[Discussion] Mass Shooting at Uvalde Elementary School

[Herbie Hancock 7302]

I will disagree with you on the point that there is no difference between a bump stock and a full auto.  I've shot both and I will say a gun equipped with a bump stock should be illegal.  You have absolutely no control of where the bullets go.  It just shoots bullets really fast.  A full auto you have pretty good control.  

Bump stocks are illegal to possess and have been since March 2019.

[fattyflattie 4636]

3 minutes ago, PenelopeWitherspoon said:

Take this shit to the Cloak Room.  Reported.

Oh go fuck yourself. I’m sure you’ll report the other dozen posts mentioning politics. 

[FartingMonk 3606]

47 minutes ago, Herbie Hancock said:

Bump stocks are illegal to possess and have been since March 2019.

Sorry I wasn't being clear.  Yes bump stocks are illegal.  I was just trying to say they need to remain illegal as they don't have any usefulness to it and makes a gun much more dangerous.  The people challenging it in court are not doing gun owners any favors.

[Herbie Hancock 7302]

Sorry I wasn't being clear.  Yes bump stocks are illegal.  I was just trying to say they need to remain illegal as they don't have any usefulness to it and makes a gun much more dangerous.  The people challenging it in court are not doing gun owners any favors.

Agreed on all points.

[aggie08 21380]

1 hour ago, fattyflattie said:

I keep hearing that. Not seeing it, but yeah, they would, if…

You don't think that efforts are being made to try to bring over some of the less entrenched GOP members--whatever the fuck that even means any more--to see if they could work together on a bill that some of them may actually vote for?

Are you really this stupid?

The GOP just showed what happens to you--in New York, of all places--if you even contemplate crossing the aisle on this issue. But please tell me more about how they're just waiting for a correctly-worded, standalone bill to carefully consider on merits.

I know you're not this obtuse. I know that you get a kick out of spinning up the other side. So, thanks? I guess? For letting us vent our frustrations after a really shitty couple of weeks on you, knowing that you and your ilk are why nothing will ever change.

[TwiceHorn 31184]

7 hours ago, fattyflattie said:

I’m talking about the weapon with the same fire rate, with larger projectiles and similar velocity of the AR.  It’s a less dressed up AR in a larger and stronger caliber. Curious what antique has to do with it, other than including for even further lax regulations, or making you feel better?  I can buy 5 round magazines for an AR, too.  And a 30 round mag for my 30 carbine, or mini 14.  And last I checked, my 30 carbine was still plenty fucking deadly, even being an “antique”.  

I think you're mistaking brisket and his M1 Carbine with me and my M1A.

And I would contend, as far as dressing up, that my M1A is wearing a nice tan suit, while AR derivatives wear cargo shorts and an Affliction tshirt, or Punisher.

Edited June 4, 2022 by TwiceHorn

[TwiceHorn 31184]

22 minutes ago, FartingMonk said:

Sorry I wasn't being clear.  Yes bump stocks are illegal.  I was just trying to say they need to remain illegal as they don't have any usefulness to it and makes a gun much more dangerous.  The people challenging it in court are not doing gun owners any favors.

And bump stocks are rather emblematic of the whole problematic gun culture.  Muh guns!  Muh fun!  Moar rounds downrange faster, faster, jatch off, jatch off.

[fattyflattie 4636]

4 minutes ago, aggie08 said:

I know you're not this obtuse. I know that you get a kick out of spinning up the other side. So, thanks? I guess? For letting us vent our frustrations after a really shitty couple of weeks on you, knowing that you and your ilk are why nothing will ever change.

I’m not trying to spin anyone up. I believe in a lot of the regs being proposed. But I try to tell you why people don’t want to budge, or what their concerns are, and am called obtuse, or even better complicit with children being killed. I do my best to be sincere in the face of hyperbole or outright degradation.  
 

4 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

I think you're mistaking brisket and his M1 Carbine with me and my M1A.

And I would contend, as far as dressing up, that my M1A is wearing a nice tan suit, while AR derivatives wear cargo shorts and an Affliction tshirt, or Punisher.

No. I own >1 30 carbines and have been around plenty of M1As. I’m speaking to his MAS. And I agree with the rest of your analogy, mostly.  

[aggie08 21380]

28 minutes ago, fattyflattie said:

But I try to tell you why people don’t want to budge, or what their concerns are, and am called obtuse, or even better complicit with children being killed. I do my best to be sincere in the face of hyperbole or outright degradation.

Because they're not concerns grounded in reality. Even if the Democrats' secret agenda is to take your guns, they have absolutely no power, mechanisms, courts, votes, or ability to do so. Now, or in foreseeable future. Any actual change is going to take cooperation and agreement between the parties. Compromise with the Democrats on this means expulsion from the party. So, if you had to put a number to it, how would you dole out the blame here?

Also, we're all complicit. I tolerate and vote for spineless politicians who get told no after an event like this and say, "Golly gee, shucks, I tried. Better luck next time." rather than screaming from the rooftops and plastering the statistics and pictures of coffins all over TV and the internet. But I at least own that.

The dorks in Oakley sunglasses, who get all of their news and factoids from memes, are already lost causes. So, yeah, people like you are our next (only) hope to stop enabling the GOP to stan for the 20% of the population* (and that's probably being generous) who want no new--or even less--gun control laws. So do you at least understand why no one gives a shit anymore that your personally support reasonably gun control reform?

*This isn't even a red vs. blue issue anymore. It's hard line gun nut super minority vs. literally everyone else. But still nothing can get done because of who has that minority's back.

[fattyflattie 4636]

7 minutes ago, aggie08 said:

Because they're not concerns grounded in reality. Even if the Democrats' secret agenda is to take your guns, they have absolutely no power, mechanisms, courts, votes, or ability to do so. Now, or in foreseeable future. Any actual change is going to take cooperation and agreement between the parties.

If two senators, hypothetically one from WV and another from AZ, both who’ve been proven to be whores for cash, change their mind$ on the filibuster tomorrow, does this statement hold true?   I’d hate to get reported again for CR, but would like to know. 
 

 

[aggie08 21380]

7 minutes ago, fattyflattie said:

If two senators, hypothetically one from WV and another from AZ, both who’ve been proven to be whores for cash, change their mind$ on the filibuster tomorrow, does this statement hold true?   I’d hate to get reported again for CR, but would like to know. 
 

 

Yes. A simple majority vote wouldn't cut it.

[FartingMonk 3606]

58 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

And bump stocks are rather emblematic of the whole problematic gun culture.  Muh guns!  Muh fun!  Moar rounds downrange faster, faster, jatch off, jatch off.

Yeah.  I'm a gun owner.  Shotguns, AR-10,AR-15 a few handguns and some bolt action long guns.  But yeah there are gun owners I know that kind of freak me out.  I know a guy that constantly practices drawing while watching TV.  Another insists that he brings his AR with him in his trunk even when going to the grocery store.  His thought is he can fight back to the car to get his rifle.  Like I understand the world is a dangerous place but damn it's not like you are living in Fallujah or something.

[Born to Run 6524]

Yeah.  I'm a gun owner.  Shotguns, AR-10,AR-15 a few handguns and some bolt action long guns.  But yeah there are gun owners I know that kind of freak me out.  I know a guy that constantly practices drawing while watching TV.  Another insists that he brings his AR with him in his trunk even when going to the grocery store.  His thought is he can fight back to the car to get his rifle.  Like I understand the world is a dangerous place but damn it's not like you are living in Fallujah or something.

I've know quite a few of these guys in my life. They never got to pew pew a bad guy, despite fantasizing and fretting about it for decades. One dude had 15 hidden pistols in his house. They dead Shoulda worried about thier health and eased up on the booze.

[Neonmoon 38127]

 

1 hour ago, Born to Run said:

1 hour ago, FartingMonk said:

Yeah.  I'm a gun owner.  Shotguns, AR-10,AR-15 a few handguns and some bolt action long guns.  But yeah there are gun owners I know that kind of freak me out.  I know a guy that constantly practices drawing while watching TV.  Another insists that he brings his AR with him in his trunk even when going to the grocery store.  His thought is he can fight back to the car to get his rifle.  Like I understand the world is a dangerous place but damn it's not like you are living in Fallujah or something.

I've know quite a few of these guys in my life. They never got to pew pew a bad guy, despite fantasizing and fretting about it for decades. One dude had 15 hidden pistols in his house. They dead Shoulda worried about thier health and eased up on the booze.

[Eskimohorn 5610]

Yeah.  I'm a gun owner.  Shotguns, AR-10,AR-15 a few handguns and some bolt action long guns.  But yeah there are gun owners I know that kind of freak me out.  I know a guy that constantly practices drawing while watching TV.  Another insists that he brings his AR with him in his trunk even when going to the grocery store.  His thought is he can fight back to the car to get his rifle.  Like I understand the world is a dangerous place but damn it's not like you are living in Fallujah or something.

A far more likely scenario is someone steals his car and takes his AR-15.

[Dahobbs 17420]

4 hours ago, fattyflattie said:

If two senators, hypothetically one from WV and another from AZ, both who’ve been proven to be whores for cash, change their mind$ on the filibuster tomorrow, does this statement hold true?   I’d hate to get reported again for CR, but would like to know. 
 

 

So, again, you're not really for any new gun reform. You're against everything because maybe hypothetically something else could happen. In short, you're full of shit. 

[fattyflattie 4636]

26 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

So, again, you're not really for any new gun reform. You're against everything because maybe hypothetically something else could happen. In short, you're full of shit. 

What about the post you quoted tells you that?  You drinking tonight?

[atomheartbevo 89362]

5 hours ago, FartingMonk said:

Another insists that he brings his AR with him in his trunk even when going to the grocery store.  His thought is he can fight back to the car to get his rifle.  Like I understand the world is a dangerous place but damn it's not like you are living in Fallujah or something.

I've known people like this, even knew one who tries to bring his sidearm to gatherings where shit was never going to happen, and he made sure everybody knew he had it.  He stopped getting invited pretty quickly (which meant his kid missed out on birthday parties of the kids of his co-workers/friends).  Somebody that fucking scared to the point where he has to carry a sidearm everywhere is not somebody I want to be around when shit goes down, because he's going to be so scared he's going to drop the fucking thing, shoot his dick off, or just start blasting away.

Edited June 5, 2022 by atomheartbevo

[atomheartbevo 89362]

By the way, cross-posting, but again, cops

https://www.newsweek.com/uvalde-mom-who-saved-kids-school-shooting-says-police-threatened-her-1712842

Quote

After speaking critically about the incident to media outlets, Gomez said an officer threatened to charge her for violating probation on an unrelated charge for "obstruction of justice." However, she added that she spoke to a local judge who assured her that she was "brave" and that she would not face legal repercussions for sharing her story.

https://www.insider.com/police-threatened-uvalde-mom-who-ran-into-school-save-kids-2022-

Quote

"If anything, they were being more aggressive on us parents that were willing to go in there and, like I told one of the officers: I don't need you to protect me, get away from me. I don't need your protection. If anything, I need you to go in there with me to go protect my kids," Gomez told CBS.

"And if anything, they were being more aggressive on us. They were more pertain on keeping us back then getting into that school."

 

[NotActuallyALonghorn 4965]

On 6/3/2022 at 2:30 PM, Chopper said:

Straw sales are the singular economic success of the republican party. US weapons manufacturers and gun stores supply roughly 80% of the weapons to the Mexican cartels and as a favor in return they turn Mexico into a narco-terror state; induce migration to flow to the US which provides cheap labor to exploit, and a constant and notorious bogeyman for republican political purposes; and provides US corporations willing to put up with the breakdown of Mexican society with a convenient and profitable location to manufacture items on the cheap for export into the US. 

My proposed red flag law is that if you whine about needing a semi automatic rifle you're a red flag and you can choose between being exported to Yemen or receiving a bullet in the head.  /s kinda

 

On 6/3/2022 at 3:22 PM, Chopper said:

Hey maybe I'm wrong but from what I can tell, only one political party has used every bit of power within their arsenal to make sure weapons of use to the Mexican cartels are for sale in the USA.

You asked, so here is a prime example of your lies and attempts to polarize things to state where nothing gets done. The most famous example of straw purchases is Operation Fast and Furious, in which federal law enforcement agents instructed licensed firearms dealers to allow the sale of some 2000 guns to suspected straw purchasers to supposedly track them into Mexico and dismantle the gun running rings. This was done under the Obama administration. Only they didn't really do any tracking, and previous experiences with similar programs under the Bush administration showed its ineffectiveness. But they pushed through all the while decreasing controls to make it even more ineffective. History pretty clearly shows that the Democrats have had a big hand in allowing straw sales of guns to Mexico.

 

I'll give you credit for editing your claim that Republicans repealed the assault weapons ban, but that even then you are still going about your game of stoking division so that nothing gets done.

You also talked a lot about Reagan's support for gun control, but never mentioned that he is famous for supporting it because he was scared of armed black people. This is significant because many of the proposals being pushed now would still have the effect of making it much more difficult for minorities to exercise their second amendment rights. Mandatory licensing and safety classes, mandatory laws regarding gun safes, and anything that requires potential gun owners having to jump through hoops to exercise their rights adversely affects minorities much more than it does the middle to upper class white folks who make up the majority of posters here. And most of the regulations that have those effects are not particularly needed, as we can establish plenty of reforms that don't have those effects. Magazine size restrictions are fairly color blind, for example. Red flag laws could be if they are written properly. Even age limits for semiautomatic firearm purchases are fairly colorblind, although I think many of the age limits being thrown out here are a bit extreme. 

[NotActuallyALonghorn 4965]

14 hours ago, PenelopeWitherspoon said:

I also think you have a voluntary buy back program.  Make it worth people's while to sell their gun back to you.  Also, closing down the gun show loophole is part of it, but you also have to close down the loophole that person to person sales are as well.  That shit happens all the time.

Just an FYI, the gun show loophole and person to person sales are the same thing. It was a compromise that allowed the background check bill to be passed.

[NotActuallyALonghorn 4965]

14 hours ago, 956 Worldwide said:

If there are so many alternatives to the AR-15 that are just as good and can do the same things, why don’t y’all just let the dumbass libs ban the AR-15 to make their feelz better and enjoy all the other guns that are the same? 

There really aren't a bunch of alternatives to the AR-15 that are just as good. If we expand it to all AR pattern rifles, there are well over 100 calibers of ammunition that can be adapted for use in the platform. Many require only a simple swap of the barrel. Others require changing out a few other parts. Doing those things is made simple due to the proliferation of parts available and ease of doing it yourself with a minimal requirement for special tools. Basically anybody who wants an AR pattern rifle built specifically for whatever application can easily order a few parts and build a rifle that is perfectly adapted to their purposes, whether that involves shooting pests at home, or hunting Elk in the Rockies or anything in between. And the way it is designed allows a person to pop out a couple of pins and swap out the upper reciever to completely change the capabilities of the rifle. You can have one gun that gun pretty much do it all for hunting anything in North America. This is one of the primary drivers of the popularity of the AR platform. There is the "tactic oolong Oakley selfie in a truck" crowd who are compensating for something, but that doesn't change that it is one of the most practical rifle platforms for sportsmen, and unexpectedly so one of if not the best selling new rifle platforms in the modern era.

[NotActuallyALonghorn 4965]

The other thing that sets it aside from other similar platforms is that the 30 round magazine is pretty much the standard, as a result of it's military heritage. Most of these activities don't need that kind of capacity, and as @CHIEF has stated here, most sportsmen don't use them because they are cumbersome and get in the way. 

Magazine fed semi automatic rifles have been around for well over a hundred years and have many benefits, but the thing that makes them particularly useful to the folks who perpetuate mass shootings us their magazine capacity, not anything else inherent in the design of the gun itself. 

[TwiceHorn 31184]

The other thing about the slippery slope toward gun confiscation.  The GOP/NRA types have successfully opposed just about every "reasonable" gun regulation for 30+ years.  So, if they let up a little for waiting periods and red flag laws, we're just going to immediately descend into confiscation?

[aggie08 21380]

20 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

The other thing about the slippery slope toward gun confiscation.  The GOP/NRA types have successfully opposed just about every "reasonable" gun regulation for 30+ years.  So, if they let up a little for waiting periods and red flag laws, we're just going to immediately descend into confiscation?

Exactly the point that I've been trying to make. "If you give them an inch, they'll take a mile" is not how government operates. If they feel that a new bill oversteps its bounds, they can do what they've always done--whether as the majority of minority party--and throw a giant fucking wrench in it. Even a heavily slanted House and Senate can't just start dismantling Amendments.

The idea that, if they let go of the rope for even a split second, all of their rights come tumbling down is such bogus, fear-mongering propaganda that they've successfully used to trick the simpletons in their base and keep them in line for decades. Brilliant, really.

[BabaYaga 15202]

7 hours ago, NotActuallyALonghorn said:

Just an FYI, the gun show loophole and person to person sales are the same thing. It was a compromise that allowed the background check bill to be passed.

This.  You close the so called "loophole", you are requiring a background check on every private sale of every firearm in the country...which of course has nothing to do with gun shows and everything to do with gun registration

If you want to keep fucking this chicken, call it what it is - a private seller loophole. 

[Chopper 17126]

9 hours ago, NotActuallyALonghorn said:

You asked, so here is a prime example of your lies and attempts to polarize things to state where nothing gets done.

Cry more. I asked you to name a lie and you have none, just arguably irrelevant dicta and random, questionably accurate bullshit you think I should have included in my statements. If you think my opinions have an effect on "polarizing things so that nothing gets done" you clearly belong in a mental hospital asap. 

Edited June 5, 2022 by Chopper
questionable - questionably

[Chopper 17126]

1 hour ago, BabaYaga said:

This.  You close the so called "loophole", you are requiring a background check on every private sale of every firearm in the country...which of course has nothing to do with gun shows and everything to do with gun registration

If you want to keep fucking this chicken, call it what it is - a private seller loophole. 

It's not like "gun shows" are a giant racket designed to take advantage of the private sale loophole. Oh wait.

[Chopper 17126]

10 hours ago, NotActuallyALonghorn said:

 

The most famous example of straw purchases is Operation Fast and Furious, in which federal law enforcement agents instructed licensed firearms dealers to allow the sale of some 2000 guns to suspected straw purchasers to supposedly track them into Mexico and dismantle the gun running rings. This was done under the Obama administration. Only they didn't really do any tracking, and previous experiences with similar programs under the Bush administration showed its ineffectiveness. But they pushed through all the while decreasing controls to make it even more ineffective. History pretty clearly shows that the Democrats have had a big hand in allowing straw sales of guns to Mexico.

 

 

Operation Fast and Furious was years ago. It was a law enforcement operation designed to capture criminals that was not handled well, to say the least. It's not the first, and it won't be the last, law enforcement operation that gets bungled. It has nothing to do with the statistic I cited which is based on gun seizures in Mexico by the Mexican government, and the amount of those seizures which get traced back to the US. 80 percent. It's not as high in some Central American countries, such as El Salvador (50% of guns seized for criminal activity traced back to the US). Guns heading to Mexico continue to pour across the border, despite no ongoing Opration F&F, and many get interdicted before they get there. Laredo seems to be the most frequent crossing point, based on the number of interdictions both from US and MX border enforcement.

You accused me of spreading false info. Yet it is you who's wildly jumping to conclusions. You're talking out of your ass and spreading lies. To your credit, I don't know whether you're just a disingenuous twat or if you're just incredibly stupid.  

Quote

I'll give you credit for editing your claim that Republicans repealed the assault weapons ban, but that even then you are still going about your game of stoking division so that nothing gets done.

It was a minor edit. I originally wrote they "overturned" the assault weapons ban and that's basically true as a general descriptor but not technically accurate. They didn't have to overturn it, they merely allowed it to expire and DID NOTHING to replace it. They claimed to have some of the same problems around specific details that some posters here are arguing about (which gun, modifications, plastic, blah blah blah) but when they had the chance to write it so that they had no complaints, they just let it expire and caused a flood in this country of weapons that belong on the battlefield. Don't blame me - own your vote for a political party that's actively trying to turn this country into a much more dangerous place with a shittier quality of life for all but the wealthiest.

Edited June 5, 2022 by Chopper

[Chopper 17126]

[Chopper 17126]

 

[Chopper 17126]

 

[deadshank 24651]

My neighbor across the street recently died from a heart attack.  His widow contacted me about 2 pistols, a 20-ga pump and a .243 bolt action.   She has no use for them.  One pistol is a junker .22 revolver, the other is a Dan Wesson .357 / 8” barrel which is actually worth something to a DW cult member.   The 20-ga pump is a meh oddity that could find a home and I’ll take the .243 for donor action and have it rebuilt into a .308 bench rifle.  
 

All that said and Surly wiseacre jokes aside yet forthcoming, should she be responsible for running a background check on me?  She wants me to have them or sell what I can.  Of course, I will give her the sale proceeds.  (BTW, Collectors Firearms has suspended trades and purchasing used firearms for a period until July-ish so that’s out the window and now Gunbroker.com is looming in the horizon).
 

I’m not against background checks.  I don’t like lunatics, criminals or ax grinders to begin with; much less armed.  
 

How far down do we drill in the name of “sensible” gun control measures?  

[Brisketexan 104465]

My neighbor across the street recently died from a heart attack.  His widow contacted me about 2 pistols, a 20-ga pump and a .243 bolt action.   She has no use for them.  One pistol is a junker .22 revolver, the other is a Dan Wesson .357 / 8” barrel which is actually worth something to a DW cult member.   The 20-ga pump is a meh oddity that could find a home and I’ll take the .243 for donor action and have it rebuilt into a .308 bench rifle.  
 
All that said and Surly wiseacre jokes aside yet forthcoming, should she be responsible for running a background check on me?  She wants me to have them or sell what I can.  Of course, I will give her the sale proceeds.  (BTW, Collectors Firearms has suspended trades and purchasing used firearms for a period until July-ish so that’s out the window and now Gunbroker.com is looming in the horizon).
 
I’m not against background checks.  I don’t like lunatics, criminals or ax grinders to begin with; much less armed.  
 
How far down do we drill in the name of “sensible” gun control measures?  

I did a similar transaction with a neighbor a few years ago in similar circumstances - obviously, there are no records of it because it was a private transaction.
There could be a very easy way to do it - a local gun store with a FFL could provide it as a service. Bring the guns in, with the paperwork. Run it through the system, charge $25 for the first firearm, $10 for each additional, or something like that. Store makes a fee, nothing huge but an actual revenue stream. Buyer and seller follow the law, for a manageable cost. Easy peasy. I’d have no problem with that.

[hornian 5201]

1 minute ago, Brisketexan said:

I did a similar transaction with a neighbor a few years ago in similar circumstances - obviously, there are no records of it because it was a private transaction.
There could be a very easy way to do it - a local gun store with a FFL could provide it as a service. Bring the guns in, with the paperwork. Run it through the system, charge $25 for the first firearm, $10 for each additional, or something like that. Store makes a fee, nothing huge but an actual revenue stream. Buyer and seller follow the law, for a manageable cost. Easy peasy. I’d have no problem with that.

I bought a handgun from a poster on one of the old sites years ago. He wouldn’t sell it to me without going through a registered firearms dealer, which I was fine with. No skin off my teeth; and it added a liability protection for the seller if I turned around and used the gun for a crime that he had done everything in his power to make sure I was not a lunatic. 

[Chopper 17126]

Some states require private firearm sales to be processed through someone with a FFL.

I don't think the private sale loophole aka the gunshow loophole is a major problem, but it is probably worth clarifying. My impression is it's become ingrained in the in-your-face tactics of the Give Me Muh Gun Lobby.

Quote

"There is a huge loophole in federal law, but it isn't for gun shows," UCLA law professor Adam Winkler said. "What is called the gun-show loophole is misnamed. It should be the ‘private sale loophole’ or the ‘background check loophole.’ ... The reason people talk about gun shows is that they are easily accessible marketplaces for people who don't want to be subject to a background check to find non-licensed gun sellers."

Gabriel Chin, a professor at UC Davis School of Law, told PolitiFact that there is a loophole in the sense that it has not been clear how many firearms one has to sell before one is required to obtain a license.

"Remember, gun shows are mainly on weekends, so there is room for someone to claim ‘this is a hobby or part of my collection’ when it is also a substantial business," Chin said.

Gary Kleck, a criminologist at Florida State University, said the term "gun show loophole" is misleading if it implies that the law didn’t intend to exempt some sellers.

"The term ‘loophole’ suggests that it was a minor, unintended flaw in the design of the law, something inadvertently overlooked by lawmakers, when it was actually the very intentional result of a carefully worked-out political compromise between those who wanted background checks on all gun acquisitions and those who did not want any at all," he said.

https://www.politifact.com/article/2016/jan/07/politifact-sheet-3-things-know-about-gun-show-loop/

 

[CHIEF 5057]

14 minutes ago, hornian said:

I bought a handgun from a poster on one of the old sites years ago. He wouldn’t sell it to me without going through a registered firearms dealer, which I was fine with. No skin off my teeth; and it added a liability protection for the seller if I turned around and used the gun for a crime that he had done everything in his power to make sure I was not a lunatic. 

I've never sold a gun. There are a few people in my trust tree that I would have no problem selling to, as I have known them for years, and have been around them while they had firearms. But someone that I don't really know? Forget it. We are meeting at the local gun store for a complete background check, and doing things the right way.

CHIEF

[Handcruser 2805]

I did a similar transaction with a neighbor a few years ago in similar circumstances - obviously, there are no records of it because it was a private transaction.
There could be a very easy way to do it - a local gun store with a FFL could provide it as a service. Bring the guns in, with the paperwork. Run it through the system, charge $25 for the first firearm, $10 for each additional, or something like that. Store makes a fee, nothing huge but an actual revenue stream. Buyer and seller follow the law, for a manageable cost. Easy peasy. I’d have no problem with that.

We already do that. Any gun store in the country will do that.

[Brisketexan 104465]

We already do that. Any gun store in the country will do that.

I figured most would. Just think they’ll obviously see a lot more such business of it becomes mandatory.

[fattyflattie 4636]

I wish my FFL only charged $25. Those days are long gone around here. 

[atomheartbevo 89362]

20 hours ago, aggie08 said:

*This isn't even a red vs. blue issue anymore. It's hard line gun nut super minority vs. literally everyone else. But still nothing can get done because of who has that minority's back.

It has become exactly that, and it is a minority of gun owners.

If these were tornados hitting schools at random - killing 22 kids and teachers here, 19 there, 6 here, 10 there, etc., we'd be having all kinds of conversations about procedures, construction, etc., and basically anything to mitigate the chances of kids dying due to tornados.  Nobody would be opposed to it.

[Homercles 10205]

No, at least one person would be opposed of it ‘only’ killed 100 kids/people a year…

[Pato del Muerto 52322]

12 minutes ago, atomheartbevo said:

It has become exactly that, and it is a minority of gun owners.

If these were tornados hitting schools at random - killing 22 kids and teachers here, 19 there, 6 here, 10 there, etc., we'd be having all kinds of conversations about procedures, construction, etc., and basically anything to mitigate the chances of kids dying due to tornados.  Nobody would be opposed to it.

We’d also have to put up with some losers talking about the tornadoes being produced purposefully by a company, country, or political party to kill children for reasons. 

[atomheartbevo 89362]

7 hours ago, aggie08 said:

Exactly the point that I've been trying to make. "If you give them an inch, they'll take a mile" is not how government operates. If they feel that a new bill oversteps its bounds, they can do what they've always done--whether as the majority of minority party--and throw a giant fucking wrench in it. Even a heavily slanted House and Senate can't just start dismantling Amendments.

The idea that, if they let go of the rope for even a split second, all of their rights come tumbling down is such bogus, fear-mongering propaganda that they've successfully used to trick the simpletons in their base and keep them in line for decades. Brilliant, really.

I've had this conversation before with I think @Brisketexan about how organizations like the NRA aren't really about gun rights, but more about gun sales, because they aren't trying to shape any actual conversations, they are just trying to keep the flood gates open for the manufacturers.

 If I were a "gun rights" organization, and playing the long game, and looking out for the interests of gun owners (not gun manufacturers, gun owners), I would be concerned that we are headed towards a point in time where we will have an intersection of people who are fed up with the shootings, and who have a decent majority in Congress and who control the White House, and that we will get an Assault Weapons Ban II. When this intersection might happen, I don't know (could be two years, 4 years, who knows), but we do keep inching closer and closer.  I have a feeling we will eventually see a full-blown livestream of kids being slaughtered, and it'll make it all over the internet, for the mainstream public to view if they so desire and that could be the tipping point.

As a gun rights organization, setting aside public anger, I would be keenly aware that we've already had the Assault Weapons Ban that ran from 1994 - 2004, and only ended because Congress allowed it to sunset, and this legislation was passed long before Columbine, Parkland, Sandy Hook, Uvalde, etc.  I might even have a printout or something about the AWB hanging on a wall in my office, to remind me that we had such legislation, and that it stood up in the courts (and it provided 10 years of data on legal challenges, so an AWB II could probably be even more airtight).

The wise move for gun rights organizations would be, right now, to sit down at the table and get behind legislation such as red flag laws that could prevent some mass shootings, and to shape the legislation to have the smallest impact on gun owners that's possible - red flag laws to prevent mentally ill or violent folks from getting guns, versus things like the Assault Weapons Ban that could affect the ability of all law-abiding gun owners to buy or posses or whatever, certain firearms/accessories.

If the gun rights organizations aren't sitting down at the table and having a hand in crafting legislation that could help reduce mass shootings, eventually we could reach a point where there will be legislation crafted, and if the NRA, etc. shows up, they'll be told to fuck off, and they'll be sitting on the outside looking in.  Plenty of members of these organizations will then realize that these orgs cared more about keeping the flood gates open for gun sales than looking out for gun owners. 

[fattyflattie 4636]

https://www.businessinsider.com/democrat-ar-15-rifles-tax-congress-gun-control-biden-administration-2022-6
 

Proposed 1000% tax on any firearm with more than 1 military style characteristic. 

[Jkwellborn 6649]

https://www.businessinsider.com/democrat-ar-15-rifles-tax-congress-gun-control-biden-administration-2022-6
 
Proposed 1000% tax on any firearm with more than 1 military style characteristic. 

So all of them.

[FartingMonk 3606]

I'm not opposed to a 30 day waiting period.  I'm opposed to a 10000 percent tax.  I'm opposed to an age limit anywhere past the voting age or age to be drafted.  The red flag laws become a little more silppery to me but it's because of the government and their policies.  We pass laws that seem to be to a good idea but we totally fuck people with it.  No knock raids for instance.  Sound like a good idea.  Catch the bad guys by surprise.  Nope we end up going to the wrong house.  Foreiture laws seem like a good idea, nope we out right steal from people.  And that's how I feel like we are going to go with red flag laws. The dude who is angry at his local city council is going to get his door kickdown because council woman says she fears for her life because he was loud and said he needed potholes fixed.  And you can get anyone to sign off on anything.

 

 

 

[Dahobbs 17420]

26 minutes ago, FartingMonk said:

I'm not opposed to a 30 day waiting period.  I'm opposed to a 10000 percent tax.  I'm opposed to an age limit anywhere past the voting age or age to be drafted.  The red flag laws become a little more silppery to me but it's because of the government and their policies.  We pass laws that seem to be to a good idea but we totally fuck people with it.  No knock raids for instance.  Sound like a good idea.  Catch the bad guys by surprise.  Nope we end up going to the wrong house.  Foreiture laws seem like a good idea, nope we out right steal from people.  And that's how I feel like we are going to go with red flag laws. The dude who is angry at his local city council is going to get his door kickdown because council woman says she fears for her life because he was loud and said he needed potholes fixed.  And you can get anyone to sign off on anything.

 

 

 

Why are you opposed to age limits equal to the age to buy alcohol? Rent a car? What is the problem with that, especially since school shootings are pretty much done by young males and are exactly the people that shouldn't be able to buy guns?

[FartingMonk 3606]

8 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

Why are you opposed to age limits equal to the age to buy alcohol? Rent a car? What is the problem with that, especially since school shootings are pretty much done by young males and are exactly the people that shouldn't be able to buy guns?

Renting a car isn't a government policy so that's moot.  I feel that voting is the most fundamental thing a person can do.  And if we entrust a person to vote then we need to entrust them to all other things.  If you want to make 21 the voting age.  Then make that with the guns and the draft.  

[Samson's Wig 3168]

56 minutes ago, FartingMonk said:

Renting a car isn't a government policy so that's moot.  I feel that voting is the most fundamental thing a person can do.  And if we entrust a person to vote then we need to entrust them to all other things.  If you want to make 21 the voting age.  Then make that with the guns and the draft.  

Fuck yes voting age should be raised to at least 25, but 25 is too old to start soldiering. Drafting a bunch of fat fucks with fully developed brains is no way to rapidly build a ground force.  You need them young and impressionable.   In any event, a draft sucks for anyone at any age, but it's also something we're highly unlikely to ever see again.  Trying to develop any kind of corollary from draft age is silly at best. 

 

Anyway, just checking in to see if you guys made any headway on solving this issue.  Looks like it's the same boring old shit all over again, so please carry on.