[variablebinary]

If you think dark times are not brewing in the next 4-8 years you are wrong. This a chance Dems wont have again for a long time and they are sure to exploit it.

http://www.bradycampaign.org/xshare/pdf/politics/obama-transition-memo.pdf

 

[EricCartmann]

can you give us the cliff note version? ;D

 

[gunner69]

Sorry VB, I don't have two weeks to read this. Vas is los? WTF What is the meat ot this article. Thanks, Gunner

 

[variablebinary]

can you give us the cliff note version? ;D

Sure...ready?

"Turn em all in"

Done

 

[MrChem]

I know this sounds cliche' but if you outlaw guns, then only outlaws will have them. Once the microstamping is in full swing how fast do you thinlk criminals will start putting their weapons in some sort of bag to catch the brass? So millions of dollars of technology are defeated by a $.01 plastic bag. That's not even considering the fact that most guns in the criminal's hands won't have the technology and never will.

 

[CyberMonkey]

I think there has to be a "middle-of-the-road" solution to the gun control conflict. I am all for legislation that makes it harder for criminals to get their hands on guns, but I don't think that law-abiding citizens with clean records should be restricted from owning or purchasing anything. I read the entire Brady proposal and I have to say that, as the owner of more than a few guns (including an XCR), about half of the proposals make sense. Unfortunately the other half would restrict the privileges of law-abiding citizens.

The parts I don't mind:
If the government wants all new guns to be manufactured with microstamping, fine. It has no effect on me other than it might raise the cost of the gun by a few dollars.

If there is a requirement to report if my guns are stolen, fine. I'm going to do it anyway.

If dealers have their license revoked because they abuse the privilege of being a dealer, then I think it is totally reasonable to make it illegal for them to transfer their inventory to their "private collection" and sell the guns without any background checks to anyone they please. You don't reward people for abusing their privileges or breaking the law. "Hey, liquor store guy, we're taking away your liquor license because you keep selling alcohol to minors. Now you just take your $30,000 worth of booze home and sell it to whoever you want, but pinky swear you won't sell to any more kids."

If the government wants to access more information about me when I go to purchase a firearm, I don't care. They can already tap my phone without a warrant.

I also want to say that there are some scummy dealers who make bad decisions and have no conscience about making transactions that will ultimately jeopardize everyone's freedom to posses firearms. Let some of these people be weeded out by regulations. This will reward responsible and reputable dealers with more business, and will reward gun owners with not having to read so many news stories about illegal firearms transactions.


The parts I do not approve of:
If the government wants to force manufacturers to put more safety devices on firearms, I say horse$#!t. You can't protect the whole world from stupidity. The only real safety is proper training and respect for the weapon.

Banning carry in national parks is mind-boggling to me. There are animals that can eat people. Enough said.

Restricting the number of purchases within a period of time is ridiculous too. It only takes one gun to fire a bullet so I'm not sure what this restriction accomplishes. If a person passes a background check this month, they're probably gonna pass it next month too.

And, of course, the Military-Style (assault) weapon and high capacity magazine ban. This is foolish. Way more people have had their lives ruined by drunk drivers. Every person in this country can be trusted to not drink a gallon of whiskey and jump into a 6000 pound SUV that they will drive down the road at 70MPH, but I can't be trusted to own a military style weapon or a pistol that holds over 11 rounds? Nonsense. Until there is a breath-alizer in every car I can't imagine a valid argument that would convince me that assault rifles should be restricted for law-abiding citizens.


Anyway, rather than stand in opposition to any and all restrictions I have decided that I will only oppose restrictions that affect my right, as a law-abiding citizen, to own and carry. Somewhere in the middle of this issue lies the compromise that will please the largest amount of people on both sides. Unrestricted purchasing and ownership is as unreasonable as no ownership.

 

[aziator]

I agree to a point that we could probably find a middleground. Unfortunately, they don't see it that way. They will etch away at our rights until we have none left. Our rights as law abiding citizens shouldn't be limited. There isn't much you can do right now to restrict criminals from getting guns. They are going to get them if they want them.

QUESTION: How many people on this forum don't have a proper gun safe to secure their firearms? If you don't you are leaving yourself open to supplying criminals with weapons.

I agree that some dealers should be under more scrutiny, a few bad apples ruin the rest. In this day and age with instant everything (including sports scores on cell phones, internet on phones, blah blah blah) there is no reason to expand the wait period for purchasing a firearm.

With the microstamping, that is just the first step. The next step will be to outlaw any firearms that don't have that technology, or probably pay to have it added at an astronomical price.

If we give even an inch they will take everything we have. We can't start compromising with these people. That isn't what they want and it shouldn't be what we want.

 

[Northwesterner]

Here is what it says regarding Assault weapons

RESTRICT MILITARY-STYLE WEAPONS
We agree with President-elect Obama that we can uphold the Second Amendment “while keeping AK-47s out of the hands of criminals.”71 Assault weapons are semiautomatic versions of fully automatic guns designed for military use. Semiautomatic assault weapons unleash extraordinary firepower. ATF has concluded that assault weapons “are not generally recognized as particularly suitable for or readily adaptable to sporting purposes” and instead “are attractive to certain criminals.”72 ATF’s analysis of guns traced to crime showed that assault weapons “are preferred by criminals over law abiding citizens eight to one…. Access to them shifts the balance of power to the lawless.”73
Since the federal assault weapon law expired in 2004, police in major cities report a resurgence of assault weapon use in crime, with hundreds of people killed on our streets with these weapons of war since late 2004.74 Law enforcement throughout the nation has called for them to be restricted to the police and military. Presidents Gerald Ford, Jimmy Carter, Ronald Reagan, Bill Clinton, and George W. Bush all have supported a federal ban on assault weapons.
Congress should enact strong legislation that closes the loopholes in the previous assault weapons statute and restricts civilian ownership of other weapons that were originally designed for military use, such as .50 caliber sniper rifles that have the range and power to bring down aircraft. High-capacity ammunition magazines and armor-piercing bullets should be similarly restricted.

 

[Northwesterner]

Here's my take on this shit.

"Assault weapons are semiautomatic versions of fully automatic guns designed for military use"
THE MANUFACTURER OF ANY PARTICULAR WEAPON IS THE ONLY ONE WHO CAN DECIDE WHAT A GUN WAS DESIGNED FOR. IF THE MANUFACTURER ANTICIPATES THAT THEIR WEAPON WILL BE MARKETED TO CIVILIANS THEN THAT IS WHAT IT WAS "DESIGNED" FOR. PERIOD. IF IT WAS DESIGNED FOR MILITARY USE MAYBE IT SHOULDN'T BE SOLD TO LAW ENFORCEMENT, EITHER.

"Semiautomatic assault weapons unleash extraordinary firepower"
COMPARED TO WHAT? FIVE BLASTS FROM A PERFECTLY LEGAL SHOTGUN? ITS ALL RELATIVE.

"ATF has concluded that assault weapons “are not generally recognized as particularly suitable for or readily adaptable to sporting purposes"
THE SECOND AMMENDMENT DOES NOT SAY "RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS FOR SPORTING PURPOSES".

"ATF’s analysis of guns traced to crime showed that assault weapons “are preferred by criminals over law abiding citizens eight to one"
A BALD FACED LIE. ITS PROBABLY CLOSER TO JUST THE OPPOSITE.

"Access to them shifts the balance of power to the lawless"
FUNNY THEY SHOULD MENTION "BALANCE OF POWER". OUTLAW AW'S AND ONLY CRIMINALS WILL HAVE AW'S.

"police in major cities report a resurgence of assault weapon use in crime"
THEY FORGOT TO MENTION THAT THIS "RESURGENCE" IS SO MINISCULE THAT IT IS STATISTICALLY INSIGNIFICANT.

"hundreds of people killed on our streets with these weapons of war since late 2004"
WOW. I MUST NOT BE WATCHING THE SAME NEWSCASTS AS THESE PEOPLE. I JUST DROVE DOWN THE STREET TODAY AND DIDN'T SEE ANY BLOOD WASHING DOWN THE DRAINS. SINCE 2004 "MILLIONS" OF PEOPLE HAVE DIED FOR ALL KINDS OF REASONS, AND THE NUMBER OF PEOPLE PREVENTED FROM BEING A VICTIM BECAUSE THEY HAD A GUN, INCLUDING AW'S, IS IN THE THOUSANDS. SO USING THE TERM "HUNDREDS" IS NOT VERY PERSUASIVE IN THIS CONTEXT.

"Law enforcement throughout the nation has called for them to be restricted to the police and military"
I'M SURE LAW ENFORCENT WOULD BE QUITE HAPPY IF NOBODY HAD ANY WEAPONS WHATSOEVER EXCEPT FOR THEM. THEIR PERSPECTIVE WILL ALWAYS BE SKEWED BY THEIR OWN INTERESTS, PERHAPS RIGHTLY SO IN "SOME" CASES, BUT THEY WEIGH INTO THIS FAVORING THEIR OWN PROTECTION AT THE EXPENSE OF LAW ABIDING CITIZENS BEING ABLE TO DO WHAT THEY WANT TO PROTECT THEMSELVES. NOW WHILE THAT MAY BE UNDERSTANDABLE, I HAVE MY OWN PRIORITES AS WELL WHICH IS PROTECTING MYSELF AND MY FAMILY WHICH IS EQUALLY IMPORTANT. I'M TALKING ABOUT LE IN GENERAL. I'M SURE THEIR ARE INDIVIDUAL OFFICERS WHO HAVE A DIFFERENT VIEW.

 

[ny32182]

We've been hitting the "middle ground" bit by bit since 1934. This *is* the middle ground. As far as I'm concerned, all we are doing is re-defining the playing field each generation, and then moving to the new "middle ground"... rinse and repeat 20 years later.

 

[Martens]

I would say LE views will depend upon region as well as a difference between road cops and administrators.

Most cops I know, myself included, have no problem with law abiding citizens owning firearms. To be honest, I think we all assume everyone is armed until proven otherwise because we know the criminals will have guns. I have never had a problem with a law abiding citizen in any contact who had a firearm. They acted appropriately and it was a non issue. Couple this with the fact that we are citizens first and foremost and we want to keep our guns when we leave law enforcement.

As for Criminal's choice of weapons, I don't think "assault weapons" are in the top five. They are generally too expensive and hard to conceal. Cheap and small seems to be the choice. Mag capacity is not a huge issue for them as well as it seems they take what they can get their hands on.

We work more calls a day for injuries stemming from cars than from guns. I think we need a background check and bans on cars instead (just kidding). To me, it all boils down to responsibilty. If you misuse a gun, car, bat, tire iron, etc, the person needs to be held accountable instead of blaming the instrument.

 

[Northwesterner]

I would say LE views will depend upon region as well as a difference between road cops and administrators.

Most cops I know, myself included, have no problem with law abiding citizens owning firearms. To be honest, I think we all assume everyone is armed until proven otherwise because we know the criminals will have guns. I have never had a problem with a law abiding citizen in any contact who had a firearm. They acted appropriately and it was a non issue. Couple this with the fact that we are citizens first and foremost and we want to keep our guns when we leave law enforcement.

As for Criminal's choice of weapons, I don't think "assault weapons" are in the top five. They are generally too expensive and hard to conceal. Cheap and small seems to be the choice. Mag capacity is not a huge issue for them as well as it seems they take what they can get their hands on.

We work more calls a day for injuries stemming from cars than from guns. I think we need a background check and bans on cars instead (just kidding). To me, it all boils down to responsibilty. If you misuse a gun, car, bat, tire iron, etc, the person needs to be held accountable instead of blaming the instrument.

Agreed, and well said. It was LE administration in general that I was referring to.

 

[aziator]

Well said Martens

Remember kids, when Seconds count the Police are only Minutes away.

When asked why I feel the need to carry a loaded firearm on me "Because the cop I tried to carry got kinda heavy after a while".

 

[Dredd]

Here is a question, where is the Brady people getting thier information? Does the FBI still publish crime statics every year? I think the best way to really hammer these people is confront them on integrity. Challenge the propaganda with facts. I think we should be equating them to Hitler and Stalin. Ok maybe not, but they are trying to introduce the same policies.

Confront them on facts, I work w/several LEOs and like it was stated earlier criminals will use what ever they can get thier hands on. There was a guy who tried to rob a bank with a toy gun..... :duh:

Anyway, anti gun people are working from emotion and fear. Ok my :2cents:

 

[MickeyC]

It's funny how Chicago, New York, Dc and LA cops don't like civilians to have guns when most other cops actually applaud civilians who defend themselves.

 

[aziator]

If you look at the footnotes most of their "facts" come from reports back in the 90's. Yes, they need to be confronted on their facts. I love how they are always claiming that .50 Cal Rifles need to be banned because they can take down an airplane. Now maybe I missed that testing but I don't recall ever seeing that done. Sure, with a well places shot lots of rifles can do damage to aircraft. I have seen a blackhawk kit with 50 fire and it didn't blow up into a ball of flames.

 

[Martens]

If I am quoting the statistics right, the last FBI report I read said it was the lowest total of LE gun related deaths since the 70's. To me it seems odd that with the sunset of the 2004 ban and more states going the concealed carry route that LE deaths have been going down. I would be curious to see what the non LE stats are, but I would think the same trend would be evident.

 

[Oliver]

If I recall correctly the statement about .50 cal rifles coming from the military is actually backwards. I think the original .50 cal long range guns were made by the 1000 yd crowd and then adopted years later by the military.

But then again, I've never trusted the the Brady Bunch to get their facts straight. Back when they were still Handgun Control Inc. they used to spout that crap about being 43 times more likely to be killed by your own gun. (Which was true for 3 counties with abnormally high suicide rates, but completely irrelevant otherwise.)

We can call them on their facts and we can call them on their mission, but so long as they keep their propaganda machine rolling we're fighting an uphill battle.

 

[Northwesterner]

If you look at the footnotes most of their "facts" come from reports back in the 90's. Yes, they need to be confronted on their facts. I love how they are always claiming that .50 Cal Rifles need to be banned because they can take down an airplane. Now maybe I missed that testing but I don't recall ever seeing that done. Sure, with a well places shot lots of rifles can do damage to aircraft. I have seen a blackhawk kit with 50 fire and it didn't blow up into a ball of flames.

This is an excerpt from a CBS news interview in 2005 where the inventer of the Barrett .50 cal addresses that very issue. I think he would know:

Could the gun be used by a terrorist to shoot down a commercial airliner?

"It'd be very difficult. It would if it were a tactic that were even remotely possible," says Barrett. "Then our military, who happens to use the rifle, would be training their troops to do such."

But in his sales brochures, Barrett advertises the .50-caliber as a weapon that can take planes down.

"There's some military brochures that we had early on that showed that you could damage aircraft on a runway or Scud missiles and things like that," says Barrett. "Yes, you could if you have a parked target."

But not in the air? "That's correct," says Barrett.

 

[aziator]

yeah, I remember that interview. Ronnie is alright in my book. Yes, civilians were the first to try shooting a shoulder fired 50, then the military caught on.

It is an uphill battle but it is a battle that must be fought. Just 2 days ago I wrote a letter to the LT. GOV in GA about some comments he said regarding the upcoming year and gun legislation. It took all of 10 minutes to write the letter but I believe that it is hard to ignore a tangible letter sitting on your desk (from Iraq no less) compared to an email.

We can't let them beat us. They play on the fears of the uninformed. We can't let the NRA back down like they did in 1986 and 1994. We need to stand our ground because you can be dang sure that if there is another AWB they will try to make it permanent.

Write letters if you can, tell you elected representatives what you think.

Better yet, join a local grassroots organization. They will help fight at the local level and be pretty familiar with state issues.

Join the NRA. Though I don't agree with everything they do they are still a large force to be fought. Our heritage, our past time and the heritage we wish to pass on to future generations is at stake.

We MUST do our part. We CAN'T be the silent majority. The majority of Americans think that the 2nd amendment provides the right to keep and bear arms. Though some think that this right should be restricted that isn't up to them. It is our constitutional right to have guns. The constitution doesn't say people can have big homes, fast cars, jump out of airplanes, none of that. It guarantees our rights to our guns, and we can never let them forget that.