Gun Control: A Realistic Look

[RBBailey]

What is very interesting about the law that was in place for assault weapons is that with the exception of the magazine used, the entire law was about how the gun looks. It really had nothing to do with functionality.

According to the law, if I took my dad's 50 year old semi-auto 30-06 and pulled the wood stock off it, put a plastic pistol-grip stock on it, I would then be a law breaker. The gun itself would not have to change at all, only the way the gun looks.

Idiots.

 

[RBBailey]

IF the gun grabbing asshole leftist cocksuckers do try to ban or confiscate firearms, there will be a bloody revolution. AJ is pointing that out. These idiots have no idea of the firestorm they are going to release if they try to do what they want to do....:banghead: atriot:

I think you are, sadly, right. I won't be taking part, but I might jump on some kind of law suit or civil action.

It is now known that Obama is working on an executive order to make it happen one way or another. Along these lines, although it wasn't publicized, the Leftist in Congress sent a letter to Obama this week, they asked him to take the power of the entire budget into the executive branch.

If you know anything about the Constitution and why it is written the way it is......

 

[pinkytoe69]

What is very interesting about the law that was in place for assault weapons is that with the exception of the magazine used, the entire law was about how the gun looks. It really had nothing to do with functionality.

According to the law, if I took my dad's 50 year old semi-auto 30-06 and pulled the wood stock off it, put a plastic pistol-grip stock on it, I would then be a law breaker. The gun itself would not have to change at all, only the way the gun looks.

Idiots.

So this is still legal?

sweet plan :applause:

 

[toadermcgee]

This was todays editorial on our local TV station.

http://www.14news.com/story/20567603/taking-a-stand-gun-control

(WFIE) -
The recent mass shootings conger up a lot of emotion and debate. Now we're stuck with hoping our government can somehow dictate "gun regulations" while also protecting our Constructional rights.
But here is what people are not talking about: In the US, violent crimes and the murder rate have decreased by 50% over the last 20 years.

The ratio of violent crimes per 100,000 people was 9.3% in the United States, while in Great Britain where they have no legal guns, the ratio is six and a half times greater. To me that shows that less guns doesn't equate to less violence.
In 2011 only 3.5% of the total homicides in the US were committed by rifles; the AR 15 falls in that rifle classification. So please tell me, what good would an assault rifle ban do to cut down on homicides?
The answers to these questions are the farthest thing in the world from easy and, right now, our government has shown it can't even get the easy things right. So it's our job to keep a close watch on what they decide, and how they decide to do it.
That's my stand but I really want to hear yours.

 

[knewsom]

So this is still legal?

sweet plan :applause:

As long as the rear grip is part of the buttstock, then that IS legal (at least here in Cali, provided your mags are "pre-ban" - or partially so).

 

[robertf]

The ratio of violent crimes per 100,000 people was 9.3%

WTF does that mean?

 

[az_max]

So this is still legal?

sweet plan :applause:

As of today, that gun is totally legal in most states. Only thing that would make it a controlled weapon is if it was full auto or burst fire. That would make it fall under the NFA of 1934 and amendment on the FOPA in 1986.

Even during the 1994 AWB, it still would be legal. It has a removable magazine and only one of the 5 'sins' (pistol grip).

 

[toadermcgee]

WTF does that mean?

The local guy talking is the station manager. I am assuming he means 9.3 out of 100,000 people. Here is where he was pulling the data.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=Ooa98FHuaU0

 

[Ballah06]

I haven't read through this whole thread, and what I am about to say may have already been mentioned. But one of the things that aggravates me the most, is the discussion on various TV and radio shows of how it is unnecessary for people to have AUTOMATIC weapons and how we should ban them. Well, no shit; I dont care much for paying the full auto price tag or blowing through ammo at a cyclic rate. The issue at stake is mere LEGAL ownership of SEMI-AUTOMATIC weapons, be it rifles or handguns. The gun control fucktards lump these concepts together and spew total bullshit. There needs to be a clear distinction between automatic weapons, automatic assault rifles, semi-automatic assault rifles, etc. Those who are completely unfamiliar with the difference between full-auto and semi-auto, and who listen to the media, are the ones who then run around spewing this ban all guns bullshit. God dammit.
Even if one wants to get a short barrel semi-auto AR here in VA, he needs to go through additional 'screening' and cannot legally just grab one off the shelf so to speak. We, on here, know that automatic weapons require additional paperwork and cannot just be legally bought off the shelf. Problem is that a majority of sheep take media 'knowledge' on this subject as gospel and then cry bloody murder and want to ban all freaking handguns.

Ok, rant over. Just had to get it out there.

 

[kennith]

I haven't read through this whole thread, and what I am about to say may have already been mentioned. But one of the things that aggravates me the most, is the discussion on various TV and radio shows of how it is unnecessary for people to have AUTOMATIC weapons and how we should ban them. Well, no shit; I dont care much for paying the full auto price tag or blowing through ammo at a cyclic rate. The issue at stake is mere LEGAL ownership of SEMI-AUTOMATIC weapons, be it rifles or handguns. The gun control fucktards lump these concepts together and spew total bullshit. There needs to be a clear distinction between automatic weapons, automatic assault rifles, semi-automatic assault rifles, etc. Those who are completely unfamiliar with the difference between full-auto and semi-auto, and who listen to the media, are the ones who then run around spewing this ban all guns bullshit. God dammit.
Even if one wants to get a short barrel semi-auto AR here in VA, he needs to go through additional 'screening' and cannot legally just grab one off the shelf so to speak. We, on here, know that automatic weapons require additional paperwork and cannot just be legally bought off the shelf. Problem is that a majority of sheep take media 'knowledge' on this subject as gospel and then cry bloody murder and want to ban all freaking handguns.

Ok, rant over. Just had to get it out there.

I agree completely.

Cheers,

Kennith

 

[az_max]

..... There needs to be a clear distinction between automatic weapons, automatic assault rifles, semi-automatic assault rifles, etc. Those who are completely unfamiliar with the difference between full-auto and semi-auto, and who listen to the media, are the ones who then run around spewing this ban all guns bullshit. God dammit. ......

I know they throw the terms out there to scare people, but I'd love to set up a demo of 20-30 weapons, invite reporters from all news sources and ask them to identify the type of guns. Throw some odd-balls in there, like the bb gun that looks like an AR-15 and single shot .223 rifles, etc. Make them identify single shot, semi automatic, full automatic and revolver.
Doubt it will change anything, I'd just like to see how badly they do.

 

[RBBailey]

So this is still legal?

sweet plan :applause:

lol... if only....

It's interesting that our great leader, the Constitutional expert, is talking openly about breaking the Constitution. I guess it takes an expert to expertly break it.

 

[knewsom]

lol... if only....

It's interesting that our great leader, the Constitutional expert, is talking openly about breaking the Constitution. I guess it takes an expert to expertly break it.

The Federal Government has the authority to regulate firearms. It does not have the ability to outright ban them. The problem is that between "banning" and "complete free-for-all", there is a MASSIVE amount of grey area, which is where we currently reside, and will likely stay even after the President uses an EO to reinstate the AWB (which is what he'll probably do, even though we all know it's for show).

I know they throw the terms out there to scare people, but I'd love to set up a demo of 20-30 weapons, invite reporters from all news sources and ask them to identify the type of guns. Throw some odd-balls in there, like the bb gun that looks like an AR-15 and single shot .223 rifles, etc. Make them identify single shot, semi automatic, full automatic and revolver.
Doubt it will change anything, I'd just like to see how badly they do.

You should do that. Seriously.

 

[Ballah06]

I know they throw the terms out there to scare people, but I'd love to set up a demo of 20-30 weapons, invite reporters from all news sources and ask them to identify the type of guns. Throw some odd-balls in there, like the bb gun that looks like an AR-15 and single shot .223 rifles, etc. Make them identify single shot, semi automatic, full automatic and revolver.
Doubt it will change anything, I'd just like to see how badly they do.

I am with you on that, but an experiment like one proposed would just make too much sense and detract from the media's ability to lump inaccurate definitions together and continue to pump the airwaves full of beat up and used up cliches. And of course as we know it, it would prove a point that those shitheads will not admit - they don't know what the hell they are talking about. And you know what, now that I think of it, it's the same with just about every issue blasted in the press. It just so happens that this particular one is close and dear to most of us on here, hence the long-winded debates. :banghead:

 

[RBBailey]

Knewsom, I'm not talking about the sensible regulation of who should be allowed to buy a gun, and what type of licensing there is to go with it. It is a fine-line, but I'm OK with most licensing and regulations as long as they don't actually infringe on a right that has not already been forfeit by the citizen in question due to some illegal activity on their part.

What I'm talking about when I say that Obama is breaking Constitutional law is exampled in what is linked below. And I don't mean "Obama" just because I can throw his name around to cause a pique in interest or to rouse racist fears or something odd like that. I actually mean Obama himself will literally decree new laws. And if we had a Congress with any balls, he would be impeached for it.

http://www.politico.com/story/2013/01/biden-guns-executive-actions-86187.html?hp=t1_3

Did you know that one of the items on the list if impeachable offenses that was drawn up for Nixon included the idea that Nixon was not going to spend all of the money in the Federal Budget? -- he was planning on using his executive powers over the execution of the budget (that had been passed) to hold back funds that did not need to be spent on projects that came in under the projected budgets -- this was an impeachable offense because he was not doing his job. This is when he was nick-named the "Imperial President". Yet even as we speak, Obama himself, for the second time, is going to allow the budget deadline to pass (in violation of the Constitution).

And even now, the Leftist congress is literally begging Obama to take over the budget completely for himself, to eliminate the debt ceiling by himself, and to pass new gun control laws by himself. All without Congressional oversight, the Constitutional approval process, the legislative process, a democratic process, judicial oversight, or the approval of the states or of the people.

This is the definition of monarchy.

 

[lynchee]

As long as the rear grip is part of the buttstock, then that IS legal (at least here in Cali, provided your mags are "pre-ban" - or partially so).

I might be wrong, but I thought that the flash hider was a no-no.


Why have a Congress and Senate if they aren't going to pass budgets, stay within those budgets (when they do pass them), or keep the POTUS in check. Seems he is able to maneuver his way around them and do what he wants, and blame the republicans for stalling his 'progress'. Ahhhh!!!! It makes me fucking crazy

 

[RBBailey]

You have to remember that much of the ban stuff we are talking about is being mixed now between whichever state we are speaking from, and whether we are talking about pre-federal-ban, during-federal-ban, and now post-federal-ban, etc...

 

[knewsom]

I might be wrong, but I thought that the flash hider was a no-no.

Flash hiders definitely are - but I believe that is in fact a muzzle-brake (I could be mistaken).


Bailey, there's more that we agree on than that we disagree on, and I don't like unchecked power in any branch any more than you do. Bear in mind that the EOs are not yet EOs, just suggestions right now, and I believe the President will try to work with Congress on what he wants to do. He knows Executive Orders are unpopular, and could really hamper the rest of his legislative agenda. Also, courts can and do strike down executive orders, don't they?

...one last thing. "Leftist Congress"? You including the Republican dominated House (which you helped put into power) in that statement?

Edit: and WTF, is it just me or is it fucking impossible to buy ammo right now???

 

[brian4d]

I haven't read through this whole thread, and what I am about to say may have already been mentioned. But one of the things that aggravates me the most, is the discussion on various TV and radio shows of how it is unnecessary for people to have AUTOMATIC weapons and how we should ban them. Well, no shit; I dont care much for paying the full auto price tag or blowing through ammo at a cyclic rate. The issue at stake is mere LEGAL ownership of SEMI-AUTOMATIC weapons, be it rifles or handguns. The gun control fucktards lump these concepts together and spew total bullshit. There needs to be a clear distinction between automatic weapons, automatic assault rifles, semi-automatic assault rifles, etc. Those who are completely unfamiliar with the difference between full-auto and semi-auto, and who listen to the media, are the ones who then run around spewing this ban all guns bullshit. God dammit.
Even if one wants to get a short barrel semi-auto AR here in VA, he needs to go through additional 'screening' and cannot legally just grab one off the shelf so to speak. We, on here, know that automatic weapons require additional paperwork and cannot just be legally bought off the shelf. Problem is that a majority of sheep take media 'knowledge' on this subject as gospel and then cry bloody murder and want to ban all freaking handguns.

Ok, rant over. Just had to get it out there.

Never forget. Citizens that don't understand guns are scared of guns. It's the nature of the beast. Citizens that are scared of guns want to put in place wildly obtrusive and unnecessary gun control laws because they know no better. And they're scared.

 

[pinkytoe69]

Never forget. Citizens that don't understand guns are scared of guns. It's the nature of the beast. Citizens that are scared of guns want to put in place wildly obtrusive and unnecessary gun control laws because they know no better. And they're scared.

I understand guns. While I am not scared of them, I would say i am uncomfortable around them.

My discomfort is pretty simple. If there are guns around me, there is a chance, purposefully or accidentally, of me being shot in the face. If there are no guns around me, there is no chance of me being shot in the face.