I am a Democratic gun owner, hunter, and Army veteran, and I support reasonable gun control.
The NRA is a radical propaganda mill that exists to enrich gun company CEO's. Years ago they were a reasonable organization just all about firearms safety and proper training. No more. They lost me in the 90's when they called our police "jack booted government thugs." They have just gotten worse ever since. They are sickening.
What NRA radical types don't want to see is that ALL rights also have limits and responsibilities. Freedom of speech does not give us the right to yell fire in a crowded theater for the fun of it. There can and should be reasonable limits on weapons too.
I was in the Army and carried a pistol, an M16, and an M60. Assault rifles are designed for offensive and efficient human killing, period. People like me can hunt, target shoot, and protect our homes without these weapons intended for the battlefield or be used by police to take down heavily armed violent criminals.
Hunting goes back in my family, and many others, hundreds of years. It is meat in the freezer, and many people need it. It is highly regulated. My grandfather, a staunch FDR Democrat, hunted sea ducks, deer, and other game to literally help feed his family. And he never needed an assault rifle to do it.
There is a lot we can do and many areas where we all agree. We need full background checks and to close all those loopholes. Reinstate the assault rifle ban with a buy back program. Make sure that there is no armor piercing ammunition out there at all. Improve red flag laws to get guns away from those who should not have them. Invest much more in mental health treatment. Invest in smart gun technology which can disable guns and make them inoperable to prevent accidental shootings and shootings by people who steal guns. There is so much we can do. My goodness, the large majority of gun owners support better background checks.
And the best thing we can do is to vote out politicians who have been bought and paid for by the NRA. That rotten outfit and its corrupt money grabbing politicians need to be taken down once and for all. Start by getting them at the voting booth.
leave them behind when they leave that career. The rest of us can't continue to use the company car or gym when we leave a job, and the same should be true of ex-military personnel. (And the wannabes who didn't qualify to serve sure as heck should never be able to get their hands on assault rifles!)
The NRA propaganda with all the lies about "the government is coming to take your rights and guns away" goes hand in hand with people wanting to hoard assault rifles to live out their GI Joe fantasies.
I own a 4-shot 30-30 bush rifle which is just fine for deer hunting, and a 10-shot 9mm pistol. That's it. And I am trained and experienced and safe. I don't need an AR15 or an AK47, let alone stockpiles of them. I was in the Army, left those weapons there, and am doing just fine deer hunting and target shooting with what I have. Soldiers and police should have those, not everyone.
What the NRA does is they pump people full of fear so they will buy more and more and more of these guns, stockpiling them, so the gun companies and their spokespeople can make a lot of money. That is all they are about. Money. It is sickening!
That would be proving the NRA correct, would it not?
knowing simpleminded people don't tend to rationalize and can't see through their deceptive ploys, therefore easily swayed and manipulated. Smart people don't watch Fox news or read Breitbart.
They might enlist, but they will be severely disappointed that American troops aren't allowed to tote rifles around everywhere beyond training exercises and combat zones, in which places gun-toters aren't special snowflakes.
Those looking to impress people with the size of their weapons should look elsewhere for employment.
Unless your objective is to shut down discussion.
Are you advocating that we vote our Democrats who accept money from the NRA?
What guns do you own that you think is fine and dandy?
voluntary buy back, making it worth their while, coupled with eliminating high capacity magazines and bump stocks. And yes, primary out ANYONE taking that blood money. That organization is a radical menace. A Democrat can strongly advocate for hunting and target shooting while also backing reasonable gun safety measures, at the very least full background checks, better red flag laws, and mental health treatment.
I said what guns I own in another reply. I have a four shot 30-30 for hunting rifle for deer hunting and a 10 shot 9mm pistol. That is it and fine for hunting, target shooting, and home protection. I don't need an AR15 with a bump stock and a 30 round magazine. I am also trained and experienced.
I support the rights of safe legal gun owners to hunt, target shoot, and protect themselves. But I also support some reasonable limits on weapons and ammunition and other measures to reduce gun violence, gun crime, accidental shootings, and mass shootings. This is by no means a zero sum game.
...and it didn't really save any lives.
Thank you for saying what you own.
Your 9mm is fully capable of being used in a mass shooting/killing. The VATech shooter used a 10-round 22 lr and a 15-round 9mm and that massacre still ranks as the largest school school shooting in the 21st century. Add to the facts, that handguns are used in more homicides in the general public than AR15s its hard to justify keeping your 9mm based on your premise.
And here is my point. I'm not for gun bans because they lead to firearms that are commonly used for hunting, recreation, and, most importantly, self-defense.
Tell Americans they can't have something and they go out and buy a whole bunch of them!
Turned out they were kinda fun to shoot and you could bolt all kinds of cool "tactical" stuff on them!
And here we are today. 80% finished unserialized "ghost receivers" can be had for under fifty bucks, there's no real count of how many are in civilian hands, but they're in the millions.
AR-15s aren't going anywhere unless other men armed with AR-15s take them away.
I support the rights of safe legal gun owners to hunt, target shoot, and protect themselves. But I also support some reasonable limits on weapons and ammunition and other measures to reduce gun violence, gun crime, accidental shootings, and mass shootings.
New York governor Andrew Cuomo would have outlawed that 10-round pistol in 2013 with the SAFE Act, which specified a 7-round limit. Fortunately that provision was amended out, but I hope you can see that "reasonable" is a very slippery word.
There can be a buy back program if you want to sell it and then it can be resold in the same fashion. People should be put through training and get certified to own a gun.
IT IS FUCKING INSANE that we have to take a road test but there is no requirement for fire arms.
We changed the culture and mentality with drunk driving and we can do it with this.
All responsible gun owners should have no issue with having a database of gun owners and what guns they own. etc etc etc.
Please someone explain how these guns get in the hands of criminals?? I'm pretty sure "law abiding" gun owners and other citizens are helping them out directly and indirectly. #Enough #Basta.
I think Australia did it this way. I don't have a problem with registering all firearms at the time of purchase, along with the background check. The one thing we do need to consider is when close friends or family members swap guns. It is fair to have some exemptions around those kinds of circumstances. If I have been through a background check once and my uncle with whom I have hunted for decades is now too old to hunt and wants to give me his hunting rifle, I should not have to go through another background check to the tune of at least fifty bucks.
I hear you. Gotta have ways to be reasonable around certain gun exchanges while also making sure guns don't get into the hands of criminals and dangerous people, and we can certainly have rules around knowingly giving guns to such people.
There has to be a time limit I would think where you would have to get another background check run. Things do change and crop up. Perhaps with more background checks being run they should be more affordable..no scratch that....you should not be charged for a firearm background check so there would be no impediment to running one each time a firearm is acquired.
And not even visible as a separate item. It wouldn't be needed for all buys, when done within avspwvufued period of time. But that would just bring down the price added to each gun for background checks. And decrease the incentive to "stock up" when within the clearance period after a background check
I do realize we can get into linguistic gymnastics and the fine points on these definitions, and go around and around and around. But I am sure we can come to some reasonable consensus around this, as well as "assault rifle" since some people will say that any gun with a pistol handle is an assault rifle, etc.
Are there going to be arguments around the fine points on these issues? Sure. But that's life. Gotta draw the lines somewhere. Just do it. If some people aren't happy, then that's life. Can't please everyone all the time. Gotta take some action, start somewhere, and get something done. Few laws and regulations are perfectly worded or perfect at all.
Firearms. How about we apply that standard to reproductive rights?
Up to level IIIA IIRC, so no, I dont know what exactly he means.
Far enough so that it's a .223? Not effective for hunting deer but weaker than a .30-30 and much weaker than a .30-06.
People want to ban/outlaw things they have no knowledge or understanding of, like when they banned bayonet lugs in the 1994 AWB, when was the last time someone was bayonetted to death?
5th Amendment wont net you a penny when it is prohibited to own these weapons unless you weld the magazine in place and fill it where it will only hold 5 cartridges. Time gunners start paying for what theyve done to society and attempts to circumvent reasonable laws.
Such an apparently inaccurate manner. I handled a fair amount of small ams AP in the USMC, and all of it used a penetrator core.
Experience with service small arms and munitions would know the composition of small arms API ammo.
find lethal stuff fascinating.
Of knowing what it is, how it works, and how most effectively to use it. When someone claims extensive knowledge and make such a fundamental error when its his JOB to know the details, Im left to wonder whats really going on here.
That knowledge is just not necessary in a non-war zone. And, America is a non-war zone, no matter how hard gunners try to say it is.
Up to lllA IIRC. Does that make it armor piercing?
Or maybe a retraction if you cant. If you have the integrity, that is.
An informed position, your only recourse is to resort to the simplistic tactic of NRA troll accusation.
Which, of course, is an item from the script.
It's getting quite meta now!
Ineffective tactic? Your playbook is amusingly thin.
where it comes from.
Discuss the subject from an informed position. On the subject of scripting, where does it come from? Can you provide any cites or links? If everyone knows as you claim, there should be some kind of evidence.
I get that you don't need to, as all you need to do is follow your script, but seriously, you should try and make it a little less obvious.
So I'll leave you here - no doubt you will finish this up with some pearl from the script, so have at it.
I'm sure we will see you again - and the script - the next time a bunch of children are slaughtered.
Apparent knowledge on the subject.
According to the FBI, handguns are used in about 20 times as many homicides as rifles. What is the rationale for banning (some) rifles, but not handguns?
Are you seriously being this disingenuous?
At the very least they should be federally licensed, tracked and restricted.
Many thousands killed with hand tools. Pointed sticks? Maybe. Machetes and clubs? For sure.
Would you like to make a comparison with a country with similar crime rates, political stability and economic development as the United States?
Than long arms. Wouldnt that be a case for them to be federally licensed,tracked, and restricted?
can't have it all.
Gunners argument about the "Taking Clause" do not apply either.
Let's do just like Session's plan (Christ, I'm giving him credit) for bumpstocks -- it's illegal to possess one.
The lack of knowledge about guns that many talking heads on TV display.
Here's one that really bugs me;
The .223/5.56 round fired by the vast majority of AR-15s is not really all that powerful. It is considered by many to be insufficient for a humane kill on a whitetail deer. I believe it is actually prohibited for hunting deer in some places. It is not a bazooka, it does not blow animals or people into smithereens. Yes, obviously it is quite capable of killing a human but so is a .22LR or a .410 shotgun or grand-dad's deer rifle if that is the shooter's intent. An AR may accept a 30 round mag but that does not mean that you have to put 30 rounds in it when using it for hunting or varmint shooting. There are 5 or 10 round magazines available for ARs in locales where there are maximum allowable capacities while hunting. Yes, despite what you have been lead to believe, ARs are commonly used for hunting, target, varmint shooting. I do not support the NRA at all. I'm just a shooting enthusiast that enjoys my ARs and other firearms and get p.o'd by all the misinformation out there.
I doubt most 3%ers, oathkeepers, confederate flag and gun toters, etc, are NRA members, but they are a threat to society.
Since you are new, I assume youve stumbled upon the Gungeon. If not, check it out.
It is a fact that .223 is sub-optimal for humanely killing deer that range between 100-200 pounds. Coyotes, ground hogs, prairie dogs...223 totally up to the job. Yes, .223 will kill humans. .223/5.56 is not like a grenade that decimates the human body. That's my point, much disinformation being spread about what ARs do and are capable of.
job of killing people, that millions of white wing racists buy several to protect themselves against irrational fears.
They kill, whether in civilian, semi-auto form, or military. The media sees that, and calls them powerful, deadly, decimating, etc. Gunners get upset. But media is right, the AR15 did decimate kids at Parkland, Sandy Hook, and elsewhere.
Maybe, you are wrong on this.
the pro gun control side is winning .
i know it's disappointing to those who think white male gun nuts should be the center of attention.
A couple weeks ago I was talking to a relative in a red state who keeps a gun for protection. (They've had actual threats from a known person and the police have been involved.)
She and I found that there were a number of reasonable gun control measures we could agree on right now, like fixing the database, raising the age to 21, reinstating the assault rifle ban that expired in 2004, etc. We should be reaching across the divide and figuring out where we can agree, and start with that.
You're also right about the NRA. They're profiteering on death. No legislators should be involved with them.
reasonable gun laws and prohibition of weapons designed for military use being available in civilian hands
Unless more gun advocates come out with ideas like this, I will be advocating for a total ban on all guns and a repeal of the second amendment.
As long as advocates are playing games with semantics, definitions, distractions and other games they need to realize that they are the problem.
That part is actually correct. The only way I'd ever support any kind of bans is if they include the police.
I fully support your post and suggestions. We can turn this around. We must.
For those who are persuadable, perhaps the rising number of avoidable deaths and injury should be broadcast. The body count is horrifying, mounting each and every year. We should be leading the advanced world in gun regulation and unnecessary death and maiming, not dragging our feet while the numbers spiral out of control.
I live in a state where gun ownership is generational in nature, where a lot of the hunting really is about putting food on the table. That being said, I've also read a good number of the young are stepping back from the tradition. We seem to be witnessing a true shift in attitudes. Even Fox News is reporting 91% of the public wants universal background checks and 60% are calling for a ban on assault weapons. These numbers are in the same range as after the Sandy Hook massacre.
I think we need to follow the Parkland Students on this one: The Voters Are Coming. Vote USA over the NRA. Or we will vote you out.
Don't support the AWB. Smart gun technology is good as long as you don't turn it into a back door gun ban like New Jersey tried to do. Armor piercing ammo is already illegal - you should know that with your background.
This is what happens when people argue about concepts they dont know shit about.
I feel like were looking forward to the dumbest, most incompently written, totally ineffective gun restriction laws being passed, and costing us a once in a lifetime blue wave election cycle.
as far as I know, only the heaviest and costliest body armor and glass will defeat a rifle fired AP round. I'd imagine AP rounds will penetrate block or brick walls, all areas of a vehicle other than the engine block. All sorts of common cover that would protect someone from ordinary ammo will not protect against AP rounds. They are dangerous and banned for very good reason.
Are killed each year? And how many of those people are killed due to the round penetrating their armor, and not some area of their body not protected by armor?
The ballistics involved with piercing armor or some type of cover are impossible to predict, and literally anything can happen to a bullet fired at a solid object. Even soft ammunition like hollow points and frangible rounds are capable of penetrating concrete walls, cars, and other objects of cover.
Is full metal jacketed ammo considered armor piercing? Its both the cheapest and most common type of ammo produced. Or will only types of ammo with a certain grain or material be considered armor piercing?
My opinion is that if youre going to fight this battle and perhaps sacrifice the midterms or 2020, do something that makes a difference. Dont fight the war over peanuts like armor piercing ammunition.
Since you'd pass the background checks and stop being lumped in with the mass shooters.
The problem is that no one can agree on what to put in the laws. Responsible gun owners on our side should be working with the lawmakers to make sure something effective is put together that tackles important issues.
Personally, I'd like to see better background checks for stuff like domestic violence, drug/alcohol abuse, and a mental health screening should be part of applying for a permit. Also mandatory training for gun safety before one could get a permit to avoid accidental discharges. Gun safes and trigger locks when there are kids in the home.
And I haven't mentioned anything about types of weapons yet. Getting these things in place could help ease the paranoia of some gun nuts that tyrants are coming to oppress their freedoms.
...my Grandpa was! He was a motorcycle cop in Ardmore Ok and Chief of Police in a small Washington town. He was a Dem...but would be called a Dixiecrat nowadays....not a racist, mean bone in his body. Think Matt Dillon.. he was exactly like that. He belonged to the NRA and proudly sponsored my hubby ( as he was a hunter). After Grandpa passed we realized the NRA for what it was and hubby tore up his card. But Grandpa would want and argue for responsible gun ownership if he were still alive.