Gun Control: A Realistic Look
- Thread starter RBBailey
- Start date
ptschram
Well-known member
1920SF said:
Personally, I think "I" could be far more effective with a semi-auto than full rock N roll.
Squirt guns are a LOT of fun until it comes time to load the clips, then it becomes work, a LOT of work.
SGaynor:
Before you make any more assumptions based on context, I will spell it out for you specifically.
1. I used the term "military style", often used in leu of "assault weapons", in the same context as you used "clip", as a colloquial term. These terms have already been defined by those needing a common word/phrase to describe weapons based on some physical/aesthetic appearance or features. I am not defining the weapons as such, I am simply using established definitions. Just because you, and many others, do not agree with the use of these terms changes nothing in the general consensus of what they define. Do I agree with these terms to describe a given group of arms? NO, but sometimes its more understood by others when the common terminology is used. Even the NRA-ILA uses the terms "military style" and "assault rifle" to describe such weapons in order to help the less educated understand more clearly.
2. I do believe in tighter regulation of arms to the general public through tighter, more through, background checks for purchase, and cleaning up of the face-to-face transfer laws. Background checks can/will help fill the gaps in, what is currently a fairly open gun-buying marketplace. I will not conduct a face-to-face transfer on any firearm unless the buyer has a valid driver's license AND a permit to purchase, permit to carry, LEO identification, or an FFL. Each of these permit/license holders has passed a background check, in accordance with the current legal standards within my state, clearing them for the purchase and ownership of "controlled" firearms. This is not required for long guns outside the "military style semi-automatic rifle" and handgun designations in MN, but it is common in my region for sellers to extend this requirement to ALL arms, as a "cover your ass" measure. If you are unwilling to submit to a simple localized background check to purchase any firearm, I honestly question your legal ability to own said arm under established BATFE regulations. I get worried when I see sale after sale at the gun-show following the "raise your right hand" method of background checks... those who have something to hide will surly lie about their ability to own said arm. Is it legal? YES, I just see it as bad business. I am NOT calling for all arms to be tracked individually by the BATFE. I AM calling for those who wish to buy/sell arms carry some proof that they are an individual that passes common sense and federal requirements to own firearms. Get the permit/license and trade as you see fit in the general market. *I* have a couple of arms that go beyond this and are either tracked by the BATFE (NFA weapon) or require me to have a readily-inspected log of what is in my collection (C&R), because I choose to go a step beyond the general market.
3. I do believe in greater educational requirements for those with a permit to carry. The current system in most states is utterly pathetic. You can call me an elitist prick all you want, and I am sure you will. I have trained thousands of shooters to a given standard and have personally seen what happens to that limited training when the bullets start to fly. Walk up to any LEO in a leadership or training position and ask them if they feel their officers need more training time than what they are given. I am willing to bet they will reply with an emphatic, "yes they do." They must be an elitist prick because they don't think that one-time one-day of training in the classroom and range is enough for their people to come out on top in a shootout... yet somehow we think its enough for the average citizen to do the same?
Based on the commonly accepted definition of a "military style" or "assault weapon" it is not to be considered as such. Even bat-shit crazy Feinstein states this in her initial call for another ban...
Again, *I* am not defining anything, I am simply basing my idea of what may come of all this on the definitions put forth by law makers in the 1990s, and what persists today.
Yes, and there are laws that specifically define what is to be considered obscene, just as there are laws that define what makes an "assault rifle" or "military style semi-automatic rifle".
I was using a colloquial term to identify a commonly accepted term for a given object, just as you did for the word "clip". I just felt no need to add additional "fluff" by explaining that I didn't agree with the term's use. It's not just uninformed liberals who use such terms, it's the uninformed conservatives and many in between those two extremes that also share the common verbiage, thus its use in society.
I do not know why some think a magazine holding 10rds max is somehow safer than one that holds 30+. Again, I am predicting, based on the current sociopolitical climate and established laws already in effect in Feinstein's home state, that a ban to set maximum capacities will result in said 10rd max. I am not supporting the ban, I simply don't care if future sales are banned. I am sure I could argue your point using your own words about making the outcome more inconvenient, but I that would be rather counterproductive in this discussion.
You are correct, most states don't require a waiting period in the legally defined sense, but seeing the word in quotes below leads me to believe that you understood that other means can be used as a waiting period. NC does not have a long-gun waiting period, and I never said it did. I did say that the permit to purchase can be used as an impromptu waiting period, as it can take time to run the localized background check. IF you plan ahead and get your permit to purchase BEFORE the day you want to buy the pistol, you are good to go. I support this program, as that permit tells me that you have had your background checked within a given time period. This means if something local has yet to be, or has been neglected to be, uploaded to NCIC, you won't "slip through the cracks". IF one has the CCW permit, they also have been through the prior localized screening, and are good to go in my opinion. Again, I agree with this program, and would expect to see someone's permit to purchase, CCW, FFL, etc, revoked the second they are convicted of a crime that would otherwise preclude them from firearm ownership.
No, I am proposing a simple form of oversight that requires buyers to be "pre-approved", if you will, or have background checks before the transaction is conducted. Please note I am not saying that the government should control or monitor all transactions, just close the loophole that doesn't require confirmation that a buyer has been through checks.
This is where my comments about a well regulated militia come into play. Want to buy firearms, great! Go to your local LEO office, have a background check completed, swear/affirm as a member of the local militia, get a card similar to your driver's license, and go buy guns to your heart's content. You fuck up and become ineligible to own firearms, your militia card is revoked and confiscated, thus ending your ability to purchase arms again. All surrendering of arms will follow established policies upon criminal/felony convictions.
So, you believe that the guy in New York who ambushed the firefighters had a right to own guns? Even with an established propensity for violence and a 1st degree man-slaughter conviction?
A man/woman who beats their spouse enough to warrant criminal convection should be allowed to own and purchase firearms? What about the parolee or felony convict? What about the convicted drug offender? Where do you draw the line at who gets to partake in your natural right to self protection? Does this natural right of self preservation extend to the world of firearms, and if so, where again do you draw this line?
I do have opinion about the whole situation, and what I believe is going to be pushed/passed during this debate in the government. I am actually quite ambivalent about it all, but that really doesn't matter does it? To you, I am somehow anti-gun because I believe that people should be held to a standard, and therefor some elitist.
I never once said that I defend or support banning firearm ownership for those in the population that are legally, per current federal and state statutes, allowed to own them. I feel that restriction should come in form of regulation that provides the general public with due diligence to prevent those generally considered "undesirable" from lying and directly violating the law. IF the government does ban high capacity magazines from future sale, or "military style" "assault rifles" then I will have little complaint based on my ambivalence. I simply don't care enough about the argument to become to enraged about either side. I have NO problem with others owning guns, but since you are suggesting that I am somehow anti-gun, my thoughts will only fall on deaf ears.
Not angry sir, just sitting back scratching my head, with any ad hominem attacks in direct response to like comments, of your own, in your initial reply. Please understand that I am not attacking you persay, I am simply attacking your apparent inability to exclude predetermined misconceptions and actually read what is typed. They are things I expect to see happening as a result of recent events, not what I hope to see, not what I dream about seeing, what I expect to see. I believe I am repeating myself.
At no point did I state you, or anyone else, should not have these weapons. You are again jumping to conclusions by taking what you perceive my anti-gun point is. I am to blame, as I was not perfectly clear in my statements.
The privilege to own arms which I am referring are those covered under the NFA, weapons the average American can not readily buy. These weapons require background checks, licenses, tax-stamps etc... and it IS a privilege for me to own said arms, as they are outside the norm. These regulations have been established since the instatement of the NFA, and rightfully so. I am not suggesting that every arm be placed under the NFA, and frankly I hope that doesn't happen. I am also not suggesting that you don't have the right to go through the same background checks and licensing to own these specific arms yourself. I am simply saying I don't really care if the AR platform is placed under the NFA, because my one AR now (sold the last one this morning!) is already NFA regulated.
My rant about the AR, which extends to the AK, is in my opinion valid. Both rifles were designed to kill, nothing more. They have limited space in the sporting world, and thus the basis for the attempts at their ban. Do I support this mentality? NO. But I do find it ignorant to simply overlook what these weapons were intended by design to do, and is easily converted to do again. Arguing the semantics of definitions only convolutes the bigger debate at hand, which I attempted to highlight above.
You waste a TON of ammo firing at point targets in FA or burst.. semi-auto IS more effective. Keeping heads down, or doing the spray-n-pray is a different story though
Before you make any more assumptions based on context, I will spell it out for you specifically.
1. I used the term "military style", often used in leu of "assault weapons", in the same context as you used "clip", as a colloquial term. These terms have already been defined by those needing a common word/phrase to describe weapons based on some physical/aesthetic appearance or features. I am not defining the weapons as such, I am simply using established definitions. Just because you, and many others, do not agree with the use of these terms changes nothing in the general consensus of what they define. Do I agree with these terms to describe a given group of arms? NO, but sometimes its more understood by others when the common terminology is used. Even the NRA-ILA uses the terms "military style" and "assault rifle" to describe such weapons in order to help the less educated understand more clearly.
2. I do believe in tighter regulation of arms to the general public through tighter, more through, background checks for purchase, and cleaning up of the face-to-face transfer laws. Background checks can/will help fill the gaps in, what is currently a fairly open gun-buying marketplace. I will not conduct a face-to-face transfer on any firearm unless the buyer has a valid driver's license AND a permit to purchase, permit to carry, LEO identification, or an FFL. Each of these permit/license holders has passed a background check, in accordance with the current legal standards within my state, clearing them for the purchase and ownership of "controlled" firearms. This is not required for long guns outside the "military style semi-automatic rifle" and handgun designations in MN, but it is common in my region for sellers to extend this requirement to ALL arms, as a "cover your ass" measure. If you are unwilling to submit to a simple localized background check to purchase any firearm, I honestly question your legal ability to own said arm under established BATFE regulations. I get worried when I see sale after sale at the gun-show following the "raise your right hand" method of background checks... those who have something to hide will surly lie about their ability to own said arm. Is it legal? YES, I just see it as bad business. I am NOT calling for all arms to be tracked individually by the BATFE. I AM calling for those who wish to buy/sell arms carry some proof that they are an individual that passes common sense and federal requirements to own firearms. Get the permit/license and trade as you see fit in the general market. *I* have a couple of arms that go beyond this and are either tracked by the BATFE (NFA weapon) or require me to have a readily-inspected log of what is in my collection (C&R), because I choose to go a step beyond the general market.
3. I do believe in greater educational requirements for those with a permit to carry. The current system in most states is utterly pathetic. You can call me an elitist prick all you want, and I am sure you will. I have trained thousands of shooters to a given standard and have personally seen what happens to that limited training when the bullets start to fly. Walk up to any LEO in a leadership or training position and ask them if they feel their officers need more training time than what they are given. I am willing to bet they will reply with an emphatic, "yes they do." They must be an elitist prick because they don't think that one-time one-day of training in the classroom and range is enough for their people to come out on top in a shootout... yet somehow we think its enough for the average citizen to do the same?
SGaynor said:
Based on the commonly accepted definition of a "military style" or "assault weapon" it is not to be considered as such. Even bat-shit crazy Feinstein states this in her initial call for another ban...
As the Remington 700 is manually-operated, it is exempt from her ideal ban.
Yes, the BAR hunting rifles are different than the AR platform, based on the legal definitions and what the greater society pictures when you use said definitions. I have never once said I supported a ban on anything, you are jumping to a conclusion that I do because I support closing loop-holes, and evolving the current background check system to something that actually functions as intended.
Again, *I* am not defining anything, I am simply basing my idea of what may come of all this on the definitions put forth by law makers in the 1990s, and what persists today.
Yes, and there are laws that specifically define what is to be considered obscene, just as there are laws that define what makes an "assault rifle" or "military style semi-automatic rifle".
I was using a colloquial term to identify a commonly accepted term for a given object, just as you did for the word "clip". I just felt no need to add additional "fluff" by explaining that I didn't agree with the term's use. It's not just uninformed liberals who use such terms, it's the uninformed conservatives and many in between those two extremes that also share the common verbiage, thus its use in society.
I do not know why some think a magazine holding 10rds max is somehow safer than one that holds 30+. Again, I am predicting, based on the current sociopolitical climate and established laws already in effect in Feinstein's home state, that a ban to set maximum capacities will result in said 10rd max. I am not supporting the ban, I simply don't care if future sales are banned. I am sure I could argue your point using your own words about making the outcome more inconvenient, but I that would be rather counterproductive in this discussion.
You are correct, most states don't require a waiting period in the legally defined sense, but seeing the word in quotes below leads me to believe that you understood that other means can be used as a waiting period. NC does not have a long-gun waiting period, and I never said it did. I did say that the permit to purchase can be used as an impromptu waiting period, as it can take time to run the localized background check. IF you plan ahead and get your permit to purchase BEFORE the day you want to buy the pistol, you are good to go. I support this program, as that permit tells me that you have had your background checked within a given time period. This means if something local has yet to be, or has been neglected to be, uploaded to NCIC, you won't "slip through the cracks". IF one has the CCW permit, they also have been through the prior localized screening, and are good to go in my opinion. Again, I agree with this program, and would expect to see someone's permit to purchase, CCW, FFL, etc, revoked the second they are convicted of a crime that would otherwise preclude them from firearm ownership.
No, I am proposing a simple form of oversight that requires buyers to be "pre-approved", if you will, or have background checks before the transaction is conducted. Please note I am not saying that the government should control or monitor all transactions, just close the loophole that doesn't require confirmation that a buyer has been through checks.
This is where my comments about a well regulated militia come into play. Want to buy firearms, great! Go to your local LEO office, have a background check completed, swear/affirm as a member of the local militia, get a card similar to your driver's license, and go buy guns to your heart's content. You fuck up and become ineligible to own firearms, your militia card is revoked and confiscated, thus ending your ability to purchase arms again. All surrendering of arms will follow established policies upon criminal/felony convictions.
So, you believe that the guy in New York who ambushed the firefighters had a right to own guns? Even with an established propensity for violence and a 1st degree man-slaughter conviction?
A man/woman who beats their spouse enough to warrant criminal convection should be allowed to own and purchase firearms? What about the parolee or felony convict? What about the convicted drug offender? Where do you draw the line at who gets to partake in your natural right to self protection? Does this natural right of self preservation extend to the world of firearms, and if so, where again do you draw this line?
I do have opinion about the whole situation, and what I believe is going to be pushed/passed during this debate in the government. I am actually quite ambivalent about it all, but that really doesn't matter does it? To you, I am somehow anti-gun because I believe that people should be held to a standard, and therefor some elitist.
I never once said that I defend or support banning firearm ownership for those in the population that are legally, per current federal and state statutes, allowed to own them. I feel that restriction should come in form of regulation that provides the general public with due diligence to prevent those generally considered "undesirable" from lying and directly violating the law. IF the government does ban high capacity magazines from future sale, or "military style" "assault rifles" then I will have little complaint based on my ambivalence. I simply don't care enough about the argument to become to enraged about either side. I have NO problem with others owning guns, but since you are suggesting that I am somehow anti-gun, my thoughts will only fall on deaf ears.
Not angry sir, just sitting back scratching my head, with any ad hominem attacks in direct response to like comments, of your own, in your initial reply. Please understand that I am not attacking you persay, I am simply attacking your apparent inability to exclude predetermined misconceptions and actually read what is typed. They are things I expect to see happening as a result of recent events, not what I hope to see, not what I dream about seeing, what I expect to see. I believe I am repeating myself.
At no point did I state you, or anyone else, should not have these weapons. You are again jumping to conclusions by taking what you perceive my anti-gun point is. I am to blame, as I was not perfectly clear in my statements.
The privilege to own arms which I am referring are those covered under the NFA, weapons the average American can not readily buy. These weapons require background checks, licenses, tax-stamps etc... and it IS a privilege for me to own said arms, as they are outside the norm. These regulations have been established since the instatement of the NFA, and rightfully so. I am not suggesting that every arm be placed under the NFA, and frankly I hope that doesn't happen. I am also not suggesting that you don't have the right to go through the same background checks and licensing to own these specific arms yourself. I am simply saying I don't really care if the AR platform is placed under the NFA, because my one AR now (sold the last one this morning!) is already NFA regulated.
My rant about the AR, which extends to the AK, is in my opinion valid. Both rifles were designed to kill, nothing more. They have limited space in the sporting world, and thus the basis for the attempts at their ban. Do I support this mentality? NO. But I do find it ignorant to simply overlook what these weapons were intended by design to do, and is easily converted to do again. Arguing the semantics of definitions only convolutes the bigger debate at hand, which I attempted to highlight above.
ptschram said:
You waste a TON of ammo firing at point targets in FA or burst.. semi-auto IS more effective. Keeping heads down, or doing the spray-n-pray is a different story though
Last edited:
ptschram
Well-known member
I regularly refuse to patronize businesses that over-comply.
If you asked me more than if I was a felon or otherwise prohibited person, I'd very likely tell you I'd find another firearm to buy from someone who wasn't such a pussy and trying to restrict my God-given, constitutionally protected, SCOTUS affirmed rights as an American citizen.
I cannot think of much of anything that my sale to a private person is as regulated as what you have suggested.
If you asked me more than if I was a felon or otherwise prohibited person, I'd very likely tell you I'd find another firearm to buy from someone who wasn't such a pussy and trying to restrict my God-given, constitutionally protected, SCOTUS affirmed rights as an American citizen.
I cannot think of much of anything that my sale to a private person is as regulated as what you have suggested.
ptschram said:
Why does a seller taking the time and effort to making sure they are not giving a potentially nutty, short-fused, homicidal person a firearm make them a pussy?
ptschram
Well-known member
pinkytoe69 said:
I'm willing to comply with the law. When you start requiring more, I will most likely find another vendor.
Are you a psychologist, psychiatrist? If not, you likely are not qualified to make such a distinction.
It was said earlier that Frankenstein is "shooting for the moon" which I agree is what she's doing but, the sad part is, even if she only gets half of what she wants that's still way too much. Or even worse, it goes her way and she gets it all.. I read that she wants to have every "assault weapon" that is going to be grandfathered get an NFA tax stamp. I don't even want to think about the disaster that would be.. Plus, not even being able to pass them down to my kids.. That's a load of crap. So much for the Oath of Office they all took as they have clearly forgot about the "I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic" part..
Also, while we are all looking at Frankenstein's new gun ban plan the dems in the house are going to try and quietly push DeGette's Large Capacity Ammunition Feeding Device Act as soon as they can.
Then there's also this, which to me, sounds like gun owners are going to get the shaft no matter what.. Maybe it's just how I read it or what I took from the video.
https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/re...ama-about-your-petition-reducing-gun-violence
Then there's also this, which to me, sounds like gun owners are going to get the shaft no matter what.. Maybe it's just how I read it or what I took from the video.
https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/re...ama-about-your-petition-reducing-gun-violence
Last edited:
pinkytoe69 said:
Regulating any variety of weapon is, in effect, regulating protection. It doesn't matter what it is. Be it a frying pan or a shotgun, a weapon is a weapon.
It's not always about "protection", as people often see it. Firearms are not only here to stop burglars. They are also here to stop governments.
Cheers,
Kennith
Quotation: "The beauty of the Second Amendment is that it will not be needed until they try to take it."
ptschram said:
Book, Chapter and Verse citation please?
ptschram said:
No, I am not a psychologist or psychiatrist, hence my requirement for some proof that you are not ineligible to purchase/own a firearm before I will sell you anything. By state law, in MN, I can not legally sell to a person who is ineligible to own said firearm by state or federal statute. This law only requires them, in the case of a non-"military style semi-auto rifle" or non-handgun, to simply tell me they are not ineligible. What knowingly ineligible person attempting to buy any firearm is going to tell you the truth? Sure my butt would be legally covered because I was lied to, but what if that firearm was used in a crime? This is the loop-hole I, and many others, are speaking of.
You hear the rhetoric constantly, "gun control only limits the legal owners, the criminals will get guns anyway." There will continue to be straw purchasers, but at least by requiring a prospective buyer to show some proof of eligibility weeds out a number of potentially ineligible buyers. Call me a pussy all you want, but the warm and fuzzy provided by a possible lie is not enough to encourage me to place a firearm in the hands of a potentially ineligible person. Sure this is all hypothetical, and the person attempting to buy a rifle from me may be 100% legit, I am just not going to take that chance.
Eric N. said:
Look up "NFA Trust"
kennith said:
FTFY
Corprin said:
Here's Jebus telling you to buy a sword:
Luke 22:35-38
http://www.bibleprophesy.org/sword.htm
Corprin said:
I know about NFA Trust and Revocable Trust for firearms however, the fact that they are trying to not allow the transfer of deemed "assault weapons" to anyone, even family, makes me wonder if they would also stop allowing the Trust to be set up in a way where you could do that. I don't trust any of them not to try it. Either way, at a six to eight month wait for an NFA tax stamp when they get a few thousand. I'd hate to see what kind of a wait it would be on some 200 million... Not to mention the fact that currently you can't have the NFA item till you actually get the NFA Tax stamp. So what happens to all the guns during the NFA process? I'm sure they have a plan for that... They'll just hold on to all of them for us while we do our paperwork... Plus, if you move or want to go across state lines to have some fun with friends with your NFA weapon you have to fill out a form and ask the ATF for permission to do it. Ya, that'll be a quick turn around.
ptschram
Well-known member
Corprin said:
Why does it not surprise me that you have not read the DOI?
Hint, Locke laid the groundwork, Jefferson "codified" it.
I hate reading stuff like this.
http://bostonherald.com/news_opinio...ino_veep_promised_him_fast_action_gun_control
http://bostonherald.com/news_opinio...ino_veep_promised_him_fast_action_gun_control
ptschram said:
Wait... are we talking about the Declaration of Independence or the Bill of Rights here?
Was one not written to denounce the crown's power, while the latter established the limitations of powers given by earlier papers?
Last edited:
kennith said:
getting tired of hearing this argument. The last 'tyrannical government' that tried to flex nuts on American soil was the japs and who took the fight to them? The second amendment warriors or a well regulated malitia? Most people that use the argument of defending against a government would shit their pants and toss their guns as soon as the first warning shot passed their head.
This thread is like listening to two fat chicks arguing who's skinnier.
seventyfive said:
:rofl: This is by far, the best info I've gotten out of 4 pages of this hear thread.
This is actually a very good example of why rights are meant to be understood as given to us by "God", not by some other entity. I tell my students that they don't need to believe in God to understand this point, and 8th graders and high school students get it. The point being that if God gives us our rights, they truly are Human Rights that no one has any business taking away from us.
We have the right to self-protection. That right, along with many other human rights, was preserved for us (just as Jefferson said they should be) in the Bill of Rights. In the case of the 2nd Amendment, it is preserved in the most modern sense the founding fathers could come up with -- you have the right to defend yourself, and the responsibility to defend your country, to the utmost; that is to say, with a weapon. And they put that in there, using the idea of a weapon, specifically because the Revolutionary War was started by the government coming after their guns.
So, back to the beginning. It is a right to be allowed to defend yourself, and I believe it is a right to defend yourself in whatever way you need to. I also believe this was the intent of the 2nd Amendment. However, the fact that it is understood that "arms" means "guns" means that some people look at it as a right given by government, not by God. And here is the problem with that view of rights, and here is why it is important that we do not forget the basis if God in our founding (even if you don't believe) that a government that gives rights can, and historically always has, taken them away.
We have the right to self-protection. That right, along with many other human rights, was preserved for us (just as Jefferson said they should be) in the Bill of Rights. In the case of the 2nd Amendment, it is preserved in the most modern sense the founding fathers could come up with -- you have the right to defend yourself, and the responsibility to defend your country, to the utmost; that is to say, with a weapon. And they put that in there, using the idea of a weapon, specifically because the Revolutionary War was started by the government coming after their guns.
So, back to the beginning. It is a right to be allowed to defend yourself, and I believe it is a right to defend yourself in whatever way you need to. I also believe this was the intent of the 2nd Amendment. However, the fact that it is understood that "arms" means "guns" means that some people look at it as a right given by government, not by God. And here is the problem with that view of rights, and here is why it is important that we do not forget the basis if God in our founding (even if you don't believe) that a government that gives rights can, and historically always has, taken them away.