Need SS# to purchase a permit in Missouri as of today

[Al Agnew]

20 hours ago, tjm said:

The differentiation is already being made by people (some on this forum) that say "you don't need this gun to hunt". No doubt at all that gun owners will vote for gun confiscation in the end, all the while saying "you don't need that gun because I don't want that gun."

Well, we’ve already established that the right is limited, hence the prohibition on private ownership of fully automatic weapons without a very hard to get permit. Now we’re just arguing about how far to go in limiting it.

[LarrySTL]

As one of the folks old enough that I don't have to buy a Mo fishing license anymore, I haven't ever been asked for one in a zillion years but I suspect what would happen if I said I was exempt because of my age, that they'd ask to see proof of my age.   That Mo ID card/driver's license doesn't have SS #s on it anymore but you can bet it's tied into databases that already have the SS numbers.   Besides, the feds had "a security breach" about 6 or 8 years ago and let some hackers access about 5 million SS #s, mine included.    Whoever ended up with mine tried to collect my tax refund.  I bet he were surprised to find out that I owed the IRS a whole bunch of money on that year's return.   LOL

 

2nd Amendment-wise as Al just said, the right to bear arms has limits. Probably very few of us think that everybody should have an unlimited right to have machine guns, sawed-off shotguns, surface to air missiles, or suitcase-seize nukes.   YMMV 

[fishinwrench]

Instead of becoming someone prepared to fight a "tyrannical government" I think it way easier to become someone impossible to find.   For less than the cost of an arsenal and huge supply of ammo I can become a ghost, and alleviate all the stress and worry of being involved in a gunfight.

[JCreek]

On 6/5/2018 at 10:34 PM, fishinwrench said:

  But saying "I want an AR15 because it's the best choice for the type of game hunting I do"....is a giant crock of bull butter. 

Well Wrench, I gave up deer hunting when it became a fad and the city people started messing it up.  That being said, a folding stock and 4 sided rail sure ads conveniences I don't have on my Model 70.  Easier to get in/out of trees for one thing.  A buddy in GA carries a 6.8MM version for wild hogs.  They're just nice and compact for walking type hunting.  Of course hunting here requires a 10 round clip.  I'd take the AR out in weather that would see my wooden guns left safely in the safe, also.  It all involves choices and the right to make them IMHO.

[Al Agnew]

Two differences between the AR types and typical hunting rifles: they look cool and military and “tactical”, and they take high capacity magazines.  The “cool” factor makes them especially attractive to the nutcases and the high capacity makes them better at wiping out crowds. Is that enough to ban them? I would say yes, but only if you could somehow insure that the millions already in existence can’t end up with people who aren’t going to care about the law. Otherwise it’s pointless and only punishes the law-abiding.

[snagged in outlet 3]

My local gun shop has a barrel full of AR magazines right when you walk in the door.  I don’t remember how much they were but it was cheap.  

 

[JCreek]

5 hours ago, Al Agnew said:

Two differences between the AR types and typical hunting rifles: they look cool and military and “tactical”, and they take high capacity magazines.  The “cool” factor makes them especially attractive to the nutcases and the high capacity makes them better at wiping out crowds. Is that enough to ban them? I would say yes, but only if you could somehow insure that the millions already in existence can’t end up with people who aren’t going to care about the law. Otherwise it’s pointless and only punishes the law-abiding.

 I happen to be a nutcase and resent this line of reasoning.

[MOPanfisher]

As established by the SCOTUS each state has the authority to place reasonable restrictions upon fire arm ownership, including bans on various groups of firearms.  Most state legislatures know that is political suicide.  Besides I have many things that are not the "best" for most applications so what.  It is a quagmire that will not be solved anytime soon. 

[liphunter]

Here is one of many things that bother about the whole gun restriction thing. If you were to stop selling guns in this country today. How is that supposed to impact the problem. There are enough guns out by responsible citizens that will be stolen or used by the a friend or family member to do the unacceptable for the next fifty years. Of course in my IMO. OK, now that the guns sales have stopped and the nightmares continue. Whats the next step, gun confiscation? 

Guns are just the tool in these attacks. There not the reason. They will always find another tool. of course IMO. Why is that so hard to see?

[SpoonDog]

Guns are a tool- and just like it's tough to build a house without a hammer, it's tough to mow down dozens of people in a few seconds without an AR-15 or similar high-capacity weapon.  I need to kill a lot of people quickly- that's the problem these guns solve.  And it's up to us to determine whether everyone in society- regardless of mental or emotional state- needs to have that solution at their ready disposal.  If we're gonna say "it's just a tool," then let's be honest about what the tool does.

 

We can make the same argument that dedicated people will find a way around border walls, or find a way to slip through security.  We still eagerly implement those measures in the name of safety.  It's interesting two years ago we couldn't afford a single refugee in the country because on in 10,000 might be a terrorist, yet today the routine murder of American youth is an acceptable tradeoff for a strict interpretation of constitutional doctrine.  The uniting principle in those two positions isn't security, safety, or even law- it's a cavalier attitude towards the lives of other human beings.  They'll make a sacrifice so you don't have to.  It's greed.