General Political Thread

[JUDE]

...

I think it's a fair (and tough to answer) question how much freedom we sacrifice to save lives. I have no problem with banning big magazines, (some) assault rifles, getting rid of the STUPID gun show loophole, and lots of other restrictions. But I also like the idea of conceal & carry laws. I doubt I'd ever carry, but I kind of like the idea criminals having to ask themselves if I am carrying.

 

Let me embrace my inner gun nut for a minute.

 

I do not want to debate what you posted, but I would like to clear up some misconceptions that are being spread around.  First of all the “Assault Rifle” misnomer is BS, the AR-15 platform (AR) doesn’t stand for “Assault Rifle” it is an abbreviation for Armalite, the company Eugene Stoner worked for when developing the M-16, M-4 platform and while the civilian AR bears cosmetic similarities, it lacks select fire capability. A true Assault Rifle or squad weapon hasn’t been available to the general public in nearly 80 years. (I’m not saying you referred to AR as standing for Assault Rifle, but have seen that bantered around in the media quite a bit.)

 

Second the “Gun Show Loophole”, this varies from state to state, I can only speak to Minnesota regulations.  In order to purchase any firearm in Minnesota, Retail, Gun Show, Person to Person, etc you need to have a valid Minnesota Permit to Purchase or current Concealed Carry Permit, this permit requires an application be submitted to your local police or sheriffs department and a MN BCA background check. Any new firearms purchases from an FFL dealer also requires a Federal 4473 back ground check form be filled out and submitted to the ATF prior to purchase.  If you are buying a firearm from a gun show without the proper permit, you and the seller are in violation of MN law, if the seller has a FFL they are also in violation of Federal Law if a 4473 isn’t filled out and a background check done.

 

Finally Internet gun sales, no one can just go online and order a firearm via the internet and have it shipped to their home, all transfers must be done by a dealer with a FFL and a 4473 must be filed with the ATF. If they buyer or seller is not following the regulations they are already in violation of Federal laws.

 

I really think this should be left up to the individual states, some states like NY, CA, NJ, IL, have stricter regulations, mandatory waiting periods, etc. Some require permits to purchase, and some states you can go in purchase without any kind of background check. Concerned citizens should work on a state level to make statutory changes they feel are prudent. I really think any perceived heavy-handed action by the Federal Government will do more harm than good.

[Atticus]

 

 

I really think this should be left up to the individual states, some states like NY, CA, NJ, IL, have stricter regulations, mandatory waiting periods, etc. Some require permits to purchase, and some states you can go in purchase without any kind of background check. Concerned citizens should work on a state level to make statutory changes they feel are prudent. I really think any perceived heavy-handed action by the Federal Government will do more harm than good.

 

the problem with the argument of leaving it up to the states is the way our supreme court has already worn out the interstate commerce clause past recognition.  If people can jump over the border into a neighboring state that has lax gun laws and bring guns back to their home state, the federal government can use that as its justification for a federal statute.  

[LouieB]

I am so glad I am not obessed with much else but buying records and books.  I just don't understand anyone's need for guns, unless they like to hunt.  I realize people get a rush out of owning these high powered killing machines.  I suppose they are fun to blow the shit out of stuff on firing ranges and all (I have fired a few guns in my life so I sort of understand.) but having a bunch of them around the house, YIKES.

 

Even protecting your family against criminals; how much do you need to do that?  I would think a simple handgun or a shotgun would do the trick, but what do I know. Clearly nothing.

 

LouieB

[ih8music]

the problem with the argument of leaving it up to the states is the way our supreme court has already worn out the interstate commerce clause past recognition.  If people can jump over the border into a neighboring state that has lax gun laws and bring guns back to their home state, the federal government can use that as its justification for a federal statute.  

 

Agreed, we can't leave it up to the states because criminals & gun traffickers will gravitate to where the laws are most lax.  This is a complex issue, and a lot of the problems are caused by the lack of resources to enforce the laws on the books (a good read is the ATF report on illegal gun trafficking) -- but that doesn't mean that additional legislation isn't needed. 

 

I don't see how closing the "gun show loophole" at the Federal level, ensuring that all gun sales and transfers by private individuals require a background check, is infringing on anyone's rights.  I also don't see how outlawing expanded magazines is going to affect a gun enthusiast's enjoyment of their weapon.  I don't see the need for "assault weapons" that have no practical use for hunting or home defense -- and if the answer is that they're fun to shoot for sport, then fine, do it at a shooting range and let's introduce legislation that that's the only place where those weapons can be stored.

 

And yes, even with all these new laws there will still be criminals who gain access to illegal guns... but the point is to make that an increasingly difficult thing to do, and give law enforcement additional tools to get the guns off the streets before they are used to kill (mass killings or the everyday gun violence that we're all seemingly numb to).

[KevinG]

Regardless of how you feel about guns and gun laws you will now have to deal with the most sweeping gun control legislation in a generation.

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/16/obama-gun-control-proposals_n_2486919.html

 

So how is this going to affect you?

 

Will it have an affect on gun violence in this country?  

[Tweedling]

I'm going to buy more guns and no it will not.

 

[LouieB]

Why do you need more guns?  Seriously?  See my above posting. I totally understand obessive collecting of stuff.  But someone explain the thrill of guns?  Is it the firepower, the historical value, the feeling of safety? What?

 

Meanwhile good for Barack for finally picking this up and running with it. Whatever the end result at least he has not kissed the NRA's ass totally this time.   

 

LouieB

[Hixter]

Even protecting your family against criminals; how much do you need to do that?  I would think a simple handgun or a shotgun would do the trick

It's a slippery slope. You buy a semi-auto pistol for home defense but then you get around to obtaining a concealed handgun license and you realize that the first pistol is too bulky to carry, so you buy a small revolver that fits in your pocket. Then your wife decides that she doesn't like handguns, so you buy a shotgun for home protection. Then one Christmas your mother-in-law surprises you with the gift of an AR15 and you use it for hunting but decide that you'd like something for bigger game, so you purchase a hunting rifle. You decide that the kids should be taught to handle guns safely, so you buy a .22 for them to learn on. Guess what -- you now own 6 firearms and are a certifiable "gun nut" even though each different firearm fulfills a unique role.

 

I don't see the need for "assault weapons" that have no practical use for hunting

Incorrect. I take my AR15 hunting all the time and it is perfectly practical for anything the size of a deer or smaller. Most people I know use theirs for varmint hunting: coyotes, hogs etc.

 

Will it have an affect on gun violence in this country?  

Nope. It's just knee jerk legislation that will do no good whatsoever, although the mental health stuff is a step in the right direction. 

 

Look at New York, they've effectively banned all handguns but revolvers by implementing the 7-round law and now your father's hunting rifle becomes a scary, illegal "assault" rifle if you add a pistol grip or a collapsible stock. Absolutely ludicrous and unhelpful in stopping gun crime.

[Tweedling]

Why do you need more guns?  Seriously?  See my above posting. I totally understand obessive collecting of stuff.  But someone explain the thrill of guns?  Is it the firepower, the historical value, the feeling of safety? What?

 

Meanwhile good for Barack for finally picking this up and running with it. Whatever the end result at least he has not kissed the NRA's ass totally this time.   

 

LouieB

Because I want them and thats my right ....that's good enough. Not to be short and smug but If you can't see it then I'm not sure any sort of explanation will help you "get it". I'll be honest, once the government starts limiting what we can and can not have I fear they wont stop.

And yes, good job Barack for confirming what gun advocates have been afraid of since you got elected in 08. I wish I had listened to them.

[Winston Legthigh]

Because I want them and thats my right ....that's good enough. Not to be short and smug but If you can't see it then I'm not sure any sort of explanation will help you "get it". I'll be honest, once the government starts limiting what we can and can not have I fear they wont stop.

And yes, good job Barack for confirming what gun advocates have been afraid of since you got elected in 08. I wish I had listened to them.

 

Why are gun advocates afraid in the first place? Isn't gun ownership supposed to take care of that fear?

 

And hasn't the government been limiting what we can and cannot have since the beginning?

[moxiebean]

Why are gun advocates afraid in the first place? Isn't gun ownership supposed to take care of that fear?

 

And hasn't the government been limiting what we can and cannot have since the beginning?

I pretzel logic reasoning I've heard by some (not here, mind you) is: "I need guns to protect me from the Govenrment when they come to take my guns."

[Mr. Heartbreak]

"We are not going to go after existing stock of weapons or magazines," said a senior administration official. "We are going to limit it to the manufacturing of assault weapons and clips going forward."

So much for Obama & company taking anybody's guns away. Talk about hysteria.

[LouieB]

So much for Obama & company taking anybody's guns away. Talk about hysteria.

This is all hysteria.  Those that can't answer why they need guns except to say that they need them are hysterical.  Don't worry y'all you are going to get to keep them and get all you want from here on out too. Its going to be alright.

 

Edit-I do understand collecting stuff; I totally get that, so don't underestimate those of us you think don't understand.  If you are out there collecting old guns, cool guns, different types of guns, etc, that is all clear.  If you like to go blow shit up, I understand that too. Why sit and watch a movie where shit gets blown up when you can actually do it.  And if you live in an area where there are a whole bunch of crazy motherfuckers, then I understand you needing them for your protection. Hell I even understand that you are paranoid, if that is the case.  I totally understand that it is your right to have them so you are going to have them.  And lastly I understand that you love shooting the shit out of animals, big or small.  I just hope you eat what you kill.

 

LouieB

[Winston Legthigh]

I would like to state that I'm very keen on getting into skeet shooting.

[Hixter]

Don't worry y'all you are going to get to keep them and get all you want from here on out too.

Ok, I'd like to buy an AK47 later this year. I'll let you know how it goes.

 

It's all about baby steps. The government has slowly and steadily limited the options for law-abiding citizens and one only has to look at certain European countries and Australia to see just how far they might go. Americans could be limited to a single, bolt-action .22 and still not be seen as a violation of the Second Amendment by many politicians.

 

The silver lining is that our nation has a strong history of switching out parties in Washington every few years, so a Republican president will hopefully be able to undo some of the current nonsensical laws. And then there are the states themselves ...

[Mr. Heartbreak]

What was the big deal about the assault weapons ban in the first place? It existed for 10 years, I think our nation survived, and it wasn't even viewed in the long run as being particularly effective at anything. Why not reinstate it? 

As for people stockpiling weapons to "protect" themselves from a tyrannical government, that is just pure unadulterated delusion. We have been basically living in a police state since probably before Eisenhower warned us about the military/industrial complex, and with the advent of atomic and nuclear weapons, well, if anyone thinks the U.S. government can't take them out any day or night, they are living in some kind of Glenn Beck fantasyland. I would love to see some Ted Nugent-type gun nut "standing up to" the military. Probably make Ruby Ridge look like a 90s video game.

[Hixter]

What was the big deal about the assault weapons ban in the first place? It existed for 10 years, I think our nation survived, and it wasn't even viewed in the long run as being particularly effective at anything. Why not reinstate it? 

.

.

.

As for people stockpiling weapons to "protect" themselves from a tyrannical government, that is just pure unadulterated delusion ... if anyone thinks the U.S. government can't take them out any day or night, they are living in some kind of Glenn Beck fantasyland. I would love to see some Ted Nugent-type gun nut "standing up to" the military. Probably make Ruby Ridge look like a 90s video game.

Why keep useless laws that make law-abiding citizens criminals while doing nothing to protect them on the books?

 

As for standing up to a tyrannical government (and it could be a foreign government, not our own) I'll ask that you take a look at Afghanistan and see how good of a fight the indigenous people have put up with little more than rifles and fertilizer bombs. They've essentially held their own against the most advanced weapons in the world. I sincerely doubt that Americans have anything to worry about, but the fight would be infinitely more difficult if they were armed with only bolt-action .22s and a handful of ammo.

[KevinG]

Why keep useless laws that make law-abiding citizens criminals while doing nothing to protect them on the books?

 

One could see the gun laws are actually trying to protect it citizenry.  Keeping dangerous guns being used by dangerous people.  Listen, not everyone is responsible like you.  Unfortunately because of a few bad people we all are inconvenienced.  As you stated before you are inconvenienced by not being able to own an AR15 (you said it wasn't something you needed).  Hell I am inconvenienced every time I get on a plane because of a few.  

 

 

As for standing up to a tyrannical government (and it could be a foreign government, not our own) I'll ask that you take a look at Afghanistan and see how good of a fight the indigenous people have put up with little more than rifles and fertilizer bombs. They've essentially held their own against the most advanced weapons in the world. I sincerely doubt that Americans have anything to worry about, but the fight would be infinitely more difficult if they were armed with only bolt-action .22s and a handful of ammo.

 

I am not even sure how to respond to this.  Comparing a 3rd world country that has been under siege for the last 30 years with the US.  

[Mr. Heartbreak]

 Hell I am inconvenienced every time I get on a plane because of a few.  

For real!

[Hixter]

I am not even sure how to respond to this.  Comparing a 3rd world country that has been under siege for the last 30 years with the US.  

The previous poster had said that American citizens with AR15s would be easily crushed by the military with its superior firepower and I pointed out that lightly armed insurgents have been very successful against the American military over the last few decades.

 

As for airport security: it's a joke. They're always coming up with new, expensive, annoying ways to counter last month's threat, while they leave passengers bunched up and helpless in snaking security lines. If there's ever a big attack on an American airport it will probably take place outside of the secured zone.

[The High Heat]

I'm not a fan of guns, probably because I have no interest in them outside of a Clint Eastwood movie.

 

Lost a nephew from being shot to death in the war in Afghanistan.

 

Had a good friend end her own life with a shotgun. She was bi-polar.

 

As much as I'd rather not have people toting around guns, I feel like I should be consistent. We should maintain the right to not only bear arms, but also stockpile them, in exactly the same way we should not move away from the Electoral College system. At our origins, these measures were put in place to provide a more level playing field for both individual states and citizens. No matter how far away we get away from 1776, and less likely it seems we'd ever have to fight against our own government and military, it is most likely these rights and measures that have made it to be less likely. I don't believe citizens should ever give up their own protections, no matter how far-fetched the possibility of uprising.

 

It seems to me that the trouble with guns has more to do with the people who used them for things other than sport and hunting food. There are those who have/use them to control, intimidate, or violate; and then there are a good number of folks who have built a cache out of fear based on pure ignorance - most likely preparing for the proverbial centuries-in-the-making-race-war. Then there are the mentally ill and the people under the influence of mind-altering substances. Throw in social ills, a broken justice system, and an ineffective incarceration techniques, and we have a deadly cocktail that cannot be unmixed with legislation and background checks. The issues of responsible gun ownership and our ability to curb gun violence are layered, thick, and deep-rooted; and won't be settled any time soon.

[lost highway]

It's all about baby steps. The government has slowly and steadily limited the options for law-abiding citizens and one only has to look at certain European countries and Australia to see just how far they might go. Americans could be limited to a single, bolt-action .22 and still not be seen as a violation of the Second Amendment by many politicians.

 

And then we would taste the tyranny that the Australians and Norwegians have suffered so brutally through.....

 

And then we would be left with only more precise and effective firearms than the people who wrote the amendment into the constitution.....

 

A single bolt action .22 is a perfectly reasonable way to practice marksmanship or keep the deer population in check (if you have the skills), it would also be an incredibly difficult weapon to commit a massacre with.  I for one love your slippery slope scenario.

[Hixter]

A single bolt action .22 is a perfectly reasonable way to practice marksmanship or keep the deer population in check

No it's not. I don't know of any state that allows rimfire .22 when hunting deer. It'd be quite inhumane to do so.

[KevinG]

There has been recent talk about how the current gun laws don't work.  Maybe it because the government doesn't have the resources to effectively enforce the laws we already have.  I will let Jon Stewart do the talking for me.

 

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/wed-january-16-2013/there-goes-the-boom

 

[Tweedling]

.22 and deer hunting. I didn't realize this topic was gonna have some humor in it.