Open discussion about gun laws and proposed bans

Hi all,

I just realized that not only is Obama a good at selling B.S. to the population, he is also a very good gun salesman. I went out to buy an AR type rifle as a Christmas present to myself. Everywhere I looked was sold out of all AR and AK type guns. All of the stores were willing to give a quote but none could commit to a delivery date. So far I didn't run into any price gouging but I am sure that is only a few days away.

So, instead of a new AR, I ended up buying a new washer and dryer - Even though I can't shoot my eye out with those, they sure don't make for a good Christmas present

Chris

Kind of a toss up isn't it? The NRA is really good at selling paranoia. Of course they can't make enough of it to keep up with the buyers...

The price gouging is already here. AR 30 rnd. mags that were $18 a couple of months ago at my local gun shop are selling online for $40 to $60 now. Stripped lower receivers (for custom builds) were $100 to $150, are now $300 to $600 on places like Gunbroker.com.

sakurama wrote:Kind of a toss up isn't it? The NRA is really good at selling paranoia. Of course they can't make enough of it to keep up with the buyers...

+1

NRA cultivates paranoia and fear.
Then tries to make money off its members.

I hate the methods which they employ even though some of the goals are admirable [clarifying edit].

I don't agree with everything the NRA does either, but I am a member because they do fight for and defend the Constitution. I joined in 1962 . It seems the second amendment is a red headed step child. EVERYONE will jump if the first or fourth amendment is attacked, but no one is willing to stand up for the second.. If it were not for the NRA we would not have the freedoms we presently have. My take on the present situation, is justified panic, groomed by the liberal news media. The media easily, and deliberately, sways the unknowing public. The NRA, has said nothing that I am aware of publicly to incite a run on ARs and or magazines. As a dealer, I saw this happening before the Sandy Hook incident. Fear of his re election, which very unfortunately did occur, and his pre election statement that he intended to re instate the assault weapons ban. This is serious..the manner in which other legislation has been rammed thru, is an indication what could, or may happen. They will not stop with just the ARs..
Jerry

Well said , Jerry.

I am purely a target shooter and have a hard time understanding the need for assault type rifles for recreational use. I am a member of the NRA and feel they have pushed the envelope to far with their support of assault rifles. I also feel strongly that bump stocks being sold which allow ar15's to become fully automatic have no use for the public. We need to get back to guns being used for protection, target shooting and hunting. The guns being used just to throw large volumes of ammo down range in order to boost someone's ego have no purpose in my opinion.

WVBE Shooter wrote: I also feel strongly that bump stocks being sold which allow ar15's to become fully automatic have no use for the public. We need to get back to guns being used for protection, target shooting and hunting. The guns being used just to throw large volumes of ammo down range in order to boost someone's ego have no purpose in my opinion.

I fully agree. I own and shoot and AR rifle and just punch holes in paper with it. I usually only load 5 to 10 rounds in it at a time so the 30 round magazine is not that big a deal for me. But that being said I really dont want the camel's nose inside the tent either.

While I agree that 'bump stocks" which make a semi-automatic rifle act like a full auto are not for the general public, I don't like your comment about ARs in general.

Are you aware that there are competitive shooting sports that utilize AR type guns? These can be used for more than "just throwing lead downrange". An AR gun can be used for personal protection just like any other gun and they can be used for hunting.

The media has done a good job of making AR type guns seem like their only purpose is to kill people, but isn't that true of all guns. The media, and obviously yourself, do not look past the hype to realize there is often more to the "Story".

A fact check would also show that the vast majority of murders with guns are pistols, not "Assault Rifles". So, based on the current threat of a ban on assault rifles will in fact solve virtually nothing, it didn't do anything the last time it was done.

A complete ban on all guns will not stop the killings or murders. The gang bangers in Chicago don't seem to have any trouble getting guns - if they don't have a FOID card, they are illegal. Owning a gun in Chicago is illegal (without a FOID), killing someone is illegal and yet every week someone is killed. It all comes down to the fact that criminals don't abide by the laws, so creating more laws solves nothing.

Chris

Well said Jerry! I have been a member since 1964 and agree with what you said.



Has anybody heard news reports from the Chicago area last week? If you did then you know that major Rahm Emmanuel and police chief McCarthy have stated that they want to put gun owners in the same data base as sex offenders. Now for those of you that don't like AR style weapons I can understand and you are entitled to your feelings BUT as gun owners I feel that we all have to stick together. What Rahm and McCarthy want is for ALL of Illinois to adopt the data base for gun owners. If you own a shotgun,handgun, a 22 rifle, a firearm of ANY kind you will be lumped into the data base for sex offenders. If this is done it will make avalible the names and addresses of ALL gun owners to the public, not just those that own AR type weapons and will make ALL gun owners of Illinois targets for anybody wanting access to firearms illegally.

The NRA is my only voice. I agree with what Jerry has said and I don't always like what the NRA says or does but I know that if Rahm has his way the NRA will be the only thing standing in his way of the gun owners of IL being lumped together with the likes of the Sandusky's of the world. Ask yourself this, are you a pervert because you own firearms? Is the AR owner down the street that competes in 3 gun competition a pervert? Do you want to be lumped into a data base that is full of perverts and the general public having access to this data base becaue some lib gun hater thinks your a pervert for owning guns? You can be against AR style weapons all you want but I don't think it's a smart thing for gun owners who care about the 2nd amendment to be saying things like banning these weapons or mags would be a good thing, that is of course if you don't care about owning firearmes or your 2nd amendment rights in which case you can throw the 1st amendment right out with it too. There is nothing more illegal about owning these types of firearms than there is about owning a 1911, S&W 14 a 12 gauge SxS or any other firearm. If we as fiirearms owners loose one then we loose them all.



Virgil

Don't forget what the real purpose of the 2nd ammendment was. It is to preserve the peoples right to be armed making the people in control of the government. If AR weapons become banned because of how they were used by one homicidal maniac, then the next weapon type to be used in such an attack will stand to be banned and so on. When there are no weapons suitable for people to defend themselves against a tyrannical government, then the government will have all of the control. The Control to decide who is "too offensive" to have free speech, and who is "too extreme" to vote, and that certain religions can't be practiced anymore because they interpret the Holy Bible incorrectly.

Remember that in the time of the revolution "arms" included military style weapons-muskets, rifles, pistols, and ARTILLERY PEICES. None were excluded by the Constitution. I'm not advocating everybody go out and buy a cannon, but I do advocate that no additional restrictions be placed on the firearms that we can own.

Anyone who starts falling for the "they don't need this or that" type of gun has already fallen for the idea that some guns are good and some guns are bad. It is a slippery slope my friends.

Jerry Keefer wrote:I don't agree with everything the NRA does either, but I am a member because they do fight for and defend the Constitution.

Let's not confuse the constitution with the second amendment. It's quite a stretch to say that the NRA defends the constitution. The NRA defends their specific interest and they've also aligned themselves in a polarizing way with the extreme right and they take a very active partisan political role.

That active partisan role is my major problem with the NRA. It's also a real problem with the current political climate in general and the lack of ability to have a reasonable discussion about it without resorting to name calling, partisanship, flag waving or religious zealotry is a real problem.

I think the Sandy situation is very unfortunate but I also think that none of the current dialog about assault weapons would make a difference in this situation. The sad truth of the matter is that horrible things happen and they can't always be prevented. But they can be mitigated and it's a fair discussion to have but unfortunately we're not having it.

The NRA's flippant response of adding armed security guards to every school is as useless a suggestion as banning assault rifles would be. We accept that there should be a limitation to what kind of weapons a private citizen can own (yes to handguns and no to rocket launchers). We also accept that there are people who should not own guns (felons, mentally unstable etc.) but the NRA and the gun community in general is not willing to engage in a discussion because of "the slippery slope". I can't think of a good reason why there shouldn't be a background check at gun shows but yet that is an untenable idea to the NRA.

I think the "slippery slope" is between ideologies that are unwilling to recognize that the slope is in fact a middle ground of gray where all rational thought should exist and meaningful change might happen.

Gregor

sakurama wrote:

Jerry Keefer wrote:I don't agree with everything the NRA does either, but I am a member because they do fight for and defend the Constitution.

Let's not confuse the constitution with the second amendment. It's quite a stretch to say that the NRA defends the constitution. The NRA defends their specific interest and they've also aligned themselves in a polarizing way with the extreme right and they take a very active partisan political role.

That active partisan role is my major problem with the NRA. It's also a real problem with the current political climate in general and the lack of ability to have a reasonable discussion about it without resorting to name calling, partisanship, flag waving or religious zealotry is a real problem.

I think the Sandy situation is very unfortunate but I also think that none of the current dialog about assault weapons would make a difference in this situation. The sad truth of the matter is that horrible things happen and they can't always be prevented. But they can be mitigated and it's a fair discussion to have but unfortunately we're not having it.

The NRA's flippant response of adding armed security guards to every school is as useless a suggestion as banning assault rifles would be. We accept that there should be a limitation to what kind of weapons a private citizen can own (yes to handguns and no to rocket launchers). We also accept that there are people who should not own guns (felons, mentally unstable etc.) but the NRA and the gun community in general is not willing to engage in a discussion because of "the slippery slope". I can't think of a good reason why there shouldn't be a background check at gun shows but yet that is an untenable idea to the NRA.

I think the "slippery slope" is between ideologies that are unwilling to recognize that the slope is in fact a middle ground of gray where all rational thought should exist and meaningful change might happen.

Gregor

Unless you have some wisdom to impart about solutions to mass murders or belong to some other group to protect the rights of gun owners, I find no benefit to your criticisms.

Gregor,

You are fooled by the media defining the role of the NRA. If you were to study the NRA's ACTUAL political reports for candidates in all of the races, they don't support just republicans or "the extreme right wing". You will see them grade all politicians for there actual votes, or statements made regarding gun ownership policies.

This evidence shows against a "PARTISAN" political one, rather a single focus on 2nd Ammendment and gun ownership issues. I guess you could argue that defending the second ammendment is not defending the whole constitution, and you could argue that without a strong second ammendment, there is no way to protect any other constitutional right.

This "active PARTISAN role" you describe is just not so, and is part of a campaign to weaken the NRA's credibilty. It's a definition given by opponents of the NRA, and it's important to use facts and observations to overcome such definitions.

Gregor is absolutely right that situations like this can't be prevented. He is also correct that they can be mitigated. If it weren't for the ideas that are least likely to succeed having the most press, we might be able to find some agreement from each side. We have the left talking about weapons and magazines bans, and the right talking about millions of dollars a year in armed guards. Neither idea is any good at all.

We'll see if there will be more sensible ideas brought to toe forefront. Maybe then we will see some bipartisan ship in relationship to this mass shooting problem.

BE Mike wrote:Unless you have some wisdom to impart about solutions to mass murders or belong to some other group to protect the rights of gun owners, I find no benefit to your criticisms.

Sure, I think there are plenty ideas that can be discussed about how to mitigate mass murders. Instead of an armed security guard at schools (there was one at Columbine and it didn't help) why not better security? The NRA was in favor of arming pilots after 9/11 which could possibly be the stupidest idea on earth but instead we reinforced the cockpit doors which has been a very effective solution. Perhaps that would be a good solution for schools?

I think my issue is that protecting the rights of gun owners often comes at the expense of rational discussion.

Rob, I appreciate your comments. But as an NRA memeber I do read the magazine every month and it's pretty apparent that it has conservative bias. Honestly, I think the organization would be more effective if considered that gun ownership might span a political spectrum.

Gregor

Their magazine may be full of conservative leaning columns, but the honest truth is the audience is mostly conservative. Of course the magazine is going to speak to that audience.

The political and legal action divisions of the NRA represents ALL of the NRA members, regardless if they are conservatives or liberals. It's important to keep those differences in perspective.

The political wing of the NRA is going to support the candidates that they think will help them pass pro gun and pro second ammendment legislation. It just happens to be that more republican legislators are pro-gun then democrats are. It's important to keep that in perspective as well.

Why havent we heard about lockable classroom doors as a preventative to these mass school shootings? Sounds like a reasonable protection to me.

I realize I went a bit into political territory myself, but I believe the rule in this sub-forum is no political talk. Whether pro-Obama, anti-Obama, we should dial it back a bit.

Happy holidays everyone.

I will poke a stick in the fire here!

This is a healthy discussion that has a political nature but is not condemning nor supporting one political party or person.

This is an important discussion about our rights and protecting them. Rob K has some insight on the political aspect of this conversation and I respect that. Learn from this discussion, facts are the best tool in winning a debate. Arm yourself well!

Carry on!

"] The NRA was in favor of arming pilots after 9/11 which could possibly be the stupidest idea on earth but instead we reinforced the cockpit doors which has been a very effective solution.




I believe that the Homeland Security Act of 2002 gave the rights to the pilots to carry sidearms and defend themselves against hostile attacks. So here we have two security measures. A reinforced door and an armed pilot, not such a stupid idea in my mind.



Not wanting to argue about it just pointing out the fact that two security systems are working better (along with the TSA) than no security at all and one involves firearms to protect innocent people that are by law unarmed in a gun free zone.



Virgil

sakurama wrote:
The NRA's flippant response of adding armed security guards to every school is a useless suggestion
Gregor

Hmmm, " flippant", really?? you do have an attitude.. this happens to be an area that I am fairly familiar with. I retired from L/E with 30 years service almost 4 years ago..
I worked for one of the highest murder rate cities per capita in the country. We had armed police regularly assigned to schools in the city. Most schools in the surrounding counties have armed school resource officers who are active duty police.
What could be better than a retired officer working these positions? Most officers, nationwide, are eligible for retirement at 25 years service and are still in their late 40s, early 50s. Seasoned vets.!! No training necessary.!! And that's "flippant" ?? It's a no brainer.. Many/most of the big city schools already have assigned police...Take a few billion $ from the ridiculous green jobs stimulus, etc., and keep our kids safe. It's not the guns...It's the people. 100 years ago the world population was 1 billion people.. Now there is 7 billion. The ratio of nuts has increased by at least 7 fold..and probably more..
I truly hope you never have to live with what you are willing to accept.
Jerry

Rt on Jerry.

There is a squad in front of my old high school. I drive by almost every day. 45 years ago when I went there, we had no LEO present except at events. (Geeze, 45 years.....

My area had the Thurston HS tragedy several years ago. The kid perp was a long time "problem child" per friends of the family.

Jerry,

Even though I wouldn't call the proposal "flippant" I would call it "not good". Placing 1 armed guard in every school isn't a good idea. The costs are staggering, and ineffective. Considering the size of many schools, ONE armed guard isn't going to cut it--and everybody knows who the guard is. It's easy for a homicidal maniac to either elude the guard, or eliminate him as part of his killing spree.

Lets use air marshals as an example. You don't know who the air marshal is. That is an effective plan. Allow teachers who want to carry concealed to do so. Nobody knows who is carrying, kids and parents don't know where a gun is--and neither does a homicidal maniac. Better yet--more GOOD people carrying concealed, and becoming more proficient with their firearms, and kids are protected. All at NO extra cost to the taxpayers.

Couple that with Gregor's lockable classroom doors idea, and I think you are really doing something that would help secure our schools from homicidal maniacs.

This kind back and forth debate is exactly why I regularly check the BE Forum there are many intelligent minds with valid points.

The school system has to do a better job protecting our children.
Retired or off duty law enforcement sounds like a great idea. If we were to drug test those who receive federal assistance I am sure the savings would pay for the protection.

In my earlier post I was hard on assault rifle owners. I realize ar15's are used in three gun competitions and that is fine. But please explain to me why a 30 round clip is needed. The three competitions I have seen do not use 30'round clips. Part of the competition is reloading while shooting. The elimination of bump stocks and high capacity mags is needed. Another idea might be a buy back of these items to initially fund better school protection.

One last thought, I fly all over the US and the number of TSA agents seems ridiculous. A few less TSA agents and armed guards at schools seems like a possible solution.

WVBE,

I have done research on the "drug testing for [government assistance]" issue. It has been tried in certain areas and it has been found to not be cost effective. The cost of the tests exceed the number of people who get kicked off the programs for violating. There just aren't enough offenders. It just costs more government money.

Why shouldn't 30 round clips be allowed. THere are already millions of them already in the marketplace. There are also 100 round drums. Are you suggesting that the reason homicidal maniacs kill is because 30 round magazines exist? Of course not. So banning them prevents nothing.

I agree that there are too many TSA agents. Why is it that in the government sector there are always 3 "workers" watching for every 1 worker the is actually working?!?! We should never cut wasteful government spending to replace it with other spending on new ineffective programs.

I'm sure there are enough of us on this forum alone that would volunteer to train school personnel to concealed carry for free. I would!