The Gun Owner’s thread

[Bozo_Casanova 26444]

First of all, multiquote is a thing. Use it. 
 

59 minutes ago, BHMCruiser said:

Bans on 18 year olds getting guns are unconstitutional*. Red flag laws that do not have due process protections are unconstitutional**. Red flag laws that have meaningful due process protections are constitutional, yet are nearly never proposed as laws***. Why is that?****

* Ridiculous, but that's not what HB2744 would do. It only restricts 18-20 year olds from semi-automatics larger than .22, along with sales to drunks, people subject to protective orders, etc. 

** Obviously

*** False
**** It is not.

55 minutes ago, BHMCruiser said:

I just read HB2744. Most of what it provides is already federal law. It's ban on giving rifles to 18-21 year olds is unconstitutional. And on its own terms it fails to ban AR-15s chambered in .223 or 5.56. So what idiot wrote this worthless law? 

Most of what is in there needs additional legislation and enforcement to strengthen the law at the state level, but why would you want a ban on AR-15s chambered in .223 or 5.56?

54 minutes ago, BHMCruiser said:

Simply not true. How many "red flag" laws has the NRA challenged in court?

Let me Google that for you

51 minutes ago, BHMCruiser said:

Then why are you promoting a bill that is simultaneously overbroad and unconstitutional while underbroad and fails to capture AWs?

I disagree that it is. What are "AWs" and why do I supposedly want to capture them? 

Edited May 8, 2023 by Bozo_Casanova

[Bozo_Casanova 26444]

49 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

Under the Supreme Court’s new test, the government that wants to uphold a gun restriction must look back into history to show it is consistent with the country’s “historical tradition of firearm regulation.”

Worth mentioning that the "historical tradition" was often highly restrictive and shows extreme latitude for states, territories and municipalities to adopt local control regimes that made sense locally. as famously demonstrated in the case of Earp v. Clanton, et al. (1881) 

Edited May 8, 2023 by Bozo_Casanova

[Brisketexan 105095]

5 minutes ago, BHMCruiser said:

kind of like the First Amendment and computers/internet, or the Fifth Amendment and modern surveillance equipment, etc. etc. 

Yes.....except with respect to First and Fifth Amendment jurisprudence, SCOTUS has been generally rational in its approach to apply them to modern circumstances.   What they have NOT done is establish a test that all regulations/legislation on such subject matter be consistent with the country’s “historical tradition of speech/search and seizure regulation," which naturally lends itself to "if there wasn't such a regulation/action in 1791, there can't be one now."  It's the utter folly of the intellectual bankruptcy that is "originalism," which is actually perhaps the most selective mode of constitutional "interpretation" imaginable, and if it WAS intellectually honest, would fall flat on its face.

Bruen is pretty plainly written.  It's intellectually dishonest and disingenuous, but it's not hard to understand.  I think that the lower courts applying it are doing what they must to avoid running afoul of the SCOTUS's plain direction.  This is the natural end-point of this SCOTUS's perverse version of "originalism."  Bruen killed the idea of any further constitutional gun regulation.  It was an intentional murder, with full knowledge and intent as to its consequences by SCOTUS.

The end point for all of this will be, eventually (not anytime soon...but it's now becoming inevitable) the repeal /complete modification of the 2nd Amendment.  Because right now, it is pretty much the only absolute, zero-compromise amendment we have (although the SCOTUS is also working hard to apply the First Amendment's religious freedom provision to allow an individual to act outside of any law they choose, so long as they claim "muh religion!", so stay tuned).

[Brisketexan 105095]

14 minutes ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

Worth mentioning that the "historical tradition" was often highly restrictive and shows extreme latitude for states, territories and municipalities to adopt local control regimes that made sense locally. as famously demonstrated in the case of Earp v. Clanton, et al. (1881) 

No, not THAT historical tradition.  Only the tradition where there were few regulations.  Seriously.  The opinion is written that badly and that deteriminatively.

[CHIEF 5079]

7 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

Yes.....except with respect to First and Fifth Amendment jurisprudence, SCOTUS has been generally rational in its approach to apply them to modern circumstances.   What they have NOT done is establish a test that all regulations/legislation on such subject matter be consistent with the country’s “historical tradition of speech/search and seizure regulation," which naturally lends itself to "if there wasn't such a regulation/action in 1791, there can't be one now."  It's the utter folly of the intellectual bankruptcy that is "originalism," which is actually perhaps the most selective mode of constitutional "interpretation" imaginable, and if it WAS intellectually honest, would fall flat on its face.

Bruen is pretty plainly written.  It's intellectually dishonest and disingenuous, but it's not hard to understand.  I think that the lower courts applying it are doing what they must to avoid running afoul of the SCOTUS's plain direction.  This is the natural end-point of this SCOTUS's perverse version of "originalism."  Bruen killed the idea of any further constitutional gun regulation.  It was an intentional murder, with full knowledge and intent as to its consequences by SCOTUS.

The end point for all of this will be, eventually (not anytime soon...but it's now becoming inevitable) the repeal /complete modification of the 2nd Amendment.  Because right now, it is pretty much the only absolute, zero-compromise amendment we have (although the SCOTUS is also working hard to apply the First Amendment's religious freedom provision to allow an individual to act outside of any law they choose, so long as they claim "muh religion!", so stay tuned).

I could see a modification, but not a complete repeal. I don't think there would ever be a chance that three-quarters of the states would ratify it.

CHIEF

[Brisketexan 105095]

3 minutes ago, CHIEF said:

I could see a modification, but not a complete repeal. I don't think there would ever be a chance that three-quarters of the states would ratify it.

CHIEF

Most people also didn't think that the SCOTUS would just flat-out void Roe v. Wade, but here we are.  Like I said, it won't happen soon - probably not in yours/my lifetime.  But it's being set up as the only alternative approach.  Either it's a gun free-for-all, or the 2A is functionally repealed.  It is apparently unique among all of our constitutional provisions as allowing zero balance for the public interest.  When you set up an all-or-nothing regime, one of those wins...until the other one does.  It's dumb, but here we are.

[BHMCruiser 1813]

29 minutes ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

First of all, multiquote is a thing. Use it. 
 

* Ridiculous, but that's not what HB2744 would do. It only restricts 18-20 year olds from semi-automatics larger than .22, along with sales to drunks, people subject to protective orders, etc. 

** Obviously

*** False
**** It is not.

Most of what is in there needs additional legislation and enforcement to strengthen the law at the state level, but why would you want a ban on AR-15s chambered in .223 or 5.56?

Let me Google that for you

I disagree that it is. What are "AWs" and why do I supposedly want to capture them? 

AWs = "assault weapons." What is the purpose of the proposed ban on semiautomatic rifles if they can still get AR-15s? It's a silly law that does nothing, written by people who don't understand guns. And there's no constitutional basis for denying civil rights to adults under the age of 21. 

The NRA has made it clear that its opposition to red flag laws is based on their lack of due process. Show me one red flag law with a predeprivation hearing requirement. I bet those are constitutional. 

24 minutes ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

Worth mentioning that the "historical tradition" was often highly restrictive and shows extreme latitude for states, territories and municipalities to adopt local control regimes that made sense locally. as famously demonstrated in the case of Earp v. Clanton, et al. (1881) 

That's why you look to the historical tradition at the time the amendment was adopted, and not later attempts at gun control. 

[BHMCruiser 1813]

23 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

Yes.....except with respect to First and Fifth Amendment jurisprudence, SCOTUS has been generally rational in its approach to apply them to modern circumstances.   What they have NOT done is establish a test that all regulations/legislation on such subject matter be consistent with the country’s “historical tradition of speech/search and seizure regulation," which naturally lends itself to "if there wasn't such a regulation/action in 1791, there can't be one now."  It's the utter folly of the intellectual bankruptcy that is "originalism," which is actually perhaps the most selective mode of constitutional "interpretation" imaginable, and if it WAS intellectually honest, would fall flat on its face.

Bruen is pretty plainly written.  It's intellectually dishonest and disingenuous, but it's not hard to understand.  I think that the lower courts applying it are doing what they must to avoid running afoul of the SCOTUS's plain direction.  This is the natural end-point of this SCOTUS's perverse version of "originalism."  Bruen killed the idea of any further constitutional gun regulation.  It was an intentional murder, with full knowledge and intent as to its consequences by SCOTUS.

The end point for all of this will be, eventually (not anytime soon...but it's now becoming inevitable) the repeal /complete modification of the 2nd Amendment.  Because right now, it is pretty much the only absolute, zero-compromise amendment we have (although the SCOTUS is also working hard to apply the First Amendment's religious freedom provision to allow an individual to act outside of any law they choose, so long as they claim "muh religion!", so stay tuned).

I respectfully disagree. I think there are a lot of constitutional regulations you can pass post-Bruen. And I think some of the courts applying Bruen to strike down some laws have it wrong. But that's a different discussion. 

6 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

Most people also didn't think that the SCOTUS would just flat-out void Roe v. Wade, but here we are.  Like I said, it won't happen soon - probably not in yours/my lifetime.  But it's being set up as the only alternative approach.  Either it's a gun free-for-all, or the 2A is functionally repealed.  It is apparently unique among all of our constitutional provisions as allowing zero balance for the public interest.  When you set up an all-or-nothing regime, one of those wins...until the other one does.  It's dumb, but here we are.

Dobbs was a terrible decision for a lot of reasons

[Bozo_Casanova 26444]

27 minutes ago, BHMCruiser said:

AWs = "assault weapons." What is the purpose of the proposed ban on semiautomatic rifles if they can still get AR-15s?

HB2744 does not propose a ban on Semi-automatic rifles. 

27 minutes ago, BHMCruiser said:

The NRA has made it clear that its opposition to red flag laws is based on their lack of due process. Show me one red flag law with a predeprivation hearing requirement. I bet those are constitutional. 

Who are you arguing with here? Texas does not have a Red Flag law, and it should. Can you show me a red flag law that doesn't contain due process? 

27 minutes ago, BHMCruiser said:

That's why you look to the historical tradition at the time the amendment was adopted, and not later attempts at gun control. 

You mean back in the 18th century, when public carrying of fowling pieces in town was usually prohibited by local ordinance and registries were maintained of who owned how many muskets and so forth?  You mean like when the founders attempted to disarm and confiscate weapons from those who were thought to be squishy on the whole revolution thing? That historical tradition? Or the imaginary kind?

Edited May 8, 2023 by Bozo_Casanova

[BHMCruiser 1813]

Back on topic:

I need to invest in left-handed rifles and shotguns for my boys, both of whom are left-handed. Anybody on here left-handed who can share some accumulated wisdom on what works for you? I need a small-bore rifle for small game, deer rifle, and some sort of shotgun. 

[Brisketexan 105095]

1 hour ago, BHMCruiser said:

The NRA has made it clear that its opposition to red flag laws is based on their lack of due process. Show me one red flag law with a predeprivation hearing requirement. I bet those are constitutional. 

Ummm, they functionally ALL have a hearing requirement.  Here's a summary from the federal version approved by the House a few years ago:

Quote

Under the bill, a federal court would need to conclude that the respondent poses a risk of “imminent” injury to themselves or others before issuing the order. People who make false reports could face fines of up to $5,000 and five years in jail. 

Emergency orders would expire 14 days after being issued, while long-term orders could last no longer than 180 days with possible renewals. Before issuing a long-term order, the court must hold a hearing with the respondent. 

For long-term orders, federal courts must consider several factors, including recent threats or acts of violence toward themselves, others or animals, and evidence of ongoing abuse of controlled substances or alcohol that has led to threats or acts of violence. 

It works like functionally all injunctive relief -- upon a high bar showing for emergency relief (like a TRO), you can get a very short-term order.  For an order of any length, a hearing with detailed standards and bars to clear must be held.  You are arguing against a straw man -- every serious red flag law proposal includes a hearing component.

1 hour ago, BHMCruiser said:

That's why you look to the historical tradition at the time the amendment was adopted, and not later attempts at gun control. 

Which also means that you ignore any future developments in arms technology.  Western towns had gun restriction laws because, instead of people being armed with single-shot muzzle loaders (as they were in 1791), they were now armed with a Colt Peacemaker - "God made man, Samuel Colt made all men equal."  Higher rate of fire and lethality merited different regulations than existed in 1791.  There WAS no "historical tradition" as to how to regulate the possession of a pair of six-shooters because....historically at that time....THEY DID NOT EXIST.  That's the stupidity of the fucking Bruen rule.  It locks the rule as "historical tradition," without any real accommodation for "but....there's some seriously different shit out there since 1791."  That's the fucking point of why Bruen and its logically fallacious "originalism" is a steaming pile of shit.

[NotActuallyALonghorn 4976]

25 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

Ummm, they functionally ALL have a hearing requirement.  Here's a summary from the federal version approved by the House a few years ago:

It works like functionally all injunctive relief -- upon a high bar showing for emergency relief (like a TRO), you can get a very short-term order.  For an order of any length, a hearing with detailed standards and bars to clear must be held.  You are arguing against a straw man -- every serious red flag law proposal includes a hearing component.

Which also means that you ignore any future developments in arms technology.  Western towns had gun restriction laws because, instead of people being armed with single-shot muzzle loaders (as they were in 1791), they were now armed with a Colt Peacemaker - "God made man, Samuel Colt made all men equal."  Higher rate of fire and lethality merited different regulations than existed in 1791.  There WAS no "historical tradition" as to how to regulate the possession of a pair of six-shooters because....historically at that time....THEY DID NOT EXIST.  That's the stupidity of the fucking Bruen rule.  It locks the rule as "historical tradition," without any real accommodation for "but....there's some seriously different shit out there since 1791."  That's the fucking point of why Bruen and its logically fallacious "originalism" is a steaming pile of shit.

It's funny how you think that they were all functionally idiots and couldn't look at the rapidly developing industrial revolution and think maybe that it would affect arms as well.

 

[Brisketexan 105095]

39 minutes ago, NotActuallyALonghorn said:

It's funny how you think that they were all functionally idiots and couldn't look at the rapidly developing industrial revolution and think maybe that it would affect arms as well.

 

They weren't idiots.  But they WERE regular human beings with limited powers of imagination.  They did not fully foresee what arms would become.  All humans have inherent currency/recency bias: "firearms will basically be what they are today."  They also didn't anticipate electronic communications from the telephone to the internet to video conferencing to viral electronic video media etc., although there were surely precursors that hinted at the eventual availability of such widely and quickly disseminated information even then.

Shit, the issues we are all discussing and debating right now in terms of regulation/not regulation are for modern high-capacity combat-type weapons like the AR-15.  I have yet to see any proposed regulations that are intended to address the public safety risks that might be created by the easy availability of a phased plasma rifle in the 40-watt range.

It is utterly disingenuous to argue that firearms regulations of 1791 were created with 2023 weapons - or even 1865 weapons -- in mind.

[General Specific 3256]

They weren't idiots.  But they WERE regular human beings with limited powers of imagination.  They did not fully foresee what arms would become.  All humans have inherent currency/recency bias: "firearms will basically be what they are today."  They also didn't anticipate electronic communications from the telephone to the internet to video conferencing to viral electronic video media etc., although there were surely precursors that hinted at the eventual availability of such widely and quickly disseminated information even then.
Shit, the issues we are all discussing and debating right now in terms of regulation/not regulation are for modern high-capacity combat-type weapons like the AR-15.  I have yet to see any proposed regulations that are intended to address the public safety risks that might be created by the easy availability of a phased plasma rifle in the 40-watt range.

It is utterly disingenuous to argue that firearms regulations of 1791 were created with 2023 weapons - or even 1865 weapons -- in mind.

I see the problem, can you spot it? The improper use of word makes some of us wonder if you know what an AR is or what AR means.

“Shit, the issues we are all discussing and debating right now in terms of regulation/not regulation are for modern high-capacity combat-type weapons like the AR-15.”

Calling it a combat type weapon, or “AW” is wrong as well. What you suggest is intellectually dishonest. For a combat style weapon (more than one bullet for a single trigger pull), a person:

Must not be classified as a “prohibited person.”
Be at least 21 years of age to purchase a machine gun from the current owner.
Be a legal resident of the United States.
Be legally eligible to purchase a firearm.
Pass a BATFE background check with a typical process time of 8 to 10 months.
Pay a one-time $200 transfer tax. (You’ll need a stamp for each machine gun.)

This is if you want to follow the law. Just like everything else man has made, on his short existence on this blue marble, some people (mental or criminal), don’t give a rats ass about the law. And that is the problem. Not lack of laws. Murder is against the law, and that doesn’t stop some from using cars, planes, or whatever else a bad guy uses. No one suggests further restrictions or banning of those items on the law abiding.

Is it the look of a combat weapon? Stick with its function. High capacity????? WTF, more word play. Most, if not all here (yes we are a collective of degenerates) follow the law and to a high degree, and it’s our job to police our fellow citizens, or we’re the bad guy? Fuck off with this shit!

The question is how do you stop a bad person from obtaining inanimate objects and doing bad things while not forcing more and more hoops to jump through onto most law abiding citizens. Figure that out and the world will truly be safe!

Until then, most of us have weapons to hunt, and or for protection/self-defense. Hell, some may even find it as a hobby just to collect. It’s not for me, you, or the rest of Surly gun shame.

Upthread, as someone pointed out, this is not a topic for a real discussion. Others have even pointed out, this is not that thread, and there is a thread specifically for that.

[Horns99 155]

I’m not going in that other thread, but I heard this today. Mass shootings make up less than 2% of the people killed by firearms, most of them are killed by pistols. So how about a Mandatory Felony requiring time in prison for anyone caught with an illegal pistol?? That would make an impact on the deaths, but I guarantee you a certain political party that advocates for gun control wouldn’t go for it, b/c they would claim it’s racism or something along those lines.

No mention in the media of the 7 teenagers killed over the weekend in Houston, by I’m sure people who bought the guns legally & follows the laws.

Not much mention of the 25 people in Chicago shot, 4 of them fatally over the weekend. Chicago has some of the strictest gun laws in the country, doesn’t seem to make Jack difference there does it…

[Jkwellborn 6697]

Back on topic:
I need to invest in left-handed rifles and shotguns for my boys, both of whom are left-handed. Anybody on here left-handed who can share some accumulated wisdom on what works for you? I need a small-bore rifle for small game, deer rifle, and some sort of shotgun. 

I’ve got a left handed brown a bolt hunter in 270 Wsm. Great gun. Smooth and shoots like a dream.

I’ve got a left handed thumb hole stock on a right hand bolt .22-250 that was a varmint gun in its past lift. Mauser action, 18 oz trigger. It’s a blast. If I was building a target rifle, that’s the route I would go.

[Brisketexan 105095]

2 hours ago, General Specific said:

I see the problem, can you spot it? The improper use of word makes some of us wonder if you know what an AR is or what AR means.

“Shit, the issues we are all discussing and debating right now in terms of regulation/not regulation are for modern high-capacity combat-type weapons like the AR-15.”

Calling it a combat type weapon, or “AW” is wrong as well. What you suggest is intellectually dishonest. For a combat style weapon (more than one bullet for a single trigger pull), a person:

Must not be classified as a “prohibited person.”
Be at least 21 years of age to purchase a machine gun from the current owner.
Be a legal resident of the United States.
Be legally eligible to purchase a firearm.
Pass a BATFE background check with a typical process time of 8 to 10 months.
Pay a one-time $200 transfer tax. (You’ll need a stamp for each machine gun.)

Man... I couldn't have teed up a more predictable response if I tried.  Just pure perfection.

"Do you even know what AR means???"  You realize that you're a caricature, right?  Yes, I know the fucking difference - I've been shooting for nearly 50 years, and yes, I've shot an AR variant.

And functionally, the SOLE difference between a civilian AR and a military issue version is....civilian versions are semi-auto only, military are selective fire including full auto.  That's it.  That's the difference.  And, by the way, in most combat situations....the military version is going to be in the semi-auto position, because cooking off at full auto is not usually how you want to play it.  Because taking select shots as opposed to spray and pray is more tactically sound and is likely to yield more rounds on target.  So yes, I know what I'm talking about.

And yes, I think that making weapons that can deliver 30 rounds of .223 downrange in seconds (semi-auto lets you cook off rounds plenty fast), a quick reload, and then the next 30 rounds, and then the next, available to every fucking psychopath, is a bad move for a society.  I suggested nothing "intellectually dishonest."  I said exactly what I said.  The AR-15 is a modern, high-capacity weapon, capable of delivering a shitload of lead downrange in a very, very short amount of time.  Save and except it not having "full auto" as an option, it is functionally IDENTICAL to the weapons we issue to our troops.  That's it.  That's the difference, and it's a negligible one.

Jesus.  I really can't believe that there are still people spewing the "oh, you probably don't even know that AR doesn't stand for 'assault rifle'" bullshit, but there we have it.

[Bozo_Casanova 26444]

7 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

Jesus.  I really can't believe that there are still people spewing the "oh, you probably don't even know that AR doesn't stand for 'assault rifle'" bullshit, but there we have it.

But of course there are, because somebody has to pay the sucker tax. 

13 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

The AR-15 is a modern, high-capacity weapon, capable of delivering a shitload of lead downrange in a very, very short amount of time.  Save and except it not having "full auto" as an option, it is functionally IDENTICAL to the weapons we issue to our troops.  That's it.  That's the difference, and it's a negligible one.

Binary trigger will close that distance by quite a bit, too.

[General Specific 3256]

Man... I couldn't have teed up a more predictable response if I tried.  Just pure perfection.
"Do you even know what AR means???"  You realize that you're a caricature, right?  Yes, I know the fucking difference - I've been shooting for nearly 50 years, and yes, I've shot an AR variant.
And functionally, the SOLE difference between a civilian AR and a military issue version is....civilian versions are semi-auto only, military are selective fire including full auto.  That's it.  That's the difference.  And, by the way, in most combat situations....the military version is going to be in the semi-auto position, because cooking off at full auto is not usually how you want to play it.  Because taking select shots as opposed to spray and pray is more tactically sound and is likely to yield more rounds on target.  So yes, I know what I'm talking about.
And yes, I think that making weapons that can deliver 30 rounds of .223 downrange in seconds (semi-auto lets you cook off rounds plenty fast), a quick reload, and then the next 30 rounds, and then the next, available to every fucking psychopath, is a bad move for a society.  I suggested nothing "intellectually dishonest."  I said exactly what I said.  The AR-15 is a modern, high-capacity weapon, capable of delivering a shitload of lead downrange in a very, very short amount of time.  Save and except it not having "full auto" as an option, it is functionally IDENTICAL to the weapons we issue to our troops.  That's it.  That's the difference, and it's a negligible one.
Jesus.  I really can't believe that there are still people spewing the "oh, you probably don't even know that AR doesn't stand for 'assault rifle'" bullshit, but there we have it.

You’re a decent poster here. And, like you said, it was a setup. But you used used the term combat. No? And the military executes combat strategies and tactics. I’m glad we agree the word combat was part of you plan.

What is it about the magazine capacity specifically? Why is some arbitrary number of bullets way over the line? As determined by who? Is 10, 5 or two too many? How many magazines are too much?

Still have not engaged with the differences between law abiding and mental/criminal elements. What, if any plan would address that specifically, so as to limit the infringement of rights to the law abiding?


Jesus, I can’t believe people think their experiences should apply to others willy nilly!

"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."

Benjamin Franklin

[Bozo_Casanova 26444]

12 minutes ago, General Specific said:

Still have not engaged with the differences between law abiding and mental/criminal elements. What, if any plan would address that specifically, so as to limit the infringement of rights to the law abiding?

That’s the exact purpose of Red Flag laws, genius.

2 hours ago, Horns99 said:

Not much mention of the 25 people in Chicago shot, 4 of them fatally over the weekend. Chicago has some of the strictest gun laws in the country, doesn’t seem to make Jack difference there does it…

Criminals do criminal things, and Chicago’s gun violence problem is essentially a gang violence problem. That said, shouldn’t we doing things to make it harder for criminals and head cases to *legally* obtain weapons? We’re not talking about bank robberies and gangland shootouts. Most of the preventable gun  violence in this country is committed with legally obtained guns.
Setting aside mass shootings and all the AR-15 bullshit because I know how emotionally attached some of y’all are to your cosplay rifles, handgun violence is a real problem. Shouldn’t we make it harder for wife beaters and mentally ill people to get them?

Edited May 9, 2023 by Bozo_Casanova

[wild_turkey 3159]

23 hours ago, General Specific said:

I’m confused. Using this logic upthread, car safety discussions after what happened in Brownsville should go where, Classic Cars or New Cars? Or do we just start posting whatever wherever whenever?

The Gun Owners thread seems like a perfectly reasonable place for people to discuss gun control, societal changes that might prevent mass shootings, or just express frustrations over the status quo of gun culture in our country.

Let's take a completely different topic that people are also passionate about: DOGS. Now suppose in the future, psychopaths start training pit bulls and dobermans to attack people, and then the country suffers an epidemic of mass casualties where these attack dogs are being unleashed in schools, churches, and shopping centers on a weekly (daily?!) basis where they kill 5-20 people. And suppose dog owners everywhere circle the wagons and refuse to do anything about public policy that could potentially limit these attacks, and instead of discussing any meaningful change for the benefit of all responsible dog owners out there, they decide to give more money to the AKC who can then lobby politicians to prevent dog ownership standards from changing, and tweet out false platitudes like "Thoughts and prayers" every time a dog kills 9 people at H&M.

Don't you think in that scenario (as ridiculous as it is, yet replace "dogs" with "guns" and "AKC" with "NRA" and here we are), that the My Dog is Awesome thread might experience a little bit of backlash and spillover from all the other people who are sick and tired of seeing dogs going on killing sprees on a daily basis?

This hobby of gun ownership is long overdue for a change. I know it would be convenient for everyone who favors gun control to stay in the Cloak Room where you can ignore them, but it would also be convenient for the family members of 9 dead people if those people weren't, you know, dead.

Maybe it's time for gun owners to acknowledge that there is a massive problem and start proposing some solutions, rather than doubling down on the status quo.

[Herbie Hancock 7345]

The Gun Owners thread seems like a perfectly reasonable place for people to discuss gun control, societal changes that might prevent mass shootings, or just express frustrations over the status quo of gun culture in our country.
Let's take a completely different topic that people are also passionate about: DOGS. Now suppose in the future, psychopaths start training pit bulls and dobermans to attack people, and then the country suffers an epidemic of mass casualties where these attack dogs are being unleashed in schools, churches, and shopping centers on a weekly (daily?!) basis where they kill 5-20 people. And suppose dog owners everywhere circle the wagons and refuse to do anything about public policy that could potentially limit these attacks, and instead of discussing any meaningful change for the benefit of all responsible dog owners out there, they decide to give more money to the AKC who can then lobby politicians to prevent dog ownership standards from changing, and tweet out false platitudes like "Thoughts and prayers" every time a dog kills 9 people at H&M.
Don't you think in that scenario (as ridiculous as it is, yet replace "dogs" with "guns" and "AKC" with "NRA" and here we are), that the My Dog is Awesome thread might experience a little bit of backlash and spillover from all the other people who are sick and tired of seeing dogs going on killing sprees on a daily basis?
This hobby of gun ownership is long overdue for a change. I know it would be convenient for everyone who favors gun control to stay in the Cloak Room where you can ignore them, but it would also be convenient for the family members of 9 dead people if those people weren't, you know, dead.
Maybe it's time for gun owners to acknowledge that there is a massive problem and start proposing some solutions, rather than doubling down on the status quo.

No, it's not. The people that have waded in here in the last 24 hours to sling shit in every direction have directly accused or supported those that have accused legal, law abiding gun owners of having a small penis (one poster made the reference 31 times in one thread), wanting all kids to die, being racist, being fascist, being unworthy of living, and likened us to terrorists amongst other things.

Fucking pussy ass Mexican George Costanza is so scared of a goddamned coyote in a greenbelt that he made a fucking thread about it on the old site, but called me insane because I participated in an honest thread (honestly) and stated that I carry my licensed firearm wherever it is legal.

Now tell me why in the blue holy fuck after all of that I would think there is any fucking point in engaging in conversation with these people?

[Brisketexan 105095]

No, it's not. The people that have waded in here in the last 24 hours to sling shit in every direction have directly accused or supported those that have accused legal, law abiding gun owners of having a small penis (one poster made the reference 31 times in one thread), wanting all kids to die, being racist, being fascist, being unworthy of living, and likened us to terrorists amongst other things.

Fucking pussy ass Mexican George Costanza is so scared of a goddamned coyote in a greenbelt that he made a fucking thread about it on the old site, but called me insane because I participated in an honest thread (honestly) and stated that I carry my licensed firearm wherever it is legal.

Now tell me why in the blue holy fuck after all of that I would think there is any fucking point in engaging in conversation with these people?

Posrep for the “Mexican George Costanza” bit. Funny is funny, credit is given.

Of course, I don’t carry a pistol every time I go in said green belt, because that’s not how I roll. And yeah, gun owners who resist tooth and nail any and every attempt to maybe possibly make things just a tiny bit safer for society as a whole are a real fucking problem. If something is the #1 cause of death for American children, and you won’t do anything to address that, you’re a bad person. I’m good with that take.

[Herbie Hancock 7345]

Posrep for the “Mexican George Costanza” bit. Funny is funny, credit is given.

Of course, I don’t carry a pistol every time I go in said green belt, because that’s not how I roll. And yeah, gun owners who resist tooth and nail any and every attempt to maybe possibly make things just a tiny bit safer for society as a whole are a real fucking problem. If something is the #1 cause of death for American children, and you won’t do anything to address that, you’re a bad person. I’m good with that take.

Here's the thing Brisket: I never said I disagree with any of that. Never once. But you and the rest of your CR nut jobs have gone full tilt. Anyone that owns a gun is bad. Anyone that legally carries a firearm is insane. (This one makes me shake my head. You literally spend 60% of your posts on this website extolling the horribleness of our society, yet when someone wants to carry a firearm for personal protection because they fucking agree with you that our world has gone to shit, you deride them for it. Fascinating.) The other nerds you have cast your lot in with have resorted to ridiculous references and personal attacks ad nauseam in regards to gun ownership. I'll ask again; why the fuck would I want to engage in any conversation with the likes of those people?


Yes I edited my post. I inserted Brisket instead of referring to him as George. Can't bitch about people being condescending jackasses and then also do the same. That's my fault.

[Fondren & Main 6710]

I simply made a post stating to call your reps if you want something done and was swiftly chided for it.  Amazing the balls some of you people have when you’re behind a fucking keyboard.

[fattyflattie 4639]

21 minutes ago, Herbie Hancock said:

But you and the rest of your CR nut jobs have gone full tilt. Anyone that owns a gun is bad. Anyone that legally carries a firearm is insane. (This one makes me shake my head. You literally spend 60% of your posts on this website extolling the horribleness of our society, yet when someone wants to carry a firearm for personal protection because they fucking agree with you that our world has gone to shit, you deride them for it. Fascinating.) The other nerds you have cast your lot in with have resorted to ridiculous references and personal attacks ad nauseam in regards to gun ownership. I'll ask again; why the fuck would I want to engage in any conversation with the likes of those people?

This is incorrect.  Brisket sits squarely where he normally does, fence right up his ass in the middle playing both sides.   I’ve been shooting guns since I was a toddler rah rah, while participating right along with the folks who would gladly take every fucking gun away from every law abiding US citizen.   You don’t acquire 60k rep points by having a side.  
 

4 hours ago, Horns99 said:

I’m not going in that other thread, but I heard this today. Mass shootings make up less than 2% of the people killed by firearms, most of them are killed by pistols. So how about a Mandatory Felony requiring time in prison for anyone caught with an illegal pistol?? That would make an impact on the deaths, but I guarantee you a certain political party that advocates for gun control wouldn’t go for it, b/c they would claim it’s racism or something along those lines.

No mention in the media of the 7 teenagers killed over the weekend in Houston, by I’m sure people who bought the guns legally & follows the laws.

Not much mention of the 25 people in Chicago shot, 4 of them fatally over the weekend. Chicago has some of the strictest gun laws in the country, doesn’t seem to make Jack difference there does it…

Why are you so fucking racist?  We don’t talk about these murders, and how your 1000x more likely to be caught in this than a lone wolf event.   Chicago?  That’s in a completely different city and everything.  
 

3 hours ago, Brisketexan said:

And yes, I think that making weapons that can deliver 30 rounds of .223 downrange in seconds (semi-auto lets you cook off rounds plenty fast), a quick reload, and then the next 30 rounds, and then the next, available to every fucking psychopath, is a bad move for a society.  I suggested nothing "intellectually dishonest."  I said exactly what I said.  The AR-15 is a modern, high-capacity weapon, capable of delivering a shitload of lead downrange in a very, very short amount of time.  Save and except it not having "full auto" as an option, it is functionally IDENTICAL to the weapons we issue to our troops.  That's it.  That's the difference, and it's a negligible one.

Now do the difference in a mini-14. One of @Bozo_Casanova favorite platforms, as I recall.   Still trying to figure out the whole .556 that decapitates and blows up anything it touches when fired from an AR, but doesn’t when fired from a mini-14. Maybe someone can explain that to me someday, as well.  

[Brisketexan 105095]

Fattie, the thing is, you don’t have em pegged wrong: I indeed do sit pretty squarely in the middle on this issue in particular.
Am I on the “side” that would get rid of all firearms? Nope. Not at all. I very much want to continue to be able to own and use guns and hunt, and for my kids and grandkids to do the same.
Am I on the side that opposes any additional regulations and restrictions on firearms, repeating “shall not be infringed!!!” as I treat an AR as an idol? Fuck no.
Instead, in think that guns should CULTURALLY be treated as a tool, not a god or a talisman. And I think that LEGALLY they should be more tightly regulated: red flag laws, increase the age to purchase/possess, etc. (oh, and as to the mini-14, 1) it doesn’t have the fetish cachet that appeals to psychopaths (doesn’t make sense to me, but then, none of this does), and 2) limit the mag size and apply age limits, enact red flag laws, etc, and I’m good with it.)
I think that my approach would achieve both of my goals (instead of just picking one or the other): make this a safer society, while allowing for reasonable gun ownership to continue.
I know that the middle path is the most un-American thing one can do now - you’re only a real American if you cling to an extreme with religious fervor — but maybe I’m not keen on being a typical American these days.

[fattyflattie 4639]

12 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

(oh, and as to the mini-14, 1) it doesn’t have the fetish cachet that appeals to psychopaths (doesn’t make sense to me, but then, none of this does),

Doesn’t make sense to me either. But I know cosplay fetish doesn’t make it any more or less deadly.  And for the life of me, I’m not sure how it can keep the same projectiles from decapitating and “blowing up” things.  Legislation can be passed, I know how. Outside of the most fringe on the left, not a single politician really wants to. 

[Brisketexan 105095]

Doesn’t make sense to me either. But I know cosplay fetish doesn’t make it any more or less deadly.  And for the life of me, I’m not sure how it can keep the same projectiles from decapitating and “blowing up” things.  Legislation can be passed, I know how. Outside of the most fringe on the left, not a single politician really wants to. 

There’s literally a bill increasing the age limit in the Texas House right now. Supported by functionally the entire Dem caucus. It will fail. And you know why. It’s not because no politicians want it to pass. It’s because one party doesn’t want it to pass. Stop saying no politician wants more gun regs to pass. In states where Dems have a majority, multiple pieces of legislation have passed. What you are saying is demonstrably false.

[Bozo_Casanova 26444]

31 minutes ago, fattyflattie said:

One of @Bozo_Casanova favorite platforms, as I recall.  

True! Love the Mini-14. 

[fattyflattie 4639]

3 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

There’s literally a bill increasing the age limit in the Texas House right now. Supported by functionally the entire Dem caucus. It will fail. And you know why. It’s not because no politicians want it to pass. It’s because one party doesn’t want it to pass. Stop saying no politician wants more gun regs to pass. In states where Dems have a majority, multiple pieces of legislation have passed. What you are saying is demonstrably false.

Bullshit. What else is in there.  Or are you telling me it’s a one liner that raised the age limit?   Because I bet it’s not. 

[686 3448]

Back on topic:
I need to invest in left-handed rifles and shotguns for my boys, both of whom are left-handed. Anybody on here left-handed who can share some accumulated wisdom on what works for you? I need a small-bore rifle for small game, deer rifle, and some sort of shotgun. 

Tikka T3 in stainless steel for deer rifle and maybe T3 in a light chambering or T1 (rimfire)for small game. They are great actions, and can be upgraded when they’re older if they want (prefit aftermarket barrels, stocks, chassis, etc.). I follow hunting rifle trends and the Tikka T3 is basically displacing the Remington 700 as the “high quality bolt action that shoots great out of the box, and can be easily modified/customized easily later if so desired”.

A vintage Remington 1100 or 870 in left hand used to be a great shotgun option, but the used market on them has gone up a bunch (like over $1k) since Remington has been screwing around / going bankrupt and people are snatching up / investing in the good older guns.

[Brisketexan 105095]

Bullshit. What else is in there.  Or are you telling me it’s a one liner that raised the age limit?   Because I bet it’s not. 

It literally only raised the age to buy a mag-fed semi-auto over .22 caliber to 21 years. That’s it. That’s all it does.
Here’s the language (making it a criminal offense to sell….)

(B) to a person younger than 21 years of age a semiautomatic rifle that is capable of accepting a detachable magazine and that has a caliber greater than .22;

https://capitol.texas.gov/tlodocs/88R/billtext/doc/HB02744I.docx

Just stop. It’s a clean bill. It does one thing. One party has advanced it and supports it. The other will kill it.

[fattyflattie 4639]

4 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

Just stop. It’s a clean bill. It does one thing. One party has advanced it and supports it. The other will kill it.

Well, that one side is being fucking stupid. Also, can you please explain what this does?  Is there a run on 30 carbines or 10’s lately? Is it just to show one side doesn’t play?  Theatre?

[Brisketexan 105095]

Well, that one side is being fucking stupid. Also, can you please explain what this does?  Is there a run on 30 carbines or 10’s lately? Is it just to show one side doesn’t play?  Theatre?

It’s a bill. To raise the age to purchase a semi-auto rifle (the preferred weapon of broken-brained asshole school shooters and whatnot). It’s a direct response to Uvalde. It’s an actual bill to do an actual thing that may well have prevented the Uvalde massacre. It SHOULD pass (but of course, will not). That’s what legislators do: they introduce bills that will be good policy. If the opposition blocks them (and if something is good policy, you can rest assured that the Texas GQP will block it), so be it.
There’s no secret or mystery here. Uvalde families worked their asses off to get this through committee. They wept when it did so. And it will be killed by the GQP.

[fattyflattie 4639]

22 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

It’s a bill. To raise the age to purchase a semi-auto rifle (the preferred weapon of broken-brained asshole school shooters and whatnot). It’s a direct response to Uvalde. It’s an actual bill to do an actual thing that may well have prevented the Uvalde massacre. It SHOULD pass (but of course, will not). That’s what legislators do: they introduce bills that will be good policy. If the opposition blocks them (and if something is good policy, you can rest assured that the Texas GQP will block it), so be it.
There’s no secret or mystery here. Uvalde families worked their asses off to get this through committee. They wept when it did so. And it will be killed by the GQP.

Maybe I’m missing something? “Caliber greater than .22”    I assume there’s a trick there for .220 vs .224 (actual bullet dia of .22 cal bullets).   If not, then no, this wouldn’t have done shit for Ulvalde, or any other of the many atrocities committed with the AR15.  So, my question is what is this bill for?  

[Brisketexan 105095]

Maybe I’m missing something? “Caliber greater than .22”    I assume there’s a trick there for .220 vs .224 (actual bullet dia of .22 cal bullets).   If not, then no, this wouldn’t have done shit for Ulvalde, or any other of the many atrocities committed with the AR15.  So, my question is what is this bill for?  

Wait….you’re contending that .223 is not a “caliber greater than .22?” Seriously? You…of all people…know what “caliber” means.

[fattyflattie 4639]

3 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

Wait….you’re contending that .223 is not a “caliber greater than .22?” Seriously? You…of all people…know what “caliber” means.

Yes, so, exactly as I stated.  .22 caliber rifles shoot .224 bullets.  I hope a compromise is suggested at .235. 

[NotActuallyALonghorn 4976]

2 hours ago, Brisketexan said:

Posrep for the “Mexican George Costanza” bit. Funny is funny, credit is given.

Of course, I don’t carry a pistol every time I go in said green belt, because that’s not how I roll. And yeah, gun owners who resist tooth and nail any and every attempt to maybe possibly make things just a tiny bit safer for society as a whole are a real fucking problem. If something is the #1 cause of death for American children, and you won’t do anything to address that, you’re a bad person. I’m good with that take.

Just so you know, the study that claimed that the number one cause of death for "children" in the US is firearms included 18 and 19 year olds in in their definition of children. Why? Because they accounted for 47% of the deaths they cited. 75% of the deaths were ages 16-19. When somebody says that the leading cause of death for kids in the US is guns, the majority of people are not thinking of those age ranges. But it is an effective disinformation strategy designed to elicit an emotional response based not on facts, but what people imagine those facts to be based on a quick reading of the headline.

Oh, and they also excluded children under 1, because they aren't really people yet and including them would muck up their disinformation campaign.

[NotActuallyALonghorn 4976]

13 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

Wait….you’re contending that .223 is not a “caliber greater than .22?” Seriously? You…of all people…know what “caliber” means.

.22 long rifle is .223 diameter, so a Ruger 10/22 is illegal for those under 21 according to this bill. It's a poorly written bill designed to appeal to the lowest common denominator. If they wanted to do it proper, they would specify centerfire rifles. It also means that several classic hunting rifles such as the Remington 7400 or Browning BAR are illegal for those under 21, despite not being at all practical for Nefarious means. So my inheriting my great grandfather's hunting rifle at the age of six would have been illegal under it. If they wanted to do it proper, they could, but they instead chose to be lazy.

[fattyflattie 4639]

7 minutes ago, NotActuallyALonghorn said:

If they wanted to do it proper, they could, but they instead chose to be lazy.

Or work with me, they don’t understand the most basic things about common firearms.  Must have spent all that time studying for the one that fires explosive, decapitating projectiles from one barrel, but not the next, entirely dependent on the stock being made of wood.  Not going to lie, I’d probably focus on magic like that, too. 

[Parliament 14255]

This thread has become a whole buncha ignored CR posts, and a few random gun pics.  I blame AB, for not posting enough revolver porn.

Anyway.  I covet the Springfield XD Tactical Elite.  Told myself I'm not gonna buy one for awhile.  Will probably fail at that promise.

[Lat22 4010]

11 hours ago, Herbie Hancock said:

Now tell me why in the blue holy fuck after all of that I would think there is any fucking point in engaging in conversation with these people?

You don’t. You build up your ignore list. 

[Herbie Hancock 7345]

You don’t. You build up your ignore list. 

I knew the answer before I posed the question. I just wanted to see what smarty pants had to say. In typical fashion, he ignored everything in my post including that. Not surprising

[Jkwellborn 6697]

Now do the difference in a mini-14. One of [mention=1259]Bozo_Casanova[/mention] favorite platforms, as I recall.   Still trying to figure out the whole .556 that decapitates and blows up anything it touches when fired from an AR, but doesn’t when fired from a mini-14. Maybe someone can explain that to me someday, as well.  

Come on now, the mini 14 isn’t skurry looking to people that aren’t told different. Most of them have wood furniture and that means it can’t be bad, because it’s classy.

[BabaYaga 15290]

14 hours ago, Brisketexan said:

And yes, I think that making weapons that can deliver 30 rounds of .223 downrange in seconds (semi-auto lets you cook off rounds plenty fast), a quick reload, and then the next 30 rounds, and then the next, available to every fucking psychopath, is a bad move for a society.  I suggested nothing "intellectually dishonest."  I said exactly what I said.  The AR-15 is a modern, high-capacity weapon, capable of delivering a shitload of lead downrange in a very, very short amount of time.  Save and except it not having "full auto" as an option, it is functionally IDENTICAL to the weapons we issue to our troops.  That's it.  That's the difference, and it's a negligible one.

Jesus, you just described every semi-auto available going back to the late 40's.  No, the AR is not "modern" - it's been around since the 50's.  The only changes since then are cosmetic.  Do you think you can pull the trigger faster on an AR than you can an M1 carbine that you used to be able to purchase in hardware stores and catalogues?  Faster than Ruger m-14 rifles that were so popular in the early 80's?  SKS and AK variants that flooded the market in the 80's and 90's?

Edited May 9, 2023 by BabaYaga

[BabaYaga 15290]

9 hours ago, fattyflattie said:

So, my question is what is this bill for?  

Muh feelz....

[BabaYaga 15290]

9 hours ago, Brisketexan said:

It’s a direct response to Uvalde. It’s an actual bill to do an actual thing that may well have prevented the Uvalde massacre. I

The shooting where the perp stole the credit card of his age appropriate parents that he used to buy the rifle?  That shooting?

[BabaYaga 15290]

8 hours ago, NotActuallyALonghorn said:

.22 long rifle is .223 diameter, so a Ruger 10/22 is illegal for those under 21 according to this bill. It's a poorly written bill designed to appeal to the lowest common denominator. If they wanted to do it proper, they would specify centerfire rifles. It also means that several classic hunting rifles such as the Remington 7400 or Browning BAR are illegal for those under 21, despite not being at all practical for Nefarious means. So my inheriting my great grandfather's hunting rifle at the age of six would have been illegal under it. If they wanted to do it proper, they could, but they instead chose to be lazy.

Exactly - it's a lazy bill meant to signal that they did "something", even though anyone that can fog a mirror knows it won't do jack shit.  These shootings are premeditated.  They can just find someone that is 21, pay them cash and use their cards (straw buyers).  Not a god damned thing in the bill even attempts to address such simple measures to get around it.  

[Frank Drebin 5663]

51 minutes ago, Lat22 said:

You don’t. You build up your ignore list. 

Exactly what I have done.  Has made this website much better. 

I am not opposed to red flag laws. The cloak room nuts all should be red flagged. They and Texags politics posters should be at the front of the line for red flags.

Edited May 9, 2023 by Frank Drebin