Results of Sep 12th SHARE Act Legislative Hearing (Included HPA)

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
  • Klem
    Chieftain
    • Aug 2013
    • 3507

    #46
    Originally posted by stanc View Post


    It doesn't seem like it's a matter of choice. Judging by history -- not just in this country, but others (Australia, for instance) -- it's a matter of when, not if.


    .
    On this we can agree. A government ban on firearms would take longer in a country where individual firearm ownership is enshrined in the constitution, and possibly not in our lifetime but it may be the case. Depends on a lot of things, like whether the country is sucked into another serious or even world war. That would prevent it. Depends also on the misuse statistics and any trends there. More than likely the military-style semi-auto's will go and any other guns that lend themselves to human carnage. Bolt guns will never be banned from those owning rural property. A lot more expectation on the authorities to keep people safe as the criminals hang on to their weapons. A lot of people jumping up and down believing the fabric of society is going to be shattered but after the ban life goes on.

    The idea of mandatory suppressors on all guns however is fantasy. Not only does it requires all stakeholders to be enthusiastic it would be arguably logistically impossible. The sheer numbers requiring suppression. There would be exceptions; concealed carry permits, Olympic shooters, antique firearms, guns which require a replacement barrel to extend past the frame or furniture, etc. It may be the case at certain rifle ranges in built-up areas, or certain hunting areas but that would be about it. Suppressors represent anathema to the authorities and that's where this debate ends.

    Comment

    • stanc
      Banned
      • Apr 2011
      • 3430

      #47
      Originally posted by Klem View Post
      The idea of mandatory suppressors on all guns however is fantasy. Not only does it requires all stakeholders to be enthusiastic it would be arguably logistically impossible. The sheer numbers requiring suppression. There would be exceptions; concealed carry permits, Olympic shooters, antique firearms, guns which require a replacement barrel to extend past the frame or furniture, etc. It may be the case at certain rifle ranges in built-up areas, or certain hunting areas but that would be about it. Suppressors represent anathema to the authorities and that's where this debate ends.
      You're probably right. At least, I hope you're right. But I still think it's a bad idea for proponents to pitch it as reducing noise pollution. We'll see.

      Comment

      • montana
        Chieftain
        • Jun 2011
        • 3209

        #48
        Originally posted by Klem View Post
        A lot more expectation on the authorities to keep people safe as the criminals hang on to their weapons. A lot of people jumping up and down believing the fabric of society is going to be shattered but after the ban life goes on.
        Respectfully, I disagree with this statement. The point of the US Second Amendment is division of power, not about hunting or sport. The day after a ban of modern firearms is enacted, life may go on but the fabric of the American society will be shattered. We are witnessing the destruction of almost all European societies today by the invasion of people who are not European and the parent people are being diminished. True Germans are going to become extinct in a few more generations as this trend continues. The same will hold true for the US if the destruction of the Second Amendment and the idea of individual liberty is destroyed. An invasion of foreign people is the best way to destroy the parent country, this is why california is the way it is. Life may go on but the fabric of the American society will be destroyed. This is a war if one understands it or not. War does change everything and unlimited immigration is a tactic used by the left for this means. Unless you have a crystal ball, I wouldn't bet on our destruction just yet. American gun owners are not so easily swept a side, just ask the clintons.

        Comment

        • bj139
          Chieftain
          • Mar 2017
          • 1968

          #49
          Originally posted by montana View Post
          The point of the US Second Amendment is division of power, not about hunting or sport.
          The point of the second amendment is that ultimate power is in the hands of the people, not the government.

          Comment

          • montana
            Chieftain
            • Jun 2011
            • 3209

            #50
            Originally posted by bj139 View Post
            The point of the second amendment is that ultimate power is in the hands of the people, not the government.
            That is what division of power means. Our three branches of government and the bill of rights were created to prevent power from concentrating in just a few hands or becoming a mob rule based country. Needless to say it only works with a truly educated citizen ship that understands the principle. Sadly, many people have no clue about this concept.

            Comment

            • jdelong
              Warrior
              • Feb 2017
              • 133

              #51
              HOLY CRAP! How did this not make it into the discussion???? What kind of "witness" is this? It more and more feels like we are living in a banana republic.

              "I am here to talk about how dangerous (insert product/item here) is. I am financially connected to a product that cannot detect said product and if it becomes readily available, my fortune will be ruined."

              Geez.


              Originally posted by LRRPF52 View Post
              You know what the most overlooked, unaddressed piece of information about this David Chipman "expert witness" testimony was?




              Our SafetySmart Platform combines four specialized software solutions and objective data to help law enforcement and civic leadership protect their communities.





              "Expert witness" David Chipman has led North American sales for Shot Spotter during period of explosive growth. They just launched their IPO this summer actually, so I can see why Mr. Chipman is concerned, being their lead sales rep for North America, to "fight the true nature of gun violence". This story writes itself.



              Their FAQ used to say they can't detect gunshots from suppressed firearms and that people don't use suppressors because they, well, I'll let them do the talking:



              Suppressors are not illegal to own. That's the whole point of HPA, to deregulate the unconstitutional and baseless regulation of these firearms accessories. A company specializing in detecting gunshots with "expert ATF former SAC/ASAC" leading sales reps should know this. It is the insane fact that they are even regulated the way they are we have a problem with. If they were illegal, everyone who went through the bureaucratic garbage and unacceptable waiting period would not have Tax stamps for their cans.

              We have laws against gun licensing in the US, so again, this company fails again at a basic understanding of firearms ownership in the US, granted there are some cities and States that have trampled all over the Constitution and illegally passed legislation that violates this Federal law, but it isn't the realty for most of us.

              Having possession of a suppressor is not virtually guaranteed to lead to criminal prosecution, because the majority of them are tax stamped items governed under the 1934 NFA.

              Silencers are not exceedingly difficult to find or make. They are very simple and easy to make even for someone that failed high school auto shop. This is Klingon aviation system recalibration.

              Suppressors have a negative impact on accuracy and range of gunfire do they? These guys are technically incompetent when it comes to their understanding of suppressors. A weight on your muzzle seems to increase accuracy on most rifles, and it certainly extends the range (though minimally), by increasing velocity due to suppressor boost.

              They have since scrubbed that link and replaced it with:



              As they say, follow the money. How brazen for them to put him on as an expert witness. Not only does he not know that suppressed MP5s and now M4s have been in use by Federal, State, and local LE agencies dating back to the 1980s at least with the MP5, but he's also a leading sales rep for Shot Spotter.

              Comment

              • stanc
                Banned
                • Apr 2011
                • 3430

                #52
                Originally posted by montana View Post
                Respectfully, I disagree with this statement. The point of the US Second Amendment is division of power, not about hunting or sport. The day after a ban of modern firearms is enacted, life may go on but the fabric of the American society will be shattered.
                I doubt that. Machine guns have more military importance than semi-auto rifles. Was "the fabric of American society" shattered when the 1986 machine gun ban was enacted?

                The evidence says that Klem is right.

                When the 1934 NFA was enacted, American gunowners accepted it, and life went on.
                When the 1968 GCA was enacted, American gunowners accepted it, and life went on.
                When the 1986 machine gun ban was enacted, American gunowners accepted it, and life went on.
                When the 1994 assault weapons ban was enacted, American gunowners accepted it, and life went on.

                I don't see it being any different if semi-auto rifles are someday banned.

                Originally posted by montana View Post
                We are witnessing the destruction of almost all European societies today by the invasion of people who are not European and the parent people are being diminished. True Germans are going to become extinct in a few more generations as this trend continues. The same will hold true for the US if the destruction of the Second Amendment and the idea of individual liberty is destroyed. An invasion of foreign people is the best way to destroy the parent country, this is why california is the way it is.
                Heh, heh. I've always thought that California is the way it is because so many east coast liberals moved here. Although I guess they could be considered "foreign people."

                Originally posted by montana View Post
                Life may go on but the fabric of the American society will be destroyed. This is a war if one understands it or not.
                No, it isn't. I do wish people would stop misusing the term, "war."
                War is military combat, waged with force of arms.
                This is a philosophical/social disagreement.

                Originally posted by montana View Post
                War does change everything and unlimited immigration is a tactic used by the left for this means. Unless you have a crystal ball, I wouldn't bet on our destruction just yet. American gun owners are not so easily swept a side, just ask the clintons.
                American gun owners did not prevent Bill Clinton from signing the 1994 AWB into law.

                Comment

                • LRRPF52
                  Super Moderator
                  • Sep 2014
                  • 8569

                  #53
                  Originally posted by stanc View Post
                  Thank you for providing real world examples that validate my theory. Argue on the grounds of noise pollution control, and it may come back to bite us in the ass by making suppressor use mandatory.
                  Not when the Committee communists (there are over 100 members of the US House of Reps who are members of shells for CPUSA, and 20 Senators including both Dems and Republicans) call their chief "expert witness" who is the lead sales representative for Shot Spotter, who just launched their IPO in July.

                  Their FAQs used to say suppressors defeated their technology. Now they say they can detect it. I wonder how many of the Congressrats purchased Shot Spotter IPO when it was opened, who are counting on the 300% stock increase projections, especially as they push for legislation to mandate more and more use of Shot Spotter in cities.

                  ACLU has some problems with Shot Spotter, which is why the Dems in the Committee never addressed this publicly, but when you go back and listen to all the testimony and leading questions from the filthy vermin, you can see what they're talking about. I can see why they don't want to bring any attention to the ACLU's complaints with the main company that their expert witness is part of.


                  The privacy concern involves the potential that audio sensors could pick up the conversations of people walking by, activists say, noting cases where prosecutors have used comments recorded by sensors as evidence in court.

                  In 2010, prosecutors in Oakland won a conviction in the murder of Tyrone Lyles after his last words, recorded by ShotSpotter, were played in court.
                  When a man celebrating the new year fired two guns into the sky from his Sacramento backyard, a high-tech system pinpointed his location in less than a minute, allowing a California Highway Patrol airplane to capture the shooting on video.


                  Follow the money proves to be as relevant of a guideline today, and the rats don't like any sunshine on their corruption.
                  NRA Basic, Pistol, Rifle, Shotgun, RSO

                  CCW, CQM, DM, Long Range Rifle Instructor

                  6.5 Grendel Reloading Handbooks & chamber brushes can be found here:

                  www.AR15buildbox.com

                  Comment

                  • LRRPF52
                    Super Moderator
                    • Sep 2014
                    • 8569

                    #54
                    As to the Clinton AWB, even the corrupt scoundrels in Congress only passed the bill with a 10 year term.

                    Also, look at all the headway that has been made with Concealed carry across most States.

                    The Heller vs DC case in the SCOTUS was another major victory for freedom in the US, so the premise that all gun legislation is uni-directional favoring the communists is not supported by real events and legislation, court rulings, and judicial review.

                    We also had a major win with getting rid of decades of Federal abuse with firearms carry on Federal lands.
                    NRA Basic, Pistol, Rifle, Shotgun, RSO

                    CCW, CQM, DM, Long Range Rifle Instructor

                    6.5 Grendel Reloading Handbooks & chamber brushes can be found here:

                    www.AR15buildbox.com

                    Comment

                    • montana
                      Chieftain
                      • Jun 2011
                      • 3209

                      #55
                      Originally posted by stanc View Post
                      I doubt that. Machine guns have more military importance than semi-auto rifles. Was "the fabric of American society" shattered when the 1986 machine gun ban was enacted?

                      The evidence says that Klem is right.

                      When the 1934 NFA was enacted, American gunowners accepted it, and life went on.
                      When the 1968 GCA was enacted, American gunowners accepted it, and life went on.
                      When the 1986 machine gun ban was enacted, American gunowners accepted it, and life went on.
                      When the 1994 assault weapons ban was enacted, American gunowners accepted it, and life went on.

                      I don't see it being any different if semi-auto rifles are someday banned.


                      Heh, heh. I've always thought that California is the way it is because so many east coast liberals moved here. Although I guess they could be considered "foreign people."


                      No, it isn't. I do wish people would stop misusing the term, "war."
                      War is military combat, waged with force of arms.
                      This is a philosophical/social disagreement.


                      American gun owners did not prevent Bill Clinton from signing the 1994 AWB into law.
                      First of all Stan machine guns were not banned but overly taxed.
                      The 1968 GCA only restricted foreign made firearms and put more restrictions when purchasing them.
                      The 1986 machine gun ban restricted new manufacturing of machine guns not the ones already in the public domain.
                      The 1994 assault weapon banned the furniture,"looks" not the firearms and gun owners didn't accept it hence it was allowed to expire after the dem's lost control of congress.

                      War is a part of politics which make politics a part of war according to Clauzwitz:

                      WAR IS A MERE CONTINUATION OF POLICY BY OTHER MEANS


                      We see, therefore, that War is not merely a political act, but also a real political instrument, a continuation of political commerce, a carrying out of the same by other means. All beyond this which is strictly peculiar to War relates merely to the peculiar nature of the means which it uses. That the tendencies and views of policy shall not be incompatible with these means, the Art of War in general and the Commander in each particular case may demand, and this claim is truly not a trifling one. But however powerfully this may react on political views in particular cases, still it must always be regarded as only a modification of them; for the political view is the object, War is the means, and the means must always include the object in our conception.

                      Comment

                      • stanc
                        Banned
                        • Apr 2011
                        • 3430

                        #56
                        Originally posted by LRRPF52 View Post
                        As to the Clinton AWB, even the corrupt scoundrels in Congress only passed the bill with a 10 year term.
                        Yup. The 1994 AWB was not repealed. It expired.

                        Originally posted by LRRPF52 View Post
                        Also, look at all the headway that has been made with Concealed carry across most States.
                        Not relevant to the situation at the Federal level.

                        Originally posted by LRRPF52 View Post
                        The Heller vs DC case in the SCOTUS was another major victory for freedom in the US, so the premise that all gun legislation is uni-directional favoring the communists is not supported by real events and legislation, court rulings, and judicial review.
                        The Heller decision is a court ruling, not legislation.

                        Originally posted by LRRPF52 View Post
                        We also had a major win with getting rid of decades of Federal abuse with firearms carry on Federal lands.
                        That's nice. How many Federal gun laws been repealed?

                        Comment

                        • montana
                          Chieftain
                          • Jun 2011
                          • 3209

                          #57
                          Originally posted by stanc View Post
                          Yup. The 1994 AWB was not repealed. It expired.


                          Not relevant to the situation at the Federal level.


                          The Heller decision is a court ruling, not legislation.


                          That's nice. How many Federal gun laws been repealed?
                          Hers some legislation https://www.nraila.org/articles/20110125/no-surrender

                          Comment

                          • stanc
                            Banned
                            • Apr 2011
                            • 3430

                            #58
                            Originally posted by montana View Post
                            First of all Stan machine guns were not banned but overly taxed.
                            The 1968 GCA only restricted foreign made firearms and put more restrictions when purchasing them.
                            The 1986 machine gun ban restricted new manufacturing of machine guns not the ones already in the public domain.
                            The 1994 assault weapon banned the furniture,"looks" not the firearms and gun owners didn't accept it hence it was allowed to expire after the dem's lost control of congress.
                            I didn't say the 1934 NFA banned machine guns.
                            Yes, the 1986 machine gun ban was on new production. But a ban is still a ban.
                            The 1994 assault weapons ban expired because it had a fixed term. Nothing to do with non-acceptance by gun owners. If it hadn't had an expiration date, it's unlikely it would have been repealed.

                            And none of what you wrote above negates my point: Gun owners bitched about all those laws, but "the fabric of American society" was not shattered, the laws were accepted, and life went on.

                            Originally posted by montana View Post
                            War is a part of politics which make politics a part of war according to Clauzwitz:
                            Politics and war are certainly intertwined, but politics is not war.
                            War is organized violence, death and destruction on a large scale.
                            Lobbying for, and passing, legislation in Congress ain't any of that.

                            Comment

                            • montana
                              Chieftain
                              • Jun 2011
                              • 3209

                              #59
                              Originally posted by stanc View Post
                              I didn't say the 1934 NFA banned machine guns.
                              Yes, the 1986 machine gun ban was on new production. But a ban is still a ban.
                              The 1994 assault weapons ban expired because it had a fixed term. Nothing to do with non-acceptance by gun owners. If it hadn't had an expiration date, it's unlikely it would have been repealed.

                              And none of what you wrote above negates my point: Gun owners bitched about all those laws, but "the fabric of American society" was not shattered, the laws were accepted, and life went on.


                              Politics and war are certainly intertwined, but politics is not war.
                              War is organized violence, death and destruction on a large scale.
                              Lobbying for, and passing, legislation in Congress ain't any of that.
                              I would love to continue this but I think we have strayed a little too far from the OP, so I will end it here before I get into more trouble

                              Comment

                              • stanc
                                Banned
                                • Apr 2011
                                • 3430

                                #60
                                Originally posted by montana View Post
                                LOL. The 1986 FOPA eliminated some provisions of the 1968 GCA, but did not repeal it.
                                Worse yet, the FOPA "protected" us out of the manufacture of a whole class of firearms.

                                Do you know what a "Pyrrhic victory" is?
                                Last edited by stanc; 09-18-2017, 10:16 PM.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X