Firearms

General Discussion on any Off Topic subject
post

Your stance:

ALL firearms should be legal and available to the public.
7
18%
All currently legal firearms should remain legal (screening as is).
4
11%
All currently legal firearms should remain legal with more strict screening.
20
53%
Ban ALL firearms.
3
8%
Ban semi-automatic handguns and rifles that have a removable magazine.
4
11%
Don't know / Don't care.
0
No votes
 
Total votes : 38

Re: Firearms

Postby uscbucsfan » Mon Oct 02, 2017 5:35 pm

Deja Entendu wrote:You can modify (almost?) any gun with a removable magazine into fully automatic. A revolver or bolt action rifle?

Google pedersen device.
Last edited by uscbucsfan on Mon Oct 02, 2017 8:35 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Image
User avatar
uscbucsfan
 
Posts: 2486
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 1:21 pm
Has thanked: 64 times
Been thanked: 70 times

Re: Firearms

Postby Zarniwoop » Mon Oct 02, 2017 6:38 pm

Our poll,just like every public poll on the topic has a very reasonable and rational compromise. If you listen to either of the parties or the media they would have you believe otherwise
Zarniwoop
 
Posts: 2638
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2015 12:23 pm
Has thanked: 93 times
Been thanked: 165 times

Re: Firearms

Postby Corsair » Tue Oct 03, 2017 12:25 am

Zarniwoop wrote:Our poll,just like every public poll on the topic has a very reasonable and rational compromise. If you listen to either of the parties or the media they would have you believe otherwise

Can anyone explain to me why the current administration eliminated a mental health regulation on gun purchases?

It sounds like the collective mind around here wants better screening, and it looks like we are heading in the opposite direction.

Why are we "ok" with that?
Image
User avatar
Corsair
 
Posts: 5420
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 12:25 am
Has thanked: 154 times
Been thanked: 285 times

Re: Firearms

Postby mightyleemoon » Tue Oct 03, 2017 12:07 pm

Deja Entendu wrote:
HamBone wrote:
He would probably just modify the weapon so he wouldn't have to constantly reload...since he modified one the weapons he used to function as an automatic. At least according to what CNN is reporting.

"The suspicion, based on initial reports, is that at least one of the rifles used was altered to function as an automatic weapon, the official said. Among the weapons found were a .223 caliber and a .308 caliber."


He wouldn't be able to modify something that doesn't take a removable magazine or a belt of ammo.


Yes, he would.
User avatar
mightyleemoon
 
Posts: 3397
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 2:35 pm
Has thanked: 13 times
Been thanked: 186 times

Re: Firearms

Postby mightyleemoon » Tue Oct 03, 2017 12:11 pm

One thing that I think gets glossed over in these conversations is the goal of legislation.

Any legislation that looks to eliminate gun violence is going to fall flat on it's face.

Realistic legislation that moves in the right direction is any legislation that puts a bit of a barrier between people who want to do bad things and weapons. Elimination won't occur. But, limitation is a very achievable goal. Right now, there's isn't so much as a speed bump for a convicted criminal to get a gun in this country.

Kick the NRA out of the room and let adults talk it through. That's the only way anything has any chance of happening.
User avatar
mightyleemoon
 
Posts: 3397
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 2:35 pm
Has thanked: 13 times
Been thanked: 186 times

Re: Firearms

Postby DonkeyHunter » Tue Oct 03, 2017 12:27 pm

mightyleemoon wrote:One thing that I think gets glossed over in these conversations is the goal of legislation.

Any legislation that looks to eliminate gun violence is going to fall flat on it's face.

Realistic legislation that moves in the right direction is any legislation that puts a bit of a barrier between people who want to do bad things and weapons. Elimination won't occur. But, limitation is a very achievable goal. Right now, there's isn't so much as a speed bump for a convicted criminal to get a gun in this country.

Kick the NRA out of the room and let adults talk it through. That's the only way anything has any chance of happening.


A voice of reason...
DonkeyHunter
 
Posts: 70
Joined: Wed Sep 14, 2016 10:02 am
Has thanked: 12 times
Been thanked: 0 time

Re: Firearms

Postby DreadNaught » Tue Oct 03, 2017 12:34 pm

mightyleemoon wrote:One thing that I think gets glossed over in these conversations is the goal of legislation.

Any legislation that looks to eliminate gun violence is going to fall flat on it's face.

Realistic legislation that moves in the right direction is any legislation that puts a bit of a barrier between people who want to do bad things and weapons. Elimination won't occur. But, limitation is a very achievable goal. Right now, there's isn't so much as a speed bump for a convicted criminal to get a gun in this country.

Kick the NRA out of the room and let adults talk it through. That's the only way anything has any chance of happening.


Good post.

I think there is attainable middle ground on gun control for sure and believed so long before the events of Sunday night in LV.
Image
User avatar
DreadNaught
 
Posts: 9330
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2015 9:18 am
Has thanked: 373 times
Been thanked: 376 times

Re: Firearms

Postby mightyleemoon » Tue Oct 03, 2017 1:08 pm

This could go in a couple different spots. But, this seems as good as any.

There is a little weight to this...despite it's obvious tilt and tint.

Image
User avatar
mightyleemoon
 
Posts: 3397
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 2:35 pm
Has thanked: 13 times
Been thanked: 186 times

Re: Firearms

Postby Corsair » Tue Oct 03, 2017 1:31 pm

Corsair wrote:
Zarniwoop wrote:Our poll,just like every public poll on the topic has a very reasonable and rational compromise. If you listen to either of the parties or the media they would have you believe otherwise

Can anyone explain to me why the current administration eliminated a mental health regulation on gun purchases?

It sounds like the collective mind around here wants better screening, and it looks like we are heading in the opposite direction.

Why are we "ok" with that?


Nancy Cordes‏ @nancycordes

Just asked @SpeakerRyan what Congress can do to reduce gun violence. He cited mental health legislation so ppl don't fall thru cracks.


Paul Ryan is the motherfucker that just passed the legislation that loosens restrictions on gun sales to people with mental health problems.
Image
User avatar
Corsair
 
Posts: 5420
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 12:25 am
Has thanked: 154 times
Been thanked: 285 times

Re: Firearms

Postby Jason Bourne » Tue Oct 03, 2017 1:32 pm

Paul Ryan is a maggot
Last edited by Jason Bourne on Tue Oct 03, 2017 1:35 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Jason Bourne
 
Posts: 2145
Joined: Thu Apr 16, 2015 7:47 am
Has thanked: 14 times
Been thanked: 19 times

Re: Firearms

Postby Zarniwoop » Tue Oct 03, 2017 1:33 pm

In response to the post that MLM included....

There's no weight to it whatsoever


As our constitution is written arms ownership is a right, healthcare isn't ... and even with the right to bear arms no one buys guns for you



A better analogy is saying you have a right to purchase heath care products just like you have a right to purchase guns
Zarniwoop
 
Posts: 2638
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2015 12:23 pm
Has thanked: 93 times
Been thanked: 165 times

Re: Firearms

Postby Jason Bourne » Tue Oct 03, 2017 1:39 pm

One of paddocks guns ..
Looks like a modified AR-15
https://mobile.twitter.com/JacquiHeinri ... fferent%2F
Jason Bourne
 
Posts: 2145
Joined: Thu Apr 16, 2015 7:47 am
Has thanked: 14 times
Been thanked: 19 times

Re: Firearms

Postby Jason Bourne » Tue Oct 03, 2017 1:40 pm

Jason Bourne
 
Posts: 2145
Joined: Thu Apr 16, 2015 7:47 am
Has thanked: 14 times
Been thanked: 19 times

Re: Firearms

Postby Jason Bourne » Tue Oct 03, 2017 1:41 pm

Jason Bourne
 
Posts: 2145
Joined: Thu Apr 16, 2015 7:47 am
Has thanked: 14 times
Been thanked: 19 times

Re: Firearms

Postby HamBone » Tue Oct 03, 2017 3:39 pm

Corsair wrote:
Zarniwoop wrote:Our poll,just like every public poll on the topic has a very reasonable and rational compromise. If you listen to either of the parties or the media they would have you believe otherwise

Can anyone explain to me why the current administration eliminated a mental health regulation on gun purchases?

It sounds like the collective mind around here wants better screening, and it looks like we are heading in the opposite direction.

Why are we "ok" with that?


I might not be able to...but here's the ACLU's take on it:

"The ACLU, which advocates for people with mental health struggles, said the rule reinforced a stereotype that people with mental disabilities are violent. The organization argued in a letter to members of Congress that there's no data to support a connection between receiving disability benefits and a propensity toward gun violence.

Susan Mizner, senior attorney with the disability rights program at the ACLU, also said that people with mental illnesses are more likely to be victims of violence.

While proponents of the rule argue that it only affects a limited group, opponents say that it unfairly targets the wrong people.

"75,000 people a year is a lot of people in my book," Mizner said. "And these are people who are already at the bottom of our social status. We don't need to kick them anymore.""

When groups like the ACLU and the NRA agree about a piece of legislature...maybe we should look deeper than a tweet from Rachel Maddow.
User avatar
HamBone
 
Posts: 1942
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 11:34 am
Has thanked: 1 time
Been thanked: 64 times

Re: Firearms

Postby mightyleemoon » Tue Oct 03, 2017 3:40 pm

Zarniwoop wrote:In response to the post that MLM included....

There's no weight to it whatsoever

As our constitution is written arms ownership is a right, healthcare isn't ... and even with the right to bear arms no one buys guns for you

A better analogy is saying you have a right to purchase heath care products just like you have a right to purchase guns


There is weight to it. What's going over your head is that these types of statements aren't suggesting that the constitution, as it's written, says anything about health care being a right. They are suggesting that, maybe, the constitution needs amending. That, maybe things as they are, might be flawed a bit.

The conversation is about what/if something needs to be done. If we're stuck saying "Sorry, the constitution is already written. It's a done deal and no more amendments are allowed." Then I don't think that's going to go over very well. And there is definitely some weight to that conversation, whether you feel it or not.
User avatar
mightyleemoon
 
Posts: 3397
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 2:35 pm
Has thanked: 13 times
Been thanked: 186 times

Re: Firearms

Postby Zarniwoop » Tue Oct 03, 2017 3:47 pm

Lol. Nothing is going over my head...my right to bear arms doesn't mean my neighbors have to chip in and pay for it. Nor does it mean my fellow citizens HAVE to buy a gun. I can choose to exercise my right to buy a gun or I can choose not to. Just like I can exercise my rights to free speech, religion, assembly, heck even voting. Or I can choose not to exercise those rights.

You already have a right to health care. You can walk into any doctor or hospital and pay to get it. They can't legally deny you service should you be able to pay for it. In fact it's a lot easier to go pay for a doctor out of pocket then it is to buy a firearm


The healthcare debate, isn't about a "right" no matter how many times that phrase is repeated. It's about having who pays for it.



----


And for the record, if the single payer folks want to change the constitution I fully support their efforts. It is intended to be revised. However, we all know they will never go that route. It requires 2/3. They will never get that. As such they will do a run around, just like President Obama did
Zarniwoop
 
Posts: 2638
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2015 12:23 pm
Has thanked: 93 times
Been thanked: 165 times

Re: Firearms

Postby Corsair » Tue Oct 03, 2017 4:07 pm

If it’s an end around to go through a nine month process of debate, hearings, and finally passed with the old 60 vote threshold, what would you call the recent GOP efforts?
Image
User avatar
Corsair
 
Posts: 5420
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 12:25 am
Has thanked: 154 times
Been thanked: 285 times

Re: Firearms

Postby Zarniwoop » Tue Oct 03, 2017 4:10 pm

Corsair wrote:If it’s an end around to go through a nine month process of debate, hearings, and finally passed with the old 60 vote threshold, what would you call the recent GOP efforts?


I made my thoughts on the 50 vote threshold very clear in another thread
Zarniwoop
 
Posts: 2638
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2015 12:23 pm
Has thanked: 93 times
Been thanked: 165 times

Re: Firearms

Postby Mountaineer Buc » Tue Oct 03, 2017 4:15 pm

Looking forward to paying Zarni's medical bills some day.

He's paid mine and my family's for 14 of the last 22 years so it'll be my pleasure to return the favor.
Image
User avatar
Mountaineer Buc
 
Posts: 8647
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 1:15 pm
Has thanked: 86 times
Been thanked: 495 times

Re: Firearms

Postby Corsair » Tue Oct 03, 2017 4:20 pm

Zarniwoop wrote:
Corsair wrote:If it’s an end around to go through a nine month process of debate, hearings, and finally passed with the old 60 vote threshold, what would you call the recent GOP efforts?


I made my thoughts on the 50 vote threshold very clear in another thread

Since you aren’t willing to share it with me I guess I’ll just assume you used much more forceful language for the real “end around” travesty of legislation the GOP tried to sneak through.
Image
User avatar
Corsair
 
Posts: 5420
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 12:25 am
Has thanked: 154 times
Been thanked: 285 times

Re: Firearms

Postby Zarniwoop » Tue Oct 03, 2017 4:23 pm

I completely agree with the law as written

I very much like the 60 vote requirement...I'm an incredibly firm believer that a slow moving govt is the best govt.
Zarniwoop
 
Posts: 2638
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2015 12:23 pm
Has thanked: 93 times
Been thanked: 165 times

Re: Firearms

Postby Zarniwoop » Tue Oct 03, 2017 4:24 pm

Mountaineer Buc wrote:Looking forward to paying Zarni's medical bills some day.

He's paid mine and my family's for 14 of the last 22 years so it'll be my pleasure to return the favor.



I'm happy to send you bills whenever you want!!
Zarniwoop
 
Posts: 2638
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2015 12:23 pm
Has thanked: 93 times
Been thanked: 165 times

Re: Firearms

Postby Mountaineer Buc » Tue Oct 03, 2017 4:26 pm

Zarniwoop wrote:
Mountaineer Buc wrote:Looking forward to paying Zarni's medical bills some day.

He's paid mine and my family's for 14 of the last 22 years so it'll be my pleasure to return the favor.



I'm happy to send you bills whenever you want!!

Freeloader


You walked right into that one ;)
Image
User avatar
Mountaineer Buc
 
Posts: 8647
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 1:15 pm
Has thanked: 86 times
Been thanked: 495 times

Re: Firearms

Postby Zarniwoop » Tue Oct 03, 2017 4:48 pm

Indeed
Zarniwoop
 
Posts: 2638
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2015 12:23 pm
Has thanked: 93 times
Been thanked: 165 times

Re: Firearms

Postby mightyleemoon » Wed Oct 04, 2017 5:58 am

Zarniwoop wrote:Lol. Nothing is going over my head...my right to bear arms doesn't mean my neighbors have to chip in and pay for it. Nor does it mean my fellow citizens HAVE to buy a gun. I can choose to exercise my right to buy a gun or I can choose not to. Just like I can exercise my rights to free speech, religion, assembly, heck even voting. Or I can choose not to exercise those rights.

You already have a right to health care. You can walk into any doctor or hospital and pay to get it. They can't legally deny you service should you be able to pay for it. In fact it's a lot easier to go pay for a doctor out of pocket then it is to buy a firearm


The healthcare debate, isn't about a "right" no matter how many times that phrase is repeated. It's about having who pays for it.



----


And for the record, if the single payer folks want to change the constitution I fully support their efforts. It is intended to be revised. However, we all know they will never go that route. It requires 2/3. They will never get that. As such they will do a run around, just like President Obama did


If a gun cost 2 billion dollars each, one might say your right to bear that arm were a bit infringed.
User avatar
mightyleemoon
 
Posts: 3397
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 2:35 pm
Has thanked: 13 times
Been thanked: 186 times

Re: Firearms

Postby Deja Entendu » Wed Oct 04, 2017 6:18 am

Deja Entendu wrote:I have yet to find a reasonable response to why a standard citizen needs the right to own any weapon with a removable magazine. Why should they be available to citizens?

Would allowing only firearms with a low round capacity not satisfy the rights of the Second Amendment and allow people the ability to provide and protect their families?


I'm genuinely curious to see if someone here can provide an answer to this that doesn't basically boil down to "because I can and because they're cool."
Deja Entendu
 
Posts: 978
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 3:59 pm
Has thanked: 0 time
Been thanked: 41 times

Re: Firearms

Postby uscbucsfan » Wed Oct 04, 2017 6:42 am

Deja Entendu wrote:
Deja Entendu wrote:I have yet to find a reasonable response to why a standard citizen needs the right to own any weapon with a removable magazine. Why should they be available to citizens?

Would allowing only firearms with a low round capacity not satisfy the rights of the Second Amendment and allow people the ability to provide and protect their families?


I'm genuinely curious to see if someone here can provide an answer to this that doesn't basically boil down to "because I can and because they're cool."


Your username echos this discussion. It's been run into the ground and has been answered many times on this board, but honestly it's pointless. At no time will firearms with removable magazines not exist in America. As we have discussed, our culture is too intertwined with guns and the Second Amendment to ever do what Australia did and there are too many illegal and previously purchased guns in circulation to simply get rid of them. People want to bitch that the NRA is too powerful, but the NRA isn't some rouge, evil organization. The NRA is just a lobbying group representing a segment of the population. This segment is represented in government by the NRA, and will not succumb to "people taking their guns". This group is too large and financially powerful to be swayed or quelled.

Instead of asking pointless questions which people will just debate ad nauseam, not making any ground, we need to discuss what can be done.

We've spoken about things like extended background checks, wait periods, but none of these incidents would have been thwarted by these "gun control" measures. Between 3 and 11 percent of gun crimes are committed by legally obtained guns (depending on your source). Pulse, Sandy Hook, Vegas, etc. none of these would have been stopped by the aforementioned solutions. That leaves the vast majority of issues to be with illegally obtained guns. Making "x" illegal, extending background checks, etc etc etc falls into the gun enthusiast wheel house that, "This only punishes law abiding citizens". I want to re-iterate that I'm not against extended background checks, wait periods, and higher taxes on guns (price is a great barrier to entry), but I it's not going to change or solve our issue. I'm sure a poster will ask why I support these measures. I support them as common sense. If you are a law abiding citizen who wants to respectfully and legally obtain a gun, there's no reason to fear extended background checks or have to wait for "x" amount of time. I own a ton of guns and I have no issues with these proposals.

I want to stress what I've said before, perhaps in this very thread, that we need to allow civil action against gun manufacturers. They are one of the very few completely protected groups. This wouldn't retroactively solve the millions of illegal and legal guns on the market, but enough law suits from individuals or groups exposing negligence in safety, accountability, marketing, etc. could bring real changes that would prevent future gun issues. Money speaks and the government isn't allowing the market to adjust to these issues. Who knows, with enough lawsuits, gun manufacturers could implement biometrics to disallow illegal gun use in newer weapons or tracking on weapons. It's a tiny start, but this is something that the NRA, gun activist, or the 2A wouldn't be able to squash. Otherwise, again, nothing will happen. Outside of a few, I think most want to see some changes. I elaborated into this further previously, but again it's just my 2 cents.
Image
User avatar
uscbucsfan
 
Posts: 2486
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 1:21 pm
Has thanked: 64 times
Been thanked: 70 times

Re: Firearms

Postby HamBone » Wed Oct 04, 2017 6:52 am

Deja Entendu wrote:
Deja Entendu wrote:I have yet to find a reasonable response to why a standard citizen needs the right to own any weapon with a removable magazine. Why should they be available to citizens?

Would allowing only firearms with a low round capacity not satisfy the rights of the Second Amendment and allow people the ability to provide and protect their families?


I'm genuinely curious to see if someone here can provide an answer to this that doesn't basically boil down to "because I can and because they're cool."


Just curious...what other rights do American Citizens need to justify...before exercising that right?
User avatar
HamBone
 
Posts: 1942
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 11:34 am
Has thanked: 1 time
Been thanked: 64 times

Re: Firearms

Postby Zarniwoop » Wed Oct 04, 2017 7:44 am

uscbucsfan wrote:
Deja Entendu wrote:
I'm genuinely curious to see if someone here can provide an answer to this that doesn't basically boil down to "because I can and because they're cool."


Your username echos this discussion. It's been run into the ground and has been answered many times on this board, but honestly it's pointless. At no time will firearms with removable magazines not exist in America. As we have discussed, our culture is too intertwined with guns and the Second Amendment to ever do what Australia did and there are too many illegal and previously purchased guns in circulation to simply get rid of them. People want to bitch that the NRA is too powerful, but the NRA isn't some rouge, evil organization. The NRA is just a lobbying group representing a segment of the population. This segment is represented in government by the NRA, and will not succumb to "people taking their guns". This group is too large and financially powerful to be swayed or quelled.

Instead of asking pointless questions which people will just debate ad nauseam, not making any ground, we need to discuss what can be done.

We've spoken about things like extended background checks, wait periods, but none of these incidents would have been thwarted by these "gun control" measures. Between 3 and 11 percent of gun crimes are committed by legally obtained guns (depending on your source). Pulse, Sandy Hook, Vegas, etc. none of these would have been stopped by the aforementioned solutions. That leaves the vast majority of issues to be with illegally obtained guns. Making "x" illegal, extending background checks, etc etc etc falls into the gun enthusiast wheel house that, "This only punishes law abiding citizens". I want to re-iterate that I'm not against extended background checks, wait periods, and higher taxes on guns (price is a great barrier to entry), but I it's not going to change or solve our issue. I'm sure a poster will ask why I support these measures. I support them as common sense. If you are a law abiding citizen who wants to respectfully and legally obtain a gun, there's no reason to fear extended background checks or have to wait for "x" amount of time. I own a ton of guns and I have no issues with these proposals.

I want to stress what I've said before, perhaps in this very thread, that we need to allow civil action against gun manufacturers. They are one of the very few completely protected groups. This wouldn't retroactively solve the millions of illegal and legal guns on the market, but enough law suits from individuals or groups exposing negligence in safety, accountability, marketing, etc. could bring real changes that would prevent future gun issues. Money speaks and the government isn't allowing the market to adjust to these issues. Who knows, with enough lawsuits, gun manufacturers could implement biometrics to disallow illegal gun use in newer weapons or tracking on weapons. It's a tiny start, but this is something that the NRA, gun activist, or the 2A wouldn't be able to squash. Otherwise, again, nothing will happen. Outside of a few, I think most want to see some changes. I elaborated into this further previously, but again it's just my 2 cents.



While I don't agree necessarily with all your possible ideas, this is a very well thought out post
Zarniwoop
 
Posts: 2638
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2015 12:23 pm
Has thanked: 93 times
Been thanked: 165 times

PreviousNext

post

Return to Off Topic

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: .irishHITMAN4rent, Onthebrink, Super K and 6 guests