Quote post by seamar_116 on 12/18/2012 4:34:00 AM:
Fencer, I stand corrected. My last time on base was at a sub base about 12-13 years ago. So, you are saying that military bases are soft targets then? If that's the case then, that really guts the argument for needing the 2nd Amendment to protect us from the gov't does it not?
Again...what is the problem with banning hi-cap mags, and limiting ownership to hunting rifles and shotguns? Background checks, including gun shows? No cash and carry transactions? How many guns should one person be allowed to own? How about if a crime is committed with YOUR gun, you go to jail? And if it results in a death, it is a capital offense?
Just asking for people to be responsible. We all want that, right?
Now a sub-base will have a heavier security presence than most. Although I rarely saw so much as an SP during my 6 months at Pearl Harbor. Back on MCBH Kaneohe Bay, there were the MPs and that was about it.
In America, soldiers and Marines don't walk around armed every day. During my 4 years in, not including 12 weeks of Boot Camp, or 3 weeks of Combat Training, I probably spent less than 3 months time armed with a rifle. Now, I didn't say a loaded rifle. The only time you had a loaded rifle on base was on the rifle range.
Forward deployment is a completely different situation. If we the people, were defending ourselves, it would be from a government treating us as a threat. Which means they would be locked and loaded 24/7.
A "soft target" could quickly change to a "hard target" once a situation happens. But "quickly" is a very relative term. At least on my base, every unit had their own armory. Our armory had just one door, and one window (for pickup and return of firearms). That means it would take time to deliver rifles and ammo to every member of the battalion.
The problem with banning high-cap mags is the same one they had in 1994. There is no tracking of magazines. You can't take them away. You don't know where to look for them. The last time they gave a cutoff date for production. Anything made before that date could be sold. Glock execs got rich buying in bulk and selling them on the secondary market where it was perfectly legal to sell them. You just couldn't buy a firearm with hi-caps.
Limiting ownership to hunting rifles and shotguns only? Where do you draw the line? I can use my AR-15 to hunt coyote and other small to medium-sized game. The bullets shot by my AR-15 are smaller and less deadly than the ones that my .30-06 hunting rifle shoots. I can buy multiple 5-round magazines for my hunting rifle and reload very quickly.
Background checks at gun shows. A common misconception based on an ignorant view of the term "dealer". All Federal Firearms Licensees MUST complete a background check, or receive an equivalent method from the purchaser. That means I can use my Concealed Pistol License to purchase a handgun, rifle or shotgun, because the background check has already been done. Failure to follow this LAW, can and most likely will, result in fines and the potential loss of that FFL.
But we used the term "Dealer", which could just mean a private collector who is selling his personal collection at the show. There is no federal, and very few, if any, State laws that require an individual to perform a background check or ask for a purchase permit or CPL (or equivalent) before selling a long gun (rifle or shotgun). In many cases, this unlicensed dealer might have had an FFL in the past, but the BATFE has stopped renewing licenses unless the dealer has a storefront. This means less License Holders operating out of their homes, but it means that a large portion of the Show Dealers no longer have to conduct background checks.
In fact, an individual CANNOT use the same check system as an FFL Dealer. The FBI-National Instant Check System (NICS) can only be accessed by an FFL.
Of course, neither of these definitions covers us, if I run into Sergei at a gun show, and he sees that I'm trying to sell a rifle. He sees it and decides he'd like it, him and I can leave the show and conduct a transaction that isn't regulated by anything by my gut feeling. Do I THINK he's legal to own a firearm? Sure, okay, here you go, thanks for the cash. Could we improve that? I'm sure there is a way to do it. I just don't know what it is outside of registration- and that isn't a good idea. (See the original Red Dawn if you need to know why.)
There should never be a limit on how many guns one person can own, other than their personal finances. Can you tell a guitar player that he can only own 1 acoustic and one electric? See they have different purposes, so you can have one of each. But you can't have a Gibson Les Paul Custom and a Fender American Stratocaster. Forget about that Paul Reed Smith over there, you're already at your limit.
How about a baseball card collector? I'm sorry sir, you can't buy this Mickey Mantle card because you already have a Willie Mays. But I have a Barry Sanders or a Michael Jordan I can sell you.
Does that sound ridiculous? Then so should limiting firearms.
If a crime is committed with your firearms, and it is determined that you didn't take appropriate measures to keep them out of the hands of others, especially underage others, then you WILL be charged with a crime. This already exists.
If I left a handgun out, and my roommate (which I don't have) takes it and kills someone, I'll most likely be charged as an accessory. I might be able to beat it, but the charges would be made. I would have to prove that I had taken appropriate measures to secure my guns from unlawful, or unintended access.
Trust me, I want to see responsible owners. I see people who aren't responsible every week. I've had guns pointed at my chest on the range. I've had them pointed at my face. And those people get quite an earful of choice language. Safety is paramount. Just as it is with any potentially dangerous tool.
I know its long, and most of you probably didn't read it all. But you should.
12/19/2012 2:42 AM (edited)