(01-24-2013 01:38 PM)GeorgeBorkFan Wrote:  

(01-24-2013 01:19 PM)BobL Wrote:  Obama may have the opportunity to switch the Courts make-up and affect the next 2 amendment interpretation.
Public opinion is switching to more aggressive federal involvement in the regulation of weapons and to a less conservative interpretation of the the 2nd amendment. If the NRA and other supporters of a conservative interpretation were smart they would moderate their rhetoric and sit at a table to come up with meaningful regulation and enforcement.

If they dont, a few years down the line they may very well find themselves at a point where they have no say and laws enacted become even more stringent that currently suggested.

Bob:

With all due respect, the polls taken recently don't show a significant shift in the public's opinion of new gun laws. In the last twenty years, it hasn't changed in any meaninful fashion.

So, to take your point, you are saying that if the NRA agrees to ban "assault weapons," then the President will appoint less liberal justices?

We have meaningful regulation. We have a tremendous amount of regulation Much enforcement already isn't being done. The much touted executive orders highlighted that. The President signed an E.O. saying he should nominate a new head to the ATF? Huh? He could have already done that and didn't need an E.O. to simply do his job.

That not what I am saying..Obama will appoint a liberal judge regardless...the point I am making is once the court shifts the NRA and like thinking folks will have less impact on issue. Best to work something out now they can live with than wait and end up with something they cant live with.

And I disagree...while the far left and far right are digging in..the majority are moving left of center on regulation of weapons. Even my cousin, NRA member, a gun collector and avid range guy, sees the need and benefits of some of the Biden proposals...

(01-24-2013 01:45 PM)BobL Wrote:  That not what I am saying..Obama will appoint a liberal judge regardless...the point I am making is once the court shifts the NRA and like thinking folks will have less impact on issue. Best to work something out now they can live with than wait and end up with something they cant live with.

And I disagree...while the far left and far right are digging in..the majority are moving left of center on regulation of weapons. Even my cousin, NRA member, a gun collector and avid range guy, sees the need and benefits of some of the Biden proposals...

And, you think the liberals will stop pushing gun control even if all the current proposals pass? They won't. And, the NRA will be in front of that liberal court, regardless.

The numbers just don't show what you suggest.

http://www.people-press.org/2012/12/14/p...n-control/

http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2012...-shootings

And, for Max:

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_c...st_tyranny


Which of Biden's proposals?...

(01-24-2013 03:13 PM)GeorgeBorkFan Wrote:  

(01-24-2013 01:45 PM)BobL Wrote:  That not what I am saying..Obama will appoint a liberal judge regardless...the point I am making is once the court shifts the NRA and like thinking folks will have less impact on issue. Best to work something out now they can live with than wait and end up with something they cant live with.

And I disagree...while the far left and far right are digging in..the majority are moving left of center on regulation of weapons. Even my cousin, NRA member, a gun collector and avid range guy, sees the need and benefits of some of the Biden proposals...

And, you think the liberals will stop pushing gun control even if all the current proposals pass? They won't. And, the NRA will be in front of that liberal court, regardless.

The numbers just don't show what you suggest.

http://www.people-press.org/2012/12/14/p...n-control/

http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2012...-shootings

And, for Max:

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_c...st_tyranny


Which of Biden's proposals?...

The far left wont stop but it will i believe satisfy most moderates which would quell any further "real" attempts to further restrict weapons.


My cousin is ok with:

BackGround checks for all purchases(he would even be ok with national licensing along with training requirements)
For "assault" weapons he has stated that he is ok with limited ban, in that a special license would be required for purchase of such weapons and ammo.
Armor piercing bullet ban.
Increase in spending for mental health.

(01-24-2013 03:49 PM)BobL Wrote:  My cousin is ok with:

BackGround checks for all purchases(he would even be ok with national licensing along with training requirements)
For "assault" weapons he has stated that he is ok with limited ban, in that a special license would be required for purchase of such weapons and ammo.
Armor piercing bullet ban.
Increase in spending for mental health.

Interesting.

The armor peircing bullet thing confuses me. WTF is an armor piercing bullet? What armor are you piercing? Anything over 9mm will penetrate a police vest anyway. FMJ?

(01-24-2013 04:45 PM)niuguy Wrote:  The armor peircing bullet thing confuses me. WTF is an armor piercing bullet? What armor are you piercing? Anything over 9mm will penetrate a police vest anyway. FMJ?

Maybe they're referring to military grade stuff and possibly vehicles?

(01-24-2013 04:45 PM)niuguy Wrote:  The armor peircing bullet thing confuses me. WTF is an armor piercing bullet? What armor are you piercing? Anything over 9mm will penetrate a police vest anyway. FMJ?

I'm with you, there.

(01-24-2013 05:02 PM)BarsemaBone2 Wrote:  

(01-24-2013 04:45 PM)niuguy Wrote:  The armor peircing bullet thing confuses me. WTF is an armor piercing bullet? What armor are you piercing? Anything over 9mm will penetrate a police vest anyway. FMJ?

Maybe they're referring to military grade stuff and possibly vehicles?

That stuff already isn't available.

(01-24-2013 09:41 PM)GeorgeBorkFan Wrote:  

(01-24-2013 05:02 PM)BarsemaBone2 Wrote:  

(01-24-2013 04:45 PM)niuguy Wrote:  The armor peircing bullet thing confuses me. WTF is an armor piercing bullet? What armor are you piercing? Anything over 9mm will penetrate a police vest anyway. FMJ?

Maybe they're referring to military grade stuff and possibly vehicles?

That stuff already isn't available.

Makes me think of that Lethal Weapon movie (3?) where they used those "cop killers" armor piercing rounds that shot shot through the shovel of an earth mover. haha While yes, they would need a hard round that wouldnt fall a part on impact, they would need a much larger round than whatever 9/40mm they were using in the movie.

(01-24-2013 04:45 PM)niuguy Wrote:  The armor peircing bullet thing confuses me. WTF is an armor piercing bullet? What armor are you piercing? Anything over 9mm will penetrate a police vest anyway. FMJ?

I asked my cousin his definition of armor piercing bullets...this was his reply:

It is usually in reference to a hollow point bullet that has properties that allow it to penetrate bullet proof vests. (Ammo is very expensive typically 2-3 times the amount of regular hollow points). I believe the liberal media calls them by that name to give the people a belief they will pierce tanks and other combat vehicles.

This is wiki's definition:
Armor-piercing rifle and pistol cartridges are usually built around a penetrator of hardened steel, tungsten, or tungsten carbide, and such cartridges are often called 'hard-core bullets'. Aircraft and tank rounds sometimes use a core of depleted uranium. The penetrator is a pointed mass of high-density material that is designed to retain its shape and carry the maximum possible amount of energy as deeply as possible into the target. Depleted-uranium penetrators have the advantage of being pyrophoric and self-sharpening on impact, resulting in intense heat and energy focused on a minimal area of the target's armor. Some rounds also use explosive or incendiary tips to aid in the penetration of thicker armor. High Explosive Incendiary/Armor Piercing Ammunition combines a tungsten carbide penetrator with an incendiary and explosive tip.

This is the federal definition:
Armor piercing ammunition
18 U.S.C., § 921(a)(17)(B)

A projectile or projectile core which may be used in a handgun and which is constructed entirely (excluding the presence of traces of other substances) from one or a combination of tungsten alloys, steel, iron, brass, bronze, beryllium copper, or depleted uranium; or
A full jacketed projectile larger than .22 caliber designed and intended for use in a handgun and whose jacket has a weight of more than 25 percent of the total weight of the projectile.

My understanding is that this ammo is already illegal for handguns but is legal for rifles.

Next time I go to the range, I'm bringing DU rounds with me for my friends Mini 14. I'm going to irradiate that place!

(01-25-2013 08:52 AM)BobL Wrote:  

(01-24-2013 04:45 PM)niuguy Wrote:  The armor peircing bullet thing confuses me. WTF is an armor piercing bullet? What armor are you piercing? Anything over 9mm will penetrate a police vest anyway. FMJ?

I asked my cousin his definition of armor piercing bullets...this was his reply:

It is usually in reference to a hollow point bullet that has properties that allow it to penetrate bullet proof vests. (Ammo is very expensive typically 2-3 times the amount of regular hollow points). I believe the liberal media calls them by that name to give the people a belief they will pierce tanks and other combat vehicles.

This is wiki's definition:
Armor-piercing rifle and pistol cartridges are usually built around a penetrator of hardened steel, tungsten, or tungsten carbide, and such cartridges are often called 'hard-core bullets'. Aircraft and tank rounds sometimes use a core of depleted uranium. The penetrator is a pointed mass of high-density material that is designed to retain its shape and carry the maximum possible amount of energy as deeply as possible into the target. Depleted-uranium penetrators have the advantage of being pyrophoric and self-sharpening on impact, resulting in intense heat and energy focused on a minimal area of the target's armor. Some rounds also use explosive or incendiary tips to aid in the penetration of thicker armor. High Explosive Incendiary/Armor Piercing Ammunition combines a tungsten carbide penetrator with an incendiary and explosive tip.

This is the federal definition:
Armor piercing ammunition
18 U.S.C., § 921(a)(17)(B)

A projectile or projectile core which may be used in a handgun and which is constructed entirely (excluding the presence of traces of other substances) from one or a combination of tungsten alloys, steel, iron, brass, bronze, beryllium copper, or depleted uranium; or
A full jacketed projectile larger than .22 caliber designed and intended for use in a handgun and whose jacket has a weight of more than 25 percent of the total weight of the projectile.

My understanding is that this ammo is already illegal for handguns but is legal for rifles.

I mean, I know what AP rounds are... Not hollow points, btw, because those are actually less penetrating than AP rounds are but AP rounds are REALLY bad at killing people because they go right through without damaging much.

My point is AP rounds SOUNDS scary but fact is an AP round for a civilian style weapons are in little to no demand. Because...

1) Expensive
2) Pointless because it doesnt take much to penetrate standard police armor
3) Rifle/carbine w/ standard FMJ round > "AP" handgun round
4) Are much less effective against unarmored targets than other rounds.

(01-25-2013 06:00 PM)BleedsHuskieRed Wrote:  Next time I go to the range, I'm bringing DU rounds with me for my friends Mini 14. I'm going to irradiate that place!

I've shot DU rounds out of this before...

(01-22-2013 09:45 PM)GeorgeBorkFan Wrote:  

(01-22-2013 04:52 PM)PeoriaHuskie11 Wrote:  

(01-22-2013 04:32 PM)GeorgeBorkFan Wrote:  

(01-22-2013 02:21 PM)PeoriaHuskie11 Wrote:  I think its funny that you guys are arguing about the Constitution. Since the Articles of Confederation were just discarded and the Constitution worked on before the States approved. And the writers of the Constitution said that it wasn't perfect. They didn't expect it to last and a new one would be written at some point. Of course that was the purpose of allowing Amendments to it.

Then propose an amendment to repeal the 2nd. Get going on it. Until then, what we have is law and that is the umbrella under which we live.

Never said I wanted the 2nd amendment repealed. Just felt like pointing out the fact that our Constitution may have not been given permission to be written if the writers hadn't made an executive decision to undermine the power of the States.

Actually, I think you are not correct there, historically. The Constitution, and largely the Bill of Rights, came from the States wanting a document that clearly limited Federal power and instead, empowered the States. That is why senators originally weren't directly elected. They were the representatives of the States, looking out for the States. We should all remember that the Founders intended the Federal goverment to be exceptionally limited and most things were to be handled at the State level. We are about as upside from that as we possibly could be.

(01-22-2013 04:52 PM)PeoriaHuskie11 Wrote:  Back on topic. I'd prefer it if guns were heavily taxed like cigarettes, private sales were illegal, thorough background checks, and anyone that wanted to own had to have a FOID. Getting a FOID required, again, a thorough background check, firearm training by a professional every year. Also, if you own a gun you have to purchase insurance, similar to car insurance. Some other minor details as well and others things I haven't thought about yet.

To be very frank, that sounds like a lot of "infringing." I'm not sure I understand your "heavily taxed" comment either. That sounds purely punitive, especially when compared to cigarettes.

If attempting to ensure that people who definitely should not have guns don't get them is infringing, I think we should do a lot more infringing than we do now.

(02-22-2013 02:41 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(01-22-2013 04:52 PM)PeoriaHuskie11 Wrote:  Back on topic. I'd prefer it if guns were heavily taxed like cigarettes, private sales were illegal, thorough background checks, and anyone that wanted to own had to have a FOID. Getting a FOID required, again, a thorough background check, firearm training by a professional every year. Also, if you own a gun you have to purchase insurance, similar to car insurance. Some other minor details as well and others things I haven't thought about yet.

To be very frank, that sounds like a lot of "infringing." I'm not sure I understand your "heavily taxed" comment either. That sounds purely punitive, especially when compared to cigarettes.

If attempting to ensure that people who definitely should not have guns don't get them is infringing, I think we should do a lot more infringing than we do now.
[/quote]

How about we try enforcing the laws that currently exist, instead of creating new ones that criminals will only ignore? Let's see if those would work if we only actually made an effort.

Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety...

(02-25-2013 09:31 AM)GeorgeBorkFan Wrote:  

(02-22-2013 02:41 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(01-22-2013 04:52 PM)PeoriaHuskie11 Wrote:  Back on topic. I'd prefer it if guns were heavily taxed like cigarettes, private sales were illegal, thorough background checks, and anyone that wanted to own had to have a FOID. Getting a FOID required, again, a thorough background check, firearm training by a professional every year. Also, if you own a gun you have to purchase insurance, similar to car insurance. Some other minor details as well and others things I haven't thought about yet.

To be very frank, that sounds like a lot of "infringing." I'm not sure I understand your "heavily taxed" comment either. That sounds purely punitive, especially when compared to cigarettes.

If attempting to ensure that people who definitely should not have guns don't get them is infringing, I think we should do a lot more infringing than we do now.

How about we try enforcing the laws that currently exist, instead of creating new ones that criminals will only ignore? Let's see if those would work if we only actually made an effort.

Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety...
[/quote]

Back to the OP, the NRA has been actively fighting to weaken existing gun laws for YEARS. I am ALL FOR increasing spending on adding ATF agents and the staff required to administer all these rules and allow inspections. Is the NRA and the congressmen it controls ready to do the same? Something tells me they aren't.

(02-25-2013 10:59 PM)niuguy Wrote:  Back to the OP, the NRA has been actively fighting to weaken existing gun laws for YEARS. I am ALL FOR increasing spending on adding ATF agents and the staff required to administer all these rules and allow inspections. Is the NRA and the congressmen it controls ready to do the same? Something tells me they aren't.

A couple of things...

Specifically in that clip, the NRA said they were for enforcing existing laws. They are certainly against the creating of a national sales registry, maintaining background check information permanently, etc. The NRA may or may not be for "weaking" existing laws. That doesn't cause the feds to not enforce the existing laws.

Obama/Feinstein are currently proposing new laws. Where have they proposed additional spending for more ATF agents?

Obama had to write himself an executive order telling himself to appoint an ATF director. Come on. That is ridiculous.

And, all John Stewart blathers on about is the ATF. There are a tremendous number of state and local gun laws that aren't enforced worth a damn either. Look at this state. The State Police willingfully and openly violate the time limits put on them by legislation to process FOID cards. They don't actively go get revoked FOID cards.

How many illegal gun possession cases in the City of Chicago actually end with a conviction and jail time? Hint. Not many.

in the 2nd amendment, when they said "infringed" were they referring to an incremental dent in the right, or did they mean something more absolute, like "prevented"?

(02-26-2013 03:30 PM)GeorgeBorkFan Wrote:  

(02-25-2013 10:59 PM)niuguy Wrote:  Back to the OP, the NRA has been actively fighting to weaken existing gun laws for YEARS. I am ALL FOR increasing spending on adding ATF agents and the staff required to administer all these rules and allow inspections. Is the NRA and the congressmen it controls ready to do the same? Something tells me they aren't.

A couple of things...

Specifically in that clip, the NRA said they were for enforcing existing laws. They are certainly against the creating of a national sales registry, maintaining background check information permanently, etc. The NRA may or may not be for "weaking" existing laws. That doesn't cause the feds to not enforce the existing laws.

Obama/Feinstein are currently proposing new laws. Where have they proposed additional spending for more ATF agents?

Obama had to write himself an executive order telling himself to appoint an ATF director. Come on. That is ridiculous.

And, all John Stewart blathers on about is the ATF. There are a tremendous number of state and local gun laws that aren't enforced worth a damn either. Look at this state. The State Police willingfully and openly violate the time limits put on them by legislation to process FOID cards. They don't actively go get revoked FOID cards.

How many illegal gun possession cases in the City of Chicago actually end with a conviction and jail time? Hint. Not many.

The guy that did the Cole Hall shooting was on various drugs at multiple times for a psychotic condition. Because he supposedly had been off the drugs for 5 years, he was able to get all the guns he wanted. He himself apparently said it was outrageous that he was able to get guns.

Maybe we need to enforce the current laws better, but that doesn't mean tweaks couldn't be made. At least, let's not just dismiss it out of hand.

The Illinois House has essentially sent out a memo to all prospective psychopaths that if you want to commit mass murder, noone will be legally allowed to fire back in schools, child care centers, casinos, government buildings, stadiums and arenas, or public transportation.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/02/27...73560.html