I consider myself "politically purple"...Quote:
Originally Posted by FyredUp
Printable View
I consider myself "politically purple"...Quote:
Originally Posted by FyredUp
The words of the Founding Fathers:
Attachment 22706
Their intent for the 2nd Ammendment seems cystal clear to me.
An example of what could be:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fGaDA...e_gdata_player
No, you gave me information on the "one of the favorite weapons of choice." Is that the only option? Is that the only way? If the answer is no....its not a need....it's a choice.Quote:
Originally Posted by Catch22
Clueless, yet you were the one telling me to work on getting my state laws to the level of yours....and yet mine are already higher. Why don't you work to bring your state up to my states level?Quote:
Originally Posted by FyredUp
Happening near me too. Reason being that someone was hunting in woods next to a school and the gun shots caused a panic. Expanding the Gun Free Zone will help move the hunters farther away.Quote:
Originally Posted by LaFireEducator
PS - has nothing to do with stopping the next school shooter.
Because law abiding citizens don't need more laws to restrict their rights. Actually I prefer to think your state needs to be returned to the rights that my state has versus mine being dragged down to a lesser set of rights like your state has.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bones42
Quote:
Requirements for Purchasing Machine Guns, Silencers, or Short Barreled Rifles/Shotguns
It is a common misconception that machine guns, silencers (suppressors), sawed-off shotguns, and short barreled rifles are illegal to own. This is entirely untrue. Your Constitutional Right to Bear Arms is guaranteed by the Bill of Rights. The National Firearms Act of 1934 (Title 26, USC Chapter 53) and the Gun Control Act of 1968 make formal provisions for the private ownership of these weapons. Individuals (ie. non-firearms dealer or police dept.) are allowed to purchase machineguns that are classified as "Transferable", that is, weapons that were registered as machine guns prior to May of 1986. Since there are a finite number of these weapons, prices are continually rising. Silencers, Sawed-off Shotguns, and Short Barreled Rifles are still in current productions, so the prices of these items remains fairly constant. For an Individual the requirements to purchase these weapons are:
1. Be a US Citizen at least 21 years old
2. Be of sane mind
3. Not an abuser of drugs or alcohol
4. Have never been convicted of a felony
5. Pay a $200.00 Federal Transfer Tax on each weapon purchased. (This is a one-time tax, not a yearly tax)
6. Fill out BATF Form 4 and submit to ATF. This involves getting a Signature of the "Chief Law Enforcement Officer" in your area signifying that he has no knowledge that you will use your weapon for anything other that lawful purposes
7. Have your fingerprints/photographs taken and submitted to BATF with the above application.
After approximately 90-120 days, during which time the FBI runs your prints to verify your identity, etc., the transfer will come back approved. Only after the transfer is approved can you take possession of your item. It is interesting to note that since 1934, when machine guns, silencers, short shotguns/rifles began to be regulated, there has only been one case of a legally owned weapon being used in a crime - and the user was a police officer.
In areas where a person cannot acquire a Law Enforcement Signature because these people would rather violate your rights than let you own one of these items, there is another way. BATF allows Corporations and Trusts to acquire machine guns, silencers, etc. without having to complete the Law Enforcement Certification part of the form. If you have your own Corporation, or you are an Officer in a Corporation, the Corporation can acquire these items, and you, as a Corporate Officer, can keep the item at your home, take it to the range shooting, etc. just as if the item were registered to you. If the Corporation ever dissolves, the item must be transferred out of the Corporation to another individual or Corporation (or Dealer). Because a Corporation is not a person, an FBI fingerprint check is not required which reduces the transfer approval time to about 30 days. Trusts can be set up by an Attorney and will allow you to transfer the item to the Trust, and will not require the Law Enforcement signature on your paperwork.
Many states allow the ownership of legally registered machine guns, silencers, short-barreled rifles/shotguns. At International Police Supply, we are committed to providing you with the highest quality products and services at the most reasonable prices. Please feel free to e-mail us to discuss your firearms needs or to ask us any questions about acquiring specialized weapons or accessories.
Machineguns are ILLEGAL for individuals in the following States:
DE, DC, HI, NY, WA ; Class 3 dealer only in : CA, IL, IO, KS, MI, NJ, RI, SC
Silencers are ILLEGAL for individuals in the following States (see map below):
DE, DC, HI, IL, MS, MT, NY, NJ, RI; Class 3 dealers only in : CA, KS, MO, MN
An interesting take on today. There are so many laws that everyone is a criminal which induces guilt for all.
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.c...act_id=2203713
I see, we're going to play the "need" game?Quote:
Originally Posted by Bones42
The semi-automatic rifle is the best and most efficient weapon for the purposes I listed. There are times that 10 rounds isn't going to do it in those situations.
If we were a nation build on "need", then we wouldn't have near the toys on our apparatus, would we? We wouldn't have so many pick-ups on the road, because only those that "need" them would have them. We wouldn't have restaurants, because those aren't a "need".
The fact still remains there are several situations where a semi-automatic rifle is the best choice for a certain purpose. If we were truly worried about senseless deaths, the gov't would crack down on repeat offenders, mental health (suicide by guns far outnumbers homocides by any form and there are more that use other means to commit suicide. That doesn't even touch on mentally ill killing others.), drunk driving, and a slew of other problems.
This is about an agenda and politicians trying to appear like they're taking action to gain favor with the public (voters). It's the same reason a number of Democrats won't vote for an AWB- they're afraid of not getting re-elected.
I love the "NEED" argument. I get it from people all the time. What do you NEED guns for, what do you NEED that particular gun for? I agree with Catch 22 and all he said is his comment to you.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bones42
The fact is NO WHERE in the Constitution or any laws of the United States that I am aware of that ownership of anything by private citizens shall be based solely on whether you NEED it or not. If that was the case so many things would disappear from our daily lives. We surely don't NEED TV, especially 100 square inch flat screen HD TVs. We surely don't NEED snowmobiles or ATVs for recreational use, people could walk or snow shoe to be out in mature. We surely don't NEED video games, iPods, Smart phones, computers, PDAs, and all the other electronic gadgetry that people carry around. We for damn sure don't NEED the McMansions of 4000 to 10,000 plus square feet people live in. Most people have no NEED for a 4 door 4 wheel drive pick up truck or a decked out SUV.
So you see if we only base what we get to have on some arbitrary standard of need, and who gets to decide what you or I NEED?
Originally Posted by Catch22
And comparing law-abiding citizens with the extremely-rare mass murderer is even more asinine.
And SC said:
I doubt the parents of those children at Sandy Hook, Columbine, or VA Tech would agree with you.
Sorry for their loss, but just because they don't agree with that statement, doesn't make them right.
And banning magazines and weapons just became impossible.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i2hTE1lOzbw
Why do the law abiding gun owners compare something designed to kill with objects that are not designed to kill?
Adam Lanza's mother was a law abiding gun owner. Her son stole her guns, killed her with them, and then killed some kids and teachers. Then himself.
I believe in changing ways that people can get guns and what guns people can get. Many people disagree. That's fine.
Ask my opinion...I'll tell you.
I'll do what I can about it....but knowing that I am just 1 person I know it will not accomplish much. I don't have the time/funding to fight a group like the NRA. And I don't have any politicians owing me favors to collect on to get them going any further.
That's life.
So you are in fact a member of the anti-gun crowd. You seek to stop criminals and the mentally ill by punitive action on law abiding citizens. Yeah, that doesn't have the makings of yet another doomed to failure anti-gun do nothing proposal.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bones42
Why do the gun control folks refused to acknowledge many things that aren't designed to kill actually kill more than those things designed to kill? Or realize that the bigger problem isn't the "thing" at all, it's the people in control of it?Quote:
Originally Posted by Bones42
I won't argue with that point. There are people who have NO business with a gun. Adam Lanza was one. I'll go so far as to say it was irresponsible of his mother to have guns where he could even get to them, making her part of the problem.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bones42
Another AWB or magazine restrictions aren't going to do a thing to prevent this stuff. It's been proven. If we want to stop (or even minimize) these incidents, we have to be able to find the root cause and figure out how to address that.
How do we identify homicidal or suicidal people? How do we keep guns out of their hands? How do we deal with those who give them guns?
Then we can move to the next step. How do keep the guns out of the hands of criminals?
The biggest part of this whole problem is that we have politicians involved. There are actually those people who believe a bunch of corrupt people looking for the highest bidder, er... Donor... are actually going to find a legitimate answer to a problem.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bones42
I personnally don't want an AR, AK, or anything else. Most people I know that have one have no business with one. They are kids who have never been around a gun, play too many video games and didn't have the cajones to try to join the military, so they like to play soldier. However, that's their right and I believe in supporting that right so long as they are responsible.
Have not heard anyone ever state that.Quote:
Originally Posted by Catch22
No one denies there are more deaths by other methods.
But those other methods have a purpose other than killing. Guns don't. That is what a gun was designed for. That is a little difference.
Ah, the video game theory. I grew up playing Asteroids and Space Invaders. Has not led me to want to be in space shooting aliens. I also played a lot of Pong (the Atari version) and that has not made me want to be a ping pong player.Quote:
Originally Posted by Catch22
No, I don't buy into the video game playing makes someone act certain ways theory. (and there are restrictions on video games as to who can play them....)
Such as killing animals for food? Such as killing those who intend on doing harm to innocent people? They can be used to bring hours and lifetimes of enjoyment through shooting targets. Their intended usage really is not an issue at all except for those who seek a toal ban in a Utopian effort to bring peace to the world. We need guns, they're a necessity in this world, as much as that's not ideal, it's reality, so they're not going away.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bones42
People who have guns will generally be able to weild power over those who don't. While we may not see this like they do in Third World nations, we do see a need right here in the U.S to prevent crime. Guns in the hands of civilians stops literllly countless crimes every week (countless because many go unreported as they often do not result in a shot being fired). Like it or not the police are much like firefighters: we're reactive. The problem must exist before we're called. Much like our efforts to prevent fires have been unsuccessful as a whole, crime has also not been eradicated, thus many choose not to be victims. When seconds count the police are minutes away.
That's not the issue with video games. Unlike the gun grabbers who imply guns actually make people commit crimes, those of us who note the violance in video games and movies are speaking to the point that children are inundated with violence to the point that they are much more desensitized to violence than generations passed. Killing is passe to kids now, whereas wehn I grew up, we had many violent TV shows (few video games) but they almost never showed the actual killing or deaths. Hell the A Team could shoot a millions rounds and no one ever died. Today if it's not graphic it's not on the air long. The video game industry similarly sell more of the most violent games than the other types.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bones42
Do those restrictions work any better than the firearms restrictions on the books? Christ I know plenty of "upstanding" families that buy video games outside the recommended maturity levels for their kids, for fear the kids are ostracized at school for having prudish parents.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bones42
Please, explain to us how the following will stop future mass murders:
banning military looking firearms
banning high capacity magazines
taxing the crap out of ammunition
The silence is enough. We are in an uproar about "assault rifles" that kill FAR fewer poeple that most other means out there. The FBI has that information out there in the open. We aren't talking about banning handguns (which has been ruled unconstitutional), knives, or any other means of homicide. We're talking about a style of firearm that just happens to have been used in a couple of high-profile incidents while ignoring the fact that the men wielding them have psychiatric issues.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bones42
Firearms are designed to send a projectile at high speed with a certain amount of accuracy. The are used to kill, in some circumstances. Most are used to kill animals for sport and food. Many more are used for target practicing.
Knives are designed to slice and penetrate. They are used at a higher rate than rifles to slice and penetrate human flesh with the intent of killing them. Some knives are designed to result in a significant amount of damage when used on humans, including a channel designed to cause more bleeding. But we aren't talking about assualt knife bans, are we.
Blun weapons are designed for a number of uses- beating in nails, hitting balls, or other objects. Again, used in more homicides than rifles. Some, such as the "billy club" are designed to strike people to injure them, but we aren't discussing an assualt club ban, are we?
Cyanide and other poisons are designed to kill by various means. They are typically used to kill pests, but are often used to kill humans (Jonestown comes to mind). However, we are not talking about an assualt chemical ban.
This discussion has become about the tool utilized by the perpetrator. And it's just that, a TOOL. That tool can be a gun, a blunt object, poison, or even a vehicle. The problem isn't the tool, as it's just an inanimate object. It's the person who is in control of that inanimate object that is the problem.
Today's first-person shooter games have been shown by several sources to have an impact on these people. If they didn't desensitize people to killing, why would the military use them for just that purpose?Quote:
Originally Posted by Bones42
Do some research before you don't buy it. I used to hold the same stance, but have changed that stance due to looking into it. Lt. Col. Dave Grossman specializes in the pschology of killing and has been cited numerous times on the subject.
I won't say that playing these games makes a person a killer, but I do believe it will play into a mentally ill person's psyche.
And to me, restricting those weapons will help stop future events.Quote:
Originally Posted by Catch22