Gun Talk

[M2]

Down here in Texas we have a little saying for those who want to try and take our firepower away...

And while a bunch of pussy liberal states try to pass ridiculous regulations concerning an inalienable right under the Constitution, today in Texas lawmakers are proposing legislation to expand gun rights in the state!

In the immortal words of Davy Crockett, "Y'all can go to hell, I'm going to Texas!"

[HeloDude]

So you're saying I should have changed my vote for a person who I agree with politically and policy-wise on most issues, because of this one issue (high prices/low supply of guns and ammo)? Changed my vote to Mitt Romney because gee, now it's frustrating to try to find 9mm ammo? Really? Do you base your vote off of one issue from someone you agree with the vast majority of the time to someone you totally disagree with except on that one issue?

Dude, I'm perfectly willing to accept a 90% solution, I would advise that conservatives learn to do the same once again.

I will not vote for anyone who runs on wanting more restrictions to the 2nd Amendment (it's bad enough that we already have restrictions). Obama has a record of wanting more gun control and said in a debate last year that he supported a renewal of the AWB...so that was a pretty clear reason alone for me not to vote for him. You voted for him, so obviously it didn't bother you too much. I'm assuming that free healthcare and food stamps are more important to you than your Right to bear arms. Like you said in a separate thread...it all comes down to values.

Given their current policies/ways of governing, would you vote for Gov Cuomo in 2016 if he was running against Gov Jindhal?

Sorry man, I don't feel sorry for you for not being able to get your ammo. You should have realized your guy wanted to take guns away and stocked up early...that's what a lot of us did.

[M2]

Yeah, support this guy nsplayr, he's a man of his word...

[nsplayr]

For this one issue, yes.

It is that important.

That's your prerogative, I can't say I'm a one-issue voter on anything and the whole package (sts) matters more than specific issues, even ones that are very important to me.

I will not vote for anyone who runs on wanting more restrictions to the 2nd Amendment (it's bad enough that we already have restrictions).

As long as you're willing to realize you're in the about 5% of the population that does not support any, gun control measures of any kind (automatics, RPGs, tanks, etc.), then cool, vote as you please. I'm not sure there will be a lot of viable candidates that are able to meet your litmus test. Even the most conservative justices of a fairly conservative Supreme Court have interpreted the Constitution differently than you have.

You voted for him, so obviously it didn't bother you too much. I'm assuming that free healthcare and food stamps are more important to you than your Right to bear arms. Like you said in a separate thread...it all comes down to values.

Yep, his views were clear and should not have been a surprise to anyone. The fact that I disagreed on that one issue did not change the overall calculus of who to vote for, Obama vs Romney. And it does come down to values, and the values expressed by President Obama and the Democratic Party generally are in much better alignment with my own than those express by Romey et. al. Republicans.

Given their current policies/ways of governing, would you vote for Gov Cuomo in 2016 if he was running against Gov Jindhal?

FIFY. And yea, I'm almost positive I'd vote for Cuomo over Jindhal if they were the nominees. Although I like Cuomo significantly less than Obama and would support someone else in the primary over him, his values are much better aligned with my own than Jindal. Jindal isn't my least-favorite Republican, but then again neither was Romney by a long-shot.

Sorry man, I don't feel sorry for you for not being able to get your ammo. You should have realized your guy wanted to take guns away and stocked up early...that's what a lot of us did.

Then don't feel sorry for me, I don't shoot a ton anyways so it's not cramping my style too bad. Feel sorry for those people out there paying insane $$$ for guns and ammo out of fearful, emotional reactions to legislation that is not going to be come law. Many people on BO.net (not sure if you specifically, don't remember) frequently accuse liberals of acting emotionally and in knee-jerk ways. Care to explain the current state of the gun industry any differently?

I'm saying everyone, especially gun enthusiasts would be better served by toning down the fear to at least start to alleviate the panic buying that's driving up prices and doing nothing but line the pocketbooks of those in the industry who are profiting greatly while providing no new or different or improved product or service to consumers. Maybe that will come down the road...all that increase in profits can lead to some new and awesome shit at SHOT Show 2014 or 2015...one can hope right?

Yeah, support this guy nsplayr, he's a man of his word...

Do you get it that my support for him is already a forgone conclusion and that his victory in the last election of his life is as well? Like, there's virtually nothing that's factual you could bring up about Obama that would surprise me or make me recant my support and also that other than impeachment, there is no way for him not to be the President for another 4 years? My values align well with his and most of the policies he's enacted as President have been ones I supported, wouldn't you strongly support someone with whom you had that kind of agreement?

Ok, with that cleared up, is anything he said in that video untrue? Does Feinstein's bill actually confiscate any guns that you already own? It says right in the text at the link above that any firearms legally possessed before the enactment of the bill are exempt. Has President Obama signed any executive orders that confiscate guns of any kind?

Thought not...he supports an AWB and high-cap magazine ban, I do not. I'm also about 99% sure these proposals will not pass Congress. So I sleep well at night and am unwavering in my overall support despite disagreeing on this one issue. That's a quality most conservatives used to possess.

Edited January 25, 2013 by nsplayr

[HuggyU2]

nsplayer,

Are you really an officer in the Air Force? I know you say you are,... but do any folks on here actually know you and can attest to it?

[nsplayr]

nsplayer,

Are you really an officer in the Air Force? I know you say you are,... but do any folks on here actually know you and can attest to it?

"I disagree with you, therefore I must question your credentials!" It's the same story with Obama...that boy must not be from 'round here...

Jebus...yes, I am a proud member of the United States Air Force. I am personal friends with two other fine members of BO.net and know of several others, who also know of me out in the real world. Hell, HeloDude has my name and squadron and an offer to have a beer on me based on our debates about the election, why don't you ask him?

Do any of these facts change my views? Have you literally not ever met a single liberal military aviator or someone who supports the Democratic party? Open your eyes dude, not everyone shares the same set of political views or values, surprising as that may be.

Edited January 25, 2013 by nsplayr

[HeloDude]

FIFY.

Thanks nav! You're right, navs are indeed good for something!

And yea, I'm almost positive I'd vote for Cuomo over Jindhal if they were the nominees. Although I like Cuomo significantly less than Obama and would support someone else in the primary over him, his values are much better aligned with my own than Jindal. Jindal isn't my least-favorite Republican, but then again neither was Romney by a long-shot.

Dude, if this were a kids book, it would be a story about a sheep convincing itself that the wolf is more friendly than a sheepdog. But as it is not, I think it's safe to say that you could care less about your Right to own firearms.

Why do you expect anybody in a 'gun forum' to take you, or anything you say, seriously? You say you are an instructor...in this arena, you are definitely not establishing credibility.

[HuggyU2]

No problem, nsplayr. Just curious if your credentials were legit.

You're not the only person I disagree with in the military. There's just something odd about you.

Re: that "Sportsmen for Obama" video.

https://en.wikipedia....ers_Association

Interesting group. That guy Shoenke runs it.

According to the site, he's been paid by the Obama campaign to travel and give presentations.

And, he's given $10K to the Brady Campaign.

Edited January 25, 2013 by Huggyu2

[Fuzz]

That's your prerogative, I can't say I'm a one-issue voter on anything and the whole package (sts) matters more than specific issues, even ones that are very important to me.

As long as you're willing to realize you're in the about 5% of the population that does not support any, gun control measures of any kind (automatics, RPGs, tanks, etc.), then cool, vote as you please. I'm not sure there will be a lot of viable candidates that are able to meet your litmus test. Even the most conservative justices of a fairly conservative Supreme Court have interpreted the Constitution differently than you have.

Yep, his views were clear and should not have been a surprise to anyone. The fact that I disagreed on that one issue did not change the overall calculus of who to vote for, Obama vs Romney. And it does come down to values, and the values expressed by President Obama and the Democratic Party generally are in much better alignment with my own than those express by Romey et. al. Republicans.

FIFY. And yea, I'm almost positive I'd vote for Cuomo over Jindhal if they were the nominees. Although I like Cuomo significantly less than Obama and would support someone else in the primary over him, his values are much better aligned with my own than Jindal. Jindal isn't my least-favorite Republican, but then again neither was Romney by a long-shot.

Then don't feel sorry for me, I don't shoot a ton anyways so it's not cramping my style too bad. Feel sorry for those people out there paying insane $$$ for guns and ammo out of fearful, emotional reactions to legislation that is not going to be come law. Many people on BO.net (not sure if you specifically, don't remember) frequently accuse liberals of acting emotionally and in knee-jerk ways. Care to explain the current state of the gun industry any differently?

I'm saying everyone, especially gun enthusiasts would be better served by toning down the fear to at least start to alleviate the panic buying that's driving up prices and doing nothing but line the pocketbooks of those in the industry who are profiting greatly while providing no new or different or improved product or service to consumers. Maybe that will come down the road...all that increase in profits can lead to some new and awesome shit at SHOT Show 2014 or 2015...one can hope right?

Do you get it that my support for him is already a forgone conclusion and that his victory in the last election of his life is as well? Like, there's virtually nothing that's factual you could bring up about Obama that would surprise me or make me recant my support and also that other than impeachment, there is no way for him not to be the President for another 4 years? My values align well with his and most of the policies he's enacted as President have been ones I supported, wouldn't you strongly support someone with whom you had that kind of agreement?

Just plain sad that you know this mans past and what he believes and his views align with yours.

Ok, with that cleared up, is anything he said in that video untrue? Does Feinstein's bill actually confiscate any guns that you already own? It says right in the text at the link above that any firearms legally possessed before the enactment of the bill are exempt? Has President Obama signed any executive orders that confiscate guns? Thought not...he supports an AWB and high-cap magazine ban, I do not. I'm also about 99% sure these proposals will not pass Congress. So I sleep well at night and am unwavering in my overall support.

Have you seen NY and your beloved Gov Cuomo?

https://freedomoutpos.../#ixzz2Id4D9Bz6: NY Republican Assemblyman Shows What Democrats Are Really After: Gun Confiscation (couldn't find the original news link)

Why the hell does it have to be so difficult to embedded a video?

Edited January 25, 2013 by Scaredfuzz21

[nsplayr]

Thanks nav! You're right, navs are indeed good for something!

Correcting pilot's obvious/lazy mistakes? Yes, navs are good at that from time to time.

...I think it's safe to say that you could care less about your Right to own firearms.

Disagree, it just doesn't keep me up at night because I'm aware of the political realities that face any attempt to institute a new AWB or high-cap magazine limit. I find the President's position, although I disagree with it, totally consistent with the Constitution. The Supreme Court has ruled, in several cases and even recently, that the government can restrict and regulate some types of firearms. With that precedent established, now we're just arguing over where to draw the line and there are numerous opinions on where that should be.

Why do you expect anybody in a 'gun forum' to take you, or anything you say, seriously? You say you are an instructor...in this arena, you are definitely not establishing credibility.

Credibility is unneeded and frankly I'm a rather amateur gun enthusiast compared to some of the pros around here. Feel free to tell me I'm full of shit when discussing which firearms are better than others of similar type, the ballistic merits of one caliber vs another, etc. I've enjoyed range reports in this thread and learned some things I didn't know before.

I'm expressing my opinions on gun control (which line up with many people here, those who want to give civilians RPGs notwithstanding), and my credibility in particular on the political analysis that an AWB will not pass Congress I think has been established elsewhere.

If any of the political geniuses who were recently predicting a significant Romney victory or that the GOP would retake the Senate want to educate me on why I should be scared of an AWB passing even though a full ~50% of Congress, including numerous Democrats, have an "A" rating from the NRA, I'm all ears...the votes are not there.

Universal background checks might pass. Increasing funding to states and local governments to hire or train armed guards in schools might pass. Mental health reforms might pass. The high-cap magazine ban, maybe 5-10% chance of passing the Senate since some of the conservative, "A" rated Democrats have come out and said they don't know why people should have high-cap magazines, 0% chance in the GOP House. Feinstein's AWB - 0% chance of passing the Senate or the House. I'll bet my credibility on political analysis on that.

No problem, nsplayr. Just making sure your credentials were legit.

You're not the only person I disagree with in the military.

Rog

Edited January 25, 2013 by nsplayr

[Vno]

It is unreal how clueless this guy is.

Edited January 25, 2013 by Vno

[slackline]

It is unreal how clueless this guy is.

So, what I learned is that if you're a pro, it only takes about 1-2 sec to change the clip/mag. If you're anyone else it could take 1-2 min to change out my 40-50 rd mag. And Glocks sport 30 rd clips. I've been doing it wrong...

[hispeed7721]

It is unreal how clueless this guy is.

Even the most firearm-illiterate person can change a magazine in well under 1 minute. Horrible argument.

And now there's 40 clips to a magazine? Awesome! For some reason I was under the impression that clips hasn't been used in decades, silly me

[snoopyeast]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tSPrHl_6bO4

Always a classic

[Earle P]

So, there is a movement for Sheriffs and many citizens to say "I will not comply" with non constitutional anti 2A law.

What are the likely ramifications for active/guard/reserve folks that have made that claim?

[slackline]

https://washingtonexaminer.com/utah-sheriffs-warn-obama-of-deadly-war-over-guns/article/2519176#.UQK8AcK9KSM

Utah Sheriffs Association put out a letter saying they will defend 2nd Ammendment with their lives against Fed officials.

[arg]

I never get tired of watching that shroud vid

There was a Guard unit in LA after Katrina that agreed amongst themselves they would not confiscate any guns. Looking on youtube for video.....

One Sheriff in NM is in. We will see how it goes IF the "gun grab" happens.

https://www.pntonline.com/news/sheriffsayshewonu2019tenforceproposedgunban.html

Roosevelt County Sheriff Darren Hooker says he swore an oath to the U.S. Constitution, not the federal government. So if a federal ban on assault rifles was to become a federal law, he’s made it clear it wouldn’t be enforced in the county.

“The sheriffs don’t enforce federal law, and therefore I wouldn’t have to worry about it,” Hooker said. “It’s a federal law and I don’t have to.”

Hooker joins sheriffs across the nation in opposition against the possibility of an assault rifle ban, after President Barack Obama proposed bans on military style assault weapons and high-capacity magazines earlier this week in his efforts to reduce gun violence in the wake of the Newtown, Conn., school massacre last month.

No official ban has been signed into law, but New Mexico is among states where Republican legislators want to ban enforcement of federal gun laws, according to the Associated Press.

Hooker reminds people that his oath is to the state of New Mexico and to the Constitution.

“I believe the Second Amendment outlines the fact that we have the right to bear arms,” Hooker said. “It doesn’t say what kind, what shape, what size, what caliber. I feel as though bad people with the intention of doing harm will get weapons and the laws that may or may not be made will only infringe on the good people.”

But Hooker’s colleague at the city feels differently about average residents having access to assault rifles.

Portales Police Chief Doug Jones says he too stands behind the Second Amendment but uses more specifications than Hooker.

“I don’t oppose the second amendment to the Constitution, it’s an amendment given to the citizens,” Jones said. “I have a problem with assault weapons.”

Jones feels strongly that law abiding citizens should be allowed to own a gun but they have no need for assault weapons.

“I don’t have a problem with someone owning a personal hand gun or hunting rifle,” Jones said. “I don’t think there’s a useful purpose for the average citizen to own an assault weapon with the large round capacity capabilities. Look at the name of the weapon, ‘assault’ weapons.”

Jones says specific groups such as military and law enforcement officials have assault weapons for legitimate purposes but when those same weapons are placed in the wrong hands, it can have dire consequences.

“If you look at the history of incidents like Newtown when these assault weapons were used, that’s what happens when individuals that have adverse ideas use them, then there’s multiple casualties,” Jones said. “If there’s a ban, I wouldn’t be opposed to it. As a law enforcement officer, I’ve been sworn to uphold the laws of the City of Portales, the state of New Mexico and the U.S. and that’s what I’m going to do.”

Clovis Police Chief Steve Sanders says his personal opinion on the issue doesn’t matter.

“I don’t really have a stance,” Sanders said. “We will hold whatever laws that are actually enacted. We don’t have a whole lot to do with it, it’s up to the federal government to take care of it.”

Sanders understands there could be a potential ban on the purchase of assault weapons and he’s prepared to deal with what may or may not come next.

“We’ll do whatever is required by us by law,” Sanders said.

[brickhistory]

nsplayer,

You say you are not a "one issue" voter and that is your perogative.

And on a lot of issues, I could agree with you on that. A "better some than none" approach which is the hallmark of political interaction.

That said, attempts to subvert the very foundation of our democracy, of our way of life, of our society, is a one issue go/no-go for me.

If the Second Amendment can be "adjusted" via non-Constitutional means, what is to stop any other guaranteed right - given by simply existing and not by any government - from being "adjusted?"

If that is your thinking, I can make arguments on "adjusting" the First, Fourth, and Fifth very easily.

This is a serious, fundamental issue and not simply about owning an AR or AK platform. Those are symptoms of a very serious issue, mainly that of control. I choose to keep it, the current (and recent past one as well, I admit) wants to take it.

BTW, Chris Christie is very PRO-gun restrictions for those that sing his praises. I hope he is not a contender next time.

[HU&W]

AR-15 is so scary looking that it stops home invasion with no shots fired.

[nsplayr]

That said, attempts to subvert the very foundation of our democracy, of our way of life, of our society, is a one issue go/no-go for me.

I might agree if I actually thought that was happening. Many liberals feel that way WRT the PATRIOT Act, drone strikes against U.S. citizens, etc. etc. I have yet to feel that way about a specific U.S. government policy so there hasn't been the need to disavow some candidate or some party I generally support.

If the Second Amendment can be "adjusted" via non-Constitutional means, what is to stop any other guaranteed right - given by simply existing and not by any government - from being "adjusted?"

I've not seen any "non-constitutional" means being employed here. So far there are EOs that, when reading them, are about things clearly within the executive's power to do, and proposed legislation in Congress, the body of people tasked with making our laws. In addition to that, the Courts and the Supreme Court have long upheld that firearms can be restricted in certain ways (i.e. the "machine gun ban" of 1986, many others), although what is legal and what isn't is always a moving target depending on new rulings. And gun rights have been strengthened in numerous recent court rulings as well as in some legislation in case you haven't been keeping track.

So where we are in my view is that clearly nothing that's actually happened unconstitutional, and furthermore, every aparratus in our Government has arrived at the conclusion that the Constitutional right to bear arms is not completely absolute, it permits the government to place some restrictions on private firearms. Reagan belived that when he put his name on the 1986 firearms act that included the machine gun ban, the GOP Senate at the time believe that when they passed that bill (along with the Democratic House), and the conservatives on the SCOTUS believed that principle when it and other restrictions on guns have been upheld in the Court.

Now, what's being discussed with Feinstein's legislation and some pending court cases is where do you draw the line? D.C. v Heller changed the line a bit saying cities can't outlaw handguns, ok, cool, the line has moved. Other cases or legislation has changed the line before, i.e. assault weapons ban of 1994. All those things are completely Constitutional and part of what living in our system of government means...no one person or institution gets to just make up whatever they want and enforce it indefinitely because they think it should be one way or the other.

And anyone that argues that the Constitution isn't a "living document" can't see the light of day because if everything was spelled out so crystal f*cking clear then why do we consistently have a Supreme Court that changes things? Sometimes conservative causes are benefits of those changes (DC v Heller), sometimes liberal causes are the benefit (Roe v Wade), but the fact is that no one can, with authority, say "The Constitution means this and only this, period dot!" because clearly in the practice of the last almost 225 years of the document's existence, people have been having these same arguments. Even the people who wrote it didn't agree on what it meant, how can one argue today that they alone have the right answers to it's sole and complete meaning?

If that is your thinking, I can make arguments on "adjusting" the First, Fourth, and Fifth very easily.

Those arguments are very easy to make because all of our rights have been "adjusted" by the government. You have freedom of speech, but there are limits on that depending on what you say, who you are, and where you say it. There are limits on your right to avoid searches and seizures depending on the circumstances. There are limits on due process as Anwar Awlaki found out recently (for right or wrong, that's a whole other debate). So the point isn't that "Well, the government can't restrict my rights!" They certainly can and do, within the legal framework of the Constitution, legal precedent and the outcome of any legal case you choose to bring against those who you think are wronging you.

BTW, Chris Christie is very PRO-gun restrictions for those that sing his praises. I hope he is not a contender next time.

I think it's obvious he'll be a contender at least, we'll see how that works out for him.

Edited January 26, 2013 by nsplayr

[matmacwc]

You don't understand the Supreme Courts purpose then.

[nsplayr]

You don't understand the Supreme Courts purpose then.

Which is what ?

The Supreme Court has appellate juristiction over all matters involving federal law, the constituion, or matters dealing with treaties. In that Court as well as the other federal courts, lies the "judicial power of the United States."

WRT to gun control, here's Justice Scalia's view from the D.C. v Heller Case as found in this article.

Still, the decision also contained a long list of laws and regulations that would, the court said, be unaffected. Among them were “laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools.” “Nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill,” Justice Scalia wrote. Government buildings in general could still ban guns. And the court said it had no quarrel with “laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.” Justice Scalia added that laws banning “dangerous and unusual weapons” are “another important limitation on the right to keep and carry arms.” He gave an example: “M-16 rifles and the like.” When the case was argued in 2008, Justice Scalia suggested that other kinds of weapons and ammunition could be regulated. “I don’t know that a lot of people have machine guns or armor-piercing bullets,” he said. “I think that’s quite unusual.”

But he's clearly a crack-pot liberal who doesn't know WTF the Constitution really says about the right to keep and bear arms, right?

Edited January 26, 2013 by nsplayr

[matmacwc]

The court isn't "supposed" to change things, they are supposed to base every decision with regard to the Constitution, therefore base decisions that do not go against it.

Once the rule of law(that living/breathing document you so love to change) isn't upheld, then what do we base the laws of our country on, the will of the currently elected? That is exactly what this country WAS not founded on and we were supposed to fight against.....enter gun law.

[nsplayr]

The court isn't "supposed" to change things, they are supposed to base every decision with regard to the Constitution, therefore base decisions that do not go against it.

That wasn't my point at all, my point was centered around how to interpret the Constitution, which the Supreme Court is the ultimate authority on. If by "change things" you mean interpret the Constitution in ways different than our predecessors, I'll just disagree with you then, because the Court is explicitly authorized to rule as they see fit on questions they have jurisdiction over, regardless of the precedent although precedent certainly plays a part in their decisions.

By definition, no currently standing federal law or other legal framework related to the federal government is "against the Constitution" because the Court is the final authroity on determining exactly what is and isn't Constitutional. If you think otherwise and have standing, file a case in federal court. Obviously some things are pending, but it's kind like innocent until proven guilty, laws are Constitutional until they are struck down.

D.C. v Heller's striking down of the D.C. handgun ban was specifically because of the 2nd Amendment right to keep and bear arms, yet within that landmark ruling the conservatives on the Court, who decided D.C.'s laws went too far, also expressed the opinion that their decision does not invalidate other restrictions on firearm ownership.

So it's all about where you draw the line between your right to have firearms and the government's right (or the right of another person or a business), under the Constitution to make certain restrictions or infringements upon people's rights in order to run the country or ensure a functioning society. That's the crux of every Constitutional debate.

My points: A) The Constitution clearly isn't crystal clear on every issue it governs, that's obvious, B) the Supreme Court has the ultimate power, under the Constitution, to decide cases about what exactly is and is not Constitutional. Does anyone disagree with those points?

Edited January 26, 2013 by nsplayr

[bronxbomber252]

Full Feinstein bill text. Apparently a Mini-14 with a collapsable stock and pistol grip is evil enough to be specifically banned, and a Mini-14 with a standard stock is good enough to be specifically excluded...

https://www.feinstein.senate.gov/publ...f-69e69f517fb4