Gun Control 2022 (IV) - Gun Rights, Control, & Government

[West Leas Oros 2]

Yeah, and you could use those magazines in any manually activated weapon, like if you had a bolt gun which accepted STANAG type mags, you could use a 100 round AR drum in that without issue.

The whole stated goal of the mag ban was to lower the potential death toll of spree shootings, by causing "life saving pauses" in the murderer's gunfire. Rather you agree with the law or not, Ohio's law more closely meets the given requirements without being as arbitrary as California's.

For example, there's no need to use magazine changes to slow down a killer using a bolt action, because it's a bolt action, thus Ohio's law more closely fits the stated goal. It also takes common use into account, allowing for standard magazines, while still prohibiting magazines which actually have high capacity, not just the "high capacity" magazines that some politicians like to harp on.

And yet, it still could not deter the Dayton Shooter last year who used a 100-round drum magazine. Moral of the story, majority, in fact, 99.5% of gun laws are dumb.

Didn’t stop people from viewing it as a reason to tighten gun restrictions. The devil is truly in the details.

[Germanic Templars]

And yet, it still could not deter the Dayton Shooter last year who used a 100-round drum magazine. Moral of the story, majority, in fact, 99.5% of gun laws are dumb.

Didn’t stop people from viewing it as a reason to tighten gun restrictions. The devil is truly in the details.

Semantics. Point is, restricting how much ammo someone has won't deter them if they are desperate to cause harm. In several notable instances we have seen how people were able to cause catastrophic casualties with just homemade bombs, notably the Oklahoma bombing and the 1993 WTC bombing.

[Saiwania]

And yet, it still could not deter the Dayton Shooter last year who used a 100-round drum magazine. Moral of the story, majority, in fact, 99.5% of gun laws are dumb.

Drum magazines are unreliable at best and are overrated. It isn't mechanically as sound as a good stick magazine. But stick magazines usually aren't able to get past 30 rounds of capacity before jamming becomes more of a risk. There is a reason why all the militaries out there ditched drum magazines.

[Gig em Aggies]

And yet, it still could not deter the Dayton Shooter last year who used a 100-round drum magazine. Moral of the story, majority, in fact, 99.5% of gun laws are dumb.

Drum magazines are unreliable at best and are overrated. It isn't mechanically as sound as a good stick magazine. But stick magazines usually aren't able to get past 30 rounds of capacity before jamming becomes more of a risk. There is a reason why all the militaries out there ditched drum magazines.

what about MG's or M4's fed by belt from a backpack full of ammunition.

[Germanic Templars]

And yet, it still could not deter the Dayton Shooter last year who used a 100-round drum magazine. Moral of the story, majority, in fact, 99.5% of gun laws are dumb.

Drum magazines are unreliable at best and are overrated. It isn't mechanically as sound as a good stick magazine. But stick magazines usually aren't able to get past 30 rounds of capacity before jamming becomes more of a risk. There is a reason why all the militaries out there ditched drum magazines.

Single or double-stacked magazine? Then again I suppose magazines in general can be unreliable depending how they are made or how the spring holds up, but yes, drums tend to suck. A good example was the drum mag my brother had for his AK as it kept causing feeding failures every time he fired a round; it practically turned it into a shitty bolt-action rifle.

[Saiwania]

what about MG's or M4's fed by belt from a backpack full of ammunition.

The belt fed mechanisms work fine from what I've seen. It only fails if the belt is bad but for drum magazines, it is anyone's guess when or if it'll jam. Plus its heavy and unwieldy to reload compared to the other options.

[The Two Jerseys]

Drum magazines are unreliable at best and are overrated. It isn't mechanically as sound as a good stick magazine. But stick magazines usually aren't able to get past 30 rounds of capacity before jamming becomes more of a risk. There is a reason why all the militaries out there ditched drum magazines.

Single or double-stacked magazine? Then again I suppose magazines in general can be unreliable depending how they are made or how the spring holds up, but yes, drums tend to suck. A good example was the drum mag my brother had for his AK as it kept causing feeding failures every time he fired a round; it practically turned it into a shitty bolt-action rifle.

Was it one of those .22LR conversions that Bro Vet was mocking NFAC for carrying?

[Germanic Templars]

Single or double-stacked magazine? Then again I suppose magazines in general can be unreliable depending how they are made or how the spring holds up, but yes, drums tend to suck. A good example was the drum mag my brother had for his AK as it kept causing feeding failures every time he fired a round; it practically turned it into a shitty bolt-action rifle.

Was it one of those .22LR conversions that Bro Vet was mocking NFAC for carrying?

7.62x39 drum mag.

[Hurtful Thoughts]

Was it one of those .22LR conversions that Bro Vet was mocking NFAC for carrying?

7.62x39 drum mag.

7.62x39 belt feed /w/ 200 rounds on tap.

[West Leas Oros 2]

7.62x39 drum mag.

7.62x39 belt feed /w/ 200 rounds on tap.

I’d probably have a much stronger opinion if I knew what that meant.

What is a round “on tap”? Last I checked, bullets make for bad beer.

[The Chuck]

Was using a D60 drum earlier this summer at the range. Worked like a charm and we put a few thousand rounds of assorted manufactured 5.56 and .223 through it. Sure it has an increased jam chance over the traditional AR box magazines but I liked it

[Telconi]

Yeah, and you could use those magazines in any manually activated weapon, like if you had a bolt gun which accepted STANAG type mags, you could use a 100 round AR drum in that without issue.

The whole stated goal of the mag ban was to lower the potential death toll of spree shootings, by causing "life saving pauses" in the murderer's gunfire. Rather you agree with the law or not, Ohio's law more closely meets the given requirements without being as arbitrary as California's.

For example, there's no need to use magazine changes to slow down a killer using a bolt action, because it's a bolt action, thus Ohio's law more closely fits the stated goal. It also takes common use into account, allowing for standard magazines, while still prohibiting magazines which actually have high capacity, not just the "high capacity" magazines that some politicians like to harp on.

And yet, it still could not deter the Dayton Shooter last year who used a 100-round drum magazine. Moral of the story, majority, in fact, 99.5% of gun laws are dumb.

I'm not saying such a ban would be effective, good, or warranted. All I'm saying is it would at the very least be consistent with the state's arguments. To say you need to limit mag capacity to create "life saving pauses' in a rifle with a bolt feed and a manual cocking piece is patently absurd.

[Grinning Dragon]

9th circus court issues a correct ruling, however at this point the 3 panel ruling is just the barkers of said circus court and almost assuredly the moron Cali AG who got his law degree from a Cracker Jackbox® will ask for an en banc full circus complete with clowns and dog and pony show and the court will sit on it for years, best bet is for the court to deny en banc and let the panel ruling stand.

Question for the group and for those lurkers.
Should a spouse be able to dictate whether or not their spouse to have firearms in the household? I've heard it over the years from family/friends/co workers, online posts etc., and is a form of gun control.
Now maybe I've got a case of wrong think here, but as a couple their names are on the deed, bank loan etc, I fail to see how one spouse can dictate whether or not firearms are allowed or deny their spouse from buying/owning firearms let alone allowing your spouse to dictate such bullshit. Years ago my MIL tried to dictate such things when the first kid was born and tried her damnedest to get her daughter on board with such wrong think let alone thinking they would be able to dictate what I own, good thing my ol lady told her mom to fuck off and it wasn't going to happen even if she agreed as I pretty much do what I want.
I also guess the same applies to asking permission to buy a firearm, I mean as an adult why is one asking permission from their spouse to buy a legal product?

[Germanic Templars]

And yet, it still could not deter the Dayton Shooter last year who used a 100-round drum magazine. Moral of the story, majority, in fact, 99.5% of gun laws are dumb.

I'm not saying such a ban would be effective, good, or warranted. All I'm saying is it would at the very least be consistent with the state's arguments. To say you need to limit mag capacity to create "life saving pauses' in a rifle with a bolt feed and a manual cocking piece is patently absurd.

Oh, no, I am agreeing with you, that was more of me mocking the general premise of the laws that limit magazines or otherwise.

[Telconi]

9th circus court issues a correct ruling, however at this point the 3 panel ruling is just the barkers of said circus court and almost assuredly the moron Cali AG who got his law degree from a Cracker Jackbox® will ask for an en banc full circus complete with clowns and dog and pony show and the court will sit on it for years, best bet is for the court to deny en banc and let the panel ruling stand.

Question for the group and for those lurkers.
Should a spouse be able to dictate whether or not their spouse to have firearms in the household? I've heard it over the years from family/friends/co workers, online posts etc., and is a form of gun control.
Now maybe I've got a case of wrong think here, but as a couple their names are on the deed, bank loan etc, I fail to see how one spouse can dictate whether or not firearms are allowed or deny their spouse from buying/owning firearms let alone allowing your spouse to dictate such bullshit. Years ago my MIL tried to dictate such things when the first kid was born and tried her damnedest to get her daughter on board with such wrong think let alone thinking they would be able to dictate what I own, good thing my ol lady told her mom to fuck off and it wasn't going to happen even if she agreed as I pretty much do what I want.
I also guess the same applies to asking permission to buy a firearm, I mean as an adult why is one asking permission from their spouse to buy a legal product?

No, I don't think anyone has the right to prohibit a lawful owner from owning a firearm, regardless of cohabitation.

Having said that, the latter part generally strikes me more as a courtesy rather than anything else, I ask my spouse to buy guns, not because I require her permission to purchase or possess a firearm, but because I want her permission to spend several hundred of our dollars on something. She might have other plans for that money, or she might anticipate another need for it that I'm not aware of.

[Grinning Dragon]

9th circus court issues a correct ruling, however at this point the 3 panel ruling is just the barkers of said circus court and almost assuredly the moron Cali AG who got his law degree from a Cracker Jackbox® will ask for an en banc full circus complete with clowns and dog and pony show and the court will sit on it for years, best bet is for the court to deny en banc and let the panel ruling stand.

Question for the group and for those lurkers.
Should a spouse be able to dictate whether or not their spouse to have firearms in the household? I've heard it over the years from family/friends/co workers, online posts etc., and is a form of gun control.
Now maybe I've got a case of wrong think here, but as a couple their names are on the deed, bank loan etc, I fail to see how one spouse can dictate whether or not firearms are allowed or deny their spouse from buying/owning firearms let alone allowing your spouse to dictate such bullshit. Years ago my MIL tried to dictate such things when the first kid was born and tried her damnedest to get her daughter on board with such wrong think let alone thinking they would be able to dictate what I own, good thing my ol lady told her mom to fuck off and it wasn't going to happen even if she agreed as I pretty much do what I want.
I also guess the same applies to asking permission to buy a firearm, I mean as an adult why is one asking permission from their spouse to buy a legal product?

No, I don't think anyone has the right to prohibit a lawful owner from owning a firearm, regardless of cohabitation.

Having said that, the latter part generally strikes me more as a courtesy rather than anything else, I ask my spouse to buy guns, not because I require her permission to purchase or possess a firearm, but because I want her permission to spend several hundred of our dollars on something. She might have other plans for that money, or she might anticipate another need for it that I'm not aware of.

The last part I understand to a point, I am very involved in the household funds and am aware of money being needed for other expenditures and I make my firearm purchases according to that budget without the need to ask and the same goes with my wife as she too buys things while making sure there is money for bills, etc.
99% of the time I cash my stock dividend checks and squirrel that cash away for new firearms/reloading equipment/ammo/power tools, etc., without dipping into the checking account and inform her of my plans on buying X. To me a marriage is a partnership not one where one should be asking permission.

[Telconi]

No, I don't think anyone has the right to prohibit a lawful owner from owning a firearm, regardless of cohabitation.

Having said that, the latter part generally strikes me more as a courtesy rather than anything else, I ask my spouse to buy guns, not because I require her permission to purchase or possess a firearm, but because I want her permission to spend several hundred of our dollars on something. She might have other plans for that money, or she might anticipate another need for it that I'm not aware of.

The last part I understand to a point, I am very involved in the household funds and am aware of money being needed for other expenditures and I make my firearm purchases according to that budget without the need to ask and the same goes with my wife as she too buys things while making sure there is money for bills, etc.
99% of the time I cash my stock dividend checks and squirrel that cash away for new firearms/reloading equipment/ammo/power tools, etc., without dipping into the checking account and inform her of my plans on buying X. To me a marriage is a partnership not one where one should be asking permission.

I think the phrasing is wrong when one says to 'ask permission', and this also largely depends on the couple's finances. My wife and I don't have separate accounts or pools of money, and while it's often possible to spend a given amount of that money on a given thing, it might prohibit her plans to spend that same money. If I want to buy a 600 dollar gun and she wants to buy a 400 dollar Playstation, and we can't swing both at the moment, I'd be kind of an ass if I went and bought the gun without even discussing with her that doing so would delay her buying the new Playstation she wanted for a couple of weeks.

[DragonFarm]

Its not the gun that does the killing its the person that pulls the trigger. The ban should not be on guns, the ban should be on sick people owning the guns.

[Diopolis]

9th circus court issues a correct ruling, however at this point the 3 panel ruling is just the barkers of said circus court and almost assuredly the moron Cali AG who got his law degree from a Cracker Jackbox® will ask for an en banc full circus complete with clowns and dog and pony show and the court will sit on it for years, best bet is for the court to deny en banc and let the panel ruling stand.

Question for the group and for those lurkers.
Should a spouse be able to dictate whether or not their spouse to have firearms in the household? I've heard it over the years from family/friends/co workers, online posts etc., and is a form of gun control.
Now maybe I've got a case of wrong think here, but as a couple their names are on the deed, bank loan etc, I fail to see how one spouse can dictate whether or not firearms are allowed or deny their spouse from buying/owning firearms let alone allowing your spouse to dictate such bullshit. Years ago my MIL tried to dictate such things when the first kid was born and tried her damnedest to get her daughter on board with such wrong think let alone thinking they would be able to dictate what I own, good thing my ol lady told her mom to fuck off and it wasn't going to happen even if she agreed as I pretty much do what I want.
I also guess the same applies to asking permission to buy a firearm, I mean as an adult why is one asking permission from their spouse to buy a legal product?

"Asking for permission" isn't how I'd put it, but spending several hundred dollars should generally be discussed with one's spouse first. How firearms should be stored, and when the children are introduced to guns, seem like they're in the same general category.

[Diopolis]

Its not the gun that does the killing its the person that pulls the trigger. The ban should not be on guns, the ban should be on sick people owning the guns.

I broadly agree with you; in general imposing some moderate and reasonable restrictions on who can purchase firearms(note that this is not something I trust the current US to do, by and large out of either party) is not something I inherently oppose per se. On the other hand, restricting kind of firearm seems like mostly an exercise in stupidity driven by ignorance, with a few obvious exceptions(eg having some extra requirements for owning explosive warheads).

[Plzen]

Its not the gun that does the killing its the person that pulls the trigger. The ban should not be on guns, the ban should be on sick people owning the guns.

Obviously.

The problem, however, is one of enforcement. By the time the potential mass shooter has already pulled out a gun and is pointing it at people, it’s kind of too late for law enforcement to do anything to avert disaster.

We generally prohibit drunk driving, not because there is anything inherently harmful with driving drunk, but rather because in order to avert traffic accidents it is not sufficient merely to arrest people who are about to cause an accident - it is necessary to also arrest people who are prone to causing accidents in the future, for example by being drunk.

While whether a particular weapon or ammunition should be regulated, and if so to what degree, can be debated, there isn’t (or, well, there is, because some people in this thread are insane, but there shouldn’t be) any dispute on the fact that some kind of armaments control is necessary. Not because there is anything inherently harmful with building uranium enrichment centrifuges in your back yard, but because otherwise there is just too little separating a lawful citizen going about their business and complete disaster.

[Grinning Dragon]

I think the phrasing is wrong when one says to 'ask permission', and this also largely depends on the couple's finances. My wife and I don't have separate accounts or pools of money, and while it's often possible to spend a given amount of that money on a given thing, it might prohibit her plans to spend that same money. If I want to buy a 600 dollar gun and she wants to buy a 400 dollar Playstation, and we can't swing both at the moment, I'd be kind of an ass if I went and bought the gun without even discussing with her that doing so would delay her buying the new Playstation she wanted for a couple of weeks.

I get the nuance of what you mean and yes I agree largely on the finances and mentioning of a purchase of an item such as a firearm. Perhaps mine and the ol lady's relationship just differs than most then as we mention on buying something or just go ahead and buy it and say "look at what I bought" I guess if she can spend hundreds of dollars on a hair do/clothes/shoes etc., then what is the difference on spending money on tools as long as there is money to pay the bills.
I guess I just find it odd that one assumes to be the authority figure in a marriage and it seems to mostly default to the female to be the arbiter of financial funds even though those funds are mutually combined, let alone dictate whether or not a firearm, is or isn't allowed in a mutually owned household. Perhaps it's just me in thinking it's odd that a spouse can dictate on whether or not their spouse owns a firearm.

"Asking for permission" isn't how I'd put it, but spending several hundred dollars should generally be discussed with one's spouse first. How firearms should be stored, and when the children are introduced to guns, seem like they're in the same general category.

In some cases those I do know have had to ask permission, and while I understand the nuance of "asking permission" meaning it is ok financially to make this purchase.
As for me, my ol lady knew what she was going into, that I had firearms, lots of them, and that I am a firm 2nd Amendment supporter. Now for those just getting into firearms I am sure those discussions do and did come up and at times one spouse will hold firm that NO firearms are allowed even with the financial liberty and safety assurances. That is what I am calling out, who died and made that one spouse the final arbiter of another spouse exercising their right?

[Telconi]

I think the phrasing is wrong when one says to 'ask permission', and this also largely depends on the couple's finances. My wife and I don't have separate accounts or pools of money, and while it's often possible to spend a given amount of that money on a given thing, it might prohibit her plans to spend that same money. If I want to buy a 600 dollar gun and she wants to buy a 400 dollar Playstation, and we can't swing both at the moment, I'd be kind of an ass if I went and bought the gun without even discussing with her that doing so would delay her buying the new Playstation she wanted for a couple of weeks.

I get the nuance of what you mean and yes I agree largely on the finances and mentioning of a purchase of an item such as a firearm. Perhaps mine and the ol lady's relationship just differs than most then as we mention on buying something or just go ahead and buy it and say "look at what I bought" I guess if she can spend hundreds of dollars on a hair do/clothes/shoes etc., then what is the difference on spending money on tools as long as there is money to pay the bills.
I guess I just find it odd that one assumes to be the authority figure in a marriage and it seems to mostly default to the female to be the arbiter of financial funds even though those funds are mutually combined, let alone dictate whether or not a firearm, is or isn't allowed in a mutually owned household. Perhaps it's just me in thinking it's odd that a spouse can dictate on whether or not their spouse owns a firearm.

"Asking for permission" isn't how I'd put it, but spending several hundred dollars should generally be discussed with one's spouse first. How firearms should be stored, and when the children are introduced to guns, seem like they're in the same general category.

In some cases those I do know have had to ask permission, and while I understand the nuance of "asking permission" meaning it is ok financially to make this purchase.
As for me, my ol lady knew what she was going into, that I had firearms, lots of them, and that I am a firm 2nd Amendment supporter. Now for those just getting into firearms I am sure those discussions do and did come up and at times one spouse will hold firm that NO firearms are allowed even with the financial liberty and safety assurances. That is what I am calling out, who died and made that one spouse the final arbiter of another spouse exercising their right?

I don't know about people just getting into guns, like you I entered I to my relationship with that being an already known feature. On my end, financially, spending money hasn't always been something we have in abundance. While I agree that it would be fair for both parties to use surplus funds for whatever end they want, there have been times in my marriage in which "buying a gun" would exhaust months worth of discretionary spending. This depriving my wife of any opportunity for doing so for some time.

[Grinning Dragon]

I get the nuance of what you mean and yes I agree largely on the finances and mentioning of a purchase of an item such as a firearm. Perhaps mine and the ol lady's relationship just differs than most then as we mention on buying something or just go ahead and buy it and say "look at what I bought" I guess if she can spend hundreds of dollars on a hair do/clothes/shoes etc., then what is the difference on spending money on tools as long as there is money to pay the bills.
I guess I just find it odd that one assumes to be the authority figure in a marriage and it seems to mostly default to the female to be the arbiter of financial funds even though those funds are mutually combined, let alone dictate whether or not a firearm, is or isn't allowed in a mutually owned household. Perhaps it's just me in thinking it's odd that a spouse can dictate on whether or not their spouse owns a firearm.



In some cases those I do know have had to ask permission, and while I understand the nuance of "asking permission" meaning it is ok financially to make this purchase.
As for me, my ol lady knew what she was going into, that I had firearms, lots of them, and that I am a firm 2nd Amendment supporter. Now for those just getting into firearms I am sure those discussions do and did come up and at times one spouse will hold firm that NO firearms are allowed even with the financial liberty and safety assurances. That is what I am calling out, who died and made that one spouse the final arbiter of another spouse exercising their right?

I don't know about people just getting into guns, like you I entered I to my relationship with that being an already known feature. On my end, financially, spending money hasn't always been something we have in abundance. While I agree that it would be fair for both parties to use surplus funds for whatever end they want, there have been times in my marriage in which "buying a gun" would exhaust months worth of discretionary spending. This depriving my wife of any opportunity for doing so for some time.

I understand where you are coming from and agree that it would be best to hold off on expenditures and keep the peace in a marriage. My ol lady and I were there where money was tight for a long time.

[The Emerald Legion]

https://i.imgur.com/U84Du0H_d.webp?maxwidth=640&shape=thumb&fidelity=medium

This was a rather amusing rant. IMO.