[Serious] Can we have a discussion about anti-gun control laws? Educate me.

originally posted by: Thecakeisalie
a reply to: fencesitter85

A hunting rifle? Fine by me as long as used for hunting. A pistol? Fine by me as long as its used for personal defense. But assault rifles and SMG's? that's over the top.

This is actually what we're fighting against. Somebody deciding to legislate on something that they demonstrably do not understand.

It's like me deciding I should be in charge of legislating how physicists are allowed to design experiments. Ooooh, "boson" sounds a bit like "bison", better pass a law saying that only zoos are allowed to own them!

originally posted by: proteus33
a reply to: crayzeed

yes and the channel is not very wide in places and you would be shocked at how much you can sneak in from europe on a speed boat a few cases of ak s could easily fit on one and be on your shores in about 35 minutes at narrowest part of channel.

What I still find laughable is that, for less than it probably cost to smuggle in a bag full of AKs, you could set up a small CNC workshop and churn them out in safety.

a reply to: EvillerBob

Plenty of people use Semi Autos for hunting.

You hit the nail on the head, a lot of the poplace that is all for gun control don't even understand the first thing about firearms and how they function.

Black plastic gun = SCARY

a reply to: Thecakeisalie

Please define exactly what an assault rifle is, so we'll know exactly what you want to ban.

TheRedneck

a reply to: seasonal

The Newtown shooting would tend to prove that assault style weapons are NOT well regulated.

a reply to: TheRedneck

ANY weapon that is designed to be, or can be modified to be an automatic, i.e., machine gun mode. And just to be clear, I am and have been a law abiding gun owner for more than 50 years.

originally posted by: CT_Flyboy
a reply to: seasonal

The Newtown shooting would tend to prove that assault style weapons are NOT well regulated.

The only thing Newtown proved is that banning firearms is a really bad idea. Gun free zones dont work, if anything they tend to attract problems.

Newtown could just as easily been pulled off with a Marlin .22

originally posted by: CT_Flyboy
a reply to: TheRedneck

ANY weapon that is designed to be, or can be modified to be an automatic, i.e., machine gun mode. And just to be clear, I am and have been a law abiding gun owner for more than 50 years.

Why?

Can you point me to where a fully automatic weapon has been used to commit a crime in the USA?

a reply to: CT_Flyboy

I have a machine shop. I can turn a .22 pistol into an automatic with enough work. Do you consider .22 target pistols 'assault rifles'?

How about a Mini-14? It's semi-auto and designed that way, but it is possible to convert it to full auto with enough work.

TheRedneck

originally posted by: D8Tee
a reply to: EvillerBob

Plenty of people use Semi Autos for hunting.

You hit the nail on the head, a lot of the poplace that is all for gun control don't even understand the first thing about firearms and how they function.

Black plastic gun = SCARY

We went boar hunting not too long ago and rented a gun I never used before.. a S&W M&P 10. Uses 308s and 7.6 nato. Its semu and niiiice. I got it cause you can shoot left or right with it.. and Im ambidextrous. Thought it would be fun to test my accuracy between either side.
Ive seen folks use fully auto mods to hunt boar... and right now they are having pigmageddon in Tx.. wild pigs are getting out of control. Theyre calling it a feral hog apocalypse. Thyd approved using a new poison to cut the population.. idiots. It was warfarin based.. but could get into non target species.. so they finally nixed that idea. Crazy stuff. Just let hunters hunt.. roast boar is amazing!

a reply to: fencesitter85

People have good intentions when asking the government to help. Free college? Healthcare? Keep us safe? Educate us?

This is naive and idealistic. Every single thing you listed would be abused. No matter what, anything and everything that the government is entrusted to do, will be abused and used for personal gain and power. We all agree that our system is screwed, but we always fall back on big government to "do something". The people within the government system don't suffer, just us lowly citizens that get steamrolled as they are "helping us."

Err on the side of freedom. Government is not our friend. They never have been, and never will be. Government is the biggest thief, serial killer, torturer, rapist, polluter, and danger in world history.

Freedom has consequences and risks, but government has bigger consequences and bigger risks.

a reply to: fencesitter85

The 2nd amendment intended for the american people to have the same firepower as the government. This would allow the people to have a successful chance at uprising should the government turn to tyranny. There are countless documents which can be ready from the time which show this was the line of reasoning.

Any other line of thinking which deviates from the above is wrong.

a reply to: CT_Flyboy

Considering your lack of knowledge of guns I DOUBT you own a firearm, and if you do, I am scared for your safety.

a reply to: fencesitter85

There's plenty of gun control laws. The reality no one seems to want to face is that a determined, headstrong, nutjob hellbent on killing alot of people is usually going to accomplish their goal. No amount of laws will stop them. If you truly want less deaths make the world a better place for all and take away the motivation.
This unfettered capitalist, military industrial complex rat race pitting everyone against everyone else has got to go or else just get used to the violence.

The bottom line is guns in the US are guaranteed by the constitution to protect citizens from abuses by their gov't.

a reply to: fencesitter85

Why is this topic so divisive? Because it's hard to have a nuanced conversation about gun laws since people take everything so personally.

I've never seen a gun law conversation avoid turning into something other than a hot mess. Maybe this one will be different.

Putting my cards on the table, here are my superior thoughts and positions (tongue planted firmly in cheek with the word "superior". These are only opinions. )

- Ban certain types of firearms and accessories (those with silencers, magazines over a certain threshold, etc.)
- Tax ammunition like cigarettes. It's fine if you want to buy as much ammunition that you want, but know that each bullet will have an excise tax levied that $1 or more
- Don't allow open carry unless you're in law enforcement, the military, etc. and doing so is part of your duties. Open carry can be used as a way to intimidate people (like the open carry folks who stood across the street from a gun control meeting. That would be scary, and I can't think of any other goal than intimidation.)
- Allow cities and municipalities to have local gun laws since living in a populous city is different than living in a rural town.
- Have a firearm registry and make it a felony to sell a firearm without having it re-registered to the new owner
- Have gun-free zones like college campuses, city hall, bars, and other public places that people congregate. For most private businesses, allow them to set their own restrictions.

IMHO, well-regulated is a key part of the first amendment that gets overlooked. If we're playing the dictionary game, it's hard to argue what well-regulated means. The way the first amendment is written sounds like something from the mouth of Yoda. The word "well' modifies "regulated," meaning that regulations can be vigorous.

Remind me, why did I wade into this discussion?

originally posted by: raymundoko
a reply to: fencesitter85

The 2nd amendment intended for the american people to have the same firepower as the government. This would allow the people to have a successful chance at uprising should the government turn to tyranny. There are countless documents which can be ready from the time which show this was the line of reasoning.

Any other line of thinking which deviates from the above is wrong.

I don't think this is true. The Constitution was meant to be changed to address changing social issues (which is why minorities and women can vote.) National, state, and local laws derive from that.

I do NOT want my neighbor having an atomic bomb, the MOAB, tanks, artillery, or anything of the sort including military rifles. I want that used by the military (with proper training, correct storage, and only allowed out to play on very certain situations.)

And we take over the government by getting our people into office.

A gun can't protect you from government abuses. If the government wants to take your land under Eminent Domain, you can hold out until they come evict you (arrest you, possibly) or you can run out and play "Butch and Sundance in a Blaze of Glory." But the Malheur Wildlife Occupation shows that guns don't really do anything for the cause... except make you look bad to a whole lot of people and irritate the heck out of the locals.

I think most citizens in other countries that don't have the basic right to possess firearms are quite frankly, jealous. They know they can't adequately defend themselves from a lethal threat, or at least have the opportunity to try. So, they rail against our rights, all the while wishing they had those rights. Misery loves company.

Last week I scared off 4 men who were attempting to break in to my neighbors home. My neighbors were out of town camping. The group of criminals were trying to kick in the back door, unaware that I was having a drink on my back porch in the dark. The security light came on, and they noticed me. Then they noticed my Jericho 941 9mm which I calmly raised from my back porch table. I didn't even point it in their direction. But, they scattered over the fence and ran as if their pants were on fire. The police couldn't find them, but I have a feeling they will not be back.

Sigh.

Once again, "Well-regulated" in the context of the 2A means "Well practiced and competent", not "Let government bend you over with no lube."

A basic amount of study would prove this.

If we're going to make the rights protected by the 2A harder to exercise, why not have an excise tax on words? Bibles? Make it a felony to offend someone, with your mouth sewn shut if you offend twice.

I swear, some people are just afraid of freedom.

originally posted by: icanteven
a reply to: fencesitter85



- Ban certain types of firearms and accessories (those with silencers, magazines over a certain threshold, etc.)

So what types of firearms, in your superior wisdom, should be banned and why those specific platforms? The way you word this makes it appear as though your first band knowledge of firearms is somewhat limited when you say that "those
With silencers" should be on your "ban list". Guns don't come with "silencers" and they don't actually silence anything. They reduce the decibel level enough that you can go to the range and shoot all day without hearing protection on and you won't have to worry about losing some of your hearing afterward. But they don't work or sound anything like they are depicted in cinema. Furthermore, sound suppression is legal if you can do all of the paperwork and are willing to pay the NFA Tax Stamp fee. But it's not cheap and relegates suppressors to being unobtainable for most people. For those who don't care about laws, the right tools, materials and a YouTube video is all you need to build your own at home.

- Tax ammunition like cigarettes. It's fine if you want to buy as much ammunition that you want, but know that each bullet will have an excise tax levied that $1 or more

So you effectively are creating a loophole that the Feds would love... guns are still legal but nobody but the wealthy or LEO's will be to afford to shoot them because you want to tax people into oblivion. Why? What purpose does this serve? Are you aware that I can purchase a reloading kit and make my own ammo with my spent brass right? All this does is create a new market just like NY and Cali did when people figured out workarounds for the fascist legislation and crafted " legally compliant" AR's etc...

- Don't allow open carry unless you're in law enforcement, the military, etc. and doing so is part of your duties. Open carry can be used as a way to intimidate people (like the open carry folks who stood across the street from a gun control meeting. That would be scary, and I can't think of any other goal than intimidation.)

Personally, I'm not a big fan of open carry. I find that it often reeks of "Napoleon Syndrome" and it doesn't make you safer because it just paints a huge target on your back. If you're open carrying and some jack ass has inclinations towards something heinous, the open carry buffoon is going to be target number one because they are advertising that they are the armed resistance. But if the rationale behind doing away with facets of a constitutional right )that has been ruled on by SCOTUS, most notably in the recent Heller case) is fear then you're going to have to come up with a better rationale to support that position. Fear of Mexicans and Negroes raping and killing white women while high on marijuana has given us over 75 years of an oppressive war on drugs that's just a cute way of having a war on minorities but it was acceptable because people were afraid.

- Allow cities and municipalities to have local gun laws since living in a populous city is different than living in a rural town.

We already have that. NY, Connecticut, Massachusetts and California for example, all have much stricter firearms legislation than the Federal Government. Some local municipalities have tighter legislation than the State calls for. Until they passed the SAFE Act, there were drastically different firearms laws for NYC than for the rest of the state. Have you even looked at the laws and Howe any of this works?

- Have a firearm registry and make it a felony to sell a firearm without having it re-registered to the new owner

Hitler, Mussolini and J. Edgar Hoover were all big supporters of this as well. It didn't work out so well for European minorities in the 1930's and 40's though. It just made it easier for the governments in question to round up all those gun toting undesirables. FYI, it's already a felony to sell a firearm to someone who isn't legally able to possess a firearm.

- Have gun-free zones like college campuses, city hall, bars, and other public places that people congregate. For most private businesses, allow them to set their own restrictions.

We already have that though. How many mass shootings have taken place in "gun free" zones in the last 20 years? Every school and college campus with a very few exceptions for the colleges, is a gun free zone. They don't stop people with ill intent from committing atrocities. They do however, keep legal, law abiding gun owners, from carrying and potentially stopping a mass shooting event in the early stages as opposed to when the maniac runs out of ammo.



While I don't entirely disagree with you that some regulation is necessary, it doesn't look like you're actually all that familiar with firearms laws in the US or even firearms themselves. I'm more than happy to entertain a civil dialogue if you can better explain something of the specifics of why and how you would implement all of
This.

a reply to: icanteven

Fair enough opinions. You just have one obstacle to making them reality: amend the Constitution to allow it.

TheRedneck