National Now Country is jumping on the anti-gun bandwagon

[Diamondback]

I have a reason for asking.

That IS my idea of a destructive weapon... one Marxist/Progfascist in the wrong place is more dangerous than all the technology man has ever created combined.

 

[Wombat of Doom]

No that is not my point. The point is why should we as a society make it so easy to put firearms that were designed for ONLY one purpose into the hands of those who could abuse them and harm others under the guise of 'Freedom'.

This IS contesting the 2A, and nothing more. All guns are designed to shoot bullets.

 

[CountryGent]

No argument there. I am not contesting the 2nd Amendment at all. I am simply contesting the easy access of certain types of weapons. It appears that I did not make that clear in my earlier posts.

True that. And if one has ever gone through the NFA process to buy or build, it becomes apparent the phrase "easy access" does not apply.

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.)

 

[Caveman Jim]

That IS my idea of a destructive weapon... one Marxist/Progfascist in the wrong place is more dangerous than all the technology man has ever created combined.

I'm all in favor of keeping dangerous weapons out of the hands of fools. Let's start with typewriters.
Frank Lloyd Wright

 

[TeacherSmurf]

No I took it seriously and understand the intention. Not how it is used today.

I'm not sure what you mean. Originally there was no restriction. Anyone who wanted to buy, sell, use, manufacture, and/or invent a weapon could, with no government over site, regulation, restriction, background check, waiting period, tax, ect. So that is what you are wanting?

First the 'issue' is high capacity weapons in the wrong hands.
I don't have a concrete answer to the 'issue'.
We can take some steps by having more accurate and more stringent background checks through the many 'outlets' for the agreed upon weapons and accessories. The current 'date base' is a joke, mostly paper records from dealers.
We could make sure that the data base is updated to the latest technology and is kept current with LEO and Armed services input.
We could do some real research into the issue of gun violence that has been banned for decades.
These are only a few that could be used to lesson the possibility of the wrong people getting access to whatever weapons/accessories are agreed on.

Again, I am not sure what you mean. Before you were saying that you could not see any reason for these evil guns with high capacity magazines (even though I explained at least my reason as a Smurf sized female, but that was ignored). Now you are saying you "issue" is with them getting into the wrong hands. Background checks are required (OR and WA), unless you buy them illegally. Someone who is a felon, legally/certified insane, accused of domestic abuse, has a restraining order, ect can not legally walk into a store and purchase a gun. They should fail the background check. By the way, I filled out less paperwork for getting married than I did for the last handgun I purchased.

The "problem" is that a) crimes/actions that were to be reported to put people on "the list" were not b) unless a person is insane, until a crime is committed they are innocent.

What some are talking about violates more than the 2nd amendment, it also violates "innocent until proven guilty" and gets into the whole Orwellian "thought police" area. "Well, you want this gun so we think you are going to commit a crime.

As for research, it was attached to the Clinton Gun ban of 1994. And they found...drum roll please...it did nothing to lower crime. Criminals will continue to get what they want through whatever means they want. Also you can look across the Atlantic and see the research out of Europe. However as a statistics teacher, I will say the first thing you should look at is who funded the research.

"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

This is the true elephant in the room. Guns have been in households for hundreds of years. I have comic books where you could get points to turn in for a gun. Why is it that so many are willing to kill others now?

 

[CountryGent]

By the way, I filled out less paperwork for getting married than I did for the last handgun I purchased.

Hopefully you regard the fruits of that paperwork as a success.

 

[TeacherSmurf]

Hopefully you regard the fruits of that paperwork as a success.

Ich bin noch bis über beide Ohren verliebt sein.

 

[Diamondback]

There can be no doubt as to the Founders' intent, with their insurrectionist language they clearly meant for the People to have parity of hardware with any would-be oppressive State.

In Jefferson's drafts of the Articles of Confederation, you can clearly see the very strongly worded "No freeman shall be debarred the use of arms."
Founders Online: I. First Draft by Jefferson, [before June 1776]
Founders Online: II. Second Draft by Jefferson, [before 13 June 1776]
Founders Online: III. Third Draft by Jefferson, [before June 1776]

Ask yourself, after perusing these, whether you'd rather side with Jefferson and our Founders, or Hideyoshi and Hitler?
Quotes on Firearms Rights
Brandeis in particular seems to be aptly describing Layton and his ilk...

Also, go read Federalist 25 and 28 by Hamilton, since it's obvious some here never have...

 

[CountryGent]

Ich bin noch bis über beide Ohren verliebt sein.

To quote Rick Blaine in Casablanca, "My German's a little rusty." But I know what this means.

 

[notazombie]

Get a room.

 

[CLT65]

The individual who stirred this up seems to have left. I expect they were one of two things: either a gun control activist here to subversively stir things up and present some "common sense" gun regulations, or a sincere gun owner who's been drinking some cool-aide and buying the left's arguments. Hopefully it's the latter and they've taken some good points for consideration.

Either way the result has been to bring about some good discussion, and probably not from the direction that "Daddy Bloomberg" would prefer.

 

[Diamondback]

Common sense: Guns don't kill people, evil a**holes kill people. If they can't get guns they'll get knives, if they can't get knives they'll get hammers, if they can't get hammers they'll drop trou and beat you to death with their gorram DICKS if they have to.

 

[CountryGent]

Common sense: Guns don't kill people, evil a**holes kill people.

Exactly!

 

[RVTECH]

I expect they wereone of two things: either a gun control activist here to subversively stirthings up and present some "common sense" gun regulations, or a sinceregun owner who's been drinking some cool-aide and buying the left'sarguments. Hopefully it's the latter and they've taken some good points for consideration.

I believe the latter is correct however his position is not uncommon among some gun owners. I gave up when he could not support it by answering a couple very basic questions and this is right out of the Standard Liberal Playbook - create a 'cause' , get the like minded masses to follow and then backpedal, sidestep and avoid having to provide any answers or rational.

 

[nwslopoke]

The one thing all pro gun/2A people seem to agree on is punish those that need to be published. We don't stand behind dangerous or stupid people.

I don't like to see over sentencing though. The libs are quick with the pen if you are on the opposing side. You can break any law as long as it fits the correct agenda. Pastor M4, antifa, ect.

 

[Layton]

This IS contesting the 2A, and nothing more. All guns are designed to shoot bullets.

the Supreme Court just rejected that argument in Maryland.

 

[Layton]

Common sense: Guns don't kill people, evil a**holes kill people. If they can't get guns they'll get knives, if they can't get knives they'll get hammers, if they can't get hammers they'll drop trou and beat you to death with their gorram DICKS if they have to.

True, but how FAST can they do that??????

 

[Layton]

The individual who stirred this up seems to have left. I expect they were one of two things: either a gun control activist here to subversively stir things up and present some "common sense" gun regulations, or a sincere gun owner who's been drinking some cool-aide and buying the left's arguments. Hopefully it's the latter and they've taken some good points for consideration.

Either way the result has been to bring about some good discussion, and probably not from the direction that "Daddy Bloomberg" would prefer.

There can be no doubt as to the Founders' intent, with their insurrectionist language they clearly meant for the People to have parity of hardware with any would-be oppressive State.

In Jefferson's drafts of the Articles of Confederation, you can clearly see the very strongly worded "No freeman shall be debarred the use of arms."
Founders Online: I. First Draft by Jefferson, [before June 1776]
Founders Online: II. Second Draft by Jefferson, [before 13 June 1776]
Founders Online: III. Third Draft by Jefferson, [before June 1776]

Ask yourself, after perusing these, whether you'd rather side with Jefferson and our Founders, or Hideyoshi and Hitler?
Quotes on Firearms Rights
Brandeis in particular seems to be aptly describing Layton and his ilk...

Also, go read Federalist 25 and 28 by Hamilton, since it's obvious some here never have...

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.

 

[Layton]

I'm not sure what you mean. Originally there was no restriction. Anyone who wanted to buy, sell, use, manufacture, and/or invent a weapon could, with no government over site, regulation, restriction, background check, waiting period, tax, ect. So that is what you are wanting?



Again, I am not sure what you mean. Before you were saying that you could not see any reason for these evil guns with high capacity magazines (even though I explained at least my reason as a Smurf sized female, but that was ignored). Now you are saying you "issue" is with them getting into the wrong hands. Background checks are required (OR and WA), unless you buy them illegally. Someone who is a felon, legally/certified insane, accused of domestic abuse, has a restraining order, ect can not legally walk into a store and purchase a gun. They should fail the background check. By the way, I filled out less paperwork for getting married than I did for the last handgun I purchased.

The "problem" is that a) crimes/actions that were to be reported to put people on "the list" were not b) unless a person is insane, until a crime is committed they are innocent.

What some are talking about violates more than the 2nd amendment, it also violates "innocent until proven guilty" and gets into the whole Orwellian "thought police" area. "Well, you want this gun so we think you are going to commit a crime.

As for research, it was attached to the Clinton Gun ban of 1994. And they found...drum roll please...it did nothing to lower crime. Criminals will continue to get what they want through whatever means they want. Also you can look across the Atlantic and see the research out of Europe. However as a statistics teacher, I will say the first thing you should look at is who funded the research.



This is the true elephant in the room. Guns have been in households for hundreds of years. I have comic books where you could get points to turn in for a gun. Why is it that so many are willing to kill others now?

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.

 

[slimmer13]

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.

Right, because there have been zero examples of successful insurgencies by an indigenous population against a force with vastly superior firepower in the last century.