Black gun ban?

[LMITOUT]

However, gun owners such as ourselves will have to conceed something here.

We absolutely do not.

[swamptiger]

Quote:

really? a 12 gauge slug? let's not be stupid here. Use some common sense please!

You can do all sorts of things with a 12 gauge.

Seriously...

[ANYFISH2]

lmit, I guess your right, we don't HAVE to conceed anything. They will just take it from us. Then we can scream and holler and look like the @sses the NRA made us. All because we NEED 30 round clips and can't just buy a run of the mill .223, it must be black and look tactical.

[LMITOUT]

There is no reason to concede anything. In fact, all it does is admit guilt and there is nothing to feel guilty about.

We give up 'X' this time and then what next time?

Or should we turn our yellow belly to the sky like you are advocating and just let'm take it?

People need to grow a spine.

[ANYFISH2]

Lmit, I am not going to argue for the other side. I am with you! Any new laws are estentially pointless. I truly believe this. Anything short of a complete repeal of the 2nd amendment, loss of all firearms and somehow getting the guns from the criminals, these shootings will continue to happen.

The problem isn't guns, the problem is in our sociaty. That is to difficult to diagnose though.

My point, maybe flawed, is that we can accept some restriction that doesn't really destroy our rights. I don't think losing uber capacity clips does that. Sometimes I feel that if we push to hard, that the anti will push harder and we will lose more than if we would have made easy concessions.

[nsnutter]

There is no reason to concede anything. In fact, all it does is admit guilt and there is nothing to feel guilty about.

We give up 'X' this time and then what next time?

Or should we turn our yellow belly to the sky like you are advocating and just let'm take it?

People need to grow a spine.

Well said.

[RumRiverRat]

Trigger, +1.

I too, do not want to see any gun banned. This country is more secure because of the how we are armed.

However, gun owners such as ourselves will have to conceed something here. I feel large capacity clips is a sure thing, and tighter restrictions on who can buy Handguns and black guns, is likely.

The second amendment will always keep arms in our hands, but like everything in the U.S., restrictions will apply, as they probably should!

This kind of talk makes me throw up a little in my mouth.

What part of "shall not be infringed" is so hard to understand?

[nobody05]

I personally dont think it will happen. But I bought one last week just in case. But it's not black it's mossy oak camp pretty sharp.

[DANR]

Ask the smokers - it started with separate sections in the restaurants and airplanes - no big deal.......

There's a reason they are called activists,they never quit.

[96trigger]

I think if gun owners start comparing guns to cigarettes, we will do way more damage to our image than good. I like the point about making a few easy concessions. Gun owners would probably get more support if we went to the table willing to talk instead of having our arms crossed.

I understand the 2nd amendment, and support it fully, but do I really need a rocket launcher? Under the 2nd amendment I should be able to have one right?

[Bear55]

We give up 'X' this time and then what next time?

This is the scary part right here. Another shooting is inevitable, and they will be coming for more the next time around. Likely handguns or semi autos as their targets.

[jparrucci]

What "easy concessions" do you want to make? The AR platform is the most popular gun in American. You may not own one, but millions do. Ban those and large capacity magazines, and I can assure you handguns and all semi autos would be next.

[jparrucci]

The only concession I would make is to not allow dealers to sell at gunshows without doing a proper check. I still believe non dealer private citizens should be able to sell to one another without having to pay for the transfer. Unless you want police stations to do a free check for anyone, 24-7-365, I do not want the hassle and cost associated with selling a firearm to a friend or relative.

[fishuhalik]

I think most rational, law abiding gun owners would be willing to concede to that jparrucci. I personally think private sales should have the same background check as store sales. If it keeps guns out of the hands of those that shouldn't have them, I'm game.

[lawdog]

Because of people like Ufatz and AnyFish2 we are almost sure to lose some portion of our constitutionally guaranteed God given right to protect ourselves in the coming months. People who are so willing to drink the Obama coolaid and fall for the myth of the state knowing better are bound to give away the farm. Some may even think they are doing a good thing by doing so. So foolish and naive and idea to go along with any gun restriction, that those who do so deserve what they will end up with, no rights at all.

There is NO LEGITIMATE benefit to banning high capacity magazines, nor is there any legitimate reason to ban semi automatic weapons. The tool is not the problem, it is the use it is put to. The second amendment is the cornerstone against government oppression and tyranny. Without it, all others are meaningless and surely will fall.

The path this country is on disgusts me in so many ways. I hope something happens to get us back to what made us great before this current regime does more harm than we can repair.

[mwal]

Jparucci, In MN dealers are required by law to do the same check that they perform at their store when they sell at a gun show. IE they call in of the 4773 or whatever its called and be shown the permit to purchase or permit to carry if it is a handgun or A/R platform. Only private parties can sell without checking.

Mwal

[jparrucci]

I have no problem with private citizens having to do a backround check ONLY if it is free and available same day

[Farley]

A link to the details of the proposed gun ban:

http://dailycaller.com/2012/12/27/alert-sen-diane-feinstein-releases-gun-ban-summary-for-2013/

I would support a law that when you beat your 92 year old grandmother to death with a hammer, you execute that SOB. No trial, no prison, one bullet to the head. Or if you have a kid that has violent episodes, you keep your guns locked in a safe, dont go out to the range and teach him how to operate a semi auto rifle. All the laws in the world wont stop crazy people from being crazy. Its not on the gov't to tell us whats right\safe, its on us to change as a society.

[leech~~]

I think we should just paint them all "Pink" it would make them less scary!

Plus when they come to take all the black ones, they wouldn't find any!

[ClownColor]

Because of people like Ufatz and AnyFish2 we are almost sure to lose some portion of our constitutionally guaranteed God given right to protect ourselves in the coming months. People who are so willing to drink the Obama coolaid and fall for the myth of the state knowing better are bound to give away the farm. Some may even think they are doing a good thing by doing so. So foolish and naive and idea to go along with any gun restriction, that those who do so deserve what they will end up with, no rights at all.

There is NO LEGITIMATE benefit to banning high capacity magazines, nor is there any legitimate reason to ban semi automatic weapons. The tool is not the problem, it is the use it is put to. The second amendment is the cornerstone against government oppression and tyranny. Without it, all others are meaningless and surely will fall.

The path this country is on disgusts me in so many ways. I hope something happens to get us back to what made us great before this current regime does more harm than we can repair.

Hey...don't forget to put me on that list!

[hunt fish repeat]

". I too see no reason for high capacity clips. Nor do I see a benefit for AR's. Also, 50 cal? do we really need people having the capability to shot down a helo at 1000 yrds"

I have two .50 cals one is 120 years old and shoots a lead ball same as when the constitution was drafted. But saying 50 cal sure sounds scary just like in the movies.....

[Big Dave2]

All because we NEED 30 round clips and can't just buy a run of the mill .223, it must be black and look tactical.

Sounds like you are telling me that you understand there is no difference between a .223 with a wood stock and one that is black so why should I give up the right to buy the one I want?

[RumRiverRat]

The only concession I would make is to not allow dealers to sell at gunshows without doing a proper check. I still believe non dealer private citizens should be able to sell to one another without having to pay for the transfer. Unless you want police stations to do a free check for anyone, 24-7-365, I do not want the hassle and cost associated with selling a firearm to a friend or relative.

Dealers currently are not selling guns at gun shows without doing background checks.

Any FFL holder at a gun show is required to have you fill out a 4473 and the dealer calls NICS to do the instant background check.

The gun show loop hole is a myth created by The Brady Group and other liberal anti gun groups.

[Tom7227]

"The gun show loop hole is a myth created by The Brady Group and other liberal anti gun groups."

The gun show loop hole refers to private sales by non-FFL holders. The actual myth is that everyone knows what they're talking about when the discussion turns to gun control.

[swamptiger]

Quote:

The gun show loop hole refers to private sales by non-FFL holders. The actual myth is that everyone knows what they're talking about when the discussion turns to gun control.

It's fairly obvious from this thread that many do not...

The "gun show loophole" is a misnomer, because the intent of closing the "loophole" is to regulate all sales of firearms between private parties, which incidently happens to include sales between private parties at gun shows.

Quote:

Beginning in the early 2000s, gun shows became controversial in the United States.[4][5] Those concerned about these events claim that American gun shows are a primary source of illegally trafficked firearms, both within the United States and abroad.[6][7] Those supporting gun shows include gun clubs and their membership, especially the National Rifle Association, and their response has been massive because they feel their Second Amendment rights are being jeopardized.[8][9]

U.S. federal law requires persons engaged in interstate firearm commerce, or those who are "engaged in the business" of dealing firearms, to hold a Federal Firearms License and perform background checks through the National Instant Criminal Background Check System maintained by the FBI prior to transferring a firearm. Under the terms of the Firearm Owners Protection Act of 1986, however, individuals "not engaged in the business" of dealing firearms, or who only make "occasional" sales within their state of residence, are under no requirement to conduct background checks on purchasers or maintain records of sale (although even private sellers are forbidden under federal law from selling firearms to persons they have reason to believe are felons or otherwise prohibited from purchasing firearms).

Those seeking to close the "Gun Show Loophole" argue that it provides convicted felons and other prohibited purchasers (i.e., domestic abusers, substance abusers, those who have been adjudicated as "mental defectives," etc.) with opportunities to evade background checks, as they can easily buy firearms from private sellers with no accountability or oversight.

Use of the "Gun Show Loophole" has been advocated by terrorists. In the summer of 2011, Adam Yahiye Gadah declared that "America is absolutely awash with easily obtainable firearms." He also incorrectly claimed that, "You can go down to a gun show at the local convention center and come away with a fully automatic assault rifle, without a background check, and most likely without having to show an identification card," Gadah urged Western extremists to follow this path. Subsequent news analysis indicated that individuals could not actually buy a fully automatic assault rifle at gun shows, although purchases of semi-automatic handguns and extended magazines remain legal without a criminal background check.[10][11]

The term "Gun Show Loophole" has been contentious with gun rights advocates, however. They claim there is no "loophole," only a long-standing tradition of free commerce between private parties that heretofore has not been restricted in the context of secondary, intrastate firearm sales.[12][13] Furthermore, they argue that the term "Gun Show Loophole" is misleading, as private firearm sellers are not required to perform background checks regardless of location—whether they are at a gun show, a flea market, their home, or anywhere else. They also challenge federal jurisdiction in intrastate transactions between private parties, which they argue exceeds the federal power created by the Commerce Clause.[14]

In July 2009, Representatives Michael Castle and Carolyn McCarthy introduced the Gun Show Loophole Closing Act of 2009 (H.R. 2324)[15] in the U.S. House of Representatives. Sen. Frank Lautenberg introduced similar legislation, the "Gun Show Background Check Act of 2009"(S. 843), in the U.S. Senate. As of October 2009, the House version of the bill had 35 co-sponsors (mostly Democrats) and the Senate version had 15 co-sponsors, all Democrats.

Presently, 17 states regulate private firearm sales at gun shows. Seven states require background checks on all gun sales at gun shows (California, Rhode Island, Connecticut, Oregon, New York, Illinois and Colorado). Four states (Hawaii, Maryland, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania) require background checks on all handgun, but not long gun, purchasers at gun shows. Six states require individuals to obtain a permit to purchase handguns that involves a background check (Massachusetts, Michigan, North Carolina, Iowa, Nebraska). Certain counties in Florida require background checks on all private sales of handguns at gun shows. The remaining 33 states do not restrict private, intrastate sales of firearms at gun shows in any manner.[16][17]