OMG Politics, I'm over it already.

[mongooz]

You don't need one, until you do.


I was gonna make a joke about crossbows, but then saw this:

http://www.philly.com/philly/news/2...o_be_charged_in_crossbow_slaying_of_wife.html

you could try a bucket of water.....seemed pretty effective here.

 

[jelloman]

The problem with the whole 2nd amendment debate is that neither side is capable of convincing the other that they are wrong...

 

[Flamencology]

The problem with the whole 2nd amendment debate is that neither side is capable of convincing the other that they are wrong...

Yup. Keep voting, and make the argument to people who are too young to vote.

 

[Kerouac]

The problem with the whole 2nd amendment debate is that neither side is capable of convincing the other that they are wrong...

I don't think that's true. To borrow a phrase from President Obama, your beliefs can "evolve" and one would hope that over a lifetime of experiences someone would be insightful enough to examine their belief set and see whether or not they still hold water. Open discourse can go a long way with that.

 

[2manband]

I'll weigh in here with a perspective that's sure to upset both sides of the gun control issue. Keep in mind that I'm a gun owner and firearm enthusiast. I own dozens of guns, but not one of them is an assault rifle. The word "tactical" makes my skin crawl, and I'm very troubled that the gun industry uses it to market their goods to civilians. I'm a hunter and a target shooter. The NRA absolutely does NOT represent my interests, (although maybe once upon a time it did) and I'm all for some common sense gun laws if it helps to cut down on this rash of mass murders that are almost exclusively an American phenomenon.

I say if you want to get a single shot musket of the type that was commonly used when the 2nd amendment was written, then go for it. If you're an adult over the age of 18, waltz into any sporting goods shop and get yourself one. Just like our founding fathers intended.

If you want a modern hunting rifle or shotgun, then you need to pass a hunters safety course and a background check. This would cover cartridge fed long guns that hold like 3-5 cartridges and are not semi-auto.

If you want a handgun, you have to pass a handgun course and background check

You want a concealed carry permit, you have to pass a course for that, a background check, and get a clean bill of health from a mental health professional.

If you want a semi-auto rifle, you have to pass a course for that, a background check, and get a clean bill of health from a mental health professional.

Nobody's saying you can't get these things, but as their ability to inflict harm increases (to levels the 2nd amendment authors never imagined) so should the level of training and verification.

It boggles my mind that somebody with no firearm experience whatsoever, and who may or may not be suffering from a mental illnesses can plunk down their money and get an assault rifle. And they can buy it face to face from a private seller with no paperwork at all. That's absolutely nuts. And if that means I have to give up the opportunity to buy 30 round magazines, or that I'll have to take a course to renew my CCP, that's a trade I'm willing to make.

 

[smurfco]

I'll weigh in here with a perspective that's sure to upset both sides of the gun control issue. Keep in mind that I'm a gun owner and firearm enthusiast. I own dozens of guns, but not one of them is an assault rifle. The word "tactical" makes my skin crawl, and I'm very troubled that the gun industry uses it to market their goods to civilians. I'm a hunter and a target shooter. The NRA absolutely does NOT represent my interests, (although maybe once upon a time it did) and I'm all for some common sense gun laws if it helps to cut down on this rash of mass murders that are almost exclusively an American phenomenon.

I say if you want to get a single shot musket of the type that was commonly used when the 2nd amendment was written, then go for it. If you're an adult over the age of 18, waltz into any sporting goods shop and get yourself one. Just like our founding fathers intended.

If you want a modern hunting rifle or shotgun, then you need to pass a hunters safety course and a background check. This would cover cartridge fed long guns that hold like 3-5 cartridges and are not semi-auto.

If you want a handgun, you have to pass a handgun course and background check

You want a concealed carry permit, you have to pass a course for that, a background check, and get a clean bill of health from a mental health professional.

If you want a semi-auto rifle, you have to pass a course for that, a background check, and get a clean bill of health from a mental health professional.

Nobody's saying you can't get these things, but as their ability to inflict harm increases (to levels the 2nd amendment authors never imagined) so should the level of training and verification.

It boggles my mind that somebody with no firearm experience whatsoever, and who may or may not be suffering from a mental illnesses can plunk down their money and get an assault rifle. That's absolutely nuts. And if that means I have to give up the opportunity to buy 30 round magazines, or that I'll have to take a course to renew my CCP, that's a trade I'm willing to make.

Look at you, all sane an' reasonable. Where do you think you are? This is America!

 

[sonik]

I never understood why anybody would be against training and background checks (both criminal and mental) for purchase/ownership of firearms.

It's hardly a stomp on anybody's freebertys and would no doubt cut down on some (not all of course) disastrous outcomes.

 

[Kerouac]

I never understood why anybody would be against training and background checks (both criminal and mental) for purchase/ownership of firearms.

It's hardly a stomp on anybody's freebertys and would no doubt cut down on some (not all of course) disastrous outcomes.

WHAT 'DER PART OF "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED" DON'T YOU UN'RSTAND?!

*spits*

 

[Help!I'maRock!]

I never understood why anybody would be against training and background checks (both criminal and mental) for purchase/ownership of firearms.

It's hardly a stomp on anybody's freebertys and would no doubt cut down on some (not all of course) disastrous outcomes.

Have you seen what Americans have done with public education? Cutting down on disastrous outcomes is obviously not a priority.

 

[2manband]

There are also some gun laws that need to be loosened, like the ones surrounding "long guns" versus "hand guns"
Here's a Thompson Center Contender. It's available in both long gun and hand gun formats. It's a single shot break action firearm with interchangable barrels for different calibers and interchangeable stocks.

It's OK to attach "long" parts to the pistol and make it a rifle, but not vice versa. Keep in mind, both are single shot, break action firearms where you must first open the action, then remove the spent cartridge, then insert a new one, then close the action, then cock the hammer before you can fire another shot. Their "active shooter" potential is pretty much nil.

But this AR15 pistol is legal, provided that its lower receiver was given a "pistol" serial number. It's not much longer than the pistol above, but it can fire 30 rounds (or more with this snazzy drum magazine!) as fast as you can pull the trigger.

How in the hell is converting between formats in the top picture Not OK, but the bottom picture is just fine and dandy?!!?

 

[Chad]

Nor does the second discuss which specific arms it pertains to. Both deal in concepts- the rights of free speech and a free press, and the right to bear arms.

I'm not sure if you are deliberately missing the point or if you don't know what the press is. The press is not an object, it is a group of people who investigate stories or issues. The first amendment says the government can't interfere with them doing their job. Although they do in matters of national security. And they also limit freedom of speech, for example, you can't yell fire in a theater. Arms are guns. The press is not a device to reproduce printed pages, it is people.

 

[Chad]

Actually there were multi-round firearms, both hand and long guns, in use by 1791 including the forerunner to the gatling gun, known as the puckle gun, more advanced and 'assulaty' than the ye olde musket. Not to mention that the supreme court unanimously rejected the concept in Caetano v Massachusetts that the 2nd only applied to arms as they existed in common use at the time of the Bill of Rights.

"In a per curiam decision, the Supreme Court vacated the ruling of the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court.[7] Citing District of Columbia v. Heller[8] and McDonald v. City of Chicago,[9] the Court began its opinion by stating that "the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding" and that "the Second Amendment right is fully applicable to the States".[6] The Court then identified three reasons why the Massachusetts court's opinion contradicted prior rulings by the United States Supreme Court"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caetano_v._Massachusetts

Well, you can't really carry a puckle gun into a night club, set it up and open fire. I guess, you could, but you would be taken down before you could get it going.
Yes, but the supreme court can change it minds when other cases come down the road. At one point, it upheld slavery.

 

[Chad]

I'll weigh in here with a perspective that's sure to upset both sides of the gun control issue. Keep in mind that I'm a gun owner and firearm enthusiast. I own dozens of guns, but not one of them is an assault rifle. The word "tactical" makes my skin crawl, and I'm very troubled that the gun industry uses it to market their goods to civilians. I'm a hunter and a target shooter. The NRA absolutely does NOT represent my interests, (although maybe once upon a time it did) and I'm all for some common sense gun laws if it helps to cut down on this rash of mass murders that are almost exclusively an American phenomenon.

I say if you want to get a single shot musket of the type that was commonly used when the 2nd amendment was written, then go for it. If you're an adult over the age of 18, waltz into any sporting goods shop and get yourself one. Just like our founding fathers intended.

If you want a modern hunting rifle or shotgun, then you need to pass a hunters safety course and a background check. This would cover cartridge fed long guns that hold like 3-5 cartridges and are not semi-auto.

If you want a handgun, you have to pass a handgun course and background check

You want a concealed carry permit, you have to pass a course for that, a background check, and get a clean bill of health from a mental health professional.

If you want a semi-auto rifle, you have to pass a course for that, a background check, and get a clean bill of health from a mental health professional.

Nobody's saying you can't get these things, but as their ability to inflict harm increases (to levels the 2nd amendment authors never imagined) so should the level of training and verification.

It boggles my mind that somebody with no firearm experience whatsoever, and who may or may not be suffering from a mental illnesses can plunk down their money and get an assault rifle. And they can buy it face to face from a private seller with no paperwork at all. That's absolutely nuts. And if that means I have to give up the opportunity to buy 30 round magazines, or that I'll have to take a course to renew my CCP, that's a trade I'm willing to make.

You are not upsetting me one bit. This is exactly what I called for many pages ago.

 

[yabba]

I'll weigh in here with a perspective that's sure to upset both sides of the gun control issue. Keep in mind that I'm a gun owner and firearm enthusiast. I own dozens of guns, but not one of them is an assault rifle. The word "tactical" makes my skin crawl, and I'm very troubled that the gun industry uses it to market their goods to civilians. I'm a hunter and a target shooter. The NRA absolutely does NOT represent my interests, (although maybe once upon a time it did) and I'm all for some common sense gun laws if it helps to cut down on this rash of mass murders that are almost exclusively an American phenomenon.

I say if you want to get a single shot musket of the type that was commonly used when the 2nd amendment was written, then go for it. If you're an adult over the age of 18, waltz into any sporting goods shop and get yourself one. Just like our founding fathers intended.

If you want a modern hunting rifle or shotgun, then you need to pass a hunters safety course and a background check. This would cover cartridge fed long guns that hold like 3-5 cartridges and are not semi-auto.

If you want a handgun, you have to pass a handgun course and background check

You want a concealed carry permit, you have to pass a course for that, a background check, and get a clean bill of health from a mental health professional.

If you want a semi-auto rifle, you have to pass a course for that, a background check, and get a clean bill of health from a mental health professional.

Nobody's saying you can't get these things, but as their ability to inflict harm increases (to levels the 2nd amendment authors never imagined) so should the level of training and verification.

It boggles my mind that somebody with no firearm experience whatsoever, and who may or may not be suffering from a mental illnesses can plunk down their money and get an assault rifle. And they can buy it face to face from a private seller with no paperwork at all. That's absolutely nuts. And if that means I have to give up the opportunity to buy 30 round magazines, or that I'll have to take a course to renew my CCP, that's a trade I'm willing to make.

I don't know anyone on the in-favor-of-gun-control side of the argument that would be upset by this

 

[jelloman]

In my personal experience, here in New York, the common sense gun laws being discussed are already in place, and have been as long as I've possessed a pistol permit...

To obtain a pistol permit in the star of NY you need to apply through your county sheriff office, be fingerprinted, pass a background check that includes a check of mental health records, and take a comprehensive handgun safety course...

Once the permit is issued the actual process of taking possession of a handgun varies by county...in Orange county, where I live, once you've purchased a handgun you must send in an application to amend your permit to include the new acquisition...the application must be approved by a judge...then you are sent an amended permit and an authorization form for the store to release your handgun into your possession...this process takes about 2 weeks...some counties can do the whole process in just a few hours, but they are rare...

 

[2manband]

I don't know anyone on the in-favor-of-gun-control side of the argument that would be upset by this

I dunno. I think there are people from the gun control side who are just as absolute in their views as some folks from the gun rights side. They're anti gun in all shapes and forms.

And thats not the answer either. I want to be able to go out in the woods every fall and hunt deer with a 30-06 bolt action rifle, or turkeys with a 12 ga pump action shotgun. That's as American as apple pie, and I wouldn't want anybody to take away that opportunity.

I think the silent majority of gun owners are somewhere closer to my position than Wayne LaPierre's.

I'm concerned that the NRA is doing gunowners a disservice by being so inflexible in their positions. As these shootings continue, sooner or later the tide of public opinion will overpower the NRAs lobbying efforts and some form of gun control legislation will pass. I just hope that there isn't so much pent up frustration at that point that the legislation goes too far and it starts to limit things like firearms made for hunting.

 

[Chad]

In my personal experience, here in New York, the common sense gun laws being discussed are already in place, and have been as long as I've possessed a pistol permit...

To obtain a pistol permit in the star of NY you need to apply through your county sheriff office, be fingerprinted, pass a background check that includes a check of mental health records, and take a comprehensive handgun safety course...

Once the permit is issued the actual process of taking possession of a handgun varies by county...in Orange county, where I live, once you've purchased a handgun you must send in an application to amend your permit to include the new acquisition...the application must be approved by a judge...then you are sent an amended permit and an authorization form for the store to release your handgun into your possession...this process takes about 2 weeks...some counties can do the whole process in just a few hours, but they are rare...

I remember you showing us that at barn storm and it is awesome. Something like that is exactly what I would like to see on a national level.

 

[jelloman]

I remember you showing us that at barn storm and it is awesome. Something like that is exactly what I would like to see on a national level.

I have never felt the process infringes on my 2nd commandment rights...where I feel infringed is the word "restricted" that exists on my permit...I can only carry while hunting or transporting to and from the range, which is a crock because carrying a loaded gun on my person while operation a motor vehicle is illegal...if I am permitted legally then that permit should allow me to carry...

I also have taken several advanced handling and firing courses since obtaining my permit and have taken the course that would allow me to be a range safety officer...and I have also studied but not tested for my firearms instructor certificate...

I personally fall in the center of the debate...I would have no issues whatsoever withthe a full assault weapon ban but feel the restricting of magazine size in handguns is not necessary...

I also feel that the pro assault weapons ban camp is arguing from completely the wrong angle...instead of focusing on semi-auto and magazine capacity they should be focusing on the utility of the ammunition itself...the rounds fired by the AR15 and AK 47 are in my useful in anti-personnel applications...the arms manufacturers are deflecting the arguments by claiming to be a "modern sporting rifle" which, if you consider the requirements of ethical hunting, is a crock of shit...

 

[GomezAddams]

I see similarities between the tobacco industry of yesteryear and today's gun industry. Up until the 1980s tobacco claimed smoking wasn't harmful. The numbers didn't add up. The studies were flawed. People had a right to smoke. And so on, and so on. And, they pumped money into Washington so that congress wouldn't act on what everyone else could clearly see was a problem.

But, as the number of smokers steadily declined, and more people started to realize the problem, suddenly a tipping point was reached. Enough people were demanding a change, and even though the tobacco industry was still waiving fists full of cash in Washington, all of a sudden no amount of money could buy legislators, and reasonable tobacco laws and policies were put in place.

I think the same thing will happen with guns. As fewer and fewer people own guns (and this is the trend despite what the NRA claims), a tipping point will be reached where congress will no longer be willing to sell themselves to the NRA because of the associated negative stigma.

 

[Beyer160]

I never understood why anybody would be against training and background checks (both criminal and mental) for purchase/ownership of firearms.

It's hardly a stomp on anybody's freebertys and would no doubt cut down on some (not all of course) disastrous outcomes.

I'd be all for mandatory training and background checks. The problem is, I don't trust the gun control side to stop there. Historically, gun control has been a slippery slope- give an inch, they take a mile. Gun control advocates are very open about the fact that they're happy to accept reasonable restrictions on firearms ownership... as a stepping stone to their real goal, which is outright prohibition (you can even see examples of that in this very discussion). In that context, the NRA's hardline "not one step back" position makes some sense.

I'm not sure if you are deliberately missing the point or if you don't know what the press is. The press is not an object, it is a group of people who investigate stories or issues. The first amendment says the government can't interfere with them doing their job. Although they do in matters of national security. And they also limit freedom of speech, for example, you can't yell fire in a theater. Arms are guns. The press is not a device to reproduce printed pages, it is people.

Rest assured, I'm well versed in the difference between "a" press, and "the" press. The point you seem to be missing is that tying the second amendment to the firearms technology of the time it was written makes as little sense as doing the same to the first amendment. Of course your first amendment rights apply to large scale electric printing presses, television and the internet- why do people think that your second amendment rights are specific to 18th century technology (as shown in the video you posted)?