Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

Ted Cruz

7 (6.5%)

Rick Santorum

16 (14.8%)

Michelle Bachmann

13 (12%)

Chris Christie

23 (21.3%)

Rand Paul

49 (45.4%)

Total Members Voted: 107

[etgfrog]

Only thing I can think of is saving it in case of an invasion then handing them out to everyone

[Owlbread]

The most effective action I could think of would be for the state to sell them to collectors to top up revenue.

[misko27]

Only thing I can think of is saving it in case of an invasion then handing them out to everyone

Handing guns out? The only study on Gun Ownership rates that gives details by state (dated 2005) puts gun ownership rate in SC at 57%. God knows how many of them can aim, but presumably all those who can already own a gun. Therefore, it is safe to say handing out guns is unnecessary.

To be fair, Greater Carolina's traditional moral superiority in such things has been heavily eroded, given our current legislature. A recent example would be the "Save the Guns Act", which forbids state and local law enforcement from destroying confiscated firearms. Instead they have to donate them to a museum, keep them for training, or sell them to the general public. All of which were options available to them previously, but it was left to the enforcement agency's discretion.

Apparently, some gun-rights folks were concerned about the thousands of poor, innocent, defenseless firearms brutally murdered at the hands of police every year. I swear, I want to get a bumper sticker with a pistol curled up like a fetus and the caption "Life begins at manufacture."

As an enthusiast of such things I can say that it's a nice thing for North Carolina to do and doesn't hurt anyone. It's not necessarily about it being an extension of our genitals, it's more that literally hundreds of historical weapons have been destroyed when they were confiscated in the UK as laws were tightened, including very rare pistols or rifles that should have been in museums. That law doesn't really have glocks or something in mind as much as it does, for instance, a Luger your grandfather brought back from the war or something that would be confiscated and destroyed in the event that gun control tightens up, as it probably will one day. We are talking antiques here, after all. Some of them extremely valuable.

It amuses me how far this is from the political reality in the US. Someone, actually taking the guns away? Like how I hear all the damn time? "They will come for our guns!"? I think the politicians who suggests that in the US should fear for his life, and if it ever manged to pass there would be a serious attempt at rebellion outside of urban areas.


I mean, really, there is not a major crisis of valuable or rare guns going in the trash I can assure you. Hell, there are 30 or so legal miniguns built before 1986 that you can buy, and shoot.

[Owlbread]

That isn't to say that there would be such a crisis in the future. In the UK we wouldn't have been able to predict that things would go the way they did in the 80s and 90s.

[BlackFlyme]

I swear, I want to get a bumper sticker with a pistol curled up like a fetus and the caption "Life begins at manufacture."

If I still had my job at the labeling factory I worked at, I would totally try to make you some.

[Xantalos]

How high do you even have to BE

The highness level of the Republican Party is TOO DAMN HIGH!
I'm sorry, I had to.

[lue]

* lue takes a long sip of his caffeine-laden drink to prepare reading today's politics thread posts.

A Republican congressman's reasons for voting against the debt deal.

PPPPPPPPPPPHHHHHHHHHHHHHH (deep breath) what?

Anyway,

On the guns: I have never really heard or thought of antique and rare guns as a reason for the "you can't smelt these" law. That's a reason I can live with, however the fact that the law (to my knowledge) considers all guns undestroyable is not at all a good thing. In fact, I suspect that if there was a protect old guns motivation, it was secondary to a primary motivation to gain another win for the gun rights camp.

Variations on that law I could live with:

• Guns deemed to have an intrinsic value to the history of firearms and their usage shall not be destroyed; or alternatively
• people donating guns to the buyback programs will indicate whether they would be fine with the firearm being destroyed, or if they would rather it provide some continued service in the form of a firearm. Restrictions on allowing destruction can be put in place for certain firearms with an intrinsic value (see above bullet).

I think most non-extreme gun control advocates could understand protecting historical weaponry. But not every scrap of metal that got smelt into the shape of a pistol needs preservation.

(Qba'g rira trg zr fgnegrq ba ubj gur Frpbaq Nzraqzrag qbrfa'g npghnyyl tvir gur beqvanel crefba gur evtug gb orne nezf.)

[FearfulJesuit]

I think what the Internet and this thread most need at this point is a reaction gif of Richard Nixon spinning in his grave.

[Zangi]

There is money to be made with reselling confiscated guns, in my opinion.  Or at least expenses to be offset and a few jobs to go with it.

And... why not sell confiscated weapons to the government, so they can in turn provide cheap/used guns to people/rebels they are arming?  You don't need to give em new guns, just as long as they work and the ammunition to go with it.

Gun control, state revenue and government savings...  huzzah!

[RedKing]

As an enthusiast of such things I can say that it's a nice thing for North Carolina to do and doesn't hurt anyone. It's not necessarily about it being an extension of our genitals, it's more that literally hundreds of historical weapons have been destroyed when they were confiscated in the UK as laws were tightened, including very rare pistols or rifles that should have been in museums. That law doesn't really have glocks or something in mind as much as it does, for instance, a Luger your grandfather brought back from the war or something that would be confiscated and destroyed in the event that gun control tightens up, as it probably will one day. We are talking antiques here, after all. Some of them extremely valuable.

I don't think there's been a rash of overzealous cops destroying great-great-great-great-grandpappy's musket what he done used in the War. For one thing, the number of musket-related (or muzzle-loading rifle, or whatever else) crimes is not really a thing. I'd wager the majority are cheapass .357s (the infamous "Saturday Night Special") and 9mm like the TEC-9.

You may suggest that guns that are only 10 years old are not antiques or historical and are not worth keeping. Indeed, some gun laws are built around clauses like that. Some of these guns though can be limited editions that are worth keeping for collection elsewhere, or even guns that have emotional significance for the shooter (such as their "first gun", or a gun that belonged to someone) and they would be quite upset to see them destroyed.

And quite a few guns might have emotional significance to the victims, who would be upset to see them resold to the public.

That said, I think stuff like illegally modified TEC-9s are historical pieces that are worth keeping examples of and should not be destroyed. Like the Apache pistols carried by French gangsters in the 19th century, they're significant in that they were the weapons of choice for so many criminals throughout the late 80s and early 90s. After all, what's the problem with keeping them if they're safely in the hands of the authorities? If there's too many of them, decommission them and sell them, or send them somewhere where it's legal to own them live. If there's still too many after you've done that, recycle them.

The thing is, you're looking at this from the standpoint of the UK, where guns and gun purchases are indeed rare and privately owned firearms thus have a much higher chance of being an heirloom weapon.

This is America. Like most every other product we consume with gusto, our guns are mass-produced and nearly disposable. People buy a new shotgun like they'd buy a new tennis racket or bowling ball. For fuck's sake, they might be on the same aisle as the tennis rackets and bowling balls! They're considered a "sporting good" by most retailers.

[ed boy]

Although I don't agree with the prevention of the destruction of guns, I can understand why people would want them preserved. To lots of people, the gun is the symbol of self-empowerment and other similar things, and to have guns destroyed causes them much grief, with the destruction of the gun also being symbolic of oppression in history.. There's also the historical aspect, where people will consider guns to have value both in a historic sense and a sentimental sense.

Similarly, I know loads of people who are violently against any instance of the destruction of books. To those people, the destruction of books represents totalitarian censorship and stripping of rights. Even though there are lots of situations where books need to be gotten rid of, there are plenty of people who insist that the books must always be resold of given away instead. As unusual as it is to link to cracked in a serious discussion, this article gives a good explanation. When I read the comments and see people saying "books should be resold instead of destroyed because a book holds significance beyond simply words on paper", I don't find it hard to imagine someone who sees significance in guns from wanting to prevent the destruction of guns in a similar way.

[Frumple]

This is America. Like most every other product we consume with gusto, our guns are mass-produced and nearly disposable. People buy a new shotgun like they'd buy a new tennis racket or bowling ball. For fuck's sake, they might be on the same aisle as the tennis rackets and bowling balls! They're considered a "sporting good" by most retailers.

Heehee, yes. Most walmarts I've been to you can touch, say, a soccer ball (that's not in your cart or moved or whatever. Where they're intended to be displayed at), and a gun case (with, y'know, guns in them) at the same time. Without needing abnormally long arms.

[RedKing]

Although I don't agree with the prevention of the destruction of guns, I can understand why people would want them preserved. To lots of people, the gun is the symbol of self-empowerment and other similar things, and to have guns destroyed causes them much grief, with the destruction of the gun also being symbolic of oppression in history.. There's also the historical aspect, where people will consider guns to have value both in a historic sense and a sentimental sense.

Similarly, I know loads of people who are violently against any instance of the destruction of books. To those people, the destruction of books represents totalitarian censorship and stripping of rights. Even though there are lots of situations where books need to be gotten rid of, there are plenty of people who insist that the books must always be resold of given away instead. As unusual as it is to link to cracked in a serious discussion, this article gives a good explanation. When I read the comments and see people saying "books should be resold instead of destroyed because a book holds significance beyond simply words on paper", I don't find it hard to imagine someone who sees significance in guns from wanting to prevent the destruction of guns in a similar way.

One major difference -- lot harder to kill someone with a book.
Oh, I have a few that could do the trick, but it would take some effort.

[Descan]

My local library puts non-borrowed books on sale?

Also, seriously? It's not that hard to mark a book as "important" when it comes in? I mean, sure, if you -haven't- done that since the begining/for a while, it's a lot of work, but if you have a list of "Important books" and "books that are not borrowed in the last 5 years", do a scan of the "not borrowed" and take out any "important" books.

WE HAVE THE TECHNOLOGY GUYS.

[Max White]

I can think of a few books that have killed many.
The destruction of books isn't what it used to be. Once books were very hard to reproduce, so it was feasible to actually destroy all copies. Mass book burning wasn't about destroying paper, it was about ending ideas. Now days we can mass print a lot more easily. Heck copying a pdf has never been so simple! It is nearly impossible to actually destroy the intellectual property. Where somebody to burn a biology textbook I would be a little annoyed at their stance, but ultimately I think their right to do so is important.

Not much has changed in regards to the destruction of a weapon. A gun exists to poke a hole in something from long range, this much hasn't really changed for a while. Point is that poking holes in people is generally a bad idea, and most people have no need for extended hole poking apparatus.