New GOP gun law.

[Machinegunner]

Have any of you seen the new Bumpski Bill??? There is no mention of bumski stocks in it. It addresses speed increasers. It is very vague and could be interpreted to be anything they decide. If you get caught with any gun or part that can increase the speed of a semi auto it's 5 years in jail. The Dems. want 10 years. If it passes, and 10 Reps signed on, they could immediately out law all semi autos over night. There are many ways to increase the ratr of fire just by the way you hold the weapon. Looks like only outlaws and terrorists will be able to have them.

[ARtraveler]

You raise good points.

[Bob Denman]

You're being just a bit paranoid... It's the ownership of the parts necessary to "speed things up" that causes the problem. It's not the semi-automatic firearm!

Give the scumbags a mandatory 20 year term behind bars: we need to save our firearms rights for those of us who are willing to own them in a responsible manner...

[Navydad]

Problem is a lot of the folks in government can't or refuse to differentiate between scumbags and those of us who are willing to own them in a responsible manner.

[UtahPete]

Problem is a lot of the folks in government can't or refuse to differentiate between scumbags and those of us who are willing to own them in a responsible manner.

Anybody on this forum work for the government? Want to address that?

[IdahoMtnSpyder]

Problem is a lot of the folks in government can't or refuse to differentiate between scumbags and those of us who are willing to own them in a responsible manner.

Anybody on this forum work for the government? Want to address that?

I worked for Uncle and have been involved in writing and enforcing various regulations and contract provisions. Can't is a much more accurate word than is refuse as used in the quote above. And it's not can't because of incompetence or inability, it's can't because there is such a variation differentiating the two sides that it is impractical, if not impossible, to determine where the sharp line needs to be to have a fair binary split.

You can just as readily use the words responsible and irresponsible, considerate and selfish, and so on. When the actions of the negative side become so egregious or widespread that legislators at any level feel the need to create limitations and restrictions, they invariably will be onerous to some of those on the positive side. As an illustration, if all drivers were concerned about the safety of children around schools and so drove slowly and watchfully in those areas, there would no need for school zone speed limits which for some conscientious drivers are unnecessarily restrictive.

[wyliec]

I worked for Uncle and have been involved in writing and enforcing various regulations and contract provisions. Can't is a much more accurate word than is refuse as used in the quote above. And it's not can't because of incompetence or inability, it's can't because there is such a variation differentiating the two sides that it is impractical, if not impossible, to determine where the sharp line needs to be to have a fair binary split.

You can just as readily use the words responsible and irresponsible, considerate and selfish, and so on. When the actions of the negative side become so egregious or widespread that legislators at any level feel the need to create limitations and restrictions, they invariably will be onerous to some of those on the positive side. As an illustration, if all drivers were concerned about the safety of children around schools and so drove slowly and watchfully in those areas, there would no need for school zone speed limits which for some conscientious drivers are unnecessarily restrictive.

Can you condense that into one or two sentences of words with one or two syllables? Also, check out your last sentence. I think you are missing a word of one syllable.

[SPECTACUALR SPIDERMAN]

better buy your bazooka's while you still can

[Bob Denman]

Can you condense that into one or two sentences of words with one or two syllables? Also, check out your last sentence. I think you are missing a word of one syllable.

Ron... "Gov-Speak" 'Nuff said!

[Fatcycledaddy]

As an illustration, if all drivers were concerned about the safety of children around schools and so drove slowly and watchfully in those areas, there would no need for school zone speed limits which for some conscientious drivers are unnecessarily restrictive.

If the conscientious drivers are driving at normal speeds and obeying the law, then they don't find speed zone unnecessarily offensive, what they find offensive is when a NEW or SECOND law that restricts them further is put into place because others are breaking the current law.
If the drivers who are not concerned about safety and do not drive conscientiously around schools now breaking the law, what makes you think they will obey the next law that is put in place.

Edgewood MD shooter was arrested 42 times, he was a convicted felon who could not own a firearm and yet was arrested for having an illegal gun and ammo in his car, this in itself was a felony, he had a restraining order against him filed by the employer where the shooting took place.

So if a person is willing to break the law by killing someone, break the law by owning a gun as a felon, break the law of the restraining order, how would one more law have stopped this?

NO NUMBER OF LAWS WILL STOP IT, if people want to kill someone they will find a way to do it no matter what laws are in place.

That is why new laws only restrict the law abiding or conscientious citizen, and have NO affect on the people who want to kill.

[Bob Denman]

The problem isn't the laws: it's the lack of swift, severe, and certain punishment.
If punishments are harsh enough: the scumbags will eventually figure out that it's just not worth it.

[Orange Spyder Man]

The "anti-gun establishment" constantly looks for opportunities to disarm Americans... once they get a foot in the door its game over..

osm

[Fatcycledaddy]

The problem isn't the laws: it's the lack of swift, severe, and certain punishment.
If punishments are harsh enough: the scumbags will eventually figure out that it's just not worth it.

So are you saying that the punishment for gun law violation should be harsher than the punishment for murder?

For years we had the death penalty for murder, for years there was quick and sometimes incorrect punishment with the wrong people being put to death because of the quickness, and yet there were and still are murders each and every day.

So what would you suggest as swift, severe, and certain punishment that goes beyond the death penalty and would stop this?

[Bob Denman]

As responsible gunowners: we owe it to ourselves to follow the rules and act responsibly. EVERY firearm tragedy just adds ammo to their arsenal... and robs us of ours!

[BitSlayer]

More laws are not the issue. The true issue is enforcement of the existing laws. We need to get a judicial system that is concerned with enforcement the laws and not legislating what they want the laws to be.

[Machinegunner]

Semi automatics were invented in the 1890s. These weapons are not the problem. Something happened to our society, we have to fix that, not the guns.

[SPECTACUALR SPIDERMAN]

enforce to the fullest extent the existing laws that we have. if you are caught during a felony crime with an unlicensed
gun then no plea bargain and no good time for early release.

[UtahPete]

enforce to the fullest extent the existing laws that we have. if you are caught during a felony crime with an unlicensed
gun then no plea bargain and no good time for early release.

Laws vary from state to state. Licensing isn't a requirement in most places any more.

[UtahPete]

More laws are not the issue. The true issue is enforcement of the existing laws. We need to get a judicial system that is concerned with enforcement the laws and not legislating what they want the laws to be.

What laws is the judicial system not enforcing?

[UtahPete]

Can you condense that into one or two sentences of words with one or two syllables?

I'll try. Since when in America is there a dividing line between 'folks in government' and those of us being governed? I find the whole proposition of that post to be ludicrous and unhelpful in understanding the issue.

[Bob Denman]

"What laws is the judicial system not enforcing?"

Plea-bargaining, and minimum sentences that never seem to keep a scumbag incarcerated for even that short period of time...

[UtahPete]

Semi automatics were invented in the 1890s. These weapons are not the problem. Something happened to our society, we have to fix that, not the guns.

When semi-automatics were invented, we didn't have the NRA promoting their unlicensed ownership, propelled by irrational fear of government control. In fact, we don't have to go back that far to a time when widespread ownership of guns by the general populace was unheard of. Then, the weapons manufacturers, who weren't satisfied with a shrinking market after the major wars wound down, used the NRA to promote gun ownership any way they could. The rest is history.

[UtahPete]

"What laws is the judicial system not enforcing?" Plea-bargaining, and minimum sentences that never seem to keep a scumbag incarcerated for even that short period of time...

That could be said for any number of crimes. I'm asking which gun control laws are not being enforced, which if better enforced would negate the need for more gun control?

[UtahPete]

The "anti-gun establishment" constantly looks for opportunities to disarm Americans... once they get a foot in the door its game over.. osm

Well, we know who the pro-gun establishment is - the NRA. Who is the anti-gun establishment?

[Bob Denman]

HCI... or whatever it is, that they're calling themselves now.