@dagosa OK, it was from the Washington Post. Just a reference to it in 1969. Doesn’t really matter except it just illustrates that there is a segment of the population, legislators included, that would like nothing better than to turn us into the UK with no guns at all.
Here’s the excerpt: “The liberal agenda once included confiscating handguns and abolishing the right to own one — never mind the right to carry one at all times. In his book “Living With Guns,” Craig Whitney excavates the fact that in 1969 a presidential commission called for the confiscation of almost all handguns — and the prosecution of those who would not comply. The commission was headed by Milton S. Eisenhower, the brother of the former president and no one’s idea of a left-wing radical. (He was the former president of Johns Hopkins University.)”
@bing
This is where the conversation always goes. The old slippery slope to gun confiscation and fear. Somewhere between anyone being allowed to own a gun and no one is the simple fact that we have not confiscated automobiles…but we do license them. That seems to illude the fear mongers who seem to want to continue to arm criminals. It has to be tough to live in fear. Referencing an opinion piece is nothing more then spreading fear.
The UK does not outlaw guns…that is false. It licenses the owners. Gun violence by licensed gun owners is rare in the UK and overall has dropped dramatically.
Any law abiding citizen without a criminal record and other restrictions that even you will agree with…regarding mental health, citizenship etc. can apply for a license. Unlicensed users can go to gun clubs and play with them just like all the John Wayne wannabes do here but on our streets instead.
Woudn’t it be good if only law abiding citizens could own guns ? Home defense weapon ( shotgun) permits are EASY to obtain in the UK. Really ? let’s always use UK as an example.
This is not the UK with the population density and UK is very restrictive about carrying handguns and average guy can’t. Permits to carry handguns will always allowed here. If you don’t have a permit or license, you should not be carrying a handgun…it’s that simple. It doesn’t now work in restricted areas because criminals can get them anywhere else without license to carry and background check…NRA ideal.
So, what legislation would you propose ? Australia, also very restrictive, requires you get a license and register the gun…like a car…that’s it and any non criminal can do it…use that as an example.
@bing
Btw, I have a permit I have kept renewed since I needed it for work. Fill out forms, wait for check, thirty days later you have your picture ID permit. What could be easier ? Just about the same hassle as driver’s license. What is the problem other then…I’m not a criminal which seems to disturb NRA types. The only problem is, it doesn’t register the gun which I would be happy to include on the license…big deal. It’s easy.
Six shot revolver,bolt action rifle with 3 cartridge clip,pump shotgun-isnt that plenty of killing power? Theres a shooting range 5 or so miles away from me as the crow flies and when the wind is right and the Boys are there it sounds like a war when they open up with thier Autos and semi-Autos,its very distrurbing,sounds like there is plenty of gun freedom right now anyway.If you have to spray your target,your marksmanship cant be very high,anyway each to his own-Kevin
I could see full autos firing exploding ammo, available to anyone without restriction
That is just rampant paranoia.
Any explosive rounds must be registered as destructive devices.
The UK does not outlaw guns..that is false. It licenses the owners. Gun violence by licensed gun owners is rare in the UK and overall has dropped dramatically.
That may be true, but what about OTHER violence? Clearly, without many guns on the street, the UK would be one of the safest places on earth, right? Oh that's right, the UK was listed as Europe's 2nd most violent country; They want to restrict knives because so many people are stabbed to death each year.
2 questions:
1: Would you walk down the streets of Chicago, DC, or New York at 2am by yourself without any means of protection?
2: Would you be willing to put a sign in your front yard that says your house is a gun free zone?
@bscar2
Please. Read the full statement in context. The reason their are such laws has little to do with the wishes of the NRA. We can go on all day picking out phrases you could disagree with without reading the entire post.
As far As your totally hypothetical situations , everything you say advocates for more criminals arming then self for protection. Under the most stringent laws proposed, law abiding citizens can get permits to carry that are no more difficult to obtain then the license to drive.
Most people do not arm themselves in NY. Most people don’t walk down any major city street at 2 am . Do you feel unqualified to get permit ?. If you are qualified, get one, if you Are unqualified, you should not be carrying. It’s that simple if you feel a need to walk the streets of a major city at two in the morning .
Hmmm, we could go on and on for months and never agree to much on this subject. When you say that no one wants to take guns away, I simply provided information that at least since 1969, that is not true. There are people that do want to confiscate hand guns at least and everything except 1940 era shot guns and rifles. And whether or not the slippery slope is old or not, it certainly is an issue.
So you are perfectly happy with the current laws? What’s your problem then? Oh, you want to go farther so that you can also register them? Isn’t that the slippery slope? We really haven’t had a problem identifying who the shooters have been or the weapons they used, so how in the world does any of this make any sense in the prevention of a crime? It doesn’t.
Anybody can apply for a license in the UK? Sure, like anybody can play the lottery but few win. You cannot keep it in your house but at the local police station. That’s great. This is just nuts. Like I said we have so many many ineffective laws now costing billions of dollars that do nothing, and all people want is more ineffective laws. Tell me how any of this would prevent the 20 year old thug in North Minneapolis from shooting someone or the fruitcake? It wouldn’t but just make people feel better while advancing the wishes of the anti-gun crowd.
No one has ever proposed legislation to confiscate guns in the US.
Every time you say who can or cannot legally own a gun, you never differentiate between those who. can and those who cannot pass a background check. To anti gun legislators, it’s exactly what said at the beginning. Anti gun legislators don’t care. I would never support not allowing law abiding citizens from owning a hand gun. But different from you I do not support criminals owning them too.
Existing federal laws do not require full background checks and registration of firearms. That’s what is missing. The reason this discussion goes no where is you can not or will not differentiate between federal and state laws.
@dagosa
So you would walk down the streets in those cities at that time?
You didn’t answer the other question; would you put a sign in your yard that says your house is a gun free zone?
What do you mean by getting a permit? A CCW permit or a permit to own a firearm? Thankfully my state isn’t that ridiculous in requiring me to apply for a permit to own a gun. I will most likely be taking a CCW class come spring or summer this year.
Even the NYC police aren’t exempt from their new law
And Biden admitted that they don’t have time to fully enforce existing gun laws
I do not support criminals owning guns. Existing laws already eliminate felons, mentally disturbed, those with dishonorable discharges, and those who cannot pass a local police or Sheriff background check. What more do you want? Why is registration so important to you? What possible purpose does it serve? In Minnesota, it used to be up to the Sheriff to grant carry permits which metro area Sheriffs would not grant but outstate Sheriffs would. The law changed requiring the issue of permits with passing a background check and taking safety and legal training. Again what more do you want?
Actually I would probably even support registration and additional firearms mandatory training if the information were kept by a non-governmental unit, released only under warrant. Similar to AIDS patients of some years ago. It was a coded list for confidentiality that not even the governor could access. Yep, I don’t trust the ATF, FBI, CIA, Homeland Security, and alphabet soup anymore after seeing how they work. How well does the no fly list work?
It appears those on the east coast are far more anti-gun than those in the middle states where they are common. Maybe its their English heritage but they think that they are right and everyone else should do the same. But that’s just not the way it is in the vast expanse of the rest of the country. Why tell everyone else what to do on pick a subject: ______ soda size, coal burning, recycling, air quality, etc. etc. Your buddy Bloomberg is so interested in what everyone else should do but is not very concerned about the thousands yet that don’t have power, homes, or are denied medical treatment because they don’t have insurance. Just a big political bully.
The problem with needing a warrant would be abuse of power, like we’ve seen happen already. If the senate/congress won’t allow it, just use executive order…er “presidential mandate” I think they call it now.
@bscar2
"whouldn’t you put a sign on your house saying gun free…"
With all due respect, why the heck should I ? Why would you put any sign up ?
Mine is not a “gun free” zone…I have a permitt and several guns. Why would I put a sign that says anything of the like. I am legal as the state law intended . That is the way anyone who is legal and wants a gun, like a car, can be. why would I put up a no car zone when I had two legally owned cars ? The idea that so called "gun free zones " have to be free of guns just isn’t true. They must be free of guns of unlicensed and licesened civilians and non working police. I worked in a school that did not allow weapons by the faculty…our state called it a gun free zone. But, we did have a trained police officer on our faculty who always carried a gun and we hired police to monitor functions that required them. “Gun free” has nothing to do with working police…it has to do with untrained teachers that are not trained to protect others in defense of schools. Even if they have a permitt, they should not have guns on campus…it is gun free for non working police and teachers do not get the training necessary and are not sworn in as police officers to help protect them from the civic liability necessary to perform the task
I would like the criminals to have a gun free zones where they reside though…I differ from you. I only want the good guys, which I consider myself to have guns. But if I’m not a working cop, I should not have one there.
@bing "existing laws eliminate criminal etc. from having guns…"
Huh ? . Present federal laws do not prevent criminals from having guns because they only require background checks for buyers from dealers, not private sales. And, the law doesnot even require the records are to be kept by the dealer. We need to distinquish the difference between federal and state gun laws. ;=)
More then 40% of all sales go fom legal gun owners to anyone one, legal or not as no background checks are required…great law huh ? Training means nothing unless you make it a requirement to own and carry a gun as a FEDERALLY backed law for permits and gun licensing.
There are so many stories out there, under one proposal my lever action 22 lr rifle would now be an illegal gun as I can load 22 rounds. I bought it unfired as a toy to keep or sell if the price is right, so you are going to come take a rifle I bought 30 years ago and has never even been fired because it can hold more than 6 bullets?
I am presently reading in Popular Science thatJohn McHale using computer technology will begin selling Xactsystem, a line of hunting rifles and scopes that use military drone capability to make ANY hunter accurate up to 1000 yards. As any weapon can be sold to anyone in private sale, that means any criminal or person who does not need to pass a background check can now kill any one at this distance with little or no training. The NRA probably woud have no problem with this capability being sold to anyone with no restrictions.
In this Newtown massacre, news reports allude that the murdered mother bought the firearms used in the school and was, herself, a “firearms enthusiast.” I find that hard to believe. At the risk of being slammed for my opinion I will say that it seems somewhat certain that the mother was a doting, indulgent and enabling parent who wished to “love her son well” from his mental anguish. She likely bought the weapons as he demanded she do and she likely joined a shooting organization and attempted to be an avid sports shooter to have a mutual interest with the troubled son. And if there had been a new restriction on the magazine capacity, length, muzzle velocity or any other parameter of firearms the mother would most likely have done whatever was necessary to be legal and probably she would have been relieved that she had an excuse to get rid of some of the heavy duty firepower.
1: Would you walk down the streets of Chicago, DC, or New York at 2am by yourself without any means of protection?
Walking in Manhattan at 2am…I’ve done it several times. It’s no big deal. I surely wouldn’t be walking in the Bronx or Harlem at 2am. The easiest way NOT to succumb to violence is to NOT be put in harms way. Unless you have to be there…why would you be foolish enough to do it. Ever see the movie DieHard III. Kinda stupid don’t you think.
Yes…I guess you call it “trolling for trouble”, like George Zimmerman. There are bear in and around the woods we live in. I don’t hike through the woods during early hibernation time either. Something like any big city at 2 a.m.
People think they NEED a gun for protection…I agree there are times and places someone will. But your BEST protection is to NOT put yourself or family in harms way. I personally don’t NEED a gun for protection. I’m not stupid enough to put myself in a situation where I need one for protection. I don’t live in a high crime area. I live a couple miles from a police station.
Yes...I guess you call it "trolling for trouble", like George Zimmerman
The Zimmerman defense. Start a fight with an unarmed man…then when he starts kicking the crap out of you…pull a gun and kill him…“It was self defense. He was beating me up!!!”
The guy at Columbine had something like 20 magazines on him when he went on his spree. All of them were of legal capacity at the time(10 rounds).
The length of the barrel does have something to do with whether or not it’s a class 3 firearm. If it’s shorter than 16 inches or the overall length is under 26 inches, it’s classified as an SBR(short-barreled rifle). And muzzle velocity has more to do with the bullet itself, not the actual firearm; though longer barrels on rifles help speed the bullet up a little bit.