Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:


http://washingtonexaminer.com/wyoming-lawmakers-propose-bill-to-nullify-new-federal-gun-laws/article/2518133?custom_click=rss#.UO8yOXdhiHW

Edit for clarification: Bill has been proposed, but is fully expected to pass.

The bill – HB0104 – states that “any federal law which attempts to ban a semi-automatic firearm or to limit the size of a magazine of a firearm or other limitation on firearms in this state shall be unenforceable in Wyoming.”

The bill is sponsored by eight Wyoming state representatives ad two state senators. If passed, the bill would declare any federal gun regulation created on or after January 1, 2013 to be unenforceable within the state.

In addition, the bill states would charge federal officials attempting to enforce a federal gun law within the state with a felony – “subject to imprisonment for not more less than one (1) year and one (1) day or more than five (5) years, a fine of not more than two thousand dollars ($2,000.00) five thousand dollars ($5,000.00), or both.”

The bill also allows the Attorney General of Wyoming to defend a state citizen from any prosecution by the United States Government.

That loud "clunk" noise is the gauntlet that was just thrown hitting the deck.

This is actual one of several state gun laws that challenges federal restrictions on firearms at the local level. For example Arizona, Montana and I believe a few other states have all passed laws to the effect of "If you make it here, and sell it here (in state) it's not subject to federal law. Interesting stuff. Between this and the legalization of weed in Colorado and Washington seems the feds are gonna be kinda busy on a legal front.

For an explanation of the Montana firearms laws: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/30482736/ns/us_news-life/t/montana-fires-warning-shot-over-states-rights/#.UO8zJndhiHU

Mild seccessionism

The days of wildwest cowboys have long past. aside of a nerd who took his mommy M16 (legally bought) to do that misdeed. gamgsters and other criminals in big major cities do their jobs with military-grade (and ill-gotten) weapons. Stricter gun controls law needs its stricter enforcers to make a difference.

 sebster wrote:
And this is a symptom of a disfunctional argument, which is evidence of my key point - that all parties need to get far more sensible, and that if they do more meaningful gun laws could be passed (or hell, there could just be some effort at enforcing the laws already on the books).

No one, so far, has shown us what those "sensible" solutions would look like. 75% of Americans in Gallup polling just after Sandy Hook said they were absolutely in favor of keeping handguns legal, yet handguns do the killing. People not convicted of a felony can pass background checks all day long, and they're not felons until they decide to murder someone. If they don't want to go that route, getting hold of a firearm illegally isn't terribly difficult in this country.

The emotion and extremes with which both sides are willing to take this is evidence, perhaps not of a culture war that was poor wording on my parts, but an oppositional approach that makes little sense given the small potatoes of the debate.

There is this idea on the part of gun control advocates that this is the pressing issue of the day when on a numbers basis it simply isn't. Accidents kill 12 times as many people. Suicide kills four times as many. There's plenty of other things killing people that barely rates a mention in political debate.

And at the same time, it's a gun. Big fething whoopsie if there's one type of gun you used to own that now you can't. Or an extra check and a waiting period before you get it. It is no great sacrifice.

Yeah, except it actually is a big deal, aside from the fact that we should never be comfortable with the government passing laws simply because it makes an overemotional section of society feel better. Lower estimates on legitimate defensive gun uses per year range well into the tens of thousands, and higher estimates take us into the hundreds of thousands or even millions. It's a public safety issue that goes both ways, and people who think one gun's as good as another are just as bad as people who think absolutely nothing should be banned.

In the end, I'm less than interested in the people who cry foul over the NRA after spending the last month shrieking about automatic weapons, cop-killer bullets, and the utter insanity of anyone who owns more than one flintlock musket.

That is certainly a major part of the issue. I mean, share a border with Mexico and you're going to get more killings no matter what you do.

But the 90% figure isn't true. First up the figure it simply cannot be anything like 90% - as inter-family murder makes up 24% by itself (or 13% - there's two different figures in the link below). You see all kinds of other relationships and motivations for crime, but you see little evidence of criminal on criminal crime.

http://www2.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2009/offenses/expanded_information/homicide.html

I'm not saying that gangs aren't a big part of the problem, but they aren't just an easy way to handwave the high murder rate away.

I believe the 90% figure doesn't reference criminal-on-criminal gun homicides, but rather gun homicides involving drugs and/or gangs.

Old CDC data from the earlier part of the decade that I maddeningly cannot find my bookmark for has an interesting racial breakdown, as well. White Americans die to guns at a rate of about 1.5 in 100,000. Hispanic Americans are at around 4.6 in 100,000. African-American male Americans are at an absurd 38.6 in 100,000.

Does anyone else think the President's cost estimate of $500M seems low, given everything on his to do list? I think the biggest unintended costs are going to come from the NICS background check system. Everyone who purchases a firearm from a licenced seller has to go through this system. Now they're going to almost double the work load by requiring private sales to go through it as well. That system crashed 10 times this last year from the volume jamming the system, it will have to be expanded to keep up. Add to that the cost of introducing and adding all the additional confidential data the President wants to make it more thorough. When Congress passed the NICS Improvement act 6 yrs ago it bumped up the cost $10M/yr to include a single additional data field for involunatry commitment to a mental institute... and even that isn't enough funding to keep it uptodate. The cost of more data in the NICS is an indefinitate set of commitments, its however many datafields x $10M per year, forever.

 aka_mythos wrote:
Does anyone else think the President's cost estimate of $500M seems low, given everything on his to do list? I think the biggest unintended costs are going to come from the NICS background check system. Everyone who purchases a firearm from a licenced seller has to go through this system. Now they're going to almost double the work load by requiring private sales to go through it as well.

I still don't see how that will be enforceable.

 Breotan wrote:

 aka_mythos wrote:
Does anyone else think the President's cost estimate of $500M seems low, given everything on his to do list? I think the biggest unintended costs are going to come from the NICS background check system. Everyone who purchases a firearm from a licenced seller has to go through this system. Now they're going to almost double the work load by requiring private sales to go through it as well.

I still don't see how that will be enforceable.

It probably isn't enforceable. But since the vast majority of gun owners tend to comply with the law, they'll do so to avoid going to prison and losing the right to have a gun when they get out. I'm sure some (a small minority) will refuse to comply and decide to become criminals.

It won't deter folks who buy guns illegally now or who decide to in the future.

 d-usa wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
It really is silly to take away the weapon used to commit the murder when all that will do is make more murders happen with a different weapon.

We don't need guns to defend ourselves, we will defend ourselves with a different weapon.

Far better to address the cause of a murder than the tool it was commited with. The weapon didn't cause the murder.

Far better to address self defense than the tool it was commited with. The weapon didn't defend you.

If someone wants to kill someone else, they'll find a way to do it. Removing guns from the equation just makes them pick up a knife. Removing knives will make them look for a club, baseball bat, or even their bare hands.

If someone wants to defend themselves, they will find a way to do it. Removing guns from the equation just makes them pick up a knife. Removing knives will make them look for a club, baseball bat, or even their bare hands.

The murder still happens, just with a different weapon. In a way, its no easier to kill someone with a gun than it is with a knife.

You can still defend yourself, just with a different weapon. IIn a way, it's no easier to defend yourself with a gun than it is with a knife.

The best solution to violence is to look into what caused the murder. Maybe there are socio-economic factors that led to the situation developing as it did, maybe drugs were involved, etc..

Look into the socio-economic factors that led to the situation developing as it did and you won't even have to defend yourself.
.

tl;dr

If guns didn't make it easier to kill people, then people wouldn't want guns to defend themselves. Why do you need a gun to overthrow a tyranical government if you can just do it with a knife instead. It's a BS argument.

I seriously hope you are being sarcastic. Taking away guns doesn't solve the issue that causes murders in the first place was my point, which at least I had one.

Is it your opinion that people would more frequently decide to attempt murder with other types of weapons because they did not have a gun available?

I mean, do you think that people who weren't thinking of attempting murder would change their mind and decide to do it because they could not use a gun?

 d-usa wrote:

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:
Well the real issues behind the murder rate are more focused on poverty and education. Guns get the short end of the stick because they're more visible and easier to legislate then the actual issue.

But ideologically speaking the same crowd that is usually on the anti-any-gun-law side are also on the "government shouldn't fix poverty" and "government has no say in education" side.

Really? And you have facts to back this up from where, text removed. Last warning. Reds8n

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Is it your opinion that people would more frequently decide to attempt murder with other types of weapons because they did not have a gun available?

I mean, do you think that people who weren't thinking of attempting murder would change their mind and decide to do it because they could not use a gun?

Crimes of passion by otherwise law-abiding citizens would probably stay at about the same levels. After all, that's why we had that hilarious article from 2005 a couple weeks ago discussing a few A&E docs recommending a ban on pointy-ended knives over in Britland.

What everyone overlooks in the gun control debate is that the majority of our firearm homicide numbers come from drug/gang violence. It's unreasonable to assume that people importing illegal drugs and fighting over it would care overly much about a firearm ban, but that won't stop a lot of folks the world over who wish we'd do things more like they would from telling us how everything should be.

And the misinformation spreads:
http://news.yahoo.com/people-not-assault-weapons-defense-secretary-141214260.html

Why is he going on about armor piercing ammunition. What the hell is he talking about? I've not heard of anyone defending the need for amror piercing ammunition. More importantly I've not heard of anyone having any, any for sale, or anything related to that. There's some cheap foreign junk that has (non lead or non copper) metal cores - but thats not to be a mal ninja, but because its incredibly bad ammunition. The only thing else I can think of is "leadless" ammo: but thats made to be eco friendly and its just copper.

Evidently this is the latest push to avoid that whole pending national debt nightmare/ economy still sucks HEY LOOK OVER THERE! effort.

Armor piercing ammo's going to end up translated as, "Anything that can get through Level III."

Welcome back to non-+P 9mm, slow .40 loads, and .45 as your only semiauto options.

Leon Panetta's a tool in general and has informed congress that if Obama wants to start a war they'll get permission from the UN. Not the congress. Don't expect him to know what he's talking about.

I was confused as to why armor piercing ammo was brought up by the president too, it looked like a copy paste of the Brady cop killer ammo BS from the early 90s. There's no such thing as bullet proof, just bullet resistant so it's not like cops are dying from magic bullets that rend kevlar like a man in a romance novel rips corsets.

 Frazzled wrote:

 d-usa wrote:

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:
Well the real issues behind the murder rate are more focused on poverty and education. Guns get the short end of the stick because they're more visible and easier to legislate then the actual issue.

But ideologically speaking the same crowd that is usually on the anti-any-gun-law side are also on the "government shouldn't fix poverty" and "government has no say in education" side.

Really? And you have facts to back this up from where,

The RNC platform and many speeches given by republican candidates last year.

1) We will not let the government take our guns
2) we will cut the department of education
3) we will cut welfare


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Grey Templar wrote:

 d-usa wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
It really is silly to take away the weapon used to commit the murder when all that will do is make more murders happen with a different weapon.

We don't need guns to defend ourselves, we will defend ourselves with a different weapon.

Far better to address the cause of a murder than the tool it was commited with. The weapon didn't cause the murder.

Far better to address self defense than the tool it was commited with. The weapon didn't defend you.

If someone wants to kill someone else, they'll find a way to do it. Removing guns from the equation just makes them pick up a knife. Removing knives will make them look for a club, baseball bat, or even their bare hands.

If someone wants to defend themselves, they will find a way to do it. Removing guns from the equation just makes them pick up a knife. Removing knives will make them look for a club, baseball bat, or even their bare hands.

The murder still happens, just with a different weapon. In a way, its no easier to kill someone with a gun than it is with a knife.

You can still defend yourself, just with a different weapon. IIn a way, it's no easier to defend yourself with a gun than it is with a knife.

The best solution to violence is to look into what caused the murder. Maybe there are socio-economic factors that led to the situation developing as it did, maybe drugs were involved, etc..

Look into the socio-economic factors that led to the situation developing as it did and you won't even have to defend yourself.
.

tl;dr

If guns didn't make it easier to kill people, then people wouldn't want guns to defend themselves. Why do you need a gun to overthrow a tyranical government if you can just do it with a knife instead. It's a BS argument.

I seriously hope you are being sarcastic. Taking away guns doesn't solve the issue that causes murders in the first place was my point, which at least I had one.

So guns don't make it easier to kill?

Why do we want to have guns to protect ourselves with?

 d-usa wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

 d-usa wrote:

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:
Well the real issues behind the murder rate are more focused on poverty and education. Guns get the short end of the stick because they're more visible and easier to legislate then the actual issue.

But ideologically speaking the same crowd that is usually on the anti-any-gun-law side are also on the "government shouldn't fix poverty" and "government has no say in education" side.

Really? And you have facts to back this up from where,

The RNC platform and many speeches given by republican candidates last year.

1) We will not let the government take our guns
2) we will cut the department of education
3) we will cut welfare

Wait, so you think only Republicans are Second Amendment advocates? Thats an interesting view.

 Frazzled wrote:

 d-usa wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

 d-usa wrote:

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:
Well the real issues behind the murder rate are more focused on poverty and education. Guns get the short end of the stick because they're more visible and easier to legislate then the actual issue.

But ideologically speaking the same crowd that is usually on the anti-any-gun-law side are also on the "government shouldn't fix poverty" and "government has no say in education" side.

Really? And you have facts to back this up from where,

The RNC platform and many speeches given by republican candidates last year.

1) We will not let the government take our guns
2) we will cut the department of education
3) we will cut welfare

Wait, so you think only Republicans are Second Amendment advocates? Thats an interesting view.

Not at all, I'm pro-gun myself after all. I am just talking about the super conservative "gun laws shouldn't even be considered because guns are never the problem" crowd. I know we fall into the trap of thinking purely right/left, and I am guilty of that as well.

Well I'm a pretty hardcore Second Amendment guy but I'm a pretty radical Bill of Rights guy.

Do you think the actions/executive orders/memorandums that Obama talked about yesterday violate the 2nd?

Besides the stupid talk about assault rifles and high capacity magazines?

 d-usa wrote:
Do you think the actions/executive orders/memorandums that Obama talked about yesterday violate the 2nd?

Besides the stupid talk about assault rifles and high capacity magazines?

I don't think, "Does this violate the Constitution?" is the only necessary check that needs to be performed on potential legislation before we decide to balls-out do it. "Is this going to accomplish anything, including our goal?" is a pretty good one to run through the ol' filter as well.

And I think a lot of his actions would accomplish things. Not this year and not the next, I think any efective law that is passed would result in improvements that would need to be measured in decades. The major proposed legislation I can see helping is the universal background check, the majority of other proposed stuff is stupid. But none of Obama's executive actions justify the screams of "King Obama is taking our guns!" that are everywhere.

 Seaward wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
Do you think the actions/executive orders/memorandums that Obama talked about yesterday violate the 2nd?

Besides the stupid talk about assault rifles and high capacity magazines?

I don't think, "Does this violate the Constitution?" is the only necessary check that needs to be performed on potential legislation before we decide to balls-out do it. "Is this going to accomplish anything, including our goal?" is a pretty good one to run through the ol' filter as well.

I agree, I think the Pres and congress critters should explain:

1. What is the goal?
2. How does the proposed legislation/regualtion/executive order accomplish that goal?

If the goal is No More Sandy Hooks!, then nothing proposed really is going to work for a variety of reasons. Just because one group deems a proposed measure 'resonable' or 'common sense' does not mean it actually is worth enacting. The urge to 'Do Something!' seems to usually be satisfied by doing something useless at some cost.

I watched Wolf Blitzer interview a guy (I think a state congress critter from TX). Wolf opined that some of the measures(specifically universal background checks) MAY prevent some future incident from taking place. In theory it is possible. But if you look at the incidents (Aurora, Sandy Hook, the Giffords shooting) which are the impetus for this measure, none of those incidents would have been prevented. In two cases the perps did go through back ground checks and in the other the perp murdered his own mother and stole her guns.

I am offended that Wolf's is a hypothetical situation I am supposed to give up some freedom or incur some cost to avoid, but the hypothetical of 'if a good guy had a gun the perp at Sandy Hook may not have capped as many kids' is laughed at by the other side, though one can show examples of an armed good guy stopping a bad guy. Heck, that is why we arm our cops, so they can stop bad guys.

So again, tell us your goal and explain how your proposal helps meet that goal. Let us understand the costs of the proposals and then decide if the cost is worth the benefit. If the proposal does NOT help meet the goal, then it should get chucked out.

Barring the "ban assault weapons/mags/cop killer bullets" wish list, which of your freedoms are being violated by Obama's proposal?

 d-usa wrote:
Do you think the actions/executive orders/memorandums that Obama talked about yesterday violate the 2nd?

Besides the stupid talk about assault rifles and high capacity magazines?

I think this is directed at me. Most of the EO's are in line with the "plain English interpretation" of I should be already doing that AS ITS PART OF MY JOB.
I am down with background checks. I am down with efforts to better report the data properly for those background checks (thanks to Dakka I've learned thats a bit haphazard).
The "lets spend money on" safety programs and betters safes is stupid and typical government. Those plans are already in place. The safes are already tested. Its not an issue.

One or two do get me nervous depending on how its executed:

4. Direct the attorney general to review categories of individuals prohibited from having a gun to make sure dangerous people are not slipping through the cracks.

Could be nothing, could be violently unconstitutional. I don't trust Holder in any way in this area, based on his past statements.

16. Clarify that the Affordable Care Act does not prohibit doctors asking their patients about guns in their homes.

Actually it does. Its plain language. Sorry you didn't read what you signed.
Also, sorry, but I'm not going to answer that question OR ANY QUESTION NOT DIRECTLY RELATED TO HEALTH YOU SNITCH. Lecture me and I'll work to insure you lose half your patients. This is Texas and no dillweed is going to lecture me. Thats my wife's job.
Now of course my doc wouldn't ask such asinine questions.


and this one

11. Nominate an ATF director.

THATS HIS JOB! HE"S MAKING AN EO DIRECTING HIMSELF TO DO SOMETHING. THAT BORDERS ON DERANGED.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Is it your opinion that people would more frequently decide to attempt murder with other types of weapons because they did not have a gun available?

I mean, do you think that people who weren't thinking of attempting murder would change their mind and decide to do it because they could not use a gun?

No, I think the murder would be equally likely with our without a gun.

I had a poor choice of words on my part with my post. Easier is not the correct word. If someone had a split second choice of gun or knife they would probably gravitate towards the gun unless there was some other factor.

What I was trying to say is that the weapon doesn't matter. The reason the murder is commited is the real issue that needs addressing.

 d-usa wrote:
And I think a lot of his actions would accomplish things. Not this year and not the next, I think any efective law that is passed would result in improvements that would need to be measured in decades. The major proposed legislation I can see helping is the universal background check, the majority of other proposed stuff is stupid. But none of Obama's executive actions justify the screams of "King Obama is taking our guns!" that are everywhere.

I'm fine with the universal background check, aside from the fact that it'll kill private sales. I'm amazed he's willing to even consider something that'll line gun stores' pockets like that, but Obama's not exactly a stranger to forcing the American citizen to give their money to private enterprise.

The problem is, that's not the only thing he laid on the table. We also have the "target the Ferraris!" Assault Weapons Ban, the mag cap ban, the still-mystical armor piercing ammo ban, etc.

 d-usa wrote:
Barring the "ban assault weapons/mags/cop killer bullets" wish list, which of your freedoms are being violated by Obama's proposal?

Currently I can buy a legally owned gun from or sell a legally owned gun to one of my buddies without having to pay someone to process a background check. A mandatory check takes that away from me and forces a cost.on to the transaction. The cost incurred is in both money and time. As someone who HAS bought a gun from a buddy and received(and given) guns as gifts I can say that though the cost may not be huge, it is there, and it does place a limit on my freedom to sell or buy legally owned personal property, however small that limit is. There are other costs too. Right now there have been times where the check system has crashed, or has incurred delays due to high volume of use. The system will need to be updated and maintained, that is tax dollars. And again, I ask:

What is the goal? How does this proposal meet the goal? If it does meet the goal, is it worth the costs?

I've shown that having this in place would not have prevented Sandy Hook or other recent incidents.

It won't kill private gun sales unless there are criminal charges associated with you, a private citizen, selling a gun to another private citizen without a background check. And even then only if the gun sale gets reported to the government somehow.

And an anti-armor piercing ban only protects Cops. And AP bullet will kill an unarmored person the same as a regular bullet.

If I am not mistaken, an AP bullet may be worse against an unarmored opponent than a regular bullet. Because of the nature of an AP bullets design, it won't tumble inside the target as much causing less tissue damage. Hypothetically meaning its more survivable.

Minor issue. But if you think about it it does mean that, in the event of needing to resist an oppressive government, those resisting the government would be at a disadvantage due to not having AP bullets when the government has body armor.

 Grey Templar wrote:
It won't kill private gun sales unless there are criminal charges associated with you, a private citizen, selling a gun to another private citizen without a background check. And even then only if the gun sale gets reported to the government somehow.

And an anti-armor piercing ban only protects Cops. And AP bullet will kill an unarmored person the same as a regular bullet.

If I am not mistaken, an AP bullet may be worse against an unarmored opponent than a regular bullet. Because of the nature of an AP bullets design, it won't tumble inside the target as much causing less tissue damage. Hypothetically meaning its more survivable.

Minor issue. But if you think about it it does mean that, in the event of needing to resist an oppressive government, those resisting the government would be at a disadvantage due to not having AP bullets when the government has body armor.

Again, what armor piercing ammo? I don't know of ANY armor piercing ammunition available for commercial sale. What EXACTLY are you referring to?

its all hypothetical of course..

 Grey Templar wrote:
its all hypothetical of course..

I don't believe that. Either its a false flag argument (because they keep screqamining about it like its a crisis) or they are looking at something else. So what is it?

Ironically San Francisco just pushed through a ban o hollowpoints. You can only purcahse hardball now. hardball has much better pentration characteristics. er....

For those opposed to the supposed AP bullets its probably a mix of both.