C
Crossbones
Guest
Do you think my neighbor should have a nuclear bomb?
- Status
S
Sy_Noe
Guest
From the time I’ve spent with Catholics on this board, I just figured no govt could be worse than the one we have now under President Barack Hussein Obama.
L
Lily_Bernans
Guest
A rapid-fire, magazine-led automatic rifle designed for use by the military like the XM25. You may not have NRA sharp shooter medals like I do, but I think you know what an assault rifle is! People in broadcasting talk about them a lot.
No, ultra lethal bullets aren’t good or needed for self defense. They are designed to kill and cause the maximum amount of collateral damage, not wound, disable, or defend. Using them for self-defense could land anyone in prison, justifiably so.
Edit: I hate the NRA! My uncle made me learn to shoot a gun. Hate them myself.
S
Sy_Noe
Guest
Are they covered under the 2nd amendment? What does the NRA say?
S
Sy_Noe
Guest
Lily, do you mean the kind Lewis and Clark had?
L
Lily_Bernans
Guest
Only “sort of,” Sy.Lily, do you mean the kind Lewis and Clark had?
S
Sy_Noe
Guest
This is the problem with this debate. Opponents of even common sense, reasonable gun control policies automatically jump to it meaning no guns at all. No one is proposing any such thing.
L
Lily_Bernans
Guest
Or a holiday Christmas party.
S
styrgwillidar
Guest
Actually, there are quite a few gun control advocates who do mean take all the guns away. Gun owners/NRA compromises in the past always ended up being betrayed. For example, NRA support for the ban on new machine guns in the 80’s under Reagan was made under the assurance that various ammunition types and overseas sources (cheaper ammo) would not be prohibited. Yet, as soon as there was a dem majority, the overseas sources were outlawed.
Problem is folks have very different ideas of common sense gun laws. I see revoking all gun-free zones as common sense. Every mass shooting, with a single exception, has occurred in one. I see a national CCW standard and national reciprocity as common sense. Areas with more liberal (in the classical sense of greater freedom) gun laws have lower rates of violent crime. I think it is absolutely common sense to limit police to the same weapons available to civilians. Primary reason for the police being armed is self-defense. Same reason for non-LEOs. Same task same tool. If 10 rounds are enough, it should apply equally to both groups of people. If it takes 15 or 30 in case your bad day involves multiple assailants- well, both LEOs and non-LEOs can encounter that dad day. Same task, same tool.
California passed what could have been a good gun control law recently. Family members can go to a judge and request a gun violence restraining order, if granted the police come and take any firearms. Seems common sense. In most cases family members have known someone was ‘off’ and even had trouble getting them committed treated. This allows a family member to take action. However, it’s treated like an emergency order with the accused not having the right to be there, the process for appeal is very time consuming and expensive. There’s no penalty for falsely making an accusation. Any vindictive family member can abuse it. We’ll see how it works out. If there had been strong due process provisions, with an inexpensive path for restoration, penalties for vindictive accusations-- I would have been supportive.
CA has a lot of gun laws which are simply designed to harass/impact the law abiding. Some of them are unsafe- ‘fixed magazine’ provision makes it harder to clear a weapon (every range will make you take the time to remove the fixed magazine during range breaks because— it’s safer). The ‘loaded chamber’ indicator encourages sloppy unsafe habits.
S
styrgwillidar
Guest
You may want to read some history, kind of like our founding fathers. It would keep you from claiming some of the most inquisitive minds of their time couldn’t envision technological progression. You’d know about things like the Giradoni rifle and that it was around when some insisted the bill of rights more explicitly limit government power/authority.
I don’t see people today as being significantly different than people at any other time in history. I see the tendency for government (like any bureaucracy) to increase in size/scope over time. That’s independent of party or philosophy. It’s the nature of folks working in an organization who’s primary function is to create more rules- they’ll do so. It is in some ways how they measure their productivity. Even the news criticizes congress for not being productive enough, with the measure being the number of laws. Virtually every law passed however, is a restriction. Ever read ‘The Peter Principle’? Great read on the topic.
G
Gorgias
Guest
Oh, ok! So, what you’re saying, then, is that no additional laws are needed! (After all, fully automatic rifles are already heavily regulated and restricted under federal law!)
Umm… you’re talking about a grenade launcher? Is that really all you’re looking to impose restrictions on?
That’s the whole problem – people talk about them a lot, without defining what they are. The label “assault rifle” is not one that has a standard definition; rather, it’s used by gun control advocates and the media to mean (loosely) “those firearms that I don’t like.” If there were a more precise term, it would be easier to understand what gun control advocates mean. As it stands, it’s just fuzzy enough that it obfuscates the debate.
Still waiting on your definition of what an ‘ultra lethal bullet’ is. Are you talking about hollow point? Or armor piercing? Or something else?
Do you really mean ‘collateral damage’? Really? After all, it means ‘unintentional injury or death’. That can’t possibly be what you mean… right? You’re talking about intentional infliction of damage, right? So… what do you really mean, here?
G
Gorgias
Guest
From the Wiki article on the ‘gun show loophole’:
Before you lay blame at the feet of a Republican majority in Congress, perhaps you might look into the composition of recent Congresses. Among those noted above include Senates and Houses of Representatives that had Democratic majorities. (Of course, we wouldn’t want to let facts get in the way of an emotional accusation in a hot-button debate.
)Guns have existed, as far as I can tell, throughout the history of the United States. Semi-automatic (that is, self-loading) firearms have existed, if memory holds, throughout the 20th century. However, the problem of mass shootings seems to be a late 20th century phenomenon. If President Obama wishes to reduce the number of mass murder attempts, perhaps – rather than blaming the weapons themselves – he might address a more pressing question: what are the dynamics of the past 30 years that have led to an uptick in these incidents?
S
styrgwillidar
Guest
Oh, if she’s into NRA sponsored shooting events Compass Lake Engineering and White Oak Armament both make very good AR uppers for the high-power match events.
R
Ridgerunner
Guest
To my understanding, a true “assault rifle” is fully automatic. But what I think most people think of as “assault rifles” are semi-automatics that have a military look to them.
Deer rifles are also semi-automatic; that is, one pull of the trigger, one shot. Contrary to what some people think, some “assault rifles” that are really only semi-automatic, are the best “varmint rifles” that exist. They’re lightweight, quick aim, easy to carry and load. There is no better rifle for coyotes, armadillos, feral hogs, feral dogs, groundhogs than an AR-15 semi-automatic.
Some loads are more lethal than others, depending on what one is trying to do with them. But a load that’s more lethal in one context, is less lethal in another. For sheer up-close lethality, nothing is more lethal than an ordinary shotgun.
What troubles me about registering people who buy and sell guns at gun shows is not the gun show sale as such. What I fear this government is really trying to do is criminalize my buying a gun from a friend, giving one to my son or even inheriting one.
The devil is always in the details, and this administration is very good at inserting devils into whatever it does. Who would have thought, for example, that the “Affordable Care Act” would require Catholic nuns to insure themselves for abortifacient coverage?
L
Lily_Bernans
Guest
I haven’t done any NRA things for years, and then I only did because my uncle put pressure on me to do so, and he was paying my college tuition, so I felt I owed him at least that. I’ve paid him back now, so I stay away from guns, which I hate. I just had a natural talent for shooting, one I’d rather not have since I’m not in the military or law enforcement.
L
Lily_Bernans
Guest
Just so you know, I can’t stand the Affordable Care Act, either. It’s only “affordable” to those who don’t work. My insurance premium has skyrocketed and it covers less. But that’s another thread. Despite my dislike of the health care in the US, I don’t think Obama is the dictator many here make him out to be. He’s not our best president, but he’s not the worst. We’ll see how Trump does if he’s elected.
Back to topic, I really don’t think the Obama administration is trying to criminalize giving a hunting rifle to your son, or inheriting one. If you’re not planning on killing anyone with it, and I have to assume you are not, does registering really matter?
R
Ridgerunner
Guest
Obama is not a dictator, though i expect he would like to be one. Hard to get it done in this country, though he’s as scary a president as I have ever seen in getting close to it.Just so you know, I can’t stand the Affordable Care Act, either. It’s only “affordable” to those who don’t work. My insurance premium has skyrocketed and it covers less. But that’s another thread. Despite my dislike of the health care in the US, I don’t think Obama is the dictator many here make him out to be. He’s not our best president, but he’s not the worst. We’ll see how Trump does if he’s elected.
Back to topic, I really don’t think the Obama administration is trying to criminalize giving a hunting rifle to your son, or inheriting one. If you’re not planning on killing anyone with it, and I have to assume you are not, does registering really matter?
Maybe you don’t think the administration is trying to criminalize giving a “hunting rifle” to my son or inheriting one. But what’s a “hunting rifle”, Lily? Does that include AR-15s which I use in hunting “varmints”? What does it exclude and prohibit? And what about a pistol. Can I give my son my grandfather’s pistol or not without getting a license as a “dealer” and him registering it? And why would you think Obama wouldn’t impede such things?
We have been tricked terribly with Obamacare and we’re going to see more about how we were tricked with recent EPA rules. Why would you trust this administration to prohibit things without knowing anything about what they intend to do?
Remember Gruber’s admissions of deliberately tricking the public? Is there some persuasive reason to think they have given up that tactic?
And if I have a constitutional right to bear arms, then why should I have to register for it? Do I need a government license for free speech too?
S
styrgwillidar
Guest
I’ve never hated or loved an inanimate object. Those are emotions I associate with people and/or their actions.
L
Lily_Bernans
Guest
I’m not going to argue that all of us have a constitutional right to bear arms. The Supreme Court has upheld that. That said, I have absolutely no problem with anyone owning a musket.
O
OraLabora
Guest
If they inherited a car or bought one from a friend, wouldn’t they need a driver’s license before they could drive it on public roads? And if they had a medical or psychiatric condition that precluded getting a license, wouldn’t that be analogous to gifting a gun to someone who shouldn’t be able to get a firearms license? We do it all the time for cars, why not guns?
To be honest, this Canadian finds the US gun culture baffling. It seems to me common sense flies out the door in the US when it comes to guns.
While I have no particular love for guns and don’t own one or want one, I do live in a rural farming area and recognize that some folks need them for pest control; lots of coyotes and foxes and chicken farming locally. I myself have lost three cats to coyotes.
Moreover many poorer people in our area hunt and get several months’ supply of meat from venison; this was the case with our former babysitter. We have a huge deer infestation that has wreaked havoc on our roads and cost lives. So I do recognize that for guns. I have no need for one though and have no plans for one. On the other hand, one of my sons does summer work in the field in grizzly country, to pay his way through university, so there is always a loaded rifle on his crew. It’s not just law enforcement or the military that need guns.
Yet my son, on that same crew, drives heavy-duty pickup trucks. The truck is registered, he is properly licensed, and he required proper safety and first aid training to be team lead in bush work.
So why on earth do Americans (and not a few Canadians) reject reasonable measures to register firearms and prove the competence and mental stability of those who wish to acquire them legally? Yes it’s true criminals mainly use stolen or contraband arms, but they also use stolen vehicles, yet nobody suggests we shouldn’t register motor vehicles.
- Status