Assault Weapons?

[Iceaxe]

To those playing along at home who are not well versed in the pro/con gun battle......

The way you remove firearms from a society is to make it illegal to transfer firearms between owners and force all guns to be registered. When the registered owner of the gun dies the gun is turned in. This will remove all legal guns from circulation in a generation. This is also why gun owners venomously oppose gun registration, they understand it's the first piece of the puzzle and a requirement nessasary to taking their firearms.

[Sombeech]

The fear that anyone's guns will be "taken away" is ludicrous propaganda and about as likely as a constitutional restoration of slavery.

Nobody believes this is possible. It's just that idiot masses keep calling for it, a lot more than restoration of slavery.

[Iceaxe]

Nobody believes this is possible.

Actually it is possible and has been done before in other countries.

It has also been done before in this country when the Feds effectively eliminated the ability of most private citizens from owning automatic weapons.

[hank moon]

Nobody believes this is possible. It's just that idiot masses keep calling for it, a lot more than restoration of slavery.

i'm unaware of any popular movement to take guns away. Maybe an angry voice now and then saying something foolish, but..."masses" - please enlighten me if that is fact.

[hank moon]

Actually it is possible and has been done before in other countries.

It has also been done before in this country when the Feds effectively eliminated the ability of most private citizens from owning automatic weapons.

when I use the term "take away", i mean you already own a gun and a law is passed that causes that gun to be removed from your possession w/o your consent. I don't mean a law is passed that bans the sale of certain guns. That is not "taking away" guns, that is restricting the right. As long as the fundamental right to own and bear is preserved (and not just for the rich), the 2nd amendment is satisfied. Reasonable gun control might be increased traceability of guns and ammo, more intensive pre-sale background checks (also for private sales). Could be a little odious, but prolly not as odious as obtaining a Utah driver's license (what a pain)

What is possible in other countries is not necessarily possible in the U.S. - right? I don't see guns being taken away (per def. above) in this country. And for the record, I don't think this is a good time to enact gun control legislation. Everyone's acting out of feeling, fear, etc. The last assault weapon ban didn't hold up long because it lacked popular support. If "gun control" is a good idea, let it flourish in the absence of fear and propaganda.

[Sombeech]

i'm unaware of any popular movement to take guns away. Maybe an angry voice now and then saying something foolish, but..."masses" - please enlighten me if that is fact.

Really? And an angry voice now and again, like an isolated incident? Then where the hell are all these articles coming from that are being posted up?

[Iceaxe]

FWIW: the Feds basically made it so an average citizen in the U.S. can not afford to own an automatic weapon. To legally own one you must have a Class 3 FFL. Along with the Class 3 FFL comes a "Special Occupational Tax" (SOT). The Class 3 FFL is extremely expensive and you don't even own an automatic weapon yet. Paying the transfer cost to actually obtain a full auto firearm is enough to bankrupt a small country.

[Iceaxe]

What is possible in other countries is not necessarily possible in the U.S. - right? I don't see guns being taken away (per def. above) in this country.

You must have missed the part where I explained how the Feds eliminated automatic weapons in the US. As I said, it has been done before in this country, which is one reason gun owners are so defensive.

[oldno7]

when I use the term "take away", i mean you already own a gun and a law is passed that causes that gun to be removed from your possession w/o your consent. I don't mean a law is passed that bans the sale of certain guns. That is not "taking away" guns, that is restricting the right. As long as the fundamental right to own and bear is preserved (and not just for the rich), the 2nd amendment is satisfied. Reasonable gun control might be increased traceability of guns and ammo, more intensive pre-sale background checks (also for private sales). Could be a little odious, but prolly not as odious as obtaining a Utah driver's license (what a pain)
.

how is restricting not taking away.............
gotta love the wordmasters

Did you know Connecticut had restrictions on guns in place at the time of the murders?
They called it an Assault Weapons Ban--those restrictions failed to save 20 children from a crazy person.
Do you have plans for restrictions on crazy people as well?

[hank moon]

You must have missed the part where I explained how the Feds eliminated automatic weapons in the US. As I said, it has been done before in this country, which is one reason gun owners are so defensive.

But how many gun owners (the law-abiding kind) actually aspire to own an automatic weapon? I think this is a marginal issue that has been used to create misguided support for some of the more dangerous NRA propaganda.

[hank moon]

You must have missed the part where I explained how the Feds eliminated automatic weapons in the US. As I said, it has been done before in this country, which is one reason gun owners are so defensive.

I don't think it is useful or fair to say that the Feds "eliminated automatic weapons". That is a propaganda-level statement as it fails to address the details of the ban. I personally don't have a problem with limitations on the types of weapons that may be legally carried/owned per the 2nd Amendment. My libertarian friend does, though. He thinks we should all have access to nukes. seriously, that is what he says. I''m really glad my friend can't legally own a nuke 'cuz he does make a pile of money.

There will always be disagreement on where to draw the line. From a pragmatic standpoint, I don't see the "need" for your average citizen to own an automatic rifle (for example). It is basically a dangerous toy.

If we can't come to consensus about gun control, then perhaps we should consider a national, mandatory gun education act. Part of social studies in the schools.

[Iceaxe]

And for the record, I don't think this is a good time to enact gun control legislation. Everyone's acting out of feeling, fear, etc.

If you notice all the pot stirring going on at the moment is from the anti-gun crowd attempting to capitalize on all the raw emotion.

You will also notice you have yet hear a peep out of the NRA, but after a respectful period of morning you can expect the NRA to come out with both barrels blazing.

[Iceaxe]

I don't think it is useful to say that the Feds "eliminated automatic weapons". This is propaganda-level statement as it fails to address the details of the ban.

If the Feds didn't eliminate automatic weapons than who did?

It was federal legislation that eliminated the weapons. The weapons were eliminated during the Depression years when outlaws were successful because they out gunned law enforcement. If you really want the details of the ban beyond the readers digest condensed version I just supplied I can give them to you. But bottom line.... the Feds eliminated automatic weapons by making the cost prohibitive to ordinary citizens.

[hank moon]

what do you mean by "eliminated automatic weapons"? exactly?

[oldno7]

If we can't come to consensus about gun control, then perhaps we should consider a national, mandatory gun education act. Part of social studies in the schools.

Alright--whats the catch, you really didn't mean to say something that was based on logic and common sense.

Whoever just stole hanks keyboard and posted on his bogley acct, fess up.

Man--when he gets out of the bathroom he's gonna be pissed.

[hank moon]

You will also notice you have yet hear a peep out of the NRA, but after a respectful period of morning you can expect the NRA to come out with both barrels blazing.

Hmmm. sounds a bit different this time. Might actually be.

http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slate...s_at_last.html

and (what the NRA has said before)

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_a...bers_into.html

excerpt from last link:

After the April 16, 2007, Virginia Tech shootings that killed 32 people: “The NRA joins the entire country in expressing our deepest condolences to the families of Virginia Tech University and everyone else affected by this horrible tragedy. Our thoughts and prayers are with the families.”

After the Feb. 14, 2008, shootings at Northern Illinois University that killed six: “We think it is poor form for a politician or a special interest group to try to push a legislative agenda on the back of any tragedy. Now is the time for the Northern Illinois University community to grieve and to heal. We believe there is adequate time down the road to debate policy and politics."

After the April 3, 2009, massacre at a Binghamton, N.Y., immigration center that killed 13: “Now is not the time to debate politics or discuss policy. It's time for the families and communities to grieve.”

After the Jan. 8, 2011, shooting spree that wounded Rep. Gabrielle Giffords and killed six: “At this time, anything other than prayers for the victims and their families would be inappropriate.”

After the July 20, 2012, massacre at an Aurora, Colo., theater that left 12 dead and 58 wounded: “We believe that now is the time for families to grieve and for the community to heal. There will be an appropriate time down the road to engage in political and policy discussions.”

The “appropriate time” never arrives. It’s an ingenious communications strategy, one thatremoves the NRA from stories about the latest national outrages. When the outrage fades, the NRA returns in full flush. Just a week before the Newtown, Conn., shootings, Arulanandamtold a reporter that the NRA was “planning for the worst” and had “told people to plan for gun bans and a Supreme Court stacked with anti-gun judges.”

---

So the discussion never happens or goes anywhere. I think now is the time to talk, but not to act (drastically). It will be up to our "leaders" to ensure the discussion doesn't die or get stifled.

[Brian in SLC]

FWIW: the Feds basically made it so an average citizen in the U.S. can not afford to own an automatic weapon. To legally own one you must have a Class 3 FFL. Along with the Class 3 FFL comes a "Special Occupational Tax" (SOT). The Class 3 FFL is extremely expensive and you don't even own an automatic weapon yet. Paying the transfer cost to actually obtain a full auto firearm is enough to bankrupt a small country.

Not true. You pay 200 bucks for the transfer is all if you're a private individual. What made it cost prohibitive, is, the limited pool of items (May 1986 was the cutoff). Price has gone sky high. Pre-'86, you could get an MP5 for around 600 bucks...now? Around 20k. Some friends were saavy pre May '86 when this went into effect, and, they registered all their HK items as machine guns, even though they hadn't done the conversions yet. Pretty good pay off for them.

Have at 'em:

http://www.impactguns.com/machine-guns.aspx

[rockgremlin]

I don't think it is useful or fair to say that the Feds "eliminated automatic weapons". That is a propaganda-level statement as it fails to address the details of the ban. I personally don't have a problem with limitations on the types of weapons that may be legally carried/owned per the 2nd Amendment. My libertarian friend does, though. He thinks we should all have access to nukes. seriously, that is what he says. I''m really glad my friend can't legally own a nuke 'cuz he does make a pile of money.

There will always be disagreement on where to draw the line. From a pragmatic standpoint, I don't see the "need" for your average citizen to own an automatic rifle (for example). It is basically a dangerous toy.

If we can't come to consensus about gun control, then perhaps we should consider a national, mandatory gun education act. Part of social studies in the schools.

+1

I have a friend in a similar situation. If he had the means and were it legal, he would line his front yard with tanks.

I fail to see any good reason for an average citizen to own weapons of mass destruction. I don't have a problem with reasonable gun laws, but an outright ban making it illegal to own a gun of any kind is too extreme, and I don't see it ever happening in this country. It's too much a part of our culture and heritage.

[Iceaxe]

what do you mean by "eliminated automatic weapons"? exactly?

Made it nearly impossible for the average citizen to own.

Sent using Tapatalk

[oldno7]

The NRA just released this:

Important Statement from the National Rifle Association
Posted on December 18, 2012

The National Rifle Association of America is made up of four million moms and dads, sons and daughters – and we were shocked, saddened and heartbroken by the news of the horrific and senseless murders in Newtown.

Out of respect for the families, and as a matter of common decency, we have given time for mourning, prayer and a full investigation of the facts before commenting.

The NRA is prepared to offer meaningful contributions to help make sure this never happens again.

The NRA is planning to hold a major news conference in the Washington, DC area on Friday, December 21.
Details will be released to the media at the appropriate time.