I love guns

[Dragonbreathp9d]

I think some of them are beautiful pieces of machinery that have a huge historical value. In fact, I would love to own a fully automatic P90 with a laser, red dot, flashlight and suppressor and a 50 round mag.

That being said- should everyone have a fully auto?

Hell no.

Should everyone have a huge clip?

Hell no.

Should just anyone regardless of background have a gun? And right now instead of after a waiting period?

Hell to the no.

And that is why I will forgoe being able to own my dream gun without any begrudging feelings. Because they can be used to cause mass murder. I will wait while my background is cleared to buy my hunting rifle that can hold only 5 rounds happily because of my care and consideration for my fellow man.

We all have to make sacrifices, and this one is hardly even an inconvenience.

[southernyankeebelle]

1. Gee, your a reasonable gun owner who isn't always looking over his shoulders.

Now if we could spread that good attitude to the heads at NRA heaquartes.

[JustABozoOnThisBus]

2. A P90 has historical value?

What's its place in history? Did it influence something?

I thought it was sorta new.

[Dragonbreathp9d]

3. That one not so much, I just think it is incredibly advanced

A nice flintlock for my wall would be cool though

[jmg257]

4. It those that are already owned which makes things inconvenient.

Not buying something new? No worries?

Dealing with all the BS to resolve what you already legally owned?

Yech!!

[Dragonbreathp9d]

5. Big deal

I'm willing to sacrifice a little so others may live

[jmg257]

6. Yep - as am I - so no argument from me on that point! nt

[NewMoonTherian]

7. I'm not.

Not any more. Gun owners have sacrificed(not really sacrificed - it was taken by force) a huge amount of freedom over the past century, and it hasn't accomplished anything. The AWB was in effect in this country for ten years and didn't accomplish anything. The measures being proposed now will not save lives. What they will do is make American citizens less capable of defending themselves personally and collectively. Sacrifice a little? Where is the little sacrifice? All of the most talked-about proposals are massive restrictions on the most important types of arms still widely available to the public.

On the other hand, I want to do whatever we can do to save innocent lives. Apparently, what we're doing is working in spades. Murder in the US plunged by over 50% from 1991 to 2010. There is no shortage of action we could take to reduce violence in America without attacking freedom in any way. Why is this the first and only option that gets any real discussion?

[flamin lib]

8. Really?????? nt

[NewMoonTherian]

9. Really, friend. Did I say anything that shocking or incomprehensible? n/t

[flamin lib]

10. All I've heard in the Gungeon is that great strides have been made in

gun rights. Shall issue instead of may issue, more states allowing cc, more states reciprocating carry license, SCOTUS ruling an individual right, carry in national parks, carry in church, carry in bars and you've got the almighty nerve to whine about SACRIFICE!

Shit, the only way gunners would have it any better would be the Government issuing you a damn gun.

[gejohnston]

11. Well I do think that

the Founders intended a Swiss type military, with an issued weapon and military training, instead of an empire and MIC. It would be a hell of a lot cheaper than $600-$700 billion a year.

[spin]

12. I agree. I don't believe that the founders wanted to spread our form of government ...

across the globe and become something like the British Empire of the times.

[holdencaufield]

15. Personally ...

... I wouldn't mind seeing a return to the concept of "citizen soldier" that was in place until the 2nd World War -- small standing army augmented by civilian soldiers in time of war.

When my father went to war (yes, some Jews fought in World War II) he was unprepared, as was the nation, to go to war, they trained, developed new weapons and new tactics and eventually helped the Allies defeat fascism. That very unpreparedness was what kept America from involving itself in questionable interventions that we find ourselves today (I'm going to leave Cuba, the Philippines and China out of this for now).

However, on 2nd blush, I don't think America could field another army like they did in the 2nd World War. I don't envision today's young men and women accepting the call in the same way our fathers and mothers did 70 years ago.

[NewMoonTherian]

13. I didn't say "sacrifice".

"Taken by force" were my words.

I can think of lots of ways gunners could have it better. They mostly include restoring the rights we used to have, such as access to new automatic weapons, short barreled long guns and silencers. Simply repealing the Hughes amendment would be such a tremendous act of good faith that gun owners would probably be willing to work together with anti's and pass private sale background checks and safe storage guidelines - things that would actually be positive if they were done right. As it stands, we have a monumental kludge of ineffective restrictions and bans that don't make anyone safer.

[DemDealer]

14. Indeed!

For all of this blather the antis talk about "compromise", a compromise implies that both parties get something out of the deal. What has the gun rights movement EVER gotten out of any of the restrictions imposed upon us?

We started off with an entire cake in 1934. We were told "be reasonable and share, we only want half of your cake!" And we were given the National Firearms Act.

Then with our half-cake in 1968, we were told "be reasonable and compromise! We only want half!" And we were given the Gun Control Act and retreated with our now 1/4 of a cake.

Then came the 1986 and we were told "be reasonable and compromise! We only want machineguns!" And the fully-automatic half of our cake was taken by the Hughes Amendment. Now we have but a sliver of our original rights.

And now were being told again. "You're being unreasonable! We only want part of your cake! Compromise with us and have a "discussion" about how much of your cake we should get!"

Nosir, I think you have quite enough of my cake. Until you offer something up in return, you'll not be getting any more.

[flamin lib]

16. Laws are ineffective because they are sabotaged by gunner politicians.

BATF&E can't require dealers to account for inventory. Dealers aren't required to refuse sales to buyers under the influence. Then there's that whole Gun Owner's Protection Act.

The BATF&E has fewer agents than it did 40 years ago, less funding and no director for 6 years. They are supposedly the number one enforcer of gun laws.

The NRA writes the laws for Republicans to rubber stamp.

Oh, and there are only 300 gun laws (State & Fed).

[gejohnston]

17. the ATF come into existence 40 years ago

it was still part of the IRS.
They don't require dealers to account for inventory? I know of a dealer in New Port Richey who lost his FFL and is awaiting trial because of inventory problems. He was also in trouble with FL authorities for other issues.

[flamin lib]

20. Might have been local law enforcement, but BATF&E is forbidden to do more than

suggest an annual inventory.

[gejohnston]

22. both

the local law enforcement dealt with racial discrimination in CCW classes. The ATF received a tip, and investigated. Local police don't enforce the Gun Control Act or laws against counterfeiting for that matter unless there is a corresponding local laws. IOW, the DEA is on their own in Colorado.
You also have to look at ATF's institutional culture when it was written. Until 1972 it was up to the IRS to enforce the GCA and NFA. The IRS really didn't want to do it, and underfunded the misc. tax unit and used it for a dumping ground for dimwits, racists, sexists, and other "problem children" and they didn't care about the rights of others either. That became the initial cadre and management for ATF. Part of their funding problems was that they were competing with other Treasury agencies like IRS, and USSS.

[flamin lib]

23. Like I said, ineffective by design. Thanks for helping make the point. nt

[gejohnston]

24. yeah, but can't put most of it on the NRA

most of it is on IRS's internal policy and Treasury's priorities.

[flamin lib]

25. I can.nt

[NewMoonTherian]

18. The laws are ineffective because they were bad when they were passed.

Let's abandon the bad laws and adopt good ones.

Let's drop the machine gun ban and pass private sale background checks. Let's stop pushing gun bans and magazine capacity limits and start pushing for things that will actually help curb violence without damaging innocent people's rights. Can we please try that?

[flamin lib]

21. And which, beyond selling full autos, will the gun culture support? I've got

$100 that says not a single damn one.

[NewMoonTherian]

27. I disagree.

I've seen a marked rise in support for private sale background checks recently. That's one reason I keep mentioning it.

To be sure, there's a huge amount of mistrust on our side for any gun-related legislation. I think that's warranted. Why don't we try proposing a bill that includes something gunners badly want, in exchange for something anti's badly want? If it fails, I don't see the harm in having tried.

Maybe I'm looking at this through a skewed lens, because I would be quite happy to see private sale background checks. From my point of view, I'm basically suggesting that we lose a bad law and add a good one.

Rather than the machine gun/background check tradeoff, what kind of compromise would you propose?

[Callisto32]

29. I WISH I could use NICS.....

But nonsensical legislation prevents that.

Funny, huh.

[flamin lib]

31. I'm not in a mood to compromise. As noted up thread everything has gone the gunner's

way for years. Now that they have everything short of SAMs and mortars suddenly it's gimme somethin' first?

Fuck that. I've said since the first month I became a subscriber that the gun side needed to get involved in writing laws to curb gun violence but nooooooo, it was why should we 'cause it's all going our way!

So bend over, something's gonna happen and the gunner are gonna squeal like little piggies.

[NewMoonTherian]

33. But see, it's not.

What do you think you're going to get passed? There's been an unprecedented surge in anti-gun sentiment in this country, but it's still dwarfed by the surge in pro-gun sentiment. There won't be an AWB, or a magazine capacity limit resulting from this, and as much as it frustrates me, there probably aren't going to be private sale background checks either. Maybe after another year or so of losing this argument, you'll be more willing to actually have a discussion. In the meantime, you've steeled me against any kind of compromise. I'm just going to get active and help crush the insane legislation that's being proposed.

[flamin lib]

35. There is no pro gun surge, only pro gun lobbying. nt

[Berserker]

34. As a "Gunner" as you put it

I personally don't give a fuck what kind of mood you are in. By they way you sound, you think your the hog with the big nuts on this farm. Laws don't mean shit to criminals so explain why MORE laws would do anything.
All your side want's to do is take guns away. Grab nut's think that is the holy grail and would stop all the violence. Well good luck making millions of us squeal like little pigs. Give me a fuckin break.

[flamin lib]

36. I'm a FFL holder. I don't give a fuck that you don't give a fuck. If guns could be confiscated

cranial/rectal inversion yours would be gone by now.

[Berserker]

37. Fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck

Scary Sorry I still don't bow down to your greatness. But I did find you on youtube. This is you right?

[Callisto32]

30. "I reject your reality, and substitute my own"

http://www.atf.gov/forms/download/atf-f-4473-1.pdf

Maybe take a look at that, eh?

Tell me, if a person says "no" to those questions, how is the dealer to prove otherwise? Maybe we should require people to give bodily fluid samples prior to exercising all their constitutional rights?

[flamin lib]

32. Yeah, I'm up for that. See if there's any THC in there. nt

[TxRider]

39. There are none, or almost none.

Fully automatic P90 rifles like he is talking about almost do not exist statistically. The price tag alone stops it, as it does with almost all fully automatic weapons as you won't get one of those of any type unless you can shell out 10-15k for one minumum..

[jmg257]

40. Understood. I was talking about the vast amounts of arms and

Mags and maybe ammo that will have to be dealt with as new laws are passed and certain items become contraband. Like in NY.

[Francis Marion]

19. Your hunting rifle today...

will be defined as a sniper rifle tomorrow.

And after all, nobody 'needs' a 'sniper rifle'.

Fudd fallacy helps them divide and conquer.

That's how they did it in Britain, one type of firearm at a time.

And why apologize for wanting to make the same weapon choice a police supply clerk could make- don't you vote, pay taxes, and enjoy the Bill of Rights to the maximum? Nothing to see here, let's move on.

We're not a police state. Yet.

We The People own military and police grade weaponry because We, The People, are IN CHARGE.

But we certainly could choose to be slaves, I suppose, and nauseate the Founders.

[PoliticAverse]

26. If it is 'hardly even an inconvenience' how is it a 'sacrifice' ? n/t

[Callisto32]

28. Should you not buy your dream car for the same reasons?

Do you think that others should not be allowed to have their dream car for those reasons?

[TxRider]

38. Sacrifice?

Do you have any idea what a full auto P90 like that would cost?

But then it a false argument anyway, as full automatic weapons and their ban isn't even up for debate, we're talking semi automatic weapon regulation. Most weapons, including most hunting weapons are all semi automatic.

I could easily live with a 10 round limit on magazines though, not a big sacrifice there.

[iiibbb]

41. In New York, where I just moved

I had to ship my 3 handguns (2 revolvers and a semiauto) to a friend in Virginia because I wasn't able to move to NY in possession of these firearms. I am told the wait period to get a permit in my county is somewhere between 6 and 12 months. In other counties the wait is as little as 1 month. By the time I do get them returned to my possession (and they have certain sentimental value) I will have spent their value in shipping, permitting, and registration fees.

I can only guess how many illegal handguns have moved into the state in that time.

I did bring a few rifles with me. A hunting rifle, a shotgun, a relic, and two rifles that violate New York's new "one-feature" rule-- one is a dopy .22LR that just has features of a so-called "assault rifle", the other is one that used to belong to my brother. I have to get them registered or I'm a felon. I also have to sell off my "high capacity" magazines or I am a felon. Who am I going to sell them to? Is the state going to buy them what I paid for them?

Again, it won't be very long before I will have paid more in fees and transport than the guns are worth.

It isn't "reasonable".