# Mike Lee really isn’t trying to hide it



## #1DEER 1-I

So Mike Lee wants to sell your public lands just like SITLA lands and is using your kids as leverage as his excuse to do so. These guys are getting more bold faced in their approach and flat out admitting they want to sell them.....so at what point do you stop voting for this crook trying to take your public lands away?

https://www.sltrib.com/opinion/commentary/2019/11/09/perry-hall-lees-plan/


----------



## #1DEER 1-I

...and if Utah wants more tax funds for school....maybe start by stopping the naive thinking that every state around you has things like gambling and other things legal while Utah loses a ton of money by pretending those things don’t go on here or Utahns don’t send lots of their money to just outside the states borders because of the naive laws this state has. Selling public lands is the shortest sighted, least creative, least sustainable solution to helping fund our schools.


----------



## ridgetop

Here we go again


----------



## Vanilla

I guess the answer to your question about at what point you stop voting for someone Is pretty simple: When there is a better option on the ballot. That doesn’t only go for Mike Lee. That is pretty simple for any election. 

So, who is the alternative in the next election and what does that person stand for?


----------



## backcountry

I hope no one has entered the race yet given Lee isn't up for re-election until 2022. 

Not much we can do other than communicate with his office and have public discussions at this point.


----------



## #1DEER 1-I

backcountry said:


> I hope no one has entered the race yet given Lee isn't up for re-election until 2022.
> 
> Not much we can do other than communicate with his office and have public discussions at this point.


Yeah you're not communicating any meaningful change to this dude. Outside of voting him out he doesn't care what you have to say because he knows the votes are coming regardless. And yes working towards a better candidate now is a worthwhile push.


----------



## middlefork

Bishop finally got the hint that his time is up. Unfortunately I have not seen anyone throw their name in the hat that would make me feel any better.
I have no way to change the R platform to eliminate this plank. Can't fix stupid Either me or them.


----------



## #1DEER 1-I

middlefork said:


> Bishop finally got the hint that his time is up. Unfortunately I have not seen anyone throw their name in the hat that would make me feel any better.
> I have no way to change the R platform to eliminate this plank. Can't fix stupid Either me or them.


Not my district, out of curiosity who are the candidates that have said they are running for Bishops seat?


----------



## middlefork

https://kutv.com/news/local/utah-councilwoman-announces-candidacy-for-rob-bishops-seat...
https://www.sltrib.com/news/politics/2019/09/23/democratic-candidate-rep


----------



## Lone_Hunter

Politics is unavoidable on public land issues.


This is just my opinion, but I think the professional politicians of our state, have been taking advantage of the popular sentiment of small government, and less big brother style government reaching into our lives. Most people agree with this, not everyone but most here do. I know I usually do. But the point is they know how most of the electorate feel, and they take advantage of it for their own personal gain.

Now, couple their taking advantage of us, with their motivations behind public land. Maybe they want to sell it for a quick profit and long term tax revenues. Maybe they feel their entitled to it due to history of the LDS church, state of desert, and how Utah lost most of it's lands in the past. Whatever, I'm not getting into that, point is, they feel their entitled either by birthright, or by greed, or both.

So at the end of the day, they espouse conservative values in one hand, but the other hand, the one their hiding behind their back, they've got their grubby mitts on our public land. And they know they ain't going anywhere either, because the way the political parties are platformed, we are in a lose lose situation.

That lose lose situation (as I see it), is if you vote for Team R, your voting for the party that will keep your constitutional rights. First and Second amendments in specific in this day and age - BUT.... they (our local "team R's" ) want our public land.

Vote for Team D, and you're likely to lose your constitutional rights, (against, 1st and 2nd in specific), but hey.. they'll let us keep our public lands.

There is no perfect party to vote for. Show me a party that will leave us AND our public lands alone at the same time. It isn't there.


----------



## Vanilla

And if we are honestly talking about our heritage of hunting and fishing, the super left may bang the public lands battle drum, but they are certainly not standing up for our hunting and fishing opportunities. 

So I reiterate, show me the better candidate. Don’t just scream at me to stop voting for Rob Bishop (I didn’t vote for him) or Mike Lee (I didn’t vote for him either), but show me who is better, and I’ll vote for them. It is really, really easy to criticize and point out the issues. Offering valid and beneficial solutions is a bit harder. That’s a pretty universal principle. 

Happy Veterans Day, and thanks to all that have, do, and will serve! It’s because of these folks that we can sit on this forum and have our silly banter over these issues.


----------



## High Desert Elk

Lone_Hunter said:


> Vote for Team D, and you're likely to lose your constitutional rights, (against, 1st and 2nd in specific), but hey.. they'll let us keep our public lands.
> 
> There is no perfect party to vote for. Show me a party that will leave us AND our public lands alone at the same time. It isn't there.


Yeppers! My home state is currently blue. Deep blue. Yeah, they're all for public lands and the use thereof, but at the expense of something else. On state lands, NM cannot have coyote calling contests anymore and you cannot do certain types of trapping on both state and private land (how does that one work?!?!?!?).


----------



## #1DEER 1-I

Vanilla said:


> And if we are honestly talking about our heritage of hunting and fishing, the super left may bang the public lands battle drum, but they are certainly not standing up for our hunting and fishing opportunities.
> 
> So I reiterate, show me the better candidate. Don't just scream at me to stop voting for Rob Bishop (I didn't vote for him) or Mike Lee (I didn't vote for him either), but show me who is better, and I'll vote for them. It is really, really easy to criticize and point out the issues. Offering valid and beneficial solutions is a bit harder. That's a pretty universal principle.
> 
> Happy Veterans Day, and thanks to all that have, do, and will serve! It's because of these folks that we can sit on this forum and have our silly banter over these issues.


If you didn't vote for them I'm probably not talking to you. I'm talking to a lot of Utahns who blindly pull that lever, most of whom don't even fully know what they're voting for. That doesn't mean vote D, but voting for someone else in primaries, or a 3rd party is also an option. The only way a guy like Lee listens is to vote him out. This also needs to be done at local levels with county commissioners, etc. as well. I'm just hoping people will get involved to get rid of these a**hats like Lee who are flat out telling you...."yeah I want to sell it, luckily you'll keep voting for me no matter what"


----------



## High Desert Elk

#1DEER, voting straight party is what happens most of the time at the polls, unfortunately.

Most "R's" and most "D's" that run are either goodie-two-shoes or crudheads...


----------



## Lone_Hunter

High Desert Elk said:


> #1DEER, voting straight party is what happens most of the time at the polls, unfortunately.
> 
> Most "R's" and most "D's" that run are either goodie-two-shoes or crudheads...


Party platforms. In this day and age, vote for Team D, and your voting for X, Y, and Z. Period, end of story. Vote for Team R, and your voting for A, B, and C. Period end of story. There's very little in between. You can't vote in favor of A, B, and Z.


----------



## backcountry

You can vote for A, C, and U but it's imperfect. I often vote not only on record but how well I think they will work with fellow federal representatives. I've never voted straight ticket and wish Utah would remove that on the ticket. But we are getting fewer and fewer candidates who can truly manage to remain open minded enough to work with political opposition.

I for one don't see anyone stepping out this early against Lee, from either the left or right. It's too perilous to start making stands this soon. Nor do I think most citizens have the stomach for an almost three year campaign for Senate elections. 

Make his record as known as possible. Let your state and local parties know your thoughts. Support the organizations that represent your values.

But as others have said, citizens don't have many candidates to choose from so we learn to hold our noses and vote on what's most important. And for some that isn't going to be Lee's public lands stance and it's hard to criticize that given the complex issues at play.


----------



## Vanilla

1-Deer, you may not be talking directly to me, but the question still remains: who is the better candidate? If you want me to not vote for Mike Lee, you’ve got to give me a different person than Misty Snow, just as an example. 

It isn’t as black and white as you suggest.


----------



## #1DEER 1-I

Lone_Hunter said:


> Party platforms. In this day and age, vote for Team D, and your voting for X, Y, and Z. Period, end of story. Vote for Team R, and your voting for A, B, and C. Period end of story. There's very little in between. You can't vote in favor of A, B, and Z.


This isn't true 100% of the time. As I mentioned in another thread McAdams is a Democrat here in the state and he is absolutely moderate. Mitt Romney is Republican but moderate. Both are much more willing to cross party lines than someone like Lee. Lee is the opposite side of someone like Cortez. He's extreme. Sure Mitt and McAdams side with their parties on issues, but they are fully willing to come to the table have a discussion and compromise instead of bowing down to their party line. Someone like Lee is not. The issue is the party primaries give us the most radical candidates from both sides most times. It would be better if you had a bunch of candidates from both parties in the general election, instead of just two of the most extreme candidates that got selected in the primaries by their given party base. There's other states with pretty moderate candidates as well from both parties, the issue is the most entrenched in both parties are the extreme wings. Give me a McAdams and Romney over a Lee or Cortez any day. The polar parts of both parties are the ones who don't listen at all. Lee is one of those polar guys especially on the land and environment issues. He needs to be unseated at the primary level to get a candidate that can win and will actually listen. Voting for Lee is a terrible decision for any sportsman for several reasons.


----------



## #1DEER 1-I

Vanilla said:


> 1-Deer, you may not be talking directly to me, but the question still remains: who is the better candidate? If you want me to not vote for Mike Lee, you've got to give me a different person than Misty Snow, just as an example.
> 
> He needs to be beat at the primary level but I can agree, Democrats here need to put up a better candidate. They should learn that a candidate like McAdams has a much greater chance of winning and is a much better candidate than someone such as Misty Snow.


----------



## backcountry

Problem is the democratic party doesn't really "put up" candidates give our primary structure. I've been reading up on the role of "political gatekeeping" for a little bit now. The old systems kept complete novices like Snow at bay but reeked of elitism, especially in our current "populist" zeitgeist. The new systems (post 70s) really feed into candidates like Snow but it turns out primary voters are not a great reflection of who turns out for general elections.

Without a major overhaul of how our parties work I don't see how we get a viable democratic candidate that reflects Utah's unique politics that stand a chance against an incumbent republican. 

And more to the point... do any of us think that public lands policy is a principle reason the "average" citizen votes for a senator? Even as someone who spends 90% of my free time on public lands I end up having to negotiate my vote based on many issues.


----------



## #1DEER 1-I

backcountry said:


> Problem is the democratic party doesn't really "put up" candidates give our primary structure. I've been reading up on the role of "political gatekeeping" for a little bit now. The old systems kept complete novices like Snow at bay but reeked of elitism, especially in our current "populist" zeitgeist. The new systems (post 70s) really feed into candidates like Snow but it turns out primary voters are not a great reflection of who turns out for general elections.
> 
> Without a major overhaul of how our parties work I don't see how we get a viable democratic candidate that reflects Utah's unique politics that stand a chance against an incumbent republican.
> 
> And more to the point... do any of us think that public lands policy is a principle reason the "average" citizen votes for a senator? Even as someone who spends 90% of my free time on public lands I end up having to negotiate my vote based on many issues.


One big issue IMO is only allowing the party you're affiliated with in our state to be the only voting you can do during the primaries. To vote in the Republican primary you must be a registered Republican. You can't be a a registered Democrat or even unaffiliated to vote for the Republicans primary election. Same vise-versa If we allowed everyone to vote for both parties primary candidate we would likely end up with a much more moderate and tolerable candidate from both sides of the political isle because everyone in the room got to help pick each candidate from both parties primaries. Everything is gauged so the worst of both sides end up at the general and I agree it's always just a bad choice.


----------



## Critter

You are starting to sound like Colorado now, we can vote in one primary and one primary only but it doesn't matter if you have a D, R, or a I after your name you can volt in any of them. 

It turned into a mess when the votes were counted last election. There were those that accused the D's and R's of voting in the others primaries for the less qualified candidate.

I say just let them vote in the party that they are affiliated with. Now if a independent wants to vote in a primary then they are welcomed to change their affiliation before the election to what ever one that they want to and then go vote.


----------



## High Desert Elk

Critter said:


> It turned into a mess when the votes were counted last election. There were those that accused the D's and R's of voting in the others primaries for the less qualified candidate.


Yeah, you think things are polarized now, just wait and see this on a national level.


----------



## #1DEER 1-I

Critter said:


> You are starting to sound like Colorado now, we can vote in one primary and one primary only but it doesn't matter if you have a D, R, or a I after your name you can volt in any of them.
> 
> It turned into a mess when the votes were counted last election. There were those that accused the D's and R's of voting in the others primaries for the less qualified candidate.
> 
> I say just let them vote in the party that they are affiliated with. Now if a independent wants to vote in a primary then they are welcomed to change their affiliation before the election to what ever one that they want to and then go vote.


Still, voting should not be made to be a hassle for people. Most people don't want to go through the trouble of switching their party every cycle. And when you only allow the single party to vote for a candidate you end up with the most polar candidates from each party because the base of both parties are polar. Voter turnout is low, especially in Utah. The process of voting for candidates is a big reason why. Anyway this discussion is probably edging too far into the rabbit hole.


----------



## backcountry

I think a lot of us would likely revisit the public lands policy stance of Lee in 2021 when that race starts to get serious. Lee doesn't represent my views but he won his re-election and gets to represent his ideology in the Senate. Not much can be done about that at the moment that hasn't already been mentioned. Patiently wait until 2021.

Until then, I know I for one am experiencing a sort of fatigue with the level of political vigilance being demanded of us. Not apathetic but very fatigued. 

Can't wait for the holiday to tune it all out for a week.


----------



## Bax*

I remember when I wanted the GSNEM revoked... shoot was I wrong.


----------



## paddler

Lone_Hunter said:


> Vote for Team D, and you're likely to lose your constitutional rights, (against, 1st and 2nd in specific), but hey.. they'll let us keep our public lands.


What???? What the heck are you talking about??? I just skimmed this thread. I'm confused by your assertion that the Democratic party is a threat to the 1st Amendment. Can you cite an example? Who is it that calls our free press "The enemy of the people"? As for 2A, during the 8 years Obama was in office, how many laws were passed that curtailed our right to keep and bear arms? How many times has the corrupt NRA called wolf in order to raise funds? How many suits did your dues buy La Pierre? $300,000 goes a long way, even on Rodeo Drive. Wake up, guys. The Dems are the clear choice to protect our public lands and our traditional uses of hunting and fishing in perpetuity. Vote for Lee or others of his ilk at your peril.


----------



## Ray

paddler said:


> Lone_Hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> Vote for Team D, and you're likely to lose your constitutional rights, (against, 1st and 2nd in specific), but hey.. they'll let us keep our public lands.
> 
> 
> 
> What???? What the heck are you talking about??? I just skimmed this thread. I'm confused by your assertion that the Democratic party is a threat to the 1st Amendment. Can you cite an example? Who is it that calls our free press "The enemy of the people"? As for 2A, during the 8 years Obama was in office, how many laws were passed that curtailed our right to keep and bear arms? How many times has the corrupt NRA called wolf in order to raise funds? How many suits did your dues buy La Pierre? $300,000 goes a long way, even on Rodeo Drive. Wake up, guys. The Dems are the clear choice to protect our public lands and our traditional uses of hunting and fishing in perpetuity. Vote for Lee or others of his ilk at your peril.
Click to expand...

Have you been paying attention at all? You have countless dems calling for mandatory gun buybacks and even mandatory confiscations. Every time Beto o'dork opens his mouth he's talking about it.


----------



## paddler

Ray said:


> Have you been paying attention at all? You have countless dems calling for mandatory gun buybacks and even mandatory confiscations. Every time Beto o'dork opens his mouth he's talking about it.


They're talking about the weapons typically used in mass shootings perpetrated by disaffected young males. Who believes they should have access to these? Nothing ever said by Democrats will interfere with our ability to hunt. Not now, not in the past, and never in the future. And don't give me that worn out, fear mongering "slippery slope" BS. Get over it.

Oh, and Beto dropped out a while ago.


----------



## Lone_Hunter

Ray said:


> Have you been paying attention at all? You have countless dems calling for mandatory gun buybacks and even mandatory confiscations. Every time Beto o'dork opens his mouth he's talking about it.


Francis was just being overt because of his floundering campaign; but he was saying what they all want. All he did was let the cat out of the bag. Desire from the Democrats for confiscation was hot mic'ed as far back as 2012.

And, I am just not getting into it with paddler. Its clear he hasn't been paying attention, not to just what the candidates have been saying, but to the current situation in general in America right now; and even if he has, from what he just posted, I'm sure he's so far left, that there would be absolutely no way to convince him otherwise. So why bother; I've no desire to engage in the internet version of the special Olympics.


----------



## Ray

paddler said:


> Ray said:
> 
> 
> 
> Have you been paying attention at all? You have countless dems calling for mandatory gun buybacks and even mandatory confiscations. Every time Beto o'dork opens his mouth he's talking about it.
> 
> 
> 
> They're talking about the weapons typically used in mass shootings perpetrated by disaffected young males. Who believes they should have access to these? Nothing ever said by Democrats will interfere with our ability to hunt. Not now, not in the past, and never in the future. And don't give me that worn out, fear mongering "slippery slope" BS. Get over it.
> 
> Oh, and Beto dropped out a while ago.
Click to expand...

Here, let me sum up your response. "oh, those types of guns... Who cares if those are taken away, it doesn't affect us."

&#128514;&#129300;


----------



## Ray

Lone_Hunter said:


> Ray said:
> 
> 
> 
> Have you been paying attention at all? You have countless dems calling for mandatory gun buybacks and even mandatory confiscations. Every time Beto o'dork opens his mouth he's talking about it.
> 
> 
> 
> Francis was just being overt because of his floundering campaign; but he was saying what they all want. All he did was let the cat out of the bag. Desire from the Democrats for confiscation was hot mic'ed as far back as 2012.
> 
> And, I am just not getting into it with paddler. Its clear he hasn't been paying attention, not to just what the candidates have been saying, but to the current situation in general in America right now; and even if he has, from what he just posted, I'm sure he's so far left, that there would be absolutely no way to convince him otherwise. So why bother; I've no desire to engage in the internet version of the special Olympics.
Click to expand...

Well said good sir. None of us will change his mind.. it's another case of the sheep being led to slaughter if you ask me.


----------



## Vanilla

I wasn’t aware that the 1st amendment only pertained to freedom of the press?

Learn something new on this forum every day! 

Team sports politics are ruining our great country today. 1-eye...that sword definitely cuts both ways. And as I stated before, it just isn’t as black and white as it has been laid out here.


----------



## Lone_Hunter

For the record, I was trying to remain as objective as possible in this thread, until someone went frothing at the mouth. Not surprising in today's social/political climate i guess.

Public lands, is a political issue. It involves votes. What you vote on is important. Public lands as an issue, effects everyone on the left or the right. I've always thought that regardless of what team your on, we could all agree that public lands should exist. We have disagreements on how those public lands should be used or managed, but we agree that, at the very least, they should be there. It's probably one of the few things both sides can agree on.

BHA must walk a fine line with it's members. lol


----------



## backcountry

Yes, team sports, as played the last decade+, is getting more dangerous. We are seeing it get increasingly hyper-partisan and the role of negative partisanship is becoming more common each cycle.

Per this thread, I'm not sure presidential candidates and their trends are relevant or translate well to Utah's senatorial race. We've had only one race in which a true populist on the left made it to the general and it's evident here many of us agree she didn't balance the unique needs of Utah well.

A conversation like this is tough as we don't have any declared candidates against Lee on either side. It's fair to highlight Lee's stances we disagree with but there's not much to productively do with that information at the moment. It seems less objective and productive when we start grossly stereotyping state parties because of the behavior of presidential candidates in the primary orbits. (It's objective to blame individual candidates for their own remarks, not the entire party; it's objective to hold parties accountable for their actual stances, ie verbalized support for a candidates ideas or platforms). I find that true when talking about Rs or Ds.


----------



## paddler

Vanilla said:


> I wasn't aware that the 1st amendment only pertained to freedom of the press?
> 
> Learn something new on this forum every day!
> 
> Team sports politics are ruining our great country today. 1-eye...that sword definitely cuts both ways. And as I stated before, it just isn't as black and white as it has been laid out here.


I don't recall saying that the 1st Amendment only deals with the freedom of the press. Those are your words, and you're free to speak them despite the fact that they are deceitful.

In reply to another post above, you're doing exactly what I warned against in using the slippery slope argument. I don't believe that those who typically commit mass murder should have access to those weapons typically used to carry out those atrocities. In fact, I have put forth an idea that could potentially reduce mass shootings without impacting hunters. What have you done?

Yes, we are divided. Fact is, we've always been divided, at times much more so than today. Think Civil War, Vietnam, Civil Rights, etc. So long as one side laps up Fox News, believes in conspiracy theories like Benghazi, or that Russia didn't hack our election, but it was Ukraine, etc, you'll find no common ground with those who believe that facts matter.


----------



## Vanilla

paddler said:


> ... those who believe that facts matter.


You are entitled to your own opinion, but you are not entitled to your own facts.

The only person being deceitful here is...well, never mind. Good day, doc.


----------



## High Desert Elk

paddler said:


> Dems are the clear choice to protect our public lands and our traditional uses of hunting and fishing in perpetuity. Vote for Lee or others of his ilk at your peril.


Explain to me then, my good sir, why I cannot hunt coyotes on state lands anymore in NM? Or trap?

This discussion is not just about UT. These discussions will have an impact on everyone. You said "Dems are the clear choice to protect...our traditional uses of hunting...". Apparently not in NM, which is not only blue, but royal blue...


----------



## backcountry

Paddler,

You dug your own deep hole on this one. I'm not sure how you can rationally defend your conclusions from the last post. 

"Both sides" have their bubbles and spin. It takes a lot for Vanilla and I to agree with each other but you seem to be our unifying factor once again.


----------



## backcountry

High Desert Elk said:


> paddler said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dems are the clear choice to protect our public lands and our traditional uses of hunting and fishing in perpetuity. Vote for Lee or others of his ilk at your peril.
> 
> 
> 
> Explain to me then, my good sir, why I cannot hunt coyotes on state lands anymore in NM? Or trap?
> 
> This discussion is not just about UT. These discussions will have an impact on everyone. You said "Dems are the clear choice to protect...our traditional uses of hunting...". Apparently not in NM, which is not only blue, but royal blue...
Click to expand...

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the bill that banned contest hunting of coyotes in NM was written by Mark Moores, a republican. How is that a "royal blue" issue? I think that highlights well my conclusion that it's a lot more complex than R vs D or Red v Blue at the state level.

And isn't it just a ban on contest hunting, not all hunting of coyotes?


----------



## paddler

backcountry said:


> Correct me if I'm wrong, but the bill that banned contest hunting of coyotes in NM was written by Mark Moores, a republican. How is that a "royal blue" issue? I think that highlights well my conclusion that it's a lot more complex than R vs D or Red v Blue at the state level.
> 
> And isn't it just a ban on contest hunting, not all hunting of coyotes?


I am not familiar with the hunting restrictions on coyotes in NM. Contest hunting, such as Big Buck contests, were banned long ago here in Utah. Whether the bill was written by a Democrat or Republican is irrelevant, it's more of a philosophical question. Unless it damages habitat or the resource, which seems possible.

Backcountry, please explain which of my conclusions with which you disagree. Perhaps I can clarify them for you.


----------



## backcountry

paddler said:


> So long as one side laps up Fox News, believes in conspiracy theories like Benghazi, or that Russia didn't hack our election, but it was Ukraine, etc, you'll find no common ground with those who believe that facts matter.


Hard to defend a stance based on a gross stereotype of an entire "side" if you truly believe in "facts". It's a stance that doesn't reflect the actual statements made here. And it has zero to do with the context of the conversation.

PS... sorry for confusion, tried to directly link High Desert Elk in response to coyote claims


----------



## paddler

backcountry said:


> Hard to defend a stance based on a gross stereotype of an entire "side" if you truly believe in "facts". It's a stance that doesn't reflect the actual statements made here. And it has zero to do with the context of the conversation.
> 
> PS... sorry for confusion, tried to directly link High Desert Elk in response to coyote claims


I said "So long as". As in if one doesn't read, think critically, realize that things can be quite complex, and insist on conversations be fact-based, one will not find common ground with those who do. General statement, which I think is difficult to refute. In the specific examples I noted, that of relying solely on Fox for your news, or believing that there was some deep conspiracy in Benghazi, or believing that Ukraine, not Russia, interfered in our 2016 election, well, people who believe in facts really cannot engage with those beliefs.

An example of this occurred in this thread. HDE said that Democrats had taken away his right to hunt coyotes on state owned land in New Mexico. The reality appears to be more complex, and the facts, if what you said is true, directly contradict his assertion.

Vanilla implied that I said that the 1st Amendment deals only with the free press. I did not, and he knows that. That was willful deception on his part, which is a pattern of behavior on his part. I only mentioned our free press because Trump continually assails the institution that is fundamental to our democracy.

Here is the 1st Amendment text:

*Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.*

Trump, in his policies and tweets, is the greatest threat to the 1st Amendment I have ever seen. Lone_Hunter stated that Democrats are, which I find utterly ridiculous.


----------



## backcountry

Paddler,

There was no "if" in your text I quoted. 

No interest debating allegations of who is worst for 1A, it wasn't the content of my criticism, nor is it relevant to OPs issue.

I'm still waiting to hear a response from HDE. I'm curious about what he'll say as I've had congenial interactions with him in the past. I can't assume how he informed his comment or why he said it. There could be more to it then I realize (like the state lands admin decision that preceeded the bill).

I have no clue why you bring in the president in an issue about Mike Lee's public land stances.


----------



## paddler

backcountry said:


> Paddler,
> 
> There was no "if" in your text I quoted.
> 
> No interest debating allegations of who is worst for 1A, it wasn't the content of my criticism, nor is it relevant to OPs issue.
> 
> I'm still waiting to hear a response from HDE. I'm curious about what he'll say as I've had congenial interactions with him in the past. I can't assume how he informed his comment or why he said it. There could be more to it then I realize (like the state lands admin decision that preceeded the bill).
> 
> I have no clue why you bring in the president in an issue about Mike Lee's public land stances.


I corrected it before you posted. "So long as" is equivalent to "if" IMO. I explained why I addressed the threats to the 1st Amendment, as LH's post was extremely misleading and an attempt to persuade people to vote for those attempting to sell off our public lands. Just an attempt to keep our discussions rooted in reality. BTW, Trump is fair game in any public lands discussion, given his attempted reduction of our national monuments, persistent assault on the environment, climate change denial, etc, etc, etc.


----------



## backcountry

I see you edited your comment while I was writing my reply from "if" to "so long as". No matter the case, you built in assumption is still highly flawed and a gross stereotype you employ regularly. 

There is zero point in engaging you on that subject. No interest in sitting in that hole you dug.

At the end of the day no one is citing Fox here or bringing up Benghazi but you. It's irrelevant rhetoric.

Edit: Seems we are on a forum version of phone tag. Best of luck navigating this one.


----------



## Vanilla

Willful deception. Yep, I think we've all seen that in this thread, for sure!


----------



## paddler

backcountry said:


> I see you edited your comment while I was writing my reply from "if" to "so long as". No matter the case, you built in assumption is still highly flawed and a gross stereotype you employ regularly.
> 
> There is zero point in engaging you on that subject. No interest in sitting in that hole you dug.
> 
> At the end of the day no one is citing Fox here or bringing up Benghazi but you. It's irrelevant rhetoric.
> 
> Edit: Seems we are on a forum version of phone tag. Best of luck navigating this one.


Yep, I realized my error and corrected it, but as I said, the modifiers are equivalent. I disagree that my assumptions are flawed, as I qualified my statement. The fact remains that Lee is a Republican and wants to sell off our public lands. I don't see any Democrat advocating this. Trump is now a Republican and has engaged in a systematic assault on our public lands and the environment. Democrats by and large resist these efforts. "Gross stereotype" or fact?


----------



## backcountry

paddler said:


> backcountry said:
> 
> 
> 
> I see you edited your comment while I was writing my reply from "if" to "so long as". No matter the case, you built in assumption is still highly flawed and a gross stereotype you employ regularly.
> 
> There is zero point in engaging you on that subject. No interest in sitting in that hole you dug.
> 
> At the end of the day no one is citing Fox here or bringing up Benghazi but you. It's irrelevant rhetoric.
> 
> Edit: Seems we are on a forum version of phone tag. Best of luck navigating this one.
> 
> 
> 
> Yep, I realized my error and corrected it, but as I said, the modifiers are equivalent. I disagree that my assumptions are flawed, as I qualified my statement. The fact remains that Lee is a Republican and wants to sell off our public lands. I don't see any Democrat advocating this. Trump is now a Republican and has engaged in a systematic assault on our public lands and the environment. Democrats by and large resist these efforts. "Gross stereotype" or fact?
Click to expand...

That's called moving the goalpost. Completely different conclusion than I criticised.

I've made it abundantly clear I'm not here to engage gross stereotypes about parties. We both seem to dislike Lee's public lands policies nonetheless.


----------



## paddler

I think Lee's position on public lands is every bit as valid as his proposal to deal with climate change:

https://www.cnn.com/2019/03/26/politics/mike-lee-green-new-deal/index.html


----------



## High Desert Elk

backcountry said:


> Correct me if I'm wrong, but the bill that banned contest hunting of coyotes in NM was written by Mark Moores, a republican. How is that a "royal blue" issue? I think that highlights well my conclusion that it's a lot more complex than R vs D or Red v Blue at the state level.
> 
> And isn't it just a ban on contest hunting, not all hunting of coyotes?


The new land commissioner did that by a single signature. It didn't come up for a vote. The most effective way to control coyote population is by having these contests. She also has put the kibosh onto certain trapping ability on state AND private land. And, she has a (D) after her name.

http://www.nmstatelands.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/1.10.19_KillingContest_EO_1.pdf

Note the part where she clearly confuses a contest with a rancher killing a coyote to protect livestock or a pet. It makes it difficult as a "hunter" to engage in predator calling and not be branded as doing it as a "bloodsport". You see, when you deal with dems, they misconstrue the truth to uphold the narrative and agenda they have. The first step of many needed to become "New California".

Think maybe I'll go check out the 'Youth Pronghorn Hunting' thread for any new posts. That is a much more fun thread anyway...


----------



## paddler

High Desert Elk said:


> The new land commissioner did that by a single signature. It didn't come up for a vote. The most effective way to control coyote population is by having these contests. She also has put the kibosh onto certain trapping ability on state AND private land. And, she has a (D) after her name.
> 
> http://www.nmstatelands.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/1.10.19_KillingContest_EO_1.pdf
> 
> Note the part where she clearly confuses a contest with a rancher killing a coyote to protect livestock or a pet. It makes it difficult as a "hunter" to engage in predator calling and not be branded as doing it as a "bloodsport". You see, when you deal with dems, they misconstrue the truth to uphold the narrative and agenda they have. The first step of many needed to become "New California".
> 
> Think maybe I'll go check out the 'Youth Pronghorn Hunting' thread for any new posts. That is a much more fun thread anyway...


As I read the document it says that the order would not prevent a rancher from removing or killing coyotes. I don't read anything that would prevent hunting coyotes, either, except contest hunts. Am I missing something?

Also, it looks like she's been trying to prevent a Texas oil company from doubling their wells. That doesn't sound bad to me, protecting our public lands.


----------



## backcountry

High Desert Elk said:


> backcountry said:
> 
> 
> 
> Correct me if I'm wrong, but the bill that banned contest hunting of coyotes in NM was written by Mark Moores, a republican. How is that a "royal blue" issue? I think that highlights well my conclusion that it's a lot more complex than R vs D or Red v Blue at the state level.
> 
> And isn't it just a ban on contest hunting, not all hunting of coyotes?
> 
> 
> 
> The new land commissioner did that by a single signature. It didn't come up for a vote. The most effective way to control coyote population is by having these contests. She also has put the kibosh onto certain trapping ability on state AND private land. And, she has a (D) after her name.
> 
> http://www.nmstatelands.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/1.10.19_KillingContest_EO_1.pdf
> 
> Note the part where she clearly confuses a contest with a rancher killing a coyote to protect livestock or a pet. It makes it difficult as a "hunter" to engage in predator calling and not be branded as doing it as a "bloodsport". You see, when you deal with dems, they misconstrue the truth to uphold the narrative and agenda they have. The first step of many needed to become "New California".
> 
> Think maybe I'll go check out the 'Youth Pronghorn Hunting' thread for any new posts. That is a much more fun thread anyway...
Click to expand...

That decision preceded the bill which banned contest hunting for coyotes statewide. Even her order only prohibited contest hunting on state land, not all hunting of coyotes. Pretty irrelevant since it's a statewide ban now, written by a republican and supported by several others in the party.

https://www.sportsmensalliance.org/news/new-mexico-ban-on-coyote-hunting-contests-passes-senate/

And she explicitly differentiates between contest hunting and protecting cattle/agriculture. She said in the link you provided that the order "does not restrict a rancher's ability to humanely remove or kill an animal causing harm to agriculture or domestic pets on State Trust Lands."

I don't necessarily agree or disagree with the decisions but it ultimately came up for a vote and won. Plus, the context leading up to the ban matters. A group of hunters at a contest abandoned 40 carcases in public view. Which helps explain some of the comments, but not all, about it being a "Bloodsport".


----------



## fobit

paddler said:


> I corrected it before you posted. "So long as" is equivalent to "if" IMO. I explained why I addressed the threats to the 1st Amendment, as LH's post was extremely misleading and an attempt to persuade people to vote for those attempting to sell off our public lands. Just an attempt to keep our discussions rooted in reality. BTW, Trump is fair game in any public lands discussion, given his attempted reduction of our national monuments, persistent assault on the environment, climate change denial, etc, etc, etc.


 I think most members of this forum know that; if you want public land preserved for a bunch of granola chewing bunny huggers in spandex, you vote Dem. If you want to be able to hunt and fish on public land, or even on private land, you vote for any but the greens, the Democrats, the Communists or the Socialists.


----------



## paddler

fobit said:


> I think most members of this forum know that; if you want public land preserved for a bunch of granola chewing bunny huggers in spandex, you vote Dem. If you want to be able to hunt and fish on public land, or even on private land, you vote for any but the greens, the Democrats, the Communists or the Socialists.


And if you want our waterways polluted, in what has been called a "sickening gift to polluters", vote Republican:

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/22/climate/trump-environment-water.html

Or, if you're into despoiling our public lands, and "Drill, Baby, Drill", vote for Trump:

https://www.sltrib.com/news/environment/2020/01/23/feds-propose-oil-gas/

Note that the area proposed doesn't even have much energy potential. They just want to ruin it for the same reason Mallory wanted to climb Everest; "Because it's there."


----------



## Lone_Hunter

When it comes to public lands and hunting, there is no party that is copacetic to both.

Neither party supports both our hunting privileges, our right to keep and bear arms, AND the conservation of public lands on which to camp, hunt and fish on. Amazingly both are mutually exclusive talking points owned solely by the opposing parties. Regardless of which side of the political spectrum we may sit on, this probably puts many here, in an odd situation, and often forcing one to vote on which is most important in your view, while holding your nose at the other.

Personally, I'm done talking to the other side of the political isle on just about every issue except THIS one. It is my beleif that we disagree on every other poltiical issue , but I think we can ALL agree public lands should be there for us, and our children. We may disagree on how to use those public lands, but I think we can all agree they should be there.

Their continued existence in my mind, is the real issue. How we use them is superfluous to that. There is absolutely nothing else to agree with, or disagree with, if our public lands are replaced with "POSTED" signs. At that point, everything becomes moot.


----------



## paddler

Lone_Hunter said:


> When it comes to public lands and hunting, there is no party that is copacetic to both.
> 
> Neither party supports both our hunting privileges, our right to keep and bear arms, AND the conservation of public lands on which to camp, hunt and fish on. Amazingly both are mutually exclusive talking points owned solely by the opposing parties. Regardless of which side of the political spectrum we may sit on, this probably puts many here, in an odd situation, and often forcing one to vote on which is most important in your view, while holding your nose at the other.
> 
> Personally, I'm done talking to the other side of the political isle on just about every issue except THIS one. It is my beleif that we disagree on every other poltiical issue , but I think we can ALL agree public lands should be there for us, and our children. We may disagree on how to use those public lands, but I think we can all agree they should be there.
> 
> Their continued existence in my mind, is the real issue. How we use them is superfluous to that. There is absolutely nothing else to agree with, or disagree with, if our public lands are replaced with "POSTED" signs. At that point, everything becomes moot.


I disagree. Democrats have no problem at all with hunting or responsible gun ownership. Our position on guns has been conflated by Republicans for at least a generation to raise money. It's the tired, old "Slippery Slope" BS. I would do some things differently than other proposals. However, in Virginia there is a proposal, not sure if it's still in committee, that deals with assault weapons. It says that people who own and want to keep them must obtain a permit from the Virginia State Police. Here's a link:

https://www.whsv.com/content/news/V...ee-passes-gun-control-measures-567266931.html

This is a variation of my idea of reclassifying any centerfire weapon, long gun or handgun, that is a semiautomatic and accepts detachable magazines as Class 3, subject to all the increased requirements to buy or sell.

I think it's hard to argue against universal background checks, etc. I do not agree with limiting handgun purchases to one per month, that's silly, or an "assault weapons" ban. My idea would obviate the need for either of the above.

Remember when Obama was coming to get our guns? Ridiculous, but it worked politically and the NRA made a bunch of money off that lie.

I am a firm believer that our public lands belong to everyone, including future generations, our prime concern should be their protection from rapacious activities. Place TR quote here.


----------



## backcountry

Lone Hunter,

I agree with much of you say. 

I've spent some time the last week talking with liberals about similar issues. Many will not explain how they would protect the now officially recognized "individual right" "to bear arms" if their party could consolidate power (ie control of all branches and different make up of SCOTUS). Those are just some people in the party but they are ascendant. 

On the other side we have evidence that officials are either more willing to directly or indirectly allow the reduction in public land or accessible land/waters. For example, 2010s HB 141 wasn't purely partisan but the Republican support was double or more than Democrats. Our heritage was at a major loss for that law.

I agree with the general sentiment that no one party is a perfect fit for our sports. It's one of the many reasons I'm unaffiliated and so centrist.


----------



## backcountry

Paddler,

Universal Background check sounds nice but there isn't a universal definition. I've seen bills stated as such that would make it illegal to lend my shotgun to a friend for upland game hunting, without first doing a background check. I've seen versions called such that would make it illegal for my father to gift me heirloom weapons without a background check. 

One of the problems with these bills is they are really written with input from hunters. Our sport is pretty nuanced and many legislators rarely understand how it will impact us. 

And heck, I still often have to explain to my family and friends that are liberal what semiautomatic is and why it has benefit and purpose in our sport. It's disconcerting as they are politically active and they use those ideas to choose which bills to support.


----------



## paddler

backcountry said:


> Paddler,
> 
> Universal Background check sounds nice but there isn't a universal definition. I've seen bills stated as such that would make it illegal to lend my shotgun to a friend for upland game hunting, without first doing a background check. I've seen versions called such that would make it illegal for my father to gift me heirloom weapons without a background check.
> 
> One of the problems with these bills is they are really written with input from hunters. Our sport is pretty nuanced and many legislators rarely understand how it will impact us.
> 
> And heck, I still often have to explain to my family and friends that are liberal what semiautomatic is and why it has benefit and purpose in our sport. It's disconcerting as they are politically active and they use those ideas to choose which bills to support.


BC, I agree. But I think you meant that bills are written WITHOUT input from hunters. Most bills about guns seem to be written by people who know little about guns, and the little they know is wrong. I have thought about the issue issue of mass shootings for many years. The proposal I mentioned above was published in 2015:

https://archive.sltrib.com/article.php?id=3055270&itype=CMSID

It has been denounced by the usual "Slippery Slope" crowd, but I have discussed it with many hunters and it has been well-received. It's a surgical approach, and would impact hunters very little, if at all.

As far as background checks, I would only apply them when an FFL is required for transfer of ownership. Loaning a firearm not included in my proposal would be fine. However, loaning a Class 3 weapon would be prohibited. The owner must maintain control of the firearm at all times.


----------



## backcountry

Thanks for the correction, missed that edit.

I'll look at your link later and see it's explicit details. 

I'm indirectly affected by school mass shootings. Which I've talked about here. I would love to see more"good faith" debate in the Congress as I think the trend is frightening. That said, I'll be first to state I don't know what an effective solution (even federal at all?) would be or how to apply one surgically enough to honor the defined boundaries of 2A while dealing with these mass murderers access. But I do know what it's like to have a love one in the cross hairs of an unstable teenager without enough means or evidence for the state or feds to do anything about it other than keep a record. Its sucks and keeps me up some nights. Knowing the drills she and her students go through annually is also disheartening; I dare say "we", our nation and its failure to address this head on, have traumatized a generation. 

Tough stuff that I wish our nation handled better. But I fear our hyper-partisanship and negative partisanship are far from over and will continue to erode the foundations of the shared table we need to be sitting at together.


----------



## paddler

backcountry said:


> Thanks for the correction, missed that edit.
> 
> I'll look at your link later and see it's explicit details.
> 
> I'm indirectly affected by school mass shootings. Which I've talked about here. I would love to see more"good faith" debate in the Congress as I think the trend is frightening. That said, I'll be first to state I don't know what an effective solution (even federal at all?) would be or how to apply one surgically enough to honor the defined boundaries of 2A while dealing with these mass murderers access. But I do know what it's like to have a love one in the cross hairs of an unstable teenager without enough means or evidence for the state or feds to do anything about it other than keep a record. Its sucks and keeps me up some nights. Knowing the drills she and her students go through annually is also disheartening; I dare say "we", our nation and its failure to address this head on, have traumatized a generation.
> 
> Tough stuff that I wish our nation handled better. But I fear our hyper-partisanship and negative partisanship are far from over and will continue to erode the foundations of the shared table we need to be sitting at together.


We are all affected by these senseless events. This proposal is the best I could come up with. Nothing's perfect, but it doesn't confiscate anything, doesn't ban anything, but should decrease the ability of mentally ill people to obtain the weapons of choice for committing these tragedies. Some criticize it, but I haven't seen anything better. The most vociferous critics offer no solution at all.


----------



## RandomElk16

paddler said:


> BC, I agree. But I think you meant that bills are written WITHOUT input from hunters. Most bills about guns seem to be written by people who know little about guns, and the little they know is wrong. I have thought about the issue issue of mass shootings for many years. The proposal I mentioned above was published in 2015:
> 
> https://archive.sltrib.com/article.php?id=3055270&itype=CMSID
> 
> It has been denounced by the usual "Slippery Slope" crowd, but I have discussed it with many hunters and it has been well-received. It's a surgical approach, and would impact hunters very little, if at all.
> 
> As far as background checks, I would only apply them when an FFL is required for transfer of ownership. Loaning a firearm not included in my proposal would be fine. However, loaning a Class 3 weapon would be prohibited. The owner must maintain control of the firearm at all times.


I had a whole bunch written, but it isn't worth responding a proposal that shows a lack of thought/knowledge.

Two quotes:

"Semiautomatic weapons are every bit as lethal in these situations as the fully automatic military versions"

-False

"Semiautomatic, centerfire weapons that accept detachable magazines are not necessary for legitimate sporting uses or home defense"

-Tell that to a large number of my bolt action rifles. Those aren't a "legitimate" sporting use? Comp handgun shooting or even recreational isn't "legitimate"? By whose standards. My Glock isn't for home defense?

They use the term Semi-Auto, which would apply to handguns, rifles, and even shotguns. This is a broad sweeping regulation that actually does impact hunters, despite the claims in the article. (This isn't even addressing the lack of thought on $200 per firearm, would they be like machine guns and not be able to be manufactured anymore, etc...) And frankly with that cost, this does directly discriminate, like most gun laws, against minorities and lower class. $200 extra and a 10 month wait hurts single mothers and minorities or whites with lower income. There is examples of states where people have fallen victim waiting for their firearm.

Like any problem in any industry - the root cause (mental health) needs to be addressed or nothing else works. The Vegas shooting was one of the most deadly and none of this addresses that. Congress loves big pharma.

I promise that will be my only post because Paddler loves to turn EVERY thread into a political left turn lol... I don't even recall the OP writing a single thing about gun laws.


----------



## stillhunterman

RandomElk16 said:


> I had a whole bunch written, but it isn't worth responding a proposal that shows a lack of thought/knowledge.
> 
> Two quotes:
> 
> "Semiautomatic weapons are every bit as lethal in these situations as the fully automatic military versions"
> 
> -False
> 
> "Semiautomatic, centerfire weapons that accept detachable magazines are not necessary for legitimate sporting uses or home defense"
> 
> -Tell that to a large number of my bolt action rifles. Those aren't a "legitimate" sporting use? Comp handgun shooting or even recreational isn't "legitimate"? By whose standards. My Glock isn't for home defense?
> 
> They use the term Semi-Auto, which would apply to handguns, rifles, and even shotguns. This is a broad sweeping regulation that actually does impact hunters, despite the claims in the article. (This isn't even addressing the lack of thought on $200 per firearm, would they be like machine guns and not be able to be manufactured anymore, etc...) And frankly with that cost, this does directly discriminate, like most gun laws, against minorities and lower class. $200 extra and a 10 month wait hurts single mothers and minorities or whites with lower income. There is examples of states where people have fallen victim waiting for their firearm.
> 
> Like any problem in any industry - the root cause (mental health) needs to be addressed or nothing else works. The Vegas shooting was one of the most deadly and none of this addresses that. Congress loves big pharma.
> 
> *I promise that will be my only post because Paddler loves to turn EVERY thread into a political left turn lol.*.. I don't even recall the OP writing a single thing about gun laws.


This post is just so I can "Like" yours again...

"LIKE"

Think I'll go visit Virginia this year, and take a few guns for self protection just in case. Oh...wait...


----------



## paddler

RandomElk16 said:


> I had a whole bunch written, but it isn't worth responding a proposal that shows a lack of thought/knowledge.
> 
> Two quotes:
> 
> "Semiautomatic weapons are every bit as lethal in these situations as the fully automatic military versions"
> 
> -False
> 
> "Semiautomatic, centerfire weapons that accept detachable magazines are not necessary for legitimate sporting uses or home defense"
> 
> -Tell that to a large number of my bolt action rifles. Those aren't a "legitimate" sporting use? Comp handgun shooting or even recreational isn't "legitimate"? By whose standards. My Glock isn't for home defense?
> 
> They use the term Semi-Auto, which would apply to handguns, rifles, and even shotguns. This is a broad sweeping regulation that actually does impact hunters, despite the claims in the article. (This isn't even addressing the lack of thought on $200 per firearm, would they be like machine guns and not be able to be manufactured anymore, etc...) And frankly with that cost, this does directly discriminate, like most gun laws, against minorities and lower class. $200 extra and a 10 month wait hurts single mothers and minorities or whites with lower income. There is examples of states where people have fallen victim waiting for their firearm.
> 
> Like any problem in any industry - the root cause (mental health) needs to be addressed or nothing else works. The Vegas shooting was one of the most deadly and none of this addresses that. Congress loves big pharma.
> 
> I promise that will be my only post because Paddler loves to turn EVERY thread into a political left turn lol... I don't even recall the OP writing a single thing about gun laws.


You are not paying attention. Semiautomatic weapons fire a round, eject the spent casing, and load the next round with every trigger pull. My Beretta M2, my 11-87, my Ruger Mk II all do this. However, My shotguns have fixed magazines, so once you've emptied the gun, one must reload additional rounds one-by-one. They would not be subject to reclassification. The Ruger .22 isn't centerfire, so it would be excluded also. My Beretta 92F would be reclassified, so I would have to be certified to keep it.

True, there are shooting sports that employ weapons that use semiautos that accept detachable magazines, like the comp handgun stuff. Most hunters do not use such weapons, however, and one of the most effective home defense weapons is a pump shotgun. Competition handgun guys can keep their weapons under my scheme, if they can satisfy Class 3 criteria. You can keep your Glock, too.

If you have a better solution, post it up. Your "mental health" approach hasn't and will not work. It's just a justification to maintain the status quo.


----------



## backcountry

Randomelk,

To be fair Lone Hunter brought up the right to bear arms in his recent post, all the comments about guns since then have been related to that. 

I will say, there is no single root cause to the mass shooting issue. It's multivariate and extremely complex. And the mental health aspect, which does seem related to many, has just as many constititional and civil liberty land mines as the firearms component. I sincerely don't know how we address the problem but our country hasn't taken a United stand against it yet. And that is disappointing.

I have no dog in the semiautomatic fight. Don't own one but I'm also not convinced it's the key aspect at this point. Could be wrong.

I just wish we could get people together to sincerely talk about the issue. I'm not holding my breathe.


----------



## paddler

backcountry said:


> Randomelk,
> 
> To be fair Lone Hunter brought up the right to bear arms in his recent post, all the comments about guns since then have been related to that.
> 
> I will say, there is no single root cause to the mass shooting issue. It's multivariate and extremely complex. And the mental health aspect, which does seem related to many, has just as many constititional and civil liberty land mines as the firearms component. I sincerely don't know how we address the problem but our country hasn't taken a United stand against it yet. And that is disappointing.
> 
> I have no dog in the semiautomatic fight. Don't own one but I'm also not convinced it's the key aspect at this point. Could be wrong.
> 
> I just wish we could get people together to sincerely talk about the issue. I'm not holding my breathe.


I am trying to have an intelligent, sincere conversation about gun rights, hunting, etc. One needs three components for a mass shooting. One, a semiautomatic action. Two, that action must accept detachable magazines. Three, you need a disaffected, mentally ill, usually male, to operate that weapon. All three factors are present in virtually all mass shootings. If you have a bolt action rifle or a lever gun, you must manually operate the action each shot. If you have a semiauto with a fixed magazine, you have to manually load each round. Only a semiautomatic with detachable magazines allows one to fire almost continuously.

Random mentioned approaching the problem from a mental health aspect. I would appreciate specifics of his plan. My proposal actually does this. Instead of screening the general population for mental illness, the requirements of Class 3 ownership screen only those interested in purchasing said weapons. Thus, it's more efficient, less expensive, and less intrusive upon the general population. Again, surgical, sensitive and specific. The "mental health" approach promulgated by the right will never work, just as all the "thoughts and prayers" won't bring back dead kids or protect the living.

I challenge anyone to come up with a less restrictive plan that will actually reduce mass shootings. I'm all about the right to bear arms, and own many. But that right is not absolute, rather it is subject to restriction in the interest of the greater common good.


----------



## RandomElk16

It's late but I had to respond anyway. Excuse the 2 am typing.

Mental health hasn't worked? And... How have we addressed it to make you say that? 

You know if you have anxiety or depression a primary doctor will prescribe you meds before referring you to a therapist? Great way to fix things lol.. Until congress is out of Big Pharma, don't tell me it hasn't worked - we haven't tried. 

Proposals that involve mental health are tricky, because they can actually deter people from help. If you told most on this forum they could risk losing weapons if they sought therapy, they wouldn't. That and red flag laws should scare them because it allows strangers to dictate which amendment rights they have access to. 


The article bounced around between detachable mags and just saying semi auto. If it's with detachable mags, then yes a single mother with a restraining order on her ex who needs to defend herself home and away from home won't be carrying a 12 gauge. Revolvers can be difficult, hammers catching on things and frankly double action is a PITA for most. I use that example because of a high profile case of a women afraid of harm, multiple police reports filed, and she was on the waiting list to own a firearm when she was killed. She wasn't afforded her constitutional right and lost her life. I don't think a 12 gauge pump would fit in her purse, defend her successfully, and don't feel the government should meaninglessly tax her low income self $200 and make her wait 10 months to get the proper equipment.

Again, you don't address how this discriminates against lower income - which does impact females, especially single mothers, and minorities more. 


You say mental health approaches don't work (we don't try), but neither have countless gun laws. Including the 94 ban. 10 years with no AR sales, no more than 10 round mags, etc... And that can't be correlated to a reduction in violence involving those weapons. 


The fact is - More people are killed each year by fists/feet, blunt objects, and knives than rifles. So sweeping legislation on rifles that are responsible for less than 500 deaths per year is in fact a tactic that has other intentions and is a slippery slope wether you acknowledge that or not. 



This is a pointless debate. Me not addressing "my" proposal doesn't make this one right. You say it will "actually reduce mass shootings" - how? Almost all of these shooters would pass your proposal, or the people they took the weapons from would. Your plan is only a small obstacle that won't stop anyone determined. Again, the Vegas shooter would have gone through all of this and still carried out one of the deadliest mass shootings. Pretty strong use cases in Mexico and S. America on what places with gun bans look like crime wise. Couple all this with most these shootings happening in "gun free" zones and frankly laws don't work. We have over 300 million guns here- can't use other places as a use case. Cartels would love gun bans. 


Not sure at what point a political thread is locked... Hopefully soon...




AND LASTLY!! 

"I'm all about the right to bear arms, and own many". Nope.


----------



## Lone_Hunter

backcountry said:


> Randomelk,
> 
> To be fair Lone Hunter brought up the right to bear arms in his recent post, all the comments about guns since then have been related to that.


I only did so to illustrate the political divide in how we are often forced to vote for one or the other things we hold dear, and can't vote for both because our team sport of politics declares we cannot.

I was not intending to spark a pointless gun control debate. Apparently, bringing it up, in ANY CONTEXT, can be used as a springboard to make a sharp left turn into topics not intended.

Which makes me wonder.. if that only goes to further prove my point on the political divide :roll: (I won't pretend that I care, cause I just don't anymore)


----------



## backcountry

Elk,

Simply going to a therapist hasn't been part of any red flag laws I've seen. Even diagnosis isn't enough. Most laws, which I agree can be problematic, require a threat to self or others. 

The classic mental health way one can be denied firearm ownership or possession is if the individual has been involuntary committed and/or had a judgement after that legal action. That's a huge escalation beyond therapy and counseling.

Paddler, 

You are correct that 2A is not absolute, even conservative justice Scalia made that clear in Heller. But your justification for why or how it can be restricted is way too broad. It can't be restricted just for "interest of the greater common good." 
Greater common good is manipulated by orthodoxy and is trammeled all the time by constititionally protected individual liberties. I'm all for debating how guns play a role in mass shootings but even my centrist self jump back to a noticeably conservative camp when an overly broad "greater common good" argument is thrown in.


----------



## backcountry

Lone,

You made a broad accusation about parties ability/desire to protect "our right to keep and bear arms". You opened a wide door for a counter argument. That's why I often define my terms, even if mocked, or use quotes as it narrows things down considerably.


----------



## RandomElk16

Great point on divide, Lone! I simply wish I was alive during the time when people were fighting FOR rights, not giving them away. 

Backcountry- I have seen multiple proposals allowing a therapist to be part of the "red flag" type program. You say you are feeling down and aren't sure why you want to be around anymore, they say you are suicidal and should have guns temporarily removed. I think problems arise when the people who may get to make these decisions have a political bias on guns. I haven't seen many that involve some form of commitment. A threat to others can be made up, as we have seen occur in some places. You agreed with problematic but I wanted to highlight a number of them include therapy red flags. Some even include prescriptions (info I don't think the gov should have).


This is all stupid and I hate that I even responded with my two posts. I will admit Paddler has suckered me into it the last few days.


----------



## paddler

backcountry said:


> Elk,
> 
> Simply going to a therapist hasn't been part of any red flag laws I've seen. Even diagnosis isn't enough. Most laws, which I agree can be problematic, require a threat to self or others.
> 
> The classic mental health way one can be denied firearm ownership or possession is if the individual has been involuntary committed and/or had a judgement after that legal action. That's a huge escalation beyond therapy and counseling.
> 
> Paddler,
> 
> You are correct that 2A is not absolute, even conservative justice Scalia made that clear in Heller. But your justification for why or how it can be restricted is way too broad. It can't be restricted just for "interest of the greater common good."
> Greater common good is manipulated by orthodoxy and is trammeled all the time by constititionally protected individual liberties. I'm all for debating how guns play a role in mass shootings but even my centrist self jump back to a noticeably conservative camp when an overly broad "greater common good" argument is thrown in.


Perhaps greater common good wasn't exactly the right phrase. How about in the interest of public safety? Reducing the risk to our kids, or churchgoers? Phraseology matters less to me than results.

Random, I asked you for specifics about your mental health approach. How would you screen the population to find those likely to commit gun violence, specifically mass shootings, when most commonly the first manifestation they exhibit is the mass shooting itself? If you have a specific plan, I'm listening. If not, you're just muddying the waters in support of the status quo. Your other arguments are simply absurd, more deflection, etc. Just for instance, one can readily buy inexpensive shotguns, handguns. In fact, they can be far less expensive than your Glock (which is ugly, BTW), or my Beretta(which is the best looking 9mm I could find). There goes your discrimination argument. Women can even buy a cute little pink revolver:

https://www.rkguns.com/taurus-856-u...evolver-w-rogue-pink-finish-2856021ulc10.html

True, the assault weapons ban did not work. No plan that doesn't address those weapons already in circulation will. My plan would apply to all semiautomatic weapons that fire centerfire ammunition and accept detachable magazines. And only those weapons. All we need to do is screen those people who desire to own them to ensure they don't appear to be a threat to others. To not do so is insane.


----------



## weaversamuel76

To pretend any screening wouldn't be bias would be insane. I would NEVER trust the government to do the right thing. 

You can wear a tinfoil hat but you lack the ability to turn it into the latest fashion trend.

Sent from my moto z3 using Tapatalk


----------



## Critter

I'm just going to say a couple of things and than bow out. 

As far as banning a semi automatic rifle, how about pump action shotguns? There are a lot of shotguns that will allow you to load 5 or 6 rounds in the magazine. Can you imagine what would happen if someone would walk into a crowded area with one of these loaded with 00 buckshot? That along with a little bit of practice these shotguns can be reloaded quite quickly. So now do we also ban pump shotguns? 

The red flag laws. Most states that have them have just enacted them in the last year or so, and none of them have come before the Supreme Court. I believe that when they do they will be struck down just for the simple reason that you are innocent until you are proven guilty. And one persons say so won't do it. That along the lines of a illegal search and seizure of a persons property. Here in Colorado we have a Red Flag Law. Just a couple of weeks ago a lady filed on a police man who had shot her son who was coming at him with a knife which ended up being justified. However he was still dragged into court and lucky for him the attorney general for the state of Colorado defended him.....for no charge. Would a normal citizen be as lucky? Or will they have to put out thousands of dollars to defend against a bogus charge? 

I will agree that something needs to be done. Quite a few of these people who do these shootings have been on the radar of the local police department but because of their rights afforded them through the Constitution nothing has been done. 

I don't have any answers to the big questions, but I don't believe putting restrictions on a normal person is not the way to go. Just remember that crooks by the very definition of who they are do not follow the law, if it isn't a semi automatic rifle it may be a pump action shotgun, if not that perhaps a pressure cooker bomb, or even a propane bomb, or even a rental truck doing 60 mph running into a crowd. 

That's my piece, now I'll bow out.


----------



## paddler

Critter said:


> I'm just going to say a couple of things and than bow out.
> 
> As far as banning a semi automatic rifle, how about pump action shotguns? There are a lot of shotguns that will allow you to load 5 or 6 rounds in the magazine. Can you imagine what would happen if someone would walk into a crowded area with one of these loaded with 00 buckshot? That along with a little bit of practice these shotguns can be reloaded quite quickly. So now do we also ban pump shotguns?
> 
> The red flag laws. Most states that have them have just enacted them in the last year or so, and none of them have come before the Supreme Court. I believe that when they do they will be struck down just for the simple reason that you are innocent until you are proven guilty. And one persons say so won't do it. That along the lines of a illegal search and seizure of a persons property. Here in Colorado we have a Red Flag Law. Just a couple of weeks ago a lady filed on a police man who had shot her son who was coming at him with a knife which ended up being justified. However he was still dragged into court and lucky for him the attorney general for the state of Colorado defended him.....for no charge. Would a normal citizen be as lucky? Or will they have to put out thousands of dollars to defend against a bogus charge?
> 
> I will agree that something needs to be done. Quite a few of these people who do these shootings have been on the radar of the local police department but because of their rights afforded them through the Constitution nothing has been done.
> 
> I don't have any answers to the big questions, but I don't believe putting restrictions on a normal person is not the way to go. Just remember that crooks by the very definition of who they are do not follow the law, if it isn't a semi automatic rifle it may be a pump action shotgun, if not that perhaps a pressure cooker bomb, or even a propane bomb, or even a rental truck doing 60 mph running into a crowd.
> 
> That's my piece, now I'll bow out.


I guess I don't get why you say we cannot put restrictions on a "normal" person. There are all kinds of restrictions on everybody. They're called laws.

The arguments you make have one common thread. Do nothing. You have no answers. Which means you will do nothing to reduce mass shootings. My proposal does something, and there is every reason to believe it will help.

As far as your argument about rate of fire, I'm sure everyone agrees that a pump shotgun is in no way comparable to an AR 15. One can load a 30 round magazine as fast as one can load a single shotgun round, and the sustainable rate of fire is vastly different.

I find these discussions interesting. The dyed-in-wool 2A guys always make variations of the same arguments, all of which boil down to the same thing, that nothing can be done. No specifics, no plan, no nothing. The general public doesn't buy it and demands we do something. Support for universal background checks is overwhelming. Gun control is coming, maybe not today, maybe not tomorrow, but it's coming. I think it should be intelligent, precise, and well-reasoned in order to provide the most public safety while simultaneously putting the fewest restrictions on gun ownership.


----------



## #1DEER 1-I

paddler said:


> I guess I don't get why you say we cannot put restrictions on a "normal" person. There are all kinds of restrictions on everybody. They're called laws.
> 
> The arguments you make have one common thread. Do nothing. You have no answers. Which means you will do nothing to reduce mass shootings. My proposal does something, and there is every reason to believe it will help.
> 
> As far as your argument about rate of fire, I'm sure everyone agrees that a pump shotgun is in no way comparable to an AR 15. One can load a 30 round magazine as fast as one can load a single shotgun round, and the sustainable rate of fire is vastly different.
> 
> I find these discussions interesting. The dyed-in-wool 2A guys always make variations of the same arguments, all of which boil down to the same thing, that nothing can be done. No specifics, no plan, no nothing. The general public doesn't buy it and demands we do something. Support for universal background checks is overwhelming. Gun control is coming, maybe not today, maybe not tomorrow, but it's coming. I think it should be intelligent, precise, and well-reasoned in order to provide the most public safety while simultaneously putting the fewest restrictions on gun ownership.


This. As someone who owns plenty of guns, including an AR15. In no way is a pump shotgun even close to as effective as my AR15. I can purchase a 100 round magazine for that gun and all I have to do is pull the trigger over and over and over. I think the process to purchase a semi-automatic (at minimum semi-auto rifles) needs to have some more strict processes. I support the 2nd amendment completely, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't take steps to try and save lives and keep them out of the hands of terrible people. And yes no law is 100% effective, but laws and processes do have an impact. If they didn't we wouldn't live in the society we do today.


----------



## paddler

#1DEER 1-I said:


> This. As someone who owns plenty of guns, including an AR15. In no way is a pump shotgun even close to as effective as my AR15. I can purchase a 100 round magazine for that gun and all I have to do is pull the trigger over and over and over. I think the process to purchase a semi-automatic (at minimum semi-auto rifles) needs to have some more strict processes. I support the 2nd amendment completely, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't take steps to try and save lives and keep them out of the hands of terrible people. And yes no law is 100% effective, but laws and processes do have an impact. If they didn't we wouldn't live in the society we do today.


I, too, support our right to keep and bear arms. I just can't accept the concept that 2A is absolute, and that all we can do about mass shootings is wring our hands and offer "thoughts and prayers to the victims and their families".

As I've said above, the reclassification would only apply to semiautos that use detachable magazines. I don't see a distinction based on barrel length, so it would apply to both handguns and long guns.


----------



## Vanilla

paddler said:


> Phraseology matters less to me than results.


Otherwise translated as "The ends justify the means." And that is exactly why I'm very grateful for a constitution that protects me from people that think like you. A lot of really, really terrible people in history espoused that mindset to commit some of the worst atrocities our world has ever seen. Heck, some of these folks that do mass shootings may even have that mindset. That mindset is not for me. God bless the constitution of the United States of America!

There is no constitutional right that is absolute. All constitutional rights are subject to "reasonable regulation."

What is "reasonable" is where it gets tough to agree. Heck, Paddler said just above that there is "every reason" to believe this proposal will work, and I'm sure he thinks he's being reasonable even if I think he's being insane and should have his guns taken away because of it.

Interesting how a simple innocent general statement of the difficulty of party politics justifies this direction in the thread, but people think it's justified, so...whatever.


----------



## paddler

More conflation from V. Wonderfully consistent, intentionally distorting other's words, lying, blah, blah, blah. I don't normally respond to his rubbish, and wouldn't now if I hadn't already been contemplating further clarification of my response to backcountry's questioning my using the term "greater common good".

So, the entire point of my proposal was to address the problem of mass shootings. Mass shootings affect us all, whether or not a loved one is personally involved. Seems to me that if asked, virtually all people would agree that reducing mass shootings would be a good thing. So, it logically follows that reducing mass shootings really is in the interest of the greater common good. 

I have thought long and hard about how we as a country can reduce mass shootings without imposing undue restrictions on our 2A right to keep and bear arms. Unfortunately, even the most surgical approach will impact some. Most hunters and shooters can find a workaround to the restrictions outlined in my plan. Most big game hunters shoot bolt action rifles. Upland and waterfowl hunters use pumps, or semiautomatic shotguns with fixed magazines, or, if they're lucky, double guns. Bench rest guys invariably use bolt guns, clay shooters use the same types as upland shooters. Home defense people can use many other types of guns. The only group of shooters who would unavoidably be impacted by my proposal would be the comp handgun guys. But, they could still enjoy their sport.  They would need to jump through a couple hoops, and it would cost them some money, but that seems unavoidable. Given the cost of their guns, equipment, etc, it would be difficult for them to cry poor. Indeed, my proposal doesn't ban anything. Anybody who could pass Class 3 scrutiny could own whatever they like.


----------



## Vanilla

The case that officially recognized the individual right was Heller v DC, and the very firearm in question was a handgun. You may not like them, but there is zero chance your proposal would pass constitution muster if it included common handguns just because they are semi-auto. (With detachable magazines) Zero. Not very little, but zero. 

I think you can guess how I feel about your overall proposal, so I don’t need to get into it. But I will give my opinion on the validity of the proposal. Call it free legal advice. (I’ll count it towards my pro bono hours!) If you want a proposal that will be taken seriously not only by society, but the courts, you shouldn’t include a very common firearm that is owned specifically for personal and home defense all across the country and was the subject of the very case that brought clarity to this issue on the 2nd Amendment. 

And I’m sure you’ll disagree with me, if for no other reason to disagree, so I’ll post language that supports my opinion, whereas you’ll be unable to do so for yourself. Have a blessed day Jon! 


From Heller v DC 
The handgun ban amounts to a prohibition of an entire class of “arms” that is overwhelm*ingly chosen by American society for that lawful purpose. The prohibition extends, moreover, to the home, where the need for defense of self, family, and property is most acute. Under any of the standards of scrutiny that we have ap*plied to enumerated constitutional rights, banning from the home “the most preferred firearm in the nation to ‘keep’ and use for protection of one’s home and family,” would fail constitutional muster. (Citations and notations redacted)




TOTP!


----------



## backcountry

I agree with Vanilla. Getting past the elements of Heller, like "in common use" and for "lawful purpose", is going to make any regulation of semi-automatic handguns extremely difficult if not impossible. There are similar arguments for difficulty in regulations on assault weapons though the courts are all over the board on that.

The irony is most mass shootings are done with handguns purchased legally. Given the above I'm not convinced there is a federal solution that will pass constititional muster.

Paddler, I don't think that is a fair or accurate conclusion of Critter's post at all. He didn't make a thoughts and prayers response or say he was comfortable with doing nothing. Like myself, and many other Americans, we just might have more questions than answers which honestly a fine place to be as a concerned citizen. I'm not sure doing something if we aren't convinced it (a) solves the problem and (b) also passes constititional muster is actually a worthwhile approach. I can't speak for him but will say for myself that doing something might involve a longer timeframe, because of our unavoidable political environment, than many of us consider ideal. I fear responses like you just had to Critter might make that timeframe even longer.

To Random.....if you have links to reputable sources to support your claims about a big problem with red flag laws & therapy than I will follow them. The specific claim about therapist, if I understand it correctly, is consistent with existing professional regulations and laws. Mental health professionals already have to report viable threats to self or others. They take that responsibility seriously but I haven't seen any analysis that shows a political bias in how or when they report. In fact I know second hand that many are hesitant to report without being confident in the immediacy and certainty of the threat; some of the research about individual mass shooters tends to justify that conclusion. Ironically I have seen some people use the mental health angle to justify loosening HIPA laws which to me is extremely frightening on the civil liberties side.

Critter, in general red flag laws are really just emergency *EDIT protection (mistated as restraining) orders that involve firearms. I am concerned and skeptical in ways but also believe it will have similar outcomes as current systems dealing with involuntary commitment, which have survived for ages despite legal challenges. By which I mean there could be abuse but overall it tends to function for it's purpose and follow procedure to protect civil liberties. I think that's a good analog as there tends to be oversight and limited timeframes before judges have to be involved. It's that timeframe that and judicial review that ultimately passes the "due process" issue but I haven't researched that in a while and I am very open to reevaluating that conclusion. If it were designed after say the "no fly" list than I would definitely be antagonistic to implementation as there tends to be no oversight or due process.

Overall, I tend to generically agree with some of Lone's assessment, ie there isn't a single party that captures all of the nuances of our sport and heritage. And I tend to believe Democrats generally tend to be more comfortable with pushing gun regulations than Republicans. I'm sincerely not convinced that's good or bad without knowing the exact details but there is a fair argument by those who are concerned about the way their liberties might be infringed.


----------



## middlefork

Copied from someone else:


What to expect when VA implements red flag laws.


November 24, 2019
WhiskeyWarrior556 falls victim to red flag laws
By Taylor Day
On Friday, police showed up to a young man’s workplace and tried to arrest him over social media posts reported to them by an old army buddy of the 28-year-old Afghanistan veteran. This man, known as Alex and popular on Instagram under the handle of WhiskeyWarrior556, slipped out of the back door, hurried home to check on his family where he found out police had already forced themselves into his home and confiscated his legal firearms after threatening his wife with calling child protective services to remove her newborn child. Alex then barricaded himself inside his own attic, unarmed. Law enforcement officers followed him, blocked off the road to all traffic and a seven-hour standoff began.


.


From WhiskeyWarrior556 Instagram story during standoff.


When it was over, the Putnam County Sheriffs, SWAT team and local police, armed with their own automatic rifles with 30 round magazines, arrested Alex for possessing a “high capacity magazine” for his legal AR-15, “high capacity magazines” are defined as any magazine that can hold more than seven rounds. Although a plastic box that holds 30 cartridges at one time are standard for this type of firearm, some lawmakers somewhere else believed they knew better and forced that decision upon this American war veteran.


Alex updated his followers on Instagram with video and commentary, also posting screenshots of his SMS conversation with police negotiators. Friends who were in contact with him also shared their conversations via social media. Alex told one friend that the man who called in the red flag law, lied to police by telling them that Alex suffered from PTSD. Putnam County Sheriffs reiterated this, claiming that this was a mental health issue, although offered no evidence of such an allegation. A statement from Police Chief Michael Cazzari of local Carmel Police made this statement:


"This is a person in crisis, having mental illness, having issues and he didn't need the people on social media telling him that his rights are being violated. He needed help. Medical help."


Because armored vehicles and total barricades are needed when someone just needs “medical help.” Perhaps the police understood that illegally confiscating someone’s property might lead to violence.


Putnam County armored SWAT vehicle at scene of standoff, Putnam Drive, Mahopac, at 8:30 p.m.


WhiskeyWarrior556 finally gave in when police threatened once again to take his infant daughter from his and his wife’s custody and according to police, he was peacefully detained. Though charged with owning the “high capacity magazine,” no charges have been filed as a result of the standoff.


What transpired on Saturday was exactly what advocates of red flag laws have asked for. A militarized police force, ignoring due process completely, confiscated the property and the civil rights of a U.S. citizen because of nothing more than the opinion of an associate.


If the current legal landscape allows for citizens to have their Second Amendment rights stripped from them without any legal opportunity to dissent, what are the next rights to be taken? After all, our rights to speech or religion, or even due process itself, have no obligation to be respected by the government without the right to bear arms.


Every gun law, including the ones you agree with, is an infringement on our constitutional rights.


----------



## Vanilla

This thread is so far off the rails, so what the heck? 

Red flag gun laws definitely have benefits, and they are not only tied to “mass shootings.” In fact, I don’t think many of our mass shootings would have been prevented by red flag laws, whereas the real benefit likely lies in preventing domestic violence homicides. 

Utah has contemplated an “extreme risk protective order” for a couple years now. There was a specific bill on it last year that failed. I can only assume another one will be back this year again. Of course, the devil is always in the details. 

I am honestly torn on the topic. As I stated above, I see a clear benefit. There are problems and serious questions with them as well. It is a very difficulty issue without easy answers, so I tend to roll my eyes when people represent that the answers are easy. That makes me believe those people don’t really understand the nuances of it all. 

I wish we could figure out how to reduce and even eliminate gun crime. I wish we could figure out a way to get people to quit driving impaired and killing people. I wish we could get people to stop sexually abusing children. (And everyone else) I wish we could even get people to stop putting graffiti on other people’s dang property! Laws are necessary, and enforcement is necessary. But we’ve yet to find the proverbial silver bullet on any issue when it comes to crime, it shouldn’t be surprising that this one is tough too.


----------



## ridgetop

This thread sure got sidetracked!


----------



## backcountry

Middlefork,

Never heard of that situation. Different take from a veterans radio/news site:

https://connectingvets.radio.com/articles/news/whiskey-warrior-was-not-red-flagged

I'm sure more will come out over time but multiple sites are stating the same story, ie this wasn't a red flag case nor were any firearms confiscated. Its reported as a case involving a temporary protection order that he allegedly broke, it escalated from there.


----------



## paddler

My proposal wouldn't ban anything, so I'm not sure Heller applies. It's not clear that anybody else knows, either. Given the Citizens United decision, the future is unclear. It targets mass shootings, which are only one component of gun violence. Clearly other measures are also needed. But, fun fact, mass shootings have increased through time. There have been 117 mass shootings since 1982. Between 1982 and 1989, there were 8, so about 1/year. Between 2017 and 2019, there were 33, or 11/year. 

The only response to mass shootings we ever get from the gun rights advocates is "thoughts and prayers". They argue against every measure, indeed, their "slippery slope" argument clearly shows they will never, ever support any gun control measure whatsoever. They have made themselves clear. Support for universal background checks is over 90%. A bipartisan bill passed by the House now languishes in Moscow Mitch's Senate. The NRA (a GRU subsidiary) spent $1.6 million lobbying against it. Small wonder that NRA favorability is net negative.


----------



## Vanilla

You don’t have to ban something to implicate constitutional rights. Never have. Look at how the courts treated fees or taxes to vote. The underlying reasoning is and will be the same. This reasoning spans various issues when talking about attaching monetary requirements to exercise constitutional rights. 

I’m not taking a political position here or speaking for or against the proposal. I’m telling you it would not survive a challenge in the courts if it was implemented. You can disagree, but you would be wrong. The legal theories on that are not in question and are quite established.


----------



## paddler

Vanilla said:


> You don't have to ban something to implicate constitutional rights. Never have. Look at how the courts treated fees or taxes to vote. The underlying reasoning is and will be the same. This reasoning spans various issues when talking about attaching monetary requirements to exercise constitutional rights.
> 
> I'm not taking a political position here or speaking for or against the proposal. I'm telling you it would not survive a challenge in the courts if it was implemented. You can disagree, but you would be wrong. The legal theories on that are not in question and are quite established.


I'm no attorney, of course, but it doesn't seem cut and dried to me. For one, you are not preventing anyone from owning a gun. You are merely restricting access to certain types of weapons. Class 3 restrictions are already in place, so some restrictions obviously are legal. My proposal would only expand which weapons are so classified. I doubt we'll ever find out, though, nobody has shown any interest. Many just want to ban assault weapons all together, which is, in my opinion, a bridge too far.

Most attempts at gun control are ham-handed, because, as mentioned above, they are written by those who don't understand or actually fear them. My proposal is a good faith effort to address what all agree is a real problem. Again, if anybody has a better idea, I'd be glad to hear it. Anybody?

Also, precedent in the courts is not inviolable. Look at the efforts to overturn Roe v Wade.


----------



## Vanilla

I think you’ve been told by multiple people about a way better idea, you just didn’t like it. Take the handguns out and we’re already talking about an idea that is exponentially better, and much more viable as actually being constitutional. (Don’t construe that by me thinking its it’s a “good” idea. Just a better one than you presented.) 

Your argument about not preventing anyone from owning a gun was basically the exact reasoning in the voting cases. The exact as the losing parties. 

You’re proposing to put into the class 3 designation a firearm that specifically has been recognized as one that we as citizens have a constitutional right to “keep and bare.” See the terms backcountry has in quotes above and then compare the handgun to the weapons currently under class 3 restrictions and it doesn’t take an attorney or even a rocket scientist to figure out where this one comes up short. Heck, I bet even doctors could figure it out. Again, no chance that is constitutional.


----------



## paddler

Times change, court decisions change, public opinion changes. It probably hasn't occurred to most that semiautomatic weapons differ from the military versions very, very little. Like maybe one part. They are far more similar to the full auto versions than they are any other type of civilian weapons. And further, the semiauto versions are actually more efficient in mass shootings than the full auto ones. Less wasted ammo. People are getting pretty tired of mass shootings, and the vast majority of the public want something done. 

Again, I'm no lawyer, but it doesn't seem like settled law to me. It will probably never be heard in court, so we can argue about it indefinitely.


----------



## RandomElk16

paddler said:


> In fact, they can be far less expensive than your Glock (which is ugly, BTW), or my Beretta(which is the best looking 9mm I could find). There goes your discrimination argument. Women can even buy a cute little pink revolver:
> 
> https://www.rkguns.com/taurus-856-u...evolver-w-rogue-pink-finish-2856021ulc10.html
> 
> True, the assault weapons ban did not work. No plan that doesn't address those weapons already in circulation will. My plan would apply to all semiautomatic weapons that fire centerfire ammunition and accept detachable magazines. And only those weapons. All we need to do is screen those people who desire to own them to ensure they don't appear to be a threat to others. To not do so is insane.


Now you are just being rude.

Sure it doesn't have to be a Glock. I already brought up revolvers, and hammered ones catching on things in the purse while trying to get it quicker. They are also bulkier to conceal, and something like that taurus is gonna be better shooting a barn side than a target. If you honestly think a low round hammered revolver is the best thing for EDC, I can't help you.

If a flat out AR ban didn't work, and your plan doesn't ban them only creates another tax (the whole reason we became independent as a country), then the point you are making is handguns right? You do know the stats on handgun murders, and how many aren't suicide or gang involved right?

The "problems" your plan looks to solve are smaller than you think, and it really only becomes an obstacle for law abiding citizens not criminals.

It wouldn't stop a single mass shooting that has happened in the last few years that current gun laws wouldn't. That fact alone makes it a bad plan in my eyes. In another post you say "they are called laws", well there were Jim Crow laws too. Laws can be unconstitutional. As vanilla says, what you are doing is reaching into a law that would impact the bulk majority of what we were deemed to have. There is a reason they don't go after handguns, yet.

I'm not gonna get the gubmint looking at me... but those of you thinking an AR is so much better than a shotgun in close proximity, especially for someone who isn't tactically trained, are wrong. Not going to state why... (puts tinfoil on slowly...)


----------



## backcountry

Paddler,

The "in common use" and "lawful purpose" is settled without a new Amendment. And that's not going to happen. 

When it comes to SCOTUS rulings it doesn't matter how many people disagree. Those court rulings ultimately protect "unpopular" or "minority" rights in the face of public sentiment. That's a tradition baked into (l)iberal systems. 

Cases that are able to move forward to SCOTUS, correct me if I'm wrong, are ones that have components are untested or that aren't fully delineated. I have no doubt people will try with similar gun laws as yours but I don't see how they get past the "settled" terms above.


----------



## backcountry

Randomelk,

As I understand it, Heller dealt largely with a law that prohibited handguns which was found to be unconstitutional under their newly defined terms. McDonald v Chicago than expanded those protections against state law as well. Those two rulings pretty firmly defined handguns as constititionally protected "arms".


----------



## RandomElk16

backcountry said:


> Randomelk,
> 
> As I understand it, Heller dealt largely with a law that prohibited handguns which was found to be unconstitutional under their newly defined terms. McDonald v Chicago than expanded those protections against state law as well. Those two rulings pretty firmly defined handguns as constititionally protected "arms".


I agree. My "yet" was that I truly believe they ease into that, and if the supreme court is in their favor they will try and have it changed.

That said- one of our lawyer friends on here can talk about how difficult it is to overturn a previous supreme court ruling.


----------



## backcountry

Yeah, the chances of the SCOTUS reversing Heller with the new make up are almost zero. That's what I meant by settled in response to Paddler. Given it was a ruling about the Constitition the only other real avenue would be an Amendment and I don't expect to see one about firearms anytime soon or ever in my life. 

I'm sure someone will try to claim an untested angle but I don't see that succeeding. Given the last decade and recent court activity the SCOTUS seems poised to expand the historic 2A definitions, not limit them. It's why many states (NY tried) are actively changing their laws in the face of high level federal appeals. There are wise people on the left who know legislation can backfire against gun control if designed poorly.


----------



## paddler

RandomElk16 said:


> Now you are just being rude.
> 
> Sure it doesn't have to be a Glock. I already brought up revolvers, and hammered ones catching on things in the purse while trying to get it quicker. They are also bulkier to conceal, and something like that taurus is gonna be better shooting a barn side than a target. If you honestly think a low round hammered revolver is the best thing for EDC, I can't help you.
> 
> If a flat out AR ban didn't work, and your plan doesn't ban them only creates another tax (the whole reason we became independent as a country), then the point you are making is handguns right? You do know the stats on handgun murders, and how many aren't suicide or gang involved right?
> 
> The "problems" your plan looks to solve are smaller than you think, and it really only becomes an obstacle for law abiding citizens not criminals.
> 
> It wouldn't stop a single mass shooting that has happened in the last few years that current gun laws wouldn't. That fact alone makes it a bad plan in my eyes. In another post you say "they are called laws", well there were Jim Crow laws too. Laws can be unconstitutional. As vanilla says, what you are doing is reaching into a law that would impact the bulk majority of what we were deemed to have. There is a reason they don't go after handguns, yet.
> 
> I'm not gonna get the gubmint looking at me... but those of you thinking an AR is so much better than a shotgun in close proximity, especially for someone who isn't tactically trained, are wrong. Not going to state why... (puts tinfoil on slowly...)


Just a couple of points. Glocks are pretty ugly. Sorry. Even though Raylen Givens used his well ("Raylen, just so you know, I was almost sure you weren't a cop killer"), they're just plain jane. Just from a stylistic point of view. When I wanted to get rid of my Win Model 70 FW in 257 Roberts, I traded it for the Beretta, mostly because of the aesthetics. That was maybe three years ago, it's still unfired, NIB. If my proposal were to pass, I'd most likely sell it. Come to think of it, anybody here want a 92F?

No, I'm not just talking about handguns, but AR's and any semiauto weapon that fires centerfire ammo and uses detachable magazines. Previous assault weapon bans failed, at least in part because all those weapons already in circulation were grandfathered in. My proposal would include all such weapons. I have already stated that my proposal would deal only with mass shootings, so we have no argument there. I disagree that it would not reduce mass shootings, you once again argue for doing nothing.

You seem to be saying that a shotgun is better than an AR for home defense. I already made that point. Seems like you're arguing against yourself?

I agree that my proposal faces an uphill battle, especially when McConnell holds open a seat for 11 months, refusing to even give an imminently qualified jurist a hearing. So we have frat boy forever. But I disagree that the issue is settled, that's just conjecture. It is not a ban, which in my mind distinguishes it from Heller. Since nobody here seems willing to do anything to deal with gun violence generally, or mass shootings in particular, I think it's the best approach. Random, I'm still waiting for your plan. Not holding my breath, you have shown you got nothing.


----------



## backcountry

Paddler, 

Your linked plan doesn't just change individual background check requirements but fully reclassifies the firearm. That's the part that gets hung up by the Heller ruling. 

Not to mention the argument that the argument "not necessary for legitimate sporting uses or home defense" isn't likely to pass the "common use" and "lawful purpose" tests. Those weren't limited by the concept of "necessary", especially given the broadness of common use language.


----------



## paddler

backcountry said:


> Paddler,
> 
> Your linked plan doesn't just change individual background check requirements but fully reclassifies the firearm. That's the part that gets hung up by the Heller ruling.
> 
> Not to mention the argument that the argument "not necessary for legitimate sporting uses or home defense" isn't likely to pass the "common use" and "lawful purpose" tests. Those weren't limited by the concept of "necessary", especially given the broadness of common use language.


I disagree for the reasons stated above. The Heller decision is not immutable, either. The reclassification wouldn't necessarily contain the quote in your post. That was just my own writing, and I have already addressed that issue in a previous post.

We can discuss this ad nauseam, and probably have. I'm sure we could get legal opinions on both sides. I'm okay with agreeing to disagree. If you have a better idea, please post it.


----------



## RandomElk16

paddler said:


> Just a couple of points. Glocks are pretty ugly. Sorry. Even though Raylen Givens used his well ("Raylen, just so you know, I was almost sure you weren't a cop killer"), they're just plain jane. Just from a stylistic point of view. When I wanted to get rid of my Win Model 70 FW in 257 Roberts, I traded it for the Beretta, mostly because of the aesthetics. That was maybe three years ago, it's still unfired, NIB. If my proposal were to pass, I'd most likely sell it. Come to think of it, anybody here want a 92F?I care far more about operation than looks.
> 
> No, I'm not just talking about handguns, but AR's and any semiauto weapon that fires centerfire ammo and uses detachable magazines. Previous assault weapon bans failed, at least in part because all those weapons already in circulation were grandfathered in. My proposal would include all such weapons. I have already stated that my proposal would deal only with mass shootings, so we have no argument there. I disagree that it would not reduce mass shootings, you once again argue for doing nothing.How many BAR's killed people? What Mass Shooters can you name that wouldn't be able to get weapons under your proposal? I will wait... It's not a long list.
> 
> You seem to be saying that a shotgun is better than an AR for home defense. I already made that point. Seems like you're arguing against yourself? That was in reference to shootings. You know how deadly that pump shotgun you ignore would be in close proximity for the intentions of harm? Why not ban them while you are at it?
> 
> I agree that my proposal faces an uphill battle, especially when McConnell holds open a seat for 11 months, refusing to even give an imminently qualified jurist a hearing. So we have frat boy forever. But I disagree that the issue is settled, that's just conjecture. It is not a ban, which in my mind distinguishes it from Heller. Since nobody here seems willing to do anything to deal with gun violence generally, or mass shootings in particular, I think it's the best approach. Random, I'm still waiting for your plan. Not holding my breath, you have shown you got nothing.I don't have a "plan". If I did it would focus around the procedures for prescribing mental health related drugs. Primary doctors shouldn't be able to- too many variables. If you are having issues professionals should be the process. Same as any other specialist you are referred to. If your shoulder requires a specific field professional, why wouldn't your mind? Lots of these individuals were on anti-psych drugs.. which suggests the prescription itself can be of concern or was mis-prescribed (suicidal and harmful feelings are a listed side effect-go figure). Reason I don't have a plan? I am not an expert, and neither are you. Armchair quarterbacking holds no more weight than "thoughts and prayers" as you called them.
> 
> You don't address Mental Health + Guns... You address mental health overall. Since suicide death occurs at ~100 times the rate of mass shooting deaths, pretty clear that mental health is a bigger epidemic than guns.


See above.

Again, mass shootings account for less than two-tenths of 1% of all homicides. That's .02%. It's the vehicle used to push gun control, when it's a smaller epidemic than toddler drownings. Of course we think it's a slippery slope when none of the proposed plans would have prevented any of the things that occurred, uses less than 500 deaths a year as a reason for them, and really only target lawful owners.

When rifles kill less than 300 people per year, and blunt objects kill 450, what are you hoping to solve?


----------



## paddler

_I don't have a "plan"._ You should have stopped right there.


----------



## Vanilla

To be clear, I already improved your plan.


----------



## paddler

Vanilla said:


> To be clear, I already improved your plan.


I disagree. Handguns are just as lethal as long guns in a mass shooting, say a school, or church, or a theater. Excluding them would mean these mentally ill people would choose them instead of ARs or other long guns. Indeed, they are easier to conceal, are more portable, etc. Given a few high capacity magazines, a perpetrator could inflict massive carnage.


----------



## middlefork

paddler said:


> I disagree. Handguns are just as lethal as long guns in a mass shooting, say a school, or church, or a theater. Excluding them would mean these mentally ill people would choose them instead of ARs or other long guns. Indeed, they are easier to conceal, are more portable, etc. Given a few high capacity magazines, a perpetrator could inflict massive carnage.


Hand guns are no way as lethal as a long gun. Not saying they can't be lethal.
Perpetrators can inflict massive carnage no matter what weapon is used.

Seems like trucks have been a weapon of choice. Ban trucks. IUD's same.
If someone is out to do harm, I'm pretty sure you are not the one that is going to outsmart them.

But good luck.


----------



## paddler

middlefork said:


> Hand guns are no way as lethal as a long gun. Not saying they can't be lethal.
> Perpetrators can inflict massive carnage no matter what weapon is used.
> 
> Seems like trucks have been a weapon of choice. Ban trucks. IUD's same.
> If someone is out to do harm, I'm pretty sure you are not the one that is going to outsmart them.
> 
> But good luck.


Seems like handguns are the most commonly used weapons in mass shootings, and account for the largest percentage of deaths:

https://www.statista.com/statistics/476409/mass-shootings-in-the-us-by-weapon-types-used/


----------



## Vanilla

And will be the sticking point in this proposal because they have SPECIFICALLY been recognized as an “arm” we have a constitutional right to keep and bare. But, you can continue to argue against that and be wrong all you want. It isn’t the first time for you.


----------



## paddler

Vanilla said:


> And will be the sticking point in this proposal because they have SPECIFICALLY been recognized as an "arm" we have a constitutional right to keep and bare. But, you can continue to argue against that and be wrong all you want. It isn't the first time for you.


This is the second time you've used "bare". I let the first one go, thinking it was a typo. It's not "Bare your arms, stud, show me your guns".

You can continue to express your opinion, I continue to disagree. I want another opinion, from someone whose opinion means something.


----------



## backcountry

Vanilla and I passionately disagree often but not on this one. 2A isn't about neccesity. Heller is the standard for the individual right to bear arms that are in "common use" and for "lawful purpose". That constititional finding isn't limited by popular opinion even in the face of hideous societal problems. Any handgun regulation and/or reclassification will have to pass intermediate or strict scrutiny on those terms. I simply don't see the idea proposed passing those tests and I'm someone who thinks gun control can be targeted while protecting individual liberties

It sucks in many ways but is no less true. 

I also think your public comments here highlight one of Lone Hunter's points. I have no doubt you care about 2A and hunting but your boundaries are noticeably more permissive than even my rather centrist ones. It sadly plays to my fears that the "political left" might push this issue too far. Time will only tell and as you hinted, few things are immutable. 

PS...the attack on Vanilla's misuse of "bare" was petty. But I am definitely biased here as I mistype and poorly edit my posts on the regular, too. Not that I believe Vanilla does that also; I'm really just horsing around with Goob.


----------



## paddler

backcountry said:


> Vanilla and I passionately disagree often but not on this one. 2A isn't about neccesity. Heller is the standard for the individual right to bear arms that are in "common use" and for "lawful purpose". That constititional finding isn't limited by popular opinion even in the face of hideous societal problems. Any handgun regulation and/or reclassification will have to pass intermediate or strict scrutiny on those terms. I simply don't see the idea proposed passing those tests and I'm someone who thinks gun control can be targeted while protecting individual liberties
> 
> It sucks in many ways but is no less true.
> 
> I also think your public comments here highlight one of Lone Hunter's points. I have no doubt you care about 2A and hunting but your boundaries are noticeably more permissive than even my rather centrist ones. It sadly plays to my fears that the "political left" might push this issue too far. Time will only tell and as you hinted, few things are immutable.
> 
> PS...the attack on Vanilla's misuse of "bare" was petty. But I am definitely biased here as I mistype and poorly edit my posts on the regular, too. Not that I believe Vanilla does that also; I'm really just horsing around with Goob.


We'll see. I doubt my proposal will ever be tested in court. I also think it's more centrist than other ideas put forth by those who don't know much about guns. It's certainly a lot less restrictive than an outright ban on assault weapons. I, too, don't like the idea of going overboard.

Unlike anybody else here, I have actually come up with a specific plan to address mass shootings. It's easy to pick apart a given plan using the typical, oft-repeated 2A crowd's talking points. This portion of the thread illustrates beautifully that guys like Random will never be part of any solution or even constructive dialog. They will never take a seat at the table, they reject every idea, they seek only to perpetuate the status quo. Which means mass shootings will continue unabated. I think we can do better, and a large majority of voters agree.

You state above that you think that gun control can be targeted while protecting individual liberties. I have several times for input from anybody with specific ideas. Would you care to share now?

Petty is in the eye of the beholder. I let it go once, twice from a highly educated professional is beyond the pail. See what I did their?


----------



## backcountry

I applaud the caring and trying. I expect you will vote for candidates consistent with those ideas and respect that even if we disagree. 

I simply don't the know answer and that is 100% fine. I still think and hope we can address the problem even if I haven't seen a proposal that threads that needle. That said, expecting individual citizens to have solutions to something so pernicious and largely out of their control isn't rational. And I've said elsewhere I'm not going to question another user's motivation or predict their political behavior because we passionately disagree on the internet. 

Best of luck, Paddler.

Side note...one of my solutions has been self-imposed. I don't own any handguns nor will I likely ever. I don't own any semi-automatic weapons, nor will I likely ever. And I don't own any assault or AR-styled weapons. I've looked at the data and don't like their impact so I act accordingly. I do that even if I don't see a way forward, yet, at the federal or state level.


----------



## paddler

backcountry said:


> I applaud the caring and trying. I expect you will vote for candidates consistent with those ideas and respect that even if we disagree.
> 
> I simply don't the know answer and that is 100% fine. I still think and hope we can address the problem even if I haven't seen a proposal that threads that needle. That said, expecting individual citizens to have solutions to something so pernicious and largely out of their control isn't rational. And I've said elsewhere I'm not going to question another user's motivation or predict their political behavior because we passionately disagree on the internet.
> 
> Best of luck, Paddler.
> 
> Side note...one of my solutions has been self-imposed. I don't own any handguns nor will I likely ever. I don't own any semi-automatic weapons, nor will I likely ever. And I don't own any assault or AR-styled weapons. I've looked at the data and don't like their impact so I act accordingly. I do that even if I don't see a way forward, yet, at the federal or state level.


After thinking long and hard about the problem of mass shootings, the proposal is the best I could come up with. It's an attempt to keep those weapons most commonly used in mass shootings out of the hands of those most likely to commit them. There is no perfect solution, no solution that everyone likes.

I have no problem with people owning, using and enjoying these weapons. I own one myself. I bought a couple of Colt HBARs back before the first ban. Nicely made, probably worth good money now. I paid $700 each but sold them because I really had no use for them. I am confident that you are a conscientious gun owner and respect your decision to not own one, but that doesn't address the problem. We are not the problem. The weapons, by themselves, are not the problem. It's the confluence of these weapons and mental illness that's the problem.

Bottom line, this proposal, in my mind could achieve at least as much as any other measure (ban large capacity magazines? Really?) while impacting 2A rights the least. If anybody else has a better solution, I'm listening.


----------



## backcountry

Never said "we" are the problem. I've seen data about the guns listed that has encouraged me not to purchase them or have them in the house. That is me, and my household, acting according to my knowledge, values and goals. That is one of the ways in which citizens can deal with the problem of gun violence, ie not be reliant on government intervention. Especially when government intervention doesn't seem to be happening.

But it definitely is not the same as saying "we are [or not] the problem".

We've highlighted again and again the structural problem of your ideas. Sometimes what we consider to be the "best" doesn't matter if it flies in the face of Supreme Court rulings that protect individual liberties and rights. It's inconvenient but I can't support political plans that so brazenly ignore or try to circumvent those realities. I'm pretty persistent with that stance. You seem to disagree with those analyses and I trust you will vote for candidates that push forward your "plans". I wish you luck on that goal.

Expansion of individual liberty in this country is one of its better legacies, even if it takes us longer to get there then it ideally "should". Protection of those rights, even in the face of public pressure and orthodoxy, is one of the jobs I take seriously as a citizen, even when I don't fully agree with them or benefit.


----------



## RandomElk16

paddler said:


> _I don't have a "plan"._ You should have stopped right there.


Strong response, way to ignore everything else in there including the data I presented and the questions I asked. Also, add the part where I said you aren't an expert either. Stop saying "if someone has a better solution I will listen" since yours has been debunked with stats, legality, and frankly "a better solution" is in the eye of the beholder, who in this case is blind.

Because you armchair QB doesn't mean anything.

*
I will wait for the long list of shootings your "plan" would have stopped...*


----------



## RandomElk16

paddler said:


> We'll see. I doubt my proposal will ever be tested in court. I also think it's more centrist than other ideas put forth by those who don't know much about guns. It's certainly a lot less restrictive than an outright ban on assault weapons. I, too, don't like the idea of going overboard.
> 
> Unlike anybody else here, I have actually come up with a specific plan to address mass shootings. It's easy to pick apart a given plan using the typical, oft-repeated 2A crowd's talking points. This portion of the thread illustrates beautifully that guys like Random will never be part of any solution or even constructive dialog. They will never take a seat at the table, they reject every idea, they seek only to perpetuate the status quo. Which means mass shootings will continue unabated. I think we can do better, and a large majority of voters agree.
> 
> You state above that you think that gun control can be targeted while protecting individual liberties. I have several times for input from anybody with specific ideas. Would you care to share now?
> 
> Petty is in the eye of the beholder. I let it go once, twice from a highly educated professional is beyond the pail. See what I did their?


I would respond to your comments about me since you have ignored everything I have said and only proved Lone absolutely right.. all I can say is:

Man.. It must be great to be so ignorant.


----------



## Vanilla

You got me, Doc. Your write, I misused a word. I'm sure if you click on my profile and hit see all posts you would see posts littered with incorrect spelling, grammar, punctuation errors, and yes...even incorrectly used words. That usually is not my focus and worry for an internet hunting forum, but your write, I should do better. I should be better at using words in their correct usage, and hopefully they will meet you're standard in the future. 

I've been thinking about this proposal, and it's interesting when you peel back the layers. You acknowledge that the assault weapon ban didn't work, and the specific reason you cite is because so many of the weapons were already out there and it didn't require them to be removed. So without removing them from circulation, there can't be any progress to reducing mass shootings. 

With that acknowledgment, you also claim your plan will work to reduce mass shootings, including with the firearm you've cited is used for more than any other: The handgun. But, under your own logic, the only way to accomplish that is to reduce them in circulation. 

Then, out of the other side of your mouth, you claim this isn't a ban on anything. While that may be true, it may not be a "literal ban" on handguns, but it becomes an "effective ban" on handguns, and you fully expect it to significantly reduce their presence out in society, otherwise you wouldn't believe that your plan would work, since we'd just run into the same issue you noted with the assault weapons ban. Courts treat "effective bans" the same as a "literal ban." That is exactly what Heller was about. There was actually not a ban on possessing handguns, in a literal sense. 

I see through your tactics here. It wasn't difficult to do. You are right on one thing though, my opinion isn't worth much. In fact, it is worth exactly what you paid for it. Coincidentally enough, it's got exact equal value to your proposal as well. You're big on these "effect bans" on activities you don't like, aren't you? This one with hand guns, the last one of yours I read effectively banned 93% of Utah waterfowlers from hunting on large tracts of public marshes. At least you're consistent. 

I'll stick with my constitutional rights. All of them, even the one to keep and bare arms.


----------



## paddler

RandomElk16 said:


> Strong response, way to ignore everything else in there including the data I presented and the questions I asked. Also, add the part where I said you aren't an expert either. Stop saying "if someone has a better solution I will listen" since yours has been debunked with stats, legality, and frankly "a better solution" is in the eye of the beholder, who in this case is blind.
> 
> Because you armchair QB doesn't mean anything.
> 
> *
> I will wait for the long list of shootings your "plan" would have stopped...*


While developing my proposal, I weighed the impact on gun owners. I have stated previously the one group unavoidably impacted would be comp handgun shooters. True, they would need to jump through the hoops, but they would be able to pursue their passion. Almost nobody else would be impacted. Clay shooters would not, bench resters would not, big game hunters would not, upland hunters would not, waterfowlers would not, etc. Random already stated that shotguns are better than ARs for home defense. I find his arguments against revolvers lame. Even then, there's no reason to think someone who wanted to carry a semiauto for personal defense couldn't qualify to do so.

The one hunting weapon that would be impacted seems to be the Browning BAR. I'm familiar with it mostly because my landlord used one when we first moved to Utah and we hunted deer together. His had a detachable magazine. The ones I looked at on line recently looked to have hinged magazines, so I don't know if they would be included or not. If so, they may be a retrofit that would exempt them, much like a shotgun magazine plug.

If you don't want to be part of the solution, that's your choice. But you then forfeit the right to bitch about what happens on gun control in the future. I have no doubt you will, but nobody will be listening.


----------



## backcountry

Random doesn't forfeit any such privilege with his current approach.

You didn't answer his question though. Can you show which mass shootings would have been prevented with your proposal?


----------



## RandomElk16

paddler said:


> While developing my proposal, I weighed the impact on gun owners. I have stated previously the one group unavoidably impacted would be comp handgun shooters. True, they would need to jump through the hoops, but they would be able to pursue their passion. Almost nobody else would. Clay shooters would not, bench resters would not, big game hunters would not, upland hunters would not, waterfowlers would not, etc. Random already stated that shotguns are better than ARs for home defense. I find his arguments against revolvers lame. Even then, there's no reason to think someone who wanted to carry a semiauto for personal defense couldn't qualify to do so.
> 
> The one hunting weapon that would be impacted seems to be the Browning BAR. I'm familiar with it mostly because my landlord used one when we first moved to Utah and we hunted deer together. His had a detachable magazine. The ones I looked at on line recently looked to have hinged magazines, so I don't know if they would be included or not. If so, they may be a retrofit that would exempt them, much like a shotgun magazine plug.
> 
> If you don't want to be part of the solution, that's your choice. But you then forfeit the right to bitch about what happens on gun control in the future. I have no doubt you will, but nobody will be listening.


Revolvers are not as good for personal carry in most situations as a semi auto. There are a million reasons why. While there is grey area, overall the semi auto will win. My argument wasn't that they couldn't qualify, it was that the $200 tax is unconstitutional and discriminative.

My point about pump shotguns was their effectiveness in mass shootings, to show your proposal won't stop them. So you have to ban them too.

I am simply asking for which mass shootings (which you keep talking about, despite ignoring them being .02% of homicide deaths, something else you ignore) would be prevented. Shouldn't be hard paddler, tell me which one of these lunatics wouldn't have gotten a gun under your "plan".


----------



## RandomElk16

Vanilla said:


> You got me, Doc. Your write, I misused a word.


You're.

Now yer whole post is discredited again. About to bare my bear arms. :mrgreen::mrgreen::mrgreen:


----------



## RandomElk16

backcountry said:


> Random doesn't forfeit any such privilege with his current approach.
> 
> You didn't answer his question though. Can you show which mass shootings would have been prevented with your proposal?


Apparently if you don't want unconstitutional gun laws that don't work and are pitched to address something that isn't actually an epidemic, you aren't part of the solution.

If you do want to address epidemics that span well beyond guns, like mental health, then that is irrelevant because we all know it starts with the gun.

*FACE. PALM.*


----------



## paddler

backcountry said:


> Random doesn't forfeit any such privilege with his current approach.
> 
> You didn't answer his question though. Can you show which mass shootings would have been prevented with your proposal?


That's a hypothetical question, a technique that naysayers often use to muddy the waters. Impossible to quantify. How many have been prevented by doing nothing? How many would be prevented by the plans put forth on this thread by anybody else but me? Those are answerable questions. Precisely zero.

I think this is my third TOTP.


----------



## backcountry

It's not a purely hypothetical question and it's fair for those wanting to protect 2A more rigidly than you to ask. It's fair and relevant as it is the problem you claim to be addressing. There are police records and reports that deal with these mass shootings. Given those incidents, how would your proposal have prevented any of the mass shootings the last decade or so? You are correct that it would be difficult to impossible to quantify that exactly but it can be qualified and/or answered qualitatively using public record. 

I'm skeptical that some of these proposals are actually capable of doing so given the trends: legally purchased and/or taken from homes in which they were (see how my self-imposed choice does matter?); first criminal record; no events or issues that would have been reportable under HIPA laws; etc. But I am willing to follow the evidence you provide that my skepticism is misplaced. But that starts by answering the sincere question above.

I dare say any law should have to be similarly justified if they impact individual liberties.


----------



## RandomElk16

paddler said:


> That's a hypothetical question, a technique that naysayers often use to muddy the waters. Impossible to quantify. How many have been prevented by doing nothing? How many would be prevented by the plans put forth on this thread by anybody else but me? Those are answerable questions. Precisely zero.
> 
> I think this is my third TOTP.


So you are admitting your plan only hypothetically solves things, but you can't even point to 2 or 3 it would solve that current enforced laws wouldn't?

Having a "solution" that doesn't solve anything isn't better than doing nothing. Simply doing something to do something means very little.

I presented an idea that I think would go a long way for mental health, and used REAL numbers to quantify the epidemic it is addressing. It only touches the surface of my ideas in that area. You can't say that wouldn't help zero people. If it only helped 1% it would save more lives than if you curbed 100% of mass shootings.

If having "a plan" that isn't quantified makes you superior, all hail paddler.

Edit: It's not a hypothetical question or any hidden technique. You have 100% of information, perfect hindsight 20/20 to answer it. I am not even asking the complicated question of how many future ones could be stopped. I am only looking for hindsight which gives any critic of 2A a huge advantage. Yet even then you fail because you frankly have no clue.


----------



## RandomElk16

backcountry said:


> It's not a purely hypothetical question and it's fair for those wanting to protect 2A more rigidly than you to ask. It's fair and relevant as it is the problem you claim to be addressing. There are police records and reports that deal with these mass shootings. Given those incidents, how would your proposal have prevented any of the mass shootings the last decade or so? You are correct that it would be difficult to impossible to quantify that exactly but it can be qualified and/or answered qualitatively using public record.
> 
> I'm skeptical that some of these proposals are actually capable of doing so given the trends: legally purchased and/or taken from homes in which they were (see how my self-imposed choice does matter?); first criminal record; no events or issues that would have been reportable under HIPA laws; etc. But I am willing to follow the evidence you provide that my skepticism is misplaced. But that starts by answering the sincere question above.
> 
> I dare say any law should have to be similarly justified if they impact individual liberties.


There have been a few studies of prison populations which involve gun crimes. In all of them at least 70-90% of the weapons were illegally obtained. Most conclude that it is likely higher.

If you look at the "mass shootings", most of them were legally obtained, or taken from someone who legally obtained them. That's why I challenge him and why he can't answer the question. The only one recent one in my memory that could have been prevented with his measure, actually should have been prevented under the current laws..

I agree wholeheartedly with the last statement. You can't take away the right of a couple hundred million people because "something is better than nothing".


----------



## paddler

Newtown may have been prevented. Adam Lanza was obviously severely mentally ill. His mother should not have been allowed to buy (or store in the home) the weapons he used:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sandy_Hook_Elementary_School_shooting


----------



## RandomElk16

paddler said:


> Newtown may have been prevented. Adam Lanza was obviously severely mentally ill. His mother should not have been allowed to buy (or store in the home) the weapons he used:
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sandy_Hook_Elementary_School_shooting


He used his mother's gun. What would disqualify her outside of her 20 year old adult son?

So now your proposal is to limit our constitutional rights based on adult family members?


----------



## paddler

RandomElk16 said:


> He used his mother's gun. What would disqualify her outside of her 20 year old adult son?
> 
> So now your proposal is to limit our constitutional rights based on adult family members?


Bingo. One aspect of my proposal would be that any potential purchaser must guarantee safe storage. He first showed signs of problems at age three. His mental illness was not subtle. From the Wiki:

_Developmental and mental health problems
Lanza presented with developmental challenges before the age of three. These included communication and sensory difficulties, socialization delays, and repetitive behaviors. He was seen by the New Hampshire Birth to Three intervention program and referred to special education preschool services.[149] Once at elementary school, he was diagnosed with a sensory-integration disorder. Sensory-processing disorder does not have official status by the medical community as a formal diagnosis but is a common characteristic of autism.[150] His anxiety affected his ability to attend school and in 8th grade he was placed on "homebound" status. This is for children who are too disabled, even with supports and accommodations, to attend school.[151]

When he was 13, Lanza was diagnosed with Asperger syndrome by a psychiatrist, Paul Fox.[142] When he was 14, his parents took him to Yale University's Child Study Center, where he was also diagnosed with obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD). He frequently washed his hands and changed his socks 20 times a day, to the point where his mother did three loads of laundry a day.[152] He also sometimes went through a box of tissues in a day because he could not touch a doorknob with his bare hand.[153]

Lanza was treated by Robert King, who recommended extensive support be put in place and prescribed the antidepressant Celexa. He took the medication for three days. His mother Nancy reported: "On the third morning he complained of dizziness. By that afternoon he was disoriented, his speech was disjointed, he couldn't even figure out how to open his cereal box. He was sweating profusely ... it was actually dripping off his hands. He said he couldn't think ... He was practically vegetative".[142] He never took the medication again.[154] A report from the Office of the Child Advocate found that

Yale's recommendations for extensive special education supports, ongoing expert consultation, and rigorous therapeutic supports embedded into (Lanza's) daily life went largely unheeded.[149]

In a 2013 interview, Peter Lanza said he suspected his son might have also suffered from undiagnosed schizophrenia in addition to his other conditions. Lanza said that family members might have missed signs of the onset of schizophrenia and psychotic behavior during his son's adolescence because they mistakenly attributed his odd behavior and increasing isolation to Asperger syndrome.[142][148][155][156][157] Because of concerns that published accounts of Lanza's autism could result in a backlash against others with the condition, autism advocates campaigned to clarify that autism is a brain-related developmental disorder rather than a mental illness.[158] The violence Lanza demonstrated in the shooting is generally not seen in the autistic population[159] and none of the psychiatrists he saw detected troubling signs of violence in his disposition.[142]

Lanza appears to have had no contact with mental health providers after 2006. The report from the Office of the Child Advocate stated: "In the course of Lanza's entire life, minimal mental health evaluation and treatment (in relation to his apparent need) was obtained. Of the couple of providers that saw him, only one - the Yale Child Study Center - seemed to appreciate the gravity of (his) presentation, his need for extensive mental health and special education supports, and the critical need for medication to ease his obsessive-compulsive symptoms".[151]

Investigators found Lanza was fascinated with mass shootings, such as the Columbine High School massacre, the Virginia Tech shooting and the Northern Illinois University 2008 shooting. Among the clippings found in his room, there was a story from The New York Times about a man who shot at schoolchildren in 1891. His computer contained two videos of gunshot suicides, movies that showed school shootings and two pictures of Lanza pointing guns at his own head.[160][161] It was also claimed that he had edited Wikipedia articles about mass murderers.[162]

This only came to light after Lanza died, because he never permitted others to access his bedroom, including his mother. Lanza had also taped over the windows with black plastic garbage bags to block out sunlight.[163] He had cut off contact with both his father and brother in the two years before the shooting and at one point communicated with his mother, who lived in the same house, only by email. A document titled "Selfish", about the inherent selfishness of women, was found on Lanza's computer after his death.

Final months
According to a report by the Office of the Child Advocate in Connecticut in November 2014, Lanza may have suffered from anorexia as a teenager. The authors wrote that "Anorexia can produce cognitive impairment and it is likely that anorexia combined with an autism spectrum disorder and OCD compounded Lanza's risk for suicide".[165] They also noted that at the time of his death, Lanza "was anorexic (six feet [180 cm] tall and 112 pounds [51 kg]), to the point of malnutrition and resultant brain damage."[166]

He was also living in almost total isolation in his room, spending most of his time on the internet playing World of Warcraft and other video games. The report stated that he "descended" into a world where his only communication with the outside world was with members of a cyber-community, "a small community of individuals that shared his dark and obsessive interest in mass murder".[167]

In the weeks before the killings, Lanza's mother was considering moving him to another town.[168] She planned to purchase a recreational vehicle for him to stay in so that potential purchasers could see the house without disturbing him.[169] The Report of the Child Advocate stated that:

In the wake of Mrs Lanza's stated plan to move out of Sandy Hook in 2012, and perhaps stimulated by fears of leaving the "comfort zone" of his home, Adam planned and executed the massacre at Sandy Hook Elementary School on December 14, 2012.[170] His severe and deteriorating internalized mental health problems were combined with an atypical preoccupation with violence. Combined with access to deadly weapons, this proved a recipe for mass murder"._

A simple home visit by a local LEO would have discovered all was not well. His mother was obviously not able to guarantee safe storage.


----------



## paddler

Sure is quiet around here. You asked for a examples of mass shootings that my proposal could have prevented. I provided it.

As I said above, I've been thinking about this issue for a long time. I wrote this just after Newtown, so about seven years ago, but had been mulling it over for a considerable amount of time prior to that event:

_On the Prevention of Mass Murders

The recent tragedy in Newtown, like most tragedies, was not the result of one event, but rather a series of failures. It was the result of previously undiagnosed mental illness in an individual who had access to advanced weaponry capable of sustained high rates of fire. Both mental illness and the weapons capable of such destruction were required to produce this tragic loss of life.

Perhaps because this shooting resulted in the death of twenty young children and six educators, it seems the nation is more ready now than ever before to entertain measures to prevent similar occurrences in the future. One could argue that this new willingness to act is the result of the cumulative effects of so many similar events. It matters not which of these is causative, or even if other factors are responsible, the fact remains that we must act.

Various ideas have been advanced; banning the weapons involved, banning high capacity magazines, posting armed security officers in our schools, training and arming our teachers, and a more comprehensive approach to mental illness. These ideas all have their proponents, and varying degrees of merit, depending on one's experience and point of view.

As a lifelong hunter and avid outdoorsman, it occurs to me that we may already have in place mechanisms to help prevent future disasters. We can, merely by reclassifying certain weapons, reduce access by mentally ill people to the weapons most often used in these shootings. The three most important characteristics of the weapons used in Newtown and other mass shootings are having a semiautomatic action, the capability to use detachable magazines, and the fact that they fire centerfire ammunition. Semiautomatic weapons allow rapid rates of fire, that is, they fire a bullet, eject the spent case, and load a fresh round with each pull of the trigger. Detachable magazines allow for rapid reloading of multiple rounds of ammunition in one motion. The capability of using centerfire ammunition increases the lethality of each round of ammunition, as rimfire ammunition is generally less powerful.

We already have restrictions on the ownership of certain weapons, commonly called NFA firearms. These include fully automatic firearms, referred to by some as machine guns, short barreled rifles and shotguns, and destructive devices. Fully automatic weapons are generally used by the military; the civilian versions are manufactured as semiautomatic. It is interesting to note that studies done by the military have shown that fully automatic weapons are wasteful of ammunition, as the weapon will continue firing so long as the trigger is depressed. Emptying a magazine completely in a matter of seconds actually limits the effectiveness of these weapons in many combat situations. The solution to this problem was developing the ability to switch these arms into "Select Fire" or "Burst" mode. In this mode, the weapon will fire several rounds with each pull of the trigger, but won't empty the entire clip.

There is little practical difference in situations such as Newtown between weapons that fire three rounds versus those that fire only one each time the trigger is pulled. Both use centerfire ammunition, both require no more than pulling the trigger to fire a round and load another, and both accept detachable magazines of various capacities. Therefore, the most elegant solution to the gun control issue would be to reclassify these weapons, rifle, pistol or shotgun, as NFA firearms. They would be subject to increased restrictions for buying, owning and transferring. Just as with current Class 3 weapons, people could still buy them. Nothing would be banned, not magazines or the weapons themselves. Individuals would be required to register them with the ATF, undergo strict background checks, get a signature from local law enforcement, notify the ATF if they were to be taken across state lines, and pay a tax of $200 per item. This program could easily be applied to weapons currently in circulation.

This solution would not impact guns typically used for sporting purposes, such as hunting and target shooting. Shotguns and rifles used in these ways have typically have fixed magazines. There are a few exceptions, but small design changes could be made that would exempt the guns in question. It would not impair the ability to defend one's home, as the weapon most recommended for this task by experts is a shotgun. It also would not affect rimfire weapons, such as 22 caliber rifles or handguns.

Reclassification of these guns should be the most acceptable approach to all sides in the debate over gun control. It would not threaten the Second Amendment, it merely compensates for the technologic advances since the days of the musket. It actually corrects a glaring oversight in our current weapon classification system. Manufacturers could still build these weapons, the public could still buy them, and it would do as well as any other proposal to keep them out of the wrong hands. This is not an immediate or comprehensive solution to the problem of mass murders, but it seems a logical component in a multifaceted approach to prevent another Newtown._


----------



## backcountry

None of us are on a specific timeline to respond to you, Paddler. Patience is a virtue that is lacking in your post.

The case study of Adam Lanza should be common reading for anyone interested in addressing mass shootings. The problem with a generic claim about mental illness is highlighted by the earlier statement of the wikipedia article:

"significant mental health issues that affected his ability to live a normal life and to interact with others, even those to whom he should have been close ... What contribution this made to the shootings, if any,* is unknown as those mental health professionals who saw him did not see anything that would have predicted his future behavior*." (bold italics added)

This is the crux of the issue. How do we delineate if/when someone should be disqualified from gun ownership, or in your case even allowing them in a household, if the person in question hasn't met the threshold for reporting by mental health professionals? Do we give that authority and discretion to federal agents who have no professional mental health training? Do we diminish HIPA protections for millions of Americans because of a handful of individuals?

This is uncharted terrain and one that poses serious hazards to the civil liberties of millions of Americans who will never pose a violent threat to society. Your plan as stated does not thoroughly address that complex reality.


----------



## RandomElk16

Ditto to the timeline piece, and pretty much everything else Backcountry said. 

Your original plan didn't state that LEO would be making home visits to all gun purchasers, and that ADULT relatives had an impact. So no, it did NOT provide this you are moving goal posts.

You just moved them to a place that literally makes me laugh. We now have to have LEO's come search our house (sounds constitutional) before and presumably after weapon purchases that you added an unconstitutional and discriminative tax too. 

Edit: To be clear, the original plan would not have stopped the shooting. Now you are saying that a system would flag that his mother had a 20 year old who had any history of mental illness despite being deemed a non threat. This goes back to, if I see a therapist and had depression and anxiety like that young man, can I no longer own a weapon? What about all of our Vets who have PTSD or depression after service? They no longer have constitutional rights because they... they fought for them?




Registration, Massive Tax, and Home Searches. Why don't we just change the country colors to black, red, and gold while we are at it and go back in time to April 21, 1933.


----------



## backcountry

The constitutionality of voluntary home interviews is uncertain but it looks like its survived thus far for the classification Paddler is calling for. Having never been through one I have no concept of the exact range of power and discretion an interviewer has in those applications. 

There is even a possibility that "assault weapons" could be reclassified under that system given current law elsewhere and cases evaluating their comparison to M-16s to justify a legitimate government interest. That is highly contentious and uncertain at this point so I have no confidence in that issue.

The big hang up will be, as Vanilla pointed out, that handguns, including semi-automatic ones, have been recognized as in "common use" and for "lawful purposes", expressly home defense. Reclassifying them will very likely fail if it is ever challenged all the way to SCOTUS. I would sincerely hope lower courts would uphold Heller standards before then but I have little doubt that a case in front of the SCOTUS would fail given the current demographics.

I personally admonish, for some of the reasons you highlight and more, the expansive role of a federal agent denying a permit because of assumed mental health problems without a reportable cause from a trained medical professionals. That's a very bold amount of power to delegate to a person without relevant training and skills. Adam Lanza's symptoms were only known after an expansive investigation after he killed innocent civilians. How do we obtain such information from citizens who haven't committed crimes or revealed, or had a legal guardian reveal, information regarding extremely private and protected medical information? That's not a simple subject dealt with fully by a proposal like Paddler's. And its implications are severe when it comes to individual civil liberty and privacy. 

Plus I'm not remotely convinced a citizen should be required to have a LEOs signature to own a weapon that meets the Heller standards. Society seems to have largely accepted those requirements for fully automatic weapons (etc) but Paddler's new additions are different in kind and degree. 

I appreciate his honest and vulnerable political statements but that element of his plan definitely does not garner the support to claim it "should be the most acceptable approach to all sides in the debate over gun control".


----------



## RandomElk16

backcountry said:


> The constitutionality of voluntary home interviews is uncertain but it looks like its survived thus far for the classification Paddler is calling for.


I think if it's something you MAKE me to do IF I want my constitutional right to Grizzly Bear arms... It's not voluntary.

Great points throughout your post.

Based on legal rule thus far, I think AR is all they have a chance at... but that goes back to the fact that all rifles are responsible for ~250 deaths a year. (Varying stats, highest year I have seen is ~450). So why is that the target?

If only politicians cared as much about smoking, opioids, heart disease, and diabetes (I am sure many of you on here do).


----------



## paddler

I have said all I'm going to say on this topic, as further discussion is pointless.


----------



## RandomElk16

paddler said:


> I have said all I'm going to say on this topic, as further discussion is pointless.


Discussion isn't pointless. As much as I don't want any changes, you would have gotten a better response if you said:

"Seth Ator (texas shooter who killed 7) had tried to purchase weapons and failed to do so because he could not pass a background check. He then purchased a weapon via private sale.

What if we had a simple $15 transaction fee where private sales needed to be processed at a local gun shop/FFL holder to be a legal transaction? This would allow for background checks on the sales."

While that would be an inconvenience, that can be pointed to specific cases where it would make an impact. The disagreement would likely be the punishment for sales outside of that environment, and the "slippery slope" argument. Also getting gun shops on-board. Give them a tax kickback- it saves lives and would be worth it. Or make the Transaction only cost $5 and supplement any additional things with a tax fund.

But... That can be pointed to a few instances where it would save lives and should appeal to both sides as a simple start to a complex issue.


----------



## backcountry

The private sales "loophole" is worth addressing for sure. 

I reach a similar deadend with the mental health angle from most people who posit plans like Paddler did. To be honest, the gun control advocates in my community rarely get past the Heller ruling and their personal belief that there is no individual right. 

So it goes. This will play out with the candidates in the meantime. If I see a plan I can agree with I'll act accordingly.


----------



## stillhunterman

From the feds getting rid of our public lands to 2A rights and gun laws. This thread is so off base it needs to die...-O,-


----------

