Gun Control

[notorious]

We have all heard about what happened in Aurora, Co, and I think that Gun Control is going to be a huge topic in the following months.


What measures need to be taken? Do you have any ideas that will help prevent this kind of thing from happening again as it pertains to guns?

[alnorth]

Originally Posted by dirk digler

I haven't said a word about gun control though now I will. There should some reasonable gun control but none of them would have stopped this from happening

Thats fair

I do believe that since we require testing and demonstration of responsible use for cars, we ought to do the same for guns. Obviously, that would not have done anything to stop this from happening. If we're not talking about AWB, high capacity magazines, or handgun bans, I'm open-minded.

[petegz28]

Originally Posted by dirk digler

I haven't said a word about gun control though now I will. There should some reasonable gun control but none of them would have stopped this from happening

You mean things like background checks, not allowing felons or mentally ill people own firearms and what not?

[A Salt Weapon]

Originally Posted by alnorth

I have never shot one, and you are utterly ignorant about assault rifles. Don't worry, A LOT of people are equally ignorant.

Assault weapons ARE NOT fully automatic weapons that spray rounds like a machine
gun like what you were probably thinking about. They are just semi-auto, shooting as fast as you can pull a trigger, just like non-assault semi-autos.

The AWB was a stupid fig-leaf law that did NOTHING, except allow politicans to proclaim they did something.

I do agree with your points, I disagree with your definition though.

Just because ignorant congress critters decided to create a definition of a word that already had a definition does not change the words definition.

An assault rifle is capable of firing more than 1 round per trigger pull. That has been it's definition long before the 94 cosmetic feature ban. The fact they the legislation attempted to creat the term shows how stupid and ignorant our elected officials really are.
Since the 94 ban has expired, so has their made-up definition, it reverts back to it's original definition that an assault weapon is a machine-gun.
Posted via Mobile Device

[A Salt Weapon]

Originally Posted by Messier

So defensive. Let it go, man.
Just pointing out where he got them. Relax.

I'm just playing around, I knew he got them from his mom, but everything I've read has stated he stole them from his mom.
Posted via Mobile Device

[dirk digler]

Originally Posted by alnorth

Thats fair

I do believe that since we require testing and demonstration of responsible use for cars, we ought to do the same for guns. Obviously, that would not have done anything to stop this from happening. If we're not talking about AWB, high capacity magazines, or handgun bans, I'm open-minded.

I definitely agree about testing and taking a class. I liked what I heard about Connecticut's law.

Originally Posted by petegz28

You mean things like background checks, not allowing felons or mentally ill people own firearms and what not?

I think they should close the gun show loophole and every gun that is bought you need to have a background check. Obviously mentally ill people shouldn't have guns and I believe that is already the law. I don't know how you could incorporate that in a background check though. Mandatory classes would be another one.

[A Salt Weapon]

Originally Posted by dirk digler

I definitely agree about testing and taking a class. I liked what I heard about Connecticut's law.
I think they should close the gun show loophole and every gun that is bought you need to have a background check. Obviously mentally ill people shouldn't have guns and I believe that is already the law. I don't know how you could incorporate that in a background check though. Mandatory classes would be another one.

So what's your definition of infringe?
Posted via Mobile Device

[alnorth]

Originally Posted by A Salt Weapon

I do agree with your points, I disagree with your definition though.

Just because ignorant congress critters decided to create a definition of a word that already had a definition does not change the words definition.

An assault rifle is capable of firing more than 1 round per trigger pull. That has been it's definition long before the 94 cosmetic feature ban. The fact they the legislation attempted to creat the term shows how stupid and ignorant our elected officials really are.
Since the 94 ban has expired, so has their made-up definition, it reverts back to it's original definition that an assault weapon is a machine-gun.
Posted via Mobile Device

Ahhh.

Under that definition though, obviously there's not much relevance today. Full autos are not legal to purchase or own, UNLESS they are one of a very few that existed and were grandfathered in before the ban. And then, to transfer ownership requires a background check, you have to notify the FBI, etc and they are very expensive. Today full autos in private hands are playthings for the wealthy.

[HonestChieffan]

Originally Posted by dirk digler

I definitely agree about testing and taking a class. I liked what I heard about Connecticut's law.



I think they should close the gun show loophole and every gun that is bought you need to have a background check. Obviously mentally ill people shouldn't have guns and I believe that is already the law. I don't know how you could incorporate that in a background check though. Mandatory classes would be another one.

Ever been to a gun show? Ill meet you in the parking lot and we can trade. Trade you this gun for your money. Actually i agree with you but its totally unenforceable

[A Salt Weapon]

Posted via Mobile Device

[HonestChieffan]

Originally Posted by alnorth

Ahhh.

Under that definition though, obviously there's not much relevance today. Full autos are not legal to purchase or own, UNLESS they are one of a very few that existed and were grandfathered in before the ban. And then, to transfer ownership requires a background check, you have to notify the FBI, etc and they are very expensive. Today full autos in private hands are playthings for the wealthy.

The background check and tax stamp is not that hard to do. The weapon is expensive but if you are clean and have the money its not that difficult

[dirk digler]

Originally Posted by A Salt Weapon

So what's your definition of infringe?
Posted via Mobile Device

break or stop something

[alnorth]

Originally Posted by HonestChieffan

Ever been to a gun show? Ill meet you in the parking lot and we can trade. Trade you this gun for your money. Actually i agree with you but its totally unenforceable

yeah, thats the problem with the "gun show loophole" argument. Either we believe in private commerce regarding guns, or we don't. Is it possible for a gun to ever be given as a gift? You buy a gun, pass the background check, then wrap it up and put it under the christmas tree? Kinda hard to call you a criminal.

If someone wants to say yes, private sales without a check are forbidden, too bad if you want to give a gun as a present, you cant, if we really want to go that far fine, but be honest. Don't act like gun shows are some special nefarious evil filled with loopholes, we're talking about private citizens at a swap meet, except instead of gems or a cutlery set, we're talking about guns. If you want to forbid anyone from selling or giving or handing down grandfather's gun to anyone without a background check, then say so, don't just yell about gun shows.

[dirk digler]

Originally Posted by HonestChieffan

Ever been to a gun show? Ill meet you in the parking lot and we can trade. Trade you this gun for your money. Actually i agree with you but its totally unenforceable

That is where mandatory sentences could play apart.

I actually agree with O'Reilly on something when he said the other day they need mandatory sentences and if you own an illegal gun you get a 10-year mandatory sentence and the sentence keeps going up on each offense.

[Bowser]

Originally Posted by dirk digler

That is where mandatory sentences could play apart.

I actually agree with O'Reilly on something when he said the other day they need mandatory sentences and if you own an illegal gun you get a 10-year mandatory sentence and the sentence keeps going up on each offense.

But what is an "illegal" firearm? I have an old lever action .22 rifle of my dad's that I have no papers or identification for. Would that get me a 10 year sentence?

[CrazyPhuD]

Originally Posted by Bowser

But what is an "illegal" firearm? I have an old lever action .22 rifle of my dad's that I have no papers or identification for. Would that get me a 10 year sentence?

I have issues with any 'possession' crimes. They are the DA's cop outs. We can't convict you that you actually intended to cause harm but with as long as you possess something 'illegal' you're going to jail.

Now I would support major mandatory sentences for firearms used in violent crimes. That's a different sorry than possession issues.