Mock

This pic was a pure lucky shot on my part. I say that because one day as I cleaned some of my firearms I was watching the old show titled, The Bunker" . It was about Adolf's last days alive. Well when this pic popped up on the tv I grabbed my camera and snapped the shot you see.

Over time I often thought about this pic and the important part that the firearms that are in the pic played in his life and demise.

As you know Hitler, in the name of safety instated a registration, shortly after that he confiscated those arms.Well we all know what he did after he confiscated those arms from his people. In the end those arms also helped hold off his advance and in the end cost him his life.


Getting back to the firearm regulation topic, it is one reason I disagree with firearm registration and bans.


OK now for the pic. Feel free to caption it if you feel the urge.

(12-20-2012, 03:51 PM)HairOfTheDog Wrote: [ -> ]Personally, I'm more worried about who's holding the gun

BINGO, We have a BINGO.

In reference to my post above [#161] Here is something to think about.
A LITTLE GUN HISTORY
In 1929, the Soviet Union established gun control. >From 1929 to 1953, about 20 million dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated
In 1911, Turkey established gun control. From 1915 to 1917, 1.5 million Armenians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
Germany established gun control in 1938 and from 1939 to 1945, a total
of 13 million Jews and others who were unable to defend themselves were rounded up and exterminated.
China established gun control in 1935. From 1948 to 1952, 20 million political dissidents, unable to defend themselves were rounded up and exterminated
Guatemala established gun control in 1964. From 1964 to 1981, 100,000 Mayan Indians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
Uganda established gun control in 1970. From 1971 to 1979, 300,000 Christians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
Cambodia established gun control in 1956. From 1975 to 1977, one million educated people, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
Defenseless people rounded up and exterminated in the 20^th Century because of gun control: 56 million.
You won't see this data on the US evening news, or hear politicians disseminating this information.
Guns in the hands of honest citizens save lives and property and, yes, gun-control laws adversely affect only the law-abiding citizens.

(12-20-2012, 08:06 AM)HairOfTheDog Wrote: [ -> ]

(12-18-2012, 02:05 PM)Midwest Spy Wrote: [ -> ]Hair, to me gun control and addressing mental health issues are two separate issues.

Regulating the sale, use and ownership of guns is "gun control".
Those with documented mental illnesses cannot purchase a gun; it's part of "gun control" already. That regulation is not keeping guns out of the hands of the mentally/emotionally unstable in some cases because so many are not treated or documented as "mentally ill". Imo, it's an integral part of the gun control discussion, when it comes to school spree killing especially.

Extending the background check criteria might help keep guns out of reach of the unstable, but should their family members be denied protection or their rights because of another's instability? Would it even make a difference since so many mental illnesses are undocumented? I've volleyed this one around in my mind and ultimately think that attempting to regulate gun ownership qualifications further beyond the purchaser him or herself would likely just add more cost and delay to the ownership process without any real benefit (and could be an infringement on some people's rights). JMO.

Midwest Spy Wrote:'What's the need for semi-automatic weapons in our society?'

You attempted (above) to address it and I thank you. You basically said it's 'the idea that a home-owner will want to have them because they want to be as well-armed as criminals entering their home.'

I'm not going to diminish your opinion, but I will respectfully disagree.

I didn't attempt to address it. It's not my opinion that homeowners need assault weapons for adequate self defense; it was clearly labeled as a re-iteration of an opinion expressed by others that I simply understood.

FTR, I don't think homeowners need assault weapons for home protection, but I don't care if they have them if they are legally owned, kept out of reach of children, and not accessible via the qualified owners to any criminals or mentally unstable/violent individuals. That last part is very hard to ensure and that's a big problem for me, as previously stated.

Hotd I wish more people would look at things the way you do. Take a look over at the Brady Bunches FB page and see how they talk about firearms in citizens hands. Some are against anyone other than police and Mil owning any type pf firearm. http://www.facebook.com/bradycampaign


When it comes to the mentally unstable owning firearms, like most I am against it. My thoughts are that we need better communication between doctors and the feds. Lets link the databases and see how many fish that catches.

I feel there are enough laws on the books right now and if they were enforced we would not need more. Did you know that a felon can purchase a hunting license that requires a firearm and it goes unnoticed? IMO that should throw up a red flag and should be looked into.


As far as these 30 round mags go, They are great when used properly. They are great when target shooting at the range. They are also used in shooting competitions. They also come in real handy when hunting coyotes, hogs and many other critters. I can do a mag swap in under a second when using my M-4. So limiting a mag to 10 rounds will solve nothing. Actually when it comes to hicap mags, as a general rule the higher the capacity the less reliable the mag becomes. 30 round mags and below work great, but those 60 round mags and 100 round drums are prone to jamming issues.


IMO we need to start with the children. Take a good look at these violent games they play. They are taught from a young age that shooting someone is no big deal. After all the reset button brings them back to life.

Then look at the music they listen to. It seams like every other rap song on the market talks about shooting someone, or committing a violent act on someone.

Then look at the TV and movies they watch. Even shows like batman are filled with firearms and killing when they once were filled with fist fights and balloons filled with the words POW, SMACK, SWOOSH and more.




We really need to examine all the choices before we start throwing more gun laws at the books.

FU, you make a lot of really good points,
Anti Gun folks don't want to hear those stats but that doesn't make them go away.
They say "Oh, that could never happen here", ask all them dead jews and armenians about that.
I agree with better communictions between the Docs and Feds, crazy motherfuckers shouldn't expect the fact that they are crazy to be keps secret. I like the idea of linking databases, its the implementation that worries me, get the govt in that and they WILL fuck it up.

Ain't HIPAA grand?

And the ACLU, too, for their effort in forbidding forced medication on known crazies.

I agree BlueTiki. I feel the privacy BS should be thrown out the window when it comes to a background check when purchasing a firearm. I don't feel a persons entire medical history should be available, but I do feel a red flag should be raised when the NICS check is ran then a closer look can be taken.



Another unrelated point, most may not know this. There are 3 options during a NICS call in. Approve, Deny and Delay. If a person gets delayed there is up to a 3 day wait for further review. At the end of those 3 days if nothing further is heard from the feds a dealer is perfectly legal to sell that firearm to the customer. It is up to the discretion of the dealer at that point. That's right , even though there is a chance that that person should not own that firearm it is perfectly legal to sell it to him just because the system is to slow. As a dealer our shop will always deny the sale at that point just to be safe, but not all dealers do, some are out for the almighty buck.

I can picture Nancy Pelosi standing with her hands over her ears saying la-la-la-la-la-la right now.

These are the categories of people who are prohibited from owning and purchasing guns under the current gun control regulations. Weeding out gun applications submitted by anyone in these categories is what the background check (using the NCIS central database) is designed to accomplish.

•Convicted felons
•People convicted of domestic assault or abuse
•People under indictment for felony charges
•People with outstanding misdemeanor or felony warrants
•Illegal immigrants
•Dishonorably discharged veterans from the military
•The mentally ill or insane


Except for the last 3, applicants falling into any of the other categories can be flagged quickly because there is legal documentation of such which is directly fed into databases. Illegal immigrants can also quickly be flagged via wrong/non-existent social security numbers. The names of dishonorably charged veterans were gathered back in the 90s, retroactively entered, and new ones are now accessible as part of the automatic check systems as a result of the Brady Bill, I believe.

The "mentally ill or insane" classification is, by far, the weakest point in the background checking control, imo. Mentally ill don't always seek treatment; there is no record of them being mentally ill or insane. Even for the mentally ill that have been treated and documented as such, poor medical documentation, privacy acts in some states and HIPAA (as Tiki pointed out) make it much more difficult to obtain that data, much less centralize it. So, the NCIS database of those with mental illnesses is a mere fraction of the actual population that falls into that category. And, there's no control that exists to keep the mentally ill (documented or undocumented) from getting ahold of weapons via an irresponsible gun owner who knowingly allows them access (which was the case with Adam Lanza, imo).

Anyway, I like the concept of a holistic approach and mult-agency effort to address not only gun laws and the shortfalls in current gun control as it relates to mental illness, but also the many other potential contributors to gun violence which have nothing to do with the guns themselves nor mental illness. I think a lot of those potential contributors (societal and other) have been put forth by posters here and they've made valid points.

"It's a complex problem that requires more than one solution," White House spokesman Jay Carney said Tuesday. "It calls for not only re-examining our gun laws and how well we enforce them, but also for engaging mental health professionals, law enforcement officials, educators, parents and communities to find those solutions."

Hoping the politicians can manage to stick to the intent of that agenda. If so, maybe the January proposals will truly include measures by which to reduce gun violence and fatalities through a combination of changes that address the root of the problem. JMO...


P.s. Thanks for the good info, F.U.
I didn't know that some of those who would otherwise be prohibited from owning a gun can purchase hunting rifles - that's disturbing.

^ "NICS", not "NCIS"

It's not NCIS? I thought it was too...

(12-21-2012, 02:10 PM)Jimbone Wrote: [ -> ]It's not NCIS? I thought it was too...

Even when I read it, I read it as "NCIS". I'm a little pop-culture brainwashed, I think.

National Instant Criminal Background Check System.

Of course this isn't going to become about banning or confiscating guns...

From the NYT:

He (Gov. Cuomo) added that he was focusing his attention on changing state laws restricting the possession of assault weapons and high-capacity ammunition magazines. The governor described the state’s existing ban on those items as having “more holes than Swiss cheese.”

“I don’t think legitimate sportsmen are going to say, ‘I need an assault weapon to go hunting,’ ” he said. At the same time, he noted that he owns a shotgun that he has used for hunting, and said, “There is a balance here — I understand the rights of gun owners; I understand the rights of hunters.”

In the interview, Mr. Cuomo did not offer specifics about the measures he might propose, but, while discussing assault weapons, he said: “Confiscation could be an option. Mandatory sale to the state could be an option. Permitting could be an option — keep your gun but permit it.”

The current law bans 'assault weapons' and high capacity magazines. They have been banned in NY since 1994, as their state law had no sunset provision.

From his comments, I suspect they will want to move to confiscate or buy back 'assault weapons' and high capacity magazines that were owned before the ban went into effect.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/21/nyregi....html?_r=0

I'd be very interested to a) confirm whether or not young Mr. Lanza actually tried to buy a weapon before the shootings last week, as was rumored, and b) what would the NICS have said about him specifically.

Just as I suspected, the passing of time has eased much of the anger from last weeks event, even for myself.

There are no easy answers. The only thing that can't happen IMO, is to allow another elementary school to get shot up.

I'm actually for arming the principal (or vice-principal) and using police officers at the schools. The amount of cops would have to be determined based on the amount of schools in a given county or district. I honestly believe their presence would be enough to thwart most of these cowards.

If tomorrow a guy walked into a home depot and grabbed a nail gun and ran around shooting 100 people in the foot so they could not move, some government official would be right on top of things trying to pass a law that made having the batteries in the nail guns and not locked in a cabinet illegal. I bet they would be in front of the home depot saying a prayer (without God in it) for the customers hobbling around in the parking lot. In the same breath they might add that we should tax the batteries that have 7 amps or more. 1 week later some other problem would pop up and the tragedy would be forgotten.

(12-21-2012, 05:16 PM)Maggot Wrote: [ -> ]If tomorrow a guy walked into a home depot and grabbed a nail gun and ran around shooting 100 people in the foot so they could not move, some government official would be right on top of things trying to pass a law that made having the batteries in the nail guns and not locked in a cabinet illegal. I bet they would be in front of the home depot saying a prayer (without God in it) for the customers hobbling around in the parking lot. In the same breath they might add that we should tax the batteries that have 7 amps or more. 1 week later some other problem would pop up and the tragedy would be forgotten.

As many have said, 'It's true that a madman can go into any public setting (or even your home) and cause carnage."

However, and I'm asking you personally Maggot, does that mean we have to stand by idly and simply 'hope' it doesn't happen again (or to us specifically)?

There's no way to ever ensure that someone won't go wild and shoot up a public place, but we can pick and choose where/when to start.

The TIME is now, and the PLACE to begin, is in our schools where our kids are very vulnerable, and are also considered our future.

(12-21-2012, 04:38 PM)Midwest Spy Wrote: [ -> ]I'd be very interested to a) confirm whether or not young Mr. Lanza actually tried to buy a weapon before the shootings last week, as was rumored, and b) what would the NICS have said about him specifically.

Just as I suspected, the passing of time has eased much of the anger from last weeks event, even for myself.

There are no easy answers. The only thing that can't happen IMO, is to allow another elementary school to get shot up.

I'm actually for arming the principal (or vice-principal) and using police officers at the schools. The amount of cops would have to be determined based on the amount of schools in a given county or district. I honestly believe their presence would be enough to thwart most of these cowards.

MS, if he had attempted to purchase a handgun he would have ben denied because he was 20 years old and law states a person must be 21. When it comes to a long gun unless he fell into one of the catagories that Hotd listed above he would have ben able to buy said long gun.

I agree with you on arming of principal's. Here is a link to one such instance that a armed principal stoped a mass shooting in its tracks.

http://www.davekopel.com/2a/othwr/princi...aZmE.email


For those that have never purchased a firearm nor looked at a forum 4473, here is a link so you can read the forum.

http://www.ocshooters.com/Gen/Form-4473/...m-4473.htm

(12-21-2012, 05:37 PM)F.U. Dont ask again Wrote: [ -> ]

(12-21-2012, 04:38 PM)Midwest Spy Wrote: [ -> ]I'd be very interested to a) confirm whether or not young Mr. Lanza actually tried to buy a weapon before the shootings last week, as was rumored, and b) what would the NICS have said about him specifically.

Just as I suspected, the passing of time has eased much of the anger from last weeks event, even for myself.

There are no easy answers. The only thing that can't happen IMO, is to allow another elementary school to get shot up.

I'm actually for arming the principal (or vice-principal) and using police officers at the schools. The amount of cops would have to be determined based on the amount of schools in a given county or district. I honestly believe their presence would be enough to thwart most of these cowards.

MS, if he had attempted to purchase a handgun he would have ben denied because he was 20 years old and law states a person must be 21. When it comes to a long gun unless he fell into one of the catagories that Hotd listed above he would have ben able to buy said long gun.

I agree with you on arming of principal's. Here is a link to one such instance that a armed principal stoped a mass shooting in its tracks.

http://www.davekopel.com/2a/othwr/princi...aZmE.email


For those that have never purchased a firearm nor looked at a forum 4473, here is a link so you can read the forum.

http://www.ocshooters.com/Gen/Form-4473/...m-4473.htm

Good article on the principal, F.U.

I at first was advocating letting teachers have guns too, but we honestly can't expect a teacher to educate and be a cop too.

But, I think that outfitting a principal (or other school admin.) with a firearm could be a realistic expectation.

Just knowing that SOMEONE is on scene with at least A CHANCE to deter a killer would be somewhat of a relief to most.

I agree MS, I don't think that every teacher should be armed, but it would be nice if the Principal and maybe any teacher that holds a permit to carry could be.

What that kid did was the same thing any criminal would do steal a gun and use it. If One person in that school had a permit to carry and thats all it would take. This may or may have not still happened.