assault weapon ban again

[esd10]

i have been very nervous about the goverment trying to take away are second ammendment right to bare arms. the problem is the goverment and bleading hearts want to blame the wrong thing instead of looking at the real problem with our horrible mental health servous. i'm a father of a 2 almost 3 year old and i feel for those familys who have lost there children to that maniac from a senceless act of violence but a firearm is a tool nothing else a firearm doesnt go off bye itself unless someone has to pull the trigger and loads it. there are a bunch of law abbiding citizens in this country with so called assault weapons and you never hear about them because they dont do stupid horrible things with them and follow all laws and regulations and the goverment is trying to take away are rights to own the type of rifle or pistol we want to own. i want to know what you board members think about this issue and like i said guns dont kill people people kill people no mater if its a gun or a hammer or a ballbat.

[39special]

People should be able to bare arms.The horrible mental health service you stated is the way it is because every time there are budget cuts,mental health and social services are the first to get cut.The people in those field are over worked and under paid.My wife has worked in this field for 20 plus years.In the last 2 years her case load has gone from 30 to 85.
So don't blame the the mental heath industry,blame the government!

[esd10]

i miss spoke on the way i put it the goverment needs to put more funds into the mental health field and that should be a priority to get these people help befor they harm others. the goverment just seems to over look the mental health field and pump more and more money in the wrong places just like when they bailed out the banks and auto industry they should have put those funds toward mental health and education.

[39special]

I totally agree!! Maybe they should use some of the money they stuff there
pockets with!

[barrysloate]

Nobody is going to take your guns away, and nobody is going to do away the Second Amendment. Responsible citizens will always be able to own a gun. If there is an assault weapon ban it will be aimed to keep very dangerous weapons out of the hands of mentally unstable people. Whether or not it will work is unclear, but at least half the population believes it is worth the try. It's not only bleeding heart liberals who feel this way, it's people in all walks of life.

Try to understand what is going on instead of acting paranoid about it. The tide is turning and America wants to see some changes. You will still be able to owns guns if that is your thing.

And for the record it's "bear" arms. You have "bare" arms when your wear a tanktop.

[novakjr]

Here's an interesting article about the old ban..

http://kontradictions.wordpress.com/...-ill-tell-you/

[vintagetoppsguy]

Originally Posted by barrysloate

For the record, the Second Amendment was adopted in 1791 to give American citizens the right to own a musket. There was virtually no police force back then and the militia was dispersed. It was pretty much the only way a citizen could protect himself and his family against harm.

Harm from whom? If you can't finish your statement, I'll finish it for you. It was pretty much the only way a citizen could protect himself and his family against harm from invading armies or an oppressive government.

Originally Posted by barrysloate

Nobody is going to take your guns away, and nobody is going to do away the Second Amendment.

Last week (December 29th), was the 122nd anniversary of Wounded Knee where nearly 300 Sioux Indians were massacred. Why? Simple! The 7th Calvary wanted to disarm them of their guns. What about their Second Amendment rights, or does that not apply to Native Americans?

Gun confiscation has happened in other countries all over the world and even here in the US (many times). Wounded Knee is NOT the only example I can give, it just happens to be so close to the anniversary. It’s funny how the gun control advocates try to tell gun owners that nobody wants to take away their guns when history has proven otherwise. It’s also funny how Wounded Knee is barely mentioned (if mentioned at all) in our history books. I guess they wanted to just keep that hush hush.

[I Only Smoke 4 the Cards]

It's always good to see spirited debate on politics. Let me add my 2 cents.

I believe that a lot of gun violence is attributable to untreated mental health conditions. Providing adequate screening and treatment for mental health would be damn near impossible, especially given the current stigma attached to treatment. The simpler response is to have a knee jerk reaction and take away guns.

[vintage954]

Pro 2A here as well. ALso, a collector

[jhs5120]

.

[Runscott]

I wonder if there will be signs in bars, like in the old west, telling patrons they have to give their guns to the bartender when they enter. I guess the process would be that the patron leaves the house with his gun, ready to protect all of us from bad guys, stops for a drink as many of us do, but ends up drunk. Goes to the next bar and gets told to give up his gun...or doesn't show it until he needs to start protecting people.

Great plan.

Do the churches have to post signs above their entrances, saying 'No Guns Allowed?"

[Runscott]

David - I don't mind getting hammered for my last post. I was raised Republican, with guns everywhere and I'm a diehard Libertarian. Plus, I get a huge (deleted) when I think about buying another gun, which is imminent.

I just don't get this new Georgia law. Probably the fact that I lived in Texas for 35 years and North Georgia for 11, and hung out in pool halls for most of my adult life, has tainted my thoughts regarding guns in the hands of many of my friends, or even worse - the ones who weren't my friends.

(Barry - why is it so natural to type "the ones that" when it's correct to type "the ones who" ?)

[Runscott]

I don't understand how the IRS screw-up you mention has anything to do with the new Georgia law or anything going on in Texas.

Sent from my SM-G730V using Tapatalk

[vintagetoppsguy]

Originally Posted by Runscott

I don't understand how the IRS screw-up you mention has anything to do with the new Georgia law or anything going on in Texas.

Sent from my SM-G730V using Tapatalk

I'll connect the dots.

Can we at least agree the following 4 statements/questions are true:
The IRS has hundreds of thousands of rounds of hollow point ammo, right?
The IRS was targeting people based on their religious views, right?
More specific, they were targeting particular churches, right?
People go to church to express their religious views and worship as they choose, right?

So, if the IRS (who is heavily armed) was targeting people based on their religious views and people go to church to express their religious views, don't people have a right to carry a gun into church to feel safe against a group that was targeting them based on their beliefs? The new Georgia law allows people to carry a gun into church. After all, why do people carry guns? To feel safe.

Sound far-fetched to you? Maybe it is, IDK, then again, ask Cliven Bundy. A similar situation could happen in Texas with 90,000 acres near the Red River. Americans are finally standing up.

[Runscott]

I connected your dots and did not get a recognizable picture. But I see what you are going for - people in church who can't focus on the sermon because they have their finger on the safety and are constantly watching the door for armed IRS agents.

Sent from my SM-G730V using Tapatalk

[vintagetoppsguy]

Originally Posted by Runscott

I connected your dots and did not get a recognizable picture. But I see what you are going for - people in church who can't focus on the sermon because they have their finger on the safety and are constantly watching the door for armed IRS agents.

Sent from my SM-G730V using Tapatalk

Funny stuff, Scott.

But seriously, whether you agree with the Georiga law or not, you're going to see a lot of new gun laws in the near future that you're probably not going to agree with. Here's a new one in Indiana that allows residents to shoot police that overstep their bounds...

http://thefreethoughtproject.com/sta...efense-police/

[Runscott]

I think my disagreement with many on this topic, is really a matter of 'how much is needed based on likely scenarios?' I guess you could argue that if the IRS thinks people in the church might be armed, then they are less likely to attack in force during a service; however, would they ever do that, even if guns were not allowed? Anyone who was really in fear of such an event would have a gun anyway, and if their particular church had been publicly targeted by the IRS, even moreso. The new law just sets up bad possibilities for those who would not otherwise carry.

The armed drunks in the bar scenario is just plain scary - my preferred watering holes were the hole-in-the-wall North Georgia bars where if you weren't a local, you needed to be alert, and pool halls where we just plain out had fist-fights. Guns would have been a really horrible unknown factor in such places. My APA team had four legitimate alcoholics on it, and two other guys who were looking for fights even when sober and whose SAT scores couldn't have gotten them into mail-in colleges in the Caribbean. I'm certain both would (will) bring guns to the pool hall, just in case someone who they might get in a fight with brought one.

Look for the name 'Jamie' in the Marietta obits - he should get there within the year.

[Runscott]

Originally Posted by vintagetoppsguy

Funny stuff, Scott.

But seriously, whether you agree with the Georiga law or not, you're going to see a lot of new gun laws in the near future that you're probably not going to agree with. Here's a new one in Indiana that allows residents to shoot police that overstep their bounds...

http://thefreethoughtproject.com/sta...efense-police/

The fact is that we rarely see ANY laws that are perfect - there is so much bartering, etc, among lawmakers that you quite often end up with a law that is so bastardized that it would have been preferable to both sides not to have even enacted the law. That common practice for law-making could have dire circumstances when applied to gun control.

But the real proof will be in looking back at the results of the new law, perhaps 5-10 years from now. Hell, maybe the IRS will get scared and blow up their ammo caches. If our government could indeed be rendered useless and incapable of attacking anyone, much less its own citizens...what would all those guys in Idaho do?

[Runscott]

Now that I have a logical explanation for armed churchgoers, please give your thoughts on why we need drunken armed rednecks in bars where you already have plenty of fights between people who previously left their guns in the pick-up.

Sent from my SM-G730V using Tapatalk

[vintagetoppsguy]

Originally Posted by Runscott

Now that I have a logical explanation for armed churchgoers, please give your thoughts on why we need drunken armed rednecks in bars where you already have plenty of fights between people who previously left their guns in the pick-up.

Sent from my SM-G730V using Tapatalk

You asked me a question. I answered it and also asked you a question. Before asking me another question, how about answering the question I asked you?

Here it is again? Why does the Internal Revenue Service need hundreds of thousdands of rounds of hollow point ammo? Come on, humor me.

[Runscott]

Originally Posted by vintagetoppsguy

You asked me a question. I answered it and also asked you a question. Before asking me another question, how about answering the question I asked you?

Here it is again? Why does the Internal Revenue Service need hundreds of thousdands of rounds of hollow point ammo? Come on, humor me.

To be fair, you never answered my question about guns in bars. You did respond to my question about churches, but that wasn't near the concern for me as the bars.

David, I have no idea why the IRS would need ANY ammo, but I doubt it's for a planned attack on a church.

[vintagetoppsguy]

Scott, you scoff at the idea that a gov't agency could not raid a church as if it's never happened before. I can think of two right off the top of my head.

Originally Posted by Runscott

David, I have no idea why the IRS would need ANY ammo, but I doubt it's for a planned attack on a church.

As much as I try to come up with one, I can't think of a valid reason why the IRS needs that much ammo either. What about the Department of Education? Have any idea why they would need thousands of rounds of ammo? What about NOAA? The United States Post Office? Come on, Scott, surely they have some reason, right? Maybe it was just all on sale. Yeah, that's it. Again, this isn't some right-wing conspiracy theory. It's a fact that all these agencies (as well as others) purchased 2.5 BILLION rounds of ammo (much of which was hollow point). Surely there is a reason???

Edited to add: No, I can't think of a valid reason why a bar patron needs to have a gun in their possession.

[Runscott]

David,

I understand the appeal of arguing with a straw man, but no need to do it with me - I don't attribute facts to right-wing conspiracy theories; in fact, when a group of people come up with a view that I think is nutz or paranoid, unless it affects others in a negative way, I generally ignore them, realizing that there could be some mental issues going on that are hurting them a great deal than me - no need to make it worse for them.

I think I agreed with you in print, that none of these groups you mention need stores of ammo, but if not, let's make sure you understand that we are in agreement on that point. I'm also in agreement that we should have the right to protect ourselves with arms, for whatever reason we choose, be it a fear of the government or a fear of crazies with guns. But if that right infringes on the rights of others, and endangers them, I think we have to reconsider it. Thus my thoughts about guns in bars.

Regarding the churches, I was thinking of real churches - I don't want to guess which ones you are actually referring to, as that would be putting words in your mouth. Give examples and I will respond. For instance, I wasn't thinking of the Waco situation as involving a church, although technically they did have a church in their compound.

Originally Posted by vintagetoppsguy

Scott, you scoff at the idea that a gov't agency could not raid a church as if it's never happened before. I can think of two right off the top of my head.

As much as I try to come up with one, I can't think of a valid reason why the IRS needs that much ammo either. What about the Department of Education? Have any idea why they would need thousands of rounds of ammo? What about NOAA? The United States Post Office? Come on, Scott, surely they have some reason, right? Maybe it was just all on sale. Yeah, that's it. Again, this isn't some right-wing conspiracy theory. It's a fact that all these agencies (as well as others) purchased 2.5 BILLION rounds of ammo (much of which was hollow point). Surely there is a reason???

Edited to add: No, I can't think of a valid reason why a bar patron needs to have a gun in their possession.

[Runscott]

Out of respect, I asked for examples. Your response was to insult me. That's fine as it's the internet, but I'm done. You definitely know more about this than I do - I have no problem acknowledging that. We are looking at this from two totally different perspectives and no amount of discussion is going to change that.

Sent from my SM-G730V using Tapatalk

[vintagetoppsguy]

Originally Posted by Runscott

Out of respect, I asked for examples. Your response was to insult me. That's fine as it's the internet, but I'm done. You definitely know more about this than I do - I have no problem acknowledging that. We are looking at this from two totally different perspectives and no amount of discussion is going to change that.

Sent from my SM-G730V using Tapatalk

My response was an insult to you? You called me out by name (post #174) and I answered your questions. Granted, it was just my opinion, but I still answered your questions. Then, when I asked you questions, you wouldn't even answer. I didn't ask you to back up your answer with fact, I just wanted your opinion. Surely you have one?

I apologize if you felt my response was an insult. I deleted my response because I didn't want to argue about it anymore. But, since you obviously read it, I'll go back and add my response back word for word exactly as it was written.

[Runscott]

David, best to end this. Obviously some miscommunication and I'm sure we both can find non-argumentative discussions.

Sent from my SM-G730V using Tapatalk

[vintagetoppsguy]

Agreed.

[jhs5120]

.

[Runscott]

Originally Posted by jhs5120

I tried to understand the back-and-forth above, but I must be operating at a different wave length.

I do not believe it is rational to carry a gun into a church to protect yourself against the IRS. If you would like to carry a gun into a church then that is your right (if you are abiding by the applicable carrying laws), but I would hope you have a better reason than to feel safe against the IRS.

Sometimes when I fill out TurboTax I'll keep my gun on the desk just so the computer doesn't get any funny ideas.

I couldn't understand it either, which is why I suggested we stop discussing with each other. David is a great guy, but I should have learned by now to not talk about gun control with him. This was totally my bad.

[vintagetoppsguy]

Originally Posted by jhs5120

I tried to understand the back-and-forth above, but I must be operating at a different wave length.

I do not believe it is rational to carry a gun into a church to protect yourself against the IRS. If you would like to carry a gun into a church then that is your right (if you are abiding by the applicable carrying laws), but I would hope you have a better reason than to feel safe against the IRS.

Sometimes when I fill out TurboTax I'll keep my gun on the desk just so the computer doesn't get any funny ideas.

It's pretty simple, really. Scott asked me why one would need to carry a gun into church. My answer was based on speculation, just my opinion. Is it possible for the IRS to raid a church? Certainly, it's happened before - very recently in fact (see link). Is it probable? No, it's not. I don't think my little 80 member Baptist church is going to be raided. Do I carry a gun to church? No, I don't. Would I if it were legal? No, I wouldn't.

Now on the other hand, when I asked Scott to answer my question which required him to speculate, he couldn't do it. Scott's a great guy as well, but when the questions got tough, he took his ball and went home, not wanting to play anymore.

[jhs5120]

.

[Runscott]

Originally Posted by vintagetoppsguy

Scott's a great guy as well, but when the questions got tough, he took his ball and went home, not wanting to play anymore.

David, no 'big boy pants' comments? Come on, if you are going to insult someone for not agreeing with you, you can do better than the old 'took his ball and went home' comments.

[I Only Smoke 4 the Cards]

You mean to tell me that the government had the nerve to buy ammo and train the employees that handle firearms?!?!?

[zachtruitt]

How dare you use logic IOnlySmoke4theCards?? There is no room for logic when it comes to the internet.

[vintagetoppsguy]

Instead of snide comments, how about an intellectual one? If large ammo purchases are just "business as usual" for the government, why would the GOA launch an investigation on the matter?

http://rt.com/usa/dhs-ammo-investiga...apolitano-645/

From the article: "DHS claims that it is buying ammo in bulk to save money, but experts have pointed out that hollow point bullets cost nearly twice as much as full metal jacket rounds. They also explode on impact for maximum damage, which has caused some Americans to wonder what purpose they would serve the DHS domestically. Purchasing 1.6 billion rounds of ammo would also give DHS the means to fight the equivalent of a 24-year Iraq War. Members of Congress say the DHS has repeatedly refused to tell them the purpose of procuring such large amounts of ammo."

Furthermore, why would lawmakers introduce a Bill, HR 1764 Ammunition Management for More Obtainability Act of 2013 (the AMMO Act), that would limit the amount of ammunition purchased or possessed by certain Federal agencies (with the exception of the DOD) for a 6-month period?

[jhs5120]

.

[zachtruitt]

I think it comes down to the government bought a lot of ammo. They bought four years worth according to the article. I don't think they are stockpiling to "invade" churches or anything like that. I think they bought ammo in case they need to kill people. Seems pretty simple.

[vintagetoppsguy]

Originally Posted by jhs5120

The NRA published a report claiming citizens are the cause of ammo shortages, not the government.

http://www.fool.com/investing/genera...ortage-yo.aspx

That's not an NRA report. That is some article written by a guy named Rich Smith who, from my knowledge, has no affiliation with the NRA. If the NRA Report was linked somewhere in the article, then I missed it, but what you linked is definitely not written by the NRA.

Originally Posted by jhs5120

The reason this is being investigated is because buying hollow point bullets is a waste of money. Why else?

That is one reason why the GOA is investigating it. The quantity purchased is another. I was really concenred with the quantity part, that's why I mentioned HR 1764.

Thanks!

[I Only Smoke 4 the Cards]

I don't think the government bought ammo to create a shortage. My father is a huge NRA supporter but even he agrees.

If the government wanted to do that there are other ways to do it. My first thought would be to do inspections of manufacturing plants and temporarily all shut down all of the ones with violations. By doing this they would create a temporary shortage.