Gun Control

I wonder how many time ol Charleton Heston's rolled over in his grave reading this.

Also - I own 3 handguns, 2 shotguns and a lever-action rifle.

I am not anti-gun and would love to own a few more if I could afford them.

I also have a couple compound bows and have recently been looking into a long bow.

"Major fail. Obama didn't change the law ONCE AGAIN allowing firearms in National Parks. Bush did. And the legislative action for that to happen took place long before Obama, taking effect January 9th. All Obama fanboys should know he was sworn into office January 20th - 11 days after the legislation took effect."

Not that I'm an Obama "fanboy" but I remember a different scenario.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2009-08-15-obama-saturday_N.htm

"A bill that Obama signed in May permits licensed gun owners to bring firearms into national parks and wildlife refuges as long as state law allows it."

Granted, the legislation was buried in a credit card reform bill that repubs basically DARED Obama to veto. Surprisingly to a lot of people, he signed the bill into law. He pissed off a lot of lefties by doing so. I don't know why everyone has to make up stories about Obama when there are factual items to dissect and expound on. It's not like anyone lacks for good material.

motokid wrote:

@ Jager

You a big Glenn Beck fan? You sure sound like one.

This is your response to my pointing out that Obama is telling people he's working "under the radar" to implement more gun control, and his spokesmen are saying they intend to see how they can bypass Congress - after you suggested people should follow an article you posted about not worrying about Obama? Saying I'm a Beck fan is your defense of what you wrote?

WOW! What a rebuttal!

You're consistent, I'll give you that - that's about as strong as your defense of the article you posted about how Montana was a "hotbed of extremists" (and you being from a state with twice as many hate crimes and all).

But, Beck... Apparently you're the Beck fan - how else could you compare my opinions to whatever he writes without reading or watching Beck to know what he says in the first place?

Unless of course, you actually don't read Beck, or watch his TV show, or whatever - you just blindly follow what others say about him?

Or are you just using "Beck" as a hot topic button to try and associate with me, where everybody is supposed to nod their heads up in down in agreement with you, like those little bobblehead toy dogs in the back windows of cars, because Beck cannot possibly ever get anything right, whatever his views are?

No, I'm not a Beck fan. But quite possibly we share some of the same ideas.

Like maybe this one:

That the Constitution and Bill of Rights was specifically written to restrain and limit government, not empower it. That the Bill of Rights was to protect the rights of the individual, not to be interpreted as some collective statist opinion of what our group rights and freedoms are. And the words "shall not be infringed" should be fairly simple for anyone with even a grade school education to understand. The only question remaining is whether that person with at least a grade school education respects the intent of those words or not.

Quote :

D) This train wreck we are living through was started long before Obama took office.

Cue for the usual: "Hey, it's not Obama's fault..." excuses and whining.

I wonder when he and his apologists will ever start taking credit for the results of his actions? Or if they only try and take credit for the positive, and all the negative forevermore is to be written off as somebody else's fault?

I wonder when he and his apologists will ever admit he was also contributing to this "train wreck" with his political activities before he became The Anointed One?

Quote :

E) I'll have to look into some of the crap you posted - but it's Saturday evening and I just don't care that much.

You care enough to start the BS topics you do, but never enough to defend them. Essentially, drive-by smear campaigns, whether it's a state or gun owners. Big surprise there.

Scholarship has obviously never been your strong point, so we won't hold your breath on that improving anytime soon. Whether it's opening topics on Montana as supposedly a "hotbed of extremism" (twice as many hate crimes in YOUR state, remember), or on gun control.

Any illusion you're trying to maintain about being unbiased is pretty much destroyed by your dismissing as "crap" a rebuttal of the junk you posted - before bothering to even look at it. Your mind is already made up - but it was before anyways, so no surprise theres.

One thing consistent about you Motokid - you can never post a rational, logical, supported rebuttal to anything. All you can do is come up with intellectual comments like "There is no question", "It's beyond dispute", "It's crap", etc. People who can do no better than that pretty much demonstrate they're narrow minded idealogues without an individual thought of their own. Which is why I don't write in response to those posts of yours with any illusions about you opening your mind and thinking a little. Guys like you never will, not now, not until the end of their lives.

I write in response so that people reading the junk you post - whether about Montana being a "hotbed of extremists" or anything else - have an opportunity to see the other side of the stuff you post. In the end, perhaps they'll still agree with you. But I do present a set of facts they can follow up on if they so choose to see for themselves.

But please, do present a rational rebuttal of the evidence showing Obama's entire career has been consistently, rabidly, anti-gun. If my comments about his being rabidly anti-gun truly is "crap", for a guy like you, that should be easy.

Quote :

I don't support Obama. I just think he's one heck of a lot better than Bush ever was.

Yeah, you've said that before. Even started your little poll thinking it would prove your point. And how did that work out for ya?

And of course, your post that all of us who are firearms owners should read an article assuring us we have nothing to fear from The Anointed One when it comes to gun control while he's working "under the radar" to do just that... nah... that's not support for him either.

Quote :

At least we've not started any new wars since Obama took office. That's the best thing I can say about him.

Thank God he didn't get us involved in.... oh.... Libya or some place like that. Or maybe diverting military fighter jets and strike aircraft to conduct covert strike operations in support of the regime in Yemen. You know - new wars in some place that never attacked us (as I remember you like to say).

Yeah... Obama's never done anything like that, thank God.

TBird1 wrote:

Not that I'm an Obama "fanboy" but I remember a different scenario.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2009-08-15-obama-saturday_N.htm

"A bill that Obama signed in May permits licensed gun owners to bring firearms into national parks and wildlife refuges as long as state law allows it."

Granted, the legislation was buried in a credit card reform bill that repubs basically DARED Obama to veto.

The reestablishment of the right to carry firearms happened before Obama, under Bush, just as I stated. The section of law reestablishing that right was quoted in that post, and it did occur before he ever took office.

The bill he signed later on - under the circumstances you correctly described - essentially changed the legislation so it would be impossible for the Department of the Interior to again pull this kind of backdoor attack on the Second Amendment as it related to the National Parks. In other words, the inserted legislation was intended to ensure it was just that much more difficult to undo what Bush had already done.

But local parkies here on the borders of Glacier National Parks had been pissing and moaning about how their would be blood running in the parks after the law had changed to allow firearms in the Parks months earlier (two years later, incidentally, and the blood hasn't started running yet). And if you search a bit, you'll see they attempted to find a court that would support their claims that Bush changed the law illegally, that proper environmental studies hadn't been done on the effects lead from bullets would have on the parks (like... thousands of tons of lead from bullets would be deposited...).

Here's Sarah Brady - the one who told us Obama is working "under the radar" on his gun control agenda - commenting on Bush changing the law as they started their legal challenges to that change Feb 12, 2009, before Obama was sworn in:
Brady Claims Bush Change On Guns In Parks Illegal

So no, Obama is not the one who allowed guns in Parks again - that was Bush. Obama just agreed to drive another nail into that coffin that Bush had already built in exchange for getting his credit card legislation passed.

I don't think that legislation ever should have been in there. First, I don't agree with omnibus bills in principle. Second, the Parks legislation Obama signed should have been presented to him as it's own separate legislation - so people could see how he passed a test on just how "gun-friendly" he is towards the Second Amendment and the individual right to bear arms for protection.

SheWolf wrote:

I wonder how many time ol Charleton Heston's rolled over in his grave reading this.

Well, if you got your knowledge about Charleton Heston from Michael Moore, you bought a load of propaganda. From the same guy who claimed in the same film he could get a gun just by walking in a bank and opening a bank account - sort of forgetting to admit he had to arrange that two weeks in advance so that all the background checks and paperwork could be done first.

The same Michael Moore who threatened to sue two Canadian documentary makers over their documentary on HIM and how much stuff he misrepresents and just plain makes up in his "documentaries".

Anyways, Heston isn't the one who will be spinning in his grave over these attacks on the Second Amendment.

It will be the Framers who are spinning over what is being done.

Naw, I don't follow Mike Moore. I can't see around that oopee ball of a body (I don't think anyone else can either for that matter). Just a play on watching the tennis ball go back and forth across the net kinda thing. Nothing better than (in this case, watching) a good debate.

"Obama just agreed to drive another nail into that coffin that Bush had already built..."

So it would still appear that Obama is NOT taking anyone's guns away.

Attacks on the second amendment????

Where? By whom?

There is a major issue with gun violence and murder rates in USoA.

Look at the simple statistics:

click me

or click me

Live close to a major US city and watch the news.

Gun violence in America is a HUGE problem. Gang related problems and guns are everyday stories in the news.

Trying to combat that on any level means making some sacrifices.

It's still beyond ridiculously EASY to walk into any firearms dealer and buy a gun. I can buy a Barrett 50 caliber if I have the money.
I can buy a .300 Mag. I can buy a 30.06. I can buy AR-15's, assault style rifles, handguns and ammunition galore all damn day long.

The Glenn Becks types that like to SCREAM that the sky is falling will tell you our rights are threatened every day are simply farting out of their mouths.

The gun industry profits from those kinds of statements so they certainly won't admit they are not true.

Gun rights are not being threatened by Obama any more than they've been threatened by any other sitting president.

It's just not true. Although I'm more than well aware that there are many MANY internet "sources" that will say otherwise, there are also many "sources" that said the world was going to end May 21st.

Waiting periods, background checks, and limits to how many weapons can be bought at any one time are not violations of your civil rights.
It's common sense stuff that makes perfect sense.

I'll fully agree that there's more than enough gun laws. I'l fully agree that many are ignored.
I'll fully agree that getting tougher with the laws we already have makes more sense than writing more laws.

But I also acknowledge we have a huge issue with guns in USofA and I recognize that combating that on some level is a necessary evil we must all learn to live with rather than finger point and call names.

Just as we have speed limits on roads, stop lights, and traffic courts, we also need regulations and restrictions for guns.

Not to hard to rationalize.

Before we simply allow something like 1 million military issue weapons (M1 Garand) to be brought into America, lets think about why there's a "need" for such a thing.

Do we really want to be #1 on the lists of gun violence and homicide?

TBird1 wrote:

So it would still appear that Obama is NOT taking anyone's guns away.

Well, Hitler didn't start gassing Jews until he was safe in his position either. Am I being facetious if I say perhaps he's been too busy using government agencies to smuggle guns OUT of the US to narco-terrorists in Mexico to get around to us yet?

He's not taking anyone's guns away - he's just using regulations to ensure 70 year old US built rifles can't come back to the US and be sold to Americans (although the ones that never left the US apparently are causing no problems whatsoever - in fact, the government continues to sell that same rifle to civilians).

He's not taking anyone's guns away - he's just got the BATF writing their recent study which would make many sporting firearms "assault rifles" and illegal to import.

Of course, we don't know what he's planning, except that we know he's working "under the radar" as he told Sarah Brady. More transparency from the Prez.

Is he stupid enough to try any outright bans and prohibitions before the next presidential election - with unemployment rates being what they are and his current popularity? Not likely. He's got enough problems trying to win a second term already.

But it's always been about incrementally chipping away at the Second Amendment - the only right in the Bill of Rights that the Framers thought was sufficiently important to add the words "shall not be infringed".

So you make it more and more difficult to obtain firearms (usually using the "it's for the children" argument), ban and prohibit more firearms, add more restrictions, make it prohibitive to engage in manufacturing or selling firearms and ammunition, add requirements that raise the price of firearms and ammunition, attempt to ban common hunting ammunition using the argument it's "armour piercing", etc.

If the same layers of regulations, requirements, restrictions, prohibitions, etc were laid on the right to freedom of speech on the Internet, the howls of outrage would make it impossible to sleep at night. If you told people those were just "little sacrifices", that nobody was having their freedom of speech taken away, nobody would believe you for one second.

I'm sure some firearms owners are comfortable and unconcerned with a President like Obama, having his Draconian, anti-gun history, who is working "under the radar" on his gun control agenda, focusing on how to get around Congress. I'm not one of them.

Hmmm... Motokid claimed what I wrote about Obama's horrible anti-gun record was "crap". He apparently doesn't have the time to publish his findings showing that is "crap", but does manage to have time to explain his statist view of the Second Amendment. No surprises on either count.

motokid wrote:

Attacks on the second amendment????

Where? By whom?

People who enable those attacks by justifying them - like you. People who make simplistic relationships between firearms and crime and then talk about how we have to make "sacrifices" regarding a right whose wording includes "shall not be infringed".

Cities who toss the words "shall not be infringed" out while prohibiting people in those cities from exercising their right to keep and bear arms.

Politicians who vote in "assault weapons" bans which in reality target semiautomatic rifles. And anyone who claims to know anything about firearms, and yet doesn't know an "assault weapon" - by definition - is a fully automatic weapon really doesn't know what they're talking about. Or is using deliberately using loaded language to push bans on semiautomatic rifles. Stupid or dishonest, take your pick.

Quote :

There is a major issue with gun violence and murder rates in USoA.

Look at the simple statistics:

click me

Oh look - the University of Wikopedia! A reference to a cobbled together table from various sources!

Seeing as you're jumping into the "simple statistics" pool, did you ever complete even a first year statistics course? My guess is "no"; not only because it says nothing about correlation much less causation, but because someone with even rudimentary statistics would know a cobbled together table like that is pointless. If you put together a chart like the one above in the first semester of a first year statistics course, using different sources, with countries with different methodologies, you'd earn yourself another big "F". And how do your "simple statistics" remove the confounding factors? Answer: they don't.

Nor do your "simple statistics" reveal any kind of correlation - much less causal relationship between firearms, firearms legislation, and crime. Jamaica isn't on that list - strange, when they're second only to South Africa in murder rate, wonder why they got left off? Most of Jamaica's murders are with firearms, and they have an almost complete and total ban on firearms ownership. South Africa also has extremely restrictive firearms laws. And yet, there they are, along with Mexico, gun laws that would make you drool with happiness but some of the highest murder rates in the world. Murder rates much, much higher than the US with it's "lax" gun laws.

Nor do those statistics reflect the other reality of firearms - would you care to comment on those statistics in comparison to the work by Rossi, Wright, and Kleck? Or would I be right in guessing you have absolutely no idea who they are without a fair amount of frantic Googling?

I wonder... if gun violence has something to do with gun legislation... if we get much stricter gun laws - let's say we adopt laws as Draconian as those of Jamaica, South Africa - will our "gun violence" rate manage to get as low as it is in those countries? You know - so it's like ten times worse than it is now, just as bad as it is in those countries?

Well how about we adopt Washington DC gun laws for the whole country - look how well that's worked for cities like Washington DC! Oh yeah... silly me... their murder rate was nearly as high as that of South Africa and Jamaica for many, many years. Things are getting much better for the National Anus, as Motokid probably realizes, living kissing-close to it as he does. Washington DC has now managed to get their murder rate down to where it's only about FOUR times greater than the national mean! Looks like that gun control stuff is finally starting to work for them!

Quote :

Live close to a major US city and watch the news.

I hate to distract you with simple logic, but some of our more rational members reading this may wonder...

... if it's really about guns and gun control, what the hell does the size of the city have to do with it? Using your "simple statistics" approach, it appears we have an argument for saying we have a serious problem with big cities in America - they cause violence.

After all, Montana is awash in firearms. I can walk down the main street of Kalispell, openly carrying a handgun, with the dreaded Barrett 50 over one shoulder, the lethal M1 Garand over another, and the fearsome AR-15 in front on a patrol sling. And it's perfectly legal - don't need a license or permit of any kind. And yet, with those sort of gun laws in Montana, our murder rate is about 1/10th that of The National Anus over near where Motokid lives.

With those kinds of gun laws, and all the guns in Montana, and this being a "hotbed of extremism" and all... just how is it Montana's murder rate is so low while prohibitive cities like Washington have murder rates so high? Why isn't blood running in the streets of Montana if "reasonable" gun laws are required to keep gun violence low?

Quote :

Gun violence in America is a HUGE problem. Gang related problems and guns are everyday stories in the news.

No gang stories in Montana - except for the BS stories on "hotbed of extremism" that some terribly gullible people fall for.

And the only reason guns are mentioned in the paper each day in Montana is because that's where all the gun shows and gun sales are listed. Situation seems to be about the same with the neighbors in Idaho, Wyoming, and North Dakota. Can't be location - New Hampshire is also almost equally bereft of "sensible gun laws", and their lack of gun laws doesn't seem to be causing them high violent crime rates either.

Apparently, guns and gun laws aren't the problem - certain big cities are the problem.

Quote :

Trying to combat that on any level means making some sacrifices.

Tell you what - YOU make the sacrifices. I'll keep my rights.

I just looked at the Constitution and Bill of Rights. I didn't see anything in there about "making sacrifices by limiting some rights". Could you point us to the part where it says that?

You really want to "make some sacrifices" where the Bill of Rights is concerned? Okay, but first, let's start with all the things that aren't rights, and all the rights that aren't underscored by the words "shall not be infringed".

Given your keen interest in criminology, no doubt you're familiar with Centerwall's findings and the fact they've been confirmed with numerous studies replicating his work. So I'm sure you'll have no objection to the sacrifice of banning all violence on television, in movies, and of course violent video games. It's not a removal of freedom of speech and expression - you can still watch TV and play games that aren't violent - just a little sacrifice.

And with all those gangs and icky violence in those big cities... let's just extend the concept of a Terry stop a bit further. Let's allow police in those crime ridden large cities to do searches without warrant on the street if you look dirty. True, it's a bit of an infringement on your right to be free from unreasonable search and seizure - but as you said, we have to make some sacrifices.

Gangs and street criminals are big users of cellphones and the Internet. Let's give police the power to set up systems monitoring cellphone conversations, texting, and email, without warrant. Yeah, it's a bit of an infringement on your privacy and liberty - but we have to make sacrifices to deal with those violent criminals, mustn't we!

Once we get through all of that, then we can start making sacrifices with the only amendment with the wording "shall not be infringed" within it.

Quote :

It's still beyond ridiculously EASY to walk into any firearms dealer and buy a gun.

Yes. The dealers only have to fill out the federal forms identifying you and the firearm. And of course complete the NICS background check with the FBI to confirm you are not exempted from legally owning a firearm. Which doesn't necessarily get done the same day.

You, apparently, find that too easy. How would you restrict it to something "more reasonable" (that's the words statists usually like to use)? Would you find psychological screening and one year waiting periods more acceptable?

Quote :

I can buy a Barrett 50 caliber if I have the money.

Oh no, the dreaded Barret 50! And we all know that the streets are running red with blood from all the crimes being committed with THOSE rifles.

Quote :

The Glenn Becks types that like to SCREAM that the sky is falling will tell you our rights are threatened every day are simply farting out of their mouths.

You obviously do listen to Glen Beck after all. How else would you be so well versed on what the guy is apparently saying?

What would you call somebody who wants us all to read how Montana is a "hotbed of extremism" while his state has twice as many hate crimes? Is he "farting out his mouth" too?

You find the PATRIOT Act perfectly acceptable? You don't have a problem with the idea that police are now authorized to download all the data on your cellphone incidental to arrest?

Quote :

The gun industry profits from those kinds of statements so they certainly won't admit they are not true.

Yes, of course, it's the evil gun industry - that's it!

Says the guy who wants to tell us how Montana is a "hotbed of extremism".

Quote :

Gun rights are not being threatened by Obama any more than they've been threatened by any other sitting president.

Saying Obama is no worse than... oh, Clinton or Carter... sure is reassuring.

Nice being reassured by his acolytes yet again that this president with his past history of being both a liar and adamantly anti-gun is not to be feared where gun rights are concerned. I'm sure there's a perfectly good REASONABLE explanation why he's working on his gun control agenda "under the radar" and openly stating that he is looking for ways to bypass Congress while doing so. Nothing to worry about folks, go back to sleep...

Quote :

It's just not true.

Right. Because you told us it's not true. That's all we need to know, is you say so. And you found the information establishing that at the same time and place you found out that Montana is a "hotbed of extremism". Did I mention yet that your state has over twice as many hate crimes as Montana?

Quote :

Although I'm more than well aware that there are many MANY internet "sources" that will say otherwise

If you could even find one source - anywhere - that quotes Obama renouncing any of his past votes and positions on gun laws, you might have a bit of credibility with that one.

Quote :

Waiting periods, background checks, and limits to how many weapons can be bought at any one time are not violations of your civil rights.
It's common sense stuff that makes perfect sense.

Folks, we have another person here for which the words "shall not be infringed" are incomprehensible. Those words might as well be written in Sanskrit for people like Motokid - he thinks "shall not be infringed" means "make a little sacrifice".

It's "common sense" to him that a woman being threatened by her ex-husband, who has already violated court orders, should have to wait a couple of weeks to get a handgun when police can't protect her. The fact that people - mostly women - have been murdered while sitting out a waiting period to obtain a handgun for self defense is apparently perfectly sensible.

And he doesn't have a problem with the government deciding how many firearms you can buy, either.

Quote :

But I also acknowledge we have a huge issue with guns in USofA and I recognize that combating that on some level is a necessary evil we must all learn to live with rather than finger point and call names.

Just as we have speed limits on roads, stop lights, and traffic courts, we also need regulations and restrictions for guns.

Somebody apparently doesn't realize that a driver's license and driving a vehicle on public roads is not a right contained in the Bill of Rights. It is a privilege given you by the government - and Motokid would like to see the Second Amendment right made into a government regulated privilege as well.

Quote :

Before we simply allow something like 1 million military issue weapons (M1 Garand) to be brought into America, lets think about why there's a "need" for such a thing.

Oh, the scary M1 Garand (Motokid has been doing his Google homework). An evil rifle that the government at this very moment is selling to it's citizens under the CMP. A rifle that fires millions of rounds each year at state and national level competitions. But we'll get back to that later...

Can anyone tell me where in the Constitution or the Bill of Rights Motokid finds the words he's apparently working with? The words that say you have to demonstrate a "need" in order to exercise your right to free speech, freedom of religion, etc? It seems my copy of our constitutional documents is different than the one MotoKid is working from.

"Need" has absolutely nothing to do with the exercise of your rights. The idea of a concept of demonstrating a "need" to exercise your rights is a consistent theme with all statists, so there's no surprise there with what Motokid is suggesting. And if the words "need" don't exist in our constitutional documents... well, they hope to correct that oversight one way or the other.

I wonder if they'll be consistent about it and also expect us all to demonstrate a "need" before exercising all the rest of our unalienable rights?

No, guys like Motokid and Obama don't want to take away your guns. They just want to remove your Second Amendment rights incrementally, using "reasonable" gun control laws.

Who gets to decide whether their gun laws are reasonable or not?

Why, them of course, you silly!

Quote :

Do we really want to be #1 on the lists of gun violence and homicide?

We aren't. Never were.

The question should be, do we really want Motokid gun laws and the crime like Washington DC has which results from that?

motokid wrote:

Before we simply allow something like 1 million military issue weapons (M1 Garand) to be brought into America, lets think about why there's a "need" for such a thing.

Lets ignore for the moment that Motokid has some weird ideas that include proving a "need" for something before being allowed to exercise your Second Amendment rights.

And let's also ignore for the moment that SCOTUS has said the one class of weapons most definitely covered by the Second Amendment are those firearms with a military purpose.

Let's talk about what firearms owners refer to as a Fudd. As in "Elmer Fudd".

Fudds are people who will tell you they own firearms and what type of firearms they are. Sometime after that, they usually get around to saying they don't see a "need" for other firearms owners to own handguns/AR15s/AK47s/semiautomatic rifles, etc.

In other words, the firearms they own are okay, but the firearms they are not interested in (or didn't buy because they thought it irresponsible) are not okay. And therefore, it is okay if the government seizes, regulates, etc. those other types of firearms because there isn't any "need" for such as them.

So let's talk about the scary M1 Garand that the Fudds think doesn't have a justifiable "need".

The M1 Garand is a semiautomatic rifle in 30/06 that holds and fires 8 rounds out of an enbloc clip. It weighs approximately 11 lbs, has a 24" barrel, and is just short of 4 feet long. It can't be cut down to make it shorter. It is sold and has been sold for decades to civilians by the US government under the CMP program. It is primarily used in National Match competition across the country.

The Remington 750 is also a semiatomatic 30/06 which holds six or 11 rounds out of an interchangeable magazine. It weighs approximately 7.25 lbs, has an 18.5" barrel, is 39" long, and the barrel can be sawed off by a criminal to make it much shorter.

The Remington 7400 was more of the same as the 750 - except it was also made in the much more powerful 35 Whelen.

The Remington Model 8, a semiatomatic first made in 1906,is chambered in 35 Remington, held 6 rounds, had a 22" barrel, was 40" long, and again the barrel could be cut down by a criminal.

Winchester makes the SX Autoloading rifle in .308, almost the ballistic twin of the 30/06. It has a 20" barrel, a 10 round detachable magazine, weighs 10 lbs, and again the barrel can be cut down by a criminal to shorten it. Before that was their Model 1905 and Model 100 - all semiautomatics equally as powerful as the Garand, shorter, lighter, also with box magazines.

Browning of course has also been making semiautomatics since before the Garand was invented. Including the BAR in .338 Win Mag. Again, with a detachable magazine, lighter and shorter than a Garand, with a rifle that could be easily sawed off.

And finally, let's not forget you can buy a Garand from the Government's CMP, so apparently they're only dangerous if they're returning from being shipped overseas.

So despite the fact semiautomatic rifles equally as powerful as the Garand, holding just as many rounds, while lighter and shorter, have been around for decades prior to the Garand's invention, Motokid says we need to ask ourselves who "needs" one of these dangerous Garands before we allow them to be brought back home.

It doesn't have to be logical or make sense - it's how a Fudd's mind works.

Click me <-- read this

It's a great article on Guns in America.

Quote :

Trace the long history of guns in American life and one truism remains constant: The firearms industry always manages to sell large volumes of product.

This has been so in flush times and during recession; through periods of crime and relative public safety; in war and in peacetime. It has held in the wake of horrific acts of conspicuous violence and the public hand-wringing they provoke. Such is the business reality that has made handguns permanently abundant on the streets of American communities, an issue once again at the forefront following the shooting rampage in Tucson last weekend.

Legal, retail sales of new guns have averaged about $3.5 billion a year in inflation-adjusted terms going back to the mid-1990s, said Andy Molchan, director of the ‪Professional Gun Retailers Association, an industry trade group.‬

“The gun industry really hasn’t changed very much in about forty years,” Molchan said. “It’s been extremely steady.”

The tragedy in Arizona has reinvigorated demands for beefed-up gun control laws. Yet most experts expect firearm sales to continue, and even accelerate, as gun owners who fear new restrictions rush out to add to their arsenals before any rules can take effect. Time and again, the powerful industry lobby – led by the National Rifle Association–has proven adept at mobilizing to fend off new controls, maintaining a lucrative status quo.

New guns sold legally in the United States reached an all-time high of nearly 9 million in 2009, the last year for which full data exists, according to William J. Vizzard, professor of criminal justice at California State University, Sacramento, who crafts estimates by analyzing federal data. That number does not include millions of used guns sold at gun shows or new models exchanged among unlicensed dealers.

yeah - Obama's really stomping the shit out of people's rights isn't he? All-time high gun sales under his watch.

Quote :

“People were rushing out to buy guns, because they were worried [Obama] was going to take their guns away,” Vizzard said. “He didn’t have a single proposal on the table for gun laws. It defies reason. It’s a culture unto itself.”

Quote :

“Gun control sells guns,” said Kopel, the Cato analyst. “If people worry that their ability to buy guns will be restricted or taken away, it typically leads them to buy firearms when they can.”

Fear and lies are damn good for sales. marketing at it's finest.

Quote :

“The NRA depends on scared members,” said Vizzard. “You have to have people constantly in a state of fear and agitation or they might not send in their membership fees this year. They’ve got a lot invested in people being afraid.”

And Jager - answering every aspect of your typical 9 million word posts is just too damn exhausting considering how far out on the fringe you seem to live. There's just no point.

Quite often - I just don't read them. I'll skim across and find something that's just laughable and comment, but I find it really quite bothersome to give much of your rants that much effort.

I know your response will be beyond extremely long-winded about how much I represent the 'typical" lefty socialist communist liberal blah blah blah blah blah......in that I can't refute the things you say with fact or reasonable argument.

But that's not it. It's just that you think you can "win" by shouting and overly extreme length of posts.

I'm not here to change YOUR mind. That's not the point. Never was. Never will be. I just try to make sure that some of your "truthiness" gets exposed for the right-wing propaganda and mis-information that it really is.

Here's more:

source

Quote :

Obama's election hasn't been the silver bullet that gun rights activists feared—in fact, gun-rights advocates have successfully pushed for increased gun rights in many states. Last week Virginia passed a bill allowing people to carry concealed weapons in bars and other places that serve booze, less than three years after the Virginia Tech massacre. Montana and Tennessee passed the first laws exempting guns and ammunition made in their states from federal regulation last year. Arizona and Wyoming are pondering a half-dozen proposals, including allowing residents to carry concealed weapons without permits, while Indiana blocked employers from banning guns in vehicles on company property. Although Obama signed bills allowing guns in national parks and luggage on Amtrak trains, gun-rights advocates are still skeptical, as the chief executive of the NRA put it, "we know that the first chance Obama gets, he will pounce on us."

Again -the NRA shouting about shit that's not actually happening sells more guns. Marketing.....not fact.

How about some FACTCHECK.org information?

click me <-- clicky

Quote :

As President, I will uphold the constitutional rights of law-abiding gun-owners, hunters, and sportsmen. I know that what works in Chicago may not work in Cheyenne. We can work together to enact common-sense laws, like closing the gun show loophole and improving our background check system, so that guns do not fall into the hands of terrorists or criminals. Today’s decision reinforces that if we act responsibly, we can both protect the constitutional right to bear arms and keep our communities and our children safe.

Even from FOXnews....yes FOXnews:

source

Quote :

WASHINGTON -- More than five months after Rep. Gabrielle Giffords was shot in the head, the White House has yet to take any new steps on gun violence, even though that's what President Obama called for in the wake of the shooting.
The silence from the administration is drawing criticism from gun control activists and even some of Obama's Democratic allies. Sen. Frank Lautenberg, D-N.J., told the president in a letter last week that the administration "has not shown the leadership to combat gun violence."

It's in keeping with Obama's general stance on gun issues since taking office: outspoken earlier in his political career in favor of tougher gun measures, he's treaded carefully since becoming president, almost never raising the topic except when asked and offering, at-most, tepid support for legislation he once embraced, such as re-enacting a ban on assault weapons.

At this point in time - Obama is not, and has not done a damn thing to impede anyone's Second Amendment rights.

To say otherwise is just an outright LIE.

Let's see... Motokid likes simple things. Okay...

Has he posted ANYTHING to refute Obama's history of supporting Draconian gun control measures, despite calling that "crap"?

No.

Has he posted ANYTHING to refute Sarah Brady being told by Obama that he is working on his gun control agenda "under the radar"?

No.

Has he posted ANYTHING to refute the Obama Administration announcing they are working on figuring out how to enable gun control measures that will circumvent Congress?

No.

Refuted that Obama has prevented bringing M1 rifles back to the US and making them available to the public, as was done previously, by labeling them as "dangerous to the public"?

No. He says in fact that nothing has changed.

Refuted that the BATF under Obama has published a study which would make many current firearms prohibited weapons?

No.

Explained why he can't understand the words "shall not be infringed" do not mean "sacrifice Second Amendment rights"?

No.

Explained how Montana is a "hotbed of extremism" while his home state has TWICE as many hate crimes?

Oops... wrong topic. But... no.

Lots of irrelevant Internet links related to none of the above?

Yes.

Yes folks, nothing to worry about with Obama working under the radar on a gun control agenda that he hopes will be able to circumvent Congress. Motokid says you can go back to sleep now while The Serial Liar works on his gun control legislation "under the radar".

motokid wrote:

How about some FACTCHECK.org information?

Quote :

As President, I will uphold the constitutional rights of law-abiding gun-owners, hunters, and sportsmen. I know that what works in Chicago may not work in Cheyenne.

Motokid does provide some useful background on The Serial Liar.

We can start by pointing out that your unalienable rights should be the same no matter where you are in the US - something our "constitutional scholar" of a president obviously doesn't agree with.

We could point out that gun control actually DOESN'T work back in his political home in Chicago, where they are virulently anti-gun and had to be sued again to force them to acknowledge the Second Amendment is an individual right - even after Heller. Chicago gun control - ever since Obama started his political career there - "works" so well that their murder rate is nearly three times the US rate, and nowhere close to Cheyenne's. But Obama says it works for Chicago!

He promises to uphold the Second Amendment? What's a promise worth from The Serial Liar?

That would be a promise like the promise to allow five days of public comment before signing bills into law?

The claim that he had "shovel ready jobs" everywhere, if he could just have his giant porkulus bill approved?

The pledge of "unprecedented transparency" in his government - while he works "under the radar" on his gun control agenda intended to bypass Congress?

Close Guantanamo Bay?

Promises about not employing lobbyists and former officials?

How about promises he "will not rest" until the economy is fixed, unemployment is down, blah, blah? Just talking about golf, he's been golfing something like 74 times in his presidency, and just finished making it golf on 13 weekends in a row. While recently giving a speech bemoaning how work requires him to sacrifice time he would like to spend with his daughters, no less. "Will not rest... from golfing". Okay... maybe that's not a lie; call it a bit of dramatics for the hopey/changey crowd. From a father who would rather golf than spend time with his kids, apparently not learning anything from his experiences growing up in a father-absent home.

And if you like FactCheck.org, you can go there and read about how Obama most recently lied about the Ryan plan in his attacks on it. So The Serial Liar hasn't changed any.

Motokid likes simple responses, so we'll end the list of Obama lies there before it gets too volumous for him.

But it tells you what The Serial Liar's promise to respect the Second Amendment is worth.

The Serial Liar isn't somebody whose promises are worth anything to an intelligent, sentient human being. Throw in his virulently anti-gun history, his current activity working "under the radar" to circumvent Congress with his gun control agenda, and it isn't hard to figure out what his promise to respect the Second Amendment is worth.

X-Racer wrote:

Jag: Yes... I was referring to the second scenario. Not from who was in office.

...and I'm not educated in the science of the firing types. It was strictly a looks cool, "Tickle my Fancy" pick. ...but thanks for the input. I had another question I'll ask you offline.

All righty... PM me.

Two different operating choices for the AR-15 platform. One is the original design where gas is bled off from the barrel and diverted back via a gas tube to where it blows against the gas key on the bolt carrier assembly, cycling the action. The "new" method is where there is a gas cylinder and gas piston rod, a la the Garand, FN-FAL, AK47, etc. Works like a motorcycle engine - gas is bled off into a chamber where the pressure drives the gas piston rod backwards, with the rod pushing against the bolt carrier assembly to cycle the action. Fans of the gas piston rod setup (which includes the rifle you provided a link to) say the rifle is more reliable because propellant gases are not fed into the action. I think it's an ingenious solution to a nonexistent problem, but what the hell do I know - I've only fired around a million rounds out of M16 variant military rifles and AR15 match rifles. Piston rifles are more expensive than the original variant.

Stag Arms makes a very solid AR15 rifle in many, many configurations - including a left hand version if you belong to the sinister crowd.

SI Defence, two minutes from my house, makes a very, very good AR15 rifle, and will make one in practically any configuration you wish.
http://www.sonju.net/rifles.html

Not hard to build an AR15 that will hold minute of angle. Some companies guarantee accuracy better than that. If I were buying my first AR15, I'd look at a quality rifle with a 20" bbl, flattop design, with the telescoping butt. That will work for everything from fighting off the ravening hord of zombies from back east to shooting gophers eating up the pasture in the back 40, to competitive shooting. The flattop will allow you to mount a scope or iron sights, or a tres expensive military sighting system like the Trijicon or Diemaco if you wish.

If I was going to farkle the basic rifle, the first place I would start is spending some coin on a really good aftermarket trigger. The trigger is your final connection to the rifle, and thus has a lot to do with accuracy. Military grade triggers are okay, but nothing like an aftermarket. Sort of like the stock WRR suspension versus one tuned by Go Race.

Where IS that delivery truck with my new swingarm slider?

motokid wrote:

So you've not had your rights infringed upon.
Not by Obama anyway.

Yet you'd still prefer Bush to somebody who "theoretically" "might" try to make it a bit more difficult to buy even more weapons than you already own.

Obama Considering Executive Orders To Implement Gun Control Agenda

House Democrats Demand Immediate Vote On More Gun Control

Well, it didn't take long for that statist claptrap to prove itself false yet again once Obama's concerns about surviving re-election were done with. How long ago was the election... six whole weeks?

So Rahm Emmanual famously said while he was still the Obama Adminstration's whip: "Never let a disaster go to waste". And Feinstein blurted out at one point in the last couple of days that they have had another Assault Weapon Ban ready to go - with added restrictions this time around - for well over a year now. Just waiting, sitting there under the radar for the right moment to act on it. "Under the radar"... wait, that's what Obama told Sarah Brady he was doing, preparing for more gun control. Had to have the right moment, and it appears this is it.

We have Obama wanting a "conversation" on gun violence. This "conversation" is not to include discussing the fact there are between 2.5 and 3 million defensive uses of firearms by ordinary, law abiding Americans each year.

This "conversation" is not to include discussing the fact that the violent crime rate has decreased 21.9% in the last ten years, without Congress passing one single line of increased gun banning and restrictions during that decade.

This "conversation" is not to include discussing the fact that the murder rate has decreased 16.8% in that last ten years, without Congress passing one single line of increased gun banning and restrictions during that decade.

This "conversation" is not to include discussing the fact that the rate of people victimized by firearms has decreased by 60% in ten years - again, without Congress passing one single gun control bill.

This "conversation" is not to include discussing the fact that the latest US crime statistics (2011) show that there were 323 homicides with rifles of any kind - the evil "assault rifles" among them - while 1,694 homicides were from knives, 496 with blunt objects, and 728 with fists and feat. A "homicide", incidentally, can be a lawful death at the hands of a police officer or intended victim as well as a murder. And while it is unlikely that a police officer would stab somebody to death, it's pretty predictable that the criminals they and armed victims do kill almost always die after being shot, not stabbed or kicked to death.

And most of all, this "conversation" MUST NOT include discussing the fact that the previous "assault rifle" ban did not diminish firearms crimes involving the rifles and features it banned. The studies concluding this were numerous and, incidentally, included at least one study done by a gun banning organization.

It's also not to include discussing how many Mexicans have died at the hands of firearms - many the exact rifles they now want to ban - the Obama Administration allowed to illegally go to Mexico and drug cartels, in hopes of using the trafficking to obtain support for more gun banning. Two US Federal agents and over a hundred Mexicans at last count. No, no, mustn't talk about that.

No, despite all of this, and particularly despite the fact the original "assault rifle" ban was an utter failure at decreasing gun crime, we must have an "assault rifle" ban again. But this time, back bigger, and far more restrictive.

To this end, we have the President choosing Joe Biden to chair this impartial committee. Yes, the same Joe Biden who wrote the original "assault rifle" ban - the one that did absolutely nothing to decrease what crime their was with these malignantly evil rifles. AND... he must have their recommendations in his hands by January - you know, take all the time in the world, but give me proposed legislation in a few weeks, before the emotion goes away and logic and rationality return.

After all, as Rahm pointed out, never let a disaster go to waste!

So, now that Obama doesn't have to worry about reelection again, there's no longer any question of what he "theoretically" might do in the way of gun control. A desire to reinstate the "assault rifle" ban was on his website all the way through the election, and that's exactly what he intends to do.

And he has the media and Hollywood firmly in his corner. After all, nobody is suggesting government censorship of the First Amendment (which does not include a "shall not be infringed" clause) to limit these murderers being helpfully given a template of what they are to wear, what firearms they are to choose, the sequence of events to follow, and most of all - giving them the infamy they are seeking on their way out.

Nah... firearms owners have nothing to fear from this president, this Congress, and Democrats in general.

And after watching Boehner contort himself to accomodate Obama with more taxes, it is equally obvious that firearms owners can take little comfort in RINO Republicans sticking to principle or defending the Constitution.

Why do these people have such enormous difficulty in understanding the words "shall not be infringed"? Particularly when the legislation they want that infringes on this amendment has also proved to be utterly worthless in even slightly decreasing crime?

Politicians do what politicians do, way left or right. Until you change the rules of the games they play...I'ld suggest, quit your crying.
So far I've only heard of assault weapon bans, if you have accurate info on what to expect from it all?and your statistics
...a couple source links would be nice.
So, only sounds like it infringes a bit on your freedom to fight against your tyrannical government...in a modern warfare capacity, as well as an all out invasion.
Considering the 2nd amendment was drafted during the powder and ball era...when a huge weapon was normally made of wood and powder. There might be a chance their wording didn't reflect their particular desires for our modern circumstances. Granted there is a process in place to amend those words...but that, in itself, does not ensure that what needs to be amended, when it should, will occur.
Maybe these current dissenting views will lead to an amendment...if the public support was there, why not?
Till then politicians will do what they do for support.
Don't hate the playa...hate the game.

mucker wrote:

Politicians do what politicians do, way left or right. Until you change the rules of the games they play...I'ld suggest, quit your crying.

A gentle reminder for the dense who have problems with logical thought and concepts.

1. This is the United States, not Canada. It is called the Bill of Rights, not the Bill of Do You Really Need That.
2. SCOTUS has previously held that the 2nd Amendment protects military firearms above any other kind of firearm.
3. Are the words "shall not be infringed" really that confusing for a sentient adult to grasp.

And yes, if we all just sat down and shut up, it would be SO much easier to ram through a leftist/statist agenda, wouldn't it?

Quote :

So far I've only heard of assault weapon bans, if you have accurate info on what to expect from it all?and your statistics

Oh... "only". It's just a minor ban and confiscation you Americans. Just a minor whittling away of one of your inalienable rights. Nothing to see here folks... run along now, and please don't complain or raise a fuss about it. It's a lot easier to remove a right when nobody is making any noise.

So you missed all the stuff about bans on magazines of a certain capacity? Are magazines assault rifles as well? Are those proposed magazine prohibitions aimed solely at magazines for assault rifles - or maybe just a wee teeny bit beyond that?

I know I've asked you this many times before, but what the hell do the words "shall not be infringed" mean in your leftist/statist existence?

You claim some service in the Canadian Forces, so this should be easy for you: what's the defining feature of an assault rifle? The answer is in the pam for the Canadian Forces' assault rifle, so a soldier shouldn't have too much of a problem answering that one.

Quote :

...a couple source links would be nice.

How unfortunate that the two links provided that work for everybody else don't work for you.

Quote :

So, only sounds like it infringes a bit on your freedom to fight against your tyrannical government...in a modern warfare capacity, as well as an all out invasion.

Oh... "only"... just a wee bit of infringement and violation of an individual, unalienable right. No big deal... move along now folks - and shut up while doing so.

Again... what does "shall not be infringed" mean to a leftist/statist like yourself?

So the leftist/statist argument is that an AR-15 for example cannot be used for self defense and is strictly useful for modern warfare? However did you come to that conclusion in the face of what happens in the real world? Police in Canada and the US often carry them as a patrol carbine instead of a patrol shotgun - tell us, are they fighting tyrannical government? Waging modern warfare - winning the firefight and all that good stuff? Or are they preparing to fight back when an all out invasion occurs on their shift? Are the tens of thousands of Americans using those rifles in National Match competition not actually using AR-15s? Boy, they sure look like AR-15's to me and I didn't realize that Camp Perry is actually a battle repulsing an invasion. Those AR-15s specifically made by Remington, Ruger, etc for shooting gophers and other vermin designed that way so their owners can fight back if an invasion unexpectedly takes place while they're out hunting?

And when - just when - was the right to bear arms as a means of resisting a tyrannical government stricken out of the US Bill of Rights by an amendment? When did SCOTUS reverse itself on their decision that the Second Amendment protected a right to military firearms specifically appropriate for resisting tyrannical government?

Quote :

Considering the 2nd amendment was drafted during the powder and ball era...when a huge weapon was normally made of wood and powder.

C'mon, you didn't really serve in the Canadian military, did you? How could you and say something as demonstrative of ignorance of firearms as that?

What does a fully loaded C7A1 weigh? A C9? How about a C1 or C2? And what does a "huge" Pennsylvania flintlock weigh in comparison (no, they weren't made of powder)?

How many pounds less does that flintlock weigh than a basic military weapon, again? Or is that modern military rifle a "REALLY REALLY huge weapon"?

And why would it matter - why don't we demand the government actively start monitoring and censoring the media and the Internet? After all, the 1st Amendment was drafted during the printing press broadsheet era - when you required a huge weapon huge printing press made out of steel, lead, and timbers.

Quote :

There might be a chance their wording didn't reflect their particular desires for our modern circumstances.

Oh! There might be a chance! That changes everything! Well hell, what more reason do we need to violate an amendment in the Bill of Rights?

You think they weren't trying to say something when they attached the words "shall not be infringed" to only one of the Amendments?

What do the words "shall not be infringed" mean to you again?

There might also be a chance their wording "didn't reflect their particular desires for our modern circumstances" in other areas. Whaddya say we throw the right to freedom of press and association out while we're at it - how could they have imagined the Internet? Whaddya say we throw out the protections against unlawful search and seizure - they couldn't have imagined crime like we have today?

As it happened, they were acutely aware that circumstances and the desires of We The People might indeed change in the future. And if you had even the barest of knowledge regarding the Constitution and the Constitutional Convention and the debates that took place, I wouldn't have to explain this to you over and over and over again. They recognized that times and people might change, and so they provided an amending formula. It's been successfully used to amend the Constitution and Bill of Rights about once every nine years since inception, so it obviously isn't that difficult to use when We The People genuinely do want Constitutional change.

Which leaves us wondering why leftists/statists like you always support and attempt the change you want by circumventing the Constitution - not openly amending with the necessary support from We The People who make up the population.

Quote :

Granted there is a process in place to amend those words...but that, in itself, does not ensure that what needs to be amended, when it should, will occur.

Nice try. But when the US has averaged an amendment every nine years, it seems it isn't too difficult to do when that is what the population of the US actually wants.

The real problem here is what leftists/statists feel is needed as an amendment doesn't have the support of the majority of the population. And so, the self-appointed leftist/statist masterminds out there who just KNOW what is needed can't get the permission of the ignorant peons they are so much smarter than to amend the population - well then, they just look for ways to do it in an unconstitutional manner.

The truly scary part of that whole process is that people like you and Obama think you know better than the US population as a whole what their constitutional rights, liberties, and freedoms should and shouldn't be. Why risk the all powerful insight of these leftist/statist masterminds by putting their brilliant concepts to a national vote by the ignorant masses?

One is left wondering just how brilliant these advocates of soft tyranny are when they want to reinstall laws that were an abject failure at reducing crime the first time it was tried. Of course, the answer here is that this isn't really about crime control - this is about a steady and progressive elimination of civilian firearms ownership. In other words, people control by government, not gun control. And we have England, Australia, and Canada to view of examples of how the socialists/statists do this, progressively criminalizing more and more classes of firearms and their use, while a point of "Okay, that's enough bans and prohibitions" is never reached.

Quote :

Maybe these current dissenting views will lead to an amendment...if the public support was there, why not?

Which immediately leads to the question of why the leftists/statists with these views don't legitimately propose deleting or re-wording the Second Amendment, but instead seek to find ways to circumvent the Constitution or outright violate it and hope they can get away with it somehow or other.

Only reason I can think of is they know they don't have a chance in hell of majority support from the population for rewording or deleting the Second Amendment. So they say "screw 'em" and try to find some other means of getting away with their people control agenda.

But if they could indeed obtain and win a vote for a constitutional amendment of the Second, or it's complete deletion from the Bill of Rights, then that would indeed be perfectly legitimate to do. That would be legitimate.

But the leftists/statists out there never do try to obtain their fundamental change of America through legitimate constitutional amendment. They go for the low road every single time.

Quote :

Till then politicians will do what they do for support.

And socialists/statists will consistently try to legitimize and make excuses for unconstitutional governments in their quest to continually reduce individual rights and freedom while further empowering government.

Quote :

Don't hate the playa...hate the game.

Individual rights and freedom is not a game. It might seem that way to somebody who likes the idea of womb to tomb big government, but it is not a game. And if it were a game, it wouldn't be much with a tiny, small minority of the players who could change the rules on a whim or to satisfy their tiny minority.

For the record, a C7 wieighs just over 7 kilos(probably pounds), and a C9 just over 9, without ammo. My C9 used a 200 round cassette, which I, and my section mates carried a spare...kinda made me feel special :) . I am by no means a master, but have stripped and assembled in the dark. I kinda enjoyed the training i had, some said I was gung-ho, but I'm sure your experience shades that

If you don't see the game, that things like super pacs have promoted, then I don't know what to say to you.

\\since this is your forte...how long since the last amendment?

If the statists don't like the 2nd amendment they should get the votes to change it. But they can't, so they will ignore it.

They will will pass a blatantly unconstitutional law and hope some hack leftist judges uphold it.

As horrifying as recent events are, this bad faith process is worse. It undermines everything.

But your modern leftist is ahistorical and hedonistic (not to mention, economically illiterate) so it won't bother them a bit.