Worldwide gun control disscussion

[TheFeniX]

"I really didn't expect to be thinking about purchasing a gun. It was something that my father did and I rolled my eyes at him."

Clara, a 28-year-old nursing student, grew up in the Mid-West, where "the folks that had guns were seen as hicks" or were just "culturally different", she says.

I love how Democrats continue to this day to underestimate just how fucking popular firearms are in this country and choose to label all gun owners this way, then wonder why even a lot of moderates don't respect their position.

All I can hope is that at some point enough support is created to tear the NRA away from the morons.

Gwendolyn Patton, of the Pink Pistols, a club for for gay, lesbian and transgender gun owners, says new members fear being "harassed by the gun nuts at the range".

But she says they are mostly "welcomed with open arms by the shooting community".

Granted, it's Houston, but I love this mentality. You know how many different kids of people I saw at my local shooting center from the 90s to the early 2000s? All types. Black, White, Asian, Hispanic. And the skill-sets and types of shooting varied wildly. Literally: no one gives a shit who you are at the shooting range. The only thing we really care about is that you don't point a gun at our face.

I even saw two girls kiss once at the range (it was HOT), but oh man guess what happened? A whole lot of nothing. No one cares.

[General Zod]

I love how Democrats continue to this day to underestimate just how fucking popular firearms are in this country and choose to label all gun owners this way, then wonder why even a lot of moderates don't respect their position.

All I can hope is that at some point enough support is created to tear the NRA away from the morons.

Frankly I'd have less problems with gun owners if they actually gave a shit about any amendment besides the 2nd.

[TheFeniX]

Frankly I'd have less problems with gun owners if they actually gave a shit about any amendment besides the 2nd.

Where do the 30% of gun owning Democrats fit in here? The 45% of non-gun owning Republicans? What about the large number of moderates who are ignored by the NRA, but lumped into your generalization and looked at as "gun nuts" because they own a hunk of steel?

Fact is: a Democrat isn't going to vote (R) because Clinton said mean things about gun owners. A Rep isn't going to vote (D) if Trump says "we need to ban handguns." These people don't work that way because they identify with their party way too much.

But when Democrats paint a large swath of U.S. moderates are uneducated hicks who only care about the 2nd amendment because they own one or more guns? When other Democrats do the same? When Clinton goes on another tirade about banning AR-15s (the most popular rifle today)?

Even moderates share some of the blame. We are largely in support of stricter gun control, but when they see "wait, that will affect ME!? But I'm a good guy, I don't want to deal with anything that might inconvenience me" they balk. It's the same reason Driver Education can only be handled at the head-end (new drivers) because none of the 90% of people who think they are awesome drivers (yet think only 30% of people on the road are competent) vote for anything that might make them take a class or re-qualify.

[General Zod]

But when Democrats paint a large swath of U.S. moderates are uneducated hicks who only care about the 2nd amendment because they own one or more guns? When other Democrats do the same? When Clinton goes on another tirade about banning AR-15s (the most popular rifle today)?

It doesn't have anything to do with how many guns they own. I never see gun supporters make the same kind of noise over restrictions on other amendments as they do the second despite how much they claim to jerk off to the Constitution. Most everyone that I've seen doesn't seem to care if the First Amendment gets clamped down on harder.

[Joun_Lord]

It doesn't have anything to do with how many guns they own. I never see gun supporters make the same kind of noise over restrictions on other amendments as they do the second despite how much they claim to jerk off to the Constitution. Most everyone that I've seen doesn't seem to care if the First Amendment gets clamped down on harder.

The only voices you are actually hearing are the loudest and not the voices that cover the majority of gun owners. The loudest voices of most anything tend to be the most zealot like and at time maybe have ulterior motives. The loudest voices for gun support are shitbags like the NRA (itself as in the talking heads and leaders, not all its members though) who literally do seem to only support the 2nd and fuck everything else probably because newspapers and blogs aren't paying them shittons of money to help sell their products like NRA does with gun manufacturers. The NRA are greedy fucks or zealots, sometimes greedy zealots. Though to be fair to them their stated goals is to defend gun rights and the 2nd, worrying about other rights and amendments don't fall within their purview. The NRA making noise about the 1st amendment would be like PETA making noise about human trafficking or Black Lives Matter advocating for all the literally crazy fuckers of all colors killed by the police. Thats not their job or goals.

If you got in the trenches so to speak, talked to normal gun owners I'd be a nickel most DO care about other rights and amendments just as strongly. For many they care about the 2nd more but because they believe rightfully or wrongly that the 2nd can be used to defend the others, that someone willing and able to defend their rights will not have them taken away as easily. Thats why they jerk off so hard to the 2nd. But don't mistake the jerking as to mean they don't save any hand lotion for other rights, they do.

[TheFeniX]

It doesn't have anything to do with how many guns they own. I never see gun supporters make the same kind of noise over restrictions on other amendments as they do the second despite how much they claim to jerk off to the Constitution. Most everyone that I've seen doesn't seem to care if the First Amendment gets clamped down on harder.

You want some more Dolphin with that wide net you're casting? Go figure that the people talking loud enough for you to hear their rantings about guns are the ones who consider guns > all. How is this in any way surprising?

You want a "gun nut" (I own around 30 guns, I think I qualify) that supports freedom of speach, sep church/state, and thinks 4th amendment violations are bullshit (stop and frisk can blow me as can no knock warrents) to yell just as loudly in any thread I happen to spot? Right here. This asshole. There's actually quite a few people like me, but our voices are drowned out because there is no voice for moderates in this current shit-sack of a political process. Reps couldn't stop Trump from groping his way to an (R) because they destroyed their own party trying to reinvent it and the Dems back-stabbed their worthless "You're a gun owning hick, fuck off, I'll be coming for your guns given half the chance even though I'm such wuss, I wouldn't bother burning the political capital on it." to a (D).

Moving on, not understanding single-issue voters issues is your problem even if you don't like them: they are and always have been a reality of politics. I spend a lot of time with Hispanic friends, conservative at a level I've never been. They own guns, multiple active and retired military, anti-abortion, etc: the conservative wet dream.

Except nearly every single one who's bothered to discuss the issue with me: they vote Democrat, even when Texas-Boy GW was running. Because they believe that a vote for a Republican is a vote against Hispanics (at least on the federal level, they tend to vote Rep locally). This kicked into super-duper-overdrive this election, for good reason. So, is it ok for them to throw multiple beliefs under the bus for a single-issue? Are they allowed to be loud about it? NOTE: I don't know how many actually click a straight Republican ticket when they're alone in that booth.

If you want an example of gun owners who care about multiple issues or even an unrelated singular-issue: you only have to look at the scores of new gun owners since Obama's election and more talks of bans. But you don't hear them because gun ownership doesn't become an issue for them until you MAKE it an issue. Such as talking about confiscating their new toys or lumping them in with NRA nutbags. Yea, who would have thought people don't like that shit?

[General Zod]

Edit: nah.

[TheFeniX]

The loudest voices for gun support are shitbags like the NRA (itself as in the talking heads and leaders, not all its members though) who literally do seem to only support the 2nd and fuck everything else probably because newspapers and blogs aren't paying them shittons of money to help sell their products like NRA does with gun manufacturers.

The NRA is basically a Christian conservative mouth-piece these days. They were hijacked years ago and really do deserve the "God and Guns" stereotype they received. You can thank (among others) Charly Heston's bullshit for that. I liked the guy as an actor, but wasn't the best person alive.

The NRA represents the mentality of the average gun owner about as well as PETA represents animal-lovers. Read: not at all. Even then, it's like 5 million members, which is a lot, until you realize 1/3 of U.S. Citizens own a firearm. I own multiple and I'd never give them any money.

Also, you stole my post. Kudos.

Edit: nah.

I saw this in the post window before you edited it. I was going to change that line around because it's clear you DO understand and that you seem to just want to rant about shit you don't like. That's fine. But I'm not the one coming in here and lumping people who bought a hunk of metal into a shitheap, much like Democratic candidates do, then point to loud assholes on the Internet as justification for my stereotyping.

[General Zod]

I saw this in the post window before you edited it. I was going to change that line around because it's clear you DO understand and that you seem to just want to rant about shit you don't like. That's fine. But I'm not the one coming in here and lumping people who bought a hunk of metal into a shitheap, much like Democratic candidates do, then point to loud assholes on the Internet as justification for my stereotyping.

I changed it because I didn't feel like dragging this shit out any more than it's gone on. But feel free to shit all over the previous edit if it makes you feel better.

[Joun_Lord]

The NRA is basically a Christian conservative mouth-piece these days. They were hijacked years ago and really do deserve the "God and Guns" stereotype they received. You can thank (among others) Charly Heston's bullshit for that. I liked the guy as an actor, but wasn't the best person alive.

The NRA represents the mentality of the average gun owner about as well as PETA represents animal-lovers. Read: not at all. Even then, it's like 5 million members, which is a lot, until you realize 1/3 of U.S. Citizens own a firearm. I own multiple and I'd never give them any money.

Also, you stole my post. Kudos.

Oh no doubt the NRA has been hijacked which is both a good and bad thing. The NRA of old was more of a sportsman outdoorsy type that didn't give a shit about gun rights beyond what could be used to kill Bambi. During olden types actually helped craft gun control bills. More recently before the takeover by Heston's people they were still fairly anti-gun in some ways, what some in the gun community might call a Fudd or more recently a Zumbo after Jim Zumbo who described ARs and AKs as terrorist weapons with not sporting purposes. People like Zumbo were once the norm. Thankfully the Zumbo types have mostly went the way of the dinosaur and the NRA is no longer racist against black.......rifles.

Its bad because of the fact that Heston helped usher in the hardcore conservative Christian as you said. There is a good reason why gay people who support gun rights dislike the NRA more then the average gun owner, a really good reason why many call the NRA a unofficial wing of the Republican party. While gun ownership tends to be more of a right wing thing the NRA has skewed completely right wing at the expense of any left wing or darn dirty neutral gun owners. Damn neutrals.

Yeah, the NRA doesn't even come close to representing the entirety of gun owners. They just happen to unfortunately be the loudest voice for gun owners. Sure doesn't help the image of gun owners being nothing but old hateful white dudes who care about nothing but "Gods and Guns" except the time they care about gays but only to hate on them.

And I didn't steal your post, I merely borrowed it with every intention of giving it back!

[Patroklos]

It doesn't have anything to do with how many guns they own. I never see gun supporters make the same kind of noise over restrictions on other amendments as they do the second despite how much they claim to jerk off to the Constitution. Most everyone that I've seen doesn't seem to care if the First Amendment gets clamped down on harder.

Thats probably because you only find out who are gun owners when you are talking about the 2nd. It doesn't usually come up in the course of conversation about the rest.

[TheFeniX]

Oh no doubt the NRA has been hijacked which is both a good and bad thing.

I think it's mostly negative these days. Fear of the NRA backlash means Democrats won't put up a serious fight for sensible gun control legislation, thus forcing Republican hands to fight them, for fear of burning political capital. This is even after we've found it's a fairly renewable resource. People still vote (R) even after the last (R) in head office dragged us into an illegal war and left office with "dumpster fire" tier approval numbers. Bonus points: his own party threw him under the bus.

That said, I can't BLAME the NRA specifically for this, but they are a large contributing factor.

The NRA of old was more of a sportsman outdoorsy type that didn't give a shit about gun rights beyond what could be used to kill Bambi. During olden types actually helped craft gun control bills. More recently before the takeover by Heston's people they were still fairly anti-gun in some ways, what some in the gun community might call a Fudd or more recently a Zumbo after Jim Zumbo who described ARs and AKs as terrorist weapons with not sporting purposes. People like Zumbo were once the norm. Thankfully the Zumbo types have mostly went the way of the dinosaur and the NRA is no longer racist against black.......rifles.

True about the old hat guys, but to be fair: no one really considered the AR or AK as sporting rifles due to price, caliber, and action. But they were all wrong.

What digs at me is that more than a few years ago, it was "pistol pistol pistol. Pistols bad. Bady guys use. Ban pistols." That narrative is now pretty much dead on both sides because these "new" (READ: available since before I was born) rifles have now become popular and cheap (related) enough to be used for one specific type of crime which has come into popularity. And we're going to fix that with... another ban on scary guns and high-cap magazines.

This is why I've basically come to view "gun control" as nothing more than a narrative to push. Honestly, I don't see why conservatives freaked out about Clinton. She'd have made one weak gun grab (if even) then skulked about getting ready for reelection.

Conservatives might be crazy these days, but you have to at least respect their ability to FIGHT for what crazy they want.

[MKSheppard]

Oh no doubt the NRA has been hijacked which is both a good and bad thing. The NRA of old was more of a sportsman outdoorsy type that didn't give a shit about gun rights beyond what could be used to kill Bambi. During olden types actually helped craft gun control bills. More recently before the takeover by Heston's people they were still fairly anti-gun in some ways, what some in the gun community might call a Fudd or more recently a Zumbo after Jim Zumbo who described ARs and AKs as terrorist weapons with not sporting purposes.

Link

In a recent meeting at Hot Springs. Arkansas, the General Federation of Women's Clubs heard the Assistant Attorney-General of the United States. Joseph B. Keenan, say that the National Rifle Association had proved more powerful than the Department of Justice. It seems that the association had pistols and revolvers deleted from a Federal bill to regulate the sale of firearms, before the Ways and Means Committee of the House. Mr. Keenan said that the measure, as written originally, would have done much to check crime. He wanted to know who was running the Government.

Link 2

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That for the purposes of this act the term "firearm" means a pistol, revolver, shotgun having a barrel less than sixteen inches in length, or any other firearm capable of being concealed on the person, a muffler or silencer therefor, or a machine gun.

The term "machine gun" means any weapon designed to shoot automatically or semiautomatically twelve or more shots without reloading.

Basically, the NRA fucked up the original intent of the National Firearms Act -- to include pistols and revolvers as restricted weapons subject to a $200 transfer tax + fingerprinting + registration, and an early attempt to outlaw "HIGH CAPACITY MURDER MAGAZINES" by considering the weapons that used them machine guns.

And this embittered the liberals at the time (ref Joe Keenan).

About thirty plus years later....

Link

Lyndon B. Johnson
Remarks Upon Signing the Gun Control Act of 1968.
October 22, 1968

Congress adopted most of our recommendations. But this bill--as big as this bill is--still falls short, because we just could not get the Congress to carry out the requests we made of them. I asked for the national registration of all guns and the licensing of those who carry those guns. For the fact of life is that there are over 160 million guns in this country--more firearms than families. If guns are to be kept out of the hands of the criminal, out of the hands of the insane, and out of the hands of the irresponsible, then we just must have licensing. If the criminal with a gun is to be tracked down quickly, then we must have registration in this country.

The voices that blocked these safeguards were not the voices of an aroused nation. They were the voices of a powerful lobby, a gun lobby, that has prevailed for the moment in an election year.

BTW as a bonus, guess the date on this editorial from the Washington Post:

Gun Toters

The Internal Revenue Service's modest proposal for registering hand guns has run smack up against the American self-image of a rootin', tootin', straight-shootin' two-gun desperado. No matter that the image has no real roots in reality. No matter that it is essentially ludicrous. No matter that it spawns a great deal of needless grief and bloodletting. The National Rifle Association can always round up a dozen or more Congressmen who will shoot from the hip at any attempt to introduce rationality into the national fervor for mayhem. And they have no trouble at all, of course, in costuming their concept of themselves as a collection of romanticized Wyatt Earps or in intoning selected phrases from the Constitution about the "right of the people to bear arms"—as though the authors of the Second Amendment had any notion that the private possession of gatling guns, intercontinental ballistic missiles or .45-caliber automatics had anything whatever to do with a "well-regulated militia."

Nevertheless, there are sporadic symptoms of sanity. In Houston, Tex., forsooth, a grand jury recently pointed out that one of the main reasons for the city's phenomenally high rate of homicide was that "to acquire a pistol is such a simple matter that mere quarrels often become killings." And former Secretary of Welfare Hobby's Houston Post reported on Page 1 after sending a reporter out to document the fact, that "all you need to buy a $29.50 pistol in Houston is $29.50." Well, that's all you need in the District of Columbia, in point of fact. And the result is that here and there, and. indeed, almost everywhere in the USA, pistols are plentiful not only for the maintenance of a well-regulated militia which has little use for them but also for children who want to see if they are loaded, for adolescents who want to play Russian roulette, for hopped-up juvenile delinquents who want to imitate John Dillinger and for anyone who happens to get momentarily irritated at his or her spouse.

The Internal Revenue Service has proposed a simple, sensible regulation which would do no more than require manufacturers and importers of firearms to stamp them with a registration number and require dealers to maintain records identifying the purchasers of pistols and pistol ammunition. There is nothing whatever in this that would interfere with the maintenance of a well-regulated militia. There is nothing that would interfere with the right of respectable householders to keep pistols on their premises if they want to. The proposed regulation would do no more than help the police to fix responsibility for the corpses as they are discovered. Call off that posse!

The above editorial was in the Washington Post of September 7, 1957; some 19 years, 8 months and 14 days before the "extremists" took over the "moderate" National Rifle Association.

[MKSheppard]

they [NRA] were still fairly anti-gun in some ways

Actually, they have been consistent in their statements over the decades. What's changed is that they're no longer fighting tactical retreats; trading off segments to keep some rights.

In 1934; they threw machine gun owners over the side to keep handguns off the national firearms act and to defeat the "12 rounds = machine guns" thing; both of which would have drastically altered the history of private firearms development in this country.

Later, in 1968, they threw "destructive device" owners over the side to prevent LBJ's national gun registry.

Their final thing in 1986; they threw machine gun owners over the side again with the Firearm Owners Protection Act; and the Hughes Amendment; in order to eliminate some vestiges of the Gun Control Act of 1968 (can you imagine having to register every damn box of ammo you buy? That was a thing for a while) and get protections that turned out to be not worth the paper they're written on (Just try travelling from Virginia to New Hampshire by car with your guns in the trunk).

[MKSheppard]

More recently before the takeover by Heston's people

I still stand that the best head of the NRA was Milton Reckord.

GENERAL RECKORD. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen: My name is Gen. Milton A. Reckord. I am the adjutant general of Maryland and the executive officer of the National Rifle Association of America.

MR. DICKINSON. Will you please give us your address?

GENERAL RECKORD. I have an address at the capitol in Annapolis, as the adjutant general of Maryland, and in the Barr Building, Washington, D.C, as the executive vice president of the National Rifle Association of America.

We have asked to be heard on H.R. 9066 because of the fact that for many years our association has been interested in legislation of this type.

THE CHAIRMAN. What is your position with the National Rifle Association?

GENERAL RECKORD. I am the executive officer, the executive vice president, the active head of the National Rifle Association.

MR. TREADWAY. May I ask, Mr. Adjutant General, whether you are appearing as an official of that association or as adjutant general of your State? You seem to hold two positions. How are you appearing here, in what capacity?

GENERAL RECKORD. I am appearing in both capacities.

MR. TREADWAY. That is what I wanted to know. Thank you.

GENERAL RECKORD. Because I am the chairman of the legislative committee of the Adjutants General Association of the United States.

THE CHAIRMAN. In that connection, are you appearing in opposition to or in favor of the bill?

GENERAL RECKORD. We are in opposition to many of the provisions of this bill.

MR. HILL. You are representing the State of Maryland as well as the National Rifle Association in this hearing?

GENERAL RECKORD. I cannot say that I am representing the State of Maryland, because I have not been directed by the Governor to come here to present the views of the State. I am representing the Association of Adjutants General of all of the States, as I am the chairman of the legislative committee of that body.

MR. HILL. Have you been directed by that organization to appear here?

GENERAL RECKORD. Yes, sir.

THE CHAIRMAN. You say you appear in the capacity of adjutant general of the State of Maryland?

GENERAL RECKORD. I am the adjutant general of the State of Maryland and chairman of the Legislation Committee of the Adjutants General Association.

THE CHAIRMAN. I do not see the necessity of bringing that out unless you appear here in that capacity. Exactly in what capacity do you appear? Will you please state that again for the record?

GENERAL RECKORD. I appear here as the executive vice president, or the active head, of the National Rifle Association of America.

THE CHAIRMAN. Then I understand that you represent a private organization.

GENERAL RECKORD. That is true.

THE CHAIRMAN. And you do not appear here in any official governmental capacity?

GENERAL RECKORD. No, sir; I am not here in any official Government capacity.

MR. WOODRUFF. I understood you to say, General, that you are appearing both as a representative of the National Rifle Association and the National Association of Adjutants General.

GENERAL RECKORD. Yes, sir.

MR. WOODRUFF. May I suggest that you confirm what I am about to say, if you will, and that is that the adjutant general of a State is the executive officer of the Militia or the National Guard of that State.

GENERAL RECKORD. Yes, sir; that is correct.

MR. WOODRUFF. So you are here as a representative of the National Guard of all the States?

GENERAL RECKORD. That is correct. I am chairman of the legislative committee of the adjutants general of all the States.

MR. WOODRUFF. And you are appearing in a dual capacity, representing that organization and also representing the National Rifle Association, is that correct?

GENERAL RECKORD. That is correct.

Head of the Maryland National Guard 1920-1941 then 1945-1966 and executive head of the NRA (Wayne LaPierre's job) for a while.

In a later 1938 gun control debate, General Reckord stated:

"And why should the honest citizen be required to register? The question has been asked repeatedly and no satisfactory answer has yet been given."

[MKSheppard]

Oh no doubt the NRA has been hijacked which is both a good and bad thing.

I'll be doing my best to hyjack the NRA in the 2017 election.

Ted Nugent isn't getting my vote; but Stephen Stamboulieh is.

For those of you who don’t know me personally, my name is Stephen Stamboulieh - and I’m running for the National Rifle Association’s Board of Directors. I’m not doing it for fun, I’m not doing it for attention, and I’m not trying to pad my professional resume. I’m doing it because I sincerely believe that the Second Amendment is why we remain free. Period.

I live in Mississippi, home of some of the most pro-gun citizens in these United States. In the past six years, we have passed open carry, strengthened our preemption laws, passed an enhanced carry permit , enacted Constitutional carry, and just recently, abolished state-level suppressor registration. I believe we can do just as much in every state, especially ones that ban suppressor ownership or make it incredibly difficult for their citizens to own and carry a firearm. I have been a lawyer for eight years but have worked on Second Amendment issues for even longer, and I believe my considerable legislative and administrative experience will be as valuable elsewhere as it has been in my home state. In short, I want to put my experience to YOUR use.

My personal beliefs are simple. I believe the Second Amendment says what it means, and means what it says. “Shall not be infringed” is not some cliché to me, but sets the tone for all future discussions. I believe that all law-abiding citizens should be able to own any firearm they wish - yes, including machineguns – and do not believe the founders thought any differently. I believe that gun rights are not just some political game and that the courts should be utilized more to defend them. I believe that every vote that touches on firearms issues in any way should be rated by the NRA and that the NRA should flex its ratings muscle more.

I am the attorney that filed “the machinegun cases” - Hollis v. Lynch, et al, in Texas and Watson v. Lynch, et al in Pennsylvania – and argued before two separate Courts of Appeals recently to press for our rights. I do not and will not sit idly by while our freedoms are ignored by our government. I will know that I did not simply wait for someone else to do the heavy lifting. I saw an opening - a need for action - and sought to fill it.

That same need exists within the NRA. We need to press forward and take back what we have lost while, at the same time, preventing the loss of more of our precious freedom. I can’t promise to fix all issues but, if elected to the Board of Directors, I will do everything in my power to bring the full weight of the NRA to bear on gun rights causes that need a champion. Yes, even the ownership of “black rifles,” machineguns and other NFA firearms because it is our right. That is my word and, like the Second Amendment itself, I mean precisely what I say.

I am currently actively litigating a number of Second Amendment issues ranging from NICS appeal denials in Washington, DC to New Jersey's "justifiable need" permitting process to whether the Second Amendment protects a machinegun over in Texas.

I look forward to earning your vote!

Stephen Stamboulieh

[MKSheppard]

He recently opened a new case with direct application to me:

http://www.guns.com/2017/01/03/annapoli ... on-tasers/

Annapolis resident files suit seeking to overturn local ban on Tasers
1/03/17 | by Chris Eger
An Maryland man is taking Annapolis officials to federal court over their stun gun prohibition, arguing the city’s ban on the devices is in violation of his Second Amendment rights.

The suit, filed in U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland, Baltimore Division last week, names the city, Mayor Mike Pantelides and Police Chief Michael Pristoop as defendants and seeks to strike Annapolis’ local law as being unconstitutional. Under city code, possession, or use of any electronic weapon, stun gun or any similar device is unlawful with exceptions for law enforcement.

The suit is brought by Jeff Hulbert, an area man who wants to buy a Taser for self-defense but cannot due to the local ordinance and is joined by the Firearms Policy Foundation and Firearms Policy Coalition, pro-Second Amendment member organizations.

“Striking down the City’s total ban on electronic self-defense weapons is especially important in a state like Maryland, where acquiring a license to carry a handgun is extremely difficult,” said Brandon Combs, president of the Coalition and chair of the Foundation.

Attorney Stephen Stamboulieh, who is working similar challenges in New Jersey, New York and Louisiana, argues that Tasers are in common use both by civilians and by some 18,000-law enforcement agencies.

A common theme in the cases, as well as one filed challenging Washington, D.C.’s ban, is in citing a recent U.S. Supreme Court reversal of a Massachusetts ruling on stun guns, that argued they are protected under the Second Amendment. The case, Caetano v Massachusetts, upholds the 2008 Heller decision that held for an individual right to keep and bear arms and the later McDonald case which held those arms could be carried outside of the home as reasons for vacating the state’s ruling.

“While less popular than handguns, stun guns are widely owned and accepted as a legitimate means of self-defense across the country,” Justice Samuel Alito noted last March in a concurrence to Caetano.

Despite being relatively recent additions to the courts, some cities are rapidly retreating from their Taser bans rather than mounting a legal defense. The District of Columbia scrapped their ordinance wholesale while New Orleans made a specific exception to their ban for the individual challenging the Crescent City in court.

Hubert is seeking an order declaring the Annapolis ordinance unconstitutional as well as damages, attorney fees and costs.

[Joun_Lord]

I think it's mostly negative these days. Fear of the NRA backlash means Democrats won't put up a serious fight for sensible gun control legislation, thus forcing Republican hands to fight them, for fear of burning political capital. This is even after we've found it's a fairly renewable resource. People still vote (R) even after the last (R) in head office dragged us into an illegal war and left office with "dumpster fire" tier approval numbers. Bonus points: his own party threw him under the bus.

That said, I can't BLAME the NRA specifically for this, but they are a large contributing factor.

The thing is there is fight back against any sort of sensible gun control mostly because any sort of gun control is seen as a foot in the door to greater gun control. This isn't even the view of idiots like the NRA, fairly reasonable gun owners believe this. The fact that the definition of "reasonable" greatly varies between the two side doesn't help matters. Some gun control advocates see a complete ban of semi-auto rifles, any magazine over some arbitrary number, ban of scary features like barrel shrouds and shoulder things that go up, and a gun registry as completely reasonable. Some gun rights advocates see any restriction because "shall no be infringed" as unreasonable. And of course there are some that see a complete ban as completely reasonable because nobody needs firearms in The Current Year because police are just a phone call away, you can get food from the grocery store, and a rape only take a few minutes while a death is forever.

Its no wonder people vote straight R no matter what. Why people were dumb or perhaps desperate enough to vote for RINO Romney and mega Rino Trumpy. Voting D just isn't an option for someone who is completely 2A. It would be like someone completely for gay rights voting Republican. Doing so just doesn't make a whole lotta sense.

True about the old hat guys, but to be fair: no one really considered the AR or AK as sporting rifles due to price, caliber, and action. But they were all wrong.

What digs at me is that more than a few years ago, it was "pistol pistol pistol. Pistols bad. Bady guys use. Ban pistols." That narrative is now pretty much dead on both sides because these "new" (READ: available since before I was born) rifles have now become popular and cheap (related) enough to be used for one specific type of crime which has come into popularity. And we're going to fix that with... another ban on scary guns and high-cap magazines.

This is why I've basically come to view "gun control" as nothing more than a narrative to push. Honestly, I don't see why conservatives freaked out about Clinton. She'd have made one weak gun grab (if even) then skulked about getting ready for reelection.

Conservatives might be crazy these days, but you have to at least respect their ability to FIGHT for what crazy they want.

The narrative has changed. Years ago pistols were the hot shit because inner city gun crime was hot shit. I'm sure every housewife in America was wetting her girdle over news reports of young thugs blasting and robbing and raping fine upstanding white people with fully automatic saturday night special machine pistols and space age guns that could go through metal detectors.

Crime has since then gone down. Any inner city violence is barely remembered. Chicago in 2016 had over 700 homicides, more the NYC and LA combined, but who gives a shit? No now the thing thats get peoples panties wet is mass shootings. Mass shootings scare people in a way some gang members blasting each other in Chicago never could. Mass shootings can happen to anyone, anywhere, any skin color. Mass shootings are done with these scary military style assault weapons. Never mind that mass shootings are a tiny portion of gun homicides overall, who cares that "assault weapons" are rarely used for crime, what me worry about the fact that any of the stupid ass laws put forward in response to mass shootings wouldn't actually prevent the shootings people are broken up about, some white people got shot by an assault weapon so we gots to ban them.

Maybe I'm barking up the wrong tree but I do think there is a racial element to the gun debate. Pro-gun control does seem to only really care when attention grabbing deaths of white people happen, completely gloss over the far more numerous deaths of minorities. Pro-gun rights tend to only fight for the rights of people owning assault weapon and Glawks and crap like that but seem to not care as much about the firearm rights of people in inner cities, people in high crime areas that have far greater need for a weapon to defend themselves then Reginald P Goldenbuns the 3rd living in a gated community that has a reliable and timely police response and not much crime to begin with.

Yes gun control is part of a narrative pushed though its still a real thing, some politicians are really working to tuke ur gurns. Its overblown certainly but still exists. Clinton had people freaked out because she was one of those who was notoriously anti-gun. Maybe elected she couldn't get anything done like Obama but nobody wanted to give her a chance. Obama didn't get any gun control shit pushed through not because he was pro-gun or anything but because that narrative, that fear made any gun control unpopular. Obama was spineless and didn't want to be unpopular. Clinton on the other hand has balls, has a spine, and might have done more then give the token effort that Obama did to appeal to his gun control supporting supporters.

Again the fear of her was overblown but not without basis. The fear of her in regard to guns is like the fear of Trump in regard to gay rights. Arguably overblown (especially the fear that tRump is going to make it illegal to be gay, send them all to concentration camps or whatever other absurd fear mongering garbage people said and I hope to god I'm not going to be eating my words in a few months or years) but I doubt few would argue that people in the LGBTWTFBBQ community have nothing at all to fear from the Trump presidency.

Fear fucking sells. Sells weapons, sells support of banning weapons, fear is the most powerful tool both sides have.

[MKSheppard]

The thing is there is fight back against any sort of sensible gun control mostly because any sort of gun control is seen as a foot in the door to greater gun control.

One only needs to see the steady march of California legislation on one of the most common weapons sold (magazine fed semi auto rifles) to see this in action on a actually perceivable timescale.

The fact that the definition of "reasonable" greatly varies between the two side doesn't help matters. Some gun control advocates see a complete ban of semi-auto rifles, any magazine over some arbitrary number, ban of scary features like barrel shrouds and shoulder things that go up, and a gun registry as completely reasonable.

And yet, in virtually every "Assault weapons ban", the Mini-14 is always somehow exempt. Bill Ruger's sell out in the 1990s continues to pay dividends for Sturm Ruger & Co.

And of course there are some that see a complete ban as completely reasonable because nobody needs firearms in The Current Year because police are just a phone call away

x100

The narrative has changed. Years ago pistols were the hot shit because inner city gun crime was hot shit. I'm sure every housewife in America was wetting her girdle over news reports of young thugs blasting and robbing and raping fine upstanding white people with fully automatic saturday night special machine pistols and space age guns that could go through metal detectors.

Saturday Night Specials are much older than that. They go back to the late 1960s and through the 1970s.

Funny thing is; today's Saturday Night Special, the Hi Point is probably much more rugged and reliable than the classic SNS of the 1960s

Chicago in 2016 had over 700 homicides, more the NYC and LA combined, but who gives a shit

Nobody in Maryland is talking about Baltimore's murder rate, which is per capita way past Chicago's.

Pro-gun rights tend to only fight for the rights of people owning assault weapon and Glawks and crap like that but seem to not care as much about the firearm rights of people in inner cities, people in high crime areas that have far greater need for a weapon to defend themselves then Reginald P Goldenbuns the 3rd living in a gated community that has a reliable and timely police response and not much crime to begin with.

Um... Actually, Nope.

The NRA actually hired inner city minorities back in the early 1990s to fight Maryland's Saturday Night Special ballot measure. It got some kerfluffle back then, and led to them being raided by the cops on campaign finance accusations like a day before the election.

[Joun_Lord]

One only needs to see the steady march of California legislation on one of the most common weapons sold (magazine fed semi auto rifles) to see this in action on a actually perceivable timescale.

Definitely. Its not without reason that some people fear a steady encroachment onto their firearms rights, there is a damn good reason people don't want any gun control because too often gun control turned into a slippery slope.

And yet, in virtually every "Assault weapons ban", the Mini-14 is always somehow exempt. Bill Ruger's sell out in the 1990s continues to pay dividends for Sturm Ruger & Co.

The Mini-14 looks more like a traditional hunting rifle, most version don't have much in the way of scary looking tactical features. Though internally its based upon an action derived from a military weapon, fires the same cartridge as the as the AR-15, can feed from 30 round extended "clips" not much different then AR mags, and can even use AR mags with an adapter. But it doesn't look scary so nobody wants to ban it with the same fervor as they do a AR-15.

Saturday Night Specials are much older than that. They go back to the late 1960s and through the 1970s.

Funny thing is; today's Saturday Night Special, the Hi Point is probably much more rugged and reliable than the classic SNS of the 1960s

I'm aware they are older but there fear reached a fervor pitch in the 80s and 90s thanks to extremely high crime, lavish news coverage that could reach more people thanks to the advent of 24 hour news, and the extreme popularity of cheap guns like those from Lorcin, Raven Arms, and Jennings-Bryco among others.

As someone who owned a Hi-Point I can confirm they are actually fairly decent pistols. Ugly as sin, heavy as fuck, but pretty damn reliable, accurate (I think being so heavy helps there), and fun to shoot. I rarely had jams even using modified 1911 mags and cheap as sin Ruskie ammo.

Nobody in Maryland is talking about Baltimore's murder rate, which is per capita way past Chicago's.

But fewer bodies overall. Though a bit of research it does seem like nobody much cares about Baltimore. Chicago gets plenty of press but nary a thing about Baltimore, seems most of the news links I get when googling its murder rate are from fucking Breitbart.

I seriously wonder why the frack thats is.

Um... Actually, Nope.

The NRA actually hired inner city minorities back in the early 1990s to fight Maryland's Saturday Night Special ballot measure. It got some kerfluffle back then, and led to them being raided by the cops on campaign finance accusations like a day before the election.

That was before. The NRA follows the money and at the time "cheap" handguns were big business. They lost some of their luster these days with many of the companies of the "Ring of Fire" having long since closed down. Cheap firearms are looked down upon these days quite heavily.

It does seem to me these days that the NRA does not care about poor gun owners but I will concede the point.

[Simon_Jester]

Chicago has about five times the population of Baltimore, and is a major transportation, cultural, and economic hub for the nation at large, whereas Baltimore is an economic footnote.

Furthermore, Chicago dominates an entire state politically. Something like 20-25% of all Illinois residents live in the city of Chicago proper, at least, based on cursory googling. That's not even counting its suburbs.

By similar counts, Baltimore makes up more like 10% of Maryland. Now, the numbers go up quite a bit if you include the Baltimore suburbs in surrounding Baltimore County (which has a big cutout for the city itself, a separate administrative entity). But basically, the state's political and demographic center of gravity has been shifting towards the DC area and away from Baltimore for some time.

So the reason Chicago gets a huge amount of press and Baltimore doesn't is probably because Chicago is a first-tier major American metropolis, while Baltimore is a second-tier city that is politically overshadowed by the nearby national capital. It's still big, and still a lot bigger than many other cities in the country, but it's not the kind of city that everyone immediately thinks of and has an image of in their minds all over the country.

[MKSheppard]

Definitely. Its not without reason that some people fear a steady encroachment onto their firearms rights, there is a damn good reason people don't want any gun control because too often gun control turned into a slippery slope.

In 1988 in California, you could walk into a gun store with a driver's license and cash and carry out a brand new AR-15, 30+ round Standard magazines, and tons of ammunition for your new purchase...whereas by 2017:

• The AR-15 (in it's original stock configuration) was first made a registered weapon, then outlawed.
• Standard magazines were grandfathered, then outlawed.
• Ammunition is soon to be controlled through a four-year ammunition permit from CA DOJ which would require $50/fee and fingerprinting to obtain (this is on top of a new law that says you have to go through a NICS-style background check just to purchase ammo).

Slippery slope...isn't exactly a fallacy in firearms regulation.

The Mini-14 looks more like a traditional hunting rifle, most version don't have much in the way of scary looking tactical features.

You're not familiar with how Bill Ruger 'cut a deal' with the antis? He basically thought he could get his competition (other modern rifles with detachable magazines) banned; leaving the market almost all to himself by in exchange for talking for gun control (as founder of Sturm Ruger and Company), they'd leave his products off "ban lists".

Because gun controllers are lazy and Copy + Paste "banned items" lists, the Mini 14 continues to slip through bans, in addition to it starting out without that evil pistol grip.

I'm aware they [SNS] are older but there fear reached a fervor pitch in the 80s and 90s thanks to extremely high crime, lavish news coverage that could reach more people thanks to the advent of 24 hour news, and the extreme popularity of cheap guns like those from Lorcin, Raven Arms, and Jennings-Bryco among others.

Someone on another board did some analysis of the "anti Saturday Night special" laws that were last proposed in the 1990s and they found that:

Glock 42s would have been banned as a "Saturday Night Special" because it was lighter than the unloaded weight specified in that SNS proposal. Likewise, the Glock 42 was 0.07 inches over the combined height+length limit in that law; so under that aspect (size) it was barely legal.

It also defined a "SNS" as a handgun as having a barrel/slide/frame/receiver that would melt or deform at temperatures less than 800F.

The poster looked up the material properties sheet for a likely Glock GRP material and found that it's melting point was about 500F; so it was plausibly a "SNS".

[MKSheppard]

Lonestar....





SLR104-31
This rifle, chambered in 5.45x39.5mm caliber is the same caliber as the popular "AK-74 Rifle" and features a full-length 16" barrel.

The SLR-104FR rifle is a brand new Bulgarian stamped receiver rifle that is built from all original brand new factory parts and premium quality US made components, from its hammer forged chrome lined barrel to the original Bulgarian Arsenal mil-spec. stamped receiver.

The SLR-104FR comes with Arsenal, Inc.'s already famous left-side folding solid polymer buttstock and handguards. The folding buttstock makes the SLR-104FR compact rifle for carrying easily and locks in its extended position rock-solid and provides all the comfort you need during shooting. The lower handguard comes with Arsenal, Inc.'s stainless steel heat shield, which helps keep your hand cooler when shooting.

Throw an optical scope on this baby and the SLR-104FR, equipped with a double-stage trigger group, becomes a sharpshooting rifle.

The SLR-104FR accepts any mil-spec double stack 5.45x39.5mm caliber magazine (available through K-Var.com: M-74B, and M-74B45).

The 2013 Maryland Assault Weapons Ban specifically banned:

• AK–47 in all forms
• Avtomat Kalashnikov semiautomatic rifle in any format

[MKSheppard]

So, the old saying guns have two enemies:

Rust
and
Politicians

is proven again.

http://mgaleg.maryland.gov/webmga/frmMa ... &ys=2017RS

http://mgaleg.maryland.gov/2017RS/bills/sb/sb0948F.pdf

So basically, they want all long guns to go through background checks, via criminalizing private sales in Maryland.

This will also provide a complete shadow registry of guns sold in Maryland (all handguns are registered with the State Police since 1966, and you can't buy a handgun out of state since 1968).

Meanwhile:

https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/20 ... s/table-20

398 murders in Maryland in 2011, of which 272 were with firearms, of which 2 were with rifles and 5 with shotguns.

Clearly, we need to put a stop to private sales of long arms in order to stop these brutal drive by shotgunnings and riflings with cut down Kar98Ks and Model 700s by Bubbas.

[MKSheppard]

Meanwhile, in Bodymore:

http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/maryla ... story.html

For the third time in a month, 18-year-old Curtis Deal had been arrested on gun or drug charges. Judge Nicole Taylor wanted to be sure the young man understood what was expected if she released him to wait for trial.

"You're not going out at night, you're not going to get food, you're not going to meet your girlfriend. You're in your house," Taylor told him at Monday's bail review hearing, raising her voice.

"I'm giving you an opportunity to go to school and not be in jail pending this trial. The curfew is 1 p.m., 7 days a week."

Deal said he understood. Taylor wished him luck.

The next day about 3 p.m., Deal was fatally shot by a Baltimore police detective after allegedly jumping out of a vehicle being tailed by officers and fleeing through the same neighborhood where he'd been arrested the week before. Police said the detective chasing Deal shot him because he feared for his own life. The officer's body camera captured Deal pointing his gun at the detective just before the shooting.

Almost immediately, the circumstances of Deal's release became a flash point in the growing debate in Baltimore over perceived leniency for repeat gun offenders

How did an 18 year old male manage to get his HQL processed so fast after having it revoked three times in less than a month, and despite being underage?