Off Topic Chat. (MOD NOTE post# 3949 and post#5279)

tudderone · 06-05-2021 1:32pm

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

The simple fact is with 3D printing coming more and more online and common. and now the 9th court ruling in favour of Defence unlimited being allowed to post files online as it is considered a 1st amendment right, any sort of registry will now be moot for anyone who really wants a gun.

https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2021-04-29/court-ruling-ghost-gun-plans

Metal printing already exists, and like everything else, will be come more and more accessable as time passes.

otmmyboy2 · 06-05-2021 1:33pm

Rows Grower wrote: »

You have summed up the crux of the matter in those two sentences.

I think the point some of us are making is criminals will acquire firearms despite the strictness of firearms laws, since only the law abiding pay attention to them.

Thus advocating for stricter gun laws will not prevent criminals from acquiring firearms, by purchase, manufacture, etc.
So what is their purpose?
Controlling those firearms in civilian ownership.

Lads going to extremes on here even making stuff up to suit their argument does not reflect well on the Irish shooting community, especially considering we have all been warned that Gardaí and Dept. of Justice personal all can and do read this forum.

Happens on both sides of the fence all the time. Gets called out and that is why such debate it healthy.
Realistically the PTB can read as much as they want of this, it is a public forum and none of the opinions here advocate criminality or criminal acts, so the issue is what?
Differing opinions on what measures would prevent further murders, suicides, etc?

The lies and never ending pursuit of one-upmanship by some is gone past the funny stage a long time ago.

Welcome to an argument on the internet... :rolleyes:

otmmyboy2 · 06-05-2021 1:36pm

tudderone wrote: »

Metal printing already exists, and like everything else, will be come more and more accessable as time passes.

And realistically even without 3d printing simple firearms can be made with any trip to a hardware, and are regularly in other countries:
https://homemadeguns.wordpress.com/category/submachine-guns/

No law could stop someone determined to acquire a firearm by illegal means, they only put roadblocks & speedbumps in front of those who wish to own firearms legally, and those people are not the problem.

Grizzly 45 · 06-05-2021 1:39pm

[QUOTE=otmmyboy2;117091285

I think the US certainly needs to look hard at their mental health system and that would be a bigger contributing factor to a decrease in both murder rates and suicide rates.

^THIS^ 1000% The US always has had an appaling record of mental health and institutions. There is good reasons the "old loony bin" features in horror movies prominently as well as films like one flew over the cuckoos nest are popular,because there is some fact in them. When you look at some of the ghastly treatments they have had to try and cure "mental illness",like electroshock , lobotomies, etc,and their latest trick is not putting people who are dangerous in the big house but putting them in chemical straitjackets and letting them out in society.

98% of the mass shootings in the US since 1984 have been caused by people who have been on[or off depending] medication for mental problems. Patrick Huberty who knew he wasn't right pleaded with San Diego mental health officials to be institutionalized 4 days before he went off for a Mc Donalds in San Ysirdio. they refused to institutionalize him. big pharma and the mental health professionalism has a lot more to answer for than the gun owners in the US.

Couple that with revamping drug laws and decriminalization in a Portugal style and I think the control of the gangs over the illicit trade would significantly drop the murder rate in inner cities.

It has been done in the more "progressive states" like CA and Colorado,and created a whole new set of problems for everyone involved in the trade and use.
Like making the drug growers having to hire armed security companies to guard them,as they are sitting on vast sums of unbankable cash!!! While it might now be legal to grow and sell the grass.
The Federal laws on the proceeds of crime make it a felony to bank the proceeds! IOW you put ONE dollar of money into the banking system and you are a known drug grower, the Feds can swoop on your property and seize ALL your assets. Even stuff you previously owned before becoming a grower. Up to you to prove in court otherwise.:eek:
Then you have the fun problem of now-former illegal pot growers having to become legal and pay taxes and employees' wages and benefits! The Cheech&Chong days of" work and smoke all you want" deals are gone since Uncle Sam got involved.

The laws of unintended consequences hit big time.Esp since there are now more illegal growing patches in national parks and state lands,by growers who have discoverd its more profitable outside the system than in it.That the US Fish&Game and Park rangers literally have SWAT-type units to have to deal with these growers and are literally seeing Viet Cong style booby traps being employed on these patches.

So ,it isnt as simple to sort out as originally thought by simply legalizing it all.:)

tudderone · 06-05-2021 1:39pm

otmmyboy2 wrote: »

Happens on both sides of the fence all the time. Gets called out and that is why such debate it healthy.
Realistically the PTB can read as much as they want of this, it is a public forum and none of the opinions here advocate criminality or criminal acts, so the issue is what?
Differing opinions on what measures would prevent further murders, suicides, etc?

100%, we're not naughty teenagers looking at dirty pictures on the web, being told off by a parent.

otmmyboy2 · 06-05-2021 1:50pm

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

It has been done in the more "progressive states" like CA and Colorado,and created a whole new set of problems for everyone involved in the trade and use.
Like making the drug growers having to hire armed security companies to guard them,as they are sitting on vast sums of unbankable cash!!! While it might now be legal to grow and sell the grass.
The Federal laws on the proceeds of crime make it a felony to bank the proceeds! IOW you put ONE dollar of money into the banking system and you are a known drug grower, the Feds can swoop on your property and seize ALL your assets. Even stuff you previously owned before becoming a grower. Up to you to prove in court otherwise.:eek:
Then you have the fun problem of now-former illegal pot growers having to become legal and pay taxes and employees' wages and benefits! The Cheech&Chong days of" work and smoke all you want" deals are gone since Uncle Sam got involved.

The laws of unintended consequences hit big time.Esp since there are now more illegal growing patches in national parks and state lands,by growers who have discoverd its more profitable outside the system than in it.That the US Fish&Game and Park rangers literally have SWAT-type units to have to deal with these growers and are literally seeing Viet Cong style booby traps being employed on these patches.

So ,it isnt as simple to sort out as originally thought by simply legalizing it all.:)

Interesting!
I knew some about the federal banking part but I think that could be reasonably sorted by striking down that federal law and aligning it with the state's law on the matter.
Of course that would be tacitly agreeing that the famed "war on drugs" has been an abject failure, so that isn't going to happen either :P

So the song Copperhead Road is based on fact then?

otmmyboy2 · 06-05-2021 1:52pm

tudderone wrote: »

100%, we're not naughty teenagers looking at dirty pictures on the web, being told off by a parent.

Yup, but threatening to tell daddy is certainly one form of stifling dissent :rolleyes:

Grizzly 45 · 06-05-2021 2:00pm

Mellor wrote: »

I’m sure some do. But I’d guess that more do not.
The fact is, if] I’m a convicted felon, barred from holding a firearm, I can go out and but one with ease. That’s a mess, and it’s actions like that which makes law-abiding holders look bad. Not sure why anyone would defend it.

GROSS oversimplification. Unless you are incredibly stupid and want your sentence reinstated in full and lose any parole or other privileges you might have in society like child custody, employment or whatever.you will stay far away from any type of firearm. This BTW is lifelong, well after your sentence is served,and its almost impossible to get this right reinstated with a rap sheet.

So if you a real DS yeah,go ahead and get your wife, momma, brother to buy you a gun. Do you think the PD or SD just checks for your name, anyone with your surname at your associated addresses will flag as well. IOW they will know your direct next of kin or any other close associates.
They will thank you for a conspiracy charge as well and you meddling up their lives while kissing a police car windshield and getting cuffed.:eek: There also goes any chance of you getting out on bail,or your family standing bail bond for you either.So doing it this way is utter amatuer hour for any criminal...No wonder the stats are so accurate in this case.:D

The smart criminals no matter what either steal or go to "Homeboy retail"[We steal to order if ya got the cash!"] and buy it on the street no questions asked,and if you have been inside for any length of time you will have names and addresses of people who will sell you lirerally, anything.

Grizzly 45 · 06-05-2021 2:03pm

otmmyboy2 wrote: »

Yup, but threatening to tell daddy is certainly one form of stifling dissent :rolleyes:

I ike it when daddy spanks me for being naughty!!!:D:D

Grizzly 45 · 06-05-2021 2:08pm

otmmyboy2 wrote: »

Interesting!
I knew some about the federal banking part but I think that could be reasonably sorted by striking down that federal law and aligning it with the state's law on the matter.
Of course that would be tacitly agreeing that the famed "war on drugs" has been an abject failure, so that isn't going to happen either :P

So the song Copperhead Road is based on fact then?

Indeedy...It has been lost years ago...But OTOH claiming you are a drug user for recreational use or medical purposes ALSO precludes you from owning firearms under the 4473.!:D
So do you want to spark up the fun smoke,or smell the gunsmoke? Cant do both!

otmmyboy2 · 06-05-2021 2:11pm

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

Indeedy...It has been lost years ago...But OTOH claiming you are a drug user for recreational use or medical purposes ALSO precludes you from owning firearms under the 4473.!:D
So do you want to spark up the fun smoke,or smell the gunsmoke? Cant do both!

Unless you take a trip up to Canada that is lol

But yeah, I'll take the gunsmoke, unlimited mag capacity and all the other fun things the majority of the US has over canuk's take on guns and drugs.

tudderone · 06-05-2021 2:32pm

I see in the local petrol station this morning as i was passing, that the Parcel motel locker system has been removed

. Dead handy it was if you wanted bits from the Uk. Sad its gone.

Grizzly 45 · 06-05-2021 2:34pm

otmmyboy2 wrote: »

Unless you take a trip up to Canada that is lol

But yeah, I'll take the gunsmoke, unlimited mag capacity and all the other fun things the majority of the US has over canuk's take on guns and drugs.

Smoking weed will be the only thing left once that gun banning, cultural appropriating,black facing tool Tradeu is finished with them up there.:(

otmmyboy2 · 06-05-2021 2:42pm

tudderone wrote: »

I see in the local petrol station this morning as i was passing, that the Parcel motel locker system has been removed . Dead handy it was if you wanted bits from the Uk. Sad its gone.

Ah that is the death knell alright. I was hoping they'd reopen but seemingly not.

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

Smoking weed will be the only thing left once that gun banning, cultural appropriating,black facing tool Tradeu is finished with them up there.:(

True, very true.
Cannot understand that dolts popularity, particularly after hearing some of his responses to parliamentary questions.

tudderone · 06-05-2021 2:48pm

otmmyboy2 wrote: »

True, very true.
Cannot understand that dolts popularity, particularly after hearing some of his responses to parliamentary questions.

Because he is "Progressive".

Richard308 · 06-05-2021 8:05pm

Brazil: At least 25 killed in Rio de Janeiro shoot-out https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-latin-america-57013206

Grizzly 45 · 06-05-2021 9:25pm

It seems this story about the mass in Athlone is going international.
Esp this bit about this lads mother, who is dead this last 15 years, complaining about his mental health that required a warrant service at 3AM to remove his kids...
Looks more like our AGS trying on the ol Jackboots and liking them.:mad:

https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2021/05/irish-police-break-mans-home-remove-children-3-films-police-barging-shutting-catholic-mass-video/?ff_source=Email&ff_medium=the-gateway-pundit&ff_campaign=dailypm&ff_content=daily

Feisar · 06-05-2021 10:51pm

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

It seems this story about the mass in Athlone is going international.
Esp this bit about this lads mother, who is dead this last 15 years, complaining about his mental health that required a warrant service at 3AM to remove his kids...
Looks more like our AGS trying on the ol Jackboots and liking them.:mad:

https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2021/05/irish-police-break-mans-home-remove-children-3-films-police-barging-shutting-catholic-mass-video/?ff_source=Email&ff_medium=the-gateway-pundit&ff_campaign=dailypm&ff_content=daily

Do a bit of reading. Kids dont get pulled at the drop of a hat. It’d be mental/career suicide for the Gardaí to just turn Turk and take his kids out of some sort of spite. And for those to paint it that way because it suits an agenda are the lowest of the low.
Not accusing you of that to be clear.

Rows Grower · 06-05-2021 10:53pm

Feisar wrote: »

Do a bit of reading. Kids dont get pulled at the drop of a hat. It’d be mental/career suicide for the Gardaí to just turn Turk and take his kids out of some sort of spite. And for those to paint it that way because it suits an agenda are the lowest of the low.
Not accusing you of that to be clear.

Well said.

Grizzly 45 · 06-05-2021 11:25pm

Think this guy on FB hit the nail on the head about politics and gun control.

The political class, and its abettors in media, have absolutely nothing to gain by making a sincere attempt to confront the moral and cultural causes of crime.
It's immeasurably easier, and immeasurably more beneficial to their neverending drive for greater power, to tyrannize people who own firearms legally, precisely because they obey the law.
The government does whatever it believes the relative apathy and servility of its subjects will allow. There's no meaningful opposition to civilian disarmament. Why would the state ever change course?

Mellor · 06-05-2021 11:51pm

otmmyboy2 wrote: »

Fair enough, come up with a law that would neither prevent private sales and not create a gun/owner registry while still preventing felons from acquiring firearms?

Some states have such a law. No reason they all couldn’t.

But they do prevent knowingly selling to a felon, as was already covered.

Not in relation to the context of previous posts.

It was stated that felons that are not allowed to hold guns, can buy them privately. That’s true.
It was then claimed that those purchases are illegal (on behalf of the seller) thus prevented. Which is not true. That’s black and white. The claim was false.

That is absolute rubbish, on the 4473 it specifically prohibits that exact case. Direct quote "Warning: You are not the actual transferee/buyer if you are acquiring the firearm(s) on behalf of another person. If you are
not the actual transferee/buyer, the licensee cannot transfer the firearm(s) to you."

Nothing in that excludes a gift though.
If I buy a firearm and give it to you. I am the buyer, and can answer that question without lying. No straw purchase occurs either.

Straw purchases are illegal. Gifts are not.

There is no section to declare who the end user will be when purchasing, apart from the actual transferee/buyer.

Unthought there was a tick box to determine buyer/transfer. I was misremembering, they are lumped together. Doesn’t change the point however.

This was covered way back in 2015 when the "universal background checks" line was in vogue:
https://www.gunfacts.info/blog/universal-isnt/

Isn't going to make a massive difference to criminals acquiring firearms, so what is the goal then?

Not sure how any of that affects what a I’ve said.
I’ve never referee to people who are locked up, or even gun crime. Not every felon is a career criminal.

People in the US can buy firearms without background checks with relative ease. Agreed?
I don’t think that is appropriate. Certain people, either through criminal history, or mental state, are not fit to own firearms. For me that’s pretty simple.
Having a background check system, where you can opt out, is retarded.

I can’t see why a law abiding firearm owner would be against background checks. Not having them in place is only giving the antis fuel against us.

Mellor · 07-05-2021 12:44am

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

GROSS oversimplification. Unless you are incredibly stupid and want your sentence reinstated in full and lose any parole or other privileges you might have in society like child custody, employment or whatever.you will stay far away from any type of firearm. This BTW is lifelong, well after your sentence is served,and its almost impossible to get this right reinstated with a rap sheet.

Well of course it’s a simplification.
It’s a big country, each state has its own law. Any discussion of US has to be generalised to a degree.
Nothing in that sentence is incorrect.

So if you a real DS yeah,go ahead and get your wife, momma, brother to buy you a gun. Do you think the PD or SD just checks for your name, anyone with your surname at your associated addresses will flag as well. IOW they will know your direct next of kin or any other close associates.

Once again you are conflating straw purchase with a private sales.
There are no checks for private sales in the majority of states. So there is nowhere for these names or addresses to flag.
And I’m absolutely certain you know that, so at a loss to understand why you’re claiming otherwise.

Mellor · 07-05-2021 1:07am

otmmyboy2 wrote: »

I think the point some of us are making is criminals will acquire firearms despite the strictness of firearms laws, since only the law abiding pay attention to them.

Criminals will still get their hands on guns. Of course. That’s doesn’t mean it might as well be a free for all.

Also, it’s a false dichotomy to present everyone either law abiding or career criminals.
Many people banned from holding a firearm likely have no intention to commit a crime.

Thus advocating for stricter gun laws will not prevent criminals from acquiring firearms, by purchase, manufacture, etc.
So what is their purpose?
Controlling those firearms in civilian ownership.

How does a background check prevent anyone entitled to from holding a gun from holding one?

I can understand people not wanting to give an inch. But this is a silly issue to oppose imo.
Criminals will still have guns. But there means of acquiring and ours means should be completely separate. Any time the line between criminal possession and legal possession is blurred. It creates a situation where we can be lumped in with them. That only harms shooters imo.

Similar would apply to people who shouldn’t hold firearms for other reasons.

Grizzly 45 · 07-05-2021 12:13pm

Mellor wrote: »

Well of course it’s a simplification.
It’s a big country, each state has its own law. Any discussion of US has to be generalised to a degree.
Nothing in that sentence is incorrect.

Once again you are conflating straw purchase with a private sales.
There are no checks for private sales in the majority of states. So there is nowhere for these names or addresses to flag.
And I’m absolutely certain you know that, so at a loss to understand why you’re claiming otherwise

.

I was going by your sweeping oversimplification statement.
And as to set up a national, Federal, state or local database of the private citizenry to be able to do sales or purchases...How do you propose this to happen without the registration of all firearms databases?

The majority of Americans will tell you it's a "nunya"[busisness] proposal as o what they privately sell or do.
You going to send police SWAT teams to every house in the US to register every unknown firearm??? Best hug the hubby/wife&kids extra hard each start of your shift,cos eventually you are probably not going to be coming home if you are the main door kicker in the team.

Even IF you did manage to do this somehow. There will be lots of guns lost[ like in NZ],in tragic boating accidents or a massive increase in gun thefts.

Some states will outright refuse to enforce or consider such a law, the so-called Sanctuary states have passed legislation or are in the process of doing so.

Who is going to pay for this? Any govt entity that puts money into such a programme will immediately face the opposition of this being a national registration to start licensing and confiscation? Its why the NICS check is failing.No one including O'bama wanted to put money in it.O'Bama of course,did it more for cynical political gain than any other reason.

In short this is another anti gun pipe dream that will be costly, ineffective harrass the law abiding,do nothing to prevent criminals getting guns,and just give a govt more right to meddle in your life.

Grizzly 45 · 07-05-2021 12:17pm

Mellor wrote: »

How does a background check prevent anyone entitled to from holding a gun from holding one?

I can understand people not wanting to give an inch. But this is a silly issue to oppose imo.
Criminals will still have guns. But there means of acquiring and ours means should be completely separate. Any time the line between criminal possession and legal possession is blurred. It creates a situation where we can be lumped in with them. That only harms shooters imo.

Similar would apply to people who shouldn’t hold firearms for other reasons.

You are applying EUROPEAN logic and thought on firearms legislation to an American situation... Square peg in a round hole there mate!:)

Grizzly 45 · 07-05-2021 1:11pm

Good to see.Black folk arming themselves as they realise the Buying Large Mansions[BLM] organisation doesnt really care about them at all and is just anti-police and organised by white virtue signallers .

https://trendingpolitics.com/gun-ownership-among-black-americans-rising-and-the-reason-is-telling/

Richard308 · 07-05-2021 1:41pm

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

I was going by your sweeping oversimplification statement.
And as to set up a national, Federal, state or local database of the private citizenry to be able to do sales or purchases...How do you propose this to happen without the registration of all firearms databases?

The majority of Americans will tell you it's a "nunya"[busisness] proposal as o what they privately sell or do.
You going to send police SWAT teams to every house in the US to register every unknown firearm??? Best hug the hubby/wife&kids extra hard each start of your shift,cos eventually you are probably not going to be coming home if you are the main door kicker in the team.

Even IF you did manage to do this somehow. There will be lots of guns lost[ like in NZ],in tragic boating accidents or a massive increase in gun thefts.

Some states will outright refuse to enforce or consider such a law, the so-called Sanctuary states have passed legislation or are in the process of doing so.

Who is going to pay for this? Any govt entity that puts money into such a programme will immediately face the opposition of this being a national registration to start licensing and confiscation? Its why the NICS check is failing.No one including O'bama wanted to put money in it.O'Bama of course,did it more for cynical political gain than any other reason.

In short this is another anti gun pipe dream that will be costly, ineffective harrass the law abiding,do nothing to prevent criminals getting guns,and just give a govt more right to meddle in your life.

Why is it an anti gun movement? You’re happy for people to continually sell guns on to whoever they want no matter the consequences? I don’t think he’s advocating checking every gun now. It can be say if you sell a gun for date 1/1/2024 you must register the gun and who you sold it to.

You should not be able to sell a gun to a street hood, yes the laws prohibit that but it is impossible to enforce unless you have a register.

It’s putting an onus on gun owners to do it. Not a big deal.

No ones talking about swat team inspections of guns.

Just take the guns from criminals and remove a nice handy earner to those who profit from selling them on.

Richard308 · 07-05-2021 1:46pm

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

Good to see.Black folk arming themselves as they realise the Buying Large Mansions[BLM] organisation doesnt really care about them at all and is just anti-police and organised by white virtue signallers .

https://trendingpolitics.com/gun-ownership-among-black-americans-rising-and-the-reason-is-telling/

Doesn’t have to be black lives matter to be crooked. We’ve a lot of charity scammers here ourselves.

otmmyboy2 · 07-05-2021 1:56pm

Richard308 wrote: »

Why is it an anti gun movement? You’re happy for people to continually sell guns on to whoever they want no matter the consequences? I don’t think he’s advocating checking every gun now. It can be say if you sell a gun for date 1/1/2024 you must register the gun and who you sold it to.

You should not be able to sell a gun to a street hood, yes the laws prohibit that but it is impossible to enforce unless you have a register.

It’s putting an onus on gun owners to do it. Not a big deal.

I think you will find that any attempt to create a register of firearms or firearm owners beyond what is currently available would be met with an immense amount of resistance.

Why?
Because if the state knows where firearms/firearms owners are that opens the door to gun grabs/firearm confiscations/etc.

It already happens in Canada for restricted firearms whose registry was not abolished.

List of myths on gun registration:
https://www.gunfacts.info/gun-policy-info/licensing-and-registration/

This one being the biggie:

Myth: Registration does not lead to confiscation
Fact: It did in Canada. The handgun registration law of 1934 was the source used to identify and confiscate (without compensation) over half of the registered handguns in 2001. 25

Fact: It did in Germany. The 1928 Law on Firearms and Ammunition (before the Nazis came into power) required all firearms to be registered. When Hitler came into power, the existing lists were used for confiscating weapons.

Fact: It did in Australia. In 1996, the Australian government confiscated over 660,000 previously legal weapons from their citizens.

Fact: It did in California. The 1989 Roberti-Roos Assault Weapons Control Act required registration. Due to shifting definitions of “assault weapons,” many legal firearms are now being confiscated by the California government.

Fact: It did in New York City. In 1967, New York City passed an ordinance requiring a citizen to obtain a permit to own a rifle or shotgun, which would then be registered. In 1991, the city passed a ban on the private possession of some semi-automatic rifles and shotguns, and “registered” owners were told that those firearms had to be surrendered, rendered inoperable, or taken out of the city.

Fact: It did in Bermuda, Cuba, Greece, Ireland, Jamaica, and Soviet Georgia as well.

No ones talking about swat team inspections of guns.

Happens in Canada, happened in the aftermath of Katrina in the southern US states.
"During the emergency conditions following Hurricane Katrina in 2005, New Orleans’ police superintendent ordered the confiscation of privately owned firearms, saying “Only law enforcement will be able to have guns.”".

So much so that several states(Texas, Florida, Louisiana passed laws protecting gun owners during such emergencies. Congress even passed the "Disaster Recovery Personal Protection Act" to prevent the seizure of legal firearms during states of emergency.

Cass · 07-05-2021 3:30pm

Half-cocked wrote: »

If you have defibs on your range, check the batteries regularly!

Same goes for fire extinguishers. Wonder how many check them, even at home. They have an expiration date.

Shooting Forum - Firearms licencing information

Off Topic Chat. (MOD NOTE post# 3949 and post#5279)

Comments

Forum Charter - Useful Information - Photo thread: Hardware - Ranges by County - Hunting Laws/Important threads - Upcoming Events - RFDs by County