Jump to content
Sturgeon's House
Xoon

United States Gun Control Megathread

Recommended Posts

The wording in this memo is crafted to sound like he is wanting to have bump stocks reviewed as to whether or not they are machine guns, but if you read it with a legal mindset, the two are never connected. He wants to review how the ATF regulates bump stocks. Easy peasy, that is just taking a look again at their process for defining them. This is the ATF, though, so they do change their minds 20 times a day, but they should arrive at the same conclusion. Then he says that they need to issue a notice that basically enforces the law as it already is. Devices that turn legal weapons into machineguns are already classified as machineguns in and of themselves by law. At no point are bump stocks and machineguns conflated.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Since it's being floated on my Facebook news feed, an alleged plot for a school shooting in the Los Angeles area was thwarted when school security overhead a potential threat and reported through the proper channels with school authorities and the local Sheriff's office that led to the student being arrested

 

Basically the "connected the dots" model that should have happened in Florida

 

Of course the kid could have been talking full of shit, but they're going to pin him for possessing an unregistered AR-15 anyway(the other belonged to his Army vet brother)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok, raising the age, whatever. It's stupid, about as stupid as 18 year olds are, but it's not a ban. Mostly I hate the idea of giving up anything to anti gun crowd. Bump stocks are idiotic, but let's at least get the registry reopened if we are going to give something up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Ulric said:

Ok, raising the age, whatever. It's stupid, about as stupid as 18 year olds are, but it's not a ban. Mostly I hate the idea of giving up anything to anti gun crowd. Bump stocks are idiotic, but let's at least get the registry reopened if we are going to give something up.

 

Yes, my (thin) hope is that there will be some kind of compromise bill built out of these concessions which will relax restrictions elsewhere. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Ramlaen said:

I would happily give up the bump stock I don’t own if it meant I could buy a suppressor without a tax stamp.

 

Yeah I think if the pro-gun side wants to resume the progress they were making from before the Vegas shooting to keep up the momentum, they are going to have to make some real compromises. It may be a vain hope, but I do hope it's a real compromise this time as opposed to just a tightening of the belt.

Now, a lot of people in the pro-gun side have a "not one inch" policy, and that's a very good position most of the time. However, I also don't think anyone on that side wants to lose the momentum they've built up in recent years. The only way to keep it may be to wrap some token restrictions up with some significant and much needed reforms.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Donward said:

I'll make a note that Trump is saying this has to be legislation passed in Congress, which is odd behavior for an Authoritarian. 

Because it means jack shit will happen.

 

Congresscritters have learned that fucking with gun rights while, in the short term makes them seem "deeply concerned" is a sure way to lose their slot at the feed-trough.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Meplat said:

Because it means jack shit will happen.

 

Congresscritters have learned that fucking with gun rights while, in the short term makes them seem "deeply concerned" is a sure way to lose their slot at the feed-trough.

 

Good point, Meplat. If he sics Congress on it, it will never happen, then he can blame them without having the permanent stain of gun control on him.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Donward said:

I'll make a note that Trump is saying this has to be legislation passed in Congress, which is odd behavior for an Authoritarian. 

 

It looks similar to his DACA play to me.  Offer lip service for something, insist it needs to be passed by Congress rather than by EO, watch as the flipper babies in Congress stumble over their extra chromosomes, shrug and say, "hey, I was perfectly willing to sign it, but Congress couldn't get their act together!"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Am I right in thinking that the US military maintains recruiters at many/most schools/colleges? 

 

Surely if these recruiters included some combat veterans and were armed.....

 

Just a thought.

 

PS - **** me.....Can't believe I'm suggesting you lot should become even more militaristic!  :o

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Collimatrix said:

 

It looks similar to his DACA play to me.  Offer lip service for something, insist it needs to be passed by Congress rather than by EO, watch as the flipper babies in Congress stumble over their extra chromosomes, shrug and say, "hey, I was perfectly willing to sign it, but Congress couldn't get their act together!"

Yep. It should be fairly obvious by now this is another gambit. And idiots on both sides of the issue still can't read the cards.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Sgt.Squarehead said:

Am I right in thinking that the US military maintains recruiters at many/most schools/colleges? 

 

Surely if these recruiters included some combat veterans and were armed.....

 

Just a thought.

 

I wish it were that easy.  Under current law a school can contract with someone an exempt them from the law forbidding the carry of guns on school property.  So at least at face value it wouldn't be legally difficult to have recruiters double as armed security.

However...

The nature of modern war is that there's a very low ratio of spearhead to shaft.  That goes double for these sissy little quasi-colonial wars that have been the norm of late.  Surprisingly few veterans, as a percentage, have actual shooting-dudes-in-the-face-experience.  The ones who were good at it, and liked it are more likely to seek jobs as PMCs, instructors, or something of that nature than they are to swim through the endless bureaucracy surrounding the public education system.  And that's just the ones who made it out without any debilitating joint problems after lugging around all the body armor, coms gear, mortar baseplates, and other heavy shit that modern militaries slowly kill their infantry with.

So it's not like BAMFs who are quick with a gun are an abundant and underutilized resource on school campuses.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, Sgt.Squarehead said:

Am I right in thinking that the US military maintains recruiters at many/most schools/colleges? 

 

Surely if these recruiters included some combat veterans and were armed.....

 

Just a thought.

 

PS - **** me.....Can't believe I'm suggesting you lot should become even more militaristic!  :o

No.  They may have offices nearby, but rarely on campus.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, Sgt.Squarehead said:

Am I right in thinking that the US military maintains recruiters at many/most schools/colleges? 

 

Surely if these recruiters included some combat veterans and were armed.....

 

Just a thought.

 

PS - **** me.....Can't believe I'm suggesting you lot should become even more militaristic!  :o

 

This is what a "real conversation" looks like!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Sgt.Squarehead said:

Surely a less than full on BAMF would suffice.....I'd imagine the presence of one or two properly trained and armed individuals would serve as sufficient deterrent for the more casual whack-job at least?

 

 

 

Right, we trust vets with guns in our schools already, they're called cops. Just extending the net a bit more.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Was just thinking out loud really.....I've been reading various discussions online and as the son of a teacher I'm firmly of the opinion that they should not be armed.

 

But clearly right now someone (other than the lunatics) needs to be.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, Sgt.Squarehead said:

Surely a less than full on BAMF would suffice.....I'd imagine the presence of one or two properly trained and armed individuals would serve as sufficient deterrent for the more casual whack-job at least?

 

 

 

Hard to say.  A lot of these spree shooters have every appearance of intending to die by the end of their attack.

Share this post


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

 

Right, we trust vets with guns in our schools already, they're called cops. Just extending the net a bit more.

Except for the one that apparently camped in the shrubs , while the kid was shooting things up.

"When seconds count, police are minutes away.( Or hiding)".

 

https://www.cnn.com/2018/02/22/us/florida-school-shooting/index.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Meplat said:

Except for the one that apparently camped in the shrubs , while the kid was shooting things up.

"When seconds count, police are minutes away.( Or hiding)".

 

That's my main concern about this proposal to put armed guards in all the schools.  Society entrusts a certain number of individuals with arms that they will do what is necessary should necessity arise.  Sometimes they're heroic, like the cop who responded to the Sikh temple shooting, couldn't get his rifle free from the malfunctioning gun rack lock, and went ahead to engage the shooter with his sidearm, or that USAF MP who engaged an active shooter on base with his duty handgun.  I would say that an almost improbable percent of the time, they're heroic.

But some of the time they're cowards.  The late, lamented @Hognose had written about psychological evaluations of candidates for special forces.  Apparently they have the understanding of what it takes to make solid combat psychology close to a science.  I do recall him saying that a certain percentage of people are simply constitutionally unfit for it.

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...