3 3
kallend

More sacrifices to the 2nd Amendment

Recommended Posts

4 hours ago, Phil1111 said:

Coming soon in California. "Bill 1327 aims to bury those who deal in banned guns in litigation. Awards of at least $10,000 per weapon, and legal fees, will be offered to plaintiffs who successfully sue anyone who imports, distributes, manufactures or sells assault-style weapons, .50-caliber rifles, guns without serial numbers or parts that can be used to build firearms that are banned in California."

"But  . . . but . . . that's UnAmerican!  No one should worry about being sued out of existence just because they exercised their rights.  Unless they're a woman or a gynecologist.  Or unless you help a 10 year old girl who has been raped.  Then you deserve it."

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, billvon said:

"But  . . . but . . . that's UnAmerican!  No one should worry about being sued out of existence just because they exercised their rights.  Unless they're a woman or a gynecologist.  Or unless you help a 10 year old girl who has been raped.  Then you deserve it."

The TX law is BS and I sure hope it gets quickly challenged and eliminated.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, JoeWeber said:

 Let's bolster it with serious penalties, include all high capacity magazines, increased point of sale checks and high taxes on ammunition, add a buy back program paid for by taxes on the manufacturers and just take the whole thing seriously up to including raising the age of legal purchase to 21 (years beyond high school).  

Honestly, I think semi-automatic rifles for game hunting are wholly unnecessary, certainly none need to have more rounds than 4-5 in the magazine.. So no, it does not need to include rifles and handguns used for hunting, even low capacity semi-auto loading guns. That's just you trying to make it sound worse and a step away from a complete ban.

 Assault style weapons like AR-15's that are designed to look like military guns and can accept high capacity magazines. 

Woo Hoo - some common ground. We both agree that something needs to be done, we just disagree on what.

Unfortunately, more baseless and incorrect accusations. Those have been deleted for this post.

We've settled on a description for "assault weapon." Great. Do we expand that to the M-1 Garand and other similar "older" military rifles? Is the FN P90 included? It looks kinda military but nothing like an AR-15, the standard mag is 50 rounds. Then there's the concern with pistols with forearm grips that technically are a pistol but perform like a rifle. There is a large family of 9mm and 45 ACP semi auto pistols that are problematic. The only point I've been trying to make is that there are many more firearms, other than the typical AR like rifle, that are a problem. To focus solely on assault weapons is short-sighted and will have, at best, a small impact on gun deaths. I agree that the military-like guns have been glorified as some kinds - I'm the savior - complex. Hollywood, the media and video game makers have certainly promoted that to their profit. The 5 Rambo movies are perfect examples of that.

I agree that it's reasonable to limit the typical semi auto hunting rifle to 5 rounds or less. You and I both prefer bolt action. But there are legitimate reasons for the semi auto rifles.

I'm not sure that banning high cap mags (the sole reason for saying it that way is to minimize typing) would be legal or effective. Let's presume that the mag limit is set at 10-rounds. It's just too easy to take two 10-round mags and attach them together. Anyone with minimal proficiency can swap them in a couple seconds. Yes, that's less effective than a single high cap mag. My question is, is that an issue worth fighting. I'd say let's go for it but realize that the argument may not be winnable.

Raise the age on purchases of non-hunting firearms, tighten up the application process, hammer anyone caught making a straw purchase (maybe some law that says after buying X? firearms a year one has to prove they still have them in their possession, have paperwork documenting the transfer, or if lost or stolen a police report is required), mandatory severe jail time if caught with a stolen firearm, laws requiring owners to be more responsible with managing/storing the weapon, confiscation if mental health becomes an issue, red flag laws, significantly higher training requirements to obtain a concealed weapons permit and ongoing training to keep it, liability laws/exposure for dealers that make errors, strengthen the requirements to obtain and retain an FFL license by requiring a minimum number of transactions per year, special application process for any long gun that can hold more than xx rounds in a magazine, shotguns that hold more than 6 rounds should be considered assault weapons, limit mag capacity with pistols to 10-12 rounds, mandatory prison sentence of 10 years for any crime committed with a gun, etc. etc.

IMO raising the price of ammo would put a burden on the 99% that don't deserve it and it wouldn't deter the criminals. The manufacturers have been acting legally. It doesn't seem fair to punish them with crazy high taxes. Maybe some kinda 3%? tax per gun paid by the manufacturer based on the wholesale price, and funds from the fines generated in legal actions with lawbreakers could fund buybacks. 

My comment "other legitimate issues" includes economic loss. That stuff can't be ignored. It includes the investment corporations have made in manufacturing and the employees involved. The supply chain, I'm guessing, is fairly deep and the manufacturing investment probably exceeds $billions with a few hundred thousand employees. Those folks are voters as are their stockholders, they have access to decision makers, and lobbyists are much more effective than protesters. That has to be part of the discussion.

We agree on the basic premise that something that needs to be done. The difficulty is always in the execution. We'll see what happens.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, billeisele said:

Woo Hoo - some common ground. We both agree that something needs to be done, we just disagree on what.

Unfortunately, more baseless and incorrect accusations. Those have been deleted for this post.

We've settled on a description for "assault weapon." Great. Do we expand that to the M-1 Garand and other similar "older" military rifles? Is the FN P90 included? It looks kinda military but nothing like an AR-15, the standard mag is 50 rounds. Then there's the concern with pistols with forearm grips that technically are a pistol but perform like a rifle. There is a large family of 9mm and 45 ACP semi auto pistols that are problematic. The only point I've been trying to make is that there are many more firearms, other than the typical AR like rifle, that are a problem. To focus solely on assault weapons is short-sighted and will have, at best, a small impact on gun deaths. I agree that the military-like guns have been glorified as some kinds - I'm the savior - complex. Hollywood, the media and video game makers have certainly promoted that to their profit. The 5 Rambo movies are perfect examples of that.

I agree that it's reasonable to limit the typical semi auto hunting rifle to 5 rounds or less. You and I both prefer bolt action. But there are legitimate reasons for the semi auto rifles.

I'm not sure that banning high cap mags (the sole reason for saying it that way is to minimize typing) would be legal or effective. Let's presume that the mag limit is set at 10-rounds. It's just too easy to take two 10-round mags and attach them together. Anyone with minimal proficiency can swap them in a couple seconds. Yes, that's less effective than a single high cap mag. My question is, is that an issue worth fighting. I'd say let's go for it but realize that the argument may not be winnable.

Raise the age on purchases of non-hunting firearms, tighten up the application process, hammer anyone caught making a straw purchase (maybe some law that says after buying X? firearms a year one has to prove they still have them in their possession, have paperwork documenting the transfer, or if lost or stolen a police report is required), mandatory severe jail time if caught with a stolen firearm, laws requiring owners to be more responsible with managing/storing the weapon, confiscation if mental health becomes an issue, red flag laws, significantly higher training requirements to obtain a concealed weapons permit and ongoing training to keep it, liability laws/exposure for dealers that make errors, strengthen the requirements to obtain and retain an FFL license by requiring a minimum number of transactions per year, special application process for any long gun that can hold more than xx rounds in a magazine, shotguns that hold more than 6 rounds should be considered assault weapons, limit mag capacity with pistols to 10-12 rounds, mandatory prison sentence of 10 years for any crime committed with a gun, etc. etc.

IMO raising the price of ammo would put a burden on the 99% that don't deserve it and it wouldn't deter the criminals. The manufacturers have been acting legally. It doesn't seem fair to punish them with crazy high taxes. Maybe some kinda 3%? tax per gun paid by the manufacturer based on the wholesale price, and funds from the fines generated in legal actions with lawbreakers could fund buybacks. 

My comment "other legitimate issues" includes economic loss. That stuff can't be ignored. It includes the investment corporations have made in manufacturing and the employees involved. The supply chain, I'm guessing, is fairly deep and the manufacturing investment probably exceeds $billions with a few hundred thousand employees. Those folks are voters as are their stockholders, they have access to decision makers, and lobbyists are much more effective than protesters. That has to be part of the discussion.

We agree on the basic premise that something that needs to be done. The difficulty is always in the execution. We'll see what happens.

Thanks for the reply. I'll make a few random comments but I really think the common ground will remain elusive. For example, you asked if we should include the M-1 Garand. You know that really doesn't fit the idea and it doesn't use a detachable high capacity magazine. If you need to go back to WWII you'd have been better tossing out the Stg 44. Yes, you can tape magazines together but why do you need a 10 round magazine in the first place? And honestly, while I concede they should be allowed, why does anyone need a semi-automatic to hunt game? Because if you wound it you might piss it off? Maybe instead be a better shot or hunt less irritable and more edible game. My last day Elk hunting I watched a complete jackass unload his semi-automatic rifle into a huge buck that was at least 300 yards distant. Yes, he eventually killed the poor thing, too bad it wasn't deer season. The argument about the suffering of the innocent who just want to own ridiculous firearms will never resonate with me. Pretty much 99% of the people who do anything aren't the problem so, to my mind, it's a pointless point. And to close out, those manufacturers were acting just as legally as the opioid manufacturers and just giving the market what they wanted. That doesn't make it right or good for society.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/21/2022 at 4:44 PM, gowlerk said:

That old saw about criminals not obeying the law is among the weakest of all arguments against gun control. They will mostly obey the law just like they obey most laws now. Criminals pick and choose what laws to obey based on what they think they can gain.

In this country (Canada), a certain "group of motorcycle enthusiasts" who do not like to be mentioned in public live quiet lives most of the time. They live in quiet residential neighborhoods with very little petty crime. They drive clean cars, duly registered and rarely drive much faster than the speed limit. etc.

Bottom line, they don't want petty crimes attracting police attention.

For example, many years ago, a young skydiver became a "prospect" for "a certain group of motorcycle enthusiasts." After a skinny, petty criminal snuck into a hangar and stole 6 skydiving rigs, he got 5 of the 6 returned in short order, no questions asked. The only modern rig disappeared. If it was fenced, it was fenced out-of-province.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, billeisele said:

The TX law is BS and I sure hope it gets quickly challenged and eliminated.

I do too.

But your reaction to it is puzzling.  This is not some outlier, some bad decision from the republican party that they will fix once they realize they made a mistake.  Banning abortion for all women has been a core goal of the republican party for decades.  They have now succeeded.  Ten year olds that can't get abortions isn't a bug in their policy; it's a long-desired feature.

You seem to regularly support republican policies over democratic policies here, and this is one of the most basic policy decisions they have enacted.  If you no longer support that, that's great.  We all evolve in what we support as we get older.  (It's why I am registered as an independent now.)  Does this indicate that you are starting to move away from republican core principles?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, billeisele said:

The TX law is BS and I sure hope it gets quickly challenged and eliminated.

Why are you suddenly, if embarrassingly after the fact, so vigorous in your dislike of the law? Would it be the realization that it might be used as a template to end things that are actually important to you personally? That is the conservative modus operandi, after all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, JoeWeber said:

.For example, you asked if we should include the M-1 Garand. You know that really doesn't fit the idea and it doesn't use a detachable high capacity magazine. If you need to go back to WWII you'd have been better tossing out the Stg 44.

Yes, you can tape magazines together but why do you need a 10 round magazine in the first place? And honestly, while I concede they should be allowed,

why does anyone need a semi-automatic to hunt game?

The argument about the suffering of the innocent who just want to own ridiculous firearms will never resonate with me. Pretty much 99% of the people who do anything aren't the problem so, to my mind, it's a pointless point.

And to close out, those manufacturers were acting just as legally as the opioid manufacturers and just giving the market what they wanted. That doesn't make it right or good for society.

5 items.

The M1 is a rapid fire weapon that comes with an 8-round bloc clip but will accept a 30-round magazine that is detachable. It was offered as one example of the many rifles publicly available that function quite similar to an AR. For the law to be effective there will need to be a list, a long list, of weapons that aren't allowed. Simply saying "assault weapons" isn't sufficient.

Magazine capacity is an issue. A max capacity will have to be determined. The recreational shooting crowd will fight this and get louder the lower the capacity goes.

We're in complete agreement on big game hunting firearms. But that is our choice. The semi auto is a common firearm in white tail hunting (at least in the south) and the predominant firearm in pig hunting.

There are plenty of firearms that would be legal to own that use the same ammo as assault weapons. A perfect example is the .308 and some of the most popular handgun calibers like 9mm. The point is that, IMO, placing a tax on ammo is unreasonable because it would punish the 99+% of good people following the law. On this item, we differ.

Lastly, I'll assume you're talking about legally operated pharmaceutical companies. It is good for society when their products are used for the intent they were produced. If those companies are directly involved in illegal distribution that's a different story.

These laws won't be passed without compromises on both sides. IMO, if the far right and far left won't come to the middle nothing will get done.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, billvon said:

I do too.

But your reaction to it is puzzling.  This is not some outlier, some bad decision from the republican party that they will fix once they realize they made a mistake.  Banning abortion for all women has been a core goal of the republican party for decades.  They have now succeeded.  Ten year olds that can't get abortions isn't a bug in their policy; it's a long-desired feature.

You seem to regularly support republican policies over democratic policies here, and this is one of the most basic policy decisions they have enacted.  If you no longer support that, that's great.  We all evolve in what we support as we get older.  (It's why I am registered as an independent now.)  Does this indicate that you are starting to move away from republican core principles?

 

11 hours ago, JoeWeber said:

Why are you suddenly, if embarrassingly after the fact, so vigorous in your dislike of the law? Would it be the realization that it might be used as a template to end things that are actually important to you personally? That is the conservative modus operandi, after all.

Bill & Joe - I've never supported a law like the one in TX. Choice has always been my preference. To say, "You no longer support that..." or "Why are you suddenly, if embarrassingly after the fact, so vigorous in your dislike..." infers a change of position and that's simply incorrect. Joe - why do you continue to insist on labeling and assigning concepts where they don't exist? Your senseless attacks are childish. I don't fault you for your opinion, how about extending the same courtesy.

I've always voted for the person not the party. Unfortunately, all of us are forced to choose, oftentimes, between evils. We vote for the one that we think is less worse. If your comments were accurate that would mean that you fully support everything that the candidates you support stand for. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
(edited)
2 hours ago, billeisele said:

5 items.

The M1 is a rapid fire weapon that comes with an 8-round bloc clip but will accept a 30-round magazine that is detachable. It was offered as one example of the many rifles publicly available that function quite similar to an AR. For the law to be effective there will need to be a list, a long list, of weapons that aren't allowed. Simply saying "assault weapons" isn't sufficient.

Magazine capacity is an issue. A max capacity will have to be determined. The recreational shooting crowd will fight this and get louder the lower the capacity goes.

We're in complete agreement on big game hunting firearms. But that is our choice. The semi auto is a common firearm in white tail hunting (at least in the south) and the predominant firearm in pig hunting.

There are plenty of firearms that would be legal to own that use the same ammo as assault weapons. A perfect example is the .308 and some of the most popular handgun calibers like 9mm. The point is that, IMO, placing a tax on ammo is unreasonable because it would punish the 99+% of good people following the law. On this item, we differ.

Lastly, I'll assume you're talking about legally operated pharmaceutical companies. It is good for society when their products are used for the intent they were produced. If those companies are directly involved in illegal distribution that's a different story.

These laws won't be passed without compromises on both sides. IMO, if the far right and far left won't come to the middle nothing will get done.

Are you mistaking the M1 Garand in 30.06 for the M1 Carbine in .30 caliber or am I confused? Also, so what if the semi-automatic is a common gun for White Tail hunting in the South, they're deer not Kodiak Bears. Tell your so armed friends they're idiots as I did to a friend who announced he was choosing his tack driving .243 Roberts for Elk for the accuracy.

Here's the issue: you see an intractable problem, too many guns in circulation already, too many magazines, too many criminals, too many nice people who love well engineered firearms, too many feral pigs, too many liberals etc. etc. etc. I see a different problem: a defective amendment, a defective judiciary, too many weapons that look nothing like those contemplated by the writers of the second amendment much less Chinese Firesticks, too many years of listening to hopes and prayers along side calls for inaction lest we get any small item wrong in the fix. You see guns as something special to American society, wondrous things to be marveled at for their clever designs and revered by those in the know. I see bread crumbs down a fork in the trail that leads to a brand of societal barbarism where a 22 year old kid gets to be a hero by pulling out his Glock and firing 10 rounds in a crowded public place somehow managing to get one bullet in the murderer and none in any bystanders. To put it mildly we have a dichotomy of opinions. No matter, I don't doubt you're a great guy who packs for the gandma's and jumps with the youngun's. Here we'll just need to disagree.

Edited by JoeWeber

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry. I confused you with someone else who previously implied it was no big deal. 
I'm not sure what you mean by choice being your preference but please know that it reads like the alternative is acceptable. We all make hard decisions in the voting booth. That said I’ll take the guess that mine are less likely to result in such an egregious and harmful law.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, billeisele said:

...The M1 is a rapid fire weapon that comes with an 8-round bloc clip but will accept a 30-round magazine that is detachable. It was offered as one example of the many rifles publicly available that function quite similar to an AR. For the law to be effective there will need to be a list, a long list, of weapons that aren't allowed. Simply saying "assault weapons" isn't sufficient.

ar left won't come to the middle nothing will get done.

Which "M1" are you talking about?

The M1 Garand (rifle) is the one with the 8 round en block clip. I've never seen or heard of a detachable magazine conversion for it.

If there was, it would probably be for the 20 round BAR mag. But those are pretty rare & expensive. It could also be the 20 round for the M1A/M14. But that's for 308, not the 30-06 that the Garand is chambered in. There aren't any 30 cal 30 round mags for US rifles that I know of.

The other "M1" is the M1 Carbine. A much smaller & lighter weapon, it shoots a much less powerful cartridge. In fact, the M1 Carbine round is very similar to the 357 Magnum pistol round (other than the diameter of the bullet and shell casing). 
The Carbine has detachable mags (no en bloc clip) of 15 or 30 rounds.

If you want 'similar to an AR, the best example is the Ruger Mini-14. Semi auto, same .223 cartridge, can use 5, 10, 20 or 30 round mags.
But it has a wood stock and looks like an 'old fashioned' rifle. 
It's essentially a 'non-scary-looking' AR. 

Funny thing - The Mini 14 wasn't affected at all by the 94 'Assault Weapons' ban.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

American gun culture moved up to Canada bright and early Monday morning.

My cell phone got an emergency alert text-message about a gun man in Langley, a suburb of Vancouver. He killed at least two homeless people and wounded a homeless woman near the Langley Bypass and 200th street, Willowbrook Mall, etc.. 200th Street leads to the Golden Ears Bridge and the former DZ at Pitt Meadows. RCMP eventually cornered and killed the gunman.

One photo of a police SUV showed a tight row of 9 bullet holes across the windshield. The tight grouping implies a fully-automatic submachine gun (my interpretation). Machine guns are prohibited for civilian ownership in Canada, so only criminals have them. The Canadian Armed Forces retired most of their SMGS decades ago. The gunman and homeless victims were "known to police." 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Canadian liberal government has announced the compensation payable to gun owners who turn in guns. This is a part of the Government ban on AR-15s and other "assault weapons". Over 2400 variants and models are a part of the plan.

A run of the mill AR-15 $1337 Cdn ($1042 USD) to $6209 ($4838USD) for a Swiss arms SG550.

Ar-15s start at about $500 cdn for a Walmart version. Up to $2000 for a Daniel Defense (Uvalde shooter)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Phil1111 said:

The Canadian liberal government has announced the compensation payable to gun owners who turn in guns. This is a part of the Government ban on AR-15s and other "assault weapons". Over 2400 variants and models are a part of the plan.

A run of the mill AR-15 $1337 Cdn ($1042 USD) to $6209 ($4838USD) for a Swiss arms SG550.

Ar-15s start at about $500 cdn for a Walmart version. Up to $2000 for a Daniel Defense (Uvalde shooter)

I made several promises to my mom as I was paying off her debts but not included was being a complete douchebag arms dealer some day. For the good of the world maybe we should, as good committed liberals, be looking at a way to get these guns out of circulation. Later on, after expenses, we'll work out the profits, if any.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, JoeWeber said:

I made several promises to my mom as I was paying off her debts but not included was being a complete douchebag arms dealer some day. For the good of the world maybe we should, as good committed liberals, be looking at a way to get these guns out of circulation. Later on, after expenses, we'll work out the profits, if any.

After my father was diagnosed with Altsheimers' Disease, my brothers auctioned off his guns. They were sold through Canadian auction houses that regularly sell guns to competitors, hunters, collectors, etc. Those sales helped pay down some of his debts. Since he had competed on the Canadian Olympic Team, our father had hundreds of guns, but no AR-series. He was from an older generation that preferred .303 Lee-Enfields at 1,000 yard sover iron sights.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, wmw999 said:

Tô my way of thinking, that’s a very fitting end to a collection of beloved tools — which is what guns should be. Tools. Not toys or machismo indicators.

Wendy P. 

Yep. One by one I’m finding safe homes for the ones I’ll never use again. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
(edited)
On 7/30/2022 at 4:26 PM, JoeWeber said:

Yep. One by one I’m finding safe homes for the ones I’ll never use again. 

ARs are prohibited, so can't find new homes for them.

Once a new proposed bill comes into effect in Canada, likely this fall, you also won't be able to transfer handguns to anybody. Which means they cannot be sold, or gifted, or transferred to anybody. They will all become worthless overnight and you won't be able to find new homes, or pass them down the family.

I am all for reducing the number of ARs in the hands of those who shouldn't have them. Hence, in stead of buying back tools which are extremely unlikely to be used in any crime, use that money to combat the smuggling of guns. Smuggled guns are by far the main problem.

Edited by SkyDekker
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, SkyDekker said:

ARs are prohibited, so can't find new homes for them.

Once a new proposed bill comes into effect in Canada, like this fall, you also won't be able to transfer handguns to anybody. Which means they cannot be sold, or gifted, or transferred to anybody. They will all become worthless overnight and you won't be able to find new homes, or pass them down the family.

I am all for reducing the number of ARs in the hands of those who shouldn't have them. Hence, in stead of buying back tools which are extremely unlikely to be used in any crime, use that money to combat the smuggling of guns. Smuggled guns are by far the main problem.

I've offered, here too I think, to trade usable hunting guns for an AR-15 that I would turn in for destruction. No takers, so far, sacrilege I guess.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, JoeWeber said:

I've offered, here too I think, to trade usable hunting guns for an AR-15 that I would turn in for destruction. No takers, so far, sacrilege I guess.

In Canada I would propose to move them all to the restricted category. That would mean they can only be fired at approved ranges, can not be used for hunting or shot anywhere outside of federally licensed ranges. Also makes storage and transportation more restricted compared to non-restricted firearms. That way they stay available for those who want to do 3-gun competitions, or just play with them on the range.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

3 3