Whats with the shootings?

yamaha wrote: In reply to Strizzo: I liked the 20rd Pmags that came with my rock river.......mainly because the 20rd mag allowed easier prone shooting than a 30rd. I didn't have the rifle too long as I found myself still shooting the M1 carbine more often and missing the FAL I traded off for the ar. In reply to poopshovel: And to think, I thought I was the only person who thought all these redundant agencies were just a strain on our budget.

i'm sure there's nothing wrong with the pmags, just doesn't make sense to me to pay twice as much for a plastic version of the same thing, that isn't even any lighter. sure, they have those fancy covers, whoop-deee-doo

kazoospec wrote: They (criminals) don't care about your laws, rules, sense of fair play or desire for the "common good." You will not impact them in the least.

Again, if you look at the records of most of the mass murder shooters in the last 10 years, you'll find that the majority of them acquired guns over the counter, no questions asked. They may have gone through that background check, but no-one asked the hard questions that were needed to identify them as possible "Once and Done" murderers. You'll also notice that most of them had some serious physiological issues ranging from previously unreported violence or fascination with violence, suicidal tendencies, hate speech, social problems, or a disconnect from society that had them reclusive and without oversight. And the shooter weren't going and buying hunting rifles and a single small caliber pistol, they were collecting numerous guns that are designed for use in law enforcement and military.

I still feel like there should be some sort of requirement for multi-gun or non-hunting gun owners to be a part of a gun club, or take a safety course, or have a physc-eval. Again, I'm not denying anyones right to own a gun, I'm just wanting someone else to say "I know he has guns and I trust him with them."

Again, these regulations would not apply to someone who owned a hunting rifle, a revolver, and shotgun. Maybe not even apply to a guy who had multiple hunting guns. It wouldn't apply to the guy who had a .22 target gun.

This oversight would only apply to those who were buying a large number of guns, ammunition, armor, and other devices in a short period of a time and who had few or no personal references.

All the guys I know who have a gun collection below to a gun club. They are active members of their clubs, in some cases active members of the community. They could give you a list of people who would vouch for their safety and sanity.

For the vast majority of you, you'd notice no difference in between my proposed regulation and what we've currently got.

In reply to PHeller:

I understand what you're saying. You make perfect sense, but you have to look at it like this... Who may be perfectly sane today, may have a really crappy day tomorrow and decide someone needs to die. It's going to be a VERY arbitrary evaluation. Unless you are going to test everyone every day or put a biometric lock on the gun cabinet that reads your pulse and asks you stress related questions before you get your weapon, there's really no way to make it work 100%.

But I do agree with what you're saying and it makes perfect sense. The gun club thing though, it's really not something that's feasible in rural areas like where I live.

In reply to PHeller:

The trouble with what you are suggesting is that our constitution has defined gun ownership as a right, not a privilege. There are many that argue the purpose of the second amendment is to give the citizenry the capability for armed revolt against a tyrannical government.

Although I personally think your suggestion is a good one that makes a lot of sense, I find it hard to balance that with the right to bear arms. This would make it a conditional right. It has been shown to be illegal to put conditions on the right to vote (belonging to a social group, passing a test, etc.). Granted, I see a significant difference in that no one has ever been killed in a mass voting or drive-by speaking, but it's still a sticky issue.

We as Americans have decided to treat owning guns as a right. There are consequences to that decision.

PHeller wrote: ... they were collecting numerous guns that are designed for use in law enforcement and military. ...

Uh you do realize that most of the hunting rifles that are used today are either derived from or used as military and law enforcement firearms?

The two most popular hunting rifles in America for like the last 50 years are the Winchester model 70 and the Remington model 700. Both are used extensively as sniper rifles for law enforcement and military. Many hunters use converted military rifles like the Springfield 1903 as hunting rifles. The number one growing platform for "modern" hunting rifles is the AR platform and there are models manufactured specifically to be used as hunting rifles that come with 5 round mags and come in your favorite flavor of camo and in calibers ranging from a .17 Remington up to a .458 SOCOM allowing you to hunt pretty much everything in North America from a whistle pig to the biggest bull elk you ever saw. The second leading modern platform is the AK platform.

American soldiers have a tendency to adopt the weapons they used at war when they come home and go hunting.

Rebel,

Ok, so you can have an AR based hunting rifle. A red flag should be raised when your not part of a gun club, have not taken a hunters safety course, have never held a hunting permit, and have been ordering ammunition and high capacity magazines. Now, maybe you own 50 acres of land in Montana. Ok, no problem. When suddenly you purchase 20 AR hunting rifles, have purchased thousands of round of ammunition, and have just bought UPS load of armor, and you don't own a gun store....some questions should be raised.

My proposal isn't one of singular item being banned or regulated, but a buyers name and birthdate being recorded in relation to gun purchase, ammunition purchase, armor purchase, accessories purchase, and permit/club/education attendance and membership.

You need ID to drive, you need ID to vote, you need ID to buy alcohol, you need ID to purchase medication. In each of those cases, your using your ID recorded in relation to that purchase.

We can tell who buys guns where, but we can't tell what related purchases they are making...and I think that would raise many red flags about potential criminals, terrorists, and others baddies.

Why stop there? I know we will make it simple and from now on for every single purchase that a person makes their ID will be scanned and a catalog will be compiled of every single item they have ever purchased and it will be run against possible combinations that could be considered dangerous so that you cannot possibly be planning to commit a crime. Remember virtually anything can and will be used as a weapon in some fashion. I certainly hope that you do not drive a diesel truck and have a garden that needs some fertilizer. Or purchase common cleaning products like ammonia and bleach. Might want to think twice about buying those skin mags you don't want them thinking you are a deviant or something. Oh and be careful buying that new novel, it speaks badly of the government, reading it could mean you are some sort of radical.

I guarantee you that if you dig into just about any given persons past (including your own) there are things that would raise red flags and get you a nice little visit from the feds if rules like these were enacted. There are events in every single persons past that can make them come under suspicion in some fashion all it takes is digging for the right combination of things. Heck I bet in your house right now you have the materials to build an IED.

What you are proposing is a slippery slope once they start recording information about one type of purchase it is not long before others are recorded.

EDIT: Oh yeah and I don't even remember the last time I had to show my ID for buying beer or bourbon. The White House has blocked laws requiring ID to shown to vote. I may have to have an ID to LEGALLY drive but not to purchase the gas to operate it, can't get far with no gas even with an ID (see a parallel there).

Beer Baron wrote: The trouble with what you are suggesting is that our constitution has defined gun ownership as a right, not a privilege.....

But it's a right, like voting, that can be taken away. I am not sure if that is how rights are supposed to work, but it does in this case. Because of that, it seems like it is treated more like a privilege.

It seems like the only difference between voting/gun rights and drivers licencing is that the former are assumed and the latter is earned (take a test etc.), but both can be taken away.

What am I missing here?

PHeller wrote: Rebel, Ok, so you can have an AR based hunting rifle. A red flag should be raised when your not part of a gun club, have not taken a hunters safety course, have never held a hunting permit, and have been ordering ammunition and high capacity magazines.

Sounds like planning here for a normal Friday Night Shooting, where the only victim/target is either steel plate or an oven filled with tannerite.

Honestly, if you were buying 20 AR-15's at a time from the same place.......it'd be close to $15,000 PLUS for just the rifles, and chances are, that would raise a red flag already.

Also, to hell with the "gun club", hunters safety course, or hunting permit to get a weapon or "The ATF will come kick your door in" mentality. It sounds good on paper to some people, but it is just a bunch of crap for those who enjoy shooting sports to jump through.

I would agree to a tradeoff though, a 7 day waiting period for all purchases in exchange for a repeal on all NFA laws pertaining to Class 3 weapons......it won't happen because people who only watch movies or news will say "ZOMG, they want full auto, silencers, SBS, SBR, belt fed machine guns, etc with ONLY a 7 day waiting period?!?!?!?"

rebelgtp wrote: I guarantee you that if you dig into just about any given persons past (including your own) there are things that would raise red flags and get you a nice little visit from the feds if rules like these were enacted.

I wouldn't doubt that we all make a combination of purchases that could be deemed as a threat, but connecting those purchases is very difficult.

Counter-terrorism agencies will often looking for those connections, and sometimes throw in a potential purchase themselves in order to determine if a target is serious or not.

"November 1, 2011 Four members of an unnamed North Georgia militia are arrested in an alleged plot to bomb federal buildings, attack cities including Atlanta with deadly ricin, and murder law enforcement officials. The men – Frederick Thomas, 73, Samuel J. Crump, 68, Dan Roberts, 67, and Ray H. Adams, 65 – allegedly discussed dispersing ricin powder in a series of cities, "taking out" a list of officials to "make the country right again," and scouting buildings in Atlanta to bomb. Authorities say the plot was inspired by an online novel, Absolved, written by longtime Alabama militiaman Mike Vanderboegh. Thomas, the accused ringleader, and Roberts plead guilty in April 2012 to charges of conspiring to possess explosives and firearms."

I'm sure several people on here can identify with this.......but I was taught firearms safety and how to shoot by my grandfather from age 5-15(when he died), not a gun club where the membership makes that of a golf course look reasonable.

More restrictions are not necessary, people not living in fear because the news tells them to is what is necessary.

There are many that argue the purpose of the second amendment is to give the citizenry the capability for armed revolt against a tyrannical government.

I am one of those people. Uh oh! Pheller's gonna turn me in to the seude-denim secret police!!!

In reply to poopshovel:

In this incredibly far-fetched tyrannical government scenario, good luck standing in your yard shooting your rifle at the drones that are dropping bombs on you.

In reply to aircooled:

Both right to vote and own firearms are taken away when convicted of a felony......it is the way the Constitution is written versus the interpretation of those elected has changed it from a right to a privilege.....and I believe all of this changed under FDR's leadership. The fear mongering in the depression, the rise of the FBI, and the complete failure of prohibition will do that.

In reply to PHeller:

Don't forget the websites that you visit online, the "private" conversations that you have over the phone. At any given point every single last person on this planet could be considered a terrorist. Heck these days even our own military veterans are considered suspect.

Oh also your requirement for belonging to a "gun club" that is already being considered a red flag for being a domestic terrorist. There is also the little issue of not everyone has access to those sorts of places. So if you don't have the money or access to a gun club then you should not own a firearm? You don't believe in hunting but you want a firearm to protect your family you can't get one? If you tried to assign this sort of requirement for any other legal non restricted purchase and you would have a huge uproar.

Poop,

Give me a scenario in which the current US government would and COULD oppress the people without 75...no 90% of our service members denying to follow orders? Give me a scenario where corrupt police are going to barge into your house and take you prisoner for doing nothing wrong without they themselves not telling their supervisors to shove it? How bout a scenario where the FBI wire tap you for doing nothing wrong? You gonna take on the entire FBI with a few guns you've got?

Using that same justification, the American public should have the RIGHT to own nuclear weapons, the RIGHT to own tanks with live ammunition, and jets...ooo and I want a aircraft carrier too while I'm at it. Because ITS MY RIGHT.

In all of those cases, lawsuits would occur, political upheaval would take place, officials would be thrown out of office, and if/when anarchy occurred, there would be so many guns floating around it wouldn't matter anyway.

Domestic terrorism is usually justified by those committing it against "tyrannical government" and guess what? They go to jail, and we're all better off for it. Terror from the right.

In reply to PHeller:

Have you not seen how are rights are being eroded slowly especially since 9/11 and the Patriot act?

Rebel,

I'd much rather not have to worry about my workplace (county government) getting blown up, than have to live everyday worried about some nut job who thinks we tax him too much doing the same thing.

Without the oversight and scrutinizing eye of law enforcement, our nation would be half the population, still developing, and probably the least economically viable country in the world.

It is the stability and PEACEFULNESS of our country that allows it to prosper, and by turning the entire country into Hollywood (or Tarantino's) wild west, where kids can carry guns and problems are solved with a bullet, we'd join Africa and Central American countries at the bottom of the economic scale.

The Give-Me-As-Many-Guns-As-I-Want side of the argument always degrades into this logic that because I want more regulation, that I immediately want to deny COMPLETELY the ability of someone to own a gun. No, I want to people to realize that a gun is a deadly and effective tool that aside from a clean record requires no oversight, no questions asked, and a credit card.

I can handle my gun just fine, but honestly, I'm more worried about my student loan debt, my future financial security, and what I'm going to have for dinner tonight than I'm worried about someone coming and taking it.

I just bought 420 rounds of military surplus ammo for my AR-15. I like buying in bulk because it's cheaper. Sometimes, I'll buy a thousand rounds at a time. Oh noez, call the police.

PHeller wrote: Give me a scenario in which the current US government would and COULD oppress the people without 75...no 90% of our service members denying to follow orders? Give me a scenario where corrupt police are going to barge into your house and take you prisoner for doing nothing wrong without they themselves not telling their supervisors to shove it? How bout a scenario where the FBI wire tap you for doing nothing wrong? You gonna take on the entire FBI with a few guns you've got?

During Katrina police and military confiscated firearms that people legally owned and went into their homes and removed them without warrant. There was even at least one case of an old woman that was beat up by officers breaking her collar bone in the process because she did not want to give up her legal property.

Oh also hasn't there been some issues of the FBI illegally placing GPS tracking devices on cars? In fact I believe they had to remove THOUSANDS of them after the Supreme Court ruling...

Nope nope the government can do no wrong...they will take care of us.

93EXCivic wrote: In reply to PHeller: Have you not seen how are rights are being eroded slowly especially since 9/11 and the Patriot act?

Honestly, no. I've been more worried about the fact that me and most of my friends have loads of college debt, most of us are underpaid, I run into older folks all the time who are putting off retirement because some idiot in an office gambled away their retirement. I'm more worried about the stagnation of our economy and the lack of jobs for unskilled laborers. I'm worried about the government system that can't accomplish anything because of idealism. I'm more worried about big business have more and more influence over our lives, increasingly getting their greedy little fingers into all of our pockets and most of our minds, all in the name of capitalism.

I'm not at all worried about a few nut jobs getting arrested because they were planning on blowing up buildings.

rebelgtp wrote: Oh also hasn't there been some issues of the FBI illegally placing GPS tracking devices on cars? In fact I believe they had to remove THOUSANDS of them after the Supreme Court ruling...

You just proved my point. Guns didn't solve that problem, the courts did.

You know why people were confiscating guns in New Orleans? Because the police were worried that they would not be able to quell the looting, blockading of roadways, and other lawlessness that was rampant across the city. Did they make some mistakes? Definitely. But they were worried about old ladies having their guns stolen and used against her than they were about old ladies becoming enemies of the state.

I don't remember anything in the constitution of guns being easy, anonymous, and cheap to get as a "right".

Damnit, as soon I resolve to stay out of a conversation I get allllll fired up.

Turns out the temple shooter killed himself.