My question is how would these new restrictions be enforced even if they were 100% effective (by gun confiscation)? I know how, when you burn the 2nd by unconstitutional means you need to burn the rest and use that 'Standing Army'.

Why not ban the military and the police forces from possessing weapons of any kind. The amount of weapons-related deaths will definitely decrease across the entire world.
Mad? Yes. Insane? Yes. Silly? Yes. Effective? Definitely.

The solution:
http://www.click2houston.com/news/lgbt-turnout-for-free-course-surprises-local-shooting-range
For those who hate.
http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-orlando-gay-fbi-20160623-snap-story.html

 

Agreed, if someone wants to commit murder for what ever reason, it's done with what ever they can get their hands on.

Fema Camps and Prolonged Detention and the use of law at the Governments disposal created to conform a blinded public.

Now, all they need is an economic downturn and some disease's to justify holding people against their will.

kv

Edit: But, first you have to take away their guns.

 

...................
I have yet to see or hear of one of these "devices designed and optimized for the purpose of killing people" sneaking out and going and killing a single person -- though maybe that's why we're supposed to lock them up! I have heard of people using them to do things that were illegal to do, namely kill people. I have also heard of people using knives, cars, gasoline, pressure cookers, golf clubs, airplanes, hammers, axes, drain cleaner, plastic bags, ropes, baseball bats, their bare hands, and lots of other things to do things that were illegal to do, namely kill people.

Why do you think that passing more laws placing more restrictions on people that obey the law is somehow going to magically make people that want to kill a bunch of people stop wanting to kill a bunch of people?

Of course the strawman idea that restricting weapons makes people not want to kill is ridiculous and I (nor any sane person) thinks that. To suggest I do from my other statements is a demeaning comment which I thought (a mistake apparently) you were above making.
Obviously the logic of restricting weapons that allow people who want to kill people, easily kill a lot of people escapes you, so I suppose further logic along that line is not of much use here.
If you think "knives, cars, gasoline, pressure cookers, golf clubs, airplanes, hammers, axes, drain cleaner, plastic bags, ropes, baseball bats, their bare hands " are equivalent to a "so called" assault rifle in killing ability, then I have no answer to that.

But you didn't answer my question about where we draw the line -- or should any weapon be accessible to anyone?
From the 2nd Amendment arguments I'm hearing, that seems to be the goal.

 

Edit: But, first you have to take away their guns.

Those who own guns and shoot them know there is another option. Hot-shot attorneys have decided that the 2nd amendment does not cover ammunition, so there can be more restrictions on that. Also, for the last few years, 380, 22 and 12 gauge ammunition was simply not available. It was like the days of Prohibition. You had to know someone who would meet you off site.

Last month was the first time I was able to walk into a local store and get 22LR. Even then, there was a limit.

John

 

Those who own guns and shoot them know there is another option. Hot-shot attorneys have decided that the 2nd amendment does not cover ammunition, so there can be more restrictions on that. Also, for the last few years, 380, 22 and 12 gauge ammunition was simply not available. It was like the days of Prohibition. You had to know someone who would meet you off site.

Last month was the first time I was able to walk into a local store and get 22LR. Even then, there was a limit.

The government has put restrictions on 380, 22 and 12 Ga ammunition??

 

The government has put restrictions on 380, 22 and 12 Ga ammunition??

No restrictions, except the really big one: It is not available.

There have been some conspiracy theorists postulate that the lack of supply is government-created. That is, restrictions on production and enormous government purchases.

John

 

If you think "knives, cars, gasoline, pressure cookers, golf clubs, airplanes, hammers, axes, drain cleaner, plastic bags, ropes, baseball bats, their bare hands " are equivalent to a "so called" assault rifle in killing ability, then I have no answer to that.

But you didn't answer my question about where we draw the line -- or should any weapon be accessible to anyone?
From the 2nd Amendment arguments I'm hearing, that seems to be the goal.

Gasoline:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Happy_Land_fire


Oregon, like Texas is a full-auto state so the ownership of 'real' assault rifles is fine in this state. It's a expensive and time consuming process so owners are self-selected from a very safe and law abiding section of citizens.

Machine Guns
It is lawful to possess a machine gun provided it is registered in conformity with federal law and if the person has in the person's immediate possession documentation showing that the machine gun, short-barreled rifle, short-barreled shotgun or firearms silencer is registered under federal law.

https://www.nraila.org/gun-laws/state-gun-laws/oregon/

 

Of course the strawman idea that restricting weapons makes people not want to kill is ridiculous and I (nor any sane person) thinks that. To suggest I do from my other statements is a demeaning comment which I thought (a mistake apparently) you were above making.
Obviously the logic of restricting weapons that allow people who want to kill people, easily kill a lot of people escapes you, so I suppose further logic along that line is not of much use here.
If you think "knives, cars, gasoline, pressure cookers, golf clubs, airplanes, hammers, axes, drain cleaner, plastic bags, ropes, baseball bats, their bare hands " are equivalent to a "so called" assault rifle in killing ability, then I have no answer to that.

But you didn't answer my question about where we draw the line -- or should any weapon be accessible to anyone?
From the 2nd Amendment arguments I'm hearing, that seems to be the goal.

 

The Democrat sit-in is truly disturbing. Every knucklehead involved swore an oath to defend and protect the Constitution, did they not?

Here they are now openly speaking out against the very Constitution they swore to protect. They are advocating removal of one of the amendments from the Bill of Rights, maybe three (due process). That alone might be OK if they were seeking to make these changes via the one and only legal process, the one stipulated in the Constitution itself, but they no intention of following that law either.

They see themselves as so noble. What idiots. How they would scream if other senators [oops sorry, this happened in the House] had a sit in to override - by fiat, not legal repeal - the other Bill of Rights items. Warranted searches? We don't need no stinkin' warrants! The right to a fair and speedy trial? Rubbish, that's far too slow and costly. Cruel and unusual punishment? Now we're talking.

They should be disqualified for office and immediately replaced.

 

Agreed, if someone wants to commit murder for what ever reason, it's done with what ever they can get their hands on.

And, more to the point, if they want to use a gun the fact that guns are illegal will not stop them from getting a gun. How many people get drugs that are illegal and have been illegal for decades?

 

Of course the strawman idea that restricting weapons makes people not want to kill is ridiculous and I (nor any sane person) thinks that. To suggest I do from my other statements is a demeaning comment which I thought (a mistake apparently) you were above making.
Obviously the logic of restricting weapons that allow people who want to kill people, easily kill a lot of people escapes you, so I suppose further logic along that line is not of much use here.

And the reality that restricting access of law abiding citizens has little effect on the access by criminals escapes you. Just look at the murder rates, including by firearm, in cities and states that have highly restrictive gun laws. By your logic that shouldn't be possible. And don't bother trotting out the tired old claim about the problem is that the neighboring states need more gun control to stop the importation of illegal guns into the "enlightened" areas.

But you didn't answer my question about where we draw the line -- or should any weapon be accessible to anyone?
From the 2nd Amendment arguments I'm hearing, that seems to be the goal.

I've previously addressed that very point. Since you either wouldn't read that or you just plan to ask it over and over, there's very little point in repeating it.

 

And, more to the point, if they want to use a gun the fact that guns are illegal will not stop them from getting a gun. How many people get drugs that are illegal and have been illegal for decades?

Good point, it would just allow more illegal activity on a population unprotected. All they would do is trade them on the black market and instead of them being U.S. made they would be Russian or Chinese.

kv

 

No restrictions, except the really big one: It is not available.

There have been some conspiracy theorists postulate that the lack of supply is government-created. That is, restrictions on production and enormous government purchases.

John

My understanding is that the lack of availability was due to government agencies purchasing ammunition at an unprecedented scale and outstripping production. Production output has finally ramped up and the buying has scaled back (it just couldn't be sustained), but the rules of supply and demand still apply and the cost of ammo has gone through the roof.

 

Here we go:

Hawaii Enacts First State Law in U.S. to Place Gun Owners In Database.

Bit by bit they encroach...

 

@WBahn
I read some of those stories about the billions of rounds being purchased for "practice." Politifact put the numbers lower (http://www.politifact.com/oregon/st...ment-stockpiling-hundreds-millions-rounds-am/ ).

While huge purchases might explain the 380's, what government agency uses 22LR's? They use 223's in their "assault" weapons. The gun shops I went to just said there were production issues too.

John

 

@WBahn
I read some of those stories about the billions of rounds being purchased for "practice." Politifact put the numbers lower (http://www.politifact.com/oregon/st...ment-stockpiling-hundreds-millions-rounds-am/ ).

While huge purchases might explain the 380's, what government agency uses 22LR's? They use 223's in their "assault" weapons. The gun shops I went to just said there were production issues too.

John

The .22LR is used a lot for practice and qualification because it is so cheap. When I was in Air Force basic training all of the M-16s that were used had been rechambered for .22LR. You couldn't tell it from the outside because the magazines were normal M-16 magazines with a .22LR insert fit into them. Given that, at that time, ~300 basic trainees had to fire 50 rounds a day and you have that the annual ammunition budget, just for trainees, was about four million rounds. The savings over .223 Remington becomes noticeable (even though .223 Remington is cheap by comparison to other center fire rifle rounds). I don't know if the Army did the same thing, but if they did their savings would have been about five or six times as much.

 

The Democrat sit-in is truly disturbing.

How about when the GOP did it? For something less noble. Not that long ago 2008.
http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2016-06-23/sit-ins-in-congress-are-rare-but-not-unheard-of

 

They weren't advocating to strip us of our Constitutional rights!

I'm not the least disturbed by grandstanding and politics, that's what politicians do.

I'm disturbed by an utter disregard for rule of law. Want to change the Constitution? Fine, propose an amendment and see how you do with that. Anything less is intended to incrementally diminish our rights and is reprehensible. Maybe you don't care about your gun rights. Fine, just pick a right you DO care about and picture these vermin sitting in congress trying to strip you of that right, in violation of our contract with them, our Constitution.

 

They weren't advocating to strip us of our Constitutional rights!

I'm not the least disturbed by grandstanding and politics, that's what politicians do.

I'm disturbed by an utter disregard for rule of law. Want to change the Constitution? Fine, propose an amendment and see how you do with that. Anything less is intended to incrementally diminish our rights and is reprehensible. Maybe you don't care about your gun rights. Fine, just pick a right you DO care about and picture these vermin sitting in congress trying to strip you of that right, in violation of our contract with them, our Constitution.

But that "contract" you speak of is confusing, because it was written, like, 100 years ago...

 

What a moron. I've got to go drink some beer now and watch fireworks with my grandkids. God Bless America.