quote:

ORIGINAL: WhoreMods

It would simplify things a lot if they could just come up with a list of people who are banned from buying firearms and distribute it, yes. It wouldn't be any more complicated or difficult than the no fly list, and the possibility of legal reprisals for selling guns to people on a banned list might be a deterrent to licensed gun sellers as well. That'd be a definite win if they made an effort to enforce the legislation that is already in place to stop the mentally ill from buying guns.

Good point about the hogs. I didn't realise those went around in packs. From the way you were talking about the buggers elsewhere, I thought they were rogue males wandering around in a strop on their own, or something.

quote:

ORIGINAL: jlf1961

quote:

ORIGINAL: WhoreMods

It would simplify things a lot if they could just come up with a list of people who are banned from buying firearms and distribute it, yes. It wouldn't be any more complicated or difficult than the no fly list, and the possibility of legal reprisals for selling guns to people on a banned list might be a deterrent to licensed gun sellers as well. That'd be a definite win if they made an effort to enforce the legislation that is already in place to stop the mentally ill from buying guns.

Good point about the hogs. I didn't realise those went around in packs. From the way you were talking about the buggers elsewhere, I thought they were rogue males wandering around in a strop on their own, or something.

The back ground check is done by computer, the persons ID information, along wish social security number is typed in and is checked against the National Crime Database maintained by the justice department.

The things that prohibit a person from buying a gun are:

Has been convicted of, or is under indictment for, a crime punishable by imprisonment for more than one year
Is a fugitive from justice;
Is an unlawful user of or addicted to a controlled substance
Is underage
Has been adjudicated as a mental defective or committed to a mental institution
Is unlawfully in the United States or has been admitted to the U.S. under a nonimmigrant visa;
Has been dishonorably discharged from the military;
Has renounced his or her U.S. citizenship;
Is subject to a court order restraining him or her from harassing, stalking or threatening an intimate partner, his or her child or a child of a partner or engaging in other conduct that would place an intimate partner in reasonable fear of bodily injury to the partner or child; or
Has been convicted of a misdemeanor offense of domestic violence

Every bit of that information would be found on the National Crime Database IF inputting data was mandatory for every jurisdiction.

But it isn't. Putting data into the data base is done on a purely voluntary basis for each police department, sheriff's department or state court, hell it is not even mandatory for them to put it into a state database.

However, every law enforcement agency accesses that database when they run someone's ID information during a traffic stop or they make an arrest on any charge.

See the issue?

quote:

ORIGINAL: WhoreMods

quote:

ORIGINAL: jlf1961

quote:

ORIGINAL: WhoreMods

quote:

ORIGINAL: Greta75

Zero Gun Ownership works in my country to keep gun crime down. No guns, no gun crime.

But we don't need Guns for hunting for food. So..., might be a different case in US.

Not really. You don't use a bolt action rifle or a shotgun for spree killing, or even a robbery.

And contrary to what the anti gun people would have you believe, the 'assault rifles' are rare in spree and mass shootings and robberies, the most used gun is a semi auto pistol.

Assault rifles are used less than 15% of the time. In 2016, it was 11% according to the FBI files.

Of the 133 incidents last year that qualifies as mass shootings, only one was there evidence the shooter was prohibited by federal law from possessing guns due to severe mental illness. In 15 other incidents (11 percent), there was there was evidence that concerns about the mental health of the shooter had been brought to the attention of a medical practitioner, school official, or legal authority prior to the shooting.

Of the rest, there was sufficient evidence to judge whether the shooter was a prohibited gun possessor in 116 of the 133 incidents (87%). In other words, IF the National Criminal Data Base (which also would have records of people with restraining orders against them) was mandatory for all jurisdictions to use (meaning that all of the things that are on the Federal Firearms regulations that would prevent a person from legally buying a gun was reported by all law enforcement agencies and courts) 116 of the shootings probably would not have taken place with a legally purchased gun because the information would have shown up blocking the sale.

This fact is something the anti gun lobby either chooses to ignore completely, or really could care less about how it affects gun purchases. Instead they choose to push bans, and other extreme measures.

As for semi automatic rifles, the so called assault rifle.

I mentioned in another thread about Feral hogs.

I earn extra cash eradicating Feral hogs in my area. A bolt action will not cut it since hogs travel in packs, and around here, you are dealing with 15 to 30 animals.

And while the goal is one shot one kill, some of these animals can shrug off being hit by 2 or 3 large bore rounds, unless you can actually get them in the perfect spot for a fast kill, and even then they may shrug it off. I witnessed personally a big boar take a .308 (7.62mm NATO) between the eyes and keep charging and ripped up a 4x4 tire on the truck my partner and I were shooting from.

It took 6 more shots to put that bastard down.

A lot of hog hunters are going to the .458 socom which is a large round and is fired from a modified AR15 style rifle.

And I have seen a few boars this year that I would rather have a fucking minigun to deal with (or a 20 mm anti tank rifle.)

It would simplify things a lot if they could just come up with a list of people who are banned from buying firearms and distribute it, yes. It wouldn't be any more complicated or difficult than the no fly list, and the possibility of legal reprisals for selling guns to people on a banned list might be a deterrent to licensed gun sellers as well. That'd be a definite win if they made an effort to enforce the legislation that is already in place to stop the mentally ill from buying guns.

Good point about the hogs. I didn't realise those went around in packs. From the way you were talking about the buggers elsewhere, I thought they were rogue males wandering around in a strop on their own, or something.

quote:

ORIGINAL: WhoreMods
Not really. You don't use a bolt action rifle or a shotgun for spree killing, or even a robbery.

quote:

ORIGINAL: jlf1961

quote:

ORIGINAL: WhoreMods

It would simplify things a lot if they could just come up with a list of people who are banned from buying firearms and distribute it, yes. It wouldn't be any more complicated or difficult than the no fly list, and the possibility of legal reprisals for selling guns to people on a banned list might be a deterrent to licensed gun sellers as well. That'd be a definite win if they made an effort to enforce the legislation that is already in place to stop the mentally ill from buying guns.

Good point about the hogs. I didn't realise those went around in packs. From the way you were talking about the buggers elsewhere, I thought they were rogue males wandering around in a strop on their own, or something.

The back ground check is done by computer, the persons ID information, along wish social security number is typed in and is checked against the National Crime Database maintained by the justice department.

The things that prohibit a person from buying a gun are:

Has been convicted of, or is under indictment for, a crime punishable by imprisonment for more than one year
Is a fugitive from justice;
Is an unlawful user of or addicted to a controlled substance
Is underage
Has been adjudicated as a mental defective or committed to a mental institution
Is unlawfully in the United States or has been admitted to the U.S. under a nonimmigrant visa;
Has been dishonorably discharged from the military;
Has renounced his or her U.S. citizenship;
Is subject to a court order restraining him or her from harassing, stalking or threatening an intimate partner, his or her child or a child of a partner or engaging in other conduct that would place an intimate partner in reasonable fear of bodily injury to the partner or child; or
Has been convicted of a misdemeanor offense of domestic violence

Every bit of that information would be found on the National Crime Database IF inputting data was mandatory for every jurisdiction.

But it isn't. Putting data into the data base is done on a purely voluntary basis for each police department, sheriff's department or state court, hell it is not even mandatory for them to put it into a state database.

However, every law enforcement agency accesses that database when they run someone's ID information during a traffic stop or they make an arrest on any charge.

See the issue?

quote:


And who says?? You?? The firearms you mention would suffice and are capable of as much or more carnage.

quote:

ORIGINAL: WhoreMods

Another of those "fuck the Feds, we run our State how we want" things, then. Figures.

quote:




Actually, it was a bunch of Liberal congressman (pro gun control to boot) that keep arguing that making the system mandatory puts undue cost on the local and state jurisdictions.

A logic that completely eludes me, since the people that run the checks whenever it is requested by a patrol officer are sitting at their terminals waiting for such a request,

AND

The software that is used to input convictions, restraining orders etc for the computer record is no different than the software that would automatically upload the data to the National Crime Database EXCEPT of course that when it uploads to the state system, it would automatically upload to the national system and would utilize the same cubical bound clerks with zero added work on the clerks part.

It boils down to the simple fact that the tool that is already in place and would prevent people that anti gun proponents use as examples as to why guns should be banned and would pretty much prevent these people from going to a sporting goods store, pawn shop or what have you to buy a gun.

BUT

As the anti gun people point out, it would not prevent these same people from buying a gun illegally from someone who is not a licensed dealer.

EVEN THOUGH

Buying a gun from a street dealer is a bit harder than the tv or movies would have you believe. It seems that the anti gun folks think that to buy a gun illegally all one has to do is go to a local bar, street corner etc and announce, "I want to buy a gun and cant do it legally" and they will have 30 dozen people trying to sell them one.

Then they scream about gun show dealers, and the fact that these people do not run back ground checks, completely ignoring the fact that the sponsors of said gun shows have made it a requirement that anyone selling firearms at shows and use a booth that the got through the organizer must run back ground checks in order to get a booth.

And ignoring that simple fact (one that the NRA does not advertise, although it was their idea some years ago) that their are normally three to six undercover ATF agents at these events who's job it is to try and buy guns from people without having a back ground check.

Which brings us to the big shocker.

As much as anti gun proponents attack and criticize the NRA, that organization has down more to promote gun safety, improve control legislation, AND try and keep guns out of the people the law says cannot own a gun than any one is willing to give them credit for.

The NRA has long been aware of (you would have to be brain dead not to be aware of) no less than 3 rulings by SCOTUS that could be used to through out half of the gun regulations passed in the last 2 decades. What is really funny about that is that the Anti gun lobby does not give them credit for not pushing the fact.

And it all boils down to rulings by SCOTUS as to what qualifies as a weapon that would actually be equivalent to or part of a military weapon with actual applications in a combat environment.

The case in question dealt with a sawed off shotgun, however in their ruling, the supreme court in part said that because the possession of a sawed-off double barrel shotgun does not have a reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia, the Second Amendment does not protect the possession of such an instrument.

The US attorney in the case argued that:

Attorneys for the United States argued four points:

The NFA is intended as a revenue-collecting measure and therefore within the authority of the Department of the Treasury.
The defendants transported the shotgun from Oklahoma to Arkansas, and therefore used it in interstate commerce.
The Second Amendment protects only the ownership of military-type weapons appropriate for use in an organized militia.
The "double barrel 12-gauge Stevens shotgun having a barrel less than 18 inches in length, bearing identification number 76230" was never used in any militia organization.


Now since the current laws regarding state militias indicate that any male over the age of 16 and under the age of 45 can be called to act as part of the militia by order of the state governor, and the state militia is not subject to command by FEDERAL authorities (negating the idea that the National Guard is the modern equivalent of a state militia since it is subject to being placed under Federal control.)


_____________________________

Boy, it sure would be nice if we had some grenades, don't you think?

You cannot control who comes into your life, but you can control which airlock you throw them out of.

Paranoid Paramilitary Gun Loving Conspiracy Theorist AND EQUAL OPPORTUNI

(in reply to WhoreMods)

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: WhoreMods

quote:

ORIGINAL: jlf1961

quote:

ORIGINAL: WhoreMods

quote:

ORIGINAL: Greta75

Zero Gun Ownership works in my country to keep gun crime down. No guns, no gun crime.

But we don't need Guns for hunting for food. So..., might be a different case in US.

Not really. You don't use a bolt action rifle or a shotgun for spree killing, or even a robbery.

And contrary to what the anti gun people would have you believe, the 'assault rifles' are rare in spree and mass shootings and robberies, the most used gun is a semi auto pistol.

Assault rifles are used less than 15% of the time. In 2016, it was 11% according to the FBI files.

Of the 133 incidents last year that qualifies as mass shootings, only one was there evidence the shooter was prohibited by federal law from possessing guns due to severe mental illness. In 15 other incidents (11 percent), there was there was evidence that concerns about the mental health of the shooter had been brought to the attention of a medical practitioner, school official, or legal authority prior to the shooting.

Of the rest, there was sufficient evidence to judge whether the shooter was a prohibited gun possessor in 116 of the 133 incidents (87%). In other words, IF the National Criminal Data Base (which also would have records of people with restraining orders against them) was mandatory for all jurisdictions to use (meaning that all of the things that are on the Federal Firearms regulations that would prevent a person from legally buying a gun was reported by all law enforcement agencies and courts) 116 of the shootings probably would not have taken place with a legally purchased gun because the information would have shown up blocking the sale.

This fact is something the anti gun lobby either chooses to ignore completely, or really could care less about how it affects gun purchases. Instead they choose to push bans, and other extreme measures.

As for semi automatic rifles, the so called assault rifle.

I mentioned in another thread about Feral hogs.

I earn extra cash eradicating Feral hogs in my area. A bolt action will not cut it since hogs travel in packs, and around here, you are dealing with 15 to 30 animals.

And while the goal is one shot one kill, some of these animals can shrug off being hit by 2 or 3 large bore rounds, unless you can actually get them in the perfect spot for a fast kill, and even then they may shrug it off. I witnessed personally a big boar take a .308 (7.62mm NATO) between the eyes and keep charging and ripped up a 4x4 tire on the truck my partner and I were shooting from.

It took 6 more shots to put that bastard down.

A lot of hog hunters are going to the .458 socom which is a large round and is fired from a modified AR15 style rifle.

And I have seen a few boars this year that I would rather have a fucking minigun to deal with (or a 20 mm anti tank rifle.)

It would simplify things a lot if they could just come up with a list of people who are banned from buying firearms and distribute it, yes. It wouldn't be any more complicated or difficult than the no fly list, and the possibility of legal reprisals for selling guns to people on a banned list might be a deterrent to licensed gun sellers as well. That'd be a definite win if they made an effort to enforce the legislation that is already in place to stop the mentally ill from buying guns.

Good point about the hogs. I didn't realise those went around in packs. From the way you were talking about the buggers elsewhere, I thought they were rogue males wandering around in a strop on their own, or something.

The no fly list , as currently formed denies due process. What do you think the current background checks are designed to do?

quote:

In the sixties, the US educational system was ranked in the top five in the world, now we rank 14.

quote:

I dont see anywhere in the constitution where we the people agreed to regulation. Do you?

quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML

quote:

In the sixties, the US educational system was ranked in the top five in the world, now we rank 14.

Sometimes you just can't overcome historic events like WW2 recovery in Europe and Asia. Furthermore, the comparisons to mono-cultural nations like Finland and Korea are bogus.

quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML

quote:

I dont see anywhere in the constitution where we the people agreed to regulation. Do you?

A well regulated militia being the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

We excluded from protection only “those weapons not
typically possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful
purposes.”

So, all bearable arms are not protected I would think you could not set up a machine gun in the front window of your home, for example.

quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML

quote:

I dont see anywhere in the constitution where we the people agreed to regulation. Do you?

A well regulated militia being the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

We excluded from protection only “those weapons not
typically possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful
purposes.”

So, all bearable arms are not protected I would think you could not set up a machine gun in the front window of your home, for example.

quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML

quote:

I dont see anywhere in the constitution where we the people agreed to regulation. Do you?

A well regulated militia being the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

We excluded from protection only “those weapons not
typically possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful
purposes.”

So, all bearable arms are not protected I would think you could not set up a machine gun in the front window of your home, for example.

quote:

Any person traveling by horseback on a trip that will keep him from his residence for longer than 24 hours, will keep on his person or within easy reach one revolver and one repeating rifles and carry no less than 50 cartridges for each.

quote:

In order to maintain a functioning Citizen Militia, which is important to the security of our Nation, Right to keep and bear weaponry which allows us to defend ourselves from threats abroad and at home, shall not be reduced in any way.

double Irony - Because the capacity of War have expanded well outside what the original founding fathers could of ever expected - Technically the 2nd Amendment should protect us so that Private Citizens could Purchase and maintain Infantry Based Anti-Tank and Anti-Air weaponry such as the RPG-7 and Stinger Missiles to protect us from Tanks, Armored Cars, Jet Aircraft, Helicopters, and Combat Drones which are now prominent threats on any given battlefield.

quote:

Actually, there is no law that prohibits such a display of a weapon, however, there is the long supported point that a law enforcement officer can request such a display be removed as that it can be considered a possible threat to the welfare of the general public.

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML

quote:

I dont see anywhere in the constitution where we the people agreed to regulation. Do you?

A well regulated militia being the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

We excluded from protection only “those weapons not
typically possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful
purposes.”

So, all bearable arms are not protected I would think you could not set up a machine gun in the front window of your home, for example.

I didn't see where the Constitution excluded any arms. At the time the Constitution was written people privately owned cannons. so maybe you should rethink your position.

quote:

ORIGINAL: heavyblinker

quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML

quote:

In the sixties, the US educational system was ranked in the top five in the world, now we rank 14.

Sometimes you just can't overcome historic events like WW2 recovery in Europe and Asia. Furthermore, the comparisons to mono-cultural nations like Finland and Korea are bogus.

Post-60s was also the time when every other western democracy started to develop into the more left-leaning nations they are today, all with superior education systems today.

I haven't actually looked into it, but it makes you wonder it's a case of having ruined a good thing or a case of failing to evolve.