Gun Control - What do you propose?

[bigt8261]

freediver, now that the veil has been lifted and you have been exposed, let's have a real conversation.

You obviously support gun control. Ok, like what? Propose something here and let's have a respectful and honest discussion. No more lying.

[freediver]

I've never lied. I've been upfront about my opinions and thoughts every step of the way. I have been open about my background, my experience level, and why I believe we need to change gun regulations, that unfettered access to firearms is not working, and we the gun owners need to be hat instrument of change. Before someone else changes it for us.

If you read my posts I have been consistent in those thoughts. I've been involved in at least a half dozen threads. Was there something unclear? What else would you like to know?

[CharleyVCU1988]

You worry about the mentally ill obtaining firearms.

So how are YOU going to define what is mentally ill, without The State abusing the definition? 

[bigt8261]

I've never lied. I've been upfront about my opinions and thoughts every step of the way. I have been open about my background, my experience level, and why I believe we need to change gun regulations, that unfettered access to firearms is not working, and we the gun owners need to be hat instrument of change. Before someone else changes it for us.

If you read my posts I have been consistent in those thoughts. I've been involved in at least a half dozen threads. Was there something unclear? What else would you like to know?

So propose something. Let's hear what specifically you have in mind.

[freediver]

Gentlemen, please read my numerous posts on other threads. It's all there in black and white. I've been very open and upfront on my facts and my opinions.

[bigt8261]

Gentlemen, please read my numerous posts on other threads. It's all there in black and white. I've been very open and upfront on my facts and my opinions.

You have said a lot. Pick something out, perhaps your favorite idea, and suggest it here. Let us focus on one item and discuss it.

[TheQ]

He seems to be big on universal background checks on all gun purchases -- especially "evil" semi-auto "military style assault" rifles bought from a private party.

[gryphon]

Homeowners who don't have a certain security level gun safe for all of their firearms guilty of and prosecuted for misdemeanor or felony (he hasn't specified which one).

[TucTom]

You have said a lot. Pick something out, perhaps your favorite idea, and suggest it here. Let us focus on one item and discuss it.

Tom, I tried this before he "left" the first time. He wont actually discuss point by point. He is only here to state his ideas, ask for real gun owners thoughts and then gets mad when we ask him to clarify.

I have actually either asked a question myself or have pointed out that there was a question asked by someone else in numerous threads. He has not answered any of those times and will not answer now. He will probably be "traveling" which is his standard excuse for leaving for a week or two so he doesn't have to answer a question asked.

[gryphon]

I had no trouble getting on the MOC website when I was traveling in Ireland and Israel.  Maybe he doesn't understand how to connect when away from home.

[TucTom]

Well of course you can Dan, you also probably know that ads on websites are a lot of times based on the users/computers habits too.

[doesch]

I believe we need to change gun regulations, that unfettered access to firearms is not working,

Where was I for this? I would hardly say our current system is unfettered. Do we need to list every check someone needs to go through to buy a gun, carry a gun, or restrictions that have been placed on owning guns because of certain cosmetic features like a VG on a pistol?

[bigt8261]

Come on freediver, list something specific and let's talk about it. You came here to push gun control so push it. Just saying guns are bad isn't going to cut it, I want to know what you propose.

[freediver]

Once again Mr bigT: I've proposed a lot of things in numerous threads. Too numerous to repeat here. If you want to know more about my proposals, they're right there in black and white for your perusal. Get comfortable; my wife tells me I can get verbose at times.

Good luck.

[bigt8261]

Once again Mr bigT: I've proposed a lot of things in numerous threads. Too numerous to repeat here. If you want to know more about my proposals, they're right there in black and white for your perusal. Get comfortable; my wife tells me I can get verbose at times.

Good luck.

Too numerous to repeat and you can't be bothered to do so, yet you will repeatedly repeat that they are too numerous to repeat and you can't be bothered to repeat them. Also, it's black and light blue.

You say you want to talk about this yet now that you have been exposed you no longer want to. What happened? Why are you no longer able to carry on this conversation now that everyone knows who you are.

[freediver]

Everyone knows who I am? Wow, I've never had this kind of attention in my life! Thank you, all you adoring fans. I'll try and live up to the reputation you've bestowed upon me.

[gryphon]

I've proposed a lot of things in numerous threads. Too numerous to repeat here.

Actually you were kind of sparse on a lot of stuff.  You listed problems: FFLs who break the law by selling to prohibited people, stolen guns on the street, mentally unstable people owning firearms, universal background checks, ...

Specifically what do you propose?

a) FFLs who break the law.  What do you propose there, make it illegal?  It already is.  And I'm not sure there are that many, statistically or practically speaking.  Sometimes when the ATF finds out about them they let them run illegally for a year or two to make a better court case.  One case I am familiar with happened in Arizona where an FFL was selling guns to the Hells Angels.  The ATF knew about this and let it continue, hoping not only to get him but some MCs as well.  In the meantime, hundreds of guns were transferred to prohibited people--including converted full-auto guns--with the ATF's full knowledge.  While they eventually arrested the FFL, hundreds of guns, including machine guns, are now out on the street, probably all in the hands of criminals.  The ATF let that happen, on purpose.

b) stolen guns.  What do you propose there, make it illegal to steal a gun?  It already is.  Make it illegal to break into a house?  It already is.  Make it a misdemeanor or felony for a gun owner to not own a specified security-level gun safe and put him in prison if he doesn't?

c) preventing mentally unstable people from owning guns.  What do you propose there, abolishing HIPAA and making every psychologist and psychiatrist report their patients to the .gov?  If a teacher thinks one of his/her students is depressed about bad grades or girls, report him/her to the .gov?  Report anyone who is too anti-religion or too pro-religion to the .gov?  Report anyone who criticizes our government to the .gov?  And then change the law to state that anyone who anyone else thinks is suspect becomes a prohibited person?
 
d) universal background checks.  Michigan, New York, Illinois, and Washington D.C. all require handgun registration and/or background checks.  I'm sure there are others that do as well, these are the ones I know about.  Where is there high crime with handguns?  Michigan, New York, Illinois, and Washington D.C.  UBCs do nothing to stop gun crime because criminals generally don't use legal guns to begin with.  All it does is create a database of known firearms owners with types and quantities of firearms.  That could never be misused by the .gov, could it?

Let's start with these four things that you have identified as problems.  Propose solid solutions and let's see what they are.

[freediver]

Mr gryphon: I have proposed specific solutions, many times. If you need to refresh your memory, please go back and re-read the threads.

[part deux]

Mr gryphon: I have proposed specific solutions, many times. If you need to refresh your memory, please go back and re-read the threads.

All I've seen is hand waving, we gotta do something

[Ultra]

All I've seen is hand waving, we gotta do something

This ^

[MI_XD]

Mr gryphon: I have proposed specific solutions, many times. If you need to refresh your memory, please go back and re-read the threads.

You may have proposed specific solutions, BUT, those have been debunked. MANY TIMES

[freediver]

Mr MI_XD: It's true, SOME of them have been debunked,and I have learned from the exchange. But many of them have been shouted down, not for any rational reasons, but simply emotional ones. I've presented data and detailed solutions, most of which are ignored and replaced by hatred, vitriol, personal attacks, and threats.

[gryphon]

Constitutional reasons are not "emotional" reasons.

[bigt8261]

Mr MI_XD: It's true, SOME of them have been debunked,and I have learned from the exchange. But many of them have been shouted down, not for any rational reasons, but simply emotional ones. I've presented data and detailed solutions, most of which are ignored and replaced by hatred, vitriol, personal attacks, and threats.

I have seen zero data. Just because you say something does not make it data.

[CharleyVCU1988]

Freediver, you keep saying "refer back to my previous posts"

yet you have no problem expounding energy just to say either that or anything along the lines of "something must be done" or delineating training requirements or such.

Stop being evasive.

[doesch]

Agree; if it was "previously stated" cutting and pasting does not seem like such an issue especially if it will save lives. All I'm hearing are the "do something" ramblings of someone with 0 real solutions.

[freediver]

Mr bigT and mr Charley: I'm not being evasive. I have expounded at length in other threads about possible solutions. Some of them were negated by some solid reasoning, and I learned from that discussion. But most of them were shouted down not by reason, by fact, or by logic, but with name calling, lies, and threats. If YOU need any further explanation of the solutions I've proposed, YOU can go through the other threads and educate yourself. I'm not going to waste people's time or pull one of my typing muscles trying to make you happy.

[bigt8261]

I found one of your posts where you suggested a numbered list of items. While none of your items were supported with even a single citation or reference, I included at least one in every one of my rebuttals. Your response was essentially to ignore everything I said. If it's a conversation you want, then you need to participate.

[freediver]

My bigT: if you felt ignored, I apologize. That was not my intent. For every post of mine, there are 6-7 or more in reply. I simply do not have the time to answer them all. Especially when they devolve into childish name calling as so many of your cohorts and you have done. If you want to talk issues, I welcome that. You want to call people names, go find a school playground.

While we're on the subject of response, I want to respond to your postings of my personal Facebook entries. For starters, what I post on my FB page is really none of your GD business! As per the constitutionally protected first amendment right, I can post whatever I want, as long as I am not harming or proposing harm to anyone. The first amendment is a cornerstone of our free society and trumps every other right. So butt out. Second, none of my posts are anti-gun or anti-open carry. They are a call for reasonableness, for sanity, for finding a way forward and fixing the issue of gun violence. If you don't like my FB posts, fine. Don't read them. But don't for a minute try to censor me. That in itself is a form of tyranny.

[bigt8261]

Your faulty understanding of the First Amendment compliments your faulty understanding of the Second Amendment (and others).

[mosnar87]

Your faulty understanding of the First Amendment compliments your faulty understanding of the Second Amendment (and others).

Looks like we've got another one who doesn't understand that the first amendment protects the people from government censorship, not from individuals or non-government organizations. 

[freediver]

Right. But for a group who espouses the defense of constitutional rights and a free society, there are many individuals here who would like it otherwise. This "my way or the highway mentality" is just another form of tyranny. It just happens to be YOUR tyranny.

[m.marino]

Freediver,

A point on this. In order for it to be Tyranny, it must be forced on another with option or choice. Let's look at some items. Member's of MOC help new members and each other stay within the social law (those laws that are the legal fabric and framework of Michaigan, probably more properly called civil law)  of Michigan while carrying a firearm. They openly state their position and advocacy. We don't try to force others to accept our views and as any responsible group give attention to those who would harm the natural right to self defense and the right to bear arms.

Please explain how that is Tyranny? Yes we lobby so does the socialist who wants to get rid of the constitution completely and with it severely limit free speech. Please explain why you are using that word and position.

Michael

[freediver]

mr m.marino: I wouldn't claim that you have espoused a close-minded view. On the contrary, I have enjoyed our exchanges. Let's just say that there are plenty of other participants in these forums who do have a "my way or the highway" view of these issues. When I've presented factual arguments that run counter to their belief system, out comes the name calling and the personal attacks. They wish to force their particular view of unfettered, irresponsible gun ownership on us all and would like to stifle any and all debate. I've been told to shut up, leave, that I'm naive, misguided, stupid, brainwashed, I should drink bleach, and other unsavory comments. I find that just as tyrannical as the unbridled socialists who want everything their way (gun-haters or Greenpeace for example). Balance and compromise are the watchwords here.

And we don't need to compromise just to "do something". Our gun regulatory environment is broken, as evidenced by the gun violence that plagues our society. We need to work with our fellow citizens to find ways to make gun regulation that is effective in keeping guns out of the hands of criminals and the crazies. and the merely stupid.

[bigt8261]

Right. But for a group who espouses the defense of constitutional rights and a free society, there are many individuals here who would like it otherwise. This "my way or the highway mentality" is just another form of tyranny. It just happens to be YOUR tyranny.

The leadership of this organization supports the ability of private property owners to be able to make their own decisions. Even if that means banning guns. You see, that's not what the 2A protects against, nor does one's 2A protected right trample another's private property rights. Hint, the 1A works the same way.

[gryphon]

I've been told I should drink bleach

I see that you have stated that at least five times, but I find no evidence of anyone telling you to drink bleach.

[Redwingsrule6971]

I see that you have stated that at least five times, but I find no evidence of anyone telling you to drink bleach.

He must be confusing comments from another group's forum. Apparently they enjoy his expounded upon and expounded upon and expounded upon thoughts as well as we do.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Ultra]

You haven't presented a factual argument. Not once on this forum. Others have cited as much to you, in this thread, and still you don't get it.


Gentlemen, as the PTB seem to enjoy being in the role of Sisyphus here with the resident Soros plant, my parting bit of advice:

Don't feed the troll.

[LD]

As stated over on MGO, isn't the definition of insanity doing the same thing  over & over and expecting a different outcome?

You admit that our system of gun laws isn't working and yet you want more of the same.

I propose we rescind ALL restrictive gun laws and concentrate on "What makes these people kill or even shoot other people"?

We KNOW background checks don't & can't stop or predict violent behavior so why do you think more will help?

Prohibiting felons or mentally ill people from owning guns is like prohibiting red haired people from owning them.
It may allow someone that was inclined to shoot others to be charged with another crime but doesn't stop any of them.

Gun laws just don't work, we MUST find another way.
Abandon your quest to eliminate guns in the world and think out of the box for awhile.   

[CitizensHaveRights]

But...but...we're facing an EPIDEMIC of gun violence, and it's all the fault of the gun owners!

Oops...
http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2015/12/robert-farago/random-thoughts-about-the-risk-of-being-shot-to-death/