publicized episodes of tragic abuse, people have taken note of them, but people have misused cars, non-automatics, knives, baseball bats ect. There is no real reason to throw them out.

[MikeWaters]

Cali can't proceed unless he knows all the exceptions to federal firearm laws.

http://www.mp5.net/info/sbsconr.htm

Even then, he probably can't proceed until he knows all city ordinances. After all, there are exceptions.

So a question Cali, how many times has a legally owned machine gun been used in a crime in the last 50 years in the United States? (I had to add USA so he wouldn't go back and claim he thought I meant the entire world)

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

Cali can't proceed unless he knows all the exceptions to federal firearm laws.

http://www.mp5.net/info/sbsconr.htm

Even then, he probably can't proceed until he knows all city ordinances. After all, there are exceptions.

So a question Cali, how many times has a legally owned machine gun been used in a crime in the last 50 years in the United States? (I had to add USA so he wouldn't go back and claim he thought I meant the entire world)

A prohibition on silencers isn't an "exception" to the federal firearms laws, Waters. In the context we are discussing, those laws don't require that silencers be legal and then identify exceptions where they won't be legal. And it isn't as if this is a small jurisdiction that prohibits silencers. It is nearly 1/4 of the entire United States. If you are going to pretend to be an expert on this topic, you need to do better than a 24% margin of error.

How many times has a legally owned machine gun been used in a crime in the last 50 years? No clue, but it is also totally irrelevant to this discussion (you seem to struggle with the concept of relevancy). Nevertheless, I eagerly await your answer which I assume will be as accurate as your response on silencers.

[MikeWaters]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

A prohibition on silencers isn't an "exception" to the federal firearms laws, Waters. In the context we are discussing, those laws don't require that silencers be legal and then identify exceptions where they won't be legal. And it isn't as if this is a small jurisdiction that prohibits silencers. It is nearly 1/4 of the entire United States. If you are going to pretend to be an expert on this topic, you need to do better than a 24% margin of error.

How many times has a legally owned machine gun been used in a crime in the last 50 years? No clue, but it is also totally irrelevant to this discussion (you seem to struggle with the concept of relevancy). Nevertheless, I eagerly await your answer which I assume will be as accurate as your response on silencers.

1. I've already told you I don't care what Scalia says. It's not like I have formed my opinion based on 1934, 1968, 1986, 1994, and 2008 happenings (to what do I refer Cali?).

2. According to sources I have come across on the internet tubes, these legally owned "machine guns" (fully-auto) have been used a grand total of zero times in crime.

3. So we all agree that national guard militia use select-fire M16s. We also now agree that these weapons, owned by civilians (there are more than 100,000 machine guns in private hands in the USA), have been used ZERO times in crime. Yet, I am told, it is unreasonable for me to own one manufactured in the last 2 decades.