Guns, Guns, Guns.
POSTED BY: FREMDFIRMA
UPDATED: Monday, June 30, 2025 05:56
VIEWED: 46757
PAGE 20 of 44
Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
This is a real gun....
“Obviously the amend does not apply to arms that cannot be carried — it’s to “keep and bear,” so it doesn’t apply to cannons, but I suppose there are handheld rocket launchers that can bring down airplanes that will have to — it’ll have to be decided.” - USSC Justice Antone Scalia.
`
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Well, while I was typing all that, I see the thread has moved on. As to the currently-proposed gun bill by Feinstein, it would do the following:Quote:
“It [the bill] will ban the sale, the transfer, the transportation and the possession [of assault weapons],” the California senator said on NBC’s “Meet the Press.” “Not retroactively, but prospectively. And it will ban the same for big clips, drums or strips of more than 10 bullets.”
alsoQuote:
We exempt over 900 specific weapons that will not fall under the bill.
That's from Feinstein herself, while of course gun advocates are saying things likeQuote:
This same “pretty good intelligence” says the items that would lead to a ban would ban pistol grips and “high-capacity” magazines, eliminate any grandfathering and ban sales of “weapons in possession”. The law “would essentially ban thousands of firearms and require gun owners to turn them over to the Federal government".
That's bullshit, as is obvious from Feinstein's statement. But you'll be hearing stuff like that in coming weeks.
And, of course, from the right:Quote:
On Fox News Sunday, Rep. Louis Golmert proposed giving teachers assault weapons.... Chris, I wish to God she had had an M-4 in her office, locked up so when she heard gunfire, she pulls it out and she didn’t have to lunge heroically with nothing in her hands and takes him out and takes his head off before he can kill those precious kids.” http://www.politicususa.com/senate-democrats-seek-gun-control-bill-hou
se-gop-give-teachers-assault-weapons.html
Which assault weapons the bill would ban hasn't yet been specified, and there are other bills aside from Feinstein's, one of which bans just the high-quantity clips. Personally, I would also like to see the loophole closed on gun-show sales not needing background checks, as well as better enforcement of existing laws. That's where I stand.
Whether anything can or will be done...well, I'm holding my breath.
ETA: To answer Anthony's questionQuote:
A) appearance, B) magazine capacity, or C) the semiautomatic action itself.
I object to the magazine capacity and the semi-automatic action. And I disagree with your statement that the AR-15 is like any other semi-automatic, as explained in my previous post. It is designed specifically to attract people who want something easy to handle and especially easy to be accurate with, according to the professional I heard...if it is "essentially the same", why is it the number one selling rifle in the country?
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Hello,
I've spent a lot of time here trying to have this discussion while being told that it's impossible to have this discussion with me. It's rather frustrating. I am currently in the process of finding out what restrictions are proposed and why, to see where I can find common ground.
In that interest, I will comment on the bullets Niki has posted.
Quote:
• 74 percent of NRA members and 87 percent of non-NRA gun owners support requiring criminal background checks of anyone purchasing a gun.
I am in favor of this, in regards to searching for felony convictions.
Quote:
• 79 percent of NRA members and 80 percent of non-NRA gun owners support requiring gun retailers to perform background checks on all employees - a measure recently endorsed by the National Shooting Sports Foundation, the trade association for the firearms industry.
I am in favor of this only when talking about employees whose job it is to handle the firearms. There are many stores that sell a variety of products, and I think it's okay to hire an ex-criminal to collect shopping carts from the parking lot, ring up slacks, or bag groceries.
Quote:
• 75 percent of NRA members believe concealed carry permits should only be granted to applicants who have not committed any violent misdemeanors, including assault.
I am not in favor of this. Misdeamanors are by their nature minor trespasses against others. One could find oneself charged with misdeameanor assault in a variety of circumstances that do not actually indicate a violent or unstable personality.
Quote:
• 74 percent of NRA members believe permits should only be granted to applicants who have completed gun safety training.
Is this about concealed weapons permits? This was actually already the case when I acquired my concealed weapons permit in Florida. However, I don't think that concealing a weapon or not concealing a weapon is a particularly significant distinction in terms of public safety. I guess I don't approve of this one. It would be wiser to have people complete a gun safety course before buying a gun. (Under the caveat that the course is not designed to deny gun rights, but rather to help ensure they are used responsibly.)
Quote:
• 68 percent of NRA members believe permits should only be granted to applicants who do not have prior arrests for domestic violence.
Is this still with the concealed weapons permit? I don't want anyone convicted of domestic violence to have a gun. I don't care if they have a concealed weapons permit.
Quote:
• 63 percent of NRA members believe permits should only be granted to applicants 21 years of age or older.
This is fine by me. Probably we should also change military recruitment age to 21.
Quote:
• The NRA rank and file also supports barring people on terror watch lists from buying guns (71 percent)
Only if there is an easily accessible review process for getting off the list. I've heard all kinds of nonsense regarding this list. I want there to be some burden of evidence for people to be put on the list and some way for people to challenge the ruling and get a timely and fair review.
Quote:
and believe the law should require gun owners to alert police to lost and stolen guns (64 percent).
With the caveat that the owner knows the weapon has been lost or stolen.
--Anthony
Note to Self:
Raptor - woman testifying about birth control is a slut (the term applies.)
Context: http://tinyurl.com/d6ozfej
Six - Wow, isn't Niki quite the CUNT? And, yes, I spell that in all caps....
http://tinyurl.com/bdjgbpe
Wulf - Niki is a stupid fucking bitch who should hurry up and die.
Context: http://tinyurl.com/afve3r9
“The stupid neither forgive nor forget; the naive forgive and forget; the wise forgive but do not forget.” -T. S. Szasz
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Why would you not be in favor of anyone wanting to buy a gun having to take a saftey course?
I do not fear God, I fear the ignorance of man.
A warning to everyone, AURaptor is a known liar.
...and now a Fundie!
http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?tid=53359
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Why would you not be in favor of anyone wanting to buy a gun having to take a saftey course?
Hello,
Sometimes I feel you are not reading what I write.
Was I unclear?
--Anthony
Note to Self:
Raptor - woman testifying about birth control is a slut (the term applies.)
Context: http://tinyurl.com/d6ozfej
Six - Wow, isn't Niki quite the CUNT? And, yes, I spell that in all caps....
http://tinyurl.com/bdjgbpe
Wulf - Niki is a stupid fucking bitch who should hurry up and die.
Context: http://tinyurl.com/afve3r9
“The stupid neither forgive nor forget; the naive forgive and forget; the wise forgive but do not forget.” -T. S. Szasz
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I appologize, I did miss read that part.
I do not fear God, I fear the ignorance of man.
A warning to everyone, AURaptor is a known liar.
...and now a Fundie!
http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?tid=53359
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by m52nickerson:
I appologize, I did miss read that part.
I do not fear God, I fear the ignorance of man.
A warning to everyone, AURaptor is a known liar.
...and now a Fundie!
http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?tid=53359]
Well, I've been writing a lot of material, it's probably easy to miss a relevant word or two.
--Anthony
Note to Self:
Raptor - woman testifying about birth control is a slut (the term applies.)
Context: http://tinyurl.com/d6ozfej
Six - Wow, isn't Niki quite the CUNT? And, yes, I spell that in all caps....
http://tinyurl.com/bdjgbpe
Wulf - Niki is a stupid fucking bitch who should hurry up and die.
Context: http://tinyurl.com/afve3r9
“The stupid neither forgive nor forget; the naive forgive and forget; the wise forgive but do not forget.” -T. S. Szasz
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by ANTHONYT:
All of that DID go into regulations. The Assault Weapons ban, as previously mentioned, did not ban assault weapons. It regulated magazine size, style of stock, and attached accessories. It also banned some weapons that had a scary appearance or bad reputation, but which would not otherwise have been prohibited. Not being a retroactive ban, it didn't actually remove any of this stuff from circulation. It simply prevented additional such items from being manufactured or imported.
So, we're not talking about assault weapons. We are talking about banning various attachments and options on regular semiautomatic rifles.
So far, you list:
A) Banning pistol grips, which make shooting much more comfortable.
B) Banning folding stocks, which make rifles easier to stow.
C) Banning large magazines. (Shall we say a 10 bullet limit?)
Presumably you do not intend to outlaw semiautomatic weapons outright.
Are your new regulations proposed to be retroactive or will existing articles be grandfathered in?
Do you imagine any exceptions for Americans who can prove that they have completed a proficiency and safety course related to the weapons, or do you see such weapons as unnecessary, period?
I think we can talk about banning assault weapons, and those based on "true" assault weapons. We can also ban some modifications to allowed firearms.
As for number of rounds, I would say limit to 5 for Rifles, 8 for shotguns, 10 for Pistols.
Existing Gun could remain with the owner provided no one in the same home has any existing mental health issues. Those guns could not be sold or transferred to any other owner and would have to be turned in when the owner dies.
Permits and safety classes should be required for all firearms. As well as full registration of each weapon. All sales would have to be made through a licensed dealer so that background checks, licenses and registrations can be checked. A license would also be required to buy ammo, and only be allowed to purchase of weapons registered to that license.
I do not fear God, I fear the ignorance of man.
A warning to everyone, AURaptor is a known liar.
...and now a Fundie!
http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?tid=53359
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
I think we can talk about banning assault weapons, and those based on "true" assault weapons. We can also ban some modifications to allowed firearms.
Hello,
I think I illustrated pretty well that the term 'assault weapon' and 'based on assault weapon' is fairly meaningless, and that you probably need to create a criteria based on concrete features you consider dangerous, not the word 'assault weapon.'
Quote:
As for number of rounds, I would say limit to 5 for Rifles, 8 for shotguns, 10 for Pistols.
I don't quite understand these limits. What inspired you to choose them? Do you realize that such a limit would outlaw several lever-action rifles from the late 19th century? Or did you intend the rifle limit to apply exclusively to semiautomatic rifles, and not manually actuated arms?
Quote:
Existing Gun could remain with the owner provided no one in the same home has any existing mental health issues. Those guns could not be sold or transferred to any other owner and would have to be turned in when the owner dies.
Would the owner's estate be credited for the value of the arms in question? And would the owner be fully compensated if they elected to surrender the weapon early?
Quote:
Permits and safety classes should be required for all firearms.
What is the purpose of a permit? Given that safety courses and background checks are part of your plan, what is the permit designed to accomplish?
Quote:
As well as full registration of each weapon. All sales would have to be made through a licensed dealer so that background checks, licenses and registrations can be checked.
Would you be willing to limit access to the registry so that it could not be used except when investigating a crime with a court order?
Quote:
A license would also be required to buy ammo, and only be allowed to purchase of weapons registered to that license.
Is this license the aforementioned permit?
Would you be willing to accommodate some training or safety course that would allow someone to obtain prohibited weapons and/or accessories? Or do you consider the prohibited weapons so inherently injurious to the public safety that they should not be allowed under any circumstances or exceptions?
--Anthony
Note to Self:
Raptor - woman testifying about birth control is a slut (the term applies.)
Context: http://tinyurl.com/d6ozfej
Six - Wow, isn't Niki quite the CUNT? And, yes, I spell that in all caps....
http://tinyurl.com/bdjgbpe
Wulf - Niki is a stupid fucking bitch who should hurry up and die.
Context: http://tinyurl.com/afve3r9
“The stupid neither forgive nor forget; the naive forgive and forget; the wise forgive but do not forget.” -T. S. Szasz
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
No, Anthony, that one stumped me, too.Quote:
permits should only be granted to applicants who have completed gun safety training. Quote:
It would be wiser to have people complete a gun safety course before buying a gun.
What is the difference between the two? What am I missing?
Uh, Nick:Quote:
Existing Gun could remain with the owner provided no one in the same home has any existing mental health issues.
DAMN! Here we go again. So you'd take away my husband's guns? This thing about "mental-health issues" continues to piss me off; it's bandied about like we're all the same, like everyone with a mental-health issue is a danger. I say again: How many people with a potentially SERIOUS, dangerous, mental-health issue do you think would ever seek treatment if they knew it meant they could never have a gun, or that their mother/father/husband/wife would have to get rid of any guns they have around, once they were diagnosed with, for example, DEPRESSION?!? How many parents/husbands/wives would seek help for their child/spouse if they knew it would mean they'd have to get rid of their guns and couldn't protect themselves in future? You really think that would HELP?
Nobody addressed this when I spoke up about it before; somebody bloody well better address it as this discussion goes forward nationally, because the implications are ENORMOUS. You would deny us all the right to defend ourselves because we sought treatment? Think about that.
Other than that, I agree with everything you wrote, and no, Anthony, I wouldn't "be willing to accommodate some training or safety course that would allow someone to obtain prohibited weapons and/or accessories". And I propose we change "assault weapon" to "semi-automatic weapon", for clarity purposes. I'm not sure what, aside from semi-autos, would be considered an assault weapon; please educate me if there are others. But that seems the easiest way to clear up the distinction.
And finally, Anthony, I am thrilled beyond belief (NOT joking) to see you ARE able to accept some restrictions on your rights regarding this issue. I take back most of what I said; I still believe it's a special issue for you, but I'm glad it's not as adamant as I thought it was.
What do you think of the gun-show loophole? I think we already know your opinion of internet sale of guns, I seem to remember we discussed that one before--wait, on the other hand, you just said you'd approve of background checks; how does that fit with internet sales?
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME