# Look out 2015 assault wepons ban house bill



## Hoopermat

The Congress.gov website recently published a list of traitors, United States Congressmen that willfully violated their oath to support and defend the Constitution of the USA. The bill, H.R. 4269, is also entitled “The Assault Weapons Ban of 2015”.

Here we go again


----------



## Hoopermat

Here is the link to the bill
https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/house-bill/4269/text


----------



## LostLouisianian

massmanute said:


> I do not favor an assault rifle ban, but there is a rule at utahwildlife.net against political discussions not closely related to wildlife or the outdoors.


Some people do use the AR platforms for shooting coyotes and other vermin. The bill also has to do with semi auto shotguns as well as tube fed .22 rifles. It also has to do with handguns which can be used for hunting purposes as well.


----------



## Bax*

I dunno about you guys, but my tube fed rifle takes a lot longer to reload than popping in s new magazine.

Here is what it says about that

"“(B) A semiautomatic rifle that has a fixed magazine with the capacity to accept more than 10 rounds, except for an attached tubular device designed to accept, and capable of operating only with, .22 caliber rimfire ammunition.""


----------



## Hoopermat

Bax* said:


> I dunno about you guys, but my tube fed rifle takes a lot longer to reload than popping in s new magazine.
> 
> Here is what it says about that
> 
> ""(B) A semiautomatic rifle that has a fixed magazine with the capacity to accept more than 10 rounds, except for an attached tubular device designed to accept, and capable of operating only with, .22 caliber rimfire ammunition.""


So that would be the marlin exemption.

This would also ban shot gun tube extensions that are used in snow goose hunts.
And any rifle that has a barrel shroud or hand guard


----------



## DallanC

Any semi-auto 12GA shotgun loaded up with #4 buckshot would be way way WAY more lethal in a crowded area (ie: theater, shopping mall etc) than any AR15. Its probably the most potentially dangerous weapon owned by the masses. Ya all are ok with those though right?

Its silly to try and ban one type over the other.

Know what I see in European country's that have huge firearm restrictions? Bombings, car bombs, planted bombs.... bombs are ridiculously easy to build. One of these days people here will figure that out and we'll wish for the day when deranged people "only" used ar15's.


----------



## Bax*

In reading the language, I believe most of this will not be approved. But I also think they are following two methodologies here:

1- shoot for the moon and hit the stars. The authors obviously know they can't pass every proposed change. But they know some have a chance at squeezing through.

2- use the Donald Trump negotiation tactic. Make the most absurd proposal that they know will not be accepted, then rescind the outlandish that they didn't care about in the first place, but keep the points they really care about. 

I use #2 regularly in my line of work and it works very very well.


----------



## BPturkeys

I see no reason for civilians to own large capacity magazine. In fact, if I saw a person buying a large capacity magazine I would probably wonder about his intentions. His intentions might not be terrorism or other evil intent, but the fact that he feels so fearful or insecure that he feels a need to possess a rifle capable of sustained, high volume fire would probably raise a red flag for me. 
I also believe that the insertion of a high capacity magazine into a semi-auto rifle is in fact what transforms a legitimate hunting/target/casual pinking rifle into an "assault rifle".
Now, if you say he needs such a weapon to defend himself against a tyrannical government I say OK, but I think that is where the "a well regulated militia" comes in. Under this setting, individuals that are members of a "well regulated militia" can justify the ownership of this type of weapon.


----------



## colorcountrygunner

BPturkeys said:


> *I see no reason for civilians to own large capacity magazine. In fact, if I saw a person buying a large capacity magazine I would probably wonder about his intentions.* His intentions might not be terrorism or other evil intent, but the fact that he feels so fearful or insecure that he feels a need to possess a rifle capable of sustained, high volume fire would probably raise a red flag for me.
> I also believe that the insertion of a high capacity magazine into a semi-auto rifle is in fact what transforms a legitimate hunting/target/casual pinking rifle into an "assault rifle".
> Now, if you say he needs such a weapon to defend himself against a tyrannical government I say OK, but I think that is where the "a well regulated militia" comes in. Under this setting, individuals that are members of a "well regulated militia" can justify the ownership of this type of weapon.


I see no reason for you to own a standard 12 gauge shotgun for turkey hunting. I mean, we really don't "need" to hunt in 2016 anymore, right? You really get all suspicious when you see a guy buying a large capacity magazine? Wow, you must be loads of fun at parties. Is it really so hard to imagine a guy would have a really good time going out and blasting through a score of .223 rounds in a short period of time? A guy who owns a semi-auto rifle capable of sustained, high-volume fire is a fearful nut that raises red flags to you? Really? I'm glad you and I aren't neighbors, BP. You'd probably be climbing the walls and gnashing your teeth as you peeked at me through the blinds of your living room window wondering why the hell I am doing the normal, every day things that I do.


----------



## Gee LeDouche

BP- I have the right to arm and defend myself in any way I see fit, including large capacity magazines. its absurd to deny others that same freedom. Very simple solution to this, if you don't like high cap mags or firearms capable of high rates of fire, then don't buy one. but don't you dare tell me I cant own one when it is my freedom and right to do so!


----------



## colorcountrygunner

For the record, I don't even own an AR-15 or even any handguns. I have a Remington 870, some lever guns, some bolt action hunting rifles, a front stuffer, and a compound assault bow. Please don't report me to the feds, BP.


----------



## BPturkeys

By all means, let's don't start a dialog amongst actual gun owners. Let's just get all defensive, accusatory and butt hurt. Let's get all scared and paranoid. Let's just flip our lids and start hording ammo, buying and stockpiling magazines. Let's teach fear and mistrust of government and our neighbors. Let's just turn America into the land of the not so free.


----------



## Huntoholic

BPturkeys said:


> By all means, let's don't start a dialog amongst actual gun owners. Let's just get all defensive, accusatory and butt hurt. Let's get all scared and paranoid. Let's just flip our lids and start hording ammo, buying and stockpiling magazines. Let's teach fear and mistrust of government and our neighbors. Let's just turn America into the land of the not so free.


You can stop everything you listed. Quit trying to redefine the constitution.

And as a side note, when you get alcohol related issues including death under control, then you give me a call about guns.


----------



## Springville Shooter

Hey BP, I really like you but I think that you should re think your position on what 'civillians' need. 

Without going way into a political realm, my opinion is that our ultimate safety and that of our families is primarily OUR responsibility with the authorities being in place to conduct investigations after the fact. This train of thought causes me to consider the worst case scenarios of our time. I think of New Orleans during the Hurricanes. Suddenly you become isolated from police protection and other services. Criminal gangs are running around rampant. The only thing between them and your family/livelihood is you and your gun. How many bullets do you think you would want BP? -------SS


----------



## colorcountrygunner

BPturkeys said:


> By all means, let's don't start a dialog amongst actual gun owners. Let's just get all defensive, accusatory and butt hurt. Let's get all scared and paranoid. Let's just flip our lids and start hording ammo, buying and stockpiling magazines. *Let's teach fear and mistrust of government and our neighbors.* Let's just turn America into the land of the not so free.


"In fact, if I saw a person buying a large capacity magazine I would probably wonder about his intentions. His intentions might not be terrorism or other evil intent, but the fact that he feels so fearful or insecure that he feels a need to possess a rifle capable of sustained, high volume fire would probably raise a red flag for me."


----------



## colorcountrygunner

I will freely admit that I'm being a bit of a [email protected]$$ in this thread, but isn't a dialogue what we are engaging in right now, BP? You expressed an opinion that happens not to be shared by many others on this forum and some are challenging you on it. Because they don't agree with you, you don't consider it a worthwhile discussion? I doubt you are going to change anyone's mind here, and I doubt anybody is going to change your mind, but why not exchange opinions and ideas for everyone to mull over anyway? Nothing wrong with a little spirited debate.


----------



## DallanC

Sheriff dept looked into high cap mags and found overall size is irrelevant. This is insightful... but opponents will probably skip over it.






-DallanC


----------



## BPturkeys

Well, perhaps I was being a bit "trollist" with my post but I really feel that the gun owning community needs to step up and become a relevant part of the discussion. We can't just stand on the old hard line "over my dead body" type thinking and language and stay relevant in the discussion. "They" can and will come and get our guns if solutions are not found. We all know that simplistic gun confiscation laws won't work. But perhaps looking at gun ownership with an open mind is something we need to start doing. I am not necessarily saying that large capacity mags are a contributing factor, although they may be, but factors related to gun ownership might actually contribute to (be a trigger to) non-terrorist public violence and possibly an enabling factor to terrorist violence. 
Isn't a solution what we all want?


----------



## Critter

DallanC said:


> Sheriff dept looked into high cap mags and found overall size is irrelevant. This is insightful... but opponents will probably skip over it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -DallanC


Not to get picky but did anyone notice that the shooters only shot 14 rounds out of the 15 round mag, 9 rounds out of the 10 round mags before reloading leaving a live round in the chamber instead of letting the slide lock. They did the same thing with the AR.

But even if they did let the slides lock on all the mags it wouldn't of lengthened the time that much. At least for a trained shooter, or a person that has trained himself to fire the whole mag and then releasing the slide stop.


----------



## Mr Muleskinner

Having to explain or justify your right to the 2nd Amendment as a legal American makes the same amount as sense as having to explain or justify your right to the 1st Amendment as a legal American.

Think about that.

"Over my dead body" should suffice every time. No rhyme or reason needed.


----------



## BPturkeys

OK fine, I won't bring it up again. At my age it really doesn't much matter to me, but some day when it's too late and you discover that gun owners are in the extreme minority you'll all start screaming "why didn't you ask us".
Oh and Mule, by the way, your legal right to free speech has been modified for the benefit of public safety and well being...the old "you can't scream fire in a theater" comes to mind. 
This dogged "over my dead body" mentality is bringing wrath and hatred down upon our heads.


----------



## Mr Muleskinner

I never said that "over my dead body" was my approach. Nor did I say that everybody or anybody should adopt it, I said that it should suffice. Big difference.

Anybody that comes to take what I have legally purchased and have the right to own as a legal American citizen will soon find out though that when the rubber meets the road, "over my dead body" will most likely be my last words spoken to them.

I think we as gun owners are a very very long way from being in the minority. Just my opinion. I could be wrong.


----------



## Mr Muleskinner

Any ideas on how the second amendment could or should be changed to increase public safety? Fair question I think.


----------



## wyogoob

Gun owners in America are the minority. By most accounts around one-third of Americans own guns.

Number of households with firearms? Anywhere between 32% and 46% depends on who's doing the math according to this Fox News article:
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2015/03/12/is-gun-ownership-really-down-in-america.html

The USA is the leader for per capita ownership of firearms and by a long shot:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Number_of_guns_per_capita_by_country

.


----------



## massmanute

Mr Muleskinner said:


> Any ideas on how the second amendment could or should be changed to increase public safety? Fair question I think.


Not exactly the question you posed, but I once posed a closely related question at another discussion group. I basically asked what are reasonable limits to the right to bear arms.

The first person to respond was of the opinion that there should be no limits, even to the extent of the personal ownership of nuclear arms, and this seemed to be the majority opinion among those who responded.

Regardless about how one might personally feel about the ethics and legality of owning one's own nuke, the opinion that it is OK to own a nuclear weapon is far out of the mainstream of opinion in this or any other country. Bringing this thought back to your question about public safety, personal ownership of nuclear arms would definitely not enhance public safety. So if a change were to be made to the second amendment it might include an exclusion for weapons of mass destruction.

By the way, don't misunderstand what I am saying above. I am not suggesting that anyone here is advocating a right to own a nuclear arm.

As a final comment, early in this thread I mentioned the site's prohibition against political discussions not closely related to wildlife or the outdoors. I decided to delete that post, but here I raise the issue again. What do political discussions focusing on personal protection and such have to do with the outdoors or wildlife?


----------



## massmanute

wyogoob said:


> Gun owners in America are the minority. By most accounts around one-third of Americans own guns.
> 
> Number of households with firearms? Anywhere between 32% and 46% depends on who's doing the math according to this Fox News article:
> http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2015/03/12/is-gun-ownership-really-down-in-america.html
> 
> The USA is the leader for per capita ownership of firearms and by a long shot:
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Number_of_guns_per_capita_by_country
> 
> .


Switzerland has a gun ownership rate of around 25%.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_Switzerland


----------



## Springville Shooter

wyogoob said:


> Gun owners in America are the minority. By most accounts around one-third of Americans own guns.
> 
> Number of households with firearms? Anywhere between 32% and 46% depends on who's doing the math according to this Fox News article:
> http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2015/03/12/is-gun-ownership-really-down-in-america.html
> 
> The USA is the leader for per capita ownership of firearms and by a long shot:
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Number_of_guns_per_capita_by_country
> 
> .


SWEET! If we are a minority, then we should get tons of special treatment and have everyone who says anything negative about us labeled as a bigot no matter what stupid things we do........right?-------SS


----------



## Mr Muleskinner

thanks Goob. I would certainly assume that there are all sorts of funny math and different polls that could play into the conversation. I would guess my real question would be is how many people in the USA are proponents of the 2nd Amendment and The Constitution as a whole and how many are willing to stand up and fight for it.

If it were strictly a numbers game as to how many own guns, given the stats posted above in your links it would seem that it would have been very easy a long time ago to squash gun ownership entirely.

I think it is a fruitful conversation to have and gets people thinking outside of the box. I think about what I would be willing to give up quite often with regards to my rights and priveledges for the betterment of society.

nuclear arms....certainly (I have operated nuclear power plants before. Not something for the faint of heart for sure)
fully automatic firearms......don't own one now. Wouldn't kill me.
silencers.....ditto but I think the world might be better served with MORE of them and would love to have a few.
high capacity magazines........I own several. I prefer a Ruger No. 1 and revolvers to a semi-auto anyhow but I don't see how outlawing magazines is going to change crime rates. Might even make mass shootings increase.

Fine line with the politics Mass. I would hope that as long as people keep things civil, conversations like this can take place. I think they should. I do not and will not do politcal based forums. This is it for forums for me.


----------



## Hoopermat

I think it's funny that people get hung up on the 1st and 2nd. I kind of like the whole constitution and all the rights that our country's founders pass on to all of us people. 
The argument about the 2nd amendment was over along time ago. We already won its here to stay. Quit trying to take away a freedom you have no chance of taking.


----------



## middlefork

My .02 on the subject is there is a very good reason the military and police have trained snipers. One well placed shot from a safe distance will neagate a whole pile of high capacity magazines being utilized in even a fully automatic weapon.
If you're going to ban 30 round magazines you better ban single shots too.


----------



## Hoopermat

This ban would also make the glock 17 and the beretta 92 prohibited. Because there is a military select fire version of these two pistols and bans any reproduction of a military weapon.


----------



## swbuckmaster

BPturkeys said:


> Well, perhaps I was being a bit "trollist" with my post but I really feel that the gun owning community needs to step up and become a relevant part of the discussion. We can't just stand on the old hard line "over my dead body" type thinking and language and stay relevant in the discussion. "They" can and will come and get our guns if solutions are not found. We all know that simplistic gun confiscation laws won't work. But perhaps looking at gun ownership with an open mind is something we need to start doing. I am not necessarily saying that large capacity mags are a contributing factor, although they may be, but factors related to gun ownership might actually contribute to (be a trigger to) non-terrorist public violence and possibly an enabling factor to terrorist violence.
> Isn't a solution what we all want?


The problem with that argument is you deal with the devil and loose part of your rights. Then the next tard shoots up the place with something else and they try and go after that. Last I looked its illegal in england for guns and knives. 
No the democrats can suck it. I'll go down fighting.

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk


----------



## Cooky

Hoopermat said:


> This ban would also make the glock 17 and the beretta 92 prohibited. Because there is a military select fire version of these two pistols and bans any reproduction of a military weapon.


Finding a firearm without a military connection is pretty darn hard.


----------



## High Desert Elk

SCOTUS has already ruled that the right to keep and bear arms (own guns) is a constitutional right, decision was 5-4 (go figure). The argument is over, but not for some crowds. The proposed legislation presented at the beginning of this thread is a reintroduction of Dianne F(ranken)einstein's legislation in early 2015 after Sandy Hook. This is the lame left's attempt one last time to run something through before their beloved "social savior" is gone and they lose that support from the executive branch.

As far as gun owners being a minority, I won't argue with the already posted fact about that, but the ones who do not own a firearm, what percentage are in favor of gun ownership just don't want one? All of a sudden you get those who support gun ownership in a larger quantity than those who oppose. This is not a North vs. South thing where it's one way or the other.

Don't forget about the Firearms Owners' Protection Act (FOPA) of 1986. That is a federal law and I'd wager there are things in this 'new and improved' legislation that violates it.

You only lose rights if you allow them to be lost...the whole reason to have private ownership of firearms is to keep The Constitution from being dismantled without the consent of the people. And, the people does not consist of the legislative elected branch by the restructuring of voting districts to get into office. The Second Amendment was written in manner such that private citizens would have the same access to fire power as a funded military had. Remember, those guys back in 1785 knew what it was like to live under a tyrannical gov't without the right to due process or constitutional law. We have no clue.

There is a reason the Amendments appear in the order they do. First, try and resolve peacefully and civilly. Second, is to enforce the First or get their attention. The rest define basic rights that should never be taken away


----------



## DallanC

High Desert Elk said:


> SCOTUS has already ruled that the right to keep and bear arms (own guns) is a constitutional right, decision was 5-4 (go figure). The argument is over, but not for some crowds.


The big problem is the next President of the USA will fill one or two SCOTUS spots during their term. Wanna bet what type of person will get the job if Hillary is president? As you said, the last vote was 5-4. Next one might be 4-5 the other way.

-DallanC


----------



## bekins24

I'm gonna go out on a limb and say that BP hasn't ever just unloaded a high cap mag through a semi-auto. Tons of fun, quick way to blow through some $, but lots of great memories. And yes it allows me to be ready for anything that may come up.


----------



## Uber

Sadly, I honestly do think ARs will end up being banned at some point. When that happens though, it will be handguns soon after. Then shotguns and on and on.

Once that boulder gets rolling there isnt any stopping it.

This election is a pivotal point in gun control. I have no need or want of a AR, however, i will do all that I can with my voting rights to hopefully protect everyone's right to gun ownership. Whichever their preferred type is.


Sent from my SM-G900P using Tapatalk


----------



## reb8600

BPturkeys said:


> I see no reason for civilians to own large capacity magazine. In fact, if I saw a person buying a large capacity magazine I would probably wonder about his intentions. His intentions might not be terrorism or other evil intent, but the fact that he feels so fearful or insecure that he feels a need to possess a rifle capable of sustained, high volume fire would probably raise a red flag for me.
> I also believe that the insertion of a high capacity magazine into a semi-auto rifle is in fact what transforms a legitimate hunting/target/casual pinking rifle into an "assault rifle".
> Now, if you say he needs such a weapon to defend himself against a tyrannical government I say OK, but I think that is where the "a well regulated militia" comes in. Under this setting, individuals that are members of a "well regulated militia" can justify the ownership of this type of weapon.


Me with my AR and a 20 round magazine is no different than you with a bolt action and 20 rounds in your pocket except that I dont have to reload. The fact mine is a detachable mag does not make it any more dangerous.


----------



## DallanC

I still say an average 12GA semi auto is a much more dangerous weapon than a AR15. What type of weapon do Sheriff's grab when they need to clear a house? 12GA.


-DallanC


----------



## middlefork

I think most are pumps. But then again I've never had a problem shooting too slow with either.
Funny I'm a lefty shooting a right handed bolt action. Never remember having a problem emptying a magazine when I wanted to.

Sent from my LG-H810 using Tapatalk


----------



## Badin

Seems like there could be some kind controls to make non gun people a little more comfortable. May be require permits to own the faux military stuff would help keep out the wack jobs. We do kind of bring it on ourselves. I remember being in CVS drug store and a guy was demonstrating his constitutional right for open carry with a pistol strapped to his leg along with two extra clips. He sure intimidated the little old ladies. Also left a bad impression. Make no mistake, if we do not find a way to tighten things up, it will be done for us. Remember you do not have a constitutional right to own a fully automatic, this was settled in grand dad's day. Just a need time to go down the slippery slope between auto and semi. I wish the NRA would get real and step up.


----------



## swbuckmaster

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk


----------



## swbuckmaster

O knives are also illegal in Britain 
Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk


----------



## middlefork

Open carry is its own can of worms. I can definitely understand people who don't understand fire arms being nervous around them. But I don't think I should be required to be on a government list to carry concealed. If you don't know I'm carrying why would you worry?

Sent from my LG-H810 using Tapatalk


----------



## DallanC

I dont get the uproar over open carry... its the potential guns you DONT see that are usually the problem.


-DallanC


----------



## middlefork

No uproar here but the brainwashed masses are easily upset.

Sent from my LG-H810 using Tapatalk


----------



## Airborne

I hope all of the pro gun types on here are members of the NRA. They are the only legitimate group with clout that is sticking up for your 2nd amendment rights. Otherwise talk is cheap and your internet posts mean jack and crap. I have been a continuous member since I was 19 years old, how bout you?


----------



## middlefork

No problem here. What's another list. They are going to start somewhere. I have no problem with the fact that they are defending our rights but I don't have to always agree with the messager

Sent from my LG-H810 using Tapatalk


----------



## BPturkeys

OK, I'll pipe in again, but if I need credentials to gain any respect from you guys, here you go...Life member NRA (over 50 years), own now, have owned and probably will own more firearms including class 3 than 99% of the members on this forum, have been a licensed dealer, have owned a real brick and mortar gun store, active hunter and shooter...need I go on?
OK, that said, here is what I see. Large numbers of people that have been on the fence over more gun ownership rules have firmed up their beliefs that something must be done. They're frustrated with what they see as hard headed, single minded, simplistic thinking, obstructionist people and organizations. Most are not just in favor of total gun confiscation, as so many of you seem to think, but simply want a few loopholes(gun show sales) pertaining to gun purchases plugged and now a really very minor insignificant rule change pertaining to magazine capacity. They see resistance to these changes as proof that gun owners and especially the NRA are uncaring, selfish bores that have very little understanding of the modern world. They believe they really aren't trying to stop shooting and hunting sports, they believe they are not trying to stop firearm use and ownership for self protection. They know, just like gun owners know, that it is mentally unstable people with guns that are killing people.
Their frustrations is with gun owners dogged, unyielding stance. It's not so much that they believe these little changes will finally stop the maddness, it is that they are now starting to believe we are blocking efforts that might help...if even just a little bit.
So anyway, for what it's worth, that's what I see.


----------



## Springville Shooter

I agree with BP, so here's what we have to do in my opinion; Be very educationally vocal about why we hold the positions that we do and be prepared to have intelligent conversations with those we associate with in order to change the misconceptions that many have regarding gun ownership, gun crime, and gun control. There is no reason that we can't fully expect to change a few minds if we do our part. I think this is very important as it is simply not an option to start giving up foundational rights and freedoms in a desperate effort to solve a problem that can't be fixed with laws and regulations. 

Remember this, anyone who thinks that background checks, magazine limits, etc will stop, slow, or even effect violent crimes is misinformed, mistaken, or dishonest. We can do a lot to help the first two groups.------SS


----------



## LostLouisianian

For all of you who say "it can never happen". Well I have one word for you....Katrina. I still have relatives who had their guns taken away from them, in their homes, by the national guard and have never gotten them back. Some of them were very expensive deer rifles and shotguns. Any questions? I didn't think so.


----------



## Bo0YaA

Although I fully support owning and using high capacity magazines. I wonder how many of us would actually be willing to get hit with a felony charge if found in possession of them. Keep in mind guys, the 2nd Amendment says nothing about magazine capacity. With a stroke of the pen it could become law that owning a high capacity mag without a special permit could render you as much a felon as owning a full auto firearm, SBR or suppressor without one.


----------



## Airborne

The only way to defend your rights in our system is to vote, join and support a lobbying organization that defends and fights for what you believe in, and finally be polite and articulate when explaining your position with others that are on the fence or disagree with you. 

I think bpturkey is letting the media drive his mentality of capitulation in regards to the 2nd amendment. The latest polls show an increase in the support the 2nd amendment, not a decrease. I choose to fight for my rights and that includes using my checkbook. If you can't do that you have no cred with me. I know so many gun owners that like to talk tough but have no conviction regarding the support of their rights or are lazy or cheap or just don't understand the way politics work in this country. 

In the last few years we have had a nonstop media assault on our right and means to defend ourselves and yet nothing has happened in congress, why do you think that is? Because gun owners care, we organize, and are politically involved. We don't quit and we don't fold--don't be turkey, stand and fight!


----------



## BPturkeys

Bo0YaA said:


> Although I fully support owning and using high capacity magazines. I wonder how many of us would actually be willing to get hit with a felony charge if found in possession of them. Keep in mind guys, the 2nd Amendment says nothing about magazine capacity. With a stroke of the pen it could become law that owning a high capacity mag without a special permit could render you as much a felon as owning a full auto firearm, SBR or suppressor without one.


If you want to get technical, the 2nd amendment only says "arms"...no mention of "firearms". But court rules have pretty well settled that one. The courts for the most part says you can't make any whole class of arms illegal to own but you can "regulate" certain aspects of ownership...convicted felons, etc and regulate certain aspects of configuration...barrel length for example. And come to think of it, in a sense, regulating magazine capacity is nothing new...what about only 3 rounds for migratory bird hunting?? Types of ammo can also be regulated without making any reference at all to the "right to bear arms".
So called purest that read the constitution as it was originally written and think they personally get to make the final determination as to its meaning are sorely wrong. Officially the Supreme Court makes the final ruling. The Constitution IS NOT the total body of law that we must live by.


----------



## DallanC

Thomas Jefferson:



> "What country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms."


Patrick Henry:




> "Are we at last brought to such humiliating and debasing degradation that we cannot be trusted with arms for our defense? Where is the difference between having our arms in possession and under our direction, and having them under the management of Congress? If our defense be the real object of having those arms, in whose hands can they be trusted with more propriety, or equal safety to us, as in our own hands?"




George Mason (co-author of the 2nd amendment):




> "That a well-regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural and safe defense of a free state; that standing armies, in time of peace, should be avoided as dangerous to liberty; and that, in all cases, the military should be under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power.




-DallanC


----------



## wyogoob

Hoopermat said:


> Here is the link to the bill
> https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/house-bill/4269/text


Call me crazy but I read the introduced bill before I made an uninformed and inaccurate comment about the proposed legislature that will quickly die on the floor.

I found the list of "Okie Dokie" firearms interesting but, as a gun collector, there are a number of post-1900 models missing; some of which I have used, or plan to use, in the future on game animals.

So I'm madder than all heck and I'm goin' down to the courthouse and protest...like in May or June when it's warmer.

.


----------



## wyogoob

The 256 Ferret semi-automatic rifle is not on the approved firearm list. Words alone can not express how angry I am.

Uh....well, actually words *can* express how angry I am and I'm gonna get on some other forums where I'm not a moderator and say some dirty words.

.


----------



## wyogoob

LostLouisianian said:


> For all of you who say "it can never happen". Well I have one word for you....Katrina. I still have relatives who had their guns taken away from them, in their homes, by the national guard and have never gotten them back. Some of them were very expensive deer rifles and shotguns. Any questions? I didn't think so.


Hey, I have some questions.


----------



## DallanC

"Oh I'm sorry officer, we had a boating accident a few months back, all my firearms went over the side and were lost."


-DallanC


----------



## LostLouisianian

Fire away goober


----------



## wyogoob

LostLouisianian said:


> Fire away goober


Relatives convicted felons?

Were they trying to keep the guns out of the hands of neighborhood thugs breaking into abandoned homes?

How tall is your sister?

Any answers? I didn't think so.

I think my points are, there's two sides to every story and you should give people a little time to answer your questions.


----------



## High Desert Elk

As far as the 2nd Amendment goes, "arms" encompasses all forms; knives, spears, muskets, canons, firearms, etc. Back in the day, a militia was formed from it's citizenry and was not regular army. The militia was never intended to be controlled by a government. An army controlled by a government at a moments notice, and a little brainwashing, could turn on the citizenry by the stroke of a pen and the mindset of a [madman] in chief.

Voting is only the first step in protecting rights, but it is not the only thing. Being informed and knowledgeable is just as important, if not more so. The only thing more dangerous than a mad man and a 12 gauge shotgun with 00 buckshot is an uninformed or brainwashed voter. They are the ones who will take your rights away because of their own ignorance and naivety by putting the wrong jokers in office.

The Constitution's interpretation has changed because certain people think they know what's best for everyone or can't see why someone would want or need something. This is far from reality. As long as you do not detract away from someone else exercising their civil liberties and rights, no one is qualified to decide what is and is not best for you. The other half to this is knowing what the Constitution actually says. How many have actually read it? In order for SCOTUS to make any ruling or interpretation of the law, they must first be able to answer if the decision is in the tradition of the law, which is the Constitution. At least that's how it is supposed to work, but as we've seen, they butchered that with the lame interpretation when same gender marriage was legalized and mandatory healthcare shoved down our throats. Shame on you Justice Roberts...

Making posts on forums such as this is a very valuable tool in controversial and emotionally charged topics. The worst legislature ever to pass as law is done so under emotional duress. Engaging in the public square by discussing issues is one of the best things to happen to get reasonable and acceptable outcomes on an issue. Forums now make this a reality more so than ever, so posts by people sharing their thoughts mean a lot.

Joining very organized lobbying groups, such as the NRA, is also a very powerful tool to use against those few who wish to quash a person's rights. But, don't get caught up in blaming someone for being part of the problem because they are not part of the solution - something I've heard a lot of from other sources of social media. The worst things we can do as hunter's, fisher's, shooter's, and outdoors-men in general is bash each other and pit one against the other. This is why liberals seem to always win elections - they know how to unit on one common front and leave personal attacks and agendas at the door to accomplish the larger goal in mind. Win, then control.

So, for anyone who just quickly skims through long winded posts such as this, study the Constitution. Understanding this key document to the very freedom and liberty that all thirst for is the quickest way to diffuse any politician or federal justice running amok. Oh yes, federal judges can be taken off the bench...Congress has more power than people think. (A federal judge is appointed by an elected public servant. Who do you really think the guy in the black robes answers to...).


----------



## High Desert Elk

Bo0YaA said:


> Although I fully support owning and using high capacity magazines. I wonder how many of us would actually be willing to get hit with a felony charge if found in possession of them. Keep in mind guys, the 2nd Amendment says nothing about magazine capacity. With a stroke of the pen it could become law that owning a high capacity mag without a special permit could render you as much a felon as owning a full auto firearm, SBR or suppressor without one.


They can make them illegal all they want going forward, but the Constitution says that congress shall make no ex post facto laws or pass bills of attainder (Article I, section 9). The executive branch cannot make law, only congress can. Owning one prior to it going to law keeps you from being charged with a felony. If it wasn't illegal to own one today but not tomorrow can't make you guilty.

This is one thing that kept prior slave owners out of prison when it became illegal to own slaves. Of course, I'm just a shade-tree lawyer and don't know anything.


----------



## High Desert Elk

LostLouisianian said:


> For all of you who say "it can never happen". Well I have one word for you....Katrina. I still have relatives who had their guns taken away from them, in their homes, by the national guard and have never gotten them back. Some of them were very expensive deer rifles and shotguns. Any questions? I didn't think so.


And I sure as heck hope they had a legitimate reason to seize their property...otherwise, the national guard broke the law.

The 4th Amendment speaks to that.


----------



## High Desert Elk

DallanC said:


> The big problem is the next President of the USA will fill one or two SCOTUS spots during their term. Wanna bet what type of person will get the job if Hillary is president? As you said, the last vote was 5-4. Next one might be 4-5 the other way.
> -DallanC


And that in itself shows you how flawed it is when a handful of people misinterpret and/or misconstrue the law to fulfill an personal or political agenda rather than define something in the tradition of the law.

Just because they are a member of SCOTUS does not mean they know more about the law than anyone else. The Constitution was written so that common everyday folks could run for office and know what their operating parameters are and how to conduct business within the confines of the law. The Constitution is not some mysterious and difficult document. Politicians and some lawyers will have you think that way though.


----------



## LostLouisianian

No convicted felons. They weren't thugs breaking in or up to no good and my sister is 5'9" tall. I also went to high school with General Honore's sister. General Honore was the goon who enacted Bush's unconstitutional gun confiscation. Every court since then has ruled it unconstitutional. And by the way that's not the first time the federal government has confiscated firearms from legal law abiding owners either


----------



## swbuckmaster

Obama and the left wingers wants us to not judge muslims by the actions of a few but want to punish gun owners by the actions of a few. Hypocrites

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk


----------



## wyogoob

LostLouisianian said:


> No convicted felons. They weren't thugs breaking in or up to no good and my sister is 5'9" tall. I also went to high school with General Honore's sister. General Honore was the goon who enacted Bush's unconstitutional gun confiscation. Every court since then has ruled it unconstitutional. And by the way that's not the first time the federal government has confiscated firearms from legal law abiding owners either


thank you

.


----------



## wyogoob

The semi-auto Model 81 Remington is on the accepted firearms list. Back in the day, that was a popular gun for the Mob....LEO and prison guards too though.

The semi-auto Model 8 Remington is not on the list. dangit

.


----------



## LostLouisianian

High Desert Elk said:


> And I sure as heck hope they had a legitimate reason to seize their property...otherwise, the national guard broke the law.
> 
> The 4th Amendment speaks to that.


There was no legitimate reason. If you google and read up on what happened your blood will boil. Since that time there have been several court cases on the confiscation and every court has ruled that it was fully, totally and 100% unconstitutional. They went door to door asking if any homeowners had guns and if you said yes they confiscated them. They gave you a ticket for you to get them back later but less than 1/2 of the guns were ever returned and most "disappeared" when the owners went back to claim them. But hey don't take my word for it check on it yourself. Just because it happened to dozens upon dozens of my relatives means nothing.

Just think about it, you have 2-4 national guard troops banging on your front door asking you for your firearms and they have full auto AR's at the ready, what is a homeowner to do. There are even news stories documenting elderly people trying to keep their guns to protect themselves from the street thugs and getting roughed up by the national guard troops and their guns being taken away. These were legal, lawful gun owners.

As for my relatives with felonies, well that would be my youngest brother who doesn't own any firearms and my cousin, the ex-Governor whose wife "owns" the firearms. He didn't live in NO at the time, he was enjoying free room and board in Federal prison at the time.


----------



## BPturkeys

Don't confuse the "H.R.4269 - Assault Weapons Ban of 2015" with what Obama is going to enact (might not be the correct word) through his "executive order" pertaining to gun control. H.R. 4269 is a house bill that's been kicking around for a while and has little chance of passage and I don't think it is what Obama is going to order.

I can't seem to find the exact wording of his proposed Executive order but I think he is going to announce it today so the wait is about over. I am thinking the order will be something similar to the parts of H.B. 4269 that expand back ground checks and maybe limit magazine capacities(I double it, but maybe) but not to include the the sections about making assault weapons illegal.
I think at the end of the day we'll all still have our guns and unless you are a criminal your rights will not be affected at all.


----------



## High Desert Elk

LostLouisianian said:


> There was no legitimate reason. If you google and read up on what happened your blood will boil. Since that time there have been several court cases on the confiscation and every court has ruled that it was fully, totally and 100% unconstitutional. They went door to door asking if any homeowners had guns and if you said yes they confiscated them. They gave you a ticket for you to get them back later but less than 1/2 of the guns were ever returned and most "disappeared" when the owners went back to claim them. But hey don't take my word for it check on it yourself. Just because it happened to dozens upon dozens of my relatives means nothing.
> 
> Just think about it, you have 2-4 national guard troops banging on your front door asking you for your firearms and they have full auto AR's at the ready, what is a homeowner to do.


Your post is enough to make my blood boil. First, it was an illegal search to even ask the question. Second, it was an illegal seizure to take the firearm. The Constitution explicitly states a warrant is needed stating exactly what is being looked for. What would I do if armed guards came to my door in the same manner? To start, slam the door shut without saying a word...


----------



## Critter

From what I remember seeing it was the New Orleans Police department that did most of the configurations and perhaps the county sheriffs office. Also wasn't the National Guard under the orders of the Govenor of the state?

Here is a video of some of the people that had weapons confiscated.


----------



## middlefork

If I remember correctly and correct me if I'm wrong they were operating under martial law for awhile after Katrina. If so that is a completely different set of rules.


----------



## swbuckmaster

It ain't a different set of rules. It's illegal!

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk


----------



## LostLouisianian

Critter said:


> From what I remember seeing it was the New Orleans Police department that did most of the configurations and perhaps the county sheriffs office. Also wasn't the National Guard under the orders of the Govenor of the state?
> 
> Here is a video of some of the people that had weapons confiscated.


Initially Bush called out the NG. The governor was a total loser klutz on the whole Katrina issue and she was voted out of office next election. According to all the sources it was Bush that gave the order to disarm the public. If you recall the FEMA director ended up losing his job over the issues with Katrina as well. It was a cluster from the beginning between the City, Feds and State. There was no help at all from hardly anyone. One of my family members went down there with her school bus and was driving busload after busload from NO to Houston. She ended up having to arm herself with the issues she was having with many of the people she was ferrying out of NO. My brother and his friends in Slidell dropped pine trees across the road to their subdivision and had to guard it 24/7 in shifts. There was always a minimum of 2 guards with semi auto AR's, AK's or SKS's guarding the only way in or out. They would move a tree with the tractor to let folks in and out. Only communications were two way radios and charging them up off their generators. Luckily my brother had 2 55gallon drums of gas in his workshop and that only lasted a short time.


----------



## Critter

middlefork said:


> If I remember correctly and correct me if I'm wrong they were operating under martial law for awhile after Katrina. If so that is a completely different set of rules.


Martial Law was never declared after Katrina


----------



## middlefork

Maybe not but they appeared to be acting like as was according to Losts discription above.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martial_law
"Martial law is the imposition of the highest-ranking military officer as the military governor or as the head of the government, thus removing all power from the previous executive, legislative, and judicial branches of government.[1] It is usually imposed temporarily when the government or civilian authorities fail to function effectively (e.g., maintain order and security, or provide essential services)."


----------



## Critter

Here is a good article on some of what happened after Katrina

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Hurricane_Katrina:_Martial_Law


----------



## middlefork

Thanks Critter.
It looks more like they interpeted their state laws to meet the crisis.

"But even though no martial law exists, Gov. Kathleen Blanco's declaration of a state of emergency [on August 26, 2005] gives authorities *widespread latitude to suspend civil liberties *as they try to restore order and bring victims to safety. Under the Louisiana Homeland Security and Emergency Assistance and Disaster Act of 1993, the governor and, in some cases, chief parish officials, have the right to commandeer or utilize any private property if necessary to cope with the emergency."


----------



## Trooper

Here's an interesting question: What are you as a gun owner doing to prevent mass shootings? Do you have any responsibility to do anything? 

Myself, I'm not doing much. Keeping my eyes open for things that don't seem right, I guess. But I know pretty normal people with a few thousand rounds of rifle or shotgun ammo and I know some weirdos with a clip full of 9mm that scare me more. It's a tough issue. One thing for sure though, buy Remington stock. Obama is like the patron saint of the gun industry, he's sold more guns than anyone!


----------



## middlefork

I have to agree. I'm doing the same. I will say that I avoid most likely locations as a way of life that started way before the hype.

Smith & Wesson +137.3% for 2015. :O||:


----------



## Trooper

http://member.sltrib.com/home/3378094-168/obama-moves-to-require-background-checks

Yawn...

[Save yur 'cussing about my apathy... I know, wife tells me all the time]


----------



## .45

Trooper said:


> http://member.sltrib.com/home/3378094-168/obama-moves-to-require-background-checks
> 
> Yawn...
> 
> [Save yur 'cussing about my apathy... I know, wife tells me all the time]


Yawn is right....and it's a illegal executive order.


----------



## Trooper

I'll fire everyone back up. Truth be told, Gun Shows always strike me as slightly sketchy. I think I like them because it feels sort of illicit. I'd be OK with those guys having to register as dealers. Discuss.


----------



## .45

But it's just not the gun shows he after......

WASHINGTON (AP) — "President Barack Obama moved Monday to expand background checks to cover more firearms sold at gun shows, online and anywhere else,"

This is not going to be pretty or welcome in my book.


----------



## High Desert Elk

middlefork said:


> Thanks Critter.
> It looks more like they interpeted their state laws to meet the crisis.
> 
> "But even though no martial law exists, Gov. Kathleen Blanco's declaration of a state of emergency [on August 26, 2005] gives authorities *widespread latitude to suspend civil liberties *as they try to restore order and bring victims to safety. Under the Louisiana Homeland Security and Emergency Assistance and Disaster Act of 1993, the governor and, in some cases, chief parish officials, have the right to commandeer or utilize any private property if necessary to cope with the emergency."


I don't know how I feel about the above declaration and the latitude to suspend civil liberties as it is a direct violation of depriving someone of life, liberty, or property without due process. This goes along with a military, or any government, to take up quarter without consent (violation of the 4th Amendment).

Simply put, the Constitution is the supreme law of the land and no state has authority to sidestep it. State's cannot make and enforce their own law if it is contradictory to the provisions outlined in the Constitution. The only thing the 10th Amendment allows is to make law that is not defined. The Bill of Rights cannot be suspended under any circumstances.


----------



## High Desert Elk

.45 said:


> But it's just not the gun shows he after......
> 
> WASHINGTON (AP) - "President Barack Obama moved Monday to expand background checks to cover more firearms sold at gun shows, online and anywhere else,"
> 
> This is not going to be pretty or welcome in my book.


Could this be argued that he is interfering with the right of Congress to regulate interstate commerce by not allowing them to have a say in the matter? The Executive branch cannot do that.

Let's examine what we know - Barack Obama is using "law experts" that he appointed to make sure what he is doing is constitutional. Hmmm....:?

I question the very validity to his understanding of the law.


----------



## middlefork

Really? What else is new?

Sent from my LG-H810 using Tapatalk


----------



## BPturkeys

You know what kills me...and most gun owners...is that we most agree that we need to somehow keep wackos(define that anyway you want) and mentally unstable people from getting thier hands on guns. Yet many of you turn around and scream bloody murder and predict the fall of all American and in general the demise of mankind in general when Obama makes a VERY minor change in the background check system in an attempt to do just that.

I ask, how and WHEN in the world are we going to detect these people if we do not check them...I think the PC word is vet...at the time of purchase? Of course everyone, including Obama, knows it won't stop all guns from getting into these peoples hands, but it certainly we help a little. Background checks today take virtually minutes and simply impose NO hardship on legitimate(law abiding) gun owners and in no way impinge upon your ability to buy and own guns.

Now don't stand there and try and tell me you can't walk into a gun show and buy any type of gun you want without a background check. I've attended, from both side of the table, hundreds of gun shows and know there are many "dealers" that do not hold licenses selling guns at every show and maintain an inventory of guns for the sole purpose of resale.

Now if you want to argue the question of the legality of background checks in general, that's a whole different argument, but under the belief that background checks have some useful purpose, by allowing such a large loophole is ludicrous.


----------



## middlefork

BP, I can certainly understand your position and with reservations I actually support some of the proposals. Particularly the mental health aspect.

As for gun shows I've never been to one but have several friends that go regularly. I wouldn't know if they purchased a firearm from a dealer or not. Never ask.

So a question as I lose track. How many of the mass shootings have been caused by someone who got a weapon without a background check at a gun show?


----------



## DallanC

Better yet, name the last mass shooting where the shooter used an illegally obtained firearm.


-DallanC


----------



## BPturkeys

I think the figure is around 80% of the guns used in mass shootings (4 people dead in a public place) were "Legal". But of course mass shootings are a very tiny part of gun violence.


----------



## DallanC

President just finished his address. He will redefine what a gun seller is, so more people need licenses. Also he wants to impose electronic trigger systems that only recognize the owner, and gps tracker apps to locate stolen weapons. 

Good luck with the electronic systems... when the US military and local police find the tech reliable, then I'd consider it. Until then, I'll just keep locking them up.


-DallanC


----------



## 3arabians

I watched the address as well. It seemed like a huge waste of oxygen to me. I wont elaborate on why I felt that way because dicussing politcs bothers me for the most part but basically that was all it was in my opinion. I think/hope his intent will backfire


----------



## woundedjew

Does anybody know what percentage of guns are sold through a licensed dealer now compared to through an individual? I don't see what he is accomplishing here.


----------



## Gee LeDouche

He is protecting his legacy. Its ALL about control. Baby steps of taking away freedoms from law abiding citizens.


----------



## DallanC

Gee LeDouche said:


> He is protecting his legacy. Its ALL about control. Baby steps of taking away freedoms from law abiding citizens.


Dont forget he's also trying to position himself for a good job once his presidency is over.

-DallanC


----------



## mjensen1313

DallanC said:


> "Oh I'm sorry officer, we had a boating accident a few months back, all my firearms went over the side and were lost."
> 
> -DallanC


All mine were lost in the landslide up at the Copper Mine


----------



## Lonetree

I'm not going to wade too deep into this. But as someone that has been in the firearms industry for over 20 years, and supports the second Amendment, I will say this. We have a definitive gun violence problem in this country. Do I think guns are the root of this problem? No, not directly. But they play into the violence problem, and have become emblematic of it. And as long as that remains the case, the less control law abiding gun owners are going to have over the situation. 

There are simply a lot of people that should not own firearms in this country. Anyone here that has worked the counter, and actually dealt with the public at large purchasing firearms, you know exactly what I'm talking about. You're on the phone waiting for the background check to fail, because the guy across the counter shouldn't own a cap gun. And this is nothing compared to some of the real problems.

You want to own the gun rights movement, you have to own the gun safety and responsibility movement, which has been barely tolerated for far too long. There are a lot of good people stepping up currently to take the reigns on this, and it can't come any sooner. Just hit YouTube for the gun store videos if you have not seen them. 

And while it's easy to say law abiding gun owners are not the criminals, it does not always look that way from the outside. When gun owners rally every time a mass shooting occurs, it looks like we are complicit in the act. While of course most of us as law abiding owners despise these illegal acts, it has to be recognized at some point that some within our ranks use these events to further agendas, that ultimately are going to be detrimental to gun ownership. While the anti crowd does the very same thing, some of us are not doing the rest of us any favors either. If you don't police your own ranks, you are inviting someone else in to do it for you.


----------



## DallanC

Replace gun owner with the word Muslim and re-read your post.


Muslims, we are asked to ignore the few radicals in favor of the peace full majority.

Gun owners, we are asked to give up freedom of the majority due to the actions of a few radicals.

-O,-

-DallanC


----------



## wyogoob

No muslim stuff, thanks.

.


----------



## Trooper

Nice post LoneTree- well thought out. You too BPTurkey. 

Deep thinkers on the UWN- now I've seen it all.


----------



## High Desert Elk

Lonetree said:


> I'm not going to wade too deep into this. But as someone that has been in the firearms industry for over 20 years, and supports the second Amendment, I will say this. We have a definitive gun violence problem in this country. Do I think guns are the root of this problem? No, not directly. But they play into the violence problem, and have become emblematic of it. And as long as that remains the case, the less control law abiding gun owners are going to have over the situation.
> 
> There are simply a lot of people that should not own firearms in this country. Anyone here that has worked the counter, and actually dealt with the public at large purchasing firearms, you know exactly what I'm talking about. You're on the phone waiting for the background check to fail, because the guy across the counter shouldn't own a cap gun. And this is nothing compared to some of the real problems.
> 
> You want to own the gun rights movement, you have to own the gun safety and responsibility movement, which has been barely tolerated for far too long. There are a lot of good people stepping up currently to take the reigns on this, and it can't come any sooner. Just hit YouTube for the gun store videos if you have not seen them.
> 
> And while it's easy to say law abiding gun owners are not the criminals, it does not always look that way from the outside. When gun owners rally every time a mass shooting occurs, it looks like we are complicit in the act. While of course most of us as law abiding owners despise these illegal acts, it has to be recognized at some point that some within our ranks use these events to further agendas, that ultimately are going to be detrimental to gun ownership. While the anti crowd does the very same thing, some of us are not doing the rest of us any favors either. If you don't police your own ranks, you are inviting someone else in to do it for you.


I pose these questions and statements to the body of the thread participants:

So, who is the one to decide who is mentally fit to own a firearm? The same one who decides you cannot drive a car because you enjoy a ****tail at dinner or a cold beer on a Saturday afternoon in July? Does this mean you now have the propensity to drink and drive? Or you are now required to have an airlock ignition device installed in your car because your credit card shows reciept of alcohol purchase? Absolutely not.

The inherent danger of a healthcare professional (as in a general practitioner) deeming you mentally unfit to own a firearm based on your responses during a routine physical after you've had a bad day is stifling. It is absurd they can even ask questions about firearms because "they fear" something is or could be amiss and make them responsible for violent crime. This is now something that can legally be done courtesy of the same one to bring you 'Gun Control Measures 2016'. Enter life behind the iron curtain.

An FFL dealer is not going to "loophole" at a gun show. Private transactions between private individuals is a different matter. A car should be not sold without a background check because the buyer may have a DWI conviction, or a past history of armed robbery and may use it to heist the local community bank.

These measures are absurd and will have little effect. Small steps will add up to miles in the long run.

Attack the real problem - the moral degradation of society and nonsensical notion of entitlement.


----------



## DallanC

High Desert Elk said:


> I pose these questions and statements to the body of the thread participants:
> 
> So, who is the one to decide who is mentally fit to own a firearm? The same one who decides you cannot drive a car because you enjoy a ****tail at dinner or a cold beer on a Saturday afternoon in July? Does this mean you now have the propensity to drink and drive? Or you are now required to have an airlock ignition device installed in your car because your credit card shows reciept of alcohol purchase? Absolutely not.
> 
> The inherent danger of a healthcare professional (as in a general practitioner) deeming you mentally unfit to own a firearm based on your responses during a routine physical after you've had a bad day is stifling. It is absurd they can even ask questions about firearms because "they fear" something is or could be amiss and make them responsible for violent crime. This is now something that can legally be done courtesy of the same one to bring you 'Gun Control Measures 2016'. Enter life behind the iron curtain.
> 
> An FFL dealer is not going to "loophole" at a gun show. Private transactions between private individuals is a different matter. A car should be not sold without a background check because the buyer may have a DWI conviction, or a past history of armed robbery and may use it to heist the local community bank.
> 
> These measures are absurd and will have little effect. Small steps will add up to miles in the long run.
> 
> Attack the real problem - the moral degradation of society and nonsensical notion of entitlement.


Well Said.

-DallanC


----------



## Trooper

DallanC said:


> Well Said.
> 
> -DallanC


Uh...yes? The machinery of our society that says I cannot drive a car, fly a plane, or dispense prescription drugs based upon my mental capability, emotional instability, or substance abuse seems like the appropriate machinery to determine whether my personal situation requires that I waive an individual right in favor the rights of society until I am ready to uphold the responsibility that always accompanies rights.


----------



## Trooper

High Desert Elk said:


> I pose these questions and statements to the body of the thread participants:
> 
> So, who is the one to decide who is mentally fit to own a firearm? The same one who decides you cannot drive a car because you enjoy a ****tail at dinner or a cold beer on a Saturday afternoon in July? Does this mean you now have the propensity to drink and drive? Or you are now required to have an airlock ignition device installed in your car because your credit card shows reciept of alcohol purchase? Absolutely not.
> 
> The inherent danger of a healthcare professional (as in a general practitioner) deeming you mentally unfit to own a firearm based on your responses during a routine physical after you've had a bad day is stifling. It is absurd they can even ask questions about firearms because "they fear" something is or could be amiss and make them responsible for violent crime. This is now something that can legally be done courtesy of the same one to bring you 'Gun Control Measures 2016'. Enter life behind the iron curtain.
> 
> An FFL dealer is not going to "loophole" at a gun show. Private transactions between private individuals is a different matter. A car should be not sold without a background check because the buyer may have a DWI conviction, or a past history of armed robbery and may use it to heist the local community bank.
> 
> These measures are absurd and will have little effect. Small steps will add up to miles in the long run.
> 
> Attack the real problem - the moral degradation of society and nonsensical notion of entitlement.


The same machinery of our society that says I cannot drive a car, fly a plane, or dispense prescription drugs based upon my mental capability, emotional instability, or substance abuse seems like the appropriate machinery to determine whether my personal situation requires that I waive an individual right in favor the rights of society until I am ready to uphold the responsibility that always accompanies rights. Bear in mind, I know that restricting firearms from people with mental health issues isn't going to make much difference, but it changes the conversation from "my idea is right-yours is wrong" to a conversation about how to best keep guns out of the hands of people who shouldn't have them.


----------



## Springville Shooter

Lonetree said:


> I'm not going to wade too deep into this. But as someone that has been in the firearms industry for over 20 years, and supports the second Amendment, I will say this. We have a definitive gun violence problem in this country. Do I think guns are the root of this problem? No, not directly. But they play into the violence problem, and have become emblematic of it. And as long as that remains the case, the less control law abiding gun owners are going to have over the situation.
> 
> There are simply a lot of people that should not own firearms in this country. Anyone here that has worked the counter, and actually dealt with the public at large purchasing firearms, you know exactly what I'm talking about. You're on the phone waiting for the background check to fail, because the guy across the counter shouldn't own a cap gun. And this is nothing compared to some of the real problems.
> 
> You want to own the gun rights movement, you have to own the gun safety and responsibility movement, which has been barely tolerated for far too long. There are a lot of good people stepping up currently to take the reigns on this, and it can't come any sooner. Just hit YouTube for the gun store videos if you have not seen them.
> 
> And while it's easy to say law abiding gun owners are not the criminals, it does not always look that way from the outside. When gun owners rally every time a mass shooting occurs, it looks like we are complicit in the act. While of course most of us as law abiding owners despise these illegal acts, it has to be recognized at some point that some within our ranks use these events to further agendas, that ultimately are going to be detrimental to gun ownership. While the anti crowd does the very same thing, some of us are not doing the rest of us any favors either. If you don't police your own ranks, you are inviting someone else in to do it for you.


Well Lone, it's a good thing that the Constitution doesn't provide for widespread 'policing your own' policies. Frankly, the behavior that you have demonstrated in the past and the events that have been chronicled surrounding some of your appearances would lead me to believe that you are possibly not the best person to have on the loose with a gun. Aren't you glad that there are laws in place that safegaurd your rights against my opinion? There may come a day soon that opinions will matter. They already would if we were in California and you were my cousin.

The silly thing is that none of this has anything to do with guns, safety, or any other public interest. It's simply a political payback, stick-poking, nose-thumbing in the uncivil war that is American politics.------SS


----------



## Lonetree

"So, who is the one to decide who is mentally fit to own a firearm?"

I already answered this, and quite frankly the rest of it as well. All from my anti Second Amendment perch, where I was running gun parts in my shop no less. I actually had a guy two years ago in my shop tell me I was anti gun while I was in the process of chambering a barrel. If I had not already laughed my self to tears over the last two days I'd be drowning right now. 

The judgment can come from within, and under our control, or we can leave that vacuum to be filled by others, which is what is currently occurring. That is where the rubber hits the road.


----------



## Springville Shooter

Being in the gun industry doesn't make you a Second Amendment advocate anymore than simply being a hunter makes you a conservationist. 

I think it is a very slippery slope when we start deciding who is and who isn't entitled to certain freedoms. Of course there are situations where freedom must be limited or taken away but such processes must be taken very seriously and should not ever become streamlined or status quo in nature.-------SS


----------



## Lonetree

Springville Shooter said:


> Being in the gun industry doesn't make you a Second Amendment advocate anymore than simply being a hunter makes you a conservationist.
> 
> I think it is a very slippery slope when we start deciding who is and who isn't entitled to certain freedoms. Of course there are situations where freedom must be limited or taken away but such processes must be taken very seriously and should not ever become streamlined or status quo in nature.-------SS


Your right, building guns or being in the industry doesn't automatically make one a Second Amendment advocate, remember that.

Yes its a slippery slope, do you want someone pushing you down it, or do you think we should be navigating it together on our own terms? Sorry, whether some people like it or not, we are suffering from our own successes in the firearms rights movement right now, and will continue to head that way. Like Trooper stated, there is a large element of responsibility in all of this. Either we own it, or some one else will.


----------



## swbuckmaster

Lonetree for someone in the industry you need to educate yourself. We don't need more laws, trigger controls, clip bans, ext. We need the laws already on the books enforced.

https://www.nranews.com/series/wayn...1-episode-5-the-truth-about-background-checks

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk


----------



## swbuckmaster

Here's another one LT

https://www.nranews.com/series/wayn...-season-1-episode-1-how-to-stop-violent-crime

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk


----------



## Lonetree

SW, where did I ever say we needed "more laws, trigger controls, clip bans"?

I have never said that, the issue is not that simple. Nor is the "enforce existing laws" argument, especially considering that those that ring that bell, by action, show that they are actually against that as well. I am for enforcement of existing laws.

You can't cite, or threaten persecution and infringement(NRA mantra) of the Second Amendment, considering that the movement has seen nothing but the wholesale expansion of gun rights since 1968. 1968 being the last _firearm_ regulations to have any lasting and standing affect. There comes a point that goes beyond diminishing returns, where without some serious maintenance and legacy considerations, any movement "forward" will bring just the opposite. Whether people like it or not, we are way past that point, and have some catch up to do. The kinetics of this are building the other direction, and its not by them pulling, its by us pushing. At some point someone on the other side is just going to step away from the door, as we fall in on ourselves.

Again, to pull a little harder on what Trooper said about responsibility, we have seen nothing but the wholesale expansion of gun rights for almost 50 years. There are some components of this expansion that are missing.


----------



## BPturkeys

Simply put, you've been played for fools.
I bought my first gun in 1959, a Savage 99 308win. I walked into a Western Auto Store in Ogden Utah , paid my money and walked out. Since that time, every decade, and in fact almost every year, and for periods of time, every month and week I have bought guns. Every time, the process has been the same, walk in, pay up and walk out. For the vast number of those transactions, some form of background check has been in place. But never, ever, have I felt my rights to buy a gun was infringed upon. Never ever was I told no, never was I questioned why and never did the transaction take more than a few minutes.

Let me tell you what I think has happened in America. Money driven groups and individuals have infiltrated our lives and have been simply feeding us a bunch of crap in an effort to get us to give them money. Groups like my once beloved NRA, people like Limbaugh, Hannity, and others who use the tactics of fear, hate, lies, deception and patriotism to get you to send in a check, or listen to their program(how they make their money). They have cleverly drawn a picture of an America that just ain’t so. These same people are back at it again. Screaming how background checks are un-American, how background checks will lead to total confiscation of guns, how background checks will destroy America, and on and on and on. When in reality all they are simply saying is watch my show, listen to my program, send in a check…you’re being played for fools!

These people and groups, in their greedy efforts to get your money, have created in America a generation of Americans so fearful of themselves that conspiracy theories, mistrust, fear, and hatred have become the norm. Many decisions to purchase and own guns are made not for the enjoyment of hunting or target practice (includes just plain old plinking) or collecting for intrinsic reason or other historic reason. But now, many people are rushing to buy guns and ammo out of some unknown, unsubstantiated fear. A fear that has been placed in their minds by people and groups simply trying to get your money.
And the saddest part of all as a result…a crazy gun culture has taken over America. Most entertainment, TV, movies, video games are riddled with guns..gun totting bad guys, gun totting good guys…both glamorized because they use guns. Young people, including gang members, think this is what is normal, think this is what life is, think guns and gun violence is the American way. But what do you expect, it’s all that’s on TV, electronic games, and, the talking heads(we call them pundits)are verifying it on their money driven shows. And last but not least, their very own dad’s are stocking up on military type weapons, burying ammo and burying it in his back yard.

Many young people are overwhelmed with this vemonistic dribble, this constant bombardment of hate and fear, this never ending flow of negativity. They are turning to suicide, mass shootings, and general violent acts to find relief or fulfillment from what America has become in their minds.


----------



## Airborne

Lonetree said:


> You can't cite, or threaten persecution and infringement(NRA mantra) of the Second Amendment, considering that the movement has seen nothing but the wholesale expansion of gun rights since 1968.


Couple come to mind->
1994 assault weapons ban
1986 law that banned manufacture or importation of machine guns

to BP Turkey
Yeah the nation is becoming more politically polarized in a lot of areas--not just firearms, but everything. You want to restrict freedom of speech to help squash that? You think a magazine ban and background checks are going to solve that?

Politics is about compromise, if the Prez was serious about universal background checks then why not proposing that along with universal concealed carry reciprocity between the states? Both sides get something they want and something they don't--sounds like good politics to me.

You and lonetree don't deserve the firearms you have--if you actually own any--internet hero's talk much and hunt little--> I envision lonetree living in a trailer park with tinfoil over the windows and on his head and l envision you wearing tweeds, a newsboy cap and smoking a fine pipe, believing that only doubleguns made in the UK being legal. You both lack cred, especially with your surrender banner and deprecation of gun owners. Time to hang it up boys, hand in those guns, subscribe to the New Yorker and take up crochet and enjoying the smell of ones own flatulence...enjoy


----------



## Trooper

Ding-ding! It's apparently Airborne who decides who "deserves" to own a gun. So the rule is everyone who believes the NRA party line "deserves" a gun, but not anyone else? What kind of crap is that?

I about pissed myself when I read your last post AB- Politics is about "compromise"? Show me ONE TIME the NRA has compromised? Universal CC? Nothing stopping it, except the states. Can't blame Obama for the weather.


----------



## gdog

"More than three-quarters of Utahns support expanding background checks on gun sales to include purchases made online or at gun shows, according to a UtahPolicy.com poll released Tuesday."

http://www.ksl.com/?sid=38026554&nid=148&title=poll-utahns-support-expanded-background-checks-for-gun-buyers&s_cid=queue-14


----------



## High Desert Elk

Lonetree said:


> "So, who is the one to decide who is mentally fit to own a firearm?"
> 
> I already answered this, and quite frankly the rest of it as well.


No, not really, and here's why. If someone has been deemed unfit to own a firearm it means they exhibit some natural tendency to cause physical pain on someone as rationalized by some professional with some kind of degree. That same person allowed to be among society is still free to do whatever to cause pain. If that deranged or mentally ill person wanted to cause harm or pain to one or many people, they'd still do it, either by some home made device or just driving their car down the sidewalk in a heavily populated pedestrian area. They don't need a firearm to do it. I understand the argument about background checks taking one method away, but what about the rest? Heaven help the guy who is in this mental state and rapes my daughter!! There are more ways to hurt someone than with a gun.

So, it brings us back to who decides who is mentally stable to own a firearm, or even be allowed to be free in society? When this condition occurs, you find yourself getting back to the situation of insane asylums and people being locked up for no real reason. A person who's personality is naturally an introvert my be seen as socially challenged and a potential threat when the wrong people are involved. Some of it's obvious, some not necessarily so much.

The only thing that has even triggered the expanded background checks for the mentally ill are James Holmes and Sandy Hook. Although these guys were nuts, what about the raving alcoholic in a drunken fit that does the same thing in different areas around the country? Yesterday he was qualified to own a firearm, yet tomorrow he's not. Should we reinstate the Volstead Act? Not.

Expanded background checks is a catch phrase to keep the polarization alive about the Second Amendment. Point of fact is, the world is over populated by people who think they ought to have control over what you should and shouldn't own.

Once again - attack the real problem. Group punishment is a chicken #%*? solution to a problem.


----------



## Airborne

Trooper said:


> Ding-ding! It's apparently Airborne who decides who "deserves" to own a gun. So the rule is everyone who believes the NRA party line "deserves" a gun, but not anyone else? What kind of crap is that?
> 
> I about pissed myself when I read your last post AB- Politics is about "compromise"? Show me ONE TIME the NRA has compromised? Universal CC? Nothing stopping it, except the states. Can't blame Obama for the weather.


The NRA believes in the status quo--pretty radical organization I know :shock:

I have never seen either party, either pro gun or anti gun propose any sort of comprimise between the two--I think it might be a good idea and get the ball rolling if that is indeed the will of the people (questionable). As an NRA member I am also fine with the status quo but I like to think through some stuff, throw out ideas--talk and stuff (sometimes talk smack!)--I just never see any ideas or compromise--just doom and gloom. Get's pretty old.

And yeah I get to determine who can have guns-->it's like my job dude--that and entertaining internet hyperbole mixed with some satire and self righteousness. Am I getting through that thick noodle of yours? :mrgreen:
Better watch out, I may ban your guns next super trooper!


----------



## wyogoob

gdog said:


> "More than three-quarters of Utahns support expanding background checks on gun sales to include purchases made online or at gun shows, according to a UtahPolicy.com poll released Tuesday."
> 
> http://www.ksl.com/?sid=38026554&ni...ckground-checks-for-gun-buyers&s_cid=queue-14


Please, don't ruin a good thread with the facts.

thanks.

:smile:

.


----------



## Hoopermat

So your saying of 622 Utah residents 2/3rds support expanded background checks.


----------



## wyogoob

Hoopermat said:


> So your saying of 622 Utah residents 2/3rds support expanded background checks.


Yeah, cool huh?

I'm thinkin if ya poll 622 Utah residents in the parking lot at Cabela's you'd get different results.

It's called "cherry picking", invented the same day they invented the facebook.

.


----------



## Hoopermat

wyogoob said:


> Yeah, cool huh?
> 
> I'm thinkin if ya poll 622 Utah residents in the parking lot at Cabela's you'd get different results.
> 
> It's called "cherry picking", invented the same day they invented the facebook.
> 
> .


It makes me laugh when someone refers to a poll as scientific data.


----------



## gdog

Hoopermat said:


> It makes me laugh when someone refers to a poll as scientific data.


No kidding...with the vast cultural differences here in Utardville...how could this be representative of the general population :shock::mrgreen:


----------



## wyogoob

Hoopermat said:


> It makes me laugh when someone refers to a poll as scientific data.


Boy, me too.

Hey, who referred to this poll as being scientific data?

It's factual though. 622 people were polled and here's the results of the poll.

I suggest you find a poll that represents your view and put it up. cherry pick

.


----------



## Dunkem

Ok guys I own several guns, will be buying more guns, an extended background check, what do I need to worry about if there is nothing in my background to hide? Is there something here I'm not up to snuff on? Please only serious answers only, no politics, or Obama wants more control of me ,etc.


----------



## DallanC

-DallanC


----------



## Dunkem

So if I quit drinking water and just stay with the Dew I will understand all of this?


----------



## middlefork

Dunkem said:


> Ok guys I own several guns, will be buying more guns, an extended background check, what do I need to worry about if there is nothing in my background to hide? Is there something here I'm not up to snuff on? Please only serious answers only, no politics, or Obama wants more control of me ,etc.


Won't bother you a bit. You will be in the database for the ones you already had a background check on an any new ones.

Oh and they know where you live


----------



## middlefork

Dunkem said:


> So if I quit drinking water and just stay with the Dew I will understand all of this?


The only way to get up to speed is RED BULL! DEW will never cut it.8)


----------



## Dunkem

middlefork said:


> Won't bother you a bit. You will be in the database for the ones you already had a background check on an any new ones.
> 
> Oh and they know where you live


Oh well, so do my ex wives -O,- and red bull gives me the jjjjiiiittters


----------



## wyogoob

Dunkem said:


> Ok guys I own several guns, will be buying more guns, an extended background check, what do I need to worry about if there is nothing in my background to hide? Is there something here I'm not up to snuff on? Please only serious answers only, no politics, or Obama wants more control of me ,etc.


I recommend you click on the link and read the *proposed* legislation in post #2 of this thread.

Ah, heck, here it is: https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-...bill/4269/text

The exact details of Obama's plan aren't out yet.


----------



## Dunkem

Crap, I guess they are gonna want my gatling gun.


----------



## Hoopermat

The problem is for this type of action is it set a precedent for further expansion 
As in years in the past the gun control advocates try to chip away at our freedoms. And to them any new law or action is positive traction for their movement. They will never stop trying and total ban of all guns is their agenda. So you need to look at these actions as a small piece of you liberty taken. It might be a small piece but over time they will add up to a whole. 
Now if Hillary gets elected. This will be a starting point on more gun control. She has stated she will do more and this action has already set the precedent for her future actions.


----------



## middlefork

Here is what the NRA says about background checks.


----------



## DallanC

Kindof dumb to implement additional background checks for gun purchases when its perfectly 100% legal to make your own guns from a kit (ar15 80% lowers anyone???)


-DallanC


----------



## Dunkem

middlefork said:


> Here is what the NRA says about background checks.


 Thanks Middlefork!


----------



## .45

Here is Obama's idea.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/rickung...-on-gun-safety-signed-today-by-the-president/


----------



## .45

But with only 59 agents fighting ISIS....450 new hires to take care of this mess, and hiring 16,000 new IRS agents to take care of our healthcare. I feel so much safer..-O,-


----------



## swbuckmaster

The problem with this whole debate is Obama went arround the whole legal process with his executive order. 

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk


----------



## Lonetree

Airborne said:


> Couple come to mind->
> 1994 assault weapons ban
> 1986 law that banned manufacture or importation of machine guns
> 
> to BP Turkey
> Yeah the nation is becoming more politically polarized in a lot of areas--not just firearms, but everything. You want to restrict freedom of speech to help squash that? You think a magazine ban and background checks are going to solve that?
> 
> Politics is about compromise, if the Prez was serious about universal background checks then why not proposing that along with universal concealed carry reciprocity between the states? Both sides get something they want and something they don't--sounds like good politics to me.
> 
> You and lonetree don't deserve the firearms you have--if you actually own any--internet hero's talk much and hunt little--> I envision lonetree living in a trailer park with tinfoil over the windows and on his head and l envision you wearing tweeds, a newsboy cap and smoking a fine pipe, believing that only doubleguns made in the UK being legal. You both lack cred, especially with your surrender banner and deprecation of gun owners. Time to hang it up boys, hand in those guns, subscribe to the New Yorker and take up crochet and enjoying the smell of ones own flatulence...enjoy


You don't have the balls to say that to my face........

But if you did, you would probably do it in my shop while I was building guns like the last idiot that just does not get it.

The '94 ban does not exist anymore, and you are mistaken about '86. You can build "machine guns", I've built them. I've worked under class 3 licensees. And technically you can import "machine guns", but that's a whole other thread.

I had my first firearms engineering job at age 19, almost 20 years ago. Since then I have worked for several firearms firms, and have my own designs. But as has been pointed out, that does not make me a Second Amendment advocate, gives me no "cred", and according to you, it means I don't deserve to own the guns I have. :shock: Wow! But I am the one wearing a tinfoil hat in a trailer house? Says the guy on the internet, that tells people they are "internet heros"............:mrgreen:


----------



## Lonetree

DallanC said:


> Kindof dumb to implement additional background checks for gun purchases when its perfectly 100% legal to make your own guns from a kit (ar15 80% lowers anyone???)
> 
> -DallanC


Dallan

Anyone can purchase or possess an 80%/casting/unmachined receiver. But as soon as you turn it into a firearm, it has to get a serial number, and at that point you are subject to all local and federal firearms laws, which includes current prohibitions in the current background check. Just because you built it does not somehow skirt current law. If fact, to go the 80% receiver route and have it be 100% legal, you open yourself up to more restrictions and scrutiny than if you were to buy one over the counter at the store.

That's why I have always built personal firearms(scratch built anyway) under an FFL license(typically it's been someone I worked for). There are transfer restrictions involved with personally built firearms.


----------



## DallanC

nm.


----------



## Lonetree

DallanC said:


> nm.


http://www.ammoland.com/2014/11/atf-answers-questions-on-80-receiver-blanks/#axzz3wWSe05Cm

*5. When does a receiver need to have markings and/or serial numbers?*
Receivers that meet the definition of a "_firearm_" must have markings, including a serial number. See 27 CFR § 478.92 (Firearm manufacturers marking requirements).

Its a good thing we are not having a conversation about gun laws, legalities, or responsibility........

And before I get jumped, I'm not saying you can't do this, but you need to know the law. Part of what I'm getting at is that if you go this route, yes you can avoid an upfront background check. But you are still subject to the restrictions of the feds and your state. And if you can't pass a background check, or successfully fill out a 4473, you can't be "100% legal" in turning an 80% receiver into a firearm.

So now we are back to the enforcement of existing laws......that some people keep looking for ways around.

Actually I would like to see the rules on the short run building of personal firearms loosened. Make it so you can build one, and build in mechanisms for transfer.......oh like say the current system of background checks, to get these legal firearms into the stream, and out of the dark.

But then again, I may just be paranoid and have too much tinfoil on my head.........
http://ec.tynt.com/b/rf?id=dN1xeGz_Wr4A0Kacwqm_6l&u=Ammoland​


----------



## DallanC

*From the ATF / DOJ: *http://www.nibin.gov/content/it-leg...lable-parts-kits-can-be-purchased-internet-or



> For your information, per provisions of the Gun Control Act (GCA) of 1968, 18 U.S.C. Chapter 44, an *unlicensed individual *may make a "firearm" as defined in the GCA for his own personal use, *but not for sale or distribution.*





> _Individuals manufacturing sporting-type firearms for their own use *need not hold Federal Firearms Licenses *(FFLs). However, we *suggest *that the manufacturer at least identify the firearm with a serial number as a safeguard in the event that the firearm is lost or stolen. Also, the firearm *should *be identified as required in 27 CFR 478.92* if it is sold or otherwise lawfully transferred *in the future. _


-DallanC


----------



## Stickboy

To the main discussion, this is death by a thousand cuts. "What part of our rights can we give up to help"? I ask what are you trying to solve? Is it people dying? Is it people dying by firearm? Is it people dying by firearm in a group of three or more? Is seems it is what ever your brand of media is covering is what the average person draws thier attention to. And for awhile it has been deaths by firearm in a group of three or more. And for some reason more laws will keep someone from doing this. No it will not. 

Bad things happen to good people all the time, even when you make it illegal. "Make their tools harder to get and it won't happen as often". You really need to get to know the average person that is for gun control, they will not stop if you give them NICS checks on PPT's. They will not stop if you give them standard cap Mags. 

They want everything you are willing to let them have. You would like an example you say? Look west. Grab your favorite beverage and do some research on gun laws in California. Start in 1989. Don't just look at what is on the books, but also look at what has been proposed and made it through the finance committee. These are the restictions that are desired by your average gun control advocate. Even if they don't know it yet.

Out here we are finally at full registration for both handguns and long guns. That's not 4473's, that is a maintained data base that we pay to have maintained by an assessed fee at each transfer. It only took 20 years. 

The whole reason PPT were left out of the Brady Bill is because the federal government is to be restricted from being able to track firearm ownership. If you require NICS on every transfer, it is no longer reasonable to expect they are not.


----------



## Lonetree

DallanC said:


> *From the ATF / DOJ: *http://www.nibin.gov/content/it-leg...lable-parts-kits-can-be-purchased-internet-or
> 
> -DallanC


Dallan

Assembling kit guns from parts is not the same as "manufacturing" from "scratch"(80%) receivers. You just shot down Airborne's example about importing "machine guns". Parts kits are very different from machined receivers and scratch built firearms. The receiver used or rebuilt in a kit was already a firearm, where an unmachined receiver is not a firearm, until it gets machined into one. When you turn an 80% receiver into a firearm, or build a receiver from scratch, there are transfer restrictions on the part of the owner/manufacturer.


----------



## Lonetree

Stickboy said:


> To the main discussion, this is death by a thousand cuts. "What part of our rights can we give up to help"? I ask what are you trying to solve? Is it people dying? Is it people dying by firearm? Is it people dying by firearm in a group of three or more? Is seems it is what ever your brand of media is covering is what the average person draws thier attention to. And for awhile it has been deaths by firearm in a group of three or more. And for some reason more laws will keep someone from doing this. No it will not.
> 
> Bad things happen to good people all the time, even when you make it illegal. "Make their tools harder to get and it won't happen as often". You really need to get to know the average person that is for gun control, they will not stop if you give them NICS checks on PPT's. They will not stop if you give them standard cap Mags.
> 
> They want everything you are willing to let them have. You would like an example you say? Look west. Grab your favorite beverage and do some research on gun laws in California. Start in 1989. Don't just look at what is on the books, but also look at what has been proposed and made it through the finance committee. These are the restictions that are desired by your average gun control advocate. Even if they don't know it yet.
> 
> Out here we are finally at full registration for both handguns and long guns. That's not 4473's, that is a maintained data base that we pay to have maintained by an assessed fee at each transfer. It only took 20 years.
> 
> The whole reason PPT were left out of the Brady Bill is because the federal government is to be restricted from being able to track firearm ownership. If you require NICS on every transfer, it is no longer reasonable to expect they are not.


Start by looking at fire arms laws from 200 years ago. Conceal carry laws, open carry laws, actual ownership, etc. With the exception of '1936, and '1968 _firearms_ acts(both were based around autofire to a large degree) and some might included '86(clarified '68 , it is an unequivocal wholesale expansion of gun rights and ownership.

Seriously take a look at 1880 something gun laws anywhere in the West and tell me otherwise..............


----------



## RandomElk16

Lonetree said:


> Start by looking at fire arms laws from 200 years ago. Conceal carry laws, open carry laws, actual ownership, etc. With the exception of '1936, and '1968 _firearms_ acts(both were based around autofire to a large degree) and some might included '86(clarified '68 , it is an unequivocal wholesale expansion of gun rights and ownership.
> 
> Seriously take a look at 1880 something gun laws anywhere in the West and tell me otherwise..............


Lets not forget state level though. I can't buy a 50 cal in California? What a joke!!


----------



## Lonetree

RandomElk16 said:


> Lets not forget state level though. I can't buy a 50 cal in California? What a joke!!


That is a regulation of a firearm, and yes it is ridiculous, but does that infringe upon your right to bear arms? No. Which after the quite recent Heller vs DC decision is now considered a personal right, yet another expansion of the Second Amendment. Prior to Heller, there was, and still is a lot of case law going back to the founding that does not recognize the Second Amendment as a _personal_ right.

While the supreme court did make this expansion, it upheld the long establish case law going back to the founding on regulation. This specifically struck down the handgun ban in DC, but left in place the mechanisms of local regulation of firearms, mag restrictions, etc. Whether you agree with it or not, it goes all the way back to founders.

Can anyone cite something besides '36, '68, and '86? Anything to do demonstrate an actual contraction of rights under the Second Amendment.


----------



## Stickboy

I don't believe your definition of gun rights and mine are the same. If I interpret your comment correctly you are saying the Brady bill and slick willies modern sporting firearm ban as an expansion of my rights? It is early, I was up late, LT please clarify.


----------



## Lonetree

Stickboy said:


> I don't believe your definition of gun rights and mine are the same. If I interpret your comment correctly you are saying the Brady bill and slick willies modern sporting firearm ban as an expansion of my rights? It is early, I was up late, LT please clarify.


The '94 ban does not exist anymore. I was there when it happened, I watch the book double in size, I watched as an investor(uneducated on firearms law) backed out of production of my first rifle design. I then watched as the book went back to what it was before, the expiration of the '94 act was another victory for us.

Explain how the Brady bill, signed by Reagan(Californian) and supported by both Bushs infringes on your _personal_ right to own a firearm?

BTW, my definitions tend to hold up in court.


----------



## BPturkeys

So, NRA President Wayne LaPierre says we we don't need more background checks, we need to make smaller holes in the already existing net...100% correct. Obama's new regulations demanding the "gunshow loophole" be closed is exactly an example of that! NRA President Wayne LaPierre says we need to understand and somehow stop the sale to the mentally ill by finally getting their names and info into the background check system...100% correct. Obama proposes and actually challenges congress to fund this exact thing! NRA President Wayne LaPierre says we need to stop felons, gang bangers, and other criminals from owning guns...100% correct. So, just listen, without predisposed ideas, without interrupting so you can try and make some sound bite rebuttal, listen without conspiratorial ear plugs, just listen without the Obama hatred that has guided and been used by so many politicians lately, just sit there and listen to what Obama is really saying! Both these men are really on the same side! Stop the hate driven reactions, stop letting the money driven media(from both sides) with their sound bite answers make up your mind for you.


----------



## Stickboy

Very simple. If I want to purchase a new weapon, I go thru a dealer. If I go thru a dealer the federal government has access to information that confirms I am an owner. That infringes on freely enjoying my right. How can you argue that information will never be used in the future?You can't.

You were around. Why did they purposely leave out PPT's? If by your def of no rights were infringed why didn't it happen then? 

BTW it was unlawful for the San bernadeno two to get weapons from their neighbor without a PPT in this state, it didn't seem to slow them down.

You have talked about your street cred in being as builder and class 3 owner, have you done any reading on the composition of the second and the real impetus behind it? I'm sure you have, it has nothing to do with hunting.


----------



## Lonetree

Stickboy said:


> Very simple. If I want to purchase a new weapon, I go thru a dealer. If I go thru a dealer the federal government has access to information that confirms I am an owner. That infringes on freely enjoying my right. How can you argue that information will never be used in the future?You can't.
> 
> You were around. Why did they purposely leave out PPT's? If by your def of no rights were infringed why didn't it happen then?
> 
> BTW it was unlawful for the San bernadeno two to get weapons from their neighbor without a PPT in this state, it didn't seem to slow them down.
> 
> You have talked about your street cred in being as builder and class 3 owner, have you done any reading on the composition of the second and the real impetus behind it? I'm sure you have, it has nothing to do with hunting.


Round and round....but still going no where.

The feds do not have your info, the state of California does. This is regulation, not infringement. potentials and possibilities do not infringe on your rights, they are theoretic, you have not shown how any of this prevents you from firearm ownership. Or how any of it is unlawful. Like I said it is all being done under much more lenient laws than we had 150 years ago WRT to firearm ownership, which back then were legally not considered a personal right as they are now.

I never said that a new law would have prevented San Bernadeno, that's your stickman or is it strawman? argument, just like the hunting quip about hunting and the Second Amendment.

I've warmed up two spindles and have barrel trunions being kicked out on the lathe, and handles running on the mill. Yet the "jackbooted thugs" from the ATF have not kicked in the door, nor have you shown a salient cohesive argument for suppression of the Second Amendment.

My first rifle design: 



 Just for street cred........


----------



## Lonetree

BPturkeys said:


> So, NRA President Wayne LaPierre says we we don't need more background checks, we need to make smaller holes in the already existing net...100% correct. Obama's new regulations demanding the "gunshow loophole" be closed is exactly an example of that! NRA President Wayne LaPierre says we need to understand and somehow stop the sale to the mentally ill by finally getting their names and info into the background check system...100% correct. Obama proposes and actually challenges congress to fund this exact thing! NRA President Wayne LaPierre says we need to stop felons, gang bangers, and other criminals from owning guns...100% correct. So, just listen, without predisposed ideas, without interrupting so you can try and make some sound bite rebuttal, listen without conspiratorial ear plugs, just listen without the Obama hatred that has guided and been used by so many politicians lately, just sit there and listen to what Obama is really saying! Both these men are really on the same side! Stop the hate driven reactions, stop letting the money driven media(from both sides) with their sound bite answers make up your mind for you.


BP, the NRA does not want solutions. They have become one of those institutions that exist, for the sole purpose of furthering their existence. They are becoming a liability that does not know how to capitalize on their(our) successes, that will ultimately turn them into our demise.

After OKC, much of what was sown, was sown too deep, and now its rotting.


----------



## Lonetree

Stickboy, Oh never mind, I get it, you are anti states rights? Much of this cuts both ways.


----------



## Stickboy

I disagree. We are getting somewhere. You observe that the state I currently reside in has infringed on my rights. We just have to get your reading glasses on so you can see that federally we are moving in that direction.

I am all for states rights, up until they infringe on my constitutional rights. And you do observer that since I have made the choice to live behind the iron curtain, under no duress, that my rights have been infringed. You realy feel Barry, Hillary, and my any town homey Bloomberg doesn't want to move the nation in the direction of Cali?

So it appears from previous posts you are against 80% builds, unless they are serialized. Do you care to elaborate? Is it not ok for me to build my own receiver without an FFL?

I really do appreciate the discussion, I feel I am really learning something here.


----------



## Lonetree

Stickboy said:


> I disagree. We are getting somewhere. You observe that the state I currently reside in has infringed on my rights. We just have to get your reading glasses on so you can see that federally we are moving in that direction.
> 
> I am all for states rights, up until they infringe on my constitutional rights. And you do observer that since I have made the choice to live behind the iron curtain, under no duress, that my rights have been infringed. You realy feel Barry, Hillary, and my any town homey Bloomberg doesn't want to move the nation in the direction of Cali?
> 
> So it appears from previous posts you are against 80% builds, unless they are serialized. Do you care to elaborate? Is it not ok for me to build my own receiver without an FFL?
> 
> I really do appreciate the discussion, I feel I am really learning something here.


Reading glasses? Look who can't read. This is just more peripheral non-arguments because you can't make an actual case.......:?

80% receivers: I never said that. Dallen, and most people for that matter just do not understand the law. I have helped several people machine their receivers back in the day. Yes, of course you should be able to build your own.

While we are making irrelevant side argument though, why? You can buy a complete one cheaper that probably works better. People build them because they think they are getting away with something, and some do it illegally. (Edit: I will add that many do it to build them better, just for the skill of it, or to include unavailable features, I can't fault that)I've never built one because they are NOT transferable, except by inheritance. If we are going to make the law abiding gun owner arguments, lets make them and live it. You know, those existing laws. ......

You have yet to show infringement. ALL rights can be, and are regulated. Trying to associate me with Hillary and Bloomberg does not change the reality of this, or your inability to make the case for infringement or contractions of the Second Amendment. Reality and actual case law prove you wrong on the matter.

I'm still waiting for someone to show me a real actual contraction and infringement of Second Amendment rights, since the Second Amendment was enumerated. Anyone? Is it the expansion of open and conceal carry laws?, The expiration of the '94 assault weapons ban? The Liberal Supreme Court ruling that the Second Amendment is a personal right?

Some people can't see the forest for trees, or the clear cuts left surround by a ring of them......


----------



## DallanC

Lonetree said:


> 80% receivers: I never said that. Dallen, and most people for that matter just do not understand the law. I have helped several people machine their receivers back in the day. Yes, of course you should be able to build your own.


Pot, meet kettle.

http://aresarmor.com/store/FAQ



> *Do I need to put serial numbers on the ar15-ar10-1911 firearms that I make?*
> 
> A licensed Manufacturer has an agreement with the government to put serial numbers on the weapons they make. You as a private individual who is making a firearm for personal use and not for sale of distribution have no agreement with the government to serialize your firearm.
> 
> It is a good idea to mark your weapon somehow so that should it ever be stolen you have a way to identify it and report its loss to your local law enforcement.


http://www.80percentarms.com/pages/faq



> *From the ATF:*_Individuals manufacturing sporting-type firearms for their own use need not hold Federal Firearms Licenses (FFLs). However, we suggest that the manufacturer at least identify the firearm with a serial number as a safeguard in the event that the firearm is lost or stolen. Also, the firearm should be identified as required in 27 CFR 478.92 if it is sold or otherwise lawfully transferred in the future. _
> Source: http://www.atf.gov/firearms/faq/firearms-technology.html


http://www.tacticalmachining.com/learn/80-lower-receiver.html



> *Do I need an FFL to make a firearm?*
> 
> In a short answer, no. As long as you can legally own the firearm in the state, county and city you reside in you are allowed to manufacture a firearm for your own personal use. *No serial number is required *however it is suggested to engrave a serial number, model and manufacturer on your receiver in case it is lost or stolen.


http://www.polymer80.com/FAQ_ep_51.html



> *Is it legal to assemble a firearm from commercially available parts kits that can be purchased via internet or shotgun news? (From the ATF website: http://www.atf.gov/firearms/faq/firearms-technology.html) *
> "For your information, per provisions of the Gun Control Act (GCA) of 1968, 18 U.S.C. Chapter 44, an unlicensed individual may make a firearm as defined in the GCA for his own personal use, but not for sale or distribution." For further information on rulings and classifications go to the ATF Firearms website:


Here's a proposed bill to require serial #'s... why the need for a bill if they weren't required?

http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/13-14/bill/sen/sb_0801-0850/sb_808_cfa_20140123_092503_sen_comm.html

Really, not sure why I am letting myself get sucked into this argument... I think I'll bow out of it. Its rather pointless to argue.

-DallanC


----------



## Lonetree

This is why I said I was not going to wade too deep into this. It is never a real coherent conversation with facts or solutions, because you can't move either side into reality, to even start anything that looks like sanity. Frankly the extremes on both sides of this argument need mental health evaluations, this goes for La Pierre and Billary. 

I'm out, the green button is calling for me to change parts and make real progress.......on firearms, or at least parts of them anyway.

I'm just not as passionate about this as I am about real actual threats.


----------



## Lonetree

DallanC said:


> Pot, meet kettle.
> 
> http://aresarmor.com/store/FAQ
> 
> http://www.80percentarms.com/pages/faq
> 
> http://www.tacticalmachining.com/learn/80-lower-receiver.html
> 
> http://www.polymer80.com/FAQ_ep_51.html
> 
> Here's a proposed bill to require serial #'s... why the need for a bill if they weren't required?
> 
> http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/13-14/bill/sen/sb_0801-0850/sb_808_cfa_20140123_092503_sen_comm.html
> 
> Really, not sure why I am letting myself get sucked into this argument... I think I'll bow out of it. Its rather pointless to argue.
> 
> -DallanC


Your entire argument hinges on your belief that I said something I did not.

Earlier you could not tell the difference between parts kits, and 80% receivers, based on links posted by you(info on parts kits to support 80% receiver claims).

And this is still, of course, a side argument from the issue at hand. Because you can't show me an actual reduction of firearms rights, because it is just the opposite. So the conversation will be nothing but you boys pointing and saying lefty, while ignoring the fact that the inability to harness and own the current trend of these expansions of rights will be our downfall. And it won't come from boogie men on the left, it will be by our own design, and lack of ability to own the great responsibility that we have grown.


----------



## BPturkeys

Lonetree said:


> ... Because you can't show me an actual reduction of firearms rights, because it is just the opposite. So the conversation will be nothing but you boys pointing and saying lefty, while ignoring the fact that the inability to harness and own the current trend of these expansions of rights will be our downfall. And it won't come from boogie men on the left, it will be by our own design, and lack of ability to own the great responsibility that we have grown.


Well said LT, and with that, I too am out(really, this is my last post on the subject)


----------



## Stickboy

Ahaha! You admitt that my rights are infringed by the state I live in then ask for an example? Ahaha! Man. Is it because it is a state regulation and not federal? You know.....the constitution also needs to be considered when developing state regulations. How is this not an example of infringement?

Also, You may want to brush up on intrafamila transfers of 80%'rs.


----------



## Trooper

If you are looking for a "crackdown" instead of reasonable safety regulation, keep dreaming up things like "intrafamilia transfers of 80% r's". If you make it so no simple solution can work, guess what you are going to get?


----------



## Lonetree

Stickboy said:


> Ahaha! You admitt that my rights are infringed by the state I live in then ask for an example? Ahaha! Man. Is it because it is a state regulation and not federal? You know.....the constitution also needs to be considered when developing state regulations. How is this not an example of infringement?
> 
> Also, You may want to brush up on intrafamila transfers of 80%'rs.


I'll preface this with "I should know better"........

ALL technicalities, that still don't even begin to touch on the bigger, far more important issue, which is lost on you.

None of it is infringement, because none of it removes your personal right to own firearms, it only regulates the forms and means of ownership. If you look at the entirety of the Second Amendment, and the case law that goes with it, you will see why over 200 years of case law, rooted in the founders themselves, justifies _regulation_. And with current law clarifying prohibitions, and declaring the Second Amendment to be a personal right, the argument for regulation becomes that much more clear based on the same decisions. You can't play it both ways.

Transfer of self manufactured firearms, which is severely limited, requires documentation, which I already mentioned. I own a manual. And _technically_ you can transfer an "80%'r" to anyone, because they are not firearms, until they are machined, at which point things change, because they are now firearms, with transfer restrictions. Which I already stated that I would like to see loosened, er, uh......._regulated_ in order to make transfers to more than family possible. The crux is that would require these arms and the people buying them to enter the current system, which "pro gun" people are against.

You are still missing the forest, or possibly lack there of, because faux battles are more important than actual wars to some of you.


----------



## Stickboy

Ok. Let's see the Forrest. 

A federally mandated (regulated) universal background check for every transfer will do______. Please fill in the blank for me LT. Please include all benefits as you see them.


----------



## Lonetree

Stickboy said:


> Ok. Let's see the Forrest.
> 
> A federally mandated (regulated) universal background check for every transfer will do______. Please fill in the blank for me LT. Please include all benefits as you see them.


I already gave you an example, one of the best by the way.

I'll deffer to La Pierre and Obama on the rest, as it has already been detailed quite eloquently by BP.

Plain and simple, some people should not be allowed to own fire arms. Like has been mentioned here, some people think I should not be able to. But if that question of fitness is well defined and agreed upon, with due process for recourse, then we start to address the elephant in the room, which is that some people should not be able to own firearms.

This is not a question of the proletariat, or egalitarian access to rights. If we keep throwing our selves in the same category as those on a terrorist watch list(I'm guessing most should be on there) then that's where we are telling the world that we belong, while making the "law abiding gun owner" argument, it does not add up.

It's like people in the MJ legalization movement(I hate to use the analogy) that put some stoner out there telling us half coherently how "you can make rope out of it", while being stoned out of their minds. As long as we play the paranoid, persecuted role, that's what we are going to get, and much of it by the design of some people.

Out..........................


----------



## RandomElk16

Lonetree said:


> Because you can't show me an actual reduction of firearms rights.


I was joking in my last post, but seriously... States and cities have made many laws reducing firearm rights. So you just mean Federal correct?

And further, you earlier mentioned Concealed Carry, but the fact is I can not drive cross country with my firearm loaded on my side and be legal in all states. This is a bit of an issue. I hate that gun rights are not Uniform.


----------



## Lonetree

RandomElk16 said:


> I was joking in my last post, but seriously... States and cities have made many laws reducing firearm rights. So you just mean Federal correct?
> 
> And further, you earlier mentioned Concealed Carry, but the fact is I can not drive cross country with my firearm loaded on my side and be legal in all states. This is a bit of an issue. I hate that gun rights are not Uniform.


Oh............temptation.

But this is good, it really is. On a state level is where we have seen some of the biggest expansions of Second Amendment rights, open(I have a few issues here on certain levels) and concealed carry laws(I don't pack anymore, and I've made it through a few shootings). At the same time at a federal level we have seen much the same thing, ie. Heller vs Dc.

After Heller you really can't make the case for reduced or prohibited firearms rights, even at the local level. We need to embrace that.

The only way for uniformity is federal law. I'm actually alright with some of this staying on a state level though. But for uniformity to exist federally, I would expect a tightening of CCP requirements(not entirely bad), in exchange for expansions of background checks, and fire arms documentations. I bet I could get the Senate to vote something like 97% against something like that :mrgreen:

On many levels it is not us verses them, and the us verses us needs to be dealt with.


----------



## RandomElk16

Lonetree said:


> On a state level is where we have seen some of the biggest expansions of Second Amendment rights


So, California hasn't taken any rights? It is easy to purchase a firearm in Chicago? I can buy assault rifles, 50 cals, and can have a mag or clip any size I want in all states?

I want stuff at a state level only because I don't want california laws to be national. Otherwise, it seems states restrict owners more than federal law requires. Luckily, we are ********.

Edit: I get your point; But we cannot ignore that states have restricted the second amendment. We also can't be naive and believe that without a heavy push back by gun owners, there would probably be more laws both state and national restricting the second amendment.


----------



## RandomElk16

Lonetree said:


> And this is still, of course, a side argument from the issue at hand. Because you can't show me an actual reduction of firearms rights, because it is just the opposite.
> 
> the current trend of these expansions of rights will be our downfall.


I challenge you this... You say expansion of these rights... That we have expanded these rights.

Isn't that all based on what rights were initially put into the constitution? The right to arms could mean in any way shape or form. The view of politicians might expand, but really one could argue any law restricting firearm access in anyway is a reduction, not an expansion.

Sure, I can concealed carry. When the constitution was written I could ride around with a loaded gun too. Big deal.


----------



## Lonetree

RandomElk16 said:


> I challenge you this... You say expansion of these rights... That we have expanded these rights.
> 
> Isn't that all based on what rights were initially put into the constitution? The right to arms could mean in any way shape or form. The view of politicians might expand, but really one could argue any law restricting firearm access in anyway is a reduction, not an expansion.
> 
> Sure, I can concealed carry. When the constitution was written I could ride around with a loaded gun too. Big deal.


Wow....pardner, you need to check those guns before you come into town.......From the 1600s to now, there have been local ordinances in place against public carry, across the country. There is a lot of myth surrounding the "Wild West" and other eras for that matter.

Also, now you can ride around with a loaded gun in your car, not too many years ago that was not the case.

From the enumeration of the Second Amendment until Heller, the Second Amendment was not _legally_ recognized as a personal right, and we have over 200 years of laws that reflect that, going back to the very men that created and signed the constitution. George Washington viewed through the lens of the Whiskey rebellion will bring things into sharp, clear focus. After Heller you could buy a handgun in Chicago and DC, because that is your Federally protected right. But the states, and local municipalities have a say in how those _firearms_ are _regulated_, this can include all kinds of things such as magazines, etc.

Just because their are regulations in place, does not mean that your rights are being infringed, encroached, or _restricted_. I disagree with allot of what is in the book, suppressors, certain NFA and AOW categories for example. But these are regulations and restrictions. I can own them, but there are regulations that dictate the terms of those owner ships, but not the explicit RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS.

Not all of this is about perspective, which is the problem here, it is about actualities, legal definitions(which mattered to the founders), and how all of that plays out. The perspective comes into play as to how we, and the other side of the coin, views the last 30 years of firearms rights expansions, and how that perspective affects what either side can do with the actualities.

Currently some gun owners are pissing it away. Sorry, I know that's not popular, but it's not a popularity contest.


----------



## gdog

http://www.ksl.com/?sid=38045759&nid=757&title=gun-control-in-america-how-we-got-here&s_cid=queue-5

"WASHINGTON (CNN) - On at least six occasions in the last 100 years, lawmakers and the White House have come together to agree on significant overhauls to federal gun law.

But on Tuesday, President Barack Obama - frequently foiled by Congress on this issue - decided to go it alone, unveiling a series of executive actions designed to help prevent gun violence.

The President will make the case for his decision, and try to convince the public more steps are needed, during an hour-long town hall on CNN Thursday night.

As a primer, here's a look back at the evolution of gun law in America............"


----------



## Hoopermat

To see people on here argue this issue is interesting. 
If you are the person that says I don't need a 30 round mag or I am a hunter so as long as I have my rife I'm ok. Then you are WRONG. You need to fix yourself. 
Do you really think once the control groups have all of the scary guns banned they are going to stop. If you do your crazy. They are after everyone's guns not just the open carry guys or the defensive pistol guys. They are after YOURS. And the guns are not the only prize they have their eyes on. They want your freedom. And they are going to get it the same way they are going to get your guns. Just because you own a gun how does that make your opinion worth anything. Like owning a car makes you an expert. Unless people wake up and stop believing everything you see on the TV. We need to be united not divided. 
As far as I am concerned if you are the type that thinks these are reasonable laws and your willing to let your freedom go then you are the enemy. You do not speak for all of us that do not want to watch our freedoms be hacked up a thousand times. 
I personally love the constitution THE WHOLE THING. And the men that gave life and created this country would not stand for this type of government over stepping it's established limits.


----------



## Hoopermat

If you truly want more information please look up
John Lott at
http://crimeresearch.org
Also 
This guy is kind of the randy newburg of the constitution and second amendment rights
http://www.studentofthegun.com/blog/2015/10/smashing-the-gun-control-argument-in-3-easy-steps/


----------



## RandomElk16

Lonetree said:


> Wow....pardner, you need to check those guns before you come into town.......From the 1600s to now, there have been local ordinances in place against public carry, across the country. There is a lot of myth surrounding the "Wild West" and other eras for that matter. Yeah, I know that in the city (very small towns) carrying wasn't allowed. You would check your gun at the Sheriffs office. Tombstone was 1/7 the size of Ogden. Just over 4 square miles. When you left the town, you could have your weapon loaded and with you. Gun laws, as shown in the KSL article and if you read more, restricted the type of weapons over time. There was good reason for these cities to have those laws at the time. But still, this is all based on different areas interpretation of the 2nd amendment. All these interpretations can be viewed as restrictions. Thats like saying you have the right to free speech, but if and only if you have X permit, can't say X words, can't say words in this city, etc.... How is that expansion of rights? Its a restriction.
> 
> Also, now you can ride around with a loaded gun in your car, not too many years ago that was not the case. Not in every state, you absolutely CAN NOT drive through all 50 states with a loaded gun in your car, and that type of gun may not be legal in some. Ammunition laws, concealment laws, HCM laws, etc change and your UTAH rights don't carry over through all these states. I can't drive coast to coast with a loaded gun on my side without breaking the law.
> 
> From the enumeration of the Second Amendment until Heller, the Second Amendment was not _legally_ recognized as a personal right, and we have over 200 years of laws that reflect that, going back to the very men that created and signed the constitution. George Washington viewed through the lens of the Whiskey rebellion will bring things into sharp, clear focus. After Heller you could buy a handgun in Chicago and DC, because that is your Federally protected right. But the states, and local municipalities have a say in how those _firearms_ are _regulated_, this can include all kinds of things such as magazines, etc. Really, pretty sure Chicago had banned gun stores for a long time. That is beyond a regulation. I shouldn't have to jump through a million hoops for the freedoms that people fight for. That doesn't make it a right or a freedom. Right: a moral or legal entitlement to have or obtain something or to act in a certain way. If you keep changing the rules, this isn't much of a right anymore. If you have the right to use the bathroom at work, but I set a bunch of restrictions, you may piss your pants. Did I infringe on your right? I set regulations in place, so it should be acceptable yeah? I actually expanded on your right by setting those rules in place, even though they led to piss in your pants. It all is about interpretation of the degree of that right.
> 
> Just because their are regulations in place, does not mean that your rights are being infringed, encroached, or _restricted_.Yeah, it does. That right, when written, didn't have a whole bunch of requirements that I need to meet to gain it. I am an american citizen. The founding fathers gave me that right. They didn't say you have the right, sometimes, in some places, to some degree, when you follow these rules, and only in certain states, and these rights are subject to change.


Red.


----------



## RandomElk16

Seriously.. chicago had a ban on owning, selling, and transporting handguns for 28 years. How isn't that an infringement? I am pretty sure when it finally was overturned, it is shown it was an infringement. 

Oh, PS... what did crime rates look like over those 28 years? Further, what kind of profit do you think gangs made off the sale of firearms that they used for various criminal activities? The infringement of these rights went way further than gun owners... it fueled a criminal black market. And, these criminals had no reason to fear the average citizen. They couldn't have protection.


----------



## High Desert Elk

"A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed."

Seems to me that yes, it is and has been a right from the start. This means that the government alone on a federal (or national in 1789) level was not ever supposed to be the only entity to have and keep arms for the security of a free state. What happens if the federal government falls? Then what? To ensure a free state, there needs to be a back up.

Did the founders anticipate the Constitution to be debated with attempt to change its meaning? Yes, that's why the 9th Amendment was put in as well:

"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

The right to keep and bear arms means the right to own and use arms. That is a right granted that cannot be taken away or misconstrued to mean it is not a right.

Again, the Constitution is not a difficult document unless you want it to be. The reason some audiences hate it so much is because it is hard to argue the simple and true logic it presents.

I would dare say the gentlemen who wrote its original and debated it to be ratified were a heck of a lot smarter than any of today's congressman or supreme court justices ever thought of being.


----------



## Stickboy

Trooper said:


> If you are looking for a "crackdown" instead of reasonable safety regulation, keep dreaming up things like "intrafamilia transfers of 80% r's". If you make it so no simple solution can work, guess what you are going to get?


Trooper my comment was inferring that LT was not correct in his assertion that 80%'rs can be transferred/inherited. Personally I have nothing against anyone who takes on the ownership of personally constructed weapons, but they are not for me. At least half LEO's are flat not familiar with them. If you are stopped and your weapon inspected for safety purposes, they see no serial number a wig out. Not worth the hassle for me. As I understand it however, under NO circumstances can you transfer a weapon you built from an 80% lower, unless you are licensed to do so. Not even intrafamilia. For anyone considering taking on the venture of an 80% build, please consult a GOOD firearms litigator....period. It is worth a half hour of attorneys fees.


----------



## Stickboy

Lonetree said:


> I already gave you an example, one of the best by the way.
> 
> I'll deffer to La Pierre and Obama on the rest, as it has already been detailed quite eloquently by BP.
> 
> Plain and simple, some people should not be allowed to own fire arms. Like has been mentioned here, some people think I should not be able to. But if that question of fitness is well defined and agreed upon, with due process for recourse, then we start to address the elephant in the room, which is that some people should not be able to own firearms.
> 
> This is not a question of the proletariat, or egalitarian access to rights. If we keep throwing our selves in the same category as those on a terrorist watch list(I'm guessing most should be on there) then that's where we are telling the world that we belong, while making the "law abiding gun owner" argument, it does not add up.
> 
> It's like people in the MJ legalization movement(I hate to use the analogy) that put some stoner out there telling us half coherently how "you can make rope out of it", while being stoned out of their minds. As long as we play the paranoid, persecuted role, that's what we are going to get, and much of it by the design of some people.
> 
> Out..........................


Ok I think I can start making out the picture, still a little fuzzy though.

It is your perspective that we should include other classification of folks in the prohibited to own section. Set down with the stake holders, build a consensus on the additional folks that should not own. Provide for this new class due process and recourse. Sublet to universal background checks nation wide for all transactions. By doing this firearm related deaths will decline by "X" percent. At the culmination of said decline, Bloomy will now lift and shift anytown's focus on Soda Pop and the remaining gun owners will be left alone in peace. We would no longer be harassed with the need for further "regulation".

I just don't see that as realistic, even without my tinfoil on.

What do you do about the stolen/illegal weapons in circulation? This market feeds the socioeconomically diverse inner city crowd. Those folks are gonna still be bangin'. I just can't see making a dent in that portion of the firearm deaths.

Care to help the trees become more focused? What am I missing?


----------



## Mr Muleskinner

Stickboy said:


> Ok I think I can start making out the picture, still a little fuzzy though.
> 
> It is your perspective that we should include other classification of folks in the prohibited to own section. Set down with the stake holders, build a consensus on the additional folks that should not own. Provide for this new class due process and recourse. Sublet to universal background checks nation wide for all transactions. By doing this firearm related deaths will decline by "X" percent. At the culmination of said decline, Bloomy will now lift and shift anytown's focus on Soda Pop and the remaining gun owners will be left alone in peace. We would no longer be harassed with the need for further "regulation".
> 
> I just don't see that as realistic, even without my tinfoil on.
> 
> What do you do about the stolen/illegal weapons in circulation? This market feeds the socioeconomically diverse inner city crowd. Those folks are gonna still be bangin'. I just can't see making a dent in that portion of the firearm deaths.
> 
> Care to help the trees become more focused? What am I missing?


Nothing.

There are some people here and all over America that seem to think that we must give up some rights or collectively choose which ones are not as important as others so we can protect the ones that we absolutely must have. More socialism anybody?

These same people also willingly admit and seem somewhat comfortable with the fact now that current laws are not enforced properly to begin with. They have grown comfortable enough with this fact that they have now decided to give in to those unwilling to force real change and join their ranks just in the hope of naming something.......anything.......Progress.

They like that word because they want to believe that they are "doers"...."thinkers"....they are "progressive". They will fight until the end of time to keep from being labeled what they really are and have claimed to have hated since they "got involved" with anything.

SELLOUTS!


----------

