So... how much should one buy (hoard)?

[JHZR2]

Originally Posted By: Astro14
JHZR2 - I have always respected your opinion. It's clear from all your posts that you're an educated, thoughtful person, but on this point we don't share the same opinion. Not even close...


You say we arent close, but I think were closer than you think. Im not some rabid anti-gun person, quite the opposite. I just got off the phone with the NJ Senate in opposition of S2497.

But I feel that there is a rational middle ground that must exist in order to be able to sanely argue these points. The rabid pro-gun crowd is just as dangerous as the rabid anti-gun crowd.

I called the senate today because they were trying to limit lawful capacity to 5 rounds or less. That is ridiculous. But so are some aspects of the other end as well. Its insane to be able to get no ammunition, but to have laws that differ 180 degrees in places not even 100 miles apart means that the one cannot work due to the other.

Violent crime may be reducing, but again, how much of that is because of busting the locales where some of this really propagated, due to gentrification of certain cities and areas? Im not convinvced that the violent criminals are really running scared on the chance that someone may have a gun. That is evidenced by the much higher rates in areas where there is lax gun control.

And until the mental and cultural bits get dealt with, we have more issues... But start talking about crazies and people are against dealing with them too.

So people act like three year olds and dont hear what they want so go home. But at the end of the day, 150k stolen guns, how many thouands of people, many of which are kids and teens, dead each year. That's too much.

That doesnt mean ban all guns, but it means that different courses of action must be taken. And its neither the path of one extremist or the other.

 

[stevejones]

Buy it cheap & stack it deep.

 

[GMBoy]

Originally Posted By: stevejones
Buy it cheap & stack it deep.


I like that!

 

[GMBoy]

Originally Posted By: JHZR2
Originally Posted By: Astro14
JHZR2 - I have always respected your opinion. It's clear from all your posts that you're an educated, thoughtful person, but on this point we don't share the same opinion. Not even close...


You say we arent close, but I think were closer than you think. Im not some rabid anti-gun person, quite the opposite. I just got off the phone with the NJ Senate in opposition of S2497.

But I feel that there is a rational middle ground that must exist in order to be able to sanely argue these points. The rabid pro-gun crowd is just as dangerous as the rabid anti-gun crowd.

I called the senate today because they were trying to limit lawful capacity to 5 rounds or less. That is ridiculous. But so are some aspects of the other end as well. Its insane to be able to get no ammunition, but to have laws that differ 180 degrees in places not even 100 miles apart means that the one cannot work due to the other.

Violent crime may be reducing, but again, how much of that is because of busting the locales where some of this really propagated, due to gentrification of certain cities and areas? Im not convinvced that the violent criminals are really running scared on the chance that someone may have a gun. That is evidenced by the much higher rates in areas where there is lax gun control.

And until the mental and cultural bits get dealt with, we have more issues... But start talking about crazies and people are against dealing with them too.

So people act like three year olds and dont hear what they want so go home. But at the end of the day, 150k stolen guns, how many thouands of people, many of which are kids and teens, dead each year. That's too much.

That doesnt mean ban all guns, but it means that different courses of action must be taken. And its neither the path of one extremist or the other.



That all sounds good but there is no such thing as "reasonable gun legistation" like the anti gun crowd tries to sell us.

Guns are our rights and are non-negotiable as far as I am concerned. We need to address the root cause..the person/criminal not the inanimate object. We do need to fix the mental health issue, but not sure how because nobody knows when a person may "crack". Limiting magazines and banning certain guns based on looks is a failed several times over proposal. Nothing stops crime better than good guys with guns.

We need to stick to the laws ALREADY on the books, stop being easy on criminals, get rid of gun free zones, allow schools some sort of armed folks and leave the law abiding ALONE.

 

[Astro14]

Interestingly - Virginia gets the highest marks for background check effectiveness (this in support of my earlier point about Virginia getting a bad rap) from the latest Anti-gun organization, Demand a Plan.

http://www.demandaplan.org/fatalgaps

So, in the state that gets the best marks, I can, as a law-abiding citizen, walk into my local gun shop, fill out the form, and once the background check is processed (minutes), and my credit card clears (seconds), I can walk out with multiple guns.

I see no reason to mess that up with ineffective restrictions on the kind of gun that I purchase. The above is true in one of the most effective states, according to this anti-gun group.

Incidentally, this group should worry those who support gun rights - Hollywood celebrities, Bloomberg's $$ mean people will pay attention... and they are demanding a plan. But the plan is a forgone conclusion: ban weapon types and high-capacity magazines. No thoughfulness, no discussion, they've already decided what a law-abiding citizen (you) should be restricted from owning.

 

[Win]

I'm not really sure what records they think are missing. Regardless, all this talk of keeping guns away from mentally ill people is painting with a broad brush where the actual law is quite narrow about who is a prohibited person for mental issues:

"(d) It shall be unlawful for any person to sell or otherwise dispose of any firearm or ammunition to any person knowing or having reasonable cause to believe that such person—

(4) has been adjudicated as a mental defective or has been committed to any mental institution;"

15 U.S.C. 922(d)(4). 15 U.S.C. 922 (g)(4) covers possession by the same class.

Obviously for one to be adjudicated a mental defective or involuntarily committed, a public judicial record exists and should be in he database. The only thing missing might be voluntary commitments. I don't know if that's a releasable record, given the current state of medical privacy regulations.

Not all transactions go through the NCIS in any event. In my state, a concealed carry permit holder is not subject to a background check. All I have to do is present a drivers license or other proof of residence, a carry permit, $$, and fill out the 4473, and that's it.

No limit on how many or how often.