This message was self-deleted by its author

[billh58]

This message was self-deleted by its author (billh58) on Wed Jan 14, 2015, 09:39 AM. When the original post in a discussion thread is self-deleted, the entire discussion thread is automatically locked so new replies cannot be posted.

[Scuba]

1. K&R

[benz380]

2. Cross post this in the other gun forum. I bet you would get 90% agreement.

Enforce the current laws on the books. In my state the gun show sales from dealers have background checks done on the spot. The problem at some shows here is I'll see a few guys walking around with signs on their backs advertising they have a gun for sale. This leads to parking lot sales.

[billh58]

3. 90% agreement from

Second Amendment absolutists? You must be new around here.

[benz380]

4. My visits there most seem reasonable about gun laws,

bUt i haven't been through all the posts.

[billh58]

5. Yeah, right.

Welcome back. What was your former screen name again...?

[benz380]

7. If I could cross post it I would to get their feedback.

I'm posting from an iPad and not familiar enough with it to know how to copy/paste.
if someone can tell me how to do it, I will.

[billh58]

8. Oh, I think that you

have already taken care of that...

[benz380]

10. By replying to this thread? Don't know what you mean.

I do own guns. I keep them secured. I have one handgun and the others are shotguns and rifles.
The handgun is for house protection, as I live 15 miles from county sheriff dept. I don't have a carry permit for the handgun because it never leaves my property. All of the other guns are over 35 years old.
My b-I-l was bipolar and committed suicide by shooting himself in the head. He had attempted suicide in other ways before, but he would call and someone was always able to get to him.
Even though he had been admitted to psyche hospitals several times, he was able to purchase a 25 caliber handgun from a pawn shop. We never got the story from the police on how he was able to do this. I don't blame the gun for his death, but he shouldn't have been able to get one so easy.

[Half-Century Man]

6. The second amendment doesn't mention firearms.

It says arms, which implies any type of armament at all. We already have many uncontested restrictions on public carrying of many types of arms.
You may not walk down the street carrying a Katana, because you might start hacking up people. Why then, can you carry a loaded magazine fed semi-automatic firearm capable of reaching just about every person you can see at any given moment in time?

Some restrictions and prohibitions are completely valid.

[branford]

9. Many gun rights supporters, particularly on DU, have no objection to open carry restrictions.

The primary legal issue is when states or localities ban both open and concealed carry, effectively rendering firearms illegal outside the home, and obviating the "bear" portion of the "keep and bear arms" of the Second Amendment. Overly broad open carry restriction are also problematic in areas that permit activities hunting. The recent federal appeals court cases in California, Illinois and elsewhere require that jurisdictions simply permit some type of objectively enforced (i.e., "shall issue," rather than "may issue&quot carry laws, but certainly do not mandate legal open carry.

Similarly, a great many gun rights supporters not only have no objection to universal background checks, but support it in theory. The devil is in the details. Laws to open-up the NICS system to private parties or similar suggestions would probably be widely supported as pass easily. The objections are to anything that is or could be an effective registration list or when the laws are linked to other controversial measures like magazine limits. Recent incorrect and legally challenged seizures in states like New York have certainly not helped to minimize these objections.

Lastly, I would emphasize that the Second Amendment and state constitutional analogs only set a maximum level of firearm regulation. As you note, there are a multitude of restrictions that are perfectly constitutional. The issue is not the Second Amendment, rather its lack of sufficient political support for restrictions. The Second Amendment can disappear tomorrow, and not much would change.

[Half-Century Man]

13. Here is my take on the topic.

In regards to firearms.
Pistols
Open carry; subject to local laws and ordnances. Federal restriction to be limit on ammunition carried unsecured (not in lockable safety container) 10 rounds.
Concealed carry; subject to federal standards on "valid reasons" to carry. Ammo limitation the same.
Long Guns
Magazine fed long guns; carry on person is merely a form of transportation. Weapons to be kept locked at all times during transport. Ammunition to be kept in separate lockable container.
Long guns above single shot; to be transported empty of ammunition. 10 round unsecured carry limit.
Single shot long guns; to be transported empty.

As the chance of being attacked is nearly 0, and the chance of being attacked by multiple adversaries is below that; there is a glaring lack of valid reasons to have more than 10 rounds of ammunition unsecured in travel.

[Hoyt]

11. I guess there is no NRA type organization for Katana, Machetes, etc., with right wing leadership

and Board Members like these NRA (and friends of the NRA's closely aligned Political Action Committee) guys:



?386c8c72cdb7f68dd1b6034a9e13251fefbf1ed5



?w=450&h=299




David Keene
The former NRA president is the former chairman of the American Conservative Union. In 2003, his son was sentenced to 10 years in prison for firing at another driver during a road rage incident. [Daddy, like most gunners, introduced his son to lethal weapons at an early age.]



Wayne A. Ross
In 2009, Sarah Palin nominated the former NRA vice president to be Alaska's attorney general, but lawmakers passed on him after he was accused of making homophobic and sexist comments.



Grover Norquist
The president of Americans for Tax Reform is a NRA Life Member and member of the Fifty Caliber Shooters Association. After Newtown, he echoed the NRA's line: "We have got to calm down and not take tragedies like this, crimes like this, and use them for political purposes."

Plenty More:





Anyone who would kill a magnificent animal like this, shouldn't be cajoling our politicians.

[Shamash]

12. Can someone explain something to me?

Preferably in a straightforward fashion. Since rifles are the least likely type of firearm to be used in a murder (FBI Uniform Crime Report), "assault rifles" are a small minority of the rifles owned (Slate.com), and incidents where 10 or more shots are fired are the least likely type (Journal of Injury Prevention), my question is this:

"If you wanted to spend all your political capital to ban a class of gun and a feature of a gun statistically guaranteed to save the smallest number of lives, which class of gun and which feature would you choose?"

Because it seems to me that "assault rifles" and "high-capacity magazines" is the answer that fits. Now, you may not like this answer, but if someone can provide a reasonable explanation of how it is wrong, you would go a long way towards strengthening support for the pro-ban position. Otherwise it is like crusading on banning Lamborghinis and Dom Perignon as an effective means of curbing the problem of drunk drivers.

[Hoyt]

14. Well they are used in mass shootings; are a favorite of militia types and those who intimidate;

have fueled a lot of the gun proliferation; can be converted to auto fire (although semi-auto is plenty deadly) and use high capacity mags; and a lot of other reasons including emboldening a lot of sick people who need help, not such guns.

I would ask why the heck people feel they need such gunz (even multiple units), and would we be better off now -- and perhaps in the future when gun fanciers might use them in a national emergency or even "fighting tyranny" -- without the dang things? And, just in case you want to use the old refrain -- No, I am not the arbiter of need.

[Half-Century Man]

15. Because the "assault weapon" is the preferred tool of mass shooters.

I am not for banning ownership, I am for greater security in their handling. Both at a personal level and as a society.
FWIW, I hate the name assault weapon, it is misleading and a variation of Sturmgewehr, a name given to a weapon by the designer to promote it to Germany's military during WWII.
What I mean are military inspired or sporterized versions of military weapons designed to fire repeatedly before reloading.