Gun rights/control

[nickman54 0]

OK, you win. Under extremely limited circumstances you can own one.

 

Here are the terms:

 

Among other things, federal law:

 

1. requires all machine guns, except antique firearms, not in the U.S. government's possession to be registered with the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF);

 

2. bars private individuals from transferring or acquiring machine guns except those lawfully possessed and registered before May 19, 1986;

3. requires anyone transferring or manufacturing machine guns to get prior ATF approval and register the firearms;

 

4. with very limited exceptions, imposes a $200 excise tax whenever a machine gun is transferred;

 

5. bars interstate transport of machine guns without ATF approval; and

 

6. imposes harsh penalties for machine gun violations, including imprisonment of up to 10 years, a fine of up to $250,000, or both for possessing an unregistered machine gun.

 

Good luck getting a machine gun and a grenade today. I challenge you to go try to get both. If you can buy one, which I doubt you'll be able to, rightfully so, you'll be on a watch list immediately.

 

That process is no different than buying a suppressor or making an sbr, other than the registry. I have been through it. It's not a big deal other than the wait. Honest question, should we ban trucks while we're at it?

[TheRizz 5]

That process is no different than buying a suppressor or making an sbr, other than the registry. I have been through it. It's not a big deal other than the wait. Honest question, should we ban trucks while we're at it?

 

And knives

[Frankus 197]

That process is no different than buying a suppressor or making an sbr, other than the registry. I have been through it. It's not a big deal other than the wait. Honest question, should we ban trucks while we're at it?

 

Other than the registry? LOL Go buy one then and come back here and post it. Put your frigging money where your mouth is.

 

And you didn't answer my question.....

 

But I'll answer yours: Trucks have a constructive purpose. They are designed to haul things that help many people earn livings. Still, you have to go through a licensing process to get a CDL to drive an 18 wheeler which is more lethal than a small truck if mishandled. A machine gun on the other hand does one thing. It kills. And as we've seen all too painfully- including today as we mourn more police officers shot to death- guns are constantly chosen to kill. There's a reason the murderer chose a gun instead of a truck to kill. It's more lethal.

 

So answer my question: Should the police murderer today, a Dean's List student at the University of Alabama, have been able to buy a machine gun and a rocket propelled grenade?

Edited July 17, 2016 by Frankus

[Irish4life 0]

Criminals aren't allowed to purchase firearms already.. Am i right? Someone with a criminal record can't just walk into a gun store and purchase a weapon. Which leaves the argument for the "gun show loophole". I will bet my years salary (not much) that that will not slow down crime or what we see happening almost every day now. So whats next? Take em all? Or just certain ones? Take away "assault rifles".. While we are at it we might as take away hand guns. Since they are both semi-automatic and all. Then criminals won't be about to cause as much destruction. Yayyyy. It's why drugs are illegal.. So criminals can't get their hands on them either and why no one uses them. Molon labe.

[Frankus 197]

Criminals aren't allowed to purchase firearms already.. Am i right? Someone with a criminal record can't just walk into a gun store and purchase a weapon. Which leaves the argument for the "gun show loophole". I will bet my years salary (not much) that that will not slow down crime or what we see happening almost every day now. So whats next? Take em all? Or just certain ones? Take away "assault rifles".. While we are at it we might as take away hand guns. Since they are both semi-automatic and all. Then criminals won't be about to cause as much destruction. Yayyyy. It's why drugs are illegal.. So criminals can't get their hands on them either and why no one uses them. Molon labe.

 

We took away machine guns. Did this stop you from hunting? Did this stop you from protecting your home? Absolutely not. Did the criminals all get to keep them, while the good people stood helplessly and got mowed down? No.

 

 

On the other hand, can you imagine the mayhem that all these psychopaths in recent years- including today- would have wrought if they had been able to buy them? What would the police do in Baton Rouge if these killers had machine guns or rocket propelled grenades? We'd have mass casualties. Is this what you want in the name of your ideology?

[nickman54 0]

Other than the registry? LOL Go buy one then and come back here and post it. Put your frigging money where your mouth is.

 

And you didn't answer my question.....

 

But I'll answer yours: Trucks have a constructive purpose. They are designed to haul things that help many people earn livings. Still, you have to go through a licensing process to get a CDL to drive an 18 wheeler which is more lethal than a small truck if mishandled. A machine gun on the other hand does one thing. It kills. And as we've seen all too painfully- including today as we mourn more police officers shot to death- guns are constantly chosen to kill. There's a reason the murderer chose a gun instead of a truck to kill. It's more lethal.

 

So answer my question: Should the police murderer today, a Dean's List student at the University of Alabama, have been able to buy a machine gun and a rocket propelled grenade?

 

So ban all the guns like France. I wont be able to convince you out of your position on this issue no matter what I say so I'll bow out. I guess you'll have to lobby your politicians harder if you want different gun laws. Have a good afternoon.

[Frankus 197]

So ban all the guns like France. I wont be able to convince you out of your position on this issue no matter what I say so I'll bow out. I guess you'll have to lobby your politicians harder if you want different gun laws. Have a good afternoon.

 

 

If you bothered to read my other posts, you'd see that I'm not advocating banning all guns.

 

Of course you won't convince me that more guns are the solution. However, out of courtesy, since I answered yours, I believe you should answer my question.

 

And yes, I am lobbying my representatives. The gun saturation of our country is turning our country into a shooting gallery.

 

Good day.

[nickman54 0]

Not sure what the rpg thing is all about, I don't think those are available in any fashion to citizens. I will share something somewhat personal though. When I was in high school I witnessed a police officer killed by a man with an illegally converted ak47 rifle. It was a traffic stop and I saw the shooter and was one of the only witnesses. The cop didn't stand a chance if the shooter had a hunting rifle IMO. I did read your other posts, I disagree with banning what you and the media call "assault rifles"

Edited July 17, 2016 by nickman54

[ckp160 10]

There's a reason the murderer chose a gun instead of a truck to kill. It's more lethal.

 

Talk to the 84 people dead and 202 injured about the lethality of a truck versus machine gun. The driver was reportedly armed with a gun AND grenades, yet he did the most damage with a truck. Your argument is, in some cases, incorrect.

 

Speaking of France..... you are aware that assault rifles and grenades are illegal there, correct? Yet somehow the guy got them..... hmmmm...... illegal, yet a ****ing criminal got one.... hmmmm. Perhaps criminals don't follow laws?

 

Aside from the ATF hoops, a big reason most people don't own a fully automatic machine gun is the cost associated with it. Let's talk just the ammo. An m249 is a light machine gun. It's sustained (read: useful) rate of fire is ballpark 100 rounds per minute. A box of .223/5.56 ammunition is $8 (give or take) for 20 rounds. So, for one minute of aimed, useful fire it's $40 dollars. That adds up quickly. Most people who want to shoot a machine gun will go to Vegas and plunk their money down and just rent one. Having fired machine guns, there is no way I'd own. Too expensive.

 

The 2nd Amendment is NOT ABOUT HUNTING. Read the Federalist Papers if you haven't already.

 

Final thought for this post: there are 277 dead people between San Bernardino, Orlando, Paris, and Nice. Are you prepared to make Islam unlawful? I mean, it would be just as culpable as firearms in those 4 instances. Were it not for a "kill the infidel" mentality, they never would have attacked in the first place.

 

Look.... I get that you want safety and security. We all do. At what cost though?

[Kelly Gruene 26]

I don't know much about guns.

However, I just don't know where the banning would stop.

Ban machine guns. Okay.

Criminals turn to semiautomatic guns.

So, next will be: ban semiautomatic guns.

Criminals will turn to the next available thing.

So, next would be: ban the next available thing.

And that's when they turn to things like trucks.

And fertilizer.

And fire.

 

On the surface it seems reasonable to me to say, "let's ban machine guns". But bad guys are bad guys. They're going to use whatever is available. And whatever that is, it doesn't need to fire projectiles.

 

So police will have a better chance to stop them if they can't shoot, one might say. Tell that to the people walking on the sidewalk in Nice. Yes, the police there did shoot that guy. He didn't have a chance against them. But the people on the sidewalk didn't have a chance against the truck.

 

Aum Shinrikyo unleashed sarin gas on the Tokyo subway. That could have had much more devastating consequences than any machine gun ever would, and sarin is banned pretty much everywhere (I think; not gonna Google that as that could put me on some crazy list).

 

Bad guys don't just go after police. Bad guys don't just use machine guns or automatic weapons. Bad guys are bad guys are bad guys. They will wreak havoc no matter the weapon.

 

I wish we could ban bad guys.

[ckp160 10]

Real quick, Frankus..... I posted a few days ago about suppressors and what they're really for. Noise abatement. Do you think that's a common sense gun law? Are you willing to email your representatives about it? If you are, I can provide you a link to do so. If not, what's your objection?

[jessemoore97 1,287]

I wonder how many murders of multiple police officers at the hands of men with semi automatic weapons its going to take for this debate to be over. Some naive people think of guns and the second amendment and imagine Lexington and Concord. It's not. It's like a modern war zone, where mass carnage can happen very quickly. If we don't take action, it's going to get worse.

 

As a police officer let me respond. How many police officers have to get stabbed, run over, blown up, beaten to death, shot by anything other than a semi auto rifle, clubbed to death, die from a heart attack while chasing or fighting a suspect, or any other means that I watch my brothers and sisters have happen all the time? When do any of those deaths make a difference in public opinion, especially in the national consciousness, for people to give a good goddamn about what happens to us? Now you have two incidents where officers get killed, for people to give a flip and use it as a tool to grab guns.

 

I have to go out each and everyday knowing it could be my last for the noble profession I chose to do. I don't give a rip what method someone tries to do me in, because I have to be ready for them all and have to have eyes in the back of my head at all times. I am on the front line in this argument when it comes to any kind of violence, while the armchair QB's read about it without all the facts or have it extremely sugar coated and fed to them by the media. Evil is out there, and it's people who are evil and they use whatever tools available to them to put their evil on others.

 

I work in a department with over 200 officers and know most of the officers from all the surrounding agencies. To a tee, 99% of them are pro 2nd amendment for all the reasons I and others have spoken of. We see day in and day out the real ins and outs of gun control and why it doesn't work, and how adding new laws do little to nothing to curb gun violence. We put violent acts where they belong, on the individual(s) who perpetrate them. They are the ones we capture and send to the court for justice and to be judged. The tool used is just part of the evidence. Someone who kills intentionally with a knife is no different than someone who kills with a gun, they are both murderers, and are tried the same. Yet somehow the public feels that one is more evil and heinous than the other because of the instrument they used. Pardon me but that's seriously screwed up and the mental gymnastics are amazing.

 

You want action? Enforce the laws already on the books. Write to your elected leaders and implore them to STFU when it comes to officer involved shootings until the investigation is complete and let the judicial process take place if it goes to that.