(01-05-2016 03:05 PM)oliveandblue Wrote:  

(01-05-2016 02:09 PM)Kronke Wrote:  

(01-05-2016 01:57 PM)gsu95 Wrote:  Course, flip side of that coin are those open-carry-and-second-amendment-allows-me-to-own-anything-I-want-folks who paint every attempt at gun legislation as an attempt to take their guns away and think all who believe we need to make getting certain weaponry harder are idiots who wouldn't know a magazine from a firing pin.

And, what exactly are you referring to? Scary looking guns?

Which of these should we not be able to own?











..would you believe they are the exact same gun, with the exact same firing capabilities?

They're both Ruger mini 14s, but one has a scope and stand. This suggests that you're looking to fire it at distance. The top one also has a significantly larger magazine, which suggests that you're going to be dishing out a lot of punishment.

The ranch rifle has a longer net reload time over 100 shots. It also looks more like a hunting tool - but looks aren't everything.

You can get the same looking wood finish, ranch rifle with the detachable magazine. Also, the stand and scope can be taken from the one and added to the other. There is absolutely no difference between the two except the one on the top is considered an assault rifle by most because it has a pistol grip and adjustable buttstock. C'mon?!

But it shouldn't actually make a difference. I have a Constitutional right to bear arms.

(01-05-2016 03:05 PM)oliveandblue Wrote:  

(01-05-2016 02:09 PM)Kronke Wrote:  

(01-05-2016 01:57 PM)gsu95 Wrote:  Course, flip side of that coin are those open-carry-and-second-amendment-allows-me-to-own-anything-I-want-folks who paint every attempt at gun legislation as an attempt to take their guns away and think all who believe we need to make getting certain weaponry harder are idiots who wouldn't know a magazine from a firing pin.

And, what exactly are you referring to? Scary looking guns?

Which of these should we not be able to own?











..would you believe they are the exact same gun, with the exact same firing capabilities?

They're both Ruger mini 14s, but one has a scope and stand. This suggests that you're looking to fire it at distance. The top one also has a significantly larger magazine, which suggests that you're going to be dishing out a lot of punishment.

The ranch rifle has a longer net reload time over 100 shots. It also looks more like a hunting tool - but looks aren't everything.

It takes ten minutes max to affix the scope to the Mini 14 clothed in wood, and second to insert the larger magazine.

(01-05-2016 03:05 PM)oliveandblue Wrote:  

(01-05-2016 02:09 PM)Kronke Wrote:  

(01-05-2016 01:57 PM)gsu95 Wrote:  Course, flip side of that coin are those open-carry-and-second-amendment-allows-me-to-own-anything-I-want-folks who paint every attempt at gun legislation as an attempt to take their guns away and think all who believe we need to make getting certain weaponry harder are idiots who wouldn't know a magazine from a firing pin.

And, what exactly are you referring to? Scary looking guns?

Which of these should we not be able to own?











..would you believe they are the exact same gun, with the exact same firing capabilities?

They're both Ruger mini 14s, but one has a scope and stand. This suggests that you're looking to fire it at distance. The top one also has a significantly larger magazine, which suggests that you're going to be dishing out a lot of punishment.

The ranch rifle has a longer net reload time over 100 shots. It also looks more like a hunting tool - but looks aren't everything.

The bottom one can accept the same magazines. The scope and stand are accessories, and can be made to add or be removed from either rifle. My point is that liberals don't even know what they do and don't want to ban.

obama should start taking guns away in chicago, allowing the police to do their jobs by frisking the gang bangers before they go out shooting the same children obama was teary eyed about. Why doesn't obama do that for those children. Or, his people could pass Kates Law that would definitely stop illegals from committing crimes before they happened. I'm sure there's other measures the Libs have suppressed that I can't think of now, try doing those two for now.

I sympathize with those that have lost loved ones because of gun violence but I also curse the liberals that don't want anything done other than trying to take away constitutional liberties. They're beating the wrong horse.

(01-05-2016 03:18 PM)Kronke Wrote:  

(01-05-2016 03:05 PM)oliveandblue Wrote:  

(01-05-2016 02:09 PM)Kronke Wrote:  

(01-05-2016 01:57 PM)gsu95 Wrote:  Course, flip side of that coin are those open-carry-and-second-amendment-allows-me-to-own-anything-I-want-folks who paint every attempt at gun legislation as an attempt to take their guns away and think all who believe we need to make getting certain weaponry harder are idiots who wouldn't know a magazine from a firing pin.

And, what exactly are you referring to? Scary looking guns?

Which of these should we not be able to own?











..would you believe they are the exact same gun, with the exact same firing capabilities?

They're both Ruger mini 14s, but one has a scope and stand. This suggests that you're looking to fire it at distance. The top one also has a significantly larger magazine, which suggests that you're going to be dishing out a lot of punishment.

The ranch rifle has a longer net reload time over 100 shots. It also looks more like a hunting tool - but looks aren't everything.

The bottom one can accept the same magazines. The scope and stand are accessories, and can be made to add or be removed from either rifle. My point is that liberals don't even know what they do and don't want to ban.

They just want.

(01-05-2016 03:22 PM)ark30inf Wrote:  

(01-05-2016 03:18 PM)Kronke Wrote:  

(01-05-2016 03:05 PM)oliveandblue Wrote:  

(01-05-2016 02:09 PM)Kronke Wrote:  

(01-05-2016 01:57 PM)gsu95 Wrote:  Course, flip side of that coin are those open-carry-and-second-amendment-allows-me-to-own-anything-I-want-folks who paint every attempt at gun legislation as an attempt to take their guns away and think all who believe we need to make getting certain weaponry harder are idiots who wouldn't know a magazine from a firing pin.

And, what exactly are you referring to? Scary looking guns?

Which of these should we not be able to own?











..would you believe they are the exact same gun, with the exact same firing capabilities?

They're both Ruger mini 14s, but one has a scope and stand. This suggests that you're looking to fire it at distance. The top one also has a significantly larger magazine, which suggests that you're going to be dishing out a lot of punishment.

The ranch rifle has a longer net reload time over 100 shots. It also looks more like a hunting tool - but looks aren't everything.

The bottom one can accept the same magazines. The scope and stand are accessories, and can be made to add or be removed from either rifle. My point is that liberals don't even know what they do and don't want to ban.

They just want.

Bingo.

Every liberal/pro-gun control advocate on this board should watch this video from start to finish. It contains many answers you seek.

(01-05-2016 02:11 PM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

(01-05-2016 01:57 PM)gsu95 Wrote:  

(01-05-2016 01:40 PM)Brokeback Flamer Wrote:  

(01-05-2016 01:20 PM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

(01-05-2016 12:39 PM)RobertN Wrote:  I will have to go back and listen but are you sure he said "dealer" or was he talking about an "individual selling a gun"
online. If you(not dealer) sold your gun online, do you have to ship it toan FFL or do you just send it right to the person buying?

Any transfer between unlicensed seller or buyers that takes place across state lines (including internet sales) must go through a FFL holder. One can technically sell a gun to another unlicensed individual within their own state without going through a FFL holder. Depending on the state, there are various degrees of recordkeeping that must be followed. In NC for instance, you don't have to keep any records for a long gun, but for a handgun the seller has to see either a valid concealed carry permit, or valid handgun purchase permit which they are supposed to keep a copy of. The ATF has a form that unlicensed individuals can use to keep up with the necessary information.

Of course you could have found out all that information if you had simply googled your question.

That's the problem isn't it? Gun control advocates don't take the time to look into what is actually involved in buying and selling firearms. They only go with their, more often than not, flawed perception of what they think it entails. The criticize the NRA without actually ever having attended an NRA class. When confronted they say 'Well Bush 41 cancelled his membership ' as if that is a trump card. They have never attended a gun show to see the people running background checks etc. instead they think it is like a local farmers market with signs saying 'Get your M-4 cabinets here.' 'Free upgrade to Full Auto with any AK purchase'. 'Buy one MP 5 get an Uzi FREE'!!!
Its difficult to find common ground with people who think they know but really don't know

Good points, all.
Course, flip side of that coin are those open-carry-and-second-amendment-allows-me-to-own-anything-I-want-folks who paint every attempt at gun legislation as an attempt to take their guns away and think all who believe we need to make getting certain weaponry harder are idiots who wouldn't know a magazine from a firing pin.

The two extremes have made so much racket and gotten so much attention in this exercise in lunacy nothing gets done. Congress has obviously failed to act. President is trying to accomplish something. Works for me.

Why should Congress act? The existing gun laws are sufficient to prevent criminals from legally obtaining weapons if they are enforced.

In your opinion, what exactly is the President trying to accomplish and what problem will his stated actions solve?

100% agree. This is the chief problem I have with gun control folks. They can never accept that sometimes the answer is that we need to do nothing. Sometimes the solution has nothing to do with the gun and everything to do with people. Maybe our society has more lowlifes due to broken families and no hope in some of these neighborhoods. Maybe we should actually put people in prison when they have violated gun laws 2 or 3 times. However, some of these lovely folks have committed a litany of gun related crimes and our government keeps letting them out and expecting them to follow the law. Enforcing current laws is a great place to start.

Instead of real solutions, the liberals pass stupid laws like restricting the capacity of a magazine and adding a bullet button to the so-called assault rifle. As if a criminal actually cares what these laws say. The only people affected by this stupidity are the law abiding citizens.

I've never shot a mini 14. I wouldn't know about what can or cannot be taken on/off that gun.

The only Ruger rifle I've shot is a stainless steel 10/22 Takedown. Not very high-powered, but the clip is an easy load and the recoil is very manageable for a civilian's shoulder. It's auto-loading between shots, which is yet another convenience.

(01-05-2016 03:35 PM)pharaoh0 Wrote:  

(01-05-2016 02:11 PM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

(01-05-2016 01:57 PM)gsu95 Wrote:  

(01-05-2016 01:40 PM)Brokeback Flamer Wrote:  

(01-05-2016 01:20 PM)200yrs2late Wrote:  Any transfer between unlicensed seller or buyers that takes place across state lines (including internet sales) must go through a FFL holder. One can technically sell a gun to another unlicensed individual within their own state without going through a FFL holder. Depending on the state, there are various degrees of recordkeeping that must be followed. In NC for instance, you don't have to keep any records for a long gun, but for a handgun the seller has to see either a valid concealed carry permit, or valid handgun purchase permit which they are supposed to keep a copy of. The ATF has a form that unlicensed individuals can use to keep up with the necessary information.

Of course you could have found out all that information if you had simply googled your question.

That's the problem isn't it? Gun control advocates don't take the time to look into what is actually involved in buying and selling firearms. They only go with their, more often than not, flawed perception of what they think it entails. The criticize the NRA without actually ever having attended an NRA class. When confronted they say 'Well Bush 41 cancelled his membership ' as if that is a trump card. They have never attended a gun show to see the people running background checks etc. instead they think it is like a local farmers market with signs saying 'Get your M-4 cabinets here.' 'Free upgrade to Full Auto with any AK purchase'. 'Buy one MP 5 get an Uzi FREE'!!!
Its difficult to find common ground with people who think they know but really don't know

Good points, all.
Course, flip side of that coin are those open-carry-and-second-amendment-allows-me-to-own-anything-I-want-folks who paint every attempt at gun legislation as an attempt to take their guns away and think all who believe we need to make getting certain weaponry harder are idiots who wouldn't know a magazine from a firing pin.

The two extremes have made so much racket and gotten so much attention in this exercise in lunacy nothing gets done. Congress has obviously failed to act. President is trying to accomplish something. Works for me.

Why should Congress act? The existing gun laws are sufficient to prevent criminals from legally obtaining weapons if they are enforced.

In your opinion, what exactly is the President trying to accomplish and what problem will his stated actions solve?

100% agree. This is the chief problem I have with gun control folks. They can never accept that sometimes the answer is that we need to do nothing. Sometimes the solution has nothing to do with the gun and everything to do with people. Maybe our society has more lowlifes due to broken families and no hope in some of these neighborhoods. Maybe we should actually put people in prison when they have violated gun laws 2 or 3 times. However, some of these lovely folks have committed a litany of gun related crimes and our government keeps letting them out and expecting them to follow the law. Enforcing current laws is a great place to start.

Are they? Does every state have the same laws? Do they all have the same background checks? If not, then it reduces to whichever state has the most lax laws on that - particularly if that state is right next door.

(01-05-2016 03:50 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(01-05-2016 03:35 PM)pharaoh0 Wrote:  100% agree. This is the chief problem I have with gun control folks. They can never accept that sometimes the answer is that we need to do nothing. Sometimes the solution has nothing to do with the gun and everything to do with people. Maybe our society has more lowlifes due to broken families and no hope in some of these neighborhoods. Maybe we should actually put people in prison when they have violated gun laws 2 or 3 times. However, some of these lovely folks have committed a litany of gun related crimes and our government keeps letting them out and expecting them to follow the law. Enforcing current laws is a great place to start.

Are they? Does every state have the same laws? Do they all have the same background checks? If not, then it reduces to whichever state has the most lax laws on that - particularly if that state is right next door.

Every state has background checks. What do you consider a "lax law" anyway...define please.

And, if you are going to propose a new regulation, please use actual (recent) statistics to show what the problem is and why this regulation addresses that issue. And, lastly, it should be done in such a way as to limit the burden on law abiding citizens.

(01-05-2016 03:14 PM)pharaoh0 Wrote:  But it shouldn't actually make a difference. I have a Constitutional right to bear arms.

Hold on there. The purpose of these arms are not to show off or make your ***** look bigger.

"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."

You are given the right to arms in order to form civilian militias that serve alongside our troops if things hit the fan.

What's interesting about this quote is that if you're going to protect your country alongside the Marines, then you will actually WANT certain banned weapons.

Guns are not supposed to be for self defense or hunting. They're supposed to be there for territory defense/assault operations. They are ONLY supposed to be there for end-of-civilization emergencies.

The way the words are the written, it reads as if the Army should be holding weapons training in high school to teach people how to SAFELY fire, clean, and modify/repair weaponry in order to SAFELY and LEGALLY fulfill your 2nd Amendment rights.

(01-05-2016 12:30 PM)ark30inf Wrote:  Oh yes, set precedents for more imperial Presidents in the future.

What goes around comes around.

When the next Republican President starts firing out Executive Orders and bypassing Congress....shut up and take it.

Pretty much.

I don't care for executive orders...but the fact is as long as we have two political parties whose hardliners refuse to even consider compromising on issues, this is what we're going get. It's very rare for this country to have one single political party in control. What usually happens is the party in control irritates Americans, who vote the other side in during midterms, leaving us for 2 years with a President from one side and a House and Senate on the other.

The next time we get a Democratic House with a republican president, the same thing will happen... President will fire out executive orders to curtail congress, republicans will be uneasy but decry it as the Democrats not willing to go along with strong laws, Democrats will cry foul for usurping the constitution.

You want nasty, watch what happens if Trump or Hillary gets elected President and the other side gets put in the house and senate. Obama's record on Executive orders may get passed within a year.

This country is falling off the rails.

(01-05-2016 03:58 PM)oliveandblue Wrote:  

(01-05-2016 03:14 PM)pharaoh0 Wrote:  But it shouldn't actually make a difference. I have a Constitutional right to bear arms.

Hold on there. The purpose of these arms are not to show off or make your ***** look bigger.

"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."

You are given the right to arms in order to form civilian militias that serve alongside our troops if things hit the fan.

What's interesting about this quote is that if you're going to protect your country alongside the Marines, then you will actually WANT certain banned weapons.

Guns are not supposed to be for self defense or hunting. They're supposed to be there for territory defense/assault operations. They are ONLY supposed to be there for end-of-civilization emergencies.

The way the words are the written, it reads as if the Army should be holding weapons training in high school to teach people how to SAFELY fire, clean, and modify/repair weaponry in order to SAFELY and LEGALLY fulfill your 2nd Amendment rights.

Hunting was pretty much banned in the days of the colonies. It was considered tresspassing on the King's land, which was a major no no. The right to bear arms was brought about because Colonists needed a chance to fight and fend for themselves when they were attacked. Back at this point, America was a brand new country with a very small Armed Forces, that didn't have the might to beat the full brunt of the British Empire, if they really wanted to stop it. The Colonists won because the war became too costly for England

The need at that point was to make sure that we could defend ourselves if attacked, so the 2nd Amendment came about. Gun Control wasn't part of it because there were not many of us to begin with.

Now that we have 700 million people or whatever living in the country, a well regulated militia isn't exactly the top priority anymore. We've got one without the entire populace owning a gun.

(01-05-2016 03:58 PM)oliveandblue Wrote:  

(01-05-2016 03:14 PM)pharaoh0 Wrote:  But it shouldn't actually make a difference. I have a Constitutional right to bear arms.

Hold on there. The purpose of these arms are not to show off or make your ***** look bigger.

"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."

You are given the right to arms in order to form civilian militias that serve alongside our troops if things hit the fan.

What's interesting about this quote is that if you're going to protect your country alongside the Marines, then you will actually WANT certain banned weapons.

Guns are not supposed to be for self defense or hunting. They're supposed to be there for territory defense/assault operations. They are ONLY supposed to be there for end-of-civilization emergencies.

The way the words are the written, it reads as if the Army should be holding weapons training in high school to teach people how to SAFELY fire, clean, and modify/repair weaponry in order to SAFELY and LEGALLY fulfill your 2nd Amendment rights.

Seriously....do you even know why the Bill of Rights were passed? You can answer the question of what was meant by the 2nd Amendment if you actually research history and what that Amendment was addressing. Instead you want to argue commas and such.

Regardless, the second amendment is one of the first nine (actually ratified) that are individual rights. This is accepted jurisprudence. This is not a right for the benefit of the State ...it is one to protect the individual. And, it isn't a right just for a particular purpose. I can use my gun to defend myself, to add to my collection, to fire gleefully at paper targets, or to hunt for food.

(01-05-2016 03:58 PM)oliveandblue Wrote:  

(01-05-2016 03:14 PM)pharaoh0 Wrote:  But it shouldn't actually make a difference. I have a Constitutional right to bear arms.

Hold on there. The purpose of these arms are not to show off or make your ***** look bigger.

"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."

You are given the right to arms in order to form civilian militias that serve alongside our troops if things hit the fan.

What's interesting about this quote is that if you're going to protect your country alongside the Marines, then you will actually WANT certain banned weapons.

Guns are not supposed to be for self defense or hunting. They're supposed to be there for territory defense/assault operations. They are ONLY supposed to be there for end-of-civilization emergencies.

The way the words are the written, it reads as if the Army should be holding weapons training in high school to teach people how to SAFELY fire, clean, and modify/repair weaponry in order to SAFELY and LEGALLY fulfill your 2nd Amendment rights.

lulwat? Do you realize that the US government was never intended to have a full time standing army? You really need to read the Federalist Papers and Congressional debates to fully understand the US Constitution. I find it utterly pathetic that people don't understand the context of the words. The general belief of the time was that a standing army during peace time was dangerous. A full-blown Army, when necessarly, would be comprised of Militia men who were regulated by the government.

http://www.constitution.org/mil/militia_debate_1789.htm

(01-05-2016 03:57 PM)pharaoh0 Wrote:  

(01-05-2016 03:50 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(01-05-2016 03:35 PM)pharaoh0 Wrote:  100% agree. This is the chief problem I have with gun control folks. They can never accept that sometimes the answer is that we need to do nothing. Sometimes the solution has nothing to do with the gun and everything to do with people. Maybe our society has more lowlifes due to broken families and no hope in some of these neighborhoods. Maybe we should actually put people in prison when they have violated gun laws 2 or 3 times. However, some of these lovely folks have committed a litany of gun related crimes and our government keeps letting them out and expecting them to follow the law. Enforcing current laws is a great place to start.

Are they? Does every state have the same laws? Do they all have the same background checks? If not, then it reduces to whichever state has the most lax laws on that - particularly if that state is right next door.

Every state has background checks. What do you consider a "lax law" anyway...define please.

And, if you are going to propose a new regulation, please use actual (recent) statistics to show what the problem is and why this regulation addresses that issue. And, lastly, it should be done in such a way as to limit the burden on law abiding citizens.

I don't think all the states are the same though, and I think they should be. You probably need background checks between private citizens too, realistically.

2nd Amendment was based on English law 1689 granting Protestants the right to bear Arms. Primarily to protect themselves from
government/The Crown. Regarding the USA and the "militia" the militia is/was the people and these volunteer groups existed well
prior to the war. There was not a professional army.

(01-05-2016 04:34 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(01-05-2016 03:57 PM)pharaoh0 Wrote:  

(01-05-2016 03:50 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(01-05-2016 03:35 PM)pharaoh0 Wrote:  100% agree. This is the chief problem I have with gun control folks. They can never accept that sometimes the answer is that we need to do nothing. Sometimes the solution has nothing to do with the gun and everything to do with people. Maybe our society has more lowlifes due to broken families and no hope in some of these neighborhoods. Maybe we should actually put people in prison when they have violated gun laws 2 or 3 times. However, some of these lovely folks have committed a litany of gun related crimes and our government keeps letting them out and expecting them to follow the law. Enforcing current laws is a great place to start.

Are they? Does every state have the same laws? Do they all have the same background checks? If not, then it reduces to whichever state has the most lax laws on that - particularly if that state is right next door.

Every state has background checks. What do you consider a "lax law" anyway...define please.

And, if you are going to propose a new regulation, please use actual (recent) statistics to show what the problem is and why this regulation addresses that issue. And, lastly, it should be done in such a way as to limit the burden on law abiding citizens.

I don't think all the states are the same though, and I think they should be. You probably need background checks between private citizens too, realistically.

Brady Bill is federal. If you go to a licensed dealer then a background check is ran. The bold part is crazy. No way to manage or enforce that. Obama wants to change or expand the definition of a licensed dealer.