So how about banning all semi-automatic weapons?

[Doer]

I do not think I can buy a class 3 weapon of any description where I live, and I live in the lower 48+1. So I repeat my challenge. Back up the "not hard" part, with me as example. Show me how. If you cannot, I expect you to retract. cn

But, can't you get the stamp, buy the Machinengewehr 42 (my fav), own it, but not take delivery? The Feds don't care. It is the State that won't allow you possession? Ownership and storage is another matter, right? So, not so technical to own one in North Carolina, Louisiana, etc. It takes 6 months or more, but I didn't think they were withholding the stamp. Prohibition, at the State level? Sure.

IAC, very expensive.

But, things change. They could be in a sort of Administrative Pause. Something is going down considering all the ammo buy out going on. Have you checked the price/availability of 9mm ball lately?

Just wondering....if we find ourselves in times of troubles, what would be the best State to try to make it to?

 

[cannabineer]

I don't think a retraction is in order, rather it just looks like you can only buy six shooter in your state then. Very simple legislation to complete but I am sorry that your state does not allow class 3 maybe you could buy them out of state (all hypothetical ofcourse). I interpreted this whole thread as a Fed stance on the subject, that is only thing pertinant because Fed law is all that will be affected by the proposed ban. Now states may jump in like yours and try to go that extra step as yours did, but the bill will be a Fed Law. My state doesn't allow mmj but yours may and Fed Law stays the same.

Then your basic premise fails. cn

 

[cannabineer]

But, can't you get the stamp, buy the Machinengewehr 42 (my fav), own it, but not take delivery? The Feds don't care. It is the State that won't allow you possession? Ownership and storage is another matter, right? So, not so technical to own one in North Carolina, Louisiana, etc. It takes 6 months or more, but I didn't think they were withholding the stamp. Prohibition, at the State level? Sure.

IAC, very expensive.

But, things change. They could be in a sort of Administrative Pause. Something is going down considering all the ammo buy out going on. Have you checked the price/availability of 9mm ball lately?

Just wondering....if we find ourselves in times of troubles, what would be the best State to try to make it to?

A vote for "delirium" ... cn

 

[rooky1985]

But, can't you get the stamp, buy the Machinengewehr 42 (my fav), own it, but not take delivery? The Feds don't care. It is the State that won't allow you possession? Ownership and storage is another matter, right? So, not so technical to own one in North Carolina, Louisiana, etc. It takes 6 months or more, but I didn't think they were withholding the stamp. Prohibition, at the State level? Sure.

IAC, very expensive.

But, things change. They could be in a sort of Administrative Pause. Something is going down considering all the ammo buy out going on. Have you checked the price/availability of 9mm ball lately?

Just wondering....if we find ourselves in times of troubles, what would be the best State to try to make it to?

9mm, .223, .556, .308, are all going crazy high as well as mags over ten rounds. I like right where I'm at (very rural area) and I'm one of those people who has just accumulated a ton of ammo over the years. I have rounds stashed everywhere LOL, I went on a 9mm buying frenzy 6 years ago when I picked up a couple of beretta matte 92 FS, maybe ran 3 mags through each and havn't moved since.

 

[rooky1985]

Then your basic premise fails. cn

How is that? I'm implying to simply make them harder to obtain rather than a full on ban. I think we are saying the same thing just interpreting each other differently.

 

[cannabineer]

How is that? I'm implying to simply make them harder to obtain rather than a full on ban. I think we are saying the same thing just interpreting each other differently.

Because you said (and didn't provide for exceptions) that the class 3 is not hard to obtain. While it could be argued that "impossible" is a sort of "not hard" that is not the way we usually use the term. (To disprove that, walk me through the process. I am especially interested in circumnavigating "assault weapon" strictures.)
And what is harder than "impossible"? Unless your plan provides a way to gain amnesty from restrictive state laws, it does me no good whatsoever, and I reject it as a camouflaged "guns ewww" sentiment. cn

 

[rooky1985]

Because you said (and didn't provide for exceptions) that the class 3 is not hard to obtain. While it could be argued that "impossible" is a sort of "not hard" that is not the way we usually use the term. (To disprove that, walk me through the process. I am especially interested in circumnavigating "assault weapon" strictures.)
And what is harder than "impossible"? Unless your plan provides a way to gain amnesty from restrictive state laws, it does me no good whatsoever, and I reject it as a camouflaged "guns ewww" sentiment. cn

I have bought class three weapons that were in stock at my local gun store. I had to apply for a tax stamp ($300) I filled out a form with my personal information, my gun dealer then sent that to the atf? (sorry its been a while) They do a background check and made me wait for two weeks, my gun dealer called me informed me that my stamp was "approved" I went back and purchased the item. I think the main focuss of the tax stamp is to record serial numbers and keep a closer eye on who owns/gets a class 3 weapon. It makes a class 3 weapon illegal to transfer by a private seller untill the stamp is approved for the potential buyer. When I said it was easy I meant easy for someone who truly needs a gun(they will go through the process to get what they need) no big deal. But the hypothetical law would degenerate the average spontanious buyer who would buy them shoot em a few times and then just let them sit like I do. I felt like I had found a true common ground, easier legislation, tough spontanious buys, and still availability to those who need a gun. Why don't you agree because of your predicament with state laws? Do you honestly think a this would not make sense and ease the situation the easiest way for all involved parties? What would you suggest to create a better gun trade program?

 

[rooky1985]

Because you said (and didn't provide for exceptions) that the class 3 is not hard to obtain. While it could be argued that "impossible" is a sort of "not hard" that is not the way we usually use the term. (To disprove that, walk me through the process. I am especially interested in circumnavigating "assault weapon" strictures.)
And what is harder than "impossible"? Unless your plan provides a way to gain amnesty from restrictive state laws, it does me no good whatsoever, and I reject it as a camouflaged "guns ewww" sentiment. cn

For the record my intentions were never "guns eww" I own a ton of weapons and I love them all, I think the way to avoid a full on ban is to do something like this fast and give it a shot. Gun lobyist still get sales, Obama and his council become heros, and ultimatly stricter gun laws are enforced. This will not solve violent acts only mary jane can do that(hopefully we can agree on that).

 

[cannabineer]

I have bought class three weapons that were in stock at my local gun store. I had to apply for a tax stamp ($300) I filled out a form with my personal information, my gun dealer then sent that to the atf? (sorry its been a while) They do a background check and made me wait for two weeks, my gun dealer called me informed me that my stamp was "approved" I went back and purchased the item. I think the main focuss of the tax stamp is to record serial numbers and keep a closer eye on who owns/gets a class 3 weapon. It makes a class 3 weapon illegal to transfer by a private seller untill the stamp is approved for the potential buyer. When I said it was easy I meant easy for someone who truly needs a gun(they will go through the process to get what they need) no big deal. But the hypothetical law would degenerate the average spontanious buyer who would buy them shoot em a few times and then just let them sit like I do. I felt like I had found a true common ground, easier legislation, tough spontanious buys, and still availability to those who need a gun. Why don't you agree because of your predicament with state laws? Do you honestly think a this would not make sense and ease the situation the easiest way for all involved parties? What would you suggest to create a better gun trade program?

There are lots of people in NYC, Boston etc. who truly need guns. But they are stymied by legal or de facto bans. E.g. NYC and Boston, technically all you need is a signature form the chief of police. But guess how many they're signing.
So to get guns to those who need them, we must first derestrict. A de facto ban, analogous to that marijuana tax stamp, must be expressly disallowed.

I would want a gun law to recognize the citizen's basic right to own, operate and carry guns. Too many places in this country have already subverted it. I would be more sympathetic to your class 3 proposal if it also incorporated guarantees that there would never again be added restrictions, and that some of the idiot ones, (e.g. California's "assault weapon" ban and the ban on the .50) would be lifted by Federal fiat. I would also specify and require that the guns i own can be bought, sold, bequeathed and transferred to any noncriminal major citizen. I worry that your proposal, unless suitably written, would ruin my plans to bequeath my guns to family. cn

 

[rooky1985]

There are lots of people in NYC, Boston etc. who truly need guns. But they are stymied by legal or de facto bans. E.g. NYC and Boston, technically all you need is a signature form the chief of police. But guess how many they're signing.
So to get guns to those who need them, we must first derestrict. A de facto ban, analogous to that marijuana tax stamp, must be expressly disallowed.

I see a hybrid law that we could instill today, we just saved the country millions. I see where your going with the idea of a "level playing field" on state level, I can totally agree with that as ones rights in my state are equal to the rights in your state (premise of "United States"). Didn't know you can't own a Barret .50 in California that sucks I have shot one but over 6' long and 13k it just wasn't for me way to much of a pain to carry around.

 

[cannabineer]

I see a hybrid law that we could instill today, we just saved the country millions. I see where your going with the idea of a "level playing field" on state level, I can totally agree with that as ones rights in my state are equal to the rights in your state (premise of "United States"). Didn't know you can't own a Barret .50 in California that sucks I have shot one but over 6' long and 13k it just wasn't for me way to much of a pain to carry around.

They don't allow any .50. Not even a single-shot falling block action.
This state considers some bolt guns in ordinary chamberings to be Assault Weapons. The falsity of it all sours me in re so-called "common sense" gun legislation. Imo the framers had the uncommon sense to put it in the Bill of Rights: "owning and carrying your guns is a right". Now the guns, ewww! crowd's tactic is to start saying just what sorts of gun are permissible. It should be the other way around: where I won't ask the Gov't about buying a gun; if I'm of a mood I'll tell it. Or not. No registries. cn

 

[rooky1985]

They don't allow any .50. Not even a single-shot falling block action.
This state considers some bolt guns in ordinary chamberings to be Assault Weapons. The falsity of it all sours me in re so-called "common sense" gun legislation. Imo the framers had the uncommon sense to put it in the Bill of Rights: "owning and carrying your guns is a right". Now the guns, ewww! crowd's tactic is to start saying just what sorts of gun are permissible. It should be the other way around: where I won't ask the Gov't about buying a gun; if I'm of a mood I'll tell it. Or not. No registries. cn

I was nodding yes reading through than came to no regestries and can not agree with your stance. This will not shut the anti-gun lobyist up which is not fair to them, if we can't throw them a bone then were not negotiating terms anymore just dictating.

 

[cannabineer]

I was nodding yes reading through than came to no regestries and can not agree with your stance. This will not shut the anti-gun lobyist up which is not fair to them, if we can't throw them a bone then were not negotiating terms anymore just dictating.

The trouble with registries is that they give a tool to the gun banners whose power can hardly be overstated. Witness Britain and Australia with their recent mandatory confscations. History teaches us that the Ratchet only goes one way: tighter. Registries have been used in first-rank industrialized nations within my parents' lifetimes ... to strip the populace of the one tool that could have saved millions and prevented half a world war. If it could happen there it can happen here.
It is my considered opinion that the antigun lobbyists and their sponsoring organizations are not interested in an honest negotiation. They have their eyes on the result: tightening the Ratchet. If the Constitution stands in the way, they'll walk right through it, as Justice Breyer's dissenting opinion in McDonald v. Chicago bears out. cn

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonald_v._Chicago

 

[rooky1985]

The trouble with registries is that they give a tool to the gun banners whose power can hardly be overstated. Witness Britain and Australia with their recent mandatory confscations. History teaches us that the Ratchet only goes one way: tighter. Registries have been used in first-rank industrialized nations within my parents' lifetimes ... to strip the populace of the one tool that could have saved millions and prevented half a world war. If it could happen there it can happen here.
It is my considered opinion that the antigun lobbyists and their sponsoring organizations are not interested in an honest negotiation. They have their eyes on the result: tightening the Ratchet. If the Constitution stands in the way, they'll walk right through it, as Justice Breyer's dissenting opinion in McDonald v. Chicago bears out. cn


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonald_v._Chicago

I can honestly say if someone tried to forcefully take my weapon they leave bagged and tagged. Plus I understand the relation drawn between these other countries but they don't have the balls americans have. I know it is naive for me to say that it couldn't happen here when it already is in select areas, but do you think americans as a whole would allow such a desecration of the constitution? Maybe this is just my patriotism speaking but I don't believe a total gun ban is achievable here for many more lifetimes (to many gun enthusiast).

 

[cannabineer]

I can honestly say if someone tried to forcefully take my weapon they leave bagged and tagged. Plus I understand the relation drawn between these other countries but they don't have the balls americans have. I know it is naive for me to say that it couldn't happen here when it already is in select areas, but do you think americans as a whole would allow such a desecration of the constitution? Maybe this is just my patriotism speaking but I don't believe a total gun ban is achievable here for many more lifetimes (to many gun enthusiast).

My parents came from central Europe, and let me tell you those folk give up nothing to Americans in terms of balls or passion. Many many Americans have their roots there, so I would raise an eyebrow at exceptionalist sentiment. I think it is very important for people to understand that if it could happen there, it can just as easily happen here. Did you find the bit in the Wiki article I posted? That is scary imo, and that is "the enemy" right there.
Britain and Australia have their share of gunnies also. They were TOLD by their gov'ts that ownership rights were being rescinded. In a situation like that, the choices are submission (bad) or revolution (worse). I would like to avoid both such outcomes, and the only way i see it is to keep whapping gov't and its fan club on the collective snout with a figurative newspaper every time they make a sneak or a lunge for the meat loaf on the table. This is an ongoing fight for a right that, though codified in our core document, is quite susceptible to being neutralized. And I consider it an important right to have as it stands between us and a gov't that can tell us anything it wants ... quite aside from the idea that protecting myself from a violent assailant is being dismissed by the guns, ewww! proponents as my right. cn

 

[Carthoris]

I can honestly say if someone tried to forcefully take my weapon they leave bagged and tagged. Plus I understand the relation drawn between these other countries but they don't have the balls americans have. I know it is naive for me to say that it couldn't happen here when it already is in select areas, but do you think americans as a whole would allow such a desecration of the constitution? Maybe this is just my patriotism speaking but I don't believe a total gun ban is achievable here for many more lifetimes (to many gun enthusiast).

Rooky, to believe that we are special is silly. There are a lot of us, and they will slowly whittle us down one by one. Registration first (like machine guns), then banning new ones (like machine guns), and then moving to the final finale of making them non transferable and forcing surrender of guns to the government upon the death of the owner. It wouldn't be a mass confiscation here because of the sheer number of guns in the country for some time, but that is the ultimate goal. Negotiating and giving ground to the gun control crowd would be a lot like a Jew negotiating with Hitler. We know what the ultimate goal is, and every time we 'negotiate', it can only go one way. You are thinking about this backwards. We already negotiated all these things and now they are reneging on their previous negotiations. Over and over and over. At some point we have to just say 'fuck off' and stop playing the game.

 

[Carthoris]

I can honestly say if someone tried to forcefully take my weapon they leave bagged and tagged. Plus I understand the relation drawn between these other countries but they don't have the balls americans have. I know it is naive for me to say that it couldn't happen here when it already is in select areas, but do you think americans as a whole would allow such a desecration of the constitution? Maybe this is just my patriotism speaking but I don't believe a total gun ban is achievable here for many more lifetimes (to many gun enthusiast).

The people in the country don't give a fuck about the constitution, freedom, or liberty. The simple fact is they are only worried about what they want, not what they have to give up to get it.

 

[Carthoris]

My parents came from central Europe, and let me tell you those folk give up nothing to Americans in terms of balls or passion. Many many Americans have their roots there, so I would raise an eyebrow at exceptionalist sentiment. I think it is very important for people to understand that if it could happen there, it can just as easily happen here. Did you find the bit in the Wiki article I posted? That is scary imo, and that is "the enemy" right there.
Britain and Australia have their share of gunnies also. They were TOLD by their gov'ts that ownership rights were being rescinded. In a situation like that, the choices are submission (bad) or revolution (worse). I would like to avoid both such outcomes, and the only way i see it is to keep whapping gov't and its fan club on the collective snout with a figurative newspaper every time they make a sneak or a lunge for the meat loaf on the table. This is an ongoing fight for a right that, though codified in our core document, is quite susceptible to being neutralized. And I consider it an important right to have as it stands between us and a gov't that can tell us anything it wants ... quite aside from the idea that protecting myself from a violent assailant is being dismissed by the guns, ewww! proponents as my right. cn

They could pretty easily make gun ownership rare by registration, outlawing new guns, and then voluntary buy back at more than their actual value. This would get a large percentage of guns. I guess it depends on how much they want it.

 

[Carthoris]

My parents came from central Europe, and let me tell you those folk give up nothing to Americans in terms of balls or passion. Many many Americans have their roots there, so I would raise an eyebrow at exceptionalist sentiment. I think it is very important for people to understand that if it could happen there, it can just as easily happen here. Did you find the bit in the Wiki article I posted? That is scary imo, and that is "the enemy" right there.
Britain and Australia have their share of gunnies also. They were TOLD by their gov'ts that ownership rights were being rescinded. In a situation like that, the choices are submission (bad) or revolution (worse). I would like to avoid both such outcomes, and the only way i see it is to keep whapping gov't and its fan club on the collective snout with a figurative newspaper every time they make a sneak or a lunge for the meat loaf on the table. This is an ongoing fight for a right that, though codified in our core document, is quite susceptible to being neutralized. And I consider it an important right to have as it stands between us and a gov't that can tell us anything it wants ... quite aside from the idea that protecting myself from a violent assailant is being dismissed by the guns, ewww! proponents as my right. cn

Was the violent assailant the government? I never really worry that much about the neighbors, thieves, or the like. The people I usually see doing the most fucked up things in America is the government and their enforcers. Just the fact that they use the threat of force so great that none can withstand it behind every action they take is pretty daunting. No one else threatens me at all.

 

[cannabineer]

Was the violent assailant the government? I never really worry that much about the neighbors, thieves, or the like. The people I usually see doing the most fucked up things in America is the government and their enforcers. Just the fact that they use the threat of force so great that none can withstand it behind every action they take is pretty daunting. No one else threatens me at all.

I was thinking of an ordinary criminal-type violent assailant, against whom a carried gun would be most useful.

I also strongly believe that a police force should be no better armed than the population it serves. In this, I tip my hat in respect to British cops. Even Japanese cops get guns, in a nation with gun control much fiercer than in any European country. cn