Congress Slips CISA Into a Budget Bill and it Passed!

a reply to: neo96

I realize that most don't.

I realize that there are very few maniacs plotting to kill classrooms full of kids, or people in a cafe,
I am appreciative that I have a .38 Special within arm's length right at this very moment (that I am wasting with typing some thoughts to you), I am able to handle guns....

Lots of other people are, too....

I just don't understand why you don't think it's appropriate to do a background check and also require a "shooting test" (just like a driver's license, ya know) - I know in my state that to get a CCW (Concealed Carry Weapon) permit, you had to go to some classes to prove that you knew gun safety and had been taught ..................
hold up - going to ask my hubby now that the football game is over...............


.....he's giving me more feedback now.............

he agrees that the term "assault weapon" is made up. So, +1 neo.


Okay, now he's got the 30 carbine out and is showing me.......

how a mild modification to the stock (such as a flash suppresser, or a folding function) can make it "an assault weapon."

Ok.
So - my problem, then, is when I hear "Assault Weapon", I think of machine guns and belts containing 100s of rounds.

i'll be back - going to learn more.

OK, I'm back.

Here's the mutually agreed situation and facts (Mr Wigs and I)

He tells me that his carbine could be modified by replacing the stock or putting on a flashlight and a scope and whatever....and then be stupidly called an "Assault Weapon."
I now understand that we are not talking about belt-fed (or huge-magazine-fed) machine guns. I get it.

So.

Yes, anyway, now that I understand that better ---- we turn to whether or not people wanting a gun should be required to prove that they know how to handle it, how to shoot it, have some practice under their belts (like driving learners have to do) before getting a license.
I don't see anything wrong with that.
I don't see how it is not applicable to citizens handling guns - which are every bit as lethal as vehicles.

Anyway - fun chat.

a reply to: BuzzyWigs

They are 100% different.

The right to drive a car is not guaranteed under the Constitution.
The right to bear arms is. Anything that prevents a law-abiding citizen from owning a gun is unconstitutional, period. No controversy whatsoever here. Whether that be background checks, licenses, or required training.

And it must be that way - because the whole point of the 2nd Amendment is not for hunting, or target practice, but rather to provide the citizenry with the last-chance method for re-taking control of an out-of-control central government. It's pretty damn important.

a reply to: BuzzyWigs

Yes, anyway, now that I understand that better ---- we turn to whether or not people wanting a gun should be required to prove that they know how to handle it, how to shoot it, have some practice under their belts (like driving learners have to do) before getting a license.

See now your talking about a Transferable Machine Guns, and 'devices'. Also known as a Class 3 Firearms.

And if a person wants one of those ?

This is what they have to submit to.

THIS

And ATF Form 4473

www.atf.gov...

Class 3 firearms are MORE regulated than 'assault' weapons.

They pretty much have to get what amounts to an enema from the STATE.

Complete a small section on the reverse side of the BATF Form 4 that declares why you wish to possess the item. Most folk s say "collector of firearms" or “target shooting

Really.

We have to tell them 'why'.

Sieg Heil!

For ALL lawful purposes

That's how you answer.

a reply to: Son of Will

Cars did not exist at that time. I'm not stupid, or young, or ignorant.

That amendment applied to muzzle-loaders and black-powder units.

THOSE ARE STILL TOTALLY LEGAL at retail stores.



Kindly stop insulting my intelligence.

a reply to: neo96

DUDE! I was doing my level, most attentive BEST to try to establish a significant dialogue between us.

As I said the other day:
I am (and remain) perfectly convinced that there is NOTHING I CAN SAY,
NO SOURCE that I can post,
NO AMOUNT of reconciliatory exchanges......that will ever smooth your surfaces.

Ok. Point taken -
point blank period.com

a reply to: BuzzyWigs

Cars cannot really be used too well if one is forced to defend against a tyrannical government. This isn't even a valid argument, in any way.


You do all this regulating, it defeats the whole purpose. Not that hard to understand.
Gonna be awful hard to do that with weapons the enemy knows you have. Kinda kills a bit of your strategic ability, ya know?

That amendment applied to muzzle-loaders and black-powder units.

"A cannon on every lawn, aimed at every state house"....
No, it doesn't just apply to those weapons.

Be a bit of an unfair fight to be using muzzle loaders and such to defend against possible tyranny.

a reply to: Jakal26

Cars cannot really be used too well if one is forced to defend against a tyrannical government.

No?

Ever seen "Mad Max"?

Cars can be modified just like guns can be. Cars can be equipped with jet-engines, and all sorts of Bat-Mobile jazz....and become VERY effective, lethal weapons.
Not to even mention "car bombs" - remember those?
Very popular at one time in the Middle Eastern war-torn countries......

a reply to: BuzzyWigs

Ever seen "Mad Max"?

It's irrelevant. Life is not a movie.

Cars can be equipped with jet-engines, and all sorts of Bat-Mobile jazz....and become VERY effective, lethal weapons.

Are you serious? "Bat-mobile jazz"....? Really
I'm sure all that "bat mobile jazz" will stop an RPG from ripping it to shreds..

Not to even mention "car bombs" - remember those?

Sure I do. They aren't really that efficient. And they wouldn't be anywhere near an alternative for having guns.
Not to mention that they are regulated, so could be tracked, threats assessed....etc etc etc..

EMPs...ever heard of those?
In that case, whayya gonna do? Let it sit there parked and hope the tyrants happen to show up beside it?

..........
ET: And please, before (and if) you decide to comment again, don't give me or any of the rest of us that tired old argument about "American military might" and how it cannot be defeated. There are a ton of reasons that argument goes nowhere and why it is absolutely wrong and invalid...(just in case that is where you were going to go with it)

originally posted by: BuzzyWigs
So - my problem, then, is when I hear "Assault Weapon", I think of machine guns and belts containing 100s of rounds.

That's why they invented the term "assault rifle" in the first place. To prey on your ignorance. They know the only people that support restricting the 2nd amendment don't know sh!t about firearms in the first place. Call'em assault rifles, and people think you can go up to Walmart and buy a belt-fed machine gun with no id. Then they think supporters of gun rights are insane fanatics who want to walk around with M60s in our pockets. Your ears are then closed to the truth, because "we're crazy, and you know better."

originally said by: Kevin Hart
Don't call me crazy. It's the worst thing you can call someone. Because it's dismissive. "Don't listen to him! He's crazy!"

Moving on...

originally posted by: BuzzyWigs
I'll be back - going to learn more.

Don't you think that's the first thing you should have done?

a reply to: dreamingawake

NOW I understand why the Star Wars stuff was hyped up so much.

What a predictable pattern... there is always SOMETHING that takes over all media outlets when a bill like this is quietly being voted on.

How sad

a reply to: FamCore

Meh...

The "predictable pattern" is these crocked politicians hiding this stuff in bills like this and passing it in the dead of night during this time of year. Happens every year.

No need to "hype it up"....since, you know, "if you have nothing to hide" and all that jazz.
That is the typical thinking of those who think this stuff will never affect them because they are "model citizens" (code for, good little slaves)

People don't really care about this stuff, and generally don't understand the implications anyways.
I mean, look at this thread, even here on ATS. 31 freakin' flags? Really?

This should be on top of the boards. The fact that it isn't speaks volumes. And that is here. In fb land and other places "the sheep" generally hang out, there isn't a peep. I even noted it on my fb last night. I am still yet to see a single person post it there. That, to me is a bit shocking, given my list of friends and their usual content.

It's either no one is speaking on it, or fb is using algorithms to hide conversation about it and limit audience (which they do)

a reply to: Jakal26

Brought up a great point - social networking platforms most DEFINITELY are effective at "hushing" topics like this and pushing topics like Kim Kardashian/Beauty Pageants/Star Wars to the top of everyone's page.

The "public" is almost completely uninvolved with politics (unless it's the debate and they know people will be talking about it at work the next day)

a reply to: FamCore

Yeap...
All you have to do is take a look at the "trending" [more often than not] garbage.

"Miley Cirus" poses nude.
"Steve Harvey announces wrong winner of pageant"
"Some NFL guy got ejected"

And people discuss this stuff like it matters. All the while ignoring what is going on. Hell, not even ignoring it, just being completely ignorant to any of it.

Social media can be a powerful platform for the spread of information, but I've noticed more and more how they are limiting audience simply by noting how much less response I, and others, receive when we post certain things. But I can post some funny, half profane meme that is basically just for giggles and there are a ton of people that "like" it, "share" it...want to talk about it. It's ridiculous.

Sometimes, the only way to get some of them to react is to step on their toes. I get a lot of "unfriending" going on because of that. LOL.....not so much anymore as I have given up pursing their pages and just stick to my own, unless it's friends that I know for a fact I can establish productive dialogue with.

The "public" is almost completely uninvolved with politics (unless it's the debate and they know people will be talking about it at work the next day)

Yeap. And that's generally just because it plays on their fears and/or is "entertaining" to them.
A lot of people are simply large children. They go to work and make dumb fart jokes, talk about sex, talk about sports, talk about yata yata yata...blah blah blah...

Yawn....they bore me.

This will be our undoing.
The transformation to idiocracy is nearly complete. The people are divided and they are scared.

...honestly, I want off this rock.

...........
ETA: Funny...
You were noting what was trending in your post and I kinda glanced over it and then posted and we both note the same "trending" garbage.
So how is it that some of us can glean information like that and note it in our minds', yet focus on the important stuff, yet others will be like "I didn't see that", "I've never heard of that"....? I mean, can they not multi-task or something? What is it? Dissonance? Idk.

I even make mental note of the garbage type conspiracy stuff that is just mis/dis information and can follow along, yet people "never hear of" this stuff.
Their internet is either broke, or they just read headlines and hear what they want to hear....OR, I've got FAR too much time on my hands...lol

a reply to: MayanBoricua

Is there some particular reason that you are not receptive to my stating that I'm learning something? Isn't that what this site is all about?

Admitting I'm learning something is taboo now?
sheesh

a reply to: BuzzyWigs

My apologies, I meant it kindly.
With that being said, one should really be educated about topics before having strong opinions that affect us all.
I applaud you for gaining more knowledge and not clinging to an indefensible position.
I wish there were more like you.

a reply to: MayanBoricua

Apology accepted. See you around the boards.

a reply to: dreamingawake

Torches and pitchforks at night...