Gun Control & RKBA
Related: About this forumDemocrats target gun laws, other issues
Delegates asked for the creation of a committee to review current gun laws, “with the intent to draft legislation that restricts where guns may be carried and sold and requires registration requirements and database for gun ownership and tracking of non-sporting guns and further outlaws the sale of any semi-automatic gun that can easily be converted into an automatic gun.”
“Common sense dictates that the more guns that are put on the streets, the more deaths will result from gun violence,” states the resolution. The resolution targets gun shows specifically as a place where guns are easily accessible.
http://www.heralddemocrat.com/sections/news/local/democrats-target-gun-laws-other-issues.html
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
DrDan
(20,411 posts)SGMRTDARMY
(599 posts)lets just keep on giving the perception that the Dem. Party is hostile to citizen gun ownership. Thats a real good way to win elections.
DrDan
(20,411 posts)you know . . . (as the article states) . . . . common sense
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)there is no such thing. None of these proposals have done as advertised anywhere in the world. Oh yeah, "non sporting firearms" and "can be easily converted to full automatic" have been pretty well regulated since the 1930s. Problem is, they don't know what they are talking about.
DrDan
(20,411 posts)Would you work against his campaign should he decide to run on this issue?
SGMRTDARMY
(599 posts)I agree with everyting in that article. But I suspect it doesn't go far enough for you.
DrDan
(20,411 posts)please read it
SGMRTDARMY
(599 posts)I agree that the NICS system needs tweeking, better reporting by the states, and I would support opening up the NICS for private sales as long as there are no records kept, it should be a sale/no sale system, what I would never support is registration of handguns or long guns, a federal ban on CCW, a re-instatement of the so called assault weapons ban, all things that Pres. Obama has called for, but not pushed for. And no, I would never work against him getting re-elected.
Simo 1939_1940
(768 posts)1) You seem to be absolutely unconcerned about the fact that there is proof that a central issue relating to the gun restriction/gun violence issue is counterintuitive, or defies "common sense". (the descending national crime rate that corresponds to an ascending number of firearms)
2) Your apparent willingness to snatch political defeat from the jaws of victory.
DrDan
(20,411 posts)SGMRTDARMY
(599 posts)You know damn good and well that no one here has claimed that more guns=less crime, the only thing we've said is that more guns does not=more crime. Don't try to hang that on us.
DrDan
(20,411 posts)the "more guns does not = more crime" bs
SGMRTDARMY
(599 posts)There are more guns in private hands and yet violent crime, including gun crimes, is at a 20 year low, and this comes from the FBI crime stats.
So unless your calling the FBI stats lies, nothing has been debunked.
shadowrider
(4,941 posts)the VPC and Brady?
Everything else disagreeing with the above two are stooges of the NRA/GOP.
SGMRTDARMY
(599 posts)your right.
DrDan
(20,411 posts)You cannot link them by saying more guns does not lead to increased crime.
I can show that in some cities, the number of churches is increasing.
I can also show that in the same cities, the number of bars is increasing.
I cannot link those two. The there is a third variable at work - population that causes the other 2 increases.
Same with calories - the example I have used in the past.
You can eat an increasing number of calories daily. You can also show that you are losing weight.
You cannot say that increasing calories daily will not increase weight. There may be another variable at work - an increasing level of exercise.
sarisataka
(18,655 posts)What is the direct relationship between churches and bars? None
What is the direct relationship between guns and gun crime? 100%- it can not be a gun crime without a gun.
The "common sense" is false. There are more guns. There is not more gun violence. This is not the only case you would expect A to lead to B but not get there.
Of course this relationship is a generalization of the total population. Subsets of the population may not hold to the pattern but rights are based on the population as a whole.
friendly_iconoclast
(15,333 posts)Sadly, this includes the 50 or Democrats in Grayson County, Texas who showed up at their local DP convention:
Terry Patchett, Jingo
Simo 1939_1940
(768 posts)Saying that more guns does not equal more crime is not the same thing as saying more guns equals less crime!!
SGMRTDARMY
(599 posts)He just wants to stir the shit and get one of us angry enough so he can alert and try to get us banned.
I've got him figured out and I won't play his little game.
DrDan
(20,411 posts)SGMRTDARMY
(599 posts)
ileus
(15,396 posts)Take my co-worker....
He bought two new Sig 22's this past weekend. 522 and 1911 22 pistol....there's probably 0% chance his firearms will be stolen or misused. Same can be said for my boss and my collection.
So yeah I can see where if guns fall into the right hands they could make society a better safer place. If all the criminals would ship me their firearms there's no doubt it would be better. If all the new firearms were build and shipped to me there'd be no better outcome.
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)I'm not a single issue voter. I disagreed with him giving the health care debate to a committee of Republicans and conservative Dems instead of going for simply changing the age of eligibility for Medicare. What's your point?
spin
(17,493 posts)But they left out what exactly what commonsense measures Obama proposed ...
March 13, 2011 12:00 am • President Barack Obama Special To The Arizona Daily Star
***snip***
• First, we should begin by enforcing laws that are already on the books. The National Instant Criminal Background Check System is the filter that's supposed to stop the wrong people from getting their hands on a gun. Bipartisan legislation four years ago was supposed to strengthen this system, but it hasn't been properly implemented. It relies on data supplied by states - but that data is often incomplete and inadequate. We must do better.
• Second, we should in fact reward the states that provide the best data - and therefore do the most to protect our citizens.
• Third, we should make the system faster and nimbler. We should provide an instant, accurate, comprehensive and consistent system for background checks to sellers who want to do the right thing, and make sure that criminals can't escape it.
***snip***
Clearly, there's more we can do to prevent gun violence. But I want this to at least be the beginning of a new discussion on how we can keep America safe for all our people.
http://azstarnet.com/news/opinion/mailbag/president-obama-we-must-seek-agreement-on-gun-reforms/article_011e7118-8951-5206-a878-39bfbc9dc89d.html
I don't see any references in the op-ed by Obama to require national gun registration or to implement gun registration in states that don't currently require it, nor do I see a suggestion for a database for gun ownership, the "tracking of non sporting guns" or outlawing the sale of semi-auto firearms that can "easily" be converted to full automatic.
Democrats face many tough campaigns in the upcoming elections. It is and will remain my view that supporting gun control measures as purposed by the Democratic convention mentioned in the article in the OP (http://www.heralddemocrat.com/sections/news/local/democrats-target-gun-laws-other-issues.html) would convince many voters who support many other issues that our Party wishes to implement to show up at the polls to vote for Republican candidates.
By opposing such draconian gun laws, I feel that good Democrats do far more to support our party than those who would push their Democratic candidates to pass such measures.
Clames
(2,038 posts)Way beyond their ability to comprehend. Since the NICS is about the only thing that has PROVEN to work it is obviously asking too much of some here to continue to improve it. The phone call to the NICS the FFL put in for me when I purchased a RRA LAR-15 this afternoon (at a gun show no less, the horror!) took all of 3 minutes if that.
DrDan
(20,411 posts)SGMRTDARMY
(599 posts)crowd here huh?
DrDan
(20,411 posts)SGMRTDARMY
(599 posts)He is stating a truth.
DrDan
(20,411 posts)gejohnston
(17,502 posts)I think I need to drag out an old sig line.
It is also a weasel term. It does not actually mean anything and is a common way to avoid actually thinking about or explaining a position.
Also
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x2260943
DrDan
(20,411 posts)How do you feel about the WH issuing a statement saying they are working on a "common sense" approach to gun control?
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)There are items that POTUS said before makes sense. Spin has posted them several times. Gun bans don't reduce violent crime. They do not reduce suicide. That is the experience anywhere in the world. Granted Australia 1996 law and Canada's licensing law in 1977 did see a decrease in gun suicide. The suicide rate did not drop.
Murder rate did not drop. Did not go up either.
The AWB was a joke because it was about cosmetics. It is also about a gun rarely used in crime. It seems most gun control advocates get their knowledge of guns from movies and video games. The cop killer bullet, and plastic gun hysteria came from a Mel Gibson movie.
The new Texas Dem platform calls for "curbing civilian access of automatic weapons." That might have been a reasonable stance in 1933, in 2012 it shows the lack of knowledge of either current federal laws or what an automatic weapon is. The only legal machine gun used in a crime that I know of was a cop murdering his informant with a MAC-10 or MAC-11. The gun was registered to the PD.
57_TomCat
(543 posts)a SWAT cop used his issued Department owned MP5 to kill his family. NJ I think, will have to check.
Tuesday Afternoon
(56,912 posts)and thats what loses us elections? Thats a real good winning strategy.
Especially when all over the country, gun laws are being loosened in response to citizens demands, and violent crime is at a 20+ year low. But, hey, what the hell, lets just keep shooting ourselves in the foot. (pun intended)
Oh yeah, and in TX, how well do you think this will go over with Texans? Lets ask those that live in TX and post here.
Hey Oneshooter, how well will this go over in TX?
Spoonman
(1,761 posts)I'm a born and raised Texan, with roots going all the way back to Judge Roy Bean!
Texas is already "red" enough, and I guaranty you we would lose every sitting representative that supported it!
"Common sense" MY ASS.
Pro Gun Control = Lost Elections!
Loosing elections is "common sense" ???????????
Tuesday Afternoon
(56,912 posts)Hangingon
(3,071 posts)The only place this resolution went is the TX Democratic convention. It may have had some influence on the anti-gun plank. In Texas, it is a dead issue.
mvccd1000
(1,534 posts)Although yours one contains more complete info. 
http://www.democraticunderground.com/117242916
Nice article to keep bookmarked when people say no Democrats want to come after your guns. (No, they're not coming after YOUR guns, per se, they're only trying to make sure you can't buy one in the future.)
Trunk Monkey
(950 posts)Converting a semi automatic rifle of any kind to full auto isn't easy. You'd be better served building the rifle FA from scratch
Travis_0004
(5,417 posts)When was the last time you heard of a shooting with a full auto gun. The North hollywood shootout comes to mind, but that was one incident 15 years ago. My assumption is this might be an attempt to ban guns they don't like, like the AR-15, AK-47 etc.
Also, I would assume gun control is a loosing issue in Texas. If they push for this legislation, they might find themselves unemployed next year.
SGMRTDARMY
(599 posts)gun control is a losing proposition for us, especially in TX. Instead of focusing on guns, why not focus on the reason for gun violence, which is at a 20+ year low even with more guns in citizens hands.
I just don't understand these Dems who think that this is a winning subject.
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)friendly_iconoclast
(15,333 posts)Tell you what, though- since you apparently believe that defeat is better than compromise, let's do our best to prevent antigun types away from
acquiring power in the Democratic Party. Then if they still insist that defeat is better than compromise, we'll know they really mean it...
SGMRTDARMY
(599 posts)your correct, it is extremely difficult to convert a semi to a full auto, and if you ever managed to do so, you will get a very unpleasant visit from the BATFE.
SoutherDem
(2,307 posts)I have heard a gunsmith say it was very simple, of course he was a professional.
I once saw detailed instructions which show how to do this. I wasn't interested in doing so therefore I didn't read how to do it but just glanced at the instructions. It did look detailed, but not something, out of the reach of a good home mechanic.
As I said I am not disputing you, I don't know, I am just going by what I have heard.
SGMRTDARMY
(599 posts)Modern firearms are extremely difficult to convert and the BATFE has got this pretty well covered. Even attempting to convert one will get you a very nasty visit from the BATFE and probably some pretty hard time in a prison of their choice.
That meme of being able to easily convert a semi to a full auto has been going around for years pushed by certain anti gun groups to further push their gun ban agenda.
PavePusher
(15,374 posts)Changing a car transmission and modifying the engine are, for the average auto mechanic, in a fully equiped shop, "easy". In your average driveway, by the novice? A lot bigger challange.
"Converting" firearms to full-auto is about the same. "Easy" with the right tools and knowledge, difficult and potentially dangerous (to the user/gunsmith) when done by the ill-equiped amateur.
Also subject to hefty prison terms when done without proper government permission, something the drive-way transmission change doesn't have to be concerned with.
Trunk Monkey
(950 posts)I am a professional machinist.
If you had an AR 15 lower receiver and the fire control group from an actual, select fire M16 then no, I don't imagine it would be too difficult to swap them out. Not sure why you'd want to but I'm sure it could be done.
but if you wanted to take an AR 15 and make it select fire you'd need a machine shop and a competent machinist and even then it wouldn't be "easy"
sarisataka
(18,655 posts)would be incredibly easy. Of course those parts are not generally available.
The AR-15 to M-16 change is one of the most difficult to do without the correct parts.
There are other weapons I have had training on semi to full auto conversion. In all cases it makes the weapon much less reliable and in several cases actually dangerous to the operator. 
The aura of such changes is pretty much myth. Full auto has its purpose as a support weapon on the battle field but little use elsewhere. I betray no secret in saying that while SEALs have burst and full auto options on most of the weapons they use, it is rare for them to use any setting besides semi auto.
discntnt_irny_srcsm
(18,479 posts)A full-auto assault by a single individual is not so much deadly as it is intimidating. From the days of the Rhodesian Light Infantry the tactical advantages of full-auto offensive fire even in a combat situation have been dubious.
I view crew served autos as indispensable in a defensive position. With the exception of the exploits of a 1Lt. Ed Silk in rural France, the success rate of individual attacks on such positions are low.
jeepnstein
(2,631 posts)AR15 lowers made since 1986 are different from their full-auto counterparts. There's more to it than drilling a hole and installing an M16 fire control group. Modern AR15's just aren't easily converted no matter what some gun store commando tells you. Next time they tell you that ask them about which bolt you need and why. Oh, and how much of the inside of the receiver needs to be milled away for the whole thing to work.
If you could find a semi-auto made before 1986 that fired from an open bolt you might have an easier time. Most of those got added to the NFA registry before it was closed. The ones that didn't might very well land you in jail even if they're not converted. I wouldn't touch one with a ten foot pole.
sarisataka
(18,655 posts)I was thinking of the old receivers.
The newer receivers would require a lot of work- to the point I would not trust it.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)Less simple to build a F/A weapon that will work properly.
(Easier if you use any number of rifles manufactured before 1986, before the requirement they NOT be easily converted to F/A, then you usually just need replacement parts from a F/A military 'cousin' of the civilian rifle you are converting.)
SoutherDem
(2,307 posts)The manual I saw was cold war error so it would have been weapons before 1986. The gunsmith I don't know it was just a curiosity question I asked him and his answer was as simple as I stated in my reply he didn't go into details and I didn't ask followup questions.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)Acquiring the parts to do it, just holding them in my hand, would be a 10 year felony in federal prison.
But mechanically, I could remove the parts that are in it for the fire control group, and the bolt/carrier, and replace them with M-16 parts with no modification, and I would have in my hands a bona-fide M-16. However, acquiring those parts would be incredibly difficult, illegal, etc.
If I pulled it out of the safe and went to town on it, I could not modify it to fire full auto, without going to my machine shop and fabricating whole new parts.
On any rifle made after 1986, you would also have to manufacture a new 'upper' and probably 'lower'. These are the housings for the bolt (where the ammo is moved around, and chambered and fired) and the housing for the fire control group where the trigger, hammer, sear, etc live.
On the one hand, it's a serious undertaking in either case.. on the other hand, people with hand tools craft AK-47's out of lengths of stolen railroad rails in places like Afghanistan. So 'serious undertaking' is a relative thing I guess.
I sure as hell wouldn't try it, even if it was legal. Do it wrong, and you're pretty much holding a grenade in your hands.
Trunk Monkey
(950 posts)Maybe I'm prejudiced from my time in the military but even if you could have an M16 why would you want to?
I never cared for those rifles
sarisataka
(18,655 posts)found them to be completely reliable and amazingly accurate. In range situations we tried to create neglect-based malfunctions and had a very difficult time doing so.
Would I want one? depends. Good for varmint hunting and small game. Fun to target shoot but most ranges are too short to make it a challenge. Home defense, good but I am partial to shotguns (and swords)
Cost is the major breaking point. I can get more for less, or spend that money on ammo for guns I already have.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)I inherited it. The only rounds through it are the proofs at the factory.
I have a couple mini-14's, which I like well enough, but .223 seems like a bit of a joke to me. I spend a lot more time with my .308's and .30-06's.
oneshooter
(8,614 posts)One is a standard A1 with triangle handguard, another is a early H-Bar target rifle, the third has a 16"bbl early round forearm and 2 position collapsing stock.
They have been fired very little, I bought them new a couple of weeks before reporting to DaNang. They are currently registered with the BATF as full auto weapons, even though they are semi-auto only.
Does anybody else know why that is so?
Oneshooter
Armed and Livin in Texas
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)If it was ever a machine gun, converting it to semi-auto-only doesn't change its legal status. Once select-fire, always select fire.
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)the flea market near had this guy who had a STEN for $400 claiming someone converted it to a semi auto. No, I didn't buy it. Some else might have.................
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)The law makes no allowance for a mistake like that, on the part of the buyer.
oneshooter
(8,614 posts)What they did was to pull a hundred or so un-serial numbered lowers off the M-16 line, issue them serial numbers for a semi-auto, drop in semi auto fire controls and then ship them. The uppers all have M-16 bolt carriers, and the lowers lack the third hole in the receiver for full auto.
So in 86 I received a letter from the BATF that altho the lowers were semi-auto I needed to register them as full auto weapons, including paying for the three stamps. This was a little bit of a problem, as I was working in Kenya at the time! I made a call to them (expensive!) and they sent the forms to me, I filled them out, sent prints and photos, and six months later got the stamps.
So I have three semi-auto rifles, registered and stamped as full autos! I have thought of getting the full auto parts, just never have.
Oneshooter
Armed and Livin in Texas
ileus
(15,396 posts)
aikoaiko
(34,170 posts)Texas actually has some strict carry laws and I can only attribute their desire to ban semi-automatics that can be easily converted into automatic loaders to ignorance (ATF has been addressing this for a while now).
Sadly, I think Grayson Democrats having been doing well in Grayson county and going after already decent gun laws undermines their ability to address more important and achievable goals.
Losing over their pet issue may be noble to some Democrats, but the consequences are too great for my liking.
BiggJawn
(23,051 posts)Sure, if you get rid of everything except the barrel and buttstock, then install a bunch of parts that are not that easily obtained. (((facepalm)))
And when you get caught, maybe that nice old murderer I saw on MSNBC yesterday will teach you how to make roses out of Kool-Aid-tinted toilet paper...
Oh, don't forget the black colour, the bayonet lug, and the launching spigot for a grenade that hasn't been available since 1974...
Why the Democratic party has to keep going down this dead-end road is beyond my comprehension. It's like they WANT to get their asses handed to them
PavePusher
(15,374 posts)this: "outlaws the sale of any semi-automatic gun that can easily be converted into an automatic gun".
What is meant by "easily"?
What models of guns are they talking about?
Details, please, or it's merely scare-mongering hot air and low-grade bovine-extract fertilizer. You know, something the Republicans would do.
friendly_iconoclast
(15,333 posts)Which is even less impressive when one realizes Grayson County, Texas has a population >120,000....
Tuesday Afternoon
(56,912 posts)good lord, that is sad.
Clames
(2,038 posts)...do you ever get tired of it? I know there are several flavors but there has to be a limit right?
further outlaws the sale of any semi-automatic gun that can easily be converted into an automatic gun.
The "technical and mechanical ignorance" flavor seems to be a favorite of the anti-gun crowd (some don't care or see why it even matters, they must be spiking their kool-aid).
Callisto32
(2,997 posts)cuz facts sure as hell don't.