Do you trust your neighbor to own a sword?

[Kantuckkeean]

Calling a gun an assaults weapon is half the problem. Any gun can be used in an assault.
For that , I dismiss any hand wringing over definitions. More so by anti gun sentiments definitions.

A pistol to get around rifle laws? Egads. Pistols are far more highly regulated than rifles.
No sense in getting excited about a stock being added to a pistol when a pistol is harder to legally acquire than a rifle. Is there?
You're converting a more restricted intem into a less restricted item. By design anyways.
I'm sure there are jurisdictions frowning on adding a stock to a pistol. As well as any to all guns.

Right, unless local, state or federal laws have or enact regulations or bans for the so-called "assault weapons" (which, to my understanding, began as a catchy phrase created by gun manufacturers to sell firearms, but was later co-opted by the anti-gun crowd). By making a rifle fit definitions of a "pistol" could be a way to get around laws regarding "assault weapons", or short barrel rifles which are more highly regulated under the NFA.

The stabilizing brace semantics just seem to me to be a clever trick of gun companies and proponents to skirt laws to put the most lethal, concealable weapons into the hands of anyone who has a few hundred bucks, whether they should own one or not. I don't have a problem with "Saturday Night Specials", Class 3 select-fire weapons, or AR-15 rifles. AR-15 type, high-powered, semi-automatic rifles with a decent capacity could be pretty useful for some lawful purposes... for example, if you have a feral hog problem... but in that situation, greater accuracy from a longer barrel would be a benefit... not an AR-15 "pistol" or a bump stock.

I'm not anti-gun and I agree that people are the problem. I'm looking for solutions to the mass shooting problem in America. Like Old Bookaroo, I recognize that there is a problem and I don't have all of the answers. I'm just spit-balling ideas and think that perhaps additional regulations may be a part of the solution. I have no doubt that many of the mass shootings would have been much worse if select-fire (i.e. fully-automatic) weapons were inexpensive and easily accessible. Since they're highly regulated, you don't often see them used in crimes. Bump stocks, when they were unregulated, gave people inexpensive, easy access to what essentially converted a semi-automatic rifle into a fully-automatic weapon. It allowed the Las Vegas loser to commit the largest mass shooting in US history, when he killed 58 people and wounded many more. If they were still easily obtained, I'm certain that other mass shooters would be using them, resulting in the loss of additional innocent lives.

Revoking someone's 2nd Amendment rights is a serious thing and deserves serious consideration. However, I'd say that convicted, violent offenders have surrendered their rights to own firearms for a certain amount of time which could vary in length (5 years, 10 years, 20 years, permanently), depending on the crime and their behavior after the conviction. It wouldn't stop all violent crimes, but it may stop some.

I'm not opposed to the red flag laws. Sure those laws need refining, and there will always be potential for abuse, but by and large, they may improve the situation, preventing "heat of the moment" crimes and some mass shootings. The Indianapolis Fedex shooter had a shotgun taken away, but later purchased other firearms. Apparently his potential to commit something like this was known but something didn't work there.

I'm not against the "good guy with a gun" hypothesis either. I'm happy to see police presence when dropping my kids off or picking my kids up from school.

I'm willing to consider other potential remedies as well.

Kindest regards,
Kantuck

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

DR.ÖTEK Metal Detector, Waterproof Gold Detector, Pinpoint & Terrain Modes, Professional Metal Detector - Grab it through Amazon!

[Garscale]

Some continue to make this about the tool rather than the act. Thats just silly.

 

[stoneshirt]

I know there is people willing to die fighting to keep their guns. Are there people willing to die fighting to take those guns?

Some more illogical Logic from a Gun Lover.Your going to tell me that IF/When "They" come for your "Guns" you will KILL them.Not to bright(insult)..If "they come for your shiny new Glock,it will be because it's mandated,and you will be dead or in Prison.Should we bury you with your Gun? you know there's alot of crazy people in Hell.stoneshirt.

 

[releventchair]

My point was that times and technology have greatly changed since the writing of the BOR and that laws should keep up with those changes.

The military uses many fully automatic weapons and explosive devices as “ordinary military equipment.” Does that mean the right of any and all of the people to keep and bear any and all of that ordinary military equipment shall not be infringed? I think not.

I didn’t say that the Colorado loser used a Class 3 firearm. Class 3 are rarely used for crimes because they’re expensive and highly regulated. Bump stocks effectively turned semi-automatic rifles into full auto to skirt the regulations, so I was just saying that I’m glad they banned them. Otherwise, a lot of wack jobs would be strapping a cheap piece of plastic to their inexpensive semi-automatic firearm, leading to even greater fatalities (think Las Vegas). Bump stock sales soared after that tragedy. NRA didn’t like the ban because they wanted amnesty for bump stocks purchased prior to the ban.

Come on, give me a break... Did you look at what the Colorado loser used? Just because they call it a stabilizing brace rather than a stock, and they make the barrel 1mm or 1.5” less than 12” doesn’t make it a pistol. Sure, by definition it may be deemed a pistol, but it’s just another modified semi-automatic rifle.

Kindest regards,
Kantuck

A single bullet would have ended the grocery store shooters actions. Yet none were offered.
But , he had a brace on the gun!

As long as no defense is offered or exists , guess what bannings and definitions are going to stop...
Feel good regulations mean little to deceased victims.
For the living , a means to counter deadly force is either agreed with , or , those living remain victims without recourse.
I choose the ability to counter being assaulted with deadly force.
For those who don't , fine. Don't impress your pacifism on me by law though.

 

[Garscale]

Some more illogical Logic from a Gun Lover.Your going to tell me that IF/When "They" come for your "Guns" you will KILL them.Not to bright(insult)..If "they come for your shiny new Glock,it will be because it's mandated,and you will be dead or in Prison.Should we bury you with your Gun? you know there's alot of crazy people in Hell.stoneshirt.

That's not likely how it would be attempted as law enforcement in rural areas clearly understand there is a huge number of the peoples that would draw a hard line in the sand. Absolutely no doubt in my mind that folks around me would keep their guns till the end.

As a matter of fact, there would be a huge amount of military and law enforcement standing with armed citizens against such tyranny.

 

[Treasure_Hunter]

I’m sorry. I wasn’t entirely clear there. First, to answer your question... Tricky question that goes back to the definition of “assault weapon” and such. My thoughts: AR-15s in many instances can be acquired at age 18 as a rifle purchase, whereas pistols may not purchased until age 21. However if AR15 rifles become defined as assault weapons, then having modified versions that fit the definition of a pistol would be a sneaky way to preemptively get around additional regulations (local, state, or what-have-you)... “It’s a pistol, not an assault weapon.” As for the Colorado loser’s “pistol”: Putting a “stabilizing brace” on a long barrel “pistol” gets around the NFA regulations concerning short barrel rifles.

Edit: And to be abundantly clear... I’m not up to date on every local, state, and federal law regarding firearms. I haven’t made a purchase in many years and I’ve never sold a firearm, so I may be off in something that I said.

Kindest regards,
Kantuck

AR15 is not an assault weapon, it has no more power, range or capability than many other semi-auto hunting rifles that have been around for decades, and in fact has less power then many. A 30.6 rifle has far more power than an AR 15 in either the 223 or 5.56 version, a 30.06 can penetrate body armor at 200 yards and a 223 or 5.56 rarely can even at much closer range.

Assault weapon is a term used by anti-gunners, I do not know of any soldier that would choose a semi-auto rifle such as AR15 to assault an enemy position, they would want a fully automatic firearm.

 

[Duckshot]

With to possible exception of the SKS rifle, maybe, no army on earth today is generally armed with semiautomatic rifles.

Today's battlefield demands not semiautomatic but automatic fire. Let's call the AR-15 what it really is- just a modern rifle.

 

[Treasure_Hunter]

With to possible exception of the SKS rifle, maybe, no army on earth today is generally armed with semiautomatic rifles.

Today's battlefield demands not semiautomatic but automatic fire. Let's call the AR-15 what it really is- just a modern rifle.

I also own an SKS myself, not a bad rife.

 

[Duckshot]

Some more illogical Logic from a Gun Lover.Your going to tell me that IF/When "They" come for your "Guns" you will KILL them.Not to bright(insult)..If "they come for your shiny new Glock,it will be because it's mandated,and you will be dead or in Prison.Should we bury you with your Gun? you know there's alot of crazy people in Hell.stoneshirt.

So they us gonna send men with guns to steal guns from other men? Isn't that armed robery according to common law?

I guess if you can condone theft, it ain't too much more difficult to condone murder.

Us Americans shoot murders. Just sayin'.

 

[Duckshot]

I also own an SKS myself, not a bad rife.

And a Jennings too!!?

I just so happen to have in my hot little hands a Zastava M59/66A1 complete with matching serial numbers, folding blade bayonet, and a gas check 22mm granade launcher on the muzzle.
I took the last four whitetail deer that I have harvested with it and two of them were one shot kills, Another one was on the run at about 75 yards, first shot broke a shoulder and I had to give it one more.

The M59/66 is a Yugoslavia manufactured SKS, not unlike how the Jimenez is a Jennings design. Mine was manufactured in '83. It is a military relic as the AK-47 automatic rifle is easier and cheaper to make.

 

[releventchair]

Right, unless local, state or federal laws have or enact regulations or bans for the so-called "assault weapons" (which, to my understanding, began as a catchy phrase created by gun manufacturers to sell firearms, but was later co-opted by the anti-gun crowd). By making a rifle fit definitions of a "pistol" could be a way to get around laws regarding "assault weapons", or short barrel rifles which are more highly regulated under the NFA.

The stabilizing brace semantics just seem to me to be a clever trick of gun companies and proponents to skirt laws to put the most lethal, concealable weapons into the hands of anyone who has a few hundred bucks, whether they should own one or not. I don't have a problem with "Saturday Night Specials", Class 3 select-fire weapons, or AR-15 rifles. AR-15 type, high-powered, semi-automatic rifles with a decent capacity could be pretty useful for some lawful purposes... for example, if you have a feral hog problem... but in that situation, greater accuracy from a longer barrel would be a benefit... not an AR-15 "pistol" or a bump stock.

I'm not anti-gun and I agree that people are the problem. I'm looking for solutions to the mass shooting problem in America. Like Old Bookaroo, I recognize that there is a problem and I don't have all of the answers. I'm just spit-balling ideas and think that perhaps additional regulations may be a part of the solution. I have no doubt that many of the mass shootings would have been much worse if select-fire (i.e. fully-automatic) weapons were inexpensive and easily accessible. Since they're highly regulated, you don't often see them used in crimes. Bump stocks, when they were unregulated, gave people inexpensive, easy access to what essentially converted a semi-automatic rifle into a fully-automatic weapon. It allowed the Las Vegas loser to commit the largest mass shooting in US history, when he killed 58 people and wounded many more. If they were still easily obtained, I'm certain that other mass shooters would be using them, resulting in the loss of additional innocent lives.

Revoking someone's 2nd Amendment rights is a serious thing and deserves serious consideration. However, I'd say that convicted, violent offenders have surrendered their rights to own firearms for a certain amount of time which could vary in length (5 years, 10 years, 20 years, permanently), depending on the crime and their behavior after the conviction. It wouldn't stop all violent crimes, but it may stop some.

I'm not opposed to the red flag laws. Sure those laws need refining, and there will always be potential for abuse, but by and large, they may improve the situation, preventing "heat of the moment" crimes and some mass shootings. The Indianapolis Fedex shooter had a shotgun taken away, but later purchased other firearms. Apparently his potential to commit something like this was known but something didn't work there.

I'm not against the "good guy with a gun" hypothesis either. I'm happy to see police presence when dropping my kids off or picking my kids up from school.

I'm willing to consider other potential remedies as well.

Kindest regards,
Kantuck

Not sure I'm with you on the origins of assault rifle definition. The more common use is gun control advocates calling A.R.'s assault rifles , vs ArmaLite Rifle which was abbreviated to A.R..
The secondary "assault" rifle definition was ...Switchable between fully automatic and semi auto.
Note military definitions including selective fire, greater than pistol "power" ,detachable magazine ,330 yard range...
Civilian offerings by law (excluding permits for fully auto's , you know anyone with such a permit under the F.O.P.A. of 1986?) don't qualify as assault rifles under even military definition. Including...AR15's.

Manufacturers of arms feed a market , and it's preferences.
That can be military contracts ,or civilian distributors stocks.

You may have an example of manufacturers touting a rifle as an assault rifle offered to civilians. If so , I've missed any doing such.
Maybe one is selling machine guns or something , but given the permit required it would be a niche market in exchange for slow amortization of the equipment to build with the low number of sales anticipated.

 

[Tahts-a-dats-ago]

All 10 Amendments (BOR) have a prefatory clause. It's the preamble to the BOR and it specifically addresses the intent/purpose for the BOR.

"The Preamble to The Bill of Rights
Congress of the United States
begun and held at the City of New-York, on
Wednesday the fourth of March, one thousand seven hundred and eighty nine.

THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution.

RESOLVED by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, two thirds of both Houses concurring, that the following Articles be proposed to the Legislatures of the several States, as amendments to the Constitution of the United States, all, or any of which Articles, when ratified by three fourths of the said Legislatures, to be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of the said Constitution; viz.

ARTICLES in addition to, and Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America, proposed by Congress, and ratified by the Legislatures of the several States, pursuant to the fifth Article of the original Constitution."

Note: The following text is a transcription of the first ten amendments to the Constitution in their original form. These amendments were ratified December 15, 1791, and form what is known as the "Bill of Rights."

https://www.archives.gov/founding-docs/bill-of-rights-transcript

 

[Kantuckkeean]

A single bullet would have ended the grocery store shooters actions. Yet none were offered.
But , he had a brace on the gun!

As long as no defense is offered or exists , guess what bannings and definitions are going to stop...

A police officer responding to the crime was one of the victims.

Kindest regards,
Kantuck

 

[releventchair]

A police officer responding to the crime was one of the victims.

Kindest regards,
Kantuck

Did the officer make a/ the shot?
Does that mean if civilians were armed they had no chance of defense?
https://www.foxnews.com/us/texas-ch...e-a-good-guy-with-gun-takes-down-mass-shooter

 

[Kantuckkeean]

Some continue to make this about the tool rather than the act. Thats just silly.

Just stating that mass murder is illegal isn’t helpful.

In the right hands, the tool isn’t a problem. In the wrong hands, some tools facilitate mass murder. Just like ammonium nitrate fertilizers aren’t a problem when used as intended. You’re not going to convince me that the Las Vegas loser could have killed so many people with his hands, a rock, a steak knife, hammer, or sword. So how do we keep the tool out of the wrong hands?

Kindest regards,
Kantuck

 

[Barber..]

Some more illogical Logic from a Gun Lover.Your going to tell me that IF/When "They" come for your "Guns" you will KILL them.Not to bright(insult)..If "they come for your shiny new Glock,it will be because it's mandated,and you will be dead or in Prison.Should we bury you with your Gun? you know there's alot of crazy people in Hell.stoneshirt.

Yep, I would/will fight until my last breath to preserve my rights from a tyrannical government with the intent to take them away.. It would be a grave dishonor to everyone who fought/died to earn/preserve those rights for me to just roll over and let the government take them..

Besides, if we get rid of any amendment, it should be the 16th.. lol

 

[Kantuckkeean]

Let's call the AR-15 what it really is- just a modern rifle.

Sure. Let’s. Or you can call it a “pistol with a stabilizing brace”... heck, let’s call it whatever we need so that we can mass produce them and get them into the hands of anyone who wants one, as quickly, inexpensively, and easily as possible, regardless of their intentions.

Kindest regards,
Kantuck

 

[Charlie P. (NY)]

It was legal for anyone with the cash to own a fully-automatic machine gun or sub-machine gun until 1934. Yet, outside of Chicago, there weren't many mass murders prior to the 1960's . . . if you don't count against Native Americans (which few did at the time).

So what has changed?

Now - there are no county-level mental institutions. The threat of the death penalty is rare. We "mainstream" mentally-disturbed children and adults. More people in close proximity to each other. Fewer children are raised around firearms and shown proper etiquette and respect for them. And people are so desensitized to death (TV, Movies, News, etc.) that it becomes a competition. "I'll finally get noticed if I shoot up xxxxxx."

 

[releventchair]

Sure. Let’s. Or you can call it a “pistol with a stabilizing brace”... heck, let’s call it whatever we need so that we can mass produce them and get them into the hands of anyone who wants one, as quickly, inexpensively, and easily as possible, regardless of their intentions.

Kindest regards,
Kantuck

You forgot to mention legally....
So you have a short barrel. With attendant reduction of energy/ft. pounds.
That ignores competing with more accurate arms and the proficiency of longer barrels with the same rounds.
A sentry utilizing cover and vantage and holding a more proficient arm vs person wandering. How will that likely end?
Not unlike the chair mounted to the wall high above a door when someone enters ,and the chair is armed...

Vegas shooter challenged by a proficient long rifle from a snipers position? I'd have put my money on a stop of the criminal shooter.
But then , multiple arms from within the building , or a grenade through a breach (or window) would have nulled things. Even if repeated attempts were required.
But we don't defend by defense. We react after by shouting , take away the tools.

Would you applaud no one can drive a vehicle (a privilage anyways , not a right) to reduce deaths caused by vehicles?
Should vehicle production , availability , and use , be more highly restricted?
Deaths still occur. So it must be the access to vehicles is not stringent enough. This has been going on sense 1903. Auto regulations did not prevent yesterdays senseless deaths.
Therefore we must ban auto's.

 

[Duckshot]

Sure. Let’s. Or you can call it a “pistol with a stabilizing brace”... heck, let’s call it whatever we need so that we can mass produce them and get them into the hands of anyone who wants one, as quickly, inexpensively, and easily as possible, regardless of their intentions.

Kindest regards,
Kantuck

Good idea.

"Let's call an automobile a chariot so we can keep 'em off the streets..." [/sarcasm]