Help us petition the White House for gun rights!

I know gun aren't exactly GRM related stuff but I know there's a few gun nuts around here. I wanted to bring something to your attention. Right now on the Whitehouse.gov/petitions page there are two petitions concerning the Hughes Amendment and NFA Laws. We're trying to get these unjust and illegal laws removed. These laws make it almost impossible for civilians to own fully automatic firearms, suppressors, and weapons below a certain length. However there is no basis for these laws. Only two crimes have been comitted by legally owned fully automatic firearms. http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcfullau.html

Too many times we gun owners have seen things like this and done nothing. It's easy to tell ourselves it doesn't really matter. But we can make it matter this time. If you agree with what we're trying to do, please take a minute and add your name to these petitions. Sometimes these links don't work. If that happens please go to whitehouse.gov/petitions, create an account and search for 'Repeal'. The two petitions are the first and third items. Thank you very much.

https://wwws.whitehouse.gov/petitions#!/petition/repeal-prohibition-fopa-own-automatic-firearms-produced-after-1986-firearms-owners-protection-act/9cj85Ngr

https://wwws.whitehouse.gov/petitions#!/petition/push-congress-repeal-hughes-amendment-fopa-and-nfa/FWXhjh9s

I used to shoot a lot and consider myself pro-gun, but I really do wonder why it's an affront to ban a suppressor.

The only reason to (try to) hide the sound of a gunshot is if that gunshot isn't supposed to be happening. You're not going to get a second shot at that buck with a suppressor on....

And fully-automatic weapons? Those are difficult, but not impossible to acquire now. I'm fine with that.

Really, this is another one of those gun situations where someone wants to play at being an elite black-ops super-commando. Rather than giving a suppressor and select-fire weapon to a guy who already has a massive arsenal, what about focusing on restrictive local laws that actually impact the every-man? How about making it easier for me to legally own/carry/use* a gun in NYC? What about when I lived in Baltimore?

• seriously, have you ever seen the hoops you have to jump through to go to the one range in NYC?

peter wrote: The only reason to (try to) hide the sound of a gunshot is if that gunshot isn't supposed to be happening. You're not going to get a second shot at that buck with a suppressor on....

Suppressors do not hide the sound of a gun being fired. This is a silly Hollywood misnomer. Suppressors help lower the volume of guns being fired to a more manageable level. Why does it matter if I just want one to have one though?

Really, this is another one of those gun situations where someone wants to play at being an elite black-ops super-commando. Rather than giving a suppressor and select-fire weapon to a guy who already has a massive arsenal

Ok, so by this logic anyone with a high horsepower car wants to play race car driver and they shouldn't be allowed to drive them on the street. Claiming you know or understand the reasoning behind every person in this movement makes you sound very stupid. How about the fact that the Hughes Amendment didn't actually pass.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a6Mx2UcSEvQ

And yes you can get fully automatic weapons. And the ATF can take them from you at any time and change their minds about the rules about owning them at any time.

If you want to change local laws then do something. States with carry laws have had people stand up and saying this it was something they wanted. I can only give my support to people trying to change local laws. This is a national law that affects me directly and I plan on trying to do something about it. If you don't, that's fine.

Since this administration has not made any moves further restricting guns, I assume that this is a way to put that on his mantle.... Good luck with that.

I notice he never mentioned this administration, so exactly what point do your post have?

peter wrote: I used to shoot a lot and consider myself pro-gun, but I really do wonder why it's an affront to ban a suppressor. The only reason to (try to) hide the sound of a gunshot is if that gunshot isn't supposed to be happening. You're not going to get a second shot at that buck with a suppressor on....

In Europe supressors are considered common courtesy. I know for a fact that I would be much happier during hunting season if the guns were quieter. Or at the range. Or in the deep dark woods where I practice my evil act of murdering cans with a .22.

alfadriver wrote: Since this administration has not made any moves further restricting guns, I assume that this is a way to put that on his mantle.... Good luck with that.

Actually they have. They used the Fast and Furious to place limits on gun sales in border states at a federal level. They literally manufactured a crisis to restrict gun sales.

alfadriver wrote: Since this administration has not made any moves further restricting guns, I assume that this is a way to put that on his mantle.... Good luck with that.

What the heck are you on about? I can't speak for anyone else who wants to repeal the Hughes Amendment but I'm not trying to put it on anyone. I want to see it done. I think this is an important step for gun owners in America.

Oh, and Peter, I am doing something to try and help states with terrible carry laws.

wh.gov/g82

Pie on the menu for tonight, for sure.

Oh yeah. That time of year!

If you want a fully automatic just join the military. Same goes for suppressors, grenades, tanks, SAMs etc.

In reply to fast_eddie_72:

ooo pumpkin, my favourite

I have to ask if anyone shares my POV...

I don't mind legal ownership of high fire rate firearms or rifles.

But as a whole, i want for them to be very difficult to get ahold of for anyone...

fast_eddie_72 wrote: Pie on the menu for tonight, for sure. Oh yeah. That time of year!

vanilla ice cream goes nicely with pie

Nice how some people came in here to flounder up an issue that specifically wasn't a flounder...

Guns don't kill people, bullets kill people.

peter wrote: I used to shoot a lot and consider myself pro-gun, but I really do wonder why it's an affront to ban a suppressor. The only reason to (try to) hide the sound of a gunshot is if that gunshot isn't supposed to be happening. You're not going to get a second shot at that buck with a suppressor on.... And fully-automatic weapons? Those are difficult, but not impossible to acquire now. I'm fine with that. Really, this is another one of those gun situations where someone wants to play at being an elite black-ops super-commando. Rather than giving a suppressor and select-fire weapon to a guy who already has a massive arsenal, what about focusing on restrictive local laws that actually impact the every-man? How about making it easier for me to legally own/carry/use* a gun in NYC? What about when I lived in Baltimore? * seriously, have you ever seen the hoops you have to jump through to go to the one range in NYC?

I do a lot of target shooting on my own property. I'd like to use a suppressor to keep the noise down....mainly for the benefit of my neighbors.

Pretty ironic considering the issue.

You have to sign up on a Fed website to get your name on a government list.

I do a lot of target shooting on my own property. I'd like to use a suppressor to keep the noise down....mainly for the benefit of my neighbors.

If I live close enough to you to be bothered by the noise of your rifles, I want to know when you're shooting. Especially if I live close enough that a suppressor would make a difference between being bothered and not. I may come join you or I may hit the deck, it depends on how much I trust you. Either way, I want to know.

move to Washington state, suppressors are legal out here :)

Kj

BoostedBrandon wrote: Guns don't kill people, bullets kill people.

Guns don't kill people, I kill people (sound of loading cartridge into shotgun), with guns

peter wrote:

I do a lot of target shooting on my own property. I'd like to use a suppressor to keep the noise down....mainly for the benefit of my neighbors.

If I live close enough to you to be bothered by the noise of your rifles, I want to know when you're shooting. Especially if I live close enough that a suppressor would make a difference between being bothered and not. I may come join you or I may hit the deck, it depends on how much I trust you. Either way, I want to know.

There is a range well over a mile from where I live, and I can hear the shooting if I'm outside.

Now, if we were neighbors, we'd likely be closer, and regardless of whether or not you trusted me, you'd probably get tired of hearing me shooting sat/sun morning

peter wrote:

I do a lot of target shooting on my own property. I'd like to use a suppressor to keep the noise down....mainly for the benefit of my neighbors.

If I live close enough to you to be bothered by the noise of your rifles, I want to know when you're shooting. Especially if I live close enough that a suppressor would make a difference between being bothered and not. I may come join you or I may hit the deck, it depends on how much I trust you. Either way, I want to know.

There is a range well over a mile from where I live, and I can hear the shooting if I'm outside.

Now, if we were neighbors, we'd likely be closer, and regardless of whether or not you trusted me, you'd probably get tired of hearing me shooting sat/sun morning

No Pumpkin pie for me.

Guns don't kill people, Cantelopes do.

^^^ Obviously you have followed me into the bathroom after a couple slices of pumpkin pie.

This is a slippery slope.. both ways. (in the snow, barefoot) If we control automatic weapons and suppressors.. where do we stop? On that same coin, if we let people have them.. where do we stop the flow?

personally, I see NO need for a fully automatic weapon. Unless you are worried about zombies, the government coming to get your guns, or hordes of gangbangers banging down your door at 3am.. then there is no real need to have something that definatly designed to kill.. and kill as fast and often as possible.

Suppressors, I can see where they come in handy. I live in a woodsy area, and a couple times a month, I can hear shots fired in the woods.. I would prefer not to.

One item is designed to make it easier to kill things.. the other is meant to make guns a little more pleasant to be around (you want a silencer to kill somebody.. a 1litre soda bottle filled with packing peanuts works better, if only for a shot or two)

My thought is this: Cars kill way more people than guns. You can get a car and drive it (with a license and insurance), and if you kill someone with it you might lose your license.

I don't think I have a right to own a gun because of any amendment, I have a right to own a gun because I haven't committed any gun crimes. If you're going to give people a license to drive a 7000-lb SUV at 70mph based on whether or not they can use their turn signal in a 5-minute driving test, I don't see any reason why we can't buy an Uzi with a silencer and 100-round clip.

The legislation gives people a license to drive until they prove that they are incompetent at driving... and how often does that actually happen? Why can't it be the same for guns? They're less lethal than cars.

mad_machine wrote: personally, I see NO need for a fully automatic weapon. Unless you are worried about zombies...

That's a common fallacy. Automatic fire is not particularly effective against zombies. You need a well controlled shot to the head to put a zombie down. A three round burst into the chest might only slow them for a step or two. And suppressing fire doesn't do any good since zombies lack any sense of self preservation.

A suppressor would be helpful to alert fewer zombies to your presence.