Do you ever wonder if Gun Control Advocates lurk or even sign up on Gun Forums?

[biku324]

Apparently your Land of Enchantment is not in a Free State.

Move. Just because Commies Commie does not make it illegal nationally.

Not sure what you're talking about. New Mexico has no laws regulating machine guns.

 

[SASFixer]

Just curious if you feel the same way about the 1st, 4th, and 5th amendments? Or is the 2nd some sort of second hand right?

Legally owned machine guns, suppressors have never been a crime issue, it just doesn't happen. It rarely happens that an illegal firearm is utilized in a crime except in certain areas of larger cities where the terrorists/inhabitant thugs want to subjugate their neighbors with terrorism. Many of these areas do not have a "police presence". In the case of illegal firearms a "law" means NOTHING, killing an individual means NOTHING, killing random neighbors means NOTHING.

 

[Deke Thornton]

What valuable intel do you think they could gather on gun forums? There are no secrets discussed among gun enthusiasts online that would make any difference at the policy level.

My experience among liberal friends, acquaintances and family members is that they're all woefully ignorant about anything firearms related. You know, the type who get all indignant about "semi-automatic machine guns!!!" I had to explain to my father-in-law, a very bright man and army veteran, that the scary guns hanging from the walls at the local box store were Airsoft guns, and what those were.

Beyond that, I've noticed that most of them have no desire to learn about the things they're so intent on banning or the relevant law. While watching Band Of Brothers, I asked my (now-ex) sister-in-law if she thought people should be allowed to own M1 Garands and carbines like they used in WWII. "Oh, sure" she said, "just not semi-automatic assault rifles." When I pointed out that maybe a basic technical understanding of the things she wanted to ban as well as the 2A and related Supreme Court decisions about them might help make coherent arguments for her case, she got angry and said "I DON'T CARE ABOUT ANY OF THAT!!! I JUST WANT TO GET RID OF ALL THE GUNS!!!!"

So, I wouldn't be too worried about spies in the ranks since they think they already know everything anyway. See the Clinton "assault weapon" ban for details.

 

[Bozz10mm]

Not arguing about the 2nd, but there are definitely limitations on the 1st, 4th, 5th, 6th, and 8th.

But none go so far as to ban, license, background check, register, or wait period them.

 

[VKCAKC]

Just curious if you feel the same way about the 1st, 4th, and 5th amendments? Or is the 2nd some sort of second hand right?

SOME of what you said makes sense and we have laws that cover some issues you brought up. Until we enforce the laws we have on the books now I am against any new mandates being issued. In Louisiana we no longer need to have a permit to conceal carry and I personally think that was a step in the wrong direction.

 

[Bozz10mm]

All of those “rights” also have limitations on them as well. They are not absolute.

Small limitations, but nothing as egregious as requiring permission from the government, banning, or licensing, background checks, age limits, or waiting periods, or prohibited locations. The one, the only, amendment that comes right out and says "shall not be infringed" seems to be the one that is most infringed upon. And all those things I listed are blatant infringements of the 2A.

 

[Bozz10mm]

In Louisiana we no longer need to have a permit to conceal carry and I personally think that was a step in the wrong direction.

Criminals never get permits to carry anyway. The only thing that requiring a permit accomplishes is reducing the number of law abiding citizens that are armed. Constitutional/no permit carry just allows everyone to be on equal ground.

 

[Deke Thornton]

Criminals never get permits to carry anyway. The only thing that requiring a permit accomplishes is reducing the number of law abiding citizens that are armed. Constitutional/no permit carry just allows everyone to be on equal ground.

Every state has their own laws, but in NC ours are pretty simple and fall under "regulation" more than "infringement" IMHO.

The idea isn't to regulate criminals, but the well-intentioned dummies who have never even held a gun before but feel like they need to carry for whatever reason. I think ensuring a minimal standard of knowledge and competence to carry concealed is a good thing. The more Alec Baldwins we can prevent, the better.

 

[Airdale26]

No wondering, I am aware they are here and in other forums. In some respects it is smart to gain insight and intel. In other respects they may learn something. Some may not. It is called freedom of speech.

 

[biku324]

But none go so far as to ban, license, background check, register, or wait period them.

Not sure I agree. One example is the 4th; it requires warrants for arrest, search & seizure, but the overwhelming majority of arrests, searches & seizures are done without warrants. Another example is the 8th and excessive bail - if your state still requires bail, have a look at your local bond schedule - almost no one can post bail in such amounts and have resort to using bail bondsman.

There are many more examples.

 

[2500]

I’ll take the leap: I think there should absolutely be **some** gun controls imposed on the population of the United States, on a federal level, and in some cases with appropriate local restrictions.

For example, I think we should collectively ban fully-automatic firearms for anything other than novelty range toys. No carry, no use outside of a designated, approved range, and very restrictive accessibility to them. There’s no legitimate self-defense or hunting rationale for a FA firearm, and only very limited sporting ones. This also includes devices like Glock switches, binary triggers, etc…when we drop the rules-lawyering, these are functionally machine guns by different mechanisms.

I also think we as a nation should require a training class, to be hosted weekly by local law enforcement, for every firearm purchased, to be completed prior to taking possession. $50, ammunition, and a range managed by LEOs with a shall-issue (pending objective performance/safety reviews), possibly to include a licensure scheme a la CHL.

I think private sales of firearms are potentially controversial and would be OK with mandating use of a background-check system as a part of those transactions.

I think it is entirely reasonable for society to require people who want to carry a firearm in public to demonstrate functional proficiency with carrying, drawing, loading and firing that firearm accurately. I don’t think it’s a good thing to have ignorant people brandishing weapons because “muh rights!” And thinking every mild-to-moderate social problem should be solved with presentation of a weapon.

I think we should deny weapon ownership to the mentally ill, certain felons, illegal immigrants and minors (in most cases). I also think that we should functionally have some way to expeditiously remove firearms from someone demonstrating evidence of a mental-health crisis, subject to due process and the return of their property after they are no longer in crisis.

I think that particular places are not appropriate for carrying weapons and that CCW regulations should reflect that reality.

I think that there is a legitimate public-safety discussion for magazines in excess of 15-20 rounds; once again, why exactly does a user need more ammunition on board than dudes who literally fought through WW2? I’d honestly be OK if we treated 10+ round magazines like suppressors and required a tax stamp, NFA registration, etc.

Gun control ain’t a bad thing, y’all.

I also think that we should have a national concealed-carry infrastructure with mandatory reciprocity, that feature bans are silly and stupid, and that every American who wants it should be able to access free, high-quality training and live-fire training on a safe range managed by local law enforcement on an annual basis at a minimum. I also think that we should constitutionally enshrine protections against gun bans and confiscation and affirm a constitutional right to self-defense. I think that a lot of the Democrat gun control is stupidity enshrined and I think that a lot of the workarounds and adaptations of gun culture actually promote irresponsible, unsafe use of firearms instead of well-reasoned, respectful and safe use.

Not a hippy or a troll or anti-gun; I probably have a more-extensive collection than around a third of the board and I carry everywhere I can (legally and safely). I think almost everyone should be armed and I think firearms ownership by private persons is one of the factors that keeps America free and good and mostly honest. I think disarmament is a terrible idea that leads to tyranny. I think the 2A is fundamentally about maintaining the capability to effectively resist tyranny, not hunting or sports. I also think that we as a society need to adapt to the demonstrated and known threats posed by individuals with firearms that allow them to wield more “firepower” than an infantry platoon in a short period of time.

Deciding what other people need sounds a lot like tyranny to me.

 

[Airdale26]

I have read your post and much makes logical sense. We as a society require our LEO to have basic training in the use of firearms. Yet we see states that have no such requirement. So yes, we can have ordinary citizen's who desire to provide protection for themselves with no training, The burden is placed upon them (rightfully so) to take training, attend a class and have some practical range time.
I am also a believer that automatic weapons (true weapons of war) should be regulated. Complete a more extensive background checks and more stringent requirements open to anyone who desires such devices.
I am a proponent of gun ranges to have them for rental. This way individuals can rent them, fire them at approved/designed ranges. The same can be set for suppressors. A fair rental fee would be charged which would be way less then the cost to acquire the weapon, go through background and have the experience in their use. A include a rental fee for cleaning and an attendant to assist and carry. Such an enterprise is currently in place in a few locations in Las Vegas, NV. I am sure there are others.

 

[Rocketmedic40]

Small limitations, but nothing as egregious as requiring permission from the government, banning, or licensing, background checks, age limits, or waiting periods, or prohibited locations. The one, the only, amendment that comes right out and says "shall not be infringed" seems to be the one that is most infringed upon. And all those things I listed are blatant infringements of the 2A.

We live in a society where a foreign country can dictate to state and local governments how to regulate my speech, and where the federal government openly persecutes persons of a different political bent or movement. We live in a society where our right to vote is subject to the political conveniences of those in our state capitals, and how they draw their maps. We live in a society where law-enforcement organs of the government declare themselves immune from consequences for their bad decisions. It’s hardly free or fair.

We live in a country where the moral decisions of a minority of Americans have had significant, constitution-changing impacts on all of society.

We live in a society where technology And humans are integrated to an extent unprecedented in all of human history, and where technologies allow us to accomplish things far beyond what the founding fathers could imagine. those same tech technologies, and integrations with our society, also confound the thinking of the 18th century, in that there is no effective local or state way to manage and regulate those interactions, and they absolutely do need to be managed.

To steer it back towards firearms, the founding fathers likely did not anticipate the potential for an autonomous robotic drone carried AI controlled weapon system with the fire power equivalent to a battalion of contemporary infantry or an artillery battery, but that’s a 21st-century reality. Repeating weapons, semi automatic, weapons, and fully automatic weapons were the stuff of dreams – plausible but hardly something in the common mind at the time. Not saying they shouldn’t be protected at all, but pointing out that the language and intentions were clearer at the time to the founders with their respective frames of mind and knowledge base then to our generation, 250 years later and with a host of contrary examples and exceptions. This is literally why Jefferson‘s amendment process is genius – we are, as a to a community, trying to fit a grown man into a child’s coat. We should not fear modifying our Constitution if our message is inherently good, fair and just- and if it isn’t, we don’t just have a Constitutional problem, we have a real moral and ethical problem and should fix that too. As much as I enjoy firearms and believe they are a necessity to protect myself, liberty, and the community, I don’t think they should be unregulated or available to everyone, because the consequences of misuse are literally lethal to anyone else.

The founders certainly did not anticipate the proliferation of horseless carriages, operate by humans, racing back-and-forth on vast paved roads crossing the nation at every level and operating at barely comprehensible speeds- would they have included a proviso about not drinking alcohol while driving had they known? Point being insisting that the constitution is the definitive and only authority on any given matter flies in the face of reality. And that’s where the “shall not be infringed!“ crowd lives.

 

[Airdale26]

Deciding what other people need sounds a lot like tyranny to me.

Not tyranny practical sense. We see this in what do people consider ART vs inappropriate design. Judges and government have struggles with such for years. What is pornographic and what is art.
Can someone yell fire in room when there is no fire. People being people we need some limitations (regulations) that control/limit potential dangerous situations created by people desire. We all drive on the right side of road in the US. We all pay for postage to mail a letter. We all need a state issued drivers license to legally drive. So some limitations. regulations are prudent, logical and need to be in place, enforced to ensure a general public safety.

 

[Rocketmedic40]

What valuable intel do you think they could gather on gun forums? There are no secrets discussed among gun enthusiasts online that would make any difference at the policy level.

My experience among liberal friends, acquaintances and family members is that they're all woefully ignorant about anything firearms related. You know, the type who get all indignant about "semi-automatic machine guns!!!" I had to explain to my father-in-law, a very bright man and army veteran, that the scary guns hanging from the walls at the local box store were Airsoft guns, and what those were.

Beyond that, I've noticed that most of them have no desire to learn about the things they're so intent on banning or the relevant law. While watching Band Of Brothers, I asked my (now-ex) sister-in-law if she thought people should be allowed to own M1 Garands and carbines like they used in WWII. "Oh, sure" she said, "just not semi-automatic assault rifles." When I pointed out that maybe a basic technical understanding of the things she wanted to ban as well as the 2A and related Supreme Court decisions about them might help make coherent arguments for her case, she got angry and said "I DON'T CARE ABOUT ANY OF THAT!!! I JUST WANT TO GET RID OF ALL THE GUNS!!!!"

So, I wouldn't be too worried about spies in the ranks since they think they already know everything anyway. See the Clinton "assault weapon" ban for details.

The Clinton AWB was actually put together to take advantage of existing federal regulations regarding imported firearms (targeted at Chinese assault rifles originally); Democrats used them as a blueprint for the unpopular and functionally-useless 1994 AWB because they had already given up hope for a more comprehensive ban and knew that anything beyond cosmetics was unlikely to survive judicial review. The authors of the bill knew it, their politicians parroted things like “the shoulder thing that goes up” because American democracy sometimes puts the dumbest, least-qualified people in charge of legislating real, consequential things and they sometimes choose dumb words and dumb ideas to explain what they’re expressing.

 

[Rocketmedic40]

SOME of what you said makes sense and we have laws that cover some issues you brought up. Until we enforce the laws we have on the books now I am against any new mandates being issued. In Louisiana we no longer need to have a permit to conceal carry and I personally think that was a step in the wrong direction.

Same. I think it’s pretty reasonable to expect someone who wants to carry a firearm to demonstrate some degree of familiarity with the law, the weapon and demonstrate proficiency with using the weapon.

 

[Rocketmedic40]

Every state has their own laws, but in NC ours are pretty simple and fall under "regulation" more than "infringement" IMHO.

The idea isn't to regulate criminals, but the well-intentioned dummies who have never even held a gun before but feel like they need to carry for whatever reason. I think ensuring a minimal standard of knowledge and competence to carry concealed is a good thing. The more Alec Baldwins we can prevent, the better.

A great anecdotal example- one of my grandpa’s friends was a Vietnam veteran who habitually carried a 1911 in a pants pocket, cocked, loaded and NOT safed. He was of the opinion that “my finger is the safety” and that the grip safety was all he’d ever need because the thumb safety was “too slow to use”. Now, to the best of my knowledge, he never shot himself…but for forty-odd years he was toddling around in public with a pistol shoved in his pants pocket waiting for a chance to go off. Dude was a veteran and was also literally presenting life-threatening danger to everyone else around him because he was too stupid/cheap to buy a holster, too ignorant to study the legal and real-world implications of his decisions, too stubborn to admit that there’s a difference between a crisp single-action 1911 trigger and a Glock-type blade safety in terms of functional pull and there were no regulations, laws or requirements known or communicated to him that a pistol be carried in a “responsible manner”, after all, he’d carried something like it through Vietnam a bit and he had nothing left to learn. At the range, he’d rip it out of his pants, point it from the belt line and spray off a magazine pretty much at random, but “it’s ok because a .45 doesn’t have to hit square.” Rifles were even scarier- he tried to shoot an AR like Rambo because he could “walk the rounds in”. Dude was a complete idiot with regards to firearms safety and effective use; forcing him to sit through a permit class would at least give society a way to say “he was told!” If nothing else. To be completely honest, he was one of those people who probably shouldn’t have guns period.

 

[DixieRanger]

Trust but verify...molon labe

 

[2500]

Not tyranny practical sense. We see this in what do people consider ART vs inappropriate design. Judges and government have struggles with such for years. What is pornographic and what is art.
Can someone yell fire in room when there is no fire. People being people we need some limitations (regulations) that control/limit potential dangerous situations created by people desire. We all drive on the right side of road in the US. We all pay for postage to mail a letter. We all need a state issued drivers license to legally drive. So some limitations. regulations are prudent, logical and need to be in place, enforced to ensure a general public safety.

We already have regulations on firearms. Someone telling me how many rounds my magazine can hold or what I need or am allowed to own is tyrannical, at least another step towards it. Rocketmedic40 likes to mix a little truth with his misinformation to get some to swallow the whole thing.

 

[Rocketmedic40]

We already have regulations on firearms. Someone telling me how many rounds my magazine can hold or what I need or am allowed to own is tyrannical, at least another step towards it. Rocketmedic40 likes to mix a little truth with his misinformation to get some to swallow the whole thing.

Not misinformation at all, my friend, just an alternative take on things. Ultimately, it’s decided by society as a whole, it’s certainly not decided by arguing on a message board.

My greatest concern is that the perception of excessive affiliation with Maga and the excesses of absolutists who do dumb things will ultimately be a detriment to our community and result, in stricter laws and fewer opportunities for meaningful carry and use of firearms. When I was a little kid, CCW was much more limited and it took a lot of effort, money, lobbying and more than a few tragedies to convince people to change the laws; our gun culture still hasn’t entirely caught up and id argue some of it has gone dysfunctional too.

Those same factors can change again, and it’s not guaranteed that those changes will be “good” ones.