Fiscal responsibility

[Katya Mullethov]

Wins out over hand wringing , pearl clutching political correctness .

Statham PD taking bids for submachine gun

The Statham Police Department will soon be accepting bids for the purchase of a Smith & Wesson Model 76 submachine gun the agency has in its possession.

Statham Police Chief Steve Martin said Tuesday that all the paperwork is finalized and the department is now requesting sealed bids from dealers.

The Statham City Council on May 24 approved Martin’s request to allow him to sell or trade the weapon it acquired in the early 1970’s. Originally designed for special-use by Navy SEALS in the Vietnam War, the model gun was kept as a surplus weapon and provided to law enforcement agencies around the country for their use.The funds accrued from the sale of the gun will go to purchase equipment for the police department. Online, the model ranges in value from $6,000 to $11,000, depending on condition . And made a lot of noise in "The Harry Beckwith Incident" .

[DrDan]

1. or said another way, money over citizen's safety

[one-eyed fat man]

4. What do you propose they should do with it?

If that S&W 76 is registered on a Form 4 and transferable to a collector it should fetch close to 12,000 dollars. More if there are any magazines to go with it as they are almost rarer than the gun.

You and a couple of others might be the only persons who would expect someone to spend that kind of money on a collectors item then embark on a life of knocking over convenience stores.

Tell you what, why don't you bid on it, that is assuming you can pass the the backgound check. You'll have to go high, at least $25,000 to be sure. Then you can post a you tube video of you smashing it it and cutting it up with a torch while proclaiming how you did it "...for the children..." and "...if it only saves one life..." or any other feel-good pyschobabble of your choice.

[DrDan]

9. your snarky reply does not deserve a response

[cleanhippie]

28. So why did you respond then?

[PavePusher]

35. Then what were you trying to imply in your first post? n/t

[gejohnston]

70. Neither does your one line absurdity.

[DrDan]

74. yet you replied . . . .

[gejohnston]

86. even the undeserving gets to hear my big mouth, that is how I spread the only wealth I have

[one-eyed fat man]

80. It is a challenge

You obviously feel that the public will be endangered if the gun is auctioned off.

"or said another way, money over citizen's safety"

The solution is simple, put your money where your mouth is and buy the gun.

Again, that assumes you can pass the background check and that the Chief Law Enforcement Officer in the jurisdiction where you reside will sign off on it.

One the tax is paid and the gun is transferred to you you can ensure it is not any danger to society by any legal means you choose. You can cut it up, donate it to a museum, abandon it to the ATF for destruction (or shipment to Mexico) whatever blows your skirt up.

If you can't pass the background check you could give the town money equal the value of the gun to NOT sell it. It's your call.

[Katya Mullethov]

124. To me , fiscal responsibility

Would be decreasing the PD budget by the amount the transferable brought at auction , rather than simply spending the money on something else . But I'm funny that way .

[krispos42]

197. Why not? Your asinine post got one?

Why doesn't the Brady Campaign buy it?

There are a fixed number of legal full-auto weapons in the US, due to the registry closing 25 years ago.

Unlike "regular" guns, of which 15 million new ones a year are sold in the US, once this is gone, it's gone for good.



Of course, this is predicated on the assumption that full-auto weapons are used commonly by criminals.


When's the last time somebody was killed by a full-auto weapon that wasn't being held by a law-enforcement officer? There was that kid in Massachusetts a couple of years ago in a stupid accident. And before that?

[gejohnston]

12. you could have a valid point if

it were not for the extensive background checks required to get one. As far as I know, a registered SMG have not been used in a crime in the 77 years since the NFA passed.

[MicaelS]

30. According to my research there were two instances

The first one was by a serving police officer.

Since 1934, there appear to have been at least two homicides committed with legally owned automatic weapons. One was a murder committed by a law enforcement officer (as opposed to a civilian). On September 15th, 1988, a 13-year veteran of the Dayton, Ohio police department, Patrolman Roger Waller, then 32, used his fully automatic MAC-11 .380 caliber submachine gun to kill a police informant, 52-year-old Lawrence Hileman. Patrolman Waller pleaded guilty in 1990, and he and an accomplice were sentenced to 18 years in prison.

http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcfullau.html

The other homicide, possibly involving a legally owned machine gun, occurred on September 14, 1992, also in Ohio.

And that was committed by a PHYSICIAN. http://members.cox.net/arporro/photos/Shooting.pdf

But yours is a valid point. Two crimes in 77 years, AND both were committed with the same type of weapon, a .380 MAC-11.

Wow, a cop and a doctor, both murderers with guns. Who would believe that? :sarcasm:

[DrDan]

73. seems to support extensive checks and enhanced control, doesn't it?

[gejohnston]

76. not really

because they were rarely owned back then, other than the mob, cops, and the military. Dillinger and company stole theirs from the national guard armories. Interesting thing is that Canada regulated handguns more than machine guns until 1977. In fact, their controls on machine gun ownership was laxer than ours. It seemed to be not much of a problem for them.

[slackmaster]

32. Lawful ownership of automatic weapons has not been a problem in this country for a long, long time

You should do a little research on the subject.

[gejohnston]

71. other than a few high profile cases, it really was not back then

While the mob in the 1920s had them, but I doubt the average stick up guy did. From what I found, a Thompson was about six or seven grand in today's money, not something the average guy would buy in pre minimum wage America, esp for something that was pretty worthless for putting venison on the table. The few high profile bandits like Dillinger, stole theirs from the cops and national guard.

[MicaelS]

36. The point is this DOCTOR....

The average gun owner can't afford to own Class III weapons, they are an item bought and owned by people who are wealthy. These people are pillars of their communities and don't commit crimes because they would lose their guns, their money and go to prison.

As I posted in my other post only two gun owners of these times have committed murder with these types of weapons, and one was a cop and the other was a DOCTOR, doctor.

Or to put it another way, physicians kill more people with medical negligence every single day in the US, then have occurred with legally owned machine guns in the last 77 years since the NFA of 1934 was passed.

So the data would indicate people of your profession are a bigger threat to society than NFA Gun Owners. :evilgrin:

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

96. Simon and Garfunkel music from DrDan...

...Sounds of Silence :popcorn:

[rl6214]

91. Yeah because there have been so many crimes with the full auto

guns in the the publics hands right now, right?

[Taitertots]

120. Prove that one Legally owned machine gun hurts anyone

Or accept that your statement is not supported by reality.

[DrDan]

125. "not supported by reality" - that's rich coming from the side that feels the need to

carry a gun into church and schools

[Taitertots]

127. Why don't you worry about things I've actually said instead of hallucinating insane ideas...

That you falsely attribute to me.

Demonstrate the harm from legally owned machine guns that you claim exists.

[DrDan]

129. those words were directly from your post

[Taitertots]

130. When did I say I supported carrying guns in schools?

Duh, that was the part that you hallucinated.

[DrDan]

131. the part in the quotes was credited to you - the part about schools and churches

was a comment in general based on another topic yesterday - about a loopy legislator that had introduced a new bill to expand areas where guns can be carried.

I appreciate knowing you do not support that.

[Taitertots]

132. Why are you directing it at me if it was just a general comment?

"that's rich coming from the side that feels the need to carry a gun into church and schools"
I would appreciate it if in the future you don't falsely attribute other people's opinions to me.


Now will you demonstrate the safety risks you claim with your statement "or said another way, money over citizen's safety".

[DrDan]

133. really quite easy to understand - more guns out there putting citizens at risk

just to raise a few bucks.

[Name removed]

135. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[slackmaster]

137. The "guns behave like gas molecules" fallacy

The bizarre notion that the probability of an innocent person getting shot is proportional to the density of the cloud of firearms in an area.

What really matters is who has the guns, not how many exist.

[Taitertots]

139. Ok, now produce something that supports your assertion

I understand what you are saying, but it simply isn't supported by reality. Please provide something which shows that a single legally transfered machine gun puts people at risk.

[DrDan]

143. this is close enough - an 8 year old died handling a machine gun

http://www.masslive.com/news/index.ssf/2008/10/accidental_machine_gun_death_o.html

[Taitertots]

145. One case... The risk is negligible

That is not something a reasonable person would concern themselves with.

[DrDan]

146. I am sure the parents and friends of that 8-year old might think differently

[Taitertots]

147. So what? Doesn't make the event any more meaningful in the larger context

250,000 automatic weapons, over the course of almost 100 years, hundreds of millions of people....
And all you can come up with is a single accident. Sounds like the risk is so small that no reasonable person would give it any consideration.

[DrDan]

148. I believe that is what you asked for . . . and when provided, it is inadequate

not surprised, however

[Taitertots]

149. One case proves that the risk isn't worth considering

You have shown the risk, and it is so small that no reasonable person would bother taking it into consideration for policy decisions.

[DrDan]

150. you asked for a single incident - you got it. That certainly does not imply

there are not more. We both know that.

[Taitertots]

151. Here is a list of what I said

"Demonstrate the harm from legally owned machine guns that you claim exists."
"Prove that one Legally owned machine gun hurts anyone"
"Now will you demonstrate the safety risks you claim with your statement "or said another way, money over citizen's safety".
"Please provide something which shows that a single legally transfered machine gun puts people at risk."

You will note that I didn't "you asked for a single incident". All your single incident does is support my position that the risk is so small that no reasonable person would take it into consideration.

[DrDan]

162. "Please provide something . . . " - I did

"something" is singular.


"Prove that one Legally owned machine gun hurts anyone"

I would have to say that a death of a child with a machine gun "hurts".

[eqfan592]

169. You are being intentionally obtuse...

...and you damned well know it. He was clearly talking about the larger societal impact. A single negative event, no matter how tragic, does not qualify.

[DrDan]

187. you guys slay me

"that does not count"
"that is insignificant"

unbelievable

"Please provide something which shows that a single legally transfered machine gun puts people at risk."

What does that mean to you? "Societal impact"????? Give me a break. A single machine gun killed this child. You do not consider the child being put at risk?

Anything for the guns. Protect the arsenal.

"Single" - get it?

[eqfan592]

191. I will give you no such break, because you are not deserving of it.

Your inability to demonstrate that a single machine gun being sold will somehow prove to be an unacceptable hazard to the well being of the general population only underscores the weakness of your position. A single anecdote does not equate to conclusive evidence for your position.

As I stated earlier, you are clearly being intentionally obtuse on the issue.

[DrDan]

192. a child being killed by a machine gun does not demonstrate

a that "a single machine gun being sold will somehow prove to be an unacceptable hazard".

un-be-lievable

[Taitertots]

189. A peer reviewed journal entry demonstrating a correlation between relevant variables is "something"

It has to be "something" of substance.

"I would have to say that a death of a child with a machine gun "hurts"."
I can't deny that you are correct.

[Katya Mullethov]

205. He set himself up to get scalped

" Name one " One was named . End of story . Hand over the mullet !

But I can beat that . I can name at least three if you include the little kid with the UZI , I know of two more killed by transferable miniguns and one of them was crushed not shot . The other was a cop from Altuna that positioned himself in front of a hang fire , or rotated the barrel or some such . Unfortunate and avoidable .

But I would have to wager that more people have been killed at Antique Engine Shows , all at the same time , than at machine gun shoots . Not that anybody really cares , very few people actually loathe antique engine collectors . Unless they own guns too . Then the gloves are off !

[friendly_iconoclast]

208. Feh. If he was really worried about public safety, he'd push to ban sales of "Bluesmobiles"

AKA surplus police cars. By the time they hit auction, the brakes and steering are usually played out, the damn things are gas-

guzzling tanks, and Crown Victorias have been known to have problems with the lap/shoulder belt assemblies.



But our medico would rather proclaim loudly and repeatedly a purported concern about surplus sales of those eeevul guns.

[gejohnston]

153. I remember this case.

The dad shares responsibity for not listening to the owner on why the kid should not shoot that specific gun. The owner is responsible because he let the dad talk him in to it, did not extend the shoulder stock and show the kid how to burst fire to control the climb, and violated MA state law by allowing a minor fire an automatic weapon to begin with.

[DrDan]

163. so . . .

of course the Father and the owner are responsible. That child is still dead via a machine gun.

[gejohnston]

166. but it has nothing to do with this machine gun

other than the caliber. Just like Jack the ripper's knife or scalpel has nothing to do with yours.

[DrDan]

181. lol-hahahahahahahhahahaha

[one-eyed fat man]

194. That "good doctor" thought his kid shooting was a great idea.

From your link:

"Bizilj, a physician and medical director of the emergency department at Johnson Memorial Hospital in Stafford Springs, Conn., was about to take a photo of his son when the accident occurred."

He talked the people there into letting the kid shoot. Then when the situation got out of hand he is aggrieved and wants absolution, not to mention suing for damages.

Seems to me, DOCTOR, the doctor himself was complicit. So much for a medical degree imparting expertise in small arms.

[DrDan]

202. no doubt about that - throw the book at him as far as I am concerned

[gejohnston]

152. apples and oranges

in that specific case, the owner was negligent in two ways. One was allowing him to fire a micro Uzi knowing that most likely the kid could not control the climb. If he had the shoulder stock extended and fired from the shoulder, that would not have happened. That still would not excuse reason number two. The second was that he violated Mass state law by allowing a minor to handle an automatic weapon.

[DrDan]

164. so . . . .

Of course it shouldn't have happened. It did, didn't it.

Machine Gun - death of a child

[gejohnston]

167. has nothing to do with this sub machine gun.

[DrDan]

183. worthy of a DUzy

[krispos42]

198. Ah, the absolutist position.

Love the unreality of it.

[DrDan]

199. self deleted

[Name removed]

134. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[benEzra]

182. How so?

If I am not mistaken, only two legally possessed Title 2 automatic weapons have ever been used in U.S. homicides since 1934, and one of those was owned by a police officer.

Someone who can afford to drop $12,000 on a 9mm subgun, after passing six months of BATFE and FBI background checks and having their local chief LEO sign off on their application, is probably not going to go knock over the local convenience store with it.

[BeFree]

2. Gave me an idea

Gun owners should be required to have purchased an insurance policy before they can buy bullets.

That way, we can sue the shit out of anyone who acts irresponsibly with their bullets.

[DonP]

5. Bad idea

Guns in private citizens hands and homes have not even proven to be enough of an issue, liability wise for the insurance companies to bother with.

If they were, you can bet that your ass homeowners and health insurance policies would ask about them the same way they do about private pilot's licenses, motorcycle ownership and use and a few other things that have a measurable impact on their actuarial tables and risk.

But they don't care if you are collector, competitive shooter, reloader or CCW permit holder as far as I can tell.

You can certainly sue someone that "acts irresponsibly with their bullets", but the average criminal doesn't have much to recover financially from and responsible CCW and private gun owners, especially in states with castle laws in place aren't a very big problem. In fact pretty much the whole point of the Castle Laws is to protect homeowners from civil suits by the criminal or his surviving family.

[BeFree]

7. Gunsurance to buy bullets

I think it is a great idea. After all, it is bullets that kill people.

This way any victim of any shooting can be compensated for medical costs, and any other damages.

[DonP]

8. I'll get you the phone number of State Farm and you let us know how it goes

But I'm going to guess that SCOTUS would take a dim view of anything that prevents the free exercise of what they have determined is a basic and individual civil right, Even a "cute" insurance approach to subverting the rule of law. Kind of like they did with Poll Taxes and Literacy Tests for voting?

Victims of any shooting already have the right to sue the shooter in civil court, even if it's a cop or a citizen. That assumed the shooting victim wasn't coming through the side window at 3 AM. But since the vast majority of shootings are criminal against criminal, what do you think the chances of getting them to buy a policy are? After all they are already ignoring the existing gun laws. All your idea will do is make the law abiding pay for the criminals behavior

Ideas that have no real impact on criminals and force the law abiding to pay a price to exercise a right don't do well in the court system for the last 60 years or so..

Bad (and unconstitutional) Idea.

[BeFree]

10. Ding!! We have a winner

Quote: "All your idea will do is make the law abiding pay for the criminals behavior"

Guess what, winner.... that's what we do in this country. Tax the law abiding to pay for the criminal activities. Say a banger shoots you accidentally, and they get away. Who pays your medical bill?

See, it's what we call socialism. We all share in the glory and the misery.
At present, the only non-sharers are the capitalist pigs who make money selling bangers their bullets.
Tax the shit out of the bullets and make them pay for their deadly profiteering.

Tax the profiteers, too. Another great idea. Thanks!

[Name removed]

13. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[BeFree]

14. Ok

I'll just keep ducking the damn bullets. Guess is yall really don't give a flying fuck about all the innocents that have to duck the damn bullets? Because things are getting worse, not better. And the only thing keeping us safe is the socialist police department.

You have your guns, and oh how powerful it makes you feel.

Fuck the NRA. Tax them into oblivion, is what I say.

[gejohnston]

18. Do you think MS-13 put a bid in?

Get real. The thing is going to some rich guy's safe. It might be taken to the range once. It is not our bullets you are dodging. Those are from your drug connection wholesaler their competitors.

Start growing your own or shut the fuck up.

[DonP]

19. Ummmm, you can't tax or "fuck" the NRA

It's a non-profit, and FWIW abysmal ignorance of reality and fact is not considered a progressive value by anybody here.

You really don't know much about this, do you? You might want to learn something before you decide to opine about it.

But cheer up, things actually aren't "getting worse", at least not according to the FBI or the DoJ. But I'm assuming that you aren't really interested in any facts; like violent crime, including crime with guns actually being at a 35 year low and still falling after 4 years of record firearm sales.

Sorry, facts just aren't on our side on this at all, but you can still have a nice little emotional hissy fit to make you feel good or, like some others, keep hoping for more gun related tragedies that prove your point. But it won't change the reality of the direction things are going

But you and your little friends keep trying to stir up a nice moral panic based on your vivid imaginations. Keep clutching your pearls and sighing, after all it's "for the children".

Ha!

[BeFree]

21. Yeah well

I know the NRA doesn't give one shit for me, so, fuck 'em. The NRA can go to hell.

And yes, heavy regulation of guns and gun owners, enforced by the police, has reduced gun slaughter. Thank the 'pearl clutchers' for that. More power to 'em.

Now we just need to tax them more to pay for the carnage caused by guns, bullets, and the people who love their guns.

[DonP]

26. Ha! "heavy regulation of guns and gun owners"

You really have to be kidding now.

Gun laws have gone exactly the opposite of "heavy regulation" especially following two major SCOTUS wins for the 2nd amendment. Or maybe your definition of heavy regulation is different than ours? The elimination of de facto gun bans in large cities, the granting of constitutional carry in three more states and the granting of concealed carry in all but one state now? Maybe all the states that have allowed CCW on college campuses and in employee cars on company property is your idea of "heavy regulation" too?

There are a lot of things that might account for the drop in violent crime, but regulation and enforcement isn't one of them.

Try not to be such a hater of your fellow DU members.

[gejohnston]

27. a lot of people in Jamaica, South Africa and UK would disagree with you on that

There was no change when their laws were passed.

But since most shoot outs are criminal v criminal, mostly drug dealers
We need pot heads to pull their share. Yet they give their money to gangsters while bitching about gun violence. Talk about denial or just hypocritical bullshit. If they were not giving money that puts the guns in their hands, there would be no carnage. Our target pistols are not the problem, so why should we pay for it?

[BeFree]

31. Heh

Blaming pot heads for gun crimes? Gimme a break.

That's like the Catholic church blaming hippies for their priest pedophiles.

Bad argument, all the way around.

[gejohnston]

44. not really,

most gun crimes are drug dealers killing other dealers, who gives them the money? Who creates the demand? It it were legal or if more people grew their own, then you would have a point.
You are arguing that all car owners are to blame because a drunk kills ten people with a car.

[one-eyed fat man]

62. Blaming pot heads for gun crimes? Gimme a break.

Well, OK, here's your break. I will assume you have not personally killed any Mexicans. Your cash...




however has bought and paid for a nice pimped out gold plated AK....

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/__CKni9brv-s/Sl4g59i-biI/AAAAAAAABCw/RR2g0w7yK6U/s400/AK47+de+oro.jpg













Ask your dope dealer if he can get you a gun. See if he will take one in trade. Do you think he would have any compunctions against taking a gun you trade him for dope and selling it to a teenage gang-banger, drug dealers being moral and socially conscious types, unlike their customers?

[Straw Man]

93. No break for you.

Blaming pot heads for gun crimes? Gimme a break.

Perhaps your pot-smoking friends only smoke weed that is grown by vegan pacifists in Vermont or is hand-delivered down the chimney by Saint Nick on Christmas Eve, but it is my sad duty to inform you that the marijuana trade in the United States is dominated by people who would just as soon shoot you in the head as look at you. By the time the weed gets to the dorm or the dance floor, the customer service has a friendlier face, but stoner dollars are part of what keeps the cartels and the posses up and running and murdering and dismembering.

Blaming pot-heads for gun crimes? That's like blaming drinkers for the rise of organized crime in the Prohibition era. Demand will be met.

[rl6214]

95. Who said anything about pot?

It's your coke dealer, meth dealer, heroin dealer.

[PavePusher]

38. Actually, the NRA and it's affiliates provide some of the best safety and skills training available.

So yeah, I guess they don't care.

Or maybe you don't think.....

[GreenStormCloud]

39. You may be interested in some actual FBI data.

The Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence releases an annual ranking of state’s gun laws, giving the highest scores to those states with the strongest gun control laws. The FBI annually ranks states according to their levels of criminal activity. Let’s do some comparisons. Crime rates are incidents per 100,000 people. DC and Puerto Rico are not rated by the Bradys but they have gun control that is much stricter than even California.

State // Brady rank // Murder rate // Violent Crime rate

FBI Worst Five States

DC // Strict // 24 // 1,346
PR // Strict // 22.5 // 264
LA // 2 // 11.8 // 620
NM // 4 // 8.7 // 619
TN // 8 // 7.3 // 668

FBI Best Five States
VT // 6 // 1.1 // 131
IA // 7 // 1.1 // 279
UT // 0 // 1.3 // 213
MN // 14 // 1.4 // 244
ND // 4 // 1.5 // 201

Brady Best Five States (Since they don’t list PR & DC I will use their best five.)
CA // 80 // 5.3 // 472
NJ // 72 // 3.7 // 312
MA // 65 // 2.6 // 467
CT // 58 // 3.0 // 297
HI // 50 // 1.7 // 274

Brady Worst Five States
AK & AZ tie at minus two points. Official rating is zero but they show two demerit points each.
AK // -2 // 3.1 // 633
AZ // -2 // 5.5 // 408
UT // 0 // 1.3 // 213
ID // 2 // 1.4 // 228
MT // 2 // 2.6 //254

Obviously there are other factors that effect how safe a state is as well as gun control or lack thereof. But as you can see lax gun control does create a violent state nor does gun control create a safe one.

[GreenStormCloud]

54. El Paso, TX, a major city with more guns than people had only three murders last year.

Surely that many guns should have been out shooting folks if guns cause crime.

[PavePusher]

37. Yeah, fuck the Civil Rights of those who obey the law.

That's exactly what you are saying.

[BeFree]

48. No. Wrong

It really is a mistake to try to make up shit about what I am saying.

[DonP]

51. No, right

Gun ownership by the law abiding is an individual civil right. just like voting. SCOTUS says so, the President said so in his Op Ed and the vast majority of both houses said so. Any attempt to subvert it, no matter how "cute and creative" you think it is, is a threat.

You have indicated several times that you see no real difference between the law abiding from the criminals, because anyone with ammunition is just waiting for a chance to commit a crime and you would rather see ammunition priced out of the range of anyone but the very rich.

At the same time you ignore the reality of the safest country in 35 years, even after record gun sales, and then scream bloody murder about the one organization that actually bothers to teach firearm safety and marksmanship to your local police, and civilians as well as some military specialty units.

You are consciously ignorant of any and all facts on these issues and just ignoring reality and have no thought to the unintended consequences of your "ideas".

You have been about a five gallon pail of fail in this thread.

But, Y'all just have yourself a swell day now, y'hear?

[BeFree]

52. heh

My personal feelings are that we can damn sure do without guns.

Therefore, my political leanings tend toward getting rid of guns. Does that run up against the constitution? Maybe. So fucking what? I am free to do as I please if not breaking a law. Right? Or would you deny me my rights to free speech and thoughts? It seems you do.

I am not here trying to take YOUR gun away. This is not personal. Remember that. Think about that each time you begin typing.

[DonP]

56. Sorry, but it is personal to all of us

You don't seem to be able to grasp that.

"We can damn sure do without guns" So you prefer a world where the weak and small are the easy prey of the strong and the 120 pound woman or 85 year old man should just go along with the 200 pound mugger rapist? Nice world you prefer.

You are absolutely free to espouse any harebrained and blatantly unconstitutional scheme you want, thanks to the 1st amendment. But when you start suggesting that the 2nd amendment shouldn't be equally protected, we kind of take it as a personal threat to our rights.

Truthfully? The only reason people like you aren't trying to take guns away incrementally, is you can't get away with it anymore. They got away with it in '94 with the so called assault weapons ban because we weren't paying attention, but it won't happen again - ever. But that still doesn't stop some dumb fuck politicians from trying every now and then using any excuse they can gin up.

We put those gun control ideas in the same general category as some people might if you started suggesting that people who want to vote should be able to pass a "basic literacy test" or pay a "modest poll tax" to cover voting expenses. After all, George Wallace probably meant well by it, I'm sure.

I'm sure you mean well with your ideas too, and all we're doing is expressing ourselves via the 1st amendment

[BeFree]

58. All things being equal

Guns, missiles, grenades, bombs and the like need very strong regulations and controls. Too many innocents are being denied not just their rights but their lives. That is why your "dumb fuck politicians" are doing what they do. Not to make you a slave, but to save innocent lives.

If you can't see that past the smoke, then that problem - the dead and dieing innocents - will never be averted. Who will speak for them? The NRA? I will, and do. The only avenue available to me is to outlaw all guns. That is the only course which seems to get the attention of the bangers.

Seriously, what is it you fear if you can't get your hands on a gun?

[DonP]

59. Well why didn't you say so

First thing to do, to save lives, is to ban those backyard swimming pools. They kill far more children than firearms do in any given year, according to the CDC. Pools certainly aren't something anyone really needs either. Those 5 gallon buckets are also a big killer too they say.

For the record, you speak for yourself and yourself alone, unless you are the head of some organization as yet unrevealed here to the great unwashed masses? Or is this one of those "self appointed guardian of all that is right and true because I know better" positions?

In the meantime we'd like to keep our firearms handy to keep the 80,000 to 1 million + defensive gun uses each year (that you seem to be overlooking) numbers up there. Or doesn't saving your own or a family member's life count?

[BeFree]

63. Say what?

When was the last time someone died from a drive-by swimming pool?

For the record, yes, I am speaking for the innocents who have to duck bullets because of loose guns.
You may not like it, but that's how it goes.

If you want to keep your guns you might do so by making sure that guns are well regulated, like I am attempting.

[PavePusher]

65. "If you want to keep your guns..."

Says it all. Authoritarianism at it's finest.

[DonP]

66. If your real interest in saving the most innocent lives - focus on pools first

Far more children die from drowning in backyard pools, both in ground and above ground, every year than from firearms, by a major factor. It's not even close and that's a simple fact. Other than some scattered regulations on in ground pools in a few states they are totally unregulated and any parent can walk in and buy one with no training or required safety briefing or background check.

But if your real objective is to get rid of those "evil guns" then a few thousand kids drowning in pools is no real matter to you and your possible quest to protect the "innocents".

Loose guns? I'll go out on a limb here and guess that you've never actually tried to buy a firearm anywhere, filled out a 4473, undergone a NICS check or a BI, if you think they are "loose".

But I'm open to new ideas, with over 22,000 federal, state and local laws controlling guns now, what new law do you propose that is going to keep them out of the hands of the criminals without unfairly restricting the law abiding any further?

[Katya Mullethov]

72. They had a really close call last week

But I dont think anybody got killed .
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ChAMQG1YVb8

[slackmaster]

75. Great video, contains NSFW language

;-)

[oneshooter]

81. OK you want to ban them, take them all up and destroy them.

get a law passed, NO MORE GUNS!!!! Fine, now then tell me how you intend to pay for them.

WHAT!!!! PAY FOR THEM!!!! NO WAY!!!!

Yes, pay for them. Any object that is legal to own, is made illegal by law must be paid for by the government. The owners must be paid "fair market value" for their now illegal objects. It's called the fifth Amendment.

"No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."

300,000,000 firearms are estimated to be in the country, each owner MUST be paid for each one confiscated.

Got enough change?

Oneshooter
Armed and Livin in Texas

[ileus]

97. Fair market value after they're banned would be zero. Who could you sell them to?

Who could you sell them to legally? no one, so uncle sam could pay whatever he wanted. Everyone would sell theirs illegally to the people that would desire them most. Bet you can't guess who that is...

[oneshooter]

126. You really need to study on this.

If the government bans a previously legal to own object, they, the government, must pay the owners the pre-ban fair market value of that object.

Try real hard to keep up. I know that it is hard on you, but really try.

Oneshooter
Armed and Livin in Texas

[rl6214]

109. A death is a death. If you are intent on preventing deaths

start with number one on the list. Don't cherry pick your favorite.

[gejohnston]

69. every country that

is more violent and have higher homicide rates than we do all outlaw private ownership of guns. What about the innocents that would be dead if they did not have a gun? Where I grew up, gun ownership is something like 70 percent. We had rifle club in high school. The only people I know who ever were involved with gun violence was when my brother answered a radio call to the first armed robbery in ten years. Another was a kid I went to school with shot his step father. If the kid did not have a gun, his mother would have been literally beaten to death at the hands of a violent alcoholic. Good chance he would have been next. It was ruled justifiable. That was big news partly because that was the only homicide in years. Granted, the county I grew up in is about the size of Massachusetts in land area, but have like 35K people in it, but you get the point.

[BeFree]

87. Eh? Canada?

""every country that is more violent and have higher homicide rates than we do all outlaw private ownership of guns. "" Eh? Canada?

I think you will find that rural areas have far less gun violence. Mainly, imo, because folks can shoot guns at will. In the cities, they are repressed and controlled and suffer because they can't hear their guns pop, at will.

[gejohnston]

89. What does Canada have to do with it.

Every country that have a higher homocide rate than us ban private ownership of guns.
Canada is neither. More regulated since 1977, but no gun ban. In fact there is an "assault rifle" that Isreal exported only to Canada for civilian sales. http://www.canadaammo.com/product.php?productid=12&cat=0&page=1

[BeFree]

90. Ok. Name one.

Hell name two or three.

[gejohnston]

100. I'll give you all 88 if you want or

Our homocide rate is 5 per 100K in 2010
Is this enough?
Russia-13
Mexico-18
Jamaica-60
South Africa-34
Belize-33
Brazil-22
North Korea-19
Costa Rica-11
Cuba-5.5
Indonesia-8.9
Haiti-22
For violent crime other than homocide: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/scotland/article568032.ece

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

122. See what I mean? See post #121. n/t

[gejohnston]

138. What, I did't manipulate the numbers. Wikipedia might have nt

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

140. I never implied that you did.

What led you to that?

[gejohnston]

142. my bad, one of those days.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

144. No worries ;) n/t

[ileus]

98. cities aren't full of target or competition shooters, cities are full of

thugs and bangers that only have firearms to attack one another with....like I always ask "Why can't cities control their guns?"

[gejohnston]

154. Now I know why Canada

I said "every country that is more violent and have higher homicide rates than we do all outlaw private ownership of guns."
You might have heard "every country that outlaws private ownership of guns is more violent and have higher homicide rates"
Two different things. We both agree the second is not true.

[beevul]

78. Your post changed my mind.

I was going to stay out of this, but your post requires comment.

"Too many innocents are being denied not just their rights but their lives. That is why your "dumb fuck politicians" are doing what they do. Not to make you a slave, but to save innocent lives."

Theres something to be said for government - politicians and all three branches of government - being REQUIRED to respect and obey the limitations placed upon them by we the people.

Allowing, supporting, or ignoring it, when they pretend those limitations do not exist - even in the name of safety - is far more dangerous than any gun, missile, grenade, or bomb, and if you can't see that, you are no liberal. In fact, it might make you someone who would rather live on their knees, and force everyone else into that little boat along with you.

"The only avenue available to me is to outlaw all guns."

That avenue is NOT available to you. Not now, and not ever, unless you wish to creat a large pile of dead in doing so.

And that would certainly make your little "who will speak for the dead" schtick ring a bit hollow, wouldn't it?

"That is the only course which seems to get the attention of the bangers."

Yeah, they don't obey laws making them prohibited persons, they don't obey laws covering unlawful USE of firearms, but they'll obey the law if you ban ALL guns... :sarcasm:


Are you sure "befree" is really a good screen name?

It seems to be at odds ENTIRELY with your worldview, and how you'd apply it to others.

[BeFree]

82. Really?

What have your guns stopped? The Patriot Act? 9/11? What?

Guns have killed millions of innocents. I will speak for them.

[gejohnston]

83. Before guns were invented, much of Europe was worse than

Detroit or DC. I vote Patriot Act.

[beevul]

84. Your attitude...

Your attitude enables things like the patriot act.


The whole "at any cost" mentality, you know - like the one that enables those willing to disregard the laws that both empower and restrict legitimate authority, allowing it to grow beyond legitimate.

You suggest EXACTLY that where guns are concerned because of your personal biases, without giving any thought what so ever to the pandoras box it opens - just as those screaming for security did with the patriot act.

How dare you ask if guns have stopped the patriot act when you seek to employ the same mechanisms that brought it into existance because of your own personal biases?

How many has the "at any cost" mentality killed?

Think real hard about that - the crusades, the salem witch trials, wars over religion, wars over ideology, wars for control - those and many others - all have your attitude at the very heart of them.

Complaining about how many guns have killed, while seeking to employ a mechanish responsible for deaths that outnumber them in multiples.

How does it feel, having that pointed out for you?

[BeFree]

85. How does it feel?

I feel you don't know what you are saying.

Let's try this: Instead of you telling me about me, tell me about you. Tell me what your problem is. And don't tell me I am your problem. That would be bs.

[beevul]

128. I thought I made it as plain as possible.

Your attitude is my problem.

And not just mine, but all of Americas.


I'll take your attempt to steer away from what I said as vague confirmation that the truth hurts.

[kelly1mm]

102. My personal feelings are that we can damn sure do without abortion (or free speech,

or the right of non property owners to vote etc - work with me, it's a hypothetical).

Therefore, my political leanings tend toward getting rid of abortion. Does that run up against the constitution? Maybe. So fucking what? I am free to do as I please if not breaking a law. Right? Or would you deny me my rights to free speech and thoughts? It seems you do.

I am not here trying to take YOUR abortion away. This is not personal. Remember that. Think about that each time you begin typing.



There, I fixed it for you. How does that sound? Notice all of those actions are individual rights protected by the constitution? If not, i am sure others will.

[BeFree]

105. That was cute

Free speech is a constitutional right, the rest not so much.

Regulating arms well, is in the constitution. It says nothing about regulating free speech. Why is that?

But really, I doubt we can have a discussion, you and I. Seeya.

[kelly1mm]

108. You are right, we cannot have a conversation. Bye! nt

[Straw Man]

116. Even cuter...

Regulating arms well, is in the constitution.

Wrong. Regulating militias well is in the Constitution. Big difference.

[BeFree]

117. That's right, my bad

Of course the argument can be made that since arm bearing citizens were the militia and that militia was to be well regulated, then their arms must be also well regulated. Are you in a militia?

[gejohnston]

119. first regulated in the eighteenth century meant well functioning

Read the Militia Act of 1903, still on the books. Yeah, I am in the individual ready reserve until 2014.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

121. Why is it...

...that any debate over gun control generally seems to degenerate to either (or both):
- obscure court cases of marginal applicability or
- manipulated statistics???

If it is ever brought up that:
- everyone has a right to life
- therefore a right to self defense and
- therefore the right use the best reasonable tools to effect that defense,

...the topic drops. There is no reply nor debate.

IMHO, the ultra-control "ban them all" folks are just a bunch of unreasonable (and unreasoning) hand wringing amateur social engineers,
some of whom hold an office and:
- are looking for any publicity or
- are just being professionally disingenuous.

[eqfan592]

136. Well said! nt

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

141. Thanks.

A pleasure.

[BeFree]

155. Everyone has a right to life

Yea.

And when the asswipe idiots with the arsenals threaten my life, then I have the right to work to take away their arsenals. That way I don't have to worry so much.

Why is it that the gun owners think their right to have arsenals that threaten others lives think their rights supersede everyone else's?

Why is it that the fact that an asshole with a gun can threaten hundreds of people who can't even see the shooter, and the 2nd amenders totally overlook that and just seem to say: Too bad, sucker?

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

160. re: Rights

"...I have the right to work to take away their arsenals."
~ No but you have a right to defend yourself. If you are threatened, call 911 and report the offender the pros will take it from there.

[BeFree]

161. Oh?

I should just put all my eggs in the police dept. basket?

I. don't. fucking. think. so. That's just plain dumb.

Try again.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

165. re: Try again....after you.

...just put all my eggs in the police dept. basket?
...That's just plain dumb.

Looks like we agree here. If you feel threatened, I suggest you arm yourself as a matter of self-defense.

[BeFree]

168. I have two arms.

And a brain. If I take your advice, I should just call the PD whenever I have a problem?

I told you what I think of that advice.

What is hard to fathom here is the flip-flopping.

[Name removed]

170. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

172. So many...

...anti-rights folks find so many things "hard to fathom".

[BeFree]

174. I have a right

To make sure Loughner types are kept from having a gun.

The slander you spew is not welcome. But you know that.
So why flip and flop?

[eqfan592]

176. Actually, no you don't.

See, the problem is that we can't start treating people as insane or as criminals before they demonstrate they are one or the other (or both). Really the only way you can "Make sure" that people like Loughner are kept from their rights is to treat everybody as insane/criminals before any evidence exist that they actually are, and you have zero right to do such a thing.

[BeFree]

179. Sure I can. I am free to do so.

Are you saying Loughner had every right to carry that gun into a crowd?
That Loughner had every right to own a gun?

The right to bear arms is not meant for everyone, everywhere, anytime.
There have to be limits.

What limit can you bear?

[eqfan592]

185. It already DOES have limits.

Such as violent criminals and those ruled to not be sane not being able to purchase and carry a firearm legally.

And I'm saying that every person has the right to own and carry a gun up until the time they do something that strips them of that right. To do otherwise is to treat people as criminals or mentally unfit prior to any evidence manifesting itself to support such conclusions. End of story.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

188. I've known a few like you...

...and I'd rather not repeat the mistake.
The freedom you need is the freedom to grow up.
Have a nice day.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

173. Oh and...

...when you have a problem, use your arms. ;)

[oneshooter]

171. Armory, not Arsenal. Proper use of definitive terms is important in civil discussion. n/t

[Straw Man]

123. It gets worse.

Of course the argument can be made that since arm bearing citizens were the militia and that militia was to be well regulated, then their arms must be also well regulated.

The argument can be made, but not successfully. The wording of the Second Amendment makes it clear that an armed citizenry is the sine qua non of a militia, not the other way around.

Are you in a militia?

No -- I'm too old. You may be, though:

(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied
males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section
313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a
declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States
and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the
National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are -
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard
and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of
the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the
Naval Militia.

--http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/uscode/10/A/I/13/311

[BeFree]

157. Good one

Since you are all militia, then you all need to be well regulated. That's all we're asking.
Be well regulated. Be controlled. No more Loughners.

Best thing to do, imo, is self regulate yourselves and then maybe we can all live in peace?

[gejohnston]

158. regulated in 18th Century meant equipped so

Yes, we should be well equipped.
Europe has their Loughners too. So does Japan. Loughner is less of a gun issue than a quality of mental health care issue.

[BeFree]

159. Go back to 18th century?

When they had no revolvers, automatics, etc.?

I'm game.

What we then have is everyone is militia and militia needs to be well regulated. So we can say that black powder, like they had in the 18th is all the arm you can bear?

I like the way this is going... Thanks. You are a genius!

[gejohnston]

175. I hope you like quill pens, it works both ways. Besides,

all nine justices that between the second and the ninth amendments, it is an individual right independent of a militia.

[BeFree]

177. No, it doesn't work both ways.

Black powder is quite fair.

See, technology has moved on. Just like you can't have a grenade, or RPG, etc.
Or do you think bearing, as an arm, RPG's should be allowed?

Do you feel infringed because you can't have a modern RPG?

[Straw Man]

178. Has anyone suggested that?

The suggestion was that the intent of the drafters of the Second Amendment was somewhat different from what you seem to think it is.

Their intention was to allow citizens to own military-grade weapons, which is what black-powder muzzle-loaders were at the time. Since we citizens aren't allowed to have modern full-auto military-grade weapons, I think we're already quite "regulated," in your anachronistic sense of the word. Perhaps you have some concrete suggestions to make as to how we (including you) could be better "regulated."

[BeFree]

180. Sure. Better regulations

You have to prove, consistently, that you can responsibly handle a gun. And when you don't, you have to seek justice. Indeed, beg justice from the rest of us. It is the American way.

So... first prove it and second when you fuck up and some kid gets blown away, beg it doesn't become an eye for an eye.

I think if we do that we find a happy medium.

[eqfan592]

186. Prove you can handle the responsibility...

...of voting, of freedom of speech and expression, etc. Why single out firearm rights?

Honestly, ignorant people voting for politicians they know little to nothing about has probably caused more harm to our nation than anything else. Yet somehow I doubt you would call for similar standards in regards to voting.

[Straw Man]

190. You're remarkably vague.

You have to prove, consistently, that you can responsibly handle a gun. And when you don't, you have to seek justice. Indeed, beg justice from the rest of us. It is the American way.

So... first prove it and second when you fuck up and some kid gets blown away, beg it doesn't become an eye for an eye.

I think if we do that we find a happy medium.

Every kind of irresponsible use of a gun is already covered by legislation, and there are penalties. You make it sound as if gun owners are advocating for their right to shoot people with impunity. That's ludicrous. The accountability you seek already exists.

An eye for an eye? Is that your idea of "the American way"? Is that the way you think our justice system works? That's pretty scary.

[BeFree]

196. You want direct?

Tell me about Loughner.

What penalty? Where is there any justice?

[Straw Man]

204. Vague again.

Tell me about Loughner.

What penalty? Where is there any justice?

Are you claiming that Loughner escaped justice? Are you arguing against the diagnosis of "not mentally competent to stand trial"? Then why not just say so?

I'm willing to bet that with or without that diagnosis, Loughner will be confined for the rest of his life. Do you not call that justice? Or do you want him hanged in the public square at high noon? Are you in favor of executing the mentally ill? It's a yes/no question.

[BeFree]

206. Try it this way then

What could we have done to prevent Loughner from killing and maiming all those people?

What I am saying is that if certain laws had been established, Loughner may, indeed should never have been able to commit that crime.

His life, in trade for the carnage he caused, with a gun, is no justice. No matter what the courts do to him, there will be no justice done in this case. And remember, he could not have done what he did without a gun.

So, what could we have done to prevent Loughner from killing and maiming all those people with a gun? Think about that.

[Straw Man]

207. OK, that's easy.

So, what could we have done to prevent Loughner from killing and maiming all those people with a gun?

Prevent him from buying one. There were many warning signs. He needed an involuntary commitment for evaluation when he was kicked out of school. This would have placed him on the NICS shitlist, where he belonged. Additionally, reporting to NICS needs to be expedited. Two clear cases of lack of rigorous enforcement led to this tragedy.

What's your solution? Please be specific.

[lawodevolution]

118. Conspiring to oppress the practice of a civil liberty of others is against the law.

If you join an anti gun group you are technically braking the law, though it does not seem the law is being enforced at this time. You wrote in the same post that you want to take away my gun and that you don't, figure it out please and think about the consequences when this starts to be enforced:

Sec. 241. Conspiracy against rights

If two or more persons conspire to injure, oppress, threaten, or
intimidate any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession,
or District in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege
secured to him by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or
because of his having so exercised the same; or
If two or more persons go in disguise on the highway, or on the
premises of another, with intent to prevent or hinder his free exercise
or enjoyment of any right or privilege so secured--
They shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten
years, or both; and if death results from the acts committed in
violation of this section or if such acts include kidnapping or an
attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse or an attempt to commit
aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, they shall be fined
under this title or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or
both, or may be sentenced to death.

[BeFree]

156. Bwahaha

Yeh, we anti-arsenal people are conspiring to injure, oppress, threaten, or
intimidate the 2nd amenders. Bwahahah!

But thinking further:::

""If two or more persons go in disguise on the internet, with intent to prevent or hinder his free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege so secured--""

Best be careful folks.... the long arm of the law may be lurking. 2x Bwahahaha!

[rl6214]

94. there aren't any innocents ducking any of my bullets

And you have no fucking clue what you are talking about. Try doing a little research on the FBI website and check to see what the stats are concerning the decline in murders and assaults. Things are not getting worse, they are getting better.

As far as the "socialist" police dept keeping us safe, they do no such thing. They don't 'serve and protect', they show up after a crime snap some photos, write a report and on they go to the next.

"Fuck the NRA"

NRA has nothing to do with this. 4.5 million members are not driving this bus, it's We the People.

[X_Digger]

210. "things are getting worse, not better" -- bullshit.

Have a read.. http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/ucr

[petronius]

15. Actually, your plan is moving away from socialism: you're in

"I don't have kids in school; why should my tax dollars support those who do?" territory.

Aside from that, you're forgetting that people who behave irresponsibly (with anything) are already criminally and civilly liable in many cases, and you're making the huge leap that people who don't misuse firearms are more responsible than anyone else for those who do...

[Blown330]

16. Bullets kill people?

Really? All by themselves? You mean the boxes of ammo I have are just plotting by themselves to go off and kill people? Somehow I think your grasp of reality is somewhat strained on this subject.

[BeFree]

20. You're right

From where I sit, if one has boxes of ammo, then the owner of said ammo is plotting to kill. Why else have all that sitting there if not plotting to kill?

People kill people: using guns and ammo. So... let's tax the crap out of the guns and ammo to pay for all the terror the rest of us live with. Sounds like a plan.

[ileus]

22. Yes indeed behind every box of ammo is a plan of terror.

According to you I have about 5000 plans going on now...LOL

[Blown330]

23. Well then you're wrong.

As I'm only plotting to shoot pieces of paper, tin cans, and disks made of compressed charcoal with that ammo. And, by definition, kill means to end the life of a person, animal, or other living thing. None of those objects are living so you are quite and absurdly wrong in your assumptions.

[BeFree]

25. Hey, not personal

I realize that there are a few people who are not plotting to kill something.

[cleanhippie]

29. If you realize that, then you refute your ENTIRE previous post.

Do you really even know what it is you are trying to say?

[Name removed]

41. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Katya Mullethov]

103. Seeing as how only a small portion of my ammunition is for shooting people

Perhaps a common sense compromise can be made , a reasonable tax , or a common sense fee I could pay on just the hollow points and buckshot . After all , that is what I am here for . And it's exactly the kind of innovative thinking that is driving our national economic recovery .

[PavePusher]

40. Ghod damn but you're being intentionally stupid now. n/t

[slackmaster]

43. Help is available fro that kind of thinking, BeFree

I hope you get what you need, before you torture yourself to madness trying to keep track of all the evil thoughts you imagine are in other peoples' heads.

[BeFree]

45. heh

Just tired of ducking fucking bullets. Like the NRA gives a shit, right?

You do know gun and ammo sales sky-rocketed when Obama was elected, right?
What mindset drove that event??

[slackmaster]

50. How many times in your life have you actually had to duck a bullet?

You do know gun and ammo sales sky-rocketed when Obama was elected, right?

Yes.

What mindset drove that event??

Yours.

[BeFree]

53. haha

My support for Obama caused gun and ammo sales to sky-rocket? Whoa....Dude.

[slackmaster]

55. I was referring to the paranoid mindset, which drives some members of Congress to propose gun bans

The mindset that leads one to assume that anyone who owns a gun or ammunition must be intent on doing something evil, and other such foolishness.

[BeFree]

57. As to mindsets, then

What mindset is it that encourages one to have guns with them at all times?

[slackmaster]

61. Who are you claiming does that?

Seriously, has anyone on this forum ever suggested such a thing other than in lame sarcasm?

I guess I'll have to call it a straw man.

[BeFree]

64. What mindset is it that encourages one to have guns with them at all times?

No answer?

I have my suspicions as to why guns are like God to some, but was hoping for some discussion.

Nice ducking.

[slackmaster]

67. I'm not familiar with a mindset that matches your description, other than in your fantasy.

So please tell us who you believe has that mindset.

[petronius]

68. Guns aren't like god to anyone I've ever encountered - they're like PFDs

carried in a kayak. When you understand that, you'll get why some people choose to carry them or have them available. The mindset is a desire to be prepared for unlikely but potentially serious eventualities...

[Katya Mullethov]

77. I have been mocked for boarding up the house

And for picking up all the projectiles laying in the yard . During this same period I watched these same "types" of people clean out the frozen food section of the supermarket .... all in "preparation" for the landfall of a major hurricane .

The mindset that would mock me for carrying a weapon , in my view is an offshoot of the same attitude that would mock me for prepping for a hurricane "that wont come " . I doubt very much that either party has seen a dumpster bouncing down the street like a soccer ball , or had a mudhole stomped in their ass .

[BeFree]

92. God is like a pfd to some people

They carry God around with them to protect against eventualities.

The point is that some people act as if they aren't safe without their guns. When, in most cases, it's like they are carrying a poison snake in their pocket. A snake that will bite them before they knew what happened. Witness all the 'accidents'.

[petronius]

99. The real point is that guns are tools - for protection, sport, food, investment, etc

I've never encountered anyone who met your description, heard a first- or second-hand account of one, or observed anyone like that in the forums I frequent. What you are seeing is people who are adamant about preserving their rights and freedom of choice; that's nowhere close to being afraid to be without a firearm, or feeling unsafe in that condition.

Now it's true that there may be people who cling to their guns like other people cling to religion, but if so they're rare to the point of utter insignificance. Have you ever honestly encountered one? The existence of these people, and the accidents they're having, is greatly exaggerated in relation to its actual importance.

The bottom line is that you, and a few others here, uncritically perceive ("as if") a nebulous "some people" in a way that supports your pre-conceived biases. But the people who actually own and carry firearms, as well as independent crime and accident data, report an entirely different experience of the world...

[BeFree]

104. Yeah, right, sure

"that's nowhere close to being afraid to be without a firearm, or feeling unsafe in that condition."

Gawd, I've felt unsafe a time or two without a gun. Don't even tell me that people feel unsafe w/o their gun around, telling me that is just dishonest, or dumb.

[petronius]

106. Firearms are valuable and useful tools, and there are times (fortunately rare) when

no other tool will do. People who choose to carry do so in order to be prepared for those unlikely eventualities - just like many of us have fire extinguishers, PFDs, spare tires, etc. That reasoned choice does not imply that they regard the gun as a deity, or that they feel unsafe in general without a gun around.

Being scared in a gun-recommended situation, with or without one, is a natural response and has no bearing at all on what we've been discussing. :shrug:

[BeFree]

107. Do you carry all the time?

Because that is what I am talking about. People that won't leave the house without their gun. Some w/o their God, and that is the congruity.

You do know pfd's are tightly regulated? Can't go boating without one or you face a fine.

[petronius]

110. We're back to the beginning - you choose to believe in these people who "won't"

because it supports your preconceived notions. They don't exist in any significant number, and the the religion parallel is equally trivial. Even people who carry "all the time" are simply carrying tools that may come in handy - they're not practicing a religion or exhibiting an inability to function otherwise. You choose to think that, but it requires you to reject the evidence and assertions of those actually doing the carrying. Does that seem reasonable to you?

Bottom line, the people you're talking about are rare to the point of effective non-existence, and thus any conclusions you draw from them are meaningless.

(As for me: I've never carried a firearm, and I'm familiar with my state's boating laws as they relate to my activities.)

[BeFree]

111. OK

So what then is your problem?

My problem is there are way too many loose guns causing way too many accidents. In fact, I never really fear much except that I will get accidented because some asshole is waving their gun around.

[petronius]

115. No problem at all - just a civil discussion. If you now agree that guns are not like god

to any non-trivial number of people, nor is there a non-trivial number of people unable, unwilling, or afraid to leave home without a gun, then as far as I'm concerned the sub-thread is over.

I think you'll find that the vast majority of gun owners - certainly all those that post here - are quite safety conscious, and there is general agreement that those who choose to have firearms should behave responsibly in all facets of that ownership. Nobody is in favor of assholes waving guns (or anything else) around...

[benEzra]

184. There are fewer per capita gun accidents now than at any time in the history of this country.

That graph only goes to the 1990's, but IIRC the accident rate has declined by roughly another 50% since then.

[BeFree]

201. Indeed

Ever since gun control legislation was enacted and enforced, gun accidents have declined.

Thank you. You've proven that gun control makes for more peace. And that is all we're asking for.

[benEzra]

203. Such as?

FWIW, I'm not arguing against all gun regulation here; I'm OK with most of the consensus that has developed since 1934 (most of the National Firearms Act, a lot of the Gun Control Act of '68, background checks for purchase, and whatnot). But very little of that regulation has impacted lawful civilian ownership (and most of what did was repealed in '86 and '04), so I'm not sure what methodology you are arguing here. More people own guns now than they did in 1994 or 2004, and we own far more "assault weapons" than we did then, yet both accidents and gun crime have decreased substantially since 2004.

What I disagree with is the idea that we ought to pile additional restrictions on the ownership of non-automatic NFA Title 1 civilian guns by mentally competent adults with clean records, which is the primary goal of the gun control movement over the last couple of decades.

If you don't like guns, don't own them, but I value the right to choose otherwise.

[Straw Man]

101. Do you still physically discipline your significant other?

Be kind to straw men. It's the right thing to do.

[rl6214]

114. Please point out where anyone has said they need to have a gun

with them at all times.

[cleanhippie]

60. So the answer is "never. I have never had to duck a bullet, ever."

So you made it up. So much for honesty.

[gejohnston]

79. funny you should mention that,

I stopped by my polling place on my way to the gun store.

[rl6214]

113. Who said anything about your support of Obama?

Your MINDSET caused guns and ammo sales to sky rocket. DUH.

[rl6214]

112. When and where exactly have you ever had to duck bullets?

[spin]

46. Sounds like under your plan only the rich and the criminals would own guns ...

and ammo.

The rich because they could afford guns and ammo and the criminals because they would simply not pay the tax.

The rich and the criminals will probably love your idea, the rest of us not so much.

[BeFree]

47. well

Only the rich can drive cars, own big houses, buy politicians, contribute to NRA. Your point is?

[spin]

49. Hell I drive a car and own a big old house that was once a hotel ...

and I am an NRA member but I don't contribute to the NRA-ILA. I admit that I don't own any politicians.

I am far from rich.

[slackmaster]

34. Can you name an insurance company that offers a "gun-free home" discount on premiums?

Probably not.

[slackmaster]

33. Anyone who owns OR rents a home would be foolish not to have a liability insurance policy

Guns or no guns.

BTW, I've never heard of a company that charges higher premiums for households that have guns, or one that offers a "gun-free home" discount.

Think about it.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

193. Sue the irresponsible.

I kind of like the idea of suing the irresponsible.

The insurance is a bit problematic. Insurance coverage is a service that continues while payments continue. If you stop paying after 2 years, the ammo remains but the coverage does not. Another issue is that insurance doesn't coverage criminal acts.

[midnight]

3. I thought America was broke and the working people had to hand over their pensions,

healthcare, education, and retirement to save it....

[ileus]

24. This is the depts way of overcoming a shortfall.

[gejohnston]

209. Let me put it to you this way

While it is good that the PD is getting rid of stuff they don't need, the starve the beast crowd pushed the PD to sell stuff. So, don't blame the NRA, blame the greedy assholes who cheat on their taxes. Other than that, I don't get your question in this context.

[ileus]

6. That will make one nice addition to someones collection...more depts should sell

excess inventory of class III guns.

[-..__...]

11. Wouldn't surprise me...

if there weren't more than a few vintage Thompsons out there gathering dust and rust in police armories.

[ileus]

17. Our sheriffs dept has 8 M16's they could sell, since they all carry AR's

as their patrol rifles now....I can't imagine something going down to where they'd have time to go back unlock and distribute the M16's. They're old 20" versions donated by Uncle Sam so why not sell them.

[jeepnstein]

200. They would just have to return them.

The Federal government has a great program for distributing surplus firearms to police departments. You can get M16's quite inexpensively through them. What you can't do is turn around and sell them. They'll set them up select-fire, burst, or semi only. The cost of putting a more modern upper and stocks on them puts you into the price realm of a new weapon from Colt.

[DonP]

42. Or in the closet of the Chief's bedroom?

We had one turn up near here a few years back. House remodeling opened up a wall in the back of a closet and found a vintage Thompson, a drum and three stick mags and a few boxes of vintage .45 ACP.

The couple called the police and the Chief picked it up for safekeeping and "disposal". My guess is he disposed of it in his closet until he gets around to heading over to melt it down, I'm sure.

I know, I'm getting old and skeptical.

[gejohnston]

88. That could go bad

wife catches him with 20 something, wife calls cousin in ATF after calling divorce lawyer, unregistered machine gun in the closet.

[one-eyed fat man]

195. That all depends

Department NFA firearms can be registered a couple of different ways. If it is registered on a Form 4 it is transferable into the collectors market.

If it is registered on a Form 10 it is only transferable to another qualified government agency. NFA firearms that are registered on Form 10 are permanently prohibited from reentering normal commerce.

As for the Chief having department weapons in his closet that would depend on department policy.

If an NFA firearm is registered to an individual, it must always be under his control. If an NFA firearm is registered to a corporation, written corporate policy determines who is authorized possession. The city would be the "corporation" in most cases.

While I have not heard of it happening, suppose John Doe owns a machine gun and has it in his closet. When he goes to work in the morning is his wife in constructive possession of a machine gun not registered to her? It appears at least to be a technical infraction of the NFA. If so she is subject to arrest and the gun subject to forfeiture.

On the other hand if John Doe incorporates, his wife, or adult children, can be named as corporate officers and (if otherwise legally permitted firearms) be authorized possession.

[gejohnston]

211. I take it that the Smith and Wesson was on a Form four

[one-eyed fat man]

212. There are a couple other forms

Form 3 is used for a tax exempt transfer and registration to an SOT (Special Occupational Taxpayer aka "Class 3 Dealer".) A Form 5 is used for a tax exempt transfer, like to a gunsmith for repairs and back, or from an estate to an heir.

An ATF Form 5320.20 has to be submitted if you are going to transport an NFA weapon out of state. For example, one of the clubs where I shoot IPSC is across the river in Indiana. They sometimes have pistol caliber carbine side matches. If I want to shoot my Thompson submachine gun in the match (why not, it has a selector and will fire semi-auto)I need to file the 5320.20 and get permission to transport the firearm to Indiana. It used to be had to do it for every occasion, but they finally got to where they would allow recurring trips for a season.

They take their own sweet time too. My last Form 4 was submitted in March, they cashed the check within a week, I am still waiting. It's not like I am new at this, and the FBI doesn't already have fingerprint cards going back 50 years for military service, security clearances, NFA transfers, CCW applications.

That S&W 76 could be on a 4, or 5 and as long as it predates the Hughes Amendment it will bring a lot of money.

In the jargon of machineguns "on a Form 4" is gun that is fully transferable.

"On a Form 3" generally means it is a "Dealer sample."

That is an interesting classification, as the rules change on when the gun when the gun entered the country.

Pre-May Dealer Sample: Machine guns imported after 1968 and prior to May 19, 1986, are transferable to Federal Firearms License (FFL) dealers (01) and manufacturers (07) and importers who have paid the Special Occupational Tax (SOT) for the current year. A dealer who acquires a "pre-May" dealer sample and then fails to pay the SOT in succeeding years may retain the gun in his private collection. It only can be transferred to someone holding a SOT or to an approved government agency, usually military or law enforcement. An exception is made sometimes if the gun is being inherited from the dealer's estate by a family member.

Post-May Dealer Sample: Any machine gun manufactured or imported after May 19, 1986, can be transferred between Special Occupational Tax (SOT) payers only if they first provide a letter on agency letterhead showing that a legitimate government organization has requested to see it. This usually means a law enforcement agency or military unit. The gun can be retained by the dealer/manufacturer only so long as he pays his annual SOT. If he drops the SOT, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (BATFE) expects him to first dispose of, surrender, or destroy the gun. It can be transferred only to another SOT payer or approved government agency, as previously described.

If an average condition M16 is fully transferable it will bring 12,000. If that same M16 is a "pre-May sample" it will bring 4,000. As a "post-May sample" it is likely 800 bucks.