Jump to content

Gun Control


Patallaire

Recommended Posts

In New York, Como just passed sweeping changes to the gun laws. For example, you can't own or buy any clips that hold more than 7 rounds of amo! You can't sell any "Assualt" type rifle to anyone in NY, All "Assualt" type rifles have to be registered within one year of yesterday's bill, backround checks will be more comprehensive, medical people have to notify the State if anyone is mentally incompetant so they can't buy a gun, however that is defined. That is not all but it is the beginning.

Link to comment
In New York, Como just passed sweeping changes to the gun laws. For example, you can't own or buy any clips that hold more than 7 rounds of amo! You can't sell any "Assualt" type rifle to anyone in NY, All "Assualt" type rifles have to be registered within one year of yesterday's bill, backround checks will be more comprehensive, medical people have to notify the State if anyone is mentally incompetant so they can't buy a gun, however that is defined. That is not all but it is the beginning.

 

Are you saying these are bad things? If so, why?

Link to comment

Is any of this an issue for you? If it is, simply move to Texas ;)!

 

Actually, I have no issues with stricter and better enforced background checks and removing the gun show exemption. Perhaps they should start by placing LE (ATF?) terminals at every gun show and charge a small application fee :)!

 

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
In New York, Como just passed sweeping changes to the gun laws. For example, you can't own or buy any clips that hold more than 7 rounds of amo! You can't sell any "Assualt" type rifle to anyone in NY, All "Assualt" type rifles have to be registered within one year of yesterday's bill, backround checks will be more comprehensive, medical people have to notify the State if anyone is mentally incompetant so they can't buy a gun, however that is defined. That is not all but it is the beginning.

 

Major knee-jerk. The NRA will challenge it all in court and will most likely gut the rules.

Link to comment

Honestly, I don't know what it is about banning semi-automatic weapons that has all the gun people in such a tizzy. Banning them will in no way infringe on your 2nd amendment rights. Why is that? Well, consider this, in the 30's and 40's, submachine guns were all over the place, often used by mobsters. Perhaps you might remember them in old James Cagney movies, or the Godfather trilogy. As a result of the misuse of them, states had no choice but to ban them. Submachine guns are no longer allowed, yet everyone can still go out and buy whatever pistol or rifle that they want. The banning of fully automatic weapons didn't lead to a government takeover, the destruction of the constitution, civil war or any of the other ridiculous claims that the NRA and gun people have said would happen if they banned semi automatic weapons. So why would a semi automatic ban be any different from the submachine ban?

 

At some point, you have to draw the line between what the average citizen should be allowed to own and not own. If you say that we should be able to own anything, then you have to allow any and all weapons, including biological, chemical and nuclear weapons. If you honestly feel that way, then you should ask yourself how safe would you feel knowing that some nutjob in your town has a nuclear weapon, and has decided to end it all by setting it off?

Link to comment

I am not going to give my opinion on guns and gun control, but simply I think that any gun control regulations will be more symbolic than effective. With the millions of guns in private hands and the mind set of a large segment of the people here in the USA, nothing will really change.

Link to comment

No one said anything about banning semi-automatic weapons. The term "semi-automatic weapon" applies to probably 80% of the common handguns purchased and owned today for self protection. You are confusing the term "assault rifles" with the term "semi-automatic", and this is the problem we get with anti-gun people lumping things together. :dopeslap:

Link to comment

You don't get it. My shotgun is a semi-automatic, i.e. one pull of the trigger fires 1 shot. The same as a semiautomatic pistol or rifle. This is the same principle as the so called evil 'assault" rifle. By the way if I pay for a license from ATF I could conceivable own a machinegun.

Link to comment
Honestly, I don't know what it is about banning semi-automatic weapons that has all the gun people in such a tizzy. Banning them will in no way infringe on your 2nd amendment rights. Why is that? Well, consider this, in the 30's and 40's, submachine guns were all over the place, often used by mobsters. Perhaps you might remember them in old James Cagney movies, or the Godfather trilogy. As a result of the misuse of them, states had no choice but to ban them. Submachine guns are no longer allowed, yet everyone can still go out and buy whatever pistol or rifle that they want. The banning of fully automatic weapons didn't lead to a government takeover, the destruction of the constitution, civil war or any of the other ridiculous claims that the NRA and gun people have said would happen if they banned semi automatic weapons. So why would a semi automatic ban be any different from the submachine ban?

 

At some point, you have to draw the line between what the average citizen should be allowed to own and not own. If you say that we should be able to own anything, then you have to allow any and all weapons, including biological, chemical and nuclear weapons. If you honestly feel that way, then you should ask yourself how safe would you feel knowing that some nutjob in your town has a nuclear weapon, and has decided to end it all by setting it off?

 

Just FYI they aren't banned. I can send in a Form 1 to the ATF along with 200 dollars a set of finger prints and be in possession of a machine gun or submachine gun in 6 months to a year depending on their workload at that time.

 

But hey more people are killed every year by hammers, clubs, and bare hands than "assault weapons" so ban away I guess :rofl:

Link to comment
I am not going to give my opinion on guns and gun control, but simply I think that any gun control regulations will be more symbolic than effective. With the millions of guns in private hands and the mind set of a large segment of the people here in the USA, nothing will really change.

 

I am right there with you Paul. That horse left the barn long ago and while the recent actions to restrict ownership and tighten controls will make some feel good; in the end it will not move needle on any of the critical metrics.

Link to comment
Did the rules change,,Can we talk politics ???? This tread is 100% political ,,,

 

I agree, Tim, political and very divisive.

Link to comment
Did the rules change,,Can we talk politics ???? This tread is 100% political ,,,

 

I agree, Tim, political and very divisive.

 

It is the difference between politics and political...

 

The prohibition is on discussions the reference Party politics, i.e. mentioning Left vs Right, Whig Vs Conservative or specific personnalities linked to those parties.

 

As long as the discussion is respectful and argument-based, it can be non-political. Provided the discussion participants keep within those bounds, then the issue is within the rules. If however, the participants cannot see beyond what Party X thinks as opposed to what they themselves think, then the thread is doomed.

 

Whichever way it goes - be sure the thread is being tracked.

 

Andy

Link to comment

Actually, it was just a statment of facts as reported in all newspapers, there was nothing devisive or political about the statement. Your opinions, as mine are just that, opinions. If you feel that controls are needed and that limiting the number of bullets, as an example, in all clips, including pistols, will effectively reduce shootings, so be it, if you feel laws like this are an intrusion into the second ammendment, so be it. I very simply stated what has happened in NY.

As a disclaimer, I am not an owner of any pistols or pistol clips mentioned above.

Link to comment

My shotgun can be converted to automatic.

I can buy suppressors.

I can buy and own machine guns.

There are around a quarter million legally owned (by civilians) machine guns in America.

 

I have the knowledge, but not the desire, intent, or any reason to make chemical/explosive/IED etc.

So the nut jobs are already in your neighborhood.

If one does not have the knowledge, it is out there on the network invented by (insert name of).

 

Like Paul, I feel the horse is out of the barn.

Want some changes.

REallocate resources from the war on drugs and start getting tough on use of weapons and crime.

We supposedly have a 10-20-life law for such use or possession of a gun during crimes.

It isn't enforced.

So why the SanHill are we looking to go after law abiding citizens

when we have plenty of criminals breaking exisitng laws and remainin free on the street?

Yes, I have first hand experience of this.

 

BTW, as of 2010, "Since 1934, there appear to have been at least two homicides committed with legally owned automatic weapons. One was a murder committed by a law enforcement officer (as opposed to a civilian). On September 15th, 1988, a 13-year veteran of the Dayton, Ohio police department, Patrolman Roger Waller, then 32, used his fully automatic MAC-11 .380 caliber submachine gun to kill a police informant, 52-year-old Lawrence Hileman. Patrolman Waller pleaded guilty in 1990, and he and an accomplice were sentenced to 18 years in prison. The 1986 'ban' on sales of new machine guns does not apply to purchases by law enforcement or government agencies. "

 

 

 

And no , people were not running around in the 40's (except during wartime use) w/machine guns.

The ban was in 1934.

Fact, just the facts.

What is an automatic weapon ?

Link to comment
Actually, it was just a statment of facts as reported in all newspapers, there was nothing devisive or political about the statement. Your opinions, as mine are just that, opinions. If you feel that controls are needed and that limiting the number of bullets, as an example, in all clips, including pistols, will effectively reduce shootings, so be it, if you feel laws like this are an intrusion into the second ammendment, so be it. I very simply stated what has happened in NY.

As a disclaimer, I am not an owner of any pistols or pistol clips mentioned above.

So here is a statement of facts reported by the NRA http://www.nrastandandfight.com/america-agrees.html
Link to comment

Okay, when I'm king I think that when you're born you get issued a national id card. When you turn 16 and pass a test, you can get a driver's license notation added to your national id card. Turn 18 and pass another test to get a motorcycle endorsement added. At 21 with no felonies or other problems, you get an automatic gun endorsement added---no test, no enfringement, just like the 2nd amendment says. If you screw up, DUI etc., you lose the first two and your national id is changed. Felony loses the third.

 

Yes, I think your wierd cousin and your feeble grandmother should have to right to bear arms. It's up them to determine if they want to exercise that right. That's what a right is. If it requires government approval, then it's a priviledge. If you think not, then tell me what test you have to take before having free speech.

 

In the interest of full disclosure, I'm not running for king and if annointed will not serve.

 

------

 

 

Link to comment
Actually, it was just a statment of facts as reported in all newspapers, there was nothing devisive or political about the statement. Your opinions, as mine are just that, opinions. If you feel that controls are needed and that limiting the number of bullets, as an example, in all clips, including pistols, will effectively reduce shootings, so be it, if you feel laws like this are an intrusion into the second ammendment, so be it. I very simply stated what has happened in NY.

As a disclaimer, I am not an owner of any pistols or pistol clips mentioned above.

So here is a statement of facts reported by the NRA http://www.nrastandandfight.com/america-agrees.html

 

That is a link to a website that requires a login to read. What are _your_ views on the subject?

 

Andy

Link to comment
I am not going to give my opinion on guns and gun control, but simply I think that any gun control regulations will be more symbolic than effective. With the millions of guns in private hands and the mind set of a large segment of the people here in the USA, nothing will really change.

I don’t fully agree, other countries have reigned in their guns successfully. It is possible to do.

 

That being said, I don’t think it will ever happen in the USA. The passion and power of the pro-gun side there is just too strong. The USA will continue to be the country with the highest gun homicides per capita in the world. Death of a certain percentage of the populaton by guns (some times in mass) is a societal price they have decided is worth paying.

 

The recent rise in anti-gun vocalism aside, I agree that there’s really no true will to make the sweeping changes that would be needed.

 

My prediction is that everything that any governmental agency at any level has tried to put in place in the last few days/weeks, or to come, will eventually be overturned. Like it or hate it, the Supreme Court has long ago spoken on the subject; US Americans are free to arm themselves to whatever level they so desire. Consequences be as they may.

 

Link to comment
Actually, it was just a statment of facts as reported in all newspapers, there was nothing devisive or political about the statement. Your opinions, as mine are just that, opinions. If you feel that controls are needed and that limiting the number of bullets, as an example, in all clips, including pistols, will effectively reduce shootings, so be it, if you feel laws like this are an intrusion into the second ammendment, so be it. I very simply stated what has happened in NY.

As a disclaimer, I am not an owner of any pistols or pistol clips mentioned above.

So here is a statement of facts reported by the NRA http://www.nrastandandfight.com/america-agrees.html

 

That is a link to a website that requires a login to read. What are _your_ views on the subject?

 

Andy

You don't need a login to watch the video ,,Just click in the center and you can see and watch my views,They are the same as the NRA,,,,
Link to comment
I am not going to give my opinion on guns and gun control, but simply I think that any gun control regulations will be more symbolic than effective. With the millions of guns in private hands and the mind set of a large segment of the people here in the USA, nothing will really change.

 

My prediction is that everything that any governmental agency at any level has tried to put in place in the last few days/weeks, or to come, will eventually be overturned. Like it or hate it, the Supreme Court has long ago spoken on the subject; US Americans are free to arm themselves to whatever level they so desire. Consequences be as they may.

 

 

God Bless the U.S.A. :)

Link to comment

Ken, you just put in many more words what I wanted to say. You: "I don’t fully agree, other countries have reigned in their guns successfully" - I, this is why nothing will happen: "the mind set of a large segment of the people here in the USA". The USA is is not like "other countries". Love it, accept it, hate it, is up to you and me.

Link to comment
Ken, you just put in many more words what I wanted to say. You: "I don’t fully agree, other countries have reigned in their guns successfully" - I, this is why nothing will happen: "the mind set of a large segment of the people here in the USA". The USA is is not like "other countries". Love it, accept it, hate it, is up to you and me.

 

 

 

Well said

Link to comment
Actually, it was just a statment of facts as reported in all newspapers, there was nothing devisive or political about the statement. Your opinions, as mine are just that, opinions. If you feel that controls are needed and that limiting the number of bullets, as an example, in all clips, including pistols, will effectively reduce shootings, so be it, if you feel laws like this are an intrusion into the second ammendment, so be it. I very simply stated what has happened in NY.

As a disclaimer, I am not an owner of any pistols or pistol clips mentioned above.

So here is a statement of facts reported by the NRA http://www.nrastandandfight.com/america-agrees.html

 

That is a link to a website that requires a login to read. What are _your_ views on the subject?

 

Andy

You don't need a login to watch the video ,,Just click in the center and you can see and watch my views,They are the same as the NRA,,,,

 

I watched it, I didn't see a whole lot of facts but I did agree with most of the people in the video. You know, the ones that weren't part of the NRA.

 

So after we hire armed gaurds for all the schools do we then put them on the playgrounds, the skating rinks, the day care centers, the grocery stores, the amusement parks? If you thought the TSA was a bloated agency, think what this would look like. I guess unemployment will no longer be a problem.

Link to comment

A certain elected official has 2 school aged girls.

There is an armed presence in the girls' school.

Should they be offered more than any other child?

Or is it just because of who their dad is?

 

Obviously on some level their dad and/or mom feel like the protection is warranted.

 

Personally I think all children deserve the same wrt this issue, as

safe a place to learn as we can provide.

 

Seems like some would just as soon allow unfettered access to "gun free" zones and more needless loss of innocent life as to try and do something, even something as anathematic as having armed presence in a classroom.

Link to comment

Getting the POTUS children into this conversation is absurd, in bad taste and BS. It should be obvious that they could be a preferred target to a lunatic or some jihadist. Saying that if they have armed protection all children should have the same protection, is like saying that if the POTUS is accompanied by armed guards we all should have that protection.

Link to comment
Nice n Easy Rider
Getting the POTUS children into this conversation is absurd, in bad taste and BS. It should be obvious that they could be a preferred target to a lunatic or some jihadist. Saying that if they have armed protection all children should have the same protection, is like saying that if the POTUS is accompanied by armed guards we all should have that protection.

 

+1!

Link to comment

The word specious comes to mind when I hear that argument. The president's children have secret service protection EVERYWHERE they go. So all kids should have that level of protection? That's just not possible.

Link to comment
Getting the POTUS children into this conversation is absurd, in bad taste and BS. It should be obvious that they could be a preferred target to a lunatic or some jihadist. Saying that if they have armed protection all children should have the same protection, is like saying that if the POTUS is accompanied by armed guards we all should have that protection.

 

Ditto, those kids are no more important to mine, but they ARE a more lucrative target than mine are.

Link to comment
Getting the POTUS children into this conversation is absurd, in bad taste and BS. It should be obvious that they could be a preferred target to a lunatic or some jihadist. Saying that if they have armed protection all children should have the same protection, is like saying that if the POTUS is accompanied by armed guards we all should have that protection.

 

Didn't see that mentioned in is post. He could be talking about the mayor of Chicago for all you know.

Chill out.

:)

Link to comment
John Ranalletta

In 2010, 211 children were killed in drunk driving crashes. Out of those 211 deaths, 131 (62 percent) were riding with the drunk driver.

Link to comment
In 2010, 211 children were killed in drunk driving crashes. Out of those 211 deaths, 131 (62 percent) were riding with the drunk driver.

 

So no more 6 packs, only a max of 3 beers will be sold to a individual per day.

Link to comment
John Ranalletta
In 2010, 211 children were killed in drunk driving crashes. Out of those 211 deaths, 131 (62 percent) were riding with the drunk driver.

 

So no more 6 packs, only a max of 3 beers will be sold to a individual per day.

 

Prohibition and marijuana laws made (make) dangerous criminals out of otherwise law-abiding citizens; give rise to a more totalitarian state; insure our grandchildren will be spied upon by drones; and, prisoner headcounts quadrupled.

 

It's not about guns. It's about control.

Link to comment
Getting the POTUS children into this conversation is absurd, in bad taste and BS. It should be obvious that they could be a preferred target to a lunatic or some jihadist. Saying that if they have armed protection all children should have the same protection, is like saying that if the POTUS is accompanied by armed guards we all should have that protection.

 

Didn't see that mentioned in is post. He could be talking about the mayor of Chicago for all you know.

Chill out.

:)

 

The reference is in the linked video. Let's see if we can keep the discussion between the lines. Bringing any reference to politicians or political parties takes us outside the realm of what's permitted here.

 

Back to the bickering . . . for at least a short while.

Link to comment
It's not about guns. It's about control.

 

Wow, I'm surprised it took this long for the truth to come out.

Link to comment
Dennis Andress

It's not about guns. It's about control.

 

Yes. And that is why we have the 2nd Amendment. Violence is another matter entirely.

Link to comment

If more guns in school is so absurd, should we remove all the ones that are already there? Make the "gun-free victum zone" universal for all of America's school? We have them in our high schools around here; not sure if any are in the lesser schools.

 

-----

 

 

Link to comment

Changing the focus slightly, I find it appalling to hear some people outright advocate insurrection, rebellion, treason,and taking over ("taking back") the government by warfare. As if their single-issue problem was shared by many other people or a reason for treason.

 

What do they think they are swearing when they recite the Pledge of Allegiance? No amendment gives people the right to "target" officials or over-throw the government.

 

Arguing about the right to own different kinds of guns under different kinds of regs is one thing. But saying it is an unalienable right to over-throw the government if your don't like some law, is another.

 

Alas, we all agree with Paul that control action at this point in time is 95% symbol and only 5% saving childrens lives. But there are times when you want to uphold the right symbols.

 

Ben

Link to comment
Dennis Andress
Changing the focus slightly, I find it appalling to hear some people outright advocate insurrection, rebellion, treason,and taking over ("taking back") the government by warfare. As if their single-issue problem was shared by many other people or a reason for treason.

 

Ben

 

But sir, the American Revolution was all about insurrection, rebellion, treason, and taking over. Granted, most people of that time felt strongly about the same problem.

Link to comment
Changing the focus slightly, I find it appalling to hear some people outright advocate insurrection, rebellion, treason,and taking over ("taking back") the government by warfare. As if their single-issue problem was shared by many other people or a reason for treason.

 

Ben

 

But sir, the American Revolution was all about insurrection, rebellion, treason, and taking over. Granted, most people of that time felt strongly about the same problem.

 

Since I'm counting on a federal pension, I'd kind of prefer that we not overthrow the government. I can understand the depth of emotion though, as many of us believe that the Bill of Rights enumerates fundamental human rights that emanate from principles or powers greater than government.

 

Nonetheless, we have generally worked through the abridgment of Constitutional rights without resorting to violence or serious threats of insurrection. If black Americans were able to wait almost two centuries for their equality under the law to be fully vindicated, I think those of us who advocate Second Amendment rights should be able to work within our system to ensure that we are all accorded our rights under the Constitution. So far, we've done well as a nation in leading the world to an enlightened view of freedom. The present struggle presents another opportunity to demonstrate our ability to continue to progress in a manner that honors our heritage and our tradition of expansive freedom.

Link to comment

I'm going to respectfully say that calling this thread nonpolitical, or unpolitical, is baloney. This issue is THE most politically fraught subject in America right now. Many of the comments here are very clearly biased one way or another...sound like politics to you?

 

Again, with nothing but respect, I find it difficult to follow the logic in political vs nonpolitical discussions here; it appears to me that issues near and dear to the conservative heart often are deemed nonopolitical...perhaps that IS the logic? I'm not throwing aspersions, or a grenade into this, I'm simply voicing my opinion, as just about everyone else has done in this thread.

 

I will also address the issue, and say that my reading of the 2nd amendment does not, despite Justice Scalia's thoughts, grant unlimited rights to individuals to keep and bear arms. Yes, I am a gun owner.

Link to comment

"A Republic, if you can keep it."

 

More important than the gun control issue, is the path the proposed legislation takes.

 

I hope most folks understand, allowing the executive branch to bypass the legislative branch, detouring around the checks and balances so crucial and fundamental to the health of our government system, is the bigger threat.

 

I would not tolerate executive ordered legislation regardless of what side of the gun issue I was on.

 

 

Link to comment

Ken, sadly, you are correct... no number of deaths or mass shootings will deter people from wanting to own a gun(s). It's the by product of our culture and it will never end. It's just the price that has to be paid for these to be readily and widely available. The only way for it to change is for there to be enough shootings/killings that it affects someone we love or know, and we all know that is impossible. So, we just let the NRA and that side have at it... victims be damned.

Link to comment

I will also address the issue, and say that my reading of the 2nd amendment does not, despite Justice Scalia's thoughts, grant unlimited rights to individuals to keep and bear arms. Yes, I am a gun owner.

 

Mark, this is what Scalia wrote in the Heller opinion:

"Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons."

 

Scalia is very clear: it's a fundamental civil right. As such, limitations on the right will be scrutinized carefully, to determine if those limitations constitute the least restrictive means to achieve a constitutionally permissible objective of the state, but the right is not unlimited. Your characterization of Scalia's written opinion is simply not what he wrote. Not even close.

Link to comment

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...