Discussion: The Second Amendment IV

[Hotwire]

That is the process in my state as well.



In my state anyone over 18 can buy any ammo on the shelf. There is no backgroiund check or anything so it is exactly the same process buying in store as it is online. You just pick it and pay the seller. Making it so we can't buy online in my state does nothing. Only adds an inconvenience.

It keeps a 15 year old from sneaking Daddy's credit card and ordering a box of ammo for Daddy's gun so he can go shoot someone at school.

 

[wiegeabo]

Yeah, there's no assurance the "expert" they defer to actually know what they are talking about. Also, writing legislation can be a crapshoot just from the fact that really great ideas on paper =/= ideas that work in practice.

Or, as is too often the case, the "expert" they go to is really more of a "yes man" that is already completely biased and just tells them what they want to hear.

And, that even if a good law is written with the help of a real expert, others won't amend and butcher the law before it can get passed based on what they 'know' to be the best way the law should work.

 

[Hotwire]

Top one is a .17 Hornady caliber or a .22LR so let's just rule that one out entirely unless your target is a bird or a squirrel you want be doing much assaulting.

The bottom two are only a true Assault Rifle if the have selective fire and are capable of fully autromatic fire meaning one sustained trigger pull will empty the magazine. I see what I am pretty sure is a selective fire knob so they would be true assault weapons. That knob would not be present on a civillian model and a civillian model would only be caable of semi-auto fire mean one round per trigger pull. A person must release the trigger and pull again to fire another round.

Do I get a gold star?

Um, that selector switch your talking about would be on the other side so you could flip it with your thumb. If you fire right-handed like most.

 

[wiegeabo]

Well, ok.....then lets just sit on our hands and do absolutely nothing. Nothing will help...so lets all just stop talking, debating about, because nothing, absolutely nothing will help. Done......wow, that was easy.

If you think someone who's plotting a mass killing can't walk up to a random clerk in Wal-Mart and ask for a box of ammo without getting a second look, when the people who know them aren't even getting in their way, then you're the one who should get the

It keeps a 15 year old from sneaking Daddy's credit card and ordering a box of ammo for Daddy's gun so he can go shoot someone at school.

Now THAT is actually a reasonable argument against it.


Some checks that could be implemented is that the company call the card owner, or whoever is on the purchase order, and confirm before it can be shipped.

And/Or require that the shipment be signed for, and an id be presented at the time of signing.

 

[Optimus_Prime_]

Or, as is too often the case, the "expert" they go to is really more of a "yes man" that is already completely biased and just tells them what they want to hear.

That certainly can happen. Or it's someone from their state or district, and they are just doing them a favor.

And, that even if a good law is written with the help of a real expert, others won't amend and butcher the law before it can get passed based on what they 'know' to be the best way the law should work.

Puh-leez

This'll happen regardless. The reason laws usually get amended or butchered is because whoever is doing the butchering is usually trying to get a favor, kickback or some sort of inclusion for his or her state. For example, with gun legislation, maybe your state is a major gun manufacturer and this law will inevitably cut down on sales. So you'll lobby against whatever is in it that personally affects you.

 

[Optimus_Prime_]

If they really always deferred to the experts, then the laws passed in the 90's would have actually been good, not just shoved through because of fear and anger.

And someone would have told Feinstein to not put her finger on the trigger of a gun, especially when she's holding it in public.

Again, not necessarily. Every has high hopes for their pet project, but like I say, just because something sounds good on paper, doesn't mean it works in reality. If that were the case the USSR would've be a paradise, and we'd all be talking about how much better Karl Marx was than the Founders.

It's probably easier to spot bad legislation than it is to spot what will be good.

 

[wiegeabo]

That certainly can happen. Or it's someone from their state or district, and they are just doing them a favor.

Puh-leez

This'll happen regardless. The reason laws usually get amended or butchered is because whoever is doing the butchering is usually trying to get a favor, kickback or some sort of inclusion for his or her state. For example, with gun legislation, maybe your state is a major gun manufacturer and this law will inevitably cut down on sales. So you'll lobby against whatever is in it that personally affects you.

Yep.

Which makes it even more important for we constituents to hammer home reasonable solutions, and call out those who try such circumventions.

 

[amazingfantasy15]

That would be start. National CCW reciprocity would be another. As it stands there are 20,000 gun laws on the books. Not liking guns is fine, and nobody is forcing you to buy one. If you think a dog is enough to keep you safe, then more power to you.

It's not fair to force others to conform to your views either, as its not fair for me to force you to own a gun.

Okay, so in order to open the conversation you need to be able to carry your gun everywhere. I don't know, I really have problems with people in a bar drinking having a gun. I'm also kind of happy my wife doesn't have to worry about her patients at the hospital being armed, however, that's not nearly always the case, since we live in AZ and many people consider their gun like their wallet, they should always have it on them. Also, reciprocity seems like a slippery slope that leads to state laws being dismantled, since you're asking for one states law to carryover to every state. Not trying to be difficult, just trying to show my concerns with the only three things you want to open the conversation.

 

[Marvolo]

Um, that selector switch your talking about would be on the other side so you could flip it with your thumb. If you fire right-handed like most.

Yes, you are correct the old models had the fire selector on the left side. Newer models are supposed to have ambidextrous selectors on both sides. It being the military, though, it will 10 years before they get into our soldiers hands. What i am seeing in that picture is, I think based on other pictures, one of the frame pins that runs through the receiver.

It keeps a 15 year old from sneaking Daddy's credit card and ordering a box of ammo for Daddy's gun so he can go shoot someone at school.

You quoted my post before I added this part:

Now if background checks were required for ammo I could see it being useful to remove it from the internet, but there should be a way for online dealers to do a background check. You fill out the same form you would in store and the dealer takes 24 hours to do the background check. If you are cleared you pay and they ship the ammo. We don't have to remove ammo from online dealers, because they can do background checks just like an in store dealer can. But they can't see your face, you say. That's why we have skype, webcams, camera phones etc. Devices that transmit video in real time. Its the same as being in a store. It's the 21st century, people, not the dark ages. We find logical solutions to our problems. We can make internet ammo sales safer. We just have to think of how before we kneejerk and remove it entirely.

Also, we need to remember that many shooters make their own ammo using a press. You can remove every bullet from shelves and the internet and I or anyone else can get spent casings, scrap metal, some powder, and lead and be churning out bullets easily. Also, for people who are 30+ minutes from a dealer it can be more convenient to just have it shipped to you. There is also a wider selection online.

Me, personally, I don't buy certain types of ammo in stores because it is more expensive and prices vary from dealer to dealer. Plus, when buying in bulk, like say 1,000 rounds at a time, it is just easier to buy online and get a deal.

 

[roach]

Generally...when a person has their mind set on killing people a face to face with another human being it's going to do crap. It's not going to change their decision. They have already reached the point where they see human life from a devalued point of view.

the point is to make it harder for them to do it. We aren't going to stop murder...it's been around for a while and will keep on going for a longer while. We can however make it harder for people to kill.

 

[amazingfantasy15]

Yes, you are correct the old models had the fire selector on the left side. Newer models are supposed to have ambidextrous selectors on both sides. It being the military, though, it will 10 years before they get into our soldiers hands. What i am seeing in that picture is, I think based on other pictures, one of the frame pins that runs through the receiver.

You quoted my post before I added this part:

Also, we need to remember that many shooters make their own ammo using a press. You can remove every bullet from shelves and the internet and I or anyone else can get spent casings, scrap metal, some powder, and lead and be churning out bullets easily. Also, for people who are 30+ minutes from a dealer it can be more convenient to just have it shipped to you. There is also a wider selection online.

Me, personally, I don't buy certain types of ammo in stores because it is more expensive and prices vary from dealer to dealer. Plus, when buying in bulk, like say 1,000 rounds at a time, it is just easier to buy online and get a deal.

So, it's pointless to try anything I guess

 

[Marvolo]

So, it's pointless to try anything I guess

Uh, did you even read my post? Specifically this part:

It's the 21st century, people, not the dark ages. We find logical solutions to our problems. We can make internet ammo sales safer. We just have to think of how before we kneejerk and remove it entirely.

Banning ammo internet sales entirely isn't the solution. Its a kneejerk reaction of a scared populace not looking for any other option. Something else can be done. Something that keeps it out of the hands of criminals without screwing over the legal sane populace. And I refuse to believe that a tech world that can come up with bendable smartphones, bendy tablets, and an app for everything imaginable can't come up with a way to make ammo internet sales safer. The ingenuity is there.

 

[Hotwire]

Yes, you are correct the old models had the fire selector on the left side. Newer models are supposed to have ambidextrous selectors on both sides. It being the military, though, it will 10 years before they get into our soldiers hands. What i am seeing in that picture is, I think based on other pictures, one of the frame pins that runs through the receiver.



You quoted my post before I added this part:



Also, we need to remember that many shooters make their own ammo using a press. You can remove every bullet from shelves and the internet and I or anyone else can get spent casings, scrap metal, some powder, and lead and be churning out bullets easily. Also, for people who are 30+ minutes from a dealer it can be more convenient to just have it shipped to you. There is also a wider selection online.

Me, personally, I don't buy certain types of ammo in stores because it is more expensive and prices vary from dealer to dealer. Plus, when buying in bulk, like say 1,000 rounds at a time, it is just easier to buy online and get a deal.

I focused on the first part, not so much to comment on your post but, to address the mindset since you weren't the first to say the same thing.

For the record, I think you should have to get a license to purchase firearms AND to purchase ammo! That way, no regular Joe Schmoe can walk in and buy bullets. This license would also bee needed to buy bullet making supplies. This would also serve as a system to keep track of guns. So, someone buys guns/bullets legally but, sells them illegally would be able to be caught.

Even though it was a comedy bit, Chris Rock was onto something with saying we need bullet control.

 

[Kelly]

If you think someone who's plotting a mass killing can't walk up to a random clerk in Wal-Mart and ask for a box of ammo without getting a second look, when the people who know them aren't even getting in their way, then you're the one who should get the




Now THAT is actually a reasonable argument against it.


Some checks that could be implemented is that the company call the card owner, or whoever is on the purchase order, and confirm before it can be shipped.

And/Or require that the shipment be signed for, and an id be presented at the time of signing.

Which is the problem, that myself and others have brought up countless times in here....MY POINT OF MY LAST POST, was simply out of frustration because ANY, AND I MEAN ANY argument for ANY thing that has to do with Gun Control gets slapped down in here with the dumb ass argument of..."they will do it anyway..."...."they can still buy it...."..."they will still get it somewhere..." and I'm sorry, but that is a ******** argument and used far too often.

 

[amazingfantasy15]

Uh, did you even read my post? Specifically this part:

Banning ammo internet sales entirely isn't the solution. Its a kneejerk reaction of a scared populace not looking for any other option. Something else can be done. Something that keeps it out of the hands of criminals without screwing over the legal sane populace. And I refuse to believe that a tech world that can come up with bendable smartphones, bendy tablets, and an app for everything imaginable can't come up with a way to make ammo internet sales safer. The ingenuity is there.

The thing is the pro-gun crowd just keeps giving more and more reasons why any form of control won't work/is unconstitutional. In terms of online bullet sales, why can't we stop that entirely? The argument is it's a hassle to go to the gun shop. Well, you're buying something that is designed to either kill or cause massive bodily harm, that's the sole purpose of a bullet/gun. I know there's target practice, but that's just training to kill/cause massive bodily harm. It's a very dangerous thing, why should it be able to be bought with such ease as a few clicks of your mouse?

 

[Thundercrack85]

The thing is the pro-gun crowd just keeps giving more and more reasons why any form of control won't work/is unconstitutional. In terms of online bullet sales, why can't we stop that entirely? The argument is it's a hassle to go to the gun shop. Well, you're buying something that is designed to either kill or cause massive bodily harm, that's the sole purpose of a bullet/gun. I know there's target practice, but that's just training to kill/cause massive bodily harm. It's a very dangerous thing, why should it be able to be bought with such ease as a few clicks of your mouse?

Yeah, all those guys at the shooting range, or shooting tins in their backyard... just plotting murder.

 

[roach]

Yeah, all those guys at the shooting range, or shooting tins in their backyard... just plotting murder.

the gist of what he said is right even if his words weren't right. Guns and ammo shouldnt be bought with the same ease as ordering a pizza online

 

[Kelly]

the gist of what he said is right even if his words weren't right. Guns and ammo shouldnt be bought with the same ease as ordering a pizza online

I like this analogy...very true.

 

[Marvolo]

the gist of what he said is right even if his words weren't right. Guns and ammo shouldnt be bought with the same ease as ordering a pizza online

There can be a difference between something being easy and something being convenient. Being able to buy ammo on the internet is a convenience. It saves me gas, money, and time. It can remain so with checks and balances. Just have to brainstorm and use our damn minds like we do for every other thing we baby proof in this helpless country.

If you have checks and balances in stores have equal checks and balances online that work in an online environment. My only fear is what happens when we give congress even the smallest amount of power over the internet? Give them an inch and they take a mile. I don't want more SOPA nonsense.

 

[Super Kal]

They are all almost the same rifle. Of course, the bottom two are designed for firing more rounds and have almost no recoil. That's what the spring loaded buffer in the stock is for. So soldiers can fire it for longer periods of time without hurting their shoulder from the recoil. In fact, the buffer us what allows for those Hollywood hip-firing shots. But, of course, you were probably going to say they were the exact same and the differences were cosmetic.

Funny story. At basic training, my drill sergeant called up the smallest guy in our platoon, held the butt of an M16-A2 to the the guys nuts and fired a few rounds down range. Scared him but, didn't hurt him.

Top one is a .17 Hornady caliber or a .22LR so let's just rule that one out entirely unless your target is a bird or a squirrel you want be doing much assaulting.

The bottom two are only a true Assault Rifle if the have selective fire and are capable of fully autromatic fire meaning one sustained trigger pull will empty the magazine. I see what I am pretty sure is a selective fire knob so they would be true assault weapons. That knob would not be present on a civillian model and a civillian model would only be caable of semi-auto fire mean one round per trigger pull. A person must release the trigger and pull again to fire another round.

Do I get a gold star?

both wrong. all three are the exact same semi-auto rifle.
the bottom two models are based on the first model, the Mossberg 702 Plinkster. the other 2 models are exactly the same as the top, both only allow 10rd magazine. the only difference is the outer casing: one looks like a hunting rifle, the other to are fashioned in an AR style.

the term "assault weapon" is based on looks, not on functionality.
http://www.assaultweapon.info/

 

[roach]

There can be a difference between something being easy and something being convenient. Being able to buy ammo on the internet is a convenience. It can remain so with checks and balances.

I am all in favor of checks and balances. My position is I don't want to infringe on gun owners rights...I just want to make it difficult for the wrong people to get their hands on guns.
Thats the problem with this issue because we have divided ourselves into two groups when really we are one. We all dont want the wrong people to get their hands on guns. Now if we get together and brainstorm we can solve this.

 

[Kelly]

I am all in favor of checks and balances. My position is I don't want to infringe on gun owners rights...I just want to make it difficult for the wrong people to get their hands on guns.

Sorry, but there are very few checks and balances on the internet...but yes that is my position as well.

 

[roach]

Sorry, but there are very few checks and balances on the internet...but yes that is my position as well.

this is true...we haven't figured out how to truly secure ourselves online yet.

 

[wiegeabo]

Sorry, but there are very few checks and balances on the internet...but yes that is my position as well.

So we don't even try, right?


Just means we need to build/improve those checks and balances. Which, honestly, all supposedly secure websites need based on the identify theft and data stealing issues they've been having.

 

[Marvolo]

both wrong. all three are the exact same semi-auto rifle.
the bottom two models are based on the first model, the Mossberg 702 Plinkster. the other 2 models are exactly the same as the top, both only allow 10rd magazine. the only difference is the outer casing: one looks like a hunting rifle, the other to are fashioned in an AR style.

the term "assault weapon" is based on looks, not on functionality.
http://www.assaultweapon.info/

I know the term assault weapon is based on looks, and it is a completely ignorant system proven by my inability to tell that was the same rifle. Well played. Though, in person I would have been able to tell the difference.

If they went by functionality like they should those bottom two would not be considered an assault weapon. It's a .22LR for christs sake. They will barely take down a bunny. Might as well call a slingshot an assault weapon.