Post by: cboom on December 03, 2014, 12:40:33 PM
Post by: JimmyHoffa on December 03, 2014, 12:46:10 PM
Post by: jay.sharkbait on December 03, 2014, 12:51:00 PM
Post by: T Pearce on December 03, 2014, 01:02:06 PM
Post by: pianoman9701 on December 03, 2014, 01:05:16 PM
Post by: Special T on December 03, 2014, 01:18:59 PM
Post by: JimmyHoffa on December 03, 2014, 01:40:38 PM
So, your thought is to let ARs be regulated differently than semi-autos that look like 'hunting' rifles. But a few aftermarket parts and you can convert any of the other semis into the same basic thing--even magazines. The reason there aren't many drums for certain models is that there isn't a large market--not a physical barrier. If ARs were 'inaccessible', then all kinds of other semis would be in demand and a huge amount of mix-n-match parts. Then those rifles would be targeted as being evil. You can put wood on an AR with a small magazine and it looks pretty innocent.I think it would be a bad idea. Most of the classification would be cosmetic not function/operation. Not a whole lot of difference in a BAR, Rem 7400 and an AR--other than one looks scarier.
Well the only difference other than looks is one of those you can snap in a 50 or 100 round drum and the other you can't. And for the record I am not for the idea. I am to the point I'm very scared of the future with the way things are headed. Was just throwing out a thought. There is part of me that would rather lose some than all :dunno:
Post by: pianoman9701 on December 03, 2014, 01:48:33 PM
And another problem is that there are good people who think the other side is just being reasonable. "This law's a good one. No one coming to get your guns!" They just don't think it's possible that there are people scheming to do this.
Post by: 300rum on December 03, 2014, 02:07:50 PM
Post by: Jingles on December 03, 2014, 02:19:09 PM
cboom, I understand where you're coming from. If we're reasonable with regards to accepting certain restrictions, the other side will recognize that reason and meet us in the middle. But you need to understand the other side better. The Michael Bloombergs of the world want to end personal firearm ownership in the US, period. And, every regulation from here on will be an attempt to get closer to that goal. I-594 is a clear example of it. Everyone knows it'll do nothing to curb gun violence by even one death. But what it will do is start to whittle away at the number of people legally allowed to own firearms. As people violate the law, their gun rights will be taken away. More and more law-abiding people will lose their rights. Then we'll pass an "assault weapons" ban. People who own them and get caught will lose their rights. Then, semi-auto and handguns will be illegal. Appeasement will only get them to arrive at their eventual destination that much sooner.
And another problem is that there are good people who think the other side is just being reasonable. "This law's a good one. No one coming to get your guns!" They just don't think it's possible that there are people scheming to do this.
No to multiple classifications and NO to meeting anyone in the middle you give an inch and they'll want a foot then a yard then a mile then the whole dayum field.
Time to say F you we won't compromise and we won't stand for any more of the BS you are preaching, Draw and defend a REAL line in the sand and stand by it
Post by: huntnphool on December 03, 2014, 02:33:24 PM
Post by: Little Dave on December 03, 2014, 02:46:53 PM
The reality is that gun ownership is not a problem, it is about one in three for our state, that's well over 2 million people... and we don't have crime of any kind on that scale, so clearly it's not about the gun. The root of the violence issue is poverty, not guns and drugs. To make any headway against violence and drugs, we need to address the issues that cause and perpetuate poverty. Bloomberg and Gates with their money can create a distraction like this gun law... at the end of the day all they've done is increased identity theft crime. They are only wealthy, not brilliant.
So there are no "masses" to appease. Look at the numbers for King County:
976,627 did not vote because they are not registered or not qualified.
537,116 received a ballot in the mail and threw it away.
643,960 mailed in a ballot, but of those the county did not count 19,571.
So for the counted ballots:
156,146 voted no (that's 7% of the people in the county)
468,146 voted yes (that's 23% of the people in the county)
6,473 did not answer the question
While the measure passed, there are no "masses" to appease. Based on this, any well funded really dumb idea can be made into a law. More people need to try to figure the root cause of problems and debate issues, otherwise we will be made to do funny stuff that the billionaires think up.
Post by: timberfaller on December 03, 2014, 03:10:12 PM
What needs to happen is to educate the ignorant! and YES some own firearms :yike:
Post by: Fl0und3rz on December 03, 2014, 03:26:04 PM
NO
Exactly. They would just use the language to peel off layers of dissent/opposition.
First they say, all "sales and transfers." And everyone flips their lids.
Then they start passing out exemptions to LE. LE is on board.
Then it's the hunters or hunter ed folks that get exemptions. Hunters and Hunter ed folks are now on board.
Then it's the intrafamily "sales and transfers" that are exempted. Those folks are good to go.
And on and on until, "How could you have anyone against it? "There are no possible objections except for a small minority of nut jobs."
And what you end up with is a craptastic patchwork of regulations and exemptions, and nobody know what the heck to do with it. So AG's start handing out LE exemptions, and WSP reports that technical violations won't actually be prosecuted.
And in the end, you have poorly conceived and written law, with so many exemptions or stated non-violation, technical violations, that any petty tyrant can wield with impunity. And nobody cares enough to get it repealed or amended, because either they got their exemption, they voted for it, they plan to ignore it, or they have been reassured by LE that it will not affect them (though it could if enforced evenhandedly).
I am obviously talking about I-594. But I hope you get the message that united we stand . . . .
Post by: HillSlick on December 03, 2014, 06:19:02 PM
-"Progress once meant hope for the future, now it will destroy it."