Hypocrisy: List of 26 gun-owning Democrats who participated in anti-gun sit-in

a reply to: Gryphon66

Whats hypocritical is pushing for open borders and strict gun control while living in walled-in private communities with armed private security. Apparently their policies only apply to the peasants.

a reply to: Konduit

Alas, that is exactly what this is all about. Divide and conquer the little people and create a 2 tier society. A member here posted a good post and/or thread about it, I'll see if I can dig it up.

a reply to: Gryphon66

Ummm... No if you buy from a licensed dealer background checks are required by FEDERAL LAW. also of note, there is no gun show loophole and to sell at a gun show you need an FFL. internet loophole or any interstate person to person transfer? Yeah, again requires an FFL...

As for person to person transfer in state doesn't require chcaughtn most states, nor should it, because even solicitation of a transaction by prohibited persons are already major felonies as is possession or even use of a firearm under supervision...

Some other things you may not know:

If you can legally own a firearm you can build one from parts and an 80% complete receiver and you do not need to put a serial number on it, register it, or etc. However, if you ever want to transfer the firearm the transaction MUST go through a licensed dealer which also means both buyer and seller must provide id etc. (Also you cannot build an otherwise illegal to buy combination of parts or features into a legal firearm thus evading tax stamps section 922(r) et cetera, and all firearms must have certain information and identifiers noted in the dealer's transaction log before he can allow a transfer)

You also cannot buy and sell firearms strictly for profit without an FFL (yes atf and local Leo watch for this closely and you WILL go to prison WHEN caught!)

Nor can you repair or upgrade firearms for others even without financial compensation without opening yourself up to potential legal and civil repercussions without proper licensing and associated required record keeping etc.

As far as your repeated requests for proof of hypocrisy among the people in power pushing gun control... Look no further than California where immediately after enactment of restrictive gun control the lawmakers promptly voted to exempt themselves and select others from being subject to the regulations they just foisted on everyone else!!

a reply to: Krakatoa

I wish I could star your post 1000 times. Very well put together.

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: Krakatoa
Just a quick question ... what would the relative rate of fire be between one Brown Bess 75cal flintlock musket and three semi-automatic .223cal rifles?

My guess would be at least 1:3 in that scenario.

a reply to: Gryphon66

You think that's cool? A dude with a spear has 0 chance against a guy with an atlatl. Apples to oranges.

a reply to: xuenchen
Funny how the government and many of their agencies want to man-up/lock and load while deigning law abiding citizens the same right...Wonder why the government is so afraid yet say we as citizens should go forth unarmed ? Nothing to see here....... move along my BUTT!

www.zerohedge.com...

The number of non-Defense Department federal officers authorized to make arrests and carry firearms (200,000) now exceeds the number of U.S. Marines (182,000).

Special agents at the IRS equipped with AR-15 military-style rifles? Health and Human Services “Special Office of Inspector General Agents” being trained by the Army’s Special Forces contractors? The Department of Veterans Affairs arming 3,700 employees?



The number of non-Defense Department federal officers authorized to make arrests and carry firearms (200,000) now exceeds the number of U.S. Marines (182,000). In its escalating arms and ammo stockpiling, this federal arms race is unlike anything in history. Over the last 20 years, the number of these federal officers with arrest-and-firearm authority has nearly tripled to over 200,000 today, from 74,500 in 1996.



What exactly is the Obama administration up to?



On Friday, June 17, our organization, American Transparency, is releasing its OpenTheBooks.com oversight report on the militarization of America. The report catalogs federal purchases of guns, ammunition and military-style equipment by seemingly bureaucratic federal agencies. During a nine-year period through 2014, we found, 67 agencies unaffiliated with the Department of Defense spent $1.48 billion on guns and ammo. Of that total, $335.1 million was spent by agencies traditionally viewed as regulatory or administrative, such as the Smithsonian Institution and the U.S. Mint.

• The Internal Revenue Service, which has 2,316 special agents, spent nearly $11 million on guns, ammunition and military-style equipment. That’s nearly $5,000 in gear for each agent.

• The Department of Veterans Affairs, which has 3,700 law-enforcement officers guarding and securing VA medical centers, spent $11.66 million. It spent more than $200,000 on night-vision equipment, $2.3 million for body armor, more than $2 million on guns, and $3.6 million for ammunition. The VA employed no officers with firearm authorization as recently as 1995.

• The Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service spent $4.77 million purchasing shotguns, .308 caliber rifles, night-vision goggles, propane cannons, liquid explosives, pyro supplies, buckshot, LP gas cannons, drones, remote-control helicopters, thermal cameras, military waterproof thermal infrared scopes and more.

a reply to: roguetechie

Thank god for someone who actually knows what they are talking about. So much BS about guns is just spewed as if it's fact when a lot of people have no idea what they are talking about.

ETA: I thought private sellers could sell at gun shows as well, as long as its under the ATF limit?

I also think it would be beneficial to realize that not all states follow the same laws.

en.wikipedia.org...

If any of our elected representatives wanted to pass some "sane" gun control regulations, why don't they type up and propose a simple 1 page bill with no amendments allowed. Allow private sellers access to the NICS if they want to use it or they have suspicions about their buyer. At the moment, only FFL dealers have access to that database and with a fee attached. Allow non-FFL sellers to double check their buyers without making it mandatory and I bet they would get a lot of actual support, not "poll" support.

originally posted by: roguetechie
a reply to: Gryphon66

Ummm... No if you buy from a licensed dealer background checks are required by FEDERAL LAW. also of note, there is no gun show loophole and to sell at a gun show you need an FFL. internet loophole or any interstate person to person transfer? Yeah, again requires an FFL...

Carefully worded there. Statistically, the sales through licensed dealers are only about 60% of all sales in the US.

Are you saying that those transactions which are "private sales" (about 40%) require background checks?

originally posted by: thov420
a reply to: Gryphon66

You think that's cool? A dude with a spear has 0 chance against a guy with an atlatl. Apples to oranges.

Not to contradict you, but apparently that would depend on aim, a moving target, wind speed, visibility and a whole series of issues, as well as the training of the two individuals involved ...

... that is, if you want to stage your scenario the same way I staged mine.

originally posted by: Konduit
a reply to: Gryphon66

Whats hypocritical is pushing for open borders and strict gun control while living in walled-in private communities with armed private security. Apparently their policies only apply to the peasants.

What's "strict" about making background checks universal?

What's "strict" about trying to keep terrorists from easily buying weapons?

a reply to: Gryphon66

That is very true. But even considering variables, an atlatl has a longer range which puts the spear carrier at a huge disadvantage from the get go. Two muskets against each other would have the same variables, but a musket vs a modern rifle is just stupid. That's like comparing a bronze sword vs a steel sword. Both built to do the same things but totally different technology.

originally posted by: thov420
a reply to: Gryphon66

That is very true. But even considering variables, an atlatl has a longer range which puts the spear carrier at a huge disadvantage from the get go. Two muskets against each other would have the same variables, but a musket vs a modern rifle is just stupid. That's like comparing a bronze sword vs a steel sword. Both built to do the same things but totally different technology.

I certainly do not disagree with you here.

I am not the one who has argued that there is no relative difference between a musket and a AK.

a reply to: Gryphon66

Of course there's a difference in operation. I like how someone else here put it, don't remember who (sorry), a firearm is just advanced rock throwing. I don't understand how 1 trigger pull=1 projectile doesn't matter to some when talking about those "scary" ARs, AKs, or all those handguns that murder people daily in this country.

originally posted by: thov420
a reply to: Gryphon66

Of course there's a difference in operation. I like how someone else here put it, don't remember who (sorry), a firearm is just advanced rock throwing. I don't understand how 1 trigger pull=1 projectile doesn't matter to some when talking about those "scary" ARs, AKs, or all those handguns that murder people daily in this country.

I'm not against assault or semi-automatic rifles, but the differences between a musket and an AK are obvious.

It's those blatantly ridiculous assertions that, to my mind, weaken the anti-gun control arguments.

a reply to: Gryphon66

I'm not against assault or semi-automatic rifles, but the differences between a musket and an AK are obvious.

Tell us then G.

WHAT are the differences?

a reply to: roguetechie

Bravo! Thank you for the extra effort! Sadly, thenperson your speaking with, will make up some baloney and ignore your perfectly stated truth.