Hooknswoop 19 #1 January 7, 2013 Can anyone explain to me how any of the new gun laws being discussed will prevent mass shootings? Derek V Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
wolfriverjoe 1,340 #2 January 7, 2013 QuoteCan anyone explain to me how any of the new gun laws being discussed will prevent mass shootings? Derek V Nope. Not even the people who wrote them can answer that."There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy "~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kd5xb 1 #3 January 7, 2013 Better yet -- Can anyone explain to me if any of the new gun laws being discussed are expected to prevent mass shootings or simply make the liberals feel better over restricting my rights?I'm a jumper. Even though I don't always have money for jumps, and may not ever own a rig again, I'll always be a jumper. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
GeorgiaDon 340 #4 January 7, 2013 No, at least not the ideas being floated around in the media. However, AFAIK the commission Biden is heading hasn't released any recommendations yet, so it seems a bit premature to say they are worthless. Don_____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawrocket 3 #5 January 7, 2013 I don't think the point is to prevent mass shootings. My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rehmwa 2 #6 January 7, 2013 QuoteI don't think the point is to prevent mass shootings. all new laws have one goal - garner more support and votes and donations. So a 'do-nothing, but feel-good' law is considered a success. (Note the productivity of a congress is measured by NUMBER of laws passed, not the net positive effect of laws passed) (the few fanatics, of course, are just pushing their brand of social philosophy, but I suspect they are in the minority of all congressmen) I actually believe that the only sincerity in DC is the fanatics (scary isn't it), the rest are out for power. Exceptions few and far between and quickly indoctrinated once identified. ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 18 #7 January 7, 2013 QuoteI don't think the point is to prevent mass shootings. +!"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kcjen24 0 #8 January 7, 2013 I'm gonna go with rehmwa on this one. Votes Money Power... (I'm thinking in terms of control) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
OHCHUTE 0 #9 January 7, 2013 Most know nutjobs need controlled. The debate is trending to better communication with gun sales, and people who buy them, not necessarily stopping gun sales. Gun show loop holes, straw purchases, no sales to mental cases etc, are mostly what is being talked about. There are just too many AR15 that you're not going to collect them or bar transfers. They'll reduce mags and tighten rules in gaining ARs but won't restrict sales. You could buy a AR during the ban. Right now you can buy a machine gun or silencer if you want etc. Legal to buy if you follow they rules. (Subject to state law.) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gravitymaster 0 #10 January 7, 2013 QuoteI don't think the point is to prevent mass shootings. +1 It's just a ruse to justify overturning the 2nd Amendment. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Glitch 0 #11 January 7, 2013 There is no justification for repealing the 2nd Amendment. Randomly f'n thingies up since before I was born... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
turtlespeed 212 #12 January 7, 2013 Quote There is no justification for repealing the 2nd Amendment. THAT depends on which side of the knee jerk you are on.I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Hooknswoop 19 #13 January 7, 2013 The recent mass shootings have been the catylist for the new gun laws being considered. Yet, no one can tell me how these laws would prevent future mass shootings. Seems to me that recents events are being used to garner support to tighten gun laws, not prevent future mass shootings. Derek V Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
wolfriverjoe 1,340 #14 January 7, 2013 QuoteThe recent mass shootings have been the catylist for the new gun laws being considered. Yet, no one can tell me how these laws would prevent future mass shootings. Seems to me that recents events are being used to garner support to tighten gun laws, not prevent future mass shootings. Derek V Yup. Feinstein has wanted to propose new gun laws for a long, long time. She knew that they wouldn't have a realistic chance of passing before the latest high profile incidents. But now that the sheep are up in arms that the scary, evil, crazy man is coming for their kids with a "black rifle," she has traction."There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy "~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Bertt 0 #15 January 8, 2013 They will work the same way Prohibition kept America from falling victim to "demon rum". Now, quick question: If you put a bolt action upper on an AR-15 lower receiver, which part would the gov't take away - the no longer semi-automatic rifle, or the upper with the flash hider that can't shoot anymore because it no longer has a trigger ??You don't have to outrun the bear. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
wolfriverjoe 1,340 #16 January 8, 2013 QuoteThey will work the same way Prohibition kept America from falling victim to "demon rum". Now, quick question: If you put a bolt action upper on an AR-15 lower receiver, which part would the gov't take away - the no longer semi-automatic rifle, or the upper with the flash hider that can't shoot anymore because it no longer has a trigger ?? Serious answer - The lower is the "gun." It holds the fire control parts, it has the serial number, it is the part that needs to go through a FFL if you want to mail order. The rest is just parts. You can order every part except the lower with no restriction. And it doesn't matter what sort of upper you have (semi-auto, bolt action, single shot), because the semi stuff is original configuration, that's what it's considered. They tried to circumvent the ban in California this way. It didn't work. Standard AR lowers are still no-go."There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy "~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DrewEckhardt 0 #17 January 8, 2013 Quote The rest is just parts. You can order every part except the lower with no restriction. Although as an AR15 owner with one that's not registered as a machine gun under the NFA owning M16 fire control parts would be considered constructive possession of an unregistered machine gun. Quote They tried to circumvent the ban in California this way. It didn't work. Standard AR lowers are still no-go. They're fine as long as they're not on the banned-by-name list (Example: an Armalite M15 is not OK - you need to leave that in an out-of-state storage facility from which it gets stolen when you immigrate. A Fluffy Bunny 15 is OK because it's not yet on the list) but can't be assembled into a banned-by-feature weapon. For example you can build a new gun using an "off-list" lower (Perhaps one you made on a milling machine with no name - no model or serial number is legally required on a firearm made for personal use which makes adding such guns to banned-by-name lists impossible) all the evil looking features you want as long as a tool (where the tip of a bullet is specifically permitted) is required to remove the magazine which can't hold more than 10 rounds. Or you can have a "featureless" rifle with some sort of ergonomic abomination in place of the pistol grip which takes detachable magazines of any capacity. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
OHCHUTE 0 #18 January 8, 2013 QuoteThey will work the same way Prohibition kept America from falling victim to "demon rum". Now, quick question: If you put a bolt action upper on an AR-15 lower receiver, which part would the gov't take away - the no longer semi-automatic rifle, or the upper with the flash hider that can't shoot anymore because it no longer has a trigger ?? They already have bolt action on AR uppers. THIS IS WHAT THE PUBLIC DOESN't KNOW ANYTHING ABOUT---COMPETITIVE SHOOTING. There is also much competition with AR's / service rifle competition. High power uses the AR upper with bolt. They can be single shot or 5 round mag. But hand bolt operated, not gas driven. FFL deals with the stamped receiver for all guns. If the gun can be taken apart, as in a AR it's only the lower stamped receiver that is what is transfered. You can mail a barrel, bolt, upper receiver to anyone, but the lower serialized must go through FFL if shipping out of state. The concern is semi-auto, hi cap mags. (They sell 5 round mags for AR's, as some states you can't have more than 5 rounds in any mag for hunting, and yes AR's are used for small game and varments.? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DrewEckhardt 0 #19 January 8, 2013 Quote They already have bolt action on AR uppers. THIS IS WHAT THE PUBLIC DOESN't KNOW ANYTHING ABOUT---COMPETITIVE SHOOTING. There is also much competition with AR's / service rifle competition. The anti-gun public does not care about the big boy games you play. A few are merely ignorant and haven't seen a gun in real life that wasn't on a police officer's person or in a patrol car. A little reality from a visit to a shooting range can do wonders to shatter the myths they've been fed. Many are paranoid about the horrible world and want everything done that might make them a little bit safer without inconveniencing them too much (removing their clothes with technology is OK, but making them bend over for a gloved hand up the bum before boarding a plane is not). It's in politicians' best interest (they get judged based on the number of laws they pass and not their effect) to feed those fears. You can only beat those people with a threat that's scarier than the wrong sorts of guns. For instance I talked to a female Democrat about Bush 43/Cheney/Rove taking over and sending her children to die in the Middle East (although women can't get drafted yet, with equal rights and a prolonged conflict her daughter should get sent alongside her son) and she changed her mind about the second amendment. Everything else just affects how fast or slow we loose. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Skyrad 0 #20 January 8, 2013 Got a link to them?When an author is too meticulous about his style, you may presume that his mind is frivolous and his content flimsy. Lucius Annaeus Seneca Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Hooknswoop 19 #21 January 9, 2013 http://www.feinstein.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/assault-weapons http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/01/08/white-house-nra-to-meet-amid-push-for-new-gun-control-laws/ http://newyork.cbslocal.com/2013/01/08/exclusive-cuomo-close-to-announcing-sweeping-new-gun-control-laws/ If the gun law proposals won't stop mass shootings, then what are they trying to accomplish? No wonder gun advocates are feeling like these proposed laws are nothing more than an attempt to confiscate guns. Derek V Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Skyrad 0 #22 January 9, 2013 Thanks, yes looking at that its a total waste of time designed only to get her up the greasy pole. Funny thing is that it will mean that some Firearms that will be banned in the USA will be legal in the UK! When an author is too meticulous about his style, you may presume that his mind is frivolous and his content flimsy. Lucius Annaeus Seneca Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gravitymaster 0 #23 January 9, 2013 Nothing more than Democrats creating Boogiemen hiding under the bed in an attempt to scare people and gain political power by "doing something". Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 18 #24 January 9, 2013 QuoteNothing more than Democrats creating Boogiemen hiding under the bed in an attempt to scare people and gain political power by "doing something". "Can't let a good crisis go to waste""America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkyChimp 0 #25 January 10, 2013 QuoteBetter yet -- Can anyone explain to me if any of the new gun laws being discussed are expected to prevent mass shootings or simply make the liberals feel better over restricting my rights? Feel good legistlation just like Clinton's Brady Bill Does anyone else find it funny that we made a SPORT out of an EMERGENCY PROCEDURE?!?! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
