• You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will see less advertisements, have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our community today!

    If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.

Bad News for Gun Lovers

Buellxb Forum

Help Support Buellxb Forum:

Mason,
99% of hand guns and nearly the same for assault based rifles are instruments of death??? That's what they are made for. To kill other people.
I myself have lots if guns. i am an avid hunter and am in no fear of losing my guns, turn the fox down a bit and listen to some cspan. No one is taking our guns, no one has said they are. Direct quote from Obama was that he wanted mental health as easy to get as a gun. Not too abstract of a thought??? Not once did he say he would barge into our homes to take our guns. It's impossible, we all know it.
The media and far left are goin crazy with the gun scare right now. However, logic will take hold in a bit and things will calm down.
 
Hah, just got a line on about 20k rounds of .223 ammo. A buddy of mine I used to work with said he had all of the stuff he bought back in 2007, roughly 40k rounds and he said he'd sell 1/2 of it to me.

WIN!
 
We all got scared last time Obama took office and gun laws did nothing but get better. Gun meme just for fun.
1106_20121220092718_L.jpg
 
That poster is pretty funny, however, it would be the person pushing the toast into the toaster that toast toast :)
 
99% of hand guns and nearly the same for assault based rifles are instruments of death??? That's what they are made for. To kill other people.
Click to expand...

Were the question marks placed with intent or was that a statement?

Sure, every handgun or semi-auto rifle ever produced has the capacity to end life. So does every knife, be it a fixed blade tactical weapon or a 36 feature swiss army. To say that all ARs and handguns are produced with the singular purpose of ending life, human or otherwise, is dreadfully limiting to say the least.
 
Furthermore, I'm not worried one bit about anyone taking the guns I already own. I'm most worried about my options for future purchases being woefully limited.
 
I agree on most of the comments being made on here, and I want you to know that I respect you all. However, there are several assumptions made on here that are woefully inaccurate.

Growing up, my father was a registered Federal Firearms License (FFL) holder, and only let it expire recently due to the BATF anal exam he had to endure while having it. He is also a custom gunsmith, and also growing up, I attended a gun show nearly 20 weekends out of the year. Through those events, I was privileged enough to meet several nice people to include some celebrities. With the passage of the Brady Bill in 1993, the National Instant Check System (NICS) was established. Now, in order for a person to buy from a dealer, whom are the majority of the people who are exhibitors at these shows, the person must be cleared through the NICS system AND wait the requisite time dictated by the Brady Bill or local statute, whichever is greater.

In order for an individual to sell to another individual, there is little regulation for this since there would be little to no way to police it. This is how a buddy can sell a hunting rifle, pistol, shotgun... to their neighbor, friend, or whomever. There is no way to stop people from buying on what is called a "straw sale". This is where an honest person clears the checks with the knowledge they are going to sell the firearm they just bought to someone that would not pass the background check. The people that are caught doing this are committing a Federal felony. There will always be dishonest people, it is how society, not the law, deals with it that is the difference. With many criminals becoming celebrities, they consider this a reward since they go from nobodies to infamy in a muzzle flash.

To say that there is no need to own a firearm with an extended magazine is the same as saying that there is no reason to own a motorcycle with more than 25 horsepower. That vehicle will still achieve the desired result, getting you from one place to another, but will likely not allow the rider to exceed the speed limit on the open road. Many people shoot for sport, i.e. clay pigeons/skeet, target shooting, etc. This is their hobby. Granted, a single shot will allow you to shoot the skeet or targets, it is not as much of a sport. The same can be said of the machines we ride and tinker with. There is no reason I need more than 82 HP (Dynoed 3 weeks after I bought my XB12STT showroom new) for my bike. It will allow me to go fast enough to kill myself and others. It is another hobby that, if performed improperly, will and has created its own culture of outlaws.

As far as the fully automatic firearms, another user mentioned that there is a lot of paperwork required to own one, and that is 100% correct. However, most people will never be eligible to own a Class III FFL (Automatic firearm license). There is a tremendous amount of background checking, expense, time, and effort that goes in to being eligible. The requirements for the permit also dictate how the firearm(s) will be housed, stored, and used. Then it is up to the issuing agency's discretion whether to issue that license. IF a person is able to get the permit, then there is the expense of buying one of these firearms. With there being as few available to private citizens as there are, and an even smaller clientele available to buy them legally, the cost is prohibitive. Further, if one of these is ever stolen, the Class III is revoked for ALL eligible firearms, and will rarely be re-issued.

Sorry for my rant, but I wanted to impart some education for those who might be curious.
 
Wow loving this thread guys, knowledgable guys on here! Currently looking at getting my first AR-15 soon, all this talk lately is making me worried I won't be able to down the road!
 
As far as the fully automatic firearms, another user mentioned that there is a lot of paperwork required to own one, and that is 100% correct. However, most people will never be eligible to own a Class III FFL (Automatic firearm license). There is a tremendous amount of background checking, expense, time, and effort that goes in to being eligible. The requirements for the permit also dictate how the firearm(s) will be housed, stored, and used. Then it is up to the issuing agency's discretion whether to issue that license. IF a person is able to get the permit, then there is the expense of buying one of these firearms. With there being as few available to private citizens as there are, and an even smaller clientele available to buy them legally, the cost is prohibitive. Further, if one of these is ever stolen, the Class III is revoked for ALL eligible firearms, and will rarely be re-issued.
Click to expand...

While this is true, there is a bit more to it than that. It gets even grayer than this.

Machine guns made prior to 1986 can be owned by anyone, per federal law, that is not a felon, is a U.S. citizen, doesn't have a history of mental illness, etc. Now, some state laws prevent it, so, your mileage may vary. Now, there is a federal tax stamp you will need for ownership. Your state may have one as well. Federal is a one time fee of $500, this accompanies tons of paperwork. Your class III FFL will be able to assist you. Now, with that, gun cost of full auto made prior to 1986... is a bit... How do you say, high as Giraffe p$$y. Think upwards of $20,000 for a Thompson. Guns made after May something of 1986, and prior to something something of IIRC 94, Class III FFLs can have, but Joe Citizen cannot legally buy. And finally, guns made after that arbitrary date 94??, Class IIIs can have IF they validate having them. IE LEO demo or such.

NOTE: information is for reference only, check your laws before you buy, attempt to buy, say I read it on the internet, it must be true. Laws change constantly, and I've not researched them in YEEEEAAAAAAAARRS. In fact, it was a $200 federal tax stamp when I bought a class III years ago.
 
Andrew Cuomo has mentioned confiscation of certain high power rifles. Also talks of a posable buy back program for semi automatic weapons.Cuomo's stance

Now is there need for new gun laws ? I think so I cases of private sales . But to treat every gun owner like a lunatic or mass murderer , because several nut jobs have went on shooting sprees? A spokesman for the NRA says we need a gaurs at every school is the answer. I think we can't. Afford that when school budgets are already laying off teachers. And I hate the thought of living in fear that someone's gonna bust into a school, theater, mall wherever.

I think you should be required to take a gun safety class , pass a background check and maybe put semi auto on a pistol style permit. I own two ar-15's so I no way am I against assault rifles , they may be a bit over kill and not a necasity . But in the right hands there just a gun. 99.9 % of gun owners use them properly and are no threat to anyone.

My only question would be how can we get the .01% out of the hands of the outlaws. Or crack down on illeagal firearms that have slid into the wrong hands?
 
My only question would be how can we get the .01% out of the hands of the outlaws. Or crack down on illeagal firearms that have slid into the wrong hands?
Click to expand...

When a criminal breaks the law, stop slapping them on the wrist and make them do ALL of their fucking time.

In response to some of the questions and stances on this matter:

1) There is no such thing as the gun show loophole. The law in some states allows for private sale of firearms to to other residents of the same state. (In Pa, this is ok for long guns but hand guns must go through a dealer)

2) Magazine restrictions are just plain silly. With a little practice, just about anyone could learn to swap mags in 1-2 seconds and still be selecting/engaging targets without missing a beat. It would be no different than limiting the fuel capacity on your bike to cut down on emissions.....

3) More lives are saved every day by guns than are taken. We seldom hear about this because the media refuses to acknowledge guns are not evil.

4) When the US Constitution was written, the "People" had the same exact weapons as the government. Our founding fathers saw fit to add gun ownership to prevent a tyrannical government, our own if need be. The US Constitution is NOT a living document. If it were, it would be way, way easier to change it than 2/3 of both houses AND Ratification by the States. The Bill of Rights is not negotiable, EVER!!!!!! If the government can repeal the 2nd Amendment, they certainly can declare Odin as the one true God and order all citizens to attend organized worship once per week. If you call bullshit on the forced worship of the Norse God, then you must call bullshit when the politicians shit on the RKBA.

5) Last figures I saw the ATF/FBI/other alphabet soup agencies estimate there are 310,000,000 Firearms in civilian possession (current craze not included). That leaves an average of 309,999,600 guns that weren't used in a crime today.

6) If banning something had an impact on crime, why not just ban violence? or criminals? The anti-gun folks will say that "gun" deaths dropped after the ban went into effect. I can't deny those figures... But, once again, they only give half of the truth. The number of people killed didn't change, only the tool used to kill them changed.

7) Joe Biden was quoted yesterday as saying "If just one life is saved by this Bill, it is worth it." A logical person would also agree the inverse is also true. "If just one life is saved by a firearm, it is worth it." If you can't agree to that, then you are a hypocrite with an agenda.

Some other tidbits of information
• One person is killed every half-hour due to drunk driving
• Each year approximately 16,000 are killed in alcohol related crashes
• Alcohol is a factor in almost half of all traffic fatalities
• Every other minute a person is seriously injured in an alcohol related crash

Yet no one wants to ban cars or booze or how many beers/cars you can own. There is no limit on how fast the cars can go and these number go up when you add the non-drug/alcohol related deaths.

3497 People were killed on 9/11 by Religious fanatics in a single day with airplanes yet no one wants to ban religion, not even certain "types" of religion or airplanes.

No matter how irresponsible the users are, it would be silly to punish the people who use these items responsibly. Why don't we start holding people accountable for the evil they do??? Why is there no one shouting from the roof tops for a change in Mental Healthcare Practices?

Note: I apologize in advance for any spelling/grammar errors, I'm about 8 beers into my "The world's going to end and I don't want to run out of beer" stash.
 
What happened to voting? I know nothing about anything, but ive seen only pro gun propaganda all over facebook the internet, tv and friends. Ive read one article about one reporter (previously posted) against guns, and hes not even american. What happened to choice? We could really use an apocolypse right about now...
 
On a high note, I went Christmas shopping tonight and I learned that here in Michigan we no longer need to go to the cop shop to get purchase permits to buy handguns. Its all done at the store now. I had to test it out and walked out of Gander Mountain with this pretty little lady [up].
B274A7DD-5752-4A5D-9717-239AC2271781-822-000001C4D4238317.jpg
 
from an interview with Tim Kennedy, former Green Beret and current Strikeforce (soon to be UFC) fighter


Stephie Daniels: I know you proudly defend your right to carry a firearm, so is it disconcerting for you to see all the gun control talk flying around in the wake of the Sandy Hook tragedy?

Tim Kennedy: It's sad. It's scary. I am a believer that the constitution kind of does two things. It ensures your individual liberties, but more importantly, with those liberties, come individual responsibilities, and that's the difference between my perspective, and evidently everyone else's in Washington. With individual responsibilities, we take care of our own, we take care of our families. I'm gonna work, so I can provide for my family. I don't want the government to give me anything.

The same token goes for the protection of my family. It's my responsibility to ensure that they're safe. If the government thinks that they're going to step in between what I would do to protect my family, uh, that makes me really not happy. I don't know what that's gonna look like once they get done with their commissions and task forces about assault rifle bans, but crazy guys and criminals will always get their hands on what they need to do evil. The only thing that will come out of it, is that they're going to prevent the good people from being able to protect ourselves and our families.

If some douche bag walks through my front door, and is like, 'I'm gonna rape your wife and kill your family', and I don't have a method to protect them, because the government says I can't, that will be the realization of my worst nightmare. I'm gonna take care of my family. Period. I don't care what the government says. I don't care what laws they pass. My family will be safe.

You know, every movie theater that I'm ever at, every school that I'm ever at, everyone there is safe. My brother-in-law is the same way. Everywhere he goes, everyone is safe. Whether we're in a movie theater, a mall, or at Walmart, people are safe, because we're there and have the method to protect the people that are near us. It's scary to me that they want to take that right away.

You're supposed to be able to prove that you're psychologically sound before you can get a gun. This guy in Sandy Hook, that did all this awful, terrible stuff, he was mentally unstable, and he didn't use the guns that he had. Any laws that they're going to pass right now about limiting the ability to buy an assault rifle wouldn't have even affected him, because he got the guns illegally. They weren't even his. The guy in Aurora was a psycho, too. Unfortunately, criminals break the law. The preponderance of power is supposed to be in the people's hands, not the other way around.



[up]
 
Tim Kennedy: It's sad. It's scary. I am a believer that the constitution kind of does two things. It ensures your individual liberties, but more importantly, with those liberties, come individual responsibilities, and that's the difference between my perspective, and evidently everyone else's in Washington. With individual responsibilities, we take care of our own, we take care of our families. I'm gonna work, so I can provide for my family. I don't want the government to give me anything.
.............
.............
..............
The preponderance of power is supposed to be in the people's hands, not the other way around.
Click to expand...

This is exactly what reason, common sense and an intelligent opinion on the subject sounds like. Big [up] to the guy.

I whole heatedly think that there should be THOROUGH background and mental wellness checks for ANYONE who's buying a gun of any sort. They are potentially a VERY dangerous item and in the wrong hands they have the ability to do a great amount of evil. However, in responsible hands they have the ability to protect the innocent from harm and keep criminal activity in check. The OVERWHELMING majority of the time, this is exactly what their used for. I don't believe that ANY type of gun should be restricted from honest, responsible Americans aside from weapons of war (RPG's and the like). I read a quote on one site that said "cops don't prevent crime, they simply clean up the mess." 1 responsible gun owner on site is worth as much as 1000 swat teams that get there in 10-15min.

I was surprised at how quickly and easily I was able to walk out with a 9mm I recently bought. It literally took less time than buying a cheeseburger from McDonalds. If I would have had to wait a day or 2 for a background check, or even had to pay a small fee for a thorough check, I would not have objected to that in the slightest. I understand the responsibility of gun ownership and I support measures to ensure that stable, responsible people are the ones who get to own one.

One last thought thought; If all the laws and bans that are being discussed in Washington right now had been passed during Obama's 1st term and were fully effective that Fri, it wouldn't have saved a single kids life. That 20yr old nut job (too young to legally own a handgun) would have still had 2 (stolen) pistols. He would have still shot his poor mother in her sleep and drove to that school and committed one of the absolute worst travesties I, as a father of a 7yr old and a 4 yr old, can even begin to imagine. [sad] If you're going to go after the problem go straight to the problem and not some political tangent that wouldn't, and won't, change a thing. Imagine the difference a few armed faculty members would have made. Imagine if that principal was allowed to carry a concealed weapon. [mad]

**steps down off of soapbox**
 
I read a quote on one site that said "cops don't prevent crime, they simply clean up the mess." 1 responsible gun owner on site is worth as much as 1000 swat teams that get there in 10-15min.
Click to expand...
Actually, the police have no requirement what so ever to prevent crime. It's been settled at many state courts, appalete courts, and even the SCOTUS

In its landmark decision of DeShaney v. Winnebago County Department of Social Services,” Stevens writes, “the U.S. Supreme Court declared that the Constitution does not impose a duty on the state and local governments to protect the citizens from criminal harm.”
Click to expand...

Lynch v. N.C. Dept. of Justice

Warren v. District of Columbia

Riss v. New York This one is very disturbing. The City Of New York denied having any duty to protect Riss from her exhusband even though she had a restraning order against him. The city argued she was responsable for her own safety, at the same time, they denied her a carry permit. So, ironically, we have no requirement to defend you, even tho a attacker, with a restraining order has vilolated such order several times, you are reponsable for defending you, however, you are not allowed to have the means to defend yourself. Then, Riss was stabbed to death by her exhusband.
 

Latest posts

Back
Top