Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunter's Campfire Meet: PADDLER

The proposal throws a bone to the 2A faction in that it does't ban the firearms in question, while placating the wailing of the Left to "do something....anything...even if it won't work".

Someone bent on committing a mass shooting neither knows nor cares that he/she is prohibited from buying/owning the firearm in question. They will not have read the law. If they are that far off the deep end they will acquire it illegally,steal it, borrow it....whatever.One way or another they will get their hands on it.

Of course they may have no prior history of mental illness, in which case, they would not be prohibited from owning it in the first place,assuming they can pass the gauntlet of red tape.

Barring all of this, they take one of those fixed magazine firearms, "suitable for sporting purposes" (whatever the hell that means but once again subject to arbitrary definition and interpretation by another bunch of bureaucrats) ,or steal a $40k shotgun from somewhere in Utah, and execute a bunch of people in an Oregon classroom because they are the only one in the room with a gun.

Then we are back to regulating $40k shotguns.


As to the letter,you ask Representative Chaffetz to seriously consider your proposal,then tell him that (a) you didn't vote for him; (b)that he's rude and condescending (an [bleep] basically) ,and beat up on him over Planned Parenthood.

Great diplomacy.Admirable people skills and powers of persuasion.

If I were Chaffetz I would ignore the letter.


See what I mean about (some) doctors?

Well, I didn't vote for him. He's my representative through gerrymandering. They chopped up Salt Lake City so as to ensure no Democrat stands a chance to get elected. Jason needs to hear that his antics aren't appreciated by his more rational constituents. He spouts red meat crap, but comes off poorly. The expression on his face when he was called on his phony slide was priceless. We'll have a new slogan during our next election, "ABC, Anybody But Chaffetz".

I have seen the enemy and it's not always a raghead....

I have seen the enemy and it's not always a raghead....

Since your key proposal seems to be centered around the re-classification of firearms, I'll ask this:

How do the records checks performed on an individual purchasing an NFA classified firearm differ from the checks performed on an individual that is purchasing a non-NFA classified firearm?




Travis

I sent the following to Jason. Punctuation got lost in the translation:

Dear Representaive Chaffetz,

I wrote the following after Newtown:

On the Prevention of Mass Murders

The recent tragedy in Newtown, like most tragedies, was not the result of one event, but rather a series of failures. It was the result of previously undiagnosed mental illness in an individual who had access to advanced weaponry capable of sustained high rates of fire. Both mental illness and the weapons capable of such destruction were required to produce this tragic loss of life.
Perhaps because this shooting resulted in the death of twenty young children and six educators, it seems the nation is more ready now than ever before to entertain measures to prevent similar occurrences in the future. One could argue that this new willingness to act is the result of the cumulative effects of so many similar events. It matters not which of these is causative, or even if other factors are responsible, the fact remains that we must act.
Various ideas have been advanced; banning the weapons involved, banning high capacity magazines, posting armed security officers in our schools, training and arming our teachers, and a more comprehensive approach to mental illness. These ideas all have their proponents, and varying degrees of merit, depending on one’s experience and point of view.
As a lifelong hunter and avid outdoorsman, it occurs to me that we may already have in place mechanisms to help prevent future disasters. We can, merely by reclassifying certain weapons, reduce access by mentally ill people to the weapons most often used in these shootings. The three most important characteristics of the weapons used in Newtown and other mass shootings are having a semiautomatic action, the capability to use detachable magazines, and the fact that they fire centerfire ammunition. Semiautomatic weapons allow rapid rates of fire, that is, they fire a bullet, eject the spent case, and load a fresh round with each pull of the trigger. Detachable magazines allow for rapid reloading of multiple rounds of ammunition in one motion. The capability of using centerfire ammunition increases the lethality of each round of ammunition, as rimfire ammunition is generally less powerful.
We already have restrictions on the ownership of certain weapons, commonly called NFA firearms. These include fully automatic firearms, referred to by some as machine guns, short barreled rifles and shotguns, and destructive devices. Fully automatic weapons are generally used by the military; the civilian versions are manufactured as semiautomatic. It is interesting to note that studies done by the military have shown that fully automatic weapons are wasteful of ammunition, as the weapon will continue firing so long as the trigger is depressed. Emptying a magazine completely in a matter of seconds actually limits the effectiveness of these weapons in many combat situations. The solution to this problem was developing the ability to switch these arms into “Select Fire” or “Burst” mode. In this mode, the weapon will fire several rounds with each pull of the trigger, but won’t empty the entire clip.
There is little practical difference in situations such as Newtown between weapons that fire three rounds versus those that fire only one each time the trigger is pulled. Both use centerfire ammunition, both require no more than pulling the trigger to fire a round and load another, and both accept detachable magazines of various capacities. Therefore, the most elegant solution to the gun control issue would be to reclassify these weapons, rifle, pistol or shotgun, as NFA firearms. They would be subject to increased restrictions for buying, owning and transferring. Just as with current Class 3 weapons, people could still buy them. Nothing would be banned, not magazines or the weapons themselves. Individuals would be required to register them with the ATF, undergo strict background checks, get a signature from local law enforcement, notify the ATF if they were to be taken across state lines, and pay a tax of $200 per item. This program could easily be applied to weapons currently in circulation.
This solution would not impact guns typically used for sporting purposes, such as hunting and target shooting. Shotguns and rifles used in these ways have typically have fixed magazines. There are a few exceptions, but small design changes could be made that would exempt the guns in question. It would not impair the ability to defend one’s home, as the weapon most recommended for this task by experts is a shotgun. It also would not affect rimfire weapons, such as 22 caliber rifles or handguns.
Reclassification of these guns should be the most acceptable approach to all sides in the debate over gun control. It would not threaten the Second Amendment, it merely compensates for the technologic advances since the days of the musket. It actually corrects a glaring oversight in our current weapon classification system. Manufacturers could still build these weapons, the public could still buy them, and it would do as well as any other proposal to keep them out of the wrong hands. This is not an immediate or comprehensive solution to the problem of mass murders, but it seems a logical component in a multifaceted approach to prevent another Newtown.


Since that writing, several similar shootings have occurred. I will admit that I have not supported or voted for you, and your recent conduct during the Planned Parenthood hearing was rude, condescending, and in the end, embarrassing for you. However, since you are in fact my representative, I would appreciate your thoughtful response to my ideas.

Sincerely,

Jon Middleton MD

Has some real personal issues.

Okay, here are a few questions for y'all. No googling, just answer off the top of your heads:

1) What percentage of acute bronchitis is bacterial?

2) What percentage of patients who go to the doctor get an antibiotic prescription for bronchitis, and why?

3) What percentage of acute sinusitis is bacterial vs viral?

4) What percentage of patients who go to the doctor for sinusitis get an antibiotic, and why?

5) What percentage of azithromycin prescriptions are appropriate?

Class is now in session.

As a Registered Nurse for over 37 years, I would not lend you a dime nor dignify your stupid little game of Who's smarter...

What's this now....your 5th bottle today? Eat some chips with it.

*** You are ignoring this user ***
Toggle the display of this post

Gee.... for somebody that nobody likes very well, you sure give him a lot of press.

Jus Say'n

W. Bill