Possible new gun laws

[Moontanman]

Since our new president has openly said he opposes concealed carry laws and assault gun look alike weapons. Will his opinions on this subject change our gun laws and should they be changed? Does the prospect of someone being licensed to carry a concealed weapon worry you when you are out in public? Does the idea of someone owning a gun that closely resembles an assault weapon worry you and or cause concerns for your own safety?

[REASON]

Since our new president has openly said he opposes concealed carry laws and assault gun look alike weapons. Will his opinions on this subject change our gun laws and should they be changed? Does the prospect of someone being licensed to carry a concealed weapon worry you when you are out in public? Does the idea of someone owning a gun that closely resembles an assault weapon worry you and or cause concerns for your own safety?

 

The President's opinions cannot change our gun laws. He can request or recommend legislation, but it will require an act of congress to change the laws as they currently exist.

 

Personally, I have mixed feelings about concealed carry laws. On one hand, it can even the score against armed criminals, but what does it suggest about our society that we all have to be armed to be safe? To me it suggests that there are underlying issues tht aren't being addressed that are being dealt with reactively by secretly arming everyone.

 

I'm definitely more concerned about actual assault weapons than guns that just resemble assault weapons. I don't see the need for assault weapons to be prevalent in our society and I don't buy the collector's rights argument. We currently restrict the second ammendment, the question is always about where to draw the line of restriction. I would be supportive of legislation that restricts high caliber assault weapons and fully automatic weapons, but people should retain the right to possess semi-automatic rifles, shotguns, and pistols, as long as they are properly registered.

[Turtle]

I'm definitely more concerned about actual assault weapons than guns that just resemble assault weapons. I don't see the need for assault weapons to be prevalent in our society and I don't buy the collector's rights argument. We currently restrict the second ammendment, the question is always about where to draw the line of restriction. I would be supportive of legislation that restricts high caliber assault weapons and fully automatic weapons, but people should retain the right to possess semi-automatic rifles, shotguns, and pistols, as long as they are properly registered.

 

Just to clarify, assault rifles are semi-automatic rifles, although there are instructions & black-market parts out there to convert assault rifles to full-auto as the military has. Also, there is no gun registration per se, only background checks for new purchases. The difference is you don't have to 'register' Grandad's .30-06.

 

Since handguns have virtually no use for hunting (rare exceptions yes, but it has to do with the foot-pounds of energy the bullet has at certain ranges.), it makes it hard to argue against assault rifles because they're not for hunting. The recent Supreme Court ruling relates to guns for protection as I understood it.

 

There is a flap here in the PNW over some group trying to force the Sheriff to release the names of all registered concealed-carry gun owners, and the Sheriff is fighting it saying it's a violation of privacy. I tend to agree with the Sheriff, as publishing such a list is just a shopping list for thieves.

 

I do want to see the loophole closed that allows gun shows to sell without background checks, and I don't think there is a legitimate reason for 30 round pistol magazines either.

 

I'm always amused that black-powder guns are exempt from description as 'firearms' and virtually anyone can buy them no questions asked and no waiting period. (they may ask for ID to buy the powder these days.:naughty:)

 

Does the prospect of someone being licensed to carry a concealed weapon worry you when you are out in public?

 

No; not worrisome. Getting that permit requires fingerprinting and an FBI background check. I don't recall ever hearing that someone with a permit & carrying the gun committed any crimes with it.

 

I think it is a truism that if we take guns away from regular citizens then only criminals will have them. It's a tangled web for sure, but even cops don't handle them properly all the time. Some Sheriffs kid up here a year or two ago got his Dad's unlocked gun out and 'accidently' killed his little sister.

 

Anyway, as Reason points out, the President is responsible for enforcing the laws and the Congress for making them. I won't worry about any new laws until or unless I know the specifics. :)

[Moontanman]

Not many people seem to realize that nearly all semi auto guns shoot at the same speed, from 12 gauge shot guns to semi auto M-16 clones. No real difference, some are easier to convert to auto but that is as illegal for shot guns as it is for semi auto AK 47s I shoot guns regularly, have lots of Friends with guns, none of them have ever hurt anyone with their guns.

[REASON]

Just to clarify, assault rifles are semi-automatic rifles, although there are instructions & black-market parts out there to convert assault rifles to full-auto as the military has.

 

Essentially, you are correct here. Assault rifles may be semi-auto if not fully auto, but I don't think all semi-auto rifles can qualify as an assault weapon. I have a nice little Ruger 10/22 semi-automatic (autoloading) .22 caliber rifle with a 10 round clip that I don't think anyone would classify as an assault weapon.

 

But maybe I'm wrong about that. :)

 

 

Also, there is no gun registration per se, only background checks for new purchases. The difference is you don't have to 'register' Grandad's .30-06.

 

I meant to imply that I would support legislation that imposed actual gun registration, primarily on new gun sales. I don't think that's too much to ask. It doesn't restrict the right of ownership, but helps law enforcement track proliferation, and assists criminal investigations. :naughty:

[Turtle]

Essentially, you are correct here. Assault rifles may be semi-auto if not fully auto, but I don't think all semi-auto rifles can qualify as an assault weapon. I have a nice little Ruger 10/22 semi-automatic (autoloading) .22 caliber rifle with a 10 round clip that I don't think anyone would classify as an assault weapon.

 

But maybe I'm wrong about that. :shrug:

 

No; you got it right. I was just being pedantic. :eek2: :lol: I had a Marlin similar to your Ruger; held 18 rounds in a tubular magazine and jammed a lot. :naughty:

 

I meant to imply that I would support legislation that imposed actual gun registration, primarily on new gun sales. I don't think that's too much to ask. It doesn't restrict the right of ownership, but helps law enforcement track proliferation, and assists criminal investigations.

 

Not too much to ask, no. I was just off thinking maybe the way to go is outlaw the manufacture of guns. :eek_big:

[Moontanman]

I hate to have to point this out but outlawing the manufacture of guns would do nothing to keep guns out of the hands of criminals who want to use them to commit crimes.

 

Assault style weapons are not full auto weapons, they just look mean but yes they are relatively easy to convert to full auto but doesn't it make more sense to out law the kits that allow you turn them full auto than it does to outlaw a gun that is no more dangerous than any other semi auto weapon.

 

I guarantee you that a semi auto 30-06 is just as deadly as a AK 47 semi auto, probably more so. If push came to shove you can convert nearly any semi auto gun to full auto, it can be done with semi auto shot guns or any other weapon.

 

I've even seen a 12 gauge shot gun converted to full auto, nothing like shooting a 12 gauge and having empty it's magazine with one pull of the trigger, you won't do it a second time :doh:

 

It is sad that we feel it is necessary to own a weapons much less conceal carry a weapon in our society to feel safe. I for one will not give up my 12 gauge pump marine magnum shot gun for anything. I know you can call the law if someone breaks into your house but by the time the police show up you could be dead.

 

Home burglaries are a fact of life every where, while i wouldn't kill someone who was in my out building stealing my tools if they came into my house there would be no need for the police, a coroner would be more appropriate.

 

Home invasion robberies where someone actually beats down your door in the middle of the day and depends on the owners being helpless are increasingly common in areas where gun owner ship is low.

 

Concealed carry laws have been said to lower crime rates in states where this exist. I really don't know if this is true but I have read about many crimes where a person with a concealed weapons could have saved the day and innocent lives. I don't have figures to prove this but I do know that I would hesitate to give someone grief if there was a good chance they were packing heat.

 

I had a Conservative friend in California that was dead set against any gun ownership at all. His motto was call the police, they would there way before anyone could harm him. He claimed police response time in his neighborhood was less than 5 minutes.

 

I found later he lived in a gated community with their own police force. In others words he didn't live in the real world of gangs, desperate drug addicts and other criminals. In the real world it is far too late by the time the police arrive.

 

If guns are outlawed only outlaws will have guns:phones:

[REASON]

I think these are all great points, Mooningtanman. I would pretty much have to agree with all of what you said.

 

I do recall that when the ban on assault weapons took place back in the 90's under Clinton, a lot of law enforcment people around the country were happy because they were concerned about being outgunned by criminals. When the ban was lifted under Bush, law enforcement was complaining.

 

I took that legislation as a nod to the NRA which had funneled a lot of money to Republican campaigns.

 

Even though banning assault weapons doesn't completely keep these types of guns out of the hands of criminals, it can stem their proliferation.

[Moontanman]

I think these are all great points, Mooningtanman. I would pretty much have to agree with all of what you said.

 

I do recall that when the ban on assault weapons took place back in the 90's under Clinton, a lot of law enforcment people around the country were happy because they were concerned about being outgunned by criminals. When the ban was lifted under Bush, law enforcement was complaining.

 

I took that legislation as a nod to the NRA which had funneled a lot of money to Republican campaigns.

 

Even though banning assault weapons doesn't completely keep these types of guns out of the hands of criminals, it can stem their proliferation.

 

My point is that the assault weapons available are not full auto assault weapons. They are no different than any other semi auto weapon. You have to modify them in some way for them to be full auto. Any semi auto weapon can be modified to be full auto. Assault style weapons just look mean, why not make it illegal to manufacture buy or posses the parts to make your weapon full auto for any semi auto gun instead of just banning guns that look mean?

[Buffy]

Assault style weapons just look mean...

Maybe you want to explain why they exist at all...what useful purpose do the "mean" parts serve?

 

Every man serves a useful purpose: A miser, for example, makes a wonderful ancestor, :doh:

Buffy

[Moontanman]

Maybe you want to explain why they exist at all...what useful purpose do the "mean" parts serve?

 

Every man serves a useful purpose: A miser, for example, makes a wonderful ancestor, :doh:

Buffy

 

There are no parts meaner than any others, they are replicas of the real thing. Why is that important? I have no real idea, I really don't have the desire to own these weapons, possibly their owners like the look of realism. I know many of the people I know who have them are ex military.

 

I know if I wanted a really mean gun I would have a bolt action 30-06. Not many creatures can take a 30-06 and keep on coming and the bolt action is more reliable than semi auto. That's why I have a pump shot gun instead of a semi auto.

 

Many people simply like realism, there are many examples of this, like Japanese Motorcycle clubs that own Harley-Davidson motorcycles and dress like American motorcycle police, dress up their bikes to be totally authentic as are their uniforms.

 

Or weekend warriors who feel the need to look like Hells Angels even though they would probably soil their pants if they ran into real Hells Angels.

 

To me it seems silly to outlaw semi auto guns because they look like real assault rifles when any semi auto can be modified to full auto with equally devastating results.

 

By the way, these guns are not large caliber weapons. most of them are 227 caliber, much smaller than a 30-06 rifle.

[Buffy]

Well, I've actually had the experience of firing a full-auto M-16, and its quite wild. Its small caliber, but doesn't really have a small caliber effect. Apparently the Pentagon agrees with me.

 

But once you have, you begin to understand that those stocks and wider handles and changed centers of gravity make a *huge* difference in how many shots you can get off with a much higher level of accuracy.

 

As a result, from my own personal experience, "assault-style" weapons do indeed have the potential for incurring more damage even in semi-auto mode.

 

Maybe there have been advances since I last lived in a house with a gun nut, but I do not know of auto-conversion kits for semi-auto pistols, so the fact that assault weapons more often than not are designed for an auto option, makes them potentially more lethal too.

 

For self-defense, I prefer a 9mm or .45, because there's much more single-shot stopping power and its easy to move from bedside to attackers face, while assault weapons are too bulky and encourage multiple shots which might incur collateral damage.

 

All in all, I see the desire for them among guys (most gun nuts are) because they always want to have the longest, uh, "gun" around, but on the other hand, I find it hard not to agree with the notion that they are indeed able to inflict more damage, and should be regulated by government.

 

You wanna join a militia, maybe you can have one....

 

When in doubt, have two guys come through the door with guns, :doh:

Buffy

[Moontanman]

Well, I've actually had the experience of firing a full-auto M-16, and its quite wild. Its small caliber, but doesn't really have a small caliber effect. Apparently the Pentagon agrees with me.

 

Well when you figure in the fact that you can stuff more 227 rounds into a clip than you can 30 caliber rounds you do have a point. 227 rounds are quite deadly, make no mistake and a human isn't as hard to bring down as a grizzly. But again we aren't talking about full auto weapons, we are talking about semi auto.

 

But once you have, you begin to understand that those stocks and wider handles and changed centers of gravity make a *huge* difference in how many shots you can get off with a much higher level of accuracy.

 

I've shot them as well and I disagree, a 9mm with a 14 shot clip can be hidden and gives a good account of it's self in close quarters. I am quite good with a 30 caliber hunting riffle at long range and a 9mm at close range. an assault riffle replica is impressive to look at but in real world home protection it comes up short for several reasons, not the least of which is it's size and the danger of killing your neighbors down the street if you miss. Of course a criminal has no qualms about killing anyone I would presume.

 

As a result, from my own personal experience, "assault-style" weapons do indeed have the potential for incurring more damage even in semi-auto mode.

 

Maybe, it's all relative when you get down to it, a 9mm will kill you just as dead as a 227 round. I have shot them and I don't see a real big advantage to a semi auto assault style weapon.

 

Maybe there have been advances since I last lived in a house with a gun nut, but I do not know of auto-conversion kits for semi-auto pistols, so the fact that assault weapons more often than not are designed for an auto option, makes them potentially more lethal too.

 

Unfortunately you don't even need a kit for some of them, just file down certain parts and you have full auto. any one who is caught even possessing a full auto weapon should do time. Like in my state an armed robber does a minimum of 7 seven years no way around it. No deals, no exceptions.

 

For self-defense, I prefer a 9mm or .45, because there's much more single-shot stopping power and its easy to move from bedside to attackers face, while assault weapons are too bulky and encourage multiple shots which might incur collateral damage.

 

Hand guns are good for defense if you are a very good shot and very well trained in their use. for someone to buy one and take it home and try to use it, you are more likely to kill your self or your neighbors than the burglar. Hitting something with a pistol in a real world situation with panic and fear governing your every move is very different than a shooting range, most people would be lucky to hit the ground.

 

 

All in all, I see the desire for them among guys (most gun nuts are) because they always want to have the longest, uh, "gun" around, but on the other hand, I find it hard not to agree with the notion that they are indeed able to inflict more damage, and should be regulated by government.

 

Well I can't disagree that many of the people who own them are in that category but I think that unless they are very well trained in their use a cop with a shot gun and 00buck shot is better off. Unless the gun has bee modified to full auto, then all bets are off but again this can be controlled by laws and hard jail time.

 

You wanna join a militia, maybe you can have one....

 

You would be amazed at how many of the guys who have them are either ex military or national guard. as for a militia they are another cup of tea altogether and really dangerous.

 

When in doubt, have two guys come through the door with guns, :)

Buffy

 

Or shoot the wall the guy is hiding behind with a spread of 000 buck from a 12 gauge, don't have to particularly accurate. One blast gets both guys at once.

[Buffy]

I've shot them as well and I disagree, a 9mm with a 14 shot clip can be hidden and gives a good account of it's self in close quarters. I am quite good with a 30 caliber hunting riffle at long range and a 9mm at close range. an assault riffle replica is impressive to look at but in real world home protection it comes up short for several reasons, not the least of which is it's size and the danger of killing your neighbors down the street if you miss. Of course a criminal has no qualms about killing anyone I would presume.

I know, and that's actually the point!

 

What you say at the beginning of this paragraph avoids the real reason the laws against "assault weapons" have been passed. You're basically agreeing with me that they're not very practical when it comes to "legal" uses of weapons, but the reason they're banned is because they're so useful for situations where the only purpose is to kill as many people as indiscriminately as possible!

 

It's not that they're "mean looking" its that they can easily be made auto and--separately--are indeed easier to squeeze off lots of shots in the right general direction even when semi-auto.

 

I can imagine that you could make your Walther PPK full-auto, but it would be wicked-hard to control and the larger magazines are nothing compared to what you can put on a Galil or an M-16.

 

I'm not entirely in favor of bans on assault rifles because I'm not sure how much they actually help: criminals get stuff anyway. But to argue that they have no benefit whatsoever is kind of silly.

 

Really, "superior for an application we don't want to promote" and "easy to make illegal" actually is a pretty good argument for saying they're a menace to society and should be regulated.

 

As for making auto weapons illegal, they already are: the unfortunate thing of course is that you usually don't get the chance to arrest people for having them until after they've been used and worse crimes have already been committed!

 

Oddly enough this gives some support for the notion that guns really do need to be registered and police have the right to demand inspection of any weapon to make sure that its not modified. That's a very neo-con, "you-don't-want-your-first-warning-to-be-a-mushroom-cloud" approach to the problem! ;)

 

Guns are neat little things, aren't they? They can kill extraordinary people with very little effort, :)

Buffy

[Moontanman]

I know, and that's actually the point!

 

What you say at the beginning of this paragraph avoids the real reason the laws against "assault weapons" have been passed. You're basically agreeing with me that they're not very practical when it comes to "legal" uses of weapons, but the reason they're banned is because they're so useful for situations where the only purpose is to kill as many people as indiscriminately as possible!

 

It's not that they're "mean looking" its that they can easily be made auto and--separately--are indeed easier to squeeze off lots of shots in the right general direction even when semi-auto.

 

I can imagine that you could make your Walther PPK full-auto, but it would be wicked-hard to control and the larger magazines are nothing compared to what you can put on a Galil or an M-16.

 

I'm not entirely in favor of bans on assault rifles because I'm not sure how much they actually help: criminals get stuff anyway. But to argue that they have no benefit whatsoever is kind of silly.

 

Really, "superior for an application we don't want to promote" and "easy to make illegal" actually is a pretty good argument for saying they're a menace to society and should be regulated.

 

As for making auto weapons illegal, they already are: the unfortunate thing of course is that you usually don't get the chance to arrest people for having them until after they've been used and worse crimes have already been committed!

 

Oddly enough this gives some support for the notion that guns really do need to be registered and police have the right to demand inspection of any weapon to make sure that its not modified. That's a very neo-con, "you-don't-want-your-first-warning-to-be-a-mushroom-cloud" approach to the problem! ;)

 

Guns are neat little things, aren't they? They can kill extraordinary people with very little effort, :)

Buffy

 

Ok, I'll fold on this, I really don't really care if assault weapons are legal or not, I don't have them and don't want one (although I've always wanted a tommy gun or a BAR, they are cool as many old things are) I do hate to see anyones individual freedoms infringed on because someone else might do bad things. I do know one thing, the people I know who do have assault rifles are among the people I trust most, long time friends, and a BAR is a wicked weapon.

 

If and when the aliens invade I am going to their house to join the resistance because they have all the guns and ammunition and we share gun safe combinations just in case of an emergency.

 

Guns don't kill people, I kill people:phones:

[Buffy]

I do know one thing, the people I know who do have assault rifles are among the people I trust most, long time friends...

I know. Me too. Now some of the folks I know who have them are downright scary! But then again, they're no more numerous that the scary folk in other demographics! ;)

If and when the aliens invade I am going to their house to join the resistance because they have all the guns and ammunition and we share gun safe combinations just in case of an emergency.

I'll be right there blastin' with ya' Mike!

 

I want the people to know that they still have 2 out of 3 branches of the government working for them, and that ain't bad, :)

Buffy

[Mpsipos3]

"Firearms stand next in importance to the Constitution itself. They are the people's liberty teeth (and) keystone... the rifle and the pistol are equally indispensable... more than 99% of them [guns] by their silence indicate that they are in safe and sane hands. The very

atmosphere of firearms everywhere restrains evil interference [crime]. When firearms go, all goes, we need them every hour." - George Washington: address to the 1st Congress

 

"Laws that forbid the carrying of arms...disarm only those who are neither inclined or determined to commit crimes. Such laws only make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assassins; they serve to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man." - Thomas Jefferson: 1764 letter and speech

 

"The strongest reason for the People to retain the Right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government." - Thomas Jefferson

 

"The Constitution shall never be construed to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms." - Samuel Adams (Convention of the Commonwealth of Mass., 86-87)

 

Like Thomas Jefferson said, The assailants will not turn in their guns if a law requires them too, only law abiding citizens will. Do not murder unless in self defense. Law-abiding citizens follow this law, but there are serial killers on the loose killing numerous people each day. Also, when the unarmed man is attacked, he may be attacked with great confidence because the assailant has the power of the gun while the unarmed is considered almost defenseless. Thomas Jefferson also said about needing the right to bear arms because of tyranny in government. The first thing Adolf Hitler did in his power, was to take away the right to bear arms, and the people were defenseless. Now, I could go off on another topic but this thread is about... Possible New Gun Laws! The left wants to control the use of firearms. I am a gun owner/user and I do not want to have limited control on my "weapon". It is a .22 rifle and I use it for target shooting and maybe hunting. I know that there may be new gun laws that will constraint the 2nd amendment more and feel that it is the law abiding citizens being punished by the criminals. But, there will always be evil people and I understand that people will always shoot and kill. I am just saying that establishing new laws only pressure us and not the real criminals.

 

"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." - Second Amendment to the United States Constitution as part of The Bill of Rights.

 

That is my opinion. There's also Obama's Opinion, Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart's opinion, George Clooney's opinion, Bruce Willis's opinion, and so on.