(10-15-2015, 12:35 PM)Blindgreed1 Wrote: [ -> ]I am opposed to legislation that will take more rights away from me without an effective impact. What "bothers me" as you put it, is people who lobby to make things illegal based on an ideal or current event without considering the downstream effects. None of us will be winners as long as sheeple keep levying for more government and less rights.
I haven't seen anyone lobbying to repeal the second amendment right to bear arms here, Gunnar.
So, it reads to me more like what's bothering you is people lobbying for better regulation of firearms, as was done in Australia.
My understanding is that the national laws restricting gun access there after the Port Arthur massacre were developed, in part, to reduce mass shooting murders specifically, and there haven't been any such mass murders in Australia since. So, I won't deny Australia that achievement just because homicides as a whole have remained steady there over the same period, nor because parts of the model conflict with the right to bear arms for purposes of self-defense in the U.S. and would thus be unconstitutional here.
As for downstream effects, I agree with you that always needs to be considered before enacting new national laws or abolishing/revising old ones. Estimated cost and other impacts are typically included in bills before they're reviewed and either passed or rejected and also outlined in Executive Actions/Orders. But what's seen as a positive ROI by some will inevitably be seen as a negative one by others, depending on their priorities.
Anyway, it'll be interesting to see what, if anything, happens with gun laws when a new President takes office.
I think the NRA is so heavily embedded inside the Beltway that we will never see anything done to stop the mass murders. I rarely feel hopeless about anything in life but I do with this particular subject.
(10-15-2015, 12:22 PM)F.U. Wrote: [ -> ]Just a observation.
We as a group have spent almost 3 years making 2327 posts amongst a dozen or two posters and we are no closer to figuring out a answer to this problem now than we were when this thread started. We just keep going in circles like a dog chasing its tail. And we wonder why nothing is getting done in America when it comes to solving this issue. Well maybe we don't wonder why, but this thread is perfect example of what is happening.
Not bitching or pointing a finger just talking out loud.
I hear ya F.U.
For me, solving a national problem isn't a goal at Mock. It's more about shooting the shit, exchanging ideas/arguments, and sometimes just venting frustration.
I actually have learned a lot from some of the content and posters in this thread over the years and have a much better understanding of guns themselves, gun policy/history, and what drives the passions on both sides. And, I think you're right about the content herein mirroring the discussion/debate on the broad national level.
Personally, I often have fun going round and round and back and forth here, though, yeah, sometimes the shark gets jumped.
Anyway, I think national gun laws and policies will finally be tightened up within the next 2 years and the NRA will formally get behind (or, at least, not formally object to) some gun law/policy changes that are administrative or enforcement-related. That would be smart politics for them, in my opinion. We'll see.
(10-16-2015, 05:50 AM)Duchess Wrote: [ -> ]
I think the NRA is so heavily embedded inside the Beltway that we will never see anything done to stop the mass murders. I rarely feel hopeless about anything in life but I do with this particular subject.
I liked it when the NRA had classes in H.S. about gun safety. I don't think they do it anymore but probably should.
(10-16-2015, 03:28 AM)HairOfTheDog Wrote: [ -> ] (10-15-2015, 12:35 PM)Blindgreed1 Wrote: [ -> ]I am opposed to legislation that will take more rights away from me without an effective impact. What "bothers me" as you put it, is people who lobby to make things illegal based on an ideal or current event without considering the downstream effects. None of us will be winners as long as sheeple keep levying for more government and less rights.
I haven't seen anyone lobbying to repeal the second amendment right to bear arms here, Gunnar.
So, it reads to me more like what's bothering you is people lobbying for better regulation of firearms, as was done in Australia.
My understanding is that the national laws restricting gun access there after the Port Arthur massacre were developed, in part, to reduce mass shooting murders specifically, and there haven't been any such mass murders in Australia since. So, I won't deny Australia that achievement just because homicides as a whole have remained steady there over the same period, nor because parts of the model conflict with the right to bear arms for purposes of self-defense in the U.S. and would thus be unconstitutional here.
As for downstream effects, I agree with you that always needs to be considered before enacting new national laws or abolishing/revising old ones. Estimated cost and other impacts are typically included in bills before they're reviewed and either passed or rejected and also outlined in Executive Actions/Orders. But what's seen as a positive ROI by some will inevitably be seen as a negative one by others, depending on their priorities.
Anyway, it'll be interesting to see what, if anything, happens with gun laws when a new President takes office.
You don't get me. You never have and I doubt you ever will. And you've never learned a damn thing from me and I'd appreciate it if we kept it that way. Capiche?
I understand Gunnar.
Men are from Mars and all.
I'll miss you, but I'll keep a stiff upper lip and try to carry on.
(10-16-2015, 09:47 AM)Maggot Wrote: [ -> ] (10-16-2015, 05:50 AM)Duchess Wrote: [ -> ]
I think the NRA is so heavily embedded inside the Beltway that we will never see anything done to stop the mass murders. I rarely feel hopeless about anything in life but I do with this particular subject.
I liked it when the NRA had classes in H.S. about gun safety. I don't think they do it anymore but probably should.
They still have the Eddie Eagle program Maggot. I am sure it has changed, but it is still around.
https://eddieeagle.nra.org/
I didn't really want to get into a Australian gun law discussion, but my curiosity has gotten the best of me.
Just wondering what part of their laws you all agree with and what parts you don't.
I got this from WIKI so I am sure there is more to their laws than this but this is what I have.
Firearms categories[edit]
Firearms in Australia are grouped into categories set out in the National Firearm Agreement, with different levels of control. The categories are:
Category A: Rimfire rifles (not semi-automatic), shotguns (not pump-action or semi-automatic), air rifles including semi automatic, and paintball gun. A "Genuine Reason" must be provided for a Category A firearm.
Category B: Centrefire rifles including bolt action pump action and lever action (not semi-automatic), muzzleloading firearms made after 1 January 1901. A category B licence also covers category A but not vice versa
Category C: Self-loading rimfire rifles holding 10 or fewer rounds and pump-action or self-loading shotguns holding 5 or fewer rounds. Primary producers, occupational shooters[clarification needed], firearm dealers, firearm safety officers, collectors and some clay target shooters can own functional Category C firearms.
Category D: Self-loading centrefire rifles, pump-action or self-loading shotguns holding more than 5 rounds. Functional Category D firearms are restricted to government agencies and occupational shooters. Collectors may own deactivated Category D firearms.
Category H: Handguns including air pistols and deactivated handguns. Neither South Australia nor Western Australia require deactivated handguns to be regarded as handguns after deactivation. This situation[when?] prompted the deactivation and diversion of thousands of handguns to the black market in Queensland[vague] – the loophole[which?] shut since 2001) This class is available to target shooters and certain security guards whose job requires possession of a firearm. To be eligible for a Category H firearm, a target shooter must serve a probationary period of 6 months using club handguns, after which they may apply for a permit. A minimum number of matches yearly to retain each category of handgun and be a paid-up member of an approved pistol club.[3]
These categories – A,B,C,D and H were those determined by the NFA. The others listed here are determined by the states that have implement them at their own discretion.
Target shooters are limited to handguns of .38 or 9mm calibre or less and magazines may hold a maximum of 10 rounds. Participants in certain "approved" pistol competitions may acquire handguns up to .45", currently Single Action Shooting and Metallic Silhouette. IPSC shooting is approved for 9mm/.38/.357 sig, handguns that meet the IPSC rules, but larger calibres are not approved for IPSC handgun shooting contests in Australia.[4] Category H barrels must be at least 100mm (3.94") long for revolvers, and 120mm (4.72") for semi-automatic pistols unless the pistols are clearly ISSF target pistols; magazines are restricted to 10 rounds. Handguns held as part of a collection were exempted from these limits.Category R/E: Restricted weapons, such as machine guns, rocket launchers, full automatic self loading rifles, flame-throwers, anti-tank guns, Howitzers and other artillery weapons can be owned by collectors in some states provided that these weapons have been rendered permanently inoperable. They are subject to the same storage and licensing requirements as fully functioning firearms.
Certain antique firearms (generally muzzle loading black powder flintlock firearms manufactured before 1 January 1901) can in some states be legally held without licences.[5] In other states they are subject to the same requirements as modern firearms.[6]
All single-shot muzzleloading firearms manufactured before 1 January 1901 are considered antique firearms. Four states require licences for antique percussion revolvers and cartridge repeating firearms, but in Queensland and Victoria a person may possess such a firearm without a licence, so long as the firearm is registered (percussion revolvers require a licence in Victoria).
Australia has very tight restrictions on some items which are far less controlled in comparable societies such as New Zealand. Air pistols, elsewhere unrestricted, are as difficult to get as centrefire and rimfire handguns, and low-powered airguns are as difficult as cartridge arms to licence. Airsoft guns are banned in all states and non-firing replicas banned in most. Suppressors (or 'silencers') which are legal in the UK and New Zealand, are restricted to a few government bodies.[7]
(10-16-2015, 11:59 AM)HairOfTheDog Wrote: [ -> ]I understand Gunnar.
Men are from Mars and all.
I'll miss you, but I'll keep a stiff upper lip and try to carry on.
PM nudes and I will stay.
(10-16-2015, 12:12 PM)Blindgreed1 Wrote: [ -> ] (10-16-2015, 11:59 AM)HairOfTheDog Wrote: [ -> ]I understand Gunnar.
Men are from Mars and all.
I'll miss you, but I'll keep a stiff upper lip and try to carry on.
PM nudes and I will stay.
I would clarify that statement. You never know what kind of nudes you could get.
(10-16-2015, 12:12 PM)Blindgreed1 Wrote: [ -> ] (10-16-2015, 11:59 AM)HairOfTheDog Wrote: [ -> ]I understand Gunnar.
Men are from Mars and all.
I'll miss you, but I'll keep a stiff upper lip and try to carry on.
PM nudes and I will stay.
Thanks Gunnar, but we both know it was over long ago. I've accepted the painful reality and moved on.
Anyway, no hard feelings; I found a nude that'll probably get your motor runnin'.
![[Image: article-2476623-18F9E12200000578-924_306x468.jpg]](http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2013/10/25/article-2476623-18F9E12200000578-924_306x468.jpg)
Rockin' the beard...
I was hoping to post this jovially but alas it wasn't meant to be. Now it's just a painful reminder of what could have been.
(10-16-2015, 02:04 PM)HairOfTheDog Wrote: [ -> ] (10-16-2015, 12:12 PM)Blindgreed1 Wrote: [ -> ] (10-16-2015, 11:59 AM)HairOfTheDog Wrote: [ -> ]I understand Gunnar.
Men are from Mars and all.
I'll miss you, but I'll keep a stiff upper lip and try to carry on.
PM nudes and I will stay.
Thanks Gunnar, but we both know it was over long ago. I've accepted the painful reality and moved on.
Anyway, no hard feelings; I found a nude that'll probably get your motor runnin'.
Rockin' the beard...
Ok, now you are just trying to turn me on. Look at that, how could you not fall in love. Great shape makes you just want to grab on and hold it, man I would just love to lay my head down against that butt. There is nothing quite like the lines, looks and feel of a well built HK type 91.
(10-16-2015, 12:12 PM)F.U. Wrote: [ -> ]I didn't really want to get into a Australian gun law discussion, but my curiosity has gotten the best of me.
Just wondering what part of their laws you all agree with and what parts you don't.
I got this from WIKI so I am sure there is more to their laws than this but this is what I have.
I think the gun regulations in other developed countries with much less gun violence should be examined and considered when crafting national gun control/safety proposals for the U.S. Aside from national gun safety/control regulations applied across all states and more comprehensive background checks, I don't have an opinion as to which part(s) of their models, if any, could/should be adopted in the U.S..
Canada, Australia and the U.K. have many fewer gun deaths and lower per-capita gun deaths annually than the U.S. A few things they have in common.
1. National gun laws applied to states, provinces, territories
2. Licenses and/or certificates required for gun owners
3. Comprehensive background checks and longer wait times
4. Bans on automatics, short-barrels, some or all semi-automatics
5. Gun applicants need to have a "reason" or "justifiable need" to purchase a gun (U.K., Australia)
This is a short top level summary of the gun control policies in the three countries (and Japan):
http://www.businessinsider.com/canada-au...rol-2013-1
Switzerland requires the majority of men to have military training and keep guns at home, but they have tougher and stricter background checks than we do, hence much less gun violence. I get that it's a small country and a different culture compared to the US, but I think we could take some examples from them.
For example they require a criminal record copy opposed to just letting anyone walk in and buy any gun they want with just an ID. What would be the harm in requiring that?
They also have to apply for a permit and pass an examination proving both weapon handling skills and knowledge regarding lawful use of the weapon. Again how would that affect a law abiding citizens rights?
It was recently brought to my attention that the Constitution initially contained provisions that ensured the rights to own slaves; later abolished by the 13th amendment. Just saying that the constitution ought to be a living document subject tp revision when certain provisions are deemed antiquated or don't necessarily jive with modern realities.
Damn, I took a sleeping pill and that took me about 10 minutes to type without having it rife with typos and misspellings. Time to get some good zzzz's.
