WTH is wrong with some people??? Shooting at CT Elementary School - Page 30 - PeachParts Mercedes-Benz Forum

Botnst · #1 12-19-2012, 01:54 PM

You know, the whole point of federalism is so that states can enact laws that reflect the social interests of the various states. I'm perfectly okay with a majoritarian approach to guns within states.

But if we have to make it an issue of federal law, let's impose my state's laws on everybody. Yeah, that's fair.

JB3 · #2 12-19-2012, 02:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Botnst

You know, the whole point of federalism is so that states can enact laws that reflect the social interests of the various states. I'm perfectly okay with a majoritarian approach to guns within states.

But if we have to make it an issue of federal law, let's impose my state's laws on everybody. Yeah, that's fair.

the problem with that is loopholes.

Couple years ago, went up to a gun show with a known idiot friend of mine in VT. in 15 minutes, he walked out with two Russian Mosin-Nagants, one a carbine, both with bayonets.

He then brought them back to our state, which has pretty lax laws itself, but does have some time limits.

i ended up removing and keeping one of the bolts to prevent him from firing off one of the rifles in the middle of the city when a girl he was sweet on went for his cousin. He also was caught pointing it out the window of his 4th story apartment tracking people on the street to work out the sights.

I don't have a problem with this type of bolt action weapon, but i do have a problem with them being sold to idiots with no real checks on how they intend to store and use them.

We have to close loopholes like that if we intend to actually do any long term good, so the only solution is federal regulation, not state regulation. Id be happy with federal guidelines, and states fill them in, similar to vehicle regulations being generally similar in all states, but possessing differences tailored to the states in question

Botnst · #3 12-19-2012, 02:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dropnosky

the problem with that is loopholes.

Couple years ago, went up to a gun show with a known idiot friend of mine in VT. in 15 minutes, he walked out with two Russian Mosin-Nagants, one a carbine, both with bayonets.

He then brought them back to our state, which has pretty lax laws itself, but does have some time limits.

i ended up removing and keeping one of the bolts to prevent him from firing off one of the rifles in the middle of the city when a girl he was sweet on went for his cousin. He also was caught pointing it out the window of his 4th story apartment tracking people on the street to work out the sights.

I don't have a problem with this type of bolt action weapon, but i do have a problem with them being sold to idiots with no real checks on how they intend to store and use them.

We have to close loopholes like that if we intend to actually do any long term good, so the only solution is federal regulation, not state regulation. Id be happy with federal guidelines, and states fill them in, similar to vehicle regulations being generally similar in all states, but possessing differences tailored to the states in question

I know somebody who did something wonderful. Trust me.

JB3 · #4 12-19-2012, 05:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Botnst

I know somebody who did something wonderful. Trust me.

shall we agree that loopholes exist with each state coming up with radically different rules? thats the point of that story.

Botnst · #5 12-19-2012, 10:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dropnosky

shall we agree that loopholes exist with each state coming up with radically different rules? thats the point of that story.

Define "radically".

Oh wait, the Supreme Court did that concerning implementation of the 2nd Amendment.

Botnst · #6 12-19-2012, 02:12 PM

"Gun control proponents want legislation that will restrict access to firearms. The rationale for such legislation is to reduce accidental shootings and the criminal use of guns against people. But if harm reduction is the goal, policymakers should pause to consider how many crimes--murders, rapes, assaults, robberies--are thwarted by ordinary persons who were fortunate enough to have access to a gun. Gun control proponents cannot deny that people use guns successfully against criminals, but they tend to play down how often such events take place. The purpose of this map is to draw more attention to this aspect of the firearms policy debate. "

Guns and Self Defense | Cato Institute

raymr · #7 12-19-2012, 02:29 PM

What's wrong with owners required to be within close proximity of their unlocked guns, ie, within eyesight or reaching distance? Otherwise lock em up.

Air&Road · #8 12-19-2012, 06:25 PM

I suppose that it was inevitable that this thread would turn to the subject of gun control rather than the real problem, the SICKY that USED the guns. We need SICKY control. A gun is completely incapable of killing someone by itself.

BTW, the constitution does INDEED put forth the right to BEAR arms. It says nothing about extending the PRIVILEDGE to bear arms.

JB3 · #9 12-19-2012, 06:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Air&Road

I suppose that it was inevitable that this thread would turn to the subject of gun control rather than the real problem, the SICKY that USED the guns. We need SICKY control. A gun is completely incapable of killing someone by itself.

BTW, the constitution does INDEED put forth the right to BEAR arms. It says nothing about extending the PRIVILEDGE to bear arms.

and how is a gun safe not effective for sicky control? Part of it is limiting access to firearms for sickys, I don't see why we cant improve storage and maintenance of weapons with a little responsibility, and at the same time work on examining mental health and doing a better job there too.

look at all the options out there, check this one out, pretty neat-

http://www.google.com/shopping/product/2357806423601568004?q=fingerprint%20gun%20safe&hl=en&sqi=2&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_qf.&bvm=bv.1355534169,d.dmQ&bpcl=40096503&biw=1440&bih=807&sa=X&ei=rVHSUNHLI7G30AHupoH4Bg&ved=0CG0Q5Q0wAA

Hatterasguy · #10 12-19-2012, 06:56 PM

I lock up my firearms because they are expensive, and I don't want them stolen. Well my 10/22 is laying against my safe now but the guts are in a plastic bag so its pretty much a paper weight at the moment.

Responsible gun owners should secure their firearms. If you have kids in the house their are plenty of quick access safes to store firearms in for defensive use.

https://www.ftknox.com/store/index.php?route=product/category&path=59

Right here, you can keep a pistol next to your bed, get at it in a second, and have it safely secured all for under $200.

cmbdiesel · #11 12-19-2012, 10:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Air&Road

I suppose that it was inevitable that this thread would turn to the subject of gun control rather than the real problem, the SICKY that USED the guns. We need SICKY control. A gun is completely incapable of killing someone by itself.

BTW, the constitution does INDEED put forth the right to BEAR arms. It says nothing about extending the PRIVILEDGE to bear arms.

Interesting that you word it such....

Bear arms... does that really mean to own them? Maybe it just means you can carry them around.

All the focus on the definition of 'infringe', maybe we should dig deeper into the meaning of the word 'bear'

JamesDean · #12 12-19-2012, 06:55 PM

Saw an article today in the paper about how gun sales shot up after the killings. People are evidently afraid that their right to own an assault rifle will be taken away.

It still strikes me that we allow the sale of assault rifles. Hand guns, ok I understand the personal defense thing..

Hatterasguy · #13 12-19-2012, 07:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JamesDean

Saw an article today in the paper about how gun sales shot up after the killings. People are evidently afraid that their right to own an assault rifle will be taken away.

It still strikes me that we allow the sale of assault rifles. Hand guns, ok I understand the personal defense thing..

The sale of assault rifles is not in question here.

An assault rifle by definition is capable of fully automatic fire, which is a BATFE regulated class 3 NFA item. You can buy them but its a process to say the least.

What they are talking about are bayonet mounts and pistol grips, which CT already has in place because for the most part the AWB did not sunset here in 2004.

A semi automatic Bushmaster rifle like the one used in the shootings is AWB compliant and costs about $900. An M16 which is an assault rifle is an NFA item and costs about $12k-$16k. They look similar but in terms of regulation, cost, and function are in different worlds. The penalty for turning a Bushmaster into an NFA item which is hard as heck but can be done with AR's is 10 years in jail, minimum. Which is why no one does it.

To own a post ban, modern fully automatic weapon, lets say an FN Scar, well you have to be a manufacture of destructive devices I beleive. To make yourself one of those you give up all sorts of rights, and pretty much the BATFE can pay you a friendly visit whenever they want to inspect your books.

Laymen really have no clue about the how regulated firearms are.

JamesDean · #14 12-19-2012, 07:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hatterasguy

The sale of assault rifles is not in question here.

An assault rifle by definition is capable of fully automatic fire, which is a BATFE regulated class 3 NFA item. You can buy them but its a process to say the least.

What they are talking about are bayonet mounts and pistol grips, which CT already has in place because for the most part the AWB did not sunset here in 2004.

A semi automatic Bushmaster rifle like the one used in the shootings is AWB compliant and costs about $900. An M16 which is an assault rifle is an NFA item and costs about $12k-$16k. They look similar but in terms of regulation, cost, and function are in different worlds. The penalty for turning a Bushmaster into an NFA item which is hard as heck but can be done with AR's is 10 years in jail, minimum. Which is why no one does it.

To own a post ban, modern fully automatic weapon, lets say an FN Scar, well you have to be a manufacture of destructive devices I beleive. To make yourself one of those you give up all sorts of rights, and pretty much the BATFE can pay you a friendly visit whenever they want to inspect your books.

Laymen really have no clue about the how regulated firearms are.

Thanks for the clarification! The paper just said assault rifles and wasn't all that detailed about it.

So basically I could get an M16 or like three 126's or maybe a nice SL.

engatwork · #15 12-19-2012, 07:35 PM

Quote:

Can anyone tell me why/where/when a law abiding gun enthusiast would really need/use something like an AK or Bushmaster with a monster bullet clip?

I enjoy target practicing with mine (300 yards) and then there is always the threat of a coyote in the yard.

Glad to have you back on board Hatty and thanks for the clarification. If I had the means I would own a BAR just for the heck of it

.

The only murders that I remember hearing about in my lifetime where fully automatic weapons were used has always been done by the US Government and may or may not have been justified. Here is one example:

my-lai