Gun Legislation

[Slipknot]

Originally Posted by Got Stripers

So D-Barr suggested I highjacked my own thread, so let’s move it to one dedicated to the discussion. I guess the first question I have is how many here even feel this country has a serious gun problem?

s.

I have not even read anything else you wrote or anyone posted after the first question.
We have a people problem in this country Bob, that is all. Guns are not a problem, they are an asset and their ownership by citizens is necessary for all the freedoms you enjoy in this nation. It really is that simple. Gun grabbers are simply wrong. They only want power and if we continue to give up our liberties then we are done for.
I would advise you to put your efforts towards limiting mental defectives.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[JohnR]

Originally Posted by RIROCKHOUND

(Numbered for ease...)

1. Fair enough, there are limits on some weapons, but the Dayton kid killed 9 people and injured a couple dozen more in 30 #^&#^&#^&#^&ing seconds before LEO engaged and took him down because of the weapon he had access to and the capacity it had. I heard reports he had a handgun and shotgun. He grabbed the one he had to cause the most carnage. Jim and I agree on this, that should be more limits on that side of things. It won't stop nut jobs but it will limit the damage in many of these type of cases.

2. Every state?

3. You don't want a registry, how about universal background checks.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

1 - Same issue, people with problems, not the magazines that do this. There was a case in California where a judge ruled in favor of the plaintiff that her handgun with 10 round capacity put her at a disadvantage against criminals that disregarded CA law. For one week, larger capacity mags were legally sold, until the 9th court put a stay on the order pending further legal action.

Previous rulings against capacity (and rifles) have favored that these are used in self defense and that the owner should not be at a disadvantage against criminals.

Again, fight to keep these out of the hands of people with issues, not law abiding people. If you live in West Greenwich it can take 20 minutes for a cop to get there.

2. Every state requires a NICS check. Period. This is federal law.

3. I would be OK with better background checks (Universal is open for a lot of interpretation) provided we can agree in advance what they are and not available for Anti2A people to slip something in after. The problem is when ever pro 2A makes a deal, Anti2A moves the goal posts. Arguably the number one reason nothing gets done, and the Pro2A get the blame. Several shooters might have been prevented but States refused to give Mental Health records or the Military did not properly submit Dishonorable Discharges.

Originally Posted by Got Stripers

Go google AK style regulations state by state and there are tons of states with no regulations.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

ALL Semi Automatic Rifles, particularly AR15 and "AK style" require a NICS check when purchasing. ALL.

Originally Posted by scottw

AK style?

I googled "ak style" and got some cool looking shot guns

Not sure what that is

[scottw]

Originally Posted by JohnR

Not sure what that is

that's what I said too... thought it was Alaskan fashion or something

[nightfighter]

No doubt that mental illness deserves a seat at the table for the background check discussion. The big question is who will be the ultimate gatekeeper on an individual basis? LEOs? Pols? Mental health providers?

Are we going to be made to get a mental health evaluation every couple years and pay another $250 to $500 like the medical marijuana card holders do for their continuing need evaluation? Another cash grab?

I do think video games skew many young people and their perception of gun reality..... Have thought so for years after watching over my son's shoulder. How many of you have seen Call of Duty or Grand Theft Auto?

[scottw]

Originally Posted by nightfighter

I do think video games skew many young people and their perception of gun reality..... Have thought so for years after watching over my son's shoulder. How many of you have seen Call of Duty or Grand Theft Auto?

weird isn't it? in so many movies/video games you watch action heroes strap all sorts of guns to themselves and walk through the doors someplace and start mowing people down....and then some deranged kid acts out the same sort of action scene in real life...and then hollywood actors decry the violence and demand something be done about guns

[afterhours]

Originally Posted by nightfighter

I do think video games skew many young people and their perception of gun reality..... Have thought so for years after watching over my son's shoulder. How many of you have seen Call of Duty or Grand Theft Auto?

Agreed.


"The NRA very effectively spread the notion that any gun legislation was the first step towards the government taking your guns"


It is.


"Lobbyists like the NRA shouldn’t be allowed to buy our policies and if over 250 massshootings only 7 months into a year isn’t a “red flag” then what is. I believe the military and our police forces are where assault rifles belong"


And in how many of these were AR/AK's used? Take the ghetto/hood #'s out of that "over 250 massshootings in only 7mo" I doubt many used them. They love them their 9's.

[JohnR]

Originally Posted by Got Stripers

The NRA very effectively spread the notion that any gun legislation was the first step towards the government taking your guns, to the point the government isn’t even allowing funding to study gun violence. Auto fatality rates used to be very high, study, engineering and legislation, has brought that rate dramatically down. Car manufacturers were forced to add seat belts, then air bags, road designs were less banked and laws to license and penalties for operating under the influence and now texting were added.

Lobbyists like the NRA shouldn’t be allowed to buy our policies and if over 250 massshootings only 7 months into a year isn’t a “red flag” then what is. I believe the military and our police forces are where assault rifles belong, the argument you need that for home protection is nuts, you are far more likely to chock to death while eating at Chick Fillet.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

NRA is doing a marginal job of protecting my rights (and yours whether or not you chose to exercise them) from the people that have exactly said that we will - if given a chance - confiscate your guns.

Gun rates are down from years ago. Suicides are down a little, overall gun violence is down. Like Auto deaths. Gang crime (large number) and mass shootings (statistically a small number) are up, like distracted driving and texting deaths.

[Got Stripers]

Originally Posted by Slipknot

I have not even read anything else you wrote or anyone posted after the first question.
We have a people problem in this country Bob, that is all. Guns are not a problem, they are an asset and their ownership by citizens is necessary for all the freedoms you enjoy in this nation. It really is that simple. Gun grabbers are simply wrong. They only want power and if we continue to give up our liberties then we are done for.
I would advise you to put your efforts towards limiting mental defectives.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Sorry Bruce the guns don’t kill people, people kill people is very convenient, but doesn’t address the ease at which these either mentally or socially bankrupt individuals can obtain weapons capable of killing dozens in seconds. We have an equal number now bring killed by domestic terror than radical Islamic terror.

To suggest the evil Dems are coming for your guns is nuts, go count how many of those evil Dems are avid hunters or handgun owners. The number of nut jobs isn’t going down and making it more difficult if not impossible for troubled people or someone with an online agenda from being able to purchase makes sense.

I have no issue with legal gun ownership, but I also don’t see a need for assault rifles, or at least magazines with the capacity to kill so many in do little time.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Slipknot]

Originally Posted by Got Stripers

Sorry Bruce the guns don’t kill people, people kill people is very convenient, but doesn’t address the ease at which these either mentally or socially bankrupt individuals can obtain weapons capable of killing dozens in seconds. We have an equal number now bring killed by domestic terror than radical Islamic terror.
I find that much like the emotionally reactionary charged left that tries to make the president complicit accusing him of racism in these awful shooting events accusing him of racism in handling the border crisis, the media in the sensationalism of this news brings too much attention to it in their twisted spin which makes them complicit planting seeds in sick peoples' minds to find an easy way to kill so many in such a short amount of time. The more it happens, the more normalized it becomes to the point of numbing which is really sad. "Equal number"? you want to talk statistics? I can give actual factual statistics that will open you mind and see closer to the truth about so called gun violence. Convenience has nothing to do with it. What you sheep believe is if the tool was not in existence, then there would not be victims, that is fantasy land false promises of in the name of safety from leaders like Maura Healy. Background checks already exist.
Keep making more laws to infringe law abiding people and more and more criminals will continue to avoid those same laws. Get it?
To suggest the evil Dems are coming for your guns is nuts, go count how many of those evil Dems are avid hunters or handgun owners. The number of nut jobs isn’t going down and making it more difficult if not impossible for troubled people or someone with an online agenda from being able to purchase makes sense.
I did not suggest that Bob. In fact of the last few presidents, Obama passed less gun control than the conservatives so I realize it is not just the Democrats who pass gun control. But you can't tell me there are not progressive Dems who have actually said they are for banning guns. Gun control for politicians is not about guns, it is about control and the sooner you realize what they are doing, the better off we will all be.
Nutjobs also use other inanimate objects to main and kill yet we do not ban those things. What gives you or I the right to dictate what anyone can choose to own to defend themselves? None of any of the firearms my family own are a threat to anybody.

I have no issue with legal gun ownership, but I also don’t see a need for assault rifles, or at least magazines with the capacity to kill so many in do little time.
OK, you and many others don't see the need. Well then, people like you JimW, etc. need to get informed then. You don't hear about incidents like this one?https://www.heraldtribune.com/news/2...ers-with-ar-15
You try taking on a group of home invaders with a revolver or pistol and see where it gets you, dead most likely. That AR-15 semi automatic (not an Assault Rifle) saved this guys' life.
Or the many more examples that happen and it does not fit the left medias' narrative so the sheep just go along with the views they are told and fed by the ultra rich who run the country. How about the church shooting in Texas that was stopped by a law abidding citizen neighbor who prevented further deaths( and if he had his magazines already loaded would have gotten there faster and prevented more) ?

You're entitled to your opinion no matter how wrong it is.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Nobody limits you to how many golf clubs you can own, yet they are also used to kill as well, not just hit a white ball. I use tools every day. I can choose to own what I want. Don't blame the tool or dictate what tool people in a free country can choose to own.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Slipknot

Nobody limits you to how many golf clubs you can own, yet they are also used to kill as well, not just hit a white ball. I use tools every day. I can choose to own what I want. Don't blame the tool or dictate what tool people in a free country can choose to own.

slipknot, i’m a pretty conservative republican.

i believe that nothing will
eliminate violence, because the underlying problem is us. you’re right, the gun is an inanimate object. but are you telling me that if Adam Lanza went to Sandy Hook elementary school with a golf
club,,he would have killed as many kids as he did? Come on.

i find it difficult to discuss economic issues rationally with liberals, they have a hard time being rational. conservatives, in my opinion, can be equally irrational on this issue.

if i say “maybe high capacity magazines should be banned”, it’s not a valid argument to say that such a ban wouldn’t have stopped Timothy McVeigh. No one is saying gun control will reduce gun violence to zero. But maybe there are things that can help reduce the body count, and maybe we can do it without trampling on the constitution.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Slipknot]

of course not Jim, don't be silly, leave that to the sheep.


ya maybe, that is a big maybe as far as not trampling. The constitution has been trampled almost to death

[spence]

Originally Posted by Slipknot

OK, you and many others don't see the need. Well then, people like you JimW, etc. need to get informed then. You don't hear about incidents like this one?https://www.heraldtribune.com/news/2...ers-with-ar-15
You try taking on a group of home invaders with a revolver or pistol and see where it gets you, dead most likely. That AR-15 semi automatic (not an Assault Rifle) saved this guys' life.

I don't see anything in that article which indicates the ar-15 had any benefit over a handgun in the situation. I'd think in a cramped space you'd be better off with a handgun anyway.

And in a bit of irony the men were robbing his house because THEY KNEW HE HAD A LOT OF GUNS.

[JohnR]

Of Course Lanza, Roof, Johnson, Mateen, and the like had mental issues.

We don't need to stigmatize people that suffer from mental health problems, but we don';t need them to have access to firearms either.

Fix existing background checks so states can't block informatrion that would be entered into NICS.

My biggest issues on Red Flag and what make walk away from compromise here is that I believe it will just be a stepping stone for the Anti2A folks - you know, the ones that don't want to take your guns but want to ban them, tax them higher, ban ammunition, do this and do that, and then confiscate them (Wayne says they don't, BS).

If a Red Flag was passed, based on how previous big legislation is all screwed up, what loopholes will there be to classify large swaths of people as mentally ill (he voted for Trump, must be unwell, she listens to rap, must be unwell, Timmy thinks there should be less government, he must be unwell).

There needs to be clearly defined rules about how due process is handled, sunsets, unbiased arbitration between parties.

[Slipknot]

Originally Posted by spence

I don't see anything in that article which indicates the ar-15 had any benefit over a handgun in the situation. I'd think in a cramped space you'd be better off with a handgun anyway.

And in a bit of irony the men were robbing his house because THEY KNEW HE HAD A LOT OF GUNS.

Not many handguns have a capacity of 30 or 40 when time is the essence. You may not have seen anything in the article but facts are facts.

All the more reason to be vigilant and able to defend yourself when there are criminals bold enough to try to rob you, not ironic at all. So now you understand why those NY permit holders whose names were made public in an article years ago were upset. A little common sense goes a long way
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

The second amendment is not absolute, the same guys who wrote it also founded the university of virginia and banned weapons on campus. So it clearly wasn’t intended to be absolute.

A couple of problems with your statements. First, "weapons" (would that have included knives and swords?) were not banned. There was no infringement on the right to own arms. Nor, really, on the right to bear them as was meant by those who wrote the Constitution. They were banned solely on campus. Property owners have the right to ban most things, including arms, from being brought onto their property. It was never understood that the right to own and bear arms meant that the owner could use them to intimidate, threaten, or murder people. There were other laws and rights (including property rights, to life, etc.) that would curb how and where you could use and bear your weapons. It was understood that the right to own arms was for self defense (including, especially, defense against a tyrannical government) or for peaceful means to kill game for food or sport. Any absoluteness would be embodied in the PURPOSE for the right to own and bear arms. Your Virginia example does not infringe on the 2A in that respect.

Which leads to the second and greater problem with your statements. When you make an open-ended judgment on the lack of absoluteness of the 2A, you invite the total eradication of it. If you say that it is absolutely not absolute, you are not showing in what way it cannot be infringed, or even eliminated. If there is no absolute quality in the 2A, if it is subject to infringement by any supposedly rational or "reasonable" objection, it then lacks any unassailable power to exist.

To say that the 2A is not absolute is Progressive verbiage which is exactly intended as a step and rationale for eliminating it. This notion that there are no absolute rights is precisely a basic premise of Progressivism in which rights have no basis other than a grant from government.

[scottw]

Originally Posted by detbuch

A couple of problems with your statements. First, "weapons" (would that have included knives and swords?) were not banned. There was no infringement on the right to own arms. Nor, really, on the right to bear them as was meant by those who wrote the Constitution. They were banned solely on campus. Property owners have the right to ban most things, including arms, from being brought onto their property. It was never understood that the right to own and bear arms meant that the owner could use them to intimidate, threaten, or murder people. There were other laws and rights (including property rights, to life, etc.) that would curb how and where you could use and bear your weapons. It was understood that the right to own arms was for self defense (including, especially, defense against a tyrannical government) or for peaceful means to kill game for food or sport. Any absoluteness would be embodied in the PURPOSE for the right to own and bear arms. Your Virginia example does not infringe on the 2A in that respect.

Which leads to the second and greater problem with your statements. When you make an open-ended judgment on the lack of absoluteness of the 2A, you invite the total eradication of it. If you say that it is absolutely not absolute, you are not showing in what way it cannot be infringed, or even eliminated. If there is no absolute quality in the 2A, if it is subject to infringement by any supposedly rational or "reasonable" objection, it then lacks any unassailable power to exist.

To say that the 2A is not absolute is Progressive verbiage which is exactly intended as a step and rationale for eliminating it. This notion that there are no absolute rights is precisely a basic premise of Progressivism in which rights have no basis other than a grant from government.

this isn't that complicated right? banning guns from being brought on to a property is quite different from banning an individual's right of ownership....to make the leap using that example to then claim the right is therefore not absolute, is a bit confusing

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by scottw

this isn't that complicated right? banning guns from being brought on to a property is quite different from banning an individual's right of ownership....to make the leap using that example to then claim the right is therefore not absolute, is a bit confusing

scott, we ban ownership for felons, for those who fail background checks, for those who have restraining orders against them. why is banning ownership for the mentally ill, significantly different? would you remove bans on ownership for felons, and those who fail background checks?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

scott, we ban ownership for felons, for those who fail background checks, for those who have restraining orders against them. why is banning ownership for the mentally ill, significantly different? would you remove bans on ownership for felons, and those who fail background checks?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

When you break the law, or are outside of the law in a way that is a threat to law abiding citizens, you forfeit many legal rights. Constitutional rights protect the life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness of those who are not a threat to the rights of others.

[scottw]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

scott, we ban ownership for felons, for those who fail background checks, for those who have restraining orders against them. why is banning ownership for the mentally ill, significantly different? would you remove bans on ownership for felons, and those who fail background checks?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

this is dumb....of course ownership for felons is banned...you lose your Constitutional rights when you do something wrong....that's how it works....I'm not opposed to keeping guns out of the hands of people who are mentally impaired....where is the line?...some would suggest that based on your posts here you may be mentally ill...you've suggested others must be suffering some mental illness because of their political views..

this is a wrong headed as your leap from "the ban" at the Univ. of Va. to certain rights not being absolute

the examples you cite are after the fact.....you are then talking about proactively limiting the Constitutional rights of a segment of the population because you think a few of them "might" do something

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by scottw

this is dumb....of course ownership for felons is banned...you lose your Constitutional rights when you do something wrong....that's how it works....I'm not opposed to keeping guns out of the hands of people who are mentally impaired....where is the line?...some would suggest that based on your posts here you may be mentally ill...you've suggested others must be suffering some mental illness because of their political views..

this is a wrong headed as your leap from "the ban" at the Univ. of Va. to certain rights not being absolute

the examples you cite are after the fact.....you are then talking about proactively limiting the Constitutional rights of a segment of the population because you think a few of them "might" do something

it’s not dumb.

prohibiting guns from those who have restraining orders against them, are not necessarily after the fact. restraining orders can be given on a prospective basis if there's a reasonable future threat.

so you’re opposed to such actions unless they are “after the fact”? Maybe it’s just by dumbness again, but isn’t it far superior to address these things before the fact? isn’t that the goal we should
be striving for?

restraining orders can be given before the fact, when there’s a reasonable threat. Meaning, a person who hasn’t actually done anything illegal yet, is sufficiently likely to do something wrong in the future, that we seriously limit his liberties and his freedoms - we tell him where he can and cannot go.

I’ll ask again, why are red flag laws so different from this principle? seems very similar to me. Are you opposed to granting restraining orders until after an assault has been committed against the person applying for the order? would
you tell her she had to wait until after the fact
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[JohnR]

Originally Posted by scottw

this is dumb....of course ownership for felons is banned...you lose your Constitutional rights when you do something wrong....that's how it works....I'm not opposed to keeping guns out of the hands of people who are mentally impaired....where is the line?...some would suggest that based on your posts here you may be mentally ill...you've suggested others must be suffering some mental illness because of their political views..

this is a wrong headed as your leap from "the ban" at the Univ. of Va. to certain rights not being absolute

the examples you cite are after the fact.....you are then talking about proactively limiting the Constitutional rights of a segment of the population because you think a few of them "might" do something

This is the hard part that needs to be figured out.

Passing the background check is hard for many. You cannot pass a background check if you have felonies, have certain mental health you cannot legally purchase a firearm if you do drugs - even smoke pot (sorry E), have a problem with Alcohol. You cannot purchase a firearm (legally) if you are using anti-depressants or suicidal.

I know people that have mental health issues that should not be anywhere near a firearm, and others that would be fine. A hard part is going to be where you draw the line.

Another hard part is that some people doing the evaluation may allow their bias in, over evaluating someone as a danger or under evaluating (likely less common).

Anything that needs to be done needs to have certain sunset rights where renewal is required.

Red Flag laws have a problem in some locations that local Police do not want to be responsible for cataloging, and storing someone's firearms for an undetermined time while due process is happening. And Due Process MUST happen if you are curtailing Constitutional somneone's rights.

[wdmso]

Every state requires a NICS check. Period. This is federal law.

has this loophole been closed in the federal Law .. if not its only in 21 states

Federal law requires background checks for commercial gun sales, but not for private-party sales


Sale Exemption
unlicensed, private sellers are not required to conduct background checks. This means that, unless state law requires a background check for these sales, convicted felons, domestic abusers, and other ineligible people can legally buy guns—even though they would fail a background check if purchasing from an FFL. Fortunately, 21 states have closed the federal loophole

[wdmso]

the argument that mental health is the root cause of mass shootings — doesn’t appear to be borne out by studies,
https://www.economist.com/lexingtons...ther-than-guns

why the NRA keeps talking about mental illness, rather than guns
Explaining away exceptional horrors like the Newtown school massacre

this is from Mar 13th 2013 and they are beating the same drum today ??

[afterhours]

Originally Posted by wdmso

the argument that mental health is the root cause of mass shootings — doesn’t appear to be borne out by studies,
https://www.economist.com/lexingtons...ther-than-guns

why the NRA keeps talking about mental illness, rather than guns
Explaining away exceptional horrors like the Newtown school massacre

this is from Mar 13th 2013 and they are beating the same drum today ??

So mental issues are not the root cause of mass shootings? I can not buy that can you, really? Do reasonably level headed individuals initiate these horrific acts of violence? I think not. Every one of them has a mental health issue to do those deeds.

[Got Stripers]

Big difference in head count based on the weapon used, your kidding yourself if you don’t believe that is true. Give the Vegas shooter 6 hunting rifles with 6 round clips and 25 times to rack up the same head count and he won’t get there once. TOOLS do influence the head count.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Got Stripers]

https://www.motherjones.com/wp-conte...-deaths630.png
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Sea Dangles]

Guns are not a god given right but certainly we are entitled under our constitution.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Got Stripers]

The NRA very effectively spread the notion that any gun legislation was the first step towards the government taking your guns, to the point the government isn’t even allowing funding to study gun violence. Auto fatality rates used to be very high, study, engineering and legislation, has brought that rate dramatically down. Car manufacturers were forced to add seat belts, then air bags, road designs were less banked and laws to license and penalties for operating under the influence and now texting were added.

Lobbyists like the NRA shouldn’t be allowed to buy our policies and if over 250 massshootings only 7 months into a year isn’t a “red flag” then what is. I believe the military and our police forces are where assault rifles belong, the argument you need that for home protection is nuts, you are far more likely to chock to death while eating at Chick Fillet.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[spence]

The striped socks make the loafers...
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[JohnR]

*MOST* Cannon are not available as village level assets ; )