Page 2 of 9 FirstFirst 123 ... LastLast
Results 36 to 70 of 287

Thread: Brandishing Firearms

  1. #36
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Entry Level
    Posts
    22,140

    Default Re: Brandishing Firearms

    So, nothing in particular about Biden's position? Just the general delusional paranoia?
    Had every Athenian citizen been a Socrates, every Athenian assembly would still have been a mob.

    -- James Madison, Federalist 55

  2. #37
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Do you have a warrant?
    Posts
    8,157

    Default Re: Brandishing Firearms

    Quote Originally Posted by Osborne Russell View Post
    So, nothing in particular about Biden's position? Just the general delusional paranoia?
    https://joebiden.com/gunsafety/

    The "assault weapons ban" will take away several guns belonging to my dad and myself that were all used for marksmanship competition, including medaling at the National Matches. Though never loaded with more than 10 rounds for rapid fire matches (National Match Course and the President's Hundred Match), to be class-legal, they had to use the standard military 20 round magazines with no modifications.

    Confiscation of legally owned weapons from someone with no convictions without due process is unconstitutional. Sorta like letting someone not vote in an election because they are suspected of committing a crime. Or something. Being "radical".

    I see some good stuff in Biden's proposals. But those elements noted above will destroy Biden's chances with MANY gun owners, I'm sorry to say. That's reality. And it won't solve the underlying cause of gun violence, which is the desire to commit violence, and all of its causes, all of which, solving those causes, would run the table on a host of other problems in our society.

    Biden is doing exactly what the republicans want. They pretend not, but they love it when Biden proposes taking anyone's guns away. It just helps republicans SO much.

    But hey, the democrat's position on guns has never hurt them before, has it? I voted for Bush the younger in 2000 because the NRA told me to. I was more stupid then. I'm smarter now from hanging out with more liberals, more critical thinking, more education in things other than my technical field. But most of the gun owners I know have not evolved. Including my dad. He sees the above and he'll vote for Trump. Again.
    When you can take the pebble from my hand, it will be time for you to leave.

  3. #38
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Northeast
    Posts
    17,189

    Default Re: Brandishing Firearms

    Huh. We have a bump-stock ban and we have the National Firearms Act of 1934, the Violent Crime Control and Enforcement Act of 1994...

    Seems there is some constitutional history here.

    In District of Columbia v. Heller, Scalia’s opinion held that gun rights did not inure only to those in a “well-regulated militia” as anti-gun forces argued but to individuals — which affirmed the pro-gun arguments in the case.

    But Scalia also wrote something else in the Heller decision that the NRA didn’t applaud: “Nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.”

    Scalia would also assert the belief that “like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited” and that it is “not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.”
    Last edited by Canoez; 07-24-2020 at 10:02 AM. Reason: Ok, Plessner... Fixed.
    "The pessimist complains about the wind; the optimist expects it to change; the realist adjusts the sails."
    -William A. Ward



  4. #39
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Valley of the Sun
    Posts
    103,674

    Default Re: Brandishing Firearms

    Quote Originally Posted by Canoez View Post
    Huh. We have a bump-stock van
    if this van's a rocking
    . . .
    Simpler is better, except when complicated looks really cool.

  5. #40
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Entry Level
    Posts
    22,140

    Default Re: Brandishing Firearms

    Quote Originally Posted by Bob (oh, THAT Bob) View Post
    https://joebiden.com/gunsafety/

    The "assault weapons ban" will take away several guns belonging to my dad and myself that were all used for marksmanship competition, including medaling at the National Matches. Though never loaded with more than 10 rounds for rapid fire matches (National Match Course and the President's Hundred Match), to be class-legal, they had to use the standard military 20 round magazines with no modifications.
    Does Biden's proposal outlaw the weapon entirely, or merely the large magazine? Anyway, it's good that at least you have some proficiency. Wouldn't you say that for most people that own them, the mere possession of them is the point? Just-in-case-we-need-to-rebel type deal? The question then would be, would that kind of person vote for Biden if he changed his position on guns?

    Quote Originally Posted by Bob (oh, THAT Bob) View Post
    Confiscation of legally owned weapons from someone with no convictions without due process is unconstitutional. Sorta like letting someone not vote in an election because they are suspected of committing a crime. Or something. Being "radical".
    But the legality of the ownership is not a matter of unlimited right, even under Heller. So if a particular weapon is outlawed, there is no violation of due process in taking it. It went from being legal to being illegal, like morphine and cocaine.

    Quote Originally Posted by Bob (oh, THAT Bob) View Post
    But hey, the democrat's position on guns has never hurt them before, has it? I voted for Bush the younger in 2000 because the NRA told me to. I was more stupid then. I'm smarter now from hanging out with more liberals, more critical thinking, more education in things other than my technical field. But most of the gun owners I know have not evolved. Including my dad. He sees the above and he'll vote for Trump. Again.
    You changed your mind. They can change their minds.

    Do you think that the weapons Biden wants to take ought to remain legal? I can see how, having spent the money, and the hours of practice, the next you load the thing into the car to the match, you remind yourself, if Biden is elected, I'll have to just give this thing away to the government, you get mad. But you have to admit, the presence of this kind of weapon in even the most careful private hands is a matter of serious concern to society.
    Had every Athenian citizen been a Socrates, every Athenian assembly would still have been a mob.

    -- James Madison, Federalist 55

  6. #41
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Central Coast, Ca
    Posts
    28,928

    Default Re: Brandishing Firearms

    A question for Bob, That Bob.
    Have you ever seen people shot/killed with rapid fire arms?

    It is not pretty, really.

  7. #42
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Do you have a warrant?
    Posts
    8,157

    Default Re: Brandishing Firearms

    Quote Originally Posted by Canoeyawl View Post
    A question for Bob, That Bob.
    Have you ever seen people shot/killed with rapid fire arms?

    It is not pretty, really.
    Getting shot with ANY gun is tragic and traumatizing. Heck I realize now that, not only are soldiers permanently scarred if they have to shoot someone in battle, but even putting them in the mindset to do so in training removes a significant part of their humanity, a tragic thing.

    When someone wants to do violence, they find a way. Improvised weapons, explosives, acid attacks.....

    I want to reduce ALL, ALL violence in this country. Gun violence is a small fraction. And guess what, addressing the root causes of all violence via... improved education, medical and mental health care, higher standard of living, addressing racism and class disparities... all those things would improve EVERYTHING in the USA.

    But hey, go ahead and aim for just gun control. Conservatives: "HAHAHAHAHA... SUCKERS!"

    Biden wins. Implements gun control including confiscations. Republicans use to the max at next election. They win. They repeal the gun control. Gun folks buy new guns. Gun industry is wildly happy.

    See how that works?
    When you can take the pebble from my hand, it will be time for you to leave.

  8. #43
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Do you have a warrant?
    Posts
    8,157

    Default Re: Brandishing Firearms

    Quote Originally Posted by Canoez View Post
    Huh. We have a bump-stock ban and we have the National Firearms Act of 1934, the Violent Crime Control and Enforcement Act of 1994...

    Seems there is some constitutional history here.
    The 1994 act DRASTICALLY increased the prison population for things it should not have. White folks using powdered cocaine? Light sentences. Crack cocaine used more by people of color? Decades in prison. One of THE worst things done by the Clinton Administration. The gun part? Banned guns based on APPEARANCE. Gun makers changed the appearance, such as bridging the gap on rifles between the pistol grip (outlawed) and butt stock so no longer had a "pistol grip". Removed "military" aspects such as the flash hider. Did nothing. Gun production continued. I quickly bought a pistol I had wanted and 4 magazines, just in case. Have yet to fire a single round through it (got busy with things like a career).

    NFA 1934 banned, among other things, Short-Barrel-Rifles, SBAs, which also includes shoulder-stocked pistols, a useful implement for bush pilots and backpackers. They did so because one, ONE 1930's bank robber used a shoulder stocked .45 auto, just because he liked to. All the other bank robbers just walked in with Tommy guns or other rifles or shotguns. Here's the thing: You can currently own a pistol with a shoulder stock attachment. You can also own a shoulder stock for said pistol. Totally legal. If you put the two parts together, you have committed a felony under NFA. Do you think that this will stop someone, who is already intending to commit a different felony, from connecting the two parts? No. It just restricts someone who has a Marble Game Getter or Artillery Lugar or Inglis Browning High-Power, et al, from using it at the range. All of which would never be used in a crime, a shotgun is much cheaper and much more deadly.

    One of many problems with our government is that people who push for gun control know nothing about firearms and are unwilling to talk to those that actually do.
    When you can take the pebble from my hand, it will be time for you to leave.

  9. #44
    Join Date
    Oct 1999
    Location
    St. Paul, MN, USA
    Posts
    56,437

    Default Re: Brandishing Firearms

    I want to reduce ALL, ALL violence in this country. Gun violence is a small fraction.
    Laudable goal. But remember, a gun is a tool carefully designed to put drippy red holes in living bodies, and make them no longer living. Violence with a gun is likely to cause more damage than violence with fists or a 2x4 or a machete, because guns are specifically built to cause damage. Any other use is either threatening, practicing, or playing.
    "For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations,
    for nature cannot be fooled."

    Richard Feynman

  10. #45
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Do you have a warrant?
    Posts
    8,157

    Default Re: Brandishing Firearms

    Quote Originally Posted by Keith Wilson View Post
    Laudable goal. But remember, a gun is a tool carefully designed to put drippy red holes in living bodies, and make them no longer living. Violence with a gun is likely to cause more damage than violence with fists or a 2x4 or a machete, because guns are specifically built to cause damage. Any other use is either threatening, practicing, or playing.
    I use guns like golf clubs. To put projectiles in small holes. Hopefully not on adjacent targets. Thems target numbers are only about 6' high, difficult to see at 1000 yards with iron sights.

    I used to hunt (domestic stuff, not overseas exotic stuff). Always for food. Never killed anything I didn't eat. Where I did hunt, the game was more than plentiful, too much actually, the state DNR wanted to reduce the deer herd from 2.2 million down to about 1 million.

    I've never needed to keep a gun loaded for home protection. But I have one for the purpose in case I do, and a small, fast-acting safe. Until then it stays locked in the big safe. But I'm not nearly as fit as I used to be, and a week ago there was a break-in and the homeowner murdered, not far from here. Rare here, but it does happen.

    EDIT: I think you're missing my point. I don't expect you to suddenly like guns. What I am trying to communicate is no issue, more than guns, has been so effectively weaponized by republicans. If Biden loses, this will be a key factor, make no mistake. AND, that addressing the root causes of violence RUNS THE TABLE on massive other problems in the USA.
    Last edited by Bob (oh, THAT Bob); 07-24-2020 at 04:21 PM.
    When you can take the pebble from my hand, it will be time for you to leave.

  11. #46
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    5,398

    Default Re: Brandishing Firearms

    The “guns are bad” people ignore science and ignore facts. They are scared to address the issue of which guns are used and who is committing the crimes. I wonder why? Focusing on rifles is dumb. And costs elections. Be smart...win more.


    9BA43F4D-05DC-4106-942C-991F6492D985.jpg

  12. #47
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Do you have a warrant?
    Posts
    8,157

    Default Re: Brandishing Firearms

    Quote Originally Posted by bluedog225 View Post
    The “guns are bad” people ignore science and ignore facts. They are scared to address the issue of which guns are used and who is committing the crimes. I wonder why? Focusing on rifles is dumb. And costs elections. Be smart...win more.


    9BA43F4D-05DC-4106-942C-991F6492D985.jpg
    I'll give up handguns, if they let me carry a rifle in public. Of course, then the rifle is not concealed, but visible. So if I just touch it, I get charged with... wait for it... BRANDISHING.

    People need to think things through completely.
    When you can take the pebble from my hand, it will be time for you to leave.

  13. #48
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Entry Level
    Posts
    22,140

    Default Re: Brandishing Firearms

    Quote Originally Posted by bluedog225 View Post
    Be smart...win more.
    "Gun control" is another dumb slogan. Several times I've called upon Democrats to offer a substitute for the Second Amendment. They won't because it would force them to state their principles.
    Had every Athenian citizen been a Socrates, every Athenian assembly would still have been a mob.

    -- James Madison, Federalist 55

  14. #49
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    5,398

    Default Re: Brandishing Firearms

    The country is doing better than the TV tells people. This is a rate. It is declining.

    269A3F07-ACAD-48B4-BDFE-D89DAD77B459.jpg

  15. #50
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Wow-Ming
    Posts
    19,935

    Default Re: Brandishing Firearms

    Too many guns seems to be exactly the problem for the U.S. Thanks to the NRA (with funding from arms dealers) and the 2nd amendment nutcases, we have heavily-armed police and criminals with military-grade weapons. What could go wrong?

    Good piece in The New Yorker:

    "There are nearly seven hundred thousand police officers in the United States, about two for every thousand people, a rate that is lower than the European average. The difference is guns. Police in Finland fired six bullets in all of 2013; in an encounter on a single day in the year 2015, in Pasco, Washington, three policemen fired seventeen bullets when they shot and killed an unarmed thirty-five-year-old orchard worker from Mexico. Five years ago, when the Guardian counted police killings, it reported that, “in the first 24 days of 2015, police in the US fatally shot more people than police did in England and Wales, combined, over the past 24 years.”

    American police are armed to the teeth, with more than seven billion dollars’ worth of surplus military equipment off-loaded by the Pentagon to eight thousand law-enforcement agencies since 1997. At the same time, they face the most heavily armed civilian population in the world: one in three Americans owns a gun, typically more than one. Gun violence undermines civilian life and debases everyone. A study found that, given the ravages of stress, white male police officers in Buffalo have a life expectancy twenty-two years shorter than that of the average American male. The debate about policing also has to do with all the money that’s spent paying heavily armed agents of the state to do things that they aren’t trained to do and that other institutions would do better. History haunts this debate like a bullet-riddled ghost."

    https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2...-of-the-police
    We're merely mammals. Let's misbehave! —Cole Porter

  16. #51
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    5,398

    Default Re: Brandishing Firearms

    Police reform. Absolutely.

    But...our...policies...are....working....violent crime is down, down, down.

    That means people are safer. And hurt less. And raped less.

    2F8BBD44-C2F0-48D8-BBF9-858B459CF297.jpg

  17. #52
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Do you have a warrant?
    Posts
    8,157

    Default Re: Brandishing Firearms

    Quote Originally Posted by Osborne Russell View Post
    "Gun control" is another dumb slogan. Several times I've called upon Democrats to offer a substitute for the Second Amendment. They won't because it would force them to state their principles.
    Lemme try (I wish I had a constitutionally font for this):

    "All rights for possession and carrying a firearm must be equal between all citizens, including civil law enforcement, excluding the military for possession of other weapons, however the military shall not be deployed against the citizens with any weapon that is not legal for use by police or the citizens, and police or domestic security forces may not possess any firearm that cannot be possessed by the citizen public. Any firearm may be possessed in the home and at a practice range without special training, but carrying any firearm on a person outside of the home or range, loaded and ready for immediate use, must be preceded by training in carry and use of said firearm with successful completion of both legal knowledge and responsibilities and firing competency. Training criteria and minimum competency requirements shall be equal for all, including the citizens, police, and military if deployed domestically."

    The above does not mean that guns cannot be banned. But it does mean that if they are banned for citizens, they are also banned for police, and military for domestic use.
    When you can take the pebble from my hand, it will be time for you to leave.

  18. #53
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Northeast
    Posts
    17,189

    Default Re: Brandishing Firearms

    Quote Originally Posted by Bob (oh, THAT Bob) View Post
    The 1994 act DRASTICALLY increased the prison population for things it should not have. White folks using powdered cocaine? Light sentences. Crack cocaine used more by people of color? Decades in prison. One of THE worst things done by the Clinton Administration. The gun part? Banned guns based on APPEARANCE. Gun makers changed the appearance, such as bridging the gap on rifles between the pistol grip (outlawed) and butt stock so no longer had a "pistol grip". Removed "military" aspects such as the flash hider. Did nothing. Gun production continued. I quickly bought a pistol I had wanted and 4 magazines, just in case. Have yet to fire a single round through it (got busy with things like a career).
    I agree it wasn't as effective as it could have been, but, it pointedly made some firearms illegal to possess. It was also constitutional. It should have been based on muzzle energy, magazine capacity and rate of fire.

    Quote Originally Posted by Bob (oh, THAT Bob) View Post
    NFA 1934 banned, among other things, Short-Barrel-Rifles, SBAs, which also includes shoulder-stocked pistols, a useful implement for bush pilots and backpackers. They did so because one, ONE 1930's bank robber used a shoulder stocked .45 auto, just because he liked to. All the other bank robbers just walked in with Tommy guns or other rifles or shotguns. Here's the thing: You can currently own a pistol with a shoulder stock attachment. You can also own a shoulder stock for said pistol. Totally legal. If you put the two parts together, you have committed a felony under NFA. Do you think that this will stop someone, who is already intending to commit a different felony, from connecting the two parts? No. It just restricts someone who has a Marble Game Getter or Artillery Lugar or Inglis Browning High-Power, et al, from using it at the range. All of which would never be used in a crime, a shotgun is much cheaper and much more deadly.

    One of many problems with our government is that people who push for gun control know nothing about firearms and are unwilling to talk to those that actually do.
    It also made fully automatic firearms difficult if not impossible to get without jumping through the Federal government's hoops. Again, constitutional.

    The "Do you think that this will stop someone, who is already intending to commit a different felony, from connecting the two parts?" is one of the most ludicrous arguments that I see in regard to firearms. Period. That's like saying, "Do you think the fact that murder is illegal will stop someone bent on committing the crime?" Yeah, everybody is going to break that law, so we shouldn't have it. Right. We have laws to guide society. As I have often heard, you cannot make someone behave a certain way, but you can make them wish they had. You want to drive 100 MPH down the highway? You can, but you may have to pay the price for it.

    As Scalia clearly points out in Heller, your rights to own a particular firearm and to do anything you want with it are not unlimited. The guns you own, and probably haven't used in years could become restricted in some way - and it would likely be constitutional - so long as it doesn't restrict you from owning a firearm - just not *that* one.
    "The pessimist complains about the wind; the optimist expects it to change; the realist adjusts the sails."
    -William A. Ward



  19. #54
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Northeast
    Posts
    17,189

    Default Re: Brandishing Firearms

    Quote Originally Posted by Bob (oh, THAT Bob) View Post
    I'll give up handguns, if they let me carry a rifle in public. Of course, then the rifle is not concealed, but visible. So if I just touch it, I get charged with... wait for it... BRANDISHING.

    People need to think things through completely.
    Just carry it in the case. No brandishing issue. Simple.
    "The pessimist complains about the wind; the optimist expects it to change; the realist adjusts the sails."
    -William A. Ward



  20. #55
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Victoria BC
    Posts
    16,662

    Default Re: Brandishing Firearms

    Pick any hobby I have, it's yours for the taking if it prevents the death of innocents. It's yours. I'll find some other pass time that doesn't result in dead children and adults.

  21. #56
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Victoria BC
    Posts
    16,662

    Default Re: Brandishing Firearms

    I am not defined by how good I am at putting little holes in a target.

  22. #57
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    2 states: NJ and confusion
    Posts
    35,731

    Default Re: Brandishing Firearms

    Quote Originally Posted by Bob (oh, THAT Bob) View Post
    The 1994 act DRASTICALLY increased the prison population for things it should not have. White folks using powdered cocaine? Light sentences. Crack cocaine used more by people of color? Decades in prison. One of THE worst things done by the Clinton Administration. The gun part? Banned guns based on APPEARANCE. Gun makers changed the appearance, such as bridging the gap on rifles between the pistol grip (outlawed) and butt stock so no longer had a "pistol grip". Removed "military" aspects such as the flash hider. Did nothing. Gun production continued. I quickly bought a pistol I had wanted and 4 magazines, just in case. Have yet to fire a single round through it (got busy with things like a career).

    NFA 1934 banned, among other things, Short-Barrel-Rifles, SBAs, which also includes shoulder-stocked pistols, a useful implement for bush pilots and backpackers. They did so because one, ONE 1930's bank robber used a shoulder stocked .45 auto, just because he liked to. All the other bank robbers just walked in with Tommy guns or other rifles or shotguns. Here's the thing: You can currently own a pistol with a shoulder stock attachment. You can also own a shoulder stock for said pistol. Totally legal. If you put the two parts together, you have committed a felony under NFA. Do you think that this will stop someone, who is already intending to commit a different felony, from connecting the two parts? No. It just restricts someone who has a Marble Game Getter or Artillery Lugar or Inglis Browning High-Power, et al, from using it at the range. All of which would never be used in a crime, a shotgun is much cheaper and much more deadly.

    One of many problems with our government is that people who push for gun control know nothing about firearms and are unwilling to talk to those that actually do.
    I think our drug laws as just as dumb as Prohibition was, and should all be repealed for the same reason.

    People are going to use drugs whether or not they're legal. People who don't won't if they're legal.

    If they're legal, we can control the quality, get tax revenue, and save all the money presently spent on a war against them that we can't win.

    It would also put the 'bad guys' out of business.
    How do we form a mutiny? Our new captain is navigating poorly.

  23. #58
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    2 states: NJ and confusion
    Posts
    35,731

    Default Re: Brandishing Firearms

    Quote Originally Posted by bluedog225 View Post
    The “guns are bad” people ignore science and ignore facts. They are scared to address the issue of which guns are used and who is committing the crimes. I wonder why? Focusing on rifles is dumb. And costs elections. Be smart...win more.


    9BA43F4D-05DC-4106-942C-991F6492D985.jpg
    I know I've pointed this out before, and I know it falls on deaf ears, but the 2nd Amendment CLEARLY tells us it was written because a 'well regulated militia' was necessary to maintain a free state. Art.1 Sec.8 tells us THAT militia was to be ARMED AND TRAINED by the government. It was to be called up to suppress uprising, repel invasions, and enforce the laws.

    Once we got police, national guard, and a standing military, we no longer needed that militia.

    Also the 2nd amendment says 'keep', not 'own', and no matter how much one twists the language, those two words have different meanings. It also says 'arms', not 'guns'. Back then, "arms" might include canons and horses to pull them. Today we have nuclear missiles. DO YOU THINK THE SECOND AMENDMENT LETS YOU OWN NUCLEAR MISSILES?

    If not, you must see some line can be drawn as to what arms one can keep

    I believe the 2nd Amendment should have been deemed as moot as the third.
    How do we form a mutiny? Our new captain is navigating poorly.

  24. #59
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Do you have a warrant?
    Posts
    8,157

    Default Re: Brandishing Firearms

    Quote Originally Posted by Canoez View Post
    Just carry it in the case. No brandishing issue. Simple.
    I mean carrying a rifle for protection in place of a pistol. Kinda hard to deploy quickly if it's in a case, knowwhattamean? But then a shoulder-slung rifle is also hard to deploy quickly when someone jumps you out of an alley.
    When you can take the pebble from my hand, it will be time for you to leave.

  25. #60
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Do you have a warrant?
    Posts
    8,157

    Default Re: Brandishing Firearms

    Quote Originally Posted by Canoeyawl View Post
    So, I have this antique, 1896 7.63 Mauser. When I was younger it was unlawful to have the fitting on the end of the holster. I think it is OK now.

    Attachment 64624
    Fabulously interesting firearm, should be able to fire one at the range, stocked, but can't without a Class III license, costing thousands of dollars.
    When you can take the pebble from my hand, it will be time for you to leave.

  26. #61
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Do you have a warrant?
    Posts
    8,157

    Default Re: Brandishing Firearms

    Quote Originally Posted by Canoez View Post
    I agree it wasn't as effective as it could have been, but, it pointedly made some firearms illegal to possess. It was also constitutional. It should have been based on muzzle energy, magazine capacity and rate of fire.



    It also made fully automatic firearms difficult if not impossible to get without jumping through the Federal government's hoops. Again, constitutional.

    The "Do you think that this will stop someone, who is already intending to commit a different felony, from connecting the two parts?" is one of the most ludicrous arguments that I see in regard to firearms. Period. That's like saying, "Do you think the fact that murder is illegal will stop someone bent on committing the crime?" Yeah, everybody is going to break that law, so we shouldn't have it. Right. We have laws to guide society. As I have often heard, you cannot make someone behave a certain way, but you can make them wish they had. You want to drive 100 MPH down the highway? You can, but you may have to pay the price for it.

    As Scalia clearly points out in Heller, your rights to own a particular firearm and to do anything you want with it are not unlimited. The guns you own, and probably haven't used in years could become restricted in some way - and it would likely be constitutional - so long as it doesn't restrict you from owning a firearm - just not *that* one.
    Oh I know, NFA 1934 also banned full auto weapons and suppressors ("silencers"). Funny, in Switzerland, suppressors are common, they consider it being a good neighbor for folks living near shooting ranges, and they don't seem to increase crime. And, many, many Swiss have fully automatic rifles in their homes, either from being in the military, or retired from it. "Citizen militia." Now, I have no desire to own a fully automatic rifle, to me it's a waste of ammunition, even in a firefight. My question is, with all those things legal in Switzerland, how come they don't have a crime and mass murder problem?

    Also, you folks are TOTALLY missing my point. My words in this thread are NOT about changing your minds about firearms. It's about BIDEN WINNING OR LOSING THE ELECTION. I want Biden to WIN, and not throw that victory away after inauguration. Fixing the ROOT CAUSES of violence is the republicans' worst nightmare, because it costs MONEY. Banning firearms costs nothing, no tax dollars for fixing schools, medicine, racial equality, etc. It's why even moderate republicans caved on gay rights, it doesn't cost them any money.
    When you can take the pebble from my hand, it will be time for you to leave.

  27. #62
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Central Coast, Ca
    Posts
    28,928

    Default Re: Brandishing Firearms

    When I was young, this C96 was not legal with the stock, which was a minor issue. Today from all I can learn it is now legal. The thing is surprisingly accurate, but it drops the casings right down on your head or into your open shirt...

    "A rifle having a barrel of less than 16 inches in length is a firearm as that term is defined in Title 26, United States Code (U.S.C.), Chapter 53, § 5845(a)(3). If a pistol were possessed with an attachable shoulder stock, the combination would be a firearm as defined. Weapons of this type are subject to the provisions of the National Firearms Act (NFA).

    However, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (ATF) has previously determined that by reason of the date of their manufacture, value, design, and other characteristics, the following when possessed with an attachable shoulder stock, are primarily collector’s items and are not likely to be used as weapons, and, therefore, are excluded from the provisions of the NFA:

    Mauser, model 1896 semiautomatic pistol accompanied by original German mfd. detachable wooden holster/shoulder stocks, all semiautomatic German mfd. variations produced prior to 1940, any caliber.

    Further, ATF has determined that such firearms are curios or relics as defined in Title 26, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 178, § 178.11 and, therefore, would still be subject to the Gun Control Act of 1968.

    ATF has previously determined that Mauser Model 1896 pistols with reproduction stocks, which duplicate or closely approximate the originals, have also been removed from the provisions of the NFA. Copies of the Mauser pistol using frames of recent manufacture, with shoulder stocks, are still subject to the NFA.

    If an individual possesses a pistol and shoulder stock combination that has not been removed from the provisions of the NFA, the combination would constitute a firearm subject to the provisions of the NFA. The fact that the stock was not attached to the pistol would have no bearing on this classification."

    Edit: I always vote a straight democratic ticket and have since the Vietnam war. I don't give a damn about guns. They can go away or not. (never gonna happen, but I could see registration and record keeping, and would absolutely vote for that)


  28. #63
    Join Date
    May 2015
    Location
    The Garden State
    Posts
    7,758

    Default Re: Brandishing Firearms

    Quote Originally Posted by John Smith View Post
    I think our drug laws as just as dumb as Prohibition was, and should all be repealed for the same reason.

    People are going to use drugs whether or not they're legal. People who don't won't if they're legal.

    If they're legal, we can control the quality, get tax revenue, and save all the money presently spent on a war against them that we can't win.

    It would also put the 'bad guys' out of business.

    Portugal has proved that you can win against drugs by legalizing them all. It would also immediately collapse the cartels in Mexico as their source of ill gotten gains would disappear.
    "If you think you are too small to make a difference, try sleeping with a mosquito"

    -Dalai Lama

  29. #64
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Do you have a warrant?
    Posts
    8,157

    Default Re: Brandishing Firearms

    Let me put this another way.

    Right now, in Portland OR, there are agents of the federal government, at the behest of Trump, doing things against the will of the mayor, governor, and people of the city, trying to suppress peaceful protests. A whole lot of people are really pissed about it, and saying it is all unconstitutional.

    Now, picture if you will, under a democratic president, agents of the federal government, going to states like, oh, I don't know, Arkansas, Georgia, Alabama, Florida, Idaho, Montana, Colorado, Alaska, et al, showing up at people's doors and saying, "We're here to take your guns. Not all of them. Just... some of them." I want to you imagine what is going to happen. Right there at the doorstep, and on the mall in Washington DC, and to the rest of the democratic party agenda.

    This isn't Australia, or any other place where people peacefully turned in their weapons to have them melted down. You think the protests are loud now about the death of George Floyd? (valid protests, in my opinion) Do you think, that a whole bunch of angry white folks, and Latinx, and a whole lotta black folks too (see the recent armed black march on Stone Mountain GA), are not going to be 10X as angry and much more violent, and in much, MUCH larger numbers than the white supremacist marches?
    When you can take the pebble from my hand, it will be time for you to leave.

  30. #65
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    34,718

    Default Re: Brandishing Firearms

    Quote Originally Posted by Bob (oh, THAT Bob) View Post
    Also, you folks are TOTALLY missing my point. My words in this thread are NOT about changing your minds about firearms. It's about BIDEN WINNING OR LOSING THE ELECTION. I want Biden to WIN, and not throw that victory away after inauguration. Fixing the ROOT CAUSES of violence is the republicans' worst nightmare, because it costs MONEY. Banning firearms costs nothing, no tax dollars for fixing schools, medicine, racial equality, etc. It's why even moderate republicans caved on gay rights, it doesn't cost them any money.
    They miss Osborne's point, as well.

    When you say your "My words in this thread are NOT about changing your minds about firearms", I think the connection you are failing to make for them is that putting firearms regulation at the forefront of this campaign is like Kryptonite to the Democrats.

    Abortion, same same.

    It's not as though you don't think gun culture in this country is WAY outta hand, it's that you believe the danger of arming the Republicans with Kryptonite may not be the best choice at this juncture.


    Rattling the teacups.

  31. #66
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    34,718

    Default Re: Brandishing Firearms

    Bob, I think what may be happening in the runup to this election is that there are so many people who are pissed off and fed up with Donal F Trump's bullspit that the old white guys like your dad are fixin' to not have the power to stop us anymore.

    The most frustrating thing is that the US used to have a fairly healthy gun culture.

    Phillip Allen was brought up in that culture, as were you, and he was quite willing to trash on the whole 'black gun' thing.

    The ideal thing would be for the US gun culture return to sanity, because you're right, this can't be fixed with laws without a lot of 'difficulties', BECAUSE it's not a legal problem, it's a culture problem.
    Rattling the teacups.

  32. #67
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Northeast
    Posts
    17,189

    Default Re: Brandishing Firearms

    Quote Originally Posted by Bob (oh, THAT Bob) View Post
    I mean carrying a rifle for protection in place of a pistol. Kinda hard to deploy quickly if it's in a case, knowwhattamean? But then a shoulder-slung rifle is also hard to deploy quickly when someone jumps you out of an alley.
    Which, is just ridiculous on the face of it. Anyone who lives in that much fear really needs a gut check. And the reason they probably feel the need to own and carry a gun is - wait for it - someone else with a gun.

    Quote Originally Posted by Bob (oh, THAT Bob) View Post
    Oh I know, NFA 1934 also banned full auto weapons and suppressors ("silencers"). Funny, in Switzerland, suppressors are common, they consider it being a good neighbor for folks living near shooting ranges, and they don't seem to increase crime. And, many, many Swiss have fully automatic rifles in their homes, either from being in the military, or retired from it. "Citizen militia." Now, I have no desire to own a fully automatic rifle, to me it's a waste of ammunition, even in a firefight. My question is, with all those things legal in Switzerland, how come they don't have a crime and mass murder problem?

    Also, you folks are TOTALLY missing my point. My words in this thread are NOT about changing your minds about firearms. It's about BIDEN WINNING OR LOSING THE ELECTION. I want Biden to WIN, and not throw that victory away after inauguration. Fixing the ROOT CAUSES of violence is the republicans' worst nightmare, because it costs MONEY. Banning firearms costs nothing, no tax dollars for fixing schools, medicine, racial equality, etc. It's why even moderate republicans caved on gay rights, it doesn't cost them any money.
    Nope. Not missing the point. It’s you talking about how precious your gun ownership rights are on a thread where we’re talking about people who behaved badly with guns and are being charged with crimes as a result of it.

    No, it isn’t about the election. This election is not about guns. It is not about abortion. It’s not about anything other than the small man who occupies the White House and the enablers who help him stay where he does not belong. It’s you using the excuse to talk about other things to distract from the idea that someone might be criminally liable for doing something with a gun which was the OP of the thread.

    Quote Originally Posted by Bob (oh, THAT Bob) View Post
    Let me put this another way.

    Yadda, yadda....
    It’s the overwhelming irony that when we have a government that has exceeded its authority and the remedy may be people exercising their 2nd Amendment rights to defend themselves and others, that peaceful protest, government, courts of law, and election are the remedies.

    The majority of the 2nd Amendment crowd that claim their firearms ownership rights are to defend themselves against a tyrannical, fascist government are at home and just too damned happy at watching all those Libs being pwned.

    You might want to check for a pebble. I’m on my way out of this thread.
    "The pessimist complains about the wind; the optimist expects it to change; the realist adjusts the sails."
    -William A. Ward



  33. #68
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Walney, near Cumbria UK
    Posts
    50,473

    Default Re: Brandishing Firearms

    Quote Originally Posted by Canoez View Post

    The majority of the 2nd Amendment crowd that claim their firearms ownership rights are to defend themselves against a tyrannical, fascist government
    Which encapsulates the profound ignorance of the Constitution and suicidal stupidity (or hypocrisy) of that group of US citizens in one sentence.
    It really is quite difficult to build an ugly wooden boat.

    The power of the web: Anyone can post anything on the web
    The weakness of the web: Anyone can post anything on the web.

  34. #69
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    West Sacramento, CA
    Posts
    7,347

    Default Re: Brandishing Firearms

    The ideal thing would be for the US gun culture return to sanity...
    No. The ideal thing would be for the culture to abandon the childish selfish need for a lethal toy. We don't knock women on the head and drag 'em back to camp anymore. We don't (mostly) steal people from their homes and chain them up to ensure good shareholder value, anymore. We can evolve and that includes the culture and that includes passing legislation and that includes some nominal adults being disappointed about the passing of a hobby a tradition a failure of humanity.

    Ideally, guns and associated instruments of death and destruction would be relegated to our past. LIke shooting indians. Or starting a wilfire to clear land for a subsistance farm. Or shooting every single bison and every single passenger pigeon. Did you know, frinstance, that when white folks showed up on the continent with their firearms, essential for their survival in the new wilderness, the passenger pigeon was the most widespread and numerous bird species on the north American continent, the sky literally dark with their enormous flocks. Like the buffalo herds covering the plains, innumerable, infinite.

    Think about this another way, gun-lovers. Imagine if you woke up some day and somehow magically, space aliens or wizards from time travelling future, had disappeared all guns overnight. No guns anywhere. Gun factories magically closed, gun manufacturing supplies magically dried up. No guns. No guns at all. No one on the streets with guns concealed or otherwise, no cops with guns, no military with guns. No guns at all. Never any guns anymore. At all.



    Can you still breathe? Can you still go to work? Can you sleep at night? Can you own other special things without worrying about being home-invaded?

    What if the coronvirus attacked the genes that express a desire for the mini-rapture that comes with explosions and the blood lust? What if you woke up one morning and everyone you know who thinks like you and wants to go hunting and protect themselves in a dodgy area downtown at night or just wants to make hours of noise and tiny holes in paper targets—what if there were no other gun lovers around any more? What if you discovered that everyone you can respect who used to share your opinion changed their minds in the meantime and were willing to be responsible adults about guns and voluntarily give them up for destruction?

    Does anyone suppose that if guns were gone, if no one got shot anymore ever, that America would grind to a halt or become North Korea?

    Maybe it's not the time to talk about thoughts and prayers.
    Speak softly and carry a mouthful of marbles.

  35. #70
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    United States of Stupid
    Posts
    11,498

    Default Re: Brandishing Firearms

    Quote Originally Posted by Peerie Maa View Post
    Which encapsulates the profound ignorance of the Constitution and suicidal stupidity (or hypocrisy) of that group of US citizens in one sentence.
    Now, I know you think I'm a blinking American Idiot, but remember, that I have always respected you, and so there may be something wrong with you too

    I used to think the same thing. But during and since the months surrounding trump's election, I had received threats from Trump supporters, many implied, many fairly direct. The one that caused me to take defense into my own hands is when one told me in response to my resisting his rhetoric, "we have all the guns, so WTF are you going to do about it". He went on to explain that significant parts of the military is in, and the majority of cops are in, in case we decided to try to stop Trump, they'd stand up and defend him. He explained that they'd all be happy to rid the country of as many liberals as they could as we are a cancer on this great country. He wasn't the last to express this. The exact spirit behind the 2nd, to have the right to balance the power out a bit. Many Liberals I know are arming up, as far as I can see the LGBTQ community is very close to 50% armed. The brown community is acutely putting forth a drive to arm up. Trump's rhetoric, and his followers expressed intent, has been heard. So no matter how stupid this entire situation is, good people are making the choice to defend themselves from Tyranny, and it just so happens to be coming from the top of our government. The 2nd is working and I'll spend the rest of my life enjoying it and defending it, even if that means self righteous folks like you make fun of me.

    I was wrong Pearldog.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •