Discussion: The Second Amendment IV

[Phallic]

I've seen many willing to compromise. I keep hearing "gun ban" from people, yet I think I've only seen maybe one poster suggest such a thing. The media loves to prop up nutbags, so don't bring that up either. Seems to me your just focusing on extremes of both sides.

That's not what I mean. Many want:

1) Magazine capacity limitations
2) CCW restrictions
3) Assault Weapons Ban
4) Banning online ammunition sales (silly tbh)
5) Increased taxes on firearms purchases
6) Universal background checks

I haven't seen them concede anything to the pro-gun side. Make an offer, I'm curious to see what you'd be willing to concede.

For the record, I'm actually okay with (6) for the most part. I'm wary of registration, but background checks I'm willing to concede. What are you willing to compromise for it?

 

[Kelly]

That's not what I mean. Many want:

1) Magazine capacity limitations
2) CCW restrictions
3) Assault Weapons Ban
4) Banning online ammunition sales (silly tbh)
5) Increased taxes on firearms purchases

I haven't seen them concede anything to the pro-gun side. Make an offer, I'm curious to see what you'd be willing to concede.

Why is banning online ammunition sales silly? I don't think anything like that should be sold online. Let them go to a legitimate dealer, face to face, and buy it.

 

[Phallic]

Why is banning online ammunition sales silly? I don't think anything like that should be sold online. Let them go to a legitimate dealer, face to face, and buy it.

What difference does it make if I buy 200 rounds of 9mm at the local Walmart or if I buy it online? It's an inconvenience, nothing more.

 

[Optimus_Prime_]

All of those seem like pretty common sense approaches. If I had to concede on any I'd say 4 and 5. 4 doesn't seem too feasible (at least currently) and 5 doesn't seem like it would accomplish much, although it might generate some revenue for the ATF.

 

[Phallic]

All of those seem like pretty common sense approaches. If I had to concede on any I'd say 4 and 5. 4 doesn't seem too feasible (at least currently) and 5 doesn't seem like it would accomplish much, although it might generate some revenue for the ATF.

I wouldn't lose sleep over (4), I just don't see the point. (6) I'd be happy to discuss. The rest are problems to me.

I meant for the anti-gun crowd to concede. You want to ban standard capacity magazines? What are you willing to give to get that? Compromise isn't saying "We want to ban all guns, but we'll just settle for banning assault weapons."

Compromise is saying, "How about we restrict certain weapons while broadening CCW laws."

That's the problem here. The anti-gun lobby doesn't want compromise, they want concessions. It's a one sided debate if I ever saw one.

 

[DJ_KiDDvIcIOUs]

I think we need to let technology solve this problem. I would like to see tech that would only let the person who purchased the weapon fire it. I also think all people with mental issues should be banned from being able to get weapons but I know that would never happen because of the un-constitutionality of it.

 

[Optimus_Prime_]

I think we need to let technology solve this problem. I would like to see tech that would only let the person who purchased the weapon fire it. I also think all people with mental issues should be banned from being able to get weapons but I know that would never happen because of the un-constitutionality of it.

Like what you saw in James Bond? They say that technology doesn't work quite yet.

 

[Kelly]

What difference does it make if I buy 200 rounds of 9mm at the local Walmart or if I buy it online? It's an inconvenience, nothing more.

Because that inconvenience makes you go face to face with someone rather than be anonymous. It is really a duh on that one, I'm surprised you can't see how that might be a problem, considering the Aurora Colorado shooter bought his ammunition on line, QUITE POSSIBLY had he had to do it face to face, it would have given more time and possibly stopped it before it happened. REALLY? You can't see that as being a positive? I'm sorry that it is an inconvience to you... good lord.

 

[Destructus86]

Because that inconvenience makes you go face to face with someone rather than be anonymous. It is really a duh on that one, I'm surprised you can't see how that might be a problem, considering the Aurora Colorado shooter bought his ammunition on line, QUITE POSSIBLY had he had to do it face to face, it would have given more time and possibly stopped it before it happened. REALLY? You can't see that as being a positive? I'm sorry that it is an inconvience to you... good lord.

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.

 

[Super Kal]

(3) assault weapon ban...

which one is the assault weapon?

Uploaded with ImageShack.us

 

[Optimus_Prime_]

I don't know why people keep going into this line of questioning?

It's irrelevant.

None of us write legislation, and no one here needs to be an expert on guns to discuss what we're currently discussing.

You want to discuss guns, create another thread to discuss all the technical ins and outs of firearms. Otherwise this is just trying to bait people into some sort of sideways argument.

 

[Destructus86]

So, i'm not clear on gun licenses...but it seems to me if you want to own an automatic weapon you should have to have a standard gun license AND a special licence to own automatic weapons for collection purposes. A standard license and a collectors license.

Is that something that is already done?

 

[Phallic]

So, i'm not clear on gun licenses...but it seems to me if you want to own an automatic weapon you should have to have a standard gun license AND a special licence to own automatic weapons for collection purposes. A standard license and a collectors license.

Is that something that is already done?

I'm not sure how it goes in other states, but to get a fully automatic weapon you have to pay a $200 tax stamp, undergo a rigorous background check (more than a background check for the average handgun / long gun), and wait close to a year to buy it. The actual firearm itself will usually cost upwards of $10,000.

 

[amazingfantasy15]

I wouldn't lose sleep over (4), I just don't see the point. (6) I'd be happy to discuss. The rest are problems to me.

I meant for the anti-gun crowd to concede. You want to ban standard capacity magazines? What are you willing to give to get that? Compromise isn't saying "We want to ban all guns, but we'll just settle for banning assault weapons."

Compromise is saying, "How about we restrict certain weapons while broadening CCW laws."

That's the problem here. The anti-gun lobby doesn't want compromise, they want concessions. It's a one sided debate if I ever saw one.

How do you want them broadened? Allowing you to carry a weapon into a hospital? A bar? Where do you want to bring your guns?

I'm sorry you feel so persecuted, but it seems there's little to nothing the gun owners need right now. ATF is a joke because lawmakers neutured them. It seems there's plenty of ways around background checks. Ammo seems to be easily purchased and in large quanities. What you the gun owners need? What do people who aren't fans of guns need to give you?

I'm sorry I'm not a fan of guns, I don't want to be forced to buy one. As home defense I have a dog, who's bark sounds ferocious, if I felt I needed more I probably buy a tazer before a gun. That's just my opinion, I feel safe not owning a gun, owning a gun wouldn't make me feel safe.

However, something needs to be done with guns, so please let me know what you need so we can start to comprimise.

 

[Kelly]

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.

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.

 

[Phallic]

How do you want them broadened? Allowing you to carry a weapon into a hospital? A bar? Where do you want to bring your guns?

I'm sorry you feel so persecuted, but it seems there's little to nothing the gun owners need right now. ATF is a joke because lawmakers neutured them. It seems there's plenty of ways around background checks. Ammo seems to be easily purchased and in large quanities. What you the gun owners need? What do people who aren't fans of guns need to give you?

I'm sorry I'm not a fan of guns, I don't want to be forced to buy one. As home defense I have a dog, who's bark sounds ferocious, if I felt I needed more I probably buy a tazer before a gun. That's just my opinion, I feel safe not owning a gun, owning a gun wouldn't make me feel safe.

However, something needs to be done with guns, so please let me know what you need so we can start to comprimise.

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.

 

[Marvolo]

I'm not sure how it goes in other states, but to get a fully automatic weapon you have to pay a $200 tax stamp, undergo a rigorous background check (more than a background check for the average handgun / long gun), and wait close to a year to buy it. The actual firearm itself will usually cost upwards of $10,000.

That is the process in my state as well.

Because that inconvenience makes you go face to face with someone rather than be anonymous. It is really a duh on that one, I'm surprised you can't see how that might be a problem, considering the Aurora Colorado shooter bought his ammunition on line, QUITE POSSIBLY had he had to do it face to face, it would have given more time and possibly stopped it before it happened. REALLY? You can't see that as being a positive? I'm sorry that it is an inconvience to you... good lord.

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.

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.

 

[Phallic]

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 banning ammunition sales was the answer, I'd think you'd have more supporting arguments for it than just claiming that we don't want anything done.

 

[wiegeabo]

I don't know why people keep going into this line of questioning?

It's irrelevant.

None of us write legislation, and no one here needs to be an expert on guns to discuss what we're currently discussing.

You want to discuss guns, create another thread to discuss all the technical ins and outs of firearms. Otherwise this is just trying to bait people into some sort of sideways argument.

It's completely relevant for at lest a couple of reasons.

1) People are calling for bans on the guns used least in crime based on the way they look.

2) Those who write legislation aren't experts either, which is why we get bad gun laws. And bad laws can sometimes be worse than no laws.

3) It helps educate people who may want to write their legislature in regards to this situation. Or just educate them in general.

 

[Optimus_Prime_]

It's completely relevant for at lest a couple of reasons.

1) People are calling for bans on the guns used least in crime based on the way they look.

I don't see why. This is a forum, not the Senate floor. Unless someone claims to be an expert on guns, there is no need to even enter into this.

2) Those who write legislation aren't experts either, which is why we get bad gun laws. And bad laws can sometimes be worse than no laws.

Congress defers to experts and outside resources when writing legislation. This is a routine practice. Frequently the experts, not the politicians, are the writers.

3) It helps educate people who may want to write their legislature in regards to this situation. Or just educate them in general.

No, it's just an attempt to bait an argument. I've seen it happen several times already.

 

[Hotwire]

(3) assault weapon ban...

which one is the assault weapon?

Uploaded with ImageShack.us

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.

 

[Thundercrack85]

Congress defers to experts and outside resources when writing legislation. This is a routine practice. Frequently the experts, not the politicians, are the writers.

Let's pray these aren't the same experts who helped draft SOPA, or we're all going to have to go back to flintlocks and balls.

 

[Marvolo]

(3) assault weapon ban...

which one is the assault weapon?

Uploaded with ImageShack.us

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?

 

[Optimus_Prime_]

Let's pray these aren't the same experts who helped draft SOPA, or we're all going to have to go back to flintlocks and balls.

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.

 

[wiegeabo]

Let's pray these aren't the same experts who helped draft SOPA, or we're all going to have to go back to flintlocks and balls.

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.