National Now Country is jumping on the anti-gun bandwagon

[notazombie]

Must be Friday. Common sense class is back in session.

 

[Layton]

To expand on this as I have the time to do so now. Let's discuss "easy access", shall we? As an example, I have a silencer pending as of this writing. It is a small metal can that will protect my hearing whilst shooting.

When we started our NFA collecting many years ago, we opted to got the trust route for a variety of reasons. One of which was that my beloved wife would be able to use those items, without me around, without becoming a federal felon. What did that require? Well:

• Hundreds of dollars spent with an attorney.
• His time and the time of his secretary.
• My time.
• My wife's time.
• A notary's time.

The Trust is now in existence and we commence registering NFA items. I decided late last year to obtain a 5.56mm/.223 silencer for two reasons:

1. When my schedule slows down, I would like to get back into coyote hunting. The hunting rifle setup I'm building will wear this device so that I can prevent irreversible hearing damage.
2. I also have a SBRed AR-15 which is quite loud. Though we live on rural property and can and do shoot on said, some firearms are so loud, I rather not contribute to noise pollution. (Oh, and parenthetically, that SBR took 11 months and 6 days to get approved. More on waits in a moment.)

So what did I/we have to do to have "easy access" to that object that is slightly larger than a soup can, that will protect my hearing?

• Complete a Form 4 in triplicate.
• Fill out Responsible Person Questionnaire forms for both adults.
• Both me and the Mrs, who are working professionals (tech sector and teaching, respectively). We had to take time to go down to the police department on one of the two days they took them for citizens and get fingerprint cards completed. At our expense of course.
• Both of us going to Walgreen's, on a day we could get daycare, to get passport photos taken. Again, at our time and expense.
• Print and sign a copy of our Trust paperwork (all 46 pages).
• Update the proper schedule on said legal document.
• Cut a check for $200 to the feds to pay for the privilege to exercise an enumerated right.
• Make/scan copies of everything for our records.

We done yet? LOL, not even close.

• The can was bought from a vendor called Silencer Shop. They had to Form 3 it to a local FFL/SOT. Said firm was difficult to work with, but we got it nailed down. That transfer took nearly six weeks.
• Finally everything (Form 4, et al.) is then submitted to the feds.
• A copy of Form 4 is also sent to the CLEO.
• And here we are well over a year since the time of the purchase, and close to a year since going pending, and I'm still waiting. An ATF representative told me that it would likely be "another month or so", bringing the whole process just under a year and a half.
• When it is finally approved, I'll drive over two hours (round trip) to a licensed FFL/SOT to complete a Form 4473 and finally pick-up the item.

Utter bullplop. Would you like to do all that to exercise any other right? I didn't think so.

(And that isn't just hypothetical; remember, Senator Feinstein proposed legislation to make owning many semi-autos require the same NFA gauntlet.)

I am hard pressed to think that this procedure was followed in Sandy Hook, Orlando, Denver, San Diego, Las Vegas, etc. I am pleased you followed the rules and have the necessary permits. As far as the 'trust route' I am sure it has other advantages as well.

 

[Wombat of Doom]

the Supreme Court just rejected that argument in Maryland.

And no court has ever infringed on the bill of rights... Seriously dude, your arguments are not even tissue paper thin, they are non-existent. Quit trolling.

 

[slimmer13]

You are right, We might be able to find out if research could be done to find out "why" it is happening. But the Government has banned any type of Gun research due to pressure by the NRA and gun lobbies.

Stop lying. Pretty sure what was stopped was the CDC from researching gun violence as a disease specifically which was obviously a partisan ploy. There have been tons of other studies done on FBI crime statistics etc. Also nothing is stopping say you from funding some research if you want to put your money where your mouth is.

 

[Wombat of Doom]

The isn't any disagreement about carrying or having firearms. The issue is what type of firearms and accessories. None of these references mention anything about the TYPE of weapon. And the agreement that "Assault Rifles" protect us against a military with machine guns, rocket launchers, drones, armored vehicles and even Tank doesn't even come close to making sense.

The first amendment does not mention what type of speech is protected either. The logical inference (and fully backed up by the framers intent) is that all speech, and all arms are protected.

 

[Layton]

I had a discussion with a coworker a while back about the scary, evil AR15. I mentioned that it was "just a rifle" and he about had a fit, saying it was so much more than "just a rifle". Somehow it's a scary death ray?

He has a Mini-14 and that's OK. I told him that they were functionally identical except that the AR is generally more accurate and arguably more reliable. From a civilian perspective it's not even that much different from the old M1 Carbine from 1940 except a more effective caliber, accuracy and reliability. Somehow in his mind an AR is some new, high-tech death ray. Should we really restrict a certain type of firearm because it's more accurate and reliable? He had no idea that the AR has been around since the late 1950's! Tell me again how it's some kind of new-fangled weapon of mass destruction?

The old saw about any gun having been designed for "only one purpose" is a ridiculous argument. It's a gun-banner's tired old catchphrase that really doesn't even make any sense. A Brown Bess musket was clearly designed for only one purpose, and I don't hear calls to ban them.

The reality is that the vast majority of us do not want weapons in the hands of bad people. I have children and their safety is of the utmost importance to me. How to do that without infringing on the rights of the law-abiding is the question. I for one am not willing to have California or Australia style gun control in the quest for "public safety".

For one thing, I think that level of control takes away rights completely and divvies back some privileges as the government sees fit. For another, it's clear that ultimately they are not effective at keeping us safe.

I do agree that if we're going to have background checks they should be as accurate as possible. I think a nut job or a criminal is going to get a gun either way even if a background stops them, but if we're going to do background checks they should be complete and accurate, and flag someone who shouldn't have a gun while not delaying someone who is clean.

As a society, as individuals in society, there is one thing that we can do to help keep guns out of the hands of bad people. Here's some gun control that I can get behind: control your own guns and keep them locked up! Guns get stolen all the time; it's the number one way criminals get guns. A good friend just had three handguns stolen from his truck. As much as I hate a thief, he really should have had them secured better. I had some guns stolen many years ago and now keep mine locked up tight. What has always bothered me more than the monetary loss is the thought of what some dirt-bag might be doing with my guns. I hope my S&W model 29 is rusting at the bottom of a river, rather than in the pocket of some drug dealer.

No, I don't think we need a law requiring everyone to keep their guns locked up. That's the knee-jerk liberal solution to everything- a new law telling everyone how to live their lives. Rather, I think we need to improve the safety culture of our own community, and securing our weapons is a big part of that.

I agree with much of your thoughts and reasonings. Keeping guns out of the wrong folks should be the first priority. The gun 'community' has to take responsibility for doing that, both personally and then through legislation when needed.

 

[Layton]

Stop lying. Pretty sure what was stopped was the CDC from researching gun violence as a disease specifically which was obviously a partisan ploy. There have been tons of other studies done on FBI crime statistics etc. Also nothing is stopping say you from funding some research if you want to put your money where your mouth is.

You are correct that is was the CDC that was stopped from doing research. I don't believe that it was a 'partisan ploy'.

 

[Layton]

Ah kin whip thu' lever uv wunna ma Winchesters purdy qwik!

Not that fast! only the "Rifleman" was that quick !

 

[Layton]

A Doucheocrat's Soviet-sponsored, un-American Commie mouth.

Why does a comment have to be insulting? If it makes you feel better, go for it!

 

[Layton]

I have a reason for asking.

In my mind, most of those would qualify.

 

[Layton]

"1. So, disturbed kids are taking guns to school and killing teachers and classmates. We better make sure kids can't get guns.
2. So, disturbed kids are taking guns to school and killing teachers and classmates. We better find out what's making these kids want to kill, fix that, and then they won't want to use guns to kill teachers and classmates.

See what I did there? Which statement makes more sense? Don't bring up politics. Don't refer to statistical data. Don't nervously look at your cell phone. Just read the two statements and be honest with yourself. We can do better. We're smarter than this. WAKE UP."
― Aaron B. Powell, Guns Part 2

I agree, WE are smarter than this. We can do better. Rather than look for ways to turn around facts, statements, and throw insults. we can have a positive impact on rightful and responsible ownership of firearms.
The current situation doesn't seem to allow that not does it allow sensible measures to be taken when our 'government' is so controlled by the ideology (read money) of the NRA.

 

[Layton]

A flintlock or the latest issue Infantry rifle...There is no real difference.
If someone shoots you with either and you are hit in the right the place , either will make you dead.
The use of one over the other will not make you "deader"...
As for the argument of more or higher capacity magazines and a faster rate of fire makes a rifle "more deadly".. its only hits that count...no matter the amount of bullets in the magazine , shots fired , or how fast...

A gun only does what it is supposed to do , fire its bullet or shot , after someone pulls the trigger...it does not care what you think or feel about it....

It is time that folks understand that :
It is not the gun who is at fault...
It does not matter what gun was used in a crime , but that a crime was committed...
Owning one gun or a thousand guns , does not make a law abiding citizen dangerous...
It does not matter how many bullets a magazine holds or how fast a gun fires...neither makes one gun or magazine more "deadly" or dangerous...its the person using it.
Current firearm laws , while well intending , are faulty and not working at keeping folks from being shot...
Firearm laws also really only affect those who wish to be law abiding...
Andy

All laws affect only those who wish to be law abiding.

And many features make one firearm more dangerous than others, the same way that a semi-truck is more dangerous in a crash than a small pickup. While both are driven by a person, one of them has more ability to inflict damage. True the result is the same, but there is a difference.

 

[notazombie]

Let me help you with your check list to make sure you hit all the predictable buzz phrases.
-"assault rifles"
-"Government has banned any type of Gun research due to pressure by the NRA and gun lobbies"
-"necessary permits"
-"The gun 'community' has to take responsibility for doing that, both personally and then through legislation when needed."
-"sensible measures"
-"controlled by the ideology (read money) of the NRA"
-"many features make one firearm more dangerous than others"


Well, that's a good start but somehow you neglected "as a fellow gun owner", "for the children", and "no one is coming for your guns". It's still early though. I'm sure you'll work them in eventually. There's always next Friday

 

[Diamondback]

Let me help you with your check list to make sure you hit all the predictable buzz phrases.
-"assault rifles"
-"Government has banned any type of Gun research due to pressure by the NRA and gun lobbies"
-"necessary permits"
-"The gun 'community' has to take responsibility for doing that, both personally and then through legislation when needed."
-"sensible measures"
-"controlled by the ideology (read money) of the NRA"
-"many features make one firearm more dangerous than others"


Well, that's a good start but somehow you neglected "as a fellow gun owner", "for the children", and "no one is coming for your guns". It's still early though. I'm sure you'll work them in eventually. There's always next Friday

Seven out of the Ten-Point Brady/Bloomingdouche Talking Point Checklist, troll confirmed and Ignore Listed.

 

[slimmer13]

I agree, WE are smarter than this. We can do better. Rather than look for ways to turn around facts, statements, and throw insults. we can have a positive impact on rightful and responsible ownership of firearms.
The current situation doesn't seem to allow that not does it allow sensible measures to be taken when our 'government' is so controlled by the ideology (read money) of the NRA.

You want facts, ok. How about these rifles that you want banned so bad, only account for less than 500 total murders a year. Not sure of the exact number because all rifle murders are counted together.

So even if all 500 or so murders a year by rifles were "assault rifles", statistically speaking, they are less dangerous than clubs, knives, and bare hands.

Then the people like you who want them banned have the nerve to talk about "sensible" and "responsible" things we should be doing like banning these guns, ignoring the tens of millions of them out there and the millions of law abiding Americans who use them the right way every day.

There is not one shred of evidence that one of these psychos who are willing to die taking down as many people as they can with them would just change their mind and go home if they didn't have access to black rifles. And there is no evidence that the body count would be any less if they chose a different means.

 

[Ura-Ki]

The argument that we shouldn't have access to, or be allowed to own is not an argument that any of its proponents can actually articulate with any intelligence or working knolage of because they react to a fear of, and no actuall understanding of what is used, by who, and why! Firearms are all the same, regardless of stated or intended purpose, they are all capable of taking life, and it dosnt matter what type, power, or capacity, it's a simple fact! Man kind has been killing each other since man first stood on two legs, and the tool matters naught, it's the will, the intent, and resolve that matters! When will the gun control believers understand all that? You cannot regulate people, and you shouldn't be able to, so why should you expect to regulate one of thousands of tools? It's folly, but it makes them feel good despite the simple fact that a ban, a tax, or any number of regulations or restrictions cannot, and will ever stop a person from taking the life of another! Stop talking about the gun and start talking about the Man!

 

[Andy54Hawken]

All laws affect only those who wish to be law abiding.

And many features make one firearm more dangerous than others, the same way that a semi-truck is more dangerous in a crash than a small pickup. While both are driven by a person, one of them has more ability to inflict damage. True the result is the same, but there is a difference.

Again we are going to have to disagree...
If a gun is misused you can harm yourself or others...there is no difference in the level or amount of harm with different guns.
No one gun is more dangerous than another one....it all depends on the person using it.
Cars and trucks have no place in a discussion of guns...
Andy

 

[Andy54Hawken]

A further thought on what I said above...
No one will ever say:
"Gee , I 'm glad my loved one was shot with a rifle that did not have:
A folding or collapsible or bumpfire stock , bayonet lug , flash hider , night sights , a 20 or more round magazine and was semi auto...but was only shot with a:
Rifle that had a wood stock ,5 rounds or less and was not semi auto ..."

Dead is dead no matter what gun was used same as harmed is harmed.
None of the above listed features make a gun more dangerous than one that has none of those features.
Andy

 

[Ura-Ki]

Again, the belief that limits or a ban will effect any change is a worthless task! You cannot regulate or legislate a person's will and determination. Accept it as fact, the tool used is not important, it's the act! Criminals only follow laws and rules out of convenince and the moment you try to limit them, they simply ignore it as it's no longer convenient. Most every one commits a crime every single day, whether knowing or not, willingly or not, ask your self this, knowing full what it is and the repercussions of, would you still do it? Same thing here with gun control. A person with desire, need, and willpower will look at the question of legality and convienence and make a choice regardless of legality! Again, this argument isn't about guns and never should be, it' about crime and the person willing to commit that crime!
Layton, you believe that certain firearms are "More Deadly" or "High Power" or "High Capacity" and your argument that they serve no purpose other then to kill as many as fast as possible! Your argument is based on the beliefs that one man with a weapon like you mention is a mass murdering machine, and yet history has shown other tools not only more efficient, and more effective, but even easier and cheaper, and so far nothing can be done to stop them or the person willing to use them! You say you support the 2nd and the rights enumerated there in, and yet you do an about face and say there is no need, or no one should have a weapon of mass destruction! Please show me where in the Bill Of Rights where is limits or bans any weapon from personal ownership and use! Please show me where it says high capacity, high power, or mass destruction should be restricted to military use only! You ask me to ponder your point of view, I ask the same in return! Can you agree that any limits are simple feel good solutions to a problem of man and not the tool? Can you show me facts to support your claims listed above, how a certain weapon is worse then any other? Can you show me irrefutable facts that removing firearms will make my world safer? Can you show me a government capable of protecting me from crime when you remove a simple tool from my possssion? Can you show me how removing a tool puts me on equal footing with a person intent on causing me harm to get what ever they want from me, up to and including my life?
You ask me to accept your beliefs that certain tools are not needed, and yet you believe in the premise of the 2nd, what happens when the Gooberment decides that they no longer will be held at bay by the 2nd and they decide to act in a manor that you do not agree with, what if they tell you to accept decisions regardless of legality or ethics and you WILL comply or else? Will you willingly submit to the demands of the Gooberment, or will you stand and fight? What if that fight goes beyond the vote and the will of the people? Again, you ask me to consider your point of view, I ask the same in return!

 

[Diamondback]

Hoooah, @Ura-Ki !