Biden Seeks Assault Weapons Ban and Background Checks

[Uncle Nicky]

22 minutes ago, Robhuntandfish said:

again we agree on everything here.  and you actually proved my point that they arent comng here for freedom of persicusion.  

Not the current crop storming the border. They're just looking for handouts, by & large. Yes, they've been coached to use the word asylum, and I am sure they understand under the new presidency they'll get everything they hope for, & more. The world is laughing at our weakness right now.

But talk to anyone who escaped persecution, and came here legally (I am thinking soviet Russia, China, Africa, Poland, Cuba, Cambodia, Vietnam). They understand what they left, and why they came here. Most have no desire to ever go back, unless the government they ran from can be changed. And they know that will never happen.

Edited March 25, 2021 by Uncle Nicky

[Steuben Jerry]

21 minutes ago, Robhuntandfish said:

So i guess my question is what is the line?  Claymores? Miniguns? MOABS? AR's? single shots? Or just anything we can buy or want?  Society will never allow "unfettered" 

I agree that the line is a tough one as far as uninfringed goes. And while I would have to agree that bazookas should probably not be allowed, I've come to think that I just don't want the line to slip any more than it already has.

BTW, A bazooka would be cool to play with! 

[Robhuntandfish]

Just now, Steuben Jerry said:

I agree that the line is a tough one as far as uninfringed goes. And while I would have to agree that bazookas should probably not be allowed, I've come to think that I just don't want the line to slip any more than it already has.

BTW, A bazooka would be cool to play with! 

I saw these places out west where you can go for the day and shoot a bunch of autos etc. That would be fun. Bazookas too

 

[Steuben Jerry]

3 minutes ago, Robhuntandfish said:

I saw these places out west where you can go for the day and shoot a bunch of autos etc. That would be fun. Bazookas too

 

Great opportunity for an HNY GTG!

[Grouse]

When the government threatens to remove rights from the majority of the people, against their will or consent, because a minuscule minority has abused that right, you have tyranny.

AR type rifles are currently the most popular style of rifle in American common usage.  Less then 1% of them are ever used in any crime by responsible citizens.  "In common usage" has been set down in judicial precedent as the term that defines what cannot be restricted by law.

We have a Bill of Rights, not a Bill of Needs.  People that fear black rifles simply do not understand the issue and have been conditioned to feel the government will keep them safe.  In reality, it can't and is not able to prove banning black rifles will reduce crime, or not increase crime.  Some people are willing to give up some freedom believing it buys them security.  It doesn't.  

We need to draw a line at how much freedom we want to give up.

 

Edited March 25, 2021 by Grouse

[phantom]

1 hour ago, Robhuntandfish said:

A single shot turkey gun? Over a 30 round semi?   Ok.... Yes we def disagree. 

The victims are not going to have time to no how many bullets is in the gun once the shooting starts you have fog of war panic . While the criminal can fire and reload fire and reload . If nobody has a gun to return fire its not going to make much difference its not like these guys go and shoot up navy seals .

These are just your average person many are old or women kids they kill .

By the time they figure out what gun and who exactly is shooting the shooter could have taken out 10 or more people easily does not  take more then a few seconds or less to reload even a double or single shot gun .      Besides that the shooter will just plan it a little differently if he wants to kill more with less  rapid fire . Maybe snip from a distance in a hidden location you can't stop what you can't see .  

 

[Robhuntandfish]

12 minutes ago, Grouse said:

When the government threatens to remove rights from the majority of the people, against their will or consent, because a minuscule minority has abused that right, you have tyranny.

AR type rifles are currently the most popular style of rifle in American common usage.  Less then 1% of them are ever used in any crime by responsible citizens.  "In common usage" has been set down in judicial precedent as the term that defines what cannot be restricted by law.

We have a Bill of Rights, not a Bill of Needs.  People that fear black rifles simply do not understand the issue and have been conditioned to feel the government will keep them safe.  In reality, it can't and is not able to prove banning black rifles will reduce crime, or not increase crime.  Some people are willing to give up some freedom believing it buys them security.  It doesn't.  

We need to draw a line at how much freedom we want to give up.

 

Just remember that when a majority of people now want them banned the minority will be overruled. And let's face it we are becoming the minority.  Those applications also work against us. When you say "some" and it is actually "most" it IS now the will of the people.  And when you say "we" and that means 15% of the population.  "We" are no longer the loudest voice.  

To ignore this is again a blind spot. 

And disclaimer.... I usually vote libratarian or conservative. I just see that others have opinions not in my echo chamber.  

[Grouse]

A pump action shotgun with an 8 round tubular magazine is a formidable weapon and can be reloaded quickly.  They will be banned soon if the line isn't drawn against this tyranny now.  And soon after, a pump holding 5 or more rounds will be banned.

[Grouse]

2 minutes ago, Robhuntandfish said:

Just remember that when a majority of people now want them banned the minority will be overruled. And let's face it we are becoming the minority.  Those applications also work against us. When you say "some" and it is actually "most" it IS now the will of the people.  And when you say "we" and that means 15% of the population.  "We" are no longer the loudest voice.  

To ignore this is again a blind spot. 

And disclaimer.... I usually vote libratarian or conservative. I just see that others have opinions not in my echo chamber.  

A majority cannot vote to remove an inalienable right.  If it can, we have tyranny.

BTW, the government isn't putting this up for a vote, so assuming the majority would vote to ban is just an assumption.

Edited March 25, 2021 by Grouse

[Steve D]

2 hours ago, Robhuntandfish said:

We all think its a slippery slope if assault rifles are taken away. Whether anyone can face it or not they are designed to be military weapons and are not needed for hunting of any sort, nor self defense in  a reasonable day.  Yes god forbid i said it. Just most wont admit it.  For those that own an AR - other than some target plinking and the cool factor they arent anything else.

The Ar is and can be a proficient hunting rifle. It is used and is the weapon of choice for a ton of varmint, hog, and big game hunters across the country. The ability to change uppers in order to change calibers makes it very versatile. It is not just a spray and pray type of firepower as many portray it.

A semi-auto is the choice of many varmint and hog hunters for a quick follow up shot. The biggest issue I have with the whole thing is how they "define" assault weapons vs hunting rifles..

Putting restrictions on detachable magazines, pistol grips, etc. does nothing to prevent the guns ability to shoot a number of rounds quickly as with any semi-auto.

One perfect example is the ruger mini 14. It can be had in .223/.556 , functions the same and has the same capabilities as a "ar-15" without the scary features. One could own one of them and have the same amount of firepower as they the would with a "scary ar" and it is not considered an assault rifle. 

 

[Splitear]

28 minutes ago, phantom said:

The victims are not going to have time to no how many bullets is in the gun once the shooting starts you have fog of war panic . While the criminal can fire and reload fire and reload . If nobody has a gun to return fire its not going to make much difference its not like these guys go and shoot up navy seals .

These are just your average person many are old or women kids they kill .

By the time they figure out what gun and who exactly is shooting the shooter could have taken out 10 or more people easily does not  take more then a few seconds or less to reload even a double or single shot gun .      Besides that the shooter will just plan it a little differently if he wants to kill more with less  rapid fire . Maybe snip from a distance in a hidden location you can't stop what you can't see .  

 

Just to play devil's advocate, and please understand, I am really torn about the idea of carrying. The point that comes to my mind is: 

If a "bad guy" enters an establishment with a firearm intending to kill/injure, and we have lets say 6 people in said establishment who are carrying, and intend to stop said "bad guy". These folks who are looking to stop the shooting are looking for an individual with a gun, not realizing that there are 6x as many "good guys" with weapons drawn, as there is the one "bad guy". Lets say there is a friendly fire incident, one of the good guys come around a corner, sees another person with a gun, and they fire. Additionally, when the police show up, they are looking for someone with a gun, if they come around a corner and someone has a gun, is it justifiable to use lethal force, even if that person is a "good guy". This is just a scenario that plays out when I think about this.

Now, I'm not trained in concealed carry, so there may be intensive training in recognizing a threat that covers this. I'm not looking for an argument here, not at all. If someone can kind of guide my thinking, I would really appreciate the insight. Honestly, thoughts like this, are just one of the reasons that I doubt I will ever CC. 

I'm not saying that the other side of that coin "a good guy with a gun could have stopped this" isn't valid, I totally see that too. Again, not saying any side is wrong.

Edited March 25, 2021 by Splitear

[airedale]

22 minutes ago, Grouse said:

AR type rifles are currently the most popular style of rifle in American common usage.  Less then 1% of them are ever used in any crime by responsible citizens.

And in a nutshell there is the problem, there is nothing that pisses someone off more than being punished for something that they had absolutely nothing to do with.

The reality is that vast majority of shootings occur with handguns and the the anti gunners know this fact well and keep them on the back burner. They figure the ARs are an easier target to get banned or controlled with the public because of their menacing look. Have no fear they will go after the handguns shortly if the Democrats get their way knocking off the ARs.

Al

[Robhuntandfish]

11 minutes ago, airedale said:

And in a nutshell there is the problem, there is nothing that pisses someone off more than being punished for something that they had absolutely nothing to do with.

The reality is that vast majority of shootings occur with handguns and the the anti gunners know this fact well and keep them on the back burner. They figure the ARs are an easier target to get banned or controlled with the public because of their menacing look. Have no fear they will go after the handguns shortly if the Democrats get their way knocking off the ARs.

Al

they keep handguns on the back burner??  Its prob the most resticted firearm other than full auto 

[Nomad]

Not much time , I’m going shooting , couple random thoughts. ARs are the low hanging fruit, as mentioned above ,handguns proved to difficult for the antis as a starting point , but it’s in theme game .

The poster who said that and most of these shootings could be done with a shotgun, is correct , one of the beauty’s  of the shotgun ,is you never have to run it dry . In an hour I’ll be on my range ,one of the drills I’ll practice is this . 5 rounds 00 buck in the gun 5 on the stock, fire 2 rounds then while moving to next position load two from stock , fire 3, while moving again load 3 from the stock. I also have shell holders I can put on my belt , to,keep it going if I choose , but you get the point .

I watched the 3 hour live video of that shooting , guy dropped two in the parking lot, so plenty of time to top off a shotgun moving to the store where he shot another just inside the door and so on . A SG might not be my first choice ( theory here only ) but it would be quite effective as well .

[Robhuntandfish]

14 minutes ago, Steve D said:

The Ar is and can be a proficient hunting rifle. It is used and is the weapon of choice for a ton of varmint, hog, and big game hunters across the country. The ability to change uppers in order to change calibers makes it very versatile. It is not just a spray and pray type of firepower as many portray it.

A semi-auto is the choice of many varmint and hog hunters for a quick follow up shot. The biggest issue I have with the whole thing is how they "define" assault weapons vs hunting rifles..

Putting restrictions on detachable magazines, pistol grips, etc. does nothing to prevent the guns ability to shoot a number of rounds quickly as with any semi-auto.

One perfect example is the ruger mini 14. It can be had in .223/.556 , functions the same and has the same capabilities as a "ar-15" without the scary features. One could own one of them and have the same amount of firepower as they the would with a "scary ar" and it is not considered an assault rifle. 

 

i think the language there is "can be".  But isnt necessary or meant for that application.  They were created as weapons of war.  Can they be used for hunting .. sure.  But most people dont see why it is needed or see it as a hunting weapon.  And it is hard to argue at times. 

[Splitear]

2 minutes ago, Robhuntandfish said:

i think the language there is "can be".  But isnt necessary or meant for that application.  They were created as weapons of war.  Can they be used for hunting .. sure.  But most people dont see why it is needed or see it as a hunting weapon.  And it is hard to argue at times. 

I'll echo this. I'm not a fan of AR or military style guns, but that's a personal choice. However, most of the people I know who have them, and this is the feeling I get when they tell me about them, is that they are more of a "toy" than a "tool". I would compare it to someone having a muscle car in their garage that they drive on the weekends. Sure it's a car, but it's a toy to them. Again, this is just the feeling I get when I talk to the few guys I know who enjoy their "black guns". 

[Robhuntandfish]

31 minutes ago, Grouse said:

A majority cannot vote to remove an inalienable right.  If it can, we have tyranny.

BTW, the government isn't putting this up for a vote, so assuming the majority would vote to ban is just an assumption.

The majority puts those in office that do.  

[Nomad]

Splitear, valid point and one Ive pondered often . NYPD has or had “ color of the day “ to keep their undercover guys from taking friendly fire .

Myself, my first duty is to my family and I, that means beating feet if possible , then cover / concealment if escape is not possible . As far as engaging the bad guy, I guess I’d try to keep my gun hidden for the most part then shoot the guy with the long gun ..... or the guy shooting unarmed folks ,woman, kids, store workers ,I’d take those as a clue as to who the bad guy is .

If I see another old,fat,white guy with a gun ,I’d know the shooter was not him 

Edited March 25, 2021 by Nomad

[Steve D]

20 minutes ago, Robhuntandfish said:

i think the language there is "can be".  But isnt necessary or meant for that application.  They were created as weapons of war.  Can they be used for hunting .. sure.  But most people dont see why it is needed or see it as a hunting weapon. 

I agree that a lot of people don't or wouldn't see why one would be needed but the fact remains they are one of the most popular choices for a lot of hunters. As long as they are being used for legal purposes what is the problem.

 The problem is created when they are used for illegal uses which can be said for any firearm.

[Grouse]

33 minutes ago, Robhuntandfish said:

they keep handguns on the back burner??  Its prob the most resticted firearm other than full auto 

They tried to ban them years ago and ran against too much public opposition.  They plan to try again when the public will support it.  People are being conditioned by propaganda to think that will make them safer.  I guess they don't understand black markets and the violence that comes with them, drug war and prohibition not withstanding.

[ApexerER]

1 hour ago, Robhuntandfish said:

8I saw these places out west where you can go for the day and shoot a bunch of autos etc. That would be fun. Bazookas too

 

Rob, i totally understand what you are saying about the AR. In my mind the problem lies with people that don't own guns and hence don't know any better thinking the AR is a weapon of war. The media portrays it like it is a machine gun. Instead of what it actually is in most of our minds which is a terrific platform to build a rifle for any hunting or shooting you want to do.  Long range, short range etc.  My go too deer rifle is a Browning BAR in .308. IMO it is a beautiful gun that i am trying to keep beautiful. It is a semi auto with a detachable magazine. I also have a NY compliant AR 10 .308 with some 5 round magazines. I would love too carry that AR in the nasty weather or when we are doing deer drives and keep my beautiful Browning beautiful. Both rifles will do the exact same thing, they even have the same scopes on them. I don't carry the AR 10 because with the stupid stock i have to have on it. It isn't very comfortable to carry and has become primarily a bench gun. What is going to happen when people realize the only difference between a hunting rifle and a AR is the way they look? Why is my little Ruger 10/22 perfectly ok with the wooden stock but not ok with a pistol grip stock? It is the same exact firearm. That is why i am not ok at all with them limiting the AR or any assault rifle. It is an uneducated decision by people that don't know anything about firearms. IMO AR's are used more in shootings because it is the most popular gun in America. There are millions and millions of them. The whole thing is a slippery slope that i don't want to go down. Now what happens if you do educate these people and they realize that say the Ruger 10/22 is the same gun whether it has an evil looking plastic stock or a traditional wooden one?  At what point do they realize any firearm can kill unarmed people quite easily???

[Grouse]

27 minutes ago, Robhuntandfish said:

The majority puts those in office that do.  

Sure, but they don't get the power to take away inalienable rights when they're sworn in.

[Steve D]

41 minutes ago, Splitear said:

Now, I'm not trained in concealed carry, so there may be intensive training in recognizing a threat that covers this. I'm not looking for an argument here, not at all. If someone can kind of guide my thinking, I would really appreciate the insight. Honestly, thoughts like this, are just one of the reasons that I doubt I will ever CC. 

Conceal carry is a choice everyone needs to make. There are far to many scenarios for one to decide when and where to carry. I carry a lot simply for the fact the world is so unstable and one never knows when they might have to defend themselves from all the crazy situations than can develop.

 The last thing I want to do is shoot someone. On the other hand if some nut bag walks into Walmart or some other place and decides to start taking lives I would like to be somewhat prepared to defend myself and my loved ones. There can't be anything worse than not being able to defend yourself and being at the mercy of some crazy on a rampage.

[Grouse]

4 minutes ago, ApexerER said:

Now what happens if you do educate these people and they realize that say the Ruger 10/22 is the same gun whether it has an evil looking plastic stock or a traditional wooden one?  At what point do they realize any firearm can kill unarmed people quite easily???

What happens?  They ban them too.

[Steuben Jerry]

50 minutes ago, Robhuntandfish said:

they keep handguns on the back burner??  Its prob the most resticted firearm other than full auto 

And they're not done with their wish list of restrictions yet.