BS: After Aurora: Gun sales surge

Subject: BS: After Aurora: Gun sales surge
From: Wesley S
Date: 26 Jul 12 - 08:37 AM

Just like after the election of Barack Obama - the shooting in Colorado has prompted a surge in gun sales across the country. From what I can read the two main reasons for this are: I want to protect myself and my family from crazy people, and I want to make sure I get enough guns before the democrats and the President come and take them away.

Plus - ""It's not uncommon for us to see spikes in requests for concealed pistol licenses when there's a significant gun-related tragedy," said Sgt. Cindi West of the King County sheriff's office in Washington state."


Full story here

Subject: RE: BS: After Aurora: Gun sales surge
From: Rapparee
Date: 26 Jul 12 - 09:12 AM

So...what's your point?

Subject: RE: BS: After Aurora: Gun sales surge
From: pdq
Date: 26 Jul 12 - 09:34 AM

Yesterday, Obama said "...AK-47s belong in the hands of soldiers, not in the hands of criminals...".

Maybe so, but that seems odd since he authorized shipping crates of AK-47 the Mexican drug cartels without even attempting to track them. Perhaps he doesn't consider the Mexican gangs to be crimnals.

Subject: RE: BS: After Aurora: Gun sales surge
From: Greg F.
Date: 26 Jul 12 - 09:56 AM

And then PeeDee, there's the whole speech - which I commend to your attention - (not just the fragment you picked) which also says in part:

I, like most Americans, believe that the Second Amendment guarantees an individual the right to bear arms...
I believe the majority of gun owners would agree that we should do everything possible to prevent criminals and fugitives from purchasing weapons; that we should check someone's criminal record before they can check out a gun seller; that a mentally unbalanced individual should not be able to get his hands on a gun so easily. These steps shouldn't be controversial. They should be common sense.

You got a problem with that, too?

Subject: RE: BS: After Aurora: Gun sales surge
From: Bobert
Date: 26 Jul 12 - 10:02 AM

The NRA and its members gun shop owners love the James Holmes of the world...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: After Aurora: Gun sales surge
From: Wesley S
Date: 26 Jul 12 - 10:51 AM

" but that seems odd since he authorized shipping crates of AK-47 the Mexican drug cartels "

That's news to me. I've heard about Fast and Furious but this is the first time I've seen that the President personally approved that operation. Care to provide any links to your facts? Or are they just "common knowledge"?

I know that if I sold guns I'd be working this angle for all it was worth. "Better buy them now Charlie before the liberals start collecting all the guns".

Repparee - "So...what's your point?"

My point is cleverly concealed in the title of the thread.

Subject: RE: BS: After Aurora: Gun sales surge
From: GUEST,Lighter
Date: 26 Jul 12 - 11:15 AM

Anyway, if Fast & Furious had worked like it was supposed to, "shipping" the guns to the cartels would be regarded right now as a brilliant idea.

Subject: RE: BS: After Aurora: Gun sales surge
From: Bill D
Date: 26 Jul 12 - 11:22 AM

Obama did NOT "authorize shipping crates of AK-47.."...neither did Eric Holder. One underling made that decision.

I am reminded of a young cousin of mine when he was about 3. My aunt had saved some grocery receipts, as they were to be added up and used to get free prizes later. They were on top the refrigerator. My cousin got a chair, climbed up and took the receipts and, using a nut-grinder, made some confetti. When taken to task, he answered, "But Mommy, you didn't tell me NOT to put the receipts in the nut grinder!"

It seems that 'certain political parties' wish to assert that Eric Holder & Obama are at fault for not specifying to everyone in ATF that they should NOT 'ship AK-47s to Mexico'.

Subject: RE: BS: After Aurora: Gun sales surge
From: pdq
Date: 26 Jul 12 - 11:24 AM

So, please explain how Rast and Furious was "supposed to work".

200 Mexican nationals killed by military weapons that Eric Holder authorized.

Since private gun ownership is stricly forbidden in the country of Mexico (a few members of the ruling elite are the exception), these US weapons could have been expected to cause mayhem.

Subject: RE: BS: After Aurora: Gun sales surge
From: Wesley S
Date: 26 Jul 12 - 11:33 AM

PDQ - Feel free to start a Fast and Furious thread. All I was doing was pointing out that you had no facts to back up your claims.

Subject: RE: BS: After Aurora: Gun sales surge
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 26 Jul 12 - 12:40 PM

Private gun ownership in Mexico is not forbidden, but there are limits.
Ley Federal de Armas de Fuego y Explosivos
pistolas- restricted to .380 Auto or .38 Specia; revolvers or smaller.
escopetas (shotguns)- 12 guage or smaller, with barrels longer than 25 inches, and rifles (bolt action and semi-auto.
Federal license needed for larger calibres.
The most important restriction is that there is only one sales outlet (UCAM). But private party sales are legal. The requirement that such firearms be federally registered is "widely ignored and unenforced."
Collector permits are easy to obtain. The collection is periodically inspected.

My favorite gun memory of Mexico:
Flying on the plane from Tapachula (Chiapas) to another city in Chiapas. An obviously well-to-do man in tailored jeans and Stetson, seeing that his cages of fighting cocks were carefully loaded onto the plane. He wore a beautiful set of silver-plated revolvers.

Subject: RE: BS: After Aurora: Gun sales surge
From: GUEST,Lighter
Date: 26 Jul 12 - 12:56 PM

You first.

Subject: RE: BS: After Aurora: Gun sales surge
From: Greg F.
Date: 26 Jul 12 - 01:10 PM

PeeDee don't got to show you no steenking FACTS, Wesley.

Subject: RE: BS: After Aurora: Gun sales surge
From: GUEST,Grishka
Date: 26 Jul 12 - 01:17 PM

"...AK-47s belong in the hands of soldiers, not in the hands of criminals...".

A classical slip. Nothing belongs in the hand of criminals, since criminals do not belong to exist, so to speak. I guess he actually wanted to say something like "...AK-47s belong in the hands of soldiers, not in the hands of civilians who rightfully want to defend themselves; if such weapons were banned, it would be more difficult for criminals to get them ..."

But he did not dare.

Subject: RE: BS: After Aurora: Gun sales surge
From: GUEST,Lighter
Date: 26 Jul 12 - 01:25 PM

Why does the concerned position always get misrepresented as "banning guns" instead of what it clearly is: namely, what more we can do to keep guns and nuts from teaming up.

It's almost as though it's on purpose.

Can someone name one prominent American politician in the past two hundred years who's called for the banning and seizure of all legally owned guns and/or a repeal of the Second Amendment?

Let's have that name.

Subject: RE: BS: After Aurora: Gun sales surge
From: pdq
Date: 26 Jul 12 - 01:32 PM

"An obviously well-to-do man in tailored jeans and Stetson, seeing that his cages of fighting cocks were carefully loaded onto the plane. He wore a beautiful set of silver-plated revolvers." ~ Q

That statement helps illustrate my point.

Only 2.65 out of every 100 Mexican nationals (in Mexico, of course) own guns and those weapons are registered and strictly controlled as to who purchses them.

Hint: permission goes to members of the ruling elite (ethnic Spanish, wealthy, power-connected) and the native blood folks (peons) are excluded (as best the elite can do that).

Of course, gun ownership by Mexican nationals in Los Angeles County, USA is much higher. Just listen to the nightly fireworks show in the urban core.

Subject: RE: BS: After Aurora: Gun sales surge
From: GUEST,Grishka
Date: 26 Jul 12 - 01:57 PM

Lighter, I am a European, I do not want to comment on US politics. My message was about strange usage of language in an attempt to balance on slippery ground, to avoid perceived taboos. For "belong in the hands of soldiers", the only logical continuation is "... and of nobody else."

On your topic just this much: nuts are in the bullet holes of the beholder.

Subject: RE: BS: After Aurora: Gun sales surge
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 26 Jul 12 - 02:14 PM

From Wiki-
"Possession of non-military-calibre small arms by citizens is largely a non-issue."
"Mexican constitutional rights have long included the right to carry arms."
Registration of small firearms is easy, the permit is issued as a registration card.
Punishment for gun law violations are severe, however.

Since the revolution c. 1916, guns are common in rural areas. I doubt pdq's 2.65 in 100 'statistic'.

On the other hand, the Mexican mindset (are the gangs changing it?) is to avoid wanton physical conflict, and firearms are used only against varmints, and for hunting and pleasure shooting.

Canadians have a similar attitude or mindset, tending to avoid unnecessary conflicts.

Subject: RE: BS: After Aurora: Gun sales surge
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 26 Jul 12 - 02:19 PM

Obama said "we should check someone's criminal record before they can check out a gun seller; that a mentally unbalanced individual should not be able to get his hands on a gun so easily. These steps shouldn't be controversial. They should be common sense."

In any discussion it makes sense to identify where the limits of agreement and disagreement lie. So mightn't it be a good idea for some of the people who've contributed to this thread to indicate whether they'd agree that such checks would be common sense?

Subject: RE: BS: After Aurora: Gun sales surge
From: GUEST,Lighter
Date: 26 Jul 12 - 02:26 PM

Grishka, I may have misunderstood what you were getting at. If so, I apologize.

My reply, however, wasn't directed at your post, but at a certain attitude.

Who, exactly, is trying to ban and seize all legally owned firearms?

Usual response: "They won't say so, but they want to pass law after law until it happens."

But who exactly? And why? And why won't they say so? If they do others like them would flock to their cause.

And what has that to do with keeping guns out of the hands of dangerous people - a good idea even if no law could have stopped the Joker.

Subject: RE: BS: After Aurora: Gun sales surge
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 26 Jul 12 - 02:50 PM

. So mightn't it be a good idea for some of the people who've contributed to this thread to indicate whether they'd agree that such checks would be common sense?

By that of course I also meant peope who have contributed to other related threads.

I'm not holding my breath so far as responses from some of them are concerned...

Subject: RE: BS: After Aurora: Gun sales surge
From: Rapparee
Date: 26 Jul 12 - 03:07 PM

Background checks for firearms purchases in Colorado are up 25% over the previous week, according to a story in the AP. Before I'd call this a "surge" I'd like to see both sales and retention figures. I'd rather it was said that "Gun sales rise". "Surge" is an emotional word and much overused in the media.

Subject: RE: BS: After Aurora: Gun sales surge
From: Greg F.
Date: 26 Jul 12 - 03:19 PM

Common sense has absolutely nothing to do with it, Kevin.

With this issue, and the NRA's position, you've entered thr twilight zone

Subject: RE: BS: After Aurora: Gun sales surge
From: GUEST,Lighter
Date: 26 Jul 12 - 03:36 PM

From Yahoo News, Tuesday:

"Background checks jumped more than 41 percent since Friday's shooting that left 12 dead and 58 injured during a midnight screening of 'The Dark Knight Rises' at an Aurora movie theater. Over the weekend, the Colorado Bureau of Investigation approved background checks for 2,887 people who wanted to purchase a firearm, the [Denver] Post said, an increase of 43 percent over the previous weekend."

So the absolute number is comparatively small when compared with the number of guns in circulation, but it's still up by more than 1,000.

And those seem to be just the "approved" checks.

Subject: RE: BS: After Aurora: Gun sales surge
From: GUEST,Lighter
Date: 26 Jul 12 - 04:14 PM

And in some quarters, yes, their religion *is* a significant factor, particularly if it's a non-Christian religion, which is what many people believe about Mormonism.

Furthermore, Islam featured in you-know-what-event. Mormonism began in the U.S., but I doubt that many non-Mormons and anti-Mormons know that.

Subject: RE: BS: After Aurora: Gun sales surge
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 26 Jul 12 - 05:18 PM

I take it that last one by Lighter was posted in the wrong thread...

Subject: RE: BS: After Aurora: Gun sales surge
From: GUEST,Lighter
Date: 26 Jul 12 - 05:24 PM

Sorry. Cyber-screw-up. Belonged on the "1/2 Still Think..." thread.

Subject: RE: BS: After Aurora: Gun sales surge
From: GUEST,Grishka
Date: 27 Jul 12 - 07:22 AM

Lighter (26 Jul 12 - 02:26 PM), no need to apologize for misunderstandings (unless resulting from sloppy reading), otherwise Mudcat would be full of apologies.

By "ban" I would understand: restrict legal usage to certain professionals, such as soldiers and security guards (many nuts among these, to be sure).

"Criminals" in the sense of this debate, vaguely seems to mean: persons who have been convicted for violent crimes, or who have been diagnosed "nuts".

The phrase I was referring to can be changed in two ways to become logically sound:
1. Automatic weapons must not be sold to "criminals" in the above sense, all other adult citizens should be allowed to buy them (even if they later turn out to be criminals or "nuts").
2. Automatic weapons belong in the hands of the above professionals, and nobody else.

If I am correctly informed, Obama's actual policy is 1., his slip suggests that he would prefer 2. It may even be a more or less conscious slip, to please both sides best he can.

Not only truth suffers in election campaigns, but also logic.

Subject: RE: BS: After Aurora: Gun sales surge
From: beardedbruce
Date: 27 Jul 12 - 07:55 AM

Present law ( since 1968) says that

"persons who have been convicted for violent crimes, or who have been diagnosed "nuts"." ARE FORBIDDEN to own guns.

" Automatic weapons belong in the hands of the above professionals, and nobody else." LAW since 1934- the exception requires a special license and permit, costing several thousands of dollars.


There have been NO ASSAULT rifles sold LEGALLY in the US ( without above special permit and investigation) since 1934.


The term "Assault rifle" has a specific meaning- selectable semi and full automatic fire, etc The civilian SKS and AK-15 versions ARE NOT ASSAULT RIFLES, in spite of the lies by those wishing to limit their sales. The reasons a hunter or target shooter would want a dependable, lightweight SEMI-automatic rifle are the same ones that the military used for the design- performance.

And it seems to have slipped some peoples minds that it is ILLEGAL TO KILL PEOPLE unless you are a policeman or want to get rid of an inconvenient fetus.

Subject: RE: BS: After Aurora: Gun sales surge
From: beardedbruce
Date: 27 Jul 12 - 07:57 AM

re above- laws state "Own or possess" where I have indicated own.

Subject: RE: BS: After Aurora: Gun sales surge
From: Jack Campin
Date: 27 Jul 12 - 08:28 AM

I can't find a news story about it, but I've heard of similar local surges in demand for batches of drugs after an addict dies of an OD. The other junkies figure that batch must be really powerful stuff.

Subject: RE: BS: After Aurora: Gun sales surge
From: Wesley S
Date: 27 Jul 12 - 09:17 AM

So Bruce - why would someone need a clip or drum that holds 100 rounds? Is this another "performance" issue?

Subject: RE: BS: After Aurora: Gun sales surge
From: Stu
Date: 27 Jul 12 - 10:50 AM

"The civilian SKS and AK-15 versions ARE NOT ASSAULT RIFLES, in spite of the lies by those wishing to limit their sales."

Semantics brucie. It doesn't matter. They're as good as assault rifles. They're designed to blast big holes in living things.


"The reasons a hunter or target shooter would want a dependable, lightweight SEMI-automatic rifle are the same ones that the military used for the design- performance."

Cos you can kill more people with them quicker? Is shooting anything with an assault rifle supposed to be sporting?


"And it seems to have slipped some peoples minds that it is ILLEGAL TO KILL PEOPLE unless you are a policeman or want to get rid of an inconvenient fetus."

Brilliant BB. Now if you can brand that on the forehead of every gun owner in the country you might catch them before they start shooting people.

Subject: RE: BS: After Aurora: Gun sales surge
From: GUEST,Lighter
Date: 27 Jul 12 - 12:05 PM

The issue isn't what kind of rifle the killer was shooting.

The issue is what, if anything, can be done to reduce the number of shootings in the United States.

Subject: RE: BS: After Aurora: Gun sales surge
From: GUEST,Grishka
Date: 27 Jul 12 - 12:24 PM

In my above message, replace "automatic weapons" with "AK-47s", as in the original statement. (From European news coverage, I had the obviously wrong impression that it was automatic.)

Also, I had the impression that the Aurora killer bought his weapons legally.

If

"persons who have been convicted for violent crimes, or who have been diagnosed "nuts"" ARE FORBIDDEN to own guns,

with sufficient enforcement at the point of sale, what is Obama talking about?

Subject: RE: BS: After Aurora: Gun sales surge
From: Jack Campin
Date: 27 Jul 12 - 08:03 PM

Is there going to be a run on mangoes?

Subject: RE: BS: After Aurora: Gun sales surge
From: Brian May
Date: 28 Jul 12 - 05:49 PM

You have the RIGHT to bear arms.

Then you have the RESPONSIBILITY to make sure they are controlled.

Acts such as this are utterly inevitable in a 'gun culture'. Can all the outrage, you have the society you allow. Politicians will bluster but won't take on the NRA et al. It's probably too late to control HOW firearms are used already, there are too many out there.

Rights can be a real bitch at times . . . .

Subject: RE: BS: After Aurora: Gun sales surge
From: GUEST,Grishka
Date: 28 Jul 12 - 06:15 PM

Brian and the others, please enlighten us Europeans including our news agencies, in all seriousness: What is Obama really saying by the above quotation, to Americans' ears?

Subject: RE: BS: After Aurora: Gun sales surge
From: Greg F.
Date: 28 Jul 12 - 06:29 PM

with sufficient enforcement at the point of sale, what is Obama talking about?

Simply that there ISN'T sufficient enforcement - or in some cases sufficient legal controls- at the point of sale.

I believe you're from the UK, Grishka? Over on this side of the pond in the U.S. these so-called "controls" are the province of state law, not federal/national, and in some states are worse than useless. And there's the gun show exemption Olddude has mentioned several times.

Subject: RE: BS: After Aurora: Gun sales surge
From: GUEST,Grishka
Date: 29 Jul 12 - 05:13 AM

Greg, thanks, that helps. Not being a keen follower of US politics (shame on me), I do not know about the "gun show exemption", but I assume Obama wants to abolish it. So the rest of the debate is about existing Federal laws, not being enforced in state "controls"?

I am now based in Germany, after many years in the UK, and follow the BBC and comparable German and French mass media. All of those that I watched or read, quoted Obama's speech, but none was as specific as you are. The pond is still a news barrier in both directions.

Subject: RE: BS: After Aurora: Gun sales surge
From: Greg F.
Date: 29 Jul 12 - 09:16 AM

No, its far more Byzantine than that, Grishka.

Basically WHO gets sold a firearm & IF someone can purchase a firearm, and IF someone one can get a concealed carry permit for a handgun and the safeguards regarding all of those matters - background checks, criminal record checks, mental stability checks & etc. are a matter of STATE law, enforced by the States. Federal law has nothing to do with it - there is no universal, nation-wide set of standards for any of the above.

Federal firearms legislation - such as it is - deals primarily with the type of firearm it is legal to sell or possess - the ban on fully automatic weapons without a special permit, the ban on mail-order sale & shipping of firearms without a federal Firearms License, & such like.

That's a very, very simplified description, but I think it gives the gist.

THIS may help.

Subject: RE: BS: After Aurora: Gun sales surge
From: Greg F.
Date: 29 Jul 12 - 09:27 AM

No, that won't help at all --- but
This might

Subject: RE: BS: After Aurora: Gun sales surge
From: Wesley S
Date: 29 Jul 12 - 10:46 AM

I do not know about the "gun show exemption"

Oversimplified - if you sell a used gun at a gunshow or flea market no paperwork of any kind is needed. I once saw a transaction at a flea market where one man sold another a .45 pistol for cash even though neither one of them spoke the others language. One spoke spanish and the other english. Money talks.

Subject: RE: BS: After Aurora: Gun sales surge
From: SPB-Cooperator
Date: 29 Jul 12 - 11:16 AM

More guns, more chance of someone being killed. What part of this is too difficult to understand??????
Lets take the recent Aurora shooting. Imagine other people took arms in the theatre to "defend themselves". So, they decide to use their guns,and in the confusion, and due to lack of training they kill someone in the crossfire. Will you acknowledge that they should face the full weight of the law and face the maximum sentence for first degree murder?

Subject: RE: BS: After Aurora: Gun sales surge
From: GUEST,999
Date: 29 Jul 12 - 11:26 AM

"Will you acknowledge that they should face the full weight of the law and face the maximum sentence for first degree murder?"

I think first degree requires willfulness and premeditation.

Subject: RE: BS: After Aurora: Gun sales surge
From: GUEST,Grishka
Date: 29 Jul 12 - 03:49 PM

Thanks, Greg and Wesley. If this were "American Law for Dummies", I would ask whether Obama was talking about things he could not influence (such as "Rain does not belong on garden parties, rain belongs on farmers' fields!") or announcing new Federal legislation, where his word does play a role ... but it seems that there may not be any explanation that sounds logical to me, let alone reasonable.

To be sure, most other countries have their own idiosyncrasies, incomprehensible to the rest of the world.

I always wonder why so many people shout "Our politicians are corrupt, and our system does not allow decent people to become elected!" - but so few shout "Let's change the system towards more democracy and justice!" This may be difficult to achieve, but shouting should be easy, and might help in the long run.

Subject: RE: BS: After Aurora: Gun sales surge
From: Greg F.
Date: 29 Jul 12 - 05:06 PM

Not to worry, Grishka- this whole firearms regulation mess doesn't seem either reasonable or logical to a large segment of the U.S. population, either - mostly because it ISN'T logical or reasonable.

There are deeply intrenched interests, crazy people, and huge sums of money commanded by the pro-gun lobby which makes rational change difficult at best.

Subject: RE: BS: After Aurora: Gun sales surge
From: GUEST,Grishka
Date: 30 Jul 12 - 05:41 AM

This much is known hereabouts. (Actually there must be experts on US politics among Europe's journalists, but they rarely manage to get enough time in the general news shows to explain things in detail. If I were as keen as I sometimes feel I should, I could get enough information, even if I could not read English.)

The other day I learned that in Spain (- not only in India or Africa -) regional governments had a strong interest in wasting the nation's money, for being reelected. Now airports and opera houses stand unused, their builders are in affluent retirement. Such effective anarchy should be fought in the whole nation's interest; the system must be changed so that responsibility is encouraged. This cause may unite citizens who have different views on any particular issue.

Democracy will never be completely rational and civilized; our genes seem to be opposed to that. Let us be modest, rather than giving up.

Subject: RE: BS: After Aurora: Gun sales surge
From: Donuel
Date: 30 Jul 12 - 01:28 PM

"rights are a bitch"   ???


Shooting 35 Americans dead each day is the price we must pay
for Bearded Bruce's gun liberty.


I among the majority, disagree.



Even if you want to pretend the constitution gives you the gun rights you claim, NOT ONE of the imfamous gun massacres over the last 5 years bear any resemblance to a WELL REGULATED MILITIA.

Subject: RE: BS: After Aurora: Gun sales surge
From: Greg F.
Date: 30 Jul 12 - 01:49 PM

What the hell is "gun liberty" ? Is Bruce off his meds again??

Subject: RE: BS: After Aurora: Gun sales surge
From: beardedbruce
Date: 30 Jul 12 - 03:34 PM

Greg F,

Whether I am on my meds or not, I am not a racist lying scumbag such as you have demonstrated yourself to be.


Donuel,

Not a single person speakung out in a public forum bears any resemblance to a "free press", but I will still support YOUR right to free speech.

Subject: RE: BS: After Aurora: Gun sales surge
From: beardedbruce
Date: 30 Jul 12 - 03:40 PM

"Rules regarding firearms in Switzerland differ markedly from those in other European countries. Under Swiss law, all adult males who have received training in the Swiss armed forces are reservists who are required under law to keep their official firearms at home. According to the gun law of 1999 (larm99), automatic weapons like the Swiss army assault rifle have to be stocked separately of the bolt, which has to be in a locked place.
Switzerland has one of the lowest crime rates in the world, and one of the highest gun ownership rates in the world. In recent times political opposition has expressed a desire for tighter gun regulations.[23] However in 2011, Swiss voters overwhelmingly defeated tighter controls that would have required all guns (including privately owned guns) to be kept in government arsenals."

Subject: RE: BS: After Aurora: Gun sales surge
From: Greg F.
Date: 30 Jul 12 - 06:08 PM

And the price of tea in Switzerland and what army reservests there are required to do has exactly what to do with anything, BB?

Subject: RE: BS: After Aurora: Gun sales surge
From: GUEST,olddude
Date: 30 Jul 12 - 06:30 PM

It is safe to say that all people, gun owners and non-gun owners want some means of keeping them out of the hands of the bad guys without hampering legal ownership by law abiding sportsmen and competitive shooters. The means is what we argue about ... for me I want to arm every good person out there and restrict the bad. Eliminating the gun show loophole and some federal standards for handgun conceal carry would work well I think. Some state very easy to get, others very difficult to get.

Subject: RE: BS: After Aurora: Gun sales surge
From: Wesley S
Date: 30 Jul 12 - 06:40 PM

Can anyone stand up and defend a clip that carries 100 rounds? The only reason I can think of for anyone would want one is to kill large amounts of people. So why are these things sold?

Subject: RE: BS: After Aurora: Gun sales surge
From: olddude
Date: 30 Jul 12 - 07:48 PM

I wish I could answer you question Wes, I don't know either. I don't want one. I know lots of folks that collect military arms but they have the special FFL licenses for auto weapons etc. However those folks (mainly retired army officers and or sheriffs) aren't about spraying folks they are just collectors and do have the very hard to get special license. For me, what is the 100 round drum for .. I don't want one. I don't like seeing them sold either

Subject: RE: BS: After Aurora: Gun sales surge
From: GUEST,Grishka
Date: 31 Jul 12 - 04:04 AM

Every citizen must have the RIGHT to own and use a smoke detector. Would save thousands of lives and billions of dollars, too bad it ain't sexy.

Subject: RE: BS: After Aurora: Gun sales surge
From: Midchuck
Date: 31 Jul 12 - 09:49 AM

Can anyone stand up and defend a clip that carries 100 rounds? The only reason I can think of for anyone would want one is to kill large amounts of people. So why are these things sold?

The BASIC reason for the Second Amendment is not home or personal protection, or sport. Though both of those are important, at least to some of us, it's quite true that neither reasonably requires a weapon with a hundred-round magazine.

The real reason for the Second Amendment is that the citizens be prepared for the time when the President declares a national emergency for whatever reason, and announces that he is suspending the constitution "for the duration," and placing the Justices of the Supreme Court, and the leaders of both parties - or at least of the Democrats - in Congress and the Senate, in protective custody. Or, alternatively, when the Joint Chiefs of Staff make the declaration, and place the President in protective custody also. Since the Constitution contains no provision for its own suspension, such a declaration would make the maker or makers thereof outlaws on the face of it, and oblige all citizens who have sworn to uphold the Constitution to take up arms forthwith. So it's necessary that they have sufficient arms to take up.

There are two standard objections to the above concept. The first is that such a thing could never happen in the US. I would simply ask how many countries in the world it HAS happened in. And it would not be a new thing for Americans to find themselves fighting Americans. And if you still don't think it's possible, two words: Dick Cheney.

The other objection is that citizens with small arms would stand no chance against the professional military, with heavy weapons. There's something to that - but they'd have more chance than with no weapons at all. And the military themselves would probably split down the middle, between those members thereof who knew something about the Constitution, and respected their oath to uphold it; and those who only understood Obedience. Also, heavy weapons are not much use in street fighting within towns or cities, unless you're willing to destroy the city to get the enemy. Which makes very little sense if you want to control the city yourself.

So, as an outsider in the Liberal/Conservative wars, it's always seemed odd to me that the liberals were the ones who were so anti-gun. They have the most to lose by suppression of the Second Amendment. Remember Robert Heinlein's Future History, promulgated in the 1940s. He had 2012 being the last national election, as a Christian fundamentalist candidate would get elected President and have a fundamentalist dictatorship established by 2016.

I submit that "unarmed free citizen" is an oxymoron.

P.

Subject: RE: BS: After Aurora: Gun sales surge
From: Greg F.
Date: 31 Jul 12 - 10:13 AM

Intetresting scenario. When to expect these conditions to entail:

* Before or after armageddon and the race wars?

* Following an invasion of earth by a race of Space Aliens?

* When the U.N shock troops - backed by the Trilateral Commission & the Illuminati - take over the country?

In the period of the Constitution & the 1st half of the 18th Century, the Militia trained regularly. Today, a bunch of armed clowns with no military or other training and organization would be even worse than useless.

Sounds like a cross between William Miller and John Nelson Darby, with a bit of Chicken Little thrown in for good measure.

Subject: RE: BS: After Aurora: Gun sales surge
From: GUEST,Stim
Date: 31 Jul 12 - 11:05 AM

Bearded Bruce has pointed out that the Swiss have a lot of guns, but don't have a lot of problems with them. I think that we have to take long hard look at ourselves and try to understand why that's true.

Subject: RE: BS: After Aurora: Gun sales surge
From: GUEST,Sugarfoot Jack
Date: 31 Jul 12 - 11:19 AM

"Also, heavy weapons are not much use in street fighting within towns or cities, unless you're willing to destroy the city to get the enemy."

Which is what is happening in Allepo right now as I type this, which is what happened in Homs, the Balkans, Chechnya etc etc. Thing is, people will destroy everything in a war.


"I submit that "unarmed free citizen" is an oxymoron."

I'm unarmed and free. If you can't see around that, then that's on heck of a problem for your society in so many ways. Being unarmed is not a sign of weakness in adult males.


"Since the Constitution contains no provision for its own suspension, such a declaration would make the maker or makers thereof outlaws on the face of it, and oblige all citizens who have sworn to uphold the Constitution to take up arms forthwith. So it's necessary that they have sufficient arms to take up."

Once more, all the arguments you need against a written constitution are in this paragraph alone.

Subject: RE: BS: After Aurora: Gun sales surge
From: Greg F.
Date: 31 Jul 12 - 12:49 PM

Bearded Bruce didn't point out any such thing, Stim. "The Swiss" do not have a lot of guns. Swiss Army Reservists do. I expect most U.S. Army Reservists have firearms as well. And both are trained to use them.

But thanks for playing.

Subject: RE: BS: After Aurora: Gun sales surge
From: beardedbruce
Date: 31 Jul 12 - 01:50 PM

beardedbruce:"Switzerland has one of the lowest crime rates in the world, and one of the highest gun ownership rates in the world."



Stim:"Bearded Bruce has pointed out that the Swiss have a lot of guns, but don't have a lot of problems with them."


Greg F:"Bearded Bruce didn't point out any such thing, Stim.

.....

So not only are you racist lying scum, but you fail to comprehend simple sentences.

Subject: RE: BS: After Aurora: Gun sales surge
From: GUEST,Lighter
Date: 31 Jul 12 - 01:52 PM

About Switzerland:

I never trust Wikipedia fully, but at least there's a source note for this:

"In October 2007, the Swiss Federal Council decided that the distribution of ammunition to soldiers shall stop and that all previously issued ammo shall be returned. By March 2011, more than 99% of the ammo has been received. Only special rapid deployment units and the military police still have ammunition stored at home today."

Original source, in German, here:

http://www.nzz.ch/nachrichten/politik/schweiz/taschenmunition-fast-vollstaendig-eingezogen-1.10450798#gallery:zoom_1-10450798

So the Swiss army/militia still stores its guns at home, but the Commie-Nazi-Liberal tyrant government has taken away everybody's ammo in peacetime.

Why would they do that?

Is the Swiss government preparing a coup...against itself?

Subject: RE: BS: After Aurora: Gun sales surge
From: beardedbruce
Date: 31 Jul 12 - 02:00 PM

Greg F: " I expect most U.S. Army Reservists have firearms as well. "

ANY US reservists who have their issued weapons in their possession when NOT on active duty are in violation of the present laws of the US.



Under Swiss law, all adult males who have received training in the Swiss armed forces are reservists who are required under law to keep their official firearms at home. Yet the presence of all those FULLY AUTOMATIC weapons in a civilian setting ( homes) does not lead to the bloodbaths that many here claim for private ownership of weapons.

As Stim said:"I think that we have to take long hard look at ourselves and try to understand why that's true."

Subject: RE: BS: After Aurora: Gun sales surge
From: beardedbruce
Date: 31 Jul 12 - 02:30 PM

Lighter,

Your post is addressing ONLY military issued ammunition- NOT privately owned or purchased.

I agree that the MILITARY should not issue ammunition to those who are not on active duty- which is the only time that the military can have possession of the issued weapons under today's laws.

Subject: RE: BS: After Aurora: Gun sales surge
From: Greg F.
Date: 31 Jul 12 - 04:32 PM

So Bruce- where did I say anything about U.S. Reservists and their ISSUED weapons?

Its not a "civilian setting", Bruce - we're talking about reservists in and a totally different military system and social system/conditions than those which exist in the U.S.

Your observations are irrelevant.

(From your favorite racist lying scumbag)

Subject: RE: BS: After Aurora: Gun sales surge
From: Greg F.
Date: 31 Jul 12 - 04:34 PM

But Bruce, I certainly agree with you that you need to take a long, hard look at yourself.

Subject: RE: BS: After Aurora: Gun sales surge
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 31 Jul 12 - 08:22 PM

""Yet the presence of all those FULLY AUTOMATIC weapons in a civilian setting ( homes) does not lead to the bloodbaths that many here claim for private ownership of weapons.""

Try reading other peoples' posts and you will find that has been quite neatly answered already Bruce.

They have the guns, but not the ammo.

Hence no bloodbath mate. A gun without ammo is called a club!!

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: After Aurora: Gun sales surge
From: GUEST,Stim
Date: 31 Jul 12 - 10:58 PM

Maybe things aren't so peaceful in Switizerland after all-I found this A mass killing has raised questions about Switzerland's easy way with guns which mentions a rather dramatic mass shooting in Zug in 2001 that we've all forgotten.

The author of the article says that it was "the largest mass murder that any Swiss can remember" but he, like many journalists, had a short memory, and had forgotten the Order of the Solar Temple Murders in 1994-where 48 people killed in two separate massacres, described here Swiss Mass Murders Of course, in keeping with this discussion, many of them were shot.

Subject: RE: BS: After Aurora: Gun sales surge
From: beardedbruce
Date: 01 Aug 12 - 07:07 AM

DonT,

"By March 2011, more than 99% of the ammo has been received"

I thought we were looking at the past 30 years or so, not just the last year. ANY year can be high or low for crime- it is the overall trend over many years that is significant.

Subject: RE: BS: After Aurora: Gun sales surge
From: beardedbruce
Date: 01 Aug 12 - 08:04 AM

beardedbruce:"...are reservists who are required under law to keep their official firearms at home. "

GregF: "I expect most U.S. Army Reservists have firearms as well. "

GregF:"So Bruce- where did I say anything about U.S. Reservists and their ISSUED weapons?"




OFFICIAL implies ISSUED.

Your statement implying that US reservist are more likely PRIVATE gun owners is unsubstantiated. The ONLY way that it would be considered valid in this context is if you meant their ISSUED weapons.

Subject: RE: BS: After Aurora: Gun sales surge
From: GUEST,Lighter
Date: 01 Aug 12 - 08:05 AM

If any U.S. president or other official declared he was suspending the Constitution, he would be immediately arrested.

The presidential swears (or affirms) in his oath of office to "preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States."

Other federal officials have similar responsibilities.

If such a president were backed by a dictatorial party that somehow controlled Congress and the Supreme Court as well (unlikely, but hey), and these branches concurred in suspending the Constitution, and arrests were impracticable, the despots would have to answer to the U.S. military, whose members are pledged to "support and defend the Constitution."

If there were serious disagreement within the military, of course, the result would be civil war.   

But now we're talking about bizarre sci-fi possibilities in an Orwellian future, not the actuality of ten thousand gun homicides a year, right now.

Subject: RE: BS: After Aurora: Gun sales surge
From: beardedbruce
Date: 01 Aug 12 - 08:06 AM

DonT,

OK, so please show me the REDUCTION in murders since the removal of ammunition.

Otherwise, my point is valid.

Subject: RE: BS: After Aurora: Gun sales surge
From: olddude
Date: 01 Aug 12 - 08:37 AM

Ammo? guys any competitive shooter and most sportsmen make their own. Ammo is expensive to buy. We reload .. I go out on the range with several hundred rounds of my own making ... there is no way to restrict ammo ... by the way, don't reload for the glock unless you are very skilled ... that gun can do a kaboom on ya unless you really know what you are doing ... the measurement has to be precise

Subject: RE: BS: After Aurora: Gun sales surge
From: Greg F.
Date: 01 Aug 12 - 09:48 AM

Keep making it up as you go along, Bruce old buddy. We're all used to it.

Greg (racist lying scum)

Subject: RE: BS: After Aurora: Gun sales surge
From: GUEST,olddude
Date: 01 Aug 12 - 06:43 PM

Here is the deal in a nutshell, do I agree with the current gun laws as they now sit, NO I don't. But and this is the but ... I like many others took an oath, that oath states to protect and defend the constitution of the United States. Until the law makers change anything I will defend the right to gun ownership as it is part of the Constitution and as it is laid out right now. Now do we need some loopholes plugged ... you bet ..

In 1986 the FFL changed gears and tightened up auto weapons a bit. All new auto weapons are to be sold only to FFL class 3 license holders or to Police and Military ... A class three license is relatively hard to get but not that expensive, it is 500 bucks per year due July 1 of every year.

However, if one wants a fully auto weapon without a class 3 license, buy a pre 1986 fully auto weapon from a class 3 dealer, pay the 200 bucks for transfer, get fingerprinted and FBI check and you can take it home private citizen .. so there is another loophole I think that I don't really like much. But again I don't make laws, I do defend them...

anyone wanting to really play with big boy toys .. join the military as Rap says, ya can get all kinds of guns to fire.

Subject: RE: BS: After Aurora: Gun sales surge
From: GUEST,olddude
Date: 01 Aug 12 - 07:03 PM

by the way, no criminal is going to go through that much paperwork, they will just go to a gun show buy an AK-47 and convert it to fully auto for under 40 bucks.

If they ever repealed the 2nd Amendment, I would be the first to turn them all in ... I would .. but until then, I am bound to defend it