Assault Weapons?

[Brian in SLC]

>>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.

Yeah, I'd disagree with Tom on this too. Has been civil and enlightening. Stimulating and educational.

And...reasonable.

[oldno7]

>>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.

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.?

[PunchKing]

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.

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.

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.

[Iceaxe]

set up outside the best 2 escape routes with semi-automatic pistols(purchased illegally by another)to kill any survivors that would be fleeing.

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.

[oldno7]

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.

Oh--GREAT, now you've ruined the ending for me.......

[Iceaxe]

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.

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...

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...

[Iceaxe]

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.?

I thinking Tom might want to file this in the "careful what you wish for" catagory.

[ratagonia]

>>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 manufactures responsible for drunk driving deaths. Or holding Stanley Tools responsible for all hammer death's. I believe that is an impossible law to write.

This is a specific exemption for the firearms industry ONLY.

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

[ratagonia]

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.?

As noted in a previous post, the only gear covered under the
Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act

are firearms.

Tom

[ratagonia]

>>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 definition 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....

Did you watch the video?

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

[oldno7]

As noted in a previous post, the only gear covered under the
Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act


are firearms.

Tom

But I know of more deaths(personally) by ropes, than guns over the last 10 years.

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.......

[Brian in SLC]

We can't condone this, as a "safe society" any longer.

Tort reform!

[oldno7]

Tort reform!

Is that what you do with a soft taco shell before you put meat in it?

[Iceaxe]

Did you watch the video?

Yes, I've seen the video....

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.

[Iceaxe]

This is a specific exemption for the firearms industry ONLY.

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.

Here we go again.... it would be nice if you understood a little gun history or did a little of your own research first...

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.

[Sandstone Addiction]

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?

[PunchKing]

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.

[Iceaxe]

Am I the only one concerned about this?

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.

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.

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.

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.

[Iceaxe]

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

[2065toyota]

The Colt M4 and the LE6920 are both Lamborghinis. One is a Aventador the other is a Diablo.

Thanks for helping confirm my point that there are differences

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