Weaponry; Discussion of Rights and Responsibilities

[Faceman675]

Originally Posted by diamelsx

Am I crazy for thinking that the gun lobby actually wants a Democrat in office? Now when I say "lobby" I mean strictly manufacturers and not owners. The reason I say that is every time a Democrat gets in office the word goes out about how the government is going to take our guns and the owners make a mad dash to stockpile all that they can. Am I Wrong? Cause if not and Hillary wins I am going stockpile gun stocks...

No:
Democrats when in power will hack away at the 2nd amendment in the guise of safe and sane gun control. Dems in California have passed a law that requires any new handguns to have their firing pins micro stamped so as to leave an identifiable mark on the primers of spent casings. This has caused several major manufacturers to stop selling new guns in the state.

While having Dems in power may lead to temporary raises in sales it is clear that Democrats want to do irreparable damage to the gun industry. I don't think they want Hillary to win.

Yes:
Should Hillary be elected there is a very real possibility that after stacking SCOTUS with liberal activist justices that she will use executive orders for a number of issues including eroding the 2nd amendment. I would expect should she win there will be a run on guns, ammo and reloading equipment.

[profvolup]

Smith & Wesson is the #1 federal contractor, with healthy state orders. They are virtually silent on the 2nd Amendment. The big gun manufacturers with lots of money are the ones with federal and state contracts. Not the small mom'n pop, who are far, far more likely to be NRA members.

Magpul is probably the greatest example, innovative, having to fight existing contracts, trying to get standards to fall their way.

But even Bernie Sanders pointed this all out. Small arms are the least profitable of all weapons, even with big contracts. Which is why if lawyers get to sue gun manufacturers, as Bernie Sanders put it, "it's the end of gun manufacturing in the US." Because the lawyers can outlast even the largest, most profitable companies -- let alone bankrupt small ones literally overnight.

Even one of the larger manufacturers (name escapes me), is the reason for the law Bernie supported. After many attempts, one judge wouldn't dismiss it. Even though they won easily, it was still time, effort and costs in the courts ... and then there was the appeal. Mid-appeal they finally settled, or they were going to go bankrupt.

Because even if the large companies will end all private sales, and then still go under from existing arms already in circulation.

As Sanders says ... it's the end of gun manufacturing in the US. Lawyers do not have to win a single case, just keep suing and appealing.

[profvolup]

Originally Posted by vannax

I think much blame can be laid at the feet of the governments. The gun and ammo retail industry is over-regulated.

Oh, it could be worse!

If the ATF labels cartridges as 'explosives' for their cordite, etc..., then you're talking a 10-fold increase, beyond even the inflated costs due to metal supply. The only reason this hasn't happened is because the US military would be severely pissed off.

Because it would massively increase their costs too!

[vannax]

Originally Posted by profvolup

Oh, it could be worse!

If the ATF labels cartridges as 'explosives' for their cordite, etc..., then you're talking a 10-fold increase, beyond even the inflated costs due to metal supply. The only reason this hasn't happened is because the US military would be severely pissed off.

Because it would massively increase their costs too!

Technically, smokeless powder isn't an explosive like black powder, not that most legislation is in any way guided by reality.
I wonder if the mercury fulminate used in primers is, though?

[profvolup]

Originally Posted by vannax

Technically, smokeless powder isn't an explosive like black powder, not that most legislation is in any way guided by reality.

Again ... our leaders. Check it out, it's getting a renewed push again (via the politicians) and is making the ATF rounds in-house again.

Originally Posted by vannax

I wonder if the mercury fulminate used in primers is, though?

Yes, but for right now, the idiots are in control, and if it isn't 'common knowledge' to the non-firearm expert, household person, especially since the primer is much smaller than the powder and they might laugh at it for such, it fits the agenda.

Reminds me of that old SnL kit, the quiz show "Common Knowledge."
The questions are provided by an array of doctorates and subject experts.
Unfortunately, the 'correct answers' on the card are provided via high school students.

- http://www.nbc.com/saturday-night-li...nowledge/n9612

[Rogerbh]

An interesting article. http://www.gq.com/story/what-conserv...ght-about-guns

I would have liked it if it went into a discussion of the high percentage of people with criminal records who are murdered with firearms as opposed to the lower number of non-criminals who are murdered with firearms. Also, it lacks a discussion of the suicide rates in the US and say, the UK and how they are not that much different even though one has ready access to firearms and the other does not.

[rotobott]

Originally Posted by Rogerbh

An interesting article. http://www.gq.com/story/what-conserv...ght-about-guns

I would have liked it if it went into a discussion of the high percentage of people with criminal records who are murdered with firearms as opposed to the lower number of non-criminals who are murdered with firearms. Also, it lacks a discussion of the suicide rates in the US and say, the UK and how they are not that much different even though one has ready access to firearms and the other does not.

Suicide in the US is double the UK, and 50% of US suicides are with firearms

A common suicide method is to use a firearm. Generally, the bullet will be aimed at point-blank range, often at the head or, less commonly, into the mouth, under the chin, or pointed at the chest. Worldwide, firearm prevalence in suicides varies widely, depending on the acceptance and availability of firearms in a culture. The use of firearms in suicides ranges from less than 10% in Australia[23] to 50.5% in the U.S., where it is the most common method of suicide

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...y_suicide_rate

[Rogerbh]

Suicide rates in 2014
US 12.93 https://afsp.org/about-suicide/suicide-statistics/

UK 10.8 http://www.samaritans.org/about-us/o...-about-suicide

The suicide rate went down a bit for the UK and the US rate went up a bit since the last time I checked. Not double.

[Rogerbh]

This chapter in The Gun Rights War - page 71 to 78 is interesting.

https://books.google.com/books?id=dA...ergate&f=false

[Rogerbh]

I am glad I have insomnia, I found a Senate report from February 1982 that no one talks about now.

THE RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS

R E P O R T
OF THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON THE CONSTITUTION
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY
UNITED STATES SENATE
NINETY-SEVENTH CONGRESS

http://www.constitution.org/2ll/2ndschol/87senrpt.pdf

Concludes:

The conclusion is thus inescapable that the history, concept, and wording of the second amendment to the Constitution of the United States, as well as its interpretation by every major commentator and court in the first half-century after its ratification, indicates that what is protected is an individual right of a private citizen to own and carry firearms in a peaceful manner.

The ranking Democrat DENNIS DECONCINI stated:

I commend Senator Hatch, chairman of the subcommittee, for having this excellent reference work prepared. I am sure that it will be of great assistance to the Congress as it debates the second amendment and considers legislation to amend the Gun Control Act.

So of course Hillary ignores it.