May 27, 20223 yr 22 minutes ago, HazletonEagle said: They let you email people? Have they ever seen your posts here? 5 minutes ago, Agent23 said: let me look for my performance review from last year!!!
May 27, 20223 yr 50 minutes ago, BFit said: translation: agent makes agenty emails...... three stah!!! is the "baseline" for everyone, with nobody every getting a five stah!!! that anyone knows of (which makes have a 5-star rating system moronic). But I am a 4-stah!!!!
May 29, 20223 yr if by Universal Background Checks we are limiting the results to age restriction, those with convictions of criminal violence, and those diagnosed with mental illnesses associated with violence and/or increased risk of violence, then yes, bring it on. I am 100% in favor of a list of people who should never be granted access to purchasing/owning firearms. I am 100% opposed to any other firearms related lists. As for the "assault weapon" issue, I think the SCOTUS has made in clear through several holdings that in essence, if the standard US ARMY infantry soldier carries it, so can we since we, the American people, may legally form a well regulated militia, should the need arise. The likelihood of that need is irrelevant to our authority to do so. To the "Don't soldiers have machine guns, so why can't we?" question, the rationale as I understand it is this: an Infantry squad is generally made up of 3 types of firearms users. There are one standard and two specialized types. They are Rifleman, Automatic Rifleman, and Machine gunner respectively. The M-203 grenade launcher is a different specialized job that's outside the strict definition of a firearm, so not applicable. The STANDARD (base) type is the Rifleman and is the most numerous, as it is not a specialized position in the squad. So what does that job description require? 1. That the Rifleman operated his weapon in semi-automatic mode (1 shot at a time, not full automatic, nor 3 round burst). That is essentially why citizens cannot have automatic weapons. Granted, there are legitimate safety concerns as well regarding automatic weapons, but what the Rifleman carries and the way he is compelled to use that weapon is what we are limited to. I am an avid supporter of the 2nd Amendment and I also believe in smart regulations that aim to keep firearms out of the wrong hands. We can have both. We can't end any crimes so long as there are people bent on committing them. We can however, make it harder to accomplish them and in some instances, divert would be criminals away from those crimes.
July 7, 20223 yr On 5/29/2022 at 11:59 AM, PoconoDon said: s for the "assault weapon" issue, I think the SCOTUS has made in clear through several holdings that in essence, if the standard US ARMY infantry soldier carries it, so can we since we, the American people, may legally form a well regulated militia, should the need arise. The likelihood of that need is irrelevant to our authority to do so. Why limit it to "assault weapons"? Soldiers also use grenade and rocket launchers and tanks. It's insane to allow anyone who wants one to own a rifle that shoots 30 rounds at a clip at several times the power of a pistol shot, with bullets that tumble into their target ripping it to bloody hell. Routine background checks didn't stop Crimo. As a gun owner I wouldn't weep if assault rifles were banned, but I'd also be happy if they just tightened the process of ownership. Anyone who wants one should be required to go through a greatly enhanced screening process, including a psychiatric review, an extensive criminal records and complaints check etc. And parents shouldn't be allowed to sign for their precious little lunatics to get their hands on one. Let the kid play video shoot em ups until he's 21.
July 7, 20223 yr 11 minutes ago, eaglegenius said: Why limit it to "assault weapons"? Soldiers also use grenade and rocket launchers and tanks. It's insane to allow anyone who wants one to own a rifle that shoots 30 rounds at a clip at several times the power of a pistol shot, with bullets that tumble into their target ripping it to bloody hell. Routine background checks didn't stop Crimo. As a gun owner I wouldn't weep if assault rifles were banned, but I'd also be happy if they just tightened the process of ownership. Anyone who wants one should be required to go through a greatly enhanced screening process, including a psychiatric review, an extensive criminal records and complaints check etc. And parents shouldn't be allowed to sign for their precious little lunatics to get their hands on one. Let the kid play video shoot em ups until he's 21. No it's not
July 7, 20223 yr 51 minutes ago, eaglegenius said: Why limit it to "assault weapons"? Soldiers also use grenade and rocket launchers and tanks. It's insane to allow anyone who wants one to own a rifle that shoots 30 rounds at a clip at several times the power of a pistol shot, with bullets that tumble into their target ripping it to bloody hell. Routine background checks didn't stop Crimo. As a gun owner I wouldn't weep if assault rifles were banned, but I'd also be happy if they just tightened the process of ownership. Anyone who wants one should be required to go through a greatly enhanced screening process, including a psychiatric review, an extensive criminal records and complaints check etc. And parents shouldn't be allowed to sign for their precious little lunatics to get their hands on one. Let the kid play video shoot em ups until he's 21. Those things are not standard issue for the Infantry Rifleman, that's why. It's also why the civilian version of the Rifleman's M-16 A2/A4, which is the AR-15 is beyond the power of the government to ban. There's nothing wrong with background checks and they should include psych based prohibition(s). If someone is prohibited because of criminal history or psychiatric diagnoses then they should be on a national list in a searchable data base for all firearms sales. If a free firearms safety class is required, and can be attended by anyone whether buying a firearm or not, then that's fine too. Add that into the data base. The goal is to keep firearms out of the hands of those who pose an actual threat without unduly invading the privacy of those who don't. I am 100% in favor of a list of persons who are prohibited from owning/possessing firearms existing and being easily accessed for approving sales or transfers. I am also 100% against any other list at all regarding firearms. The 21 years old argument makes some sense. Sport shooting between 18-21 years of age would likely have to be be supervised by an adult over 21. Inconvenient, but not too bad, IMO.
July 8, 20223 yr Author In other gun news, Quote Riaan Naude, 55, was the owner and founder of Pro Hunt Africa, a tour group that facilitates paid wildlife hunting trips in the country’s northeastern province of Limpopo was found dead next to his truck. He was shot. Possibly an angry second amendment lion.
July 8, 20223 yr 22 hours ago, PoconoDon said: It's also why the civilian version of the Rifleman's M-16 A2/A4 Nah, give me an A1 over the A2 any day (the A4 was way after my time). The A2 was heavier and less comfortable to carry (I never saw one while I was in, only about 25 years later, did I even hold an AR15 A2). I loved my A1, it fit like a glove.
July 8, 20223 yr On 7/7/2022 at 12:42 PM, eaglegenius said: Why limit it to "assault weapons"? Soldiers also use grenade and rocket launchers and tanks. It's insane to allow anyone who wants one to own a rifle that shoots 30 rounds at a clip at several times the power of a pistol shot, with bullets that tumble into their target ripping it to bloody hell. Routine background checks didn't stop Crimo. As a gun owner I wouldn't weep if assault rifles were banned, but I'd also be happy if they just tightened the process of ownership. Anyone who wants one should be required to go through a greatly enhanced screening process, including a psychiatric review, an extensive criminal records and complaints check etc. And parents shouldn't be allowed to sign for their precious little lunatics to get their hands on one. Let the kid play video shoot em ups until he's 21. this reads like me writing a post about quantum physics. sure, ive heard of some of the words, but im not really sure what they mean
July 8, 20223 yr went to a range the other day and shot a .223 - nice rifle. i was pretty much dead on at 200 yards. look out bambi
July 9, 20223 yr 18 hours ago, VaBeach_Eagle said: Nah, give me an A1 over the A2 any day (the A4 was way after my time). The A2 was heavier and less comfortable to carry (I never saw one while I was in, only about 25 years later, did I even hold an AR15 A2). I loved my A1, it fit like a glove. Me too.
July 9, 20223 yr On 5/27/2022 at 10:50 AM, BFit said: all of those places are areas where people are allowed to protect themselves. schools are different and need to be treated and protected as such. even if you outright ban guns, and do mass confiscations, youre not going to get rid of all the guns in america. on top of that, the ability to print or build guns still exists, so there will always be the threat of gun violence. why not put efforts into protecting ourselves and our children from these things and not into trying to legislate a solution? Because it FEELS like the "right" thing to do. How many of the recent mass shootings involved legally purchased guns? Quite a few. How many of these whack jobs had a history of people reporting suspicious/alarming behavior? Also, quite a few. Seems that MORE gun laws won't prevent a determined person, following the law to obtain a gun. The opportunity to prevent these events from happening, would be to do SOMETHING about the behavior, prior to the event. But then, that is the government doing something BEFORE a crime has been committed - Minority Report style. With the hundreds of millions of gun already in the wild, the only way to prevent these events is thru societal changes, and we ALL know that society is going down the crapper. So this will advance end in one of two ways, FORCED confiscation of guns or FORCED societal changes with a combo of both likely, sadly. BTW - I voted YES, but with agreement on Pocono's version of a background check. Of course this means that because of this, people will STOP reaching out for mental health, as it bars them from owning a firearm. Who determines what a "mental health" issue is? Seeing someone for marriage counseling? Trouble sleeping, so you are prescribed medication typically used for mental health? So enjoy even MORE of what you are trying to avoid.
July 9, 20223 yr 21 hours ago, Alpha_TATEr said: went to a range the other day and shot a .223 - nice rifle. i was pretty much dead on at 200 yards. look out bambi JMO… but a .223 is a bit small for deer hunting. I’ve got a .22-250 which is the same caliber but with more punch behind it and I only use it for varmints.
July 9, 20223 yr On 5/26/2022 at 11:54 PM, VaBeach_Eagle said: I've bought guns at gun shows and I've bought from dealers, I've even bought guns from the Federal Government (sort of, the CMP) and every single gun that I've ever purchased, required a background check. I even gifted a gun to one of my brothers and he had to go through a background check in order to be able to legally take possession of it. So, what would be different? On 5/27/2022 at 1:02 PM, VaBeach_Eagle said: What instances (currently) are there where background checks are not performed when purchasing a firearm? Aside from purchasing something like a black powder firearm, where it's not required, of course. I think "Universal Background Checks” is a phrase used for political pandering. Current checks in place only check if you’re a violent felon where your right to own a firearm has been revoked. To my knowledge, current checks don’t screen if you have a pending charge or any diagnosis of mental illness. I could see it being used to close gun show loopholes where only licensed dealers would be allowed to sell firearms and a background check be required for a sale to be completed. That being said, I don’t know how the government could ever screen or require checks when a private individual sells a firearm to another private individual. On 5/29/2022 at 10:59 AM, PoconoDon said: if by Universal Background Checks we are limiting the results to age restriction, those with convictions of criminal violence, and those diagnosed with mental illnesses associated with violence and/or increased risk of violence, then yes, bring it on. I am 100% in favor of a list of people who should never be granted access to purchasing/owning firearms. I am 100% opposed to any other firearms related lists. I am an avid supporter of the 2nd Amendment and I also believe in smart regulations that aim to keep firearms out of the wrong hands. We can have both. We can't end any crimes so long as there are people bent on committing them. We can however, make it harder to accomplish them and in some instances, divert would be criminals away from those crimes. This is where I am. I’ve shot AR-15’s with high capacity magazines, with bump stocks… they’re fun to shoot, but they really only have one purpose other than target shooting. To kill a mass amount of people as quickly as possible, that is what they were designed to do. Hunting laws don’t allow more than 5 rounds while hunting, so they’re not allowed to hunt with in most places. I don’t think AR’s or high capacity magazines could effectively be outlawed at this point, because there are too many already out in the public. I do think additional checks, permits and a purchase delay time period for those types of weapons would be worth it if it prevents one mass shooting.
July 9, 20223 yr 1 hour ago, MidMoFo said: I think "Universal Background Checks” is a phrase used for political pandering. Current checks in place only check if you’re a violent felon where your right to own a firearm has been revoked. To my knowledge, current checks don’t screen if you have a pending charge or any diagnosis of mental illness. I could see it being used to close gun show loopholes where only licensed dealers would be allowed to sell firearms and a background check be required for a sale to be completed. That being said, I don’t know how the government could ever screen or require checks when a private individual sells a firearm to another private individual. What if I told you that only licensed dealers can sell firearms at a gun show? Cause, that's how the laws work now......
July 9, 20223 yr 1 hour ago, BFit said: What if I told you that only licensed dealers can sell firearms at a gun show? Cause, that's how the laws work now...... I would tell you that you are correct for 22 states and the District of Columbus, but in 28 states you do not have to be a licensed dealer to sell guns at a gun show and are not required to submit a federal background check to sell a gun as a private individual.
July 10, 20223 yr 6 hours ago, MidMoFo said: I would tell you that you are correct for 22 states and the District of Columbus, but in 28 states you do not have to be a licensed dealer to sell guns at a gun show and are not required to submit a federal background check to sell a gun as a private individual. But if you're selling guns for a profit you have to have a license. Otherwise it's a private sale and you said you weren't talking about private sale.
July 10, 20223 yr People focus on the Second Amendment while ignoring Congress's Article One powers to organize and train the militia, and call forth the militia,” she said. In other words, a private militia that deploys itself, without the permission of the state or federal government, is illegal. https://www.thetrace.org/2022/04/militias-legal-armed-demonstration/#:~:text=People focus on the Second,or federal government%2C is illegal. No, McCord says. The Supreme Court ruled in 1886 in Presser v. Illinois that the Second Amendment does not prevent states from banning private paramilitary organizations, a finding that was restated in District of Columbia v. Heller, the 2008 decision that established an individual’s right to bear arms for self-defense. “‘Militia’ has never meant ‘private militia answerable to themselves,’” McCord said. "It always meant well-regulated by the state. People focus on the Second Amendment while ignoring Congress’s Article One powers to organize and train the militia, and call forth the militia,” she said. In other words, a private militia that deploys itself, without the permission of the state or federal government, is illegal.
July 10, 20223 yr 11 hours ago, jsdarkstar said: People focus on the Second Amendment while ignoring Congress's Article One powers to organize and train the militia, and call forth the militia,” she said. In other words, a private militia that deploys itself, without the permission of the state or federal government, is illegal. https://www.thetrace.org/2022/04/militias-legal-armed-demonstration/#:~:text=People focus on the Second,or federal government%2C is illegal. No, McCord says. The Supreme Court ruled in 1886 in Presser v. Illinois that the Second Amendment does not prevent states from banning private paramilitary organizations, a finding that was restated in District of Columbia v. Heller, the 2008 decision that established an individual’s right to bear arms for self-defense. “‘Militia’ has never meant ‘private militia answerable to themselves,’” McCord said. "It always meant well-regulated by the state. People focus on the Second Amendment while ignoring Congress’s Article One powers to organize and train the militia, and call forth the militia,” she said. In other words, a private militia that deploys itself, without the permission of the state or federal government, is illegal. Nobody is suggesting that a street gang, organized crime group, or a bunch of drunken lunatics could call themselves a militia and have it be legal. That's not the argument at all and never has been the argument. The issue isn't who may legally call up the militia (the people through their elected representatives). The idea that the government controls the militia isn't wholly wrong, it's actually almost wholly right. It's just that, due to the 2nd Amendment limitation on their powers, they don't control the militia's arms. It doesn't matter who trains them, confers commissions for officers, or calls them up, Congress still has NO POWER to pass laws that infringe US citizens' right to keep and bear arms. The likelihood of needing to call up the militia is irrelevant to that enduring limitation on government power. An armed population cannot easily be conquered, subjugated, enslaved, or exterminated by forces either from without or from within. That's also something the founders understood.
July 10, 20223 yr 22 hours ago, MidMoFo said: I think "Universal Background Checks” is a phrase used for political pandering. Current checks in place only check if you’re a violent felon where your right to own a firearm has been revoked. To my knowledge, current checks don’t screen if you have a pending charge or any diagnosis of mental illness. I could see it being used to close gun show loopholes where only licensed dealers would be allowed to sell firearms and a background check be required for a sale to be completed. That being said, I don’t know how the government could ever screen or require checks when a private individual sells a firearm to another private individual. 12 hours ago, BFit said: But if you're selling guns for a profit you have to have a license. Otherwise it's a private sale and you said you weren't talking about private sale. I said universal background checks could be used to close the gun show loophole, but I don’t see how the government could enforce screening or checks for every private gun sale. As a private citizen, in my state, I can take a collection of guns to a gun show, rent a vendor table, sell my guns and I am not required to perform a federal background check like an FFL dealer. Doesn’t matter if I’m making a profit, taking a loss or breaking even. That’s the loophole - private sellers. If I open a business, MidMoFo’s Gun Shop, now according to my FFL license, I am required to run a federal check on any person I sell a firearm to, whether at my shop or at a gun show. I think universal background check laws could require anyone selling a gun, whether a private citizen or a business, to have an FFL. Then all sellers at a gun show could be checked and required to have an FFL and would be required to perform a background check on anyone buying a gun at the sale. I still don’t see how the government could effectively enforce a background check for private to private gun sales in non-public places.
July 11, 20223 yr 11 hours ago, MidMoFo said: I still don’t see how the government could effectively enforce a background check for private to private gun sales in non-public places. Maybe not. But they could probably make someone who sells a gun privately, if it's been previously registered to them, criminally and/or civilly liable for any criminal damage done by the subsequent buyer. IMHO the first step in "gun violence control" should be universal automatic added on prison time for anyone convicted of using a gun in the commission of any crime. 5, 10 or 25 year mandatory non-reducible "bonus time" depending on the severity of the crime. And there's no reason not to include machetes, knives or other deadly weapons in the law.
Create an account or sign in to comment