Author Topic: Firearms in the home  (Read 345578 times)

spartana

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3599
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #100 on: March 01, 2016, 01:36:59 PM »
I also am pro gun control and support stricter gun laws like we have in Calif but not bans.

Curious, what additional laws does California have that are more stringent than federal regs?
The Feds generally don't regulate gun laws, with a few exception such as banning some types of firearms,

I suspect that you were over-simplifying for the uninitiated audience, Spartana, but the fact is that there really is no such thing as a federal weapons ban. 
Yes I was trying to simplift in order to stay OT but just let people know that it is the individual states rather than the Fed that makes most laws regarding the usage, purchase and ownership of guns for home and personal protection and when carrying them or transporting g them outside the home.
« Last Edit: March 01, 2016, 01:38:46 PM by spartana »
Retired at 42 to play!

frugalconfederate

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 521
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #101 on: March 01, 2016, 03:36:38 PM »


Quote
4.  How to you plan to deal with the first responders after an incident?    Will the police arrest you?   Do you have a lawyer ready to call on your phone?  Or does your jurisdiction take the view that you're allowed to shoot in your home, so you don't expect to have issues with the authorities?

Being in Kentucky, I have no worries about prosecution for defending myself in my own home... but I have always heard that if you shoot someone climbing through your window, make sure he falls inside and not outside.

MoonShadow

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2544
  • Location: Louisville, Ky.
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #102 on: March 01, 2016, 03:43:32 PM »


Quote
4.  How to you plan to deal with the first responders after an incident?    Will the police arrest you?   Do you have a lawyer ready to call on your phone?  Or does your jurisdiction take the view that you're allowed to shoot in your home, so you don't expect to have issues with the authorities?

Being in Kentucky, I have no worries about prosecution for defending myself in my own home... but I have always heard that if you shoot someone climbing through your window, make sure he falls inside and not outside.

You need to stop listening to hillbillly lawyers. 

Tom Bri

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 514
  • Location: Small Town, Flyover Country
  • More just cheap, than Mustachian
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #103 on: March 01, 2016, 05:01:32 PM »


In the US at first glance there appears to be an awful lot of fear around guns and gun use.  It's assumed that your gun will not be a tool, but will need to be used as a weapon . . . which is why the idea of keeping the weapon locked away is unpalatable.  There's fear that the government is nefarious and out to get you, so keeping a national registry of weapons owners is unpalatable.  Background checks aren't required in most states for private sales for some reason (?).  You don't usually need a license to own a gun, so there's no kind of screening regarding competence.  I don't really understand the reasoning that argues against requiring some training to own a firearm . . . is it also fear based?


One US political party has a fair number of leaders who constantly harp on taking all guns away from US citizens. So, we worry about that. They tell us they will take our stuff, and we believe them. So, we don't want unified lists of who owns guns in their hands, because we believe them when they tell us they will abuse that power. The US political system is a bit insane, but plenty of countries have had bans put in place, so I don't think it is crazy to think the US could do it too.

GuitarStv

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 8157
  • Age: 35
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #104 on: March 01, 2016, 05:45:44 PM »
Who has ever said that they want to take all guns away from US citizens though?  My understanding was that occasionally people talk about limiting magazine size, reducing access to semi-automatic weapons, stuff like that.  I've never heard anyone propose taking away shotguns and single shot rifles though . . . am I missing something?

Midwest

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1077
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #105 on: March 01, 2016, 05:58:34 PM »
Who has ever said that they want to take all guns away from US citizens though?  My understanding was that occasionally people talk about limiting magazine size, reducing access to semi-automatic weapons, stuff like that.  I've never heard anyone propose taking away shotguns and single shot rifles though . . . am I missing something?

Guitarstv - This is a recent article with President Obama praising Australian gun control  which as I understand it is effectively confiscation of many weapons.

http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/jun/23/obama-backs-australias-gun-laws-while-condemning-latest-mass-shootings-in-us

GuitarStv

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 8157
  • Age: 35
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #106 on: March 01, 2016, 06:05:59 PM »
Who has ever said that they want to take all guns away from US citizens though?  My understanding was that occasionally people talk about limiting magazine size, reducing access to semi-automatic weapons, stuff like that.  I've never heard anyone propose taking away shotguns and single shot rifles though . . . am I missing something?

Guitarstv - This is a recent article with President Obama praising Australian gun control  which as I understand it is effectively confiscation-

http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/jun/23/obama-backs-australias-gun-laws-while-condemning-latest-mass-shootings-in-us

You understand incorrectly.  Australians can still buy firearms (rifles, shotguns, hand guns, etc.) as long as they follow the regulations in place.  There was no confiscation of all guns, just enforced regulation.
« Last Edit: March 01, 2016, 06:09:21 PM by GuitarStv »

Tom Bri

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 514
  • Location: Small Town, Flyover Country
  • More just cheap, than Mustachian
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #107 on: March 01, 2016, 06:10:29 PM »
Who has ever said that they want to take all guns away from US citizens though?  My understanding was that occasionally people talk about limiting magazine size, reducing access to semi-automatic weapons, stuff like that.  I've never heard anyone propose taking away shotguns and single shot rifles though . . . am I missing something?
It's a pretty common sentiment on the far left, Nancy Pelosi, Chuck Schumer, among other top politicians. Outside politics, pretty common among big-name leftists to talk this line. I take them at their word. The weird thing is this is a leftist position in the US, but a righty position in for example Britain, where Maggie Thatcher was a big confiscation proponent.

MoonShadow

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2544
  • Location: Louisville, Ky.
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #108 on: March 01, 2016, 06:13:57 PM »
Who has ever said that they want to take all guns away from US citizens though?  My understanding was that occasionally people talk about limiting magazine size, reducing access to semi-automatic weapons, stuff like that.  I've never heard anyone propose taking away shotguns and single shot rifles though . . . am I missing something?

Yes, you are.  The Democratic Party learned long ago that they can't openly discuss amending the 2nd, nor any kind of piecewise or partial ban at the federal level, or half of their own voter base will abandon them.  So instead, they have been using a step-wise, and mostly state by state, strategy to achieve the same ends.  It's called "gun control", and if they can swing it without someone laughing, "common sense gun control".  The problem  is that a lot of their (very liberal) base in certain states very much believe that our "gun culture" is an impediment to their long view, which is a "civilized society" that looks much more like Europe.  However, to change "gun culture" they actually have to change the culture, which involves limiting the influences of "gun nuts" upon the next generation.  The traditional, and current, interpretation of the 2nd Amendment stands in the way of that long view; and they continue to undermine it by whatever means remains available to them.

GuitarStv

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 8157
  • Age: 35
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #109 on: March 01, 2016, 06:14:47 PM »
Who has ever said that they want to take all guns away from US citizens though?  My understanding was that occasionally people talk about limiting magazine size, reducing access to semi-automatic weapons, stuff like that.  I've never heard anyone propose taking away shotguns and single shot rifles though . . . am I missing something?
care
It's a pretty common sentiment on the far left, Nancy Pelosi, Chuck Schumer, among other top politicians. Outside politics, pretty common among big-name leftists to talk this line. I take them at their word. The weird thing is this is a leftist position in the US, but a righty position in for example Britain, where Maggie Thatcher was a big confiscation proponent.

Quotes that show they want to confiscate all guns?

MoonShadow

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2544
  • Location: Louisville, Ky.
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #110 on: March 01, 2016, 06:20:34 PM »
Who has ever said that they want to take all guns away from US citizens though?  My understanding was that occasionally people talk about limiting magazine size, reducing access to semi-automatic weapons, stuff like that.  I've never heard anyone propose taking away shotguns and single shot rifles though . . . am I missing something?
care
It's a pretty common sentiment on the far left, Nancy Pelosi, Chuck Schumer, among other top politicians. Outside politics, pretty common among big-name leftists to talk this line. I take them at their word. The weird thing is this is a leftist position in the US, but a righty position in for example Britain, where Maggie Thatcher was a big confiscation proponent.

Quotes that show they want to confiscate all guns?

Quote
A gun-control movement worthy of the name would insist that President Clinton move beyond his proposals for controls ... and immediately call on Congress to pass far-reaching industry regulation like the Firearms Safety and Consumer Protection Act ... [which] would give the Treasury Department health and safety authority over the gun industry, and any rational regulator with that authority would ban handguns."
- Josh Sugarmann (executive director of the Violence Policy Center)

Quote
"If I could have banned them all - 'Mr. and Mrs. America turn in your guns' - I would have!"
- Diane Feinstein

Quote
"My view of guns is simple. I hate guns and I cannot imagine why anyone would want to own one. If I had my way, guns for sport would be registered, and all other guns would be banned."
- Deborah Prothrow-Stith (Dean of Harvard School of Public Health)

Quote
"I don't care if you want to hunt, I don't care if you think it's your right. I say 'Sorry.' it's 1999. We have had enough as a nation. You are not allowed to own a gun, and if you do own a gun I think you should go to prison."
- Rosie O'Donnell

Quote
“I don’t believe people should to be able to own guns.”
- Barack Obama (during conversation with economist and author John Lott Jr. at the University of Chicago Law School in the 1990s)

I can do this all day.

MoonShadow

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2544
  • Location: Louisville, Ky.
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #111 on: March 01, 2016, 06:28:37 PM »
Who has ever said that they want to take all guns away from US citizens though?  My understanding was that occasionally people talk about limiting magazine size, reducing access to semi-automatic weapons, stuff like that.  I've never heard anyone propose taking away shotguns and single shot rifles though . . . am I missing something?
care
It's a pretty common sentiment on the far left, Nancy Pelosi, Chuck Schumer, among other top politicians. Outside politics, pretty common among big-name leftists to talk this line. I take them at their word. The weird thing is this is a leftist position in the US, but a righty position in for example Britain, where Maggie Thatcher was a big confiscation proponent.

Quotes that show they want to confiscate all guns?

Quote
Confiscation could be an option. Mandatory sale to the state could be an option. Permitting could be an option — keep your gun but permit it.”

Governor Cuomo

Quote
     Schakowsky: We’re on a roll now, and I think we’ve got to take the--you know, we’re gonna push as hard as we can and as far as we can.


    Mattera: So the assault weapons ban is just the beginning?


    Schakowsky: Oh absolutely. I mean, I’m against handguns. We have, in Illinois, the Council Against Handgun... something [Violence]. Yeah, I’m a member of that. So, absolutely.

Congresswoman Jan Schakowsky

Quote
In fact, the assault weapons ban will have no significant effect either on the crime rate or on personal security.  Nonetheless, it is a good idea . . . .  Its only real justification is not to reduce crime but to desensitize the public to the regulation of weapons in preparation for their ultimate confiscation.

Charles Krauthammer

Quote
I think you have to do it a step at a time and I think that is what the NRA is most concerned about, is that it will happen one very small step at a time, so that by the time people have "woken up" -- quote -- to what's happened, it's gone farther than what they feel the consensus of American citizens would be.  But it does have to go one step at a time and the beginning of the banning of semi-assault military weapons, that are military weapons, not "household" weapons, is the first step."

 Mayor Barbara Fass

Quote
There is little sense in gun registration.  What we need to significantly enhance public safety is domestic disarmament . . . .  Domestic disarmament entails the removal of arms from private hands . . . .  Given the proper political support by the people who oppose the pro-gun lobby, legislation to remove the guns from private hands, acts like the legislation drafted by Senator John Chafee [to ban handguns], can be passed in short order.

Baltimore Mayor Kurt Schmoke


MoonShadow

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2544
  • Location: Louisville, Ky.
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #112 on: March 01, 2016, 06:34:01 PM »
Who has ever said that they want to take all guns away from US citizens though?  My understanding was that occasionally people talk about limiting magazine size, reducing access to semi-automatic weapons, stuff like that.  I've never heard anyone propose taking away shotguns and single shot rifles though . . . am I missing something?
care
It's a pretty common sentiment on the far left, Nancy Pelosi, Chuck Schumer, among other top politicians. Outside politics, pretty common among big-name leftists to talk this line. I take them at their word. The weird thing is this is a leftist position in the US, but a righty position in for example Britain, where Maggie Thatcher was a big confiscation proponent.

Quotes that show they want to confiscate all guns?

Quote
  I shortly will introduce legislation banning the sale, manufacture or possession of handguns (with exceptions for law enforcement and licensed target clubs). . . .  It is time to act.  We cannot go on like this.  Ban them!

  Sen. John H. Chafee

Quote
My staff and I right now are working on a comprehensive gun-control bill.  We don't have all the details, but for instance, regulating the sale and purchase of bullets.  Ultimately, I would like to see the manufacture and possession of handguns banned except for military and police use.  But that's the endgame.  And in the meantime, there are some specific things that we can do with legislation.

 Rep. Bobby Rush

Quote
Mr. Speaker, my bill prohibits the importation, exportation, manufacture, sale, purchase, transfer, receipt, possession, or transportation of handguns and handgun ammunition.  It establishes a 6-month grace period for the turning in of handguns.  It provides many exceptions for gun clubs, hunting clubs, gun collectors, and other people of that kind.

  Rep. Major Owens

Quote
There is no reason for anyone in this country, anyone except a police officer or a military person, to buy, to own, to have, to use a handgun.

              I used to think handguns could be controlled by laws about registration, by laws requiring waiting periods for purchasers, by laws making sellers check out the past of buyers.

              I now think the only way to control handgun use in this country is to prohibit the guns.  And the only way to do that is to change the Constitution.

Michael Gartner

Let me know when you have seen enough that you are convinced that it's real.

GuitarStv

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 8157
  • Age: 35
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #113 on: March 01, 2016, 06:34:44 PM »
Who has ever said that they want to take all guns away from US citizens though?  My understanding was that occasionally people talk about limiting magazine size, reducing access to semi-automatic weapons, stuff like that.  I've never heard anyone propose taking away shotguns and single shot rifles though . . . am I missing something?
care
It's a pretty common sentiment on the far left, Nancy Pelosi, Chuck Schumer, among other top politicians. Outside politics, pretty common among big-name leftists to talk this line. I take them at their word. The weird thing is this is a leftist position in the US, but a righty position in for example Britain, where Maggie Thatcher was a big confiscation proponent.

Quotes that show they want to confiscate all guns?

Quote
A gun-control movement worthy of the name would insist that President Clinton move beyond his proposals for controls ... and immediately call on Congress to pass far-reaching industry regulation like the Firearms Safety and Consumer Protection Act ... [which] would give the Treasury Department health and safety authority over the gun industry, and any rational regulator with that authority would ban handguns."
- Josh Sugarmann (executive director of the Violence Policy Center)

Handguns are not equivalent to all guns in America.




Quote
"If I could have banned them all - 'Mr. and Mrs. America turn in your guns' - I would have!"
- Diane Feinstein

Quote
In an interview with 60 Minutes that aired in February 1995, correspondent Lesley Stahl asked Feinstein about this loophole, which made it legal to buy and sell hundreds of thousands of the assault weapons the senator had sought to restrict.

Feinstein responded: "If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an outright ban, picking up every one of them, ‘Mr. and Mrs. America turn ‘em all in,’ I would have done it. I could not do that. The votes weren’t here.’"

http://www.politifact.com/california/statements/2016/jan/15/ted-cruz/ted-cruz-misfires-feinstein-gun-claim/

Misrepresented quotation.  Full quote shows that she wasn't talking about banning all guns.


Quote
“I don’t believe people should to be able to own guns.”
- Barack Obama (during conversation with economist and author John Lott Jr. at the University of Chicago Law School in the 1990s)

Quote
the source of the Obama quote isn't exactly neutral. He's John Lott, an energetic gun-rights campaigner and author of the books More Guns, Less Crime, Straight Shooting, and The Bias Against Guns: Why Almost Everything You've Heard About Gun Control Is Wrong. The chief evidence for the "secret plan", meanwhile, is that the head of the organisation Gun Owners of America "says there is no doubt" that he has such a plan. The same man also says that he "can see [Obama] telling gun stores... 'you can't sell rifles [that use large magazines] or I'm pulling your license." So the secret plan to ban guns a) exists only in a gun activist's mind, and b) even in that imaginary form, isn't actually a plan to ban guns.
/quote]
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/oliver-burkemans-blog/2012/aug/01/guide-anti-obama-conspiracy-theories

Fabricated quotation.




I can do this all day.

I'll ask again, do you have any real quotes regarding the question I asked?


(I'm just going to reject your celebrity quotes as being off topic, since they're not actually in any kind of political power.)

GuitarStv

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 8157
  • Age: 35
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #114 on: March 01, 2016, 06:37:05 PM »
Who has ever said that they want to take all guns away from US citizens though?  My understanding was that occasionally people talk about limiting magazine size, reducing access to semi-automatic weapons, stuff like that.  I've never heard anyone propose taking away shotguns and single shot rifles though . . . am I missing something?
care
It's a pretty common sentiment on the far left, Nancy Pelosi, Chuck Schumer, among other top politicians. Outside politics, pretty common among big-name leftists to talk this line. I take them at their word. The weird thing is this is a leftist position in the US, but a righty position in for example Britain, where Maggie Thatcher was a big confiscation proponent.

Quotes that show they want to confiscate all guns?

Quote
Confiscation could be an option. Mandatory sale to the state could be an option. Permitting could be an option — keep your gun but permit it.”

Governor Cuomo

Quote
     Schakowsky: We’re on a roll now, and I think we’ve got to take the--you know, we’re gonna push as hard as we can and as far as we can.
rather than a politician

    Mattera: So the assault weapons ban is just the beginning?


    Schakowsky: Oh absolutely. I mean, I’m against handguns. We have, in Illinois, the Council Against Handgun... something [Violence]. Yeah, I’m a member of that. So, absolutely.

Congresswoman Jan Schakowsky

Quote
In fact, the assault weapons ban will have no significant effect either on the crime rate or on personal security.  Nonetheless, it is a good idea . . . .  Its only real justification is not to reduce crime but to desensitize the public to the regulation of weapons in preparation for their ultimate confiscation.

Charles Krauthammer

Quote
I think you have to do it a step at a time and I think that is what the NRA is most concerned about, is that it will happen one very small step at a time, so that by the time people have "woken up" -- quote -- to what's happened, it's gone farther than what they feel the consensus of American citizens would be.  But it does have to go one step at a time and the beginning of the banning of semi-assault military weapons, that are military weapons, not "household" weapons, is the first step."

 Mayor Barbara Fass

Quote
There is little sense in gun registration.  What we need to significantly enhance public safety is domestic disarmament . . . .  Domestic disarmament entails the removal of arms from private hands . . . .  Given the proper political support by the people who oppose the pro-gun lobby, legislation to remove the guns from private hands, acts like the legislation drafted by Senator John Chafee [to ban handguns], can be passed in short order.

Baltimore Mayor Kurt Schmoke


A permit to own a gun is not confiscation of all guns.

Handguns are not all guns.

A bill that provides multiple exceptions so that people can keep guns is not confiscation of all guns.

Handguns are not all guns.


Do you have anything related to the question I posted, or not?

Midwest

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1077
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #115 on: March 01, 2016, 06:43:40 PM »
Who has ever said that they want to take all guns away from US citizens though?  My understanding was that occasionally people talk about limiting magazine size, reducing access to semi-automatic weapons, stuff like that.  I've never heard anyone propose taking away shotguns and single shot rifles though . . . am I missing something?

Guitarstv - This is a recent article with President Obama praising Australian gun control  which as I understand it is effectively confiscation-

http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/jun/23/obama-backs-australias-gun-laws-while-condemning-latest-mass-shootings-in-us

You understand incorrectly.  Australians can still buy firearms (rifles, shotguns, hand guns, etc.) as long as they follow the regulations in place.  There was no confiscation of all guns, just enforced regulation.

Steve:

From wikipedia - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_buyback_program

"Australia had buyback schemes in 1996 and 2003. Both schemes were compulsory, and involved compensation paid to owners of firearms made illegal by gun law changes and surrendered to the government. Bought back firearms were destroyed."

Respectfully, I don't misunderstand.  What happened in Australia was confiscation.  Obama's not the only one praising it http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/hillary-clinton-gun-buybacks_us_56216331e4b02f6a900c5d67

I'm not saying they confiscated all guns, but once it starts it won't stop.

No thanks.

MoonShadow

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2544
  • Location: Louisville, Ky.
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #116 on: March 01, 2016, 06:44:39 PM »
Who has ever said that they want to take all guns away from US citizens though?  My understanding was that occasionally people talk about limiting magazine size, reducing access to semi-automatic weapons, stuff like that.  I've never heard anyone propose taking away shotguns and single shot rifles though . . . am I missing something?
care
It's a pretty common sentiment on the far left, Nancy Pelosi, Chuck Schumer, among other top politicians. Outside politics, pretty common among big-name leftists to talk this line. I take them at their word. The weird thing is this is a leftist position in the US, but a righty position in for example Britain, where Maggie Thatcher was a big confiscation proponent.

Quotes that show they want to confiscate all guns?

Quote
My guess [is] . . . that the great majority of Americans are saying they favor gun control when they really mean gun banishment. . . .  I think the country has long been ready to restrict the use of guns, except for hunting rifles and shotguns, and now I think we're prepared to get rid of the damned things entirely -- the handguns, the semis and the automatics.

Roger Rosenblatt

Quote
Whatever is being proposed is way too namby-pamby.  I mean, for example, we're talking about limiting people to one gun purchase or handgun purchase a month.  Why not just ban the ownership of handguns when nobody needs one? Why not just ban semi-automatic rifles?  Nobody needs one."

L. Brent Bozell III

Quote
The [American Academy of Pediatrics] believes handguns, deadly air guns and assault weapons should be banned.

American Assocation of Pediatrics, Where We Stand

Quote
We're going to have to take one step at a time, and the first step is necessarily -- given the political realities -- going to be very modest. . . .  [W]e'll have to start working again to strengthen that law, and then again to strengthen the next law, and maybe again and again.  Right now, though, we'd be satisfied not with half a loaf but with a slice.  Our ultimate goal -- total control of handguns in the United States -- is going to take time. . . .  The first problem is to slow down the number of handguns being produced and sold in this country.  The second problem is to get handguns registered.  The final problem is to make possession of all handguns and all handgun ammunition-except for the military, police, licensed security guards, licensed sporting clubs, and licensed gun collectors-totally illegal.

Richard Harris

Quote
We will never fully solve our nation's horrific problem of gun violence unless we ban the manufacture and sale of handguns and semiautomatic assault weapons

Jeff Muchnick, Legislative Director, Coalition to Stop Gun Violence

Quote
The goal of CSGV is the orderly elimination of the private sale of handguns and assault weapons in the United States.

Coalition to Stop Gun Violence

And this very election cycle...

http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2015/10/daniel-zimmerman/hillary-clinton-gun-confiscation-worth-looking-at/

Quote
A voter asked, “Recently, Australia managed to get away, or take away tens of thousands, millions, of handguns. In one year, they were all gone. Can we do that? If we can’t, why can’t we?”

Mrs. Clinton responded by describing Australia’s program, and then said, “I think it would be worth considering doing it on the national level, if that could be arranged.”

MoonShadow

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2544
  • Location: Louisville, Ky.
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #117 on: March 01, 2016, 06:51:46 PM »
[

(I'm just going to reject your celebrity quotes as being off topic, since they're not actually in any kind of political power.)

Oh, no.  You don't get to do that.  You asked for quotes calling for gun bans.  I provided more than all guns, but I get to do that, because otherwise you would just complain that it's not a widespread opinion on the left.  Prominant leftists in media count, because they have an outsized political influence.  Political activists, action communities, and movements count for the same reasons; otherwise no bitching about what the NRA or the GOA have to say.

nnls

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 658
  • Location: Perth, AU
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #118 on: March 01, 2016, 07:24:46 PM »
Who has ever said that they want to take all guns away from US citizens though?  My understanding was that occasionally people talk about limiting magazine size, reducing access to semi-automatic weapons, stuff like that.  I've never heard anyone propose taking away shotguns and single shot rifles though . . . am I missing something?

Guitarstv - This is a recent article with President Obama praising Australian gun control  which as I understand it is effectively confiscation-

http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/jun/23/obama-backs-australias-gun-laws-while-condemning-latest-mass-shootings-in-us

You understand incorrectly.  Australians can still buy firearms (rifles, shotguns, hand guns, etc.) as long as they follow the regulations in place.  There was no confiscation of all guns, just enforced regulation.

Steve:

From wikipedia - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_buyback_program

"Australia had buyback schemes in 1996 and 2003. Both schemes were compulsory, and involved compensation paid to owners of firearms made illegal by gun law changes and surrendered to the government. Bought back firearms were destroyed."

Respectfully, I don't misunderstand.  What happened in Australia was confiscation.  Obama's not the only one praising it http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/hillary-clinton-gun-buybacks_us_56216331e4b02f6a900c5d67

I'm not saying they confiscated all guns, but once it starts it won't stop.

No thanks.

It was a compulsory buy-back of guns that would now not be allowed, so automatics and semi-automatic guns and a few others.

My dad had  guns, he didn't have to hand them in and still has guns to this day. Same with most people I know who had guns.

JLee

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3352
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #119 on: March 01, 2016, 07:39:42 PM »
I also am pro gun control and support stricter gun laws like we have in Calif but not bans.

Curious, what additional laws does California have that are more stringent than federal regs?
The Feds generally don't regulate gun laws, with a few exception such as banning some types of firearms,

I suspect that you were over-simplifying for the uninitiated audience, Spartana, but the fact is that there really is no such thing as a federal weapons ban.  What happens is that special licenses are required for Class II & Class III weapons, that are typically expensive & heavily regulated.  Even the "assault weapons ban" of the Clinton era didn't ban any weapons, and particularly not actual assault weapons, which are already regulated as Class III weapons.

To interrupt the confusion in advance; a Class III weapon is either anything one might consider a "machine gun", an automatic weapon, or an explosive weapon, whereas a Class II weapon is the "miscellaneous" group that doesn't fit into either Class I (typical semi-automatic handguns & rifles, of a caliber of .50 or less) and doesn't fit into Class III (as noted above, weapons of exclusive military applications).  The kinds of items that are in Class II included firearms that are disguised such as pen guns, suppression devices & 'bang sticks'.  It is possible to get the licenses necessary for these items, in states that permit it (not California, which is one reason action films often have to be filmed at a studio in Arizona or on location.   Yes, those guns they use on film are often the real thing) but it is an extremely expensive process involving the civilian equivalent of a national security clearance.  I know this because there are a lot of wealthy rednecks in this region, and they like to spend money doing things like this...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9MBf_LvqUsQ

BTW, Knob Creek gun range, where this event is filmed twice a year, is only a 20 minute drive beyond the city limits of Louisville, Kentucky.  Roughly half way to Fort Knox.  The GE Minigun can be rented, but the renter has to buy their own ammo, which costs about $200 for enough ammo to last about 25 seconds.  Not mustachian at all.

I would argue that automatic firearms are almost/effectively banned, since the only ones you can purchase as a private citizen are ones registered prior to the 1986 FOPA.  Certainly any automatic firearms manufactured after 1986 are banned by default, as they could not have been registered prior.  There isn't a special license required - just a $200 tax stamp and some federal paperwork.

Midwest

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1077
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #120 on: March 01, 2016, 08:06:00 PM »
Who has ever said that they want to take all guns away from US citizens though?  My understanding was that occasionally people talk about limiting magazine size, reducing access to semi-automatic weapons, stuff like that.  I've never heard anyone propose taking away shotguns and single shot rifles though . . . am I missing something?

Guitarstv - This is a recent article with President Obama praising Australian gun control  which as I understand it is effectively confiscation-

http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/jun/23/obama-backs-australias-gun-laws-while-condemning-latest-mass-shootings-in-us

You understand incorrectly.  Australians can still buy firearms (rifles, shotguns, hand guns, etc.) as long as they follow the regulations in place.  There was no confiscation of all guns, just enforced regulation.

Steve:

From wikipedia - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_buyback_program

"Australia had buyback schemes in 1996 and 2003. Both schemes were compulsory, and involved compensation paid to owners of firearms made illegal by gun law changes and surrendered to the government. Bought back firearms were destroyed."

Respectfully, I don't misunderstand.  What happened in Australia was confiscation.  Obama's not the only one praising it http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/hillary-clinton-gun-buybacks_us_56216331e4b02f6a900c5d67

I'm not saying they confiscated all guns, but once it starts it won't stop.

No thanks.

It was a compulsory buy-back of guns that would now not be allowed, so automatics and semi-automatic guns and a few others.

My dad had  guns, he didn't have to hand them in and still has guns to this day. Same with most people I know who had guns.

So semi automatics are banned in Australia and existing semi auto firearms were confiscated.  Correct?  The majority of guns sold in the us are semi auto.  There are tens of millions of semi autos in the us.  That represents potential  confiscation on a vast scale.

One of the reasons the us can't have an effective conversation on gun violence is because this type of rhetoric keeps being raised.  We tried an assault weapons ban.  It achieved nothing.  There are 300m guns in the us.  Confiscation will turn law abiding citizens into criminals.  Current criminals will continue to ignore the law.
« Last Edit: March 01, 2016, 08:10:35 PM by Midwest »

nnls

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 658
  • Location: Perth, AU
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #121 on: March 01, 2016, 09:54:45 PM »
Who has ever said that they want to take all guns away from US citizens though?  My understanding was that occasionally people talk about limiting magazine size, reducing access to semi-automatic weapons, stuff like that.  I've never heard anyone propose taking away shotguns and single shot rifles though . . . am I missing something?

Guitarstv - This is a recent article with President Obama praising Australian gun control  which as I understand it is effectively confiscation-

http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/jun/23/obama-backs-australias-gun-laws-while-condemning-latest-mass-shootings-in-us

You understand incorrectly.  Australians can still buy firearms (rifles, shotguns, hand guns, etc.) as long as they follow the regulations in place.  There was no confiscation of all guns, just enforced regulation.

Steve:

From wikipedia - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_buyback_program

"Australia had buyback schemes in 1996 and 2003. Both schemes were compulsory, and involved compensation paid to owners of firearms made illegal by gun law changes and surrendered to the government. Bought back firearms were destroyed."

Respectfully, I don't misunderstand.  What happened in Australia was confiscation.  Obama's not the only one praising it http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/hillary-clinton-gun-buybacks_us_56216331e4b02f6a900c5d67

I'm not saying they confiscated all guns, but once it starts it won't stop.

No thanks.

It was a compulsory buy-back of guns that would now not be allowed, so automatics and semi-automatic guns and a few others.

My dad had  guns, he didn't have to hand them in and still has guns to this day. Same with most people I know who had guns.

So semi automatics are banned in Australia and existing semi auto firearms were confiscated.  Correct?  The majority of guns sold in the us are semi auto.  There are tens of millions of semi autos in the us.  That represents potential  confiscation on a vast scale.

One of the reasons the us can't have an effective conversation on gun violence is because this type of rhetoric keeps being raised.  We tried an assault weapons ban.  It achieved nothing.  There are 300m guns in the us.  Confiscation will turn law abiding citizens into criminals.  Current criminals will continue to ignore the law.

yes semi automatics are banned, but you could then use the money from the buyback to buy a new gun that isn't illegal. Therefore not turning law abiding citizens into criminals.

The amount of mass shootings/ gun violence has massively decreased in Australia since the regulation happened. I don't see how anyone could argue this is a bad thing.

yes criminals continue to ignore the law and I am sure there are criminals in Australia that still have automatic and semi automatic guns but we still hardly have gun related deaths

Luckyvik

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 102
  • Age: 47
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #122 on: March 02, 2016, 04:25:04 AM »
I just stumbled across this thread, I'm from Sydney, Australia. For us here we don't get the whole need to own a gun in the USA.

I don't know a single person that has a gun, I am trained in handling firearms due to a previous job but it has never occurred to me to own my own firearm don't see what the point would be.

I also have a closed friend who was almost killed in one of the rare shootings in Australia by a random wacko many years ago before the gun buyback and so I have been touched by this issue personally.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

RetiredAt63

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5179
  • Location: Eastern Ontario, Canada
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #123 on: March 02, 2016, 06:21:08 AM »
Going back a ways, the % gun ownership in the US and Canada - I think it was said to be about 33% and 25%.  I don't know if the numbers are correct, but the big difference is that those guns in Canada are not hand guns.  And there is no concealed carry.  We also try to limit automatic weapons - do I need 25 shots (or whatever) in a row to shoot a coyote?  No?  Is it handy if I want to do a school massacre?  Yes.
 
I write this acknowledging I am forever psychologically scarred by the Ecole Polytechnicue shooting, the Concordia shooting (illegal handgun) and the Dawson shooting (we were massively lucky, that one could have been much much worse, and it could have been my school).  Yet if I were a farmer and found coyotes worrying a calf or lamb, would I shoot it?  Yes.  Preferably with something accurate, so the coyote died instantly.

Reminder to Americans, it doesn't matter what carry laws and permits you have and your state has, if you have handguns you can't bring them into Canada when you visit, no matter how benign your intentions and how responsible you are. 

GuitarStv

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 8157
  • Age: 35
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #124 on: March 02, 2016, 06:24:03 AM »
Who has ever said that they want to take all guns away from US citizens though?  My understanding was that occasionally people talk about limiting magazine size, reducing access to semi-automatic weapons, stuff like that.  I've never heard anyone propose taking away shotguns and single shot rifles though . . . am I missing something?

Guitarstv - This is a recent article with President Obama praising Australian gun control  which as I understand it is effectively confiscation-

http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/jun/23/obama-backs-australias-gun-laws-while-condemning-latest-mass-shootings-in-us

You understand incorrectly.  Australians can still buy firearms (rifles, shotguns, hand guns, etc.) as long as they follow the regulations in place.  There was no confiscation of all guns, just enforced regulation.

Steve:

From wikipedia - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_buyback_program

"Australia had buyback schemes in 1996 and 2003. Both schemes were compulsory, and involved compensation paid to owners of firearms made illegal by gun law changes and surrendered to the government. Bought back firearms were destroyed."

Respectfully, I don't misunderstand.  What happened in Australia was confiscation.  Obama's not the only one praising it http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/hillary-clinton-gun-buybacks_us_56216331e4b02f6a900c5d67

I'm not saying they confiscated all guns, but once it starts it won't stop.

No thanks.

It was a compulsory buy-back of guns that would now not be allowed, so automatics and semi-automatic guns and a few others.

My dad had  guns, he didn't have to hand them in and still has guns to this day. Same with most people I know who had guns.

So semi automatics are banned in Australia and existing semi auto firearms were confiscated.  Correct?  The majority of guns sold in the us are semi auto.  There are tens of millions of semi autos in the us.  That represents potential  confiscation on a vast scale.

One of the reasons the us can't have an effective conversation on gun violence is because this type of rhetoric keeps being raised.  We tried an assault weapons ban.  It achieved nothing.  There are 300m guns in the us.  Confiscation will turn law abiding citizens into criminals.  Current criminals will continue to ignore the law.

As has already been pointed out, all guns were not banned.  All guns were not confiscated.  Some types of firearms were made illegal so there was a buyback program that allowed people to get money for guns that had been made illegal . . . this program was purely for the benefit of gun owners.

To recap: even in Australia, nobody came for all the guns.  That kind of rhetoric is just false information.

As Moonshadow has pretty well proven, it's not possible to find a quote from a politician indicating that they want to rid the country of all guns.  Do they want to limit access to certain weapons?  Sure!  The same way that access to rocket launchers and fully automatic weapons are currently limited.  That's where the debate really should be - what is a reasonable weapon to limit, and how well will limiting this weapon protect the population.

Pretending that men in black are coming to rid the US of all guns is a denial of reality.  It appears to be used by pro gun supporters as a method to shut down any reasonable debate.

Midwest

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1077
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #125 on: March 02, 2016, 06:49:54 AM »

As has already been pointed out, all guns were not banned.  All guns were not confiscated.  Some types of firearms were made illegal so there was a buyback program that allowed people to get money for guns that had been made illegal . . . this program was purely for the benefit of gun owners.

To recap: even in Australia, nobody came for all the guns.  That kind of rhetoric is just false information.

As Moonshadow has pretty well proven, it's not possible to find a quote from a politician indicating that they want to rid the country of all guns.  Do they want to limit access to certain weapons?  Sure!  The same way that access to rocket launchers and fully automatic weapons are currently limited.  That's where the debate really should be - what is a reasonable weapon to limit, and how well will limiting this weapon protect the population.

Pretending that men in black are coming to rid the US of all guns is a denial of reality.  It appears to be used by pro gun supporters as a method to shut down any reasonable debate.

Steve:

What happened in Australia (the buyback) wasn't for the benefit of the gun owners.  Based on my citation provided above, Australia outlawed certain weapons and forced owners to sell them to the government.  They were provided compensation, but the buyback was not voluntary.  It was confiscation with compensation. 

If Australia wants that scheme, that's up to them. 

Framing a confiscation of semiautomatic weapons (what happened in Australia) as a reasonable debate is the problem.  Gun owners in the US don't view it as a reasonable or common sense.  Semi auto weapons are not rocket launchers or heavy machine guns and shouldn't be compared as such.

MW
« Last Edit: March 02, 2016, 06:58:28 AM by Midwest »

GuitarStv

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 8157
  • Age: 35
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #126 on: March 02, 2016, 06:58:28 AM »
Sure, and that's an argument that should be made in the gun control debate.  It's much more sensical than pretending that people want to take away all your guns.

JLee

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3352
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #127 on: March 02, 2016, 07:02:49 AM »
Sure, and that's an argument that should be made in the gun control debate.  It's much more sensical than pretending that people want to take away all your guns.

2/3+ of mine are semiauto, so it'd certainly be a fair percentage. :P

Midwest

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1077
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #128 on: March 02, 2016, 07:04:19 AM »
Sure, and that's an argument that should be made in the gun control debate.  It's much more sensical than pretending that people want to take away all your guns.


If the politicians in the US want to get something done on gun violence in the US, bringing up Australian style confiscation as a model isn't helpful.  Confiscating all semi autos in the US would involve tens if not hundreds of millions of firearms.

« Last Edit: March 02, 2016, 07:06:23 AM by Midwest »

Wordstew

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 11
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #129 on: March 02, 2016, 07:49:50 AM »
Having worked in law enforcement and the prison system over the last 25 years let me chime in.  Most people are grossly under-prepared and under-trained to carry and or use a firearm safely.  I always suggest for people to buy a high powered flashlight that strobes and a can of pepper spray. Point the strobe at the bad guys face and unload the can of pepper spray on him. Those are the two items in my nightstand and when my wife is home alone I'm far more confident that she will be able to use those items versus a firearm as she is far more familiar with using a spray can and a flashlight than a firearm.  You might also want to consider buying a powerful green laser, you can blind someone with it.
Far more important is to have a plan to create distance and have physical barriers between you and the bad guy.

GuitarStv

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 8157
  • Age: 35
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #130 on: March 02, 2016, 08:50:16 AM »
Sure, and that's an argument that should be made in the gun control debate.  It's much more sensical than pretending that people want to take away all your guns.


If the politicians in the US want to get something done on gun violence in the US, bringing up Australian style confiscation as a model isn't helpful.  Confiscating all semi autos in the US would involve tens if not hundreds of millions of firearms.

Again . . . now we're entering into discussion about the specifics and details of gun control implementation.  There's an awful lot to discuss in this area.  By no longer pretending that people interested in gun control want to ban all guns, a dialog can be started.

Midwest

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1077
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #131 on: March 02, 2016, 09:14:23 AM »
Sure, and that's an argument that should be made in the gun control debate.  It's much more sensical than pretending that people want to take away all your guns.

If the politicians in the US want to get something done on gun violence in the US, bringing up Australian style confiscation as a model isn't helpful.  Confiscating all semi autos in the US would involve tens if not hundreds of millions of firearms.

Again . . . now we're entering into discussion about the specifics and details of gun control implementation.  There's an awful lot to discuss in this area.  By no longer pretending that people interested in gun control want to ban all guns, a dialog can be started.

They aren't discussing banning all guns.  Just the most popular and a majority of new guns purchased  That's a ridiculous and extremist position.  Even Canada has semi-autos.

ETA - If I ever visit Australia or Canada, I'll willingly and without complaint leave my guns at home as a respectful visitor.
« Last Edit: March 02, 2016, 09:17:04 AM by Midwest »

JLee

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3352
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #132 on: March 02, 2016, 09:18:33 AM »
Sure, and that's an argument that should be made in the gun control debate.  It's much more sensical than pretending that people want to take away all your guns.

If the politicians in the US want to get something done on gun violence in the US, bringing up Australian style confiscation as a model isn't helpful.  Confiscating all semi autos in the US would involve tens if not hundreds of millions of firearms.

Again . . . now we're entering into discussion about the specifics and details of gun control implementation.  There's an awful lot to discuss in this area.  By no longer pretending that people interested in gun control want to ban all guns, a dialog can be started.

They aren't discussing banning all guns.  Just the most popular and a majority of new guns purchased  That's a ridiculous and extremist position.  Even Canada has semi-autos.

Interestingly enough, there are guns that are legal to import/purchase in Canada that are banned in the US (Norinco M14, for example).

Jack

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4751
  • Location: Atlanta, GA
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #133 on: March 02, 2016, 09:37:06 AM »
I just stumbled across this thread, I'm from Sydney, Australia. For us here we don't get the whole need to own a gun in the USA.

The British gave you your country. We took ours from them by force.

Do they want to limit access to certain weapons?  Sure!  The same way that access to rocket launchers and fully automatic weapons are currently limited.  That's where the debate really should be - what is a reasonable weapon to limit, and how well will limiting this weapon protect the population.

The answer is, of course, that there should be no limit at all because the real purpose of private weapon ownership in the US is as a final check against tyranny. If, for example, the US military staged a coup the citizens would need those rocket launchers and fully automatic weapons to combat them. (In reality, a significant fraction of the military itself would break ranks in such a scenario and armories would be raided, but still, the Second Amendment is an issue of principle, not practicality.)

BlueMR2

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1633
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #134 on: March 02, 2016, 10:28:23 AM »
2/3+ of mine are semiauto, so it'd certainly be a fair percentage. :P

I wonder what the current sales numbers are like.  To me it seems like all the practical guns sold are semi-autos.  Non-semi-autos are just collectors items at this point.  Does a double action revolver count as a semi-auto?  It's effectively the same thing...  :-)

JLee

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3352
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #135 on: March 02, 2016, 11:15:51 AM »
2/3+ of mine are semiauto, so it'd certainly be a fair percentage. :P

I wonder what the current sales numbers are like.  To me it seems like all the practical guns sold are semi-autos.  Non-semi-autos are just collectors items at this point.  Does a double action revolver count as a semi-auto?  It's effectively the same thing...  :-)

On the practical side, you'll still find bolt action rifles in the high-end precision and hunting realm...but yeah, most are semi-auto.

GuitarStv

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 8157
  • Age: 35
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #136 on: March 02, 2016, 11:19:31 AM »
Do they want to limit access to certain weapons?  Sure!  The same way that access to rocket launchers and fully automatic weapons are currently limited.  That's where the debate really should be - what is a reasonable weapon to limit, and how well will limiting this weapon protect the population.

The answer is, of course, that there should be no limit at all because the real purpose of private weapon ownership in the US is as a final check against tyranny. If, for example, the US military staged a coup the citizens would need those rocket launchers and fully automatic weapons to combat them. (In reality, a significant fraction of the military itself would break ranks in such a scenario and armories would be raided, but still, the Second Amendment is an issue of principle, not practicality.)

My understanding is that this interpretation of the second amendment is incorrect.  This is a well written article that presents what I'm referring to:

http://bigthink.com/risk-reason-and-reality/the-supreme-court-ruling-on-the-2nd-amendment-did-not-grant-an-unlimited-right-to-own-guns

Yaeger

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 759
  • Age: 34
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #137 on: March 02, 2016, 11:37:04 AM »
Do they want to limit access to certain weapons?  Sure!  The same way that access to rocket launchers and fully automatic weapons are currently limited.  That's where the debate really should be - what is a reasonable weapon to limit, and how well will limiting this weapon protect the population.

The answer is, of course, that there should be no limit at all because the real purpose of private weapon ownership in the US is as a final check against tyranny. If, for example, the US military staged a coup the citizens would need those rocket launchers and fully automatic weapons to combat them. (In reality, a significant fraction of the military itself would break ranks in such a scenario and armories would be raided, but still, the Second Amendment is an issue of principle, not practicality.)

My understanding is that this interpretation of the second amendment is incorrect.  This is a well written article that presents what I'm referring to:

http://bigthink.com/risk-reason-and-reality/the-supreme-court-ruling-on-the-2nd-amendment-did-not-grant-an-unlimited-right-to-own-guns

Nah he was correct.

"The prefatory clause comports with the Court’s interpretation of the operative clause. The “militia” comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. The Antifederalists feared that the Federal Government would disarm the people in order to disable this citizens’ militia, enabling a politicized standing army or a select militia to rule. The response was to deny Congress power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and bear arms, so that the ideal of a citizens’ militia would be preserved."

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf

MoonShadow

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2544
  • Location: Louisville, Ky.
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #138 on: March 02, 2016, 11:43:21 AM »
I also am pro gun control and support stricter gun laws like we have in Calif but not bans.

Curious, what additional laws does California have that are more stringent than federal regs?
The Feds generally don't regulate gun laws, with a few exception such as banning some types of firearms,

I suspect that you were over-simplifying for the uninitiated audience, Spartana, but the fact is that there really is no such thing as a federal weapons ban.  What happens is that special licenses are required for Class II & Class III weapons, that are typically expensive & heavily regulated.  Even the "assault weapons ban" of the Clinton era didn't ban any weapons, and particularly not actual assault weapons, which are already regulated as Class III weapons.

To interrupt the confusion in advance; a Class III weapon is either anything one might consider a "machine gun", an automatic weapon, or an explosive weapon, whereas a Class II weapon is the "miscellaneous" group that doesn't fit into either Class I (typical semi-automatic handguns & rifles, of a caliber of .50 or less) and doesn't fit into Class III (as noted above, weapons of exclusive military applications).  The kinds of items that are in Class II included firearms that are disguised such as pen guns, suppression devices & 'bang sticks'.  It is possible to get the licenses necessary for these items, in states that permit it (not California, which is one reason action films often have to be filmed at a studio in Arizona or on location.   Yes, those guns they use on film are often the real thing) but it is an extremely expensive process involving the civilian equivalent of a national security clearance.  I know this because there are a lot of wealthy rednecks in this region, and they like to spend money doing things like this...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9MBf_LvqUsQ

BTW, Knob Creek gun range, where this event is filmed twice a year, is only a 20 minute drive beyond the city limits of Louisville, Kentucky.  Roughly half way to Fort Knox.  The GE Minigun can be rented, but the renter has to buy their own ammo, which costs about $200 for enough ammo to last about 25 seconds.  Not mustachian at all.

I would argue that automatic firearms are almost/effectively banned, since the only ones you can purchase as a private citizen are ones registered prior to the 1986 FOPA.  Certainly any automatic firearms manufactured after 1986 are banned by default, as they could not have been registered prior.  There isn't a special license required - just a $200 tax stamp and some federal paperwork.

Not quite.  Class III weapons still in use by the US military, and manufactured within the United States, are still an exception to that manufacturing ban, I believe.  Still, that's a manufacturing ban, not a possession ban; and those firearms are so valuable that they are likely to be maintained forever.

GuitarStv

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 8157
  • Age: 35
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #139 on: March 02, 2016, 11:46:22 AM »
Did you read the article I posted?

From the link that you submitted, second page:

Quote
Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited.
It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any
manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose


Which is why it's OK to ban rocket launchers, nukes, and specific types of guns.

JLee

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3352
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #140 on: March 02, 2016, 11:49:40 AM »
I also am pro gun control and support stricter gun laws like we have in Calif but not bans.

Curious, what additional laws does California have that are more stringent than federal regs?
The Feds generally don't regulate gun laws, with a few exception such as banning some types of firearms,

I suspect that you were over-simplifying for the uninitiated audience, Spartana, but the fact is that there really is no such thing as a federal weapons ban.  What happens is that special licenses are required for Class II & Class III weapons, that are typically expensive & heavily regulated.  Even the "assault weapons ban" of the Clinton era didn't ban any weapons, and particularly not actual assault weapons, which are already regulated as Class III weapons.

To interrupt the confusion in advance; a Class III weapon is either anything one might consider a "machine gun", an automatic weapon, or an explosive weapon, whereas a Class II weapon is the "miscellaneous" group that doesn't fit into either Class I (typical semi-automatic handguns & rifles, of a caliber of .50 or less) and doesn't fit into Class III (as noted above, weapons of exclusive military applications).  The kinds of items that are in Class II included firearms that are disguised such as pen guns, suppression devices & 'bang sticks'.  It is possible to get the licenses necessary for these items, in states that permit it (not California, which is one reason action films often have to be filmed at a studio in Arizona or on location.   Yes, those guns they use on film are often the real thing) but it is an extremely expensive process involving the civilian equivalent of a national security clearance.  I know this because there are a lot of wealthy rednecks in this region, and they like to spend money doing things like this...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9MBf_LvqUsQ

BTW, Knob Creek gun range, where this event is filmed twice a year, is only a 20 minute drive beyond the city limits of Louisville, Kentucky.  Roughly half way to Fort Knox.  The GE Minigun can be rented, but the renter has to buy their own ammo, which costs about $200 for enough ammo to last about 25 seconds.  Not mustachian at all.

I would argue that automatic firearms are almost/effectively banned, since the only ones you can purchase as a private citizen are ones registered prior to the 1986 FOPA.  Certainly any automatic firearms manufactured after 1986 are banned by default, as they could not have been registered prior.  There isn't a special license required - just a $200 tax stamp and some federal paperwork.

Not quite.  Class III weapons still in use by the US military, and manufactured within the United States, are still an exception to that manufacturing ban, I believe.  Still, that's a manufacturing ban, not a possession ban; and those firearms are so valuable that they are likely to be maintained forever.

As a private citizen, you cannot purchase / transfer ownership of an automatic firearm unless it was registered prior to the 1986 act.  You can register short barreled rifles and other NFA items that have been manufactured since then, but not an automatic.

I have a friend who used to run a gun store - his law enforcement price for a semi-auto S&W MP15 was $950.  A select-fire (automatic) was $975.  If weapons in use by the military were excluded from this prohibition, Vietnam-era M16's would not be fetching $16,000...because you'd be able to buy a Colt/etc for $1000-1500.

MoonShadow

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2544
  • Location: Louisville, Ky.
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #141 on: March 02, 2016, 11:50:13 AM »
Sure, and that's an argument that should be made in the gun control debate.  It's much more sensical than pretending that people want to take away all your guns.

2/3+ of mine are semiauto, so it'd certainly be a fair percentage. :P

I actually only own one semiauto, which is a handgun designed for concealed carry.  It's also my only handgun, and every other firearm would qualify as a "high powered rifle". 

MoonShadow

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2544
  • Location: Louisville, Ky.
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #142 on: March 02, 2016, 11:52:10 AM »
Having worked in law enforcement and the prison system over the last 25 years let me chime in.  Most people are grossly under-prepared and under-trained to carry and or use a firearm safely.

What are you basing this opinion upon?  Because every single gun owner that I know are very well trained.

Yaeger

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 759
  • Age: 34
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #143 on: March 02, 2016, 11:55:36 AM »
Did you read the article I posted?

From the link that you submitted, second page:

Quote
Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited.
It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any
manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose


Which is why it's OK to ban rocket launchers, nukes, and specific types of guns.

It's assumes the reasonable need for those weapons. During normal everyday use you'd never need those weapons thus you would use them. If the 'militia' would ever need to oppose the private politicized army or selected militia, then it would be reasonable that they would have access to those weapons in opposition to oppression. It depends on that reasonable interpretation.

But you're right in that a carte blanche isn't the answer.

MoonShadow

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2544
  • Location: Louisville, Ky.
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #144 on: March 02, 2016, 11:58:48 AM »
I also am pro gun control and support stricter gun laws like we have in Calif but not bans.

Curious, what additional laws does California have that are more stringent than federal regs?
The Feds generally don't regulate gun laws, with a few exception such as banning some types of firearms,

I suspect that you were over-simplifying for the uninitiated audience, Spartana, but the fact is that there really is no such thing as a federal weapons ban.  What happens is that special licenses are required for Class II & Class III weapons, that are typically expensive & heavily regulated.  Even the "assault weapons ban" of the Clinton era didn't ban any weapons, and particularly not actual assault weapons, which are already regulated as Class III weapons.

To interrupt the confusion in advance; a Class III weapon is either anything one might consider a "machine gun", an automatic weapon, or an explosive weapon, whereas a Class II weapon is the "miscellaneous" group that doesn't fit into either Class I (typical semi-automatic handguns & rifles, of a caliber of .50 or less) and doesn't fit into Class III (as noted above, weapons of exclusive military applications).  The kinds of items that are in Class II included firearms that are disguised such as pen guns, suppression devices & 'bang sticks'.  It is possible to get the licenses necessary for these items, in states that permit it (not California, which is one reason action films often have to be filmed at a studio in Arizona or on location.   Yes, those guns they use on film are often the real thing) but it is an extremely expensive process involving the civilian equivalent of a national security clearance.  I know this because there are a lot of wealthy rednecks in this region, and they like to spend money doing things like this...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9MBf_LvqUsQ

BTW, Knob Creek gun range, where this event is filmed twice a year, is only a 20 minute drive beyond the city limits of Louisville, Kentucky.  Roughly half way to Fort Knox.  The GE Minigun can be rented, but the renter has to buy their own ammo, which costs about $200 for enough ammo to last about 25 seconds.  Not mustachian at all.

I would argue that automatic firearms are almost/effectively banned, since the only ones you can purchase as a private citizen are ones registered prior to the 1986 FOPA.  Certainly any automatic firearms manufactured after 1986 are banned by default, as they could not have been registered prior.  There isn't a special license required - just a $200 tax stamp and some federal paperwork.

Not quite.  Class III weapons still in use by the US military, and manufactured within the United States, are still an exception to that manufacturing ban, I believe.  Still, that's a manufacturing ban, not a possession ban; and those firearms are so valuable that they are likely to be maintained forever.

As a private citizen, you cannot purchase / transfer ownership of an automatic firearm unless it was registered prior to the 1986 act.  You can register short barreled rifles and other NFA items that have been manufactured since then, but not an automatic.

I have a friend who used to run a gun store - his law enforcement price for a semi-auto S&W MP15 was $950.  A select-fire (automatic) was $975.  If weapons in use by the military were excluded from this prohibition, Vietnam-era M16's would not be fetching $16,000...because you'd be able to buy a Colt/etc for $1000-1500.

Okay, I have been wrong before.  But this is still a manufacturing & import ban, not a private ownership ban.  I would agree that it's stupid, but I would not agree that a manufacturing ban or import ban qualify as gun control. 

JLee

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3352
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #145 on: March 02, 2016, 12:05:00 PM »
I also am pro gun control and support stricter gun laws like we have in Calif but not bans.

Curious, what additional laws does California have that are more stringent than federal regs?
The Feds generally don't regulate gun laws, with a few exception such as banning some types of firearms,

I suspect that you were over-simplifying for the uninitiated audience, Spartana, but the fact is that there really is no such thing as a federal weapons ban.  What happens is that special licenses are required for Class II & Class III weapons, that are typically expensive & heavily regulated.  Even the "assault weapons ban" of the Clinton era didn't ban any weapons, and particularly not actual assault weapons, which are already regulated as Class III weapons.

To interrupt the confusion in advance; a Class III weapon is either anything one might consider a "machine gun", an automatic weapon, or an explosive weapon, whereas a Class II weapon is the "miscellaneous" group that doesn't fit into either Class I (typical semi-automatic handguns & rifles, of a caliber of .50 or less) and doesn't fit into Class III (as noted above, weapons of exclusive military applications).  The kinds of items that are in Class II included firearms that are disguised such as pen guns, suppression devices & 'bang sticks'.  It is possible to get the licenses necessary for these items, in states that permit it (not California, which is one reason action films often have to be filmed at a studio in Arizona or on location.   Yes, those guns they use on film are often the real thing) but it is an extremely expensive process involving the civilian equivalent of a national security clearance.  I know this because there are a lot of wealthy rednecks in this region, and they like to spend money doing things like this...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9MBf_LvqUsQ

BTW, Knob Creek gun range, where this event is filmed twice a year, is only a 20 minute drive beyond the city limits of Louisville, Kentucky.  Roughly half way to Fort Knox.  The GE Minigun can be rented, but the renter has to buy their own ammo, which costs about $200 for enough ammo to last about 25 seconds.  Not mustachian at all.

I would argue that automatic firearms are almost/effectively banned, since the only ones you can purchase as a private citizen are ones registered prior to the 1986 FOPA.  Certainly any automatic firearms manufactured after 1986 are banned by default, as they could not have been registered prior.  There isn't a special license required - just a $200 tax stamp and some federal paperwork.

Not quite.  Class III weapons still in use by the US military, and manufactured within the United States, are still an exception to that manufacturing ban, I believe.  Still, that's a manufacturing ban, not a possession ban; and those firearms are so valuable that they are likely to be maintained forever.

As a private citizen, you cannot purchase / transfer ownership of an automatic firearm unless it was registered prior to the 1986 act.  You can register short barreled rifles and other NFA items that have been manufactured since then, but not an automatic.

I have a friend who used to run a gun store - his law enforcement price for a semi-auto S&W MP15 was $950.  A select-fire (automatic) was $975.  If weapons in use by the military were excluded from this prohibition, Vietnam-era M16's would not be fetching $16,000...because you'd be able to buy a Colt/etc for $1000-1500.

Okay, I have been wrong before.  But this is still a manufacturing & import ban, not a private ownership ban.  I would agree that it's stupid, but I would not agree that a manufacturing ban or import ban qualify as gun control.

It is not a manufacturing ban.  Smith & Wesson can make automatic rifles all day long, but only for specific buyers (police, military, security contractors, gun dealers who cater to those markets).  It is impossible for a private citizen to own any automatic rifle that was produced after 1986 - how is that not a ban?

Did you read the article I posted?

From the link that you submitted, second page:

Quote
Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited.
It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any
manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose


Which is why it's OK to ban rocket launchers, nukes, and specific types of guns.

It's assumes the reasonable need for those weapons. During normal everyday use you'd never need those weapons thus you would use them. If the 'militia' would ever need to oppose the private politicized army or selected militia, then it would be reasonable that they would have access to those weapons in opposition to oppression. It depends on that reasonable interpretation.

But you're right in that a carte blanche isn't the answer.

Explosives are not banned - in 2012, Milkor offered five M32 MGL (grenade launcher) for civilian sale at $19,500/each.  You would have a $200 tax stamp on the purchase, and then another $200 tax stamp for every grenade you bought for it.

MoonShadow

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2544
  • Location: Louisville, Ky.
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #146 on: March 02, 2016, 12:16:26 PM »
Did you read the article I posted?

From the link that you submitted, second page:

Quote
Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited.
It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any
manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose


Which is why it's OK to ban rocket launchers, nukes, and specific types of guns.

Don't lump those together.  As I already noted, explosive weapons are Class III; and are not actually banned for private ownership.  They are just very expensive.  Case law has placed them into the same category of military weapons as a cannon, which has been protected by case law for well over 100 years.  My dad & his brother had a cannon, when he was 12.  It was a 1/4 scale cannon, that he & his brother would use as part of a Colors ceremony they would do every now and again, usually on July 4 & Veterans Day.  They had tiny uniforms & the whole bit; and even though it never had any projectiles in it, they did use real gunpowder, so it was a real cannon & not a model.
 
A nuke is banned, of course, but for a completely different reasons.

1) Because it has zero use as a defensive weapon, militarily or not.

2) Because it's an indiscriminate weapon, i.e. no matter the skill of the user, the weapon cannot be used with individual precision, land mines are banned for a similar reason.

3) Because it's very use implies great & widespread destruction of property, in addition to life, and any gun owner knows that they are responsible for the damage they cause to third parties.

4) Because nukes include a vast number of military secrets.

5) And because there is a huge risk of violations of international treaties.

So, please; in the interest of intellectual honesty, leave the 'nuke' argument out of this, because it has no place unless we start talking about land mines next.

If you want to discuss other types of guns, name them.

GuitarStv

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 8157
  • Age: 35
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #147 on: March 02, 2016, 12:39:37 PM »
The guy who posted made up quotes to prove his point on this very page is concerned about intellectual honesty all of a sudden?  O.o

At least you're maintaining consistency by continuing to obfuscate and ignore my point, which was that the 2nd amendment isn't a blanket allowance of all types of weapons.  Doing so by spending the bulk of your post against a straw man (that I'm equating nukes with guns) gives it a nice 'MoonShadow' touch.


Since it seems very important to you, I'm not familiar with the technical difference between a cannon and a gun.  Could you enlighten me please?

MoonShadow

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2544
  • Location: Louisville, Ky.
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #148 on: March 02, 2016, 12:46:48 PM »

It is not a manufacturing ban.  Smith & Wesson can make automatic rifles all day long, but only for specific buyers (police, military, security contractors, gun dealers who cater to those markets).  It is impossible for a private citizen to own any automatic rifle that was produced after 1986 - how is that not a ban?


Well, it is, and I'm sure the plan was to expand that as time went on.  However, it's a particularly limited ban, upon items for which the attrition rate is incredibly small.  So while they may be very expensive these days, those types of weapons are still available.  I admit I'd love to own a P90 myself, but the political will just doesn't exist to repeal or overturn this; and that is because even the majority of the pro-gun voter base doesn't really consider a ban on Class III weapons to be comparable to limitations upon handguns such as magazine capacity.  I'd support any politician that moved to repeal that ban, but it's not very high on my list of priorities.


MoonShadow

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2544
  • Location: Louisville, Ky.
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #149 on: March 02, 2016, 01:00:20 PM »
The guy who posted made up quotes to prove his point on this very page is concerned about intellectual honesty all of a sudden?  O.o

I did not post made up quotes.  They are real quotes.  The only one that you could even bitch about was the Obama quote from John Lott, which is only in question because Lott was the only witness.  As far as I know, and probably you either, Obama has never denied the quote.  You can say that John Lott is a liar, if you want to, but that certainly isn't my intellectual dishonesty, even if true.

Quote
At least you're maintaining consistency by continuing to obfuscate and ignore my point, which was that the 2nd amendment isn't a blanket allowance of all types of weapons.  Doing so by spending the bulk of your post against a straw man (that I'm equating nukes with guns) gives it a nice 'MoonShadow' touch.

I'm not the one who brought up nukes, GutairStv.  You did.  Now you are trying to dissassociate yourself from yourself; which is a nice 'GutairStx' touch.  And adding in an insult towards my
intellectual honesty is a nice touch.  Look at what I wrote again, and you will see that I did address your point about the 2nd not protecting all types of weapons.

Quote

Since it seems very important to you, I'm not familiar with the technical difference between a cannon and a gun.  Could you enlighten me please?

Bore size & the necessity of a crew (more than one person) to use or move it.  Any rifled firearm of a larger caliber than .50 is not a Class I weapon, by definition, and is regulated at the federal level.  This really is not in dispute in the US.