The Gun Control debate thread

Rey C.

Racing is life... anything else is just waiting.
I had my car worked on today and this is what was being talked about in the waiting room. Oh my goooodness! :facepalm:

The definition of an “assault weapon” under S.B. 16 would include any firearm that is capable of accepting a detachable magazine that has the potential to hold 10 or more cartridges and has one of 13 characteristics, including a pistol grip or muzzle brake. Pistols capable of accepting a magazine holding ten or more cartridges would also be banned, along with many semi-automatic shotguns.

Another bill up for consideration would institute an age-based gun ban making it a felony to purchase or possess a firearm until age 21. It could also make underaged hunting and target-shooting (ROTC and 4-H Shooting Sports members included) illegal, while making their parents felons.

Local jurisdictions could, however, make the laws less enforceable, by withholding local taxpayer’s money from the Sheriff’s and Commonwealth’s Attorney’s offices that would be used for enforcement of the laws. The state’s Compensation Board covers approximately 85 percent of local Constitutional Officers budgets but often has passed bills with the expectation the counties would foot the extra expense.



And the response from Culpeper County Sheriff Scott Jenkins:

During Jenkins presentation, he told Culpeper Supervisors he doubted Richmond legislators were “so far left” they’d actually pass the proposed laws.

“But, if they do, I wouldn’t have a problem swearing in 1,000 auxiliary deputies to help me keep the county safe,” Jenkins said. “They’d have to commit to a background check and be properly screened and be willing to serve eight hours a month - which they could do anywhere in the county.”

He said he could also deputize Virginians residing outside the county, so Rappahannock and Madison citizens could sign up as a loophole to keep their weapons if Sheriff Compton and Weaver opt not to follow Jenkins’ lead.

“There’s no limit on the number of people I can swear in,” Jenkins added, noting he already has people outside his county enrolled as auxiliary deputies. "They have the right to defend themselves and it’s my job to protect their right to defend ourselves.”
 

georges

Moderator
Staff member
2017 Vegas shooting : 59 killed, 422 injured (by gunfire + about 400 injured in the panick but let's focus on gunfire injuries)
Weapon used : AR-15

Orlando shooting : 50 killed, 56 injured
Weapon used : Sig Sauer MCX

Virginia Tech Shooting : 32 killed, 17 injured by gunfire
Weapon used : Glock 19, Walther P22

Sandy Hook shooting : 28 killed, 2 injured
Weapon used : Bushmaster XM-15

Sutherland Springs church shooting : 27 killed, 20 injured
Weapon used : Ruger AR-556

These are the 5 deadliest mass shooting in ameican history. 4 were perpetrated using assault-rifles.


You're right about one thing : Most of us, gun-control advocates, don't know much about guns. So I trust you when you say that two .9mm and a shogun would be more efficient than an assault-rifle. But that's not what this is about : This is not about what kind of weapon is more deadly, it's about what kind of weapon is used by those who do mass shootings. And in most cases, they go with assault-rifles. They fantasize about that kind of weapons, they've seen al thosse action movies where every one has on of these and they picture themselves as of these guys, shooting dozens of bad guys in a row.
So the Walther P22 can kill. I knew it could. My teacher told me that enough holes, and any boat will sink.
 

Mr. Daystar

In a bell tower, watching you through cross hairs.
This could be fun: https://www.npr.org/2021/12/12/1063...newsom-assault-weapons-ban-texas-abortion-law

Gavin Newsom:
"If the most efficient way to keep these devastating weapons off our streets is to add the threat of private lawsuits, we should do just that."
That's not the efferent way buddy. Making examples of those that do evil, or like the recent trio of half wits we've been talking about, severely punish everyone that commits a crime with a gun. None of my weapons have ever hurt anyone, I have a clean record, beyond a couple of traffic violations. And honestly, Texas is a different animal, you can't judge them against anyone else, any easier then you can judge California against others. Only an extremely small percentage of gun violence is committed with assault rifles. Most crooks stick a pistol in your face. The only exceptions are these whack jobs that go off on a spree, or gangs doing drive by shootings. The only reason the government doesn't want citizens to have them, is because they pose a threat to their power. They know without the 2nd Amendment, all the rest can be fucked with at their leisure, and as they see fit. Take a look at the countries that have sever restrictions. Mexico is a perfect example. Corrupt police and military allow these weapons to fall into the hands of cartels. Some swear they only come from America, while neglecting the entire lawlessness that exists to the South. taking the rights away from decent law abiding citizens isn't an answer, it will just create more victims of violent crime. Lets face it, heroin is illegal, how's that working out?

Plus, to be honest, they are a blast to take to the outdoor ranges. expensive. but very fun/
 

gmase

Nattering Nabob of Negativism
The right is in Constitution and they are legal. No debate there - excepting how “well-regulated militia” is defined.

I personally don’t buy the ‘defend us from the government’ argument any more. The government can fuck us at will with or without us having guns. The gov’t has much more fire power than any citizen’s group will ever acquire. Recent history has shown that using guns to defend some right has not worked out too well.

Your fun argument will take the case here. I haven’t participated in it, so I will take your word for it. I grew up with hunters, so I can appreciate the sentiment. No buck was safe on the Monday after Thanksgiving. And the factory was quite empty.
 

Mr. Daystar

In a bell tower, watching you through cross hairs.
The right is in Constitution and they are legal. No debate there - excepting how “well-regulated militia” is defined.

I personally don’t buy the ‘defend us from the government’ argument any more. The government can fuck us at will with or without us having guns. The gov’t has much more fire power than any citizen’s group will ever acquire. Recent history has shown that using guns to defend some right has not worked out too well.

Your fun argument will take the case here. I haven’t participated in it, so I will take your word for it. I grew up with hunters, so I can appreciate the sentiment. No buck was safe on the Monday after Thanksgiving. And the factory was quite empty.
Well, you know, we disagree on this, it is what it is. If you lived in my area, I would love to take you out to the range if you wanted to, and you are right, no semi auto rifle is going to stop a armored vehicle, or stop an Apache helo with a chain gun, but it's still a right, and if it's not exercised, it could go away, and that can never happen, in my opinion. The politicians have been chipping away at all of them for years, and I just feel they shouldn't be, and maybe if the people they work for see, they won't stand for, maybe they'll think twice before trying to jam it in, without lube. But that's just a thought, it may be misguided, but it's how I fell.
 

xfire

New Twitter/X @cxffreeman
Well, you know, we disagree on this, it is what it is. If you lived in my area, I would love to take you out to the range if you wanted to, and you are right, no semi auto rifle is going to stop a armored vehicle, or stop an Apache helo with a chain gun, but it's still a right, and if it's not exercised, it could go away, and that can never happen, in my opinion. The politicians have been chipping away at all of them for years, and I just feel they shouldn't be, and maybe if the people they work for see, they won't stand for, maybe they'll think twice before trying to jam it in, without lube. But that's just a thought, it may be misguided, but it's how I fell.

You 💯% remind me of my brother-in-law, and that's not a bad thing. I like guns, I grew up out-shooting all my friends and family that are now big 2nd Amendment conservatives. I own guns, but I don't take them out shooting much anymore, I know I will hit what I shoot at. My guns are for shooting people that trespass onto my property, it's Texas, we have that right, too.
 

Mr. Daystar

In a bell tower, watching you through cross hairs.
You 💯% remind me of my brother-in-law, and that's not a bad thing. I like guns, I grew up out-shooting all my friends and family that are now big 2nd Amendment conservatives. I own guns, but I don't take them out shooting much anymore, I know I will hit what I shoot at. My guns are for shooting people that trespass onto my property, it's Texas, we have that right, too.
I don't get out much anymore either, I just can't afford the ammo. I have a couple(2) I haven't even put a single round through. One is brand new, and the other is about 30 years old. It's a very nice S & W revolver, model 57, in .41 magnum. If I could even find a box, they go for almost $2.00 a round, for a handgun cartridge. I really don't have much in the way of what everyone is screaming about, mostly hand guns, but still, I just can't see how law abiding people should pay the price for the bad guys out there. This last shooting in Michigan is the perfect example of how the ball gets dropped. EVERYBODY did the right thing, except the parents, which I am extremely pleased to see are going to face a judge, because those are the people that ruin it for everyone. I think the only thing the school did wrong, was not call the police, to involve them from jump street, and the other thing, was to insist that the child be taken home, and not allowed back in class. The way times have changed amazes me. I think we're about the same age, 56 for me. I'm sure you remember how it was in school, you got into with some one, the language used always was "I'm gonna kill you motherfucker, after school at the open field", or where ever, but telling someone you were going to kill them meant, you were going to beat there ass real good, now it means literally just that. Sorry for rambling on.
 

Mr. Daystar

In a bell tower, watching you through cross hairs.
Curious as to when your right to "bear arms" supersedes others right to "pursue life and liberty?
I'm not sure if that is a question for me. I will say this, I don't think either one should have to. I'm no danger to anyone. Unless your intent is to harm me, or my family. If that is not the case, then I'm just another guy on the street. If this question is indeed meant for me, then I guess I would a answer your question, with your question. If I'm not a threat, and I'm not, my happiness, and pursuit, and life and liberty shouldn't be put on the back burner. I'm not telling anyone to go out and buy a gun, just don't tell me, I can't.

If this was not specifically sure if it was for me, so if it wasn't I apologize for intruding on your conversation.

If it was, I hope I told you what you wanted to know, I'm guessing it's not making you happy, but I hope it makes me point of view a little clearer.
 
The question was intended for all that believe that their 2nd amendment rights supersede other rights to live in peace. I don't happen to agree that your right to own/carry a gun should mean that my children and myself should live in fear. See, I can't tell if you are sane or not. Your "side" even refuses to allow no fly list people to be denied guns. Maybe not you so feel free to disabuse me of that belief
 
The question was intended for all that believe that their 2nd amendment rights supersede other rights to live in peace. I don't happen to agree that your right to own/carry a gun should mean that my children and myself should live in fear. See, I can't tell if you are sane or not. Your "side" even refuses to allow no fly list people to be denied guns. Maybe not you so feel free to disabuse me of that belief
It's not a perfect corollary to be sure, but I would submit that it's a "way of life" thing, being fundamental to the American one. Take for example, Germany - extraordinarily specific and picky and serious and whatnot about their beer. Because it's a fundamental aspect of Bavarian culture, right? But people get shitted on the stuff and wreck cars and kill people, and break nasty because they're drunk and kill someone, and all sorts of beer-fueled mayhem - but a prohibitionist in Germany could rightly expect to be asked to fuck the hell off. You do you, that's not hard.
 

gmase

Nattering Nabob of Negativism
The question was intended for all that believe that their 2nd amendment rights supersede other rights to live in peace. I don't happen to agree that your right to own/carry a gun should mean that my children and myself should live in fear. See, I can't tell if you are sane or not. Your "side" even refuses to allow no fly list people to be denied guns. Maybe not you so feel free to disabuse me of that belief
Roughly half of all gun deaths are suicide. Sadly, that statistic tells us who should live most in fear of them.
 

Theopolis Q. Hossenffer

Every Nation Needs a God-Emperor!
For those of you who equate Communism with gun control:

Karl Marx

“Under no pretext should arms and ammunition be surrendered; any attempt to disarm the workers must be frustrated, by force if necessary”​

― Karl Marx
 

Mr. Daystar

In a bell tower, watching you through cross hairs.
https://www.yahoo.com/news/semiautomatic-automatic-assault-rifles-among-175324195.html

Let's take a look at this little joke. First of all, I seriously doubt they get any automatic weapons, unless of course a gang member of some sort turned it in, because it was a murder weapon. Even criminals know how expensive an illegal automatic weapon is. they would sell it to another criminal, or just not fucking care. Secondly, there is a strict law regarding detachable magazines, and capacity, in California, so if any of the weapons fell into one of those categories, they let a Federal crime go unpunished, no questions asked. In a state littered with criminals, and illegals in dangerous gangs, the last thing that should float, is amnesty for turning in a gun, that could have been used in a murder. I find it repulsive that any politician could except this as acceptable, just to get rid of a few guns. The sad part is, if that is case, the person that turned in a murder weapon, left the buy back, and bought a fresh one.
 
https://www.yahoo.com/news/semiautomatic-automatic-assault-rifles-among-175324195.html

Let's take a look at this little joke. First of all, I seriously doubt they get any automatic weapons, unless of course a gang member of some sort turned it in, because it was a murder weapon. Even criminals know how expensive an illegal automatic weapon is. they would sell it to another criminal, or just not fucking care. Secondly, there is a strict law regarding detachable magazines, and capacity, in California, so if any of the weapons fell into one of those categories, they let a Federal crime go unpunished, no questions asked. In a state littered with criminals, and illegals in dangerous gangs, the last thing that should float, is amnesty for turning in a gun, that could have been used in a murder. I find it repulsive that any politician could except this as acceptable, just to get rid of a few guns. The sad part is, if that is case, the person that turned in a murder weapon, left the buy back, and bought a fresh one.
I don't know much about gun pricing, but I thought the prices were the joke. $150 for a working (registered) gun, or $200 for an untraceable gun seems very low; I would imagine you could sell those for much more on the open market. If the goal was to get them off the streets, you'd think they'd offer more than market value so that people would have incentive to sell them back.
 

Mr. Daystar

In a bell tower, watching you through cross hairs.
I don't know much about gun pricing, but I thought the prices were the joke. $150 for a working (registered) gun, or $200 for an untraceable gun seems very low; I would imagine you could sell those for much more on the open market. If the goal was to get them off the streets, you'd think they'd offer more than market value so that people would have incentive to sell them back.
Yeah, you can get more on the open market, if they're clean. Before the so called "gun loophole", which allowed you to sell to anyone, without having to go through a gun dealer for an FFL check. In fact, here in Cleveland, the former mayor tried this ridicules stunt, and people showed up, to buy guns from the people turning them in, and caused an uproar, because at the time, they had no law to stop that. Then they passed a law, that says all purchases, and transfers (handing guns down to family), all have to go through a licensed dealer. If the gun is dirty, they would catch a serial number on a stolen gun. If the person getting $150 for a gun he stole, he's not gonna quibble, he's taking the cash, and running to a drug dealer. I'm sure there are people there that just don't want it around the house, and don't know what to do with it, or want the hassle of federal transfers.
BUT. they wouldn't worry about loosing money, if the gun was used to shoot someone, and the cops took the thing, and never ran ballistics on it, then just destroys them, eliminating any potential evidence of the crime. As far as the original question, the simple answer, which I went off on a tangent about, is why worry about profit, when you can dump a dirty gun, and still get paid, while getting away with it. Honestly, it also depends on the weapon itself, and the trustworthiness of who's collecting them. A few years ago, some city had one, and an old lady was in line with a rifle her husband brought back from WWII. Turned out to be a German Sturmgewehr, and was worth thousands of dollars. An agent pulled her out of line, explained, took charge of the weapon, because it was full auto, the ATF held it until a buyer could do a transfer, and take legal possession. The family was poor, and needed the money, and she probably got around 20-25k for it. So, it is entirely possible that if someone was turning something valuable in, they may be given a heads up first, who knows. It could also go the other way, where they pick out a couple of good ones for themselves, who knows. This is what one of those German rifle looks like, not hard to figure out, it's not your average store bought rifle.
download.jpg
 

Mr. Daystar

In a bell tower, watching you through cross hairs.
https://www.yahoo.com/news/u-appeals-court-rules-california-224937406.html

I must say first, even as a 2nd Amendment advocate. in relation to things like AR15's, or like firearms, I don't really have an issue with the age being 21. Having said that, some companies do make rifles that are semi auto, but are hunting rifles. I can't see that being unacceptable. In fact, a 3 day wait, and a raise to 21, for AR style rifles, would be fine with me, and while handguns are 21, lowering the age to 18, for REVOLVERS ONLY, wouldn't be unreasonable, in my opinion. However, I find it unbelievable that in a State over run by gang activity, illegal aliens walking in and out, that belong to cartels, are not a primary target, against gun violence, Once again, a clueless politician, completely ignores that, and puts blame on an inanimate object. If the state of California, wasn't run by a bunch of clueless, tree hugging fuck wits, maybe the good people of that state, would be able to enjoy a much lower crime rate. If they spent as much hot air, on rounding up the filth, and less on blaming those who are undeserving, they would be able to unpucker their bungholes, and not worry as much, about drive byes. Honestly, the only reason I'm happy about this, is because it is fucking them over. This guy especially makes me want to just bitch slap this fuck wit, like the bitch he is. Then yell at him, until he cries like a little girl

"Trump judges continue to shred the Constitution," state Sen. Scott Wiener (D-San Francisco) wrote on Twitter of the 9th Circuit decision. "The latest: 18 year olds have a 'constitutional right' to own mass killing machines."

It sickens me, that these fucking pieces of trash will scream about Constitutional rights, for things they BELIEVE are covered under one Amendment, or another, but the ONLY ONE, that is clear as a sunny day, they can't seem to accept.

But not a sunny day in California, they have to much smog.
 
Top