Which guns to get after Hilary imposed Gun Control ?

Commissioned. 2LT, Armor.

Went Reserves rather than AD because of the end of the Cold War.

"Retired" as a 1LT when I moved for work and couldn't find an Armor unit to attach to.

I don't say "veteran" because that implies AD, IMO. I'm proud of my service, but don't want to overstate it. I'm Minnesotan, after all....

 

There is a tax on every new gun sold in the US already.

- - - Updated - - -

I'm ex-Army, and I've never heard that term used as a pejorative.

 

Guns, ammunition, and even bow and arrows, are all taxed--it's about an 11% excise tax (meaning it's paid directly by the manufacturer/importer, not directly by the consumer (although, as we all know, all taxes on goods are eventually paid by the consumer)).

 

its the entire gun forum. Plenty of former army vets are anti gun. Even Bob kerry who had a MOH was a gun banner.

 

As I said, not my fight. I don't spend much time in the gun forum.

I imagine the percentage of anti-gun vets is significantly lower than the general population. Though I guess it depends on what you mean by "anti-gun." You sound like a gun-rights extremist, so your definition of "anti-gun" is probably quite skewed.

 

What's a "gun-rights extremist"?

 

As noted elsewhere, I picked up 5 AR 5.56 lowers last week.
Getting a .308 lower as well.
Will probably start baying AR mags every now and then as well.

 

IMO, someone who thinks the Second Amendment confers a near-absolute individual right to own weaponry, and opposes nearly any sort of regulation of guns.

Sometimes it's less about the position than the rhetoric. Or the paranoia. I tend to think anyone who uses terms like "gun grabbers" is an extremist. And people who think the government is coming for their guns -- even though, through eight years of Obama, they haven't -- is an extremist.

Like I said, this isn't really a big issue for me. But if you pinned me down and made me say what I think, it is this:

I like guns. Heck, I was a tanker -- I like REALLY BIG guns.

But I don't think civilians should have unregulated access to machine guns. Or RPGs. Or 20mm cannons. Or missiles. Or tanks.

I think it is reasonable to try to keep guns out of the hands of criminals, the mentally ill, and other such people. I think good-faith efforts to do so are not "gun grabbing". I think minor barriers to legal purchase are a small price to pay if it cuts down on such things.

There should be an avenue for responsible, legitimate gun owners to purchase all sorts of weaponry. I don't have much use for blanket bans, and bans that are based on looks rather than function are silly.

So you want to own a machine gun? Okay. Pass a background check and get a license.

After that it gets tricky. Semi-autos, for example. They're commonplace, and don't justify the kind of regulation machine-guns do. But the fact is, a semi-auto makes mass killing easier than a single-shot weapon. A semi-auto combined with a large magazine makes it even easier. Thus it is not irrational to try to find a way to keep that combination from ending up in the hands of someone plotting a mass killing, as long as you are not making it unreasonably difficult for legitimate gun owners to own one. So maybe background check and licensing for those, too. Along with other simple measures like waiting periods.

And BTW, a database of such licenses is not tyranny.

Background checks for private transactions? Maybe not, unless they are quick and free; that would be too cumbersome, and anyway very difficult to enforce. But we require a transfer of title when selling a car; I think that might be a reasonable thing to require for guns, too, even private transactions. That way there is a paper trail of ownership in case that gun later needs to be traced. It's the least intrusive way to regulate private-party sales. it wouldn't be perfect, especially with the sale of existing, unlicensed guns. But it would probably help. And it would automatically get more comprehensive over time, as older guns were destroyed or aged out of usefulness.

Technology that makes it easier to trace guns used in crimes makes sense, too. Ammunition marking, for example. Or microstamping, wherein you use lasers to put a microscopic serial number in thousands of places all over the outside and inside of a weapon. This, too, is not tyranny.

Finally, laws and technology that cut down on accidental shootings. So trigger locks, or mandatory gun safes -- that sort of thing, if they are effective and can be implemented without undue burden.

Gun extremists use all sorts of of extreme arguments to try to paint the above as unreasonable. They go on paranoid rants about the government in order to oppose licensing or databases. Or they try to make it sound as if stepping out of your house will get you shot, or that home invasions are common -- when the fact is, most households don't have guns, and your chances of being the victim of a violent crime (or any sort of crime) is extremely low. Societally speaking, accidental shootings are a bigger problem than people being killed/robbed because they weren't armed. They talk about how criminals won't obey the law -- ignoring the fact that the barrier still exists, and if criminals have to break two or three laws before they even get to use a gun, it increases the chance of catching them before they do so, and increases the penalty we can impose even if we only catch them after the fact. Which acts as a deterrent to even trying to obtain a gun illegally.

As long as I, a legitimate gun owner, can buy most any kind of gun without going through overly cumbersome hoops, I don't care if the gun is registered, or microstamped, or otherwise on record somewhere. I in fact APPRECIATE that, because it makes prosecuting criminals easier. If the government wants to try to round up hundreds of millions of guns -- never mind the additional hundreds of millions of already-owned guns that would, for practical reasons, be grandfathered in and not registered -- they are welcome to try. I have no real fear of them succeeding.

 

In the US, placing a tax on the exercise of a right amounts to a suppression of said exercise and violates the constitution.

 

As always, I marvel at the views and opinions and plumage expressed by the Rare Bird known as
"Goony Progunis Antigunis extremist"
A very rare bird species almost extinct, it's extremely contradictory views on Gun Control eventually cause it to implode in a huge impressive puff of feathers.

 

Machine guns are already highly regulated and extremely expensive once you get the licensing from the govt. It took me 6 months to get the licensing and I paid over $20,000, and that was a deal.

Background checks are already in place when you buy from a gun dealer.

Registration of the nearly half a billion firearms in existence today would be nearly impossible. First, most gun owners won't stand for it. Second, the people that are responsible for the bulk of our gun violence stats (which are in the inner cities, mostly gang and drug related) won't be registering anything.

The cost of microstamping ammo will make it prohibitively expensive, therefore is unconstitutional.

 

Machine guns are already highly regulated and extremely expensive once you get the licensing from the govt. It took me 6 months to get the licensing and I paid over $20,000 for the gun, plus the $200 tax stamp, and that was a deal.

Background checks are already in place when you buy from a gun dealer.

Registration of the nearly half a billion firearms in existence today would be nearly impossible. First, most gun owners won't stand for it. Second, the people that are responsible for the bulk of our gun violence stats (which are in the inner cities, mostly gang and drug related) won't be registering anything.

The cost of microstamping ammo will make it prohibitively expensive, therefore is unconstitutional.

Mandatory trigger locks and gun safes are not enforceable and will inhibit gun owners self defense efforts. Our Supreme Court has ruled that firearms are legal to use for self defense and mandatory safes prevent a swift response to a self defense situation.

I would like to see your source that proves that accidental shooting outweigh defensive gun uses. Here are 492 pages of defensive gun uses, each with a link to the local story for verification.

 

Yep. I think current laws around those are fine.

Yep. And many states have waiting periods. I'd like to see some uniformity in those laws, but overall I'm okay with the background-check system.

I already said existing guns will likely have to be grandfathered in. Though if we require a title transfer on private gun sales, like we do with cars, a sizable fraction of those guns might eventually become registered. No need to get a title until you want to sell your gun; then a title required. Fully enforceable? No. But that's not the point. The point is to gradually reduce the percentage of guns that are unregistered.

Then they will be hit with even stiffer penalties for whatever crime they commit, when caught with an unregistered gun.

Further, even if they don't bother registering, if the gun is microstamped thousands of times, inside and out, with a serial number (so that the serial number cannot be removed without destroying the gun), we can trace where the gun came from. It will make it more risky to provide criminals with guns.

That's merely a practical barrier. If it becomes cheap enough, it's a good idea.

 

The "grandfathered" guns as you put it amounts to nearly a half a BILLION firearms in the US.
To do a title transfer, first the has to be a title. There are no "titles" AKA.... registered guns. Any two people can get together and transfer any gun and there is no way for anyone to know.

What you want is registration. Legislation for registration won't pass in our lifetimes. There is way to much opposition, and no proof that it will make any tangible difference in our gun violence stats.

When criminals are caught with a gun that they are not legally able to possess, why don't we have even stiffer penalties right now? Our justice system lets these felons plea down to misdemeanors in many of these cases in the interest of expediting the cases. THIS one reform, could drop gun violence stats tremendously.
The justice dept reports that 71% of violent arrests are repeat offenders. This is because we let these guys walk in and walk out through the revolving door justice system. We need justice system reform. Removing the criminal from society is a quicker and more efficient means of effecting our violent crime stats than attacking guns.

Micro stamping is an extremely expensive proposition that would make guns to expensive for the low income demographic. It could easily be argued in congress that this legislation is unconstitutional because low and mid income folks could not afford to use firearms for self defense in their homes. Something that the SCOTUS has ruled on. Micro stamping is not magically going to become cheaper.

 

Why is a good idea, should it reach some cost threshold? Maryland took a ballistic sample from every new firearm sold in the state for fifteen years at the cost $5 million. It wasn't found to have solved a single crime.

 

Yeah. You said that. I know. So what?

This is true. But requiring a title transfer on sale will gradually get more and more existing guns titled and registered. It's a no-lose deal, since they're not registered now. Any improvement is an improvement.

Licensing, registration, title -- it's all the same words.

Opposition is no reason to stop pushing a reasonable idea. You sound like you just want to not even talk about it.

#1, so we should just do nothing?

#2, the experience of other countries demonstrates that we don't need to have the level of gun violence we have. And anyway, I think it's worth experimenting with reasonable, plausible solutions to try to address the issue. If something works, great. If not, try something else.

There is some truth to this, and yes, I support harsh penalties for crimes committed with firearms. But not all criminals are initially banned from owning guns. They need to have been convicted of a felony first.

Further, I'm interested in the pipeline that delivers guns to the perps. For that, you need to have traceability.

We tried jailing everyone. It didn't work. It was extremely expensive, it was applied unevenly, and our focus on punishment instead of rehabilitation meant that after the sentences ran out, we were forced to release people who had few marketable skills and no support. And we are shocked when they re-offend.

Harsh sentences for gun crimes help, but they are not a solution.

Microstamping ammo is expensive. And I agree: What part of "If it becomes cheaper, it's a good idea" was unclear? I agree that if something is prohibitively expensive, it is effectively a ban. But that doesn't mean you just drop it forever.

Microstamping guns themselves with serial numbers would not be prohibitively expensive. It would be feasible to introduce a step into the manufacturing process that marks all parts of a gun, inside and out, except for locations where such stamping would adversely affect function.

Why not? Do mobile phones still cost $10,000 and weigh 8 pounds? Things tend to get cheaper as technology advances. There is no reason to think microstamping is an exception.

 

Gun owners should not have to suffer gladly every GoofBall idea any Nutter has about Guns.

I personally prefer a Gun to be as simple as possible, not like My smartphone that often locks up and informs me it is busy and to try again later.

Fortunately, I know how to produce ammo, I could ever understand people that own guns yet favor gun control, it almost makes me think they are not really truthful about owning Guns.

 

Moblie phones don't have major opposition due to costs that make them un-affordable by many people who have the right to own them for self defense.

Smith and Wesson will be pulling out of the California market due to micro stamping requirements if legislation passes.


Stamped casing can only be traced to the last registered owner, not to the person who used the gun when the casings were stamped. In the case of a stolen gun, as is the case for most firearms used in crime, the stamped case would not lead to the criminal.

High costs for testing the efficacy of the technique must be passed on to customers, increasing the cost of firearms for those who obtain them legally.

Microstamping is easily defeated. Diamond coated files are inexpensive and will remove microstamping. Firing pins are normally replaceable and can be changed with simple tools or without tools. Firing a large number of rounds will wear down the microstamp. Marked components such as slides, barrels, firing pins and ejectors are all easily and commonly replaced items.

Microstamping is an immature, sole source technology, and has not been subjected to sufficient independent testing. Transfer of microstamped marks to the cases is less reliable than proponents claim.

Microstamping would be irrelevant/non-applicable for implementation of revolvers as these types of weapons do not eject shell cases.

Ejected casings can be easily collected and removed from a crime scene.

 

Sorry old chap but if you live in a country with free speech.........

Oh that is right!! The NRA is against free speech isn't it ?

 

although it is possible to remove micro chipping would it be something an average crime would or could do? Remember most criminals are either stupid lazy or both. Basically any crim that wants a non stamped weapon will try through criminal contacts for the black market The issue, once a control is in place is to shut down the black markets

 

Black markets have never been shut down, they even exist in your country as we speak.

 

Of course they do. But they are also part of organised crime, harder to smuggle and conceal than drugs and easier to trace. Quite a few members of organised crime have done time here for illegal possession of firearms

 

Wow. Nice red type.

You went off on a rant that confirmed several of my worst fears. You oppose any sort of regulation of guns that would make it easier to trace guns used in crimes. You claim all sorts of things are impossible that are not, in fact, impossible. You seem to not actually read what I wrote. For instance, you seem to think that when I say "microstamping" i'm talking only about firing pins. I'm not.

If a given regulation is too burdensome, great. But you seem to think ANY burden is too great. That's extremist.

"Shall not be infringed" has long been interpreted to NOT be an absolute ban. Hence the stringent regulation of machine guns. Hence you not being able to buy an RPG or a nuclear warhead. Hence background checks and waiting periods.

It just means a barrier cannot be too burdensome. And it must serve a legitimate government purpose. Those are the basic tests for infringing on rights such as free speech, religion -- and gun ownership.

 

I recommend the Barret Arms semi-auto .50 cal. and the Ansio Arms 20mm rifle with suppressor; but that's just me.

 

And pray tell exactly how, in any way, would microstamping make stolen firearms, used in the commission of crimes, easier to trace? If a firearm with a particular microstamping has been reported as stolen, how will finding spent cartridge casings at the scene of a murder help police officers either trace the firearm, or narrow down who has it currently, when it may have traded hands more than twenty times?

Beyond which, such markings will wear down overtime when the firearm is discharged, especially if the ammunition uses steel cases instead of brass. The more the firearm is discharged, the more the parts will be worn and abused, until such time they are eventually gone. What then?

Beyond that, it is currently a federal offense to deface a firearm so as to obstruct efforts at tracing and identifying it, such as obliterating the serial number. Under such a standard, would not the standard everyday use of a firearm for its intended purpose be interpreted as defacing since the microstamping marks will be worn out from countless hundreds of rounds being discharged?

- - - Updated - - -

It cannot be too disorganized if a teenager in the nation of Germany managed to acquire a prohibited pistol for the equivalent of nine thousand dollars.