TheGreatBuzz

Well LSF, one day when you are queen, you can enact those rules. Until then you have to be willing to work with the other side. As to tshile and Burgold debating, I get tshiles points and Burgolds points. I think the "why" someone wants something done can greatly effect peoples opinion on it. Liken it to the voter ID laws. Assume you have zero knowledge of the political world and peoples motives. I come up to you and say "hey you need an ID to do everything else in this country. Should we require an ID to vote?" Most people would say sure. It's not until you get into why the right wants to do it that it starts getting controversial. I think everyone should have to show an ID to vote but I hate the reasons my party wants it. Same with guns. Between some of the statements from the more far-left crazies in the D party and the gun laws enacted in very liberal areas, I get nervous as to what the left's end game is. Do I think the left simply wants background checks out of the goodness of their hearts to save poor little johnny? **** no! They want to be able to show their voters that they got something done. And at least some in that party want to get to where almost no civilian can have a gun so this is just seen as one step closer. This is why the right hates it so much. Scared of the end game. I personally am for increasing background checks (and some other mild reforms I have previously stated) AND for requiring ID to vote. I don't like WHY they are being used but seem common sense at face value. But same with gun control, the right needs to fix the message if they want a real change to voter ID. That was a quick ramble. Did it make sense?

I'm going to a gun show this weekend. I'm definetly buying a glock 42. Also going to look for an AR speed loader, some cheap spare magazines, maybe a large caliber revolver, possibly a home defense shotgun, and good deals on ammo. I bet I'm in and out in less than two hours.

Looking at the gun vote right down party lines and they wonder why we think nourish government is broken.

I don't think there are many (in here at least) that are saying otherwise. If someone were trying to say the 2nd is absolute, they would be saying a person should be able to have machine guns, heat seeking missiles, and nuclear weapons. After all, the 2nd says "bear arms" not "bear guns". The issue that brings discussion is WHERE to draw the line. That same issue comes up with all rights. How much hate speech do we allow? Do we let the Klan protest on the National Mall? All rights have lines and we as a society have to decide where that line is. I personally believe in siding with the person or group when possible. I think rights should be read with the broadest reasonable interpretation. I would be highly upset if the Klan weren't allowed to assemble on the national mall or if it became illegal for someone to call me cracker. Even though I don't like it, I believe in the right to do it.

I'm on my phone so can't look it up. What are the ages of the big mass shooters? I actually have no clue.

That's because hardly anyone turns in guns. They were probably caught off guard and didn't know what to do.

I'm starting to agree with tshile too much. I'm scared.

C I like to screw with pollsters.

I wonder how much price changes by area. I can get a brand new Bushmaster QRC for $600 here in Pensacola. By no means is that a nice AR but it will serve someones purpose. I can also find them well into the thousands of dollars.

I know that. I was pointing it out for the less informed in here. And states where you can't do that, you can drive to a neighboring state and do it. That's one of the things people are complaining about.

Also to note that doesn't apply to long guns.

The point about the 3 year old was to show the ridiculousness of some people being on the list. I wasn't worried about the 3 year olds right to buy a gun.

With the way the terrorist watch list currently works, yes. Improve the way that system works and speed up the process for someone to get off it that shouldn't be there (3 year olds for example) and then we can talk about using that list.

Well that didn't last long. How do we get the details on what they are going to vote on?

So are the Dems still talking and holding the floor? How do you track that? And are they then negotiating in a side room? Any way to find out what is being discussed?

So with this filibuster, how long is it supposed to last? When she we expect to hear some details of a compromise? I don't really know much of how all this works so I'm just looking for the 30 second brief.

I'm a little nervous to see how this plays out. I'm all for smart gun reform, I just don't have the faith in Congress to think whatever they try to do will actually be smart.

I'm starting to see the ol' Gun Show Loophole term get thrown around again. I'm curious to see what people think/know of the actual Gun Show Loophole. No cheating! For the record I'm against the gun show loophole, I just think it isn't as big a deal as people make it out to be. EDIT: By that, I mean WHAT IS the gun show loophole, not what you think OF it.

As the resident gun nut (at least I've been labeled a gun nut not by myself) I'd be mostly fine with that. I'd want handguns registered including revolvers. In exchange I'd want a limit on how long the waiting period can be for each. Say 5 working days for a "short waiting period" and 10 working days for the "long waiting period". After all, if I can get pulled over and the police can immediate find out I have a warrant in Alaska, there is no reason they shouldn't be able to check everything in 10 days. The mental health check part I'd need more details on. And all private party transactions must be filed with some agency to be set up. I think that's pretty good though. EDIT: Would I have to do all that with EACH gun purchase? Only reason I ask is in Florida currently you get a check and then get issued your CCW. Once you have a CCW, you can walk in and buy with no waiting period. You have to renew your license and get rechecked every so often, 5 years if I remember correctly. Honestly, I'm not sure how I feel about that. EDIT#2: I assume semi-auto shot guns would require the longer wait?

I could get behind that but there would need to be some sort of qualification/training program. Something like the one that smart reasonable gun owners have already said they would support. The problem is that except for the most hard core "gun nuts" and extreme "gun control" people, most of us can agree on some reasonable gun control. But I will never be allowed to even be discussed as long as the NRA has control of the politicians. We need to stop arguing about what gun law or gun ban needs to be enacted. We are wasting our time. We need to focus on how to get SOMETHING passed.

yea that sounds a little more reasonable. 10 yards isn't bad. Hitting dead center at 20 yards isn't hard but it's the time limit that will get you. Accurate follow up shots are 10x harder than the initial shot so if you don't have time to reset, that's where the real skill comes in.

That is a pretty common target for that type of test. And the bullseye on that type of target is only a couple of square inches. That's pretty impressive to get a perfect score (43 of 43 bullseyes) @ 20 yards in less than a minute. Also having the mental capacity to carry and the physical skill to hit a target reliably are two totally different things. Though their scores that they are telling you about may involve a little "biggest fish ever but got away" scoring too.

So you think pretty much all non-revolver pistols shouldn't be allowed in public? That was one of the main reasons for I pointed out the numbers. The sad fact is that, given an enclosed area like a club, a person could do roughly the same amount of harm with a pistol or an AR. That and to show how the "hundreds of rounds a minute" that gets thrown around (not just you but the media also) isn't really accurate. I'm also really surprised more of these people don't go in with a shotgun and hand guns honestly. A shotgun with #1 buck shot will clear a room quickly and effectively. Then go around with a pistol or two afterwards. Lets just hope the crazies don't figure that one out.

All good info. I'd be interested to see how it is scored. Competitions score based on how close to the bullseye. Is this just a go/no go on hitting the target? What is the target size? If this person is hitting 43 bulls eyes at 20 yards, that's pretty good. I don't think I could do that in a minute and I consider myself a pretty good shot. But I wouldn't consider a test like this (maybe loosen the passing requirements. That's why I asked about how it is scored) a bad thing to get your CCW license though. And the last sentence can't be emphasized enough. There are people who couldn't hit the ground with an "assault rifle" and there are people who shoot dimes at 100 yards with black powder.

In my opinion this is another place where knowledge level may need to be increased. (please don't think I'm calling you stupid, just that you may not be informed) You say hundreds of rounds a minute. The average shooter with an AR (or any semi-auto rifle) can't shoot hundreds of rounds a minute even if they 100% ignore accuracy. Now you will see places that say an AR can shoot 800 rounds a minute but they fail to point out that is in full auto (which is illegal). I would estimate that the average shooter can crank out 150 rounds in a minute if they aren't worrying about hitting a target and factoring in reload time. Now if you are firing at that rate with a lower level AR, chances are good the gun will fail before you even hit 150 rounds due to heat. I higher end AR probably would be less likely to fail. Now if the average shooter wants to hit, say, 80% accuracy at 30 yards, I would guess they would have trouble getting over 80 rounds a minute factoring in reload time. Even that estimate may be high now that I think of it. So are you fine with a weapon that can fire 80 rounds a minute? Now same thing with handguns. Most pistols would be to hot to hold if you tried to fire that much that quickly. Glock does a pretty good job at dissipating heat so I'll use that. Using a Glock and wanting 80% accuracy at 10 yards (reasonable for a pistol) I would put at the same 80 rounds a minute. Numbers wise, this holds true for most any semi-auto pistol. So if you say 80 rounds a minute is too high, you would take out 95% of the pistols in the country. Disclaimer: These are numbers based off of experience. No I didn't do a survey. But I consider myself pretty experienced so these shouldn't be to far off. Yes, you can probably find a video somewhere of a guy hitting targets at 100 yards at a 150 round per minute rate. That person would be a professional and not the subject of the conversation. Though if you do find that video, let me know because that is damn impressive.