Disturbing News on the "Gun Control" Front
- Thread starter Vartarg
- Start date
Absolutely not. The problem here is that we're not going to get anything in return beyond the hollow promise that they won't try to take more in the future.
Let's say we agreed to have "assault" rifles lumped in with the NFA in return for the restrictions being loosened on, say, suppressors. A year or two later, there would be a call to tighten those restrictions back up, and we'd be worse off than we were before.
We've already given plenty and gotten nothing in return. No thanks.
Who says that's going to happen? We're in a position to hold firm and refuse just about anything, and that's where we need to stay.
Dr Big Bird PhD
New member
I will be damned if a single person comes to take my weapon or asks me for an additional tax
SPEMack618
New member
Former Congresswoman Giffords and her husband forming this new PAC scares the bejesus out of me.
Also, former (some would say disgraced) General McCrystal speaking out about the over lethality of the .223 makes me want to rip the U.S. Army patch of off my range bag.
Also, former (some would say disgraced) General McCrystal speaking out about the over lethality of the .223 makes me want to rip the U.S. Army patch of off my range bag.
nazshooter
New member
Mattamuskeet: Unfortunately the other side isn't interested in any sort of compromise except in the sense of how much we will allow them to take.
Sent from my ADR6425LVW using Tapatalk 2
Sent from my ADR6425LVW using Tapatalk 2
spanishjames
New member
There's no way the other side would give up some slack on suppressors. If assault rifles can "rip a deer to shreds", then "silent assasins" will also walk the streets and rule the night with their silencers.
Looking at it the wrong way....
It is NOT a case of needing to be a tree that bends in the wind, which automatically assumes the anti's arguments (the wind) are inevitable and overpowering.
What it is, is a case of throwing yet another baby out of the sleigh, in the hopes the wolves will eat and go away.
They will eat. Gladly. But they do not go away.
And knowing that you will feed them, only makes them more aggressive and hungry.
Now, some of the babies that have already been eaten have been our flesh and blood, and dear to us, because of it. And we still suffer from their loss.
We are well past the point of expendable relatives. And even if you still have someone you are willing to throw to the wolves, I no longer do. And furthermore I am unwilling to allow you to be thrown out, on principle. Nor, will I jump out to save you. Because it wouldn't work, anyway.
No matter what argument you come up with for lightening the sleigh, the fact is that our horses cannot run faster than the law allows. And those who are urging "compromise" are simply ignoring the reality in the hopes that they won't be the next one out of the sleigh. False hopes, but stong and sincere ones.
There are other analogies involving wolves, and the wolves know them. That is why they are in such a hurry to eat us, before other factors can come into play.
It is NOT a case of needing to be a tree that bends in the wind, which automatically assumes the anti's arguments (the wind) are inevitable and overpowering.
What it is, is a case of throwing yet another baby out of the sleigh, in the hopes the wolves will eat and go away.
They will eat. Gladly. But they do not go away.
And knowing that you will feed them, only makes them more aggressive and hungry.
Now, some of the babies that have already been eaten have been our flesh and blood, and dear to us, because of it. And we still suffer from their loss.
We are well past the point of expendable relatives. And even if you still have someone you are willing to throw to the wolves, I no longer do. And furthermore I am unwilling to allow you to be thrown out, on principle. Nor, will I jump out to save you. Because it wouldn't work, anyway.
No matter what argument you come up with for lightening the sleigh, the fact is that our horses cannot run faster than the law allows. And those who are urging "compromise" are simply ignoring the reality in the hopes that they won't be the next one out of the sleigh. False hopes, but stong and sincere ones.
There are other analogies involving wolves, and the wolves know them. That is why they are in such a hurry to eat us, before other factors can come into play.
Glenn E. Meyer
New member
The report I heard was that he was going to instruct federal agencies to tighten up in the failures to implement in current laws, implementing the mental health provisions of NICS.
Unless we have a concrete order, let's not go off on this.
Listening to the news this morning, I heard an ex-legislator from Arkansas discuss how the hunters can be split off from the gun nutsos. You don't need 47 rounds to shoot a deer or you can go to the range, she drawled.
That is going to be a big point - hunting is mildly acceptable as will be skeet. Other guns are for lunatics.
Thus, the tool argument or sports arguments will be losing strategies and simply pandering.
Unless we have a concrete order, let's not go off on this.
Listening to the news this morning, I heard an ex-legislator from Arkansas discuss how the hunters can be split off from the gun nutsos. You don't need 47 rounds to shoot a deer or you can go to the range, she drawled.
That is going to be a big point - hunting is mildly acceptable as will be skeet. Other guns are for lunatics.
Thus, the tool argument or sports arguments will be losing strategies and simply pandering.
Poodle shooter?....
I have serious doubts about "Big Stan". He got burned with the Pat Tillman mess too.
I heard a lot of OEF troops couldn't stand him. He reportedly only eats 1 meal a day & while in charge of US forces, cut all the fast food & MWR outlets in Afganistan(Subway, Burger King, Starbucks, etc).
Many spec-ops & SEALs call the 5.56mm the "poodle shooter". Many set up custom 7.62 rifles for "business".
The new 6.8SPCII got a lot of press too in the 2000s but it's seems to drop off now(2013).
ClydeFrog
I have serious doubts about "Big Stan". He got burned with the Pat Tillman mess too.
I heard a lot of OEF troops couldn't stand him. He reportedly only eats 1 meal a day & while in charge of US forces, cut all the fast food & MWR outlets in Afganistan(Subway, Burger King, Starbucks, etc).
Many spec-ops & SEALs call the 5.56mm the "poodle shooter". Many set up custom 7.62 rifles for "business".
The new 6.8SPCII got a lot of press too in the 2000s but it's seems to drop off now(2013).
ClydeFrog
Alabama Shooter
New member
I see a big reversal in gun rights for veterans. The same vets that came back from wars with PTSD and emotional problems who were fine to handle weapons in previous generations will now be disallowed. This after first being told that nothing would happen to them...
veterans & guns....
I disagree with AS.
I'm a US armed forces veteran & get VA benefits. I, for one, do not support veterans having diagnosed mental health disorders, obtaining 100% VA disability(saying they can't work or hold a job), taking medications then claiming they can hunt or carry loaded firearms concealed without any problems.
I'm sorry, but you can't be crazy when you feel like it or get federal benefits for PTSD/bi-polar/TBIs etc then think you can safely handle a loaded firearm.
These are just my personal views. If it was a voter issue & passed(allowing veterans with mental health issues to carry concealed or hunt), I could live with it.
FWIW; I disagreed with allowing concealed firearms in bars/nightclubs but VA's new law later showed a decrease in gun crimes in bars-restaurants after the law passed.
Clyde
I disagree with AS.
I'm a US armed forces veteran & get VA benefits. I, for one, do not support veterans having diagnosed mental health disorders, obtaining 100% VA disability(saying they can't work or hold a job), taking medications then claiming they can hunt or carry loaded firearms concealed without any problems.
I'm sorry, but you can't be crazy when you feel like it or get federal benefits for PTSD/bi-polar/TBIs etc then think you can safely handle a loaded firearm.
These are just my personal views. If it was a voter issue & passed(allowing veterans with mental health issues to carry concealed or hunt), I could live with it.
FWIW; I disagreed with allowing concealed firearms in bars/nightclubs but VA's new law later showed a decrease in gun crimes in bars-restaurants after the law passed.
Clyde
That would be pretty far fetched, not only in how unlikely it would be to ban "AR 15 type" rifles politically/legislatively, but in that it is impractical. First off, you have to define what defines an "AR15 type" rifle. It would work about as well as the definition of "assault weapon" did in 1994-2004. Here is the description:
The definition is laughable, because the characteristics do not really alter the way the rifle functions in a meaningful way. It's even funnier, because these characteristics are what are required to distinguish an "assault rifle" from a... I guess a "non-assault rifle" (lol). Gun manufacturers just altered their products cosmetically to get around the definition. Short of banning all semi-auto rifles, banning "AR15 type" rifles isn't really possible. Functionally, the AR15 or semi-auto AK47 aren't different from any other semi-auto rifle. They all do the same thing. And, by the way, the antis know this. You can be sure someone explained this to Joe Biden.
This is why I doubt this administration is going to try to reinstate a ban on "Assault Weapons".
I think the focus of any proposed legislation is going to be on high cap mags, mental health and the outside chance of a gun/ammo registry.
Alabama Shooter
New member
I agree these states seem incongruent. In some cases it is very likely true.
This may be a dumb idea, but what about a national firearms permit?
With this permit you could buy/sell a firearm and buy ammo or primers.
You could sell in a private sale to any other permit holder. This could also be used as a concelled carry permit were legal.
You get the permit automatically if you are law enforcement, active military or discharged military with an honorable discharge. All other must go through gun safety and firearms training at their own expense. Those trained will have to have at least three trainers. Any trainer may flag a trainee as "unstable" and require a review process before the permit is issued.
All those with criminal records, no honorable discharge or mental health issues will be disqualified.
I know that we view firearms ownership as a right, not a privilege so there might be some difficulty in crafting legislation.
With this permit you could buy/sell a firearm and buy ammo or primers.
You could sell in a private sale to any other permit holder. This could also be used as a concelled carry permit were legal.
You get the permit automatically if you are law enforcement, active military or discharged military with an honorable discharge. All other must go through gun safety and firearms training at their own expense. Those trained will have to have at least three trainers. Any trainer may flag a trainee as "unstable" and require a review process before the permit is issued.
All those with criminal records, no honorable discharge or mental health issues will be disqualified.
I know that we view firearms ownership as a right, not a privilege so there might be some difficulty in crafting legislation.
Yes, my point excactly. But some system that controls access of firearms to the qualified is needed. It would be better than than gun bans that do nothing and you would not need to wait on a check before buting a gun. You would only need to check that the permit is valid. Maybe we could call it a license and you would have to pay a small tax to get it. You already have to pay a tax to get a class three weapon. The governments right to tax is well estabished.
I think what he may be trying to get at is more or less a portable pre wrote background check under the disguise as a "license". If there is no requirement to have it in order to own a firearm nor any kind of registration or cost, with its only use being to buy a gun from a dealer then that's more or less what it would amount to.
Then again why can't I just show my drivers license and let the dealer call me in from that, there is no reason for me to fill out a form if I have some ID that verifies who I am and the dealer has to call to make sure I'm ok anyway. of course with the form they have all those questions that may get an unknowing person into a "lying on a federal form" trap if they happen to be prohibited and don't know it.
Then again why can't I just show my drivers license and let the dealer call me in from that, there is no reason for me to fill out a form if I have some ID that verifies who I am and the dealer has to call to make sure I'm ok anyway. of course with the form they have all those questions that may get an unknowing person into a "lying on a federal form" trap if they happen to be prohibited and don't know it.
mrbatchelor
New member
Don't call it a license. I'm beginning to see a lot of sense in refusing to uncouple 2A and 1A rights. Do you need a license to write a letter to the editor bitching about some government policy - like maybe bombing US citizens without trials.
This is a tough nut to crack no doubt. But we'd better be damned careful about language. The words matter.