Good to hear.Quote:
Originally Posted by oldno7
How is that Parowan Militia doin' these days? Lots of training out in the snow?
Tom
Printable View
Good to hear.Quote:
Originally Posted by oldno7
How is that Parowan Militia doin' these days? Lots of training out in the snow?
Tom
Ya know--thats a good question.Quote:
Originally Posted by ratagonia
I'm not too sure how a Parowan militia would be doing, I'm not in the inner circle(church)
My guess, though, would be that Parowan would make an excellent Concord.
So--how do you feel about your presidents 2nd Amendment proposals?
1) ban semi-automatic guns
2) ban magazines(you guys call em clips)that hold over 10 rds
3) make it illegal to transfer any of these items, including from family member to member.
many more but these are a start.
I think Mexico's stat's are relevent in their context, sure.Quote:
Originally Posted by oldno7
I try to be open minded about all this. I don't have a solution. What I try not to do, is, get swept up on propaganda on either side of the debate.
My bet is you're less open minded and more "listening to what you want to hear" than I am. By far.
But, most of us have a bunch of common ground. And the debate continues to be civil and reasonable. And, interesting.
Since you asked ----Quote:
Originally Posted by oldno7
I am very pessimistic.
1. It is not clear that there is a possible solution here. The super-liberal (not me!) wet-dream of taking guns away from all the gun nuts is not viable because, as mentioned, not only would it not pass but it would be entirely unenforceable should anyone try to enforce it. All that would happen is a lot of people would get shot. It is not clear that this 'solution' is proposed by anyone other than the NRA/Gun Lobby as a strawman argument, but it does seem to work for them - to the tune of 2 to 10 billion dollars, depending on how you score it.
2. Writing gun laws is very tricky, as the previous 'Assault Weapon Ban' showed. Heck you can convert your AR-15 to full auto legally in 49 states (all except Cal.)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=72USc0hXFcU
3. I think what we'll end up with is some window-dressing changes. Banning manufacturing of magazines > 10 shots. And some more - I don't know, I think they are mostly foolish and easily got around.
4. Might end up with some reasonable changes. Unlikely. MY pragmatic-liberal wet dream list is:
4A. Cut the gun-show loophole: require all sales of guns, gun parts and ammunition to be to qualified individuals. Notice this would make individual sales of firearms illegal - but they could certainly be arranged through a Federal Firearms Dealer like Mr. Ice. Notice that this does not shut down gun shows, it just means people who want to buy at the show would have to pass a background check when going in.
4B. make the background check system better
4C. remove the legal exemption of the firearm industry from liability concerns (this is a 1-10 billion dollar/year subsidy to the gun industry).
I doubt any of these steps-in-the-right-direction will pass Congress. Indications are that these items would be amendable to about 80% of Americans, basically everyone but the gun nuts (ie, by definition, anyone who does not think these are reasonable is a gun nut, of course :facepalm1:), including the majority of the 55% of Americans who own guns.
Our liberal wet-dream (or, at least mine) is a society that is naturally rather low on guns, but I see no path to get to there from where we are now. Doing a few things to make it harder for the mentally ill, felons and kids (without adult supervision) to get firearms would be 'good'. But really, the effect of these items would be very small.
In other words, it's hopeless.
IF the original question for this thread was 'can we have a reasonable discussion about guns in our society?', the Bogleyites have clearly demonstrated that the answer to that is a resounding "NO!!!". (that was not the original question). I think nationally, the answer is also no, because the same type of discussion has occurred on the national level.
Tom
Yeah, I was thinking that... The Sons of Dan prolly wouldn't want Gentiles like you and me.Quote:
Originally Posted by oldno7
T
So I have a question about some of the stuff I have heard about "universal background checks". Would passing legislation on this essentially put an end to all private sells of firearms? I have an opinion but would like to hear if others have different thoughts.
For all of those that think there is a "gun show loophole", I suspect you have never been to a gun show. The vast majority of vendors at gun shows perform background checks. The only way that it wouldn't be performed is if there was a private sale between two people, likely not involving one of the vendors at the show at all.
WOW, I was not aware of this, can you explain?Quote:
Originally Posted by ratagonia
Hmm. Colt M4 versus the Colt LE6920. Differences?Quote:
Originally Posted by 2065toyota
Selectfire for the M4. 14.5 inch barrel for the M4.
They're made on the same production line and have most of the same parts. All parts are interchangeable. They use the same magazines made by the same vendor. They both have a cutout for an M203 grenade launcher. They both have a bayonet lug. Same upper. Same stock. Etc etc etc.
A fun set of charts:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AR-15_variants
The Colt M4 and the LE6920 are both Lamborghinis. One is a Aventador the other is a Diablo.
The "gun show loophole" is not based on gun show purchases, as you stated, it is already law, that all gun show vendors do background checks at shows on gun purchases.Quote:
Originally Posted by PunchKing
The "gun show loophole" is only to Ban private sale or transfer.
This is a fancy liberal way of telling you, we'll take your guns but, it's going to take a generation.(ban through attrition)
Wouldn't put an end to private sales, but, would probably have to go through someone with an FFL.Quote:
Originally Posted by PunchKing
I think the "loophole" is private sales. Colorado I think closed "the gunshow loophole" specifically I seem to dimly recall.
Really, what it boils down to is registration I'm guessing.
You got me there!! I'm pretty un-flexible when it comes to those who would try to take away a Guaranteed Constitutional Right.Quote:
Originally Posted by Brian in SLC
Wouldn't it be weird if they banned computers and cell phones?
It's just words, whats the difference between one Amendment and the other?
That is my opinion as well. I think it is an elaborate way of forcing every firearm sales to be tracked. As I understand it FFL are required to keep records of all sales for something like 20 years. Now the gun is not registered exactly but presumably if someone were dedicated enough they could track a serial number back through all the owners. The other potentially beauty (my conspiracy theory, take it for what it is worth) of this is that now they could institute some fee that the FFL would have to charge to perform this service to further discourage private sales. Similar to what they have done with machine guns and silencers/suppressors... just now for all firearms.Quote:
Originally Posted by Brian in SLC
This is true--except in the proposed bans on Semi-Automatic guns(not just Ar's)Quote:
Originally Posted by Brian in SLC
They would require registration and confiscation upon death.
This is a really good question for the less informed playing along at home.... :2thumbs:Quote:
Originally Posted by PunchKing
The "Universal Background Check" is designed to make sure firearms are only sold to those that can legally own them (and NOT sale to felons, drug addicts, wife beaters, crazies).
As the law stands right now (gun show loophole), a private citizen can sell a gun to you (anther private citizen) without a background check. This also creates an unregistered firearm.
Calling the situation "the gun show loophole" is really a poor name as it doesn't really identify the problem. Anyone with an FFL that sales a gun has to run a background check (it's part of your license requirements), which is why they usually run a background check on you at the gun show. Nearly everyone that has a booth at the gun show also has an FFL. The problem (from the Feds point of view) is firearms transferred between private parties become untraceable.
Now from the gun owners view the problem is different.... the first thing any country that has confiscated firearms in the past has done is require firearms to be registered. It is ALWAYS the first building block. It only makes sense to learn where the guns are first so you know where to confiscate them from. This is why a lot of people will only buy guns from private sellers, they don't want the Feds knowing what guns they have as it's hard to confiscate what they don't know about.
I don't think the "Universal Background Check" would be an issue if gun owners were not worried that the Feds will one day attempt to confiscate their firearms. And folks like that dumbass Feinstein are just tossing gas and hand granades on the fire with their arm waving politics. In theory the "Universal Background Check" is probably a good idea, but so long as people like Feinstein are in office their is not a chance in hell folks will voluntarily register their un-register firearms.
And...my bet is, if it ever does come to registration, that a bunch of FFL holders and keepers of the records would magically loose those records...but who knows?
There's been an enormous amount of debate on the interpretation of the amendments. Just on the 1st alone...the whole, "am I allowed to yell fire in a crowded theater" arguement.Quote:
Originally Posted by oldno7
And folks go on ad naseum what they all really mean, and, federalist papers this, and Jefferson said that, and Washington said this, oops, not really.
They'll propose legislation, some states will fight it, it'll crawl through the legal system until the Supreme Court decides whether its legit or not. Seems to be how it goes.
Still folks doin' the interpretations.
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_A...s_Constitution
Still are raging, emotional and hotly contested interpretations to the amendments.
Do as I say not as I do...ha ha.
Didn't DC vs. Heller clear up some of the second Amendment "stuff"?
And I would say that decision is one heart attack from reversal at this time in history.
But on the other hand, no one has been able to reverse roe v. wade despite many attempts.
Tom, you have a couple of errors or mis-understandings in what you posted. But I believe you could obtain about 90% of what you desire by just closing the "gun show loophole". No reason to fight the other 50 battles.... closing the "gun show loophole" would basically force all law-abiding citizens to follow the rules and laws already in effect to holders of an FFL.
>> make the background check system better
The system is actually really good, except for the fact that private sales are excluded (the gun show loophole).
>>Heck you can convert your AR-15 to full auto legally in 49 states (all except Cal.)
Not legally you can't. I believe full auto sears have been illegal the past 25 years (without a class 3 licence). Your video is just an engineering solution to fire a semi-auto faster. By diffinition it is not full-auto (and full auto has not been an issue since the days of prohibition). A class 3 licence is pretty strict. Engineers will always continue to engineer....
>>require all sales of guns, gun parts and ammunition to be to qualified individuals.
Actually you don't need to ban all of the items mentioned. The laws currently covering gun sales are probably suffiecent if it were not for the "gun show loophole". Anyone can sell "gun parts", you just have to exclude the "action" from the list of parts, which is how the law is currently written for FFL holders transferring guns and parts.
>>remove the legal exemption of the firearm industry from liability concerns (this is a 1-10 billion dollar/year subsidy to the gun industry).
That's an extremely slippery slope to head down as it would also open the door on a multitude of other things Like holding the auto manufacteurs responsible for drunk driving deathes. Or holding Stanley Tools responsible for all hammer death's. I believe that is an impossible law to write.
>>IF the original question for this thread was 'can we have a reasonable discussion about guns in our society?', the Bogleyites have clearly demonstrated that the answer to that is a resounding "NO!!!".
Funny... I've found the thread extremely enlightening and it has forced me to reexamine a few of my original thoughts. I hope more feel like me then like you. Or I at least hope others have followed the thread with an open mine.
:cool2:
On a slightly side note:
On Shanes recommend I just started reading Columbine. These 2 boys only motivation was to exceed timothy mcvee's death count.
The FBI investigator, speculated if the 2 boys initial bombs would have went off, the initial blast would have killed 6-800 kids, then these murderers
set up outside the best 2 escape routes with semi-automatic pistols(purchased illegally by another)to kill any survivors that would be fleeing.
Their bombs did not work so they just went in and started shooting.
I guess I'm just pointing out, the potential for bad people to kill others is unlimited.
This was a dark moment in history but could have been much worse.
Brian, you are a little behind on this one. The Supreme Court of the United States has ruled that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess and carry firearms.Quote:
Originally Posted by Brian in SLC
In 2008 and 2010, the Supreme Court issued two landmark decisions officially establishing this interpretation. In District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), the Court ruled that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to possess a firearm, unconnected to service in a militia and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. In McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U.S. 3025 (2010), the Court ruled that the Second Amendment limits state and local governments to the same extent that it limits the federal government.
With the recent Supreme Court decision the 2nd amendment is crystal clear. You would probably have to change the 2nd amendment to mix things up and that would be a tall order (unless Tom is right that 80% agree with his way of thinking. In that case it should be a snap).
:popcorn:
Yeah, I'd disagree with Tom on this too. Has been civil and enlightening. Stimulating and educational.Quote:
Originally Posted by Iceaxe
And...reasonable.
So can we presume, Tom, that you would also favor such legislation in sales of "outdoor" gear, such as climbing gear, camping gear, ski's, snowshoes, etc. etc.?:ne_nau:Quote:
Originally Posted by Iceaxe
As far as I know, at least currently, FFL dealers don't provide their transactions to the Fed but I suppose could be required to provide such information in a court of law or on request or something. I don't know all the requirements to be an FFL dealer.Quote:
Originally Posted by Iceaxe
I have never worried about my guns being "registered" but I can see why some would. If I were going to sell a firearm, I would require the person provide a concealed carry permit because I think it is the responsible thing to do. As far as registration, to my knowledge, there is no database out their that someone could look at and see how many guns I have or any details. It would be a manual process of them going to each dealer I have purchased from.
While the pistols were orginally sold legally to anther, the transfers to Harris and Keibold were illegal (both were underage). The guy that made the illegal sale (transfer) really takes a major beating in the end. He will be in prison a very long time.Quote:
Originally Posted by oldno7
Oh--GREAT, now you've ruined the ending for me.......:haha:Quote:
Originally Posted by Iceaxe
For Utah Residents (your state might be different), and I don't even want to talk about CA as I refuse to ship firearms to that state...Quote:
Originally Posted by PunchKing
Under Federal law, you may not sell a firearm to a person who is not a resident of Utah in a private party transaction (meaning without a Federal Firearms License). While not required, it is HIGHLY recommended that you conduct the transaction with a bill of sale (click here for a printable one) that includes the make, model, serial number and caliber of the firearm you sell or buy. Be sure to verify that the person buying or selling the firearm is a Utah resident with valid identification.
I keep a record of all my personal gun transfers... who I bought them from... and who I sold them to...
I don't worry about my guns being registered... so many have passed through my hands over the years I'm sure I'll be the first stop when they start confiscating them...
:cool2:
Quote:
Originally Posted by oldno7
:lol8: :lol8: :lol8:
I thinking Tom might want to file this in the "careful what you wish for" catagory.
:popcorn:
This is a specific exemption for the firearms industry ONLY.Quote:
Originally Posted by Iceaxe
All you have to do is repeal the current law, and the firearms industry would be on the same footing as other industries in the USA.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protect...ce_in_Arms_Act
It is unclear what would be the result of this, if anything. The thrust that it parried was by State AGs who were interested in pursuing manufacturers for their (lax) distribution businesses, which was (claimed: deliberately) ineffective at keeping guns out of the hands of criminals.
From a liberal point of view, manufacturers would be prodded toward being more responsible corporate citizens. (It is not clear that this would be in any way effective at impacting any of the problems in question).
Tom
As noted in a previous post, the only gear covered under theQuote:
Originally Posted by oldno7
Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act
are firearms.
Tom
Did you watch the video?Quote:
Originally Posted by Iceaxe
Yes, it is TECHNICALLY not full-auto, which is why it is legal in 49 states.
But, you pull the trigger, and it fires until you decide to stop. Functionally Full-Auto. What, you don't have one yet?
Although, clearly, you have to hold it in a special way, so you can't really spray from the hip, like a REAL full-auto.
The California Law is more effective, because it recognizes this as functionally full-auto, and therefore bans it.
Tom
But I know of more deaths(personally) by ropes, than guns over the last 10 years.Quote:
Originally Posted by ratagonia
I'm thinking there may not be enough regulation in ropes and folks are getting killed by mis-use.
Perhaps there is a common denominator in brand of ropes that folks are dying with, these should be regulated more than the "safer" ropes.
But as an overall percentage of deaths vs. safe use, the numbers are way to high.
We can't condone this, as a "safe society" any longer.
There needs to be change.......
Tort reform!Quote:
Originally Posted by oldno7
Is that what you do with a soft taco shell before you put meat in it?:haha:Quote:
Originally Posted by Brian in SLC
Yes, I've seen the video....Quote:
Originally Posted by ratagonia
Now let's examine it rationally... no marksmen would ever consider such a weapon. There is no way you could hold a reasonable point of aim with the weapon jumping around like that. Also maintenance on the weapon in a combat situation would be atrocious.
This is what "gun-nuts" call spray and pray (spray a lot of bullets and pray you hit something).
Remember.... people that actually shoot to hit something are worried about their breathing upsetting the flight of the bullet. If you believe someone can hit a target with that piston jumping around on their shoulder you have never been to a firing range.
The guy in the video would probably be better served using a shotgun. It's a point and shoot weapon that can be very lethal at close range.
And for the record.... if you can figure out a way to write that system to be classified as a class 3 weapon, I'd have no problem with that (just my humble opinion). Also the weapon system is a extremely rare example.
And why are you so concerned with full-auto? in the giant picture they are a drop in the ocean. Outside of the movies when was the last time a full-auto was a problem?
This is a major part of the problem, you have folks wanting to make laws when they really don't understand what they are talking about. This is like someone suggesting traffic laws that has never driven a car. This is why we get bans on things like pistol grips, barrel shrouds and standard capacity magazines.
:roll: Here we go again.... it would be nice if you understood a little gun history or did a little of your own research first...Quote:
Originally Posted by ratagonia
A one point in time (2000?) it became popular for lawyers to file lawsuits going after firearms manufacturers anytime a firearm was involved. Suddenly the court system was jammed with thousands of different cases. The law was passed because it instantly cleaned up thousands of different cases with one shot (ha ha).
Eventually this deal went as far as the supreme court and it was decided that you could not hold a tool (which is what a firearm is) responsible for doing what the tool was design to do.
So bottom line, the law was passed to clean up the court system. With the court decisions that followed you could repeal the law and it would have no effect.
Anyhoo... that's kinda the readers digest condensed version. The anti-gun establishment likes to point to the law as some type of secret gun conspiracy but it wasn't anything nearly so grand.
:popcorn:
Back a few pages ago, I posted an article about Obama using his executive powers to bypass congress and the senate by creating an executive order. The gun grabbers in the media are all excited about it.
Am I the only one concerned about this?
Maybe I am just uninformed but when I heard this I essentially thought, "You can't make a law with executive orders." Am I wrong? Maybe I should be concerned but I just don't think he office is capable of pushing changes to firearm laws down everyone's throat.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sandstone Addiction
Hard to comment until we know what the executive power is used for.... but we have a checks and balance system in this country for a reason.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sandstone Addiction
The president can't use his executive power and declare himself emperor or declare a firearm illegal. And going up against the 2nd amemndment is a difficult road no matter what path you take. The Prez will also be going up against the Supreme Court in addition to congress if he attackes the right of those legally entilted to own a firearm.
Most (all?) legal gun owners have no problem with keeping guns out of the hands of those that should not legally have them... which is what I see the executive power being used for. I wish the Prez all the luck in the world in keeping firearms out of the hands of criminals.Quote:
They intend to use Obama’s executive power to make incremental changes that won’t require congressional approval, such as making it harder for people who are mentally ill to purchase guns and strengthening background checks for gun purchases.
:2thumbs:
Something positive the president could probably do with is executive power is force all states to submit their mental health records into the national firearms background check system. Currently only half the states make their mental health records available for inclusion in a firearms background check.
Sent using Tapatalk
Thanks for helping confirm my point that there are differencesQuote:
Originally Posted by Brian in SLC
Lamborghini Diablo VT 6.0
550 hp/457 lb-ft
0-60 mph: 3.4 seconds
Quarter mile: 11.8 seconds @ 120.9 mph
Lamborghini Aventador LP700-4 691 hp/509 lb-ft
0-60 mph: 2.8 seconds
Quarter mile: 10.6 seconds @ 133.9 mph