Guns

[Joel]

Assault bullets? So what now, if I have a bolt action .223 or .308 that I hunt with it's a crime to by ammunition? Or is it just hollow points that are illegal? I won't even begin to comment on the rest of it. Crazy.

 

[CodeRedR51]

All this while their police officers are opening fire on innocent people...

 

[Slash]

All this while their police officers are opening fire on innocent people...

I keep saying there is going to be a rebellion. A bad one.

 

[Zenith]

I keep saying there is going to be a rebellion. A bad one.

No there won't be. Just a whole lot of people who will treat these laws like most Californians treat the laws prohibiting marijuana. If anything you're going to see less people running dumb bullet buttons and 10 round mags and start having real AR15's. If you're going to be a felon, might as well do it right.

 

[II-zOoLoGy-II]

Absolutely ridiculous. Good luck CA residents.

 

[FoolKiller]

I love Joe Biden. His unofficial comments are always great.

 

[Zenith]

Potatoe.

 

[Eric.]

California just unveiled its new list of proposed gun control.

Press conference on CA gun laws:

-Possession of hollow point bullets and similar assault bullets a felony.
-Must register and report ammo purchases. Only purchase max 500 rounds.
-10 round magazine limit.
-ALL magazines must be fixed to the gun (can not be removed without the use of a tool)
-100% prohibition of all magazines greater than 10 rounds. All previous grandfathered magazines become illegal. Felony if you keep one.
-Changing definition of shotgun revolving cylinder -- Basically only single shot shotguns will remain legal.
-Bullet Buttons will become illegal -- All AR and AK style rifles that are currently equipped with them will be designated Assault Weapons. Felony to possess.
-All gun owners now must be licensed like drivers.
-All gun owners must carry gun liability insurance

Inane. People who came up with this are running the state? We are hosed. We are SOOO hosed.

Hahahahaaa. Wow. And I've only ever bought hollow point .22LR because that's what comes in the cheap packs. Which, being like 550 rounds in a box, is also another law broken.


So, how is it that they will prescribe that every gun type be modified with a magazine attached via hardware? A lot of mags just won't even work if they have the wrong pressure on them, let alone having some hardware putting odd forces on them.

 

[Zenith]

That part is so poorly defined. Cannot be removed with tools? Everything can be removed with tools

 

[prisonermonkeys]

That part is so poorly defined. Cannot be removed with tools? Everything can be removed with tools

I think you've misread what it says:

ALL magazines must be fixed to the gun (can not be removed without the use of a tool)

Of course it can be removed with tools - that's the point. The laws are trying to make magazines that can be removed from a gun without the use of a tool illegal.

 

[Zenith]

Ah, my bad.


Their efforts to ban the bullet button led me to believe that. A bullet button uses a tool (cartridge) to release the magazine.

 

[Crash]

California just unveiled its new list of proposed gun control.

Press conference on CA gun laws:

-Possession of hollow point bullets and similar assault bullets a felony.
-Must register and report ammo purchases. Only purchase max 500 rounds.
-10 round magazine limit.
-ALL magazines must be fixed to the gun (can not be removed without the use of a tool)
-100% prohibition of all magazines greater than 10 rounds. All previous grandfathered magazines become illegal. Felony if you keep one.
-Changing definition of shotgun revolving cylinder -- Basically only single shot shotguns will remain legal.
-Bullet Buttons will become illegal -- All AR and AK style rifles that are currently equipped with them will be designated Assault Weapons. Felony to possess.
-All gun owners now must be licensed like drivers.
-All gun owners must carry gun liability insurance

Inane. People who came up with this are running the state? We are hosed. We are SOOO hosed.

So they are essentially outlawing every kind of technology invented since the early 1900s? Also, this means all modern semi-automatic pistols are outlawed? Wow, nice job, California. This is insane.

What defines an "assault bullet" anyways?

Also, what's the likelihood that all that would pass?

I love Joe Biden. His unofficial comments are always great.

Well, I'm glad that's he finally admitted that, though it would be better to do it on national TV rather than publicly making a farce about how well gun control works then just back stab it with comments like these.

Politicians. :rollseyes:

 

[Danoff]

Phenomenal article on gun control. I'd quote parts of it, but there is so much to quote that you might as well read the whole thing.

http://www.law.com/jsp/nlj/PubArtic...nd_Amendment_advocate&slreturn=20130112104315

 

[FoolKiller]

I'm not keen that he focuses on the self defense aspects of the 2nd Amendment, as his argument makes it sound as if that is what must be shown to justify the legality of specific weapons. He bolsters this a bit with pointing out that attachments that make it easier to hold a rifle can't be argued to make it inherently more dangerous, but it still leaves the actual language of the 2nd Amendment out. Unfortunately, warfare has reached a point now that it is almost impossible to argue the citizens should be equipped with the arms to fight a tyrannical government.

And as I mentioned in the drugs thread, he seems to assume legalizing drugs will mean those involved in the drug trade will become legit. That's a big assumption. Similarly, drug addicts, legal or not, will probably still commit crimes, such as robbery, to pay for their addiction. It's hard to tell if that will happen or legal drugs will be cheap enough to buy with a day's worth of panhandling.

 

[Danoff]

I'm not keen that he focuses on the self defense aspects of the 2nd Amendment, as his argument makes it sound as if that is what must be shown to justify the legality of specific weapons. He bolsters this a bit with pointing out that attachments that make it easier to hold a rifle can't be argued to make it inherently more dangerous, but it still leaves the actual language of the 2nd Amendment out. Unfortunately, warfare has reached a point now that it is almost impossible to argue the citizens should be equipped with the arms to fight a tyrannical government.

Have you read DC vs Heller? It explains why the underlying principle behind the 2nd amendment is self-defense, a small example of which is defense against a tyrannical government. Self-defense is the larger principle at issue and covers tyrannical government.

Self-defense is exactly what we should be focused on, because it is the fundamental right.

 

[FoolKiller]

Have you read DC vs Heller? It explains why the underlying principle behind the 2nd amendment is self-defense, a small example of which is defense against a tyrannical government. Self-defense is the larger principle at issue and covers tyrannical government.

Self-defense is exactly what we should be focused on, because it is the fundamental right.

By that rationale, there should be no reasonable form of banning anything the military/government possesses. I can't defend against a drone or tank with the best of rifles.

 

[Danoff]

By that rationale, there should be no reasonable form of banning anything the military/government possesses. I can't defend against a drone or tank with the best of rifles.

Well, you have the right to try.

 

[Zenith]

Stanford? That one? The one in California?

http://stanfordreview.org/article/why-college-campuses-should-allow-concealed-carry/

It's good to see a young female have this opinion. Members of that group to gain the most from a CCP and good training.

 

[Zenith]

Haven't seen a shred of evidence from your side showing that the UK has a higher ratio of gun crimes compared to the US.

A quick search, brings these up. Now I can't vouch for their accuarcy, but at least I have offered more than what Statler and Waldorf have.

Wikipedia gun crime by country

Murders with firearms

You may notice that the UK total is lower than the US and Austria. So, I would hazard a guess that even though we have the possibility of gun crime occuring, it is less likely to happen here than elsewhere.

Continued here.

We've been over this before. What's important is violent crime rates, not gun crime. A gun is a tool. A means to an end. If I want to rob a store/hurt somebody/kill somebody/rape somebody, I prefer a tool to help me accomplish that tool. If I don't have a gun, I'll use a knife. If I don't have a knife, I'll use a blunt object. If I don't have any of those, there are dozens of alternatives including bombs and my fists.

England, Washington DC, Chicago, Jamaica are all examples of places that have banned guns and then seen a rise in crime. There is data all over this thread to support this, but I'll highlight two recent examples here.

There is a large amount of supporting evidence in this thread, I recommend a thorough read.

This is a great read

http://www.saf.org/journal/16/guncontrolinengland.pdf

 

[Sureboss]

Yes, but you could also argue that those mentioned cities have a much greater availability of guns in the first place, not saying you can't get them in London, Manchester or Nottingham, but the amount of weapons in circulation is considerably less.

 

[Ardius]

We've been over this before. What's important is violent crime rates, not gun crime.

There are many more factors than just gun control that affect crime rates, I don't think you can conclusively say that gun control = higher crime rates..just as you cannot say that gun control = lower gun crime.

 

[arora]

Gun control = governing a lazy irresponsible peoples.

 

[Johnnypenso]

This is a great read

http://www.saf.org/journal/16/guncontrolinengland.pdf

That is a great read. Anyone who advocates for gun control should be required to read that article in it's entirety before they respond on this forum.

 

[BrutherSuperior]

By that rationale, there should be no reasonable form of banning anything the military/government possesses. I can't defend against a drone or tank with the best of rifles.

There is wiggle room against arms that can be carried (bear) that can kill indiscriminately. For instance, a Davy Crocket (extreme example) or a portable SAM. Unfortunately, this is also the reason we will not have "machine guns" or anything with select fire; grossly inaccurate and you can shoot everything except what you're aiming at.

The SCOTUS really needs to solidify what the phrase "common use" is. To the left; common use probably means some sort of Fudd gun. To me, it means anything commercially available for LEO as well as civilian sales. SWAT teams have MP5's and as far as I know, SWAT teams are not used in a theatre of war nor used to assault criminals...nor are regular cops. They're not supposed to anyway.

To me, the HK MP5 along with AR variants are in common use by LEOs to defend the peace; shouldn't the general population have access to the same tools to defend their person?

...just thinking out loud.

 

[Nicksfix]

Watch the video and listen to the commentary afterwards.

Noice 👍

Video

 

[Keef]

There is wiggle room against arms that can be carried (bear)

The Second Amendment doesn't say we have a right to bear arms, it says we have a right to keep and bear arms, "arms" being weapons, and not anywhere does it say what type of weapons.

Basically what it's saying is that we're allowed to own and wield weapons. If you really want to fiddledick with the definition of "bear", then I guess it means we can own weapons and carry around whatever we're strong enough to pick up. In the Revolutionary War that was a musket; in WW2 it was a water-cooled machine gun; today it is a shoulder-fired SAM.

My interepretation says that if you've got the money to buy an aircraft carrier then you go right ahead and buy it. Who knows, maybe the guy has a big family or wants to take his pilot club on a cruise.

SWAT teams have MP5's and as far as I know, SWAT teams are not used in a theatre of war nor used to assault criminals...nor are regular cops. They're not supposed to anyway.

The purpose of SWAT is to engage in special tactics, including assault of dangerous criminals. The use of surprise raids is probably their most powerful tactic, actually.

To me, the HK MP5 along with AR variants are in common use by LEOs to defend the peace; shouldn't the general population have access to the same tools to defend their person?

The answer is so clear to me that the question isn't worth asking.

Another clarification: The Second Amendment's purpose is to allow people to defend themselves against tyranny. Tyrannical governments tend to be more capable than the bad guy down the street and therefore we must interpret and exercise the Amendment to its fullest extent.

 

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

Yes, but you could also argue that those mentioned cities have a much greater availability of guns in the first place, not saying you can't get them in London, Manchester or Nottingham, but the amount of weapons in circulation is considerably less.

That really isn't the point, the fact of the matter is violence in general has been put into a scope of "gun" violence, as some absolute and only. Violent crimes overall should be looked at. There may be more guns in circulation here than there, but as the stats prove less guns don't always mean less crime, but instead tend to show a reciprocating effect of more crime at times. However, this doesn't mean guns create a less criminal enviorment all the time either (this coming from a gun owner/collector).

 

[Zenith]

Joe Biden came on the air today saying that the best option for home defense was not an AR15 with 30 rounds, but rather firing warning shots into the air with a double barrel shotgun.

Two problems.

1. You've used up at least 50% of your ammo in a gun that is slow and difficult to reload
2. Warning shots are illegal.

 

[BobK]

Inside, it can be a little rough on the walls/ceiling. Outdoors, it can be a little rough on the neighbors.

 

[Keef]

Joe Biden came on the air today saying that the best option for home defense was not an AR15 with 30 rounds, but rather firing warning shots into the air with a double barrel shotgun.

Two problems.


[*]You've used up at least 50% of your ammo in a gun that is slow and difficult to reload
[*]Warning shots are illegal.

It's been known for years now that Joe Biden is a ****ing moron.