The Gun Owner’s thread

[Bozo_Casanova 26522]

13 minutes ago, Jkwellborn said:

Lol no. They don’t.

Think/feel whatever you want but the data say otherwise.  I posted some. 

Edited February 2, 2021 by Bozo_Casanova

[BabaYaga 15305]

3 minutes ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

Think/feel whatever you want but the data say otherwise.  I posted some. 

No you didn't.  You posted the same confirmation bias bait that always get trotted out.  Then, as already posted by multiple users, once the specifics come to light, support plummets.  

[BHMCruiser 1814]

6 hours ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

Nothing of significance will be passed in the new two years, except perhaps red flag laws and universal background checks, which a healthy majority of gun owners (including me) support anyway.

Then the majority of gun owners (including you) don't understand them. Universal background checks as in, you can't give your kid a shotgun without getting a background check? Or you can't give your friend a rifle without transferring through a FFL? And how much does that cost every time? 

And as for red flag laws, you think the government should be able to come and take your guns without any due process? On what basis? Somebody's say-so? Have you ever gone through a break up or witnessed somebody get divorced? Every state in this country already has involuntary commitment and protective order procedures in place. So why do we need to lessen due process protections for people? And what considerations should go into that calculus? The gender of the person against the order is sought? What about the ability to pay a bond to get the guns back? What about their skin color? Also, what happens if the guns are damaged or destroyed? Should I have to hand my grandfather's superposed over to the cops because my ex-wife said I said something? 

These are enormous violations of established civil property and liberty rights. To just say glibly "oh no big deal it's just a law that lets you put somebody in jail without due process or take his guns away and he can always go through two years of lawsuits to get them back," or "universal background checks," is to invite serious government abuse into our homes.

[Bozo_Casanova 26522]

2 minutes ago, BabaYaga said:

No you didn't.  You posted the same confirmation bias bait that always get trotted out.  Then, as already posted by multiple users, once the specifics come to light, support plummets.  

I'm not sure what you mean by confirmation bias bait. I posted graphics because that's easier to interpret and post than cross tabs. Would you like to see the cross tabs? Because I would like to see evidence of support for red flag laws and universal background checks plummeting. Want to see confirmation bias? It's right there in your post. 

You guys crack me up. I'm sitting here saying that all this crazy shit won't pass. You're literally taking a confiscatory Sheila Jackson Lee gun control bill seriously with Joe Biden as president and a 50/50 senate in the middle of an economic crisis and a global pandemic. There are much bigger fish to fry, and HR 127 won't pass a floor vote in either house. You should be glad of that, because it means your toys are safe, but instead, you're insisting that there's this huge risk. 

Red flag laws and universal background checks would pass with a large bi-partisan majority, and if they did that would be good in my opinion because I don't want mentally ill people and wife beaters running around armed. But they also won't likely see the floor of the senate because of the existence of the filibuster. So, please stop acting like bedwetters and stop hoarding ammo*. It makes shooting expensive and inconvenient. 





*sure, I also hoard ammo, but only because you people hoard ammo. 

 

[BHMCruiser 1814]

2 hours ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

Fair enough. I'll also DM you my source on value packs of .22LR.
But as much as I would also like to avoid CR talk here, you can't really talk about the ridiculousness of the current ammo situation without also talking about the cause, which has two components:
1) A ton of new shooters, mainly because of the political climate
2) The predictable hysterical overreaction by a minority of gun owners to the normal ebb and flow of politics. 
 

Yes, a non-insignificant share does believe that, but there's no real evidence that they should. 

People are definitely overreacting, but the rhetoric from the left has a big part to play. Beto's comments on firearms, combined with Biden saying he would make Beto his gun czar and saying the WH would partner with the gun control groups are not helpful if you're looking for a rational middle.

[Bozo_Casanova 26522]

2 minutes ago, BHMCruiser said:

Then the majority of gun owners (including you) don't understand them. Universal background checks as in, you can't give your kid a shotgun without getting a background check? Or you can't give your friend a rifle without transferring through a FFL? And how much does that cost every time? 

And as for red flag laws, you think the government should be able to come and take your guns without any due process? On what basis? Somebody's say-so? Have you ever gone through a break up or witnessed somebody get divorced? Every state in this country already has involuntary commitment and protective order procedures in place. So why do we need to lessen due process protections for people? And what considerations should go into that calculus? The gender of the person against the order is sought? What about the ability to pay a bond to get the guns back? What about their skin color? Also, what happens if the guns are damaged or destroyed? Should I have to hand my grandfather's superposed over to the cops because my ex-wife said I said something? 

These are enormous violations of established civil property and liberty rights. To just say glibly "oh no big deal it's just a law that lets you put somebody in jail without due process or take his guns away and he can always go through two years of lawsuits to get them back," or "universal background checks," is to invite serious government abuse into our homes.

Holy made up specifics Batman!

[Bozo_Casanova 26522]

Just now, BHMCruiser said:

People are definitely overreacting, but the rhetoric from the left has a big part to play. Beto's comments on firearms, combined with Biden saying he would make Beto his gun czar and saying the WH would partner with the gun control groups are not helpful if you're looking for a rational middle.

is that President Beto you are talking about, or the leader of Beto Y Los Fairlaines?

[BHMCruiser 1814]

2 minutes ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

I'm not sure what you mean by confirmation bias bait. I posted graphics because that's easier to interpret and post than cross tabs. Would you like to see the cross tabs? Because I would like to see evidence of support for red flag laws and universal background checks plummeting. Want to see confirmation bias? It's right there in your post. 

You guys crack me up. I'm sitting here saying that all this crazy shit won't pass. You're literally taking a confiscatory Sheila Jackson Lee gun control bill seriously with Joe Biden as president and a 50/50 senate in the middle of an economic crisis and a global pandemic. There are much bigger fish to fry, and HR 127 won't pass a floor vote in either house. You should be glad of that, because it means your toys are safe, but instead, you're insisting that there's this huge risk. 

Red flag laws and universal background checks would pass with a large bi-partisan majority, and if they did that would be good in my opinion because I don't want mentally ill people and wife beaters running around armed. But they also won't likely see the floor of the senate because of the existence of the filibuster. So, please stop acting like bedwetters and stop hoarding ammo*. It makes shooting expensive and inconvenient. 





*sure, I also hoard ammo, but only because you people hoard ammo. 

 

 

There are already laws in place in every state in America that prevent wife beaters and the mentally ill from being armed.

[fattyflattie 4638]

6 minutes ago, BHMCruiser said:

combined with Biden saying he would make Beto his gun czar

Holy shit I missed this.  

I have a feeling we are about to keep hearing about "middle of the road Joe" until the EO's are in the triple digits.  Half way there!

[BHMCruiser 1814]

1 minute ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

Holy made up specifics Batman!

They're just illustrations of the what the specific details of a universal background check requirement or red flag law will actually require. 

"Universal" background checks mean that you have to conduct a federal background check, at least through NICS (although several states like CA and MD have their own state-wide background check database as well) for every firearm transfer you conduct. Not sale. Transfer. That's what "universal" means. If you wanted to modify it to be a background check for every sale of a firearm, then you may in fact get closer to the bipartisan support the polls indicate.

Red flag laws or extreme risk protective orders are usually granted ex parte and then return of the firearms afterwards requires action by the respondent, even if the order is terminated or expires. So the petition is filed, the judge decides a prima facie case supporting the order has been made (i.e. "she said he said he would kill her"), no contrary evidence is reviewed (the respondent is not even notified of the filing). The cops serve the order on the respondent and take his guns at the same time. Then he has a hearing of some sort a week or more later and hopes he wins then. The burden of proof on the petitioner will vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. 

For me, disarming somebody, or taking their personal property, without predeprivation due process of law is a problem. 

[BHMCruiser 1814]

8 minutes ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

is that President Beto you are talking about, or the leader of Beto Y Los Fairlaines?

https://www.reuters.com/article/uk-factcheck-biden-orourke-guns/partly-false-claimvideo-shows-joe-bidensayingif-he-wins-hes-coming-forourguns-idUSKBN20S2ST

[Bozo_Casanova 26522]

3 minutes ago, BHMCruiser said:

 

There are already laws in place in every state in America that prevent wife beaters and the mentally ill from being armed.

Do they, though?

 

3 minutes ago, fattyflattie said:

Holy shit I missed this.  

I have a feeling we are about to keep hearing about "middle of the road Joe" until the EO's are in the triple digits.  Half way there!

That would be really stupid if he did, but even then, so what? The second amendment exists, as do the courts, as does the congress. It's not worth worrying about. 
 

[BHMCruiser 1814]

Just now, Bozo_Casanova said:

Do they, though?

 

That would be really stupid if he did, but even then, so what? The second amendment exists, as do the courts, as does the congress. It's not worth worrying about. 
 

Do they work or do they exist? They work as well as new laws that don't change anything but take away due process will work.

 

What does the Second Amendment mean? And what gun control laws have been struck down by the courts? We already had a federal "assault weapon" and "large capacity magazine" ban. We won't have that again?

As for ammunition, California and Seattle and Illinois all tax it heavily. No court has overturned those laws on Second Amendment grounds. San Francisco makes you lock your gun in your safe or physically carry it on your body (meaning you can't have it ready to use unless it's in a holster on your jammies), and does not allow you to possess common hollow-point defensive ammunition. No court has overturned these laws. Many states ban so-called assault weapons and LCMs. Only the Fourth Circuit overturned such a Maryland law, and was quickly reversed en banc. Many states essentially ban carry outside the home, and only the DC Circuit has overturned such a law (so if you live in DC, maybe you can get a permit, but if you live in Prince George's County, tough shit forget it). The Supreme Court has not taken any of these meaningful cases. 

People are not crazy to think that they should buy guns and ammo now if they want them when they are told that the government is coming and will outlaw the ammo, guns, and magazines everybody wants, or will tax them heavily, and the protection from the courts is scant, at best.

[fattyflattie 4638]

11 minutes ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

The second amendment exists, as do the courts, as does the congress. It's not worth worrying about. 
 

This sounds awfully close to "Who cares, we have immigration laws on the books.  Not worth worrying about".   While children are being lost and caged.  

24 minutes ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

But they also won't likely see the floor of the senate because of the existence of the filibuster.

The one that's a priority to be removed?

If anything, the last several years should have shown everyone that everything in politics is a slippery slope. 

 

I'm out on the politics.  Don't want to CR this thread.  Thanks @Bozo_Casanova for playing in civil fashion.

Anyone have any .300WM that didn't shoot well they'd be willing to part with.  Looking for variety here, so several brands weights/mixmatched would be ideal. Half boxes, quarter boxes etc.   Will pay stupid '21 prices.  Same deal for .243.    Mix match whatever, need to find out what a few new rifles I bought really like.

[TexasGary 849]

31 minutes ago, fattyflattie said:

This sounds awfully close to "Who cares, we have immigration laws on the books.  Not worth worrying about".   While children are being lost and caged.  

The one that's a priority to be removed?

If anything, the last several years should have shown everyone that everything in politics is a slippery slope. 

 

I'm out on the politics.  Don't want to CR this thread.  Thanks @Bozo_Casanova for playing in civil fashion.

Anyone have any .300WM that didn't shoot well they'd be willing to part with.  Looking for variety here, so several brands weights/mixmatched would be ideal. Half boxes, quarter boxes etc.   Will pay stupid '21 prices.  Same deal for .243.    Mix match whatever, need to find out what a few new rifles I bought really like.

If you hurry it looks like Bass Pro has some in stock.

https://www.basspro.com/shop/en/barnes-vor-tx-centerfire-rifle-ammo?irclickid=2cNyVlw7qxyLWKQ0TbWK8Xs3UkER6ZSgKTPNVc0&irpid=317207arAID=impact&cm_soc=AFF

[fattyflattie 4638]

19 minutes ago, TexasGary said:

If you hurry it looks like Bass Pro has some in stock.

https://www.basspro.com/shop/en/barnes-vor-tx-centerfire-rifle-ammo?irclickid=2cNyVlw7qxyLWKQ0TbWK8Xs3UkER6ZSgKTPNVc0&irpid=317207arAID=impact&cm_soc=AFF

Apparently I wasn't fast enough.  12 minutes after you posted.

[fattyflattie 4638]

Haymarket, VA Cabelas as of 15 mins ago. This is 10x what I’ve been seeing at my local Academy.

Any of y’all need any 26 nosler or .50?

28ga building a strong case on why I need one.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Bozo_Casanova 26522]

1 hour ago, BHMCruiser said:

Do they work or do they exist? They work as well as new laws that don't change anything but take away due process will work.

 

What does the Second Amendment mean? And what gun control laws have been struck down by the courts? We already had a federal "assault weapon" and "large capacity magazine" ban. We won't have that again?

As for ammunition, California and Seattle and Illinois all tax it heavily. No court has overturned those laws on Second Amendment grounds. San Francisco makes you lock your gun in your safe or physically carry it on your body (meaning you can't have it ready to use unless it's in a holster on your jammies), and does not allow you to possess common hollow-point defensive ammunition. No court has overturned these laws. Many states ban so-called assault weapons and LCMs. Only the Fourth Circuit overturned such a Maryland law, and was quickly reversed en banc. Many states essentially ban carry outside the home, and only the DC Circuit has overturned such a law (so if you live in DC, maybe you can get a permit, but if you live in Prince George's County, tough shit forget it). The Supreme Court has not taken any of these meaningful cases. 

People are not crazy to think that they should buy guns and ammo now if they want them when they are told that the government is coming and will outlaw the ammo, guns, and magazines everybody wants, or will tax them heavily, and the protection from the courts is scant, at best.

Fair enough, I guess I'm just too old to take what I'm told at face value. The "assault weapons" ban didn't amount to much, and that was the high water mark of gun control in the US. 
On the other hand - silencers, full autos, short barrel shotguns and SBRs are all highly regulated, and none of us are losing our minds about it. I even posted an actual gun question about alleged workarounds for suppressor regulations upthread. It's notable that nobody's responded to that, because of the freakout over a bill that's dead in the water. 

Bottom line, I'd rather talk about shooting, guns and ammo. We have a whole cloak room for freakouts. 

[Bozo_Casanova 26522]

2 minutes ago, fattyflattie said:

Haymarket, VA Cabelas as of 15 mins ago. This is 10x what I’ve been seeing at my local Academy.

Any of y’all need any 26 nosler or .50?

28ga building a strong case on why I need one.
 

I'm seriously thinking about a Ruger Precision Rifle chambered in .17 because .17HMR is the one thing my local academy always has. 

[fattyflattie 4638]

7 minutes ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

I'm seriously thinking about a Ruger Precision Rifle chambered in .17 because .17HMR is the one thing my local academy always has. 

Mine did a few weeks ago, for several weeks. Haven’t seen it since    Also, they had 25-06, .450 BM, and a few other oddities.  No mas. 
 

eta: I fear we are deep into the buy anything that’s available and figure it out later territory.  Or slap it on gunbroker for 250% makeup and sell it all day, everyday.  

Edited February 3, 2021 by fattyflattie

[CHIEF 5094]

39 minutes ago, fattyflattie said:

Mine did a few weeks ago, for several weeks. Haven’t seen it since    Also, they had 25-06, .450 BM, and a few other oddities.  No mas. 
 

eta: I fear we are deep into the buy anything that’s available and figure it out later territory.  Or slap it on gunbroker for 250% makeup and sell it all day, everyday.  

Have a .17 HMR, .25-06, and .450 BM. Thanks for the info. Know what ammo I will be buying more of. Have quite a bit of .17. BC, I have one of the original tiger stripped bull barrel Ruger .17s. Great gun. Gonna send the BIL some Venmo money and have him pick me some more up.

CHIEF

[Jkwellborn 6724]

Fair enough, I guess I'm just too old to take what I'm told at face value. The "assault weapons" ban didn't amount to much, and that was the high water mark of gun control in the US. 
On the other hand - silencers, full autos, short barrel shotguns and SBRs are all highly regulated, and none of us are losing our minds about it. I even posted an actual gun question about alleged workarounds for suppressor regulations upthread. It's notable that nobody's responded to that, because of the freakout over a bill that's dead in the water. 
Bottom line, I'd rather talk about shooting, guns and ammo. We have a whole cloak room for freakouts. 

The NFA is bullshit and does nothing to deter crime. The Hughes Amendment is bullshit.

The awb caused increased in violent crime.

[BHMCruiser 1814]

4 hours ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

Fair enough, I guess I'm just too old to take what I'm told at face value. The "assault weapons" ban didn't amount to much, and that was the high water mark of gun control in the US. 
On the other hand - silencers, full autos, short barrel shotguns and SBRs are all highly regulated, and none of us are losing our minds about it. I even posted an actual gun question about alleged workarounds for suppressor regulations upthread. It's notable that nobody's responded to that, because of the freakout over a bill that's dead in the water. 

Bottom line, I'd rather talk about shooting, guns and ammo. We have a whole cloak room for freakouts. 

It banned the most common rifle sold today for ten years 

[BHMCruiser 1814]

4 hours ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

I'm seriously thinking about a Ruger Precision Rifle chambered in .17 because .17HMR is the one thing my local academy always has. 

It’s a very fun round to shoot. 

[Bozo_Casanova 26522]

8 hours ago, BHMCruiser said:

It banned the most common rifle sold today for ten years 

And yet at any time during that period I could get a pre-ban AR and pre-ban high capacity magazines, and for a hell of a lot less than you can now. 
and I’m not defending the ban- it was arbitrary, toothless, and (predictably) didn’t have any effect on gun violence. But it didn’t amount to much in terms of limiting either ownership or sale. 

Edited February 3, 2021 by Bozo_Casanova

[BabaYaga 15305]

15 hours ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

Red flag laws and universal background checks would pass with a large bi-partisan majority, 

LOL, keep fucking that chicken.  There's always some asshole touting their "common sense" UBC's and early statistics of approval.  Then, again as stated repeatedly, when the specifics come to light, approval absolutely craters.  It's happened again and again.  Everyone is "told" these are easy fixes and low hanging fruit, then they rush to these rehashed statistics to validate their assumptions.  Rinse.  Wash.  Repeat.  

For starters, UBC is utterly and completely unenforceable without a national gun registry.  Full stop.  

Recently, ink had hardly dried on H.R. 8 before reliably anti-gun media outlets were grudgingly acknowledging that there is virtually no evidence that universal background checks reduce firearm-related homicide or violent crime.  

[BabaYaga 15305]

44 minutes ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

And yet at any time during that period I could get a pre-ban AR and pre-ban high capacity magazines, and for a hell of a lot less than you can now. 
and I’m not defending the ban- it was arbitrary, toothless, and (predictably) didn’t have any effect on gun violence. But it didn’t amount to much in terms of limiting either ownership or sale. 

This is the "it didn't work because it wasn't implemented right" you hear about Socialism/Communism.  It's never because the ideas are shit, it's because of how it was put into effect.

Problem is, the idea is shit.  Studies by the U.S. Department of Justice – including one released the day after the H.R. 8 press conference – and others have repeatedly shown that the vast majority of criminals get the firearms possessed during their criminal acts from family members, criminal associates, the black market, or by stealing them.  Coupled with the fact that you have in circulation today, hundreds of millions of firearms and trillions of rounds of ammunition.  That horse it out of the barn.  

We cannot even enforce the gun laws we have on the books today, and you want to add more?  If the left wanted to have a good faith discussion, they'd understand this key point and work to first ensure that current laws can be enforced, and if not, either amend or remove them.  But they won't, and we all know that...

[BHMCruiser 1814]

1 hour ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

And yet at any time during that period I could get a pre-ban AR and pre-ban high capacity magazines, and for a hell of a lot less than you can now. 
and I’m not defending the ban- it was arbitrary, toothless, and (predictably) didn’t have any effect on gun violence. But it didn’t amount to much in terms of limiting either ownership or sale. 

Of course it did. Manufacturers stopped making them. That changed the market place considerably. 

Anyway, the federal government isn't really where the problem lies (although the ATF and arbitrary regulation can cause a real headache). The real problem is the state and local governments and some of their restrictions. The courts are pretty uniform in applying a watered-down "intermediate scrutiny" to gun laws of every kind, and Everytown (backed by Bloomberg) is providing them with all sorts of support, including pro bono legal services from the best firms in the country to defend the laws. Without Supreme Court intervention, we're all just arguing in circles anyway. 

[BHMCruiser 1814]

49 minutes ago, BabaYaga said:

 

For starters, UBC is utterly and completely unenforceable without a national gun registry.  Full stop.  

 

That's not totally true. All you have to do is require all transfers to occur at a FFL with a Form 4473 and a NICS check. No registration is necessary. If you're saying you cannot enforce it because there are so many people who will just ignore the law, that's not really true either. Firearms owners tend to be the most law-abiding group of citizens in America. If you're saying that criminals will simply ignore the law, well that's true now as well. Most gun control laws really restrict and regulate the behavior of the law-abiding and do little to stop criminals from getting firearms. 

[BabaYaga 15305]

10 minutes ago, BHMCruiser said:

That's not totally true. All you have to do is require all transfers to occur at a FFL with a Form 4473 and a NICS check. No registration is necessary. If you're saying you cannot enforce it because there are so many people who will just ignore the law, that's not really true either. Firearms owners tend to be the most law-abiding group of citizens in America. If you're saying that criminals will simply ignore the law, well that's true now as well. Most gun control laws really restrict and regulate the behavior of the law-abiding and do little to stop criminals from getting firearms. 

Gun owners are law abiding because they feel the laws are just and fair.  This is an argument about mindset.  That changes, so does everything else.  The second part about criminal behavior has proven to be true; tested over time and in virtually every state in the union.  

[Doc Reeves 6434]

gun owners have the exact same offending rates as non-gun owners for violent crime and higher rates for white-collar crime. The notion that they are different is hogwash propaganda. 

the reality is that stronger gun control laws would actually afford law-abiding gun owners more protection of our rights. It’s literally how governance works.

Im a gun owner and want my rights protected and not hitched to the delusional lunacy propaganda spouted out by commercial lobby/special interest groups.  

[Bozo_Casanova 26522]

12 minutes ago, Doc Reeves said:

Im a gun owner and want my rights protected and not hitched to the delusional lunacy propaganda spouted out by commercial lobby/special interest groups.  

But lunacy sells ammo and tacticool accessories, respect the grift. 

[Doc Reeves 6434]

11 hours ago, BHMCruiser said:

It banned the most common rifle sold today for ten years 

Come on man. It’s the most popular rifle sold today because this is the only place in the world you can buy it without being the military or government. You have any idea how many units are illegally exported?

[BHMCruiser 1814]

56 minutes ago, BabaYaga said:

Gun owners are law abiding because they feel the laws are just and fair.  This is an argument about mindset.  That changes, so does everything else.  The second part about criminal behavior has proven to be true; tested over time and in virtually every state in the union.  

Not true. There are hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of people in gun control states like California, New Jersey, New York, Maryland, etc. who feel like the laws are completely unjust. They follow them anyway. Because gunowners tend to be the most law-abiding people in America. Concealed carry permittees are at the very top of the list. 

[Speedtrucker 2076]

My problem with a UBC is just like the NFA, it’s a tax that’s going to disproportionately affect minorities.

And I’m sure the LGS down the way is only gonna charge $10 to run that private sale nics check and keep that 4473 for 25 years... it wouldn’t be long before it’s a minimum $200 fee to sell a firearm or ammo.

I don’t have an issue with saying “xyz” type of gun sales have to go through a ffl with a nics but I just don’t see how it either leads down to either a gun registry or costs and taxes that further the separate the poorer classes from gun ownership.

Wanna outlaw firearms just raise entry prices and tax it until only a select few can afford it.

[BHMCruiser 1814]

1 minute ago, Speedtrucker said:

My problem with a UBC is just like the NFA, it’s a tax that’s going to disproportionately affect minorities.

And I’m sure the LGS down the way is only gonna charge $10 to run that private sale nics check and keep that 4473 for 25 years... it wouldn’t be long before it’s a minimum $200 fee to sell a firearm or ammo.

I don’t have an issue with saying “xyz” type of gun sales have to go through a ffl with a nics but I just don’t see how it either leads down to either a gun registry or costs and taxes that further the separate the poorer classes from gun ownership.

Wanna outlaw firearms just raise entry prices and tax it until only a select few can afford it.

The NFA is basically meaningless compared to routine gun control laws like "may issue" concealed carry permits and AW and LCM bans. Pre-purchase licenses like the FOID in Illinois or Maryland's HQL definitely hit minorities harder, but the NFA does not really impact firearms that are commonly kept for lawful purposes. I'm not arguing for the NFA, but it's not the minority-impacting law that the others are. 

[BHMCruiser 1814]

The playbook is to make more and more laws that make it more and more expensive and less and less convenient to acquire firearms and ammunition. The barriers are incrementally increased to survive lax Second Amendment judicial scrutiny with the goal of having people just say "fuck it I'm out"

[BHMCruiser 1814]

20 minutes ago, Doc Reeves said:

Come on man. It’s the most popular rifle sold today because this is the only place in the world you can buy it without being the military or government. You have any idea how many units are illegally exported?

No, how many?

Anyway, I don't think it matters WHY it's the most popular rifle sold today. All that matters is that it IS the most popular rifle sold today. Which means there is a demand for it. Which means it is commonly kept for lawful purposes by responsible, law-abiding citizens. Which means it is protected by the Second Amendment and cannot be banned.

[BabaYaga 15305]

9 minutes ago, BHMCruiser said:

Not true. There are hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of people in gun control states like California, New Jersey, New York, Maryland, etc. who feel like the laws are completely unjust. They follow them anyway. Because gunowners tend to be the most law-abiding people in America. Concealed carry permittees are at the very top of the list. 

I's argue the distinction between onerous, and truly unjust...but I get and agree with your point.  

[workswithseed 2110]

22 minutes ago, Doc Reeves said:

Come on man. It’s the most popular rifle sold today because this is the only place in the world you can buy it without being the military or government. You have any idea how many units are illegally exported?

Wait, wouldn't gun control for other countries make this a non issue? 

[Speedtrucker 2076]

The NFA is basically meaningless compared to routine gun control laws like "may issue" concealed carry permits and AW and LCM bans. Pre-purchase licenses like the FOID in Illinois or Maryland's HQL definitely hit minorities harder, but the NFA does not really impact firearms that are commonly kept for lawful purposes. I'm not arguing for the NFA, but it's not the minority-impacting law that the others are. 

Sorry I shoulda clarified, the NFA origins. Back when $200 was a shit ton of money that no minority was gonna be able to deal with.

It was in my head but I didn’t put it in here

[Doc Reeves 6434]

Just now, workswithseed said:

Wait, wouldn't gun control for other countries make this a non issue? 

Like drug laws make drugs a non-issue in this country?

[Doc Reeves 6434]

11 minutes ago, BHMCruiser said:

No, how many?

Anyway, I don't think it matters WHY it's the most popular rifle sold today. All that matters is that it IS the most popular rifle sold today. Which means there is a demand for it. Which means it is commonly kept for lawful purposes by responsible, law-abiding citizens. Which means it is protected by the Second Amendment and cannot be banned.

That is completely erroneous. Our rights are constantly limited and defined by the Supreme Court. 

I like my rights and want them defined and protected. Hiding behind un-regulation is only a delay and leaves the rights we all want to protect in danger. 

*additionally, you might want to get up to speed on the actual statistics of production, offending rates and the nuances of the world arms market. Maybe then you’re assumption might be valid instead of just a ‘gut feeling’.

 All these situations I just mentioned are not sustainable and something will eventually be done. I want to make sure my rights are not stepped on because we gave unchecked license to a special interest group to pound out a fantasy. It’s in our best interest as gun owners to be aware of these issues and not hide from them
 

Edited February 3, 2021 by Doc Reeves

[BHMCruiser 1814]

16 minutes ago, Speedtrucker said:

Sorry I shoulda clarified, the NFA origins. Back when $200 was a shit ton of money that no minority was gonna be able to deal with.

It was in my head but I didn’t put it in here

Got it. Actually they thought no normal person would pay that much and they didn't think they had the power to ban the firearms outright. The original legislative history is interesting. They picked the firearms that were being used during the crime spree at the time by organized crime and tried to get them regulated and registered. Handguns were included in the original proposal but recognition that so many normal people used them for lawful purposes that they were pulled from the legislation. 

The test has always been whether people who have them tend to use them for lawful purposes. That's why you can ban, say, brass knuckles, but you cannot ban handguns. It has nothing to do with lethality. 

[BHMCruiser 1814]

12 minutes ago, Doc Reeves said:

That is completely erroneous. Our rights are constantly limited and defined by the Supreme Court. 

I like my rights and want them defined and protected. Hiding behind un-regulation is only a delay and leaves the rights we all want to protect in danger. 

*additionally, you might want to get up to speed on the actual statistics of production, offending rates and the nuances of the world arms market. Maybe then you’re assumption might be valid instead of just a ‘gut feeling’.

 All these situations I just mentioned are not sustainable and something will eventually be done. I want to make sure my rights are not stepped on because we gave unchecked license to a special interest group to pound out a fantasy. It’s in our best interest as gun owners to be aware of these issues and not hide from them
 

lol @ "completely erroneous" 

I have no idea why you are even TALKING ABOUT the world arms market. I didn't say anything about the world arms market. You did. You asked me if I knew how many were legally exported and I said "no," so that has hardly anything to do with my "gut feelings" on things. If that whole sentence was separate thoughts, like you were insinuating that I do not know about statistics of production or offending rates domestically, NOR do I know anything about the world arms market, then you are wrong on both counts. 

If you have statistics that show me that gun owners are as a whole less law-abiding than non gun owners, I'd love to see those. It would strike me as pretty amazing, since violent crime has generally fallen over the past 30 years while firearm ownership has generally increased. 

What situations you just mentioned? Did I miss one of your posts where you listed situations that are not sustainable? What are the issues you want to be aware of and not hide from? 

Maybe it would be better to start over so you can stop relying on dogma and half-articulated concepts. What are your rights you do not want stepped on? How do you define them? 

[BHMCruiser 1814]

Hey I think I've CR'ed this thread up too much. Anybody want to talk can DM me and I'm happy to discuss further.

[Jkwellborn 6724]

Come on man. It’s the most popular rifle sold today because this is the only place in the world you can buy it without being the military or government. You have any idea how many units are illegally exported?

For fucks sake, it’s not a damn military grade firearm.

[Doc Reeves 6434]

9 minutes ago, BHMCruiser said:

lol @ "completely erroneous" 

I have no idea why you are even TALKING ABOUT the world arms market. I didn't say anything about the world arms market. You did. You asked me if I knew how many were legally exported and I said "no," so that has hardly anything to do with my "gut feelings" on things. If that whole sentence was separate thoughts, like you were insinuating that I do not know about statistics of production or offending rates domestically, NOR do I know anything about the world arms market, then you are wrong on both counts. 

If you have statistics that show me that gun owners are as a whole less law-abiding than non gun owners, I'd love to see those. It would strike me as pretty amazing, since violent crime has generally fallen over the past 30 years while firearm ownership has generally increased. 

What situations you just mentioned? Did I miss one of your posts where you listed situations that are not sustainable? What are the issues you want to be aware of and not hide from? 

Maybe it would be better to start over so you can stop relying on dogma and half-articulated concepts. What are your rights you do not want stepped on? How do you define them? 

Lol

[BabaYaga 15305]

57 minutes ago, Doc Reeves said:

Hiding behind un-regulation

Is this a joke?  There are tens of thousands of firearm laws at the national, state, and local levels.  What does this even mean?  As stated, we cannot effectively enforce the current gun laws on the books today.  

[Bozo_Casanova 26522]

So, anybody done a Form 1 silencer build?