The Sandbox Oil Change Discussion

[EDIT: 15Jan13. Thread title changed to help keep our yack Local. MRP]

After Friday's latest massacre/'incident', i visited ADV's Church, State, and Money thread for the basement's take on Sandy Hook. It went sideways instantly, with polarized politics and polemics all over the map.


I thought we could do better.



Most of us here know each other personally. I consider many of you FF's true friends.

We have in this Sandbox cadre a vast depth of firearms expertise, to understate it. Many of you have grown up with firearms since wee youth, as i have.

We all know that Friday's horror will renew calls for policy change re: guns. I propose this thread to discuss what Control arguments are coming, the validity/viability of them (or lack of), etc.

Let's keep it civil and informative. With all the experience base amongst us i'm certain we can get some good points across.


Keep in mind: We are looked at by benevolent ADV moderators DataDaddy and Retro. If this thing goes south/mean it'll get booted to the basement.

Like i said, i think we can do better.


Thoughts?

Hmmm...

If the dopes in congress come up with some form of gun control bill, it'll only affect the people who have the means to legally attain the guns in question. The dregs of our society will always find a way of getting any type of gun any time they wish.

I'm not sure a gun control bill would solve future tragedies from occurring. The crazy fookers will just create havoc using other means...

:

Couldn't have said it any better myself. Eloy's not only a gentleman and a scholar, but an astute observer of human nature as well.

Also, here's a thought: the genie's already out of the bottle. Meaning, Bad Guys already have the kind of weaponry our Congress-critters want to ban. At least the Good Guys have a chance at parity. For now, anyway.

There's a parallel here with nuclear weaponry. Many of the nutcases of the world (and there are many), already have nukes. They won't give them up either. That genie's already out of the bottle too, and there's no putting him back in. Keeping the nuts in check with nukes of our own is not in keeping with the happy pie-in-the-sky world that John Lennon imagined, but it beats the alternative. I mean, come on, we hafta deal with Reality, or it will surely deal with us.

Prohibition--of alcohol, drugs, guns, etc.--just doesn't work; history backs me up on this. It's a truth many are very uncomfortable with. And no, I'm not an anarchist, and never was. We need government and laws, but with limits. In theory, our Constitution ensures that our govt. won't get out of control and become a force for tyranny. In practice, however...

President Eisenhower had some things to say about this in his farewell speech back in 1960. I'm not sure anybody was listening.

Current rhetoric seems to be focusing on renewing the AWB, emphasizing on bullet count (clips, mags, whatever) either handgun or rifle/shotgun, along with mandatory background checks on all firearm transactions (private party sales and "gun show loophole"). We'll see what the upcoming legislative session brings.

Thanks for the sanity check.

I'm not sold one way or the other on gun control, but I read an interesting article today on the topic. Australia introduced very restrictive gun control legislation, similar to Britain and Canada. Crime went through the roof immediately. Sweden has more guns per capita than USA and one of the very lowest crime rates in the world. Curious.

Wow..we can agree on something political !!

Not too long ago, some nut job in Asia killed a bunch of kids with a knife. You don't need a gun to kill kids.
If they let teachers have a gun, then they would have a chance to defend against nut jobs.
Over here they are talking about placing one armed guard at every school. I guess that's better than nothing.

Perhaps we should discuss responsibility?

As a 6s knuckle shifter of the degreed type, I always want to address the root cause. Gun/control is a fasade, it comes down to individual responsibility, when that is not taught at home, the spawn will kill!

Sometimes the search for that cause can be never ending

I'm a Canadian, not a hunter and never owned a gun. So I don't have a very broad perspective on the issue.
But I do question why automatic and semi automatic weapons capable of firing hundreds or rounds are needed by an average citizen.
Wouldn't it make sense, at least as a way to help prevent some horrific crimes, to restrict or control the sale of these weapons and their required ammunition and magazines?

This just in from England....

Two Muslims have crashed a speedboat into the Thames barrier in London .
Police think it might be the start of Ram-a-dam.



Sorry I couldn't resisit. This is a serious topic and my apologies for interjecting random dipwad humor.

In short, no. When restrictions are proposed, these things fly off the shelves. Obama and Dems are the best gun sales team ever. We can barely find any ammo for our guns since he got re-elected. Americans are afraid, and are buying it all up.

As a corollary, the NRA does no favors by using the "executive action is being signed, cops will take your guns" mantra and whipping everyone up into a buying frenzy, causing a bubble that only favors manufacturers and retailers.

568V8-

Well, you'll hear a good number of politicians (most left leaning) state that nobody needs an AR15 for hunting. Simply put, the 2nd Amendment wasn't put in place to ensure our rights to hunt, or engage in shooting sports. It was put in place to ensure that the citizens had the means necessary to resist gov't if it became oppressive.

A lot of folks are uncomfortable with that idea, but it is the plain truth. Dozens of quotes from various writings by the Founding Fathers and other important political figures of the time make clear their common belief in the citizens' right to arm themselves; they also detailed the responsibility to revolt against gov't when it became tyrannical. Just read our Declaration of Independence.

Another argument: "the Founding Fathers had no idea there would ever be such powerful weaponry." Baloney. Ordinary private citizens owned the most powerful peices of firepower available at the time: cannons. By the dozens. And they armed their private merchant vessels with them.

Something that comes up often in these types of discussions are automatic firearms. Let's be clear, the only way to legally own one is to purchase a tax stamp from the ATF (one per firearm). They are already heavily regulated, and supply is very limited as no automatic/burst capable firearms are available newer than May 1986. As the owner needs a stamp for each firearm, it is not something you can buy in a parking lot or "gun show loophole" unless you are already in the ATF's books and do the appropriate transfer paperwork. Again, we're talking legally, which is how this discussion should be focused.

Best,

Well said.


This is not just a random, comical picture posted from the internet. For me it reaches into the very core of my being.

Having gone through this process myself twice this year I can tell you that what once was a 30-60 day wait for the tax stamp is now over five months. Longer in some cases.