Mock

(12-27-2012, 02:36 PM)Jimbone Wrote: [ -> ]

(12-27-2012, 02:14 PM)HairOfTheDog Wrote: [ -> ]Jimbone:
Even if did become Federal law as it stands, it doesn't mean that state law-making becomes null and void. JMO.

This is a great point, as it shows the complete fallacy of what these laws intend to to do, versus what they actually do.

Had Feinstein's bill become law last year, Mrs. Lanza - being a legal gun owner - would have registered, been fingerprinted, and had her picture taken.

And her son would have still shot her in the head, and then gone and slaughtered 26 innocents.

Yes, states with the severest restrictions and past Federal bans simply haven't achieved their objectives; data proves it.

When I see Sandy Hook and the Webster NY fire fighter ambush used specifically as examples to support a need for more gun-restrictions, I'm left scratching my head. Lanza couldn't have been stopped by any means of gun control; he had access and snagged guns from a qualified owner. Spengler was a convicted felon who was armed with 3 weapons - yet to be confirmed how he got ahold of them (through criminal channels perhaps, but also won't surprise me if it turns out that he too has access via family members who knew he was out of his mind).

I can't say that a home owner or concealed carrier would never be in a position to need semi-automatic firepower to defend him/herself against someone on a mission to kill. I think it's unlikely at home, and more likely in public. In either case, I really just don't know. But, I do know that I'm not in favor of restricting anyone from legally using any means of self defense and/or public protection necessary when he/she encounters a Lanza or Spengler or Holmes ...

Overall, I think this is gonna be a tougher sell for Feinstein and other gun-control advocates than is currently perceived. I think that louder voices of opposition will be heard from at the end of the month (including reps from states that want to loosen current restrictions to include mandatory or voluntary arming of schools), after emotions cool and the holidays pass. At this time, those opposed to more gun restrictions may be holding back in order not to be perceived publicly as a coldhearted villains, which could be counter productive. Some states might also look to the Supreme Court if new restrictive measures pass.

P.s.
While I mostly don't think restricting guns further would be effective and might be counter-productive, I do struggle with the fact that a mad man, no matter how he acquires the guns, is able to take out more people under a ticking clock with certain kinds of guns and ammo. I consider that to be a fact. But then, I don't think it's as difficult as some people believe for obsessed, intelligent anti-social types to get ahold of guns illegally or to simply find/build other weapons that up the body count. This is my greatest area of uncertainty and it applies only to mass murderers, which are still very very rare but leave a lot of carnage in their wake.

One of the features that are on the ban list is a magazine with a capacity above 10 rounds. One fact that is overlooked is that during the last ban Columbine happened. One of the firearms used in that shooting was a HiPoint 9mm carbine. That firearm has a max 10 round capacity. They don't even make mags for the firearm that exceed 10 rounds. The # of rounds a gun holds is not as important as a person's familiarity and proficiency with the firearm.

Maybe the answer is the musket. Surely that is what our forefathers had in mind when the 2^nd amendment was written. Let's all arm ourselves with a musket.

Actually the intent was to arm the average citizen with the same arms that the "military" had. Everyone owned muskets in those days.

Point well taken. Besides, muskets are somewhat unreliable. And slow. And the British are not coming.

(12-27-2012, 06:52 PM)Adub Wrote: [ -> ]Besides, muskets are somewhat unreliable. And slow.

I don't know... did you see Daniel Day-Lewis with a musket in his hand in the movie 'The Last of the Mohicans'?

He looked VERY proficient.

(12-27-2012, 06:54 PM)Midwest Spy Wrote: [ -> ]

(12-27-2012, 06:52 PM)Adub Wrote: [ -> ]Besides, muskets are somewhat unreliable. And slow.

I don't know... did you see Daniel Day-Lewis with a musket in his hand in the movie 'The Last of the Mohicans'?

He looked VERY proficient.

No, never saw that movie. I only know about muskets from what I have read on the internet. According to some accounts, they can blow up in your face.

(12-27-2012, 06:59 PM)Adub Wrote: [ -> ]

(12-27-2012, 06:54 PM)Midwest Spy Wrote: [ -> ]

(12-27-2012, 06:52 PM)Adub Wrote: [ -> ]Besides, muskets are somewhat unreliable. And slow.

I don't know... did you see Daniel Day-Lewis with a musket in his hand in the movie 'The Last of the Mohicans'?

He looked VERY proficient.

No, never saw that movie. I only know about muskets from what I have read on the internet. According to some accounts, they can blow up in your face.

Yet another reason to consider if you REALLY want to have one around.

My concern is toward the armed man. I am not a gun enthusiatist. Muskets sound just fine to me. Slow and unreliable.

(12-27-2012, 06:54 PM)Midwest Spy Wrote: [ -> ]I don't know... did you see Daniel Day-Lewis with a musket in his hand in the movie 'The Last of the Mohicans'?

He looked VERY proficient.

Beautifully shot and beautifully scored film if memory serves correctly.

(12-27-2012, 07:25 PM)Jimbone Wrote: [ -> ]

(12-27-2012, 06:54 PM)Midwest Spy Wrote: [ -> ]I don't know... did you see Daniel Day-Lewis with a musket in his hand in the movie 'The Last of the Mohicans'?

He looked VERY proficient.

Beautifully shot and beautifully scored film if memory serves correctly.

And pretty fucking brutal for a movie made in 1992 as well.

(12-27-2012, 07:27 PM)Midwest Spy Wrote: [ -> ]

(12-27-2012, 07:25 PM)Jimbone Wrote: [ -> ]

(12-27-2012, 06:54 PM)Midwest Spy Wrote: [ -> ]I don't know... did you see Daniel Day-Lewis with a musket in his hand in the movie 'The Last of the Mohicans'?

He looked VERY proficient.

Beautifully shot and beautifully scored film if memory serves correctly.

And pretty fucking brutal for a movie made in 1992 as well.

I'll have to see if that is on Netflix for a re-watch... I do recall the ambush scene as pretty intense.

(12-27-2012, 07:30 PM)Jimbone Wrote: [ -> ]

(12-27-2012, 07:27 PM)Midwest Spy Wrote: [ -> ]

(12-27-2012, 07:25 PM)Jimbone Wrote: [ -> ]

(12-27-2012, 06:54 PM)Midwest Spy Wrote: [ -> ]I don't know... did you see Daniel Day-Lewis with a musket in his hand in the movie 'The Last of the Mohicans'?

He looked VERY proficient.

Beautifully shot and beautifully scored film if memory serves correctly.

And pretty fucking brutal for a movie made in 1992 as well.

I'll have to see if that is on Netflix for a re-watch... I do recall the ambush scene as pretty intense.

Highly recommended. It came out the same year as Shawshank Redemption and therefore came up mostly empty in the Oscar department.

And, yes, you're right, the soundtrack is superb.

"I will find you"!

One of the very few movie quotes I remember.

(12-27-2012, 07:39 PM)username Wrote: [ -> ]"I will find you"!

One of the very few movie quotes I remember.

The last 10 minutes of that movie could be 10 of the best minutes ever put on film.

Edit: For those unfamiliar with this movie, I just pulled the most 'liked' User review of the film from IMDB for your perusal...

182 out of 216 people found the following review useful:
Fierce, bold, and beautiful - "The Last of the Mohicans", 19 November 2004

Author: dee.reid from United States


"The Last of the Mohicans" was one of the most popular and acclaimed films of 1992. Its vision of early America, as it was during the French and Indian War, is captured in its utter brutality and beauty, complete with the many driving ambitions and clashing cultures of everyone involved.

This movie has a bit of everything, including action, romance, war, and passionate drama. The director, Michael Mann, knows the story well and does all but completely discard James Fenimore Cooper's source material, which some have dubbed as being racist and totally unfair in its portrait of Native Americans.

The story (and what a story) is all over the place, with three frontier scouts - Hawkeye (Daniel Day-Lewis), Chingachgook (Russell Means), and Uncas (Eric Schweig) - escorting a British colonel's daughters - Cora and Alice Munro (Madeleine Stowe and Jodhi May respectively) - to safety at the besieged Fort William Henry. Major Duncan Heyward (Steven Waddington) rivals Hawkeye for Cora's affections and a vengeance-driven Huron named Magua (Wes Studi) seeks to have both daughters killed in retribution for the loss of his own children.

This is by far Mann's best film yet (it ranks #15 on my all-time favorite movies list) and he uses the lush wilderness settings to great effect. He also makes good use of the editing, which actually comes in handy when showcasing the brutal violence that dominates much of the film's action sequences. The film's last 20 minutes are a definite stunner that can only be described as classic and vicious.

This is a great movie that shows America in its infancy, complete with the rivalries, intrigue, and violence that I'm sure was an everyday part of life during this hectic time period.

¹⁰⁄₁₀

I read today about some gun shows in New York and elsewhere being closed by the venues due to public pressure and/or some vendors agreeing not to sell AR15s or magazines. I kinda wonder if the venues and dealers agreed so easily only because they're out of stock anyway.

I'm curious about how/whether private gun transactions are affected by the proposed bans.

Two out of every 5 guns are sold privately between individuals (not through a licensed dealer) at gun shows or through other private transactions. There is currently no federal mandate requiring a background check for gun show sales, though 17 states have passed their own laws regulating these transactions:

-6 states (CA, CO, IL, NY, OR, RI) require universal background checks on all firearm sales at gun shows.
-3 more states (CT, MD, PA) require background checks on all handgun sales made at gun shows.
-7 other states (HI, IA, MA, MI, NJ, NC, NE) require purchasers to obtain a permit and undergo a background check before buying a handgun.
-1 state, Florida, allows its counties to regulate gun shows by requiring background checks on all firearms purchases at these events.

If anyone knows, is Feinstein proposing to make background checks at gun shows a federal requirement?
It was easy to find information about current state laws/controls, but didn't find anything specifically about gun shows in Feinstein's website draft proposal. The "grandfathering registration" requirement that she is proposing leads me to believe that she wants all guns (new and old, through licensed dealers or private transactions) tracked. But, that's just an assumption on my part.

Seems futile (again) to require background checks on gun dealers but not private sales or those at gunshows. Seriously, the laws we have are really fucked up and pointless.

(01-05-2013, 08:58 PM)HairOfTheDog Wrote: [ -> ]If anyone knows, is Feinstein proposing to make background checks at gun shows a federal requirement?
It was easy to find information about current state laws/controls, but didn't find anything specifically about gun shows in Feinstein's website draft proposal. The "grandfathering registration" requirement that she is proposing leads me to believe that she wants all guns (new and old, through licensed dealers or private transactions) tracked. But, that's just an assumption on my part.

I'd say that is a safe assumption. From the reading of it I have done, she intends no exemptions and all firearms so named in the law must be registered regardless of purchase date, transaction, or owner.

(01-05-2013, 09:30 PM)username Wrote: [ -> ]Seems futile (again) to require background checks on gun dealers but not private sales or those at gunshows. Seriously, the laws we have are really fucked up and pointless.

Here's an example of how fucked up:

AR-15, the bogey man of rifles:



Scary looking, right?

Now here is the Ruger Mini 14 Ranch:



They function exactly the same, and take the exact same caliber bullet.

Shooter in Newtown could have done the exact same thing with either rifle, even though one looks like it belongs on a battlefield and the other looks like it belongs in the back of a pickup truck.

I haven't seen anything about what Biden's multi-agency task force is doing; but lots from Feinstein on gun and ammo restrictions. Disappointing. I would like to see what's going on in terms of the "holistic approach" that the administration touted to address the roots of the gun violence problem. Patience, I guess...

Jim: I think the photos that you posted are interesting and show how cosmetics differences can lead people to believe that something is functionally different or more powerful when it's not. But, I don't think those misperceptions are an example of how fucked up gun control laws are. Aren't both of those guns legal now and both on the proposed ban list regardless of the cosmetic differences between them?

P.s. the "scary" look to the AR-15 is what allows Feinstein to get away with calling semi's "assault weapons", imo.

Pro-Gun freaks are just as nauseating as Anti-Gun freaks.