# Keeping "people killer" guns from criminals



## Hardtop (Nov 24, 2004)

While back ground checks might keep a small % of hard core criminals from 
-purchasing- guns designed and marketed for killing people, how do we keep the qualified buyers ( ie you and me or our kids ) from going "postal" on a really bad day and wiping out the staff break room/school/movie theater/mall...... with a large capacity semi auto that we bought after a good background check....? This seems to be the trend, regular guys going "bad" or someone stealing the people killers from "us" to do their deed.


----------



## K Metzger (Jun 11, 2010)

If your planning on going postal, and there is no gun available you will find a different weapon to use..
ITS NOT THE GUN ITS THE INDIVIDUAL 

posted using Outdoor Hub Campfire


----------



## ironman172 (Apr 12, 2009)

5 gallon can of gas and a flair would clean a room real quick ....and why do you insist on referring to them as people killers....just stirring the pot I guess and beating that horse dead







....they are no different then any other....it is a tool for delivering a projectile down range....at a specific target....whether an animal,can,paper target or yes even a person....but still a tool....all most anything can kill.... except a wet noodle 

I will learn one day not to respond to these ignorant post


----------



## Mr. A (Apr 23, 2012)

Hardtop said:


> While back ground checks might keep a small % of hard core criminals from
> -purchasing- guns designed and marketed for killing people, how do we keep the qualified buyers ( ie you and me or our kids ) from going "postal" on a really bad day and wiping out the staff break room/school/movie theater/mall...... with a large capacity semi auto that we bought after a good background check....? This seems to be the trend, regular guys going "bad" or someone stealing the people killers from "us" to do their deed.


Just wondering when the last time one of these mass killings was carried out by someone that was a law abiding Joe Citizen one day and shooting up a buisness the next.

From what I remember, all of the most recent killings were carried out by people with mental health problems and/or criminals.

But to answer your question about what's keeping other from stealing your guns.... Nothing. Same thing that keeps them from stealing my vehicle and plowing into a group of kids going to school, same thing that.com no matter what legislation or ban gets implemented, is going to stop them. People that are going to commit a crime like that are always going to find a way.

On a side not Hardtop, you seem to be playing both sides of the fence here. You post says "us" but you have had a negative opinion of semi-autos from the start. As evidence you do call them "People Killers." I have read many of your posts on this subject and you claim to be an outdoorsman and own a gun and believe in the 2nd amendment, then turn right around and argue against other peoples 2nd amendment rights to own a gun of THEIR choosing? 

Either you are against eroding the 2nd amendment or your not. You can't have it both ways on the issue here, right? It's like being pregnant, you either are or your not, you cannot be a little bit pregnant. In this situation, you can't be a little bit for our rights, you either support them or you don't. I don't care which it is honestly, I'll respect your opinion either way. We don't have to agree, and probably won't. But I would rather you stand up fully for what you believe in than straddle the fence and keep rabblerousing with your posts on the subject.

Also, in future posts when you want to talk negatively about an issue PLEASE do not put those that think like me, and those that think like you in the same group by using "us" and "our." It's pretty evident we do nat have the same views or opinion on this subject. Thank you.

Mr. A

(2013)
Bass: 0
catfish: 0
bluegill: 0
Other: 0


----------



## Hardtop (Nov 24, 2004)

Everyone who buys a gun knows exactly what it was designed and marketed for, mine were designed to harvest animals first, and home/country defense as a last resort. I will defend the right to keep and bear those sensable "hunting" guns with cold, dead fingers right along with the rest of you. Lets not forget the "other" important part of the 2nd amendment, "WELL REGULATED"........ Ted, the nra, and the gun lobby wants you to ignor that part. Changing times call for changing "regulations" I accept that concept and understand that reasonable regualtions are required on the "new" people killer guns if we want to keep and bear the hunting guns we inherited from out fathers and grandfathers....


----------



## viper1 (Apr 13, 2004)

No such thing as people killers. But their are killer people. And the ar15 is a 223 and a very popular deer and varmit rifle. Hunting isnt the only gun sport. Their are those that dont kill who love shooting rifles. And th AR is one of the most popular in our country. And literly millions sold. Im totally against it. Well except for full autos. And i hope if you support it they take all your guns. If one cant shoot no one should. Because once they get those the rest is the next to go. 

Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk 2


----------



## Mr. A (Apr 23, 2012)

Hardtop, I don't mean to pick on you but answer this question for me.

If we Americans agree to allow the government to take what guns they want to, and begin an erosion of the 2nd amendment, what will keep them from eventaully eradicating the 2nd amendment. (I do not own any semi-auto weapons by the way) I think that letting the government legislate their way out of a problem is likely to infringe in more areas then the 2nd amendment sooner or later. Do you agree?

If we let the government take anything it sets a precident that the government will use to take other rights, maybe one you actually do support 100%.

Mr. A

(2013)
Bass: 0
catfish: 0
bluegill: 0
Other: 0


----------



## MassillonBuckeye (May 3, 2010)

Why no full autos viper? Isn't that your right as per the constitution? The constitution doesn't say anything about no fully auto weapons.

I think I'm falling under the "till death do you part" or something along those lines. You are responsible for that weapon until you are dead or legally transfer it to someone else legal. Someone burglarizes your place and steals it, you are in big doo doo. Put an echip in them so you can track where they are. The echip being an integral part of the weapon like a key to your car. Also lets you disable the weapon remotely if lost. You guys keep talking about people using bombs etc but that is nowhere near as convenient as grabbing your tommy gun off the wall and hiding it under your coat. The "use anything as a WMD is a red herring. Very few people chose to go that route as opposed to small arms when they want to hurt people. I don't think that is all that unreasonable and doesn't take anyone's gun from them. Just adds a layer of accountability and personal responsibility.


----------



## Agitation Free (Jul 11, 2010)

Hardtop said:


> While back ground checks might keep a small % of hard core criminals from
> -purchasing- guns designed and marketed for killing people, how do we keep the qualified buyers ( ie you and me or our kids ) from going "postal" on a really bad day and wiping out the staff break room/school/movie theater/mall...... with a large capacity semi auto that we bought after a good background check....? This seems to be the trend, regular guys going "bad" or someone stealing the people killers from "us" to do their deed.


Large capacity mags and semi auto firearms is an irrelevant issue. Honestly, how long does it take someone to release a 7rd mag from a 1911 and reload? Or a 10 rd mag from an AR and reload? 1 second, maybe 2. I can just as easily carry ten, 10rd mags of 5.56 as I can five 20 rd mags. And what defines a semi auto? Every time you pull the trigger a round is fired and another is at the ready. Can't the same be said for a D.A. revolver? The problem is that the laws we have now, are not enforced. Mental health is poorly monitored and our government reacts instead of acts. i.e. every gun can kill. Even a .177 cal "semi auto" air pistol or rifle with a 100rd capacity. Will those be banned?


----------



## MassillonBuckeye (May 3, 2010)

You assume the person wielding the weapon knows what they are doing or even a speed loader(1second???) Not always the case. Certainly causes a break in the action and a chance to fumble in a super high stress scenario if nothing else.
The high cap mag isn't a huge issue to me. I don't see 15-20 as high capacity. 40-50 maybe.


----------



## Hardtop (Nov 24, 2004)

Mr "A"........thank you for the opportunity to clarify.... There have always been gun regulations and only lunitics would want a country without some degree of regulation like the constitution suggests. Do any of you realy want your neighbors to have full auto's or drones with smart bombs....... perhaps a nuclear missle or two.....if not then you agree that regulations are nessecary, My only point in all of this is that we don't need the high capacity semi auto weapons to defened our families. A single shot 20 guage will work just fine. I don't fear criminals & gang bangers having "people killer" guns, they just shoot eachother and that is a good thing. I fear regular folks having them and then going postal on a bad day and shooting up innocent people, students........coworkers Thats the trend, and there is no amount of security that will prevent the next massacre if these people killer guns are allowed to be redily available.


----------



## Hook N Book (Apr 7, 2004)

Hardtop said:


> Mr "A"........thank you for the opportunity to clarify.... There have always been gun regulations and only lunitics would want a country without some degree of regulation like the constitution suggests. Do any of you realy want your neighbors to have full auto's or drones with smart bombs....... perhaps a nuclear missle or two.....if not then you agree that regulations are nessecary, My only point in all of this is that we don't need the high capacity semi auto weapons to defened our families. A single shot 20 guage will work just fine. I don't fear criminals & gang bangers having "people killer" guns, they just shoot eachother and that is a good thing. I fear regular folks having them and then going postal on a bad day and shooting up innocent people, students........coworkers Thats the trend, and there is no amount of security that will prevent the next massacre if these people killer guns are allowed to be redily available.


I've got an extra couple hundred of pounds of "HYPE" I'm willing to sell at a really good price...I'll even pay shipping!


----------



## Agitation Free (Jul 11, 2010)

Hardtop said:


> Mr "A"........thank you for the opportunity to clarify.... There have always been gun regulations and only lunitics would want a country without some degree of regulation like the constitution suggests. Do any of you realy want your neighbors to have full auto's or drones with smart bombs....... perhaps a nuclear missle or two.....if not then you agree that regulations are nessecary, My only point in all of this is that we don't need the high capacity semi auto weapons to defened our families. A single shot 20 guage will work just fine. I don't fear criminals & gang bangers having "people killer" guns, they just shoot eachother and that is a good thing. I fear regular folks having them and then going postal on a bad day and shooting up innocent people, students........coworkers Thats the trend, and there is no amount of security that will prevent the next massacre if these people killer guns are allowed to be redily available.


When you start to talk nukes for personal use, your talking crazy. The U.N. already bans the use of nukes and imposes sanctions on COUNTRIES that violate the U.N. agreement. (Just ask North Korea). Furthermore, the U.N. has been in the process of disarmament already for years. If you want a single shot 20 guage to protect yourself, fine. Pray that your aim is true and there is only 1 bad guy and he has a single shot 20 gauge as well. I want the liberty to protect myself and my family with what I believe is necessary.


----------



## eatinbass (Aug 6, 2012)

I like my Hunting AR..


----------



## Gills63 (Mar 29, 2012)

The only people that have "people killer guns" are people killers. Other people might own the same exact guns, but without the act/intent there is no clever title.

People commit atrocities, they always have. Even before the first gun was ever dreamed of. Doesn't make it okay, but the fact remains that people are the issue. 

Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine


----------



## Agitation Free (Jul 11, 2010)

MassillonBuckeye said:


> You assume the person wielding the weapon knows what they are doing or even a speed loader(1second???) Not always the case. Certainly causes a break in the action and a chance to fumble in a super high stress scenario if nothing else.
> The high cap mag isn't a huge issue to me. I don't see 15-20 as high capacity. 40-50 maybe.


I'm not assuming anything. My post said nothing about "doing a speed loader in 1 second". And if your a good guy, you should know what you're doing. If you're a bad guy, I hope you don't. I don't believe the bad guys and the nuts are under stress when creating a heinous act. I believe they're on an adrenaline rush.


----------



## Mr. A (Apr 23, 2012)

Hardtop said:


> Mr "A"........thank you for the opportunity to clarify.... There have always been gun regulations and only lunitics would want a country without some degree of regulation like the constitution suggests. Do any of you realy want your neighbors to have full auto's or drones with smart bombs....... perhaps a nuclear missle or two.....if not then you agree that regulations are nessecary, My only point in all of this is that we don't need the high capacity semi auto weapons to defened our families. A single shot 20 guage will work just fine. I don't fear criminals & gang bangers having "people killer" guns, they just shoot eachother and that is a good thing. I fear regular folks having them and then going postal on a bad day and shooting up innocent people, students........coworkers Thats the trend, and there is no amount of security that will prevent the next massacre if these people killer guns are allowed to be redily available.


Hardtop,

While I respect you opinion and have fought for your right to express it I feel the need to point a few things out to you that you apparently do not realize, or simply refuse to believe in order to justify sitting on the fence here:

First you wrote: "do you really want you neighbor to have full auto's or maybe a Drone with smart bombs and a nuclear missle or two"

Full auto's are fine by me if they are within the law. Do you even know what the laws are or do you prefer to site things without the facts.

And where do you live that any us citizen owns a drone, a smart bomb, or a nuke. Your examples are emotional knee jerk reactions added to your apparent lack of facts.

"Don't fear gangbanger or criminals with high capacity "peopel Killers" cause they just shoot each other and that's ok," 

Yet you fear regular (law abiding?) Folks having them? Seriously? You just advocated to allow bangers and criminals to have them so they can shoot each other and probably shoot some innocent people while doing it, and your ok with that? Again, you may want to think about what you preach as sound more dangerous than anyone that currently owns a hi-cap semi-auto...... I highly doubt they want that weapon to be ok for bangers and criminals and not law abiding citizens. Not to mention you forgot to research the fact that felons cannot own any firarm, but again your painting yourself as being uneducated in the facts and relying on personal thoughts. That's ok for a conversation so long as your not trying to prove a point.

"There's no amount of securitythat will prevent the next massacre if these "people killers" are readily available."

I would be in complete 100% agreeance with you if you erase everything after the word massacre because the rest of the sentance is burried in personal opinion and is superfelous overall. You right in that nothing is going to stop the next massacre, but taking the guns away won't stop anything, you said so yourself, and am helping me prove my point.

Finally I will ask this one last time. Please feel free to answer without using examples or any terminology regarding firearms:

Do you support the erosion of the rights guarenteed us by the United States Constituion, or not. It's a simple yes or no question, but here's the rub. If you truely believe what you are saying then it's a simple yes with no explination. Any explination makes it a no because you cannot have it both ways. (Can't be a little bit pregnant, right?) However, if you say no, or yes and need to explain, then your arguements are for nothing and we will all know that you were just trying to get our collective goats.

Which is it?


Mr. A

(2013)
Bass: 0
catfish: 0
bluegill: 0
Other: 0


----------



## Gills63 (Mar 29, 2012)

Not to speak for someone else, but I would have to believe the smart bomb/drone comment translates that you have to draw the line somewhere. Where is that line, that's the real debate.

Rarely, if ever, is any topic a straight yes or no. That's why everybody loves true/ false tests right? Because its easiest to only have two options. The world is made up of grey areas, very little is black and white. Take felons for example, why can't they own guns? The constitution doesn't mention infringing on their rights, but we allow it. Seems sort of grey, even if you chaulk it up to the " well regulated" language. 

It seems strange to support the idea of freedom and in the same breath tell someone they are ignorant or wrong if they don't agree with you.

Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine


----------



## Mr. A (Apr 23, 2012)

Gills63 said:


> Not to speak for someone else, but I would have to believe the smart bomb/drone comment translates that you have to draw the line somewhere. Where is that line, that's the real debate.
> 
> Rarely, if ever, is any topic a straight yes or no. That's why everybody loves true/ false tests right? Because its easiest to only have two options. The world is made up of grey areas, very little is black and white. Take felons for example, why can't they own guns? The constitution doesn't mention infringing on their rights, but we allow it. Seems sort of grey, even if you chaulk it up to the " well regulated" language.
> 
> ...


I will assume that this is in response to my last post to Hardtop and I can answer your questions quite easily.

Gray areas are commonly used for those in power to decipher things as they wish. However, gray areas are needed because without them you have collateral damage to unintended bystanders. Gray areas are kind of an exception to the rule so to speak and will forever cause debate. A necessary evil if you will.

As far as felons go I don't see this as a gray area. I believe that felons (or anyone with a conviction for a crime of violence) made a choice to act in an illegal manor therefore forefitting their rights to own guns. This is the law as I know it. However, I see your point. Felons were unable to vote 20 years ago but that has changed today, so the laws are subject to change I suppose.

I don't recall calling anyone ignorant or wrong (your words not mine) at any time. I'm positive I have never called anyone ignorant, but I have expressed my belief that someone's position was not my own. I have stated that while I may disagree I would still respect ones opinion and have tried to do that.

When someone starts or enters a healthy debate they should know that emotion cannot overcome facts. It's not that I was intentionally harassing anyone; I was supporting my side of the debate and using facts and my oppositions comments to support my side, what's wrong with that? It may have hurt some feelings but that was not my intent what so ever.

As far as yes or no questions go I agree that they are rarely so easy. However, as with my question, the answer IS quite easy. I answer the question with NO. No gray area had or needed. If someone else chose YES so be it, that is their choice and I can live with it. What I don't understand is having to explain either answer? 

Thanks for your thoughts by the way!

Mr. A

(2013)
Bass: 0
catfish: 0
bluegill: 0
Other: 0


----------



## MassillonBuckeye (May 3, 2010)

Question: what are some current measures of gun control you think make sense and why?


----------



## eatinbass (Aug 6, 2012)

Hardtop said:


> While back ground checks might keep a small % of hard core criminals from
> -purchasing- guns designed and marketed for killing people, how do we keep the qualified buyers ( ie you and me or our kids ) from going "postal" on a really bad day and wiping out the staff break room/school/movie theater/mall...... with a large capacity semi auto that we bought after a good background check....? This seems to be the trend, regular guys going "bad" or someone stealing the people killers from "us" to do their deed.


With the number of "people killer" guns being used in violent crimes, how much of a difference will a ban make?

This seems to be more about the "look" vs practical laws. 




Posted using Outdoor Hub Campfire


----------



## FISNFOOL (May 12, 2009)

Hardtop said:


> While back ground checks might keep a small % of hard core criminals from
> -purchasing- guns designed and marketed for killing people, how do we keep the qualified buyers ( ie you and me or our kids ) from going "postal" on a really bad day and wiping out the staff break room/school/movie theater/mall...... with a large capacity semi auto that we bought after a good background check....? This seems to be the trend, regular guys going "bad" or someone stealing the people killers from "us" to do their deed.



My short reply:
Background checks prevent all hard core criminals from legally buying guns from a licensed dealer.

These mass murderers always seem to have a disturbed background or "signs" that every one knew about. What is to prevent honest law abiding citizens from suddenly going postal? Physiologists call the fear of law abiding citizens having guns and suddenly going postal, is based on the projection of an individuals own fear that if they had a gun, they WILL go postal simply because they have a gun.


The fact that the Sandy Hook shooter, was able to steal the guns legally owned by his mother indicates the possibility that she did not follow the law and store them securely to prevent a mentally disabled person living in her home from having access to them. Only a trial would have shown the public weather she had them secured in a safe that he broke into after killing her. She probably did followed the law and had the guns in a safe, we will never know.

There is nothing that can be done to prevent a criminal, your kids intent on murder, from stealing a gun. They can kill you, then have all the time in the world to break into your locked safe. But not having a GUN FREE KILLING ZONE will limit their use of the stolen gun.


Here is a point to ponder:
I actually had a discussion with a nurse, so brainwashed by the media, that she told me she was glad there were cops like me to carry guns and protect her, because she is so afraid of guns that she actually throws up if she she one in some ones home. She looked kind of shocked when I told her Cops do not protect you. They arrive on the scene shortly after you have been raped and murdered, to take the report.


----------



## BigV (Nov 11, 2004)

This sums up my opinion pretty well...


> The Guillotine is an instrument designed to kill people.
> 
> The Gun is a multi-purpose tool. If a gun's sole purpose is to kill people, then I own several defective firearms who have failed their intended purpose. I have guns that have only been used for sport and target practice, I have guns that I own purely because they are fun to shoot at inanimate objects, I have guns for hunting, and most importantly I own several guns that are primarily designated for self defense and the defense of my family. Not a single gun I own is to be used for murder.
> 
> Can any of my guns be used to kill people? Yes, but so can my chainsaw, hammer, automobile or many other tools I keep around my home. A screw driver can also be used to open mail, and a shoe can be used to drive nails, but that's not what they were intended to do. A gun can be a very effective tool to kill, but that isn't what all guns are intended or designed for and statistically very few of the hundreds of millions of guns in this country are ever used to kill people.


----------



## Agitation Free (Jul 11, 2010)

I would have loved to see the look on that nurses face when you told her that FISNFOOL!


----------



## FISNFOOL (May 12, 2009)

The look was priceless. The typical deer in the headlights stare.


----------



## billk (Feb 2, 2008)

FISNFOOL said:


> The look was priceless. The typical deer in the headlights stare.


There was a link here on OGF a few weeks ago to a blog on gun control.

One statement sticks in my mind -

"when seconds count - the police are only minutes away"

One question to the OP on this thread:

So the trend is good guys gone bad and going postal? That's your real fear?

Do you have an anxiety disorder and should exclude yourself from gun ownership on grounds of mental instability?


----------



## I_Shock_Em (Jul 20, 2008)

ironman172 said:


> all most anything can kill.... except a wet noodle


I choked on a piece of spaghetti when I was a kid....I thought I was gonna die until Dad gave me the heimlich and it shot out. So don't under estimate a wet noodle


----------



## ironman172 (Apr 12, 2009)

I_Shock_Em said:


> I choked on a piece of spaghetti when I was a kid....I thought I was gonna die until Dad gave me the heimlich and it shot out. So don't under estimate a wet noodle


good thing Dad knew what to do and was there....glad you survived


----------



## dmills4124 (Apr 9, 2008)

Fishinfool Thank you and a vet you brought a tear to my eyes when I read that true statement. I didnt expect that line here. 
Eatinbass I want one sooooo bad. Cash being the only reason I dont own a collection of full auto weapons. 
MR.A you can mark my answer as "NO" in response to if I support the erosion of the Constitution. 
I worked private security in Maryvale Arizona( a suberb west of phx). Over a 3 year period I was shot a three times by Gang bangers. NO THEY DONT JUST KILL EACH OTHER. One round 3 inches from my right foot and another singing just over my head. 
BIGV I have to agree with you about your guns, mine must not be working right either. 
One last remark. The day we had this tragedy in Conn, China had a nut case with a sword that killed 26 kids in a school over there. I guess because ours was done with people killer weapons the sword doesnt qualify for any kind of status. Nor does it qualify for our news here.
thanks Ya'll
donm


----------



## eatinbass (Aug 6, 2012)

billk said:


> There was a link here on OGF a few weeks ago to a blog on gun control.
> 
> One statement sticks in my mind -
> 
> ...


You do pose an interesting question. 


Posted using Outdoor Hub Campfire


----------



## viper1 (Apr 13, 2004)

Had a conversation with a strong opinion of gun control. Her comments was.

No one needs an assault weapon that can shoot 1000 rds a second and cut a brick wall down.

Well even total autos will only shoot maybe 60 rds a minute. and full autos are already illegal to sell. 

Well she said we should ban any ammo used in assault rifles. Its just to dangerous.

I commented that most assault rife uses common hunting rife ammo. .308,5.6, 30 cal, 223 and so forth.

Well she said with that Connecticut killings of mass life's they have to go.

I told her it was true he stole them rifles, but they never left the trunk. And they were shot by common hand guns not assault rifles. Them or your hunting style shot guns are better then a rifle to kill a lot close up.

Then she asked me a question.

Then why do they say Ban assault guns.

Its simple all armies of any try to divide and concour. So take one groups now with the help of those who don't use that type then go after another group then. Also make big claims of banning to take and pass other laws. To get those interested in the rest to vote for this. All political and all the same. Citizens lose in the end.
Kind of puts me thinking how the so called sportsmen separated when they proposed No hunting with cross bows. Well they didn't stop it but they tried real hard. 
My thoughts are we have to many weak minded and wet noddles for a back bone sportsmen today. No loyalty except to themselves and their things they like. Such is the American way of life these days. Just remember a buddy sometimes is no more then another person waiting to stick a knife in your back. Sure glad my buddy's are sportsmen and Strong Americans. The others put a bad taste in my mouth. And im afraid I wouldn't fare well dealing with low life's and cowards. .Im not pointing fingers but you know which you are.
Lets hold those responsible that commit the crimes.. Not others or inanimate objects. Guns dont kill with out bad people, Bartenders don't cause wrecks the drunks do, Go as hard after the druggies as the dealers one is no better then the other and so on and so forth. Restore individual responsibilities. Quit slapping their hands and if they take a life for no reason take theirs. Life sentences are plain dumb and serves no purpose as your not trying for rehabilitation. Your saying their no longer fit to live in this world. So we continue to fill prisons and pay to keep them alive. A death sentence they new would be carried out will cut crime.


----------



## InlandKid (Aug 29, 2006)

So if they ban sale of assault rifles that stops them from buying a complete rifle, but what about buying a parts kit a receiver and a barrel and putting that together yourself all which does not require a ffl for the sale no background check, how they going to stop a felon from doing that? they probably do that now.

posted using Outdoor Hub Campfire


----------



## Mr. A (Apr 23, 2012)

InlandKid said:


> So if they ban sale of assault rifles that stops them from buying a complete rifle, but what about buying a parts kit a receiver and a barrel and putting that together yourself all which does not require a ffl for the sale no background check, how they going to stop a felon from doing that? they probably do that now.
> 
> posted using Outdoor Hub Campfire


If they ban something parts will not be for sale. Any ban I would presume stops manufacturing of those specific weapons and all their parts. Otherwise people would just buy the parts and skip the whole background and all, just as you said.

Not sure how a ban would effect warranties, presuming you are allowed to even keep the gun that's grandfatered in?

To the other poster talking about full auto's.....You can sell fully auto guns. With the right FFL. You can own them with the right permits as well. My local gun shop sells them for thousands of dollars as soon as they arrive!
You cannot own one that was made after 1986 (or close to that) though.


Mr. A

(2013)
Bass: 0
catfish: 0
bluegill: 0
Other: 0


----------



## Mr. A (Apr 23, 2012)

To all,

Ol arnold schartzeneger owns a tank, literally. Google it and you'll see he just had it out for the press and his new movie. That's an assault weapon if I ever seen one, think of what that could do. Semi-autos aren't the problem, peoploe are....

Mr. A

(2013)
Bass: 0
catfish: 0
bluegill: 0
Other: 0


----------



## Berliner (Feb 23, 2011)

Right now you still need to buy the lower receiver from the gun store. Everything else you can mail order.


----------



## ironman172 (Apr 12, 2009)

Berliner said:


> Right now you still need to buy the lower receiver from the gun store. Everything else you can mail order.


right now you can make a lower your self....on a 3d printer 

here is a link for it....and perfectly legal till you try and sell it ....but legal for personal use....also can down load a file to make 30 round ar mag's and lowers from the link on the first video.....very cool to me

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XKAaO26FAvA&feature=youtu.be

a couple others about the same


----------



## eatinbass (Aug 6, 2012)

InlandKid said:


> So if they ban sale of assault rifles that stops them from buying a complete rifle, but what about buying a parts kit a receiver and a barrel and putting that together yourself all which does not require a ffl for the sale no background check, how they going to stop a felon from doing that? they probably do that now.
> 
> posted using Outdoor Hub Campfire


They don't mess around with building them, they steal them.


Posted using Outdoor Hub Campfire


----------



## TomC (Aug 14, 2007)

So I had an interesting conversation today. I work as a corrections officer and saw a group of inmates watching the pres speak. They all started laughing at one point and I asked what was so funny. They all said that a band wouldn't do crap because if they want the guns they know where to go to get them and the background check was useless. One goes 10rd cap on mags? Ill just carry more mags. I just shook my head and continued my walk.


----------



## eatinbass (Aug 6, 2012)

Mr. A said:


> To all,
> 
> Ol arnold schartzeneger owns a tank, literally. Google it and you'll see he just had it out for the press and his new movie. That's an assault weapon if I ever seen one, think of what that could do. Semi-autos aren't the problem, peoploe are....
> 
> ...


It would fall under an AOW...


Posted using Outdoor Hub Campfire


----------



## eatinbass (Aug 6, 2012)

ironman172 said:


> right now you can make a lower your self....on a 3d printer
> 
> here is a link for it....and perfectly legal till you try and sell it ....but legal for personal use....also can down load a file to make 30 round ar mag's and lowers from the link on the first video.....very cool to me
> 
> ...


There are still plenty of 80% receivers to be had, out there. The remaining machining is quite basic. 


Posted using Outdoor Hub Campfire


----------



## viper1 (Apr 13, 2004)

I mentioned the full autos not being sold, but your right I just didn't go into it that far. Criminals don't get FFLs or permits and don't pay thousands. Why should they when they're available on the streets.
And as far as a ban eliminating parts that's hardly ever true. And for the record you can still by kits on line to upgrade different guns to full auto. And that never changed last time we banned full autos. And assault rifles was sold too! That's why they never got the votes to keep the ban on assault rifles in the first place. Oh also how many is aware assault weapons are banned in Connecticut and was at the time of the shooting. And why all the talk when they used pistols any way not rifles.
Some of this argument makes totally no sense unless i'm missing some thing.
And a good question would be why a president would vote for a life time of protection. When he believes guns are dangerous. I'm don't want to get political and close this. But to vote to have armed guard's for schooling of your children and to vote not to have armed guards at the schools of the rest. Just doesn't make sense to me!


----------



## Berliner (Feb 23, 2011)

3D Printers out of stock


----------



## viper1 (Apr 13, 2004)

Berliner said:


> 3D Printers out of stock


Not true! The 3d printers I ran in the die shop could and would produce a full Plastic working model with all parts working and moving. I once laid a crescent wrench in and made miniature working models for k chains.
That was a while back. I would think they can do it with metal by now. And if not I could do it easily on a small or large CNC mill. They are found in many small hobby garages today. As shops continue to keep pace with technology these go to smaller shops then individuals. And a lot of shops allow employs to use after hours or off time to do what they like.
It is possible today for a machinist or such to build a whole gun. Scary what can be built at home for those who know. Personally a smaller pipe bomb would be more deadly in a crowd.


----------



## ironman172 (Apr 12, 2009)

china banned all guns....and no school shooting after....but many still died to axes, swords,knifes, gasoline all in there schools

http://www.sodahead.com/united-stat...eliminates-school-shootings/question-3393279/


----------



## billk (Feb 2, 2008)

Hardtop,

Giving this a bit more thought, along the lines of your thought that the "trend" is good guys going bad and going postal (paraphrased - but you cited that fear twice in this thread)...

http://www.gleamingedge.com/mirrors/onsheepwolvesandsheepdogs.html

You are a sheep fearing sheepdogs everywhere and screaming "BAA-AA-AA-AA!

Don't ask questions that you don't want to hear the answer to. Stay in denial. You're probably better off that way.


----------



## VitalShot (Feb 10, 2012)

Keeping people killer guns from criminals. Really? What's happening in this country. The 23 orders will prob not save one life. It just gives a foot in the door so they can come back and take stronger measures. Pretty much the same way England lost their gun battle. 


Posted using Outdoor Hub Campfire


----------



## ezbite (May 25, 2006)

anyone besides me ever notice hardtop seems to start these threads about guns and just replys long enough to get them going and then dissappears.. you guys think maybe hes got a different agenda then being concerned about all our spotrsman rights, as he'd says he is:S


----------



## MassillonBuckeye (May 3, 2010)

billk said:


> There was a link here on OGF a few weeks ago to a blog on gun control.
> 
> One statement sticks in my mind -
> 
> ...


That's funny you mention that. Reading some of these posts from some individuals the past few weeks has me wondering.... At least you can be pretty sure he isn't sitting on one clutching it imagining someone is trying to take it away.. I think that alone qualifies you for some sort of list somewhere..


----------



## IGbullshark (Aug 10, 2012)

MassillonBuckeye said:


> That's funny you mention that. Reading some of these posts from some individuals the past few weeks has me wondering.... At least you can be pretty sure he isn't sitting on one clutching it imagining someone is trying to take it away.. I think that alone qualifies you for some sort of list somewhere..


what if you had kids (not sure if you do or not) and a group of people started talking about taking them away? people are passionate about their firearms and there is nothing wrong with that.


----------



## percidaeben (Jan 15, 2010)

Uh did someone make a comparison of guns to their own children? Really?


----------



## MassillonBuckeye (May 3, 2010)

ironman172 said:


> right now you can make a lower your self....on a 3d printer
> 
> here is a link for it....and perfectly legal till you try and sell it ....but legal for personal use....also can down load a file to make 30 round ar mag's and lowers from the link on the first video.....very cool to me
> 
> ...


Not one that works well. You can only do so much with plastic. I've read they've only fired 6 shots until it fell apart. But yeah, the technology isn't far off.


----------



## triton175 (Feb 21, 2006)

viper1 said:


> And why all the talk when they used pistols any way not rifles.


What is your source for this info? I've heard that same thing from other people, but when I do a search all the stories that I find say a rifle was used. I would love to be able to tell the anti "assault weapon" people that only handguns were used, but I won't do that with nothing to back me up.


----------



## M.Magis (Apr 5, 2004)

ezbite said:


> anyone besides me ever notice hardtop seems to start these threads about guns and just replys long enough to get them going and then dissappears.. you guys think maybe hes got a different agenda then being concerned about all our spotrsman rights, as he'd says he is:S


Yep, and add on top of that that nearly every thread that hints of being pro gun gets zapped, but every anti thread gets to go on, and on, and on. He's a troll that has gotten a free pass because his agenda apparently follows that of the administrators.


----------



## eatinbass (Aug 6, 2012)

M.Magis said:


> Yep, and add on top of that that nearly every thread that hints of being pro gun gets zapped, but every anti thread gets to go on, and on, and on. He's a troll that has gotten a free pass because his agenda apparently follows that of the administrators.


i also have noticed this....Ponder the folks sponsoring OUTDOORHUB, ever wonder what they would think of this? I have....


----------



## Mr. A (Apr 23, 2012)

Viper,

When I was in the military I was a machinest, and I made countless nuclear fast attack submarine parts! (Sounds cooler than it was) But, we had the freekin' FBI and ATF storm our shop one day because some moron was building guns piece by piece. That was on base. It's not legal to build working guns without the proper liscensure from what I could find. You can easily make some of the parts but I think you cross the line as soon as you get into actual working parts of the gun line the action.



Mr. A

(2013)
Bass: 0
catfish: 0
bluegill: 0
Other: 0


----------



## Blue Pike (Apr 24, 2004)

ezbite said:


> anyone besides me ever notice hardtop seems to start these threads about guns and just replys long enough to get them going and then dissappears.. you guys think maybe hes got a different agenda then being concerned about all our spotrsman rights, as he'd says he is:S


Very observant ezbite.


----------



## eatinbass (Aug 6, 2012)

Mr. A said:


> Viper,
> 
> When I was in the military I was a machinest, and I made countless nuclear fast attack submarine parts! (Sounds cooler than it was) But, we had the freekin' FBI and ATF storm our shop one day because some moron was building guns piece by piece. That was on base. It's not legal to build working guns without the proper liscensure from what I could find. You can easily make some of the parts but I think you cross the line as soon as you get into actual working parts of the gun line the action.
> 
> ...


Not only can you lawfully make your own receiver, you can make build a NFA firearm....
http://www.atf.gov/publications/download/p/atf-p-5320-8/atf-p-5320-8-chapter-6.pdf


----------

