At the GunRunners Gun Show outside Atlanta, the line stretches out the door and around the corner. Dozens of people are waiting, ready to fork over big bucks for everything from pistols to high capacity magazines.
Here, the hottest seller isn't a shotgun, handgun, or even a pair of Angie Whitaker's .22-caliber bullet casing earrings. It's the AR-15 semiautomatic rifle.
"We probably brought maybe 100 AR-15s with us," said vendor George Mazzant, from On the Square Gun & Pawn. "I'd like to sell half of them, and, I'm sure we will. We've been doing that well every weekend."
Mazzant is running a special, selling Stag Arms AR-15 rifles for $999. It's an offer that's too good for show attendee Ken Farrell to pass up.
"I always wanted one," said Farrell. "I'm getting it now just in case I can't later. Since the rumors of the bans, the prices have skyrocketed."
"When you tell the American public that they're not going to have something, they want it," said Mazzant.
The AR-15 is at the heart of the gun control debate. The civilian version of the M16, it's the most popular rifle in the country, with some 4 million in the hands of gun owners and a wildly passionate fan base. Its use in the mass shootings in Newtown, Conn., and Aurora, Colo., thrust the AR-15 into the national spotlight.
"The AR-15 is, essentially, a gun that was designed to inflict maximum casualties, death, and injury, in close to medium range. That's what it does," said gun control advocate and former NRA member Tom Diaz. "The real problem is that we allow that kind of firepower to come into a theater or into a first-grade class."
"It's a question of cosmetics. It's not a question of functioning," said Steve Sanetti, president of the National Sports Shooting Foundation. "The rifles are sane, safe, reliable types of firearms used by millions of citizens for lawful purposes. They are not just killing machines."
But if the gun control debate has some people up in arms, it's had others buying them up — an unintended side effect of the push for stricter gun laws. The most recent measures — President Barack Obama's attempt to strengthen gun laws by expanding background checks, limiting large ammunition magazines and banning certain military-style firearms — were defeated on the Senate floor earlier this month.
Just the threat of a ban has been a boon to the gun business.
"[It's] been a very, very busy year for us," said Mark Malkowski, president of Stag Arms in New Britain, Conn. "Right now we're at about a year's back order, 70,000 rifles at this point."
Connecticut recently passed some of the toughest gun laws in the country, banning the sales of AR-15s. Malkowski has since announced he might be forced to move his company out of the state — taking some 200 jobs with it. Stag Arms is one of more than 30 companies that make the AR-15; together they sell some 800,000 rifles a year, nearly all for the U.S. market.
"The AR-15 now is probably the Number 1 economic engine in the gun industry," said Larry Hyatt, owner of Hyatt Gun Shop in Charlotte, N.C. "We sell every one we get, almost as quick as they come in. We've never seen the demand that's here today."
Gun store owners and analysts alike say it's one of the bestselling guns in the country; roughly $1 billion of the estimated $4 billion firearms industry is made up of sales of AR-15 rifles and their accessories.
"These are expensive guns that people think about a lot before they buy them," said Hyatt. "They're not protesting on the street against the government, they're buying AR-15s and ammunition. It's not advertising, it's not marketing, it's political."
Politics coupled with shifting consumer preference are big drivers of the market, said Wedbush Securities analyst Rommel Dionisio.
"In the last two years, the market has exploded," he said. "It's a fad; it's the cool, new rifle. People used to hunt with bolt action rifles. Now they're using the modern sporting rifle."
According to the sports shooting foundation, an average AR-15 runs about $1,000. They also say the average owner has more than one rifle and spends an additional $483 for accessories. It's a pricey purchase that Diaz says is benefiting from years of industry marketing.
"The names you see now are 'modern sporting rifle,' 'tactical rifle,' " he said. "Those are all just euphemisms for 'assault weapon.' They're being very rational as marketers and as businesses — and as industries. They're only doing what cellphone companies do to make cellphones look different and be more attractive. The difference is what they're selling is lethality."
"They're selling today's rifle," said the foundation's Sanetti. "We call it the modern sporting rifle. And that's exactly what it is."
Whether it's called a modern sporting rifle or an assault rifle, for Atlanta gun show vendor Mazzant, AR-15s are just good business.
"Today was one of the better sales days with ARs," he said. "Everybody in the whole place was lining up to buy them."
Mazzant started off with 100 AR-15 rifles. By the end of the day, he didn't have a single one left.
Ouze pointing out one of the hottest weapon on sale is the AR15. For fear of a perma ban on them.. I perfer them because I am so fimiliar with these type of rifles and know what I'm I can and cannot do with these weapon.
I agree. I thintk Hollywood and video game FPS like BF2 glamorize them. Granted its not a weapon I wouldn't go hunting with but its a weapon I will carrry to watch over my wife back when she goes hunting.. Mention before. I know my weapon
So if you've not bought one before now, surely it wasn't so high up your list of priorities that the very hint of a ban should send you running to the shops to panic buy. People are just being silly, an outright ban on these things isn't likely. The fact that the use of one if these in a school massacre has ultimately led to a surge in their sales shows how distorted the view of guns is in the US and how totally alien it is to most of the rest of the world. It's a bit sad really, and exposes the desperation and paranoia many Americans have for overpowered weapons.
You don't reasonably need these for home defence, you can't carry it in the street, and as for hunting, it's not a hunting/sporting rifle, it's an assault rifle that can shoot things to bits. Odd idea of 'hunting' IMO. I can't see many good reasons for normal people to own these things, they're just big man toys. I'm not completely anti gun, I don't have an issue with genuinely responsible Americans owning handguns for home defence or even hunting as a true sport, but selling thousands of these rifles to the public just seems stupid and is taking the 'right to bear arms' to its absurd conclusion. I don't think tooling up the public with these weapons is what they had envisioned when writing the constitution.
Howard A Treesong wrote: You don't reasonably need these for home defence, you can't carry it in the street, and as for hunting, it's not a hunting/sporting rifle, it's an assault rifle that can shoot things to bits. Odd idea of 'hunting' IMO. I can't see many good reasons for normal people to own these things, they're just big man toys. I'm not completely anti gun, I don't have an issue with genuinely responsible Americans owning handguns for home defence or even hunting as a true sport, but selling thousands of these rifles to the public just seems stupid and is taking the 'right to bear arms' to its absurd conclusion. I don't think tooling up the public with these weapons is what they had envisioned when writing the constitution.
Can you tell me what the difference is between a .223 semiautomatically fired from an AR-15 and a .223 semiautomatically fired from, say, a Ruger Mini-14?
Howard A Treesong wrote: You don't reasonably need these for home defence, you can't carry it in the street, and as for hunting, it's not a hunting/sporting rifle, it's an assault rifle that can shoot things to bits. Odd idea of 'hunting' IMO. I can't see many good reasons for normal people to own these things, they're just big man toys. I'm not completely anti gun, I don't have an issue with genuinely responsible Americans owning handguns for home defence or even hunting as a true sport, but selling thousands of these rifles to the public just seems stupid and is taking the 'right to bear arms' to its absurd conclusion. I don't think tooling up the public with these weapons is what they had envisioned when writing the constitution.
Can you tell me what the difference is between a .223 semiautomatically fired from an AR-15 and a .223 semiautomatically fired from, say, a Ruger Mini-14?
Easy. One is from an 'assault rifle' as Treesong would define it, the other is not.
Good old NRA, the #1 lobby of gun manufacturers. Make sure that people are scared and buy more weapons. There is a reason they never see a penny from me.
d-usa wrote: Good old NRA, the #1 lobby of gun manufacturers. Make sure that people are scared and buy more weapons. There is a reason they never see a penny from me.
You think they paid Reid to put those bills up for vote? Or got Feinstein to put her bill together?
It would seem if the Democrats quit putting forth bills in an attempt to limit gun ownership the NRA would lose the ability to scare people....
d-usa wrote: Good old NRA, the #1 lobby of gun manufacturers. Make sure that people are scared and buy more weapons. There is a reason they never see a penny from me.
You think they paid Reid to put those bills up for vote? Or got Feinstein to put her bill together?
It would seem if the Democrats quit putting forth bills in an attempt to limit gun ownership the NRA would lose the ability to scare people....
Never mind that the NRA endorsed some of those same ideas less than 8 years ago.
And "keeping people scared" doesn't just mean keeping them scared that Democrats will take their guns.
The NRA, and gun manufacturers by extension, have an interest in making sure that bad guys have guns as well. When violent crime is up more people want guns to protect themselves. Scared people = more guns. Look at the levels of violent crimes during the Clinton years and look at gun sales during those years.
Who exactly is treating them as a toy? What is your source for that? Are you saying that just because they are being bought?
By the way, there is no 'privilege' to being a gun owner, it is a constitutionally guaranteed right, which is not quite the same as a privilege. Unless of course you want to consider the ability to use any of our rights, such as the right to freely express political opinions as a privilege as well. Perhaps you believe folks who are irresponsible in how they express themselves should have that privilege taken away too?
Except the only people talking about taking away guns are a stupid minority on the left and the NRA whispering sweet terrors into the ears of gun owners.
Regulating =/= taking guns away. But this is a useless discussion that has been covered many of times. Sorry for even getting sucked into another pointless thread.
A large number of "gun collectors" are. There's a distinct difference between someone who is buying a weapon for the sake of self-defense and someone who is just buying it because they want to feel manly or some other dumbarse bullgak. People in the latter category are the reason why gun-related accidents are rising even as gun-related crimes are going down. People in the latter category is also why gun advertisements treat guns like tosy as well.
CptJake wrote: By the way, there is no 'privilege' to being a gun owner, it is a constitutionally guaranteed right, which is not quite the same as a privilege.
A "constitutionally guaranteed right" which can be and frequently is taken away from people who misbehave.
So... more accurately, a "constitutionally mentioned privilege".
Also, don't try to claim I'm advocating taking away your guns. That would be a lie. Don't start doing it.
You know what I need? A Barrett sniper rifle. My 30/06 just isn't doing it anymore to kill those blasted deer; they're riding around in tanks now so I really need that Barrett for hunting....yeah hunting.
Come to think of it, I need a drum magazine for my fully-automatic assault rifle too. You never know when an entire gang of thugs is going to assault my home and a regular 15 round magazine just won't be enough to stop them all; I really need to be able to swiss-cheese my house (and my neighbor's too since drywall doesn't stop bullets too well).
And since there's so many people out there with body armor...bad people....I need armor piercing rounds for my 100 round drum magazine....for protection you understand. I've got to protect myself against thugs and people that want to take away my god-given right to protect myself and my family.
Feth it, I need a tank. It's an "arm"; I should be able to keep and bear a tank. A nuclear missile's an arm too while we're at it.
Yeah people will jump through all sorts of mental gymnastics to justify anything. Nevermind the constitution was written in a different time when it took 15 seconds or so to reload the firearm between shots; now one person with one gun can empty a room in that time. Ar-15 has a potential 800 rpm rof. Yeah, I need that for protection and going to the gun range.....and hunting, let's not forget hunting.
agnosto wrote: You know what I need? A Barrett sniper rifle. My 30/06 just isn't doing it anymore to kill those blasted deer; they're riding around in tanks now so I really need that Barrett for hunting....yeah hunting.
Come to think of it, I need a drum magazine for my fully-automatic assault rifle too. You never know when an entire gang of thugs is going to assault my home and a regular 15 round magazine just won't be enough to stop them all; I really need to be able to swiss-cheese my house (and my neighbor's too since drywall doesn't stop bullets too well).
And since there's so many people out there with body armor...bad people....I need armor piercing rounds for my 100 round drum magazine....for protection you understand. I've got to protect myself against thugs and people that want to take away my god-given right to protect myself and my family.
Feth it, I need a tank. It's an "arm"; I should be able to keep and bear a tank. A nuclear missile's an arm too while we're at it.
Yeah people will jump through all sorts of mental gymnastics to justify anything. Nevermind the constitution was written in a different time when it took 15 seconds or so to reload the firearm between shots; now one person with one gun can empty a room in that time. Ar-15 has a potential 800 rpm rof. Yeah, I need that for protection and going to the gun range.....and hunting, let's not forget hunting.
So, I'm just curious, what does it take to get a fully-automatic assault rifle with armor piercing ammunition in the US? You make it sound pretty easy, is it stuff you can just pick up at Wal-Mart or the local sporting goods store? I'm guessing you're an expert on firearms because after reading your post I get the impression you really know what you're talking about.
agnosto wrote: Come to think of it, I need a drum magazine for my fully-automatic assault rifle too. You never know when an entire gang of thugs is going to assault my home and a regular 15 round magazine just won't be enough to stop them all; I really need to be able to swiss-cheese my house (and my neighbor's too since drywall doesn't stop bullets too well).
Hey, if you passed the extensive six month ATF background check and got your local chief law enforcement officer to sign off on your acquisition of an automatic weapon, as is required, I have no issue with you having a drum mag. You will, of course, because they don't feed that well, but you know.
And since there's so many people out there with body armor...bad people....I need armor piercing rounds for my 100 round drum magazine....for protection you understand. I've got to protect myself against thugs and people that want to take away my god-given right to protect myself and my family.
Your 30/06 should get through Level III.
Yeah people will jump through all sorts of mental gymnastics to justify anything. Nevermind the constitution was written in a different time when it took 15 seconds or so to reload the firearm between shots; now one person with one gun can empty a room in that time. Ar-15 has a potential 800 rpm rof. Yeah, I need that for protection and going to the gun range.....and hunting, let's not forget hunting.
An AR-15's not that great for hunting because the round's pretty underpowered.
A 1911 can run roughly 600 rounds per minute. Rate of fire only tells the full story to people who don't know what the feth they're talking about.
Seaword, please don't patronize me; we both know the internet is replete with ways you can turn your semi-auto ar-15 into a full-auto. You can also make armor piercing rounds if you know what you're doing. They feed well enough if you buy a good quality one and maintain them properly.
Which was sort of my point. I don't need anything more powerful than my 30/06; it puts down wild boar and deer with great accuracy. If you want something for home defence, get a shotgun, not a machine gun. If you live in a high crime area and have a conceal/carry, get a small pistol; heck a .25 caliber will do for someone at close range better than a glock in some situations and takes up less space.
I live in Oklahoma. I grew up in a family where a solid half of us were issued a rifle out of the womb and was hunting on family property at 14 with larger caliber rifles than most military personnel handle on a daily basis. I did not go full military due to a car accident precluding me from it but was a noted marksman on the rifle-team in the Young Marine unit I was in. None of that matters. I still don't need a 100-round drum for anything except if I plan to run out and kill groups of people...or to compensate for a lack in another area.
Yeah and that revolutionary war musket that was used when the founding fathers wrote the constitution? I bet it can kill just as many people in the same amount of time as that 1911 or ar...oh wait, it couldn't.
RoF was used to illustrate the differences in technology. Modern personal firearms have the capacity for mayhem that a gatling gun or maxim gun had in the mid to late 1800's which could still only shoot 200 rounds per minute. 1 shot does not equal 1 kill but if you're able to fill a volume of area with enough rounds, people will die or be seriously injured.
agnosto wrote: Seaword, please don't patronize me; we both know the internet is replete with ways you can turn your semi-auto ar-15 into a full-auto.
There's only one way to turn a semi-auto into an automatic. You'd need a machine shop.
You can also make armor piercing rounds if you know what you're doing.
.357 SIG will defeat a lot of body armor. "Armor piercing" is never quite the boogeyman that anti-gun folks seem to think it is. It sounds scary, but dig a little deeper and you uncover that there are varying levels of protection, and varying counters to them, many of which are plain ol' unmodified bone stock common rounds.
Which was sort of my point. I don't need anything more powerful than my 30/06; it puts down wild boar and deer with great accuracy. If you want something for home defence, get a shotgun, not a machine gun.
As we covered, it takes an extensive amount of time and money and government scrutiny to get a machine gun. I doubt more than a handful of individuals possess one for the purpose of home defense.
If you live in a high crime area and have a conceal/carry, get a small pistol; heck a .25 caliber will do for someone at close range better than a glock in some situations and takes up less space.
This is extremely bad advice.
I live in Oklahoma. I grew up in a family where a solid half of us were issued a rifle out of the womb and was hunting on family property at 14 with larger caliber rifles than most military personnel handle on a daily basis. I did not go full military due to a car accident precluding me from it but was a noted marksman on the rifle-team in the Young Marine unit I was in. None of that matters. I still don't need a 100-round drum for anything except if I plan to run out and kill groups of people...or to compensate for a lack in another area.
I don't personally need a 100 round drum, either, but I don't believe they should be illegal just because people can't do math.
Yeah and that revolutionary war musket that was used when the founding fathers wrote the constitution? I bet it can kill just as many people in the same amount of time as that 1911 or ar...oh wait, it couldn't.
Know what could, though? The private warships that were perfectly legal at the time of the founding.
RoF was used to illustrate the differences in technology. Modern personal firearms have the capacity for mayhem that a gatling gun or maxim gun had in the mid to late 1800's which could still only shoot 200 rounds per minute. 1 shot does not equal 1 kill but if you're able to fill a volume of area with enough rounds, people will die or be seriously injured.
You seem to be laboring under the illusion that all modern firearms are not capable of doing that, and only the AR-15 has THE POWAH.
A large number of "gun collectors" are. There's a distinct difference between someone who is buying a weapon for the sake of self-defense and someone who is just buying it because they want to feel manly or some other dumbarse bullgak. People in the latter category are the reason why gun-related accidents are rising even as gun-related crimes are going down. People in the latter category is also why gun advertisements treat guns like tosy as well.
I sorta disagree with this premise....sure, there are some who do treat 'em as toyz, but for many, it's a hobby.
CptJake wrote: By the way, there is no 'privilege' to being a gun owner, it is a constitutionally guaranteed right, which is not quite the same as a privilege.
A "constitutionally guaranteed right" which can be and frequently is taken away from people who misbehave.
So... more accurately, a "constitutionally mentioned privilege".
Also, don't try to claim I'm advocating taking away your guns. That would be a lie. Don't start doing it.
So... who's misbehaving? We're not talking about felons here...
We're talking about a distinctive "right" in the states.
First, I apologize for not taking the time to multi-quote; I'm lazy today, sorry.
Actually, you don't need a machine shop. There are multiple solutions to give you either a full-auto experience or near to it. One that comes to mind is "Slide Fire" legal and requires no paperwork. The surprising thing with slide fire is you still have a great amount of control and accuracy (I wouldn't have thought so considering the mechanics).
Armor piercing rounds have one use in our society, killing cops. I have law-enforcement officers in my family and have heard enough discussion on the topic to know that there is a huge difference between the various types of rounds available. If people aren't keeping these weapons for defense and they're not suited for hunting, why have them if not to hurt/kill others or just because they thing it's cool. Believe me, owning a firearm because you think it's cool is about as bad as Justin Bieber procreating. A firearm is a tool, not a toy, not a shiny, it has a purpose and it's not to be played with.
Really, the drum mag isn't a huge issue as it takes little time to swap mags anyway; however, I do believe that extended magazines have no real purpose for any legal activities. If you can't kill it or hit it with the first 2 shots, you should sell your firearm and at the gun range you have the leisure to change mags as often as you like.
I fail to see how advising someone to carry a smaller caliber weapon for personal protection is bad advice, especially when said person is licensed (and therefor trained) to do so. It would be better than seeing yahoos walking around with a .44 strapped to their hip or walking through a mall with an ar on their back (sorry personal pet-peeve).
I think you're taking the private warships out of context; read the constitution. Letters of Marque and Reprisal were placed in their for a reason. The fledgling continental congress had no taxation powers, no capital and no way to fund a navy. The psychology of the founding fathers/ times also led to the the right to keep and bear arms; a fear/dislike of standing armies and no tax-base to support one anyway forced them to take a different view. There are other reasons as well, but these were major contributing factors (sorry, degree in history).
I have no illusions. The AR was being used as an example because it's the context for the article in the OP but this could be applied to any firearm. We could have the same discussion (ridiculous though it might be) about the length of knife blades (there are laws about those too but nobody seems to be crying about limiting those rights..)
whembly wrote: I sorta disagree with this premise....sure, there are some who do treat 'em as toyz, but for many, it's a hobby.
Yes, that is exactly the problem. Instead of treating the dangerous, deadly weapons as dangerous deadly weapons, they treat them the same as they would a fething model airplane.
agnosto wrote: Actually, you don't need a machine shop. There are multiple solutions to give you either a full-auto experience or near to it. One that comes to mind is "Slide Fire" legal and requires no paperwork. The surprising thing with slide fire is you still have a great amount of control and accuracy (I wouldn't have thought so considering the mechanics).
Bump firing doesn't turn a semiautomatic into an automatic. It does use a semiautomatic's mechanics against it, though, to produce similar results. According to the government, it's legal.
Armor piercing rounds have one use in our society, killing cops.
I'll make myself more clear: which armor piercing rounds? Numerous commercially-available standard "non-military" rounds get through anything short of a plate carrier. That 30/06 you mentioned earlier, for example.
Really, the drum mag isn't a huge issue as it takes little time to swap mags anyway; however, I do believe that extended magazines have no real purpose for any legal activities. If you can't kill it or hit it with the first 2 shots, you should sell your firearm and at the gun range you have the leisure to change mags as often as you like.
How many high stress shootings have you been involved in, out of curiosity? Accuracy post adrenaline dump goes to hell for most people, especially with handguns. It's why NYPD routinely hits everything except the target. Two-way ranges are quite a bit different than plinking. All decent defensive schools teach you to shoot until the threat's neutralized. Two, check, follow up has long since gone out of vogue, especially given the average rounds to incapacity isn't under two for almost all handgun calibers.
I fail to see how advising someone to carry a smaller caliber weapon for personal protection is bad advice, especially when said person is licensed (and therefor trained) to do so. It would be better than seeing yahoos walking around with a .44 strapped to their hip or walking through a mall with an ar on their back (sorry personal pet-peeve).
Small caliber is fine, the caliber you mentioned is horrific.
I think you're taking the private warships out of context; read the constitution. Letters of Marque and Reprisal were placed in their for a reason.
I'm not talking solely about privateers. If you chose, you could build a 50-gun ship in 1780. You didn't need permission to do it, either.
I have no illusions. The AR was being used as an example because it's the context for the article in the OP but this could be applied to any firearm.
Then I honestly have no idea what you're advocating.
whembly wrote: I sorta disagree with this premise....sure, there are some who do treat 'em as toyz, but for many, it's a hobby.
Yes, that is exactly the problem. Instead of treating the dangerous, deadly weapons as dangerous deadly weapons, they treat them the same as they would a fething model airplane.
Not many hobbies involve collecting tools for mass murder and treating them like they're barbie dolls with thousands of collectable attachments and decorative pieces.
Melissia wrote: Not many hobbies involve collecting tools for mass murder and treating them like they're barbie dolls with thousands of collectable attachments and decorative pieces.
Melissia wrote: Not many hobbies involve collecting tools for mass murder and treating them like they're barbie dolls with thousands of collectable attachments and decorative pieces.
Fortunately, neither does gun collecting.
I can't vouch for the absolute accuracy of the information in this link, but I do think there is some truth to the idea that firearms are at least marketed to people as "toys for big boys", to quote another poster in another thread.
azazel the cat wrote: I can't vouch for the absolute accuracy of the information in this link, but I do think there is some truth to the idea that firearms are at least marketed to people as "toys for big boys", to quote another poster in another thread.
A lot of products that are very far from anything resembling toys, many of them quite dangerous, are marketed in a manner that speaks less to their functional utility and more to their aesthetic appeal or cultural cache.
Either way, I was more taking issue with the "tools of mass murder" nonsense.
azazel the cat wrote: I can't vouch for the absolute accuracy of the information in this link, but I do think there is some truth to the idea that firearms are at least marketed to people as "toys for big boys", to quote another poster in another thread.
A lot of products that are very far from anything resembling toys, many of them quite dangerous, are marketed in a manner that speaks less to their functional utility and more to their aesthetic appeal or cultural cache.
Either way, I was more taking issue with the "tools of mass murder" nonsense.
Could you give me an example of what some of these other products are? (I'm honestly curious)
But yeah, the "tools of mass murder", while technically correct sometimes, is a little disingenuous. I'm not going to consider letting rare incidents be the defining title of firearms.
Honestly, I think my problem with that marketing (for firearms) is while things such as cars might be marketed as toys, their primary function is not to kill people; as such I don't find the marketing quite so problematic. I've said it in another thread: my issue is that I think the marketing of firearms as toys is detrimental to the level of care and respect the tools require, and unfortunately I think this marketing is designed to appeal to exactly the irresponsible and immature individual that I'm primarily concerned with obtaining the firearms. (again, I'm less concerned about the criminal with the gun than I am about the imbecile with the loaded god complex).
Melissia wrote: Not many hobbies involve collecting tools for mass murder and treating them like they're barbie dolls with thousands of collectable attachments and decorative pieces.
Bumpfire is one example; some older, less safe methods involved saving the firing pin or sear for some weapons which didn't require anything more technical than tools found around the house. Though technically not "auto" bumpfire produces something very, very close.
Many examples of either AP or just HV rounds are a danger and again, no reason to own any of them unless you're planning something other than an acceptable reason own a firearm anyway.
I don't see what's wrong with a .25? Even .22s are excellent weapons in trained hands because the rounds tend to penetrate without an exit and bounce around a bit; causing more internal damage. You, yourself give very good reasons not to have anything larger on your person because higher caliber rounds have a greater chance to harm bystanders or penetrate buildings/cover. The whole point of carrying a self-defense firearm is to 1)scare the attacker away 2)do the job of protecting yourself without hurting innocents. I can see no reason to carry a .44 as a self-defense weapon nor a rifle strapped to your back, in public. If you're going to conceal/carry, do so responsibly and be trained.
I've never been in a situation where I've been shot at or had to shoot at someone. I have killed a fair number of god's creatures but always with the intent to make use of their flesh for my own sustenance. Again, there are few acceptable reasons to own a firearm; it's not a toy, it's a tool that only has a few acceptable uses. Not treating a firearm as the weapon that was created to cause harm and death that it is, is the pinnacle of pointless stupidity.
I think you need to check again about privateers. Sanctioned privateers had the blessing of the govt. Unsanctioned privateers were called pirates and were the same as armed gangs running around doing drivebys. Yes, if you had the money, you could build a boat with cannon and rage hell on the high seas but there were only two ways to go about it; legally or not. Pull into a port and not carry a letter of marque and you could have found yourself arrested for piracy.
My point? I advocate sanity when it comes to our right to keep and bear arms. The constitution does not give us the right to possess WMDs, it gives us the right to protect ourselves, our neighbors and our country from the depredations of foreign powers. 99.9% of the people in this country should never own a firearm; they do not have the time or inclination to actually learn how to handle them properly or even respect them for what they are, a tool that was designed to kill. not hurt, not put holes in paper targets. kill. There is no other reason to own a firearm than to learn how to kill with it; to prepare yourself to kill with it and to kill with it. If all someone plans to do is take it out of the case and go down the street because it's fun to put holes in paper, they don't hunt to feed themselves, they don't carry it for protection or even have it readily available to protect their home; they have no business owning it to begin with.
My two cents. You, of course, are free to disagree with me.
Either carry concealed scissors/hammers/whatever it stop pretending that a gun is a tool that can be replaced by whatever you want in order to hurt and/or kill people.
Or is everybody here to chicken to use their scicors to overthrow a tyranical government.
Guns are a tool designed to make it very easy to hurt and kill. That's a fact, simple as that. That's why we give them to soldiers and that is why we want to carry them. So we can kill people dead that try to hurt us.
Any gun owner that presents that guns are anything other than that is stupid and not worth listening to IMHO. They can be a hobby as well, hey can be art, but they are weapons designed to kill.
Back to the OP, I myself am saving up for a new AK in the near future. Not out of panic of a ban, but because like the AR-15, the prices have almost doubled on them in my area (a year ago it was around $400-500, now its upwards of $800). I'm slowly in the process of building an AR as well, but that has pretty much halted because the parts I want are almost always out of stock, or the prices have gone up.
Its not just people freaking because of the big bad government, it's also people freaking because dealers can put whatever they want on that price tag right now.
I ended up selling my cheap ass AK for almost triple what I paid for it, and got myself an M1 Garand instead, I'll probably pick up an AR-15 in the near future just to make the scum bags in Denver mad.
As to this thread... wow guys. Just wow. Lot of stupid and willful misrepresentation at work here.
As to this thread... wow guys. Just wow. Lot of stupid and willful misrepresentation at work here.
This thread was posted for the purpose of trolling, its not as if any gun thread is likely to be different from the dozens (and dozens) of others. Wilful misrepresentations are part and parcel of this process.
Honestly, I think my problem with that marketing (for firearms) is while things such as cars might be marketed as toys, their primary function is not to kill people; as such I don't find the marketing quite so problematic. I've said it in another thread: my issue is that I think the marketing of firearms as toys is detrimental to the level of care and respect the tools require, and unfortunately I think this marketing is designed to appeal to exactly the irresponsible and immature individual that I'm primarily concerned with obtaining the firearms. (again, I'm less concerned about the criminal with the gun than I am about the imbecile with the loaded god complex).
It may be fair to say that the marketing of firearms as 'toys' may be more troublesome than cars or alcohol as marketed 'toys'.
However, which of those three is the most deadly? And the second most?
Ok, I'm getting really sick of this "primary function is to kill people" crap.
In my life, I've held 4 fire arms that whose function was to kill people. All 4 of those were handed to me from a Security Forces Armory on a military base.
Now, the dozens of other fire arms that I've handled had absolutely zero function/design intent/purpose of killing people.
Firearms sold domestically do not serve a purpose of "killing people". Their purpose is to provide entertainment, to provide food, and to provide protection (which in some cases can result in dead people, but that is not due to the person using it for protection).
Saying that they do is just as dumb as Feinsteins comment saying that it's legal to hunt humans because we have 30 round magazines.
Honestly, I think my problem with that marketing (for firearms) is while things such as cars might be marketed as toys, their primary function is not to kill people; as such I don't find the marketing quite so problematic. I've said it in another thread: my issue is that I think the marketing of firearms as toys is detrimental to the level of care and respect the tools require, and unfortunately I think this marketing is designed to appeal to exactly the irresponsible and immature individual that I'm primarily concerned with obtaining the firearms. (again, I'm less concerned about the criminal with the gun than I am about the imbecile with the loaded god complex).
It may be fair to say that the marketing of firearms as 'toys' may be more troublesome than cars or alcohol as marketed 'toys'.
However, which of those three is the most deadly? And the second most?
You use them for entertainment, that doesn't make them any less designed to inflict damage and death as efficiently as possible.
If you want to lie to yourself be my guest. But have the decency to quit pretending that the manufacturers of firearms are making sure to limit FTEs so we don't have to stop being entertained. And that bullet manufacturers do not design their bullets for maximum penetration and damage so that we can maximize our entertainment.
I'm not saying that weapons cannot be entertaining, or that they can be fun to collect, or valuable pieces of history, or wonderful pieces of art.
But they are weapons invented and designed for one purpose. To project a piece of metal at a lethal velocity to inflict maximum damage in the most reliable way possible.
That doesn't make them a bad thing; but it is the reason why we need do be responsible gun owners because that is their purpose. But it makes fun owners look stupid and like idiots who don't want to admit that our "toys/hobby/collection" are tools made to inflict injury.
d-usa wrote: You use them for entertainment, that doesn't make them any less designed to inflict damage and death as efficiently as possible.
If you want to lie to yourself be my guest. But have the decency to quit pretending that the manufacturers of firearms are making sure to limit FTEs so we don't have to stop being entertained. And that bullet manufacturers do not design their bullets for maximum penetration and damage so that we can maximize our entertainment.
I'm not saying that weapons cannot be entertaining, or that they can be fun to collect, or valuable pieces of history, or wonderful pieces of art.
But they are weapons invented and designed for one purpose. To project a piece of metal at a lethal velocity to inflict maximum damage in the most reliable way possible.
That doesn't make them a bad thing; but it is the reason why we need do be responsible gun owners because that is their purpose. But it makes fun owners look stupid and like idiots who don't want to admit that our "toys/hobby/collection" are tools made to inflict injury.
d-usa wrote: You use them for entertainment, that doesn't make them any less designed to inflict damage and death as efficiently as possible.
If you want to lie to yourself be my guest. But have the decency to quit pretending that the manufacturers of firearms are making sure to limit FTEs so we don't have to stop being entertained. And that bullet manufacturers do not design their bullets for maximum penetration and damage so that we can maximize our entertainment.
I'm not saying that weapons cannot be entertaining, or that they can be fun to collect, or valuable pieces of history, or wonderful pieces of art.
But they are weapons invented and designed for one purpose. To project a piece of metal at a lethal velocity to inflict maximum damage in the most reliable way possible.
That doesn't make them a bad thing; but it is the reason why we need do be responsible gun owners because that is their purpose. But it makes fun owners look stupid and like idiots who don't want to admit that our "toys/hobby/collection" are tools made to inflict injury.
Sorry that gets you butthurt.
@d-usa... what are you really advocating for?
If I remember right, better and tighter gun regulations.
djones520 wrote: Ok, I'm getting really sick of this "primary function is to kill people" crap.
In my life, I've held 4 fire arms that whose function was to kill people. All 4 of those were handed to me from a Security Forces Armory on a military base.
Now, the dozens of other fire arms that I've handled had absolutely zero function/design intent/purpose of killing people.
Firearms sold domestically do not serve a purpose of "killing people". Their purpose is to provide entertainment, to provide food, and to provide protection (which in some cases can result in dead people, but that is not due to the person using it for protection).
Saying that they do is just as dumb as Feinsteins comment saying that it's legal to hunt humans because we have 30 round magazines.
I never said "kill people" (no sure if anyone else did), I said the primary purpose for a firearm is to kill. If you or anyone else derives enjoyment from putting holes in paper, good for you but that does not change the fact that "guns" were created to kill and for no other reason than to do that one thing and every firearm made since its inception has been designed to be better at that one thing than the previous version. You could do the same thing with a BB gun or some other similar, non-lethal device that could just as easily put a hole in a paper target though without the added "boom".
Honestly, even with all the half-baked open/concealed carry laws going around the US right now it's really a good thing that most people don't feel the need to do this:
or this:
Because nothing says "self-defense" like a pink pistol strapped to your waist in suburbia when you go to Starbucks for coffee. Am I the only person that thinks this is stupid? She's just asking some bad person, who was denied ownership of a firearm for good reason, to go up and take it from her and kill her and a bunch of other people.
Aren't flamethrowers less regulated in America than Pot? Because a weapon that causes death so horrible that it's not considered Kosher by international law anymore is totally more acceptable than a mild drug more or less everyone's tried at least once.
That being said video games have taught me that watching flamethrower victims is funny, especially how they scream and flail.
djones520 wrote: Ok, I'm getting really sick of this "primary function is to kill people" crap.
In my life, I've held 4 fire arms that whose function was to kill people. All 4 of those were handed to me from a Security Forces Armory on a military base.
Now, the dozens of other fire arms that I've handled had absolutely zero function/design intent/purpose of killing people.
Firearms sold domestically do not serve a purpose of "killing people". Their purpose is to provide entertainment, to provide food, and to provide protection (which in some cases can result in dead people, but that is not due to the person using it for protection).
Saying that they do is just as dumb as Feinsteins comment saying that it's legal to hunt humans because we have 30 round magazines.
I never said "kill people" (no sure if anyone else did), I said the primary purpose for a firearm is to kill. If you or anyone else derives enjoyment from putting holes in paper, good for you but that does not change the fact that "guns" were created to kill and for no other reason than to do that one thing and every firearm made since its inception has been designed to be better at that one thing than the previous version. You could do the same thing with a BB gun or some other similar, non-lethal device that could just as easily put a hole in a paper target though without the added "boom".
Honestly, even with all the half-baked open/concealed carry laws going around the US right now it's really a good thing that most people don't feel the need to do this:
*snip*
Because nothing says "self-defense" like a pink pistol strapped to your waist in suburbia when you go to Starbucks for coffee. Am I the only person that thinks this is stupid? She's just asking some bad person, who was denied ownership of a firearm for good reason, to go up and take it from her and kill her and a bunch of other people.
Two others in this thread alone already have.
And despite all the cases of open carry that occur across this nation, I cannot recall ever hearing of a single case of someone doing what you postulated.
If I remember right, better and tighter gun regulations.
But HOW?
If it's sensible, I'm sure folks would support it. If it's assinine (ie, Feinstein's AWB), then we'd say "no".
I'll let d-usa respond as I might have put words into his mouth, also does anyone have a link to where I can find the Obama Administration's gun control proposals?
djones520 wrote: Ok, I'm getting really sick of this "primary function is to kill people" crap.
In my life, I've held 4 fire arms that whose function was to kill people. All 4 of those were handed to me from a Security Forces Armory on a military base.
Now, the dozens of other fire arms that I've handled had absolutely zero function/design intent/purpose of killing people.
Firearms sold domestically do not serve a purpose of "killing people". Their purpose is to provide entertainment, to provide food, and to provide protection (which in some cases can result in dead people, but that is not due to the person using it for protection).
Saying that they do is just as dumb as Feinsteins comment saying that it's legal to hunt humans because we have 30 round magazines.
I never said "kill people" (no sure if anyone else did), I said the primary purpose for a firearm is to kill. If you or anyone else derives enjoyment from putting holes in paper, good for you but that does not change the fact that "guns" were created to kill and for no other reason than to do that one thing and every firearm made since its inception has been designed to be better at that one thing than the previous version. You could do the same thing with a BB gun or some other similar, non-lethal device that could just as easily put a hole in a paper target though without the added "boom".
Honestly, even with all the half-baked open/concealed carry laws going around the US right now it's really a good thing that most people don't feel the need to do this:
or this:
Because nothing says "self-defense" like a pink pistol strapped to your waist in suburbia when you go to Starbucks for coffee. Am I the only person that thinks this is stupid? She's just asking some bad person, who was denied ownership of a firearm for good reason, to go up and take it from her and kill her and a bunch of other people.
I think you're just naive.
The reason for this fact is simple... firearms reduce the power differential between the weak and the strong, making it harder for the strong to prey upon the weak. Being strong doesn’t help much when you’re dead or gaking your pants in fear because your potential victim shoved a barrel muzzle under your nose.
Take rape, a crime usually involving a stronger person attacking a weaker person... right? Typically, the rapist gets the upper hand in a battle of fisticuffs. The gun is a great equalizer.
Ronald Reagan said:
“The gun has been called the great equalizer, meaning that a small person with a gun is equal to a large person, but it is a great equalizer in another way, too. It insures that the people are the equal of their government whenever that government forgets that it is servant and not master of the governed. When the British forgot that they got a revolution. And, as a result, we Americans got a Constitution; a Constitution that, as those who wrote it were determined, would keep men free. If we give up part of that Constitution we give up part of our freedom and increase the chance that we will lose it all.” ~Ronald Reagan
If I remember right, better and tighter gun regulations.
But HOW?
If it's sensible, I'm sure folks would support it. If it's assinine (ie, Feinstein's AWB), then we'd say "no".
I'll let d-usa respond as I might have put words into his mouth, also does anyone have a link to where I can find the Obama Administration's gun control proposals?
d-usa wrote: You use them for entertainment, that doesn't make them any less designed to inflict damage and death as efficiently as possible.
If you want to lie to yourself be my guest. But have the decency to quit pretending that the manufacturers of firearms are making sure to limit FTEs so we don't have to stop being entertained. And that bullet manufacturers do not design their bullets for maximum penetration and damage so that we can maximize our entertainment.
I'm not saying that weapons cannot be entertaining, or that they can be fun to collect, or valuable pieces of history, or wonderful pieces of art.
But they are weapons invented and designed for one purpose. To project a piece of metal at a lethal velocity to inflict maximum damage in the most reliable way possible.
That doesn't make them a bad thing; but it is the reason why we need do be responsible gun owners because that is their purpose. But it makes fun owners look stupid and like idiots who don't want to admit that our "toys/hobby/collection" are tools made to inflict injury.
Sorry that gets you butthurt.
@d-usa... what are you really advocating for?
I want gun owners (of which I am one) to quit pretending that weapons are anything other than what they were designed for. How are we to expect that anybody will take any of our arguments seriously when a large group of us cannot even admit that weapons are what they are.
Guns were designed to enable us to injure and kill other things. We may use them for other reasons, but that doesn't make them any less designed for maximum lethal impact.
Remember how many of the "guns are not designed to kill people" crowd were on here just a little over a week ago making jokes about "I bet those liberals in Boston wish they had guns now that the terrorists are on the run hehehehehe". Why would liberals wish that? Were they bored in their homes and didn't have any way to entertain themselves during the lockdown? Did they get hungry and just needed to go and hunt in their living room? Because apparently that is what domestic guns are used for.
Do we carry concealed in case I suddenly get hungry? Do I keep a shotgun at home for spontaneous entertainment in case somebody breaks into my house? Did I misunderstand the rules of gun ownership? Keep your hands of the trigger unless you want accidental food? Never point your weapon at anything that you are not willing to entertain?
I want us to quit being idiots about what firearms are designed to be and what they are designed to do. Because if we keep on making idiotic arguments about the basic function of a firearm then there is no point in listening to anything else we have to say about them.
For the third time in this thread: I am not saying that firearms are not fun. I'm not saying that they are not pieces of art. I'm not saying that they cannot be great collectibles. I just want us to quit pretending that they are not designed for one primary purpose.
Because if guns don't kill people, and people kill people, then we don't even need the 2nd. Because people will overthrow a tyrannical government, not people with guns.
You could do the same thing with a BB gun or some other similar, non-lethal device that could just as easily put a hole in a paper target though without the added "boom".
I've handled a lot of airguns, some of them capable of putting down multi thousand pound animals. Calling them non lethal is ignorant in the extreme.
I've never been in a situation where I've been shot at or had to shoot at someone
I've never been in a situation where I have broken my leg, thus, you shouldn't ever need to carry a splint with your first aid equipment.
Even .22s are excellent weapons in trained hands because the rounds tend to penetrate without an exit and bounce around a bit; causing more internal damage.
I hear this myth a lot, I have yet to see actual evidence of the event. On the other hand, I have seen plenty of evidence that a light, slow, soft .22 cal lead projectile tends to A: Flatten on the first solid object stuck, B: Cut a .22-.25 tunnel through approximately 9 inches of soft (As in: non-built up muscle tissue) meat and then stop, or C: Bounce off the first solid thing it impacts, and stop about 3-4 inches of meat later.
it gives us the right to protect ourselves, our neighbors and our country from the depredations of foreign powers.
But not with firearms that would actually be appropriate for the task, allegedly.
d-usa wrote: Because if guns don't kill people, and people kill people, then we don't even need the 2nd. Because people will overthrow a tyrannical government, not people with guns.
Hammers and saws don't build houses, people do. Perhaps we don't need any tools because people do everything?
Or we could accept that tools make actions easier. Guns are tools. Using them in an illegal manner is guess what? Yep, illegal. Bashing someone's head in with a hammer is another example of using a legal tool for illegal purposes. As is purposely running over someone with your car.
But GUNZ make too EASY!!!
And? I prefer to make everything I can as easy as possible.
d-usa wrote: Because if guns don't kill people, and people kill people, then we don't even need the 2nd. Because people will overthrow a tyrannical government, not people with guns.
Hammers and saws don't build houses, people do. Perhaps we don't need any tools because people do everything?
Or we could accept that tools make actions easier. Guns are tools. Using them in an illegal manner is guess what? Yep, illegal. Bashing someone's head in with a hammer is another example of using a legal tool for illegal purposes. As is purposely running over someone with your car.
But GUNZ make too EASY!!!
And? I prefer to make everything I can as easy as possible.
And? They are tools used for a lot of things. The one I showed a picture of is a good example that your statement all guns are for killin' and woundin' is wrong. I own guns that though they could kill or wound were absolutely NOT made with that intention. They were made for target shooting/fun. I also own some that very much were made for killing, some defensive and some offensive, some suited for both. And it is my right to have them just as it is your right to wish that right did not exist.
CptJake wrote: And? They are tools used for a lot of things. The one I showed a picture of is a good example that your statement all guns are for killin' and woundin' is wrong. I own guns that though they could kill or wound were absolutely NOT made with that intention. They were made for target shooting/fun. I also own some that very much were made for killing, some defensive and some offensive, some suited for both. And it is my right to have them just as it is your right to wish that right did not exist.
That's right and as long as we understand each others' opinions we can amicably disagree; It's nice to have a mature conversation. I was brought up differently than you and that has colored my perception of gun ownership; my grandfather, who served in the Pacific in WWII would spin in his grave if I used a firearm for anything other than hunting or self-defense because that's what he beat into my head. That said, he's probably digging his way out now to come beat me because I married a Japanese woman. We are the sum total of our experiences.
I've mentioned before, it is a right. And that right currently IS regulated (in my opinion way more than it should be).
But, like any new law/regulation proposed, I want congress critters and advocates for the proposed law/regulation to:
1. Explain the goal of the proposal.
2. Explain how they believe the proposal would achieve the goal.
3. Explain the cost of enacting the proposal, both monetary and in freedoms lost.
Then let folks decide if they really want it.
Goals like "NO MOAR SANDY HOOKS" coupled with the proposed legislation we have seen just don't make sense. If the proposal does not have a chance of achieving the goal (or a low chance) it isn't 'reasonable' at all. If the proposed legislation takes away a freedom I currently hold without a VERY definite benefit it is not 'reasonable'. And frankly, there are some freedoms that if taken away, no benefit would make the loss worth while.
CptJake wrote: And? They are tools used for a lot of things. The one I showed a picture of is a good example that your statement all guns are for killin' and woundin' is wrong. I own guns that though they could kill or wound were absolutely NOT made with that intention. They were made for target shooting/fun. I also own some that very much were made for killing, some defensive and some offensive, some suited for both. And it is my right to have them just as it is your right to wish that right did not exist.
Feel free to search through my entire posting history to find any statement to back up your idea that I wish that a right to gun ownership doesn't exist.
I am pro gun, I realize that we need some better regulation, and I realize that statements like this:
Firearms sold domestically do not serve a purpose of "killing people". Their purpose is to provide entertainment, to provide food, and to provide protection (which in some cases can result in dead people, but that is not due to the person using it for protection).
make us look like idiots and make it hard to have any of our pro-2nd amendments taken seriously when we appear to argue that a gun used in self defense isn't even a factor in somebody dying.
I want to keep my guns, and I don't want other gun owners to make all gun owners look stupid by refusing to admit what firearms are. Because if we can't even admit that guns make it incredibly easy to injure others, why should they listen to anything else we have to say.
gunslingerpro wrote:It may be fair to say that the marketing of firearms as 'toys' may be more troublesome than cars or alcohol as marketed 'toys'.
However, which of those three is the most deadly? And the second most?
The gun is the most deadly.
If you think otherwise then I suggest using all three on yourself and seeing if I'm wrong.
I always end up saying this, and nobody ever responds to it because it ruins every "but the guns aren't so bad" argument ever:
Calculate the total number of hours the average American spends drinking. Then the total number they spend driving (it's 65 mins every day). Then the total number of hours spend using firearms. Then compare the fatality rates. I think you'll find that firearms outperform the other two exponentially.
So can we quit pretending that guns are a tool designed to make killing and injuring as easy as possible?
D... my man...
Why are you stuck on that? Of course they're tools designed to make killing easier... no one is saying otherwise.
Lots of people are saying that.
Everytime somebody makes the stupid argument of "if somebody wants to kill somebody they will just do it with a hammer" they deny the fact that guns make it a heck of a lot easier.
The whole mantra of "Guns don't kill People, People kill People" attempts to belittle the effect that guns have on making it easier to injure.
Are you implying that those who really don't agree with that shouldn't have guns in the first place?
Now. I'm implying that those who don't agree make gun owners look like idiots.
Melissia wrote: Not many hobbies involve collecting tools for mass murder and treating them like they're barbie dolls with thousands of collectable attachments and decorative pieces.
So can we quit pretending that guns are a tool designed to make killing and injuring as easy as possible?
D... my man...
Why are you stuck on that? Of course they're tools designed to make killing easier... no one is saying otherwise.
Lots of people are saying that.
From facebook? Drama driven snivel.
Everytime somebody makes the stupid argument of "if somebody wants to kill somebody they will just do it with a hammer" they deny the fact that guns make it a heck of a lot easier.
That's not this argument is about... it's been proven in the UK and the Au that making guns illegal didn't reduce homicides... that's the argument. Not that it's isn't easy (mechanically) to kill someone with a gun...
The whole mantra of "Guns don't kill People, People kill People" attempts to belittle the effect that guns have on making it easier to injure.
See... I think you're wrong here... it's stating that PEOPLE are ultimately responsible, not the gun itself.
Are you implying that those who really don't agree with that shouldn't have guns in the first place?
Now. I'm implying that those who don't agree make gun owners look like idiots.
Well... good luck there... they're are idiots in all walks of life. Try not to put an avid pro-2nd supporter into the same bucket as looneys. Cool?
agnosto wrote: Seaword,
Yeah and that revolutionary war musket that was used when the founding fathers wrote the constitution? I bet it can kill just as many people in the same amount of time as that 1911 or ar...oh wait, it couldn't.
just like free speech doesnt apply to the internet, radio, cell phones right?
that kind of argument is farce when used against the 1st amendment, and its a farce when used on the 2nd.
back then, despite guns shooting at a slower rate of fire, they were still the forefront of weapons technology.
Melissia wrote: Not many hobbies involve collecting tools for mass murder and treating them like they're barbie dolls with thousands of collectable attachments and decorative pieces.
Fortunately, neither does gun collecting.
Except when it does, which is all the time.
wow... projecting blame for mass murder on lawful gun owners much?
also, kind of ironic, since our hobby of 40k involves plastic "barbie" dolls that actually DO commit mass murder/genocide and so on.
Cheesecat wrote: I'll let d-usa respond as I might have put words into his mouth, also does anyone have a link to where I can find the Obama Administration's gun control proposals?
Thanks for that, seems fairly reasonable to me I mean maybe there might be a few unnecessary or pointless ideas on there but for the most part it seems like a good proposal imo.
Cheesecat wrote: I'll let d-usa respond as I might have put words into his mouth, also does anyone have a link to where I can find the Obama Administration's gun control proposals?
Thanks for that, seems fairly reasonable to me I mean maybe there might be a few unnecessary or pointless ideas on there but for the most part it seems like a good proposal imo.
That was his "plan".
Most never got to the Senate though...
Many were just political BS... like
"Confirming President Obama's nominee for director of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives."
Melissia wrote: Not many hobbies involve collecting tools for mass murder and treating them like they're barbie dolls with thousands of collectable attachments and decorative pieces.
Fortunately, neither does gun collecting.
Except when it does, which is all the time.
wow... projecting blame for mass murder on lawful gun owners much?
also, kind of ironic, since our hobby of 40k involves plastic "barbie" dolls that actually DO commit mass murder/genocide and so on.
While obviously a bit of an exaggeration on Mel's part the difference with guns is stuff like that happens in real-life where with 40K it's a fictitious setting so 40k isn't actually causing real-life mass murder/genocide and so on.
Cheesecat wrote: I'll let d-usa respond as I might have put words into his mouth, also does anyone have a link to where I can find the Obama Administration's gun control proposals?
Thanks for that, seems fairly reasonable to me I mean maybe there might be a few unnecessary or pointless ideas on there but for the most part it seems like a good proposal imo.
That was his "plan".
Most never got to the Senate though...
Many were just political BS... like
"Confirming President Obama's nominee for director of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives."
Well numb-nuts, nominate a different one... kay?
Yeah, I remember you posting the vid of that speech with a frustrated Obama (which I can understand) and an awkward looking Joe Biden (maybe he wasn't expecting this?).
Melissia wrote: Not many hobbies involve collecting tools for mass murder and treating them like they're barbie dolls with thousands of collectable attachments and decorative pieces.
Fortunately, neither does gun collecting.
Except when it does, which is all the time.
wow... projecting blame for mass murder on lawful gun owners much?
No. Try reading for once in your life.
I stated that guns are tools of mass murder. That is their purpose-- to kill things, or more specifically people-- many, many people. That's their sole purpose, their raison d'etre. Assault rifles even more so. That's the entire reason that assault rifles were developed over traditional rifles-- because they were more efficient at killing a large number of people in small amount of time Anyone who thinks guns as anything other than a tool to kill people is a fool who shouldn't be trusted with a gun.
Once more, before you and people like you invariably spaz out, I am not advocating banning all guns. Indeed, I plan on buying another gun myself (for those curious, I was given a couple of my father's guns, but I want one that is mine, per se, rather than a hand-me-down more suitable to someone else's build), and think that owning guns is perfectly fine. Rather, I want you to start being honest with yourselves about what guns really are. They are deadly weapons, killing machines, tools of death.
In fact, that they are tools that allow the user to kill someone so easily is exactly why I want one. It functions as an equalizer in self-defense, so that a five foot six woman like me doesn't have to try to outrun or out-fight a six foot nine musclebound thug. But, when understanding how deadly they are, one knows that guns must always be treated with the utmost respect. And providing their deadly killing tools the proper amount of respect is the only way to ensure that one safely maintains and uses them, without unduly endangering others.
And THAT... is the only way one can ever deserve the right to own a gun. The privilege to own a gun.
@melissia: Oddly enough i'm unsure what to think on the whole gun issue. I don't think it exactly helps in the end but when you have a roommate that ends up doing drugs and gets his drug dealer to threaten to kill everybody in your house while he's out getting high (because he isn't paying on time for drugs) and police as a whole won't do a stake-out or help until after the fact (for instance when we're all dead) then you can bet a gun would at least be a deterrant. This happened to me with a roommate once and though i probably shouldn't let this effect me too much it does do something to one's opinion on something. I try not to let emotion bother me much but i was afraid at the time and if said drug dealer (my roommate did hard drugs) did decide to come we'd have all died and he would've lived having been gone all day. I'm more angry about irresponsible people that hurt anybody near them (the d**chebags and ***holes). They ruin life for everybody else.
Personally i think if you hate guns then you've never had to live in a high crime area which is poor or in decline. Poverty makes people desperate and though i'd rather not bring violence into something whenever somebody threatens rape or murder on me and my loved ones i'd rather have a deterrant if police don't do anything to stop them (read how police don't do stake-outs).
I don't completely advocate guns but i don't want them banned either. Not to mention every time some terrorist threat or killing spree happens every politician has to try banning guns or stripping citizens of rights to get what they want. Maybe i'm being irrational but it's like they're trying to force things into being a police state. I wouldn't mind at first in the past because it was always a world war but whenever it's some constant war like 'the war on terror' or 'the war on crime' it's ill defined and can allows certain freedom stripping laws to last a long time. Banning guns would make it that much easier for a government to do exactly as they wanted without much fear of reprisal.
also @melissia: Assault rifles are meant to kill people but sometimes people with assault rifles use them at a firing range. I don't know all the specifics as to what they are all used for and i don't know what data isn't manipulated by some group or biased in a way (sometimes people show results that prove them right as opposed to the ones that don't).
flamingkillamajig wrote: Banning guns would make it that much easier for a government to do exactly as they wanted without much fear of reprisal.
Except if you compare the US to other developed nations that have stricter gun laws you find that their government's are usually not any more abusive than US's.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
flamingkillamajig wrote: also @melissia: Assault rifles are meant to kill people but sometimes people with assault rifles use them at a firing range. I don't know all the specifics as to what they are all used for and i don't know what data isn't manipulated by some group or biased in a way (sometimes people show results that prove them right as opposed to the ones that don't).
I think she's meaning that a gun's purpose was originally to be used a weapon, not that it can't be used for other things like entertainment.
flamingkillamajig wrote: Banning guns would make it that much easier for a government to do exactly as they wanted without much fear of reprisal.
Except if you compare the US to other developed nations that have stricter gun laws you find that their government's are usually not any more abusive than US's.
How would you "measure" that?
Not calling BS here... but isn't this what non-truck owners vs truck owners feel like sometimes?
flamingkillamajig wrote: @melissia: Oddly enough i'm unsure what to think on the whole gun issue. I don't think it exactly helps in the end but when you have a roommate that ends up doing drugs and gets his drug dealer to threaten to kill everybody in your house while he's out getting high (because he isn't paying on time for drugs) and police as a whole won't do a stake-out or help until after the fact (for instance when we're all dead) then you can bet a gun would at least be a deterrant. This happened to me with a roommate once and though i probably shouldn't let this effect me too much it does do something to one's opinion on something. I try not to let emotion bother me much but i was afraid at the time and if said drug dealer (my roommate did hard drugs) did decide to come we'd have all died and he would've lived having been gone all day. I'm more angry about irresponsible people that hurt anybody near them (the d**chebags and ***holes). They ruin life for everybody else.
Personally i think if you hate guns then you've never had to live in a high crime area which is poor or in decline. Poverty makes people desperate and though i'd rather not bring violence into something whenever somebody threatens rape or murder on me and my loved ones i'd rather have a deterrant if police don't do anything to stop them (read how police don't do stake-outs).
I don't completely advocate guns but i don't want them banned either. Not to mention every time some terrorist threat or killing spree happens every politician has to try banning guns or stripping citizens of rights to get what they want. Maybe i'm being irrational but it's like they're trying to force things into being a police state. I wouldn't mind at first in the past because it was always a world war but whenever it's some constant war like 'the war on terror' or 'the war on crime' it's ill defined and can allows certain freedom stripping laws to last a long time. Banning guns would make it that much easier for a government to do exactly as they wanted without much fear of reprisal.
also @melissia: Assault rifles are meant to kill people but sometimes people with assault rifles use them at a firing range. I don't know all the specifics as to what they are all used for and i don't know what data isn't manipulated by some group or biased in a way (sometimes people show results that prove them right as opposed to the ones that don't).
1) Rule 1 good sir, try to use proper capitalization when making a post in a very adult themed thread.
2) Guns aren't meant to be a deterrent. If you aren't willing to kill someone in a situation, dont brandish a gun. If leveling a gun makes said drug dealer run away, awesome. If not, then you might have just made a very bad move if you freeze up.
flamingkillamajig wrote: Banning guns would make it that much easier for a government to do exactly as they wanted without much fear of reprisal.
Except if you compare the US to other developed nations that have stricter gun laws you find that their government's are usually not any more abusive than US's.
How would you "measure" that?
Not calling BS here... but isn't this what non-truck owners vs truck owners feel like sometimes?
I don't think it can be measured, but if you take a general look at other developed nations like the UK, Canada, France, Germany, Norway, Japan, South Korea, Australia, etc their governments don't seem to abuse their power anymore than the US would roughly speaking, (imo) but then
again you're right in the sense that this is probably something that's impossible to measure.
I don't think it can be measured, but if you take a general look at other developed nations/ like the UK, Canada, France, Germany, Norway, Japan, South Korea, Australia, etc their governments don't seem to abuse their power anymore than the US (imo) would roughly speaking but then again
you're right in the sense that this is probably something that's impossible to measure.
Okay... fair enough... so, gut feeling eh?
I was curious if had you had some data supporting that assertation.
Hence, why I made that "truck" statement... that is, if you don't need a truck for your business/workplace, its simply a luxury... until, you really need it.
whembly wrote: Okay... fair enough... so, gut feeling eh?
Pretty much, as I don't really have anything substantial to back up that claim other than a simple idea on how other developed nations manage themselves politically which is why I won't mind if you disagree or agree with my statement..
Hordini wrote: So, I'm just curious, what does it take to get a fully-automatic assault rifle with armor piercing ammunition in the US?
While your question was directed to agnosto, I thought I'd take a moment and actually answer it for the non-US peeps hanging out in this thread.
Generally, in order to OWN a fully automatic "assault rifle" with armor piercing ammo, you need to meet the following criteria:
1. Live in a State that allows private citizens to own fully automatic weapons. Not all of them do. For example, I live in Washington State where silencers are legal to own but machine guns are not. Yes, this means that I cannot and do not own a machine gun. 2. Buy such a weapon that was made before the May 20, 1986 assault weapons ban (they go for around $30,000.00 USD if you can find one), or 3. Locate the exact weapon you are going to purchase, since the ATF registration form requires the exact information of the weapon down to the serial number. Thus, it is not a "license" in the sense that you get a license first and then go shop for a weapon. If this weapon is from out-of-state, then you have to have the weapon transferred to an in-state Class III Dealer. Meaning, if you purchase a transferable M16 from New Hampshire and you reside in Texas, it must first be transferred tax-free on a Form 3 from New Hampshire to a Class III dealer in Texas, then on a tax-paid Form 4 to you. You would be responsible for paying the $200 tax to ATF. Got that? Two forms and a $200 tax to the ATF so far. 4. Initiate the Form 4 (transfer from in-state seller, either civilian or Class III Dealer, to you). You have to be able to obtain the authorization of the Chief Law Enforcement Officer (CLEO) of the agency that has law enforcement jurisdiction in your area, such as the Chief of Police of the city you reside in or the Sheriff of the county you reside in. Remember that while it is not illegal, some Police Chiefs and Sheriffs will decline to sign the Form 4. There is no law requiring them to sign. 5. File two copies of the Form 4 (with CLEO signature) along with two ATF Fingerprint Applicant Cards (ORI must read DCATF Firearms and Explosives, Washington, DC), two passport photos, a Certificate of Compliance Form 5530-20, and a check for $200 payable to ATF. 6. Wait about eight months for the ATF to process your paperwork and issue you your tax stamp. 7. Take possession of your weapon, ensuring that you transport it according to the laws and restrictions in your state.
So, that's almost just like walking into Wallmart and grabbing one of the shelf, eh?
Its trigger pull. Well for a M4 its approx. 9.5 lbs of pressure to release the hammer. During that squeeze time you hold an individual life in your sight picture. Your decision to complete the firing cycle is ON YOU. You make the the choice to either fire or not fire. You make the choice to either wound or to kill. It all comes down on you as the shooter. The decision you make will have ramification. You have to live with what you have done. I will not claim individual kills nor will I brag. In a fire fight its who you see firing at you or movements towards your position for better positioning.. Everyone is firing in pissed off mode. So that one individual I might have claimed to kill might have been struck by four other soldiers. End result still the same. Dead insurgents. I also mention before. I have called in airstrikes and have A10's on hand to eliminate the threat. The feeling I got from that was giggly. Damn right I and a few other were giggling because we knew what was coming and they didn't. They did not know their lives were going to end in 30+ sec's.. Have to bear with me because this is going to jump around a bit. The one thing we all are aware of is fire discipline or fire control. No long pulls on the crew serve. No firing of rounds at a questionable runner. No firing rounds into a possible enemy position. No firing in a alleyway and espacially no firing if a door opens. The threat or FEAR of accidentaly killing a kid is undescriable. The base line of all this....is the weapon is the tool but YOU ARE THE KILLER A fire arm has one function and one function only. You as the individual have to perform the actions to complete the function. No way out of it or pass it off to someone else to make it easier for you. Reason why I mention this thread went 5 factor on the fun peg for me. Is your all still clueless. Majority of you all are still focus on the weapon used. The gun debate is the other factor. Yep that sucker died in the senate and I'm glade it did. Open up HIPAA on this matter for fire arms. Its a huge responsibility to own a weapon. But some are totally against giving that info away. Weapon registery. I'm for it. You own a assualt weapon most commonly used to eliminate enemy combatants and positions. Difference is now its a semi. So pray and spray comes into effect. Not I nor troops. We avoid Pray and Spray no one likes rounds when they go down range unaccounted for. Little hard to go indepth because
One. I don't want to.
Two. It sucks remembering
The remembering is the worst part. Lifting or folding over the Keffiyah and seeing how young the target was. Have a glimpse in my world.
All in a nut shell and Hell with it I'm not deleting anything. Its there in the open. Yes I have fired back and yes I have shot othr individuals.in team effort.
The individual with the weapon is the killer and not the weapon itself. Step out the box and come to your own conclusion.
Well if gun ownership is a right in your country wouldn't that make it a privilege as well?
Nope... in jurisprudence there's a big distinction.
A right is granted by society to its members in order for it to function.
A privilege is granted by a group or individual as either a reward for, or conditional upon certain things (ie, good behavior).
For example: In the US, our right to free speech is a bedrock of our democratic process, and that is why it is granted. You do not, however, have the right to say anything you want... that is a very common misinterpretation of a right. Your freedom of speech stops when it becomes libel, slander, induces or encourages others to engage in illegal activities, or, in many states, is "fighting words."
A phrase I've heard before is:
your right to swing your arm stops where the other person's nose begins. Because that person has just as many rights as you do.
So... rights can be revoked, but only through due process of law. If you violate the laws of society, you will risk your freedom being taken away and likely your liberty will be curtailed. If you are convicted of a felony, your right to vote will be revoked. But all of these require the judicial system and due process. One person cannot decide to arbitrarily permanently revoke your rights.
See? Now let's talk about privilege...
So privileges can be revoked. In more formal circumstances, due process also is applied... A perfect example of that is driving an automobile is not a right, but a privilege. States can take away a person's privilege to drive if that person doesn't conform to that state's code of safe conduct.
Cool?
So, let's rehash...
We have a RIGHT to own firearms... as long as we didn't step outside the social parameters of acceptable conduct (ie, we're not felons), then it is within our RIGHTs to own firearms much in the same way our 1st amendment rights allows us to hold political discourse without fear from the government.
Jihadin wrote: Its trigger pull. Well for a M4 its approx. 9.5 lbs of pressure to release the hammer.
Ah. I got some range time on A2's a few years back and it was only around 7 lbs. But it had a bit of creep and its not supposed to, so I could be off...
@ whembly I'll take your word on it for now, unless I get a more convincing response that says otherwise besides legal definitions isn't something I'm very knowledgeable about.
Kain wrote: Aren't flamethrowers less regulated in America than Pot? Because a weapon that causes death so horrible that it's not considered Kosher by international law anymore is totally more acceptable than a mild drug more or less everyone's tried at least once.
That being said video games have taught me that watching flamethrower victims is funny, especially how they scream and flail.
It's because you would have to be HI not to see a guy strapped with a flame thrower! Seriously they are pretty heavy and not easily concealed.
Cheesecat wrote: @ whembly I'll take your word on it for now, unless I get a more convincing response that says otherwise besides legal definitions isn't something I'm very knowledgeable about.
Neither am I honestly... years ago, I had to write a thesis on this very same subject. Interesting, the founders of our Constitution was very congnizant of this fact.
What are rights, and where to they come from? This may seem to many Americans an absurd question, as most of us who are American are quite familiar with the Declaration of Independence. However upon closer examination it is this author's opinion that many Americans may not fully understand this fundamental concept to our form of government.We take it as a given that our rights come from our creator. Was our creator government? What a silly question. The answer obviously is no. The whole purpose of government as set forth in the Declaration of Independence is that governments are formed to "protect and secure" our rights. This is the fundamental premise of our form of government. How many of you out there would agree that given the current state of political discourse in the USA, we no longer adhere in any meaningful way to this amazing document written by Thomas Jefferson? I think most would agree that we as a nation have violated this fundamental premise that was so important in establishing the USA as first among nations.A right is defined in most legal dictionaries as an entitlement, which is far different than a privilege or a license which are granted from a legal authority such a law or statute made by a state legislature, or the the Congress. So if rights come from our creator, and privileges come from government, why the big fuss? What the fuss is all about is that government has now taken to doing exactly the opposite of what it was sworn to uphold, the Bill of Rights of the US Constitution. Most, if not all, government officials take an oath to defend the Constitution from all enemies foreign and domestic. Unfortunately I believe that this oath is violated on a continual basis daily.If government is continually violating the rights that people are born with, the question I must ask is: who are they working for?It certainly does not appear to be you and me. Since the days of Marbury vs Madison the US Supreme Court has taken it upon itself the role of sole arbiter of what is constitutional and what is not, and in my opinion has let most if not all government officials off the hook in determining in their own consciences, if what they are doing is constitutional or not.An obvious question that arises in the discussion of rights is what rights do we have?Most people, including most judges, will tell you that you have the rights that are set forth in the Constitution and no others. This is not only wrong, it is also very dangerous in my opinion. This leads to the belief that our rights come from government, that is the Constitution. They do not. This is where a little known amendment to the Constitution was inserted at the behest of James Madison. It is the Ninth Amendment, which states,"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people".Interestingly enough, to my knowledge the Ninth Amendment has only been used in jurisprudence twice in any meaningful way. The first was Griswold vs. Connecticut, and the second was Roe vs. Wade. I am of the opinion that most Justices are scared stiff of what the Ninth means, and thus ignore it as much as they can.As any legal scholar will tell you that the Constitution of the United States was more than anything a limitation on the powers of the federal government, and any power not spelled out specifically was left to the states or to the people in the tenth amendment.Isn't that amazing? It is to me, because what it means fundamentally is that the government is limited, and the people (individuals) are free, and can assert rights that they have that are not specifically described in the first eight amendments to the Constitution. So what rights do I choose to assert as an individual? Aside from those guarantees set forth in the first eight amendments, I assert I have the right to be left alone, unless I am suspected through the probable cause clause of the Fourth Amendment of being engaged in criminal activity. I have the right to think what I want, to eat what I want. I have the right to put anything I wish into my sovereign body that I want. I could go on and on, however some people will say, no you don't, because if you do something that is harmful to yourself, then society has to pay for it. I will respond that I did not create this idea of socialism, others did, and this is why in my opinion that socialism is so dangerous to individual human rights as set forth in the Declaration of Independence. I am also arguing that if the government has the right, (which it does not) to tell me what I can and cannot put into my body - in this case pharmaceuticals come to mind - then the time will come when it will also tell me how many carbohydrates I can consume — only one donut today. It may sound funny to you now, but you just wait!The path that we are following as a nation will surely lead to tyranny if we do not wake up and demand that the government adhere firmly to the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution without prejudice. I also firmly assert that the War in Iraq, and all of the wars that we have engaged in since World War Two have been unconstitutional, the War Powers Act of 1973 notwithstanding, as in Article 1, Section 8 only Congress can declare War, not the President. The AUMF (Authorization to Use Military force in Iraq) resolution is not an Act of Congress but a resolution as defined here in a legal dictionary:
The practice of submitting and voting on resolutions is a typical part of business in Congress, state legislatures, and other public assemblies. These bodies use resolutions for two purposes. First, resolutions express their consensus on matters of public policy: lawmakers routinely deliver criticism or support on a broad range of social issues, legal rights, court opinions, and even decisions by the Executive Branch. Second, they pass resolutions for internal, administrative purposes. Resolutions are not laws; they differ fundamentally in their purpose.
I urge all citizens of their respective States to assert ALL of their rights, and to DEMAND that their government not usurp them in any way, and to abide by the rule of law as set forth in the Constitution of the United States of America.Below is a brief clip of an eight-hour constitutional law class by former Libertarian Presidential candidate Michael Badnarik. I suggest that anyone who is really interested in this subject watch his class, which is available on Google video. I welcome comments and discussion on this topic, but rancor and disparagement will be ignored by the author or on occasion returned in kind.
Bane. It depends how long the weapon been in circulation Not much gets changed out in the lower recievers unless its corroded.. Average pull is 9.5 lbs. Be suprise that a trigger squeeze of ten pounds will suprise you lol. Its in those those final few secs of the trigger squeeze. Its what some of us call the line that either going to be crossed or your taking a chance. Every shooter will have that delay and trigger squeeze.....its a check on your sanity if you really want to put someone down permanently or take a chance and knee him.
agnosto wrote: Bumpfire is one example; some older, less safe methods involved saving the firing pin or sear for some weapons which didn't require anything more technical than tools found around the house. Though technically not "auto" bumpfire produces something very, very close.
Yes, if you put an auto sear into a semiauto AR-15, you have an auto AR-15. Those things aren't just lying around, though.
Many examples of either AP or just HV rounds are a danger and again, no reason to own any of them unless you're planning something other than an acceptable reason own a firearm anyway.
You keep saying this. I'm not sure you've thought it all the way through.
I don't see what's wrong with a .25? Even .22s are excellent weapons in trained hands because the rounds tend to penetrate without an exit and bounce around a bit; causing more internal damage. You, yourself give very good reasons not to have anything larger on your person because higher caliber rounds have a greater chance to harm bystanders or penetrate buildings/cover. The whole point of carrying a self-defense firearm is to 1)scare the attacker away 2)do the job of protecting yourself without hurting innocents. I can see no reason to carry a .44 as a self-defense weapon nor a rifle strapped to your back, in public. If you're going to conceal/carry, do so responsibly and be trained.
A .25 is a terrible round. It doesn't penetrate. I don't carry a .44, either, but I won't carry anything smaller than a .380, and even that I'm iffy on, which is why I run a 9mm or a .45.
I think you need to check again about privateers. Sanctioned privateers had the blessing of the govt. Unsanctioned privateers were called pirates and were the same as armed gangs running around doing drivebys. Yes, if you had the money, you could build a boat with cannon and rage hell on the high seas but there were only two ways to go about it; legally or not. Pull into a port and not carry a letter of marque and you could have found yourself arrested for piracy.
Where on earth did I say you were free to attack whoever you wanted with a privately-built 50 gun ship? I said you were free to own one. And you were. Without government sanction. It's sort of like owning a gun, if you think about it. You're free to own one, you're not free to go around killing people with it. So, yes. The founders of this country were fine with citizens having the ability to own the pinnacle of destructive power at the time of the writing of the Constitution.
99.9% of the people in this country should never own a firearm;
It's this sort of hyperbole that makes your argument so credible. That doesn't even cover all the qualified cops and .mil types.
Hordini wrote: So, I'm just curious, what does it take to get a fully-automatic assault rifle with armor piercing ammunition in the US?
While your question was directed to agnosto, I thought I'd take a moment and actually answer it for the non-US peeps hanging out in this thread.
Generally, in order to OWN a fully automatic "assault rifle" with armor piercing ammo, you need to meet the following criteria:
1. Live in a State that allows private citizens to own fully automatic weapons. Not all of them do. For example, I live in Washington State where silencers are legal to own but machine guns are not. Yes, this means that I cannot and do not own a machine gun.
2. Buy such a weapon that was made before the May 20, 1986 assault weapons ban (they go for around $30,000.00 USD if you can find one), or
3. Locate the exact weapon you are going to purchase, since the ATF registration form requires the exact information of the weapon down to the serial number. Thus, it is not a "license" in the sense that you get a license first and then go shop for a weapon. If this weapon is from out-of-state, then you have to have the weapon transferred to an in-state Class III Dealer. Meaning, if you purchase a transferable M16 from New Hampshire and you reside in Texas, it must first be transferred tax-free on a Form 3 from New Hampshire to a Class III dealer in Texas, then on a tax-paid Form 4 to you. You would be responsible for paying the $200 tax to ATF. Got that? Two forms and a $200 tax to the ATF so far.
4. Initiate the Form 4 (transfer from in-state seller, either civilian or Class III Dealer, to you). You have to be able to obtain the authorization of the Chief Law Enforcement Officer (CLEO) of the agency that has law enforcement jurisdiction in your area, such as the Chief of Police of the city you reside in or the Sheriff of the county you reside in. Remember that while it is not illegal, some Police Chiefs and Sheriffs will decline to sign the Form 4. There is no law requiring them to sign.
5. File two copies of the Form 4 (with CLEO signature) along with two ATF Fingerprint Applicant Cards (ORI must read DCATF Firearms and Explosives, Washington, DC), two passport photos, a Certificate of Compliance Form 5530-20, and a check for $200 payable to ATF.
6. Wait about eight months for the ATF to process your paperwork and issue you your tax stamp.
7. Take possession of your weapon, ensuring that you transport it according to the laws and restrictions in your state.
So, that's almost just like walking into Wallmart and grabbing one of the shelf, eh?
Thanks. I was being a bit sarcastic, as I already knew the answer, but I was hoping agnosto would respond. I agree that the information is useful for our non-American posters and our American posters who aren't particularly gun-savvy. There seems to be this false idea going around in some circles that it's easy as pie to get a fully-automatic weapon in the US.
Noun:
A special right, advantage, or immunity granted or available only to one person or group of people.
Verb:
Grant a privilege or privileges to: "English inheritance law privileged the eldest son".
Synonyms:
noun. prerogative - privelege - charter - franchise - right
verb. privelege
Well if gun ownership is a right in your country wouldn't that make it a privilege as well?
I'm going to guess that you know full well the difference between a dictionary definition and a legal definition and are just being an arse.
Even his definition negates his point. As a right it is available to all citizens except those who through their actions have lost that right (and many of those lose the right to vote too). It is not 'granted or available to only one person or group of people'. The default position is you HAVE the right, not it is GIVEN to only some.
Thanks. I was being a bit sarcastic, as I already knew the answer, but I was hoping agnosto would respond. I agree that the information is useful for our non-American posters and our American posters who aren't particularly gun-savvy. There seems to be this false idea going around in some circles that it's easy as pie to get a fully-automatic weapon in the US.
Regardless of ease, it is illegal to modify a weapon to make it full auto (unless of course you hold the proper license). So, if folks are doing this, they are already criminals by existing statues, no need for further legislation in this case. Just enforce what is already on the books. It is pretty easy to turn a can of diesel fuel and a couple of bags of fertilizer into a bomb. Those are easier (monetarily and availability wise) to obtain than an AR style rifle. Yet doing so is illegal...
Professional here, with the exception of bumpfire stocks and the like which are legal per the auspices of the BATFE it is extremely difficult to modify semi-automatic weapons such as the common AR-15 or AK you can buy at your local sporting goods store to a select fire weapon, these weapons are DESIGNED that way by U.S. law and enforced stringently by ATF mandate. Conversion requires the parts, tools, and technical know how and in the case of certain arms you need a completely different receiver.
It's also worth noting that to buy Class III weapons you need more money then god on average, those things aren't cheap. By my math I'll be about 65 by the time I save up for my BAR.
Thought: I wonder if any one's ever made semi auto BARs... I'm sure someone has them... might be something to investigate as a "build project" once I get my manufacturing permit worked out.
Melissia wrote: Not many hobbies involve collecting tools for mass murder and treating them like they're barbie dolls with thousands of collectable attachments and decorative pieces.
Fortunately, neither does gun collecting.
Except when it does, which is all the time.
wow... projecting blame for mass murder on lawful gun owners much?
No. Try reading for once in your life.
I stated that guns are tools of mass murder. That is their purpose-- to kill things, or more specifically people-- many, many people. That's their sole purpose, their raison d'etre. Assault rifles even more so. That's the entire reason that assault rifles were developed over traditional rifles-- because they were more efficient at killing a large number of people in small amount of time Anyone who thinks guns as anything other than a tool to kill people is a fool who shouldn't be trusted with a gun.
Once more, before you and people like you invariably spaz out, I am not advocating banning all guns. Indeed, I plan on buying another gun myself (for those curious, I was given a couple of my father's guns, but I want one that is mine, per se, rather than a hand-me-down more suitable to someone else's build), and think that owning guns is perfectly fine. Rather, I want you to start being honest with yourselves about what guns really are. They are deadly weapons, killing machines, tools of death.
In fact, that they are tools that allow the user to kill someone so easily is exactly why I want one. It functions as an equalizer in self-defense, so that a five foot six woman like me doesn't have to try to outrun or out-fight a six foot nine musclebound thug. But, when understanding how deadly they are, one knows that guns must always be treated with the utmost respect. And providing their deadly killing tools the proper amount of respect is the only way to ensure that one safely maintains and uses them, without unduly endangering others.
And THAT... is the only way one can ever deserve the right to own a gun. The privilege to own a gun.
well, they are deadly weapons in the sense that a sword, knife, or car is, but mass murder? no, not even close. Mass murder implies that you can only kill illegally/wrongly with them. Calling it a hobby of collecting tools of mass murder, is 100% wrong, you can call it a collection of weapons, even very effective weapons, but not mass murder. The fact is you would never call a car a tool of death, despite it killing more people, nor would you call alcohol or pharmaceutical drugs mass murder tools, despite them killing more then guns.
If you own guns, you should maybe start backing up that right (not privilege) because, and this is coming from someone who has lived the in the post "gun debate" world in canada where we did listen to people who came up with all these new laws to make us "safer" that would never ban or confiscate our guns. Then the laws they said wouldn't ban anything or infringe on rights, banned more then HALF of all firearms, with more named bans every single year (most recent was a normal, 22lr gopher rifle), and many innocent canadians being made into criminals overnight.
lecturing me (an RO, competitive shooter in multiple disciplines, decades of experience with guns) like I dont know the damage guns can do and being condescending wont help anyone. I never said anything that diminished the destructive capability of high velocity projectiles, so I dont know who is saying that guns shoot rainbows and wishes, but saying that I am saying that, is just false.
I am glad you own you dads guns, respect, use, and will buy another gun. Do you plan to use your mass murder tools for mass murder? what else can they be used for after all, heck we should arrest you, what else will you do with your mass murder tools that server no purpose but to kill more people then was ever possible before?
no? good, cause none of us other lawful owners are going to either, please notice that the mass murderers are 99% illegal owners.
personally, while you are using your mass murder tool for mass murder, I will be using mine as life insurance.
guns do NOT just kill, they also: prevent theft, rape, murder, and any other crime where the criminal runs away when confronted with a good guy/gal with a gun who never fires a shot.
Yes, if you put an auto sear into a semiauto AR-15, you have an auto AR-15. Those things aren't just lying around, though.
absolutely 100% false, you know nothing about how an AR-15 works, the auto sear wont even fit in the lower of a semi-auto AR-15. You need a machine shop to alter the lower significantly so it fits.
Yes, if you put an auto sear into a semiauto AR-15, you have an auto AR-15. Those things aren't just lying around, though.
absolutely 100% false, you know nothing about how an AR-15 works, the auto sear wont even fit in the lower of a semi-auto AR-15. You need a machine shop to alter the lower significantly so it fits.
Which is probably why I said you need a machine shop earlier in this thread in order to do so.
Oh look. It's the "cars can kill people too" BS. How about we regulate guns like cars and pharmaceuticals then?
And maybe fething listen to what we are saying. Because this would be the fething 4th time I (plus the times she has said so) have said this: Just because something is designed with the primary purpose to injure and kill doesn't mean that is the only thing it can be used for. But lets quit pretending that this was not their designed purpose. If you don't then that's fine. But there are plenty of people giving the "it's just a harmless tool" line. A car has a primary purpose that doesn't involve killing, but it is dangerous. A hammer had a primary purpose that doesn't involve killing, but it is dangerous. Pharmaceuticals have a primary purpose that doesn't involve killing, but they are dangerous. Guns have a primary purpose, that doesn't mean you have to use them for that, and they are dangerous.
But yeah, if we want to compare guns to cars, who have a primary purpose other than to inflict injury, then go ahead. We will institute tests before you can operate one, mandatory licensing of ownership with renewals every 5 years, mandatory registration of all firearms with yearly fees and inspections and mandatory insurance or your firearm gets confiscated. Or we can quit pretending that these two are alike.
I have never advocated for banning guns, I think people who do are stupid. I also think people who minimize what guns are designed to do are stupid too.
d-usa wrote: But yeah, if we want to compare guns to cars, who have a primary purpose other than to inflict injury, then go ahead. We will institute tests before you can operate one, mandatory licensing of ownership with renewals every 5 years, mandatory registration of all firearms with yearly fees and inspections and mandatory insurance or your firearm gets confiscated.
Well, if you go that route, then there's the fact that your right to drive isn't explicitly stated in the Constitution.
d-usa wrote: Or we can quit pretending that these two are alike.
I'm not sure that the argument is that they're alike, it's just to say that there are products in every day use that are statistically more dangerous.
d-usa wrote: Yes, things can be more dangerous. And we are okay with passing laws to try to make things less dangerous.
And has been argued, we are ok with laws that will get the job done, and work, while not infringing on our rights.
Gunshow background checks. Fine.
I would almost be ok with requiring a safety course to be taken before purchasing. There would have to be a lot done though before I could get behind it though. Make it a tax exemption so people aren't shouldered with the extra burden of the cost. Don't make it overly burdensome. Illinois requires a Hunter Safety Course to be attended to buy a hunting license. There is only a few locations in the state that offer one, and it's near impossible to get into them. They'd have to be easily accessable for everyone to attend, or having a system kind of like Michigans apprentice hunter stuff. You don't need to take the course if you can document that you've been trained by an experienced friend or family member.
Arbitrarily banning scary looking guns though, are not making anything less dangerous. Magazine restrictions do not make them less dangerous. Quite frankly, very few laws out there will, because just like cars, it comes down to the person's own sense of responsibility to determine how dangerous the things are.
There are lots of things that could be done that don't infringe on our rights though.
Heck, even the big scary boogieman of "register all guns" wouldn't infringe on our rights. It's just the paranoia of "if the government knows I have guns they will probably take them away from me, maybe, possibly, who knows, better not risk it..." I don't think that universal registration is an answer, but that is the kind of mindset that makes almost all reform impossible.
Assault Rifle (aka: daddy that gun looks scary) bans are dumb. The laws we already have cover true assault rifles already, and there doesn't need to be any more on that. Same with the whole magazine size push.
Stuff I think would work, or at least help:
1) The Universal Background Checks. 2) Actually keep records: At least from sellers. Find out where a lot of the guns used in crimes are coming from. You don't have to track owners, just track who sells guns. Most of them are not stolen, most of them don't come from Mexico. Most of them are purchased by straw-men. Find out who is selling to them. 3) Actually let inspectors inspect. Repeal the laws that forbid more than one inspection a year. Bad sellers know that they are in the clear as soon as they are inspected. 4) Let the ATF hire some people.
Oklahoma has the same requirement for hunters education. But we also have a lot of classes that are offered, and we even have an options to basically get a "learners permit" hunting license where you can go hunt with a seasoned hunter for a year and then get a real license. Much better than Illinois. Of course Illinois is the short-bus state of gun laws.
Except when you register, the government does try. It happened here in Illinois last year. The State Legislature tried to force the State Police to turn over all records of FOID holders. They wanted to know who all of us were.
Thankfully the State Police told them to go stuff it. But as Missouri showed recently, they don't always do that.
Monster Rain wrote: The background check thing is a no-brainer. I am baffled that it didn't pass.
It didn't pass because it was part of a far more onerous package. While the proposal itself could have gone through with the others defeated, the fact that it was one of many gave the NRA all the ammo it needed to mobilize supporters. I do honestly wonder how many on the anti-gun side actually called their legislators to voice their support. I know the pro-gun side did not lack for numbers doing that.
When all was said and done, the one that came closest to passing - only three votes shy - was national concealed carry permit reciprocity, which would have been a huge win for my side of the argument. I find that endlessly amusing.
djones520 wrote: Except when you register, the government does try. It happened here in Illinois last year. The State Legislature tried to force the State Police to turn over all records of FOID holders. They wanted to know who all of us were.
Thankfully the State Police told them to go stuff it. But as Missouri showed recently, they don't always do that.
And while I still don't think it's the big scary monster it is made out to be, what about the things I said that I would actually be okay with?
djones520 wrote: Except when you register, the government does try. It happened here in Illinois last year. The State Legislature tried to force the State Police to turn over all records of FOID holders. They wanted to know who all of us were.
Thankfully the State Police told them to go stuff it. But as Missouri showed recently, they don't always do that.
And while I still don't think it's the big scary monster it is made out to be, what about the things I said that I would actually be okay with?
The background check thing is a no-brainer. I am baffled that it didn't pass.
It was more then background checks... as is usual with our Congress, more was shoved in there then "just background checks".
One of the more sensible pro 2nd Amendment groups supported it though. It had a lot of provisions that strengthened gun rights.
All in all your proposals should be ok. As long as the citizen themselve doesn't have to worry about the ATF knocking on the door asking to see the guns we purchased, fine. Leave the burden on the folks selling them. I think the threat of straw buyers is a bit overstated, but if we can crack down on it, without causing to much "growth" in the agencies doing it, then it couldn't hurt. Before giving more power to the ATF though, I'd want to see them streamlined a bit. There is no shortage of evidence that the ATF couldn't find it's own ass with a manual and three helpers.
As for the other measures, put them all out there one at a time. When it comes to something in that bill of rights you don't just say "We'll give you this for that."
So you believe that everyone who wants to should be able to obtain a gun no matter where they are or what they've done?
Automatically Appended Next Post: Let's test that theory out. Muhammad Yusuf, a natural-born US citizen living just outside of Washington DC who is descended from a devoutly Muslim Iranian family, decides one day to buy a semi-automatic hunting rifle, a telescopic sight, and a silencer..
Should he be allowed to do so without question, suspicion, or restriction, because it's his right as an American citizen?
Or perhaps Jose Francrasio, born and raised in El Paso, Texas, wants to buy an MP5 with silencer during a build-up in violence amongst drug cartels and border patrol agents, including notable uses of illegally modified submachine guns by the drug cartels.
Should he be allowed to do so without question, suspicion, or restriction, because it's his inherent right as an American citizen?
Or perhaps John Smith, born in the USA to a long line of Americans, who was recently fired from his job and had a messy divorce from his wife, decides to buy a shotgun, an AR-15, and two handguns, along with massive amount of ammunition for each (including some mis-matched ammunition). He lives in an apartment downtown after the divorce and his wife won custody, and angrily responds to questions about why he wants to buy this many guns.
Should he be allowed to do so without question, suspicion, or restriction, because it's his inherent right as an American citizen?
So you believe that everyone who wants to should be able to obtain a gun no matter where they are or what they've done?
Automatically Appended Next Post: Let's test that theory out. Muhammad Yusuf, a natural-born US citizen living just outside of Washington DC who is descended from a devoutly Muslim Iranian family, decides one day to buy a semi-automatic hunting rifle, a telescopic sight, and a silencer..
Should he be allowed to do so without question, suspicion, or restriction, because it's his right as an American citizen?
Or perhaps Jose Francrasio, born and raised in El Paso, Texas, wants to buy an MP5 with silencer during a build-up in violence amongst drug cartels and border patrol agents, including notable uses of illegally modified submachine guns by the drug cartels.
Should he be allowed to do so without question, suspicion, or restriction, because it's his inherent right as an American citizen?
Or perhaps John Smith, born in the USA to a long line of Americans, who was recently fired from his job and had a messy divorce from his wife, decides to buy a shotgun, an AR-15, and two handguns, along with massive amount of ammunition for each (including some mis-matched ammunition). He lives in an apartment downtown after the divorce and his wife won custody, and angrily responds to questions about why he wants to buy this many guns.
Should he be allowed to do so without question, suspicion, or restriction, because it's his inherent right as an American citizen?
all the males in your example actually are subject to many questions and restrictions under current US law. Suppressors (silencers) are not candy, nor are handed out as such, neither are guns, last I checked stores run background checks, check your ID and often have waiting periods. The Mp5 is also a full auto weapon, and again, not handed out like candy in the first place.
How do you propose to differentiate between someone who buys a shotgun, an AR-15, and two handguns, with lots of ammo, from say a three gunner? that kind of purchase is not uncommon.
Should people who are fired and divorced even be allowed to buy guns, because obviously no one was ever happy to lose their job or wife/husband. Should women who lose their job or are divorced be suspected of only wanting them to go shoot people with?
In canada, to get a pistol, your wife(husband), and even ex wife(husband), has to sign off on the permit application. Doesn't affect domestic violence one bit, and the criminals don't fill out the papers. Despite needing a license to get any gun, and having to have it registered, locked in a case and trigger locked at all times when not on a range, the vast majority of gun crime is done with guns 100% outside of the system (black market). The only good thing that came about from Canadian restrictions on gun ownership was that it finally proved lawful owners were not a significant source of gun crime, and that laws restricting lawful owners have no significant effect on crime.
It has a semi-automatic variant, which is legal to sell.
Come on Whembly, this is basic stuff.
the semi variant of the MP5(mp5 is a full auto) is the HK51. Different names, different guns, but look the same, just like AR-15's are not M16's even though they look the same, they are in fact different model #'s and guns completely.
come on this is basic stuff, you wouldn't call a pinto with a porche body kit a porche would you?
the right to own a gun for men and women is right there, under our right to free speech.
edit: maybe you should take a few gun classes melissa, im not sure you know as much as you think you do about them. how often do you even practice with your (dads) guns? Do you really think you are in a expert enough position to be condescending to someone with decades of actual experience and hundreds of rounds downrange every weekend?
to the point of being blatantly wrong, and accusatory of me being a fake person even?
thats pretty paranoid, and you said your self you dont want paranoid untrained people with guns.
easysauce wrote: the right to own a gun for men and women is right there, under our right to free speech.
That's debatable.
A person in prison can still speak out and still has the right to free speech, and they frequently do speak out-- although there's not always anyone there that actually wants to listen.
djones520 wrote: Except when you register, the government does try. It happened here in Illinois last year. The State Legislature tried to force the State Police to turn over all records of FOID holders. They wanted to know who all of us were.
Thankfully the State Police told them to go stuff it. But as Missouri showed recently, they don't always do that.
The background check thing is a no-brainer. I am baffled that it didn't pass.
It was more then background checks... as is usual with our Congress, more was shoved in there then "just background checks".
Guys... we HAVE fething background checks at Gun Shows... you know, the SAME ONE that the local gun stores use?
What this recent bill wanted to achieve is to force anyone selling their weapons to their friends/family.
It because a defecto "Gun Registration". That's bad ju-ju.
What djones was referring to in MIssouri is that someone in the State Police department GAVE the DOJ a list of all CCW permits. THAT'S illegal as hell... and heads are going to roll.
whembly wrote: What this recent bill wanted to achieve is to force anyone selling their weapons to their friends/family.
Why should a criminal's or psychopath's family be able to freely hand over guns to them, without restriction or suspicion?
Certainly in my case it'd have been annoying having a background check conducted to receive my father's weapons, but I would have come up clean. But what if I was mentally unstable? You know, like many of the people who go shoot up schools or malls and commit mass murder.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
whembly wrote: I'm trying to tell you why it's absolutely relevant.
Oh well... good luck.
And I'm pointing out that your reliance on the definition of "rights" is bogus. Many things which we consider to be "rights" still have to be earned. Including many things that are protected by the constitution. Marriage is considered a right-- but the GBLT movement is struggling to earn it. Miscegeny is a right that people are free to obtain-- but it was EARNED by the civil rights movement. Same with the right to vote. We have to earn it, even if the standards these days are really low, we still do. Same with the various rights of the accused, or the right of equal protection under law.
I'm using the term privilege only because it drives home the fact that it was earned. But there's no distinguishable difference in this conversation.
easysauce wrote: the right to own a gun for men and women is right there, under our right to free speech.
That's debatable.
A person in prison can still speak out and still has the right to free speech, and they frequently do speak out-- although there's not always anyone there that actually wants to listen.
A person in prison cannot, however, own guns.
Tell me, which is a right and which isn't?
so when talking about guns, someone with decades of experience in shooting sports, gunsmithing, ect is someone to be ignored,
but someone who has stated false facts about guns as true, (mp5s are illegal in the stated, the HK51 variant is a different gun) thinks a prisoner yelling to himself in a cell still has "free speech", cant tell two people apart, and generally counters facts with insults and emotional rants is?
You literally think a prisoner yelling alone to himself in a cell has free speech, so the 1st amendment doesn't cover the internet, radio, TV, mail, so those can be censored in your mind.
whats crazy is that your lack of expertise, combined with your obvious rage, paranoia, lack of respect for a a fellow poster, and ranting actually starting to convince me that you are not capable of owning guns and that maybe there should be stricter laws more then any argument you have made.
whembly wrote: What this recent bill wanted to achieve is to force anyone selling their weapons to their friends/family.
Why should a criminal's or psychopath's family be able to freely hand over guns to them, without restriction or suspicion?
Certainly in my case it'd have been annoying having a background check conducted to receive my father's weapons, but I would have come up clean. But what if I was mentally unstable? You know, like many of the people who go shoot up schools or malls and commit mass murder.
“We think that that kind of record-keeping requirement could result in keeping long-term detailed records of purchases and creation of a new government database.”
“And they come to use databases for all sorts of different purposes. For example, the National Counterterrorism Center recently gave itself the authority to collect all kinds of existing federal databases and performed terrorism related searches regarding those databases. They essentially exempted themselves from a lot of existing Privacy Act protections.”
I mean... wow... that was a fething rude awaking for the Democrats.
Shoot... The Deputy Director of the National Institute of Justice (NIJ) noted in a recent internal memo that the effectiveness of universal background checks would “require gun registration”. (It also went on to note that “gun buybacks are ineffective”, that a high-capacity magazine ban wouldn’t have any discernible effect, that “assault weapons are not a major contributor to gun crime”, and that even a complete elimination of all “assault” weapons “would not have a large impact on gun homicides”.)
When yourown Department of Justice thinks your ideas are bad ones, it’s time to move on.... dontcha think?
Even better, here's a survey asking 15,000+ law enforcement professionals asked about the relationship between recently-dead legislation proposals and violent crime. 79.6% of them said that expanded background checks would do nothing to reduce violent crime.
“We think that that kind of record-keeping requirement could result in keeping long-term detailed records of purchases and creation of a new government database.”
“And they come to use databases for all sorts of different purposes. For example, the National Counterterrorism Center recently gave itself the authority to collect all kinds of existing federal databases and performed terrorism related searches regarding those databases. They essentially exempted themselves from a lot of existing Privacy Act protections.”
Which is a problem with the lack of oversight in the National Counterterrorism Center which needs to be addressed. I do not agree with the ACLU that this is an argument against hte database, but rather, it's an argument for increased scrutiny of counter-terrorism efforts. Being a counter-terrorist unit does not give one carte blanche to do whatever the hell they want.
That does not, however, indicate that the database should not exist in the first place. We are not talking about tracking peoples' dildo purchases or attempting to monitor what books they read. These are deadly, dangerous weapons capable of maiming and killing numerous people in a short amount of time. They NEED to be regulated.
The quote you mentioned about police officers believing it to not be useful is one of the few things that you've posted that even comes close to convincing me of your argument. If, as you claim, it would not be useful to police, then you have a point.
easysauce wrote: so when talking about guns, someone with decades of experience
Please, everyone and their dead grandmother can claim to be an expert on anything over the internet.
“We think that that kind of record-keeping requirement could result in keeping long-term detailed records of purchases and creation of a new government database.”
“And they come to use databases for all sorts of different purposes. For example, the National Counterterrorism Center recently gave itself the authority to collect all kinds of existing federal databases and performed terrorism related searches regarding those databases. They essentially exempted themselves from a lot of existing Privacy Act protections.”
Which is a problem with the lack of oversight in the National Counterterrorism Center which needs to be addressed. I do not agree with the ACLU that this is an argument against hte database, but rather, it's an argument for increased scrutiny of counter-terrorism efforts. Being a counter-terrorist unit does not give one carte blanche to do whatever the hell they want.
That does not, however, indicate that the database should not exist in the first place. We are not talking about tracking peoples' dildo purchases or attempting to monitor what books they read. These are deadly, dangerous weapons capable of maiming and killing numerous people in a short amount of time. They NEED to be regulated.
The quote you mentioned about police officers believing it to not be useful is one of the few things that you've posted that even comes close to convincing me of your argument. If, as you claim, it would not be useful to police, then you have a point.
easysauce wrote: so when talking about guns, someone with decades of experience
Please, everyone and their dead grandmother can claim to be an expert on anything over the internet.
Okay... then there's no point going forward.
You keep misconstruing "rights" vs "privilege"... but, that's okay as it's a very common misunderstanding.
whembly wrote: You keep misconstruing "rights" vs "privilege"... but, that's okay as it's a very common misunderstanding.
Funny, I'm saying the same thing about you
But as I said, you have a point about the effectiveness of it. If police believe that it would be ineffective and not very useful, I can see that as a valid argument against the database. Guns need to be regulated, but useless regulations are more a hindrance than a help.
Melissia wrote: Neither side agrees that the current set of regulations is perfect. It's disingenuous to claim that you think it is considering your past arguments.
I've yet to encounter a perfect regulation.
My arguments have pretty consistently been, "The administration's proposed laws are 'do something so we can feel good and claim we did it' gak."
easysauce wrote: so when talking about guns, someone with decades of experience
Please, everyone and their dead grandmother can claim to be an expert on anything over the internet.
well if you are just going to insult, and call everyone a liar, then whats the point? If you are going accuse everyone who says anything about their RL experience as simply being liars, and say their opinion doesn't, and shouldn't matter, then why are we all supposed to believe you?
easysauce wrote: so when talking about guns, someone with decades of experience
Please, everyone and their dead grandmother can claim to be an expert on anything over the internet.
well if you are just going to insult, and call everyone a liar, then whats the point? If you are going accuse everyone who says anything about their RL experience as simply being liars, and say their opinion doesn't, and shouldn't matter, then why are we all supposed to believe you?
You're never wrong if everyone else is a liar.
Your getting no where with this. Some people just aren't worth the effort.
You could do the same thing with a BB gun or some other similar, non-lethal device that could just as easily put a hole in a paper target though without the added "boom".
I've handled a lot of airguns, some of them capable of putting down multi thousand pound animals. Calling them non lethal is ignorant in the extreme.
Airguns were also used to "Shock and Awe" indigenous peoples.
Personally adding ANY new federal firearms laws is a waste of time. From the background check law that just restates current federal law (yes, you DO have to get a background check at a gunshow the only place the gunshow loophole exists is in Obama's dream diary after he had a scary nightmare and the liberal equivalent of Alex Jones), but it's a waste of time because NO ONE ENFORCES ANY GUN LAWS. If you fail a background check, or make a straw buy you are more likely to be struck by lightning then be prosecuted for it.
So here's a novel fething idea, PROSECUTE THE BAD GUYS. ENFORCE THE LAW ASIT IS WRITTEN NOW AND SEE IF MAGICALLY SOMETHING CHANGES. It's almost like, when you have laws and don't enforce them, people take advantage of it. For example the rule of thumb on American roads if you can go 5 mph above the speed limit. The cops don't care enough to stop you because some fethhead in a sports car will be along presently doing 20+ to make the actual effort of pulling someone over worth the officer's time.
As to giving the ATF more responsibility I'd rather replace the U.S. Congress with Ms. Davies's third grade class from Thilsdown Puckett Elementary school of "Fething No Where" Pennsylvania. They have long admitted that their registration data base for FFLs, NFA firearms, etc is a complete clustefeth.
More inspections? Hell these idiots can't handle the single inspections of the books they do, and they're not doing anything useful. Not that inspections really help if you have a competent agent performing the inspection right? EVERY firearm that comes in and out of an FFL dealer is logged in their bound book.
d-usa wrote: Yes, things can be more dangerous. And we are okay with passing laws to try to make things less dangerous.
And has been argued, we are ok with laws that will get the job done, and work, while not infringing on our rights.
Gunshow background checks. Fine.
I would almost be ok with requiring a safety course to be taken before purchasing. There would have to be a lot done though before I could get behind it though. Make it a tax exemption so people aren't shouldered with the extra burden of the cost. Don't make it overly burdensome. Illinois requires a Hunter Safety Course to be attended to buy a hunting license. There is only a few locations in the state that offer one, and it's near impossible to get into them. They'd have to be easily accessable for everyone to attend, or having a system kind of like Michigans apprentice hunter stuff. You don't need to take the course if you can document that you've been trained by an experienced friend or family member.
Arbitrarily banning scary looking guns though, are not making anything less dangerous. Magazine restrictions do not make them less dangerous. Quite frankly, very few laws out there will, because just like cars, it comes down to the person's own sense of responsibility to determine how dangerous the things are.
It seems we agree on more elements of this debate than either of us previously thought.
KalashnikovMarine wrote:More inspections? Hell these idiots can't handle the single inspections of the books they do, and they're not doing anything useful. Not that inspections really help if you have a competent agent performing the inspection right? EVERY firearm that comes in and out of an FFL dealer is logged in their bound book.
I could be mistaken here, but I think those dealers are only required to keep those books for a very short period of time, and are not required to turn those records over for inspection. My understanding is that the current ability of BATFE to actually enforce the current laws was hamstrung by the NRA lobby quite some time ago.
KalashnikovMarine wrote:More inspections? Hell these idiots can't handle the single inspections of the books they do, and they're not doing anything useful. Not that inspections really help if you have a competent agent performing the inspection right? EVERY firearm that comes in and out of an FFL dealer is logged in their bound book.
I could be mistaken here, but I think those dealers are only required to keep those books for a very short period of time, and are not required to turn those records over for inspection. My understanding is that the current ability of BATFE to actually enforce the current laws was hamstrung by the NRA lobby quite some time ago.
The books are different then the sale forms. Those also have to be kept for... I want to saya year to two years off the top of my head. Your bound book is permanent, it does not record who is sold what, merely what comes in and when it comes in, then when it leaves again. Bound books must be maintained for at least a decade after the last entry in the book, and must be presented annually to inspecting authorities. Discrepancies in one's bound book do NOT go well for you. There's an added level of information and detail for Class III dealer's bound books, because Class III sales are tracked with full registration. Also is it just me or is the NRA like Bush up till about two years ago? "Sink's broken!" "Damn you George Bush!"
The ATF and DOJ's failure to prosecute no gak felons is squarely on their shoulders, as is the over all incompetence and corruption displayed by the former agency.
KalashnikovMarine wrote: Also is it just me or is the NRA like Bush up till about two years ago? "Sink's broken!" "Damn you George Bush!"
The ATF and DOJ's failure to prosecute no gak felons is squarely on their shoulders, as is the over all incompetence and corruption displayed by the former agency.
Now this one I do understand reasonably well: the NRA's lobby pushed for restrictions on the BATFE's ability to enforce current laws, even going so far as to have actually had a hand in writing some of those restrictions. So when someone notices that the BATFE is broken, yes, they actually can shake their fist and say "damn you, NRA".
At the GunRunners Gun Show outside Atlanta, the line stretches out the door and around the corner. Dozens of people are waiting, ready to fork over big bucks for everything from pistols to high capacity magazines.
Here, the hottest seller isn't a shotgun, handgun, or even a pair of Angie Whitaker's .22-caliber bullet casing earrings. It's the AR-15 semiautomatic rifle.
"We probably brought maybe 100 AR-15s with us," said vendor George Mazzant, from On the Square Gun & Pawn. "I'd like to sell half of them, and, I'm sure we will. We've been doing that well every weekend."
Mazzant is running a special, selling Stag Arms AR-15 rifles for $999. It's an offer that's too good for show attendee Ken Farrell to pass up.
"I always wanted one," said Farrell. "I'm getting it now just in case I can't later. Since the rumors of the bans, the prices have skyrocketed."
"When you tell the American public that they're not going to have something, they want it," said Mazzant.
The AR-15 is at the heart of the gun control debate. The civilian version of the M16, it's the most popular rifle in the country, with some 4 million in the hands of gun owners and a wildly passionate fan base. Its use in the mass shootings in Newtown, Conn., and Aurora, Colo., thrust the AR-15 into the national spotlight.
"The AR-15 is, essentially, a gun that was designed to inflict maximum casualties, death, and injury, in close to medium range. That's what it does," said gun control advocate and former NRA member Tom Diaz. "The real problem is that we allow that kind of firepower to come into a theater or into a first-grade class."
"It's a question of cosmetics. It's not a question of functioning," said Steve Sanetti, president of the National Sports Shooting Foundation. "The rifles are sane, safe, reliable types of firearms used by millions of citizens for lawful purposes. They are not just killing machines."
But if the gun control debate has some people up in arms, it's had others buying them up — an unintended side effect of the push for stricter gun laws. The most recent measures — President Barack Obama's attempt to strengthen gun laws by expanding background checks, limiting large ammunition magazines and banning certain military-style firearms — were defeated on the Senate floor earlier this month.
Just the threat of a ban has been a boon to the gun business.
"[It's] been a very, very busy year for us," said Mark Malkowski, president of Stag Arms in New Britain, Conn. "Right now we're at about a year's back order, 70,000 rifles at this point."
Connecticut recently passed some of the toughest gun laws in the country, banning the sales of AR-15s. Malkowski has since announced he might be forced to move his company out of the state — taking some 200 jobs with it. Stag Arms is one of more than 30 companies that make the AR-15; together they sell some 800,000 rifles a year, nearly all for the U.S. market.
"The AR-15 now is probably the Number 1 economic engine in the gun industry," said Larry Hyatt, owner of Hyatt Gun Shop in Charlotte, N.C. "We sell every one we get, almost as quick as they come in. We've never seen the demand that's here today."
Gun store owners and analysts alike say it's one of the bestselling guns in the country; roughly $1 billion of the estimated $4 billion firearms industry is made up of sales of AR-15 rifles and their accessories.
"These are expensive guns that people think about a lot before they buy them," said Hyatt. "They're not protesting on the street against the government, they're buying AR-15s and ammunition. It's not advertising, it's not marketing, it's political."
Politics coupled with shifting consumer preference are big drivers of the market, said Wedbush Securities analyst Rommel Dionisio.
"In the last two years, the market has exploded," he said. "It's a fad; it's the cool, new rifle. People used to hunt with bolt action rifles. Now they're using the modern sporting rifle."
According to the sports shooting foundation, an average AR-15 runs about $1,000. They also say the average owner has more than one rifle and spends an additional $483 for accessories. It's a pricey purchase that Diaz says is benefiting from years of industry marketing.
"The names you see now are 'modern sporting rifle,' 'tactical rifle,' " he said. "Those are all just euphemisms for 'assault weapon.' They're being very rational as marketers and as businesses — and as industries. They're only doing what cellphone companies do to make cellphones look different and be more attractive. The difference is what they're selling is lethality."
"They're selling today's rifle," said the foundation's Sanetti. "We call it the modern sporting rifle. And that's exactly what it is."
Whether it's called a modern sporting rifle or an assault rifle, for Atlanta gun show vendor Mazzant, AR-15s are just good business.
"Today was one of the better sales days with ARs," he said. "Everybody in the whole place was lining up to buy them."
Mazzant started off with 100 AR-15 rifles. By the end of the day, he didn't have a single one left.
Wow, you're only about six months too late on that story.
AR prices have already hit their high water mark and are declining.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
d-usa wrote: Except the only people talking about taking away guns are a stupid minority on the left and the NRA whispering sweet terrors into the ears of gun owners.
Regulating =/= taking guns away. But this is a useless discussion that has been covered many of times. Sorry for even getting sucked into another pointless thread.
You mean other than the bills submitted to Congress, a supportive President, and confiscatory laws just put into place in NY?
I would love to see real life examples of guns legally purchased without back ground checks used in violent crimes.
Seriously, there must be an absolute TON of examples out there, why are each and every one not used as specific examples of why some of you advocate for universal back ground checks?
Again:
1. What is the goal of your proposal (in this specific case, what do you think mandating 'universal back ground checks' is supposed to fix?
2. How do you think this proposal if enacted would accomplish your goal?
3. What are the costs of enacting your proposal (monetary and lost freedoms.)
I'll help with number 3. It would make it more expensive for me to give a rifle as a Christmas gift (something I have done before). It will force an already inefficient bureaucracy to grow to handle the increased checks. It forces me to pay for a check and submit to a check if I want to buy a rifle from a buddy of mine who restores WW2 era rifles as a hobby. It opens the door for a national registry (see the ACLU argument posted previously).
With out a real cost benefit analysis you cannot convince me it is a 'reasonable' proposal.
So, what do I gain for submitting to all this? It increases the burden of gun ownership, what REAL problem do you think it solves? Again, where all the multitude of examples of legally purchased guns, purchased without a back ground check, used by the purchaser to commit a violent crime?
1. What is the goal of your proposal (in this specific case, what do you think mandating 'universal back ground checks' is supposed to fix?
2. How do you think this proposal if enacted would accomplish your goal?
3. What are the costs of enacting your proposal (monetary and lost freedoms.)
1.) to make it harder for people who should not have guns to obtain them (not impossible, just harder)
2.) the filter would tighten, increasing the difficulty for criminals and the mentally incompetent to obtain firearms.
3.a) monetary cost: zero. The applicant pays for background check costs, and can receive a tax deduction in return.
3.b) freedom cost: zero. Anyone who believes that a background check before buying a gun to be an assault on their freedom is likely experiencing the sort of paranoid delusion that ought to discount them from owning firearms to begin with.
1.) to make it harder for people who should not have guns to obtain them (not impossible, just harder)
What do you really mean by this? Because invariably... it may infringe in our 2nd Amendment rights.
2.) the filter would tighten, increasing the difficulty for criminals and the mentally incompetent to obtain firearms.
Criminals are going to get their hands on any weapon... that's why they're criminals.
Curiously... what are the criteria to deem someone as "mentally incompetent"? Seems like this is a case of "monday morning quarterbacking here".
3.a) monetary cost: zero. The applicant pays for background check costs, and can receive a tax deduction in return.
Background checks ARE being done... what do folks forget about this?
3.b) freedom cost: zero. Anyone who believes that a background check before buying a gun to be an assault on their freedom is likely experiencing the sort of paranoid delusion that ought to discount them from owning firearms to begin with.
Again.. background check do exists RIGHT NOW! Or... are you advocating for national registry? Is that what you were thinking of?
whembly wrote: The point I was trying to make was that ANY new laws would have zero impact whether or not criminals would be using illegal weapons.
A bold assertion to make.
Defend it. I don't agree.
edit: Mind you, if you want to argue that "no politically viable new laws [..]", I'd probably agree with you.
But I could come up with ways to ensure that it is harder for criminals to get guns. I'd not necessarily want to put most of them in to action, of course.
1.) to make it harder for people who should not have guns to obtain them (not impossible, just harder)
What do you really mean by this? Because invariably... it may infringe in our 2nd Amendment rights.
Can a felony conviction already take away that right?
Can a restraining order against you take away that right?
Can being placed on a terrorist watch list take away that right?
Sounds to me like this right of yours isn't all that uninfringed as it is.
Whembly wrote:
azazel the cat wrote:2.) the filter would tighten, increasing the difficulty for criminals and the mentally incompetent to obtain firearms.
Criminals are going to get their hands on any weapon... that's why they're criminals.
Then why bother even selling the guns? Criminals will just steal them anyway, so why bother attaching a price tag?
You see, this particular line of questioning is without value, because it assumes a fatalistic inevitability. Let's think of it another way: do you lock your doors at night, or when you leave your house? If so, why? Criminals will just pick the lock or break a window, so why even bother having a door, amiright?
Whembly wrote:Curiously... what are the criteria to deem someone as "mentally incompetent"? Seems like this is a case of "monday morning quarterbacking here".
This is a standard that I don't think I should get to decide, as I would include far too many people for that term to work. However, I think anyone considered legally slowed or mentally unstable by any respected psychiatric institution is a decent compromise. However, this element is likely wishlisting, as it requires addressing several other social issues.
Whembly wrote:
azazel the cat wrote:3.a) monetary cost: zero. The applicant pays for background check costs, and can receive a tax deduction in return.
Background checks ARE being done... what do folks forget about this?
3.b) freedom cost: zero. Anyone who believes that a background check before buying a gun to be an assault on their freedom is likely experiencing the sort of paranoid delusion that ought to discount them from owning firearms to begin with.
Again.. background check do exists RIGHT NOW! Or... are you advocating for national registry? Is that what you were thinking of?
I mean universal background checks, without exception. And I'm in favour of a national registry, but I'd settle for universal background checks that includes private sales and inter-family transfers.
I mean, just look at Chicago and DC... some of the most restrictive gun laws on the books, and yet has the highest gun crimes.
They will respond that this is because it's easy to get guns from neighboring states with far more lenient gun laws. Which is, of course, absolutely true. It is also, of course, absolutely true that this problem would go away if we could get DC-style restrictions on a federal level, because we do not have any states bordering this country that have massive criminal elements that have become ridiculously adept at smuggling contraband material across our border to meet a lucrative demand.
And yet Canada has even more restrictive laws than those, and has almost no gun crime (by comparison).
Yes, but Canada has a tiny population in a massive land mass with "criminal elements" that would make an eight year-old from Queens howl with laughter.
1.) to make it harder for people who should not have guns to obtain them (not impossible, just harder)
What do you really mean by this? Because invariably... it may infringe in our 2nd Amendment rights.
Can a felony conviction already take away that right?
Of course... a felon broke a social convention and thus can have rights taken away. Duh... you do understand what a "Rights" really mean... right?
Can a restraining order against you take away that right?
I actually don't know... did a quick search and it doesn't NOT look like you can lose your weapons via restraining order. A CCW license could be revoked theoretically...
What's your point?
Can being placed on a terrorist watch list take away that right?
Now this is interesting... probably.
Sounds to me like this right of yours isn't all that uninfringed as it is.
Right's aren't absolute... I think this is why we get into these debates because the masses don't understand how these "Rights" are granted/excercised.
Whembly wrote:
azazel the cat wrote:2.) the filter would tighten, increasing the difficulty for criminals and the mentally incompetent to obtain firearms.
Criminals are going to get their hands on any weapon... that's why they're criminals.
Then why bother even selling the guns? Criminals will just steal them anyway, so why bother attaching a price tag?
What.The.feth? Dude... that line of thought is asinine.
You see, this particular line of questioning is without value, because it assumes a fatalistic inevitability. Let's think of it another way: do you lock your doors at night, or when you leave your house? If so, why? Criminals will just pick the lock or break a window, so why even bother having a door, amiright?
Epic strawman dude.
So we should just roll over and take it in the ass everytime? Should I tell the criminal not to hurt me and ask if I should spread my ass cheek for them?
Seriously, dude...
Whembly wrote:Curiously... what are the criteria to deem someone as "mentally incompetent"? Seems like this is a case of "monday morning quarterbacking here".
This is a standard that I don't think I should get to decide, as I would include far too many people for that term to work. However, I think anyone considered legally slowed or mentally unstable by any respected psychiatric institution is a decent compromise. However, this element is likely wishlisting, as it requires addressing several other social issues.
Now we're getting somewhere... I don't think there's a whole lot that can be done to prevent wackos from going on a rampage...
However, our laws do need to be changed to make it easier to incarcerate someone in psyche wards. Today, you almost have to go to court to get admit someone to psyche ward...
Whembly wrote:
azazel the cat wrote:3.a) monetary cost: zero. The applicant pays for background check costs, and can receive a tax deduction in return.
Background checks ARE being done... what do folks forget about this?
3.b) freedom cost: zero. Anyone who believes that a background check before buying a gun to be an assault on their freedom is likely experiencing the sort of paranoid delusion that ought to discount them from owning firearms to begin with.
Again.. background check do exists RIGHT NOW! Or... are you advocating for national registry? Is that what you were thinking of?
I mean universal background checks, without exception. And I'm in favour of a national registry, but I'd settle for universal background checks that includes private sales and inter-family transfers.
National Registry...
We have background checks... (except for private sales).
Seaward: You clearly have no understanding of Canada's criminal element. Just to make this easier for you, we have a fairly significant Hell's Angels presence, to name one.
Whembly wrote:
azazel the cat wrote:
Whembly wrote:
azazel the cat wrote:2.) the filter would tighten, increasing the difficulty for criminals and the mentally incompetent to obtain firearms.
Criminals are going to get their hands on any weapon... that's why they're criminals.
Then why bother even selling the guns? Criminals will just steal them anyway, so why bother attaching a price tag?
What.The.feth? Dude... that line of thought is asinine.
Dude... that line if thought is EXACTLY YOUR LINE OF THOUGHT.
Whembly wrote:
azazel the cat wrote:You see, this particular line of questioning is without value, because it assumes a fatalistic inevitability. Let's think of it another way: do you lock your doors at night, or when you leave your house? If so, why? Criminals will just pick the lock or break a window, so why even bother having a door, amiright?
Epic strawman dude.
That's not a strawman at all. I'm simply applying your Calvinistic fatalism to non-firearm issues. If you think your reasoning is assinine in one context, why is it not assinine in another?
Whembly wrote:We have background checks... (except for private sales).
And I wanna see background checks that include private sales. That way, an otherwise law-abiding citizen cannot simply buy firearms for their two-strike loser cousin.
And properly enforced. And properly funded. And have the stupid bureaucratic nonsense that the NRA puts in them removed. Also did I mention actually fething enforced? That's an important part.
whembly wrote: ... but I don't think it's a leap of logic to ascertain that any more restrictive laws would have any impact.
I assume that was a typo, and you meant wouldn't, rather than would.
But that's a bad logical conclusion. More restrictive laws, strictly and consistently enforced over the course of a generation or two, could easily have a stronger impact than the laws we currently have. We could even just enforce the laws we currently have better and have a stronger impact. At the moment, a large number of weapons used by mass murders and spree killings (as much has three quarters; link provides the full data set for your perusal) are purchased legally, and streamlining and enforcing current laws could very well help lower this percentage, forcing them to go through extra hoops to get their weapons-- and thus discouraging some (which is the reasoning behind some suicide preventatives on bridges, and it is very much shown to work there)-- and do so without really that much of an effect on the average gun owner.
The argument isn't about whether the laws would have any effect at all, but rather, is it WORTH doing-- is the end result worth the effort and restrictions on civil liberties. The answer is to that question never easy to anyone who actually puts any real thought in to it, because lives really ARE at stake here. Both the lives and liberties of law-abiding citizens are very important, and one should never trivialize such a discussion as often is done (including in this forum, where it is done to such a shameful extent recently that it made me feel physical disgust and revulsion). Hell, even just ensuring that people who buy a gun have to go through a training course on how to safely store, maintain, and use their gun would cut down on non-crime related gun accidents and deaths.
Sadly, no such reasonable revisions are likely it seems-- and this is NOT a good thing. When you have people devaluing human lives to the point where they even mock and insult people who die from gun-related crimes and treat dangerous tools of death as nothing more than toys ("barbie dolls for men" to use the hobby's own phrase) on one side, and people who show open disdain and hatred anyone who might ever possibly consider owning a gun for any reason and only use gun-related deaths as statistical weapons in their petty wars without any empathy for the victims, it's no real surprise that no one who has come up with a reasonable compromise is given any attention.
But to assume that means that a compromise-type solution doesn't exist and that we should stop looking for it does both the civil liberties AND the lost lives a disservice. The lack of honest, intelligent input from either side is why we have stupid laws in the first place-- it's not something that should make one think "this is how it is, therefor this is how it should be", because that's just perpetuating bad, inconsistent laws, and shows a complete and utter disregard for both life and liberty of those involved. An "assault weapons" ban is pointless (we already ban automatic weapons in most cases due to their extreme danger to society), and a "high-capacity magazine" ban is oftentimes needlessly restrictive and overly broad (some guns don't even come WITH magazines as small as they want). Both of them, however, are a direct result of a relative lack of intelligent, rational input from gun rights advocates, allowing instead the more nutty side of the gun control debate to get far more input on what laws get put in place. Do you really want this?
Hell, not everyone who is arguing for gun control is necessarily even anti-guns. Personally I'd like to see something like a national concealed carry law that would allow properly licensed gun owners to carry a weapon regardless of which state they go in (within reasonable limitations, such as not allowing them in government offices and allowing businesses to restrict who can carry where, since that's private property)-- much like your drivers license is generally useful in every state. It'd be a pretty massive expansion of civil liberties compared to what we currently have. To me, greater ability to carry my gun for self defense would a perfectly acceptable compromise to a gun registration database and increased enforcement and funding for current gun control efforts.
But things like that are impossible to accomplish while the gun control debate is so stupid as it currently is.
That is probably the worst example in the US of a functioning government that you could probably use. And that's giving it the benefit of the doubt. Some people would chuckle at the idea of Chicago's government being called "functioning".
As for DC, gun control in THERE is a long and complex history that I am not getting in to right now.
azazel the cat wrote: Seaward: You clearly have no understanding of Canada's criminal element. Just to make this easier for you, we have a fairly significant Hell's Angels presence, to name one.
Hey, what do you know. It makes 30 year-old Virginians laugh, too.
Seriously, though. A tiny population spread out over a vast area, less than half the guns per capita, Fisher-Price criminal enterprises...and it's really the gun laws? Really?
Europe has higher population density but often less crime. You can't blame gun-related crimes entirely on population density-- it is only one of many, many factors that result in a higher or lower rate of gun-related crimes. And it is only one of many things which must be taken in to consideration when thinking about this debate.
Melissia wrote: Europe has higher population density but often less crime. You can't blame gun-related crimes entirely on population density-- it is only one of many, many factors that result in a higher or lower rate of gun-related crimes. And it is only one of many things which must be taken in to consideration when thinking about this debate.
KalashnikovMarine wrote:Az you realize that providing or selling a firearm to someone who shouldn't have one, such as one's two-strike loser cousin is already illegal right?
What's that popular line of thought the guns-for-everyone movement likes to take? Oh, yeah: "laws don't stop criminals". In other words, if the mere fact that it's illegal doesn't stop criminal types, then the universal background check will hopefully make it harder for someone's not-a-criminal-yet cousin to straw purchase firearms for them.
Seaward wrote:
azazel the cat wrote: Seaward: You clearly have no understanding of Canada's criminal element. Just to make this easier for you, we have a fairly significant Hell's Angels presence, to name one.
Hey, what do you know. It makes 30 year-old Virginians laugh, too.
Seriously, though. A tiny population spread out over a vast area, less than half the guns per capita, Fisher-Price criminal enterprises...and it's really the gun laws? Really?
1. I honestly read that first bit as "30-year-old vigins" and woke the S/O up from laughter, so thanks for that. 2. Shall I take that less-guns-per-capita excuse to be your admission that gun crime increases as an effect of firearms being present? Because that appears to be what you just said.
Also, I think we've established before that population size doesn't really affect crime rates.
KalashnikovMarine wrote:Az you realize that providing or selling a firearm to someone who shouldn't have one, such as one's two-strike loser cousin is already illegal right?
What's that popular line of thought the guns-for-everyone movement likes to take? Oh, yeah: "laws don't stop criminals". In other words, if the mere fact that it's illegal doesn't stop criminal types, then the universal background check will hopefully make it harder for someone's not-a-criminal-yet cousin to straw purchase firearms for them.
So laws don't stop criminals, so we should add MORE laws.
KalashnikovMarine wrote:Az you realize that providing or selling a firearm to someone who shouldn't have one, such as one's two-strike loser cousin is already illegal right?
What's that popular line of thought the guns-for-everyone movement likes to take? Oh, yeah: "laws don't stop criminals". In other words, if the mere fact that it's illegal doesn't stop criminal types, then the universal background check will hopefully make it harder for someone's not-a-criminal-yet cousin to straw purchase firearms for them.
So laws don't stop criminals, so we should add MORE laws.
come on Az, you can do better then that.
Uh, yeah. Actually, it makes sense in this case. And it's not a new law; it's just expanding an existing one so that it applies to actually be effective.
How? How is it effective at all? If I'm a scum bag getting an illegal handgun I probably don't give a gak about getting a background check. We just established the act is illegal already. We already know you're more likely to be struck by lightning in the U.S. then be prosecuted for doing a straw buy for someone. We know criminals don't care about laws. So who does it affect? No one we don't want to have guns. It just affects the law abiding. So what does it stop? Nothing at all.
How about, and I'm going out on a limb here, we actually prosecute and enforce the FETHING LAWS on the books before we add useless ones that just make life harder for the law abiding and do NOTHING to restrict criminals. How about we try that yes?
If we need to add ANY laws to the books it's strict mandatory minimums for the use of a firearm in a crime. Armed robbery? Enjoy 20 years in the slam. Murder? You're done, enjoy your cell cause you ain't leaving unless it's in a pine board box.
azazel the cat wrote: 1. I honestly read that first bit as "30-year-old vigins" and woke the S/O up from laughter, so thanks for that. 2. Shall I take that less-guns-per-capita excuse to be your admission that gun crime increases as an effect of firearms being present? Because that appears to be what you just said.
Also, I think we've established before that population size doesn't really affect crime rates.
Do you think there's more snowmobile-related crime in Canada or in Belize?
Also, please go back and read what was actually written. Population density was hardly the sole issue touched on. There's also the matter of the vastly different scope and scale of crime in the United States. You guys have maple syrup heists, we have inner city youth routinely killing each other due to involvement in the drug trade. Believing that background checks on private sales would stem the flow of already illegal firearms to the criminal underclass strikes me as akin to believing that background checks on private sales of cocaine would have a similar effect. It's simply not dealing with the reality of the problem.
1. What is the goal of your proposal (in this specific case, what do you think mandating 'universal back ground checks' is supposed to fix?
2. How do you think this proposal if enacted would accomplish your goal?
3. What are the costs of enacting your proposal (monetary and lost freedoms.)
1.) to make it harder for people who should not have guns to obtain them (not impossible, just harder)
2.) the filter would tighten, increasing the difficulty for criminals and the mentally incompetent to obtain firearms.
3.a) monetary cost: zero. The applicant pays for background check costs, and can receive a tax deduction in return.
3.b) freedom cost: zero. Anyone who believes that a background check before buying a gun to be an assault on their freedom is likely experiencing the sort of paranoid delusion that ought to discount them from owning firearms to begin with.
1. Wrong, if they are doing it now they will do it then with no more problem.
2. see answer to 1. It doesn't tighten a filter on everyone, just those who submit to back ground checks.
3a. Wrong, there is a cost, you assume the applicant pays for it. Even IF correct, it is an increase to the cost of gun ownership you want currently law abiding citizens to agree to submit to without a real gain for them.
3b. Wrong again, I can currently give a rifle as a gift or buy one from a friend without any additional cost or state interference. I would lose the freedom to do so.. If that makes me a paranoid delusional unfit to own a firearm in your opinion, then I am damned glad folks like you fail to pass these laws and pray you continue to fail.
And I am still waiting for the multitude of examples of guns bought legally without a background check being used by the legal owner to commit violent crimes. If your answer in 1 is really the goal, then this MUST be a problem worth addressing. Yet there seems to be a lack of evidence it is a real issue. I am sure if you dig hard enough you'll find some examples, the law of large numbers works that way. But it is not anywhere near the scope of problem that demands federal legislation to deal with it.
On another gun thread I pointed out that swimming pools kill orders of magnitude more kids each year than guns do. Pass legislation to have all swimming pools filled in and you will save more lives than any gin law you could pass, and do so without infringing on a constitutional right.
azazel the cat wrote: Seaward: You clearly have no understanding of Canada's criminal element. Just to make this easier for you, we have a fairly significant Hell's Angels presence, to name one.
Hey, what do you know. It makes 30 year-old Virginians laugh, too.
Seriously, though. A tiny population spread out over a vast area, less than half the guns per capita, Fisher-Price criminal enterprises...and it's really the gun laws? Really?
its not the gun laws, we didnt have a gun violence problem before mr Rock forced these gun laws down our thoats in the 90's, and we still dont have one after.
Canadians had access to tommy guns and all the full auto goodness in my lifetime, and it wasnt a problem, no one has ever used a legally bought full auto maliciously here, then they were banned and touted the new laws as preventing all the crime that wasnt there in the first place.
KalashnikovMarine wrote:How? How is it effective at all? If I'm a scum bag getting an illegal handgun I probably don't give a gak about getting a background check. We just established the act is illegal already. We already know you're more likely to be struck by lightning in the U.S. then be prosecuted for doing a straw buy for someone. We know criminals don't care about laws. So who does it affect? No one we don't want to have guns. It just affects the law abiding. So what does it stop? Nothing at all.
How about, and I'm going out on a limb here, we actually prosecute and enforce the FETHING LAWS on the books before we add useless ones that just make life harder for the law abiding and do NOTHING to restrict criminals. How about we try that yes?
Well, here's the thing: I keep reading about the absolute certainty of criminals obtaining firearms through nebulous means. Why don't we qualify exactly how that happens, yes? Because it is my belief that one of (not the only, just one of) the avenues criminals use to obtain firearms is through strawman purchases, often inter-state. So a universal background check will make this facet that much harder to pull off, because...
...I believe there should be a national firearm registry. Nobody has to lose any firearms. But every single serial number gets logged, and either has a dealer, distrubutor or owner attached to it. Every time there's a transfer, the registry is updated. That way, when a criminal does use a firearm in a crime, it's very easy to trace back the provenance of the firearm in order to determine how that criminal managed to get hold of it. And from there, the authorities can start to enforce and press charges, cutting the criminals' access to firearms off closer to the head, rather than settling for their hands.
Does this infringe on any freedom? I'd say no. Sure, there's always going to be paranoia about national lists, but I consider that fear to be a psychosis approaching a type of schizophrenia. (And before anyone makes the tired "Hitler made lists and shipped people to camps" argument, I'll preemptively say that it was pretty obvious that Hitler was going to persecute the Jews from day one; antisemitism and xenophobia was pretty much his campaign slogan in 1933; to think that it crept up out of nowhere would be on par with electing a Klansman and then acting puzzled when he targets African Americans.)
Hell, you can even make it a state registry, if you want. That would probably work, too (though maybe not quite as efficiently. Or maybe more efficiently, I'm not sure how the dynamic works in practice in a republic). Basically, I want the same kind of system for firearms that is currently used for automobiles. I'd prefer the licensing element, too, but I do understand how there are legitimate and (unfortunately, IMO) well-grounded legal challenges to that idea. But the registry does not take away any rights. At all, and it makes the actual firearms laws to be actually enforceable.
1. What is the goal of your proposal (in this specific case, what do you think mandating 'universal back ground checks' is supposed to fix?
2. How do you think this proposal if enacted would accomplish your goal?
3. What are the costs of enacting your proposal (monetary and lost freedoms.)
1.) to make it harder for people who should not have guns to obtain them (not impossible, just harder)
2.) the filter would tighten, increasing the difficulty for criminals and the mentally incompetent to obtain firearms.
3.a) monetary cost: zero. The applicant pays for background check costs, and can receive a tax deduction in return.
3.b) freedom cost: zero. Anyone who believes that a background check before buying a gun to be an assault on their freedom is likely experiencing the sort of paranoid delusion that ought to discount them from owning firearms to begin with.
1. Wrong, if they are doing it now they will do it then with no more problem.
Not only do you have no basis to make that claim, but it represents a depressing Calvinistic level of fatalism, in addition to rendering any discussion with you as moot. It is the equivalent of saying "nuh-uh". However, I will counter it just as I did when Whembly said it: criminals aren't likely hindered from breaking into your home because of the lock on the door, or the door itself. So do you bother to lock your doors when you go out, or even have doors at all? According to your line of thinking, a criminal will be able to break into your house no matter what, so there's no reason to even bother with doors and locks.
CaptnJake wrote:3b. Wrong again, I can currently give a rifle as a gift or buy one from a friend without any additional cost or state interference. I would lose the freedom to do so.. If that makes me a paranoid delusional unfit to own a firearm in your opinion, then I am damned glad folks like you fail to pass these laws and pray you continue to fail.
Just from a black-letter-law standpoint, the 2nd Amendment grants you the right to keep and bear arms; it does not grant you the right to obtain or transfer them. In other words, it is legal to prohibit the sale, though not the possession of such. But rules-lawyering aside, your "freedom" to give out firearms willy-nilly to whoever you choose is already restricted by current laws (you cannot give a gun to a criminal, for example). All the background check is doing is ensuring that you are not breaking the law, perhaps even by accident. After all, maybe your cousin Timmy whom you are gifting a firearm to has a felony conviction that you don't know about.
CaptnJake wrote:On another gun thread I pointed out that swimming pools kill orders of magnitude more kids each year than guns do. Pass legislation to have all swimming pools filled in and you will save more lives than any gin law you could pass, and do so without infringing on a constitutional right.
I am really tired of this silly, juvenile argument. It is the same thing as saying we should not bother to do anything to help people, ever, because curing cancer will save more lives, so we should do nothing at all until we first cure cancer.
Right? It's weird: Murder is against the law, but yet some people still do it! So, like, we should just stop making murder illegal, because it obviously isn't a perfect deterrent.
Close. You're almost there. Just snug that thinking cap down a little tighter.
If I say, "This law wouldn't stop illegal immigrants!" does that, by default, mean all laws won't? Because that's the argument you're trying to make here.
The answer, of course, is no. Calling the laws proposed bs feel-good measures doesn't mean that all laws, even those trying to achieve the same goal, necessarily are. If you really, really, really can only come up with one way to do something...well, you probably work for the public sector.
...I believe there should be a national firearm registry. Nobody has to lose any firearms. But every single serial number gets logged, and either has a dealer, distrubutor or owner attached to it. Every time there's a transfer, the registry is updated. That way, when a criminal does use a firearm in a crime, it's very easy to trace back the provenance of the firearm in order to determine how that criminal managed to get hold of it. And from there, the authorities can start to enforce and press charges, cutting the criminals' access to firearms off closer to the head, rather than settling for their hands.
And registries that have been made before were fairly quickly used to remove those POWs from civilians hands...I believe in another thread that it was pointed out that Canada did this at one point. It's also been pointed out that Hitler did it. I'm not saying that whatever Hitler did, we should do the opposite, I mean the Autobahn is pretty fething spectacular, it's just that there are quite a few things he did politically that no "free nation" should ever do.
Honestly, the ONLY place that people should be registering their firearms is with the manufacturer. It's fairly obvious to me on that one, but basically, with a manufacturing registry, you'll be able to get quicker notifications of all recalls and other maintenance related issues from them (my newest pistol just recently went through this, the recall didnt affect my S/N, but it may yet, I'll find out when I head to the range)
Just because registration works fairly well for things like automobiles does not mean that it should be universally applied to anything that could pose a danger, or a threat to the average person.
Close. You're almost there. Just snug that thinking cap down a little tighter.
If I say, "This law wouldn't stop illegal immigrants!" does that, by default, mean all laws won't? Because that's the argument you're trying to make here.
The answer, of course, is no. Calling the laws proposed bs feel-good measures doesn't mean that all laws, even those trying to achieve the same goal, necessarily are. If you really, really, really can only come up with one way to do something...well, you probably work for the public sector.
Actually that is the argument that everybody makes against gun laws. Even though they spit out "gun laws don't stop criminals because criminals don't obey laws" from one corner of their mouth while screaming "we need more laws to stop criminals doing something I don't support like imigration" from the other.
The only real new gun law I support is universal background checks. All the other measures I support is canceling all the NRA-backed prohibitions from enforcing current laws already on the books.
Actually that is the argument that everybody makes against gun laws. Even though they spit out "gun laws don't stop criminals because criminals don't obey laws" from one corner of their mouth while screaming "we need more laws to stop criminals doing something I don't support like imigration" from the other.
The only real new gun law I support is universal background checks. All the other measures I support is canceling all the NRA-backed prohibitions from enforcing current laws already on the books.
Could you name some of those laws that the government's prohibited from enforcing?
Actually that is the argument that everybody makes against gun laws. Even though they spit out "gun laws don't stop criminals because criminals don't obey laws" from one corner of their mouth while screaming "we need more laws to stop criminals doing something I don't support like imigration" from the other.
The only real new gun law I support is universal background checks. All the other measures I support is canceling all the NRA-backed prohibitions from enforcing current laws already on the books.
Could you name some of those laws that the government's prohibited from enforcing?
Seriously?
Fething Seriously?
You know what? Nope. Not going to do it. For two reasons:
1) For somebody who is so well informed about these issues and has researched all these solutions and decided that they could not possibly work, you would think that you would know about them.
2) They have been explained to you in a couple of other gun threads already. Some of them have been mentioned in this very thread. If you cannot, or don't want to, remember them then that is pretty much your fault. I'm not going to waste my time and precious bandwidth typing them again.
Stick your fingers in your ear and go "nanananana" all you want. I'm tired of arguing with you about it.
...I believe there should be a national firearm registry. Nobody has to lose any firearms. But every single serial number gets logged, and either has a dealer, distrubutor or owner attached to it. Every time there's a transfer, the registry is updated. That way, when a criminal does use a firearm in a crime, it's very easy to trace back the provenance of the firearm in order to determine how that criminal managed to get hold of it. And from there, the authorities can start to enforce and press charges, cutting the criminals' access to firearms off closer to the head, rather than settling for their hands.
And registries that have been made before were fairly quickly used to remove those POWs from civilians hands...I believe in another thread that it was pointed out that Canada did this at one point. It's also been pointed out that Hitler did it. I'm not saying that whatever Hitler did, we should do the opposite, I mean the Autobahn is pretty fething spectacular, it's just that there are quite a few things he did politically that no "free nation" should ever do.
Just because registration works fairly well for things like automobiles does not mean that it should be universally applied to anything that could pose a danger, or a threat to the average person.
Sorry, I'm pretty tired here, and am having some trouble slugging through the pronouns and what POW refers to in this conxtext- what exactly did Canada do?
Also, your argument appears to be entirely based on a slippery slope fallacy: you are assuming that because a government makes a registry, that it will use said registry to round people up an disarm them. However, you seem to have taken an arbitrary point to make your stand: if you're so concerned that a government will round people up, why stop at the registry point, when you'd be even safer from that event if you didn't have a government at all?
Having a registry (like Canada has) is not something to rationally fear.
Ensis Ferrae wrote:Just because registration works fairly well for things like automobiles does not mean that it should be universally applied to anything that could pose a danger, or a threat to the average person
Why not? Could you give me a reason without making a slippery-slope, nirvana fallacy or poison-the-well argument? This is an honest question; I don't mean to call you out or anything.
Actually that is the argument that everybody makes against gun laws. Even though they spit out "gun laws don't stop criminals because criminals don't obey laws" from one corner of their mouth while screaming "we need more laws to stop criminals doing something I don't support like imigration" from the other.
The only real new gun law I support is universal background checks. All the other measures I support is canceling all the NRA-backed prohibitions from enforcing current laws already on the books.
Could you name some of those laws that the government's prohibited from enforcing?
Frazzled wrote:Did you just cite Jon Stewart - the comic- as a source???
No, I used the Jon Stewart clip as a nice, concise summary. If any of the information presented there -and backed up by the print citations- is incorrect, please feel free to not only point it out, but also cite your contrary evidence.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Seaward wrote:Now, back to the question: can you name one law the NRA has successfully managed to prevent the government from enforcing?
If I blind you and cut your arms and legs off, have I prevented you from going to work? No, you can always roll there. Hopefully it's not up any steep hills.
However, in practice, yeah, I've probably made it next to impossible for you to get to work.
azazel the cat wrote: If I blind you and cut your arms and legs off, have I prevented you from going to work? No, you can always roll there. Hopefully it's not up any steep hills.
However, in practice, yeah, I've probably made it next to impossible for you to get to work.
Just one law. Just looking for one federal firearms law.
While you're looking for one, could you tell me where the NICS Improvement Amendments Act came from and who pushed it through?
Frazzled wrote:Did you just cite Jon Stewart - the comic- as a source???
For example, the ATF cannot require dealers to conduct inventory checks,
They can look at your paperwork any time.
. force dealers to respond to police requests,
Define police requests first.
cannot investigate dealers for inventory discrepancies more than once a year (even if they voluntarily conduct an inventory check),
So either they can do an inventory check or they can't. It just blew its own argument. Some ATF were using inventory checks as a method of harassment.
You're being willfully obtuse. The ATF canot require (that is, compell) dealers to conduct inventory checks. However, once a year they are allowed to look at the inventory. Being allowed to be the law, and being permitted to by the dealer are two very different things.
And no, registries do not necessarily lead to confiscation. Canada has had a registry for a long time, and nobody has confiscated our guns. Your believe in this slippery slope is paranoia; nothing more.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Seaward wrote:
azazel the cat wrote: If I blind you and cut your arms and legs off, have I prevented you from going to work? No, you can always roll there. Hopefully it's not up any steep hills.
However, in practice, yeah, I've probably made it next to impossible for you to get to work.
Just one law. Just looking for one federal firearms law.
Now this I will not placate. You actually are sticking your fingers in your ears and saying "nanananana can't hear you". We're done here. Please inform me once you've prgressed past a concrete operation phase and we'll continue the discussion. The repitition is tiresome.
And no, registries do not necessarily lead to confiscation. Canada has had a registry for a long time, and nobody has confiscated our guns. Your believe in this slippery slope is paranoia; nothing more.
That is not true, plenty of guns have been confiscated using the registry in canada, the most recent being a "deadly super dangerous" semi auto .22lr rifle. Saying that no guns have been banned using the registry in canada is 100% false, more and more models every year have been banned, no compensation paid, and if you dont turn em in you go to jail or lose your license.
We got rid of the registry last year for a reason (actually many good reasons, it cost too much, did too little, make paper criminals of otherwise law abiding people, was hacked by criminals to make a shopping list for guns, amoung other reasons)
Oh and getting rid of the registry has not led to more crime, just as implementing it did not decrease crime. All the registry did was prove for once and all that 95%+ of all guns in crimes in canada were guns 100% out side the system (ie not registered, not licensed, illegal black market guns) and that pouring 2billion dolllars (america would pay 10x that since they have ~ 10x the guns) for something that told us what we already should have known.
IE the crooks are the problem, even if we regulate the honest people more, crooks are still the problem.
And no, registries do not necessarily lead to confiscation. Canada has had a registry for a long time, and nobody has confiscated our guns. Your believe in this slippery slope is paranoia; nothing more.
That is not true, plenty of guns have been confiscated using the registry in canada, the most recent being a "deadly super dangerous" semi auto .22lr rifle. Saying that no guns have been banned using the registry in canada is 100% false, more and more models every year have been banned, no compensation paid, and if you dont turn em in you go to jail or lose your license.
On its face this is false, and I challenge you to cite your source. No grandfathered firearms have been confiscated in Canada due to the registry.
easysauce wrote: We got rid of the registry last year for a reason (actually many good reasons, it cost too much, did too little, make paper criminals of otherwise law abiding people, was hacked by criminals to make a shopping list for guns, amoung other reasons)
The long guns registry was scrapped because Harper needed to pander to farmers. No other reason. That's why the handgun registry still exists.
easysauce wrote:Oh and getting rid of the registry has not led to more crime, just as implementing it did not decrease crime. All the registry did was prove for once and all that 95%+ of all guns in crimes in canada were guns 100% out side the system (ie not registered, not licensed, illegal black market guns) and that pouring 2billion dolllars (america would pay 10x that since they have ~ 10x the guns) for something that told us what we already should have known.
If you honestly think the firearms registry is there to prevent crime, then you are mistaken. It is there to allow law enforcement officers to more easily trace the provenance of firearms used in crimes, and inform them of any potential firearms present when they respond to a service call. Again, I challenge you to cite your sources of what I would call your egregious lies with regard to that 95% comment.
easysauce wrote:IE the crooks are the problem, even if we regulate the honest people more, crooks are still the problem.
This is childlike in its simplicity and not at all congruent with the real world.
And no, registries do not necessarily lead to confiscation. Canada has had a registry for a long time, and nobody has confiscated our guns. Your believe in this slippery slope is paranoia; nothing more.
That is not true, plenty of guns have been confiscated using the registry in canada, the most recent being a "deadly super dangerous" semi auto .22lr rifle. Saying that no guns have been banned using the registry in canada is 100% false, more and more models every year have been banned, no compensation paid, and if you dont turn em in you go to jail or lose your license.
On its face this is false, and I challenge you to cite your source. No grandfathered firearms have been confiscated in Canada due to the registry.
I bet even after I show you one of the many letters confiscating guns you will argue that no guns were confiscated.
Grandfathered guns, are not what I am talking about.
You are saying everyone who owned any of the firearms that were confiscated and banned crazy then? w e got letters from the RCMP saying turn in the newly banned gun, or else. this is not about the 50% of guns that were "banned" by "grandfathering" them so that only people with a license before the laws changed could own them, this is in ADDITION to those guns "banned via grandfathering"
you calling me a liar? no guns confiscated? why did the rcmps send out this letter of confiscation then? this is ONE model of many that has been banned and confiscated, well after ~50% of all guns were banned via grandfathering
sorry does this letter, and the similar ones for all other models confiscated, not exist in your "real world"?
you need to do your research, especially before you revert to the tactic of "im never wrong if everyone else is a liar" as I find it very offensive you would call me a liar, when you are simply not properly informed yourself.
even a cursory search would show that most recent confiscation, yet your first impulse is to insult first, and research later.
Still waiting on the multitude of examples of guns bought legally without background checks which have then been used by their owners for violent crime....
Surely it must be a huge problem, right?
Otherwise, why would you be for expanding government to solve it?
azazel the cat wrote: If you honestly think the firearms registry is there to prevent crime, then you are mistaken. It is there to allow law enforcement officers to more easily trace the provenance of firearms used in crimes, and inform them of any potential firearms present when they respond to a service call. Again, I challenge you to cite your sources of what I would call your egregious lies with regard to that 95% comment.
calling me a liar here, is partially correct, I should technically be saying 98% of all the crime guns were 100% outside the legal licenseing and registry system (black market guns)
■There are nearly 7 million registered long-guns in Canada. Yet of 2,441 homicides recorded in Canada since mandatory long-gun registration was introduced in 2003, fewer than 2 percent (47) were committed with rifles and shotguns known to have been registered. (Canadian Centre for Justice Statistics).
sorry does this letter, and the similar ones for all other models confiscated, not exist in your "real world"?
you need to do your research, especially before you revert to the tactic of "im never wrong if everyone else is a liar" as I find it very offensive you would call me a liar, when you are simply not properly informed yourself.
even a cursory search would show that most recent confiscation, yet your first impulse is to insult first, and research later.
The rifle in question, an AK knockoff, was a prohibited weapon that the bearer was not legally entitled to possess, and the rifle was confiscated.
How exactly did the registry take that firearm away, again? Are you trying to say that the registry is responsible for a person's illegally-owned rifle to be taken away because the authorities found out about it? Because after reading that letter, it would appear the person tried to register a prohibited weapon that they were not legally entitled to possess as a restricted weapon.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
easysauce wrote:
azazel the cat wrote: If you honestly think the firearms registry is there to prevent crime, then you are mistaken. It is there to allow law enforcement officers to more easily trace the provenance of firearms used in crimes, and inform them of any potential firearms present when they respond to a service call. Again, I challenge you to cite your sources of what I would call your egregious lies with regard to that 95% comment.
calling me a liar here, is partially correct, I should technically be saying 98%
■There are nearly 7 million registered long-guns in Canada. Yet of 2,441 homicides recorded in Canada since mandatory long-gun registration was introduced in 2003, fewer than 2 percent (47) were committed with rifles and shotguns known to have been registered. (Canadian Centre for Justice Statistics).
again, just calling me a liar when I cite very easy to reference facts, is no way to win a debate.
You're misrepresenting half-truths in an extremely disingenuous way that I would call lies.
You made a claim about 95% of all gun homicides, and now you're presenting statistics that encompass ALL homicides, not just those involving firearms. And you have moved the goalposts, now referring only to long guns, rather than your original statement which referred to all firearms. Here is your statement:
easysauce wrote:Oh and getting rid of the registry has not led to more crime, just as implementing it did not decrease crime. All the registry did was prove for once and all that 95%+ of all guns in crimes in canada were guns 100% out side the system (ie not registered, not licensed, illegal black market guns) and that pouring 2billion dolllars (america would pay 10x that since they have ~ 10x the guns) for something that told us what we already should have known.
"95% of all guns in crimes in canada were guns out side the system" is not supported by your source that 2% of homicides were performed with registered long guns. You said ALL GUN CRIMES. That includes handguns, and it includes armed robberies and attempted murders, in addition to merely homicides.
the gun went from NON restricted, to prohibited, and even people with prohibited licenses could not keep it.
now you are just putting your fingers in your ears after the facts are brought up that disagree with you.
coming from a guy who thinks only farmers wanted the registry gone, I am not suprised.
I knew before you would argue with hard facts, even with ones sourced from our government, so no real suprise when even after citations are provided, you continue to simply say "liar"
It doesn't say it wasn't required to be registered; it merely states that it was not registered. Those are very different things. I will have to cross-reference the letter against the two acts; but if you insist then I can do that later on this evening. Because I'm pretty sure that any registered firearm whose status was "upgraded" stays grandfathered so long as its possessor maintains their license and registration.
However, citing a source is not enough to shield you from being called a liar; you have to correctly cite a source. That is, you cannot cite a source that states X, and then claim Y (which is EXACTLY what you have been doing re: your 95% comment)
azazel the cat wrote: It doesn't say it wasn't required to be registered; it merely states that it was not registered. Those are very different things. I will have to cross-reference the letter against the two acts; but if you insist then I can do that later on this evening. Because I'm pretty sure that any registered firearm whose status was "upgraded" stays grandfathered so long as its possessor maintains their license and registration.
However, citing a source is not enough to shield you from being called a liar; you have to correctly cite a source. That is, you cannot cite a source that states X, and then claim Y (which is EXACTLY what you have been doing re: your 95% comment)
What i'm reading says registrations were revoked, which would imply that they were registered. Then it goes on to say they were required to turn the fire arm over to a museum or the police, or destroy it.
azazel the cat wrote: It doesn't say it wasn't required to be registered; it merely states that it was not registered. Those are very different things. I will have to cross-reference the letter against the two acts; but if you insist then I can do that later on this evening. Because I'm pretty sure that any registered firearm whose status was "upgraded" stays grandfathered so long as its possessor maintains their license and registration.
However, citing a source is not enough to shield you from being called a liar; you have to correctly cite a source. That is, you cannot cite a source that states X, and then claim Y (which is EXACTLY what you have been doing re: your 95% comment)
What i'm reading says registrations were revoked, which would imply that they were registered. Then it goes on to say they were required to turn the fire arm over to a museum or the police, or destroy it.
It also lists it as being incorrectly registered, too. So that's either due to the classification changing and not re-registering it (likely) or else because it was fraudulently registered incorrectly to begin with (less likely, but possible)
The point, however, is that the firearm was illegal to be possessed by the owner, and was confiscated as a result. Registration has no effect on that situation, other than perhaps the registry allowed the authorities to more easily track down the illegal firearm.
azazel the cat wrote: It doesn't say it wasn't required to be registered; it merely states that it was not registered. Those are very different things. I will have to cross-reference the letter against the two acts; but if you insist then I can do that later on this evening. Because I'm pretty sure that any registered firearm whose status was "upgraded" stays grandfathered so long as its possessor maintains their license and registration.
However, citing a source is not enough to shield you from being called a liar; you have to correctly cite a source. That is, you cannot cite a source that states X, and then claim Y (which is EXACTLY what you have been doing re: your 95% comment)
thats not true, you are either deliberately reading wrong, or purposely putting words in my mouth.... how about giving the "your a liar" argument a rest? follow the forum tenants at least and be RESPECTFUL please
http://www.lfpress.com/news/canada/2012/01/05/19207001.html
OTTAWA -- The federal government is cracking down on a small game rifle, saying it was inappropriately classified as a non-restricted weapon. (the government said it was NON restricted prior)
But one firearms activist argues it's an end run by federal bureaucrats related to a long-running court battle.
Owners of the Armi Jager AP80 .22-calibre rifle received a letter from the RCMP in December saying the registration certificates for the firearm would be revoked and they had a month to dispose of their weapons - with no compensation.
As of Dec. 20, the once legally owned gun would be classified as prohibited. (oh look, the government changed its mind, now it is prohibited)
According to the letter, the decision was made because the AP80 is cosmetically similar to the AK-47 rifle.
I guess if citing a source to back up my claim (despite you playing semantics lawyer, reasonable people know that gun murder is a part of gun crime, and dont expect an unpaid forum poster to edit things to lawyer like perfection)
you also don't know what grandfathering is, it has not been done since the 12.x license (prohib) was introduced ages ago,
here is what my friend has to say about his jager being confiscated
I also received the early Christmas gift from the RCMP stating they had revolked my registration certificate for my Armi Jager AP 80 . I have owned this rifle since March 1985, and it was registered with the CFC since February 2003. I have a
12(5) Licence and own a prohibited handgun however, I have to surrender this rifle.
For me this wasn’t just a show piece, both my son and I belong to a local gun club and would shoot this rifle every couple of months. I have been a Police Officer for 24 years and have owned this rifle for 27 years. I have never heard of this model of rifle being used in any type of crime. It is offensive after owning the rifle for so many years without incident that the RCMP would force me to surrender this rifle without compensation. As a lawful gun owner and Police officer, I do not support this revocation of my permit to own the AP80 and I have lost all confidence in the long gun registry.
azazel the cat wrote: It doesn't say it wasn't required to be registered; it merely states that it was not registered. Those are very different things. I will have to cross-reference the letter against the two acts; but if you insist then I can do that later on this evening. Because I'm pretty sure that any registered firearm whose status was "upgraded" stays grandfathered so long as its possessor maintains their license and registration.
However, citing a source is not enough to shield you from being called a liar; you have to correctly cite a source. That is, you cannot cite a source that states X, and then claim Y (which is EXACTLY what you have been doing re: your 95% comment)
What i'm reading says registrations were revoked, which would imply that they were registered. Then it goes on to say they were required to turn the fire arm over to a museum or the police, or destroy it.
It also lists it as being incorrectly registered, too. So that's either due to the classification changing and not re-registering it (likely) or else because it was fraudulently registered incorrectly to begin with (less likely, but possible)
The point, however, is that the firearm was illegal to be possessed by the owner, and was confiscated as a result. Registration has no effect on that situation, other than perhaps the registry allowed the authorities to more easily track down the illegal firearm.
absolutely false, the GOVERNMENT "wrongly" classified the weapon as non res, not the owner. the government made possesion illegal, of a once legal firearm, you need to do real research instead of talking about something you know very little about.
What part about " the once legally owned gun would be classified as prohibited" leads you to call it the "never legally owned gun?"
why are you saying that everyday canadian citizens determine the classification of a gun? It is obviously the government who flip flopped and said a previously legal gun is now illegal.
the requirements for making something prohibited all relate to the weapon either being very small, or full auto, the jager is neither. It is now prohibited because it was recently added to the list of "named variants" of the ak-47 because it LOOKS like and ak-47 despite having no similar working parts, and being the same gun (functionally) as every other semi auto .22LR
CptJake wrote: Still waiting on the multitude of examples of guns bought legally without background checks which have then been used by their owners for violent crime....
Surely it must be a huge problem, right?
Otherwise, why would you be for expanding government to solve it?
Well known problem at our gun shows. Undercover cops often witness known gang members purchasing firearms without background checks from private sellers. Perfectly legal sell, no laws violated by the seller. And if the undercover cops would not have witnessed the sale and arrested the buyer outside the show nobody would have known and the gang-bangers would have their hands on legally purchased weapons again.
But you already know that and are just making noise.
azazel the cat wrote: It doesn't say it wasn't required to be registered; it merely states that it was not registered. Those are very different things. I will have to cross-reference the letter against the two acts; but if you insist then I can do that later on this evening. Because I'm pretty sure that any registered firearm whose status was "upgraded" stays grandfathered so long as its possessor maintains their license and registration.
However, citing a source is not enough to shield you from being called a liar; you have to correctly cite a source. That is, you cannot cite a source that states X, and then claim Y (which is EXACTLY what you have been doing re: your 95% comment)
thats not true, you are either deliberately reading wrong, or purposely putting words in my mouth
No, I actually quoted you. If you want to quote statistics, then you'd best get them right. I have zero patience for people who try to distort them to suit their goals. You claimed that the long gun registry proved that 95% of all gun crime was the result of weapons obtained from outside-the-system, and then cited a source that said only 2% of registered long guns were used in the 2400+ homicides in Canada. However; the source you cited does not provide the information required for you to make your 95% claim, as you are referring to ALL firearms-related crimes, not just homicides, which is what those stats only refers to. Additionally, those 2% of registered long guns does not include handguns.
So I would say that your use of that source is disingenuous at best, however I chose to give you the credit of competent analysis and instead attribute your error to malice. If I was wrong, then I apologize for calling you a liar and you can now consider yourself corrected on the matter.
That being said, I will apologize to you on the issue of the AK knockoff. I was not aware that it had been singled outspecifically by name as an exception to the firearms act; and I agree with you that the reasoning is stupid considering it's a semi-auto rimfire, so it would appear you most definitely have me on that one, for all to see.
...however, that doesn't change the fact that an update to the firearms act does not make the registry responsible for the confiscation of the firearm. It would merely make it much harder to hide it.
thank you, I appreciate that we can at least disagree on friendly terms
however, that doesn't change the fact that an update to the firearms act does not make the registry responsible for the confiscation of the firearm.
Oh, no argument there, the registry did not "cause" the confiscation,
but there would be no confiscation without the registry.
To be fair, I made a broad general statement (95% of gun crime is not attributed to legal sources)
and supported it with a specific fact (98% of murders dont involve legal guns), because they dont have the % of gun crime attributed fact laid out for me to quote.
But I really should be using multiple specific facts to back up general statements, ergo
There are nearly 7 million registered long-guns in Canada. Yet of 2,441 homicides recorded in Canada since mandatory long-gun registration was introduced in 2003, fewer than 2 percent (47) were committed with rifles and shotguns known to have been registered. (Canadian Centre for Justice Statistics).
so out of 7 million registered long guns guns, 47 (would be less, the 47 # above is both handguns(different registry), and long guns) were proven to have come to illegal purpose, through legal means. 47 out of 7,000,000 is not even on the chart % wize, even without factoring in all the registered restricted weapons that technically should be making that # lower.
Illegal smuggling by organized crime is by far the principal source of firearms on our streets. Indeed, the Vancouver police report that 97 percent of firearms seized in 2003 were illegal guns smuggled in from the United States, usually by organized crime (Vancouver Police, Strategic Plan 2004-08).
hence why spending billions on the registry is a waste (forgetting about how it affects me and my shooting buddies personally, and legally) because we could have had billions worth of actual police, who actually save lives and prevent crime, as well as investigation ect.
In 1995, the previous government told Parliament that the firearms program, most specifically the long-gun registry, would involve a net cost of just $2 million (Auditor General's Report 2002, Chapter 10).
In May 2000, the previous government admitted that the costs had actually ballooned to at least $327 million (Auditor General's Report 2002, Chapter 10).
By March 2005 the net cost of the firearms program was $946 million and by summer of 2006, costs had exceeded $1 billion. The Auditor General stated that Parliament was misinformed about many of these costs. (Auditor General's Report 2006, Chapter 4).
The long-term trend in firearm-related homicides shows that the rate steadily declined from the 1970s to 1998 and has remained relatively stable since (Table 2). The peak of 1.3 in 1975 was more than double the rate in 2006.
I'm glad you can concede that point, because that's what our discussion originated with: I was trying to point out that, like it or not, the registry was never responsible for taking guns away; it just made law enforcement's job much easier and made it much harder to break the law (such as keeping a prohibited illegal weapon, nevermind the questionable circumstances of such)
I won't argue with you on the fact that the long gun registry was a colossal endeavour into the Liberal government's incompetence. A 2 million proposal ballooning into 300+ million was just unfathomable. But honestly, I think the part that really drives me crazy was scrapping it, when the vast majority of that cost was an overhead fixed cost, and not an ongoing one. Nor will I argue that nobody ever knocks over a 7-11 with a hunting rifle. However, I do think that having the registry was a good idea on its face; for the reasons I listed much earlier:
1. It makes it easy for police to trace provenance.
2. It informs police of the potential of a firearm coming into play during response calls.
While #2 is a nice perk for the police, it's #1 that concerns me the most, as I insist on accountability of all firearms, and #1 is the best way to ensure that.
CptJake wrote: Still waiting on the multitude of examples of guns bought legally without background checks which have then been used by their owners for violent crime....
Surely it must be a huge problem, right?
Otherwise, why would you be for expanding government to solve it?
Well known problem at our gun shows. Undercover cops often witness known gang members purchasing firearms without background checks from private sellers. Perfectly legal sell, no laws violated by the seller. And if the undercover cops would not have witnessed the sale and arrested the buyer outside the show nobody would have known and the gang-bangers would have their hands on legally purchased weapons again.
But you already know that and are just making noise.
Good news! Selling guns to people who shouldn't have guns is ALREADY a felony! So... good game everyone let's call it a night.
CptJake wrote: Still waiting on the multitude of examples of guns bought legally without background checks which have then been used by their owners for violent crime....
Surely it must be a huge problem, right?
Otherwise, why would you be for expanding government to solve it?
Well known problem at our gun shows. Undercover cops often witness known gang members purchasing firearms without background checks from private sellers. Perfectly legal sell, no laws violated by the seller. And if the undercover cops would not have witnessed the sale and arrested the buyer outside the show nobody would have known and the gang-bangers would have their hands on legally purchased weapons again.
But you already know that and are just making noise.
Good news! Selling guns to people who shouldn't have guns is ALREADY a felony! So... good game everyone let's call it a night.
And selling beer to people under 21 is also illegal. But instead of just pretending that people will tell us that they are under 21 we require that all people have to show ID. So pretending that people will tell a seller that they are a felon is pretty dang stupid and requiring background checks for private sellers at gun shows is a pretty basic idea that doesn't require the kind of psychic powers regarding felon buyers that you seem to possess.
Last week, senators blocked a compromise measure that would have compelled unlicensed sellers at gun shows and online gun sellers to conduct background checks, despite polls that showed that 90 percent of the public supported the idea.
I’m a libertarian who played a role in reducing handgun restrictions in the nation’s capital. In 2008, in a landmark case I helped initiate, Heller v. District of Columbia, the Supreme Court declared for the first time that the Second Amendment protected an individual’s right to bear arms.
But the stonewalling of the background check proposal was a mistake, both politically and substantively. Following a series of tragic mass shootings, public opinion is overwhelmingly in favor of reasonable legislation restricting the ownership of guns by people who shouldn’t have them. There was also plenty in the proposal that gun-rights proponents like me could embrace.
The compromise — carefully negotiated by two moderate gun-rights supporters, Senators Joe Manchin III, Democrat of West Virginia, and Patrick J. Toomey, Republican of Pennsylvania — should be reintroduced in the Senate. I am convinced that, with some modifications, it could still be passed, because it would add reasonable protections for both gun owners and sellers.
Gun-rights advocates should use this interval to refine their priorities and support this measure, with a few modest changes. If they don’t, they will be opening themselves to accusations from President Obama and others that they are merely obstructionists, zealots who will not agree to common-sense gun legislation.
The focus on background checks should not distract gun owners from the positive provisions in the Manchin-Toomey proposal.
It would allow Americans to buy handguns from out-of-state sellers, which is not allowed currently.
It would explicitly prohibit the creation of a national gun registry, and make it a felony, punishable by up to 15 years in prison, to misuse records from the national database used for background checks.
It would affirm that unloaded guns with a lock mechanism in place can be transported across state lines.
It would immunize private gun sellers from lawsuits if a gun they have sold is used unlawfully, unless the seller knows or should have known that the buyer provided false information or was otherwise ineligible to buy a gun. Extending background checks to unlicensed sellers shouldn’t be cause for alarm. Background checks are already required for purchases from federally licensed dealers, whether at stores or gun shows, over the Internet or by mail. Moreover, gun buyers would be exempt from background checks if they had a carry permit issued within the last five years.
To my mind, the Manchin-Toomey proposal needs additional improvements to satisfy the demands of certain gun rights advocates. These changes might have helped save the proposal, which was supported by 54 senators — six votes short of the supermajority needed to overcome a filibuster.
The proposal prohibits the attorney general (as head of the Justice Department) from creating a firearms registry, but this prohibition should be broadened to cover all government agencies.
The proposal should also exempt certain rural residents who live too far from a licensed gun dealer for a background check to be practicable.
Currently, dealers can charge up to $125 for background checks. If these fees are supposed to promote public safety, the taxpayers — and not just law-abiding gun owners — should foot some of the bill. And more F.B.I. staff members to manage the database would also help expedite the process.
In the current proposal, background checks at gun shows would be given priority over checks at gun stores. The government needs to hire enough staff members to promptly conduct checks at both places.
Current law denies gun permits to anyone who uses, or is addicted to, a controlled substance. The punishment for omitting this information on a background-check form is up to 10 years in federal prison — a penalty that is too harsh for someone who has merely smoked marijuana.
In the days since the defeat of the Manchin-Toomey proposal, advocates of gun restrictions have gone on the offensive. Gun-rights supporters should not stand in the way of reasonable reform. The Manchin-Toomey proposal, with the changes I’ve suggested, would offer substantial benefits while imposing tolerable restrictions, none of which intrude on our core Second Amendment liberties. Gun-rights advocates should get behind it and push for its passage.
Robert Levy is chairman of the board at the Cato Institute and author of The Dirty Dozen: How 12 Supreme Court Cases Radically Expanded Government and Eroded Freedom.
Pretty much a proposal that I could 100% get behind.
azazel the cat wrote: Now this I will not placate. You actually are sticking your fingers in your ears and saying "nanananana can't hear you". We're done here. Please inform me once you've prgressed past a concrete operation phase and we'll continue the discussion. The repitition is tiresome.
One law. That's it.
You can't do it. I knew that before I started asking. You don't know the laws to begin with, and you're buying into the nonsense gabble of anti-gun folks who also don't know the law. People whine about the NRA preventing the ATF from being able to inspect dealers more than once a year, but can never quite remember which law that prevents them from enforcing, or how it goes about preventing the enforcement of that unnamed law.
I'm never going to understand why you don't want to make sure you know what you're talking about before you wade into these things. I get why the sources you use don't - they've got an agenda to push, and they're not going to get any feedback from people who don't already rabidly agree with them - but why not you?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
d-usa wrote: Pretty much a proposal that I could 100% get behind.
Why on earth do you want background checks for internet sales? Are you under the impression they're not required by law currently?
Last week, senators blocked a compromise measure that would have compelled unlicensed sellers at gun shows and online gun sellers to conduct background checks, despite polls that showed that 90 percent of the public supported the idea.
I’m a libertarian who played a role in reducing handgun restrictions in the nation’s capital. In 2008, in a landmark case I helped initiate, Heller v. District of Columbia, the Supreme Court declared for the first time that the Second Amendment protected an individual’s right to bear arms.
But the stonewalling of the background check proposal was a mistake, both politically and substantively. Following a series of tragic mass shootings, public opinion is overwhelmingly in favor of reasonable legislation restricting the ownership of guns by people who shouldn’t have them. There was also plenty in the proposal that gun-rights proponents like me could embrace.
The compromise — carefully negotiated by two moderate gun-rights supporters, Senators Joe Manchin III, Democrat of West Virginia, and Patrick J. Toomey, Republican of Pennsylvania — should be reintroduced in the Senate. I am convinced that, with some modifications, it could still be passed, because it would add reasonable protections for both gun owners and sellers.
Gun-rights advocates should use this interval to refine their priorities and support this measure, with a few modest changes. If they don’t, they will be opening themselves to accusations from President Obama and others that they are merely obstructionists, zealots who will not agree to common-sense gun legislation.
The focus on background checks should not distract gun owners from the positive provisions in the Manchin-Toomey proposal.
It would allow Americans to buy handguns from out-of-state sellers, which is not allowed currently.
It would explicitly prohibit the creation of a national gun registry, and make it a felony, punishable by up to 15 years in prison, to misuse records from the national database used for background checks.
It would affirm that unloaded guns with a lock mechanism in place can be transported across state lines.
It would immunize private gun sellers from lawsuits if a gun they have sold is used unlawfully, unless the seller knows or should have known that the buyer provided false information or was otherwise ineligible to buy a gun. Extending background checks to unlicensed sellers shouldn’t be cause for alarm. Background checks are already required for purchases from federally licensed dealers, whether at stores or gun shows, over the Internet or by mail. Moreover, gun buyers would be exempt from background checks if they had a carry permit issued within the last five years.
To my mind, the Manchin-Toomey proposal needs additional improvements to satisfy the demands of certain gun rights advocates. These changes might have helped save the proposal, which was supported by 54 senators — six votes short of the supermajority needed to overcome a filibuster.
The proposal prohibits the attorney general (as head of the Justice Department) from creating a firearms registry, but this prohibition should be broadened to cover all government agencies.
The proposal should also exempt certain rural residents who live too far from a licensed gun dealer for a background check to be practicable.
Currently, dealers can charge up to $125 for background checks. If these fees are supposed to promote public safety, the taxpayers — and not just law-abiding gun owners — should foot some of the bill. And more F.B.I. staff members to manage the database would also help expedite the process.
In the current proposal, background checks at gun shows would be given priority over checks at gun stores. The government needs to hire enough staff members to promptly conduct checks at both places.
Current law denies gun permits to anyone who uses, or is addicted to, a controlled substance. The punishment for omitting this information on a background-check form is up to 10 years in federal prison — a penalty that is too harsh for someone who has merely smoked marijuana.
In the days since the defeat of the Manchin-Toomey proposal, advocates of gun restrictions have gone on the offensive. Gun-rights supporters should not stand in the way of reasonable reform. The Manchin-Toomey proposal, with the changes I’ve suggested, would offer substantial benefits while imposing tolerable restrictions, none of which intrude on our core Second Amendment liberties. Gun-rights advocates should get behind it and push for its passage.
Robert Levy is chairman of the board at the Cato Institute and author of The Dirty Dozen: How 12 Supreme Court Cases Radically Expanded Government and Eroded Freedom.
Pretty much a proposal that I could 100% get behind.
If it was that bill specifically, with no other changes... I'd be in favor of that.
*shrugs*
The problem is... it's an emotional issue... as a voting public, we're incapable of having an adult conversation right now (no different than ACA/Universal HealthCare).
The failure of an amendment to expand background checks on gun purchases — the signature piece of a legislative package backed by the White House to curb gun violence — ends a journey that began in late December when 20 children and six adults were murdered in Newtown, Connecticut.
Studying the path from Newtown to the vote on the amendment offered by Sens. Joe Manchin (D-W. Va.) and Pat Toomey (R-Pa.) that came up short of the 60 votes it needed is an instructive exercise in how Washington works.
We’ve spent a lot of time thinking about what the failure of the background checks compromise means.
* Newtown didn’t change things. For weeks after the massacre in Connecticut, there was a broad sense — among Democrats and Republicans — that something fundamental had changed when it came to the debate over the proper place for guns in society. Unlike Columbine, Virginia Tech and Aurora, the slaughter of 20 children meant that the government would have to act — the American public would demand it.
But then time passed. And, as Newtown receded as a top-of-the-mind issue so, too, did the predictions that what happened in Connecticut had changed the political math on guns. The White House’s proposed gun legislation was stripped of a renewal of the assault weapons ban and strictures on the sale of high-capacity magazines, an acknowledgement from Democrats that adding either measure to the overall package would doom it.
The belief was that expanded background checks was the one major pillar of the gun legislation that might be able to make it through the gauntlet of Republican opposition and wariness from Democrats up for re-election in conservative states in 2014. That belief proved to be wrong.
* The 2014 map mattered more than the national polls. Expect the White House to turn blame on Republicans in the wake of the failure of Manchin-Toomey. The truth, however, is that this amendment was doomed as much by an unwillingness of Democrats up for re-election in 2014 to get on board with it as by Republican opposition to it.
Democratic Sens. Max Baucus (Mont.), Mark Pryor (Ark.) and Mark Begich (Alaska) simply did not want to vote for this background check amendment and, by holding off their support, made the math absolutely unworkable once the likes of Republican Sens. Dean Heller (Nev.), Kelly Ayotte (N.H.) and Richard Burr (N.C.) came out against it.
And, why did they not want to vote for it? Because of the belief that doing so would hurt their chances of winning re-election next November in states that President Obama lost by significant margins and that contain large swaths of rural areas where gun rights are considered sacred.
If you are a gun control advocate looking to assign blame, Senate Democrats (or at least some of them) deserve as much of it — if not more — than their Republican colleagues.
* Passion is the sine qua non of politics. We — and everyone else — has been asking one question over and over again these past few weeks: How is something, like expanded background checks, that is supported by between 80 and 90 percent of the American public not a no-brainer for Congress to pass?
The answer is passion. That is, the number of people who prefer more gun control rather than less don’t — by and large — feel that way with a deep burning desire in their soul. Those who support gun rights and see any attempt to limit them as a slippery slope toward confiscation, on the other hand, feel incredibly passionate about the issue. The gun-rights supporters are a smaller but far more vocal and active group than those who want more restrictions on guns.
All of the above means that politicians believe — whether they are right or not is up for debate — that they face more negative consequences for voting against gun-rights legislation than voting against gun-control measures.
The fate of the overall gun package remains to be seen. And, there is a possibility — albeit a slim one — that the Senate could re-consider the Manchin-Toomey amendment at some point in the future.
But, it’s been clear for weeks that the White House and gun-control advocates had put all of their hopes on the expanded background checks provision. If that doesn’t make the final bill, the effort will be regarded as a failure by many who believed that new gun-control legislation’s time had come.
Pretty much a proposal that I could 100% get behind.
A lot of that does seem like decent stuff to me, especially with his proposed improvements. I continue to be somewhat confused about a couple things though: As far as I can tell, background checks are already required to purchase guns at gun shows, and background checks are required for internet sales, as you're not allowed to just ship a firearm to someone without an FFL. The firearm would have to be shipped to a licensed dealer, who would conduct the background check there. So what are they talking about when they're talking about instituting background checks at gun shows and from internet sales?
azazel the cat wrote: Now this I will not placate. You actually are sticking your fingers in your ears and saying "nanananana can't hear you". We're done here. Please inform me once you've prgressed past a concrete operation phase and we'll continue the discussion. The repitition is tiresome.
So what law can I name? Well, the Firearms Owners Protection Act is one. But generally speaking the erosion of enforcement power is not in a single law, because it would never pass. Instead, everything is surreptitiously inserted into multiple federal spending bills in the form of unrelated riders.
Pretty much a proposal that I could 100% get behind.
A lot of that does seem like decent stuff to me, especially with his proposed improvements. I continue to be somewhat confused about a couple things though: As far as I can tell, background checks are already required to purchase guns at gun shows, and background checks are required for internet sales, as you're not allowed to just ship a firearm to someone without an FFL. The firearm would have to be shipped to a licensed dealer, who would conduct the background check there. So what are they talking about when they're talking about instituting background checks at gun shows and from internet sales?
Licensed dealers must do the background checks at gun shows...
I believe in some states, non-gun dealers AT gun shows are NOT required to perform any background checks.
I have no clue on the internet sales... they won't ship to you directly unless you have a FFL... and some states are more restrictive. Maybe it's to standardize the process for all states? (that's how I read it)
Pretty much a proposal that I could 100% get behind.
A lot of that does seem like decent stuff to me, especially with his proposed improvements. I continue to be somewhat confused about a couple things though: As far as I can tell, background checks are already required to purchase guns at gun shows, and background checks are required for internet sales, as you're not allowed to just ship a firearm to someone without an FFL. The firearm would have to be shipped to a licensed dealer, who would conduct the background check there. So what are they talking about when they're talking about instituting background checks at gun shows and from internet sales?
On the gun show front:
Here is how it works (at least in Oklahoma from what I know): Gun shows are basically like big fancy flea markets. They have both dealers (local stores, traveling dealers, etc) and private people that pay for a booth. Dealers that sell at the gun show are treated just like regular dealers selling at their regular place of business. They conduct the same background checks that they would perform if somebody walked into their store. The private people renting a booth and selling guns are treated no differently than me coming over to your house to buy a gun. I give you cash, you give me the gun, no checks, we are both on our way.
Implementing gun-show background checks would be pretty easy and could follow the same system as any regular art show. Most art shows here have booths and if you want to buy a particular piece of art you get a ticket from the vendor. You take that ticket to the people running the show, they process your payment, give you an all clear that you take to the dealer to pick up your art. No reason why the same system wouldn't work for gun shows. Have the organizer run the background checks and take the "all clear" back to the dealer.
azazel the cat wrote: Now this I will not placate. You actually are sticking your fingers in your ears and saying "nanananana can't hear you". We're done here. Please inform me once you've prgressed past a concrete operation phase and we'll continue the discussion. The repitition is tiresome.
So what law can I name? Well, the Firearms Owners Protection Act is one. But generally speaking the erosion of enforcement power is not in a single law, because it would never pass. Instead, everything is surreptitiously inserted into multiple federal spending bills in the form of unrelated riders.
You misunderstand. I'm not asking for a single law demonstrating that the NRA has successfully managed to limit the ATF's - or anyone else's - powers (as there are lots of those, the NRA's quite a successful lobbying arm), I'm trying to figure out which laws you think the ATF is being prohibited from enforcing thanks to NRA intervention.
And I'm genuinely curious about this, because the initial claim that started us down this rabbit hole is that the NRA has prevented the government from enforcing federal firearms regulations already on the books. I see that claim thrown around a lot, and all I'd like is one specific example of a federal firearms statute that has become unenforceable due to NRA interference.
Think this is the number one site for internet sells. Info you seek as at the bottom...thats their policy....your state policy takes precedence over theirs. Which I do believe the weapon has to be shipped to a License Firearm Dealer/store. Think KM might know more about this. Last I heard...rumor mind you...you can have the weapon shipped to your residence if the weapon does not have the bolt.....bolt shipped on a different day and carrier.
This is part of the problem. Nobody else has any idea what they're talking about, either. As Hordini pointed out, internet sales already have background checks built into them due to the illegality of shipping a gun sold on the internet to anyone but a licensed FFL, who is prevented by law from handing it over until he's done a NICS check.
Pretty much a proposal that I could 100% get behind.
A lot of that does seem like decent stuff to me, especially with his proposed improvements. I continue to be somewhat confused about a couple things though: As far as I can tell, background checks are already required to purchase guns at gun shows, and background checks are required for internet sales, as you're not allowed to just ship a firearm to someone without an FFL. The firearm would have to be shipped to a licensed dealer, who would conduct the background check there. So what are they talking about when they're talking about instituting background checks at gun shows and from internet sales?
On the gun show front:
Here is how it works (at least in Oklahoma from what I know): Gun shows are basically like big fancy flea markets. They have both dealers (local stores, traveling dealers, etc) and private people that pay for a booth. Dealers that sell at the gun show are treated just like regular dealers selling at their regular place of business. They conduct the same background checks that they would perform if somebody walked into their store. The private people renting a booth and selling guns are treated no differently than me coming over to your house to buy a gun. I give you cash, you give me the gun, no checks, we are both on our way.
Implementing gun-show background checks would be pretty easy and could follow the same system as any regular art show. Most art shows here have booths and if you want to buy a particular piece of art you get a ticket from the vendor. You take that ticket to the people running the show, they process your payment, give you an all clear that you take to the dealer to pick up your art. No reason why the same system wouldn't work for gun shows. Have the organizer run the background checks and take the "all clear" back to the dealer.
Internet sales: No idea.
Yup... that's how it is in MO.
The problem is that this "Gunshow Loophole" isn't adequately explained. What folks hear is this: "We're going to make it harder for you get buy/trade guns at the trade shows", when it should really be said " let's advocate that the GUN SHOW operators perform the same background checks". I think in some states, you can do that when you buy your admission ticket... or, just like you said in your art show (wall ball?) thing, when the art (weapon) is purchased, take it to a processing area where not only they process your transactions (cash or credit), but perform that check.
azazel the cat wrote: Now this I will not placate. You actually are sticking your fingers in your ears and saying "nanananana can't hear you". We're done here. Please inform me once you've prgressed past a concrete operation phase and we'll continue the discussion. The repitition is tiresome.
So what law can I name? Well, the Firearms Owners Protection Act is one. But generally speaking the erosion of enforcement power is not in a single law, because it would never pass. Instead, everything is surreptitiously inserted into multiple federal spending bills in the form of unrelated riders.
You misunderstand. I'm not asking for a single law demonstrating that the NRA has successfully managed to limit the ATF's - or anyone else's - powers (as there are lots of those, the NRA's quite a successful lobbying arm), I'm trying to figure out which laws you think the ATF is being prohibited from enforcing thanks to NRA intervention.
And I'm genuinely curious about this, because the initial claim that started us down this rabbit hole is that the NRA has prevented the government from enforcing federal firearms regulations already on the books. I see that claim thrown around a lot, and all I'd like is one specific example of a federal firearms statute that has become unenforceable due to NRA interference.
Right, and remember when I used my apt analogy of saying that you can still get to work by rolling blind after you lose your arms, legs and eyes?
There are no laws (to my knowledge) that have been made unenforcable in theory. However, in practice almost all of them have been made as such. So in effect, unless the BATFE is able to go after dealers found to be violating the existing laws and prosecute them to the fullest without restrictions not afforded to any other indicted individual, nothing will change and the existing laws will not be enforceable. Now, that doesn't mean that any new ones will, either. In effect, what is really needed (other than eliminating the private-sale straw purchase loophole) is to remove the multiple riders attached to budgets over the years so that the BATFE actually gets its power back and gets to be a real law enforcement agency again.
azazel the cat wrote: Right, and remember when I used my apt analogy of saying that you can still get to work by rolling blind after you lose your arms, legs and eyes?
Yes, but I don't think it's an apt analogy. Most of the "NRA restrictions" have been on reporting to entities not immediately connected to an ongoing investigation, such as academic institutions for the purposes of research, etc. They've actually worked to strengthen systems like NICS.
There are no laws (to my knowledge) that have been made unenforcable in theory. However, in practice almost all of them have been made as such.
That's...a really bold claim. I doubt you'd be able to find any evidence that practically all federal firearms statues have become unenforceable. I doubt you even mean it, as you seem to be focusing on a very narrow selection of firearm statues related to dealers.
So in effect, unless the BATFE is able to go after dealers found to be violating the existing laws and prosecute them to the fullest without restrictions not afforded to any other indicted individual, nothing will change and the existing laws will not be enforceable. Now, that doesn't mean that any new ones will, either. In effect, what is really needed (other than eliminating the private-sale straw purchase loophole) is to remove the multiple riders attached to budgets over the years so that the BATFE actually gets its power back and gets to be a real law enforcement agency again.
Here's where we run into problems, because none of that is true. The ATF still has all the powers necessary to investigate dealers - the gun-walking scandal showed us that much. They're not overly interested in doing so, is the issue. Nor criminal buyers, for that matter. It isn't NRA roadblocks that keep us from prosecuting people who willfully lie on a NICS check form, it's, in Biden's words, the lack of time. Bigger fish to fry.
azazel the cat wrote: Right, and remember when I used my apt analogy of saying that you can still get to work by rolling blind after you lose your arms, legs and eyes?
Yes, but I don't think it's an apt analogy. Most of the "NRA restrictions" have been on reporting to entities not immediately connected to an ongoing investigation, such as academic institutions for the purposes of research, etc. They've actually worked to strengthen systems like NICS.
There are no laws (to my knowledge) that have been made unenforcable in theory. However, in practice almost all of them have been made as such.
That's...a really bold claim. I doubt you'd be able to find any evidence that practically all federal firearms statues have become unenforceable. I doubt you even mean it, as you seem to be focusing on a very narrow selection of firearm statues related to dealers.
You're likely correct here; I am being somewhat hyperbolic. Notwithstanding, the shortage of funding in the ATF, combined with the low number of agents, and the increased protections gun dealers have been given, in practice makes for a business that is almost immune to prosection. While anecdotal, there are instances of dealers with hundreds of violations who were able to operate uninfringed year after year due to the difficulty in obtaining court-admissible records of their infringements.
Off the top of my head, I recall reading a report once (a stellar citation, I know) that something like 4% of dealers were responsible for more than half of illegal firearm sales. Now, I don't know if that was meant to apply to directly illegal sales (such as to felons) or to potentially illegal sales (such as otherwise legal sales but for the purpose of inter-state trafficking). But as an extremely general principle, that sounds about right: in most criminology surveys, a small percentage makes up for the bulk of the problems.
azazel the cat wrote: You're likely correct here; I am being somewhat hyperbolic. Notwithstanding, the shortage of funding in the ATF, combined with the low number of agents, and the increased protections gun dealers have been given, in practice makes for a business that is almost immune to prosection. While anecdotal, there are instances of dealers with hundreds of violations who were able to operate uninfringed year after year due to the difficulty in obtaining court-admissible records of their infringements.
Off the top of my head, I recall reading a report once (a stellar citation, I know) that something like 4% of dealers were responsible for more than half of illegal firearm sales. Now, I don't know if that was meant to apply to directly illegal sales (such as to felons) or to potentially illegal sales (such as otherwise legal sales but for the purpose of inter-state trafficking). But as an extremely general principle, that sounds about right: in most criminology surveys, a small percentage makes up for the bulk of the problems.
That I actually have no trouble believing. Most gun dealers are strongly anti-crime, so it doesn't surprise me that it's a small subset responsible for deciding to urinate in their own pond, for lack of a better expression.
The ATF's underfunded and understaffed, but it should be. It's a clownshoes agency that should be rolled back into the FBI, which is much better equipped to handle its mandate. It's DHS levels of redundant, unnecessary bureaucracy.
Seaward wrote:The ATF's ... should be rolled back into the FBI, which is much better equipped to handle its mandate. It's DHS levels of redundant, unnecessary bureaucracy.
Now this I can agree with. But it won't happen, because the NRA lobby needs the ATF to be there, powerless but visible. (this will start a big tirade that'll venture wildly off-topic though)
Pretty much a proposal that I could 100% get behind.
A lot of that does seem like decent stuff to me, especially with his proposed improvements. I continue to be somewhat confused about a couple things though: As far as I can tell, background checks are already required to purchase guns at gun shows, and background checks are required for internet sales, as you're not allowed to just ship a firearm to someone without an FFL. The firearm would have to be shipped to a licensed dealer, who would conduct the background check there. So what are they talking about when they're talking about instituting background checks at gun shows and from internet sales?
On the gun show front:
Here is how it works (at least in Oklahoma from what I know): Gun shows are basically like big fancy flea markets. They have both dealers (local stores, traveling dealers, etc) and private people that pay for a booth. Dealers that sell at the gun show are treated just like regular dealers selling at their regular place of business. They conduct the same background checks that they would perform if somebody walked into their store. The private people renting a booth and selling guns are treated no differently than me coming over to your house to buy a gun. I give you cash, you give me the gun, no checks, we are both on our way.
Implementing gun-show background checks would be pretty easy and could follow the same system as any regular art show. Most art shows here have booths and if you want to buy a particular piece of art you get a ticket from the vendor. You take that ticket to the people running the show, they process your payment, give you an all clear that you take to the dealer to pick up your art. No reason why the same system wouldn't work for gun shows. Have the organizer run the background checks and take the "all clear" back to the dealer.
Internet sales: No idea.
Yup... that's how it is in MO.
The problem is that this "Gunshow Loophole" isn't adequately explained. What folks hear is this: "We're going to make it harder for you get buy/trade guns at the trade shows", when it should really be said " let's advocate that the GUN SHOW operators perform the same background checks". I think in some states, you can do that when you buy your admission ticket... or, just like you said in your art show (wall ball?) thing, when the art (weapon) is purchased, take it to a processing area where not only they process your transactions (cash or credit), but perform that check.
Just an idea here, but why let a criminal or generally a person who shouldnt own firearms get that far??? Why not make it so that you get the NICS right at the door, on the way in... This way, no one who shouldn't have a gun will even get in the door (minus the tiny minority who won't come up in the system because they haven't done anything yet)
Gun shows don't just sell guns though. If your going to stop a guy at the door there, then you should do it at Cabela's, or Gander Mountain, or other places that sell guns.
There is no reason felons shouldn't be allowed into gunshows. We just don't want them buying guns, so do the check while doing the purchase.
djones520 wrote: Gun shows don't just sell guns though. If your going to stop a guy at the door there, then you should do it at Cabela's, or Gander Mountain, or other places that sell guns.
There is no reason felons shouldn't be allowed into gunshows. We just don't want them buying guns, so do the check while doing the purchase.
It was pointed out in this thread, or another of the recent gun threads that the standard dealers at Shows do actually do the checks at their table, but by having them at the door you'd enable the private folks the "security" of knowing that they aren't selling to those who shouldnt own firearms.
On top of that, most places that I know have statutes that say that a person who is released from prison after being their for crimes that would prohibit their ownership of firearms, that they are not allowed within a certain radius of any firearms.... Which often means that they can no longer even step foot into Cabela's legally... again, enforcement of these laws is probably fairly loose, as places like that obviously have a crapload more things in there than just their firearms.
djones520 wrote: Gun shows don't just sell guns though. If your going to stop a guy at the door there, then you should do it at Cabela's, or Gander Mountain, or other places that sell guns.
There is no reason felons shouldn't be allowed into gunshows. We just don't want them buying guns, so do the check while doing the purchase.
I actually have no problem with some felons buying guns.
You went to jail for tax fraud? I don't care if you get a gun when you get out.
I know, it's almost like the major cities have higher rates of gun violence, and Democratic voters typically come from major cities, as opposed to rural areas.
No, Whembly, it is not interesting. You are very clearly trying to imply something ridiculous without overtly saying it, and should feel bad for trying to pass off bs like that.
So either stop the offensive implications right now, or else I'm going to start posting some graphics about a possible correlation between voting history and rates of hate crimes. After all, "Correlation doesn't necessarily equate causation... but, it's interesting. "
Crap like you just posted has absolutely zero value in contributing anything to this thread other than flamebait.
He's not implying anything. he's stating it. The red states don't like gun control because: 1) they are bigger-thus less police coverage; and 2) they have less crime.
I know, it's almost like the major cities have higher rates of gun violence, and Democratic voters typically come from major cities, as opposed to rural areas.
No, Whembly, it is not interesting.
You are very clearly trying to imply something ridiculous without overtly saying it, and should feel bad for trying to pass off bs like that.
Re-read what I said goofball.
Higher gun violence = politicians are likely in favor of more controls.
Lower gun violence = politicians are less likely.
You do know that in Red States there are some Democrats...right?
Evidently this thought has not occurred. In hid defense with Bloomberg now targeting democrats who don't get with the program it may be a reality presently.
Then the split occurs. Texas swallows up all the red states, liberates Canada, Mexico, Cuba, and Central America and renames itself The Lone Star Empire.
Frazzled wrote: Evidently this thought has not occurred. In hid defense with Bloomberg now targeting democrats who don't get with the program it may be a reality presently.
Then the split occurs. Texas swallows up all the red states, liberates Canada, Mexico, Cuba, and Central America and renames itself The Lone Star Empire.
I have a question after reading through the thread. Why are people opposed to registration for firearms? I ask this out of genuine curiosity, as I honestly don't see why it would be a problem.
grrrfranky wrote: I have a question after reading through the thread. Why are people opposed to registration for firearms? I ask this out of genuine curiosity, as I honestly don't see why it would be a problem.
It's been covered pretty extensively in one of the gun threads rattling around in here the last couple of days. I can't remember which one.
d-usa wrote: But lets put everybody who ever had any kind of mental illness on a list....
Whose arguing for that?
The NRA?
People in this thread?
Folks in congress?
People on FoxNews?
Links please?
There is arguments that finding ways to provide better mental health capabilities would lower things like mass shootings. But I've never seen an argument that we need to keep track of EVERYONE who has mental health issues. Considering that is most of the countries population it seems, that would be an extensive list.
But lets put everybody who ever had any kind of mental illness on a list....
Some of us out there don't like that idea any better than registration of all firearms and owners.
Why are people opposed to registration for firearms?
Why wouldn't we be? Would YOU want the united states government knowing what you owned (From beans to books to spare tires) if you had any say in the matter?
Some of us also paid attention during Katrina, and I've been lucky enough to enjoy a lot of natures "upheavals" in my life. You do the math from there on why I might not want my local PD having a grocery list.
djones520 wrote:There is arguments that finding ways to provide better mental health capabilities would lower things like mass shootings. But I've never seen an argument that we need to keep track of EVERYONE who has mental health issues. Considering that is most of the countries population it seems, that would be an extensive list.
I don't recall if it was this thread or the other one, but I believe it was Grey Templar who specifically suggested that in order to prevent everyone from needing a background check to screen out mental illness, there should instead be a national mental illness registry of people, who can then be precluded from obtaining firearms.
He even suggested doing so because a regular gun registry was something Hitler did.
I still don't see why it's such a problem the goverment knowing what guns you own. You have to register cars for example (in this country at least, it may be different in the states?) but I've never seen anyone argue that that's a bad idea.
grrrfranky wrote: I still don't see why it's such a problem the goverment knowing what guns you own. You have to register cars for example (in this country at least, it may be different in the states?) but I've never seen anyone argue that that's a bad idea.
It's been pointed out repeatedly that if the government knows where the guns are, they know whose door to knock on when they wish to confiscate them.... We already had an issue with a tyrannical state running us, didn't like it and so we used guns to remove that state, and impose our own government. Also, it is much better in many of our eyes to defend ourselves, rather than hope the police can show up in a timely manner, should something terrible happen, as the police only react after a crime has occurred, they do not really prevent them.
exactly. I think that it's also somewhat important to consider that in many areas of the US, some of our counties and states are larger than most European countries, population density is also much less, and so emergency services tend to have much greater response times simply due to distance (never mind the fact that our Government Officials seem to love cutting the funding to emergency services that allow us to have adequate numbers in the police, fire, and medical fields)
grrrfranky wrote: I still don't see why it's such a problem the goverment knowing what guns you own. You have to register cars for example (in this country at least, it may be different in the states?) but I've never seen anyone argue that that's a bad idea.
Haven't you ever seen Red Dawn? It'll let the Russians know who has the weapons!
As I understand it people are afraid that when the new world order comes, they will go house to house taking your guns away. Considering the amount of guns in the US and the "Don't tread on me" attitude of most serious gun owners, I find this argument rather hard to swallow. There is no way they come and collect weapons, and if they did there are enough guns to resist that move.
I don't think registration is such a bad idea, hell I think every 2 years or so you should have to show that you still have the weapon. This could help stop the illegal trade of weapons.
I'm not really a gun guy, I've gone shooting and enjoyed it. I think people should be able to have guns....any guns they want really, as long as they pass a background check and take a class. I also think the punishment for carrying an unregistered gun or carrying a gun without at CC license should be pretty severe.
grrrfranky wrote: I still don't see why it's such a problem the goverment knowing what guns you own. You have to register cars for example (in this country at least, it may be different in the states?) but I've never seen anyone argue that that's a bad idea.
Haven't you ever seen Red Dawn? It'll let the Russians know who has the weapons!
As I understand it people are afraid that when the new world order comes, they will go house to house taking your guns away. Considering the amount of guns in the US and the "Don't tread on me" attitude of most serious gun owners, I find this argument rather hard to swallow. There is no way they come and collect weapons, and if they did there are enough guns to resist that move.
I don't think registration is such a bad idea, hell I think every 2 years or so you should have to show that you still have the weapon. This could help stop the illegal trade of weapons.
I'm not really a gun guy, I've gone shooting and enjoyed it. I think people should be able to have guns....any guns they want really, as long as they pass a background check and take a class. I also think the punishment for carrying an unregistered gun or carrying a gun without at CC license should be pretty severe.
Considering NY is threatening to do that right now, and Washington (or Oregon I forget) nearly passed just such a measure its not an empty threat.
Considering NY is threatening to do that right now, and Washington (or Oregon I forget) nearly passed just such a measure its not an empty threat.
Considering what, I made a lot of points. If you mean going house to house and collecting weapons. GOOD LUCK with that.
Confiscation of civilian firearms
Controversy arose over a September 8 city-wide order by New Orleans Police Superintendent Eddie Compass to local police, U.S. Army National Guard soldiers, and Deputy U.S. Marshals to confiscate all civilian-held firearms. "No one will be able to be armed," Compass said. "Guns will be taken. Only law enforcement will be allowed to have guns." Seizures were carried out without warrant, and in some cases with excessive force; one instance captured on film involved 58 year old New Orleans resident Patricia Konie. Konie stayed behind, in her well provisioned home, and had an old revolver for protection. A group of police entered the house, and when she refused to surrender her revolver, she was tackled and it was removed by force. Konie's shoulder was fractured, and she was taken into police custody for failing to surrender her firearm.[79][80]
Angered citizens, backed by the National Rifle Association and other organizations, filed protests over the constitutionality of such an order and the difficulty in tracking seizures, as paperwork was rarely filed during the searches. Wayne LaPierre, CEO of the National Rifle Association, defended the right of affected citizens to retain firearms, saying that, "What we’ve seen in Louisiana - the breakdown of law and order in the aftermath of disaster - is exactly the kind of situation where the Second Amendment was intended to allow citizens to protect themselves." The searches received little news coverage, though reaction from groups such as the NRA, the Second Amendment Foundation, and Gun Owners of America was immediate and heated, and a lawsuit was filed September 22 by the NRA and SAF on behalf of two firearm owners whose firearms were seized. On September 23, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana issued a restraining order to bar further firearms confiscations.[79]
After refusing to admit that it had any seized firearms, the city revealed in mid-March that it did have a cache of some 1000 firearms seized after the hurricane; this disclosure came after the NRA filed a motion in court to hold the city in contempt for failure to comply with the U.S. District Court's earlier order to return all seized firearms. On April 14, 2006, it was announced that the city will begin to return seized firearms, however as of early 2008, many firearms were still in police possession, and the matter was still in court.[79] The matter was finally settled in favor of the NRA in October 2008. Per the agreement, the city was required to relax the strict proof of ownership requirements previously used, and was to release firearms to their owners with an affidavit claiming ownership and a background check to verify that the owner is legally able to possess a firearm.[81]
Louisiana legislator Steve Scalise introduced Louisiana House Bill 760, which would prohibit confiscation of firearms in a state of emergency, unless the seizure is pursuant to the investigation of a crime, or if the seizure is necessary to prevent immediate harm to the officer or another individual. On June 8, 2006, HB 760 was signed into law.[82] 21 other states joined Louisiana in enacting similar laws. A federal law prohibiting seizure of lawfully held firearms during an emergency, the Disaster Recovery Personal Protection Act of 2006, passed in the House with a vote of 322 to 99, and in the Senate by 84-16. The bill was signed into law by President Bush on October 9, 2006.[83]
Additionally there has been much scuttlebutt in the last two years about the ATF coming to people's houses and asking to see if they still own a rifle. This is typically along the border and typically people with hispanic sounding names and EVILLLZ assault rifles. They are looking for straw buyers (I guess). It has been verified that for a period of time, if you bought two or more EVILZZ GUNZ in a day or two in South Texas you had a good chance of ATF showing up, asking to see them. The NRA threatened to sue over it IIRC.
Considering NY is threatening to do that right now, and Washington (or Oregon I forget) nearly passed just such a measure its not an empty threat.
Considering what, I made a lot of points. If you mean going house to house and collecting weapons. GOOD LUCK with that.
Why not good luck with that? As the antigunners say - "you don't think all those people are going to put up a fight against the US government do you?"
Yeah, I would love to see that. There is no way they could ever take the weapons by force. They could try it really quick like they did in New Orleans, but its never going to happen in mass.
I don't really have a problem with the ATF stopping by and asking to see guns, bad gun owners give good gun owners a bad name. However the ATF needs to clean up their yard first, before they come into mine, didn't that busted sting make them one of the largest suppliers of illegal arms in the US? I'd probably use the pop in as an opportunity to point that out, while showing them my legal weapons. "They are all legal, never bought a single on from you folks!"
Breotan wrote: Gun control efforts in Washington State failed. No idea what Oregon is doing.
AFAIK the Oregon Sherriff's are more successfully doing the Colorado thing than the Colorado Sherriffs are doing (ie. publicly stating they will not enforce any law that further prohibits the 2nd Amendment), and thus far, to my knowledge no moves have been made because I believe that the governor himself is an avid hunter/fisherman/outdoorsy type, so he'd most likely not sign much into law.
I'm curious now. Why do Americans have such MASSIVE trust issues with their own Governments? (apart from the fact that almost everyone outside of America thinks your politicians are absolutely bonkers anyway)
Soladrin wrote: I'm curious now. Why do Americans have such MASSIVE trust issues with their own Governments? (apart from the fact that almost everyone outside of America thinks your politicians are absolutely bonkers anyway)
There are many out there who listen to, and believe their chosen political talking head (be it Rush, or Glenn Beck, or Olberman, or Anderson Cooper, etc.). It could also just be that so many of us are taught that if you work hard and earn your way, etc. etc. but then turn around and see the "hand outs" going to those who didn't earn them... Or many people were alive for things like Watergate, and more recently the Clinton scandal, etc.
Personally, I find that there are many, many reasons to NOT trust the government (and the same goes of every country), it also seems to be ingrained into the very constitution (anti-search and seizure amendment, anti-housing soldiers in private homes amendment, etc.)
Well, I do agree that probably most countries have trust issues with their governments. Hell I don't trust my government at all.
But distrust to the point of arming yourself just seems like... a VERY extreme case.
I really don't mean this in an offensive manner. (Which it will probably sound like anyway now that I've said that ) But I'm kind of suprised there aren't more politicians being killed by civilians over there.
Thanks for the answers. So as I understand it, the main concern is that if the government knows where all the guns are, at some unspecified point in the future they will knock on your front door and confiscate them? For the record, although I don't own a gun (on account of living in the UK), I have really enjoyed the few chances I've gotten to go shooting, and have no problem with private ownership of guns. I just can't put myself into the mindset where it's such a big deal for them to be registered.
Soladrin wrote: Well, I do agree that probably most countries have trust issues with their governments. Hell I don't trust my government at all.
But distrust to the point of arming yourself just seems like... a VERY extreme case.
I really don't mean this in an offensive manner. (Which it will probably sound like anyway now that I've said that ) But I'm kind of suprised there aren't more politicians being killed by civilians over there.
Eh... we're not arming ourselves solely because we fear our government.
Soladrin wrote: I'm curious now. Why do Americans have such MASSIVE trust issues with their own Governments? (apart from the fact that almost everyone outside of America thinks your politicians are absolutely bonkers anyway)
Power corrupts. The government serves the people, not the other way around. The distrust probably stems from a combination of those two ideas. Plus we've seen a lot of other governments become oppressive and don't think ours is so awesome that it could never happen to us if we gave it the chance.
Soladrin wrote: Well, I do agree that probably most countries have trust issues with their governments. Hell I don't trust my government at all.
But distrust to the point of arming yourself just seems like... a VERY extreme case.
I really don't mean this in an offensive manner. (Which it will probably sound like anyway now that I've said that ) But I'm kind of suprised there aren't more politicians being killed by civilians over there.
Eh... we're not arming ourselves solely because we fear our government.
We just like our gunz... 'cuz... 'Murrica!
Same reason most 'Muricans love cars that go 180 MPH, and are only capable of turning left, while most of you Euro types prefer cars that wouldn't in a million years be street legal, have more aerodynamic qualities than your entire Air Force, but are capable of turning left AND right as needed.
Soladrin wrote: Well, I do agree that probably most countries have trust issues with their governments. Hell I don't trust my government at all.
But distrust to the point of arming yourself just seems like... a VERY extreme case.
I really don't mean this in an offensive manner. (Which it will probably sound like anyway now that I've said that ) But I'm kind of suprised there aren't more politicians being killed by civilians over there.
Eh... we're not arming ourselves solely because we fear our government.
We just like our gunz... 'cuz... 'Murrica!
And this. Americans aren't armed just because they distrust the government. There is a pretty large variety of reasons to want to own a gun in America.
What I seem to be getting out of this is that American culture has a lot of fear ingrained into it for some reason. :\
Yeah, I realize the majority of gun owners are probably doing it primarily for recreational use, but there does seem to be a culture of needing to defend yourself from everything on your own.
It's kind sad to look at it from the outside really, I don't trust my government to handle economics and all that stuff properly most of the time. But I do damn well trust them to keep me safe.
grrrfranky wrote: Thanks for the answers. So as I understand it, the main concern is that if the government knows where all the guns are, at some unspecified point in the future they will knock on your front door and confiscate them? For the record, although I don't own a gun (on account of living in the UK), I have really enjoyed the few chances I've gotten to go shooting, and have no problem with private ownership of guns. I just can't put myself into the mindset where it's such a big deal for them to be registered.
Yup...
It's easy to see why American distrust their government with respect to gun registration...
In my state, the MO Department of Revenue released the list of Conceal Carry Permits to the DHS, which is in direct violation of our laws... in which our Governor claimed ignorance, which this letter contradicts his ignorance.
That's just one example...
Hell... our President, when asked, “Do you support state legislation to ban the manufacture, sale and possession of handguns?”... he said yes.
During the 2004 campaign, Obama said: “I continue to support a [federal] ban on concealed carry,” which gives people the impression that your intention is to prevent the states from setting reasonable guidlelines on who can defend themselves outside of their home.
And that's just Obama... there are plenty of other politician advocating these same things and more.
So, it's easy why we're skeptical about "gun registrations".
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Soladrin wrote: What I seem to be getting out of this is that American culture has a lot of fear ingrained into it for some reason. :\
Yeah, I realize the majority of gun owners are probably doing it primarily for recreational use, but there does seem to be a culture of needing to defend yourself from everything on your own.
It's kind sad to look at it from the outside really, I don't trust my government to handle economics and all that stuff properly most of the time. But I do damn well trust them to keep me safe.
Well... I don't trust them to keep me safe. Government/Society can only do so much (safety regulation, police, fire dept)... but, when seconds counts... I'd rather have that option to arm myself.
I was being a bit sarcastic, as I already knew the answer, but I was hoping agnosto would respond. I agree that the information is useful for our non-American posters and our American posters who aren't particularly gun-savvy. There seems to be this false idea going around in some circles that it's easy as pie to get a fully-automatic weapon in the US.
