+ Reply to Thread
Page 3 of 3
FirstFirst 1 2 3
Results 21 to 25 of 25

Thread: Springfield XD - Sub Compact

  1. #21
    Senior Member StayFrosty's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Fort Bragg
    Posts
    442

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MSG Glenn View Post
    Background checks for the mentally unstable are very hard to get accomplished if that mental case hasn't seen a shrink. Many of our mass shooters have never been officially diagnosed & even their family can't make them see a head doc. On our application for a CC license one of the questions asks if you were ever diagnosed as a mental deficient. Answer '"No" & you're good to go unless a court of law has determined that you indeed are. Then you've committed a felony but then you can get off because you're mentally unsound. You might have to go to the nuthouse instead of jail, though.

    Our main problem is that the courts are too lenient. Those judges who have to be voted in office & are very liberal keep getting voted in office & are soft on crime. They keep getting voted in by liberals who then blame the guns & not the criminal.
    Goes way beyond the guns... I read a report on DUIs several years ago. The finding was that as mandatory sentencing was implemented, the propensity to convict took a nose dive. People do not want to "screw up someone else's life"... it's always easier to "blame" an inanimate object, a person who isn't there, an idea, et al than to admit that people f*** up and that sometimes people should be held responsible.

    Big Boy Rules doesn't mean "whatever, I do what I want"... it means you use your judgment and if you fail, you face the music.

  2. # ADS
    Google Adsense image
    Join Date
    Just Now
    Location
    In your thoughts
    Posts
    42

  • #22
    Senior Member Exo1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    3,605

    Default

    Frosty, interesting thoughts and insights.. I see where you are going with your gradual theory to eliminate firearms in the US.... It makes "possible sense" to me but not "probable sense"... Lets say you are right and there is an Anti Gun movement who's powerful enough to fund and push their views out to the whole country... That to me is what I called the "extreme left" in a US context... but like the extreme right, I cannot see their plan creating nothing more then more polarised politics and mistrust for the following reasons;

    1. For every left wing extremist pushing their agenda using money power and influence, there is an equally nutty right wing extremist pushing against that exact agenda garnering support as they go but using the same tactics as the left wing guys.. Its hard to gain momentum when your opposition is just as nutty as you are and just as skilled in the same tactics..

    2. The US is NOT all the same, states vary on gun control as do cities within states leading to a tailoring opportunity for effective regulation at a base level then more tailored state and local controls... That does not interest extremists on either side, so the gradual push would seem like a fair call for the Anti Gun movement to push, but push back will come in the form of gun owners whom are fed up with the vilification and burdens placed on them and turn from the NRA and the other lobbying grounds and turn on their politicians to more aggressive protect them... Washington would enter a whole new realm of complexity when the people motivate their politicians..

    3. Pursuant to point 2, the fact in my view is that an established gun culture cannot be overlooked and guns are not eliminated ANYWHERE... Ireland has one of the strictest gun laws around, no legal gun culture yet folks have firearms here albeit in small numbers due to the astronomical costs that even today make the US look cheap on price point.. Heres a fun fact, did you know Canada has more long rifles per head then the US does?

    4. US is a status based society with an expectation of immediacy in everything promised or requested.. This I believe has led to an expectation that gun bans will see a corresponding drop in crime over a short term period.. When it doesn't, I believe it will be more difficult for this group to proceed due to their credibility being called into question. When crime does eventually due to balanced regulation like I suggested nothing crime to not drop but become less gun related, it will be over the longer term and difficult to track given the moving variables.. The good it will eventually do will be far too late to justify any progressive follow on laws on gun bans.. IMHO

    5. The aggressive dirty tactics of the NRA and their extreme right associates is matchable to the extreme left as I said... if the extreme left have managed to skew and compromise a much needed overhaul of gun regulation (background checks) with their own views and demands at the outset... how can they expect to succeed when they cannot get past the starting block with their skewed and flawed approach?

    Frosty, I hear what you are saying but cannot see it happening to be honest... I would say however, there is two villains here.. the extreme left and right... The conflict, confrontation and war mongering serves only their purposes, not those they claim to represent.. In concluding, the US is a status based society with a defined culture that needs to be respected by all... what it is lacking is effective nation wide regulation through background checks and needs to tailor a nationwide gun control strategy that places the power save base regulatory framework in local lawmaker hands for gun control that is effective, suitable to the local area and culture and over the longer term saves lives by keeping it simple, effective and thoughtful to relevant, not irrelevant issues..
    Tenants of Bushido;

    ‘We should never obsess about if we are going to die, but instead focus on how we live as those whom live an honorable life will always die a glorious death.’

    Rectitude (義): Courage (勇氣): Benevolence (仁): Respect (禮 ): Honesty (誠): Honour (名誉): Loyalty (忠義)

    ...ergo veneratio est vires.

  • #23
    Senior Member StayFrosty's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Fort Bragg
    Posts
    442

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Exo1 View Post
    Frosty, interesting thoughts and insights.. I see where you are going with your gradual theory to eliminate firearms in the US.... It makes "possible sense" to me but not "probable sense"... Lets say you are right and there is an Anti Gun movement who's powerful enough to fund and push their views out to the whole country... That to me is what I called the "extreme left" in a US context... but like the extreme right, I cannot see their plan creating nothing more then more polarised politics and mistrust for the following reasons;

    1. For every left wing extremist pushing their agenda using money power and influence, there is an equally nutty right wing extremist pushing against that exact agenda garnering support as they go but using the same tactics as the left wing guys.. Its hard to gain momentum when your opposition is just as nutty as you are and just as skilled in the same tactics..

    and that's the ONLY reason that they've been stalled so far

    2. The US is NOT all the same, states vary on gun control as do cities within states leading to a tailoring opportunity for effective regulation at a base level then more tailored state and local controls... That does not interest extremists on either side, so the gradual push would seem like a fair call for the Anti Gun movement to push, but push back will come in the form of gun owners whom are fed up with the vilification and burdens placed on them and turn from the NRA and the other lobbying grounds and turn on their politicians to more aggressive protect them... Washington would enter a whole new realm of complexity when the people motivate their politicians..

    Which is why they fight it on the state and county levels - see also, Chicago. The other place they will fight this is with disinformation pushed through Hollywood. Police procedural shows insisting that "the gun wasn't registered", et al, plants the ideas that such laws are already in place and are commonsense, and broadcasts this to the entire nation. Much easier to conduct your PSYOP when the other side (Pro-2A) cannot put forth the facts on all fronts

    3. Pursuant to point 2, the fact in my view is that an established gun culture cannot be overlooked and guns are not eliminated ANYWHERE... Ireland has one of the strictest gun laws around, no legal gun culture yet folks have firearms here albeit in small numbers due to the astronomical costs that even today make the US look cheap on price point.. Heres a fun fact, did you know Canada has more long rifles per head then the US does?

    I believe it. Mostly because 1) handguns are harder to come by - anyone interested in firearms has a long gun and 2) there are areas in Canada where a firearm is a requirement (read: bears)... carry a pistol is a no-go, carrying a shotgun isn't... you do the math. I don't dispute that they won't be able to erase guns entirely, but they will vilify their owners as far as they can. In any event, as you began this point, it's an apples-and-oranges comparison due to the culture

    4. US is a status based society with an expectation of immediacy in everything promised or requested.. This I believe has led to an expectation that gun bans will see a corresponding drop in crime over a short term period.. When it doesn't, I believe it will be more difficult for this group to proceed due to their credibility being called into question. When crime does eventually due to balanced regulation like I suggested nothing crime to not drop but become less gun related, it will be over the longer term and difficult to track given the moving variables.. The good it will eventually do will be far too late to justify any progressive follow on laws on gun bans.. IMHO

    Your logic isn't terrible, but you make one assumption - that people will look back after laws are put in place and realize that they do nothing. I think that is a false assumption and that 18 months after a law is put in place, people will not bother to reanalyze and push for it to be repealed... unless of course, a pro-2A group starts raising hell

    5. The aggressive dirty tactics of the NRA and their extreme right associates is matchable to the extreme left as I said... if the extreme left have managed to skew and compromise a much needed overhaul of gun regulation (background checks) with their own views and demands at the outset... how can they expect to succeed when they cannot get past the starting block with their skewed and flawed approach?

    Please be more specific. I don't want to start attacking a strawman here; I'd like to know what you mean before I comment. What tactics are you referring to, and how exactly is it skewed, and how exactly is flawed. There are places I do not see eye-to-eye with the NRA, but for the most part, they're about the only group standing against the Brady Campaign... the SAF, GOA, et al exist, but the NRA is doing the lion's share of the work. (full disclosure: despite my disagreement with them on some points, I am a member)

    Frosty, I hear what you are saying but cannot see it happening to be honest... I would say however, there is two villains here.. the extreme left and right... The conflict, confrontation and war mongering serves only their purposes, not those they claim to represent.. In concluding, the US is a status based society with a defined culture that needs to be respected by all... what it is lacking is effective nation wide regulation through background checks and needs to tailor a nationwide gun control strategy that places the power save base regulatory framework in local lawmaker hands for gun control that is effective, suitable to the local area and culture and over the longer term saves lives by keeping it simple, effective and thoughtful to relevant, not irrelevant issues..
    The ONLY two reasons I disagree with background checks are:

    1) Over the last 15 years, the BATFE has significantly increased the costs of holding an FFL (basically the license required to conduct the background checks and deal in firearms); I know several who have gone out of business strictly due to the ATF fees associated with it. If they become universal, expect to see two things happen: ATF will raise fees, and both as a result of that and the now-captive audience, anyone with an FFL will raise their fees. Transferring a firearm at all will become prohibitively expensive.

    2) UBC is step one to creation of a database. As it stands the ATF is statutorially banned from keeping records of the background checks conducted. HOWEVER, the BATFE has proven that is things it is outside the law on many occasions (Fast and Furious being one of many), and will do anything (to include arming criminals who HAVE participated in acts of violence) to increase their budget and their power (one of the first things done when F&F broke was to repeated petition for additional funds to fight the new cartel threat they created). Add to that NSA and DEA who have also been keeping records on data they should never have had access to, never mind stored... flat out, I do NOT trust this agency to comply with the regulations.

    If I could be convinced that the above were no longer an issue, my stance might change.

  • #24
    Moderator MSG Glenn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Milwaukee,WI
    Posts
    5,310

    Default

    I don't want any government, especially the Feds to know if I own a gun or not. Supposedly the state knows it but it's not publicized so even cops don't know that I have a gun or a licenses to carry it when they run a records check on me. I don't want the whole world to know I own guns. I want surprise on my side if someone invades my home. I don't want my home broken into for the express reason of stealing my firearms when we're away. The only info I want the feds to have on me is my bank routing number so they can transfer my retirement money to the bank each month. Unfortunately they also know about my health & medical situation because they pay that bill, too. Someone in Medicare or Tricare has released that information to an outside source because I get a lot of phone calls weekly trying to sell me supplies that deal specifically with my problems, too specific to be a coincidence or a fishing expedition. I reply by saying "where in the hell did you get the idea that I have diabetes? You must have been sold a faulty list". They never deny it. Was it a corrupt employee that gave the list out? It's against the law according to HIPAA. My docs claim that they'd be fined and/or imprisoned if it was them who gave a patient's info to someone. Supposedly when we have a background check run on us for the purchase of buying a firearm that paperwork is destroyed. WI claims they don't have the storage assets to keep them & besides it's the law as it's now written. I sincerely hope so. I would not trust the Feds to have that info. They already have more data on me than I feel comfortable with them knowing. It seems nowadays that our government is more intent on gathering info on citizens than actual terrorists. Oh. That's right. I'm already in that classification - former Military, white, Christian, Conservative. If they knew I own firearms I'd have 24 hour surveillance on me. Excuse me - I have to adjust my tinfoil hat.

    By the way - for those of you who have landline telephones you know that box on the side of your house where the phone line comes in? There's now a wireless attachement that a spy can use that plugs into the auxiliary phone jack found inside it. It's about the size of a nickel, uses phone line power & can be monitored from a block or more away & is totally undetectable. That's available in some "spy" stores. Imagine what the government has. Warrant? What warrant? Would I use it as a private detective? Ain't sayin'. Nothing could be used in court of course.
    Proud Dad of a US Army Airborne Ranger SFC
    Retired US Army 1SG/MSG, Airborne Infantry, G-3, Instructor
    Former USN - Submarines, USS Chopper (SS 342) & Navy Diver, UDT 21
    I was a Soldier. I am a Soldier. I will always be a Soldier.

  • #25
    Senior Member Exo1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    3,605

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by StayFrosty View Post
    The ONLY two reasons I disagree with background checks are:

    1) Over the last 15 years, the BATFE has significantly increased the costs of holding an FFL (basically the license required to conduct the background checks and deal in firearms); I know several who have gone out of business strictly due to the ATF fees associated with it. If they become universal, expect to see two things happen: ATF will raise fees, and both as a result of that and the now-captive audience, anyone with an FFL will raise their fees. Transferring a firearm at all will become prohibitively expensive.

    2) UBC is step one to creation of a database. As it stands the ATF is statutorially banned from keeping records of the background checks conducted. HOWEVER, the BATFE has proven that is things it is outside the law on many occasions (Fast and Furious being one of many), and will do anything (to include arming criminals who HAVE participated in acts of violence) to increase their budget and their power (one of the first things done when F&F broke was to repeated petition for additional funds to fight the new cartel threat they created). Add to that NSA and DEA who have also been keeping records on data they should never have had access to, never mind stored... flat out, I do NOT trust this agency to comply with the regulations.

    If I could be convinced that the above were no longer an issue, my stance might change.
    Frosty.. interesting points in return...

    Ok, on the NRA, I consider the leadership (NOT the large membership) to be extremist in how they operate and I frankly don't trust them. I think they have hijacked a US societal belief in guns and are using it to their business gain at the expense of public safety!... The NRA are effective because they are very skilled at dirty politics (man, I hate dirty politics!) and this came through clear when they hijacked the gun vote by threatening Senators with a "vote our way or face our well funded PACs on your next election"... who are they to interfere with the legitimately elected Senators like that and possibly at the expense of the constituents that may en masse want to vote the other way??.. That arrogance is one of my beefs with the leadership of that organisation... it spits in the eye of proportional representation of the people in the seats of power.. Also, it seems most gun owners would favour sewing up background checks so why were the NRA not pushing that and kicking the rest to the curb if they have to be aggressively involved? Don't they represent their membership? I had no real opinion on Wayne La Pierre or the NRA (other then calling BS on Michael Moore and his "movie"...lol) to that point and given his belligerent and arrogant posturing along with the above, I now have an opinion and I don't think he would like my opinion of him or the leaderships track record through the gun control "debate"..

    The NRA on a grass roots level practice "transformational leadership". In short, they motivate people not by rewards but by ideals... they are able to transform their business needs (Board is majority gun manufacturers) into a rally cry and are very effective at grass roots level in rallying volunteers and making them very knowledgable... Other businesses would do well to learn how effective they are at it because they are very good... So whats the problem?... For me, their effectiveness seems more like control then patronage which stems to my point about their motives for being so invested and so aggressive. The United States (NOT just the pro gun guys) is a gun culture and ALL Americans, Centralist, Republican, Democrat etc, etc have the right to buy and own a gun without being labelled by anybody... the aggression of the NRA and the dirty tricks employed have in effect placed barriers to gun ownership that leaves guys in certain areas not owning but wanting to because they like guns, NOT the politics... This to me creates a disproportionate power centre for the NRA whom are effectively representing the gun manufacturers in politics and alienates gun owners whom want a system that works with more complete effectiveness and LESS drama.. how is killing every initiative to said end helping?.. Fine, some of the provisions of the gun control bill were stupid but wheres the NRA's counter proposal and support base for same? Will that guy who's alienated by todays dirty politics breath easy some day thinking a new streamlined system for gun owners is in place and thus the paranoid dramatics are assigned to history?? I hope so, but it will never happen when all the NRA do is kill initiatives??.. they should try creating a few of their own so gun owners can get a working structure instead of more childish bickering..

    On any Federal Laws being repealed without review, that should be open to challenge in the courts.. Its unjust to have a legal system where polarised politics can see laws repealed at the drop of a hate when the polar opposite come to power.... It is destabilising and stupid!!.. Procedural rules should slow down repeals and insist on a justification for same.. I understand this is already in place.. but maybe needs to be upgraded to cope with todays "players".. I personally think gun control should be solved at State and Local level with background checks put in place and regulated at Federal level... Obviously, charges for background checks should be regulated for two reasons.. firstly, its only fair.. the ATF is not out to make a profit by their mandate, so why should they have pricing power over check fees.. it needs to be regulated by Federal Law... also, legal regulation stems any backdoor dirty politics slamming gun owners with unreasonably high fees (extreme left) to price guns out of the hands of many.. The effect would only increase illegal arms trade due to stupid dirty politics (again!)....

    Finally, I think Americans need to start trusting their Federal Agencies... lol.. its seems a little paranoid and OTT to me... The government keeps records on citizens.. thats how they govern.. processes of government require information to work.. its being like that since the days of the Roman Empire and before.. You mention being "outed" as a gun owner like those guys in NY were... thats a great point.. the extreme left in the Media did that and still are unapologetic about it... thats the kind of dirty politics that drives me nuts (in addition to the rest...lol) and once gain, Federal law needs to classify the records with actual punishments that puts businesses out of business and people in jail.. If the changes dont, happen, the same old politics will raise it head time and time again until it does happen and a new structure is put in place... think of it.. a working federal structure with a streamlined gun application, classification and licensing service at a cost effective price point for the gun owner which then flows into any state or local control laws seamlessly.. wouldn't that be what everyone wants?
    Tenants of Bushido;

    ‘We should never obsess about if we are going to die, but instead focus on how we live as those whom live an honorable life will always die a glorious death.’

    Rectitude (義): Courage (勇氣): Benevolence (仁): Respect (禮 ): Honesty (誠): Honour (名誉): Loyalty (忠義)

    ...ergo veneratio est vires.

  • + Reply to Thread
    Page 3 of 3
    FirstFirst 1 2 3

    Posting Permissions

    • You may not post new threads
    • You may not post replies
    • You may not post attachments
    • You may not edit your posts