close to 20 people dead (including children) in CT kindergarten shooting[views:413930][posts:319]___________________________________________ [Dec 21,2012 10:37am - largefreakatzero ""] ITT: a duck delivers |
| _________________________________________ [Dec 21,2012 10:41am - DestroyYouAlot ""] Clearly all this tragic violence is due to these new-fangled flintlock weapons. Civilians should be restricted to matchlocks, for the good of the Empire. The arquebus is sufficient for the colonials. [/Outraged 17th century British twit] [img] |
| ___________________________________ [Dec 21,2012 11:07am - Samantha ""] Every time I read this thread, it feels like I'm repeatedly banging my head against a wall. This is in no way an offense to anyone as I've definitely seen some intelligent discussion here. Here is my take on things: There are always going to be dangerous people in the world. Guns aren't the problem. The more we regulate the ability of average people to defend themselves, the more helpless people will become, and the more power government and police will have over society. (Nazi Germany, anyone?) Do you ever wonder why people who live out in the country own shotguns? Because the police can't get to their house in time, and they need to be able to fend for themselves. Now, think about how many good rural folks would be the victims of crime if the powers that be took away their means of defense. Granted, my view is that of someone who grew up in Vermont and never realized until nearly reaching adulthood that, if someone breaks into your house, and you shoot them, fight them, or defend yourself in any way, that is illegal in some states (Massachusetts for example). You can go to jail like a common criminal just for defending yourself. How ridiculous is that? What happened at Sandy Brook was a horrible tragedy, but don't let those emotions sway you enough to allow the government to take away your freedoms. Soon enough, the laws could become so invasive that people may demand a revolution, but they will have no way to fight for it... because the government already tugged at our heart strings enough to take away our 2nd amendment rights. |
| __________________________________ [Dec 21,2012 1:57pm - ShadowSD ""] No one is talking about taking away all shotguns (let alone in rural areas where first response time is shit), I've never heard anybody say that in this thread or anywhere in the national political discussion about this; as many people in this thread have correctly pointed out, some guns that aren't semi-automatic can still be used to fire rapidly including some shotguns - but that doesn't mean EVERY gun falls into that category and would be subject to gun control. That's way too broad an extrapolation. largefreakatzero said:Sorry, all gun-grabbers are liberal A lot of elected leaders with high lifetime ratings from the NRA have changed their minds on this issue after this tragedy, it's not breaking down along the usual lines. However, like I said above, I think it will take a few shootings in a short time involving many small caskets - not just one such shooting - for the politics to shift to where Congress isn't owned by the NRA lobby, and could pass something meaningful anyway. |
| __________________________________ [Dec 21,2012 2:16pm - Samantha ""] Criminals aren't the only people with semi-automatic or rapid firing weapons, but if they're made illegal, the only people who will have them will be exactly that... criminals. The problem with gun legislation is that criminals don't follow gun laws. They can obtain weapons by illegal means, and that leaves all of the good law abiding people out of luck. |
| __________________________________ [Dec 21,2012 2:37pm - ShadowSD ""] But that begs the question: is the fact fully automatic weapons like machine guns have been banned since 1934 a bad thing thing in your eyes? If not, then isn't it an example of how reasonable controls can work in a country with the second amendment, and have for nearly a century? |
| __________________________________ [Dec 21,2012 2:40pm - ShadowSD ""] An evidence-based counterargument that more guns overall helps the criminals and doesn't hurt them: In Australia, in 1996, a man killed 35 people in the course of an afternoon rampage. Australia soon went from having relaxed gun laws to having tough gun laws, including such common-sense measures as character witnesses for people who want to own a gun, and the purchase of a safebolted to the wall or floor. There are still plenty of hunters in Australia, but it hasn’t had a mass killing since. South Africa may be an even better example. For many years, South Africa was a country every bit as gun-soaked as America. I have a friend, Greg Frank, a hedge fund manager in Charlottesville, Va., who lived in Johannesburg during a time when it had become so crime-ridden that people felt the need to own guns to protect themselves. He, too, owned a gun as a young man: “I made the excuse that I needed it for self-protection.” The guns didn’t make anybody safer. People who were held up while waiting at a red light rarely had time to pull out their guns. And the fact that so many homes had guns became an incentive for criminals, who would break in, hold the family hostage, and then order that the safe with the guns be opened. “Everyone knew someone who had family or friends who had experienced gun violence,” he said. Finally, he says, people got fed up. In 2004, the laws changed, requiring annual relicensing, character witnesses and other measure to keep guns out of the wrong hands. There was also an appeal to voluntarily surrender guns. “I took my gun to the police station,” recalls Frank. “The cop receiving it wrote down the serial number, took my ID, and I was gone. It felt transformational, like a huge weight off my shoulders.” http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/18/opinion/...=1355872230-sWzc4J+DpSSC0Nitt1ewcg& |
| ____________________________________ [Dec 21,2012 2:47pm - Arrow NLI ""] I had a long response typed out... But let's keep it short: Shadow, you're clueless about guns. Admittedly. Maybe read a LOT about guns (not just googling articles and laws that support your opinion) and defensive shooting, and then come back and tell us all we should have access to is a gun meant for hunting BIRDS. The entire point of a defensive weapon is to shoot a person. That involves, often, multiple rounds fired in quick succession. You believe we should have this ability taken away? Food for thought: • A 1997 high school shooting in Pearl, Miss., was halted by the school's vice principal after he retrieved the Colt .45 he kept in his truck. • A 1998 middle school shooting ended when a man living next door heard gunfire and apprehended the shooter with his shotgun. • A 2002 terrorist attack at an Israeli school was quickly stopped by an armed teacher and a school guard. • A 2002 law school shooting in Grundy, Va., came to an abrupt conclusion when students carrying firearms confronted the shooter. • A 2007 mall shooting in Ogden, Utah, ended when an armed off-duty police officer intervened. • A 2009 workplace shooting in Houston, Texas, was halted by two coworkers who carried concealed handguns. • A 2012 church shooting in Aurora, Colo., was stopped by a member of the congregation carrying a gun. • At the recent mall shooting in Portland, Ore., just 4 days before the school shooting in Conn., the gunman took his own life minutes after being confronted by a shopper carrying a concealed weapon. 2500 times last year alone legal gun owners stopped violent crime when confronted with it long before any police assistance ... |
| ___________________________________ [Dec 21,2012 2:50pm - old lady ""] this guy arrow is a fucking tool |
| ______________________________ [Dec 21,2012 2:54pm - ark ""] ShadowSD said: A lot of elected leaders with high lifetime ratings from the NRA have changed their minds on this issue after this tragedy dude...it's because they need votes the next election. |
| ____________________________________ [Dec 21,2012 2:56pm - Arrow NLI ""] old%20lady said:this guy arrow is a fucking tool Terrible new troll, go away. Come back as aril next time. |
| ______________________________ [Dec 21,2012 2:57pm - ark ""] if a mass shooting changes somebody's mind about gun control then they were never well-informed, live willfully in their confirmation bias bubble, or a reactionary politician. |
| ____________________________________ [Dec 21,2012 3:05pm - Arrow NLI ""] ShadowSD said:An evidence-based counterargument that more guns overall helps the criminals and doesn't hurt them: In Australia, South Africa may be an even better example. Unlike America, neither of these countries started out with over 300,000,000 firearms already in circulation. Wouldn't work here. |
| __________________________________ [Dec 21,2012 3:07pm - ShadowSD ""] ark said: ShadowSD said:A lot of elected leaders with high lifetime ratings from the NRA have changed their minds on this issue after this tragedy dude...it's because they need votes the next election. Oh no question, that's my point, they've shifted some because the voters in their district have shifted some; the question was whether things had gone beyond the usual ideological lines of this debate among voters or not, and that's what I was addressing. |
| ______________________________ [Dec 21,2012 3:21pm - BSV ""] RANDOM ARTICLE ON HOMEMADE CHECHEN GUNS http://englishrussia.com/2007/06/04/chechen-self-made-weapons/ |
| __________________________________ [Dec 21,2012 3:28pm - ShadowSD ""] Arrow%20NLI said:(not just googling articles and laws that support your opinion) That's not true at all,. I clicked on the link for that article from realclearpolitics.com, a digest site with articles from different points of view but a conservative editorial staff, where I read articles at least as many columns by conservatives as by liberals, if not more. I disagreed with the pro-gun control article CNN wrote. I immediately read the COIN article Boozegod posted, and I accepted you guys' corrections on gun terminology. After all that, I don't think it's fair to say I only listen to viewpoints that re-enforce my own, if so why would I have raised this topic of all topics in this forum of all places? Arrow%20NLI said:The entire point of a defensive weapon is to shoot a person. That involves, often, multiple rounds fired in quick succession. You believe we should have this ability taken away? Multiple rounds fired in quick succession didn't exist in the days of the writing of the second amendment so often cited to justify that ability. Is this really an insignificant point? Your best point is the stats about gun violence being stopped by gun owners, that's a pretty compelling argument - although, I wonder what the comparison would be gun violence stopped by gun owners with guns that have the ability to fire and reload quickly versus not, and *particularly* I'd want to know of examples where having a gun without the ability to fire and reload quickly FAILED to stop gun violence because it was inadequate firepower to do. I think enough examples like that would make your case more convincing, because if there are more deaths from that specific circumstance of not having sufficient firing and reloading speed than there are from mass shootings caused by weapons that do, that would actually convince me that I have it wrong on this; as it stands, with these broader statistics, it's more of going back to the old standby of defending the virtues of all guns in general as if anyone's talking about banning them all, which they aren't. |
| __________________________________ [Dec 21,2012 3:46pm - ShadowSD ""] Another example of how I don't google only friendly sources... the 1934 date of when machine guns were banned that I mentioned to Samantha is a fact I found on guncite.com, which is a pro-gun-rights site. Some other facts they posted, and from a book by a pro gun-rights author: in Targeting Guns, Kleck writes, four police officers were killed in the line of duty by machine guns from 1983 to 1992. (713 law enforcement officers were killed during that period, 651 with guns.) In 1980, when Miami's homicide rate was at an all-time high, less than 1% of all homicides involved machine guns. (Miami was supposedly a "machine gun Mecca" and drug trafficking capital of the U.S.) Although there are no national figures to compare to, machine gun deaths were probably lower elsewhere. Kleck cites several examples: - Of 2,200 guns recovered by Minneapolis police (1987-1989), not one was fully automatic. - A total of 420 weapons, including 375 guns, were seized during drug warrant executions and arrests by the Metropolitan Area Narcotics Squad (Will and Grundie counties in the Chicago metropolitan area, 1980-1989). None of the guns was a machine gun. - 16 of 2,359 (0.7%) of the guns seized in the Detroit area (1991-1992) in connection with "the investigation of narcotics trafficking operations" were machine guns. http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcfullau.html It appears that criminals didn't find illegal guns much easier to get than civilians after all. |
| ____________________________________ [Dec 21,2012 3:54pm - Arrow NLI ""] ShadowSD said: Multiple rounds fired in quick succession didn't exist in the days of the writing of the second amendment so often cited to justify that ability. Is this really an insignificant point? Insignificant? Yes. The intent behind the constitutional amendment was the ability to arm ourselves equally to our government or any invading nation. As their guns got more powerful, so do ours. Pretty sure the amendment had zero to do with hunting, or home robbery. In fact, when the constitution was written, did people even lock their doors against their neighbors? No. They didn't. |
| __________________________________ [Dec 21,2012 4:14pm - ShadowSD ""] Arrow%20NLI said:The intent behind the constitutional amendment was the ability to arm ourselves equally to our government Yes, and trying to apply that to today brings us back to nukes. Should we each have one to match the government? The government has them and we don't. Also, again, what about machine guns? The government has them and we don't. Doesn't this all suggest the ship sailed on "the ability to arm ourselves equally to our government" a long time ago? Is there any other conclusion? If so, what is it? |
| __________________________________ [Dec 21,2012 4:19pm - Samantha ""] Arrow%20NLI said: The intent behind the constitutional amendment was the ability to arm ourselves equally to our government or any invading nation. As their guns got more powerful, so do ours. :point: Yes. This. It's also worth pointing out that we would have never won the revolutionary war if it hadn't been for average people who had stockpiles of weapons. One could easily use the same logic that people are using today (regarding the increased technological advances of guns) by asking why a farmer in the 1700s would need a cannon. They needed it to defend themselves against a corrupt government, that's what! |
| ________________________________ [Dec 21,2012 4:23pm - Spence ""] Arrow%20NLI said:The intent behind the constitutional amendment was the ability to arm ourselves equally to our government or any invading nation. As their guns got more powerful, so do ours. :point::point::point: |
| __________________________________ [Dec 21,2012 4:27pm - ShadowSD ""] Samantha said:One could easily use the same logic that people are using today (regarding the increased technological advances of guns) by asking why a farmer in the 1700s would need a cannon. They needed it to defend themselves against a corrupt government, that's what! No way. What civilians in a potential mass shooting would stand around waiting for a cannon to keep reloading and firing? The need of people to not be gunned down en masse like fish in a barrel is the specific logic I'm using, so it wouldn't work for a cannon at all. The government also had no nukes or machine guns or other weapons far stronger than the citizenry, as they do today, so the comparison does not work. |
| __________________________________ [Dec 21,2012 4:38pm - ShadowSD ""] Spence said: Arrow%20NLI said:The intent behind the constitutional amendment was the ability to arm ourselves equally to our government or any invading nation. As their guns got more powerful, so do ours. :point::point::point: You guys aren't hearing me, I agree with that principle 100%, but explain how we haven't already fallen short of that principle by being outgunned by our government with their nukes and machine guns and our inability as citizens to possess them. |
| __________________________________ [Dec 21,2012 4:43pm - Samantha ""] [img] |
| __________________________________ [Dec 21,2012 4:56pm - ShadowSD ""] I just want people to be consistent, that's all. If the case you guys are making is that the legislation being suggested would make us for the first time less armed than the government, that simply isn't true, we have been so for a long time. |
| ____________________________________ [Dec 21,2012 5:37pm - Arrow NLI ""] ShadowSD said:I just want people to be consistent, that's all. If the case you guys are making is that the legislation being suggested would make us for the first time less armed than the government, that simply isn't true, we have been so for a long time. Give an example of a government nuking it's citizens in a civil war. As far as battlefield weapons, they're great for battlefields. Not so good for suburban combat. A well armed militia of semi-auto rifles and handguns has a fighting chance against such weaponry. With what you propose, we'd be giving that up completely. You're the guy that says "why didn't they shoot him in the leg" every time there's a police shooting in the news, aren't you? It seems your knowledge and impression of firearms comes from movies and T.V., where nothing is realistic at all. |
| __________________________________ [Dec 21,2012 6:53pm - ShadowSD ""] Never said "why didn't they shoot them in the leg" once, not sure where you're getting that. Leg's damn hard to hit. Aside from that, lots of credit to you for actually addressing my question. Interesting point about nukes (although it does kind of go in the face of not letting the government be better armed than us - an argument that says trust them for historical reasons). One wonders, if government truly became tyrannical though, what still stops them from using some sort of weapon of mass destruction, perhaps chemical or biological if you don't believe nuclear? Syria's Assad nearly used chemical weapons on his own people several weeks ago, and only pulled back under threat of massive retaliation from other countries; if the US government became tyrannical, it's hard to see any other nations being in a position to have the kind of influence to stop that kind of attack. I find it hard to wager everything that a tyranny powerful enough to overcome over two centuries of democracy would be filled examples of great sympathy; trying to keep that faith in decency of the government alongside the inherent distrust of government at the same time just seems too much a contradiction to me. That's such a narrow if not completely implausible intersection of possibilities. Interesting point about machine guns, although I wonder if machine guns are so poor for suburban combat why they were so popular with organized crime and why anyone bothered banning them in suburban streets. Would be interested in your thoughts on this. I also wonder how a militia would overcome government's vast intelligence capabilities, classified weapons technology of which we are not even aware, and the number of trained armed services personnel in terms of how well-trained and how many well-trained soldiers there are, something which has really changed in recent decades. I'm still combing through Boozegod's links that were provided trying to find a case for that being realistic. Anyone has a direct link to this argument anywhere, I'd like to read it. A couple of my closest friends who served in the Iraq and Afghanistan wars I'm going to be seeing over the next few days; one was in the Army, the other the Army Reserves, I'm interested to hear their opinions on this. I wonder if they think a militia could resist the US military and intelligence as it stands today. |
| ____________________________________ [Dec 21,2012 7:21pm - Arrow NLI ""] ShadowSD said: Interesting point about machine guns, although I wonder if machine guns are so poor for suburban combat why they were so popular with organized crime and why anyone bothered banning them in suburban streets. It's not a subject I'm incredibly familiar with, but I'd assume the mafia loved the tommy guns for the same reason they likes many ruthless and brutal methods - intimidation. And banning them, again, I'd assume likewise. People were intimidated by the raw firepower. Regarding warfare, however, that firepower has tradeoffs. One is accuracy. The other is how fast you deplete your ammo. You'll note in most tactical suburban situations, from Iraqi footage to even your favorite C.O.D. game, the more portable and accurate weapons are greatly preferred when you're on the move. I also wonder how a militia would overcome government's vast intelligence capabilities, Are you talking about the vast intelligence capabilities from the Gene Hackman/Will Smith movie? Or the vast intelligence capabilities from the Shea Lebouf movie? Or maybe the intelligence that led the Bush administration to invade a Iraq under false pretense, or took nearly a decade to locate a single terrorist? Warfare isn't as complex as you think it is. Again, just look at any number of the suburban conflicts going on worldwide. All the intelligence in the world isn't all that helpful when the enemy is rooted deeply, and well armed. |
| ____________________________________ [Dec 21,2012 7:25pm - Arrow NLI ""] ShadowSD said: A couple of my closest friends who served in the Iraq and Afghanistan wars I'm going to be seeing over the next few days; one was in the Army, the other the Army Reserves, I'm interested to hear their opinions on this. I wonder if they think a militia could resist the US military and intelligence as it stands today. LOL, if they spent time in Afghanistan and Iraq, they should be freakin EXPERTS on militia resisting US military and intelligence. They were dealing with it daily, and a dozen years later we STILL can't get them under control. |
| __________________________________ [Dec 21,2012 7:58pm - ShadowSD ""] Foreign occupations are always ultimately self-defeating, though. Intelligence is why we've killed most of the top terrorist leaders we have now that the government isn't cooking the books on intelligence, so I wouldn't understate it TOO much based only on an intelligence fraud perpetrated by the previous administration to start a war against Iraq they planned on from the beginning. In the last few years the intelligence community has had lots of successes that can't be dismissed just based on the previous admin. I honestly haven't seen either of the movies you're talking about to be able to comment on them, and I haven't gotten to play COD either. Recommend any of them? |
| _________________________________________________ [Dec 21,2012 8:09pm - Nigstitutional Scholar ""] At the time of its writing, the second amendment only applied to 1 in 5 Americans. |
| ___________________________________ [Dec 22,2012 1:19pm - Boozegood ""] ShadowSD said:But that begs the question: is the fact fully automatic weapons like machine guns have been banned since 1934 a bad thing thing in your eyes? Come on man, yet again do your research. An American civilian can own a machine gun, rocket launcher, grenade launcher, tank, etc. legally. They are not banned. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Destructive_device And here is the link to the 1934 'ban' you are speaking of: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Firearms_Act These are civilian owned weapons: bennyhillifier Again this probably isn't helping my cause; but education is more important anyways. In the end everyone just wants your side of the argument to admit what you really think; from there maybe we can work something out. Stop pretending you are only trying to ban this-or-that-or-the-other while 'fully supporting the 2nd amendment'. It's just not reality and this whole argument would be much easier if you would admit as such. |
| ___________________________________ [Dec 22,2012 10:28pm - ShadowSD ""] OK, well, according to guncite.com, they were banned in 1934 with very few exceptions, and in 1986 they were banned completely; I posted the link above with the details. If your point is that guncite has their facts wrong on this, I'm willing to accept that - but this was a pro-gun rights site I got this information from so I did do some research and certainly not from a source that agrees with me. After all, with everything that's been said in this thread especially, I figured you'd be more sympathetic to the arguments of a pro-gun rights source, whereas wikipedia has been called not conservative enough by so many conservatives (to the point where they invented conservapedia) that I thought anything I got there would be deemed by you guys as liberal echo chamber tripe. |
| _____________________________________ [Dec 22,2012 10:38pm - Arrow NLI ""] ShadowSD said:OK, well, according to guncite.com, they were banned in 1934 with very few exceptions, and in 1986 they were banned completely; I posted the link above with the details. If your point is that guncite has their facts wrong on this, I'm willing to accept that In this case, unless Boozegood can correct me, you are actually correct. Without military or police authority you cannot own them. In fact, the Blackwater company got in a shitload of trouble trying to skirt these laws by keeping their guns with the local sherrif when they were in the states. |
| ____________________________________ [Dec 22,2012 11:07pm - Boozegood ""] You are both incorrect. As proof I am sure there are more than one person on this board alone that have been to Manchester Firing Lines for example and shot machine guns. They are Class 3 weapons. Gun-Cite says nothing about them being banned ( http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcfullau.html ) And as far as the Blackwater example goes, you are also incorrect. I am a PMC myself so I have experience with that. The incident you are referring to was not an issue of automatic-weapons (though the weapons in question were select-fire): http://confederateyankee.mu.nu/archives/267607.php I would do a LOT of research into PMCs before you start talkng about them as well or else you will sound like the un-deducated gun-controll folks we are talking about in this thread. |
| ____________________________________ [Dec 22,2012 11:32pm - Boozegood ""] ShadowSD said:and in 1986 they were banned completely; I posted the link above with the details. Ah, I see the confusion. Being banned in 1986 means that all Machine-Guns manufactored after 1986 cannot be sold. It's similar to the 'Assault-Weapons' Ban, ie. the AWB is still active in Massachusetts but if you have a lower-reciever witha serial number that dates pre-1994 (the year of the AWB) you can build whatever sort of rifle you would like around it. This is a lower reciever, for reference purposes: [img] If the parts of the Machine-Gun that are considered the 'gun' are manufactured before 1986; it is still legal for civilians to own it. For example here is a civilian owned grenade launcher attached to a civilian owned automatic weapon: bennyhillifier |
| _____________________________________ [Dec 22,2012 11:59pm - Arrow NLI ""] Boozegood said: I would do a LOT of research into PMCs before you start talkng about them as well or else you will sound like the undeducated gun-controll folks we are taliing about in this thread. I assure you, I'm very well deducated. Whatever that means. From what I've read, Blackwater was storing weapons they were not legally allowed to possess on US soil, and were using the Sherrif's storage to skirt the issue. Quite a few sites present it this way as well. And further, quite a few PMC (private military contractors, as acronyms are for faggots and most here won't know what you're saying) have long been in the practice of purchasing and arming themselves outside the country to skirt similar rules. So while you may have a point that somehow some machine guns are legal to own, I'm sure you know exactly how much that argument exists on technicality and loopholes. Or, could you explain how I could go get MYSELF a fully automatic rifle? Last I looked even your class 3 weapons are illegal in a third of the country. It's like saying a 1957 Chevy is street legal because you saw one at an auto show. I am not really on the other side of the argument from you. We agree, mostly. But you're trying way to hard to give the impression that a machine gun can be purchased and owned by the average FID carrier, which is bullshit. |
| ____________________________________ [Dec 23,2012 12:39am - Boozegood ""] Arrow%20NLI said: I assure you, I'm very well deducated. Whatever that means. Posting from my phone. From what I've read, Blackwater was storing weapons they were not legally allowed to possess on US soil, and were using the Sherrif's storage to skirt the issue. Quite a few sites present it this way as well. You read wrong, than. Did you read the link I posted? That was not the issue at all. Also; the weapons were being stored on the BW compound, the Sherrif's department did not have an armory. And further, quite a few PMC (private military contractors, as acronyms are for faggots and most here won't know what you're saying) have long been in the practice of purchasing and arming themselves outside the country to skirt similar rules. That's not how it works at all ("skirting rules"), but okay. For instance all the weapons I use are furnished by the US Department of State when we are in country. So while you may have a point that somehow some machine guns are legal to own, I'm sure you know exactly how much that argument exists on technicality and loopholes. Or, could you explain how I could go get MYSELF a fully automatic rifle? Last I looked even your class 3 weapons are illegal in a third of the country. There are no technicalities or loopholes, they are NFA firearms. And sure, if you really want one: http://www.ar15.com/content/legal/nfaFAQ.html It's like saying a 1957 Chevy is street legal because you saw one at an auto show. No, it would be like saying a 1957 Chevy is street legal because I have driven one legally on the street myself multiple times. I am not really on the other side of the argument from you. We agree, mostly. But you're trying way to hard to give the impression that a machine gun can be purchased and owned by the average FID carrier, which is bullshit. No I'm not. I've said they aren't easy to possess more then once in this thread in fact. I'm saying that they are legal for civilians to own. That's all. I'm stating facts to correct conjecture by the gun-control advocates in this thread who are under the impression that it is illegal for civilians to own automatic weapons, grenade launchers, tanks, artillery, etc. I'm not arguing or insulting anyone or at least I'm trying not to. I'm stating facts; that's all. |
| ____________________________________ [Dec 23,2012 1:24am - Arrow NLI ""] You're stating facts, but you're confusing the issue beyond belief. Shadow was confused about "rapid fire". Instead of clarifying, your tangent has made things confusing enough that even I, someone who fired their first gun over 30 years ago, have no idea what you're trying to prove about machine guns. My point about buying an auto, for the record, is because I live in one of the states where it is NOT legal. You're spoiled by NH, I'm guessing. And in states where class 3 weapons are legal to own, ownership is NOT granted through local authorities like a firearm permit. You may feel you said it already, but again I'm on your side and I sure didn't catch it. No offense man, but you make our side of the issue look a little scary when you emphasize the facts that get blown out of proportion by the anti-gun groups. |
| ___________________________________ [Dec 23,2012 2:06am - Boozegood ""] Arrow%20NLI said:You're stating facts, but you're confusing the issue beyond belief. Shadow was confused about "rapid fire". Instead of clarifying, your tangent has made things confusing enough that even I, someone who fired their first gun over 30 years ago, have no idea what you're trying to prove about machine guns. There is nothing confusing about it. Machine-guns are legal. My point about buying an auto, for the record, is because I live in one of the states where it is NOT legal. You're spoiled by NH, I'm guessing. I'm from Massachusetts And in states where class 3 weapons are legal to own, ownership is NOT granted through local authorities like a firearm permit. You may feel you said it already, but again I'm on your side and I sure didn't catch it. All I did was say they are legal. No offense man, but you make our side of the issue look a little scary when you emphasize the facts that get blown out of proportion by the anti-gun groups. I don't care if facts are scary or not; just that they are facts. The reason it is important to state the facts as they are is because gun-control advocates often say things like 'well a civilians can't own artillery so why should they own a ____', or 'a civilian can't own a machine-gun so why should they own a ____', etc. (it's been said in this thread). It's unimportant whether this frightens them or not; they have already made up their mind. I just want them to admit what it actually is because they seem to sugar-coat the fact that they do in fact want to ban the majority of firearms. This is the same reason I posted the rapid-fire videos; some will say 'okay than we need to ban ___ and ___' until all we have is single shot Derringers we can't take out of our house; which they will still claim is 'supporting the 2nd amendment'. I've already admitted it is self-defeating in a way but it is still important. They DO NOT 'support the 2nd amendment' (as they often like to say they do), they support the idea that Americans should be able to have some sort of gun. There is a huge difference. |
| ____________________________________ [Dec 23,2012 2:10pm - Arrow NLI ""] It IS self defeating, and it is the type of argument that will (very easily) get turned against gun owners. If you're going to make your points, I just feel the emphasis needs to be on making sure to mention the additional vetting required, and the differentiation between concealed carry/FID and the additional vetting required to get approval from the ATF to purchase or transfer a class 3 weapon. |
| ____________________________________ [Dec 23,2012 2:13pm - Arrow NLI ""] Boozegood said: My point about buying an auto, for the record, is because I live in one of the states where it is NOT legal. You're spoiled by NH, I'm guessing. I'm from Massachusetts You'll definitely need to further educate us then, because so am I and I'm pretty sure class 3 weapons are not legal to own in massachussets, or at the least I'm positive they're not allowed at any of the gun ranges I've been to in the last 25 years. |
| ___________________________________ [Dec 23,2012 3:45pm - Boozegood ""] Arrow%20NLI said:It IS self defeating, and it is the type of argument that will (very easily) get turned against gun owners. If the gun-control folks want to use facts against me in an argument, I welcome it. It would be a nice change of pace. I am prepared to to debate; I have no reason not to educate people that are in support of gun-control but are not knowledgeable about guns or gun laws. If you're going to make your points, I just feel the emphasis needs to be on making sure to mention the additional vetting required, and the differentiation between concealed carry/FID and the additional vetting required to get approval from the ATF to purchase or transfer a class 3 weapon. Why? |
| ___________________________________ [Dec 23,2012 3:46pm - Boozegood ""] Arrow%20NLI said: You'll definitely need to further educate us then, because so am I and I'm pretty sure class 3 weapons are not legal to own in massachussets, or at the least I'm positive they're not allowed at any of the gun ranges I've been to in the last 25 years. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_laws_in_Massachusetts#Machine_gun_license http://www.northeastshooters.com/vbulletin...e-get-a-Machine-Gun-license-in-mass From your previous posts it sounds as if you have an FID/LTC. The form to get a FID/LTC is the same form used to get a Machine-Gun license. You checked the FID/LTC portion which is in the same section as the Machine-Gun licensing option. Here is a screenshot I took underlining the above: [img] |
| ____________________________________ [Dec 23,2012 4:55pm - Arrow NLI ""] My FID lapsed over 10+ years ago. I don't want a firearm where I live now, as it's more likely to be stolen than to save my life. Once I get a house, I'll have an FID again. |
| ____________________________________ [Dec 23,2012 4:55pm - Arrow NLI ""] RE: forms - one goes to the ATF, the other is approved by local law enforcement. BIG difference. |
| ____________________________________ [Dec 23,2012 4:57pm - Arrow NLI ""] Stupid that I have to log in to edit - how would I troll then? Anyhoo - I could be completely wrong. Last time I was issued a carry permit I filled out the form and the C.O.P. in Plymouth issued my card. I also was there with my dad, who's still an avid shooter and treasurer of the local gun range. |
| ____________________________________ [Dec 23,2012 4:59pm - Arrow NLI ""] Looking at your image, there was DEFINITELY nothing about machine guns on the forms I've filled out. I would have wanted one right away if I had seen that. |
| __________________________________________ [Dec 25,2012 4:38pm - largefreakatzero ""] Good thing it was against the law for this guy to own guns: http://m.newser.com/story/159859/ny-shoote...-i-like-best-is-killing-people.html Oh wait... |
| ___________________________________ [Dec 25,2012 7:12pm - dreadkill ""] But he used a bushmaster 223 like Adam Lanza. This gun is intentionally going around killing people. Ban bushmaster 223s!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! |