(01-16-2013, 03:25 PM)HairOfTheDog Wrote: I'm disappointed that nothing was mentioned regarding public awareness efforts and reporting/follow-up guidelines for citizens and LE. Ah well, it was just an idea and there's noting to stop a centralized effort from being undertaken without the federal government serving as the central knowledge point (just more difficult to organize). Even without any kind of formal effort in that regard, it appears that the terrible reality of the Newton shootings has prompted more people to report suspicions and law enforcement to act quickly and seriously to such reports. I've seen several reports of thwarted attacks in the news since December. It would be most effective if there were guidelines to ensure that proactive reports continue to be followed-up on in a speedy and effective manner, even after Newton isn't on the forefront, to avoid things falling through the cracks like in Columbine. But, one step at a time...

It really will take a community/family effort to thwart this newest threat to our society: whackjob boys/men between the ages of 17-30.

Just observing Lanza's particular situation from afar, and knowing what most everyone else knows about him, my first inclination is that he suffered tremendously when his dad left, and then when his brother moved out, he really started moving toward rock bottom.

So, with that being established, what could his community/family have done? His extended family (mom's relatives in Vermont I believe) seemed rather isolated, his brother was in New Jersey (and sounds like he didn't come home a lot) and I think dad had been 'done' with him for years.

Mom apparently really took a liking to guns. Whether she felt like this was some sort of connection with her clearly ODD son, she made a mistake in having all these weapons at hand.

Here's where I actually agree with the gun nutters. Changing existing laws would not have prevented Lanza from doing what he did. Mom legally purchased the weapons.

Do we extend background checks to include family members? It almost seems necessary. Does that infringe on someone's 'rights'? I don't know, but if you know that you have someone at home who's not mentally stable, I say 'tough' to your ability to legally purchase firearms.

Ms. Lanza kept her sons mental deficiencies pretty well hidden from the public (from what I've read). She kept him at home 99% of the time. The general public, except for a few teachers that knew him during the past 4 or 5 years, would not have known how disturbed he was.

We have to have a couple of things happen. 1) This one's obvious. If you have a child at home who exhibits some sort of mental illness, you have to get rid of your guns. Period. 2) This is the more difficult one. Family members and community leaders (teachers, principals, mentors, pastors, youth leaders, etc) need to overstep their bounds and identify youth who would appear to show signs of mental illness. Once those people are 'outed' so to speak, steps then need to be taken to make sure where those kids are living that all firearms are removed from the home (whether the parents like it or not).

Again, the spree killers of the past few years are not acquiring their firearms illegally (for the most part). Lanza wouldn't have known how to get a weapon on the black market. Hell, he never left his house.

Barry was just sabre rattling. I think teachers that have a concealed permit should be allowed to bring a gun into school. The problem with this issue is it took everyone by surprize, like 911 there are more knee jerking going on than an army of Micheal J. Fox impersonators. Now there is an awareness that was not there before. Just like the next thing that happens. Maybe a terrorist will get on a bus and blow the thing up in the middle of the city, then everyone will be saying we need a shitload of security for buses.
If people were more aware now at any little change and were more prepared for the unknown killer it would be safer. Never take anything for granted and always be on the lookout for weird shit that might be going down. Its when people become lazy and not paying attention to their environment that this knuckleheaded stuff goes down. Hell I dont trust the paperboy anymore.

Business impact of Obama's press conference today:

The FBI said its instant background check system processed 2.8 million requests last month, almost 1 million more than a year earlier. Some of the largest increases took place in New Hampshire, Rhode Island, Virginia, Oregon and Alaska, according to the Governing website.

Investors seem to have no worries about the gun industry. Shares of the two major gun makers were jumping Wednesday after Obama's call for sweeping gun control measures. The stock price of Smith & Wesson Holding Corp. (SWHC) rose more than 4% to $8.79. Shares of Sturm Ruger & Co. (RGR) rose 4% to $49.92.

Both stocks have seen significant growth over the last year. Shares of Smith & Wesson are up some 75% over that period, while Sturm Ruger has risen 25%.

Would investors be betting so heavily on a decelerating industry? Of course not, and Wall Street has thus sent its verdict to Obama: Your proposals are not happening.
http://t.money.msn.com/now/gun-sales-jum...strictions

I'm not sure if Wall Street is really sending that verdict to Obama or if people are instead investing because they know that the major gun makers' sales will boom up until some of Obama's ban proposals become reality; quick turn-around investments maybe. Either way, it's been a record-breaking year for the business of guns and NRA memberships. The NRA reiterated today its commitment to waging ultimate political warfare to block the proposed bans from becoming law.

I wonder if they'll challenge the NY law... it was effective immediately yesterday.

(01-16-2013, 08:43 PM)Jimbone Wrote: I wonder if they'll challenge the NY law... it was effective immediately yesterday.

IDK. If I were a national lobbyist or strategist for the NRA, I would recommend focusing all effort at the fed level right now. What gets passed at the federal level will essentially be the minimum for state-specific laws.

I would expend less political resources and monies on New York and California which already have laws that exceed the current federal minimums and heavy anti-gun coalitions in place as is stands.

Instead, I'd be working the reps from pro-gun states like Texas, Az, Florida, etc.. to help block the most objectionable of the proposed federal bans from passing Congress.

After finishing the Fed war, state by state focus would make more sense and would need to be jumped on quickly (some of the state-specific lobbying would be going on in parallel to the fed lobbying; but mostly as feed-in to the war at the fed level). The NRA may have an entirely different game plan, but that's what I would do anyway. New York state laws wouldn't be a high priority in the short term, at all.

I have made over 200 "chip buckets" for Sturm Ruger over the past year, that place is hopping. They still use all their old machines but have had a hell of a time getting OSHA compliant over the past few years. I sell them for 160.00 each and all they are are 7x14x7" deep welded buckets just in case chips fall off the sides of their wheelabrators.

(01-16-2013, 08:58 PM)HairOfTheDog Wrote: IDK. If I were a national lobbyist or strategist for the NRA, I would recommend focusing all effort at the fed level right now. What gets passed at the federal level will essentially be the minimum for state-specific laws.

I would expend less political resources and monies on New York and California which already have laws that exceed the current federal minimums and heavy anti-gun coalitions in place as is stands.

Instead, I'd be working the reps from pro-gun states like Texas, Az, Florida, etc.. to help block the most objectionable of the proposed federal bans from passing Congress.

After finishing the Fed war, state by state focus would make more sense and would need to be jumped on quickly (some of the state-specific lobbying would be going on in parallel to the fed lobbying; but mostly as feed-in to the war at the fed level). The NRA may have an entirely different game plan, but that's what I would do anyway. New York state laws wouldn't be a high priority in the short term, at all.

The NY ban is ridiculous IMO, and I think you are likely right about the strategy they will take. Why waste resources in states that are too far gone indeed! They'll leave that to local upstate gun groups to challenge - maybe they'll provide some tactical support.

And again you are likely right that they should just focus on federal laws. What happened in NY is simply to pave the way for King Cuomo to run with something big on his record in 2016, and was red meat for the NYS politicos.

I'm all for more thorough and cross-dataed background checks (as long as it didn't turn into a gun registry), and even would be okay with a 10 round limits on a magazine. As I've said in the past, most higher round magazines are shit and jam constantly anyway.

But beyond that, banning weapons on cosmetic appearance - and that account for only 2% of the problem - is stupid.

(01-16-2013, 09:00 PM)Maggot Wrote: I have made over 200 "chip buckets" for Sturm Ruger over the past year, that place is hopping. They still use all their old machines but have had a hell of a time getting OSHA compliant over the past few years. I sell them for 160.00 each and all they are are 7x14x7" deep welded buckets just in case chips fall off the sides of their wheelabrators.

Maggot, do you run a machine shop?

I decided to do a little searching to see how hard it would be to circumvent the newly proposed "assault rifle" ban.
Senator Diane Feinstein from CA has written the proposed ban, so I decided to use her states laws as a base. Right now Ca has some of the most stringent laws on firearms in the country and from everything I read they will be the base of the proposed AWB for the rest of the country. Things like no pistol grips, flash hider, bayo lugs,adjustable or folding stocks, detachable mags etc.
After reading for a while I did see that the laws of CA did not stop anyone from owning a "assault rifle" Pistol grips and stock configurations were just modified, flash hiders removed, Detachable mags were defined as a magazine that could be removed/replaced without the use of a tool, so the bullet button was born. For those of you that do not know of a bullet button it is simply a button that requires the use of a bullet tip, or small punch to depress. Instead of a finger tip a bullet is needed to replace the mags.

To give you a better idea what the difference between the new rifles and the old ones are here are a few pics to help you.


This is a pic of a couple of my AR's.








Here are a few pics of Ca AR's that circumvent the "assault weapons" laws.

















Theres even a Hello Kitty AR.

(01-16-2013, 10:16 PM)Jimbone Wrote:

(01-16-2013, 09:00 PM)Maggot Wrote: I have made over 200 "chip buckets" for Sturm Ruger over the past year, that place is hopping. They still use all their old machines but have had a hell of a time getting OSHA compliant over the past few years. I sell them for 160.00 each and all they are are 7x14x7" deep welded buckets just in case chips fall off the sides of their wheelabrators.

Maggot, do you run a machine shop?

Yes, welding, fabrication, HVAC equipment, paint booths anything you want in metal, copper, alum, stainless bla bla bla.......

(01-17-2013, 10:13 AM)Maggot Wrote: Yes, welding, fabrication, HVAC equipment, paint booths anything you want in metal, copper, alum, stainless bla bla bla.......

How do you find customers, or do they find you?

Hello Kitty A/R...geez!

(01-17-2013, 11:20 AM)username Wrote: Hello Kitty A/R...geez!

I know, right.

Someone pointing it at me, yeah- I'd take it seriously.

(01-17-2013, 11:20 AM)username Wrote: Hello Kitty A/R...geez!

I'm going to profile the owner of that gun -

Middle aged fat ass, hair color comes from a box, high school drop out, four kids, one a teen age unwed mother, they eat a lot of starch & fry with either lard or bacon fat and say, hey y'all, I'm fixin' to fire mah gun.

(01-16-2013, 04:01 PM)Midwest Spy Wrote: Do we extend background checks to include family members? It almost seems necessary. Does that infringe on someone's 'rights'? I don't know, but if you know that you have someone at home who's not mentally stable, I say 'tough' to your ability to legally purchase firearms.

I don't think it makes sense to extend the background checks beyond the purchaser. How can (or should) the fed track the backgrounds of family members, friends, lovers, renters, etc...? Only the gun owner can control who has access to his/her gun.

(01-16-2013, 04:01 PM)Midwest Spy Wrote: The general public, except for a few teachers that knew him during the past 4 or 5 years, would not have known how disturbed he was.

And, except for the landscaper, the plumber, the babysitter, and the barber.

(01-16-2013, 04:01 PM)Midwest Spy Wrote: Again, the spree killers of the past few years are not acquiring their firearms illegally (for the most part). Lanza wouldn't have known how to get a weapon on the black market. Hell, he never left his house.

I don't know if Lanza never left his house, but yeah, the new control proposals wouldn't have kept him from getting his mom's guns; they would only have kept him from getting certain kinds of guns if his mom had purchased hers post-ban.

-The Virginia Tech shooter bought his gun legally because he wasn't in the federal NICS database even though he was declared mentally ill by the state.

-Gabby Gifford's shooter got his gun legally, even though he was kicked out of school for being unstable and threatening (had not been declared mentally ill).

-Columbine killers were underage so they illegally used straw purchasers who bought the guns at a gun show, IIRC. The straw purchaser(s) were given immunity to testify rather than being prosecuted.

-The shooter in the NY firefighter ambush was a felon so he illegally used his neighbor to buy his guns. The neighbor is being prosecuted for acting as a straw purchaser in this case; the right message to send to the public.

So, the current proposals to essentially strengthen the administration/enforcement of existing laws, along with the new requirement for background checks for some non-dealer transactions, could help minimize mass murders. I agree with you that greater awareness and follow-up by the community/LE and more responsible gun ownership are big factors towards prevention as well.

^
That's cool the way you made your response to quotes in white. Much easier to read.
(On a side note, I do agree, if not to every single point you make, to at least the overall tenor of your responses.)

(01-17-2013, 12:57 PM)Duchess Wrote:

(01-17-2013, 11:20 AM)username Wrote: Hello Kitty A/R...geez!

I'm going to profile the owner of that gun -

Middle aged fat ass, hair color comes from a box, high school drop out, four kids, one a teen age unwed mother, they eat a lot of starch & fry with either lard or bacon fat and say, hey y'all, I'm fixin' to fire mah gun.

Not exactly...

(01-17-2013, 01:19 PM)OnBendedKnee Wrote: ^
That's cool the way you made your response to quotes in white. Much easier to read.

Unless you're viewing it on your phone. I can't see a thing she posted.

I have an aversion to the color pink even though my favorite sweater from J Crew is pink.

I was going to inject something about a twat at the end but decided against it.

I saw a woman who fit the description I gave wearing a hello kitty t-shirt.