Jump to content
Sturgeon's House
Xoon

United States Gun Control Megathread

Recommended Posts

On 5/18/2019 at 8:12 PM, Meplat said:

Fuckwits are still proposing blanket bans.  Via executive fiat.. Batshit fuckwit wants to get people shot

"Is a revolution what you want, because this is how you get one".

I cannot fathom the dissonance required to not see that an executive order to take weapons from citizens is horrendously fascist. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Oedipus Wreckx-n-Effect said:

I cannot fathom the dissonance required to not see that an executive order to take weapons from citizens is horrendously fascist. 

All that aside, it demonstrates a nigh upon insane lack of comprehension of the logistics (and repercussions) involved in such a command.

 

Once the cork was out of the bottle, it would be open fucking season on feds.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Meplat said:

All that aside, it demonstrates a nigh upon insane lack of comprehension of the logistics (and repercussions) involved in such a command.

 

Once the cork was out of the bottle, it would be open fucking season on feds.

 

Yeah, its the red line for so many gun owners out there is not even funny. 

 

Luckily Harris has no chance. She slept her way to the top of a corrupt system in California and has too many skeletons in her past to be really viable, plus her nasally whiney voice may in fact cause cancer. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Walmart CEO supports gun control and a renewal of the Assault Weapon ban, in weasel words delivered to shareholders.

 

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/gun-control-assault-weapons-ban-walmart-ceo-doug-mcmillcalls-for-debate-over-reauthorizing-assault-weapons-ban/

 

As I’ve said before, the Left has weaponized capitalism against conservatives and the American Republic.

 

And I’ve said “Fuck Walmart” now for two decades.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Connecticut man arrested after a tip to the FBI. He expressed interest in committing a mass shooting on Facebook. He possessed “high capacity” magazines and was trying to build a rifle from parts bought online.

 

Warrants were issued via Red Flag law in CT.

 

https://www.courant.com/breaking-news/hc-br-norwalk-arsenal-seized-20190815-5qgugfpudjerbhuc6ueob4nad4-story.html

 

Claimed to be a Marine but wasn’t, confirming him to be one of THOSE kind of guys online. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have a few questions regarding US gun laws:

 

Do US firearms come with a identification number that is registered to an owner, that the police can search up in a database?

In that case, could police then do random check ups on people's firearms to check if the firearm has been stolen?

In the case the registration number is gone, or scratched up, the police could confiscate the firearm, until the owner gets a new registration plate or re-registers the gun.

This way, the US would know how many guns each person owns, and how many in total in the US. 

A national fire arms register could be established, which could be checked with medical and police records of the owner and the house hold. 
If the police see a mentally ill person stockpiling weapons commonly used by mass shooters, they could put them on a watch list.

 

And what about a incentive for people to buy less "assault weapons" with either a tax on the more lethal weapons, or a discount on the more personal defense oriented firearms. 
Let's say all small compact pistols with equal or less than 15 rounds in the magazine gets a 15% discount. 
Or all hunting rifles that can contain more than 5 rounds have a 10% tax. 

 

The idea would to instead of banning all sorts of useless things, we could incentivies people to buy less lethal and more practical weapons. Enthusiasts could still own their AR-15 with 200 round drum mag, with a bumpstock and night vision scope, while the average bloke would probably own a cheap and compact pistol for concealed carry in self defense. 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh boy, I'm going to need some popcorn for this one.

 

Don't get me wrong, I do understand somewhat of how people outside the US feel about America's firearm proclivities, but there are some fundamental cultural and legal aspects you are missing out on.

 

So, firearms that are introduced into commerce in the US are required to have a serial number. This number officially isn't tracked in any database, and by law the federal government cannot maintain a list of who owns what. They find other ways around that law, but the amount of paperwork they have to process to pin anyone down to any firearm can be pretty crazy. Much of the firearms sales records in the country are paper records, so when the ATF does a trace on a gun, they have to comb through their paper database, find the store that sold it, and ask them to look through the stores records to find the private buyer, and go from there. A serial number that has been destroyed or obliterated is a big no no, and you cannot have one reissued to you, because that breaks any sorts of traceability. The said, there are legal ways to have an unserialized/unmarked firearm in the US. It is still illegal for felons to be in possession of firearms or ammunition, but there is nothing physically stopping them from making their own firearms. If they can't make them, they will buy them on the black market, or steal them.

 

As far as a national database, an official one will be very unpopular, because there belief in the US gun community is that registration is a necessary step towards total confiscation. Considering that our war for independence started when the British tried to disarm a local militia, confiscation won't go over very well here, and neither will registration. Colorado can't even enforce it's magazine ban and universal background check.

 

Creating incentive structures on purchases through taxation is troublesome, from a legal standpoint. You cannot impose taxes that would have a chilling effect on the free exercise of a protected right, in theory. In practice, they like to pretend that the 2nd amendment, which happens to be pretty fucking clear in it's meaning, is an orphan when it comes to legal protection in the courts. People treat it like an absolute bastard of an amendment, making up complete bullshit to help achieve the interpretation that they want. But anyways, there always be ways around stupid laws and definitions like that. People will make a "hunting" rifle variant to a avoid the tax, but the rifle will be trivial to convert to it's "assault" configuration.

 

As far as getting people to buy "less lethal" weapons, good luck. Firearms exist because they are a tool designed to apply lethal force. Lethality is their raison d'etre. Practicality is determined by other factors, not lethality. Generally, if it is a defensive firearm, you go with the most lethal option that is in your scope of "practical".

 

Everyone thinks there is this massive gun crime problem in the US, which is what people would assume after hearing about these mass shootings. The actual numbers are very different. Firearm related deaths aren't even in the top 10 causes of death in the US, and way less than that if you take out suicides. We have over a hundred million gun owners, with close to five hundred million guns in the US, 46% of the total number of firearms in the world. We have 30,000 gun deaths of all types annually. Suicide is more than half, and if you take it down to just homicide, it's about 12,000 deaths. The kicker is that 8,000 of those are gang related shooting in certain urban areas with handguns. The same urban areas that have the strictest gun control laws in the US, and has been run by the same party for 60 years. The same party that wants more gun control on a national level. It's been a while since I've seen the numbers, but that's the rough breakdown. So, I don't really see a 0.0024% rate of firearms to homicides to be a problem. If anything, it's pretty fucking amazing. And it's not one firearm per homicide, either, so the actually rate in lower still. Basically, +99.99% of guns in the US will never be used to take a life. Guns are not the problem.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Xoon said:

I have a few questions regarding US gun laws:

 

Do US firearms come with a identification number that is registered to an owner, that the police can search up in a database?

In that case, could police then do random check ups on people's firearms to check if the firearm has been stolen?

In the case the registration number is gone, or scratched up, the police could confiscate the firearm, until the owner gets a new registration plate or re-registers the gun.

This way, the US would know how many guns each person owns, and how many in total in the US. 

A national fire arms register could be established, which could be checked with medical and police records of the owner and the house hold. 
If the police see a mentally ill person stockpiling weapons commonly used by mass shooters, they could put them on a watch list.

 

And what about a incentive for people to buy less "assault weapons" with either a tax on the more lethal weapons, or a discount on the more personal defense oriented firearms. 
Let's say all small compact pistols with equal or less than 15 rounds in the magazine gets a 15% discount. 
Or all hunting rifles that can contain more than 5 rounds have a 10% tax. 

 

The idea would to instead of banning all sorts of useless things, we could incentivies people to buy less lethal and more practical weapons. Enthusiasts could still own their AR-15 with 200 round drum mag, with a bumpstock and night vision scope, while the average bloke would probably own a cheap and compact pistol for concealed carry in self defense. 

 

 

Taxing "rights" and the unfettered exercise of them is a good way to start a civil war in this country.

I'm still amazed how long this nation has put up with the '34 GCA .

 

A side note, many places used to tax voting, for the same reason many politicians want to restrict firearms.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Meplat said:

Taxing "rights" and the unfettered exercise of them is a good way to start a civil war in this country.

I'm still amazed how long this nation has put up with the '34 GCA .

 

A side note, many places used to tax voting, for the same reason many politicians want to restrict firearms.

Holy shit, I'm just trying to imagine how hard the left would flip out if voting was as involved as buying a machinegun. Somehow, we can't even ask for identification for voting, but now they want to tax the shit out of guns and ammunition.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Ulric said:

Holy shit, I'm just trying to imagine how hard the left would flip out if voting was as involved as buying a machinegun. Somehow, we can't even ask for identification for voting, but now they want to tax the shit out of guns and ammunition.

There used to be everything from "poll taxes" to "Poll testing".

Amusingly enough, the majority were conceived and utilized in mostly Democratic areas.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh, I'm aware of the poll tax and literacy test, and what they were historically used for.

 

In the modern age, and at face value, I think everyone should have to pass a literacy test to vote. If you can't read what you are voting on, you have no business voting. Also, universal suffrage was a mistake. Letting the beneficiaries decide how much money they get to take from the benefactors never ends well. Heinlein had it right in Starship Troopers: you get to vote after you put skin in the game.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, Xoon said:

I have a few questions regarding US gun laws:

 

I'll do my best, but up front you should probably be aware that US gun owners pretty much always groan out loud when people from other countries ask us questions like this. Not because the question(s) is intrinsically aggressive, but because often there's a bias behind them. So, it's a touchy subject, is what I'm saying.
 

16 hours ago, Xoon said:

Do US firearms come with a identification number that is registered to an owner, that the police can search up in a database?

 

US firearms are required by law to have a serial number. It is not registered to an owner, although the sale of a firearm to someone (including its serial number, make, and model) are recorded on the Form 4473.
 

16 hours ago, Xoon said:

In that case, could police then do random check ups on people's firearms to check if the firearm has been stolen?

 

Not at their residence, that would be a violation of the 4th Amendment. Police do check on stolen firearms, though, in the event they turn up, and provided the person it was stolen from reported it.
 

16 hours ago, Xoon said:

In the case the registration number is gone, or scratched up, the police could confiscate the firearm, until the owner gets a new registration plate or re-registers the gun.

 

There is a regulation in the US regarding the depth of the serial number, and if it is obliterated it's a felony with a sentence of 10 years in federal prison, as I recall.
 

16 hours ago, Xoon said:

This way, the US would know how many guns each person owns, and how many in total in the US.

 

You're not the first rando to suggest registration. Also, this did the typical thing and went from "questions" to "here's my proposal for 'fixing' your gun laws in complete ignorance of how they work already". This is the exact reason why Americans lose patience quickly with people from other countries on this subject.

US gun owners do not like registration. "Registration always leads to confiscation."
 

16 hours ago, Xoon said:

A national fire arms register could be established, which could be checked with medical and police records of the owner and the house hold.

 

"Registration always leads to confiscation."
 

16 hours ago, Xoon said:

If the police see a mentally ill person stockpiling weapons commonly used by mass shooters, they could put them on a watch list.

 

The police and the Feds are incompetent. Look at the Sutherland Springs shooting.

 

16 hours ago, Xoon said:

And what about a incentive for people to buy less "assault weapons" with either a tax on the more lethal weapons, or a discount on the more personal defense oriented firearms.

 

What about the government not telling me what I can and can't buy? "Shall not be infringed."
 

16 hours ago, Xoon said:

Let's say all small compact pistols with equal or less than 15 rounds in the magazine gets a 15% discount.

 

Yeah. My patience is gone already.

Here's the thing, buddy. I know you mean well. Or, at least, I assume you do. Maybe you don't. Anyway, here's the problem with your suggestion: You're woefully ignorant. Not just about US firearms laws, but the firearms themselves. Take a Glock 26. Look! It's a small compact pistol with less than 15 rounds in the magazine!

Glock-G26-G4-PG2650201-764503612015.jpg_

 

Aaaand here's the exact same kind of gun with a 33 round mag:

12160918415_642702f39a_b.jpg

 

So, when you asked this question, it tells me that you not only don't have a clue about US firearms laws or US gun culture, but you also don't really know anything about guns either. Because even someone with a very cursory knowledge of firearms is aware that you can swap magazines.
 

16 hours ago, Xoon said:

Or all hunting rifles that can contain more than 5 rounds have a 10% tax. 

 

We had an outright ban from 1994-2004. It did nothing. Even the biased people who were for the law admitted it did nothing.
 

16 hours ago, Xoon said:

The idea would to instead of banning all sorts of useless things, we could incentivies people to buy less lethal and more practical weapons. Enthusiasts could still own their AR-15 with 200 round drum mag, with a bumpstock and night vision scope, while the average bloke would probably own a cheap and compact pistol for concealed carry in self defense. 

 

The idea is apparently predicated on the notion that a mass shooter with no criminal record would see a 15% tax and go "oh shit I guess I'm not murdering people today. I was going to, but then I'd have to pay $60 in tax and I'm just not willing to do THAT!"

Pass.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If our responses sound oddly prickly, it's because while you @Xoon have possibly never had this discussion before, we have had it hundreds if not thousands of times. I remember having this exact discussion in high school. Every time there's a mass shooting we end up getting into it, and it always brings out mean-wells like you who nevertheless don't really have the first clue what they're talking about. You don't know what a Form 4473 is, you don't know that obliterating serials is a felony, you don't seem to be aware that you can swap magazines between two different guns, and you are proposing absolutely asinine shit like registration or a tax on a made-up class of weapons, and then you (seemingly, from our end) have the gall to ask us if that's OK?

 

Most of the Americans participating in this thread don't think we need more nanny state bullshit telling us what we can and can't buy or do with our guns. We think the laws we already have are excessive. And we're really tired of people who don't have the first clue trying to slide more bullshit onto our plate.

I think you asked an honest question, but that's the state of things.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The idea you can control criminals, who ignore laws, with more laws, is amazingly dumb.   

 

All these laws that restrict non criminals in what they can own, do just that, restrict none criminals. Why? Because criminals ignore the law... 

 

Getting guns is already easy for Criminals, how about making it easier for people like me, or women, the old or crippled, who live in bad areas, to defend ourselves. 

 

Defending yourself is a right here. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

By the way, @Xoon, guarantee you every single person you're talking to here would be seen as "stockpiling the kinds of weapons used in mass shootings".

I own three AR-15s, an AK-74, and a host of other similar guns. You don't want to know what Ulric has.

 

Because this ain't Norway, Chief.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Jeeps_Guns_Tanks said:

Defending yourself is a right here. 

 

We should make it a little more clear: Owning lethal weapons with which to defend yourself and your country is a right here. I'd say "like free speech", but even free speech is a right here in a way it isn't in most places in Europe.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

 

That's it. That's the whole text of the 2nd Amendment, the highest law in the land. Pretty straightforward.

Now, a lot of people are motivated to throw smokescreens around this, talking about how the word "regulated" means gun control is OK, dumb shit like that. That's all false, and even left-wing scholars in the US have refuted that.* It's also really self-evident if you read Madison's writing, such as Federalist 46 (where he wargames private citizens fighting an invading foreign power with their personally owned weapons of war).

*Sources here:

https://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/06/us/06firearms.html

https://www.nationalreview.com/magazine/2018/08/27/the-truth-about-the-second-amendment/

https://reason.com/2015/10/06/yes-the-second-amendment-protects-indivi/

https://scholarship.law.georgetown.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2550&context=facpub

https://www.newsweek.com/unlikely-liberal-case-gun-rights-75381

http://www2.law.ucla.edu/volokh/beararms/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

People like Ulric, myself, and quite a few friends would easily be seen as stockpiling weapons in literally any European country. That's not how this stuff works in America. You can own as many guns as you could possibly want to own here, with no legal consequences provided you are not doing anything illegal with them. There are collections in the US that could easily arm a small army.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Sturgeon said:

 

We should make it a little more clear: Owning lethal weapons with which to defend yourself and your country is a right here. I'd say "like free speech", but even free speech is a right here in a way it isn't in most places in Europe.

 

 

Yeah, in Murica, we ave this thing called FREEDOM, I think eagles shit it or something, it comes out of things that go bang for sure. 

 

Like this thing that goes bang!

 

The Sherman Tank in this video is in PRIVATE hands, and all the machine guns, and them main gun work.  

 

The guy who does this channel, owns machine guns, assault weapons, and lots of pointy things, and the guns haven't made him into a criminal yet. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Ulric said:

Oh, I'm aware of the poll tax and literacy test, and what they were historically used for.

 

In the modern age, and at face value, I think everyone should have to pass a literacy test to vote. If you can't read what you are voting on, you have no business voting. Also, universal suffrage was a mistake. Letting the beneficiaries decide how much money they get to take from the benefactors never ends well. Heinlein had it right in Starship Troopers: you get to vote after you put skin in the game.

Good luck getting that passed.

Involving "voting" that is.

 

"Mandatory  National Background Checks" in order to exercise one right, but you dare not do the same for another.

 

Welcome to crazyland.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...