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.

 Hordini wrote:

 Ninjacommando wrote:
You mean fully automatic weapons? you can own those to as long as the weapon was made and registered before may 1986.

You also have to have a $200 tax stamp and a class three federal firearms license, which is a months-long process that entails completing tons of paperwork, having a complete background check and having any legally-owned fully automatic weapons registered with the ATF. The kind of firearms we're talking about also cost in the neighborhood of probably $10,000 to $20,000 and up, depending on what it is. It's a little more complicated than just "you can own those as long as the weapon was made and registered before 1986."

yes and we have had this chat about in the mid section of the last page.

 Ninjacommando wrote:

 Hordini wrote:

 Ninjacommando wrote:
You mean fully automatic weapons? you can own those to as long as the weapon was made and registered before may 1986.

You also have to have a $200 tax stamp and a class three federal firearms license, which is a months-long process that entails completing tons of paperwork, having a complete background check and having any legally-owned fully automatic weapons registered with the ATF. The kind of firearms we're talking about also cost in the neighborhood of probably $10,000 to $20,000 and up, depending on what it is. It's a little more complicated than just "you can own those as long as the weapon was made and registered before 1986."

yes and we have had this chat about in the mid section of the last page.

Yeah, sorry I was late to the party. I took too long to write my reply and saw your other posts right after I posted.

CptJake wrote:

DAaddict wrote:


Have you watched Sons of Guns? They have the license but I clearly recall them having some "fun" with M1917, M2. MG42 etc... Let me qualify my military grade weapons.... I am talking AR15 and AK47 (semi--automatic versions of military grade) No body can justify ownership of these other than for fun or producing mayhem. Again let them be licensed and no problems on my part but to go to a gun show and walk away with an AK47 and 2 or 3 30 round clips without a waiting period or special licensing seems a bit ludicrous.

So your own definition of 'military grade' is something that is not really military grade. Nice.

No one can justify owning a car or motorcycle capable of going more than 75mph except for fun and/or breaking speeding laws. Yet no special restrictions on the ownership of these exists (compared to other cars).

How about you answer the questions:

1. What is your goal?
2. How do your proposed rules, which limit freedoms I currently hold, meet your goal?

Just because YOU deem it ludicrous is no reason to infringe on my freedoms.

My goal? So I don't have to hear about another wingnut who goes into a school/public place with a 30-round AK47 or similar where I hear about massive loss of life and that it would have been worse had it not been for a fortuitous gun jam.
So that idiots who own such weapons and don't take precautions then have them taken are held accountable for having a killing machine left available to their off-balance kids.

I own a vehicle that is capable of doing 100+ mph, but I don't do it. And if I did I don't punch the gas and aim it at a congregation of people either...

You can own whatever you want but don't tell me it is an unbearable infringement to make you license and register such a firearm and perhaps not allow you to buy it on a spur of the moment. (heat of the moment) I know a brick and mortar shop has to fill out a registration tell me why I can go to a gun show and assuming I have the cash, can buy anything.

To quote the NRA - Guns don't kill people. People kill people.

I am not niave enough to think that forbidding gun ownership is desirable but a little control and oversight is not bad. Perhaps we won't have gun enthusiast mothers leaving AR 15 and Glocks in unlocked locations where their slightly unbalanced kids can readily grab them.

The idea that a 30 round mag is worse than a 15 or whatever number less than 30 is silly.

Most people that own a gun that takes mags will have multiples.

If the person can't have a 30 round mag they'll have two 15 round mags(or whatever equivilent)

A semi-automatic is a more efficient killing weapon over a full automatic(where you likely end up wasting bullets)

 Frazzled wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:

 Ninjacommando wrote:

 whembly wrote:


@ninjacommado... What is your point though? Are you saying that we shouldn't have them?

no, I think a person should be able to own any firearm they want. Again I was just responding to the "military grade weapons are illegal" you can get them it just requires time and money.

It also has to do with "military grade" weapons not being well defined.

Is the Beretta M9 a military grade weapon because its used by the military?

Military grade staplers should be banned. After all, who needs a military grade stapler?

Our staplers are automatic. I can staple non-stop until I run out of staples. No civilian should have those powers.

djones520 wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:

 Ninjacommando wrote:

 whembly wrote:


@ninjacommado... What is your point though? Are you saying that we shouldn't have them?

no, I think a person should be able to own any firearm they want. Again I was just responding to the "military grade weapons are illegal" you can get them it just requires time and money.

It also has to do with "military grade" weapons not being well defined.

Is the Beretta M9 a military grade weapon because its used by the military?

Military grade staplers should be banned. After all, who needs a military grade stapler?

Our staplers are automatic. I can staple non-stop until I run out of staples. No civilian should have those powers.

And all staplers with a capacity of more than 10 staples need to be banned.

 Grey Templar wrote:
The idea that a 30 round mag is worse than a 15 or whatever number less than 30 is silly.

Most people that own a gun that takes mags will have multiples.

If the person can't have a 30 round mag they'll have two 15 round mags(or whatever equivilent)

A semi-automatic is a more efficient killing weapon over a full automatic(where you likely end up wasting bullets)

Shhhh that's not scary enough though!

LOL... okay I understand that 2 15-round clips equals a 30 round clip. I also understand that we are talking less than 5 seconds to reload a new clip.

I am talking about perception. No deer hunting rifle has a banana clip. Now it seems most of the latest wave of derainged have little or no clue of what they are doing with a weapon... So lets make them work a little to kill people.

I have 25 rnd clips of 22 rimfire and it is fun to just pull the trigger. All that I am saying is perhaps making it a little more regulated and a pain or costly to own, it might make it more of a thought to own. Increased liability for misuse might cause someone to be more responsible.

DAaddict wrote:
LOL... okay I understand that 2 15-round clips equals a 30 round clip. I also understand that we are talking less than 5 seconds to reload a new clip.

I am talking about perception. No deer hunting rifle has a banana clip. Now it seems most of the latest wave of derainged have little or no clue of what they are doing with a weapon... So lets make them work a little to kill people.

I have 25 rnd clips of 22 rimfire and it is fun to just pull the trigger. All that I am saying is perhaps making it a little more regulated and a pain or costly to own, it might make it more of a thought to own. Increased liability for misuse might cause someone to be more responsible.

Someone can get a single shot shotgun, and still kill someone every 3 seconds. Furthermore, the damage they do with that shotgun would be harder to repair, and will more likely kill the person it hits. Capacity has no real merit on killing power.

DAaddict wrote:
LOL... okay I understand that 2 15-round clips equals a 30 round clip. I also understand that we are talking less than 5 seconds to reload a new clip.

I am talking about perception. No deer hunting rifle has a banana clip. Now it seems most of the latest wave of derainged have little or no clue of what they are doing with a weapon... So lets make them work a little to kill people.

I have 25 rnd clips of 22 rimfire and it is fun to just pull the trigger. All that I am saying is perhaps making it a little more regulated and a pain or costly to own, it might make it more of a thought to own. Increased liability for misuse might cause someone to be more responsible.

An AR-10 has a multiround magazine and would be excellent against deer.

You've not expressed a benefit, but have expressed multiple costs: violation of the Second Amendment, costs to acquire new magazines, etc.

DAaddict wrote:
LOL... okay I understand that 2 15-round clips equals a 30 round clip. I also understand that we are talking less than 5 seconds to reload a new clip.

Yeah, less than 5 seconds. Actually less than 3 seconds with practice and anticipation of reloading.

You don't shoot till your out, say "I'm out", unload the empty mag, reach for the new one, and put it in.


Its more like, 3 shots left, reaches for new mag, uses last 3 rounds, drops empty mag and immediatly inserts new mag.

On a semi-automatic they will likely not be any lull in firing.

 Frazzled wrote:

DAaddict wrote:
LOL... okay I understand that 2 15-round clips equals a 30 round clip. I also understand that we are talking less than 5 seconds to reload a new clip.

I am talking about perception. No deer hunting rifle has a banana clip. Now it seems most of the latest wave of derainged have little or no clue of what they are doing with a weapon... So lets make them work a little to kill people.

I have 25 rnd clips of 22 rimfire and it is fun to just pull the trigger. All that I am saying is perhaps making it a little more regulated and a pain or costly to own, it might make it more of a thought to own. Increased liability for misuse might cause someone to be more responsible.

An AR-10 has a multiround magazine and would be excellent against deer.

You've not expressed a benefit, but have expressed multiple costs: violation of the Second Amendment, costs to acquire new magazines, etc.

In addition, an AR-15 is a great varmint gun and works well for hunting things like coyote and wild boar.

 Hordini wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

DAaddict wrote:
LOL... okay I understand that 2 15-round clips equals a 30 round clip. I also understand that we are talking less than 5 seconds to reload a new clip.

I am talking about perception. No deer hunting rifle has a banana clip. Now it seems most of the latest wave of derainged have little or no clue of what they are doing with a weapon... So lets make them work a little to kill people.

I have 25 rnd clips of 22 rimfire and it is fun to just pull the trigger. All that I am saying is perhaps making it a little more regulated and a pain or costly to own, it might make it more of a thought to own. Increased liability for misuse might cause someone to be more responsible.

An AR-10 has a multiround magazine and would be excellent against deer.

You've not expressed a benefit, but have expressed multiple costs: violation of the Second Amendment, costs to acquire new magazines, etc.

In addition, an AR-15 is a great varmint gun and works well for hunting things like coyote and wild boar.

I wish someone had an AR 15 and taken out the coyote that leaped out in front of my car (before he leaped out in front of my car).

DAaddict wrote:
My goal? So I don't have to hear about another wingnut who goes into a school/public place with a 30-round AK47 or similar where I hear about massive loss of life and that it would have been worse had it not been for a fortuitous gun jam.

Why would a gun ban be more effective than a reworking of how we identify and (involuntarily) commit people for psychiatric care?

DAaddict wrote:
So that idiots who own such weapons and don't take precautions then have them taken are held accountable for having a killing machine left available to their off-balance kids.

The most recent incidents involved the parent(s) being murdered by the off-balance kids so I don't know how you plan on holding them accountable.

DAaddict wrote:
I own a vehicle that is capable of doing 100+ mph, but I don't do it. And if I did I don't punch the gas and aim it at a congregation of people either...

Maybe you should turn in your car so that some teenager doesn't steal it during the night and kill some children while drunk driving.

DAaddict wrote:
You can own whatever you want but don't tell me it is an unbearable infringement to make you license and register such a firearm and perhaps not allow you to buy it on a spur of the moment. (heat of the moment). <snip> Perhaps we won't have gun enthusiast mothers leaving AR 15 and Glocks in unlocked locations where their slightly unbalanced kids can readily grab them.

Tell me how - EXACTLY - having an AR-15 registered with the state would have prevented any of the killing sprees that have happened recently. Seriously, I want specific details.

I know a brick and mortar shop has to fill out a registration tell me why I can go to a gun show and assuming I have the cash, can buy anything.

Actually, gun shows (at least in the Northwest) require a membership before you can buy from any of the dealers there. That membership involves the standard background check done as part of buying a firearm. So, except for the five day wait, you're not skipping anything. Oh, and the gun club people really like to look you over just to make sure you aren't some crazy jack-hole or activist trying to make trouble.

DAaddict wrote:
My goal? So I don't have to hear about another wingnut who goes into a school/public place with a 30-round AK47 or similar where I hear about massive loss of life and that it would have been worse had it not been for a fortuitous gun jam.

Virginia Tech involved more lives lost, and involved pistols. Why the focus on guns that account for less than 1% of criminal homicide?

I am not niave enough to think that forbidding gun ownership is desirable but a little control and oversight is not bad. Perhaps we won't have gun enthusiast mothers leaving AR 15 and Glocks in unlocked locations where their slightly unbalanced kids can readily grab them.

Is a Glock inherently more deadly than a Smith & Wesson?

Is a Glock inherently more deadly than a Smith & Wesson?

inherently crappier.

This comes down to the gun not being dangerous, it just depends on the douche holding it.

The government would be better off putting money into education and mental health.

 phantommaster wrote:
The government would be better off putting money into education and mental health.

Almost everyone who owns guns in America would agree. The problem is that you run into a different area of civil rights when you start looking at mental health. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/O%27Connor_v._Donaldson

 Breotan wrote:
Why would a gun ban be more effective than a reworking of how we identify and (involuntarily) commit people for psychiatric care?

So you don't trust the government with gun laws but you trust them to come up with a system to decide who involuntarily needs to be committed and who doesn't?

To me thats even scarier than gun restrictions. Way way way scarier.

 DutchKillsRambo wrote:

 Breotan wrote:
Why would a gun ban be more effective than a reworking of how we identify and (involuntarily) commit people for psychiatric care?

So you don't trust the government with gun laws but you trust them to come up with a system to decide who involuntarily needs to be committed and who doesn't?

To me thats even scarier than gun restrictions. Way way way scarier.

Except of course, its the crazies shooting people.

 DutchKillsRambo wrote:

 Breotan wrote:
Why would a gun ban be more effective than a reworking of how we identify and (involuntarily) commit people for psychiatric care?

So you don't trust the government with gun laws but you trust them to come up with a system to decide who involuntarily needs to be committed and who doesn't?

To me thats even scarier than gun restrictions. Way way way scarier.

Indeed, so I propose neither to be done.

 Frazzled wrote:

 DutchKillsRambo wrote:

 Breotan wrote:
Why would a gun ban be more effective than a reworking of how we identify and (involuntarily) commit people for psychiatric care?

So you don't trust the government with gun laws but you trust them to come up with a system to decide who involuntarily needs to be committed and who doesn't?

To me thats even scarier than gun restrictions. Way way way scarier.

Except of course, its the crazies shooting people.

Exactly the attitude espoused by the NRA. Define "crazies". Any murderer is a "crazy" now?

 DutchKillsRambo wrote:
Exactly the attitude espoused by the NRA. Define "crazies". Any murderer is a "crazy" now?

I believe he meant it's the crazies that're going on the big spree killings that gain media attention. That's what people actually care about. Nobody gives a gak about your ho-hum everyday homicides in this country, but something done with a scary-looking black rifle that two-thirds of the country thinks is identical to what killed bin Laden? That gets attention.

 DutchKillsRambo wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

 DutchKillsRambo wrote:

 Breotan wrote:
Why would a gun ban be more effective than a reworking of how we identify and (involuntarily) commit people for psychiatric care?

So you don't trust the government with gun laws but you trust them to come up with a system to decide who involuntarily needs to be committed and who doesn't?

To me thats even scarier than gun restrictions. Way way way scarier.

Except of course, its the crazies shooting people.

Exactly the attitude espoused by the NRA. Define "crazies". Any murderer is a "crazy" now?

Someone going in an shooting up an elementary school. How's that for ya?

 sebster wrote:
This whole debate is just ridiculous. Just utterly stupid.

Honest to God, the things people get all worked up about.

"Yeah, I ain't gonna let some government man take my guns!"
"Are they trying to take your guns?"
"No. But if they were I sure wouldn't let 'em!"

But they are trying to take their guns. People in California had to ship guns to another state because as of an arbitrary date, they were illegal and must be turned over for destruction. (without compensation, I might add.) Folks in New York will be forced to do the same thing before March 1st, or be breaking the law.

 Seaward wrote:

 DutchKillsRambo wrote:
Exactly the attitude espoused by the NRA. Define "crazies". Any murderer is a "crazy" now?

I believe he meant it's the crazies that're going on the big spree killings that gain media attention. That's what people actually care about. Nobody gives a gak about your ho-hum everyday homicides in this country, but something done with a scary-looking black rifle that two-thirds of the country thinks is identical to what killed bin Laden? That gets attention.

Except that when they say "crazies" and are pushing for mental health reform instead of gun reform they mean something different from what your saying here. Yes everyone is talking about spree killings, that's media gold. But the "crazies" are a slipperier slope than gun laws IMO. I'd gladly trade the freedom to buy a certain rifle to ensure I wont be locked up in a psych ward for having "crazy" thoughts anyday.

DAaddict wrote:

My goal? So I don't have to hear about another wingnut who goes into a school/public place with a 30-round AK47 or similar where I hear about massive loss of life and that it would have been worse had it not been for a fortuitous gun jam.
So that idiots who own such weapons and don't take precautions then have them taken are held accountable for having a killing machine left available to their off-balance kids.

I own a vehicle that is capable of doing 100+ mph, but I don't do it. And if I did I don't punch the gas and aim it at a congregation of people either...

You can own whatever you want but don't tell me it is an unbearable infringement to make you license and register such a firearm and perhaps not allow you to buy it on a spur of the moment. (heat of the moment) I know a brick and mortar shop has to fill out a registration tell me why I can go to a gun show and assuming I have the cash, can buy anything.

To quote the NRA - Guns don't kill people. People kill people.

I am not niave enough to think that forbidding gun ownership is desirable but a little control and oversight is not bad. Perhaps we won't have gun enthusiast mothers leaving AR 15 and Glocks in unlocked locations where their slightly unbalanced kids can readily grab them.

So, your goal is NO MOAR SANDY HOOKS!!!

And how did you think your proposals would accomplish that? (I did ask that of you twice before).

Your stated proposals, if in place, would not have prevented Sandy Hook, Columbine, Virginia Tech, the Aurora theater shooting.... And yet you consider your proposals valid solutions to enable your goal? Do you also not understand that the weapons your proposal covers are rarely used in any murders? When you add in the fact that your proposals would not prevent the ones that they are used in, your proposals, as a solution to achieve your stated goal, are asinine. They fall into the "WE MUST DO SOMETHING!!! THINK OF THE CHILDREN!!!!" category. You feel good doing 'something' and care nothing about addressing the actual problems, nor do you care about the rights folks currently enjoy. Your Feeling Good is all that matters. Frankly that is a common but disappointing aspect we see a lot of in this type of proposal.

Any infringement of my rights is unbearable when that infringement does not help you achieve your stated goal. If you could demonstrate how the infringement met your goal, then we can discuss if it is worth giving up my freedom. As many here have demonstrated, there are a lot more easily controlable ways to prevent kids from being killed that do not violate the Bill of Rights.

 DutchKillsRambo wrote:

 Seaward wrote:

 DutchKillsRambo wrote:
Exactly the attitude espoused by the NRA. Define "crazies". Any murderer is a "crazy" now?

I believe he meant it's the crazies that're going on the big spree killings that gain media attention. That's what people actually care about. Nobody gives a gak about your ho-hum everyday homicides in this country, but something done with a scary-looking black rifle that two-thirds of the country thinks is identical to what killed bin Laden? That gets attention.

Except that when they say "crazies" and are pushing for mental health reform instead of gun reform they mean something different from what your saying here. Yes everyone is talking about spree killings, that's media gold. But the "crazies" are a slipperier slope than gun laws IMO. I'd gladly trade the freedom to buy a certain rifle to ensure I wont be locked up in a psych ward for having "crazy" thoughts anyday.

OK you do that. I'm sane and your tradeoff won't keep the crazies from killing people.

Further I'm not saying all the crazies have to be locked up. I'm saying:
1. People who are taking psychotropic drugs and are potentially dangerous should have firearms removed.
2. People who are dangerous to themselves, and others, and after extensive reivwe includingmultiple doc signoff, can be temporarily constrained. Lets get real we can put safeguards in for the truly crazy.
3. Access to medical care for mental health needs to be greatly expanded: PEOPLE NEED TO BE ABLE TO GET THE HELP THEY NEED.
mental illness is a disease. treat it like that.

 Breotan wrote:

I know a brick and mortar shop has to fill out a registration tell me why I can go to a gun show and assuming I have the cash, can buy anything.

Actually, gun shows (at least in the Northwest) require a membership before you can buy from any of the dealers there. That membership involves the standard background check done as part of buying a firearm. So, except for the five day wait, you're not skipping anything. Oh, and the gun club people really like to look you over just to make sure you aren't some crazy jack-hole or activist trying to make trouble.

Here in AZ if you go to a gun show (and anybody can), if you buy from a dealer there's the normal paperwork involved. However buying from a private citizen requires no paperwork (in or outside of a gunshow). This is due to the fact that a private citizen can't legally call the FBI and ask them if a person can legally buy a firearm like a business can. That, I believe, is due to privacy laws (as only a convicted felon is restricted from purchasing a firearm). So, in the belief that less government interference is better than more, AZ does not register firearms, permits private sales, and instead tries to punish those that commit crimes instead of hassling the majority that do not. Note that it is still a crime to knowingly sell a firearm to an illegal posessor, but with no real way for a private citizen to check there's no real way to prove the knowledge.

CptJake wrote:
And how did you think your proposals would accomplish that? (I did ask that of you twice before).

I asked him that, too. It seems that people don't really care if it would have actually done anything, they just want "something" done and this is the easiest thing they can think of. It's your classic kneejerk reaction on parade.