Gun Laws

[KentuckyWildcat]

First, I'm very pro 2nd amendment. Although I don't own many guns and don't really need/want a big collection.

In the opinion of those who follow this much closer than I do...What gun laws need to be better enforced, modified, or added to prevent the wrong people from legally obtaining guns?

Banning the guns the bad guys already have is not the answer to me, but I'm open to reading those opinions as well. I ask this not as a debate of pro or anti gun. But specifically as to what laws may help.

[KeithKSR]

It would help if people weren't worried about being branded as Islamaphobes by the federal government. Once again we find that the earmarks and warning signs were present, but ignored, just as they were with the San Bernadino and Boston Marathon plots.

[CitizenBBN]

Your post highlights the real problem: who are "the wrong people"?

We can build a system to make it hard on them once we know who they are, but how do we know who they are? We almost always find out after the fact that people knew the person was either radical or insane or some combination of both, but if nothing gets reported and there are no laws to deal with it then they never get identified as a "wrong person".

The solution of the anti-gun groups is simple: restrict everyone's rights and access, and that will cover it.

the problem with that is two fold. First the idea of restricting everyone's rights is antithetical to the American belief system and our Constitution, and second it wont' really work b/c there are just too many other options and ways to commit these horrible crimes. We might make it slightly harder but we won't make it anything like impossible.

[PedroDaGr8]

It would help if people weren't worried about being branded as Islamaphobes by the federal government. Once again we find that the earmarks and warning signs were present, but ignored, just as they were with the San Bernadino and Boston Marathon plots.

With the San Bernadino and Boston Marathon, you would be very right. In those killings you had very devout, though misguided, Muslims attempting to fight a holy war. With this one though, I discussed this a bit more in the other thread, the picture emerging is not that of an Islamic terrorist with a misguided sense of devotion to Islam. The picture emerging is a gay man in denial with psychopathic tendencies that latched on to any and ALL Islamic terrorist groups because they validated his self-hatred and psychopathic feelings for others. He was not a practicing Muslim (he didn't pray five times a day, drank alcohol, ate pork), he actively used gay hook-up apps, visited this same club he shot up multiple times, his ex-wife even said he was gay. Many are now viewing his claims of ISIS affiliation (along with his previous claims of Hezbollah and Al Qaeda affiliation) as not the traditional sleeper cell affiliation, but more the loser looking to attach himself to a movement to draw more attention to himself. ISIS of course will use him as a propaganda piece, but there are no signs of any external planning or ISIS involvement at all.

[KentuckyWildcat]

We can build a system to make it hard on them once we know who they are, but how do we know who they are?

How would we build it?

I'm not in favor of any of these ideas today, but facts and stats could change my mind. Real facts, not mainstream media facts.

Age limit for certain guns?
More in depth background checks?
Longer wait time?
Medical history?

[UKHistory]

Your post highlights the real problem: who are "the wrong people"?

We can build a system to make it hard on them once we know who they are, but how do we know who they are? We almost always find out after the fact that people knew the person was either radical or insane or some combination of both, but if nothing gets reported and there are no laws to deal with it then they never get identified as a "wrong person".

The solution of the anti-gun groups is simple: restrict everyone's rights and access, and that will cover it.

the problem with that is two fold. First the idea of restricting everyone's rights is antithetical to the American belief system and our Constitution, and second it wont' really work b/c there are just too many other options and ways to commit these horrible crimes. We might make it slightly harder but we won't make it anything like impossible.

Great point. It takes a level of precognition as to who the wrong people are that we just don't possess. What is chilling and frustrating is that this guy was interviewed and watched by the FBI and I guess DHS too. He was vetted and went on his way even working in a position where firearms are part of the job.

I don't know what to do. I really don't think banning the guns will solve the problems. The second amendment should not be abolished or have more restrictions imposed.

Killers find a way.

Mateen's violent story has many layers. But a terrorist sympathizer (he celebrated in some way at school while watching 9/11 unfold on tv) will find a way to do violence.

Was it Doc that mentioned that McVeigh used fertilizer for the massive bomb in Oklahoma City? They will find a way. In the UK someone used a big machete to kill folks on the street. Bad guys will find a way.

Throughout our history we have learned that our individual religious freedom is contingent upon allowing others the same right to religious freedom. That is at the heart of democracy; this willingness to live and let live.

We have not been perfect in this by any stretch but we strive to be more inclusive and tolerant.

The Islamic world must regain that level of tolerance or the world will be in a dark age of epic proportions.

I understand that we have not wanted to paint this struggle as a battle of faiths. If for no other reason there are more Muslims than any other religion in the world. Sheer numbers if we go that route we are the underdog.

But we must come to realize that any religion or ideology that does not allow others to exist peacefully is an enemy of freedom and the United States.

[bigsky]

New York Tines has a big article on the "AR-15 Loved and Reviled" and headline states it was used in Orlando...

Except the shooter didnt use an AR-15 or a rifle that had a single component in common with an AR-15.

It's this "freedom to print lies of the press" that keeps us from rational debate.

[KentuckyWildcat]

New York Tines has a big article on the "AR-15 Loved and Reviled" and headline states it was used in Orlando...

Except the shooter didnt use an AR-15 or a rifle that had a single component in common with an AR-15.

It's this "freedom to print lies of the press" that keeps us from rational debate.

What did he use? Last I heard it was an AR but that was Sunday. I've not had the chance the follow this one the last two days.

[UKHistory]

I thought he used an AR 15 what did he use. I read he had a side arm and a AR 15.

[KentuckyWildcat]

I googled it. The Sig? If so, I can see why the media wouldn't know the difference. All guns that are black in color is an AR :)

[KentuckyWildcat]

I thought he used an AR 15 what did he use. I read he had a side arm and a AR 15.

If what I googled is correct. I would expect the media to call it an "AR style weapon". IMO their attempt to label any semi-automatic as dangerous.

[bigsky]

Sig-Sauer

[suncat05]

Any of those Sig Sauer AR-15 variants are fairly high dollar items, and when properly maintained are very reliable. That isn't a cheap knock-off AR-15 made by just anyone, it's a higher end rifle made by a prestigious firearms manufacturer.

[Darrell KSR]

How would we build it?

I'm not in favor of any of these ideas today, but facts and stats could change my mind. Real facts, not mainstream media facts.

Age limit for certain guns?
More in depth background checks?
Longer wait time?
Medical history?

I'm watching your question with great interest. We have some of the smartest people around here. I'd love to see the collection brainstorm and come up with a conclusion that helps. My preference would be a conclusion that helps without regard to removing all freedoms and violating the Constitution, but I'm even interested in seeing the possible alternatives that may help that do that as well.

Door-to-door confiscation and destruction of all weapons, criminalization of the sale of all firearms, etc. would have an affect over time of some amount. The cost to do that would be intolerable to almost all, I'd think. So something short of that--what are they?

Great questions.

[suncat05]

And from my perspective, I myself am not really sure what else can be done to protect ourselves any better aside from surveilling any mosques and Muslims that are suspected of being jihadists. THAT is the best possible way to find out. Sometimes, you just have to stick your nose in the air and decide if the smell is good or bad.
I know that may not be the most appealing approach, but how else are you going to be able to find out if you don't do an actual surveillance/investigation.

[Doc]

Too broad a category IMO. If one is talking terrorism, it really has nothing to do with Gun Laws. Terrorist will use any methods to kill. If guns are available, that is what they use. If not then they use airplanes, or fertilizer or anthrax or nuclear waste, etc.... Gun laws and terrorism are only slightly related. Guns are an infinitesimally small aspect of terrorism, so small that they bear no relevance except to our president and those who want to use any means to further their gun control agenda.

For me personally, gun ownership and usage should be confined to only responsible adults, in the same way that other inherently dangerous items are restricted. Cigarettes are less dangerous and can ONLY be legally used by adults. Driving a car is less dangerous and can ONLY legally be done by adults. The list goes on, so going back to the original post, when you ask "What gun laws need to be better enforced, modified, or added to prevent the wrong people from legally obtaining guns?" My simple reply is one must be an ADULT to own and use. If the age of adulthood is 18 (the age one is considered old enough to vote) then so be it, or 21 (the age to consume alcohol) the so be it. Many will disagree and that's fine. I'll say right now I have ZERO intention of fighting that battle because in my mind sticking a gun is a 6 year olds hands is never a safe thing to do regardless of how its spun. Granted this pertains to accidental child shootings but also school shootings.

Once an adult, the second amendment gives every law abiding american citizen the right to own a gun and the government can't take that away. if you are a convicted felon, you lose that right. If you are not an american citizen, you don't have that right. I'm not in favor of psychological or other "medical" testing to get a gun as that is a) too invasive and b) too subjective. The government doesn't need to know my medical status and its too ripe for abuse.

I'm not in favor of any limit on gun capacity. If you want to own a machine gun, what do I care? However I believe the concealed means concealed. If you have a concealed carry and that weapon isn't concealed, you broke the law. You enter a store with an unconcealed gun, and you have a concealed permit, YOU broke the law. Unconcealed means somebody/anybody can see it. Its that simple of a definition. And IMO that should be a FELONY whereby you become a convicted felon and forever lose your right to own a gun. (oh, and lets not fool ourselves. If you get nailed on this, you will be able to buy your way out as we are not suggesting changing the court system. Cash still buys justice).

If you commit a crime with a gun, the penalty is STIFF. Mandatory 5 years in jail. Additional penalties can include losing your right to vote, your right to own a gun for the remainder of your lifetime, you forfeit your benefits of citizenship (Social security, etc...).

[CitizenBBN]

How would we build it?

I'm not in favor of any of these ideas today, but facts and stats could change my mind. Real facts, not mainstream media facts.

Age limit for certain guns?
More in depth background checks?
Longer wait time?
Medical history?

Things like age limits and wait times don't focus on the question of who to restrict, they just restrict everyone in hopes we catch some at risk people in the net. To me that's not focusing on the problem. Also there's no reason to think either of those would stop anyone, as none of these guys are minors and they seem to carry on their insanity for months if not years. Waiting periods are to prevent impulsive things, these people are cold and plotting.

There are only 3 options:

1) Start collecting guns. banning "new sales" won't do it, there are already far too many guns, including 'assault' rifles, in circulation. it will raise the price but money doesn't seem to be an impediment to these people. The only way to really restrict access is for them to not be available to anyone, period. That means rounding them up. Both sides know this, which is why the Left wants to start down that path and why the Right absolutely refuses.

(btw, this option won't work, b/c there are too many substitute means to commit these crimes, but to eliminate just sales of certain guns for sure is meaningless)

2) Get way more intrusive about how we identify people as threats and limit their rights based on that identification. ideally we'd do it with a judicial review or at least appeal, but the only way to lock it down is to put people on a list and then ban them from buying guns, publicly or privately. That may require "universal background checks", where all sales are illegal unless verified by a database check.

This is deeply disturbing to those who value individual freedom, but option 1 is to eliminate the means, option two is to effectively eliminate the motive by eliminating those so motivated. But this too is a dangerous and problem fraught path.

3) Live with it. if we can't take away the means (and btw we can't b.c pipe bombs and other IEDs are proven worldwide to be super effective and easily produced and anyone who watches the news should see guns are not the only way to do this), and we can't just weed these people out before they do something horrible, then the only alternative is to tweak things the best we can and accept that once in a while there will be a tragedy like this one.



Personally I vote for a lot of emphasis on option 2 and a sprinkling of option 3, b/c the truth is that there is no way to prevent all of these attacks, so we have to balance the risk against just how much liberty we're willing to give up for our security.

And in the end that is what this is, a fundamental question of liberty versus security. You could walk the streets of Moscow during the soviet reign in relative safety, but you had to give up all your liberty.

[KeithKSR]

Changing gun laws over an act of terrorism makes no sense. It's a red herring argument.

[KeithKSR]

Darrell, while the age requirement may seem reasonable it fails to account for the numerous youth hunters that take to the woods and fields each year. Each year 1/3 to 1/2 of my 7th grade students will hunt deer/turkeys/squirrels/rabbits/etc. Nearly all have taken hunters's safety courses and passed a range test, as required by state law. I'd trust them with a firearm more than I would 99.9% of the media, who seem largely clueless when it comes to firearms.

[CitizenBBN]

As for what I would do, here it is, the ultimate pro gun / anti gun compromise:


1) Pass a constitutional amendment making it blunt clear that every American has a constitutional right to own firearms as part of their natural right to defend themselves and their property. I'd like to see it worded to specifically cover everything but full auto guns. It must specify that the government has no right to track that ownership long term but may impose restrictions on those adjudicated to be a threat to others. I'd have to massage the wording a lot, b/c this is an amendment, not a law, and thus must be broad and brief and clear.

The goal here is to make it clear that the restrictions I will then suggest will NOT be part of a slippery slope to bans and confiscation, b/c we will end the ability to get around the 2nd amendment with interpretations like the "militia" loophole. We need to reassure those who believe guns are a key part of our self defense and our defense against tyranny that they the right will not be slowly subverted by a slippery slope of gun restrictions.

2) Once that is in place and incontrovertable, we will then make it illegal to sell or transfer a firearm without a background check. That information, like now, is to be held only for a brief period and no permanent records of transfers can be kept by any government entity, but all transfers must be approved by the background check process.

3) just as we now can restrict gun ownership based on restraining orders or domestic violence convictions (which in some cases can be a pretty low standard), we probably need a category to deal with terrorists. this is VERY dangerous b/c I agree w Pedro this President has already branded people on the right as terrorists who have no violent intentions, but I think we need a legal category or other expansion so we can judicially rule someone a threat to others.

Arguably we may already have that framework. people can be ruled a threat to others now in court, and even involuntarily committed. We would need to apply the threat framework to those who have knowingly preached violence against others. If you have a youtube video calling for the death of gays, you can't own guns. Now the problem is people will just keep quiet, so I'm not sure how well this will work, but the idea of someone being a known risk and being able to buy a gun but not able to board an airplane seems pretty illogical even to someone as pro gun ownership as myself.

4) Continue to address mental health in this country, and the reporting of problems by those around people. In nearly every case people around the person KNOW they are dangerous and a threat and unstable, yet they do nothing. This is the biggie. This guy's wife f-ing drove him to the place and knew of his plans. His first wife never reported abuse that would have itself disqualified him from buying guns. For God's sake, if someone next door is off his absolute rocker, we need a way for people to let authorities know so we can help them and protect society.

[dan_bgblue]

4) Continue to address mental health in this country, and the reporting of problems by those around people. In nearly every case people around the person KNOW they are dangerous and a threat and unstable, yet they do nothing. This is the biggie. This guy's wife f-ing drove him to the place and knew of his plans. His first wife never reported abuse that would have itself disqualified him from buying guns. For God's sake, if someone next door is off his absolute rocker, we need a way for people to let authorities know so we can help them and protect society.

IMO this is the basis of a solution, not restrictions on gun ownership, nor any more restrictive background checks. If people, including parents, other immediate family members, wives, classmates are willing to do nothing when they are confronted with people who are loons and it is obvious they are bent on violent actions, then we will all sit around wringing our hands, mouthing platitudes, and sending our condolences to the families of the dead and injured.

Neighborhood watch groups have run drugs out of communities simply because people became actively involved in the effort to do so

[Darrell KSR]

Darrell, while the age requirement may seem reasonable...

Just in case you were addressing someone else, I haven't mentioned age requirements...

(I'm enjoying the discussion, though. I'm really curious on what laws people think will have an impact.)

[CitizenBBN]

Dan, in the end that is the only way to broadly address the issue.

The truth is that even with universal checks and a perfect database, people who wish to do harm will have little trouble finding guns or making bombs or doing whatever is necessary to implement their plans.

That's the harsh truth. the guy caught in California had bomb materials, and any fool can make a big jug of home brew napalm or pipe bombs and throw it into a gay bar and kill a bunch of people.

The only real solution is for us to embrace the responsibilities that come with our rights as free Americans, and be watchful and involved and vigilant in the protection of our rights by making sure those who threaten them are addressed, either through mental health treatment or through the criminal justice system.

[CitizenBBN]

Just to make the point, and defeat my points (and I'll happily do so, I know they are steps but not very solvent in nature), NO CHANGE in gun laws would have prevented Sandy Hook or San Bernadino. Only confiscation of all ARs would have made an impact, but in both of those cases the guns were obtained through family or friends, no background check or transfer involved.

I have no doubt this guy in Orlando would have built a bomb or parked a car on the doors and set it on fire or whatever.

We'll simply shift from killings with guns to killings with IEDs.

In fact Oklahoma City and the Boston Marathon situations prove it. Okla City killed 168, 3 times the number in Orlando, and Boston 'only' killed 5 but injured 280. We'd just have more of those.

[KentuckyWildcat]

Fun reading so far.

Do also remember that I said "wrong people", not just terrorist.

Obviously there is not a 100% fix, but I also think we need to look at some "common sense" changes.

[CitizenBBN]

Fun reading so far.

Do also remember that I said "wrong people", not just terrorist.

Obviously there is not a 100% fix, but I also think we need to look at some "common sense" changes.

That's a great phrase, but then when I see them listed I don't see a lot of common sense in them to be honest.

I'm in the business. I'm a FFL holder, I'm very familiar with how it all works. There is definitely one common sense improvement, and the industry has been pushing it for years: to fix the mental health reporting of the states so we don't let people buy guns who are adjudicated mentally ill.

But things like bans on assault rifles, or magazine limits, are all but useless. With several million such rifles out there, just stopping new ones does little to keep someone from getting one, and banning them altogether does little to prevent such attacks.

This guy had a Glock. had he just had a couple of those he'd have done as much damage easily.

But I'm curious what may be on your list. There are some things that can be fixed, but the anti-gun groups never support them. The gun industry has gotten zero support from Obama or the anti gun groups as they've gone state to state trying to get legislation to improve reporting. Zero.

[KentuckyWildcat]

I'll play Devil's advocate a little bit:


Age requirement - Make it 25 or older to buy an automatic weapon (Will get male's past the "mental disorder" stage). Or must be a legal gun owner for 5 years to buy an automatic? You can hunt with a single shot, pump, etc...

Longer wait time - Might give someone time to process their crazy thoughts

More in depth background check - Not sure what this would include but maybe....eliminate anyone that has been treated for certain disorders, anyone questioned to be tied to any hate group, any violent crime (are all violent crimes felonies?) Maybe a background check that has minor flags and that temporarily prevents you from buying a gun?

Training - take some course to buy certain guns, passing the course determines if you can buy a gun or not of a certain style


To me, some of this may address the mental health issue. Again, I don't really like some of these, but if they save one life? Also, I know the bad guys can still get guns if they want or use other means to kill. But that doesn't mean that we don't need to modify the law. Just don't modify it in a way that prevents me from buying a gun :4chsmu1:


OT from this post: I mostly do not like that they target AR Style weapons as dangerous. You can do a lot of damage with a pump shotgun. So the first time some one uses a shotgun, we will ban them? I can get a handful of shots off pretty quick with a single shot.

[KentuckyWildcat]

But I'm curious what may be on your list.

I really don't have a list. Just curious really. But you will see some of the thoughts I hear a lot in my post above. I'm around a ton of liberals and they just have naive thoughts on gun control. I don't want to think they are completely stupid without giving it a good amount of thought myself.

[KentuckyWildcat]

Oh, I hate the phrase "common sense" gun laws since a certain person uses it a lot. But after a long day, I have no desire to think of an original phrase :)

[CitizenBBN]

Oh, I hate the phrase "common sense" gun laws since a certain person uses it a lot. But after a long day, I have no desire to think of an original phrase :)

lol. We'd all be fine with it if he followed it with actual common sense, but that's in short supply among our leaders pretty much across the board. :)

[CitizenBBN]

I'll play Devil's advocate a little bit:


Age requirement - Make it 25 or older to buy an automatic weapon (Will get male's past the "mental disorder" stage). Or must be a legal gun owner for 5 years to buy an automatic? You can hunt with a single shot, pump, etc...

Longer wait time - Might give someone time to process their crazy thoughts


My question here is if by automatic we mean any semi-auto, including handguns.

B.c the problem there is that for self defense that is the most popular option, and the age is already at 21. Have any of these shootings been committed by someone aged 22-24? If not then there's no reason IMO to up the age limit.

Better screening is for sure good, but it is tough. The industry has tried to get better mental health reporting, but you have to go state by state b/c most such judicial proceedings are state based (if not all of them) and each state has different rules and procedures.

For example the shooting in Louisiana was committed by a guy who was ruled mentally incompetent in Georgia, but they never filed the county records with the state and those never got put in the federal database anyway.

Obama could get behind the industry push on this and it would already have been done, but he refused. THAT is the real story of gun control in this country. it's true the pro gun forces are against some changes b/c they fear it's a step on a slippery slope, but it's also true on the left that they wont' support some gun law changes b/c they may actually help and that would take the pressure off the push to go further with gun control.

[KSRBEvans]

To the extent this topic is a reaction to the Orlando shooting, it's a non sequitur IMHO. You could implement the most draconian gun rules and someone like this is still going to commit this act of terrorism (and that's what it was). He's either going to get guns illegally or he'll use another method like the one used at the Boston Marathon.

There's a place to discuss gun laws but IMHO it's misplaced if it's seen as a solution to future terrorist attacks.

[CitizenBBN]

To the extent this topic is a reaction to the Orlando shooting, it's a non sequitur IMHO. You could implement the most draconian gun rules and someone like this is still going to commit this act of terrorism (and that's what it was). He's either going to get guns illegally or he'll use another method like the one used at the Boston Marathon.

There's a place to discuss gun laws but IMHO it's misplaced if it's seen as a solution to future terrorist attacks.

It's completely misplaced, but you'll never convince the anti-gun movement.

They have a fundamental flaw in their thinking, one that pervades liberalism in general: they think that just b/c we pass a law, everyone will obey the law and it will magically be enforced perfectly.

What they dont' want to question is whether a given law will actually work or if there are too many substitutes, too many ways around it.

FWIW sometimes conservatives exhibit the same wishful thinking, for example in drug laws or Prohibition.

Good policy is largely about examining not the law, but the ability of the law to solve the problem. People forget that in a rush to "do something".

In fact, pretty much every gun law since the 1930s has been largely in response to mass shootings, and here we are with the same problem and a heap more laws. that ought to tell us that it's not enough for laws to sound like they will work, but to examine if they will.

[Doc]

I'll play Devil's advocate a little bit:


Age requirement - Make it 25 or older to buy an automatic weapon (Will get male's past the "mental disorder" stage). Or must be a legal gun owner for 5 years to buy an automatic? You can hunt with a single shot, pump, etc... Good idea IMO.

Longer wait time - Might give someone time to process their crazy thoughts I doubt that matters. Current wait times are adequate. I don't believe there are any 'rash" killings where longer waits would have made any difference.

More in depth background check - Not sure what this would include but maybe....eliminate anyone that has been treated for certain disorders, anyone questioned to be tied to any hate group, any violent crime (are all violent crimes felonies?) Maybe a background check that has minor flags and that temporarily prevents you from buying a gun? Who defines "hate groups"? Given the opportunity, I believe Obama would classify the GOP as a hate group. An no, I'm not joking. Anybody who disagrees with the liberal agenda is evil in his mind. He has said as much.

Training - take some course to buy certain guns, passing the course determines if you can buy a gun or not of a certain style. So now only smart people can buy a gun? Don't get me wrong, I'd be in favor of that. Of course I'd put the same standard on voting.


To me, some of this may address the mental health issue. Again, I don't really like some of these, but if they save one life? Also, I know the bad guys can still get guns if they want or use other means to kill. But that doesn't mean that we don't need to modify the law. Just don't modify it in a way that prevents me from buying a gun :4chsmu1: I'm opposed to the government having access to my medical records for a multitude of reasons. But mostly I don't see any effective way of mentally checking gun own applicants. Its not like taking an eye test.


OT from this post: I mostly do not like that they target AR Style weapons as dangerous. You can do a lot of damage with a pump shotgun. So the first time some one uses a shotgun, we will ban them? I can get a handful of shots off pretty quick with a single shot..

[KentuckyWildcat]

My question here is if by automatic we mean any semi-auto, including handguns.

Yes b/c I think that is theit intent.


Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G900A using Tapatalk

[KeithKSR]

Just in case you were addressing someone else, I haven't mentioned age requirements...

(I'm enjoying the discussion, though. I'm really curious on what laws people think will have an impact.)

Sorry, that was Doc who mentioned age requirements. Not sure why I did that.

[KeithKSR]

Age requirement - Make it 25 or older to buy an automatic weapon (Will get male's past the "mental disorder" stage). Or must be a legal gun owner for 5 years to buy an automatic?

That would meaning loosening current restrictions on automatic weapons.

[KentuckyWildcat]

That would meaning loosening current restrictions on automatic weapons.
What are the current laws? I thought you only had to be 18, is not so?

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G900A using Tapatalk

[KeithKSR]

What are the current laws? I thought you only had to be 18, is not so?

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G900A using Tapatalk

To purchase an automatic weapon you have to jump through a myriad of ATF requirements, pay an annual tax, or have an FFL license that allows for their possession.

Automatics manufactured after 1986 are completely banned from private ownership.

If you are discussing semi-automatics, then they are in the same category as other weapons. Semi-automatics are no more or less lethal than other actions.

[KeithKSR]

What are the current laws? I thought you only had to be 18, is not so?

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G900A using Tapatalk

To purchase an automatic weapon you have to jump through a myriad of ATF requirements, pay an annual tax, or have an FFL license that allows for their possession.

Automatics manufactured after 1986 are completely banned from private ownership.

If you are discussing semi-automatics, then they are in the same category as other weapons. Semi-automatics are no more or less lethal than other actions.

[suncat05]

While I am NOT in favor of limiting due process to anyone, there clearly are some people who are not entitled to such protections, like foreign nationals who are here on expired visas of any sort. They are not American citizens and should not be granted the same Constitutional protections as American citizens.
I know there are some here that will vehemently disagree with me, but my thoughts are based in actual situations that I have encountered over many years in this job. If you ARE NOT AN AMERICAN, you should not be given American Constitutional protections.
If Congress should somehow come to some kind of consensus about how to keep firearms out of the hands
of foreign nationals who are not in compliance with our laws, one thing that must absolutely be done in this circumstance is to keep this as a stand alone bill. No other legislation attached to it. But, they won't do that, and that is where it will go sideways.
These people in Congress need to step up and start protecting us. But they won't. Wait and watch.

[dan_bgblue]

Australia, 20 years later (https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/06/160622114743.htm)

[CitizenBBN]

Australia, 20 years later (https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/06/160622114743.htm)

Buried deep in the study:

While there was a more rapid decline in firearm deaths from 1997 to 2013 compared to before 1997, there was also a greater acceleration in the decline in total nonfirearm suicide and homicide deaths. Because of this, it is not possible to determine whether the change in firearm deaths can be attributed to gun law reforms.

so basically suicides and homicides dropped for both firearm and non-firearm categories, with non-firearm categories actually falling faster despite a massive gun ban.

Are we sure this supports gun bans?

I have no doubt that if we round up every gun and melt it down that there would be fewer gun deaths, I think that's kinda obvious. Not sure that's really a revelation. But the full study has to look at a lot of other factors including rates of robbery and other crimes, how many people got assaulted and couldn't defend themselves, non-gun acts of mass violence, etc.

The biggest problem of course is that Australia isn't the US. it has a tiny population for its size, lacks the global presence to have attracted terrorists, drug use and overall crime, doesn't have a huge open border with murderous gangs and drugs pouring across, etc.

Australia is deeply socialist and just not a whole lot like the US. They have some of the same issues, but a whole lot more differences.

They rounded up all handguns as well as anything but single shot rifles and shotguns. yes if we did that in the US I have no doubt the number of firearms related deaths would go down. I'm not convinced it would impact the suicide rate (and this study doesn't show that it did), and while it would probably reduce the murder rate it would also leave Americans defenseless in the face of crime and it's not at all clear that crime wouldn't go through the roof.

This is just a different country. Not the least of our problems is that there's no gun registry and there are 300 million guns in the US, but even if we could magically get them all I think the cost is still way too high in both freedom and our ability to prevent tyranny.

Our nation was founded NOT to provide security but to provide liberty, and the Founders knew full well that was the tradeoff, and spoke of it several times. Our focus is on liberty and on protecting ourselves from those who would take it, not creating more security by taking away all our liberty.

[ukblue]

Every time a terrorist commits a act of terror Obama uses it to take more rights from American citizens. God forbid someone blows up D.C. We will have to use chopsticks to eat because he will take knives and forks. As far as more gun laws ask the Israelis how effective they have been keeping guns away from Muslims.

[KeithKSR]

Every time a terrorist commits a act of terror Obama uses it to take more rights from American citizens. God forbid someone blows up D.C. We will have to use chopsticks to eat because he will take knives and forks. As far as more gun laws ask the Israelis how effective they have been keeping guns away from Muslims.

Or Paris where terrorists used full auto weapons to attack unarmed citizens.

[suncat05]

I keep telling you guys that we are pretty much on our own as far as protecting ourselves and our families from this nonsense, because it is very obvious that our current administration has no desire to live up to its Constitutionally mandated duties to protect us against any acts of terrorism, foreign or domestic in origin.

Our government doesn't care about any of us "little folks". All the government and our elected officials cate about is lining their pockets with special interest cash and getting reelected so their gravy train doesn't dry up.

[dan_bgblue]

Hawaii new legislation.....Coming to a state near you? (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/06/24/hawaii-becomes-first-state-to-put-gun-owners-in-federal-database.html?intcmp=hpbt4)

[CitizenBBN]

Hawaii is the most liberal state in the union. We just dont' care b/c it's smaller than most Texas cattle ranches.

[ukblue]

The supreme court has already ruled in a case that law enforcement's job was not protecting civilians but to enforce the law. When you have a law broken you already have a victim.

[dan_bgblue]

Jerry "Moonbeam" Brown signs off on new Cali gun laws (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/07/01/california-governor-signs-stringent-gun-bills-vetoes-others.html?intcmp=hplnws)

[ukblue]

When I was in grade school we had a teacher that was a retired marine corp sargeant. We actually brought.22 single shot rifles to school. We had to take the bolt out of the rifle and give it to the bus driver, retired army, as well as the ammo. We went behind the school where there was a big pile of dirt to shoot into. He took us one at a time to instruct us into how to load a gun safely and how to safe the weapon before bring it below our waist or turning with it. He taught us one at a time and even gave us a test about the proper way to handle a gun. The ones that failed went to the back of the line before they got another chance to shoot. The good old days when people had some sense.

[CitizenBBN]

I carried a knife the entire time I was in school, from first grade through 12th. So did everyone else back home, and a few here in the city, but back home no boy would be caught dead without a pocketknife.

it was a given to take guns out to shoot as a kid, and it was a given that adults were charged with making sure we knew what we were doing.

But in general terms people were expected to not be drooling morons. I was on a farm with all kinds of sharp blades and spinning discs and everything else far more dangerous than a 22 rifle, and rather than have me tied to a leash in the front yard I was simple taught and expected to not be an idiot around such things.

[badrose]

I carried a knife the entire time I was in school, from first grade through 12th. So did everyone else back home, and a few here in the city, but back home no boy would be caught dead without a pocketknife.

it was a given to take guns out to shoot as a kid, and it was a given that adults were charged with making sure we knew what we were doing.

But in general terms people were expected to not be drooling morons. I was on a farm with all kinds of sharp blades and spinning discs and everything else far more dangerous than a 22 rifle, and rather than have me tied to a leash in the front yard I was simple taught and expected to not be an idiot around such things.

You forgot Jarts.