Announcement

Collapse

Civics 101 Guidelines

Want to argue about politics? Healthcare reform? Taxes? Governments? You've come to the right place!

Try to keep it civil though. The rules still apply here.
See more
See less

Gun Control - moved from E-cig thread

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Sparko
    replied
    Originally posted by seer View Post
    Colt suspends production of AR-15 for civilian market

    https://apnews.com/fbdf5e5f6d654332bbedfaffe3663154

    Not that matters, everybody and their brother are making them now...
    It says they are suspending all rifle production for the civilian market.

    Leave a comment:


  • seer
    replied
    Colt suspends production of AR-15 for civilian market

    https://apnews.com/fbdf5e5f6d654332bbedfaffe3663154

    Not that matters, everybody and their brother are making them now...

    Leave a comment:


  • Sparko
    replied
    Basically firearm technology is not allowed to improve or innovate at all. We need to go back to late 19th century technology, revolvers and rifles that have to be cocked for every shot.

    Leave a comment:


  • rogue06
    replied
    Originally posted by oxmixmudd View Post
    I would think that would be self explanatory but: an AR-15 is ... an AR-15. It would mean that specific rifle banned or controlled.

    Like an AR-15 could be as specific as those weapons incorporating many of the elements of the AR15 design, of which there are several. Or it could be as broad as to mean any modern lightweight, low recoil, high magazine capacity, high velocity munitions, semi-automatic rifle.


    Jim
    So an AR-15 is not like other semi-automatic rifles because it is an AR-15. Circular logic at its best.

    And you didn't do much better with the second part essentially opening it up to describe the vast majority of semi-automatic rifles as being AR-15 like while you just said the AR-15 is distinctive.

    Leave a comment:


  • seer
    replied
    Originally posted by oxmixmudd View Post
    fair enough.

    Jim
    You can have a permit process that includes all the things you want, then you can purchase a firearm of your choice without registering that particular weapon with the government. And of course your could only resell it to another permit holder.

    Leave a comment:


  • Sparko
    replied
    Originally posted by oxmixmudd View Post
    That would be good - if it doesn't exist. But I believe people that have committed violent acts (e.g. domestic violence) also need to be prohibited access to any firearm. And I don't believe it should be possible to buy a gun from anyone anywhere without a thorough background check. And I think any high capacity semi-automatic, pistol, rifle, whatever, needs to be licensed with mandatory safety training and a thorough vetting of their criminal and psychological history, perhaps with term limits on the licence much like we do drivers licences so that they are periodically re-evaluated for fitness to own such weapons.

    Jim
    The domestic violence thing sounds good on paper, but a lot of domestic violence charges are he said/she said. Unless there is a conviction, you could easily end up with a spouse reporting a fake beating just to punish their wife/husband, and get their guns taken away. That is the problem with a lot of the proposed red flag laws: violation of 4th amendment. Seizing property without due process. Once there is a conviction, then it's another matter. Go for it. Part of a background check is whether you have been convicted of any crimes when you buy a gun. So I think a case could be made that if you are convicted of a violent crime later they should be able to take your gun. Which then can do if it is a felony. I don't think they can if it is a misdemeanor though.

    Leave a comment:


  • oxmixmudd
    replied
    Originally posted by seer View Post
    I agree with most of this except licensing issue because of all the confiscation talk.
    fair enough.

    Jim

    Leave a comment:


  • seer
    replied
    Originally posted by oxmixmudd View Post
    That would be good - if it doesn't exist. But I believe people that have committed violent acts (e.g. domestic violence) also need to be prohibited access to any firearm. And I don't believe it should be possible to buy a gun from anyone anywhere without a thorough background check. And I think any high capacity semi-automatic, pistol, rifle, whatever, needs to be licensed with mandatory safety training and a thorough vetting of their criminal and psychological history, perhaps with term limits on the licence much like we do drivers licences so that they are periodically re-evaluated for fitness to own such weapons.

    Jim
    I agree with most of this except licensing issue because of all the confiscation talk.

    Leave a comment:


  • lilpixieofterror
    replied
    Originally posted by oxmixmudd View Post
    Didn't say ban. I said law abiding mentally stable people can handle them. But we must have controls in place to prevent people that are not law abiding mentally stable people from handling them. And that will include laws to make sure proper safety precautions are taken in the storage of the guns to prevent children from getting to then without supervision, or thieves from getting them easily if they break in.


    Jim
    Define ‘mentally stable’ because one shooter was under mental healthcare, deemed treated, allowed to have his weapons back, and he went as soon as he could and shot up a bar. You should know that psychology is not an exact science. I also find your safety check could be a violation of the 4th amendment and it’s an odd focus considering that accidental gun death is pretty uncommon and doesn’t even make the top ten accidental death list. I should also not safes simply alert the thief you have something valuable in there and they might want to find out what it is. A safe isn’t too hard a barrier from a professional thief. At best, it might stop the person breaking in simply to get money to buy drugs with.
    Last edited by lilpixieofterror; 09-19-2019, 08:49 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • oxmixmudd
    replied
    Originally posted by seer View Post
    How about this - a 5 years mandatory federal sentence if you use a firearm in the commission of a crime. No way the leftists would support it because it would effect minorities disproportionately.
    That would be good - if it doesn't exist. But I believe people that have committed violent acts (e.g. domestic violence) also need to be prohibited access to any firearm. And I don't believe it should be possible to buy a gun from anyone anywhere without a thorough background check. And I think any high capacity semi-automatic, pistol, rifle, whatever, needs to be licensed with mandatory safety training and a thorough vetting of their criminal and psychological history, perhaps with term limits on the licence much like we do drivers licences so that they are periodically re-evaluated for fitness to own such weapons.

    Jim
    Last edited by oxmixmudd; 09-19-2019, 08:39 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • oxmixmudd
    replied
    Originally posted by lilpixieofterror View Post
    So you want to ban 80% of all modern rifles sold. Got it.
    Didn't say ban. I said law abiding mentally stable people can handle them. But we must have controls in place to prevent people that are not law abiding mentally stable people from handling them. And that will include laws to make sure proper safety precautions are taken in the storage of the guns to prevent children from getting to then without supervision, or thieves from getting them easily if they break in.


    Jim

    Leave a comment:


  • lilpixieofterror
    replied
    Originally posted by oxmixmudd View Post
    I would think that would be self explanatory but: an AR-15 is ... an AR-15. It would mean that specific rifle banned or controlled.

    Like an AR-15 could be as specific as those weapons incorporating many of the elements of the AR15 design, of which there are several. Or it could be as broad as to mean any modern lightweight, low recoil, high magazine capacity, high velocity munitions, semi-automatic rifle.


    Jim
    So you want to ban 80% of all modern rifles sold. Got it.

    Leave a comment:


  • seer
    replied
    Originally posted by Sparko View Post
    As far as keeping guns out of the hands of criminals, yeah I am for that too, and it is already the law. If someone is convicted of a felony, they are not allowed to have a gun in every state I know of. Even AFTER they have served their sentences.
    How about this - a 5 years mandatory federal sentence if you use a firearm in the commission of a crime. No way the leftists would support it because it would effect minorities disproportionately.

    Leave a comment:


  • Sparko
    replied
    Originally posted by oxmixmudd View Post
    What part of "LIKE an AR15" are you not grasping?

    What part of "there may be other weapons even more optimal" eludes you?

    Cops train Sparko.
    So do civilian gun owners, Jim. I highly encourage people to train with their guns.

    I've told the story before of a lady friend we had that was attacked in her home, she got a pistol, and the guy returned and she unloaded it on him and every bullet missed. And yes, you can use a pistol if you want to. I'm really not about banning AR15's, I'm about putting up some tough controls on guns period.
    And yet your previous statement was that AR15s are so deadly they require special licensing. That is what I am trying to debate with you. They are no more deadly than any other gun. They are not even especially powerful rifles.

    And like Pix said, ENFORCE the laws we have. And COMMUNICATE between agencies and medical staff when a person is showing signs of violent behavior. One thing I've heard that makes sense is that there is a strong correlation between domestic abuse and gun violence. So maybe it's time to take guns away from people that are abusing their spouses. How many times do we hear about an jilted lover chasing down his girlfriend or ex wife and shooting her the people near her and then himself.
    Of course. We need to enforce the laws we have. But even when we do, the liberals act like we aren't. They keep calling for "stronger background checks" - we already have them. They are only as strong as the people who are doing them though, so we need to make sure they are doing a thorough job. I already said I had to go through basically 3 background checks to get my gun. State and Federal to get my handgun license, and another Federal one when I bought my gun. What more can you ask for?


    There just need to be common sense laws governing the ownership of firearms. Safety training. the use of gun safes and locks. Restrictions based on violent behavior that have real teeth (mandatory jail time of you've beaten your wife and are found with a weapon on you, or of you leave a gun where a child or teenager can get to it) etc etc.
    I am all for gun training. But you can't force people to keep their guns in safes. Do you think it is practical to have to unlock and open your safe to get your gun when your home is being invaded? And if you are the only person in the house, why would you need a safe? Or if you didn't have any children at home?

    As far as keeping guns out of the hands of criminals, yeah I am for that too, and it is already the law. If someone is convicted of a felony, they are not allowed to have a gun in every state I know of. Even AFTER they have served their sentences.



    I think law abiding, sane, stable people can handle guns just fine. But they do not need to be in the hands of unstable personalities, or unsupervised minors. And part of that is making them harder to get, so that only sane, law abiding, stable people have them.
    As far as I know that is the law now. As far as "sane" goes, how do you determine that? Do you have to make everyone see a psychiatrist and get regular checkups to own a gun? That would be an invasion of privacy and impossible to enforce. I do think that if someone already has a history of psychiatric problems, like we are finding out with the school shooting in Parkland, they should never be allowed near a gun. But the danger is that such red flag laws could be used as an excuse to take guns away from perfectly sane people by overzealous courts.

    Leave a comment:


  • oxmixmudd
    replied
    Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
    Jim, can you explain the difference between an AR-15 or like an AR-15 and other semi-automatic rifles?
    I would think that would be self explanatory but: an AR-15 is ... an AR-15. It would mean that specific rifle banned or controlled.

    Like an AR-15 could be as specific as those weapons incorporating many of the elements of the AR15 design, of which there are several. Or it could be as broad as to mean any modern lightweight, low recoil, high magazine capacity, high velocity munitions, semi-automatic rifle.


    Jim

    Leave a comment:

Related Threads

Collapse

Topics Statistics Last Post
Started by little_monkey, Yesterday, 04:19 PM
16 responses
143 views
0 likes
Last Post One Bad Pig  
Started by whag, 03-26-2024, 04:38 PM
53 responses
393 views
0 likes
Last Post Mountain Man  
Started by rogue06, 03-26-2024, 11:45 AM
25 responses
113 views
0 likes
Last Post rogue06
by rogue06
 
Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-26-2024, 09:21 AM
33 responses
197 views
0 likes
Last Post Roy
by Roy
 
Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-26-2024, 08:34 AM
84 responses
365 views
0 likes
Last Post JimL
by JimL
 
Working...
X