Trump admin bans Bump Stocks

[Benton]

(03-29-2019, 01:10 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Putting less stock is a bit of an understatement.  That being said it absolutely does diminish our ability to respond the way NZ did.  This is exactly as the founders intended.  

There would be some wiggle room, if there was some wiggle room.   The anti-gun side will not stop with the next victory and they've shown this to be true more frequently of late.  Any concession will be followed by a demand for another.  Under these terms the pro gun ownership will give no ground and they logically should do exactly that.

If neither side is going to budge from an extreme point of view, then it's going to be all or nothing. 

I'll admit to being naive, but cooler heads should prevail.

Quote:I wish I could provide you with my daily proof of the lax enforcement of firearms laws in the state of CA.  I'm not talking about already serious felonies such as bank robbery, I'm referring to robbery, assault with a firearm and possession of a firearm in conjunction with another crime such as burglary.  Getting these people off the street for longer periods absolutely has an impact on future crime.

Lengthy sentences has an impact, but not always on prevention. Which, in regard to gun violence, is the issue.
I've got no issue with long sentences for criminals, although I think there are way too many things people get sent to jail for. But as you pointed out, there's a plethora of guns already out there. Putting away Criminal A for life is great, that takes of Criminal A... but there's still Criminal B with easy access to a firearm for the next crime.
Lengthy senteces as the cure has been tried. Several decades later, we've still got the same problems.

Quote:In saying this you actually help my argument.  If the next step doesn't produce the desired results then confiscation is the obvious next step.  You've literally made Shannon Watts argument in advance here.  The end goal is confiscation and the deep blue states have already shown this to be the case.


You want to couple any such efforts to legislation that would forbid confiscation and restrictions on law abiding citizens I'll happily hop on board.  I've yet to see such legislation.

Well, yeah, because lawmakers on both sides are extremist idiots. 
Our locations play a bit of a role in things. A friend of mine used to be a State Rep here in Kentucky. As a Democrat, he introduced legislation to expand concealed carry rights. Almost everyone on both sides supported it. Last year, Kentucky Republicans rolled back their concealed carry requirements, becoming a "concealed carry for all" state. It, also, received bipartisan support (although, I'll admit I was against it as it's already legal to open carry here, and I'm against having less gun safety education).

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(03-29-2019, 06:24 PM)fredtoast Wrote: First of all I do not remember that discussion at all.  Maybe you have me confused with someone else.  But this is still a false equivalency.

Rather than have me dig for it, why don't you just answer it now.  Would you be in favor of a national mandatory fingerprint and DNA database that would make it exceptionally easier for law enforcement to solve crimes?

Quote:Guns are dangerous weapons.  Therefore we have to take special steps to insure public safety regarding their ownership and use.  There are lots of requirements that I may oppose for the general public but be in favor of for gun owners.  Gun owners are a special class of people who posses dangerous weapons.  Therefore treating them differently is justified for purposes of public safety.  I am not saying that every citizen has to register every item they own and be licensed to own/operate it.  I am just saying we need laws like this regarding deadly poisons, explosives, planes, cars, large machinery, guns, etc.  The fact that "arms" are listed in the Constitution and those other items are not does not change the need to protect public safety.  We already have many laws limiting Constitutional rights based on public safety.

Sure do.  What you're proposing is not among them and is, in fact, expressly forbidden by the law.

Quote:I'll bet even you agree that there should be some registration/licensing requirements for citizens to buy stinger missiles or anti-aircraft guns.  But those are just "arms".  So why the accepted double standard?

No one has advocated for this in this, or any other thread.  Neither of those weapons has a legitimate self-defense application.  All currently legal firearms do.

(03-29-2019, 06:31 PM)fredtoast Wrote: What you call "abuse" I call enforcing the law.

No you don't because you can't  Not only is what your advocating not currently the law, what you're advocating for is actually expressly forbidden by the law.  Why do you want to break the law, Fred?

Quote:Citizens are not allowed to decide which laws are just. 

I'm extremely pleased that the Civil Rights movement didn't buy into this sentiment.

Quote:They are free to protest and campaign in order to get those laws changed, but they can't claim that they are "law abiding citizens" if they refuse to follow the law.  There are people who think it should be legal to have sex with a 14 year old girl.  They will even point out how girls used to get married and have kids at that age.  But that does not mean they are "law abiding citizens" when they have sex with those girls.  Same goes with the possession and use of many drugs.  Personally I think pot should be legal, but I don't call people who sell pot here in Tennessee "law abiding citizens".

Got it, Fred, you'd be the guy turning in the Jews to the Nazis or enforcing Jim Crow because citizens aren't permitted to resist an unjust law.  I can't say this says much about your character.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(03-29-2019, 07:16 PM)Benton Wrote: If neither side is going to budge from an extreme point of view, then it's going to be all or nothing. 

I'll admit to being naive, but cooler heads should prevail.

I agree.  Seeing as how I live in a state when not a single person like that exists in the state government on this issue I have a hard time seeing how that could happen.

Quote:Lengthy sentences has an impact, but not always on prevention.

If you want real prevention then you have to invest in programs that target at risk youth around the ages of 9 to 11. 

Quote:Which, in regard to gun violence, is the issue.

Making guns harder to get for a normal citizen will have zero effect in this country.  There are already ~400 million guns in circulation, the genie is out of the bottle on restricting access as a means of prevention.

Quote:I've got no issue with long sentences for criminals, although I think there are way too many things people get sent to jail for. But as you pointed out, there's a plethora of guns already out there. Putting away Criminal A for life is great, that takes of Criminal A... but there's still Criminal B with easy access to a firearm for the next crime.
Lengthy senteces as the cure has been tried. Several decades later, we've still got the same problems.

Except we don't have the same problems because the crime rate has been steadily dropping since the early 90's.  Gun ownership has skyrocketed and violent crime has dropped.  How is this apparent contradiction possible?

Quote:Well, yeah, because lawmakers on both sides are extremist idiots. 
Our locations play a bit of a role in things. A friend of mine used to be a State Rep here in Kentucky. As a Democrat, he introduced legislation to expand concealed carry rights. Almost everyone on both sides supported it. Last year, Kentucky Republicans rolled back their concealed carry requirements, becoming a "concealed carry for all" state. It, also, received bipartisan support (although, I'll admit I was against it as it's already legal to open carry here, and I'm against having less gun safety education).

Our locations absolutely play a huge role.  A Democrat who advanced any pro-gun legislation in CA would be recalled ASAP.

[Benton]

(03-29-2019, 08:39 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I agree.  Seeing as how I live in a state when not a single person like that exists in the state government on this issue I have a hard time seeing how that could happen.

Move?

 

Quote:If you want real prevention then you have to invest in programs that target at risk youth around the ages of 9 to 11.  

No argument from me. That's why I volunteer with youth sports. The lack of positive male mentorship is, in my opinion, one of the biggest societal problems we have. We don't have enough guys stepping up to show young people to be decent people.

Quote:Making guns harder to get for a normal citizen will have zero effect in this country.  There are already ~400 million guns in circulation, the genie is out of the bottle on restricting access as a means of prevention.

Opioid prescriptions dropped once states started enacting legislation to regulate them. About in half. Opioid abuse and overdoses also dropped proportionally.

Lawmakers dealt with the issue a decade ago and, slowly but surely, it's getting better.

That's the point with gun violence. Somebody eventually has to take a step toward reducing it. Just saying "yeah, there's a lot out there, that's a tough one" isn't going to do anything. If restricting access to a very, very small portion of the population reduces the number, then it's a step forward. That portion being the crazy and the criminal.

Quote:Except we don't have the same problems because the crime rate has been steadily dropping since the early 90's.  Gun ownership has skyrocketed and violent crime has dropped.  How is this apparent contradiction possible?

https://gun-control.procon.org/view.resource.php?resourceID=006094

1999- 10,828 gun related homicides
2016- 14,415 gun related homicides

If you're going back to the 90s, overall gun related violence is down. I'll include the asterisk that it's on the rise.

Quote:Our locations absolutely play a huge role.  A Democrat who advanced any pro-gun legislation in CA would be recalled ASAP.

We've got low wages and our schools struggle, but come on down to Kentucky. You can walk around your local WalMart with a machine gun on your back and no one will notice.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(03-29-2019, 09:36 PM)Benton Wrote: That's the point with gun violence. Somebody eventually has to take a step toward reducing it. Just saying "yeah, there's a lot out there, that's a tough one" isn't going to do anything. If restricting access to a very, very small portion of the population reduces the number, then it's a step forward. That portion being the crazy and the criminal.


https://gun-control.procon.org/view.resource.php?resourceID=006094

1999- 10,828 gun related homicides
2016- 14,415 gun related homicides

I'll comment on the rest of this on Monday, but this site is completely lying about the number of firearms related homicides in 2016.

https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2016/crime-in-the-u.s.-2016/tables/expanded-homicide-data-table-4.xls

The FBI UCR has 11,044 firearms related homicides in 2016.  Take into account the increase in the US population from 1999 to 2016 and that's a per-capita decrease, and not an insignificant one.

EDIT:

Their numbers are significantly off for every single year compared to the UCR. I don't think I'd consider that site a viable source on this subject.

[Benton]

(03-29-2019, 10:36 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I'll comment on the rest of this on Monday, but this site is completely lying about the number of firearms related homicides in 2016.

https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2016/crime-in-the-u.s.-2016/tables/expanded-homicide-data-table-4.xls

The FBI UCR has 11,044 firearms related homicides in 2016.  Take into account the increase in the US population from 1999 to 2016 and that's a per-capita decrease, and not an insignificant one.

EDIT:

Their numbers are significantly off for every single year compared to the UCR.  I don't think I'd consider that site a viable source on this subject.

Well, hard numbers are hard to come by, thanks to the NRA. 

[*bfine32*]

(03-29-2019, 09:36 PM)Benton Wrote: That's the point with gun violence. Somebody eventually has to take a step toward reducing it. Just saying "yeah, there's a lot out there, that's a tough one" isn't going to do anything.

Didn't POTUS just do that with this measure?

[Benton]

(03-29-2019, 10:44 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Didn't POTUS just do that with this measure?

That's a valid point.

I think he means well, but no, ultimately I don't think bump stocks do much to reduce gun violence. Like trigger repeaters and other items, they're mostly just range toys. 

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(03-29-2019, 10:42 PM)Benton Wrote: Well, hard numbers are hard to come by, thanks to the NRA. 

They're actually very easy to come by.  You just go to the UCR like I did, which is widely considered the best data source for crime in the US.

[Benton]

(03-29-2019, 11:10 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: They're actually very easy to come by.  You just go to the UCR like I did, which is widely considered the best data source for crime in the US.

Ok, sure. Use your numbers. There's still an increase over the last four years.

[*bfine32*]

Anybody heard from SSF lately?

https://www.yahoo.com/gma/police-seize-thousands-guns-piles-ammunition-los-angeles-052029825--abc-news-topstories.html

Quote:A man in Los Angeles' posh Holmby Hills neighborhood was hiding a stash of weapons large enough to outfit an army.

The Los Angeles Police Department busted Girard Damien Saenz, 57, with as many as 1,000 weapons piled up in his home. Authorities also found massive stockpiles of ammunition.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(05-09-2019, 06:58 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Anybody heard from SSF lately?

https://www.yahoo.com/gma/police-seize-thousands-guns-piles-ammunition-los-angeles-052029825--abc-news-topstories.html

Hah, no, not me.

[*michaelsean*]

(05-09-2019, 06:58 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Anybody heard from SSF lately?

https://www.yahoo.com/gma/police-seize-thousands-guns-piles-ammunition-los-angeles-052029825--abc-news-topstories.html

That’s what he keeps in the back of his van.

[*bfine32*]

Can my boy Allen West get some love:
https://www.yahoo.com/entertainment/board-member-blasts-cabal-cronyism-200557011.html

Quote:Former Congressman Allen West, a board member of the National Rifle Association, released an extraordinary statement Tuesday blasting a “cabal of cronyism” within the NRA and demanding the resignation of the organization’s longtime honcho, Wayne LaPierre.

[Belsnickel]

(05-16-2019, 01:32 AM)bfine32 Wrote: Can my boy Allen West get some love:
https://www.yahoo.com/entertainment/board-member-blasts-cabal-cronyism-200557011.html

Good on him for calling it out. The NRA is such a shit show right now. I've long railed against them because of their choices in moving away from the issue of gun rights and gun safety. But that is not entirely related. As for the op, organizations as large as this are very often rife with corruption, and the recent revelations are not surprising to me. This is why I support some smaller organizations that promote gun rights. The NRA doesn't have the interests of gun owners at its core any longer. I hope they can make that change.

[GMDino]

(05-16-2019, 01:32 AM)bfine32 Wrote: Can my boy Allen West get some love:
https://www.yahoo.com/entertainment/board-member-blasts-cabal-cronyism-200557011.html

Where was he about this before now then?  he didn't raise many issues (other than the NRA being "attacked") while running for re-election.

https://www.ammoland.com/2019/01/interview-allen-west-2019-nra-board/#axzz5o5xiADCx

Quote:Fredy Riehl: Allen, the NRA leadership and the organization's finances have been the source of a lot of discussions the past few months. What updates can you relay to us from the recent NRA Board meeting?


Allen West: We just concluded our NRA winter board meeting, and it is very apparent that there is a focused effort by former NYC Mayor Michael Bloomberg and New York Governor Andrew Cuomo and incoming New York Attorney General Letitia James to destroy the nation's oldest civil rights organization, the National Rifle Association. I will not go into any confidential information but the nefarious attacks against the NRA, along with the focus of certain political leaders, should give witness to the fact that the existence of the NRA is very disconcerting to the progressive socialist left.

Quote:As well, it should be considered a direct assault on the 5M members of the NRA.

The NRA finished 2018 with its largest ever number of members, and highest amounts of funds raised…even with the incessant, and unwarranted, attacks levied against the organization. The NRAAM in Dallas Texas drew a record crowd, largest ever.


Fredy Riehl: You have worked on Capital HiIl as a member of the 112th Congress. The current crop of newly elected Freshman Democrats seem deadset on taking away our right to keep and bear arms any way they can. How serious do you think this threat is for the average U.S. gun owner?


Allen West: The threat posed by the progressive socialist left to the Second Amendment is real. The firmly realize that a legal, law-abiding armed individual is a citizen…an unarmed one is a subject. In order to enact their goals and subjugate We the People to their tyranny, we cannot have the means to safeguard ourselves. Their lies, distortions, and deceit will not end until they have rendered the Second Amendment a relic. The left will continue to cherry pick what they believe are laws, even after the Heller and McDonald court decisions, and deny that the Second Amendment is part of our rule of law and the law of the land. Recent efforts in New Jersey and ballot petitions in Florida evidence their relentless desire.

And he's been on the board since 2016.

https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2018/03/nra-board-members-tom-selleck/

Quote:Allen West
The one-term Republican representative from Florida was elected to the board in 2016. West, a former lieutenant colonel, resigned from the Army in 2004 after being investigated for intentionally firing his weapon next to an Iraqi detainee’s head.

Full list of board members at the link btw.

Glad he's speaking out.  Not gonna give too much credit when he said nothing about it before now when he had access to the same info then.

[Belsnickel]

(05-16-2019, 10:50 AM)GMDino Wrote: Where was he about this before now then?  he didn't raise many issues (other than the NRA being "attacked") while running for re-election.

https://www.ammoland.com/2019/01/interview-allen-west-2019-nra-board/#axzz5o5xiADCx





And he's been on the board since 2016.

https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2018/03/nra-board-members-tom-selleck/



Full list of board members at the link btw.

Glad he's speaking out.  Not gonna give too much credit when he said nothing about it before now when he had access to the same info then.

I love when they claim socialists are trying to take away guns.

https://socialistra.org/

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(05-16-2019, 12:38 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: I love when they claim socialists are trying to take away guns.

https://socialistra.org/

I find it equally amusing when those who complain about abuse of government power and the "inherent racism" and "unfairness" of the criminal justice system also want police and soldiers to be the only people with guns.

[Belsnickel]

(05-16-2019, 12:47 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I find it equally amusing when those who complain about abuse of government power and the "inherent racism" and "unfairness" of the criminal justice system also want police and soldiers to be the only people with guns.

Oh, absolutely agree. Why do you think that organization exists? I'm not a hardcore type like many of them are, but I definitely chat with them on a regular online because they are more ideologically consistent than a lot of people I know.

[fredtoast]

(05-16-2019, 12:47 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I find it equally amusing when those who complain about abuse of government power and the "inherent racism" and "unfairness" of the criminal justice system also want police and soldiers to be the only people with guns.

I find it amusing when people who brag about being "law abiding citizens" support citizens taking up arms against law enforcement officers and soldiers.  Who gets to decide when a citizen has the right to shoot a law enforcement officer?


I agree that people who want to outlaw all guns are irrational, but not because I think they should use them against police officers and soldiers.