2nd Amendment thread



I've been following Judge Benitez for a while. I love this guy!!! We need more like him that understand what their job is.

Look at some of the stuff people have made haha.

Honorable-Roger-Benitez.png

Roger-Benitez_mockup_Front_Flat_Dark-Heather.png

iu
 
Having been on the same boat with @SJGUSMC21 during the tragic accident, I too lost a plain Jane WASR AK. Though unlike the Sarge, I had yet to become proficient with it.

I must say that my Sig 516 .556 was extremely reliable and due to the gas piston design, the bcg and internals stayed (relatively) clean even after a 1300 round 3 day carbine class.

Damn I miss those guns ...




That was a huge wave that hit the boaters out that day. Millions of AK's were lost at sea..
 
Firearms lost at sea... a Canadian Lawyer remarks on the news..

The Judge determined Kalifornia Assault Weapons law is unconstitutional, and issued a stay on June 4th for 30 days before it goes into effect, thus the stay is set to expire on the 4th of July
( if California does nothing, the laws will have been declared unconstitutional! .. 4th of July is the deadline for the Kalifornia State to challenge it... )

Federal Judge Overturns California Firearm Ban - Viva Frei Vlawg
 
.556 X-Tac 55gr coming down. Now $.70 per round in case quantities.

It’s a start
 
.556 X-Tac 55gr coming down. Now $.70 per round in case quantities.

It’s a start
 

.300 Win mag if I'm not mistaken. Guessing you're taking hogs or big bucks.

The biggest issue with gun control is not guns but basic background checks and security. Biggest cause of school etc shootings in the US is a lack of firearm security leading to stolen guns or disaffected childern obtaining a parents gun and taking it to school.

Ignoring the general restrictions on ownership within the UK, when you look at the number of incidents within licenced owners in the UK, it's virtually zero, even when taken over decades of stats. Reason, good background checks and rules, and firearm security being compulsory. Admit the situation in the US is a bit different as there are many more perps with guns, but if carried on you when not if the safe, then the issue of fast access is a non issue.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: sebastiantombs
We do have background checks that are required on every gun purchase. There is no "gun show loophole". It is a lie told by politicians who know nothing about firearms or firearms laws in an effort to scare others who are oblivious to the existing laws.

The reason why we have these school mass shootings (or almost every other mass shooting) is because the criminal is the only one on the scene with a gun. They know this. That is why they choose these locations. They know they will not meet armed resistance. A properly trained teacher, security guard, ex-cop/military placed in the location with quick access to a rifle would put an end to the event pretty quick. Also, once these criminals learn that their criminal efforts are very likely to result in them losing their life very quickly, you will see a drastic reduction in mass shooting attempts.

They are too fixated on the guns themselves, though. With over 300 million guns already in the US, they are not going anywhere, laws or not. Criminals will access them, laws or not.

Idiot politicians are the cause of our gun violence problem.
 
We do have background checks that are required on every gun purchase. There is no "gun show loophole". It is a lie told by politicians who know nothing about firearms or firearms laws in an effort to scare others who are oblivious to the existing laws.

The reason why we have these school mass shootings (or almost every other mass shooting) is because the criminal is the only one on the scene with a gun. They know this. That is why they choose these locations. They know they will not meet armed resistance. A properly trained teacher, security guard, ex-cop/military placed in the location with quick access to a rifle would put an end to the event pretty quick. Also, once these criminals learn that their criminal efforts are very likely to result in them losing their life very quickly, you will see a drastic reduction in mass shooting attempts.

They are too fixated on the guns themselves, though. With over 300 million guns already in the US, they are not going anywhere, laws or not. Criminals will access them, laws or not.

Idiot politicians are the cause of our gun violence problem.

Your background checks are nothing compared to ours nor your security requirements. Our background checks take around 4 months and include MI5 (CIA) investigations for known connections to terrorists or anarchist groups or organised crime, as well as regular police checks for convictions and enquiries of your Doctor for mental health / suicide issues.

We too have no-one armed on scene. We've had 1 school shooting in a period greater than the last hundred years involving a legally held weapon.

Keeping guns out of the wrong hands goes a long way to preventing these problems and good background checks and good security go a long way.

Are UK laws too tight in some areas? Most probably and infringe on freedoms you take for granted, but I think we got the checks and security areas right.

Do we have a knife problem with gangs? Yes. Separate issue entirely though and very strongly linked to our Police being afraid to stop and search people for fear of upsetting communities.
 
  • Sad
Reactions: sebastiantombs
Keeping guns out of the wrong hands

Many if not most of our mass shooters are not previous offenders or terrorists. Meaning they would get a gun no matter how draconian you make the laws. And the ones who couldn't get a gun legally stole it. Criminals don't care about gun laws. You will never get the illegal guns off the street. Stricter laws just take them out of the hands of law abiding people who actually respect laws. That good guy with a gun might be the one to stop the next mass shooting.

And even if they did magically remove millions of guns, these murderers would just turn to another method of killing. Car, knife, bomb, gun. They are all just tools.

Nobody wants mass shootings, but they want to do it in a very ineffectual way.

Let's actually enforce the gun laws we have on the books, first. Looking at you, leaders of Democrat controlled cities.
 
Many if not most of our mass shooters are not previous offenders or terrorists. Meaning they would get a gun no matter how draconian you make the laws. And the ones who couldn't get a gun legally stole it. Criminals don't care about gun laws. You will never get the illegal guns off the street. Stricter laws just take them out of the hands of law abiding people who actually respect laws. That good guy with a gun might be the one to stop the next mass shooting.

Many have mental health issues though. In the UK your doctors' records would stop you getting a gun.

The Medical Checks in the UK (taken from the Firearms Application Form) - Not all of these would be an automatic bar. Some conditions in the past or well under control may still allow the grant if medical advice supports it.

BTW GP = General Practitioner ie Family Doctor in US terms. Expand the below quote, you'll find the checks massive!

Medical information

4. You must disclose any relevant physical or mental health conditions that you have been diagnosed with or treated for in the past as this may affect your ability to safely possess and use a firearm or shotgun. Relevant medical conditions which must be disclosed are listed in note 5. Sections 27 and 28 of the Firearms Act 1968 (as amended) specify that in order to issue a firearm or shotgun certificate the chief officer of police must be satisfied that an applicant can be permitted to possess a gun ‘without danger to the public safety or the peace’. Medical fitness is one of the factors police must consider when assessing a person’s suitability. FORM 201 – 2017 - 1 Page13

5. Relevant medical conditions which must be disclosed are:

• Acute Stress Reaction or an acute reaction to the stress caused by a trauma

• Suicidal thoughts or self harm

• Depression or anxiety

• Dementia

• Mania, bipolar disorder or a psychotic illness

• A personality disorder

• A neurological condition: for example, Multiple Sclerosis, Parkinson’s or Huntington’s diseases, or epilepsy

• Alcohol or drug abuse

• Any other mental or physical condition which might affect your safe possession of a firearm or shotgun If in doubt, consult your GP or contact the police firearms licensing department.

6. If you have disclosed a relevant medical condition the police may ask you to obtain a medical report from your GP/specialist. You are expected to meet the cost if a fee is charged for this. If further information is required the police may request and pay for a further report.

7. Where no relevant medical conditions are disclosed the police will contact your GP asking if they are aware of any relevant medical conditions or have any concerns about the grant of the firearm or shotgun certificate.

Depending on the reply, the police may ask you to obtain a medical report from your GP/specialist. You are expected to meet the cost if a fee is charged for this. If further information is required the police may request and pay for a further report.

8. The police will ask your GP to place an encoded reminder on your patient record to indicate that you have been issued with a firearm or shotgun certificate.

The GP is asked to notify the police if, following issue of the certificate, you are diagnosed with or treated for a relevant medical condition (listed in note 5), or if the GP has other concerns about your possession of a certificate that might affect your safe possession of firearms.

Following contact from your GP there may be a need for a medical report to be obtained to assist with assessment of your continued suitability to possess a firearm or shotgun certificate. The police will pay if a medical report is required.

As you can see your medical records are flagged even after a grant and if concerns are raised at a later date by the GP, then your certificate can be suspended or revoked and your guns seized pending a further medical report.

Additionally, the certificate has to be renewed every 5 years where checks are done again. In between, any incidents of unlawful behaviour eg getting into a fight, violence, domestic violence, drinking offences, drink driving, even speeding (bit excessive that one in my opinion but logic is you're showing a propensity to break the law), etc may lead to revocation.

Also, if a member of the public or employer or neighbour etc reports concerns, these are investigated and again if they involve any of the above, or anything that may raise concerns, it may lead to revocation or refusal.

In the UK it's not uncommon for people involved in divorce proceedings to have certificates supsendedd or revoked whilst the divorce is under way and for a period afterwards to prevent firearms being used as a result of domestic disputes during the divorce.

And even if they did magically remove millions of guns, these murderers would just turn to another method of killing. Car, knife, bomb, gun. They are all just tools.

Nobody wants mass shootings, but they want to do it in a very ineffectual way.

Let's actually enforce the gun laws we have on the books, first. Looking at you, leaders of Democrat controlled cities.

I agree. If someone is determined enough they will always find a way. I predicted terrorists would run people over in cars if guns were unavailable years before the 1st attack.

The difference in the UK vs US, as you cna see is much more comprehensive checking of suitability (don't forget the above is just medical) there's still the criminal checks, known associations, checks on social media for illegal activities / threats to kill or of violence / suicide / anger and depression etc.

Regarding illegal guns, that's why UK safekeeping is so strict. You would get prosectued and possibly have your certificate revoked if they found a single round of ammunition outside of the gun safe nevermind a gun when the guns were not in use ie being transported to or from a shoot or in use at a shoot. If the gun was simply loaded in transport, you get arrested / revoked. Our laws on safe keeping to prevent criminals getting guns are very strict even down to the types of locks fitted to the doors on your home, the safe specifications (thickness of steel, type of hinges, shielding of the hinges to prevent jemmying, specifiation of the lock and key) etc, the locations (usually hidden) where they can be fixed, what they can be fixed to and how (usually rawl bolted to a brick wall by, from memory at least 5 points), and specifying home security systems.

I know the US is different here as in the US you have a right to use guns in self defence depending on the state. However, a sensible precaution in the US depending on the state would be to require the gun to be secured unless on your person at the time, so no unsecured guns left around. I know you guys have locked holders that can be attached to furniture keeping the gun ready but locked into the holder. That would seem to be sensible if its not on your person or otuside of a central safe.
 
Last edited:
You would get prosectued and possibly have your certificate revoked if they found a single round of ammunition outside of the gun safe nevermind a gun when the guns were not in use ie being transported to or from a shoot or in use at a shoot.

Wow, this would never fly here. What is the point of having a firearm, then? "Excuse me, Mr. Murderer, please wait while I go unlock my gun and ammo, then load my magazine. Then I can can defend my life against you, while you are already holding some type of weapon".

Yes, firearms should never be in the hands of dangerous people. But it's a slippery slope here. Especially in todays cancel culture world we live it. Someone driving by my house who sees my American flag with the Gadsen Flag underneath it, and the Trump flag on my mailbox can now suddenly call the police and report me as unfit or a danger to society? I would then possibly lose the fundamental right I was guaranteed in the constitution because someone was offended.

Like I said, we all want the same end goal. But we have to be smart about it. Banning drugs or making them harder to get obviously doesn't work. It's no different with firearms. People who want to get them WILL get them. Look at Chicago. Some of the strictest laws in the country for guns, yet the city is nicknamed ChiRaq.

There is no getting rid of guns. It's just silly to think criminals are going to give them back or not find ways to illegally get them. We need to enforce the existing laws and not gun law offenders off with no bail and slaps on the wrist, because this is exactly what is happening. They need to be off the street. We don't need bail reform, less police, or any of that garbage. We have a society that has no regard for human life any more. A lot of it has to do with broken families in the inner cities. This is the root cause of the problem. Let's change that.

Oh, and "gun free zones" are a joke.
 
Many have mental health issues though. In the UK your doctors' records would stop you getting a gun.

The Medical Checks in the UK (taken from the Firearms Application Form) - Not all of these would be an automatic bar. Some conditions in the past or well under control may still allow the grant if medical advice supports it.

BTW GP = General Practitioner ie Family Doctor in US terms. Expand the below quote, you'll find the checks massive!



As you can see your medical records are flagged even after a grant and if concerns are raised at a later date by the GP, then your certificate can be suspended or revoked and your guns seized pending a further medical report.

Additionally, the certificate has to be renewed every 5 years where checks are done again. In between, any incidents of unlawful behaviour eg getting into a fight, violence, domestic violence, drinking offences, drink driving, even speeding (bit excessive that one in my opinion but logic is you're showing a propensity to break the law), etc may lead to revocation.

Also, if a member of the public or employer or neighbour etc reports concerns, these are investigated and again if they involve any of the above, or anything that may raise concerns, it may lead to revocation or refusal.

In the UK it's not uncommon for people involved in divorce proceedings to have certificates supsendedd or revoked whilst the divorce is under way and for a period afterwards to prevent firearms being used as a result of domestic disputes during the divorce.



I agree. If someone is determined enough they will always find a way. I predicted terrorists would run people over in cars if guns were unavailable years before the 1st attack.

The difference in the UK vs US, as you cna see is much more comprehensive checking of suitability (don't forget the above is just medical) there's still the criminal checks, known associations, checks on social media for illegal activities / threats to kill or of violence / suicide / anger and depression etc.

Regarding illegal guns, that's why UK safekeeping is so strict. You would get prosectued and possibly have your certificate revoked if they found a single round of ammunition outside of the gun safe nevermind a gun when the guns were not in use ie being transported to or from a shoot or in use at a shoot. If the gun was simply loaded in transport, you get arrested / revoked. Our laws on safe keeping to prevent criminals getting guns are very strict even down to the types of locks fitted to the doors on your home, the safe specifications (thickness of steel, type of hinges, shielding of the hinges to prevent jemmying, specifiation of the lock and key) etc, the locations (usually hidden) where they can be fixed, what they can be fixed to and how (usually rawl bolted to a brick wall by, from memory at least 5 points), and specifying home security systems.

I know the US is different here as in the US you have a right to use guns in self defence depending on the state. However, a sensible precaution in the US depending on the state would be to require the gun to be secured unless on your person at the time, so no unsecured guns left around. I know you guys have locked holders that can be attached to furniture keeping the gun ready but locked into the holder. That would seem to be sensible if its not on your person or otuside of a central safe.


The difference is there are people that don't go to the doctor for mental help. So if you have never been diagnosed no one knows.. If you have tried to commit suicide you aren't allowed to possess a firearm or ammo for 5 years from what I hear.. Don't know if they check, but I doubt it. People with mental issues shouldn't be allowed access to a firearm but they aren't the only ones that need to be addressed. This country has many laws that aren't enforced. For example If you're a felon they are supposed to do checks and make sure you don't have a firearm or ammo in your house. Guess what... The don't follow through with this.

California for example Firearms Prohibiting Categories

Statistically I'm willing to bet most of the shootings we've had were from a illegally possessed firearm by someone that shouldn't have been able to buy it legally. The news doesn't like to talk about this because it goes against their agenda. Just like we don't hear gang violence or gang shooting anymore..

There are cities that have adopted laws that require firearms to be in a safe. The require you to show proof of safe at home and if not you're required to buy at gun lock before you leave with this new firearm.

Do these numbers seem to skyrocket or stay about the same? FBI — Expanded Homicide Data Table 8
 
Last edited:
Wow, this would never fly here. What is the point of having a firearm, then? "Excuse me, Mr. Murderer, please wait while I go unlock my gun and ammo, then load my magazine. Then I can can defend my life against you, while you are already holding some type of weapon".

I did say the situation over there was different and obviously the right to self defence means in the US guns would have to be permitted to be carried loaded.
 
The difference is there are people that don't go to the doctor for mental help. So if you have never been diagnosed no one knows.. If you have tried to commit suicide you aren't allowed to possess a firearm or ammo for 5 years from what I hear.. Don't know if they check, but I doubt it. People with mental issues shouldn't be allowed access to a firearm but they aren't the only ones that need to be addressed. This country has many laws that aren't enforced. For example If you're a felon they are supposed to do checks and make sure you don't have a firearm or ammo in your house. Guess what... The don't follow through with this.

California for example Firearms Prohibiting Categories

Statistically I'm willing to bet most of the shootings we've had were from a illegally possessed firearm by someone that shouldn't have been able to buy it legally. The news doesn't like to talk about this because it goes against their agenda. Just like we don't hear gang violence or gang shooting anymore..

There are cities that have adopted laws that require firearms to be in a safe. The require you to show proof of safe at home and if not you're required to buy at gun lock before you leave with this new firearm.

Do these numbers seem to skyrocket or stay about the same? FBI — Expanded Homicide Data Table 8

You don't have to go to the doctor to get diagnosed for it to apply.

I'm guessing many people go to the doctor for other things and the doctor notices mental health issues. Over here the fact your doctors records are flagged as a gun owner, means your doctor has to report any concerns as to ownership to the police. So if he notices mental health issues that raise concerns, such as depression or any form of psychosis or delusions, he would have to report those and the police would then come and interview you and maybe suspend yopur certificate / seize weapons pending a medical report from a specialist.

Similarly contact with other agencies such as the police or hospitals probably lead to those issues coming to the authorities attention as do complaints from neighbours etc. Over here, any of that would cause a red flag leading to you being looked at for those issues. Everything is much mnore connected and data shared. When the police run your details if stopped or involved in an incident, again you're flagged as gun owner, so the details of that incident can then be forwarded to firearms licensing.

Simply having a complaint from a neighbour (if found justified and involving any kind of agression) or getting arrested for eg being drunk and disorderly can lead to revocation. Over here, anything that indicates you are prone to break the law, violent or have any kind of drink or drug problem is a red flag to ownership. As I said above, people have been refused / revoked for speeding tickets as it indicates a propensity to ignore the law,

As I've said before I'm not against ownership nor self defence (where permitted by law). However, one thing that is clear is the number of guns in the worng hands in the US and a lot of that comes down to lax secuirty leading to theft and poor background checks on indivduals who clearly aren't suitable.
 
You don't have to go to the doctor to get diagnosed for it to apply.

I'm guessing many people go to the doctor for other things and the doctor notices mental health issues. Over here the fact your doctors records are flagged as a gun owner, means your doctor has to report any concerns as to ownership to the police. So if he notices mental health issues that raise concerns, such as depression or any form of psychosis or delusions, he would have to report those and the police would then come and interview you and maybe suspend yopur certificate / seize weapons pending a medical report from a specialist.

Similarly contact with other agencies such as the police or hospitals probably lead to those issues coming to the authorities attention as do complaints from neighbours etc. Over here, any of that would cause a red flag leading to you being looked at for those issues. Everything is much mnore connected and data shared. When the police run your details if stopped or involved in an incident, again you're flagged as gun owner, so the details of that incident can then be forwarded to firearms licensing.

Simply having a complaint from a neighbour (if found justified and involving any kind of agression) or getting arrested for eg being drunk and disorderly can lead to revocation. Over here, anything that indicates you are prone to break the law, violent or have any kind of drink or drug problem is a red flag to ownership. As I said above, people have been refused / revoked for speeding tickets as it indicates a propensity to ignore the law,

As I've said before I'm not against ownership nor self defence (where permitted by law). However, one thing that is clear is the number of guns in the worng hands in the US and a lot of that comes down to lax secuirty leading to theft and poor background checks on indivduals who clearly aren't suitable.

A lot of what makes our country so great when it comes to freedom can also lead to harder to maintain issues like this. A lot is let up to the state to create their own extra layer on top of government law. If a state does create red flag laws or a special database it's not shared with any other state or the federal government. For example I moved from Californina to Texas and made contact with the ATF and they said my firearms are ONLY in a CA database! So they couldn't help me answer any questions.

Also firearm culture has changed just in the last couple of generations that some of us would blame on simply lack of parenting. Young boys used to walk around town with rifles and even have them hanging in their trucks in high school. There weren't any mass shooting. If there was an argument it was taken outside to handle with fists.

The US also has more people from other countries now than in the past that have different firearm cultures or lack of any. No generational upbringing around firearms.. To get a firearm you simple take a short written test, pass background and give them money..

If the US had more federal control things could be better but we've seen just the opposite unfortunately when it comes to our elected officials. Doctors in the US aren't entirely safe to blindly trust. After finding out they take money to prescribe certain meds and find out it was part of a opioid problem in this country?! How can we give them so much power?

I get what you're saying and agree that more can be done.
 
It all sounds great in theory. If someone seems to be a threat, they don't have access to a gun. The only problem is that legally purchasing a gun at a gun store is not the only way to get your hands on a gun. In fact, it's rarely the method of getting a gun in most homicide cases in US cities. These guns are stolen. So background checks, red flag laws, or any other silly/feel-good legislation would not have done squat to prevent the criminal from doing what he was set out to do.

A murderer will find a tool to carry out his intentions. Blocking him from legally buying that tool will not remove the murderous intent from his brain. He will find a way. Criminals do not follow laws. They are criminals.