Gun Control

[walksalone]

What irked me about that, wasn't so much that the "liberals were wrong", just that folks that own rifles were being vilified...

They were?

 

around here they were, well really any firearm owner actually...

[Junior]

What irked me about that, wasn't so much that the "liberals were wrong", just that folks that own rifles were being vilified...

They were?

 

around here they were, well really any firearm owner actually...

 

 

Really? Do share quotes where any and all firearm owners were being vilified around here.

[carlfense]

around here they were, well really any firearm owner actually...

Didn't see any of that locally . . . plenty of raging about Obama's non-existent executive orders . . . but I didn't see vilification of rifle owners.

 

 

I hope that someday I live in an extremely blue part of the country so that I can give equal time to being annoyed by liberal nonsense.

[walksalone]

around here they were, well really any firearm owner actually...

Didn't see any of that locally . . . plenty of raging about Obama's non-existent executive orders . . . but I didn't see vilification of rifle owners.

 

 

I hope that someday I live in an extremely blue part of the country so that I can give equal time to being annoyed by liberal nonsense.

 

Be careful what you wish for...

[BigRedBuster]

Right, which is where I came up with the "need" question. Maybe it's not the best verbiage, but that's really the question - which arms are appropriate under the 2nd Amendment, and which aren't? Because we all agree that nobody needs Stinger missiles or bio weapons, but if we're going to overthrow a tyrannical US government, we're not going to get it done with .22's and AR-15s.

That makes sense.

 

Regarding the types of firearms that are appropriate under the 2d Amendment I would say that I'm fairly satisfied with current laws. I might be persuaded that restrictions on magazine capacity could reduce the lethality of mass shooters but I'd need to see better information before offering a firm opinion.

 

The most logical change that I can see is that every sale should be subject to background checks. The burden of showing lawful (with proper checks) purchase should rest with the purchaser.

 

 

That's probably where I'm at with this.

 

However, anytime something like this comes up I get back to what is practical. What will work in the real world.

In a perfect world, I could agree with all back ground checks. However, that may work to force gun shows...etc. to do back ground checks. However, I believe it would almost be impossible to regulate this in private sale transactions.

 

I also think that restrictions on the amounts of firearms purchased by a given person would go a long way to prevent illegal gun trafficking. Gun retailers should be required to keep inventory and report it to the ATF or FBI on a regular basis. And ammunition sales should be at least given the same treatment as Sudafed.

 

Please explain what you mean by this.

 

I know people who collect guns have have a very large inventory in their home simply because they like collecting them. They may be unique guns or antique guns.

 

So...if I want to start collecting guns, I am now going to be restricted to only...say...have 10 guns in my collection?

[Junior]

Right, which is where I came up with the "need" question. Maybe it's not the best verbiage, but that's really the question - which arms are appropriate under the 2nd Amendment, and which aren't? Because we all agree that nobody needs Stinger missiles or bio weapons, but if we're going to overthrow a tyrannical US government, we're not going to get it done with .22's and AR-15s.

That makes sense.

 

Regarding the types of firearms that are appropriate under the 2d Amendment I would say that I'm fairly satisfied with current laws. I might be persuaded that restrictions on magazine capacity could reduce the lethality of mass shooters but I'd need to see better information before offering a firm opinion.

 

The most logical change that I can see is that every sale should be subject to background checks. The burden of showing lawful (with proper checks) purchase should rest with the purchaser.

 

 

That's probably where I'm at with this.

 

However, anytime something like this comes up I get back to what is practical. What will work in the real world.

In a perfect world, I could agree with all back ground checks. However, that may work to force gun shows...etc. to do back ground checks. However, I believe it would almost be impossible to regulate this in private sale transactions.

 

I also think that restrictions on the amounts of firearms purchased by a given person would go a long way to prevent illegal gun trafficking. Gun retailers should be required to keep inventory and report it to the ATF or FBI on a regular basis. And ammunition sales should be at least given the same treatment as Sudafed.

 

Please explain what you mean by this.

 

I know people who collect guns have have a very large inventory in their home simply because they like collecting them. They may be unique guns or antique guns.

 

So...if I want to start collecting guns, I am now going to be restricted to only...say...have 10 guns in my collection?

 

I was more thinking along the lines of guys who buy 20 guns at a time, walk around the corner and give them to the cartel.

 

Though, I do think we could place inventory restrictions on all people. 10 "modern" (whatever you would want to define that as) guns, for example, with antique guns and guns that no longer fire being exempt. Something like this could certainly be discussed.

[carlfense]

Please explain what you mean by this.

 

I know people who collect guns have have a very large inventory in their home simply because they like collecting them. They may be unique guns or antique guns.

 

So...if I want to start collecting guns, I am now going to be restricted to only...say...have 10 guns in my collection?

I thought he meant purchase restrictions . . . like a purchaser paying cash for ten ARs at a time in Tuscon . . .

[rawhide]

I don't agree that weapons bans are legal.

Really? None of them?

 

I agree that the giant smokescreen about the evil "assault weapon" is mostly hyperbole also; since it is used in approximately .07% of weapons related crimes.

Perhaps because they're especially effective at doing what they were designed to do. Anyways, I think we are in agreement that the AWB did nothing last time . . . and won't become law this time.

 

Why don't the politicians that are so concerned about our children's safety go after the #1 weapon used in homicides?

Handguns?

I said "BAN" not regulation. Check NFA for more info.

Junior? where did I say anything about hand grenades or Stingers? SHOW ME But you do understand why the sudafed regulation is in place right? Ask your neighbors to the south about Meth labs.

YUP, handguns. DOH unless you want to include drunk drivers in there

[rawhide]

IBTL

 

oh that's right the big H banned guns for civilians.

[carlfense]

I said "BAN" not regulation. Check NFA for more info.

I saw that . . . so you don't think that any type of firearm should be banned?

 

YUP, handguns. DOH unless you want to include drunk drivers in there

I think that has been tried . . . and I doubt that you'll find much agreement amongst gun owners.

[knapplc]

IBTL

 

Hey, Senior Moderator of HuskerBoard - you can lock this, you know.

[carlfense]

Godwin was right.

 

edited by rawhide: but did he include the Bacon rule?

I don't need to use no stinkin' quote bar

[rawhide]

IBTL

 

Hey, Senior Moderator of HuskerBoard - you can lock this, you know.

I don't need to know any of that fancy stuff

Nobody has made me cry yet so............nope no lock

Godwin was right.

Is that Ray Lee Godwin??? Great driver.

 

edited: I just saw that on wiki Godwin is banned

[rawhide]

Carl I posted a previous hitler tube on the 20th. meh

[sd'sker]

Godwin was right.

those who invoke godwin are worse than nazis.