Discussion in 'ABV' started by CarolKing, Jul 11, 2015.
It's actually a very neat weapons system. The mag style is a problem with our current modular rail system though.
From a zombie POV? You need a head shot so accuracy and capacity is way more important than caliber and stopping power.
The Calico also comes in .22lr, the most easily scavenged round. Add a basic laser sight and you can stop an entire horde of the undead with a single mag!
So you are willing to license weapons of mass murder? What are the requirements?
Yes. I've posted about this several times. It should be similar to obtaining a pilot's license. Mental health screening, comprehensive training, and certifications/re-certs.
That seems more like a well regulated militia than the system we have now, where an insane 18 year old can easily buy an AR-15 and kill 17 people in a few minutes.
I'm Republican. I Appreciate Assault Weapons. And I Support a Ban. - The New York Times
4 days ago · By BRIAN MAST FEB. ... For example, the purchase of fully automatic firearms is largely banned already, and I cannot purchase an AT-4 rocket, grenades, a Bradley fighting vehicle or
Pilot licenses cost about $5000 to $11000 dollars for the training, depending on what license you are going for.
Mental health screening there is $200 to $400 dollars
Yearly recertification another $200 to $400
incidentals like background checks, actual licenses, range time etc another $200 to $300 or so.
So if my figures are close (honestly I think they are) it could cost in the neighborhood of $5500 and up to meet your model and that effectively prices most folks out of the market. Even if you start slashing corners and you get the price down to $4000 dollars you are still keeping lots of regular people from owning something that has been and is now legal.
Perfect, that's the goal!
I doubt it would be anything close to $4000 per YEAR. But you pay to register your car, for driver's ed, license fees. If you want to own an AR-15 or related weapon... you'll need to pay a little for training, and certification fees.
Don't want to deal with that? Defend your property with a shotgun.
Or, we can just ban them outright. I'd rather avoid that, but you can tell that's the direction we're heading.
IMO a DMV style licensing and registration should be a minimum requirement for all guns though, not just assault rifles.
It's still your right but there's effort and responsibility required.
Ideally, yes. But you can see the pushback there is about just registering AR-15's and other assault type weapons. I still think licensing and registering makes this whole thing way more of a "well regulated militia" than the current free-for-all.
You are entitled to challenge my assessment what do you think it would cost?
Driver license level certification would be pointless considering all the the clowns in cars who keep qualifying at that level. If you want to require pilot level training, real mental health checks and license maintenance its going to cost more than many can afford. Give me a dollar figure you think will work and be fair to all citizens.
...Or we can enforce and fund the current laws, police our communities better, provide mental health care and be willing to look after one own safety needs so we don't have to lay down yet another set of restriction on top of the ones that havn't worked. There ain't only one way forward.
Where I live a shotgun dosn't make sense also not a concern, so while I appreciate your concern it only illustrates your ignorance of the situation and yet your willingness to hand out bad suggestions.
My "bad suggestions" are trying to keep assault weapons legal. You're welcome to make a few yourself, because the current system is going to change whether you like it or not. You see the level of hysteria now. We will inevitably have a few more mass shootings this year. The cry for "bans" will reach a fever pitch.
I have no idea what putting in place a certification and training system will cost. I don't really care. If you want to own an AR-15, you should be qualified to do so. That includes training and certifying that you have met certain qualifications.
You really think trying to ensure only qualified people are wielding AR's is unreasonable?
"If we're often not giving teachers the pencils and the papers that they need to be able to have a classroom," she said, "I don't think we'll be putting guns in the hands of teachers."
Richard Schwab is an education professor at UConn who trains school leaders. He said teachers should be armed, but not with a weapon.
"I think what we arm teachers with is knowledge," he said, adding that teachers should be prepared for school shootings, but using a gun shouldn't be part of that preparation.
"We could never prepare every teacher for every social ill," Schwab said. "We really ask a lot of our teachers. Is this one more thing? Yes. Is it the breaking point for teachers and people who want to become teachers? I don't think it is."
However, teacher shortages have been a problem for almost a decade. Many have been leaving the profession faster than they can be replaced. Enrollment in teacher preparation programs has been declining nearly every year since 2009, according to the U.S. Department of Education.
But Schwab said it's other factors — like increased attention on tests and less classroom freedom — that's driving teachers away. Possibly giving their lives for their students, isn't one of them.
"This is part of life today," he said. "Unfortunately we've had a number of experiences like this in our nation's schools. But we all have to deal with this, and we all can't hide in our homes."
Twenty-three-year-old Emily Cipriano agreed. Having grown up in a post-Columbine world, she's always been aware of school violence.
"There are so many different roles that teachers already play," she said. "I understand that this now is a huge role — you're essentially saying you're here to save a student's life. But I just think that's something we've always considered."
For Cipriano, school shootings are another part of the ever-growing list of things that teachers are asked to handle.
No the "bad suggestions" I was referring to.... florduh "Don't want to deal with that? Defend your property with a shotgun"
To which I responded with "Where I live a shotgun doesn't make sense also not a concern, so while I appreciate your concern it only illustrates your ignorance of the situation and yet your willingness to hand out bad suggestions.
florduh "You're welcome to make a few yourself, because the current system is going to change whether you like it or not.".....
So I am willing to deal with this but your not going to like some of it.
First I would like a review of all state and national firearms rules if the mandates are not being funded and enforced fix it.
Second I am also a fan of education, gun safety courses taught in schools tailored to the students needs is something I suspect would save lives. In the same vein let some of those CMP rifles loose to local clubs who are willing to teach marksmanship.
Beyond educations I would like to see better mental health care for all so a hobby dosn't turn into a terror. Protective services need to be upgraded (both law enforcement and social services)
Sadly I don't think any of that is going to happen because too many people are looking for a regulation centric approach to guns.
florduh "because the current system is going to change whether you like it or not.....Unless you can see into the future you can't state that as reality, just like you couldn't know my thoughts without being able to read my mind over the Internet.
florduh "You see the level of hysteria now. We will inevitably have a few more mass shootings this year. The cry for "bans" will reach a fever pitch."You have more faith in the attention span, willingness to invest time and funds into getting something done then I do. Of course with Trump in office you can't really tell where policy might go.
florduh "I have no idea what putting in place a certification and training system will cost. I don't really care."... So if you can't afford the buy in you can't own a gun, do you really think that would fly in court?
florduh "You really think trying to ensure only qualified people are wielding AR's is unreasonable?" Lets see in the world where I live the semi auto rifles are not uncommon, none of the owners have shot up each other or a crowd full of children so to me they are alright.
At least one Democrat had the courage to make the call of what an "assault weapon" is. Of course, the proposed ban covers a lot of weapons out there. I think, under their definition, I have 6 assault weapons. I haven't bought a firearm in over 30 years.
The Assault Weapons Ban of 2018 will prohibit the sale, transfer, production, and importation of:
· Semi-automatic rifles and pistols with a military-style feature that can accept a detachable magazine;
· Semi-automatic rifles with a fixed magazine that can hold more than 10 rounds;
· Semi-automatic shotguns with a military-style feature;
· Any ammunition feeding device that can hold more than 10 rounds;
· And 205 specifically-named and listed firearms.
It's not going to pass--because it's stupid. But, even if it did and the Supreme Court approves, Civil War II (Electric Boogaloo) will prevent confiscation. [Most probably from prohibition level ignoring.] At least it will be an honest vote without a lot of slippery slope argument as, while there can be more slope to travel, this will be far enough to show the goal. We'll see how the politicians feel about the polls that some say make the vote easy.
What a joke! This would ban half of the handguns out there. They wont be happy until they get their Stalin type gun ban. This is why I have assault rifles and a stash of ammo! The crazy left scares the shit out of me!
Brier Rabbit (aka gun manufacturers) says, "No! Don't propose a bill to ban my weapons!"
And the crazy right scares the shit out of me, and therein lies the problem with both of us AND this country. Until we can put this illogical fear to rest we're fucked.
And...........my response above is kinda fucked because I have no idea if you were talking about the minority on the left that ARE crazy or if you were labeling the whole left as crazy and it's this misunderstanding that creates the fear that I'm talking about.
And I condemn anyone on either side that recognizes this existing fear and uses it to support AND manipulate their own agenda, and yeah, I know most of you are thinking "Trump" when I say this but this shit happens on the left as well.
I say............FUCK FEAR !!!!
Ok, stepin' down from mah soapbox now.......
The difference is I am a responsible gun owner. I have a safe and have used guns sinse I was 12. You want to infringe on my rights. I dont want ti infringe on your rights.
Edit: Arent you labeling the right in one group? My gun collection isnt hurting you in any way. So why come after my rights?
I can see how well most of you studied my last post, you know.
I'm not choosing sides here. Both sides have repeatedly engaged in dishonest debate tactics. Both sides have continued to do so even after I posted a list of them. Both sides keep repeating themselves. In particular, as I said already, both sides are using inflammatory language. Nobody has budged an inch, nobody has come even close to expressing an open mind. I don't see any change in attitudes on the horizon even though I've given direction as to how you can have a civil debate.
FC isn't a political forum and only provides the Lounge for the entertainment of our members, and this is anything but entertaining. I'm having a really hard time seeing why this thread shouldn't be closed.
Hey once upon a time slavery was a right in this country. We grew up as a nation.
Although it wasn't pretty, and some folks are still sore losers bout that.
Yup, sure way to keep the thread open.
But, as long as it's out there, were you aware the Black Panthers are generally credited with the current gun rights agenda by marching on California's capitol, armed? Reagan (and the NRA) thought that more gun control was the answer. You may determine if gun control then was racist or not. One story that motivated whitey: ( https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2011/09/the-secret-history-of-guns/308608/ )
In February of 1967, Oakland police officers stopped a car carrying Newton, Seale, and several other Panthers with rifles and handguns. When one officer asked to see one of the guns, Newton refused. “I don’t have to give you anything but my identification, name, and address,” he insisted. This, too, he had learned in law school.
“Who in the hell do you think you are?” an officer responded.
“Who in the hell do you think you are?,” Newton replied indignantly. He told the officer that he and his friends had a legal right to have their firearms.
Newton got out of the car, still holding his rifle.
“What are you going to do with that gun?” asked one of the stunned policemen.
“What are you going to do with your gun?,” Newton replied.
By this time, the scene had drawn a crowd of onlookers. An officer told the bystanders to move on, but Newton shouted at them to stay. California law, he yelled, gave civilians a right to observe a police officer making an arrest, so long as they didn’t interfere. Newton played it up for the crowd. In a loud voice, he told the police officers, “If you try to shoot at me or if you try to take this gun, I’m going to shoot back at you, swine.” Although normally a black man with Newton’s attitude would quickly find himself handcuffed in the back of a police car, enough people had gathered on the street to discourage the officers from doing anything rash. Because they hadn’t committed any crime, the Panthers were allowed to go on their way.
The people who’d witnessed the scene were dumbstruck. Not even Bobby Seale could believe it. Right then, he said, he knew that Newton was the “baddest motherfucker in the world.” Newton’s message was clear: “The gun is where it’s at and about and in.” After the February incident, the Panthers began a regular practice of policing the police. Thanks to an army of new recruits inspired to join up when they heard about Newton’s bravado, groups of armed Panthers would drive around following police cars. When the police stopped a black person, the Panthers would stand off to the side and shout out legal advice.
Don Mulford, a conservative Republican state assemblyman from Alameda County, which includes Oakland, was determined to end the Panthers’ police patrols. To disarm the Panthers, he proposed a law that would prohibit the carrying of a loaded weapon in any California city. When Newton found out about this, he told Seale, “You know what we’re going to do? We’re going to the Capitol.” Seale was incredulous. “The Capitol?” Newton explained: “Mulford’s there, and they’re trying to pass a law against our guns, and we’re going to the Capitol steps.” Newton’s plan was to take a select group of Panthers “loaded down to the gills,” to send a message to California lawmakers about the group’s opposition to any new gun control.
Good thing minorities don't have anything to fear in America any longer.
I guess un armed black people have nothing to fear in America??
For an actually new idea that both sides might agree to:
This might therefore be a good time to consider a middle-ground proposal developed by two law professors, Fred Vars of the University of Alabama and my Yale colleague Ian Ayres. Their idea was originally aimed at reducing gun suicides. This is no small problem. The number of deaths from mass shootings each year, while horrific, is dwarfed by the 21,000 people who take their own lives annually using guns. But the authors’ suggestion might also be useful in reducing mass shootings -- and without provoking arguments over the scope of the right to bear arms (more on that in a later column).
At the heart of the proposal by Ayres and Vars is an elegant yet simple device. The state establishes a “No Gun” registry. Joining is entirely voluntary, but upon adding my name, I give up my right to purchase a firearm. Not forever. Not for some set period of time. The waiver is in effect only until I change my mind, which I am free to do whenever I like.
Sound too easy? This is where the elegant part comes in. When I join, I can supply the email addresses for people who should be notified if I change my mind. If I decide later to drop my name from the registry, nobody can stop me, but there’s a three-week cooling-off period. During that fortnight and a half, the state notifies whomever I listed as a contact when joining the registry. The idea is that if I’m disturbed or depressed or given to bouts of temper, my contacts can try to talk me out of buying a gun -- and, if I’m adamant, they might try to take stronger action, such as having me held for observation.
The proposal is aimed particularly at the mentally ill, who might, during their lucid periods, agree to join the No Guns registry. If you’re skeptical, be aware that the authors have conducted surveys suggesting that nearly half of those with diagnosed mental illnesses would sign up. This matters because, despite recent prominent claims to the contrary, it’s pretty clear that mental illness often plays an important role in mass shootings as well....
Separate names with a comma.