Gun Control

[nebugeater]

Looks like Cabela's has made a statement in the hot topic about gun control.  They have pulled out of sponsorship of a show in  Harrisburg, Pa where they have been a Multi year Primary sponser of this outdoor show.  This is in response to the show orginisers recent change in policy to not alow some guns to be on display this year that some are clasifing as assult weapons.

From the OWH

http://www.omaha.com/article/20130123/M ... 39965/1697

Cabela's, the Sidney, Neb.-based hunting and outdoor retailer, won't attend or sponsor this year's Eastern Sports and Outdoor Show, one of the largest hunting and outdoor consumer shows in North America.

Cabela's pulled out of the show, which will be held Feb. 2-10 in Harrisburg, Pa., after the show's organizer, Reed Exhibitions, said it was dropping a display of assault-type weapons and accessories at this year's event. Reed's announcement came a week after President Barack Obama announced new gun-control measures.

Read the rest at the link

[Big E]

You mean you can support the 2nd Amendment without being bathsh!t crazy?  

Weird.

[jessep28]

No. I need a fully automatic assault rifle with a 100 round drum magazine for hunting and home defense.

[Big E]

No. I need a fully automatic assault rifle with a 100 round drum magazine for hunting and home defense.

Obviously.  And since we need to be armed to protect ourselves from the government, I want an aircraft carrier like the one in my avatar.

[Professor Woland]

No. I need a fully automatic assault rifle with a 100 round drum magazine for hunting and home defense.

Obviously.  And since we need to be armed to protect ourselves from the government, I want an aircraft carrier like the one in my avatar.

If you can afford it and can pay for all of the docking charges and upkeep I say go for it.

[nebugeater]

No. I need a fully automatic assault rifle with a 100 round drum magazine for hunting and home defense.

First off, I do not own a gun.

As for what you mention probably not muchof a need.  The issue lies with the current interpitation of what an assult gun is and it is trying to go far beyond what your example states into what IS used for hunting.

[BRoss]

I want an aircraft carrier like the one in my avatar.

I thought that was yours.

[S33]

Oh, look, the gun argument made its way to eomahaforums.

[almighty_tuna]

[youtube][/youtube]

[Big E]

[youtube][/youtube]

[TitosBuritoBarn]

DON'T YOU UNDERSTAND THAT ARMED AMERICANS ARE THE ONLY THING KEEPING THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT FROM TURNING OUR NATION INTO A COMMUNIST DICTATORSHIP?!

[nebugeater]

Read on line yesterday that the vendors, sponsors for this week long show were falling off so fast that Either late Wed or Early Thur the show promoters cancled the complete show.

[cp jay 07]

Probably one of the funniest Family Guy clips out there.
[youtube][/youtube]

[bigredmed]

Read on line yesterday that the vendors, sponsors for this week long show were falling off so fast that Either late Wed or Early Thur the show promoters cancled the complete show.

That and the NRA boycotted it.  

I read that this was a hugely profitable show for them.  They will do something to get on the good side of these vendors and be back.

[jessep28]

[youtube][/youtube]

[GetUrban]

I should be allowed to have my own drone. Or maybe a few rocket-powered grenades. Need to stay one step ahead of the criminals and keep check on the guvment.

Also, how many criminals used to be "law-abiding citizens"...or were they all born as criminals?

[Professor Woland]

I should be allowed to have my own drone. Or maybe a few rocket-powered grenades. Need to stay one step ahead of the criminals and keep check on the guvment.

Also, how many criminals used to be "law-abiding citizens"...or were they all born as criminals?

If you can afford said RPGs and drone, and you can store the explosives so as not to endanger your neighbor's property, I say go for it.

[S33]

It's funny listening to the idiots on both sides of the argument bicker back and forth about this issue.

"Oh, I'm liberal, so I will repeat all the anti-gun talking points the liberal media has spoon-fed me, even though I don't know a damn thing of what I'm talking about and conveniently ignore crime statistics as they relate to incresed gun controls"

"Oh, I'm conservative, you shall not infringe upon my sacrosanct right to bear arms. I should have the weaponry to organize a para-military style militia should a tyrannical style of gubment be imposed, even though I couldn't recite any other portion of the Bill of Rights"

And then there's Switzerland... "Haha, look at all those stupid cavemen over there in America, you give them a gun, and they will kill someone for cheeseburger"

Gun control? How about stop being a country of deadbeats, hold a job, raise and care your family, and intellectually evolve as a country like we're supposed to.

[jessep28]

I should be allowed to have my own drone. Or maybe a few rocket-powered grenades. Need to stay one step ahead of the criminals and keep check on the guvment.

Also, how many criminals used to be "law-abiding citizens"...or were they all born as criminals?

This is more appropriate for home defense. Why shoot your intruders when you can vaporize them?

[youtube][/youtube]

[bigredmed]

Military level weapons are illegal for people to own.   Machine guns that were manufactured after 1986 are flat out illegal to own.   Those earlier machine guns are governed under the tax law called the Federal Firearms Act of 1934 and while legal to own, are a tax and insurance expense that only a few mess with.  

The fundamental issues of the gun control debate are that the gun haters have to have a red meat bill that "gets those guns" and thus over-reach.   When the gun owners see the over-reach, they become more supportive of the gun control opponents who oppose anything.   The battle is always  between people who can't stop trying to do too much and the NRA.  The NRA usually wins because of the boring little dance that starts up every time some shooting or other event occurs.

Step 1.  The libs (especially that lovely subset that has access to the media and absolutely no knowledge about guns) cry out for gun control.
Step 2.  Someone (in 2013, it's Diane Feinstein) puts forth a proposal that is either a naked or disguised gun grab, or (as she has this year) starts implying that her bill will be that, and (despite step 7 during the last dance) puts out a bill calling for banning some kind of gun.   This immediately leads to steps 3 and 4.
Step 3.  The middle of the road gun owners start thinking that they had better go buy more guns before they get banned, because they think that the wackadoodle that proposed the ban might actually be successful this time.
Step 4.  The NRA will speak out against it.
Step 5.  NO MATTER WHAT THE NRA SAYS, the media will bash them.
Step 6.  Middle of the road gun owners will read what the NRA actually said in context in the Alt Media.  The result of Step 6 is another couple of hundred thousand new NRA members.  And at $25 per, the NRA aint complaining.
Step 7.  Reasonable people in the House and Senate will read the bill in Step 2 and realize that it fails to live under Heller, the 4th Amendment, basic mechanical engineering, gun design, and/or actual impact on crime and refuse to support it (See Harry Reid yesterday).
Step 8.  Reasonable suggestions (like mental health reform) get lost in the shuffle between people with media cover and the NRA (and others without media cover) fighting over the idiot proposal from step 2.
Step 9.  People in the middle eventually decide that the proposal won't have any impact on crime and what support the people in step 1 garnered for the idiot bill in step 2 disappears.  (To wit the poll this week that showed 67% of respondents believe that more gun control won't affect events like Sandy Hook.)
Step 10.  The dance concludes.

[S33]

Military level weapons are illegal for people to own.   Machine guns that were manufactured after 1986 are flat out illegal to own.   Those earlier machine guns are governed under the tax law called the Federal Firearms Act of 1934 and while legal to own, are a tax and insurance expense that only a few mess with.  

The fundamental issues of the gun control debate are that the gun haters have to have a red meat bill that "gets those guns" and thus over-reach.   When the gun owners see the over-reach, they become more supportive of the gun control opponents who oppose anything.   The battle is always  between people who can't stop trying to do too much and the NRA.  The NRA usually wins because of the boring little dance that starts up every time some shooting or other event occurs.

Step 1.  The libs (especially that lovely subset that has access to the media and absolutely no knowledge about guns) cry out for gun control.
Step 2.  Someone (in 2013, it's Diane Feinstein) puts forth a proposal that is either a naked or disguised gun grab, or (as she has this year) starts implying that her bill will be that, and (despite step 7 during the last dance) puts out a bill calling for banning some kind of gun.   This immediately leads to steps 3 and 4.
Step 3.  The middle of the road gun owners start thinking that they had better go buy more guns before they get banned, because they think that the wackadoodle that proposed the ban might actually be successful this time.
Step 4.  The NRA will speak out against it.
Step 5.  NO MATTER WHAT THE NRA SAYS, the media will bash them.
Step 6.  Middle of the road gun owners will read what the NRA actually said in context in the Alt Media.  The result of Step 6 is another couple of hundred thousand new NRA members.  And at $25 per, the NRA aint complaining.
Step 7.  Reasonable people in the House and Senate will read the bill in Step 2 and realize that it fails to live under Heller, the 4th Amendment, basic mechanical engineering, gun design, and/or actual impact on crime and refuse to support it (See Harry Reid yesterday).
Step 8.  Reasonable suggestions (like mental health reform) get lost in the shuffle between people with media cover and the NRA (and others without media cover) fighting over the idiot proposal from step 2.
Step 9.  People in the middle eventually decide that the proposal won't have any impact on crime and what support the people in step 1 garnered for the idiot bill in step 2 disappears.  (To wit the poll this week that showed 67% of respondents believe that more gun control won't affect events like Sandy Hook.)
Step 10.  The dance concludes.

Sounds about right, and to firther complicate this cluster |expletive| argument, consider the fact that 300 million guns exists in the hands of Americans now. Heck, do an all-out gun confiscation, and the only guns taken off the streets will be from law-abiding citizens, thus, gun crime continues.

Look at Mexico, some of the harshest guns laws on the planet, and they claim one of the highest murder rates in the developed world.

there's no logical solution, but maybe we can tear the country in two trying...

Hey, at least we aren't Russia.

[Linkin5]

Military level weapons are illegal for people to own.   Machine guns that were manufactured after 1986 are flat out illegal to own.   Those earlier machine guns are governed under the tax law called the Federal Firearms Act of 1934 and while legal to own, are a tax and insurance expense that only a few mess with.  

The fundamental issues of the gun control debate are that the gun haters have to have a red meat bill that "gets those guns" and thus over-reach.   When the gun owners see the over-reach, they become more supportive of the gun control opponents who oppose anything.   The battle is always  between people who can't stop trying to do too much and the NRA.  The NRA usually wins because of the boring little dance that starts up every time some shooting or other event occurs.

Step 1.  The libs (especially that lovely subset that has access to the media and absolutely no knowledge about guns) cry out for gun control.
Step 2.  Someone (in 2013, it's Diane Feinstein) puts forth a proposal that is either a naked or disguised gun grab, or (as she has this year) starts implying that her bill will be that, and (despite step 7 during the last dance) puts out a bill calling for banning some kind of gun.   This immediately leads to steps 3 and 4.
Step 3.  The middle of the road gun owners start thinking that they had better go buy more guns before they get banned, because they think that the wackadoodle that proposed the ban might actually be successful this time.
Step 4.  The NRA will speak out against it.
Step 5.  NO MATTER WHAT THE NRA SAYS, the media will bash them.
Step 6.  Middle of the road gun owners will read what the NRA actually said in context in the Alt Media.  The result of Step 6 is another couple of hundred thousand new NRA members.  And at $25 per, the NRA aint complaining.
Step 7.  Reasonable people in the House and Senate will read the bill in Step 2 and realize that it fails to live under Heller, the 4th Amendment, basic mechanical engineering, gun design, and/or actual impact on crime and refuse to support it (See Harry Reid yesterday).
Step 8.  Reasonable suggestions (like mental health reform) get lost in the shuffle between people with media cover and the NRA (and others without media cover) fighting over the idiot proposal from step 2.
Step 9.  People in the middle eventually decide that the proposal won't have any impact on crime and what support the people in step 1 garnered for the idiot bill in step 2 disappears.  (To wit the poll this week that showed 67% of respondents believe that more gun control won't affect events like Sandy Hook.)
Step 10.  The dance concludes.

Damn I hate this debate but I just have to say this is so spot on.

[jessep28]

And really with any of these proposals being thrown around, at best they will mitigate risk, but won't eliminate it, and very well could create new problems.

[S33]

how could one mitigate? I honestly think there is no solution. You could never, without creating the biggest |expletive| sh*tstorm this country has seen since the civil rights movement, control the possession of firearms enough to make them unavailable in a capacity which prevents those capable of these tragedies from carrying them out.

Terrorism from foreign extremists is an absolute cakewalk in comparison to this domestic mess.

[bigredmed]

Australia makes everyone in the house over 11 be CPR certified to fill their pools.  

We could make everyon over the age of 11 pass a gun safety class, show basic proficiency with the gun in question and pass a background check.   If the buyer passes,but some family member cant, then the buyer must store the gun in a locked facility where the ineligible housemate cant have access.

Separates the crazy/criminal from the guns without taking the rights away from the law abiding citizens.

[jessep28]

Do they have gun violence problems in Israel? You basically join the military once you're strong enough to hold a rifle.

[Coyote]

Do they have gun violence problems in Israel? You basically join the military once you're strong enough to hold a rifle.

I spent a semester in the early 90's in grad school studying in the Middle East, Egypt, Israel, Jordan, Turkey. The one thing I noticed was how the women in military in Israel treated their rifles like handbags on the buses. I was afraid not of bus sop bombings, but their loaded? Rifles swinging across my head...

[S33]

the idea of mandatory proficiency firearm tests is insane. Forcing someone who wants nothing to do with guns to not only know about them, but become proficient and skilled at firing, is insanely stupid, and against out special book.

[Garrett]

I don't think we need to take away guns (although I personally despise them, but to each their own) but we do need to look at how easy they can be to get. The Swiss have brilliant laws on the books, which require the purchase of gun permits which require psychological and criminal background checks. Our mental health system is a complete joke, the ATF has been crippled and useless for years now, which has turned many of the former laws into "suggestions" (thanks NRA) Also, I think we do need to look at an assault weapon ban in some form. Australia banned assault weapons and they have not had mass shootings in years. How many have we had in the last 2 months?

[S33]

I don't think we need to take away guns (although I personally despise them, but to each their own) but we do need to look at how easy they can be to get. The Swiss have brilliant laws on the books, which require the purchase of gun permits which require psychological and criminal background checks. Our mental health system is a complete joke, the ATF has been crippled and useless for years now, which has turned many of the former laws into "suggestions" (thanks NRA) Also, I think we do need to look at an assault weapon ban in some form. Australia banned assault weapons and they have not had mass shootings in years. How many have we had in the last 2 months?

Our real problem isn't mass shootings, though.

Our real problem is our violent crime, and gun homicides in particular. There are an average of 87 gun deaths per day in the US, which far exceeds the annual total of "mass" style shootings with so-called "assault" style weapons. Which, let's be honest, current gun control cheerleaders don't seem to have a clue about.

Out of those homicides, almost assuredly 95% are gang related.

If we were absent our gang violence in our inner cities, we would have one of the lowest homicide rates in the developed world, something similar to the Swiss. But for some odd reason, we've accepted gang violence into our culture just as long as it's isolated to certain parts of our cities.

A logical solution is not to ban certain firearms which have a pistol-style hand grip, or to somehow think a magazine capacity limit will stop a mass shooting because the shooter is too stupid to figure out how to change the magazine, or to simply just knee-jerk legislate "scary" looking weapons bans.

How about actually enforcing and augmenting existing laws, or to even address why Amercans have become so murderous.

[bigredmed]

Membership in a gang should be definition for criminal conspiracy.   Want to benefit from the income from drug dealing, get sentenced for conspiracy to sell drugs.  All associates go down hard.  

All felons in posession of a firearm should get 5 years.  All people commiting a crime with a gun should get sentenced for unlawful use of a firearm in addition to their main charge and serve those sentences separately from the other charges.

Any strawman purchase of a firearm should be a 2 year federal sentence and you should never be eligible for a pardon, thus losing your second amendment rights forever.  Same should go for other lying on a transfer form.

[Garrett]

I don't think we need to take away guns (although I personally despise them, but to each their own) but we do need to look at how easy they can be to get. The Swiss have brilliant laws on the books, which require the purchase of gun permits which require psychological and criminal background checks. Our mental health system is a complete joke, the ATF has been crippled and useless for years now, which has turned many of the former laws into "suggestions" (thanks NRA) Also, I think we do need to look at an assault weapon ban in some form. Australia banned assault weapons and they have not had mass shootings in years. How many have we had in the last 2 months?

.

How about actually enforcing and augmenting existing laws, or to even address why Amercans have become so murderous.

Well the part of the government that is supposed to enforce existing laws has been crippled by NRA backed legislation for years. The ATF has been without a leader for quite some time now.

[BRoss]

A logical solution is not to ban certain firearms which have a pistol-style hand grip, or to somehow think a magazine capacity limit will stop a mass shooting because the shooter is too stupid to figure out how to change the magazine, or to simply just knee-jerk legislate "scary" looking weapons bans.

How about actually enforcing and augmenting existing laws, or to even address why Amercans have become so murderous.

I completely agree! They just need to get out from the NRA's grip so they effectively enforce the existing laws.

All people commiting a crime with a gun should get sentenced for unlawful use of a firearm in addition to their main charge and serve those sentences separately from the other charges.

They already do that. It's called something like "use of a firearm to commit a felony" and I'm pretty sure they tack more onto your sentence because of it.

[bigredmed]

HRP:  Its supposed to happen, but rarely does.  When it does, the sentences get served concurrently or pleabargained awy.   I think that if you made the sentences automatic and no prosecutor discretion allowed, like the FFA of 1934 did for machine guns, you would see a large drop in gun crime.

[S33]

HR/Axel, I agree, and I continue to winder why the NRA has the kind of influence it does.

That said, without the NRA, I'm not sure we would be having this conversation, as there might be an all-out ban in place.

As always, there is no easy solution.

[BRoss]

HRP:  Its supposed to happen, but rarely does.  When it does, the sentences get served concurrently or pleabargained awy.

Well if it's served concurrently, then what's the point of the charge? It's things like this that need to be fixed.

[bigredmed]

HRP:  Its supposed to happen, but rarely does.  When it does, the sentences get served concurrently or pleabargained awy.

Well if it's served concurrently, then what's the point of the charge? It's things like this that need to be fixed.

Yes.  If you want gun violence to decrease, you take it seriously.  Background checks are fine, but if you can lie without consequence, then what do you accomplish?   We need to look at history and see what worked.  In the 1920's, we had criminals shooting up the country, in the 30's, we didn't.   Mandatory Federal time means a lot more than some sentence measured in Lohan year-minutes.

[S33]

I agree. i have no problem with having the highest imprisonment rate in the developed so as long as the cells are filled will violent crime offenders, rather than narcotic offenders. Throw the book at 'em.

[guitarguy]

I think another interesting thing to think about it is that the funding for local jails/prisons is not going up. You can't just put people in jail for doing a crime anymore and unless its a serious crime a lawyer will get the sentence reduced down to next to nothing anyways. We don't have the room in our prisons anymore to hold people accountable and a lot of people have figured that out.

On a related note.. The Mental Health system is an absolute piece of garbage now too. Whereas if you were ( whatever mental illness ) before you had somewhere to go and places that would care for you so that you could survive. But with new 'rights' in these fields you have to basically be threatening to either kill yourself/kill someone else to even be admitted to a mental hospital. But as soon as they drug you into submission they put you right back out into the streets. These are the people who seem to be killing in these mass shootings and in their heads I highly doubt they know what they are doing.

-adam

[Garrett]

Ha! Not enough room? If our prison system wasn't a pathetic joke maybe there would be enough room. Despite having less than 5% of the world's population, the United States has 25% of the prison population, and the highest rate of incarceration of any country. Our prison system does very little to attempt to rehabilitate criminals and make them productive members of society, but it only punishes them and serves to amplify crime.