exactly right . try reading pierre burton's yukon for how 2 different mentalities exist in the same geographical area. one hellbent and the other respectful of law and order

that does f all

First of all, I'm not anti-gun. I own two 1911s and Remington 12g. I just want the kids to be safe. This has gone on long enough.

@Gohan and YOU don't want to be safe? QUE ?

@Gohan I agree sir I have a child in school and we need to give our children the same kind of protection we give our money. Thats the problem we have armored cars armed guards at banks metal detectors at courthouses but nothing in terms of protecting our kids. thats what disturbs me is the lack of security for our kids. As for your two 1911s and your shotgun ok show me detailed schematics of how you would retrofit your 1911s so they would comply with your GPS disabler device where would you put it ? how would you modify it to be compatible with the fire control mechanism? who would control the GPS system how would you prevent it from being hacked? how would you stop it from being a mechanism for gun confiscation? ie. Controlling the GPS to disable all guns no matter where they are then allowing the government to just pick up the guns cause they know where they are ?

They need to make things able to be "unliked" people tried that, but it just isn't practical and it doesn't really work well enough. It also makes the gun unsafe to handle as you have yet one more thing to focus on. Besides, what if a cop gets shot and I'm next on the perps list? Should I just not shoot back and get gunned down instead of shooting back with that cops gun?

First technology is advancing every day because something didn't work well before is irrelevant, and the odds of someone needing to use a dead cops gun to defend themselves is astronomical. It would keep kids from using their parents gun and accidentally killing someone, it would keep people from being able to steal a gun and use it. Things that really happen. It was just an idea anyways

melt the f---ing things

@Jameson as I said smart guns have been tried and all have failed epically and there is no reason for anyone to develop new smart guns. Because the only people who want them or think that for some reason it would be a good idea are people who would never buy any gun no matter what it was. If everyone calling for smart guns put there money on the table they would be commercially available really damn fast but Colt and Smith and Wesson both nearly went bankrupt why they showed off there new smart guns thinking a new market for them would be created.

What he said

We unfortunately live in a prideful country where looking elsewhere for advice is strictly taboo. I wish it wasn't so.

from 1992 - 2002 there was an assualt weapons ban on the books thanks to Bill Clinton after 8 years his own justice department concluded the AWB had 0 impact on crime. The only thing it did do was restrict commerce, impact people with no criminal intent and it made law abiding citizens unsafe at the expense of criminals

@NathanA "The ban only applied to weapons manufactured after the date of the ban's enactment, and it expired on September 13, 2004, in accordance with its sunset provision." This was not really a ban at all since it only effected the sale of new weapons manufactured after the 1994 enactment date. Of course it had no effect because it did not remove a single existing weapon from the country nor did stop any of the millions of weapons already in inventories from sale. Nor did it prevent additional military surplus weapon from beginning sold. In addition to it containing a sunset clause that guaranteed its repeal. Nor did it even require restricted weapons permits on existing assault weapons owner. It was a near totally meaningless gesture because it was designed to be one.

@HeathenFarmer I was incorrect on my dates and yes you where correct on that 1994-2004 and yes I agree the ban was ineffective but any AWB would be not matter what you tried to do to implement it. And even in the scenario where all guns with high capacity magazines and there magazines where confiscated. People would simply build there own theres no why you could ban all guns without banning the knowledge of how they work and like all metal. Conversely I would say you have alot of trust for the government I am not Donald Trumps biggest fan but you trust him alot more than I do if you wish to turn all control over our defensive firearms to the government. I mean to say if you think the government treats us like crap now ohh just wait till we only have 5 shot revolvers to defend ourselves with. as for your argument that there are no permits required to own weapons thats not true. "The right of the people to keep and bare arms shall not be infringed." That sounds like permission to me.

@NathanA The orange clown is a total wing nut, glad I don't live in your insane country. Can you build yourself an AR-15 assault rifle, I doubt it. It is a difficult weapon for even a master gunsmith to make from scratch. Possession of that weapon in Canada can result in a 5 year jail term. So, sure you can pay a master to make it for $15,000 get it confiscated and go to jail. Good luck defending yourself against the largest military machine in the world with guns in the hands of a bunch of untrained poorly educated civilians you will all be slaughtered, that is why the 2nd amendment is ridiculous and has been for the last 60 years.

@HeathenFarmer First of all yes I have built my very own AR-15 rifle from scratch for about 1000 US dollars and it works great. Even has a cool binary trigger as for untrained I don't think so I am an accomplished pistol shooter. and NRA USCCA certified instructor as for the difficulty in making an AR-15 rifle your just wrong many people do it successfully and it only requires basic tools. As for completely home made craft produced firearms made from no existing firearms components that can be a bit more difficult. However if you want to learn I suggest the book "Expedient homemade firearms" by P.A. Luti available on Amazon and in stock the last time I checked. And again if you think its difficult to make an AR-15 just youtube search AR-15 build and see for yourself. And as I said previously I'm not a fan of Donald Trump call him an orange clown if you want I really don't care. But people who are not even competent in even the most basic firearms knowledge have no business telling me what I should or should not have as far as my own protection. With that said yes I will admit people that shouldn't be able to purchase guns can and that is a real and legitimate problem but that problem lies with local authorities who fail to report people to NICS National Instant Checks System. Had they brevard county police reported even one of the several incidents they had with this guy to the system. he wouldn't have been able to purchase his firearm. So instead of wacky nonsensical purposes. Lets try enforcing the laws already on the books.

@NathanA Assembly of a gun from existing parts, wow. That is about as difficult as putting together Ikea furniture. Here the parts are banned as well. You have no idea as to my competence with firearms they are after all a tool of my trade something I use regularly. I am at a loss to understand who you need to protect yourself from that you need to have an assault rifle, is your nation over run by armed rebels? Is the US a lawless failed state lacking police, courts and a justice system? Seems to me that owning such a weapon is more a compensation for other shortcomings.

@HeathenFarmer LOL how did i know that sooner or later you where going to go there that's ok if calling me names is your only defense against logic than that's fine. But again i will try to explain it just one more time. In America we have the right to defend ourselves from any would abuse us including our own government. This extends to all threats foreign and domestic. Now my AR-15 build is used for sport I compete with it in 2 gun and 3 gun matches. And yes if I have to defend myself with it I will. And before you say you don't need that for self defense. It simply does not matter what you think what you think. In a situation where my life is in danger I will use anything I have to get an advantage over those who are determined to harm me. As you would as well if you say otherwise than you are lying to yourself. So make jokes about me if you wish. It simply does nothing to validate your position but hey if it makes you feel good than please go right on ahead. As for your knowledge and competence of firearms I can tell that it is about 0 as far as using them in a defensive capacity it is 0 and there have been a few times where yes I needed a firearm do advert a dangerous situation. And its never a good feeling. I hope I live the rest of my life never having to draw my guns on anyone nor using them against anyone. And I hope it never happens to you or anyone else for that matter. But no matter where you are or where you live on this earth there will be dangerous people. looking to do harm and if you ever find yourself in a dangerous situation I only hope you have the tools and the mindset to come out on top .

Yes, I'm quite familiar with how guns work. This is a typical argument of someone who fears change. Change is inevitable. Are you familiar with how VCRs and DVD players work? Electronics and microelectronics can be employed to push pins into the mechanism or it can block the firing pin rendering a weapon inoperative. But in your opinion anything and everything is impossible and it should be ok for our children to die at the hands of monsters. Personally, I find this unacceptable.

Gps does not make sense with over 300 million guns out there!

Yes. A different adjective may be more appropriate. I used it because it would be a modification. Installing the micro-GPS transceiver and pins to prevent the mechanism from moving would require drilling or making a shutter to block the firing pin.

nice new look there Charlene

@btroje just a new pic, and thanks!

How about banning murder and be done with it?

"Assault weapon" a weapon used in the assault of a person or persons. You want to ban a civil rights nonprofit organization? On what grounds? The grounds that you don't like the right they were founded to protect?. Ban the ACLU while you're at it, then no one will have their rights represented.

where's the"Troll be Gone" when needed?

@dahermit it already is illeagal..

@Charlene Has making murder stopped murders?

@dahermit no but lets just Do Nothing about American Terrorism..may you experience that kind horror..in this lifetime..

@Charlene I am going to post something that I think you may not be able to understand: If the engine of your car throws a rod and is destroyed, does it fix the problem by putting in a new transmission?

@dahermit thanks but No..I'm not interested in your allegory concerning assault rifles..they are weapons designed to kill..whether auto or semi automatic..they are designed to kill..I do find it odd that the NRA, that's seeking to put weapons into everybody's hands, ban them from Their conventions. But then again Wayneboy only cares about His life and money..odd, no?

President Trump did NOT sign a "bill" blocking...etc. He signed a "Presidential Decree" blocking Obama's "Presidential Decree" which violated people's right to due process of law.

Guns were used to stop crimes more often than perpatrate them by a factor of 80 according to the FBI statistics from 2016. You don't know for a fact that this legislation would have stopped anything. Guns stop crimes far more often than they are used in them. The most commonly used weapon in assault cases in the United States has long been the steak knife. More people are killed by medical malpractice than guns each year. Even hammers are deadlier than guns are statistically. Speaking of statistics, you are more likely to be struck by lightning than to be a victim of a mass shooting. It seems to me you should be going after doctors, steak knives, hammers and lightning before guns, given that these are all much more common ways that one could die.

@jayneonacobb Alas, they will never believe it. They are too emotionally invested in the irrational fear of guns, just like some quake in fear at the sight of a mouse.

@dahermit @jayneonacobb @dahermit

[QUOTE]
[scientificamerican.com]

More Guns Do Not Stop More Crimes, Evidence Shows
More firearms do not keep people safe, hard numbers show. Why do so many Americans believe the opposite?
[/QUOTE]

You probably won't believe that since it came from legitimate peer reviewed science and not Wayne LaPierre's ass. But on a happier note gun owners are more likely to turn their weapons on themselves than on other people.

@MarqG i litterally just posted the actual raw statistics. Your study doesn't account for all the information. It's only a study of gun crimes, not how often they are used to stop them.

@jayneonacobb Oh you want statistics? Here ya go.The most likely thing you are to do with your gun (2 to 1) is put it in your own mouth.

[en.wikipedia.org]
Gun violence in the United States results in tens of thousands of deaths and injuries annually.[1] In 2013, there were 73,505 nonfatal firearm injuries (23.2 injuries per 100,000 U.S. citizens),[2][3] and 33,636 deaths due to "injury by firearms" (10.6 deaths per 100,000 U.S. citizens).[4] These deaths consisted of 11,208 homicides,[5] 21,175 suicides,[4] 505 deaths due to accidental or negligent discharge of a firearm, and 281 deaths due to firearms use with "undetermined intent".[4] Of the 2,596,993 total deaths in the US in 2013, 1.3% were related to firearms.[1][6] The ownership and control of guns are among the most widely debated issues in the country.

@MarqG your "go kill your self" attitude shows how immature and unable you are to have this debate. Grow up. 1.3% of all deaths is a pretty small percentage. You will never understand the truth of the cituation because you are blinded by your ideaology. Medical malpractice kills more people every year than guns.

@jayneonacobb I'm sure you're right jayne. As long as gun owners can find something that causes more deaths than guns we don't need common sense regulations. We should just let any piece of shit have whatever they want right?

And no reason to read the Second Amendment in its entirety, That's a loooong sentence. Never mind the fact that until 2008 there wasn't a court in the land that thought it applied to individuals. It was obviously written to provide for a "well regulated militia" for each state. But let's just rewrite the Constitution however anybody thinks it should have been written. Maybe have a different meaning each day of the week. Mix things up. Keep it interesting.

You're a genius jayne. Thanks for straightening me out on this. Try not to shoot any school kids this week. I mean unless you get bored or something. And if the ATF wants to talk to you about anything you just start shooting. Show 'em who's boss.

@jayneonacobb
Get back to me when you can read the ENTIRE Second Amendment and you actually know what it meant from 1791 to 2008.

FUN FACTS
The NRA was founded in 1871 by two Yankee Civil War veterans, including an ex-New York Times reporter, who felt that war dragged on because more urban northerners could not shoot as well as rural southerners. It’s motto and focus until 1977 was not fighting for constitutional rights to own and use guns, but “Firearms Safety Education, Marksmanship Training, Shooting for Recreation,” which was displayed in its national headquarters. The NRA was committed to gun-control laws for most of the 20th century—helping to write most of the federal laws restricting gun use until the 1980s.

@MarqG wow, you're sick if that's what you think of me and other gun owners. Most gun owners don't go on killing sprees. I'm not saying that everyone should have weapons. Wards of the state are not allowed to because they are deemed unfit to be responsible. We have laws about that, I support actually enforcing them.

@MarqG that is the whole second amendment. I'm very familiar with it. I'm also familiar with how dictionaries work.

@jayneonacobb You're very familiar with it jayne? That's awesome. So explain to me how you interpret this clause:

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,"

@MarqG that is a reference to the fact that a militia or military force is needed to provide security to a free state, and as such the people need to be able to depose them if need be. It's pretty clear when you use the definitions OF THE TIME IT WAS WRITTEN.

@jayneonacobb

EXACTLY! Read it and weep jayne. The following refers to the exact same Congress that passed the 2A. THIS is what it means. You loose!

[QUOTE] [en.wikipedia.org]

The Militia Acts of 1792 were a pair of statutes enacted by the second United States Congress in 1792. The acts provided for the organization of the state militias and provided for the President of the United States to take command of the state militias in times of imminent invasion or insurrection. This authority was used to suppress the Whiskey Rebellion in 1794.

Contents
1 History
2 First Militia Act of 1792
3 Second Militia Act of 1792
4 Use and subsequent amendments
5 See also
6 References
7 External links

History
The Militia Acts were passed in response to the overwhelming U.S. losses at St. Clair's Defeat in 1791.[1] The Constitution permitted Congress to provide for calling forth the militia, but it was understood at the time that the president could not do so on his own authority absent that statutory provision. There was a widespread fear that the Western Confederacy of American Indians would exploit their victory during the recess of Congress. St. Clair's defeat was blamed in part on the poor organization and equipment of his army.[2] Congress took action to remedy these problems in 1792.

First Militia Act of 1792
The first Act, passed May 2, 1792, provided for the authority of the president to call out the militias of the several states, "whenever the United States shall be invaded, or be in imminent danger of invasion from any foreign nation or Indian tribe".[3] The law also authorized the President to call the militias into Federal service "whenever the laws of the United States shall be opposed or the execution thereof obstructed, in any state, by combinations too powerful to be suppressed by the ordinary course of judicial proceedings, or by the powers vested in the marshals by this act".[4] This provision likely referred to uprisings such as Shays' Rebellion. The president's authority in both cases was to expire after two years.

Second Militia Act of 1792

Front page of a newspaper announcing the second Militia Act of 1792.
The second Act, passed May 8, 1792, provided for the organization of the state militias. It conscripted every "free able-bodied white male citizen" between the ages of 18 and 45 into a local militia company. (This was later expanded to all males, regardless of race, between the ages of 18 and 54 in 1862.)

Militia members, referred to as "every citizen, so enrolled and notified", "...shall within six months thereafter, provide himself..." with a musket, bayonet and belt, two spare flints, a cartridge box with 24 bullets, and a knapsack. Men owning rifles were required to provide a powder horn, ¼ pound of gunpowder, 20 rifle balls, a shooting pouch, and a knapsack.[5] Some occupations were exempt, such as congressmen, stagecoach drivers, and ferryboatmen.

The militias were divided into "divisions, brigades, regiments, battalions, and companies" as the state legislatures would direct.[6] The provisions of the first Act governing the calling up of the militia by the president in case of invasion or obstruction to law enforcement were continued in the second act.[7] Court martial proceedings were authorized by the statute against militia members who disobeyed orders.[8]

Use and subsequent amendments
The authority to call forth the militia was first invoked by George Washington to put down the Whiskey rebellion in Western Pennsylvania in 1794, just before the law granting that authority expired. Congress quickly passed the Militia Act of 1795, which by and large mirrored the provisions of the 1792 Act. The Militia Act of 1795 was in turn amended by the Militia Act of 1862, which allowed African-Americans to serve in the militias of the United States. It was superseded by the Militia Act of 1903, which established the United States National Guard as the chief body of organized military reserves in the United States.[9]
[/QUOTE]

@MarqG Wikipedia isn't a reliable source and that ruling states "All white men ages 18-45 are members of the militia." You have no idea what you're talking about. Do the research that I had to do in order to earn my degree, then you might have a chance at winning this debate. However it is far more likely that you will keep believing in fake stats and bad arguments.

@jayneonacobb Access the Militia Acts of 1792 from whatever source you like. Fact is the same Congress that passed the Second Amendment laid down the rules for the "well regulated militia" just a few months later.

They never intended for one moment to say that any ignorant piece of shit that wanted one could own a gun. And your so called "degree" probably came from Prager University or some other sociopathic redneck diploma mill. I gave up my Mossberg a while back for fear that someone like you would make me lose my temper.

@MarqG exactly why you are mentally unstable and your arguments make no sense. If someone's words make you violently murderous you should be in an institution. You literally just killed what little credibility you had left. Also I graduated top of my class from the world's most prestigious gunsmithing school, Colorado School of trades, in Lakewood, CO. One of only two accredited gunsmithing schools in the entire United States. It's an actual, legally recognized degree. You are a danger to society, in my opinion.

I suggest that crimes committed with unmodified weapons would get a heavier sentence.

@Gohan I fail to see why. IMO a modified gun would imply premeditation

@Gohan How many more citizens do you want to be incarcerated in a system already bursting at the seams?

@Gohan so basically you want every gun to be tracked by the government at all times? That defeats the purpose of the second amendment. Which is clearly for the defense of liberty from a tyrannical government, either our own, or another. People can hack into any GPS system, that gives criminals access to data regarding who is armmed and who isn't making it easier to pick a target. What about people who are traveling through a school zone? What about people who concealed carry legally in a school zone? What about the government abusing this technology?

In this situation, a modified gun is one modified with a GPS safety device disarming it while it is in a public location.

@Gohan and for a concealed carry like myself what happens if a criminal puts my life in danger while im in a "public place" ie grocery store sidewalk etc. Am i just screwed then ?