Serious discussion about gun control that would actually work.

[Anchor Zero Six]

Been an heated few days in the Bear Pit.

Read posts the last few days ranging from brilliant to moronic, I may have been guilty of one or the other or both depending on point of view.

Would like to suggest we keep things civil and apply detached logic to a conversation of what if anything could be done to stop the trend of mass shootings. I'm familiar with the statistics, Chicago, whats happening in Europe etc. I think we all are, as most of us on the Hide pay attention to such things.

What I'm curious about is as a responsible gun owner if you were asked to suggest legislation what would you suggest?

Its naive to believe that these events will not have an impact on ownership, maybe not at the Fed level but most likely at the state level. Even states that currently have pro 2A laws can shift tides quickly, we saw it in WA. Nevada is very pro 2A but they also keep reelecting Harry Reid so that can easily change.

I know many will say their position is no gun laws are acceptable and in my core I believe that as well but that has not changed the fact that the 2A is being whittled away.

So what if the law abiding owners were to define the laws?

What if any would you suggest or be OK with?

Myself I have for a while thought the optimal system would be a Fed level ownership card. Similar to NFA process with pics, prints, fees a real background check (50 state and Fed) etc. Right about now most reading this are vomiting and I get that but here is the redeeming part, once all hoops have been cleared that card is a 50 state CCP and no further paperwork for NFA items just pay $200 for stamp, no waiting period no further restrictions on anything. A complete 2A ghetto pass once all criteria is met.

Make the process difficult but not impossible, charge a fee based on income so its enough to be uncomfortable but not impossible. In the 30's $200 was a big chunk of change not so much today. I would not advocate that the cost were fixed because I believe that a single mom living in the hood walking to her 2nd job should have just as much access to a gun as a guy who can drop $10K on a rifle and glass, this is why I suggest its relative to percent of income lets say 1%.

I dont believe for a second that a program such as this would have prevented the Vegas shooting, he obviously planned it out ahead of time and as far as we know would have passed such a process without difficulty.

Downside to this and the counter argument is what prevents an escalation of difficulty in acquiring such a permit in the future. Today I have no fear I could get one but Feinstein says all military vets are unstable and shouldnt own guns. The tide could change that quickly and poof your permit is revoked because you are a vet.

Instead I suggest this as a way to get in front of whatever the libs will suggest next.

Two models of nations with high gun ownership and almost no cases of mass shootings would be Israel and Switzerland. Now Switzerland did have a shooting in 2001 first last and only. Not sure aside from the obvious political issues in Israel if there has ever been a mass shooting that was simply a guy going postal without political or religious motives. In both cases there is compulsory military service and civilians are the citizen soldiers. Wouldn't work here we have too many snowflakes but its a talking point same as the left like to use Australia and the UK as examples which we know have done nothing to prevent murders or even mass killings. Seen pics of girls in clubs in Israel in mini skirts with slung M-4's, I could see that presence being a huge deterrent to crime.

I will end it here and look forward to learning what law abiding rational people would suggest if asked to write the laws.

If you think no additional laws are needed that's fine and I agree, no need for a constitutional rant we all read the same books, have copies of the constitution on our phones and proudly fly dont tread on me flags but the question is IF PRESSED TO SUGGEST SOMETHING what would that something be?




V/R
A06

 

[Bryan W M]

I think gun safety should be taught in school by someone with a brain.
I'd like to see how many GSW are from people not knowing how to handle it.

 

[CMH]

How about attaching stiff penalties to any legislation that infringes on 2A unless it follows Article V of the Constitution?

 

[Tucker301]

What I'm curious about is as a responsible gun owner if you were asked to suggest legislation what would you suggest?

This nation has one singular gun law that is actually legal and binding in my opinion. It is the Second Amendment.
It is no more and certainly no less important and critical than the rest of the Constitution.
It's a package deal, and 2A is the teeth of the dog.
Merely considering watering it down further is like pissing on the graves of the founders.

 

[Anchor Zero Six]

I think gun safety should be taught in school by someone with a brain.
I'd like to see how many GSW are from people not knowing how to handle it.

Good point, I think much of this can be attributed to this country becoming more urban with no formal training or respect for firearms. I took hunters ed after school while in scouts. Was common in the late 80's early 90's to see guns on gun racks in the HS parking lot during hunting season.

When we had guns in schools kids were not shooting up schools, go figure.

 

[GoForBroke45]

I suggest legislation that makes it so every gun grabbing politician must give up their armed protection and live the way they feel us "subjects" should. I agree with Tucker301, the right to keep and bear arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED. If we allow 2A to be eroded more and more we're going to wake up and have nothing left.
The fact that people have felt so enraged about Trump "infringing" on the 1st amendment via the NFL and now calls for the stripping of the 2A without any second thought is very troubling.

 

[Mormegil87]

I agree with Tucker however, we have lost what we have lost through a slow process of whittling away at our rights. Unfortunately that's how we're going to have to go about getting them back. That being said, I would gladly trade a pawn for a queen. Say:

Bump fire stocks and binary triggers (the pawn) for the removal of suppressors and SBRs from the purview of the NFA (the queen) or national carry reciprocity (the knight).

I know it's not ideal. I know it's not great. But it's the only way we win. We need to start looking at this as a chess game and we have the upper hand for the first time in a long time, even if by the slimmest of margins.

 

[2ndamendfan]

My father and a few friends have in the past asked me why I am so stead fast and non-bending in "no more laws" here is the deal in my view point and it is has 2 points.

First no law enacted has ever been proven to prevent anything. Murder is against the law yet it still happens, Laws are just words on a piece of paper. I would be okay with a new law if they could prove it would prevent something. While I of course was against the AWB of 1994 I will say it was written as I think most laws should be. And that is with a Sunset clause, most laws need to be reevaluated every few years. The way it stands now, they pass a law and if it is shit a new law has to be passed just to take the garbage out.

Second point is that we are told "common sense gun laws" my question is who's common sense? The anti-gun always says compromise, The problem is compromise is a 2 way street except for them. They propose X,X,X,a,X,X and consider giving up "a" a compromise. A compromise is where both parties get something they want, not where one side gets most of what they want and will ask for the rest at a later date. It is near impossible to get something back once you have lost it. Just an example but a compromise would be, agreeing to universal background checks if we get machine guns back. They would never agree to that so fuck-em. If they are going to dig their heals in and be unbending then so shall I.

 

[Anchor Zero Six]

This nation has one singular gun law that is actually legal and binding in my opinion. It is the Second Amendment.
It is no more and certainly no less important and critical than the rest of the Constitution.
It's a package deal, and 2A is the teeth of the dog.
Merely considering watering it down further is like pissing on the graves of the founders.

I get that and I agree but do you see any of the current laws going away? Do you believe that in 5-10 years we will have more or less laws? We can stay the course, exercise our right to vote, support the NRA and most importantly try to educate the ignorant but sadly I feel we are either outnumbered by folks who dont think like us or we are not running an effective counter argument.

I suppose I'm thinking along the lines of an insurgent tactic where we propose laws that the left would think was radical in its restrictions as they assume people wouldnt go through the effort but in reality it would open up ownership and carry via a vetting process.

 

[Anchor Zero Six]

I agree with Tucker however, we have lost what we have lost through a slow process of whittling away at our rights. Unfortunately that's how we're going to have to go about getting them back. That being said, I would gladly trade a pawn for a queen. Say:

Bump fire stocks and binary triggers (the pawn) for the removal of suppressors and SBRs from the purview of the NFA (the queen) or national carry reciprocity (the knight).

I know it's not ideal. I know it's not great. But it's the only way we win. We need to start looking at this as a chess game and we have the upper hand for the first time in a long time, even if by the slimmest of margins.

OK so thats along the lines of what I was thinking. Suggest and agree to what they perceive to be more stringent controls but the return for us is once we are "Cleared" to own its a blanket deal, conceal carry 50 states, no waiting period, no BS for Class 3 items etc.

 

[Mormegil87]

My father and a few friends have in the past asked me why I am so stead fast and non-bending in "no more laws" here is the deal in my view point and it is has 2 points.

First no law enacted has ever been proven to prevent anything. Murder is against the law yet it still happens, Laws are just words on a piece of paper. I would be okay with a new law if they could prove it would prevent something. While I of course was against the AWB of 1994 I will say it was written as I think most laws should be. And that is with a Sunset clause, most laws need to be reevaluated every few years. The way it stands now, they pass a law and if it is shit a new law has to be passed just to take the garbage out.

Second point is that we are told "common sense gun laws" my question is who's common sense? The anti-gun always says compromise, The problem is compromise is a 2 way street except for them. They propose X,X,X,a,X,X and consider giving up "a" a compromise. A compromise is where both parties get something they want, not where one side gets most of what they want and will ask for the rest at a later date. It is near impossible to get something back once you have lost it. Just an example but a compromise would be, agreeing to universal background checks if we get machine guns back. They would never agree to that so fuck-em. If they are going to dig their heals in and be unbending then so shall I.

That's what I mean when I say we're negotiating from a position of advantage. If they want to dig their heals in and not truly compromise, then we simply walk away from the table and they get nothing. The GOP needs to start acting like it actually won the election in November not like the beaten dogs of the previous 8 years.

 

[Mormegil87]

OK so thats along the lines of what I was thinking. Suggest and agree to what they perceive to be more stringent controls but the return for us is once we are "Cleared" to own its a blanket deal, conceal carry 50 states, no waiting period, no BS for Class 3 items etc.

I'm 100% against having to get cleared for anything. We shouldn't have to prove our innocence to exercise a right.

 

[Anchor Zero Six]

So how do you regulate those that lost their rights? The system as I see it is to ensure felons and others who dont have that right as a citizen dont buy guns. I also feel this is why we should show ID to vote but thats another subject.

I realize felons mostly procure guns outside the system but a fair number do get popped attempting to purchase from a dealer. I classify them as exceptionally stupid but it happens.

 

[oneshot86]

This nation has one singular gun law that is actually legal and binding in my opinion. It is the Second Amendment.
It is no more and certainly no less important and critical than the rest of the Constitution.
It's a package deal, and 2A is the teeth of the dog.
Merely considering watering it down further is like pissing on the graves of the founders.

well said

 

[Maggot]

Youre asking the wrong audience, OP.

My idea of gun control?

Every student in grade school should be taught the fundamentals of safe operation and qualify with a 22. By graduation from high school they should be proficient with at least 2 pistols, 2 rifles, and a shotgun. All citizens should be required to have weapons in their homes and know how to use them. Concealed carry should be encouraged.

Does that answer your question?

How many home invasions do you think there would be if the criminal KNEW the homeowner was armed and trained?

 

[Mormegil87]

So how do you regulate those that lost their rights? The system as I see it is to ensure felons and others who dont have that right as a citizen dont buy guns. I also feel this is why we should show ID to vote but thats another subject.

I realize felons mostly procure guns outside the system but a fair number do get popped attempting to purchase from a dealer. I classify them as exceptionally stupid but it happens.

If they are too dangerous to have their rights restored upon release, they are too dangerous to be released in the first place.

 

[...]

i really do not know what part of "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED" is so fucking hard for people to understand.....i mean, our forefathers made this part pretty fucking clear.

god i dont know why gun owners are so fucking afraid of Feinstein, and instantly bend over the second she opens her fucking mouth.....have some fucking balls would you.

rather than act like a little bitch and instantly start throwing out "compromise ideas".....why not do something productive and chip $20 to the NRA

 

[Veer_G]

OP, I don't mean to offend you (famous exculpatory words those), but your premise in this thread would be like dropping trou in the West Village and throwing yourself up and over a mailbox on the corner. Don't forget the grease beforehand.

[IMG2=JSON]{"data-align":"none","data-size":"full","src":"https:\/\/i.imgur.com\/ULNV8Hh.jpg?1"}[/IMG2]

You better hope that you'd get this lucky.

Not one more concession. In fact, it's time to win shit back.

 

[Anchor Zero Six]

Loss of rights is part of the penalty for the crime its a deterrent and should not be restored upon release. Not my area of expertise but the restoration of voting and gun rights is a long and expensive legal process not an automatic thing as far as I understand.

Also not uncommon for a multiple felon to have previous arrests for non violent felonies only to later graduate up to a violent felony.

 

[Leland22]

If they are too dangerous to have their rights restored upon release, they are too dangerous to be released in the first place.

100% Agree with this!!!

 

[Quarter Horse]

A06, you are hoping to find a rational solution in an irrational world. The opposition to the ownership of firearms cares not one wit about the Constitution, the 2nd Amendment or it's clear intents and purposes. For that matter, they really don't care about the 1st Amendment as exhibited by recent rejection of free speech on campuses, the selective assault on Christian religions by the courts while supporting the rights and privileges of minority religions. I remember your post that postulated if giving up your own firearms would bring an end to death by firearms you would willingly do so. You then had to defend the statement with the qualification that you knew it wouldn't work.

The people that most stridently support anti-gun legislation believe no citizen should be allowed firearms. Consider that the vast majority of murders are committed with handguns and the constant target of these people are hi-cap mags and so called assault rifles. The reason is simple, if they were to go after all the handguns would result in ignominious defeat in the courts and among the public. Thus they chase the black rifle because they understand the concept that you can only eat a elephant on bite at a time not because they are interested in a safer society. These people simply believe that we are incapable of making judicious decisions regarding our own welfare and that we require the states direction in how we conduct ourselves in the most menial ways.

Any "compromise" we make will not lead to a situation where these people are satisfied and we can move on. I will only lead to one more bite out of the elephant and their intent is to eat the whole thing no matter how long it takes.

 

[Anchor Zero Six]

NRA Benefactor.

Win shit back would be great.

I only temporarily reside in CA for work and cant believe the bullshit here.

So in this no compromise conversation where does the authority of the Federal and State governments start and stop?

I believe our Constitution is constructed in a manner that allows the states to govern themselves as members of a union and we should have less Federal power not more.

When the states infringe on the rights of the constitution is it the role of the Federal government to intervene? Or is it the right of the state to pass laws as they see fit. Its the later however the caveat is they cannot deny the rights afforded by the Constitution but yet here we are.

I had my fingers crossed that Trump would waive the magic executive order wand and remove all weapon restrictions that were above and beyond what exists at the fed level. Same thing Obama did with many issues such as gay marriage where the states did have votes and did shoot those laws down but he overrode those state decisions in favor of his beliefs.

And as I watch this the strategy appears to be to ban an accessory. Well thats a slippery slope isnt it? Whats next night sights, optics, flashlights or anything else that would aid a shooter?

I know this audience and know that from time to time we have intelligent conversations. Knew what I was getting into when I started the thread.

Talking about a pussy ass compromise is just that talking. The NRA zero tolerance policy hasn't been working and they have adopted the "sensible controls" position. Who defines what that means, Magnum PI and Wayne?

 

[Anchor Zero Six]

A06, you are hoping to find a rational solution in an irrational world. The opposition to the ownership of firearms cares not one wit about the Constitution, the 2nd Amendment or it's clear intents and purposes. For that matter, they really don't care about the 1st Amendment as exhibited by recent rejection of free speech on campuses, the selective assault on Christian religions by the courts while supporting the rights and privileges of minority religions. I remember your post that postulated if giving up your own firearms would bring an end to death by firearms you would willingly do so. You then had to defend the statement with the qualification that you knew it wouldn't work.

The people that most stridently support anti-gun legislation believe no citizen should be allowed firearms. Consider that the vast majority of murders are committed with handguns and the constant target of these people are hi-cap mags and so called assault rifles. The reason is simple, if they were to go after all the handguns would result in ignominious defeat in the courts and among the public. Thus they chase the black rifle because they understand the concept that you can only eat a elephant on bite at a time not because they are interested in a safer society. These people simply believe that we are incapable of making judicious decisions regarding our own welfare and that we require the states direction in how we conduct ourselves in the most menial ways.

Any "compromise" we make will not lead to a situation where these people are satisfied and we can move on. I will only lead to one more bite out of the elephant and their intent is to eat the whole thing no matter how long it takes.

I realize this as well, it helps to hear what others think and believe as it affirms we are all on the same page as rational people. I thought perhaps others have pondered the same question (apparently not lol)

To your eating the elephant logic, I think thats one thing that really pisses me off the most. I wish the bastards would sack up and take on the 2A head on. Dont be a pussy propose an amendment and suffer the consequences when it goes terribly wrong for you. Last amendment was 1992 and they only put in the work on that because it concerned their pay.

 

[supercorndogs]

This nation has one singular gun law that is actually legal and binding in my opinion. It is the Second Amendment.
It is no more and certainly no less important and critical than the rest of the Constitution.
It's a package deal, and 2A is the teeth of the dog.
Merely considering watering it down further is like pissing on the graves of the founders.

Exactly, we beat these dick bags back when they were holding the cards, now its a for gone conclusion we must give up rights. Fuck that, well said Tucker.

Further more, I think everyone is dissecting this situation too far. Why did he do it? Because he was a piece of shit, too bad he did not start with himself. Piss on him, bury him in an unmarked hole, and don't give him a second thought.

 

[TheGerman]

Answer is no.

Answer will be no every-time you ask. So stop asking about 'gun control.

 

[QuickNDirty]

No. Fuck no.

Even for felons. A lot of these motherfuckers being released are people that should have been subjected to a firing squad. They need their lives revoked, not their right to vote and own guns. The rest shouldn't have been felons in the first place.

This gun control shit is setting us up to get dominated by our enemies, which we do have, both foreign AND domestic. Folks don't like to think about it, but we could lose a war on our own soil. We're losing one as I type this.

Maggot put it better than I would at this point. Everyone needs to know how, why, and when to use firearms. That alone would have a huge positive impact on many fronts.

Fuck the communist placating bullshit.

All that leads to is entitled sluts with latex crammed up their assholes walking around in public thinking they're somehow fucking important.

 

[Bryan W M]

Now that I'm not at work I'll add more.
When I was in school the tough see a gun don't touch go tell an adult.
Ok at that time I'm guessing 10 ish I knew how to handle a firearm better than my mom.....and most likely most of the teachers.
2nd how many of use would at 10 not touch as a kid they tell you no to touch you touch!!
Hell most of us still do, think about it Hint Boobs.

Other point when I was in high school I wentered with my dad to a church men's outing shooting clays and pistols. At the time we had to men in our church with history Felony charges. They both show up at the shoot guess what they both had handguns.
Yep the people who break laws will not own guns because the law says not too.
One of the two guys is back in prison for armed car Jacking......
I'm sorry the laws don't work.
We need more education on gun safety hell we need more education on what exactly the constitution says!! Not how someone else interprits it.

 

[Anchor Zero Six]

German, while the title would suggest otherwise where in this thread have I suggested gun control?

People control perhaps but what I suggested was to remove all restrictions was it not? That was tied to a background check maybe proof of MIL, LEO or a training course prints pics fee etc then everything would be fair game.

I guess none of those who replied own a supressor, SBR or has carry permit or purchased a firearm via an FFL or has an FFL. Is anything I suggested above and beyond or drasticly different frotm what is currently required under Fed law or existing state laws? Standardize it and put it in the fed domain as a protected right.

Where this would differ is it would by default make the purchase of a non nfa item more like the process of an nfa item but thats only as it applies to the initial permit. Once you have the permit wouldnt everything else become easier and less restrictive of a process and afford 50 state carry reciprocity?

Sorry I dont know the laws of all 50 states but for the most part first transfer outside system to non ffl has paperwork attached regardless of pistol or rifle. From there some allow ftf transfers of both while some allow only ftf long guns and ffl for handguns. Then there are those that require ffl for everything. States decided this yes? Why not propose all 50 follow the guidlines of atf no more no less? Would that not work in our favor across the board?

I did not and will not suggest restricting or banning any firearm or accessory. I did no and will not suggest restricting or denying ownership of a firearm to any individual so long as they are allowed to do so based on conviction history and residency status.

 

[...]

German, while the title would suggest otherwise where in this thread have I suggested gun control?

People control perhaps but what I suggested was to remove all restrictions was it not? That was tied to a background check maybe proof of MIL, LEO or a training course prints pics fee etc then everything would be fair game.

Would you support legislation that said you couldnt vote/ practice religion/read a book/ post online......unless you took a "training course" and passed a BG check?.......yeah didnt think so.

so why ahould we have to do that to exercise the 2A?

SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.......i dunno about you.....but mandatory training, paying, A fee, and being subject to a BG check sounds like an infringment to me.


all it would take to essentially ban firearms would be fir the govt to say " yeah, the cost of the training course must be $10,000 ".........or " due to high volume demand, we cannot process BG checks at this time.

you are giving an element of controll to tge govt they dont already have under the guise that it would somehow be "better" because we get a few extra toys to play with

you would be essentially regulating the entire country to the same licensing requirements that we have here in Mass......fuck that

 

[Tazman]

To control a population you must first disarm it!!!!! (correct me if I am wrong but that statement came from Hitler?) People seem to forget that the government works and is controlled by the us....the government does not control us...this is why the 2a is so very important. This is why the democrats are so hell bent on getting the guns which will never happen.

The democrats are using fear and emotion to get people to give up their rights.....does this sound familiar also?? I fear we are headed to a breaking point in this country and I think the war has begun in many ways. The last 8 years have divided the people and enlarged the government.....does this sound familiar also?? JMHO

 

[Anchor Zero Six]

Mcameron

Well said and overall that is my concern as well. When we have to qualify for it who controls what those qualifications or fees would be.

Slippery slope and very easy to raise that bar higher and higher.

What about compulsary military service and or an armed citizen reserve force such as Switzerland or Israel? If we were accustomed to seeing armed citizens would it be a better deterent? What would LEO think about that scenario?

 

[FS1]

Michael Moore called for the repeal of 2A...Thank Goodness it takes a yes vote by 3/4 of the States to ratify any Constitutional changes. The Founders could see it coming. They were smart.

 

[krw]

i really do not know what part of "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED" is so fucking hard for people to understand.....i mean, our forefathers made this part pretty fucking clear.

god i dont know why gun owners are so fucking afraid of Feinstein, and instantly bend over the second she opens her fucking mouth.....have some fucking balls would you.

rather than act like a little bitch and instantly start throwing out "compromise ideas".....why not do something productive and chip $20 to the NRA

No one here is more pro 2nd amendment than I am. But, when you place the entire 2nd amendment in text it reads different. I wish our Founding Fathers would have just used the second part. I have always thought the first part was the interpretive part and where the confusion is.

 

[Rthur]

We are not in prison or kindergarten.
Punishing the whole class for what individuals do is the SOP in these environs.
Freedoms such as the 2nd come with responsibilities.
When the adults with these responsibilities are held to adult standards the tide will turn.
You cannot legislate morality to the unmoral.
We, as a society, have become soft/unwilling to punish these perps to the fullest extent of the law.
Situations like this will always haunt mankind as evil/violence is in our nature.
Chicago "enjoys" some of the strictest gun laws in the country.
It is evident how successful these are.


R

 

[Anchor Zero Six]

krw,

The hang up most often revolves around the use of the word millitia. That has been twisted to exclude the civilian population and infer it only applies to the military and guard.

Thats a retarded argumen as no country in history that I know of has felt the need to spell out that the military needs to be armed, thats just assumed. So obviously the intent was/is to preserve the rights of the individual as most of us would read it. Sadly and to your point they didnt spell it out in that language.

 

[Gunfighter14e2]

If it was gasoline that was used with high pressure pumps, to soak the crowd, which would you be wanting to be banned. The pumps, hose, motors/engines or the nozzles or gas? This was deliberate to vilify guns an get the sheep to give up more freedoms an the ability to protect their self's from criminals or the gov. Some of you need to give up your man thinking cards.
It will come out he was not alone, an had ties to left wing deep state, perpetrators. Much, much, info that is already sealed is damning, an if it gets out this country will really see what their end game truly is. Keep willingly giving up your freedoms, based on a left operation/s! Most in this country any more can't think past the end of their noses,...

 

[...]

No one here is more pro 2nd amendment than I am. But, when you place the entire 2nd amendment in text it reads different. I wish our Founding Fathers would have just used the second part. I have always thought the first part was the interpretive part and where the confusion is.

it reads exactly the same if you arent a fuck tard.

"A well regulated militia being necessary for the security of a free state..." ( meaning a well armed populace being necessary to secure the states free will, ie. protection from tyranny)....","( the comma separates 2 seperate thoughts) ......." the right of THE PEOPLE to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" ( the right of the people, not the militia, to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.......if you need that clarified i suggest you learn english because it literally cannot get any clearer than that)


you dont have to be a constitutional scholar.....you just have to not be a fucking moron with an agenda

 

[Dewey7271]

In my opinion any law or revision of a law, regardless of context or subject, really only applies to the law abiding. Criminals don't give a shit what a law says.
The problem is actually a moral issue, not a legal one. The legal part comes in when morality fails.
No matter what is written or said, you can't legislate morality.

 

[2ndamendfan]

[No message]

 

[Anchor Zero Six]

If it was gasoline that was used with high pressure pumps, to soak the crowd, which would you be wanting to be banned. The pumps, hose, motors/engines or the nozzles or gas? This was deliberate to vilify guns an get the sheep to give up more freedoms an the ability to protect their self's from criminals or the gov. Some of you need to give up your man thinking cards.
It will come out he was not alone, an had ties to left wing deep state, perpetrators. Much, much, info that is already sealed is damning, an if it gets out this country will really see what their end game truly is. Keep willingly giving up your freedoms, based on a left operation/s! Most in this country any more can't think past the end of their noses,...

I entirely agree the intent was deeper than just a body count. As mentioned in another thread he had the means to do greater damage with a plane.

The use of guns was deliberate and as things unfold will most likly point to a left ideology where a statement was being made.

 

[j-huskey]

Michael Moore called for the repeal of 2A...Thank Goodness it takes a yes vote by 3/4 of the States to ratify any Constitutional changes. The Founders could see it coming. They were smart.

Bret Stephens, new York Times, wrote an opinion piece that showed up this a.m., "Repeal The Second Amendment"......

THIS IS NOW THE GOAL OF THE LEFT..... fights on...

 

[j-huskey]

It will come out he was not alone, an had ties to left wing deep state, perpetrators.

Much, much, info that is already sealed is damning,

an if it gets out this country will really see what their end game truly is.,...

Will you give us links, information, point to, where we can find this, to bring it out into the light, expose it. ??
This stuff has to be exposed and the sooner the better.

 

[MTFalconer]

I feel like we are beating a dead horse here....so let's continue to beat that motherfucker!
When a newspaper reporter prints bullshit headlines and outright lies are they protected by the right to get checked out and possibly get a card to report the news?
Does a man arrested, at that time have the right to purchase a permit to have a fair trial and legal representation?
I see nowhere in the constitution the mention of length of time that I shall have free speech?
Just as those other rights are inherent and pre existing, so is the right to bear arms. The only expiration date I am aware of is death. Period

 

[shootist2004]

I will approach it from a different angle................
how about everyone serve in the military like Israel..........
everyone will know how to use and respect guns.........
everyone will have skin in the game and respect the flag..........
masses of people wont fear guns..............

 

[MCSO1357]

Unless the 2A is repealed, there are no deals to be struck. Trading a pawn for a queen is how we get our rights chipped away, piece by piece. Not only will I not give in an inch, I'm all for taking back our rights that have been legislated away over the years. SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED

 

[diverdon]

I would be willing to support legislation that required the government to follow the Constitution, oh wait they are already required to follow it. Feel free to continue to use the first amendment rights granted to you by better men to advocate becoming a serf.

 

[Strykervet]

Discussed 'til blue in the face. Not my first rodeo. Results always the same: I jump through more hoops, pay more money, wait longer, fill out more forms, lose more rights, and next time there's another shooting, first breath out of the anti's is more legislation? I honestly don't know how many more background checks I can go through, I really don't.

At some point enough is enough.

Gun Rights Matter; guess we can use a multicam ribbon, all the other colors are taken.

 

[Strykervet]

Oh, FWIW, I don't give a shit about bump fire stocks and perhaps banning those will help, but if it wasn't bump fire stocks, if it was 3 gun triggers, we'd be talking about banning those instead. So no, I'm about as closed to this kind of discussion as you can get.

Will trade pawns for queens, but they aren't in the business of compromise and therefore neither am I. They are in the business of removal of the 2A one letter at a time.

 

[Gunfighter14e2]

Will you give us links, information, point to, where we can find this, to bring it out into the light, expose it. ??
This stuff has to be exposed and the sooner the better.

Can't got my info from the 2 boys in Fla, who as you know, have never been wrong to-date. All of the good video has been erased, or seized. He was a patsy, early tests say heavy GSR was planted on his hands/clothes, The wireless camera feeds to the room, where his DB was found also had receivers in other rooms, that were supposed to be empty. The meal tickets show more than one person in the room( room service waiter confirmed same) the hotel cameras "lost a lot of footage do to a maintenance issue". The news media including fox, is fucking American again.

 

[pmclaine]

I have no issue with the idea of a background check through the standard CJIS system and if a person is not found to be prohibited they get whatever they want "in common use". This one hurdle would be sufficient to allow repeal of NFA 1934, GCA 68 and GCA 86. Tech of today makes those laws unnecessary.

As these background checks serve the public good the fee should be free or a minimal admin charge not onerous or revenue producing.

The minimal fee reduces the hurdle to getting a back ground check for private sales and becomes a cheap insurance policy when conducting transfers between strangers. most gun shows already do this at a kiosk.

Transfers between immediate family would be at the participants discretion. A family member selling or providing a firearm to a family member they know or should know to be prohibited would be punishable.

If a licensed medical doctor studied in mental health determines someone to be a danger than they can report that person to have their right to arms considered. The adjudication should not be gun specific. If they are a danger, they are a danger whether its a knife, a car or a baseball bat they have access to.

A 5 member medical board would review the case in a timely manner and determine the rights review. Three members will be appointed by the majority party two by the minority party of that state. The board is intended to be apolitical. Unanimity in diagnoses would be required to curtail rights.

The findings of the board can be appealed to a court of law.

If it is found on review certain doctors abuse the use of prohibition their practice will be audited.

Courts will impose penalties for violent crimes that involve firearms. Mandatory sentencing would be appropriate.

As awful as it is to consider it is fact institutionalization, incarceration and the death penalty are the only solution for a very small segment of society too ill to be free to move among us or too criminal to obey societies social contract.

Its the person not the means.

It should be mandatory that public schools include a firearms safety course and the govt would support the building of public ranges and the provision of courses in safety and marksmanship.

That's my two cents.