Let's get serious about what it will take, for "meaningful steps" to actually BE, meaningful steps.
Otherwise, let's skip to the chase and admit: "It's all just window-dressing, and political payback to the NRA."
What has to go?
All magazine fed, self-loading firearms.
Yes, that means handguns too.
Yes, that includes your 4 shot Remington hunting rifle.
Yes, that includes rigid controls on police firearms.
Your 5 shot revolver can go home with you officer, your 17 shot handgun stays inside the armory of the police station. Armory, not your locker. Signed-in, signed-out, via proximity card reader, with real-time computer controls at the State and Federal levels.
Did you, officer, have a domestic violence incident at home? Shoot a fleeing person of color over a tail light violation? Get served divorce papers?
Huh, your proximity card no longer works... and that 17 round death machine stays IN the armory.
How-to, over the cheese doodle...
First, let's get the messy facts out of the way.
Federal Courts aren't going to sit on their hands while this happens.
Second, the Republicans won't sit on their hands either, so a deal must be struck.
Third, the Courts, require the DOJ in the form of the US Marshals, the FBI, (and now the whole umbrella of DHS) to enforce Federal Court Injunctions.
Act I Step 1:
The POTUS issues a EO, commanding the BATFE to "audit dealer records" - ie, look for "strawman sales" by reviewing each of the dealers Form 4473 records.
This is actually easier if the dealer has adopted the eForm 4473
For handwritten forms, an OCR scanner would be carried, the form scanned, and information corrected on a laptop prior to the next scan.
What can't be done? Is hold a news conference.
It can't be done by BATFE Agents alone, as this demands too many bodies in too many locations, at the very same time.
We as a nation, will have to let a few things slide, while various agencies supply personnel to work with BATFE Agents.
Yes, a same day, nationwide "I'm here to review your records". Close every single gun seller that day, days, or week(s) until the audit is complete. Sold a hundred guns in your entire existence? We'll be gone by 4pm today. Sell a hundred per day? You can re-open after the end of the year.
It'll put you out of business? Impact hunting season and holiday sales? (Which next to DiFi's failed AWB II is the most money you make in a year?) That's sad.
CLOSED... can read GONE OUT OF BUSINESS.
We score that as a win... you and your fellow death merchants can retrain as Baristas.
So, now we have ALL the records scanned... and a comprehensive list of who purchased what gun where. Those are sorted for make and model.
Shotguns.
Semi-auto shotguns.
Rifles.
Semi-auto rifles.
Rimfire rifles.
Semi-auto rimfire rifles.
Handguns.
Semi-auto handguns.
(save ALL of this data for later)
Step 2: permit the dealers to reopen - however, now the eForm 4473 is 100% required,
and in a slight tweak, batch processing is done once a week, where the forms are uploaded "to the cloud".
(as-if 'the cloud' isn't on those servers already)
Step 3: Prioritize you list.
Act II Step 1:
Strike a deal with the Republicans. For public consumption, word it as ambiguously as possible... as was the ACA (just pass it and we'll find out what's in it) and stuff it into the next Continuing Resolution.
On this 11th day of December, 2015 this 114th Congress does hereby resolve to instruct the Department of Justice to audit all Federally Licensed Firearm retailers for compliance with 18 USC as condition of their license, and direct all necessary resources to do same. The Director of the BATFE, the Attorney General of the United States, and the Director of Homeland Security may adopt policies and procedures necessary to effect this Congressional mandate.
About those Republicans:
First, they're really not that happy with massive civilian gun ownership, they just like the cash from the pro-gun crowd.
BREAKING NEWS!!
They like the cash from Wall Street, and Corporate America better.
Give Congress the choice between:
a) massive controls on financial transactions, killing their benefactor's proven-risk derivative market
- or -
b) massive (armed) civil unrest when we pull a Greece and shove a total economic collapse onto the American taxpayer?
Rationed water, electric, heat, food and fuel and a 65% tax on your income.
Everyone other than a Tea Party Republican will choose to eliminate the risk of option b.
The motion will pass.
There's going to be a political quid pro quo. I'd hang my hat on "illegal immigrants" taking it in the neck. How and why, is below.
Step 2:
Federalize ("second") the National Guard of the respective states. Just as we could send them to war in Iraq, we can deploy them as deputized federal agents. One BATFE agent to 3 or 4 guardsmen.
Step 3:
Go door-to-door with your list of gun purchasers, and get access to the guns. A massive VIPR-like sweep.
No gun? Where is it?
Who has it? Where's the paperwork? No gun, no paperwork?
You're coming with us... the weather in Cuba is fine.
Sadly, it appears the nationwide cell phone network is down, unless you're using a government contract cell phone.
Yes, surprise is key.
Oh, by the way... you have ID don't you? Born here? Let's run that ID.
So... you're here on a visa, that expired in 2003.
You're coming with us, the weather in Minot, North Dakota is fine.
There's your required quid pro quo to the Republicans.
Step 4:
Anticipate the Federal Court Injunctions.
Injunctions which are enforced by... the DOJ and US Marshals.
Who are preoccupied in carrying out the mandate of Congress.
You've reached the DOJ, leave a message at the beep.
Step 5:
Mistakes happen.
Somewhere in the process, an "honest mistake" happened.
Knock, view, verify and record the presence of the named firearm in the possession of the named owner - or find out who has that firearm - was misinterpreted.
Knock, bash-in the door, verify the presence of, and confiscate the named firearm - became the process.
Rules of Engagement were defined as: "take no incoming fire - lethal means authorized".
A few "rogue operators" decided that if it looked sketchy, breach the door after the flash-bang grenades, and engage anyone seen with a firearm in proximity using lethal force.
Step 6:
The number of confiscated firearms becomes a problem. National Guard units are directed to turn the contraband over to Active Duty Military Police. Certain weapons may be re-purposed by the government, exported to allies, used by agencies, or stripped for parts.
Light alloys are put into a grinder, steel and stainless steel are cut with a plasma torch to render non-salvageable (prevents theft in transit), then taken to a smelter to be melted down.
Step 7:
The higher Federal Courts, and perhaps the SCOTUS weigh in.
Answer A: "It's gotten out of hand, and we can't reach all of the field units... your order to cease is understood and complied with at the Executive Level. The logistical issues however, preclude prompt compliance in the field. The majority of units are out of contact, operating independently beyond range of communications."
Answer B:
Arrest those Judges. What part of Congressional Mandate didn't you understand?
There's going to be some issue, with a few mouthy Governors complaining about "...patent misuse of the Guard, violation of the Constit..." Yep.
We're sorry, the Governor's new conference has encountered technical difficulties.
To Jamie, and Sports!
It's amazing what a FBI Agent can do for video production: "Cut the feed, NOW. Otherwise? You're coming with me, the weather in Cuba is fine."
The prevention of an armed civil insurrection requires a total lockdown on the ability to communicate. The NSA knows this. Anyone studying the Arab Spring knows this.
The email servers of the various pro-gun groups "appear to have sustained a prolonged DoS attack by some overseas entity in Asia".
Facebook decided that a new version of their photo and written content filter was worth Beta testing, and all gun-related images and commentary ceased to be shown.
Yes, the "nipple filter" took down the gun fetishists.
Act III. The gak, hits the fan.
Step 1: Eventually, it all comes to a halt.
The Nation awakes to a new reality. Your armed-to-the-teeth white male neighbor, is now gumming on a lone Winchester .30-30.
The massive number of Guardsmen and Federal Agents go home, taking all the ammunition with them. "By mistake."
"30 Cal M1 or .30-30 Winchester, how the hell should I know? I've only shot a M-16 in Basic. Sarge said 'get the ammo too, all of it' and I did."
No self-loading handguns, shotguns, or rifles exist in lawful civilian hands.
In certain areas, the gunfire continues, as does the presence of Guardsmen, Agents and Police.
The ROE remains: Take no incoming fire.
A well publicized CRIMINAL AMNESTY program is offered. Turn in your semi-auto, no questions asked regarding who it might have killed, or how you derive your income.
As certain acts (suicide in particular) continue, the decision is made to remove all handguns from civilian possession.
A 1 year Amnesty is offered. If we have to come for it?
It will be with lethal force. Suicide-by-Cop.
It's a price, it's paid once.
"Handgun suicides were virtually eliminated in a three year effort."
The suicide rate remained unabated, and went up in the next economic collapse.
"What can you do? We tried. At least the guns are gone."
Gun makers are given a chance to merge, develop next-generation firearms for the military, or go out of business.
The few remaining gun shops offer your choice of single barrel, double barrel, or 2 round capacity pump-action shotguns.
Single shot, bolt-action, double-barrel, lever or pump-action high power rifles, with 4 or less round capacity.
Wow... how Steampunk!
This is what my great-grandfather must have seen back in the early 1900s!
Legacy shotguns and rifles with greater magazine capacity can be altered "plugged" to meet the new limit. The plug must be welded, machine-pressed, or epoxy fastened to prevent removal.
Step 2: A black market of gun imports is created. Mexico is now a donor-state.
That's managed by combining BATFE and DEA with exponential success.
You can still get a 9 millimeter handgun with 15 round magazines, it just costs $6,000 for the gun, and another $10 per round for the ammo. The price of Cocaine and Heroin go up as well.
Guns come from Brazil, and arrive on the same truck, boat, or airplane as the drugs.
Logistics baby, logistics.
Step 3: The SCOTUS get's it's day.
The POTUS retires by then, lauded "for his courage, however misguided".
Congress is rebuked.
Contrite, it offers to "work towards a solution".
Nothing much happens, as there's no means of recompense.
Return your gun to you?
Ah... here's a baggy of shredded metal. My dbad.
Eventually in the year 2061, when many of the affected citizens are dead, Congress passes a Resolution offering "an official apology for the so-called unconstitutional gun confiscation, coincidental loss and damages".
No funds are appropriated.
Japanese-Americans, knowing of their history under the Roosevelt Administration, merely nod with a wry smile.
Act IV: Disarm the local cops. Either return them to revolvers and possibly shotguns, or transition to disarmed local policing. That precludes raiding the police station for weapons.
Serious incident? The State Police can render tactical aid if needed.
State police can be armed with appropriate levels of modern weaponry to end any threat to law and order. That's how it's done in Europe, a closely supervised select few have serious weaponry at-hand.
THAT is how you get it done. ALL of it done.
Act V, an Afterword:
The danger? Is in the American people finally understanding they live in, and pay to support, an Oligarchy of the Corporate Interests, by The People, for the Corporate Interests. Pigs to slaughter, cows to be milked.
Use whatever metaphor you choose.
The danger of knowing that the distinction of Democrat or Republican has little meaning.
Neither respect the limits of the Constitution, and pass laws exempting the government from adhering to the Constitution. (do you see the irony in the DOJ website banner)
It's your choice of white or wheat, comprising the same, gak sandwich.
No matter, the means of revolution has been disposed-of.
Welcome to the new American Century, one where your vote doesn't count, you'll shut-up and do as you're told.
The massive coordinated workers strike? Never happened. Filtered from existence.
The spontaneous occupation of the streets and squares? Went great for a while, then it went predictably when the Oligarchy tired of non-compliance.
Tue Oct 06, 2015 at 6:00 AM PT: Tuesday @ 0800 observations:
using this diary's poll data, with a standard math principle rounding of numbers,
~10% of replies are for some form of drastic action, just not whole hog.
~10% are for "get 'er done" and go for ALL of the semi-automatics, and maybe more.
A further ~10% is for a total gun confiscation. Every. Single. One.
That's 29% in true numbers.
1-in-5 respondents are willing to kick doors in, and get it done today.
This past August, HuffPo claimed 67% of HuffPo readers seek some vague form of greater gun control
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...
71% is for politics-as-usual, working within current restraints/constraints.
Fight the NRA. Contribute to Democrats. Volunteer. Pack the SCOTUS, and change the meaning of the Second Amendment back to the way it was.
ie:
The various guises of Government, have the right to a citizen militia, and to the guns required to equip said militia in time of conflict.
Psienesis wrote: Daily Kos is basically a blog, there's no editorial oversight or even fact-checking of things posted to it.
The same could be said about much of what the huff post labels as "news"
To be fair, there isnt a mainstream media/news outlet that isnt significantly biased and pandering to its chosen demographic no matter what that demographic may be.
This article does however outline the real feelings behind many supporters of "gun control", so while the facts as usual are complete rubbish, the feels are reelz.
d-usa wrote: One should also keep in mind that there is a difference between "news" and "editorials".
Tell the papers that... they all seem to have forgotten.
No, they usually mark stuff as "editorial", and it people can't tell the difference between "this is what happened" and "this is what I think should happen" then it's not really fair to blame the papers for stupid readers.
Psienesis wrote: Daily Kos is basically a blog, there's no editorial oversight or even fact-checking of things posted to it.
The Daily Kos is an insanely idiotic 'blog' that has no editorial oversight and is full of pants-on-head idiots. It isn't worth the server space it takes up.
This is a stupid thread and we should all feel ashamed by the fact that it exists.
d-usa wrote: One should also keep in mind that there is a difference between "news" and "editorials".
Tell the papers that... they all seem to have forgotten.
Indeed. That difference is so last century.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Alex C wrote: Am I showing my age when I saw "kos" and immediately thought "Kult of Speed"?
Kult of Speed are barbarians. On the one hand they drive recklessly and emit massive amounts of greenhouse gases and dangerous assault pistols with lots of clips without common sense reform. On the other hand they are indigenous peoples and we should respect their unique culture, especially in light of the Imperium's history of oppression towards these people. Even now their unique contributions to galactic culture are actively oppressed, and their representation in Imperium higher education is sadly below their population levels.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
feeder wrote: Hmmm.... Poe's Law in full effect here.
Poe's Law? That if a raven comes in your house , blast it with a 12 gauge before it reminds you of your lost love?
I got the impression of satire by the end. I think its suppose to be an eye opener for gun fans that agree with just booting out all illegal immigrants.
Frazzled wrote: I'll be honest this is one of the craziest articles I've seen in some time on anything.
I thought it was a parody piece. The only person in America that would agree to implementing the above, is the ghost of General Grant, because you would end up with another civil war if those suggestions were implemented!
Ouze wrote: Nonetheless I still look forward to someone posting this story as an example of what the average liberal wants for gun control.
It doesn't help that the average liberal can't tell you what he or she wants for gun control.
Careful there, generalizations won't help anyone out.
This article is just so sad. I mean I want gun control. Though I maybe a minority on this) But I think the problem lies with there being too many guns or no background checks or you know the mental health of the united states which is terribly affected.
I mean the tool is being used irresponsibly there should be some cutbacks such as a ban on high powered weaponry, weapons that are military grade should always be banned (but they already are, hopefully)
Going door to door taking guns is not a great idea. What about: IF you want to help your community, sell your guns to the local government for a good cause! Or something like that would bring way more positive attention and would be more benefical in the long run.
I think it is incredibly naive of the Daily Kos to do something very..... negatively minded.
Ouze wrote: Nonetheless I still look forward to someone posting this story as an example of what the average liberal wants for gun control.
It doesn't help that the average liberal can't tell you what he or she wants for gun control.
Careful there, generalizations won't help anyone out.
This article is just so sad. I mean I want gun control. Though I maybe a minority on this) But I think the problem lies with there being too many guns or no background checks or you know the mental health of the united states which is terribly affected.
I mean the tool is being used irresponsibly there should be some cutbacks such as a ban on high powered weaponry, weapons that are military grade should always be banned (but they already are, hopefully)
Going door to door taking guns is not a great idea. What about: IF you want to help your community, sell your guns to the local government for a good cause! Or something like that would bring way more positive attention and would be more benefical in the long run.
I think it is incredibly naive of the Daily Kos to do something very..... negatively minded.
As you note, military weaponry is banned or highly restricted.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Extra credit if you can tell me wtf a "low-powered" firearm is, as presumably they must exist as a concept to anti-gun folks.
I have yet to have an anti-gun proponent actually define wtf they mean by "high-powered" firearms.
Please explain which firearms you are talking about, and what makes them "high-powered" in comparison to firearms that are "low-powered".
Extra credit if you can tell me wtf a "low-powered" firearm is, as presumably they must exist as a concept to anti-gun folks.
High powered meaning sniper rifles, anything that could be classified as paramilitary or police armament. High powered rifle is also armor piercing or copper tipped rounds (IE explosive or marker rounds).
Low powered usually means civilian armament, such as an AR Rifle, Shotguns, and Pistols. (As long as the fall into the category of civilian and not paramilitary or police armament.)
AR-15s are not high powered rifles compared to the M16 or the standard issue of a military unit. AR-15s are civilian weapons. Though they sure as hell look like a high powered rifle.
I don't think I can delve further because my knowledge of guns is quite lacking compared to my compatriots.
I have yet to have an anti-gun proponent actually define wtf they mean by "high-powered" firearms.
Please explain which firearms you are talking about, and what makes them "high-powered" in comparison to firearms that are "low-powered".
Extra credit if you can tell me wtf a "low-powered" firearm is, as presumably they must exist as a concept to anti-gun folks.
High powered meaning sniper rifles, anything that could be classified as paramilitary or police armament. High powered rifle is also armor piercing or copper tipped rounds (IE explosive or marker rounds).
Low powered usually means civilian armament, such as an AR Rifle, Shotguns, and Pistols. (As long as the fall into the category of civilian and not paramilitary or police armament.)
AR-15s are not high powered rifles compared to the M16 or the standard issue of a military unit. AR-15s are civilian weapons. Though they sure as hell look like a high powered rifle.
I don't think I can delve further because my knowledge of guns is quite lacking compared to my compatriots.
High powered meaning sniper rifles, anything that could be classified as paramilitary or police armament. High powered rifle is also armor piercing or copper tipped rounds (IE explosive or marker rounds).
-You didn't actually say what high powered is. Deer rifles use larger rounds. A sniper rifle is just hunting rifle and hunting rifles were in fact used.
Low powered usually means civilian armament, such as an AR Rifle, Shotguns, and Pistols. (As long as the fall into the category of civilian and not paramilitary or police armament.)
Again, define paramilitary or police armament. Police still use pump shotguns, the same thing that has been around since the late 1800s. Police still use "sniper rifles" using deer rifle rounds from 1903. Police still use revolvers. Revolvers were first used against the Comanche in the 1840s.
AR-15s are not high powered rifles compared to the M16 or the standard issue of a military unit. AR-15s are civilian weapons. Though they sure as hell look like a high powered rifle.
AN AR-15 IS AN M16! ITS THE SAME ROUND!
I don't think I can delve further because my knowledge of guns is quite lacking compared to my compatriots.
Thats the issue, and this is meant respectfully to you as you are at least attempting to understand and cogently define things. the knowledge of those proposing "common sense" laws is usually nonexistent, to the extent of proposing laws that already exist (Hillary Clinton) or based on how it looks.
I have yet to have an anti-gun proponent actually define wtf they mean by "high-powered" firearms.
Please explain which firearms you are talking about, and what makes them "high-powered" in comparison to firearms that are "low-powered".
Extra credit if you can tell me wtf a "low-powered" firearm is, as presumably they must exist as a concept to anti-gun folks.
High powered meaning sniper rifles, anything that could be classified as paramilitary or police armament. High powered rifle is also armor piercing or copper tipped rounds (IE explosive or marker rounds).
Low powered usually means civilian armament, such as an AR Rifle, Shotguns, and Pistols. (As long as the fall into the category of civilian and not paramilitary or police armament.)
AR-15s are not high powered rifles compared to the M16 or the standard issue of a military unit. AR-15s are civilian weapons. Though they sure as hell look like a high powered rifle.
I don't think I can delve further because my knowledge of guns is quite lacking compared to my compatriots.
Dude... your post...
I just don't even know where to start...
But yes, your knowledge is very lacking.
Lets be polite. He's trying. Here's where education begins.
I have yet to have an anti-gun proponent actually define wtf they mean by "high-powered" firearms.
Please explain which firearms you are talking about, and what makes them "high-powered" in comparison to firearms that are "low-powered".
Extra credit if you can tell me wtf a "low-powered" firearm is, as presumably they must exist as a concept to anti-gun folks.
High powered meaning sniper rifles, anything that could be classified as paramilitary or police armament. High powered rifle is also armor piercing or copper tipped rounds (IE explosive or marker rounds).
Low powered usually means civilian armament, such as an AR Rifle, Shotguns, and Pistols. (As long as the fall into the category of civilian and not paramilitary or police armament.)
AR-15s are not high powered rifles compared to the M16 or the standard issue of a military unit. AR-15s are civilian weapons. Though they sure as hell look like a high powered rifle.
I don't think I can delve further because my knowledge of guns is quite lacking compared to my compatriots.
What is a sniper rifle?
I would imagine that it would be fairly easy to come up with guidelines that would define a "sniper rifle". Could be fairly complicated or it could be something simple as "X muzzle length, these calibers, X magnification scope, mount for stabilizing the rifle". High Power Ammo could be something complicated or something simple as "high power 9mm ammo is all ammo that has a muzzle velocity of X when fired from Y".
We can argue if defining sniper rifles makes sense, or if banning "sniper rifles" makes sense. Same as with "high power" ammo and other stuff. But it would help everyone if we don't act stupid and pretend that's it's impossible to define these things. I'm pretty sure that we all look at the box of ammo to compare different brands to see which one we want to buy.
Just to clarify: I'm not advocating for classifying things, just saying that it would be easy to do and we shouldn't act like it isn't.
Any rifle used by a Sniper is a "sniper rifle", or do you mean any rifle with a magnified optic mounted on top? In which case you're calling for the banning of 99% of rifles used for hunting, which apparently is the only acceptable use of a firearm according to most anti-gunners.
More buzzwords parroted by the ignorant.
Asherian Command wrote: anything that could be classified as paramilitary or police armament.
Which would be...?
Asherian Command wrote: High powered rifle is also armor piercing or copper tipped rounds (IE explosive or marker rounds).
Actual armor piercing ammo is already banned. "Armor piercing" as the left likes to define it is anything that can penetrate level 3a body armor, which is only rated against pistol ammunition up to .44 caliber, making any kind of rifle ammunition "armor piercing" by their twisted definition.
Copper-tipped? So anything with a copper jacket?
You're calling for the banning of virtually all rifle ammunition here, and most pistol ammunition too. Ignorance at its finest.
Explosive ammunition is already restricted, and what is so evil about tracer rounds?
Asherian Command wrote: Low powered usually means civilian armament, such as an AR Rifle, Shotguns, and Pistols.
Ok, so if these are all "low-powered", why does everyone like you want to ban them?
Asherian Command wrote: I don't think I can delve further because my knowledge of guns is quite lacking compared to my compatriots.
Probably for the best, like the vast majority of your anti-gun friends you don't have the slightest fething idea what you're talking about or what you're trying to ban.
I would imagine that it would be fairly easy to come up with guidelines that would define a "sniper rifle". Could be fairly complicated or it could be something simple as "X muzzle length, these calibers, X magnification scope, mount for stabilizing the rifle". High Power Ammo could be something complicated or something simple as "high power 9mm ammo is all ammo that has a muzzle velocity of X when fired from Y".
The problem is they are not being defined. Even your example could range from - no modern sniper rifles designed to penetrate light skinned vehicles from 1,500 meters to a kid's .22 rifle rifle I shot when I was 8. One does really want to limit only certain carefully categorized items. The other "common sense regulation" eliminates all firearms, as in Asherian Command's limit on "no police guns."
djones520 wrote: Quick quiz for you. Can you tell me which of these are "high powered" and which aren't?
Honest question:
When you buy a weapon, do you actually do anything other than look at the gun and go "this one is pretty, I'm going to buy it"?
Or is there some weird mechanism where manufacturers print information on some sort of medium, maybe some sort of paper that is included with the weapon, maybe secured inside some sort of box that surrounds the weapon, a box on which you can print even more information?
Because if your comeback to "define it by these specifications" is "but which one looks like X" then there is no point even trying to have a discussion with you. If you actually look at the information for the guns I would answer "show me the manufacturers stats and I would be able to tell you which ones would be 'high powered' based on whatever arbitrary criteria are used".
Again: if people want to define certain types of weapons then this is something that is actually not very hard to do. I'm not saying that it's something that should be done or that it is really all that helpful, but it's possible. That's how you end up with some of those really weird looking rifles that were designed around "assault weapon" bans.
I would imagine that it would be fairly easy to come up with guidelines that would define a "sniper rifle". Could be fairly complicated or it could be something simple as "X muzzle length, these calibers, X magnification scope, mount for stabilizing the rifle". High Power Ammo could be something complicated or something simple as "high power 9mm ammo is all ammo that has a muzzle velocity of X when fired from Y".
The problem is they are not being defined. Even your example could range from - no modern sniper rifles designed to penetrate light skinned vehicles from 1,500 meters to a kid's .22 rifle rifle I shot when I was 8. One does really want to limit only certain carefully categorized items. The other "common sense regulation" eliminates all firearms, as in Asherian Command's limit on "no police guns."
I fully agree. It's very easy to define things if we wanted to, but it's a whole other story if we want to talk about defining stuff in a sensible way, and even more so if we are talking about defining stuff in order to restrict things.
Ahhh, the amount of snark in that "honest question" is refreshing.
What i'm doing D, is trying to show the guy that the way the weapon looks has zero impact on its capability. Everyone of those pictured weapons, fires the same exact round. A .308 Winchester caliber round. A very commonly used hunting round.
There is no such thing as "low powered" and "high powered" rounds, unless you're trying to compare something like a 30-30 and a .50 cal. It even goes to his sniper rifle comment, because one of the most common rounds used in military "sniper" weapons, is the .308 Winchester.
Asherian Command wrote: Thats a trick question. Most of those were used by military units in some period or another.
What does that matter?
Asherian Command wrote: But I am lacking education of this. So educate me. What the helk is a paramilitary weapon?
Any weapon used by Militants. Anti-gunners like to put that into sentences so that the gun they're talking about sounds more evil and dangerous, in order to garner an emotional response.
Asherian Command wrote: I know submachine guns are banned, but from what I know automatic weapons are banned. Explosives etc.
Select-fire weapons (machine guns, submachine guns, machine pistols, etc) are illegal in some states, legal in others. Where they are legal for civilian ownership, it is highly regulated and the cost of the firearms are generally in the tens-of-thousands of dollars. Explosives are also illegal/regulated depending on state and have similar restrictions where legal.
Asherian Command wrote: I do think that automatic weaponry should not be accessible to civilians, ever.
Many people own and operate them with zero problems. I see no harm in it. Of course you get the occasional accident that gets blown up by the news media but the accident/crime rate where legally-owned select-fire weapons were involved is insanely low.
Asherian Command wrote: Thats a trick question. Most of those were used by military units in some period or another.
What does that matter?
Asherian Command wrote: But I am lacking education of this. So educate me. What the helk is a paramilitary weapon?
Any weapon used by Militants. Anti-gunners like to put that into sentences so that the gun they're talking about sounds more evil and dangerous, in order to garner an emotional response.
Asherian Command wrote: I know submachine guns are banned, but from what I know automatic weapons are banned. Explosives etc.
Select-fire weapons (machine guns, submachine guns, machine pistols, etc) are illegal in some states, legal in others. Where they are legal for civilian ownership, it is highly regulated and the cost of the firearms are generally in the tens-of-thousands of dollars. Explosives are also illegal/regulated depending on state and have similar restrictions where legal.
Asherian Command wrote: I do think that automatic weaponry should not be accessible to civilians, ever.
Many people own and operate them with zero problems. I see no harm in it. Of course you get the occasional accident that gets blown up by the news media but the accident/crime rate where legally-owned select-fire weapons were involved is insanely low.
So they can be banned. Either AC believes that only certain firearms have been used by police, which is just due to a lack of information, or he believes any firearm police could use should be reserved only for police. I believe its the former. The problem is, many believe both, which leads to a ban on all firearms, which they are fine with, and which would require elimination of the Second Amendment to succeed here.
djones520 wrote: Ahhh, the amount of snark in that "honest question" is refreshing.
What i'm doing D, is trying to show the guy that the way the weapon looks has zero impact on its capability. Everyone of those pictured weapons, fires the same exact round. A .308 Winchester caliber round. A very commonly used hunting round.
There is no such thing as "low powered" and "high powered" rounds, unless you're trying to compare something like a 30-30 and a .50 cal. It even goes to his sniper rifle comment, because one of the most common rounds used in military "sniper" weapons, is the .308 Winchester.
So let's look at the .308 Winchester rounds from one manufacturer, Hornady:
The bullet weight ranges from 110gr to 178gr. The velocity at 500 yards ranges from 1437 fps to 1987 fps. The energy at 500 yards ranges from 573 ft/lb to 1531 ft/lb.
You could post a couple pictures of different .308 rounds and ask "which one weighs more", but we all know that all this information is printed right on the box.
What's the point? The point is that it really isn't helpful to pretend that .308 = .308 = .308 and that it doesn't hurt to acknowledge that in this single caliber there is a 167% difference in the energy delivered between the lowest energy .308 and the highest energy .308 being sold by this manufacturer alone. That's why people might just end up using a different round depending on what kind of animal they are hunting, because some of them are more "high powered" than others and may be too much for smaller game.
And if someone wanted to decide that X ft/lb is the cutoff for "high power rounds" then that it something that can be easily measured.
So are you saying a .308 should be illegal? How about a 30.06? How about a .303 Enfield? How about a .30-30? How about a 12 gauge shotgun slug? Whats evil and whats just fine?
Frazzled wrote: YOU JUST CITED IT. ARE YOU SAYING THE .308 SHOULD BE ILLEGAL?
Step 1: go to one of my posts Step 2: click "filter thread" Step 3: read my posts Step 4: stop using caps lock, it makes you look like an idiot. Step 5: stop claiming that I'm making arguments I never made, it also makes you look like an idiot.
Edit:
Step 6 (for me): stop arguing with Frazzled when he stops making sense.
Frazzled wrote: YOU JUST CITED IT. ARE YOU SAYING THE .308 SHOULD BE ILLEGAL?
Step 1: go to one of my posts
Step 2: click "filter posts"
Step 3: read my posts
Step 4: stop using caps lock, it makes you look like an idiot.
Step 5: stop claiming that I'm making arguments I never made, it also makes you look like an idiot.
Edit:
Step 6 (for me): stop arguing with Frazzled when he stops making sense.
whembly wrote: D... even if an attempt is made to *classify* those attributes... it's still arbitrary... right?
Everything is arbitrary. Speed limits are arbitrary. Blood alcohol limits are arbitrary. If someone wanted to decide that 1000 ft/lb is the cutoff between "low powered" and "high powered" rounds it would be arbitrary. All I am arguing is that we should stop acting like it's impossible to define things, especially if they are things that we know about and that we actually look at and which help us decide which pack of ammo we are picking up from the shelf today.
whembly wrote: D... even if an attempt is made to *classify* those attributes... it's still arbitrary... right?
Everything is arbitrary. Speed limits are arbitrary. Blood alcohol limits are arbitrary. If someone wanted to decide that 1000 ft/lb is the cutoff between "low powered" and "high powered" rounds it would be arbitrary. All I am arguing is that we should stop acting like it's impossible to define things, especially if they are things that we know about and that we actually look at and which help us decide which pack of ammo we are picking up from the shelf today.
Well... yeah, but the ongoing debate to classify these things is to put certain attributes in a certain category to make it easier to regulate.
Hence why there are folks who try to category certain "speech" in a bucket, so that regulation/laws could be made (or attempted) to restrict it. See efforts on "hate speech".
Hence... speed limits, blood alchohol limits are used. Yes, it's arbitrary... but take it a step further as to *why* we decided on those attributes.
You know, once I was in a cave, and I was looking at different type of ammunition silhouetted on the wall and trying to decide how much it weighted. But then I realized, what I thought was the actual ammunition was just a shadow, and I could not define the true nature of the thing in front of me for it was only a form of it. However, I am sure that behind me their is a version of the thing I am trying to define with an actual weight, but i just can't see it as it is behind me.
To paraphrase some old, dead guy. Maybe Frazz knew him?
djones520 wrote: Ahhh, the amount of snark in that "honest question" is refreshing.
What i'm doing D, is trying to show the guy that the way the weapon looks has zero impact on its capability. Everyone of those pictured weapons, fires the same exact round. A .308 Winchester caliber round. A very commonly used hunting round.
There is no such thing as "low powered" and "high powered" rounds, unless you're trying to compare something like a 30-30 and a .50 cal. It even goes to his sniper rifle comment, because one of the most common rounds used in military "sniper" weapons, is the .308 Winchester.
So let's look at the .308 Winchester rounds from one manufacturer, Hornady:
The bullet weight ranges from 110gr to 178gr.
The velocity at 500 yards ranges from 1437 fps to 1987 fps.
The energy at 500 yards ranges from 573 ft/lb to 1531 ft/lb.
You could post a couple pictures of different .308 rounds and ask "which one weighs more", but we all know that all this information is printed right on the box.
What's the point? The point is that it really isn't helpful to pretend that .308 = .308 = .308 and that it doesn't hurt to acknowledge that in this single caliber there is a 167% difference in the energy delivered between the lowest energy .308 and the highest energy .308 being sold by this manufacturer alone. That's why people might just end up using a different round depending on what kind of animal they are hunting, because some of them are more "high powered" than others and may be too much for smaller game.
And if someone wanted to decide that X ft/lb is the cutoff for "high power rounds" then that it something that can be easily measured.
The issue with the arbitrary nature of the definition of "high powered" is the context and uselessness of it. Choosing a definition for the purpose of restricting use is pointless, there's already billions of .308 rounds in civilian hands and any .308 round will ruin your day if you're unlucky enough to get shot with it. It's not as if you can make a distinction between "low powered" and "high powered" rounds having significant differences in lethality. A civil war musket is "low powered" but would do more damage to a person at pistol shooting range than a modern 9mm round. There's no such thing as a rifle round that isn't dangerous and lethal. The problem with these arbitrary govt definitions for the purposes of gun control is that they lack any grounding in facts or science. Look at California's "assault weapon" law, they use the combination of accessories you put on an AR15 as an indication of it's lethality which is asinine. There is no Magpul accessory that makes a .223 rifle more or less lethal.
Ban guns. All guns. Get rid of guns in homes, and on the streets, and, as much as possible, on police. Not just because of San Bernardino, or whichever mass shooting may pop up next, but also not not because of those. Don’t sort the population into those who might do something evil or foolish or self-destructive with a gun and those who surely will not. As if this could be known—as if it could be assessed without massively violating civil liberties and stigmatizing the mentally ill. Ban guns! Not just gun violence. Not just certain guns. Not just already-technically-illegal guns. All of them.
This 'fringe' is working hard to frame the issue in ways that really bother me.
Ban guns. All guns. Get rid of guns in homes, and on the streets, and, as much as possible, on police. Not just because of San Bernardino, or whichever mass shooting may pop up next, but also not not because of those. Don’t sort the population into those who might do something evil or foolish or self-destructive with a gun and those who surely will not. As if this could be known—as if it could be assessed without massively violating civil liberties and stigmatizing the mentally ill. Ban guns! Not just gun violence. Not just certain guns. Not just already-technically-illegal guns. All of them.
This 'fringe' is working hard to frame the issue in ways that really bother me.
Let them keep this up. This "infringement" is easier to combat, then the picking of little things here and there, constantly eroding.
Ban guns. All guns. Get rid of guns in homes, and on the streets, and, as much as possible, on police. Not just because of San Bernardino, or whichever mass shooting may pop up next, but also not not because of those. Don’t sort the population into those who might do something evil or foolish or self-destructive with a gun and those who surely will not. As if this could be known—as if it could be assessed without massively violating civil liberties and stigmatizing the mentally ill. Ban guns! Not just gun violence. Not just certain guns. Not just already-technically-illegal guns. All of them.
This 'fringe' is working hard to frame the issue in ways that really bother me.
Meh. It's just worthless feel good over simplification of the issue done in order to get the "right" solution to the alleged problem. It's no different than calling to ban all vehicles powered by combustion engines for the sake of the environment. Utterly impractical and downright impossible to implement.
We're not even going to have a national registry of civilian firearm ownership anytime soon, if ever and there's no way to even begin banning guns without that first step.
People seem to get awfully defensive that less than 1% want something that is untenable. Maybe not giving them the time of day would be a better solution then pretending they have sway over anything.
Frazzled wrote: Those enacted legislation. Evidently they either had the 1% or the 1% argument doesn't hold.
Pretty much... its disingenuous to proclaim "only 1%" of people want to ban or severely restrict gun ownership when so many millions of $'s go into things like brady ect and they obviously have a decent amount of support.
Frazzled wrote: Those enacted legislation. Evidently they either had the 1% or the 1% argument doesn't hold.
I'm pretty sure you're allowed to own guns in the three places you listed.
What is your point in this otherwise very pointless thread?
Yep, even with the S.A.F.E. act, they are merely restricted.
List of restrictions.
Spoiler:
Bans possession of any "high-capacity magazines" regardless of when they were made or sold. The maximum capacity for all magazines is 10 rounds. .22 caliber tubular magazines are exempt from this limit. Previously legal "pre-1994-ban" magazines with a capacity of 30 rounds are not exempt, and must be sold within one year to an out-of-state resident or turned in to local authorities. The magazine limit took effect April 15, 2013.[8][9] Originally the law allowed only seven rounds to be loaded into a magazine, but this provision was struck down by a federal judge on December 21, 2013.[10]
Ammunition dealers are required to do background checks, similar to those for gun buyers. Dealers are required to report all sales, including amounts, to the state. Internet sales of ammunition are allowed, but the ammunition will have to be shipped to a licensed dealer in New York state for pickup. Ammunition background checks were scheduled to begin January 15, 2014,[11] but were put on hold indefinitely because the required "seamless" technology that would not inconvenience vendors or customers could not be put in place. The superintendent of state police, charged with creating such technology, is working on development, but a release date is still unknown.[12] So while out-of-state vendors are required to ship ammunition to a NYS licensed dealer, the buyer can still pick it up with no check of any kind required, or walk into any registered ammunition dealer (now required under the act to sell ammunition) and buy ammunition providing he/she is over 18.
Requires creation of a registry of assault weapons. Those New Yorkers who already own such weapons would be required to register their guns with the state. Registration began on April 15, 2013 and must have been completed before April 15, 2014.[9]
Requires designated mental health professionals who believe a mental health patient made a credible threat of harming others to report the threat to a mental health director, who would then have to report serious threats to the state Department of Criminal Justice Services. A patient's gun could be taken from him or her.
Stolen guns are required to be reported within 24 hours. Failure to report can result in a misdemeanor.
Broadens definition of "assault weapon" from two identified features to one. The sale and/or transfer of newly defined assault weapons is banned within the state, although sales out of state are permitted. Possession of the newly defined assault weapons is allowed only if they were possessed at the time that the law was passed, and must be registered with the state within one year.
Requires background checks for all gun sales, including by private sellers - except for sales to members of the seller's immediate family. Private sale background checks began March 15, 2013.[11]
Guns must be "safely stored" from any household member who has been convicted of a felony or domestic violence crime, has been involuntarily committed, or is currently under an order of protection.[11] Unsafe storage of assault weapons is a misdemeanor.
Mandates that all purchases of firearms go through a licensed firearm dealer(FFL), unless it is an exempted transfer between family members
Increases sentences for gun crimes, including upgrading the offense for taking a gun on school property from a misdemeanor to a felony.[13]
The state Penal Law section on aggravated murder was amended to increase penalties for murdering a first responder (the "Webster" provision) to life in prison without parole.[14]
Limits the state records law to protect handgun owners from being identified publicly. However, existing permit holders have to opt into this provision by filing a form within 120 days of the law's enactment.[15] There also may exist issues with respect to "registered" owners in the new regulations vs "permit" holders under previous law.
Requires pistol permit holders or owners of registered assault weapons to have them renewed at least every five years.
Allows law enforcement officials to seize regulated types of firearms from an individual, provided the individual has been certified by a medical professional to be too mentally unstable to safely possess "spray" firearms, shotguns, or rifles.[16][17]
Apologies for all the questions but I'm hoping to see what your understanding of firearms is, your frame of reference, and what your conclusions are based on.
Asherian Command wrote: But I think the problem lies with there being too many guns or no background checks or you know the mental health of the united states which is terribly affected.
No background checks? When did this happen?
Asherian Command wrote: Going door to door taking guns is not a great idea. What about: IF you want to help your community, sell your guns to the local government for a good cause! Or something like that would bring way more positive attention and would be more benefical in the long run.
Accidental deaths by firearms are at at all time low. Deaths by firearm are at an all time low. Please give a citation that demonstrates that guns are a tool being used irresponsibly
Asherian Command wrote: there should be some cutbacks such as a ban on high powered weaponry
Semi automatic pistols are used by the military, as are bolt action rifles, pump action shot guns, magazine fed rifles, etc. What would make a weapon military grade?
Asherian Command wrote: High powered meaning sniper rifles, anything that could be classified as paramilitary or police armament. High powered rifle is also armor piercing or copper tipped rounds (IE explosive or marker rounds).
9mm can penetrate body armour. Is that a high powered round?
Asherian Command wrote: Low powered usually means civilian armament, such as an AR Rifle, Shotguns, and Pistols. (As long as the fall into the category of civilian and not paramilitary or police armament.)
You just said that an AR is not a high powred weapon, but you linked to a definition in a sports setting that claims it is high powered. Which is it?
Asherian Command wrote: AR-15s are not high powered rifles compared to the M16 or the standard issue of a military unit. AR-15s are civilian weapons. Though they sure as hell look like a high powered rifle.
AR15s fire the exact same round as the M16/M4. What makes one high powered and the other not?
Asherian Command wrote: Thats a trick question. Most of those were used by military units in some period or another.
But I am lacking education of this. So educate me. What the helk is a paramilitary weapon? `
I know submachine guns are banned, but from what I know automatic weapons are banned. Explosives etc.
I do think that automatic weaponry should not be accessible to civilians, ever.
I want to be educated so please educate me
Given that you want some knowledge;
1) I have no idea what a paramilitary weapon is. Where did you hear that?
2) Submachine guns are not a legal category of firearms. The closest you would get would be a short barreled rifle which requires a tax stamp and approval from the ATF
3) Fully automatic weapons are not illegal. But you do need the sign off from your local Chief of Police, a tax stamp, permission from the ATF, and a very large sum of money as automatic weapons are increadibly expensive because of their rarity
4) Why should civilians not have access to automatic weaponry?
AR-15s are not high powered rifles compared to the M16 or the standard issue of a military unit. AR-15s are civilian weapons. Though they sure as hell look like a high powered rifle.
Ok dude.
Do you know what the difference between an M-16 and an AR-15 is? None. They are the same gun.
M-16 is what the military calls the select-fire AR-15s they purchased from Colt beginning in 1962. AR-15 is what the semi-auto version of the weapon is called when its sold to private buyers, though with the right paperwork and modifications you can get select-fire AR-15s.
They are the same weapon. The M-16 just has full auto capabilities(not useful outside of an actual warzone) and some extra external features that have no bearing on its lethality.
They are the same weapon. The M-16 just has full auto capabilities(not useful outside of an actual warzone) and some extra external features that have no bearing on its lethality.
What are these extra external features that M16's have that an AR15 doesn't?
Yeah, just explaining what the M-16 actually means. Its really nothing more than part of the numbering system the US military uses on its equipment. If they begin buying some new equipment they'll give it a number. Just about every piece of military equipment had a different name before it was officially adopted.
If I invent an Assault Rifle and name it the GT-83. If the army then adopts it has some slight modifications to it they'll almost certainly give it their own designation, M-XX or something to that effect. But the GT-83 and M-XX will be the same piece of equipment.
easysauce wrote: So in order to prove that there are people working to ban or severely limit gun ownership said bans/limits must already be enacted....
Intentionally misrepresenting the point much?
With such strong support for guns within certain parts of government (or at least certain types of arms anyway...) backed up by a large proportion of the lobbying money (hmmm... I wonder if there is a connection?), even something apparently as powerful as the office of el-presidente apparently has zero scope to enact much in the way of meaningful gun control laws, much less start taking guns from the population.
It is a bit like complaining that someone left their fridge open to combat global warming and how soon we are all going to freeze to death because "they took away our CO2 coverage!"
d-usa wrote: And if someone wanted to decide that X ft/lb is the cutoff for "high power rounds" then that it something that can be easily measured.
I'd honestly love to see some Brady Campaigner try to work out a muzzle velocity ban. The hilarity of seeing 115 grain 9mm target ammo banned while .45 +P skates by would just be too much.
They are the same weapon. The M-16 just has full auto capabilities(not useful outside of an actual warzone) and some extra external features that have no bearing on its lethality.
What are these extra external features that M16's have that an AR15 doesn't?
The "final" version (at the time) of both were identical. The only difference was select fire and military rounds were loaded with crappier powder.
The only difference between M4 and M16 is different makeup-stocks, and optics. Of course, they are quite a bit different than a phased plasma rifle in the 40 watt range, but hey pal only what you see here...
d-usa wrote: And if someone wanted to decide that X ft/lb is the cutoff for "high power rounds" then that it something that can be easily measured.
I'd honestly love to see some Brady Campaigner try to work out a muzzle velocity ban. The hilarity of seeing 115 grain 9mm target ammo banned while .45 +P skates by would just be too much.
DOn't laugh. San Francisco banned evilz "cop killer" hollowpoints, and only permitted ball ammo.
Ball ammo in an urban environment. Its like their city council invented stupid.
(as a fact, ball ammo is just jacketed bullets, which generally penetrate things more-like walls, vs. hollowpoints whose tips expand and don't penetrate as well. Kind of the anti cop killer round if cops wear armor).
I'm not sure how praising a country not stricken with a 500% increase in spree shooters as a good model of gun 'control' automatically means someone wants to ban guns. Maybe they're wrong, and their opinion is stupid, but it seems a complete logical leap to assume that means he wants to ban guns.
WTF! It was like reading a crazy persons rant. First half, take guns and limit sales and rights. Second half, give some of those rights back and say so sorry. Really bad read.
LordofHats wrote: I'm not sure how praising a country not stricken with a 500% increase in spree shooters as a good model of gun 'control' automatically means someone wants to ban guns. Maybe they're wrong, and their opinion is stupid, but it seems a complete logical leap to assume that means he wants to ban guns.
And their fire arms laws don't ban guns. (not in the sense that seems to be implied, which is no guns ever). We already ban some guns. So Obama thinks we should ban some more? Oh what a crime against Americanness
To clarify, this is where the gun debate in the US starts to get stupid. Very few people really want to ban all guns, and very few people think there should be no gun control at all. The debate is not about guns or no guns. It's about which guns should and should not be privately owned, and that's a reasonable question. 'Obama wants to take our guns away' is not reasoned. It's as much a misrepresentation of the liberal position as the stereotype that red necks want to hunt deer with a 50 cal (or whatever stupid stereotype gets thrown around).
Obama doesn't want to ban guns. He wants tighter gun controls. The gun debate would be a lot less stupid if both sides dropped their penchant for hyperbolizing the other's positions.
LordofHats wrote: And their fire arms laws don't ban guns. (not in the sense that seems to be implied, which is no guns ever). We already ban some guns. So Obama thinks we should ban some more? Oh what a crime against Americanness
To clarify, this is where the gun debate in the US starts to get stupid. Very few people really want to ban all guns, and very few people think there should be no gun control at all. The debate is not about guns or no guns. It's about which guns should and should not be privately owned, and that's a reasonable question. 'Obama wants to take our guns away' is not reasoned. It's as much a misrepresentation of the liberal position as the stereotype that red necks want to hunt deer with a 50 cal (or whatever stupid stereotype gets thrown around).
Obama doesn't want to ban guns. He wants tighter gun controls. The gun debate would be a lot less stupid if both sides dropped their penchant for hyperbolizing the other's positions.
At the heart of the push was a massive buyback of more than 600,000 semi-automatic shotguns and rifles, or about one-fifth of all firearms in circulation in Australia. The country’s new gun laws prohibited private sales, required that all weapons be individually registered to their owners, and required that gun buyers present a “genuine reason” for needing each weapon at the time of the purchase. (Self-defense did not count.) In the wake of the tragedy, polls showed public support for these measures at upwards of 90 percent.
Again, if you want to do that, change the Second Amendment. But you better do it quick, because if you re-open the Bill of Rights, the First and Fourth might go to.
Frazzled wrote: Again, if you want to do that, change the Second Amendment.
The Supreme Court already upheld the right of Federal and state governments to regulate gun ownership and purchase, short of a full weapons ban, which obviously Australia does not have..
We can either accept that the debate is about how much control is reasonable, or we can engage in hyperbolic nonsense. The former is a legitimate question to ask, and very much has no perfect answer. The later is little more that political grand standing.
But you better do it quick, because if you re-open the Bill of Rights, the First and Fourth might go to.
Got a big rock to slide down that slippery slope? Should be pretty cool when it hits the bottom
Really? You have Democrats wanting to prohibit persons from their rights under the Bill of Rights because they are on "a list." At the same time you have presidential candidates talking about investigating people based on their religion, and you think I'm talking about a slipper slope??? I am talking about Now.
And here's the problem. you have many shooters like myself who are supportive of some changes. but you lose us immediately the moment 99% of gun control proponents start talking.
Background checks-cool. I want more. I want more detailed back ground checks. I want state governments and psychiatrists forced to report medical incidents or incidents involving domestic violence. I also want a backtrack method so that if a person is cleared they get their firearms aback and they aren't seized by the government. I'd be ok with a conventional intensive background check even, done annually.
CHLs. Inversely I want an expansion of CHL rights and locations and rights to travel interstate with them. In turn I want more required training for them (heresy, I expect to be burned at the stake shortly).
I don't want limits on magazine capacity or type-thats just stupid feelgood nonsense that does absolutely nothing.
Straw purchases-go after them like Purvis after Dillinger.
I also want a massive overhaul of the mental health industry in this country. When you could buy MACHINE GUNS in the Sears catalog with no checks, we didn't have mass shooters like now. Mental health and a review of mental health drugs and their effects on personalities as well. There is growing evidence that some medicines can impact negatively on personalities. For those types of drugs, you have to temporarily give up your rights to own a firearm, just like you can't drive without corrective lenses if you have vision difficulties.
Frazzled wrote: The "final" version (at the time) of both were identical. The only difference was select fire and military rounds were loaded with crappier powder.
The only difference between M4 and M16 is different makeup-stocks, and optics. Of course, they are quite a bit different than a phased plasma rifle in the 40 watt range, but hey pal only what you see here...
M4 has shorter barrel too.
I'm very familiar with the rifle, that's why I was confused about what these "extra external features" of an M16 were. Turns out they're nothing an AR15 couldn't have either, so no biggie.
Alex does it really have a shorter barrel? Thanks I did not know that. Admittedly I've only shot one M4 clone, while I've shot several ARs/M-16s, but I didn't notice the difference.
Conflating three different issues, which three different levels of legitimacy/insanity (and even complexity) is not an argument. Neither is twisting Obama's position into something it's not. Throwing it all together to make a really shallow argument about "we can't change one amendment, it could lead to all amendments being changed!" is a slippery slope argument.
LordofHats wrote: The Supreme Court already upheld the right of Federal and state governments to regulate gun ownership and purchase, short of a full weapons ban, which obviously Australia does not have..
We can either accept that the debate is about how much control is reasonable, or we can engage in hyperbolic nonsense. The former is a legitimate question to ask, and very much has no perfect answer. The later is little more that political grand standing.
The Supreme Court has also upheld the right of the individual citizen to own a handgun (in addition to any other weapon that might reasonably be considered useful and common to a militia), and the right of a citizen to be issued a concealed carry permit if states choose to enact laws requiring them. Let's not pretend anything close to Australia's gun laws would be permissible if coming under Supreme Court review.
Frazzled wrote: Alex does it really have a shorter barrel? Thanks I did not know that. Admittedly I've only shot one M4 clone, while I've shot several ARs/M-16s, but I didn't notice the difference.
M4 has a 14.5" barrel as per mil-spec, though civilian M4 clones usually have a 16" barrel to comply with minimum length laws and avoid having to file SBR paperwork. M16 has 20" barrel as standard.
Frazzled wrote: Alex does it really have a shorter barrel? Thanks I did not know that. Admittedly I've only shot one M4 clone, while I've shot several ARs/M-16s, but I didn't notice the difference.
M4 has a 14.5" barrel as per mil-spec, though civilian M4 clones usually have a 16" barrel to comply with minimum length laws and avoid having to file SBR paperwork. M16 has 20" barrel as standard.
Conflating three different issues, which three different levels of legitimacy/insanity (and even complexity) is not an argument. Neither is twisting Obama's position into something it's not. Throwing it all together to make a really shallow argument about "we can't change one amendment, it could lead to all amendments being changed!" is a slippery slope argument.
We'll see. We'll see.
With the rise of Trump (and the conditions wherein the big boys wouldn't address the issues he brings up) things I never dreamed of are possible, and not in a good way.
The Supreme Court has also upheld the right of the individual citizen to own a handgun (in addition to any other weapon that might reasonably be considered useful and common to a militia), and the right of a citizen to be issued a concealed carry permit if states choose to enact laws requiring them. Let's not pretend anything close to Australia's gun laws would be permissible if coming under Supreme Court review.
Don't disagree;
Maybe they're wrong, and their opinion is stupid
My beef is not that Obama is right (I don't think he is). My beef is that the way people talk about guns in this country is brain dead on all sides of the political spectrum
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Frazzled wrote: With the rise of Trump (and the conditions wherein the big boys wouldn't address the issues he brings up) things I never dreamed of are possible, and not in a good way.
Possibly. Also possibly, Trump drags the far right so far right and so far into the open that my prediction of the collapse of the Republican party comes true in the next decade, and American Conservative politics will end up spending the decade after that putting their house in order. It happens frequently in American politics (in a long term sense). Trump could be a sign of a lasting trend, or he could just be a blip of madness that will die off as quickly as it rose.
Obama, and many Liberals want to directly make it illegal to own weapons they feel should only be in the military calling them "assault weapons". i.e. Semi-automatic rifles, handguns, shotguns.
Bullet point 3 is pretty cut and dry...we are also left in the dark on how this will be implemented. Forced mass disarming of the public? and by whom? Hell, we are left in the dark how any of them will be implemented, trust the government I guess.
And where in the Constitution (or in precedent law), does it say the government can't pass a ban on specific weapons and restrict magazine size? Many states already have laws banning 'assault weapons' and restricting magazine size (CA, MY, NJ are three I know).
On top of that, how about all those other bullet points? We're really going to boil down the guy's proposal to a really laxidasical and selective interpretation of a single point of an 11 point plan?
LordofHats wrote: And where in the Constitution (or in precedent law), does it say the government can't pass a ban on specific weapons and restrict magazine size? Many states already have laws banning 'assault weapons' and restricting magazine size (CA, MY, NJ are three I know).
2nd Amendment.
It restricts the government from infringing in our right to bear arms. If you ban certain types of arms, you're infringing on our right to bear them.
Current laws banning certain types of arms are unconstitutional.
It doesn't say "right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, except certain types that the government thinks we shouldn't own".
LordofHats wrote: And where in the Constitution (or in precedent law), does it say the government can't pass a ban on specific weapons and restrict magazine size? Many states already have laws banning 'assault weapons' and restricting magazine size (CA, MY, NJ are three I know).
On top of that, how about all those other bullet points? We're really going to boil down the guy's proposal to a really laxidasical and selective interpretation of a single point of an 11 point plan?
LordofHats wrote: And where in the Constitution (or in precedent law), does it say the government can't pass a ban on specific weapons and restrict magazine size? Many states already have laws banning 'assault weapons' and restricting magazine size (CA, MY, NJ are three I know).
On top of that, how about all those other bullet points? We're really going to boil down the guy's proposal to a really laxidasical and selective interpretation of a single point of an 11 point plan?
And how did California's laws work out?
Amazing how the places that infringe the most have the most problems with violence, isn't it?
Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.
The second amendment is no different from the First in this regard. The Bill of Rights is not a Bill of absolute Rights, and never has been nor intended to be.
LordofHats wrote: And where in the Constitution (or in precedent law), does it say the government can't pass a ban on specific weapons and restrict magazine size? Many states already have laws banning 'assault weapons' and restricting magazine size (CA, MY, NJ are three I know).
On top of that, how about all those other bullet points? We're really going to boil down the guy's proposal to a really laxidasical and selective interpretation of a single point of an 11 point plan?
All those states that banned those guns have done so with the assumption that it was the will of the people. Making stricter laws will do what? Nothing! Precedent law has nothing to do with anything in the Bill of Rights. I also never stated I wasn't for some increase in background checking I think it is a good idea, however I am against this ban and restriction. I am also for armed police officers in every school too serve and protect children from mass murders, however that is another matter.
Here is someone more qualified than me explaining how our government should work. It is something that resent Presidents and Congress and the majority of U.S. citizens keep forgetting.
But then again, it's hard to really judge effectiveness of any given state gun laws because it's so easy for guns to go from one state into another. State level gun controls are largely ineffective so long as all states are required to respect the laws of other states, which is why a more comprehensive (and preferably not regulated by ATF, please not ATF they're so bad at what they do) Federal level law is the only practical route to go for those of us who would like more strict gun laws.
It restricts the government from infringing in our right to bear arms. If you ban certain types of arms, you're infringing on our right to bear them.
Current laws banning certain types of arms are unconstitutional.
It doesn't say, "right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, except certain types that the government thinks we shouldn't own".
At most, a shotgun or a hunting rifle would suffice for home defense. Why on earth would you need stuff like an AR-15 etc?
I do not require a reason, or have to justify a "need", but I will indulge...
An AR15 is a firearm that many are familiar with (especially ex-military), is proven reliable and is one of the most effective means of protecting yourself and your family against those who may seek to do you harm.
The typical 5.56mm cartridge used in defensive rifles also penetrates less interior barriers than many typical shotgun loads marketed for home defense, leading to less likelyhood of shooting theough walls and hitting things you don't want to hit.
I don't use an AR15 for home defense myself, but why wouldn't someone want to use one of the best tools for the job?
It restricts the government from infringing in our right to bear arms. If you ban certain types of arms, you're infringing on our right to bear them.
Current laws banning certain types of arms are unconstitutional.
It doesn't say, "right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, except certain types that the government thinks we shouldn't own".
At most, a shotgun or a hunting rifle would suffice for home defense. Why on earth would you need stuff like an AR-15 etc?
Well, depending on the rifle/shotgun being talked about, there isn't too much difference between them- besides an AR-15 being used for a hunting rifle, lots of different "hunting rifles" and shotguns are semi-automatic. Compared to a bolt action rifle, something like an AR-15 is much better at protecting your home.
angelofvengeance wrote: At most, a shotgun or a hunting rifle would suffice for home defense. Why on earth would you need stuff like an AR-15 etc?
Our government was formed to escape tyranny. Many after its formation came here to escape tyranny and social injustices of their homelands. Now let me say this, I do not believe it would ever happen, but should our government ever go rogue and take away the right of the people to self govern. Those of us who want to, should have the right to be armed so as to be able to challenge our own military. That's just my opinion, but it is an opinion of most who own such a weapons.
Out of curiosity does UK self govern or are you given rights decreed by your government? I honestly don't know I never cared to look.
Well, depending on the rifle/shotgun being talked about, there isn't too much difference between them- besides an AR-15 being used for a hunting rifle, lots of different "hunting rifles" and shotguns are semi-automatic. Compared to a bolt action rifle, something like an AR-15 is much better at protecting your home.
Recoil on the AR is a lot less than most 'hunting rifles' and a lot less than a 12 gauge. And most have a flash suppressor (contrary to popular belief, these do not hide the flash from anyone BUT the firer). Both these mean the AR is more easily used, especially in low light stress shooting conditions (which most home defense will be).
Ouze wrote: I definitely would object to the characterization of most AR-15 owners as primarily desiring to be able to resist the US military enforcing tyranny.
May be a stretch, I'll admit. Based on ex-military and people from local rifle/gun clubs; that I know, it seems to be a repeating belief. I also should have generally stated semi-automatic rifles of all types.
But then again, it's hard to really judge effectiveness of any given state gun laws because it's so easy for guns to go from one state into another. State level gun controls are largely ineffective so long as all states are required to respect the laws of other states, which is why a more comprehensive (and preferably not regulated by ATF, please not ATF they're so bad at what they do) Federal level law is the only practical route to go for those of us who would like more strict gun laws.
Already are. These are a straw purchase, illegal under federal law. Not only did they break state law on the type of firearms, but they broke federal law on the straw purchase (I assume state law as well).
Well, depending on the rifle/shotgun being talked about, there isn't too much difference between them- besides an AR-15 being used for a hunting rifle, lots of different "hunting rifles" and shotguns are semi-automatic. Compared to a bolt action rifle, something like an AR-15 is much better at protecting your home.
Recoil on the AR is a lot less than most 'hunting rifles' and a lot less than a 12 gauge. And most have a flash suppressor (contrary to popular belief, these do not hide the flash from anyone BUT the firer). Both these mean the AR is more easily used, especially in low light stress shooting conditions (which most home defense will be).
True. There's also the fact that most hunting rifle calibers are going to have even greater penetration than an .223 AR15. I wouldn't want to be firing my .30-06 7400 or my Garand in the house, the bullet likely wouldn't stop until it hit a tree in the neighbor's yard. Although buttstroking somebody with the Garand would be pretty sweet and the stock would handle it fine, unlike an AR.
Unless you live alone, a shotgun is a better home-defense weapon than any handgun or rifle. Pellets have a significantly-reduced risk of passing through intervening walls (which, let's face it, in most modern houses are drywall and insulation) than even a 9mm pistol round. In recent years, we've seen a number of innocents injured and/or killed when bullets (regardless of who fired them) passed through the walls of their houses and struck them.
There's also the intimidation factor of the sound of the rack of the slide. That's something that pretty much everyone on the planet knows the sound of, and knows that it heralds that violence is about to arrive.
Thats urban myth. Any sort of slide being pulled will do that. So will shouting "I have a gun."
Having said that, shotguns are excellent and I have that set up in one location. The other location has an emergency box in a safe spot with a pistol that all members have shot (and all have appropriated from me-hey thats mine!) with a lot of ammo in the view they can literally hold up there and blast away through the wall if needed until the police arrive. Note both these setups are done not with a houseburglar but an aggressive stalker in mind due to personal situation.
The slide on a 9mm pistol isn't as loud and doesn't carry as far as that of a 12 gauge, especially if the door's closed, which is a potential issue depending on the size and layout of one's residence. It also tends to sound like any other metallic bits rattling around (which, situationally, might be just as good). The charging handle on a '16 is damned near silent in comparison.
The problem with shouting is that, if the intruder has violent intent, it gives away your position. The acoustic profile of the human voice is more-easily identified and located (since, being a speaking species, our ears are designed to tune in to such) than the relatively-alien machine sound of a shotgun slide. This also goes back to the "shooting through the walls" bit. If the intruder is armed and has intent, shouting gives them a direction in which to put rounds downrange, especially considering the actual time it takes to say "I have a gun" (or a similar number of syllables).
Best to rack the slide and relocate, IMO. Position so the target (again, assuming intent to harm) is forced to bracket themselves in a hallway or a doorframe, a shotgun is hell on wheels in such a scenario.
Drywall isn't going to really stop shotgun pellets. Not enough to prevent injury to anyone directly behind the wall. Sure the studs will stop them but the majority of any interior wall is going to be just drywall and nothing else between it.
The problem with shouting is that, if the intruder has violent intent, it gives away your position.
So does racking a shotgun. You want it on record that you alerted the badguy you were armed and the reason whereby you just put 17 warning shots into him center mass.
A better idea is just flip the safety off.
Of course being that its me, its a the simple matter of putting a little powder into the pan. "Hold on! I'm deathly afraid! I'm armed, well in a minute I'm armed and oh damn I dropped the flint, screw it FIX BAYONETS!!!"
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Grey Templar wrote: Drywall isn't going to really stop shotgun pellets. Not enough to prevent injury to anyone directly behind the wall. Sure the studs will stop them but the majority of any interior wall is going to be just drywall and nothing else between it.
Psienesis wrote: Unless you live alone, a shotgun is a better home-defense weapon than any handgun or rifle. Pellets have a significantly-reduced risk of passing through intervening walls (which, let's face it, in most modern houses are drywall and insulation) than even a 9mm pistol round. In recent years, we've seen a number of innocents injured and/or killed when bullets (regardless of who fired them) passed through the walls of their houses and struck them.
There's also the intimidation factor of the sound of the rack of the slide. That's something that pretty much everyone on the planet knows the sound of, and knows that it heralds that violence is about to arrive.
If you want to use a shotgun for home defense just keep it loaded with the safety on. Racking the slide to get a criminal's attention is silly. All it means is until you racked the slide you were holding an empty gun. There's no point in holding an empty gun on somebody you may have to shoot. Either have a shell chambered already or rack it when you pick it up, waiting to chamber a shell isn't a good idea.
LordofHats wrote: I'm not sure how praising a country not stricken with a 500% increase in spree shooters
500% increase in spree shooters? What definition of spree shooter, and where are you pulling that % increase stat?
angelofvengeance wrote: At most, a shotgun or a hunting rifle would suffice for home defense. Why on earth would you need stuff like an AR-15 etc?
What are you basing your claim on that a hunting rifle or shotgun is sufficient for home defense?
Explain what you mean by a hunting rifle, and how does that differ from an AR15?
Would you consider this a hunting rifle?
Are you aware that the ammunition available for the AR15 will deform more upon hitting barriers than many other types of ammunition, thus making it safer for home defense as there is less risk of over penetration?
It restricts the government from infringing in our right to bear arms. If you ban certain types of arms, you're infringing on our right to bear them.
Current laws banning certain types of arms are unconstitutional.
It doesn't say "right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, except certain types that the government thinks we shouldn't own".
This is just plain nonsense. NOBODY, outside of maybe a tiny and irrelevant lunatic fringe of militia zealots, thinks that the right to bear arms is an unlimited right. Nobody thinks that private citizens should be allowed to own nuclear weapons, artillery, etc. So at this point we've already accepted the general principle that the government can ban certain classes of weapons and we're just arguing the fine points of which particular weapons should be banned.
Rune Stonegrinder wrote: Those of us who want to, should have the right to be armed so as to be able to challenge our own military.
And this is wishful thinking that has nothing to do with reality. Individuals with AR15s have no realistic hope of challenging the military, and arming individuals with the ability to challenge the military would result in a horrifying cost in deaths from accidents. The average person simply does not have the ability to safely use a fighter jet or tank or whatever, and allowing them to do so almost inevitably means that people will die from their incompetence. I think I speak for all of us when I say that I'd rather not have to worry about having a plane crash into my house because someone confused the ability to buy a MiG-21 with the ability to fly it safely, or because someone didn't buy enough land to safely contain their artillery range and let a few shells hit the adjacent neighborhood.
I always find the idea of the 2nd amendment helping against the government to be ridiculous. Dictatorships don't just pop out of the ground. You will have lost your 2nd amendment rights long before it turns into something you could get a popular uprising forming against.
Co'tor Shas wrote: I always find the idea of the 2nd amendment helping against the government to be ridiculous. Dictatorships don't just pop out of the ground. You will have lost your 2nd amendment rights long before it turns into something you could get a popular uprising forming against.
It restricts the government from infringing in our right to bear arms. If you ban certain types of arms, you're infringing on our right to bear them.
Current laws banning certain types of arms are unconstitutional.
It doesn't say "right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, except certain types that the government thinks we shouldn't own".
This is just plain nonsense. NOBODY, outside of maybe a tiny and irrelevant lunatic fringe of militia zealots, thinks that the right to bear arms is an unlimited right. Nobody thinks that private citizens should be allowed to own nuclear weapons, artillery, etc. So at this point we've already accepted the general principle that the government can ban certain classes of weapons and we're just arguing the fine points of which particular weapons should be banned.
There is no need to make owning any weaponry illegal. The expense of owning some of those weapons would be astronomical and keep the numbers in circulation down to a minimum, almost certainly zero for nuclear weaponry.
Artillery and such I think should be allowed. I think you should also be allowed to own operational tanks with functioning main weapons. Anyone who goes to the bother of maintaining a working tank with some ammo isn't going to use it to murder someone, or shoot up a school, or hold up a liquor store. Same reason automatic weaponry shouldn't require a license, crime with said weapons is all-but-nonexistent because they are big flashy and expensive. So really only law abiding citizens wishing to exercise their 2nd amendment rights would own them.
It restricts the government from infringing in our right to bear arms. If you ban certain types of arms, you're infringing on our right to bear them.
Current laws banning certain types of arms are unconstitutional.
It doesn't say "right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, except certain types that the government thinks we shouldn't own".
This is just plain nonsense. NOBODY, outside of maybe a tiny and irrelevant lunatic fringe of militia zealots, thinks that the right to bear arms is an unlimited right. Nobody thinks that private citizens should be allowed to own nuclear weapons, artillery, etc. So at this point we've already accepted the general principle that the government can ban certain classes of weapons and we're just arguing the fine points of which particular weapons should be banned.
There is no need to make owning any weaponry illegal. The expense of owning some of those weapons would be astronomical and keep the numbers in circulation down to a minimum, almost certainly zero for nuclear weaponry.
Artillery and such I think should be allowed. I think you should also be allowed to own operational tanks with functioning main weapons. Anyone who goes to the bother of maintaining a working tank with some ammo isn't going to use it to murder someone, or shoot up a school, or hold up a liquor store. Same reason automatic weaponry shouldn't require a license, crime with said weapons is all-but-nonexistent because they are big flashy and expensive. So really only law abiding citizens wishing to exercise their 2nd amendment rights would own them.
Exactly.
But people will still write it all off as "nonsense", being quite happy to let governmental agencies gak all over the 2nd amendment in the name of "safety" and "common sense" while simultaneously condemning Donald Trump for seeking to infringe on people's 1st and 4th amendment rights (as we all should, his proposals are terrible). Y'know how he sounds like an absolute fething moron? That's what "common sense gun reform" proponents sound like to me whenever they're spouting their ignorant bs.
Grey Templar wrote: There is no need to make owning any weaponry illegal. The expense of owning some of those weapons would be astronomical and keep the numbers in circulation down to a minimum, almost certainly zero for nuclear weaponry.
Even a minimum is way too much, if that minimum is defined only by cost. Rich people aren't immune to being stupid with incredibly dangerous weapons just because they have lots of money. And you're clearly in the minority on this point. There's pretty indisputable precedent that, regardless of your opinion on whether or not the government should ban those weapons, they clearly have the power to do so.
Artillery and such I think should be allowed. I think you should also be allowed to own operational tanks with functioning main weapons. Anyone who goes to the bother of maintaining a working tank with some ammo isn't going to use it to murder someone, or shoot up a school, or hold up a liquor store. Same reason automatic weaponry shouldn't require a license, crime with said weapons is all-but-nonexistent because they are big flashy and expensive. So really only law abiding citizens wishing to exercise their 2nd amendment rights would own them.
I'm not worried about someone robbing a liquor store with a tank that costs more than the value of anything in the store, I'm worried about idiots who don't know how to use a tank safely. I've given this example before, but consider the FAA's regulation of ex-military aircraft. There are extremely strict rules on where you can fly a fighter jet, what qualifications you have to have, etc. And it's because there was an ugly history of people with more money than sense buying ex-military aircraft and crashing them because they didn't have the ability to fly them safely. So the end result is that you can buy a MiG-21 for surprisingly cheap, but there's a long list of limits on what you can do with it and very few civilians are legally allowed to fly one.
The same situation exists with tanks and artillery and stuff like that. With a "normal" gun the average person is certainly capable of using it safely. You'll always have accidents because people are people, but the safety requirements for, say, an AR-15 are fairly basic. If you can follow the safety rules for a single-shot .22 rifle you can safely use an AR-15. But with a tank or artillery piece suddenly things change. Instead of an average back yard and a decent backstop you need miles of land for a firing range and it's very easy to misjudge the arc of a shot and hit the wrong target. And those stray shots suddenly have a lot more potential to kill people. A miss with an AR-15 won't kill someone unless it's a direct hit, which is incredibly unlikely. A stray artillery shell can kill a whole family if it lands in their house.
So, at absolute minimum, we need strict laws about owning and operating those big guns. Licenses, mandatory proof that you own a few hundred square miles of land to build an artillery range, etc. It is not acceptable to kill a whole house full of people just because you decided to buy a tank instead of an expensive car.
Grey Templar wrote: There is no need to make owning any weaponry illegal. The expense of owning some of those weapons would be astronomical and keep the numbers in circulation down to a minimum, almost certainly zero for nuclear weaponry.
Even a minimum is way too much, if that minimum is defined only by cost. Rich people aren't immune to being stupid with incredibly dangerous weapons just because they have lots of money. And you're clearly in the minority on this point. There's pretty indisputable precedent that, regardless of your opinion on whether or not the government should ban those weapons, they clearly have the power to do so.
The government has the power to infringe on all our rights. They however do not have any right to do so.
