Post by: freediver on October 07, 2015, 07:19:27 PM
Thoughts, anyone?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YN6rjamk0Q0
Post by: gryphon on October 07, 2015, 10:34:32 PM
I think that the Umpqua CC shooter Christopher Harper-Mercer legally purchased his guns from FFLs and had background checks performed.
I think that the Charleston church shooter Dylann Roof legally purchased his gun from an FFL and had a background check performed.
I think that the Isla Vista shooter Eliot Rodgers legally purchased his guns from FFLs and had background checks performed.
I think that the Colorado theater shooter James Holmes legally purchased his guns from FFLs and had background checks performed.
I think that the Virginia Tech shooter Seung-Hui Cho legally purchased his guns from FFLs and had background checks performed.
I think that the Ft. Hood shooter Ivan Lopez legally purchased his guns from an FFL and had background checks performed.
I think that the other Ft. Hood shooter Nidal Malik Hasan legally purchased his gun from an FFL and had a background check performed.
I think that the Navy Yard shooter Aaron Alexis legally purchased his gun from an FFL and had background checks--state and federal--performed. He also had a security clearance.
I think that the Minneapolis shooter Andrew John Engeldinger legally purchased his guns from an FFL and had background checks performed.
I think that the Las Vegas shooters Jerad and Amanda Miller legally purchased their guns from an FFL and had background checks performed.
I think that the Tucson shooter Jared Loughner legally purchased his gun from an FFL and had a background check performed.
I think that the Sandy Hook shooter Adam Lanza used legally purchased guns, he just murdered the owner first and then stole them.
Should I go on? How many you want? Who did I forget? Oh, yeah, the Columbine shooting. The guns were a straw purchase, but the ATF declined to even prosecute the straw buyer.
So why is this idiot on youtube saying that non-FFL sales are causing mass shooting problems?
Post by: Theraven536 on October 07, 2015, 10:58:00 PM
Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk
Post by: freediver on October 08, 2015, 07:30:55 AM
Other than that, your post makes exactly the point that this video and I and others have been pointing out all along: the firearms ownership process in this country is a joke. You're right: many of these mass shooters did purchase their guns legally. THAT'S PART OF THE PROBLEM! Until we revamp the process by which we allow deadly weapons to change hands, or enter the populace in the first place, we are doomed to failure. We will continue to have shooting after shooting, crime after crime, all because no one wants to change. That mindset is ridiculous.
It's not about outlawing guns, or taking them away, or drastically restricting ownership. It's about fundamentally changing the way we approach firearms, the "way we do business". Under the guise of stopping some mythical tyranny, we lower the bar on gun ownership so far that any living, breathing idiot or crazy person can obtain a deadly weapon legally. As long as your name is not on some computer list, you can walk into a store and buy all sorts of firearms. There is no demonstration of mental competency, there is no demonstration of proficiency or even basic safety knowledge, nothing. Just bring money and a clean record. And so the carnage continues.
And guess what: the shooters aren't those liberal gun haters! They're US! They're the gun enthusiasts in the country who own weapons. Yet, almost every week one of US snaps and goes on a shooting rampage. Every year over 220,000 guns are lost or stolen (BofJ statistics), from US, the gun owners. WE are the people selling guns to people who shouldn't have them. We decry the spread of gun violence and crime in America, yet we are the very people living in denial about our role in the whole system.
It's been said many times that guns don't kill people, people kill people. That's absolutely right. As long as humans are fragile, crazy, emotional, passionate, occasionally irrational beings, we will have gun violence. So, if you want to find someone to blame for this phenomenon of gun-related death and crime, look in the mirror. Those guns going into the hands of crazies or criminals are coming from US, the gun owners. If you are a RESPONSIBLE gun owner, you can see the need for effective change.
Post by: freediver on October 08, 2015, 07:39:54 AM
Post by: part deux on October 08, 2015, 07:58:40 AM
Mr Gryphon: I am always amused by people like yourself who, when presented with a viewpoint they don't agree with, resort quickly to name calling. In this case you chose to call a Navy veteran, former police officer, and concerned gun owner (like myself) an idiot. That sort of juvenile behavior hardly adds to what should be a sober discussion about gun violence in our country and how best to solve it.If it quacks like a duck... It must be troll time.
Yes, he's a frickin idiot who is drinking the liberal media koolaid.
WE MUST DO SOMETHING.
35,000 people die in car accidents
More people are killed in swimming pools than are murdered by firearms.
So, is it that people die, or the gun that's an issue?
Post by: Theraven536 on October 08, 2015, 10:08:41 AM
Mr the raven536: I doubt you know the speaker in this video personally. So, to say that he is brainwashed or programmed is a ridiculous statement. The speaker in the video, like myself and many others, is not programmed or brainwashed. We are intelligent, caring human beings who are experienced in the use of firearms. We also care deeply about our society and our fellow citizens and are alarmed and disgusted by the mass shootings we see week after week. We have a viewpoint that the gun culture in this country is flawed and needs to change. And it needs to change from within. We, the gun owners, are the ones who know this culture best. We know what will work and not work when it comes to curbing gun violence. We have a vested interest in making sure that any change is effective, not just a knee-jerk reaction that doesn't cure the problem. We need to take a proactive role. As it's been said, "if you're not part of the solution, you're part of the problem". If we don't take an active role in changing the gun culture to a safer, more responsible one, that change will come from outside gun owners in ways we won't like.That is the beauty of America. You have the right to your opinion, just like I do. It's not my fault your opinion is wrong.
Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk
Post by: gryphon on October 08, 2015, 10:48:43 AM
you chose to call a Navy veteran, former police officer, and concerned gun owner (like myself) an idiot.
The guy is an idiot because he thinks that non-FFL sales are causing mass shooting problems.
Post by: freediver on October 08, 2015, 04:06:38 PM
I've watched the video several times and I see no evidence that Mr Carman is a "frickin idiot who is drinking the liberal media koolaid'. If you do a little research you would find that Mr Carman is a Navy veteran, a former law enforcement officer, and a solid Republican.
Yes, we must do something. By statistics posted on this forum and others, there are over 300 million firearms in this country, and 15 million MORE enter our society each year. Bureau of Justice statistics indicate that over 220,000 firearms are lost or stolen each year, coming from either gun owners like us or corrupt firearms dealers. Mass shootings continue unabated. Gun crime continues unabated. The ATF continues to be underfunded and undermanned. At what point do we quit living in denial and admit that A: as a country these trends are in the wrong direction, and B: as gun owners we are part of the problem. The guns aren't being lost by or stolen from liberal gun haters. The man in this video, a gun owner like us, is a concerned citizen and suggests a few simple ways we can improve the situation. On this forum, as is typical of other forums, he is not met with gratitude or even a friendly "I see your point." He is met with derision, with anger, with juvenile name calling from people like yourself.
That's the problem with the gun discussion we can't seem to have in this country. It is selfish and even arrogant to think the your ideas, your way of thinking, is the only way things can be. Democracy and our country are based on compromise, on basing our decisions on every citizens' needs and desires, not just the ones who agree with you.
As far as car accidents or swimming pools, this is neither an auto accident nor a swimming pool forum. This is a forum about firearms and firearm policy. So this is why we discuss those issues. Recognizing that driving a car is fraught with danger, we have rules governing driving and cars: safety minimums, licensing requirements at all levels of vehicles (CDL, motorcycle), learner's permits, tracking of titles and registration, loss of license with alcohol abuse. We have building and safety codes because we have experience with the danger of swimming pools. Why is it so hard to consider that some rules of gun ownership might improve the situation?
Post by: freediver on October 08, 2015, 04:10:03 PM
Post by: freediver on October 08, 2015, 04:13:39 PM
Post by: TucTom on October 08, 2015, 04:56:14 PM
Post by: Ultra on October 08, 2015, 09:42:11 PM
Quote
Over the past 30 years, I've been paid to write almost two million words, every one of which, sooner or later, came back to the issue of guns and gun-ownership. Naturally, I've thought about the issue a lot, and it has always determined the way I vote.
People accuse me of being a single-issue writer, a single- issue thinker, and a single- issue voter, but it isn't true. What I've chosen, in a world where there's never enough time and energy, is to focus on the one political issue which most clearly and unmistakably demonstrates what any politician -- or political philosophy -- is made of, right down to the creamy liquid center.
Make no mistake: all politicians -- even those ostensibly on the side of guns and gun ownership -- hate the issue and anyone, like me, who insists on bringing it up. They hate it because it's an X-ray machine. It's a Vulcan mind-meld. It's the ultimate test to which any politician -- or political philosophy -- can be put.
If a politician isn't perfectly comfortable with the idea of his average constituent, any man, woman, or responsible child, walking into a hardware store and paying cash -- for any rifle, shotgun, handgun, machinegun, anything -- without producing ID or signing one scrap of paper, he isn't your friend no matter what he tells you.
If he isn't genuinely enthusiastic about his average constituent stuffing that weapon into a purse or pocket or tucking it under a coat and walking home without asking anybody's permission, he's a four-flusher, no matter what he claims.
What his attitude -- toward your ownership and use of weapons -- conveys is his real attitude about you. And if he doesn't trust you, then why in the name of John Moses Browning should you trust him?
If he doesn't want you to have the means of defending your life, do you want him in a position to control it?
If he makes excuses about obeying a law he's sworn to uphold and defend -- the highest law of the land, the Bill of Rights -- do you want to entrust him with anything?
If he ignores you, sneers at you, complains about you, or defames you, if he calls you names only he thinks are evil -- like "Constitutionalist" -- when you insist that he account for himself, hasn't he betrayed his oath, isn't he unfit to hold office, and doesn't he really belong in jail?
Sure, these are all leading questions. They're the questions that led me to the issue of guns and gun ownership as the clearest and most unmistakable demonstration of what any given politician -- or political philosophy -- is really made of.
He may lecture you about the dangerous weirdos out there who shouldn't have a gun -- but what does that have to do with you? Why in the name of John Moses Browning should you be made to suffer for the misdeeds of others? Didn't you lay aside the infantile notion of group punishment when you left public school -- or the military? Isn't it an essentially European notion, anyway -- Prussian, maybe -- and certainly not what America was supposed to be all about?
And if there are dangerous weirdos out there, does it make sense to deprive you of the means of protecting yourself from them? Forget about those other people, those dangerous weirdos, this is about you, and it has been, all along.
Try it yourself: if a politician won't trust you, why should you trust him? If he's a man -- and you're not -- what does his lack of trust tell you about his real attitude toward women? If "he" happens to be a woman, what makes her so perverse that she's eager to render her fellow women helpless on the mean and seedy streets her policies helped create? Should you believe her when she says she wants to help you by imposing some infantile group health care program on you at the point of the kind of gun she doesn't want you to have?
On the other hand -- or the other party -- should you believe anything politicians say who claim they stand for freedom, but drag their feet and make excuses about repealing limits on your right to own and carry weapons? What does this tell you about their real motives for ignoring voters and ramming through one infantile group trade agreement after another with other countries?
Makes voting simpler, doesn't it? You don't have to study every issue -- health care, international trade -- all you have to do is use this X-ray machine, this Vulcan mind-meld, to get beyond their empty words and find out how politicians really feel. About you. And that, of course, is why they hate it.
And that's why I'm accused of being a single-issue writer, thinker, and voter.
But it isn't true, is it?
http://www.lneilsmith.org/whyguns.html
Post by: TheQ on October 08, 2015, 10:24:43 PM
If you do a little research you would find that Mr Carman is a Navy veteran, a former law enforcement officer, and a solid Republican.
Sounds like a pretty big statist. You're in libertarian country here.
Post by: autosurgeon on October 08, 2015, 10:53:54 PM
Sent from my LG-D850 using Tapatalk
Post by: linux203 on October 08, 2015, 11:31:27 PM
Post by: gryphon on October 08, 2015, 11:41:46 PM
Mr gryphon: I didn't get that from the video.
The very first thing out of his uninformed pie-hole was "folks, we got a problem" because anyone can buy his Ruger from him without going through an FFL and a NICS check.
So I listed some (perhaps most) of the high-profile shootings that involved handguns (the Navy Yard shooter was the exception but I included him because he went through checks anyway). They all went through the NICS system, just what he wants to happen.
NY Sen. Chuck Schumer (D) wants universal background checks (http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/powerpost/wp/2015/10/07/senate-democrats-preparing-gun-control-legislation/) to stop these killings, although I've already shown you that all these people went through UBCs and it didn't do a single thing. Hillary Clinton wants UBCs, too.
Connecticut Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D) said "We proposed sensible measures such as a ban on illegal trafficking and straw purchases.” (http://www.npr.org/player/embed/445751114/445751115) Wait, what? Banning things that are already banned? Not only is he an idiot, but so are the people that keep voting him into office. (He was AG for 20 years).
These liberals/progressives/Democrats are idiots. This is just the latest example. That's what this youtuber (and being a cop, Navy vet, and Republican mean nothing) wants to do, "something." Never mind it won't fix the problem he sees, we have to do "something."
Okay, so you tell me what law would have stopped the list of shootings I posted above?
Quote
to throw our hands up and do nothing is the wrong course of action.
To run around waving our hands in the air crying "we must do something" is both foolish and counterproductive. (http://i1273.photobucket.com/albums/y409/dannylgriffin/willy%20-%20Copy_zpszjc1ydir.gif)
Quote
He's not an idiot.
I disagree.
Quote
He's an intelligent, concerned firearms owner.
He may be a concerned firearms owner, but he's far from intelligent.
There are 317 million people in the US. There are over 367 million guns in the US. There are few people each year who murder others like this with guns. On the other hand, there are 800,000 law enforcement people in the US if you count the feds. Only 1/400 the population. They go through strict scrutiny and psychological testing. They are trained, some better than others. They are given wide latitude and legal benefits not afforded to the average citizen. Yet each year, each month, week, and day more and more cops are being fired or even sent to prison for crimes ranging from murder and rape of underage children to selling drugs, assault and battery, and citizen abuse. The percentage of cops--who remember go through all this testing and training to weed out the bad ones--who are bad are HIGHER than the percentage of average citizens who commit these crimes you are trying to stop.
If we can't even stop our law enforcement from committing criminal acts, what makes you think we can stop the average citizen from committing criminal acts? It's the price of living in a free society.
There is only one solution: the total banning, confiscation, and elimination of guns in the US. And even that won't work, but everyone from the CSGV to MDA is quick to point out that no one wants to do that anyway.
So stop running around waving your arms in the air saying "we have to do something." You tell me what law we could have passed that would have stopped the attacks I listed above. Until you do, you are simply looking for your car keys not where you dropped them, but by the lamp post because the light is better there.
Post by: gryphon on October 09, 2015, 12:28:47 AM
Wrong on both counts. The 2A was written so the government could NOT take the means of self-protection--guns--away from citizens, to defend primarily from a rogue federal government. Read the founders' contemporaneous writings. They are very clear on this. Second of all, the National Guard is not the same thing as the militia. The National Guard is a government force. The militia is a citizen force that can be assembled and disbanded as required to repel aggression. In the 1700's the militia, which had been established for 140 years already, fought against the government.
Also each of the provisions in the Bill of Rights is an individual right, all twenty-seven of them. To say that 26 are individual rights but 1 is not, that it is a collective right of the militia, is both ludicrous and dishonest. SCOTUS agrees.
Post by: gryphon on October 09, 2015, 12:44:29 AM
"A well balanced breakfast being necessary to the start of a healthy day, the right of the people to keep and eat food shall not be infringed." Who has a right to keep and eat food, The People or A Well Balanced Breakfast? — CitizensHaveRights
Post by: gryphon on October 09, 2015, 01:48:49 AM
As far as car accidents or swimming pools, this is neither an auto accident nor a swimming pool forum. This is a forum about firearms and firearm policy. So this is why we discuss those issues.The guy in your video is the one that brought up driver licenses, etc. as a way to legitimize mandated training and periodic firearms qualification like drivers have to do and like he had to do as a cop. The problem with that is that would be an undue burden and unconstitutional. Would you deny a grandmother the ability to legally own or carry a gun because she's not had extensive training and is not proficient on a firearms course like he is? Plenty of grandmas have used guns to save their own lives. Would this jerk and you prefer they be dead today? Firearms and self-defense are constitutionally protected. Driving a car is not.
How about this. How about we demand people be able to pass a proficiency exam before they are allowed to vote? We can't have uninformed, unintelligent voters making such important decisions that affect not only the entire United States, but the world. The ballot box is much more dangerous than a gun.
Post by: freediver on October 09, 2015, 07:21:52 AM
This forum is about gun safety and policy. So how do we, the gun owners, police ourselves? That's what we're really talking about. Rather than dwell in denial and foist the responsibility for US on someone else (politicians, liberal gun haters), let's be honest and proactive. We have a problem with gun violence and ownership in this country. We, the owners, are the ones responsible for these problems. We know best how to solve these problems, and so far a completely deregulated gun environment has not and will not work. Rather than dwell in denial, continually saying no to every sensible solution that is offered, we need to take control of our destiny. As gun owners we need to step up to our responsibility and raise the bar on gun ownership. Mandatory training and locked storage, proficiency requirements, tracking of gun registrations in order to combat gun trafficking, better coordination with mental health experts, stiffer penalties for abusers, universal background checks; all these would HELP solve the problem. But first and foremost, we the gun owners need to decide that WE deserve better, that we can do better, and we owe it to ALL our fellow citizens to do better. And if we don't, at some point those liberal gun haters that some of us sneer at will ram something down our throats that we really don't like.
And Mr Tuctom: is that enough of an answer for you?
Post by: Theraven536 on October 09, 2015, 07:34:30 AM
The guy in your video is the one that brought up driver licenses, etc. as a way to legitimize mandated training and periodic firearms qualification like drivers have to do and like he had to do as a cop. The problem with that is that would be an undue burden and unconstitutional. Would you deny a grandmother the ability to legally own or carry a gun because she's not had extensive training and is not proficient on a firearms course like he is? Plenty of grandmas have used guns to save their own lives. Would this jerk and you prefer they be dead today? Firearms and self-defense are constitutionally protected. Driving a car is not.All you forgot :
How about this. How about we demand people be able to pass a proficiency exam before they are allowed to vote? We can't have uninformed, unintelligent voters making such important decisions that affect not only the entire United States, but the world. The ballot box is much more dangerous than a gun.
*Drops mic, walks off stage*
*slow clap*
Point, game, match!
Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk
Post by: freediver on October 09, 2015, 07:44:58 AM
Yes, gun ownership is constitutionally protected. So is each citizen's right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, free speech, freedom of religion, etc. The constitution tries to balance those rights. If we have a bunch of unregulated, incompetent wing nuts out there packing firearms, my rights have just been abridged. My life is threatened by their incompetence or craziness or criminality. I do not have liberty because I am not free to live my life in a secure, unabridged manner. I certainly cannot pursue happiness because they might go off and pull out a gun if I take the last bag of chips they wanted. If they take issue with my religion, or my speech, or any other of my constitutionally guaranteed rights, they may pull out a gun and take away my rights. So as their fellow citizen, I deserve some guarantees that they are a responsible gun owner.
That's what we're talking about, responsibility. I don't assume anything. I don't assume that you"re crazy or a criminal or anything else. But I also don't assume that you are competent and responsible either. "Trust but verify" comes to mind. I firmly believe in your right to carry, open or concealed. But before I trust you with that right, I deserve some guarantees of safety from you. The responsibility of competency, mental and physical, of safety, and of knowledge, falls on you the gun owner. Like driving, flying an airplane, operating heavy equipment, or using a scalpel, the responsibility falls on us, the gun owners, to show that we can be entrusted with the very lives of our fellow citizens. So don't quote BS about the constitution to me. As gun owners we should be willing to show that we can be entrusted with this very sober responsibility.
Mr Tuctom, is that enough of an answer for you?
Post by: freediver on October 09, 2015, 07:48:22 AM
Post by: gryphon on October 09, 2015, 10:45:06 AM
you pass judgement on people and politicians through the very narrow lens of gun ownership. Owning a gun in our society is merely one facet of living among your fellow citizens.
It may be only one facet, but it's a good barometer to use. If someone is willing to throw the Constitution away or abridge your rights in one area, they'll do it in others.
Quote
gun owners have demonstrated again and again and again that they are not responsible with a deadly weapon.
No they haven't. Out of 367 million guns and over 100 million gun owners, such a tiny fraction commit gun crimes it's statistically insignificant.
Quote
Over 220,000 firearms are lost or stolen each year, FROM GUN OWNERS.
What's the percentage of gun owners who lose their guns? Do you even know? Who loses their guns more often, the average citizen gun owners or law enforcement? As for stolen, I blame the criminal, not the victim.
Quote
Accidental shootings and deaths run in the thousands each year, FROM GUN OWNERS.
Not sure this is accurate.
Quote
We have a problem with gun violence and ownership in this country. We, the owners, are the ones responsible for these problems.
I disagree. I am not responsible for other people who commit gun violence. I would favor reform of the legal system, though, where people who have committed violent crimes get locked up and stay locked up, not walk around on the street with a rap sheet showing 50 arrests for serious offenses.
Post by: gryphon on October 09, 2015, 11:04:36 AM
Mr gryphon: I fail to see how mandated licensing and training requirements places an undue burden on you.
Just because you don't see it doesn't mean it doesn't exist. It infringes on my right to bear arms. Again, should we place all sorts of restrictions on voting? Or the practice of religion?
Quote
Yes, gun ownership is constitutionally protected. So is each citizen's right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, free speech, freedom of religion, etc. If we have a bunch of unregulated, incompetent wing nuts out there packing firearms, my rights have just been abridged.
Just because you have an irrational fear of others doesn't mean your rights have been abridged. You are still free to pursue happiness. Whether you are afraid of gun owners or minorities is immaterial.
Quote
My life is threatened by their incompetence or craziness or criminality.
Your life may be threatened my someone's craziness or criminality any day for any number of reasons. If you want to live in a bubble, may I suggest the desert of the southwest or perhaps Montana or the interior of Alaska?
Quote
I do not have liberty because I am not free to live my life in a secure, unabridged manner. I certainly cannot pursue happiness because they might go off and pull out a gun if I take the last bag of chips they wanted. If they take issue with my religion, or my speech, or any other of my constitutionally guaranteed rights, they may pull out a gun and take away my rights.
And making them take a lengthy and expensive training class solves that problem? Tell me, in today's "under-regulated" environment (as you claim) of 367 million guns and 100 million gun owners, how often does someone pull out a gun and kill another person because they took the last bag of chips? Or are you simply displaying an irrational fear of others? Professors at the University of Texas are saying the same thing. They claim that students are going to murder them if they give them a bad grade now. As if they couldn't before. They aren't critical thinkers, just anti-gun liberals.
Quote
So as their fellow citizen, I deserve some guarantees that they are a responsible gun owner.
No, you don't. You may think you do, but you deserve no guarantees, and there can be no guarantees. Again, it's the price of living in a free society. You have no guarantees that you won't be killed by a drunk driver tonight. Over 10 thousand people are killed by drunk drivers every year, and over 29 million people have admitted to DUI (driving under the influence). Nearly 300,000 people drive drunk each day. Society could fix that problem by outlawing alcohol, but we don't because we have chosen to live in a free society. We just punish those who violate the law. We do the same thing with firearms. We don't punish or put undue burdens on the innocent.
Quote
I deserve some guarantees of safety from you.
Again, no you don't.
Post by: part deux on October 09, 2015, 11:20:58 AM
Accidental shootings and deaths run in the thousands each year, FROM GUN OWNERS.
35,000 people die in auto accidents each and every year
2013 accidental deaths ages 5-25
Motor vehicle deaths 56.0%
poisoning 28.3%
drowning 4.3%
fall 1.6%
fire/burn 1.2%
pedestrian 1.1%
suffocation 1.0%
We STILL HAVEN'T GOTTEN TO ACCIDENTAL DEATHS DUE TO FIREARMS
Firearm 0.9%
So what are you doing about the top 7 items that comprised 93.5% of all accidental deaths between the ages of 5-24 besides trolling here?
Post by: Bear1 on October 09, 2015, 12:26:16 PM
This is how you post a link to back up your statistics.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Post by: part deux on October 09, 2015, 02:35:20 PM
http://www.gunfacts.info/gun-control-myths/accidental-deaths/
This is how you post a link to back up your statistics.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
i normally cite my claims and source... however i did a CDC search for my stats and the link from the search wouldn't post correctly.
the reason for 5-24 age range was prior troll posts making claims of the number of children accidentally killed.
Post by: Bear1 on October 09, 2015, 03:02:00 PM
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Post by: Ultra on October 09, 2015, 07:35:33 PM
Trolls don't read for comprehension's sake.
See, Freediver, you trust your government more than you trust your fellow man. I trust my fellow man more than I trust my government. It's that simple.
That's the difference between you and I. None of your prevaricating posts or trolling topics will make it any different.
Post by: gryphon on October 09, 2015, 08:55:08 PM
None of your prevaricating posts or trolling topics will make it any different.
So stop your palaverin'. :D
Post by: Ultra on October 09, 2015, 09:06:13 PM
So stop your palaverin'. :D
Perhaps young Padawan peruses his own prescription. :P
Post by: CitizensHaveRights on October 09, 2015, 09:15:06 PM
Post by: jabeady on October 11, 2015, 02:07:52 PM
The very first thing out of his uninformed pie-hole was "folks, we got a problem" because anyone can buy his Ruger from him without going through an FFL and a NICS check.
Well, people dying from gun violence *is* a problem. So is people dying from obesity. Neither cause can be eradicated but both can be fought. A lot of people who want to fight gun violence are no more enemies of gun ownership than people who want to fight obesity are of eating.
See, Freediver, you trust your government more than you trust your fellow man. I trust my fellow man more than I trust my government. It's that simple.
The government is made up of my (and your) fellow man. If the government does things that you don't like, it's because you didn't work hard enough to elect a government that would do things you do like. Your government is your fault; quit trying to blame someone else. It's that simple.
Suppose the Second Amendment said “A well educated electorate being necessary for self governance in a free state, the right of the people to keep and read books shall not be infringed.” Is there anyone who would suggest that means only registered voters have a right to read? — Robert Levy, Georgetown University Professor
Excellent! Copied to my Facebook page.
Oh crap!
Post by: gryphon on October 11, 2015, 02:47:36 PM
Well, people dying from gun violence *is* a problem. A lot of people who want to fight gun violence are no more enemies of gun ownership...
I understand that. The problem is with people like that guy who just "want to do something" whether it makes any sense or not and without regard to infringing on the rights of citizens.
Every time a well-publicized shooting takes place, some people want to close the "gun show loophole" and institute universal background checks to prevent these shootings from happening. That was one of the complaints of the youtuber above, that he could sell a gun without the buyer going through a NICS check. Fine. Let's look at each of these high-profile shootings.
The Umpqua CC shooter Christopher Harper-Mercer legally purchased his guns from FFLs and had background checks performed.
The Charleston church shooter Dylann Roof legally purchased his gun from an FFL and had a background check performed.
The Isla Vista shooter Eliot Rodgers legally purchased his guns from FFLs and had background checks performed.
The Colorado theater shooter James Holmes legally purchased his guns from FFLs and had background checks performed.
The Virginia Tech shooter Seung-Hui Cho legally purchased his guns from FFLs and had background checks performed.
The Ft. Hood shooter Ivan Lopez legally purchased his guns from an FFL and had background checks performed.
The other Ft. Hood shooter Nidal Malik Hasan legally purchased his gun from an FFL and had a background check performed.
The Navy Yard shooter Aaron Alexis legally purchased his gun from an FFL and had background checks–state and federal–performed. He also had a security clearance.
The Minneapolis shooter Andrew John Engeldinger legally purchased his guns from an FFL and had background checks performed.
The Las Vegas shooters Jerad and Amanda Miller legally purchased their guns from an FFL and had background checks performed.
The Tucson shooter Jared Loughner legally purchased his gun from an FFL and had a background check performed.
The Sandy Hook shooter Adam Lanza used legally purchased guns, he just murdered the owner first and then stole them.
There's more cases just like these where the shooter legally bought his guns from an FFL and had a background check performed. And as I've pointed out here before more than once, the guns used in the Columbine shooting were a straw purchase, but the ATF declined to even prosecute the straw buyer.
Why do liberals and "well-meaning" people like this youtuber think that non-FFL sales are causing mass shooting problems?
What law could we have passed that would have prevented those shootings?
Post by: jabeady on October 11, 2015, 06:43:27 PM
What law could we have passed that would have prevented those shootings?
There isn't one, of course. The problem is that one side feels so desperate to do something because it perceives that the other side is dead-set against doing anything.
Oh crap!
Post by: Ultra on October 11, 2015, 11:28:54 PM
Quote
The government is made up of my (and your) fellow man. If the government does things that you don't like, it's because you didn't work hard enough to elect a government that would do things you do like. Your government is your fault; quit trying to blame someone else. It's that simple.
Poppycock. I and no other individual elect a government. Governments are made up, with very rare exception, of people who wish to have power over others and will sell their souls in order to attain it. I'm not blaming anyone for it as it is the very nature of the institution. Government is force and nothing but. It is the polar opposite of Liberty. Your inability to perceive it as such reveals even more about you than your laughable attempt to blame me for the totality of illegal and immoral actions of the denizens of the federal monolith.
You trust the legal monopoly on the use of force in a given geographic boundary more than you do your fellow man. I trust my fellow man MUCH, MUCH more than I do an institution that, by its very nature, has power over all and no effective restraint on that power.
Government and Liberty are opposing concepts. More of one yields less of the other.
It's that simple and, frankly, I don't expect you to even attempt to understand it.
Post by: TheQ on October 12, 2015, 11:01:34 AM
https://www.lewrockwell.com/1970/01/lysander-spooner/no-treason-the-constitution-of-no-authority/
I'll give that to the guy who says the government is "our" fault.
Post by: jabeady on October 12, 2015, 11:13:08 AM
Poppycock. I and no other individual elect a government.Correct. It's a group effort and you are part of the group.
Quote
Governments are made up, with very rare exception, of people who wish to have power over others and will sell their souls in order to attain it.And they got there by working for it. They pounded the pavement, knocked on doors, shook hands, spoke in front of groups, kissed babies and (I'm sure you believe) made all kinds of deals to get into office. They worked hard to convince people to put them where they are.
Did you do *anything* to block the path of even one of them?
Quote
You trust the legal monopoly on the use of force in a given geographic boundary more than you do your fellow man. I trust my fellow man MUCH, MUCH more than I do an institution that, by its very nature, has power over all and no effective restraint on that power.Your fellow man created and maintains that institution, and you trust him. You're right, I'll never understand such convoluted thinking.
Quote
Government and Liberty are opposing concepts. More of one yields less of the other.
If you don't like the way things are being done, do something about it. If you don't do something about it, then you're telling me that things aren't bad enough for you to be bothered.
Oh crap!
Post by: TheQ on October 12, 2015, 11:22:28 AM
Correct. It's a group effort and you are part of the group.
You still believe that? You really need to read this:
https://www.lewrockwell.com/1970/01/lysander-spooner/no-treason-the-constitution-of-no-authority/
I will not say your vote doesn't count. I will say that (except in the case of small town elections) your vote is significantly insignificant.
Post by: freediver on October 12, 2015, 01:48:54 PM
Post by: freediver on October 12, 2015, 02:17:34 PM
A fundamental facet of this process is that our elected officials are there to represent their constituents, ALL OF THEM. That means they should give equal representation to you, to me, and even the people who disagree with our enthusiasm for firearms. Democracy means compromise, it means that we all don't get our way. It means our right to carry arms has to be balanced with other freedoms and rights. It means that none of us exist in a bubble. It means that when we consider a candidate, we consider both their qualifications and their ability to represent multiple interests that affect us all. Firearms rights are important to me. But so is public safety, education, the environment, the economy, and a host of other concerns. I vote for the candidate who can best address all of those concerns and have a positive impact on our lives. All of our lives, not just the people in this group.
For you to insist that a candidate vote your way and your way only is just another form of tyranny. It means that you place your own selfish desires above that of your fellow citizens. One term for that is fascism. It's hardly a recipe for a successful democracy.
Post by: freediver on October 12, 2015, 02:54:37 PM
Accidental deaths: 192,945
Accidental deaths per 100,000: 60.2
Deaths by poisoning: 48,545
Per 100K: 15.4
Deaths by motor vehicle: 33,804
Per 100K: 10.7
Deaths by firearm: 33,636
Per 100K: 10.6
Homicides by firearm(part of the 33k): 11,208
Per 100K: 3.5
The trend data supports the premise that in 2015, firearms deaths will surpass motor vehicle deaths.
One more statistic: the US is home to 5% of the world's population. It is also home to 35-50% of the world's civilian owned guns. The actual number is hard to nail down since the government is not allowed to maintain accurate firearms records.
Someone asked earlier that if other forms of death have higher numbers, why don't we address those? First, this is a forum about guns. That's why we're discussing this. Second, we do address other forms of danger. We require poisons to be clearly marked and stored in appropriate containers. We have all kinds of methods to properly transport hazardous material. We require the training and licensing of pilots, mechanics, dispatchers, flight attendants, etc so that civil aviation is incredibly safe (It wasn't always). We require training and licensing for truck drivers, plumbers, electricians, doctors, nurses, lab workers, nuclear power plant specialists, and on and on. Why? Because collectively we decided that the public safety was a higher priority than someone being "inconvenienced". It seems to work.
Look at motor vehicles. There are hundreds of millions of cars in this country, driven hours every day by people of all shapes, ages, and abilities. Yet the death count is pretty low. Why? Because we recognized the need for public safety. Cars have safety requirement. We require drivers to be trained and licensed. Recognizing that age affects driving ability for both teens and elders, we have differing requirements for both groups. As the vehicle increases in complexity or lethality (semis and motorcycles) we require additional training and licensing. And it all works.
So why can't we apply all this to firearms safety? Why can't we require mandatory safety and proficiency training prior to owning and operating? Why can't we require further training and licensing as the complexity and lethality go up? Why can't we track firearms sales to defeat gun traffickers and criminals? Remember, this is a complex problem and the solutions can't be captured in a sound bite. Complete change won't happen overnight. But doing nothing won't change a thing. Adding more guns won't make us safer. We, the gun owners are at the heart of the problem. We need to be part of the solution.
For those of you worried about tyranny, picture this: Yes, if the government has a list of people who underwent firearms training, they know who you are. They also know that not only are there 100 million plus gun owners out there, THEY HAVE BEEN PROPERLY TRAINED IN FIREARMS. That sends a powerful message to any potential tyrant.
Is that enough answer for you, Mr Tuctom?
Post by: LD on October 12, 2015, 04:06:11 PM
Mr TheQ: why is it that anytime someone who is a part of this forum posts something you don't like or doesn't march lockstep with your opinion, you and others call them a troll? This is an open forum, where issues are discussed, opinions voiced, and facts exchanged. A healthy debate is both necessary to solving issues and integral to the concept of free speech, another constitutionally guaranteed right. If you don't agree with someone's stated case or their opinion, then state your own. But resorting to name calling like "troll" just emphasizes the shallowness of your own opinion.
But the fact is you ARE a troll.
Not even you believe that crap you are posting.
You keep harping on this & that being the fault of the "Gun Owners", and the ONLY solution to the problems you bring up is to have NO gun owners.
Background checks don't stop guns from being stolen or lost, background checks don't stop accidental shootings or suicides.
We already have universal background checks for hand guns here in MI and it hasn't stopped a single theft of a gun yet that you can document.
Training? We train our Police & they shoot innocent people, they have AD's and scare little kids by open carrying.
Training hasn't stopped any thefts or suicides that you can document.
Registration? How does knowing who owned a gun before it was stolen stop the thief from selling it on the black market?
If these new regulations you want imposed aren't "restrictions", what are they?
How will these new restrictions on who may own and how & when they may use or carry reduce crime when the criminals don't seem to care that it it already against the law to shoot or even threaten to shoot people?
What solution do you suggest other then to totally eliminate ALL guns in the world to stop "Gun Violence" ?
And how do you intend to eliminate all the guns and how will you verify that it has been done?
Post by: thamm on October 12, 2015, 04:34:08 PM
And now for the statistical part of the discussion, something that was mentioned earlier in this thread. These are statistics compiled by the CDC for 2013, the latest year they've completed. (CDC Faststats)
Accidental deaths: 192,945
Accidental deaths per 100,000: 60.2
Deaths by poisoning: 48,545
Per 100K: 15.4
Deaths by motor vehicle: 33,804
Per 100K: 10.7
Deaths by firearm: 33,636
Per 100K: 10.6
Homicides by firearm(part of the 33k): 11,208
Per 100K: 3.5
The trend data supports the premise that in 2015, firearms deaths will surpass motor vehicle deaths.
One more statistic: the US is home to 5% of the world's population. It is also home to 35-50% of the world's civilian owned guns. The actual number is hard to nail down since the government is not allowed to maintain accurate firearms records.
Suicides 21,175 or 6.7/100k
Unintentional death 505 or 0.2/100k.
ETA
2,596,993 total deaths in 2013
Post by: gryphon on October 12, 2015, 06:07:04 PM
Suicides 6.7/100k
Japan has a suicide rate of between 26/100K and 30/100K, depending on the year. If only Japan would ban guns from civilian ownership!
Post by: jabeady on October 12, 2015, 06:49:17 PM
I will not say your vote doesn't count. I will say that (except in the case of small town elections) your vote is significantly insignificant.I repeat: If you don't get off your butt, then it's not bad enough for you to be bothered to do something about it.
Oh crap!
Post by: TheQ on October 12, 2015, 07:46:46 PM
I repeat: If you don't get off your butt, then it's not bad enough for you to be bothered to do something about it.
Oh crap!
Hi n00b. Obviously you are new and have no idea what I have or haven't done to secure our rights -- so I'll just say: welcome!
Post by: jabeady on October 12, 2015, 07:53:33 PM
Oh crap!
Post by: part deux on October 12, 2015, 09:15:31 PM
Suicides 21,175 or 6.7/100kDamn those pesky facts.
Unintentional death 505 or 0.2/100k.
ETA
2,596,993 total deaths in 2013
Post by: autosurgeon on October 12, 2015, 10:27:41 PM
Sent from my LG-D850 using Tapatalk
Post by: freediver on October 13, 2015, 01:43:31 AM
It sounds like you have a problem, not me.
Post by: freediver on October 13, 2015, 01:56:25 AM
Since you don't like my ideas, come up with some of your own! Stop calling people names and come up with solutions that stop gun trafficking, accidental shootings, and the rest of the gun issues we have. Saying no is not a solution. If we don't police ourselves and fix these problems someone will do it for us. We might not like the results.
Post by: freediver on October 13, 2015, 01:59:43 AM
Post by: jabeady on October 13, 2015, 02:43:41 AM
Two things that irritate me. Sanctimonious people that use MR. User name unnecessarily. And people that say Oh crap at the end of every post.
Sent from my LG-D850 using Tapatalk
Oh crap!
Post by: gryphon on October 13, 2015, 02:53:09 AM
You say you want to stop crazies from getting guns and committing murder. I listed most of the recent handgun murders in the US. That's what makes the news and causes liberals to wet their pants and call for more anti-gun legislation.
None of those were the result of shady FFLs or careless gun owners or stolen guns (except for one where the guy murdered the gun-owner and stole the guns out of a safe), which is what you keep whining about.
So you tell me, what law would you pass to stop all of these mass murders?
The Umpqua CC shooter Christopher Harper-Mercer legally purchased his guns from FFLs and had background checks performed.
The Charleston church shooter Dylann Roof legally purchased his gun from an FFL and had a background check performed.
The Isla Vista shooter Eliot Rodgers legally purchased his guns from FFLs and had background checks performed.
The Colorado theater shooter James Holmes legally purchased his guns from FFLs and had background checks performed.
The Virginia Tech shooter Seung-Hui Cho legally purchased his guns from FFLs and had background checks performed.
The Ft. Hood shooter Ivan Lopez legally purchased his guns from an FFL and had background checks performed.
The other Ft. Hood shooter Nidal Malik Hasan legally purchased his gun from an FFL and had a background check performed.
The Navy Yard shooter Aaron Alexis legally purchased his gun from an FFL and had background checks–state and federal–performed. He also had a security clearance.
The Minneapolis shooter Andrew John Engeldinger legally purchased his guns from an FFL and had background checks performed.
The Las Vegas shooters Jerad and Amanda Miller legally purchased their guns from an FFL and had background checks performed.
The Tucson shooter Jared Loughner legally purchased his gun from an FFL and had a background check performed.
The Sandy Hook shooter Adam Lanza used legally purchased guns, he just murdered the owner first and then stole them.
There's more cases just like these where the shooter legally bought his guns from an FFL and had a background check performed.
How are you going to stop an FFL from selling guns illegally? 99.99% of them don't, but there are a few that will and work with groups such as the Hell's Angels MC and others. Some are gunsmiths and modify weapons for full-auto. How are you going to stop them?
Stop telling me my mom has to take a training course approved by you to own a gun. What are you proposing that would prevent people like Christopher Harper-Mercer, Dylann Roof, Eliot Rodgers, James Holmes, Seung-Hui Cho, Ivan Lopez, Nidal Malik Hasan, Aaron Alexis, Andrew John Engeldinger, Jerad and Amanda Miller, and Jared Loughner from obtaining a gun?
Post by: gryphon on October 13, 2015, 03:01:23 AM
Oh crap!
People with wildly different views are welcome here, even if they are obviously trolling, as long as they are engaging with dialogue. On the other hand, people who are simply an ass for the sake of being disruptive might find themselves on the wrong side of the ban hammer.
Post by: jabeady on October 13, 2015, 03:29:57 AM
Meanwhile, the charge of being a troll is slung around willy-nilly at the first hint of dissent, without reprimand for the accuser.
This is a radically different form of "Welcome."
Oh crap!
Post by: gryphon on October 13, 2015, 03:46:31 AM
You and others may find my Sig line objectionable. Shrug. This is the only forum where that's happened.Perhaps the forums you normally participate in have low expectations of its users. Tell me, what purpose does writing "crap" in every post serve? Other than to make others think you were raised by wolves, of course.
Quote
the charge of being a troll is slung around willy-nilly at the first hint of dissent, without reprimand for the accuser.The first hint of dissent? I think not. If someone thinks they are unfairly being accused of being a troll, they are welcome--even encouraged--to disabuse others of that notion at their earliest convenience.
Post by: jabeady on October 13, 2015, 04:04:09 AM
If someone thinks they are unfairly being accused of being a troll, they are welcome--even encouraged--to disabuse others of that notion at their earliest convenience.The only sure way too do that, it would seem, is to conform. Weren't you the one citing the Japanese? They have a saying: The nail that sticks up is beaten down.
Oh crap!
Post by: freediver on October 13, 2015, 04:04:26 AM
But unlike you and many of the other OC enthusiasts, I'm not willing to throw up my hands and say "oh well". I think we can and should do better. It's a matter of personal responsibility; that WE, the actual gun owners, bear the burden of making the change. How are you going to stop corrupt FFLs? By fulling funding the ATF to do their job, strictly enforcing the laws already on the books, and tracking gun registration numbers from owner to owner. Similar to what we do with cars, boats, airplanes, motorcycles, RVs, and various substances. So far we haven't infringed a gun owner one bit.
I'm not telling your mom she has to take a course that I approve. She would be taking a course that WE approved. We approved it because we the gun owners took responsibility for our sport and decided to raise the bar on gun ownership. We took the lead and instituted some SMART regulatory changes that actually impacted the flow of weapons into the wrong hands. We saw that these mass shooters obtained their guns legally and decided to change a set of regulations that obviously wasn't working. Because we took the lead, we were able to make changes that made sense and balanced the rights of gun owners with the need for public safety.
Insanity is doing the same thing and expecting different results. If we don't make some smart changes from within, some less than smart changes will come from without.
I'm up in the middle of the night for work reasons. What's your excuse? Time to switch to decaf, my friend!
Post by: freediver on October 13, 2015, 04:40:32 AM
Post by: gryphon on October 13, 2015, 05:40:51 AM
unlike other people, I am not using suicide stats from other countries to rail against the evil guns.USA suicide stats have been used as evidence of evil gun deaths. It's part of the anti-gun narrative that you say you are trying to fend off, so it is germane, even if you have never brought it up.
Quote
As you pointed out, most if not all of the recent mass shooters bought their guns legally. THAT'S THE PROBLEM.How is that a problem? Seriously. If someone drinks a bottle of whiskey and kills someone in a DUI collision, which happens all the time, every day (more than mass shootings), what are we as a society going to do about it? Nothing. Not a damn thing. Year after year after year.
Quote
The suite of regulations we have in place right now aren't working. They don't stop mass shootingsSo I asked you what can we do--short of banning firearms--that would stop Christopher Harper-Mercer, Dylann Roof, Eliot Rodgers, James Holmes, Seung-Hui Cho, Ivan Lopez, Nidal Malik Hasan, Aaron Alexis, Andrew John Engeldinger, Jerad and Amanda Miller, and Jared Loughner from obtaining a gun? You haven't proposed one single thing that would have stopped those shootings.
Quote
they don't stop gun traffickingNews flash--criminals break laws. Criminals will traffic in guns. So will the ATF, but that's another story.
Quote
But unlike you and many of the other OC enthusiasts, I'm not willing to throw up my hands and say "oh well".I am not throwing up my hands and saying, "oh well." I am advocating for more gun rights, not less. I think America needs Constitutional Carry. I think non-violent felons should have their gun and voting rights restored. I think we should abolish GFZs. I think we should void the NFA. I think we should reopen all firearms importation.
Quote
I think we can and should do better.We aren't doing anything wrong now, other than not standing strong enough for 2A.
Quote
How are you going to stop corrupt FFLs? By fulling funding the ATF to do their job, strictly enforcing the laws already on the books, and tracking gun registration numbers from owner to owner.LOL! You don't know what you are talking about. You think the ATF is underfunded? What a joke. The ATF receives over $1.2 billion (that we know of) each year. That is "on the books" spending. The ATF often knows about bad FFLs. There aren't that many, but the ones they know about they continue to let traffic (just like other agencies allow illegal activities to go on) so they can build up a better case against them and get more people involved so they can make a "big bust" and bring more glory on themselves. Not only do they get the FFL but they get a lot of buyers. In the meantime, hundreds of guns are going out on the street while the ATF watches. This is well documented by former ATF agents. I won't even bother going into the agency corruption.
The ATF has plenty of time and resources to devote to petty stuff like throwing an entire office--nay, one section of the entire US agency--behind prosecuting a police officer for a straw purchase for using his First Responder discount to save his dad a few bucks buying a Glock. They fought that all the way up to the Supreme Court of the United States. Even though his dad was not a prohibited person who the law was supposed to prevent obtaining a gun. Yet when a REAL straw buyer came on the scene, one who shared responsibility for the Columbine murders, they never even bothered prosecuting that person responsible for the REAL straw purchase that enabled the shooters to murder all those people.
I won't even mention some of the more obvious things.
Quote
I'm not telling your mom she has to take a course that I approve. She would be taking a course that WE approved.So one can't defend his or her own life unless he or she takes an approved class? If she doesn't take the class she should be murdered because she has no effective means of self-defense?
Quote
We approved it because we the gun owners took responsibility for our sportThere's your problem. It's not a sport. You can regulate a sport. You can't regulate someone's inherent right to self-defense.
Quote
Insanity is doing the same thing and expecting different results.I don't want to do the same thing, I want to expand gun ownership. That will effect a positive change on crime.
Quote
I'm up in the middle of the night for work reasons. What's your excuse?Normally I'd be in bed or the same as you, up for work. But in this case I'm coming off from about a month of vacation, mostly traveling. And my calendar this week is very light.
Post by: LD on October 13, 2015, 08:06:48 AM
You and I disagree on so many points it would take volumes to discuss them all so lets just start with one.
Please go into detail on how
Quote
, and tracking gun registration numbers from owner to owner. Similar to what we do with cars, boats, airplanes, motorcycles, RVs, and various substances.will prevent mass shootings.
And while you are at it, as long as you reference vehicle laws on several occasions as an example of how guns should be regulated, explain the high death toll related to cars with all these safeguards in place.
Post by: Divegeek on October 13, 2015, 10:08:09 AM
Post by: freediver on October 13, 2015, 10:36:43 AM
Post by: Ultra on October 13, 2015, 11:02:42 AM
We live in a republic, not a democracy. Your appeal to God democracy just shows the shallowness of your "thought" processes.
Move on to moveon. It's where you belong.
Post by: LD on October 13, 2015, 12:11:28 PM
Mr LD and mr dive geek: the tracking of gun registration numbers, similar to tracking titles to automobiles, planes, motorcycles, boats, isn't meant to DIRECTLY impact firearms deaths. What it would do is allow law enforcement to track firearms so as to combat arms traffickers, large and small, so as to attack the "guns to crminals" problem we've all talked about. It's one of several things we need to do to choke off the supply of guns to bad guys. Most of that would be directed at corrupt FFLs, which is where the bulk of the trafficking problem lies. As a secondary effect it would attach a gun more securely to an owner, perhaps upping the level of individual responsibility.
Mr. Freediver:
Tracking the guns back from the people that violated the law by buying guns when they were in a prohibited class doesn't attack the problem.
The problem is people that you don't think should have guns because they MIGHT commit a crime with them bought a gun.
Arrest those people because they bought the gun. That is a crime and they should be punished for it.
The fact that I don't think people should be charged with a crime because they own something that might be used in a crime at some point in the future is beside the point.
All you accomplish by making more & more laws is creating more & more criminals.
Agreed, if you can pass enough laws that EVERYONE is guilty of something that will prohibit them from owning a gun, in your mind we won't have anymore "gun crime".
Problem is the same people that don't pay attention to the law that says we shouldn't shoot other people won't pay attention to the law that says they can't own a gun.
Post by: part deux on October 13, 2015, 12:17:30 PM
Mr LD and mr dive geek: the tracking of gun registration numbers, similar to tracking titles to automobiles, planes, motorcycles, boats,
How is the tracking of motor vehicle registration numbers fixing the number of annual deaths due to motor vehicles?
Post by: TucTom on October 13, 2015, 01:39:40 PM
So you tell me, what law would you pass to stop all of these mass murders?
The Umpqua CC shooter Christopher Harper-Mercer legally purchased his guns from FFLs and had background checks performed.
The Charleston church shooter Dylann Roof legally purchased his gun from an FFL and had a background check performed.
The Isla Vista shooter Eliot Rodgers legally purchased his guns from FFLs and had background checks performed.
The Colorado theater shooter James Holmes legally purchased his guns from FFLs and had background checks performed.
The Virginia Tech shooter Seung-Hui Cho legally purchased his guns from FFLs and had background checks performed.
The Ft. Hood shooter Ivan Lopez legally purchased his guns from an FFL and had background checks performed.
The other Ft. Hood shooter Nidal Malik Hasan legally purchased his gun from an FFL and had a background check performed.
The Navy Yard shooter Aaron Alexis legally purchased his gun from an FFL and had background checks–state and federal–performed. He also had a security clearance.
The Minneapolis shooter Andrew John Engeldinger legally purchased his guns from an FFL and had background checks performed.
The Las Vegas shooters Jerad and Amanda Miller legally purchased their guns from an FFL and had background checks performed.
The Tucson shooter Jared Loughner legally purchased his gun from an FFL and had a background check performed.
The Sandy Hook shooter Adam Lanza used legally purchased guns, he just murdered the owner first and then stole them.
There's more cases just like these where the shooter legally bought his guns from an FFL and had a background check performed.
How are you going to stop an FFL from selling guns illegally? 99.99% of them don't, but there are a few that will and work with groups such as the Hell's Angels MC and others. Some are gunsmiths and modify weapons for full-auto. How are you going to stop them?
Stop telling me my mom has to take a training course approved by you to own a gun. What are you proposing that would prevent people like Christopher Harper-Mercer, Dylann Roof, Eliot Rodgers, James Holmes, Seung-Hui Cho, Ivan Lopez, Nidal Malik Hasan, Aaron Alexis, Andrew John Engeldinger, Jerad and Amanda Miller, and Jared Loughner from obtaining a gun?
Post by: freediver on October 13, 2015, 04:39:59 PM
As far as shallowness, you neither know me nor my history, experience, motivations. That is another example of name calling. It's a juvenile defense of someone who really has nothing substantial to say. If you have something fact-based to add to the conversation, I would love to hear it. If not, it's probably best to step back and let the adults carry on the debate.
Best of luck to you.
Post by: Divegeek on October 13, 2015, 04:41:02 PM
Mr LD and mr dive geek: the tracking of gun registration numbers, similar to tracking titles to automobiles, planes, motorcycles, boats, isn't meant to DIRECTLY impact firearms deaths. What it would do is allow law enforcement to track firearms so as to combat arms traffickers, large and small, so as to attack the "guns to crminals" problem we've all talked about. It's one of several things we need to do to choke off the supply of guns to bad guys. Most of that would be directed at corrupt FFLs, which is where the bulk of the trafficking problem lies. As a secondary effect it would attach a gun more securely to an owner, perhaps upping the level of individual responsibility.
Did you you miss the part where I said it didn't solve a single crime? That means they weren't able to track a single gun found at a crime scene back to the guilty party using the registration database. The Michigan pistol registry has only been used to solve one (1) crime in the close to 100 years it has been around, according to the MSP. It's a waste of money.
Post by: freediver on October 13, 2015, 04:51:20 PM
I have listened to or read multiple accounts from police officers, Chiefs, undercover cops, etc where they said they wish they could track weapons better so they could identify the methods, the people, the conduits by which weapons pass from good hands to bad hands. So, if the established method doesn't work as you pointed out, how do we make it work? How do we improve the program so that it keeps guns out of the hands of bad or crazy people and puts corrupt FFLs behind bars? Saying F**** it solves nothing. Guns continue to flow the wrong way while we do nothing. Sorry, I've never been a F**** it kind of guy. If you make a situation better, you do it. Tracking the flow of guns through serial numbers is one way to do it. We have to start somewhere.
Post by: freediver on October 13, 2015, 04:56:46 PM
Post by: freediver on October 13, 2015, 05:09:47 PM
Let me put it another way; I make a post and six or seven people respond. I don't have time to research or respond to every single post. I do the best I can but at times I just have to pick a couple and move the conversation forward. If you want to parse every single bit of dialogue back to the beginning of time, you'd best take it up with my wife. She's better at that than I am.
As you and others have pointed out, the current gun regulation environment did not stop these mass murderes from obtaining a weapon. Since none of us presumably likes mass murders, that begs the question: how do we make it better? If you'd actually been reading these posts you'd know I've made many suggestions in this thread and in others. If you don't like my ideas, that's fine. Come up with some solutions of your own.
Post by: freediver on October 13, 2015, 05:14:13 PM
Post by: Ultra on October 13, 2015, 05:18:58 PM
It would appear that you know nothing of the people who wrote the document that governs our government. Why am I not surprised??
~ “A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where fifty-one percent of the people may take away the rights of the other forty-nine. ”
~Thomas Jefferson
For openers, nothing I posted was anything other than fact. That you fail to recognize facts isn't a surprise to anyone here. The basic premise of democracy is 50%+1 rules. That is mob rule. Anyone familiar with political science knows this as fact.
I've read most of your posts here. That means I know you much, much better than you know me. You refuse to answer questions, argue from emotion rather than facts, antagonize everyone who disagrees with you and seem to really enjoy provoking people via the Internet. Pot meets kettle. With all of this in mind, I know enough to know that engaging in further "conversation" with you is like compromising with gun control nuts. It's all one sided nonsense.
If I'm gonna call you a name, you won't have to read between the lines to figure it out. It'll be as clear as day.
Troll.
Post by: part deux on October 13, 2015, 07:51:25 PM
Mr part deux: it doesn't immediately impact the number of gun deaths. It helps attack another problem, which is gun trafficking, the passage of guns from good hands to bad ones.How does that stop gun trafficking?
That's as stupid as saying, I bought a fire extinguisher, now my house won't catch on fire.
Besides, who is the biggest known gun trafficker... besides the BATF?
Post by: thamm on October 13, 2015, 08:51:00 PM
Post by: freediver on October 14, 2015, 09:01:09 AM
Post by: freediver on October 14, 2015, 09:12:47 AM
One of the problems we are trying to combat is gun trafficking, the movement of guns from good hands to bad ones, especially en masse for money. The Justice department notes that over 220,000 firearms are lost or stolen each year. Many of these do end up in the wrong criminal hands. While most of the gun trafficking is done by corrupt FFLs, there is a smaller percentage done by corrupt gun owners. Like cars, boats, ATVs, motorcycles, planes, precious art, if we can track where specific guns are going, we can slowly shut down the individuals and the conduits involved in trafficking. As I've said before, criminals aren't getting their guns from liberal gun haters; they don't own guns. The thugs that people rail about are getting their guns from us, the gun owners. We bear the responsibility of trying to put a stop to it. For instance, the narcos in Mexico get 75-95% of their guns from the US. As gun enthusiasts we share the responsibility of trying to shut that down.
A side effect of tracking gun registrations is personal responsibility. If I know a particular weapon is attached to my name, I will attend properly to its care and storage.
Post by: freediver on October 14, 2015, 09:15:28 AM
And remember, it's not just homicides we're trying to address. Crimes such as rape, theft, extortion, etc are also committed with firearms.
Post by: Ultra on October 14, 2015, 09:24:57 AM
Anarcho-capitalism. Voluntaryism. Self-government. Hell, even the republic we are supposed to be living under until Abe Lincoln destroyed it. These are some I'd be more comfortable with. Rather than the oligopoly of corporate fascism we currently live under.
Post by: part deux on October 14, 2015, 11:19:55 AM
Mr part deux: I confess I don't understand the fire extinguisher analogy.I'm at a complete loss for words.
One of the problems we are trying to combat is gun trafficking, the movement of guns from good hands to bad ones, especially en masse for money. The Justice department notes that over 220,000 firearms are lost or stolen each year. Many of these do end up in the wrong criminal hands. While most of the gun trafficking is done by corrupt FFLs, there is a smaller percentage done by corrupt gun owners. Like cars, boats, ATVs, motorcycles, planes, precious art, if we can track where specific guns are going, we can slowly shut down the individuals and the conduits involved in trafficking. As I've said before, criminals aren't getting their guns from liberal gun haters; they don't own guns. The thugs that people rail about are getting their guns from us, the gun owners. We bear the responsibility of trying to put a stop to it. For instance, the narcos in Mexico get 75-95% of their guns from the US. As gun enthusiasts we share the responsibility of trying to shut that down.
A side effect of tracking gun registrations is personal responsibility. If I know a particular weapon is attached to my name, I will attend properly to its care and storage.
Post by: freediver on October 14, 2015, 12:48:38 PM
Post by: freediver on October 14, 2015, 12:49:56 PM
Post by: TheQ on October 14, 2015, 03:23:18 PM
Post by: Ultra on October 14, 2015, 07:36:06 PM
Post by: freediver on October 15, 2015, 05:22:57 AM
There is no "right" answer here, no perfect form of governance. This is a contract between the people and the form of government they choose to have. If the majority of people choose a style of government that you find unappealing, that's not mob rule. That's democracy in action. While flawed like every other human invention, so far it's the best form of government we've come up with.
Post by: freediver on October 15, 2015, 05:23:54 AM
Post by: Ultra on October 15, 2015, 10:00:27 AM
"Shall not be infringed." A right that our governments charter clearly forbids our government from interfering with. It's plain language. A third grader can understand it. You can't though. Then you deign to lecture us here, who can understand it, with ways you'd like to infringe on that right. My unalienable, God given right. Try and limit my god given rights and you'll ultimately be on the wrong end of the barrel.
http://jpfo.org/filegen-n-z/six-about-2nd.htm
Read the link and learn something or don't and continue to parade your disinformation and misunderstanding here. If you don't read it, for comprehensions sake, I can assure you the troll label will stick to you here.
Choice is yours.
Molon Labe
Post by: part deux on October 15, 2015, 11:07:48 AM
Read the link and learn something or don't and continue to parade your disinformation and misunderstanding here. If you don't read it, for comprehensions sake, I can assure you the troll label will stick to you here."shall not be infringed"
Choice is yours.
Molon Labe
Post by: Ultra on October 15, 2015, 11:57:10 AM
"shall not be infringed"
Exactly.
Post by: TheQ on October 15, 2015, 02:15:13 PM
Mr theQ: Thank you for the suggestion. I'll pass.
Why pass? You seemingly share their views in the need for registration and more background checks (AKA gun control).
I think you'd be more successful in your pitch there. I don't think you'll find anyone here who wants to join your crusade to advance more gun control. As the old saying goes: you're pissing against the wind -- at least on this forum.
Post by: Ultra on October 15, 2015, 02:46:03 PM
Why pass? You seemingly share their views in the need for registration and more background checks (AKA gun control).
I think you'd be more successful in your pitch there. I don't think you'll find anyone here who wants to join your crusade to advance more gun control. As the old saying goes: you're pissing against the wind -- at least on this forum.
Exactly!!!
Post by: TucTom on October 15, 2015, 02:56:52 PM
Why pass? You seemingly share their views in the need for registration and more background checks (AKA gun control).I also fully agree with Q's post.
I think you'd be more successful in your pitch there. I don't think you'll find anyone here who wants to join your crusade to advance more gun control. As the old saying goes: you're pissing against the wind -- at least on this forum.
Post by: linux203 on October 15, 2015, 06:34:20 PM
You seemingly share their views in the need for registration and more background checks (AKA gun control).
I support the repeal of the Hughes amendment that prohibited the NFA registration of machine guns. :) Did I just find common ground on registration?
Post by: freediver on October 15, 2015, 07:02:24 PM
A WELL REGULATED militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
Looks to me like the founding fathers led with well-regulated.
Post by: freediver on October 15, 2015, 07:27:23 PM
How does requiring potential gun owners to attend firearms safety and competency training "infringe" upon your rights? We require the same thing of hunters and CPL licensees and that seems to work fine.
How does tracking gun registration numbers to combat crime infringe upon your rights?
So don't try to paint me as indoctrinated, misinformed, stupid, or any other epithet you conjure up. I will match my intelligence, education, experience, weapons training, military service, and patriotism against yours any day of the week. I see a problem with OUR gun culture and I'm offering a few solutions to make our communities safer while respecting the rights of gun owners. I see change from within our community as being better than have change forced upon us from without. If you don't like my solutions, that's fine. You may think you're upholding the constitution. I see someone who is so intolerant and close-minded that they cannot even consider a different way of thinking, let alone adapt to a changing world. You, like some other gun owners, have decided that it's your way or no way. You have decided that you alone have unlocked the secrets of the universe. If you had the chance, you would force your worldview on everyone else, making them live as you want. That kind of mental arrogance is just another kind of tyranny.
Post by: TheQ on October 15, 2015, 07:30:09 PM
Ladies and gentlemen: if we're going to quote the 2nd amendment, let's quote all of it.
A WELL REGULATED militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
Looks to me like the founding fathers led with well-regulated.
Article 1 section 6 of the Michigan Constitution: every person has a right to keep and bear arms for the defense of himself and the state.
...no militia. No go suck you thumb with the Brady Bunch. Better yet, MCRGO -- they like compromising rights.
Post by: TheQ on October 15, 2015, 07:32:10 PM
Mr ultra: I read the link and again you and I differ sharply on our world views. But granting for the moment the "not be infringed" phrase, please explain the following:
How does requiring potential gun owners to attend firearms safety and competency training "infringe" upon your rights? We require the same thing of hunters and CPL licensees and that seems to work fine.
How does tracking gun registration numbers to combat crime infringe upon your rights?
So don't try to paint me as indoctrinated, misinformed, stupid, or any other epithet you conjure up. I will match my intelligence, education, experience, weapons training, military service, and patriotism against yours any day of the week. I see a problem with OUR gun culture and I'm offering a few solutions to make our communities safer while respecting the rights of gun owners. I see change from within our community as being better than have change forced upon us from without. If you don't like my solutions, that's fine. You may think you're upholding the constitution. I see someone who is so intolerant and close-minded that they cannot even consider a different way of thinking, let alone adapt to a changing world. You, like some other gun owners, have decided that it's your way or no way. You have decided that you alone have unlocked the secrets of the universe. If you had the chance, you would force your worldview on everyone else, making them live as you want. That kind of mental arrogance is just another kind of tyranny.
1. Registration is a precursor to confiscation. What "constitutional" and "legitimate" state interest is served by tracking gun serial numbers to people?
Post by: part deux on October 15, 2015, 08:07:39 PM
Let me help you here, since all you're doing is regurgitating trolling points.
The Second Amendment refers to “a well-regulated militia.”The right of the people to form citizen militias was unquestioned by the Founders.
The Second Amendment begins with the phrase “A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State.” Some people argue that this phrase limits the right to keep and bear arms to militias only ... which they say means the National Guard. Very recent research shows, however, that it was the style of writing legal documents in the late 1700’s to include a preamble. The Constitution has a preamble, the Bill of Rights has a preamble — yet people don’t argue that the Constitution is limited by the preamble. Professor Eugene Volokh at the UCLA Law School has examined numerous other state constitutions of the same general time period, and observed this kind of preamble language in many of them. (The Commonplace Second Amendment, 73 N.Y. Univ. Law Rev. 793-821 (1998)). The preamble states a purpose, not a limitation on the language in these government charters.
B. The Second Amendment falls right within the style of legal drafting of the late 1700’s. The “militia” clause emphasizes the individual right to keep and bear arms by explaining one of its most important purposes. The militia clause does not limit the right.
source (http://jpfo.org/filegen-n-z/six-about-2nd.htm)
Post by: Ultra on October 15, 2015, 08:14:53 PM
Well regulated means "a well oiled machine." If you'd have read the link for comprehensions sake....
You are uninformed, misguided, out of place and lacking vision. I know, you can't see that.
GAFC!!!
Edited P.S. Hitler was democratically elected.
https://www.youtube.com/embed/eHLsnzZgdPw
Post by: freediver on October 16, 2015, 05:53:05 AM
How does mandatory gun safety and competency training infringe on your rights?
How does gun serial number registration infringe on your rights?
Post by: freediver on October 16, 2015, 06:04:57 AM
Anybody, such as some of the members here, who has to resort to name calling or other personal attacks obviously has nothing to say. If they did, they wouldn't have to resort to such juvenile attacks. You gentlemen seem to fall into that category.
Second, and this is where the rest of our populace is learning to hate you, you exhibit such a close-minded intolerance for any belief or opinion other than your own as to appear angry, spiteful, and dangerous. If you exhibit such anger and intolerance in what should be a fairly civil discussion about gun policy, why would I, as your fellow citizen, want to trust you with a firearm? You mentioned that Hitler was democratically elected (albeit in a rigged election). Good point. The type of anger and intolerance you gentlemen exhibit does remind me of the Nazis. It's a very short distance from "my way or no way" on gun policy to Kristallnacht. In your minds the ends always justify the means, as long as you get your way.
Post by: TheQ on October 16, 2015, 08:34:51 AM
Good luck in finding a gun group that will go along with more gun control.
Post by: Ultra on October 16, 2015, 09:16:33 AM
Infringing on the rights of law abiding citizens doesn't "improve" anything except opportunities for criminals.
Full stop.
Post by: TheQ on October 16, 2015, 09:48:35 AM
An unregistered gun goes off in the forest when nobody is around, does it make a noise?
Post by: freediver on October 16, 2015, 10:25:21 AM
Post by: part deux on October 16, 2015, 10:31:19 AM
Will you support constitutional carry?
Post by: freediver on October 16, 2015, 10:32:49 AM
If you want to suppress my or anyone else's free speech, then you are no different than the tyrants you profess to oppose.
Post by: freediver on October 16, 2015, 10:37:22 AM
My fear is that if we don't initiate these changes from within, they will be directed from without. We might not like the results.
Post by: freediver on October 16, 2015, 10:40:34 AM
Post by: TheQ on October 16, 2015, 10:40:44 AM
Well, Mr theQ, your stance on gun control is fine with me. You have your opinion on gun regulation, I have mine. That's the beauty of free speech. We can agree to disagree. Beyond that, I don't think you speak for me or the entire group. We all have our opinions and these forums are a place to express them. Everytime I've expressed ideas that run counter to yours, you or someone else has told me to leave, get lost, join another group, drink bleach, etc. I fail to see how that is upholding the constitutionally guaranteed right to free speech. If you don't like what I say, don't pout like a child. Use reason, logic, and factual evidence to convince me I'm wrong.
If you want to suppress my or anyone else's free speech, then you are no different than the tyrants you profess to oppose.
While it's true no man speaks for an entire group, I know Tom Lambert quite well. I'm sure my views on the topic are closer to his than yours. I'm also a very close friend of the last president of Michigan Open Carry. I'm pretty sure I speak for him when I say: your views belong more with a gun control group
In fact, it's interesting -- of all your posts here, never once have you promoted an improvement in gun rights such as:
* Elimination of PFZs
* Constitutional Carry
It leads me to ask, if not to try to win the faithful over to gun control, why ARE you here?
Post by: TheQ on October 16, 2015, 10:43:04 AM
Mr part deux, of course I support constitutional carry. I believe in every citizen's right to self defense. What I am talking about is changing our gun culture from within so that we can police ourselves. My intent is to get the criminals, the crazies, and the sheer idiots out of the equation so that competent citizens can carry, openly or concealed. As I've said many times, it's about raising the bar on gun ownership and personal responsibility.
My fear is that if we don't initiate these changes from within, they will be directed from without. We might not like the results.
You support constitutional carry yet you want government mandated education to purchase a gun...?
Maybe you aren't familiar with the term constitutional carry: no education or permit required to open carry or conceal carry a firearm.
You sound more and more like someone from the enemy/anti-gun camp in our midst.
Post by: fozzy71 on October 16, 2015, 11:08:36 AM
One last note, since Mr Tuctom is so fascinated with replies to posts: a few posts ago I asked Mr gryphon to give me an actual example of where deregulating guns and adding more of them made a society safer and less volatile. Since he hasn't replied I'll have to assume that he couldn't think of any. I can't think of any either.
Maybe he actually has a job and hasn't seen your post yet? You seem to do nothing but sit on this thread clicking F5 all day.
Post by: Ultra on October 16, 2015, 11:42:42 AM
If you feels this applies to you, deal with it. If you feel this is an insult or an unfair labeling, you're deep in the minority around here.
And, with this, my attempts at bringing light to those whom would rather remain in the dark have concluded.
Post by: gryphon on October 16, 2015, 12:16:25 PM
One last note, since Mr Tuctom is so fascinated with replies to posts: a few posts ago I asked Mr gryphon to give me an actual example of where deregulating guns and adding more of them made a society safer and less volatile. Since he hasn't replied I'll have to assume that he couldn't think of any. I can't think of any either.I haven't replied because we've gone through this before. The example of where guns made a society more safe is America. There are more "good" uses of guns in self-defense than "bad" uses in murders and shootings.
Post by: freediver on October 16, 2015, 07:30:22 PM
Which is why I'm here. To discuss, to debate, to learn, and even to teach. If my views don't march lockstep with yours, too bad. I'm not here to learn doctrinal purity. I'm an intelligent, educated man with a lot of firearms experience. I see a problem with some of the purist opinions expressed here and I think there may be a better way forward. I'm making suggestions as to that effect. Do with them what you will.
Because first and foremost, this is a forum; a place for exchange, for debate, for learning. There is no "enemy", no sides to choose, no right answer other than the one backed up by reality-based facts. What I have noticed is that any opinions that differ from the party line are blasted, shunned, ridiculed, or threatened. For an organization that claims to further the cause of personal liberty, that claim rings shallow. You're okay with an opinion ONLY if it agrees with yours.
Post by: freediver on October 16, 2015, 07:33:23 PM
I await your answer.
Post by: freediver on October 16, 2015, 07:38:46 PM
Post by: gryphon on October 16, 2015, 07:49:19 PM
Post by: Ultra on October 16, 2015, 08:19:34 PM
Gryphon, TheQ, Part Deux, Fozzy71 and many others from within this thread and elsewhere around the board, I really enjoy your posts. Especially when I am exposed to the places where our thinking differ. Just thought I'd share that with you.
Post by: autosurgeon on October 16, 2015, 10:05:05 PM
Sent from my LG-D850 using Tapatalk
Post by: TucTom on October 16, 2015, 10:13:34 PM
Post by: freediver on October 17, 2015, 12:35:21 AM
But that doesn't mean that just because we're free, crazies and criminals ought to have access to firearms. We've all pointed out that many of the recent mass shooters bought their guns legally. EXACTLY! That's the problem! Our current gun ownership regulations aren't working. So, rather than just say "F***it, we need to take a few losses along the way", perhaps we should be working to solve the loopholes in our gun regulations. That's what this whole thread was about.
Post by: autosurgeon on October 17, 2015, 08:35:08 AM
Sent from my LG-D850 using Tapatalk
Post by: gryphon on October 17, 2015, 09:45:13 AM
- Because we now regulate guns like we regulate cars, each state and city now recognizes your
drivers licenselicense to carry concealed. - We can finally buy and sell our
carsfirearms across state lines. - I can walk into a gun showroom and drive away with my new firearm in minutes.
- You can rent a gun for the afternoon if your gun is in the shop.
- You and your friends can
driveshoot all you want on your own property. - You can now own all the guns and ammunition you want and you can store them anywhere you have room.
- Several people can own and operate the same firearm.
- Because we now regulate guns like we regulate cars, there is no age limit to own a gun. Parents, grandparents and relatives can now freely give guns to small children. You mail in a piece of paper, and the state sends you a new title for your gun in a few weeks. That is sweet.
- The city provides gun-storage locations free of charge in front of no-gun zones in order to attract customers to downtown. About time.
- Courts will no longer take your
carsguns away during a bitter divorce. - You can rent a gun at the airport if you didn’t want to fly with your gun.
- A gun dealership will lease you a firearm on a five year payment plan.
- Now you can ship and buy gun part in the mail.
- Now you can walk into the post office with your gun or gun parts.
- Now that we regulate guns the way we regulate cars, even convicted felons can own a gun once they are off probation.
- You can now own a gun of any length without having to ask the government for permission.
- You can now put a muffler on your guns without having to ask your sheriff or police chief for permission. (My neighbors thank you.)
- Your 16 year old can bring a gun to and from school, and to his after school job.
- When your goofball nephew shoots a gun in public without a license, he now gets a ticket...and you get a phone call to come pick up your gun.
- You can have gun stores and shooting ranges next door to schools, daycare centers, hospitals and churches! Halleluiah we’re free at last!
- We will finally have gun shops on every other corner to sell ammunition and Doritos. Your local convenience store changes its name to Shoot-and-Scoot.
- Now kids can get their concealed carry permit at 16 years of age.
- Schools now offer gun safety and defensive shooting classes when kids are 15 years old.
- Kids can carry concealed with adult supervision once they are 15 ½ years old and have taken their beginners class.
- Some old people loose their concealed carry permit when they can’t pass the vision test.
- There are no more gun safe and gun lock regulations!
- You can build your own gun in your garage from a kit.
- You will need a special firearms license to operate a gun weighing more than 26 thousand pounds in public.
- Gun dealers and gunsmiths don’t need federal reporting requirements any longer.
- You and your friends decide who will be the designated concealed carrier if you’re going drinking.
- We’d finally get rid of national gun registration.
- I might even get a tax credit if I buy a small and efficient gun. I love this country!
Post by: autosurgeon on October 17, 2015, 10:00:35 AM
Sent from my LG-D850 using Tapatalk
Post by: freediver on October 17, 2015, 01:11:29 PM
Post by: gryphon on October 17, 2015, 01:13:35 PM
https://forums.miopencarry.org/index.php/topic,5092.msg41788.html#msg41788
Post by: TheQ on October 17, 2015, 02:43:14 PM
While I am a longtime gun owner and carrier, I'm still educating myself on the issues of open carry.
Mitt Romney is a gun owner too...
http://youtu.be/HzYTdM9b5F4
Post by: freediver on October 17, 2015, 04:45:17 PM
Post by: freediver on October 17, 2015, 04:48:18 PM
So, when I speak of making smart changes to our gun culture from within, I'm speaking as a gun owner and enthusiast. Mitt really is neither.
Post by: Ultra on October 17, 2015, 05:20:52 PM
Quote
The statist loves to blather on about ‘solutions’ to gun crimes in America. One such nonsensical solution is a federal gun registry. My question to any liberal elitist who spouts this idiocy is: If a federal gun registry, then why not a federal sexual disease registry? Sexual disease is responsible for thousands of deaths and illness yearly in America. Oh, but when it comes to their holy grail, free sex, the liberal becomes downright fanatical. How dare I support such a blatant act of invasion of privacy? … it is perfectly acceptable for the statist to violate the privacy of, oh no, a gun owner, but don’t you anarchists dare touch our friends, the sexual deviants.
The hypocrisy is stunning.
`````````````````````````````````
And, for a great read:
https://www.lewrockwell.com/2015/10/ryan-mcmaken/gun-lies/
Post by: freediver on October 17, 2015, 06:02:21 PM
I did notice one glaring omission. The article talks about murders, and there are countries whose murder rates are higher. However that's only part of the picture. If we are going to have a comprehensive discussion of gun deaths and gun violence, we need to talk about gun deaths and wounds, which includes accidental shootings, suicides, hunting accidents, etc. because those, too, are part of our gun culture. We need to talk about ALL of the shootings not just murders.
Let me give you an example of casual stupidity that exists. A friend and I do the rifle elk hunt every year. A couple of years ago we were coming back to our truck about 10 am after the dawn hunt. Standing next to our truck were a couple of fellas with high powered rifles on their shoulders and beers in hand. Judging from their eyes and speech, these weren't the first beers of the day. I have encountered this far too often in my life; a casual approach to guns that is truly moronic.
That's the piece we need to change. We need to change our culture from casual stupidity to one of sober responsibility and cool headed competence. We need to reassure our fellow citizens that when we carry firearms, ours are safe, reliable hands. We're doing a pretty crappy job of that so far.
As far as the rest of your posts, I don't dwell on labels or categories such as statist, liberal, elitist, conservative, etc. I consider them a complete bunch of BS and far too limiting. Every person is complex, every person has a broad range of ideas and opinions. To label them is to restrict them, to place them in a category they may not truly be in. I prefer to take them one at a time and judge them individually on their words and actions. Liberals, conservatives, and moderates all love their country and want it to prosper. They just all have different opinions on how to do it. The only right answer is the one that actually works.
Post by: autosurgeon on October 17, 2015, 06:02:43 PM
Sent from my LG-D850 using Tapatalk
Post by: gryphon on October 17, 2015, 06:30:24 PM
More Guns, Less Crime (https://archive.org/details/MoreGunsLessCrime)
and
2015 Report From the Crime Prevention Research Center (http://crimeresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/2015-Report-from-the-Crime-Prevention-Research-Center-Final.pdf)
and
National Self-Defense Survey (http://jrc.sagepub.com/content/35/2/193)
For fun let's look at another demographic, the rate of gun ownership and homicides in this hemisphere in the English speaking New World. Compare countries such as the US and Canada that have guns with countries such as, well, all the others that don’t.
(http://i.imgur.com/0aHpTSI.png)
Now there is more to crime than just murders. We can look at the US where states that don't infringe on one's ability to possess and carry firearms have less crime than states that do. And we can look at countries such as England and Australia where crime went up when firearms ownership went down after confiscation.
You want to stop crime and murders? Change the culture. Don’t go after innocent gun-owners. As I've said, I'm willing to make changes, such as keeping violent offenders in prison so they don't become repeat offenders. Only a small part of society continues to commit violent crime.
Post by: gryphon on October 17, 2015, 06:42:28 PM
No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms.
Thomas Jefferson, proposal to the Virginia Constitution.
That the said Constitution shall never be construed to authorize congress to infringe the just liberty of the press or the rights of conscience; or prevent the PEOPLE of the United States, who are peaceable from keeping their OWN arms.
Samuel Adams
and
The right of a citizen to keep and bear arms, in lawful defense of himself or the State, is absolute. He does not derive it from the state government. It is one of the “High Powers” delegated directly to the citizen, and is excepted out of the general powers of government. A law cannot be passed to infringe upon or impair it because it is above the law, and independent of lawmaking”
Cockrum v State, 24Tex394
I would argue that your proposals would in fact infringe on and impair the people's right to bear arms for self defense.
Post by: part deux on October 17, 2015, 06:43:53 PM
Post by: gryphon on October 17, 2015, 06:54:04 PM
shall not be infringed
That's crazy talk!
Post by: part deux on October 17, 2015, 07:10:58 PM
That's crazy talk!SHHHH, It's our secret. If it gets out, troll will call for psych exams next :)
Post by: thamm on October 17, 2015, 08:25:22 PM
Me gryphon, I asked for an actual example, not an opinion. It is VERY open to debate as to whether the USA is actually safer and less volatile. The trend according to CDC data is that gun deaths will surpass traffic deaths in 2015 and that trend is expected to continue in the coming years.
You keep saying that gun deaths will surpass traffic deaths, so guns need tighter control. This implies that people are shooting each other at an alarming rate. However, suicides make up about 2/3 of all firearm deaths. I think it's disingenuous to count those as deaths due to "gun violence" when calling for tighter control on guns.
Post by: gryphon on October 17, 2015, 08:35:43 PM
As Panama deals with increases in crime rates and rising gang activity, the government is set to lift the ban on firearm imports, in an effort to promote personal safety.
Public Safety Minister Rodolfo Aguilera said the country will follow in the footsteps of the United States and Switzerland, where the right to bear arms is believed to lead to fewer homicides.
“Everything seems to indicate that there is no direct correlation in the aphorism that says more guns mean more crime,” said Aguilera, who explained that relaxed gun laws have allowed the United States to reduce the homicide rate over the last 20 years.
http://panampost.com/panam-staff/2015/08/05/panama-lifts-ban-on-gun-imports-amid-rising-crime-wave/
Post by: part deux on October 17, 2015, 09:24:17 PM
Great Britain is going full on stupid calling for a ban on knives.
Israel got it when they armed their school teachers and eliminated school shootings. Now Netanyahu is calling for all Israelis to be armed.
But, none of this fits the agenda of our resident troll.
Post by: TucTom on October 17, 2015, 09:27:15 PM
Post by: freediver on October 17, 2015, 09:55:51 PM
As far as the rest of the posts, I apologize for not answering. But work, travel, and grandchildren beckon this week. I'll do my best to stay in the conversation.
Post by: TucTom on October 17, 2015, 11:26:17 PM
Oh, btw I am also former military (infantry & military police) and have worked with alongside federal agencies in different capacities in the past.
Post by: TheQ on October 18, 2015, 12:56:20 AM
Having served in the military and worked in law enforcement is not a magic potion to reach a freedom loving Pro gun state.
Sent from my LG-D850 using Tapatalk
+1
Post by: Theraven536 on October 18, 2015, 01:05:19 AM
Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk
Post by: freediver on October 19, 2015, 12:11:56 PM
Post by: part deux on October 19, 2015, 12:13:23 PM
Post by: freediver on October 19, 2015, 12:19:20 PM
As I said, it's humor. If you think it's funny, laugh. If you don't, don't get your panties in a bunch over it.
Post by: Langenc on October 23, 2015, 03:06:40 PM
If it quacks like a duck... It must be troll time.
Yes, he's a frickin idiot who is drinking the liberal media koolaid.
WE MUST DO SOMETHING.
35,000 people die in car accidents
More people are killed in swimming pools than are murdered by firearms.
So, is it that people die, or the gun that's an issue?
Govt, present two US Senators, Pres and VP all approve of the KILLING of 3500 Unborn every day but think that some crminals killing is bad as pointed out in previous posts Who are the real criminals.
Yea. I know they aint people and if you believe that then you don't belong here.. just don't mess w/ em for a few months and they will be people.
Post by: CitizensHaveRights on October 25, 2015, 09:35:42 AM
Post by: CitizensHaveRights on October 25, 2015, 09:37:08 AM
Thoughts, anyone?
http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2015/10/robert-farago/anti-gun-rights-fudds-are-breaking-out-all-over/
Dustin Doyle says:
October 24, 2015 at 20:11
Sounds more like what a lefty pretending to be a conservative would say, likely fake.
rc says:
October 24, 2015 at 20:39
Nothing but pure false-flag agit-prop (old-school soviet style, no less). It’s their stock and trade. I believe this FUDD is as real as I do the easter bunny (actually, the easter bunny is more real than this dude…I have pics of the easter baskets to prove it!)
Omer Baker says:
October 24, 2015 at 21:31
Totally fake.
juliesa says:
October 24, 2015 at 23:13
Oh yeah, totally fraudulent.
Don’t you know the first place a reformed Evangelical Christian Republican gunowner turns to is moveon.org.
Lefty propaganda is full of Concerned Christian Republicans who’ve only just now seen the light.
James in Florida says:
October 24, 2015 at 20:23
Too many political buzz words and phrases to have any substance built on facts or based in reality.
This guy just whips out bs line after bs line.
You just need a patriotic band sound track to sell it big with cheerleading pom pom waiving and sparklers and babies and matching sweater wearing soccer moms.
And father obama kissing and hugging and saving babies.
I’m tearing up thinking about it now….oh wait…that’s just the onions cooking on the grill .
Thanks for the chuckle.
Another Robert says:
October 24, 2015 at 20:26
I’m betting “Mark Carman” is a “composite character”. And Moveon.org, as far as I can tell, is yesteryear’s news. Seems like all the down and out lefty groups have convinced themselves that “gun control” is the best bandwagon to jump on right now to try to regain some relevance (not to mention money). I don’t really see them as a threat.
October 24, 2015 at 20:48
The fat fcuk Mark Carman is a real guy, an ex-cop and a producer of Christian music. And a Fudd.
http://www.13newsnow.com/story/news/local/making-your-mark/2015/02/06/making-your-mark-from-police-officer-to-grammy-nominee/22998017/
Post by: freediver on October 26, 2015, 07:54:28 AM
If you want to make headway in this discussion, serve up accurate unbiased facts. Serve up arguments that are not one-sided or are derived from some survivalist fantasy world or outright lies. Engaging in personal attacks on a speaker doesn't further the argument. It just means you have nothing substantive to say.
Post by: TheQ on October 26, 2015, 10:07:45 AM
Post by: CitizensHaveRights on October 26, 2015, 06:02:39 PM
Mr Citizens have rights: What you posted was a lot of innuendo and name calling, but nothing factual...
If you want to make headway in this discussion, serve up accurate unbiased facts.
WTF? You started this topic by serving up a video of Mark Carman's opinions.
I responded with a sample of civil rights minded individuals' reactions to / opinions of Mark Carman, and provided a link to the source of those comments.
What 'facts' do you feel entitled to demand from me?
Post by: CitizensHaveRights on October 26, 2015, 06:11:12 PM
Rick Jones is a piece of $#|t, this much is true.
I'm embarrassed to say I voted for that POS, as representative and senator. May have even voted for him as sheriff, can't remember back that far. Now he's acting like he's seen his last election and can do whatever he wants to us.
Also embarrassed to say I voted for Snyder in 2010, but I fixed that last year.
Post by: TheQ on October 26, 2015, 11:55:16 PM
I'm embarrassed to say I voted for that POS, as representative and senator. May have even voted for him as sheriff, can't remember back that far. Now he's acting like he's seen his last election and can do whatever he wants to us.
Also embarrassed to say I voted for Snyder in 2010, but I fixed that last year.
Jones is now term limited as a Senator. He's made remarks to me personally that's he's eyeing Governor.
Post by: CitizensHaveRights on October 27, 2015, 06:17:54 AM
Wait until he gets a load of my "Prick Jones wrote the law to let Vicki Weaver's murderer CC in schools without a license" campaign.
Post by: CharleyVCU1988 on November 13, 2015, 08:55:58 PM
It's not about outlawing guns, or taking them away, or drastically restricting ownership. "
So then what exactly are you proposing via universal background checks then? What sort of (arbitrary) criteria will you add on?
Post by: part deux on November 14, 2015, 07:46:48 PM
"many of these mass shooters did purchase their guns legally. THAT'S PART OF THE PROBLEM! /Please cite your claim
Post by: fozzy71 on November 15, 2015, 05:34:14 AM
Please cite your claim
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2015/10/03/us/how-mass-shooters-got-their-guns.html?_r=0
Quote
Criminal histories and documented mental health problems did not prevent at least eight of the gunmen in 14 recent mass shootings from obtaining their weapons, after federal background checks led to approval of the purchases of the guns used.
Post by: part deux on November 15, 2015, 08:45:31 AM
It's the ny times, one of the most anti gun rags out there
2 people is NOT a mass shooting
Several on that list lied on their application, which is illegal and a crime that is not prosecuted.
What else ya got?
Post by: freediver on November 15, 2015, 08:59:41 AM
So the discussion is; how best to change the system? Saying no to everything and hoping it will change itself is not a solution.
Post by: CitizensHaveRights on November 15, 2015, 09:33:17 AM
If we want to keep guns out of the wrong hands, we need to change this system.
So the discussion is; how best to change the system? Saying no to everything and hoping it will change itself is not a solution.
If we want lavender scented rainbows to shoot out of our asses when we fart, we need to change the entire human metabolic system.
So, the discussion is; how best to change the system? Saying no to everything and hoping it will change itself is not a solution.
Post by: autosurgeon on November 15, 2015, 09:37:54 AM
Sent from my LG-D850 using Tapatalk
Post by: MuffDiver on November 15, 2015, 11:29:20 AM
But the question remains, how does that effect the price of tea in China?
You don't look at the simple raw number of instances to make your argument, you look at the per capita rate. As our population continues to climb, mainly do to illegals, gun owner ship rates and sales continue to climb BUT overall violent crime numbers/rates are falling... How is that? Could it be that the regulation we need is more law abiding persons having guns? Let's face it, criminals will ALWAYS have guns, stolen, black market import, straw perchase, homemade ...the best defense against them in arming more good people. As far as mentally ill, that gets more complicated because there are many anti-freedom advocates that want to see the system abused to cast a net over an ever increase list of "mental health/physical health" diagnoses to block ownership. As some someone ewho works in the mental health system and looked over the DSM 5, it seems there is a diagnosis for you if do anything.....
Freediver, I keep seeing you asking for solutions from others time and time again but do not recall one post of you proposing anything that WE should do...just a lot of circular reasoning and avoidance.
What do I think we should do? What can the government do? In a world free of those who simply want to control us....Government should encourage and actively expand gun ownership.
1.) There should be no cost in obtaining a license or permit to exercise a right. (As a side note, I would love to see law suites over this.) Such costs discourage and block those often in most need of protection, the poor.
2.) Tax credits given to those who seek out and get appropriate safety train in to include classroom based "use of force" theory/policy along with skills based range training. This would be for a certain dollar amount, anything over this , the consumer is responsible for. This credit would be "renewable" every 3 years.
3.) Tax credit given for a storage system to safely keep firearms secure yet accessible. This would be up to a certain dollar amount, anything over this, the consumer is responsible for. This credit would be "renewable" every 3 years.
4.) Basic, developmentally appropriate, non-judgmental gun safety would be taught in elementary school, k-3.
5.)"Polution"/zoning ordnances wold be altered/strengthened in order to not force shut down or relocation of existing ranges or prohibition of new ones.
6.) Those in position to enforce laws, cops, should be well versed on law and not use ignorance or "reported complaints" as basis to infringe, harass or punish reasonably exercising a right when no reasonable reason exists.
7.) Make persons who do use the system to harass such open to civil and or criminal penalty and subject to fines or punishment (jail/loss of job) payable/reponsible by themselves and not a union or municipal "insurance" plan. In other words those who do so are PERSONALLY responsible.
There....you wanted a plan on what we should do to improve the system, that's mine, for now. I'm sure I could add further "common sense" regulations/laws if I give it another 2 minutes of thought... All completely practical and reasonable but wholly unlikely due to pepole in favor of gun control are not in it to save lives, they are in it for control and power and "feeling good".
What would YOUR plan involve?
Post by: part deux on November 15, 2015, 05:15:22 PM
The article points out that most of these shooters obtained their weapons legally. They obtained them through a system that is obviously broken. If we want to keep guns out of the wrong hands, we need to change this system.
So the discussion is; how best to change the system? Saying no to everything and hoping it will change itself is not a solution.
Did you even bother reading the article? Most were NOT obtained legally, and maybe in your Bloomberg world, two people is a mass shooting, but not in mine.
Post by: CharleyVCU1988 on November 15, 2015, 05:59:21 PM
As far as mentally ill, that gets more complicated because there are many anti-freedom advocates that want to see the system abused to cast a net over an ever increase list of "mental health/physical health" diagnoses to block ownership. As some someone ewho works in the mental health system and looked over the DSM 5, it seems there is a diagnosis for you if do anything.....
Freediver, I keep seeing you asking for solutions from others time and time again but do not recall one post of you proposing anything that WE should do...just a lot of circular reasoning and avoidance.
Amen to that. Freediver, as he said, I don't see much of anything from you about what should be done outside training requirements as such.
Not to mention the practice of psychiatry has been abused by The State multiple times in the past to silence and disarm political dissidents.
The reluctance is likely on that front because it all boils down to this - who gets to define who is violently mentally ill and who isn't? In a perfect world, I should be able to put Alex Jones (infowars), Clive Bundy, Ted Nugent, Keith Olbermann, Louis Farrakhan, all in front of a (hopefully) objective psychiatrist and they should come out of that (hypothetical) exam A-OK. They are certainly political firebrands but none of them are imminent threats to anyone, nor are they future threats to anyone.
I'm against psych exams because they are WAY too arbitrary, and concentrate power in the hands of a few, btw. But it's not like the leftwing and gungrabbers seem to care anyways.
Post by: CitizensHaveRights on November 15, 2015, 06:21:39 PM
They are certainly political firebrands but none of them are imminent threats to anyone, nor are they future threats to anyone.
Tell that to Elijah Muhammad.
Quote
I'm against psych exams because they are WAY too arbitrary, and concentrate power in the hands of a few, btw. But it's not like the leftwing and gungrabbers seem to care anyways.
Agreed.
Post by: MuffDiver on November 18, 2015, 08:43:33 PM
Post by: freediver on November 18, 2015, 09:14:54 PM
I do appreciate your concern.
Post by: freediver on November 20, 2015, 07:27:38 AM
As far as criminals always having guns, I beg to differ. What we are talking about is choking off that supply of guns so that guns become harder to obtain, and thereby more expensive to the criminal. Choking off that supply can be done in multiple ways. Here are the specific proposals you asked for:
1. Fully fund the ATF so that they can do the job we charter them for, which is tracking illegal gun sales and prosecuting corrupts FFLs.
2. Track the registration numbers of all firearms so that we can identify the conduits by which guns pass from legal hands to illegal hands and shut them down.
3. Hold all gun owners responsible for their weapons, to include law enforcement officers. If you fail to secure your weapon properly and it is stolen and used in a crime, you as the owner are on the hook for your inadequate storage.
4. Mandatory firearms training. Basic safety and competency training before you buy a firearm, similar to the CPL requirements in many states. If you want to conceal or open carry, we raise the bar a bit and require that you attend a tactical shooting course to learn the skills you would need to safely engage targets. Despite our best intentions, none of us are natural born shooters. Therre are very specific skills and techniques to learn in order to engage a bad guy in a public venue, either to defend yourself or others. By sheer volume of applicants the cost of these courses would be kept much lower than today's costs.
Looking at your proposals , I think you have some great ideas. The idea is to fundamentally change our gun culture from the ground up while not penalizing gun owners. This should be an investment in people, similar to other educational programs. We WANT people to be skilled marksmen and women. We WANT people to be able to safely and effectively be that good guy with a gun. We WANT to get the criminals, the crazies, and the sheer idiots away from firearms. And best of all, we WANT to send a message to potential tyrants that US citizens are armed, are trained well, and are ready to face down any tyranny.
Hope those answers were what you are looking for.
Post by: part deux on November 20, 2015, 09:10:51 AM
Mr muffdiver: the cars to gun analysis keeps coming up as an example of trend data and its directions. The overall number of cars in the US continues to go up, not down, yet car deaths decrease. The number of gun deaths continues to rise, which I would consider a negative trend.
Cite your FACTUAL source please.
Even the FBI is reported lower numbers.
Post by: bigt8261 on November 20, 2015, 09:17:18 AM
The number of gun deaths continues to rise, which I would consider a negative trend.
Except for the federal government, specifically the Bureau of Justice Statistics which is a branch of the Attorney General's office, says you are wrong. Like, WAY wrong.
You said "gun deaths continues to rise", but the actuall statistics show a 39% decrease in firearm related homicides (guns are objects, they can't die), and a 69% decrease in non-fatal firearm related crime from 1993-2011. Since then the number of firearms in this country continues to skyrocket and those crime numbers just keep going down.
http://bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/fv9311.pdf
It appears to me your anti-gun notions are based on a complete myth.
Post by: bigt8261 on November 20, 2015, 09:19:08 AM
Mass shootings continue unabated
Only when no one can defend themselves. Here are a few examples of what happens when people CAN defend themselves.
http://controversialtimes.com/issues/constitutional-rights/12-times-mass-shootings-were-stopped-by-good-guys-with-guns/
Post by: bigt8261 on November 20, 2015, 09:25:44 AM
There is no evidence whatsoever, none, that introducing more guns into a society will make it safer or less volatile. If you have an ACTUAL example of this happening I would love to see it. I have asked for this piece of evidence many times on this forum and have been ignored.
You would know a little something about ignoring, but anyway.
As for the evidence, I guess you are ignoring the most peer reviewed research on the subject in the world. Here is a reference: http://johnrlott.tripod.com/Univ_of_Maryland_Law_Review_Lott.pdf
No other research on the topic is as peer reviewed (and confirmed I might add) as that one.
While you are at it, read this one too. http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Vol30_No2_KatesMauseronline.pdf
Post by: bigt8261 on November 20, 2015, 10:43:33 AM
1. Fully fund the ATF so that they can do the job we charter them for, which is tracking illegal gun sales and prosecuting corrupts FFLs.
You mean that agency that is responsible for killing dozens, if not hundreds of innocent people, including more children at Waco than at Sandy Hook (http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/fanning-flames-waco)? You mean that agency that has repeatedly been caught using mentally disabled (http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2013/12/08/249610501/report-details-atfs-use-of-mentally-disabled-in-gun-stings) people in unlawful stings? You mean that agency that has repeatedly run guns (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ATF_gunwalking_scandal) into the hands of drug cartels leading the to deaths of multiple Americans and likely thousands of Mexicans?
You say fully fund. I say put in jail.
2. Track the registration numbers of all firearms so that we can identify the conduits by which guns pass from legal hands to illegal hands and shut them down.
Using registration to do what you propose is a pipe dream. Let's use Michigan as an example. As an alleged gun owner in Michigan, you should know that we not only have the equivalent of a "universal" background check on pistols, we also have registration for pistols too. Is our crime rate any lower? No. Do our police solve crime at a higher percentage? Nope. Essentially, there is no measurable positive effect from these systems.
In 2012, the MSP was asked in a committee hearing if they had ever used the pistol database to solve a crime. They were unable to come up with a single example. Not one. Canada recently got rid of a database for the exact same reason.
Your intent may be good here, but the practical effects are not what you are looking for. Add in the down sides of registration like cost and confiscation, and it's easy to see why so few actually do it.
You can read many more examples here: http://www.gunfacts.info/gun-control-myths/licensing-and-registration/
3. Hold all gun owners responsible for their weapons, to include law enforcement officers. If you fail to secure your weapon properly and it is stolen and used in a crime, you as the owner are on the hook for your inadequate storage.
Gun owners are already held responsible for negligence. You can find enough examples with a simple Google search. However, what you are suggesting is not about negligence of gun owners, it's about punishing gun owners for the illegal activities of criminals. This flies in the face of any common sense.
If I steal your car and use it to drive through a parade of people, should you be prosecuted for each death I cause?
Should negligent people be prosecuted? Sure, and they already are.
4. Mandatory firearms training. Basic safety and competency training before you buy a firearm, similar to the CPL requirements in many states. If you want to conceal or open carry, we raise the bar a bit and require that you attend a tactical shooting course to learn the skills you would need to safely engage targets. Despite our best intentions, none of us are natural born shooters. Therre are very specific skills and techniques to learn in order to engage a bad guy in a public venue, either to defend yourself or others. By sheer volume of applicants the cost of these courses would be kept much lower than today's costs.
First, no. What you suggest is antithetical to the free exercise of a right.
Second, I think you fundamentally don't understand the aspects of a defensive scenario and how it differs from an offensive one. According to research (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/More_Guns,_Less_Crime)conducted at the University of Chicago, officers shot roughly 5.5 times as many innocent bystanders as armed citizens. Add in the fact that officers were engaged in half as many encounters and that means officers were 11 times as likely to shoot an innocent bystander as an armed civilian. The biggest reason for that is citizens engage in almost entirely defensive encounters. They don't have to enter an unknown volatile situation. Defensive encounters are almost entirely at short distances, where offensive encounters may not be.
Third, if you wish to push something, then the burden is on you to prove its value. If you do the research I think you will find out that "basic" training doesn't have the effect you think it has. Michigan's standards are rather high when compared nationally. However, other states don't have a higher accident rate or crime rate amongst gun owners. The number of states that do not require any training or licensing is up to 7. Are those states worse off because if it? Nope.
So again, I say the burden is on you here.
Post by: bigt8261 on November 20, 2015, 11:27:01 AM
We WANT people to be skilled marksmen and women. We WANT people to be able to safely and effectively be that good guy with a gun. We WANT to get the criminals, the crazies, and the sheer idiots away from firearms. And best of all, we WANT to send a message to potential tyrants that US citizens are armed, are trained well, and are ready to face down any tyranny.
I agree with everything there. Not only do I agree, I'm actively personally working to make it happen. What I'm telling you is that your ideas do not lead to the above.
I took time to sit down 1-on-1 with George Heartwell, the mayor of Grand Rapids. Mayor Heartwell is a well known anti-gun zealot. We chatted in a friendly manner about the overall topic and our disagreements. I then presented a list of things that I considered "common ground", essentially things I thought we could both agree on without having to compromise to get there. Things like enforcing our existing laws to actually punish people who do bad things with firearms, something the state and especially the federal government is not good at doing. He refused to stand with me and push for things we agreed upon. It became clear that he was not interested in safety as he had claimed. Guns are bad and that's all he cared about.
Will Grand Rapids Mayor George Heartwell accept gun-rights advocate's request to join his Coalition for Gun Control? (http://www.mlive.com/news/grand-rapids/index.ssf/2013/01/will_grand_rapids_mayor_george.html)
Grand Rapids Mayor George Heartwell on guns: 'I am not interested in finding a middle ground' (http://www.mlive.com/news/grand-rapids/index.ssf/2013/01/grand_rapids_mayor_george_hear_18.html)
Post by: gryphon on November 20, 2015, 03:15:17 PM
There is no evidence whatsoever, none, that introducing more guns into a society will make it safer or less volatile. If you have an ACTUAL example of this happening I would love to see it. I have asked for this piece of evidence many times on this forum and have been ignored.
No, you haven't. Many have replied to you on this point, including me.
Quote
Crimes rates are correlated to birth rates and other demographic factors, economics, social factors...
While there may be other contributing factors as well, that doesn't mean that guns aren't one of them. You seem to be looking for something that states "guns are the sole reason that society is becoming safer." Society isn't some science experiment where you control only one variable to see its effect.
And as far as economics and poverty, there was a time in this country (many times) when people were much poorer and yet they didn't commit violent crime to steal.
Quote
1. Fully fund the ATF
I think we should abolish the ATF.
Quote
2. Track the registration numbers of all firearms
No, no registration database of guns and gun owners in the US! Period!
Quote
3. Hold all gun owners responsible for their weapons, to include law enforcement officers. If you fail to secure your weapon properly and it is stolen and used in a crime, you as the owner are on the hook for your inadequate storage.
I've asked you repeatedly what SPECIFICALLY you want here? Each gun owner must have a certain security level minimum gun safe or they are committing a felony and will be prosecuted and put in prison? Or do you just want to prosecute someone if a criminal breaks into their house, otherwise no harm, no foul? If someone doesn't practice "safe storage" as defined by you, there are no consequences? That's like saying, "the speed limit is 45 MPH here and violation is subject to citation, however you can essentially drive as fast as you want and we'll only ticket you if you end up getting in or causing a wreck." Or do you want mandatory firearms inspections like some countries have? A gun owner can already be prosecuted or even sued civilly for negligence (letting a prohibited person--which can be a child--have access to their guns).
Post by: MuffDiver on November 20, 2015, 06:42:14 PM
Mr muffdiver: the cars to gun analysis keeps coming up as an example of trend data and its directions. The overall number of cars in the US continues to go up, not down, yet car deaths decrease.
It's not the number of cars, it's the number of drivers....birth rates are down and younger people are not taking to cars the way previous gene did. Even the auto makers are recognizing this trend. The U.S. Federal highway administration has seen this..."As the average age of licensed drivers shifts upward, we see that the 35-39 and 40-44 year old age groups contain the largest share of drivers.
The number of age 70 and over drivers holding a valid license has continued to increase. In 1980, drivers 70 years and over was 8.8 million. And rose to 18.9 million in 2000. This is a 111% increase in older driver since 1980." It's a flash argument meant to confuse/divert the issue.
Quote
The number of gun deaths continues to rise, which I would consider a negative trend. Mass shootings continue unabated and we are all worried about the transfer of firearms into the hands of criminals. There is no evidence whatsoever, none, that introducing more guns into a society will make it safer or less volatile. If you have an ACTUAL example of this happening I would love to see it. I have asked for this piece of evidence many times on this forum and have been ignored. Not speculation about US crime rates versus guns because there is no clear cause and effect between gun ownership and crime rates. Crimes rates are correlated to birth rates and other demographic factors, economics, social factors such as the general acceptance of guns (more in white families versus black or Hispanic families, for example). So until there is a proven correlation between gun ownership and crime rates, it remains only wishful thinking.
"The FBI Crime in the United States report found 8,124 murders committed with firearms in 2014, down from 8,454 in 2013. That represents a 3.9 percent drop year over year and the lowest rate of any year included in the report.
The report found that, as in previous years, the vast majority of gun murders were committed with handguns, but all categories of gun murders declined.
Rifles were involved in 248 murders last year, fewer than the number committed with knives, blunt objects, and fists or feet. Three percent of gun murders involved rifles.
The overall murder rate declined by 1.2 percent year over year." https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2014/crime-in-the-u.s.-2014/cius-home
How is this poosible with the veritable explosion in the number of guns and ever increasing number of not only gun owners but concealed carry persons? Perhaps instead of us having to prove that more guns makes things safer, you should prove it doesn't. ... According to the CDC, in 2013 63% of firearm deaths were suicides. Some would argue that getting rid of or restriction gu s would change this and "save so many lives".....sadly, that is not proveable and is just supposition. In Japan firearms for non police, military or security of ALL kinds are BANNED and yet their suicide rate is DOUBLE ours.....how is that?
Quote
As far as criminals always having guns, I beg to differ. What we are talking about is choking off that supply of guns so that guns become harder to obtain, and thereby more expensive to the criminal. Choking off that supply can be done in multiple ways.
Please, people in Pakistan can make near original looking, and functional AK copies in dirt floor huts...I can go to my hardware store and make a functional zip gun for 20-30 dollars, and that's if I want a fancy one. We can't even keep drugs or phones or weapons out of prisions...places that are designed to keep those things away from very bad people.... You are living in a fantasy land.
Quote
Here are the specific proposals you asked for:
1. Fully fund the ATF so that they can do the job we charter them for, which is tracking illegal gun sales and prosecuting corrupts FFLs.
2. Track the registration numbers of all firearms so that we can identify the conduits by which guns pass from legal hands to illegal hands and shut them down.
3. Hold all gun owners responsible for their weapons, to include law enforcement officers. If you fail to secure your weapon properly and it is stolen and used in a crime, you as the owner are on the hook for your inadequate storage.
4. Mandatory firearms training. Basic safety and competency training before you buy a firearm, similar to the CPL requirements in many states. If you want to conceal or open carry, we raise the bar a bit and require that you attend a tactical shooting course to learn the skills you would need to safely engage targets. Despite our best intentions, none of us are natural born shooters. Therre are very specific skills and techniques to learn in order to engage a bad guy in a public venue, either to defend yourself or others. By sheer volume of applicants the cost of these courses would be kept much lower than today's costs.
The ATF is more than adequately funded. Perhaps if they actually spent their time PROSECUTING straw buys and smugglers and those who are caught lying on transfer forms w'd see better results..."Mr. Jones acknowledged in questioning by Sen. Ted Cruz, Texas Republican, that of 48,321 cases involving straw buyers, the Justice Department prosecuted only 44 of them — saying that “hard decisions” to prosecute were made based on “limited resources.” He also acknowledged that as the U.S. attorney in Minnesota, he never prosecuted anyone accused of being a straw buyer." They also seem to have the time and resources to run large operations to smuggle weapons into Mexico that have now killed who knows how many..... The problem is that prosecuting such cases isn't "sexy" or high profile and those in power want big headlines and programs with equally large budgets and staff. Making progress isn't as important when you can make headlines or your name know in power circles...
Any then let's not get into the number of weapons that are stolen or lost from federal, state, and local agencies that are never accounted for and for which people are rarely held accountable and when they are some underling gets fired or some one gets a "reprimand".
Quote
Looking at your proposals , I think you have some great ideas. The idea is to fundamentally change our gun culture from the ground up while not penalizing gun owners. This should be an investment in people, similar to other educational programs. We WANT people to be skilled marksmen and women. We WANT people to be able to safely and effectively be that good guy with a gun. We WANT to get the criminals, the crazies, and the sheer idiots away from firearms. And best of all, we WANT to send a message to potential tyrants that US citizens are armed, are trained well, and are ready to face down any tyranny.
Hope those answers were what you are looking for.
We both want the same thing, in the end, but have some very significant differences in how to get there.
Post by: freediver on November 20, 2015, 07:06:08 PM
Unfortunately that has a snowball's chance in hell of working. The various gun lobbies, such as this organization, insist on doctrinal purity and not giving an inch. Liberal gun haters aren't much better. So here we sit in a quandary, with no solutions and no end in sight.
Sad and wasteful, in my mind.
Post by: MuffDiver on November 20, 2015, 07:42:19 PM
Mr muffdiver: You called it. We both want the same thing. We just differ on how to get there. So, why not take some of your ideas and some of my ideas, work them into a manageable program, and put them out there to see what works. Then over time we scrap what doesn't work (gun bans, for example) and keep what works. Simple compromises, which is the only thing that will allow democracy to flourish. You don't get everything your way, I don't get everything my way. But we skip the ideology and move straight to practical solutions.
Unfortunately that has a snowball's chance in hell of working. The various gun lobbies, such as this organization, insist on doctrinal purity and not giving an inch. Liberal gun haters aren't much better. So here we sit in a quandary, with no solutions and no end in sight.
Sad and wasteful, in my mind.
Quite honestly, I don't want any of your ideas because once something becomes law or a liberty/right is restricted, it is rarely returned/overturned. It's turns people into sheep and conformists. I'm not willing to comprise on rights. My suggestions are very practical and have zero downside and only benefits, your way gives government a backdoor to limit and reduce/remote a basic human right of defense from fellow citizens and overbearing and authoritative government.
Organizations like this should insist on doctrinal purity and are needed because without them others will whittle down or dilute what you say you want to preserve until nothing is left....like boiling a frog, it doesn't know it's over until it's to late. Liberals and freedom haters don't even have compromise in their vocabulary when it comes to what they want and they insist on "doctrinal purity", why should we be the ones to always have to give up something.
Liberal gun haters aren't much better???? They aren't ANY better, they are much worse!.... This response of yours makes me believe the rift between the groups, as well as you and I are bigger than I even thought.... Now, I'm not sure if we want the same things. I'll happily take a dangerous freedom over safe serfdom.
Post by: gryphon on November 20, 2015, 07:55:58 PM
Any then let's not get into the number of weapons that are stolen or lost from federal, state, and local agencies that are never accounted for and for which people are rarely held accountable
Yep. Just this week the San Jose PD admitted that their own force had stolen over 300 guns out of the department. Well, they actually just admitted that over 300 guns were "missing." The chief said, "These things happen." No accountability. Our own Flint PD has admitted to having department-issued guns missing.
Post by: gryphon on November 20, 2015, 08:01:59 PM
Simple compromises...You don't get everything your way, I don't get everything my way.
1934 National Firearms Act
1968 Gun Control Act of 1968
1986 Firearm Owners Protection Act
1993 Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act
1994 Federal Assault Weapons Ban
1995 Gun-Free School Zones Act
We have compromised enough already.
Post by: gryphon on November 20, 2015, 08:06:41 PM
But I'm willing to compromise with the Left. Pick three out of the six to abolish. There, 50/50 compromise.
Post by: CitizensHaveRights on November 20, 2015, 08:33:33 PM
But I'm willing to compromise with the Left. Pick three out of the six to abolish. There, 50/50 compromise.
Sounds like the same sort of compromise we've been giving up for 80 years. They propose taking this, that and the other thing from us, then we compromise and they only get this now and that in a year or two, while we keep the other thing for the time being.
Post by: bigt8261 on November 20, 2015, 08:46:38 PM
So, why not take some of your ideas and some of my ideas, work them into a manageable program, and put them out there to see what works. Then over time we scrap what doesn't work (gun bans, for example) and keep what works. Simple compromises, which is the only thing that will allow democracy to flourish. You don't get everything your way, I don't get everything my way. But we skip the ideology and move straight to practical solutions.
Gun owners have fallen for that for over a hundred years. By now we have a pretty good idea of what works and what doesn't. Everything that you've proposed can either be proven to not work, or proven to actually be a detriment.
Again I say the burden is on you.
Post by: gryphon on November 21, 2015, 02:59:06 AM
There is no evidence whatsoever, none, that introducing more guns into a society will make it safer or less volatile. If you have an ACTUAL example of this happening I would love to see it.
How about the Centers for Disease Control, the U.S. National Academy of Sciences, and the United Nations International Study on Firearms Regulation?
Post by: Ultra on November 21, 2015, 08:59:43 AM
Let's start with Freediver....
Post by: part deux on November 21, 2015, 09:08:07 AM
(https://scontent-ord1-1.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xtp1/v/t1.0-9/12065882_487331548115465_3267515494227496984_n.png?oh=b573c78c7b44fa5199f7dd12e8b96e12&oe=56E07D34)
Post by: gryphon on November 21, 2015, 04:59:24 PM
How about a discussion about knife ownership?
Does the knife have a shoulder thing that goes up?
Post by: gryphon on November 21, 2015, 05:22:23 PM
Therefore, I propose we make some changes in law that hinder us from catching criminals.
First, we abolish the First Amendment. We can't have people speaking their minds and assembling, rabble sousing. But that's a minor thing, We really need to...
...abolish the Fourth Amendment. Clearly this is hindering the police from making searches that any reasonable person knows should be allowed to capture criminals. If you aren't doing anything wrong, then you have nothing to hide. The only people who would be against this are criminals!
...abolish the Fifth Amendment. Clearly this is hindering the justice system from convicting criminals! We allow criminals to refuse to answer questions, we mandate a Grand Jury be assembled for "serious" crimes, we even pay people for taking their land in the name of the betterment of society! #WhitePrivelege #BlackLivesMatter
...abolish the Ninth and Tenth Amendments. Again, more laws that hinder law enforcement from keeping us safe!
Post by: bigt8261 on November 21, 2015, 05:24:15 PM
As freediver has opined, our current 2A protection allows too many bad people to obtain guns. The goal is to abolish laws and freedoms in the name of preventing and catching criminals.
Therefore, I propose we make some changes in law that hinder us from catching criminals.
First, we abolish the First Amendment. We can't have people speaking their minds and assembling, rabble sousing. But that's a minor thing, We really need to...
...abolish the Fourth Amendment. Clearly this is hindering the police from making searches that any reasonable person knows should be allowed to capture criminals. If you aren't doing anything wrong, then you have nothing to hide. The only people who would be against this are criminals!
...abolish the Fifth Amendment. Clearly this is hindering the justice system from convicting criminals! We allow criminals to refuse to answer questions, we mandate a Grand Jury be assembled for "serious" crimes, we even pay people for taking their land in the name of the betterment of society! #WhitePrivelege #BlackLivesMatter
...abolish the Ninth and Tenth Amendments. Again, more laws that hinder law enforcement from keeping us safe!
He has a point you know.
Post by: Ultra on November 21, 2015, 08:23:48 PM
Poll: 40 Percent Of Millennials Want Speech Censored
Quote
A new Pew Research Center poll shows that 40 percent of American Millennials (ages 18-34) are likely to support government prevention of public statements offensive to minorities.
It should be noted that vastly different numbers resulted for older generations in the Pew poll on the issue of offensive speech and the government’s role.
Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2015/11/21/poll-40-percent-of-millennials-want-speech-censored/
However, this isn't a democracy. Our country is structured as a republic, in order to prevent ill informed masses from taking rights away from the populace.
------------
I know, this entire post just went over Freedivers head.
Post by: gryphon on November 21, 2015, 09:16:19 PM
Post by: MuffDiver on November 23, 2015, 07:32:46 PM
Post by: CharleyVCU1988 on November 23, 2015, 10:19:38 PM
https://www.oathkeepers.org/in-refusing-to-consider-marines-ordeal-scotus-weakens-deterrents-to-hearsay-commitments/ (https://www.oathkeepers.org/in-refusing-to-consider-marines-ordeal-scotus-weakens-deterrents-to-hearsay-commitments/)
Because if people like him have their way, your rights are subject to whims of agents of The State.
Quote
"the Supreme Court declined to hear the Case of Brandon Raub last Monday. That slams shut a door in the face of a Marine veteran who served in Iraq and Afghanistan, and who was seeking justice for his unlawful detention for disapproved political speech. It also leaves other Americans in similar danger of being committed to institutions based on “experts” relying on what police tell them rather than on impartial evaluations and due process.
Raub had been sentenced to “up to 30 days in [a] psych ward for Facebook posts,” Business Insider reported in 2012 Raub’s “thought crimes” included challenging the government’s account of 9/11. He was taken away in handcuffs following a joint operation that included the FBI, the Secret Service, and the Chesterfield County Police Department, all of which distanced themselves from responsibility in news reports.
Raub was provided representation through The Rutherford Institute, which noted he “was arrested, detained indefinitely in a psych ward and forced to undergo psychological evaluations based solely on the controversial nature of lines from song lyrics, political messages and virtual card games which he posted to his private Facebook page.”
“For government officials to not only arrest Brandon Raub for doing nothing more than exercising his First Amendment rights but to actually force him to undergo psychological evaluations and detain him against his will goes against every constitutional principle this country was founded upon,” Rutherford president John W. Whitehead explained. “This should be a wake-up call to Americans that the police state is here.”
In a follow-up prompted by SCOTUS ducking the case, reporter Bob Unruh of WND.com related that after Raub had been held against his will for a week, “Circuit Court Judge Allan Sharrett … ordered Raub’s immediate release, stating the government’s case was ‘so devoid of any factual allegations that it could not be reasonably expected to give rise to a case or controversy.’”
“At issue was the behavior of the mental-health screener, Michael Campbell, who allegedly failed to exercise reasonable professional judgment in wrongly concluding Raub was mentally ill and dangerous, violating Raub’s Fourth Amendment rights,” Unruh explained. “The appellate court noted Raub never threatened violence, and he was detained on orders from Campbell after only an interview by Campbell of officers who had talked with Raub.”
That would mean Raub was committed based on hearsay as repeated by the police detaining him, and the system went along with it. It’s not difficult to imagine a different outcome had Raub been less capable and articulate at defending his rights, and had legal representation from a liberty advocacy legal firm not been forthcoming. It also makes it fair to wonder who may now be in custody that we may never know about. It also invites the question of whether the real mental health issue lies with those who would turn the coercive power of the state against anyone challenging the government’s version of events.
But Raub pressing for justice through a lawsuit was rebuffed, first by a lower court and then by the appeals court. Now, by turning its back on him, SCOTUS has turned its back on past, current and future victims of the “mental health” blanket dragnet, including on those who may be injured or killed in the process of being unjustly incarcerated. By refusing to hold officials accountable for breaches of professional duties and for violations of rights, personal incentives for standards that safeguard individual liberty are diminished.
Post by: CitizensHaveRights on November 25, 2015, 09:40:35 PM
Post by: gryphon on November 25, 2015, 09:56:23 PM
Select your preferred name for our new gun control initiative:
Gun Owners for Responsible Gun Laws
Gun Owners United to End Gun Violence
Gun Owners United for Safe Communities
American Coalition for Responsible Gun Ownership (ACRGO)
Post by: m.marino on November 26, 2015, 04:06:53 AM
This has been and is still being done by the "progressive" movement. heck even the term progressive is something they stole from another movement. They are intelligent and dishonest. Now is a time that one must be very careful, as though with an agenda to get rid of guns will do their best to appear as those who support gun rights within a "reasonable", "rational" framework. For the safety of society and the children of course will be thrown in there to add to the emotional irrational behavior as they rationalize (that act of taking that which is irrational and by false argument making it appear rational) the need for their agenda.
Take a look at the prohibition movements and other movements that have used this type of warfare to attain their goal. Some might consider the term warfare to be a bit extreme. The interesting point is that neither the US military, nor the current CIS (or old USSR), nor the Chinese, nor many others considered it anything other than warfare and crowd control when used on ones own population.
Michael
Post by: part deux on November 26, 2015, 12:06:49 PM
Gryphon this does not surprise me in the least as they are losing the battle in many states. So they are going to try to co-op the movement by creating groups that look like they are pro gun and use each other to create a group of "experts" which then push a "sensible" agenda for gun "rights" and "responsible", "sensible" gun usage.
Next thing you know, they'll start coming into gun boards with their military and civilian LEO experience searching for sensible answers.
Oh wait
Post by: TucTom on November 26, 2015, 03:10:56 PM
Next thing you know, they'll start coming into gun boards with their military and civilian LEO experience searching for sensible answers.
Oh wait
:rotfl:
Post by: Ultra on November 26, 2015, 09:09:15 PM
Next thing you know, they'll start coming into gun boards with their military and civilian LEO experience searching for sensible answers.
Oh wait
This is exactly what I thought from the first post I ever read of his. Swear to god!!!
Post by: freediver on November 28, 2015, 09:04:18 PM
Post by: mosnar87 on November 28, 2015, 10:05:40 PM
Post by: Ultra on November 28, 2015, 10:48:58 PM
Gentlemen, you appear to be suffering from a pretty horrific case of group paranoia. This might be a good time to turn off your computers, open up the drapes, and go outside and play with normal people for awhile.
He thinks he's normal.
He joins a "tip of the spear" rights group that actively pursues an agenda. All so that he can troll threads and spam the board with gun control nonsense a Fudd would be ashamed of.
And he thinks he's normal.
No, really, he does.
/end thread
/ban troll
/my 2 cents. Yours free of charge.
Post by: freediver on November 29, 2015, 09:30:20 AM
We should be having a reason-based discussion on how best to combat the problem. Instead we only have shouting points and "doctrinal 2A purity" with no sense of reason or reality.
Post by: part deux on November 29, 2015, 09:32:00 AM
It's fascinating reading and looking into the mind of someone who hasn't experienced the upcoming cognitive dissonance... yet.
Post by: freediver on November 29, 2015, 09:42:14 AM
Post by: bigt8261 on November 29, 2015, 09:51:00 AM
Mr mosnar87: Therein lies some of the meat of the discussion: credible threat. If we are living in one of the safest societies on the planet (completely unfactual) as some of this forum's contributors have claimed, then what threat are you countering if you want to open or conceal carry? If we have a problem with gun violence in our society (very true), then shouldn't we be addressing the root causes of that violence (unfettered access to firearms, lack of training, lack of effective regulation, etc) rather than existing in denial and saying NO to every bit of change?
One trend when debating people on this topic that I've noticed many times is what happens when they begin to acknowledge society is SAFER today than a few decades ago. Once they open their eyes and begin to do at least a smidgen of basic research, they begin to understand that both firearm and non-firearm related violence is way down, which pulls the rug out from the very foundation of their argument. At this time, things generally turn towards, 'well if things are so good, then why do you need a gun?' First, that question ignores why people generally carry a firearm (to protect themselves), and second, it also ignores cause and effect. What they don't understand is that question is a defacto admission that law-abiding gun owners are not the problem.
Before I go:
- unfettered access to firearms - only for criminals who don't care about the law.
- lack of training - you have yet to show how this in any way has lead to any measurable increase in harm. You have also yet to show that it even exists.
- lack of effective regulation - Well, at least we agree on something, though I maintain that more ineffective regulation is not the answer and the notion of effective regulation is a pipe dream.
Post by: freediver on November 29, 2015, 09:58:59 AM
If you talk to the people who study such things, the reason crime and violence are down has NOTHING to do with the plethora of guns. It has to do with demographic and other societal factors.
Post by: bigt8261 on November 29, 2015, 10:20:08 AM
My bigT: at last, a point of agreement. I'm not talking about more INEFFECTIVE regulation. I'm talking about changing our regulations to make them MORE effective. Gun bans don't work. Magazine bans don't work. So quit saying NO to everything and start thinking about what will work. And unfettered access to firearms will not work and has never been demonstrated to do so.
If you talk to the people who study such things, the reason crime and violence are down has NOTHING to do with the plethora of guns. It has to do with demographic and other societal factors.
Consider this - the reason we've said no to everything you have talked about thus far is that you have suggested nothing that departs from the category of ineffective. Many of the responses to you have been well detailed and supported. To suggest people are saying no simply say no is a severe mischaracterization, and one I believe to be intentional. See, by mischaracterizing responses to you in such a manner it frees you from having to properly acknowledge that response.
To your last point, as has been offered to you on many occasions, the most peer reviewed research on the topic by any economist or criminologist has shown a link between more guns = less crime. If you are not going to read what is presented to you, then again I suggest that we cannot engage in a proper conversation.
Post by: freediver on November 29, 2015, 04:52:06 PM
When I think more guns and more access, I think our wild wild west, Somalia and other parts of Africa, Afghanistan and the tribal areas of Pakistan, Siberia, and redneck stupidity. hardly the models for a successful society.
Post by: gryphon on November 29, 2015, 05:10:27 PM
I didn't get that from the video. He's not an idiot. He's an intelligent, concerned firearms owner.
If you want I can go on some more about how this guy is an idiot. He says the the founders created the Second Amendment to arm the militia, and the militia is what today we call the National Guard.
Wrong on both counts. The 2A was written so the government could NOT take the means of self-protection--guns--away from citizens, to defend primarily from a rogue federal government. Read the founders' contemporaneous writings. They are very clear on this. Second of all, the National Guard is not the same thing as the militia. The National Guard is a government force. The militia is a citizen force that can be assembled and disbanded as required to repel aggression. In the 1700's the militia, which had been established for 140 years already, fought against the government.
Also each of the provisions in the Bill of Rights is an individual right, all twenty-seven of them. To say that 26 are individual rights but 1 is not, that it is a collective right of the militia, is both ludicrous and dishonest. SCOTUS agrees.
“Every late-19th-century legal scholar that we have read interpreted the Second Amendment to secure an individual right unconnected with militia service.” — U.S. Supreme Court, June 26, 2008
Post by: gryphon on November 29, 2015, 05:15:42 PM
I've seen articles written by gun-favorable entities...but not one article by a non-biased reputable research agency, a criminologist...
Gary Kleck is a Florida State University criminologist. Gary Kleck is a Liberal. He is, by his own admission, a member of the ACLU, Amnesty International, Independent Action, Democrats 2000, and Common Cause, among other politically liberal organizations. He is a life-long registered Democrat, as well as a regular contributor to Democratic Party candidates. He's hardly in the pocket of firearms manufacturers or the GOP.
Post by: m.marino on November 29, 2015, 05:29:42 PM
The last two documents I have seen from the CDC (got to love alumni privileges) state that those who own guns are more likely to be more mentally stable than those who don't (Obama hates that paper since he ordered it to start the guns are a mental disorder gig). If you have a good solid peer reviewed document from them other wise please share it. Please don't quote Lancet as they are publishing some pretty bad crap these days.
Michael
Post by: freediver on November 29, 2015, 05:56:38 PM
Post by: freediver on November 29, 2015, 06:03:20 PM
As to the second post, I don't remember a mention of Gary Fleck. I will do some searching and see what he writes. Thanks for the tip.
Post by: m.marino on November 29, 2015, 06:08:07 PM
Here is one that took less than five minutes with Google. i did not even have to use my access to Medline.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4318286/ (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4318286/)
If I get so more time will post more but it is late and need to be up early tomorrow.
Michael
Post by: freediver on November 29, 2015, 06:18:28 PM
Cheers.
Post by: bigt8261 on November 29, 2015, 07:21:34 PM
Mr bigt: I have yet to see a peer-reviewed paper presented here or anywhere else that shows a direct correlation between more guns = less crime. I've seen articles written by gun-favorable entities, I've seen a lot of speculation and wishful thinking. But not one article by a non-biased reputable research agency, a criminologist, a sociologist, a reputable government agency, or anyone else. If you have such articles I would love to see them to educate myself.
Myself and others have provided numerous to you. I specifically have linked multiple on multiple occasions. At this point I'm going to take a page out of your book and just say go read what I've written. If you are not going to read responses, then you cannot be part of the conversation.
Post by: part deux on November 29, 2015, 07:34:11 PM
Private ownership of guns is not allowed in Afghanistan
When I think more guns and more access, I think our wild wild west, Somalia and other parts of Africa, Afghanistan and the tribal areas of Pakistan, Siberia, and redneck stupidity. hardly the models for a successful society.
In Somalia, only licensed gun owners12 17 11 may lawfully acquire, possess or transfer a firearm or ammunition
In Afghanistan, carrying a gun in a public place is regulated by law13
In Pakistan, only licensed gun owners43 44 may lawfully acquire, possess or transfer a firearm or ammunition
Since Siberia isn't a country... Applicants for a gun owner’s licence in Russia are required to establish a genuine reason to possess a firearm, for example hunting, target shooting, collection, personal protection, security2
All of your examples have stricter gun laws than the referenced wild wild west.
Do you even fact check any of the lies your organization puts out?
Is it lies or agenda?
Post by: gryphon on November 29, 2015, 08:13:44 PM
Mr gryphon: Your first post about the guy being an idiot is just opinioneering.
I disagree. He's one of those who thinks 2A is a collective right, that 26 of the provisions in the Bill of Rights are individual rights, but 1 is not, that it is only a collective right of the militia, is both ludicrous and dishonest and shows that he is an idiot. SCOTUS agrees.
“Every late-19th-century legal scholar that we have read interpreted the Second Amendment to secure an individual right unconnected with militia service.” — U.S. Supreme Court, June 26, 2008
"To summarize, we conclude that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms. That right existed prior to the formation of the new government under the Constitution and was premised on the private use of arms for activities such as hunting and self defense, the latter being understood as resistance to either private lawlessness or the depredations of a tyrannical government (or a threat from abroad)." — U.S. Court of Appeals, District of Columbia, March 9, 2007
"Foolish liberals who are trying to read the Second Amendment out of the constitution by claiming it's not an individual right or that it's too much of a safety hazard don’t see the danger of the big picture. They're courting disaster by encouraging others to use this same means to eliminate portions of the Constitution they don't like." — Alan Dershowitz
Quote
Having actually been in the Air National Guard, I can assure you that such an entity did indeed flow out of the initial militias.
Yes, with the Dick Act of 1903. Congress created that out of whole cloth. We had state militias, but many militias refused to be federalized at various times, and others who were were often found to lack in training, standardization, and leader qualifications, so Congress created an "organized" militia which now included the pre-existing National Guard. Now they could get more federal money. Yay.
“To see that the people be continually trained up in the exercise of arms, and the militia lodged only in the people's hands.” — John Adams