Assault Weapons?

[ratagonia]

I've never been irate with you, you don't matter that much.

And yes--I'm trying to see how you feel about your Presidents 2nd amendment solutions.(at this point proposed solutions)

I can spell them out if your not certain what they are.....

MY second Amendment solution is to leave it alone!


"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

Good to hear.

How is that Parowan Militia doin' these days? Lots of training out in the snow?

Tom

[oldno7]

Good to hear.

How is that Parowan Militia doin' these days? Lots of training out in the snow?

Tom

Ya know--thats a good question.

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.

[Brian in SLC]

So Mexico's statistics are not relevent, but Australia and the UK are somehow?

Sounds like listening to what you want to hear.......

I think Mexico's stat's are relevent in their context, sure.

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.

[ratagonia]

And yes--I'm trying to see how you feel about your President's 2nd amendment solutions (at this point proposed solutions).

Since you asked ----

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.)



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 ), 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

[ratagonia]

Ya know--thats a good question.

I'm not too sure how a Parowan militia would be doing, I'm not in the inner circle(church)

Yeah, I was thinking that... The Sons of Dan prolly wouldn't want Gentiles like you and me.

T

[PunchKing]

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.

[oldno7]

. Heck you can convert your AR-15 to full auto legally in 49 states (all except Cal.)

WOW, I was not aware of this, can you explain?

[Brian in SLC]

And we also shouldn't always compare the AR15 that a standard citizen buys is the same gun that the military issues which is what is stated a lot. You can put a Lamborghini body on a Honda civic but that still doesn't make it a Lamborghini.

Hmm. Colt M4 versus the Colt LE6920. Differences?

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.

[oldno7]

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.

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.

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)

[Brian in SLC]

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.

Wouldn't put an end to private sales, but, would probably have to go through someone with an FFL.

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.

[oldno7]

My bet is you're less open minded and more "listening to what you want to hear" than I am. By far.

You got me there!! I'm pretty un-flexible when it comes to those who would try to take away a Guaranteed Constitutional Right.

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?

[PunchKing]

Really, what it boils down to is registration I'm guessing.

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.

[oldno7]

Wouldn't put an end to private sales, but, would probably have to go through someone with an FFL.

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.

This is true--except in the proposed bans on Semi-Automatic guns(not just Ar's)

They would require registration and confiscation upon death.

[Iceaxe]

So I have a question about some of the stuff I have heard about "universal background checks"....... "gun show loophole"..........

This is a really good question for the less informed playing along at home....

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.

[Brian in SLC]

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?

[Brian in SLC]

You got me there!! I'm pretty un-flexible when it comes to those who would try to take away a Guaranteed Constitutional Right.

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?

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.

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.

[oldno7]

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.

[Iceaxe]

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.

[oldno7]

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.

[Iceaxe]

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.

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.

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).