Fear of Gun Control

[Dan Storts]

I don't see background checks or limited capacity magazines as punishing or a restriction on law abiders. However, I feel we should choke off the ability nuts and felons to obtain firearms without a background check.

If you have different ideas I'd like to hear them. If we don't get a handle on mass killings and gun violence, we will see the either the real or de facto repeal of the second amendment as the forces that want to abolish gun ownership will gain strength with every Columbine and Sandy Hook.

We should use the same standards as the government now has on buying fertilizer which was use in the Oklahoma City bombing. This was the largest mass murder is U.S. history carrier out by a single individual. We could start banning the mentally ill from farming but I don't remember ever having to get a background check for diesel fuel, etc, etc.

Background check only applies to U.S. citizens. Fast and furious purchases go to the express checkout line. 12 items or more PLEASE.

[Dan Storts]

If you excuse the metaphor here, there is no magic bullet. Total gun bans will not eliminate violence. On this most of us agree.

The culture has within it many streams that feed a river of violence. There are too many movies and video games feeding too many fatherless children false images of what manhood should look like. Add to that the desperation of urban poverty and flavor it with a mixture of drugs and you have a nasty soup. But, even kids growing up in suburbia are fed nonstop portrail of gun violence.

The long and short of it. People really should have a background check to able to become a parent.

[sick lids]

The funny thing about the people who will increasingly want to ban guns as the shootings continue is that they will bring this country to an end quicker and quicker.

Historically democratic governments have not lasted more than 200-300 years. What has always happens is that the masses start to vote for more and more benefits because they can, until the the government can no longer tax the people working to support those that don't. Our fore fathers knew this and that is why our federal government is a republic, not a democracy as taught in school. If you don't think that our current government dose not also understand this I would think you a fool. As our country falls deeper into debt with no way out I would assume that taking all guns away will be a top priority. As they will be blamed for all that has happened but most of the responsibility will be on our shoulders, incremently.

I would think that our fore fathers would think that we are already slaves to the federal government.

Will my kids live as free as I have? I have not lived as free as my parents, they have not lived as free as their parents.

It's a natural cycle with humans, freedom,oppression, usually oppression lasts far longer!

[zeus3925]

The funny thing about the people who will increasingly want to ban guns as the shootings continue is that they will bring this country to an end quicker and quicker.

Historically democratic governments have not lasted more than 200-300 years. What has always happens is that the masses start to vote for more and more benefits because they can, until the the government can no longer tax the people working to support those that don't. Our fore fathers knew this and that is why our federal government is a republic, not a democracy as taught in school. If you don't think that our current government dose not also understand this I would think you a fool. As our country falls deeper into debt with no way out I would assume that taking all guns away will be a top priority. As they will be blamed for all that has happened but most of the responsibility will be on our shoulders, incremently.

I would think that our fore fathers would think that we are already slaves to the federal government.

Will my kids live as free as I have? I have not lived as free as my parents, they have not lived as free as their parents.

It's a natural cycle with humans, freedom,oppression, usually oppression lasts far longer!

Population density is a greater threat to your liberty. With population density you get a demand more rules and ordinances so people don't infringe rights of other people.

[Matt McKenzie]

Are there more deaths per capita due to gun violence now than there were in say 1873, 1927 or 1957?

[JDogger]

Are there more deaths per capita due to gun violence now than there were in say 1873, 1927 or 1957?

Do you have something you want to cite Hookset? JD

[sick lids]

I think it has declined along with violent crime.

[sick lids]

Population density is a greater threat to your liberty. With population density you get a demand more rules and ordinances so people don't infringe rights of other people.

so true then are we nearing a critical point, every specie is its worst enemy type thing?

[HPL]

Population density is a greater threat to your liberty. With population density you get a demand more rules and ordinances so people don't infringe rights of other people.

Been my battlecry for a good 35 years at least! My wife and I did our part. All our kids have been adopted (and had 4 feet) (and we've never had a flock of them either).

[dixidawg]

Tell me what purpose an assault rifle has in the hands of Joe American?

If by "assault rifle" I assume you are referring to what Dept of Homeland Security calls a "Personal Defense Weapon"?

https://www.fbo.gov/utils/view?id=09...752b57294a17b3

Notice the term assault weapon or assault rifle is not used anywhere in the document. The “assault weapon” terminology is only used for non-LEOs and non-military who own those firearms.

The scope of this contract is to provide a total of up to 7,000 5.56x45mm North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) personal defense weapons (PDW) throughout the life of this contract to numerous Department of Homeland Security components. …

In paragraph 3.1 under requirements and testing standards we read…

DHS and its components have a requirement for a 5.56x45mm NATO, select-fire firearm suitable for personal defense use in close quarters and/or when maximum concealment is required.

Isn’t that inconvenient for the gun control politicians? In requirement paragraph 3.9.10, they find a need for a 30-round magazine.

The action shall be capable of accepting all standard NATO STANAG 20 and 30 round M16 magazines (NSN 1005-00-921-5004) and Magpul 30 round PMAG (NSN 1005-01-576-5159). The magazine well shall be designed to allow easy insertion of a magazine.

In paragraph 3.21.2, they again specify the requirement for a 30-round magazine.

The magazine shall have a capacity to hold thirty (30) 5.56x45mm NATO rounds.

If you did not catch the interesting part in one of the quoted sentences above, let me point it out to you. The personal defense weapon should be select-fire capable.

DHS and its components have a requirement for a 5.56x45mm NATO, select-fire firearm suitable for personal defense use in close quarters…
The action shall be select-fire (capable of semi-automatic and automatic fire).

From the Fire Control Section, paragraph 3.10.1.

The fire control selector shall have three positions; safe, semi-automatic, and automatic. The selector shall have positions which are clearly labeled for the mode of fire.

This formal DHS RFP – which is specific concerning requirements – clearly indicates a select-fire rifle is appropriate for personal defense in close quarters. If it is appropriate for law enforcement, why is it not appropriate for civilian use? (Select-fire/automatic capable weapons are generally not used in situations where you need accuracy; like for home defense.)


http://radioviceonline.com/departmen...sonal-defense/