Gun control--Just imagine the possibilities! - Page 22 - Jeep Wrangler Forum
Jeep Wrangler Forum

Go Back   Jeep Wrangler Forum > General Discussion Forums > Off-Topic

Join Wrangler Forum Today


Reply
 
Thread Tools

Please support our sponsors and let them know you heard about them on WranglerForum.com
Old 02-12-2013, 10:56 AM   #631
I HAVE A BELLYBUTTON!

WF Supporting Member
 
cavediverjc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: On the grassy knoll...
Posts: 7,015
Quote:
Originally Posted by BlueRidgeYJ
Several states permit open carrying, such as was seen at Tea Party rallies in '08.

Banks are private property, and as such the owner has private property rights (from the same source gun rights come from) to determine the firearm policy of their property - same as your living room.

Don't you like being able to tell me I can't come over with a bazooka? Lol.

But yeah, try it in Cali or anywhere in New England... I can hear it now, "Drop the weapon! Lie on the ground, spread your arms and cross your ankles!" "73-Dispatch, one in custody." Or Illinois, most of Ohio... well pretty much anywhere not the Ol' South, Atl excluded, or the strip up from Texas to Montana.



I love country life.
It's funny you say that. Here in Kansas, we enjoy some of the greatest pro-gun laws around. A man accused of murdering a two year old escaped from jail here in Salina yesterday and they were trying to round him up for HIS OWN safety. The local LEOs were afraid for HIS life, not what he'd do to the local populace...lol...it's GOOD to be well-armed.

__________________
Americans sleep safely in their beds because rough men stand ready in the night to visit violence on those who would do them harm...

Happiness is a Barrett M82A1 .50 caliber and a target at least a click out........

I come in peace. I didn't bring artillery. But I'm pleading with you with tears in my eyes, if you f**k with me, I'll kill you all.....
cavediverjc is online now   Quote Quick Reply
Old 02-12-2013, 11:20 AM   #632
Jeeper
 
BlueRidgeYJ's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 4,917
Quote:
Originally Posted by cavediverjc

It's funny you say that. Here in Kansas, we enjoy some of the greatest pro-gun laws around. A man accused of murdering a two year old escaped from jail here in Salina yesterday and they were trying to round him up for HIS OWN safety. The local LEOs were afraid for HIS life, not what he'd do to the local populace...lol...it's GOOD to be well-armed.
Now that is funny. And you're right, if the citizens found him first no law man likely ever would.

It is good thing indeed. It doesn't promise me security today, it promises me security tomorrow - and that is the first step of society.

__________________
“Coming of age in a fascist police state will not be a barrel of fun for anybody, much less for people like me, who are not inclined to suffer Nazis gladly and feel only contempt for the cowardly flag-suckers who would gladly give up their outdated freedom to live for the mess of pottage they have been conned into believing will be freedom from fear.”
BlueRidgeYJ is offline   Quote Quick Reply
Old 02-15-2013, 02:09 PM   #633
Jeeper
 
scipio337's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 1,292
No one wants to "take away" your guns, honest!!!


MO bill would make refusing to turn over ‘assault weapons’ a felony


Quote:
Missouri House Democrats have introduced legislation that would make law-abiding gun owners criminals by banning them from owning “assault weapons” and high-capacity magazines.
The bill reads:
Any person who, prior to the effective date of this law, was legally in possession of an assault weapon or large capacity magazine shall have ninety days from such effective date to do any of the following without being subject to prosecution:
(1) Remove the assault weapon or large capacity magazine from the state of Missouri;
(2) Render the assault weapon permanently inoperable; or
(3) Surrender the assault weapon or large capacity magazine to the appropriate law enforcement agency for destruction, subject to specific agency regulations.

If the bill is adopted, Missouri residents who do not comply will be charged with a class C felony...
Mo. bill would make refusing to turn over 'assault weapons' a felony - Washington Times
Link to actual bill from the MO House:

http://www.house.mo.gov/billtracking...ro/HB0545I.HTM

I'm a Missouri resident, and while there is virtually no chance this will pass, it irks me that it's even being proposed.
scipio337 is offline   Quote Quick Reply
Old 02-15-2013, 03:02 PM   #634
Jeeper
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: CA
Posts: 628
California nannies (I mean, lawmakers) apparently want to ban future sales of all semi-automatic rifles that can accept a detachable magazine. Sad thing is, the law will probably pass. It would seem that nannies in charge of making laws in CA are miffed that NY one-upped them with tougher gun laws, so they feel that it is their duty to reclaim the status of CA as the least gun-friendly state in the Union.

Soon enough they'll only allow muzzle loaders.
__________________
1990 Wrangler 4.2L
Howell TBI, 2.5" OME springs; OME Nitroshocks; 5/8" OME shackles; Swaybar discos; 31" tires/15" rims
NonRubicon is offline   Quote Quick Reply
Old 02-15-2013, 03:26 PM   #635
Jeeper
 
scipio337's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 1,292
Quote:
Originally Posted by NonRubicon View Post
California nannies (I mean, lawmakers) apparently want to ban future sales of all semi-automatic rifles that can accept a detachable magazine. Sad thing is, the law will probably pass. It would seem that nannies in charge of making laws in CA are miffed that NY one-upped them with tougher gun laws, so they feel that it is their duty to reclaim the status of CA as the least gun-friendly state in the Union.

Soon enough they'll only allow muzzle loaders.

This bill would take things a step further. Not only would the "assault rifle" be banned, but POSSESION of one after 90 days from passage would be a felony.

In other words, hand it in, or go to jail.

MN has a similar bill that's been proposed.

https://www.revisor.mn.gov/bin/bldbi...l&session=ls88
scipio337 is offline   Quote Quick Reply
Old 02-15-2013, 03:59 PM   #636
Jeeper
 
Hokieneer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Wild and Wonderful WV
Posts: 902
This stuff makes me sick to my stomach! I welcome you all to WV we have had no such laws even suggested because to do so in this state means you just ended your political career.
__________________
The woods are lovely, dark, and deep, but I have promises to keep, and miles to go before I sleep, and miles to go before I sleep.
-Robert Frost
Hokieneer is offline   Quote Quick Reply
Old 02-15-2013, 04:00 PM   #637
Jeeper
 
Ditchdoc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Placentia
Posts: 3,001
Quote:
Originally Posted by scipio337

This bill would take things a step further. Not only would the "assault rifle" be banned, but POSSESION of one after 90 days from passage would be a felony.

In other words, hand it in, or go to jail.

MN has a similar bill that's been proposed.

https://www.revisor.mn.gov/bin/bldbi...l&session=ls88
That's a easy fix move to Texas. No income tax and good climate for businesses.
__________________
Bender Bending Rodriguez is my role model.
Ditchdoc is offline   Quote Quick Reply
Old 02-15-2013, 04:26 PM   #638
Jeeper
 
werubiblue06's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Moreno Valley, CA
Posts: 1,163
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hokieneer
This stuff makes me sick to my stomach! I welcome you all to WV we have had no such laws even suggested because to do so in this state means you just ended your political career.
Just last night the wife and I were talking about WV as a possible future state to retire to. We are only considering firearm/freedom loving states.

California is so ridiculous with all these stupid laws.
__________________
"We can't all be Washingtons, but we can all be patriots."
~Charles F. Browne
werubiblue06 is offline   Quote Quick Reply
Old 02-15-2013, 04:47 PM   #639
Jeeper
 
Hokieneer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Wild and Wonderful WV
Posts: 902
Quote:
Originally Posted by werubiblue06 View Post
Just last night the wife and I were talking about WV as a possible future state to retire to. We are only considering firearm/freedom loving states.

California is so ridiculous with all these stupid laws.
I am a little biased but I think it is a wonderful place the people are great, Its beautiful but in a very different way from Ca The forests are thick, the trails are muddy, the deer are plentiful, and the nights are quiet. I know its kind of sappy but I do love this place dearly.

But back on topic: Top 5 gun ownership by state
1. Wyoming - 59.7%
2. Alaska - 57.8%
3. Montana - 57.7%
4. South Dakota - 56.6%
5. West Virginia - 55.4%

and to be honest I think that is an underestimate

Come give WV a try! come test out the new river gorge its a ton of fun!
__________________
The woods are lovely, dark, and deep, but I have promises to keep, and miles to go before I sleep, and miles to go before I sleep.
-Robert Frost
Hokieneer is offline   Quote Quick Reply
Old 02-15-2013, 04:56 PM   #640
Jeeper
 
scipio337's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 1,292
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hokieneer View Post
This stuff makes me sick to my stomach! I welcome you all to WV we have had no such laws even suggested because to do so in this state means you just ended your political career.
Don't get me wrong, this has 0% chance of passing in MO, and would get you booted out of office in probably 160 of 163 Rep districts.

It just really irks me that anyone would even propose this.
scipio337 is offline   Quote Quick Reply
Old 02-15-2013, 05:04 PM   #641
Jeeper
 
Hokieneer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Wild and Wonderful WV
Posts: 902
Quote:
Originally Posted by scipio337 View Post
Don't get me wrong, this has 0% chance of passing in MO, and would get you booted out of office in probably 160 of 163 Rep districts.

It just really irks me that anyone would even propose this.
I completely understand every day when I read cnn its just sad how all these laws and articles are written to scare those who don't know anything about guns and how these laws will not effect gun crimes in anyway. They will only make it harder to do the things I enjoy doing. I do think its funny when some of these politicians suggest background checks for ammunition, I don't think they realize how quickly that would crash the background check system.
__________________
The woods are lovely, dark, and deep, but I have promises to keep, and miles to go before I sleep, and miles to go before I sleep.
-Robert Frost
Hokieneer is offline   Quote Quick Reply
Old 02-15-2013, 05:42 PM   #642
Jeeper
 
Ditchdoc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Placentia
Posts: 3,001
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hokieneer

I completely understand every day when I read cnn its just sad how all these laws and articles are written to scare those who don't know anything about guns and how these laws will not effect gun crimes in anyway. They will only make it harder to do the things I enjoy doing. I do think its funny when some of these politicians suggest background checks for ammunition, I don't think they realize how quickly that would crash the background check system.
I live in California. Let me tell you it's a darn shame that asteroid missed Sacramento and Diane freakstien. That meat bag is such a hypocrite, she has a concealed weapons permit and owns several guns. She is Napoleon from animal farm. " some animals are more equal than others".
__________________
Bender Bending Rodriguez is my role model.
Ditchdoc is offline   Quote Quick Reply
Old 04-14-2013, 05:11 PM   #643
Jeeper
 
Ditchdoc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Placentia
Posts: 3,001
Obama cuts our military spending by $10billion then increased money that goes to the UN by $3.6 billion. He then parades the families of sandy hook victims to promote the restriction of gun sales even that weapons used in that murder were all stolen and taken with force from the rightful owner. What is his real agenda?
__________________
Bender Bending Rodriguez is my role model.
Ditchdoc is offline   Quote Quick Reply
Old 04-14-2013, 05:22 PM   #644
Jeeper
 
streetjeep's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 96
A few points. First of all most people do not know what an assualt weaon is. I have no problem with background checks. Criminals and mentally ill should not have permits for firearms in my opinion. I have guns, and have a permit to carry concealed (although I seldom if ever do). But the some of the left wing side of the argument is plain ridiculous. They let emotions and feel good knee jerk responses get in the way of common sense.
__________________
God, Guns, and Jeeps - What else do you need?


The beauty of the Second Amendment is that it will not be needed until they try to take it. -Thomas Jefferson
streetjeep is offline   Quote Quick Reply
Old 04-14-2013, 05:32 PM   #645
Jeeper
 
Senior Chief's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: A Secure, Undisclosed Area
Posts: 2,794
ANY weapon that you're taking fire from is an assault weapon
__________________
Never share a foxhole with someone braver than yourself

2013 JK Sport, Dozer, Auto, 3.5 AEV lift, Nitto 35s, Black Rock D909S Wheels, AEV bumper, PIAA lights, Wet Okoles, FlowMaster 40, G2 Diff Covers, K&N, Springfield XD 40 ...
Senior Chief is offline   Quote Quick Reply
Old 04-14-2013, 05:41 PM   #646
Jeeper
 
Hokieneer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Wild and Wonderful WV
Posts: 902
Quote:
Originally Posted by streetjeep View Post
A few points. First of all most people do not know what an assualt weaon is. I have no problem with background checks. Criminals and mentally ill should not have permits for firearms in my opinion. I have guns, and have a permit to carry concealed (although I seldom if ever do). But the some of the left wing side of the argument is plain ridiculous. They let emotions and feel good knee jerk responses get in the way of common sense.
I also feel that most don't understand that most firearm purchases have to go through a background check any ways I personally have never purchased a firearm without a background check and even at a gun show if you purchase a firearm from a dealer you have to fill out the same paperwork you would in their store and they still have to call your info into the FBI background check center. So if they change the law to get universal background checks it really probably will have little to no effect because without a registration data base of all the guns in the us how are they to prove that a gun changed private hands before or after the law was put in place in any definitive way without may hours of interrogation. Universal background checks sound all well and fine to the general public but in my opinion they are no more than feel good legislation. And to the mentally ill not being allowed to buy gun the problem there is more of a reporting issue from the medical community because that is already part of the current background system but is only estimated to be about 4% reported. That's pretty terrible and I am a member of the medical community but it can be a controversial topic about reporting.

P.S. I in no way support national/state/county/city gun registration
__________________
The woods are lovely, dark, and deep, but I have promises to keep, and miles to go before I sleep, and miles to go before I sleep.
-Robert Frost
Hokieneer is offline   Quote Quick Reply
Old 04-14-2013, 10:48 PM   #647
Jeeper
 
Ditchdoc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Placentia
Posts: 3,001
I'm all for background checks but there has to be a limit to what they can check for or it would completely defeat the purpose of the second amendment.
It should just be if the person qualifies to own a gun or not there should be no documentation of what or how many guns anyone owns. Or that will defeat the purpose of the second amendment.
__________________
Bender Bending Rodriguez is my role model.
Ditchdoc is offline   Quote Quick Reply
Old 04-15-2013, 12:06 AM   #648
Jeeper
 
Hokieneer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Wild and Wonderful WV
Posts: 902
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ditchdoc View Post
I'm all for background checks but there has to be a limit to what they can check for or it would completely defeat the purpose of the second amendment.
It should just be if the person qualifies to own a gun or not there should be no documentation of what or how many guns anyone owns. Or that will defeat the purpose of the second amendment.
I agree with you I am all for background checks I have no problem with them, what I was saying is that any time you buy a gun from a dealer there is a background check done and most people I talk to don't realize this and I would put money down that the vast majority of gun purchased are through FFL dealers. What I can't understand is once the universal background checks are in place how would you keep people from doing it anyways, there is not an efficient way to do so and prove that the sale occurred before or after the new law was put into place.(especially with about 300 million guns that's a lot to keep track of) I believe there was also a provision to limit what gun dealers could charge for transfers (10-20 dollars Correct me if I am wrong), but a lot of gun dealers I have talked to don't want to go through that trouble for the small reimbursement. The law they are discussing seems to be fairly pointless to me because it really changes nothing. If they really want to decrease gun violence they should follow Richmond, VA's lead and impose steep jail sentences for any crime committed with a gun, that got results. About the documents on what and how many guns you own are out there because every time you buy a gun from an FFL the paperwork has serial number etc and they are required to keep a physical copy of that form. so would it be easy to figure out what and how many guns you have no, but it is possible the information does exist on all guns purchased from an FFL.
__________________
The woods are lovely, dark, and deep, but I have promises to keep, and miles to go before I sleep, and miles to go before I sleep.
-Robert Frost
Hokieneer is offline   Quote Quick Reply
Old 04-15-2013, 07:28 AM   #649
Jeeper
 
BlueRidgeYJ's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 4,917
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ditchdoc View Post
I'm all for background checks but there has to be a limit to what they can check for or it would completely defeat the purpose of the second amendment.
It should just be if the person qualifies to own a gun or not there should be no documentation of what or how many guns anyone owns. Or that will defeat the purpose of the second amendment.
It has already been defeated. It was NEVER intended to mean personal protection pistolas. It meant fully auto, tanks, tents, boolits and bread. When the AOC were changed, the verbage was too, leading us down the road of restriction.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hokieneer View Post

I agree with you I am all for background checks I have no problem with them, what I was saying is that any time you buy a gun from a dealer there is a background check done and most people I talk to don't realize this and I would put money down that the vast majority of gun purchased are through FFL dealers. What I can't understand is once the universal background checks are in place how would you keep people from doing it anyways, there is not an efficient way to do so and prove that the sale occurred before or after the new law was put into place.(especially with about 300 million guns that's a lot to keep track of) I believe there was also a provision to limit what gun dealers could charge for transfers (10-20 dollars Correct me if I am wrong), but a lot of gun dealers I have talked to don't want to go through that trouble for the small reimbursement. The law they are discussing seems to be fairly pointless to me because it really changes nothing. If they really want to decrease gun violence they should follow Richmond, VA's lead and impose steep jail sentences for any crime committed with a gun, that got results. About the documents on what and how many guns you own are out there because every time you buy a gun from an FFL the paperwork has serial number etc and they are required to keep a physical copy of that form. so would it be easy to figure out what and how many guns you have no, but it is possible the information does exist on all guns purchased from an FFL.
The "loop hole" prevention is to eliminate personal boothes at gunshows. There are quite a few people making their living, or at least additional income, through firearms trading. It would also stop websites like "Virginia Gun Trader" from allowing a massive amount of firearms to be sold on 'good faith'.

Mandatory minimums is a horrible idea. It has not worked, and will not work. It overpopulates our privately owned prison system, making companies like Halliburton very happy (and wealthy...er).

The FFL who calls in to the State PD for a bg check keeps your info on file, by law. There is no register or database you belong to for purchasing a firearm. There is no federal registration of nuedered weapons or pistols.

The whole point is to try and do 'something', but just like healthcare we will get a half-ass law that hurts people and helps companies. They will not accept the fact that our beloved pistols are the most common murder weapon in the history of mankind, and more Americans will die by one today than all other methods. The odds of someone being killed by a rifle or assualt rifle, ffl purchased or not, is about 1/20th that of a pistol legally purchased.
__________________
“Coming of age in a fascist police state will not be a barrel of fun for anybody, much less for people like me, who are not inclined to suffer Nazis gladly and feel only contempt for the cowardly flag-suckers who would gladly give up their outdated freedom to live for the mess of pottage they have been conned into believing will be freedom from fear.”
BlueRidgeYJ is offline   Quote Quick Reply
Old 04-15-2013, 07:38 AM   #650
President, ThumbJeeps

WF Supporting Member
 
sevenservices's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Mid-Michigan/Thumb
Posts: 3,947
when are they going to realize that people just flip out? People get all wacked up on things or feelings and want to take out as many as they can. Guns or no guns, this won't change.

Crazies will be crazies... thats all there is to it. Regardless of them using a firearm to kill people or fertilizer and fuel oil. Its a mute point, leave our guns alone. Its like trying to ban a shovel and setting up no digging zones lol. Piss someone off enough, give them a shovel and trust me, they'll find a way to kill people with it.
__________________
-Chris
President, ThumbJeeps
CB Callsign "AirForce One"


1994 Wrangler YJ I6 4.0 H/O Auto 3 spd. 4" RC (33x12.5) (15x8) 3:54 Gears
sevenservices is offline   Quote Quick Reply
Old 04-15-2013, 07:47 AM   #651
Jeeper
 
KC_Hawker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Too far from any coast.
Posts: 702
[QUOTE=Hokieneer;3637992]I agree with you I am all for background checks I have no problem with them, what I was saying is that any time you buy a gun from a dealer there is a background check done and most people I talk to don't realize this and I would put money down that the vast majority of gun purchased are through FFL dealers. [QUOTE]

The main issues I have with background checks is this. It poses an unnessary burden on families who shoot together. It opens people up who loan or share guns to becoming criminals because official paperwork and fees are not done.

I grew up in a family where everyone but me loved guns. We had so many different kinds, I just used whatever was available. Hate to say it, but it was kind of communal property - you just knew which were everyone's favorite guns and unless offered, you didnt touch those. We all shot together as a family. When I went to buy my first pistol (a .22), I couldn't I was only 20. My brother bought it and added it to the "family's" collection. We all shot it, but I mainly did. There was no official owner, it was the families in our eyes. When I got old enough and moved out, it stayed with the family since my new girlfriend/wife didnt like guns. That pistol has gone back and forth between my brothers and dad's house about 9 times. Its quality piece and everyone loves it. I decided to start shooting again and asked if I could get it back from my dad. If I visited FL, its here you go, enjoy. Since my dad wanted to ship it before these new laws go into effect, he paid $30 FFL transfer fee, shipping and I paid an $40 FFL fee for a gun that originally cost $200.

If you really want ackground checks done, make it like a driver's license - have it renewed every year. You show ID, you can buy anything, from anywhere in the US, even online. Just make sure there is no record tied to what you purchase.
KC_Hawker is offline   Quote Quick Reply
Old 04-15-2013, 07:54 AM   #652
President, ThumbJeeps

WF Supporting Member
 
sevenservices's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Mid-Michigan/Thumb
Posts: 3,947
^ thats how our CCW's work. If you have an active carry permit, you go to the front of the line and can buy any pistol on the spot. No 5 day waiting period. They know your clean or you would not have an active CCW. Even looks a lot like a drivers license...
__________________
-Chris
President, ThumbJeeps
CB Callsign "AirForce One"


1994 Wrangler YJ I6 4.0 H/O Auto 3 spd. 4" RC (33x12.5) (15x8) 3:54 Gears
sevenservices is offline   Quote Quick Reply
Old 04-15-2013, 08:10 AM   #653
Jeeper
 
KC_Hawker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Too far from any coast.
Posts: 702
Quote:
Originally Posted by sevenservices View Post
^ thats how our CCW's work. If you have an active carry permit, you go to the front of the line and can buy any pistol on the spot. No 5 day waiting period. They know your clean or you would not have an active CCW. Even looks a lot like a drivers license...
That would be fine. Do they run your ccw #? Do you still have to pay ffl fees even if they are not tasking the 15 minutes to check?

Edit. BTW thanks for the info. Just found out Kansas is like that too, but its based on the dealers discretion. Moved here 2 years ago and never checked. Now I need my ccl.
KC_Hawker is offline   Quote Quick Reply
Old 04-15-2013, 09:09 AM   #654
Jeeper
 
Hokieneer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Wild and Wonderful WV
Posts: 902
Quote:
The main issues I have with background checks is this. It poses an unnessary burden on families who shoot together. It opens people up who loan or share guns to becoming criminals because official paperwork and fees are not done.

I grew up in a family where everyone but me loved guns. We had so many different kinds, I just used whatever was available. Hate to say it, but it was kind of communal property - you just knew which were everyone's favorite guns and unless offered, you didnt touch those. We all shot together as a family. When I went to buy my first pistol (a .22), I couldn't I was only 20. My brother bought it and added it to the "family's" collection. We all shot it, but I mainly did. There was no official owner, it was the families in our eyes. When I got old enough and moved out, it stayed with the family since my new girlfriend/wife didnt like guns. That pistol has gone back and forth between my brothers and dad's house about 9 times. Its quality piece and everyone loves it. I decided to start shooting again and asked if I could get it back from my dad. If I visited FL, its here you go, enjoy. Since my dad wanted to ship it before these new laws go into effect, he paid $30 FFL transfer fee, shipping and I paid an $40 FFL fee for a gun that originally cost $200.

If you really want ackground checks done, make it like a driver's license - have it renewed every year. You show ID, you can buy anything, from anywhere in the US, even online. Just make sure there is no record tied to what you purchase.
I completely understand my family is the exact same way with guns and getting names transfered is a problem but in reality how often is ownership really researched and wouln't LEO's have to go to the gun dealer where the firearm was purchased and get a paper copy of who purchased it? I like the ID idea but the main problem I see with it is that a lot of things can change in even just a year and an instant background check probably not such a bad thing
__________________
The woods are lovely, dark, and deep, but I have promises to keep, and miles to go before I sleep, and miles to go before I sleep.
-Robert Frost
Hokieneer is offline   Quote Quick Reply
Old 04-15-2013, 09:25 AM   #655
Jeeper
 
Hokieneer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Wild and Wonderful WV
Posts: 902
Quote:
Originally Posted by BlueRidgeYJ View Post
The "loop hole" prevention is to eliminate personal boothes at gunshows. There are quite a few people making their living, or at least additional income, through firearms trading. It would also stop websites like "Virginia Gun Trader" from allowing a massive amount of firearms to be sold on 'good faith'.

Mandatory minimums is a horrible idea. It has not worked, and will not work. It overpopulates our privately owned prison system, making companies like Halliburton very happy (and wealthy...er).

The FFL who calls in to the State PD for a bg check keeps your info on file, by law. There is no register or database you belong to for purchasing a firearm. There is no federal registration of nuedered weapons or pistols.

The whole point is to try and do 'something', but just like healthcare we will get a half-ass law that hurts people and helps companies. They will not accept the fact that our beloved pistols are the most common murder weapon in the history of mankind, and more Americans will die by one today than all other methods. The odds of someone being killed by a rifle or assualt rifle, ffl purchased or not, is about 1/20th that of a pistol legally purchased.
I realize there is no database for what firearms you have purchased but is there not a paper trail at the dealer of what you purchased? or is it just that you purchased something? Yeah I had not really followed mandatory minimums since I moved out of Virginia it seemed like it got results but I get what you are saying. I also completely agree with you that it is crazy they are going after "assault rifles" when all rifles are only responsible for about 4% of gun homicides. I hate all the violence that occurs but the reality is there is no simple solution to this and people as a group don't seem to understand this, I am sure on an individual level we all understand it but group think and emotion out weigh reason all to often
__________________
The woods are lovely, dark, and deep, but I have promises to keep, and miles to go before I sleep, and miles to go before I sleep.
-Robert Frost
Hokieneer is offline   Quote Quick Reply
Old 04-15-2013, 11:18 AM   #656
Jeeper
 
BlueRidgeYJ's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 4,917
Quote:
Originally Posted by sevenservices View Post
when are they going to realize that people just flip out? People get all wacked up on things or feelings and want to take out as many as they can. Guns or no guns, this won't change.

Crazies will be crazies... thats all there is to it. Regardless of them using a firearm to kill people or fertilizer and fuel oil. Its a mute point, leave our guns alone. Its like trying to ban a shovel and setting up no digging zones lol. Piss someone off enough, give them a shovel and trust me, they'll find a way to kill people with it.
Bingo... But therein lies an inherent responsibility to prevent 'easy crazy'. Like allowing pistols to be so readily available while being, by design, concealed weapons. No pistol should be owned without an accompanying ccw. Allowing that makes it very easy for a guy to go on an army base and shoot, or a mall, or a school, or a park, or his cheating wife's place of business - all with legal pistols, and all resulting in innocent deaths. These things just don't happen with rifles.

Hokieneer...
Yes, there is a paper trail the police can follow to trace a gun found at a crime scene to the FFL that sold it... then use the FFL dealers records to determine who purchased it. It is not a federal database in any sense of the words.

It all goes back to states' rights, the 10th amendment, and the 2nd article of the AOC.
__________________
“Coming of age in a fascist police state will not be a barrel of fun for anybody, much less for people like me, who are not inclined to suffer Nazis gladly and feel only contempt for the cowardly flag-suckers who would gladly give up their outdated freedom to live for the mess of pottage they have been conned into believing will be freedom from fear.”
BlueRidgeYJ is offline   Quote Quick Reply
Old 04-15-2013, 12:17 PM   #657
Jeeper
 
KC_Hawker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Too far from any coast.
Posts: 702
Quote:
Originally Posted by BlueRidgeYJ View Post
Bingo... But therein lies an inherent responsibility to prevent 'easy crazy'. Like allowing pistols to be so readily available while being, by design, concealed weapons. No pistol should be owned without an accompanying ccw. Allowing that makes it very easy for a guy to go on an army base and shoot, or a mall, or a school, or a park, or his cheating wife's place of business - all with legal pistols, and all resulting in innocent deaths. These things just don't happen with rifles.

Hokieneer...
Yes, there is a paper trail the police can follow to trace a gun found at a crime scene to the FFL that sold it... then use the FFL dealers records to determine who purchased it. It is not a federal database in any sense of the words.

It all goes back to states' rights, the 10th amendment, and the 2nd article of the AOC.
Not sure I follow your logic. In one sentence you say you are fine with losing the right to carry a pistol, because pistols are easier to commit violence with, yet in your sig you quote Ben Franklin against giving up freedoms for safety.

I agree handguns commit more crime. I prefer rifles myself. The reason they are coming after rifles is that the Heller case specifically said you cant ban handguns.

Throwing handguns to the government hoping to save rifles would be like agreeing to ban 2 door Jeeps hoping they will not come after your 4 door. At least the people in PA got it right and shut down the Harrisburg gun show. Its all our right at state, not just the ones that dont directly hurt us.

When they came for the Jews I didnt stand up because I am not Jewish,
etc....
KC_Hawker is offline   Quote Quick Reply
Old 04-15-2013, 04:38 PM   #658
Jeeper
 
BlueRidgeYJ's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 4,917
Quote:
Originally Posted by KC_Hawker View Post

Not sure I follow your logic. In one sentence you say you are fine with losing the right to carry a pistol, because pistols are easier to commit violence with, yet in your sig you quote Ben Franklin against giving up freedoms for safety.

I agree handguns commit more crime. I prefer rifles myself. The reason they are coming after rifles is that the Heller case specifically said you cant ban handguns.

Throwing handguns to the government hoping to save rifles would be like agreeing to ban 2 door Jeeps hoping they will not come after your 4 door. At least the people in PA got it right and shut down the Harrisburg gun show. Its all our right at state, not just the ones that dont directly hurt us.

When they came for the Jews I didnt stand up because I am not Jewish,
etc....
I'm not trying to appease anyone, nor am I throwing anything to anyone. Handguns carry an inherent risk and propensity for concealment. Why on Earth are they sold with assumption they will not be concealed? If you are able to pass a ccw, you should be able to own one. What right is lost? The fact that you can legally buy one, stick it in a pocket, walk outside, and immediatley be a criminal is dumber than dumb.

Heller (and moreover Miller) were attempts to redefine the 2nd Amendment, along with the Machine Gun Ban of 86, and were successful in doing just that.

To understand that 'quote', you need to understand the context. Dr Franklin, in 1759, attempted to convince first Gov of Pennsylvania, then the Penn heirs of William, then the English Crown to purchase "militia weaponry" to disburse amongst the population, and mostly frontier villiages, of Pennsylvania. Or in laymans terms, the notion that tax money should buy military weaponry to be held by the citizenry - the foundation for our Second Amendment. Which militia arms itself with pistols?
__________________
“Coming of age in a fascist police state will not be a barrel of fun for anybody, much less for people like me, who are not inclined to suffer Nazis gladly and feel only contempt for the cowardly flag-suckers who would gladly give up their outdated freedom to live for the mess of pottage they have been conned into believing will be freedom from fear.”
BlueRidgeYJ is offline   Quote Quick Reply
Old 04-15-2013, 07:41 PM   #659
Jeeper
 
KC_Hawker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Too far from any coast.
Posts: 702
Quote:
Originally Posted by BlueRidgeYJ View Post

I'm not trying to appease anyone, nor am I throwing anything to anyone. Handguns carry an inherent risk and propensity for concealment. Why on Earth are they sold with assumption they will not be concealed? If you are able to pass a ccw, you should be able to own one. What right is lost? The fact that you can legally buy one, stick it in a pocket, walk outside, and immediatley be a criminal is dumber than dumb.

Heller (and moreover Miller) were attempts to redefine the 2nd Amendment, along with the Machine Gun Ban of 86, and were successful in doing just that.

To understand that 'quote', you need to understand the context. Dr Franklin, in 1759, attempted to convince first Gov of Pennsylvania, then the Penn heirs of William, then the English Crown to purchase "militia weaponry" to disburse amongst the population, and mostly frontier villiages, of Pennsylvania. Or in laymans terms, the notion that tax money should buy military weaponry to be held by the citizenry - the foundation for our Second Amendment. Which militia arms itself with pistols?
I understand where you are at, you don't like pistols. You see the majority of handgun deaths caused with them and have no problem restricting them. Heller specifically called out the ban on pistols in DC as unconstitutional. Regardless of our arguments, Heller established precedent that pistols cannot be banned outright. The argument that needing a ccw takes away no rights is incorrect. Previously, similar laws in the south were removed as unconstitutional. There were black codes exactly like a ccw requirement that kept guns out of the hands of minorities. They still work that way today. See senator Feinstein with a ccw in CA where it is next to impossible to get one. Look at the ratio of whites that were able to pass that test vs minorities - its present day discrimination. Its along the lines of a poll tax or the most recent version, proving you are an American citizen so you can vote.

As I said, I prefer rifles but have 2 pistols. Neither one has ever been carried concealed - per the law. They are locked in a case or trunk when transporting to the range and honestly neither could fit in a pocket. Why would I assume they would be concealed?

The reason I am having this open discussion on this topic is I do not understand your position. In my eyes, you not standing up for rights of pistol owners is very shortsighted. As NY just learned, once you give up your right, its gone and they will come. Pistols may go today, for safety of course, then tomorrow, its rifles because snipers use them then shotguns. In my mind, since all gun homicides are vastly below even 10 years ago in this country, why is everyone out to take away guns today? Why now? The tragedy happened but where is the outcry for the minority children that are killed this way every day in DC or Chicago?
KC_Hawker is offline   Quote Quick Reply
Old 04-15-2013, 08:25 PM   #660
Jeeper
 
BlueRidgeYJ's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 4,917
Quote:
Originally Posted by KC_Hawker View Post

I understand where you are at, you don't like pistols. You see the majority of handgun deaths caused with them and have no problem restricting them. Heller specifically called out the ban on pistols in DC as unconstitutional. Regardless of our arguments, Heller established precedent that pistols cannot be banned outright. The argument that needing a ccw takes away no rights is incorrect. Previously, similar laws in the south were removed as unconstitutional. There were black codes exactly like a ccw requirement that kept guns out of the hands of minorities. They still work that way today. See senator Feinstein with a ccw in CA where it is next to impossible to get one. Look at the ratio of whites that were able to pass that test vs minorities - its present day discrimination. Its along the lines of a poll tax or the most recent version, proving you are an American citizen so you can vote.

As I said, I prefer rifles but have 2 pistols. Neither one has ever been carried concealed - per the law. They are locked in a case or trunk when transporting to the range and honestly neither could fit in a pocket. Why would I assume they would be concealed?

The reason I am having this open discussion on this topic is I do not understand your position. In my eyes, you not standing up for rights of pistol owners is very shortsighted. As NY just learned, once you give up your right, its gone and they will come. Pistols may go today, for safety of course, then tomorrow, its rifles because snipers use them then shotguns. In my mind, since all gun homicides are vastly below even 10 years ago in this country, why is everyone out to take away guns today? Why now? The tragedy happened but where is the outcry for the minority children that are killed this way every day in DC or Chicago?
Personally I have no problems with pistols - I just happen to see them for their true purpose, concealment. The cali ccw law requires good reason be shown to need one, and I imagine most californians are pretty sure they won't be shot at that day. Sen Feinstein has people who oppose her greatly, and probably had NO problems proving a need. Easy solution - move.

Federal legislation should set a minimum requirement for ccw issuance, and use Ga or Tx as an example of minimum. States, of course, could enact stiffer legislation, as cali, colo, and the NE would do. Also, pistols should not be sold to anyone on antipsychotics, antidepressants, etc. No doctor asking B/S, if you have a prescription you can't purchase one. Nobody comes to your house to take yours, assuming you already purchased one. But right now an 18 y.o. with some serious meds can buy a serious 12ga. If we buy into the whole 'society' thing, we gotta see that as a opportunity for improvement. Let's improve it, in order to preserve gun ownership.

My position is what most people who have lived in America have had: the Constitution does not give anyone any rights, and the second amendment does not refer to pistols and peaceful weaponry, like hunting rifles. It specifically provides for allocation of arms for military purpose by the state among its population, completely preventing the need of a standing army. Pistols are not protected by this; M4s and Ma Dueces are. I would like to see the 86 ban and Hughes amendment revoked and repealed, the NFA act revised, and THEN pistols set to a nationally reciprocating ccw system of 'registration'.

Idealic and impossible, but a boy can still dream...

"And I sincerely believe, with you, that banking establishments are more dangerous than standing armies..." President Jefferson
Why did Jefferson compare dangers of banking to that of armies? Why 'standing' instead of 'invading' or 'conquering'? And here we are squaking about pistols, lol.

__________________
“Coming of age in a fascist police state will not be a barrel of fun for anybody, much less for people like me, who are not inclined to suffer Nazis gladly and feel only contempt for the cowardly flag-suckers who would gladly give up their outdated freedom to live for the mess of pottage they have been conned into believing will be freedom from fear.”
BlueRidgeYJ is offline   Quote Quick Reply
Reply

Quick Reply
Message:
Options

Register Now

In order to be able to post messages on the Jeep Wrangler Forum forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.
User Name:
If you do not want to register, fill this field only and the name will be used as user name for your post.
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.
Password:
Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.
Email Address:

Log-in

Human Verification

In order to verify that you are a human and not a spam bot, please enter the answer into the following box below based on the instructions contained in the graphic.



Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off




» Network Links
»Jeep Parts
» Featured Product

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 07:16 AM.



Jeep®, Wrangler, Liberty, Wagoneer, Cherokee, and Grand Cherokee are copyrighted and trademarked to Chrysler Motors LLC.
Wranglerforum.com is not in any way associated with the Chrysler Motors LLC