Jump to content

BHMCruiser

Legacy Members
  • Posts

    1762
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by BHMCruiser

  1. Okay I will bite. Why is any of this a problem? If they just required a background check for every sale of a firearm, would that satisfy you?
  2. Hey I think I've CR'ed this thread up too much. Anybody want to talk can DM me and I'm happy to discuss further.
  3. lol @ "completely erroneous" I have no idea why you are even TALKING ABOUT the world arms market. I didn't say anything about the world arms market. You did. You asked me if I knew how many were legally exported and I said "no," so that has hardly anything to do with my "gut feelings" on things. If that whole sentence was separate thoughts, like you were insinuating that I do not know about statistics of production or offending rates domestically, NOR do I know anything about the world arms market, then you are wrong on both counts. If you have statistics that show me that gun owners are as a whole less law-abiding than non gun owners, I'd love to see those. It would strike me as pretty amazing, since violent crime has generally fallen over the past 30 years while firearm ownership has generally increased. What situations you just mentioned? Did I miss one of your posts where you listed situations that are not sustainable? What are the issues you want to be aware of and not hide from? Maybe it would be better to start over so you can stop relying on dogma and half-articulated concepts. What are your rights you do not want stepped on? How do you define them?
  4. Got it. Actually they thought no normal person would pay that much and they didn't think they had the power to ban the firearms outright. The original legislative history is interesting. They picked the firearms that were being used during the crime spree at the time by organized crime and tried to get them regulated and registered. Handguns were included in the original proposal but recognition that so many normal people used them for lawful purposes that they were pulled from the legislation. The test has always been whether people who have them tend to use them for lawful purposes. That's why you can ban, say, brass knuckles, but you cannot ban handguns. It has nothing to do with lethality.
  5. No, how many? Anyway, I don't think it matters WHY it's the most popular rifle sold today. All that matters is that it IS the most popular rifle sold today. Which means there is a demand for it. Which means it is commonly kept for lawful purposes by responsible, law-abiding citizens. Which means it is protected by the Second Amendment and cannot be banned.
  6. The playbook is to make more and more laws that make it more and more expensive and less and less convenient to acquire firearms and ammunition. The barriers are incrementally increased to survive lax Second Amendment judicial scrutiny with the goal of having people just say "fuck it I'm out"
  7. The NFA is basically meaningless compared to routine gun control laws like "may issue" concealed carry permits and AW and LCM bans. Pre-purchase licenses like the FOID in Illinois or Maryland's HQL definitely hit minorities harder, but the NFA does not really impact firearms that are commonly kept for lawful purposes. I'm not arguing for the NFA, but it's not the minority-impacting law that the others are.
  8. Not true. There are hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of people in gun control states like California, New Jersey, New York, Maryland, etc. who feel like the laws are completely unjust. They follow them anyway. Because gunowners tend to be the most law-abiding people in America. Concealed carry permittees are at the very top of the list.
  9. That's not totally true. All you have to do is require all transfers to occur at a FFL with a Form 4473 and a NICS check. No registration is necessary. If you're saying you cannot enforce it because there are so many people who will just ignore the law, that's not really true either. Firearms owners tend to be the most law-abiding group of citizens in America. If you're saying that criminals will simply ignore the law, well that's true now as well. Most gun control laws really restrict and regulate the behavior of the law-abiding and do little to stop criminals from getting firearms.
  10. Of course it did. Manufacturers stopped making them. That changed the market place considerably. Anyway, the federal government isn't really where the problem lies (although the ATF and arbitrary regulation can cause a real headache). The real problem is the state and local governments and some of their restrictions. The courts are pretty uniform in applying a watered-down "intermediate scrutiny" to gun laws of every kind, and Everytown (backed by Bloomberg) is providing them with all sorts of support, including pro bono legal services from the best firms in the country to defend the laws. Without Supreme Court intervention, we're all just arguing in circles anyway.
  11. It’s a very fun round to shoot.
  12. It banned the most common rifle sold today for ten years
  13. This is the absolute truth
  14. Do they work or do they exist? They work as well as new laws that don't change anything but take away due process will work. What does the Second Amendment mean? And what gun control laws have been struck down by the courts? We already had a federal "assault weapon" and "large capacity magazine" ban. We won't have that again? As for ammunition, California and Seattle and Illinois all tax it heavily. No court has overturned those laws on Second Amendment grounds. San Francisco makes you lock your gun in your safe or physically carry it on your body (meaning you can't have it ready to use unless it's in a holster on your jammies), and does not allow you to possess common hollow-point defensive ammunition. No court has overturned these laws. Many states ban so-called assault weapons and LCMs. Only the Fourth Circuit overturned such a Maryland law, and was quickly reversed en banc. Many states essentially ban carry outside the home, and only the DC Circuit has overturned such a law (so if you live in DC, maybe you can get a permit, but if you live in Prince George's County, tough shit forget it). The Supreme Court has not taken any of these meaningful cases. People are not crazy to think that they should buy guns and ammo now if they want them when they are told that the government is coming and will outlaw the ammo, guns, and magazines everybody wants, or will tax them heavily, and the protection from the courts is scant, at best.
  15. https://www.reuters.com/article/uk-factcheck-biden-orourke-guns/partly-false-claimvideo-shows-joe-bidensayingif-he-wins-hes-coming-forourguns-idUSKBN20S2ST
  16. They're just illustrations of the what the specific details of a universal background check requirement or red flag law will actually require. "Universal" background checks mean that you have to conduct a federal background check, at least through NICS (although several states like CA and MD have their own state-wide background check database as well) for every firearm transfer you conduct. Not sale. Transfer. That's what "universal" means. If you wanted to modify it to be a background check for every sale of a firearm, then you may in fact get closer to the bipartisan support the polls indicate. Red flag laws or extreme risk protective orders are usually granted ex parte and then return of the firearms afterwards requires action by the respondent, even if the order is terminated or expires. So the petition is filed, the judge decides a prima facie case supporting the order has been made (i.e. "she said he said he would kill her"), no contrary evidence is reviewed (the respondent is not even notified of the filing). The cops serve the order on the respondent and take his guns at the same time. Then he has a hearing of some sort a week or more later and hopes he wins then. The burden of proof on the petitioner will vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. For me, disarming somebody, or taking their personal property, without predeprivation due process of law is a problem.
  17. There are already laws in place in every state in America that prevent wife beaters and the mentally ill from being armed.
  18. People are definitely overreacting, but the rhetoric from the left has a big part to play. Beto's comments on firearms, combined with Biden saying he would make Beto his gun czar and saying the WH would partner with the gun control groups are not helpful if you're looking for a rational middle.
  19. Then the majority of gun owners (including you) don't understand them. Universal background checks as in, you can't give your kid a shotgun without getting a background check? Or you can't give your friend a rifle without transferring through a FFL? And how much does that cost every time? And as for red flag laws, you think the government should be able to come and take your guns without any due process? On what basis? Somebody's say-so? Have you ever gone through a break up or witnessed somebody get divorced? Every state in this country already has involuntary commitment and protective order procedures in place. So why do we need to lessen due process protections for people? And what considerations should go into that calculus? The gender of the person against the order is sought? What about the ability to pay a bond to get the guns back? What about their skin color? Also, what happens if the guns are damaged or destroyed? Should I have to hand my grandfather's superposed over to the cops because my ex-wife said I said something? These are enormous violations of established civil property and liberty rights. To just say glibly "oh no big deal it's just a law that lets you put somebody in jail without due process or take his guns away and he can always go through two years of lawsuits to get them back," or "universal background checks," is to invite serious government abuse into our homes.
  20. Joe's is the best place I've ever used my expense account with clients. Just huge platters overflowing with stone crab claws. That place kicks ass.
  21. CFA is way better than the Popeye's sandwich.
  22. agreed but it's nothing compared to crabs. what a pain in the dick. why don't we just cut out the middle man? you give me two ounces of crab meat with lots of filament and shell in it, and I will go give myself 90 papercuts and pour salt into the wounds, and we can cut like three hours out of this deal.
  23. I don't think that's true. Tennessee itself does not have that much talent and there's no way they beat out Ole Miss, LSU, Alabama, Auburn, South Carolina, Clemson, Georgia and Florida for what is inside that circle. Even when they do, they won't have talented depth. I believe that Sarkisian will kick LSU's ass in recruiting, so that just adds more pressure. Maybe you're right, but Alabama, for example, only has two Tennessee players on its roster (only one of which I've ever heard of). Clemson has six. If Tennessee had a lot of elite talent, both those programs would have more.
  24. lol none of them go. No person from Baltimore would go to anything like that. Sure, they may firebomb their own neighborhood pharmacy, but they're not going to a rally in DC. Everybody in Smalltimore stays in Smalltimore. Smalltimore is their life. It's their entire universe. "You live in the country?" "No, I live in the County." "same thing"
  25. this movie sucked it wasn't "confusing." it was "stupid"
×
×
  • Create New...