Page 2 of 10 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 40 of 185
Like Tree189Likes

Thread: How would an ar15 ban work?

  1. #21
    thermite is offline Diamond
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Mid-Atlantic USA, South China
    Posts
    13,232

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ronan View Post
    ..mainly jewish people looking to ban guns in america ? Feinstein and mayor bloomberg amongst others seem to be very vocal, i don't mean this in a racist way but it is noticeable. Coincidence ?
    Pure coincidence. ANYONE in America can be a public arsehole. Less discrimination for that job than any other.

    I'm not one for counting such things, but it might even be that there are FEWER per-capita from that minority. Most would rather do something more useful and challenging. Rewarding, even.

    Bill

  2. #22
    Long Tom is online now Stainless
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Fiddlefart, Oregon
    Posts
    1,214

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by lowCountryCamo View Post
    Looks like they are going to ban ar-15s. How would that work? I bought a Daniel Defense about 1 year ago as a Katrina type survival riffle. Would this ban be focused on manufacture or possession? I better go ahead and buy a couple more mags and maybe a extra bolt. I could probably make anything else that goes wrong. I don't really remember the Brady Bill as I was just a pup back then.
    The first AWB did not ban possession or sale of hicaps or "assault rifles". It banned new manufacture of the magazines, and had an easily-circumvented feature list that defined what an assault rifle was. I bought several AR's during the "ban" and tons of hicap mags for mini-14, M14, AR15, Glock... the price of the mags did skyrocket however.

    Since then, the AR platform has become so ubiquitous that it can be bought in places like WalMart or Cabelas. With the wording of the Heller SCOTUS decision, that very ubiquitous-ness gives them some protection.

    Some sort of political action towards hicap magazines seems most likely.

    What would actually make sense would be to have a political conversation about the need for gun owners to properly secure firearms from minors. Not saying I support that automatically, but at least it doesn't infringe our right to possess, and would have prevented some of these school massacres.

    Regardless, I don't think we'll actually see much legislation out of this tragedy. The Dem's know it's a third rail for them and they do like being in power.

  3. #23
    thermite is offline Diamond
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Mid-Atlantic USA, South China
    Posts
    13,232

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Long Tom View Post
    I don't think we'll actually see much legislation out of this tragedy. The Dem's know it's a third rail for them and they do like being in power.
    Not so much 'legislation', no. Other means are reported as being well underway already. Increased pressure to take away sources of investment funding from arms manufacturing firms.

    I do not see it as effective, but then - aside from exponentiating FUBAR's - what ever have politicians done that was?

    Bill

  4. #24
    PeteM is offline Diamond
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    West Coast, USA
    Posts
    5,181

    Default

    If one reads what little we know about the shooter and his mother, it's pretty clear that his background was part of the problem:

    Connecticut school shooting: the troubled life of Sandy Hook killer Adam Lanza - Telegraph

    The Telegraph, like most UK papers, isn't likely to take a favorable stance on his staunch Republican "survivalist" pub-crawling mother who apparently owned the AR-15, the handguns and the high capacity magazines that Adam Lanza used to wipe out a kindergarden class. She put the guns in his hands (even knowing he was a bit off) and taught him to shoot them. All that per the article. It's hard to know the real circumstances, but if this kid had grown up obsessed with Lego Mindstorms, or even karate or bow hunting or a hundred other things than his mother's Bushmaster, the carnage might have been very different. My point is that there is a likely a sort of cultural background to this -- what we teach our kids and how we deal with their mental challenges -- matched right up against this kid's mental imbalance.

    There are lots of good reasons why it won't be possible to take AR-15's out of the hands of every killer, prime among them the million plus that are already out there. There are equally good reasons why it won't be possible to have a "ban" on all our sociopaths and pyschopaths, given that there are about 6 million out there (at a rate of 2% of the population). However, it is absolutely shameful in my opinion for all parties to these disasters to spend 99% of their efforts deflecting responsibility and obstructing some sort of meaningful change.

    To add just a ray of optimism, there are lots of cases where simply making access more difficult and changing the culture a bit (with, say, not selling and advertising cigarettes to kids, while raising their prices, and attempting to make smoking less "cool") have yielded meaningful improvements. As gun owners, we surely should be thinking and talking about how we become part of the solution.
    thermite, Greg White and PeterJ like this.

  5. #25
    Mark Rand is online now Titanium
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Rugby, Warwickshire. England
    Posts
    3,068

    Default

    Perfect solution and opportunity just before the new year:- Don't ban AR's, AK's etc, just tax primers.

  6. #26
    GGaskill is offline Stainless
    Join Date
    Feb 2001
    Location
    Chino [Flats], Ca SSR, USA
    Posts
    1,624

    Default

    How would an AR15 ban work?

    Not very well unless the people would accept regular searching of their homes and other places. There are so many in the field that they couldn't all be found and it likely would become a hazardous duty assignment for those tasked with the job.

  7. #27
    lowCountryCamo's Avatar
    lowCountryCamo is online now Hot Rolled
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Savannah, Georgia, USA
    Posts
    783

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by GGaskill View Post
    How would an AR15 ban work?

    Not very well unless the people would accept regular searching of their homes and other places. There are so many in the field that they couldn't all be found and it likely would become a hazardous duty assignment for those tasked with the job.
    If they banned possession, I would help them out and "sell" mine before they came.

    As to the DD barrels, I bought mine in 2011 and they claimed they were cold hammer forged here in savannah. As I recall they even had a video demonstrating the process, possibly in response to the problems you cite. Although it wouldn't be the first time a manufacture's "claims" were found to be false.
    Last edited by lowCountryCamo; 12-18-2012 at 06:29 PM. Reason: Added info

  8. #28
    SND
    SND is offline Diamond
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    9,296

    Default

    On a perhaps slightly related note, there was 164,000,000 anti-depressant prescriptions in the USA in 2008, given the exponential growth we can only imagine where its at 4yrs later. Kinda surprising there's so few events like this considering.

    Sounds like a lot of people didn't get that american dream eh.

  9. #29
    thermite is offline Diamond
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Mid-Atlantic USA, South China
    Posts
    13,232

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by SND View Post
    On a perhaps slightly related note, there was 164,000,000 anti-depressant prescriptions in the USA in 2008, given the exponential growth we can only imagine where its at 4yrs later. Kinda surprising there's so few events like this considering.

    Sounds like a lot of people didn't get that american dream eh.
    Pretty sure the obsession with 'find out which pill fixes it, and take a few extra..' is cause, not effect. I think I've taken an aspirin sometime in the last five years. Has to be more than three years ago, though. Had to leave the US and fly back to Hong Kong to find an expert to do the cataracts with zero anaesthetic.. not even the mild 'topical'.

    Properly functioning human body needs a chemical, it JF synthesises it.. Too well-engineered a mechanism proven over mega-years for amateurs to be mucking about with. Seems every new pharma is greeted as salvation for a year or five - then found to be terribly harmful.

    Chocolate, Habanero chile sauce, wine, beer, even Irish whiskey - have far the better track records.

    Mixing that lot not recommended, however. Side effects are an RBK.



    Bill

  10. #30
    SparknMike is offline Plastic
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    North Florida
    Posts
    44

    Default

    I wonder how all of this would have turned out if each teacher was trained to handle a pistol and required to carry one at all times. If attacking a school was as easy as attacking a police station people might find easier targets. Simply trying to force specific weapons or types of weapons out of the hands of the general public isn't going to help. I am clinging to some hope here that the end result is not simply restricting weapons that the law enforcement agencies would rather not see out in the field when they face people that are uncaring about the legality of their weapons.

  11. #31
    PeteM is offline Diamond
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    West Coast, USA
    Posts
    5,181

    Default

    This just got forwarded to me -- and I think it's worth a read: I am Adam Lanza's Mother - The Blue Review | The Blue Review

    The real difference between this woman's son and Adam Lanza? For one thing, her son is just 13 -- it's hard to know how this one will end. For another, she keeps the knives in the house out of harms way, while Lanza's mother not only trained her son to shoot, but apparently didn't do much to secure her Bushmaster, Glock, high capacity magazines, etc.
    fusker likes this.

  12. #32
    thermite is offline Diamond
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Mid-Atlantic USA, South China
    Posts
    13,232

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by SparknMike View Post
    I wonder how all of this would have turned out if each teacher was trained to handle a pistol and required to carry one at all times.
    Please rethink that. We really, really do NOT want to go there.

    Nor could we.

    Folks who choose to dedicate their working lives to the demanding task of educating young children have strong ideas of their own about that. Several - not the first - of those dedicated folks just laid down their lives - UNarmed - in Newtown.
    Going armed into the daily environment of the kids was NOT on their list, nor will be.

    Let's look at resolving the causes. Not the symptoms. Nor the means.

    Reducing the pervasive penetration of violent video game gadgetry and online hate-sharing may seem far-fetched, but it does seem to be a common thread in several of the recent disasters.

    What does it say about the 'health' - or mental laziness - of a society that it has nothing of more lasting value to offer its young than that?

    Bill
    PeteM, MikeS-54, srollins and 2 others like this.

  13. #33
    polish avenger is offline Aluminum
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    IN.
    Posts
    90

    Default

    It wont. It wont stop anything. Criminals dont care. SparknMike........ There should have been some legally armed and trained teachers in the school. When guns are banned from places like schools, post offices, and so on for legally carrying citizens they are "free fire zones". Did I mention that criminals dont care? Laws keep the HONEST people from breaking them. "Assault weapon", bat, knife, hammer, rope, bare hands it makes no difference.
    i_r_machinist and srollins like this.

  14. #34
    Neshek is offline Aluminum
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Wimberley, TX
    Posts
    112

    Default

    The last Feinstein initiated ban had the total effect on AR-15s of milling off the bayonet lug and removing the flash suppressor. I guess drive-by bayonetings were way down. Then they are either ignorant or lying when they say the so called assault weapons ban worked to lower crime. They were functionally the SAME gun. I despair regarding the level of discourse in this country regarding firearms. Sheesh...

  15. #35
    Ries's Avatar
    Ries is offline Diamond
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Edison Washington USA
    Posts
    8,398

    Default

    Leaving out politics, or personal opinion of whether its right or wrong-

    There are a couple of ways that a ban might be instituted.

    They could do large scale buybacks, like the Australians did- mandatory buybacks, which "law abiding" citizens would obey, and which would make criminals out of those who did not sell their guns to the government.

    The other thing they could do is treat specific categories of firearms like pre-1968 machine guns covered by the 1934 and subsequent Federal Firearms act. They could take any given weapon, or type of weapon, and require a federal license and a $200 transfer tax, and associated paperwork. Currently, of course, the law only allows dealers to own post 1968 automatic weapons, and private individuals to own only pre-68 "transferable" models. (I know, its actually a bit more complicated than that, but that the gist of it). But there is no real reason that Congress could not take any weapon, like, say, an AR-15, and add it to the list which is currently only pre 1968 machine guns, and the other weapons on the list.
    If they did that, expect prices to go thru the ceiling, and expect local police to treat any report of an assumed to be unlicensed AR to be a reason to practice their Swat Team training.

    The Supreme Court has not, so far, thrown out the 1934/68/86 laws regarding full auto- so there is no real reason to think that they would overrule the addition of other, specific weapons or types of weapons, assuming that it was not a total ban on firearm ownership.
    So if Congress did this, it would probably hold up in court.

    And my guess is that, after a few high profile cases of local LEO's storming the homes of owners who did not have licences, many people would sell or dispose of their weapons, regardless of whether they felt it was right or wrong. In the case of machine guns, it has been pretty well proven that its a losing game in the long run to try to own illegal, non-licensed ones. My guess would be that after initial loud grumbling, the Feds would win in the end on any other weapons they added to this category.

    Obviously, this would require them to more intelligently define exactly which weapons, and types of weapons, they were requiring be licensed. Which, as discussed above, they have pretty much failed to do in the past. But from a legal standpoint, the government could do this.

  16. #36
    thermite is offline Diamond
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Mid-Atlantic USA, South China
    Posts
    13,232

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by polish avenger View Post
    It wont. It wont stop anything. Criminals dont care. SparknMike........ There should have been some legally armed and trained teachers in the school. When guns are banned from places like schools, post offices, and so on for legally carrying citizens they are "free fire zones". Did I mention that criminals dont care? Laws keep the HONEST people from breaking them. "Assault weapon", bat, knife, hammer, rope, bare hands it makes no difference.
    Perhaps we might look at that from a different angle.

    Example: We do not ordinarily know - nor want to - whether the pilot(s) of our airliner have armed themselves, or whether there is an 'air marshall' on board. The fact that there COULD be either or both, and the public perception that it is highly probable - is what makes the target less attractive to nutcases.

    Prominently visible cameras and signs that monitoring is in use can have a similar effect - even if the potential perp is aware that some may be 'dummy' cameras.

    As again with alarm systems - it is known that all possible risk cannot be covered. The goal is to move any given target visibly higher-up on what is called the 'pyramid of risk'. At the bottom of the pyramid sit targets so poorly defended even the least competent of attackers can succeed.

    At the top - say the legendary gold storage within Fort Knox, few, if any, in the entire world have the wherewithal to even consider an attempt.

    Our children have come to be perceived as 'high value' targets to the perps. We need to make it at least APPEAR that they have far higher levels of protection than has historically been the case.

    The perps who are stupid as well as crazy are being arrested before they do much harm. It is the crazy but clever that have done the most damage. That lot are not so stupid as to attack what 'everybody knows' is a hardened target. They seek an easier one.

    If that 'easier' one is to be a shopping mall - as has happened - at least there are myriad escape routes and hiding places, plenty of space and distance, generally lower concentration per area of people - and more of them adults with a better chance of evading and escaping than first-grade school children boxed and near-as-dammit pre-packaged in a classroom.

    So, too, a higher probability of the presence of armed security guards we have not so far funded for most schools.

    Mind - I am by no means advocating throwing shopping malls to the nutcases as a consolation prize.

    Merely picking what seems to have become an equally popular target - as one example of their 'other' choices.
    The perps themselves? I simply want THEM 'out of the pool', if possible before wriggling their way out of a condom.

    Short of turning them into armed camps, how can we - with least impact on the children - make our schools look like the LEAST attractive target, not sure pushovers?

    Bound to be better ideas than expecting teachers to go armed. And for many reasons.

    Y'know kids?

    Bleedin' miracle it hasn't been more of the TEACHERS running amok, the stress they have...

    Bill
    Last edited by thermite; 12-19-2012 at 06:10 AM.
    i_r_machinist likes this.

  17. #37
    jfleisher is offline Plastic
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Marysville, Ohio
    Posts
    22

    Default

    How come whenever a tragedy like this occurs, the first thing the pro-gun people do is quote the second amendment?

    {The Second Amendment of the United States Constitution reads: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."}

    They always emphasize the last part, about the right to bear arms not being infringed, but ignore the first part, about the well regulated Militia.

    Who do you suppose would be responsible for regulating a militia? Maybe the Federal government? Correct. So the Federal government would pass laws about, what? Maybe what types of weapons the Militia would be allowed to use?

    It just kills me that the pro gun people think that over 200 years ago, the people creating the constitution were thinking about assault weapons, high capacity magazines, and personal nuclear hand grenades, not single shot rifles primarily used for putting food on the table.
    fusker likes this.

  18. #38
    PeteM is offline Diamond
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    West Coast, USA
    Posts
    5,181

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by thermite View Post
    . . . Bleedin' miracle it hasn't been more of the TEACHERS running amok, the stress they have...

    Bill
    Interesting point. Not many would want our 700,000 or so postal workers to bring their guns to work.

  19. #39
    thermite is offline Diamond
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Mid-Atlantic USA, South China
    Posts
    13,232

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ries View Post
    In the case of machine guns, it has been pretty well proven that its a losing game in the long run to try to own illegal, non-licensed ones.
    Dunno who told you that, but they had not done their research very well. Drug and gang subculture alone probably sport more full-autos of various types than enough. They are not especially observant of legislation.


    My guess would be that after initial loud grumbling, the Feds would win in the end on any other weapons they added to this category.

    Obviously, this would require them to more intelligently define exactly which weapons, and types of weapons, they were requiring be licensed. Which, as discussed above, they have pretty much failed to do in the past. But from a legal standpoint, the government could do this.
    Hopefully they are not so foolish as to try, though the evidence is not heartening.

    Even ONE 'swat team' take-down of an otherwise law-abiding citizen with no priors would see Police Chiefs fired, pols turned out of office and the stupidity corrected before anything were able to wend its slow way to the supreme court. What the hey - it happena even when they beat or over-tazor a belligerent person WITH a bad record.

    Law enforcement folk have a hard enough task WITH the support of their communities. Volunteering to be branded as fascists in violation of the Constitution - worse - against the non-threatening instead of the ACTUAL threat - is not a route many would seek.

    Police in the USA are not provided walled and guarded compounds for their family residences as is the case in some jurisdictions. They still have to eat, sleep, buy groceries, and send their OWN kids to school, and a populace on which they'd visit such unsult will not be one approving funding for any such fortresses, either.

    Nor even decent pay, benefits, or equipment.

    Americans may have a distressing tendency to turn themselves into victims, but they get right fractious when 'others' attempt to impose it on them.

    Bill

  20. #40
    Cole2534 is offline Titanium
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Oklahoma City, OK
    Posts
    2,525

    Default Re: How would an ar15 ban work?

    Quote Originally Posted by jfleisher View Post

    It just kills me that the pro gun people think that over 200 years ago, the people creating the constitution were thinking about assault weapons, high capacity magazines, and personal nuclear hand grenades, not single shot rifles primarily used for putting food on the table.
    I'll concede the second amendment is outdated when you admit the first does not cover electronic media.

Page 2 of 10 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •