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.

 Grundz wrote:

Surprisingly enough, most people that commit crime with a gun don't get it from a guy with a thick Russian accent down at the docks at 3:00am

You leave Yakov out of this!

 Grundz wrote:

 Aerethan wrote:

Liberals can pretend all they want that background checks will make a difference, but they really won't. Anomalies will always exist that screw up this idea of guns only being used by those with a record.

Guess it won't make any difference either way then, best to err on the side of caution

How often is a gun related crime carried through by a convicted criminal using their own registered weapon? How often do criminals even HAVE registered weapons? And yet they still have weapons, be they stolen or black market.

Surprisingly enough, most people that commit crime with a gun don't get it from a guy with a thick Russian accent down at the docks at 3:00am

I honestly have no interest either way on the background checks. I think they are pointless and won't make any measurable difference.

As for the black market weapons, who says they are imported?

People steal all manner of items, and guns are no exception. And those stolen guns are usually deserialized and then sold "on the street".

Also, buying imported guns on a small scale wouldn't be terribly different from buying imported drugs. You rarely are buying from the guy who just brought it over, you end up buying from some local dealer.

Black markets are mostly the same functionally.

 Aerethan wrote:


As for the black market weapons, who says they are imported?

They must be, because we know that every gun owner in the country is a perfectly responsible, safe individual who uses firearms responsibly and stores them safely and stealing a couple thousand pound safe is pretty much impossible.

Either that or you figure out what idiots ruin things for everyone and easy accessibility means they get into the hands of idiots.

 Grundz wrote:

 Aerethan wrote:


As for the black market weapons, who says they are imported?

They must be, because we know that every gun owner in the country is a perfectly responsible, safe individual who uses firearms responsibly and stores them safely and stealing a couple thousand pound safe is pretty much impossible.

Either that or you figure out what idiots ruin things for everyone and easy accessibility means they get into the hands of idiots.

You don't have to store fire arms in a safe to "responsibly" keep them.

There are thousands and thousands of guns that are already in circulation among the criminal element.

It could take the better part of a century to get enough illegal guns off the street to make a difference. Not counting the number of legally purchased guns that would get stolen.


Plus, the Constitution says "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

Thus, any sort of limitation on what kind of gun a citizen can own is unconstitutional. I should, by the Constitution, have the right to a fully auto AK or M-16 if I want it. Provided I am not a criminal.


Any sort of universal background check should be the following and nothing more.

A registry of known felons, criminals, and mentally unsound people, that when you go to buy a gun your name gets run through the database. If you are not in the database you can get your gun. The fact your name was run through the database doesn't get kept, any information regarding who purchased the gun in question is destroyed.

That is the sort of background check that would have an effect without restricting the rights of the citizens. The right in question being the right to shoot the government if they are becoming tyrannical.

 djones520 wrote:

 Grundz wrote:

 Aerethan wrote:


As for the black market weapons, who says they are imported?

They must be, because we know that every gun owner in the country is a perfectly responsible, safe individual who uses firearms responsibly and stores them safely and stealing a couple thousand pound safe is pretty much impossible.

Either that or you figure out what idiots ruin things for everyone and easy accessibility means they get into the hands of idiots.

You don't have to store fire arms in a safe to "responsibly" keep them.

So you're okay with the frothing hordes of gangbangers that frequent your backyard in getting ahold of your "best" defense?
Do you have a better best defense? or a better bester best best defense that outguns the other two? Why is that one not the best defense?

 Grundz wrote:

 djones520 wrote:

 Grundz wrote:

 Aerethan wrote:


As for the black market weapons, who says they are imported?

They must be, because we know that every gun owner in the country is a perfectly responsible, safe individual who uses firearms responsibly and stores them safely and stealing a couple thousand pound safe is pretty much impossible.

Either that or you figure out what idiots ruin things for everyone and easy accessibility means they get into the hands of idiots.

You don't have to store fire arms in a safe to "responsibly" keep them.

So you're okay with the frothing hordes of gangbangers that frequent your backyard in getting ahold of your "best" defense?
Do you have a better best defense? or a better bester best best defense that outguns the other two? Why is that one not the best defense?

 djones520 wrote:

Just saying, you either devote your entire life to making layers of defense against the guvment/zombies/gangers, or eventually you say "this is adequate for what I will realistically face"

 Grundz wrote:

 djones520 wrote:

Just saying, you either devote your entire life to making layers of defense against the guvment/zombies/gangers, or eventually you say "this is adequate for what I will realistically face"

You forgot Option C: The best defense is a good offense.

 Frazzled wrote:

 Grundz wrote:

 djones520 wrote:

Just saying, you either devote your entire life to making layers of defense against the guvment/zombies/gangers, or eventually you say "this is adequate for what I will realistically face"

You forgot Option C: The best defense is a good offense.

Isn't that what any of these mass shooters are doing? any of those "victims"? HAH I call them "theoretically possible enemies" they had it coming.
Right?

Alfndrate wrote:Sorry if my post comes across as, "if nothing changes, don't do anything in the first place." I'd like to find a happy medium where I, as a legal citizen of the United States, could own firearms if I so choose, as afforded to me by the 2nd Amendment, and I could use these firearms in a lawful manner (defending my home, target shooting, and/or hunting), and I could own these with the knowledge that gun violence is down and that kids aren't being killed because someone snapped for some reason or another.

You're thinking of how it is in Canada. Which is generally what I've always supported: anyone can have a firearm, but there are restrictions on what types. But first, you must pass a background check and undergo safety training courses in order to obtain a license.

Usually the only argument people make against this is "2nd amendment says I don't have do, nya nya" which will typically eliminate the entire point of having the discussion.

Well its not your fault the 2nd amendment is quite clear and irrefutable.

 Grey Templar wrote:
Well its not your fault the 2nd amendment is quite clear and irrefutable.

Dial it down a notch or two please.

Cute, but no

If you make bear arms illegal then the only people who have bear arms are criminals!

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Move to Oregon and declare your intention to become a citizen in six months.

Being from Oregon, I'm not sure what you mean there....

Also, Just to point out, I personally would LOVE to hunt deer or elk or whatever with an AR-15. And my reason why, is not because it is somehow overkill, it's that it is the rifle that I am most comfortable shooting, and I feel that I can successfully bring down an animal with fewer shots with than, than I could probably any other rifle out there.

 Ouze wrote:

In a country where an overwhelmingly vast majority of the populace wants background checks even at gun shows, and the will of the country is thwarted by a special interest group.... that's not anything to cheer about. That's actually the thing most Americans claim they hate about how our country works, not a victory or a football to be spiked. Maybe it's what Ensis said, just an unfortunate byproduct of our political sausage making process essentially that will eventually yield good results, but it's ugly where it is now imo.

Know what? Demand a clean bill from your legislators, and you'll get it.

Voila, I have solved your problem.

That won't happen, though. The anti-gun bloc is basically like the anti-abortion or anti-evolution folks. Their ultimate goal isn't a "half-measure" like expanded background checks, so they'll never push solely for that.

 Frazzled wrote:
If you make bear arms illegal then the only people who have bear arms are criminals!

IN A WORLD where bear arms are illegal
ONE MAN dares to challenge the world
VAN DAAM is, yogi the bear in _____ _____

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Move to Oregon and declare your intention to become a citizen in six months.

Being from Oregon, I'm not sure what you mean there....

Also, Just to point out, I personally would LOVE to hunt deer or elk or whatever with an AR-15. And my reason why, is not because it is somehow overkill, it's that it is the rifle that I am most comfortable shooting, and I feel that I can successfully bring down an animal with fewer shots with than, than I could probably any other rifle out there.

Elk with an AR-15? I'd slap you for that. Now an AR-10 would be appropriate, but you don't shoot anything larger then a deer with a .223. Even then your shot had better be a damn good one...

Yeah, you'll need a bigger round for an Elk. Those guys are big.

 Grundz wrote:
IN A WORLD where bear arms are illegal
ONE MAN dares to challenge the world
VAN DAAM is, yogi the bear in _____ _____

It's really hard not to hear that in that guy's voice.

 Grey Templar wrote:
Yeah, you'll need a bigger round for an Elk. Those guys are big.

When I was traveling at one point, saw a wrecked car about half a mile outside a rest stop, stopped
turns out the guy hit either an elk or a moose, totaled his car

elk/moose walked away
kind of crazy >.>

 Grundz wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
Yeah, you'll need a bigger round for an Elk. Those guys are big.

When I was traveling at one point, saw a wrecked car about half a mile outside a rest stop, stopped
turns out the guy hit either an elk or a moose, totaled his car

elk/moose walked away
kind of crazy >.>

If it walked away, it was most likely a moose.

Grey Templar wrote:

azazel the cat wrote:

Alfndrate wrote:Sorry if my post comes across as, "if nothing changes, don't do anything in the first place." I'd like to find a happy medium where I, as a legal citizen of the United States, could own firearms if I so choose, as afforded to me by the 2nd Amendment, and I could use these firearms in a lawful manner (defending my home, target shooting, and/or hunting), and I could own these with the knowledge that gun violence is down and that kids aren't being killed because someone snapped for some reason or another.

You're thinking of how it is in Canada. Which is generally what I've always supported: anyone can have a firearm, but there are restrictions on what types. But first, you must pass a background check and undergo safety training courses in order to obtain a license.

Usually the only argument people make against this is "2nd amendment says I don't have do, nya nya" which will typically eliminate the entire point of having the discussion.

Well its not your fault the 2nd amendment is quite clear and irrefutable.

Wow. You actually exemplified what I was referring to.

Nobody is claiming that the 2nd amendment isn't a thing. We're claiming that it might be better if it wasn't. Do you see the difference there?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Ouze wrote:

 Grundz wrote:
IN A WORLD where bear arms are illegal
ONE MAN dares to challenge the world
VAN DAAM is, yogi the bear in _____ _____

It's really hard not to hear that in that guy's voice.

Don LaFontaine.

 Frazzled wrote:
You forgot Option C: The best defense is a good offense.

You know who said that? Mel, the cook on Alice.

 Frazzled wrote:
If you make bear arms illegal then the only people who have bear arms are criminals!

 Grundz wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
Yeah, you'll need a bigger round for an Elk. Those guys are big.

When I was traveling at one point, saw a wrecked car about half a mile outside a rest stop, stopped
turns out the guy hit either an elk or a moose, totaled his car

elk/moose walked away
kind of crazy >.>

Was doing the rounds a few days ago






.. so people are saying this is real ?

Yes... they're fething huge and scary!

And they're dumb as a box of rocks too...

 whembly wrote:
Yes... they're fething huge and scary!

And they're dumb as a box of rocks too...

so you're saying if djones520 came under attack by mooses, his ar15 may be inadequate?
MGL's for all!

 djones520 wrote:
Newtown's killer was as well.

I shudder at using this reference, but Mother Jones did a study that found nearly 2/3rd's of mass shooters in the last 30 years had demonstrable mental health issues prior to the shooting.

It must grate to find something on Mother Jones that is apparently true.