Voted for less control because I do not believe someone should be sitting in jail for owning a rifle with 11 made foreign parts. But at the same time, the only additional gun control I can think of is; Background checks on all sales of all firearms at gun shows. Accuracy and firearms proficiency requirements for CCW permits. I shot a 8" or so group at my CCW class, the guy on the other side of the class peppered his target. I say peppered because "group" would be far too dignified to describe his shooting ability. He certainly shouldn't be carrying a loaded firearm in public if he can barely shoot it in a no-stress situation.
In my travels, every gun show I have attended in Georgia, Tennessee, Florida, Texas, Arizona, Wyoming, Montana, North Dekoda - have back ground checks. It is mandatory that every attending dealer do background checks on all sales.
Given a choice between "...understand elasticities and their use in testing the crime hypothesis", or playing a mean Gibson Byrdland guitar and selling over 30 million albums, I think most of us would choose the latter.
And you keep posting how the Mexican drug cartels are buying anything they can get their hands on, I'm asking you to post some figures that substiantiate that comment. I've posted figures detailing the assault-rifles and pistols they're buying - can't you do the same? Instead of wasting your time trying to refute my comments, perhaps you should take the time to bolster yours. However, seeing as how you've misstated my position on the need for more firearms regulations, as well as quoted me out of context, I don't expect you will. There's an old saying down here that I believe applies to you Danct - "When you're up to your ass in alligators, it's hard to remember that your initial objective was to drain the swamp."
Nice try, but not true, friend. I have been VERY clear from the start with you that there are semi-auto assault weapons moving across the southern border that should cause as much concern to you as your concern about the fully automatics and military equipment that you have harped on here. I recall that you have denied that this even happens, saying; "you can't buy this stuff at gun shows in the U.S. This is genuine military hardware - not civilian market firearms", even after posting an article that stated that semi-autos ARE going across the border from the US where the article stated: "Mexican monitors ... are focused on the smuggling of semi-automatic and conventional weapons purchased from dealers in the U.S. border states of Texas, New Mexico, Arizona and California....". and later in that same article it states: "In addition to grenades, high-powered guns such as the .50-caliber Barrett sniper rifle have become a weapon of choice in narcotics traffickers' arsenals, Mangan said. Unlike grenades and antitank weapons, the .50-caliber guns can be obtained by ordinary citizens in the U.S. and smuggled easily into Mexico, like the tons of assault rifles and automatic pistols" [here the article misstates "assault rifles" where they should have said "assault weapons"] Previous to that post you posted another article that talked about military armaments AND conventional weapons easily purchased in this country that you ignored in that post saying: ""Where are the drug cartels getting these military armaments from?" It ain't your local gun show, that's for sure!". An odd observation considering your article had shown conventional weaponry saying: "The army found 150 rifles, pistols and shotguns, 92,000 rounds of ammunition". From the very start here I have prompted you to acknowledge there ARE guns going across the border into Mexico from the US (and even from gun shows) that are wreaking equal havoc there. I first asked you: "Why are you ignoring all of the civilian arms that could have been bought at US gun shows? Your article reported a whole mess of effectively lethal civilian arms and ammo". Your response then was to talk of "a bunch of .38 Special revolvers", which was disingenuous at best given your own source's realities. Since then you have harped on .22's and the like which is equally disingenuous. You have further wasted time while avoiding the realities of border gun trafficking arguing that a civilian purchase of a semi-auto assault weapon in this country is somehow a military armament and therefor not a civilian firearm which frankly I find ridiculous. Your argument has been fluid and convenient while appearing to not be very well thought out. You CAN rectify this, of course.
Unfortunately you fellows adopt an 'or' choice that doesn't include 30 million albums, finding any excuse not to peruse the available evidence
Private sellers are not allowed to set up and sell at any organized gun show that I've been too. Sellers/dealers must provide prior, to show organizers a legit occupational license even is selling only knifes, firearm accessories, antique military items, survival gear, clothing, and hunting / camping accessories. Even food and beverage vendors must provide an occupational license. Todays gun shows are very strict and stand firm with restrictions. Overall Gun shows are Great Fun Events for the entire family too enjoy. And purchaseing a gun / ammo, is probably the wises investment and thing to do with these comeing unstable times.
Even a private seller where I come from is required to verify whether the buyer can legally purchase. The law is already there. I think some might sell to a felon because they can get top dollar or more for their sale. What they don't think about is if that firearm is used in a crime it will probably come back to original purchaser and everybody there after should have records showng who and why they sold it. If you can't prove legal sale to bad, you should be more careful to protect yourself. Mentality now days is that the laws apply to everyone else and not me. Laws are already there just need to be enforce. All they want to do is add more that won't get enforced.
True however, not all states require what you mentioned. It is certainly required in Colorado except for antique firearms, typically 50+ years old.
Well all the states I've been in do. There are certain currio licenses for firearms.(antiques) Besides, every gun show Ive been, there are law enforcement officers all throughout those facilities. Uniformed and undercover plain clothes. And one main rule is that every dealer must have their license in plain view. I do a real lot of travelin around the country durring the hunting seasons. I have and still do attend gun shows, if there is one in the area I'm at. Myself and some buddies will be starting our travels and tour beginning mid September. I will more than likely make deals and pick-up some interesting stuff. "Is this a great country or what"?
Yeah the C&R licenses are great. Problem being I already have a bunch of older firearms, so even if I did have the C&R probly wouldn't find a whole lot to buy. Ha
I am a registered Democrat (ex-Republican) who loves my firearms. Gun control is being able to hit your target.
Buying from a dealer, I have to have a background check. Having a WA CPL speeds it up a bit. Buying a milsurp pistol from a collector, all I have to show is cash. I think that out of a hundred or so weapons, over 15 years I have had to have a check on 30 of them, buying or selling.
I own a lot of firearms. I have a CPL, I fire at every chance at the Sportsman's Range on Ft Lewis. There are a few changes I would make in firearms laws. 1. No felons, lunatics, addicts, drunk drivers, wife-beaters or kiddy-fiddlers should bve permitted to hold so much as a paintball gun. 2. Everyone should pass the basic requirements for a CCW in their state before taking posession of any firearm. 3. Every gun owner should be required to fire for qualification at least once a year with every firearm he owns. (Right now, that would, I admit, mean that my shotgun would probably have to stay looked up in the safe at the Shotgun Center. I am an embarrassment on the trap range.) 4. A title shall append to any firearm, and the transfer or theft of that firearm shall be reported. (JUst like a car.) 5. Firearms ownership shall obligate the owner to be available for public servicein timems of emergency to assist law enforcement in maintaining public order and shall be trained to do so in accordance with such laws as may be passed regarding the training and calling out of the militia with proper provision for those suffering physical limitations. Under this scheme, those who are fit to own firearms may, those who are a threat to the lives of others are not, stolen guns may be recovered and owners of guns used in crimes may be more easily traced (just like automobiles now carry a title,) the thugs know that the community can fight back and would-be tyrants would know that they were out-gunned and nobody would even think of starting a ground war with us on our turf. (It worked in WWII.)
stance.. upright, legs slightly apart, usually two hands on the piece, point barrel at target, and squeeeeeeze the trigger for best results..... anything else is a restriction the governmnet has no business in which to involve itself. (infringing)
I spent a year at Ft. Lewis, and I think all the rain has soaked a bit too far into your head. Anyway, there wouldn't be a need for registraion if we punished felons the way we did back before the 1960's, and we didn't allow all the radicals and gangsters into the country thru our pourous borders. A simple focus on punishing the felon for the violent acts they commit [using bats, knives, chainsaws, poison and even guns] instead of a focus on the type of gun being used and its registration status, would vastly reduce the violence here. There are enough laws and training restrictions already. I think states or governments should give rebates to taxpayers that take gun training classes. My old homestate of Missouri had hunter and gun safety classes that were manditory for all Jr. High (boys at the time) students. But that should be controlled by the states, not the feds. As for the militias---as gun owners---this is unfair that the Amish and other "dead weight" are allowed a free pass in a national emergency. There is something called "fairness."
What does it matter if they used a gun. Look at the overall gun rate, no one is going to care if you make gun crime disappear if people are just getting robbed, murdered, and raped at knife-point. also, background checks are still required for licensed dealers at gun shows, the trick is that civilians can sell guns to each other without background checks all the time, and many people go to gun shows with the purpose of selling guns. Most of our gun laws in this nation do absolutely nothing to reduce crime. We need to repeal every ban on a certain type of gun, every waiting period, every may issue or no issue(turn it into shall issue) every restriction on ammo purchases, every gun-free zone, ect. They don't work. The only one that works is the background check, and that is seriously flawed, so it needs to be reformed. Federal agents testing the system have had a 100% success rate purchasing firearms with fake IDs. The Virginia Tech shooter had been declared mentally unfit and as such was not legally eligible to purchase firearms, but in a classic case of left hand not knowing what the right is doing, the agency that runs the background checks was never informed, allowing him to purchase his two handguns anyway. That's my thoughts on gun control. i would also like to see 2 new laws put in place to reduce accidents. 1) mandatory safety course when you first purchase a gun. This is necessary for handguns in many states, but not guns in general, I think this should change. 2) A very heavy penalty for drinking while carrying or using a gun. There is no reason you need to be drinking beer while out hunting or at the range. Booze and guns don't mix. I would recommend a $5,000 fine, and at minimum a 5 year ban on buying, carrying, or using firearms.
I see there was another massacre in USA today.... Everyone has the right to carry a gun..... Yeaah....hows that working for you.... Honest to God is America such a sh1thole that everyone has to carry a gun. Even the kids go to school and kill each other... Hows that working for you... You guys couldnt run a hot bath...........ps..Im from Australia...
I love how people completely ignorant of our laws feel like they have a right to talk about them. Not everyone has a right to carry a gun. Carrying a long-gun outside of a range or when hunting is prohibited in most states. Many states require you to keep your gun and ammo in separate, locked boxes when traveling to these places. So legal carry, is pretty much handguns, which you need a licence for in almost every state. A licence that is typically expensive, and requires quite a bit of time to get. Take NY, pretty typical may issue state, I need 4 non family character references for my pistol permit application. I also need to pay over 250 dollars just for the privilege of applying for my licence. Even after all that, it takes 6 to 8 months for me to find out if I even get my permit. But yeah, everyone can carry guns, everyone has to carry guns. As for Australia, you mean that country who's murder and crime rates continued the exact same trends they had regardless of enacting strict gun control? Gun control doesn't reduce crime rates. Gun control doesn't save lives, so stop acting like it does. Mass murders are such a small proportion of our murder rate, they're not even a blip in the data, they are swallowed whole by the data and people with guns stop shootings too. And strict gun laws didn't stop that guy in Norway. I'll just leave you with this: http://theacru.org/acru/harvard_study_gun_control_is_counterproductive/
Incorrect. Gun retailers have to background checks at gun shows in every state. It's federal law. The loophole your thinking of deals with private collectors at gun shows.
