White House Prepares 19 Executive Orders re: guns - Polidicks

[QUOTE=Flameon;39230261]They wouldn't automatically become criminals, they'd likely be allowed to turn in their guns and get some sort of rebate.[/QUOTE] [I]how the hell would you enforce this[/I]

[QUOTE=Flameon;39230261]They wouldn't automatically become criminals, they'd likely be allowed to turn in their guns and get some sort of rebate. [/QUOTE] That Barrett 50 Cal, best I can do is $200...

[QUOTE=Flameon;39230261]They wouldn't automatically become criminals, they'd likely be allowed to turn in their guns and get some sort of rebate. [/QUOTE] There is not many firearms owner in the US that would turn in their guns if the government asked them too. You'd get roughly 22 out of the 300 million or so firearms.

[QUOTE=Flameon;39230261] There's two sides to the gun problem, demand and supply. You need to address both.[/QUOTE] Actually it's motive and a particular type of means. Remove the motive by overhauling mental healthcare and doing something other than ignoring poverty, and the means is irrelevant. Especially when the vast majority of guns in the US aren't used in crimes.

[QUOTE=jimhowl33t;39230192]Define "high". 30 round mags have been standard capacity for a while. They already require a six-months waiting period and a price in the tens of thousand dollars. I think they're already regulated enough. In fact they already can't. They just [I]look[/I] military, but that's like saying a Ford Pinto with bodykits is a racecar. We do. We're perfectly happy with semiautomatic rifles that happen to look like military ones.[/QUOTE] I'd say high would be 30 rounds, I know that's pretty standard for assault rifles, I do play games too. If you argue that the wording says that you have the right to bear arms, but not which ones, then you could argue that they could only allow blunderbusses. When I refer to military grade firearms, I refer to weapons that are purpose build, or based on weapons that are designed for military use. Any AR-15 style rifle would fit into this category. I don't mind Semi-auto rifles as much, because they have a more restricted rate of fire. But even semi autos should have magazine caps the same way autos do in some cases.

[QUOTE=dogmachines;39230258]Aren't there 10 round magazines that are only limited to 10 rounds by a single screw that can be removed even easier than that?[/QUOTE] I think for some of those you still need a beefier spring, and I was talking about in a hypothetical post-ban world.

The debate over "arms" in the 2nd amendment has always been intriguing. The second amendment states that the right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed. But the government has already seen it fit to prohibit citizens from owning machine guns and assault rifles. The government can already impose some restraints on what you can and cannot bear, in specific you cannot bear military firearms. But what about other weapons? Do MANPADS and AT launchers count as "arms", and are they covered by the second amendment? That's a question for the Supreme Court, and Justice Scalia has expressed interest in the issue. But for now MANPADS, AT, and WMDs are classified as destructive devices, and owning, building, or proliferating in any of them will get you a one way ticket to Gitmo. I hate to break it to you, but AT, MANPADS, and WMDs are designed for the battlefield, just like the machine guns and assault rifles the government has already seen fit to ban BECAUSE they are designed for the battlefield. I would not keep my hopes up that people will one day be allowed to own RPGs or Peacemaker IBCMs. The fact remains that there is a stark contrast between semi-automatic modern sporting rifles (even military-styled ones), and military weapons which are designed for the battlefield. The controversy now is that politicians are claiming that semi-automatic rifles are firearms designed for the battlefield and thus should be banned, when that is actually a falsehood.

[QUOTE=Ybbat;39230297]military grade firearms[/QUOTE] Yeah, no. Military grade firearms are pretty much anything that has a select fire capability, and one of those fire modes is burst/automatic. An AR-15 is not a military rifle. The AR-15 is [I]defined[/I] as the civilian version of the M16. So, yeah, just no.

[QUOTE=Ybbat;39230297]Any AR-15 style rifle would fit into this category. [/QUOTE] No it wouldn't.

[QUOTE=Ybbat;39230140]Right to bear arms, doesn't say what kinda of arms they are. Just that you have rights to bear some arms. Hi Cap is obviously outside this. Automatic Rifles would also be outside. I'm prepared to receive dumbs, because I know you people love your guns. But I have guns too, I just don't feel like it's nessisary for the populous to own military grade firearms. Why can't you guys just be happy with rifles and shotguns like everyone else? There are lots of cases where the government has to decide whether or not to value the good of the country as a whole (which would lead to a total gun ban) and the rights of the individual (which would be total anarchy in some sense.) Now with Gay marriage everyone says: "No we must keep the 'good of the country' sacred! We must not allow gays to ruin marriage!" But when it comes to guns you say "Constitution! Constitution! Constitution!" Well, where are they're rights? I'm so glad I live in Canada, where we do have assault rifles, but it takes a slew of paperwork to get them. They also have limited magazine sizes. If you guys wanna look up good gun law, check out Canadian gun law.[/QUOTE] Canada's gun laws are terrible and unconstitutional, and deliberately written to be geared towards confiscation by an ignorant buffoon who wanted all guns in the country banned and confiscated. If you want an example of how NOT to do gun control, Canada is a prime fucking example, and people like you who fail to see how disgustingly unconstitutional our gun laws are, who are so quick to throw handgun and black rifle owners under the bus, who are so quick to decry self-defense and ignore sporting use, are why our gun laws are so miserably ass-backwards and open-ended to the point where you could basically be charged with carrying a concealed weapon if you leave the house with your gun in a case, and possession of a weapon dangerous to the public peace if you don't, if the cop is enough of an asshole. I could get in to exactly why Canada's gun laws are a miserable failure, as well as source a video of the man who has done Canada's only peer-reviewed study on gun control here and found it does precisely fuck all, but I'm on my phone, and typing a wall of text like that with a touch screen is annoying.

[QUOTE=Protocol7;39230268]if 99% of firearm homicide isn't even mass murder then what does allowing bolt-actions do I could cut down a bolt-action rifle and it would still be concealable and lethal. congratulations you haven't done anything to prevent homicide[/QUOTE] Good luck going on a mass killing spree with a sawed-off bolt action rifle. [quote]Guns aren't the fucking problem dood. Gun bans are literally just feel good bills passed to make soccer moms feel safe taking their children to school. Aside from the fact that they fuck over legal firearms owners to a massive degree, they don't do very much to stop already illegal firearm owners. You'd be able to do so much more good if you spent the time, energy, and money working on our social issues, poverty levels in urban environments, failing mental healthcare system, and a dozen more problems.[/quote] 1.) Gun control lowers fatalities, this is always true. [url]http://www.kean.edu/~jkeil/Welcome_files/Gun%20Control.pdf[/url] 2.) Gun crimes and accidents are not regulated to "inner-city slums" while it is true that poverty causes a rush to crimes, there is also just a fuck-ton of gun-crime in cities regardless of poverty levels.

[QUOTE=Protocol7;39230312]Yeah, no. Military grade firearms are pretty much anything that has a select fire capability, and one of those fire modes is burst/automatic. An AR-15 is not a military rifle. The AR-15 is [I]defined[/I] as the civilian version of the M16. So, yeah, just no.[/QUOTE] Didn't the AR-15 technically pre-date the M16 anyway?

[QUOTE=Flameon;39229800]So would you be for gun-control if it was logistically possible? I am under the impression that your defense of gun ownership is less about the logistics of gun control, and more about the tie between them and liberty (i.e: no reason for the governent to ban them, I have a right to fire arms). If it is the latter, then let me have my nuke.[/QUOTE] The point of the second amendment is to protect the people from a potentially tyrannical government. You can't protect yourself with a nuke. It says that this is necessary to protect the freedom of the people, again that's the point. Can you honestly argue that a nuke is capable of protecting the freedom of people who live in the same country it will be detonated?

[QUOTE=Disotrtion;39230313]No it wouldn't.[/QUOTE] The AR-15 was designed for military use, atleast at first. I'd say that everyone after was a copy just as every electric guitar today is based after the fender strat. (Besides Jazzers.) Source: [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AR-15[/url] I know it's just ratings and you don't care, but it makes you guys really close minded if you rate "dumb" rather then disagree.

[QUOTE=Ybbat;39230297]I'd say high would be 30 rounds, I know that's pretty standard for assault rifles, I do play games too.[/quote] No, 30 rounds is standard capacity has been that way for over 40 years. Lets hope that all your firearms knowledge doesn't stem from call of duty and FPSRussia. [QUOTE=Ybbat;39230297] If you argue that the wording says that you have the right to bear arms, but not which ones, then you could argue that they could only allow blunderbusses. [/quote]No you can't lol. [QUOTE=Ybbat;39230297] When I refer to military grade firearms, I refer to weapons that are purpose build, or based on weapons that are designed for military use. Any AR-15 style rifle would fit into this category.[/quote] You are so wrong it's not even funny. Not every AR-15 is the same, everything from the material they're made of, to the length of the barrel, round it's chambered in, type of gas system used, to the stock set to the rail set to the pistol grip, differs between the rifles. Not all of them are "purpose built" military weapons. [QUOTE=Ybbat;39230297] I don't mind Semi-auto rifles as much, because they have a more restricted rate of fire. But even semi autos should have magazine caps the same way autos do in some cases.[/QUOTE] Except actual high capacity magazines are used so rarely in crime it's absolutely pointless to restrict them. They also are so unreliable it would be better to give those out instead of the standard 30, because they jam [i]all the fucking time[/i]. In the LA shoot out in the 90's, what got one of the suspects killed was his rifle jamming because of a drum magazine on his AK, and the Aurora shooters AR-15 jammed because of his drum magazine.

[QUOTE=Ybbat;39230297]Any AR-15 style rifle would fit into this category. I don't mind Semi-auto rifles as much, because they have a more restricted rate of fire.[/QUOTE] Confirmed for not having a frigging clue about what you're spewing. Here, have an explaination in bold letters. [B]An AR-15 is a semi-auto rifle. It has the exact same rate of fire as any other semiautomatic weapon, starting from those from the late 1800's. Pull trigger = receive boom.[/B] Also, it's piss easy to un-limit a limited magazine. In most cases it's a rivet, get a drill and enjoy 30 rounds out of your now-converted 5-rounder. Heck, you could even make one fairly easily, it's a metal box with a spring inside.

[QUOTE=dogmachines;39230258]Aren't there 10 round magazines that are only limited to 10 rounds by a single screw that can be removed even easier than that?[/QUOTE] Try a pin. It's Canada's genius solution to high capacity magazines, an easily removable pin.

[QUOTE=Flameon;39230350]Good luck going on a mass killing spree with a sawed-off bolt action rifle.[/QUOTE] Mass killing sprees are less than 1% of total firearm homicides in the U.S. so you're really not fighting the problem [QUOTE=dogmachines;39230353]Didn't the AR-15 technically pre-date the M16 anyway?[/QUOTE] The design? Yes. The AR-15 we know today is defined by being a semi-automatic M16/M4 pattern rifle though.

Jimhowls post in poster form: [img_thumb]http://i.imgur.com/atlRH.jpg[/img_thumb]

[QUOTE=Ybbat;39230365]The AR-15 was designed for military use, atleast at first. I'd say that everyone after was a copy just as every electric guitar today is based after the fender strat. (Besides Jazzers.) Source: [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AR-15[/url] I know it's just ratings and you don't care, but it makes you guys really close minded if you rate "dumb" rather then disagree.[/QUOTE] The AR-15 was a civilian hunting rifle before it was picked up by the Military. I believe you could buy one back in the 50's or 60's for like 190$. [img]http://gearsofguns.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/EarlyARad.jpg[/img]

Obama: the only American that doesn't seem to be supporting the stupidity of gun ownership

[QUOTE=Ybbat;39230140]Right to bear arms, doesn't say what kinda of arms they are. Just that you have rights to bear some arms. Hi Cap is obviously outside this. Automatic Rifles would also be outside. I'm prepared to receive dumbs, because I know you people love your guns. But I have guns too, I just don't feel like it's nessisary for the populous to own military grade firearms. Why can't you guys just be happy with rifles and shotguns like everyone else?[/QUOTE] What you don't get is that the second amendment was made to protect the people from a tyrannical government. A government likely using military grade firearms... so the people would need to have them too. I'm Canadian too, but the intent of the founding fathers with the 2nd Amendment is pretty easy to understand for me.

[QUOTE=Shadow801;39230407]Obama: the only American that doesn't seem to be supporting the stupidity of gun ownership[/QUOTE] yes thanks for this brilliantly intelligent post that adds to the discussion.

[QUOTE=Shadow801;39230407]Obama: the only American that doesn't seem to be supporting the stupidity of gun ownership[/QUOTE] Except he's not.

[QUOTE=Ybbat;39230297]If you argue that the wording says that you have the right to bear arms, but not which ones, then you could argue that they could only allow blunderbusses.[/QUOTE] That is, quoting an SCJ, "frivolous". Consensus has always been "arm" encompassed [I]all armaments[/I] (read District of Columbia v. Heller), and restricting ownership has to go through the same rules as restricting speech and anything else. It's not about demonstrating a right to own a given thing, it's about demonstrating a compelling interest for prohibiting ownership.

[QUOTE=DaCommie1;39230343]Canada's gun laws are terrible and unconstitutional, and deliberately written to be geared towards confiscation by an ignorant buffoon who wanted all guns in the country banned and confiscated. If you want an example of how NOT to do gun control, Canada is a prime fucking example, and people like you who fail to see how disgustingly unconstitutional our gun laws are, who are so quick to throw handgun and black rifle owners under the bus, who are so quick to decry self-defense and ignore sporting use, are why our gun laws are so miserably ass-backwards and open-ended to the point where you could basically be charged with carrying a concealed weapon if you leave the house with your gun in a case, and possession of a weapon dangerous to the public peace if you don't, if the cop is enough of an asshole. I could get in to exactly why Canada's gun laws are a miserable failure, as well as source a video of the man who has done Canada's only peer-reviewed study on gun control here and found it does precisely fuck all, but I'm on my phone, and typing a wall of text like that with a touch screen is annoying.[/QUOTE] You can still obtain handgun's and black rifles, we have black rifles, we use them all at gun clubs. We use black rifles to hunt in my town so I have no idea what your on about. Handguns require 10 more hours of training, which costs $100 and a background check (Just like the one you get for getting your firearms license.) Handguns are only allowed at your house, and at gun clubs. Your not supposed to stop anywhere. Yes, that might be annoying. But where else do you want to use them? We don't have many gun related deaths in Canada, our training in hunting and just for firearms results in 0 accidental deaths in 2009-2010. Anyway, I have class ladies. Rate me dumb to show how close minded you are, and Ill live with my firearms in Canada without getting shot up or having metal detectors in our schools.

[QUOTE=FlakAttack;39230408]What you don't get is that the second amendment was made to protect the people from a tyrannical government. A government likely using military grade firearms... so the people would need to have them too.[/QUOTE] I agree, except the military has much more powerful weapons than civilian populance. That's part of the problem, these idiots are shouting "ban military weapons" not realizing that military [I]style[/I] is not a military weapon. Military [I]style[/I] is just that, [I]styling[/I]. It just looks like something the military would use. There are very few automatic rifles floating around. They are [U]very hard[/U] to get, and when you can get them they cost upwards of $15,000.

[QUOTE=UziXxX;39230451]I agree, except the military has much more powerful weapons than civilian populance. That's part of the problem, these idiots are shouting "ban military weapons" not realizing that military [I]style[/I] is not a military weapon. Military [I]style[/I] is just that, [I]styling[/I]. It just looks like something the military would use. There are very few automatic rifles floating around. They are [U]very hard[/U] to get, and when you can get them they cost upwards of $15,000.[/QUOTE] And I have yet to hear of an actual gun violence problem stemming from the existence of automatic rifles owned by civilians.

[QUOTE=Ybbat;39230440]You can still obtain handgun's and black rifles, we have black rifles, we use them all at gun clubs. We use black rifles to hunt in my town so I have no idea what your on about. Handguns require 10 more hours of training, which costs $100 and a background check (Just like the one you get for getting your firearms license.) Handguns are only allowed at your house, and at gun clubs. Your not supposed to stop anywhere. Yes, that might be annoying. But where else do you want to use them? We don't have many gun related deaths in Canada, our training in hunting and just for firearms results in 0 accidental deaths in 2009-2010. Anyway, I have class ladies. Rate me dumb to show how close minded you are, and Ill live with my firearms in Canada without getting shot up or having metal detectors in our schools.[/QUOTE] You're mistaking your gun control for creating your lack of violent crime. The reason your country has so little violent gun crime is because you don't ignore your poverty levels, social issues, and you have a health care system that doesn't completely suck.

[QUOTE=Protocol7;39230472]And I have yet to hear of an actual gun violence problem stemming from the existence of automatic rifles owned by civilians.[/QUOTE] Amen. That's because the majority of legaly owned firearms are owned by the most responsible people. No one is going to spend $15,000 and all that trouble to shoot up a crowd.