Here is an ak 47, with 95 round double drum magazine, and bump stock, demonstrated by a guy wearing body armor Ok, what kind of gun is this? A hunting rifle? What kind of animal requires you to wear body armor, have 95 rounds of amo, and install a bump stock ? Or how about these guns... hunting? How about this guy.... do we think he is into hunting? So what’s my point? Well, i think it is clear that a lot of gun owners are fascinated by having and shooting very powerful guns.... not because they are better for hunting, or self defense? Nah, it is simply because of the fascination of having and shooting the most powerful guns If these people could get rpg rocket launchers.... they would get, and shoot those too And probably for 99.9% of these people.... this is just a hobby. They will never hurt anyone.... they just like guns... end of story But.... in order to indulge their hobby.... gun manufacturers will want to creat guns they can buy....because there is a market, and THAT means that means that there are a lot of really powerful guns around and being promoted... guns whose only real function for civilians is to indulge the fantasies of people fascinated by these guns And like i say... in almost all cases... this is all harmless. But the reality is that .... every once in a while, there is some crazy person who wants to kill a lot of people very quickly. And the6 find, and acquire, and use these hoggyist guns. And yeah, it is the case that if you really want to kill lots of people.... there are lots of ways to do that other than using these guns. But the simple fact is that these guns are TOOLS designed for a purpose. They are tools designed to be very efficient at killing.... THAT IS THEIR PURPOSE. And the main reason to have these guns available to the public is to indulge hobbyist community... which is basically a libertarian issue.... “i am not hurting anyone, so why limit MY freedom?” AND, it is also true that if these guns were prohibited, the murder rate would not significantly change... nor would any of us be measurably safer So, what is my idea? Imo, these guns SHOULD remain available to enthusiasts, How ever i think there should be more hoops required.... like registration as an enthusiast, more intensive background checks, longer waiting periods to register as an enthusiast... etc Because, imo, the people who are using these guns for mass killings are not the sort of people who would go through some long convoluted process.... maybe they would find some other way of killing lots of people. But at least gun enthusiast could reasonably say they are trying as hard as possible to prevent wackos from getting these guns
I keep seeing "more intensive background checks" being proposed. What exactly do you mean by that? What would you like to see included in background checks that isn't already included? If you're talking about medical stuff then that's a whole different ballgame because of HIPAA. You aren't going to get much support from the gun community in regards to registration. The fact of the matter is that most of us simply do not trust the federal government to not use that to confiscate firearms one day. These concerns are not unfounded either, when every single Democrat Presidential Candidate says they will work hard to ban "assault rifles" and folks kicking and screaming about trying to do that for years then you can pretty easily understand why many folks don't want anything on the record that says what type of guns they own. I do agree though that longer waiting periods and a more pain in the ass process to acquire guns like those might discourage some nutcases, however that pain in the ass process will get met with massive resistance by legal gun owners. I say play with things like this at the state level.
Gun registration in California allowed CA to confiscate previously legal guns due to a change in an interpretation of one of the new gun laws. CA has an active confiscation force to collect them.
I'll support registration, better BGCs and longer waiting periods so long as they're implemented with a sunset provision like the '94 assault weapons ban, so we can analyze whether the law is effective or not. If something can be objectively demonstrated to meaningfully reduce gun deaths for a reasonable price, then we can institute it permanantly. We've had MBGCs in WA for 5 years. At a cost of $50M and growing by $10M/year it has reduced shootings by 0 and netted ONE conviction for illegal transfer of a weapon, after the prohibited person was arrested for shooting someone with it. Probably the most expensive 'additional charges' in the history of mankind. Canada abandoned its Long Gun Registry a decade ago because of how much money they were spending to track guns that weren't being used to hurt people. For some reason, its a lot harder to get rid of ineffective legislation here in the US... we'd still be wasting money and instead, and arguing over how to keep paying for it like we're doing with WA's MBGCs.
The problem with registration really boils down to confiscation. Folks keep saying that the government should be able to know who is in possession of firearms in case of crime or something. If a gun is used in a crime then they can at least figure out who owns the thing. On the surface I understand that. The problem is there are elected officials in high levels of government who are openly stating that they will work to ban and remove semi-auto rifles from US citizens. Having a registration database that shows who owns firearms would allow them to do that. As long as elected officials keep threatening to ban and/or remove rifles from US citizens then a firearm registration will not be supported by most gun owners. Basically in layman's terms stop threatening to take my guns away every other month and I will be more open to letting you know who has guns for "safety purposes" or whatever the justification is.
They can no more do that than they can accept sunset provisions, because reducing violence isn't part of the agenda.
And therein lies the problem, and why so many folks can't seem to understand that is beyond me honestly. I mean seriously, how can you sit there and threaten people every single day nonstop and then not understand why they have the audacity to not be willing to give you their address... ..
The first gun would be a great tool for eradicating sounders of feral hogs that sometimes number into the hundreds, not sure how helpful the bumpstock would be, though. Matter of fact, I would not want any LESS gun around such sounder.
I mean similar to what would be done for a security clearance And this would be done once to become a registered enthusiast Wow, that is a surprise That is also a surprise It would be better to write than to have others write And the law could specifically address and forbid what concerns you ... as current gun registration laws also do Look, i know this would never fly I am just thinking and talking The problem is that there will always be a state next door with looser regulations I live in california All i gotta do is go to nevada for looser regulations
Worth a try If you re read my post you will see that I acknowledge that the actual impact will be minimal EXCEPT.... That then there will be evidence that the gun owner community has done due diligence to address the issue.... which is not the case now
You should really read the Federalist papers and the Constitution. Too few people understand the purpose of the 2nd Amendment anymore. We need fewer restrictions on our rights, not more...
The problem with trying to include legislation that says "You can't ban guns, period" is that it's the government themselves who write and pass laws. They can just NOT follow their own laws then what are we supposed to do? That's the problem now and it's a huge gray area in the eyes of even elected officials. They can't all even decide if banning certain guns is legal in itself and many local law enforcement officials have publicly stated that they will not enforce an AR-15 ban because they believe such a thing would be Unconstitutional. Some folks think the 2nd Amendment is all encompassing and we citizens should be allowed to own anything that the military owns. Some believe it should be restricted to what the police own. Some believe it should be restricted to bolt action rifles and shotguns. Some believe semi-autos are fine as long as the magazines are only 10 rounds. Some believe we need to just toss the whole Constitution out the window because it's outdated and no longer applicable in the 21st century. There are simply way too many different views on what is or is not Unconstitutional. That is why I say no, I personally believe it is my Constitutional Right as a law abiding US citizen to own semi-automatic rifles, along with tens of millions of other American citizens. Some elected officials and lawmakers agree that's what the Constitution says, some do not. The best way to ensure I have protection of what I believe are my Rights as a US citizen is to not allow the government to know who has semi-auto rifles. That way them sitting up there arguing with each other and trying to figure out whether it's Constitutional or not is irrelevant because even if they decide it's not we still have our guns because they don't know who has them to come and get them. This whole gun thing is complicated whether we like it or not. There are already "sanctuary counties" within states who passed Red Flag laws with many counties believing such a thing to be Unconstitutional and refusing to comply with it. There are too many different opinions on all of this which is why I say just let the states handle it. If the Federal Government can't figure this out then we the people will figure it out for them. And having hundreds of millions of unregistered firearms in the US is our way of figuring it out for them. Government can't figure out what is or is not Constitutional, so we'll decide ourselves. If we think it's Constitutional to ban AR-15s then we'll give them back, if we don't then we keep them, and since nobody knows where they even are we have the ability to make that decision for ourselves. As it should be in a nation governed by We The People.
I keep hearing "background checks" as if that's not something that's done currently. The last time I bought a weapon I had to get a background check. What exactly is being proposed that isn't already done?
The Left maintains that background checks are not performed for private sales. They refuse to open the NICS to private sellers. The strategy has been to get a national law requiring all firearm transfers to be officiated by FFLs, but they also know there is no way to enforce background checks on private sales without instituting gun registration (a shill for gun owner registration (the political adversaries of the Left’s agenda) so guns (gun owners) can be tracked...the next stage in their strategy.
If you pay the Dane his Danegeld you never rid yourself of the Dane. Just say no kids. They always come back, they always want more, they always claim you just want to see dead children and a number of other vile and false claims. They don't come in good faith, they come to get as much as possible with the carrot before they move to the stick. Not only will I not agree to more gun control, I'll be wanting the existing provisions rolled the **** back.
Hunting is not the primary reason we have guns. Home defense is, and that would be a fine home defense gun for a ranch. Most people who buy these have no intentions of shooting up a school or crowd. That's just an anti-gun lie.
I said And probably for 99.9% of these people.... this is just a hobby. They will never hurt anyone.... they just like guns... end of story Which leads me to believe that you did not actually read my post.... since i VERY CLEARLY SAID I DID NOT THINK THAT MOST GUN OWNERS WILL EVER HURT ANYONE which you characterized as lying.... how? Really.... you neeD a gun that will shoot through a tree for home defense? Really, you need an automatic shotgun for home defense? Really, you need a hundred round magazine for home defense And in order to show off Your hone defense on your tube you gotta wear body armor? Whose lying?
Actually a semi-automatic shotgun is almost ideal for home defense. So, yes, it's needed. Most rifles/shotguns can shoot through trees, given enough time. It's just physics. Rifles and shotguns combined (639 murders) are responsible for less murders than are the human body (fists/kicks/etc.) (669 murders) and much less than cutting instruments (knives, etc.) (1632 murders). Why do you want to demonize something that isn't a real major threat in real life? It's just insane. (and btw, why all the yelling?) https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u....017/tables/expanded-homicide-data-table-8.xls I guess I didn't read your stuff well. I got distracted by the ranting and the all caps.....
And the purpose of sex is procreation. Clearly the porn market leads to rape. I mean 99% I'm sure it's just a hobby.......but the reality is, every once in a while, there is some crazy person who wants to rape a lot of women.
