Hypocrisy at its worse (rant warning)

[04rnr]

Why doesn't he belong in this thread? Just curious

he is just another "know-it-all" on the forum, luckily this forum has a very few of them

 

[shadow247]

Also, gun shows and private transactions will also allow purchases to be made by anyone with the money, including felons.

Gun shows do not allow sales without background checks! This is patently false information. I have been to 2 different gun shows in VA, run by 2 different promoters, and bought pistols at each one. At both shows I was required to undergo a background check before walking out with a pistol. I didn't see any individuals with large tables of pistols set up selling, there were a few individuals selling a few pistols and rifles, but the vast majority were licensed FFL dealers. FFL dealers are prohibited by federal law from transferring any firearm without performing a background check.

Requiring a background check for person to person sales will do NOTHING to deter actual criminals, it will simply make felons out of those of us who simply wish to be left alone to conduct private transaction.

 

[H2O_Doc]

Everything in the Patriot Act is unconstitutional, so when has that ever stopped them.

Well...every year SCOTUS stops them in a sense. Although I share your incredulity regarding the patriot act. What an Orwellian title.

Anyway, I'm sure something will get introduced, but I don't much if anything will make it into law. Again, my opinions shouldn't dissuade you from being active or attentive to the matter, I'm just tracking other issues.

 

[Offroader5]

Not really much to add in terms of the gun law discussion since I believe most every point of view has already been covered including many of my own opinions. I will say this though...I am an NRA member, and own several guns. Not one of them is an AR style rifle. Not that I have anything specifically against them, but personally I have just never seen the need to have that style weapon.

I own handguns and what you could call "typical" hunting rifles in several calibers. The way I look at it, a person well trained in the use of a handgun (or shotgun if the situation permits), would have no problem protecting themselves and if need be others with that gun. I believe if YOU feel the need to own an AR style rifle, then that's your choice and you should be allowed the choice so long as you're competent. However, the thing I get tired of hearing is that AR rifles are needed for protection. The only added protection factor an AR style rifle will give you is distance and capacity. Obviously the AR will allow you more reach accurately vs. a handgun, but anyone that has put 100's or 1000's of rounds down range training with their handgun knows that you can be very accurate with them out to very respectable distances.

BTW, in terms of protection...how many people carry AR's out in public as their every day carry? You don't. So, odds are, that AR is for protection in the home. Not sure how much weapon range you need inside your home, but it seems a shotgun or handgun would be your best bet...especially if you don't know what's behind that wall you're firing towards.

my gripe is that senators think they can take away constitutional rights so easily. Written letters to all my reps. This following ling is a good read. its not the official doc, rather an outline of the new ban. its scary.

Military Arms Channel Blog: The AWB of 2013

This is a bit scary. Per this, something as non-threatening as my Marlin 22lr or Walther P22 is banned just due to the fact that they have 10 round detachable mags and are semi-auto. Unless of course it's on "the list".

I especially like the part on how they'd handle the grandfathering: :tsk:

• Requires that grandfathered firearms be registered under the National Firearms Act (NFA)

• Background check through the FBI is required

• Type and serial number of the firearm will be kept by the government

• Positive identification of owners including pictures and finger prints will be required

• Certification by your local law enforcement (signature) stating you may own the firearms in their jurisdiction

• Dedicate funding to the ATF to implement registration

 

[footdoc]

Not really much to add in terms of the gun law discussion since I believe most every point of view has already been covered including many of my own opinions. I will say this though...I am an NRA member, and own several guns. Not one of them is an AR style rifle. Not that I have anything specifically against them, but personally I have just never seen the need to have that style weapon.

I own handguns and what you could call "typical" hunting rifles in several calibers. The way I look at it, a person well trained in the use of a handgun (or shotgun if the situation permits), would have no problem protecting themselves and if need be others with that gun. I believe if YOU feel the need to own an AR style rifle, then that's your choice and you should be allowed the choice so long as you're competent. However, the thing I get tired of hearing is that AR rifles are needed for protection. The only added protection factor an AR style rifle will give you is distance and capacity. Obviously the AR will allow you more reach accurately vs. a handgun, but anyone that has put 100's or 1000's of rounds down range training with their handgun knows that you can be very accurate with them out to very respectable distances.

BTW, in terms of protection...how many people carry AR's out in public as their every day carry? You don't. So, odds are, that AR is for protection in the home. Not sure how much weapon range you need inside your home, but it seems a shotgun or handgun would be your best bet...especially if you don't know what's behind that wall you're firing towards.



This is a bit scary. Per this, something as non-threatening as my Marlin 22lr or Walther P22 is banned just due to the fact that they have 10 round detachable mags and are semi-auto. Unless of course it's on "the list".

I especially like the part on how they'd handle the grandfathering: :tsk:

• Requires that grandfathered firearms be registered under the National Firearms Act (NFA)

• Background check through the FBI is required

• Type and serial number of the firearm will be kept by the government

• Positive identification of owners including pictures and finger prints will be required

• Certification by your local law enforcement (signature) stating you may own the firearms in their jurisdiction

• Dedicate funding to the ATF to implement registration

And the best part: once the owner dies, the weapon is non-transferible. It is confiscated by the gov't to be "destroyed".

I agree that an AR is not a necessity. Fun as hell to shoot though!!!

 

[Offroader5]

Gun shows do not allow sales without background checks! This is patently false information. I have been to 2 different gun shows in VA, run by 2 different promoters, and bought pistols at each one. At both shows I was required to undergo a background check before walking out with a pistol. I didn't see any individuals with large tables of pistols set up selling, there were a few individuals selling a few pistols and rifles, but the vast majority were licensed FFL dealers. FFL dealers are prohibited by federal law from transferring any firearm without performing a background check.

Yes, but there are "loopholes". Both dealers & private owners sell firearms at gun shows. Per the Firearms Owners Protection Act of 1986 only the licensed FFL dealers are required to perform a background check. Private sellers or those "not engaged in the business of dealing firearms" or if they only make "occasional" sales are not required to perform the checks or even keep a record of the sale. The private sellers are however "forbidden from selling a firearm to persons they have reason to believe are felons or otherwise prohibited from owning or purchasing firearms".

So, if a private seller simply asks, "you ok to buy a gun buddy?"...then they could just say "yup" and be on their way. Closing the loophole (at least at gun shows) could be as simple as saying "no sales are allowed without a background check-private or otherwise".

It still comes down to laws and whether people will follow them.

 

[Offroader5]

Figured I'd throw these in here just for the hell of it.

This website is a pretty good read: Gun Control - Just Facts

And I thought this was put together nicely:

<iframe src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/Ooa98FHuaU0" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="360" width="640"></iframe>

 

[blackrifle01]

Other than a felon not being able to buy or carry a gun, I've seen loopholes exploited with everything else you mentioned. And a lot of that enforcement depends on the state, anyway. Also, gun shows and private transactions will also allow purchases to be made by anyone with the money, including felons.

Can you please elaborate on these loopholes? I am genuinely not familiar with any loopholes that exist. From what I can see, felons (and those convicted of violent misdemeanors) cannot own or possess a firearm. If that happens, then a law was broken. As someone else mentioned, there is NO gun show loop hole. It simply does not exist. This is garbage made up by anti-gun politicians to prey on the weak-minded in their desperate grasp for power. ALL transactions through a FFL at gun shows go through background checks. According to the law, felons cannot purchase firearms through private sale. If that happens, then the law was broken and both parties are subject to minimum sentences and fines. But it happens, regardless if laws exist. Just shows more laws = worthless.

For every example of the CCW-holder who is a hero and stops a tragedy, there's another where the person does something stupid. The NRA and the anti-gun lobby love to play the "let's-trade-stories" game, but the fact is there are just as many of each.

No, there is not. What evidence there exists for CCW holders shows that CCW holders as a population commit FAR fewer (throw a couple more FAR's in there) crimes than the general population of the United States. I have seen a report where CCW holders actually commit fewer crimes than police officers...but I have not vetted that one (have to check out the supporting data for that...jury is still out on that one). The only recent and questionable CCW action in recent memory is the Travon Martin shooting. That shooting was also ruled as self-defense initially, but we all know where it is now... so we will have to see how that plays out in court. My point is that what data exists for the CCW population and their conduct shows that they (we) are exemplary. There will always be stupidity and someone will violate the 4 weapons safety rules, but that does not in anyway discount the value that CCW/guns/2A brings to society. CCW (good guys with guns) saves lives. It happens over and over on a near daily basis. There is far fewer evidence to support the anti-gunner agenda.

But my own opinion is based on the people who've done stupid things in front of me: like the idiot who rushed up to me while I was making an arrest, with a drawn weapon and a "CCW Holder" badge around his neck and asked if I needed "assistance." He almost got shot by my backup for his trouble.

Or the guys around here who think nothing of hanging out at the local bar while armed.

My state does not have the bar restriction. I've been to countless bars countless times while armed. I don't ever drink when I am armed. My friends know that if I go with them to the bars and do not drink, then they know I am armed. I see nothing wrong with CCW at a bar.

Or the family friend who was bi-polar and was able to purchase a handgun. Don't know what method he used, but he owned one, nonetheless. And one time soon afterwards when he went off his meds, he ended up getting into an argument with his fiancé, locking himself in the bathroom, and blowing his brains out. Tragic, but at least he didn't do anything to anyone else. He could have, though.

A law covers people who are a mentally ill and are a harm to others or themselves. Sounds like your family friend violated the law. I guess another law might have stopped him? Or should we somehow try to better enforce the one we have?

I think violent crime ebbs and flows, but things as ridiculous (and mainly for political show) like the Assault Weapons Ban have little to do with it. Anyone with a shred of gun knowledge knows you don’t need an AR-15 or hi-capacity pistol magazines to commit violent crimes. I don’t think there’s actually been any legal measure regarding firearm restriction in our lifetimes that was meant to be an actual solution.

HAMMER MEET NAIL! Gun control will always be used as a political football so long as there are stupid people in the world who are willing to buy into it. No matter its racist beginnings or the millions of dead bodies piled up at the alter of gun control throughout history, as long as there are power hungry pro-big government people in the world, gun control will exist to fool the masses and bolster the elites. Diane Feinstein will be the first one to steal our God given 2A, but she will never give up her own guns (she has a CCW...while many countless Californians cannot "qualify"...as if their lives and rights are less important)

And I’m not sure how extensive your experience is with regard to law enforcement shootings, but when they go bad, it’s rarely due simply to “piss-poor” training and more to do with circumstances, adrenaline, and Murphy’s Law of armed combat: shi^ happens. If you’re referring to the Empire State Building shootout, yeah, I think it was a bad outcome, but sometimes your choices are bad and worse. What should they have done when they guy pointed his weapon at them? Let him shoot them, then turn his gun on the crowd? Or try to take him out and hope no bystanders were injured? I learned a long time ago not to Monday-morning-quarterback another cops decisions in a shooting incident. I don't know what he or she saw, what they were thinking, and I have a limitless amount of time to do it - when they probably only had split seconds.

I'm not trying to Monday Morning QB. Empire state shooting was a tough call...one I cannot make since I wasn't there...in fact, I probably would have done the same. However, if I were someone with authority in NYC...I would be seriously questioning the firearm training regimen of my police force. I'm sure you know of officers who only shoot enough to qualify each year. After that, they don't put another round down range until the next qualification. Merely pointing out that the notion that it's OK only for authority figures to carry weapons (or the notion that only police officers can safely carry firearms) is false. We give police officers too much credit when it comes to firearm competency and we give citizens that CCW too little credit.

Moreover, for every ‘bad’ incident where police are involved, there are a 10,000 other incidents where they do it the right way. But that’s not as sensational, so it doesn’t make the news. If you’re expecting your police to be perfect and never make any mistakes, you’re expecting way too much, and to paint all of law enforcement as having "piss-poor" training based only on what hits the media is a huge mistake.

Agreed...let's apply that same lense to CCW then since there are far fewer stories about negligent CCW actions

As far as how many rounds you shoot in a month, a lot more goes into ‘quality’ training than number of rounds fired. Solid instruction, past training, experience, awareness of legal issues, individual judgement, use-of-force policies, and sound tactics all play a role. Unless you're talking about introductory training, i.e. teaching people new to firearms in general, I'd say the number of rounds fired is the least important facet of good training.

Agreed. I was only referring to myself since I have a solid amount of what you mentioned. Uncle Sam made sure of that. I've been doing maintaining for a while, but I'm looking forward to taking a self-funded carbine or long-range rifle class at some point. I probably won't ever need to transition from my AR to a sidearm, but it's fun when I train that way anyways. I love shooting...any chance I get, I am out in the wilderness plugging away at evil produce, water bottles, or the hostage in one of those hostage & hostage taker :gun5:

Not trying to come at you in a negative way. I think you and I are in the same book, but maybe not necessarily on the same page. I simply take issue with CCW being painted in a negative light when in fact CCW has already prevented or minimized multiple mass-shooting events. We should give credit where credit is due.

 

[blackrifle01]

And the best part: once the owner dies, the weapon is non-transferible. It is confiscated by the gov't to be "destroyed".

I agree that an AR is not a necessity. Fun as hell to shoot though!!!

I disagree: AR's and all semi-automatic (ALL firearms are necessity). It is no one's right to determine which firearm is or is not a necessity. This is what the AWB was all about. Keep in mind, semi-automatic rifles have been used for self-defense in the past and will be used for self defense in the future. Small arms are a core component of our free nation.

AND they are damn fun to shoot.

 

[footdoc]

I disagree: AR's and all semi-automatic (ALL firearms are necessity). It is no one's right to determine which firearm is or is not a necessity. This is what the AWB was all about. Keep in mind, semi-automatic rifles have been used for self-defense in the past and will be used for self defense in the future. Small arms are a core component of our free nation.

AND they are damn fun to shoot.

you're right. that's the whole point, isn't it?

They are also really fun to build! Just started receiving all my parts which have been backordered, including 15 PMAGS (30 round). this baby will be side-charging.

 

[Offroader5]

Not saying I disagree...I stated that if YOU feel it is a necessity, then that is your choice and you should be able to exercise that right. I also agree that firearms in general are a necessity, but to say one particular style or type of firearm is in itself a necessity, IMO is a stretch. That would be like saying a MRAP is a necessity in terms of an offroad vehicle. Where it would be awesome to have one as your offroad vehicle, is it absolutely necessary?

That said...what makes an AR style rifle a "necessity" for you? Necessity meaning survival is impossible without it or nothing would work in place of it. Again, your opinion may be that as far as your arsenal goes, an AR is definitely a necessity, I respect that, but I am interested as to why you believe this?

I disagree: AR's and all semi-automatic (ALL firearms are necessity). It is no one's right to determine which firearm is or is not a necessity. This is what the AWB was all about. Keep in mind, semi-automatic rifles have been used for self-defense in the past and will be used for self defense in the future. Small arms are a core component of our free nation.

AND they are damn fun to shoot.

 

[blackrifle01]

you're right. that's the whole point, isn't it?

They are also really fun to build! Just started receiving all my parts which have been backordered, including 15 PMAGS (30 round). this baby will be side-charging.

Very nice. That is the beginning of a masterpiece...can't can't tell what's worse, though...black rifle disease or 4Runner disease:biggrin2:. I got both:shocked:

You'll have to post a pic when you finish that build.

 

[blackrifle01]

Not saying I disagree...I stated that if YOU feel it is a necessity, then that is your choice and you should be able to exercise that right. I also agree that firearms in general are a necessity, but to say one particular style or type of firearm is in itself a necessity, IMO is a stretch. That would be like saying a MRAP is a necessity in terms of an offroad vehicle. Where it would be awesome to have one as your offroad vehicle, is it absolutely necessary?

That said...what makes an AR style rifle a "necessity" for you? Necessity meaning survival is impossible without it or nothing would work in place of it. Again, your opinion may be that as far as your arsenal goes, an AR is definitely a necessity, I respect that, but I am interested as to why you believe this?

Ah, understood. Sorry, misread your post, so i appreciate the clarification.

I've always viewed the issue of firearms as an issue of basic human rights, so I don't like to talk about what is or is not necessary. I don't think the "necessity" topic should even be a part of the conversation because it is a discussion of potential constraints to be placed on a basic human right. A discussion of "necessity" emboldens the Pol-Pot/Stalin wannabes in our society.


I think of an AR/semi-auto rifle as a necessary defensive weapon and a weapon of choice for close quarters. It's not actually my favorite weapon. I prefer my M1A. Although, a nice Eotech on an AR makes for quite a fine do-everything rifle. I live in a potential natural disaster area, so I view the AR as good insurance in the event something happens. Furthermore, I plan on doing some small game hunting and believe 7.62 is kind of overkill (and EXPENSIVE:Cry. I am also most familiar with the AR15/M16 platform, so maintenance to me is second nature. Plus, the availability of parts and accessories makes the AR15 a pretty nice platform (shoot, might have to revise what my favorite weapon is). The AR15 platform is probably the most robust weapons platform every created. I appreciate the 30rnd capacity of standard mags for the AR. I can carry a lot of ammo on my chest rig/plate carrier vs. the 20 rnd mags for my M1A. Above all, it is my choice.

 

[shadow247]

Here's the way I view the "needs" argument that people are trying to throw out there.

No one NEEDS a Crew Cab Long Bed 4x4 Superduty with a diesel for daily driving, these are 90% relegated to commercial use, but that doesn't mean I shouldn't be allowed to own one.

No one NEEDS an AR or similar type rifle, but that doesn't mean I shouldn't be allowed to own one.

 

[got556]

Here's the way I view the "needs" argument that people are trying to throw out there.

No one NEEDS a Crew Cab Long Bed 4x4 Superduty with a diesel for daily driving, these are 90% relegated to commercial use, but that doesn't mean I shouldn't be allowed to own one.

No one NEEDS an AR or similar type rifle, but that doesn't mean I shouldn't be allowed to own one.

Ya I don't NEED an AR15 just like the police don't NEED them. Hell I don't NEED the police. Brownie points for the first person to tell me what caliber is most often used in gun crimes...b/c it aint a rifle round...

The only time I will NEED a semi automatic, especially an AR15 or the likes is when Obama and his cronies start ruling this country with EO's and **** you's to it's citizens. That time is now....

 

[shadow247]

Ya I don't NEED an AR15 just like the police don't NEED them. Hell I don't NEED the police. Brownie points for the first person to tell me what caliber is most often used in gun crimes...b/c it aint a rifle round...

The only time I will NEED a semi automatic, especially an AR15 or the likes is when Obama and his cronies start ruling this country with EO's and **** you's to it's citizens. That time is now....

I believe it is 22lr

 

[got556]

I believe it is 22lr

You're correct, but when I think of rifle rounds I think of anything w/ a little larger diameter than .22lr.

W/ that said it's disgusting the facts that are ignored with all this.

 

[RandyDaytona]

he is just another "know-it-all" on the forum, luckily this forum has a very few of them

Nope, I just happen to carry a gun for a living, so I'm pretty sure I at least know more about it than you do.

Now, when you see me posting on every topic under the sun and claiming to be an authority on each one, then you can call me a "know-it-all."

But thanks for unwarranted insult, anyway. Maybe I'll just wait until a topic comes up that centers around what you do for a living, then call you the same.

 

[RandyDaytona]

Gun shows do not allow sales without background checks! This is patently false information.

I was at a gun show and watched someone buy a handgun with cash. No background check, not even an ID (though the guy was obviously not underage/too young to buy a gun).

If VA regulates their gun shows that closely, so much the better. But different states doing things different ways is part of the problem.

 

[shadow247]

I was at a gun show and watched someone buy a handgun with cash. No background check, not even an ID (though the guy was obviously not underage/too young to buy a gun).

If VA regulates their gun shows that closely, so much the better. But different states doing things different ways is part of the problem.

As I said ealier, person to person sales do not require a background check, only transfers from an FFL to an individual, regardless of where the transaction takes place. There are no exceptions to this law, gun shows are not a magical 'no background check zone'. Private individuals are free to set up a table at a gun show provided they pay whatever fees the gun show collects, but if you are an FFL license holder, you are 100% required to submit a background check prior to transferring the firearm to a private individual. In a lot of states, a CHP/CCW/CWP holder is not requird to submit to a background check for each purchase, as they have already undergone a bg check identical to the NICS background check performed by an FFL dealer. Can I make this anymore clear?

One of 3 things happened that you witnessed.
1. The buyer possessed a CHP/CCW/CWP - they are not required to submit to a background check.
2. The FFL dealer did not perform a background check and therefore broke several federal laws,which carry a pretty significant sentence if caught.
3. The seller is a private individual and did not verify the buyer possed a "Carry Permit" - which is a violation of minnesotalaw and subject to felony prosecution.

Which of these 3 scenarios do you think is most likely?