CIVIL WAR: Senate To Go For Handguns

reply to post by Wrabbit2000

Well, yes and no in my opinion. It's not a ban..it's regulation.

it's not a ban in your opinion, yet the document clearly says "bans a hundred some named guns, and "certain" guns that accept clips.

that is not regulation. that is a very direct ban of guns. it bans more guns than it allows, and those allowed are fringe guns with very little practical value for defense.

Originally posted by butcherguy

Originally posted by EarthCitizen07

Originally posted by butcherguy
reply to post by Ahabstar

 

not word has been mentioned about belt fed systems nor stripper clips or even the more "interesting" harmonica gun designs.

Don't give 'em any ideas, they'll amend the bill before they pass it.

You have it correct, though. The loopholes will be there, no matter how hard they try to prevent it. We Americans can still be inventive when we have to be!

Regardless of any loopholes you would be suprised to find out how many people think it is easy to convert semis into full auto. If only the government has the automatic sear then there is practically no way a gunsmith can reliably convert the weapon. I actually dislike automatics because they offer a false sense of security and burn up ammo too fast. Hand grenades would be a more effective weapon if they were allowed.

I have shot a variety of automatic weapons, most of them require a lot of practice (read a ton of money in ammo cost) to get proficient with them. Most are fairly difficult to control. They do have they effect of scaring the bejesus out of the intended target, but if you don't hit them, they are still a viable opponent.
I'd take a manually operated weapon that was accurate over a full-auto only weapon.

They require exceptional finger control, a stable body and exceptional situational awareness. Overall machine guns are way over-rated for the damage they do in relation to how many bullets are used. They are inefficient, offer false sense of security and more of a "don't mess with me" gun. In good hands it can be useful, in untrained hands is a total waste.

Still if they were legal I would actually prefer a select fire weapon over a strict semi-auto variant even if the folding stock was present in the semi-auto which the brady bill controlled access to($200 tax). It is better to have something and never need it than to need it and never have it. I would fire on semi-auto 99% of the time!

Behave now or take a time out - your decision.

Well, if Americans get disarmed and there is a rebellion, the Russians will resupply the American rebels just like the Syrian rebels are being armed by the CIA :-)

reply to post by paulvh


I highly doubt that, although in a hypothetical scenario that lasts more than several months, I could see it happening...maybe.

Truthfully I honestly have no idea who would come to the aid in such a scenario.

Originally posted by EarthCitizen07


They require exceptional finger control, a stable body and exceptional situational awareness. Overall machine guns are way over-rated for the damage they do in relation to how many bullets are used. They are inefficient, offer false sense of security and more of a "don't mess with me" gun. In good hands it can be useful, in untrained hands is a total waste.

Still if they were legal I would actually prefer a select fire weapon over a strict semi-auto variant even if the folding stock was present in the semi-auto which the brady bill controlled access to($200 tax). It is better to have something and never need it than to need it and never have it. I would fire on semi-auto 99% of the time!

That's a very good reason to require that the people purchasing them demonstrate their ability to use them. Of course anyone returning from the military will have previous training and be proficient in their use, but those who just want to look big and bad would actually have to prove they are capable of controlling the weapon before they're just turned loose with it.

There's a big difference in people who are responsible with their guns and people who just want to feel "powerful". There are some here from each group. Although I don't want the ownership to be taken from those who are responsible, there needs to be a way to prevent the "big and bad looking" group for abusing the priveldge.

Originally posted by Bob Sholtz
reply to post by Wrabbit2000

 

Well, yes and no in my opinion. It's not a ban..it's regulation.

it's not a ban in your opinion, yet the document clearly says "bans a hundred some named guns, and "certain" guns that accept clips.

that is not regulation. that is a very direct ban of guns. it bans more guns than it allows, and those allowed are fringe guns with very little practical value for defense.

Errrr.... My choice of words was poor. Exceptionally poor, as it happens, since wording is the whole point. My apologies. Sometimes it takes a Thesaurus to debate where Government policy is concerned. How do you say opinion without saying opinion ...and not sounding like you figure you know everything on earth? It's a tough one..I failed. My bad.

In the end...My opinion isn't relevant. Your opinion isn't relevant. There are only 9 human beings on Earth whose opinions matter in this and they've already given them. The 9 Robed Ones of the Supreme Court. They have, clearly and without vague language, said regulation IS permissible and that is an issue for lower courts to have the headaches over. They just said whole CLASSES of guns couldn't be banned.

That's true today by the way. Machine Guns are not banned, contrary to what so many ignorantly believe. This:



was on a major national firearms auction site recently and is a pic I had from a past thread. The price for that fully automatic, belt fed M-60 Light Machine Gun was $44,000. It would take me a few months in the approval for the Class III Permit and a tax stamp to have that weapon in my living room today instead of his. That is an example of not 'banning' something ....but making it so difficult and expensive that a large % of the population honestly believes a private citizen cannot own a light or heavy machine gun and fully functional at that.

This ...will be about the same and with the same games. Language will insure it's not a "ban" until the court balance will uphold one. It'll just do everything short of it..and do all that's needed to MAKE it a full and proper ban almost overnight when the last legal hurdle is cleared.

So..why does language matter? If we call something a ban in the effort to fight it.....Those we oppose will laugh and ridicule our ignorance rather than be challenged to respond.....as they just pass whatever they want and note how we can't manage a viable argument to it. I mean, we're SEEING that happen right here... Daily.

reply to post by L8RT8RZ

Of course anyone returning from the military will have previous training and be proficient in their use, but those who just want to look big and bad would actually have to prove they are capable of controlling the weapon before they're just turned loose with it.

Not necessarily.
I have had the opportunity to shoot with members of the armed forces that had qualified with the M16 and M240....
They were woefully inaccurate with the Sten and Thompson subguns, and they were slightly better with the AC556 that we fired that day. Their burst control on the subguns was terrible.
I have no idea how accurate they may have been with an M16 or M240, but their military experience did not help them with other weapons.

reply to post by L8RT8RZ


I am a civilian and I shoot more in one year than most cops do their entire careers, and most of that not at paper targets at a range. I am the former owner of a store and can make a functioning firearm out of damn near anything. I had a 12 gauge shotgun at the age where the shotgun was nearly as tall as I was.

Just because you're proficient, does not mean you are military/LEO. It means that you are "Well-regulated"
It also doesn't mean the National Guard, either, because the National Guard did not come into existence until the Dick Act of 1902 and specifically distances itself from the unorganized militia.
www.armedfemalesofamerica.com...

Oft times people overlook this very important part of the Second Amendment and only concentrate on the second half, which guarantees the right to keep and bear arms. But, what is being said here is necessary to the security of a free state? Yes, a Well Regulated Militia. Regulated, as many people have pointed out, means well trained and well armed. We see, according to the Second Amendment, just keeping and bearing arms is not necessary. A WELL REGULATED MILITIA is necessary to the security of a FREE state. I cannot know what American Revolutionaries meant, I can only assume. If they thought only keeping and bearing arms was necessary they could have worded the amendment something along the lines of "The Right of People to keep and bear arms being necessary to the security of free state, shall not be infringed." But they did not word it like that. They worded it as "A well regulated Militia." What inference can we draw from this? The Founding Fathers understood that only having arms will not do. People who own arms MUST be organized and trained. Organized and trained as a militia ready to defend their Freedom and Liberty from any threat from anywhere.

Originally posted by butcherguy
reply to post by L8RT8RZ

 

Of course anyone returning from the military will have previous training and be proficient in their use, but those who just want to look big and bad would actually have to prove they are capable of controlling the weapon before they're just turned loose with it.

Not necessarily.
I have had the opportunity to shoot with members of the armed forces that had qualified with the M16 and M240....
They were woefully inaccurate with the Sten and Thompson subguns, and they were slightly better with the AC556 that we fired that day. Their burst control on the subguns was terrible.
I have no idea how accurate they may have been with an M16 or M240, but their military experience did not help them with other weapons.

It seems it does make a difference in particular weapons as all have their own idiosyncrasies. Do you think their ability to handle the particular weapons may improve faster than someone who hadn't fired any of the type much more quickly due to their past experience though? I would expect them to have a much sharper learning curve, but I don't know if that's true or not.

I suppose even those who had experience with similar weapons would still need to prove accuracy and control of any new weapon they may want to purchase as well. It's as much for their own safety as for everyone else's when dealing with things of that magnitude. I'd definitely want a psychiatric exam as well as a possible basic personality test of some sort. There are some people who are dangerous enough without guns, let alone with them

reply to post by TrueAmerican


Would this extend into the airsoft arena? Because those thing can be deadly up close, or they hurt like hell when shot with one.

What about paintball guns? Those can kill a person.

I find it irrelevant for these people to pass a bill that say "The 2nd amendment, from this point forward, is to be nulled on all conditions."

If they want civil war, then they got it.

You know what? How about they go over and start conquering and all of our soldiers come home? Let's see how long they last out in the field of war.

reply to post by Wrabbit2000

i know the regulations and fees associated with owning fully automatic weapons, silencers, and other class III items. registration and a tax is used to limit their distribution, and i would call that a "restriction".

however, this bill is a ban on any gun that accepts clips, or can carry more than 10 rounds. furthermore, all grandfathered guns must be registered and approved (the bill says they have the ability to deny you ownership if they see fit), but this bill does not restrict, it outright bans.

i'd say semi-auto guns that accept clips is a catagory of weapons, many rifles and almost all handguns fall under that category. the bill doesn't say "fill out more paperwork, pay a tax, and have a backround check, then you can own it" it just says banned, excluding grandfathered guns, which require all of the above and approvement by local law enforcement, and what if they say no? what can you do? nothing really.

this bill is one of the most dangerous i've ever seen. on par with the patriot act.

reply to post by FreedomCommander



Never heard of a paintball gun killing, but I guess if you hit someone in the larynx at point blank it might swell up a bit. I've been shot in the back at that distance during a tournament and 13 years later I still have a mark!

I posted this in another thread....but it applies somewhat here......
smallwarsjournal.com...
Its worth a read regardless or how you think any kind of "civil counter" to the federal goverment may go
The Scenario is written by a top military teacher in our war colledge.....

reply to post by netwarrior


Freeze the paintballs and they will act like buck shots. Nearly killed someone that I've been antiquated with.

reply to post by TrueAmerican


I recall when I was living in Ca., Sacramento proposed a bill that would cover all chlildren, legal or illegal with state medical insurance. The "Hue and Cry" was, predictably, loud. Eventually, the bill passed just for legals.

To this day, I believe that was the intent from the beginning, added the "illegals" for the express purpose of "compromise" and ending up with what they wanted in the first place which was health care for California children. The "right" took a "win" from the removal of Illegals. LMAO.

In this "gun issue", the same game is being played, outrageous demands initially, with a "compromise" that "settles" for something less,(the original game plan) to appease the rest of us.

Even if this isn't the case, the only viable response is no compromise whatsoever. It is only one step in the continued assault on the second amendment. When I see the same intensity to ban near-birth abortions, which are in facrt, viable, living children being murdered at a rate that exceeds Conn. on a daily basis, then I might listen to them.

They protect womens right to "choose". We protect our rights to choose how we defend ourselves. To the libs "I say go forth and multiply" ....

reply to post by Bob Sholtz


I strongly feel the bill won't be passed due to the constitutionality of it. However, we do need to look at some serious and responsible solutions as firepower becomes greater and greater. The average civilian on the street doesn't need the firepower that is being developed, they have absolutely no use for it at all.

It doesn't matter if they were once in the military or if they've had guns their entire life or if they are a card carrying member of the NRA, there are some guns that the average person just doesn't need and they're more of a danger to the owner than to the general public due to some of the attitudes that people have.

You see people bragging about how many rounds they've fired and allude to being "big and bad" because they have a so and so gun. Those people are the ones who are dangerous. They don't have the mental stability to own a firearm. They're the type that shoot first and ask questions later instead of abiding by the law and will end up hurting or killing people in their ignorance.

I'm not saying a gun ban is the answer, in fact, it'll probably just make them worse, but there has to be a way to address those people and prevent them from hurting others or themselves due to nothing more than their own ignorance. Sure, they may know lots about guns, they may be able to build one from scratch, but that doesn't mean they are mentally coherant. The ones who rant and rave and brag and go on and on and on about them are the dangerous ones. I question their sanity quickly due to their actions not related to guns, them having guns is even more alarming. We can't believe 99% of what they say in their rants and rambles and everyone is aware of it. They embellish more and more with each new iteration of their stories or bragging sessions which shows their danger more and more.

The mental health question is the big one. There needs to be more done about mental health in general, then the gun issues will take care of themselves as people become more sensible and responsible.

There are a few who have posted here, you, butcher, wrabbit and some others who I would have no issue with having firearms as far as I've seen of their conversations, but others who I wouldn't trust with a slingshot. The mental health issue is by far the most important in my opinion.