U.S. Fire Arms laws and regulations

[The Silver Thong]

Dictators are been toppled by the US to place corporate sponsored dictators; Morsi, a US sponsored ruler dissolving the Egyptian Constitution and the Judiciary, for example. Dictators are being traded for dictators; the faces change, but the intentions have never been far from the same.

I don't often agree with this sentiment but ya your right.

[A rather obscure Bassoon]

Knowing now that the Guns were legally owned by the Shooters Mother,does not the law require that the guns are locked up and that only the license holder has access to them?

I'm confused how he obtained the weapons and then killled his mother,then to go on and commit the mass shooting.

[Drayno]

Knowing now that the Guns were legally owned by the Shooters Mother,does not the law require that the guns are locked up and that only the license holder has access to them?

I'm confused how he obtained the weapons and then killled his mother,then to go on and commit the mass shooting.

My mother legally owns a .32 and she keeps it in a safe. My Winchester isn't in one, however.

That might be because it won't fit in any safe.

Edited December 15, 2012 by Drayno

[Maizer]

fixing the gun problem in the US is about as impossible as fixing your healthcare system.. (im assuming you are American?) there is far too much resistance on both issues.. its like p***ing in the wind..

Yes I am. And yes fixing it will take a generation, but the alternatives are unfathomable. Wilberforce got rid of the slave trade even though it was part of the system that generated 80% of revenue for the British Crown. He did that over the politicians who represented port cities and their workers.

It just takes one determined politician.

[Maizer]

Anyone know how far we're away from developing taser guns that can load and shoot electric charges fairly similar to a gun? It would only have to be accurate to shoot as far as 30 feet or however big your house is. Having an alternative that is effective enough against home intruders is essential for any realistic gun ban imo.

[mysticwerewolf]

there are numerous mail order catalogs and more than a few army navy surplus stores and police / security equipment stores that sell balistic vests, in most places in the U S they are not illegal to own and so no ids are needed, no proof that you need them for a job is needed . this too may change someday

as for the gun IF it was legally purchased by the shooter the min age in most places is 18, but more likely he took it from someone else who got it legally ( I don't have all the facts to state this as a fact but it is most often what happened .

I owned my first rifle at age 15 (almost 40 years ago) back when stuff like todays shooting just didn't happen ( still have it among others)

Edited December 15, 2012 by mysticwerewolf

[Gunn]

It just takes one determined politician.

Well let's see...one determined politician up against about 350 militia groups and some 1 milliion or more armed citizens who love their rights to bear arms. Yeah...okay, let's see that happen, without him or her causing a civil war.

[Drayno]

Well let's see...one determined politician up against about 350 militia groups and some 1 milliion or more armed citizens who love their rights to bear arms. Yeah...okay, let's see that happen, without him or her causing a civil war.

If any politician, or group of politicians try to take the right to bear arms away, there will be civil response.

[Gunn]

If any politician, or group of politicians try to take the right to bear arms away, there will be civil response.

Apparently the anti-gun proponents don't think so. I guess they think all gun owners will just sit back and let it happen.

Edited December 15, 2012 by Purifier

[Maizer]

Well let's see...one determined politician up against about 350 militia groups and some 1 milliion or more armed citizens who love their rights to bear arms. Yeah...okay, let's see that happen, without him or her causing a civil war.

Don't worry, any uprising against a legitimately good cause for the country will be dealt with swiftly. Violently if necessary. The government did that to abolish slavery, and this time it won't take 4 years.

Edited December 15, 2012 by Maizer

[Maizer]

If any politician, or group of politicians try to take the right to bear arms away, there will be civil response.

And those lawbreakers will be thrown in jail or worse. Like the slave traders of before.

Edited December 15, 2012 by Maizer

[Gunn]

Don't worry, any uprising against a legitimately good cause for the country will be dealt with swiftly. Violently if necessary. The government did that to abolish slavery, and this time it won't take 4 years.

No it probably won't take four years, you just might be right on that. But the question is, how many military personal are going to join gun owners and how much carnage is there gonna be, when the crap hits the fan. Don't think there would be that many, guess again. And I find it funny, that you wouldn't mind taking this country into a total civil war where many innocent lives, including children, the very goddamn thing you're trying to prevent with anit-gun laws, in the path of danager of being killed.

Edited December 15, 2012 by Purifier

[Maizer]

No it probably won't take four years, you just might be right on that. But the question is, how many military personal are going to join gun owners and how much carnage is there gonna be, when the crap hits the fan. Don't think there would be that many, guess again. And I find it funny, that you wouldn't mind taking this country into a total civil war where many innocent lives, including children, the very goddamn thing you're trying to prevent with anit-gun laws, in the path of danager of being killed.

Well I think any military man would put families, jobs and careers ahead of sacrificing their lives for a gun. In fact, if crap hits the fan, the vast majority of gun proponents probably have better things to do than mobilize for gun rights. It's not like guns are water or something or are addictive and have withdrawal symptoms like cocaine.

It'll be more like a few home search and arrests than a civil war. Children need not be harmed.

Edited December 15, 2012 by Maizer

[Gunn]

Well I think any military man would put families, jobs and careers ahead of sacrificing their lives for a gun. In fact, if crap hits the fan, the vast majority of gun proponents probably have better things to do than mobilize for gun rights. It's not like guns are water or something or are addictive and have withdrawal symptoms like cocaine.

It'll be more like a few home search and arrests than a civil war. Children need not be harmed.

Well see, now that's where your thinking is all wrong. First off, half of military personal are not married and a lot are divorced or getting divorced. War is hell, man...it ruins families, especially when they come home. I know this because I'm one of them. Second, I guess you don't know there are quite a few military personal who are involved with milita groups. Third...no guns are not like water, but freedom is and the right bear arms goes hand in hand with that.

Let's get back to the milita groups. At one time there were only a few milita groups in the whole terrority of United States. But when Waco happened, that brought up a lot of mistrust in our government. So nearly 45 to 50 militia groups formed after that. When President Obama became President four years ago, a lot more milita groups started to form and there are now nearly 350 milita groups; and the number is rising at an alarming rate. Know why there are so many now and why the number is rising like it is? Because there are a lot of ex-military personal and military personal joining those milita groups. <---Well I should say, that's part of the reason, but it's the most important reason.

And as far as the "a few home search and arrests" are concerned, their are quite a few armed citizens (in the milliions) watching, just waiting for the first sign of that to happen. And there is enough of them now, who will band together, just crazy enough to take on anybody who tries to take away their second amendment rights. And no...children definitely don't need to be harmed, but in every war, including a civil war, children always get hurt or worse...killed. So messing with the second amendment my friend, would be the biggest idoitic disaster for this country.

Edited December 15, 2012 by Purifier

[Maizer]

Well then, if certain people are willing to put their own preferences over a governments attempt to solve a larger problem, then there's only one answer for that. Unfortunately, there will be some collateral damage, but so be it. The blood is on the hands of those who reject their own governments well meaning laws.

The Second Amendment was outdated 90 years ago, and its time for a change.

Edited December 15, 2012 by Maizer

[questionmark]

That misses the point. The militia was already in existence and included essentially all able-bodied men.

Now, you can argue that you wouldn't want a lunatic to be a member of the militia and by extension own a gun. That still supposes that the default position is people can own guns, a right to be taken away only with due process of some kind.

That law did not create the militia, as you well remarked, it just extended its scope. Before that the militia were the law enforcement and military. After that it could be anybody.

[questionmark]

Which is precisely the attitude that leads to all these shootings: Fear the government (elected by us) and take matters in your own hands, no matter if you are p***ed because of a toothache, been fired from the job or think the world is going to end, it will all be solved by the S&W I have in my hands, that I purchased in lieu of what I am supposed to have in my pants. And naturally a lack of brains is helpful too.

[Jinxdom]

More focus needs to be put on the people who are careless with their weapons. Even then it's not a huge problem. Terrible problem yes, huge problem no. The mental health issues need to be addressed and found so that the laws in place actually work correctly. Does anybody think of the other repercussions of making guns more difficult to own? Not everybody lives in the city, or suburbia. Not everybody has police/animal control who can respond to a problem in a decent amount of time.

Sorry not going to face a moose during rutting season(Or bears for that matter,) in my backyard without a gun(though I would like to see an anti-gun nut use tazer on angry moose) when I have things I need to do. Sorry not going to give up my protection nor my land to satisfy people's misguided sense of security. Sorry not going to happen.

It's more complex then guns bad, ban them.

[Dan'O]

Which is precisely the attitude that leads to all these shootings: Fear the government (elected by us) and take matters in your own hands, no matter if you are p***ed because of a toothache, been fired from the job or think the world is going to end, it will all be solved by the S&W I have in my hands, that I purchased in lieu of what I am supposed to have in my pants. And naturally a lack of brains is helpful too.

Oh, classic ad hominem attack. On intellect and private parts too. Neat, but that informal fallacy is the extent of the argument.

And all from the island fortress of solitude too. How so very brave, righteous and superior one must be. I wonder how safe it is on the fortress of solitude? Pretty safe I would wager. Not everyone has that luxury. Criminals that are not legally allowed weapons get them, even in areas that have existing bans already. Denying and/or disarming legal, law abiding citizens from firearms is not the answer. The only ban on firearms should be on the administration further arming violent, criminal organizations in Mexico.

[questionmark]

Oh, classic ad hominem attack. On intellect and private parts too. Neat, but that informal fallacy is the extent of the argument.

And all from the island fortress of solitude too. How so very brave, righteous and superior one must be. I wonder how safe it is on the fortress of solitude? Pretty safe I would wager. Not everyone has that luxury. Criminals that are not legally allowed weapons get them, even in areas that have existing bans already. Denying and/or disarming legal, law abiding citizens from firearms is not the answer. The only ban on firearms should be on the administration further arming violent, criminal organizations in Mexico.

Why are you guys all afraid we want to take your maleness out of your hands? I don't care how many guns anybody has as long as they are handled safely and the person is in full capability of his intellect. What can't go on is that any lunatic can legally buy himself an assault rifle and go killing children, students or co-workers. That is the theme here. Not whether you are allowed to keep your dick ersatz.

[Idano]

Plus one. In fact, the president of the NRA strongly believes this latest elementary school horror in Connecticut could have been mitigated if all the kids were properly armed and trained to shoot back.

But then, he's an asswipe.

I like the idea of kevlar book bags, laptop cases etc. "duck and cover" cause with EVERYONE shooting...that could be messy

[The Caspian Hare]

Nope, acts of mass murder without guns are still far and few between. Just yesterday in China a man went knife crazy at an elementary school. 0 kids killed. The U.S? 20.

I say again: the biggest mass murder in the US was the HAppy Land Social Club fire, 1990, killed 87 people. The biggest school massacre was committed in 1927 (the "good old days") and invoved a series of bombs, it was called the Bath School incident and took place in Michigan. These are facts, you can look them up yourself if you like.

[The Caspian Hare]

That law did not create the militia, as you well remarked, it just extended its scope. Before that the militia were the law enforcement and military. After that it could be anybody.

The militia was always nearly every male citizen. That is the common definition of militia as it has been used throughout history. You didn't even have professional law enforcement or much of a standing army in most of the country in 1793 when the first militia act was passed.

[The Caspian Hare]

Knowing now that the Guns were legally owned by the Shooters Mother,does not the law require that the guns are locked up and that only the license holder has access to them?

I'm confused how he obtained the weapons and then killled his mother,then to go on and commit the mass shooting.

Pretty sure Connecticut has a safe storage law,like some other states. Connecticut actually has pretty strict gun laws including an "assault weapons" ban.

[The Caspian Hare]

Well then, if certain people are willing to put their own preferences over a governments attempt to solve a larger problem, then there's only one answer for that. Unfortunately, there will be some collateral damage, but so be it. The blood is on the hands of those who reject their own governments well meaning laws.

The Second Amendment was outdated 90 years ago, and its time for a change.

That's funny because a minute ago you were saying that dictatorships were on the way out and here you are wanting to see the military kicking in doors and killing people for the crime of owning guns.

Let me let you in on a little secret: a lot of military people are gun people and will quietly not cooperate with a confiscation scheme. A lot gun people are ex-military and know exactly how to harass an occupying army. And a lot of us do not intend to let anybody take our guns from our cold dead hands, we are going to do our best to take your guns from your cold dead hands if you try.