Guitar Gear Forum

1. So, it looks like Feinstein's gun ban is going to get shot down before it sees a senate vote.

2. Does this mean people will stop panic buying high capacity mags? I NEED some for my guns.

3. BTW, I found 5 boxes of good 22LR today. It was a huge victory.

4. K-Var finally debited my account for my AK47 pistol. VERY excited.

Do you like/hate guns? Do you want to talk about them? This is more of a technical, pro gun thread, but it's a free country. You can say whatever you want because of the bill of rights.

I'm a liberal by most folk's descriptions but I've been a gun owners since age 12 and second amendment supporter since I was old enough to know what it was.

I think some of the things they're proposing are pretty reasonable however I understand the slippery slope fear many of the pro-gun folks have.
Overall I think if you want to know if gun control works just look at my city.
Tons of gun violence and murder everyday in the less gentrified neighborhoods everyday, and we've got fairly strict gun laws.

We're well past the point of no return on curbing gun violence through gun control/bans.
The reality is these crimes wouldn't happen if it weren't for poverty and/or mental illness.
Solve those two issues and I think you'll get light years farther in reducing gun violence than passing any legislation limiting or controlling gun ownership.

Poverty is definitely a huge part of it.

My question for gun control supporters and opponents:

What does a "telescoping stock" have to do with anything? Are the anti-gun types confusing a "bump-fire" stock with a telescoping stock? It "telescopes" so that it can fit the shooter.

Also, what's wrong with the pistol grip?

I can see the argument for limiting magazine capacity, but I disagree with it.

Regarding the "gun show loophole"; has anybody ever bought a gun at a gun show? Do they do the background check? I've purchased 5 firearms, and I had to do a background check for all of them. Even my 1943 surplus rifle required a background check.

Honestly I think thats just politics man.
People are uproarious about it after Sandy Hook because they're emotional and reactionary.

Politicians are offering them something that will massage their hearts.
I really don't think theres more to it than that.

K-Bizzle wrote:Honestly I think thats just politics man.
People are uproarious about it after Sandy Hook because they're emotional and reactionary.

Politicians are offering them something that will massage their hearts.
I really don't think theres more to it than that.

QFT.

Cougar Hunter wrote:1. So, it looks like Feinstein's gun ban is going to get shot down before it sees a senate vote.

as i knew it would. reactionary dipshits. what are your sources though? want to rub it in some peoples faces i know.

reactionary dipshits? or the kick in the pants a lot of potential owners needed to go over the edge and buy?

I've been shooting since I was a kid (my brother and father both own guns), so I have nothing against guns. I do however, have a problem with a lot of these pro gun people who lack a fully functioning frontal lobe. For example, when someone talks about banning assault rifles and high capacity magazines, they respond as if someone has proposed taking EVERY gun from the public. I've not heard a single proposal to outlaw pistols, rifles or shotguns, just the military style assault rifles. So, when someone is debating against something that hasn't even been proposed, I have to ask myself, did they eat paint chips as a kid?

If you were debating the speed limit with someone because they thought it should be 65 mph and you think it should be 55 mph, but the other person was debating against the idea of the speed limit being 25 mph (not the 55 mph that you proposed), wouldn't you consider them deluded? When someone is debating against what basically amounts to a figment of their imagination instead of what's actually being proposed, it's hard to consider them anything other than mentally ill because it's a textbook case of delusional behavior.

Even more disturbing is that most of these people also lack elementary school level reading comprehension skills. They swear up and down that the second amendment says that there can be no regulations on guns of any kind. The last time I checked it, the 2nd Amendment guarantees the right to bear arms. It says nothing about the government being unable to regulate firearms on any level, but I hear NRA nutjobs claim exactly that on a regular basis. Is there a secret addenda to the 2nd Amendment that only NRA members know about, or is this just another example of their delusional behavior?

Guns will never go away in this country, they are too much a part of our history and culture. These NRA nutjobs who think that any sort of new gun regulations (like a national registry) means that the government is going to take all of their guns tomorrow are really just flaunting equal helpings of ignorance, mental instability and insecurity. I'm not saying we should rush to pass hastily written laws in an attempt to remedy the level of gun violence in our country, but it's disturbing how the NRA is trying to stop any sort of discussion on the subject. Did anyone see the father of one of the Sandy Hook victims being yelled at by NRA nutjobs for daring to ask a question yesterday? All he did was ask why anyone needs military style assault rifles and high capacity magazines. Instead of giving him any sort of legitimate answer, the NRA members in attendance decided to start shouting at him about their second amendment rights. If they had even 20 firing neurons between the lot of them, they would have answered his question like a person raised in captivity, but they chose to go the belligerent route. Truly despicable behavior to say the least.

MikeO,

Some believe taking a few guns here and there is a slippery slope in the wrong direction. Just because you disagree doesn't make the entire opposition "deluded nutjobs with less than 20 firing neurons who lack a fully functioning frontal lobe who ate paint chips as a kid and lack elementary school level reading comprehension skills."

I would say YOU are the belligerent one.

Try refraining from the name-calling and insults if you want people to take your long-winded argument seriously.

Good day.

Cougar Hunter,

I didn't say the "entire opposition" were deluded nutjobs, just the ones who are debating against figments of their imagination instead of what is actually being proposed. You can call it a slipperly slope, but to me that is just playing the spin game. What I see are people who don't want to have a legitmate debate on the subject, so instead resort to fear mongering over something that is NEVER going to happen (someone taking ALL of their guns away).

As for the reading comprehension comment, that's just calling it like it is. The 2nd Amendment is written in simple language that any English speaking person can understand, but yet millions of NRA members pretend that it forbids the government from imposing any sort of regulations regarding firearms, when there is no such language in the actual amendment. If they had any reading comprehension skills, they would realize/admit this, so pointing out their lack of reading comprehension isn't being belligerent, it's called being honest. Different strokes for different folks, I guess.

Good Day.

I have bought a pistol at a gun show. Bought it inside the show, from a dealer, where they do background checks. Its outside the show, where people bring guns to sell with no check

I have a problem with a lot of people clinging to the 2nd amendment, as if it had nothing to do with militia, and everything to do with home protection from the common criminal.

Two things about that. We are so far past our government/military becoming more powerful than the people, it's not even a conversation. So, in my mind, the 2nd amendment, and what it's intended purpose was, is extremely outdated. It is very unfortunate, but we will NEVER be able to protect ourselves against a government who has access to the largest military in the world, with weapons that can destroy us from hundreds of miles away.

I'm sorry, but your weapons in your house are not going to protect you from that. Bin Laden was probably better trained than the average American, and that didn't help him one bit.

Not only that, but, the 2nd amendment should not be referenced, as it pertains to lone criminals walking the streets who stage break ins.

That doesn't mean I don't think people should have weapons for their personal/home/family protection, I'm fine with that. I just think people should say that buying guns for personal protection is fine and legal, and they are exercising that option, and not use the 2nd amendment as some sort of blanket reason for owning guns.

You want to exercise your legal right to own guns to keep your government in check? Fine. That's the 2nd amendment.

You want to exercise your legal right to own guns to keep your family safe from the common criminal? Fine. That is not exactly the same thing, but still okay.

:-bd

MikeO wrote:Cougar Hunter,

I didn't say the "entire opposition" were deluded nutjobs, just the ones who are debating against figments of their imagination instead of what is actually being proposed. You can call it a slipperly slope, but to me that is just playing the spin game. What I see are people who don't want to have a legitmate debate on the subject, so instead resort to fear mongering over something that is NEVER going to happen (someone taking ALL of their guns away).

As for the reading comprehension comment, that's just calling it like it is. The 2nd Amendment is written in simple language that any English speaking person can understand, but yet millions of NRA members pretend that it forbids the government from imposing any sort of regulations regarding firearms, when there is no such language in the actual amendment. If they had any reading comprehension skills, they would realize/admit this, so pointing out their lack of reading comprehension isn't being belligerent, it's called being honest. Different strokes for different folks, I guess.

Good Day.

MikeO,
You've read the SCOTUS's U.S. vs. Miller 1939, right?

So tell me, what can be forbidden by the gov't in the way of guns by that decision?

You are correct, the 2nd Amendment is very easy to read as it clearly states an individual's right.

Derek

The Anomaly wrote:
We are so far past our government/military becoming more powerful than the people, it's not even a conversation. So, in my mind, the 2nd amendment, and what it's intended purpose was, is extremely outdated. It is very unfortunate, but we will NEVER be able to protect ourselves against a government who has access to the largest military in the world, with weapons that can destroy us from hundreds of miles away.

I'm sorry, but your weapons in your house are not going to protect you from that. Bin Laden was probably better trained than the average American, and that didn't help him one bit.

So the average body of people when armed can't fight the gov't? You know we've had a war on "terror" going on for how long, fighting against foes with far less training and we've not run roughshod over them?

The Vietnam war was won because we couldn't stop bicycles.

IDK about OBL & training, did you see him FLINCH when he was shooting his AK variant? I mean really? Flinching from that little round--either the 7.62 or 5.45... c'mon! He was a source of $, not a fighter.

Now if you mean the gov't shining its full strength on you and you attempt to go head to head, you'll lose due to sheer size. But remember that the 2nd is about the individual right of ownership so that the vast amount of arms in the collective ensure liberty for the republic from internal/external threats.

No where does the Constitution mention digital cameras and those are used in child porn, will we ban digital cameras?

Derek