Gun Talk

[HeloDude]

Look out guys, they're coming for your guns!

...And when this doesn't work, they'll go after alcohol.

They can ask me about firearms all they want...doesn't mean I have to tell them anything.

[ClearedHot]

Look out guys, they're coming for your guns!

M2 do you really believe the intent is to take guns from the military?

I am a member of the NRA (Which supports this legislation by the way), and rabidly support gun ownership rights, but given everything that has occurred I am realistic to know something is going to change. I don't think taking Assault Weapons or banning high capacity mags (I just bought more), is going to solve the problem, but addressing mental illness and access to weapons seems to be a logical step we have to take. I would have to read the entire legislation and hope their were hurdles to make sure it was not improperly used, but finding a way to keep a weapon away from someone who is determined to harm their self or others seems a reasonable thing.

[nsplayr]

"Rational discussion on firearms, departing from gate number #69, all passagers please make their way to the gate."

We can't talk about guns and their role in suicides by active duty troops without devolving into gun-snatching fear. We can't talk about guns and their role in the murder of 20+ first-graders without devolving into gun-snatching fear. Can we actually talk about guns without resorting to fear?

Believe it or not, not every discussion about guns or gun policy is aimed at taking away everyone's firearms and instituting a V for Vendetta-style regime. If so-called "rabid" gun owners and gun-rights advocates like the NRA refuse to actually participate in any kind of dialogue whatsoever it only makes the end result worse for everyone.

[M2]

"Rational discussion on firearms, departing from gate number #69, all passagers please make their way to the gate."

We can't talk about guns and their role in suicides by active duty troops without devolving into gun-snatching fear. We can't talk about guns and their role in the murder of 20+ first-graders without devolving into gun-snatching fear. Can we actually talk about guns without resorting to fear?

Believe it or not, not every discussion about guns or gun policy is aimed at taking away everyone's firearms and instituting a V for Vendetta-style regime. If so-called "rabid" gun owners and gun-rights advocates like the NRA refuse to actually participate in any kind of dialogue whatsoever it only makes the end result worse for everyone.

You honestly believe these efforts are going to reduce the suicide rate in the military or the mass shooting incidents? The same beliefs fueled the previous Assault Weapons Ban, and guess what, it has ZERO effect!

As for "it's not aimed to taking away everyone's firearms," then why is that exactly what the Democrats are proposing? I sure as fuck didn't shoot a bunch of kids, movie-goers or soldiers as Ft Hood; but all those incidents are being used as reasons why firearm ownership needs to be restricted.

Forget holding the individuals who commit such acts accountable, plan the inanimate object used; or is that concept too irrational for you?

[nsplayr]

You honestly believe these efforts are going to reduce the suicide rate in the military or the mass shooting incidents? The same beliefs fueled the previous Assault Weapons Ban, and guess what, it has ZERO effect!

Define "these efforts." AWB, high-cap mag bans, etc.?

If you're instead refering to efforts to allow medical personnel and chaplains to ask military personnel seeking mental health counceling whether or not they have guns at home and giving them the option of making suggestions on how to keep those guns safe and potentially out of the service member's own hands if they're having suicidal thoughts, yes, I fully support those efforts.

As for "it's not aimed to taking away everyone's firearms," then why is that exactly what the Democrats are proposing? I sure as fuck didn't shoot a bunch of kids, movie-goers or soldiers as Ft Hood; but all those incidents are being used as reasons why firearm ownership needs to be restricted.

No, I don't think that's what's being proposed by almost anyone in a position to matter. Taking away all privately owned firearms in America will never happen, hell, look at the resistance to ANY new restrictions of ANY kind whatsoever.

This article is long but really well written. Pretty much nails my views.

Edited January 9, 2013 by nsplayr

[Smokin]

If you want to have a rational discussion on firearms, tell me rationally why my rifle cannot have a bayonet lug or a stock that is adjustable? Explain to me why we are even having a conversation about 'assault weapons' if you want to talk rationally. Since 1982, there have been 513 mass shooting deaths (3 or more victims). Since 1982, there have been roughly 105,000 accidental drownings in the US. Formal swimming lessons decrease the risk of drowning by more than 50%. A federally mandated swimming lesson program would save roughly 100x as many lives as gun control even if gun control stopped all mass shootings. No one is talking about an issue that is 100x more lethal than my assault rifle. Why is that?

[nsplayr]

Read the article. It's pretty much spot on with what I believe. Re-attack with your question then if you're asking me. If you wanna ask politicians those questions go for it, they're good questions aimed at those advocating for a new AWB.

What I'm talking about is a rational middle ground that's getting drowned out by radical gun advocates on the right and radical gun haters on the left. No-shit, on these forums, people have advocated for civilian ownership of RPGs, attack helicopters, etc (just as long as there's not classified technology, gotta protect our secrets!). There's also been pushback against mental health professionals even being legally permitted to inquire about firearms in the home when studies have shown that easy access to firearms is a HUGE factor in whether or not people on the edge are successful at committing suicide or not. If one of your friends came to you and confessed he's been thinking about suicide as a way to escape the seemingly-unending pain in his life, do you think he should be able to get a hold of a gun?

Are you kidding me? We're mostly rational, smart people around here. There IS a middle ground between ill-informed massive gun grabbing and purchasing RPGs to defend against the Black Helicopters when they come for you and yours...

Edited January 9, 2013 by nsplayr

[M2]

The last suicide in the USAF was a hanging, are they going to ask about rope? Numerous overdoses have occurred, are they going to ask about medications? Alcohol tends to fuel feelings of desperation and clouds judgment, will they remove all the booze from the individual's dwelling?

It's a slippery slope, and because it is focused on firearms and firearms alone, and that is not right.

And I think you need to read Feinstein's proposal before you claim they aren't going after everyone's guns...

Summary of 2013 legislation

Following is a summary of the 2013 legislation:

• Bans the sale, transfer, importation, or manufacturing of:
  
  • 120 specifically-named firearms
    
  • Certain other semiautomatic rifles, handguns, shotguns that can accept a detachable magazine and have one military characteristic
    
  • Semiautomatic rifles and handguns with a fixed magazine that can accept more than 10 rounds
    
  • Strengthens the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban and various state bans by:
    
    • Moving from a 2-characteristic test to a 1-characteristic test
      
    • Eliminating the easy-to-remove bayonet mounts and flash suppressors from the characteristics test
      
    • Banning firearms with “thumbhole stocks” and “bullet buttons” to address attempts to “work around” prior bans
      
    • Bans large-capacity ammunition feeding devices capable of accepting more than 10 rounds.
      
    • Protects legitimate hunters and the rights of existing gun owners by:
      
      • Grandfathering weapons legally possessed on the date of enactment
        
      • Exempting over 900 specifically-named weapons used for hunting or sporting purposes and
        
      • Exempting antique, manually-operated, and permanently disabled weapons
        

      [*]Requires that grandfathered weapons be registered under the National Firearms Act, to include:

      [*]Background check of owner and any transferee;

      [*]Type and serial number of the firearm;

      [*]Positive identification, including photograph and fingerprint;

      [*]Certification from local law enforcement of identity and that possession would not violate State or local law; and

      [*]Dedicated funding for ATF to implement registration

      And the above is straight from the horse's ass herself!

      http://www.feinstein...assault-weapons

      In other words, she wants the entire nation to be as fucked up as California is!

[Fuzz]

Yes because no commander would EVER abuse that authority...

This is not people who are actively seeking mental help only, if that was the case I would be alright with that.

The act says "may ask those who they THINK are at risk", so does that mean the SF team that just got back from deployment, ect.? What about commanders making the case that they need to be knowledgeable about which people own firearms "so they can be better prepared"? Do you see where I'm going with this?

The base commander at Ft. Sill, tried to force all members of his command to register and store their personal firearms in base armory even if they live off base.

[ChkHandleDn]

Hmmm....Executive Order on Guns

[M2]

Yet more evidence that the current president thinks he can bypass the legislative process and dictate whatever he wants!

[M2]

This article is long but really well written. Pretty much nails my views.

Well written in some regards, but off the mark on a quite a few others...

For one, claiming that "Most guns kept in the home will never be used for self-defense. They are, in fact, more likely to be used by an unstable person to threaten family members or to commit suicide" is bullshit. Where is he getting these "facts?!?" He fails to source his claim, probably because he has no data to support it.

Secondly, "Ordinary altercations can become needlessly deadly in the presence of a weapon" is bullshit as well. There is plenty of evidence to the contrary, and the same baseless arguments were used when states were considering issuing concealed carry permits. States that have allowed concealed carry have reported NO increase in gun-related crimes; in reality it has led to even lower crime rates. Again, another unsubstantiated claim.

Thirdly, he fails to address the number of instances where an armed citizen thwarted a criminal act such as the Colorado mall shooting. He also fails to address the fact that many of these mass shooters commit suicide at the first sign of armed resistance (in Sandy Hook it was when he heard the police sirens).

Fourthly, like many journalists, he erroneously uses the term "gun show loophole," which in reality does not exist. Many states allow private sales of firearms without going through a FFL. Licensed dealers must complete a 4473 on every sale be it at a gun show, a store or via the Internet. That is not required by many states for an exchange between two individuals, whether it is at a gun show or in someone's garage. There are no different restrictions based on location, just who is involved in the transaction. I expect someone who is trying to write intelligently on a subject do some basic research beforehand.

Lastly, the author acts as if everyone carrying weapons are "legions of untrained, delusional vigilantes producing their weapons at a pin drop and firing indiscriminately into a crowd." I complete more training in a year than most of the patrol officers in this city. He minimizes the deterrence the possibility of an armed defender has on some criminals, which has been the driving point for 44 states to allow some sort of open carry.

[brickhistory]

Potential gut check time.

Is an Executive Order issued restricting any part of the Second Amendment lawful and therefore must be obeyed?

Should any serving uniformed personnel choose to answer, I encourage you to keep it hypothetical.

I don't think it is, and would eventually, be overturned (but I was dead wrong regarding SCOTUS and Obamacare, too). The pity is the number of weapons that would be destroyed until that ruling.

Will ATFE agents enforce such an EO? Would state and local LE?

Again, this may be nothing - Obama's very first EO was to close Guantenemo Bay, remember - but it has serious bad ju-ju potential.

Pity about that tragic canoeing accident in the Missouri I had...

[nsplayr]

Let's call the Oath Keepers, I'm sure they have an opinion on your "hypothetical question."

[brickhistory]

Hmm, a little extreme reaction to a hypothetical.

But ok, the premise is valid.

Going full-on crazy to meet your bu11sh1t response; IF the President were to declare AR-15s illegal or contrary to public safety under some ATFE rule and therefore must be turned in within one month or any person possessing one will be detained as violating ATFE rules, I am asking thoughtful citizens to consider what they would do.

I know my answer. I am not advocating anyone else to follow suit or state, other than in the hypothetical, what could happen.

But, I expect the EO, if issued, to be more along the lines of directing the ATFE to be more rigorous in conducting gun seller inspections, more picky about paperwork, and other such annoying but publicly palatable shows.

Which, and most definitely not in the hypothetical, is ironic considering this same ATFE directed lawful gun store owners to sell to known straw buyers during Operation Fast and Furious. Just shy 2,000 of these dreaded semi-automatic weapons were walked, with the government knowing and condoning such activities.

There have been some 200-400 Mexicans, including children, teen-agers, and women, not to mention a US Border Patrol agent in Arizona and an ICE agent in Mexico, killed so far with these weapons.

And as of about two months ago, the Attorney General of the United States admitted that half of the guns were still unaccounted for and more deaths were expected.

From the whisky rebellion, to the Civil War, to the internment of the Nisei during WWII, Uncle Sam can be a powerful, vengeful motherfcuker if he so chooses.

So you can shove your vomiting condescension up your ass to think this government can't do things that are beyond the pale.

[Fuzz]

Let's call the Oath Keepers, I'm sure they have an opinion on your "hypothetical question."

Again nsplyr your true colors come out, I respect and am thankful for the fact that there are people in the LEO community who value the constitution and the right to self-defense. (no I'm not a member)

An excellent but lengthy article on the fallacy of gun control and also things such as arming teachers, gun confiscation ect.

http://larrycorreia.wordpress.com/2012/12/20/an-opinion-on-gun-control/

[nsplayr]

Dudes, look beyond the people (and some legislators) who legitimately are "gun grabbers" who want to outlaw all firearms. They exist, I won't deny it, and I'm sorry that they are helping ruin what should be an adult conversation about the law and keeping people safe yet free.

There are people out there who wear the uniform, enjoy shooting guns, believe in the Constitutional right to bear arms, think the recent tragedies were horrible, and support figuring out how we can prevent them in the future. One of the main characteristics of such people are that they aren't bat sh*t crazy like many of the Oath Keepers appear to be WRT fearing the government.

I implore everyone here, whether you don't really like guns or are a self-described "rabid gun nut," to be a member of the former group of reasonable people and to stay away from the latter group mostly made up of conspiracy theorists.

Out (of this thread at least), unless someone posts more links for good discounts and/or new range reviews.

[brickhistory]

I implore everyone here, whether you don't really like guns or are a self-described "rabid gun nut," to be a member of the former group of reasonable people and to stay away from the latter group mostly made up of conspiracy theorists.

It is this line that I hate more than anything else. Everybody wants me and some tens of millions of law-abiding gun owners to "be reasonable."

To compromise just a little bit.

If I am not vilified outright, I am subjected to such polite condescension that I want to puke (no cute emoticon for you!).

I did nothing wrong.

Being "reasonable" means I have to alter my behavior to suit yours, or someone like you, opinion.

I want you and others like you to be reasonable and leave me the hell alone.

Your, and others like you, way means I have to change. I have to compromise. I have to give up a part of a fundamental right as an American so I can be thought of as "reasonable."

My way means you, and others like, you don't have to do anything. To anyone. At anytime.

Which way is more reasonable?

[matmacwc]

I doubt nsplayer really knows why the far left want's to take guns away, but that is OK, maybe he will learn, and hopefully not the hard way.

[Fuzz]

I implore everyone here, whether you don't really like guns or are a self-described "rabid gun nut," to be a member of the former group of reasonable people and to stay away from the latter group mostly made up of conspiracy theorists.

How about you be reasonable to me? My guns aren't doing anything to you so why should you care? Yet liberals want to stick their ugly mug into my business and the business of 40% of the adult population because 4 people (0.000000017% of the adult population) broke the laws. You cry there will be blood in the street yet with 80 million gun owners and 300 million weapons the country should look like the Cambodian killing fields by your logic but they don't; so who is being unreasonable here?

[M2]

nsplayr, you're weak exit is typical Cartman-esque liberal Democrat, if the other side doesn't capitulate to your line of logic, you're going home. Way to show your ass!

Maybe if Obama/Biden were actually sincere in wanting frank discussions on the gun issue (which isn't really the issue here, but they fail to grasp that because it's more about their image than what they do) then they'd have honest and open talks with the NRA and pro-2A organizations.

But Biden pulling this "EO card" today shows what a bunch of fucking hypocrites they really are. Why even mention it if they haven't made a decision yet? Do they honestly think we're that stupid, or do they just think they're that smart?!?

Sorry, but none of your drawn-out bullshit posts can defend what the current administration and other liberal shitbags like Feinstein and Pelosi are doing. Hopefully it will blow back in their faces with full ferocity. Anyone who ever swore an oath to "support and defend the Constitution of the United States, from all enemies, foreign and domestic" (you do remember your oath, don't you?!?) should be outraged at how the current president wants to wipe his ass with the Constitution. I can't believe you even defend that for whatever reason. It's pathetic.

[busdriver]

The problem with the argument that we need to implement restrictions on firearms ownership to prevent something like the Newtown shooting, is that they look at what firearm was used and say: "we need to ban that!" Anyone could have done that with a revolver and a bunch of moon clips. They were kids, by default defenseless. Newtown would never have happened if that kid couldn't get into the building.

Nut bags need mental health help, the assholes of the world will find a way to do bad shit. Trying to remove the tools by legislation is a losing battle.

[Flare]

From the Daily Show yesterday. Disagree with alot of his points, but there are some good ones, and a bit humorous too.

http://www.uproxx.com/media/2013/01/jon-stewart-gun-control/

[Spartacus]

What all of this is is the Democrats taking advantage of a tragedy to push their agenda through. If we were really responsible and wanted to take action that would do the most good we would be talking about mental health and those with severe mental illness and how to treat those who have these problems in order to prevent future massacres. If there are no guns available then those who really want to do harm will find some other way to hurt people. Bombs, knives, even cars and planes have all been used as weapons to intentionally hurt people so taking guns away is not going to end violence. Personally, this EO order thing that was floated today scares me to death. Obama has proven and even stated that the founders made it too hard for him to get things done that he wants to do. He clearly wants to circumvent Congress on this one and doesn't care about checks and balances. Even with all of that said if he does do an EO I think enough has happened that it might be impossible to reverse something like that anytime soon due to all of the politicians etc who are lined up behind him. Even the SCOTUS seems to be influenced by the POTUS. (Controversial, I know but it looks that way.)

[Fuzz]

Even with all of that said if he does do an EO I think enough has happened that it might be impossible to reverse something like that anytime soon due to all of the politicians etc who are lined up behind him. Even the SCOTUS seems to be influenced by the POTUS. (Controversial, I know but it looks that way.)

There is a way but nobody is gonna like it because it won't be pretty. I'm not advocating for it but if the LEOs and Federal agents choose to enforce it (which I think a vast majority will say no thanks) there might something that is impossible to reverse once started.