hilowe

1

Saw this post, which does a great job of explaining why I don't want universal background checks (one of the "reasonable" or "common sense" measures that keeps getting tossed around). Also, forgot to respond to your last two comments. During the revolutionary war, private citizens had cannons (essentially the howitzer of the time). Now, that being said, I'm ok with not having one, nor any other private citizen having one (see, I can be reasonable). I also don't think private citizens need to have access to nukes, chemical weapons, or biological weapons. In my opinion, these weapons are too indiscriminate (ie, everyone has the right to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" and a right to self-defense, so why should I, as a private citizen, have weapons that cannot be controlled in who they attack. The ones I list I feel are specifically weapons of the state, to be used on another state [or country, read that however you really want]). Automatic weapons. Did you know that there were already two different models of weapons that were much faster than muskets at the time of the revolutionary war? There were two models that I had been told about (and a couple more that I found while looking for the correct names of the two I had heard of). While not true automatic rifles, they definitely throw out the notion that the only thing available was muskets and that's all the founding fathers were thinking of when they wrote the second amendment. The two I knew of: Belton flintlock - This was actually proposed to be sold to the Continental Congress, but was denied due to cost. Was supposed to fire up to 20 musket balls in 5 seconds, or 16 musket balls in 16 seconds (no known models exist today, even though it was built and tested. Only known about today because of letters between the inventor, Belton, and Congress). Rate of fire depends on the source of the information. Kalthoff repeater - used two magazines, one for the musket balls, and one for the powder. Depending on the model, held 7, 12, or even 30 musket balls, and could be fired 3 or 4 times a minute. The ones I didn't know of: Girandoni rifle - could fire 22 times in 30 seconds, and was supposedly used on the Lewis and Clark Expedition by Lewis, provided to them by Thomas Jefferson. Was also supposedly issued by the Austrian army at the time. Pepper box revolvers - essentially a multi-barreled handgun, the barrels rotated as it was fired, allowing multiple shots without reloading Puckle gun - another revolver type of weapon, that was specifically designed to be used to stop ship boarding. had a removable cylinder that could be reloaded with shot and powder while detached from the gun. My internet searches: http://dailycaller.com/2016/06/29/these-guns-dispel-the-notion-the-founding-fathers-could-never-have-imagined-modern-assault-rifles/ http://www.truthrevolt.org/commentary/2nd-amendment-it-muskets-only I heard about this one this morning, and I don't believe it. I really think it's people trying to paint trump supporters in a very bad light. I'll disagree with this specifically. Take a look at Iraq and Afghanistan, and how many problems our military had with guerilla fighters that blended in with everyone else. Also, look at the number of citizens in the US vs the number of active duty military personnel. I heard a stat recently that only 1% of Americans do or have served in the armed forces.

No, one

Like DM says, it depends on the state. Nebraska (where I'm at) and Texas are mandatory notification. I have heard stories that Nebraska does what DM said (has the info tied to your license), so that cops will ask a spouse if they have a weapon if the info isn't volunteered. My wife hasn't been pulled over yet since I got my license, so I don't know if it's true. Kansas is the only state I know of that isn't a mandatory inform. I'll have to look into this again. I was talking to a coworker that lived outside of my city about getting an FFL (he had one previously that he got rid of, because of the amount of new regulations), and he was the one telling me it was an ATF requirement. Guess I need to go do some research again.

II

You sure about this one?? I had looked into getting an FFL (about 10 years ago), and that was what I was planning on doing, just doing stuff out my house for friends and family, trying to get better prices for them than through local big box stores. Can't remember where I got that it had to be a separate location, though, because that was why I stopped looking any further into it.

XII

I can't comment on other states, but where I live, because I have a permit to conceal carry, I am required by law to inform the officer. So, I'll run with the traffic stop that you hypothesized here. What I was taught was to keep my hands on the steering wheel, inform the cop when he/she got to my window, and ask how they want to proceed. Haven't been pulled over since I got my permit, so I'll have to let you know how it goes when that happens. By law in mjy state, I could actually keep a loaded gun in the car, so long as it is in plain view. Putting a loaded gun in the glove box like you stated is a huge problem. Not really, again, in my opinion. I'll go back to what the founding fathers of my nation said. I agree with you on this, especially on the lowering costs. The problem I have is, how much does it cost to do a background check (roughly $35 is what I have heard charged by FFL's, so I'm imaging close to that), fees from the FBI for fingerprinting (no idea), and some additional paper work. The initial fee is $200 to ATF (fingerprinting is on top of this), and a $90 renewal every 3 years. Not horrible, until you add in the fact that you cannot use your home address as well. My understanding is that if you change address for some reason (lease is up, etc), it's not a renewal, but a new application. What I'm attempting to say (and I know I'm not doing very well with it) is if you want to increase background checks, this is a very simple and easy way to do it. Nobody talks about it. The other problem I have is explained here. I know this is a 3 year old article, but it's the most recent one I could find quickly. Essentially, even though we have an increased number of back ground checks, there are still some people that are disallowed by law from possessing guns trying to get guns. These people are being prosecuted in fewer and fewer numbers.

Actually, this one, at least in my mind, is pretty clear in the constitution. It can be changed, but would need an additional amendment to the constitution to get it. yeah, I've heard that, but then I keep hearing about record setting number of background checks every month for the last 15 months, and I wonder if people are just not telling the truth when some random person calls on the phone to ask if there are guns in the house. I've never received a call like that, but would definitely answer in the negative. It's nobody else's business what I have in my home. Problem is, gun owners HAVE compromised. They've just gotten to the point that they're not wiling to compromise any more, because we feel that most of what is being proposed is not reasonable or common sense. It used to be that truly automatic weapons could easily be owned by civilians. Got stopped by the National Firearms Act of 1934 (required a $200 tax stamp, which was a ton of money in the 30's). There used to be no background checks at all. Now we have instant background checks thanks to NICS (NICS was mandated in 1993, non-instant background checks were mandated sometime in the mid-80's). There is no online loophole, or gun show loophole. If you purchase a gun online, it is likely crossing state lines. Federal law requires that an FFL be involved, which necessitates a background check. Even if it doesn't cross state lines, you're not likely purchasing directly from the manufacturer, but someone with an FFL. Private transfers are allowed because of compromise in the 80's (allowing me to inherit guns from my dad when he passed with no background check). Many sellers at gun shows are also FFL's. Any purchase from an FFL necessitates a background check, whether it's at a gun show or at a store. Want more background checks to be done? Get more FFL's. The fees and requirements (like getting fingerprinted by the FBI, and having a separate address for the gun business) started going up during Bill Clinton's time in office

IX

What some of us (myself included in this one) is that the president gets to guaranteed nominate at least one supreme court justice, and potentially as many as 4. The reason this scares me is Clinton has been recorded saying that the supreme court got the Heller decision wrong (which struck down DC's complete ban on owning handguns inside their home), and her other statements that begin something like "If the second amendment is an individual right". She's also said that she will only nominate justices who share her views on guns and a couple of other things (don't remember the other things right now). I am a gun owner, was raised on a farm where I hunted, and now conceal carry for protection (after there was a murder approximately 6 blocks from my home last year in a supposedly good neighborhood, and friend of a friend was killed by a douchbag high on something). By being able to nominate even one justice, the supreme court could be swung from a conservative position to a liberal position on guns.

VII

I don't know that that is as true as you seem to believe it is (based on this statement alone, maybe I'm reading more into than there really is). There's a lot of hate for both in general, but I'm the exact opposite of what you stated. I dislike Trump, but I despise Clinton and the things she has done. In the end, it's going to depend on who can get people mobilized to go to the voting booth and check the box for them. I'd say there's a pretty good chance that Trump can win that, looking at the public conferences he's had, seems like Trump supporters mobilize well. But I also know that there are a lot of people that vote solely based on the letter after their name (R or D), and, if there are more democrats than republicans as you say (I don't look at statistics like that), then Hilary also has a chance.

IV

TWO

If I remember correctly, there was supposed to be a huge overhaul of the intelligence system to prevent that kind of compartmentalization. Not sure how or if it ever got implemented (correctly), but I do know the government was supposed to be trying to fix it. Never got implemented. Not correctly at least. I know from my experience, the DOJ and military barely communicate. Military and CIA communicate on an "as-needed" basis but I dont know who is in charge of what exactly is "as-needed." FBI, CIA, and Military rarely share intel to solve things. It seems like a dick measuring contest of who can.solve it first or who can hide what. Hence, information from Benghazi is so fubar. Honestly, communication within our own government is a fucking joke and pathetic. Even within individual agencies, its still a sad sight to watch. Also, i swear he has had more vetoed but I believe it was the SCOTUS that has vetoed him. Not congress. Long story short, changes were recommended for overhauling the cooperation and communication in regards to multiple agencies. However, very few of these were ever implemented and the majority never got off the drawing board. 15 years after 9/11, our intelligence communities are still communicating in an archaic and ineffective format. Major strides have been made on strengthening individual agencies, but a combined group effort is still incredibly lacking. Thanks guys.

II

So, while the loss of life is horrible (I actually haven't heard about this before now. I stopped watching the news a couple of years ago), I'll counter this with a defensive gun use that potentially saved a person's life. http://www.ammoland.com/2016/09/resident-with-cane-shoots-dead-home-invader/?utm_source=Ammoland+Subscribers&utm_campaign=cef7af7d59-RSS_EMAIL_CAMPAIGN&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_6f6fac3eaa-cef7af7d59-20943521#axzz4LZeQmF8B tl;dr 78 year old man was attacked in his home by a much younger man (48 year old), knocked down and received a head injury. Used his handgun to defend himself. Guns aren't always used for bad. It depends completely on the intentions of the person holding the gun.

If I remember correctly, there was supposed to be a huge overhaul of the intelligence system to prevent that kind of compartmentalization. Not sure how or if it ever got implemented (correctly), but I do know the government was supposed to be trying to fix it.

V

I

Just wanted to comment on this one, based on my experience from a few years back. All of the American news media is biased. I volunteered a few years ago to spend a year in Afghanistan for work (I'm an electrical engineer and they needed some serious help over there with power), and had access to most of the major American media over there, as well as Al Jazeera (the news company that we joked could bring you the terrorist suicide bombing live). Want to know who seemed to be the least biased of the ones I was watching? Al Jazeera....

III

V

I